"Oil Investment Must Rise To $525 Billion PER YEAR To Avoid Supply Crunch" by Tsvetana Paraskova as seen on Zero Hedge

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

This is significant.  We have all seen the many articles which show how investment dollars are not going into the oil and gas industry.  In fact, it is being discouraged on many fronts.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Investment-Must-Rise-To-525-Billion-Per-Year-To-Avoid-Supply-Crunch.html

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/oil-investment-must-rise-525-billion-year-avoid-supply-crunch

Oil Investment Must Rise To $525 Billion Per Year To Avoid Supply Crunch

by Tyler Durden

Friday, Dec 10, 2021 - 11:15 AM

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com,

Upstream oil and gas investment must rise to the pre-pandemic levels of around $525 billion per year through the end of the decade so that the industry can ensure a demand-supply balance, Saudi Arabia-based International Energy Forum (IEF) and IHS Markit said in a new report this week.

Oil Investment Must Rise To $525 Billion Per Year To Avoid Supply Crunch

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Dec 08, 2021, 1:00 PM CST

• Investments in oil and gas exploration and production continue to be depressed
• Moody's: Global annual upstream spending needs to increase by as much as 54 percent to $542 billion if the oil market is to avert the next supply shortage shock

Join Our Community

Upstream oil and gas investment must rise to the pre-pandemic levels of around $525 billion per year through the end of the decade so that the industry can ensure a demand-supply balance, Saudi Arabia-based International Energy Forum (IEF) and IHS Markit said in a new report this week.

This year, upstream investment is still depressed, for a second year in a row, and is estimated at around $341 billion. This is almost 25 percent below the investment levels of the last “normal” year in 2019, says the report from IHS Markit and IEF, which is the world’s largest international organization of energy ministers from 71 countries including both producing and consuming nations.

While investments in oil and gas exploration and production continue to be depressed, global demand is “now near pre-pandemic highs and will continue to rise for the next several years, particularly in developing countries,” according to the report titled “Investment Crisis Threatens Energy Security.”

The next two years will be critical for the sanctioning of new projects to make sure that there is enough supply coming online within five to six years, the report noted.

“Insufficient upstream investment would result in more price volatility and spur adverse economic consequences,” IHS Markit and IEF say.

The report echoes the concern of many industry professionals, who have said in recent months that underinvestment in oil and gas threatens future energy supply because oil and gas will be consumed for decades to come, regardless of the pace of the energy transition.

A rushed transition into renewable energy would cause spiraling inflation and social unrest, Amin Nasser, the chief executive of Saudi Aramco, warned at the World Petroleum Congress in Texas this week, noting that investments in oil and gas needed to continue in order to avoid such a scenario.

Global annual upstream spending needs to increase by as much as 54 percent to $542 billion if the oil market is to avert the next supply shortage shock, Moody’s said in October.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

• The Multi-Billion Dollar Start Of A Nuclear Fusion Boom
• Natural Gas Bulls Hit Hard By Warm Weather Reports
• The Oil Price Crash Has Taught U.S. Shale A Valuable Lesson

[Tomasz + 1,608]

Well demand will increase at least to 2035

Investments in oil industry were halved affter 2014

Average time of puting new oil deposit to production is about 7 years frame

We had also record low new oil discoveries after 2014

Hedge funds and banks dont want to invest in oil thanks to GREEN DEAL or rather GREEN HISTERIA

What could go wrong in next few years at least untill 2025?

We are already 5 % below average OECD inventories in December 2021.

We already have record inflation in OECD countries (39 year high in USA November 2021)

It looks like perfect storm coming.

Some people predicted that in XXI centrury we will have war for water supply?

So why not global conflicts for energy supply?

Edited December 10, 2021 by Tomasz

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/world-economy-entering-period-oil-scarcity-halliburton-ceo-says

World Economy Entering Period Of Oil Scarcity, Halliburton CEO Says

by Tyler Durden

Friday, Dec 10, 2021 - 07:00 PM

Authored by Nicholas Dolinger via The Epoch Times,

Halliburton CEO and president Jeff Miller made waves this week by predicting that the world is due for a period of oil scarcity in comments at the World Petroleum Congress in Houston, Texas.

