Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 23, 2021

Biden's Play In Today's Oil Market Is A One-Time Trick That Will Backfire

The White House announced today that the U.S., together with a few other countries, will release crude oil from its strategic petroleum reserve:

Today, the President is announcing that the Department of Energy will make available releases of 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower prices for Americans and address the mismatch between demand exiting the pandemic and supply.

The President has been working with countries across the world to address the lack of supply as the world exits the pandemic. And, as a result of President Biden’s leadership and our diplomatic efforts, this release will be taken in parallel with other major energy consuming nations including China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom.

The U.S. will make a onetime release of 50 million barrels while the other countries together are expected to release 20 million barrels. For comparison the global consumption is about 100 million barrels per day.

Of the U.S. 50 million release 32 million are only an exchange. Refineries which buy those will later have to provide back a similar amount. The White House assumption is that future crude oil prices will sink. The refiners are likely smarter. They know that future prices will rise and are therefore unlikely to buy any of the 32 million barrels.

The total amount is thus too small to make a reasonable difference in the global market.

Oil prices have been sinking over the last days as rumors about the release made the rounds. But today they were back at rising:

In early trading on Tuesday, Brent crude for January delivery was up $1.44 at $81.14 per barrel.

In New York, January WTI on Nymex was trading some $1.04 higher at $77.79/bbl.
...
Traders said the coordinated SPR release has already largely backfired, in part because of the small volumes involved, and in part because the releases — acute in nature — could cause Opec and its allies to flex more structural muscle and keep a tighter lid on supply going forward.

“The total release is only [a few days] of US throughputs — it’s not substantial,” said Alex Hodes, energy analyst with StoneX Financial. "It’s a temporary fix, it’s political posturing."

In addition, Hodes said, the market had largely priced in an SPR release and had already undergone a major sell-off — and perhaps had already reached a bottom.

The OPEC+ producer cartel had planned to increase the total output by 400,000 barrels per day in each of the next months. It may now well respond to the release by skipping that increase for a month or two. Prices would then rise further.

Previous to today's release the U.S. had asked Russia and Saudi Arabia to increase their production. Neither of those countries likes the Biden administration's behavior towards them. Both said "no". Had Biden stopped the continues provocations towards Russia, or had he invited the Saudi clown prince Mohammad bin Salman to the White House, the outcome might have been different.

But the White House continued to see need to "do something" and the coordinated SPR release was all it could come up with.

That coordination is of interest as it is the first time that there is a kind of buyer cartel countering the producer cartel. But the buyers have - in the end - much less power than the producers and would lose out should this become a race between strategic reserve releases and production cuts.

While the White House claimed that China is involved in the reserve release there is some doubt that China will actually do something. China does not publish its reserve numbers. Also note that the European Union countries are completely missing here. The view in Europe is that a price of oil at $80/barrel is not unreasonable and no need for alarm. Crude reserves are held for strategic purposes, not for attempts to manipulate a market that is otherwise working well.

The problem with gasoline prices in the U.S. is regional. The average gasoline price is $3.76 per U.S. gallon. Local prices though vary much with California and some parts at the east coast seeing average prices at $4.70/gal and above. That variance is a problem that crude oil price movements can not fix.

Today's announcement was a one-time move that is likely to fire back. For now it may help Biden in the polls. But the effect will soon vanish and prices will go up again.

The only way to influence producer countries to pump more oil is by decreasing U.S. hostility against them. As Biden is unwilling to do that he will doom the democrat's chances in the midterm election.

Posted by b on November 23, 2021 at 18:01 UTC | Permalink

Comments

It is in the long term interests of producers that the consumers' strategic reserves be drawn down to the greatest extent possible, and even eliminated, if possible.

Posted by: bob sykes | Nov 23 2021 18:07 utc | 1

The timing is what I see as the purpose of the oil market feint. It is the holiday season and many want to travel with gas prices effecting some plans but probably not many.

The move will be seen and made up to look like something is being done to manage the situation when behind the scenes we see rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Energy is another element of mixed economies that us meatsack public never discuss about what role government should play in the provision and/or regulation of the markets. In the US we have the BPA and the TVA as examples of government provision but then the oil market is mostly/all? private.

Is humanity going to rip the curtain off the cover of the global private finance owned cult shit show we are living?
It is way past time, IMO

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 23 2021 18:20 utc | 2

You know what would make an actual (though not very big) impact on prices? Removing illegal sanctions on Venezuela and Iran (and while we're at it, Syria and Yemen too). That would actually bring significant supplies on market and dampen the shortage. Any takers?

Posted by: Caliman | Nov 23 2021 18:21 utc | 3

Caliman @3 takes the ball and scores!! If Iran and Venezuela hydrocarbons were freely available on the hypothetical Free Market, then prices would certainly fall as further supplies would climb over the short term, next 5 or so years. Same with allowing Petrobas to extract its very large offshore deposits. Meanwhile, there's one collective voice you won't hear begging for more supply for the market--Outlaw US Empire based Big Oil, which enjoys the current price level and is a Biden backer.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 23 2021 18:51 utc | 4

Venezuela has huge reserves. It is sanctioned.
Iran has huge reserves. It is sanctioned.
Russia has huge reserves. It is sanctioned.
Either there is a game afoot of which I am ignorant, or the U.S. and Europe really are that stupid. Soon we will know.

Posted by: Hal Duell | Nov 23 2021 18:56 utc | 5

@3 Caliman - indeed

Posted by: ptb | Nov 23 2021 19:03 utc | 6

Must be time to hijack more Iranian tankers.

Posted by: Gerard | Nov 23 2021 19:09 utc | 7

The only way to influence producer countries to pump more oil is by decreasing U.S. hostility against them.

I cannot say I agree with you b. that is the only way ..?
In the early 70s i was in the eastern oil plays doing 90 day wonder wells in shallow soils 650 feet stuff, there were 3 million of us before those Saudicrats at the EPA shut us down..and we producing about 20 bbls a day..and making lots of gas that we could not sell b/c there was no gas line but when you add those up you 20bbl*4000 producing wells =80,000bbd/day(already in America) and that 30 days is 2,400,000 barrels of oil a month 28.800,000 million a year.. and I am sure if the govt would help us get the financing we could triple the output just from what i knew back then.
Moreover there were several refinery that were refining those bbls and more than that these refinery had there own gas pumping stations distributed throughout the regions competing with pump prices as low as $0.17 (cents a gallon) with the majors.

Back then $13 / bbl made good profits for about 5 men and 20 investors.

What we need to do is to fire everybody in the EPA and open up these oil fields inside the USA and let the small man put big fat cat oil and gas companies out of business. and remove the department of energy to Saudia Arabia for the beheading they will likely receive should they shut down the Saudi oil flows into USA governed America. That is the best way I know to restart the restart of America and the best way i know to tame Wall Streets investing in foreign places.

we do not need to empty the strategic reserve, we need to pump American oil from America oil Fields, and refine the oil in America Refineries, and serve the gas to automobiles from America owned gas stations on American owned land.

