You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Well new mexico governor decided to make electricity unaffordable
- Thread starter Oilpan4
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
No, that is PNM and Exel (among many, many other utilities) saying that is what they need to replace fossils with clean energy.Oilpan4 said:That's only your delusional green washing.
The cute little 4 hour battery supply will hopefully be able to send out a warning to peoples phones before it goes off line.
READ their IRPs
I didn't vote for any one I was busy dealing with my father funeral and estate during the 2016 election.SageBrush said:Did you vote for Trump ?Oilpan4 said:The only person saying anything about AGW being a hoax on here is you.
Then you accept his message or do not take responsibility for your vote.
Same difference to me.
This is the second or third time I have told you this.
You are the only one pushing AWG as a hoax.
No one else is saying anything to that effect.
You have a lot of problems man.
Whom did you support ?Oilpan4 said:I didn't vote for any oneSageBrush said:Did you vote for Trump ?Oilpan4 said:The only person saying anything about AGW being a hoax on here is you.
Then you accept his message or do not take responsibility for your vote.
Same difference to me.
Whom would you have voted for ?
Why do you ignore the cost of pollution and AGW ?
Go ahead, tell me your stance on AGW and by all means, back it up with science.
GRA
Well-known member
That is the case now, but wasn't always so, both France and the U.S. having increased capacity at a higher rate for a longer time with nukes than anyone has yet achieved with renewables. Again, Smil has the figures in "Energy Transitions". I'll just mention that France has the lowest GHG emissions per capita of any industrialized country, by a wide margin. Their nukes have a relatively low CF (77% vs. 92% for U.S reactors) owing to the fact that France regularly uses them for load-following. Then there's the quantities of steel and cement (and their associated fossil-fuel emissions) needed for construction, far less in the case of a nuke compared to wind or PV, thanks to the much higher power density of nukes.SageBrush said:It is much, much cheaper, and much, much faster to to build renewables than nuclear.GRA said:We simply can't build PV/wind and the necessary transmission and storage infrastructure etc. fast enough
SageBrush said:On the order of 10:1 for each.[/.quote]
We've certainly managed to increase the cost of nukes, partly through incompetence/corruption, partly through improved safety requirements and partly through excessive litigation. France was able to get to 75% of their electricity via nukes (replacing oil after the '73 embargo) in 15 years through concentrating on just a couple of standardized reactor designs (both Westinghouse originally) and then building them in quantity. None of this suggests that nukes will be cheap, easy or without risk, but we know they can handle the baseload job at an affordable price (the cost of building the plants has skyrocketed, but the operating costs remain low), and as yet we can't accomplish that affordably with VR. So, while we can get to 66% or maybe even 80% zero-emission electricty with VR, at the moment we have no way to get to 100%.
GRA
Well-known member
As opposed to scientifically-based ones, as nukes unquestionably have risks. But the total deaths due to all nuclear accidents plus Hiroshima and Nagasaki is several times less than the annual deaths worldwide due to coal pollution (plus mining of same), yet the public mostly ignores the latter while worrying excessively about the former. That's what I mean about "unscientific fears":LeftieBiker said:You lost me at "unscientific fears." I'm out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidentsEnergy accidents
Be sure to look at the chart showing mortality rates per PWh, and then decide which techs are the most/least risks. Now, let me repeat, I am no fan of fission - if I thought we could do it all with renewables now or in the foreseeable future, I'd be the first to say dump the nukes (but only after we dump the coal, oil and NG).Energy resources bring with them great social and economic promise, providing financial growth for communities and energy services for local economies. However, the infrastructure which delivers energy services can break down in an energy accident, sometimes causing much damage, and energy fatalities can occur, and with many systems often deaths will happen even when the systems are working as intended.
Historically, coal mining has been the most dangerous energy activity and the list of historical coal mining disasters is a long one. Underground mining hazards include suffocation, gas poisoning, roof collapse and gas explosions. Open cut mining hazards are principally mine wall failures and vehicle collisions. In the US alone, more than 100,000 coal miners have been killed in accidents over the past century,[1] with more than 3,200 dying in 1907 alone.[2]
According to Benjamin K. Sovacool, 279 major energy accidents occurred from 1907 to 2007 and they caused 182,156 deaths with $41 billion in property damages, with these figures not including deaths from smaller accidents.[3]
However, by far the greatest energy fatalities that result from energy generation by humanity, is the creation of air pollution. The most lethal of which, particulate matter, which is primarily generated from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is (counting outdoor air pollution effects only) estimated to cause 2.1 million deaths annually.
