Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

UN Report Urges Global End To Fossil Fuel Exploration by 2030 (theguardian.com) 120

Posted by msmash from the sounding-off-alarm dept.
Fossil fuel exploration should cease globally by 2030 and funding to rescue poor countries from the impacts of the climate crisis should reach $200bn to $400bn a year by the same date, according to proposals in a UN report before the next climate summit. The Guardian: Countries were still "way off track" to meet the goals of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, the report found, and much more action would be needed to make it possible to limit global heating to 1.5C above preindustrial levels. The UN's synthesis report on the global stocktake, published on Wednesday, will form the basis for discussions at the Cop28 conference in Dubai, which begins at the end of November. The global stocktake is a process mandated under the Paris agreement, intended to check every five years on countries' progress on meeting their emissions-cutting goals.

Simon Stiell, the UN's climate chief, said the report offered a range of actions for governments to consider. "[These are] clear targets which provide a north star for the action that is required by countries," he said. Greenhouse gas emissions are still rising but there is broad agreement they must peak by 2025 at the latest if there is to be a chance of limiting temperature rises to 1.5C. "This is a major opportunity being presented for the course correction that is so urgently called for," Stiell said. "[The report] lays out elements that can be incorporated into a response." But while most countries agreed on the need to change direction, he said, there was "significant divergence" on how to achieve the changes needed.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UN Report Urges Global End To Fossil Fuel Exploration by 2030 More

UN Report Urges Global End To Fossil Fuel Exploration by 2030

Comments Filter:

  • just simply stop you fools

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sfcat ( 872532 )
      One problem, without the fertilizer we make from FF we can't feed about 80% of the planet. But sure, they guy that doesn't know that is the expert and the rest of us that actually understand chemistry are fools. Go lay in a road somewhere.

      • That's perfectly fine to use it for fertilizer. We need to quit burning the stuff for energy.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sfcat ( 872532 )
          It still releases CO2 when its burned for fertilizer and that's enough emissions by themselves to keep AGW going. So again, your plan just doesn't work without vast amounts of nuclear. And you keep voting for anti-nuclear candidates. When I say we are being killed by ignorance, its your type of ignorance to which we are referring, not the anti-AGW nutjobs. And no amount of political wigging is going to get you out of that. Either you mea culpa hard or keep quiet.

          • When I say we are being killed by ignorance

            bit rich. westerner pollutes the world for a century, and just as their manufacturing sectors peter out, they tell the rest of the world they need to stop polluting...

  • And get the UN out of the US.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by burni2 ( 1643061 )

      And what will that achieve, rulling of the evil sino-russo empire?

    • NATO has given the Western world a semblance of stability during its brief tenure. The UN has done the same for the planet. If the UN didn't exist now, we'd still have to create it. What's your beef exactly?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )

        NATO has given the Western world a semblance of stability during its brief tenure. The UN has done the same for the planet.

        Really? Because UN was able to stop several ethnic cleansing events during its tenure? Because UN is able to stop Israeli atrocities against Palestinians? Because UN stopped US from invading all these countries? [wikipedia.org]

        My biggest beef with the UN is the 5 countries that have veto power. Get rid of the veto power and a lot of things will straighten out.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by drhamad ( 868567 )
          That's the UN Security Council, not the UN as a whole.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lsllll ( 830002 )
            While you're technically correct, in practice it's all the same. The UN Security Council [wikipedia.org]'s purpose is:

            The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN) and is charged with ensuring international peace and security, recommending the admission of new UN members to the General Assembly, and approving any changes to the UN Charter.

            Everything I mentioned was about war and peace, which would all fall under the purview of UNSC. But even more falls under them, because any change to the UN Charter would have to pass UNSC and thus could be vetoed by any of the five. The result is that the power still lies with these 5 and not UN as a whole. According to the main Wikipedia page on UN:

            The veto power is controversial. Supporters regard it as a promoter of international stability, a check against military interventions, and a critical safeguard against United States domination. Critics say that the veto is the most undemocratic element of the UN, as well as the main cause of inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity, as it effectively prevents UN action against the permanent members and their allies.

            The critics' beef is legitimate, as has been seen ove

  • You first. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by usedtobestine ( 7476084 )

    After all UN delegate travel is renewable powered, and all UN arms are manufactured using only renewable power, and all UN vehicles are 100% electric, then we'll think about it.

