About half of the world’s fossil fuel assets will be worthless by 2036 under a net zero transition, according to research.

Countries that are slow to decarbonise will suffer but early movers will profit; the study finds that renewables and freed-up investment will more than make up for the losses to the global economy.

It highlights the risk of producing far more oil and gas than required for future demand, which is estimated to leave $11tn-$14tn (£8.1tn-£10.3tn) in so-called stranded assets – infrastructure, property and investments where the value has fallen so steeply they must be written off.

Link

So the question is, how will the world adapt to prevent such an economic crisis. We know that these assets on the books of oil companies are effectively worthless. This is the economic argument not to invest in new fossil infrastructure.

Dutchy wrote:

So the question is, how will the world adapt to prevent such an economic crisis. We know that these assets on the books of oil companies are effectively worthless. This is the economic argument not to invest in new fossil infrastructure.

The same way the world responded when horses where replaced by cars, or when manual labour got replaced by automated production lines.

It will suck for the OPEC countries that have not (sufficiently) diversified once the tipping point is reached. It will be great for those that have invested in green tech.

And it’s not like oil will become worthless. It’s still a mayor industrial component, for instance to create plastics. Per barrel this is actually more profitable then burning it for power. But the volumes are of course significantly smaller. Also, aviation and ocean-shipping will continue to rely on kerosene and bunker oil for some time to come. The batteries and fuel cells are not powerfull enough yet.

Oil companies won't invest in new assets, so fuel prices will climb. Coal will fade out an so many countries are anti-nuke, it will be interesting to see how we power transportation. SAF had better be available on schedule or the oil company part of the crisis won't be the big news.

My next vehicle will probably still be gasoline, but my last gasoline vehicle. This means tens of thousands will be laid off in the oil industry. Refineries will be tough to sell.

It will be interesting to see how we power our transportation and how they make the transition smooth. If botched, today's logistical issues will seem quaint.

Yet BP is buying out field co-owners. What do they know we don't?

I personally expect oil prices to ratchet up as the return timeframe will be too short to open many new fields, constricting supply.

We better find a quick alternative as any reader of Bernstein (the economist), adfing uncertainty means companies need much higher predicted rates of return before starting new projects.

Lightsaber

Oil Fields deplete quickly. They require massive investments in enhanced oil recovery as they age to continue to produce. Without those continuing investments, production drops fast. E.G. US production fell 1.2 mmbbd from 2019 to today.

The world will need to adapt to higher prices for energy. Western nations will slow down or stop investments. The oil companies will be fine - they'll just keep cutting expenses and milk the existing fields dry at higher prices. Coal owners are in for a world of hurt.
However this will play right into the hand of other part of the world - OPEC+. We are seeing this already with Russian gas exports. And Biden asking OPEC to produce more oil for America's middle class. They will be available to provide the energy at their price.

Why do you think the PRC is so willing to risk conflict over the South China Sea? Fish? Tourism? How about oil and gas? Consider it to be China's Strategic Oil Reserve.

Some general comments. Bloomberg was expecting petroleum to start experiencing demand problems sometime 2025-2027. I suspect demand will still remain strong for at least 10-15 years after that. The Saudis are still able to produce at pretty low costs, I suspect those low costs will ensure supply for quite a while. There are a lot of suppliers who need the income - they will produce so long as they can sell at any profit, and it could result in price wars.

Lots of dumb comments in the "research study".
Fossil fuel assets are not "worthless". Fossil fuel, as with many other carbohydrates, can be repurposed to be used as feedstock for many other materials such as plastics, solvents, synthetic fibers, building materials etc.
Not to mention that entities like a military will require fossil fuels for decades to come. You are not seriously suggesting that e.g. battle tanks and aircraft carriers be operated with solar panels or batteries? I am sure Russia and China would love to see that! Will be so easy for them to run over the world if that ever happens in the West!

The main issue is that there is a rapid transition to electric power for homes maintenance equipment( Mowers, blowers, saws), and a rapid uptake of Electrical cars. The power sources for these are not fixed to fossil fuels. However the main power sources may still b fossil fuel based for awhile.

Alternative Energy sources and battery power will render many engine parts moot, and will make fossil fuels competitive in a shrinking market.

