Big Oil Is Fully Cognizant of the Market Forces Pushing Towards Electric Transportation
I thought I would offer a few random observations on the adoption of EVs, based on the reading of this subject over the last 10 years:
There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the oil companies have worked hard to force the world to remain addicted to the drug they sell, but they’re powerless to keep this in place any longer, simply because EV technology has advanced so rapidly. This couldn’t possibly have escaped the notice of the oil giants.
The pace of EV adoption can be increased if more people are willing to spend a bit more or make other sacrifices on behalf of the environment. Of course, a certain amount of wallet-share based on environmentalism has already taken place, and it’s growing, albeit slowly, year by year. Again, this is a “nice to have”; it’s not a necessary ingredient in making EVs successful in the marketplace.
This rate of acceptance is also affected by policy, of course. While no one with any sense expects help from the Trump administration, we need to keep in mind that the US has only about 13% of the world’s cars and trucks, and Trump’s going to be gone in four years (if he lasts that long).
As I mentioned yesterday, a slight dip in demand for gasoline and diesel will tear the entire world oil market to shreds. Such a dip is inevitable, and it won’t be temporary.
Any auto OEM that expects to be here in 20 years has an aggressive EV program in place. Of course, all this is happening within the context of mobility-as-a-service, autonomous vehicles, not to mention the high probability of escalating international hostilities.
As long as we’re on the subject of war, don’t forget that the most dangerous job in the military is guarding oil supply lines. The US armed forces (and those of other countries) is doing everything it can to go to electric, simply so they can bring their soldiers back alive.
For what it’s worth, I join the others in predicting an “S”-curve (i.e., rapid adoption to the point of near saturation).
It is unclear to what extent EVs will penetrate the market or how long it will take. Before there is considerable market penetration, the price and range problems will have to be solved. Also, it may be that market penetration will be significantly below 100%. It may be that EVs will always co-exist with vehicles running on combustible fuels. The CO2 emissions problems could possibly be solved by using an artificial fuel, such as NH3, which could be manufactured with a method which does not emit CO2.
Predicting the future is fraught with peril. Something totally unexpected and unpredictable could occur.
While I share some of Craigs enthusiasm for more rapid advances in EV penetration rates it is contingent on lower prices.
A few little wars will spike oil prices and demand for oil is more fragile than many observers may think.
Those Arabs are expanding their refined products lines as they see the end of just shipping barrels and barrels off to others and letting those profits elude their domestic treasury.
Frank that would be nice if a substitute could be integrated into the fuel. But under the Trumpet there are no incentives to do that it. A return to BAU aka 1950’s style lifestyle / consumption – which is so far removed from Reality it has to e Alternative Facts or Fake news for sure. . All that is missing is the smoke filled Rooms!!
Politics makes strange bed fellows so the ethanol and Oil fellas are bonding together in concerted effort to derail EV s .
This is going to get interesting if not more frustrating as well. ???
Frank you are right Marco said it too and Craig knows it all too well as do I , the future is Fraught with multiple levels of Un knowns and predictions are risky business – Uncertainty is the only Known!
Craig,
Your demonization of Oil Companies and the Oil industry has lead you into a bizarro fantasy world.
Oil isn’t a drug, anymore than water ! Oil is an essential resource for civilized human existence. Your weird,fanatical crusade against oil companies is unjustifiable on any rational level.
Nothing is going to collapse, the world isn’t going to explode into an apocalypse, transition to new forms of automotive energy will take a very long time.
This is not due to any sinister plot by oil companies, simply that the technology isn’t yet sufficiently advanced to prove acceptable to consumers.Nor is ESD capacity sufficient to power larger vehicles. Imagine trying to propel an 84 ton Ground Combat Vehicle with batteries !
As for war. The USA is well served by an astute Secretary of State. So far, the administrations foreign policy strategy appears to be very effective.
The Trump administration seems to be employing a policy of limited involvement, sufficient to achieve it’s objective, but avoiding long term quagmires.
The recent bomb in Afghanistan was effective. It showed the power of the US, with needing on ground forces.
In Syria, trump was able to achieve a limited objective, without the loss of one US life or broadening US involvement. At the same time he was able silence any criticism of being a Russian puppet.
His position in North Korea is correct. For years the West and China have talked and dithered. No amount of diplomatic pressure or even economic pressure from the PRC has prevented the determination of the Pyongyang regime to possess long range Nuclear offensive weapons.
No amount of stern talk, or hand wringing by world leaders has worked.
The US and it’s allies are forced to consider one of two courses.
1)Push Pyongyang to either back down, or take out North Korea’s offensive capacity. If this means war, so be it. The North may inflict heavy civilian casualties initially on South Korea, but the US fleet can minimize the loses while South Korea’s military destroys the North Korean armed forces and eliminates the Pyongyang regime.
