News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by TinyRick on Thursday August 31, 2023 @09:54AM (#37337196)
> public opinion would still make it palatable to continue hydrocarbon fuels extraction for another 2 to 3 decades

I don't think it's public opinion so much as it is necessity to maintain current standards of living for the next few decades. Renewable energy is still a relatively small fraction of overall energy use, and net global oil consumption has been steadily increasing the past few years (likely to surpass pre-covid levels this year). Our society is still very much addicted to hydrocarbons.

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by ff317 on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:18AM (#37337521)
I think we'll never stop extracting oil in the foreseeable future, we'll just be doing a lot less of it. There will always be corner cases where diesel or other oil derivatives (or NG) are the /only/ reasonable option for fuel.

Think generators for an antarctic station that can only use solar in certain months and wind isn't enough (or reliable enough)). Even if efficient electric commercial aviation at scale ever happens, you can bet military jets will still need jet fuel. I'm sure there's many others. Methane for rocket launches?

On top of fuel, there's also the use of some fraction of oil in industrial chemical processes to make lubricants and plastics. There may be other chemical processes that can do it without oil, but they may be too costly (in terms of other extractive processes for ingredients, or in terms of yield, not just energy).

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by datavirtue on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:37AM (#37337814)
Yeah, just seeing the axle grease requirements and inventory on an aircraft carrier is a wakeup call. Our military is 110% reliant on oil to even function at all. The economic scale of consumer oil consumption and the petro-dollar are a key military concern to enable warfighting ability. When that sinks in, Iraq and Afghanistan make a lot more sense.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by kjkjadksj on Thursday August 31, 2023 @11:32AM (#37338798)
The US has plenty of oil and didnt need to go to those places to get more of it. We destroyed Iraqs oil pipelines and infrastructure in that war and a lot of it still is in need of investment in reconstruction today. Likewise Afghan oil production is a recent thing like in the last 10 years, and today the taliban government sells those mineral and oil extraction rights to chinese companies. If the goal was to get at those resources for American companies, we clearly failed. It seems China’s belt and road imperialism works better than our bomb the civilians and overthrow the government for a puppet method.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by lukeschlather on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:45AM (#37337962)
Electricity is probably going to be an order of magnitude (or more) cheaper in 20 years, at least for bulk purchase in most fixed locations (not Antarctic winter.) The assumption that oil extraction is worthwhile is based on it being the cheapest way to get a unit of power. But if power is 1/10th what it costs now it is economical to do some process that has absurdly bad efficiency (10:1, even 100:1) to translate power into fuel that works in jets. That might just be making conventional jet fuel. But I doubt we will be extracting it from the ground.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by trashtester on Thursday August 31, 2023 @11:04AM (#37338297)
I don't see any way electricity could fall anywhere near that much in 20 years. For that to happen, we either need a revolutionary decrease in the price of nuclear power, a radical improvement in the price of dependable renewable energy (probably involving a lot of batteries) or some hard AI takeoff that makes EVERYTHING cheaper.

Keep in mind that most countries are trying to electrify most parts of the economy, so we not only need to decarbonize the current electrical supply, but possibly 2-3 times that, if we are to replace NG for heating, steel and chemical industries, fertilizers and so on.

Keep in mind that even if the technology for producing windmills and batteries go down a lot, we still need a lot of new mining capacity to even have enough raw materials to produce those items. That alone could take 10-15 years to build out.

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by marcosdumay on Thursday August 31, 2023 @02:12PM (#37341438)
It's actually very likely.

As long as you only consume it while the Sun is shinning, at the place of generation. This set of restrictions is allowing enough for a surprisingly large set of industrial applications (anything where energy costs are larger than capital ones).

In fact, we are not far from that. Solar is already a few times cheaper than the grid energy on those conditions.

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by trashtester on Friday September 01, 2023 @01:53AM (#37347293)
My post was that electricity prices would come back by a factor of 10 or more. While that was qualified by "not Antarctic winter", it did not say that it would be only while the sun was shining, either.

That was what I objected to.

And if the average price falls by 90%, there number of industrial application where it would make sense to consume only part of the day, drops by a lot.

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by vel0city on Thursday August 31, 2023 @11:23AM (#37338641)
How do you see electricity getting 10x cheaper in 20 years? It sounds like people saying fission electricity would be too cheap to meter, and yet its some of the most expensive electricity we have in the US.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by dietr1ch on Thursday August 31, 2023 @12:57PM (#37340259)
tbf, I think that most new technology has been the most expensive and impractical thing ever around its inception.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by saalweachter on Thursday August 31, 2023 @12:22PM (#37339704)
The US military uses about 5% of the oil used in the US.

That's a lot, but if we only used oil in the US for the military, we'd still be using 95% less oil, and we'd also still be producing enough oil to have an economy of scale.

In any case, realistically speaking, we aren't coming for oil tomorrow. Instead, we need to come for coal immediately. If it takes us decades each time we cut our oil consumption in half, that's one thing... but the coal, that needs to stop sooner.

