Good. Bloomberg estimates the transition will be a $10 trillion upside for those upgrading and replacing fossils[1].
It remains to be seen who the winners will be. Incumbents (Excelon, Shell, SA, etc.) have market share, but will have to strand trillions of assets and reserves. Newcomers (Tesla, etc.) have to survive the energy boom-bust cycle that early fossil went through.
My money is on the newcomers (my startup is one). The incumbents' shareholders simply won't let them strand assets short term to transition to new energy business models.
This is extremely typical in the history of energy (wood, coal, oil, solar, nuclear, wind, and on and on) because of the speed at which things move. First, you come up with a new innovation, pump capital into building tons of it (the boom). Then, someone else comes up with an innovation, which busts you.
It's fundamentally impossible to defend an advantage/monopoly long term in energy (except with governments, e.g. utilities). Coincidentally, this is why we don't see much VC participation in energy, and when they do participate, they usually lose their shirt. The competitive fundamentals of energy aren't compatible with monopoly seeking.
>> It's fundamentally impossible to defend an advantage/monopoly long term in energy (except with governments, e.g. utilities)
I'd argue the causal factors here are more attributable to a combination of natural forces in quasi-free market economies (e.g. competition) and antitrust laws than the specific economics of the energy industry.
It remains to be seen who the winners will be. Incumbents (Excelon, Shell, SA, etc.) have market share, but will have to strand trillions of assets and reserves. Newcomers (Tesla, etc.) have to survive the energy boom-bust cycle that early fossil went through.
My money is on the newcomers (my startup is one). The incumbents' shareholders simply won't let them strand assets short term to transition to new energy business models.
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-16/investing...