Rystad predicted that liquid hydrogen and derivatives will be only 7% of energy in 2050-in the form of aviation and shipping fuel, and manufacture of metals and chemicals (fertilizers and plastics). IP: Carbon capture and storage will not save the oil and gas industry if it continues running at full production, although it may serve to remove a portion of GHG leftovers by 2050. Rather, the oil executives put the emphasis on the importance of technologies such as carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and biofuels-which many in the industry are placing their bets on, but that have yet to prove themselves as meaningful tools to combat climate change.” M and J: “Wind, solar and electric vehicles were rarely mentioned as part of the transition. But if, more likely, big oil in the US means to continue full oil and gas production while greening their operations and then burying, via CCS, the leftover GHGs from burning their products, then this won’t work – see previous IP comment. offshore wind), then yes the statement stands. If they mean by this oil and gas companies who, like bp, reduce emissions by divesting in oil and gas and investing in renewables (e.g. IP: This is a hopeful assertion but needs a deeper look. Chevron’sĬVX boss Mike Wirth claimed that ‘no industry is better positioned’ to tackle climate change than the oil industry.” M and J: “Woods said that the world ‘needs our industry’s expertise and experience to successfully reduce emissions while preserving economic prosperity’. But an analysis shows that such a scale up of CCS looks massive, expensive and impractical to manage. The result would have to be an enormous growth of a carbon capture and storage (CCS) industry needed to bury the GHG generated by continual burning of oil and gas products. But US companies are planning to keep up their oil and gas production, and instead find alternate ways to reduce GHG by reducing gas flaring and methane leaks and by using renewable energy to pump their fracs.
European-based companies like bp, Shell, and TotalEnergies are doing this. An argument to divest is that oil and gas contributes 57% of the world’s energy but also 50% of GHG emissions. IP: The chief issue is whether to divest from oil and gas production and instead develop renewable energies. The bosses at WPC see the oil companies themselves-not the Teslas or renewables powerhouses such as the Orsteds of the world-continuing to play the starring role. M and J: “Yet the oil industry’s vision for the energy transition is at odds with what is being advocated by climate scientists and activists.
0 kommentar(er)
