Electric Cars Pose “Serious Threat To The Oil Industry”


Chevrolet Bolt, An Electric Car For The Masses

The Chevrolet Bolt, An Electric Car For The Masses

Fitch is a ratings agency that publishes highly influential financial ratings. Although we have been hearing for some time now that electric cars will eventually threaten the oil industry, Financial Times has cited Fitch’s recent report claiming that an oil industry “death spiral” is imminent, due to the rise of electric vehicles.

We Are Seeing Increased Growth Of Solar Fields And Wind Turbines In Many Areas

We Are Seeing Increased Growth Of Solar Fields And Wind Turbines In Many Areas

Many people continue to side with “Big Oil” and aren’t yet willing to admit that this is bound to happen, sooner than later. The Fitch report reads:

“An acceleration of the electrification of transport infrastructure would be resoundingly negative for the oil sector’s credit profile … In an extreme scenario where electric cars gained a 50 per cent market share over 10 years about a quarter of European gasoline demand could disappear.”

The report goes on to emphasize phrases such as “investor death spiral”, “serious threat”, and “resoundingly negative” impacts.

This is all in reference to the scenario that Fitch provides; a scenario in which investors pull monies from oil-related companies, making loans more expensive. It would result in a downward spiral, during which even having gas powered vehicles still on the road would make no difference.

Not only would big oil companies suffer, but also utility companies relying on fossil fuel. Furthermore, energy storage systems, much like the batteries in EVs, could take the worry out of the inconsistency of solar and wind power. Thus, driving oil down even further.

Keep in mind that the report poses such a situation as a worst-case scenario. However, the direction that it follows and the provided explanation, all make perfect sense. Not only does it make sense, but it obviously leads to sustainability, is environmentally conscious, and in the end, will be more financially sound. We have known all of this for a long time, but it is nice to see that a company with some leverage and impact is taking notice and disseminating the information.

Oil companies still believe that electric vehicles are too expensive, gas prices are staying low, and ICE cars are reaching breakthroughs in fuel efficiency. This may all be true. But all are temporary. EV prices are coming down and this will continue. Gas prices never stays low forever. While ICE vehicles are more efficient than they once were, they are not very efficient. Without electricity as a factor, there is only so much that automakers can do to make cars any more efficient.

Source: Financial Times

Categories: General

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

93 Comments on "Electric Cars Pose “Serious Threat To The Oil Industry”"

newest oldest most voted

“Best case scenario”, except for Koch brothers and co.

The Cock Bros. Are polluting the Detroit River with Coke & have been Greasing Politicians & getting away with it …

I love how you spelled the last name of the evil brothers

In what way do wind and solar compete with oil? Not the core of their argument, and I haven’t read the source report (subscription required) but it does sow a little doubt.

I also don’t understand why fossil fueled utilities would suffer, at least in the short term. Coal plants should see no significant difference and what few oil burning power plants exist should be helped.

New solar and wind facilities, today, are cheaper than fracking-piping-transporting-to-a-50%-inefficient natural gas generator. Especially in the 20 most southern US states, and Mexico.

EV’s will plug in, and never burn a drop of gas ever.
Having 2 EV’s in our garage means your payback period of solar on your roof is much shorter, and then you make the Exxon profits. But, with No Carbon and No Pollution.

A pure Rankine cycle turbine has a theoretical efficiency limit in the 30% range, but combined cycle plants often reach efficiencies in the 80% range. I am not sure about your 50% number…

This is the thing that is going to slaughter the coal industry http://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/world-biggest-solar-power-nevada/

This solar thermal beast will be at least 2000 megawatts.

The largest coal fired power plan in Vrigniia makes 1600 megawatts of power.

The North Anna Nuclear plant in Vriginia makes 1700 megawatts.

Oil is gas, gas is replacing coal as a utility scale energy source. The price of each is linked.

Solar, wind and energy storage operate at next to zero marginal cost.

Solar and wind have virtually zero Operating Expense.

Battery storage is vastly faster power source to balance out grid power needs.

Wind mills are not zero maintenance. They need greasing and mechanical inspections. Solar panels need occasional cleaning for optimum efficiency, especially after a snowstorm, whereupon cleaning would involve a broom or squeegee.
However, I’d use the word ‘negligible.’

When airports, convention centers, big box retailers, parking ramps are scrambling to get solar installed, and individual home owners are being pelted with options for their own electric needs, yeah, there’s not so much demand for fossil-powered electricity as their used to be.

Inevitable. There’s no other word. I just hope that energy density in batteries improves on the curve it is following now. The energy density in a gallon of petrol is still what, about 10x to 12x that of a Li-ion battery? That’s a permanent horizontal line versus an increasing curve on the same plot. It’s not like they can advance gasoline or diesel itself in terms of energy value. Well, not without Decepticon technology, anyway.

Pipelines explode.

Pipelines aren’t being maintained, they’re daily pipeline leaks in America.

Solar and wind are better and cheaper, lower OE, Operational Expense.

No, in a northern country (like Ontario) the angle is steeper and because the panels are dark and smooth, all the snow fall at the first sun ray, cleaning the panels in the same time.
The albedo and reflection increase when the surroundings are covered with fresh snow.
Efficiency also increases in the cold weather.

