The “Oil Age” is doing just fine, Bloomberg New Energy Finance notwithstanding

Guest smack-down by David Middleton

Hat tip to Clyde Spencer…

The Oil Age Is Coming to a Close

Noah Smith
Bloomberg October 29, 2019

(Bloomberg Opinion) — The oil industry faces an uncertain future. The world is rapidly waking up to the severity and immediacy of the threat from climate change. At the same time, electric vehicles are getting cheap enough to compete with internal-combustion engines. BloombergNEF expects electrics to begin taking over in about a decade:

[…]

Yahoo! Finance

Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion.

Bloomberg

Which is it?

Does “the oil industry face an uncertain future”? Or is “the Oil Age coming to an end”? “The Oil Age is coming to an end” doesn’t sound very uncertain to me. Or maybe Former Professor Smith listened to too many Doors albums in college (I know I did)…

The future’s uncertain and the end is always near…

Jim Morrison, The Doors, Roadhouse Blues, 1970

Before “electrics begin to take over,” they first need to top Ford F-Series pickup trucks.

Figure 1. Sales data from Inside EV’s and Car Sales Base
Figure 2. Looks like Ford F-Series pickup trucks will still be outselling all EV’s in 2050. (US Energy Information Administration)

EV’s may be taking over in the parking lots of the ivory halls of academia and LaLa Land of BNEF blogging, but the developing world likes SUV’s.

Oct 23, 2019
SUVs: A Reality Check On Oil Use And CO2 Emissions

Jude Clemente Contributor
Energy
I cover oil, gas, power, LNG markets, linking to human development.

The never-ending spirit of wanting a more enjoyable and easier life is a constant reality that far too many of us involved in our energy-environment discussion unwisely choose to ignore.

A perfect example of this is SUVs: gas-guzzling Sport Utility Vehicles that are increasing both oil demand and CO2 emissions.

Much bigger, much safer, and much more fun to drive, the harsh fact for some is that people love SUVs.

The Paris-based International Energy Agency gives us a much-needed reality check on SUVs, oil demand, and the corresponding CO2 emissions.
SUVs are becoming more popular in the emerging economies of the world, where urbanization and expanding middle classes are giving more people more access to buy.

Many see SUVs as a symbol of wealth and status.

And why not?

Even environmentalists Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mayor De Blasio love oil-swilling SUVs.

[…]

Forbes
Figure 3. “Share of SUVs in global car salesDATA SOURCE: IEA; JTC” Forbes

Jude Clemente actually understands the energy industries… as opposed to the to the former professor of finance, who seems to be clueless about… everything…

Meanwhile, concerns over groundwater pollution are leading to growing calls for a ban on hydraulic fracturing, the main source of increased U.S. production during the past decade.

Former professor of finance

The former professor of finance is almost half right. Frac’ing is the leading “source of increased U.S. production during the past decade.” The second-leading source is the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico, where “shale” scale frac’ing isn’t a factor (1)(2)(3).

However “concerns over groundwater pollution” are only “leading to growing calls for a ban on hydraulic fracturing” from left-wing (Marxist) politicians. There is no evidence whatsoever that frac’ing is any threat to groundwater.

Can anyone guess how many times I’ve heard this sort of thing the past 38 years?

Reduced demand for crude will send prices plunging, cutting into profits at oil extractors and refiners. Share prices of oil majors have drifted lower in recent years:

[…]

Workers in the energy industry need to be prepared for this shift. For knowledge workers, such as geologists, chemists and software engineers, this means cultivating technical skills that can be useful in other fields such as information technology, pharmaceuticals, health care or finance. 

Former professor of finance

Clearly, this former professor of finance doesn’t know Jack Schist about the oil industry. The oil & gas business follows a “boom & bust” cycle. High oil prices reduce demand relative to supply. Low oil prices reduce supply relative to demand, ad nauseum. Shares of most oil companies have been beaten down since 2014-2015 because the price crash destroyed a lot of equity. If “reduced demand for crude” sends “prices plunging,” it will spur an increase in demand. That’s how business works. Maybe they don’t teach this in former professor of finance school.

While the oil industry certainly employs some chemists and software engineers (although, I’ve never worked for a company that did), the “knowledge workers” primarily consist of petroleum engineers, geologists, geophysicists, accountants, lawyers, petroleum land management professionals and compliance specialists. At least he mentioned geologists. Cyclical downturns have led to several episodes of layoffs since 1986 and the voluntary exodus of many “knowledge workers”. Most of the geoscientists (geologists and geophysicists) I started out with at Enserch Exploration in 1981 left the industry in the late 1980’s through 1990’s. Most went into hydrology/environmental/engineering geology, a few became schoolteachers, one became a NASA astronaut and is currently the Director of the USGS. I know of maybe 2 or 3 who went into finance… And none who went into pharmaceuticals or health care. Otherwise, no schist Sherlock… Back up plans are sort of de rigueur in this business.

This is where the former professor of finance went full Tropic Thunder.

Lower-skilled workers and fracking boom towns, however, will have a much harder time landing on their feet.

[…]

The problem will be compounded for those who live in the small towns and cities that grew up around oil-extraction sites. Americans have been less willing to move from place to place in search of work in recent decades, and big cities are no longer lands of opportunity for those without an advanced education. The decline of the oil industry may leave the country dotted with yet more decaying half-empty ghost towns, unable to pay for the upkeep on their infrastructure, afflicted with drugs and alcoholism and suicide.

Governments at the local, state and federal levels should work to prevent this unhappy future. People in decaying oil towns can be given vouchers to help them to move, perhaps to a nearby thriving college town.

Former professor of finance

Did I mention that this former professor of finance doesn’t know Jack Schist about the oil industry? What does he think Houston, Midland, Tyler and a whole lot of other oil towns looked like in the late 1980’s, early 1990’s and other bust cycles?

Did he seriously suggest giving hard-working blue collar workers “vouchers to help them move to… a nearby thriving college town”?

But… Then he sped right on past full Tropic Thunder.

The march of technology means oil’s days are numbered.

Former professor of finance

The oil industry is a helluva lot more high tech than wind and solar. Due to advances in seismic imaging technology over the past 40 years, we can literally “see” oil & gas accumulations more than 30,000′ below sea level in geological settings that couldn’t even be imagined, much less imaged, just 10 years ago. Due to advances in drilling technology, we can now drill highly precise directional wells in over 10,000′ water depths, through thick layers of salt, to hit pinpoint targets we didn’t even know were there just a few years ago.

The “march of technology” means that “oil’s days are numbered in decades, if not centuries.

Figure 4. Demand for 110 to 130 million bbl of petroleum liquids in 2050 will require “all hands on deck,” rather than vouchers to move to “a nearby thriving college town.” (US Energy Information Administration)

I have read a lot of truly idiotic articles about the demise of the oil industry, often sponsored by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, but this one takes the cake. The former professor of finance earns a Distinguished Ron White Cross with a The Stupid it Burns Service Device and a Billy Madison Lifetime Achievement Award…

How about some Morrison Hotel?

Advertisements

156 thoughts on “The “Oil Age” is doing just fine, Bloomberg New Energy Finance notwithstanding

  1. The former professor of finance might have a point in Norway where a sense of oil-guilt is afflicting the precious young’uns in Oslo who want the oil business that pays for their welfare shut down by tea time, imagine their smart phones and e-bils (EVs) will work just fine hanging off windmills and haven’t learned yet the benefits of not biting the hand that feeds or not shitting in one’s own nest.
    Elsewhere, in the real world, however I agree; the former professor of finance sounds like he is trying to convince himself that disruptive unicorn farts are about to become scalable and cheap.
    And when the Noggie oil adventure is killed off by the green blob, I doubt very many of those vouchers to travel to a thriving college town will be taken up because a lot of the natives don’t like moving

    • Erny72
      When I see pieces such as written by Smith, I don’t see an attempt to try to convince himself of anything. Instead, I see propaganda intended to stampede the lemmings. That is, he knows it is false; however, he is either writing it at someone’s bidding ($), or believes that the end justifies any means, and willfully lies to support his naive ideology.

      • Bloomberg himself is making 100’s of millions off of solar and wind. His news organizations will denigrate the oil industry at every chance they get.

    • ” BloombergNEF expects electrics to begin taking over in about a decade:”

      Bearing in mind that Bloomberg will have to wait until there is enough coal being mines mined in order to produce the electricity for his electric cars.

      Cheers

      Roger

    • The Norwegian economy runs on hydroelectricity, they didn’t need the oil mony to keep the lights on so they were able to bank a lot of it.

      • Norway depends on oil revenue to fund their “welfare state”…

        When the first production licences were awarded in the mid-1960s, hardly anyone realised what the industry would mean for the Norwegian economy. Fifty years later, it is more important than ever.

        The industry plays a vital role in the Norwegian economy and the financing of the Norwegian welfare state. The oil and gas sector is Norway’s largest measured in terms of value added, government revenues, investments and export value.

        https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/economy/governments-revenues/

        Norway expects to “earn” NOK 238 billion ($26 billion USD) this year from its oil production. Norway spends 25% of its $400 billion GDP on welfare programs.

        A nation that funds $100 billion in welfare with $26 billion of oil revenue isn’t banking much of anything.

        • I said ‘were able’ past tense. Their oil and gas fields aren’t what they were, and they have some adjustments to make in their social programs to make when they’re back to fishing and forestry.

          Compare them to a Denmark that imports oil, gas, and hydro, and they look pretty solid.

          I find anyone from a hydro-power rich area living off a million square miles if ocean being smug about their personal carbon footprint fairly annoying.

          It’s silly to be proud of something that’s largely an outcome of geography and local climate. Sillier still to make it into a political fight between BC, QC, and AB in Canada. BC is a lot like Norway, Alberta is a lot like Denmark. Except for the oil, so BC can suck it.

          • Yes, Norway is about halfway through their recoverable known reserves now, which is what I meant by ‘not what they were’, and of course there’s the price collapse.

            Yet somehow they put some money in the bank, while Canada seems to have spent it all. I wouldn’t say ‘Alberta’, because of equalization payments cleaning the cupboard bare.

  2. ‘The world is rapidly waking up to the severity and immediacy of the threat from climate change.’

    This is absolutely false; the exact opposite of the truth.

    • How then can that sentence be rewritten to reflect reality, Gamecock?

