[BrianC]

Peak Oil is Coming. That Won't Save the World (cnn.com) 73
Posted by msmash on Friday October 15, 2021 @11:05AM from the closer-look dept.
The shift to clean energy is sending the oil industry into decline. But the world needs a much more ambitious plan to save the climate and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. From a report:
That's according to the International Energy Agency, which said in its global energy outlook published Wednesday that more aggressive climate action is needed as world leaders prepare for the crucial COP26 summit in Glasgow in November. "The world's hugely encouraging clean energy momentum is running up against the stubborn incumbency of fossil fuels in our energy systems," Executive Director Fatih Birol said in a statement. "Governments need to resolve this at COP26 by giving a clear and unmistakeable signal that they are committed to rapidly scaling up the clean and resilient technologies of the future."

More than 50 countries and the European Union have pledged to meet net zero emissions targets. If they live up to those commitments, demand for fossil fuels will peak by 2025, but global CO2 emissions would only fall 40% by 2050, far short of net zero. In that scenario, the world would still be consuming 75 million barrels of oil per day by 2050 -- only 25 million barrels per day less than today. The energy sector has been bolstered in recent weeks by a sharp increase in prices.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/13/ener ... index.html

[AdamB]

Peak Oil is Coming. That Won't Save the World (cnn.com) 73

Peak oil happened years ago. Experts told us so. Folks should just stop worrying about it and move on.

[ROCKMAN]

"The shift to clean energy is sending the oil industry into decline." Take my word or not. As some here know I spent 41 years developing oil and natural gas fields. Clean energy (so far) has had little impact. Just find the numbers yourself for all of fossil fuel consumption. Which is now begun a post pandemic increase...including coal. My first mentor when I began (in the 1970's) had it timed out rather accurately: it would become very difficult to continue finding significant oil/NG fields as we progressed into the 21st century. Which is exactly what I personally experienced the last few decades. Which is why I have no mortgage or other debt and easily live off out social security (actually put around $1000 a month into savings) and not touch a penny of our principle. Yes: no mcmansion or new car every few years.

By luck as much as by smarts I retired same time as prices crashed a few years ago. And it had nothing to do with "clean energy". Just as it has nothing to do with current concerns of my cohorts still in the oil patch.

[evilgenius]

I'm going to hazard a guess that OP wants to talk about the lengthy transition to alternatives, and how it may take too long. I'll start by saying that I understand that we will only have so many percent adoption of EV's, for instance, by certain years. We can just say something arbitrary that is below 50%, and, probably, above 20%, by 2030.

There will still be a lot of ICE cars on the road then. People will only have been increasingly adopting EV's starting from some low number and growing. It won't have been through that many iterations by 2030. Even the proverbial chessboard where you start out with a single grain on the first space and double the number for each new square needs a few iterations before it really gets into the big numbers, and it does get into big numbers.

I wonder if other people think we need to do a sort of dance with average EV range for a while? I think it needs to go up, or we are going to have to reform too many things at once about society. It could get so messy that politically it becomes impossible. Already, there is a problem with the concept of globalization. People are straining against it in a way they haven't before. They can see themselves endangered personally, not some other member of the group. It was easier when the losers in the economic game were always the other people.

[Pops]

In round numbers there are 1.5 billion cars in the world and sales are ~100 million per year. My advanced math skills work that out to 15 years to convert.... if only electric cars are sold. As it is there are something over 2 million EVs in the world, my math doesn't know what percentage that is but it ain't much. Someone estimated a whole 18million by 2030 in the US.

And EVs don't matter anyway if generation isn't clean. The latest there is the democrat form Coal has rejected Biden's wind program, surprise. Unless the Ds can overcome the stark raving madness that is US politics the story will be global warming won't save us from peak oil.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I wonder if other people think we need to do a sort of dance with average EV range for a while? I think it needs to go up, or we are going to have to reform too many things at once about society.

