Big Energy Faces Tough Challenges
From my feed at Quora.com, a reader asks: What are the biggest obstacles/challenges facing the energy industry?
Do you literally mean “challenges facing the energy industry,” e.g., the oil companies? If so, you need to understand that this is very different from “energy-related challenges facing the world.”
The biggest problem Big Energy faces is maintaining the fiction that fossil fuels are a rational and sustainable approach to providing energy to the world at large. This is getting tougher each day; the position is rapidly falling apart, even among people who know next to nothing about the science and economics of energy. The truth about fossil fuels’ role in fostering climate change, ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, lung disease, terrorism, etc., is spreading quickly and broadly, despite the countless millions of dollars of PR money being spent to mislead the public about these issues.
The oil companies are rapidly going down the same path that the tobacco companies blazed (pardon the pun) in the 20th Century; recall that when Big Tobacco denied the connection between smoking and cancer, it found itself roundly despised and under constant legal attack, but remained profitable enough that they’re still quite capable of using that lucre to manipulate our law-making processes so as to continue to sell cigarettes (mostly to young people), the only legal product that when used as directed, causes death.
With the recent revelations about ExxonMobil’s conspiracy to lie about its discoveries re: climate change, we’re seeing that Big Oil is perfectly willing to follow the path of their forbears. Apparently, the fact that they’re broadly reviled makes very little difference to them and their share-holders.
Hard to believe, but true.
“The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil but
because of the people who don’t do anything about it” ~Albert Einstein
To put it another way; it’s insanity to believe we can solve problems by using the
same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
I think Einstein’s quote should be changed to say; “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil but because of the people who don’t do anything more than talk about the evil of certain people” ~Albert Einstein
To put it another way; it’s insanity to believe we can solve problems by sitting on our duffs and keep on using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
But I guess Einstein didn’t say it like that did he?
Regardless of what we do to keep fossil fuels in the ground, the extremists will suck up more to fund their holy wars against all who proudly refuse to become indoctrinated into their very stupid quran. Although it expresses a “good god”, the evil book written by muhamMAD, orders instruction to torture and murder us infidels. It’s already hit close to home here in San Bernardino. Therefore, in order to contain global warming, we need to simultaneously banish the quran.
I sometimes wonder Craig, do we have a problem with oil simply because it has been so useful?
– if it had not been so useful we may have used moderate amounts that might only do moderate amounts of damage to the humans and the environment, perhaps no more than any other industrial product. It it had not been so useful it the potential to “get rich on oil” would not driven us to make sure that “the oil must flow.” If we were not blinded by its usefulness we might have long ago resolved some of its issues or sought alternatives.
Oil has been desire-able and in this way it is similar to the demand on big tobacco. However although we even sometimes hear of our “addiction to oil” it is not a drug. We attempted to rid ourselves of tobacco by educating people and while there are certainly lessons to be learned from that fight we might not “rid ourselves” of oil until people generally feel that there is a substitute.
Showing people that there is an alternative is a hard thing to do. Because of the way we are wired the evidence can sometimes be right in front of us and and we refuse to see it. Many want to do things the way we have always done them. And so time ends up dragging us into the future rather than our walking into it with some wide eyed wonder.
And so perhaps one of the biggest challenges for energy is the people who will use it. Do we make it safe before our lemming-nature drives us to crash and burn.
Well, there is no doubt that our addiction to oil is based on its utility as a portable fuel, and that it’s going to be hard to replace, especially to the degree that we remain indifferent to the numerous negative consequences of its use, e.g., damage to human health and our environment.
Oil and gasoline are certainly easier to use than coal was, but it has outlived its usefulness as new technologies have developed. It is going to be interesting to see how Africa electrifies, I think it will be a largely decentralized using little energy rather than big energy.
I have looked at many “alternatives” to oil and although I find myself a strong advocate of electric vehicles with today’s technological outlook the breakthrough that may change everything is increased efficiency in stable (chemical) heat storage. http://cleantechnica.com/2011/07/29/21st-century-stable-thermal-energy-storage/
@ Breath on the Wind
At last something we can agree upon 🙂 !
