Nafeez Ahmed writes that the coronavirus may be the death knell of the fossil fuel business:
Policy-makers are still in denial as to how long this demand slump will last. But if it takes at least 18 months, and most likely several years, for a vaccine to be developed, this will keep demand far too low for the global fossil fuel industry as we know it to survive.
The pandemic has thus ground the global oil industry to a halt. Storage is about to breach saturation point. Oil service firms that supply the industry are shutting down. Petrol stations are being forced to close as fuel sales dry up, endangering transport networks and critical supply chains.
The writing was on the wall long before the pandemic hit. The EROI -- Energy Return On Investment -- has been falling for years. EROI refers to "how much energy is needed to extract energy from a particular resource. What’s left is known as surplus “net energy,” which we can use to support goods and services in the economy outside the energy system:"
In the early 20 century, the EROI of fossil fuels was sometimes as high as 100:1. But this has dramatically reduced. Between 1960 and 1980, the world average value EROI for fossil fuels declined by more than half, from about 35:1 to 15:1. It’s still declining.
This has acted as a background “brake” on the rate of economic growth for the world’s advanced industrial economies, which has simultaneously declined since the 1970s.
Now the demand for oil has cratered. Oil companies are losing mountains of money. Governments should not bail out the fossil fuel industry. They should build bridges between fossil fuel energy and green energy:
Amidst this unprecedented crisis, we face an unprecedented opportunity to speed the transition to new energy system that no longer breaches environmental boundaries in ways that make pandemics like this inevitable.
As Abhi Rajendran of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy has warned, a bailout cannot resolve the industry’s problems. Any support to the industry must be to hone it down it to protect immediate supply chains, and rehabilitate it to supply petrochemicals and other key industrial services in a post-carbon age.
Instead, urgent focus is required on building a new decentralized, renewable energy system, and transforming major industrial sectors to create a vibrant new sustainable infrastructure across agriculture and manufacturing.
As the traditional petrol supply infrastructure breaks down due to plummeting fuel sales, there are alternative bridge fuels that could be urgently scaled up. One potential source of clean biofuels for this purpose is Malaysia, where the government has created mandatory national regulation to support a transition to 100 per cent deforestation-free sustainable palm oil.
There is a way forward. What matters is whether or not we see it -- and whether or not we take it.
Image: New York Times
8 comments:
I did a double take when I read that last line about "100 percent deforestation-free sustainable palm oil." Where to begin?
There is no such thing as 'deforestation-free" palm plantations. Across Malaysia and Indonesia they've been clearing rainforest to make way for palm tree cultivation. Areas are deforested, as often as not, by burning them out because it's cheaper than logging them off. The particulate-heavy smoke wafts north to blanket the nations of southeast and east Asia. When the rainforest is cleared off, it exposes the forest bed to annual rains that quickly degrade the exposed soils and, in some cases, destroy soil carbon. Then you plant the degraded clearings with palm trees that, once they become marketable, are logged off and hauled away. What is left to decay and restore vital soil nutrients? Not much. Instead the next crop is planted to further strip the soils of nutrients. It's not sustainable. It's not deforestation-free. And it sure as hell creates a real "carbon bomb" of greenhouse gas emissions.
I plead ignorance, Mound -- which in the end is no excuse. Still, I continue to hope we will learn something from this situation which might improve our lot. I realize that's also asking a lot.
Many positive environmental breakthroughs are clouded in bullshit.
Think Alberta's ethical oil!
BC's clean LNG.
We are all a sucker for a heartwarming headline.
Its hard to remain optimistic but, shit, I will go down fighting.
TB
I apologize if you thought I was being critical of you, Owen. It was the final line of the cited article that spoke of "deforestation-free" palm plantations. That, to me, sounded as genuine as the "clean coal" or "ethical [bitumen] oil" crowd.
If we want to go the bio-oil route, we have vast swathes of no longer viable forests, including much of Canada's boreal forest, that could be logged to produce valuable and needed biochar, bio-oil, even bio-gas, clearing territory to be reforested with good species that are climate resistant and can restart the surface carbon cycle. BC's forests were once considered a massive "carbon sink" but since the pine-beetle devastation they've been transformed into a giant "climate bomb." That can be reversed for both our immediate and long-term benefit but the political will doesn't exist.
one of the jokes I received was about a gallon of gas lasting 3 weeks due to the pandemic. With 3 vehicles, that gallon of gas has gone 6 weeks. Its funny, but on the other hand, jets aren't flying, people aren't going on vacation. The consumption of oil is down and as you write its going to be awhile before it ever goes up again.
I think the pipeline is finished and Jason needs to get over it. On the upside Trump has closed off immigration to the U.S.A. to "stop the spread of COVID 19" He's just pandering to his racist/nazi base. On the upside, Alberta could make a hard turn and offer all those companies who are not able to bring in their employees a new location--Calgary. Lots of vacant office space, nice city, reasonably priced housing, etc. A number of years ago MICROSOFT OPENED OFFICES in Vancouver because they could not bring more over seas workers into the u.s.a. Well, if the tech industry needs a place to go which isn't far from Seattle or the Silcon Valley, Alberta would be it. They even have West Jet which could easily have shuttle services from calgary to seattle and the Silcon Valley. I'd suggest Vancouver but housing is expensive, even if it drop by 40% jn price. Alberta also has a fairly educated work force. It wouldn't take much to transition from oil to computers and tech.
There will always be a need for oil because they use it to make plastics where are every where, from pills to pipes.
Many families won't have two wage earners for some time. You can imagine the vehicles which will be parked and the consumption of gas going down by 50%. During the interium electric cars may become more of a thing, although some of us in the rural areas won't ever switch over.
We are plagued these days with snake-oil salesmen, TB. That said, we have the tools to change things for the better -- if we choose to.
There is a great swath of knowledge and expertise that I know nothing about. Your information on what can be done with B.C.'s ravaged forests is an example of what I don't know. I appreciate your contribution to my education.
It all depends on your perspective, e.a.f. The end of something can be the beginning of something else -- and that something else can be an improvement.
Post a Comment