Anybody Buying Yet? Where’s the Bottom?

[Bonasababy]

Already bought one election...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/09/trump-oil-industry-campaign-money/

Fossil Fuel Industry Donors See Major Returns in Trump’s Policies

The Trump administration’s embrace of the oil and gas industry’s agenda provides another example of how wealthy special interests shape policies.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[SAJ-99]

Already bought one election...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/09/trump-oil-industry-campaign-money/

Fossil Fuel Industry Donors See Major Returns in Trump’s Policies

The Trump administration’s embrace of the oil and gas industry’s agenda provides another example of how wealthy special interests shape policies.

www.brennancenter.org

They got ripped off. This latest kerfuffle just transfers money from the average American to the oil co. The World is discovering that energy security is the cornerstone of sovereignty (that and maybe a nuclear weapon). Americans are discovering that $2/gal gas is not a God-given right. The market speaks on where the money is flowing over the last 12 months - XLE is up about 50%, FAN (Wind ETF) up 70%, TAN (Solar) up over 100%.

 

[406dn]

I won't comment about buying elections, etc. The party I more fully identify with, has vilified oil companies for as long as I can remember. Some amount of that is likely well earned. What is not acknowledged by that political party is that fossil fuel energy has been a cornerstone for the standard of living that we have come to enjoy. Yes, it has serious shortcomings. However, you can't walk away from it, without a suitable replacement. Unless, society is accepting of lower living standards.

Wind and Solar will never come close to the amount of energy that oil, coal and natural gas have been providing. The only replacement that could meet that demand is nuclear power. That is also a source that has political problems. It also has actual problems to consider.

It stands to reason that the oil companies support the GOP. Any Democrat openly supporting a fossil fuel company is very likely to have a short career, within the party.

We likely have all heard the acronym TACO, that Trump always chickens out. This morning I heard another acronym NACHO, not a chance Hormuz opens. I am afraid there is much truth in this new one, at least for a while. We are a long way away from returning to a normal energy supply scenario.

 

[SAJ-99]

Wind and Solar will never come close to the amount of energy that oil, coal and natural gas have been providing. The only replacement that could meet that demand is nuclear power.

The vilification of O&G is mostly a narrative created by lobbyists. No politician wants higher fuel prices, but there are certainly differences in the approaches.

The stock market doesn't lie and it disagrees with the "never come close" part. It's just a matter of time. Most of the US economic growth is coming from tech infrastructure, which is power hungry. The only way to add power as fast as you can build datacenters is through solar and wind, which is why they make up 90% of the additions to utility-scale electrical production. There are already some European countries that produce more than half of their electricity from various renewables. California gets an overwhelming majority of its electricity from renewables, and even Texas inches closer to that 50% mark every year. Again, it's just a matter of time.

O&G is certainly not going away anytime soon and will never be 0%, but "all of the above" is the only way to meet future demand. Some countries have figured this out. We continue to make it a d*@%-measuring contest.

 

[406dn]

. California gets an overwhelming majority of its electricity from renewables, and even Texas inches closer to that 50% mark every year. Again, it's just a matter of time.

According to a California website, your statement is not correct. The single largest source of their electricity comes from natural gas. If you toss in nuclear, they provide the majority source of electricity.

2023 Total System Electric Generation

www.energy.ca.gov

Nearly half is from natural gas. If you want to replace that with solar and wind, they have to be increased many fold. The foot print required for that is pretty significant.

 

[SAJ-99]

According to a California website, your statement is not correct. The single largest source of their electricity comes from natural gas. If you toss in nuclear, they provide the majority source of electricity.

2023 Total System Electric Generation

www.energy.ca.gov

Nearly half is from natural gas. If you want to replace that with solar and wind, they have to be increased many fold. The foot print required for that is pretty significant.

This table below is from the link you posted. Jump to 2024 when a couple of large scale solar farms started up. The 2025 numbers moved in the same direction (less Nat Gas, more wind and solar). Quick math on 2024, excluding nuclear (CA likes to add it in and call the category 'zero carbon'), puts renewables at 51% for 2024. It isn't a debate around which one is biggest. That is clearly Nat Gas. CA also imports a lot of energy from other states and Canada. That can be messy. It should be pretty clear to be skeptical of views that "it can't be done", particularly when it is being done. I acknowledge that none of this is about gasoline. It is just electrical generation.

https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news/electric-power/121625-california-got-a-record-523-of-power-from-renewables-in-2024-report