Biden's war on fossil fuels

[Evilly]

  Today, the national average of the price of a gallon of gas hit $4.87. I have no doubt, we will soon have $5 a gallon gas, very soon. Some speculate, the price will go over $6, a gallon, by the end of summer. I truly hope, they are wrong.

  Biden declared a way on fossil fuels, during the presidential campaign. And, on day one, in office, he killed the Keystone pipeline, and cancelled drilling in Anwar, Alaska. Not only did he kill 9,000 or more, well paying jobs. He also destroyed, untold millions of investments. While, I doubt many people here, care about those details. They are, very important details. Those are people lives, that are ruined. While, that arrogant prick John Kerry suggested "They do get jobs making solar panels." A little problem with that. Most solar panels are made in China, by slave labor.

  The day Biden was elected, the price of oil started going up. And, has been on an upward trajectory, since then. So, this policy decision of Biden's is his one policy success! Higher gas prices. Now, everyone, will be forced to buy an electrical vehicle. Elloquiy seems to be full of liberals. But, how many of you own an electrical vehicle, that you use in daily life? I suspect, it can't be that many, even here. At most, 2% of the cars, on the road are EV's. And, for those of you, who do own an EV, and are proud of how "Green" your car is. I have a question. Which does more envirumental damage? Drilling for oil? Or, strip mining, for the rare earths, that the battery in your car needs?

  And, since Biden is also closing down coal powered, power plants, we are producing less electricity. Good luck, on charging your EV during a rolling blackout, during those summer months. If, predictions are correct?

  I'm all for being environmentally friendly. But, Biden and "green" people, need to quit being stupid, children. And, use some common sense. By the way. Windmill;s can freeze/ Among, other problems/

  Also, we should be using out own oil, instead of our president, begging other countries, for more oil, But, Biden, will kiss the Saudi's king's ass, before he will let us go BACK to being energy independent. And, Biden, will eat some humble pie, while kissing that "pariah's" butt. It shames me, since he is our president. But, Biden has only himself, and his puppet masters to blame.

  Since the propaganda wing of the Democrat party <liberal mefia> can't hide the gas prices and high inflation9n, can you see the red tsunami coming, in November?


________________________________________________________________________________

"Let's go Brandon!!!"

"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up."  -Obama

[Iniquitous]

  Today, the national average of the price of a gallon of gas hit $4.87. I have no doubt, we will soon have $5 a gallon gas, very soon. Some speculate, the price will go over $6, a gallon, by the end of summer. I truly hope, they are wrong.

  Biden declared a way on fossil fuels, during the presidential campaign. And, on day one, in office, he killed the Keystone pipeline, and cancelled drilling in Anwar, Alaska. Not only did he kill 9,000 or more, well paying jobs. He also destroyed, untold millions of investments. While, I doubt many people here, care about those details. They are, very important details. Those are people lives, that are ruined. While, that arrogant prick John Kerry suggested "They do get jobs making solar panels." A little problem with that. Most solar panels are made in China, by slave labor.

  The day Biden was elected, the price of oil started going up. And, has been on an upward trajectory, since then. So, this policy decision of Biden's is his one policy success! Higher gas prices. Now, everyone, will be forced to buy an electrical vehicle. Elloquiy seems to be full of liberals. But, how many of you own an electrical vehicle, that you use in daily life? I suspect, it can't be that many, even here. At most, 2% of the cars, on the road are EV's. And, for those of you, who do own an EV, and are proud of how "Green" your car is. I have a question. Which does more envirumental damage? Drilling for oil? Or, strip mining, for the rare earths, that the battery in your car needs?

  And, since Biden is also closing down coal powered, power plants, we are producing less electricity. Good luck, on charging your EV during a rolling blackout, during those summer months. If, predictions are correct?

  I'm all for being environmentally friendly. But, Biden and "green" people, need to quit being stupid, children. And, use some common sense. By the way. Windmill;s can freeze/ Among, other problems/

  Also, we should be using out own oil, instead of our president, begging other countries, for more oil, But, Biden, will kiss the Saudi's king's ass, before he will let us go BACK to being energy independent. And, Biden, will eat some humble pie, while kissing that "pariah's" butt. It shames me, since he is our president. But, Biden has only himself, and his puppet masters to blame.

  Since the propaganda wing of the Democrat party <liberal mefia> can't hide the gas prices and high inflation9n, can you see the red tsunami coming, in November?


________________________________________________________________________________

"Let's go Brandon!!!"

"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up."  -Obama

Jesus. Here we go again.

1. The Keystone XL pipeline extension, proposed by TC Energy (then TransCanada) in 2008, was initially designed to transport the planet’s dirtiest fossil fuel, tar sands oil, to market—and fast. As an expansion of the company’s existing Keystone Pipeline System, which has been operating since 2010 (and continues to send Canadian tar sands crude oil from Alberta to various processing hubs in the middle of the United States), the pipeline promised to dramatically increase capacity to process the 168 billion barrels of crude oil locked up under Canada’s boreal forest. It was expected to transport 830,000 barrels of Alberta tar sands oil per day to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. From the refineries, the oil would be sent chiefly overseas—not to gasoline pumps in the United States. Please educate yourself before you begin throwing out bullshit to blame Biden. Source Second Source

2. We as a race desperately need to get away from fossil fuels. Sure, we have to use them while searching for cleaner sources and that is understood, but ranting about people being told to get jobs elsewhere (when, let's be honest here, you don't actually give a shit about those people losing their jobs just the fact that you're now paying more for fuel at the pump) is counterproductive. Why not write your representatives about creating the jobs for solar panels in the US. Do something inside of pearl-clutching and bitching.

3. You do understand how the price of gas at the pump works right?  That it is not the President that determines it right?  That the price of gas has gone up world wide right?  Oh, of course not. You are one of those 'let's go Brandon' folks that want to blame everything on Biden cause your conman didn't succeed in defrauding the entire US. Well, let me educate you... again.

A. Petroleum prices are determined by market forces of supply and demand, not individual companies, and the price of crude oil is the primary determinant of the price we pay at the pump. Oil prices are at a seven-year high amid a persistent global supply crunch, workforce constraints, increasing geopolitical instability in Eastern Europe, the economic rebound following the initial stages of the pandemic, and policy uncertainty from Washington.

B. Policy choices matter. American producers are working to meet rising energy demand as supply continues to lag, but policy and legal uncertainty is complicating market challenges.

C. The administration needs an energy-policy reset, and Europe is a cautionary tale. We need not look further than the situation in Europe to see what happens when nations depend on energy production from foreign sources that have agendas of their own. There is more policymakers could do to ensure access to affordable, reliable energy, starting with incentivizing U.S. production and energy infrastructure and sending a clear message that America is open for energy investment.

D. Repeated in-depth investigations by the FTC have shown that changes in gasoline prices are based on market factors and not due to illegal behavior, and the American people are looking for solutions, not finger pointing. The price at the pump that Americans are currently paying is a function of increased demand and lagging supply combined with the geopolitical turmoil resulting from Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.

E. Lawmakers should focus on policies that increase U.S. supply to help mitigate the situation rather than political grandstanding that does nothing but discourage investment at a time when it's needed the most.

Source

Now, there are more than 9,000 unused drilling permits for drilling on federal land that is not being used.  Granted, oil companies could not go and begin drilling immediately on every drilling permit they have because they are on federal land and subject to environmental studies, lawsuits from neighbors, etc.  But the point is, oil companies are not being unduly hampered in their quest for more oil.

Seriously. Turn off fox news and educate yourself.  You'll be better for it.

[Azy]

Not to mention the gas prices started really going up when Ukraine was invaded, using the sanctions against Russian oil as an excuse.  Prices dropped for a bit when it was pointed out by a few Democrats that the US doesn't really use much Russian oil, and oil companies were making record profits again.  Yeah, market competition works as long as it isn't something everyone needs.  When it is something everyone needs and the few companies who supply it get together and agree to price gouge, the only thing we can do is insist on government regulation, which of course is evil Socialism. 

[Azuresun]

"Let's go Brandon!!!"

"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up."  -Obama

Are you a bot?

[Blythe]

Tar sands is some of the grossest and worst product to try to refine oil from anyways.

