https://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/images/img2.jpg
You can use the Wayback Machine at archive.org to look at how it looked like in the past. For example, https://web.archive.org/web/202201/https://www.spr.doe.gov/d...
Note that it is mostly Sour oil that is being moved off the SPR. Because that is the more useful type. So you might consider that 200-250mbbl of Sweet oil in the SPR is less-useful and counting the whole 400+mbbls is like counting apples and oranges together and saying you have X amount of fruit.
Note the gradient, rates and the fact that two thirds full is a return to the state of things in the 80s - it is conceivable that it will be empty next year. Although whether it is likely is a political question.
[1] ON: https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr...
[2] QC: https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/pr...
Also, hydroelectric dams are not necessarily viable everywhere.
https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/elwha-ecosystem-restor...
Farming at our scale will probably continue to require oil as an input, and that's just fine. Same with certain kinds of manufacturing, etc. Once we stop setting it on fire we'll have a lot more for these purposes and it should be significantly cheaper.
Wind, solar, hydro and nuclear can absolutely handle our non-farming needs.
It will still contribute to our lives and lifestyles sure, but much less.
California just ran on 100% renewable energy, but fossil fuels aren't fading away yet
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/07/1097376890/for-a-brief-moment...
Some counties can't even keep a barnes and noble open . Today, I saw a grown man pants-down shitting in a raised concrete garden planter, feet still touching parking lot. In one of the Top 10 Happiest Cities in the USA (TM).
Yet the entirety of CALIFORNIA will sustain 100% renewable energy. HAH. They will sustain a 100% interest in the politics and policies surrounding the journey to renewable energy. That much is certain.
[edit] refurb: 3 power plants, not 12. But of course yes it's a question of priorities. It's very doable.
It’s pretty clear California wants neither of those.
Who pays for the existing electric grid? Or petro infra? California has horrible fires, the gulf has terrible floods, etc due to climate change. We’re not pricing in the full cost of oil externalities because it comes in the form of emergency budgets and aid instead of monthly maintenance bills.
Beyond California, other states are modernizing their grids. Massachusetts is trying to build massive batteries to sustain themselves when in need (they don’t have any native source of energy), while generating supplemental carbon free energy.
It’s sustainable to maintain because it’s less problematic and more resilient and has less externalities. A California where everyone has solar and a battery is a place where the grid demands are smaller (because energy is produce where it’s needed, not transported). It’s a place resilient to crisis (weather, attack, failure, etc) again, because production is localized. Electric cars use more electricity of course, but you’ll save money by not maintaining any petro infrastructure. California can handle their electric cars just fine.
Also what’s up with this attack on some poor bush shitter? Getting paid to shit in a bush? I don’t know what that’s about but thankfully $600 a month is a lot smaller tax burden than most rural Americans who might complain about him are.