From a 50,000-Foot Level: What’s Happening with Renewable Energy in the United States? – Part 1 of 2
Note: Here is a short essay that I wrote for another publication whose editor rejected it on the basis that it contained “controversial statements.” Ya know….I never thought of that….I suppose he’s correct! I laughed out loud when I read that; he expected 1200 words of pabulum? In any case, it needed a home, so I’m publishing it here. – Craig
There are powerful forces that govern the migration away from the use of fossil fuels and towards clean energy here in the United States. I will list a few and discuss each in turn. Which ones will prove dominant? Some people say it’s too early to tell; others say it’s already written in concrete. I’ll let the reader decide.
The Oil Companies and Corruption. Perhaps the most obvious factor in all of this is the fact that the U.S. Congress is virtually owned by the oil companies. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who wrote a book called The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, now captains the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. Why is one of our most senior decision-makers on the environment a supporter of a view that almost all scientists consider nonsensical? Most observers look at this as garden-variety corruption, and this is echoed by no less than U.S. President Obama who recently said:
“In some cases, though, you have elected officials who are shills for the oil companies or the fossil fuel industry and there’s a lot of money involved,” he said. “Typically in Congress the committees of jurisdiction, like the energy committees, are populated by folks from places that pump a lot of oil and pump a lot of gas.”
The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy. Opposing this, let’s next consider the following: oil companies, even with all that money and capacity to purchase the U.S. legal system, will find themselves powerless to do so in a climate in which the various flavors of clean energy continue to fall in cost, meaning that the energy produced from these sources falls in price. In some of the Plains States, energy from wind farms is sold to local utilities via power purchase agreements at under $0.03 per kilowatt hour, substantially less than the cost of generating energy from coal. Granted, these are small and fairly insignificant regions, but they are growing larger and more important with each passing day.
And, though it leads the way in terms of affordability, wind energy is not alone in scaring the pants off the established energy industry. The cost of solar PV, for example, has everyone, from homeowners to large commercial and industrial businesses, scrambling to take themselves off the grid, or at least bringing their power utility bills as close to zero as possible.
The Response of the Power Utilities Themselves. In very short order, what I’ve described above will render the typical power company a financial train-wreck. Large organizations like these are built around the notion of growth: more load, more financial leverage, more equity as investors sink their money into places that are historically almost zero risk, more power plant construction that can be billed back to rate-payers, etc. Here we see the precise opposite.
Thus, things must change rapidly and radically. I use the term “radically,” meaning “by the roots,” as there is virtually nothing about the relationship we originally constructed with these entities 100 years ago that remains valid today. In the early 20th Century, we told them to get us cheap, reliable power. (And, to their credit, they did exactly that.) Now we’re saying:
- Get rid of coal plants now. They’re by far the worst polluters in the grid mix, in terms, not only of CO2, but of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, heavy metals, and radioactive isotopes. We need you to replace all that poison with renewable resources.
- Deal, however you can, with the fact that your largest customers are leaving you in terms of distributed generation (as described above–mainly solar). That, of course, will not relieve you of your duty to provide power for every single person living in the country, regardless of how poor they may be.
- Realize you’re dealing with decreasing loads, largely due to energy efficiency.
- Implement energy storage, which will save money for everyone associated with the entire energy system: not only you as generators, but also transmission, distribution, and load (end-user customers). This means that you’ll have no more justification for building new peaker plants, which was formerly your main revenue source: building something and getting the regulatory bodies to let you charge it off to your customers.
- While you’re at it, deploy all the other goodies we’ve invested in the last few decades, whether you make money with them or not, e.g., smart-grid.
– Craig Shields is editor of 2GreenEnergy.com. His four books on the subject can be found here.
Dear Craig , well you spoke strong and pointed out many Truths! perhaps the person who rejected this essay was offended by the Inconvenient Truths that need to be exposed about our corrupted and Dysfunctional political system that has allowed the in efficient operation of our our energy systems to drag their feet and continue worn out business models that are not good for any of us any longer.
Your take on the utilities is right on and they could own solar and make new money etc. but they choose to spend millions on old centralized economic investments and just earn a rate of return. They are run by people who are living Yesterday’s False Narrative like most of our so called leaders are doing.