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by wholien on Thursday August 31, 2023 @12:46PM (#37340062)
someone needs to tell China, India, Indonesia, Turkey and Zimbabwe

> China, India, Indonesia, Turkey and Zimbabwe were the only countries that both added new coal plants and announced new projects. China accounted for 92% of all new coal project announcements.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/coal-burning-capacity-cli...

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by bryanlarsen on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:08AM (#37337363)
Global hydrocarbon consumption is down on a per capita basis. And that's despite the fact that renewable energy and electric vehicles had a negligible share. It's only the last year or two that renewable energy's share has become non-negligible. The EV transition is lagging the renewable energy transition, but it's happening too. EV's now have a non-negligible share of new vehicle sales, but since it takes ~20 years to turn over the global vehicle fleet, they still have a negligible share of the entire fleet. But that's changing, very slowly.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by TinyRick on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:39AM (#37337850)
Per capita metrics are useless when it comes to climate stats. The ice caps don't care about how much hydrocarbons are burned per person, they are only affected by the net amount of hydrocarbons burned on a global scale.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by bryanlarsen on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:44AM (#37337949)
True, but it disproves the narrative that oil consumption must inevitably go up.

And if per capita consumption can go down in the 2010's when we had negligible amounts of wind, solar, EV's and heat pumps, what'll it do in the 2020's when we have non-negligible amounts of wind, solar, EV's and heat pumps?

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by sokoloff on Thursday August 31, 2023 @12:24PM (#37339738)
There were a lot of heat pumps in the 2010s. There’s been a lot of attention and press about heat pumps, but they’re nowhere as new-tech as EVs or even the adoption of solar/wind/battery farms.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by toomuchtodo on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:14AM (#37337463)
> And that's despite the fact that renewable energy and electric vehicles had a negligible share.

I could not disagree with this more. While China is a "developing" country, they are arguably making herculean efforts to move away from oil for transportation. They will drag the developed world along, as they will have built up all of this EV and electric scooter/bike/moped manufacturing capacity with only so much domestic consumption for it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37307619 (China Reaches Peak Gasoline in Milestone for Electric Vehicles)

From the Bloomberg piece:

> Earlier this month, Chinese oil giant Sinopec made a surprise announcement that mostly flew under the radar. It’s now expecting gasoline demand in China to peak this year, two years earlier than its previous outlooks. The main culprit? The surging number of electric vehicles on the road.

> China has been the largest driver of global growth for refined oil products like gasoline and diesel over the last two decades. But EV adoption rates in China are now soaring, with August figures likely to show plug-in vehicles hitting 38% of new passenger-vehicle sales. That’s up from just 6% in 2020 and is starting to materially dent fuel demand.

> Fuel demand in two and three-wheeled vehicles is already in structural decline, with BNEF estimating that 70% of total kilometers traveled by these vehicles already switched over to electric. Fuel demand for cars will be the next to turn, since well over 5% of the passenger-vehicle fleet is now either battery-electric or plug-in hybrid. The internal combustion vehicle fleet is also becoming more efficient due to rising fuel-economy targets.

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by bryanlarsen on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:18AM (#37337534)
I said "had", past tense. Most numbers still end in 2021, and EV's were a negligible fraction of the 1.5 billion vehicles on the road in 2021. Still are, but it's changing fast. 6 million EV's per year is a huge fraction of one year's vehicle sales but a tiny fraction of the entire 1.5 billion fleet.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by toomuchtodo on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:23AM (#37337617)
Fair, retracted. Leaving the comment for the datapoints.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by prmoustache on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:14AM (#37337470)
> EV's now have a non-negligible share of new vehicle sales,

In only a few third world countries.

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by albumen on Thursday August 31, 2023 @11:01AM (#37338248)
Incorrect. Ireland: "In the opening four months of the year, electric cars took a 17% share of new car sales, up from 13% the previous year "
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by btilly on Thursday August 31, 2023 @11:28AM (#37338730)
In Norway, about 90% of new sales are EVs. They aren't a third world country.

https://insideevs.com/news/675163/norway-plugin-car-sales-ju...

The USA was at 14% last year and could hit 18% this year.

https://insideevs.com/news/675163/norway-plugin-car-sales-ju...

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by prmoustache on Thursday August 31, 2023 @01:31PM (#37340783)
that was a typo, I meant first world countries.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by kwhitefoot on Thursday August 31, 2023 @02:45PM (#37341941)
Still not negligible.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by prmoustache on Thursday August 31, 2023 @03:57PM (#37342872)
but not enough to make a impactful dent in carbon emissions, especially if the electricity used charge them is produced by fossil.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by btilly on Thursday August 31, 2023 @07:27PM (#37344886)
When I ran the numbers off of the actual CO2 emissions of the actual California grid, an EV created something like half the CO2 for a trip in the equivalent gas car.

The calculation wasn't straightforward though. And varies widely by locale.