  Also, we should be using out own oil, instead of our president, begging other countries, for more oil, But, Biden, will kiss the Saudi's king's ass, before he will let us go BACK to being energy independent. And, Biden, will eat some humble pie, while kissing that "pariah's" butt. It shames me, since he is our president. But, Biden has only himself, and his puppet masters to blame.

The majority of the Keystone product was slated for overseas sales anyways--so if you truly care about the US becoming more independent when it comes to securing / acquiring new reserves for our own use, then the Keystone pipeline would not have addressed that in any significant capacity. Source

and cancelled drilling in Anwar, Alaska.

People say things like this and like to neglect the part that the drilling would have happened on an arctic wildlife refuge. A lot of people feel differently about that project when the wildlife reserve part is actually mentioned rather than omitted to skew the tone.

They also forget that Biden actually defended another major Alaskan drilling operation. People like to ignore when Biden actually does something that continues what his predecessor Trump started.

Which does more envirumental damage? Drilling for oil? Or, strip mining, for the rare earths, that the battery in your car needs?

While I suspect you're just being flippant, this is actually a good question that a lot of people would not know the answer to. It's actually hard to answer; the amount of data you need is...pretty large, but I think some assumptions can be safely made.

Strip mining is definitely problematic, yes. You're right to mention it. I think it's a fair criticism of certain types of so-called "green" energy alternatives that get provided that require rare earth metals. Certainly the concerns about radioactive wastes should be much louder than some people care to shout about. A significant amount of that mining is happening in China though. Doesn't mean it isn't bad elsewhere, too, but China's bearing the biggest environmental brunt of that sort of mining. Last time I looked it up, they were doing about a third of global production, though I'm not sure if that's still what they're doing.

For the United States...we only have one active mine for rare earth metals in California, the Mountain Pass mine, if I remember correctly.

One rare earth metal mine in the US =/= US oil drilling in terms of impact, due to sheer scope.

So I hope that people reading take that into consideration. Extent/scope/location matters when questions like this are asked.

It doesn't make the problems of strip mining for rare earth metals go away, but I think the two can't really be compared easily anyways, but my guess is the impact of oil drilling is significantly worse not just due to scope, but sheer length of time it's been going on compared to rare earth metal mining.

  And, since Biden is also closing down coal powered, power plants, we are producing less electricity. Good luck, on charging your EV during a rolling blackout, during those summer months. If, predictions are correct?

Biden is wanting to move to move nuclear powered sources & renewables to some degree for electricity generation, that much is obvious.

Though I wonder if people who post things like this remember how Trump cruelly abandoned his coal miner base. He made promises to them, failed, and let their industry continue to dwindle.

So much for supporting coal miners, I suppose.

"Let's go Brandon!!!"

"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up."  -Obama

If you want anyone to take you seriously, this sort of nonsense doesn't help you.

I liked it better when the more toxic element of Republicans were honest and just said "Fuck Biden" rather than this ridiculous attempt to sound clever with the "Let's go Brandon" phrase. We all know what you mean, so you might as well say what you mean.

Biden isn't perfect by any means. Rising gas prices and inflation--in part due to the Ukraine conflict and increasing supply chain issues- that have been a problem for much longer than people care to admit--are a big deal, and yes, I want to see Biden (AND our Congress) do more. He wasn't my preferred candidate when I voted last election, but I'll say this and stand by it: he is still better than his Republican predecessor.

I just really don't think there will be a red tsunami next November. I think we might see some very interesting fights over seats in Congress (there's a lot of seats up for grabs this November, for sure), but a tsunami? I just don't think it'll be that big. Not that Republicans need it. Mostly they need to pick up a few seats, and with the Supreme Court they loaded, it's not as if they are sitting in a bad place politically, and I think that's sort of obvious to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of US politics.

[Laughing Hyena]

Thank you Blythe and Inquisitous for providing extra information and context to what was being dumbed down for my peers in my family. I'm gonna be going back to this for a while every time my mother or grandmother feel the need to tell me what price gas is currently. I appreciate the information and citations.

[Blythe]

Thank you Blythe and Inquisitous for providing extra information and context to what was being dumbed down for my peers in my family. I'm gonna be going back to this for a while every time my mother or grandmother feel the need to tell me what price gas is currently. I appreciate the information and citations.

No worries, and much obliged. I would take some of my post with a grain of salt, of course. The rare earth metals/oil drilling part of my post has some big assumptions on my part, so just be aware that I'm not an infallible source of information or anything.

[Vekseid]

Right now the major culprit holding back at-the-pump capacity is... investor pressure.

Unfortunately it takes an act of Congress to handle gauging.

Would you look at that. Not one Republican vote.

Biden has also gotten OPEC to agree to an additional 600,000 barrels/day per month, at least for July and August, which is over their 432k normal planned increase. This caused oil futures to drop slightly, but it isn't really enough to make up for removing Russia from much of the market.

[greenknight]

And in answer to one of the most hyperbolic "totally-not-threats" in the OP, I own an EV, have since 2015, and am getting solar panels next week. I bought it not as means of being "green" but as a general protest against oil production and one oil-based economy specifically. I routinely drove it cross country when I served and took it overseas as well. I may be driving to GenCon this year, too (haven't decided if I'm going, yet.) I haven't had any problems abandoning the pump (and pumps don't work during blackouts, either.) YMMV.

[greenknight]

BTW, the real point of that post is the I have owned the car long enough to have long-term experience with EVs and my PMs are open if anyone is interested in straight talk about getting one.

[Chulanowa]

"The day Biden was elected, the price of oil started to go up."

Think about that line for a second, please. Day one in office, just sworn in, he's done nothing yet, enacted no policy, asked for no legislation, but prices go up.

How do you think Biden made that happen, exactly?

If you want to argue that his election made petroleum companies raise their prices, then... shouldn't you be angry at them for such arbitrary pricing?

[Evilly]

elsewhere (when, let's be honest here, you don't actually give a shit about those people losing their jobs just the fact that you're now paying more for fuel at the pump) is counterproductive. Why not write your representatives about creating the jobs for solar panels in the US. Do something inside of peaclutching and bitching.
_________________________________________________________________________________

  I resent the Hell, out of your statement, claiming I don't give a shit, about those people. I grew up in west TX, with people exactly like them, as family and friends. My grandfather was a pipe welder. I have family that have, and still work in the oil industry. And, it's very likely, most of those people, Biden took good paying jobs, away from, are paying more than, I do. Since, where I live gas is always under the national average. So, you should either apologize? Or, go fuck yourself. Your choice.

  As for Canadian tar sands oil being the dirtiest oil, in the world? I strongly suspect that is a dishonest, liberal talking point. But, even IF it's true? The point of the Keystone XL pipeline was to bring it to refineries, in Texas, to be purified and made into usable products. If you think we will ever stop using oil, you're dead wrong. Gasoline, is just one of over 6,000 products produced from crude oil. If, you're not wearing clothes that are 100% natural fibers, like cotton or hemp? You're probably wearing a material made with oil. AND, guess what? Fertilizer is created from crude oil byproduct's. Probably, some of that stuff, that makes Canadian tar sand oil, so filthy. I'm just guessing. But, from what I do know about oil, and commin sense, tells me, I have a very good chance of hitting the mark.
  Biden started a war on fossil fuels, and started the ball rolling, on higher oil prices. Which, is one of the things Putin needed, to pay for his military to invade Ukraine, again. Russia's main exports are oil and natural gas. Fun fact: Trump is the only president, that Putin did not invade, another country, during his term, this century. And, your side accused Trump of colluding with Russia and being Putin's puppet. But, he didn't attack Ukraine, again, until Giden's watch. Care to explain that? Because, Putin only attacks, when there are high oil prices and a weak, or weakened American President. And, anyone pating attention, knows we are just lucky, Biden hasn't bumbled us into war eith Russia. And, the only thing Biden has built back better, was the Taliban. I'm guessing tjat Ukraine wishes, they could get that kind of military armement. As, Biden left the Taliban.

[Evilly]

"The day Biden was elected, the price of oil started to go up."

Think about that line for a second, please. Day one in office, just sworn in, he's done nothing yet, enacted no policy, asked for no legislation, but prices go up.

How do you think Biden made that happen, exactly?

If you want to argue that his election made petroleum companies raise their prices, then... shouldn't you be angry at them for such arbitrary pricing?
________________________________________________________________________________

  Oil is a commodity. Oil speculators started buying like crazy, because, they expected Biden to make bad policy decisions, that directly impacted the supply of oil. And, they were right.