Well said Craig , you speak to the new narrative the New paradigm that we could all benefit from by embracing. Forward !
thanks SR
Probably the largest customers will leave power companies which use fossil fuels and go with renewables if renewables become cost effective and sufficiently reliable. If that happens, then smaller customers will follow. The fact that this has not occurred on a large scale indicates that renewables (except for hydro power) are not cost effective. Whether they ever will be remains to be seen.
I just returned from a trip to Fiji after not having been there for 11 years. Small remote villages are using solar power. It is more economical than the alternative which is very small scale Diesel power. Solar permits the use of a few small LED lights and makes it possible to recharge cell phones and lap top computers, but is currently too expensive for anything else.
Unless new technology makes renewables cost effective, I continue too see improved nuclear power as the only acceptable replacement for fossil fuels for most (but not all) large prosperous countries.
Sent from the LA airport.
Frank,
I appreciate the observations in your comment. My interest in environmental causes was really spurred by my late wife, who was a passionate environmentalist.
We met at a demonstration outside the AGM of a large Australian resource company. I was attending the AGN as an employee of corporation’s Bankers. She was a student protestor, being arrested ! I intervened, and managed to convince the police to leave her to me, (a good suit, and calm ex-army officer tone of authority helps, when dealing with harassed police :).
Six weeks later, while on our honeymoon sailing in the South Pacific, I was deeply concerned as I watched an aging fuel tanker negotiate the difficult reef, to dock in the pristine waters of the Cook Islands.
We resolved to assist setting up alternate power in small Pacific and Indian ocean Island nations. We started with EV transport for resorts. Over the years, although we have enjoyed some success, mostly EV rental fleets, the economics of power generation has proved far more difficult.
The technology just doesn’t exist. Even if it did, trying to implement such technology economically, isn’t feasible in a micro economy.
The government of Scotland, along with the Highland council and other organizations helped fund a Wind/Solar plant on the Islands of Eigg and Muck in the Hebrides.
Now, don’t get me wrong, these are very noble projects. However, the cost of theproject on Eigg (population 78 ) was nearly 3 million dollars. The plant has a life of about 25-35 years.
Even then, the Islanders must expect to observe power restrictions, as the plant doesn’t always generate enough power.
The neighboring Island of Muck, (population 24) has a similar scheme costing nearly 2 million dollars.
Wind/Solar power and Green spokespersons often quote these installations, as evidence of the viability of renewables to replace fossil fuel generation.
There’s a certain amount of truth in such advocacy. The Islanders do receive electricity, and the ‘green’ image is great for tourism, attracting not just visitors, but residents wanting to pursue a certain lifestyle. For the sake of these aesthetic considerations, I consider the money well spent !
However, as an economic model, it’s absurd ! An efficient diesel generator could provide more reliable power, for a fraction of the cost. The pollution generated by such a small generator could be easily offset by carbon sequestration. The government (taxpayer) could have provided the Islanders free electricity, for…well forever, just from the interest on the capital investment ! But, then the Islanders wouldn’t have the green image and lifestyle, that promotes so much interest in the Islands.
My younger son lives in a financial district Manhattan apartment. Unlike those who live in suburban villas, the installation of solar power is not feasible. Built in 1901, his tower has 373 residences, situated over 24 floors. The building houses the same population as many small towns! The power requirements must be immense.
One day, perhaps there will be Solar technology that can take advantage of the surface of tower blocks, and mini-wind generators to trap, and convert the turbulence created by these city canyons to electricity, but not in the foreseeable future.
Right now, the only practical, large scale replacement, is building Thorium nuclear reactors.
That story about meeting your wife is heart-warming; thanks for sharing it with us.
I’m an advocate of thorium too, but I caution that this technology is not a close to commercialization as some of its proponents claim.
Frank R. Eggers, It is apparent that for some reason you really want to believe in nuclear. Perhaps you own stocks? But clearly you don’t see that solar has become very affordable running meters backwards all over the place. I’m off the grid with a small (1.6kw) PV and a micro hydro that catches runoff in the rainy season and I get more power than I need for all of the amenities. No need for an eternal toxic waste site.
It’s not just Frank that is interested in Nuclear power generated by using Thorium.
Perhaps you should take the time to educate yourself about the different types of nuclear power generation, before passing judgment.
As for your own small power project, congratulations ! I sincerely applaud your choice of personal lifestyle !
But, here’s the thing,…..we not talking about one individual, living a particular lifestyle, but the problems of mass populations, with the context of national, and even international economies. Solar simply isn’t a viable source of industrial power, to sustain large societies.