      The world is rapidly waking up to the absurdities and agendas driving climate change propaganda.

      Regardless, it’s not happening fast enough.

      Regards,
      Bob

    • I keep hearing stuff like this repeated throughout the media. Never any evidence in support, just the bald claim.

      They really must think that if they keep saying it it will be true.

      • According to the Communists, oil is simply withering away, is naturally & quickly being replaced by supposedly better, more low cost alternatives.

        So then why the constant attacks on an energy source that is supposedly on it’s way out?

    • No, it is correct.

      “Severity” = “Somewhere between ‘Not severe at all’ and ‘Negligible'”.

      “Immediacy” = Either “Never” or “In a few centuries (or possibly millennia, see ‘The NEXT glacial maximum’)”.

  3. “….EV’s may be taking over in the parking lots of the ivory halls of academia and LaLa Land of BNEF blogging, but the developing world likes SUV’s….”

    Doesn’t matter if they love them. If they’re banned….

      • The amazing Bangladesh story is how the economy and quality of life in the most hopeless country on earth gripped with tragic poverty and reduced to exporting cheap labor to the middle east were suddenly elevated by the discovery of significant natural gas reserves.

    • My friends with electric cars in Northern California just got a huge wake up call. Their cars are useless when the power is out. The power company says the next 10 years will be more of the same.

      • I guess we’ll have a break from some of them California world experts posting about how insane it is to buy plugin hybrids, because who needs to cart around a stupid gasoline engine when there’s always electricity everywhere?

    • Alcohol was banned in the US between 1920 and 1933 by the 18th Amendment. Look at how well that worked out.

      Using the Constitution for social engineering goes against the spirit of the document, which is to tell the government, not the people, what it can and cannot do.

  4. The march of technology …

    That’s not at all reliable. There’s Moore’s law about the development of computers. Opposite to that, there’s Eroom’s law about drug development.

    Eroom’s law is the observation that drug discovery is becoming slower and more expensive over time, despite improvements in technology …

    Blind faith, that technology will rescue us from everything, is just stupid. In particular, diving into a course of action, while depending on the development of unavailable technology, is suicidal.

    • Then there’s the all-too-prescient Augustine’s Law Number XVI: “In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.”

      I think we’re right on track for that one.

    • I LIKE it when people invent new things and utilize technology to make things better for all. However, the tendency of people to prophesy some particular desired outcome based on their own emotions or desires drives me absolutely nuts. The reason markets work, the reason the invisible hand works, is because these new things compete against the old thing, and the better thing wins. The US was founded on the idea that a free society with limited government is primary, which leads to the economic system of Capitalism, in which people, if free to make a their own choices and to voluntarily associate with others to invest and form corporate interests, who have property rights and the force of law to protect them and their interests, will generally choose the better thing. They still want clean water and air. Long term pollution choices are eventually costed by free people. But generally, for things to win in free competitive contests, they must not be arbitrarily more expensive. They must be more economical and the more efficient. This is how oil and gas won out over wind power in the first place.

      People who think their own personal opinions combined with political power can successfully supplant the free and voluntary decisions of everyone else, are crazy, stupid Socialists and totalitarians. Our (road-to-hell-is paved-with) Good intentions cannot run a successful command economy, no matter how badly a person may want it. This is why Socialism fails, every time it has been tried at national scales. And yet, we keep churning out young people who, without the proper training in history of such things, believe it will work the next time, when THEY are in charge. These are people who vote like Californians, and at the same time insist that what happened in Venezuela cannot possibly happen in the US. I warn them, that IF what happened to Venezuela also happens in the US, it would make that look like a picnic. It would be one of the ugliest and most deadly chapters in human history. I truly believe most people will not want that result. Yet many will vote for these asinine socialists like Bernie Sanders and AOC and Elizabeth Warren, who now openly express their hostility to Capitalism and free choices and free markets, and who think they can run a command economy.

  5. Peak Media is upon us with declining readership, declining trust, blurred lines of news, fake news, agenda news, paid news, and opinion news. Agenda science didn’t help either.

    • “Peak Media”–I love it! But unlike “peak oil,” which keeps receding into the future, peak media is already in the rear-view mirror.

      Our local newspaper keeps getting smaller. They regularly run half-page ads about themselves claiming they are an antidote for fake news. That fills in some of the unsold space in the advertising section.

      It’s gotten so bad for them that they are actually running some pretty conservative editorials in an effort to cut circulation losses. However they’re still pushing the climate change narrative.

  6. The Prof is wrong on electric cars replacing ICE cars, trucks and SUVs.
    EVs in making and operating them, without subsidy, is too expensive and the fad may fade.
    But a remarkably regular financial pattern is completing and that is a great financial bubble.
    This is the sixth since the first–the South Sea Bubble of 1720.
    Crude oil has been a commercial product since the late 1860s. The 1873 Bubble was number 4, with 1929 being number 5.
    The typical post-bubble contraction ran for some 20 years.
    On the last two post-bubble contractions, crude’s real price fell to around 1/3rd of the high.
    That would be on the annual average price.
    Real prices for base metals also suffer.
    So the resource industry will likely contract over the next decade or so.
    The usual 3 to 4 year business cycle will likely continue, with weak recoveries and noticeable recessions.
    The epitome of grand driving in 1929 were the V-16 and V-12 cars, and even those who could still afford them would not buy them. Too ostentatious.
    Like electric cars.

  7. This is probably more true:

    ‘The world is rapidly waking up to the severity and immediacy of the threat from climate change activism.’

  8. This defense of the oil industry is spot on, but only scratches the surface.

    To emphasize the “you can’t fix stupid,” I had a discussion with an EV fanatic (owns a Tesla) about this. His position was ICE vehicles would be obsolete in just five years. I pointed out to him that the best selling vehicle is the Ford F-150, the second is the Dodge Ram, the third is The Chevrolet Tahoe, and half if the remaining top ten are SUVs. He claimed the problem was solved, they have already started making EV pickup trucks.

    True, but I had read about them. Capable of carrying a decent size payload, towing, going more than a hundred miles between charges, or less than a hundred thousand dollars – pick ONE.

    I simply asked, if EVs could be made with power sufficient for a heavy-duty pickup, i.e., steel construction, big payload-capacities, and towing ability, why are EVs like Tesla made with as much lightweight plastic as possible, have limited driving distance, and are expensive? He was still convinced E-pickups would be on the market any day.

    But as I said, all this merely scratches the surface if the oil industry. The civilized world is oil-based, from the clothes we wear to the food we eat, huge changes would be required if the oil business ceased to exist. You couldn’t make an EV without plastic. Well, I guess you could if you used the first type of plastic that was created (bakalite), but it’s made from coal, so…..

    Even aspirin is synthesized from oil. There aren’t enough willow trees in the world to supply us with the aspirin we consume, and most all other pharmaceuticals are synthesized from oil as well. Get rid of the oil industry, and we really will be living in caves, fighting over scraps of squirrel meat, with a life expectancy of 42.

    • I thought that was the whole purpose of the green movement, to negate all the technological and societal advances of the last 300 years?

      • You betcha, Andrew.

        To the Elites, whose Watermelon Minions serve as their useful idiots, getting rid of oil and therefore killing off a major portion of the global population, is a feature not a bug.

        The survivors will be skilled in 18th and 19th Century technology. Their minions? Not so much.

        The Amish might take passing notice that almost everyone else is gone.

    • Even if a new battery appeared tomorrow that had twice the power density, charged in half the time, had twice the lifetime, and cost half as much as the best batteries today, EVs still would not replace ICE vehicles for many decades. Why? Because we simply don’t have the electric infrastructure (power lines and substations) to support charging all those batteries, not to mention power generation. People who spout this nonsense have no idea what they are talking about.

      • Paul, good point. Not sure if you intended to include it but on only has to look at the network of gas stations all over the country that would take a lot of resources, money and worse yet time to just duplicate the fuel supply for ICE vehicles not to mention the additional facilities to “fuel up” given the relative time to charge a battery. Beyond that think of all the fossil fuels used by industry, heating homes, ships an Rail roads moving stuff around the world, pipelines, military vehicles, airplanes, chemicals and plastics, and who knows what else.
        Clearly they have not thought this through very far.

  9. 😐 Since declaring her candidacy in May 2017, Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign heavily relied on those combustion-engine cars — even though a subway station was just 138 feet from her Elmhurst campaign office.

    She listed 1,049 transactions for Uber, Lyft, Juno and other car services, federal filings show. The campaign had 505 Uber expenses alone.

    In all, Ocasio-Cortez spent $29,365.70 on those emissions-spewing vehicles, along with car and van rentals — even though her Queens HQ was a one-minute walk to the 7 train.

    The campaign shelled out only $8,335.41 on 52 MetroCard transactions

  10. Articles like this are not descriptions of reality, but are attempts to manufacture the reality they want to see.

  11. Former Assistant Professor Smith to be pedantically correct – let’s not give him unearned status.

  12. I was in Albuquerque recently at a hotel when I noticed a Chevy Bolt drive in to the lot. It had a Topanga Cyn (Calif)license plate surround. I had a house in Topanga some years back and I knew that the distance to Albuq from Topanga is approx 750 miles. I asked the driver how long it took him to get to Albuq. 4 DAYS. He had to charge with 110 for ~8-10 hours for a full charge.
    I told him I would buy an EV when everything on the car was manufactured with wind and solar.

    • Mad Mac

      Four days 😂😂 the cost of charging would probably be more then the cosr of petrol/diesel.. Also, I wonder what source produced the 10 hours of electricity need to charge his car

    • I made very similar drive in 1987 with a couple buddies in under 12 hours. UNM to Santa Monica Pier. We were in a new Honda Prelude SI. We got around 30 MPG and gas was about 1.00 a gallon . we spent $80 on gas for the entire trip. It was spring break, so if we had the same crappy 4 day journey as the EV guy, we would have only driven there and back. paying for hotels all along the way and that would have really sucked. Another simple illustration about how really stupid it is to believe that EV will replace ICE anytime in the near future.

    • 750 miles would tale:
      175 hours at 110v charging
      19 hours on 240v 48a charging
      2 hours at Tesla 130 kw charging
      1 hour or so total at Tesla 250 kw charge rate. About $30 to charge, maybe $20 if starting out on a full charge.

