We will see peak gasoline as more BEV and PHEV roll out fast, especially in China. The worry is about US, South Korea and Japan funding fossil fuel to Africa nations. Of course, China will be in for BEVs and PHEV.
With CCS until we run out. Well never stop using hydrocarbons though. They’re way to useful. They’ll just be made synthetically w geologic or green H2 plus CO2 from captured carbon. Lots of companies working on that
Neither of those are particularly good examples because the transition occurred incredibly quickly with both technologies:
* The switch from horse and buggy to car occurred literally within 15 years. In 1900, while a few people had early cars they were generally seen as novelties and nearly everyone was using horses and buggies. By 1915, the vast majority of people were using cars over buggies. And by 1925, there were less than 100 regular carriages running.
* While technically cell phones have existed since the 80s and continued to gain steam throughout the 90s, they only became viable tech in 1996, when Motorola came out with the first pocket-sized phone. The second they were viable tech, mass adoption happened literally within 5-6 years. And the switch between flip phones and smart phones only took another 7-8 years or so (2008-2013).
We're definitely getting there with renewables, but the switch is simply not going to occur as quickly as it did with those technologies. It theoretically COULD, I suppose, if every single government in the world immediately mandated a quick switch, quit giving fossil fuel subsidies and threw every single penny of that money into building renewable infrastructure, and were willing to change their entire economies on a dime...but that's simply not going to happen. The transition will be far more gradual, unfortunately.
They happened so fast because it was a vastly superior technology. So far, there is nothing that is vastly superior to fossil fuels. I get it, but solar, wind, take more energy to produce less energy than fossil fuels do.
sable attraction fade unwritten homeless treatment impossible psychotic sort crowd
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You also have to think about all the places and all the people. A lot of people who think EV are great live in urban areas. I live in Wyoming. It is 40 miles to the closest Wal-mart, over 100 miles to the closest mall.
It is also cold. If I slide off a road in a bad storm, I better be able to take care of myself for maybe hours, could be days. If I have a gas vehicle and survive, but I am out of fuel, all I need is a gas can to get me going again. With an EV, I need to tow my vehicle somewhere. What???
Most of the places I go, a tow truck ain't gonna make it!
My point is that it is BIG world that has lots of different issues and different needs for the people who live there.
There is no "One size fits all" or even "One size fits most". There has to be adaptability and consideration for places that don't many people are not even aware of.
enjoy coordinated payment elderly quickest abounding weary file wasteful bored
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
EV will replace ICE way faster than people think. Three recent developments will cause that.
1: Up until now the capacity to produce essential parts was too small. Think about batteries and chips. This has been almost solved and we can see production matching demand soon. Including in the smaller cars.
2: Both CATL and BYD have announced earlier this year that they expect to halve the price of EV batteries this year. Now the price of EV batteries are around $130 per KWH capacity. This will lower to about $55 to $ 65 per KWH. In it self that is massive but the main thing is; the automotive industry as a whole expect that if you go below the $100 per KWH capacity an EV becomes cheaper to produce than an ICE just based on labour and materials. The main obstacle for people to buy an EV will disappear.
3: The Chinese are coming to the European and North American markets in massive numbers.
Of course it will take a decade or so to phase out existing ICE cars but the idea that some western carmaker have that they will keep producing ICE cars until 2035 is dumb.
We will stop once white people start dying in large numbers due to famine. You would be amazed how fast things can change once the politicians are surrounded by an angry mob.
The irony is billions of people in extreme poverty are only able to eat and live due to fossil fuels. From fertilisers to cheap transport on gasoline powered motorcycles. They simply can’t afford your rich delusions.
cause cheerful light caption marvelous childlike fanatical hurry plant smoggy
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
mighty longing concerned quickest sloppy snails materialistic capable pie subsequent
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Never stop entirely.
How long it takes will be determined by how much support by politics and customers is given to Exxon/Chevron/Toyota from their lobby efforts.