    • UN PeaceKeepers are equipped with US made NATO weapons. So the US military industrial complex makes profit to equip peacekeepers, as well as when every new country joins NATO - since they have to adhere to the NATO armament standard of US made weapons.
      As far as your other point, "you first" - what are you, 12? grow up.

    • Re:You first. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Thursday October 05, 2023 @12:39PM (#63902785)

      The ban on exploration is a dumb idea. It is "environmental theater" rather than something that will actually help.

      In 2030, the world will still be using plenty of fossil fuels, and many of those fuels are from very dirty sources. Canadian tarsands are one example: Extracting the oil is a filthy energy-intensive process. German and Australian lignite are other filthy fuels.

      So we should continue to look for clean sources to replace dirty sources: Light "sweet" oil to replace high-sulfur heavy crude. More gas to replace coal.

      Obviously, we should continue to roll out renewables, EVs, and heat pumps, but those will be far from dominant in seven years.

      We need to fight AGW on all fronts using reality-based solutions, not silly fantasies.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bobby ( 109046 )

        I pretty much agree with you. Society needs to function in order to build out renewables, buy expensive but more energy efficient cars, appliances, etc. But I surely would like to see much more done in PV department. I want to see all shopping centers, any large building, covered in PV panels, and most houses where practical. I do not advocate cutting trees to allow sunlight onto PV panels on roofs.

        I want to see domestic PV production. (all countries)

        I've personally installed a couple dozen PV systems about

        • I want to see all shopping centers, any large building, covered in PV panels

          I see that as more environmental theater. Grid-scale large arrays cost half as much per kwh generated as bespoke rooftop installations.

          Perhaps rooftops can be made more cost-effective, but the government should not be "picking winners" by subsidizing panels on roofs but not big arrays in the desert.

          the market died quickly, partly because govt. grant / subsidy programs ended

          The money spent on subsidies could have been much more wisely spent on R&D to develop panels that don't need subsidies.

          HOAs that forbid PV panels on the front-facing roofs. Stupid. Need a law barring any impediment to PV systems.

          We have that in California. HOAs are prohibited by law from restricting solar installatio

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sfcat ( 872532 )

            R&D to develop panels that don't need subsidies

            Good luck with that, the progression of PV efficiency flat-lined about 15 years ago. Perhaps we should stop allowing people to put PV in places that aren't sunny because the EROEI of solar is only 4 so most places where they are deployed need to be very sunny or at very high elevation. Germany is not such a place and all their PVs actually make CO2 emissions per watt worse than just burning gas.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by bobby ( 109046 )

              Germany is not such a place and all their PVs actually make CO2 emissions per watt worse than just burning gas.

              I'm curious about your statement. I don't know the research or numbers. Are you talking about all the CO2 produced in the mining, manufacturing, installation, and transportation involved in PVs is more than they will displace if they're not well lit?

              I'm asking generally, but also- I have some nice trees, so shade, but I'm thinking about buying some used and/or broken PVs that I'd buy cheap and fix and use.
              I'd be getting some use out of ones that otherwise might go to landfill or scrap.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sfcat ( 872532 )

          Society needs to function in order to build out renewables

          Not only that, society needs to somehow start mining asteroids to do that. We have about 2 years worth of what is necessary here on Earth. Or we could just use nuclear power, your choice. Which do you think will be cheaper and more efficient? Mining Copper, Cobalt and a dozen other metals at 10-100x our current rate or nuclear plants?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by bobby ( 109046 )

            I've always been strongly in favor of nuclear. It's sad, almost tragic, that new nuclear power generation pretty much stopped 40 years ago. I'm encouraged by seeing continuing R&D in potentially better reactor / generation system designs, including much smaller systems.

      • The ban on exploration is a dumb idea. It is "environmental theater" rather than something that will actually help.

        It's beyond dumb - it's ridiculously unenforceable.

      • "Canadian tarsands are one example: Extracting the oil is a filthy energy-intensive process."

        It's an easy target, isn't it? Except that when you consider quantity of export and the relative emission rate, if Canada just stopped being... there... it wouldn't save you. If all production from the oilsands stopped entirely, it wouldn't move the needle. You want to make a big difference, you go after the largest net producers - and consumers - of carbon. And Canada ain't it.

