While this is largely caused by production lag due to coronavirus, the trend towards renewables at the expense of oil & gas has the potential to make this a recurring theme.
Pushing hard for renewables makes the gamble that capacity can be grown fast enough to offset decreased oil & gas exploration and development. If that doesn't happen we're going to have continued price spikes. Some people say they're fine with that because they believe the threat of climate change is worth it, but I don't think they're factoring in how high energy prices trickle into every product.
Um it's related to 2 threats: climate change and limited ressources. Overall oil reserves are diminishing, not because of climate activism, but because of physical laws. The Wikipedia page about oil peak is worth reading it.
One way or the other, we'll have to learn living without oil and gas abundancy in the next decades. The question is more: are we going to be prepared for it?
This is a dubious claim.[0] It depends a lot on technology and how hard we look for oil. Which was my point. If we disincentivize O&G exploration there will be less O&G produced. If we force O&G producers to lessen production and then renewables cannot be scaled fast enough there will be an energy supply shortfall that cannot be overcome quickly.
Obviously at some point we will run out of O&G and need to be switched over to renewables (with or without nuclear), but doing it prematurely is risky because of the downstream effects of high energy prices and the fact that every institution in the modern world is premised on ever increasing access to energy.
No we can't deny that oil reserves are strongly diminishing [0]. It doesn't mean that one day we will completely stop using oil. But the cost of extraction will always be increasing, inducing a reduction of its consumption.
Other than that you might not be aware of the risks we'll face related to the climate change. The topic is surely complex and long to explain. You can dig into Wikipedia, but I think it is worth to read the last IPCC executive summary.
You're just making things up. People love talking about intermittence of renewables because it's an inherent challenge of renewables while forgetting that the predictability of unpredictability leads to engineering of systems that can inherently handle unpredictability.
No such thing happens with fossil fuels. Every time fossil fuels fail you get a 70s oil crisis. Fossil fuels aren't as reliable as people think. Not even close. Yet nowadays, when fossil fuels fail, they blame the renewables.
I am honestly tired of the hypocrisy. People are against renewable expansion because they are intermittent, then when oil is intermittent, they complain that renewables haven't expanded enough. I can tell you one thing. Without the renewables in Germany this fossil fuel crisis would be much worse.
> You're just making things up. People love talking about intermittence of renewables
My comment has nothing to do with intermittence. It has to do with speed of transition. If you do not invest in oil & gas, supplies decrease. Because oil & gas production requires constant exploration and development in order to be productive. Because of coronavirus O&G companies did not invest in developing existing assets and exploring new ones. This was obviously going to happen last year (I traded on the expectation of it).
> Yet nowadays, when fossil fuels fail, they blame the renewables.
I literally did the exact opposite in my first sentence.
> I am honestly tired of the hypocrisy.
I'm not anti-renewables. I think they have a place in the future energy-mix. It's obvious that eventually oil and gas will run out.
> Without the renewables in Germany this fossil fuel crisis would be much worse.
If we're going to do counterfactuals we have to include the one where because Germany didn't have renewables its politicians invested more in a secure, stable supply of oil & gas.
The high prices in europe add significant political leverage (on the Russian side) to the much critized Nord Stream 2 pipeline. [1]
It is saddening to see these carbon intense fossil fuels expanding in the world’s largest economies during times of rapid and visible global warming. How are we ever going to stay below 4 degree C?
In the short term, this is bad -- things cost more, Russia gets more. But it also generates demand and funding for solar, wind, and storage build-out. The iron-air batteries that look poised to take up the storage mantle cannot come too soon. The scale-up of hydrogen and ammonia synthesis, and conversions to use them, likewise. All get a boost from hydrocarbon price inflation, when it lasts long enough.
The unfortunate side, in addition to costs, is that it also generates more extraction. If it stays well below the cost of extracting shale, we can tolerate that for a while.
It would be ironic if Putin were to spend his take building out renewables and HVDC transmission lines, and use them to periodically undercut western European field prices. He needs to spend it on something. The Russian military likes funding, but Russia doesn't need to do the sort of world occupation the US has committed itself to.
Grid scale electrical storage technology is not even developed, let alone remotely cost competitive, but it is a prerequisite for actually realizing any of the benefits of wind and solar.
We're at least a generation (~25 years) too early and unfortunately the least fortunate among us will bear the cost of our delusions.
Cost-effective grid-scale electrical storage technology using iron-air batteries is developed and will be rolling out within two years. It takes time to ramp up production, but the investment is locked in. Volume H2 and NH3 synthesis will take longer, maybe ten years.
We are already realizing benefits from wind and solar. Storage and lots of HVDC transmission lines will be needed at some point in order to be able to turn off the other sources.
13 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 38.1 ms ] threadPushing hard for renewables makes the gamble that capacity can be grown fast enough to offset decreased oil & gas exploration and development. If that doesn't happen we're going to have continued price spikes. Some people say they're fine with that because they believe the threat of climate change is worth it, but I don't think they're factoring in how high energy prices trickle into every product.
One way or the other, we'll have to learn living without oil and gas abundancy in the next decades. The question is more: are we going to be prepared for it?
This is a dubious claim.[0] It depends a lot on technology and how hard we look for oil. Which was my point. If we disincentivize O&G exploration there will be less O&G produced. If we force O&G producers to lessen production and then renewables cannot be scaled fast enough there will be an energy supply shortfall that cannot be overcome quickly.
Obviously at some point we will run out of O&G and need to be switched over to renewables (with or without nuclear), but doing it prematurely is risky because of the downstream effects of high energy prices and the fact that every institution in the modern world is premised on ever increasing access to energy.
[0]: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=R...
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
No such thing happens with fossil fuels. Every time fossil fuels fail you get a 70s oil crisis. Fossil fuels aren't as reliable as people think. Not even close. Yet nowadays, when fossil fuels fail, they blame the renewables.
I am honestly tired of the hypocrisy. People are against renewable expansion because they are intermittent, then when oil is intermittent, they complain that renewables haven't expanded enough. I can tell you one thing. Without the renewables in Germany this fossil fuel crisis would be much worse.
My comment has nothing to do with intermittence. It has to do with speed of transition. If you do not invest in oil & gas, supplies decrease. Because oil & gas production requires constant exploration and development in order to be productive. Because of coronavirus O&G companies did not invest in developing existing assets and exploring new ones. This was obviously going to happen last year (I traded on the expectation of it).
> Yet nowadays, when fossil fuels fail, they blame the renewables.
I literally did the exact opposite in my first sentence.
> I am honestly tired of the hypocrisy.
I'm not anti-renewables. I think they have a place in the future energy-mix. It's obvious that eventually oil and gas will run out.
> Without the renewables in Germany this fossil fuel crisis would be much worse.
If we're going to do counterfactuals we have to include the one where because Germany didn't have renewables its politicians invested more in a secure, stable supply of oil & gas.
It is saddening to see these carbon intense fossil fuels expanding in the world’s largest economies during times of rapid and visible global warming. How are we ever going to stay below 4 degree C?
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/kremlin-nord-stream-...
The unfortunate side, in addition to costs, is that it also generates more extraction. If it stays well below the cost of extracting shale, we can tolerate that for a while.
It would be ironic if Putin were to spend his take building out renewables and HVDC transmission lines, and use them to periodically undercut western European field prices. He needs to spend it on something. The Russian military likes funding, but Russia doesn't need to do the sort of world occupation the US has committed itself to.
We're at least a generation (~25 years) too early and unfortunately the least fortunate among us will bear the cost of our delusions.
We are already realizing benefits from wind and solar. Storage and lots of HVDC transmission lines will be needed at some point in order to be able to turn off the other sources.