The worldwide population of motor scooters is approaching 130 million. China alone produced over 40 million gasoline powered motor scooters in 2011.
Many of these engines emit 8 to 30 times the hydrocarbons and particulates emitted by automobiles.
Several companies are developing fuel cell powered scooters to reduce these enormous emissions. Fuel cells are devices that make electricity from hydrogen and oxygen, emitting only water vapor as exhaust.
When the hydrogen is produced from renewable sources, or even from natural gas, the emissions are far less than those resulting from oil refining and combustion. Fuel cell powered scooters run on that electricity.
What was unique about the company and its scooters was the approach APFCT took to fueling. APFCT designed their system with simplicity and consumer convenience in mind. Instead of taking the path of nearly all fuel cell transportation devices that require the refilling of an onboard cylinder with highly compressed hydrogen, the APFCT units use small canisters that store hydrogen in metal hydride powder.
Instead of driving the vehicle to a fueling station and waiting for a cylinder to be filled the user simply takes their empty canisters to a vendor who exchanges them for filled canisters (with about the same internal pressure as a racing bike tire).
In its first demonstration APFCT put 80 scooters on the road at a beach resort in southern Taiwan. Tourists were permitted to use the scooters for free.
When they ran out of hydrogen all they needed to do was to take the empty canisters to any 7–Eleven convenience store, repair shop or police station for exchange. Why 7-Eleven? Taiwan has the fifth largest number of 7-Eleven stores in the world, behind the U.S., Japan, Thailand and South Korea. There is a 7-Eleven within walking distance of almost any place in Taiwan.
APFCT has continued to build upon this hydride storage fueling model over the last two years. It has tested a number of different vehicles, all of which use identical canisters. Those with larger hydrogen demands simply require more canisters for operation.
Last November, APFCT began a second scooter demonstration in Taiwan with the city government of Taipei. In this demonstration 20 scooters have been deployed for use in environmental auditing site inspections and surveying by city officials.
APFCT says this current model would sell for about NTD 90,000 (about USD 3,000). That’s not quite a commercial price, but getting close. Assuming a successful demonstration, orders from city governments and the public could generate sufficient volume to get the price down, which would make APFCT fuel cell scooter be competitive with gasoline powered scooters.
Gerry Runte is Managing Director of Worthington Sawtelle LLC a consulting and research firm which provides a full portfolio of business planning and strategy services to both new and existing participants in emerging energy markets. Recent engagements include market assessments, policy analysis and development; business strategy; go-to-market planning and launch; product commercialization strategies; feasibility studies; and due diligence on behalf of investors.
Gerry has 38 years of experience in the energy industry, much of which at the executive level. He holds a B.S. and M.Eng in Nuclear Engineering from Pennsylvania State University. Contact email@example.com; tel: +1 (207) 361-7143; skype: gerry.runte
QUANTiNO to be unveiled at the 2015 Geneva International Motor Show
nanoFlowcell AG will be presenting the first QUANT low-voltage vehicle as a concept vehicle at the Geneva International Motor Show March 5-15, 2015. The QUANTiNO low-voltage vehicle has a rated voltage of 48 V and 1,000+ km range.
“This car is a sensation and will be one of the absolute highlights at the 2015 Geneva International Motor Show,” proclaims Prof. Jens Ellermann, President of the Board of Directors of nanoFlowcell AG.
No ‘range anxiety’ with nanoFlowcell® battery technology
The innovative drive concept comprising low-voltage system and nanoFlowcell® provides the QUANTiNO with a range of over 1,000 km.
With its two 175-litre tanks, the QUANTiNO is able to carry 350 litres of ionic liquid in total – one tank with a positive charge and one with a negative charge.
The refuelling process is similar to the procedure which is customary today, the sole difference being that two tanks are filled simultaneously — each with a different fluid.
“Low-voltage systems are an ideal match for the nanoFlowcell®. They enable us to generate levels of drive power that previously appeared impossible. And we are only at the beginning of our development work.
The initial tests and simulations already indicate far greater potential. This concept represents a real alternative for the electric mobility of the future, with outstanding drive power and vast ranges,” says Nunzio La Vecchia.
Measuring 3.91 metres in length, the QUANTiNO is a 2+2-seater boasting a unique design. A striking design element are the 22-inch wheels.
“The QUANTiNO is an electric vehicle for everyone. Affordable and featuring an extravagant, unique design.
