If 25% of a commodity is removed, will the consumers' cost go up?

[Dadoalex]

Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?

FACT:
About a quarter (25%) of U.S. oil and an eighth of the nation's natural gas is produced on federal lands.
Supporting link: U.S. oil and natural gas production to fall in 2021, then rise in 2022 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

FACT:
If 25% of oil and gas on Federal lands is eliminated from the supply will the cost go up to gasoline consumers?

PROOF!!!

As gas prices soar, Americans can blame Joe Biden​

Biden's attack on U.S. energy producers, starting with his freeze on federal oil and gas leases, will assuredly take a toll on output down the road and cause prices at the pump to rise.
But today, Biden has pushed those prices, which were already rising because of severe weather, even higher by gratuitously alienating Saudi Arabia. The Gulf kingdom just surprised energy markets by announcing it would not raise oil output, despite developing supply constraints and rising prices.
Oil prices jumped on the news, popping 4 percent to pre-pandemic levels for the first time in a year; the surge rattled markets alread

As gas prices soar, Americans can blame Joe Biden

Oil in the ground takes up to 5 years to reach the markets.
You're falling for a myth.

You are absolutely right! The problem is though you aren't thinking about those people that invest in oil futures.
They buy for the future prices of oil. Take away as Biden wants 25% of Federal land leases means future oil prices
go up. It is as simple as that. Supply vs demand. Reduce the supply the prices increase.
I don't know why that is so hard to understand. Take away over the next 5 years future oil discoveries on Federal land and you make other prices go up. Very simple.

Am I?
Perhaps you should go back and reread the OP.
The OP discusses pump prices and consumer prices but nothing about "futures."
And
The futures market ALSO has nothing to do with pump prices.
The pump price is a combination of Availability + taxes.
A speculator may buy an option at $75 per barrel but if the price drops to $50, he loses. There's nothing he can do to legally impact the market prices.
Now if you're certain prices are going to go up I'd suggest you invest everything you own in oil futures.
I mean, with all the major auto manufacturers moving to 100% EV

 

[kaz]

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

"There is no break even point."

Of course there is

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.

Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."

Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhere

 

[kaz]

10 years to get to break even is a hell of a "one time thing."

As opposed to fossil fuels which have similar upfront cost and are NEVER carbon neutral.

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Exactly

That is a total bastardization of what I said and it adds zero insight into solving our energy needs.

It takes 10 years for a windmill to produce enough energy to produce itself (in the best case, the Netherlands) and equal the fissile fuels that were used to build it. That clearly is not remotely solving our energy needs. It NEVER produces significant energy, that's the problem. Natural gas is far, far more efficient. Sorry to pop your woke bubble

 

[Crepitus]

Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?

FACT:
About a quarter (25%) of U.S. oil and an eighth of the nation's natural gas is produced on federal lands.
Supporting link: U.S. oil and natural gas production to fall in 2021, then rise in 2022 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

FACT:
If 25% of oil and gas on Federal lands is eliminated from the supply will the cost go up to gasoline consumers?

PROOF!!!

As gas prices soar, Americans can blame Joe Biden​

Biden's attack on U.S. energy producers, starting with his freeze on federal oil and gas leases, will assuredly take a toll on output down the road and cause prices at the pump to rise.
But today, Biden has pushed those prices, which were already rising because of severe weather, even higher by gratuitously alienating Saudi Arabia. The Gulf kingdom just surprised energy markets by announcing it would not raise oil output, despite developing supply constraints and rising prices.
Oil prices jumped on the news, popping 4 percent to pre-pandemic levels for the first time in a year; the surge rattled markets alread

As gas prices soar, Americans can blame Joe Biden

Production has been falling for a couple of years. There was a huge glut of oil on the market even before the pandemic made it worse. Companies stopped pumping, stopped drilling, laid off employees, some even went out of business.

Now that the glut appears to be over it will take many months to ramp production back up to the previous levels.

Sorry, but your fantasy of blaming this all on President Joe is just that. A fantasy.

