The end of the Arab world’s oil age is nigh(economist.com)
economist.com
The end of the Arab world’s oil age is nigh
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/07/18/the-end-of-the-arab-worlds-oil-age-is-nigh
252 comments
Yes, 17 years ago..
> Hydrogen fuel cells and other ways of storing and distributing energy are no longer a distant dream but a foreseeable reality.
And that was said at least 20 years earlier still.
I really hope we'll reach the end of the Oil Age, but as one gets older it becomes hard not to be sceptical of these claims. Seeing is believing.. more evidence.
In this thread so far only one comment mentioned geo-politics surrounding oil - a building block of global power - that needs to be dealt with. Hampering the transition to clean energy.
> Hydrogen fuel cells and other ways of storing and distributing energy are no longer a distant dream but a foreseeable reality.
And that was said at least 20 years earlier still.
I really hope we'll reach the end of the Oil Age, but as one gets older it becomes hard not to be sceptical of these claims. Seeing is believing.. more evidence.
In this thread so far only one comment mentioned geo-politics surrounding oil - a building block of global power - that needs to be dealt with. Hampering the transition to clean energy.
I really hope we'll reach the end of the Oil Age, but as one gets older it becomes hard not to be sceptical of these claims. Seeing is believing.. more evidence.
Tesla keeps outperforming other car makers, even in a difficult environment: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/tech/tesla-sales/index.html.
VW's electrics are about to hit: https://electrek.co/2020/07/13/volkswagen-vw-id-3-electric-c....
Electric semis are moving towards production, by Tesla, Daimler, and others.
Even electric bikes and scooters are still seeing massive sales growth. If you've not tried you, you should.
The change is happening. Long-haul plane flights will remain on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future but the rest of the world is changing, fast.
Tesla keeps outperforming other car makers, even in a difficult environment: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/tech/tesla-sales/index.html.
VW's electrics are about to hit: https://electrek.co/2020/07/13/volkswagen-vw-id-3-electric-c....
Electric semis are moving towards production, by Tesla, Daimler, and others.
Even electric bikes and scooters are still seeing massive sales growth. If you've not tried you, you should.
The change is happening. Long-haul plane flights will remain on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future but the rest of the world is changing, fast.
What metric are you using to conclude Tesla outperforming other car makers? In 2019,BMW sold ~9 times as many cars, Toyota and VW AG sold 30 times as many. Are we just assuming that its rate of growth will continue indefinitely, even as the other carmakers continue to electrify their line ups?
I do agree that oil is on its way out though.
I do agree that oil is on its way out though.
Old cars will remain in use. Electric car sales, even after the big companies start making them, will only represent, say, 50% of all sales.
The world will be majority electric in probably 30 years... If we're lucky.
The world will be majority electric in probably 30 years... If we're lucky.
I will take the other side of that bet. 15 years top. We're at an inflection point economically and politically. If the political will isn't there (of all the things wrong with China, they are at least moving very fast to electrify transportation), you'll buy electric because it's cheaper per mile (half the cost) than internal combustion. Range is solved (Model 3/Y have ~300 miles of range, S/X almost 400, Cybertruck is anticipated to have 500 miles), charging is solved (Fast DC charging networks, Tesla's primarily with others catching up), it's all up to get the cost down a bit more.
Not related to oil directly, but three California utilities did the math and showed peaker plants are no longer cost competitive against solar backed by batteries [1] [2]. The transition to electrify everything is in full swing.
Disclosure: TSLA investor/owner.
[1] https://www.bloombergquint.com/technology/new-california-stu...
[2] https://library.sce.com/content/dam/sce-doclib/public/regula...
Not related to oil directly, but three California utilities did the math and showed peaker plants are no longer cost competitive against solar backed by batteries [1] [2]. The transition to electrify everything is in full swing.
Disclosure: TSLA investor/owner.
[1] https://www.bloombergquint.com/technology/new-california-stu...
[2] https://library.sce.com/content/dam/sce-doclib/public/regula...
Range is solved for many uses. But in my case, I only have a single car. It needs to get me around town, as well as drive me halfway across the US to see my parents for Christmas, in addition to driving me to out-of-the-way places for hiking. Take Big Bend National Park, for instance. The nearest city is two hours away. The park itself is so large that there is a gas station within the park (also, the next gas station is an hour north). I would not expect to find a charging station within two hours of the park. And even if there is, simply replace BBNP with a less popular remote place.
If I had two cars, electric is completely doable, but for one car, it needs to work everywhere, which isn't possible yet.
If I had two cars, electric is completely doable, but for one car, it needs to work everywhere, which isn't possible yet.
I am working to get Tesla destination chargers installed in US national parks (Tesla donated chargers to Parks Canada for their parks [1], but US gov bureaucracy is....annoying). And when you say "everywhere", the Tesla Supercharger network is already extensive globally [2]. To install a bank of destination chargers is a few thousand dollars and a few days of construction time. Supercharger stations are a bit more (~$150k, planning, construction, utility support for large amounts of current on demand), but also doable.
Our household is exclusively Teslas (Model S, X, Y) and we drive ~30k miles a year collectively across the country. It can be done without sacrifice.
[1] https://electrek.co/2019/09/06/tesla-donate-electric-car-cha...
[2] https://supercharge.info/map
Our household is exclusively Teslas (Model S, X, Y) and we drive ~30k miles a year collectively across the country. It can be done without sacrifice.
[1] https://electrek.co/2019/09/06/tesla-donate-electric-car-cha...
[2] https://supercharge.info/map
Tesla can indeed do that though. The super charging network is insanely good.
Edit - take your extreme big bend example. I was able to map it. Try it out at https://abetterrouteplanner.com/. Had me stop at Fort Stockton, TX. You would need to top off in the park, perhaps at an RV site.
That said - how many trips to big bend per year do you do? For most people, you can rent an ICE car once a year for ~$150, and still satisfy 99% of your driving with other options
Edit - take your extreme big bend example. I was able to map it. Try it out at https://abetterrouteplanner.com/. Had me stop at Fort Stockton, TX. You would need to top off in the park, perhaps at an RV site.
That said - how many trips to big bend per year do you do? For most people, you can rent an ICE car once a year for ~$150, and still satisfy 99% of your driving with other options
The average age of a car in the US is 12 years: https://www.statista.com/statistics/261877/average-age-of-pa...
I appreciate your courage. 30 years is a short time when many cars have a far higher lifespan plus for you to win this bet it would mean that US car sales are 100% electric in probably something like 10 years.
I appreciate your courage. 30 years is a short time when many cars have a far higher lifespan plus for you to win this bet it would mean that US car sales are 100% electric in probably something like 10 years.
There is going to be a tipping point where things will start to change much quicker.
#1 Price of EVs is going down fast and will continue to decline as the price and weight of batteries drops.
#2 As vehicles on the road shifts to EVs, gas stations will become less and less profitable and the number of gas stations will decline, slowly at first, then very quickly in areas where land values are high and there are more profitable uses for land.
#3 As the number of gas stations decline, the single biggest advantage of ICE vehicles melts away and the fact that EVs are charged at home will become increasingly appealing. Gas stations will be around for a long time, but they will be increasingly scarce.
Obviously, we're nowhere close to the above happening now, but if 50% of cars sold are EV, the economics around ICE vehicles will change massively. There are a lot of other bits here too, ICE vehicles require lots of maintenance and dealerships will start to struggle as well with lower sales.
This is going to happen slowly at first, then it is going to happen very quickly once the economics and benefits of owning gas powered cars starts to break down.
#1 Price of EVs is going down fast and will continue to decline as the price and weight of batteries drops.
#2 As vehicles on the road shifts to EVs, gas stations will become less and less profitable and the number of gas stations will decline, slowly at first, then very quickly in areas where land values are high and there are more profitable uses for land.
#3 As the number of gas stations decline, the single biggest advantage of ICE vehicles melts away and the fact that EVs are charged at home will become increasingly appealing. Gas stations will be around for a long time, but they will be increasingly scarce.
Obviously, we're nowhere close to the above happening now, but if 50% of cars sold are EV, the economics around ICE vehicles will change massively. There are a lot of other bits here too, ICE vehicles require lots of maintenance and dealerships will start to struggle as well with lower sales.
This is going to happen slowly at first, then it is going to happen very quickly once the economics and benefits of owning gas powered cars starts to break down.
I agree with your first 2 points, but the thing which I can't wrap my head around is point 3. The ability to run a cable from your home to your car will always be a physical impossibility for millions of car owners.
From what I can tell the idea of battery swapping stations seems to be dead in the water. And I seem to remember that 15 miles minute of charging is where we are (numbers might be old), meaning many more visits to third party charging stations and each visit taking longer than a liquid fuel pump.
I'd love an electric car, but without a private driveway for personal infrastructure, it just doesn't make sense until the third party infrastructure is ubiquitous or there are huge gains in charge speed, or both. I see the odd one in random places: private underground car parks, KFC, odd hotel car park, but these can only cater to the enthusiast who can also charge at home. Hopefully I'll be wrong sooner rather than later.
From what I can tell the idea of battery swapping stations seems to be dead in the water. And I seem to remember that 15 miles minute of charging is where we are (numbers might be old), meaning many more visits to third party charging stations and each visit taking longer than a liquid fuel pump.
I'd love an electric car, but without a private driveway for personal infrastructure, it just doesn't make sense until the third party infrastructure is ubiquitous or there are huge gains in charge speed, or both. I see the odd one in random places: private underground car parks, KFC, odd hotel car park, but these can only cater to the enthusiast who can also charge at home. Hopefully I'll be wrong sooner rather than later.
This is the main thing holding me back from going electric. I live in a metropolitan area, I park on the street. There's no way for me to get electricity to my car... and there's not a chance in hell I'm fucking around at a charging station for 2 hours in the middle of a commute.
Gas stations also aren't going anywhere. The average age of a car in the US is 12 years old. That means that, even if today we switched to only selling 100% electric cars off the lots, we're looking at 12 years (!) before 50% (!) of the cars on the road are electric. Finally, the current trend of free-or-almost-free charging stations is going to go away very quickly once electric cars become more mainstream -- I wouldn't be surprised if a "charge" ended up costing about as much as a tank of gas. This kills one of the main arguments for going electric in the first place.
Gas stations also aren't going anywhere. The average age of a car in the US is 12 years old. That means that, even if today we switched to only selling 100% electric cars off the lots, we're looking at 12 years (!) before 50% (!) of the cars on the road are electric. Finally, the current trend of free-or-almost-free charging stations is going to go away very quickly once electric cars become more mainstream -- I wouldn't be surprised if a "charge" ended up costing about as much as a tank of gas. This kills one of the main arguments for going electric in the first place.
I appreciate the kind works, but this is for my kids. Don't mistake desperation for them to have a future for courage. Climate change is going to impact everyone.
Yes, they’ll sell more as they get cheaper.
> The world will be majority electric in probably 30 years... If we're lucky.
Whether the world is "majority" electric or not won't help the economies of these countries. One way or the other, demand for oil is on decline that is destroying the price of oil. All these countries that depend on fat oil profit margins are going to suffer as their margins decline to zero. In a few places, players are already dropping as margins for oil production have gone negative. (The cost to pump is greater than the price of crude) There are big surpluses now, even while electric cars are still a small percentage of vehicles sold as the mix shifts to electric, demand and prices of oil drop.
Whether the world is "majority" electric or not won't help the economies of these countries. One way or the other, demand for oil is on decline that is destroying the price of oil. All these countries that depend on fat oil profit margins are going to suffer as their margins decline to zero. In a few places, players are already dropping as margins for oil production have gone negative. (The cost to pump is greater than the price of crude) There are big surpluses now, even while electric cars are still a small percentage of vehicles sold as the mix shifts to electric, demand and prices of oil drop.
I don't understand why companies like Toyota and Honda and Hyundai haven't moved on electric. Ford and GM I understand, I don't expect them to do anything anymore, but 10 years ago I thought the Japanese and/or Korean companies would be shipping multiple electric models by now.
Tesla, with so little marketshare and so many fewer dollars in revenue, seems to have made incredible progress.
Tesla, with so little marketshare and so many fewer dollars in revenue, seems to have made incredible progress.
