How Do We Move Away From Oil?

[QuestioningMind]

While I don't disagree with what you are saying, the past cannot be changed, or corrected for. What can we do now? The oil complex and infrastructure is much more, well, complex than just let's stop using and drilling for oil. The entire financial industry (around the world) is tied up in the "liquidity" of oil. For instance the majority of oil that is bought and sold around the world, never actually goes anywhere, it is merely moved around monetarily via international banking institutions.

Sadly it would require that we put the welfare of the planet above the profits of a small minority. Unfortunately when the world's dominant economic system places the acquisition of profits above all else the chances of us doing what's best for the majority is pretty slim.

 

[Left Coast]

Could you give us a link to your claim? I have been looking at solar energy since 1974. It was not cost effective then, and it is not cost effective now. If it were a viable source of energy, you'd have SP sales people on every street corner.

Here you go:

Solar Cost-Benefit Studies | SEIA

 

[metis]

The issue of cost effectiveness is one that based on time, so when there's high production over a short period of time of course it's not cost effective early on. However, money isn't the only thing in life that counts, imo.

 

[bobhikes]

The title explains the premise of my discussion I would like to start.

We have, barring technological advancements, around 49-120 years of oil left. And even the oil companies are aware that oil is a finite resource that will not last forever. But how do we break the chain of oil production and consumption? In what ways can society move froward to be less Petroleum based?

Every aspect of our society, and even in some of the most far flung and remote locations on Earth are subject to this form of Carbon infrastructure and monetary liquidity. Everything from the gasoline we use for cars, trucks, and planes; the energy powering our major cities and towns; the plastics we use in everything from water bottles, to eyeglasses; and even cosmetics and carpeting. We are soaked in and utterly dependant upon this resource.

How do we let it go, without simultaneously crashing the society it has helped foster?

We are moving away from oil with the growth of solar and other energy sources. Renewable energy is getting much more competitive and even cheaper than oil and gas in some instances.

There are aspects that need to be worked on such as recycling solar panels which have reached end of life etc, but I'm sure that can be solved.

Not only solar, but wind, water and nuclear. We have decreased the use of oil as well, in cars, trucks, buses and trains. We have created efficiency in energy in a wide range of products and have been encouraging more development.

It is going to take time. You are not going to change the system tomorrow and yes lately there have been some set backs in certain area's of the world but the Majority of the world is heading in the right direction.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't think we're going to seriously move away from any of the bio-destructive tendencies we have as long as powerful religious folks keep convincing people that God will take care of things, later by magic.

Religion - especially the religions you mean - isn't the problem. If anything, those religions inspire moving away from destructive tendencies. I see this routinely in essays students write about their paths in life. They see the connection between honoring God and honoring what they perceive as "God's creation."

Nah, young people get what the real problem is, and that's capitalism: unregulated capitalism which allows for unchecked greed, soulless materialism, and rampant consumerism. All to support the nonsense that perpetual growth/profit is both possible and desirable rather than the cancer that it is. Both also relate to an unhealthy obsession with power and a general failure to recognize that all power is illusory and always comes at cost.

When humans learn to say "I have enough" and in many cases "I can do well with less" more often, that'll be progress. Americans, at least, are so brainwashed into consumeristic and materialistic capitalist culture that there's no hope until it is forced. It's practically the state religion - certainly more so than Abrahamic religions are.

Edited to add - used correctly, with regulation and guidance, capitalism can be part of the solution. However, with one political party constantly deregulating, well... I'm not optimistic about that. Small choices matter. Like just... not buying things in general unless it is used or pre-owned.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Could you give us a link to your claim? I have been looking at solar energy since 1974. It was not cost effective then, and it is not cost effective now. If it were a viable source of energy, you'd have SP sales people on every street corner.

The answer is subsidies. When the oil companies claim that it's not profitable for them to drill in a certain area the government provides them with subsidies. If we were truly serious about getting rid of oil we would have been subsidizing the development of solar energy for decades now. If we had we'd currently have far more efficient panels and virtually every building would come equipped with them.

 

[exchemist]

We could do it practically overnight, if we had the will to do so. If the billions in subsidies that have been given to the oil industry over the past 40 years had been spent on the development of solar energy we could have phased out oil by now. If we as a nation had simply made it our number one goal... like we did when we decided to send a man to the moon... effective reasonable priced solar panels could have been designed within a decade, at most. The only thing stopping us from eliminating oil usage are the oil companies who don't want to lose what has been by far the most profitable industry in history.

This is absurd. The problem of dependence on oil is far more deep seated than the boardrooms of oil companies. I know a bit about this, having worked for one for over 30 years. As far as the major European oil companies are concerned, they are well aware oil is to be phased out and they are not trying to resist it, nor have they for about the last 30 years.

