The end of the Arab world’s oil age is nigh
economist.com
economist.com
Sheikh Zaki Yamani, a Saudi Arabian who served as his country's oil minister five decades ago, quoted by the Economist in 2003 ("The End of the Oil Age").
[0] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2003/10/23/the-end-of-the-...
> Hydrogen fuel cells and other ways of storing and distributing energy are no longer a distant dream but a foreseeable reality.
And that was said at least 20 years earlier still.
I really hope we'll reach the end of the Oil Age, but as one gets older it becomes hard not to be sceptical of these claims. Seeing is believing.. more evidence.
In this thread so far only one comment mentioned geo-politics surrounding oil - a building block of global power - that needs to be dealt with. Hampering the transition to clean energy.
Tesla keeps outperforming other car makers, even in a difficult environment: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/tech/tesla-sales/index.html.
VW's electrics are about to hit: https://electrek.co/2020/07/13/volkswagen-vw-id-3-electric-c....
Electric semis are moving towards production, by Tesla, Daimler, and others.
Even electric bikes and scooters are still seeing massive sales growth. If you've not tried you, you should.
The change is happening. Long-haul plane flights will remain on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future but the rest of the world is changing, fast.
Also those energy packs, once no longer usable in a car, can still be used for years for domestic solar energy storage.
The world will be majority electric in probably 30 years... If we're lucky.
Not related to oil directly, but three California utilities did the math and showed peaker plants are no longer cost competitive against solar backed by batteries [1] [2]. The transition to electrify everything is in full swing.
Disclosure: TSLA investor/owner.
[1] https://www.bloombergquint.com/technology/new-california-stu...
[2] https://library.sce.com/content/dam/sce-doclib/public/regula...
If I had two cars, electric is completely doable, but for one car, it needs to work everywhere, which isn't possible yet.
Our household is exclusively Teslas (Model S, X, Y) and we drive ~30k miles a year collectively across the country. It can be done without sacrifice.
[1] https://electrek.co/2019/09/06/tesla-donate-electric-car-cha...
Edit - take your extreme big bend example. I was able to map it. Try it out at https://abetterrouteplanner.com/. Had me stop at Fort Stockton, TX. You would need to top off in the park, perhaps at an RV site.
That said - how many trips to big bend per year do you do? For most people, you can rent an ICE car once a year for ~$150, and still satisfy 99% of your driving with other options
I appreciate your courage. 30 years is a short time when many cars have a far higher lifespan plus for you to win this bet it would mean that US car sales are 100% electric in probably something like 10 years.
#1 Price of EVs is going down fast and will continue to decline as the price and weight of batteries drops.
#2 As vehicles on the road shifts to EVs, gas stations will become less and less profitable and the number of gas stations will decline, slowly at first, then very quickly in areas where land values are high and there are more profitable uses for land.
#3 As the number of gas stations decline, the single biggest advantage of ICE vehicles melts away and the fact that EVs are charged at home will become increasingly appealing. Gas stations will be around for a long time, but they will be increasingly scarce.
Obviously, we're nowhere close to the above happening now, but if 50% of cars sold are EV, the economics around ICE vehicles will change massively. There are a lot of other bits here too, ICE vehicles require lots of maintenance and dealerships will start to struggle as well with lower sales.
This is going to happen slowly at first, then it is going to happen very quickly once the economics and benefits of owning gas powered cars starts to break down.
From what I can tell the idea of battery swapping stations seems to be dead in the water. And I seem to remember that 15 miles minute of charging is where we are (numbers might be old), meaning many more visits to third party charging stations and each visit taking longer than a liquid fuel pump.
I'd love an electric car, but without a private driveway for personal infrastructure, it just doesn't make sense until the third party infrastructure is ubiquitous or there are huge gains in charge speed, or both. I see the odd one in random places: private underground car parks, KFC, odd hotel car park, but these can only cater to the enthusiast who can also charge at home. Hopefully I'll be wrong sooner rather than later.
Gas stations also aren't going anywhere. The average age of a car in the US is 12 years old. That means that, even if today we switched to only selling 100% electric cars off the lots, we're looking at 12 years (!) before 50% (!) of the cars on the road are electric. Finally, the current trend of free-or-almost-free charging stations is going to go away very quickly once electric cars become more mainstream -- I wouldn't be surprised if a "charge" ended up costing about as much as a tank of gas. This kills one of the main arguments for going electric in the first place.
Whether the world is "majority" electric or not won't help the economies of these countries. One way or the other, demand for oil is on decline that is destroying the price of oil. All these countries that depend on fat oil profit margins are going to suffer as their margins decline to zero. In a few places, players are already dropping as margins for oil production have gone negative. (The cost to pump is greater than the price of crude) There are big surpluses now, even while electric cars are still a small percentage of vehicles sold as the mix shifts to electric, demand and prices of oil drop.