Posted by: snake | Nov 23 2021 19:11 utc | 8

Great as always b but do you notice we no longer question all this domestic pricing shenanigans?
From a naive view this stinks to high heaven even if Biden's lack of impact is rational. Did we benefit from negative pricing proportionally?

Posted by: David G Horsman | Nov 23 2021 19:12 utc | 9

This rise in prices may be temporary but it is against what will be a rising trend of energy price as fossil fuel is phased out. Prices will rise until they reach the ceiling set by alternative non fossil energy sources.

Given that Biden is committed to phasing out oil this action indicates the lack of real commitment to this nominal goal.

Posted by: Paul Cockshott | Nov 23 2021 19:20 utc | 10

Gasoline is priced on the global market ever since the export laws were modified in 2015. There is no shortage of gasoline in the US. The last stats for export of US finished gas by the EIA was in August 2021. That was over 28,000 kb (28 million) barrels for the month of August exported, one of the largest amounts ever. The price is determined by whomever is willing to pay the most over the pond not here in the US. Until the global supply meets the global demand, the price will not go down.

SPR releases are just playing politics as the author says.

Posted by: jrs | Nov 23 2021 19:31 utc | 11


Libya, a country in North Africa, with gigantic reserves of oil and natural gas, s up for grabs. Libya is going to have a so-called UN-sponsored election in December of this year.

Two camps are very, very interested in control in Libya.

1 - EU/US

2 - China/Russia

The camp that wins this geopolitical struggle wins enormously.

The UN is largely interfering on the West's side.

If Libya falls into the Western camp, she will be plundered again as she has for the last 4-5 decades.

I hope China and Russia save her and her enormous resources.

Posted by: bored muslim | Nov 23 2021 19:41 utc | 12

Paul Cockshott @10--

Except that Biden via his actions proves he's not "committed to phasing out oil." And as I noted, BigOil is quite pleased with the current price level. What needs to happen within the Outlaw US Empire is another round of demand destruction via the adoption of sensible very high mileage vehicles, not the SUVs seen everywhere. I just reviewed the CAFE Standards and they're utterly ridiculous bordering on useless given their political manipulation reflecting the political power of Big Auto and Big Oil. Then there're the real estate developers who want to continue applying the failed low density suburban development pioneered in the 1930s and weaponized after WW2. Policy-wise, nothing has really changed since the many discussions on the Oil Drum blog 15+ years ago. The Outlaw US Empire supposedly wages war for oil but then keeps it off the market so prices rise. IMO, that's the genuine policy goal, not conservation of pollution abatement.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 23 2021 19:51 utc | 13

For most of the last century, the Global Elites were able to dictate, and manipulate for political purposes, the price of oil.

Unfortunately for them, one of the side effects of the pandemic is that it is now Russia who effectively dictates oil prices.

Posted by: dh-mtl | Nov 23 2021 20:02 utc | 14

One should always keep in mind that 'Big Oil' is mainly comprised of the huge trasnational oil companies whose controlling shareholders are the 1% who wield enormous political influence over all Wester gov'ts -- obviously their interest is to increase share prices and to maximize dividends.

Posted by: chet380 | Nov 23 2021 20:29 utc | 15

Getting along with Putin isn`t always easy. But MbS is a megolomaniac, genocidal madman! On top of that he is highly incompetent. Any person with at least some basic human decency and/or half a brain keeps his distance to MbS.

I don`t know if Biden is at least a halfway decent person. But what is for sure is that in between the moments when he temporary slips into dementia Biden is a man with more than half a century of political experience. He knows very well how that will eventually end - he has seen it often enough during his long political career - and he also knows that no oil and money in the world will be worth being close to MbS once it happens.

Posted by: m | Nov 23 2021 20:42 utc | 16

The Dementia Administration puts the PR in SPR.

Posted by: figleaf23 | Nov 23 2021 20:48 utc | 17

In the late 90ies oil traded below 20 per bbl When bush was elected he began filling the strategic reserves. The price rise of the bottom in the early part of this century coincided with Bush 2 filling the strategic reserve. We used to say every generation gets an oil boom and bust. There is ample evidence supplies/reserves are restricted by price and politics.

Posted by: WBDuncan | Nov 23 2021 20:55 utc | 18

@m | 16
"I don`t know if Biden is at least a halfway decent person."

He is decidedly NOT a decent person. He is the architect of the incarceration holocaust that has destroyed African American families for over a quarter of a century. He drove the coup in Ukraine that has cost thousands of lives for no reason but enriched his son. He supported the Bush war in Iraq. He assaulted Tara Reade. He is even halfway decent.

Posted by: figleaf23 | Nov 23 2021 21:02 utc | 19

Above (19) I obviously meant to say Biden is NOT even halfway decent.

Posted by: figleaf23 | Nov 23 2021 21:03 utc | 20

figleaf23 #19 "He is the architect of the incarceration holocaust that has destroyed African American families for over a quarter of a century."

Assuming you are talking about the 1994 Crime Bill, many many black leaders supported it and in fact asked for it. See:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/analysis-black-leaders-supported-clinton-s-crime-bill-n552961

"In addition to the dozens of pastors who signed a letter in support of the bill, it also had the support of black mayors. Kurt Schmoke, the first elected black mayor of Baltimore, was a vigorous supporter.

Even then U.S. Representative Kweisi Mfume, then chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) who understood the bill was a means to “find better ways to incarcerate people” eventually buckled, not only supporting the bill, but was ultimately responsible for its passage by rallying a majority of CBC members to vote for it after the bill was nearly derailed on a procedural issue."

Btw, I don't disagree with the idea that Biden is not a decent person. However, the Crime Bill is not a good reason why not. Now, his support for the Iraq Wars, his leadership of bankruptcy deform (the senator from MBNA), his decades of utter servility to corporate and security interests, etc. ...

Posted by: Caliman | Nov 23 2021 21:34 utc | 21

Russia has been a huge supplier of crude oil to the United States. Not much has changed.

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/041621-us-reliance-on-russian-oil-hits-record-high-despite-souring-ties

The price for crude oil and natural gas are reflecting more realistic behavior from the US shale operators who are publicly listed companies. They've become more conservative as investors demand they produce profitably.

Posted by: Les | Nov 23 2021 21:34 utc | 22

US fossil fuel policy has staggered from one extreme to another:

- The Bush Years: its "peak oil" and we need to dominate the Middle East so we can dominate the world, which immediately got bogged down in Iraq (nothing to do with 9/11)

- Obama Years, especially second term, and Trump: Fracking (and Canadian Tar Sands) make us a fossil fuel superpower and the market will be constantly over-supplied. Now we can sanction big oil producers we don't like without causing an oil price jump!