It is not just a concept vehicle – it will become reality in the course of this year. We will be driving the QUANTiNO in 2015. And we aim to attain approval for road use very quickly,” says Nunzio La Vecchia, Chief Technical Officer at nanoFlowcell AG.
The official world premiere of the QUANTiNO will take place on 3 March 2015 at a press conference to be held at the 2015 Geneva International Motor Show (hall 1, stand 1224).
The doors will open to the public 5 – 15 March 2015.
More QUANTiNO information to be released at the Geneva International Motor Show.
Clean and Clean-Burn: Energy, the way it should be
Of all the energy that is available to us, solar energy is by far the most available and the most evenly distributed energy resource on planet Earth.
Wind and Solar + natural gas = Synergy
Solar is available all day every day. But not at night.
Wind is available day and night, but it can produce variable power levels as the wind blows over the landscape.
Meanwhile, offshore wind turbines produce constant power, spinning at constant speeds for years at a time — except when an operator locks the blades during large storms or during the annual maintenance inspection.
Both solar power and wind power face varying levels of ‘intermittency‘ — which requires the use of ‘peaking power plants‘ or ‘load-following’ power plants — to meet total demand.
‘Catch my Fall’ — All electrical power generators are inter-dependent
How electricity grids use different power generators to meet total and constantly changing electricity demand.
In the case of renewable energy, the negatives include some variability in the total output of solar power or wind power generation due to temporary cloud cover or storms. At such times, natural gas-fired generation can ramp-up to cover any shortfall.
Note: This is a common and daily energy grid practice whether renewable energy is involved or not. Some gas-fired power plants are called peaking power plants which quickly ramp-up to meet output shortfalls. In fact, peaking power plants (which are almost always gas-fired) were created to meet temporary shortfalls — and were in widespread use long before renewable energy ever hit the market.
Also in the case of renewable energy, another negative is that the Sun disappears at night and solar panels stop contributing to the grid. And unless you have offshore wind turbines to make up the shortfall, onshore wind turbines may fall short of total demand. So at night, you need reliable power to make up shortfalls in primary generation.
Note: This is a common and daily energy grid practice whether renewable energy is involved or not. To cover this situation load-following power plants were designed to meet larger output shortfalls. In fact, load-following power plants were created to meet larger, daily, shortfalls — and were in widespread use long before renewable energy ever hit the market.
In the case of natural gas, the negative is that gas is subject to wild price swings, thereby making gas-fired generation very expensive. Which is why it evolved into peaking power plants, less often in the load-following role and almost never as a baseload power generator.
The other negative associated with natural gas is of course, the fact that gas turbines put out plenty of CO2. That we can deal with. Unlike coal, where the CO2 portion of the airborne emissions are almost the least of our worries — as coal emissions are loaded with toxic heavy metals, soot and other airborne toxins.
How can we deal with the CO2 emitted by gas-fired peaking power plants?
As gas-fired peaking power plants typically fire up anywhere from a couple of dozen hours annually, to a few hours of every day (usually to cover the additional load of many air conditioners suddenly switching on during hot summer days, for example) we aren’t talking about a whole lot of CO2.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) of gas-fired CO2 emissions via tree planting
Peaking power plants operate for a few hours per year. We’re not talking that much CO2.
Load-following power plants operate for many hours per year. More CO2.
But still, each mature tree absorbs (a low average of) 1 ton of CO2 from the atmosphere and keeps it in storage for many decades. Some trees, like the ancient Sequoia trees in California, are 3700 years old and store 26 tons of CO2 each!
And, as anyone who has worked in the forest industry knows; Once that first planting hits maturity (in about 10 years) they will begin dropping their yearly seeds. Some trees like the cottonwood tree produce 1 million seeds annually for the life of the tree. American Elm trees set 5 million seeds per year. More trees. Always good.
It’s an easy calculation:“How many tons of CO2 did ABC gas-fired power plant output last year?” Therefore:“How many trees do we need to plant, to cover those emissions?”
Simply plant a corresponding number of trees and presto! gas-fired generation is carbon neutral
By calculating how many tons each gas-fired peaking plant contributes and planting enough trees each year to cover their CO2 contribution, it could allow them to become just as carbon neutral as solar panels or wind turbines.
