Biden's proposed rules would 1. Force Americans to drive inferior cars, 2. Place massive new demand for reliable electricity on a grid that is declining in reliability
I was under the impression that companies had to make products with superior characteristics to gather sales. Now I am seeing that the fascist enterprise of companies selling inferior goods have the power to force you to use inferior products because they are getting the regulators to schtup everyone on their behalf.
You were under the wrong impression. Companies with inferior products succeed all the time due to basic market forces like superior advertising, monopoly power, social signaling, low-quality consumer information, and more.
The fossil fuel industry has received ~$130 billion annual federal subsidies for decades. Without them, gasoline would have topped $8/gallon back in the 1990s. Imagine how popular combustion vehicles would be then... "EVs need federal subsidies to be competitive" is hilariously ironic.
Alex says a lot of true things, but he studiously ignores inconvenient facts that he's too smart to have missed by accident. This makes him a propagandist.
I appreciate the information you offered, but in the spirit of free exchange, please bear in mind that no new refining capacity has been built in decades in the US, and a free market, or at least a freeer one, would be  adding capacity due to actual demand
True. The US could (and should) have friendlier policies for exploiting fossil resources. CA has annual blackouts despite burning millions of tons of dirty coal because they refuse to build pipelines from the Permian basin for gas. It's embarrassing. Alex is right that we should be thinking about ideal use-cases for different fuels and planning strategically.
However, conventional oil production has been plummeting GLOBALLY since 2007 despite rising populations, standards of living, and demand. There simply is no argument that US policy is to blame. It is the reality of Peak Oil, and shale is projected to peak by 2030 according to WSJ and industry professionals.
Alex is wrong when he promises decades of affordable energy from fossil fuels. He's wrong when he suggests that the market knows the best use for these resources when we have a whole new energy infrastructure to build (on a tight timeline). Those are big things to be wrong about.
It seems clear that so-termed ‘fossil fuels’ are partially renewable. Dr. Thomas Gold’s scientific work in the 1970’s layed out the case for petroleum, literally ‘rock oil’ being of inorganic manufacture by some unknown process in the Earth, a theory called ‘abiogenesis.’. Some of the evidence is that no fossils are found in the fuel, and also that empty wells left for decades in Texas have refilled from some deeper source. I have not looked into it for a while, but it seems entirely plausible, more plausible than rotten flesh… This of course is anathema to the power zombies who want to ‘destroy more sooner.’
This is mostly correct. Clap hands for Mr. Epstein. But he gets a few important things wrong.
First, consumption patterns do not indicate a "superior product." Lots of superior products get buried because of market forces like advertising, monopolies, and social signaling. We all know towns where every single person is buying an ICE pickup whether or not they need it, and the same is true for EVs in liberal areas. It's revealing that Mr. Epstein prefers this proxy over the technicals.
Let's explore that, because the technicals are what matter -- not who buys what. EVs do have the potential to be far superior to ICEs. That's because ICEs must convert heat energy (burning fuels) to mechanical energy (powering a drivetrain), and there is significant energy/power loss in the conversion (thermodynamics). Applying electrical energy directly is much more efficient, and can be up to 3x as powerful. That's a big reason that numerous logistics fleets are switching to EVs.
Finally, Mr. Epstein ignores the fact that the Texas blackouts occurred because the private sector runs the grid and routinely chose efficiency over resilience. Sometimes, when dependability is the preferred outcome, private ownership is bad. Cost savings often come at the expense of resilience. Shocking.
But Mr. Epstein is right that California's woes are due leftist posturing. To think the state burned millions of tons of dirty coal last year because they refused to build gas pipelines from the Permian basin, or build out a nuclear grid... the palm on my face is getting sweaty just thinking about it.
I was under the impression that companies had to make products with superior characteristics to gather sales. Now I am seeing that the fascist enterprise of companies selling inferior goods have the power to force you to use inferior products because they are getting the regulators to schtup everyone on their behalf.
“The businessman’s tool is value. The bureaucrat’s tool is fear.” AYN RAND, ‘Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal”.
You were under the wrong impression. Companies with inferior products succeed all the time due to basic market forces like superior advertising, monopoly power, social signaling, low-quality consumer information, and more.
The fossil fuel industry has received ~$130 billion annual federal subsidies for decades. Without them, gasoline would have topped $8/gallon back in the 1990s. Imagine how popular combustion vehicles would be then... "EVs need federal subsidies to be competitive" is hilariously ironic.
Alex says a lot of true things, but he studiously ignores inconvenient facts that he's too smart to have missed by accident. This makes him a propagandist.
I appreciate the information you offered, but in the spirit of free exchange, please bear in mind that no new refining capacity has been built in decades in the US, and a free market, or at least a freeer one, would be  adding capacity due to actual demand
True. The US could (and should) have friendlier policies for exploiting fossil resources. CA has annual blackouts despite burning millions of tons of dirty coal because they refuse to build pipelines from the Permian basin for gas. It's embarrassing. Alex is right that we should be thinking about ideal use-cases for different fuels and planning strategically.
However, conventional oil production has been plummeting GLOBALLY since 2007 despite rising populations, standards of living, and demand. There simply is no argument that US policy is to blame. It is the reality of Peak Oil, and shale is projected to peak by 2030 according to WSJ and industry professionals.
Alex is wrong when he promises decades of affordable energy from fossil fuels. He's wrong when he suggests that the market knows the best use for these resources when we have a whole new energy infrastructure to build (on a tight timeline). Those are big things to be wrong about.
It seems clear that so-termed ‘fossil fuels’ are partially renewable. Dr. Thomas Gold’s scientific work in the 1970’s layed out the case for petroleum, literally ‘rock oil’ being of inorganic manufacture by some unknown process in the Earth, a theory called ‘abiogenesis.’. Some of the evidence is that no fossils are found in the fuel, and also that empty wells left for decades in Texas have refilled from some deeper source. I have not looked into it for a while, but it seems entirely plausible, more plausible than rotten flesh… This of course is anathema to the power zombies who want to ‘destroy more sooner.’
This is mostly correct. Clap hands for Mr. Epstein. But he gets a few important things wrong.
First, consumption patterns do not indicate a "superior product." Lots of superior products get buried because of market forces like advertising, monopolies, and social signaling. We all know towns where every single person is buying an ICE pickup whether or not they need it, and the same is true for EVs in liberal areas. It's revealing that Mr. Epstein prefers this proxy over the technicals.
Let's explore that, because the technicals are what matter -- not who buys what. EVs do have the potential to be far superior to ICEs. That's because ICEs must convert heat energy (burning fuels) to mechanical energy (powering a drivetrain), and there is significant energy/power loss in the conversion (thermodynamics). Applying electrical energy directly is much more efficient, and can be up to 3x as powerful. That's a big reason that numerous logistics fleets are switching to EVs.
Finally, Mr. Epstein ignores the fact that the Texas blackouts occurred because the private sector runs the grid and routinely chose efficiency over resilience. Sometimes, when dependability is the preferred outcome, private ownership is bad. Cost savings often come at the expense of resilience. Shocking.
But Mr. Epstein is right that California's woes are due leftist posturing. To think the state burned millions of tons of dirty coal last year because they refused to build gas pipelines from the Permian basin, or build out a nuclear grid... the palm on my face is getting sweaty just thinking about it.