An Austrian soldier guards the entrance to the OPEC headquarters on October 4, 2022 on the eve of the 45th Meeting of the Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee and the 33rd OPEC and non-OPEC Ministerial Meeting held on October 05, in Vienna, Austria.
Joe Klamar | AFP | Getty Images
Saudi Arabia’s decision to ally with Russia and push through the largest supply cut by OPEC+ since 2020 means it’s time for the U.S. to take every available step it can to boost U.S. energy production.
That could even mean exploring the “nuclear option” — a point I mean literally, in terms of deploying nuclear power to assist in meeting the nation’s energy needs.
Energy policy is an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Given that a former ally has joined with a current adversary, I would argue that, at least for the moment, all bets are off. It’s time to bring Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Vladimir Putin to heel, and take away some of the power that OPEC and its allies have.
The Biden administration — short-term environmental concerns aside — should offer price supports to the entire oil and gas industry, beyond the subsidies already offered, to rapidly boost production in some areas where exploration and production have slowed.
Biden, no doubt, would get pilloried by environmental groups, progressives and even some middle-of-the-road Democrats for potentially accelerating climate change, but short-run needs are paramount if the U.S. would like to maintain long-term control of both our energy security and our national security.
A multiyear price floor
With the imposition of a multiyear price floor, the U.S. could support domestic crude prices at, let’s say, $65 per barrel. That’s high enough to encourage existing fracking efforts while also encouraging additional production. Yet, it’s low enough to help pull the rug out from under a former ally that has shown its allegiance to Moscow. (We do this for all manner of commodity producers, by the way.)
Further, a more rapid addition of U.S. supplies of oil and natural gas would pressure global energy prices greatly and hurt the bottom lines of both Saudi Arabia and Russia, who are trying to ensure $100 per barrel oil to prop up their budgets — and, for Putin, to finance the ongoing war in Ukraine.
A flood of U.S. oil could drive prices back into the $20s even as U.S. companies are guaranteed to earn more.
In the 1980s, when the Saudis were the world’s “swing producer” of oil, they set the global price by raising and lowering production to send prices up or down, depending on prevailing circumstances.
The U.S. is poised to return to being the No. 1 producer next year when daily production reaches the old record of 12.3 million barrels per day from the current 11.8 million. (The U.S. has been the world’s largest producer of natural gas since 2017.)
In addition, the U.S. should expedite the build out of pipelines, transmission lines and LNG terminals so that the U.S. can more effectively — and profitably — export surplus oil and natural gas to an energy-starved world.
Adding a little fuel to that fire could help Europe avoid future disruptions of supplies as long as sanctions remain in place against a would-be Peter the Great.
An ‘all of the above energy’ policy
Beyond that, continuing an “all of the above” energy policy — which should absolutely include modern nuclear power plants — would go far in stabilizing global energy markets, ensure more than adequate supplies of power and energy here at home and, once and for all, cripple the OPEC cartel and Russia, whose economy rests almost entirely on energy exports.
And, yes, the U.S. and Europe should place a cap on Russian oil prices to also rob Moscow of the revenue it needs to sustain its invasion of Ukraine.
And, as some foreign policy experts have suggested of late, the U.S. should cut off sales of military hardware to MBS and deprive him of U.S. intelligence, rendering the alliance moot and leaving the Saudis at risk of armed conflict with regional rivals. That should be their problem from now on.
The U.S. should also strike a deal with Iran and Venezuela to allow oil to flow from those pariah states.
At the end of the day — and this may be naive — but what’s the difference between doing business with Saudi Arabia and Russia compared with doing business with Venezuela and Iran? Long ago, we learned that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
It may well be time to put that philosophy to work and turn the tables on nations whose revenue options are far more limited than our own.
— Ron Insana is a CNBC contributor and a senior advisor at Schroders.
In what couldn’t have been more on-the-nose timing, a group of local California newspapers published an editorial on Christmas Eve calling for the end of a generous $2,000 voucher program intended to help low-income Californians afford electric bicycles for transportation.
The editorial was provided by the Southern California News Group, a collection of California newspapers owned by the hedge fund Alden Global Capital.
In it, the writers air a number of grievances against the program, which recently closed its first round of applications intended to provide around 1,500 e-bike vouchers of between US $1,750 to $2,000 each. The vouchers can be used to offset the price of electric bicycles and associated gear such as protective equipment, locks, etc.
The first complaint in the op-ed is that the total number of vouchers provided in the first round was relatively small compared to the large size of the California e-bike market. However, instead of suggesting that the budget be increased to help more Californians achieve transportation independence, as we called for recently, the editorial takes the opposite position of suggesting that the program simply be canceled.
Next, the writers bemoan an increase in electric bicycle and electric scooter accidents in recent years, suggesting that this should be weighed against the benefits of helping more Californians afford such vehicles.
However, the argument seems to conveniently overlook the fact that the vast majority of such accidents aren’t caused by e-bike riders, but rather those riders are in fact usually the victims. The actual danger to safety on roads is vehicular traffic, i.e. cars and trucks.
