-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Big words from Maersk, but little in the way of how. Welcome nonetheless.
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
Subscribe to read | Financial Times
When you google for the title, you get even to the ft article, but also others:
Maersk pledges to cut carbon emissions to zero by 2050 - Google Search
Maersk: Carbon emissions from shipping must be cut to zero by 2050 - CNN
Something that yall may not have encountered but seems relevant in the discussion of CCS here is of the recent developments in radiative cooling materials. These are really interesting to me because they exploit the only way I know of that heat can actually be *removed* from the Earth.
Basically, there is a range of frequencies in which energy (heat) can be transmitted directly through our atmosphere and expelled in to the cold vacuum of space. This has to do with the nature of water vapor bonds and is an important natural balance to the warming effect of greenhouse gases to keep our planet from overheating. But I see it as a potential alternative to CCS: you either remove CO2 and cool the planet down, or you keep the CO2 and remove the heat.
New materials have emerged in recent years that "translate" energy in to these frequencies: Efficient Air-Conditioning Beams Heat Into Space
What's neat is that a lot of groups are pursuing these materials and some of them are quite low-cost and amenable to roll-to-roll production. I think their cooling power at the moment is on the order of 300W / square meter, so in our current energy landscape it's still probably a better investment to purchase solar panels, but I can see these becoming really important in the near future.
Basically, there is a range of frequencies in which energy (heat) can be transmitted directly through our atmosphere and expelled in to the cold vacuum of space. This has to do with the nature of water vapor bonds and is an important natural balance to the warming effect of greenhouse gases to keep our planet from overheating. But I see it as a potential alternative to CCS: you either remove CO2 and cool the planet down, or you keep the CO2 and remove the heat.
New materials have emerged in recent years that "translate" energy in to these frequencies: Efficient Air-Conditioning Beams Heat Into Space
What's neat is that a lot of groups are pursuing these materials and some of them are quite low-cost and amenable to roll-to-roll production. I think their cooling power at the moment is on the order of 300W / square meter, so in our current energy landscape it's still probably a better investment to purchase solar panels, but I can see these becoming really important in the near future.
I wonder if CoolSeal uses the same sort of technology.
LA Paints Streets White To Cool Down Temperature
Carbon Emissions Set To Hit All-Time High In 2018 | CleanTechnica
Need to cut GHG emissions in half by 2030. What will it take to do that?
We could ask that question specifically of every industry in every country. For example, what would it take to cut half of the emission from the US highway vehicle fleet. This fleet is over 270M. New vehicle sales are about 17.5M. So in 12 years, that is about 210M cars to come into this fleet over the next 12 years. There were about 750k EV in the US at the beginning of 2018. Could that grow to 135M by 2030? That would represent an annual growth rate of 57.7% over 12 years. Bat this rate, EVs hit 17.5M per year within 10 years, so we probably need to hit 17.5M about 3 years soon, 2027. This mean growing at about 64%/yr for the next 9 years! That's plausible, but we need some serious acceleration.
Note that I've ignored both the savings of emissions due to increasing fuel standards from conventional and hybrid vehicles, but I've also ignored that EVs we still be charged by fossil generated power. Hopefully, those two things will cancel each other out or better. If the utilities also cut emissions by 50% over the same time (inclusive of incremental demand from EVs), then that too is supportive.
Need to cut GHG emissions in half by 2030. What will it take to do that?
We could ask that question specifically of every industry in every country. For example, what would it take to cut half of the emission from the US highway vehicle fleet. This fleet is over 270M. New vehicle sales are about 17.5M. So in 12 years, that is about 210M cars to come into this fleet over the next 12 years. There were about 750k EV in the US at the beginning of 2018. Could that grow to 135M by 2030? That would represent an annual growth rate of 57.7% over 12 years. Bat this rate, EVs hit 17.5M per year within 10 years, so we probably need to hit 17.5M about 3 years soon, 2027. This mean growing at about 64%/yr for the next 9 years! That's plausible, but we need some serious acceleration.
Note that I've ignored both the savings of emissions due to increasing fuel standards from conventional and hybrid vehicles, but I've also ignored that EVs we still be charged by fossil generated power. Hopefully, those two things will cancel each other out or better. If the utilities also cut emissions by 50% over the same time (inclusive of incremental demand from EVs), then that too is supportive.