In the US, the transition of hundreds of thousands of consumers like cars, home portable machines, etc. is going to stress the already burdened transmission and production systems. The idea that solar and wind are up for the task in the 10+ year timeframe is up for debate, but assumed science for the bureaucrats trying to kill "brown" industries.

These timeframes are getting more ridiculous after each fossil fuel polluting hypocritical summit they have.

lightsaber wrote:

Oil companies won't invest in new assets, so fuel prices will climb. Coal will fade out an so many countries are anti-nuke, it will be interesting to see how we power transportation. SAF had better be available on schedule or the oil company part of the crisis won't be the big news.

My next vehicle will probably still be gasoline, but my last gasoline vehicle. This means tens of thousands will be laid off in the oil industry. Refineries will be tough to sell.

It will be interesting to see how we power our transportation and how they make the transition smooth. If botched, today's logistical issues will seem quaint.

Yet BP is buying out field co-owners. What do they know we don't?

I personally expect oil prices to ratchet up as the return timeframe will be too short to open many new fields, constricting supply.

We better find a quick alternative as any reader of Bernstein (the economist), adfing uncertainty means companies need much higher predicted rates of return before starting new projects.

Lightsaber

I think that is not a question of future, but a question of this winter.
As oil producers aren't ramping up their production and energy demand stay strong while alternative energy source supply haven't caught up yet, the pain is going to be big
Restarting old coal plants is the most obvious immediate measure and a number of countries have seemingly opted for that already

Dieuwer wrote:

Lots of dumb comments in the "research study".
Fossil fuel assets are not "worthless". Fossil fuel, as with many other carbohydrates, can be repurposed to be used as feedstock for many other materials such as plastics, solvents, synthetic fibers, building materials etc.
Not to mention that entities like a military will require fossil fuels for decades to come. You are not seriously suggesting that e.g. battle tanks and aircraft carriers be operated with solar panels or batteries? I am sure Russia and China would love to see that! Will be so easy for them to run over the world if that ever happens in the West!

"Assets" here mean infrastructure and property operated based on and for fossil fuel, for example refineries, fuel stations, and such, according to my understanding.
As for aircraft carriers that are not operated by fossil fuels, we now have them and they are nuclear powered. China would love them and China would love it even more if they can build them themselves so they don't have to rely on energy import to sustain their military in case war broke out.

c933103 wrote:

"Assets" here mean infrastructure and property operated based on and for fossil fuel, for example refineries, fuel stations, and such, according to my understanding.

Yup and also the oil, gas, and coal reserves which are on the books, but will never be exploited because otherwise, we will shoot past the 1,5 degrees. That will mean that 70% of the known reserves will need to stay underground instead of burned.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Some general comments. Bloomberg was expecting petroleum to start experiencing demand problems sometime 2025-2027. I suspect demand will still remain strong for at least 10-15 years after that. The Saudis are still able to produce at pretty low costs, I suspect those low costs will ensure supply for quite a while. There are a lot of suppliers who need the income - they will produce so long as they can sell at any profit, and it could result in price wars.

I suspect you are right on the price war bit. The Saudi's are able to extract oil at around 5 dollars per barrel, so guess where the last crude oil will come from?

petertenthije wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So the question is, how will the world adapt to prevent such an economic crisis. We know that these assets on the books of oil companies are effectively worthless. This is the economic argument not to invest in new fossil infrastructure.

The same way the world responded when horses where replaced by cars, or when manual labour got replaced by automated production lines.

This wasn't a huge industry being replaced by another. It was plenty of people working with/owning horses, that slowly had to change their ways (and it took decades).

Here it seems quicker and some accompanying will be needed.

Also the forces behind the change aren't the same, cars (and trucks, and tractors) were simply better than horses. Electric cars are better than ICE cars in some ways, not in others, and without the pollution aspect, there would be no great incentive to change. We need to force the change.

I agree with the point that some fossil fuels will become worthless though. Everything that is either very expensive to extract, or very polluting (often both) will become worthless. Many are already wondering why it's still allowed to go on (tar sands in particular).

Oil that is still cheap to extract will probably be extracted, for uses that can't be replaced. Plastics and chemicals, not so fast, there is active research to make the maximum of things out of plants, recycling etc., oil will not be necessarily needed. We might even go back to glass, metals, wood, instead of plastic in many applications.