Toyota is shipping multiple electric models, though. The RAV4 Prime is quite impressive.
Part of it is culture and general pathologies - the upper management still thinks hydrogen is a workable idea which would be a bit more faie back in the 1990s or 2000s when batteries hadn't caught up.
Another factor is the general innovators dilemma where they have tremendous sunk costs in their old fuel burning ecosystem.
To be fair generally moving from a mature and high scaled to an untested and new approach is expensive and downright reckless looking levels of risk, only vindicated after a success when the unforseen or unbelieved shoe drops.
Another factor is the general innovators dilemma where they have tremendous sunk costs in their old fuel burning ecosystem.
To be fair generally moving from a mature and high scaled to an untested and new approach is expensive and downright reckless looking levels of risk, only vindicated after a success when the unforseen or unbelieved shoe drops.
Hyundai is doing it. They started out with the lackluster Ioniq EV, but the Kona EV has proven to be quite popular, and seems like a very decent, fairly aggressively priced vehicle. It's cheaper than the closest comparable model, the Kia Niro EV, and has a slight edge (e.g. battery warmer except on the cheapest model). Still more expensive than the Bolt, but arguably a better car.
because they bet on natural gas. however, the us politics dictate we must go into batteries, even tho they have their own problems ;-)
I don't think there are batteries that meet Toyota's durability standards.
Toyota wants their cars to be able to last a million miles in extreme environments (-40 degrees Alaska, +120 degrees F deserts). You can't do that with today's off-the-shelf battery technology.
Toyota wants their cars to be able to last a million miles in extreme environments (-40 degrees Alaska, +120 degrees F deserts). You can't do that with today's off-the-shelf battery technology.
Gas cars can't go a million miles on one engine, either, and need endless maintenance. EVs already get past a few 100k miles with much less work. EVs will be first to 10^6 miles.
Yes, I don't deny there are good signs to be hopeful this time.
Also those energy packs, once no longer usable in a car, can still be used for years for domestic solar energy storage.
Also those energy packs, once no longer usable in a car, can still be used for years for domestic solar energy storage.
On the long term, planes will move from fuel to hydrogen, too... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_aircraft
Elon and other CEO's in the transportation space owe alot of their success to the Obama administration. Massive loans to a variety of electrical car makers and the privatization of space access in the US.
I'm sure any American Government support for electrics pales compared to what the Chinese government is doing but isn't government investment a great thing? That's what every sane country with a car industry should do :-)
Government investing in technology is great. Wish we did more of it.
>But don’t be fooled. The world’s economies are moving away from fossil fuels.
There is absolutely no evidence for this, and much to the contrary. Global CO2 production, which is a good proxy for overall fossil fuel use as steadily risen [0]. This comparison is limited only in that it fails to show that switching from coal to LNG does decrease emissions while doing nothing to change reliance on fossil fuels.
The dip in emissions and oil production that happen with the pandemic demonstrate very clearly that emissions and fossil fuel consumption are directly tied to our economic activity. Since our goal is to resume to "normal" as soon as possible global fossil fuel consumption will get back to "normal" as soon as our economies do (now what plays out there is an interesting question).
Bizarre that the Economist can make an assertion like that and people swallow it without question.
[0]. https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019
There is absolutely no evidence for this, and much to the contrary. Global CO2 production, which is a good proxy for overall fossil fuel use as steadily risen [0]. This comparison is limited only in that it fails to show that switching from coal to LNG does decrease emissions while doing nothing to change reliance on fossil fuels.
The dip in emissions and oil production that happen with the pandemic demonstrate very clearly that emissions and fossil fuel consumption are directly tied to our economic activity. Since our goal is to resume to "normal" as soon as possible global fossil fuel consumption will get back to "normal" as soon as our economies do (now what plays out there is an interesting question).
Bizarre that the Economist can make an assertion like that and people swallow it without question.
[0]. https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019
US fossil fuel consumption has been dropping for a while, with per person emissions peaked in the 70’s. Population growth offset that, but total US CO2 emissions peaked in 2007. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carb...
Globally population and economic growth has hidden the trends, but kg per PPP $ of GDP shows very steady improvements. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD
This goes beyond simple efficiency gains, fossil fuels are inherently limited in what they can provide and we are moving past them.
Globally population and economic growth has hidden the trends, but kg per PPP $ of GDP shows very steady improvements. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD
This goes beyond simple efficiency gains, fossil fuels are inherently limited in what they can provide and we are moving past them.
You're citing evidence of falling emissions, but that doesn't mean consumption has fallen. It looks like US fossil fuel consumption peaked in 2005, slightly above the mid-70s peak, based on data from the US Energy Information Administration[1]. It's split out into petroleum/coal/natural gas categories, but some hovering and mental math shows 2005 was the peak. The preceding decade was about as high as the mid 70s. There's a significant drop after 2007, but still not below the early 70s level.
US energy is cleaner now, and the percentage of total energy from fossil fuels has been steadily decreasing since 1970 [2], but total consumption of fossil fuels is still high.
Edit: this isn't per-capita; the per-capita numbers would definitely be lower.
[1]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10
[2]: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/foss...
US energy is cleaner now, and the percentage of total energy from fossil fuels has been steadily decreasing since 1970 [2], but total consumption of fossil fuels is still high.
Edit: this isn't per-capita; the per-capita numbers would definitely be lower.
[1]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10
[2]: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/foss...
Fossil fuel isn't really important when we're talking specifically about oil. And Oil production has been steadily increasing:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265203/global-oil-produc...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265203/global-oil-produc...
The updated graph for [1] through 2018 is revealing: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40013
The big story looks like the huge transition from coal to natural gas. 2005 remains the peak for petroleum, but it's been increasing recently.
The big story looks like the huge transition from coal to natural gas. 2005 remains the peak for petroleum, but it's been increasing recently.
We have to mention that manufacturing moved out of the US, so of course emissions dropped. Look at Chinese emissions.
We're just re-arranging chairs on the Titanic.
We're just re-arranging chairs on the Titanic.
All that is happened is that the bulk of industrial production has been pushed overseas. Yes, personal emissions in automobiles has gone down and in many places the electricity grid is pretty green, but net emissions have gone up massively nonetheless.
“How did you go bankrupt?"
"Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”
Right, but oil as used for transportation is the far harder nut to crack.
there's a magic crossover point where cost-per-kwh for batteries gets low enough that it's cheaper to build an electric car than a gas car. There's some evidence that we've crossed that line in the last few months - now there's a bottleneck of how many batteries can be produced to meet demand - but that's changing fast, too. The transition is going to be faster than people expect.
The way car manufacturers are pumping out BEVs and PHEVs with 50+ km range, and buyers are gobbling them up, I think that nut is showing serious fissures ;-)
Personally, I'm expecting to reduce fuel spending by about 80 or 90% ...
Personally, I'm expecting to reduce fuel spending by about 80 or 90% ...
It's important to bear in mind that this article isn't primarily about global fossil fuel consumption, it's almost entirely about the economic issues affecting petrostates.
Two things are hitting oil states right now. One is that developing countries, which pay the best rates for oil, are consuming less of it. The remaining increases in demand are from developing countries, but they are following the same arc as developed countries, and on a relatively accelerated time frame. Their consumption will also decline. One thing TE doesn't address is that another factor is the diversification and increase in global oil supplies from new suppliers, including frackers. That's probably having a bigger impact on the traditional petrostates right now. Hoverver the article is mainly looking at where the puck is going, not where it is now.
Two things are hitting oil states right now. One is that developing countries, which pay the best rates for oil, are consuming less of it. The remaining increases in demand are from developing countries, but they are following the same arc as developed countries, and on a relatively accelerated time frame. Their consumption will also decline. One thing TE doesn't address is that another factor is the diversification and increase in global oil supplies from new suppliers, including frackers. That's probably having a bigger impact on the traditional petrostates right now. Hoverver the article is mainly looking at where the puck is going, not where it is now.
More non-Arab suppliers is one side. The other is that these petro-states today have much larger populations, with much higher expectations, than they did in the 70s. Saudi oil is still cheap to pump, but instead of 6M people, they now have 33M, who each spend 20x what they did, and aren't on the whole accustomed to working for it.
The report you link says the same thing:
> Emissions trends for 2019 suggest clean energy transitions are underway, led by the power sector.
> Emissions trends for 2019 suggest clean energy transitions are underway, led by the power sector.
Drill down in the data slightly:
In the developed world, CO₂ emissions peaked in 2007 and have been declining since. It's only in the developing world that they're rising, and that's dominated by China and India.
In the developed world, CO₂ emissions peaked in 2007 and have been declining since. It's only in the developing world that they're rising, and that's dominated by China and India.
Because that's where we moved our manufacturing.
That is most certainly one component of it. Another is boiling water with burnt coal is still one of the cheapest ways to make electricity. Most of the US decline I would personally attribute to the massive switchover to NG from coal. If that price ratio flipped back around you would probably see a switch back to coal in the US.
...electricity that is needed to manufacture the products consumed by the US
as of about 2018, solar is cheaper than coal. natural gas is only cheaper because it's a byproduct of oil production. solar is still dropping in price due to technology improvements, and will beat natural gas within the next year or two.
Coal mines have been shuttering - there's a feedback loop here, low demand will reduce the supply, low supply increases the cost, high cost reduces the demand.
Coal mines have been shuttering - there's a feedback loop here, low demand will reduce the supply, low supply increases the cost, high cost reduces the demand.
Is solar cheaper than coal when excluding subsidies and including storage?
On grids with competitive markets that still have a mixture of operational coal and combined cycle gas turbine plants, the short term coal/gas balance is strongly influenced by short term pricing trends. See for example this article, which is a few years old but still illustrative:
"Coal-to-Gas Switching: It’s All in the Price"
https://www.powermag.com/coal-to-gas-switching-its-all-in-th...
A coal-to-gas parity calculation—using current average Illinois Basin spot coal prices, current SO2 and NOx emissions costs, a $9.00/ton coal transportation cost, a $1.50/MWh average variable non-fuel O&M cost, and adjusted for the higher efficiency of a 7,500-Btu/kWh CCGT plant versus a 10,500-Btu/kWh coal plant—yields a gas floor of $4.15/MMBtu. While this gas parity calculation is broad, it indicates a move toward some potential for coal-to-gas switching for plants consuming Illinois Basin coal if actual forward delivered gas costs are in the range of those previously calculated.
A parity calculation for Powder River Basin coal using the same heat rate assumptions and emissions costs, current coal market prices, and a transportation rate of $16/ton yields a gas floor price of $2.42/MMBtu. While individual plant costs may vary, this indicates limited displacement of PRB coal in the Midwest when compared against the calculated forward gas price curve.
Depending on the coal source, it makes short term sense to displace as much coal as possible with gas at a gas price point below either $4.15/MMBtu or $2.42/MMBtu.
For comparison, current Henry Hub gas spot prices are below $1.70/MMBtu: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdM.htm
Gas is currently taking market share against coal up to the limits of generator capacity in any competitive market in the continental US. Part of the coal fleet still operates because there is not enough gas generator capacity yet built to replace all coal generators. Another part of the coal fleet still operates because the plants are operating as part of regulated utilities that do not have to compete with/respond to short term market incentives.
If gas prices shot up to $5/MMBtu, there would be a dramatic short term shift back toward coal. The fuel mix "floats" in the short term.
In the long term, the factors promoting gas plants in the US are more of a ratchet than a float. The median coal plant is much older than the median gas plant. Many of them are reaching end-of-life. Building a new 500 megawatt coal plant is significantly more expensive and slower than building a new 500 megawatt CCGT gas plant. Once built, coal plants require more maintenance and more employees to run than a gas plant. This makes it particularly expensive to run a coal plant if it's only needed during peak demand seasons.
As far as I can tell, Spiritwood Industrial Park was the last coal plant successfully completed in the continental US, in 2014:
https://www.gem.wiki/Spiritwood_Industrial_Park
It started construction in 2007. As of this year, it is already slated for conversion to natural gas.
I don't expect another coal plant to be built in the continental US, even if gas prices rebound.
"Coal-to-Gas Switching: It’s All in the Price"
https://www.powermag.com/coal-to-gas-switching-its-all-in-th...
