Not sure why you are bringing DT into this. USA was the #1 producer of crude oil before he took office, so I guess we can thank Obama for that? Regardless, the US is still a net IMPORTER of crude. How can we produce more than any other country, but still have to import more? If only there was some way to consume less. Hmmm
1 Like
reference?
Regardless, the US is still a net IMPORTER of crude.
reference?
Under President Trump there was also a huge increase in the production of natural gas due to his approval of fracking. That is also being reversed by Bidenās handler.
1 Like
Didnāt realize this was a research paper. Here you go, now you can provide sources for your nonsense as well:
1 Like
Hereās a reference for my statement that the United States achieved energy independence under President Trump.
The U.S. became the worldās largest natural gas producer in 2011, as fracking unlocked the fuel trapped in shale fields in states like Texas and Pennsylvania, and took the top global spot in crude oil output from Saudi Arabia in 2018 after a decade long expansion of that fracking technology to oil fields.*
your point is?
If I recall correctly, 2018 was during the Trump administration.
President Trump allowed fracking on federal land while Bidenās handlers want to shut it down.
regarding US energy independence, see the reference in my other post that discusses US energy consumption and production.
1 Like
There are two different things you are discussing. Electric power and heating, and transportation.
The US has been mostly independent for power production for most of its history.
It has imported fuel for transportation for most of the last five or six decades.
please provide page numbers to support your points.
Didnāt realize this was a research paper. Here you go, now you can provide sources for your nonsense as well:
name-calling doesnāt belong in a serious debate
1 Like
Iām sorry, please quote directly where I called you any name.
The IERās President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron.
Lol great source there.
If you canāt be bothered to read the source I provided, Iām not doing your research for you.
2 Likes
āZero emissionsā is sloppy terminology. The literal statement can be refuted simply by showing that battery cars emit one molecule of carbon dioxide during operation. You need to provide a tolerance. For example they emit less than X amount per mile driven.
But on a more substantive basis the statement is not correct because carbon dioxide is emitted during the production and delivery of the electric power to charge the electric car. Even low carbon dioxide emissions sources like Hydropower require fossil fuel vehicles to build and maintain the dams and reservoirs and the electric grid to deliver power to the charging stations.
2 Likes
Thus, the U.S. attained the long-held goal of āenergy independenceā>
I bet Jimmy Carter was jumping for joy. That was his goal in the late 70ās. He failed.
Dude, youāre throwing facts at religious zealots. Ask Copernicus how that worked out.
Electric cars not ready for prime time or a screwup by GM only?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/21/gm-recall-of-chevy-bolts-will-cost-1-8bn/
2 Likes
I hope the climatistas make sober assessments of the impacts of their crusade on the environment. Thereās some hope with articles like this from the LA Times. No ādeniersā they
The sprint to supply automakers with heavy-duty lithium batteries is propelled by climate-conscious countries like the United States that aspire to abandon gas-powered cars and SUVs. They are racing to secure the materials needed to go electric, and the Biden administration is under pressure to fast-track mammoth extraction projects that threaten to unleash their own environmental fallout.
In far-flung patches of the ocean floor, at Native American ancestral sites, and on some of the most pristine federal lands, extraction and mining companies are branding themselves stewards of sustainability, warning the planet will suffer if digging and scraping are delayed. All the prospecting is giving pause to some of the environmental groups championing climate action, as they assess whether the sacrifice needed to curb warming is being shared fairly.
1 Like
I dont know if Iāll ever understand how anyone could consider replacing one finite resource pumped from the ground with another finite resource dug from the ground to be a move to āsustainabilityā.
3 Likes
The 2nd law of thermodynamics pretty much dictates that 100% sustainability is never gonna happen. So diversification may be the best we can do even if it feels a bit like kicking the can.
Just like research is being done into getting from CO2 to synthetic fuels at a reasonable cost to improve sustainability, the components used in electric batteries can usually be recycled although rather expensively currently.
