3 ms·

> I hope they (EIA) are off the mark. If the predictions from the EIA a will materialize, we’re going to have a huge carbon problem. The only way EIA will be o

by disown 6y ago

> I hope they (EIA) are off the mark. If the predictions from the EIA a will materialize, we’re going to have a huge carbon problem. The only way EIA will be off the mark is if we get something like fusion. Currently the major geopolitical issue is natural gas pipelines. Major nations wouldn't be fighting over gas pipelines if people believed fossil fuels were over. > 1) the EIA forecasts linear growth of renewables, while its been behaving exponentially over the last 5-10 years. And it still amounts to nothing. Solar/winds accounts for 1% of energy. And that's after 10 years of subsidies in the biggest economies around the world. > 2) nearly all of the energy consumption growth is non-OECD and will require newly built generation. If cost of renewables continues to drop, it might just be economic sense that pushes renewables over coal That will be all fossil fuels. The developing nations aren't going industrialize on solar/wind. Even developed nations can't do that. > 3) at least on the EU side, fossil fuels are increasingly getting a negative connotation. On top of the financial comparison, I expect this could dampen new fossil growth as well. Right... One of the biggest per capita producer of oil is norway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ... The 2nd largest oil company in the world is a anglo-dutch company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell And of course europe just invaded and took over libya for their oil. The EU is trying to take over venezuela for their oil. Etc. The EU is one of the biggest direct consumers of fossil fuels ( and the largest consumer directly+indirectly ). Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere. That's just physical reality. It's physics. Sure renewables may slow the rate of growth, but growing more slowly is still growing. The only thing that will cause a decline in fossil fuels is economic collapse or a genuine scientific breakthrough like fusion energy.

hectormalot 6y ago
> The only way EIA will be off the mark is if we get something like fusion. Currently the major geopolitical issue is natural gas pipelines. Major nations wouldn't be fighting over gas pipelines if people believed fossil fuels were over. I'll point out that the EIA has been off the mark wrt renewables in the past. For example: in 2010 [1], the EIA predicted renewables to grow by 30 Quadrillion BTUs in the next 20 years (2010-2030), that took only 8 years instead of 20. In their latest report they had to update that to a growth of 120 Quadrillion BTOs over the same timespan (2010-2030) (i.e. they were off by a factor of 4x). As a thought experiment: The world doubled renewables in the last 10 years. If we maintain that CAGR until 2050, that would mean growth from ±100 Quadrillion BTU in 2020 to 200 in 2030, 400 in 2040 and 800 in 2050. If the totals from the EIA in 2050 are correct (±900 Qd BTU), then that would cover almost 90% of primary energy consumption globally. Note: I realise this is oversimplified. We'd run into dampening factors (e.g. intermittency of solar/wind) far before we reach 90%. Nonetheless, based on the current growth I'm happy to argue that the EIA is underestimating growth potential of renewables. > Right... One of the biggest per capita producer of oil is norway. > The 2nd largest oil company in the world is a anglo-dutch company. The present doesn't have to describe the future: - Shell is still huge company. Yet, had you invested in Shell 5 years ago, your stocks would be 33% lower today (-47% for Exxon). Had you invested in some of the established renewable energy players e.g. Orsted, Vesta, or Iberdrola, you'd be up between 75 and 350%. - Same in the US: Nextera (US Wind and Solar player) is currently valued higher than BP, Total or Shell. ($147 bln), and doubled market cap in the last 5 years. The Dutch version of the FT ran an article yesterday on how investors are increasingly wary of investing in fossil fuels, and moving more into renewables. They made the comparison to how it suddenly became undesirable to invest in e.g. Tobacco. [2] [1]: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/riley2/docs/EIA-0484-2010.pdf http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/riley2/docs/EIA... [2]: https://fd.nl/ondernemen/1366175/beleggers-draaien-van-fossiel-naar-groen https://fd.nl/ondernemen/1366175/beleggers-draaien-van-fossi...

by disown 6y ago

hectormalot 6y ago

> The only way EIA will be off the mark is if we get something like fusion. Currently the major geopolitical issue is natural gas pipelines. Major nations wouldn't be fighting over gas pipelines if people believed fossil fuels were over. I'll point out that the EIA has been off the mark wrt renewables in the past. For example: in 2010 [1], the EIA predicted renewables to grow by 30 Quadrillion BTUs in the next 20 years (2010-2030), that took only 8 years instead of 20. In their latest report they had to update that to a growth of 120 Quadrillion BTOs over the same timespan (2010-2030) (i.e. they were off by a factor of 4x). As a thought experiment: The world doubled renewables in the last 10 years. If we maintain that CAGR until 2050, that would mean growth from ±100 Quadrillion BTU in 2020 to 200 in 2030, 400 in 2040 and 800 in 2050. If the totals from the EIA in 2050 are correct (±900 Qd BTU), then that would cover almost 90% of primary energy consumption globally. Note: I realise this is oversimplified. We'd run into dampening factors (e.g. intermittency of solar/wind) far before we reach 90%. Nonetheless, based on the current growth I'm happy to argue that the EIA is underestimating growth potential of renewables. > Right... One of the biggest per capita producer of oil is norway. > The 2nd largest oil company in the world is a anglo-dutch company. The present doesn't have to describe the future: - Shell is still huge company. Yet, had you invested in Shell 5 years ago, your stocks would be 33% lower today (-47% for Exxon). Had you invested in some of the established renewable energy players e.g. Orsted, Vesta, or Iberdrola, you'd be up between 75 and 350%. - Same in the US: Nextera (US Wind and Solar player) is currently valued higher than BP, Total or Shell. ($147 bln), and doubled market cap in the last 5 years. The Dutch version of the FT ran an article yesterday on how investors are increasingly wary of investing in fossil fuels, and moving more into renewables. They made the comparison to how it suddenly became undesirable to invest in e.g. Tobacco. [2] [1]: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/riley2/docs/EIA-0484-2010.pdf http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/riley2/docs/EIA... [2]: https://fd.nl/ondernemen/1366175/beleggers-draaien-van-fossiel-naar-groen https://fd.nl/ondernemen/1366175/beleggers-draaien-van-fossi...