- Biden: Ooopsy, the shale revolutions seems to have gone into slow-mode and the oil price keeps rising. How do we manage the domestic fallout of this, but oh God we cant remove the sanctions on the oil producers!

Tied up by their own prior machinations.

Posted by: Roger | Nov 23 2021 21:41 utc | 23

@Posted by: Caliman | Nov 23 2021 21:34 utc | 21

The Congressional Black Caucus mostly represents the "House N****" that Malcolm X referred to, co-opted with the elites to help keep the majority of the Black population under control. Many of them have no real connection to the populations they "represent" and/or are fully bought and paid for like Clyburn. Any members who really push to properly represent their constituents are very quickly "educated" or removed, like Cynthia McKinney was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kf7fujM4ag

Posted by: Roger | Nov 23 2021 21:55 utc | 24

Why Biden administration doing something seems so stupid?
They know this is temporary.
They know it will back fire.
So they are sacrifiying something with a purpose.
What is that purpose?
It may look like too strange and silly. Biden has promised that he can prove the market does not Iran oil, on jcpoa negotiation table.
Biden is too clever, he is trying to learn how play chess!

Posted by: Arata | Nov 23 2021 21:55 utc | 25

Estos genios acabarán por pedirle a Venezuela que aumente su producción.

Posted by: Frasco | Nov 23 2021 23:00 utc | 26

The only way to influence producer countries to pump more oil is by decreasing U.S. hostility against them. As Biden is unwilling to do that he will doom the democrat's chances in the midterm election.


Very foolish of China IF Biden's, or rather the White House, claims are true. I agree that this is just more gaslighting for the electorate to prop up the Democrats chances in the upcoming midterm elections (which isn't looking good at all). The solutions to many of the problems the US is experiencing can easily be addressed right now but, Empire is really difficult to walk away from when you've enjoyed it for so many years.

Posted by: Ian2 | Nov 23 2021 23:00 utc | 27

The one reason for the firm and rising prices of fossil fuels (oil and gas) is that nobody has been investing in the sector any more, only Qatar drilled more gas holes, nobody else.

If one had the money one would invest heavily in oil and gas, today prices are but a bottom of a surge to come, a surge never seen before.

Posted by: Baron | Nov 23 2021 23:27 utc | 28

@ karlof1 4 / caliman 3.. well of course b scores too, if you read his last 2nd last line - "The only way to influence producer countries to pump more oil is by decreasing U.S. hostility against them. "

now, why isn't that happening?? are the warmongers calling most of the shots here?? iran, venezuala and etc. etc. have to be sanctioned, even though the gas guzzling west sees the price of oil going up while the planet is going to shit.... the 1% are doing a bad job of running the planet and the politicians are beholden to this same 1%

i like what @ 26 frasco says! - These geniuses will end up asking Venezuela to increase its production.

here is something more friendly - I Shall Be Free - Toots and The Maytals

Posted by: james | Nov 23 2021 23:40 utc | 29

How much is a barrel in terms of volume, and what's a "gallon" in litres? Without basis for comprehension in units normal people can understand, one can't compare prices.

Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayast | Nov 23 2021 23:48 utc | 30

I would be very, very surprised if China has signed up to this. In the event of an attempted blockade by the US, China will need every drop of oil it has in reserve.

Posted by: Sarcophilus | Nov 24 2021 0:00 utc | 31

we do not need to empty the strategic reserve, we need to pump American oil from America oil Fields, and refine the oil in America Refineries, and serve the gas to automobiles from America owned gas stations on American owned land.

lol!

When you produce 11-12 million barrels a day, and use 20 million barrels a day, this won't work.

Posted by: Duncan Idaho | Nov 24 2021 0:01 utc | 32

Found on the web:

The US gallon is used in the United States and is equal to exactly 231 cubic inches or 3.785411784 liters.

I get $4.00/gallon ~= $1.05/liter.

Another one:

To convert oil barrels to liters, multiply the oil barrel value by 158.987295.

But I don't suppose a barrel of oil is the same as a barrel of gas, in terms of price.

Barrel IIRC is 55 gallons.

Posted by: Bemildred | Nov 24 2021 0:05 utc | 33

Bemildred @33--

A barrel of oil is 42 US gallons. Here's an excellent conversion site.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 24 2021 0:16 utc | 34

those of us who live in Europe have to smirk a bit when we hear of extraordinary gas prices in the US. sheesh..a dollar per liter. Currently we are paying about $1.90 per liter and have been for some time.

the difference is that almost 60 percent of the price is tax.

also, I found quite odd that diesel costs more than gasoline in the US but vice versa in at least some of the countries in Europe. I am familiar with Germany, Austria, and Italy only.

Posted by: dan of steele | Nov 24 2021 0:26 utc | 35

@ dan of steele... 1.60 canuck $ per litre here where i live... diesel is less expensive here - vancouver island - then gas..

Posted by: james | Nov 24 2021 0:37 utc | 36

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 24 2021 0:16 utc | 34

Thanks, I don't remember where I got 55 gallon drums from, but it's from somewhere.

Posted by: Bemildred | Nov 24 2021 0:53 utc | 37

Seems as though big business charges consumers what they want, whenever they want. With the reason changing from time to time.

Posted by: vetinLA | Nov 24 2021 1:02 utc | 38

P.S.; The Biden move is theater because of falling poll numbers.

Posted by: vetinLA | Nov 24 2021 1:05 utc | 39

Caliman @ 3, karlof1 @ 4, James @ 29:

The solution Caliman proposed @ 3 is so obvious, so why doesn't the US relieve or remove sanctions from OPEC nations like Venezuela?

My suspicion is that oil corporations and energy traders are keen on gaming the market to keep prices and profits high - same as what they are doing with natural gas supplies (and thus influence the price) in Europe by sanctioning Russia over the continuation and completion of the Nordstream II project.

Incidentally Haiti has huge amounts of oil resources, reputedly larger than those of Venezuela, but we don't hear much about Haiti as an oil producer and exporter at all. One has to wonder whether the US is actually stopping or hindering Haiti from developing its oil resources and how.

Posted by: Jen | Nov 24 2021 1:19 utc | 40

Bemildred 37

Your confusion stems from the fact that a standard steel drum (a steel barrel)is of 55 gals capacity.

Posted by: CarlD | Nov 24 2021 1:29 utc | 41

@ 40 jen... thanks.. fascinating about haiti - i didn't know that.. all i know is how the usa - canada and etc are happy to keep it unstable.. this would explain it better..

and, i keep forgetting it isn't only the military complex, but also the oil complex.. remember rex tillerson - ex ceo of exxon - as head of state? this energy complex - oil/gas and etc - is also quite powerful and influential in decision making.. i think your suspicions are on target... these folks will game the system as much as they can, and of course energy traders on the floors of the exchanges are all in on this too... wall st has undue influence and has for some time... thanks for your insights..