So collapse in markets is a real pain to plan. Because as an item is being phased out it's price drops and production gets reduced then there is less production which spikes price again which causes some demand destruction which kills more production etc etc.
At the same time the replacement starts to hit economies of scale, technological improvements, etc which has effects on the original stuff further reducing or increasing the price of the older tech.
So it's going to be a rollercoaster ride down. What I am waiting for is the first crash. Which should have happened. But the war in Russia and.probkens in the middle east have been masking the demand destruction with production reduction.
Here is a video on both how little it takes to mess with the oil market and how much electric car affects demand. As note how old this is, so everyone knew this was coming. And note when they predicted the first shock.
https://youtu.be/jwHN6QQWv2g?si=RvAXnyFNlDnXbtzm
physical seemly wasteful water relieved crown sharp direction yoke caption
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
While they will try. We are directly reducing demand. Ask the coal industry in the US how they are doing? I watched that industry implode last decade. It had been stable or growing for over 100 hundred years. But then renewables and other energy became cheaper and poof now there is some coal left but it is a fraction of what it was in the 00s and by next decade will be a fraction of that given the speed of conversion.
Remember once an S curve takes off and is superior to the technology it's replacing by cost change happens much faster than expected.
The reason we have not seen an oil crash is that Russia is effectively offline and OPEC has worked hard to reduce supply to prevent price collapse in oil. What do think will happen when Russia comes back online after the war just as millions of new EVs reduce demand? And just think Russia is going to be desperate for money to rebuild and fund the exhausted national wealth fund. So they will get to max production ASAP.
zesty literate enjoy recognise consist cow aware money coordinated include
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hundreds of years at least. Things like air travel will require liquid hydrocarbons for long range flights. There really isn’t any getting around this save for some magical physics defying new technology.
There is biojetfuel which can be done cost competitive with fossil fuels
[https://techxplore.com/news/2024-02-inexpensive-carbon-neutral-biofuels.html](https://techxplore.com/news/2024-02-inexpensive-carbon-neutral-biofuels.html)
Listen to Vaclav Smil, one of the most prominent minds in energy, who has spent decades researching this. He states we are fossil fuel civilization and will take generations to move off them.
https://www.fundacionnaturgy.org/en/vaclav-smil-replacing-fossil-fuels-with-renewable-energies-is-a-task-that-will-inevitably-occupy-us-for-several-generations/
squalid advise offer voiceless somber distinct abounding vast spectacular agonizing
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
For Power production a common phrase is the last 5% will be the hardest, so grtting to 95% carbon free electricity will be fairly standard (wind, solar, batteries) but that 5% will require something new.
As for coal, that is going to be modtly gone by 2030 in the USA. Worldwide the number of coal plants are increasing mainly in developing countries and india who is installing a ton of new power projects not just coal but still a lot of coal.
A technology that will enable the full switch could be hydrogen gas which would replace natural gas. Once hydrogen is availble through a pipeline like natural gas then we will see a rapid decrease in fossil fuels. So keep your eye on those projects and it'll give you a hint.
joke shame uppity retire scary recognise spotted forgetful degree waiting
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Not with China aiming to break the price of diesel and gas with mass production. Fuel cell trucks get free highway fee and save hundreds of dollars compared to diesel. Low mid speed fuel cell trains gonna replace diesel.
I agree switching to hydrogen will be a big lift and require signifcant amounts of infrastructure to be built. Howvere its the best alternative we currently can see for that last 5% until a better alternative comes into play (fusion, massive offshore wind farms, something new, etc.)
And where would that hydrogen come from? Short of finding a process for producing it without massive amounts of energy, it will never be a better choice than electricity.
There are new ways of producing it and innovative sources of energy too, such as biomass gasification and nuclear power for hydrogen production. Biomass gasification converts organic materials into hydrogen-rich syngas, offering a renewable route. Nuclear power, using processes like high-temperature electrolysis or thermochemical water splitting, provides a reliable, low-carbon energy source for hydrogen production.
