Essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Cam_S; Other than the Covid lockdown dip, there is no evidence of a drop in demand for oil.
Robert Lyman: The ‘truth about oil’ is that the world keeps using more of it
It is time to confront the illusory truth about oil for the sham that it is
Robert Lyman, Special to Financial Post
Published Jan 05, 2023 • Last updated 18 hours ago • 2 minute readWhat psychologists refer to as “illusory truth” is the tendency people have to believe anything, no matter how false, so long as they hear it repeated often enough. Proponents of climate alarm endlessly repeat that the world is using less and less oil and that this trend is relentless and inevitable. As their logic goes, reducing and eventually ending oil production is merely facilitating a trend that is happening anyway. But that “truth” is completely illusory.
The 2022 edition of the BP Statistical Review of World Energy provides data on global demand for crude oil. According to the review, between 2002 and 2019, total world demand rose by 19.5 million barrels per day, from 78.3 million to 97.7 million. The annual average increase from 2009 to 2019 was over one million barrels per day per year. This is the fastest absolute growth in oil demand over a comparable period ever.
…
The data for 2022 are not yet available, but reports from the U.S. Energy Information Administration indicate that global oil demand has resumed its pre-pandemic trend of large annual increases. That’s not surprising, given the experience of 2009-10. As the chart shows, consumption fell sharply following the financial crisis but then after about two years was back on essentially the same growth path as before.
…
Read more: https://financialpost.com/opinion/truth-about-oil-world-keeps-using-more
Interestingly there does seem to be a lot of pent up demand for electric vehicles, if only they were cheaper, had more range, and were easier to recharge.
Interest in EVs has grown substantially, survey shows
Still, initial cost and concerns around range and charging logistics are holding back many potential buyers.
Published July 8, 2022
U.S. consumer interest in electric vehicles is growing rapidly, according to findings from a Consumer Reports survey released Thursday. This year, 14% of consumers said they would definitely buy or lease an electric-only vehicle if they were to get one today, compared with just 4% in the organization’s 2020 survey.
“What surprised me about the results of the survey is how many Americans really express interest in buying or leasing an EV,” said Mary Greene, senior policy counsel for CR’s sustainability policy team. Greene attributed the change primarily to two factors: the high cost of gas, and people “who are concerned about the impacts on the environment” who are aware that EVs may lessen that impact.
Overall, 71% of respondents in the nationally representative survey of 8,027 U.S. consumers expressed some level of interest in buying or leasing an EV. But just 9% described themselves as “very familiar” with the fundamentals of owning an EV. According to the survey, the top concerns holding consumers back from buying an electric vehicle are charging logistics, how far they can drive before needing to recharge, and the costs associated with buying and maintaining an EV.
…
Read more: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/consumers-ready-buy-electric-vehicle-today-survey/626829/
Even if the price comes down and chargers are built, there is a big issue with electricity availability. The generators and power lines created for households which use 5-20KWh per day are going to faceplant, if lots of people start plugging in EVs, and demand jumps overnight to 60-100KWh per day per household.
This risk of overload is not helped by the fact many of the greenest nations and states also have the biggest capacity issues, unreliable electricity grids. California recently had to ask EV owners to avoid charging during peak electricity use times, after their green energy heavy grid buckled during a heatwave.
At current use when will oil start to run out, what do we do then? That should be driving a move from oil not climate scaremongering.
Short answer is likely never. Every time we come close to running out, a new source is discovered, or more recovery becomes possible from existing fields. When all else fails, nuclear energy could be used to burn limestone and synthesise hydrocarbons from rock. Hydrocarbons are simply too convenient a form of portable energy – until someone builds a briefcase size Mr Fusion, there will always be a use for hydrocarbons, even if we have to synthesise them from scratch.
Take a deep breath and shake off your biases, Eric. 30% efficiency in an ICE is not something we’ll be keeping. The convenience of oil is in large part, the enormous infrastructure we’ve built to support it.
No, the convenience of petroleum is that it is a stable, reasonably safe to handle energy dense liquid which can be rapidly poured into vehicle fuel tanks.
For the same number of miles driven, nuclear derived electricity, synthesised into petrol and burning it at 30% efficiency in an ICE must be at least 3x the cost. Probably more than 4x the cost, actually, vs using it directly into an EV.
TimThetoolMan, while I applaud your general support for nuclear power, as the past President of a company involved in the nuclear energy business, I can state that the regulatory induced cost overruns and permitting risks involved in constructing new nuclear power plants is a fatal flaw. If you succeed in building a new nuclear power plant you will be plagued by legal assaults and targeted for domestic sabotage by ever-more aggressive environmentalist wackadoodles.
I’m pretty sure our remote descendants would have that issue licked by the time it becomes necessary. In the meantime, coal to oil should carry us for a few centuries.
My understanding is coal to oil becomes competitive at around $150 / barrel, which is why the Saudis fret about “demand destruction” every time the price goes too high. That $150 strike price is based on using antiquated NAZI technology, a few years R&D might bring the price way down.