A coal-to-gas parity calculation—using current average Illinois Basin spot coal prices, current SO2 and NOx emissions costs, a $9.00/ton coal transportation cost, a $1.50/MWh average variable non-fuel O&M cost, and adjusted for the higher efficiency of a 7,500-Btu/kWh CCGT plant versus a 10,500-Btu/kWh coal plant—yields a gas floor of $4.15/MMBtu. While this gas parity calculation is broad, it indicates a move toward some potential for coal-to-gas switching for plants consuming Illinois Basin coal if actual forward delivered gas costs are in the range of those previously calculated.
A parity calculation for Powder River Basin coal using the same heat rate assumptions and emissions costs, current coal market prices, and a transportation rate of $16/ton yields a gas floor price of $2.42/MMBtu. While individual plant costs may vary, this indicates limited displacement of PRB coal in the Midwest when compared against the calculated forward gas price curve.
Depending on the coal source, it makes short term sense to displace as much coal as possible with gas at a gas price point below either $4.15/MMBtu or $2.42/MMBtu.
For comparison, current Henry Hub gas spot prices are below $1.70/MMBtu: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdM.htm
Gas is currently taking market share against coal up to the limits of generator capacity in any competitive market in the continental US. Part of the coal fleet still operates because there is not enough gas generator capacity yet built to replace all coal generators. Another part of the coal fleet still operates because the plants are operating as part of regulated utilities that do not have to compete with/respond to short term market incentives.
If gas prices shot up to $5/MMBtu, there would be a dramatic short term shift back toward coal. The fuel mix "floats" in the short term.
In the long term, the factors promoting gas plants in the US are more of a ratchet than a float. The median coal plant is much older than the median gas plant. Many of them are reaching end-of-life. Building a new 500 megawatt coal plant is significantly more expensive and slower than building a new 500 megawatt CCGT gas plant. Once built, coal plants require more maintenance and more employees to run than a gas plant. This makes it particularly expensive to run a coal plant if it's only needed during peak demand seasons.
As far as I can tell, Spiritwood Industrial Park was the last coal plant successfully completed in the continental US, in 2014:
https://www.gem.wiki/Spiritwood_Industrial_Park
It started construction in 2007. As of this year, it is already slated for conversion to natural gas.
I don't expect another coal plant to be built in the continental US, even if gas prices rebound.
And their populations have become much more affluent (carbon emissions correlate strongly with wealth).
Poverty levels in China went from 98% to less than 25% in 26 years from 1990[1].
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/poverty-rate
Poverty levels in China went from 98% to less than 25% in 26 years from 1990[1].
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/poverty-rate
> (carbon emissions correlate strongly with wealth).
Until they don't, and only the poor who cannot afford better energy sources use fossil fuels.
We're told something similar happened with personal calorie intake ...
Until they don't, and only the poor who cannot afford better energy sources use fossil fuels.
We're told something similar happened with personal calorie intake ...
> Global CO2 production, which is a good proxy for overall fossil fuel use as steadily risen
Emissions reductions are much slower than the rate at which products are consumed.
If every 10 years your planes get 2% more efficient but at the same time the air traffic jumps by 15% you're still fucked. Which is basically what's happening in every industries
Emissions reductions are much slower than the rate at which products are consumed.
If every 10 years your planes get 2% more efficient but at the same time the air traffic jumps by 15% you're still fucked. Which is basically what's happening in every industries
Not all demand is equal. If your customers are Indians, Chinese, and Filipinos, your ability to sell $100/barrel oil (needed to balance budgets in many of these countries) is much weaker than if your customers were Americans, Germans, and Japanese.
It is unfortunate from a short-term local human perspective but Saudi Arabia devolving into anarchy would be excellent from a climate change point of view - a huge amount of CO2 would be locked into the ground and the price spike would dramatically speed up electrification of transport.
It is unfortunate from a short-term local human perspective but Saudi Arabia devolving into anarchy would be excellent from a climate change point of view - a huge amount of CO2 would be locked into the ground and the price spike would dramatically speed up electrification of transport.
The cost per kwh of renewable energy (solar, wind) is plummeting. So is battery storage. I assume that is the basis for that prediction.
edit: a good source is tony seba
edit: a good source is tony seba
Saudi Arabia missed a huge opportunity in the 2010s. They could be one of the biggest solar players in the world, they are equatorial with a ton of cloudless desert land for utility scale. They waffled on their impulsive solar plans and they are years behind where smart policy could've put them.
Step back and just imagine: they are burning oil for electricity in one of the best solar markets possible. Burning oil for electricity is like using whale oil for lamps, it's harming your own society and planet due to myopic decision making.
Step back and just imagine: they are burning oil for electricity in one of the best solar markets possible. Burning oil for electricity is like using whale oil for lamps, it's harming your own society and planet due to myopic decision making.
Domestic energy production is the least of its problems. It's worth reading:
- https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/venezuela-crisis
vs:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20100123225932/http://www.ft.com...
("The Iraqi who saved Norway from oil")
Saudi Arabia is making an effort of weaning its economy off oil per the submitted article and:
- https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/saudi-arabias-shaky-experim...
But it's still hugely dependent on oil, again per the submitted article and many others such as:
- https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/05/27/a...
Edit: there's four countries with sovereign wealth funds over 1T: China, UAE, Canada, Norway. Saudi Arabia is fifth, with 890B. According to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sovereign...
- https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/venezuela-crisis
vs:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20100123225932/http://www.ft.com...
("The Iraqi who saved Norway from oil")
Saudi Arabia is making an effort of weaning its economy off oil per the submitted article and:
- https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/saudi-arabias-shaky-experim...
But it's still hugely dependent on oil, again per the submitted article and many others such as:
- https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/05/27/a...
Edit: there's four countries with sovereign wealth funds over 1T: China, UAE, Canada, Norway. Saudi Arabia is fifth, with 890B. According to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sovereign...
Their economy is basically broken, as is common for a rentier economy. I think the most alarming stat is that for the most part, the Saudi economy doesn’t actually involve Saudis; 90% of non-oil jobs in Saudi Arabia are held by non-Saudis, and only 30-40% of Saudis have or want a job. To a massive degree the Saudi economy is run by expats and migrant labor, and the important question is this: “Does Saudi have the ability to retain this labor once the oil money is gone?”
They have started doing just that, I believe. And waiting a bit seems like a good idea with solar, newer technology is more efficient, reliable and cheaper.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/saudis-...
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1615406/saudi-arabia
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/saudis-...
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1615406/saudi-arabia
>They could be one of the biggest solar players in the world
And what would they do with that? They can't package solar-harvested energy and export it to China. They can provide regional power during daytime - but probably for more money than oil/gas ... and they will still need to rely on oil/gas for base-load, mornings, evenings and night-time.
And what would they do with that? They can't package solar-harvested energy and export it to China. They can provide regional power during daytime - but probably for more money than oil/gas ... and they will still need to rely on oil/gas for base-load, mornings, evenings and night-time.
> They can't package solar-harvested energy and export it to China
Yes, they can. Bulk industrial chemicals are portable and extremely energy intensive [1].
[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/industry.p...
Yes, they can. Bulk industrial chemicals are portable and extremely energy intensive [1].
[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/industry.p...
> They can't package solar-harvested energy and export it to China
Essentially that's what aluminum refining from bauxite does.
It's also not impossible to build long distance transmission lines that far, but that's a big infrastructure project across an unstable region and the highest mountain range on earth.
Essentially that's what aluminum refining from bauxite does.
It's also not impossible to build long distance transmission lines that far, but that's a big infrastructure project across an unstable region and the highest mountain range on earth.
There's a lot of money to be made converting industrial processes to be usable with intermittent energy sources.
https://www.aztlanchemicals.com/
https://www.aztlanchemicals.com/
Maybe. You have a massive capital outlay, so it becomes a tradeoff between saving money on electricity by running only when it's below a certain price and running all the time.
Usually electricity cost doesn't dominate the equation, so it makes sense to run 24/7 (or as close to that as you can get).
Aluminium refining is different, but usually those plants buy dedicated electric capacity from a hydro station at special wholesale rates. It does not lend itself to starting and stopping.
Usually electricity cost doesn't dominate the equation, so it makes sense to run 24/7 (or as close to that as you can get).
Aluminium refining is different, but usually those plants buy dedicated electric capacity from a hydro station at special wholesale rates. It does not lend itself to starting and stopping.
AFAIK, aluminium smelters would have significant issues if their pots overly cooled. OTOH, their massive energy consumption can be significantly modulated which is often used for grid load stabilization.
I've never heard of this as a viable economic way of storing solar power. Don't those aluminum forges have to run 24/7 and starting/stopping them is a huge pain in the ass?
I don't think they mean this as power storage, rather, shifting the location of power usage to the place where power prices could be ridiculously low. Smelting bauxite is an energy-intensive process. If you do it in China, you need to import the energy to do it. If you instead send bauxite to KSA they could use their cheap energy and send the resulting aluminum to China.
It's not storing the energy, it's making energy storage and transport a redundant step.
It's not storing the energy, it's making energy storage and transport a redundant step.
Yeah, it is a pain with all smelters currently in use. There is maybe an alternative deign that could change that. But the idea here is not to store the energy, but to export it as chemical energy via aluminum.
Not so much storing, as exploiting the locally-cheap energy.
Canada for example, was and still is, a major destination for bauxite ore. There are large hydroelectric dams in Quebec dedicated specifically to aluminum smelting.
Canada for example, was and still is, a major destination for bauxite ore. There are large hydroelectric dams in Quebec dedicated specifically to aluminum smelting.
Agree with your premise of not being able to ship it cheaply, but base-load does not exist for 10+ years anymore in most modern energy grids (at least not the way described by people who are saying we are badly reliant on fossils). And if you have this much space, at least for domestic energy, power storages would suffice for the night/non-sun periods.
There was this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec and you can also store large amounts of energy in hydrogen or methane produced from electricity.
It's tough today but there are paths to solutions. E.g. hydrogen storage
If it was easy, there would be no debate, and probably no opportunity.
If it was easy, there would be no debate, and probably no opportunity.
What does China have to do with it? If they can produce competitive solar energy I'm sure lots of middle east, europe and africa would buy up their watts. Egypt, Ethiopia, Turkey, Iran are all right next door.
Have you ever been there? Solar panels would be extremely useless because of the sand building up everywhere.
I mean, literally, people never open up their windows, because of the extreme amounts of sand in the air.
I mean, literally, people never open up their windows, because of the extreme amounts of sand in the air.
Far from accurate. The price of solar power in the Middle East is record low, on the order of 1 cent per kilowatt-hour.
My experience visiting there disagrees. They have a large amount of land, but they also have sandstorms, along with sand being everywhere. In the long run, the maintenance should outweigh the benefits, unless they find a way to deal with this issue.
> unless they find a way to deal with this issue.
Cheap human labour from impoverished parts of Asia and Africa is one very possible option. The supply chains are already there.
I personally know a few people from villages in South India, who had been trained in that kinda job - dressing up in heat-controlled suits, driving sand-buggies and operating large-scale-wipers and cleaners - to keep panels clean. A similar one is in India too. And some of those firms put in place a locally adapted solution - which involves a lot of wastage of resources of other kinds (water, manpower).
More info: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/the-pros-and-con...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyWUjTxyWsk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V-8CY-5Oa0
Cheap human labour from impoverished parts of Asia and Africa is one very possible option. The supply chains are already there.
I personally know a few people from villages in South India, who had been trained in that kinda job - dressing up in heat-controlled suits, driving sand-buggies and operating large-scale-wipers and cleaners - to keep panels clean. A similar one is in India too. And some of those firms put in place a locally adapted solution - which involves a lot of wastage of resources of other kinds (water, manpower).
More info: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/the-pros-and-con...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyWUjTxyWsk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V-8CY-5Oa0
And reality disagrees with you: https://www.sunwindenergy.com/news/35-mw-solar-farm-saudi-ar...
Here’s a more recent article. 1.35 cents per kWh. Abu Dhabi.
https://cleantechnica.com/2020/05/06/abu-dhabi-will-have-the...
To quote The Atlantic article that was linked in another comment
> The university houses an incubator for technology start-ups, including a firm founded on the premise that there’s good money to be made in keeping solar panels clean in the desert.