As for militaries, the US military has been looking at alternative fuels for some time.

There will still be a place for oil several decades into the future. We can get down the emissions 1,5 %, but oil won¨t go away. There is simply no alternative that can completley replace oil. The number of powerplants, nuclear facilites etc that has to be built pr. year to replace the oil is astronomical. and is not feasable.

Norway is already struggling with the powersupply and build to handle all the electrical cars and will struggle even more if everything else is gonna be powered by electricity.

This is the sort of thing that teenagers dream of, but switching from oil / gas is not a switch you just turn.

The alternatives that we have today is simply not enough to replace the oil / gas

Furthermore the alternatives that we have today have their own enviromental and political problems. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear all have their enviromental problems.

Incredible DW feature here about a new type of solar generation plant in Chile that is helping to phase out coal in one region of the country - think mirrors, not panels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONu7gZhl2M

Aaron747 wrote:

Incredible DW feature here about a new type of solar generation plant in Chile that is helping to phase out coal in one region of the country - think mirrors, not panels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONu7gZhl2M

There are a few plants in the Southwest similar to this (mirrors not panels). I think on if California has been in operations since early 90s. Pretty solid idea in my opinion. I think one of the plants in Arizona heats salt to a liquid state. The molten salt is held in insulated tanks then used at night to power the generators/turbines at night. Pretty neat solutions.

If only the enviro's would have realized that half a loaf is better than none. Natural gas powered trucks, busses and locomotives is a cost effective way to dramatically reduce carbon. And so are natural gas powered electric generators replacing coal. With strict methane emissions controls during drilling and transmission it could be the bridge to get us to the next technology.

We need to quit using natural gas to make single use plastics. LNG exports from the US are a waste of energy. That process requires large amounts of energy to chill the gas and then ship it 8000 miles. Better it was used here for the applications I listed above. Carbon not released in the States is just as good as not released in Asia.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

If only the enviro's would have realized that half a loaf is better than none. Natural gas powered trucks, busses and locomotives is a cost effective way to dramatically reduce carbon. And so are natural gas powered electric generators replacing coal. With strict methane emissions controls during drilling and transmission it could be the bridge to get us to the next technology.

We need to quit using natural gas to make single use plastics. LNG exports from the US are a waste of energy. That process requires large amounts of energy to chill the gas and then ship it 8000 miles. Better it was used here for the applications I listed above. Carbon not released in the States is just as good as not released in Asia.

Natural gas isn't a transition fuel. It is a nice frame from the fossil fuel lobby.

Oil, or more accurately hydrocarbons, will be used long into the future. From plastics and other useful products to hydrogen, there are many uses for oil. And with production tool in place they will be made use of.

Tugg

Aaron747 wrote:

Incredible DW feature here about a new type of solar generation plant in Chile that is helping to phase out coal in one region of the country - think mirrors, not panels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONu7gZhl2M

The solar part is not new, such plants (experimental at first) exist since the 80's, and new ones have struggled to stay competitive against photovoltaic plants.

However using molten salts to store energy for the night is newer and could save this type of plants, but it's not that easy to make work. Also the ideal locations are in deserts, but you need water to clean the mirrors (same for pv panels).

YouTube video on Fusion Power and the advancements being made and planned to be tested over the next 10 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KEwkWjADEA

One of the items explored is a breakthrough on the Super Conducting Magnets. MIT created a new film that is much thinner than the current copper based ones, allowing a much smaller design of the Tokamac

https://news.mit.edu/2021/MIT-CFS-major ... nergy-0908

Until now, the only way to achieve the colossally powerful magnetic fields needed to create a magnetic “bottle” capable of containing plasma heated up to hundreds of millions of degrees was to make them larger and larger. But the new high-temperature superconductor material, made in the form of a flat, ribbon-like tape, makes it possible to achieve a higher magnetic field in a smaller device, equaling the performance that would be achieved in an apparatus 40 times larger in volume using conventional low-temperature superconducting magnets. That leap in power versus size is the key element in ARC’s revolutionary design.

Fusion may still be way out, but there are exciting advancements making it more of a reality.

