We Are Big Oil

Interesting:

The United States has overtaken Saudi Arabia to become the world’s biggest oil producer as the jump in output from shale plays has led to the second biggest oil boom in history, according to leading U.S. energy consultancy PIRA.

U.S. output, which includes natural gas liquids and biofuels, has swelled 3.2 million barrels per day (bpd) since 2009, the fastest expansion in production over a four-year period since a surge in Saudi Arabia’s output from 1970-1974, PIRA said in a release on Tuesday.

It was the latest milestone for the U.S. oil sector caused by the shale revolution, which has upended global oil trade. While still the largest consumer of fuel, the rise of cheap crude available to domestic refiners has turned the United States into a significant exporter of gasoline and distillate fuels.

I’m sure Obama’s defenders will be rushing to credit him for this while his detractors will be rushing to … I don’t know, claim the numbers are skewed. But Obama’s primary role in this has been to stand out of the way. The truth is that this revolution has been more than a decade in the making as rising oil prices spurred innovation and made shale oil economically viable.

The thing is that this is exactly what conservatives and libertarians predicited. When oil prices spiked many years ago, the usual suspects blamed evil Arabs, evil oil companies, evil oil refineries, evil government and the evil Bush Administration with its evil ties to Big Evil Oil. Had we pursued the path of price controls, the result would have been shortages instead of a boom. People who understand economics pointed out that this was simply a surge in demand and that the demand would create new supply — either through new oil resources or energy tech innovation. That’s exactly what happened. And considering that the energy industry is the only thing propping up our economy, the Great Recession would still be going on had we listened to the naysayers.

I’ve quoted Lee before on this subject but it’s always worth repeating his insight:

Oil will never run out. Ever. There is too much money to be made in the technology industry for the world to keep relying solely on oil. We don’t need nightmares, we don’t need screaming histrionics, we don’t need end of the world scenarios. What we need are smart people taking the problem seriously, and finding workable, reasonable solutions to transition the world from a petroleum economy into the next generation.

One day, the oil industry will die. We probably won’t run out — proven reserves are gigantic (and that’s not even including natural gas and methane clathrate). But oil will fade because we’ll make some breakthrough on nuclear fusion or vacuum energy or whatever that makes cracking open the Earth to extract a mineral slime un-economical. When that happens, we’ll be fine. Fossil fuels are a fraction of our economy. But petro-states like Saudi Arabia will collapse.

In the meantime, technological progress is producing an economic goldmine. Mainly because we let it do so.

Comments are closed.

  1. Xetrov

    I’m sure Obama’s defenders will be rushing to credit him for this while his detractors will be rushing to … I don’t know, claim the numbers are skewed.

    Or that the boom comes despite Obama’s efforts to stop it – http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324034804578346703526637178

    Statistics from the Congressional Research Service released this week show oil production on federal lands and waters dropped 18% between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2012, which ended Sept. 30, 2012. The report shows natural gas production dropped 28% over the same period.

    Production on state and private lands, by contrast, is surging. Oil production rose 33% between fiscal years 2010 and 2012 and natural gas production increased 20%, according to the report.

    (first shot at manually typing in blockquote tags, forgive me if it doesn’t work)

    Thumb up 4

  2. AlexInCT

    I’m sure Obama’s defenders will be rushing to credit him for this while his detractors will be rushing to … I don’t know, claim the numbers are skewed.

    Actually Hal, no, we won’t claim that at all. Our point wll be, as Xetov points out, that this has happened DESPITE of Obama and his people. This administration and their cronies in the EPA have done everything in their power to hamstring anything that doesn’t involve them sending tons of tax payer dolllars to bullshit green companies that then have the management succomb with that money and declare bankruptcy.

    Thumb up 7

  3. richtaylor365

    In the meantime, technological progress is producing an economic goldmine.

    Which is being squandered right before our eyes, along with our economic status and influence, as we morph into a debtor nation, $17 trillion in the red. This kind of stupid is not random happenstance. It’s like a street bum being locked up in a super market, and dies of starvation.

    And speaking of Saudi Arabia;

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/18/us-saudi-securitycouncil-idUSBRE99H0FL20131018

    Riyadh’s frustration is mostly directed at Washington, its oldest international ally, which has pursued policies since the Arab Spring that Saudi rulers have bitterly opposed and which have severely damaged relations between the two, Saudi analysts have said.

    Saudi Arabia has also been angered by a rapprochement between Washington and Iran, Riyadh’s old regional foe, which has taken root since President Barack Obama spoke by telephone last month to the new Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, in the highest-level contact between the two countries in more than three decades.

    Yep, shitting on our friends and spooning with our enemies, more of that “transformation of America” he warned us about.

    Thumb up 5

  4. Dave D

    “has led to the second biggest oil boom in history, according to leading U.S. energy consultancy PIRA”

    Maybe I am an economic dummy, but then wy the fuck are prices still so high at the pump??????????

    Thumb up 0

  5. hist_ed

    Wonder if we will hear anything from the peak oil chicken littles of 5-10 years ago. Just another crisis to pound out the message that we are mean evil planet rapers. The enviroweenies prediction success rate is about zero. Perhaps we should take that into account when they start caterwauling about the next MAJOR CRISIS THAT THREATENS HUMANITY.

    Thumb up 6

  6. Seattle Outcast

    One of the reasons the price is so high is the amount of taxes on a gallon. It’s about 15 times the amount of profit made.

    The other reason is lack of refining capacity – envirotards have spent decades ensuring that no new refining facilities are created, and worked hard to shutter those that already are in operation.

    Thumb up 3

  7. AlexInCT

    Maybe I am an economic dummy, but then wy the fuck are prices still so high at the pump??????????

    We are exporting practicaly all the oil we get out, and we are still buying our oil from the usual suspects. Then there are the various taxes and other costs. Plus, the fact that more supply only encourages the parasitic class to straddle us with more onerous requirements to keep the price artifically high, so they can push their idiotic green crap, which would otherwise be overpriced and in need of even bigger government subsidies.

    Thumb up 5

  8. AlexInCT

    The enviroweenies prediction success rate is about zero.

    My observation of the way this works is that as long as you are a progressive you can get things not only completely wrong, but do things that cause massive harm, and yet, that will increase your clout and ego.

    Thumb up 4

  9. Hal_10000 *

    Yep, shitting on our friends and spooning with our enemies, more of that “transformation of America” he warned us about.

    Saudi Arabia is not our friend. They are a necessary ally but anything we can do to lessen our dependence on them is a good thing.

    Maybe I am an economic dummy, but then wy the fuck are prices still so high at the pump??????????

    1) Demand is keeping up with supply.

    2) The shale oil and other new sources is not cheap to extract. A big reason it was never exploited before was because it was not economically viable to do so — you would have been paying $90 to get a $50 barrel of oil out of the ground. The high prices made it feasible. Gas taxes are high, but you’re still talking about a few dimes per gallon. Extraction costs are the biggest intrinsic part of the price.

    A few years ago, I drove the daughter of an astronomer back to Odessa from an observatory. She and her husband were in the oil industry and she was telling me that basically all the low-hanging fruit has been picked when it comes to oil. There are massive reserves but they are in places (sea floor, shale, fracking, etc.) where they are expensive and difficult to extract. She predicted correctly that production would boom but that prices would stay high.

    Thumb up 2

  10. HARLEY

    untill the day arrives that we can assemble molecules in a industrial format on demand, we will need oil. Oil is used in far more than just fuels, and lubricants..it is the industrial chemical base of our whole industrialized society.

    Thumb up 3

  11. AlexInCT

    Saudi Arabia is not our friend. They are a necessary ally but anything we can do to lessen our dependence on them is a good thing.

    Most of our oil, like 95% of it if I recall correctly, comes from our hemisphere. That’s Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela that account for the bulk of that. The Saudis have for a while now sent their oil to Europe & Asia.

