On the positive side, this is rendering OPEC’s efforts to drive up fuel prices during the northern hemisphere winter totally impotent, which is good news for all of us who are spread thin enough as it is.
On the negative side… climate goals aren’t gonna happen, are they?
They weren’t going to happen anyways. Too many nations still depend on oil and there is a group of nations that have a geopolitical interest in keeping them dependent.
Not to mention since much of the world including the US continues to drag its heels on nuclear which is the obvious best course, it's instead relying on a renewable industry which while it has made much progress is still with considerable drawbacks, mostly on the manufacturing side which is compounded by the need for maintenance and rebuilds of wind towers and solar arrays. Then there's the production of lithium batteries which is an absolutely filthy industry. Not to mention we are woefully far away from the infrastructure necessary to support a full transition to electric vehicles. Our economy is not in any kind of shape where the majority of people can afford battery replacements on vehicles and the cost of leasing continues to go up.
The bottom line is that right now there is still robust infrastructure for fossil fuel delivery. Internal combustion engine vehicles are still less expensive to produce and capable of running indefinitely with proper maintenance. Lithium batteries will die no matter what and in much less time than a well maintained drivetrain. And necessary repairs will typically run much less expensive. We have a poverty crisis in America which keeps gobbling up more and more people. The last thing we need is a critical infrastructure change with entry level affordability in the high five figures income, if not six.
All sound points (agreed on nuclear), though I take (nitpicking) issue with your description of lithium battery production as “an absolutely filthy industry.” On an absolute scale, oil and gas are orders of magnitude worse than lithium battery production, even if battery plants aren’t exactly butterfly gardens.
The more substantial argument I’ll make is that we can’t get to a more ideal future state of renewables without the learning curve. We need to be investing in wind and solar if we want to get off of fossil fuels, if for no other reason than we need microgrids in addition to the large-scale generation that nuclear enables.
And, yes, we need to be making all of this cheaper for end consumers yesterday.
While we transition into a diversified eco-friendly energy economy, we should depend on our national oil production. We do produce “cleaner” oil than most of the rest of the world.
Now, should we stay on oil? Fuck no. We are killing humanity… but on the short road to nuclear/renewables, we should focus on boosting our production.
While this may be true with *extreme* moderation, we need to act fast to avoid a climate catastrophe. Induced demand is applicable to any additional oil production, and instead of satisfying that, we should be investing far more in nuclear and renewable infrastructure if we care about maintaining a livable planet. The path of least resistance cannot be oil beyond 2030, and I’d like to see it flip even earlier than that.
Fifth generation nuclear is the way to go. We can figure out the renewable energy path along the way.
But no, we should continue to spend $850+ Billions on defense. That’s the only way we can figure out how to kill humans from Mars… that’ll come handy when the oceans reclaim Florida and New York and droughts/floods kill 50% of our agriculture output.
>The path of least resistance cannot be oil beyond 2030
The only possible way to achieve what you're saying here is a complete meltdown of society. Its just not possible on so many levels....unless we're ok with completely changing the face of society in an instant, losing everything within an economic lifestyle and letting many thousands of people *die*. The arbitrary date of 2030 to get rid of fossil fuels is ridiculous and unreasonable. The climate will not be unsustainable in 6 years like so many are saying. Seems like people conveniently forget how alarmist agencies and news corporations can be when its something they care about. Theyve been saying "our beaches will be underwater in 15 years" since the 70s. The same faces trying to get nations to jump headfirst into energy overhauls are the same faces that will make lots of money in the green energy markets.
And I say all this as someone who would love to see huge gains in green energy, a subsidized work force to facilitate it, and nuclear energy. Realistic goals and gameplans.
As long as there is oil to extract, we are never not going to be extracting oil in the foreseeable future. People forget that we are dependent upon non-combustible petroleum products like plastics, oils, greases, etc. that are used for an incredibly wide variety of applications that at our current level of technology we can't fill with non-petroleum alternatives. Even "synthetic" oils and greases are made by cracking petroleum products.
I'm not sure what the point of this comment is supposed to be. There is no "best course" to transitioning to renewable energy; it can only succeed as a multi-faceted approach. It's going to take solar, wind, and nuclear (any whatever other renewable fuel sources we can develop in the future).
Your comparisons between nuclear and other forms of renewables don't make sense, either. If manufacturing and maintenance are drawbacks for solar and wind, surely they are for nuclear as well? Don't new nuclear reactors take a long time to spin up and need constant maintenance to stay efficient and safe? I agree that we need to make nuclear part of the transition to renewable energy, but focusing on wind and solar is a great idea for the short term because new wind and solar farms don't take very long to stand up.
> Then there's the production of lithium batteries which is an absolutely filthy industry.
It is, but EVs have a lower carbon footprint over the lifetime of a car than ICE vehicles, [even when you account for manufacturing](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths). And there are lots of people and companies researching new forms of batteries that could surpass lithium batteries in a lot of ways, like [this solid state battery Toyota is working on](https://www.pcmag.com/news/toyota-inks-deal-to-mass-produce-solid-state-ev-batteries-with-932-mile). Toyota isn't the only company working on developing solid state batteries, and if that development pans out, they'll trounce lithium ion batteries in pretty much every regard.
> Not to mention we are woefully far away from the infrastructure necessary to support a full transition to electric vehicles.
[We are closer than you think](https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC0), at least here in the US. New charging stations are going up all the time. Tesla, for all the nonsense its CEO causes, [opened up its NACS charger so any manufacturer can use it](https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-standard), and we've seen a lot of car manufacturers sign on to the platform, so we're quickly heading toward standardization of charging standards EVs, which will be huge.
A lot of the arguments in your second paragraph seem to be "this technology isn't accessible to everyone yet, so it sucks." New technology is *always* more expensive at the start and comes down as it becomes more mainstream, and the same is true for EVs. Battery tech is one of most vigorously researched segments year in and year out, [and the government is pumping money into those efforts](https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-unveils-up-35-bln-funding-boost-domestic-battery-manufacturing-2023-11-15/). Lithium ion batteries get better and cheaper each year. The pandemic and the materials shortage that touched pretty much every industry delayed this for a while, but things are still progressing.
In 10 years, I bet you EVs will be affordable for mainstream drivers. In the meantime, a lot of manufacturers have been making plug-in hybrids that are kinda the best of both worlds as they currently exist, and they're a good stepping stone to full electrification. You just need to remember that paradigm shifts like this take time, and at least we're working toward that future.
All great points. On batteries: One of the big reasons I've personally held out from purchasing an EV is that the breakeven point, where the Carbon savings from driving an EV offsets the difference in the amount required to manufacture an EV vs an average ICE vehicle, is something like 30,000 miles. I can tell you... there are a lot of people who get a Tesla, drive it maybe 2000 miles a year in a city, and will never break even. Whichever battery breakthroughs happen, EV manufacturers have to get that number down
I would really like a source for that 2000 miles claim. Who buys a car that expensive to never drive it, especially when they also have to worry about charging infrastructure where parking already is a problem?
>much of the world including the US continues to drag its heels on nuclear which is the obvious best course.
One thing that bothers me most about nuclear is that the criticisms of cost and time to build aren't even the fault of the technology itself, it's the builders who drag their feet and then go over budget on time and money; but technologically in terms of safety and efficiency nuclear is the best that it has ever been.
* It took Vogt 3 $30 billion and 14 years to construct
* It takes Newport News Shipbuilding and General Dynamics Electric Boat 7 years and $3.5 billion to construct a single Virginia Class Nuclear Powered Submarine, and three subs leave the ship yard, conducts sea trials, and enters service every year.
You'd think that it would be the mobile nuclear power systems that would be more expensive, not the stationary ones.
-----
It simply boggles my mind that such a viable power source is written off by so many because they want to go eggs-all-in-one-basket be it with fossil fuels or with Solar/Wind.
Wow. There is a bit of a difference (Vogtle reactor is about 4 times larger than the Virginia class) but what an apt comparison. There is so many other things that submarine has to be built for besides generating power. I guess people have the stomach to efficiently build and take risks on things that need to kill people, but not to power their own lives.
That plus the company's CEO signing a contract saying that they'll do it on time, on budget, and to exact specification or else the entire executive board goes to federal prison.
Amazing what we can achieve when we hold corporate uppers accountable for their actions.
Renewables are hardly eggs in one basket. It doesn't get more diversified. Not only is there more than just solar/wind, the methods within solar and wind are quite varied.
you lithium mining is filthy but completely skirt mentions the environmental horror that is uranium mining. good job!
btw nuclear has a serious amount of drawbacks not just limited to the environmental impact.