EV mileage is reported in eMPG. Which means, "The miles you get when you charge the battery with the same energy as is in a mile of gasoline." The problem is that to deliver that much to the battery, you have losses at the charger, losses in the grid, and losses during power generation. None of which are counted in that figure. If your electric car is running off of a coal power plant, that 120 eMPG Tesla can easily perform about like a 30 MPG Camry. But as soon as you have a significant fraction of your grid being generated by renewables, now the electric car is running on a fraction of the CO2 emissions of the gas car.

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by prmoustache on Friday September 01, 2023 @02:46AM (#37347602)
In the end using a car is using a car. It takes an awful lot of energy to build, and then to move, more so often to transport only one or 2 persons, in a very short trip. It needs huge infrastructure that are energetically and financially costly to build and maintain.

All these needs to be cut down and EV won't help us. People need to be able to reach safely schools, workplaces, shops, restaurants by foot or by bike regardless of their age and fitness level.

What we help us is better infrastructure for non motorized vehicles, better public transport (even if they are not financially profitable), walkable spaces, security (with a density of human presence making sure we are safe, not useless cameras), transforming suburbs, commercial and social areas so there is no physical separation anymore between people and where they need/want to go and spend time, effectively bringing back the village/small town paradigm.

EV goes way way way way down the list and we should focus first on EV for public transport and transportation of good rather than personnal toys and vanity possession.

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by abenga on Friday September 01, 2023 @06:44AM (#37349042)
Large energy plants are still more efficient than individual ICEs.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by btilly on Thursday August 31, 2023 @03:17PM (#37342342)
So China is first world?

Though I do admit, electric is less compelling where the electric grid is unreliable.

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by prmoustache on Thursday August 31, 2023 @03:50PM (#37342776)
Well this whole first/second/third world nomenclature is not really pertinent in most cases but yes, I rank the parts of China that do buy cars as developped even though other parts of the same country is in a completely different state.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by p1mrx on Thursday August 31, 2023 @11:50AM (#37339123)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country

Are you talking about China? I think they're considered a second-world country, as they were somewhat aligned with the USSR.

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by datavirtue on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:46AM (#37337990)
The EV crutch is getting really old. With current tech it is not a solution. Not even remotely.

It's great. I love the idea too. I would rather we stop driving around machines that belch out dangerous toxins but a mass migration to EVs will be disastrous. The manufacturers are going hybrid...which is a sensible transition. It should get people used to the freedom of producing/collecting their own energy. Hopefully they get addicted to that.

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by bryanlarsen on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:59AM (#37338210)
Disastrous? It's already happened. 38% of new cars in the largest car market in the world are EV's.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by kwhitefoot on Thursday August 31, 2023 @02:45PM (#37341933)
In Norway (I know it's a small market) it's over 80%. Over 20% of cars on the road are pure electric EVs.

https://elbil.no/om-elbil/elbilstatistikk/elbilbestand/

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by wcoenen on Thursday August 31, 2023 @05:00PM (#37343609)
Parent is talking about China. Note that the number is not pure battery electric vehicles, it includes hybrids.

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/08/02/38-plugin-vehicle-marke...

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by redserk on Thursday August 31, 2023 @11:27AM (#37338714)
How are hybrids a sensible solution?
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by datavirtue on Friday September 01, 2023 @07:20PM (#37357191)
Condition people to view generating your own energy as "freedom." This will shift mindset about solar panels as "freedom." People will flock to hybrids, drastically cut C02 emmissions without spending more or needing decent charging infra. I'm sure others can go one and one with more advantages.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by jsight on Thursday August 31, 2023 @12:44PM (#37340029)
A lot of us are thoroughly enjoying our disasters.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by BurningFrog on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:25AM (#37337647)
> I don't think it's public opinion so much as it is necessity to maintain current standards of living for the next few decades.

Those are pretty much the same thing.

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by aaomidi on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:03AM (#37337304)
Meanwhile companies with “climate pledges” forcing RTO.

Even when society wants to shift, the ones in charge say no.

We should have had a governmental mandate requiring companies over a certain size to allow WFH and justify why they can’t do it if they really can’t.

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by huthuthike on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:15AM (#37337487)
I fully agree with you but governments aren't exactly the ally on this one. Local and state governments in particular are losing out on tax revenue due to WFH. Lower attendance in offices (often in city centers) means less spending in those areas, so lower sales tax revenue. (I think New York City is projecting around $4500 less spending per worker annually.) Depreciating corporate property values means lower property tax revenue.

On the plus side we have the greatest effect on politics at the local level, if we get involved.

Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by aaomidi on Thursday August 31, 2023 @03:08PM (#37342229)
Oh definitely I know they’re not the allies. I’m just hoping and dreaming.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by ImHereToVote on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:10AM (#37337394)
I think the bottom up approach to combat climate change is doomed to fail. We need to start top down. The most powerful institutions and people need to lower their living standards and resource extraction. Start with eliminating private jets for instance.
Re:Shell Quietly Shelves a Radical Plan to Shrink Its Carbon... by jacquesm on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:14AM (#37337469)
> necessity to maintain current standards of living for the next few decades

You can't always get what you want.