???? 據油價網2月6日消息稱，貝克休斯的首席執行官Lorenzo Simonelli在今年的公司年度會議上的主題演講中說：“油氣資源不會消失。”與該行業的其他高管一樣，Simonelli承認并歡迎能源轉型，但他指出，實現100%的可再生能源是不可能的。盡管許多環保人士抱有希望和雄心，但有大量證據表明情況確實如此。
????這些希望和雄心設想了這樣一個世界:人類活動僅由電力提供動力，而這些電力反過來也僅使用太陽能、風能和水電等可再生能源來發電。
????然而，這樣的世界是不現實的。
????以德國為例。該國是擁有最多可再生能源產能的歐盟成員國之一，但自今年年初以來，該國沒有通過太陽能生產過一瓦電。原因是:現在是冬天。它正在通過大量的風能生產電，這是肯定的，但它也在用最受鄙視的化石燃料—煤炭發電。
????在撰寫本文時，其碳強度為每千瓦時264克二氧化碳當量。這與歐洲另一個可再生能源的模范國家丹麥的碳強度相當，丹麥目前的大部分能源來自風力發電。
????因此，似乎建立可再生能源本身并不是解決排放問題的靈丹妙藥。事實上，如果你建得太快而沒有增加足夠的存儲容量，可能會適得其反。最近，克羅地亞變電站的一個小問題引發了歐洲的大面積停電，這一事件波及整個歐洲大陸，凸顯了保持電網頻率恒定的重要性——可再生能源由于間歇性發電而無法做到這一點。
????即使是丹麥也有火力發電廠，以確保任何電網正常運行所需的基本負荷，并消除或至少減少停電的風險。
????回到Simonelli關于石油和天然氣有保障的未來的預測。這個未來不會像過去一樣。世界正在堅定地改變其產生和使用能源的方式。
????首先，能源效率將是這一轉變的重要組成部分。
????最近，效率已經被人們淡出了視線，取而代之的是綠色氫燃料和持續減排的理念，但它并沒有消失。根據貝克休斯Simellielli的說法，僅靠效率就可以幫助實現巴黎協議中27%的氣候變化目標。在全球范圍內，這是一個巨大的減排量，每年減少5億噸。
????除了提高效率外，大型石油公司還在投資者、監管機構和維權人士的壓力下做出了各種承諾。每一個超級巨頭現在都有一個可再生能源轉型計劃，有些比其他的更雄心勃勃。所有這些計劃都涉及將數十億美元投入這些公司的核心業務—從地下開采石油和天然氣，當然，這是以碳和甲烷排放為代價的。
????曹海斌 摘譯自 油價網
????原文如下：
????FOSSIL FUELS AREN’T GOING ANYWHERe
????“There is no scenario where hydrocarbons disappear,” the chief executive of Baker Hughes, Lorenzo Simonelli, said during his keynote speech at this year’s annual meeting in the company. Like other executives from the industry, Simonelli acknowledged and welcomed the energy transition, but he noted that a 100-percent renewable energy scenario was simply not possible. There is plenty of evidence this is indeed the case, despite the hopes and ambitions of many environmental advocates.
????These hopes and ambitions imagine a world where human activity is powered from electricity only, and this electricity in turn is being generated using only renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower.
????Such a world, however, is unrealistic.
????Take Germany, for example. The country, which is among the EU members with the most renewable energy capacity, has not produced a single Watt of solar energy since the start of this year. The reason: it’s winter. It is producing solid amounts of wind power, that’s for sure, but it is also generating power from the most despised fossil fuel of all: coal.
????At the time of writing its carbon intensity was 264 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh. That was comparable to the carbon intensity of another poster girl for renewables in Europe, Denmark, which is currently getting most of its energy from wind power.
????So, it seems building renewable capacity in itself is not a silver bullet solution to the emissions problem. In fact, if you build it too quickly without adding substantial storage capacity, it could backfire. This was most recently evidenced by a narrow miss of a major blackout in Europe prompted by a minor problem at a Croatian substation that rippled through the continent, highlighting the importance of maintaining the grid at a constant frequency—something renewables cannot do because of their intermittent generation.
????Even Denmark has thermal power plants to secure the baseload any grid needs to function properly and eliminate or at least reduce the risk of blackouts.
????But back to Simonelli’s prediction about the guaranteed future of oil and gas. This future won’t be like the past. The world is firmly on course to change the way it generates and uses energy.
????Energy efficiency, for one, will be a big part of the transition.
????Efficiency has been pushed out of the spotlight recently, replaced by things like green hydrogen and the constant emission-reduction narrative, but it has not gone away. According to Baker Huges’ Simonelli, efficiency alone could help meet as much as 27 percent of the Paris Agreement climate change targets. On a global scale, this is a massive amount of emissions cut, at a rate of half a gigaton annually.
????In addition to efficiency, there are all the commitments Big Oil is making under pressure from investors, regulators, and activists. Every supermajor now has a renewable energy transition plan, some more ambitious than others. All the plans, however, involve pouring billions of dollars into what is essentially a move away from these companies’ core business of extracting oil and gas from the ground, at a carbon and methane emission cost, of course.
