Rapid Green Energy Transition Will Likely Result in Trillions of Net Savings

I mean, I agree with you (I just said sometimes people call it that, not that it is that) but I don't think anything you said really contradicts it being a kind of capitalism. After all Lenin and Stalin and Trotsky disagreed literally violently with each other but Soviet Communism is still a label that contains all their efforts and systems.

You are absolutely correct.

Supply Chains are primarily fossil based and can NOT be substituted with low density sources like Green Energy or even electricity at all.

For example, you can't efficiently make steel or most other metals with electricity alone. Even primarily electrically refined metals like copper or aluminum REQUIRE inputs that can not be made or refined or extracted with electricity. Often this is about chemical reductions that required carbon or other reductants that can't be effectively or efficiently made with electricity. The most obvious one is silicon - carbon reduction of SiO2 is the only and best efficient refining method (1st stage only - you need further far more energy intensive refining to make semiconductor-grade silicon).

Recently brought up in Congress was questions of how petrochemicals are to be produced if the Green goal of eliminating oil is accomplished. Stuff like plastics. All sorts of things depend upon plastics and plastics require petrochemicals. The most obvious one is plastic sterilization aids and sterile materials like syringes, packaging for needles, etc. ALL 20th century medicine is largely destroyed without petrochemicals. Also all pharmaceuticals deeply depend upon petrochemicals.

The respondent had no answer and she simply tried to resort to high-intensity angry BS. Clearly she'd never thought ANY of this through and didn't care because she was living off the anger of hating oil but knew nothing about how oil is used or how dependent all supply chains are on oil.

You are underestimating the good faith of the political class. In fact, they are borderline psychopathic with high levels Dunning-Kruger delusion about the correctness of their decisions/beliefs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHk7S6prF6M

The additional issue: PVs have finite lifespan. Lithium batteries have extremely finite lifespans. So you have to replace them and have ALL the supply chains to do that forever. Which are fossil fuel dependent at fundamental chemical/physical levels. So most of those supply chains can NEVER be made green.

Green Energy is primarily a Cargo-Cult Religion not based on facts. That is a major problem because if you shutdown fossil fuels, we will end up with nothing - we will not even manage to have the levels of civilization and technology seen in the last 300-500 years. Basically a dark age.

That's not the argument of peak oil. It's not about price or quantity of oil available in the planet. It's an argument about thermodynamics.

The argument is that in order to extract oil, you need to spend energy, and, logically, the most easier oil to extract is extracted first.

That means that oil extraction is every year more expensive (energetically not financially). Because technology can make extraction more efficient but not indefinitely, at some point, in order to extract oil, it will be necessary to spend the same energy than burning it creates.

I suppose we could say that it's kind of an inversion of what's going on with fusion research.

Some commenters say that we already pass that point and that's the reason oil companies CaPex have fall in the last years.

I don't know if that's the case, but I can't avoid to ask myself about solar.

Is the energy that a solar panel generate in its life enough for its normal use, plus extracting the minerals that it's made of, plus push the panel, through the ocean all the way from China? or are we fooling ourselves using oil for all that?

I would like to see some numbers and expert discussion about that.

No. Fossil fuels may be more energy dense But they need to be extracted, refined, transported and warehoused. The costs of greenhouse gas emissions through their environmental side effects are not even part of that calculation.

In the meantime, a wind turbine keeps generating energy as long a there is wind. We can't deplete wind or ocean waves as a resource.

The more we invest in renewable energy, the more efficient per follar speny it becomes.

> Companies saving vast amounts of it in war chests is, IMO (depending on how they save it), as it's effectively removing it from the economy.

Nobody saves money in Scrooge McDuck cash vaults. All the money is invested, all of it. Even money in a checking account is invested. (The banks invest it, that's why they offer free checking accounts. They're not a charity.)

The majority of people do invest in the stock market.

> the lower class

is not the majority. Even so, brokers like Robinhood have made it easy for anyone with a phone to invest.