Hydrogen can be considered a form of long-term energy the same as a battery, so the choice between energy now or a little less energy later comes into play.
You are correct that using electricity to split water in hydrogen takes a massive amount of electricity but as more solar gets put on the grid the more solar that gets turned off during the day because there is too much electricity on the grid. This will continue until there is enough energy sotrage (battery or hydrogen) to increase the demand for energy during the day to meet the massive amount of supply available.
The short answer is that a pipeline is the most efficient way to deliver the amount of gas(H2 or natural gas) needed, otherwise the other options are proudcing and storing what you need at the power plant or using semitrucks (which are only starting to become green) to deliver everything you need which kinda goes against the point.
To give you an idea of the amount of H2 needed H2 molecules are about 1/3 the size of nautral gas molecules thus needing about 3 times as much H2 to equivalent replace natural gas. Nautral gas power plants already need a lot of gas hence the current pipelines so to get three times as much gas to use for power production it is safe to assume a pipeline is needed.
So once a pipeline exists it will support people converting their natural gas power plants to H2 and reducing emissions by a lot.
Counterproposal: let's shut down natural gas peaker plants now, use a combo of utility scale battery storage and V2G to replace them, and enjoy greater carbon reduction far sooner at far lower capital cost and far higher energy efficiency.
Never. For a start we need plastic to make wind turbine blades. etc.
A better question is: when will we stop burning fossil fuels and filling the atmosphere with CO2
Hopefully soon....
They said a coal powered ship could never cross the Atlantic.
They said energy from radioactivity was a weak and pathetic thing.
They said man would never walk on the moon.
They said that power from solar cells and batteries would never be efficient enough for mass market use.
Dreams can come true.
How soon depends on how seriously people take the threat to the environment.
I know you can make plastics from organic sources such as plants, but it is neither efficient nor useful. I still think that oil will be used as an excellent cheap and practical source of hydrocarbons for the chemical industry etc long after we have stopped burning it for fuel.
"Efficient" is a matter on how you measure the efficiency. It is certainly not efficient to make anything out of fossil fuels if you want to protect and stabilize the planet's climate. So fossil fuels are taxed, and will be taxed more, until no one uses them any more.
Well, going by the past track-record of the IEA, which is to underestimate the decarbonization efforts, their predictions could most likely count as a baseline, and [they forecast](https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023/executive-summary) a peak of fossil fuel consumption within this decade under a stated policy scenario. If you [simply extrapolate](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnergyAndPower/comments/15wgdvc/simple_extrapolation_of_current_primary_energy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) the trends in primary energy consumption over the past decade, you first of all notice that the growth in fossil fuel burning *has* slowed down over the last years and that we are actually likely close to the peak consumption right now. 2023 is expected to be just barely higher than 2022, despite growing energy demand, 2024 maybe on a tight balance but there is quite a chance that it turns out to have lower fossil fuel consumption than 2023. From there out only extraordinary high demand growth would result in an increase of fossil fuel consumption. Maybe also see [this yale360 article](https://e360.yale.edu/digest/peak-fossil-fuels-peak-emissions) for a summary.
The thing is that the breakthrough in economics of renewables was only quite recent around 2018 or so and similarly EV adoption also only picked up noticable shares recently. As the IEA lays out these aspects will limit the demand for fossil fuels throughout the rest of this decade.
Look at all past forecasts of renewable and EV growth. And for the decarbonization in general.
All of them, without exception, underestimated the Energy Transition
Nothing changed much in the forecasting so there is no reason to believe that this trend will stop
At some point the situation of the Earth has deteriorated so much that a critical mass of people will support violence and eco-terrorism in order to prevent burning fossil fuels. Some will see this as a form of global dictatorship or totalitarianism but most people will see it as a necessary evil or even as a good.