France is always brought up by the pro-nuclear group but they either do not know or decide not to mention that France is not building any new plants and is replacing those at end of service with renewables. This, despite the fact that they have invested truly huge sums into a nuclear industry that they try to export to other countries.GRA said:That is the case now, but wasn't always so, both France and the U.S. having increased capacity at a higher rate for a longer time with nukes than anyone has yet achieved with renewables.
Does HInkley ring a bell ? France is smart enough to not eat its own dog food. From Wikipedia:
That would be $8.2 USD per watt for yanks, although it does not include insurance, O+M, waste disposal or site remediation. As a nuclear proponent I'm sure you can estimate the cost of these undisclosed costs ? By the way, Hinkley Point C was announced by the government in 2010 and is "expected" to go online in 2027. All the other 7 nuclear plants also announced in 2010 are shelved as the UK has wisely pivoted to off-shore wind.Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (HPC) is a project to construct a 3,200 MWe nuclear power station with two EPR reactors in Somerset, England.[3] The proposed site is one of eight announced by the British government in 2010,[4] and in November 2012 a nuclear site licence was granted.[5] On 28 July 2016 the EDF board approved the project,[6] and on 15 September 2016 the UK government approved the project with some safeguards for the investment.[7] The plant, which has a projected lifetime of sixty years, has an estimated construction cost of between £19.6 billion and £20.3 billion.[1][2] The National Audit Office estimates the additional cost to consumers (above the estimated market price of electricity) under the "strike price" will be £50 billion, which 'will continue to vary as the outlook for wholesale market prices shifts'.[8] Financing of the project is still to be finalised, but the construction costs will be paid for by the mainly state-owned EDF of France and state-owned CGN of China.[9]
Oh, and the stable of nuclear plants currently operating in the UK ? Not a one of them is expected to reach the end-of-life schedule originally advertised due to safety issues.
GRA
Well-known member
Hardly a one in a million chance, the risk of that happening in a tsunami had been pointed out previously. A very simple design change could have eliminated the risk, short of a tsunami that would have essentially flooded the entire area east of the mountains and killed millions of people. Yes, Tepco and the government regulators who let them continue business as usual have a lot to answer for. As to uninhabitable for generations and going very wrong:RonDawg said:LeftieBiker said:You lost me at "unscientific fears." I'm out.
I agree.
The thing with nuclear power is despite all the safeguards you put in, if it goes wrong, it goes VERY wrong. And the effects will last years...half-lifes. There's a region of northeast Japan that will be basically uninhabitable for generations because the "one in a million" chance scenario actually did happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster. . . The release of radioactive isotopes from reactor containment vessels was a result of venting in order to reduce gaseous pressure, and the discharge of coolant water into the sea.[5] This resulted in Japanese authorities implementing a 30-km exclusion zone around the power plant and the continued displacement of approximately 156,000 people as of early 2013.[4][6] The number of evacuees has declined to 49,492 as of March 2018.[7] Large quantities of radioactive particles from the incident, including iodine-131 and caesium-134/137, have since been detected around the world. Substantial levels have been seen in California and in the Pacific Ocean.[8][9][10]
The World Health Organization (WHO) released a report that estimates an increase in risk for specific cancers for certain subsets of the population inside the Fukushima Prefecture. A 2013 WHO report predicts that for populations living in the most affected areas there is a 70% higher risk of developing thyroid cancer for girls exposed as infants (the risk has risen from a lifetime risk of 0.75% to 1.25%), a 7% higher risk of leukemia in males exposed as infants, a 6% higher risk of breast cancer in females exposed as infants and a 4% higher risk, overall, of developing solid cancers for females.[11][12]
Preliminary dose-estimation reports by WHO and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) indicate that, outside the geographical areas most affected by radiation, even in locations within Fukushima prefecture, the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer above natural variation in baseline rates are anticipated.[13] In comparison, after the Chernobyl accident, only 0.1% of the 110,000 cleanup workers surveyed have so far developed leukemia, although not all cases resulted from the accident.[14][15][16] However, 167 Fukushima plant workers received radiation doses that slightly elevate their risk of developing cancer.[15][17][18] Estimated effective doses from the accident outside of Japan are considered to be below, or far below the dose levels regarded as very small by the international radiological protection community.[19] The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation is expected to release a final report on the effects of radiation exposure from the accident by the end of 2013.[18]
A June 2012 Stanford University study estimated, using a linear no-threshold model, that the radioactivity release from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant could cause 130 deaths from cancer globally (the lower bound for the estimate being 15 and the upper bound 1100) and 199 cancer cases in total (the lower bound being 24 and the upper bound 1800), most of which are estimated to occur in Japan. Radiation exposure to workers at the plant was projected to result in 2 to 12 deaths.[20] However, a December 2012 UNSCEAR statement to the Fukushima Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety advised that "because of the great uncertainties in risk estimates at very low doses, UNSCEAR does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels."[21]
Note that there is considerable debate within the medical community over whether a Linear Non-Threshold applies, as there are various places around the world (including some cities in the U.S.) that have higher background levels of radiation than Chernobyl, and have had large populations living in the area for generations and in some case millennia, without showing any increased risks.