“I think that for the first time in a long time, we will see a buyer looking for a barrel of oil, as opposed to a barrel of oil looking for a buyer,” Miller said.

Since 2014, the oil industry has generally deemphasized building new infrastructure in the face of low prices. However, that trend may now catch up with the industry, which now finds demand for oil exceeding the available supply given current infrastructure.

Some analysts have speculated that it is increasingly likely that oil prices will soon climb to $100 per barrel, a price unseen in the past seven years and which has serious potential to disrupt the economy.

An additional factor contributing to predicted oil scarcity is a labor shortage in the fossil fuel industry surpassing that in the general economy.

The widespread perception that fossil fuels will be marginalized in the future of energy and transportation makes long-term careers in petroleum unattractive to young workers, with many oil workers seeking to switch to renewables or leave the energy industry outright.

A recent survey revealed that 43 percent of oil industry employees sought to transition to other sectors in the next five years, as reported by Reuters.

As baby boomer employees retire, the industry struggles to replace them with young workers, who see the oil industry as unfavorable to long-term careers because of concerns about climate change models, and pressure by politicians, environmentalists, and investors to transition to renewable energy sources.

This combination of infrastructural underinvestment and labor shortages is likely to result in an oil supply stretched thin to meet demand, resulting in higher prices and possible shortages.

With oil extraction occurring at a significant time lag from industry investment and the skill shortage in the labor industry showing no signs of abating, there are major reasons to believe that any scarcity in oil supplies could last long into the future.

[tarasun 0]

Exciting information. Is there a link to this forum or a recording of it? I'd love to see it. Considering how covid-19 has hit all industries, it's pretty entertaining information. And in general, by the end of the decade, is that a lot or a little time? I looked at https://investorjunkie.com/ to see what people think about it, and I made this little conclusion. If the big players want to invest in the oil industry, they have to realize that there's no telling when the pandemic will be over, and it won't be until the end of the decade that the oil industry will be back pre-pandemic levels. But it may take a long time before the investment begins to pay off.

Edited February 13, 2022 by tarasun

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

On 12/10/2021 at 10:15 AM, Tom Nolan said:

This is significant.  We have all seen the many articles which show how investment dollars are not going into the oil and gas industry.  In fact, it is being discouraged on many fronts.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Investment-Must-Rise-To-525-Billion-Per-Year-To-Avoid-Supply-Crunch.html

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/oil-investment-must-rise-525-billion-year-avoid-supply-crunch

Oil Investment Must Rise To $525 Billion Per Year To Avoid Supply Crunch

by Tyler Durden

Friday, Dec 10, 2021 - 11:15 AM

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com,

Upstream oil and gas investment must rise to the pre-pandemic levels of around $525 billion per year through the end of the decade so that the industry can ensure a demand-supply balance, Saudi Arabia-based International Energy Forum (IEF) and IHS Markit said in a new report this week.

Oil Investment Must Rise To $525 Billion Per Year To Avoid Supply Crunch

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Dec 08, 2021, 1:00 PM CST

• Investments in oil and gas exploration and production continue to be depressed
• Moody's: Global annual upstream spending needs to increase by as much as 54 percent to $542 billion if the oil market is to avert the next supply shortage shock

Join Our Community

Upstream oil and gas investment must rise to the pre-pandemic levels of around $525 billion per year through the end of the decade so that the industry can ensure a demand-supply balance, Saudi Arabia-based International Energy Forum (IEF) and IHS Markit said in a new report this week.

This year, upstream investment is still depressed, for a second year in a row, and is estimated at around $341 billion. This is almost 25 percent below the investment levels of the last “normal” year in 2019, says the report from IHS Markit and IEF, which is the world’s largest international organization of energy ministers from 71 countries including both producing and consuming nations.

