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

[danielpalos]

Oh, good grief. How much energy is being produced by these magical seawalls? This sounds an awful lot like your fantasy that we can upgrade Ellis Island to handle all the immigrants from south of the border. IOW, a pipe dream.

You do know that we've tried using tidal and wave power to produce electricity and nothing much came of it, right? Certainly not enough to replace coal and oil. And why do you want to fill up aquifers when we'd just have to pump the water right back out of the ground? If we have enough water being pumped from the coasts to fill the aquifers, why not just use it and leave the aquifers to refill naturally from rain water like they've been doing for thousands of years?

Once an objective has been identified, it is a simple matter for engineers to achieve.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The right wing outrage machine continues to make the false claims that Biden is leading the country away from the energy independence created by Donald Trump. Trump didn't created American energy independence, the Obama Administration did that. Trump just took credit for it. Joe Biden was one of the architects of energy independence. Why would he destroy his own legacy?

Talk about give somebody credit not due to them. Our energy surge came from advancements with fracking which was mostly done on private land. DumBama just couldn't stop it is all.

 

[bripat9643]

The ppb had to go up because the oil business is a BUSINESS... and because the US has the highest lift costs in the world.

It went up because Biden limited drilling, period.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't know anything about the oil business. You want to put domestic producers out of business?

If they didn't go out of business before Biden imposed his restrictions, why would they go out of business now?

 

[hadit]

Alternative energy technologies are improving all the time. And, infrastructure should include mass storage capability.

IOW, you HOPE there will be an answer, but you don't have it yet. That just means that I'm right, we're still going to need coal and oil to charge up the cars. As for mass storage, the keyword is "should", and once again, you've proven that you have no alternative to coal and oil yet.

 

[hadit]

The ppb had to go up because the oil business is a BUSINESS... and because the US has the highest lift costs in the world.

The ppb is driven more by speculators than by actual supply, and speculators EXPECT Quid Pro to limit supply so they help push the price up.

 

[hadit]

Once an objective has been identified, it is a simple matter for engineers to achieve.

If it's economically feasible and we can get enough energy out of it. Notice that engineers have put turbines in rivers and the ocean and have gotten energy out of them. They have not, however, come close to being a viable large-scale energy source like your fantasy demands.

 

[danielpalos]

Talk about give somebody credit not due to them. Our energy surge came from advancements with fracking which was mostly done on private land. DumBama just couldn't stop it is all.

Environmentalists have attacked fracking on a number of fronts, and the long-term impact of weakening underground rock formations through the fracturing technique is widely questioned. Additionally, the massive amount of water used in the fracking process has led to water shortages in some drilling areas. Potential groundwater contamination is another concern.

How has fracking decreased U.S. dependence on foreign oil?

Fracking has led to substantial increases in U.S. domestic oil and gas production, thereby significantly reducing the need for oil imports.

www.investopedia.com

 

[healthmyths]

Current production on federal lands is in no way being cut or curtailed. There were no new leases on federal lands granted during the 8 years of the Obama Administration. Even as the Obama Administration increased production and put the country on the path for achieving energy independence:

AP FACT CHECK: The energy boom didn't start with Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump falsely accused his predecessors Monday of locking up U.S energy.

apnews.com

The right wing outrage machine continues to make the false claims that Biden is leading the country away from the energy independence created by Donald Trump. Trump didn't created American energy independence, the Obama Administration did that. Trump just took credit for it. Joe Biden was one of the architects of energy independence. Why would he destroy his own legacy?

The right wing outrage machine keeps pumping out lies about the goals and priorities of the Biden Administration, and like good little sheep, you come here and bleat out your fear and paranoia, and never question their lies.

There was no drilling during lockdown - anywhere. That's why production is down. Now that drilling has resumed, production will continue to rise. Biden is stopping production on federals, he is stopping new leases from being given out. Existing leases are being honoured.

Where did you get the WRONG info regarding
There were no new leases on federal lands granted during the 8 years of the Obama Administration.???
From the bureau of land management! GEEZ look a the below!

Programs: Energy and Minerals: Oil and Gas: Oil and Gas Statistics | Bureau of Land Management

www.blm.gov

While Obama signed FEWER leases your totally erroneous statement "no new leases" is totally wrong!
Obama signed 11,294 leases! The problem was he was signing fewer and no dipped in ignorance Biden...ZERO!

 

[healthmyths]

Environmentalists have attacked fracking on a number of fronts, and the long-term impact of weakening underground rock formations through the fracturing technique is widely questioned. Additionally, the massive amount of water used in the fracking process has led to water shortages in some drilling areas. Potential groundwater contamination is another concern.

How has fracking decreased U.S. dependence on foreign oil?

Fracking has led to substantial increases in U.S. domestic oil and gas production, thereby significantly reducing the need for oil imports.

www.investopedia.com

YET these same "environmentalists" seem to show NO concern for the 34 1 million barrel oil tankers that will be traveling the open ocean with the Keystone pipeline canceled.
FACTS... The pipeline would carry about 700 barrels PER MILE while the same 34 tankers are traveling one mile carrying 1 million barrels! Don't you find that more dangerous to the environment than 700 barrels traveling 1 mile on DRY LAND?
You evidently don't remember this:Exxon Valdez and the damage is still on-going today!

 

[danielpalos]

More stringent safety inspections and criminal sanctions for the CEO if it can be proved they were lax for the bottom line.

 

[Dragonlady]

Where did you get the WRONG info regarding
There were no new leases on federal lands granted during the 8 years of the Obama Administration.???
From the bureau of land management! GEEZ look a the below!