With that in mind, Tesla's semi-truck pre-orders (for Wal-mart et al), Amazon's Rivian pre-orders and USPS' announced mandate to partially electrify its fleet are far more impactful for energy markets.
I do agree that oil is on its way out though.
Tesla, with so little marketshare and so many fewer dollars in revenue, seems to have made incredible progress.
Toyota wants their cars to be able to last a million miles in extreme environments (-40 degrees Alaska, +120 degrees F deserts). You can't do that with today's off-the-shelf battery technology.
The difference? No hype, deliverers promises, no crashes on autopilot - at least widely known [2] vs [3]. Old fashion in this age of attention grabbers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=nissan+leaf+crash+&oq=nissan...
[3] https://www.google.com/search?q=tesla+crash&oq=tesla+crash
Another factor is the general innovators dilemma where they have tremendous sunk costs in their old fuel burning ecosystem.
To be fair generally moving from a mature and high scaled to an untested and new approach is expensive and downright reckless looking levels of risk, only vindicated after a success when the unforseen or unbelieved shoe drops.
There is absolutely no evidence for this, and much to the contrary. Global CO2 production, which is a good proxy for overall fossil fuel use as steadily risen [0]. This comparison is limited only in that it fails to show that switching from coal to LNG does decrease emissions while doing nothing to change reliance on fossil fuels.
The dip in emissions and oil production that happen with the pandemic demonstrate very clearly that emissions and fossil fuel consumption are directly tied to our economic activity. Since our goal is to resume to "normal" as soon as possible global fossil fuel consumption will get back to "normal" as soon as our economies do (now what plays out there is an interesting question).
Bizarre that the Economist can make an assertion like that and people swallow it without question.
[0]. https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019
> Emissions trends for 2019 suggest clean energy transitions are underway, led by the power sector.
Globally population and economic growth has hidden the trends, but kg per PPP $ of GDP shows very steady improvements. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD
This goes beyond simple efficiency gains, fossil fuels are inherently limited in what they can provide and we are moving past them.
US energy is cleaner now, and the percentage of total energy from fossil fuels has been steadily decreasing since 1970 [2], but total consumption of fossil fuels is still high.
Edit: this isn't per-capita; the per-capita numbers would definitely be lower.
[1]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10
[2]: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/foss...
We're just re-arranging chairs on the Titanic.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265203/global-oil-produc...
The big story looks like the huge transition from coal to natural gas. 2005 remains the peak for petroleum, but it's been increasing recently.
Per unit of GDP also should not reassure anyone since GDP is constantly growing even faster than CO2-pruduction-per-unit-of-GDP is dropping (according to the data you linked). Additionally, regional improvements in these metrics (prominently showcased for the US and EU) are driven by the fact that manufacturing has been relocated from the first world to developing countries - not because manufacturing is becoming significantly cleaner. In fact, the higher sulfuric acid levels in the Pacific are a direct consequence unfiltered coal burning in China - so we've actually made things worse by moving manufacturing to countries with poor environmental standards.
Net total CO2 emissions are all that matter. Moreover, even ZERO growth of CO2 is insufficient to stop increasing temperatures since CO2 accumulates.
The alternative to aggressive absolute level CO2 caps (something many countries openly refuse to agree to) some are quietly pursuing planning for failure. Planning for human migrations, sea level changes, and local precipitation changes, are things those with means are doing. ...and the more people with wealth and/or power begin to plan for failure, the fewer will work on preventing catastrophe. What emerges is an unfortunate game-theory dilemma without a solution where parties actually produce more CO2 in order to prepare for higher CO2-driven global temperatures, and the regional challenges they bring.
Per person data is therefore important from a technology standpoint not an environmental standpoint. Existing infrastructure slows the transition for developed economies, but developing economies are far more agile because their infrastructure ends up using newer technology as they build it. Many countries effectively skipped landlines because cellphone infrastructure is cheaper to build out. Bangladesh is simply never going to see the same investment in IC cars that the US did. It’s not even aiming for the US’s 2020 numbers it’s aiming for the best tech available when they hit the wall.
You don't hear much from permaculturists because they don't need to act at a state or national level to affect changes in the local area. They are the ones quietly practicing permaculture principles in the backyard, in apartments, and some figured out how to include the homeless.
I see these extreme weathers and environmental threats to human civilizations as part of self-healing mechanism of the planet. If human civilization collapses, then the source of the protuberance disappears, and the planet can get back to restoring the ecology. The planet doesn't need us humans to save it. That's a sort of arrogance that blinds us to the truth: we need to save our place in the ecology, and that is going to require giving up some of the conveniences we take for granted. It means becoming a part of the ecology rather than somehow pretending that we are apart from the ecology. It means caring for the earth, caring for the people, and taking no more than our fair share. It means decentralizing our food system, and finding ways to decentralize the remaining basic survival needs (water, shelter, warmth, clothing).
It means reframing what "wealth" means to us. Rather than "wealth" being the result of extracting resources and controlling access to it, it would better serve us to see "wealth" as being stewards of regenerative processes.
Writing on here helps me clarify my thoughts, and I get a lot of good feedback from it. But again: I came to the conclusion, I don't need to save the whole world. I just need to focus on what is within my circle of influence... and there is quite a bit I can do even if it does not cover the whole population. I do what I can with CO2 sequestering, food resiliency, regenerative and restorative agriculture. I'm taking steps towards a future where many people do this ... but I will also have a much greater chance of surviving if there is a collapse of civilization because people are not doing these things.
The question for you though, is if you are willing to change your way of life. I'm ok if you decide that you are, or if you decide you are not. If you do decide you are, there are a lot of resources out there to help you get started. And if you are not, then at least you now know what your options are. You're welcomed to try later if you ever change your mind. Or not. That's the beauty of this kind of permissionless, decentralized solutions. There are things you yourself can do, and you don't need to wait for half of the US population to do it with you. It really is in your hands and your choice, your freedom to pursue this or reject it. Or come up with something better.
The birthrates are still, globally, well well above replacement rate, and will continue to be so well beyond the climate crisis causing devestation.
I think you need to look at the data on that one.
No one wants kids anymore, and the data is showing world wide. Japan is panicking quite a bit over it and the US should be but our immigrants have always helped keep the numbers up.
I think we will at some point move away from toxic metals and more into a plant based tech at some point.
Some commercial uses in the works: https://www.plant-e.com/en/
edit: a good source is tony seba
In the developed world, CO₂ emissions peaked in 2007 and have been declining since. It's only in the developing world that they're rising, and that's dominated by China and India.
Coal mines have been shuttering - there's a feedback loop here, low demand will reduce the supply, low supply increases the cost, high cost reduces the demand.
"Coal-to-Gas Switching: It’s All in the Price"
https://www.powermag.com/coal-to-gas-switching-its-all-in-th...
A coal-to-gas parity calculation—using current average Illinois Basin spot coal prices, current SO2 and NOx emissions costs, a $9.00/ton coal transportation cost, a $1.50/MWh average variable non-fuel O&M cost, and adjusted for the higher efficiency of a 7,500-Btu/kWh CCGT plant versus a 10,500-Btu/kWh coal plant—yields a gas floor of $4.15/MMBtu. While this gas parity calculation is broad, it indicates a move toward some potential for coal-to-gas switching for plants consuming Illinois Basin coal if actual forward delivered gas costs are in the range of those previously calculated.
A parity calculation for Powder River Basin coal using the same heat rate assumptions and emissions costs, current coal market prices, and a transportation rate of $16/ton yields a gas floor price of $2.42/MMBtu. While individual plant costs may vary, this indicates limited displacement of PRB coal in the Midwest when compared against the calculated forward gas price curve.
Depending on the coal source, it makes short term sense to displace as much coal as possible with gas at a gas price point below either $4.15/MMBtu or $2.42/MMBtu.
For comparison, current Henry Hub gas spot prices are below $1.70/MMBtu: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdM.htm
Gas is currently taking market share against coal up to the limits of generator capacity in any competitive market in the continental US. Part of the coal fleet still operates because there is not enough gas generator capacity yet built to replace all coal generators. Another part of the coal fleet still operates because the plants are operating as part of regulated utilities that do not have to compete with/respond to short term market incentives.
If gas prices shot up to $5/MMBtu, there would be a dramatic short term shift back toward coal. The fuel mix "floats" in the short term.
In the long term, the factors promoting gas plants in the US are more of a ratchet than a float. The median coal plant is much older than the median gas plant. Many of them are reaching end-of-life. Building a new 500 megawatt coal plant is significantly more expensive and slower than building a new 500 megawatt CCGT gas plant. Once built, coal plants require more maintenance and more employees to run than a gas plant. This makes it particularly expensive to run a coal plant if it's only needed during peak demand seasons.
As far as I can tell, Spiritwood Industrial Park was the last coal plant successfully completed in the continental US, in 2014:
https://www.gem.wiki/Spiritwood_Industrial_Park
It started construction in 2007. As of this year, it is already slated for conversion to natural gas.
I don't expect another coal plant to be built in the continental US, even if gas prices rebound.
Poverty levels in China went from 98% to less than 25% in 26 years from 1990[1].
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/poverty-rate
Until they don't, and only the poor who cannot afford better energy sources use fossil fuels.
We're told something similar happened with personal calorie intake ...
“How did you go bankrupt?"
"Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”
Personally, I'm expecting to reduce fuel spending by about 80 or 90% ...
Emissions reductions are much slower than the rate at which products are consumed.
