The despots behind the oil industry are raking in the profits, true.
But transition is also happening.
I'm sure you're happier sending oil money to Vlad and MBS than putting in wind/solar and keeping that money in the country.
The Science is Settled: Big Oil Openly admits Climate change was real.
- Thread starter poker
- Start date
But transition is also happening.
I'm sure you're happier sending oil money to Vlad and MBS than putting in wind/solar and keeping that money in the country.
The transition has been happening for decades, and may not be anywhere near complete before the earth incinerates. No, I want the Liberals to allow pipeline development so we can sell our oil and gas all over the world, and maybe even to Quebec.
Is that a reason not to invest in the development of wind and/or solar? Just thrown in the towel and accept that the earth is doomed?
The science is anything but settled.
The same people who say the earth is doomed are the ones whos catestrophic predictions do not materialise.
Wind & solar are not going to dispace Fossil Fuels no matter how much other peoples money you throw at them.
Just thrown in the towel and accept that the earth is not doomed by an inert trace gas
A certain proporation of the population alway beleive the end is nigh.
The end of the world has been predicted since about two months after man first communicated with one another
There has been no transition the vast majority (+80%) of our energy comes from FF
what has occured is vast sums of public money has beeen diverted into "developing" unreliable Wind / Solar
GaBillions over the decades & they produce what 4-5% ?
The transition is a money pit sure to fail
No, I didn't say that we shouldn't invest in renewable energy solutions. We just need to be realistic with estimates about when the transition will be complete. In the meantime, we shouldn't do stupid things, like shut down nuclear, and gas fired power stations, prematurely, when we are several decades away from something approaching net zero.
Transition is not my term, and it is an optimistic one. Currently, 30% of the world's energy is renewable, and I doubt it will ever reach much more than 50%.
We will probably always need fossil fuels and/or nuclear in addition, to satisfy our needs. So, a more achievable goal is net 50 by 2050.
I guess that 30% includes water hydro power as well as solar and wind.
A global population of 1 billion may survive in a world running
on solar and wind power.
Yes. And like I mentioned in an earlier post, global drought conditions have lead to reduced reservoir and river levels, threatening our hydroelectric energy production.
Still waiting for you to explain why you promote nuclear energy while also being opposed to the taxation that would be required to build it.
There is a difference between being realistic and being pragmatic. We need to ween ourselves off oi etc. and transition to renewables and green technologies and it is happening. At the same time there is the situation in Ukraine and with the Russians and the supply chain issues which are in large part the residual effect of Covid. There is no point in pretending those issues don't exist but while that me be accelerating the transition the fact is that at the moment we are still dependent on oil and we cannot simply snap our fingers and change that. the transition will take time and that time has been extended as a result of other issues but the transition is happening and the world an our children will be better off for it.
What we want and what we will do are two different things. Like someone said in an earlier post, there is no real transition. We have some renewable energy, which is not reliable, when there's no sun, wind or water. But we have a huge dependency on fossil fuel and its products. For instance, we rely completely on plastics. Also, like I said before, we currently don't have the science or technology to wean ourselves off fossil fuel products. It's very optimistic to think that maybe one day, in 2050 2060 or 2070, that we will.
We do have the science and it is happening. the only real question is will it happen fast enough. yes we are dependent upon fossil fuels but even though demand for oil is increasing it is also the case that the transition is accelerating and it is now an unstoppable wave. This is in spite of the best efforts of the deniers to derail it.
I understand, no offence intended
Optimistic is being very generous
More like 19% if you strip out burning of biofuels
World Final Energy - World Energy Data
This is extremly misleading to classify as a replacement for FF
then 16% for hydro & that will not increase by any significant amoiunt
World Final Energy - World Energy Data
leaving 3-5% wind & solar
agian far too generous
Wind & solar might top out at 10, maybe 15% & thier unrelability will drive blackouts and brownouts
Juts wait until EVs start to have a meaningful market penitration, That draw will be 100% incremental for the grids >> grid failure
green energy policy is going to prove to be a disaster
If we had the technology, we would be there already. The deniers have no power. All the nations leaders have the power, but at COP 26, had to accept failure to get India and China, the two biggest burners of coal, on board.
We have the science and technology to send people to the moon and
eventually to Mars That science is of little use if the purpose is to lower the
cost of space travel to where every one on the planet can afford.
If you believe the BS that is solar and wind power has become cheaper than
coal and gas then market force will take care of the transition away from fossil
fuel. So far there is no sign any countries has the will or ability to amass the
resources required to replace a significant portion of fossil fuel power sources.
China probably has the fastest growing renewable energy development but
that is only because fossil fuel alone is insufficient to meet energy demand.
In Jimmy Carter's energy plan formulated around 1979 about 20%
to 25% of nation's power demand might have been satisfied by solar
power in 2000. Had president Carter's energy program been followed
through to this day natural gas might have been phased out already
as a fuel for heat and power generation and nation's fleet of automobiles,
trucks and trains would be running on CNG or LNG with remaining
crude oil saved for chemical and fertilisers production. Reviving Carter's
program today would be too late as both the amount of energy and material
required by conversion of energy infrastructure to renewable energy on a massive
scale is prohibitively costly. The U.S. has no other choice but to continue
burning fossil fuel for another decade. By then global oil production will be
about to fall off the Seneca Cliff (if it hasn't already) and the era of oil
abundance will soon become history in another 2 or 3 more decades. By
then no one will worry about emission reduction. There won't be enough fossil
fuel left to raise emission to half of what it is now (provided that we refrain
from burning more coal and wood).