      Most people keep them plugged in to do a full overnight charge at home, so the first 250 miles would take zero additional time.

      and the time and effort it takes is to plug and unplug, easy as a cordless drill.

      Usually meal breaks are 30 minute charge stops, and at motels that offer overnight charge plugs. Going off the beaten track is a bit more challenging than on major routes.

      I wouldn’t take an EV up into the Yukon in winter, and they’ll never be as cheap to buy new as a gas or diesel vehicle. But the cost of energy for driving the car is like coffee money, and the motor has one moving part.

      • If I had enough money to justify a Tesla, I would probably fly to avoid the hassle of charging. Would rather spend the money wisely on a twin engine ICE powered boat.

        • We don’t often do 750 mile trips by car, but when we do they don’t take four days. A Volt or Bolt sells for not much less than the base model Tesla, but there’s really no comparison in how they drive.

          The Mythbusters did a comparison fly vs drive over 400 miles, I think the flight saved 15 minutes, and it’s a whole lot safer than any car.

  13. All the children are insane, the end

    https://youtu.be/VScSEXRwUqQ

    Robbie Krieger’s haunting psychedelic guitar riffs make we want to find a straight-haired hippie chick and start sway-dancing to the psychadelica.

    Kreiger is horribly overlooked as a guitar genius of the Rock era. His Doors work is spectacular

  14. If you expect to do ‘WORK’; that activity that puts food on the table, you’d better have in internal combustion engine.

  15. I just wonder what color the sky is in Noah Smith’s world? They used to lock folks like him away in “funny farms”. Now, they get to write crap like this, and be taken seriously. Progress!

  16. David …

    “I started out (with at)? Enserch Exploration in 1981 left the industry in the late 1980’s through 1990’s. ”

    Another great post…

    • “Most of the geoscientists (geologists and geophysicists) I started out with at Enserch Exploration in 1981 left the industry in the late 1980’s through 1990’s. Most went into hydrology/environmental/engineering geology, a few became schoolteachers, one became a NASA astronaut and is currently the Director of the USGS. I know of maybe 2 or 3 who went into finance… And none who went into pharmaceuticals or health care.”

      • How many went to “thriving college towns”? And what did they do there, pour star bucks for the AOCs of the world getting economics degrees?

        • I’m still struggling with the phrase “thriving college towns”… My recollection is that, apart from a small area around Yale University, New Haven CT was basically Bridgeport… AKA a schist hole.

  17. I read this article on Bloomberg when it ran and considered sending the former professor a note. I decided against it. Multiple articles like this appear on Bloomberg every week. Michael Bloomberg is working overtime to try and discredit and destroy the oil and gas industry. So the only way the dear uninformed former professor can get something printed is to toe the Bloomberg company line. Sad for him. But dangerous for his readers.

    I particularly took offense at the surface water contamination issue from fracking. In a prior life back in 1981 I actually fracked wells for Halliburton. Pretty much every study on fracking has reached the same conclusion- fracking is safe if conducted as designed. If surface ground water becomes contaminated it’s because somebody is breaking the law concerning the disposal of produced water or other fracking by products. Its like banning cars because some people choose to drive drunk.

  18. Every pro EV article ignores the incremental electric power generation required for what is now 250 million vehicles. Also there is the electric grid. From what I’ve read it can’t take the additional load.

    • I’ve heard that ‘grid can’t take the load’ thing before. My house has a 6000 watt stove, a 6000 watt clothes dryer, and a 4500 watt air conditioner.

      And a 1400 watt charger for the Prius Prime that runs for a couple hours a day that the utility hasn’t complained about once.

      There’s a 42,000,000 watt bitcoin mining operation north of town that hasn’t killed the grid, either. That 42 MW could charge the Prime in 3/4 of a second, but probably that would spectacularly void the battery warranty.

  19. Bloomberg Opinion aka BS put out in an attempt to manipulate the markets sentiments towards or away from whatever Bloomberg wishes to influence for its own profit.

    Nothing, but nothing Bloomberg Opinion writes is worth a spit.

  20. From the article: “The world is rapidly waking up to the severity and immediacy of the threat from climate change.”

    Wishful thinking by an alarmist.

    There’s no evidence of Human-caused Climate Change, and there is no evidence that “the world” is rapidly waking up to Human-caused Climate Change danger.

    The only ones getting stressed about it are the Alarmist activists and the media, and they are getting stressed because they are starting to realize that their message is not convincing people they are in danger from CO2. I think “desperation” is a good characterization of this hysteria.

  21. Meanwhile the Sierra Club is suing the SEC for denying too many shareholder resolutions on climate change.

  22. Nothing but wishful thinking and propaganda. The real goal is to pack people into high density living where only the elite will be allowed private cars or homes in the suburbs. The US is just too spread out for that to happen while we still have relatively cheap oil.

    • Indeed, they can’t in fact government support (such as tax credits) have more to do with EV sales than the gas tax. For Example, in Georgia, when the state’s legislature ended a $5,000 tax credit for electric cars in 2015, sales of EVs dropped from roughly 1,400 a month to fewer than 100 the month after the tax credit ended

  23. David’s Meme checklist:
    – Tommy Lee Jones Face Palm ✔︎
    – Thunder Thunder Dumbest MF to Ever Live – Full Moron ✔︎
    – Ron White Ya’ Can’t Fix Stupid ✔︎
    – The Stupid It Burns ✔︎
    – Billy Madison Insanely Idiotic-We’re All Dumber Now ✔︎
    + a 70’s music reference. ✔︎

    Well that about covers them all except your:
    – Caveman Next Time Do a Little Research meme.

    You’re gonna need some new memes David.
    Here’s a trending one with my addition text addition:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qZa1YYyRwnk-ar6fp2HvHp1UPj5HKC7B/view?usp=sharing

  24. Great article as always, David, thank you.

    Very amusing, too. I love that classic Tropic Thunder clip! {:oD

    Who’s the chap in the ‘can’t fix stupid’ photo, though..?

    All the best. D.

  25. At the same time, electric vehicles are getting cheap enough to compete with internal-combustion engines

    Only for as long as Governement is supporing them with tax credits and subsidies, once the Government support ends so does the “affordability”.

  26. Well, that does it. With gas in my AO at $2.557, I’m inclined to believe – by way of empirical evidence called driving a car – that the engines designed to increase gas mileage and efficiency are prolonging the lifespan of the oil & gas industry, exponentially. (Did I use enough buzz words in that? Just askin’.)

    When I put barely 3/4 of a 12 gallon tank of gas into a car and the price I pay covers 7.668 gallons and I still have change left over, who IS the loser there? Not me, the consumer! And with that kind of MPG mileage, I could likely go a month without needing to refill the tank very often unless I was using that car a lot. That extends the life of oil field production considerably, in my view. And 100 years from now, people may just be glad of it.

    I’ll say what I’ve said before: Bloomberg is a control freak – an AGING control freak – who wants to tell everyone what to do with their lives, how to do it and how long they’re allowed to do it. But he’s an old man with an agenda that is backfiring on him, and in my view, is completely ridiculous. It’s worth it to pay attention to that whole group of control freaks, so that you know what they’re up to. The flip side of that control freak nonsense is that what they want to do (control everything and everybody) and what they can do (no control, period) are two entirely different things.

    In the end, the rest of us will win and they’ll be seen as loons who thought they could tell everyone what to do and nobody did what they said.

  27. David,
    Thanks for yet another well written and accurate article.
    I do that exception with one point (not sure if it is your’s or a quote):
    “While the oil industry certainly employs some chemists and software engineers (although, I’ve never worked for a company that did), the “knowledge workers” primarily consist of petroleum engineers, geologists, geophysicists, accountants, lawyers, petroleum land management professionals and compliance specialists. ”
    While I am a Mechanical engineer, not chemical engineer, I worked in the downstream (refining) and Petrochemical side for an oil company and this part of the business is dominated by chemical engineers and chemists.
    Also most especially the MSM would be surprised to learn that there is a lot of technology behind the processing and upgrading of the basic crude extracted from the upstream where historically the profits are mostly made. The company I worked for had about 5 research centers in NJ, Louisiana, Texas, Canada, and England Generally employing Phd Chemists, Physics, etc. Not to mention that there are also outside companies like catalyst companies that constantly employ chemists that work to improve and develop new catalysts for better processes to manufacture fuels and all the plastics that are used in our homes and cars.
    This is research and development is significant technology improvements never mentioned by the media in the news.

    • All of the companies I’ve worked for have been 100% upstream. As such, I often make the mistake of treating the entire industry as if it was 100% upstream.

  28. Hey folks, I have an uncomfortable question to ask.
    If the children are as bad as we think they are at basic science and recognising stupidity when it is on the street, as in XR demos. What does it say about us as parents? We allowed this ridiculous state of affairs to develop.
    We can’t just blame the teachers, we have known since we were at school, teachers are too thick to teach anything. With that bitter truth already in place, it must be down to us that the next generation are so disconnected from reality so ignorant of fundamental physics.
    We have failed to educate our own children!!
    The Gretas’ are multiplying, it must be down to the parents…..

    • “Hey folks, I have an uncomfortable question to ask.
      If the children are as bad as we think they are at basic science and recognising stupidity when it is on the street, as in XR demos. What does it say about us as parents? We allowed this ridiculous state of affairs to develop.”

      Ultimately, the parents are to blame. I saw a report this morning on Fox that showed math proficiency had dropped several percentage points between 2017 and 2019 among fourth graders and among eight graders.

      Our education system is going downhill people. It’s time to completely rethink the education system.

      I see where some Lefty town in the Northeast US wants to allow 16-year-olds to vote. Why not just make it eight-year-olds. They have personal preferences, too. That makes about as much sense. “Easily manipulated”, that’s what the Left looks for.

      • Nobody is allowed to vote until the can correctly identify their biological gender.
        ( There, I fixed the world with one law (-;

        • Yeah but somewhere in the inevitable lawsuits, some judge will find some right to misidentify ones biological gender in the emanations of the penumbra of the constitution (in other words the judge will invent it out of his backside) to strike down your law, thus rebreaking the world.

    • I personally can’t control other people or what they teach their children. I *can* tell you that you won’t find *my* children out marching with XR or Antifa. They are much too level headed for that. As individuals that’s all we can really do; take care of our own business and try to be good examples/role-models to others.

