Big Oil the problem, Renewables the future

The situation of Big Oil and Renewables is analogous to the war of the currents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

The reason it is analogous is there are a lot of similarities to the two industries compared with Edison and Westinghouse. Namely, that Edison's industry was just not the best choice for the future of the power grid but had ALL the political power and was able to frustrate Westinghouse's market encroachment with laws, regulation and government chicanery!

Today, Big Oil frustrates its renewable alternatives by investing in lobbyists and buying subsidies for themselves while pulling out subsidies from Solar companies.

This is a direct tactic from Edison, and as such I think it reveals Big Oil to be a losing industry that relies more on force and political power than on innovation and technology to continue its competitive advantage.

 

Here's the problem with renewables:

-They don't work everywhere. You aren't going to get solar panels to provide efficient energy above the arctic circle, tidal energy only works along coasts, geothermal only works in very specific places, wind power is dependent on the wind blowing and on environmental conditions not destroying the rather finicky motors. Water power is environmentally harmful and location specific.

-In places where they don't work, they would require highly inefficient transmission to those areas and storage in equally inefficient large batteries.

The future belongs to some form of nuclear power, whether conventional fission, molten salt/thorium, or fusion.

 

Eventually renewables will be workable. Today, they are just too expensive. Conspiracy theories like the above are products of weak minds (kind of like Donald Trump's). There is no 200 MPG carburetor that "big oil" has conspired to keep off the market, and big oil is powerful because oil is the most convenient means to transport energy.

 

Saudi Arabia has been developing solar power and hy-solar applications since 1982.. They have whole villages off grid.. and Farasan island in the Red Sea is completely solar.

KSA is one of the largest oil producers in the world.

 

And the energy demand in those places are tiny.

 

However, they are in the desert, in a subtropical latitude--almost the best area, weatherwise, to use solar. They also have a lot of money to build it.

What kind of factories are they running off of that solar power?

 

How much local energy is needed to be produced above the arctic circle? Currently Germany produces solar energy and wind energy and stores it in Swedish "pumped storage" so Sweden even stores the electricity produced much further south. Not to mention we can transmit Extremely High Voltages rather efficiently for hundreds if not thousands of miles.

That addresses your second point, what is this "highly inefficient transmission method" you speak of? Nations don't store energy in batteries. They store solar/wind energy in "pumped storage" facilities, like reservoirs and dams.

It's posts like yours that convince me that conservatives are just too ignorant to govern. You're not ignorant, I think you just haven't fully examined the issue yet, I think once you do you'll see quite plainly that all the issues you addressed are in fact non-issues.

But conservatives refuse to yield in the face of overwhelming evidence that their reality is fake.

- - - Updated - - -

Say what? No they are not tiny. Energy demand in Saudi Arabia is quite high per-capita and their industry (to answer perdidochas) is also quite intensive compared to most middle-income countries. Including but certainly not limited to the entire Refinery industry in the Arabian peninsula which requires TREMENDOUS amounts of electricity.

- - - Updated - - -

Carburetors have not been used for a decade? I'm not sure why you mention that. But anyway, big oil is actually highly subsidized and uses lobbyists to confront or destroy alternatives especially by starving research funding, government grants and other subsidies that would weaken big oil.

It's not conspiracy, it's really plain as day.

 

1. Ask the millions who live in Siberia if solar power will be very efficient for them or how efficient transmission of power across lines would be when those lines are frozen half the year.

2. How are those "pumped storage" methods going to work in area without good access to inland water (I.E. The majority of the planet's population in future decades)?

3. The energy demand of tiny villages and single small island are large?

 

Yes and no.. They have refrigeration and air conditioning, television..

 

And very small populations. Also, those commodities are common in small Saudi villages and on a small island in the Red Sea?

 

It is an ideal location for solar power and the Saudi have high demand for electricity and water.

Industry is integrated downstream to manufacturing in Yanbu and Jubail and I think uses most natural gas.

- - - Updated - - -

Saudis have a high usage.. of power and water..

 

Per capita, sure. They have massive oil refineries and some large cities.

Do their small villages and the communities on that island have anywhere near the average Saudi level of energy consumption?

 

Farasan Island is an archipelago ... The main island is about a thousand people.. and they still need water, electricity, air-conditioning.

Saudi Arabia's first solar power plant was commissioned on October 2, 2011, on Farasan Island. It is a 500 kW fixed tilt photovoltaic plant.

A 200 kW rooftop installation is planned for Riyadh, and is expected to generate 330 MWh/year.[5]

1,100 megawatts (MW) of photovoltaics and 900 megawatts of concentrated solar thermal (CSP) is expected to be completed by early 2013.[6]

Due to rising oil prices and decreasing costs of utility-scale solar installations, solar power in Saudi Arabia has achieved grid parity and can produce electricity at costs comparable to conventional sources

Saudi Arabia's first solar power plant was commissioned on October 2, 2011, on Farasan Island. It is a 500 kW fixed tilt photovoltaic plant.

