All Electric NASCAR Series on the Horizon

[gone]

"
OSLO, NORWAY–The United States now holds the world’s largest recoverable oil reserve base–more than Saudi Arabia or Russia–thanks to the development of unconventional resource plays.

Ranking nations by the most likely estimate for existing fields, discoveries and as-of-yet undiscovered fields (proved, probable. possible and undiscovered), the United States is at the top of the list with 264 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves, followed by Russia with 256 billion, Saudi Arabia with 212 billion, Canada with 167 billion, Iran with 143 billion, and Brazil with 120 billion (Table 1).
Importantly, unconventional plays account for more than 50 percent of remaining U.S. oil reserves, with Texas alone holding more than 60 billion barrels of recoverable oil in shale plays.

The reserves data distinguish between reserves in existing fields and new projects, and potential reserves in recent discoveries and still undiscovered fields. The estimates include crude oil plus condensate.

Total global oil reserves are estimated at 2,092 billion barrels, or 70 times the current production rate of about 30 billion barrels of oil a year.

Other public sources of global oil reserves are based on official reporting from national authorities, with reserves reported based on a diverse and opaque set of standards. For example, some OPEC countries, such as Venezuela, report official reserves apparently including yet-undiscovered oil, while China and Brazil officially report conservative estimates and only for existing fields."

So... if my math is correct, the total accessible oil reserves are about 70 years. That does not include untapped sources in all but Venezuela. The thing is, that production of 30 billion barrels, is now down to 28 billion and projected to be down to 20 billion barrels by 2035. The ANWR that now not part of the known reserves has an estimated 1,096 additional barrels. If Trump opens that up.... some say it could be ten times that.

Yeah, those are estimates. But 70 years is much less than 200 years. And the cost to actually access and process it is not mentioned. It also assumes that this oil will be available to us, but some of those countries are not particularly friendly to us. The U.S. has been producing the most oil of all nations for six years in a row now - and the U.S. is a net oil exporter. That means that U.S. corporations would rather sell more oil to other nations than make it available to U.S. citizens. Corporations will not change their habits if any particular President opens up more reserves.

As Charlie Spencer pointed out, the real problem is that we know that oil is running out but we are still wasting it for things that can be serviced using other products. Instead of burning oil to motivate vehicles we can motivate them by using electricity or hydrogen or ethanol. We also don't need to burn oil to generate electricity.

I may or may not live to see if oil truly runs out in 2050, and I won't live to see if it runs out 70 years from now. Both of those life-ends will be wrong anyway because they do not factor in the amount of oil we are already saving (and have been saving for decades) as technology improves - petroleum fueled vehicles get much better mileage than they used to (and may even do better) and alternately fueled vehicles don't burn petroleum.

I like petroleum fueled cars. But not so much that I cannot tolerate other technologies. When I want to be wowed by ICE racecars I can go watch sprinters and late models that use ethanol.

 

[StandOnIt]

Pretty much have 6 major world producers of oil. They proved who they were by not producing which drove the price sky high hurting everybody, and they feathered their nests after Covid. They even had a price fixing deal with OPEC. Biden busted up the party by flooding the market and stopping the continued climb of prices. Not only is it a very dirty industry, but they showed us what they are made of.

 

[OldTimer]

We also don't need to burn oil to generate electricity.

True, to a certain extent. Just retired a year ago last December after 42 years as a power electronic engineer that dealt almost exclusively in alternative energy (grid level). The company I worked for is the world's largest manufacturer of power semiconductor products. IGBTs, Rectifier modules, and such that go into inverters, ESS products, AFS, and every technology used to convert natural energy sources to electricity. Over fifty percent of every grid level wind generation unit in the WORLD has our products in them, and forty percent of every grid level solar system does to. On the quaint micro baby size stuff, like EV's, I was involved in the design that is now in 90% of every electric vehicle in the world (hate to admit it, but the biggest chunk is in China). They use SiC Fet's packaged in what is called a six pack, about the size of a pack of cards (smallest thing we made), the average EV inverter uses at least six of them so in effect there are thirty-six switches used to convert power to be useful.
All that being said, a large majority of the entire alternative energy field would collapse without governments subsidies. They might be called sustainable (what the industry was called when I first got in it), but they are NOT fiscally sustainable on a 100% free market because the cost is way too high. Pretty evident when Ford was losing billions even with government grants. The only electricity that is cheaper than coal, NG (cheapest and reliable), and other petroleum products is hydroelectric along with nuclear. Both of which the environmentalists do not want. When I stepped away from the business the power for EV's, just in the USA, that would sustain our populations transportation expectations equivalent to today, it would require almost four times as much electricity that is produced in this nation as it is now. So, to make it acceptable within a specific time frame of no more than twenty years, our entire culture would have to change. The average family of four would have to increase the use of public transportation by 80% minimum and instead of having two cars, they would have one. Of which, instead of the expected 15,000 miles a year, that car would have to only be driven half of that. Keep in mind, fossil fuels are renewable also, you are future fossil fuel and so am I. By the way, the electric car of 1908 is basically no different than the ones of today as far as how they work. Granted, the technology has allowed us to shrink the electronics which allows for bigger battery composition, but the principle remains the same. Toyota is absolutely correct that the hybrid is the best way to go.... which is just modern version of the Woods Dual Power of 1915. The biggest difference is that those EV's of the past were, at best, maybe in the low eighties to mid-eighties in efficiency, whereas today they are in the low nineties. I like the smell of gasoline being burned in race cars, alcohol, well not so much. But it is better than going back to my childhood and racing RC cars.