> The university houses an incubator for technology start-ups, including a firm founded on the premise that there’s good money to be made in keeping solar panels clean in the desert.
And even if you had the solar power, what would you do with it? There is very little industry or value-add in Arabia outside of oil. It would be easier for Europe to just build solar power in the south of Spain, Italy or Greece.
I feel like this is a solvable problem for solar panels.
Yea, at the very least couldn’t you just have something like a windshield wiper periodically wiping the sand away? Or vibrate it so the sand falls off?
I just looked it up. It's pretty much a solved problem: https://youtu.be/yJ6kxipkem0?t=111
PV cleaning robots are off the shelf products.
It works for DSLR sensors.
So tilt the solar panels a little so the sand falls off?
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about solar panel farms or desert sand.
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about solar panel farms or desert sand.
The one project that attempted this with lofty goals, ended up with around 1% of the energy they claimed. Dust covering panels, abrasion, wind damage. Total fail.
Also, I'm surprised at the blasé way folks dismiss the total obliteration of the delicate desert ecosystem. Its like strip mining on a massive scale, to install square miles of solar panels. But everybody is on board for some reason.
Also, I'm surprised at the blasé way folks dismiss the total obliteration of the delicate desert ecosystem. Its like strip mining on a massive scale, to install square miles of solar panels. But everybody is on board for some reason.
There are deserts and then there are deserts. The Mojave Desert contains a delicate ecosystem. The Rub' al Khali (Empty Quarter) contains a few scorpions.
There’s a lot of desert. If a few lizards and cacti get their habitat fucked so that humans belch less CO2 in the air affecting every species on Earth it’s a tradeoff I support.
See? There it is! Try to bulldoze one meadow for a development and you're killed in the press. But the desert doesn't get that respect. People seem almost proud of their disrespect for desert ecosystems.
Well that’s just humancentrism. The meadow delivers value to me while the desert does not. And most environmental policy is about preserving the environment for humans — after all, if we stumble into population collapse the rest of the world’s species will celebrate.
I mean, it's not like the Saharan Desert does anything useful, like feed nutrients (via dust storms that blow across the Atlantic) to the Amazon Rainforest that is the lungs of the world.
A lot of species would collapse with humans.
Why would anyone care about desert? It's inhabitable space unfit for humans. I would happily replace all deserts with woods and grasslands.
The desert is habitable by plants and other animals.
Not every desert is the Atacama. Deserts in places like Arizona and Utah have tons of life.
Not every desert is the Atacama. Deserts in places like Arizona and Utah have tons of life.
I think you mean uninhabitable.
Or just go straight to housing developments! Perfect habitat for humans. Because Ecology isn't a thing, and the planet isn't fragile at all.
That's solvable though, there are setups for cleaning solar panels with robots on rails it'd be pretty easy to have a similar setup just dust off panels every few hours.
Cleaning is certainly a key issue as can be seen in this article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0553-2?draft=coll...
However, there are a few complexities. Cleaning the panels continuously also causes the panels to degrade quicker. Robots for each string of panels is also a significant capital investment. Imagine an installation with hundreds of string of panels and robots for each one. In most cases panels are cleaned by human teams and not on a continual basis.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0553-2?draft=coll...
However, there are a few complexities. Cleaning the panels continuously also causes the panels to degrade quicker. Robots for each string of panels is also a significant capital investment. Imagine an installation with hundreds of string of panels and robots for each one. In most cases panels are cleaned by human teams and not on a continual basis.
So all of the buildings get burred in the sand? All the time?
Whole cities? /s
You can put the up on raisers or roofs of buildings.
You can put the up on raisers or roofs of buildings.
> it's harming your own society and planet due to myopic decision making.
Umm, we _are_ talking about a foreign-power-supported, semi-feudal monarchy which keeps most of the population in abject poverty while living like, well, kings and princes themselves. Benefiting society is not really priority #1 for the kingdom.
Umm, we _are_ talking about a foreign-power-supported, semi-feudal monarchy which keeps most of the population in abject poverty while living like, well, kings and princes themselves. Benefiting society is not really priority #1 for the kingdom.
SA does have great solar potential, but there's really no point in investing trillions in solar production before panel efficiency improves. The cost per watt decreases wildly every year, so if you invest half a billion in last-gen panels...
Now, hoarding money and sponsoring solar efficiency research? Absolutely. But actually dropping the massive cap-ex on the solar farms was probably not a good move for SA itself (even if it was good for the world as a whole).
Now, hoarding money and sponsoring solar efficiency research? Absolutely. But actually dropping the massive cap-ex on the solar farms was probably not a good move for SA itself (even if it was good for the world as a whole).
If you look at the inverter/module price trends[1], you'll see we've pretty much reached the bottom of the cost curve. Continued price reduction is coming from balance-of-system and soft costs (e.g. planning). So SA is probably in a good position now to buy modules and inverters, focus on innovation in the non-module pieces and policies to reduce soft costs.
[1]https://cleantechnica.com/files/2019/11/Installed-Solar-Pric...
[1]https://cleantechnica.com/files/2019/11/Installed-Solar-Pric...
> They could be one of the biggest solar players
But what's their advantage in solar? Lots of countries have plenty of sunlight, and some are closer to big markets. The pipeline infrastructure is useless. They don't have a manufacturing base, and most of their labor for it is foreign anyway, so could be more cheaply hired by putting the factory near the people. They don't have any home-grown high-tech.
But what's their advantage in solar? Lots of countries have plenty of sunlight, and some are closer to big markets. The pipeline infrastructure is useless. They don't have a manufacturing base, and most of their labor for it is foreign anyway, so could be more cheaply hired by putting the factory near the people. They don't have any home-grown high-tech.
I suspect that somebody else in their position could but not the Saudis. They have failed to diversify from on previous efforts due to baggage and cultural issues. Going adjunct tourist economy could be workable but not while remaining religious fundamentalists.
A assure you Saudi Arabia is not equatorial.
Does solar ... work very well when sent over long distances?
Maybe that is a weird question but mostly I see regional sort of solar generation that seems to offset other local power usage, and not so much mass generation for large scale export.
Maybe that is a weird question but mostly I see regional sort of solar generation that seems to offset other local power usage, and not so much mass generation for large scale export.
It costs a LOT of money to build high voltage transmission lines (AC or DC) to transfer power over long distances. So even if they turned the entire desert into a solar panel, the cost to ship that outside of the region would still be billions.
Sure, but maybe instead of building a indoors ski slopes in the middle of the desert, you invest that money into creating world class research institutes, create educational system and promote science.
Then maybe you would start inventing technologies that will push your country ahead. They could have created businesses based on solar tech and export it to the world.
Thats what China did, and it worked out miracles for them. Acquiring knowledge instead of buying ready solutions.
Then maybe you would start inventing technologies that will push your country ahead. They could have created businesses based on solar tech and export it to the world.
Thats what China did, and it worked out miracles for them. Acquiring knowledge instead of buying ready solutions.
I'm not saying they can't do many things to improve (similar to many countries). All I was doing was answering a question to confirm that transmission lines are very expensive. They could use that cheap energy for certain kinds of manufacturing I suppose.
It all depend on electricity prices. There is a point where it is profitable regardless of the cost. As long as you can sell cheaper energy in a more expensive market.
The assumption is that they're not surrounded by countries willing to pay astronomical prices for electricity 24/7.
I don't know about distance, but I recently learned that they actually lose efficiency with extreme heat. [0]
[0] https://www.cedgreentech.com/article/how-does-heat-affect-so...
[0] https://www.cedgreentech.com/article/how-does-heat-affect-so...
HVDC transmission losses are low, like 5% per 1000 km. So yes, a large, dispersed solar network could create and distribute electricity effectively.
[deleted]
it doesn't makes sense because long term the cost of transmission will likely be higher than the cost of production.
source: tony seba
source: tony seba
They still have plenty of time to switch to solar domestically. Saudi Arabia's electricity consumption per-capita is only 75% of the US's, and their population is only 10%. Their domestic oil consumption is only a drop in the bucket compared to the export market.
How is domestic consumption relevant? They are a tiny population country.
The parent comment I replied to was about Saudi Arabia burning oil for domestic energy needs. My point is that switching their domestic use to solar is going to have almost no impact since it's a drop in the bucket compared to their export market. Unless you think they should stop exporting their only commodity and turn into Yemen.
Does this mean Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations will go bankrupt after their state sponsored funding dries up?
I don't mean this in an inflammatory way.
All I can see from this is more instability in the Middle-East which means more bad news in the years to come...
Perhaps Turkey will take up a bigger role in the future for policing the Middle East as they have a more diversified economy?
I don't mean this in an inflammatory way.
All I can see from this is more instability in the Middle-East which means more bad news in the years to come...
Perhaps Turkey will take up a bigger role in the future for policing the Middle East as they have a more diversified economy?
Yeah I agree with your conclusion. Instability in the present is due to western interest maintaining their dictatorships. Instability in the future will be as the western policies shift and they cut and run for whatever reasons. I’d like to think that will come when we realize the immorality of our policies but it will probably just be when our interests shift.
Maybe that’s why Israel is ramping up their annexations and colonization of the West Bank. If the west loses interest in the Middle East they may lose interest in maintaining Israeli geo-political supremacy.
Maybe that’s why Israel is ramping up their annexations and colonization of the West Bank. If the west loses interest in the Middle East they may lose interest in maintaining Israeli geo-political supremacy.
>Maybe that’s why Israel is ramping up their annexations and colonization of the West Bank.
This is probably because they don't expect Trump to be reelected. Now is their chance.
This is probably because they don't expect Trump to be reelected. Now is their chance.
You are mistaken to assume the west is the reason for the present instability in the Middle East. You can argue it plays a large part, but it's part is no bigger than Russia, China and Turkey (I am intentionally leaving out Iran and Saudi Arabia, although both countries are presently creating havoc in the middle east) who are all busy propping up dictatorships in the middle east.
For a counterpoint I am going to argue the opposite. The west and the other major powers are possibly one of the reasons the middle east is relatively stable today (all things considered) and without them the Middle East would actually be in a much worse place. If we were to assume that if the west and others never propped up the current set of dictators and we would have instead ended up with some type of democracies or at the very least relatively stable regimes than you would probably be right. But who is to say we wouldn't have ended up with an endless cycle of civil wars or regimes that are much worse than the ones we have right now?
The middle east is a very religious and tribal place in which the borders were badly demarcated (thank you France, Great Britain, Italy and Russia). The poorly planned division of the middle east + the sunni/shia divide have been the main driver of the current conflicts and instability in the Middle east. Oil has been the curse that has brought in the world powers and has provided funding for most of these conflicts. Oil has also prevented these countries from seeking alternative, modern industries.
I do agree if oil revenue dries up and major powers pull their support for the current dictatorships, it will be a disaster, at least in the short to medium term. You will get civil wars in one of the most militarized places on earth.
I would also argue that contrary to popular belief Israel has been a stabilizing factor in the middle east. There are two main reasons for this. 1. Hatred of Israel is the one thing that unites the arab world. 2. Dictatorships need a way to distract their population. There is no greater distraction than a mortal enemy.
In fact if you compare the arab-israeli conflict to other modern conflicts in the middle east, it has been pretty minor in terms of costs, damage and casualties.
The middle east is an interesting place, a place I call home and a place I love, but extremely complicated.
And last point: with regards to Bibbi and his plan to annex parts of the west bank. What he is planning is really not that popular here in Israel. For the right wing, he isn't annexing enough and the annexation will still allow for a palestinian state. For the center and left wing it's not really going to change anything on the ground but will cause a lot of damage to how we are perceived internationally. Even if the annexation does go through it does not mean that the "annexed" territory can't and won't be given up in the framework of a peace agreement. IMO Bibbi is trying to do it for internal political reasons and he knows he won't be able to do it once Trump is gone so this is his chance (another possibility is he wants to make it look like he tried to annex parts of the west bank, without the intention of actually doing so. He will blame someone like Gantz saying they stopped him, which will get him some more right wing votes while not antagonizing the center voters - it would be very Bibbi like).
