Why is a transition away from oil a problem?

I part way with the standard conservative position when it comes to this. This subject came up at the last debate, with Biden declaring that he would transition away from oil, and Trump and conservative commentators seemed to think that this was some huge revelation, but as far as I know, this is FAR from a new position from Biden and the Democrats. And as far as I know, Republicans are not TOTALLY against future energy technologies, with Trump even saying in the debate that his administration has given funding to wind and solar. After Biden declared this, Trump dishonestly interpreted that as Biden saying that he will "DESTROY" the oil industry, but transition does not mean destruction. Nobody is suggesting that oil is brought to a sudden HALT on day. Did the government at the time DESTROY the steam industry, when it was transitioned into oil?

It seems to me that the argument against a transition away from oil is two-fold:

1. It would kill millions of jobs
2. It would make the energy system unreliable.

Well can't the oil jobs transition into new energy jobs? Will some jobs be lost? I'm sure they will, but isn't that just a reality of life? Since when does new technology not lead to job loss? Hasn't automation led to job losses? Should we not have transitioned away from steam power because some people lost jobs? And if one day in the future new energy can produce the same energy that oil is now, then what is the problem? @RodB, @AmericanNationalist, @MGB ROADSTER, @GlobalCitizen, @Gatewood, @drluggit, @Eleuthera, @Jeannette, @TheImmortal, @modernpaladin, @squidward, @vman12.

 

I personally prefer clean and non-polluting energy.
I am in favor of giving a budget to research to discover clean energy because our world stinks and is full of toxins.

 

I thought that you may have been a conservative. I wonder if I'm correct.

 

The major difference in your comparisons is that none of your examples took place because of government edicts. The transition away from steam power and, say, horses and buggies was 100% a result of free private enterprise. Had the government earlier dictated that steam power and horse and buggies be stopped the transition would have been egregiously disruptive if not disastrous.

Biden, Harris, and many Democrats have so declared an end to fracking, coal mining, and in fact the oil industry, although Biden backtracks on a dime to hopefully get more votes. Simply saying we will just retrain displaced workers is a pie in the sky idea that completely ignores real world stuff. When Biden said we will simply teach coal miners (in West Virginia) to write computer code (in say California) just shows one does not need any practical thinking to be a successful politician.

 

Everyone wants "clean" energy but nobody discusses the facts. Lets look at our current options

Solar
Solar energy is derived by capturing radiant energy from sunlight and converting it into heat, electricity, or hot water. Photovoltaic (PV) systems can convert direct sunlight into electricity through the use of solar cells.
Current Limitations
Although solar energy will save you money in the long run, it tends to be a significant upfront cost and is an unrealistic expenses for most households. For personal homes, homeowners also need to have the ample sunlight and space to arrange their solar panels, which limits who can realistically adopt this technology at the individual level.

Wind
Wind farms capture the energy of wind flow by using turbines and converting it into electricity. There are several forms of systems used to convert wind energy and each vary. Commercial grade wind-powered generating systems can power many different organizations, while single-wind turbines are used to help supplement pre-existing energy organizations. Another form is utility-scale wind farms, which are purchased by contract or wholesale. Technically, wind energy is a form of solar energy. The phenomenon we call “wind” is caused by the differences in temperature in the atmosphere combined with the rotation of Earth and the geography of the planet

Current Limitations
Since wind farms tend to be built in rural or remote areas, they are usually far from bustling cities where the electricity is needed most. Wind energy must be transported via transition lines, leading to higher costs. Although wind turbines produce very little pollution, some cities oppose them since they dominate skylines and generate noise. Wind turbines also threaten local wildlife like birds, which are sometimes killed by striking the arms of the turbine while flying.

Hydroelectric
Dams are what people most associate when it comes to hydroelectric power. Water flows through the dam’s turbines to produce electricity, known as pumped-storage hydropower. Run-of-river hydropower uses a channel to funnel water through rather than powering it through a dam.

Current Limitations
Most U.S. hydroelectricity facilities use more energy than they are able to produce for consumption. The storage systems may need to use fossil fuel to pump water.[3] Although hydroelectric power does not pollute the air, it disrupts waterways and negatively affects the animals that live in them, changing water levels, currents, and migration paths for many fish and other freshwater ecosystems.