 

[kaz]

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

"More specifically, they figure that wind turbines average just 11 grams of CO2 emission per kilowatthour of electricity generated. That compares with 44 g/kwh for solar, 450 g for natural gas, and a whopping 1,000 g for coal.

But beating them all is the original large-scale zero-carbon power source, nuclear power, at 9 g/kwh.

Thanks to technology, these stats aren’t static. Offshore wind turbines are becoming enormous, with General Electric’s GE -2.9% Haliade X featuring blades 360 feet long and generating 14 megawatts. The carbon footprint of such monsters could get as low as 6 g/kwh. "

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

www.forbes.com

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

Cool. That's normally where you can be found, leaning over one

Nope, dope. Because you will always find failure in can't!

“You will always find failure in can’t”

Nice turn of phrase Boo, I think I’ll steal that one and use it the next time one my junior engineers claim …”but that’s just CAN’T be done!”.

No problem, I wish I could say I though of it, or even remember who I heard it from.

I would have been more impressed if you hadn't worked so hard to take what I said out of context to force it in for the joke

 

[Dragonlady]

10 years to get to break even is a hell of a "one time thing."

As opposed to fossil fuels which have similar upfront cost and are NEVER carbon neutral.

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Exactly

That is a total bastardization of what I said and it adds zero insight into solving our energy needs.

It takes 10 years for a windmill to produce enough energy to produce itself and equal the fissile fuels that were used to build it. That clearly is not remotely solving our energy needs. It NEVER produces significant energy, that's the problem. Natural gas is far, far more efficient. Sorry to pop your woke bubble

Your premise is a complete lie. It does not take 10 years for a windmill to “replace the energy needed to create it”. It takes 6 months. It also takes 6 months for it to become carbons neutral.

Saskatoon Wind & Solar Solutions

...

www.saskwind.ca

The fossil fuel industry has been trashing windmills since the day they arrived. You’re just regurgitating those lies and then embellishing them with conclusions that even the fossil fuel industry never came up with.

 

[Dragonlady]

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

"More specifically, they figure that wind turbines average just 11 grams of CO2 emission per kilowatthour of electricity generated. That compares with 44 g/kwh for solar, 450 g for natural gas, and a whopping 1,000 g for coal.

But beating them all is the original large-scale zero-carbon power source, nuclear power, at 9 g/kwh.

Thanks to technology, these stats aren’t static. Offshore wind turbines are becoming enormous, with General Electric’s GE -2.9% Haliade X featuring blades 360 feet long and generating 14 megawatts. The carbon footprint of such monsters could get as low as 6 g/kwh. "

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

www.forbes.com

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

Cool. That's normally where you can be found, leaning over one

Nope, dope. Because you will always find failure in can't!

“You will always find failure in can’t”

Nice turn of phrase Boo, I think I’ll steal that one and use it the next time one my junior engineers claim …”but that’s just CAN’T be done!”.

No problem, I wish I could say I though of it, or even remember who I heard it from.

I would have been more impressed if you hadn't worked so hard to take what I said out of context to force it in for the joke

Everything you post is a lie or a joke. Your posts are fact free. You have lies and you have insults. That’s it. That’s why you’re a FuckBoi!

Your next move call will be to call me names and imply I work for the Chinese. Because that’s all you can do is lie, especially when your lies about Biden, windmills, and fossil fuels have been completely debunked in this thread.

Saskatoon Wind & Solar Solutions

...

www.saskwind.ca

 

[kaz]

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Windmills have a higher energy conversion efficiency potential than both natural gas and nuclear (up to 45% on wind versus around 38% max for NG and Nuke).

The problem with windmills isn't energy production, it's reliability (dependent on wind speed), IF you have reliable sustained wind speeds then windmills are a more efficient choice than the alternatives, of course given the dynamics of electrical grids it's not an either-or proposition, you can utilize both.