Posted by: james | Nov 24 2021 1:30 utc | 42

Bemildred 37

Your confusion stems from the fact that a standard steel drum (a steel barrel)is of 55 gals capacity.

Posted by: CarlD | Nov 24 2021 1:29 utc | 41

Thank you, that's right.

Posted by: Bemildred | Nov 24 2021 1:45 utc | 43

Biden, first big pharma, then big MIC, then big oil.

Last M4A, $15 wage, student debt, the people.

I guess the #fraudSquad will celebrate that the unemployed can now afford to drive around chasing a job.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 24 2021 1:57 utc | 44

This is the age of never ending crises. The Oil Crisis, other than a boondoggle for Big Oil, is to show the unreliability of that resource as the world moves to an all-electric landscape. Expect to move from one 'crisis' to the next as far as the eye can see. No rest, no return to 'normal' just an inexorable march to mandated control and compliance.

Posted by: gottlieb | Nov 24 2021 2:27 utc | 45

Jen 40

Besides oil resources, Haiti has great riches
in several minerals.

A metallurgist friend of mine, deceased, trained in Belgium, with an engineering degree, used to say that the greatest Haitian gold mine was
also an iron mine so rich that it was more valuable as an iron mine than as a gold mine even though the gold yield is the highest available in all the caribbean Basin. And the distance to loading ports was shorter than the best African mines.

Concession on such mine is already vested into the hands of the Clinton consortium.

The US did extract an ungodly amount of iridium from Haiti when they restored Aristide to power. Swiss finance circles evaluated it at 36 Billion dollars.

But some of it is still there, as well as copper and other rare earths.

Haiti has been knowingly and methodically turned into an un-entity thanks to the ministrations of the CORE GROUP comprised of the US, UK, France and Canada.

Canadian interest is keenest in graduates that they collect upon completion of studies for immigration to Canada, particularly in the Quebec province.

The Russians were interested in fuel exploration in and around Haiti but the UKUS has "discouraged" the Haitian governments from such venues.


Posted by: CarlD | Nov 24 2021 2:48 utc | 46


I suspect some of the sanctioned countries, like Venezuela, have had their refining operations constrained by additional sanctions on the supply of rare earths.

Roskill is the authority on mineral commodities:

"Fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) units containing rare earths (mainly lanthanum) are used to enhance the oil distillation process to produce larger volumes of light fuels during refining. Weaker demand during COVID-19 will have led to a reduction in FCC consumption, however, the decline in the FCC market is expected to be mitigated somewhat by new regulations".

https://roskill.com/news/rare-earths-oil-refineries-ramp-up-as-covid-19-restrictions-ease/

Posted by: Paul | Nov 24 2021 3:38 utc | 47

The secretary of energy, Granholm,
Could not answer the simple question:
“How many barrels of oil does the US use per day?”

She answered the equivalent of”I don’t know”
Any retard can google that, but a cabinet level official isn’t even prepared to answer that question.

That’s what we have in cabinet positions under the Jobama admin.
No fucking clue. No fucking plan,except “muh green”
Zero consideration for the working class which CANT AFFORD a new electric vehicle.

The Biden admin has zero fucks to give to the plight of squeezed working class Americans.

Posted by: Cadence calls | Nov 24 2021 4:02 utc | 48

It strikes me that the sanctioned oil producers are exactly those who are not reliably selling in USD and recycling those USD in approved manner- buying T-bills, weapons, etc.

Perhaps high oil prices are less painful than a collapse of the USD in a hyperinflationary spiral. If that is the primary consideration then maybe some kind of deal with Iran or Venezuela capitulating could be on the table.

Doesn’t seem likely at this point, but maybe with covert violence and payoffs it could happen.

Posted by: Billb | Nov 24 2021 7:46 utc | 49

Cadence calls | Nov 24 2021 4:02 utc

however you feel about electric vehicles, it is not true that they are out of reach of "working class". Please have a look at this

a comparison of fuel vs electric costs can be found here

full disclosure, I own a Kia Niro EV and am quite pleased with it. Longer trips take a bit of planning but are very do-able. With high current DC chargers you can get 50 KW of power put into your battery in an hour. Driving conservatively I get about 6.5 kilometers per kilowatt....in other words about 200 miles from that 50 kilowatts.

I also have photovoltaic panels on my house and recharge the car when I have excess electricity. I probably will not ever get any return on investment for the PV panels or the electric vehicle but I feel like I am helping to get it adopted by more. We have become much more conscious of consumption...both in the home and while driving as we have instant feedback on how much power is produced by the PV panels compared to what we are using. Since selling back to the grid is not at all profitably we try to schedule high current use for when there is good production.

also with the car you can use regenerative braking to use the inertia of the car to replenish the battery as opposed to turning that energy into heat as is done with conventional brakes.

plus it is really fun to drive.

Posted by: dan of steele | Nov 24 2021 7:58 utc | 50

A sidenote on fuels. Electric cars use a lot of rare minerals. Instead, ethanol could be used as a fuel for existing combustion machines like cars. Cars using gasoline can safely use ethanol and it is easy and cheap to convert them to use ethanol more effectively. Less need for oil and wars on oil. Ethanol can be made out of biowaste. The only ecological donwside is that then the biowaste is not returned to soil. Difficult to see why ethanol is not used more widely as a fuel. [ Something on ethanol and environment.]

Posted by: Die Niemandsfuchs | Nov 24 2021 9:26 utc | 51

I don't agree with this take because of two reasons.

1. OPEC is an unwieldy club. Like all cartels, cheating between members is a big problem. This makes it harder to assure there is a production cut as fully planned.

2. Electric vehicles are gaining momentum in China and Western Europe. In 2021, 1 in 8 cars sold in China are electric or hybrids. It's even higher in Western Europe. By 2030, maybe all cars sold in those regions will be electric. The price of oil will slump in the 2030s and never come back. Any long-term production cut by OPEC is a bad idea because they should be investing and producing as much as they can before the terminal decline of oil.

Strategic reserves will also become less important after the terminal decline. If 50% of petroleum products are for cars and trucks in China then it's possible that by the 2030s China will not be importing any oil from outside of Russia and Central Asia because all cars and trucks will be electric. Since maintaining reserves is expensive, it might be wise for China and the US to use them in the final decade of valuable oil to keep prices below $80/br.

Posted by: chips | Nov 24 2021 11:53 utc | 52

I imagine that one intended/unintended purpose of erratic oil supplies is to create a panic in the mind of the public about the necessity of phasing out fossil fuels. Phasing out fossil fuels as quickly as possible is not just a good idea for everyone, except oil producers, it is a necessity if we want to give the next an onward generations a chance of surviving.