While investments in oil and gas exploration and production continue to be depressed, global demand is “now near pre-pandemic highs and will continue to rise for the next several years, particularly in developing countries,” according to the report titled “Investment Crisis Threatens Energy Security.”

The next two years will be critical for the sanctioning of new projects to make sure that there is enough supply coming online within five to six years, the report noted.

“Insufficient upstream investment would result in more price volatility and spur adverse economic consequences,” IHS Markit and IEF say.

The report echoes the concern of many industry professionals, who have said in recent months that underinvestment in oil and gas threatens future energy supply because oil and gas will be consumed for decades to come, regardless of the pace of the energy transition.

A rushed transition into renewable energy would cause spiraling inflation and social unrest, Amin Nasser, the chief executive of Saudi Aramco, warned at the World Petroleum Congress in Texas this week, noting that investments in oil and gas needed to continue in order to avoid such a scenario.

Global annual upstream spending needs to increase by as much as 54 percent to $542 billion if the oil market is to avert the next supply shortage shock, Moody’s said in October.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

• The Multi-Billion Dollar Start Of A Nuclear Fusion Boom
• Natural Gas Bulls Hit Hard By Warm Weather Reports
• The Oil Price Crash Has Taught U.S. Shale A Valuable Lesson

If we invested 542 billion a year into EVs and electrification we wouldn't need an oil industry. It's pathetic how you guys claim the green transition is too expensive and then want over half a trillion a year just to keep the oil industry going.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

If we invested 542 billion a year into EVs and electrification we wouldn't need an oil industry. It's pathetic how you guys claim the green transition is too expensive and then want over half a trillion a year just to keep the oil industry going.

The problem isn’t that nobody wants to - it’s a scaling issue.  The business of EV’s isn’t big enough yet to have the proper scope and scale to absorb a capital influx that large and put it to productive use.  It’s effectively growing as fast as physical limits allow, based on 3 different potential bottlenecks:

The speed at which mining operations for battery materials can be expanded or opened

The speed at which battery assembly plants can be opened and expanded.

The speed at which vehicles and plants to construct  them can be assembled and workforces trained to operate them.  

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

9 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

The problem isn’t that nobody wants to - it’s a scaling issue.  The business of EV’s isn’t big enough yet to have the proper scope and scale to absorb a capital influx that large and put it to productive use.  It’s effectively growing as fast as physical limits allow, based on 3 different potential bottlenecks:

The speed at which mining operations for battery materials can be expanded or opened

The speed at which battery assembly plants can be opened and expanded.

The speed at which vehicles and plants to construct  them can be assembled and workforces trained to operate them.  

Well I also said electrification so solar, wind, infrastructure and research as well. The reality is that the deficit in oil industry investment is going into green substitutes. Soon it will be all of the oil investment.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eric Gagen + 713]

13 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Well I also said electrification so solar, wind, infrastructure and research as well. The reality is that the deficit in oil industry investment is going into green substitutes. Soon it will be all of the oil investment.

Realistically though the oil industry doesn't produce anything that assists or inhibits electricification - the natural gas industry does, but the cited article looks strictly at the supply and demand for oil, so presumably they are calculating oil driven exploration and production, not gas.  

I agree a big section of money will/could/can go to solar, wind, etc.  and it will get a lot, but it's still not enough - world population and economic growth is simply too fast for these sources to keep up with and meet all marginal demand from this point forward, while simultaneously replacing legacy coal power (and shutting down the nuclear industry at least in some places) it's just faster than it can grow.  

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

36 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

Realistically though the oil industry doesn't produce anything that assists or inhibits electricification - the natural gas industry does, but the cited article looks strictly at the supply and demand for oil, so presumably they are calculating oil driven exploration and production, not gas.  

I agree a big section of money will/could/can go to solar, wind, etc.  and it will get a lot, but it's still not enough - world population and economic growth is simply too fast for these sources to keep up with and meet all marginal demand from this point forward, while simultaneously replacing legacy coal power (and shutting down the nuclear industry at least in some places) it's just faster than it can grow.  

