# Why Can’t Someone Calculate the True Price of Gasoline?

Blog by Bill Luyties (OWOE Founder and Editor): Over the past few weeks, I’ve had multiple articles pop up on my news feeds that proclaim that an EV can cost as much to drive per mile as an ICE vehicle. These all appear to be based on an Anderson Economic Group report titled: Real World Cost of Fueling EVs and ICE Vehicles (2nd Edition), dated April 2022 but apparently not issued until early 2023. One article headline actually shouts: Shocking study finds EVs cost more to fuel than gas cars in late 2022. While I generally feel that the Anderson study did a good job of trying to compare costs, the authors of these news articles ignore most of the study and focus on a single headline-grabbing finding that for mid-priced cars EVs cost about the same as ICE cars when charged at home, but cost more when using commercial chargers (see Figure 1). This may well be true today, but the Anderson study and these articles miss the real point – such a comparison is misleading and almost totally irrelevant for a number of key reasons.

This study, and every other one like it ignores the full cost of burning a gallon of gas.

What is the true cost? The price one pays at the pump at the neighborhood Shell station is not the true cost of a gallon of gasoline. It is missing a number of key elements that are not visible to the consumer and yet cost the consumer eventually. Costs that are not included:

• Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) which attempts to account for the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on society and the environment, including global average temperature, sea level rise, energy consumption, and agriculture. The EPA, in its September 2022 report: Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, concluded that the median cost for year 2020 ranged between \$110 and \$370 per metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted for a variety of analytical models and input assumptions. We can convert this to a cost per gallon of gas using the fact that gasoline contains 5.5 lbs of carbon per gallon, which would produce 20 lbs of carbon dioxide per gallon when burned; then adding another 2.75 lbs per gallon for emissions associated with crude oil production, transportation and refining per a 2018 Stanford University report (10.3 grams of emissions for every megajoule of crude); which gives a total of 22.75 lbs carbon dioxide per gallon. Using the average mileage rating for a light duty vehicle of 25 mpg, the SCC values range from \$4.50 to \$15.1 per 100 miles driven.
• Including this SCC cost would increase the numbers in Figure 1 for mid-priced ICE cars from \$10.34 per 100 miles to between \$14.84 and \$25.44 per 100 miles, i.e., both greater than the “mostly commercial charging” value for EVs. Also, note that the SCC cost ranges from \$1.13 to \$3.78 per gallon, as compared to the average cost of regular gasoline across the US in 2021 used by Anderson as \$3.32 per gallon.
• It should be noted that the EPA report does not account for a number of social costs that would increase these numbers, including: impact from changes in precipitation, extreme weather events, impact on livestock and fisheries, impact on tourism, impact on biodiversity, displacement and migration, etc.
• Tax breaks and other subsidies that the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed for decades and that are funded by taxpayers, estimated at \$20 billion annually in the US, although some of this can be considered offset by current government subsidies for EV technology.
• Cost of drilling related environmental disasters, such as the 2010 BP Horizon disaster that cost BP \$65 billion to address. Oil companies attempt to recover as much of these expenses possible from consumers by raising gasoline prices. However, this is not necessarily possible due to the fact that oil is a commodity with price set predominantly by worldwide supply and demand. Much, if not all, of such costs will be borne by shareholders and insurance companies.
• Cost of pipeline spills such as the Keystone Pipeline’s 2022 major spill that cost \$480 million to clean up. Similar to the above, much of these costs are likely to be paid for by shareholders and insurance companies.
• Cost of natural disasters such as the current Alberta wildfires. A recent study claims to link about 37 percent of the total area burned in the Western U.S. and Southwest Canada since 1986 to the heat-trapping emissions released by the world’s 88 largest fossil fuel and cement producers.
• Cost to plug all 130,000 abandoned oil and gas wells across the US, which has been estimated by the US Department of the Interior will cost between \$3 and \$19 billion. Some of this cost will be carried by the oil companies, but a significant portion may need taxpayer funding given that many of the responsible companies are no longer in business.

One must also keep in mind that the technology associated with EVs is evolving rapidly and will also change the overall picture in favor of EVs. Whereas ICE technology is well over 100 years old and at the stage where only incremental improvements are likely, EV technology is rapidly advancing. Over the next several years, the industry is likely to see significant changes that will continue to reduce cost and other perceived shortcomings of EVs:

• Reductions in battery weight and cost.
• Increase in battery capacity (vehicle range).
• Reductions in charging times.
• Increase in charging options, both home and away, which will address costs identified in the Anderson report as deadhead miles cost (purple bars).