The issue is one of the massive inertia in almost all the technology used by society. You may be right that if the political will had been there we could have got further by now than we have, but it is as plain as the nose on your face that the lack of political will is due to people being unwilling to face the change, not just to lobbying by oil companies. I readily admit that the US oil companies (especially Koch, but also Exxon Mobil) have played an ignoble role in all this by casting doubt on the science until quite recently, but where have the auto companies been and, most of all where has the consumer been? A large proportion of the US electorate and a lot of US politicians continue to pretend that no action is needed.

That is not the oil companies' fault. A lot of Americans are, for ideological reasons, unwilling to countenance any form of action for the collective good. Just look at the arguments about Covid 19. That is your problem, fundamentally. When I was in Houston, I came across people who thought the new tram line being put in was communism!

We will get there: BP thinks we may already be past the peak use of oil. Shell, under Ben van Beurden, has spent the last decade making the big switch to gas from oil (much lower CO2 emissions per kWh) as a stop-gap, since most industrial process and transport uses can use gas with only minor changes in technology. Both companies are investing heavily in renewables. Neither is trying to block progress. But the lead now needs to come from the auto companies. Full marks to Tesla for making electric vehicles sexy. Then there is electricity generation. Here the UK is now already over 25% renewable, Germany and the Scandinavians more, France is largely nuclear. This has come from government action. Next up: domestic heating. We need to get off oil and gas. Government needs to get involved here to tilt the playing field in favour of heat pumps and where practical, solar. No action yet, I'm sorry to say.

So long as Americans elect governments that refuse to do any of this stuff, the problem in the USA will remain. Don't blame the oil companies: vote!

 

[MNoBody]

the current energy giants are already all welfare queens, propped up by subsidy, without which the balance sheets would never have balanced, so how is any alternative going to outperform those artificially generated economic values?

 

[columbus]

Could you give us a link to your claim? I have been looking at solar energy since 1974. It was not cost effective then, and it is not cost effective now. If it were a viable source of energy, you'd have SP sales people on every street corner.

Here's the thing.
Fossil fuels would not be cost efficient if waste disposal were factored into the price.

If the consumer had to dispose of the waste instead of just dumping it in the atmosphere, nobody would pay for it. A gallon of gas would probably go up by $50. I'm not sure what it would cost to permanently sequester the carbon dioxide produced by a gallon. $50 seems conservative, I'm not just talking about removing it and reselling it. I'm talking about permanent sequestration, where it doesn't impact people who didn't use it.

Without the vast subsidy of free waste disposal, how economically viable would fossil fuels actually be? Suppose jets and cars couldn't have exhaust pipes. Homes and power plants couldn't have chimneys. Plastic products manufacturing concerns had to pay to remove their products from the environment that we all share.

How much oil would it be economically feasible to pump?

Not much.
Tom

 

[QuestioningMind]

This is absurd. The problem of dependence on oil is far more deep seated than the boardrooms of oil companies. I know a bit about this, having worked for one for over 30 years. As far as the major European oil companies are concerned, they are well aware oil is to be phased out and they are not trying to resist it, nor have they for about the last 30 years.

The issue is one of the massive inertia in almost all the technology used by society. You may be right that if the political will had been there we could have got further by now than we have, but it is as plain as the nose on your face that the lack of political will is due to people being unwilling to face the change, not just to lobbying by oil companies. I readily admit that the US oil companies (especially Koch, but also Exxon Mobil) have played an ignoble role in all this by casting doubt on the science until quite recently, but where have the auto companies been and, most of all where has the consumer been? A large proportion of the US electorate and a lot of US politicians continue to pretend that no action is needed.

That is not the oil companies' fault. A lot of Americans are, for ideological reasons, unwilling to countenance any form of action for the collective good. Just look at the arguments about Covid 19. That is your problem, fundamentally. When I was in Houston, I came across people who thought the new tram line being put in was communism!

We will get there: BP thinks we may already be past the peak use of oil. Shell, under Ben van Beurden, has spent the last decade making the big switch to gas from oil (much lower CO2 emissions per kWh) as a stop-gap, since most industrial process and transport uses can use gas with only minor changes in technology. Both companies are investing heavily in renewables. Neither is trying to block progress. But the lead now needs to come from the auto companies. Full marks to Tesla for making electric vehicles sexy. Then there is electricity generation. Here the UK is now already over 25% renewable, Germany and the Scandinavians more, France is largely nuclear. This has come from government action. Next up: domestic heating. We need to get off oil and gas. Government needs to get involved here to tilt the playing field in favour of heat pumps and where practical, solar. No action yet, I'm sorry to say.

So long as Americans elect governments that refuse to do any of this stuff, the problem in the USA will remain. Don't blame the oil companies: vote!