The total number of trees that we would need to plant in order to draw gas-fired peaking power plant CO2 emissions down to zero would be a relatively small number — per local power plant.
By calculating how many tons each gas-firedload-following power plant contributes and planting enough trees annually to cover their CO2 contribution they too could become just as carbon neutral as solar panels or wind turbines. Many more trees, but still doable and a simple solution!
The total number of trees that we would need to plant in order to draw gas-firedload-following power plant CO2 emissions down to zero would be a much larger number. But NOT an impossible number!
So now is the time to get kids involved as part of their scholastic environmental studies, planting trees one day per month for the entire school year.
Let the peaking and load-following power plants contribute the tree seedlings as part of their media message that the local gas-fired power plant is completely carbon neutral (ta-da!) due to the combined forces of the gas power plant operator, the natural carbon storage attributes of trees, and students.
Up to one million trees could be planted annually if every school (all grades) in North America contributed to the effort — thereby sequestering an amount of CO2 equal to, or greater than, all gas-fired generation on the continent.
It’s so simple when you want something to work. Hallelujah!
Baseload, peaking, and load-following power plants
Historically, natural gas was too expensive to used in baseload power plants due to the wildly fluctuating natural gas pricing and high distribution costs, but it is in wide use around the world in the peaking power plant role, and less often, in the load following power plant role.
Renewable energy power plants can be linked to ‘peaking’ or ‘load-following’ natural gas-fired power plants to assure uninterrupted power flows.
Peaking power plants operate only during times of peak demand.
In countries with widespread air conditioning, demand peaks around the middle of the afternoon, so a typical peaking power plant may start up a couple of hours before this point and shut down a couple of hours after.
However, the duration of operation for peaking plants varies from a good portion of every day to a couple dozen hours per year.
Peaking power plants include hydroelectric and gas turbine power plants. Many gas turbine power plants can be fueled with natural gas or diesel. — Wikipedia
Using natural gas for baseload power
Natural gas has some strong points in its favour. Often it is the case that we can tap into existing underground gas reservoirs by simply drilling a pipe into naturally occurring caverns in the Earth which have filled with natural gas over many millions of years. In such cases, all that is required is some minor processing to remove impurities and adding some moisture and CO2 to enable safe transport (whether by pipeline, railway, or truck) to gas-fired power plants which may be located hundreds of miles away.
It is the natural gas market pricing system that prevents gas from becoming anything other than a stopgap energy generator (read: peaking or load-following) and almost never a baseload energy generator.
Let’s look at local solutions to that problem.
Several corporations are working with local governments to find innovative ways to capture landfill gas to produce electricity from it.
Increasingly, landfills are now installing perforated pipes underground which draw the landfill gas (so-called ‘swamp methane’) to an on-site processing facility. It is a low-grade gas which is then blended with conventional natural gas to create an effective transportation or power generation fuel.
Waste Management Industries is a global leader in the implementation of this technology, using its own landfills and municipal landfills across North America to produce over 550 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 440,000 homes. This amount of energy is equivalent to offsetting over 2.2 million tons of coal per year. Many more similar operations are under construction as you read this.
Aquatera gives us another great example of how to turn a mundane landfill site into a valuable and clean Waste-to-Fuel resource.
Durban, South Africa, a city of 3.5 million people, has created a huge Waste-to-Fuel landfill power plant that provides electricity to more than 5000 nearby homes.
Durban Solid Waste (DSW) receives 4000 tons of trash per day which produces some 2600 cubic metres of gas daily.
The GE Clean Cycle Waste-to-Fuel power plant arrives in 4 large shipping containers, and once connected to the gas supply pipeline it is ready to power nearby buildings and to sell surplus power to the grid.
One GE Clean Cycle Waste-to-Fuel power plant unit can generate 1 million kWh per year from waste heat and avoid more than 350 metric tons of CO2 per year, equivalent to the emissions of almost 200 cars.
Blending Conventional Natural Gas with Landfill Gas
As conventional natural gas is expensive (and much of the cost is associated with transportation of the gas over long distances) when we blend it 50/50 with landfill gas, we drop the cost of the gas by half. Thereby making blended natural gas (from two very different sources) more competitive as a power generation fuel.
By blending conventional natural gas 50/50 with landfill gas; We could produce baseload power with it — but more likely than that, we could use it to produce reasonably-priced load-following or peaking power to augment existing and future renewable energy power plants — rather than allow all that raw methane from landfills to escape into the atmosphere.