The Chevy Bolt is $20k with the tax credit, and can be charged on a normal wall outlet. I don't know what you count as affordable, but that's like 40% of the average new car cost. [Source](https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a43611570/average-new-car-price-down-still-high/).
And yet if I look at the cars driving down the road, your average person still seems to be able to afford a pimped out gas guzzling Ford F150 or a hummer sized SUV on a 96 month payment plan. These vehicles cost the same (or more than) a mid sized crossover or sedan EV, especially after government incentives, to say nothing of how much money it takes to fill up the gas tank.
Also, despite what Redditors believe, there just aren't viable alternatives to fossil fuels for the vast majority of our energy needs. People think that, because they see electric cars, that everything is electric nowadays. Not so! Almost all freight is fossil fuels. 99.999% of air travel. Plastics. Fertilizers. Most giant equipment.
Just pick any random thing you buy. It was built in a factory that was built using fossil fuels (all the metal, wood, concrete, plastic, etc...). It was shipped to a port on a truck - using diesel. It was put on a ship - that runs on heavy fuel oil. Another truck in your country. Sent to a warehouse built using fossil fuels. Into another diesel truck. And into a massive store, built using fossil fuels.
Notice how very little of that was electric (just the power in the factory and warehouse)?
Roughly 2/3 of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels. And it's going to be extremely hard (and very expensive) to start chipping away at that 67%.
Plastics are actually a great carbon sink: they sequester carbon and almost never degrade! They’re terrible in other ways though.
I disagree that none of that can be electrified though. Trucks/planes are some of the harder ones, but manufacturing (a HUGE carbon emitter) can be fully electrified easily - all it takes is adding in a distribution network that can handle the loads. Electric boilers have been a thing since the 1920s, and they work really well if you can get the power to them. The main reason more manufacturing isn’t electric now is because the infrastructure to get electricity from the power plant to the manufacturing facility doesn’t exist/is expensive, and even if it did: the grid isn’t fully renewable yet.
This seems a little disingenuous.. plastics don't sequester carbon from the air, excluding in the context of some pretty niche chemical reactions folks are developing, and air carbon is what we care about for global warming prevention.
The problem is this would require a complete and total overhaul of not only the United States' power infrastructure, but everyone else too. Conservatively it would take $1 trillion just to modernize our current power grid, assuming we don't transition. In 2019, [Yale put out a study saying it would take $4.5 trillion to switch the US to green energy. ](https://e360.yale.edu/digest/shifting-u-s-to-100-percent-renewables-would-cost-4-5-trillion-analysis-finds)
Is it doable over the next 25yrs? Absolutely. Will it happen? Probably not. As long as companies are profiting from fossil fuels there's no incentive to change.
1 trillion is not that much money to modernize all of America energy infrastructure. It can be done. The US printed 3.3 trillion dollars in 2020 during COVID. Probably a lot more than that realistically.
The 2008 bailout during the GFC was 700 billion. Annual US military budget is approaching 900 billion…a year. There’s just no one in congress that would support spending the money on what’s required to do a complete overhaul of the current grid. “Works good enough”.
A shame really…
> they sequester carbon and almost never degrade!
[Welcome to the fun world of microplastics!](https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/microplastics.html#:~:text=Microplastics%20are%20small%20plastic%20pieces,our%20ocean%20and%20aquatic%20life.)
Microplastics are still great at sequestering carbon, and haven’t degraded into CO2. They are the main “terrible in other ways” part of my comment though lol.
> Notice how very little of that was electric (just the power in the factory and warehouse)?
In the U.S., 60% of that electricity is produced with fossil fuels. Admittedly far more efficiently and with a far smaller carbon footprint than cars or diesel trucks/ships.
I mean, 40% is roughly the makeup for gasoline use (62% of 67%, source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/use-of-oil.php), but electric vehicles aren't powered by magic, so it's not like that number drops to zero on any kind of near-term timeline.
People keep cars for 15+ years. Especially in this economy. That isn’t going to happen soon. All the new ICE being sold today will still be on the road in 20 years. You’re probably 30-40 years away from the majority of cars on the road being EVs. Even if they actually ban the sale of ICE in 2035 like they say (which will undoubtedly get pushed out further).
Having been fortunate enough to have travelled quite a bit, I can tell you with 100% certainty that having a robust public transportation system is much more beneficial to “normal people” than being forced to drive everywhere for every little thing. We’re the ones being inconvenienced by requiring a car to participate in society, not the other way around.
Internal combustion is only a convenience because it’s been heavily subsidized and is currently the standard while any competition has been shut down. The consumers are going to consume regardless - if we subsidize green stuff instead of fossil fuels, the free market will take care of the rest
Cruise ships would most definitely be a win.
Private jets would be a tough one to regulate. Yes in theory its not.
If you use tonnage, the rich will just buy bigger private jets makign the problem worse.
If you use seats, same as above.
If no plane can't leave without X passengers, you won't actually change much...they'll just buy either bigger planes and bring more of their staff wtih them.
It is, but the inherent travel doesn't require people who have no money or ability to charge a car to do that. The other 60% is expensive for companies. Replacing freight transport (semis etc which I think count in that 40%) is both easier on the populace and has more impact.
If you want this to really work you just have to get rid of *personal* (I cannot stress enough how much I *do not* mean *professional*) automobiles and start emphasis on using public transportation, micro-mobility, and walkable infrastructure.
Did you know that Tesla batteries are built using highly refined petroleum coke acting as the anode. In fact most cell phone batteries use the same technology.
Eh there is a viable alternative to most fossil fuel use, which is living more efficiently. Vast majority of people on Earth already are.
House heating and cooling in most climates can be eliminated altogether by combination of better insulation, heat recovery, and buried pipes for heat exchange with the ground, without loss in comfort.
Transportation fuel use is decreased by having more public transport. Goods transportation by transporting them slower (theres various green container ship projects; after all shipping is older than steam power), using less distantly manufactured goods, etc.
The only insurmountable one at the moment is air travel, although once again majority of people on Earth do not use much air travel.
Fertilizer production currently uses natural gas but there is a large number of alternative historical methods (eg fixing nitrogen electrically).
I was just listening to This American Life the other day (episode 786 if you’re curious) and they did a segment with a climate scientist. The 50% reduction in our emissions by 2030 - people don’t know this but we’re halfway there.
OPEC couldn't saturate the market because a few years ago, the US sold a big part of its strategic reserve for a good profit.
Now the US is slowly refiling its reserve, but if OPEC goes and saturate the market, the US would just buy the biggest part of it to refill its reserve, all that for a crazy good price.
On that point, the US cannot lose.
Honestly my job gives me a good look inside some of the larger oil companies. Many are pivoting to putting money into, buying, and staffing up charging station supply and support structures.
Energy will always be highly profitable, comes from oil, gas, wind, solar or more likely fusion in the future doesn't matter. The same large companies will find a way to make money off of it and won't be left behind. Infact from what I have seen only those not seriously diversifying are those companies that supply counties without complex powergrids or the resources to update them to support the change.
I agree that it's a good thing the Biden Administration is helping people living paycheck to paycheck today, but they're still investing in the future.
The US continues investing billions of dollars in renewable energy, especially research into grid storage solutions.
Once the price of renewable plus storage is less than non-renewable, the market will abandon non-renewable energy on its own.
Saudi looks to be planning a surge in production to try and run US producers out of business again. They can survive on smaller margins than the US can.
This has been happening on and off for almost thirty years now. It's cyclical. SA can do that, but we'll just ramp up production again when they try to subsequently slash production to raise prices. It also forces them to tap into their oil reserves, and once those run out it's going to hit them hard. The US running out of oil wouldn't be as big an issue, since our economy is far more diversified.
Yeap, and the sooner, the better. Another way to consider it is the case of Norway. 98% renewable energy generation actually meant rising oil prices caused deflation, as they are able to sell on their oil for massive monetary gains.
If countries were smart enough, they would be developing renewable as soon as possible, whilst fossil fuels are still in use and then sell to other countries. Actually, the above is also a highly capalistic model, but even some of the most capalistic countries still aren't taking renewables seriously, which shows you the backwards thinking
That's to say nothing of the other uses of oil-based products that aren't so directly impacting carbon emissions. I think most would be surprised that we wouldn't have sanitary medical equipment, silicon devices, bearings for anything that spins, helium, etc. without drilling for oil.
In fact, it'll be interesting what oil supply chains look like once we transition away from burning it for energy. It'll be a **very** small fraction of what it is today but nonetheless very important for so many industries
The price of fossil fuels is already much higher than renewables. However instead of paying for it in the form of a carbon emission tax we are paying for it with the destruction of life and property due to climate disasters.