    But you are correct: they are not our friends, and I wouldn’t even call them our allies. American tax payers pay to keep the Saudi monarchy on the throne, and they pretend not to be encouraging Jihad across the globe through their radicalized Wahhabi brand of Islamofascism. I remain unsure why we have not realized the Saudis, after the fall of the USSR, abandoned the deal we made with them and are playing us.

    She predicted correctly that production would boom but that prices would stay high.

    Prices stay high because of supply & demand. Yes, it is more expensive to get at the oil that remains too, but a huge chunk of that expense, especially here in the US, is onerous regulation and stupid lawsuits that the people that hate oil hope will make the stuff so expensive other people will start, by necessity, feeling unviable and otherwise ignored alternatives, are really needed. Biofeul from food comes to mind. The left has been banking for a long time on using green energy to make a bunch of connected people within their ranks super rich this way.

    Thumb up 5

  12. AlexInCT

    Oil is used in far more than just fuels, and lubricants..it is the industrial chemical base of our whole industrialized society.

    Plastics!

    BUT CO2….

    Proggy head assplodes.

    /joke off

    Thumb up 4

  13. Hal_10000 *

    Most of our oil, like 95% of it if I recall correctly, comes from our hemisphere. That’s Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela that account for the bulk of that. The Saudis have for a while now sent their oil to Europe & Asia.

    Indeed. This is a big reason why Europe is so mushy on Israel. They don’t want to piss off the oil sheiks.

    Thumb up 4

  14. Mississippi Yankee

    Indeed. This is a big reason why Europe is so mushy on Israel. They don’t want to piss off the oil sheiks.

    And almost all of their natural gas comes from Russia, passing thru the Ukraine. And as long as Putin can keep Syria unstable less oil will flow from the Arabian peninsula and the oil fields in southern Russia will pick up the slack.

    I’m starting to see what Obama meant by being flexible once he was re-erected. Oil is the new fascist boot, coming to a neck near you soon…

    Thumb up 3

  15. CM

    Yes, it is more expensive to get at the oil that remains too, but a huge chunk of that expense, especially here in the US, is onerous regulation and stupid lawsuits

    Do you have any evidence to support this?
    How much higher would oil prices be if it didn’t attract such huge subsidies (billions every year)? Reneweable energy subsidies are a drop in the oil bucket in comparison (even if you also add loan-guarantees).

    Thumb up 0

  16. AlexInCT

    Do you have any evidence to support this?

    Did you just honestly ask this idiotic question, CM? I know better than to think you are ignorant about the fact that we have discussed this ad nauseum. Maybe I need to link the Obama “I will destroy the coal industry” video again for you. Let me give you some advice: google “cost of regulation on the price of energy”.

    How much higher would oil prices be if it didn’t attract such huge subsidies (billions every year)?

    As far as I am concerned they need to get rid of the subsidies, which are only huge in the mind of a watermelon. I have already pointed out they shouldn’t have them before. But make sure they get rid of all energy subsidies. Especially anything related to the green energy industry. Also get rid of the regulations while they are at it. Let energy compete based on real economic factor and not the artificial system created by the watermelons.

    Reneweable energy subsidies are a drop in the oil bucket in comparison (even if you also add loan-guarantees).

    Bullshit. Maybe you should provide some quotes for this nonsense claim. I googled it and find nothing that leads me to that conclusion. More importantly, I am not seeing the massive abuse and waste tied to your renewable energy subsidies. If you need me to we can rehash the billions we pissed away on stupid shit just under the Obama administration, where so many criminal acts occurred that it is a wonder the whole bunch of them is not wearing orange jumpsuits.

    Thumb up 2

  17. CM

    Did you just honestly ask this idiotic question, CM? I know better than to think you are ignorant about the fact that we have discussed this ad nauseum. Maybe I need to link the Obama “I will destroy the coal industry” video again for you. Let me give you some advice: google “cost of regulation on the price of energy”.

    I know it’s your narrative, but I don’t recall ever seeing you provide any evidence.
    I googled it. I got:
    No results found for “cost of regulation on the price of energy”.
    There is certainly nothing I can find that shows me what sort of ‘chunk’ of the price of oil in the US is directly because of “onerous regulation and stupid lawsuits”. Perhaps you’ve got something specific you can provide?