On a per mile driven basis, at least 6x the cost vs using it directly in an EV.
That’s 2x for the conversion to oil and then another 3x for the inefficiency of the ICE. And that doesn’t even cover mining, refining or transport costs.
Probably not going to happen, Eric.
Yep, just try towing your 5th wheel in the winter with an EV.
You will have plenty of time to view the sites, if you can get taxpayers to put recharging stations in the national parks, etc., so that when you must stop every 100 miles or so and charge for HOURS, you will have something to do.
Coal gasification was used to run Germany’s industry and military IN 1944. And you think human ingenuity can’t do even better now?
BTW, al of your comments ignore the transformer losses, the steam generation losses in the reactor, the line losses in transmission, etc. Starting from the source to the charged and discharged ecologically disastrous batteries, what is that for EVs?
And almost everything in a ICE can be recycled.
Yes. During the Jimmy Carter presidency, I worked at the Baytown TX refinery for Exxon. The Exxon Donor Solvent process (coal to oil) was implemented in a pilot plant nearby. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_donor_solvent_process#:~:text=Exxon%20donor%20solvent%20process%20(EDS,a%20substitute%20for%20petroleum%20products.
So as you say, there are other ways to get liquid hydrocarbons.
Thanks David. That process is so NOT in the leftists interest that the wiki is less than a page counting references.
The Nazis actually stole the tech from Standard Oil for converting coal to liquids. The F-22 Raptor is a helluva plane and no consideration whatsoever was given to try to use electric power because electric could not compete with hydrocarbon fuel ….watch aviation because the tech is always moving ahead.
I can fill up and pay in under 10 minutes giving a range of 300 miles before the next petrol station
And if you run out and are stranded on the side of the road, a motorcycle can bring enough refill to get you to a full refill.
I wonder how well that works with batteries ….
“ The convenience of oil is in large part, the enormous infrastructure we’ve built to support it.”
So what is the carbon footprint to build a whole new infrastructure in parallel and throw this one away?
Why is electric at the front of all this? Why not nat gas which is cleaner burning, we have a ton of, and takes only a small changes to engines. Electricity is great for many things but a sub par energy source for others, heating, cooking, water heating, storage, etc… This thinking every problem is a nail and electricity is the hammer.
And normally you would vastly improve on capability’s when replacing infrastructure. Copper to fiber or phone to cell. As of now it’s slower refill times and energy bleed when the car is not being driven.
Who cares? Conflating the non-issue of climate change and fossil fuel usage is a mistake in my opinion.
Fossil fuels are a finite resource and we need to be moving ourselves away from them at a sensible pace. The later we start that the harder it’ll be. At some point it’ll simply be too late and there will be a lot of death involved.
Many people here believe we shouldn’t move until new and better technologies appear but cant understand that its taken us decades of positively incentivised research to get even this far.
Compared to what? Battery electric vehicles are not more efficent. They just disguise the front end generation behind the electric grid. A combine cycle gas turbine generator is more effcinet than a mobile ICE, But it is multiple steps behind the wheels of the vehicle.
Compared to Eric’s suggestion
“When all else fails, nuclear energy could be used to burn limestone and synthesise hydrocarbons from rock. Hydrocarbons are simply too convenient a form of portable energy”
Both start at electricity so arguments about efficiency of generation are irrelevant.
The arctic area, on Russia’s Siberia side, controlled by Russia, has huge oil and gas reserves for hundreds of years, that will be easier to get to with ice breakers year round
The Artic Wildlife Preserve probably ALSO has hundreds of years of oil and gas. no one has been allowed to verify that.
At this point I have 20 down ticks. It’s a question. What’s wrong with a question? If the 20 are suggesting that when oil starts to run out we should keep chasing oil, that’s a bit odd to me. If you think oil will not run out then that might be an answer, if it’s 400 years from now then not an issue now. But 20 downticks…weird.
You have to remember not everyone on this forum is objective. There are many here who will automatically downvote anything that might be construed as “anti-oil” or “anti-right” or “posted by Nick Stokes”.
But it’s not anti oil it’s a question. Someone must have some idea on when we’ll reach real physical peak oil.
You’re pointing out the finite resource, oil, will come to an end someday. One of Eric’s posts explicitly says that’ll never happen and he goes on to say we’ll synthesise it despite it being ridiculously inefficient. It gives a great insight into some of the people here.
I’d love an EV — quiet, starting torque, fewer parts and presumably better reliability. But there are things to fix before being practical for me:
Battery tech or something else will almost get there eventually. But government bureaucrats pushing unready tech locks in pessimal solutions prematurely, and delays any eventual realistic transition.
Powdered metal fuel cells may eventually fill this need – rechargeable energy dense “batteries” which provide better range than any battery or gas tank. But there’s a lot of science between now and powdered metal fueled automobiles.
Yes, and that’s the problem — there are a lot of promising ideas, and governments are pushing too hard on their favorites to allow the best to percolate to the top.