The problem with windmills is:

1) Tiny energy production (compared to other sources). A giant, butt ugly, windmill farm can be replaced by a relatively tiny natural gas plant

You have point (They are ugly) I guess it depends on where you put it though, the one I’ve visited is in the desert (outside of Palm Springs on the I-10 corridor (basically a giant wind tunnel) not too ugly. As far as production I suspect it boils down to cost per KwH, which I would guess (haven’t run the numbers) is cheaper in those areas than the equivalent of building a different sort of plant.

As far as building windmills, the same is true for any other sort of plant, what’s the initial investment and ongoing operating costs versus other sort of energy production plants?

3) And yes, reliability. Though if you've been to the Netherlands you know that isn't a problem there

Obviously you’re only going to want to build wind farms where the historical wind data tells you that it’s going to make sense over the long term with respect to consistent output.

It's not just cost per KwH, it's how many KwH's you can produce, which is tiny for all the effort put into them. Windmills should not exist as an energy source, it's not worth it. Two calculations:

1) Your family grocery bill is $200 if you buy everything at Publix. On the other hand, you can knock it down to $185 for the same things if you go to Publix, Winn-Dixie, Trader Joes and Walgreens. Is it really cheaper to do that? Um ... no ... Opportunity cost. We put way too much effort into it. And we aren't getting a lot more out of it, there aren't a lot of windy places left to put windmills.

2) Replacing coal with natural gas dramatically drops greenhouse gasses. Would you rather save 50% of $1000 or 100% of $50?

 

[Turtlesoup]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

I believe the point was that it *could* result in contraction of the domestic production possibilities curve in the future for those commodities, which is true, however given that the market isn't as simple as some apparently believe it doesn't necessarily entail corresponding price increases, for example we import crude oil, refine it and then turn around and export the refined products, contraction of the domestic crude oil PPC might involve reducing such exports to meet domestic demand.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

7% in 2020 (on a downward sloping trend line).

BlindBoob want's to keep funding terrorist supporting and oppressive governments and not develop energy domestically. He's a dick that way.

But in his defense, BlindBoob realizes that terrorist supporting and oppressive government's aren't on the earth as we are and drilling oil there and shipping it across oceans doesn't affect our environment.

Arguing with leftists is always an experience in stupid

You want cheap gasoline at any price? Then nationalize the US oil industry. We have the highest lift costs in the world. Our domestic producers have to make a profit or go out of business.

We had cheap gas when Trump was POTUS. Hell it was 1.50 or less. Now, under your boy Biden its 2.85 or higher. With his try at ending drilling for oil on Fed land and his wanting to end fracking he hasn't done America any favors.

Hell when I was a kid gas was 19 cents a gallon. The supposed oil shortage in the 70's ended that.

During the pandemic there was NO demand to oil.. so there was a glut of oil on the market and prices went down. $73 a barrel is a good price.. US domestic producers can survive on that.

The oil shortage in the 1970s was a result of the Yom Kippur war.

The Oil Crisis in the 70's was the result of idiot CARTER believing or being paid to believe OPEC bullshit about OIL going extinct hun...............

 

[kaz]

10 years to get to break even is a hell of a "one time thing."

As opposed to fossil fuels which have similar upfront cost and are NEVER carbon neutral.

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Exactly

That is a total bastardization of what I said and it adds zero insight into solving our energy needs.

It takes 10 years for a windmill to produce enough energy to produce itself and equal the fissile fuels that were used to build it. That clearly is not remotely solving our energy needs. It NEVER produces significant energy, that's the problem. Natural gas is far, far more efficient. Sorry to pop your woke bubble

Your premise is a complete lie. It does not take 10 years for a windmill to “replace the energy needed to create it”. It takes 6 months. It also takes 6 months for it to become carbons neutral.

Saskatoon Wind & Solar Solutions

...

www.saskwind.ca

The fossil fuel industry has been trashing windmills since the day they arrived. You’re just regurgitating those lies and then embellishing them with conclusions that even the fossil fuel industry never came up with.

Hi George, the site's Chinese disinformation officer.