Brent is falling below $60 again. There seems to be some support at $60, but maybe it will just keep going down. EIA reported a 7.3M barrel draw down in crude stock. This should be a bullish signal, but the oil price is falling in spite of this.
The only oil I will need is for popping my corn.
The only oil I will need is for popping my corn.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
These guys will "come together" somewhat one more time on a cut, then it's every pumper for themselves all the way to the end.
Imagine if someone told you 10 years ago that OPEC would be dead before 2020. Delightful.
Oil drops as OPEC makes supply cut dependent on Russian support
Imagine if someone told you 10 years ago that OPEC would be dead before 2020. Delightful.
Oil drops as OPEC makes supply cut dependent on Russian support
U.S. Becomes Net Oil Exporter For First Time In 75 Years | OilPrice.com
How could I miss this? The EIA weekly petroleum report shows a net import of -211kbpd. So yes, the US is now a net export of petroleum. This based on finished product though. Net import of crude is 4016 kbpd, while net export of finished products is 4227 kbpd. If refiner spreads are strong, this is favorable for the US. So low crude prices is not as much a problem as low fuel prices.
How could I miss this? The EIA weekly petroleum report shows a net import of -211kbpd. So yes, the US is now a net export of petroleum. This based on finished product though. Net import of crude is 4016 kbpd, while net export of finished products is 4227 kbpd. If refiner spreads are strong, this is favorable for the US. So low crude prices is not as much a problem as low fuel prices.
Interesting analysis: Low Oil Prices: An Indication of Major Problems Ahead?
I think we agree with the cheap oil scenario but it's a shame the author didn't study the effects of the EV transition, considering it might well have increasing returns (at least financially thanks to economy of scale). The beginning of the hypothesized collapse could end up accelerating the reinvestment of the fossil fuel money into clean energy and disrupt the entire thesis.
I think we agree with the cheap oil scenario but it's a shame the author didn't study the effects of the EV transition, considering it might well have increasing returns (at least financially thanks to economy of scale). The beginning of the hypothesized collapse could end up accelerating the reinvestment of the fossil fuel money into clean energy and disrupt the entire thesis.
Oil prices surge more than 4% as OPEC nears deal to cut output
- Oil prices rose on Friday morning on signs that OPEC and a group of allied producers are nearing a deal to cut output.
- OPEC is is targeting a cut of roughly 800,000 barrels per day, a source told Reuters.
- Russia earlier agreed to cut output by 200,000 barrels per day.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Saudi agrees to cut 800k OPEC-wide. Coincidentally the same amount they use per day to run thier air conditioners in the summer. Their solar plans, if implemented this summer or next, will remove an equal amount of demand.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
ZachF
Active Member
ZachF
Active Member
The fact of the matter is that the oil sector is going to get hit from both ends:
-Demand will fall because of EVs
-Supply has increased because of new fracking technology.
This will limit investment opportunities in the sector and it will eventually die.
I think the weak areas of the O&G sector aren't the western companies who have higher cost wells, but the petro states. IMHO, the next few years prices will ratchet back and forth between $40-75. When they get high, demand destruction will hasten and fracking supplies increase, when it falls, the "weakest link" petro state will enter a slow collapse (like Venezuela last time) and take that supply off the shelf, and push prices back up.
This pattern will continue until the sector becomes a non-entity in terms of importance. Remember, when EVs and ICEs are the same price, the ICE automobiles would need gasoline prices under $0.80 a gallon (in the US) to be competitive... i.e. less than the cost to refine and transport it, nevermind the oil itself and taxes.
-Demand will fall because of EVs
-Supply has increased because of new fracking technology.
This will limit investment opportunities in the sector and it will eventually die.
I think the weak areas of the O&G sector aren't the western companies who have higher cost wells, but the petro states. IMHO, the next few years prices will ratchet back and forth between $40-75. When they get high, demand destruction will hasten and fracking supplies increase, when it falls, the "weakest link" petro state will enter a slow collapse (like Venezuela last time) and take that supply off the shelf, and push prices back up.
This pattern will continue until the sector becomes a non-entity in terms of importance. Remember, when EVs and ICEs are the same price, the ICE automobiles would need gasoline prices under $0.80 a gallon (in the US) to be competitive... i.e. less than the cost to refine and transport it, nevermind the oil itself and taxes.
Similar threads
