Slashdot Mirror


Fossil Fuels Could Be Phased Out Worldwide In a Decade, Says Study (phys.org)

James Hakner, writing for Phys.org: The worldwide reliance on burning fossil fuels to create energy could be phased out in a decade, according to an article published by a major energy think tank in the UK. Professor Benjamin Sovacool, Director of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex, believes that the next great energy revolution could take place in a fraction of the time of major changes in the past. But it would take a collaborative, interdisciplinary, multi-scalar effort to get there, he warns. And that effort must learn from the trials and tribulations from previous energy systems and technology transitions. In a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy Research & Social Science, Professor Sovacool analyses energy transitions throughout history and argues that only looking towards the past can often paint an overly bleak and unnecessary picture. Moving from wood to coal in Europe, for example, took between 96 and 160 years, whereas electricity took 47 to 69 years to enter into mainstream use. But this time the future could be different, he says -- the scarcity of resources, the threat of climate change and vastly improved technological learning and innovation could greatly accelerate a global shift to a cleaner energy future.There's no doubt that we will soon reach a point wherein solar and wind will be readily available and feasible to the vast majority but, the decade timeframe feels like a stretch. We must acknowledge the financial and political challenges that we face today. Private and government-backed companies have invested billions of dollars into plants that turn fossil fuels into electricity. Ditching these plants means losing a lot of capital and owing investors with plenty of explanations. There are several forces at play here.

7 of 443 comments (clear)

  1. Re:World without oil income to middle east is scar by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Things are unstable enough as it is in that territory. Matters could get a lot worse if they lose their only major source of income.

    The Middle East is unstable because of the oil wealth. Most terrorism comes from the wealthiest ME countries, not the poorest. If a government gets most of its wealth from oil, it has little need to be concerned about the welfare or aspirations of the people, other than to just keep them under control. So you get a corrupt and repressive elite, and seething resentment from the population. Saudi Arabia is the worst case, and has bred the most terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, and 15/19 of the 911 hijackers.

  2. Oil Price Gluts by catchblue22 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The recent price crash of oil was caused by a supply glut of 2 million barrels per day. According the the studies referenced here, if electric vehicle growth continues at the rate we have seen in recent years, electric vehicles will in and of themselves create their own oil demand glut of 2 million barrels by 2023. I wouldn't want to own oil stocks when that happens.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  3. Could be != shall or will by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This demonstrates a POSSIBLE answer. Right now we don't think the situation is anywhere near bad enough to warrant the major problems caused by the proposed solution.

    Far more likely is the complete removal of all coal plants, replaced by green technology. Combine that with a cessation of building fossil fuel burning cars, and you have a major shift.

    While not as good as the possible solution from the actual post, this is a far more likely one, and would still surprise most people. The benefits would take a while to appear, but they would be real.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  4. Re:Coal provides 33% of the US electricity generat by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    [coal] is still the dominant energy source in the US

    Natural gas surpasses coal for electricity generation, July 2015

    Now just for a month, but coal has been declining in it's percentage.

    in 2010 coal was 50%. Dropping to 30% in just 5 years? that's not a 'dominant' player, that's a dead albatross on it's way down.

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  5. Re:Ridiculous conclusion by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "More obviously, trucks that deliver food to grocery stores are not electric and can't be converted to electric in 10 years"

    There are already electric trucks and even electric semi trucks out there. you dont convert them, you REPLACE them.

    Nissan, toyota, Mercedes, and all the other big truck makers are already doing it. Backward companies like Mack,GM, Ford,and Freightliner dont want to spend the money to make the next generation of trucks.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  6. Re: Not a good idea by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The space shuttle was considered pretty safe...until the Columbia disaster happened pointed out it's massive design flaw.

    False. The space shuttle was considered quite dangerous, with a 1 in 100 chance of failure originally estimated. When you fly hundreds of missions, a mission failure was likely. It is true that later the chances were revised to even higher a higher chance, but by no means was the shuttle ever considered safe.

  7. Re:Ridiculous conclusion by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You do know that we have perfectly viable replacement technologies for existing motor fuels, right? Refined vegetable oil (or "green diesel") is a direct, 1:1 replacement for diesel fuel which does not have the problems of transesterified biodiesel, and butyl alcohol or butanol is a direct, 1:1 replacement for gasoline which is made by bacteria from any organic matter in a process that has been used for decades. The former is being produced in increasing quantities, although that could be sped up, and the latter is being prevented through the joint efforts of BP and DuPont, who are preventing GE Energy Ventures' firm GEVO from producing it and selling it on the basis of a patent which a) describes an obvious invention and b) was developed at a public university, partially with our money. As ever, the problems are not scientific, nor are they even technical. They are political, and economic. And as usual, the economic problems are not insurmountable, but they do require government involvement to run in the opposite direction. Right now, the US government is helping to prevent us from having a viable replacement for gasoline.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"