I would like to get this straight. These folks of little rational reasoning wish to destroy human civilization, quicker the better, and cause untold human misery and death to save the planet, avoiding a problem that may exist in 2100. This would be like exiting an airplane at 10,000 feet while it circles the airfield because you are late for the next flight. Trust me, you will miss the flight either way, only one way you will miss it sooner!! The outcome will be the same if O&G goes away before an actual replacement is IN PLACE.
The only energy source that will replace hydrocarbons is something that has the same magical characteristics: high energy density, low land footprint, convenient storage, transportability, the ability to make remarkable stuff out of it. Even assuming solar and wind could actually replace natural gas, or that batteries will one day provide storage, or hydrogen becomes the fuel of the future, or deep geothermal is applicable everywhere at half the cost, or by some miracle nuclear is decriminalized or that fusion actually works instead of always being 20 years away, NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAVE MADE A DENT IN HYDROCARBON USE AT THIS DATE! In 1972 hydrocarbons provided 85% of the worlds energy and today they provide 82% of worlds energy. That’s 3% in 50 years! In that time, oil production has doubled. Nuclear is the difference in that 3% change.
The one thing that has reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 30% in the US is natural gas conversions of coal plants resulting from the shale revolution. Sure makes sense to stop that! Replacing all coal plants in the US and world wide would do more to reduce CO2 dramatically and is something that could be done quickly at relatively minimal cost. Then we can create time for that miracle energy source to emerge, be designed and built, at scale.
As it happens, no one was attacking natural gas as the worst GHG ever until natural gas reduced CO2 emissions. Natural gas did what renewables couldn’t, create actual reductions in CO2. The great coal replacement took the limelight off renewables since even with all the renewables built, they had not reduced CO2 emissions across the world because demand for hydrocarbons is still increasing and I suspect will for the foreseeable future because 5/8th of the world needs more energy to improve their standard of living above subsistence.
I am actually not against “transitioning” from Oil and Gas even though, for full disclosure, I work in the business. I’m an exploration geologist. It is just that it is beyond stupidity to make oil and gas effectively illegal before it can be replaced. Only sorrow, pain and death will follow if rather than a transition we have an immediate mandated cessation of oil and gas production, ignoring energy demand dynamics.
I would like to get this straight. These folks of little rational reasoning wish to destroy human civilization, quicker the better, and cause untold human misery and death to save the planet, avoiding a problem that may exist in 2100. This would be like exiting an airplane at 10,000 feet while it circles the airfield because you are late for the next flight. Trust me, you will miss the flight either way, only one way you will miss it sooner!! The outcome will be the same if O&G goes away before an actual replacement is IN PLACE.
The only energy source that will replace hydrocarbons is something that has the same magical characteristics: high energy density, low land footprint, convenient storage, transportability, the ability to make remarkable stuff out of it. Even assuming solar and wind could actually replace natural gas, or that batteries will one day provide storage, or hydrogen becomes the fuel of the future, or deep geothermal is applicable everywhere at half the cost, or by some miracle nuclear is decriminalized or that fusion actually works instead of always being 20 years away, NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAVE MADE A DENT IN HYDROCARBON USE AT THIS DATE! In 1972 hydrocarbons provided 85% of the worlds energy and today they provide 82% of worlds energy. That’s 3% in 50 years! In that time, oil production has doubled. Nuclear is the difference in that 3% change.
The one thing that has reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 30% in the US is natural gas conversions of coal plants resulting from the shale revolution. Sure makes sense to stop that! Replacing all coal plants in the US and world wide would do more to reduce CO2 dramatically and is something that could be done quickly at relatively minimal cost. Then we can create time for that miracle energy source to emerge, be designed and built, at scale.
As it happens, no one was attacking natural gas as the worst GHG ever until natural gas reduced CO2 emissions. Natural gas did what renewables couldn’t, create actual reductions in CO2. The great coal replacement took the limelight off renewables since even with all the renewables built, they had not reduced CO2 emissions across the world because demand for hydrocarbons is still increasing and I suspect will for the foreseeable future because 5/8th of the world needs more energy to improve their standard of living above subsistence.
I am actually not against “transitioning” from Oil and Gas even though, for full disclosure, I work in the business. I’m an exploration geologist. It is just that it is beyond stupidity to make oil and gas effectively illegal before it can be replaced. Only sorrow, pain and death will follow if rather than a transition we have an immediate mandated cessation of oil and gas production, ignoring energy demand dynamics.