 

[StandOnIt]

The electric vehicle subsidies pale in comparison to dirty fossil fuels and the damage done to the environment.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion

Scaling back subsidies would reduce air pollution, generate revenue, and make a major contribution to slowing climate change

www.imf.org

 

[Charlie Spencer]

So, to make it acceptable within a specific time frame of no more than twenty years, our entire culture would have to change.

Yes, it will. Look at Europe. Government policies there discourage gas guzzlers. Outside of businesses with a need, you don't see consumers tooling around in trucks even as small as a Ford Ranger, much less an F-250. Gas taxes effectively prohibit them.

But we in the US buy into the manufacturers' marketing that we have to have massive vehicles. Funny, we got along without them 40 years ago, before the government changed the manufacturers' fleet mileage standards to inadvertently encourage building larger, less efficient vehicles.

 

[Charlie Spencer]

The average family of four would have to increase the use of public transportation by 80% minimum and instead of having two cars, they would have one. Of which, instead of the expected 15,000 miles a year, that car would have to only be driven half of that.

Only if we insist on encouraging fuel inefficient vehicles.

 

[Charlie Spencer]

Keep in mind, fossil fuels are renewable also, you are future fossil fuel and so am I.

No, you and I aren't future fossil fuel, and neither are many of the former sources. People are either buried individually (often in lined vaults) or cremated. We're not dumped in piles under conditions that would allow us to turn to petrochemicals. Neither are most other animals; a large percentage are tied up as food sources.

Carbon-trapping plants, a far larger original source, are no longer available for decay in the quantities needed either. They're cut and used for building material, or burned to get them out of the way, or grown for food. Indeed, many environments can't support the necessary volume of growth, or the growth is blocked before it can start. Cities and human altered land won't produce plant materials in the required numbers.

If there were the available volume of raw material, we've demonstrated we aren't willing to sacrifice while it forms. In the US, our politics encourage the manufacture of ethanol from corn, a very inefficient source. There are sources five or six times more efficient in use in other countries but growers of those plants don't vote. Or more to the point, the industries involved with those plants don't make massive campaign contributions like Big Corn.

You can't get hydrocarbons when there aren't any carbon-trapping raw materials. If there were, what do we do while they form? The closest we currently come are some garbage dumps configured to generate methane. That requires separating our waste, something else we've shown we aren't willing to do.

 

[OldTimer]

The electric vehicle subsidies pale in comparison to dirty fossil fuels and the damage done to the environment.
View attachment 79291

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion

Scaling back subsidies would reduce air pollution, generate revenue, and make a major contribution to slowing climate change

www.imf.org

Totally misleading. Only look at explicit "subsidies", which are not truthful either. But the implicit is made up stuff, all made on proposition and the "if this, then that".
Seriously? Contending that "undercharging for environmental costs" is a real thing? Really? That is 100% bogus as there is NO DEFINITIVE standard. "Consumption" taxes? Taxes are NOT SUBSIDIES, they are taken, not given.... how does that even get close to being contended as a "cost"? Carbon pricing? Again, nefarious at best. People are carbon, just FYI. In fact just about everything has carbon in it, it is neither made nor can it be destroyed.

As far as the "explicit".... undercharging for supply costs? How, it is what the market allows not what a biased IMF desires. Quite sure you know that the IMF suggested that gas should be over $10 a gallon, do you not?

There are no subsidies, there might be deductions and credits, but NO dictionary defined SUBSIDIES.

 

[StandOnIt]

Totally misleading. Only look at explicit "subsidies", which are not truthful either. But the implicit is made up stuff, all made on proposition and the "if this, then that".
Seriously? Contending that "undercharging for environmental costs" is a real thing? Really? That is 100% bogus as there is NO DEFINITIVE standard. "Consumption" taxes? Taxes are NOT SUBSIDIES, they are taken, not given.... how does that even get close to being contended as a "cost"? Carbon pricing? Again, nefarious at best. People are carbon, just FYI. In fact just about everything has carbon in it, it is neither made nor can it be destroyed.