For a counterpoint I am going to argue the opposite. The west and the other major powers are possibly one of the reasons the middle east is relatively stable today (all things considered) and without them the Middle East would actually be in a much worse place. If we were to assume that if the west and others never propped up the current set of dictators and we would have instead ended up with some type of democracies or at the very least relatively stable regimes than you would probably be right. But who is to say we wouldn't have ended up with an endless cycle of civil wars or regimes that are much worse than the ones we have right now?
The middle east is a very religious and tribal place in which the borders were badly demarcated (thank you France, Great Britain, Italy and Russia). The poorly planned division of the middle east + the sunni/shia divide have been the main driver of the current conflicts and instability in the Middle east. Oil has been the curse that has brought in the world powers and has provided funding for most of these conflicts. Oil has also prevented these countries from seeking alternative, modern industries.
I do agree if oil revenue dries up and major powers pull their support for the current dictatorships, it will be a disaster, at least in the short to medium term. You will get civil wars in one of the most militarized places on earth.
I would also argue that contrary to popular belief Israel has been a stabilizing factor in the middle east. There are two main reasons for this. 1. Hatred of Israel is the one thing that unites the arab world. 2. Dictatorships need a way to distract their population. There is no greater distraction than a mortal enemy.
In fact if you compare the arab-israeli conflict to other modern conflicts in the middle east, it has been pretty minor in terms of costs, damage and casualties.
The middle east is an interesting place, a place I call home and a place I love, but extremely complicated.
And last point: with regards to Bibbi and his plan to annex parts of the west bank. What he is planning is really not that popular here in Israel. For the right wing, he isn't annexing enough and the annexation will still allow for a palestinian state. For the center and left wing it's not really going to change anything on the ground but will cause a lot of damage to how we are perceived internationally. Even if the annexation does go through it does not mean that the "annexed" territory can't and won't be given up in the framework of a peace agreement. IMO Bibbi is trying to do it for internal political reasons and he knows he won't be able to do it once Trump is gone so this is his chance (another possibility is he wants to make it look like he tried to annex parts of the west bank, without the intention of actually doing so. He will blame someone like Gantz saying they stopped him, which will get him some more right wing votes while not antagonizing the center voters - it would be very Bibbi like).
> Does this mean Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations will go bankrupt after their state sponsored funding dries up?
Yes.
> All I can see from this is more instability in the Middle-East which means more bad news in the years to come...
No. I predict more stability. There is less financing for violence, and less wealth to fight over.
> Perhaps Turkey will take up a bigger role in the future for policing the Middle East as they have a more diversified economy?
Too expensive. Also the fact that they are after Libya means they are not imaginative enough for a post-oil economy. So probably no.
Yes.
> All I can see from this is more instability in the Middle-East which means more bad news in the years to come...
No. I predict more stability. There is less financing for violence, and less wealth to fight over.
> Perhaps Turkey will take up a bigger role in the future for policing the Middle East as they have a more diversified economy?
Too expensive. Also the fact that they are after Libya means they are not imaginative enough for a post-oil economy. So probably no.
Look around the world. The countries that have the most violence are:
1) Poor (Less to lose) 2) Have high levels of ideological radicals (beliefs strong enough to rationalize their worst actions) 3) Have a violent history. (Vengeance oriented)
1) Poor (Less to lose) 2) Have high levels of ideological radicals (beliefs strong enough to rationalize their worst actions) 3) Have a violent history. (Vengeance oriented)
"Less to lose" is a pretty coarse attribution. While true tautologically, I would argue that it is misleading. The poor lack the power to institutionalize violence. The overwhelming bulk of violence is institutional. Large populations of poor imply small, threatened, populations of rich, who institutionalize the violence required to preserve their power, and then use their control to insure that their violence is left out of the accounting.
You’re right. Poverty is more likely caused by violence than violence is caused by poverty.
> Perhaps Turkey will take up a bigger role in the future for policing the Middle East as they have a more diversified economy?
Let's hope that regional powers take up lesser roles and don't dominate the locals in other countries (e.g. like the Saudi occupation of Bahrain or Turkey's control of areas of Northern Syria).
Let's hope that regional powers take up lesser roles and don't dominate the locals in other countries (e.g. like the Saudi occupation of Bahrain or Turkey's control of areas of Northern Syria).
This may not be meant to be inflammatory, but such a strange comment.
Like Yemen and other wars, oil money flows into Saudi Arabia and Iran funding proxy wars in the Sunni / Shia divide, and against Israel.
Money dries up, so will a lot of military funding for these.
Money dries up, so will a lot of military funding for these.
Well, I think this will lead to a different kind of resource war (as opposed to mass migration from, say, drought-stricken regions fight for access to water) in which distributed proxies are used for reasons of efficiencies and reach.
BTW these proxies tend to be like poison gas: hard to manage strategically and often blowing back on their source (as with al qaida itself).
BTW al qaida can’t really be thought of as an “organization” — it’s a movement, more like World Communism in the late 19th and first half of the 20th century.
D’aesh (aka ISIL/ISIS in the USA for some reason) is an actual organization.
BTW these proxies tend to be like poison gas: hard to manage strategically and often blowing back on their source (as with al qaida itself).
BTW al qaida can’t really be thought of as an “organization” — it’s a movement, more like World Communism in the late 19th and first half of the 20th century.
D’aesh (aka ISIL/ISIS in the USA for some reason) is an actual organization.
Migrants don't do the violence. Refugees are victims, not perpetrators. The infrequent counter-examples are "man bites dog" stories, which leave out the causal history.
Thanks, that’s an important though subtle distinction. People merely crossing a border don’t constitute a “war”, much less “invasion” in any sense and I hadn’t intended to imply such.
I edited it to “mass migration” with the intent of addressing both refugee population as well as associated, perhaps “non-civilian” is the term, people either/both pushing and accompanying.
I edited it to “mass migration” with the intent of addressing both refugee population as well as associated, perhaps “non-civilian” is the term, people either/both pushing and accompanying.
The Syrian civil war migrations will pale in comparison to resource / global warming migrations
No - it'll increase, actually, as regional leaders take more of a zero-sum view. View them as paramilitary proxies and it makes more sense to fund them in your neighbor than fight a well-organized neighbor.
> So the end of this era need not be disastrous if it prompts reforms that create more dynamic economies and representative governments.
There is no scenario where it won't be disastrous.
The most important number in the Middle East is barrels of oil (produced) per capita. That figure has been falling for decades and is reaching critical low levels (as represented by their budget situations).
What the Middle East producers have to try to do economically, is like trying to replace the landing gear on a 747 while you're hurtling down the runway. They don't just have to plot for replacing oil vs their economy today (a nearly impossible task), they have to do it and come up with enough economy to manage another 100% increase in population in the next few decades. Realistically it's impossible, it will end in catastrophe; the conflicts (including civil) will be far larger, matching the size of the population increases. As the regimes melt under the pressure, wars will spiral out from it. Neither the House of Saud nor the Iranian theocracy will survive it intact.
Here is the population expansion for some prominent OPEC members since 1970:
Saudi Arabia: 5.8m -> 34m (486%)
(Saudi's oil production hasn't gone up much in 40 years, and their population has increased by 250% in that time; a lot more mouths to feed, dramatically fewer barrels per capita)
Iraq: 10m -> 40m (300%)
Iran: 28m -> 84m (200%)
Egypt: 34m -> 100m (194%)
Oman: 700k -> 5m (614%)
Kuwait: 750k -> 4m (433%)
Libya: 2m -> 6.6m (230%)
Sudan: 10m -> 42m (320%)
Algeria: 14m -> 44m (214%)
There is no scenario where it won't be disastrous.
The most important number in the Middle East is barrels of oil (produced) per capita. That figure has been falling for decades and is reaching critical low levels (as represented by their budget situations).
What the Middle East producers have to try to do economically, is like trying to replace the landing gear on a 747 while you're hurtling down the runway. They don't just have to plot for replacing oil vs their economy today (a nearly impossible task), they have to do it and come up with enough economy to manage another 100% increase in population in the next few decades. Realistically it's impossible, it will end in catastrophe; the conflicts (including civil) will be far larger, matching the size of the population increases. As the regimes melt under the pressure, wars will spiral out from it. Neither the House of Saud nor the Iranian theocracy will survive it intact.
Here is the population expansion for some prominent OPEC members since 1970:
Saudi Arabia: 5.8m -> 34m (486%)
(Saudi's oil production hasn't gone up much in 40 years, and their population has increased by 250% in that time; a lot more mouths to feed, dramatically fewer barrels per capita)
Iraq: 10m -> 40m (300%)
Iran: 28m -> 84m (200%)
Egypt: 34m -> 100m (194%)
Oman: 700k -> 5m (614%)
Kuwait: 750k -> 4m (433%)
Libya: 2m -> 6.6m (230%)
Sudan: 10m -> 42m (320%)
Algeria: 14m -> 44m (214%)
It's not all bad. If your economy depends on simply taking money right out of the ground, the government will make sure that's done, but with zero accountability.
An economy with more diverse interests will also be one where no interest has total power and will need to explain itself.
Edit: yes, the transition is gonna be painful.
An economy with more diverse interests will also be one where no interest has total power and will need to explain itself.
Edit: yes, the transition is gonna be painful.
Historically the main problem with state control of oil hasn't so much been "a lack of accountability" as "The united states government and client states aggressively destabilize your country in order to facilitate access for private oil companies"
No, it has more to do with the fact that an authoritarian state can fund itself with oil. Elite politicians and oil companies employees live a modern westernized lifestyle but the rest of the population remains in deep poverty. Those politicians aren't lacking anything but since the oil trade is deeply connected with the government anything that doesn't involve oil will weaken the government's influence over the country. It is much easier to stay in power by oppressing your population.
There is also the opposite scenario. You have an economic sector that is so incredibly lucrative that you can just bribe your way to popularity by creating a welfare state. Anything that pushes the focus away from the main sector would also involve losing the welfare benefits even though it is better in the long run.
Here comes a terrible analogy. Oil is like an economic painkiller. The pain is gone but you are still injured.
There is also the opposite scenario. You have an economic sector that is so incredibly lucrative that you can just bribe your way to popularity by creating a welfare state. Anything that pushes the focus away from the main sector would also involve losing the welfare benefits even though it is better in the long run.
Here comes a terrible analogy. Oil is like an economic painkiller. The pain is gone but you are still injured.
Not so bad an analogy... Venezuela is suffering just so.
Rulers of resource-rich countries can maintain power while ignoring their populations. Rulers of resource-poor countries depend on their population's productivity for income. This is why autocracy and resource riches go hand in hand far beyond the effects of American hegemony.
Saudi Arabia and other oil countries treat their citizens very well. Many of them collect a fat paycheck from the government without having to do anything. Unskilled migrant workers however do not have it so nice.
Unless you are friendly towards the US already, if so then you can be the worst exporter of Wahabbi extremism and we'll sell you billions in weapons to massacre your neighbors.
Russia meddles as well, although they do it as competitors... Russia makes more money from oil and gas if the Middle East has “problems” with oil & gas production.
In fact we're going to see a great difference between those nations that invested the "money from the ground" to develop an economy and those who used it to buy soccer teams.
Football teams at a certain scale can be self-sustaining PR machines. Take Manchester United or Real Madrid: they largely make enough money to stay afloat and competitive, while at the same time opening a lot of doors for their owners/controllers. Man United is even an actual profit generator for its owners.
I think a bunch of those flashy oil-money acquisitions that were seen as wasteful, will eventually be recognised as a decent diversifying strategy in sectors where barriers to entry are very high. The Emirates airline was initially seen as a white elephant, but it kickstarted the Dubai hub and was, overall, a pretty strategic move.
I think a bunch of those flashy oil-money acquisitions that were seen as wasteful, will eventually be recognised as a decent diversifying strategy in sectors where barriers to entry are very high. The Emirates airline was initially seen as a white elephant, but it kickstarted the Dubai hub and was, overall, a pretty strategic move.
But they are small potatoes compared to national budgets.
I mean, the whole world is becoming increasingly 'top heavy', with economic growth going primarily to those who own stock. Just owning successful companies isn't more difficult than pumping money out of the ground - neither requires much nation building. And Saudi Arabian royalty has already been out for years investing in Silicon Valley - I think they're content to jump on the wagon of companies that are already successfully extracting money from the western middle class, rather than try to build up a middle class and well-functioning society of their own.
