How Do We Move Away From Oil?

[columbus]

Is there a problem with disposing of unused petroleum?

Ask BP, or Exxon.
The folks who dumped zillions of gallons of crude oil into the ocean.

Did they have a problem disposing of unused petroleum?

I'm pretty sure BP had a problem with that petroleum geyser on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. But not entirely sure, they may have profited.
I know Exxon made an obscene amount of money from the Exxon-Valdez. Insurance and the taxpayers paid for almost everything except the advertising campaign. But the price of gasoline skyrocketed and Exxon made so much money that it pushed the USA GDP up noticeably.

Yay Capitalism! Exxon-Mobil shareholders made a ton of money because the company wrecked a huge ship. And it was all Totally Legal!
Tom

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

Look into who is funding articles and studies that attempt to discount climate change and 90% will have ties to Big Oil interests. Just because they've stopped publically denouncing the cause doesn't men they aren't still funding the denouncers behind the scenes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ask BP, or Exxon.
The folks who dumped zillions of gallons of crude oil into the ocean.

Did they have a problem disposing of unused petroleum?

I'm pretty sure BP had a problem with that petroleum geyser on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. But not entirely sure, they may have profited.
I know Exxon made an obscene amount of money from the Exxon-Valdez. Insurance and the taxpayers paid for almost everything except the advertising campaign. But the price of gasoline skyrocketed and Exxon made so much money that it pushed the USA GDP up noticeably.

Yay Capitalism! Exxon-Mobil shareholders made a ton of money because the company wrecked a huge ship. And it was all Totally Legal!
Tom

Dis capitalism all you want.
Socialism has a lousy record too.
You want a clean environment?
Then that should be the goal of government....not
switching to an even worse economic system.

 

[Bear Wild]

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.

When you add the cost of taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere the oil industry has not been cost effective for a while when you consider the immense debt they are creating. It is time the oil companies start to pay for the debt they are contributing to and then you will see how much more cost effective alternative energies are.

 

[exchemist]

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

Both these are about some entity called the "North Dakota Petroleum Council". Do you really imagine they speak for European oil majors such as BP, Shell and Total?

 

[exchemist]

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.

I repeat: the European oil companies are not resisting the switch.

It's about this - perhaps quaint - concept we have in European business, to do with companies needing something called a "licence to operate". It's basically about brand image. Companies realise they need to seen as constructive agents in society if they are to be able to function. You are right that these companies are still largely in the fossil fuel business and they won't exit that business until demand falls to uneconomic levels. But that's not an evil thing to do: for the next decade or two society will still need (decreasing proportions of )hydrocarbon fuel for transport, domestic heating and peak-shaving in electricity generation, plus petrochemicals. Substitution won't happen overnight. But that is not the same at all as resisting the shift. They aren't doing that. In Europe that would be political suicide for them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Very good topic.
I wanted to start a similar thread a couple of days ago.


Watching this video I cannot but have so many hopes about alternative sources of energy other than crude oil.
Hydrogen trains. Silent, clean, efficient.

Even green tech has its fallbacks. I think its just switching one problem for another for the most part.

 

[exchemist]

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.

This point of view is seriously out of date. I quote:

"In April 2020, Bloomberg New Energy Finance found "Solar PV and onshore wind are now the cheapest sources of new-build generation for at least two-thirds of the global population. Those two-thirds live in locations that comprise 71% of gross domestic product and 85% of energy generation. Battery storage is now the cheapest new-build technology for peaking purposes (up to two-hours of discharge duration) in gas-importing regions, like Europe, China or Japan."

From: Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia

There is a lot more information in this article illustrating that the cost of solar energy has come down rapidly over the last decade.

What you may be thinking of is the cost for a domestic householder somewhere in the US. That is no doubt a more complicated story.

 

[Estro Felino]

I repeat: the European oil companies are not resisting the switch.