As far as the "explicit".... undercharging for supply costs? How, it is what the market allows not what a biased IMF desires. Quite sure you know that the IMF suggested that gas should be over $10 a gallon, do you not?

There are no subsidies, there might be deductions and credits, but NO dictionary defined SUBSIDIES.

You will love this lol.

MSN

 

[OldTimer]

You will love this lol.

MSN

Not happy about that at all, false market that the government is deciding who wins and who loses. Not the principles of which this country was founded on. The big surprise is the Harley Davidson, they had divested themselves of their EV bike (which I was involved in the design of the power system), so, yeah, kind of a surprise.
Have to say, most large touring type bikes probably will be okay as EV's, still range challenged (a bike has limited space for a battery), but most bikers do not put more than a couple of thousand miles a year on a bike.
As far as the government spending your money on this, are you okay with that? What IMMEDIATE benefit is it for you? How does it directly benefit you today and not in fifty years?

 

[StandOnIt]

Not happy about that at all, false market that the government is deciding who wins and who loses. Not the principles of which this country was founded on. The big surprise is the Harley Davidson, they had divested themselves of their EV bike (which I was involved in the design of the power system), so, yeah, kind of a surprise.
Have to say, most large touring type bikes probably will be okay as EV's, still range challenged (a bike has limited space for a battery), but most bikers do not put more than a couple of thousand miles a year on a bike.
As far as the government spending your money on this, are you okay with that? What IMMEDIATE benefit is it for you? How does it directly benefit you today and not in fifty years?

I'm all for it Bud is the short answer for ya. I believe in a cleaner environment, I don't care within reason how much it costs.

 

[OldTimer]

I'm all for it Bud is the short answer for ya. I believe in a cleaner environment, I don't care within reason how much it costs.

Unless you are ten years old, it will not benefit you directly. Then again, as far as whether or not it will change anything at all, that is still speculation.

 

[Charlie Spencer]

As far as the government spending your money on this, are you okay with that? What IMMEDIATE benefit is it for you? How does it directly benefit you today and not in fifty years?

That 401K I contributed didn’t benefit me for the first 40 years either. I'm damn glad now for that deferred gratification.

I may not be alive in 50 years but family medical history says I may be in 25. Even if I personally don't benefit, I have younger relatives that will.

I was brought up to be a good stewart of the environment. Thinking doing something isn't worthwhile if there's no immediate benefit is what leads to leaving trash in your campsite or tossing cigarette butts out the car window.

 

[Charlie Spencer]

Not happy about that at all, false market that the government is deciding who wins and who loses. Not the principles of which this country was founded on.

Would that be the same government that favors corn for ethanol but ignores more productive switchgrass? The same one that used to prop up tobacco but outlaws marijuana? The one that gave property to railroads at the expense of the native populations? The one that supported naval stores back when it was being founded? The one that supported southern agriculture by including slaves in the population count for determining Congressional representatives, but otherwise didn't consider them as people?

It may indeed be wrong but it certainly is what the country was founded on and has done ever since.

 

[OldTimer]

Would that be the same government that favors corn for ethanol but ignores more productive switchgrass? The same one that used to prop up tobacco but outlaws marijuana? The one that gave property to railroads at the expense of the native populations? The one that supported naval stores back when it was being founded? The one that supported southern agriculture by including slaves in the population count for determining Congressional representatives, but otherwise didn't consider them as people?

It may indeed be wrong but it certainly is what the country was founded on and has done ever since.

First things first, there was no ethanol at the founding of this country. And even today, do not see the reason for subsidies for ethanol. 90% of my corn is for the critters, the other 10% is for sale at our local farmer's market.
Second, do not know about tobacco over marijuana, neither interest me in the least so do not have any history about it in my seventy-two years. Did look it up though, tobacco is not currently subsidized so what do you mean support it? I do know that prior to the Revolution tobacco was the number one cash crop, but that was overtaken by cotton.
No railroads when this country was founded, did not happen until the 1840's through the 1870. And the land grants did not only affect native populations, but they also affected others too. The vast majority of the grants were on unclaimed land that the USA purchased from other countries. Most of it within the Louisiana Purchase and the compensation to Mexico for them losing a war against us. "1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. It ended the war, and Mexico recognized the cession of present-day Texas, California, Nevada, and Utah as well as parts of present-day Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The U.S. agreed to pay $15 million for the physical damage of the war and assumed $3.25 million of debt already owed by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens. Mexico relinquished its claims on Texas and accepted the Rio Grande as its northern border with the United States."
As far as slavery, it was here before our country was founded and when it was, it only encompassed a portion of the new country. According to the Constitution, slavery was forbidden in the Territories and any new state, unless that state entered as a slave state (Texas for example, they were not part of the USA). I know Wisconsin never had slavery... neither did quite a few others. So, any reference to lumping that disgusting culture with the entirety is totally disingenuous. So is placing the sins of the grandfathers on the grandsons that never committed the sins.