        "But Canada are among the highest per

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dryeo ( 100693 )

          There are fewer people in Canada than live in Tokyo

          Population of Canada now, 40,406,348, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n... [statcan.gc.ca]
          Population of Tokyo, 9.73 million, Tokyo prefecture, 14.09 million, Metro area, 37.468 million, as of 2018 and dropping, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
          That bitumen is mostly exported and is a source of lots of carbon and we're all sharing the same planet

          • Of course it is. But I'm saying that if you're looking for some place to direct your ire, doing it against the oilsands makes you feel good, but it wouldn't do anything to solve the problem even if you got 100% of your way and it vanished. It's an emotional target, not a rational one. It's politically useful.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dryeo ( 100693 )

              So your saying that the 4th (3rd by some estimates) largest reserve of oil (166.3 billion barrels) in the world doesn't matter? What does matter in your estimation? And can we influence Venezuela, Saudi Arabia or Russia as easily as the bitumen reserves, which by the way produce more CO2 per barrel then other sources due to having to burn a barrel of oil to produce a barrel or in other words, for every two barrels dug up, one makes it to the refinery.

              • There you go with the non-sequiturs. You sidestep the contribution to the problem by divorcing data points from their context. It would take Canada 83 years at the current extraction rate to use those proven reserves. So what percent of those reserves matter? Whatever percent is used before demand changes make it unreasonable to bother. No more than that.

                Your post does not change the fact that bitching about Canada is not useful when solving the problem, but it is emotionally fulfilling.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by dryeo ( 100693 )

                  I can influence what Canada does, unlike Saudi Arabia, Venezuela or Russia. And they're Bitumen sands, not oil sands.

                  • Oil sands is the current colloquial term (except for angry people). Bitumen sands is fine, too, in my opinion. But yes, you can influence what Canada does. And it'll do you no good whatsoever. That's pretty much my point. It's misdirected effort.

                    Canada provides about 6% of the world supply. If Canada stopped doing that, there's no reason to think that the new source (and there's no evidence it wouldn't be replaced) would be much cleaner. After all, the US buys nearly all of it, and they have the largest sha

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by dryeo ( 100693 )

                      And how to influence what America does, besides setting an example.

                    • You think the US pays attention to examples? :)

                      Thanks for the civil discussion. Appreciated.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by dryeo ( 100693 )

                      You think the US pays attention to examples? :)

                      No, it's the only thing I could think of :)

                      Thanks for the civil discussion. Appreciated.

                      Likewise

    • Talked to the UN, they said they would do it if you join. For full honesty, they proposed to drop fossil fuels on the count of three.
    • Gotta love the classic "you are not allowed to advocate for anything to be better until you are perfect."

      Strangely enough the regressives who push this bullshit are always doing everything they can to prevent what they demand of others from being achieved in the first place.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )
        Renewables are not anywhere close to perfect. They aren't even good most of the time. If you deploy them in places that aren't windy or sunny, you actually make more CO2 emissions than just burning FF. And that's before we talk about the issues with scaling those technologies. Actually have a workable solution, then we talk. Until then, perhaps you should learn something so you don't propose such absurd, non-working solutions. Oh, and how do you propose to make all the fertilizer we get from FF? Or s

  • They are clueless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sentiblue ( 3535839 ) on Thursday October 05, 2023 @12:13PM (#63902691)
    Well... let's be fair, I'm clueless too!

    The world relies on energy to operate. Yeah I'm all supporting the kind of fuel exploitation that pollutes the world.. but in order to end it, an alternative must be in place. Has that alternative been found and proved to be capable of sustaining world civilization? I'm sick and tired of all these garbage about ending abc but there's no xyz replacement in sight.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      They're not asking countries to stop producing oil by 2030 , they're asking countries to stop looking for it. The likely idea behind this is that over time this will result in higher oil prices that will encourage adoption of more renewables.

      Of course this is unlikely to happen until it happens on its own due to oil prices going down which wont happen until more renewables are adopted. There's just too much money in oil production for poor nations to sign on to anything like this

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )

        they're asking countries to stop looking for it.

