Will the current oil crisis help us remove petroleum from our energy system long term?
Posted by HuckleberryPee@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 10 comments
Renewables have been growing their share of global energy generation steadily for years now. I'm sure we've all seen the huge solar fields going up across China, but Europe has also made serious progress with solar and wind, with balcony solar and solar panel fencing even becoming commonplace (although I can't say I've personally seen this in my region yet).
Even deprived countries with unreliable grid infrastructure, like India, Pakistan, Syria and South Africa have been buying up cheap Chinese panels and batteries to power homes independently of the grid.
The instability around oil driven largely by the Iran crisis seems like it may accelerate this shift, with reliance on imported oil increasingly being realised as a geopolitical liability rather than just an environmental one. And with renewables cheaper and easier to install than ever, the economic argument is becoming harder to ignore even for those who don't care about the climate side of things.
What I'm less clear on is the timeline. Month by month renewables grow as a percentage of total energy generation, but "mostly off oil" still feels a long way off. How long does transition actually take at scale? Are we looking at 10 years, 20, 50?
I'm also uncertain about climate tipping points... whether we've already locked in something catastrophic, or whether we're heading for a future that's deeply unstable but still livable for most people.
And yes, I realise climate change is only one facet of collapse and I'm ignoring rising wealth inequality, the demographic collapse, political instability, future pandemics etc. But for this I'm just focusing on climate change as it's one of the most unfixable threats.
Thoughts?
ZenApe@reddit
Idk about petroleum, but it's going to help us remove a lot of food from the system soon....
jenthehenmfc@reddit
Skinny girl summer!
ZenApe@reddit
Yeah! Starvation diet saves a ton on buccal fat removal.
j_mantuf@reddit
Doctors hate this one trick?
Same_Bug5069@reddit
We’re nowhere near replacing petroleum. Demand’s still high, and most renewables are just meeting new energy use, not displacing oil. It’s baked into transport, industry, everything. Even building out renewables still depends on fossil fuels. I just don't think its possible without serious degrowth policy from all the major consumers.
HuckleberryPee@reddit (OP)
But high oil prices and lack of fuel will presumably force factories to close as well as fewer vehicles transporting stuff if this whole fiasco continues or gets worse. If the cost of doing business is too high then they are forced to stop or find some alternative. Does fuel use go down in a depression?
Same_Bug5069@reddit
Yes, fuel use would go down in a depression, which is likely where we're headed, but I'd be shocked if that turned into anything meaningful or lasting. As soon as things recover, demand comes back. Without degrowth, I just don't see how we can really replace petroleum.
bbccaadd@reddit
The infinite plasticity of intangible energy...lol. I have no idea how much people view electricity as omnipotent.
CorvidCorbeau@reddit
The problem is that fossil fuels and their alternatives do not run in parallel. The entire world's energy infrastructure was built primarily for the fossil fuel platform. Even assuming we can fulfill all materials requirements for replacing it, you have to replace an insane amount of power generators and power consumers as well.
Also, since basically everything runs on fossil fuels, so does the manufacturing of the alternative. You need energy to mine, refine, transport, assemble, etc. And that energy comes from coal, oil and gas. It doesn't have to, but today there's no other option.
What complicates things even more is that renewables don't just have to be cheaper than fossil fuels. Say you want to replace coal power with solar. Building and operating the solar farm has to be cheaper than just the operating costs of the coal plant. Since the coal plant is already there.
There is little economic incentive to close down fossil fuel power plants because their operating costs are low. There's little social incentive to close them down because replacing civilian infrastructure is expensive. And there's little material incentive to close them because we still have decades worth of this stuff, even at current consumption rates, which will drop as prices rise.
Nobody should expect any kind of rapid transition on a meaningful scale. Slowly, if materials are available in the required amounts, maybe. But 10-20 years is out of the question. I'd say even 50 years is only enough for a partial transition. And that's assuming society is still intact by then.
HuckleberryPee@reddit (OP)
This is our great filter isn't it? I wonder if we had actually invested in nuclear energy more we wouldn't be in such a mess.