Economic ESD (Electricity Storage Device ) technology is the ‘holy grail ‘ for many renewable technologies.
Renewable power generation technology faces three inherent problems, transmission, storage and intermittent generating dynamics. large scale economically viable ESD solves the problems solves all three to a major extent.
We can but live in hope, and encourage all those thousands of researchers working around the globe on this technology.
Please see: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/12/08/what-the-migration-to-renewable-energy-looks-like/
Craig,
I may be wrong, but lately you seem to have become less interested in new technology and innovation, and more obsessed in a futile ideological/political battle against Oil Companies.
That’s a pity, because it’s a pointless distraction. By hating something that’s essential to human existence and integral to social evolution, leads to a distortion of reality. Futile, because it’s like a bunch of flea’s arguing about who owns the dog !
Oil companies (and coal) bear no relation to tobacco companies. Tobacco was never an essential product. Unlike tobacco, Oil companies produce a wide range of essential products, including indispensable products without which there would be a wide-spread loss of life. Oil companies can point to the numerous instances where their products not only save lives and improve living standards, but have eliminated major sources of pestilence.
Fulminating against the imagined or real wickedness of oil companies, is like hating your right leg. Oil is so integrated into the world economy that any precipitate attempt to disengage would be ruinous.
The US derives more than 86% of its energy from fossil fuel. The Oil industry alone constitutes nearly 28% of the US economy. The industry isn’t like some movie with an evil cabal of plotters, sitting around waiting for James bond to arrive, but tens millions of employees and shareholders, spread across every strata of society and nation on the planet.
It’s my contention that instead of fulminating pointlessly against oil companies, while dreaming of a Utopian revolution, committed environmentalists, like yourself, would find it more rewarding to get back to what you do best. What you do best is helping to promote the introduction of smaller scale clean technologies, that can help mitigate the effects of fossil fuel consumption, and ease the transition to a lower carbon emission economy.
In the UK, I authorized the purchase of a Tesla P85 as fleet replacement for one of our aging BMW 7series courtesy cars. The Tesla has done sterling service even if the interior is not quite as luxurious as a BMW or Lexus 600h. The Tesla makes a statement.
A young employee congratulated me on the purchase, enthusiastically espousing her belief that Elon Musk’s product would be hated by the oil companies. Thinking about her comment, it occurred to me that although the Tesla is a zero emission fuel vehicle, it arrived on a ship using bunker oil, and runs on tyres made from oil, on a black top made from oil, with paint, plastics and hundreds of other components which are products of the oil industry.
All of these products, are more profitable to an oil company than low profit (but high volume) gasoline and diesel.
Now I be a purist, and demand Tesla replace every oil component, or I could concentrate on campaigning to get rid of the worst source of pollution, bunker oil.
I believe selecting the right target is a more effective, and increases my change of success. I may even attract support from the Oil industry. ( oh, yeah, in case you didn’t know, 90% of all the research into environmental harm created by marine grade No.6 oil usage, was funded by Exxon Chevron, BP and Shell, and made freely available for many years, only to be met with opposition from governments, shipping companies and apathy by the green movement.)
All around you are small, but important innovations being introduced that greatly mitigate the effects of climate change, these innovative products need your help and support. Most of these products rely on technologies which don’t require radical political or ideological commitment, while not hugely disruptive, merely better technology.
I would suggest that you would be more effective doing what you do best, promoting new, innovative technologies and products, rather than getting caught up in ideological/political quagmires.
Evolution, not revolution.
Oil is not essential to human existence and integral to social evolution! It has been easy to use it to make many things, but chemists when given the mandate to switch to naturally derived oils have been quite effective. Soy oil sells at close to the same price as oil because it is used to replace oil.
Engineers and scientists tend to do what you ask of them, so now that they have been working a while at finding replacements for oil they are delivering at an accelerated pace.
As Amory Lovins said, the stone age and whale oil ages did not end because they ran out of stones or whales.
