
The Future of Fossil Fuels - apsec112
https://rhsfinancial.com/2020/02/12/future-fossil-fuels-collapse/
======
wazoox
Funnily, people in the comments make the common mistake of talking of
electricity generation when talking of energy. But electricity production only
amount to about 25 to 30% of our energy consumption.

Most of electricity in the world comes from coal. Coal usage must drop to zero
as fast as possible just to keep the climate in a barely liveable state, and
we're not heading there, frankly.

One very big elephant in the room is _why_ does renewable power looks so cheap
at times: it's because _production occurs either at fixed times (solar) or
random times (wind)_ , so basically renewable power is often produced when it
_isn 't needed_ therefore _worth almost nothing or even less than nothing_.
That's the main reason why renewable power looks cheap: because as long as we
have some other reliable sources to fulfil demand and they really don't amount
to much power anyway, their production isn't very useful.

Oil OTOH is what propels 99.8% of everything that sails, flies or drives. Oil
is what makes globalisation possible. Oil consumption represents 50% more
globally than electricity generation, so there's no believable way to replace
the first with the second. So far, we have absolutely no idea on how to
replace oil at scale. Most probably globalisation as we know it will end not
because of evil trumpian protectionism, but because we won't be able to afford
it anymore for lack of oil.

~~~
SuoDuanDao
That is one reason why a lot of serious environmentalists are such ardent
fanboys of Tesla - Renewable generation is already extremely cheap, but it has
less utility without some adjacent means of storage. It's really energy
storage, not sustainable generation, that needs to get cheaper to muddle
through the end of fossil fuels. Funding energy storage research by attaching
wheels to batteries and selling them above market rates is a pretty genius bit
of economic hacking when seen in that context.

~~~
wazoox
As I said renewable generation is only cheap because 1° we use our fossil-
fueled infrastructure to build it 2° we have fossil fuels (mostly gas) to make
up for its foibles.

But we don't have the resources to build up enough batteries and windmills
without destroying the climate doing it.

The ecological and climate situation is absolutely cataclysmic. Rich people
from rich country are far-removed enough from down-to-earth reality to
minimize it most of the time, but the truth is that current trends are not
only unsustainable but _must_ be reversed as soon and as fast as possible.

We're falling towards the ground and accelerating, but as long as we haven't
hit the ground we still believe everything's fine and someone will pop a
parachute out in time. But all we have are handkerchiefs.

I'll remind you that the "climate goals" from the Paris agreement are 1° much
too low to actually "save the climate" but at the same time 2° we're far from
attaining them!

I'll tell you what "serious environmentalism" is:

Actually you, we, I, everybody should be _terrified_ of the current situation.
Planetary collapse is about to occur about any moment now, but the orchestra's
still playing on the upper deck. If you haven't trouble finding sleep about
climate and mass extinction at night, then you're probably not having a good
grasp of what's happening.

It's the heart of winter here and fruit trees are blossoming. There isn't any
snow in any ski resorts under 2000m in the Alps; they're _hauling snow with
helicopters_ (
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEuTKMkgY6A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEuTKMkgY6A)
) because it's not even cold enough at night for "snow guns" to work. I'm out
there in t-shirt while it should be freezing. It's been the same temperature
in Scandinavia last week as is normal in June. Half of the "non-return" points
have been reach 40 years sooner than expected in the worst scenarios. 60% of
wild animals worldwide have died. 65% to 80% of insects have disappeared in
Europe. 88% of freshwater fish worldwide. Only 20% of land worldwide haven't
been negatively impacted by human activities yet.

~~~
ash
> It's the heart of winter here and fruit trees are blossoming. There isn't
> any snow in any ski resorts under 2000m in the Alps; they're hauling snow
> with helicopters ...

I think you are confusing weather with climate:
[https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/weather-vs-
climate](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/weather-vs-climate)

~~~
wazoox
When abnormally hot weather repeat month after month and year after year, we
call this climate. 17 of the 18 hottest years worldwide were among the past 20
years.

The current climate evolution is _way worse_ than the _worst predictions_ from
recent IPCC reports. We'll reach +2°C before 2050.

------
moh_maya
I don't know if fossil fuels, especially natural gas, will be substantially
replaced from the energy mix till we figure out massive high density power
storage mechanisms at scale.

