You must log in or register to comment.

SMG329 t1_itzcork wrote

And yet, Shell just posted record profits that will result in higher dividend payments for stockholders.... Right a crisis that makes the rich richer?


Energer_Z t1_itzwos9 wrote

Literally the only crisis that doesn't make the rich richer is a crisis that specifically targets the rich, ie economic-oriented revolutions. Until you take a knife to the pig it's only going to get fatter.


The_Yarichin_Bitch t1_iu2yffm wrote

It's why I don't get the anger at the 'quiet quitting'- it's a common start to work revolutions lmao.


Nice_Category t1_iu0arem wrote

Energy and oil are commodities, when there is a shortage then price increases and those who produce it make more money. Nothing even remotely weird or sinister about it.

If there was, say, an iron shortage, you'd see iron mining companies posting record profits, too. That's how commodities work.


KJBenson t1_iu3mijt wrote

It’s not like it matters.

If they were losing money they’d just tell their politicians to pay them a bunch of money and still be solvent.

Or they would just fire the cattle so the executives still saw gains.


litefoot t1_iu3qxhs wrote

Here’s the thing about that: they see the writing on the wall.

That’s why fuel prices are going up. They are not increasing production because they know they’re running out, so they’re trying to make money while they can. This is also why they all invest in solar and wind energy.


Danne660 t1_iu0paaq wrote

No, every business that uses oil makes less money from this.

Do you think rich people are only in the oil industry and nothing else?


APigNamedLucy t1_iu1ahjn wrote

It's the only industry in existence in the history of the world, yes.


OKengineeringNerd t1_itz49ui wrote

Its not a shock. Unlike the past, this time oil & gas capex isnt going to dramaticaly respond and lead to another glut from overproduction. The pain is here to stay.


PicardTangoAlpha t1_itzrwg0 wrote

Hard to say. So far no, capex has not responded. Would you risk investing if the potential reward was negative oil prices?


Rock-swarm t1_iu00weq wrote

On the other hand, it remains confusing why energy companies aren't taking greater advantage of the wind/solar subsidies currently available.


PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu03qdl wrote

Investment is investment. Could it be that the economics simply blow?

The trend in energy has always been towards more concentrated , intense energy sources. Nuclear, and fusion continue that trend. Wind and solar do not. They are dilute, weak, distributed.


Danne660 t1_iu0ow6g wrote

No the economics for wind and solar is vastly superior to nuclear. The only thing nuclear has over them is it provides a stable base power.


PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu0pmw3 wrote

>wind and solar is vastly superior to nuclear.

Doubtful, and the hubristic language doesn't help. Solar panels decay, lose capacity every year. 3%? 5? In 20-25 years, they're useless and have to be replaced.

One wind turbine costs a million Euros and has hundreds of pounds of rare earth metals. Someone has to mine that. So far, the west has downloaded that environmental damage on to China, who has sacrificed their rivers to make sales to us.

Yes I know, downvote. Downvote your bitter little hearts because reality does not conform to your expectations.


assail t1_iu13y8s wrote

Just got a quote for panels - 8% degradation over 25 year life span.

That means they'll be producing at 92% of their initial production.

Significantly less than you are implying.


NoPajamasNoService t1_iu2yn1w wrote

Yep. And they're great, unless you live somewhere like Minnesota where you don't get shit for sun half the year. We do have wind like crazy here in the great plains but not very many wind turbines. There's like 3 where I live that don't seem to work and that's literally it within a 100 mile radius. Minnesota is pretty progressive too so I wouldn't think it's an issue outside of wind turbines being vastly inferior.


Danne660 t1_iu0vfov wrote

If you are worried about you solar becoming useless after 25 years then just replace them every 10 years. It is still cheaper then nuclear even if you replace it that often.

And bitch more about downvotes just because reality don't conform to your will.


PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu0w2kd wrote

So.......correct or no? Is this your way of agreeing?


TrainOfThought6 t1_iu1hfbm wrote

Not correct. As the other fellow said and you're conveniently ignoring, you're grossly overestimating the degradation. We're regularly designing utility scale solar with a 35 year life.

Energy storage is trickier, as degradation is much more pronounced, but there are so many levers you can pull to make money off a battery that it still works.


PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu1u3r3 wrote

I said 25 years, you said 35. That's not grossly overestimating the degradation.

And when they're useless, they're not recyclable. Glass doped with rare earth metals. How the hell do you recycle this?


TrainOfThought6 t1_iu4m1by wrote

You said they degrade at 3-5% per year, when it's more like 8-10% over the full 25 years. Yes that's a huge difference.