That makes sense, but I am worried about the path from where many Middle East oil producers are right now, and a future where they have a robust economy based on diversified production.
UEI, Qutar, Saudi Arabia have started the process. It might be similiar.
[deleted]
A couple points to keep in mind, that make this a bit overblown:
(1) While COVID is a negative demand shock, but is likely rather temporary
(2) Non-COVID oil demand is declining, but is more of a melting glacier. Infrastructure-level energy operates on looooooong cycles due to immense cost. COVID doesn't change that.
(3) The recent misfortune of the fracking industry is likely less temporary. Demand is more likely to recover short term than supply.
2030 has perhaps become 2020, as the article suggests, but that doesn't mean 2022 will be what we thought 2032 will be. We can't just pretend we're all the sudden up the maturity curve with renewables just because demand dropped for a few months.
(1) While COVID is a negative demand shock, but is likely rather temporary
(2) Non-COVID oil demand is declining, but is more of a melting glacier. Infrastructure-level energy operates on looooooong cycles due to immense cost. COVID doesn't change that.
(3) The recent misfortune of the fracking industry is likely less temporary. Demand is more likely to recover short term than supply.
2030 has perhaps become 2020, as the article suggests, but that doesn't mean 2022 will be what we thought 2032 will be. We can't just pretend we're all the sudden up the maturity curve with renewables just because demand dropped for a few months.
Many companies switching to work from home will definitely have an impact on gas usage: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-15/new-work-...
> No Arab oil producer, save tiny Qatar, can balance its books at the current price, around $40 (see chart).
This is pretty much an open secret for anyone following the price of oil, but how can Aramco still brag about producing for less than $10 [1] a barrel while the kingdom is openly hurting from the current prices ?
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2020/03/16/oi...
This is pretty much an open secret for anyone following the price of oil, but how can Aramco still brag about producing for less than $10 [1] a barrel while the kingdom is openly hurting from the current prices ?
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2020/03/16/oi...
The cost of production and the price level required to balance the government's budget are two different things.
Correct, to further explain the difference. The budget is drawn with a certain assumption of the price of oil, which nets them an expected profit per barrel with which they can balance income and expenses. If the price of oil is lower than that they may still make a profit per barrel but the budget is not balanced anymore and they will run deficits.
This is why higher oil prices seem to correlate with military adventures.
Just taking Saudi as an example, the oil is owned by the Royal Family, who then use the proceeds to pay for basically all government expenditures (taxes are very low in SA – for example there is no income tax).
When the price is below $40/barrel, they can no longer pay for these services effectively, which obviously causes immediate problems, but in the long term will make it harder and harder for the Sauds to maintain control of an ever-more-disgruntled populace.
I feel like this was made pretty clear in the article.
When the price is below $40/barrel, they can no longer pay for these services effectively, which obviously causes immediate problems, but in the long term will make it harder and harder for the Sauds to maintain control of an ever-more-disgruntled populace.
I feel like this was made pretty clear in the article.
From what I recall reading on previous threads here, their production prices are that low but the country itself requires much higher prices to balance the books.
Technically SA wouldn't be the only country in the area to be able to produce a bbl under $40, but as you and others have echoed, that's not the whole story.
[deleted]
The problem for Saudi's is not the oil price but the expenses.
34 million people and huge subsidies for their citizens to keep Saudi Arabia politically stable.
34 million people and huge subsidies for their citizens to keep Saudi Arabia politically stable.
The Arab world failed to use the opportunity. They could have invested more in education and built in home research labs, etc. Instead they used the money to build more taller buildings and imported the tech while the culture never changed.
Any article about oil profits declining should really make to to mention Russia because if their economy starts to tank from loss of too much income from this trade it could lead to more adventurism by their leadership.
But Russia and these middle eastern countries are not on the same level. In my opinion, the end of oil will hurt Russia but won't destroy it. It has the will, and know how to do whatever is needed. Some of the middle eastern petro state on the other hand are family businesses masquerading as nation states; and they were able to keep that up only because of oil. Once that dries up, there's going to be interesting times ahead.
I wonder who they'd invade next... Armenia? The rest of Ukraine? Turkey?
Whatever they (Vlad) are going to do, they have a closing window to do it in.
Russia's population is expected to fall to ~130 million by 2050 [0]. The dual upcoming hits of reduced fuel purchasing and climate change are not going to affect Russia well. Their petrorubles are not likely to maintain a punch in a solar/wind/etc world. And as the temperate zones move towards the poles, with the grain belts tagging along, all of Russia's neighbors are likely to look at that unmanned land in a more hungry way. Their southernly neighbors of India and China are still growing in population to ~3B combined in 2050, let alone all the other countries. Whatever balance there is now will change with a hungrier and hotter populace.
In some ways, these issues with Donny and Boris are amazing feats of engineering. But they are only delaying the inevitable. Whatever they (Vlad) are planning on doing, I don't see how they get out of this hole. Sure, they bought time and space to move, but that time is limited. The next election in the US is likely to reveal more of their (Vlad's) hand.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia
Russia's population is expected to fall to ~130 million by 2050 [0]. The dual upcoming hits of reduced fuel purchasing and climate change are not going to affect Russia well. Their petrorubles are not likely to maintain a punch in a solar/wind/etc world. And as the temperate zones move towards the poles, with the grain belts tagging along, all of Russia's neighbors are likely to look at that unmanned land in a more hungry way. Their southernly neighbors of India and China are still growing in population to ~3B combined in 2050, let alone all the other countries. Whatever balance there is now will change with a hungrier and hotter populace.
In some ways, these issues with Donny and Boris are amazing feats of engineering. But they are only delaying the inevitable. Whatever they (Vlad) are planning on doing, I don't see how they get out of this hole. Sure, they bought time and space to move, but that time is limited. The next election in the US is likely to reveal more of their (Vlad's) hand.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia
On one hand, you're saying their land is going to be more valuable - and then on the other you're saying their land is going to suffer under climate change.
Your analysis seems very politically motivated, rather than objectively looking at probable outcomes.
If anything, more fertile land will drive immigration, not invasion, and help solve their demographic problems.
Your analysis seems very politically motivated, rather than objectively looking at probable outcomes.
If anything, more fertile land will drive immigration, not invasion, and help solve their demographic problems.
My apologies for being unclear.
No, the land may become more valuable as the grain belts and people migrate poleward. Land to the south will become less valuable and hotter. The southern neighbors are gaining greatly in population, while Russia is loosing population.
The current Russian actions (Vlad's) do not seem to indicate welcoming immigrants or other diverse people (Chechnya, hyper complicated, yes, but still). Russia does have a long history of multi-ethnic tension and release though. I'd hope that they (Vlad) welcome the climate refugees, but such integration is likely to be very difficult, as is usual.
A 'Roman' approach may be good to alleviate the strife, where in the pre-Gothic invasions, the Roman M.O. was to take the younger immigrant men into the legions, separate the clans/tribes across the empire to tie allegiance to their neighbors and Rome, and then in about three generations the grandchildren would run the empire. Unfortunately for Russia, that takes ~60-80 years, so about 2080-2100, well past the issues of 2050.
No, the land may become more valuable as the grain belts and people migrate poleward. Land to the south will become less valuable and hotter. The southern neighbors are gaining greatly in population, while Russia is loosing population.
The current Russian actions (Vlad's) do not seem to indicate welcoming immigrants or other diverse people (Chechnya, hyper complicated, yes, but still). Russia does have a long history of multi-ethnic tension and release though. I'd hope that they (Vlad) welcome the climate refugees, but such integration is likely to be very difficult, as is usual.
A 'Roman' approach may be good to alleviate the strife, where in the pre-Gothic invasions, the Roman M.O. was to take the younger immigrant men into the legions, separate the clans/tribes across the empire to tie allegiance to their neighbors and Rome, and then in about three generations the grandchildren would run the empire. Unfortunately for Russia, that takes ~60-80 years, so about 2080-2100, well past the issues of 2050.
Latvia probably. Not Turkey, way too hard and scary.
>But don’t be fooled. The world’s economies are moving away from fossil fuels.
To what?!? If your geography does not allow for large scale hydro or geothermal development, then your only alternative is Nuclear or Fossil Fuels. Solar and wind need base load provided by Fossil Fuels to be remotely viable and clearly are not capable of replacing fossil fuels.
To what?!? If your geography does not allow for large scale hydro or geothermal development, then your only alternative is Nuclear or Fossil Fuels. Solar and wind need base load provided by Fossil Fuels to be remotely viable and clearly are not capable of replacing fossil fuels.
I don't know why you talk about "base load". Base load is incompatible with intermittent energy sources. What you need is something that can be turned on and off to follow the current demand. Natural gas plants are generally used for this role.
I think it is unfortunate that many people are vilifying natural gas. It's almost as if they aren't aware that the main benefit of natural gas plants is that you can turn them off when needed. Grids have to become more flexible if they want a high percentage of renewable energy. It's not like natural gas is cheaper than renewables. The plants will only burn gas when necessary.
What is happening right now is that "Base load" (aka coal plants) is clogging up the electric grid in Germany. On some days you have a really good amount of renewables but the coal keeps running because it can't adjust quickly enough.
When you consider that thanks to the EEG surcharge the operators of renewable power plants still get paid despite producing no power you can see how this lead to the unreasonably high electricity prices in Germany.
This is not a problem with renewables though. The EEG is one of the most poorly though out political instruments to encourage renewables. Basically almost every energy intensive business gets an exemption so all the costs are borne by consumers. A carbon tax would have none of these issues. The coal plants would be shut down because they are bad for business.
I think it is unfortunate that many people are vilifying natural gas. It's almost as if they aren't aware that the main benefit of natural gas plants is that you can turn them off when needed. Grids have to become more flexible if they want a high percentage of renewable energy. It's not like natural gas is cheaper than renewables. The plants will only burn gas when necessary.
What is happening right now is that "Base load" (aka coal plants) is clogging up the electric grid in Germany. On some days you have a really good amount of renewables but the coal keeps running because it can't adjust quickly enough.
When you consider that thanks to the EEG surcharge the operators of renewable power plants still get paid despite producing no power you can see how this lead to the unreasonably high electricity prices in Germany.
This is not a problem with renewables though. The EEG is one of the most poorly though out political instruments to encourage renewables. Basically almost every energy intensive business gets an exemption so all the costs are borne by consumers. A carbon tax would have none of these issues. The coal plants would be shut down because they are bad for business.
In Denmark we have switched largely to solar and wind with backup provided by burning of biomass (largely imported wood pellets from Canada and the USA, but also domestic bio-trash which is sorted separately in many homes).
But even without that, nuclear, wind and solar combined with lots of batteries (stationary and in all the cars) seems like a totally achievable solution. Especially in Europe and America where you have lots of varied geography and can get hydro, solar, thermal and wind to supplement each other, see example the plans for Denmark (wind), Norway (hydro), UK (nuclear).
But even without that, nuclear, wind and solar combined with lots of batteries (stationary and in all the cars) seems like a totally achievable solution. Especially in Europe and America where you have lots of varied geography and can get hydro, solar, thermal and wind to supplement each other, see example the plans for Denmark (wind), Norway (hydro), UK (nuclear).
30-40% of Denmark's power is still fossil fuels, and another 10-15% is imports from neighbors when the wind isn't blowing.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Denmark#...
Also, RE Bio & waste emit CO2 - they are not particularily clean.
source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1757-1707....
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Denmark#...
Also, RE Bio & waste emit CO2 - they are not particularily clean.
source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1757-1707....
Even in this already a few year old data you linked, the fossil fuel share has gone from 70%+ to just 30% since 2005. That's nothing short of amazing, and the trend is clear.
Outdated sources are outdated.
https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/DK-DK1
https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/DK-DK1
How is showing us one day's data evidence of anything?
This is not true. There is a bunch of papers and releases by universities, that show that if you manage your power grid properly, which is already done for any grid having more than 15% renewables, you actually gain an advantage with their flexibility and can work around any base-load problem.