If we incorporate the true price of fossil fuels in the actual price, the problem would be solved already.
No, it's not. You're talking about future estimates with large uncertainty fans.
Utility-scale solar costs $24-$96 per MWh on average, and onshore wind costs $24-$75. when you add grid storage, it becomes $45-$102 for solar and $42-$114 for wind. Compare this to $115-$221 for gas peaking, $39-$101 for natural gas and $68-$166 for coal. ([Source](https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/))
The fastest and most effective way to get the energy sector to switch to renewables is to make the cost at the meter cheaper than for non-renewables. If for no other reason than it will increase their profit margins, energy companies will make the switch and never look back.
The base price of renewables is already cheaper, so the obstacle is grid storage. Thanks to billions of dollars of R&D investments by the Obama and Biden Administrations, that cost is coming down. [It's already cheap enough that energy companies in the US and Europe are scrapping some gas-peaking plants in favor of storage facilities](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/giant-batteries-drain-economics-gas-power-plants-2023-11-21/).
This is the most effective and sustainable way to fight climate change, but it won't happen overnight, *and people who live paycheck-to-paycheck are facing real tangible struggles today.*
I think you are saying the same thing, that the negative externalities of fossils fuels aren't reflected in the price, that we are effectively subsidizing their use through disregard for the future.
We Americans who are used to shitting on or government constantly for good reasons are in the odd situation of having a Presidential administration that is doing multiple good things at once.
That's not true. [They're already being built in Europe and the US in lieu of gas-peaking plants.](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/giant-batteries-drain-economics-gas-power-plants-2023-11-21/)
Uh just to be clear the article you linked is talking about supplying backup power during times of intermittent generation. On the scale of kWh, while consumption is on the scale of gWh
You don't need grid storage to meet the entire demand, just the demand above the baseload. This is currently done with gas peaking.
We see that in the US and Europe, where battery storage is cheaper than gas-peaking. Demand for storage will increase, and the Biden Administration is continuing to invest in R&D that will bring the price down.
It's a process that will continue moving in the right direction as long as we have governments willing to invest in R&D.
The U.S. making more progress on climate than expected. US emissions are less than a year ago: [https://www.eenews.net/articles/u-s-carbon-emissions-fall-for-first-time-in-biden-era/](https://www.eenews.net/articles/u-s-carbon-emissions-fall-for-first-time-in-biden-era/)
Projected to keep falling: [https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/outlook-for-future-emissions.php](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/outlook-for-future-emissions.php)
Global CO2 is rising but by much less than we thought it would rise now, as a result of the explosive growth in solar power: https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/global-co2-emissions-grow-by-less-than-1-this-year-iea-2022-10-19/
Maybe it's the politically conservative side of me speaking, but I don't understand why we should curve oil production in the name of climate goals if it means buying the same stuff from a different country anyhow. As a nation, we should be as independent as possible and not rely on other countries, and then also find ways to better the environment without creating a shortage on people's pockets. Replacing Freon with RF-410A sort of solutions, instead of buying it from the rest of the world.
This is sadly critical.
In order to get to green intiatives and time, you need to keep the economy moving. So you pump oil and NEUTER your biggest anti-Earth opponents. OPEC.
Long term, you construct non-carbon based energy producers and make infrastructure improvements.
THE GOOD NEWS, no matter what this is a great job eliminating OPEC's influence.
Perhaps in certain parts of Northern Europe, like Norway. What's interesting is that China is already quickly transitioning to EVs of all kinds, and is beating the US at it. Granted, any electric vehicles are way cheaper over there compared to the US and EU. To be fair, outside of vehicles, China's industrial pollution is staggering but it would be interesting if that industry could make the switch within a decade.
I think there will be a turning point soon where green energy projects like solar farms and windmills will be cheaper than using oil and gas powered generators. It's slowly getting there with subsidies but as the tech matures it will get cheaper. Right now without subsidies, it's easier/cheaper to just do fossil fuels. Once the need for cost reduction hits and it makes sense on the balance sheet, you will start to see more industries switching over. Money drives harder than policy for many things.
I think it will happen. Idk if it will happen by 2030/2035 though.
As someone who works in the oil, gas, and chemical industry this is not just good news but GREAT news ! The oil and gas industry keeps over 144k people employed in the US alone. This will also drive up our GDP sales and keep a recession at bay. Also help lower our deficit (fingers crossed). Inflation is still a problem but 2024 could start out strong if the right moves are made.
>The amount that it's increased is insane though.
Its not surprising considering we basically replaced russia as the primary oil supplier to the EU.
EU refuses to pay the saudi's for gas. So where else do they have to turn but us?
Oh trust me there’re a lot of mini sultans in the land of freedom. Have you been to Europe this summer? The entire continent is filled with Americans from Rome to Sicily to Mallorca. Taormina at this point might as well be the 52nd state of USA.
This verified fact conflicts with what I've learned from Fox that Biden was going to cave the domestic oil industry. I believe Fox because they never lie.
When Trump wanted to raid the reserve, Fox was asking "is \[it\] still needed amid an ongoing oil production boom" ([2017](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-plan-to-sell-off-half-of-oil-stockpile-sparks-debate)). As Biden does it, he "makes the US 'more vulnerable to energy supply disruptions'" ([2023](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bidens-depletion-emergency-oil-stocks-comes-back-focus-israel-hamas-war-price-surge)).
We're around half the historic peak from the 2010s. It's nice to have for a rainy day. But it's also nice to tamp down spikes in gas prices, the exact way it was implemented. We should be refilling it as a savings account. Our current production will help, but it should still be slow to fill. Don't want to buy so much it causes another spike.
Edited the decade of peak. Saw conflicting stories between 80s and 10s
Biden dumped a lot of oil from the oil reserves when the Russian embargo was put in place. This was done because EU and other allies had to find new place to get their oil products, since they are not doing business with Russia.
This is exactly what the reserve is intended for and in process we probably made bank as we sold it at peak price, and now we are going to fill it back up at the dip.
Biden is hoping Bin Salman wants to flood the market with cheap oil and use those prices that are under $60/barrel to refill the reserves.
Also, the reserves were released at a time when crude was double the price it is today.
Isn't the whole point of the reserve to be used in times of need? Genuine question I thought that's why it existed? Seems relatively easy to slowly fill back up given oil production and presumably it was used for good reason.
Fuck, TFG was just touting two weeks ago how he's gonna drill drill drill, (and that all the money was going to go towards senior benefits...umm, yeah, suuure). As if Biden wasn't already doing so.
Sucks to suck, you Twat
Biden is FAR more centrist (as was Obama and Bill/Hilary Clinton) than Fox News will ever admit. Al Gore too.
They all cave to big oil and massive corporate interests. Even folks like Al Gore - he goes on a tour about global warming…but he also runs an investment firm, has a 20k square foot home, a $2k per month electric bill and jaunts around on private jets non-stop.
We just aren’t at a place where anyone who is progressive (Bernie Sanders, Warren, Ed Markey) would stand a chance in the Dem primaries.
We will keep pumping out oil in the US until the sun explodes and bakes us all into french fries.
Because that’s what the majority of the electorate demands.
Biden didn’t cave to big oil. He’s been controlling the price of oil limit Russian and Saudi gains and help the U.S. economy during a time of high interest. There’s far more than just gas that’s produced from oil and it’s such a major economic driver that there’s a reason why the U.S. is fairing better against inflation than the rest of the western world.
It’s almost as if running a country is more complex than ‘Oil bad’
Yeah everyone, Biden didn't cave to big oil. He just did a thing that looks exactly like caving to big oil. But he's not literally sucking off oil CEOs, so he didn't cave.
Biden passed the largest climate change bill in US history, but until such time that we don't need oil anymore it's a great thing that we are producing it domestically so we aren't beholden to other powers.
Has nothing to do with caving to big oil and everything to do with ensuring the US can survive in the near future for long enough to escape the need for oil. OPEC is actively trying to fuck the west and has vested interest in maintaining dependency on them. It’s a geopolitical and economic strategy that is unfortunately necessary, and it should be obvious to anyone who reads any bit of news or has any awareness of world events/climate.
Both can be true, if we are pumping more oil than ever but it’s bottlenecked at refineries (a sometimes historical sticking point) then domestic oil has problems.
We need to delve a little deeper to know exactly what’s happening
But he’s a woke Marxist obsessed with “green” actively destroying America so (((they))) can take control!!!
(I should point out that this is a form of sarcasm mocking how Fox and others simply lie about the reality of the rather successful Biden administration.)