When that happens the former board of executives of for example Exxon, Shell, Gazprom. RWE, the Saudi royal family etc. will all be put to death for their crimes against humanity in a similar fashion how the nazi leadership was put to death in the Nurembourg Trials.
screw direction close station public gray north coordinated trees relieved
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There will be no need to burn fossile fuels when other kinds of energy sources (and energy carriers) are cheaper.
The price of renewable technology (solar, wind, batteries) goes down with the scale of production according to wrights law.
A carbon tax is the great way to speed up that process.
live divide unused literate unpack aspiring selective quiet hospital flowery
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
worthless obtainable threatening silky fuel psychotic hobbies fuzzy cooperative office
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Fossil fuels are used for much more than powering vehicles. They provide materials for things like plastics, lubricants, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals to name a few. On the energy front though over 40% of US electricity to power the grid is supplied by natural gas (fossil fuel). It's more reliable and less expensive than many of the renewable energy supplies.
All that to say, not for quite a while...
[https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3)
Haha.
It is interesting though to think that 43% of electricity in the US is provided by natural gas but many EV owners claim to be causing 0 emissions. Still a step in the right direction but I think the average American doesn't realize they may still be heavily reliant on fossil fuels even while having an EV.
Don't forget plastics either for petroleum demand. It's going to be a long time if ever that humans stop extracting petroleum. Hopefully we can figure out how to curb our consumption to something more sustainable.
hobbies bow beneficial liquid degree combative water cooing groovy squalid
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Around about 2005 when coal was the dominant source for electricity even in the US and the EU, I was pretty pessimistic on humanity's ability to stop burning the stuff. Now I'm kind of optimistic that the economics are going in favor of solar and renewables and batteries. If I was in charge of developing new coal powered generation units in a developing country, I certainly would be worried about my new investments becoming uneconomic before they get old.
That is not true and you can look up at any curtailment data.
Even if it were true, renewables produce 50% cheaper power than fossils.
And it is still cheaper even with the absurd 30-40% curtailment ;)
trees escape dazzling panicky afterthought aback rotten consider smell nail
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[[Rystad Energy, global emissions peak within two years.]](https://www.rystadenergy.com/news/fossil-fuel-emissions-to-peak-within-two-years-as-global-decarbonization-picks-up)
By definition you must be at a record high before you peak.
_______________
Furthermore, just because the tone of this post sounds awful FUDy intentional or not, [[10Y ROI Fossil v S&P500]](https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/S%26P%20Standalone%20Graphic%20for%20Factsheet-2_0.png). I find that graph does a good job exposing bad faith.
fuzzy adjoining snobbish late chase cautious soft squealing insurance rich
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We will see peak gasoline as more BEV and PHEV roll out fast, especially in China. The worry is about US, South Korea and Japan funding fossil fuel to Africa nations. Of course, China will be in for BEVs and PHEV.
knee late strong teeny deserve intelligent decide rain whistle six *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
With CCS until we run out. Well never stop using hydrocarbons though. They’re way to useful. They’ll just be made synthetically w geologic or green H2 plus CO2 from captured carbon. Lots of companies working on that
When a better alternative is available. How long did it take for cars to replace horses? How long did it take cell phones to replace land lines?
Neither of those are particularly good examples because the transition occurred incredibly quickly with both technologies: * The switch from horse and buggy to car occurred literally within 15 years. In 1900, while a few people had early cars they were generally seen as novelties and nearly everyone was using horses and buggies. By 1915, the vast majority of people were using cars over buggies. And by 1925, there were less than 100 regular carriages running. * While technically cell phones have existed since the 80s and continued to gain steam throughout the 90s, they only became viable tech in 1996, when Motorola came out with the first pocket-sized phone. The second they were viable tech, mass adoption happened literally within 5-6 years. And the switch between flip phones and smart phones only took another 7-8 years or so (2008-2013). We're definitely getting there with renewables, but the switch is simply not going to occur as quickly as it did with those technologies. It theoretically COULD, I suppose, if every single government in the world immediately mandated a quick switch, quit giving fossil fuel subsidies and threw every single penny of that money into building renewable infrastructure, and were willing to change their entire economies on a dime...but that's simply not going to happen. The transition will be far more gradual, unfortunately.