  Also, you should know that the laws of supply and demand, also apply to currency. So, when a government prints or creates too much currency, to cover the government spendinggasm. That made our money, worth less. Biden and the Dems, caused inflation, when they spent 1.9 trillion dollars in their last Ovid package. The ones Republicans, or, at least, most Republicans did not vote for. I personally THANK Joe Mansion and Kyrsten Sinema, had the good sense to block more stupid, federal spending and keep the filibuster, in place. Two Democrats, I actually respect.

[Blythe]

  I resent the Hell, out of your statement, claiming I don't give a shit, about those people. I grew up in west TX, with people exactly like them, as family and friends. My grandfather was a pipe welder. I have family that have, and still work in the oil industry. And, it's very likely, most of those people, Biden took good paying jobs, away from, are paying more than, I do. Since, where I live gas is always under the national average. So, you should either apologize? Or, go fuck yourself. Your choice.

The point of my post, at least, was that the decline of the coal industry happened well before Biden, under Trump, and it came out very specifically because Trump failed them. That's not Biden's fault. Are you surprised a candidate who is trying to champion cleaner energy is encouraging cleaner energy industries and discourage higher polluting ones, though?  What Trump did was a fundamental betrayal to a key group of working people who helped get him elected and he discarded later like they were trash. They deserved better.

I assume this part of your post, however, is a reply to Iniquitous. She's sourced her claims, whereas none of yours are sourced, and nothing you have posted particularly addresses the Americans out of work beyond shouting about blaming Biden. This is an opportunity to show you care: what would you change to get Americans in that industry access to good jobs, given that the Keystone pipeline is not going to be coming back?

She has a point that encouraging other industries to come to those areas could genuinely help those workers find suitable decent paying jobs.

But when you come in with an aggressive starting post, are you surprised you are receiving aggression back in return?

  As for Canadian tar sands oil being the dirtiest oil, in the world? I strongly suspect that is a dishonest, liberal talking point.

It's because of bitumen specifically.

And no, it's not a liberal talking point. It's just plain science and facts.

But, even IF it's true? The point of the Keystone XL pipeline was to bring it to refineries, in Texas, to be purified and made into usable products. If you think we will ever stop using oil, you're dead wrong. Gasoline, is just one of over 6,000 products produced from crude oil. If, you're not wearing clothes that are 100% natural fibers, like cotton or hemp? You're probably wearing a material made with oil. AND, guess what? Fertilizer is created from crude oil byproduct's. Probably, some of that stuff, that makes Canadian tar sand oil, so filthy. I'm just guessing. But, from what I do know about oil, and commin sense, tells me, I have a very good chance of hitting the mark.

No one ( at least no one here in this thread so far) is arguing for oil to go away utterly in the immediate future. We all know that's not possible. The least charitable interpretation of people's posts here is simply them disagreeing with unsourced claims you're making and stating viable reasons to encourage other industries, not just oil. It would probably take several human lifetimes to try to transition away from the big oil economy anyways, and I can honestly say I've never actually met anyone who actually suggested it beyond some vague decades-long goal as we try to build up the alternatives, which is roughly what I see being advocated here.

A more honest way of understanding a liberal viewpoint on this is that we want to decrease reliance on Big Oil and diversify American energy interests, both in the interests of the environment and a competitive economy.

  Biden started a war on fossil fuels, and started the ball rolling, on higher oil prices. Which, is one of the things Putin needed, to pay for his military to invade Ukraine, again. Russia's main exports are oil and natural gas. Fun fact: Trump is the only president, that Putin did not invade, another country, during his term, this century. And, your side accused Trump of colluding with Russia and being Putin's puppet. But, he didn't attack Ukraine, again, until Giden's watch. Care to explain that? Because, Putin only attacks, when there are high oil prices and a weak, or weakened American President. And, anyone pating attention, knows we are just lucky, Biden hasn't bumbled us into war eith Russia. And, the only thing Biden has built back better, was the Taliban. I'm guessing tjat Ukraine wishes, they could get that kind of military armement. As, Biden left the Taliban.

Iniquitous pointed this out, but Biden does not control fuel prices. He has very little control over that, in actuality.

And you strongly need to look at what Vekseid posted about gouging. 

I'm not going to touch the rest of your claims, because they seem like propaganda, and it's your job to source your claims if you're going to make sensationalist posts like this.

So, you should either apologize? Or, go fuck yourself. Your choice.

Conduct yourself with reasonable civility or lose your posting privileges in the politics board. It's your call. First and only warning.

[Evilly]

Right now the major culprit holding back at-the-pump capacity is... investor pressure.

Unfortunately it takes an act of Congress to handle gauging.

Would you look at that. Not one Republican vote.

Biden has also gotten OPEC to agree to an additional 600,000 barrels/day per month, at least for July and August, which is over their 432k normal planned increase. This caused oil futures to drop slightly, but it isn't really enough to make up for removing Russia from much of the market.


|_______________________________________________________________________________________
  I would say the 6 US refineries, that have shut down, since Biden took office, have bigger impact on the oil supply. Than oil speculators buying and selling oil.

What werethe Republicans supposed to vote for? Price controls? I seriously hope, you don't think price controls are a good idea? And the FTC has never proven price gouging in gasoline. Although, I hear there is a place, in California charging ten bucks a gallon. Sounds like a hood place to investigate price gouging.

Wouldn't you rather be oil in dependant, than rely on OPEC? And, dictators, that hate us?

[Hades]

While I'm no fan of Biden's (I voted for Bernie in the primaries, but to be fair I would have voted for a cardboard cut-out of Bugs Bunny over Donald Trump) and have a lot of things to complain about his term in office thus far, I believe in blaming people for things within their ability to impact.   And the price of gas is not one of those things.

Currently, a barrel of Brent Crude is $121/barrel, and according to the AAA the average price for gasoline in the US is $4.91/gallon.   We're told that because demand dropped during the two years of Covid restrictions, companies reduced their refining capacities and now those reduced capacities can't be ramped up fast enough to meet the increased demand.

And while I accept that is certainly part of the reason for gas prices being high, I don't buy that it's the only reason.   Because between 30 June - 04 July 2008, Brent Crude hit a record high of $145/barrel...and the average US gasoline price was $4.11/gallon.  So yeah, I suspect there's price gouging/profiteering going on.


Laying all that aside though, for the sake of argument let's grant your premise that Biden is somehow responsible for gas prices in the US (nevermind that prices are rising faster in Europe considering their inflation rate is higher than ours and last I checked "President of Europe" isn't part of Biden's resume)....to what end is he raising them this high this quick?  You mentioned electric vehicles, so I'm assuming you think the answer is to drive up sales in that market.  But sales were already rising before Biden was elected, and before the 2020 campaign kicked off even.  So the trend was already on the increase.   Also, just like every other market, there's a shortage of supply (new/used vehicles) compared to the demand of people wanting to buy them.  Weird how the President can manipulate one sector of industry but not another, even one so strongly interconnected.

Also, from a practical perspective....why the hell would Biden do this in an election year?  Historically, the party in power always fares poorly in midterm elections, so it was already leaning in favor of Republicans just by virtue of that.  Inflation makes it that much more difficult for Democrats to simply maintain the power dynamic, let alone think about picking up seats.  So why would Biden sabotage his own agenda by tilting the odds in favor of the opposition party?  Even if you think he's some genius mastermind trying to manipulate the economy because "reasons" he has to have the votes in Congress to make that happen in the first place.

[Iniquitous]

Fun fact: Trump is the only president, that Putin did not invade, another country, during his term, this century. And, your side accused Trump of colluding with Russia and being Putin's puppet. But, he didn't attack Ukraine, again, until Giden's watch. Care to explain that? Because, Putin only attacks, when there are high oil prices and a weak, or weakened American President. And, anyone pating attention, knows we are just lucky, Biden hasn't bumbled us into war eith Russia. And, the only thing Biden has built back better, was the Taliban. I'm guessing tjat Ukraine wishes, they could get that kind of military armement. As, Biden left the Taliban.

Since no one else is touching this part of your Biden rant with a ten-foot pole, I'll tackle it and educate you again.