You are talking about baby sized windmills. I'm talking about the giant ones like in the Netherlands. Sure, you can put up a baby windmill with a lot less fissile fuels. But then your baby windmills produced baby energy. The big ones produce a lot more, but they also contain far more steel and manufacturing energy.

None of this changes the main point that all those giant windmills can be replaced with a single natural gas plant.

Of course in China you are constantly building coal plants, not even natural gas

 

[NightFox]

10 years to get to break even is a hell of a "one time thing."

As opposed to fossil fuels which have similar upfront cost and are NEVER carbon neutral.

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Exactly

That is a total bastardization of what I said and it adds zero insight into solving our energy needs.

It takes 10 years for a windmill to produce enough energy to produce itself (in the best case, the Netherlands) and equal the fissile fuels that were used to build it.

Kaz, are you considering the positive externalities offered by wind power into your "10 year pay back" equation? specifically:

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

Granted due to the geographic restrictions on it, wind power has a relatively small role to play in any reasonable strategy to address our energy needs but given its energy generation efficiency (kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity vs. (fuel) -> heat -> kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity), lack of negative externalities, low ongoing cost of operation IMHO it definitely has a role to play.

 

[kaz]

Success is found in a can.

Cool. That's normally where you can be found, leaning over one

Nope, dope. Because you will always find failure in can't!

“You will always find failure in can’t”

Nice turn of phrase Boo, I think I’ll steal that one and use it the next time one my junior engineers claim …”but that’s just CAN’T be done!”.

No problem, I wish I could say I though of it, or even remember who I heard it from.

I would have been more impressed if you hadn't worked so hard to take what I said out of context to force it in for the joke

Everything you post is a lie or a joke. Your posts are fact free. You have lies and you have insults. That’s it. That’s why you’re a FuckBoi!

Your next move call will be to call me names and imply I work for the Chinese. Because that’s all you can do is lie, especially when your lies about Biden, windmills, and fossil fuels have been completely debunked in this thread.

Saskatoon Wind & Solar Solutions

...

www.saskwind.ca

Your article even says OF THE TYPE SHOWN, George. You just lie, lie, lie and lie.

So you seriously think that the relative energy for putting giant windmills in the ocean is the same as little windmills in your picture? Of course you do, you're a Chinese disinformation officer

 

[kaz]

10 years to get to break even is a hell of a "one time thing."

As opposed to fossil fuels which have similar upfront cost and are NEVER carbon neutral.

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Exactly

That is a total bastardization of what I said and it adds zero insight into solving our energy needs.

It takes 10 years for a windmill to produce enough energy to produce itself (in the best case, the Netherlands) and equal the fissile fuels that were used to build it.

Kaz, are you considering the positive externalities offered by wind power into your "10 year pay back" equation? specifically:

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

Granted due to the geographic restrictions on it, wind power has a relatively small role to play in any reasonable strategy to address our energy needs but given its energy generation efficiency (kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity vs. (fuel) -> heat -> kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity), lack of negative externalities, low ongoing cost of operation IMHO it definitely has a role to play.

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

First as I keep pointing out we are doing way too many resources into wind for the minimal return. We would get so much more bang for the buck if we put that into replacing coal plants with natural gas much less nuclear. Nuclear BTW produces way, way more power than wind and is also zero emissions. But nuclear is an immediate reject by the anti-science Democrat party.

As for wind only producing positive externalities, that isn't true. Actually many leftist groups oppose them because they kill birds. But mostly they are ugly and again when you do the math of what we put into them, we would get far more by directing the same resources to other areas. Clean coal is another area that has a lot of potential. Democrats block it because "coal." Clean coal is harder to exploit because it has less carbon, but we do have the technology and there are quite a few clean coal turbines out there. There could be far more if it wasn't for ew, they are coal! Stop them! Democrats. It's as deep as they go.

I spent a big part of my career in management in energy companies. My role was more finance and IT management, but I constantly talked to the engineers about this stuff, it was fascinating. My experience incudes gas and nuclear and I spent a year in the Netherlands with a major wind energy producer. My role there was also finance, but again I talked to the engineers

 

[BlindBoo]

10 years to get to break even is a hell of a "one time thing."