    • Rod, if your children are out there being XR level stupid, it doesn’t say anything good about your parenting skills.

      You can’t control the stupid stuff other people teach their kids, but you do have control over what you teach your own. And while you have little control over what nonsense teachers at any particular school teaches, you do have some control over whether you send your children to get taught at that particular school by those particular teachers or not (move to a better school district, send your kids to a private school of your choice, or homeschool are all possible alternatives). So yes, the parents of those children do shoulder much of the blame.

  29. The hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) boom is not ready to end anytime soon, and actually has positive effects on the environment.

    Prior to the fracking boom, the USA imported most of its oil from the Middle East, whose crude oil is very heavy and contains about 2.5 to 4.0 wt% sulfur. In order to convert such crude into useful fuel, refiners had to invest heavily in catalytic cracking and hydrotreating units, the former to break the large molecules in heavy crude to smaller molecules (boiling in the gasoline and diesel ranges), the latter to remove sulfur by reaction with hydrogen.

    Fracked crude oil from West Texas and North Dakota is much lighter and sweeter, usually only containing about 0.3 to 0.5 wt% sulfur. which requires less cracking and hydrogen consumption to convert to useful fuels, less energy consumption in refineries, and less sulfur emissions.

    Sulfur removed from crude oil or distillates is initially in the form of hydrogen sulfide (which is too toxic to be emitted to the atmosphere), so that refineries have “tail gas conversion units” that convert H2S to either solid elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid.

    The use of crude oil produced in the USA eliminates the need to ship crude oil across the oceans, reducing the risk of oil spills. Despite the opposition of “environmental” groups to oil pipelines, they are much less prone to spillage than either oil tankers over the ocean or railcars over land.

  30. SUV. s are popular because in the near Jungle that is normal driving today they are safer. Bit like a tank in that small arms fire is not a problem. Electric
    vehicles have to be built light, so they crumble up even with a minor impact.

    Only problem is that SUVs . are high, very hard to see what is ahead .

    Re, the oil industry, lets not forget that oil is a lot more than petrol or diesel, oil produces so many other things jut as coal if processed rather than just burnt does too.

    A bit like plastic, its not just plastic bags at the supermarket, its all of today’s
    way of life. They come from oil too.

    MJE VK5ELL

    • I think another reason SUV’s are getting more popular today is because they have comfortable back seats. Most sedans made today have very small, uncomfortable back seats. They are not really suitable for more than two people. I rode in the backseat of a Chrysler 300 not long ago, a supposed luxury sedan, for about 150 miles, and it was pure torture. Very uncomfortable. It would be almost impossible for a very large person.

      I drive an SUV. 🙂

  31. Math is useful to understand these problems and their scale. For example:

    1. A barrel if oil is approx 1.7Mwh energy equivalent – ref
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_of_oil_equivalent

    2. The world consumes 100 million x 365 barrels of oil a year. ref
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption

    3. Therefore the world consumes 100,000,000 x 365 x 1.7 Mwh of energy equivalent from oil.

    4. The world currently generates 25,000 x 1,000,000 Mwh of electricity per year. ref
    https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/electricity-facts/20068

    5. Therefore we can divide 3 by 4 to find how much additional energy we need relative to what we currently generate.

    100,000,000 x 365 x 1.7 Mwh
    ———————————
    25,000,000,000 Mwh

    So.. lots of zeros cancel and we get the ratio.

    620
    ——- = 2.48
    250

    So we need an increase of 2.48 times what we currently generate plus what we currently generate to get off oil assuming of course 100% battery effeciency. So 3.48 times current.

    • Is THAT All?? Only 2.48X…
      Let’s see, that’s only…
      150 new nuke plants +
      560 new coal plants +
      4500 new Nat Gas plants+
      rewiring about 5,000,000 miles of lines with heaver conductors to carry the load+
      thousands of new and rebuilt sub-stations to distribute the load.+
      rewiring thousands of gas stations with 1k Amp service to charge all those EV’s

      I’m not sure $20 trillion will be enough. But a 16 year old drop-out and a bartender told us we HAVE to, so we’d better jump right on it.

    • Still, if every one of the 3 million or so vehicles in Alberta was electric, and they were all plugged and charging from 120v outlets at the same time, the total load would be 4500 MW. There’s 5500 MW of unused capacity in the coal and gas generators at the moment. That’s 27,000,000 KM of range per hour of charge time, call it a million litres of gasoline equivalent, per hour, so maybe 20 million litres a day, because there isn’t always extra capacity all day. Total Canadian demand is 45 billion litres a year, so 123 million litres a day.

      Yeah, lack of electricity is just not going to be the problem. Manufacturing the 60 to 100kwh battery packs for a billion full electric cars is.

      We bought a plugin hybrid (9 kwh) and it works for us. A full charge takes 5 hours from a home plugin, is about 2 litres of gasoline equivalent, and costs 47 cents. And gives about double the power of the little sewing machine engine.

      There’s a 40 litre tank for long trips or a zombie apocalypse. We buy less than 5 tankfulls a year, so we won’t worry if it’s five bucks a litre. But I bet you will.

  32. The only reason card manufacturers are moving to EVs is the regulatory push to reduce allowable emission and boost fuel efficiency to unrealistic levels

    It is rule by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, especially in the EU

  33. Help me out here. What the heck is a software engineer?
    I can think of a few definitions but i would insult someone if that job description actually exists.

  34. BloombergNEF expects electrics to begin taking over in about a decade.

    a) won’t happen.
    b) won’t save the planet even if it does happen.

    Somehow I don’t think “taking over” means what you think it means.

  35. Basic reading comprehension FAIL david

    ‘Does “the oil industry face an uncertain future”? Or is “the Oil Age coming to an end”?”

    The OIL AGE is coming to an end
    therefore,
    the oil INDUSTRY faces an uncertain future.

    The Industry will survive the end of the oil age, but how it will evolve is very uncertain.

    David it is no great trick to WILLFULLY misread a text to make a point.

    here

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

    • It’s a YUGE trick to miss the Jim Morrison punchline.

      The future of the oil industry has always been as uncertain as oil prices and the former assistant professor of finance didn’t provide a single scintilla of evidence to support any of the nonsense he spouted on behalf of mental greentardation

    • Basic reading comprehension FAIL

      That pretty much sums up the substance of all your drive-by post Steven. Time to start looking to that beam in your own eye rather than the mote in others.

  36. The future is uncertain said Jim Morrison 1970.
    Well he did not ave to worry long-he died 1971.
    If he was in the climate business back then he would have to sell another story – Coming Ice age.
    But back then we did not demand for action-it is much better today.
    We take command over climate!
    Lets make a change-eat nuts!

  37. Good article, thank you David.

    Fossil fuels comprise about 85% of global primary energy, unchanged in decades and unlikely to change for decades to some.

    A few thoughts from the Dark Ages – 2009 and 2012.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/05/fear-and-loathing-for-california/#comment-82225

    Here is a Video by warmers who DO believe in conspiracy theories (when in doubt, blame big oil).
    THE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL INDUSTRY
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIGrkVoa78o&feature=related

    Fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) comprise over 85% of global primary energy – the remainder is mostly nuclear and hydro. Wind, geothermal and solar don’t amount to much, and neither do biofuels. It is ironic that so many people in the developed world loath energy companies, and yet fossil fuels are essential to keep them and their families from freezing and starving. Many Europeans and North Americans have bought into this irrational hatred – as they huddle in their homes during this cold winter, perhaps some of them will realize that rational energy policies and capable energy companies are essential for their survival.

    Regards, Allan

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/31/earth-hour-2012-a-dissent-and-poll/#comment-802692

    I have worked much of my career in the Canadian and international energy industry.

    Occasionally, some imbecile will attack me and the energy industry, as evil doers who are destroying the planet. I respond that the energy industry keeps him and his family from freezing and starving to death.

    It is true – shut down the energy industry and few people would remain alive in Canada, the Northern USA or Northern Europe. In our specialized modern society, everything from heating our homes to our food supply is dependent on the energy industry.

    Allowing ignorant politicians to dictate energy strategy is like letting your four-year-old drive your car. Happy Motoring!

  38. People who are young and idealistic — see a change they want in the world. Your moral outrage at them is misplaced and the kind of “beat down” that always impedes progress. You literally draw an impossible line and set imaginary boundaries. (hold on, don’t draw out the 10 Commandments of physics – we almost surely know more about that than you, we have physicists from the US Navy’s Energy Group on our team)

    You are the luddites and you don’t even know it. You are letting yourself experience these emotions and justifying them with logic. You decry “them”bas innocent and you suggest they would do better to shut up, sit down and go home. There is a tinge of “spare the rod, spoil the child” logic that is sickening and hard to ignore. Are young people a tad entitled – yes, our generation made them that way by creating the materialistic culture. You created the culture, you created demand, you created what is good and God in the world. Take a look in the mirror my friend and say “it was me.”

    In truth, though they have a redeeming quality. They have togetherness. They see something real — that human activity on the planet may lead to our destruction unless we veer a sharply different course- and you are not letting yourself see it – sure, hold onto a graph here or a datapoint there. They are right. Full stop. You may have seen too much to even fathom change is possible. And in your hidden misery, you take it out on them.

    The truth is they are the moral force of change, and it’s working. We are in the room with large asset managers like Legal and General – they fully intend to transition society. They don’t even know it is possible… $10T in AUM have divested. We will amplify that, perhaps manifold. Divest and reinvest.

    The moral force is not the technical force. You don’t expect Greta to be an experimental physicist. The experimental physicists like Dr. Johannes Conrads published 15 years ago that a new primary energy source exists in nature: https://twitter.com/EndOfPetrol/status/1185253155300347904 Where were all of you armchair scientists then? You would have decried with the same conviction “that is impossible, you don’t know what you are talking about, that goes against everything they teach.”

    The technical force, a total fossil fuel replacement is coming online around the world. I’m not going to teach physics here. But mankind has always moved forward in quantum leaps, this one is the biggest since electricity was discovered.

    It may be time to hedge your fossil fuel exposure.

    What can you do to change the state of the world? Change yourself.

    You could consider whether you’ve been wrong after all in your approach. Stop whining on a website in moral outrage at the naivety of the change makers. Transform your attitude from indignation to imagination. Support those authentic individuals who are trying to bring change to the world – whether in environment or energy. Gasp, become one?

      • Have you heard of the psychological concept of “projection.” We create an immediate resonance in the world from what we don’t want to see.

        So I ask? What is your stake in avoiding change?

        • Ha ha ha,

          You wrote this fantasy:

          “You are the luddites and you don’t even know it. You are letting yourself experience these emotions and justifying them with logic. You decry “them”bas innocent and you suggest they would do better to shut up, sit down and go home. There is a tinge of “spare the rod, spoil the child” logic that is sickening and hard to ignore. Are young people a tad entitled – yes, our generation made them that way by creating the materialistic culture. You created the culture, you created demand, you created what is good and God in the world. Take a look in the mirror my friend and say “it was me.”

          You sound like a would be hippie……

          Greta is a young girl being used for a singular purpose, a dishonest purpose, which you unsurprisingly missed. It is being financed by socialist money to con people with misleading claims, tinged with necessary lies.

          Since it has become obvious the AGW “adults” propagandists have not been able to fool enough people into surrendering their individuality for the Fatherland (Authoritarian Socialism), they now turn to children such as ignorant Greta, and to Extinction Rebellion (A totally dumb organization) who are largely composed of the young with leaders who are mostly IGNORANT of the world around them.

          It seems you have taken up the usual cause of wanting to force change upon the world, something the Human race never stops doing. Being a free thinking individualist is too much for you to handle, hence your idiotic screed you posted.

          You want a conformity, communal herd for the “Fatherland” set up. I don’t want any part of it, because I want to live free, think freely and die freely.

          • First off, that piece was written at select individuals – and it was the result of tracking and interacting with many on this site for a while. Many of you aren’t in that bucket, and I apologize if you are.

            >>Being a free thinking individualist is too much for you to handle

            Gas lighting again?

            >> You want a conformity, communal herd for the “Fatherland” set up. I

            Inventing a scenario and causing a disturbance about it. Scarying us with the socialism meme. The only socialism we actually are living in is corporate. What are you doing about that?

            >> I don’t want any part of it, because I want to live free, think freely and die freely.

            You are fighting ghosts of an argument, about something you think I said, but which was in your own mind.

            This is exactly what I was writing about.

        • Change for change sake is not a good thing. You want people to change, you have to make the case on how and why the change you want will be a good thing (rather than berate them for not doing as you demand) and listen when others explain how and why the change you want won’t be the good thing you think it is and then have an intelligent back and forth on the subject. You’ll have better luck persuading people that way. you’ve convince no one by demanding they change because you say so.

    • “Support those authentic individuals who are trying to bring change to the world”

      No, we can’t do it. The change these Leftist/alarmist fanatics want to bring will destroy civilization. That’s not a good idea. You don’t want to get into the physics of it all, you said, so I guess that’s the only reply I need to make to you.

      • You threw up your hands pretty fast.
        Start with the linked paper Tom.
        It is all out there and available.
        I don’t post all of that here since people have “beat down” such posts as “crazy” talk or self-serving – as per David’s reply above.

      • I don’t post all of that here since people have “beat down” such posts as “crazy” talk or self-serving – as per David’s reply above.

        “You threw up your hands pretty fast.” as in you threw them up before you even started. You didn’t post all that stuff here because you know it’ll be torn to shreds for the nonsense that it is – revealing that even you don’t believe in it otherwise you’d have the courage of your convictions to not only post it but to attempt to intelligently defend it when the criticism starts flying. You did neither and you wonder by David replied to you as he did.

    • In truth,…

      “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” – Inigo Montoya

      They see something real … They are right. Full stop

      your saying it doesn’t make it so.

      $10T in AUM have divested

      You do realize the in order to divest $10T there were other institution out there that were willing to *invest* that $10T. Other than uselessly signaling your virtue, that divestment you tout accomplished ZERO POINT ZERO

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkCa49I6_xw

      Support those authentic individuals who are trying to bring change to the world

      Being “authentic” does not make one right nor does it make the change one wants a good thing. Rather than touting change, try making a case for *how* and *why* the change you want will be a good thing and be willing to listen when others more knowledgeable than you show you *where* you are wrong and *how* and *why* the change you advocate would actually be a bad thing.

      of course the biggest laugh line from your whole misguided post has to be this :
      (hold on, don’t draw out the 10 Commandments of physics – we almost surely know more about that than you, we have physicists from the US Navy’s Energy Group on our team)

      Not only don’t you want to discuss the physics (revealing you at least know how ignorant you are on the subject) you attempt to dodge it with an appeal to borrowed authority. You have “physicists from the US Navy’s Energy Group” on your team? great invite them to come on here and make the case you obviously are incapable of making. What’s that? they won’t be coming here? why am I not surprised.

      • Suggestion: many of the people on this site use logic mixed with gaslighting – taking the most simple minded position of the other person’s argument and then attacking them in the midst of their rebuttal. I can’t say why people here do that, usually it is someone who is insecure who does that.

        >>You do realize the in order to divest $10T there were other institution out there that were willing to *invest* that $10T.

        It is a sign of big capital moving. Markets are being bought by machines, corporate buy backs, and the Fed etc etc. The vast majority of markets are in passive investments that buy the markets. A huge amount of money just moves aimlessly (which is why the next crash will be worse) You FALSELY imply that it is meaningless. You don’t understand markets. You FALSELY implying buying is the same as INVESTING.

        >> Other than uselessly signaling your virtue

        This is ascerbic. You are fighting ghosts. You are proving my points.

        >> that divestment you tout accomplished ZERO POINT ZERO

        Stocks levitate until they don’t.

        >> You have “physicists from the US Navy’s Energy Group” on your team? great invite them to come on here and make the case you obviously are incapable of making.

        Nobody is going to come teach you physics beyond quantum theory on a chat forum. brilliantlightpower.com/theory
        Dive in. Then go to the journal articles and experimental work.

        (You have been off topic long enough, the replies are telling me you have nothing about the topic itself, just push your little off topic stuff for your dreamworld) SUNMOD

        • I see that YOU are listed as a Scientist, but doesn’t reveal the science degree on your Linkedin website.

          https://ca.linkedin.com/in/navid-sadikali

          Excerpt:

          “I innovate and bring to life transformational opportunities that go unseen. I have the design, business and people skills to discover and imagine new directions and the perseverance to continue when the world pushes back.

          Focus: Advocacy for a fossil fuel alternative – chemical energy source that can save the planet. Supporting transformative understanding in physics that can lead to great progress in energy, material science and chemistry. In short: involved in understanding, creating, and impact modeling of disruptive technologies that can have global scope.”

          ==================

          No one here will try to stop you from pushing alternatives, but you will get get a push back if you continue your style of writing which is paternalistic, dismissive and even insulting. You are talking to people who are scientists, Engineers, Geologists and more.

          Why don’t you just present a case for your position that is a part of the threads topic, while at the same time drop your smarmy, I am better than you overtones, which is a natural turn off.

          There are a number of people here with science based degrees, people like David Middeltion who is a Petroleum Geologist, who wrote this post you have largely ignored in favor of your barely mentioned alternative energy source.

          Your approach to people here needs to change if you want to get anywhere on the topic David started.

          • It’s clear he has no interest in “get(ting) anywhere on the topic David started”. He’s just shilling his product (or as David said “It’s an infomercial”). It’s highly doubtful he even is a scientist, based on the science-free nature of his posts so far.

        • You FALSELY imply that it is meaningless.

          Nothing false about it. It *is* meaningless.

          You don’t understand markets

          your projection is showing.

          Nobody is going to come

          Yeah, I’d already guessed that (I’ll quote myself “What’s that? they won’t be coming here? why am I not surprised”), it wasn’t hard to guess. Based on your insipid fact-free posts, it’s pretty clear the authority you tried to borrow doesn’t even exist. You claim to be a scientist but you’ve not only posted nothing that would give anyone reason to believe that is true, you actively refuse to post anything that would give anyone reason to believe that is true. You might think you are clever, but you are fooling no one. No one’s buying the snake oil you are selling.

          • Most of my post was about having a positive attitude and not issuing vitriol.

            to borrow a phrase. Have you heard of the psychological concept of “projection.” calling people luddites, telling them to stop whining, claiming that they wouldn’t be able to understand the science (and that you somehow have a superior knowledge of the subject backed by non-existent experts – despite the fact that you’ve shown absolutely no scientific ability in any of your posts) etc.

            This is in a nutshell is what I was writing about – moral outrage –

            Do you even read what you write? You entire posting in this thread has been filled with your own moral outrage. Like I said, you aren’t being clever and you aren’t fooling anyone. everyone here sees right through you.

            Somebody above say “we’ll rip it to shreds.” Rosy, exactly the type of environment where free and challenging ideas are cherished.

            Don’t pretend you have any interest in “free and challenging ideas” because if you did, you would have posted such ideas in detail (instead of refusing to even talk about the science) and welcomed challenges instead of posting your moral outrage screed wrapped around an infomercial. That you say “I don’t write a pointed piece like that willy nilly – it is from watching hundreds of interactions and comments on this site” only confirms that you have ZERO interest in “free and challenging ideas”. As I said in one of my other replies “you threw up your hands before you even started”.

            (Please no more replies to his off topic comments) SUNMOD

          • (Please no more replies to his off topic comments) SUNMOD

            Fair enough. It’s pretty clear by now that he’s got nothing to say beyond being insulting and shilling for his snake oil project. Consider this my last response to his nonsense.

    • Navid – is your commentary a satire? If so, it is a really good one – thank you.

      If you are serious, you are beyond help – you are writing delusional nonsense.

