Peak oil? Majors not buying threat from renewables

Status
Not open for further replies.

wemay

Site Donor 2023
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
17,196
Location
Kendall, FL
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-m...s-idUSKBN1D80GA


HOUSTON/LONDON (Reuters) - Two decades ago, BP set out to transcend oil, adopting a sunburst logo to convey its plans to pour $8 billion over a decade into renewable technologies, even promising to power its gas stations with the sun.

That transformation - marketed as “Beyond Petroleum” - led to manufacturing solar panels in Australia, Spain and the United States and erecting wind farms in the United States and the Netherlands.

Today, BP (BP.L) might be more aptly branded “Back to Petroleum” after exiting or scaling back its renewable energy investments. Lower-cost Chinese components upended its solar panel business, which the firm shed in 2011. A year later, BP tried to sell its U.S. wind power business but couldn’t get a buyer.

“We made very big bets in the past,” BP Chief Executive Bob Dudley told Reuters in an interview. “A lot of those didn’t work. We’re not sure yet what will be commercially acceptable.”

The costly lesson of the biggest foray yet by an oil major into renewable energy was not lost on rival firms.
Even as governments and environmentalists forecast a peak in oil demand within a generation - and China and India say they may eventually ban gasoline and diesel vehicles - leaders of the world’s biggest oil firms are not buying the argument that their traditional business faces any imminent threat.

A Reuters analysis of clean energy investments and forecasts by oil majors, along with exclusive interviews with top oil executives, reveal mostly token investments in alternative energy. Today, renewable power projects get about 3 percent of $100 billion in combined annual spending by the five biggest oil firms, according to energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie.

BP, Chevron (CVX.N), Exxon Mobil (XOM.N), Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) and Total (TOTF.PA) are instead milking their drilling and processing assets to finance investor payouts now and bolster balance sheets for the future. They believe they can enter new energy sectors later by acquiring companies or technologies if and when others prove them profitable.

“There is no sign of peak demand right now,” said Chevron CEO John Watson, an economist by training, who is retiring in early 2018. “For the next 10 or 20 years, we expect to see oil demand growth...”

Open Link above excerpt for full article.
 
The bottom line remains. It is very difficult to compete in the real world, with the energy density (energy by mass) and specific energy (energy per volume) of petroleum products.

Hydrogen may have a shot at competing with petro fuels as it's almost 3x more powerful by weight, but that will take some significant effort to manage such a difficult to handle product. Better to mix in some carbon.....
 
I don't know how this won't get political and locked in a few hours... but yes the energy density of fossil fuels can't be beat.
 
As long as we pack ourselves into 1.5 ton vehicles to travel, we will need energy dense fuel sources.

We cannot store and recharge electrical energy as fast as we do carbon based fuels. Until we can store and move the products of renewable energy efforts in a manner similar to that of carbon based fuels, things will remain largely the same.
 
Fracking has had HUGE impact to the oil reserves. Electric cars are sexy, but are only 1% of total market, not likely to be even 5% in the next 15 years.

When electric cars offer: 800km range, while heating or cooling interior when outdoor temps are -32C or +35C, with charge times less than 30 minutes...and can be purchased without government grants (incentives) then I will be tempted.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
As long as we pack ourselves into 1.5 ton vehicles to travel, we will need energy dense fuel sources.

We cannot store and recharge electrical energy as fast as we do carbon based fuels. Until we can store and move the products of renewable energy efforts in a manner similar to that of carbon based fuels, things will remain largely the same.



In theory if chemical battery exist where incoming liquids are converted into out going liquid, you can quickly swap liquid at a station by pumping in and out. However you will need to deal with hazmat and other nasty stuff like spill related electrical shock, or something like that. Carbon based fuel and charging a battery whenever you stop is probably a better idea.

Or an over the head line with self driving car on the highway like your local trolley.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
As long as we pack ourselves into 1.5 ton vehicles to travel, we will need energy dense fuel sources.


Ultimately, this is true. Interestingly, the Tesla Model S illustrated that we could drive large, powerful cars on just batteries. It thereby provides hope of a motoring future devoid of annoying and ultimately incapable "Elio" type vehicles. The Tesla's are not cheap, but they do work quite well.

With the current generation of 2170 cells, a near-doubling of range is going to be possible. Unfortunately, it's not cheaper...

A friend has 2 Tesla's and 10Kw solar grid-tie. One way to view it is that his solar array provides all of the power needed for all his driving. Total cost: $240K.
 
Electric cars, what a joke. You either burn fossil fuel directly in a gasoline/diesel engine vehicle, or burn fossil fuel in a electrical generating power plant to provide the electricity to charge electric vehicles. It takes massive, huge amounts of "on demand" electricity to charge the volume of electric cars the govt. wants on the roads.
Wind and solar won't do it, clouds and calm days seem to hinder the electricity generating process. I say go nuclear for power plants, it is clean, safe and glows in the dark.
 