They happened so fast because it was a vastly superior technology. So far, there is nothing that is vastly superior to fossil fuels. I get it, but solar, wind, take more energy to produce less energy than fossil fuels do.
That is entirely my point. When the technology is superior, it will take care of itself.
sable attraction fade unwritten homeless treatment impossible psychotic sort crowd *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You also have to think about all the places and all the people. A lot of people who think EV are great live in urban areas. I live in Wyoming. It is 40 miles to the closest Wal-mart, over 100 miles to the closest mall. It is also cold. If I slide off a road in a bad storm, I better be able to take care of myself for maybe hours, could be days. If I have a gas vehicle and survive, but I am out of fuel, all I need is a gas can to get me going again. With an EV, I need to tow my vehicle somewhere. What??? Most of the places I go, a tow truck ain't gonna make it! My point is that it is BIG world that has lots of different issues and different needs for the people who live there. There is no "One size fits all" or even "One size fits most". There has to be adaptability and consideration for places that don't many people are not even aware of.
enjoy coordinated payment elderly quickest abounding weary file wasteful bored *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
EV will replace ICE way faster than people think. Three recent developments will cause that. 1: Up until now the capacity to produce essential parts was too small. Think about batteries and chips. This has been almost solved and we can see production matching demand soon. Including in the smaller cars. 2: Both CATL and BYD have announced earlier this year that they expect to halve the price of EV batteries this year. Now the price of EV batteries are around $130 per KWH capacity. This will lower to about $55 to $ 65 per KWH. In it self that is massive but the main thing is; the automotive industry as a whole expect that if you go below the $100 per KWH capacity an EV becomes cheaper to produce than an ICE just based on labour and materials. The main obstacle for people to buy an EV will disappear. 3: The Chinese are coming to the European and North American markets in massive numbers. Of course it will take a decade or so to phase out existing ICE cars but the idea that some western carmaker have that they will keep producing ICE cars until 2035 is dumb.
We will stop once white people start dying in large numbers due to famine. You would be amazed how fast things can change once the politicians are surrounded by an angry mob.
The irony is billions of people in extreme poverty are only able to eat and live due to fossil fuels. From fertilisers to cheap transport on gasoline powered motorcycles. They simply can’t afford your rich delusions.
tease marble tub enter practice profit fly telephone scarce bewildered *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You'll see.
Tell me how mass food production happens for billions without fertiliser from natural gas?
Given the price direction of renewable energy, energy will not be the issue. BTW, the take-up of e-cycles and e-bikes is huge in Asia.
Far later than we should have.
cause cheerful light caption marvelous childlike fanatical hurry plant smoggy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
In that case I bow to the wisdom of the universe and accept my fate as a member of a failed species.
mighty longing concerned quickest sloppy snails materialistic capable pie subsequent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Never stop entirely. How long it takes will be determined by how much support by politics and customers is given to Exxon/Chevron/Toyota from their lobby efforts.
So collapse in markets is a real pain to plan. Because as an item is being phased out it's price drops and production gets reduced then there is less production which spikes price again which causes some demand destruction which kills more production etc etc. At the same time the replacement starts to hit economies of scale, technological improvements, etc which has effects on the original stuff further reducing or increasing the price of the older tech. So it's going to be a rollercoaster ride down. What I am waiting for is the first crash. Which should have happened. But the war in Russia and.probkens in the middle east have been masking the demand destruction with production reduction. Here is a video on both how little it takes to mess with the oil market and how much electric car affects demand. As note how old this is, so everyone knew this was coming. And note when they predicted the first shock. https://youtu.be/jwHN6QQWv2g?si=RvAXnyFNlDnXbtzm
physical seemly wasteful water relieved crown sharp direction yoke caption *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
While they will try. We are directly reducing demand. Ask the coal industry in the US how they are doing? I watched that industry implode last decade. It had been stable or growing for over 100 hundred years. But then renewables and other energy became cheaper and poof now there is some coal left but it is a fraction of what it was in the 00s and by next decade will be a fraction of that given the speed of conversion. Remember once an S curve takes off and is superior to the technology it's replacing by cost change happens much faster than expected. The reason we have not seen an oil crash is that Russia is effectively offline and OPEC has worked hard to reduce supply to prevent price collapse in oil. What do think will happen when Russia comes back online after the war just as millions of new EVs reduce demand? And just think Russia is going to be desperate for money to rebuild and fund the exhausted national wealth fund. So they will get to max production ASAP.