” Oil is not essential to human existence and integral to social evolution! It has been easy to use it to make many things, but chemists when given the mandate to switch to naturally derived oils have been quite effective. Soy oil sells at close to the same price as oil because it is used to replace oil “.
Bruce, oil produces over 350, 000 different products as diverse as medicines to ceramics, car tyres, and road surfaces to fuels. Some can be synthesized, but not all. Even chemists synthesizing need oil derived components in the process.
The reason oil has been so essential to human progress has been is delivers a more energy dense,portable, convenient, versatile, form of energy than coal. ( or Whale oil !). The reason bio-crops have failed to become successful, is not the result of some conspiracy, but because of the logistics of turning low energy intense crops into high energy fuels.
It can be done, but only at great cost to the environment and economy, as US corn ethanol production has shown.
Economically, as an example, the US oil industry is approximately 28% of the US economy. The oil industry is the US single largest source of tax revenue, and the most valuable. It effects nearly every other taxpayer. Because it’s the largest producer of surplus wealth, the entire economy has grown dependent on fossil fuels as the main common currency of economic stability.
This makes even gradual disengagement from a fossil fuel economy very difficult. Economies tend to be very fragile, or at least the effect on humans from economic disruption can prove catastrophic. That’s the true challenge for policy makers when contemplating the immensely complex dynamics of modern economies.
Futurists and would be prophets like Amory Lovins attract adherents by telling people what they want to hear. They rely upon peoples desire to believe that what “should be true ” really is true, because it should be true.
These writers and advocates lack logistical analysis for the hypotheses they propose, instead rely upon moral or ideological propositions to divert attention from the negatives.
After reading the above comments, which we all can identify with, looking in the mirror let us not underestimate the power of each individual to contribute by installing solar, walking when possible, re-cycling, striving for zero waste living etc. and strengthening others around us to do the same. Inviting representatives of clean energy companies in our communties or at work. Maybe somebody really into green living to share both tips and energy.Solutions are out there just turn the heat up on the PR.
gismabracha
Well said !
Just replacing your 2 stroke motor mower with an electric mower (to operate on your surplus solar power ) would be a huge improvement and enhance your neigbours Sunday mornings!
Encouraging your local golf club to use US made, electric lawn maintenance equipment. Encouraging your local authority to replace specialized vehicles with EV’s also helps set an example.
Not everyone can afford to buy a Tesla, but replacing your old mower can save the equivalent pollution of 40 cars. if the entire nation switched to electric garden equipment it would equal the savings in pollution from the entire US vehicle fleet !
“oil produces over 350, 000 different products as diverse as medicines to ceramics, car tyres, and road surfaces to fuels”
I do not argue that oil has been useful, it is just the combustion of oil that is causing problems.
Humankind until now has stumbled along evolving and adapting to survive, but now for the first time we must attempt to civilize ourselves and make the common good of the whole world into consideration.
If we can do better we must.
Bruce,
I’m sure we’re all in agreement with you that advancing technology will hopefully produce a better, cleaner world. The question is how ?
While radical advocates suggest all kinds of impractical and impossible solutions, mostly based on a lack of logistical knowledge , (and a lot of public funding) others waste time and resources on ideological battles, inventing conspiracies and finding someone who must be to “blame”.
My contention is simple, let’s get on with what we can do practically, with the least disruption to our economic capacity. IWe can all make a contribution to lessen pollution today, while developing more sophisticated technologies and infrastructure in the future.
In this way we won’t be like the Stephan Leacock character who ” flung himself upon his horse and rode madly off in all directions at once !”
I believe we need careful, detailed and objective planning, not ill-conceived grandiose ideological “crusades”.
How about a “crusade” for intercontinental power lines, so we can make possible more solar energy 24/7. Some argue that we only need decentralization, however, as information technology proves, it’s best to be connected. Wirelessly for IT, but energy requires actual powerlines – let’s make it global! Those who can afford to live of grid can do that too. Imagine a solar roof in India helping to power a home in Canada at night.