Plus these components may also not always use the typical LiCoO2 cathode and LiPF6 electrolyte. See research on zinc ion batteries using water as electrolyte for example. Even when still using Li, improvements in energy density could reduce quantities needed (say in Li-sulfur batteries). Batteries altogether may get replaced by supercapacitors (graphene ones say). List goes on for alternative candidates for being the next electric battery with goals of getting higher energy density and/or using more sustainable materials (or just cheaper and easier to deal with than Li).
I am all for research but does it not make sense to wait until we see if the research is successful before the government mandates that everyone uses electric cars and that gasoline cars stop being sold?
@Shandril, you are a lot better educated than I am, which is why I only quoted the first few words of your post. Heck, I canāt remember how the horse and rook move, ā¦ so I donāt understand much of the rest of your post. In fact, you man not believe in the race to āalternativeā fuels or the supposed āemergencyā that weāre told weāre in. If that is the case, please ignore all that follows, because I donāt want to sound like (or be) a jerk, but will try my best.
Do you think we should have given Henry Ford or any other auto (gasoline engine) inventors extraordinary tax credits for their inventions? If so, why ā¦ and how do you explain their success without those extraordinary tax credits?
I have no problem with Chinese LEDs (unless they arenāt UL rated, contain lead, poisonous vapors, melamine, etc.), Chinese solar panels (unless they arenāt UL rated, contain lead, poisonous vapors, melamine, etc.), lithium-ion batteries, et.al. I have a problem with what I perceive to be invented/created emergencies to create tax breaks (and in some cases, entire markets) to benefit, and sometimes create governing class backers/supporters.
I have no doubt that one day, we will run out of oil, coal and natural gas. I also have no doubt that one day the sun will go super nova and incinerate the planet. I also have no doubt that one day we will run out of potable water. I do not think that government āinvestingā to defend against any of these is practical. Just as, at the turn of the last century, cleaner/faster/easier products were produced to replace the onerous/weather-affecting/heat-producing horse and buggy. It did not require taxpayer āinvestmentā beyond the normal deductions afforded to manufacturers. To the best of my recollection, there were no special tax credits to kill your horse and buy a gasoline powered horseless carriage. There were also no special tax credits to risk money on building a filling station in the āhopeā that there would, one day, be a driver needing gasoline. Of course, my memory is terrible, so maybe Algoreās great-grand-pappy was trying to buy up methane ācreditsā to re-sell to the poop-producers who owned horses.
I am all for solar, wind, tide, hydro, geothermal, falcon, poop, etc. investment. Invest and get rich ā¦ if your product/idea/service doesnāt suck. I donāt think taxpayers should backstop, protect, or enrich those investors (especially the pigeons and falcons!) if they suck. If they suck, I guarantee there is at least one living politician who will happily take care of them.
Sorry for the long post/rant. New dogs bring out the best in me.
2 Likes
I agree with you. But someone will point out that this push to āgreenā stuff is to stop the byproducts of burning oil. coal, et al, not because weāre going to eventually run out of that stuff.
I have no concerns about running out of oil. At some point itāll become too uneconomical to drill/pump and consumers will move on to more cost effective options (that probably havent been invented yet), long before weāve reached the last drop.
3 Likes
I agree with that. I think market forces should sort it out. At some point, if electric batteries become easier and cheaper to manufacture, ICE cars will become obsolete. Weāre very close to that level as it is considering reduced maintenance costs. So mandating something thatās about to happen anyway seems useless. FWIW I think the mandates are merely re-assurances for the auto industry that they can go all in on electric and that there will be corresponding investments in infrastructure to support these vehicles.
I also agree with Honkinggoose on tax credits/incentives. This was a handout to auto industry that is now fortunately virtually gone for most of them. But it always felt a bit too interventionist to me as well. That said, the Chinese did it with their own EVs and European car manufacturers got the same treatment as well. So maybe we were just keeping up so that US manufacturers donāt have to suffer being less competitive. But the credits should have gone solely to US manufacturers IMO since others may already have received support from their own countries for developing their EVs.
1 Like
Like those whose parts are made all over the world and assembled in Mexico? Or based on their stock listing? Or corporate tax payments? 