A 200 kW rooftop installation is planned for Riyadh, and is expected to generate 330 MWh/year.[5]

1,100 megawatts (MW) of photovoltaics and 900 megawatts of concentrated solar thermal (CSP) is expected to be completed by early 2013.[6]

Due to rising oil prices and decreasing costs of utility-scale solar installations, solar power in Saudi Arabia has achieved grid parity and can produce electricity at costs comparable to conventional sources
Saudi Arabia's first solar power plant was commissioned on October 2, 2011, on Farasan Island. It is a 500 kW fixed tilt photovoltaic plant.

A 200 kW rooftop installation is planned for Riyadh, and is expected to generate 330 MWh/year.[5]

1,100 megawatts (MW) of photovoltaics and 900 megawatts of concentrated solar thermal (CSP) is expected to be completed by early 2013.[6]

Due to rising oil prices and decreasing costs of utility-scale solar installations, solar power in Saudi Arabia has achieved grid parity and can produce electricity at costs comparable to conventional sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Saudi_Arabia

 

Again, the energy demands of a thousand people are minuscule.

The energy model for Saudi Arabia won't work in place with megacities. No renewable form of energy has the efficiency to do it.

The most efficient form of power generation that isn't fossil fuels is nuclear energy. That is future of energy production. Renewables will act as a supplement, but in coming decades nuclear power is going to overtake fossil fuels and renewables.

 

Jeddah, Riyadh and Dammam have in the millions.. Hofuf has 250,000 I think


Most Populated Cities In Saudi Arabia



City

Population

Riyadh 4,205,961
Jeddah 2,867,446
Mecca 1,323,624
Medina 1,300,000

6 more rows

 

Conspiracy theory. Not aware of big oil investments in renewables? Not aware how heavily renewables are subsidized?

 

Are any of those cities powered solely by renewable energy?

 

Comparing apples and oranges?

Renewables are not like power stations where there is a single central generation station and then a grid to distribute the energy which is just as efficient/inefficient irrespective to whether the electricity comes for fossil or renewable sources.

The advantage of renewables is that they can be dispersed. Having solar arrays on the roofs of houses, office buildings and factories means that if one goes down the entire energy grid is not impacted.

There is enough wind energy on the planet to provide 2.5 times the current worldwide energy consumption. Utilities all across this nation are investing in wind because it makes sense for their bottom line to no longer be held hostage to the fossil fuel industry. Yes, they still have their existing infrastructure and that will take decades to phase out but they are investing in renewables because they are now cost effective.

Then there is the military. They see a strategic and tactical benefit to using renewables. The cost of bringing fossil fuels into remote areas of places like Afghanistan is not worth the risk in lives when a solar array can provide the same electricity. The navy has invested in both wind and tidal renewables.

So it really doesn't matter if you refuse to accept the future but it is happening anyway.

Personally I will be implementing solar hot water heating and looking into both wind and solar options for my business and personal use starting next year. My goal is to only have access to the grid as a backup but that is only because I need to keep the servers online. With sufficient battery backup I will probably be able to drop the grid entirely given the currently available technology.

 

It would be more efficient for the military to use small nuclear reactors that aren't dependent on weather conditions.

 

Which ever source of energy is cheapest wins. Today, that would be oil. Some conspiracy huh?

 

Out of curiosity, what do any of you think you will do without all the rest that comes from crude oil, other than it's energy potential? You know, those things like plastics, medicines, etc., etc.

 

Completely disagree. The future comes from better storage technology like hydrogen storage. It scales up for huge projects, has been used by NASA and the DOD for years on remote projects so the technology is proven and when hydrogen is burned in a fuel cell, it provides potable water.

Nuclear energy is not the future.

 

Saudi Arabia announced their plan several months ago.. Petroleum will go directly to manufacturing and chemicals in Yanbu and Jubail.. There's really more than enough for automobiles. No shortages in the market.

 

Actually there is currently 2016 data that shows a different trend entirely.

Another major issue for the middle east is water desalination which consumes huge amounts of power. Those facilities are usually run with renewable energy. The middle east is way above the curve because they have money to invest in smart technology of the future. In fact, they may become the leaders and it may end up causing a major global shift. The US is highly unprepared for global climate change and the resulting factors.

Another problem with nuclear energy is that its not securable. It can be attacked, it can go down and can take huge areas quickly off the grid. The US right now has a pipeline for food of about 8-11 days before you get shortages. Potable water is also a major problem when the grid goes down...especially if it goes down because of flooding.

Nuclear energy solves none of these problems...but renewable energy with storage technology certainly can. You can provide smart city technology, renewables with energy storage, potable water, vertical farming grids, excess fuel cells for driving, etc.

There's a reason why most of the globe outside the US is investing in this technology. The future is clear to see if you're in the industry.

 

You assume all nuclear energy has to be conventional uranium-based fission.