6 ms·

Energy production is national security. Each country should treat it as national security. US is lucky to have oil/gas fields, but it would not last for ever.

by llsf 2y ago

Energy production is national security. Each country should treat it as national security. US is lucky to have oil/gas fields, but it would not last for ever. Even ignoring the ecological impact of extracting fossil fuel, or impact on climate to burn fossil fuel, the fact that is a limited resource should force the US to move other energy production (e.g. nuclear, solar, wind, hydro) and migrate the energy consumption to electricity... if we want to soft land, when fossil fuel would get expensive (peak production, wars, etc.).

EricE 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  You oughta go start an oil company then! The market is booming, can’t imagine how well you’d do with your secret knowledge about scarcity being all a marketing ploy.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    Do you really believe that the number of players in the market is a function of scarcity?
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      I think if something important to the market is scarce for other players but abundant for you, then you can easily go make a boatload of money. Just basic supply and demand.
      - akira2501 2y ago
        > Just basic supply and demand. Ah. And where do "cartels" fit into that structure?
- ben_w 2y ago
  > Indeed, the name "fossil fuels" was marketing by Rockefeller and Standard Oil to create the impression of scarcity I doubt this: "The auncient Philosophers affirme, that there haue bene founde fishes vnder the earth, who (for that cause) they called Focilles [French focilles]." - E. Fenton, translation of P. Boaistuau, Certaine secrete wonders of nature, containing a descriptio[n] of sundry strange things • (translated by Edward Fenton) · 1st edition, 1569, https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?q=fossil&tl=true https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?q=fossil&tl=true, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/fossil_n?tab=meaning_and_use#3857818 https://www.oed.com/dictionary/fossil_n?tab=meaning_and_use#... "From French fossile, from Latin fossilis (“something which has been dug up”), from fodio (“I dig up”)." - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fossil https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fossil
  - Two4 2y ago
    He's not saying Standard Oil invented the term fossil, he's saying they invented/popularised the term "fossil fuel"
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      Google ngrams reveals his claim to be flagrant horse shit. The term wasn't popular until several decades after standard oil ceased to exist.
      - selimthegrim 2y ago
        That may be true, but Google ngrams is hardly holy writ in the matter.
        dredmorbius 2y ago
        That may be true, but EricE is parroting long-since-debunked fake Facebook memes: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40664837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40664837> Enough bullshit flinging already, eh?
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
- cjohnson318 2y ago
  I've worked in oil and gas for years. The only reason we're fracking wells with 2000lbs of sand per foot on a 1-2mi horizontal well is because the easy oil in U.S. is all gone. If you could drill a vertical well and have oil gush out like it does in There Will Be Blood, then people would be doing it. Hydraulic fracking only hit snooze on Peak Oil. All of the easy oil is gone, and we're fracking what's left.
  - llsf 2y ago
    Yes, oil is a limited resource. US became recently the largest oil producer in the world (source: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545) and the additional output comes from the Permian basin only. Texas became the 8th larger economy thanks to the increasing oil production (larger than Russia or Canada). But Texas should invest that money (like Norway or UAE does) as it won't last for ever. When oil is gone (or too expensive to extract) people will leave Texas, and Texas will be a wasteland with orphan wells everywhere polluting underground water. In general, it would be wise for US to get an exit plan, for when oil would not be so easy to extract (yes