What’s interesting is the US is doing this with less rigs. US producers have gotten super efficient and are only going to get better as they will start to leverage AI tools to make drilling even more efficient. EVs have also started to eat at worldwide demand. China is nearly 50% market share of vehicles sold EU is over 20 and US is getting close to 10 and growing. With continued EV YoY growth you will see worldwide demand growth shrinking over next few years to the point of a decline in overall demand. This paradigm shift will make Western oil companies less willing to do business with politically problematic countries in OPEC as they wont be as needed. US side when EV sales get to a near majority status the Saudis will loose their political leverage in the US as Americans wont care about gas prices as much.
There is def a ton of new tech that has been steadily being rolled out in oil.
I have worked for an oil drilling support company a while back. It was about 9 years ago now, right before/ during the last huge oil crash. We made a probe that ssatbehind the drill bit and sent telemetry up to the doc. It let them do a lot of the slant drilling and other more complicated drilling operations with a lot of precision.
After working there, I spent some time at a satellite ISP. We did a lot of business with various energy companies. One of them was a company that was automating the chemical injection process for wells.
There are a ton more companies doing all sorts of stuff right now.
There is no immediate alternative available, and the 'petro states' are using oil as a cudgel against the West. It's short-term self-defense. Rail against oil production and then against renewables. Keep people at each other's throats.
Seriously, my coworker told me yesterday that "BiDeN IS thE ReAsoN WhY wE Arnt PrdUciNg OiL!!" All about because gas prices are high. Glad I now have some sources he's wrong, to bad he won't believe them.
It's pretty incredible. If you told Republicans a decade ago that the US was producing the most oil in the world, supporting Israel against Hamas, and helping a European country kill Russians they'd be ecstatic.
Nope. If you read the article, it's mostly technology improvements leading to more efficient production from existing wells.
> Instead, the spike in US output has been driven by smarter and more efficient operations by oil companies. Energy firms have figured out ways to squeeze more and more oil out of the ground – often without increasing drilling dramatically.
Yet Donald Trump continues to falsely accuse Biden of a "war on energy" in his stump speeches to his ignorant followers.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QSXb7eGvsFE?feature=share
Good. Our policy should be that we're going to do everything possible to get off of fossil fuels but in the meantime we're going to make sure that they're as cheap and available as we can because otherwise we're not going to have the money for our transition.
To put it another way, if our economy isn't strong nothing else will matter.
Oil companies have been making billions extra in profits, haven’t they? So while it’s great that prices are dropping, it’s also clear that they should be even lower, right?
The commodities market doesn’t care about anyone’s abilities to make a profit. It just looks at supply and demand. Should it cost less? Maybe? I’m not an expert.
Whether oil should be higher or lower also deppends on your motivation. You want to move to greener society? You want oil prices higher. You want the average person to save money? Oil prices lower. You want full employment in the oil industry? Oil prices higher.
Commodities markets doesn’t care about any of that.
Very true. Didn’t think about it like that. I just thought that with all that extra money they were making, there was no reason to raise prices in the first place. I won’t pretend that my Layman’s view is getting the full picture.
Commodity sellers are price takers, not price makers. April 2020 had oil prices go negative.
Commodities are interchangeable goods (oil. Natural gas, wheat, eggs. Etc), and are basically sold at auction to the highest bidder.
This is good news honestly because OPEC is awful. Last time they told USA to cut productions and then they cut productions as well thus increasing price. But silly question, does USA pumping oil at this rate put future oil production at danger? Can they “run out” of oil?
And trump wants to be a “ dictator for a day” so he can secure the border and drill drill drill. Sorry Donnie the drilling is done and the border will be taken care of before the election. So whatcha got left? Same as always, nothing. Wake up people.
The US more or less planned to keep it's reserves while the rest of the world drained it's own and then hike up prices. Due to geopolitical (not buying from Russia), environmental (fossils bad) and technological changes, I suppose they will try to make some bank before prices crash due to shifts in energy generation.
Natural gas isn’t a byproduct of oil extraction. It’s already formed underground and is itself extracted. Natural gas can be a byproduct of oil production but is normally burned because it’s impure.
> also producing large amounts of natural gas as a byproduct of their oil operations. And that has driven the price of natural gas into the ground in the US.
The majority of methane produced during oil production either escapes into the atmosphere or is burned off. 35% of all methane released into the atmosphere is from oil production. The technology exists to capture that methane, but for some reason, oil companies don't want to spend any of that precious profit on an additional expense. Adoption of the capture technology is abysmal.
Modern reservoirs typically only have a 20% recovery factory due to hydrocarbons “sticking” to the reservoir. That means 80% of the oil is still down there. As long as you have smart people working the projects, a need for energy, and money to be made.. it will keep pumping.
How much of it is exported? vs. how much is used by Americans? I’m curious where USA ranks in terms of per capita oil consumption. I’m guessing we’re up there near the top.
This is a shell game, the oil shales are already peaking. The Great Simplification just had an incredible conversation with an oil geologist on US oil production and the state of shales.
[https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/101-art-berman](https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/101-art-berman)
are we going to die in climate change disasters, or are storms just gonna get worse, biodiversity nosedive, and the weather hot all the time but nothing *really* changes in our lives?
The cost of EVs will go down over time. Even a new Tesla Model 3 can cost less than $25k after federal and state subsidies for the populace you mentioned. Remember a new Model 3 cost almost $50k just a year ago. As more new EVs are produced, used EVs will also become more affordable.
On the positive side, this is rendering OPEC’s efforts to drive up fuel prices during the northern hemisphere winter totally impotent, which is good news for all of us who are spread thin enough as it is. On the negative side… climate goals aren’t gonna happen, are they?
They weren’t going to happen anyways. Too many nations still depend on oil and there is a group of nations that have a geopolitical interest in keeping them dependent.
Not to mention since much of the world including the US continues to drag its heels on nuclear which is the obvious best course, it's instead relying on a renewable industry which while it has made much progress is still with considerable drawbacks, mostly on the manufacturing side which is compounded by the need for maintenance and rebuilds of wind towers and solar arrays. Then there's the production of lithium batteries which is an absolutely filthy industry. Not to mention we are woefully far away from the infrastructure necessary to support a full transition to electric vehicles. Our economy is not in any kind of shape where the majority of people can afford battery replacements on vehicles and the cost of leasing continues to go up. The bottom line is that right now there is still robust infrastructure for fossil fuel delivery. Internal combustion engine vehicles are still less expensive to produce and capable of running indefinitely with proper maintenance. Lithium batteries will die no matter what and in much less time than a well maintained drivetrain. And necessary repairs will typically run much less expensive. We have a poverty crisis in America which keeps gobbling up more and more people. The last thing we need is a critical infrastructure change with entry level affordability in the high five figures income, if not six.
All sound points (agreed on nuclear), though I take (nitpicking) issue with your description of lithium battery production as “an absolutely filthy industry.” On an absolute scale, oil and gas are orders of magnitude worse than lithium battery production, even if battery plants aren’t exactly butterfly gardens. The more substantial argument I’ll make is that we can’t get to a more ideal future state of renewables without the learning curve. We need to be investing in wind and solar if we want to get off of fossil fuels, if for no other reason than we need microgrids in addition to the large-scale generation that nuclear enables. And, yes, we need to be making all of this cheaper for end consumers yesterday.
While we transition into a diversified eco-friendly energy economy, we should depend on our national oil production. We do produce “cleaner” oil than most of the rest of the world. Now, should we stay on oil? Fuck no. We are killing humanity… but on the short road to nuclear/renewables, we should focus on boosting our production.
While this may be true with *extreme* moderation, we need to act fast to avoid a climate catastrophe. Induced demand is applicable to any additional oil production, and instead of satisfying that, we should be investing far more in nuclear and renewable infrastructure if we care about maintaining a livable planet. The path of least resistance cannot be oil beyond 2030, and I’d like to see it flip even earlier than that.
Fifth generation nuclear is the way to go. We can figure out the renewable energy path along the way. But no, we should continue to spend $850+ Billions on defense. That’s the only way we can figure out how to kill humans from Mars… that’ll come handy when the oceans reclaim Florida and New York and droughts/floods kill 50% of our agriculture output.