Putin didn't invade Ukraine during Trump's term because he fully expected Trump to dismantle, or at the very least weaken, NATO. Trump did his damn best to weaken NATO and, had he gotten a second term, he very likely would have removed the US from NATO - which was to Putin's benefit.  Putin was getting what he wanted with Trump in office so, of course, he wasn't going to rock the boat. Source - caveat, this source is an opinion piece Second Source - this one from Bolton, one of Trump's National Security Advisors.

Trump also denied support to Ukraine - this is what his first impeachment was for.  The money Trump refused to send to Ukraine was already approved by Congress and he did not have the right to withdraw that aid when the Ukrainian president refused to fabricate dirt on Biden. *Cue incoherent rage spewing about Hunter Biden, China, a laptop, and anything else Trumpers believe*

Putin was not scared of Trump.  He did not view him as a threat.  He has said he was a "colorful" individual and made it clear that he thought Trump impulsive. So, no, not afraid of him at all.  Why would he be?  He knows Trump lavishes praise on him like a good little lapdog and that, given even half a chance, Trump would remove the US from any position of a threat to Russia. (Source)

Putin's move to invade Ukraine happening during Biden's term is simply because Biden is once again strengthening the US alliances with our European allies and with NATO & NATO is Putin's nemesis.

Now, what was Putin doing during Trump's term?
1. Russia was dealing with an insurgency in the northern Caucasus
2. Russo-Ukrainian war (Crimea and Donetsk region)
3. Syrian war
4.Central African Republic Civil War

Vladdy wasn't just being a good little boy cause he was scared of Trump.  He was raining chaos elsewhere.

Let's move on to your retort about Biden building back the Taliban better.

You do know who started the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan... right?

Answer: Trump (Source)

"The Trump administration in February 2020 negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban that excluded the Afghan government, freed 5,000 imprisoned Taliban soldiers and set a date certain of May 1, 2021, for the final withdrawal.

And the Trump administration kept to the pact, reducing U.S. troop levels from about 13,000 to 2,500, even though the Taliban continued to attack Afghan government forces and welcomed al-Qaeda terrorists into the Taliban leadership.

Biden delayed the May 1 withdrawal date that he inherited. But ultimately his administration pushed ahead with a plan to withdraw by Aug. 31, despite obvious signs that the Taliban wasn’t complying with the agreement and had a stated goal to create an “Islamic government” in Afghanistan after the U.S. left, even if it meant it had to “continue our war to achieve our goal.” "

Pesky thing those facts are.

Want to try a third time for something to stick to Biden?  I mean, he has made mistakes and he is not doing the best job while in office, but you have yet to actually find one thing that he can truly & fully be blamed for.

[Vekseid]

  I would say the 6 US refineries, that have shut down, since Biden took office, have bigger impact on the oil supply. Than oil speculators buying and selling oil.

And roughly as many closed under Trump. Which he at least is responsible for given his actively botched pandemic response.

What werethe Republicans supposed to vote for? Price controls? I seriously hope, you don't think price controls are a good idea?

Price controls on gas have been a thing in the US for a very long time.

IIRC though the intent was to create a tax-and-credit situation.

And the FTC has never proven price gouging in gasoline. Although, I hear there is a place, in California charging ten bucks a gallon. Sounds like a hood place to investigate price gouging.

That's a specific tourist trap station. Plus the mix California requires costs more. Though, probably.

Wouldn't you rather be oil in dependant, than rely on OPEC? And, dictators, that hate us?

We are pretty oil independent. The US can take a ~12% hit to its oil supply. 2020 contraction was 13%, even.

The only reason Biden had to work with them at all is you. Personally.

If ~20% of Americans who thought as you did fought for America rather than your current political team this would be a very different discussion. There is plenty of wealth in the US if we would be allowed to solve some of our issues, and didn't have an entire political party sticking their fingers in their ears while we undergo a demographic collapse they are responsible for engineering.

Which they turn around and bitch about.

[Evilly]

Also, from a practical perspective....why the hell would Biden do this in an election year?  Historically, the party in power always fares poorly in midterm elections, so it was already leaning in favor of Republicans just by virtue of that.  Inflation makes it that much more difficult for Democrats to simply maintain the power dynamic, let alone think about picking up seats.  So why would Biden sabotage his own agenda by tilting the odds in favor of the opposition party?  Even if you think he's some genius mastermind trying to manipulate the economy because "reasons" he has to have the votes in Congress to make that happen in the first place.

          ________________________________________________________________________



  Biden has always been a stupid and corrupt man. Barack Obama picked Biden up, from the trash heap of failed presidential candidates, and made him, his VP. Other than that, Biden would likely be in a resthome, somewhere. Instead of being "handled" by his whitehouse staff. To the point, someone in a Bunny suit walked him off, before he was an even bigger embarrassment. My Christmas present, was watching Joe Biden repeat "Lets go Brandon." To someone calling in for the NORAD Santa tracker. Barack Obama is quoited, for saying "Don't under estimate Joe's ability to fuck things up." As a warning to a fellow Dem. Biden is the president of America. And, that makes him a big dog, on the world stage. He started the ball rolling on higher oil and gas prices. Because, he wants to be more transformational, than Obama was. Biden, and other green idiots think high gas prices, is a good idea, to drive the masses into owning EVs. I'm FINE with people owning EVs. But, if you go back and read my and Nlythe's posts on rare earth, strip mining? You see EV's are not as green, as you think. Plus, 80% of US electricity, comes from fossil fuels. Namely coal and natural gas.

  And, Biden proved, he doesn't give a damn, about people's pain, when he abandoned Americans and American allies, with SIV's in Afganistan.

[Iniquitous]

So, ignore the posts directly refuting your unsourced claims and just repeat yourself over again.  Does this somehow make you right?

Just give up. You can't even source your claims. You are doing nothing more than whining and trolling.

[Azy]

So, ignore the posts directly refuting your unsourced claims and just repeat yourself over again.  Does this somehow make you right?

Just give up. You can't even source your claims. You are doing nothing more than whining and trolling.

Basically this seems like one of those 'I blindly believe what my favorite source of information tells me.  I don't know the how's and the why's, but my favorite news source wouldn't say it if it wasn't true'.  Trump did say he loves the uneducated.  They don't ask questions when things don't add up. 

I live in an area where coal mining is a major industry.  The industry has been in decline since about the time President Bush left office.  What President Obama did, that the displaced miners were never told about by their employer because it served them better to make the now out of work miners angry at Democrats, was create a training program to help them get into another career. 

https://licensing.csg.org/apprenticeships-retraining-programs-for-dislocated-miners/

That's the best source I can find.   

[Humble Scribe]

OK, this is my wheelhouse (petrochemical industry journalist). I won't tackle the gasoline pricing issues, which are often state dependent - and by the way, it's around $8.50/gallon here in the UK, because we tax it at a higher rate - but I can speak to some of the comments on processing.

As for Canadian tar sands oil being the dirtiest oil, in the world? I strongly suspect that is a dishonest, liberal talking point. But, even IF it's true? The point of the Keystone XL pipeline was to bring it to refineries, in Texas, to be purified and made into usable products.

Well yes, but what are those 'usable products'? About 85% of what comes out of a refinery is liquid fuels, mainly gasoline and diesel.

The point about bitumen is that it is a very heavy, sour fraction, and so requires what the oil industry calls 'upgrading' to be usable in a conventional refinery. Recovering bitumen from Canadian oil sands generally requires a lot of steam to melt it to make it liquid in the first place, and then once at the refinery it needs to be broken down into smaller molecules via hydroprocessing. This requires hydrogen, which is mainly generated from natural gas, and adds to the carbon load of converting bitumen into fuel. Some refineries are starting to look at generating hydrogen via water electrolysis using renewable electricity, but this is still in its infancy. Overall, bitumen is close to coal in terms of its carbon cost.

However, the Keystone issue is very much a sideshow, because it's only one pipeline. Canada still exports plenty of oil sands bitumen to the US, via both pipeline and rail; probably 2.5 million barrels per day. Keystone would have made that export cheaper and taken a lot of it off the railroad, but might not have actually increased overall exports a lot in the short term, though it would have generated additional export capacity and maybe led to a longer term boost to Alberta oil sands production.

