6 ms·
Exxon still expects fossil fuels to make up the majority of energy in 25 years
- notinmykernel 2y agoBecause they lobby against advancement of renewable energy?
- simple10 2y agoMore likely because others lobby against nuclear energy. I talked to an energy analyst a few years back who knew how to read past the politics and interpret the math. The short of it... energy consumption projections for next 25 years outpace even the most optimistic renewable growth curves. Without a significant increase in nuclear power, the only option left is fossil fuels. The estimated energy needs of developing countries is massive. Renewables can offset it a bit, but it's a drop in the bucket. Even if nuclear got past political blocks, it still takes 30 years to build. [Edit] The above is just one analyst's opinion. It may be inaccurate our outdated and lacks sources.
- worik 2y ago> energy consumption projections for next 25 years outpace even the most optimistic renewable growth curves That is a novel view. Perhaps a reference? Perhaps it is not true
- simple10 2y agoIt was just one analyst's opinion. Definitely worth disputing with sources. I don't have references.
- Elyra 2y ago> Because they lobby against advancement of renewable energy? Almost the opposite, look up the "solar not nuclear" campaign by oil heat institute. > More likely because others lobby against nuclear energy. Exactly this. Oil companies know nuclear is their greatest threat, and that fossil fuels conveniently fill the shortcomings of intermittent renewables. "As of 2011, a strategy paper released by Greenpeace titled "Battle of Grids" proposed gradual replacement of nuclear power by fossil gas plants which would provide "flexible backup for wind and solar power"." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement
- jtriangle 2y ago>it still takes 30 years to build. Objectively false. Average global nuclear power plant construction time is somewhere around 7 years. Some get delayed significantly, some are done in 3 years, but it averages out shorter than you think. For perspective, solar plants are about 2 years to get operational, combined cycle natural gas is around 3. The other thing to keep in mind is that nuclear plants have seen significant upgrades, and continue to over their lifecycles. The US has added 19GW of nuclear capacity without building any new plants in the last couple decades which is certainly a reason why new nuclear projects haven't been happening that often. Meanwhile China is building a ton of new plants, Russia is building something like 20 reactors for other countries, France has decided to keep all of its nuclear capacity after they cancelled their plan to shut them down, so I'd guess nuclear energy isn't going anywhere anytime soon. What would be necessary is to have the NRC/etc approve a few modern reactor designs along with clear guidelines as to where/how they can be built. That'd reduce the regulatory burden on all sides which in turn would reduce cost, construction time, and operational safety significantly. That's as close to a solution to this problem as I've come across, and, quarterly, I write a letter to the government agencies in question telling them that. It's not much, but hey, I'm doing my part.
- simple10 2y agoMy knowledge is likely incorrect, but I think the 30 year number comes mostly from the politics side. It takes a long time to get approval, much less time to build.
- matthewdgreen 2y agoIf nuclear is easy to build, people should stop posting about it and build it, stop invading every damn article about the energy transition with comments that say “nuclear is the only way, now let me explain the unlikely set of political and economic conditions that will actually cause something to happen at the scale we need.” China is currently building nuclear faster than any nation in the world, and still the rates of construction (and increase in rate of construction) aren’t in any way keeping up with their renewable buildouts. Any explosion in nuclear builds that had a chance of mattering on the time scales we need is not going to require just a few standard designs. It’s going to require mass factory construction of SMRs, and solving all the problems that haven’t been solved in that area. And we’re not there at all.
- akira2501 2y ago8 billion people on the planet. Some of them not anywhere near first world conditions. This _is_ going to take some time.
- bdcravens 2y agoSure, though I wonder if we might see areas where the development is similar to cell phone growth: areas with poor infrastructure found it easier to put up towers than to run copper POTS lines. Likewise, localized energy production may be quicker to expand than traditional grids, once prices hit a certain point.
- akira2501 2y agoThat's a fine strategy for residential users, it's probably not adequate for industrial use, and if you care about CO2 you want industry to be reasonably close to consumption. It's also a good idea to avoid "accidental colonization" by ensuring countries decide and own their selected infrastructure.
- netsharc 2y agoHonestly at this point the Western goverments view is probably "Let's hope they die fast enough" plus "We need more firepower at our borders."...
- linotype 2y agoThe faster we burn through fossil fuels (especially Oil and Natural Gas), the sooner the transition will be. The only question will be how painful it is.
- rjsw 2y agoAlternatively, if we stop burning them then they will last a lot longer as chemical feedstock.
- linotype 2y agoThat’s what I’d prefer but I’m in the minority. It’s drill baby drill for most it would seem.
- rjsw 2y agoAt least one big chemical company [1] has tried to make the case that they should be allowed to keep exploring for oil as they don't intend to burn it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineos
- GaggiX 2y agoIt doesn't have to be painful, especially with the prices of solar panels and batteries right now, it's a lot more convenient than gas where I live.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y agoThe oil major projected that oil demand would remain at 85 million bpd in 2050 even if every new car sold in 2035 is an electric vehicle. That's roughly the same level of demand as in 2010. Does anyone know the distribution of oil for consumer gas vs other uses (fertilizer, airplanes, ships, etc)? Taking it as generic fossil fuels seems silly because coal usage is quickly disappearing everywhere. Coal is not cost competitive vs solar.
- bdcravens 2y agoKeep in mind that oil is also a major component in manufacturing, plastics in particular.
- reportingsjr 2y agoNon-fuel uses make up roughly 10% of oil demand. Certainly significant, but unless plastics, fertilizer, etc have absolutely insane growth in the next 25 years, it won't keep demand level.