All this bluster about scarce oil and higher prices is deflection. Fossil fuels must stay in the ground if we wish to survive as a species on this planet. Scarce oil and rising prices seem all too contrived. Instead of producing more oil, how about a move for using less..? Of course, the first, and "easy" (or rational), part of that is to stop military maneuvers. OMG! And that reality, as well as the realities that COP26 has brought forth, is probably what is driving this whole Kabuki theater.

Posted by: mgr | Nov 24 2021 12:17 utc | 53

chips @52, I do not disagree with you but imagine the avalanche that would happen if Biden would drop sanctions against Venezuela and Iran?

Iran / Venezuela would insist on going back to their original production quotas and this would pressure the rest of OPEC.

I do think that it is a fair to point out the incremental impact of 50M bbls of oil rather than talk about how many days it could supply 100% of U.S. energy needs as all of the talking heads are doing. That is a completely irrelevant factor. We are adding it to existing production, not using it to replace current production.

I find it interesting that all of the experts are ignoring the impact of the trade embargo against Iran/Venezuela.

Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Nov 24 2021 13:32 utc | 54

How I stopped worrying and learned to love the Bomb.

"Biden's Oil Market Backfire"

B O M B

Duck and cover, Demoncrats!

Posted by: librul | Nov 24 2021 14:46 utc | 55

@Baron | Nov 23 2021 23:27 utc | 28

The one reason for the firm and rising prices of fossil fuels (oil and gas) is that nobody has been investing in the sector any more, only Qatar drilled more gas holes, nobody else.

Agreed, except the idea that oil and gas is "fossil" is not always true, but a way to enhance the impression of limited supply.

Posted by: Norwegian | Nov 24 2021 15:44 utc | 56

Let’s just re-install the orange man back. At least he had the gas prices around two bucks for the duration of his stay. Orange man anybody?

Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | Nov 24 2021 15:46 utc | 57

@karlof1

What needs to happen within the Outlaw US Empire is another round of demand destruction via the adoption of sensible very high mileage vehicles, not the SUVs seen everywhere

Americans have been sold the car as a symbol of liberty, and the gas guzzling SUVs and pick ups are preferred for a variety of reasons, from psychological compensation ("I'm a little man, but I have a Big Truck") to paranoia about other drivers (a kind of vehicle size arms race where consumers (wrongly) think a larger car will keep them safer in an accident). This isn't something that's going to be voluntarily abandoned by Americans, unfortunately. We're going to ride this shit until the wheels fall off.

This is in part, also, because Americans have structured our urban geographies around the car as default mode of transit (what Ivan Illich called a "radical monopoly"). You can't get around in most American cities without a car, unless that city saw the bulk of its development before 1950 (so, a handful of East coast cities and San Francisco are walkable, most others are not). It becoming more expensive to drive would be good for the environment but would lock most affluent Americans in their neighborhoods, which are often devoid of anything besides rows of single-family detached houses.

It's worth mentioning, though, that being locked into one's neighborhood is already the situation for most of America's proletariat and lumpenproletariat, and this is by design. Large interstates in my city act as walls that inhibit pedestrian traffic from Black neighborhoods reaching into white neighborhoods. The lack of sidewalks on major thoroughfares also prevents Black foot traffic from safely reaching the white part of town. The result is that the city is de facto highly segregated, even after it was de jure integrated. (Blue dots in the image represent Black households, red ones represent white, I believe orange represents Latin Americans). In order to construct these interstate highways, mostly Black neighborhoods were partly demolished. That decision was made by segregationists in the Democrat party, with the intent of keeping Black people separate from the white population.

So, long story short, America's car pathology is too deeply rooted into its social fabric. We're only going to get rid of it because of the social collapse caused in part by the weight of all this car infrastructure. I don't see white Americans turning their backs on this system. I see them only entrenching themselves in its defense, even as its unsustainability and inhumanity become more and more obvious. White American society is not motivated by values such as "prudence," but by hedonism and convenience, and all of this on the backs of hyperexploited internal colonies and a global underclass that, in the minds of white Americans, exists to serve white America.

Posted by: fnord | Nov 24 2021 15:58 utc | 58

@dan of steele | Nov 24 2021 7:58 utc | 50

I also have photovoltaic panels on my house and recharge the car when I have excess electricity. I probably will not ever get any return on investment for the PV panels or the electric vehicle but I feel like I am helping to get it adopted by more.

Why is it a good idea to lure others into a failing investment?

Posted by: Norwegian | Nov 24 2021 15:59 utc | 59

Norwegian | Nov 24 2021 15:59 utc | 59

Why is it a good idea to lure others into a failing investment?

my smartass answer is because I am an aspiring capitalist.

I was not an early adopter of PV and only got into it a couple of years ago because I wanted to run the air conditioner when it is hot outside without thinking about the spinning dial on the meter. I live in Italy and we get quite a bit of sunshine and it can get pretty hot in the summer. With PV I turn on the A/C when it gets hot and it doesn't cost me anything. Is that a failed investment in your opinion?

and charging the car basically for free is also a plus. Granted there was a significant investment and due to my particular circumstances I was not able to get any rebates or other incentives.

in July of this year I produced 993,22 kWh which is a reduction of 695,254 kg CO2

tell me where I went wrong.

Posted by: dan of steele | Nov 24 2021 16:37 utc | 60

@dan of steele | Nov 24 2021 16:37 utc | 60

tell me where I went wrong.

"I probably will not ever get any return on investment". I take that to mean that in your opinion your choice was more expensive than the alternative of doing nothing.


in July of this year I produced 993,22 kWh which is a reduction of 695,254 kg CO2

Please explain how you made that conversion and why it relates to anything at all?

Posted by: Norwegian | Nov 24 2021 16:51 utc | 61

fnord @58--

Thanks for your reply! As we entered the new century, The End of Suburbia detailed the problems quite well, the bottom line cause being For a Few Dollars More, while damning the real needs of people and their communities. No alterations of any significance have occurred since, so the situation worsens. Meanwhile, the financialized political-economy being the parasite that it is does its damage. And to maintain its primacy, the Duopoly continues to use every Divide and Rule trick it can manifest. The overall situation is simple yet complex, making it hard to solve and easy for the Duopoly to block all attempts to alter the status quo. Instead of writing a very long answer, I'll provide this link to Hudson's most recent interview that deals with it all. The system and its managers do have an Achilles Heel to exploit and overturn the situation but the vast majority are ignorant when it comes to action.

Meanwhile, the Parasite needs more hosts to subsist on, which is why it's targeting Russia and China for they offer rational people-centered development based on the rule of law, not the perversion existing in the West that helps the parasite to survive.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 24 2021 16:51 utc | 62

Posted by: dan of steele | Nov 24 2021 16:37 utc | 60

Electricity is expensive in Italy. It's about twice the cost per kWh then here in the US. I don't blame you for putting in PV panels.