Yes, for awhile. But at the rate EV batteries are improving, by the time the BEV numbers start to get to a meaningful percentage of the new car fleet (I like your 2030 date and your estimate of between 20% and 50% EV sales (I'll use plug-in vehicles for that definition, so including PHEV's, for example)) as a very reasonable estimate of market penetration at that point -- at least for the first world.

Already in the US, for example, with Tesla allowing other EV makes to use their charging stations, and articles claiming EV charging stations are available roughly every 150 miles or less on all major highways, it's pretty much a non-issue for new BEV's having a range over 200 miles, minimum to get people to buy them. And for people who plan to road trip a lot, it's getting easier to find 300 and up mile rated BEV's each year already.

Meanwhile, more charging stations keep being built. As long as the amount being built keeps up with how many BEV's get built as a proportion, it should only get better, re solving real-world range anxiety. (You might have to wait in line now and then, especially at peak travel times like holidays).

And as always, there are trade-offs, like maximizing battery life leads to recommendations like keeping the battery charged between 20% and 80%, and not charging too fast, at least for normal daily use. 10% and 90% is probably OK for the occasional road trip, but going outside those charge levels is generally not recommended from what I've read.

[evilgenius]

We could go solid state, for batteries. If we do that, then cars can be quick charged every time. Currently, if they are quick charged, they form these "dendrites" that can reach to make contact between the anode and cathode over time. Then you get a fire. Doing it once isn't going to make that happen, I don't think. At least that was implied in something I read somewhere.

But people are always running into "emergencies" and taking the easy way out. People forget how often they do it.

People are always trying to mod everything.

I can see some fires, even if the manufacturers try to prevent them.

The point is that, without adopting solid state, we will have to slow charge all of the time. That's ok if the total round trip is just on the edge of the car's range envelop for the weekend. You would only need a little more power to ensure you could get home, where your every day charger is.

If we are talking about longer trips, then stopping to charge will have to be more like stopping and spending some time at an attraction. At least, there is the opportunity for a whole new type of range of businesses to open up where people who need to charge can spend some time. It could have the same effect as the motel business did so many years ago, only it would have to be more multifaceted. Maybe, at the point of least contact it would be like going to the movies. And, at the point of most contact it would mean staying overnight.

The problem with that, as we are seeing with the oil industry in relation to alternatives, is that it takes investment to do this. That sort of investment is currently being put into charging points. They just want to consider whether they will fail with this because they don't have enough points. There isn't really any strategy for land use or anything coming along with this, like they eventually did for the railroads.

Even that is problematic. If they consider land use rules, and solid state comes in, then the legal structure could be in place to ensure the survival of a dinosaur.

[AdamB]

Unless the Ds can overcome the stark raving madness that is US politics the story will be global warming won't save us from peak oil.

Maybe all the usual things will save us from peak oil? Like they did all the other ones.

[jawagord]

Peak Oil is Coming. That Won't Save the World (cnn.com) 73
Posted by msmash on Friday October 15, 2021 @11:05AM from the closer-look dept.
The shift to clean energy is sending the oil industry into decline. But the world needs a much more ambitious plan to save the climate and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. From a report:
That's according to the International Energy Agency, which said in its global energy outlook published Wednesday that more aggressive climate action is needed as world leaders prepare for the crucial COP26 summit in Glasgow in November. "The world's hugely encouraging clean energy momentum is running up against the stubborn incumbency of fossil fuels in our energy systems," Executive Director Fatih Birol said in a statement. "Governments need to resolve this at COP26 by giving a clear and unmistakeable signal that they are committed to rapidly scaling up the clean and resilient technologies of the future."

More than 50 countries and the European Union have pledged to meet net zero emissions targets. If they live up to those commitments, demand for fossil fuels will peak by 2025, but global CO2 emissions would only fall 40% by 2050, far short of net zero. In that scenario, the world would still be consuming 75 million barrels of oil per day by 2050 -- only 25 million barrels per day less than today. The energy sector has been bolstered in recent weeks by a sharp increase in prices.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/13/ener ... index.html

Other than Fatih, how many people believe these countries will live up to their commitments when the going green gets expensive? Europe and China are being punished with sky high prices for nat gas and coal to generate electricity. Solar and Wind power are intermittent and unreliable. How do countries power fleets of EV’s while shuttering coal and nuclear power plants?