Etc., etc…The magnitude of these unaccounted-for costs and evolving technology make any such ICE vs EV comparison ridiculous. If one were to ignore everything else, including only the SCC cost in the comparison, the headline for these articles would be more like: “Boring study shows that EVs cost less to drive than gas cars and are much better for the environment.” But such articles don’t get attention and online clicks.

# Floating Wind Solutions 2023 Conference

Blog by Bill Luyties (OWOE Founder and Editor): I had the opportunity and pleasure to visit the Floating Wind Solutions (FWS) 2023 conference in Houston, Tx, last week and thoroughly enjoyed the three days of exhibits, presentations, networking, and reconnecting with colleagues. This was the third annual FWS and by far the largest and best attended with close to 90 exhibitors and approximately 800 attendees. The mood of the participants was very upbeat, as floating wind has experienced a number of positive developments over the last year. While there are still key hurdles to overcome, the industry appears to be on the verge of taking off.

Continue reading Floating Wind Solutions 2023 Conference

# Coming Soon – Eastern Venezuela

Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, reported at 303 billion barrels in 2019 (BP Statistical Review of World Energy), and yet only produced 723,000 barrels per day (MBPD) in August 2022. In contrast, Saudi Arabia is a close second in total reserves at 298 billion barrels, produced 11 million barrels per day (MBPD) that month. That is, with essentially the same reserves, Saudi Arabia produces over 15 times as much oil. The history behind the collapse of the Venezuelan oil industry is a clear lesson of the failure to understand how to manage a critical natural resource in today’s complex, interdependent world economy. If we turn to Russia, before the invasion of Ukraine it was producing 11.3 MBPD and was the largest exporter of oil to the world’s markets at 7.8 MBPD in December 2021. About 60% of those exports went to European countries. Given the West’s determination to end its dependence on Russian oil coupled with the impact of Western sanctions on Russian finance and industry, it is not hard to see the collapse of the Russian oil industry and a new oil-rich but oil-dysfunctional country ensuing, one which we will start referring to as Eastern Venezuela.

Continue reading Coming Soon – Eastern Venezuela

# Don’t Blame the Suppliers, Unless They Are Big Oil

Bill Luyties, OWOE Founder and Technical Editor: Last year OWOE published a blog titled “Don’t Blame the Suppliers. It was intended to help focus the narrative related to climate change from attacks on the supply side of the contributors to climate change, i.e., the big oil companies, to the demand side, i.e., consumers who want big cars and to buy lots of everything. However, since that time I have come across several articles published by the BBC: one published in 2020 titled “How the oil industry made us doubt climate change” and another published earlier this year titled “The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change“. These articles document the efforts of the fossil fuel companies to engage in a public-relations campaign to sow doubt in the science of climate change by following the playbook of the tobacco industry from several decades earlier. Thus, I would like to update the title of that blog to “Don’t Blame the Suppliers, Unless They Are Big Oil”.

Continue reading Don’t Blame the Suppliers, Unless They Are Big Oil

# A real NIMBY problem

OWOE Staff: The battle against climate change is not going well. President Biden’s climate agenda has fallen apart. Russia’s war in Ukraine and its fallout within Europe has led to an increase in coal power and a push to increase world oil output. Germany is proceeding with plans to shut down its last 3 nuclear power plants in December which will eliminate 6% of its annual electricity generation and 11% of its non-fossil based generation. World oil production which peaked in 2019 at 99.7 million barrels per day before the Covid pandemic slashed demand has risen back almost to pre-pandemic levels and is expected to exceed those levels in 2023. We can all lament those factors as lost opportunities, but there are two factors driving Americans’ behavior that make OWOE seriously question whether any real progress can be made. We call them NIMBYism and IWINYism. We will address NIMBYism, or the Not in My Back Yard syndrome, here and cover IWINYism, or the I Want it Now or Yesterday syndrome, in a future post.

Continue reading A real NIMBY problem

# Can we turn the Ukrainian tragedy into opportunity for the planet?

OWOE Staff: The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a tragedy on many fronts – for the civilians caught in the crossfire, for the concept of democracy, and for the rest of the globe that will certainly feel the impact of economic sanctions imposed in an interconnected world. One impact of those sanctions in the US can be seen in the sharp rise in gasoline prices. In high-priced gasoline states like California, gas prices at the beginning of this week reached an average of about \$5.40/gal (up about 10% from the previous week – see Figure 1).

