New Zealand may have just killed its oil industry
New Zealand has stunned the energy industry by slapping a new cap on drilling for oil and gas in its waters as part of efforts to combat climate change.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced Thursday that the government will "no longer be granting any new offshore oil and gas exploration permits."
"This is another step on our transition away from fossil fuels and towards a carbon neutral economy," Ardern said in a speech.
The country's oil industry quickly voiced its anger over the move. ....
http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/12/news/co ... index.html
energy investor wrote:Although my energy investments are 90% renewables, it is clearly not time to choke off oil, gas and coal, until we have replacements. Sure, the sooner we can make the transition, the better. But we ain't there yet.
Look at the mess the Germans are in after their huge investments in renewables.
The approach to a transition needs to be supported by scalable technologies that are not yet available. Lithium-ion isn't yet scalable. Wind and solar are OK but grids cannot cope with a greater proportion until there is better energy storage.
Smart move by the Kiwi’s:
Revi wrote:I think it may be a good idea to hold on to the easily accessible fuels for when the car culture goes away. Then what's left can be used for sensible things like forestry and agriculture. Unfortunately the last trillion barrels will be used in a fiesta of foolishness. Flying around the world to the latest Disney resort, etc.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:energy investor wrote:Although my energy investments are 90% renewables, it is clearly not time to choke off oil, gas and coal, until we have replacements. Sure, the sooner we can make the transition, the better. But we ain't there yet.
Look at the mess the Germans are in after their huge investments in renewables.
The approach to a transition needs to be supported by scalable technologies that are not yet available. Lithium-ion isn't yet scalable. Wind and solar are OK but grids cannot cope with a greater proportion until there is better energy storage.
Yup. What both sides of the debate often miss is how huge the transition effort is, physically and economically. And thus, that it will likely take several decades.
Or that the way the global demand for energy grows as the global GDP grows, we really need to be open to utilizing all our sources of energy (opting for the cleanest and most economical reasonably available, when possible).
Sadly, both patience and good planning are things the vast majority of humans (and human groups) aren't too good at. I'll cite the state of the planet and humanity re continued BAU growth as my source for that.
onlooker wrote:Well the Hirsh report is even more relevant now than when it first came out in 2005 because:
"Mitigation efforts will require substantial time.
Waiting until production peaks would leave the world with a liquid fuel deficit for 20 years.
Initiating a crash program 10 years before peaking leaves a liquid fuels shortfall of a decade.
Initiating a crash program 20 years before peaking could avoid a world liquid fuels shortfall."
Shale and LTO have been able to postpone the more pronounced effects of PO, by boosting supply. But, in accord with both the economics ,the capacity to maintain flow rates and the EROEI, this boost will be short lived and the crisis the Hirsh report spoke of will be upon us
Well, how did animals evolve consciousness?
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests