Exxon still expects fossil fuels to make up the majority of energy in 25 years
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
For everybody else, renewables are far cheaper.
Buses and taxis are largely electric. About half my friends have electric cars.
We're right in the middle of a great transition.
We need to be more data driven in evaluating our progress.
I don't think your post fits in the guidelines.
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?
“Globally, are we going to reach our climate change goals?”
The 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.
Taking it as generic fossil fuels seems silly because coal usage is quickly disappearing everywhere. Coal is not cost competitive vs solar.
(most likely it's because personal transportation is < 30% of total energy use and energy use is probably going to keep going up)
The problem is small (ish) batteries. Like those in cars. Which is why it's very, very important to start phasing out large scale automobile transportation. We've had electric trains for decades and not only are they orders of magnitude more efficient per passenger, they also don't require batteries.
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/135642main_b...
Put some panels on your roof and it's not hopeless.
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 It may be inaccurate our outdated and lacks sources.
That is a novel view. Perhaps a reference?
Perhaps it is not true
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
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.
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.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
Would be nice if we can get it down to 50%
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.
It's also a good idea to avoid "accidental colonization" by ensuring countries decide and own their selected infrastructure.
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.
I am wondering what would happen to Exxon if they publicly said the opposite though?
As a matter of fact, we don't know that other oil companies haven't reached opposite conclusions and just kept mum.
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-discover...