Gasoline Is Becoming Worthless

Last week, the Sun-Times editorial board wrote that “as renewable energy comes online, it will reduce the need for oil imports.” A look at what’s happened in Germany over the past decade proves that conclusion is specious at best.

No country has done more to phase out oil than Germany. But petroleum remains the country’s leading energy source — 35% of the energy mix — a decade after the implementation of its “Energiewende” policy. To meet continued strong demand, Germany imports 98% of the oil it consumes, primarily from Russia. Seventy-eight percent Germany’s energy needs are met by fossil fuels and, as Clean Energy Wire reports, “In the midst of the Energiewende, Germany relies still heavily on imports of fossil fuels.”

Germany is proof positive that renewable energy mandates do little, if anything, to reduce petroleum demand.

One reason is the fact wind and solar provide no alternative for the thousands of uses for petroleum that are essential and largely taken for granted. Fifty-five percent of petroleum demand is non-gasoline and 31% occurs outside the transportation sector. More than 6,000 everyday products, including dozens of medical supplies, pharmaceuticals and tech gadgets such as smart phones, are largely petroleum-based. Petrochemicals are even needed to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels and more than 70% of the typical electric car.

We are going to need a lot of oil for decades to come, and it’s better to produce as much of it here as possible rather than rely on other countries for the oil we need. This is not a “deceitful” argument, as the Sun-Times’ editorial board put it — it’s a simple fact.

 
That is the opinion of Wall St. investors, who think it could be a money loser by 2030.



New research from Morgan Stanley argues that traditional internal combustion engines—the mainstay of automobiles for more than a century—are destined to become money-losers as early as 2030. “We believe the market may be ascribing zero (or even negative?) value for ICE-derived revenues at GM and Ford,” auto analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a Jan. 29 analysis. He lists a variety of factors likely to “transform what were once profit-generating assets into potentially loss-making and cash-burning businesses.”

And more of the story I find interesting:


The investing firm recently surveyed institutional investors on the value of internal-combustion technology at GM and Ford. Seventeen percent said ICE technology had no value or negative value today. Sixty percent rated ICE technology as slightly positive, while 23% said it was a significantly positive value. That’s with electrification technology still in the early innings: total market share for fully electric vehicles is still less than 3%.

Risk in adapting too slowly
But essentially all of the growth in powertrain adoption in coming years will be electric, while ICE powertrains are certain to decline. The risk for automakers isn’t adapting too quickly and getting ahead of the market. It’s adapting too slowly and becoming overly reliant on dying technology consumers may no longer want as electrics get cheaper and range improves. That extends to factory capacity, with ICE assembly lines possibly becoming stranded assets with no market value. It would cost automakers money to disassemble or convert them to valuable use, thus the possibility of negative value

Every Leftard should immediately move into a cave.
 
The market will decide. Imagine the ding big oil would take. It would be fun to watch. It doesn't matter either way.
 
That is the opinion of Wall St. investors, who think it could be a money loser by 2030.



New research from Morgan Stanley argues that traditional internal combustion engines—the mainstay of automobiles for more than a century—are destined to become money-losers as early as 2030. “We believe the market may be ascribing zero (or even negative?) value for ICE-derived revenues at GM and Ford,” auto analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a Jan. 29 analysis. He lists a variety of factors likely to “transform what were once profit-generating assets into potentially loss-making and cash-burning businesses.”

And more of the story I find interesting:


The investing firm recently surveyed institutional investors on the value of internal-combustion technology at GM and Ford. Seventeen percent said ICE technology had no value or negative value today. Sixty percent rated ICE technology as slightly positive, while 23% said it was a significantly positive value. That’s with electrification technology still in the early innings: total market share for fully electric vehicles is still less than 3%.

