Even ignoring the environment for a moment, I’m sceptical of the long-term wisdom of tying the US to a limited resource with a diminishing EROI as easy access is already exhausted. 🤔
Also export markets will hopefully diminish soonish, for environmental and energy independence reasons. 🤔
Then again, if access to cheaper American oil drags down Russian economy further, there’s at least a silver lining. OPEC would probably have something to say about it though.
Then again, if access to cheaper American oil drags down Russian economy further
Oil companies sponsoring Trump are not in it to make energy cheaper.
The policies/EOs announced directly make energy more expensive, with Americans more dependent on the extortionist oligarchs.
US energy is always more expensive to transport to EU than Russian or middle east energy. EU in fact is importing oil/gasoline from India which imports it from Russia, as a sick joke on its citizens for supporting war on Russia.
Russian economy is strong and independent such that more people/resources are being allocated to domestic needs than expanding FF exports. They myth that sanctions work on Russia who has enough allies to thrive is a delusion for war, and that Europe is winning the war instead of a US victim of it.
Oil companies sponsoring Trump are not in it to make energy cheaper.
The policies/EOs announced directly make energy more expensive, with Americans more dependent on the extortionist oligarchs.
From the inauguration speech: “We will bring prices down, fill our strategic reserves up again right to the top, and export American energy all over the world.” Okay, the prices down probably is empty words aimed at the domestic market.
US energy is always more expensive to transport to EU than Russian or middle east energy. EU in fact is importing oil/gasoline from India which imports it from Russia, as a sick joke on its citizens for supporting war on Russia.
Oil is a fungible product. If someone buys American rather than Middle-Eastern or Norwegian oil, the price of Middle-Eastern or Norwegian oil goes down to meet the demand that exists.
Yeah, the import of refined Russian oil from India is ridiculous. That’s not “EU importing” as much as “companies in EU importing”, though. Business gonna business. ¯\ (ツ) /¯
Russian economy is strong and independent such that more people/resources are being allocated to domestic needs than expanding FF exports. They myth that sanctions work on Russia who has enough allies to thrive is a delusion for war, and that Europe is winning the war instead of a US victim of it.
You’re kind of making my point. The energy trade was supposed to be a kind of a mutually benefical MAD doctrine. Apparently it wasn’t, just an extortion tool by Russia, so bloody well time to cut it. Hopefully we’ll be able to cut the replacement soonish too. Really, going green is our best bet, not just for climate change or other environmental damage, but sheer energy independence.
Okay, the prices down probably is empty words aimed at the domestic market.
Yes, filling reserves is a big price increase. Exporting to world is also less oil available to Americans, and higher prices for them.
Oil is a fungible product. If someone buys American rather than Middle-Eastern or Norwegian oil, the price of Middle-Eastern or Norwegian oil goes down to meet the demand that exists.
LNG is especially expensive compared to pipelines. Big energy to freeze and thaw it, with expensive facilities to do it. Russian LNG to Europe was still 16%. 1/3 that of US imports. US energy imports is more about being a good colony than getting the best price. I was just commenting on shipping costs, and US energy is about $1-$2/bbl more expensive than closer energy by ship.
Apparently it wasn’t, just an extortion tool by Russia, so bloody well time to cut it.
Even if your reality bubble is that Russia wasn’t forced to neutralize Ukraine, you cannot claim that it was the one who refused to sell energy to Europe. War is primarily over nordstream and US capture of EU energy.
Really, going green is our best bet, not just for climate change or other environmental damage, but sheer energy independence.
Europe has made exceptional, global leading, advances this year on this objective. Increasing electricity production, while decreasing both NG and coal use by over 10%. Key to dealing with Trump threats is to maintain that progress above all else, but hatred for Russia will likely cause more desperate US sycophancy.
That’s rather simplistic. Nothing has the energy density of a gallon of gas. That fact powered the Industrial Revolution and that’s how we’re chatting now.
Even if we ignore the environment, we’ve got to slash fossil fuel use. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever, and we’re still gonna need it.
For example, solar isn’t powering aviation anytime soon. Imagine a 747 or F35 running on batteries. LOL, no. Don’t think anyone is making battery powered combines or harvesters either. Stuff like that.
I understand your argument, but I refute your assertions with the following pieces of evidence that I hope you will consider.
Purified Uranium has 100 000 times the energy density of gasoline. Unless you time travelled from Industrial revolution era, not sure where you got “nothing”:
Not saying nuclear has no downsides, but what is economical vs. what is most energy dense are two separate discussions you are trying to simplify into one. Wind is not energy dense but has been economical which is where my original argument came from. It is a competitor to oil that is being forced out.
Electric vehicles are finding their niche in lighter duty farm, construction, landscaping jobs. The article below says the current technology is suitable for under 100hp. In 20 years it may be possible to improve it to a level that it can compare or exceed performance against traditional motor models.