You realize designing for a 25 year life does not mean we aim for the panels to hit zero output at the end, right?


Draker-X t1_iu2n40k wrote

Wind and solar don't create waste that will be injuring and killing living things on this planet long after humanity is gone from the Earth.

Also, we've seen the fun that nuclear power plants be when A. under the control of an incompetent, corrupt government or B. in a war zone (which I don:t believe there are going to be a shortage of on this planet anytime soon).


PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu37ajt wrote

China has sacrificed its environmental quality to satisfy Western demand for the rare earth metals, lithium and cobalt needed to drive tie so called green energy revolution. This us refereed to as “greenwishing” and is pure hypocrisy.


dontneedaknow t1_iu3ynbh wrote

Distributed, production is a good thing...

Why concentrate all production in a single place rather than not evenly distributed to offset issues with a power generation station having to go offline for whatever reason.

Nuclear, along with Solar, and tidal energy, are all valid, safe, and desperately needed forms of production.

Debating energy production is not a dick measuring contest. like for my sanity I'm pretending you are satire and I'm currently satirically explaining the joke to you..

Like... I cannot gauge anyone else's ability level in self awareness... But you exemplify a absolute lack of it in your rhetoric, if I can imagine what an example of it looks liek.


PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu4c5gh wrote

Why would I be satire. Why do I have to embrace solar like a religion? Your insults sound like a bot. Claiming I endanger your sanity is so emotionally over the top. Seek help.


dontneedaknow t1_iu4cmtc wrote

Dogg. You have no counter argument but to jump between claiming my reasoning of a multi-layered energy system is somehow religious in nature, to somehow that also involving mental health issues.

Which tells me you basically have the thought capability of a jellyfish...


PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu4dqsz wrote

Why does my non-support bother you so much it threatens your "sanity"?

"Distributed production is a good thing"'s the opposite of efficiency. Why am I arguing with a twenty-something...

Europe has jumped with both feet into wind and solar, they've spent trillions. Yet they're in an energy crisis. I thought these technologies were better. You said they are. So Britain shouldn't be paying what they are paying for electricity.

Unless it's all a giant fucking scam and a lie. Which I think it is.


dontneedaknow t1_iu4g3aa wrote

It wasnt your non support its this weird aggrandizing your present your argument with.

You sound like a pompous king but thats obviously not the case. You're just some random dude woth a big ego and imagined self importance.


PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu4gngu wrote

You're right and I'm wrong. Europe isn't in an energy crisis at all, power is dirt cheap and the Pound is going gangbusters.

You are also a random dude with a lot of ignorance to work over.

I don't have to please you. At all.


dontneedaknow t1_iu4h21p wrote

Europe is in that situation because they hedged their bets on the globalized system continuing to work out as ot had for the previous 70 years...

Then Putin invaded Ukraine and the excuse for decoupling presented itself.

We are watching 70 years globalization be unwound in as controlled a manner as possible.

But sure...

Blame wind energy and blame peoples mental health for them thinking outside your little box.


PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu4hikh wrote

How do you know the root causes of Europe's energy woes? You're talking in generalities, "hedged their bets on the globalized system" hurr durr.

You obviously never read any news or newspaper websites.


dontneedaknow t1_iu4hsnq wrote

Because i fucking trade energy securities you dolt.

All you got is to ask me how do i know things.

If all you have os to question my ability to know things. Then that tells me you really do know nothing.


PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu4i35z wrote

I'm not going to get into what I do. It's none of your concern. You don't trade securities.


dontneedaknow t1_iu4inp3 wrote

Now you're telling me what i do. Haha..

You do have big ass head on those shoulders.


PicardTangoAlpha t1_iu4jawu wrote

Securities traders don’t speak about energy with such am amateurish tone.


dontneedaknow t1_iu4k6yu wrote

You don't know shit. We've already established that.

Not sure what your trying here.

Take care tho...

I hope you learn to not weigh your own personal value on energy production being reliant on single source type systems.

Like not only would that be stupid to have ONLY nuclear energy and nothing else.

It's not what were doing right now, and no rational civilization would ever "Just use nuclear energy alone." Or any other "Only use one single system of energy production."

This is why you are satire.

You're fuckong arguing marbles for shits n giggles lol.


SexyOldHobo t1_itzn6u5 wrote

Unfortunately so many of the worlds governments were taken over by fossil fuel cabals in the 20th century and they built economies they could dominate, which means dependence on their products.

People are going to have to start counting their kWs and the only people who will have surplus energy are the ones who invest in renewables


Darkmetroidz t1_itzs1cg wrote

First thing I'm doing when I get a house is slapping solar on that bitch.