The US is probably 5 years away from a UK moment of spiking prices in gas and 1970’s type power outages given the retirement slope of coal and nuclear and the ESG movement curtailing new investment in oil, gas and nuclear energy. The pendulum will swing back, with Line 3 completed and the US exporting record amounts of LNG, prospects for Western Canadian oil and gas are already the best they’ve looked since the halcyon days of 2014, I expect oil’s days are far from over, even in the lower 48.

Natural gas prices in Europe and Asia have skyrocketed, while the cost of coal in China is at a record. That's helped push oil prices to their highest level since 2014, as some energy suppliers turn to oil for power generation.


Slated retirements to cut US coal fleet to less than half 2015 capacity by 2035

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintellig ... 5-65741012

[Revi]

Peak oil is here. Has been for a while. There's no combination of finance, debt, green energy, hubris or stimulus that can save us now from what's happening. That doesn't mean they won't try to find someone to blame it on. Greenies, governments, poor people etc. When things get bad they always take out the blamethrower. It's a rule of management. When things go wrong, find someone or some group to blame.

[AdamB]

Peak oil is here. Has been for a while.

As long as we don't define peak oil as, you know, an actual PEAK and all. But peak oils have been happening since you built that nice little EV you had to putter around town in. And darned if we can't see the scarcity of crude oil showing up for those monster trucks people seem to have decided they need since some of those often claimed but rarely seen peak oils have come and gone.

There's no combination of finance, debt, green energy, hubris or stimulus that can save us now from what's happening.

Well, it worked pretty well during all those other peak oils, hard to say when this combination finally doesn't keep creating more oil, and growing economies and whatnot.

That doesn't mean they won't try to find someone to blame it on. Greenies, governments, poor people etc. When things get bad they always take out the blamethrower. It's a rule of management. When things go wrong, find someone or some group to blame.

Who is "they"? Citizens, consumers, the normal folks who are still able to buy and fuel those monster trucks?

[mousepad]

But peak oils have been happening

We're not interested in peaks. Only in THE peak.
The absolute maxima in the interval between year 1900 to 2500, for example.

Do you understand the difference between an absolute and local maxima? It's key to understanding the concept of peak oil discussed here.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/func ... 92Infinity

[Outcast_Searcher]

The problem with that, as we are seeing with the oil industry in relation to alternatives, is that it takes investment to do this. That sort of investment is currently being put into charging points. They just want to consider whether they will fail with this because they don't have enough points. There isn't really any strategy for land use or anything coming along with this, like they eventually did for the railroads.

Even that is problematic. If they consider land use rules, and solid state comes in, then the legal structure could be in place to ensure the survival of a dinosaur.

Good thoughtful post re the charging issues, dendrite growth, fire risk, etc. from what I've read. And also re too many people not being careful about slow charging (and then being very unhappy when their battery fails, of course).

Hopefully solid state batteries will become a doable thing and it solves most of the issues and makes cheaper, longer range EV's the norm. Of course, we won't know until the technology develops, which could take a decade or decades before we know whether it is likely to happen. (Longevity re charge cycles is a current concern for solid state batteries, for example. It's clearly not going to be quick and easy to get there.)

I don't understand the "land use" concern. Eventually as ICE's go away, the land used for gas stations can be used for EV charging instead. Much of EV charging can happen at home or in parking spaces, where the land is already in use for cars. It seems to me that in the long term, the next land use for EV charging would be roughly what it is for gassing up cars. (In the intermediate term, more land will likely be used until lots of gas stations start getting shut down after, say, 2030, but that's far from being a "forever" thing).

Or are you talking about land use for the mining of the metals needed for batteries? If so, it's not like oil drilling/pumpng is clean, and can't much of the land be reclaimed after the mining operation is done, even if it can't be made pristine? (Much like for, say, coal mining).