"Natural gas isn't a transition fuel. It is a nice frame from the fossil fuel lobby.[/quote]

I disagree. Until someone invents more efficient batteries, what are you going to use when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine. Let's quit shipping US gas overseas and see how that impacts Europe in the next 3 months. We could be making methane fuel from sewage plants, old landfills, wood waste, trash, and coal that's already vented to the atmosphere on its own.

Every energy source has it's environmental impact.

Lithium mining, battery recycling, the materials in windmills. All cause damage. The most obscene is nuclear which leaves it a toxic legacy for a thousand years. Let me know when they figure that one out.

"The solar part is not new, such plants (experimental at first) exist since the 80's, and new ones have struggled to stay competitive against photovoltaic plants.

However using molten salts to store energy for the night is newer and could save this type of plants, but it's not that easy to make work. Also the ideal locations are in deserts, but you need water to clean the mirrors (same for pv panels).[/quote

Agree - most of those plants have been economic failures.

Norway doesn’t struggle to power electric cars. Norway struggles with a dry year and promises of export to europe. Everyone here seems to think electric transportation will have a meaningful impact on the grid.

It won’t.

Electric transportation is a single digit percentwise increase spread out over 10 or more years. I’s negible.

The challenge is quitting coal while not expanding nuclear.

Mortyman wrote:

There will still be a place for oil several decades into the future. We can get down the emissions 1,5 %, but oil won¨t go away. There is simply no alternative that can completley replace oil. The number of powerplants, nuclear facilites etc that has to be built pr. year to replace the oil is astronomical. and is not feasable.

Norway is already struggling with the powersupply and build to handle all the electrical cars and will struggle even more if everything else is gonna be powered by electricity.

This is the sort of thing that teenagers dream of, but switching from oil / gas is not a switch you just turn.

The alternatives that we have today is simply not enough to replace the oil / gas

Furthermore the alternatives that we have today have their own enviromental and political problems. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear all have their enviromental problems.

The problems with nuclear, batteries, windmills are absolutely and positively miniscule compared to the problems with fossils. It is an insane comparison.
Over 70 years if nuclear power, a high estimate would be 1000 deaths, in -1- disaster with ancient technology that went absolutely as wrong as ut ever could go, and on top of that they put a lid on it.

Compare this to the MILLIONS of yearly deaths due to pollution from fossil fuels alone, not to mention wars over fossil resource, actual accidents and global warming.

Nothing is remotely as problematic and dangerous as fossil fuels. There are orders of magnitude difference. Many. Orders. Of. Magnitude.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

"Natural gas isn't a transition fuel. It is a nice frame from the fossil fuel lobby.

I disagree. Until someone invents more efficient batteries, what are you going to use when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine. Let's quit shipping US gas overseas and see how that impacts Europe in the next 3 months. We could be making methane fuel from sewage plants, old landfills, wood waste, trash, and coal that's already vented to the atmosphere on its own.

Every energy source has it's environmental impact.

Lithium mining, battery recycling, the materials in windmills. All cause damage. The most obscene is nuclear which leaves it a toxic legacy for a thousand years. Let me know when they figure that one out.

thermal solar, to my suspicions, have just too many moving parts to compete with solar panels and wind. They are just too Rube Goldberg.

yeah nuclear is such a great idea you see all these countries dusting off plans to build new plants. Not in our lifetimes.

Don't listen to me but to those pretty smart German and Japanese scientists and engineers who convinced their Governments that even burning coal is better in the interim than using existing nuclear technology. Or the Governor of New York who didn't want the risk that near NYC and shut down Indian Point. They must all have it wrong.

The remaining operating nukes, solar and windmills should be used to produce green hydrogen when they have surplus power. It could be utilized along with natural gas to displace all coal in power plants and liquid fuels in internal combustion engines. The network is already here and paid for.

Honda until recently sold a CNG power Civic in the States. My city's UPS and garbage trucks are powered by compressed natural gas. You can convert t vehicles for a couple of thousand dollars. Way less that $12000 subsidies so rich folks can buy Teslas and the billions for chargers.