Even your solar panels, and inverter, cables etc, are produced in a factory, most likely powered by a coal-fired power generator. The ship and transport that brought them to your retailer, were powered by fossil fuel. The packaging, even the instruction manual were printed, again using power generated from fossil fuel, even the keyboard you write upon is an oil product.
I’m not saying you are being deliberately selfish, just unintentionally myopic and insensitive.
Some year ago, on my family estate in the UK, I built a bio-mass generator. This proved so efficient it not only provide most of our power needs, but generates enough surplus to power a substantial part of the nearby village. Of course it’s not economic, and totally impractical as a sensible method of power generation. But it was, and remains, an interesting and aesthetically pleasing environmental experiment.
I couldn’t recommend it as a large scale investment.
What works for one individual, in certain circumstances, can’t be extrapolated to a mass energy solution.
Craig,
I appreciate that your article is more of a wish list than a serous plan. However, even a wish list must have some basis in reality !
The problem with “if I were King of the World” type wish lists, is assuming others thinks like you, believe what you believe, and share your vision of how the world works !
The generation of energy is fundamental to national, and international economies. All methods of generating energy must be cost effective. Power generation must assist to generate economic wealth, or become obsolete. Economic competition ensures that eventually, old inefficient industries can’t compete, and economic pressure forces even the most recalcitrant government’s to demand change.
Modern industrial economies are very complex, with the interwoven dynamics. This is not due to “corrupt forces” or “sinister conspiracies”, but have simply arisen from the multitude of factors produced by the needs and aspirations of millions, even billions, of human beings.
But to address your four points directly :
1) The Falling Cost of Renewable Energy . There is no “corruption” of US politics by Oil companies ! The Oil industry is a huge constituent of the American economy. It’s America’s largest taxpayer, most valuable taxpayer, and pays tax at the highest corporate rate. The Oil industry is one of America’s largest productive employers, and the largest generator of wealth in the American economy. The oil industry positively affects the lives, and livelihoods of every US citizen on a daily basis.
Naturally, governments, especially politicians, are careful to consider the views of an industry that affects the economy, and the lives of so many citizens. It would be irresponsible for any political leader, or representative to ignore the needs and welfare of the majority of citizens by refusing to consider the needs of an industry that affects the nation so profoundly.
Green advocates always claim a mandate to speak for “the people”. They possess no such mandate ! Economic issues are of far greater concern to the average voter, than hating oil companies !
Some aspects of Renewable Energy costs may be falling, but in reality Wind Power, Solar etc, ( as Germany discovered) remain unreliable, immature, fringe industries. Industrial societies need vast amounts of base-load power. Power, on demand ! More efficient technologies, may help to reduce power wastage, but increasing populations and economic prosperity, cause power demand to rise.
( Oh, and incidentally, the solar industry was largely pioneered by British Petroleum, while the lithium battery was invested in a Exxon-Mobil laboratory !).
Coal is a power resource, facing great environmental and economic problems. It’s inevitable that the industry has a relatively limited life. The industry is working hard to minimize it’s environmental impact, but the cost only adds to it’s economic woe’s. The future of coal as an industrial power generator, is being restricted to developing countries, or those needing massive generating capacity, like India and the Peoples Republic of China.
2) The Response of the Power Utilities.
Power Utilities are, by their nature, very conservative organizations. In many parts of the world, even in the US, they are often owned by governments, or statuary trusts. Power companies often enjoy a monopoly, (at least at generating level) and are heavily regulated. These are entities with massive maintenance cost, aging infrastructure, and low profitability. The demands on infrastructure continually alter, as the dynamics of demand demographics continually changes, adding further economic burdens.
In many countries, idealistic governments have passed regulations forcing utilities to purchase, Solar and Wind power generation. Initially this proved politically popular, and helped the proliferation of renewable technologies, by lowering the cost, and creating a false impression that renewables were economically viable.
In fact, the opposite was true, in addition, because of government subsidies, the solar industry suffered from an influx of cheaply made, inferior quality, products from the PRC.
Most power utilities simply dump power the majority of power generated by renewables. The distribution infrastructure was never designed to cope with absorbing fluctuating power sources. Studies in Germany , UK and Australia have shown that despite high generating figures, the actual “useable” power generated by renewables, and sold to utilities, can be as low as 8% !