Just last year, the first commercial training flight on an all-electric plane took off in Canada! It wouldn’t be inconceivable to charge that using solar. And for the same reason you don’t have to jump right to electrifying a 747, having more electric aircraft would be useful in quickly hopping between islands or remote settlements, while reducing emissions and need to transport fossil fuels as much. Newer or different battery tech may come in due time, but if we ignore it just because it can’t fully switch immediately, we hinder the progress we are making today. Before an electric jumbo jet or fighter jet, we’ll get a commuter jet. Before the commuter jet we’ll get a 10 seater twin prop. Before the twin prop we have the two seater single prop.<-- We are here.
Even ignoring the environment for a moment, I’m sceptical of the long-term wisdom of tying the US to a limited resource with a diminishing EROI as easy access is already exhausted. 🤔
Also export markets will hopefully diminish soonish, for environmental and energy independence reasons. 🤔
Then again, if access to cheaper American oil drags down Russian economy further, there’s at least a silver lining. OPEC would probably have something to say about it though.
From the inauguration speech: “We will bring prices down, fill our strategic reserves up again right to the top, and export American energy all over the world.” Okay, the prices down probably is empty words aimed at the domestic market.
Oil is a fungible product. If someone buys American rather than Middle-Eastern or Norwegian oil, the price of Middle-Eastern or Norwegian oil goes down to meet the demand that exists.
Yeah, the import of refined Russian oil from India is ridiculous. That’s not “EU importing” as much as “companies in EU importing”, though. Business gonna business. ¯\ (ツ) /¯
You’re kind of making my point. The energy trade was supposed to be a kind of a mutually benefical MAD doctrine. Apparently it wasn’t, just an extortion tool by Russia, so bloody well time to cut it. Hopefully we’ll be able to cut the replacement soonish too. Really, going green is our best bet, not just for climate change or other environmental damage, but sheer energy independence.
Yes, filling reserves is a big price increase. Exporting to world is also less oil available to Americans, and higher prices for them.
LNG is especially expensive compared to pipelines. Big energy to freeze and thaw it, with expensive facilities to do it. Russian LNG to Europe was still 16%. 1/3 that of US imports. US energy imports is more about being a good colony than getting the best price. I was just commenting on shipping costs, and US energy is about $1-$2/bbl more expensive than closer energy by ship.
Even if your reality bubble is that Russia wasn’t forced to neutralize Ukraine, you cannot claim that it was the one who refused to sell energy to Europe. War is primarily over nordstream and US capture of EU energy.
Europe has made exceptional, global leading, advances this year on this objective. Increasing electricity production, while decreasing both NG and coal use by over 10%. Key to dealing with Trump threats is to maintain that progress above all else, but hatred for Russia will likely cause more desperate US sycophancy.
You are so right. We could get energy literally out of thin air, but we’re banning it because oil isn’t making enough money.
That’s rather simplistic. Nothing has the energy density of a gallon of gas. That fact powered the Industrial Revolution and that’s how we’re chatting now.
Even if we ignore the environment, we’ve got to slash fossil fuel use. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever, and we’re still gonna need it.
For example, solar isn’t powering aviation anytime soon. Imagine a 747 or F35 running on batteries. LOL, no. Don’t think anyone is making battery powered combines or harvesters either. Stuff like that.
I understand your argument, but I refute your assertions with the following pieces of evidence that I hope you will consider.
Purified Uranium has 100 000 times the energy density of gasoline. Unless you time travelled from Industrial revolution era, not sure where you got “nothing”:
https://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/greatworks/pdf_sum10/WK8_Layton_EnergyDensities.ashx
Not saying nuclear has no downsides, but what is economical vs. what is most energy dense are two separate discussions you are trying to simplify into one. Wind is not energy dense but has been economical which is where my original argument came from. It is a competitor to oil that is being forced out.
Electric vehicles are finding their niche in lighter duty farm, construction, landscaping jobs. The article below says the current technology is suitable for under 100hp. In 20 years it may be possible to improve it to a level that it can compare or exceed performance against traditional motor models.
https://www.agweb.com/news/machinery/new-machinery/future-electric-farm-equipment
Just last year, the first commercial training flight on an all-electric plane took off in Canada! It wouldn’t be inconceivable to charge that using solar. And for the same reason you don’t have to jump right to electrifying a 747, having more electric aircraft would be useful in quickly hopping between islands or remote settlements, while reducing emissions and need to transport fossil fuels as much. Newer or different battery tech may come in due time, but if we ignore it just because it can’t fully switch immediately, we hinder the progress we are making today. Before an electric jumbo jet or fighter jet, we’ll get a commuter jet. Before the commuter jet we’ll get a 10 seater twin prop. Before the twin prop we have the two seater single prop.<-- We are here.
https://globalnews.ca/news/10567635/canada-first-ever-commercial-electric-flight-bc/