If every 10 years your planes get 2% more efficient but at the same time the air traffic jumps by 15% you're still fucked. Which is basically what's happening in every industries
Two things are hitting oil states right now. One is that developing countries, which pay the best rates for oil, are consuming less of it. The remaining increases in demand are from developing countries, but they are following the same arc as developed countries, and on a relatively accelerated time frame. Their consumption will also decline. One thing TE doesn't address is that another factor is the diversification and increase in global oil supplies from new suppliers, including frackers. That's probably having a bigger impact on the traditional petrostates right now. Hoverver the article is mainly looking at where the puck is going, not where it is now.
It is unfortunate from a short-term local human perspective but Saudi Arabia devolving into anarchy would be excellent from a climate change point of view - a huge amount of CO2 would be locked into the ground and the price spike would dramatically speed up electrification of transport.
Step back and just imagine: they are burning oil for electricity in one of the best solar markets possible. Burning oil for electricity is like using whale oil for lamps, it's harming your own society and planet due to myopic decision making.
I mean, literally, people never open up their windows, because of the extreme amounts of sand in the air.
Cheap human labour from impoverished parts of Asia and Africa is one very possible option. The supply chains are already there.
I personally know a few people from villages in South India, who had been trained in that kinda job - dressing up in heat-controlled suits, driving sand-buggies and operating large-scale-wipers and cleaners - to keep panels clean. A similar one is in India too. And some of those firms put in place a locally adapted solution - which involves a lot of wastage of resources of other kinds (water, manpower).
More info: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/the-pros-and-con...
> The university houses an incubator for technology start-ups, including a firm founded on the premise that there’s good money to be made in keeping solar panels clean in the desert.
That's a pretty fancy way to say motorized brushes on a timer.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0553-2?draft=coll...
However, there are a few complexities. Cleaning the panels continuously also causes the panels to degrade quicker. Robots for each string of panels is also a significant capital investment. Imagine an installation with hundreds of string of panels and robots for each one. In most cases panels are cleaned by human teams and not on a continual basis.
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about solar panel farms or desert sand.
Also, I'm surprised at the blasé way folks dismiss the total obliteration of the delicate desert ecosystem. Its like strip mining on a massive scale, to install square miles of solar panels. But everybody is on board for some reason.
Not every desert is the Atacama. Deserts in places like Arizona and Utah have tons of life.
You can put the up on raisers or roofs of buildings.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/saudis-...
- https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/venezuela-crisis
vs:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20100123225932/http://www.ft.com...
("The Iraqi who saved Norway from oil")
Saudi Arabia is making an effort of weaning its economy off oil per the submitted article and:
- https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/saudi-arabias-shaky-experim...
But it's still hugely dependent on oil, again per the submitted article and many others such as:
- https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/05/27/a...
Edit: there's four countries with sovereign wealth funds over 1T: China, UAE, Canada, Norway. Saudi Arabia is fifth, with 890B. According to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sovereign...
And what would they do with that? They can't package solar-harvested energy and export it to China. They can provide regional power during daytime - but probably for more money than oil/gas ... and they will still need to rely on oil/gas for base-load, mornings, evenings and night-time.
If it was easy, there would be no debate, and probably no opportunity.
Yes, they can. Bulk industrial chemicals are portable and extremely energy intensive [1].
[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/industry.p...
Essentially that's what aluminum refining from bauxite does.
It's also not impossible to build long distance transmission lines that far, but that's a big infrastructure project across an unstable region and the highest mountain range on earth.
It's not storing the energy, it's making energy storage and transport a redundant step.
Canada for example, was and still is, a major destination for bauxite ore. There are large hydroelectric dams in Quebec dedicated specifically to aluminum smelting.
Usually electricity cost doesn't dominate the equation, so it makes sense to run 24/7 (or as close to that as you can get).
Aluminium refining is different, but usually those plants buy dedicated electric capacity from a hydro station at special wholesale rates. It does not lend itself to starting and stopping.
Maybe that is a weird question but mostly I see regional sort of solar generation that seems to offset other local power usage, and not so much mass generation for large scale export.
Then maybe you would start inventing technologies that will push your country ahead. They could have created businesses based on solar tech and export it to the world.
Thats what China did, and it worked out miracles for them. Acquiring knowledge instead of buying ready solutions.
[0] https://www.cedgreentech.com/article/how-does-heat-affect-so...
source: tony seba
Now, hoarding money and sponsoring solar efficiency research? Absolutely. But actually dropping the massive cap-ex on the solar farms was probably not a good move for SA itself (even if it was good for the world as a whole).
[1]https://cleantechnica.com/files/2019/11/Installed-Solar-Pric...
Umm, we _are_ talking about a foreign-power-supported, semi-feudal monarchy which keeps most of the population in abject poverty while living like, well, kings and princes themselves. Benefiting society is not really priority #1 for the kingdom.