it is more difficult now, but the oil price is still high enough). Oil price can be counter intuitive as it is the main fuel of the world economy. So, if the production declines, the price can go up, but not too much. At some point, economies would shutdown, and the demand would fall sharply. Only the countries that would be out of oil (i.e. using electricity from nuclear, solar, wind, hydro) would continue to be humming. The other countries would enter in chaos, unrest and war. Which would generate economical migrations and more chaos. Again countries should plan for peak fossil fuel, and even if they are lucky to have some oil underground, they should plan to massively transform their economy to electricity and transition the production from fossil to more sustainable production like nuclear, solar, wind and hydro.
    - defrost 2y ago
      Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry totaled 37.15 billion metric tons (GtCO₂) in 2022. Emissions are projected to have risen 1.1 percent in 2023 to reach a record high of 37.55 GtCO₂. Let's face it, being the largest whale hunter isn't something to boast about. Instead of pushing upwards to break the 40 Gigatonne per annum ceiling maybe work to reduce consumption patterns, efficiencies, question whether high cost of energy environments are the ideal locations for populations to expand into, etc.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  ... "fossil fuels" was marketing by Rockefeller ... Where on Earth did you ever hear such a thing? Update / edit: Apparently this is a fake meme floating around Facebook and elsewhere, dating back at least three years: (Factcheck, 2022): "Facebook posts falsely claim US oil magnate coined term ‘fossil fuels’ to introduce ‘idea of scarcity’, boosting oil prices" <https://factcheck.afp.com/facebook-posts-falsely-claim-us-oil-magnate-coined-term-fossil-fuels-introduce-idea-scarcity https://factcheck.afp.com/facebook-posts-falsely-claim-us-oi...> (Reuters, 2021): "The term ‘fossil fuel’ was not coined by John D. Rockefeller to trick people into thinking oil is a scarce commodity" <https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2QQ1UK/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2QQ1UK/> Archive / paywall: <https://archive.is/st4q6 https://archive.is/st4q6> And another debunk from Politifact in 2022: <https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/08/facebook-posts/john-d-rockefeller-didnt-coin-term-fossil-fuels-tr/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/08/facebook-p...> I'd strongly encourage folks to improve their media literacy.
DanielHB 2y ago
One thing I never understood about government policy with renewable energy is that surely it is a country's best interest to be as much energy independent and energy diversified as possible. Both from national security, geopolitical and economic point of views. Not even considering the environmental impact. For example, Brazil has a huge production of combustible-grade ethanol which, although subsidised by the government, helps stabilize fuel prices for everyone in the country. When oil prices go up, ethanol production goes up which smooths price fluctuation. In raw numbers the subsidies probably costs more for the economy than just importing oil when considering the years of cheap oil. But if you take into account all the business that don't collapse and go bankrupt because of that the math doesn't look so clear-cut. That on top of economy diversification. This is just the economic argument of one alternative energy source in one country. The national security, geopolitical and environmental impacts are even harder to quantify but are extremely important as well. For example, every country probably benefits a lot from having the ability of deploying more nuclear power plants, so it might be worth building a limited number of them just to keep the industry alive (especially if the industry is local to your country). That is even if you, as a country, decides against nuclear long term.
- jvanderbot 2y ago
  You mistake political interest with national interest, unfortunately. I think O&G have large constituent voting bases from entire states. Let alone lobbying. Once Solar / Wind employ 1000s of highly concentrated workers for entire lifetimes, you'll see the political winds shift - pun intended.