A large portion of our natural gas supply comes from oil wells as a byproduct. As EVs grow and demand for oil decreases, the production of natural gas will also decrease and thus its price will rise making renewables relatively that much cheaper.

World population is peaking. The only place in the world that still has a birth rate exceeding replacement is Africa and their birth rate is declining. I think you will find this lecture interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNqCRvDbCVI

It will certainly take a while for legacy coal to be replaced but renewables can certainly meet the marginal demand so long as crypto currency can be kept in check. Renewable costs have hit a speed bump but the cost curve will soon.return to its steep decreasing slope.

Glut Of Solar Panels Is Coming In 2025

The production capacity of solar panels is expected to exceed 1,000 GW per year by 2030. Pledges made by several dozen companies should see production capacity triple over the next three years. An expansion to nearly 4 million tons of solar-grade polysilicon production capacity will have been announced just in the last few weeks alone. Running at two-thirds capacity utilization would be enough to manufacturer 900 GW of photovoltaics every year.

2025 is also the predicted year for massive EV take-up as manufacturers bring greater supply to market. “The polysilicon shortage will continue to limit worldwide solar installations until mid-2023, in which year 250 GW of polysilicon solar will be commissioned. The price of polysilicon will take at least five years to return to the record low of 2020, but will then decline even further,” says Andries Wantenaar, solar analyst with Rethink Energy and lead author of Polysilicon manufacturing forecast to 2030.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

20 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

If we invested 542 billion a year into EVs and electrification we wouldn't need an oil industry. It's pathetic how you guys claim the green transition is too expensive and then want over half a trillion a year just to keep the oil industry going.

It is like saying 1kg of rice costs the same as 1kg of iron and hence can be substituted according to economics. That simply does not work as people can't eat iron. Similarly, the electrification & EV are peripheral activities that can never substitute oil.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

55 minutes ago, kshithij Sharma said:

It is like saying 1kg of rice costs the same as 1kg of iron and hence can be substituted according to economics. That simply does not work as people can't eat iron. Similarly, the electrification & EV are peripheral activities that can never substitute oil.

The substitution is happening every day. I guess you don't do well with something we call reality.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

37 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The substitution is happening every day. I guess you don't do well with something we call reality.

Indeed Europe as we speak is facing the reality of Green Energy. On one front they no longer provide enough power to heat the homes of their citizens. And on another front the world is facing global war due to the EUROZONE'S reckless venture into Green Energy.

Frankly an entire continent is in chaos over windmill's. 

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The substitution is happening every day. I guess you don't do well with something we call reality.

I see that you are very adamant but not observant. In the real world, the substitution of fossil fuels with renewables is very limited. The only practically viable renewables are hydropower and geothermal power but both of these are very limited and are already being used to 80-90% of its potential. The other renewables like solar, wind etc are highly unreliable and fluctuating. Germany is a real life example of how these renewable energy substitution fails spectacularly. Germany's experience shows that the combined wind and solar can't cross 20% of the total electricity produced because it causes grid stability issues caused by fluctuations. Germany had to rely on the interconnected EU grid to sell its renewable energy at low prices as its internal grid could not handle it.

Similarly, the EV substitution only works in luxury sector for rich urban folks for their short trips to spas and supermarkets. It does not work when serious useful activities are involved.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

6 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

I see that you are very adamant but not observant. In the real world, the substitution of fossil fuels with renewables is very limited. The only practically viable renewables are hydropower and geothermal power but both of these are very limited and are already being used to 80-90% of its potential. The other renewables like solar, wind etc are highly unreliable and fluctuating. Germany is a real life example of how these renewable energy substitution fails spectacularly. Germany's experience shows that the combined wind and solar can't cross 20% of the total electricity produced because it causes grid stability issues caused by fluctuations. Germany had to rely on the interconnected EU grid to sell its renewable energy at low prices as its internal grid could not handle it.

Similarly, the EV substitution only works in luxury sector for rich urban folks for their short trips to spas and supermarkets. It does not work when serious useful activities are involved.