Power generation was traditionally based on the needs of such institutions as hospitals and other high users, being offset by millions of smaller users. Likewise cost of power distribution to remote locations, was offset by savings in metropolitan areas, etc.
It’s very important that any changes be the result of “evolution” from improving technology, not forced by disruptive “revolutions” driven by ideology.
In your list of demands, most of which are erroneous, or wildly optimistic,, perhaps the most telling phrase you employ is:” whether you make money with them or not ” !
That’s the old battle cry mantra, of the “ideological left “. It’s a moral duty to lose (other peoples) money ! It’s immoral for private individuals and organizations to make money !
The smug demand that :
” Despite the largest customers are leaving you in terms of distributed generation (as described above–mainly solar). That, of course, will not relieve you of your duty to provide power for every single person living in the country, regardless of how poor they may be.”.
is further evidence of an unrealistic perspective ! Why, ( even if it were possible), should any commercial institution be expected to lose money ? There is no such “duty” ! Corporations are not governments ! Ah,ha, and there we have it, don’t we ? The old socialist agenda, nationalization and government ownership !
If the public reject leftist ideology, force it on them (always for their own good 🙂 !
Craig, perhaps you should take careful note of the result of the recent UK General Election, and aftermath.
i would describe myself politically a centrist, economically conservative, but socially progressive. A strong believer in the rights of the individual, and the responsibility of all citizens to participate in the opportunities civilization provides.
The re-election of the Conservatives in the UK, is a watershed in the public’s reaction to the ideologically driven policies of the leftist Labour/green alliance. Clear evidence that the majority of people want safe, realistic, economic policy. They have grown tired of the wasteful, ideologically driven policies of the past. They weary of all the overly optimistic claims, threats, hype, and sanctimony.
What’s even more scary for the Labour/green alliance, is the general public have stopped listening. They’ve stopped caring or believing. Concern for the environment has reverted back to passionate young, chardonnay socialists and those with vested interests in the environmental industry.
It’s a sad, but inevitable result of too much over-excited hype by advocates long on passionate simplistic vision, but very short on realistic, practical policies.
By demanding a disruptive “revolution” , instead of a practical “evolutionary” process, the extreme advocates have created a climate of “reactionary rejection”. 🙂
I understand your point about reactionary rejection, and there is certainly some truth there. Having said that, I’m not exactly sure what to do about that. I think it’s the inevitable result of standing for something you believe: it’s going to generate some backlash.
Craig,
It’s true that all innovators and visionary will meet with concern from those who fear change, and I absolutely .applaud your standing up for your beliefs.
I also believe that individuals should be free to believe in whatever they wish, and as long as they do no harm to others, no restriction should be placed on their lifestyle.
But, having said that, we must accept that by living in an organized society, the individual must accept the responsibilities of citizenship. To effect social change, especially taxpayer funded social change, the rest of your fellow citizens must be convinced of the value, and desirability of your program.
The wilder and more extreme the advocacy, especially about environmental issues, the faster the general public will grow weary, and lose interest. The real problem with most wild eyed prophets, is they have no real understanding of how to implement what they are advocating. Nor do they have any practical knowledge of the issues involved.
The general public quickly grows tired of dreamers with delusions of grandeur. Some have their brief moment in the sun, but are quickly forgotten.
Unfortunately, along the way they also discredit by association, more humble, practical programs that could have proved environmentally beneficial.
I like how you gave credit to the utilities for giving us cheap power in the past. Now, it’s up to us to figure what best clean source to demand – which I also believe is a load following molten salt reactor scale up – and an exponentially growing solar scale up. Solar will be cheap if it does not have to be stored. Nuclear would also be cheap, if it was done right – without the massive liability costs. This can only become if the reactor could not meltdown, and if people see through the “lets make nuclear liability costs higher” bs. Shills fighting shills gets us less energy.
The internet will never become the tool it was intended to be because the people will never seek coherency, because both the tool and the minds are misused! Even I get second thoughts about both solar and the molten salt reactor because of what “everyone else” says about them. Aside from fossil fuels, I “know” that the MSR would be the cheapest way to power everything, if it were not for all the yahoos against it. I believe the same thing happened to the offshore wind industry (in the US) which caused costs to go up (even higher!) to the point of snuffing it out. I can only “hope” that solar and batteries will go down enough to compete with fossil fuels!