        No, they are asking countries to not install new extraction infrastructure (oil derricks and pipelines) starting in 2030. We have done this before, in 2014-2015 the ESG people (read money managers for public sector unions, known on wall street as dumb money) stopped investing in new FF projects. The result was more money for existing extraction and when Russian gas started coming offline that effect spiked. Europe ended up paying several times more for their energy than normal. They lucked out last wint

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          Well I can read in both the Slashdot headline and in the cited Guardian headline that it's fossil fuel exploration they're asking to stop. Unfortunately however the cited article doesnt really give any more details and I cant find many more details on a casual google search. If you can cite a source that shows that they're asking for something beyond a halt to exploration then please cite it, otherwise I have no reason to question the headlines (and neither would you).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jmccue ( 834797 )

      Has that alternative been found and proved to be capable of sustaining world civilization?

      The alternative has existed for decades, but Fossil Fuel propaganda pretty much killed it in many countries. So I will give another shout-out to France, where they were sane with using nuclear energy.

      • The problem is at least partially due to the way that "renewable energy" has been fixated on wind and solar generation, and now it will save the world, without a trace of consideration for the fact that neither of these can be dispatchable, and with the same availability that nuclear and fossil-fuel generation have, without battery storage that would be orders of magnitude more expensive than the wind and solar generation facilities -- but the 'green' pravda is that both wind and solar have become cheaper t

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sfcat ( 872532 )
          And that's before you realize we just don't have enough raw materials to make it work in the first place.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Grid scale battery storage is already very competitive on price. However, it won't make up the largest proportion of battery storage - vehicles will. Vehicle 2 Grid allows the owner to recover some of the value from their car by providing a small amount of energy back to the grid at peak times. The degradation on the battery is minimal, and can even help maintain it when the car isn't getting much use.

          There are other forms of storage too - pumped water, compressed air etc. And other forms of renewables, lik

      • Can you share what those alternatives are?

        The only things I know about are wind and solar. But these don't have the ability to maintain power over a long duration. What happens when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine for weeks, or even months?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jmccue ( 834797 )

          Can you share what those alternatives are?

          Nuclear power

          • No I mean the "green" energy that all the climate change stuffs are talking about. Nuclear has been around long and they too are not considered the alternative, they are rather existing stuffs that are also on the list of "polluters". Besides, nuclear energy always has a possibility of accidents leading catastrophic consequences like Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc...

    • Do you think thermodynamics can be suspended because we're not ready yet? You know how you get ready; you do it and you make the damaging energy technology so expensive that everyone moves on over. Anything else is just an excuse to do fuck all.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )
        Or you could just use an actual solution that the engineers recommend and actually works out in practice (fission). No amount of pushing Renewables will ever make a dent in FFs. After trillions of dollars spent on them, they still can't even keep up with the rate of increase in the energy markets. CO2 emissions are higher this year than they have ever been. You have been doing it, it hasn't been working and now you want to do it more? Your post is the very definition of insanity.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dryeo ( 100693 )

          The right wing will never allow large nuclear deployment, too expensive and the oil industry will spend a lot of money to get that point across, just like they did to discourage the left wing previously. Capitalism in action, using the capital to make money and the return on propaganda is high.

    • Only half of crude oil goes for fuel. The rest is for plastics, engineering materials, chemical raw materials etc.

      • Only half of crude oil goes for fuel. The rest is for plastics, engineering materials, chemical raw materials etc.

        The de-sulfurization process used in petroleum refining (both oil & natural gas) generates tons upon tons of sulfur that would otherwise be mined by the cheapest of labor in the poorest of countries in the most dangerous of working conditions.

        That recovered sulfur goes into many useful products like sulfuric acid (a useful chemical in the refining of other minerals), fertilizers, fungicides, pesticides, medical drugs, and even batteries (in recent research).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pascoea ( 968200 )
        Only half? That doesn't seem right. This [visualcapitalist.com] suggests that closer to 85% of it is burned in one way shape or form.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sfcat ( 872532 )
          Yes, but not necessarily burned for energy. We burn a lot of FF to make fertilizer without which we can't feed 80+% of the world.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Pascoea ( 968200 )
            I'm not familiar with that process. Any more info? I know they pull anhydrous ammonia out of coal-to-liquids plants and use that for fertilizer, but that's all I've heard of. Either way, according to the link I posted, 80% is Gasoline, Diesel, Jet fuel, or Heavy fuel (bunker oil).

