The events of the past year have highlighted the complexity and interconnectedness of the global energy system. The increased focus on energy security as a result of the Russia-Ukraine war has the potential to accelerate the energy transition as countries seek to increase access to domestically produced energy, much of which is likely to come from renewables and other non-fossil fuels.
The war has long lasting effects on the global energy system. The heightened focus on energy security increases demand for domestically produced renewables and other non-fossil fuels helping to accelerate the energy transition.
record growth from last year alone avoiding €11 billion in gas costs
The study shows that past policy choices that increased the EU’s dependency on gas and held back the EU’s renewable and energy efficiency ambition are the main drivers of Europe’s record-high inflation now. Nevertheless, existing wind and solar capacity avoided considerable high-priced gas imports and thus prevented an even higher inflation and deeper crisis.
Domestic energy security is the strongest argument for a transition to alternatives.
Yeah we got all the natural gas we need to get rid of petroleum based autos and tell Russia to go pound sand.
Some people ignore that.
While falsely claiming to make a point based on “energy security” and “domestic production” they will (in reality) push their same old tired agenda.
Problem: It’s raining
Solution: Adopt my political agenda
Problem: It’s not raining
Solution: Adopt my political agenda
.
.
.
BP is a $120B company investing $3.5b a year in . . . renewables.
Trust me me on this:
If they were investing $3.5 b a year in natural gas they would be touting natural gas as the solution
If they were investing $3.5 b a year in nuclear they would be touting nuclear as a solution.
If they were investing $3.5 b a year in “use less energy” technology they would be touting “use less energy.”
Oh, their number one shareholder is Blackrock (owns 10.59%)
It is an exponential function the same way every commodity, every consumption item, every retirement system, every monetary expansion is an exponential function. There is nothing new or different about eco-problems and they can be “solved” the same way.
Pretending “The stuff I did not invest in does not exist” is not a solution. (That’s what BP is doing.)
Pretending “Things that are inconvenient to my pre-conceived political agenda do not exist” is not a solution. (That is what the Libs are doing.)
Earlier this month, they announced investments in oil and gas $1 billion a year above previous plans, in conjunction with this increased investment in renewables.
You are cherry picking to make a political point.
Oil and gas are here for the foreseeable future. No one argues that they won’t be.
But at some point a transition must happen…not because of politics or climate change…but that there will not be enough to keep civilization growing at some point.
BP invests 8.5% of its pre-tax operating profit
(a whopping 3% of its net worth) in “renewables”
Did you know they took a net loss last year?
BP has $55 billion in debt and they are BETTING THE FARM that they will make a profit off “renewables” which means natural gas, nuclear, energy reduction etc must fail. Their corporate strategy is to lobby government and the media to force people to adopt their “solution.”
Meanwhile Exxon and Chesapeake Energy and other companies have bet that consumers will be allowed to make their own choices, which at this moment clearly would be nat gas.
There is enough coal and natural gas available that, if energy were the only question, we could use zero petrol and zero renewables for the next 200 years.
The question is
Will we trust the IPCC scientists who say the seas will rise 13 inches in 100 years
or
Will we trust BP and liberals in the media who tells us “Now! Now! Now! It’s an emergency! It’s a crisis! We have to ignore science. We have to lump all fossil fuels together. We have to eliminate them all by 2035! Run! Hurry!!”
My question is, has anyone looked at what changing earths albedo with millions of black solar panels will do to climate?
Ah found one at least.
Covering 20% of the Sahara with solar farms raises local temperatures in the desert by 1.5°C according to our model. At 50% coverage, the temperature increase is 2.5°C. This warming is eventually spread around the globe by the atmosphere and ocean movement, raising the world’s average temperature by 0.16°C for 20% coverage, and 0.39°C for 50% coverage. The global temperature shift is not uniform though – the polar regions would warm more than the tropics, increasing sea ice loss in the Arctic. This could further accelerate warming, as melting sea ice exposes dark water which absorbs much more solar energy.
I did not mean to say “BP is already 100% out of the petroleum business”
Anything I wrote that implied that was an error.
I wrote
Because that is a true statement.
They took a net loss last year.
Yet they invested 8.5% of their pre-tax “operating profit” (3% of their market cap) in “renewables.” They are betting the farm on “renewables.”
If the market gets to choose, their $3.5b annual bet is toast.
If families get to choose, their $3.5b annual bet is toast.
Their future relies on lobbying governments to
----eliminate their competition and
----force people to buy their products.
That is who they are. That is what they do for a living.
I’m all for whatever energy source makes sense. Just not for erasing energy sources as a political fad. The world needs multiple sources of energy to increase food and reduce poverty.
Is Joe Biden lying?
My facts come form his energy department, not from some unresearched unquestioned stereotype I developed in my high school years
Based on U.S. coal production in 2021, of about 0.577 billion short tons, the recoverable coal reserves would last about 435 years, and recoverable reserves (Source 1: October 19, 2022, Joe Biden Energy Department, link below)
the United States has enough dry natural gas to last about 89 years.
(Source 2: February 21, 2023, Joe Biden Energy Department, link below)
They are pretending something doesn not exist.
Thread title read “Focus on energy security increases demand for domestically produced renewables and other non-fossil fuels”
That is not a fact.
Fact would be “. . . . increases demand for domestically produced energy including renewables, coal and natural gas.”
