Buckle Up - Oil Markets are in Upheaval

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Apr 7, 2006
2,504
1,254
1,743
#44
It's steep because the scale peaks at 7%- everything looks steep at that scale.

The reality is if our society likes energy at night or on windless days, we'll have to get to mining lithium at an unprecedented pace, plan to spend billions to build the batteries and find good ways to dispose of battery farms that are hundreds or thousands of acres. If that's not the plan there's a limit on how far current "green" sources (which take more energy to make than they produce- including fossil fuels) can take us.

Hopefully there's a revolutionary change that opens things up but without it there's a cap on it
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,649
2,764
743
32
#45
It's steep because the scale peaks at 7%- everything looks steep at that scale.

The reality is if our society likes energy at night or on windless days, we'll have to get to mining lithium at an unprecedented pace, plan to spend billions to build the batteries and find good ways to dispose of battery farms that are hundreds or thousands of acres. If that's not the plan there's a limit on how far current "green" sources (which take more energy to make than they produce- including fossil fuels) can take us.

Hopefully there's a revolutionary change that opens things up but without it there's a cap on it
Once again, only ignorant people are talking about an overnight change, it will take wind, solar, nuclear, batteries and most likely several technologies that we don’t even know about to completely replace fossil fuels, but the growth seen over the last 5 years is very promising
 
Apr 7, 2006
2,504
1,254
1,743
#49
Once again, only ignorant people are talking about an overnight change, it will take wind, solar, nuclear, batteries and most likely several technologies that we don’t even know about to completely replace fossil fuels, but the growth seen over the last 5 years is very promising
I agree but I would also say that without changes the current trajectory can't be projected out to the point of green energy handling >50% of the demands.
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,649
2,764
743
32
#51
Where did you get your number? You are seriously shading an issue, almost like the wind lobby would
Forbes check my link earlier, I'm not a fan of wind subsidies, but i think it is silly that we worry about the wind subsidies when they are tiny compared to other industries
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,366
2,587
1,743
So Cal
#52
What you get from that graph is that wind isn’t significant? That is pretty steep growth and I haven’t seen any projection of it leveling off
it's steep from near zero to SEVEN PERCENT nationally.... it is nowhere near the 30% that you were implying as only that exchange can offer, because they are in the middle of the "wind belt"... no place else in the country can match that level of wind.

Wind cannot ever replace oil/gas because it is not consistent. Therefore there will ALWAYS be gas power generation, and it will be a mandatory component of generation and if necessary it will get MORE subsidies as it's cost increases as compared to wind and solar. There is an absolute minimum number (capacity) of gas generation that will ALWAYS be required.... and if subsidized wind/solar cuts into the profitability of gas generation then those subsidies must also increase.

1583845843445.png


Wind plant generation performance varies throughout the year as a result of highly seasonal wind patterns. Nationally, wind plant performance tends to be highest during the spring and lowest during the mid- to late summer, while performance during the winter (November through February) is around the annual median. However, this pattern can vary considerably across regions, mostly based on local atmospheric and geographic conditions.
 
Oct 30, 2007
3,829
3,305
1,743
#53
$649 billion is a big number for amateurs
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...does-world-subsidize-oil-coal-and-gas/589000/
The burning of fossil fuels releases deadly air pollution, hastens the destruction of the climate, and (sometimes) increases traffic fatalities. And since all of those things kill people, they also depress a country’s tax base. Account for both the harms and the smaller tax base, says the IMF, and you produce an overwhelming number. In 2017, post-tax subsidies came to $4.9 trillion, or 94 percent of the total.

The numbers quoted by the Forbes article aren't real. 94% of the subsidies they're claiming are based off the theoretical cost of harming the environment through climate change. The actual revenue we spend annually on fossil fuel subsidies is much lower.
 
Nov 16, 2013
3,943
2,171
743
34
tractor
#54
Forbes check my link earlier, I'm not a fan of wind subsidies, but i think it is silly that we worry about the wind subsidies when they are tiny compared to other industries
Forbes isn't looking at the production tax exemption and the generous property tax subsidies coupled with the incredible federal tax credits.
 

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
Jul 31, 2006
7,587
5,600
1,743
Edmond
#55
Forbes check my link earlier, I'm not a fan of wind subsidies, but i think it is silly that we worry about the wind subsidies when they are tiny compared to other industries
Agreed. I mean the CIA has orchestrated a coup or two in its history to protect British and American oil interests for god's sake. Green energy subsidies and tax breaks don't bother me at all.
 
Sep 22, 2011
3,649
2,764
743
32
#56
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...does-world-subsidize-oil-coal-and-gas/589000/
The burning of fossil fuels releases deadly air pollution, hastens the destruction of the climate, and (sometimes) increases traffic fatalities. And since all of those things kill people, they also depress a country’s tax base. Account for both the harms and the smaller tax base, says the IMF, and you produce an overwhelming number. In 2017, post-tax subsidies came to $4.9 trillion, or 94 percent of the total.

The numbers quoted by the Forbes article aren't real. 94% of the subsidies they're claiming are based off the theoretical cost of harming the environment through climate change. The actual revenue we spend annually on fossil fuel subsidies is much lower.
Even if you don't care about the externalities, the direct cash subsidies are still 292 billion world wide, the point still stands that there are plenty of subsidies out there, for plenty of different industries, if you want to focus on one thats your business, but i dont think it makes much sense
 
Oct 30, 2007
3,829
3,305
1,743
#59
Even if you don't care about the externalities, the direct cash subsidies are still 292 billion world wide, the point still stands that there are plenty of subsidies out there, for plenty of different industries, if you want to focus on one thats your business, but i dont think it makes much sense
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/03/23/renewable-energy-subsidies-yes-or-no/#574f86566e23
A study by the University of Texas projected that U.S. energy subsidies per megawatt hour in 2019 would be $0.5 for coal, $1- $2 for oil and natural gas, $15- $57 for wind and $43- $320 for solar.

I don't like subsidies in general, but our country is obviously energy dependent, so to some extent they're a necessary evil. I wouldn't mind providing subsidies to renewable energy if they were more cost effective, but the technology isn't there yet.