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dryeo ( 100693 )

            Have you got a link? While it is true that making nitrogen fertilizer needs heat and hydrogen (and atmospheric nitrogen), that heat and hydrogen mostly comes from natural gas. It is hard to find the percentage of fossil fuels used to make ammonia but according to this (and others) fertilizer production is responsible for about 2-3% of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, https://phys.org/news/2023-01-... [phys.org] seems 2-3% is something we can live with.
            https://www.eia.gov/todayinene... [eia.gov] says in America, only 7% of fossi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They are saying no more exploration by 2030, but already discovered oil and coal fields will keep being exploited long after that.

      We have alternatives for most of our fossil fuel usage. Some are not mature enough yet, but we have a clear path to getting them there. Note that I said fuel, plastics and other oil products are a different matter.

  • insanity (Score:2, Troll)

    by rogoshen1 ( 2922505 )

    It's like they want to crash the world economy as quickly and painfully as possible.
    shipping and agriculture for starters.. but hey, at least you traded in your car for a hybrid/electric -- right?

    greenwashed idiots.

    • Climate crash vs. economy crash... sure, let's do both.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )
        Right, because nuclear power (an actual solution) doesn't exist. I forgot, only Renewables and FFs exist since we only ever have 2 things because we only have 2 political parties. Truth is there are only 2 energy technologies and neither are solar or wind. They are FF and nuclear. Those are the only two ways to make most of what we currently get from FF. Because most of what we get from FF isn't energy, its fertilizer and heat/steam. Your entire false dichotomy is the problem. Damn the PR folks in th

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dryeo ( 100693 )

          https://www.eia.gov/todayinene... [eia.gov] 93% of fossil fuels in America are burnt.
          Nuclear would be great but we don't have the uranium, there's no political will to study alternatives and there is no political will to invest money in nuclear when the campaign contributions come from the fossil fuel industry. The same ones that have convinced you that 50% is not burnt

        • Ah, you are right. There are more than two options. There is also geothermal power. There was a documentary on local tv. Climate extremists ... they went to extremes to be green. Adapted there lifestyle. Did not even have a fridge. The fools! We all had a laugh at the ridiculous hoops they had to jump through. Then the commentator mentioned they saved so much money, only the husband had to work 3 days a week to pay the bills. Made me think.
  • of dollars that we've shifted to the top in the last 40 years so that we can afford to do that without disrupting people's lives? Because if not it ain't gonna happen. Voters in democracies will block it and people in dictatorships don't get a say.

    • WTF (Score:2)

      by dryeo ( 100693 )

      of dollars that we've shifted to the top in the last 40 years so that we can afford to do that without disrupting people's lives? Because if not it ain't gonna happen. Voters in democracies will block it and people in dictatorships don't get a say.

      Can you not write a complete sentence? "of dollars" is meaningless. You used to have interesting things to say but lately it is all incomplete sentences. Perhaps time to get checked for Alzheimer's.

  • The UN is a political, not a capitalist body - though they can effect economies via voluntary "boycotts" and the IMF (International Monitory Fund), which is essentially a proxy for the US Federal Reserve. The US uses the IMF to economically bludgeon other countries into allowing (US) corporate exploitation of their sovereign resources. Like oil and gas
    There is too much profit in oil/gas and too much political power in the companies the profit off them. Given the ownership of the US electronical system by
  • Rational thought about oil and energy vs renewables is afoot.

  • Here on a south capital of brazil the only time I saw a electric car was... never. I know they exist on the city, peaple talk about it.. but this could be only rumors...
    But hey, 2030 is WAY off, I'm sure this will change! /s

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Here on a south capital of brazil the only time I saw a electric car was... never.

      What is the electricity cost like there? In $ per kWh, Brazil is cheaper than the USA. But if there are demand charges, that could come back to bite you.

  • And replace it with... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Whateverthisis ( 7004192 ) on Thursday October 05, 2023 @12:40PM (#63902791)
    Replace it with what exactly? There's no EV version of airplanes. There's not nearly enough energy density in any form of energy storage that makes commercial shipping viable on all electric. EV might be good for drayage (last mile delivery), as EV motors are probably pretty good for heavy loads and maneuverability, but long haul trucking is kind of out. Rail can be electrified in theory, but that's only happening at a very moderate pace globally. Plastics still need oil. Agriculture needs tractors powered by oil; while US farms are perhaps more electrified the vast majority of the world's agriculture production doesn't have enough electricity to power tractors sufficiently; oil is still important.