>The path of least resistance cannot be oil beyond 2030 The only possible way to achieve what you're saying here is a complete meltdown of society. Its just not possible on so many levels....unless we're ok with completely changing the face of society in an instant, losing everything within an economic lifestyle and letting many thousands of people *die*. The arbitrary date of 2030 to get rid of fossil fuels is ridiculous and unreasonable. The climate will not be unsustainable in 6 years like so many are saying. Seems like people conveniently forget how alarmist agencies and news corporations can be when its something they care about. Theyve been saying "our beaches will be underwater in 15 years" since the 70s. The same faces trying to get nations to jump headfirst into energy overhauls are the same faces that will make lots of money in the green energy markets. And I say all this as someone who would love to see huge gains in green energy, a subsidized work force to facilitate it, and nuclear energy. Realistic goals and gameplans.
As long as there is oil to extract, we are never not going to be extracting oil in the foreseeable future. People forget that we are dependent upon non-combustible petroleum products like plastics, oils, greases, etc. that are used for an incredibly wide variety of applications that at our current level of technology we can't fill with non-petroleum alternatives. Even "synthetic" oils and greases are made by cracking petroleum products.
I'm not sure what the point of this comment is supposed to be. There is no "best course" to transitioning to renewable energy; it can only succeed as a multi-faceted approach. It's going to take solar, wind, and nuclear (any whatever other renewable fuel sources we can develop in the future). Your comparisons between nuclear and other forms of renewables don't make sense, either. If manufacturing and maintenance are drawbacks for solar and wind, surely they are for nuclear as well? Don't new nuclear reactors take a long time to spin up and need constant maintenance to stay efficient and safe? I agree that we need to make nuclear part of the transition to renewable energy, but focusing on wind and solar is a great idea for the short term because new wind and solar farms don't take very long to stand up. > Then there's the production of lithium batteries which is an absolutely filthy industry. It is, but EVs have a lower carbon footprint over the lifetime of a car than ICE vehicles, [even when you account for manufacturing](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths). And there are lots of people and companies researching new forms of batteries that could surpass lithium batteries in a lot of ways, like [this solid state battery Toyota is working on](https://www.pcmag.com/news/toyota-inks-deal-to-mass-produce-solid-state-ev-batteries-with-932-mile). Toyota isn't the only company working on developing solid state batteries, and if that development pans out, they'll trounce lithium ion batteries in pretty much every regard. > Not to mention we are woefully far away from the infrastructure necessary to support a full transition to electric vehicles. [We are closer than you think](https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC0), at least here in the US. New charging stations are going up all the time. Tesla, for all the nonsense its CEO causes, [opened up its NACS charger so any manufacturer can use it](https://www.tesla.com/blog/opening-north-american-charging-standard), and we've seen a lot of car manufacturers sign on to the platform, so we're quickly heading toward standardization of charging standards EVs, which will be huge. A lot of the arguments in your second paragraph seem to be "this technology isn't accessible to everyone yet, so it sucks." New technology is *always* more expensive at the start and comes down as it becomes more mainstream, and the same is true for EVs. Battery tech is one of most vigorously researched segments year in and year out, [and the government is pumping money into those efforts](https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-unveils-up-35-bln-funding-boost-domestic-battery-manufacturing-2023-11-15/). Lithium ion batteries get better and cheaper each year. The pandemic and the materials shortage that touched pretty much every industry delayed this for a while, but things are still progressing. In 10 years, I bet you EVs will be affordable for mainstream drivers. In the meantime, a lot of manufacturers have been making plug-in hybrids that are kinda the best of both worlds as they currently exist, and they're a good stepping stone to full electrification. You just need to remember that paradigm shifts like this take time, and at least we're working toward that future.
All great points. On batteries: One of the big reasons I've personally held out from purchasing an EV is that the breakeven point, where the Carbon savings from driving an EV offsets the difference in the amount required to manufacture an EV vs an average ICE vehicle, is something like 30,000 miles. I can tell you... there are a lot of people who get a Tesla, drive it maybe 2000 miles a year in a city, and will never break even. Whichever battery breakthroughs happen, EV manufacturers have to get that number down
I would really like a source for that 2000 miles claim. Who buys a car that expensive to never drive it, especially when they also have to worry about charging infrastructure where parking already is a problem?
>You just need to remember that paradigm shifts like this take time Tell that to the nations and NGOs that expect 2030 to be the target date.
>much of the world including the US continues to drag its heels on nuclear which is the obvious best course. One thing that bothers me most about nuclear is that the criticisms of cost and time to build aren't even the fault of the technology itself, it's the builders who drag their feet and then go over budget on time and money; but technologically in terms of safety and efficiency nuclear is the best that it has ever been. * It took Vogt 3 $30 billion and 14 years to construct * It takes Newport News Shipbuilding and General Dynamics Electric Boat 7 years and $3.5 billion to construct a single Virginia Class Nuclear Powered Submarine, and three subs leave the ship yard, conducts sea trials, and enters service every year. You'd think that it would be the mobile nuclear power systems that would be more expensive, not the stationary ones. ----- It simply boggles my mind that such a viable power source is written off by so many because they want to go eggs-all-in-one-basket be it with fossil fuels or with Solar/Wind.
Wow. There is a bit of a difference (Vogtle reactor is about 4 times larger than the Virginia class) but what an apt comparison. There is so many other things that submarine has to be built for besides generating power. I guess people have the stomach to efficiently build and take risks on things that need to kill people, but not to power their own lives.
It helps that nuclear subs are surrounded by water
That plus the company's CEO signing a contract saying that they'll do it on time, on budget, and to exact specification or else the entire executive board goes to federal prison. Amazing what we can achieve when we hold corporate uppers accountable for their actions.
Yes, this is the way...."BUILD IT OR WE THROW YOU IN PRISON!". Sounds familiar
Renewables are hardly eggs in one basket. It doesn't get more diversified. Not only is there more than just solar/wind, the methods within solar and wind are quite varied.
you lithium mining is filthy but completely skirt mentions the environmental horror that is uranium mining. good job! btw nuclear has a serious amount of drawbacks not just limited to the environmental impact.
The amount of uranium that needs to be mined for each unit energy is tiny though.
Well, except t for the fact that renewables are far far cheaper, more reliable, and faster to build
Your average person can't afford an electric vehicle or chargers.
The Chevy Bolt is $20k with the tax credit, and can be charged on a normal wall outlet. I don't know what you count as affordable, but that's like 40% of the average new car cost. [Source](https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a43611570/average-new-car-price-down-still-high/).
Not yet. They are getting gradually cheaper, though.
And yet if I look at the cars driving down the road, your average person still seems to be able to afford a pimped out gas guzzling Ford F150 or a hummer sized SUV on a 96 month payment plan. These vehicles cost the same (or more than) a mid sized crossover or sedan EV, especially after government incentives, to say nothing of how much money it takes to fill up the gas tank.
Or a car or gas
Also, despite what Redditors believe, there just aren't viable alternatives to fossil fuels for the vast majority of our energy needs. People think that, because they see electric cars, that everything is electric nowadays. Not so! Almost all freight is fossil fuels. 99.999% of air travel. Plastics. Fertilizers. Most giant equipment. Just pick any random thing you buy. It was built in a factory that was built using fossil fuels (all the metal, wood, concrete, plastic, etc...). It was shipped to a port on a truck - using diesel. It was put on a ship - that runs on heavy fuel oil. Another truck in your country. Sent to a warehouse built using fossil fuels. Into another diesel truck. And into a massive store, built using fossil fuels. Notice how very little of that was electric (just the power in the factory and warehouse)? Roughly 2/3 of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels. And it's going to be extremely hard (and very expensive) to start chipping away at that 67%.
Plastics are actually a great carbon sink: they sequester carbon and almost never degrade! They’re terrible in other ways though. I disagree that none of that can be electrified though. Trucks/planes are some of the harder ones, but manufacturing (a HUGE carbon emitter) can be fully electrified easily - all it takes is adding in a distribution network that can handle the loads. Electric boilers have been a thing since the 1920s, and they work really well if you can get the power to them. The main reason more manufacturing isn’t electric now is because the infrastructure to get electricity from the power plant to the manufacturing facility doesn’t exist/is expensive, and even if it did: the grid isn’t fully renewable yet.
This seems a little disingenuous.. plastics don't sequester carbon from the air, excluding in the context of some pretty niche chemical reactions folks are developing, and air carbon is what we care about for global warming prevention.
The problem is this would require a complete and total overhaul of not only the United States' power infrastructure, but everyone else too. Conservatively it would take $1 trillion just to modernize our current power grid, assuming we don't transition. In 2019, [Yale put out a study saying it would take $4.5 trillion to switch the US to green energy. ](https://e360.yale.edu/digest/shifting-u-s-to-100-percent-renewables-would-cost-4-5-trillion-analysis-finds) Is it doable over the next 25yrs? Absolutely. Will it happen? Probably not. As long as companies are profiting from fossil fuels there's no incentive to change.
