Shell has called it the Sky scenario- which is a mix of extrapolation with economic models. In other words, it’s a pile of bullsh#t concocted by economists to keep the activists’ shareholders at bay long enough for energy prices to rise.
Shell’s vision of a Zero Carbon World by 2070 requires some huge leaps in technology and some projections which are already proving incorrect.
Take this example of Shell’s projection that the electrification trend will be ramping by 3x.
Reality is renewables build-out has already rolled over with incentives being dialed back: The world is investing less in clean energy
Even Buffet has weighed in: “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,”
Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently.
“For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
Or Germany: Resistance to wind power
“For even the self-imposed interim goal of generating about 65 percent of electricity from renewables by 2030 is difficult to achieve. For this purpose, 4.5 gigawatts of wind energy would have to be installed annually on land. But in the first nine months of 2019, just 500 megawatts were built because there is a lack of space, permits are missing and numerous lawsuits are pending.” – link
Keep the above in mind with Shell’s energy projections
If renewables don’t make sense without subsidies and on top of this ‘there is a lack of space, permits are missing and numerous lawsuits are pending’ for what is currently 1-2% of the global energy mix. How is this possibly going to work at 45%!
Also, how is this zero-carbon when 6% is coal, 10% is Oil, Gas is 6% and Bioenergy is 14% giving the total of 36% carbon-emitting sources?
Well, they don’t have to count it as this C02 will be carbon captured and stored by the technology. I might as well add that it doesn’t exist in any scalable way.
That didn’t stop Shell putting this hail Mary long shot in to make their figures work;
“Some 10,000 large carbon capture and storage facilities are built, compared to fewer than 50 in operation in 2020.” -link
Do they honestly believe any of what they put out?
History suggests ”no” as this is their second time around with this charade.
We’ve Seen This Before
“This year marks the 20th anniversary of a Shell report entitled ‘Profits or Principles: does there have to be a choice?’ – claiming that Shell would be at the heart of transforming the energy industry. Shell built partnerships with some leading NGOs, invested heavily in a communications campaign and started a small but much-publicized renewable energy division.
A few years later, Shell dropped both the PR campaign and the renewables, while the company continued to extract billions of barrels of oil. Twenty years on, the climate crisis is now urgent; we can’t afford to fall again for the pretense that Shell is part of the solution.“
The lesson is simple: If you want to know how to fix climate change, don’t ask a company that wants to sell you more oil and gas.”
Besides all this craziness, it’s nice to see the ship slowly start to turn regarding Nuclear.
“PARIS (Reuters) – The French government has asked power utility EDF to prepare plans to construct six EPR nuclear reactors over the next 15 years, Le Monde newspaper said on its website on Monday.”
This is quite a 180 degrees turn, considering the policy states they plan to reduce Nuclear to 50% by 2035- not expand it!
Or take Germany’s energy policy which after 10years and 500b spent has them producing 4.5x the carbon of France at 2x the cost to the consumer.
I’ll finish with a quote from Lee Yuan Yew (The founding father of Singapore):
“We are pragmatists. We don’t stick to any ideology. Does it work?
Let’s try it, and if it does work, fine, let’s continue it. If it doesn’t work, toss it out, try another one. We are not enamored with any ideology.”