As opposed to fossil fuels which have similar upfront cost and are NEVER carbon neutral.

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Exactly

That is a total bastardization of what I said and it adds zero insight into solving our energy needs.

It takes 10 years for a windmill to produce enough energy to produce itself (in the best case, the Netherlands) and equal the fissile fuels that were used to build it. That clearly is not remotely solving our energy needs. It NEVER produces significant energy, that's the problem. Natural gas is far, far more efficient. Sorry to pop your woke bubble

You were talking about the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process.

Care to revise your bullshit statement?

"Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero."

 

[bodecea]

Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?

FACT:
About a quarter (25%) of U.S. oil and an eighth of the nation's natural gas is produced on federal lands.
Supporting link: U.S. oil and natural gas production to fall in 2021, then rise in 2022 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

FACT:
If 25% of oil and gas on Federal lands is eliminated from the supply will the cost go up to gasoline consumers?

PROOF!!!

As gas prices soar, Americans can blame Joe Biden​

Biden's attack on U.S. energy producers, starting with his freeze on federal oil and gas leases, will assuredly take a toll on output down the road and cause prices at the pump to rise.
But today, Biden has pushed those prices, which were already rising because of severe weather, even higher by gratuitously alienating Saudi Arabia. The Gulf kingdom just surprised energy markets by announcing it would not raise oil output, despite developing supply constraints and rising prices.
Oil prices jumped on the news, popping 4 percent to pre-pandemic levels for the first time in a year; the surge rattled markets alread

As gas prices soar, Americans can blame Joe Biden

If the demand remains the same or goes up it would............unless the prices are manipulated...as is the case with oil and natural gas.

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

"More specifically, they figure that wind turbines average just 11 grams of CO2 emission per kilowatthour of electricity generated. That compares with 44 g/kwh for solar, 450 g for natural gas, and a whopping 1,000 g for coal.

But beating them all is the original large-scale zero-carbon power source, nuclear power, at 9 g/kwh.

Thanks to technology, these stats aren’t static. Offshore wind turbines are becoming enormous, with General Electric’s GE -2.9% Haliade X featuring blades 360 feet long and generating 14 megawatts. The carbon footprint of such monsters could get as low as 6 g/kwh. "

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

www.forbes.com

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

Cool. That's normally where you can be found, leaning over one

Nope, dope. Because you will always find failure in can't!

“You will always find failure in can’t”

Nice turn of phrase Boo, I think I’ll steal that one and use it the next time one my junior engineers claim …”but that’s just CAN’T be done!”.

No problem, I wish I could say I though of it, or even remember who I heard it from.

I would have been more impressed if you hadn't worked so hard to take what I said out of context to force it in for the joke

I didn't have to work hard at all. Your flaming insults just begged for a suitable response, it was like a force took over my fingers and automatically typed it out.

I remembered it a was a slogan from Houston's Can Academy.

 

[kaz]

10 years to get to break even is a hell of a "one time thing."

As opposed to fossil fuels which have similar upfront cost and are NEVER carbon neutral.

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Exactly

That is a total bastardization of what I said and it adds zero insight into solving our energy needs.

It takes 10 years for a windmill to produce enough energy to produce itself (in the best case, the Netherlands) and equal the fissile fuels that were used to build it. That clearly is not remotely solving our energy needs. It NEVER produces significant energy, that's the problem. Natural gas is far, far more efficient. Sorry to pop your woke bubble

You were talking about the carbon footprint of the manufacturing process.

Care to revise your bullshit statement?

"Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero."

I'm talking about all carbon used to produce a windmill. I am talking about giant windmills, includingy the ones in the ocean. There is steel, they have to make the components, they have to assemble the windmill. Ocean windmills are giant and there is a whole bunch more underwater foundation.

You can word slice and bicker, but if you are claiming emissions, you have to count the entire creation process.