But another wrinkle is that the US Gulf Coast refineries which take the bitumen have been deliberately modified over the past couple of decades to handle heavy, sour oil. This is because heavy sour oil is cheaper, because it requires more processing. So in the absence of Canadian syncrude, the US refineries have to take heavy sour oil from elsewhere instead, mainly Maya from Mexico, but Middle Eastern crude also tends to be heavy and sour. Ironically, although the US is now almost self sufficient in oil, the shale oil being produced domestically is too light and sweet for US refiners to use a lot of it, so the US exports the surplus light sweet crude overseas to less sophisticated refineries which need it, and imports heavy sour stuff instead. There is no real net benefit planet-wide to killing Keystone because the heavy sour fractions are still being processed somewhere.

However, this brings us to the next point...

If you think we will ever stop using oil, you're dead wrong. Gasoline, is just one of over 6,000 products produced from crude oil. If, you're not wearing clothes that are 100% natural fibers, like cotton or hemp? You're probably wearing a material made with oil.

Plastics are mainly made from polyelylene and polypropylene, products of crackers. There are two types - ethylene crackers, which use ethane from natural gas, and naphtha crackers, which can use 'natural gas liquids' like propane and butane, or light oil fractions. Synthetic fibres are made from polyamides and polyesters. Polyester again comes from ethylene, polyamides can come from all kinds of different processes. Bottom line: some oil goes to make plastics and fibres, but around 85% of oil goes to make liquid fuels. You're correct that if we were to switch 100% to electric vehicles tomorrow that we would still need some hydrocarbons to make plastics and fibres, but only around 1/6 as much.

Is the use of gasoline as a vehicle fuel a foregone conclusion? By no means. The spread of electric vehicles is proceeding at a very rapid pace. Many auto manufacturers have said that they will not make gasoline or diesel powered models after 2030. Many countries have said that new conventional fuelled vehicle registrations will no longer be allowed after 2030, though hybrids will still be allowed. In countries like Norway electric vehicles (EVs) already represent 80% of new registrations. Europe is moving to EVs, but globally the sea change is coming from China, which is moving to EVs in a major way. The US needs Tesla to be a success, because it's the way that cars are going. Yes, we will still probably be using gasoline in some vehicles for many years to come, but nowhere near as much. We have probably already passed peak global oil demand (most forecasters put it at about 2030, but their forecasts pre-dated Covid and the Ukraine war). From here on in the industry is on the down slope.

You made a reasonable point about the minerals that go into EVs. It's not so much the rare earths as the nickel, cobalt and lithium that go into batteries, and the copper used in electric cabling. There are some very big and ugly holes being dug around the world, but because they happen in Chile, Zambia and Madagascar, they don't attract the attention of environmental activists as much. There are arguments to be made about exactly how 'green' battery vehicles really are. But that shouldn't take away from the pressing issue of climate change and the need to tackle it. There are no perfect solutions, and we may just need to put up with some big ugly holes.

AND, guess what? Fertilizer is created from crude oil byproduct's. Probably, some of that stuff, that makes Canadian tar sand oil, so filthy. I'm just guessing. But, from what I do know about oil, and commin sense, tells me, I have a very good chance of hitting the mark.

No, on this occasion you missed it, I'm afraid. Let's talk 'fertilizer'. There are three major nutrients that a plant needs from the soil: nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen it can get from air and water.

Potassium comes from rock. It's pretty simple - the rock gets ground up and put on the soil to replenish the potassium the plant has used.

Phosphorus also comes from rock, but it needs to be extracted to end up in a form usable by the plant (phosphate). This is mainly done using sulphuric acid. Sulphuric acid is made from burning sulphur, and sulphur comes from oil and gas processing, so in that sense there is an indirect link to oil.

Nitrogen is the trickiest. It comes from the air, but is very unreactive, so to make it react, it is pushed together with hydrogen at very high temperatures and pressures over an iron catalyst in the Haber Process, to make ammonia. All synthetic nitrogen fertilizers (urea, ammonium nitrate, ammonium bicarbonate etc) all start as ammonia.

The hydrogen used to make ammonia mostly comes from natural gas, though China uses coal. Some plants used to use naphtha - I think there may still be one in India - but oil became too expensive to use in the 1970s. But the big thing in the ammonia industry is hydrogen from renewable electricity. At the moment only around 1-2% of ammonia is made that way, but there is a major switchover coming over the next couple of decades. The money going into it is very significant. This is good, as ammonia production is responsible on its own for about 1.5% of all human carbon dioxide emissions.

Trump is the only president, that Putin did not invade, another country, during his term, this century. And, your side accused Trump of colluding with Russia and being Putin's puppet. But, he didn't attack Ukraine, again, until Giden's watch. Care to explain that?

Here I move back to opinions, but frankly, why would he need to? The orange guy did everything Putin wanted without Putin needing to use his military. Breaking up NATO, leaving allies in the lurch, demolishing the US's position and standing around the world - Trump did all of that. That 'abandoning of US allies in Afghanistan' you mention? You know who made that deal, right? Iniquitous' post has the details so I won't re-hash them.

You're a Republican, I get it. I am slightly left of centre in UK terms - what we call a Liberal (very different from the US use of the term), but probably solidly Democrat in US terms. I understand the tribal need to praise anything that has a red rosette pinned to it. But Trump is not a Republican in the way that Dubya or Reagan was. He's a loudmouthed wrecking ball who has destroyed the GOP and turned it into a weird cult of personality. I hesitate to use the term fascist, because it looks like liberal pearl-clutching at the nasty man, but he's the closest thing I've seen in the US. He encouraged his supporters to storm your seat of government and hang your Vice President. When winning becomes more important than the number of votes cast or the survival of your republic, you are in trouble. Biden is a very old and rather ineffectual seeming man. He may be corrupt, I don't know - I assume most US politicians are in hock to somebody because your election campaigns are so ridiculously expensive - it's a guaranteed recipe for having people who can be bought. Still, at least  Biden published his tax returns. Trump couldn't, because he knows how bad they'd look.

[Montagne]

OK, this is my wheelhouse (petrochemical industry journalist). I won't tackle the gasoline pricing issues, which are often state dependent - and by the way, it's around $8.50/gallon here in the UK, because we tax it at a higher rate - but I can speak to some of the comments on processing.

As a fellow Brit it does always shock me when Americans complain about "high gas prices". 8-9 dollars a gallon is pretty standard on the continent at the moment.

(But my heart goes out to Americans who can't afford their bills. Absolutely the worse place to be precarious in the west.)

[Annaamarth]

...   Putin didn't invade Ukraine during Trump's term because he fully expected Trump to dismantle, or at the very least weaken, NATO ...

Bold my emphasis.

While this is broadly correct, Iniquitous, I think it's worth noting that the first shots fired upon Ukrainian uniformed personnel by Russian uniformed personnel was the Kerch Strait incident, which did happen during Trump's term.  Trump cancelled a meeting with Putin at the G20 summit, but took no further actions of which I am aware - except, of course, to hold Ukrainian security hostage in 2019 in a political bid for propaganda material against Joe Biden.  Kompromat, really.

[Dice]

  Today, the national average of the price of a gallon of gas hit $4.87. I have no doubt, we will soon have $5 a gallon gas, very soon. Some speculate, the price will go over $6, a gallon, by the end of summer. I truly hope, they are wrong.

Don't give a shit about your political rant, not getting involved. Here is the fuel prices in New Zealand, please, take your 5 bucks a gallon and ship it over. I mean it. We in Australasia will happily trade your fuel prices for ours.

[Laughing Hyena]

Don't give a shit about your political rant, not getting involved. Here is the fuel prices in New Zealand, please, take your 5 bucks a gallon and ship it over. I mean it. We in Australasia will happily trade your fuel prices for ours.

You source gave me a number to follow but I needed to see the result in terms of nzd to usd. A quick Google search gave me the answer. 5 usd is nearly 8 nzd by only a few cents.

That doesnt sound bad until you recall they pay per liter not pergallon. 3 liters is around one gallon of fuel. So one gallon of gas is much more expensive in New Zealand. If I did the math right that means New Zealand pays 24 us dollars per gallon.

Is this correct Dice?

[Laughing Hyena]

Correction: 3 liter is 1/3 of a gallon. Apologies, I'm posting from a smart phone.

[TheGlyphstone]

That site lets you manually correct for both currency and measure. I set it to US Dollars and Gallons and got $8.15 roughly.