So there are real risks with nukes, but they pale in comparison to the risks of air pollution. The difference is the deaths from the latter are usually non-spectacular but constant, while the occasional accident in the former gets all the attention. It's like people who are terrified of flying owing to the occasional and always heavily reported accident, but who think nothing of getting in their cars and commuting every day, even though the latter activity is statistically far more risky.
I choose neither, and so should you.GRA said:So there are real risks with nukes, but they pale in comparison to the risks of air pollution.
GRA
Well-known member
You are free to make your choice based on your analysis of the situation just as I will based on mine, but unless/until we can get the majority of the world's populations and governments to agree with either of us and act accordingly, it doesn't matter.SageBrush said:I choose neither, and so should you.GRA said:So there are real risks with nukes, but they pale in comparison to the risks of air pollution.
GRA
Well-known member
Sure, because they want to diversify, and they too have anti-nuclear groups.SageBrush said:France is always brought up by the pro-nuclear group but they either do not know or decide not to mention that France is not building any new plants and is replacing those at end of service with renewables. This, despite the fact that they have invested truly huge sums into a nuclear industry that they try to export to other countries.GRA said:That is the case now, but wasn't always so, both France and the U.S. having increased capacity at a higher rate for a longer time with nukes than anyone has yet achieved with renewables.
Yup EDF has definitely been showing how not to do things with the current gen.SageBrush said:Does HInkley ring a bell ? France is smart enough to not eat its own dog food. From Wikipedia:
That would be $8.2 USD per watt for yanks, although it does not include insurance, O+M, waste disposal or site remediation. As a nuclear proponent I'm sure you can estimate the cost of these undisclosed costs ? By the way, Hinkley Point C was announced by the government in 2010 and is "expected" to go online in 2027. All the other 7 nuclear plants also announced in 2010 are shelved as the UK has wisely pivoted to off-shore wind.Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (HPC) is a project to construct a 3,200 MWe nuclear power station with two EPR reactors in Somerset, England.[3] The proposed site is one of eight announced by the British government in 2010,[4] and in November 2012 a nuclear site licence was granted.[5] On 28 July 2016 the EDF board approved the project,[6] and on 15 September 2016 the UK government approved the project with some safeguards for the investment.[7] The plant, which has a projected lifetime of sixty years, has an estimated construction cost of between £19.6 billion and £20.3 billion.[1][2] The National Audit Office estimates the additional cost to consumers (above the estimated market price of electricity) under the "strike price" will be £50 billion, which 'will continue to vary as the outlook for wholesale market prices shifts'.[8] Financing of the project is still to be finalised, but the construction costs will be paid for by the mainly state-owned EDF of France and state-owned CGN of China.[9]
Sure, because we have added many safety requirements since they were designed and the cost of upgrading them is often not justifiable given the relatively short remaining life. Which says nothing about what a modern, safer plant could cost, although we know from the examples you've cited and some others that costs can easily spiral out of control through the combination of incompetence, corruption and litigation I've mentioned.SageBrush said:Oh, and the stable of nuclear plants currently operating in the UK ? Not a one of them is expected to reach the end-of-life schedule originally advertised due to safety issues.