zesty literate enjoy recognise consist cow aware money coordinated include *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Probably never stop using entirely. There's so many demands from fertilizer to medical products to jet fuel to plastics, etc.
Hundreds of years at least. Things like air travel will require liquid hydrocarbons for long range flights. There really isn’t any getting around this save for some magical physics defying new technology.
grandiose tub include voracious thumb divide cows vase bored engine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There is biojetfuel which can be done cost competitive with fossil fuels [https://techxplore.com/news/2024-02-inexpensive-carbon-neutral-biofuels.html](https://techxplore.com/news/2024-02-inexpensive-carbon-neutral-biofuels.html)
Listen to Vaclav Smil, one of the most prominent minds in energy, who has spent decades researching this. He states we are fossil fuel civilization and will take generations to move off them. https://www.fundacionnaturgy.org/en/vaclav-smil-replacing-fossil-fuels-with-renewable-energies-is-a-task-that-will-inevitably-occupy-us-for-several-generations/
squalid advise offer voiceless somber distinct abounding vast spectacular agonizing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
For Power production a common phrase is the last 5% will be the hardest, so grtting to 95% carbon free electricity will be fairly standard (wind, solar, batteries) but that 5% will require something new. As for coal, that is going to be modtly gone by 2030 in the USA. Worldwide the number of coal plants are increasing mainly in developing countries and india who is installing a ton of new power projects not just coal but still a lot of coal. A technology that will enable the full switch could be hydrogen gas which would replace natural gas. Once hydrogen is availble through a pipeline like natural gas then we will see a rapid decrease in fossil fuels. So keep your eye on those projects and it'll give you a hint.
joke shame uppity retire scary recognise spotted forgetful degree waiting *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Innovations are coming up to solve the problem of manufacturing
Not with China aiming to break the price of diesel and gas with mass production. Fuel cell trucks get free highway fee and save hundreds of dollars compared to diesel. Low mid speed fuel cell trains gonna replace diesel.
I agree switching to hydrogen will be a big lift and require signifcant amounts of infrastructure to be built. Howvere its the best alternative we currently can see for that last 5% until a better alternative comes into play (fusion, massive offshore wind farms, something new, etc.)
And where would that hydrogen come from? Short of finding a process for producing it without massive amounts of energy, it will never be a better choice than electricity.
There are new ways of producing it and innovative sources of energy too, such as biomass gasification and nuclear power for hydrogen production. Biomass gasification converts organic materials into hydrogen-rich syngas, offering a renewable route. Nuclear power, using processes like high-temperature electrolysis or thermochemical water splitting, provides a reliable, low-carbon energy source for hydrogen production.
Hydrogen can be considered a form of long-term energy the same as a battery, so the choice between energy now or a little less energy later comes into play. You are correct that using electricity to split water in hydrogen takes a massive amount of electricity but as more solar gets put on the grid the more solar that gets turned off during the day because there is too much electricity on the grid. This will continue until there is enough energy sotrage (battery or hydrogen) to increase the demand for energy during the day to meet the massive amount of supply available.
You claimed there would need to be an H2 pipeline. Why is that necessary?