Best of Both Worlds — Renewable Energy and Natural Gas
Partnering renewable energy with natural gas in this way allows each type of power generator to work to their best strength — while countering negatives associated with either renewable energy or natural gas.
Renewable power generation and lower cost natural gas can work together to make coal-fired electrical power generation obsolete and accelerate progress toward our clean air goals.
Adding new jobs to the economy is always a good thing
In good times or bad, adding more jobs to the economy always equates to higher GDP, lower debt-to-GDP levels, lowered unemployment insurance expenditures, and higher revenues for governments from income tax and sales tax.
There are no examples where adding net jobs to an economy has resulted in a net loss to the economy
It’s positive for individuals too. Higher employment levels generally lead to higher incomes, small and large businesses notice increased revenue, and there is always the chance that companies may begin to expand their facilities and hire more staff to handle increased sales.
Which is why the case to add more renewable energy is so compelling
Over decades of time, mature industries have found ways to increase output with fewer employees.
In the Top 10 on the mature industry list, must certainly be hydro-electric power plants, followed by nuclear power plants, and gas-fired power plants. There we have astronomical installation costs and employment numbers — but once construction of the power plant is completed, only very low staffing levels remain to operate the power plant.
Which is very unlike the case with renewable energy. Why? Because once a multi-billion dollar hydro-electric dam is built, it’s built. You don’t need to build thousands of them per day.
It’s the same with multi-billion dollar nuclear power plants — all you need after the construction phase ends are a small number of highly trained people to monitor the various systems. And some security people. That’s it.
With solar panels, a factory must produce 1000 per day (or more, in the case of larger factories) every weekday. Suitable markets must be found, factories must be built/leased, production floors must be built, materials sourced, and the panels themselves must be designed and engineered, assembled, packed, shipped and accounted for. Accountants do what they must do, marketing people manage a steady train of media events, trade shows and advertising programs, and on and on it goes — and all of it is a part of the solar industry. That activity creates work for thousands of people, every workday of the year. (And that short description doesn’t begin to cover it)
Then there are the solar panel installers, the sales teams/estimators, and the companies that build the inverter systems, which is a whole other value chain.
The wind power industry can also make high employment/lower power plant cost claims — although wind turbines average about $1 million dollars each — as opposed to solar panels which mostly range from $10 each to $400 each, depending on their size and composition.
Renewable energy is hugely labour-intensive and many thousands of permanent jobs are created — quite the opposite of conventional power generation
It is worth noting that 2014 renewable energy employment numbers (once they become available) will show a significant improvement over 2013 numbers.
The entire industry is surging forward unequally, but renewable energy growth in some nations is trending upwards like the Millennium Falcon trends upwards.
Below is a breakdown graphic showing the labour intensity of the various types of renewable energy.
We can also look at a breakdown graphic of jobs per MegaWatt (MW) of electricity produced where we see that coal, nuclear, and oil & gas require very few humans per MW of generation.
There’s no doubt that global energy demand is growing, not only in the developed world, but in the developing world as well.
Each kind of energy (renewable and non-renewable energy) has it’s own pros and cons
One of them is that non-renewable energy requires far fewer person-years of employment over the lifetime of the power plant.
Renewable energy on the other hand, is a rapidly-growing manufacturing, installation, and marketing industry that requires evermore blue collar and white collar employees.
And now that solar power, wind power, and biomass power have reached — or are within months of matching (per kWh) price parity with non-renewable power plants — the question becomes;
Do we want to employ 1.3 persons full-time per MW, or do we want to employ up to 24 people full-time per MW?
For comparison purposes, the typical coal, gas, or nuclear power plant can supply 1000 MW (or 1 GigaWatt) of electrical generation capacity, while the average wind turbine can supply 1 MW each.
The average 1 MW wind turbine costs about $1 million apiece, so to get 1 GW of electrical generation capacity, you need to install 1000 of them (1000 x $1 million each = $1 billion total) and the installation and connection to the grid of that many turbines might take up to 24 months.
Each 1 GW installation of coal, gas, or nuclear power, costs well over $1 billion and can take up to 15 years to construction completion.
For example, the 2.4 GW nuclear power plant under construction in Vogtle, Georgia was originally planned to cost $14 billion, but due to construction and regulatory delays it may cost significantly more.