I think it is you that needs to work on being observant. 

Both Australia and California are running with 25% of their electricity coming from combined solar and wind: https://opennem.org.au/energy/au/?range=1y&interval=1M

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electric-generation#:~:text=California's non-CO2 emitting electric,to 57 percent in 2019.&text=Total renewable energy reached 33,2.5 percent from 2019 levels.

Relying on grid interconnections to sell renewable energy is a good thing. No different from having a surplus of oil or gas and selling it to your neighbor via pipeline.

I guess you also haven't noticed that commercial EV sales are skyrocketing.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/10/2021 at 4:37 PM, Tomasz said:

Well demand will increase at least to 2035

Investments in oil industry were halved affter 2014

Average time of puting new oil deposit to production is about 7 years frame

We had also record low new oil discoveries after 2014

Hedge funds and banks dont want to invest in oil thanks to GREEN DEAL or rather GREEN HISTERIA

What could go wrong in next few years at least untill 2025?

We are already 5 % below average OECD inventories in December 2021.

We already have record inflation in OECD countries (39 year high in USA November 2021)

It looks like perfect storm coming.

Some people predicted that in XXI centrury we will have war for water supply?

So why not global conflicts for energy supply?

Russia stands to make hundreds of billions of dollars, but would rather quibble over Ukraine thanks to Putin. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I think it is you that needs to work on being observant. 

Both Australia and California are running with 25% of their electricity coming from combined solar and wind: https://opennem.org.au/energy/au/?range=1y&interval=1M

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electric-generation#:~:text=California's non-CO2 emitting electric,to 57 percent in 2019.&text=Total renewable energy reached 33,2.5 percent from 2019 levels.

Relying on grid interconnections to sell renewable energy is a good thing. No different from having a surplus of oil or gas and selling it to your neighbor via pipeline.

I guess you also haven't noticed that commercial EV sales are skyrocketing.

 

Where will the electricity come from, and how much will it cost Californians? Will it come from coal plants and natural gas in other states? 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Just now, ronwagn said:

Where will the electricity come from, and how much will it cost Californians? Will it come from coal plants and natural gas in other states? 

What do you mean where will the electricity come from? This already happened. Solar and wind combined generated 25% of CA electricity in 2020, the most recent year for which data is available. In 2021 the number will be even higher.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

13 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

What do you mean where will the electricity come from? This already happened. Solar and wind combined generated 25% of CA electricity in 2020, the most recent year for which data is available. In 2021 the number will be even higher.

 

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/coal/californias-hidden-coal-use/

California’s politicians would like you to believe that their electricity comes from non-coal sources. However, while there are very few coal plants in California, making up only 0.4 percent of the state’s generation in 2014[i], California imports electricity from neighboring states and as much as half of Southern California’s electric generation comes from coal-fired generating plants in Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona.[ii] Although California is pushing electric vehicles, wanting 1.5 million on the road by 2025,[iii] the greenhouse gas savings from their use will be minuscule if electricity continues to be generated mainly from imports of coal-fired generation and natural gas that supplies the state with 60 percent of its electricity. California intends to become coal-free when its coal contracts expire in 2027 and when its carbon law requires compliance. The transition to renewable energy and natural gas, however, will be expensive to the state’s electricity consumers, and reliability of the state’s electric system could become an issue.

California is one of the nation’s largest industrial consumers of coal. In 2013, it was the eighth-biggest industrial coal user, consuming 1.4 million tons. While this amount and the consumption of coal used to produce electricity imports is small compared to coal consumption in the eastern United States and other western states, it still represents an important market for some western coal producers.

Study on Southern California’s Imports of Electricity

According to a study by SNL, three out-of-state coal-fired power plants are providing up to 50 percent of the electricity for Southern California—the Intermountain Power Project in Utah, the San Juan plant in New Mexico and the Navajo plant in Arizona. The three plants received a total of 19.6 million tons of coal in 2014 and 10.1 million tons of coal through July of this year.[iv]

California’s carbon law AB 32 requires the state’s greenhouse gas emissions return to 1990 levels by 2020, and in doing so, sets in-state plant performance standards that are too stringent for conventional coal units. Once current power contracts expire in 2027, it will be illegal for California utilities to get coal power from out-of-state plants. As a result, the plants will need to be shuttered or converted to natural gas.