Such a sharp increase, especially coupled with inflation stemming from the Covid pandemic stimulus packages and more recent supply chain issues, is certainly going to have a significant impact on Americans. Other impacts of the sanctions, including the US banning of Russian oil imports will create another round of challenges. US companies curtailing business in Russia will see impact to their financial bottom lines which will have a follow-on effect on the stock market. And now we are now getting warnings that prices for other commodities that Russia exports to the world have become volatile and are surging. But can something good come of this?

OWOE believes that the world can use this opportunity to step back and reassess how it moves forward to address the challenges of energy security, energy transition and climate change. In particular, how we can change our dependence on fossil fuels from a supply-focused approach to a demand-focused approach? This has been a recurring OWOE theme (Don’t Blame the Suppliers; The Fundamental (and Somewhat Existential) Source of Climate Change – and How We Might Overcome It). And just recently, Hal Kvisle, a former chief executive of TransCanada Corp., was quoted in BNN Bloomberg as saying: “Until consumers have other alternatives, other ways of getting around, or other ways of heating their homes effectively – until we address the demand on the consumer side – we’re not really going to change the balance”. Prior to the Ukraine invasion, the Covid pandemic dominated not only the news cycle but our daily lives. In 2020 the demand for gasoline (i.e., oil) dropped dramatically to a level not seen since the mid-1990s. This was driven in part by the economic stagnation during the first year of the Covid pandemic, with many people losing their jobs or being forced to take time off work and many others forced to work from home. As a result, transportation by both vehicle and plane dropped dramatically. Figure 2 shows petroleum consumption history from 1950 through 2020, with consumption by the transportation sector dropping from a yearly average of 14.1 million barrels/day in 2019 to 11.9 million barrels/day in 2020.

But we managed to survive. Then in 2021 as many of the Covid restrictions were lifted, people started to return to a normal life, and, driven by the pent-up demand from the prior year, oil consumption surged. In November 2021 consumption in the transportation sector jumped up to 13.7 million barrels/day, or just 3% under the 2019 peak, as shown with the added data points.

The first conclusion that can be drawn from these numbers is that, with the right behavior, banning Russian oil imports should have essentially no impact on the US economy. In 2021 average oil imports from Russia were 672,000 barrels/day. That was only 5% of transportation needs (and only 3% of total oil consumption of 23.2 million barrels/day across all sectors). Loss of all Russian barrels would mean the November 2021 transportation consumption would have been about 13 million barrels/day, which would still have been well above the 2020 value. Given that Americans in 2022 are now driving on average 14,263 miles/year (on track for 3.2 trillion miles total) and that the average car in the US gets 23 mpg, it would only take a decrease of about 25 miles per year per vehicle to eliminate completely the need for the Russian oil imports. Certainly, support of Ukraine against Russian aggression is worth driving 1/2 mile less each week.

The second conclusion is that we now have a very good data point for what behaviors can quickly result in a 10-15% reduction in oil consumption, i.e., the 2019 to 2020 drop. This drop was not driven by the cost of gasoline; it was driven by a much broader reduction in demand. While a Covid-scale drop might be too aggressive and costly to the economy, an intermediate value seems very doable. Let’s continue to support clever ways to work remotely and reduce commuting; let’s focus on energy efficiency with electric vehicles, LED lights, home insulation, etc.; let’s scale back our rampant consumerism; let’s walk and bike more in place of driving. These are easy technology changes that can be made with minimal impact to lifestyle and the overall economy and could be greatly enhanced with government encouragement, including ad campaigns and incentive programs. The result would be a huge step forward in the US effort to reduce oil imports, and, concurrently, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help slow global warming.

OWOE also notes that we have been pointing out the risk that dependence on oil supplies from non-democratic countries creates for several years now. See OWOE blogs: Is There Any Limit to How Dumb Can Governments Get?, It’s a Mad Mad World of Energy,  Time for a New Energy Policy, etc. This crisis appears to be the catalyst might make that a reality. The European Commission just published plans to cut EU dependency on Russian gas by two-thirds this year and end its reliance on Russian supplies of the fuel “well before 2030”.

Hopefully, the Ukrainian tragedy can be used to change the mindset and approach of governments around the world. We’ve proven that we can live with less oil; now we need to make that the norm. It is time to eliminate dependence on Russia for any commodity, moderate our seemingly limitless demand for fossil fuels, and save the planet!