As a Democrat, you don't want to count all that. Just like you don't want to count batteries in electric cars or the carbon in fueling them. Democrats just lie, lie, lie and lie. You're a natural

 

[kaz]

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

"More specifically, they figure that wind turbines average just 11 grams of CO2 emission per kilowatthour of electricity generated. That compares with 44 g/kwh for solar, 450 g for natural gas, and a whopping 1,000 g for coal.

But beating them all is the original large-scale zero-carbon power source, nuclear power, at 9 g/kwh.

Thanks to technology, these stats aren’t static. Offshore wind turbines are becoming enormous, with General Electric’s GE -2.9% Haliade X featuring blades 360 feet long and generating 14 megawatts. The carbon footprint of such monsters could get as low as 6 g/kwh. "

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

www.forbes.com

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

Cool. That's normally where you can be found, leaning over one

Nope, dope. Because you will always find failure in can't!

“You will always find failure in can’t”

Nice turn of phrase Boo, I think I’ll steal that one and use it the next time one my junior engineers claim …”but that’s just CAN’T be done!”.

No problem, I wish I could say I though of it, or even remember who I heard it from.

I would have been more impressed if you hadn't worked so hard to take what I said out of context to force it in for the joke

I didn't have to work hard at all. Your flaming insults just begged for a suitable response, it was like a force took over my fingers and automatically typed it out.

I remembered it a was a slogan from Houston's Can Academy.

Democrats have been calling us all racists for at least 40 years, that's as long as I remember. Not sure when it started before that. I've had it, I'm giving it back until you stop. God, a Democrat whining about insults. You're priceless

 

[NightFox]

10 years to get to break even is a hell of a "one time thing."

As opposed to fossil fuels which have similar upfront cost and are NEVER carbon neutral.

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Exactly

That is a total bastardization of what I said and it adds zero insight into solving our energy needs.

It takes 10 years for a windmill to produce enough energy to produce itself (in the best case, the Netherlands) and equal the fissile fuels that were used to build it.

Kaz, are you considering the positive externalities offered by wind power into your "10 year pay back" equation? specifically:

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

Granted due to the geographic restrictions on it, wind power has a relatively small role to play in any reasonable strategy to address our energy needs but given its energy generation efficiency (kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity vs. (fuel) -> heat -> kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity), lack of negative externalities, low ongoing cost of operation IMHO it definitely has a role to play.

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

First as I keep pointing out we are doing way too many resources into wind for the minimal return. We would get so much more bang for the buck if we put that into replacing coal plants with natural gas much less nuclear. Nuclear BTW produces way, way more power than wind and is also zero emissions. But nuclear is an immediate reject by the anti-science Democrat party.

You seem to be implying that it's an either-or proposition with respect to wind or <other alternatives>,we both know it isn't, as far as "bang for your buck" isn't that a decision that's best left to private enterprise? After all its their bottom line.

As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive.

As for wind only producing positive externalities, that isn't true. Actually many leftist groups oppose them because they kill birds. But mostly they are ugly and again when you do the math of what we put into them, we would get far more by directing the same resources to other areas. Clean coal is another area that has a lot of potential. Democrats block it because "coal." Clean coal is harder to exploit because it has less carbon, but we do have the technology and there are quite a few clean coal turbines out there. There could be far more if it wasn't for ew, they are coal! Stop them! Democrats. It's as deep as they go.

What I asked was if you have factored in those specific positive externalities into your "10 year equation", killing birds isn't pollution nor does it correlate to a cost burden on society (i.e. no links to illness, property degradation, etc..,), but hey, if you want to factor that negative externality into your equation, that's great since the objective is to arrive at the most accurate cost picture possible.

I spent a big part of my career in management in energy companies. My role was more finance and IT management, but I constantly talked to the engineers about this stuff, it was fascinating. My experience incudes gas and nuclear and I spent a year in the Netherlands with a major wind energy producer. My role there was also finance, but again I talked to the engineers

Awesome, I've done some IT work for the Energy Sector myself nothing that would afford me any claim to expertise in energy production or grid design but enough to have given me an intense interest in learning more about it.