    As far as I am concerned they need to get rid of the subsidies, which are only huge in the mind of a watermelon.

    Cool, but that doesn’t mean you can pretend they don’t exist (which is essentially what you are doing if you bitch about competing energy sectors also getting subsidies).

    which are only huge in the mind of a watermelon.

    How so? Surely they are the same irrespective of political affiliation?

    But make sure they get rid of all energy subsidies.

    Well yes, removing oil industry subsidies would surely make it much easier for renewables to compete.

    Especially anything related to the green energy industry.

    Especially? If your point is that all energy subsidies should go, how can there be an ‘especially’?!

    Let energy compete based on real economic factor and not the artificial system created by the watermelons.

    Decades and decades or oil and nuclear energy subsidies are a significant factor in all of this (without them the extent of subsidies provided to competing sectors would presumably have been way way less). But I don’t think they were created by your ‘watermelons’.

    Bullshit. Maybe you should provide some quotes for this nonsense claim. I googled it and find nothing that leads me to that conclusion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

    More importantly, I am not seeing the massive abuse and waste tied to your renewable energy subsidies.

    Not really sure what you mean by this.

    If you need me to we can rehash the billions we pissed away on stupid shit just under the Obama administration, where so many criminal acts occurred that it is a wonder the whole bunch of them is not wearing orange jumpsuits.

    In terms of energy? Sure, I’m listening.

    Thumb up 0

  18. AlexInCT

    I know it’s your narrative, but I don’t recall ever seeing you provide any evidence.

    Please do not conflate your ability to ignore reality and facts with my inability to provide them. I have provided them: you have ignored them.

    I googled it. I got:
    No results found for “cost of regulation on the price of energy”.

    I guess NZ’s google is government regulated, because I got over 40 million hits. here is just one of them, and since I mentioned the impact of the EPA, let me give a link about the EPA regulations.

    Liar.

    There is certainly nothing I can find that shows me what sort of ‘chunk’ of the price of oil in the US is directly because of “onerous regulation and stupid lawsuits”. Perhaps you’ve got something specific you can provide?

    Ah, so now we are playing word games. My guess is that even if someone beat you over the head with the information you would still “not find anything” or just ignore it.

    Cool, but that doesn’t mean you can pretend they don’t exist (which is essentially what you are doing if you bitch about competing energy sectors also getting subsidies).

    Nice strawman Cm. You are good at putting words in my mouth. I never pretended there was no subsides for brown energy, and I certainly do not have to pretend that there is a justification for them like someone I know has to for green energy subsidies.

    How so? Surely they are the same irrespective of political affiliation?

    Another strawman? Or is the problem English comprehension? A quick google lookup, and this is a left leaning Wiki, shows what the subsidies are: roughly 38 billion for fossil fuels and some 23 billion for green energy. Considering green energy barely accounts for 10% of the total power, I can extrapolate that we are getting a seriously raw deal subsidizing green energy. Factor in all the other subsidies to sell green related technology, or how much more wealth the two generate (outside of the people that make off with huge sums of government cash from failed green energy), and I bet the skew is even more insane. If we were generating 20% of our energy from this green shit, the subsidies would be 44 billion. The higher it gets the more insane that subsidy would have to be.

    Well yes, removing oil industry subsidies would surely make it much easier for renewables to compete.

    No CM. Nice try. Get rid off the subsidies for both. I am willing to bet you that without subsidies and government favoritism, green energy and technology become not just too expensive, but unviable. There will be no competition as the numbers I provided above clearly show.

    Especially? If your point is that all energy subsidies should go, how can there be an ‘especially’?!

    Because people like you want the subsidy for fossil fuels to go away, and not for green energy. You will give lip service to the idea of pulling all energy, but that’s not what you want. Tell you what. Agree that we drop subsidies for green energy first and that we can not get any regulation to protect them, and I will be glad to see subsidies for fossil fuels go.

