Comments (5)

  1. Joanne Fuchs says:

    Jeff dicks has it right. humans love to be more optimistic than they deserve. Both have it wrong on trump who will continue to support reduced emissions. He just doesn’t want to foot the bill on other countries. Of course, China etc. love the paris agreement…it was free to them for quite awhile.

  2. Alex Evanochko says:

    I , who happens to work in the Oil & Gas field. favor Mr. Dick’s side, but, I’d like to add some pertinent information for any one who cares. I work in a refinery in Alberta, Canada, and as such, I see first hand the demand for fossil fuel derived liquids as part of my daily work. As it happens, the greatest demand for fuel is for diesel. Gasoline, believe it or not, is merely a byproduct of the main process. Think of all the machinery that uses diesel and you will understand why. All mining vehicles, all farming vehicles, all vehicles used to transport goods, whether by land, sea or air all use diesel for propulsion. All military, fire related and health related transportation also use diesel as their primary source of fuel. I.E. they don’t make electric combines or tractors! Nor are there any electric fire truck or ambulances! So, the question for those gung-ho on renewable energy is How much hydrogen does it take to produce 1000 foot pounds of force (the amount of energy necessary to move 1 pound of matter 1 foot)? I’ll tell you. It takes roughly 9 times as much as the same quantity of diesel takes! In other words, You would need 9 times as much hydrogen to move the same amount of goods as it takes a single amount of diesel to move the same amount of goods. Now imagine the difficulties of cramming the same amount of energy into the space of a semi-truck or a tractor or a combine!! Westport Innovations thought they could revolutionize the trucking industry with their natural gas engines until they ran head long into the physics of energy consumption. What makes the hydrogen people think they can succeed where nat, gas failed? As for electricity, You would need a battery that is, at least 4-6 times the size of normal batteries to produce the same amount of power as diesel produces So, no, I don’t think fossil fuels are going away any time soon, even past 2040…

  3. Jean-Michel Gauthier says:

    Brilliant article
    I admit, I was becoming quite bearish on oil for a while. not through wild-eyed green optimism, but pure fear that shale is going to up-end the equation of supply & demand

    Shale , for me, is still the joker in the deck; with money costing nothing, inflation very tame (mostly due to demographics, but i digress…), and IT R&D (i’m in IT as a Enterprise Technology Arch.) just trucking (.e. moving on up…), is not the point of shale costs dropping lower and lower ?

    1- I fear heavily for the OIL-SANDS, and think canada is going to be in a world of hurt; stocks are still up (like cnq/TSE) but I don’t know how they can make it in a shale-driven world….

    2- All arab countries (or most) have much lower points of profitability (i.e. cost recovery at what, $10 for the saudis?), and they have not even started enhanced recovery..

    So I find it hard to see how it will recover, even as the green energy effort is going to falter and heavily miss the mark expected of it by futurists ? Thoughts ?

    thank you for great article, I am (very) modestly bullish but a very nervous nellie in this field 🙂

    Take care
    JMG

  4. rICK jULIEN says:

    EXPONENTIAL CHANGE WILL SWEEP THE GLOBE ON MANY DIFFERENT FRONTS. THUS. i BELIEVE ELECTRIC CARS AND OTHER NON TRADITION POWER SOURCES WILL REDUCE THE NEED FOR OIL AT A FASTER RATE THAN US BABY BOOMERS, WHO LIVED THROUGH OIL EMBARGOES AND GAS CRISIS, CAN TRULY COMPREHEND
    KEEP UP THE INTERESTING THOUGHT PROVOKING WEEKLY ARTICLES.
    RICK

  5. I think electricity is going to be predominant in the near and middle term.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *