Talk:Fossil fuel phase-out

Middle East

No mention of the role of the Middle East is found in the article. What would or could be there experience, and how could Middle Eastern nations participate in the abolition or total phase-out of all fossil fuels (and the transformation to a fully clean, renewable energy economy)? Of course, the term MENA - Middle East North Africa - is the term for that general region which includes 19 to 28 nations.

MENA has no standardized definition; different organizations define the region as consisting of different territories. The Wikipedia article on MENA lists the 19-28 commonly included countries and territories of the Middle East and North Africa. Sometimes, we see the terms MENAT (the 19 or more nations PLUS Turkey); sometimes we see the term MENAP (closer to the full 28 nations by including Palestine).

Without discussing MENA (about 350 million human residents, according to the World Bank) or of MENAT (or MENAP), how exhaustive or balanced can any article's discussion of the topic be?

See also: Economy of the Middle East

The MENA region has vast reserves of petroleum and natural gas that make it a vital source of global economic stability. According to the Oil and Gas Journal (January 1, 2009), the MENA region has 60% of the world's oil reserves (810.98 billion barrels (128.936 km³)) and 45% of the world's natural gas reserves ( 2,868,886 billion cubic feet (81,237.8 km³) ).

As of 2011, 8 of the 12 OPEC nations are within the MENA region. MaynardClark (talk) 03:22, February 22, 2015‎ (UTC)

Refs for this section

References

I deleted “ Implications of an unmitigated world peak”

I deleted the below because it turned out that the energy crisis was not what they expected but was caused by Mr Putin and did not really affect the US anyway

Implications of an unmitigated world peak

See also: Hirsch report

Oil depletion scenarios

According to the Hirsch report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy in 2005, a global decline in oil production would have serious social and economic implications without due preparation. Initially, an unmitigated peak in oil production would manifest itself as rapidly escalating prices and a worldwide energy crisis. While past oil shortages stemmed from a temporary insufficiency of supply, crossing Hubbert's Peak means that the production of oil continues to decline, so demand must be reduced to meet supply. If alternatives or conservation (orderly demand destruction) are not forthcoming, then disorderly demand destruction will occur, with the possible effect that the many products and services produced with oil become scarcer, leading to lower living standards.

• Air travel, using roughly 7% of world oil consumption, would be one of the affected services. The energy density of hydrocarbons and the power density of a jet engine are so necessary for aviation that hydrocarbon fuels are nearly impossible to replace with electricity, to an extent beyond any other common mode of transport.
• A US Army Corps of Engineers report on the military's energy options states

“ The Army and the nation’s heavy use of oil and natural gas is not well coordinated with either the nation’s or the Earth’s resources and upcoming availability. ”

• Shipping costs

“ On average, a one percent increase in fuel prices leads to a 0.4% increase in total freight rates. Using this rule of thumb, the recent doubling in oil prices has raised averaged freight rates by almost 40%. ”

Shipping costs are particularly relevant to a country like Japan that has greater food miles.

• Increasing cost of oil for importing countries ultimately reduces those countries' purchase of non-oil goods abroad. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco discusses oil and the US balance of trade:

“ Oil prices have almost quadrupled since the beginning of 2002. For an oil-importing country like the U.S., this has substantially increased the cost of petroleum imports. International trade data suggest that this increase has exacerbated the deterioration of the U.S. trade deficit, especially since the second half of 2004. ”

US indications of economic volatility have manifested themselves in the largest increase in inflation rates in 15 years (Sept. 2005), due mostly to higher energy costs.

• Significant oil producing countries will have a national purchasing advantage over similar countries with no oil to sell. This can result in larger militaries for oil producers or inflation of the price of whatever commodities they purchase. Saudi Arabia purchased US$40 billion worth of arms from the US between 1990 and 2000.
• The United States averaged 464 US gallons (1,760 L) of gas per person in 2004. Therefore, increased gasoline cost will likely make gas reducing alternatives increasingly necessary and common for lower income US residents.

Those who feel that much more drastic imminent social and cultural changes will occur from oil shortages are known as doomers. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Do we need the hydro, solar, nuclear and biomass sections?

I think they should be deleted as out of scope or replaced with excerpts - what do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It's does seem to be unbalanced. Would be good if it were rewritten with sources about a fossil fuel phase-out, rather than a random collection. I guess we'll only need 4 paragraphs total. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Someone has just picked up my GAN on another article so no doubt I will be busy for some time fixing all the faults they find and won’t have time for this. If I remember right the predictions for the next couple of decades (that is before fusion becomes commercial if it ever does) are that most new generation capacity will be solar - so if people agree maybe someone could drastically shorten all the other non-fossil generation technologies for example by excerpting fewer paragraphs. And maybe solar could be a biggish excerpt. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I had forgotten about this. Have boldly replaced the non-fossil sources with an excerpt from Sustainable energy as that is a featured article.

Anyone - feel free to undo and discuss here further Chidgk1 (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've just made some improvements on the structure of the article, and took out some content that I regarded as overly detailed and digressing into other topic areas. This important article needs some further tender, love and care though! EMsmile (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Should the energy efficiency section be deleted?

The graphs don’t seem to be about energy efficiency so if needed should probably be moved to another section.

Apart from the graphs the cites are all from 2007, so how do we know that energy efficiency is still needed for fossil fuel phase out (apart from the efficiency gain which comes anyway with electrification)? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you and have deleted that section now. EMsmile (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)