>you actually gain an advantage with their flexibility and can work around any base-load problem.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'base-load problem', but what I mean is that you need a fossil-fuel base-load.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'base-load problem', but what I mean is that you need a fossil-fuel base-load.
>you need a fossil-fuel base-load.
Basically saying this is wrong.
Technically, base-load refers to the minimum amount of energy demand on a given day. All sources and studies I have are from Germany, but our parliament, their adjacent (technical) offices and the universities here have concluded that "base-load" as a concept is wrong with today's power generation and the way a power grid works. Today they usually talk about residual-load, turning the paradigm around. Regardless of how it works, there are also renewable energies which can fulfil this classical "base-load" idea: Namely organic gas or geothermal power plants.
Basically saying this is wrong.
Technically, base-load refers to the minimum amount of energy demand on a given day. All sources and studies I have are from Germany, but our parliament, their adjacent (technical) offices and the universities here have concluded that "base-load" as a concept is wrong with today's power generation and the way a power grid works. Today they usually talk about residual-load, turning the paradigm around. Regardless of how it works, there are also renewable energies which can fulfil this classical "base-load" idea: Namely organic gas or geothermal power plants.
>Regardless of how it works, there are also renewable energies which can fulfil this classical "base-load" idea: Namely organic gas or geothermal power plants.
Why is Germany investing billions in NEW pipeline projects to ship natural gas from Russia for the next few decades? Germany says a lot of nice sweet-nothings, but their actions don't match their words.
Why is Germany investing billions in NEW pipeline projects to ship natural gas from Russia for the next few decades? Germany says a lot of nice sweet-nothings, but their actions don't match their words.
Do various sorts of batteries (gravity, fly-wheels, LiON) provide reasonable alternatives for some base load and peak generation?
I personally am a fan of gravity batteries but the amount of scammy companies operating in the space is dragging the entire field down. The energy density of weights is really low so manufacturing a weight is absolutely uneconomical. What you want to do is take material from a landscape. Usually this means pumping water up a hill but you can also carve out a hydraulic cylinder out of the landscape and use water to lift it. [0] It has absolutely insane scaling potential. Energy capacity grows like so: r^4. Doubling the radius increases energy capacity 16 fold. Energy storage up to 1.6TWh is definitively possible.
Of course this is so ambitious that it might never get built but I can definitively tell you that a crane system like this would be barely economical [1] because weights are really expensive but it's a good attempt and can be refined further.
And finally here is an example of a scam concept: [2]
Digging shafts is unaffordable unless you reuse old mine shafts which would reduce the number of shafts in the picture to just a single one. If you can only have one weight per generator that means the system doesn't scale. The power density of lifting a 1000 ton rock 100m high is pathetic. It's just 270kWh. The cost of the concrete is negligible in this scenario but you won't find a generator that is cheap enough to compete with a conventional battery.
However, to stay realistic. Gravity batteries are about as likely to happen as everyone suddenly switching to nuclear power. The odds aren't great.
[0] http://www.eduard-heindl.de/energy-storage/energy-storage-sy...
[1] https://insights.globalspec.com/images/assets/784/10784/Ener...
[2] https://offgridquest.com/images/banners/gravitybattery.png
Of course this is so ambitious that it might never get built but I can definitively tell you that a crane system like this would be barely economical [1] because weights are really expensive but it's a good attempt and can be refined further.
And finally here is an example of a scam concept: [2]
Digging shafts is unaffordable unless you reuse old mine shafts which would reduce the number of shafts in the picture to just a single one. If you can only have one weight per generator that means the system doesn't scale. The power density of lifting a 1000 ton rock 100m high is pathetic. It's just 270kWh. The cost of the concrete is negligible in this scenario but you won't find a generator that is cheap enough to compete with a conventional battery.
However, to stay realistic. Gravity batteries are about as likely to happen as everyone suddenly switching to nuclear power. The odds aren't great.
[0] http://www.eduard-heindl.de/energy-storage/energy-storage-sy...
[1] https://insights.globalspec.com/images/assets/784/10784/Ener...
[2] https://offgridquest.com/images/banners/gravitybattery.png
[1] Echoes Tower of Hanoi, slightly interesting
theoretically yes, but we have to scale production way up, there just aren't enough batteries in the world right now
Solar and wind and storage can supply 100% of the grid more cheaply than a CO2-free solution also using newly constructed nuclear. Many nuclear advocates still don't understand this new reality.
The problem is, currently there is not enough economic activity spent on storage (or any CO2-neutral thing really). You probably know the numbers. To switch off CO2 emissions we would need to build CO2-free power plants about 10 per day for 10 years.
Total US electricity generated by nuclear power plants was about 807 TWh (~92GW), but just in 2010 the world used 41 354 TWh generated by coal. That's a factor of 50. The US has about 95 commercial plants. So to replace just coal we'd need about 4750 new power stations.
Basically at this point everything that's not fossil based is great. Build all of them. More wind, solar, storage, nuclear, geo, etc.
Total US electricity generated by nuclear power plants was about 807 TWh (~92GW), but just in 2010 the world used 41 354 TWh generated by coal. That's a factor of 50. The US has about 95 commercial plants. So to replace just coal we'd need about 4750 new power stations.
Basically at this point everything that's not fossil based is great. Build all of them. More wind, solar, storage, nuclear, geo, etc.
The problem is huge, but not quite as grim as this. I think that you may be confusing primary (thermal) energy in coal with electricity supplied by coal. In 2018, coal was used to generate about 10,000 TWh of electricity:
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019/electr...
Renewable generators only need to displace the electrical output of combustion based power plants, not the greater thermal energy contained in source fuels. A highly electrified, renewables-dominated world would consume less primary energy at the same level of energy service consumption. There's a lot less energy going toward production of useless waste heat when renewable electricity displaces fossil combustion electricity.
The average American coal plant turns only 37.4% of coal's thermal energy into electrical energy:
https://processbarron.com/u-s-coal-power-plant-efficiency-st...
In 2019 the United States lost 2/3 of all primary energy as waste heat:
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/charts/Ene...
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019/electr...
Renewable generators only need to displace the electrical output of combustion based power plants, not the greater thermal energy contained in source fuels. A highly electrified, renewables-dominated world would consume less primary energy at the same level of energy service consumption. There's a lot less energy going toward production of useless waste heat when renewable electricity displaces fossil combustion electricity.
The average American coal plant turns only 37.4% of coal's thermal energy into electrical energy:
https://processbarron.com/u-s-coal-power-plant-efficiency-st...
In 2019 the United States lost 2/3 of all primary energy as waste heat:
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/charts/Ene...
Thanks for the correction, alas the edit period has closed for that comment.
(I used the number from this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Fossi... )
(I used the number from this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Fossi... )
>Solar and wind and storage
What storage? The reality is that there is no storage solution that is capable of storing enough energy to power even a modestly sized city for days or even hours (or minutes for that matter). Certain approaches, like gravity-based storage, also require particular geography.
Did you notice that there is no region on earth that gets 100% of their power from solar/wind/storage? Why is that? Why is Germany signing multi-decade, mulit-billion-dollar deals to build pipelines to ship Russian gas for decades still? And any region that claims 100% fossil-fuel free power ALWAYS relies on hydro, nuclear or geothermal to achieve that level. Why is that?
What storage? The reality is that there is no storage solution that is capable of storing enough energy to power even a modestly sized city for days or even hours (or minutes for that matter). Certain approaches, like gravity-based storage, also require particular geography.
Did you notice that there is no region on earth that gets 100% of their power from solar/wind/storage? Why is that? Why is Germany signing multi-decade, mulit-billion-dollar deals to build pipelines to ship Russian gas for decades still? And any region that claims 100% fossil-fuel free power ALWAYS relies on hydro, nuclear or geothermal to achieve that level. Why is that?
Diurnal storage via batteries or pumped hydro, long term storage via hydrogen. The combinations now optimize to 0% nuclear. Hydrogen round trip efficiency is low but the very low cost per kWh of storage capacity makes it win for long term storage.
That no location is currently 100% renewable is an obviously irrelevant point. I m talking about 100% CO2-free solutions. And new nuclear not sunk costed existing power plants.
That no location is currently 100% renewable is an obviously irrelevant point. I m talking about 100% CO2-free solutions. And new nuclear not sunk costed existing power plants.
You're just throwing things against the barn door hoping something sticks. Every proponent of renewables has a favorite miraculous battery technology that solves the intermittency problem. And yet I look at world, and nobody has actually deployed any storage technology at scale (and by 'scale', I mean using some battery technology that stores enough energy to power a modestly sized city of a few hundred thousands people for even a few hours).
What I'm adding here is not miraculous new battery technology. It's hydrogen for long term storage. All the components of that exist and are proven. It's just a matter of integrating them. This is the most reliable and easiest kind of innovation, and it's the death knell for nuclear.
Why hasn't it been deployed thus far? Is anyone planning to deploy it? Are there ongoing projects to deploy it at scale?
> All the components of that exist and are proven.
All the components for solar roadways and hyperloop exist and are proven, doesn't mean either of those are viable.
> All the components of that exist and are proven.
All the components for solar roadways and hyperloop exist and are proven, doesn't mean either of those are viable.
> Why hasn't it been deployed thus far?
For three straightforward reasons:
(1) Wind and (especially) solar have only recently become cheap enough for this case to be made. Utility scale solar fell in cost by a factor of 5 in just the last decade,
(2) The point I made was for an apples-to-apples comparison in which all the capital costs are considered. But in this transition time the renewables are competing against existing capacity, in which the capital costs are sunk,
(3) Fossil fuel sources are not being charged for their CO2 emissions. The point I made was for a CO2-free grid, which requires that fossil fuel sources not be allowed to emit CO2. Nowhere have CO2 taxes or regulations yet put us into this situation.
Today, there are very few, if any, places in the world where it would make economic sense to build a new nuclear power plant.
> All the components for solar roadways and hyperloop exist and are proven, doesn't mean either of those are viable.
Electrolyzers exist, and are being made and sold in rapidly increasing numbers. Hydrogen valves, compressors, turbines, pipelines, and underground storage caverns exist. This is integration of existing technologies, some with track records going back more than a century. The comparison you make there is silly in the extreme. It would be more appropriate if applied to the current hype about thorium and Hail Mary Reactors.
For three straightforward reasons:
(1) Wind and (especially) solar have only recently become cheap enough for this case to be made. Utility scale solar fell in cost by a factor of 5 in just the last decade,
(2) The point I made was for an apples-to-apples comparison in which all the capital costs are considered. But in this transition time the renewables are competing against existing capacity, in which the capital costs are sunk,
(3) Fossil fuel sources are not being charged for their CO2 emissions. The point I made was for a CO2-free grid, which requires that fossil fuel sources not be allowed to emit CO2. Nowhere have CO2 taxes or regulations yet put us into this situation.
Today, there are very few, if any, places in the world where it would make economic sense to build a new nuclear power plant.
> All the components for solar roadways and hyperloop exist and are proven, doesn't mean either of those are viable.
Electrolyzers exist, and are being made and sold in rapidly increasing numbers. Hydrogen valves, compressors, turbines, pipelines, and underground storage caverns exist. This is integration of existing technologies, some with track records going back more than a century. The comparison you make there is silly in the extreme. It would be more appropriate if applied to the current hype about thorium and Hail Mary Reactors.
>For three straightforward reasons
There's a fourth reason ... it isn't viable.
And for all the talk about how the technology is ready and proven, you can't even point me to a real-world deployment, existing or planned, that will provide storage at any sort of scale to replace natural gas as wind/solar backup.
Actions speak louder than words. Take Germany for example, why aren't they redirecting the billions they are spending on NEW natural gas pipelines to ship Russian gas for decades, on your 'proven' and 'ready' battery storage technology?
There's a fourth reason ... it isn't viable.
And for all the talk about how the technology is ready and proven, you can't even point me to a real-world deployment, existing or planned, that will provide storage at any sort of scale to replace natural gas as wind/solar backup.
Actions speak louder than words. Take Germany for example, why aren't they redirecting the billions they are spending on NEW natural gas pipelines to ship Russian gas for decades, on your 'proven' and 'ready' battery storage technology?
And you have not refuted the explanation I gave for why there was not a deployment yet. That explanation is why the argument you are sticking to there is nonsense.