Sorry, but most of the points you made concerning individuals opposed to change can be attributed to decades of propaganda from Big Oil. True Big Oil has finally started to acknowledge the need to find alternatives... at least to a small degree, but that's more due to the fact that the evidence showing a need for an alternative to fossil fuels has gotten too bi to ignore. So while they may play the ecologically conscious card at times, they still doing everything they can to try and discount the seriousness of climate change.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm putting in a solar photovoltaic system
in addition to solar air heating. It's profitable.

 

[exchemist]

Sorry, but most of the points you made concerning individuals opposed to change can be attributed to decades of propaganda from Big Oil. True Big Oil has finally started to acknowledge the need to find alternatives... at least to a small degree, but that's more due to the fact that the evidence showing a need for an alternative to fossil fuels has gotten too bi to ignore. So while they may play the ecologically conscious card at times, they still doing everything they can to try and discount the seriousness of climate change.

I realise you may only see this from a US perspective and I see it primarily from a European one. It is true that the behaviour of the US industry has been poor compared with that in Europe. Even so, it is not Big Oil that created the ideology of individualism that characterises US politics today.

What you say about oil companies in general "still doing everything they can to discount the seriousness of climate change" is simply untrue. I know this from personal experience, as an insider.

 

[sun rise]

I realise you may only see this from a US perspective and I see it primarily from a European one. It is true that the behaviour of the US industry has been poor compared with that in Europe. Even so, it is not Big Oil that created the ideology of individualism that characterises US politics today.

What you say about oil companies in general "still doing everything they can to discount the seriousness of climate change" is simply untrue. I know this from personal experience, as an insider.

Both supply and demand can work together. When people demand clean energy and spend money accordingly, companies can either supply what people want or go out of business.

Of course companies resist that. We saw it with tobacco and we've seen it with oil. But sooner or later not giving people what they want and need is a losing proposition.

Just look at the coal companies that are dying in spite of Trump's welfare handouts to them.

 

[Valjean]

Could you give us a link to your claim? I have been looking at solar energy since 1974. It was not cost effective then, and it is not cost effective now. If it were a viable source of energy, you'd have SP sales people on every street corner.

Renewable Energy Is Now The Cheapest Option - Even Without Subsidies
Those already invested in extractive industries are not going to relinquish it easily.They have the ear -- and investments; and subsidies -- of government. They'll go down kicking and screaming.

 

[Vinayaka]

The title explains the premise of my discussion I would like to start.

We have, barring technological advancements, around 49-120 years of oil left. And even the oil companies are aware that oil is a finite resource that will not last forever. But how do we break the chain of oil production and consumption? In what ways can society move froward to be less Petroleum based?

Every aspect of our society, and even in some of the most far flung and remote locations on Earth are subject to this form of Carbon infrastructure and monetary liquidity. Everything from the gasoline we use for cars, trucks, and planes; the energy powering our major cities and towns; the plastics we use in everything from water bottles, to eyeglasses; and even cosmetics and carpeting. We are soaked in and utterly dependant upon this resource.

How do we let it go, without simultaneously crashing the society it has helped foster?

Big oil will do it themselves. It's never been about oil. It's about maximizing profit. As soon as alternative energy is more profitable, there will be a dash for the doors.

 

[Valjean]

I realise you may only see this from a US perspective and I see it primarily from a European one. It is true that the behaviour of the US industry has been poor compared with that in Europe. Even so, it is not Big Oil that created the ideology of individualism that characterises US politics today.

What you say about oil companies in general "still doing everything they can to discount the seriousness of climate change" is simply untrue. I know this from personal experience, as an insider.

But I've been reading revelations like this for years:
What oil executives say when they think no one’s listening - Grist
A Secret Recording Reveals Oil Executives’ Private Views on Climate Change

 

[columbus]

Big oil will do it themselves. It's never been about oil. It's about maximizing profit. As soon as alternative energy is more profitable, there will be a dash for the doors.

Charge oil consumers for waste disposal. That'll change the numbers.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Charge oil consumers for waste disposal. That'll change the numbers.
Tom

Ever listen to Freakonomics about unintended consequences
of noble regulations? Your suggestion would mean more oil
poured down storm drains.
Another approach.....
Government pays us for used motor oil.
(It can be re-used & recycled.)

I favor higher & continually increasing fuel taxes.
Powerful incentives for conservation, & it'll help
avoid or minimize income tax increases.

 

[columbus]

Your suggestion would mean more oil
poured down storm drains.

Sorry Mr Deplorable.*

What I meant by oil in that sentence was petroleum. Not used motor oil-based lubricants.
Tom

ETA ~*Deplorable is how Rev described himself back when he supported Trump's "election".~

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry Mr Deplorable.

What I meant by oil in that sentence was petroleum. Not used motor oil-based lubricants.
Tom

Is there a problem with disposing of unused petroleum?