The future is not looking bright for oil, according to a new report that claims the commodity would have to be priced at $10-$20 a barrel to remain competitive as a transport fuel.
The new research, from BNP Paribas, says that the economics of renewable energy make it impossible for oil to compete at current prices. The author of the report, global head of sustainability Mark Lewis, says that "renewable electricity has a short-run marginal cost of zero, is cleaner environmentally, much easier to transport and could readily replace up to 40% of global oil demand".
[...] The report, Wells, Wires, And Wheels... Eroci And The Tough Road Ahead For Oil, introduces the concept of the Energy Return on Capital Invested (EROCI), focusing on the energy return on a $100bn outlay on oil and renewables where the energy is being used to power cars and other light-duty vehicles (LDVs).
"For a given capital outlay on oil and renewables, how much useful energy at the wheel do we get? Our analysis indicates that for the same capital outlay today, new wind and solar-energy projects in tandem with battery electric vehicles will produce six to seven times more useful energy at the wheels than will oil at $60 per barrel for gasoline powered light-duty vehicles, and three to four times more than will oil at $60 per barrel for light-duty vehicles running on diesel," says Lewis.
As fossil fuels phase out, will battery technology improve quickly enough to support the transition to renewables?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05 2019, @12:51PM (2 children)
Saying it's awesome doesn't make it awesome, even with asterisks. The hydrogen powered cars you talk about have similar environmental impact to ordinary gasoline hybrids. And they would require rebuilding the entire fuel infrastructure. And they cost more. And fuel cells don't benefit from technology advances in batteries that are driven by widespread battery use everywhere else.
Hydrogen comes from fossil fuels, now and for the foreseeable future. Pie in the sky ideas about making it from renewables probably won't come true. It just doesn't do anything well. For the environment, it's no better than gasoline. For cost, it's worse. For safety, it's worse. As an actual fuel, it's worse (those "awesome" hydrogen cars only have half the range of hybrids, and speed of refueling doesn't matter if there's no place to refuel).
Hydrogen doesn't compete with batteries. It competes with gasoline. And not favorably.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05 2019, @06:37PM (1 child)
You absolutely, positively, do not need to get H2 from fossil fuels. Full stop, period, no matter how much you ignore that fact.
You can use electricity to make H2, or to charge batteries. Therefore, H2 is just as green as any battery solution. And as an H2 tank doesn't consist of horribly polluting batteries, it's actually *cleaner* than a battery powered car.
In terms of infrastructure? It already exists in many places, and will only expand. What's the big deal? At one point all those Tesla charging stations didn't exist either.
And more lies -- Toyota's H2 car has a 500km range. Almost double the Bolt and Tesla cars! You have it *reversed*. And they refuel in 2 minutes, not hours and hours!!
Troll much? Lie much? Ignore facts much?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday September 06 2019, @04:15AM
And where do you get the electricity to make H2, or to charge batteries??
How do you get the materials to store H2, which wants to escape through the walls of normal storage tanks?
What is the relative cost per kilogram moved per kilometer? because that is the real measure of efficiency, given people need to move the same mass the same distances regardless of how that's achieved.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.