Your last question there has the answer "because the cost of CO2 in Europe is not high enough yet." Hydrogen doesn't make sense until natural gas is quite expensive, but even then a renewable system with hydrogen will be cheaper than a CO2-free system with fully costed nuclear.
Are you employed by the nuclear industry, by any chance? If so, if you aren't too old, run do not walk to another career.
Your last question there has the answer "because the cost of CO2 in Europe is not high enough yet." Hydrogen doesn't make sense until natural gas is quite expensive, but even then a renewable system with hydrogen will be cheaper than a CO2-free system with fully costed nuclear.
Are you employed by the nuclear industry, by any chance? If so, if you aren't too old, run do not walk to another career.
I think the price will recover a fair bit more.
As low as it is, it will keep pushing out other energy sources until demand goes up.
But for the sake of mankind and planet, I hope shale never becomes profitable again.
As low as it is, it will keep pushing out other energy sources until demand goes up.
But for the sake of mankind and planet, I hope shale never becomes profitable again.
Hopefully they will be able to transition to a more sustainable economy based on development of manufacturing and export of higher quality goods. As others have noted, they have some of the best solar resource in the world, but that’s not as easily exported. More like farming than oil production. To take advantage of it, they’ll need local industry.
https://www.alternativeenergyhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/...
https://www.alternativeenergyhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/...
This is unlikely as they have the advantage of neither cheap labor, nor a highly intelligent workforce: https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php
They are limited by an ideology/culture which discourages women from participating in the workforce or receiving an education, and also encourages cousin marriage (60-70% of marriages in Saudi Arabia) which lowers IQ and leads to birth defects https://english.alarabiya.net/en/life-style/art-and-culture/...
I think its more likely that Arab leaders will siphon off as much wealth as possible then flee to London and other tax havens. The survivors will be left to fight over the scraps and places like Saudi Arabia will come to resemble Yemen (which is a country which simply exhausted its oil reserves faster than the rest).
They are limited by an ideology/culture which discourages women from participating in the workforce or receiving an education, and also encourages cousin marriage (60-70% of marriages in Saudi Arabia) which lowers IQ and leads to birth defects https://english.alarabiya.net/en/life-style/art-and-culture/...
I think its more likely that Arab leaders will siphon off as much wealth as possible then flee to London and other tax havens. The survivors will be left to fight over the scraps and places like Saudi Arabia will come to resemble Yemen (which is a country which simply exhausted its oil reserves faster than the rest).
What other sources have written about how this will affect other oil producers with 'interesting' political situations, such as Russia, Venezuela, and Iran? Looking for recommendations of similar articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_bin_Saeed_Al_Maktoum
>A quote commonly attributed to Sheikh Rashid, "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel", reflected his concern that Dubai's oil, which was discovered in 1966 and which began production in 1969, would run out within a few generations.
>A quote commonly attributed to Sheikh Rashid, "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel", reflected his concern that Dubai's oil, which was discovered in 1966 and which began production in 1969, would run out within a few generations.
I'm trying to go more into investing in green energy/renewable/alternative of some sort. If the world is going to end in 50 years due to fossil fuels then might as well put my money in the alternatives.
I have some things in mind but maybe HN readers can give me a few suggestions on what to read/look.
I have some things in mind but maybe HN readers can give me a few suggestions on what to read/look.
I bought this ETF https://www.ishares.com/nl/particuliere-belegger/nl/producte... , if you're not familiar with the concept of ETF it's best you read about it but basically it's a basket of stocks that follow a certain index, in this instance its the global clean energy index
I looked at that. What do you think of that vs the QCLN for example. Why global?
I think going global in these uncertain times is a pro!
What do you mean by "investing"?
I meant by putting money into index fund.
Alternative startups aren't great investments - even on the index level, because of the large number of corporate failures that happen.
Think about the complete collapse of the US solar industry a few years ago.
Solar might win, but that mean the companies that make it will be part of the index you invest in.
Think about the complete collapse of the US solar industry a few years ago.
Solar might win, but that mean the companies that make it will be part of the index you invest in.
Yeah I am aware of that. I think for me just a way of putting my money where my mouth is. I won’t put everything there of course
Yay, maybe the West can stop invading countries and propping up dictators once there's no valuable natural resources there. I just read that back, and I really wish I was kidding.
As demand for oil falls, it will get cheaper, making it more attractive and alternative energy less competitive. It’s a weird dynamic. We literally need to run out of the stuff or pass laws that make it much more expensive (by taking into account its real environmental cost).
... and with it hopefully Wahabi Islam with other more peaceful sects raking up more influence.
Just because we eliminate oil as a source of energy doesn't mean we end its dominance. The stone, bronze, iron age were not about using them as fuel. Plastics are still everywhere and not about to change any time soon.
Google: Percent of oil used for plastics?
Answer: 4%
Answer: 4%
It's far more profitable to mine the spice on Arrakis then to use solar energy.
In spite of its flaws -- twitter is probably best place for finding top-shelf analysts and their opinion for free.
For Oil follow: @anasalhajji
https://twitter.com/anasalhajji/status/1284132912850522115
Enjoy!
For Oil follow: @anasalhajji
https://twitter.com/anasalhajji/status/1284132912850522115
Enjoy!
They've been saying this for the past 20 years and even though it's inevitable it's still nowhere near our lifetimes.
What’s different from the narrative of the last 20 years is that we’re not running out of oil but in fact have a glut of it. A little ironic.
exactly, I remember learning at school that we're running out of oil in 30 years and have ot diversify or peril.
As it looks there will be plenty of oil in the ground before we don't need it anymore.
As it looks there will be plenty of oil in the ground before we don't need it anymore.
We have mainstream electric vehicles now and more are on the way. A very large part (40-60%) of petroleum is used for gasoline. That will wreak havoc on oil producing places, although who gets hit how hard and what consequences it has is impossible to say.
The developing world, a group very cost sensitive and unlikely to switch for environmental reasons, is putting gasoline vehicles on the road much faster than the developed road is taking them off.
For electric vehicles to eat the world they have to be cheaper than gasoline counterparts. Not only for luxury electric vehicles to be cheaper than luxury gasoline vehicles, but for the cheapest gasoline motorcycle/scooter/car to be more expensive than the cheapest electric motorcycle/scooter/car. Given the current cost materials inside a battery/electric engine compared to the current cost of materials inside a combustion engine it’s unlikely to happen with our current approach.
For electric vehicles to eat the world they have to be cheaper than gasoline counterparts. Not only for luxury electric vehicles to be cheaper than luxury gasoline vehicles, but for the cheapest gasoline motorcycle/scooter/car to be more expensive than the cheapest electric motorcycle/scooter/car. Given the current cost materials inside a battery/electric engine compared to the current cost of materials inside a combustion engine it’s unlikely to happen with our current approach.
The developing world can't pay much for ICE technology, and more importantly can't sustain it on its own. It will ultimately follow the lead of the developed world with a slight delay.
As more oil is freed up by reduced demand in transport, I wonder whether we will see more cheap plastic flooding our cities. People are switching to electric in part because they are keen to reduce their reliance on petrol (and its cost), but nobody is really moving away from plastic.
There is a push to move away from disposable plastic. Why else were paper straws such a big deal?
How do you figure that? The Saudis have a ton of cheap oil, but they still want high prices and high demand. It's one thing to say they will sell to petrochemical forever, but IMO peak oil was reached in 2019, which isn't good for countries whose main revenue is oil.
More like ringing bells for the last 20 years. And now we are here and these regimes are not ready.
"If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. And if it stops moving subsidize it" --Reagan
oil is used for so much more than gas...
Prior to the oil embargo of 1973, the cost of a barrel of oil in today's dollars was about $23.
In 1973, OPEC created an artificial scarcity, "economic rents", in oil transferring and over the past five decades "robbed consumers" of trillions of dollars of wealth transferred to oil rich nations such as those in the Middle East.
These "economic rents" not only harmed consumers but they helped certain oil rich nations such as Russia and Iran to invade other nations.
The hope is that with US fracking and oil export, the days of more than $50 per barrel oil is over.
It is estimated that the Arabs spent $1 trillion of wealth to combat Israel. Imagine, if instead of attempting to destroy Israel they had partnered with it investing in the "Startup Nation?" Had that happened, the Middle East may have been a very wealthy region for all of it's citizens.
Historian Paul Johnson wrote an article in Commentary in 2005 called "The Anti-Semitic Disease" along these lines. [1]
[1] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Anti-Semitic-Disea...
In 1973, OPEC created an artificial scarcity, "economic rents", in oil transferring and over the past five decades "robbed consumers" of trillions of dollars of wealth transferred to oil rich nations such as those in the Middle East.
These "economic rents" not only harmed consumers but they helped certain oil rich nations such as Russia and Iran to invade other nations.
The hope is that with US fracking and oil export, the days of more than $50 per barrel oil is over.
It is estimated that the Arabs spent $1 trillion of wealth to combat Israel. Imagine, if instead of attempting to destroy Israel they had partnered with it investing in the "Startup Nation?" Had that happened, the Middle East may have been a very wealthy region for all of it's citizens.
Historian Paul Johnson wrote an article in Commentary in 2005 called "The Anti-Semitic Disease" along these lines. [1]
[1] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Anti-Semitic-Disea...
Fossil fuels are only part of the usage. Oil and hydrocarbons are used in a lot industrial production, housing, foams, chemical plants etc. Even if you somehow replaced all fossil fuels with some other energy alternative (nuclear container ships, electric cars, trucks, trains and planes) you would still use a massive amount of hydrocarbons from oil and gas to power the worlds economy.
And before you say use plant based hydrocarbons. It's kind of perverse to use trees and food crops to create fuel and industrial products.
And before you say use plant based hydrocarbons. It's kind of perverse to use trees and food crops to create fuel and industrial products.
This seems like a huge issue and a major social/economic trend going forward...
As a startup how do I take advantage of this?
As a startup how do I take advantage of this?
Archive link please? Also, won't the price bounce back after COVID? We are nowhere near sustainable on renewables.
I'm getting catchas when trying to access archive.is, so I ended up using outline instead https://outline.com/myj3NB
>Also, won't the price bounce back after COVID?
addressed in the article.
>With commerce resuming, the price has ticked back up, though a peak in demand may be years away.
>But don’t be fooled. The world’s economies are moving away from fossil fuels. Oversupply and the increasing competitiveness of cleaner energy sources mean that oil may stay cheap for the foreseeable future. The recent turmoil in oil markets is not an aberration; it is a glimpse of the future. The world has entered an era of low prices—and no region will be more affected than the Middle East and north Africa.
>Also, won't the price bounce back after COVID?
addressed in the article.
>With commerce resuming, the price has ticked back up, though a peak in demand may be years away.
>But don’t be fooled. The world’s economies are moving away from fossil fuels. Oversupply and the increasing competitiveness of cleaner energy sources mean that oil may stay cheap for the foreseeable future. The recent turmoil in oil markets is not an aberration; it is a glimpse of the future. The world has entered an era of low prices—and no region will be more affected than the Middle East and north Africa.
Fracking producers in the US act as a cap or brake on prices. When prices hit $50/barrel, some oil shale becomes profitable and comes online. When it hits $60, more does, and at $100, even more, etc etc.
Not only that, but the costs for frakking have become much lower in the US as oil companies have gotten better at cost control. The US’s generous bankruptcy system also makes it fairly straightforward for companies to shed debt and continue operating.
And unlike the Middle East, Low fossil fuel prices are a boon to the rest of the economy, so you don’t experience broad societal decay and upheaval due to low fossil fuel prices but instead higher stability.... This is why a diversified economy is so important because it reduces hysteresis losses in the case of sectoral interruptions.
And unlike the Middle East, Low fossil fuel prices are a boon to the rest of the economy, so you don’t experience broad societal decay and upheaval due to low fossil fuel prices but instead higher stability.... This is why a diversified economy is so important because it reduces hysteresis losses in the case of sectoral interruptions.
Sheikh Zaki Yamani, a Saudi Arabian who served as his country's oil minister five decades ago, quoted by the Economist in 2003 ("The End of the Oil Age").
[0] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2003/10/23/the-end-of-the-...