# Will California Take a Huge Step Backward?

OWOE Staff: California tends to be a polarizing state. As the most populous US state and what would be the 5th largest economy in the world if it were a country, as the home of the television and movie industry, as the home to Silicon Valley with its technology leaders and billionaires, and as the home base to many environmental organizations, it has always been a trendsetter. In the battle against climate change, California has been a leader. It is the #1 state for installed cumulative solar electrical capacity by a factor of about 3 over the #2 state (Texas). It has the highest volume of Electric Vehicles owned of any state by a factor of about 7 over the #2 state (Florida). It has required higher vehicle emission standards than the rest of the US since the 1970 Clean Air Act. It has set a goal of 100% clean electric power by 2045. It has banned the sales of new gasoline powered automobiles by 2035 and is moving toward accelerating that to 2030. Progressives and those concerned about the health of the planet love these programs. Conservatives and those beholden to the fossil fuel industry hate these programs. But, suddenly, California is making a move against residential rooftop solar power as in Florida, where utilities argue that rooftop residential solar affects their business model. That’s correct; suddenly California is limiting the ability of its residents to achieve both energy independence and greatly reduce the State’s overall carbon footprint.

Continue reading Will California Take a Huge Step Backward?

# Sowing the Seeds of Confusion

OWOE Staff: An OWOE contributor shared a BBC News article with OWOE staff regarding the possible construction of four (4) Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in the UK. This would be a demonstration project for nuclear reactors based on nuclear submarine technology that some companies are touting as a key contribution to the sustainable, renewable energy mix of the future. The following day Rolls Royce announced that it had procured sufficient funding to develop its SMR concept that would trigger additional funds from the UK government to kick-off the project, with the first plant targeted for completion in the early 2030s. A further BBC News article referenced these Rolls Royce SMRs again, along with barge mounted SMRs being developed by Denmark’s Seaborg Technologies. The problem here is not with the projects themselves or the technology, but with the way they are characterized to the public. To quote the first BBC article:

Continue reading Sowing the Seeds of Confusion

# Don’t Blame the Suppliers

OWOE Staff: The energy world has been rocked by a number of crucial events during the past two months. In the transition to renewable energy and more particularly in the removal of fossil fuels form the energy mix, there are possibly three history-making game changers: Don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against environmental activists who are trying to save our planet. In principle, I support most of the stated goals of these individuals and organizations, and of all the people I greatly admire, Greta Thunberg could well be at the top of my list. But the recent focus of these activists on shutting down big oil, closing nuclear power plants, blocking new pipelines, banning plastic straws, etc., is misguided. Yes, all of these are contributors to global warming and other forms of pollution, and yes, the world would be better off without all of them. However, the problem is that these things represent the supply side of the economic marketplace. They are there because people want them, either directly – we want gas to drive our cars, or indirectly – we want to buy lots and lots of stuff that takes energy to manufacture and transport. Cutting supply does not solve the problem if the demand remains: cleverer or less scrupulous players will gladly jump in to fill the void. And, at the end of the day, all of us will likely be worse off.

Continue reading Don’t Blame the Suppliers

# Nuclear Power: Climate Solution or Hype

OWOE Staff:The energy world has been rocked by a number of crucial events during the past two months. In the transition to renewable energy and more particularly in the removal of fossil fuels form the energy mix, there are possibly three history-making game changers:

1. The International Energy Agency (IEA) came out with its report on the state of the climate, and it was brutal toward fossil fuels. It laid out the reality of the current climate crisis and pointed to one clear action required to prevent catastrophic global warming: “The world has a choice – stop developing new oil, gas and coal fields today or face a dangerous rise in global temperatures.” It is important to point out that the report didn’t call for the immediate elimination of fossil fuels as energy sources. The IEA understands the need for some transition period to a fossil-free future. But the transition needs to be speedy, and the IEA feels that the best way to do this is to stop all new developments, live off the current reserves, and use that time to develop the technologies, change behavior and make the transition.
2. President Joe Biden issued his sweeping climate goal to cut US emissions in half by 2030 ahead of convening an historic summit with 40 world leaders to demonstrate American leadership in the quest to elimination of fossil fuels by 2050.
3. ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and Chevron were rebuked by shareholders and the courts for not aligning their strategies with the threat of climate change.
Continue reading Nuclear Power: Climate Solution or Hype