Posted by: Mario Di Nicola Jr | Nov 24 2021 16:57 utc | 63

Norwegian | Nov 24 2021 16:51 utc | 61

Please explain how you made that conversion and why it relates to anything at all

My inverter reports back to a portal and every month I get a summary of how many kilowatts the panels produce and the corresponding reduction in CO2 which would have been made if gas or oil had been used to generate those kilowatts.

as for not knowing if I will break even or not, I took a chance that energy would become more expensive and made the investment. Even if I lose I still think it was the right thing to do. Since the price of electricity just went up here in Italy it seems that I made the right choice financially as well as morally.

Posted by: dan of steele | Nov 24 2021 17:19 utc | 64

Die Niemandsfuchs @ 51:

I think the issue with ethanol is that if it were used widely so it becomes a major if not the major fuel in a society, then (depending on the population size) you would need so much land to grow sugar cane or corn that eventually some land has to be diverted from food production to growing sugar cane or corn. This would apply even if you used all the waste from growing sugar cane or corn already. So the issue regarding ethanol is: at what point is a society prepared to forgo some agricultural production and food self-sufficient in order to meet its energy requirements?

Also growing crops for biofuel can encourage the kind of plantation-style agriculture that promotes the monoculture which relies on large-scale pesticide use and reduction of biodiversity in the places it is practised. This can result in soil and water pollution with toxic chemicals. This type of land use is also typically favoured by large agribusiness corporations who would use their power to get rid of small farms or indigenous groups occupying coveted lands.

These are some of the wider institutional factors you need to consider before switchng from fossil fuels to biofuels.

Posted by: Jen | Nov 24 2021 19:02 utc | 65

@dan of steele #60
Did you:
1) Get tax credits or outright subsidies for your PV purchase and/or installment?
2) Do you get feed-in tariffs to electricity sent into the grid?
3) How much did you pay for your solar PV install, roughly? Round to nearly 10K euro.

I don't object to solar PV or wind electricity per se - what I object to mightily are massive subsidy programs that enshrine fundamentally unreliable technology.

The last I looked at the price/performance numbers for Solar PV and wind was 2 years ago - so I am always interested to see what actual people paid vs actual benefit derived.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 24 2021 19:07 utc | 66

c1ue | Nov 24 2021 19:07 utc | 66

I did not qualify for any subsidies due to my tax status in the country at the time. For Italian citizens there were programs in place which reduced the cost to about half and there is a current program which makes the whole thing just about free.

I have a 6 kilowatt system and paid about 12,000 euro. It is a bit on the pricey side because I chose premium panels and there were other costs involved with the installation. I probably could have got a similar system for about half but because of the subsidies the installers really jack up their prices.

excess electricity is put into the grid and paid for by the provider but it is no where near the same as what I pay, the energy supplier pays me the same as they pay the nuke plant in France or Slovenia and that is about 3 euro cents per KW. additionally there are costs for someone to read the meter (electronically) and figure out how much to pay me twice a year.

all new houses in Italy are built with solar panels on the roof. additionally they are heavily insulated. I understand your dislike of subsidies as they are usually gifts to the rich but in this case I think it is simply a choice of pay now or pay more later.

Posted by: dan of steele | Nov 24 2021 20:28 utc | 67

I use solar electricity but I have no panels on my roof.

I did it the easy way. My city's power utility is municipally owned. I got together with some neighbors and we campaigned to have the city's public power company build a solar farm. They did, and they liked it so much the municipal power company built four more, together supplying 300% of the city's power needs on a sunny day.

The legacy dinosaur-burner power plants still run at night, but you can tell the solar farms are saving piles of cash because the utility has been upgrading the grid like crazy around the city without a rate hike to pay for it.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 24 2021 21:12 utc | 68

@dan of steele #67
Thank you for the information.
Regarding the economics:
Italy electricity is around 0.15 euro per kwH. 993 kwH is therefore 149 euros value, approximately.
12000/149 = 80 months to repay, however, this calculation is obviously wrong since 993 kwH is July, which we can assume is near peak summer.
As electricity is nearly useless for heating, let's say 6 months of useful electricity - of which 4 are "peak" = 5x149 (4xfull months as you outline above, 2- 1/2 months).
Now we're at 16 years to break even.
But even this is optimistic. 12000 euros doesn't presently, but historically has generated interest income.
2% interest would change the break even to about 20 years, but of course the performance of the panels will deteriorate over time.
So you are correct that the economics of the solar PV is likely not positive/profitable.
But you are incorrect in that it is just a matter of pay now or pay more later: the entire problem with these setups is that poor people cannot afford to "prepay" their electricity in full or in part.
Even without subsidies, you are guaranteeing some portion of electricity costs by paying up front. With subsidies, the economics becomes overwhelmingly beneficial.
So while the solar feed-in setup in Italy - from what you say - seems eminently reasonable, there are still structural reasons why solar PV and windmills in private hands fundamentally exacerbates inequality.
But you noted that you simply don't qualify for subsidies. If most "natives" who qualify indeed get 25% or 50% subsidies from the government, then they are very much benefiting despite the existence of failure risks to solar PV system (hardware failure, theft, breakage). Viewed under the above economics approximation, it is 100% clear that both solar PV industry and the more wealthy "natives" benefit from solar PV subsidies - and likely at the expense of the poor.
Then there's the CO2 "savings".
Typical CO2 emissions associated with a gasoline car, for example, are fairly evenly divided between operating the car and making the car.
The question is: how much CO2 is actually emitted per lifetime kwH of a solar panel vs. electricity from other sources?
Note that a nuclear power plant is a precise analog to the emissions profile of a solar panel: there is a lot of CO2 emitted in pouring all the concrete and in the materials used to make a nuclear power plant, but emissions from operations of said plant are pretty much zero. Nor is the eventual decommissioning of the solar panel the least bit environmentally friendly - there are all manner of toxic substances in semiconductors.
From my view: if there were no to minimal subsidies due to the capital/wealth derived economic bias from alternative energy, I'd be perfectly happy if anyone chose to do so.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 25 2021 9:31 utc | 69

Typical CO2 emissions associated with a gasoline car, for example, are fairly evenly divided between operating the car and making the car.
The question is: how much CO2 is actually emitted per lifetime kwH of a solar panel vs. electricity from other sources?
Posted by: c1ue | Nov 25 2021 9:31 utc | 69

I have three remarks.

1. Advocates of "green energy" are juggling arguments and numbers, and shy away from "metrics" which are most important. Most of all, they flash numbers sparingly and in a misleading way.

2. A typical car in USA weights ca. two tons, and is used for 10 years to drive 10,000 miles per year. Most of it in local traffic. Thus in its lifetime it consume roughly 100,000 miles / (30 miles per gallon) = 3300 gallons =10 T of gasoline. I round all numbers, but within reason. So we need energy to produce 2 T of a device, and then 10 T of fuel to use it. It can be call a "fair split", as in "all is fair in war and love".