Indeed, nuclear IS the safest power source per kWh produced. (source: WHO) That public perception of nuclear has been skewed by very hard work from the fossil lobby in decade after decade is a fact, a very unfortunate fact that as had a devastating impact on the politics of nuclear.
That both germany and japan swore to drop nuclear after a nuclear powerplant was devastated by a tsunami without anyone getting hurt from radiation is a scandal. If anything it says loads about how safe it is. (Source:WHO)

Oposite of what you are saying, in the scientific comunities, nuclear is regarded as very safe, and the obvious solution to our energy crisis.

Garbage trucks and busses in my city to used to run in polluting natural gas, a non-solution to envrionmental questions, they even tested hydrogen!
Now they run on batteries, like every car, bus and truck will do very shortly.

Hearing your arguments is a blast from a misguided past.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

yeah nuclear is such a great idea you see all these countries dusting off plans to build new plants. Not in our lifetimes.

Don't listen to me but to those pretty smart German and Japanese scientists and engineers who convinced their Governments that even burning coal is better in the interim than using existing nuclear technology. Or the Governor of New York who didn't want the risk that near NYC and shut down Indian Point. They must all have it wrong.

The remaining operating nukes, solar and windmills should be used to produce green hydrogen when they have surplus power. It could be utilized along with natural gas to displace all coal in power plants and liquid fuels in internal combustion engines. The network is already here and paid for.

Honda until recently sold a CNG power Civic in the States. My city's UPS and garbage trucks are powered by compressed natural gas. You can convert t vehicles for a couple of thousand dollars. Way less that $12000 subsidies so rich folks can buy Teslas and the billions for chargers.

Aaron747 wrote:

Incredible DW feature here about a new type of solar generation plant in Chile that is helping to phase out coal in one region of the country - think mirrors, not panels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONu7gZhl2M

California has several of those plants. The issue is power storage. Peak electrical demand is as 2nd shift is starting and the restaurants ramp up for dinner and all the TVs turn on at home. As the sun sets...

Nuclear is really the only way to replace all the coal powerplants.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Incredible DW feature here about a new type of solar generation plant in Chile that is helping to phase out coal in one region of the country - think mirrors, not panels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONu7gZhl2M

California has several of those plants. The issue is power storage. Peak electrical demand is as 2nd shift is starting and the restaurants ramp up for dinner and all the TVs turn on at home. As the sun sets...

Nuclear is really the only way to replace all the coal powerplants.

Lightsaber

Problem with nuclear, in addition to the waste, is that it ideally works as a steady power source. For peak demand, ideally you would want something else as back-up. Or store excess power that the nuke plant creates while demand is low.

There are of course options to do so. Batteries are not quite there yet. You could use the excess nuke power to pump water into a basin during low demand, and let then have additional hydro power during peak demand. But that's expensive and requires a massive basin.

In France we do use pumped hydro on a significant scale. But sometimes, especially now with more "uncontrolled" renewables (you can shut down an hydro plant, not the sun), nuclear plants need to lower their power, and it is done and well understood, the issue is that it's less efficient.

There is a new idea of upsizing the turbines on power plants (nuclear, or any kind that uses turbines), or just having a surplus turbine, then store excess electricity from any source as heat (in molten salts, or other ways), and run the excess turbine capacity with that heat at peak times.

As for nuclear being on the decline, this is old news. New news is that it's seeing a revival, with more than 300 reactors at various planning stages around the world, new money being spent on research, intense lobbying (not just by industries or governments but citizens, including me) in the EU to include nuclear in the green plan being discussed, and even Green politicians in Germany, the ones that shuttered the nuclear industry there, starting to admit that they were wrong. There are petitions in Germany to stop the shutting down of the last running nuclear plants...

Honest question here.

How recyclable are the batteries powering electrical vehicles? And other components of "green" energy for that matter.

I'm a big fan of wind power, but from information I have seen, those big blades can't be recycled at all, for example.

The batteries should be recyclable, the problem being there is not much feedstock yet to build the infrastructure, and there is no real incentive to do it either, because lithium is available and cheap enough.

When first generation EVs will be retired in numbers, and lithium becomes more scarce, recycling should happen. Or laws might make it mandatory.

"Hearing your arguments is a blast from a misguided past."

None of us really know how this plays out long term. And as I pointed out, a lot of people way smarter than I am (those wily German engineer's for example ) and probably most of the posters on here all have an opinion. Somebody will be proven right, only time will tell.