But what's their advantage in solar? Lots of countries have plenty of sunlight, and some are closer to big markets. The pipeline infrastructure is useless. They don't have a manufacturing base, and most of their labor for it is foreign anyway, so could be more cheaply hired by putting the factory near the people. They don't have any home-grown high-tech.
I don't mean this in an inflammatory way.
All I can see from this is more instability in the Middle-East which means more bad news in the years to come...
Perhaps Turkey will take up a bigger role in the future for policing the Middle East as they have a more diversified economy?
Maybe that’s why Israel is ramping up their annexations and colonization of the West Bank. If the west loses interest in the Middle East they may lose interest in maintaining Israeli geo-political supremacy.
This is probably because they don't expect Trump to be reelected. Now is their chance.
For a counterpoint I am going to argue the opposite. The west and the other major powers are possibly one of the reasons the middle east is relatively stable today (all things considered) and without them the Middle East would actually be in a much worse place. If we were to assume that if the west and others never propped up the current set of dictators and we would have instead ended up with some type of democracies or at the very least relatively stable regimes than you would probably be right. But who is to say we wouldn't have ended up with an endless cycle of civil wars or regimes that are much worse than the ones we have right now?
The middle east is a very religious and tribal place in which the borders were badly demarcated (thank you France, Great Britain, Italy and Russia). The poorly planned division of the middle east + the sunni/shia divide have been the main driver of the current conflicts and instability in the Middle east. Oil has been the curse that has brought in the world powers and has provided funding for most of these conflicts. Oil has also prevented these countries from seeking alternative, modern industries.
I do agree if oil revenue dries up and major powers pull their support for the current dictatorships, it will be a disaster, at least in the short to medium term. You will get civil wars in one of the most militarized places on earth.
I would also argue that contrary to popular belief Israel has been a stabilizing factor in the middle east. There are two main reasons for this. 1. Hatred of Israel is the one thing that unites the arab world. 2. Dictatorships need a way to distract their population. There is no greater distraction than a mortal enemy.
In fact if you compare the arab-israeli conflict to other modern conflicts in the middle east, it has been pretty minor in terms of costs, damage and casualties.
The middle east is an interesting place, a place I call home and a place I love, but extremely complicated.
And last point: with regards to Bibbi and his plan to annex parts of the west bank. What he is planning is really not that popular here in Israel. For the right wing, he isn't annexing enough and the annexation will still allow for a palestinian state. For the center and left wing it's not really going to change anything on the ground but will cause a lot of damage to how we are perceived internationally. Even if the annexation does go through it does not mean that the "annexed" territory can't and won't be given up in the framework of a peace agreement. IMO Bibbi is trying to do it for internal political reasons and he knows he won't be able to do it once Trump is gone so this is his chance (another possibility is he wants to make it look like he tried to annex parts of the west bank, without the intention of actually doing so. He will blame someone like Gantz saying they stopped him, which will get him some more right wing votes while not antagonizing the center voters - it would be very Bibbi like).
Yes.
> All I can see from this is more instability in the Middle-East which means more bad news in the years to come...
No. I predict more stability. There is less financing for violence, and less wealth to fight over.
> Perhaps Turkey will take up a bigger role in the future for policing the Middle East as they have a more diversified economy?
Too expensive. Also the fact that they are after Libya means they are not imaginative enough for a post-oil economy. So probably no.
1) Poor (Less to lose) 2) Have high levels of ideological radicals (beliefs strong enough to rationalize their worst actions) 3) Have a violent history. (Vengeance oriented)
BTW these proxies tend to be like poison gas: hard to manage strategically and often blowing back on their source (as with al qaida itself).
BTW al qaida can’t really be thought of as an “organization” — it’s a movement, more like World Communism in the late 19th and first half of the 20th century.
D’aesh (aka ISIL/ISIS in the USA for some reason) is an actual organization.
I edited it to “mass migration” with the intent of addressing both refugee population as well as associated, perhaps “non-civilian” is the term, people either/both pushing and accompanying.
Let's hope that regional powers take up lesser roles and don't dominate the locals in other countries (e.g. like the Saudi occupation of Bahrain or Turkey's control of areas of Northern Syria).
Money dries up, so will a lot of military funding for these.
There is no scenario where it won't be disastrous.
The most important number in the Middle East is barrels of oil (produced) per capita. That figure has been falling for decades and is reaching critical low levels (as represented by their budget situations).
What the Middle East producers have to try to do economically, is like trying to replace the landing gear on a 747 while you're hurtling down the runway. They don't just have to plot for replacing oil vs their economy today (a nearly impossible task), they have to do it and come up with enough economy to manage another 100% increase in population in the next few decades. Realistically it's impossible, it will end in catastrophe; the conflicts (including civil) will be far larger, matching the size of the population increases. As the regimes melt under the pressure, wars will spiral out from it. Neither the House of Saud nor the Iranian theocracy will survive it intact.