    Decades and decades or oil and nuclear energy subsidies are a significant factor in all of this (without them the extent of subsidies provided to competing sectors would presumably have been way way less). But I don’t think they were created by your ‘watermelons’.

    Q.E.D.

    The waffling begins.

    Not really sure what you mean by this.

    In terms of energy? Sure, I’m listening.

    You miss Solyndra and countless other such green technology entities that went belly up after their owners lined their pockets with huge tax payer funded checks from our government that KNEW these entities were on the verge of a collapse? Search this site. We debated them at nausuem.

    Thumb up 2

  19. CM

    Please do not conflate your ability to ignore reality and facts with my inability to provide them. I have provided them: you have ignored them.

    I don’t recall you providing hard evidence which showed the specific costs of onerous regulation and stupid lawsuits. Can you remember which thread and I’ll go and have a look?

    I guess NZ’s google is government regulated, because I got over 40 million hits.

    I tried again and got the same. I made sure the search was ‘Any country’ and ‘Any time’ and ‘All results’.
    It only provides search results where the quotes have been removed. I have no idea why my search would be different to yours. I’ll have a look at your links, thanks.

    Liar.

    Huh? About what?

    Ah, so now we are playing word games.

    What are you talking about – that’s specifically what I asked about from the start. Where are the ‘word games’?

    My guess is that even if someone beat you over the head with the information you would still “not find anything” or just ignore it.

    Unnecessary. I’ll have a good read of your linked evidence.

    Nice strawman Cm. You are good at putting words in my mouth. I never pretended there was no subsides for brown energy, and I certainly do not have to pretend that there is a justification for them like someone I know has to for green energy subsidies.

    You consistently imply that the renewable energy industry gets special treatment because they get subsidies. Which inherently means that the non-renewable sector doesn’t. In fact both do, and the non-renewable sector has had them for decades longer and still enjoys greater subsidies. Your apparent wish for subsidies to end across the board is not relevant to that.

    Considering green energy barely accounts for 10% of the total power, I can extrapolate that we are getting a seriously raw deal subsidizing green energy. Factor in all the other subsidies to sell green related technology, or how much more wealth the two generate (outside of the people that make off with huge sums of government cash from failed green energy), and I bet the skew is even more insane. If we were generating 20% of our energy from this green shit, the subsidies would be 44 billion. The higher it gets the more insane that subsidy would have to be.

    Well then you need to include factors such as renewables aren’t an emerging technology, and so should have no inherent need for subsidies, and the environmental and health costs associated with each.Factoring in ‘how much wealth they generate’ isn’t reasonable because one is very much reliant on emerging technology (where actual costs are reducing all the time, whereas non-renewable costs are increasing all the time because it’s costing more to get shale etc).

    No CM. Nice try. Get rid off the subsidies for both. I am willing to bet you that without subsidies and government favoritism, green energy and technology become not just too expensive, but unviable. There will be no competition as the numbers I provided above clearly show.

    I guess that would depend on how much difference it would make to non-renewable prices if that $38 billion in subsides was removed. Subsides for renewables can decrease as time goes by. But that doesn’t appear to have happened with non-renewables.

    Because people like you want the subsidy for fossil fuels to go away, and not for green energy.

    No you were talking about your opinion.
    I certainly don’t want such drastic changes. What was that you said about putting words in mouths?

    You will give lip service to the idea of pulling all energy, but that’s not what you want.

    There is no point discussing this with you if you’ve already decided, and if you pretend that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is some sort of extremist. It’s no wonder you have just a distorted view of the world if you can’t even have a genuine exchange (while at the same time incorrectly accusing me of putting words in your mouth, ffs).

    Tell you what. Agree that we drop subsidies for green energy first and that we can not get any regulation to protect them, and I will be glad to see subsidies for fossil fuels go.

    I’m not a fan of subsidies, but I can see a genuine need and rationale for renewable energy subsidies. I’d like to see a gradual reduction in subsidies for both.

    Q.E.D.

    The waffling begins

    That is what you said. I responded to it. No waffling whatsoever.
    I assume this is where you ensure that no further discussion is possible.