In the meantime, I'm just happy to live in a US State chock full of natural gas, coal and corn/soybeans out the wazoo to make bio fuels. And 2 nukes that are paid for.

Time to turn up the thermostat to take the chill off.

Cheers,
MohawkWeekend

But, you see, I already live in the future. Most of what you write is simply factually wrong anyway. The information you seem to be exposed to in the US regarding these questions, seems to be very volored by the influence of the fossil industry. You need to move on.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

"Hearing your arguments is a blast from a misguided past."

None of us really know how this plays out long term. And as I pointed out, a lot of people way smarter than I am (those wily German engineer's for example ) and probably most of the posters on here all have an opinion. Somebody will be proven right, only time will tell.

In the meantime, I'm just happy to live in a US State chock full of natural gas, coal and corn/soybeans out the wazoo to make bio fuels. And 2 nukes that are paid for.

Time to turn up the thermostat to take the chill off.

Cheers,
MohawkWeekend

Battery recycling and repurposing is entirely possible and already happening.

Repurposing batteries that are to worn to be efficient for EVs in to local storage, back up units etc. even enter the chain as a second life for these units, pushing recycling further out.

Our summer house’s solar battery is the main battery from an old Nissan Leaf, for instance.

[quote="M564038"]But, you see, I already live in the future. Most of what you write is simply factually wrong anyway. The information you seem to be exposed to in the US regarding these questions, seems to be very volored by the influence of the fossil industry. You need to move on.

As I mentioned before, time will tell who is right. But it's good to know that you are smarter than all those German and Japanese engineers and scientists. Good for you.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

M564038 wrote:

But, you see, I already live in the future. Most of what you write is simply factually wrong anyway. The information you seem to be exposed to in the US regarding these questions, seems to be very volored by the influence of the fossil industry. You need to move on.

As I mentioned before, time will tell who is right. But it's good to know that you are smarter than all those German and Japanese engineers and scientists. Good for you.

All those smart engineers is changing the entire transportation system to electrical right now, thank you very much.
Volkswagen, Audi, Mercedes, BMW all having declared they are fullt transeferring their efforts to electric. Those good enough for you?

M564038 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

M564038 wrote:

But, you see, I already live in the future. Most of what you write is simply factually wrong anyway. The information you seem to be exposed to in the US regarding these questions, seems to be very volored by the influence of the fossil industry. You need to move on.

As I mentioned before, time will tell who is right. But it's good to know that you are smarter than all those German and Japanese engineers and scientists. Good for you.

All those smart engineers is changing the entire transportation system to electrical right now, thank you very much.
Volkswagen, Audi, Mercedes, BMW all having declared they are fullt transeferring their efforts to electric. Those good enough for you?

I thought they were all working on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Now that's good enough for me.

All kidding aside- I respect your opinion. So I'm out of this discussion.

tu204 wrote:

Honest question here.

I'm a big fan of wind power, but from information I have seen, those big blades can't be recycled at all, for example.

That's not correct. The glass fiber & epoxy mix is used as co-fuel in cement plants, replacing coal and sand. E.g. Holcim in Lägersdorf in Germany is using this process. It is not easy - quality control the main issue here - but it is workable. The second way currently used is in waste incineration plants with the slack used as foundation for road works. Both not the most efficient way, but a workable way.

Biggest issue are the carbon fiber strings to strengthen the bladed in longtitudinal direction. There is no real recycling way currently except for some experimental pyrolysis plants. These fibers currently need to be stored long term.

Working in the industry since a good decade there is still a way to go though I think that it is only a matter of time until 100% recycling will be possible.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

But, you see, I already live in the future. Most of what you write is simply factually wrong anyway. The information you seem to be exposed to in the US regarding these questions, seems to be very volored by the influence of the fossil industry. You need to move on.

As I mentioned before, time will tell who is right. But it's good to know that you are smarter than all those German and Japanese engineers and scientists. Good for you.

I will repeat but it's politics that killed nuclear in Germany, not engineers, who are appalled at what has happened, especially considering Merkel herself is a scientist.

In Japan, most safe reactors are expected to be restarted at some point, so nuclear isn't dead. I believe a couple are even under construction. I don't know if the security failings shown by the Fukushima disaster (which killed 0 people) are to blame on engineers, beancounters or politicians, so I won't venture there.