As long as this doesn’t happen often:
https://insideevs.com/news/629514/tesla-mobile-supercharger-fire-baker/amp/
From the article: ““What surprised me about the results of the survey is how many Americans really express interest in buying or leasing an EV,” said Mary Greene, senior policy counsel for CR’s sustainability policy team. Greene attributed the change primarily to two factors: the high cost of gas, and people “who are concerned about the impacts on the environment” who are aware that EVs may lessen that impact.”
The increase to 14 percent can also be attributed to the relentless selling of EV’s on television. The car companies (other than Toyota) are calling EV’s the wave of the future, and the public is buying into the message.
They are advertising battery cars like breakfast cereal and not talking about the high fructose corn syrup.
Correct. Of course, all of the ads conveniently omit that their EVs as advertised cost 2x their conventional ICE versions, nor do they mention the many limitations so often covered here at WUWT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nS0Fdayj8Y
This is no doubt why I see a lot fewer Teslas in winter than in summer!
The Toyota ads I’ve been seeing recently seem to be pushing hybrids….they do mention full BEVs but the main thrust of the ads is not having a fear of running out of charge with a hybrid because it still has a gas engine.
Speaking of hybrids, I can’t help but wonder if that survey made a distinction between BEVs and hybrids….both seem to get grouped under the general “electric vehicle” heading. My bet is that many of these people who say they are interested in or receptive to the idea of “electric cars” would go no further than buying a Prius or some other hybrid vehicle. I’m also betting that the numbers would be much smaller for those who would commit to battery only non-hybrid vehicle.
Heck, if they had asked me, I would be in the “express interest” crowd if it includes hybrid. But, I’d be in the firm “NO” crowd for electric (battery) only. A bit of a difference there….
Yes, even I might be interested in a hybrid, one that doesn’t require it to be plugged in to the grid. And I would buy it from Toyota.
But I’m not in the market for one. I have a perfectly fine gasoline-powered automobile that works just fine, and since I don’t think CO2 is a problem, there is no urgency in my mind to switch to a hybrid.
Which is just more of the propaganda.
Note the huge drop in oil consumption in 2020 due to COVID. Did the trend in CO2 drop accordingly? Nope. Are global temperatures higher than in 2020 now that we’ve started burning more oil? Nope. There is no empirical evidence to support this CO2 drives temperature nonsense.
What I never see discussed, and perhaps because it really doesn’t matter, is the danger of putting all your eggs in one basket, controlled by one industry by one local company.
Currently, the energy to run my vehicles is separate from the energy to run my home. In my opinion this is a good thing. The ability to be mobile is overlooked, especially in times of natural disaster. The availabilty of fossil fuels to generate home electricity when the grid is down should not be squelched.
Diversity in energy sources is necessary.
What’s the point of EVs when the motorized landscape is full of thousands upon thousands of huge diesel powered artics. Without which we’d starve
Posted in error.
The world will never run out of oil. However, it will eventually run out of reasonably priced oil. The US supplied approximately 75% of all new barrels to hit the world market since 2008. The vast majority of those barrels were shale oil. All the early shale oil fields are past peak production. The Permian will likely hit peak production within the next few years. Then what will replace that US 75% contribution factor since 2008 ? It will likely be much higher priced oil from deepwater, the Arctic and other remote locations. At some point the price of oil will cause more easily replaceable portions of demand (i.e. ground transportation) to gravitate to other sources of energy- whatever those end up being.
The price of energy is inbuilt into everything. The price of the replacement sources of energy is dependent on the price of the oil to build them. And the price of oil to build them isn’t only “direct”, it includes the price of everything involved from labour, food, transport, mining, everything.
Put simply, when the cost of energy increases (ie oil), then the cost of everything increases so relatively speaking the cost of producing solar cells stays the same.
While it sounds encouraging that increasing numbers of consumers are “expressing interest” in EVs, surveys have also found, especially in the new year, that people are possibly intending to adopt a fitness/weight loss regimen; but that doesn’t mean the same number will follow through with it. When people see the average price of electrics is $66,000, a $5000-7000 government subsidy still leaves the cost as too high and gives them the impression there’s some sort of collusion between governments and manufacturers. The latter refuses to budge much on price by hoping the incentives will entice customers to buy, while the former has been known to end the subsidies when sales reach a certain level. This has already occurred in Georgia, Ontario, Hong Kong, and Denmark where sales took a big drop once the discounts ended. In other words, EVs are still overpriced with or without incentives.
The Elephant in the Room that no one wants to talk about is that we have yet to discover a clone to fossil fuels that we can MANUFACTURE into all the products and fuels that are the basis of a growing society. Thus, it’s the primary energy source for the 8 billion on this planet!
The captivating and candid 35-minute YouTube video of the interview about the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about: the lack of energy literacy in the bizarre California energy policies can be seen and heard at:
Viewed by 170,000!
According to Zoltan Pozsar: The West has sanctioned 40% of the world’s oil reserves (Russia, Venezuela and Iran) and another 40% of the world’s oil is no longer explicitly partnering with the US (Saudi Arabia, UAE, most of the rest of the Middle East).
Now consider that the US + EU consume 38% of the world’s oil.
Surely this will work out?!?