- reportingsjr 2y agoNon-fuel uses make up roughly 10% of oil demand. Certainly significant, but unless plastics, fertilizer, etc have absolutely insane growth in the next 25 years, it won't keep demand level.
- surfingdino 2y agoYou need Sun to benefit from solar. Preferably all year round. Coal or oil have no such requirements.
- jvanderbot 2y agoJust in case it wasn't clear - this is not the question being asked, nor is it likely the reason electrified cars won't reduce needs below 2010 levels. (most likely it's because personal transportation is < 30% of total energy use and energy use is probably going to keep going up)
- 2y ago
- chias 2y agoA large publicly traded company states expectations that their business model -- which they cannot change -- will still be viable in 25 years.
- RandomThoughts3 2y agoThey are filthy rich. They could diversify in preparation for a complete pivot if they wanted to - other majors are - but for some reason Exxon seems completely stuck.
- silverquiet 2y agoIf you look at a chart of worldwide energy mix[0], you'll see that no energy source has ever really substituted for another. Coal is "old" but we are still burning it at as high a rate as ever; we've merely added more sources of energy as we've advanced. Our thirst for energy seems insatiable, so Exxon seems to be reading the situation correctly. Obviously we will destroy ourselves with this behavior, but hopefully only after I've passed on. [0]https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
- bryanlarsen 2y agoIf you look at a country level you find a very different story. Coal usage in any Western country has declined substantially.
- silverquiet 2y agoIn spite of our human tendency to divide ourselves into smaller groups, we all share one planet, and particularly relevant, one atmosphere. Perhaps developing countries can leapfrog to renewables, but if they have easily accessible fossil fuels, it seems likely that they will be exploited; they are irresistible if you ignore the negative externalities.
- trilbyglens 2y agoIt already happening in places all over Africa.
- it_citizen 2y agoI don’t know enough to have an opinion on that. I am wondering what would happen to Exxon if they publicly said the opposite though?
- bdcravens 2y agoThey wouldn't say it. As a matter of fact, we don't know that other oil companies haven't reached opposite conclusions and just kept mum.
- jmclnx 2y agoWith climate change progress being made, sadly I agree with Exxon
- sigzero 2y agoExxon is probably right.
- karol 2y agoBtw, the term fossil fuels is a misnomer. The oil appears spontaneously as a result of geological processes.
- bdcravens 2y agoSource? This sounds strangely like the kind of argument that those who believe in a 6000 year old earth make.
- Vecr 2y agoNon-fossil oil probably does exist, but I've never seen a credible claim that there's very much of it. Other than the fact it's not literally made from fossils, but from general carbon-based life.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- polotics 2y agoOh wow this statement of yours is a blast from the past, it's like I'm back in the twentieth century for a bit. But seriously, where are all the new discoveries then? Also... where is the energy coming from in this spontaneous process? I would love to have your take or links to sites that explain how this works. This isn't that: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Worldwide-oil-discovery-and-consumption-from-1930-to-the-present-and-project-future_fig2_297657715 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Worldwide-oil-discover...
- karol 2y agoNegative commenters, did you try to search for it? https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/215/1/012103 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/215/1/0...
- Workaccount2 2y agoThe way it looks right now, energy demand is set to explode, and oil and gas are the easiest ways to meet that demand. Shy of some herculean effort (a la pandemic style massive monetary injection into renewable energy), I don't see this as being unrealistic at all.
- matthewdgreen 2y agoYou’d have to assume China essentially stops building renewable energy and upgrading their grid on the trajectory they are, and all improvements in renewable tech essentially stop. This is excluding the rest of the world. There are plenty of reasons we could screw this up, but assuming renewables won’t tear into fossil electricity generation is a terrible bet.
- darby_nine 2y agoWhy would anyone expect otherwise? Humans have proved themselves utterly incapable of providing an alternative (namely, rich countries subsidizing the energy interests of poor countries).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Gravityloss 2y agoThere's been a worldwide Manhattan project ongoing to build wind, solar and nuclear power. China reached their ambitious future targets now already. Buses and taxis are largely electric. About half my friends have electric cars. We're right in the middle of a great transition.
- melling 2y agoNice narrative! I bet the data doesn’t match that story. We need to be more data driven in evaluating our progress.
- Gravityloss 2y agohttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-23/china-hits-xi-jinping-s-renewable-power-target-six-years-early https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-23/china-hit... I don't think your post fits in the guidelines.
- melling 2y ago“may mean the world’s biggest polluter has already reached peak emissions well before its 2030 target” China has a net zero goal of 2060. They “may” have reached peak emissions. Many would argue their goals aren’t aggressive enough. At any rate, we should look at the data rather than narratives. Globally, are we going to reach our climate change goals?
- Gravityloss 2y agoWell of course they haven't reached their net zero goal of 2060. And I never said that.
- melling 2y agoThat’s not what I said or implied. Once again, the question we want to answer: “Globally, are we going to reach our climate change goals?”
- nabla9 2y agoOne barrel of oil stores 1,700 kilowatt-hours of energy. Fossil fuels don't compete only against wind or solar. They also compete against energy storage technology. Energy demand grows in the third world and they don't have money to invest in large scale energy storage until it becomes very cheap.
- yread 2y agoLast year it was 75+% (140/183 for oil, gas and coal) https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix Would be nice if we can get it down to 50%
- trilbyglens 2y agoThese companies should be dismantled and the money gained should be rolled into aggressive climate action.