Energy Discussion

[Randy Daytona]

I wonder what happened to all of Russia's offshore production? I remember reading a while back that oil has to trade over $100 a barrel for it to make money. Seems like they'd turn that back on if they had the ability to do so.

Russia only has about 5% of its production offshore, about 60% comes from Siberia. If those wells (or transport, or storage) are knocked offline, there is a good chance they will be frozen and then have to be re-drilled. Russia has usually sourced that expertise from the oil majors and lacks the ability to do that type of drilling itself - in other words, a good chunk of oil and gas production may be knocked offline permanently.

Production is also being interrupted in the Middle East, not just oil but LNG from Qatar whose specialized and highly refrigerated equipment is more difficult to repair / transport. We are looking at a whole new energy market: good for renewables, good for coal, and good news for exporters of hydrocarbons from the Western Hemisphere. If Venezuela gets ramped up, that could be profitable, if the other provinces let Alberta build pipelines the oil sands could help with supply- and the US is going to make bank - unless a new administration hostile to fossil fuels, the revenues it produces and the well paid workers it employs decides otherwise.

 

[taxi1]

unless a new administration hostile to fossil fuels, the revenues it produces and the well paid workers it employs

I don't think anyone is going to be hostile to revenues and well paid workers.

 

[taxi1]

Renewable energy is going to be energy security. Throw in fission and (someday) fusion.

Even if we have all the oil, the external market is going to exert control on our internal prices, e.g., diesel fuel, which is skyrocketing right when the harvest is in. A typical combine burns 200 gallons/day.

Good for the oil companies that they are making lots of money, and for the employees and stockholders of them. But that is a pretty small subset of Americans. Most are just consumers of the product.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Renewable energy is going to be energy security. Throw in fission and (someday) fusion.

Even if we have all the oil, the external market is going to exert control on our internal prices, e.g., diesel fuel, which is skyrocketing right when the harvest is in. A typical combine burns 200 gallons/day.

Good for the oil companies that they are making lots of money, and for the employees and stockholders of them. But that is a pretty small subset of Americans. Most are just consumers of the product.

I appreciate your perspective on renewables and consider them part of an all of the above mix energy strategy.

That said, I have serious reservations about our greatest strategic rival controlling the vast majority of the mining and processing of rare earths AND the production of solar panels, wind turbines and controlling equipment- that seems like a national security disaster waiting to happen.

 

[taxi1]

I appreciate your perspective on renewables and consider them part of an all of the above mix energy strategy.

That said, I have serious reservations about our greatest strategic rival controlling the vast majority of the mining and processing of rare earths AND the production of solar panels, wind turbines and controlling equipment- that seems like a national security disaster waiting to happen.

Amen on the strategic rival controlling the capability of make renewables. It is absolutely insane to me that we are ceding that to them right now, too. Just bonkers stupid. We are actually paying wind tech firms money to shelve their efforts. F***ing nuts. And our grid is a shit-show.

I'm betting if we put our heads down and addressed it, there would be good high paying jobs available in that field.

Sodium-Ion is a battery tech that we have the raw materials for. Less volumetric efficient compared to Lithium-Ion, but there's a bunch of uses where that is not a big deal. We should be funding the tech to mature it for grid storage and accelerate its adoption.

 

[SynixMan]

Will be interesting to see if this round of prolonged high fuel prices drive yet another round of EV/PHEV adoption, despite the repeal of subsidies at the behest of republican donors. Real monkey paw wish stuff. We bat it about a lot here, but a full size pickup getting 18mpg for your suburban office commute is a personal choice that carries a cost.

@Randy Daytona It’s almost as if government should subsidize production of domestic solar and batteries while using limited tariff power to limit foreign products while we make the transition and secure our energy future. Oh wait, that’s dumb!

 

[Griz882]

Will be interesting to see if this round of prolonged high fuel prices drive yet another round of EV/PHEV adoption, despite the repeal of subsidies at the behest of republican donors. Real monkey paw wish stuff. We bat it about a lot here, but a full size pickup getting 18mpg for your suburban office commute is a personal choice that carries a cost.