    Good theory UN. Mandates don't work. Actual plans that address the myriad issues with this work. We've seen mandates like this for decades and they always move or get missed because there's no plan behind it. Get a plan, then the world might take it seriously.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jmccue ( 834797 )

      There's no EV version of airplanes.

      Yes, I doubt there will be anytime soon

      There's not nearly enough energy density in any form of energy storage that makes commercial shipping viable on all electric.

      There is sail for non-perishables paired with electric for very large ships.

      but long haul trucking is kind of out.

      I do not know, I think it is possible with investments. With fed regulations limiting drive time, the truckers could charge up over night in rest areas. The rest areas where I am are full with large trucks.

      Rail can be electrified in theory, but that's only happening at a very moderate pace globally.

      Yes, the best place for fossil fuel reduction. But the dumb large city I by me is replacing their electric trolleys with gas buses right now. The are saying, oh, we will go to electric in

    • Don't worry, they are working on making sure you cannot fly at all

      https://www.letsrun.com/forum/... [letsrun.com]

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by nickovs ( 115935 )

      They should replace it with synthetic hydrocarbon fuels made from CO2, water and energy from non-carbon sources, including nuclear as well as renewables.

      The underlying technology for synthesising hydrocarbons as been around for 100 years and is well understood. Oil companies have huge numbers of chemical engineers and are perfectly capably of deploying it at industrial scale, if they have an incentive. Banning exploration would be an incentive to start. Banning new wells would be the next step, followed, ev

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )
        You can't make fuel from Renewables, you need consistent heat to do that. And if you are willing to build a nuclear reactor, Renewables are a complete waste of time. The rest of your post is true however.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Getting the oil companies to switch from pumping oil out of the ground to making oil from CO2 and H2O has the potential to make 1.5 billion vehicles carbon neutral without the trillions on capital expense to replace them all

        The problem is it's damn near impossible to do. Oil from the ground is the cheapest option and they already invested in extracting it.

        It's easier to just replace them by replacing fossil fuel vehicles with electric ones as people naturally replace their cars anyway.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sfcat ( 872532 )
      You can make (almost) all the things we get from FF with nuclear. Its more complex but also easier to scale, generally safer and far less polluting. The (virgin) plastics are the only real thing we can't make without oil.
      • The scaling thing just isn't true unfortunately. Nuclear works when it's running at near capacity; it's actually highly difficult to scale down a nuclear plant to say, 50% generation, and certainly not cost effective. unfortunately the grid power demand shifts dramatically in hours and days. Nuclear is best when built up to the bottom of the demand curve, but natural gas and coal unfortunately dial up and down quite easily and meet the demand curve very well. If the demand curve could be leveled off, nu

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      For agriculture and industrial machines, electric is better. More torque and no mucking about with gearing. Farmers can make electricity themselves from wind and solar, and being businesses can make the capital investment.

      Obviously we need to make sure these technologies filter down to developing nations too. For a lot of them, renewables are ideal because they can produce the energy where they need it. No need to travel long distances to get fuel, or rely on a potentially unstable grid. And it doesn't end

      • per my post, I would agree with you in the developed world. However many of the countries who rely on agriculture with developing economies simply don't have the power generation capabilities to support renewables nor do they have the grid developed out enough to have a carbon-free or carbon neutral agriculture sector. In the American midwest sure. In Liberia? Somalia? Guinea Bissau? Heck even Brazil; their infrastructure is atrocious and very localized to certain cities; not nearly ubiquitous enough.

  • for all energy need. Accept no substitution.

  • No more pardons! (Score:3)

    by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Thursday October 05, 2023 @02:13PM (#63903189) Journal

    1970 through Peake Oil: We are running out of oil, we need government control!
                        No, we aren't. [juliansimon.com]

    Today: We need to pretend to run out of oil!

    Fair enough, but pardon me if I fear your motives are more concerned with getting in the way for bribery than environment.

  • This seems silly. Looking for fossil fuel isn't the problem. If we find a huge reserve and then come up with some great technology to where we don't ever need it, then what's the harm?
  • Those two countries pump a lot of CO2 due to their need for energy because they are still growing in welfare compared to most western countries. They are still trying to catch up, but that means they need to use coal. 'We' need to help them use other sources so they won't need coal or other heavy polluting sources. But when you count per head, the west pumps out much more.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah

Close