It's about this - perhaps quaint - concept we have in European business, to do with companies needing something called a "licence to operate". It's basically about brand image. Companies realise they need to seen as constructive agents in society if they are to be able to function. You are right that these companies are still largely in the fossil fuel business and they won't exit that business until demand falls to uneconomic levels. But that's not an evil thing to do: for the next decade or two society will still need (decreasing proportions of )hydrocarbon fuel for transport, domestic heating and peak-shaving in electricity generation, plus petrochemicals. Substitution won't happen overnight. But that is not the same at all as resisting the shift. They aren't doing that. In Europe that would be political suicide for them.

I do agree...but the world population will double within the century...some say. So I think the demand of oil will double too.

 

[Estro Felino]

Even green tech has its fallbacks. I think its just switching one problem for another for the most part.

In the short run the incredibly high costs of hydrogen trains will make us think it is not worth it.
But in the long run, people will see how much power/fuel can be saved.

 

[exchemist]

I do agree...but the world population will double within the century...some say. So I think the demand of oil will double too.

That population projection is very doubtful. We are at ~8bn now and it is likely the population will plateau at ~11bn at the end of the century: World population growth is expected to nearly stop by 2100

However you may well be right about the growth in energy demand.Consumption per head will however go up as the standard of living climbs in Asia and Africa. So we do have the challenge of moving away from fossil fuel faster than the growth in energy demand - if you see what I mean. I think myself we will need more nuclear as well as renewables.

I also see a continuing need for some, I say again some, gas-fired powergen, because we will always need some peak-shaving capacity. Electricity is notoriously difficult to store. But there are some interesting ideas on mitigating even this, for instance by incentivising industrial processes to use "off-peak" electricity at night. Battery technology is coming on fast and may help.

I can easily see a future in which we have electric heat pumps for domestic heating and a battery to exploit cheaper electricity at night. But the market can't do this on its own: the inertia is too great. We need government to pass laws forcing the change, in order to build up the industry capacity to supply this gear at acceptable cost.

 

[Revoltingest]

That population projection is very doubtful. We are at ~8bn now and it is likely the population will plateau at ~11bn at the end of the century: World population growth is expected to nearly stop by 2100

However you may well be right about the growth in energy demand.Consumption per head will however go up as the standard of living climbs in Asia and Africa. So we do have the challenge of moving away from fossil fuel faster than the growth in energy demand - if you see what I mean. I think myself we will need more nuclear as well as renewables.

I also see a continuing need for some, I say again some, gas-fired powergen, because we will always need some peak-shaving capacity. Electricity is notoriously difficult to store. But there are some interesting ideas on mitigating even this, for instance by incentivising industrial processes to use "off-peak" electricity at night. Battery technology is coming on fast and may help.

I can easily see a future in which we have electric heat pumps for domestic heating and a battery to exploit cheaper electricity at night. But the market can't do this on its own: the inertia is too great. We need government to pass laws forcing the change, in order to build up the industry capacity to supply this gear at acceptable cost.

Oh, you authoritarian types....always wanting laws to force
people to do what's best. Another approach is to raise taxes
on energy with downsides, eg, pollution, AGW effect. This
would encourage conservation & switching to other sources.

Btw, the best energy policy is still population reduction.

 

[exchemist]

Oh, you authoritarian types....always wanting laws to force
people to do what's best. Another approach is to raise taxes
on energy with downsides, eg, pollution, AGW effect. This
would encourage conservation & switching to other sources.

Btw, the best energy policy is still population reduction.

This is exactly the problem in the USA. The moment anyone suggests government mandate anything for the collective good, there are cries of authoritarianism - and the idea is stillborn.

Private enterprise on its own is not capable of looking at the long term future of humanity and the planet, and then making decisions that require large short term costs, in exchange for ultimate gains by people not yet born, who won't be buying their products! It's classic example of market failure. And that is where government has a duty to step in. That is what it is for.

You can get so far with tax, I grant you, but the trouble is governments become wedded to the tax income and companies start gaming the system instead of getting on with the changes. I see no reason to rule out legislation. For example it is legislation that California has used, repeatedly, to reduce pollution from motor fuel (the business I was in when I did a brief spell in Houston).

The cycle goes like this:

1) California mandates a new fuel or vehicle standard from a certain date.

2) Everyone howls that it is impossible, will put everyone out of work, huge snakes, many of them millions of miles long, will roam freely through the countryside, etc., etc.