 

[BlindBoo]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

I believe the point was that it *could* result in contraction of the domestic production possibilities curve in the future for those commodities, which is true, however given that the market isn't as simple as some apparently believe it doesn't necessarily entail corresponding price increases, for example we import crude oil, refine it and then turn around and export the refined products, contraction of the domestic crude oil PPC might involve reducing such exports to meet domestic demand.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

7% in 2020 (on a downward sloping trend line).

BlindBoob want's to keep funding terrorist supporting and oppressive governments and not develop energy domestically. He's a dick that way.

But in his defense, BlindBoob realizes that terrorist supporting and oppressive government's aren't on the earth as we are and drilling oil there and shipping it across oceans doesn't affect our environment.

Arguing with leftists is always an experience in stupid

You want cheap gasoline at any price? Then nationalize the US oil industry. We have the highest lift costs in the world. Our domestic producers have to make a profit or go out of business.

We had cheap gas when Trump was POTUS. Hell it was 1.50 or less. Now, under your boy Biden its 2.85 or higher. With his try at ending drilling for oil on Fed land and his wanting to end fracking he hasn't done America any favors.

Hell when I was a kid gas was 19 cents a gallon. The supposed oil shortage in the 70's ended that.

During the pandemic there was NO demand to oil.. so there was a glut of oil on the market and prices went down. $73 a barrel is a good price.. US domestic producers can survive on that.

The oil shortage in the 1970s was a result of the Yom Kippur war.

The Oil Crisis in the 70's was the result of idiot CARTER believing or being paid to believe OPEC bullshit about OIL going extinct hun...............

The first one was is 73 and had nothing to do with Carter. Think Israel.

Iran was one of our main suppliers in 78. The crisis had nothing to do with the theory of Peak Oil.

"The Iranian revolution sparked the world’s second oil shock in five years. Strikes began in Iran’s oil fields in the autumn 1978 and by January 1979, crude oil production declined by 4.8 million barrels per day, or about 7 percent of world production at the time."

Endless lines at gasoline stations are the overwhelming image in the minds of Americans who lived through the oil shocks. There was a genuine shortage of gasoline in the United States for a while, as refineries geared to run Iranian crude oil could not produce as much gasoline from other types. However, government policies that regulated the petroleum industry made the situation much worse.

Price controls on gasoline exacerbated shortages, by not allowing rising prices to curb demand. The controls allowed refiners to raise gasoline prices each month based on the previous month’s crude oil price.

What Iran’s 1979 revolution meant for US and global oil markets | Brookings

The Iranian revolution and the oil price shocks that followed catalyzed a number of important changes in petroleum markets that remain in place today.

www.brookings.edu

In the Weekend Interview in today’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ editor Rob Pollock interviews George Shultz), Shultz says the following:

And one thing you know from experience is when you control the price of something, you end up getting less of it. So if you control the price of health-care providers, you will have fewer of them and that’s gonna wind up as a crisis. The most vivid expression of that . . . was Jimmy Carter’s gas lines.

There’s nothing incorrect about this statement. But it gives the reader the impression that Jimmy Carter was the president who introduced price controls. Shultz knows better. It was his boss, Richard Nixon, who introduced price controls on everything and kept them on gasoline. Shultz, as Secretary of the Treasury at the time, was intimately involved with the details. It’s true that Carter kept the controls and didn’t try to get rid of them until early 1980, when he made a compromise with Congress–giving them their “windfall profits tax” on oil, which was really a graduated excise tax on oil, in return for phasing out the controls. But Nixon is the one who imposed them. So there were “Richard Nixon’s gas lines” just as there were “Jimmy Carter’s gas lines.”

A Short History of Gasoline Price Controls - Econlib

In the Weekend Interview in today’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ editor Rob Pollock interviews George Shultz), Shultz says the following: And one thing you know from experience is when you control the price of something, you end up getting less of it. So if you control the price of health-care...

www.econlib.org