Another very important issue is that of dealing with grid uncertainty should the solar and battery option become cheap enough to be taken seriously by the masses. They will still want reliable. More importantly, the others will still need reliable. Therefore, it’s kinda the other way around. The renewable energy crowd MUST help the utility model in keeping a centralized grid (once large enough to disrupt the grid model) because that is the only proven way to a continued and growing civilized world.
What good is a few electronic gadgets if there is no democratic grid with which to pump water, grow food, make goods with and clean our crap with? Too many disconnects could fail the future of the planetary federation – and bring back disease caused by too many people and the excess CO2 problem (which demands even more energy to “fix”).
I must add: There is never “too many people” as long as there is plentiful and usable energy supplies.
I”ve read with interest the comments in this thread. The only thing I’ve missed is a discussion of how all these scenarios change as the price of fossil fuels rise. My grandfather was a petro-geologist. In 1948, he was the geologist responsible for the discovery of the largest oil/gas reservoir in Western Canada.
When he retired in 1953, my mother used to recount how he mused, “I wonder what we’ll do when the oil runs out.” Well, it’s 60 years on, and many of the mature fields are showing stress – to the point where in some cases we’re using water to try to keep wells producing – and the new discoveries are either very hard to get to (continental shelf, far north) or very resource intensive to bring to market (tar sand, etc).
So even if the supplies exist, the cost to the consumer is going to rise – probably much faster than incomes – with a corresponding drop in both “happiness” in the population, and in environmental health.
I remember hearing a story about “islanders” (the inference was “South Sea” but I have no more information or “tale” than that) who harvested all the trees on their island for “vanity” projects. (Actually, I seem to remember that this is the story of Easter Island, but I could be wrong.)
Ok, it’s not a direct parallel, but we’re not renowned for intelligent use of even renewable resources (ask 19th C whalers), let alone non-renewables.
But how are your neighbours going to react when gas for the car hits $15/gallon? How will society change? Will we just decide that we don’t care about the world we might leave our kids, we want to drive our mini-vans at any price?
How are we going to plan for a lower energy world? Not 100 years in the future but in our kid’s lifetime? I worry that we won’t – plan, that is. That we’ll adopt the old Marine motto – “kill ’em all and let God sort it out”, that the “might makes right” ethos will prevail. How many of us are prepared to say, “We’ll give up the luxuries we hoped for in retirement to help our kids become way more efficient and able to live in a lower-energy society”?
Because this is coming – and we know it! To what extent are we liable if we don’t make serious effort to prepare our kids and our neighbourhoods? Not “liable” in a financial sense, but morally and ethically?
Are we “our brother’s keeper”? Do we have a responsibility to try to ensure that the coming changes are dealt with “fairly” by all people? Or do we just “look after our own”?
Ok, so I just defined that which keeps me awake at night.
Roger
I would say that the fact that this keeps you up at night indicates that you’re an intelligent and compassionate human being. I only wish there were more of you.
Thank you for the compliment – I only wish I were sure that those were the right adjectives. Sometimes I think the right descriptors would be “educated and terrified”.
And frightened people are not always the best ones to have at your side in times of crisis…
Thank you also for this site and board – I always enjoy visiting it and reading the essays and the comments. Even when I disagree!
Roger , very well said, Indeed ! You express real concerns for many potentially negative out comes if the Wheels of so called Progress don’t switch off the Old narrative tracks that the short lived Fossil Fuel age brought to us.
The need for a switch and the Urgency to really embrace Cleaner new Technologies , create and legislate if necessary more channels of access for Cleaner energy . Barriers other than price are rampant within the current system. We need to reform Energy distribution models & rules so that Grids become more open and flexible in allowing more players to use the market and blend it with new technologies on a much Grander Scale.
as expressed in other Postings, there is new revenue opportunity for some of the existing players like Utilities if they can let go of the Worn Out old narrative ! Two legacy Oil co had major position in solar and would have had major market revenues but they shed it for the lure of more Black gold !
The Achilles Heel of making a Positive Change and Transition is our Corrupted and Dysfunctional governmental systems and that is a Reflection of ourselves our lack of Community and Good Civics, too darn much so called Individualism create divisions and self interest rules, trumping sound policy.
So while we need a change in our energy sources we also need a Renewal of our Collective Community Spirit – so that we stop arguing over Petty issues and get to work making things Work Better for all.
Perhaps a few more oil price shocks will Sober more people Up ! ? ! ? Gasoline demand in USA peaked in 2007 at $ 4. 20 gallon perhaps that is the tipping Point?? Demand keeps going down. That is good.