In order to keep selling electricity to California, Utah’s Intermountain Power Project is expected to convert to natural gas by 2025. The Utah power company sells about 90 percent of its power to six California municipalities. About 45 percent of the company’s capacity is owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, who has indicated that it will curtail coal use by 2025.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power will also sell its 21 percent ownership in Arizona’s Navajo Generating Station to the plant’s operator, the Salt River Project, by summer of 2016. It gets 477 megawatts of electricity from the plant’s coal-fired generators. As part of the sale, the Salt River Project must close one of the plant’s three coal generators by 2016.

New Mexico’s San Juan plant is planning to shutter two coal-fired generators by the end of 2017 due to federal EPA regulations.

Edited February 15, 2022 by ronwagn

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/coal/californias-hidden-coal-use/

alifornia’s politicians would like you to believe that their electricity comes from non-coal sources. However, while there are very few coal plants in California, making up only 0.4 percent of the state’s generation in 2014[i], California imports electricity from neighboring states and as much as half of Southern California’s electric generation comes from coal-fired generating plants in Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona.[ii] Although California is pushing electric vehicles, wanting 1.5 million on the road by 2025,[iii] the greenhouse gas savings from their use will be minuscule if electricity continues to be generated mainly from imports of coal-fired generation and natural gas that supplies the state with 60 percent of its electricity. California intends to become coal-free when its coal contracts expire in 2027 and when its carbon law requires compliance. The transition to renewable energy and natural gas, however, will be expensive to the state’s electricity consumers, and reliability of the state’s electric system could become an issue.

California is one of the nation’s largest industrial consumers of coal. In 2013, it was the eighth-biggest industrial coal user, consuming 1.4 million tons. While this amount and the consumption of coal used to produce electricity imports is small compared to coal consumption in the eastern United States and other western states, it still represents an important market for some western coal producers.

Study on Southern California’s Imports of Electricity

According to a study by SNL, three out-of-state coal-fired power plants are providing up to 50 percent of the electricity for Southern California—the Intermountain Power Project in Utah, the San Juan plant in New Mexico and the Navajo plant in Arizona. The three plants received a total of 19.6 million tons of coal in 2014 and 10.1 million tons of coal through July of this year.[iv]

California’s carbon law AB 32 requires the state’s greenhouse gas emissions return to 1990 levels by 2020, and in doing so, sets in-state plant performance standards that are too stringent for conventional coal units. Once current power contracts expire in 2027, it will be illegal for California utilities to get coal power from out-of-state plants. As a result, the plants will need to be shuttered or converted to natural gas.

In order to keep selling electricity to California, Utah’s Intermountain Power Project is expected to convert to natural gas by 2025. The Utah power company sells about 90 percent of its power to six California municipalities. About 45 percent of the company’s capacity is owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, who has indicated that it will curtail coal use by 2025.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power will also sell its 21 percent ownership in Arizona’s Navajo Generating Station to the plant’s operator, the Salt River Project, by summer of 2016. It gets 477 megawatts of electricity from the plant’s coal-fired generators. As part of the sale, the Salt River Project must close one of the plant’s three coal generators by 2016.

New Mexico’s San Juan plant is planning to shutter two coal-fired generators by the end of 2017 due to federal EPA regulations.

You just love spreading around old and out of date information. That article is 7 years old. If you had clicked on the link I provided you would know the truth. This is the California 2020 electricity mix:

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://freopp.org/the-high-cost-of-california-electricity-is-increasing-poverty-d7bc4021b705

The High Cost of California Electricity Is Increasing Poverty

California’s poverty rate is the highest in the nation. New restrictions on natural gas will increase electricity costs, making the problem worse.