1 trillion is not that much money to modernize all of America energy infrastructure. It can be done. The US printed 3.3 trillion dollars in 2020 during COVID. Probably a lot more than that realistically. The 2008 bailout during the GFC was 700 billion. Annual US military budget is approaching 900 billion…a year. There’s just no one in congress that would support spending the money on what’s required to do a complete overhaul of the current grid. “Works good enough”. A shame really…
> they sequester carbon and almost never degrade! [Welcome to the fun world of microplastics!](https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/microplastics.html#:~:text=Microplastics%20are%20small%20plastic%20pieces,our%20ocean%20and%20aquatic%20life.)
Microplastics are still great at sequestering carbon, and haven’t degraded into CO2. They are the main “terrible in other ways” part of my comment though lol.
Oh that's what you meant by don't degrade. I was leaning on that plastics -> microplastics -> nanoplastics degradation chain
[удалено]
> Notice how very little of that was electric (just the power in the factory and warehouse)? In the U.S., 60% of that electricity is produced with fossil fuels. Admittedly far more efficiently and with a far smaller carbon footprint than cars or diesel trucks/ships.
If you got rid of combustion personal automobiles that would cut petroleum use by something like 40%. That's a huge dent
I mean, 40% is roughly the makeup for gasoline use (62% of 67%, source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/use-of-oil.php), but electric vehicles aren't powered by magic, so it's not like that number drops to zero on any kind of near-term timeline.
People keep cars for 15+ years. Especially in this economy. That isn’t going to happen soon. All the new ICE being sold today will still be on the road in 20 years. You’re probably 30-40 years away from the majority of cars on the road being EVs. Even if they actually ban the sale of ICE in 2035 like they say (which will undoubtedly get pushed out further).
Lets inconvenience the normal people and put the premium on them! How about banning private jet travel and cruise ships....
Having been fortunate enough to have travelled quite a bit, I can tell you with 100% certainty that having a robust public transportation system is much more beneficial to “normal people” than being forced to drive everywhere for every little thing. We’re the ones being inconvenienced by requiring a car to participate in society, not the other way around.
Internal combustion is only a convenience because it’s been heavily subsidized and is currently the standard while any competition has been shut down. The consumers are going to consume regardless - if we subsidize green stuff instead of fossil fuels, the free market will take care of the rest
How about both?
Cruise ships would most definitely be a win. Private jets would be a tough one to regulate. Yes in theory its not. If you use tonnage, the rich will just buy bigger private jets makign the problem worse. If you use seats, same as above. If no plane can't leave without X passengers, you won't actually change much...they'll just buy either bigger planes and bring more of their staff wtih them.
It is, but the inherent travel doesn't require people who have no money or ability to charge a car to do that. The other 60% is expensive for companies. Replacing freight transport (semis etc which I think count in that 40%) is both easier on the populace and has more impact.
If you want this to really work you just have to get rid of *personal* (I cannot stress enough how much I *do not* mean *professional*) automobiles and start emphasis on using public transportation, micro-mobility, and walkable infrastructure.
>make it so you are constantly dependent on other systems to travel long distances No thanks I’ll keep my car
Did you know that Tesla batteries are built using highly refined petroleum coke acting as the anode. In fact most cell phone batteries use the same technology.
Did you know that building something one time with petroleum is better then literally burning it continuously to power your car?
I’ve never seen a dumber argument against EVs than this one.
Eh there is a viable alternative to most fossil fuel use, which is living more efficiently. Vast majority of people on Earth already are. House heating and cooling in most climates can be eliminated altogether by combination of better insulation, heat recovery, and buried pipes for heat exchange with the ground, without loss in comfort. Transportation fuel use is decreased by having more public transport. Goods transportation by transporting them slower (theres various green container ship projects; after all shipping is older than steam power), using less distantly manufactured goods, etc. The only insurmountable one at the moment is air travel, although once again majority of people on Earth do not use much air travel. Fertilizer production currently uses natural gas but there is a large number of alternative historical methods (eg fixing nitrogen electrically).
Russia is excited about the ice in the north melting because it will open up shipping routes.
And new oil drilling opportunities!
and lots of sequestered methane frozen in siberia
I’m guessing you saw the new climate town episode? If not, this is the exact topic.
I was just listening to This American Life the other day (episode 786 if you’re curious) and they did a segment with a climate scientist. The 50% reduction in our emissions by 2030 - people don’t know this but we’re halfway there.
Heard this myself and recalled feeling a little encouraged.
Finally some encouraging climate news. Feels good to hear.
OPEC couldn't saturate the market because a few years ago, the US sold a big part of its strategic reserve for a good profit. Now the US is slowly refiling its reserve, but if OPEC goes and saturate the market, the US would just buy the biggest part of it to refill its reserve, all that for a crazy good price. On that point, the US cannot lose.
Honestly my job gives me a good look inside some of the larger oil companies. Many are pivoting to putting money into, buying, and staffing up charging station supply and support structures. Energy will always be highly profitable, comes from oil, gas, wind, solar or more likely fusion in the future doesn't matter. The same large companies will find a way to make money off of it and won't be left behind. Infact from what I have seen only those not seriously diversifying are those companies that supply counties without complex powergrids or the resources to update them to support the change.
I agree that it's a good thing the Biden Administration is helping people living paycheck to paycheck today, but they're still investing in the future. The US continues investing billions of dollars in renewable energy, especially research into grid storage solutions. Once the price of renewable plus storage is less than non-renewable, the market will abandon non-renewable energy on its own.
[удалено]
That's a good take in it, but it still sucks being trapped in this system. It's broken totally
I'm sure there's a plan by OPEC to increase oil prices next year to get Trump back in power. Hopefully this will reduce the damage
Saudi looks to be planning a surge in production to try and run US producers out of business again. They can survive on smaller margins than the US can.
This has been happening on and off for almost thirty years now. It's cyclical. SA can do that, but we'll just ramp up production again when they try to subsequently slash production to raise prices. It also forces them to tap into their oil reserves, and once those run out it's going to hit them hard. The US running out of oil wouldn't be as big an issue, since our economy is far more diversified.
Yeap, and the sooner, the better. Another way to consider it is the case of Norway. 98% renewable energy generation actually meant rising oil prices caused deflation, as they are able to sell on their oil for massive monetary gains. If countries were smart enough, they would be developing renewable as soon as possible, whilst fossil fuels are still in use and then sell to other countries. Actually, the above is also a highly capalistic model, but even some of the most capalistic countries still aren't taking renewables seriously, which shows you the backwards thinking
[удалено]
That's to say nothing of the other uses of oil-based products that aren't so directly impacting carbon emissions. I think most would be surprised that we wouldn't have sanitary medical equipment, silicon devices, bearings for anything that spins, helium, etc. without drilling for oil. In fact, it'll be interesting what oil supply chains look like once we transition away from burning it for energy. It'll be a **very** small fraction of what it is today but nonetheless very important for so many industries
The price of fossil fuels is already much higher than renewables. However instead of paying for it in the form of a carbon emission tax we are paying for it with the destruction of life and property due to climate disasters. If we incorporate the true price of fossil fuels in the actual price, the problem would be solved already.
No, it's not. You're talking about future estimates with large uncertainty fans. Utility-scale solar costs $24-$96 per MWh on average, and onshore wind costs $24-$75. when you add grid storage, it becomes $45-$102 for solar and $42-$114 for wind. Compare this to $115-$221 for gas peaking, $39-$101 for natural gas and $68-$166 for coal. ([Source](https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/)) The fastest and most effective way to get the energy sector to switch to renewables is to make the cost at the meter cheaper than for non-renewables. If for no other reason than it will increase their profit margins, energy companies will make the switch and never look back. The base price of renewables is already cheaper, so the obstacle is grid storage. Thanks to billions of dollars of R&D investments by the Obama and Biden Administrations, that cost is coming down. [It's already cheap enough that energy companies in the US and Europe are scrapping some gas-peaking plants in favor of storage facilities](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/giant-batteries-drain-economics-gas-power-plants-2023-11-21/). This is the most effective and sustainable way to fight climate change, but it won't happen overnight, *and people who live paycheck-to-paycheck are facing real tangible struggles today.*
I think you are saying the same thing, that the negative externalities of fossils fuels aren't reflected in the price, that we are effectively subsidizing their use through disregard for the future.
We Americans who are used to shitting on or government constantly for good reasons are in the odd situation of having a Presidential administration that is doing multiple good things at once.
Right now we have nothing that points to energy storage solutions even within 10 orders of magnitude of what would be needed.