Here is the population expansion for some prominent OPEC members since 1970:
Saudi Arabia: 5.8m -> 34m (486%)
(Saudi's oil production hasn't gone up much in 40 years, and their population has increased by 250% in that time; a lot more mouths to feed, dramatically fewer barrels per capita)
Iraq: 10m -> 40m (300%)
Iran: 28m -> 84m (200%)
Egypt: 34m -> 100m (194%)
Oman: 700k -> 5m (614%)
Kuwait: 750k -> 4m (433%)
Libya: 2m -> 6.6m (230%)
Sudan: 10m -> 42m (320%)
Algeria: 14m -> 44m (214%)
An economy with more diverse interests will also be one where no interest has total power and will need to explain itself.
Edit: yes, the transition is gonna be painful.
I think a bunch of those flashy oil-money acquisitions that were seen as wasteful, will eventually be recognised as a decent diversifying strategy in sectors where barriers to entry are very high. The Emirates airline was initially seen as a white elephant, but it kickstarted the Dubai hub and was, overall, a pretty strategic move.
There is also the opposite scenario. You have an economic sector that is so incredibly lucrative that you can just bribe your way to popularity by creating a welfare state. Anything that pushes the focus away from the main sector would also involve losing the welfare benefits even though it is better in the long run.
Here comes a terrible analogy. Oil is like an economic painkiller. The pain is gone but you are still injured.
(1) While COVID is a negative demand shock, but is likely rather temporary
(2) Non-COVID oil demand is declining, but is more of a melting glacier. Infrastructure-level energy operates on looooooong cycles due to immense cost. COVID doesn't change that.
(3) The recent misfortune of the fracking industry is likely less temporary. Demand is more likely to recover short term than supply.
2030 has perhaps become 2020, as the article suggests, but that doesn't mean 2022 will be what we thought 2032 will be. We can't just pretend we're all the sudden up the maturity curve with renewables just because demand dropped for a few months.
This is pretty much an open secret for anyone following the price of oil, but how can Aramco still brag about producing for less than $10 [1] a barrel while the kingdom is openly hurting from the current prices ?
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2020/03/16/oi...
When the price is below $40/barrel, they can no longer pay for these services effectively, which obviously causes immediate problems, but in the long term will make it harder and harder for the Sauds to maintain control of an ever-more-disgruntled populace.
I feel like this was made pretty clear in the article.
34 million people and huge subsidies for their citizens to keep Saudi Arabia politically stable.
Russia's population is expected to fall to ~130 million by 2050 [0]. The dual upcoming hits of reduced fuel purchasing and climate change are not going to affect Russia well. Their petrorubles are not likely to maintain a punch in a solar/wind/etc world. And as the temperate zones move towards the poles, with the grain belts tagging along, all of Russia's neighbors are likely to look at that unmanned land in a more hungry way. Their southernly neighbors of India and China are still growing in population to ~3B combined in 2050, let alone all the other countries. Whatever balance there is now will change with a hungrier and hotter populace.
In some ways, these issues with Donny and Boris are amazing feats of engineering. But they are only delaying the inevitable. Whatever they (Vlad) are planning on doing, I don't see how they get out of this hole. Sure, they bought time and space to move, but that time is limited. The next election in the US is likely to reveal more of their (Vlad's) hand.
Your analysis seems very politically motivated, rather than objectively looking at probable outcomes.
If anything, more fertile land will drive immigration, not invasion, and help solve their demographic problems.
No, the land may become more valuable as the grain belts and people migrate poleward. Land to the south will become less valuable and hotter. The southern neighbors are gaining greatly in population, while Russia is loosing population.
The current Russian actions (Vlad's) do not seem to indicate welcoming immigrants or other diverse people (Chechnya, hyper complicated, yes, but still). Russia does have a long history of multi-ethnic tension and release though. I'd hope that they (Vlad) welcome the climate refugees, but such integration is likely to be very difficult, as is usual.
A 'Roman' approach may be good to alleviate the strife, where in the pre-Gothic invasions, the Roman M.O. was to take the younger immigrant men into the legions, separate the clans/tribes across the empire to tie allegiance to their neighbors and Rome, and then in about three generations the grandchildren would run the empire. Unfortunately for Russia, that takes ~60-80 years, so about 2080-2100, well past the issues of 2050.
To what?!? If your geography does not allow for large scale hydro or geothermal development, then your only alternative is Nuclear or Fossil Fuels. Solar and wind need base load provided by Fossil Fuels to be remotely viable and clearly are not capable of replacing fossil fuels.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'base-load problem', but what I mean is that you need a fossil-fuel base-load.
Of course this is so ambitious that it might never get built but I can definitively tell you that a crane system like this would be barely economical [1] because weights are really expensive but it's a good attempt and can be refined further.
