Why fossil-fuel giants underestimate electric cars, renewable energy

Mass adoption of electric cars and renewable energy could significantly decrease global consumption of fossil fuels. But does the traditional energy industry view these new developments as a threat?

Al Grillo/AP
In this 2007 photo, an oil transit pipeline runs across the tundra to flow station at the Prudhoe Bay oil field on Alaska's North Slope.

Mass adoption of electric cars and renewable energy could significantly decrease global consumption of fossil fuels.

But does the established energy industry view these new developments as a threat?

In a recent report, ExxonMobil said coal could continue to provide the majority of the world's electricity-generation capacity in 2040, and that electric cars would only make up around 10 percent of the U.S. new-car market by that time.

Yet new estimates from other sources indicate ExxonMobil and other fossil-fuel giants might want to take electric cars and renewable energy more seriously.

Falling costs for both electric cars and solar panels "could halt fossil-fuel growth by 2020," according to findings by Imperial College London and Carbon Tracker reported by The Guardian.

By 2035, electric cars could make up 35 percent of the vehicle market, and could account for two-thirds of that market by 2050, according to the two institutions.

At the predicted 2050 level, electric cars could displace 25 million barrels of oil per day, according to their report.

The report also predicted that solar power could account for 23 percent of global electricity-generation capacity by 2040, and 29 percent by 2050.

Under that scenario, coal would be entirely phased out, while natural gas would account for just 1 percent of the generating mix, the report claims.

The same predicted scenario would see coal and oil demand peak by 2020, while natural-gas demand would be "curtailed."

These predictions are based in part on what researchers say are significant decreases in the prices of electric-car batteries and photovoltaic solar cells over the past few years.

Solar-cell prices have fallen 85 percent over the past seven years, while electric-car battery costs have fallen 73 percent in that time, according to Carbon Tracker.

It pegs the current average battery price at $268 per kilowatt-hour, but believes that will decrease to $100 per kwh by 2020.

Carbon Tracker, a think-tank that studies the potential impact of climate change on investment, believes fossil-fuel companies may be caught unprepared for a major shift.

"Electric vehicles and solar power are game-changers that the fossil-fuel industry consistently underestimates," Luke Sassams, senior researcher at Carbon Tracker, said in a statement.

If the Carbon Tracker and Imperial College report's findings prove correct, electric cars and renewable energy could have as much impact on the value of oil assets as the OPEC price war that triggered the price crash of 2014, notes Bloomberg.

The report predicts that about 2 million barrels a day will be displaced by 2025, equivalent to the amount of oversupply that triggered the price crash, the news service said.

Oil companies haven't completely ignored alternative energy sources.

Royal Dutch Shell and Total have both discussed placing electric-car charging stations at their European fuel stations, and Total also controls solar-panel maker SunPower.

Norwegian oil giant Statoil and BP are also involved with offshore wind farms.

But it does not appear that any oil company anticipates a wholesale transition away from fossil fuels, so it will be interesting to see what might happen if such a transition really does occur.

This story originally appeared on GreenCarReports.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why fossil-fuel giants underestimate electric cars, renewable energy
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today