How much more, is difficult to say both in dollar cost and time frame.
At this point, the total cost may exceed $15.4 billion and it may take an extra year to complete — for a total of 2.4 GW of installed capacity over 11 years of construction and delays, at a total cost of $6.41 billion per GigaWatt. It won’t get any better than that, but it may get much worse.
The 10-year construction plan is already behind schedule by 14-months, and now faces an additional (up to) 18-month delay.
Southern Co. said the firms building its new nuclear power plant in Georgia estimate the project will be delayed 18 months, potentially costing the power company $720 million in new charges, company officials said Thursday. — ABC News
One point about Plant Vogtle (the official name of the plant) is that the two 1200 MW (1.2 GW) reactors are of the latest GE/Toshiba AP-1000 design, noted for their passive safety systems and many safety redundancies built into the power plant. If you’re going to build a nuclear power plant it might as well be the safest one!
As new capacity is added to global electrical grids, more of it is renewable energy
More utility companies are adding new renewable energy capacity as opposed to adding new non-renewable energy capacity due to faster installation time frames, fewer regulatory delays, the lack of fuel supply concerns going forward, and total installation cost per GigaWatt (GW).
It’s easy to visualize this in the chart below.
In 2013, of the 207 GW added to the world’s electrical grids — renewable energy accounted for 120 GW of new installations, while 87 GW accounted for non-renewable energy.
Once the 2014 numbers are released to the public, the renewable energy statistic will have improved over 2013’s numbers. And 2016 should easily surpass the 70/30 metric.
As renewable energy displaces non-renewable energy additions to the grid — remember that renewable energy gets only 1/4 of the subsidies that fossil fuel energy gets!
Imagine if renewable energy got the same subsidies per kWh, or per GigaWatt of capacity, as non-renewable energy
In practical terms, it would mean that 100% of all new generation would soon be renewable energy, everywhere that subsidy-parity was the law.
Also, the renewable energy manufacturing sector would need to quickly ramp-up to meet demand — meaning many hundreds of thousands of permanent jobs would be created immediately after the levelized subsidy was announced.
Between 2017-2019 — and even with the higher subsidies enjoyed by coal, nuclear, and oil & gas — it will cost less to install new renewable energy power plants than to install new non-renewable energy power plants.
Germany is one of the countries leading the transition to renewable energy
Due to German public pressure in the aftermath of the Fukushima-Daiichi incident in March 2011, Germany shut down nearly half of their nuclear power plants and were forced to accelerate their transition timeline to renewable energy.
This unexpected development created additional costs for Germany, but regardless, their Energiewende program is still a stunning renewable energy success story.
Although progress has slowed from the frenetic pace of 2011-2013, Germany is very much a world leader in the transition to renewable energy.
Renewable energy was the number one source of power generation for the first time ever.
Renewables gained slightly in 2014 and now comprise 27.3 percent of domestic demand.
Here is a nice chart courtesy of our friends at the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany.
There is no doubt that the world will transition to renewable energy, and even major oil companies like Shell and BP are in agreement that by the year 2100, almost 95% of all energy demand will be met by renewable energy.
In one scenario, Shell says that by 2060 the largest energy provider will be solar power.
How quickly that energy transition will occur — is what the present conversation is all about
Increasingly, the conversation centres around matching renewable energy subsidies with the (4x higher) subsidies enjoyed by coal, nuclear, and oil & gas power generation.
So get ready to breathe fresh air, because change is coming!
By now, we’re all aware of the threat to the well-being of life on this planet posed by our massive and continued use of fossil fuels and the various ways we might attempt to reduce the rate of CO2 increase in our atmosphere.
Divestment in the fossil fuel industry is one popular method under discussion to lower our massive carbon additions to our atmosphere
The case for divestment generally flows along these lines;
By making investment in fossil fuels seem unethical, investors will gradually move away from fossil fuels into other investments, leaving behind a smaller but hardcore cohort of fossil fuel investors.
Resulting (in theory) in a gradual decline in the total global investment in fossil fuels, thereby lowering consumption and CO2 additions to the atmosphere. So the thinking goes.
It worked well in the case of tobacco, a few decades back. Over time, fewer people wanted their names or fund associated with the tobacco industry — so much so, that the tobacco industry is now a mere shadow of its former self.