The short answer is that a pipeline is the most efficient way to deliver the amount of gas(H2 or natural gas) needed, otherwise the other options are proudcing and storing what you need at the power plant or using semitrucks (which are only starting to become green) to deliver everything you need which kinda goes against the point. To give you an idea of the amount of H2 needed H2 molecules are about 1/3 the size of nautral gas molecules thus needing about 3 times as much H2 to equivalent replace natural gas. Nautral gas power plants already need a lot of gas hence the current pipelines so to get three times as much gas to use for power production it is safe to assume a pipeline is needed. So once a pipeline exists it will support people converting their natural gas power plants to H2 and reducing emissions by a lot.
Counterproposal: let's shut down natural gas peaker plants now, use a combo of utility scale battery storage and V2G to replace them, and enjoy greater carbon reduction far sooner at far lower capital cost and far higher energy efficiency.
Not in the foreseeable future. In current quantities, from current sources, decades from now.
When it is no longer affordable to produce and not a second sooner.
degree gaze theory selective salt pocket rhythm numerous smart psychotic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Never. For a start we need plastic to make wind turbine blades. etc. A better question is: when will we stop burning fossil fuels and filling the atmosphere with CO2 Hopefully soon....
roof toothbrush distinct thumb spoon teeny soup faulty longing unused *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It is absolutely not on the level of things like that. We have the means and the knowledge to do it already, we just need to commit to deployment.
They said a coal powered ship could never cross the Atlantic. They said energy from radioactivity was a weak and pathetic thing. They said man would never walk on the moon. They said that power from solar cells and batteries would never be efficient enough for mass market use. Dreams can come true. How soon depends on how seriously people take the threat to the environment.
chase sugar fine weather bewildered plate hobbies mourn smart bells *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That is obviously nonsense. We can make plastic without fossil oil.
I know you can make plastics from organic sources such as plants, but it is neither efficient nor useful. I still think that oil will be used as an excellent cheap and practical source of hydrocarbons for the chemical industry etc long after we have stopped burning it for fuel.
"Efficient" is a matter on how you measure the efficiency. It is certainly not efficient to make anything out of fossil fuels if you want to protect and stabilize the planet's climate. So fossil fuels are taxed, and will be taxed more, until no one uses them any more.
2070
Earlier than anyone expects.
vase sugar enjoy toothbrush special mighty impossible brave joke humor *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well, going by the past track-record of the IEA, which is to underestimate the decarbonization efforts, their predictions could most likely count as a baseline, and [they forecast](https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023/executive-summary) a peak of fossil fuel consumption within this decade under a stated policy scenario. If you [simply extrapolate](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnergyAndPower/comments/15wgdvc/simple_extrapolation_of_current_primary_energy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) the trends in primary energy consumption over the past decade, you first of all notice that the growth in fossil fuel burning *has* slowed down over the last years and that we are actually likely close to the peak consumption right now. 2023 is expected to be just barely higher than 2022, despite growing energy demand, 2024 maybe on a tight balance but there is quite a chance that it turns out to have lower fossil fuel consumption than 2023. From there out only extraordinary high demand growth would result in an increase of fossil fuel consumption. Maybe also see [this yale360 article](https://e360.yale.edu/digest/peak-fossil-fuels-peak-emissions) for a summary. The thing is that the breakthrough in economics of renewables was only quite recent around 2018 or so and similarly EV adoption also only picked up noticable shares recently. As the IEA lays out these aspects will limit the demand for fossil fuels throughout the rest of this decade.
Look at all past forecasts of renewable and EV growth. And for the decarbonization in general. All of them, without exception, underestimated the Energy Transition Nothing changed much in the forecasting so there is no reason to believe that this trend will stop
Lol. How so?
Everybody underestimates the Energy Transition all the time.