Speaking of other "plants that won't reach their intended lifespan, wind, especially offshore, has had major problems. Kentish Flats wind array had to have all its turbine gearboxes replaced within I think it was 18 months of installation, owing to corrosion problems. I imagine that may have thrown the LCOE calcs out more than a little:
https://www.bbc.com/news/10390377Thanet Offshore Wind Farm gearbox faults 'solved'
Sounds like some Teslas.. . . At the Kentish Flats, turbines have had serious maintenance problems and some are on their fourth gearbox. . . .
Then there was the problem with the attachment of the turbine towers to their bases:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-o...-offshore-wind-turbines-idUKTRE63M3H720100423Flaw hits hundreds of EU offshore wind turbines
None of this is to suggest that wind, PV etc. aren't worth doing, but any new tech is going to have unknown problems that develop, which tends to turn the rosy predictions of their promoters as to the cost and speed of their replacement of the existing tech into optimistic fantasies - Sweden's still waiting for willow tree farms to replace all of their nukes. IIRR that plan's a decade or two overdue, and has long since been abandoned.
Oh, just to repeat, I'm not a nuclear proponent, I'm a reluctant nuclear supporter given that I don't believe we can both replace the existing fossil-fuel generating capacity while simultaneously expanding it considerably to do many of the things (e.g. land transport, domestic heating etc.) that we now mostly do with fossil fuels, in a very restricted timeframe while using only VR. I've read the claims of both camps. I find the arguments of those who say we need to hold our noses and support nukes for now as the best among bad options while we transition to be more persuasive. I'd love to be proven wrong.
If money is no object, nuclear risks are ignored, and you have 15 - 20 years to wait to build a plant then be a nuclear supporter.
Nuclear is the *last* thing anybody would consider if they are in a hurry.
There might be a reasonable argument to keeping current nuke plants going for another 10 years or so but new ones ? Ridiculous.
Nuclear is the *last* thing anybody would consider if they are in a hurry.
There might be a reasonable argument to keeping current nuke plants going for another 10 years or so but new ones ? Ridiculous.
No.GRA said:Sure, because they want to diversify, and they too have anti-nuclear groups.SageBrush said:France is always brought up by the pro-nuclear group but they either do not know or decide not to mention that France is not building any new plants and is replacing those at end of service with renewables. This, despite the fact that they have invested truly huge sums into a nuclear industry that they try to export to other countries.GRA said:That is the case now, but wasn't always so, both France and the U.S. having increased capacity at a higher rate for a longer time with nukes than anyone has yet achieved with renewables.
As I told you, France will not expand its fleet and will not replace current plants with new nuclear. France is not "diversifying" (as if that was ever on the table), France has exited nuclear in the country. This is true despite their massive state subsidized and owned business. For all intents and purposes nuclear in France as an industry is dead. The reasons are economic (uncompetitive vs PV/wind) and a growing pile of expensive safety issues with their current fleet. France has a long and dirty history of propping up failing domestic industries to keep people employed and due to politics so you can be sure that their exit from nuclear was a difficult decision. Only the absolutely miserable state of nuclear forced their hand.
Lets see ...
EDF: A bad joke, dying
Westinghouse: BK
HItachi: exited nuclear
Toshiba: exited nuclear
UK: pivot to off-shore, new nuclear abandoned
France: new nuclear abandoned
Germany: new nuclear abandoned
Japan: new nuclear abandoned
US: last gasps with Vogtle (now there is a case study in stupidity.)
If people cannot sum up the arithmetic of nuclear costs, they can take a clue from the news.
WetEV
Well-known member
SageBrush said:If money is no object, nuclear risks are ignored, and you have 15 - 20 years per 3 GW then be a nuclear supporter.
Nuclear is the *last* thing anybody would consider if they are in a hurry.
There might be a reasonable argument to keeping current nuke plants going for another 10 years or so but new ones ? Ridiculous.
Until there is a reasonable solution to the 80% problem other than nuclear, we will need to replace current nuclear plants with new plants. And build more as well.
Nuclear is safer than coal, at least twice as safe, probably an order of magnitude safer. NOT counting climate risk.
