|
|
|
|
|
by audunw
744 days ago
|
|
Yeah, and think about the amount of political support you could get for geothermal projects if workers from the oil and gas sector could see a clear and easy path to adapt their skills. Globally viable geothermal power generation would be an absolute game changer for fighting climate change. It doesn’t have to be better than nuclear. If it’s even close to being as good, the benefits of getting ex oil/gas people/companies on board would more than outweigh the difference. The growth rate could potentially hit levels that make a substantial impact on climate change within a decade of the initial ramp. |
|
It's counter intuitive but if we did move that way we need a LOT more petro infrastructure going forward. And without irony it would be better for us.
Capturing all the wasted natural gas (that gets flared off) as a reorient to maintain existing wells lowers carbon foot print and makes the use of gas less attractive due to cost.
Petrochemical products aren't going away any time soon. Unless we want to go back to hunting whales for things like lubricants. Having useful plastics (because there are tons of medical uses). And we're not getting rid of fertilizer (cause feeding 8 billion people is hard).
There are reasons to keep the drilling side and the current matinence side around doing what they do today while lowering carbon foot print.