Hey generali I don't agree with your signature

Generali

Having said all this, BHP Billiton, a major producer of thermal coal, have the following to say on fossil fuels (from last year's AGM):

Discussions around 'carbon bubble’ or ‘stranded assets’ reflect concerns around the transition to a carbon constrained world. The IPCC is clear that limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions in GHG emissions.
We have undertaken extensive analysis and scenario testing of our portfolio and believe we are well positioned for this transition. This is driven by the diversity of our portfolio
and the relatively short pay-back periods for most of our fossil fuel investments, such as shale.
Thermal coal remains the current source of affordable energy that offers security of supply and is likely to remain so for some time. Currently, energy coal makes up 25 per cent
of the global energy mix. In the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook released in November 2014, global demand for coal continues to grow to 2040.
In severely carbon constrained scenarios we still see coal playing a role in the energy mix - and believe there will be demand for our high quality thermal coal. We also see potential upsides which mitigate negative impacts on our fossil fuels. Investment in both renewable energy infrastructure and nuclear power will need to increase, driving demand for uranium and supporting the price of copper.
Steelmakers will likely place a premium on our quality metallurgical coal and iron ore products that can help them reduce emissions from their furnaces. Farmers will continue to need potash to increase agricultural yields.

There are lots of opinions out there but I suspect that change will come faster than many people expect.

cells

Generali wrote: »

I'm just reporting what I hear.

If the world is going to hit targets for containing climate change then fossil fuels are pretty much toast anyway.

When the economics and engineering says no the politicians can sing what they like it won't matter

The only realistic way to achieve deep carbon cuts globally within out lifetime would be a ration book. And the public would say f.off

cells

Generali wrote: »

There are lots of opinions out there but I suspect that change will come faster than many people expect.

Yes but in the other direction to what you are thinking

coal oil and gas use withh be up 50% by 2040

Thats rapid change, and most people don't expect it.

Generali

cells wrote: »

When the economics and engineering says no the politicians can sing what they like it won't matter

The only realistic way to achieve deep carbon cuts globally within out lifetime would be a ration book. And the public would say f.off

Well my point is rather that the economics and engineering will say Yes! and in countries away from the northern and southern extremes of the world a lot quicker than many imagine.

Already with a small subsidy, which keeps getting cut, you can make a profit in Aus from having solar panels on your roof. Once storage becomes viable, which I understand to be very close, Australian households won't need to be attached to a grid. Once households start to withdraw from that grid, the costs for those that remain become higher and higher as most of the costs of an electricity grid are fixed. That forces more and more people to solar.

As for large scale users for whom a roof isn't going to supply their needs? The CSIRO is working on that:

http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/EF/Areas/Solar/Solar-thermal

The Challenge

Creating reliable energy from solar

Harnessing renewable energy to reduce Australia's dependence on fossil fuels is one of our biggest challenges. And as lowering emissions becomes more important for industry and homeowners, we are looking at new ways of generating solar energy. Our challenge is how to make solar power a reliable, stable power source for Australia's energy future......


.....We are aiming to make electricity from CSP competitive with fossil fuel-generated in electricity in Australia through the Australian Solar Thermal Research Initiative.

My bold.

Generali

cells wrote: »

Yes but in the other direction to what you are thinking

coal oil and gas use withh be up 50% by 2040

Thats rapid change, and most people don't expect it.

Yes. What I am saying is that I realise that not everyone shares my view but at the same time I don't think that it's reasonable just to dismiss it out of hand.

Mistermeaner

For me this a question on consumerism, even if cars, aeroplanes and domestic energy needs are met by some alternative (nuclear / solar / wind probably) mass consumerism is going to continue to increase (in fact such green energy usage can only be achieved if the whole world get a whole richer and can therefore afford the expensive alternative energy sources, thus consumerism will inevitably increase.)

Oil (for oil read oil based ie. Crude, Nat gas, shale gas) will still be required in huge quantities to firstly provide the raw materials (as cells points out many derived from ethane) but also unless we embrace nuclear globally the oil will still be required to produce the quantities of energy required to process these raw materials into useful things in an economic manner. The economic manner is important not just fr keeping things globally affordable but also because all such intermediaries are globally traded commodities and if e.g.. the UK insists on not using Nat gas for industrial energy then China or someone else will quite happily undercut us.

I'm no expert and don't have numbers to hand regards the exact proportions of use but I do work in the oil intermediaries industry (which includes the occasional visit to grangemouth) I have learned alot I didn't know previously particularly with regards to how almost everything we touch in our daily lives, from the coffee cup I'm holding, to the duvet I'm under, the plastic fan next to by bed, the carpet in my room, the curtains, the clothes, the coating on my mdf furniture , the cover on my tablet, the body work on my car, the dashboard, my front door, the eps insulation in my walls, the packet my dinner came in, the fertiliser that grew the cereal for my breakfast and on and on and on - all contain significant proportions of oil derived raw materials (excluding energy) and were also so affordable because a huge proportion of their cost is related to the use of cost effective energy way up the production process (forgetting entirely the way they got here - ie logistics)

It's just been eye opening for me that where I used to think of oil/gas as energy and fuel + plastics that now I realise how deeply involved in everything that we rely on and cannot be substituted, unless we made everything from stone and wood.

