How to replace the petroleum energy supply

Worry about whether you don't get what I say.

 

Worried? You aren't even engaged!

I'm confident that if you had anything to say, you would say it.

And, you would include a credible cite.

 

You certainly have a gift for flattering yourself, don't you?

 

Then why has the actual cost either remained even with inflation or even gone down over the last 5 decades?

 

Price has very little to do with with actual energy costs involved. Our entire economic system is based on... nothing except belief, really. And that will bite us in the ass eventually, when real energetic costs make "business as usual" far more difficult to sustain. I'm not too worried. I think we will figure out the answer. But fossil fuels isnt it. The sooner we make a transition, the less painful the transition will be.

 

https://investingnews.com/daily/res...il-and-gas-investing/oil-price-and-inflation/

Notice that oil was at a high of $113/bbl in June and now it is at ~$82/bbl.

That's a significant reduction. One would hope that will be reflected in gas prices and thus stop affecting inflation so seriously.

However, what refineries do is totally up to them. And, my understanding is that there is a short supply of some of the products they need for creating gas - due to the international situation.

 

No evidence of that. Sounds like hyperbole. I'm all for renewable energy just not ahead of its skis. We could start building nuclear reactors right now. We know that works.

 

We know that solar and wind work, too. We also know that insulation and building methods are the cheapest form of energy - as one can compare the cost to the energy savings. So, I'm not sure what you are implying by suggesting that it is nuclear that works.

Nuclear is the most expensive electricity we could possible create.

I'm not opposed to that. But, suggesting this is a trivial decision isn't warranted.

One can watch this process in UK, where they are working on new nuclear plants. One can see the time line, the costs, the projected price of electricity produced, the projected plant lifetimes, and other factors.

 

Sorry I don't believe any of that. We have closed reactors over safety concerns, not economic ones. We had an issue at Three Mile Island some decades ago. They should be able to build them better.

 

This doesn't address anything I said.

I FULLY believe we can make nuclear power stations that are safer than the one at Three Mile Island or the ones closed due to safety problems. I did NOT address safety as a concern.

If you read my post, I pointed to the nuclear reactors being built in UK and the copious amounts of information about those sites - time lines, what they cost, the price of power they will generate, life expectancy, etc.

The overall indication is that Nuclear power in the USA will probably be built, but will take years and the power will be far more expensive than what we pay today.

My bet is that we'll built nuclear power stations, because we need the energy.

 

Wow, stand back, here comes the fail truck.

Now read what you said very carefully. Then take a moment, and try to digest what you just read. And really think about it.

That was not their "oil supply", that belonged to the Dutch. A nation they went to war with on 8 December, just like the US and UK.

The reason they attacked the Pacific Fleet, was there was this large US protectorate called the Philippines right in the middle of the route between Japan and the Dutch East Indies. And no nation wants a potential enemy sitting on their supply lines.

And the solution to end the oil embargo was simple. Stop the slaughter of millions of Chinese in their brutal occupation of that country. The attack was not driven by oil at all, but by a radical government that felt it had the right to do anything it want. The numbers will never be really known, but Japan even made NSDAP Germany look tame. Most casualty numbers place the Chinese civilians dead at anywhere from 10 to 35 million. And there was actually film released at the time showing the slaughter of civilians apparently for the sheer pleasure of killing. Even turning it into a game. ANd one the nation was aware of, as there was a contest to behead people with a sword that was carried in the sports pages of newspapers across Japan.

So first of all, it was not their oil. They refused to stop slaughtering the Chinese, so when the US cut off their oil they simply decided to continue their behavior and take the oil from somebody else.

 

Which has not a damned thing to do with the actual "price of oil".

In case you are not aware, oil is a commodity. Like gold, silver, pork backs, and orange juice. And most times if the price climbs, it has not a damned thing to do with the price itself, but speculation. As investors jump in and try to make money on the idea that the price will rise. Which in itself often causes the price to rise. But those are only temporary bubbles, they always return to normal.

Want to see that in action, look no farther than Bit Coin. When it was created, it was never intended to be worth more than a few hundred dollars. But then the speculators got ahold of it, and have ruined it. Nobody uses it for legitimate commerce (which was the intent), it became used only be speculators that drove the price up to over $60,000 each. And the entire time I laughed, as I was seeing tulips when all that happened. Now BC is so unstable that nobody rational would invest in it, and the value is entirely driven by the speculators, trying to milk it for as long as they can before it self-destructs.

You mention the price of oil going up. Did the cost to extract or refine it increase? No. Did the price for it from the manufacturers increase? No. That was entirely speculation. And that is how the speculators work, they jump in and drive the price up, then rush to get out before it is realized that it is largely a fake bubble built on FUD, and lose their money when it drops again.

Once again, trying to build your case on manipulated data. And this time it really is manipulated. Because the increase is not based on reality.

Those of us old enough to remember 1979-1980 know this first hand. When two brothers decided to corner the Silver Market. And drove it from $6 an ounce to over $50 an ounce. Before it all came crashing down.



Once again, the price of silver had not a damned thing to do with either the cost or value of silver. The cost to extract it never changed, that was entirely caused by speculation. The very fact that you can not separate the facts and factual data from manipulation is why I keep telling you repeatedly to stop relying upon and using manipulated data.

 

No, you have to try to understand the commodities markets.

That's what controls oil prices.

There can be local anomalies. For example, before the pipelines in the US were reversed, oil from north central states couldn't get to Gulf (or other) ports. Thus that oil was cheaper, as the demand was locally low.

The whole reason for reversing the pipelines was to allow those drilling in north central states and Canada to charge MORE for their oil.

The whole right wing was going CRAZY with the desire to get more oil to the Gulf. But, that was in order to RAISE the price of oil in the central region of the USA.

 

You dont replace it. You use it until it becomes obsolete. Replacing it while most of the world still runs on it is asking for destabilization.

 

If there were a sudden change, you might have something there.

For oil, the biggest change appears to be in the transportation sector, which is responsible for 66% of US oil consumption today. Reduction in that sector IS being planned for. Every automaker knows it's coming. But, manufacture of EVs isn't going to replace new ICE sales instantly, and there will still be used vehicles burning gas.

As for electricity, I suspect there is a reasonable limit at about 30% to 40% of production by clean energy. We could potentially exceed that amount, but it would mean changes such as serious improvement of our grid(s), major major battery technology for moderating spikes, addition of nuclear, and perhaps forming energy relationships with Canada and Mexico at least to moderate in the way UK does. That is NOT going to happen rapidly. Maybe there will be (or are) other ideas.

Today, we can't even get agreement to fix our grids! We've spent YEARS watching our infrastructure rot. We've watched the various disasters. Somehow, a big hunk of America just doesn't give a crap.

 

Its not just the fuel, its the cars. My first car was an old beater I bought for about $1500. I was 18 when I bought it. $80,000 EV's mean that our "first" cars will be bought more than halfway to retirement... at best.
And tearing out the oil heat in the homes won't happen quickly either

 

No, you are ignoring that capitalism is absolutely astounding at solving product cost and function.

You can a buy a Bolt for about $26K.

Here are some others:
https://www.cars.com/articles/here-are-the-11-cheapest-electric-vehicles-you-can-buy-439849/

The major point is that this tech is like other tech. The first large flat screen TVs were in the $15K range. The first home personal computers were thousands of dollars. Etc.

But, once companies figured out what people wanted and how to make these products, the prices fell RAPIDLY due to the magic of capitalism.

But, your beater was a used car. Used EVs will be cheaper, too.

 

Tell me about your EV. Which model did you choose?

 

What I drive isn't relevant to the direction of EVs in the USA or world.

 

It is if you promote a technology that is not yet ready for primetime. You promote something for others than yourself.

 

I hope to promote an awareness of trends and advantages behind those trends - as well as issues with those trends.

You should care about what auto manufacturers are believing, as indicated by where they are placing billion dollar bets.

You should care about the American auto industry. Stellantis is closing their plant in Belvidere, IL, which they had planned to use to build EVs. That is an indication that moving to EVs is far more difficult than simply switching engines. Plus, other US auto manufacturers are struggling.

You should care about the increasing availability of reasonably priced EVs and other factors in the progression of this industry.

You should care about the decisions people are making as reflected in sales volumes.

You should care about where we are going to get all the electricity from.

Pretending that I am the issue is a big mistake.