[AdamB]

But peak oils have been happening

We're not interested in peaks. Only in THE peak.

Indeed. Don't you think at some point in time those declaring THE peak, and screwing the pooch, might realize that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result are just flat out ignorant, not being able to learn from past mistakes and all?

Because it seems to me that only those of a faith based inclination fall for this stunt every time it happens. Number 6 of this century in 2018 is batter up. How many more batters are warming up and waiting on the bench would appear to be the right question to ask, rather than everyone in the church pews jumping to their feet every Sunday when the Rapture has been claimed for that evening.

The absolute maxima in the interval between year 1900 to 2500, for example.

Perfectly logical, and correct. Any reason why peak oilers are such half wits that they don't mention this as a backup plan in the same sentence when they declared the early 5 claimed peak oils of this century? You think they are mentally challenged in some way?

Do you understand the difference between an absolute and local maxima? It's key to understanding the concept of peak oil discussed here.

I understand it exactly as Hubbert wrote it in his 1956 seminal work, and it hasn't changed since then. Any reason why happy McPeaksters didn't get it starting in 1957 and mention it while declaring all the peak oils of the modern era (circa 1990 to present)?

If you want to provide math links for logic questions, you are barking up the wrong tree. I'm not one of those confused by endless peak claims, having pondered this question shortly after being introduced to the subject. Because, you know, I started with Hubbert's 1956 work and agreed with the math, even if his representation of bell shaped curves since discredited is what all the faith based fall for. To this very day I might add.

[mousepad]

I'm not one of those confused by endless peak claims, having pondered this question shortly after being introduced to the subject.

Yeah, you might not be confused but you mix'n'match as you please to confuse others. There's exactly 2 relevant questions regarding peak oil:

1. when is ABSOLUTE peak? As you mentioned, people seem to get it wrong. But that doesn't mean it wont happen.
2. what happens when ABSOLUTE peak is reached?

[AdamB]

I'm not one of those confused by endless peak claims, having pondered this question shortly after being introduced to the subject.

Yeah, you might not be confused but you mix'n'match as you please to confuse others.

Their lack of knowledge of the history of the topic isn't my fault. If they had chosen to be better informed on their rapture trigger they would know that it has been used before. Plenty.

There's exactly 2 relevant questions regarding peak oil:

1. when is ABSOLUTE peak? As you mentioned, people seem to get it wrong. But that doesn't mean it wont happen.

You have it correct, and therefore you don't need to hedge. It will happen. Be brave. Hubbert's math was right, and so are you by modifying the idea with a single additional word. Your addition, if Hubbert had used it, might have saved a bunch of time and trouble. Maybe.

Perhaps it would have only caused someone like Colin Campbell to declare global peak oil once in 1990 by saying, "this is the ABSOLUTE peak" in trying to lend credence to that bad estimate? You can imagine that when he did it again in 2002 he would have been forced to claim, "and this time, I really MEAN it is the absolute one!". I would like to believe he would have thought long and hard before pulling that stunt.

2. what happens when ABSOLUTE peak is reached?

You left out a more important intermediate stuff. Before you can answer your "what" you have to decide on the "why". There are two mechanisms by which peak oil can happen, supply or demand, and a world of possibilities launching from either of those points of origin.

Are you familiar with Ternary plots? They are really cool when discussing this concept, because any position within a Ternary plot is defined by 3 values. Move from any origin, and it involves the movement of at least 2 of the 3 values involved.

If the 3-axis are supply, demand and price, it allows the user to understand the interdependencies among the actors. Just a helpful relationship schematic when it comes to visualizing the domain within which this topic resides.

[mousepad]

2. what happens when ABSOLUTE peak is reached?

You left out a more important intermediate stuff. Before you can answer your "what" you have to decide on the "why".

I'm not interested in the "why". You make it too complicated. I'm interested in "what".