 

Robert Bryce

Follow

Jul 8, 2020 · 25 min read

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You just love spreading around old and out of date information. That article is 7 years old. If you had clicked on the link I provided you would know the truth. This is the California 2020 electricity mix:

 

Ok, so 33% is renewables that are not available on demand. That depend on other sources for continuous power. Never the less you have some of the highest rates in the country and use very little heating energy so are an exception! This is impressive to who? Then factor in the increasing demand from electric vehicles. 

The biggest flaw in your logic is that energy is NOT just electricity. It includes liquid fuels, diesel, gasoline, LNG, propane etc. That is a very large sector that is blotted out of the internet searches as much as possible. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

19 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Ok, so 33% is renewables that are not available on demand. That depend on other sources for continuous power. Never the less you have some of the highest rates in the country and use very little heating energy so are an exception! This is impressive to who? Then factor in the increasing demand from electric vehicles. 

The biggest flaw in your logic is that energy is NOT just electricity. It includes liquid fuels, diesel, gasoline, LNG, propane etc. That is a very large sector that is blotted out of the internet searches as much as possible. 

Renewable electricity is on demand if it has been stored. That is why we are building out the largest battery network in the world. But I doubt you will ever be able to comprehend this since it has been explained to you over and over again.

Most of the high rates are due to wildfire costs being passed onto the consumer, not the shareholders and not charging enough for grid connections to houses with solar. These are both problems. But the wholesale cost of renewables is less than gas and coal. 

We are replacing diesel and gasoline with our EV push and we use very little LNG or propane. Nothing is being blotted out of Internet searches. 

We will be 100% renewable electricity by 2045 including EVs. 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

14 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I think it is you that needs to work on being observant. 

Both Australia and California are running with 25% of their electricity coming from combined solar and wind: https://opennem.org.au/energy/au/?range=1y&interval=1M

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electric-generation#:~:text=California's non-CO2 emitting electric,to 57 percent in 2019.&text=Total renewable energy reached 33,2.5 percent from 2019 levels.

Relying on grid interconnections to sell renewable energy is a good thing. No different from having a surplus of oil or gas and selling it to your neighbor via pipeline.

I guess you also haven't noticed that commercial EV sales are skyrocketing.

 

The wind and solar will always need hydro and gas power plants to provide emergency backups during fluctuations. In a country that is capable of providing hydro and gas power for 100% of its electricity needs, it can afford to use solar and wind to about 40% of the grid as the hydro and gas plants can be ramped up quickly to overcome the fluctuations from wind or solar. Looking at California, it has about 40% generation through gas and about 15% through hydro which means it can accommodate more than 20% wind and solar. However, this is not a very standard thing everywhere. In cases where solar and wind is not backed up by gas and does not have unusually high amount of hydropower, it is virtually impossible to have grid tied solar and wind make up over 20% of electricity supply. California can do it solely because of huge amount of gas powered energy which is not the case in most of the world. So, under normal circumstances, it is very difficult to stabilise the grid when wind & solar exceed 20%

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

7 minutes ago, kshithij Sharma said:

The wind and solar will always need hydro and gas power plants to provide emergency backups during fluctuations. In a country that is capable of providing hydro and gas power for 100% of its electricity needs, it can afford to use solar and wind to about 40% of the grid as the hydro and gas plants can be ramped up quickly to overcome the fluctuations from wind or solar. Looking at California, it has about 40% generation through gas and about 15% through hydro which means it can accommodate more than 20% wind and solar. However, this is not a very standard thing everywhere. In cases where solar and wind is not backed up by gas and does not have unusually high amount of hydropower, it is virtually impossible to have grid tied solar and wind make up over 20% of electricity supply. California can do it solely because of huge amount of gas powered energy which is not the case in most of the world. So, under normal circumstances, it is very difficult to stabilise the grid when wind & solar exceed 20%

Haha, not surprised to see that your system requirements are a moving target. I'm sure you will keep updating them as solar and wind outgrow your formulas.