Fossil fuels provide base load power that, without storage, we simply cannot
rely on most renewables to directly substitute. The only alternative has been,
and likely will continue to be, nuclear power, which has its own set of
challenges.

If you accept this contention, then the big driver / trigger / marker for the
"end of fossil fuels as bulk power sources" is the development and at scale
deployment of power storage. And I don't see compelling evidence that is
happening anytime soon.

~~~
WalterBright
A way to reduce base load power requirements is to raise the rates for it. A
_lot_ of power requirements can be time shifted, as a residence is inherently
a large battery.

For example, the electric hot water heater. It can run when power is cheap,
and not when it is expensive. The water will stay hot for a couple days (I
know this from experience with power failures).

The same goes for heating/cooling the house. When power is cheap, heat/cool to
the edge of the comfort zone. When power is expensive (i.e. base rate) let it
drift to the other extreme. Houses have a great deal of thermal mass (again I
know this from power outages) and this can be increased by using a pile of
rocks as a thermal "battery".

In order to motivate people to use this method, raise the cost of the night
rate.

Edit: of course, the more water in the hot water tank, and the more rocks in
the hot/cold pile, the better this works. Fortunately, water and rocks are
cheap.

~~~
alacombe
> A way to reduce base load power requirements is to raise the rates for it.

You are heading straight to a civil war.

> A lot of power requirements can be time shifted, as a residence is
> inherently a large battery.

Go tell this to people living through Canadian winter with sub-zero
temperature...

~~~
WalterBright
> You are heading straight to a civil war.

Just reduce the daytime rates. Besides, it doesn't make sense to have fixed
electric rates 24/7 when the cost to supply it varies dramatically. Look at
gasoline pump prices, they very all the time due to supply+demand and nobody
is fighting a war over that.

> Go tell this to people living through Canadian winter with sub-zero
> temperature.

I agree that any solution that doesn't cover 100% of use cases is quite
useless and inapplicable for the 98% of the population where it would work.

Besides, I live in Seattle which is next to Canada, and this solution would
work fine in the PNW climate, which includes Vancouver B.C.

~~~
alacombe
> it doesn't make sense to have fixed electric rates 24/7

Electricity is the least popular form of heating in Canada, by far, dwelling
are heated with gas furnace. This, and my supply prices are contractually
locked for the next 5 years regardless of the actual market price.

> Besides, I live in Seattle which is next to Canada, and this solution would
> work fine in the PNW climate, which includes Vancouver B.C.

Come on, Seattle/lower mainland look like the tropics compared to the rest of
Canada.

~~~
WalterBright
Most of the Canadian population is within 30 miles of the US border or
something like that.

~~~
alacombe
Because the weather in Seattle is just like the weather in Calgary... or even
Toronto !

~~~
WalterBright
Average temp in Toronto is 46.6 degrees Farenheit. It's 52 degrees in Seattle.

Source: google

~~~
alacombe
... and there is a 2deg C average global temperature between the last ice age
and now. Averages are irrelevant. Seattle has more constant temperature,
whereas Toronto tends to min-max, and on top of that, you took the southernest
Canadian city.

But sure, continue thinking Canadian weather is the same as Seattle...

------
georgebarnett
Based simply on the current “dig up everything we can while it’s still worth
something” push from the industry, it’s clear they’re dead in the water with a
lot of soon to be stranded assets.

Much like the tobacco industry, they have sway.. right up until they don’t.

------
H8crilA
Leaving it here without a comment:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption)

Full report by BP:

[https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-
sites/en/global/c...](https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-
sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-
review-2019-full-report.pdf)

~~~
dntbnmpls
Thank you. I personally like to link directly to the wikipedia chart to show
people that renewables and nuclear account for pretty much a tiny
insignificant portion of the world's energy consumption.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/me...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/media/File%3ABp_world_energy_consumption_2016.gif)

Almost all of the worlds energy consumption is fossil fuels. So the idea that
we are going to do anything to change that fact any time soon is an
impossibility unless we want to trigger worldwide economic collapse. Not that
facts and data and charts really helps when it comes to the most ardent
climate change activists.

Throw in the fact that only about 20% of the world is part of the developed,
industrialized world.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country)

So we have 80% of the world ( about 5.6 billion people ) who are looking to
become part of the developed, industrialized world. That means more energy.
Which means more fossil fuels. Unless we intend to keep the 5.6 billion down
trodden down, I'd say the future of fossil fuels is bright.

Barring some truly revolutionary advance in energy, we'll be mostly powered by
fossil fuels for a very long time.