Gathering from many of your posts you are quick to ridicule others who stuck their neck out to predict, when we should really be looking to you for answers, after all you are a triple expert:

1. decades of experience in the oil patch
2. read tons of papers regarding said
3. as per your own account you can "think"

I'm none of the above, so certainly as far removed as can be of being qualified to analyze and predict.
Do you care trying to answer my 2 questions based on your expertise?
And I'm not asking sarcastically. I mean it genuinely. And please don't give me weasel answers with ternary plots. For weaseling I don't need an expert, I can do that myself.

1. when is ABSOLUTE peak?
2. what happens when ABSOLUTE peak is reached?

[AdamB]

You make it too complicated.

I don't make it too complicated, it was already that way all by itself.

Do you care trying to answer my 2 questions based on your expertise?

Feel free to accept any answer I give you as a weasel, and leave it at that.

[Outcast_Searcher]

You make it too complicated.

I don't make it too complicated, it was already that way all by itself.

Do you care trying to answer my 2 questions based on your expertise?

Feel free to accept any answer I give you as a weasel, and leave it at that.

You're not going to satisfy his ilk, regardless. Far more credible, I think, to admit that you don't know the precise feature. And to have answered his broad issues with some subtlety, which of course, he pretty much ignored as not good enough.

OTOH, I have NO IDEA what that might mean re price, especially in the intermediate term. For example, even if WTI gets to, say, $120 (for example) and hangs around there for months, I just read an editorial today claiming it will take a fair amount of time for the oil frackers to gear a lot of production back up in the places they ceased drilling, even if they're eager to go after "large oil profits" fairly quickly.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... t-Now.html

In an excellent op/ed, vice chairman of IHS Markit Dan Yergin observes that it's almost inevitable that shale output will go in reverse and decline thanks to drastic cutbacks in investment and only later recover at a slow pace. Shale oil wells decline at an exceptionally fast clip and therefore require constant drilling to replenish lost supply.

Plus, given how quickly OPEC can flood the market and dramatically lower prices again if they really want to smack the frackers again, who can say what price will induce many to jump back in with both feet re full-on production? I know I sure as hell can't even give a decent estimate on that price.

[AdamB]

OTOH, I have NO IDEA what that might mean re price, especially in the intermediate term. For example, even if WTI gets to, say, $120 (for example) and hangs around there for months, I just read an editorial today claiming it will take a fair amount of time for the oil frackers to gear a lot of production back up in the places they ceased drilling, even if they're eager to go after "large oil profits" fairly quickly.

Any peak oil model needs to incorporate a price (or many prices) and demand expectation in order to calculate future volumes, which are lagged for exactly the reasons you mention. You just don't turn on 1 mmbbl/d tomorrow afternoon because the price went up. And then there is the competition. If you offer the world a sudden price increase, who can meet it, with what, and how fast? Benchmark crudes are worth different amounts, logistic costs have to be factored in, so for maybe the 5 projects that can be turned on to meet some, or all, of a 1 mmbbl/d requirement, which ones WILL be financed/built/activated in time to take advantage of said price. And, obviously, the risk of that price changing before the project is online has to be accounted for. Call it a project economics problem, on steroids. Yet all perfectly normal in oil field development calculations.

Oh, and what happens to price after 2 of the 5 projects come online? And demand changed at the same time, lower, because of the previous high price? Like I said, I don't need to complicate it, it does it all by itself.

Plus, given how quickly OPEC can flood the market and dramatically lower prices again if they really want to smack the frackers again, who can say what price will induce many to jump back in with both feet re full-on production? I know I sure as hell can't even give a decent estimate on that price.

Of course you can. Most anyone can. "I think it will drift higher/lower/stay about the same, because....< fill in the blank>". Is it a guess? Of course it is, there are no facts in the future. But the kicker isn't that, it is putting it within the form of a range, a range predicated on the kind of maybe/maybe not development I mentioned above. Have you ever seen anyone in the peak oil world discuss elasticities? Hamilton might have. Once. Somewhere. And yet that is exactly the kind of information you need to understand and pay attention to when dealing with the entire price/supply/demand relationship. Peak oilers don't even know the game they are playing in, to them it is just supply-supply-supply. Usually, they aren't even two dimensional (demand? what demand?).