Geothermal
Geothermal heat is heat that is trapped beneath the earth’s crust from the formation of the Earth 4.5 billion years ago and from radioactive decay. Sometimes large amounts of this heat escapes naturally, but all at once, resulting in familiar occurrences, such as volcanic eruptions and geysers. This heat can be captured and used to produce geothermal energy by using steam that comes from the heated water pumping below the surface, which then rises to the top and can be used to operate a turbine.

Current Limitations
Cost plays a major factor when it comes to disadvantages of geothermal energy. Not only is it costly to build the infrastructure, but another major concern is its vulnerability to earthquakes in certain regions of the world.

Ocean
The ocean can produce two types of energy: thermal and mechanical. Ocean thermal energy relies on warm water surface temperatures to generate energy through a variety of different systems. Ocean mechanical energy uses the ebbs and flows of the tides to generate energy, which is created by the earth’s rotation and gravity from the moon.

Current Limitations
Those who live near the ocean definitely benefit from wave energy, but those who live in landlocked states won’t have ready access to this energy. Another disadvantage to ocean energy is that it can disturb the ocean’s many delicate ecosystems. Although it is a very clean source of energy, large machinery needs to be built nearby to help capture this form energy, which can cause disruptions to the ocean floor and the sea life that habitats it. Another factor to consider is weather, when rough weather occurs it changes the consistency of the waves, thus producing lower energy output when compared to normal waves without stormy weather.

Hydrogen
Hydrogen needs to be combined with other elements, such as oxygen to make water as it does not occur naturally as a gas on its own. When hydrogen is separated from another element it can be used for both fuel and electricity.

Current Limitations
Since hydrogen needs energy to be produced, it is inefficient when it comes to preventing pollution.

Biomass
Bioenergy is a renewable energy derived from biomass. Biomass is organic matter that comes from recently living plants and organisms. Using wood in your fireplace is an example of biomass that most people are familiar with.

There are various methods used to generate energy through the use of biomass. This can be done by burning biomass, or harnessing methane gas which is produced by the natural decomposition of organic materials in ponds or even landfills.

Current Limitations
Although new plants need carbon dioxide to grow, plants take time to grow. We also don’t yet have widespread technology that can use biomass in lieu of fossil fuels.

https://justenergy.com/blog/7-types-renewable-energy-future-of-energy/

 

Mostly the problem is that the Dem Party has a distressing tendency not to utilize logic during their transitions and so economics rebounds to bit people on the behind after the fact. For every problem they solve transitioning to a green energy utopia either they created a new problem or simply shuffle a major problem from one category to another.

This subject rather bores me since some leftist will leap forward to rationalize it to 'explain' why 'up' is really 'down' and why 'sideways' is really 'circular' and how if you do not end up agreeing with them then you are anti-science . . . just like if you do not agree with their rationalizations regarding Political Correctness then you are a racist or misogynist or some other category of 'ist'.

But I will dip one toe into this ocean this one time as an example and then wash my hand of it. Look at how the Californians are gung-ho green energy to the max or bust and look at how it is ALWAYS implemented in the most emotions-ridden but illogical manners possible so that they end up charging everyone massive amounts for what energy they do manage to produce between roving brown-outs while enormously increasing everyone's taxation across the board and STILL not meeting their end goals in any sort of an intelligent manner. The Dem Party is simply no good at this stuff because they ARE going to substitute ideology and politics for logic.

We will now pause for some leftist to leap forward and lecture us on how 'up' is really 'down' and why 'sideways' is really 'circular' and how if you do not end up agreeing with them then you are anti-science.

 

The biggest reason it is stupid: there is nothing to transition to.

 

Very cogent summary. I'd like to add a couple of thoughts. Solar energy requires a very costly battery storage back up system. This means you have to produce solar energy greater than your actual needs since the batteries have to be recharged during the day. Also, when biomass is burned it produces CO2 just like fossil fuels do.

Another thing to think about is the push to all electric vehicles. If everybody drove EVs the 12 hour recharge time would be totally unacceptable which would require a major (high percentage) increase in the electricity produced and shipped over the grid.

And don't forget the other idea to reduce CO2 emissions: as Pelosi once said (really) just get off fossil fuels and use natural gas instead.