SexyOldHobo t1_itzugwp wrote

Nice. I’m an electrician and used to do service for solar. Those things will provide you energy for the rest of your life. I’ve seen 30 year old panels producing like they’re a week old


Darkmetroidz t1_itzv74t wrote

Of course owning a home is a bit of a pipe dream but hey I can hope.


ConcreteTaco t1_iu15tnb wrote

So you have any advice to a home owner about the best way to go about getting this done?

Red flags and things to avoid?

Things all systems should avoid going without?



Crazyhates t1_iu1bta8 wrote

Go through your power company to see if they offer incentives for purchase and installation. Also research the company they are contracted out to to perform such upgrades if they do not do them themselves. If you seek to get them installed by a private vendor do your due diligence. I would also suggest reading up on how your company responds to solar in terms of payment for surplus energy or if they offer credits/reimbursements for a private installation.

Another big thing is the physical orientation of your house and it's surroundings, but a good vendor will do an assessment of your property before they let you purchase the panels anyway to ensure that they won't be a waste.


ConcreteTaco t1_iu1eind wrote

I hadn't thought to check with my current power company. Thank you!


pauljs75 t1_iu2rc32 wrote

A funny thing is modification or further development of a technology originally meant for fossil fuel production would potentially be a great form of clean energy. That would be using deep boreholes to tap into geothermal energy, and done using large scale drilling rigs. But it is a bit complicated to implement, conflicts with the other use of the technology, so nobody really has invested in it. It could likely go a long way into electrical power production if it were seriously looked into. (And not quite the same as open injection or drilling into existing geysers for geothermal - which both have their own share of issues. I'm thinking more along the lines of closed loop systems that recirculate the heat transfer fluid.)


Xul-luX t1_itz6czx wrote

there are parts of the world that has been living with energy crisis for decades...


phunky_1 t1_itz94v1 wrote

The crisis is more a corporate and investment bank greed crisis than an energy crisis.


zsreport OP t1_itz3azb wrote

From the article:

> The International Energy Agency (IEA) said the world faces its first "truly global energy crisis" as a result. > > It added that unaffordable energy bills remain a huge problem, driven up as the exports of oil and gas have been restricted. > > But the crisis should also be seen as a turning point, speeding up the world's transition to green energy, it said. > > "With unrelenting geopolitical and economic concerns, energy markets remain extremely vulnerable, and the crisis is a reminder of the fragility and unsustainability of the current global energy system. > > "The heaviest burden is falling on poorer households where a larger share of income is spent on energy", the report warned.


big_juice01 t1_iu0et91 wrote

"The heaviest burden is falling on poorer households where a larger share of income is spent on energy" .... so basically no one is in a hurry to fix this and nothing is gonna be done. Got it.


descendingangel87 t1_iu0an34 wrote

You know being around for world first crisis after world first crisis after world first crisis is getting old.


LowDownSkankyDude t1_iu0mm8n wrote

And it's essentially a manufactured crisis, which makes it that much more nerve-racking. Good times.....


fennelliott t1_iu568lk wrote

GREEN ENERGY: rubs hands and licks lips


jacksaces t1_itz7ymy wrote

And how many times have we heard this ??? Anyone remember "peak oil"


Analysis_Vivid t1_itzde7x wrote

Yes, peak oil has been and gone, we are on the downslope now.


Locke66 t1_iu003sr wrote

You ever heard the fable of "the boy who cried wolf too many times"? It's supposed to be a lesson for children about not claiming something bad is going to happen constantly because people will eventually stop believing you. That's where you and others are when you dismiss climate change. The problem is though that in the end of the story the wolf did come, no-one believed the boy and the wolf ate the boy and all the sheep.

From an adult perspective we can perhaps look at that and understand that believing an individual unreliable source is not a good idea but equally we understand "the sheep" still need guarding as there are wolves out there. If you look at the current evidence such as consistent record temperatures, rapid fluctuations in weather, significantly increased green house gases in the atmosphere (something we understand very well affects temperatures) and all the other known factors then ignoring it now would be the equivalent of dismissing the sound of wolves howling, sheep screaming and a whole group of reliable shepherds saying there really is a wolf this time.

Fables aside previous worries were often theoretical ideas about future events without the weight of long term proof and wide scale scientific consensus behind them. This is simply not the case with anthropogenic climate change as now we have decades of evidence supporting the idea and the scientific consensus is both overwhelming and international. The problem is also much larger than previous issues we've been able to solve without significant disruption as while serious they could be dealt with relatively behind the scenes which may have lulled people into a sense of complacency (Millennium Bug, Ozone Layer etc).