    You miss Solyndra and countless other such green technology entities that went belly up after their owners lined their pockets with huge tax payer funded checks from our government that KNEW these entities were on the verge of a collapse? Search this site. We debated them at nausuem.

    We didn’t ‘debate’ anything. You made some predictions and claims and based it all on “we’ll see if I’m right” and ideological blogs. Solyndra was one of a few companies given a loan guarantee which failed. A loan guarantee isn’t a subsidy, it’s a way of leveraging huge private investment in something which would not occur otherwise. An additional guarantee was provided to try and save the collapse (and therefore tax-payers money). Your narrative is a ideologically cherry-picked and inaccurate portrayal of the situation, and always has been.
    Do you have new evidence to support your claims?
    Nah forget it, don’t waste your time, I can see from your post that you won’t let this get any further. And there is no way in hell that you’d even remotely consider Solyndra in an objective way, where actual facts matter.

    Thumb up 0

  20. AlexInCT

    I don’t recall you providing hard evidence which showed the specific costs of onerous regulation and stupid lawsuits. Can you remember which thread and I’ll go and have a look?

    Like I said before: the problem is with you and your bias blinders, not me or the evidence.

    I tried again and got the same. I made sure the search was ‘Any country’ and ‘Any time’ and ‘All results’. It only provides search results where the quotes have been removed. I have no idea why my search would be different to yours. I’ll have a look at your links, thanks.

    Methinks the problem is someone doesn’t know how to use a search engine suddenly?

    You consistently imply that the renewable energy industry gets special treatment because they get subsidies

    That’s false CM. I claim that green energy gets a lot more money in subsidies, compared to the energy return from these technologies, than fossil fuels does, and I also claim green technologies other than those related to energy also get massive subsidies because they are unviable otherwise. And more importantly, also claim that there are mountains of terrible regulation out there to handicap fossil fuels even more, and that’s to make the horribly crappy green energy sector marginally competitive.

    Which inherently means that the non-renewable sector doesn’t.

    Oh, bullshit. You can keep pretending, but nobody paying attention missed that I called for subsidies to go for all energy, since the market should determine their viability based on efficiency, cost, and return on investment.

    Well then you need to include factors such as renewables aren’t an emerging technology, and so should have no inherent need for subsidies, and the environmental and health costs associated with each.

    Like I said: the dance begins, and the true agenda comes out. Stop making excuses already. Admit that what you want is for support for fossil fuels to be pulled while the onerous crap around green tech stays in place or gets expanded. You are not fooling anyone.

    Factoring in ‘how much wealth they generate’ isn’t reasonable because one is very much reliant on emerging technology (where actual costs are reducing all the time, whereas non-renewable costs are increasing all the time because it’s costing more to get shale etc).

    What a pile of bullshit. Let me start by pointing out that renewable energy costs are not dropping, but are instead masked by subsidies and other favors to create that appearance. Without these subsidies and the favorable regulation, these technologies would die a gruesome death. True it costs more to extract oil from shale, but it is still cheaper, by orders of magnitude, to get energy there than from super expensive supposedly renewable energy sources.

    There is no reason any emerging viable technology would need the kind of support green energy needs, other than it isn’t viable, costs way too much, or isn’t what the consumer wants. I didn’t see Apple ask for such special favors for their line of iProducts. In fact, the only places where I consistently see the need for subsidies and onerous anti-competitive regulation is when government tries to force some crappy bullshit on a consumer that would otherwise never buy into it. good investments will always attract investors too. That this technology only works, and then marginally, with heavy government regulation and subsidy, proves it is not viable.

    I guess that would depend on how much difference it would make to non-renewable prices if that $38 billion in subsidies was removed.

    So admit that what you want is subsidies to be pulled from fossil fuels but not renewables? Thanks for validating that. Let’s break this down though. Fossil fuels, by far account for the largest amount of energy consumed. If nuclear accounts for 8.3 (and that is a horribly sad thing to see) and renewables account for 9.1 percent respectively, that means that fossil fuels generate 82.6% of our energy. According to a lefty site, fossil fuel consumptioncosts $120 billion a year. Add that $38 billion, and we are looking at $158 billion a year to generate 82.6% of our energy.