~~~
SuoDuanDao
>A very long time

I suppose, if you consider 120 years a very long time. Given the scale of the
problem though, it seems obvious that the time to think seriously about
replacements now, not in 119 years.

------
WhompingWindows
The author claims fossil fuel will collapse in the 2020s...not here in
Providence, RI. Stand in any parking lot or on any road and count the number
of EVs, it's less than 1%. There are no charging stations at hospitals,
downtown, apartment buildings, condos...

Meanwhile, there are a ton of shiny new luxury ICE vehicles, even in my lower-
middle class area. These vehicles will need gasoline for all of the 2020's and
into the 2030's. And we still don't even have 2% of new vehicle sales to EV.

The idea that Rhode Islanders are going to be not using IC engines in 2030 is
laughable. We've locked in a ton of natural gas electricity production, we
have shipping ports without charging for ships, and an airport that uses NO
battery EV planes.

We have a LONG way to go before fossil fuels are gone, probably 2050 for 75%
of applications, and 2100 for 95% of applications. This makes sense: we've
been on fossil fuels for literally hundreds of years...you don't dismantle
100's of years of infrastructure in a decade.

------
erpellan
The thing is, oil and gas are super useful raw materials for everything from
clothes to furniture, fertilisers and pharmaceuticals. Setting it on fire to
keep ourselves warm will look like insanity in 100 years time.

------
ggm
There is no meaningful ETS in Australia. The chart used must come from around
2013.

The stranded assets story is pretty bad: states are going to have to step in
and remediate giant toxic industrial waste zones. Remember that methane leak
from an underground gas storage site? Now magnify that thousands of times for
the uncapped fracking, open cut mines.

Then add the methane clathrates releases from Arctic zones....

There is also "the rush to the door" effect. Burn it now to make profit now?

~~~
fulafel
I think the methane clathrate risk has been downgraded in the current science?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis#Curre...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis#Current_outlook)

~~~
ggm
Good if true. Fugitive gas from fracking and mining still bad, but this was
the scary one

------
Flozzin
Full disclosure. I mostly skimmed the article.

They start off citing a prediction that didn't come true, then they bravely
predict the coming end of oil. Next they show that fossil fuels are getting
less expensive as a sign that they are failing. A few paragraphs later, make
that claim that since renewables are getting cheaper, they will take over.
That doesn't make sense in my opinion. Both things get cheaper yet for gas
it's a sign it's failing and for renewables it's a sign it's gaining strength.
Their graph for this is only 3 years in the past. Seems cherry picked.

I don't trust this person's analytical skills, and thus their prediction.
Honestly with the article starting the way it does I would say this is satire.

------
fulafel
The position of the oil based economies will really be interesting, if/when we
decide to disincentivise extracting the remaining fossil fuels from the ground
using trade policy, international institutions etc. Will there be a climate
denialist bloc vs the rest of the world bloc split, with the latter trying to
use embargos etc to stop the oil producers? Or can the oil producers be bribed
and coaxed to fall in line.

~~~
alacombe
To run an embargos, you need a decently sized army, to have a decently sized
army you need energy, and on soy-boys tears ain't as effective the other side
good old diesel ICE (which you can still run on vegetable oil if dinosaurs
juice runs out).

~~~
fulafel
I actually meant to write trade sanctions.

But yep plenty of ways to make diesel out of renewables.

~~~
alacombe
You still need to enforce your trade sanction by force. History has shown that
wars are won by the side with the best energy supply. Your solar panels aren't
gonna cut it.

Actually, you still need to fertilize your crops (not to mention harvest,
seed, weed-out, etc.), which which need a hell of a lot of petroleum
derivative and/or manure, both of which are on the environmentalist hit-list.

~~~
fulafel
Trade sanctions don't require use of force if you have most countries on your
side, you can just threaten to extend the sanctions to any non compliant trade
partners of the sanctioned countries.

------
Jemm
Damn website uses light grey and white. Makes it unreadable for many of us.