The "80% problem" does not exist, anymore than the recent past wailing over the "10% problem", the "20% problem," the "30% problem," or the "50% problem" were actual barriers. It is shorthand for saying that the last 20% is more expensive TODAY than fossils using the current state of affairs.WetEV said:Until there is a reasonable solution to the 80% problem other than nuclear, we will need to replace current nuclear plants with new plants. And build more as well.
Of course by the time we reach 80% (within a decade, if people get a clue) things will have changed a lot:
TOU will time shift demand to match generation
Regional sharing via UHVDC will flatten variability
EVs will provide a huge energy sink to soak up any remaining variability.
PV and wind (in particular off-shore) will continue to come down in cost.
As for the last couple of percent ? I'm not sure, but I don't care. Biofuels maybe.
It will NEVER be nuclear because "baseload" is not economic.
GRA
Well-known member
China, building nukes.SageBrush said:No.GRA said:Sure, because they want to diversify, and they too have anti-nuclear groups.SageBrush said:France is always brought up by the pro-nuclear group but they either do not know or decide not to mention that France is not building any new plants and is replacing those at end of service with renewables. This, despite the fact that they have invested truly huge sums into a nuclear industry that they try to export to other countries.
As I told you, France will not expand its fleet and will not replace current plants with new nuclear. France is not "diversifying" (as if that was ever on the table), France has exited nuclear in the country. This is true despite their massive state subsidized and owned business. For all intents and purposes nuclear in France as an industry is dead. The reasons are economic (uncompetitive vs PV/wind) and a growing pile of expensive safety issues with their current fleet. France has a long and dirty history of propping up failing domestic industries to keep people employed and due to politics so you can be sure that their exit from nuclear was a difficult decision. Only the absolutely miserable state of nuclear forced their hand.
Lets see ...
EDF: A bad joke, dying
Westinghouse: BK
HItachi: exited nuclear
Toshiba: exited nuclear
UK: pivot to off-shore, new nuclear abandoned
France: new nuclear abandoned
Germany: new nuclear abandoned
Japan: new nuclear abandoned
US: last gasps with Vogtle (now there is a case study in stupidity.)
If people cannot sum up the arithmetic of nuclear costs, they can take a clue from the news.
India, building nukes.
UAE, building nukes.
S. Korea, building nukes. etc.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...eration/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
Naturally, not all of these plants will be completed, and many will suffer delays and cost increases. Japan has re-started five of the nukes they shut down after Fukushima with plans to re-start more, using them to replace LNG imports.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/nuclear/nuke-restarts-in-japan-to-replace-lng-imports/23733Though 43 of Japan's pre-2011 total of 54 plants remain idled, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said in 2017 that if the country is to meet its obligations under the Paris climate accord, then nuclear energy needs to make up between 20-22% of the nation's portfolio mix. 26 restart applications are now pending with an estimated 12 units to come back in service by 2025 and 18 by 2030
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#Post-Fukushima_nuclear_policyGovernment figures in the 2014 Annual Report on Energy show that Japan depended on imported fossil fuels for 88% of its electricity in fiscal year 2013, compared with 62% in fiscal 2010. Without significant nuclear power, the country was self-sufficient for just 6% of its energy demand in 2012, compared with 20% in 2010. The additional fuel costs to compensate for its nuclear reactors being idled was ¥3.6 trillion. In parallel, domestic energy users have seen a 19.4% increase in their energy bills between 2010 and 2013, while industrial users have seen their costs rise 28.4% over the same period.[47]
In 2018 the Japanese government revised its energy plan to update the 2030 target for nuclear energy to 20%-22% of power generation by restarting reactors, compared to LNG 27%, coal 25%, renewables 23% and oil 3%. This would reduce Japan's carbon dioxide emissions by 26% compared to 2013, and increase self-sufficiency to about 24% by 2030, compared to 8% in 2016.[48]
Of course, all such plans are subject to changes in government. The restarts are largely due to Shinzo Abe being the Prime Minister. Japan simply doesn't have enough renewable resources of its own (see below) to meet the demand, given its large population and limited land area.
In the case of China and India, both countries are also expanding renewables, but the only fossil fuels they have in abundance for baseload is coal. Again , which provides the greater actual risks, coal or nukes?