Risk in adapting too slowly
But essentially all of the growth in powertrain adoption in coming years will be electric, while ICE powertrains are certain to decline. The risk for automakers isn’t adapting too quickly and getting ahead of the market. It’s adapting too slowly and becoming overly reliant on dying technology consumers may no longer want as electrics get cheaper and range improves. That extends to factory capacity, with ICE assembly lines possibly becoming stranded assets with no market value. It would cost automakers money to disassemble or convert them to valuable use, thus the possibility of negative value

Although sales of EVs are growing there is a major problem. For many people charging EVs is really inconvenient. 40% of Americans live in apartments or single family homes where charging is difficult if not impossible. Away from home ,finding a charging station and waiting 4 to 9 hours for a full charge can be a real problem for most people. EVs will be a niche market for a long time. I owed an EV for 5 years. It was basically a second car that I used around town but when we went out of town town, we used our big Toyota. The fact that it takes hours to charge and EV and only minutes to fill up at the pump, will keep many millions away from EVs until we solve charging problem and believe me it is a problem for lots of people.
 
Last edited:
Although sales of EVs are growing there is a major problem. For many people charging EVs is really inconvenient. 40% of Americans live in apartments or single family homes where charging is difficult if not impossible. Away from home ,finding a charging station and waiting 4 to 9 hours for a full charge can be a real problem for most people. EVs will be a niche market for a long time. I owed an EV for 5 years. It was basically a second car that I used around town but when we went out of town town, we used our big Toyota. The fact that it takes hours to charge and EV and only minutes to fill up at the pump, will keep many millions away from EVs until we solve charging problem and believe me it is a problem for lots of people.

Quantumscape is working on a fast charging battery, as is NIO, and both say they are getting really close. Like 5-20 minute charge times for a full charge. That's a game changer.
 
My company burns 3,000+ gallons of diesel fuel a week. How, exactly, does anyone think that can actually be replaced with electric trucks...short of building a power plant at the terminal?
It can't. Green Energy sucks.
 
EVs still have to find a source for energy, and that is still fossil fuel.
At least until we invent something like "Mr. Fusion".
And actually EVs use far more energy, since there are many more inefficient steps, like generators, power transmission, batteries in, batteries out, and finally electric motors. Since each step has about half waste, you end up with about 1/32 of the total energy actually being used, and about 31/32 or the total energy being wasted.
( this is not totally accurate since power transmission waste is not really 50%, but only about 10%, but there actually are also many more small losses, so is reasonable).
 
Although sales of EVs are growing there is a major problem. For many people charging EVs is really inconvenient. 40% of Americans live in apartments or single family homes where charging is difficult if not impossible. Away from home ,finding a charging station and waiting 4 to 9 hours for a full charge can be a real problem for most people. EVs will be a niche market for a long time. I owed an EV for 5 years. It was basically a second car that I used around town but when we went out of town town, we used our big Toyota. The fact that it takes hours to charge and EV and only minutes to fill up at the pump, will keep many millions away from EVs until we solve charging problem and believe me it is a problem for lots of people.

Quantumscape is working on a fast charging battery, as is NIO, and both say they are getting really close. Like 5-20 minute charge times for a full charge. That's a game changer.

Not really.
Batteries are still too heavy and limited capacity for most uses, like airplanes, trucks, railroads, ships, etc.
And you still are not going to do a long distance trip where every couple of hours you have to sit and wait 20 minutes.
The source of energy is still fossil fuels for electricity, and you actually increase the fossil fuel use and pollution because electricity have many more inefficient stages.
 
Placing infrastructure underground could include reserves of oil and fuels. It could free up mass transport with additional local mass storage.

The public sector should take the lead in establishing benchmarks and timetables, along with shovel ready jobs requirements.
 
That is the opinion of Wall St. investors, who think it could be a money loser by 2030.



New research from Morgan Stanley argues that traditional internal combustion engines—the mainstay of automobiles for more than a century—are destined to become money-losers as early as 2030. “We believe the market may be ascribing zero (or even negative?) value for ICE-derived revenues at GM and Ford,” auto analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a Jan. 29 analysis. He lists a variety of factors likely to “transform what were once profit-generating assets into potentially loss-making and cash-burning businesses.”