by llsf 2y ago

EricE 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
llamaimperative 2y ago
You oughta go start an oil company then! The market is booming, can’t imagine how well you’d do with your secret knowledge about scarcity being all a marketing ploy.
- akira2501 2y ago
  Do you really believe that the number of players in the market is a function of scarcity?
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    I think if something important to the market is scarce for other players but abundant for you, then you can easily go make a boatload of money. Just basic supply and demand.
    - akira2501 2y ago
      > Just basic supply and demand. Ah. And where do "cartels" fit into that structure?
ben_w 2y ago
> Indeed, the name "fossil fuels" was marketing by Rockefeller and Standard Oil to create the impression of scarcity I doubt this: "The auncient Philosophers affirme, that there haue bene founde fishes vnder the earth, who (for that cause) they called Focilles [French focilles]." - E. Fenton, translation of P. Boaistuau, Certaine secrete wonders of nature, containing a descriptio[n] of sundry strange things • (translated by Edward Fenton) · 1st edition, 1569, https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?q=fossil&tl=true https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?q=fossil&tl=true, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/fossil_n?tab=meaning_and_use#3857818 https://www.oed.com/dictionary/fossil_n?tab=meaning_and_use#... "From French fossile, from Latin fossilis (“something which has been dug up”), from fodio (“I dig up”)." - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fossil https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fossil
- Two4 2y ago
  He's not saying Standard Oil invented the term fossil, he's saying they invented/popularised the term "fossil fuel"
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Google ngrams reveals his claim to be flagrant horse shit. The term wasn't popular until several decades after standard oil ceased to exist.
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      That may be true, but Google ngrams is hardly holy writ in the matter.
      - dredmorbius 2y ago
        That may be true, but EricE is parroting long-since-debunked fake Facebook memes: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40664837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40664837> Enough bullshit flinging already, eh?
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
cjohnson318 2y ago
I've worked in oil and gas for years. The only reason we're fracking wells with 2000lbs of sand per foot on a 1-2mi horizontal well is because the easy oil in U.S. is all gone. If you could drill a vertical well and have oil gush out like it does in There Will Be Blood, then people would be doing it. Hydraulic fracking only hit snooze on Peak Oil. All of the easy oil is gone, and we're fracking what's left.
- llsf 2y ago
  Yes, oil is a limited resource. US became recently the largest oil producer in the world (source: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545) and the additional output comes from the Permian basin only. Texas became the 8th larger economy thanks to the increasing oil production (larger than Russia or Canada). But Texas should invest that money (like Norway or UAE does) as it won't last for ever. When oil is gone (or too expensive to extract) people will leave Texas, and Texas will be a wasteland with orphan wells everywhere polluting underground water. In general, it would be wise for US to get an exit plan, for when oil would not be so easy to extract (yes it is more difficult now, but the oil price is still high enough). Oil price can be counter intuitive as it is the main fuel of the world economy. So, if the production declines, the price can go up, but not too much. At some point, economies would shutdown, and the demand would fall sharply. Only the countries that would be out of oil (i.e. using electricity from nuclear, solar, wind, hydro) would continue to be humming. The other countries would enter in chaos, unrest and war. Which would generate economical migrations and more chaos. Again countries should plan for peak fossil fuel, and even if they are lucky to have some oil underground, they should plan to massively transform their economy to electricity and transition the production from fossil to more sustainable production like nuclear, solar, wind and hydro.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry totaled 37.15 billion metric tons (GtCO₂) in 2022. Emissions are projected to have risen 1.1 percent in 2023 to reach a record high of 37.55 GtCO₂. Let's face it, being the largest whale hunter isn't something to boast about. Instead of pushing upwards to break the 40 Gigatonne per annum ceiling maybe work to reduce consumption patterns, efficiencies, question whether high cost of energy environments are the ideal locations for populations to expand into, etc.
dredmorbius 2y ago
... "fossil fuels" was marketing by Rockefeller ... Where on Earth did you ever hear such a thing? Update / edit: Apparently this is a fake meme floating around Facebook and elsewhere, dating back at least three years: (Factcheck, 2022): "Facebook posts falsely claim US oil magnate coined term ‘fossil fuels’ to introduce ‘idea of scarcity’, boosting oil prices" <https://factcheck.afp.com/facebook-posts-falsely-claim-us-oil-magnate-coined-term-fossil-fuels-introduce-idea-scarcity https://factcheck.afp.com/facebook-posts-falsely-claim-us-oi...> (Reuters, 2021): "The term ‘fossil fuel’ was not coined by John D. Rockefeller to trick people into thinking oil is a scarce commodity" <https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2QQ1UK/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2QQ1UK/> Archive / paywall: <https://archive.is/st4q6 https://archive.is/st4q6> And another debunk from Politifact in 2022: <https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/08/facebook-posts/john-d-rockefeller-didnt-coin-term-fossil-fuels-tr/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/08/facebook-p...> I'd strongly encourage folks to improve their media literacy.

DanielHB 2y ago

One thing I never understood about government policy with renewable energy is that surely it is a country's best interest to be as much energy independent and energy diversified as possible. Both from national security, geopolitical and economic point of views. Not even considering the environmental impact. For example, Brazil has a huge production of combustible-grade ethanol which, although subsidised by the government, helps stabilize fuel prices for everyone in the country. When oil prices go up, ethanol production goes up which smooths price fluctuation. In raw numbers the subsidies probably costs more for the economy than just importing oil when considering the years of cheap oil. But if you take into account all the business that don't collapse and go bankrupt because of that the math doesn't look so clear-cut. That on top of economy diversification. This is just the economic argument of one alternative energy source in one country. The national security, geopolitical and environmental impacts are even harder to quantify but are extremely important as well. For example, every country probably benefits a lot from having the ability of deploying more nuclear power plants, so it might be worth building a limited number of them just to keep the industry alive (especially if the industry is local to your country). That is even if you, as a country, decides against nuclear long term.

jvanderbot 2y ago
You mistake political interest with national interest, unfortunately. I think O&G have large constituent voting bases from entire states. Let alone lobbying. Once Solar / Wind employ 1000s of highly concentrated workers for entire lifetimes, you'll see the political winds shift - pun intended.