No argument that EDF has been demonstrating how not to build new ones, for some time. As for existing French nukes, they've got excess amounts of capacity, which doesn't help their costs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_FranceA common criticism of French energy policy is that the country may have over-invested in nuclear power plants, requiring electricity export when French electricity demand is low or "dumping" in the French market, encouraging the use of electricity for space heating and water heating. This can be regarded as an economically wasteful practice.[4] However, as the adoption of electric cars, such as the French Renault Fluence Z.E., over internal combustion engine vehicles increases, reducing fossil fuel dependence, France's comparatively cheap peak and off peak electricity prices could act as a strong customer incentive that may spur the speed of the adoption of electric vehicles,[111] essentially turning the current perceived glut of relatively cheap fission-electricity into an asset, as demand for electric vehicle recharging stations becomes more and more commonplace.[112][113]
Due to France's very low-carbon power electricity grid, the carbon dioxide emissions from charging an electric car from the French electricity grid are 12 g per km traveled.[114] This compares favourably to the direct emissions of one of the most successful hybrid electric vehicles, the Toyota Prius, which produces carbon dioxide emissions at the higher rate of 105 g per km traveled.[114][115]
Now look at GHGs per capita: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita
If mass storage can be provided in the necessary quantities at an affordable price, and enough renewables are available to meet the demand, great. I don't see it, yet. The U.S., unlike Europe and Japan, does at least have enough renewables of its own to meet the demand even with our excessive energy use (about twice the E.U. average), owing to our large solar resources.
Also search Saudi, may have heard something about them going nuclear not too far back.
Well my coop mailer came in they are putting the cost to generate wind power at 1.5 cents per kwh.
Works for me.
If all they wanted to do was meet increased demand with wind and use wind to replace retiring plants. That also works for me.
Looks like grid level solar installs are a waste of money until solar panels get even cheaper.
But at home owner level, roof top solar is ok to me. Since you can't put up your own wind turbine in most places (I might be able to get away with it).
Hell you can't even put up solar panels if you live under the rule of some nazi run HOA.
Well my coop mailer came in they are putting the cost to generate wind power at 1.5 cents per kwh.
Works for me.
If all they wanted to do was meet increased demand with wind and use wind to replace retiring plants. That also works for me.
Looks like grid level solar installs are a waste of money until solar panels get even cheaper.
But at home owner level, roof top solar is ok to me. Since you can't put up your own wind turbine in most places (I might be able to get away with it).
Hell you can't even put up solar panels if you live under the rule of some nazi run HOA.
You did, but you missed the important detailsOilpan4 said:Also search Saudi, may have heard something about them going nuclear not too far back.
https://thebulletin.org/2019/04/the-trump-administration-is-eager-to-sell-nuclear-reactors-to-saudi-arabia-but-why/
SA is willing to pay in order to have a nuclear weapons program.
The Trumpers agree, in order to help Trump Jr out, to kiss SA ass, and to give the failing US nuclear industry something to do.
Got that ? The Trumpers are opening the door to nuclear arms in SA in order to ostensibly curb the nuclear arms ambitions of Iran. If the connection is not obvious to you, it goes like this: the trumpers want to embargo Iran but need SA to make up the oil production deficit.
As of late 2018 early 2019 the US is a net oil exporter.
We don't need their oil. Yeah the US imported some outside oil, but that's kind of how the supply chain has worked for about the last 50 years. When the middle east oil supply stops coming here we build a few pipe lines, gas prices go up a little and life goes on.
All thanks to the nearly decades long fear of a ban that drove the fracking boom during the Obama years.
Turns out Obama helped make America great again purely by accident.
We don't need their oil. Yeah the US imported some outside oil, but that's kind of how the supply chain has worked for about the last 50 years. When the middle east oil supply stops coming here we build a few pipe lines, gas prices go up a little and life goes on.
All thanks to the nearly decades long fear of a ban that drove the fracking boom during the Obama years.
Turns out Obama helped make America great again purely by accident.
Wrong. You do not understand why the US remains an importer of some 4 million bpd of Saudi Oil. It is not a "supply chain" issue (whatever that means.)Oilpan4 said:As of late 2018 early 2019 the US is a net oil exporter.
We don't need their oil.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 7K