Programs: Energy and Minerals: Oil and Gas: Oil and Gas Statistics | Bureau of Land Management

www.blm.gov

While Obama signed FEWER leases your totally erroneous statement "no new leases" is totally wrong!
Obama signed 11,294 leases! The problem was he was signing fewer and no dipped in ignorance Biden...ZERO!
View attachment 525182

From these articles:

Obama temporarily bans new coal leases on federal land

Angering coal supporters, the Obama administration announced a temporary ban on new coal leases on federal lands Friday as part of a broad environmental and economic review of the nation's federal coal program.

www.latimes.com

Fact Check: NY Times’ Cherry-Picked Story on Oil and Gas Development on Federal Lands

The New York Times published a story Saturday that attempts to advance the narrative that the Trump administration has created a Wild West free-for-all on federal lands by leasing acreage at a breakneck pace while working “hand in glove” with the oil and natural gas...

www.energyindepth.org

Obama Cancels Lease Sales and Withdraws Federal Lands from Oil and Gas Development

President Obama is trying to preserve his legacy by removing areas of federal lands from oil and gas development. He…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Care to try again?

 

[justoffal]

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

Yep

 

[Resnic]

Doesn't mean much with the left's push toward electric vehicles. Demand could be decreased by twenty-five percent as well.

My neighbor bought a Tesla, his monthly electric bill is now 450 dollars since getting it. And he has 3 people in his ranch style house with 3 bedrooms, it isn't a big house and isn't a big family.

Imagine if everyone got a electric car. Our electrical grid couldn't handle it. No one ever stops to think where does the electricity come from? No one really knows how it's even made or aware electricity doesn't exist in nature, we have to make it.

 

[FA_Q2]

My neighbor bought a Tesla, his monthly electric bill is now 450 dollars since getting it. And he has 3 people in his ranch style house with 3 bedrooms, it isn't a big house and isn't a big family.

Imagine if everyone got a electric car. Our electrical grid couldn't handle it. No one ever stops to think where does the electricity come from? No one really knows how it's even made or aware electricity doesn't exist in nature, we have to make it.

Plenty of people think of that.

It is simply a matter of reality that economies of scale are more efficient than ones that are not scaled up. That is flatly true with everything - from basic biology to economics to energy creation. It is why the dream of a solar panel on every roof and a windmill in every back yard is asinine.

By moving the energy extraction from individual cars to a power plant, scale WILL make the entire system use less energy overall and cost less for everyone involved. The electrical grid will need upgrading but the argument that we cannot move from wood burning stoves to electrical or gas stoves because there is no infrastructure to support it would have been asinine then and it is asinine now. Cars will, at some point, be almost exclusively electrical because it makes sense. the technology simply is not ready for it at this time though.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Plenty of people think of that.

It is simply a matter of reality that economies of scale are more efficient than ones that are not scaled up. That is flatly true with everything - from basic biology to economics to energy creation. It is why the dream of a solar panel on every roof and a windmill in every back yard is asinine.

By moving the energy extraction from individual cars to a power plant, scale WILL make the entire system use less energy overall and cost less for everyone involved. The electrical grid will need upgrading but the argument that we cannot move from wood burning stoves to electrical or gas stoves because there is no infrastructure to support it would have been asinine then and it is asinine now. Cars will, at some point, be almost exclusively electrical because it makes sense. the technology simply is not ready for it at this time though.

It may not be electric, it may be another type of fuel entirely. We simply don't know. But forcing us into electric cars now is like the government forcing Henry Ford to create fuel injection for his Model-T.

 

[bripat9643]

It may not be electric, it may be another type of fuel entirely. We simply don't know. But forcing us into electric cars now is like the government forcing Henry Ford to create fuel injection for his Model-T.

However, it looks like Tesla is already leading us down the road to electric cars. Biden is just trying to cash in on Tesla's success. He's creating a program that isn't necessary so when the inevitable happens he can take credit for it.

That is so Joe Biden.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

However, it looks like Tesla is already leading us down the road to electric cars. Biden is just trying to cash in on Tesla's success. He's creating a program that isn't necessary so when the inevitable happens he can take credit for it.

That is so Joe Biden.

Maybe but we are far from there yet. His last pork bill included having tens of thousands of charging stations across the US. Electric vehicles are fine if it makes you feel like you are saving the world, but until it becomes more practical and economically advantageous to switch to electric vehicles, most people will reject them unless forced by government with outrageous fuel costs or mandates.

But if we do start going in that direction, electricity production and grid size will become a huge problem. As we all know, it's the consumer that will have to pay these costs which will be in the tens of billions.

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe but we are far from there yet. His last pork bill included having tens of thousands of charging stations across the US. Electric vehicles are fine if it makes you feel like you are saving the world, but until it becomes more practical and economically advantageous to switch to electric vehicles, most people will reject them unless forced by government with outrageous fuel costs or mandates.

But if we do start going in that direction, electricity production and grid size will become a huge problem. As we all know, it's the consumer that will have to pay these costs which will be in the tens of billions.

Tesla has already installed tens of thousands of charging stations without any cost to the taxpayer. Why should we pay for any of them?

 

[FA_Q2]

It may not be electric, it may be another type of fuel entirely. We simply don't know. But forcing us into electric cars now is like the government forcing Henry Ford to create fuel injection for his Model-T.

I am certainly against the government getting involved in the change. None of that really has to do with my post though.

It is highly doubtful that another power source is going to replace fuel at the point of the car for the exact reason I highlighted in my post, economies of scale ALWAYS make things more efficient and cost effective. No matter what the power source, it will be more efficient to create that power at a centralized location as transport it to your car after production. Ergo, there really is no way that electric cars are not the future of most vehicles.