Thanks for the info. I'll look into that when I have the time. I can see the business logic of owning carbon credits. But losing the hydrocarbon business has got to hurt as the world pivots to nuclear and renewables.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Interestingly, when they have the carbon credits, they have the ability to burn hydrocarbons, which is what happens to hydrocarbons for the most part (other than chemical processing or lubrication). The oil business will be peripheral to the carbon business, but will not end. It won't ever end, regardless of what happens politically, because humanity requires portable energy and there isn't any alternative to it.
I don't agree with the portable energy argument. Electricity is easily portable using power lines or cables. Electric vehicles are taking the world by storm. Batteries are constantly improving. Energy can also be stored as potential energy or heat. Combustion is not really necessary.
As an Alaskan, a former commercial fisherman, and someone that has flown intercontinental distances, I assure you that you absolutely cannot do those things with shore power. Batteries exist,and do improve constantly, but not enough today to do those things reasonably well and profitably. Combustion is absolutely necessary, and as soon as your life depends on one of those things, or another that require it, you will gain understanding you lack, either through combustion saving your life, or by dying for the lack of it.
And what percentage do those use cases represent of today's total?
Let me whip out a napkin and parse the propaganda to extract the actual real data...
When you are on a fishing boat at sea, 100% of your power comes from combustion. For riding a Segue in the city batteries are fine. There isn't enough lithium in the world to make the billions of car batteries a complete change over to EV's requires. Therefore promoting the complete cessation of infernal combustion isn't promoting EV's, but people without private transportation at all.
What prospect does civilization have that is leashed to it's overlords of being free and prosperous?
None.
Free people will always require, and have, combustion to power their enterprise. Fire is perhaps the fundamental technology that separated humans from other animals, and eliminating human control and possession of fire eliminates humanity, and replaces our human rights with slavery and chattelization.
My question was what the percentage of the total out of all combustion was that cannot be replaced.
My napkin comment was my reply. You'd have to parse the requirements of all industries involved. People make careers doing that. I was snarky, but there is no end of propaganda involved in the constant pressure to reduce the quality of life people expect and enjoy in the West today, so that snark wasn't misplaced.
What I pointed out next was that some things will not be able to be done with batteries, like commercial fishing. The power requirements and rigors of the sea will simply not allow such endeavors to be undertaken without infernal combustion and vastly higher power density of hydrocarbon fuel.
Edit: I don't mention rigor offhand. During a good storm in the Bering Sea, fishermen can go to 24/7 shifts, because they need to go topside and smash ice accumulating on the superstructure with hammers until the storm breaks. Not only can the ice break things, but it can accumulate so thickly that it can outweigh the boat itself, and cause it to become top-heavy and capsize. The reliability of electronics and batteries in such conditions is not sufficient. Many boats have a powerhead, a motor turning a winch on a boom. They have made electric motors for a long time, but on all fishing boats with powerheads you will find they are hydraulically powered, because electric power is easily disrupted by corrosion.
Hydraulics are extremely robust and the only power source for such devices that can last at sea.