3. The metric "how much carbon is used to produce non-carbon based energy" is perhaps OK, but in macro-economic sense not particularly meaningful. It is more meaningful to ask "how much we can reduce CO2 emission for an investment of 1 USD". There is also a question of time horizon and the "steady state" which we want to achieve, but as technologies evolve, I think that 10-20 year horizon is most reasonable, while "steady state" can be achieved in 30-50 years at best.

4. By my preferred metric, "green solutions" in USA and countries like Germany have several glaring errors. First, huge focus on "clean energy" which is defined as non-(carbon+nuclear). But the exclusion of nuclear power from consideration is not rational at all, because "clean sources" are all unreliable, while energy demand is inflexible. One CAN adapt unreliable energy supply to the system to reliable fulfillment of the demand, but at a cost. Clean energy advocates ignore that cost. Mind you, the current energy crisis in Western Europe is caused by unrealistic projections of reliability of clean power, coupled by "calamities" that include unusually quiet weather on notoriously stormy North Sea, or snow covering solar panels in winter (note to amateur climatologists: in temperate and cold climates there are large variations from year to year, something that old poorly educated people know very well).

"Energy storage" is totally inadequate to balance year-to-year differences in supply, and even seasonal variations. Other solution require a combination of foresight (i.e. honest calculations) and investments. E.g. energy-intensive products can be stockpiled, with the production stopped when there is energy shortage, that requires to have surplus of capacity (hence investment) and stockpiles (another investment). But having a large proportion of steady supply from nuclear power would reduce those costs.

But aesthetic approach of "clean power" abhors macro-economic analysis that would reveal the total cost of "clean power". This is the same scheme of thinking as in
1. We love freedom, thus
2. We have to support freedom-loving people, thus
3. We have to egg freedom-loving Taiwanese and Ukrainians to pick fights with non-freedom loving countries and folks, and
4. Sanction little non-freedom countries like Venezuela, Syria, Nicaragua to death (and bomb if possible, like with Yemen).

You start with a noble goal, reject more sober analysis, add few non-sequiturs. Works best with group thinking.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Nov 25 2021 15:00 utc | 70

I skipped other glaring errors of "clean energy" approach as practiced and advocated, but in retrospect, my post was overly long anyway.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Nov 25 2021 15:02 utc | 71

Seems the Biden administration is REALLY concerned about (Price !!!) Inflation.

Posted by: Willy2 | Nov 25 2021 17:13 utc | 72

Jen @ 65 and Die Niemandsfuchs @ 51:

I read this long ago and am not certain of it's veracity, but my understanding was that it takes almost as much energy to produce a gallon of ethanol and you get from a gallon of ethanol, to it isn't pragmatic as a fuel source.

I also believe the only reason we have any ethanol in use right now is because of subsidies to farmers from congress critters in farming states.

Posted by: David F | Nov 25 2021 17:22 utc | 73

David F wrote:

I read this long ago and am not certain of it's veracity, but my understanding was that it takes almost as much energy to produce a gallon of ethanol and you get from a gallon of ethanol, to it isn't pragmatic as a fuel source.

I also believe the only reason we have any ethanol in use right now is because of subsidies to farmers from congress critters in farming states.
____________________________________________________

neither of those statements is valid.
The reason we have ethanol in use is strictly because the ethanol has great value as a fuel. If the federal govt allowed farmers to produce and sell more ethanol, then consumers would buy it because it is a better product that is cheaper to produce. If the govt allowed E30 gasoline to be sold it would soon take over the market just like E10 gasoline did 15 years ago. The govt is not subsidizing farmers to grow corn for ethanol. Corn subsidies in the US are now significantly lower than they were before ethanol became ubiquitous in the gasoline supply.
https://theindependent.com/opinion/editorial/unl-study-e30-doesn-t-cut-fuel-efficiency-or-damage-vehicles/article_0b1680ae-8114-11eb-ba6a-87271ad6d3db.html
Also
After ethanol is produced from the carbohydrate part of the corn what remains is a high quality protein feedstock that can be sold for almost as much as the raw corn that went into producing it.

What they don't often tell you is that it would cost a lot more to produce the same quality gasoline without ethanol. Adding ethanol to gasoline allows oil refineries to produce a low grade fuel which is upgraded by the addition of ethanol. As a fuel it would be unusable without the ethanol.
The fact is it would significantly increase refinery capital costs and energy expenditures to produce all the nations gasoline without ethanol.

Posted by: jinn | Nov 25 2021 19:34 utc | 74

This is not an isolated US only effort. Obviously the demented potus is in no way capable of making any decisions - Presidents hardly ever do - it is their job to deliver for the Interests who put them in situ.
Their reward is to be granted a dynasty that can have a Seat at The Table.

Any who don’t play the game are publicly executed and their dynasties destroyed equally visibly ‘pour les encourager autres’.

Thanksgiving fell near enough to the anniversary of JFK - how did the Democrats in Government commemorate that? They certainly adhere to the lesson of ‘encouragemen’ instilled in our politicians.

Getting back to b’s post - the forming the gangs for the big one - in the U.K. I see that the mistress of Brittannia Unhinged BrexShitHeads, our current Foreign Minister, Liz Truss is trying her mischievous best to invite the ASEAN countries to Liverpool as a means of weakening the SCO and save the awkward Aukus chimera. 


This is a coordinated move towards a World Wide Open Hot Conflict to try and restore some kind of Cold War by pretending that the Empire is still a Superpower!

Atlantic Council/ nato Bellends and ii are busy keeping that narrative on track. As are the flying blue monkey troll armies bombing btl boards on sites intent on keeping the propaganda Narrative on track.

Yes they really think they can halt and reverse the doomed Dominate Empire by reinvention of a new Axis/Allied set of proxies to destroy the rise of the masses against the Forever Slave Owners.

There is no left/right there is only the barely visible top and all us below with some of us raised to be the slave masters for the Owners.

The Empire is dead dead dead but refuses to go with grace and thus remains an ever more putrid zombie vampire trying to drag the poor peoples of the world into saving our sorry white self delusional arses.

Posted by: D.G. | Nov 26 2021 11:33 utc | 75

Pardon me for not being convinced by your response.

The article you linked to is an opinion piece about a study performed by a university in a state that is heavily invested in ethanol production.

I can hardly accept that study as unbiased. Did you perhaps read the single comment posted under your link? It said the same thing I did, but added more reasons it is not a great choice as a fuel source.

As far as not being subsidized read this piece and get back to me.

Posted by: David F | Nov 26 2021 11:42 utc | 76

My last post was addressed to Jinn @ 74.

Posted by: David F | Nov 26 2021 11:43 utc | 77

The article you linked to is an opinion piece about a study performed by a university in a state that is heavily invested in ethanol production.
____________________________________________________

Who else is going to fund such a study?
This is not the first study that has arrived at the conclusion that "E30 had no observable negative effect on overall vehicle performance and the cost per mile for E15 and E30 fueled vehicles were nearly identical over the one year demonstration".
I recall one study fifteen years ago by Motor Trend magazine that found that their test cars back then performed as well with no loss of fuel economy on E30 compared to regular gasoline. Their have been other studies by MIT and University of Minnesota.