[Laughing Hyena]

That site lets you manually correct for both currency and measure. I set it to US Dollars and Gallons and got $8.15 roughly.

Thank you for the correction Glyph. I was wrong in my math so thank you for that.

[Notorious]

OK, this is my wheelhouse (petrochemical industry journalist). I won't tackle the gasoline pricing issues, which are often state dependent - and by the way, it's around $8.50/gallon here in the UK, because we tax it at a higher rate - but I can speak to some of the comments on processing.

Well yes, but what are those 'usable products'? About 85% of what comes out of a refinery is liquid fuels, mainly gasoline and diesel.

The point about bitumen is that it is a very heavy, sour fraction, and so requires what the oil industry calls 'upgrading' to be usable in a conventional refinery. Recovering bitumen from Canadian oil sands generally requires a lot of steam to melt it to make it liquid in the first place, and then once at the refinery it needs to be broken down into smaller molecules via hydroprocessing. This requires hydrogen, which is mainly generated from natural gas, and adds to the carbon load of converting bitumen into fuel. Some refineries are starting to look at generating hydrogen via water electrolysis using renewable electricity, but this is still in its infancy. Overall, bitumen is close to coal in terms of its carbon cost.

However, the Keystone issue is very much a sideshow, because it's only one pipeline. Canada still exports plenty of oil sands bitumen to the US, via both pipeline and rail; probably 2.5 million barrels per day. Keystone would have made that export cheaper and taken a lot of it off the railroad, but might not have actually increased overall exports a lot in the short term, though it would have generated additional export capacity and maybe led to a longer term boost to Alberta oil sands production.

But another wrinkle is that the US Gulf Coast refineries which take the bitumen have been deliberately modified over the past couple of decades to handle heavy, sour oil. This is because heavy sour oil is cheaper, because it requires more processing. So in the absence of Canadian syncrude, the US refineries have to take heavy sour oil from elsewhere instead, mainly Maya from Mexico, but Middle Eastern crude also tends to be heavy and sour. Ironically, although the US is now almost self sufficient in oil, the shale oil being produced domestically is too light and sweet for US refiners to use a lot of it, so the US exports the surplus light sweet crude overseas to less sophisticated refineries which need it, and imports heavy sour stuff instead. There is no real net benefit planet-wide to killing Keystone because the heavy sour fractions are still being processed somewhere.

However, this brings us to the next point...

Plastics are mainly made from polyelylene and polypropylene, products of crackers. There are two types - ethylene crackers, which use ethane from natural gas, and naphtha crackers, which can use 'natural gas liquids' like propane and butane, or light oil fractions. Synthetic fibres are made from polyamides and polyesters. Polyester again comes from ethylene, polyamides can come from all kinds of different processes. Bottom line: some oil goes to make plastics and fibres, but around 85% of oil goes to make liquid fuels. You're correct that if we were to switch 100% to electric vehicles tomorrow that we would still need some hydrocarbons to make plastics and fibres, but only around 1/6 as much.

Is the use of gasoline as a vehicle fuel a foregone conclusion? By no means. The spread of electric vehicles is proceeding at a very rapid pace. Many auto manufacturers have said that they will not make gasoline or diesel powered models after 2030. Many countries have said that new conventional fuelled vehicle registrations will no longer be allowed after 2030, though hybrids will still be allowed. In countries like Norway electric vehicles (EVs) already represent 80% of new registrations. Europe is moving to EVs, but globally the sea change is coming from China, which is moving to EVs in a major way. The US needs Tesla to be a success, because it's the way that cars are going. Yes, we will still probably be using gasoline in some vehicles for many years to come, but nowhere near as much. We have probably already passed peak global oil demand (most forecasters put it at about 2030, but their forecasts pre-dated Covid and the Ukraine war). From here on in the industry is on the down slope.

You made a reasonable point about the minerals that go into EVs. It's not so much the rare earths as the nickel, cobalt and lithium that go into batteries, and the copper used in electric cabling. There are some very big and ugly holes being dug around the world, but because they happen in Chile, Zambia and Madagascar, they don't attract the attention of environmental activists as much. There are arguments to be made about exactly how 'green' battery vehicles really are. But that shouldn't take away from the pressing issue of climate change and the need to tackle it. There are no perfect solutions, and we may just need to put up with some big ugly holes.

No, on this occasion you missed it, I'm afraid. Let's talk 'fertilizer'. There are three major nutrients that a plant needs from the soil: nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen it can get from air and water.

Potassium comes from rock. It's pretty simple - the rock gets ground up and put on the soil to replenish the potassium the plant has used.

Phosphorus also comes from rock, but it needs to be extracted to end up in a form usable by the plant (phosphate). This is mainly done using sulphuric acid. Sulphuric acid is made from burning sulphur, and sulphur comes from oil and gas processing, so in that sense there is an indirect link to oil.

Nitrogen is the trickiest. It comes from the air, but is very unreactive, so to make it react, it is pushed together with hydrogen at very high temperatures and pressures over an iron catalyst in the Haber Process, to make ammonia. All synthetic nitrogen fertilizers (urea, ammonium nitrate, ammonium bicarbonate etc) all start as ammonia.

The hydrogen used to make ammonia mostly comes from natural gas, though China uses coal. Some plants used to use naphtha - I think there may still be one in India - but oil became too expensive to use in the 1970s. But the big thing in the ammonia industry is hydrogen from renewable electricity. At the moment only around 1-2% of ammonia is made that way, but there is a major switchover coming over the next couple of decades. The money going into it is very significant. This is good, as ammonia production is responsible on its own for about 1.5% of all human carbon dioxide emissions.

Here I move back to opinions, but frankly, why would he need to? The orange guy did everything Putin wanted without Putin needing to use his military. Breaking up NATO, leaving allies in the lurch, demolishing the US's position and standing around the world - Trump did all of that. That 'abandoning of US allies in Afghanistan' you mention? You know who made that deal, right? Iniquitous' post has the details so I won't re-hash them.

You're a Republican, I get it. I am slightly left of centre in UK terms - what we call a Liberal (very different from the US use of the term), but probably solidly Democrat in US terms. I understand the tribal need to praise anything that has a red rosette pinned to it. But Trump is not a Republican in the way that Dubya or Reagan was. He's a loudmouthed wrecking ball who has destroyed the GOP and turned it into a weird cult of personality. I hesitate to use the term fascist, because it looks like liberal pearl-clutching at the nasty man, but he's the closest thing I've seen in the US. He encouraged his supporters to storm your seat of government and hang your Vice President. When winning becomes more important than the number of votes cast or the survival of your republic, you are in trouble. Biden is a very old and rather ineffectual seeming man. He may be corrupt, I don't know - I assume most US politicians are in hock to somebody because your election campaigns are so ridiculously expensive - it's a guaranteed recipe for having people who can be bought. Still, at least  Biden published his tax returns. Trump couldn't, because he knows how bad they'd look.

Awesome and insightful information. Thanks for this post.

[GloomCookie]

As an electrical engineer in the industry of power distribution, I'm going to weigh in a bit.

Right now, we have a bit of a crisis going on when it comes to renewables. Not in the renewable sources themselves per se, but rather in sourcing the materials for batteries. Already car manufacturers are running into problems obtaining adequate stock for their current production, which will get worse starting next year and even more so in 2025. Why? Beginning January 1, the California Energy Commission will release the 2023 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24 Section 6, which will mandate that all commercial properties must use a formula (I don't know it off hand, but I have classes scheduled to cover it soon) to determine the minimum required square footage of solar panels required. In addition, you must have inverters and batteries to store said energy. This is going to tie in with current provisions in the 2019 code for Demand Response, where certain loads (mainly HVAC but can include lighting) must be connected to a system to allow local utility companies to send a signal to turn off power to certain devices at a moment's notice.

Beginning January 1, 2025, the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC for short) will come out and there are similar provisions in it for solar panels and required square footage. Unlike Title 24 in California, IECC is recognized in municipalities from Washington state to Florida (though there are local flavors such as the Florida building codes). Some jurisdictions like Oklahoma and Arkansas use older versions of the IECC (2006 and 2009 respectively) while some states are newer but haven't caught up yet (2015 for Texas for example) while some states don't have state-wide adoption (Mississippi, Kansas, Arizona, etc.) and some adopt the latest codes automatically (Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, etc.). So this will not be a universal adoption across the board, but some of the heavy hitters such as Chicago, Austin, New York, Miami, etc. will start mandating that solar panels are required.