      (He is being serious, but wearing out my patience in waiting for him to get on topic, so far he has no answer to what David wrote at all, which makes him look very weak for a guy who claims to be a Scientist) SUNMOD

    • Navid
      This “breakthrough technology” was initially reported in early 2002
      https://twitter.com/EndOfPetrol/status/1185253155300347904
      Why would you be rolling it out in late 2019 (17 years later) as the solution with out a comprehensive list of commercialization projects and homes heated with this technology. Have they made any progress in 17+ years?
      Did you note they talk about 750 C (1382 F) temperatures which I have designed equipment for but it requires more exotic/expensive materials and normally presents significant engineering challenges. Even Stainless steels have low strength properties at this temperature due to a well known characteristic as creep rupture.
      Also did you know that hydrogen atoms are mentioned and that most of the hydrogen produced in the world comes from fossil fuels and all the CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere from the hydrogen manufacture.
      My skepticism for you energy source comes from working in the energy business for over 50 years on a wide range of activities including working with PhD physicists, chemists on numerous research projects, which helps put a perspective on what I put my money on. I also worked on numerous bio-fuel projects none of which made it to successful commercialization despite huge expenditures of tax dollars. I even helped design some large demonstration equipment for CO 2 capture 10 years ago which works on small scale but yet to be commercialized for some reason.
      There is a huge step from lab experiments and press releases intended to get funding and Commercialization which requires a lot of Engineering and cost benefit analysis.
      Agree the Navy should be looking long term for energy to move their ships and planes but don’t expect anything for many decades.

      • Sadikali

        You said, “The learning curve for new innovation is decades.” Is that why we are still waiting for the internet to take off?

  39. Technical, facts, etc…

    a) Society is outlawing fossil fuels
    b) There are good reasons for that
    c) A new energy source from atomic hydrogen exists and many companies are working on it. Many are secretive about it including 3 letter agencies. This energy source is already is in the field, cheaper, more energy dense, and clean unlike fossil fuels. Think 500kW/m3 at minimum in gen 1.
    d) The large asset managers are transitioning away from fossil fuel investments – however strong the merits of that are not (and not so strong if we dont have c)
    e) With higher energy density sources than fossil fuels we need to start to imagine a planetary cleanup and move to sustainability the would be unprecedentedly positive – thus the young engineers must be enlisted

    A multi-trillion transition is already underway, with divestment leading investment.

    Am I talking my book, of course!

    If you have something to contribute professionally we can talk more. But everything you need to know has been explicated by (SNIP, no more advertising the website) SUNMOD

    • A) Environmentalists have been trying to outlaw so called “fossil fuels” for years, they fight Nuclear power as well. Most people still prefer “fossil fuels” and willing to support it.

      B) Funny that you didn’t say what those reasons are…..

      C) No mention of Atomic Hydrogen as an energy source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/atomic-hydrogen

      Hydrogen GAS as a fuel for cars and homes, have not excited many due its numerous technical problems and inherent danger.

      D) No evidence presented, but a lot of evidence that many new “fossil fuel” power generation are being built around the world.

      Are 1,600 new coal-fired power plants being constructed today?

      https://www.politifact.com/west-virginia/statements/2019/sep/20/cecil-roberts/are-1600-new-coal-fired-power-plants-being-constru/

      At least 458 to as high as 903 new Coal Power plants are being built. Natural Gas for homes are on the increase too.

      E) What Nuclear Power generation, Thorium, Fusion power….., snicker. Why are you ignoring them?

      So far you have produced a lot of babble with ZERO evidence to support it.

      You have never presented a case against Davids post at all, could it be because you have no argument to offer against what he wrote OR, could it because you are here to shill for your alternative power source you are so hilariously freaking excited over?

      Pathetic effort from an alleged scientist.

      • B) Funny that you didn’t say what those reasons are…..

        Heh, yeah. He’s strong on assertion but non-existent on details.

      • You just saw the moderator SNIP a website with experimental and theoretical papers. Back earlier in the thread was a link to a theoretical paper by German Johannes Conrads – as expected nobody mentioned it. If you want to study science go read the papers on hydrino energy in the Journal of Hydrogen Energy and elsewhere. I am bringing it to your attention and you are raging out because there is something you don’t know… go read the original message – don’t attack people who are authentic, transform your attitude from indignation to imagination

        >> babble, hilariously freaking excited over, alleged scientist, shill

        See what I’m saying? These jokes are attacks. Nobody is free to discuss anything when you can’t behave with civility.

        (You have a big problem with getting on topic, you have been snipped and asked to get on topic, you ignored my warnings, now I will inform the owner of the blog about your several POLICY warnings you have ignored:

        Some off topic comments may get deleted, don’t take it personally, it happens. Commenters that routinely lead threads astray in areas that are not relevant or are of personal interest only to them may find these posts deleted.”

        Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted…”) SUNMOD

        • I see that Navid, has decided to present a dishonest misleading claim, this is his complaint he made:

          “>> babble, hilariously freaking excited over, alleged scientist, shill

          See what I’m saying? These jokes are attacks. Nobody is free to discuss anything when you can’t behave with civility.”

          Here is what I actually wrote that he responded to:

          “So far you have produced a lot of babble with ZERO evidence to support it.

          You have never presented a case against Davids post at all, could it be because you have no argument to offer against what he wrote OR, could it because you are here to shill for your alternative power source you are so hilariously freaking excited over?

          Pathetic effort from an alleged scientist.”

          They are attacks on what you WRITE about and how you BEHAVE over what you think and write about.

          Meanwhile you completely ignored my A-E reply to YOUR rare on topic post………., LOL

          • Meanwhile you completely ignored my A-E reply to YOUR rare on topic post………., LOL

            Indeed. if you read over his replies, he consistently skips over the most substantive parts of posts in order to focus on cherry picked bits to push his martyr narrative that people are somehow “gaslighting” him (another word for which the Montoya quote would be apt) and that nobody “wants to discuss anything”. The fact is he’s the one refusing to discuss anything of substance and instead tries to argue by assertion and borrowed authority.

          • There are people on this board who don’t engage in civil discourse. Form is as important as the function . Remember – I didn’t attack anyone personally, I said there is a general need to change attitudes.

            To the substance of the topic – is the fossil fuel industry coming to a close – I introduced new forward looking ideas that make this possible and imminent. Two mega trends. They were rejected like a virus and led to the classic distortion and attacks:
            – because you are here to SHILL for your alternative power source you are so hilariously freaking excited over?
            – So far you have produced a lot of BABBLE with ZERO evidence
            – HAWKING snake oil.
            – hijacking for your infomercial

            I’m not trying to teach physics or divert from the subject at hand so I gently introduced some new ideas. Two links and many facts were introduced. It is a valid line of reasoning, and almost any idea is rejected like a virus – with the ensuing personal attacks.

            This is a chat board. A chat board! You get a chance to learn, just be nice like you would in the real world if your kids were on the other end.

            If you don’t believe new energy tech is real, go ask Google why they are working on it (see MIT Tech review), go ask tens of companies why they are working on it. If you believe a new primary energy source may exist, then you are 50% of the way there.

  40. Technical, facts, etc…

    “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” – Inigo Montoya

    a) Society is outlawing fossil fuels

    No, society is not (as evidenced by the fact that they continue to use the stuff in great quantities). Politicians of certain political persuasions are certainly trying. politicians do not equal society.

    b) There are good reasons for that

    No there really isn’t. But do enlighten us, what are these “good reason” you think exist.

    c) A new energy source from atomic hydrogen exists and many companies are working on it.

    great, where can we see it in action. A real working commercial operation. What’s that? there are no working commercial operations? then you are at best hyping prematurely at worst hawking snake oil. Judging by your posts thus far its definitely the later, and as I said no one’s buying.

    d) The large asset managers are transitioning away from fossil fuel investments

    which, again, is meaningless. They’re not transitioning away because fossil fuels are bad investments, they’re transitioning away to show how virtuous they are about “saving the planet”. And remember you can’t sell your stocks with out there being willing buyers to buy it up.

    e) With higher energy density sources than fossil fuels

    Sounds great, Let’s see the real world commercial operations. Oh, that’s right there aren’t any.

    Am I talking my book, of course!

    About the only honest thing you’ve said so far.

    If you have something to contribute professionally we can talk more

    How about do you have something relevant to contribute to the subject of David’s post that you’ve been hijacking for your infomercial? thought not.

    • D. Investment is leaving for places where there are few or no restrictions on venting and flaring.

      Or where there is high demand for natural gas at a high enough price that it is conserved.

      The shallow gas industry in Alberta might have made money once. Once.

  41. Looks like Ford F-Series pickup trucks will still be outselling all EV’s in 2050.

    The “march of technology” means that “oil’s days are numbered in decades, if not centuries. (emphasis added)

    I thought you didn’t do predictions?

    Regarding your first prediction…once again, you report an EIA long-term modelling projection as though it has any semblance to future reality. You appear completely unable to distinguish reality from the “fantasy land” (your words) that the EIA long-term modelling team occupies. Virtually everyone who is knowledgeable about the subject agrees that the future of light duty vehicle transportation is by autonomous electric vehicles, operated by fleet owners in mobility-as-a-service mode.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/07/former-gm-vice-chairman-bob-lutz-self-driving-cars-will-take-over.html

    https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Sustainability/Our%20Insights/An%20integrated%20perspective%20on%20the%20future%20of%20mobility/An-integrated-perspective-on-the-future-of-mobility-article.ashx

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2017/09/14/the-future-of-electric-vehicles-in-the-u-s-part-1-65-75-new-light-duty-vehicle-sales-by-2050/#76551c18e289

    https://www.globalxetfs.com/future-of-transportation-is-autonomous-electric/

    https://www.disruptordaily.com/future-of-transportation/

    So do you wanna bet that “Ford F-series (gasoline) pickup trucks will still be outselling all EV’s (sic) in 2050″? I’ll give you 20-to-1 odds on up to a $20 bet.

    Regarding your second prediction…”…if not centuries”?! C’mon! You apparently don’t even have the slightest idea what transportation will look like in 2050 (see your first prediction)…so what in the world makes you think you have any idea what transportation and oil use will look like in 2100, 2150, or 2200?

    Do you seriously think that anyone in 1919 would know what transportation would look like even in 1969, let alone 2019 or 2069?

    P.S. But as long as you’re now making predictions for “decades, if not centuries” into the future, what is your prediction for what year U.S. coal-fired electrical generation will go below 1000 thousand GWh…the bottom of your “Coal keeps on chugging away” graph?

    https://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2018/02/whos-in-fantasy-land.html

    • The “march of technology” means that “oil’s days are numbered in decades, if not centuries… Is not a prediction. It’s a bleeding obvious statement of fact.

      The “march of technology” is the reason why every “end of oil” prediction has been wrong and will remain wrong for decades, if not centuries.

      • (Need to make a decision, can’t have this fine comment sit here) SUNMOD

        Mark,

        I think David is on solid ground regarding the future of the oil industry.