3) The date arrives - and everyone is able, somehow, through gritted teeth, to comply, having spent the money to do so.

4) The rest of the USA slipstreams behind California and eventually adopts the same standards, because - hey presto! - now everyone can meet them.

5). The Texans (where I was) and other redneck states take the p*** out of California for being the "left coast", a bunch of raving socialists, niddle naddle noo, while reaping the benefit of their far-sightedness and willingness to act.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is exactly the problem in the USA. The moment anyone suggests government mandate anything for the collective good, there are cries of authoritarianism - and the idea is stillborn.

You're wrong about Ameristan. We (not me) love authoritarian
solutions to problems. I just prefer a different approach, & in
this case it's a practical one.

Private enterprise on its own is not capable of looking at the long term future of humanity and the planet, and then making decisions that require large short term costs, in exchange for ultimate gains by people not yet born, who won't be buying their products! It's classic example of market failure. And that is where government has a duty to step in. That is what it is for.

The point of my suggestion is that long term
goals can be incentivized by tax policy.

You can get so far with tax, I grant you, but the trouble is governments become wedded to the tax income and companies start gaming the system instead of getting on with the changes. I see no reason to rule out legislation. For example it is legislation that California has used, repeatedly, to reduce pollution from motor fuel (the business I was in when I did a brief spell in Houston).

If you're worried about gaming the system, that is a problem
that can afflict the authoritarian approach too. The questions
are which will work best, & which is politically palatable.

The cycle goes like this:

1) California mandates a new fuel or vehicle standard from a certain date.

2) Everyone howls that it is impossible, will put everyone out of work, huge snakes, many of them millions of miles long, will roam freely through the countryside, etc., etc.

3) The date arrives - and everyone is able, somehow, through gritted teeth, to comply, having spent the money to do so.

4) The rest of the USA slipstreams behind California and eventually adopts the same standards, because - hey presto! - now everyone can meet them.

That approach doesn't always work, eg, mandating anti-lock
braking on big trucks in the 70s. The technology didn't arrive
(fully), & government had to back off.

This seems to all boil down to a difference in approaches, ie,
incentives vs commands. I prefer the former.
Consider also that we need increased tax revenue. it would
be better to get it from activity we want to discourage than
from things that should be encouraged, eg, earning income.


Why am I getting solar air heating & photovoltaics?
Financial incentives.
There's no subsidy for air heating that I know of,
but utility costs make the investment worthwhile.
Photovoltaics will get me a 26% subsidy this year,
which tipped the scale towards acceptable rate
of financial return.
To have mandated solar panels on homes would've
been too complex & too impractical to impose by
governmental fiat. But with the incentives, solar
companies are doing much business here...with the
flexibility & customization suited to each application.

Regulation has been useful in requiring DTE (the
utility) to credit us for power supplied to their grid.
This is simple & minimal regulation which enables
the subsidies to work better.

 

[exchemist]

You're wrong about Ameristan. We (not me) love authoritarian
solutions to problems. I just prefer a different approach, & in
this case it's a practical one.

The point of my suggestion is that long term
goals can be incentivized by tax policy.

If you're worried about gaming the system, that is a problem
that can afflict the authoritarian approach too. The questions
are which will work best, & which is politically palatable.

That approach doesn't always work, eg, mandating anti-lock
braking on big trucks in the 70s. The technology didn't arrive
(fully), & government had to back off.

This seems to all boil down to a difference in approaches, ie,
incentives vs commands. I prefer the former.
Consider also that we need increased tax revenue. it would
be better to get it from activity we want to discourage than
from things that should be encouraged, eg, earning income.


Why am I getting solar air heating & photovoltaics?
Financial incentives.
There's no subsidy for air heating that I know of,
but utility costs make the investment worthwhile.
Photovoltaics will get me a 26% subsidy this year,
which tipped the scale towards acceptable rate
of financial return.
To have mandated solar panels on homes would've
been too complex & too impractical to impose by
governmental fiat. But with the incentives, solar
companies are doing much business here...with the
flexibility & customization suited to each application.