And finally here is an example of a scam concept: [2]
Digging shafts is unaffordable unless you reuse old mine shafts which would reduce the number of shafts in the picture to just a single one. If you can only have one weight per generator that means the system doesn't scale. The power density of lifting a 1000 ton rock 100m high is pathetic. It's just 270kWh. The cost of the concrete is negligible in this scenario but you won't find a generator that is cheap enough to compete with a conventional battery.
However, to stay realistic. Gravity batteries are about as likely to happen as everyone suddenly switching to nuclear power. The odds aren't great.
[0] http://www.eduard-heindl.de/energy-storage/energy-storage-sy...
[1] https://insights.globalspec.com/images/assets/784/10784/Ener...
[2] https://offgridquest.com/images/banners/gravitybattery.png
Basically saying this is wrong.
Technically, base-load refers to the minimum amount of energy demand on a given day. All sources and studies I have are from Germany, but our parliament, their adjacent (technical) offices and the universities here have concluded that "base-load" as a concept is wrong with today's power generation and the way a power grid works. Today they usually talk about residual-load, turning the paradigm around. Regardless of how it works, there are also renewable energies which can fulfil this classical "base-load" idea: Namely organic gas or geothermal power plants.
Why is Germany investing billions in NEW pipeline projects to ship natural gas from Russia for the next few decades? Germany says a lot of nice sweet-nothings, but their actions don't match their words.
Your statement says nothing about the feasibility, just politics.
But even without that, nuclear, wind and solar combined with lots of batteries (stationary and in all the cars) seems like a totally achievable solution. Especially in Europe and America where you have lots of varied geography and can get hydro, solar, thermal and wind to supplement each other, see example the plans for Denmark (wind), Norway (hydro), UK (nuclear).
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Denmark#...
Also, RE Bio & waste emit CO2 - they are not particularily clean.
source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1757-1707....
I think it is unfortunate that many people are vilifying natural gas. It's almost as if they aren't aware that the main benefit of natural gas plants is that you can turn them off when needed. Grids have to become more flexible if they want a high percentage of renewable energy. It's not like natural gas is cheaper than renewables. The plants will only burn gas when necessary.
What is happening right now is that "Base load" (aka coal plants) is clogging up the electric grid in Germany. On some days you have a really good amount of renewables but the coal keeps running because it can't adjust quickly enough.
When you consider that thanks to the EEG surcharge the operators of renewable power plants still get paid despite producing no power you can see how this lead to the unreasonably high electricity prices in Germany.
This is not a problem with renewables though. The EEG is one of the most poorly though out political instruments to encourage renewables. Basically almost every energy intensive business gets an exemption so all the costs are borne by consumers. A carbon tax would have none of these issues. The coal plants would be shut down because they are bad for business.
What storage? The reality is that there is no storage solution that is capable of storing enough energy to power even a modestly sized city for days or even hours (or minutes for that matter). Certain approaches, like gravity-based storage, also require particular geography.
Did you notice that there is no region on earth that gets 100% of their power from solar/wind/storage? Why is that? Why is Germany signing multi-decade, mulit-billion-dollar deals to build pipelines to ship Russian gas for decades still? And any region that claims 100% fossil-fuel free power ALWAYS relies on hydro, nuclear or geothermal to achieve that level. Why is that?
That no location is currently 100% renewable is an obviously irrelevant point. I m talking about 100% CO2-free solutions. And new nuclear not sunk costed existing power plants.
> All the components of that exist and are proven.
All the components for solar roadways and hyperloop exist and are proven, doesn't mean either of those are viable.
For three straightforward reasons:
(1) Wind and (especially) solar have only recently become cheap enough for this case to be made. Utility scale solar fell in cost by a factor of 5 in just the last decade,
(2) The point I made was for an apples-to-apples comparison in which all the capital costs are considered. But in this transition time the renewables are competing against existing capacity, in which the capital costs are sunk,
(3) Fossil fuel sources are not being charged for their CO2 emissions. The point I made was for a CO2-free grid, which requires that fossil fuel sources not be allowed to emit CO2. Nowhere have CO2 taxes or regulations yet put us into this situation.
Today, there are very few, if any, places in the world where it would make economic sense to build a new nuclear power plant.
> All the components for solar roadways and hyperloop exist and are proven, doesn't mean either of those are viable.
Electrolyzers exist, and are being made and sold in rapidly increasing numbers. Hydrogen valves, compressors, turbines, pipelines, and underground storage caverns exist. This is integration of existing technologies, some with track records going back more than a century. The comparison you make there is silly in the extreme. It would be more appropriate if applied to the current hype about thorium and Hail Mary Reactors.
There's a fourth reason ... it isn't viable.
And for all the talk about how the technology is ready and proven, you can't even point me to a real-world deployment, existing or planned, that will provide storage at any sort of scale to replace natural gas as wind/solar backup.