And more of the story I find interesting:


The investing firm recently surveyed institutional investors on the value of internal-combustion technology at GM and Ford. Seventeen percent said ICE technology had no value or negative value today. Sixty percent rated ICE technology as slightly positive, while 23% said it was a significantly positive value. That’s with electrification technology still in the early innings: total market share for fully electric vehicles is still less than 3%.

Risk in adapting too slowly
But essentially all of the growth in powertrain adoption in coming years will be electric, while ICE powertrains are certain to decline. The risk for automakers isn’t adapting too quickly and getting ahead of the market. It’s adapting too slowly and becoming overly reliant on dying technology consumers may no longer want as electrics get cheaper and range improves. That extends to factory capacity, with ICE assembly lines possibly becoming stranded assets with no market value. It would cost automakers money to disassemble or convert them to valuable use, thus the possibility of negative value


Go ahead and invest in all those new technologies. Invest your life savings......
 
Upgrade infrastructure to include electric distribution for automobiles!

This has been going on for forty years.

It still isn't close.

Without some miracle like fusion, there just is no other power source then fossil fuel.
If you make cars electric, then you add the additional steps of converting/storing/retrieving the fossil fuel energy, so use it up even faster.
 
Upgrade infrastructure to include electric distribution for automobiles!

This has been going on for forty years.

It still isn't close.

Without some miracle like fusion, there just is no other power source then fossil fuel.
If you make cars electric, then you add the additional steps of converting/storing/retrieving the fossil fuel energy, so use it up even faster.

The heat efficiency is better for a power plant than a car. However, there come a lot of other issues.

Poor people won't drive 20 year old electric cars (not because they won't....but because they won't exist) so they will be walking.
 
That is the opinion of Wall St. investors, who think it could be a money loser by 2030.



New research from Morgan Stanley argues that traditional internal combustion engines—the mainstay of automobiles for more than a century—are destined to become money-losers as early as 2030. “We believe the market may be ascribing zero (or even negative?) value for ICE-derived revenues at GM and Ford,” auto analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a Jan. 29 analysis. He lists a variety of factors likely to “transform what were once profit-generating assets into potentially loss-making and cash-burning businesses.”

And more of the story I find interesting:


The investing firm recently surveyed institutional investors on the value of internal-combustion technology at GM and Ford. Seventeen percent said ICE technology had no value or negative value today. Sixty percent rated ICE technology as slightly positive, while 23% said it was a significantly positive value. That’s with electrification technology still in the early innings: total market share for fully electric vehicles is still less than 3%.

Risk in adapting too slowly
But essentially all of the growth in powertrain adoption in coming years will be electric, while ICE powertrains are certain to decline. The risk for automakers isn’t adapting too quickly and getting ahead of the market. It’s adapting too slowly and becoming overly reliant on dying technology consumers may no longer want as electrics get cheaper and range improves. That extends to factory capacity, with ICE assembly lines possibly becoming stranded assets with no market value. It would cost automakers money to disassemble or convert them to valuable use, thus the possibility of negative value

So, gas is catching up to you? Shit happens.
 
As the need for gasoline as a vehicle motor fuel dwindles the demand for gasoline as fuel for home generators will soar. The day will come when homes are unsaleable without backup power that works when the grid is down, the sun isn't shining and the windmill was outlawed by bird overs and other NIMBYS. Remember that Great Eco-Prophet John Denver? Of course, like all lefties, he overdid it.
Then there was landmark fuel management decision that killed him.....

(do our own websearch cheapskate liberals - I charge for links!)
 
That is the opinion of Wall St. investors, who think it could be a money loser by 2030.



New research from Morgan Stanley argues that traditional internal combustion engines—the mainstay of automobiles for more than a century—are destined to become money-losers as early as 2030. “We believe the market may be ascribing zero (or even negative?) value for ICE-derived revenues at GM and Ford,” auto analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a Jan. 29 analysis. He lists a variety of factors likely to “transform what were once profit-generating assets into potentially loss-making and cash-burning businesses.”