Furthermore, many studies have shown that in crashes caused by e-bike riders, such as when an e-bike rider hits another cyclist or pedestrian, the injuries are on average considerably lighter and more recoverable than in car-related crashes.
If the goal was to protect Californians, then instead of firmly clutching their pearls, perhaps the editorial writers should have urged a reduction in the use of cars and trucks, not a reduction in e-bike vouchers.
The op-ed even goes on to lament the number of children riding electric bicycles in California, though admits further on that children aren’t eligible to receive vouchers as part of California’s e-bike incentive program.
Electrek’s Take
California’s e-bike incentive program is certainly far from perfect. We even discussed many of its shortcomings last week. But the program’s essence is to do a good thing—using public tax money to benefit the public. The solution should be to improve the program, not to remove it. And the simple fact of the matter is that most people who are vehemently against the program are those who don’t directly benefit from it, even if they fail to realize that they will ultimately indirectly benefit.
Electric bicycles are one of the most cost-effective ways to provide transportation independence to marginalized and low-income groups. But it’s more than just that. They’re also the best way to get people out of cars and reduce traffic for everyone. Even ignoring the long-term environmental effects related to reducing the impacts of climate change, e-bikes are uniquely capable of making a larger impact on air quality today by helping to remove sources of emissions from a vehicle’s production all the way through its lifetime use and even to its eventual disposal/recycling. When someone rides an e-bike instead of taking a car, taxi, or bus, everyone’s lungs benefit.
Sure, the California program isn’t perfect. But if a media group owned by a wealthy hedgefund and catering to a well-to-do readership doesn’t like it, then that means it’s probably doing something helpful to people who actually need it. That’s the kind of world I want to live in, at least for as long as it’s still liveable.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
On today’s high-powered episode of Quick Charge, we’ve got Honda fuel cell manager David Perzynski here to talk about Honda’s forty year history developing hydrogen powertrains, and the role Honda sees for HFCEVs in a battery dominated world.
In the course of the conversation we talk about several hydrogen articles posted in 2024, as well as some Honda projects related to CES. You’ll be able to read more about those, below. Enjoy!
New episodes of Quick Charge are recorded, usually, Monday through Thursday (and sometimes Sunday). We’ll be posting bonus audio content from time to time as well, so be sure to follow and subscribe so you don’t miss a minute of Electrek’s high-voltage daily news!
Got news? Let us know! Drop us a line at tips@electrek.co. You can also rate us on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Sixthreezero’s wide range of electric bike models includes some fairly out-there models, but the company’s new four-wheeled electric bike really charts a new direction in the industry. Take a look at the new ANYterrain Stabilized 4-wheel Electric Bike.
It’s a mouthful of a name, but the ANYterrain Stabilized 4-wheel Electric Bike hauls more than just a bunch of extra words. The bike is rated to carry up to 350 lb (159 kg), and the 750W motor ensures it has the power to do so. With speeds of up to 20 mph (32 km/h), the quad bike is just as fast as most Class 1 and 2 e-bikes.
But the real game changer here is the design, offering four-wheeled stability that riders can’t get from a conventional three-wheeled trike.
Not only do four wheels provide better stability with a wider footprint, but the steering on the bike uses leaning geometry to take turns more naturally, helping riders feel even more stable.
With 20″ wheels in the rear and 16″ wheels in the front, the quad bike keeps a fairly low center of gravity. All four wheels use 4″ fat tires for better offroad riding and more comfortable shock absorption compared to narrow tires, and the rear wheels even feature a differential to better apply the motor’s power to the ground.
A twist throttle makes it easy to roll on that power, and a D/R switch on the bars lets riders put it in reverse for cases where they need a little help wiggling around in tight spaces. Pedaling backward from a stop can also engage the reverse. At 120 lbs (54 kg), this isn’t the type of bike you can just pick up and move around the garage without a little help so that reverse feature will likely come in handy.
A 48V and 20Ah battery offers 960Wh of capacity, which the company says translates into a range of up to 50 miles (80 km).
The battery is housed under a cargo basket in the rear, though a bench seat can be swapped for the basket, allowing riders to carry a passenger with them.
Electrek’s Take
This certainly won’t be a mass market type of e-bike, but I can see a real use case for neighborhood riding and local errands, especially for folks who don’t feel stable on a bicycle or even a trike.
Despite trikes offering great stability when going straight, some people can feel uncomfortable making turns on a trike, especially at higher speeds, because they can sometimes feel tippy under certain scenarios. This quad bike can still tip if you take a turn sharp enough, but the wider stance combined with the leaning steering means riders will even more stable than on a trike.
And since this will likely be used more by older riders, the reverse is an important feature for letting folks park the bike easily without dismounting and dragging it around.
There could be some legal hurdles in some areas that define “bicycles” as having either two or three wheels, but I’m guessing most cops aren’t jumping at the opportunity to ticket grandma for riding her quad bike on the local rails to trails network.
I love seeing more options like this, and I commend Sixthreezero for providing such interesting options to add to the market.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.