@Randy Daytona It’s almost as if government should subsidize production of domestic solar and batteries while using limited tariff power to limit foreign products while we make the transition and secure our energy future. Oh wait, that’s dumb!

I agree to a point. First and foremost, the U.S. government has zero business subsidizing a billion dollar industry to help them sell their cars and I’d apply this to any billion dollar industry in the U.S. regardless of politics. Regulate, offer corporate tax incentives, and son on are fine, but the market alone should dictate sale prices (the fact that EV prices have adapted to this is telling). That said, I absolutely agree that people driving insanely large truck to the office or grocery store…and then complaining about fuel prices…is just as ridiculous.

I feel like we are at an inflection point. More people probably want EV/PHEVs but the infrastructure is still lacking, especially in urban areas. I live in New England in an area that could be considered exurban and within a 10 miles radius of my home there are probably 25 to 30 publicly available EV charging ports that are free to park at while paying to charge your car. In nearby urban Boston there are hundreds of EV charging spots, but almost no free parking while you charge, meaning you basically have to pay to park and pay to charge. From my recent experience living in the very urban DC area owning an EV was actually kind of hard. This is where infrastructure needs to be built up, and yes, this is a remarkable opportunity for the “abundance agenda” types. Refocus just a few regulations and the market would take off.

As for solar panels, we are already at the right spot. The Inflation Reduction Act has made domestic solar manufacturing more attractive by improving the economics of producing solar components in the United States. These incentives accurately target different parts of the supply chain, including modules, cells, wafers, and other clean energy components rather than the simplistic “we’ll give some money to install panels.” The next step, energy storage.

 

[Spekkio]

I agree to a point. First and foremost, the U.S. government has zero business subsidizing a billion dollar industry to help them sell their cars and I’d apply this to any billion dollar industry in the U.S. regardless of politics. Regulate, offer corporate tax incentives, and son on are fine, but the market alone should dictate sale prices (the fact that EV prices have adapted to this is telling). That said, I absolutely agree that people driving insanely large truck to the office or grocery store…and then complaining about fuel prices…is just as ridiculous.

We should not offer corporate tax incentives for EVs. That's just another way of intervening in a market instead of letting supply and demand do its thing.

All we need to do is unfuck the EPA's regulations - they should not get less stringent as vehicle size increases.

It's currently tougher / more expensive to make an EPA compliant mid size sedan than full size SUV.

 

[Flash]

...We are looking at a whole new energy market: good for renewables, good for coal, and good news for exporters of hydrocarbons from the Western Hemisphere. If Venezuela gets ramped up, that could be profitable, if the other provinces let Alberta build pipelines the oil sands could help with supply- and the US is going to make bank - unless a new administration hostile to fossil fuels, the revenues it produces and the well paid workers it employs decides otherwise.

Not so good for consumers filling when they go to fill up their cars though, eh?

And you got it wrong, US [energy companies are] is going to make bank.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Not so much in China (or India for that matter) .

Chinese Coal-based Power Plants

www.wilsoncenter.org

Xi's dubious 2020 pledge aside, I think this excerpt from the article illustrates that coal probably isn't going anywhere anytime soon at least from a global perspective.

"When Xi Jinping surprised the world with his 2020 pledge for carbon neutrality by 2060, China’s economy was stronger than it is today and the top-down crackdowns on existing coal plants were real. Fast forward to today and the drive to restart its economy after COVID-19 lockdowns has pushed Chinese policymakers to prioritize energy security and economic growth over carbon reductions. The foundation for China’s clean energy transition still exists, but these new coal plants mark a sobering lock-in of high-carbon energy."

Report out on record coal consumption. And with the need for electricity for more data centers combined with the disruption of piped gas from Russia and LNG capabilities being taken offline in Qatar by the Iranians, coal will be an important part of the energy mix for awhile.

Global coal demand forecast to rise by 1.2% in 2026 to a record 8.94 billion tonnes due to Middle East conflict, IEA says​

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/global-coal-demand-forecast-rise-by-12-2026-record-894-billion-tonnes-due-middle-2026-09-10/

 

[Swanee]

I agree to a point. First and foremost, the U.S. government has zero business subsidizing a billion dollar industry to help them sell their cars and I’d apply this to any billion dollar industry in the U.S. regardless of politics. Regulate, offer corporate tax incentives, and son on are fine, but the market alone should dictate sale prices (the fact that EV prices have adapted to this is telling). That said, I absolutely agree that people driving insanely large truck to the office or grocery store…and then complaining about fuel prices…is just as ridiculous.