This isn't a bad thing, but this will cause a worsening crisis trying to source batteries. Right now, there are only so many sources for Lithium that's used in batteries, and most of them in third world countries that use only a tiny step up from slave labor. What we need before we haul off and go too far is a better source of batteries. In case you're wondering, yes, there is a LOT of research ongoing into making alternatives to Lithium-Ion, such as Sodium- and Iron-ion batteries, which are abundant. here's an article for Sodium-Ion batteries if you want to read more about this.

California is pushing for a lot of these things, especially with the ban on small gas engines starting in 2024 and the ban of gasoline car sales by 2035. This is going to require a major overhaul to our current infrastructure and the source of batteries in order to keep up. Is it impossible? No, because humans are adaptable and we'll figure something out, we always do. I'm just pointing out that batteries are going to be a major handicap on green energy soon.

If you'd like to know more, I'll keep an eye on this thread and answer any questions regarding energy codes, electrical distribution, batteries, and the like.

Kisses,
Gloom.

[TheGlyphstone]

Since you offered and mentioned distribution, what is your perspective on the current state of the national power grid(s)? It came up not too long ago in something I was reading about the obstacles to widespread electric vehicle adoption, that the aging and overstressed grid wouldn't be able to handle it.

[Vekseid]

If every gas vehicle was electric tomorrow, that would put about half a terawatt of strain on the electric grid (only counting the US). That would be a bit much for an immediate jump, but we've had bigger jumps over decade-long periods.

[GloomCookie]

I'm not sure where Vekseid got that 0.5TW figure from, but that's not what the current issue is. The current issue is that power companies aren't investing back into their distribution grids like they should. They have these old, aging systems that were installed decades ago when the grid had far fewer dependents on it, and every year that demand goes up and up and up. Hotter summers lead to more HVAC loads, which lead to places like California needing things like demand response to turn off large sources of power drain on the system and initiate rolling brownouts to keep ahead of the situation.

Electrical load comes in two distinct flavors: Real power, measured in Watts, and Reactive Power measured in VARs. Combined, they have a power factor that ranges between 100% and 50%, depending. Motor loads, computers, and LED lighting have atrocious power factor, which leads to generators working harder to produce power and also keep in sync with the grid. In the US we use a 60 Hertz frequency for power, and if a generator gets too much load it starts to slip. If a generator slips too much, it can cause the generator to take damage and go offline. The power company basically would rather throw a switch and turn off power to customers than risk that generator going offline because of damage.

It costs money to maintain the grid, and while we're getting newer green resources online like wind turbines and solar farms, they're still using the existing infrastructure. Power lines can only take so much before they start to incur their own losses in the system that add up, called voltage drop. I won't bore you with details but transmission lines are only rated for certain voltages and loads before they either start arcing to ground (causing up to 3% wildfires each year) or the wires become overheated and can become damaged. There are usually safeguards in place like breakers and fuses to stop this, but it can still occur.

Quite simply, the infrastructure is becoming saturated, but that will start to change in a few decades as baby boomers start dying off. It's a grim reality, but that is one of the outcomes that will reduce total demand on the grid.

Now, as to the implementation of electric cars, I think that has more to do with the cost of an electric car than the cost of the infrastructure to keep them charged. The average cost of an electric car is $15,000 more than a traditional used car, which is not an insignificant amount. The cost of a charging station is around $1000, and uses the same type breaker as an electric oven (30A 2P breaker). They're not difficult to put in or use, and the amount of power isn't going to break the bank on the electric bill. I just think it's that initial sticker shock of an electric car vs. a new car. Right now there's a $7500 government incentive for electric cars, but that's only about half of the extra cost.

I'm thinking that's the biggest reason currently for why electric cars aren't being sold more.

[TheGlyphstone]

To be clear, I wasnt saying the grid prevented electric cars. It was more in the vein of even if electric cars were affordable, the horrifically under-repaired and ill-maintained grid wouldn't be able to support them with components 30-30 years past their design replacement.

[GloomCookie]

I would like to add something to my earlier statements, because I realize my mentioning of the age of the grid makes it sound weaker than it actually is. I think most of the weakness is more on the customer side.

I said that each charging station would require a 30A 2-pole breaker, that's per charging station. That's not bad on a home that maybe sees 40A at most at any given time, and most homes are rated for 200A service. Where you'll see that become an issue is in gas stations, because of the more hazardous locations.

It's been a minute but I worked on a few Mapco gas stations in Tennessee and while we left the gas pumps alone, some of them were near max capacity both in terms of physical space in the panels as well as what the service can handle. The National Electrical Code (NEC) 220.87 requires that for remodels we have to obtain the 12-month peak demand from the power company, that we clamp a meter taking reading every 15-minutes to the highest loaded feeder (or all three) and take a reading every 15 minutes for a full month, or we have to provide full calculations of the electrical load as if it were a new service. If we obtain demand, we must take that value at 125% of the maximum value before we add additional load.

In addition, most gas stations have panels that aren't your standard off-the-shelf panels and have to be built to avoid sparks and causing explosions. Mostly this is done with conduits that prevent gas fumes from the gas pumps seeping in and sparking and exploding. Some stations use panels that are specifically made for this purpose. Any time you have a special enclosure like this, that adds significant cost to the project.

Why do I menton all this? Because most small-town gas stations aren't going to be able to handle the addition or more than one or two charging stations without a significant overhaul of their service, which believe me gets expensive. You figure a 30A breaker will see around 24A (Most breakers are rated to handle 80% of their rated load for a host of reasons that I'll explain if anyone cares) at any given time, which isn't so bad... until you have several. If your entire service is rated for 200A (which some gas stations are limited to), then if they pull 100A on their worst day, we have to assume by code they're pulling 125A at a time. That only leaves us room to add 3, maybe 4 chargers to add before we have to upgrade the service (depends on if the service is single or three-phase). Meanwhile, they have 8 or 12 pumps going all at once.

I think that's the biggest headache for implementation on a local level. Unless a building goes in expecting to feature multiple electric car stations, they're going to run into problems with a system that can't handle the new loads.

I also have been putting off reading NEC article 625... I should look into that. Chapter 6 of the NEC deals with specific applications and 625 is exclusive to electric vehicle charging stations, so I might get my home copy of the code book out and read up. That might also add complications I'm unaware of, as we haven't been asked to provide many charging stations currently. I suspect that will change.

[Humble Scribe]

Right now, there are only so many sources for Lithium that's used in batteries, and most of them in third world countries that use only a tiny step up from slave labor. What we need before we haul off and go too far is a better source of batteries.

Lithium is an issue, but not an insoluble one. The US has some big lithium projects close to commercial production, such as Rhyolite Ridge. [It will use lots of sulphuric acid, which is a market I cover].
But lithium is also going to be coming from Chile, Australia and Argentina, amongst other places. It's a market every mining company wants to be into at the moment. The mining industry can be very conservative and often moves at a slow pace, but if the price is right, it will do what it takes to get these facilities up and running.
Describing mining projects in the developing world as 'slave labour' is a bit of a lazy cliche. While tough and dangerous, these are often some of the best paid jobs in these countries. Of course there is exploitation. If you think there isn't exploitation where you live, you need to get out more.

[Hades]

At the risk of derailing the original topic further, there was an interview on on a science podcast I listen to with the CEO of a start-up company creating polymer plastics to create batteries, as an alternative to lithium-ion ones, though currently they're for large-scale use rather than something that could go into a cellphone or a vehicle.

[TheGlyphstone]

Large scale use is actually really important. From what little I remember,  one of the complications with solar power is our lack of efficient batteries; a solar plant can only generate power when it has sun, so its able to have at best 50% uptime and a lot of its output ends up wasted. Better capacitors would let excess energy be stored for distribution at night.

[GloomCookie]

You wouldn't want to use capacitors for storing energy. We totally use them in very specific applications in power distribution, but mainly for power factor correction to bring places like big industrial plants with large motor loads closer to unity, since if the current lags too far behind voltage, your generator has to work a lot harder, and most utilities will charge a premium since utility meters can only really measure actual wattage, not total Volt-Amps.