And more of the story I find interesting:


The investing firm recently surveyed institutional investors on the value of internal-combustion technology at GM and Ford. Seventeen percent said ICE technology had no value or negative value today. Sixty percent rated ICE technology as slightly positive, while 23% said it was a significantly positive value. That’s with electrification technology still in the early innings: total market share for fully electric vehicles is still less than 3%.

Risk in adapting too slowly
But essentially all of the growth in powertrain adoption in coming years will be electric, while ICE powertrains are certain to decline. The risk for automakers isn’t adapting too quickly and getting ahead of the market. It’s adapting too slowly and becoming overly reliant on dying technology consumers may no longer want as electrics get cheaper and range improves. That extends to factory capacity, with ICE assembly lines possibly becoming stranded assets with no market value. It would cost automakers money to disassemble or convert them to valuable use, thus the possibility of negative value


Don't tell Joe Biden, he just started another war for oil.
 
That is the opinion of Wall St. investors, who think it could be a money loser by 2030.



New research from Morgan Stanley argues that traditional internal combustion engines—the mainstay of automobiles for more than a century—are destined to become money-losers as early as 2030. “We believe the market may be ascribing zero (or even negative?) value for ICE-derived revenues at GM and Ford,” auto analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a Jan. 29 analysis. He lists a variety of factors likely to “transform what were once profit-generating assets into potentially loss-making and cash-burning businesses.”

And more of the story I find interesting:


The investing firm recently surveyed institutional investors on the value of internal-combustion technology at GM and Ford. Seventeen percent said ICE technology had no value or negative value today. Sixty percent rated ICE technology as slightly positive, while 23% said it was a significantly positive value. That’s with electrification technology still in the early innings: total market share for fully electric vehicles is still less than 3%.

Risk in adapting too slowly
But essentially all of the growth in powertrain adoption in coming years will be electric, while ICE powertrains are certain to decline. The risk for automakers isn’t adapting too quickly and getting ahead of the market. It’s adapting too slowly and becoming overly reliant on dying technology consumers may no longer want as electrics get cheaper and range improves. That extends to factory capacity, with ICE assembly lines possibly becoming stranded assets with no market value. It would cost automakers money to disassemble or convert them to valuable use, thus the possibility of negative value

Most likely there are already many places on the planet where clean water is
worth more than gasoline.
 
That is the opinion of Wall St. investors, who think it could be a money loser by 2030.



New research from Morgan Stanley argues that traditional internal combustion engines—the mainstay of automobiles for more than a century—are destined to become money-losers as early as 2030. “We believe the market may be ascribing zero (or even negative?) value for ICE-derived revenues at GM and Ford,” auto analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a Jan. 29 analysis. He lists a variety of factors likely to “transform what were once profit-generating assets into potentially loss-making and cash-burning businesses.”

And more of the story I find interesting:


The investing firm recently surveyed institutional investors on the value of internal-combustion technology at GM and Ford. Seventeen percent said ICE technology had no value or negative value today. Sixty percent rated ICE technology as slightly positive, while 23% said it was a significantly positive value. That’s with electrification technology still in the early innings: total market share for fully electric vehicles is still less than 3%.

Risk in adapting too slowly
But essentially all of the growth in powertrain adoption in coming years will be electric, while ICE powertrains are certain to decline. The risk for automakers isn’t adapting too quickly and getting ahead of the market. It’s adapting too slowly and becoming overly reliant on dying technology consumers may no longer want as electrics get cheaper and range improves. That extends to factory capacity, with ICE assembly lines possibly becoming stranded assets with no market value. It would cost automakers money to disassemble or convert them to valuable use, thus the possibility of negative value

That is about the funniest thing I have heard since the last time joe opened his pie hole. Unless Crusty puts out an executive order to convert our military to wind power by the day after tomorrow giving China time to get in position . I don't see petrol going any where with or without Crusty.
 
“Gasoline Is Becoming Worthless”

What do we dooooo
Sell “short”
Buy “long”
Until the money runs out; lol

Wait until you hear these words on the net

I have control over three refineries who are supplying US, Canada and central America.

Pay up
Or
Dry out
 

Forum List

Back
Top