As far as I know the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) your article talks about ended ten years ago.
There are some federal incentives for production of ethanol from other renewable feedstocks besides corn starch (eg. ethanol from cellulose), but those incentives have gone nowhere in incentivizing any production.

But lets get back to the false claims you made. You implied that the production of fuel from corn was not economical and would disappear without subsidies. That is the lie that the federal govt and MSM has been promoting for years.

The fact is that the federal govt has put a limit on the amount of ethanol produced from corn that is allowed to be mixed into the US fuel supply and thrown up other road blocks to using ethanol as fuel. If those limits were lifted the amount of ethanol in the US fuel supply would double in a few years time. The reason that would happen is because the statements you made are 100% wrong.

During the 2016 election Trump made noises that he would lift the limits that are holding ethanol back, but he mostly reneged on that promise and that lost him many votes in corn belt states in 2020.

The real problem that TPTB have with corn ethanol is that it benefits people but does not benefit the oligarchs.
US agriculture products have been a primary tool for maintaining US hegemony around the world. The surplus of US Ag producers has been used mostly to prop up fascist dictators (client states) and undermine popular democracies around the world that don't toe the line.
http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/357L/357Lsum_s4_NACLA_Ch2.html

Corn ethanol is serious threat to the oligarchs power and thus the propaganda campaign against it.


Posted by: jinn | Nov 26 2021 15:26 utc | 78

Getting along with Putin isn`t always easy. But MbS is a megolomaniac, genocidal madman! On top of that he is highly incompetent. Any person with at least some basic human decency and/or half a brain keeps his distance to MbS.

Posted by: m | Nov 23 2021 20:42 utc | 16

"Some basic human decency" may mean "fiduciary duty" to shareholders, workers and communities where they live, and with those noble motivations and more than half brain we are compelled to sell overpriced goods to an incompetent homicidal maniac if he has enough money to spend (did I mention that the stuff is overpriced?). As a corollary, we have to humor him a bit.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Nov 26 2021 16:51 utc | 79

I can hardly accept that study as unbiased. Did you perhaps read the single comment posted under your link? It said the same thing I did, but added more reasons it is not a great choice as a fuel source.

As far as not being subsidized read this piece and get back to me.

Posted by: David F | Nov 26 2021 11:42 utc | 76

It reminds me when I was interested in healthy foods. There are studies about health benefits of canola oil, green tea and red wine that were conducted in Canada, France and Japan. I ordered both alphabetically, and I can offer you a quiz: connect the products with the countries. (Personally, I consume a lot of tea, mostly green, and along the way, I got links about canola oil and red wine.)

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Nov 26 2021 16:57 utc | 80

Jinn,

"Who else is goingtofund the study?"

Is not a convincing counter argument. That tax break I linked to was signed into law in 2004 by bushey boy, so I think that punches a whole in your oil oligarchs theory.

Did you read the comment under the article you linked to? He pointed out that ethanol easily mixes with water and dirt, another obstacle to ethanol as an ubiquitous fuel source.

I think the reason ethanol has not caught on after 30 years of effort is because the few benefits it boasts are offset by too many negatives.

I honestly don't much care either way and don't wish to further debate the topic. Thanks for your input.

Piotr - Canada, Japan, France. Did I pass? I must admit that it isn't clear to me if that was an endorsement of my statement or of Jinns.

I personally don't put much stock in any studies as most aren't scientific studies seeking the truth, but are rather people trying to enrich themselves with a veneer of science.

YMMV

Posted by: David F | Nov 26 2021 18:47 utc | 81

I think the reason ethanol has not caught on after 30 years of effort is because the few benefits it boasts are offset by too many negatives.
__________________________________________________________________

Not caught on? The maximum amount of ethanol that the federal govt allows to be sold as fuel is being purchased by motorists who have a choice to buy non ethanol fuel if they wanted to. If the govt allowed motorists to buy more they would.

As for the article you linked to - it talked of a tax break for oil companies that ended ten years ago. That article is exactly the type of false information that the govt and MSM are pushing to the gullible readers.

You are spouting the propaganda from the govt and MSM. The whole argument that ethanol is using productive capacity that would be put to better use is the ugliest of their propaganda lies, because history shows that the use the TPTB would rather be using US surplus AG production is to weaponize it to dominate 3rd world countries as they have been doing for many decades.

http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/357L/357Lsum_s4_NACLA_Ch2.html
http://zerowork.org/CleaverFoodFamine.html

Posted by: jinn | Nov 26 2021 20:35 utc | 82

In regards to my previous post:
For some reason the first link gets mangled when it is posted to MOA:

http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/357L/357Lsum_s4_NACLA_Ch2.html

Clicking on the above link in MOA takes me to the wrong site.
To go visit the correct site I have to copy the text in that link and paste it into the address bar of my browser.

Posted by: jinn | Nov 26 2021 23:24 utc | 83

I have never met anyone who was so passionate about fuel.

I don't think most people give it a whole lot of thought.

I usually have three options when I buy fuel. Regular 10% ethanol, 15% ethanol, or premium no ethanol. Occasionally there is super premium (whatever that is).

I honestly don't think the masses are clamoring for ethanol, they are clamoring for the cheapest way to fill their tank.

In short, I think that there isn't so much a conspiracy to deny anyone ethanol and more likely it doesn't 'pan out' financially, hence it isn't in demand.

AFAIAK I am done discussing this.

Posted by: David F | Nov 27 2021 0:13 utc | 84

In short, I think that there isn't so much a conspiracy to deny anyone ethanol and more likely it doesn't 'pan out' financially

________________________________________________________________
At least you admit you are guessing, unfortunately you guess wrong. If you bothered to pull your head out of the butt of the MSM where you are getting your info on ethanol, you would know Ethanol as a fuel does pan out financially. The ethanol is cheaper to produce than the gasoline it replaces, but even that doesn't begin to cover its value. Its main value is that when added to gasoline it turns low grade fuel into high grade fuel.

Posted by: jinn | Nov 27 2021 3:17 utc | 85

Well, thanks for not being a dick about the whole conversation. Stay classy!

Posted by: David F | Nov 27 2021 12:11 utc | 86

@David F | Nov 27 2021 0:13 utc | 84

the masses are clamoring for ... the cheapest way to fill their tank.

That's the reason why customers in (some) other countries of the world are allowed to freely mix their personal fuel from "E100" to "E10". Compare Brazil for the most prominent example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexfuel#Brazil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil#Prices_and_effect_on_oil_consumption

Posted by: dustbunny | Nov 29 2021 9:53 utc | 87

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Working...