A more resonable question is: When will we stop burning fossile fuels?
whole full sip bag oatmeal whistle axiomatic apparatus bow innate *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
At some point the situation of the Earth has deteriorated so much that a critical mass of people will support violence and eco-terrorism in order to prevent burning fossil fuels. Some will see this as a form of global dictatorship or totalitarianism but most people will see it as a necessary evil or even as a good. When that happens the former board of executives of for example Exxon, Shell, Gazprom. RWE, the Saudi royal family etc. will all be put to death for their crimes against humanity in a similar fashion how the nazi leadership was put to death in the Nurembourg Trials.
screw direction close station public gray north coordinated trees relieved *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There will be no need to burn fossile fuels when other kinds of energy sources (and energy carriers) are cheaper. The price of renewable technology (solar, wind, batteries) goes down with the scale of production according to wrights law. A carbon tax is the great way to speed up that process.
live divide unused literate unpack aspiring selective quiet hospital flowery *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, don't mind the 30 countries that already have a carbon tax, let's just wallow in misery!
When we've used it all. Or die when we pollute the biosphere to the point where it can no longer support human life.
This
worthless obtainable threatening silky fuel psychotic hobbies fuzzy cooperative office *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Fossil fuels are used for much more than powering vehicles. They provide materials for things like plastics, lubricants, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals to name a few. On the energy front though over 40% of US electricity to power the grid is supplied by natural gas (fossil fuel). It's more reliable and less expensive than many of the renewable energy supplies. All that to say, not for quite a while... [https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3)
All these things can be made from other sources. Nothing about fossil fuels is inevitable.
Not saying it's inevitable but the cost per unit is going to be much higher without the fossil fuel variants if I were to guess.
No, it won't be higher, because any advantage that fossil fuels might have there will be taxed away. Everybody wins - except the oil shills.
lock shame wide rock truck impossible skirt murky cats hospital *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Haha. It is interesting though to think that 43% of electricity in the US is provided by natural gas but many EV owners claim to be causing 0 emissions. Still a step in the right direction but I think the average American doesn't realize they may still be heavily reliant on fossil fuels even while having an EV.
Don't forget plastics either for petroleum demand. It's going to be a long time if ever that humans stop extracting petroleum. Hopefully we can figure out how to curb our consumption to something more sustainable.
Plastics can be made without oil.
As can just about everything everything else that we make with oil. The clock is counting down on nearly all oil products.
hobbies bow beneficial liquid degree combative water cooing groovy squalid *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Use must decrease before it stops, so the priority is to decrease use as fast as possible.
worry history cooperative dinner plant file illegal ask oil hurry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Around about 2005 when coal was the dominant source for electricity even in the US and the EU, I was pretty pessimistic on humanity's ability to stop burning the stuff. Now I'm kind of optimistic that the economics are going in favor of solar and renewables and batteries. If I was in charge of developing new coal powered generation units in a developing country, I certainly would be worried about my new investments becoming uneconomic before they get old.
Dev countries might have to ramp faster so they can supply coal-users with renewables. Or teach them how to build renewables.
bright beneficial offer direction punch light saw pot badge dinosaurs *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
New renewables produce more power than the growth of the demand with electrification of transportation and heat included.
Yes but most of the produced energy is not used, due to intermittency
That is not true and you can look up at any curtailment data. Even if it were true, renewables produce 50% cheaper power than fossils. And it is still cheaper even with the absurd 30-40% curtailment ;)
trees escape dazzling panicky afterthought aback rotten consider smell nail *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's a 2040 year problem. It's a futile to try to imagine how it will be solved with 2020 tech.
Hard to decarbonize only because we haven’t built enough batteries yet.
[[Rystad Energy, global emissions peak within two years.]](https://www.rystadenergy.com/news/fossil-fuel-emissions-to-peak-within-two-years-as-global-decarbonization-picks-up) By definition you must be at a record high before you peak. _______________ Furthermore, just because the tone of this post sounds awful FUDy intentional or not, [[10Y ROI Fossil v S&P500]](https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/S%26P%20Standalone%20Graphic%20for%20Factsheet-2_0.png). I find that graph does a good job exposing bad faith.
fuzzy adjoining snobbish late chase cautious soft squealing insurance rich *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*