I feel like we are at an inflection point. More people probably want EV/PHEVs but the infrastructure is still lacking, especially in urban areas. I live in New England in an area that could be considered exurban and within a 10 miles radius of my home there are probably 25 to 30 publicly available EV charging ports that are free to park at while paying to charge your car. In nearby urban Boston there are hundreds of EV charging spots, but almost no free parking while you charge, meaning you basically have to pay to park and pay to charge. From my recent experience living in the very urban DC area owning an EV was actually kind of hard. This is where infrastructure needs to be built up, and yes, this is a remarkable opportunity for the “abundance agenda” types. Refocus just a few regulations and the market would take off.

As for solar panels, we are already at the right spot. The Inflation Reduction Act has made domestic solar manufacturing more attractive by improving the economics of producing solar components in the United States. These incentives accurately target different parts of the supply chain, including modules, cells, wafers, and other clean energy components rather than the simplistic “we’ll give some money to install panels.” The next step, energy storage.

EV fast charging public infrastructure is growing, but Level 2 charging at home is still almost a requirement to realize the cost savings vs an ICE car. Suburban areas are on the better side of equal, but not by a huge amount. I can drive from Kalamazoo to Peoria (for a family visit) and have reliable fast charging the whole way with a little bit of route planning.

I won't drive the EV to ref a hockey game in the Chicago Metro area though. That's just asking for trouble with long waits and high prices.

High density downtown areas are next to impossible. Pay to park while you pay to charge? Gasoline is cheaper per mile a that point.

 

[RHINOWSO]

The transition to EVs will still take time - people focus on the cost per mile, but when you are a family of 4 drivers with four reliable & paid off used vehicles, the trade off of moving even one to an EV is something that will never make financial sense (vehicle cost and insurance) until it is time to replace one of them due to it aging out - I know, I've ran the numbers many times. Our vehicles are 22, 12, 12, and 8 years old. All are super reliable and in good to great shape.

 

[Griz882]

High density downtown areas are next to impossible. Pay to park while you pay to charge? Gasoline is cheaper per mile a that point.

I saw this play out in comical ways in Alexandria VA (not NYC density, but dense enough). People had power cords running out their windows and through tree limbs to dangle down to the street - but they didn’t control the parking space in front of their home. I applied for a permit to add permanent system that would run under the sidewalk to a ground level port that I could lock. They came back and said maybe, but I’d have to leave it open for public use! When I reminded them that it would be powered by electricity that I paid and the city owned systems all charged the user, they simply said…cost of doing business. So, no urban EV for me. Now that I own a home with a big garage I’m back to researching the possibilities.

 

[taxi1]

The transition to EVs will still take time - people focus on the cost per mile, but when you are a family of 4 drivers with four reliable & paid off used vehicles, the trade off of moving even one to an EV is something that will never make financial sense (vehicle cost and insurance) until it is time to replace one of them due to it aging out - I know, I've ran the numbers many times. Our vehicles are 22, 12, 12, and 8 years old. All are super reliable and in good to great shape.

We just bought a Honda passport that we plan to use for driving back into the woods and going camping, etc., it’s powered by fossil dinosaurs.

When I replace my current car, a VW all track which is operating just fine at 110,000 miles, I will look for a plug-in, hybrid.

But I do have an E-bike that I ride all over town. That thing is sweet.

 

[RHINOWSO]

I can see the allure for people who get new cars every 3-5 years, but since I like money and don't drive a lot (none of us do) it will be a bit.

They are the future, but it doesn't happen overnight and I think there will be plenty of exceptions required for remote locations, country, farming, etc for at least another 50 years.

I would put solar on our property but for a long time the sunshine state wasn't really solar friendly. We have a tall house, so it would have to be a ground array (we have property for that too) - it's just not a priority as we'd need to drop some trees, etc. Maybe when the college kids are out of the house.