Originally Posted By: BalticBob
Electric cars, what a joke. You either burn fossil fuel directly in a gasoline/diesel engine vehicle, or burn fossil fuel in a electrical generating power plant to provide the electricity to charge electric vehicles. It takes massive, huge amounts of "on demand" electricity to charge the volume of electric cars the govt. wants on the roads.
Wind and solar won't do it, clouds and calm days seem to hinder the electricity generating process. I say go nuclear for power plants, it is clean, safe and glows in the dark.


As it doesn't emit the so called "Green House Gas" that contributes to the so called "Climate Change."
 
Along as I keep seeing close outs on motor oil for .45 a qt. I am going to say Peak Oil is a scam. It never was a issue just a scare tactic to justify oil/ gas prices.
 
Originally Posted By: wemay

“There is no sign of peak demand right now,” said Chevron CEO John Watson, an economist by training, who is retiring in early 2018. “For the next 10 or 20 years, we expect to see oil demand growth...”


That's gotta make all the environmentalists really happy.......
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
As long as we pack ourselves into 1.5 ton vehicles to travel, we will need energy dense fuel sources.


My motorcycle gets 57 mpg....

how come no one is pushing for "energy saving credits" for motorcycle riders?
 
Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
I'm a bit more concerned with peak population ...
If we had 1/2 the people, we'd have resources galore. The issue is not oil ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(film)

Mike Ruppert is right - -

the only way to feed the huge amount of people on this earth - is with oil-powered farm equipment (and all the petro-based herbicides and fertilizers) .

Take away modern farming......

and the population will go down rather quickly.
 
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: wemay

“There is no sign of peak demand right now,” said Chevron CEO John Watson, an economist by training, who is retiring in early 2018. “For the next 10 or 20 years, we expect to see oil demand growth...”


That's gotta make all the environmentalists really happy.......


Which will ultimately prove the current US Secretary of State was correct with his prediction of XTO … he said it will take a while and the whole time Wall Streetcar analysts cried they wanted a quick buck …
Logical LONG term energy visions work for all of us …not just stock flippers … just ask Shannow …
 
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: javacontour
As long as we pack ourselves into 1.5 ton vehicles to travel, we will need energy dense fuel sources.


Ultimately, this is true. Interestingly, the Tesla Model S illustrated that we could drive large, powerful cars on just batteries. It thereby provides hope of a motoring future devoid of annoying and ultimately incapable "Elio" type vehicles. The Tesla's are not cheap, but they do work quite well.


However (I know that you know this, but for the conversation), there are no battery wells, and we don't frack for batteries.

So "powered by batteries" means that something is powered by a reserve/resource of something transferred/transposed into something else, at a loss every time, and eventually charges the batteries.

Originally Posted By: Cujet
With the current generation of 2170 cells, a near-doubling of range is going to be possible. Unfortunately, it's not cheaper...

A friend has 2 Tesla's and 10Kw solar grid-tie. One way to view it is that his solar array provides all of the power needed for all his driving. Total cost: $240K.


Is your friend a vampire ?

Because home charging EVs with your own solar cells requires you to have the same vitamin D production as the average vampire.

The times that you want to use your car are the only times that you can self charge your car...unless you charge your own batteries, then charge your car's batteries from your own...that then becomes the epitome of first world selfishness while painting one'self green
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow


Is your friend a vampire ?

Because home charging EVs with your own solar cells requires you to have the same vitamin D production as the average vampire.



It's funny that you say that.... Because I've called him Vampire Bob for years. Well before his Tesla endeavor. Only because he looks just like a vampire character on TV.

His is a grid tie setup, so the solar simply offsets his driving consumption.
 
IMO we will be heavily reliant on oil based fuels until either they become prohibitively expensive from supply shortages, or the political process eliminates their useage by Fiat, or a breakthrough technology that is not even in its infancy at the moment emerges.

At the moment many are in what I call a "feel good" moment when they convert to electric cars and a some solar panels on the roof. But the elimination of oil based fuels will cause major disruptions (absent a break through technology) in other areas taking away from all of the good feelings once reality sets in:

-shipping overseas which uses the dirtiest fuel oil
-long distance trucking where oil will be needed for the foreseeable future
-heat in northern climates where solar will not provide sufficient fuel
-fertilizer for factory farming, which without the earth's population will starve
-farm equipment to harvest the food
-logging equipment to produce the wood needed for our houses
-steel production to build our office towers, trains, buses and automobiles
-jet airplane travel

and a host of others. IMO we will be heavily reliant on oil based fuels for at least a handful of decades.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top