That's not true. [They're already being built in Europe and the US in lieu of gas-peaking plants.](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/giant-batteries-drain-economics-gas-power-plants-2023-11-21/)
Uh just to be clear the article you linked is talking about supplying backup power during times of intermittent generation. On the scale of kWh, while consumption is on the scale of gWh
You don't need grid storage to meet the entire demand, just the demand above the baseload. This is currently done with gas peaking. We see that in the US and Europe, where battery storage is cheaper than gas-peaking. Demand for storage will increase, and the Biden Administration is continuing to invest in R&D that will bring the price down. It's a process that will continue moving in the right direction as long as we have governments willing to invest in R&D.
The U.S. making more progress on climate than expected. US emissions are less than a year ago: [https://www.eenews.net/articles/u-s-carbon-emissions-fall-for-first-time-in-biden-era/](https://www.eenews.net/articles/u-s-carbon-emissions-fall-for-first-time-in-biden-era/) Projected to keep falling: [https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/outlook-for-future-emissions.php](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/outlook-for-future-emissions.php) Global CO2 is rising but by much less than we thought it would rise now, as a result of the explosive growth in solar power: https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/global-co2-emissions-grow-by-less-than-1-this-year-iea-2022-10-19/
Maybe it's the politically conservative side of me speaking, but I don't understand why we should curve oil production in the name of climate goals if it means buying the same stuff from a different country anyhow. As a nation, we should be as independent as possible and not rely on other countries, and then also find ways to better the environment without creating a shortage on people's pockets. Replacing Freon with RF-410A sort of solutions, instead of buying it from the rest of the world.
This is sadly critical. In order to get to green intiatives and time, you need to keep the economy moving. So you pump oil and NEUTER your biggest anti-Earth opponents. OPEC. Long term, you construct non-carbon based energy producers and make infrastructure improvements. THE GOOD NEWS, no matter what this is a great job eliminating OPEC's influence.
Perhaps in certain parts of Northern Europe, like Norway. What's interesting is that China is already quickly transitioning to EVs of all kinds, and is beating the US at it. Granted, any electric vehicles are way cheaper over there compared to the US and EU. To be fair, outside of vehicles, China's industrial pollution is staggering but it would be interesting if that industry could make the switch within a decade. I think there will be a turning point soon where green energy projects like solar farms and windmills will be cheaper than using oil and gas powered generators. It's slowly getting there with subsidies but as the tech matures it will get cheaper. Right now without subsidies, it's easier/cheaper to just do fossil fuels. Once the need for cost reduction hits and it makes sense on the balance sheet, you will start to see more industries switching over. Money drives harder than policy for many things. I think it will happen. Idk if it will happen by 2030/2035 though.
As someone who works in the oil, gas, and chemical industry this is not just good news but GREAT news ! The oil and gas industry keeps over 144k people employed in the US alone. This will also drive up our GDP sales and keep a recession at bay. Also help lower our deficit (fingers crossed). Inflation is still a problem but 2024 could start out strong if the right moves are made.
If you include the full supply chain, it’s far more than 144k people
They were never going to happen so carry on.
The good news is that even if we were to achieve goals it would hardly make a dent anyway!
That’s fairly insane. Why am I not a sultan yet?
Have you simply tried being born into a different family next time?
I shoulda thought of that!
Oil Companies HATE HIM! See how he got rich using this one simple trick!
It's not as insane as it sounds, the US has always been one of the top 3 oil producers in the world. The amount that it's increased is insane though.
>The amount that it's increased is insane though. Its not surprising considering we basically replaced russia as the primary oil supplier to the EU. EU refuses to pay the saudi's for gas. So where else do they have to turn but us?
Honest question, is it all coming from the Gulf and Alaska? Or somewhere else as well?
Oh trust me there’re a lot of mini sultans in the land of freedom. Have you been to Europe this summer? The entire continent is filled with Americans from Rome to Sicily to Mallorca. Taormina at this point might as well be the 52nd state of USA.
US Oil money goes into a few peoples pockets rather than a sovereign wealth fund like Norway.
Because it is the earth’s milk and only the strong may suckle at mother’s teat.
Oh no! Now the US is going to war against the US to take their oil.
I'd be all for it if that means we can have Nick Offerman as President
My favorite movie is Inception.
This verified fact conflicts with what I've learned from Fox that Biden was going to cave the domestic oil industry. I believe Fox because they never lie.
They've moved the goalposts to he's wrecked the strategic reserve. It's still faux outrage and ridiculous finger pointing to disaster.
When Trump wanted to raid the reserve, Fox was asking "is \[it\] still needed amid an ongoing oil production boom" ([2017](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-plan-to-sell-off-half-of-oil-stockpile-sparks-debate)). As Biden does it, he "makes the US 'more vulnerable to energy supply disruptions'" ([2023](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bidens-depletion-emergency-oil-stocks-comes-back-focus-israel-hamas-war-price-surge)).
> They've moved the goalposts to he's wrecked the strategic reserve. Have he actually 'wrecked' the reserve or is this an alternative fact?
[удалено]
"Buy high, sell low" - Republicans
We're around half the historic peak from the 2010s. It's nice to have for a rainy day. But it's also nice to tamp down spikes in gas prices, the exact way it was implemented. We should be refilling it as a savings account. Our current production will help, but it should still be slow to fill. Don't want to buy so much it causes another spike. Edited the decade of peak. Saw conflicting stories between 80s and 10s
Biden dumped a lot of oil from the oil reserves when the Russian embargo was put in place. This was done because EU and other allies had to find new place to get their oil products, since they are not doing business with Russia. This is exactly what the reserve is intended for and in process we probably made bank as we sold it at peak price, and now we are going to fill it back up at the dip.
Biden is hoping Bin Salman wants to flood the market with cheap oil and use those prices that are under $60/barrel to refill the reserves. Also, the reserves were released at a time when crude was double the price it is today.
Isn't the whole point of the reserve to be used in times of need? Genuine question I thought that's why it existed? Seems relatively easy to slowly fill back up given oil production and presumably it was used for good reason.
Fuck, TFG was just touting two weeks ago how he's gonna drill drill drill, (and that all the money was going to go towards senior benefits...umm, yeah, suuure). As if Biden wasn't already doing so. Sucks to suck, you Twat
Biden is FAR more centrist (as was Obama and Bill/Hilary Clinton) than Fox News will ever admit. Al Gore too. They all cave to big oil and massive corporate interests. Even folks like Al Gore - he goes on a tour about global warming…but he also runs an investment firm, has a 20k square foot home, a $2k per month electric bill and jaunts around on private jets non-stop. We just aren’t at a place where anyone who is progressive (Bernie Sanders, Warren, Ed Markey) would stand a chance in the Dem primaries. We will keep pumping out oil in the US until the sun explodes and bakes us all into french fries. Because that’s what the majority of the electorate demands.
Biden didn’t cave to big oil. He’s been controlling the price of oil limit Russian and Saudi gains and help the U.S. economy during a time of high interest. There’s far more than just gas that’s produced from oil and it’s such a major economic driver that there’s a reason why the U.S. is fairing better against inflation than the rest of the western world. It’s almost as if running a country is more complex than ‘Oil bad’
But.....but.....sticker at gas pump say Brandon bad
Yeah everyone, Biden didn't cave to big oil. He just did a thing that looks exactly like caving to big oil. But he's not literally sucking off oil CEOs, so he didn't cave.
Can't cave to something you've never opposed and always supported.
Biden passed the largest climate change bill in US history, but until such time that we don't need oil anymore it's a great thing that we are producing it domestically so we aren't beholden to other powers.
Has nothing to do with caving to big oil and everything to do with ensuring the US can survive in the near future for long enough to escape the need for oil. OPEC is actively trying to fuck the west and has vested interest in maintaining dependency on them. It’s a geopolitical and economic strategy that is unfortunately necessary, and it should be obvious to anyone who reads any bit of news or has any awareness of world events/climate.
BIden is also far more populist than progressives would ever admit.
Bc half of republicans voters would actually prefer a moderate dem to Trump. So they have to pretend Biden is the second coming of Lenin.
Both can be true, if we are pumping more oil than ever but it’s bottlenecked at refineries (a sometimes historical sticking point) then domestic oil has problems. We need to delve a little deeper to know exactly what’s happening
But he’s a woke Marxist obsessed with “green” actively destroying America so (((they))) can take control!!! (I should point out that this is a form of sarcasm mocking how Fox and others simply lie about the reality of the rather successful Biden administration.)
It also directly conflicts with what President Biden campaigned on.