Interestingly, Solaris (a hybridized tobacco plant) is being grown and processed into biofuel to power South African Airways (SAA) jets. They expect all flights to be fully powered by tobacco biofuel within a few years, cutting their CO2 emissions in half. Read more about that here.
Another way to curtail carbon emissions is to remove the massive fossil fuel subsidies
In 2014, the total global fossil fuel subsidy amounted to $548 billion dollars according to the IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) although it was projected to hit $600 billion before the oil price crash began in September. The global fossil fuel subsidy amount totalled $550 billion dollars in 2013. For 2012, it totalled $525 billion dollars. (These aren’t secret numbers, they’re easily viewed at the IEA and major news sites such as Reuters and Bloomberg)
Yes, removing those subsidies would do much to lower our carbon emissions as many oil and gas wells, pipelines, refineries and port facilities would suddenly become hugely uneconomic.
We don’t recognize them for the white elephants they are, because they are obscured by mountains of cash.
And there are powerful lobby groups dedicated to keeping those massive subsidies in place.
Ergo, those subsidies likely aren’t going away, anytime soon.
Reducing our CO2 footprint via a carbon tax scheme
But for all of the talk… not much has happened.
The fossil fuel industry will spin this for decades, trying to get the world to come to contretemps on the *exact dollar amount* of fossil fuel damage to the environment.
Long before any agreement is reached we will be as lobsters in a pot due to global warming.
And know that there are powerful lobby groups dedicated to keeping a carbon tax from ever seeing the light of day.
The Third Option: Levelling the Subsidy Playing Field
Continue fossil fuel subsidies at the same level and not institute a carbon tax.
Quickly ramp-up renewable energy subsidies to match existing fossil fuel subsidies.
Both divestment in fossil fuels and reducing fossil fuel subsidies attempt to lower our total CO2 emissions by (1) reducing fossil fuel industry revenues while (2)a carbon tax attempts to lower our total CO2 use/emissions by increasing spending for the fossil fuel industry
I prefer (3) a revenue-neutral and spending-neutral solution (from the oil company’s perspective) to lower our CO2 use/emissions.
So far, there are no (known) powerful fossil fuel lobby groups dedicated to preventing renewable energy from receiving the same annual subsidy levels as the fossil fuel industry.
Imagine how hypocritical the fossil fuel industry would look if it attempted to block renewable energy subsidies set to the same level as fossil fuel subsidies.
Renewable energy received 1/4 of the total global subsidy amount enjoyed by fossil fuel (2014)
Were governments to decide that renewable energy could receive the same global, annual subsidy as the fossil fuel industry, a number of things would begin to happen;
Say goodbye to high unemployment.
Say goodbye to the dirtiest fossil projects.
Immediate lowering of CO2 emissions.
Less imported foreign oil.
Cleaner air in cities.
Sharp decline in healthcare costs.
Democratization of energy through all socio-economic groups.
Even discounting the global externality cost of fossil fuel (which some commentators have placed at up to $2 trillion per year) the global, annual $548 billion fossil fuel subsidy promotes an unfair marketplace advantage.
But instead of punishing the fossil fuel industry for supplying us with reliable energy for decades (by taking away ‘their’ subsidies) or by placing on them the burden of a huge carbon tax (one that reflects the true cost of the fossil fuel externality) I suggest that we simply match the renewable energy subsidy to the fossil subsidy… and let both compete on a level playing field in the international marketplace.
Assuming a level playing field; May the best competitor win!
By matching renewable energy subsidies to fossil fuel subsidies, ‘Energy Darwinism’ will reward the better energy solution
My opinion is that renewable energy will win hands down and that we will exceed our clean air goals over time — and stop global warming in its tracks.
Not only that, but we will create hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs and accrue other benefits during the transition to renewable energy. We will also lower healthcare spending, agricultural damage, and lower damage to steel and concrete infrastructure from acid rain.
In the best-case future: ‘Oil & Gas companies’ will simply become known as ‘Energy companies’
Investors will simply migrate from fossil fuel energy stock, to renewable energy stock, within the same energy company or group of energy companies.
At the advent of scheduled airline transportation nearly a century ago, the smart railway companies bought existing airlines (or created their own airlines) and kept their traditional investors and gained new ones.
Likewise, smart oil and gas companies, should now buy existing renewable energy companies (or create their own renewable energy companies) and keep their traditional investors and gain new ones.