Capacitors have an advantage over batteries in that they can be used in alternating current situations without an inverter, since they are basically large metal plates holding a charge. The voltage takes a while to swing back and forth, but as electrons come and go off that plate they can produce almost any current you need, hence their use in power factor correction to bring the current back in line with the voltage. But for storage solutions, they're really not ideal, since they tend to discharge pretty quickly and the only way around that is to either have one big capacitor or banks of little ones, which adds up in a hurry. Plus, since you have to manufacture these things with certain dielectrics between the plates and you need to have a physical gap between the plates to store power correctly, they aren't very energy dense.

Batteries have a different problem. They can be a lot more energy dense than a capacitor, but can only store DC power. Pumping electricity through a rectifier to get it to DC power is easy, you can make a tiny bridge rectifier for literally less than a dollar with four diodes. Getting that power back out and turned into usable AC power is the trick, and that's why large battery banks come with inverters. They're not difficult to find, since that's literally what UPS devices you plug your computer into are. It just depends on how much power you intend to store and for how long.

Another consideration is that any time you have a back-up power supply, you MUST have a way of preventing backfeed. Most inverters have internal automatic transfer switches to take over in the event of an outage, but all it takes is some dumbass not paying attention to lead to deadly backfeeding, which is where electricity flows back through thte secondaries of the utility transformer onto the primary side and onto the transmission lines, the ones likely to have people working on them to restore power. There was a situation around 3 years ago where we were asked if we could put track lights so that some of the track heads were on a back-up circuit, and we said hell no, absolutely not. The issue was that the track they wanted to use had an L1, L2, and a shared neutral, and so if L1 was off but L2 was on the inverter, there was a possibility that electricity could go from L2, through the track head to the neutral, then through another fixture and onto L1, which wasn't tripped and so could backfeed through the panel and onto the utility.

Since we are discussing power storage, I believe the Japanese started this (though I could be entirely wrong) where they create artificial lakes and use periods of energy surplus such as at night to pump water into these reservours and then when they need the power, they just let everything flow backwards. Why? Because if you run a motor backwards, it becomes a generator. I have no idea how feasable that would be since I don't deal with power generation, but I thought I'd toss that out there.

[Oniya]

Since we are discussing power storage, I believe the Japanese started this (though I could be entirely wrong) where they create artificial lakes and use periods of energy surplus such as at night to pump water into these reservours and then when they need the power, they just let everything flow backwards. Why? Because if you run a motor backwards, it becomes a generator. I have no idea how feasable that would be since I don't deal with power generation, but I thought I'd toss that out there.

I don't know about who started it, but if you consider the basic physics of the situation, it makes sense.  Work is done to move the water uphill, giving it potential energy.  When it flows back, that potential energy is turned into kinetic energy (and hydroelectric power has been a thing for a long time).  Some of it is bound to get lost as heat (because that's how entropy works), but it's better than losing all of it.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'll cop to the capacitor thing, my dumb ass didn't know the difference between capacitors and 'really big batteries'. But I was still under the general impression that our decrepit power grid wasn't set up to store large amounts of power, but for in-the-moment distribution according to demand.

[GloomCookie]

So, prior to the wide-scale adoption of renewable energies, that's more or less how the grid was set up.



So there's a set amount of power that's being used all the time, and more often than not this is where nuclear power is strongest. Nuclear energy is about the same cost to run as it is to let sit idle, so any grid with nuclear energy available will use that and then bring other plants like coal and natural gas online to hit peak demands, as those stations cost more to run during peak energy use. This is also why commercial and industrial plants will get charged on-peak and off-peak rates, while residential customers less so. Big energy consumers like steel and aluminum plants will often work at night both to reduce cooling costs and because they want to take advantage of off-peak rates, though of course there are always exceptions.

Renewables will help in this regard because most peak use is in the afternoon, when you're more likely to have sunlight. The biggest goal these days will be to flatten the curve of peak usage and then bringing systems like nuclear and renewables online that can hit those peaks, and then have enough capacity to make up the difference if renewables can't quite make it.

One of the methods I've seen is to avoid using HVAC so much as ground-loop water systems, but those have a ton of issues all on their own. There's also well insulated boxes that they freeze solid with ice at night and then run water through to then cool air moving through a building. Those things have their own issues but they're possible ways to curb the biggest loads on a building, which is HVAC.

When I sit down to design a Starbucks, out of all the loads on that system, HVAC probably takes up 30% or more. A Joann's or similar big box retail over half the load is HVAC. That's where the peak demand is, and that's why I can see the big push for solar, since businesses could curb that peak energy use.

[Blythe]

I gotta say GloomCookie--I am really delighted to read your posts. I feel like I'm learning a lot of stuff from 'em. This is the sort of stuff I love to read when I come to the PROC subboard. :)

[TheGlyphstone]

Likewise. I love learning new things, especially tech stuff, and coming from an expert's mouth is always the best.

[Dice]

Nuclear energy is about the same cost to run as it is to let sit idle

Here's the part where I care about the politics. I don't understand why Australia (Where I am) as a geologically stable nation (Read low risk of the earth shaking) and with a large amount of open space where nothing lives doesn't use nuclear power as a transion source. Fuck that's a horribly worded sentence.

Anyhow, I get that it's dangerous, I get that it's got its draw backs, I get that storing the waste sucks, but of all the nations on earth we, as in Australia, have solutions to each of these issues and we have a massive amount of fusionable material in the ground. I think nuclear power is a good substitute to coal and gas as we transition to whatever renewable energy generation we adopt. I wish we would use it. Because a lot of its risks are minimised by our geographic location and sparseness of population.

[GloomCookie]

There are other considerations, however. Nuclear power has always been more expensive to build and maintain, and that isn't something to overlook when you're asking tax payers to fund construction.

The cost of a coal powered plant is in the neighborhood of $3,500 per kW generated, while nuclear energy is around $6,000 per kW generated. You need on average 1 GigaWatt to power a million homes, or 1.21 GW if you want to get back to 1985.



Since we're talking DeLorean's and such, if you wanted to put a power plant up to power the Time Machine from Back to the Future, it would cost $4,235,000,000 for a coal power plant, or $7,260,000,000 for nuclear.

Now I see why Doc Brown stole the plutonium from the Libians.

[TheGlyphstone]

At least around here, taxpayers don't get a say in the matter - it's up to the Public Utility Commission to approve new power plant infrastructure projects, and they're appointed by the governor directly. And since the utility company gets a % of the total cost as guaranteed profit, the higher the price tag the better for them.

[Dice]

There are other considerations, however.

Sure. But we are talking here about the "Climate Wars" we have over here, were both sides of politics have been ripping each other apart. (we are known as the coup capital of the world for the speed our political parties knife their leaders, all over climate issues) So, if we are going to dam well do something about our dependence on fossil energy and transition over to renewable energy, nuclear power is (imo) the best stepping stone we have available right now.

Sure, it is costly, but the priority here is ending the stupid knifings of our political leaders every 2 years over this fucking issue. Not spewing black smoke, keeping my lights on and political stability sounds like a fine mix of reasons to eat the costs otherwise.

[GloomCookie]

At least around here, taxpayers don't get a say in the matter - it's up to the Public Utility Commission to approve new power plant infrastructure projects, and they're appointed by the governor directly. And since the utility company gets a % of the total cost as guaranteed profit, the higher the price tag the better for them.

That sounds like a major conflict of interests to me. If they get a percentage of the total cost, then surely someone has to oversee them directly, right? Or do they just give a kick back to the governor for their continued cooperation?

[TheGlyphstone]

That sounds like a major conflict of interests to me. If they get a percentage of the total cost, then surely someone has to oversee them directly, right? Or do they just give a kick back to the governor for their continued cooperation?

Oh, it's a gigantic conflict of interests. I'm not sure it's better in the states where the PUC members are elected directly though, because now the companies can just directly fund election campaigns for commissioners who will approve their requests. And the utility companies still get a percentage of the total cost as profit there too - it's part of their federal-level status as 'regulated monopolies' where they're given exclusive, non-competitive territories to supply to (which is also a problem in its own right).

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jc-kibbey/utility-accountability-101-how-do-utilities-make-money
https://www.sightline.org/2020/05/18/playing-monopoly-or-how-utilities-make-money/