 

Holy crap.

There IS common ground.

Good on ya

Oh and by the way...we do still use steam in cites like NY. And we'll always probably have some uses for oil.

 

I live in Europe... we don't have Conservatives or Democrats .. We have illegal Muslim immigrants
If i lived in USA, i will vote for Trump.

 

The transition from horse and buggy to automobiles was bumpy and yea...there were people whining about the loss of the buggy whip industry (snark)

 

So we'll ship him to you...

 

Good for you. Great to see that some conservatives THINK, vs. just following RW talking points.

Here is the physical science point of view:

The transition from oil is a problem because we are transitioning from a higher quality (higher energy density) energy source to a lower quality (lower energy density) energy source, i.e. renewables. This is different from previous energy transitions when we went from manual labor to horses to wood to coal to oil. Each of those transitions were from lower energy density to higher energy density. Thus, they occurred naturally, driven by the free market.

For the transition away from oil, the free market doesn't work, because going from something better to something worse is against free market principles. If it were for the free market only, we'd wait until oil runs out for the transition to happen. Of course, should we wait for that point, there would be a lot of death associated with the transition, because we essentially eat oil. The free market wouldn't care, because it is survival of the fittest. Some of the fittest will survive, with or without oil.

For humanity as a whole, therefore, it is essential that governments accelerate the transition away from oil at a time when we still can, i.e. we still have enough oil in the ground to fuel the transition. Does it mean that energy may become more expensive? Yes it does. Less convenient? of course. Higher upfront costs? Yes. In any case, these are small prices to pay for ensuring that humanity has a future that is sustainable.

I compare the transition from oil to an investment portfolio. You get the highest return from investing in stocks. Should your portfolio be 100% stock? No, because that exposes you to too much risk. Therefore, you also invest in bonds, even though they give a lower return. the older the age, the more bonds you should have. The same should go for a country's energy portfolio. the more advanced the country is, the more it should protect itself from energy risk, even at the price of lower return (i.e. lower energy density of renewables vs. higher energy density of fossils).

 

You can now drive your electric car to the store to buy your battery operated lawn mower and return to your home to use your solar panel to charge the battery. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.

 

Trump needs to link that to Hillary, because she said the exact same thing in WV and in Michigan, and it cost her big time. If he wants to win re-election that's what I'd do.

 

The reality is we are facing the coming end of a finite resource and have nothing to replace it that delivers energy the way it does. Petroleum came into use in the mid nineteenth century and in the time since we didn't really think about what would replace it. Suddenly there is panic and a rush to find alternatives and so far without much luck. Electricity shows promise but is currently generated mostly from fossil fuels. The green industry has offered nothing but dead ends. Worse yet we still consume like there's no tomorrow. If we don't solve this problem soon nature will solve it for us. By 2070 the world population will be facing a major reset.

 

I agree with you, the transition needs to be made sooner rather than later. This is where I part ways with the standard conservative position as well.

 

Absolutely, a lot of the "green" solutions are as bad or worse as fossil fuels.

 

We’ve been transitioning from oil for quite sometime.

 

As long as government stays out of it and lets the private sector transition to whatever and however it wants I'm good with it. Get government involved and I will fight it tooth and nail.

 

Maybe he'll stop by for a visit on his way to Moscow after...ya know...

 

No offence, but I see you love the MGB Roadster, is it electric

 

I sincerely don't understand this statement (bolded). The transition took place. And it was successful. Why, if by government dictate, would it have been any less successful? Much less egregiously disruptive, if not disastrous?

 

Of course.

 

Private enterprise transitions are slow and gradual as they learn by their mistakes making sure they don't destroy everything before they figure it out. This transition has a natural progression which gives everyone more time to adjust. A dictated transition just does it and does not allow for any reasonable adjustment. For example, if Biden thought he could latch on to every single coal minor in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, or wherever, teach them all to write program code, then find them a job with companies who have a need for entry level programmers (at likely half what they made as a coal minor) and move them to California, Texas, or wherever (including probably providing housing) in one year's time or even five year's time, it shows that Biden knows very little about how real life things get done. That government dictated transition would be extremely disruptive to millions and probably disastrous to them and many other people and businesses.