    Doing the same for renewable energy, which skews higher in percentage of use, and very likely lower in per unit costs, because they add geothermal, hydro, and even wood burning, is much harder to come by for some reason – I bet I know what it is, but it’s just my guess – and the number wouldn’t mean much, because I think hydro, geothermal, and wood burning are pretty much well established and well working technologies with cheap costs. Finding information for just biofuel, solar, and wind, which are the ones reaping the bulk of these subsides and special regulations was near impossible (again I bet I know why). The best I could do was find averaged out costs per KWh, but these numbers were not specific to the US, which is what I am limiting this information to. But I did find the US EIA itself admitting that these technologies have a far higher associated per KWh generation cost than fossil fuels:

    Although most renewable energy power plants have less environmental impact than fossil and nuclear power plants, there are two main reasons why we don’t use more renewable energy.

    1.Renewable Energy Technologies Are Often Expensive: Renewable energy power plants can be more expensive to build and to operate (in terms of dollars per unit of electricity output) than natural gas or even coal plants.

    2.Renewable Resources Are Often Geographically Remote: Many renewable resources are available only in remote areas, and building transmission lines to deliver power to large metropolitan areas is expensive.

    My bet is the cost is orders of magnitude higher for a paltry number. I bet if we pull out hydro, geothermal, and wood burning, the % of energy generated by renewables – bio, solar, and wind – is going to be less than 2%. And it is what gets practically all the subsidies. So we are blowing $23 billion in subsidies to generate 2% of our energy, and I bet that energy comes at a steep cost. My electricity and gas bills, in a state that pushes a lot of this renewable nonsense, shows it.

    Subsides for renewables can decrease as time goes by. But that doesn’t appear to have happened with non-renewables.

    I say again: cut them all, along with the onerous and unnecessary regulation intended to force us to rely more on unviable green energy, and let the market decide which one goes. I bet you if they cleared the bullshit around nuclear we could finally switch over to the ONLY viable technology to generate the energy we need and will need going forward, other than fossil fuels. If government should be subsidizing any technology, that would be it. Of course, the left’s friends making oodles of money from this green energy bullshit are not the ones that would profit if nuclear actually got to show what it could do for us, so instead we get everything possible to block it.

    There is no point discussing this with you if you’ve already decided, and if you pretend that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is some sort of extremist.

    The tactics being used to foist unviable green energy on me, at painful costs, is what’s extremist, CM. As someone with an engineering background I believe that what can replace fossil fuels, today, is nuclear power. But the watermelons want none of that. Instead I see money wasted on technology that can never produce the amount of energy we need, and that does it inefficently and at huge costs. But hey, I am the bad guy for pointing that out that we are being held hostage by some extemists that in the process are making some leftists stinking rich.

    I’m not a fan of subsidies, but I can see a genuine need and rationale for renewable energy subsidies

    And I bet that every person getting hammered at the pump or when the electricity bill comes their way feels there is a genuine need for fossil fuel subsidies. What’s your point?

    Nah forget it, don’t waste your time, I can see from your post that you won’t let this get any further.

    That’s because I am not stupid enough to think you are arguing in good faith.

    Thumb up 0

  21. CM

    Irony overload…

    Nonsense explosion.
    Alex IS an extremist, but Alex is a little short of being ‘anyone who doesn’t agree with me’. Far and away the vast majority of people who don’t agree with me (on any given topic) aren’t extremists. But that’s clearly very different to how Alex views people that don’t agree with him. He explicitly states often that they’re either evil or morons. Apparently they can’t possiblly disagree with him and be anything else. But then I’m very sure that you know this, you can’t possibly read this blog and not notice.

    Thumb up 0

  22. Iconoclast

    Nonsense explosion.

    On your side…

    I’m the one who gets to define the irony, here, not you. But thanks for trying to tell me what I mean

    That you don’t get it is to be expected, but it’s ultimately inconsequential.

    Thumb up 3

View Mobile Site