Viva the shale revolution

Ps. Can't figure out how to add a signature

Martyn1981

Generali wrote: »

Well my point is rather that the economics and engineering will say Yes! and in countries away from the northern and southern extremes of the world a lot quicker than many imagine.

Already with a small subsidy, which keeps getting cut, you can make a profit in Aus from having solar panels on your roof. Once storage becomes viable, which I understand to be very close, Australian households won't need to be attached to a grid. Once households start to withdraw from that grid, the costs for those that remain become higher and higher as most of the costs of an electricity grid are fixed. That forces more and more people to solar.

As for large scale users for whom a roof isn't going to supply their needs? The CSIRO is working on that:

http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/EF/Areas/Solar/Solar-thermal

My bold.

Hiya. Australia is a good example when it comes to solar. They and Hawaii might be at the leading edge regarding domestic PV and storage (on-grid) as they have sun, land, high leccy price and money to spend (relatively wealthy). They've got rather excited (too excited?) about Tesla recently, but these systems could be viable very soon. Though the costs will have to fall significantly for it to spread unsubsidised to less sunny parts of the world. But (there's always a but) there is a chance that leccy suppliers (not bill payers, or taxpayers) may help subsidise some rollout in countries that don't have time of day pricing. That will help reduce the companies costs by buying a little less leccy at peak times/prices in the early evening.

The Aussie people also seem to be accepting of wind power too, even if their current government hates all forms of renewables.

Minimal sound and almost no fury: life in the shadow of Australia's windfarm 'hell'

With renewables starting to win the economic argument, the swing should continue. The huge increase in world energy demand now coming from developing countries is going to help FF's for some time, but even the poorer countries now have a harder choice between FF's and renewables, and that can only be a good thing looking forward.

As an aside, there's also the nuclear option, which could have some effect on FF's with it's low CO2 capability, but it would probably only be small. Plus, again we have the issue of renewables and their falling costs. France, which probably has the greatest experience of running a high nuclear dependent grid is planning to reduce its nuclear contribution down from 75% to 50% with the introduction of more renewables.

Mart.

vivatifosi

It was less than 30 years between the Wright Bros first flight and Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic. It was fewer than 35 years between Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic and Gagarin orbiting earth. Second guessing technological advances 35 years out, who knows what projects will win and which will fail?

I'd also be amazed if either of you were still hanging out here in 35 years discussing who was right. Perhaps I should bookmark the thread, just in case.

Generali

ggb1979 wrote: »

For me this a question on consumerism, even if cars, aeroplanes and domestic energy needs are met by some alternative (nuclear / solar / wind probably) mass consumerism is going to continue to increase (in fact such green energy usage can only be achieved if the whole world get a whole richer and can therefore afford the expensive alternative energy sources, thus consumerism will inevitably increase.)

My argument is that before long, domestic rooftop solar will be cheaper than buying power from the electric company, even without subsidies. My SiL has solar on her roof with a small subsidy she can pay for the solar panels and the interest on the finance on the solar panels and still turn a small profit each quarter, even in winter.

In 4-5 years she will have repaid the debt and have an even bigger cheque coming from the utility firm.

Now in mitigation, she does receive a subsidy and also she is only running a split system air con unit, not a full blown reverse cycle one. She is a SAHM though living just north of Sydney, runs a business making cakes from home and likes the house hot in winter (25C!) and cold in summer.

A quick Google will show you what is happening regarding solar panel prices over time. The problem until now has been storage but my opinion is that is in the process of being solved.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/energy/australia-lures-tesla-as-solar-battery-race-accelerates-20150707-gi6rh4.html

The CSIRO link covers some ideas of how to store large-scale solar.

As an aside:

At stake is a domestic market that could be worth $24 billion, according to Morgan Stanley. Australia leads the world in putting solar panels on roofs, and by 2040, about one in two homes are forecast to rely on sun power.

Solar may not be a reasonable alternative to use in the UK because of the lack of sun in winter but I can see basically every home owner having solar power in a decade or so in Aus.

ggb1979 wrote: »

Ps. Can't figure out how to add a signature

I was just pulling your leg. If you really want one, click on quick links and choose 'Edit Signature'. Then you edit your signature in a panel like the one you use to submit your posts.

ruggedtoast

I have had dealings with the Saudi government as part of my job and they are trying to plan for a future without oil revenue.