        I read through your links and noted there were a lot of assertions, but very little in the way of data or logic to support the assertions. I agree with you that autonomous vehicles and transportation as a service (TAAS) will come to dominate the vehicle market. However, an autonomous vehicle can be powered by anything; batteries, an internal combustion engine, fuel cell, or even compressed air. Whether electric or internal combustion vehicles dominate the future market comes down to economics and project execution capabilities, and I believe we can make a fair estimate of this.

        Assumptions:

        1. There will be no Idiot Swan events. There will be no outright bans on drilling or frac’ing. Tax policy will not provide heavy subsidies for renewable power or batteries, nor will tax policy unduly burden oil and gas production.
        2. The difference in purchase price for an EV and ICE vehicle will be almost immaterial to the economics of vehicle choice. This is based on the assumption that TAAS will push vehicle lifetime mileage closer to 1,000,000 miles, at which point the dominant economic driver will be fuel cost.

        Vehicle Fuel Cost:

        Based on today’s cost of gasoline and electricity (my latest bill) the cost of each at the wheel is:

        • Gasoline: $0.3415/kWh ($2.50/gallon, 20% efficiency)
        • Electricity: $0.2667/kWh ($0.16/kWh, 60% efficiency)

        (efficiencies from your link https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2017/09/14/the-future-of-electric-vehicles-in-the-u-s-part-1-65-75-new-light-duty-vehicle-sales-by-2050/#76551c18e289)

        This places gasoline at a 30% price disadvantage relative to electricity (not the more than 2:1 price disadvantage in your link https://www.globalxetfs.com/future-of-transportation-is-autonomous-electric)

        So if fuel cost for an electric vehicle is lower and the initial purchase price differential is assumed to not be a factor and TAAS effectively eliminates the charging management and range issues that affect EV acceptance, then why do I believe the EV’s will not take over the world anytime soon?

        Simple. I have reason to believe that the cost of electricity will rise both because of rising demand and the move to renewable power generation. I also have reason to believe that the availability of electricity will be a constraining factor; we just can’t build it fast enough.

        The Future Cost of Electricity:

        Moving to 100% renewable electricity power generation will considerably increase the cost of electricity.

        The installed cost of solar PV, wind, and for comparison combined cycle natural gas turbines (CCGT) are:

        • Solar: $3,000/kW (multiple sources)
        • Wind: $1,400/kW (https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/windenergycost.php and
        https://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/index-43.html )
        • CCGT: $965/kW (EIA)

        Of course to get the costs on a consistent basis we should include the cost of fuel for the expected life of the shortest lived capital investment, estimated at 20 years.

        • Natural Gas NPV: $3,108/kW ($4.00/MSCF 2019 pricing from EIA, 2.5% interest rate)

        This yields an equivalent installed cost for a combined cycle natural gas turbine of $4,073/kW.

        So it appears that renewables really are cheaper, quite a bit cheaper, than all the other power sources. Could the proponents of renewable power be right?

        No. We all know that we have to look at what it costs to provide reliable 24/7/365 power, which is a vastly different proposition than installing ‘nameplate’ power. To supply reliable power requires the installation of additional solar PV or wind turbines to produce enough power above immediate consumption to meet 24/7 power demand and batteries and inverters to store the power until needed. So we need installed cost for inverters and batteries:

        • Inverters: $392/kW (National Renewable Energy Laboratory: “2018 U.S. Utility-Scale
        Photovoltaics-Plus-Energy Storage System Costs Benchmark”)
        • Batteries: $73/kWh (Also from “The Future of Electric Vehicles”, 2030 estimated
        cost)

        Based on this the estimated installed cost to deliver 1 kW of power continuously is:

        • Solar: $17,792/kW
        • Wind: $11,246/kW
        • CCGT: $ 4,244/kW

        Assumptions:

        • Solar: 8 hours minimum daylight in winter, no more than 1 day without sunlight, and 2 days to recharge after discharge.
        • Wind: Average generation at 30% of nameplate, no more than 1 day without wind, and 2 days to recharge after discharge.
        • CCGT: 85% mechanical availability.

        Obviously how you play with the assumptions has a huge impact on cost. For solar I assumed a southwest desert climate with relatively long winter days and short periods without sunlight. Similarly for wind I assumed nearly continuous wind as one would expect in the mountain west.

        What’s driving the cost is the need to install 5+ kW of nameplate capacity plus 40+ hours of batteries to support 1 kW of reliable 24/7/365 power. Costs escalate precipitously for conditions in the northeast (less sunlight, less wind). This is just a hugely inefficient use of capital (but an interesting spreadsheet exercise.)

        Based on the installed cost we can estimate consumer power cost:

        • Solar: $0.4059/kWh
        • Wind: $0.2566/kWh
        • CCGT: $0.0486/kWh

        I’ve assumed a 5 year simple payout on capital invested. The fuel component of the power cost for the CCGT is the price of natural gas prorated for turbine efficiency of 60%.

        When we including delivery charges we get a total cost of:

        • Solar: $0.4959/kWh
        • Wind: $0.3466/kWh
        • CCGT: $0.1386/kWh

        I chose a flat $0.09/kWh based on my power bill. This is likely underestimated in all cases as I would expect solar and wind to have higher delivery costs due to the geographically diffuse nature of the systems and the CCGT cost excludes natural gas delivery to the plant.

        Vehicle Fuel Cost in a Renewable World:

        The cost of power at the wheel again assuming 60% conversion efficiency in an EV.

        • Solar: $0.8265/kWh
        • Wind: $0.5777/kWh
        • CCGT: $0.2310/kWh
        • Gasoline: $0.3415/kWh

        As we can see solar and wind are not at all competitive with gasoline, running respectively 242% and 169% relative to the price of gasoline. This is not going to incentivize anyone to buy electric cars; certainly not fleet owners. However we can see that natural gas retains a strong economic advantage over gasoline and assuming suitable supplies could support the conversion to electric cars.

        The Future Cost of Gasoline:

        Should electric vehicles start to reduce the demand for oil I would expect to see the price of gasoline drop, potentially quite a lot. On the low side the price of oil is limited by the cash flow requirements to keep production going. In refining margins would drop through cost cutting and the closure of high cost/bbl refineries and is limited by cash flow requirements. Speculating here but in dire circumstances gasoline prices could drop to between $1.00 and $1.50/gallon.

        The one thing we can say with reasonable certainty is that the supply of oil will be adequate for the next several decades. Therefore the cost of gasoline is not likely to rise precipitously and drive the economics toward electric vehicles.

        Converting Transportation to Electricity:

        What I never see mentioned is what it will cost to convert all the fossil fuels used in transportation to renewable electricity. Does nobody think about these things?

        Thinking about it, in 2016 fossil fuels used for transportation represented 26.44 quads of energy (EIA). To put this in perspective fossil fuels represented 23.54 quads to electricity generation; transportation and electricity generation consume about the same amount of fossil fuels. The total fossil fuel contribution to electricity generation and transportation comes in at 49.98 quads. The cost to convert this infrastructure to renewables is (in $Trillions):

        Transportation Electricity Total
        • Solar $15.73 $14.00 $29.73
        • Wind $9.94 $8.85 $18.79

        These numbers exclude distribution costs and EV support infrastructure costs. If we call this an additional 25% to 50% above solar or wind installation costs then we are talking in round numbers $24 to $44 trillion. To put this in perspective the GDP of the US in 2018 was $20.5 trillion. To eliminate fossil fuels in transportation and electrical power generation by 2050 we need to invest $1 – 1.5 trillion every year, or 5-7.5% of the US’s GDP. (Note that this excludes nuclear and fossil fuels used by industry.)

        Another way to look at this is we need to execute 1,000 – 1,500 separate billion dollar projects every year. My personal experience with multi-billion dollar projects is they take 8-10 years to execute and finding qualified people is like finding hen’s teeth. The management, engineering, and skilled trade resources are just not out there to execute in effect 10,000 separate billion dollar projects in parallel for 30 years. (Finding qualified people for a multi-billion project during the financial downturn in 2008-2010 was just about impossible.) Finally, if we were to try the competition for resources would drive engineering and construction costs up tremendously.

        Wrapping Up:

        Oil will remain the primary transportation fuel for the next several decades. While a superficial look at today’s prices for electricity and gasoline seem to indicate a strong economic driver for converting automobiles from internal combustion to electric a deeper look at the probable future cost of electricity versus gasoline shows a strong economic advantage for gasoline over electricity derived from renewable sources. Electricity sourced from natural gas (combined cycle gas turbines) retains an economic advantage over gasoline and assuming suitable supplies exist could support the conversion to electric cars.

        Regardless of economics the large cost and skilled labor demands of converting the economy to renewables makes it highly unlikely that a significant portion of the fossil fuel supplied portion of the transportation market can be converted to renewables by 2050. Even if we limit the project scope to using natural gas derived electricity to support the conversion to battery powered cars limited management and technical resources will likely constrain the pace of the conversion.

        [This should be made full posting, and not just a comment. Mod]
        [Concur. .mod]

        • I think David is on solid ground regarding the future of the oil industry.

          David wrote, “Looks like Ford F-Series pickup trucks will still be outselling all EV’s in 2050. (US Energy Information Administration)”

          Do you think he is on “solid ground” with that statement?

    • I thought you didn’t do predictions?

      Mark you are being dishonest. you selectively quoted to get that first prediction, here is the full quote:

      Figure 2. Looks like Ford F-Series pickup trucks will still be outselling all EV’s in 2050. (US Energy Information Administration)

      note the parenthetical – it’s an observation based on the data provided by the EIA, David’s not the one making a prediction here, EIA is. Since you were caught in a blatantly dishonest comment right at the start of the post, I didn’t bother reading any further as life is too short to waste it reading the babblings of obvious liars.

      • Drat, messed up the html tagging everything starting with “note the parenthetical” should be outside the blockquote, thusly:

        note the parenthetical – it’s an observation based on the data provided by the EIA, David’s not the one making a prediction here, EIA is. Since you were caught in a blatantly dishonest comment right at the start of the post, I didn’t bother reading any further as life is too short to waste it reading the babblings of obvious liars.

        • You quoted David Middleton:

          Figure 2. Looks like Ford F-Series pickup trucks will still be outselling all EV’s in 2050. (US Energy Information Administration)

          And then you state:

          note the parenthetical – it’s an observation based on the data provided by the EIA, David’s not the one making a prediction here, EIA is.