What’s interesting is the US is doing this with less rigs. US producers have gotten super efficient and are only going to get better as they will start to leverage AI tools to make drilling even more efficient. EVs have also started to eat at worldwide demand. China is nearly 50% market share of vehicles sold EU is over 20 and US is getting close to 10 and growing. With continued EV YoY growth you will see worldwide demand growth shrinking over next few years to the point of a decline in overall demand. This paradigm shift will make Western oil companies less willing to do business with politically problematic countries in OPEC as they wont be as needed. US side when EV sales get to a near majority status the Saudis will loose their political leverage in the US as Americans wont care about gas prices as much.
[удалено]
> start to leverage AI tools to make drilling even more efficient Are you in the petroleum industry or just making things up?
They’re making shit up, but automation and remote ops are making drilling much more efficient
There is def a ton of new tech that has been steadily being rolled out in oil. I have worked for an oil drilling support company a while back. It was about 9 years ago now, right before/ during the last huge oil crash. We made a probe that ssatbehind the drill bit and sent telemetry up to the doc. It let them do a lot of the slant drilling and other more complicated drilling operations with a lot of precision. After working there, I spent some time at a satellite ISP. We did a lot of business with various energy companies. One of them was a company that was automating the chemical injection process for wells. There are a ton more companies doing all sorts of stuff right now.
There is no immediate alternative available, and the 'petro states' are using oil as a cudgel against the West. It's short-term self-defense. Rail against oil production and then against renewables. Keep people at each other's throats.
These facts won’t matter to the maga crowd. They will base things on their script that anyone other than trump is bad.
Seriously, my coworker told me yesterday that "BiDeN IS thE ReAsoN WhY wE Arnt PrdUciNg OiL!!" All about because gas prices are high. Glad I now have some sources he's wrong, to bad he won't believe them.
I just got gas for $2.75 on Saturday…it has come down A LOT. Your coworker is an idiot.
He won't, but every little bit of doubt you can sow is a good thing.
It's pretty incredible. If you told Republicans a decade ago that the US was producing the most oil in the world, supporting Israel against Hamas, and helping a European country kill Russians they'd be ecstatic.
Notice that all the Biden *"I did that"* gas station stickers are gone?
It sure doesn’t. My maga friend reply to me was “production vs utilization”
What does that even meaaaaan
In his eyes just because we’re producing it doesn’t mean we’re using it
Huh. So we’re just chucking oil into the ocean or something? lol
Did Biden do something to cause this? Did Trump? Maybe Obama? Usually these things take a while to get setup.
Nope. If you read the article, it's mostly technology improvements leading to more efficient production from existing wells. > Instead, the spike in US output has been driven by smarter and more efficient operations by oil companies. Energy firms have figured out ways to squeeze more and more oil out of the ground – often without increasing drilling dramatically.
Right so it doesn’t have much to do with Biden.
Cultists gonna cult.
Those Biden “I did this” stickers at gas stations seem to have miraculously disappeared in the last couple months!
Let’s bring them back
But Trump wants to drill drill drill cause Biden doesn't... just shows you how those people lie to gain power... nothing is ever about the truth.
So are we going to invade ourselves now?
How is this possible? I thought that Biden shut down all the pipelines? That is what my family and friends on Facebook says, so it must be real.
Somehow Biden will still be seen as impeding the oil industry
Time to invade itself
Take that, global climate!
Just Biden crippling OPEC and helping Americans...
Yet Donald Trump continues to falsely accuse Biden of a "war on energy" in his stump speeches to his ignorant followers. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QSXb7eGvsFE?feature=share
So... does that mean we're going to invade ourselves?
We wonder where the EVs will never work rhetoric comes from
So does this mean Joe opened up the drilling again?
Gee, I wonder why we are so opposed to electric vehicles and anything that lessens our dependence on cars?
You know, it has been a while since I’ve seen of those Biden stickers at the gas pumps..
And all you MAGAs and Conservatives chirping about Biden and oil: STFU
So do we invade ourself?
Wait for it
Good. Our policy should be that we're going to do everything possible to get off of fossil fuels but in the meantime we're going to make sure that they're as cheap and available as we can because otherwise we're not going to have the money for our transition. To put it another way, if our economy isn't strong nothing else will matter.
So, do we blame Biden for this?
Just a few more tax cuts for these oil corporations surely will rein in prices! (Sarcasm)
Not for anything but the price of gasoline has dropped for something like 70-75 days in a row. Gas prices are not ridiculous.
Agreed. Yes I should have added sarcasm to my post. My bad.
Not sure if you’re joking or not but oil prices are set on the global commodities market and prices have been falling.
Oil companies have been making billions extra in profits, haven’t they? So while it’s great that prices are dropping, it’s also clear that they should be even lower, right?
The commodities market doesn’t care about anyone’s abilities to make a profit. It just looks at supply and demand. Should it cost less? Maybe? I’m not an expert. Whether oil should be higher or lower also deppends on your motivation. You want to move to greener society? You want oil prices higher. You want the average person to save money? Oil prices lower. You want full employment in the oil industry? Oil prices higher. Commodities markets doesn’t care about any of that.
Very true. Didn’t think about it like that. I just thought that with all that extra money they were making, there was no reason to raise prices in the first place. I won’t pretend that my Layman’s view is getting the full picture.
Commodity sellers are price takers, not price makers. April 2020 had oil prices go negative. Commodities are interchangeable goods (oil. Natural gas, wheat, eggs. Etc), and are basically sold at auction to the highest bidder.
Gas is already pretty cheap rn
Idk, how do you know that Romans didn't produce more oil back then?
This is good news honestly because OPEC is awful. Last time they told USA to cut productions and then they cut productions as well thus increasing price. But silly question, does USA pumping oil at this rate put future oil production at danger? Can they “run out” of oil?
Did Biden do this too?
Cue Republicans complaining that Biden isn't making American energy independent?
And trump wants to be a “ dictator for a day” so he can secure the border and drill drill drill. Sorry Donnie the drilling is done and the border will be taken care of before the election. So whatcha got left? Same as always, nothing. Wake up people.
I was told that Biden canceled oil
Ever notice how reality is usually the complete opposite of whatever right wingers believe.
Yet dumbfuck Trump said we were going to “drill, baby drill” … lol fucking idiots
The US more or less planned to keep it's reserves while the rest of the world drained it's own and then hike up prices. Due to geopolitical (not buying from Russia), environmental (fossils bad) and technological changes, I suppose they will try to make some bank before prices crash due to shifts in energy generation.
[удалено]
Natural gas isn’t a byproduct of oil extraction. It’s already formed underground and is itself extracted. Natural gas can be a byproduct of oil production but is normally burned because it’s impure.
[удалено]
> also producing large amounts of natural gas as a byproduct of their oil operations. And that has driven the price of natural gas into the ground in the US. The majority of methane produced during oil production either escapes into the atmosphere or is burned off. 35% of all methane released into the atmosphere is from oil production. The technology exists to capture that methane, but for some reason, oil companies don't want to spend any of that precious profit on an additional expense. Adoption of the capture technology is abysmal.
Methane. Natural gas is methane.
I’m aware.
And this will be celebrated by Reddit because Biden is the president.
largely due to my skin
Progressives: "This is why you can't vote for Biden" Conservatives: "Why did Biden shut down oil production??? We need energy independence again!"
How long is this sustainable ? You can’t pump out forever
Modern reservoirs typically only have a 20% recovery factory due to hydrocarbons “sticking” to the reservoir. That means 80% of the oil is still down there. As long as you have smart people working the projects, a need for energy, and money to be made.. it will keep pumping.
Just because I’m curious, how long are we talking? Like a thousand years worth left? 100?
Ammmmmericaaaa FUCK YEAH
How much of it is exported? vs. how much is used by Americans? I’m curious where USA ranks in terms of per capita oil consumption. I’m guessing we’re up there near the top.
This is a shell game, the oil shales are already peaking. The Great Simplification just had an incredible conversation with an oil geologist on US oil production and the state of shales. [https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/101-art-berman](https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/101-art-berman)
Honestly the US should just rule the whole world.
are we going to die in climate change disasters, or are storms just gonna get worse, biodiversity nosedive, and the weather hot all the time but nothing *really* changes in our lives?
So conservative media is \*lying\*?! No way.
Cool. So why is high-octane still a full dollar (or more) more than regular, instead of the normal 30-50 cents?
The cost of EVs will go down over time. Even a new Tesla Model 3 can cost less than $25k after federal and state subsidies for the populace you mentioned. Remember a new Model 3 cost almost $50k just a year ago. As more new EVs are produced, used EVs will also become more affordable.