Dutchy wrote:

About half of the world’s fossil fuel assets will be worthless by 2036 under a net zero transition, according to research.

Countries that are slow to decarbonise will suffer but early movers will profit; the study finds that renewables and freed-up investment will more than make up for the losses to the global economy.

It highlights the risk of producing far more oil and gas than required for future demand, which is estimated to leave $11tn-$14tn (£8.1tn-£10.3tn) in so-called stranded assets – infrastructure, property and investments where the value has fallen so steeply they must be written off.

Link

So the question is, how will the world adapt to prevent such an economic crisis. We know that these assets on the books of oil companies are effectively worthless. This is the economic argument not to invest in new fossil infrastructure.

You realise the oil and gas industry is about more than just transport, it whole raft of other products, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics............it's not going to over for a long time to come.

Oddly enough if plastics could be recycled either as fuel or properly disposed of in modern landfills they would not be such a problem.

M564038 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

M564038 wrote:

But, you see, I already live in the future. Most of what you write is simply factually wrong anyway. The information you seem to be exposed to in the US regarding these questions, seems to be very volored by the influence of the fossil industry. You need to move on.

As I mentioned before, time will tell who is right. But it's good to know that you are smarter than all those German and Japanese engineers and scientists. Good for you.

All those smart engineers is changing the entire transportation system to electrical right now, thank you very much.
Volkswagen, Audi, Mercedes, BMW all having declared they are fullt transeferring their efforts to electric. Those good enough for you?

....for developed countries.

The developing world will be fossil for decades to come, and their energy needs will only increase.

Air transport, maritime transport, military applications, space launches, etc. will still be fossil in our lifetimes.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

About half of the world’s fossil fuel assets will be worthless by 2036 under a net zero transition, according to research.

Countries that are slow to decarbonise will suffer but early movers will profit; the study finds that renewables and freed-up investment will more than make up for the losses to the global economy.

It highlights the risk of producing far more oil and gas than required for future demand, which is estimated to leave $11tn-$14tn (£8.1tn-£10.3tn) in so-called stranded assets – infrastructure, property and investments where the value has fallen so steeply they must be written off.

Link

So the question is, how will the world adapt to prevent such an economic crisis. We know that these assets on the books of oil companies are effectively worthless. This is the economic argument not to invest in new fossil infrastructure.

You realise the oil and gas industry is about more than just transport, it whole raft of other products, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics............it's not going to over for a long time to come.

That's why this thread at a minimum is a load of nonsense and at worst flamebait.

I fail to see that, what is wrong with the thread?

Dieuwer wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Link

So the question is, how will the world adapt to prevent such an economic crisis. We know that these assets on the books of oil companies are effectively worthless. This is the economic argument not to invest in new fossil infrastructure.

You realise the oil and gas industry is about more than just transport, it whole raft of other products, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics............it's not going to over for a long time to come.

That's why this thread at a minimum is a load of nonsense and at worst flamebait.

M564038 wrote:

I fail to see that, what is wrong with the thread?

Dieuwer wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

You realise the oil and gas industry is about more than just transport, it whole raft of other products, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics............it's not going to over for a long time to come.

That's why this thread at a minimum is a load of nonsense and at worst flamebait.

Phony clickbait titles to purposely stir the pot and hope for heated arguments? Yup. Nothing to see here...

Time to lock this thread.

Dieuwer wrote:

M564038 wrote:

I fail to see that, what is wrong with the thread?

Dieuwer wrote:

That's why this thread at a minimum is a load of nonsense and at worst flamebait.

Phony clickbait titles to purposely stir the pot and hope for heated arguments? Yup. Nothing to see here...

Time to lock this thread.

Fine, write your own paper and get it published in Nature, good luck, sir.

I rather think this thread is perfectly fine, it discusses incredibly important questions of our time, not the least where many have the wrong impressions of actual facts.

Dieuwer wrote:

M564038 wrote:

I fail to see that, what is wrong with the thread?

Dieuwer wrote:

That's why this thread at a minimum is a load of nonsense and at worst flamebait.

Phony clickbait titles to purposely stir the pot and hope for heated arguments? Yup. Nothing to see here... :roll:

Time to lock this thread. :idea: :wave: