How to replace the petroleum energy supply

Well you can't pin climate change on them that's a religious belief. They do have and take responsibility for pollution damage the environment and to health. Your religion causes you to deny reality.

 

I'm glad the op knows the answer to this question that has been vexing mankind for decades.

Instead of wasting time posting about it here you almost wonder why he's not headed to top industry professionals probably his colleagues you see?

 

Today, wind power is or is very close to the cheapest electricity.

"When you exclude the production tax credit and look at the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) from interior wind, it still comes in at an extremely competitive cost of less than 50 dollars per megawatt-hour (5 cents per kilowatt-hour). For comparison, the Energy Information Administration estimates a best-in-class combined cycle natural gas power plant has an LCOE of about 54 dollars per megawatt-hour (5.4 cents per kilowatt-hour). So even when you account for the effect of the federal wind production tax credit, wind energy remains an extremely competitive generating resource."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...urces-of-electricity-and-its-getting-cheaper/

Let's remember that the wind farms built in the USA are all being built by capitalism. They exist, because they are profitable.

Also, wind energy is still an improving technology - becoming more efficient.

 

They pay taxes.

 

Please cite how the oil industry pays for the health costs of cities polluted by transportation uses of oil - which is more than 2/3 of the use of oil in the USA.

 

Fossil fuel gets significant tax breaks over and above other US industry.

So, your idea is a clear non-starter.

 

Not out of the norm, and those "breaks" were in every case intended to accomplish some worthy public purpose.

 

By a huge margin, science says that fossil fuel IS why Earth is getting warmer.

That is most definitely NOT religion.

 

I don't know what you mean by THAT claim.

What was the noble purpose of allowing oil companies to consider each well a "startup business", thus qualified for the associated tax breaks?

The point is, that fossil fuel is NOT compensating for the externalities their industry causes.

For example, they are NOT paying cities for the additional health care costs caused by burning gasoline throughout populated areas.

 

Actually, there's no evidence linking increased CO2 to temperature increase. Acceptance of the link is an exercise in religious faith.

 

But, you can't point to any science accepted by climatologists that supports your personal contention.

 

That's because nine wells out of ten failed to produce. The law was to compensate for failed but necessary attempts.

 

Again, they pay taxes.

 

I'm not the one trying to prove anything.

 

That isn't the oil companies polluting that's the owner of the vehicles. Why do you care about such small potatoes in the realm of air pollution?

 

No it doesn't

Yeah the faithful never believe they are following a religion.

 

What, so geothermal energy production is nonsensical? Geothermal energy
Coupled with hydroelectricity, you'd get good power outputs.
And what is wrong with Tesla's theory?
Nikola Tesla - Limitless Energy & the Pyramids of Egypt

 

There are costs to developing oil wells.

Suggesting that you and I should foot that bill has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism.

We already give them the oil at incredibly low prices and allow the industry to ignore what are now serious externalities.

 

You are making accusations you can't defend.

 

That's pollution that has serious public health ramifications.

If costs were internalized, it would mean that drivers would face the true cost of driving.

 

I'm fine with the idea.

But, the thing is that free market enterprise judges geothermal to be uneconomical.

And, hydroelectric has costs, too. For one example, here on the west coast, damming the rivers means huge reductions in salmon, which is a major industry plus a way of life for indigenous peoples.

 

Better planning & considerations for the vulnerable, people and ecosystems. Rather than just the production of power to make a profit.

 

No. I have made no accusation. I merely point out the absence of evidence.

 

If a river has a strong current, then that can be utilised, rather than daming it up.

 

It was the bipartisan judgment of Congress and the President that the public interest was served by encouraging exploration for oil and assuring supply.