current renewables are expensive, require expensive maintenance and have short economic life's. Fractured oil and gas is in inexhaustable produces more energy per buck and without the byproducts of oil life on earth would go back to the stone age. I vote oil and nuclear
I think alot of people missed the key sentence in the note... "Eventually the Greta Thumbergs of the world will be politicians and not activists." In essence, politics will move more and more against fossil fuel.... the economics is relatively secondary.
I think left wing climate activists such as Greta will become increasingly marginalised as their facile views hit the road of scientific reality and the lies of the IPCC are outed by serious scientists
I agree with John here. there is no way that less energy density as a source of power is going to supplant more energy density over time, regardless of technological improvements. if people vote their pocketbooks, which they typically do, then the only thing that negative prices do is drive up the cost of the required backup generation.
your grandchildren will have passed before the world moves on from oil/natural gas as the primary source of energy for all economic activity.
this is where Jevon's paradox will live, more efficiency will require more fossil fuels, not less
I could have argued that tradeflows would always increase as it makes everyone wealthier, or that immigration is an easy economic win for everyone - but politics has moved against that too. While your economics is correct, I think the politics is the other way.
I think the thing that I was really looking for was Chinese road demand for oil. It is levelling out at a very low level, and this should really act a as model for future road demand in the ROW.
Trump had to start the Iran war to benefit big oil in the US. Prices were sliding down and if they dropped below $50 per bbl the 70% of US production that is fracked becomes uneconomical. Big problem. Killing thousands of Iranians so Exxon can keep profit margins up sounds pretty fascist. Enjoy the ride.
My reading notes a significant amount of US activity surrounding nuclear. Nuclear, that has a dramatically smaller footprint than comparable solar and wind. Both of which turn farmland unusable. Yes, the upfront is slower and more expensive, but with lifespans more than two generations longer and lower operating costs. Might not fossil fuels be the bridge to a more nuclear future?
The economics you suggest surprise me. The long-term subsidies to wind and solar, 2016 - 2040, are projected at about $5 trillion. Good to know we don't need to spend any of those projected sums in support of wind and solar. The nuclear argument sounds as though it came from the 1980's. And what supplies baseload power in the renewables world? Hello Espana. Still waiting for battery storage to be a thing.
With the disruption to fossil fuels from the Middle East, much digital ink has been spilt as to the product array at risk. The famine and shortages to come. Fertilizer from the top of the refinery stack from gases. Next being gasoline; what do we do with that stuff? Helium for EV chips, semiconductor fabs, petrochemicals, plastics, medical gloves, syringes, combs (maybe ivory?), etc. How do renewables deliver the products the world uses everyday after gasoline has been refined?
current renewables are expensive, require expensive maintenance and have short economic life's. Fractured oil and gas is in inexhaustable produces more energy per buck and without the byproducts of oil life on earth would go back to the stone age. I vote oil and nuclear
I think alot of people missed the key sentence in the note... "Eventually the Greta Thumbergs of the world will be politicians and not activists." In essence, politics will move more and more against fossil fuel.... the economics is relatively secondary.
I think left wing climate activists such as Greta will become increasingly marginalised as their facile views hit the road of scientific reality and the lies of the IPCC are outed by serious scientists
very unlikely - i think the political marketplace is moving their way...
I agree with John here. there is no way that less energy density as a source of power is going to supplant more energy density over time, regardless of technological improvements. if people vote their pocketbooks, which they typically do, then the only thing that negative prices do is drive up the cost of the required backup generation.
your grandchildren will have passed before the world moves on from oil/natural gas as the primary source of energy for all economic activity.
this is where Jevon's paradox will live, more efficiency will require more fossil fuels, not less
I could have argued that tradeflows would always increase as it makes everyone wealthier, or that immigration is an easy economic win for everyone - but politics has moved against that too. While your economics is correct, I think the politics is the other way.
and of course, that's what makes markets
Some hard to swallow pills in here for the energy=hydrocarbons_only maxis.
Should have trigger warning ;-)
It reminds me a lot of the "EVs will never take off arguments" - and here we sit with Tesla worth more than all the ICE makers combined....
As you have showed, there is no bubble in fossil fuels investments. But 70-80% of oil demand is difficult to be electrified.
I think the thing that I was really looking for was Chinese road demand for oil. It is levelling out at a very low level, and this should really act a as model for future road demand in the ROW.
Trump had to start the Iran war to benefit big oil in the US. Prices were sliding down and if they dropped below $50 per bbl the 70% of US production that is fracked becomes uneconomical. Big problem. Killing thousands of Iranians so Exxon can keep profit margins up sounds pretty fascist. Enjoy the ride.
I certainly think US energy independence has made the US far more willing to call Russian and Iranian "bluffs".
My reading notes a significant amount of US activity surrounding nuclear. Nuclear, that has a dramatically smaller footprint than comparable solar and wind. Both of which turn farmland unusable. Yes, the upfront is slower and more expensive, but with lifespans more than two generations longer and lower operating costs. Might not fossil fuels be the bridge to a more nuclear future?
Renewables are 100x cheaper and more efficient than nuclear will ever be and there are no spent fuel rods laying around for 2000 years.
I dont know about 100x cheaper - but they are 100x more politically feasible.
The economics you suggest surprise me. The long-term subsidies to wind and solar, 2016 - 2040, are projected at about $5 trillion. Good to know we don't need to spend any of those projected sums in support of wind and solar. The nuclear argument sounds as though it came from the 1980's. And what supplies baseload power in the renewables world? Hello Espana. Still waiting for battery storage to be a thing.
With the disruption to fossil fuels from the Middle East, much digital ink has been spilt as to the product array at risk. The famine and shortages to come. Fertilizer from the top of the refinery stack from gases. Next being gasoline; what do we do with that stuff? Helium for EV chips, semiconductor fabs, petrochemicals, plastics, medical gloves, syringes, combs (maybe ivory?), etc. How do renewables deliver the products the world uses everyday after gasoline has been refined?