Once gas prices go up again and truck sales slump the Electric Vehicle market will rise up some more and adoption will increase. Since many coal plants have closed more of the energy to power the EV’s will be cleaner due to solar, wind , gas. Chevy and Ford and others each have lower priced EV’s being rolled out in next two years. So there is Hope and some Progress being made.
The Source of the Shadows over a Vibrant and Positive Future lies in in the following facts:
The remaining oil out in the oceans and in the shales is much more expensive to recover , and it depletes much faster than traditional fields of the past. ( same holds true for nat gas) At the same time the Input energy keeps rising in respect to the level of out put , so the EROEI is declining. this helps make Renewable Energy more cost competitive, but the transportation portion of our economic systems need a fuel that does sink the economy or over whelm the food production systems etc.
Tar Sand oil extraction has a EROEI of 5 plus or minus based on Scientific analysis. Most conventional oil was much higher in the 80 plus range , Shale plays seem to be in the 30 to 40 range and declining as costs keep rising to extract. Mind you this is with out proper regulation of water treatment or the resources being used to get the resources ! . The regulations seriously lag the realities of the fields , Blow back from concerned groups and even local governments may perhaps reverse this hands off the industry and order changes. Disgustingly, so called conservative government policy types who Extoll the Magic of the marketplace ideology , well they pass restrictive rules saying that the rights of Corporations to make money off of resources TRUMPS All Other Stakeholders even cities and people who own the land. Talk about a subsidy??
this is market Black magic.
In time there will be blowback to these over reaching profit seeker mis steps.
Market correction will raise prices more and makes EV’s a even better deal. ( or other replacement technologies)
There is money to be made in just building out a network of charging stations ( like the old pay telephones of the past) up and down the highways and the new chargers can get you fully energized in 45 minutes. So the convenience factor to address American habits is on the Horizon in near term.
The water issues related to un controlled and under regulated fracking may result in the development of Cryogenic fracking , that uses a DRY process thus ending the water loss and waste practices .and some of the toxic chemicals along with the ACIDS they use now. There is talk of a process ( some sort of modified solid fuel that burns clean) to displace Coal without the cost and price disruptions of closing all the coal plants with several years of operating life left. . So maybe in the Bowels of some Fossil Fuel Corporations perhaps some good work is being done! ? ! They surely are aware of the many existing and emerging constraints on their legacy business models – perhaps they are beginning to turn around internally? The revived interest in Thorium reactors and small modular reactors are signs of serious work being done out there.
Thorium reactors have issues as Craig has mentioned but it is note worthy to mention that the US ARMY in the 1950’s told the Government to cease funding that as they wanted bomb material for the cold War we were in. thus thorium research lagged and the money went to nuclear. Once again the Sorrow’s of Empire cast their Long Shadows over our system. and limited extensive research on this potential energy source. Market Black Magic has always been with us.
Given these Economic and Technical Realities – a reasonable and intelligent observation causes One to Ask then why do they want to keep doing the Extraction game and other related Extraction Schemes and continue this declining Law of Diminishing Return business Model ? What good purpose other than to puff up the stock bonuses of a privileged few Executives and speculators and Despot Rulers in third world.
Control over profit and Control over things in our economic and social order.
That is where the real politics and the money comes in and until the majority of the people Stand up and demand a change , things are real tough to get us off the track we are on as other ‘s and Roger have said.
look at those Two big Rigs in the Seattle Harbor and where they are going to go. One wonders why they would go North into the Arctic, even deeper into rougher waters ??? Why would they be doing this if supplies domestically were so robust as their PR ads try to tell us! Same with the new and deeper wells being drilled in Gulf of Mexico
( yes it will require some period of time for a Transition but we can’t afford to muddle along to 2200 time frame as Shell Oil states we should.
Many voices say that Path will be BAD and way past late and life here will become Brutal. The PAIN WILL FIND Even The fenced off Planned communities of upscale Americana , and the inhabitants of the Gated Communities will suffer along with the masses unless we do some major league switching.
In ending , the good is there are many new innovations along the way, and serious investment in cleaner technologies for sure is the fastest growing sector Globally, that is real positive . But we are Seriously Behind the Curve on these things and we better Ramp it up.
Be Well Everyone – Good on Each of You for your contemplative considerations of these Energy and Human realities