The PRC has indicated any interference by the PRC would not be in support of Pyongyang, but to preserve PRC assets and borders.
Russia lacks the capacity to intervene.
Continue to “beef up” South Korea’s defences.
2) Dither, do nothing and wait until the Pyongyang regime is armed with long range Nuclear capacity capable of inflicting damage to the US and it’s allies. Indulge in impotent hand wringing, and speeches in the UN, while the US is humiliated in the eyes of friend and foe alike.
Even containing a policy of appeasement doesn’t guarantee peace, just make war when it comes more terrible.
For the first time, the US holds an Ace. Neither Beijing nor Pyongyang can be sure that President Trump will not order a preemptive strike.
Well, if you want to talk about fringe beliefs, examine what you’re saying here about Trump’s aggression all over the world. It’s supported by a minority of Americans, and almost no one outside the U.S. You’re entitled to your beliefs, but you need to understand that they’re shared by very few people, and even fewer people of your intelligence and background.
Craig,
It’ time for a reality check.
How do you equate President Trump warning US allies that the US can no longer be expected to be the world’s ‘unpaid’ policeman, as “aggression” ?
That may be a bit of a shock for some Europeans and Japanese but it’s not “aggression”.
President Trump strong stance in the South China Sea is supported by all international bodies, including the usually anti-American United Nations (UN) Arbitral Tribunal and World Court.
The President’s response in Syria was decidedly restrained, measured and effective. Unlike sanctions, it hurt the Assad regime, without hurting the people of Syria, risking US personnel or political involvement.
Since most of his policies involve disengagement with international entanglements, the accusation of “aggression” isn’t logical.
The entire world, including Russia and the PRC agree with he policy of drawing a line with the lunatic regime in North Korea.
Even South Koreans (with the most to lose) understand and support US determination to prevent the North Korean regime continuing to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Self Defence is not “aggression” ! Does the lesson of Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 ” Peace in our time “, mean nothing to you?.
I believe if asked, 90% of American’s would support the President preventing such a crazed and irresponsible dictator from acquiring nuclear weapons capable of hitting US cities !
The policy pursued by President Obama of asking politely, failed spectacularly. (as trying to reason with bullies usually does).
I never understood the rationale behind President G W Bush’s war in Iraq. I opposed the war since Saddam Husein’s economic and military power was already degraded and no clear policy existed to deal with the aftermath.
North Korea is different. North Korea is a rogue state with no allies, no ancient religious or tribal divisions, the regime is an anachronism of the cold war. The PRC, North Korea’s only past supporter, already announced an unwillingness to become involved.
The result of any US supported invasion would be a quick (although painful and costly) victory for the South Korean military, (arguably the best in Asia) and reunification of the Korean Peninsular.
South Korean society, economy and political structures are capable of absorbing and rebuilding the North where resistance would be limited to a few die-hards reducing to seeking refuge in the PRC or Russia.
Naturally, the PRC will try hard by every means to avoid such an event, but in the end even Beijing understands the situation can’t continue to escalate. It’s certainly not in Beijing’s interest to see the North collapse, but if it occurs the PRC may take advantage of the ensuing chaos to make territorial claims.
President Trump holds a strong hand. A more adventurous President like Kennedy or GW Bush would be far more aggressive.
The people of South Korea are incredibly brave and resolute.
If war comes and Kim Jong-un attempts to carry out his threat to “rain down hell” on Seoul, no power on earth will stop 3.8 million irate South Korean military exacting revenge on Kim Jong-un and his band of cronies !
Realistically, even the awesome firepower of the US and it’s allies can’t guarantee that Seoul won’t suffer severe initial damage. The US capacity to neutralize the source of that damage is awesome, but not perfect.
Margret Thatcher won the undying respect of her nation due to her successful resolve and determination in resisting Argentinian aggression.
A small minority of leftists bleating appeasement. doesn’t reflect a ‘majority’ not even a significant minority. Naturally, everyone want’s a peaceful resolution to the situation, but very few want to continuing appeasing the murderous, insane regime of Kim Jong-un.
Both the Australian government and the opposition are united in offering unqualified support to President Trump’s strong stance in regard to North Korea.
Australia’s military will answer the call if asked by it’s allies the US and South Korea.
No one, especially veteran’s like me, want’s another war. However, sometimes there is no other option but to fight. If fighting becomes necessary, it should be completed efficiently.
To conclude, far from being aggressive the US President has gone out of his way to encourage Beijing to pressure it’s crazy neighbor to abandon it’s aggression toward it’s neighbours.
A more “aggressive” US President would ignore PRC diplomacy and already be at war.
Your hatred of Donald Trump has blinded you to reality.