Actions speak louder than words. Take Germany for example, why aren't they redirecting the billions they are spending on NEW natural gas pipelines to ship Russian gas for decades, on your 'proven' and 'ready' battery storage technology?
Your last question there has the answer "because the cost of CO2 in Europe is not high enough yet." Hydrogen doesn't make sense until natural gas is quite expensive, but even then a renewable system with hydrogen will be cheaper than a CO2-free system with fully costed nuclear.
Are you employed by the nuclear industry, by any chance? If so, if you aren't too old, run do not walk to another career.
Total US electricity generated by nuclear power plants was about 807 TWh (~92GW), but just in 2010 the world used 41 354 TWh generated by coal. That's a factor of 50. The US has about 95 commercial plants. So to replace just coal we'd need about 4750 new power stations.
Basically at this point everything that's not fossil based is great. Build all of them. More wind, solar, storage, nuclear, geo, etc.
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019/electr...
Renewable generators only need to displace the electrical output of combustion based power plants, not the greater thermal energy contained in source fuels. A highly electrified, renewables-dominated world would consume less primary energy at the same level of energy service consumption. There's a lot less energy going toward production of useless waste heat when renewable electricity displaces fossil combustion electricity.
The average American coal plant turns only 37.4% of coal's thermal energy into electrical energy:
https://processbarron.com/u-s-coal-power-plant-efficiency-st...
In 2019 the United States lost 2/3 of all primary energy as waste heat:
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/charts/Ene...
(I used the number from this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Fossi... )
As low as it is, it will keep pushing out other energy sources until demand goes up.
But for the sake of mankind and planet, I hope shale never becomes profitable again.
https://www.alternativeenergyhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/...
They are limited by an ideology/culture which discourages women from participating in the workforce or receiving an education, and also encourages cousin marriage (60-70% of marriages in Saudi Arabia) which lowers IQ and leads to birth defects https://english.alarabiya.net/en/life-style/art-and-culture/...
I think its more likely that Arab leaders will siphon off as much wealth as possible then flee to London and other tax havens. The survivors will be left to fight over the scraps and places like Saudi Arabia will come to resemble Yemen (which is a country which simply exhausted its oil reserves faster than the rest).
>A quote commonly attributed to Sheikh Rashid, "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel", reflected his concern that Dubai's oil, which was discovered in 1966 and which began production in 1969, would run out within a few generations.
I have some things in mind but maybe HN readers can give me a few suggestions on what to read/look.
Think about the complete collapse of the US solar industry a few years ago.
Solar might win, but that mean the companies that make it will be part of the index you invest in.
Answer: 4%
For Oil follow: @anasalhajji
https://twitter.com/anasalhajji/status/1284132912850522115
Enjoy!
For electric vehicles to eat the world they have to be cheaper than gasoline counterparts. Not only for luxury electric vehicles to be cheaper than luxury gasoline vehicles, but for the cheapest gasoline motorcycle/scooter/car to be more expensive than the cheapest electric motorcycle/scooter/car. Given the current cost materials inside a battery/electric engine compared to the current cost of materials inside a combustion engine it’s unlikely to happen with our current approach.
As it looks there will be plenty of oil in the ground before we don't need it anymore.
In 1973, OPEC created an artificial scarcity, "economic rents", in oil transferring and over the past five decades "robbed consumers" of trillions of dollars of wealth transferred to oil rich nations such as those in the Middle East.
These "economic rents" not only harmed consumers but they helped certain oil rich nations such as Russia and Iran to invade other nations.
The hope is that with US fracking and oil export, the days of more than $50 per barrel oil is over.
It is estimated that the Arabs spent $1 trillion of wealth to combat Israel. Imagine, if instead of attempting to destroy Israel they had partnered with it investing in the "Startup Nation?" Had that happened, the Middle East may have been a very wealthy region for all of it's citizens.
Historian Paul Johnson wrote an article in Commentary in 2005 called "The Anti-Semitic Disease" along these lines. [1]
[1] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Anti-Semitic-Disea...
And before you say use plant based hydrocarbons. It's kind of perverse to use trees and food crops to create fuel and industrial products.
As a startup how do I take advantage of this?
>Also, won't the price bounce back after COVID?
addressed in the article.
>With commerce resuming, the price has ticked back up, though a peak in demand may be years away.
>But don’t be fooled. The world’s economies are moving away from fossil fuels. Oversupply and the increasing competitiveness of cleaner energy sources mean that oil may stay cheap for the foreseeable future. The recent turmoil in oil markets is not an aberration; it is a glimpse of the future. The world has entered an era of low prices—and no region will be more affected than the Middle East and north Africa.
And unlike the Middle East, Low fossil fuel prices are a boon to the rest of the economy, so you don’t experience broad societal decay and upheaval due to low fossil fuel prices but instead higher stability.... This is why a diversified economy is so important because it reduces hysteresis losses in the case of sectoral interruptions.