Oil Prices Continuing Down Trend

Whose facts? So California reached its clean energy goal before the predicted 2045? I don't think so.

California Releases Report Charting Path to 100 Percent Clean Electricity
For Immediate Release: March 15, 2021


Highlights from the report include the following:

• To reach the 2045 target while electrifying other sectors to meet the state’s economywide climate goals, California will need to roughly triple its current electricity grid capacity.
• California will need to sustain its expansion of clean electricity generation capacity at a record-breaking rate for the next 25 years. On average, the state may need to build up to 6 gigawatts (GW) of new renewable and storage resources annually. By comparison over the last decade, the state has built on average 1 GW of utility solar and 300 megawatts (MW) of wind per year. Over the next three years, electricity providers regulated by the CPUC will add another 8 GW of clean energy resources.
• In addition to social benefits such as less air pollution and improved public health, transitioning to a carbon-free electric system will also create thousands of jobs such as manufacturing and installing wind turbines and solar panels and developing new clean energy technologies.
• Modeling of the core scenario for achieving 100 percent clean electricity showed a 6 percent increase in total annual electricity system costs by 2045, compared to the estimated cost of achieving 60 percent renewable electricity by 2030.
• Advancements in emerging technologies, increased demand flexibility and cost declines in existing technologies may decrease the total electricity resource requirements and implementation costs. These topics, along with reliability, will be examined more closely in future analyses.
• A clean electricity grid is necessary to achieve economywide carbon neutrality. Using clean electricity to power transportation, buildings and industrial operations helps decarbonize these sectors of the economy, which, along with electricity generation, account for 92 percent of the state’s carbon emissions.

“Achieving 100 percent clean electricity by 2045 is not only a bold pursuit, but a wise one,” said CPUC President Marybel Batjer. “Such action is required to avoid the worst impacts and costs of climate change and to ensure the delivery of safe, affordable, reliable and clean power to all Californians.”

https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021...t-charting-path-100-percent-clean-electricity

 

For one day it did. !!!!!
Next year 2 days, etc.

That's how mankind goes forward.

 

Renewables are now over 20%

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

This implementation of renewables will continue.

 

Rep Katie Portier from California has already made this issue on record through some of the committee hearings she is in.

 

Texas wind energy contributes about 20% of all Texas energy source needs, especially in places like the Panhandle area where the wind gusts are worse than Chicago. So, they do work. And in 2021, when we had that infamous freeze, it was not the wind energy that was at fault, it was the generators that were not modified to withstand cold energy of that magnitude that was the main problem.

https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2020/august/ercot.php

 

You do seem to struggle. Perhaps you could point out where the link stated that California reached its 2045 clean energy goal?

 

Then we should harvest it

 

Wow!

 

So what? Not long ago it was 3/4s of what it is now. And before that it was over 2x what it as in 2020. Demand and supply drive price just like every other open market.

 

Is that not what we do with commodities?

 

It just ignores all aspects of the issues with oil, including those in this thread.

 

Ya, so why are you telling me

 

You are projecting, unsurprisingly.

 

The fact you even have to ask is unsurprising. I humbly recommend you do some research if you have to ask lol.

 

Lol at you running away from your factless post

 

Nope, just interpreting your ignoring the point made to you and just returning to the deaf statement that it's all Biden's fault yada yada yada.

The only logical conclusion for that is that you lost the argument but can't bring yourself to admit it.

 

External supplies, yes.
A $70 per bbl of oil drilled in the USA creates a value added* of $70.
The value of oil in the ground is zero. Each step involved in putting it on the market creates additional value*.
Oil from Saudi comes in at say $55. So each step in bringing it to market only creates $15, rather than $60 (the full value of economic activity created), so America loses $55 of economic activity by importing Saudi oil.

*for example: drill and pump into holding tank: + $15 a bbl; pump tank into truck and drive to refinery: + $5 a bbl = $20 per bbl so far, etc.

 

The price moderated due to international factors not under the control of our president - then or now.

 

Let's remember that those who buy oil in America buy it at the lowest price they can get. If Saudi is selling oil at $55 and somebody in the US is trying to sell it at $70, the buyer will favor the lower price. We import a lot of oil - not as much as we export. And, of course there are various grades.

As for economic activity, the buyer has a significant role in that, I think.

Let me know if I misinterpreted your post in some way.

 

No not really. The buyer as end user pays 100% the accumulated expense.
"Oil" is pretty much based on one floating price that is modified by grade.
Here is a cool little chart for you:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=7110

The main point I was making is 100% of the exploration to pump expense stays in the country. One companies expense is income for the next guy down line, repeated over and over and it all circulates in the US economy until it lands on the end user.

 

Yes, there are lots of grades of oil. Prices are set through a market system that includes supply and demand but also includes assessments of risk to supply. So, events such as wars which have the potential of impacting supply will cause prices to rise simply due to that risk. This happens in US agricultural commodities markets, too.

Yes, drilling etc., employs people. Today, there are more people employed by wind and solar than there are in oil drilling. Your comment about that aspect is certainly correct and it applies to all sources of energy, though not necessarily to the same degree or distribution between operation and construction. For example, dams cost a lot to build and very little to operate. And, once you have pump jacks running in an oil field, it doesn't take a lot of employees.

 

You are referring to energy density of production - basically BTU's per dollar spent. Domestic oil is hands down the cheapest BTU's America has.

 

Well, 70% of oil gets used for transportation.

Today, EVs are way cheaper to fuel on a per mile basis. That's true even if you discount the healthcare costs of burning oil on our city streets.

EVs aren't all the way there yet. There are still transportation issues for which there aren't EV solutions.

But, the need for oil IS changing. And, we will be better off for that.