Regulation has been useful in requiring DTE (the
utility) to credit us for power supplied to their grid.
This is simple & minimal regulation which enables
the subsidies to work better.

Yes OK, the sort of hybrid approach you describe makes sense.

Maybe I and others all worry too much about the deniers in the USA, because they make so much noise and talk so much crap. The fact seems to be that even in the USA a lot of organisations are just getting on with the transition. Coal is dying out, whatever Trump's empty promises. And Tesla is a US company and has probably done more than anyone to make electric cars fashionable. So credit where it is due.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes OK, the sort of hybrid approach you describe makes sense.

Maybe I and others all worry too much about the deniers in the USA, because they make so much noise and talk so much crap. The fact seems to be that even in the USA a lot of organisations are just getting on with the transition. Coal is dying out, whatever Trump's empty promises. And Tesla is a US company and has probably done more than anyone to make electric cars fashionable. So credit where it is due.

Fashionable, but not practical.
They're still spendy toys for the
wealthy, & not cost effective.
The Toyota Prius is much better.

 

[exchemist]

Fashionable, but not practical.
They're still spendy toys for the
wealthy, & not cost effective.
The Toyota Prius is much better.

Doesn't matter. They bring glamour and neck-snapping acceleration to electric vehicles, which proves they don't have to be dowdy choices made for purely practical reasons. Other models will follow. There are quite a lot of them in my part of London actually. They get a free pass into the congestion charge zone, which helps - another government regulation by the way.

But yes, I'll be getting a hybrid next I think, as I am not yet confident about the charging network between London and the Golfe du Morbihan, Gulf of Morbihan - Wikipedia where the family holiday house is located. But I'll wait a couple more years and hope to be pleasantly surprised. Electric would be ideal.

The current car will be the last I drive with a manual gearbox and mechanical transmission.

 

[Revoltingest]

Doesn't matter. They bring glamour and neck-snapping acceleration to electric vehicles, which proves they don't have to be dowdy choices made for purely practical reasons. Other models will follow. There are quite a lot of them in my part of London actually. They get a free pass into the congestion charge zone, which helps - another government regulation by the way.

But yes, I'll be getting a hybrid next I think, as I am not yet confident about the charging network between London and the Golfe du Morbihan, Gulf of Morbihan - Wikipedia where the family holiday house is located. But I'll wait a couple more years and hope to be pleasantly surprised. Electric would be ideal.

The current car will be the last I drive with a manual gearbox and mechanical transmission.

Tesla is a good example of wasted subsidy. Last time I
calculated it, about 30% of a Tesla's price was paid for
by taxpayers. This partial subsidy exceeded the total
cost of a Prius. This is just throwing money at flashy
toys with hope of influencing car fashion.
But the worst thing is that it's fueling that loony dirtbag
Elon Musk's fortune. Alas....I was unfair to bags of dirt.

 

[Valjean]

Doesn't matter. They bring glamour and neck-snapping acceleration to electric vehicles, which proves they don't have to be dowdy choices made for purely practical reasons. Other models will follow. There are quite a lot of them in my part of London actually. They get a free pass into the congestion charge zone, which helps - another government regulation by the way.

But yes, I'll be getting a hybrid next I think, as I am not yet confident about the charging network between London and the Golfe du Morbihan, Gulf of Morbihan - Wikipedia where the family holiday house is located. But I'll wait a couple more years and hope to be pleasantly surprised. Electric would be ideal.

The current car will be the last I drive with a manual gearbox and mechanical transmission.

From today's BBC: Musk: Cheaper Tesla ready 'in about three years'

A$25,000 Tesla in three years?
--- I'm not holding my breath.

 

[sun rise]

Oh, you authoritarian types....always wanting laws to force
people to do what's best. Another approach is to raise taxes
on energy with downsides, eg, pollution, AGW effect. This
would encourage conservation & switching to other sources.

Btw, the best energy policy is still population reduction.

Population growth is leveling off.

I have no issue with taxes as you propose. Personally I prefer market-based solutions rather than regulation.

A problem now is when you ask a typical person on the right what market-based solution they prefer to the problem, you typically get ranting about "there is no problem and if there is we'd see socialism/communism being imposed as the only answer".