          If David doesn’t know that the EIA’s projection of EV sales in the U.S. in 2050 is utter rubbish, he is ignorant. If he does know that the EIA’s projection of EV sales in the U.S. in 2050 is utter rubbish, then he is being dishonest if he writes, “Looks like Ford F-Series pickup trucks will still be outselling all EV’s(sic) in 2050…” even if he includes the parenthetical.

          So either he is ignorant about likely EV sales in the U.S. in 2050, or he is being dishonest. (Or perhaps both.) Take your pick.

  42. The “march of technology” means that “oil’s days are numbered in decades, if not centuries… Is not a prediction. It’s a bleeding obvious statement of fact.

    Yes, the same thing could have been said in 1909 about the age of the horse. If someone had said in 1909, “horses’ days are numbered in decades, if not centuries” it would have been a “bleeding obvious statement of fact”…which would provide absolutely zero useful information about the future.

    So congratulations, David. Another statement that provides absolutely no useful information about the future. Just like your statement that “Coal keeps on chugging away”…apparently, there’s absolutely no set of future events that will cause you to acknowledge that was incorrect.

    But what about you claim that it, “Looks like Ford F-Series pickup trucks will still be outselling all EV’s in 2050”? Was that also a “bleedingly obvious statement of fact”? Or a prediction?

    P.S. And I’m still waiting for your prediction of what year U.S. coal-fired electrical generation will go below 1000 thousand GWh…the bottom of your “Coal keeps on chugging away” graph that extended out to 2050 with a plateau above 1200 thousand GWh. (Note: This fact may not have reached the “fantasy land” in which you live, but coal-fired generation was *below* that 1200 thousand GWh level *last year* in the U.S. I’d say that’s a bit before the year 2050, wouldn’t you?

    • Unlike babbling idiots, I don’t do predictions.

      Exactly which advances in technology made horses invalidate constant predictions of their demise?

      Wake me up when it looks like US EV sales will overtake Ford F-Series pickup trucks.


      The math doesn’t get much better for EV’s when non-OECD nations are included…

      • Part 1

        Unlike babbling idiots, I don’t do predictions.

        Yeah, right. You take the EIA’s already ridiculous projections, and add your own facile and obviously erroneous analysis, to come up with:

        Figure 2. Looks like Ford F-Series pickup trucks will still be outselling all EV’s in 2050.</blockbuster

        It looks like that to you, does it? That's because you're one monumentally ignorant and analytically incompetent twit. I'll give you $100 if you can find anyone with an engineering degree who has ever spent even 1 year at a company that makes autos who will come here to WUWT and state for the record that he or she thinks there is even a 50/50 chance that “Ford F-series gasoline and diesel pickup trucks will still be outselling all EV’s in the U.S. in 2050.” And I’ll also simultaneously donate $100 to the charity of your choice if you find person. And I challenge you to offer me even $10 (up to $50) for every person with an engineering degree who has worked at least year at an auto company who thinks there’s less than a 50/50 chance. And I’ll donate another $50 to the charity of your choice if you make that offer.

        You obviously think you’re hot stuff. I think you’re a profoundly ignorant partisan hack. And dishonest to boot. And based on your analysis above that related to your claim about EVs in 2050, I don’t think you could perform a decent technical analysis of likely future U.S. light duty vehicle sales trends if your life depended on it.

        Fortunately, we have a way to determine whether you know what you’re talking about, or whether you are an ignorant, dishonest, and analytically incompetent partisan hack, as I think.

        1) I will give you 50-to-1 odds on a bet up to $20 that U.S. light duty EV (that’s BEV plus PHEV) sales will exceed Ford F150 (gasoline and diesel) truck sales before 2050. That means that if you bet $20 and light duty EV sales do exceed F150 gasoline/diesel truck vehicle sales before 2050, you give me $20. But if you bet $20 and I lose, I’ll give you ***$1000***. Further, to show my good faith, I’ll send you whatever amount you bet when we agree on the bet. So you’ll just send my money back plus whatever amount we bet if–actually WHEN–you lose. Further, if you even make this bet, I’ll give $100 to the charity of your choice.

        2) I will give you 4-to-1 odds on a bet of up to $50 that U.S. light duty (BEV plus PHEV) sales will exceed Ford 150 gasoline and truck sales before 2035. I’ll do the same good-faith arrangement described above for this bet. And if you even make this bet, I’ll give $50 to the charity of your choice.

        How about it? Feelin’ lucky, punk?

        P.S. In Part 2, I will make you more fabulous offers. If you accept them, they might even educate you. If you’re capable of being educated.

        • Please feel free to delete these improperly formatted comments. (My email program on which I composed them changed the closing “/blockquote” to “/blockbuster” and I didn’t catch the error.)

      • The previous incorrectly formatted comments can be entirely deleted, and substituted with:

        Part 1

        Unlike babbling idiots, I don’t do predictions.

        Yeah, right. You take the EIA’s already ridiculous projections, and add your own facile and obviously erroneous analysis, to come up with:

        Figure 2. Looks like Ford F-Series pickup trucks will still be outselling all EV’s in 2050.

        It looks like that to you, does it? That’s because you’re one monumentally ignorant and analytically incompetent twit. I’ll give you $100 if you can find anyone with an engineering degree who has ever spent even 1 year at a company that makes autos who will come here to WUWT and state for the record that he or she thinks there is even a 50/50 chance that “Ford F-series gasoline and diesel pickup trucks will still be outselling all EV’s in the U.S. in 2050.” And I’ll also simultaneously donate $100 to the charity of your choice if you find person. And I challenge you to offer me even $10 (up to $50) for every person with an engineering degree who has worked at least year at an auto company who thinks there’s less than a 50/50 chance. And I’ll donate another $50 to the charity of your choice if you make that offer.

        You obviously think you’re hot stuff. I think you’re a profoundly ignorant partisan hack. And dishonest to boot. And based on your analysis above that related to your claim about EVs in 2050, I don’t think you could perform a decent technical analysis of likely future U.S. light duty vehicle sales trends if your life depended on it.

        Fortunately, we have a way to determine whether you know what you’re talking about, or whether you are an ignorant, dishonest, and analytically incompetent partisan hack, as I think.

        1) I will give you 50-to-1 odds on a bet up to $20 that U.S. light duty EV (that’s BEV plus PHEV) sales will exceed Ford F150 (gasoline and diesel) truck sales before 2050. That means that if you bet $20 and light duty EV sales do exceed F150 gasoline/diesel truck vehicle sales before 2050, you give me $20. But if you bet $20 and I lose, I’ll give you ***$1000***. Further, to show my good faith, I’ll send you whatever amount you bet when we agree on the bet. So you’ll just send my money back plus whatever amount we bet if–actually WHEN–you lose. Further, if you even make this bet, I’ll give $100 to the charity of your choice.

        2) I will give you 4-to-1 odds on a bet of up to $50 that U.S. light duty (BEV plus PHEV) sales will exceed Ford 150 gasoline and truck sales before 2035. I’ll do the same good-faith arrangement described above for this bet. And if you even make this bet, I’ll give $50 to the charity of your choice.

        How about it? Feelin’ lucky, punk?

        P.S. In Part 2, I will make you more fabulous offers. If you accept them, they might even educate you. If you’re capable of being educated.

        • Part 2

          I will send you (or the charity of your choice) $10 for every one of the following questions you can answer correctly, up to $100. (I’ll be the judge of whether your answers are correct, but I’ll accept binding arbitration if we can mutually agree on an appeals judge.) However, I will only send you $10 for every correct answer if you try to answer all parts of all the questions. On multiple-part questions, I’ll give you $10 if you answer as many or more parts correctly than you answer incorrectly. Further, for every question you answer correctly, I’ll give a further $10 to the charity of your choice, up to an additional $100.

          1) On page 128 of the EIA summary of AEO 2019, hyperlinked below, what is the Reference case estimate for U.S. EV sales in 2025? What were U.S. Ford F-series sales in 2018? What is the slope of the regression line, in F-series units per year, in your analysis of recent F-series truck sales? If one extrapolates from 2018 to 2025 using that slope, what number is obtained for F-series sales in 2025? Which number is greater, the EIA’s AEO 2019 Reference case estimate for EV sales in 2025 or the calculated value for F-series sales in 2025?

          https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/aeo2019.pdf

          2) Who is Mark Reuss? Do you think he knows more about potential trends in future auto/truck sales and technology than you? What has he said about the future of EVs?

          3) What were GM’s approximate U.S. vehicle sales in 2016, 2017, or 2018? How do total GM vehicle sales compare to Ford F-series sales in the same year?

          4) Can you name at least two auto companies with a market cap above $10B (other than Tesla) that have publicly announced long-term plans to produce exclusively electric vehicles?

          5) From the EIA AEO 2019 summary below: For the reference case, what are the projected number of light duty vehicle sales in 2018 and 2050? What are the projected percentages of trucks in 2018 and 2050? Of the “trucks,” what percentage are large pickup trucks in 2018 and 2050? What are the EIA’s projected Reference case PHEV and BEV (you know what those are, right?) sales in 2050?

          6) Based on your answers to question #5, and any other data you think are appropriate, what do you calculate will be the number of F-series trucks sold in the U.S. in 2050? Compare this number to the EIA’s estimate the total number of PHEV and BEV vehicles sold in 2050. You must show your work for credit.

          7) From the Bloomberg NEF blog post, “A Behind the Scenes Take on Lithium-ion Battery Prices,” what is the approximate cost of an EV battery pack in 2018? What did BloombergNEF estimate would be the cost of a battery pack in 2024 and 2030?

          8) From the graph below, what gasoline cost ($/gallon) is comparable to the EV battery pack prices for 2018, 2024, and 2030 from question #7:

          https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/GJ2mb/s3/ev-competitive.jpg

          9) What percentage of new global vehicle sales does Bloomberg NEF estimate will be electric in 2040?

          10) What did Bill Ford of Ford Motor Company say at the Detroit Auto Show in January 2018 about Ford investment in electric vehicles, and the number of EV models Ford plans to have by 2022?

          11) Does Ford plan to introduce an HEV and/or BEV version of the F150 pickup truck?

Comments are closed.