Manual cleaning is necessary only in sandy locations.

Comparing energy density is somehow irrelevant as the % extracted from hydrocarbons by Infernal Explosion engines is much much less than an electric motor.

How do you generate heat in your home? If you are not connected to a gas pipeline or burning wood, you may use oil. You could also use a heat pump with solar or wind power…

Are you serious? Cheap and efficient baseboard heaters are plenty here in cold winters Canada.

You need to say electric baseboard.

But, also geothermal in the US is taking off, along with high efficiency heat pump.

Baseboards are a joke.

You have them mounted below your windows too no doubt

You know nothig of cold climates don’t you?Easily the half of houses and appartment building are using those electric baseboards in Canada.

The new generation of heat pumps are 40% more better then the old ones from 25 years ago.

With the costs electricity from of solar and wind coming down, storage batteries getting cheaper each year, it will be very efficient to get electric heating systems, heat pumps, heated floors and electric baseboards will be more common in the future, as other ways of heating will decline.


In Quebec, where electricity rates are among the lowest in Canada, more than two out of three households use electricity to heat their homes. More than one-third of dwellings in Quebec are apartments and about 80% of these buildings are electrically heated. This usage rate is much higher than the national average of 56%.

Advantage win of electric:
1) Easy to turn on/or only the heaters for the partof the home you use, and remote controlling them (centrally in the home or from away) is simpler & cheaper; in any liqud-circulatory system based on natural gas, heating oil etc., there’s a lot of overhead & losses heating pipes/ducts, and slower rampdown/rampup;
This may be less of a concern in climates where you have to heat at a high level most of the year, but most of the world doesn’t live in such climes.

2) Maintenance of oil furnaces is really expensive, and they tend to be unreliable. Baseboard heaters/wall radiators have no moving parts and typically last decades with literally zeor maintenance.

3) In theory, electric heat relies on a working grid. In practice, most furnace systems use an electric pump so are just as vulnerable to blackouts, and, in practice, blackouts of over a few hours are rare in most developed countries.

I think the intent was that as wind/solar become more prevalent the more electric vehicles will have a positive report with more people. This is in response to electric vehicles are still polluting due to electricity being created with coal. Take coal out of the equation with wind and solar nad even more people would be buying EVs.

Just my reading on it.

“…an oil industry ‘death spiral’ is imminent, due to the rise of electric vehicles.”

While I would certainly love it if that were true, the claim that it’s “imminent” is more than slightly premature. Even if EV sales really take off, let’s remember that the average age of a car is about 7 years, so even if 100% of auto sales were BEVs, it would take 7 years for half of all gasmobiles on the road to be replaced with pure electric cars.

Furthermore, only roughly half of petroleum refinery production is gasoline. There are many other products, including diesel for transportation and heating oil, or “diesel #4”.

And while we do seem to be on the verge of passenger vehicle PEVs (Plug-in EVs) going mainstream, we’re still some distance away — likely a decade or two — from replacing diesel engines in larger and heavier vehicles with EV powertrains.

Great point. We are mostly not aware that gasoline is a cheap waste product of the production of more expensive chemicals like plastics, greases, etc.

If we ditch gasoline, we will have to burn it another way (sad solution), use another feedstock to make chemicals, or stop using chemicals

There are ways to make chemicals from renewable resources, like e.g. ethanol (used in Brasil a lot).
However, given the fact, that 95% of the oil is just burned for transportation, energy or heating, and merely 5% is used for chemicals, one could simply close down many refineries and still produce enough for the chemicals. All excess byproducts can go into the big freighters, which currently run on the nastiest stuff there is, heavy oil with 5% sulfur, without any off-gas cleaning. Would actually make them cleaner when compared to now. (The 15 largest ships pollute equally in terms of SO2 than all 700 Million cars on the planet combined (incl. cheating diesels). And there is more than just 15 ships in the sea.

JoeP said:

“If we ditch gasoline, we will have to burn it another way (sad solution), use another feedstock to make chemicals, or stop using chemicals”

Maybe it’s just me, but I’d much rather see petroleum used to make plastics and other materials than to be burned as gasoline or diesel.

At least when it’s used to make plastic, it’s (mostly) not producing fumes that pollute the atmosphere with toxic gasses and carcinogens. Also, the material will last for some years, rather than having to be replaced every week, as the gasoline in the average gasmobile does.

Of course, plastics being thrown away and piling up as litter or floating garbage in the oceans is an environmental problem, too. But at least there, many or most plastics can be recycled. Kinda hard to recycle gasoline after it’s burnt!

I agree.

However, when a 55 gal barrel of oil gets refined or cracked, there is some amount of gasoline, some amount of diesel, some amount OK kerosene, some that is suitable for plastics (unless I understand it incorrectly).

That explains why the price of gasoline and diesel fluctuate so much, even with respect to each other.

It also says that if we want petroleum based plastics, we need to do something with the gasoline.

My hope is that we replace petroplastics with bioplastics, perhaps based on hemp.

I am not a material scientist, so it is only a hope, not a plan.


IT MEANS THAT MORE THAN 90% IS burned and create toxic wastes and CO2.
Even on an hypothetical 100% coal generated electricity, electric cars ALWAYS pollute less than ICE, because of their far superior efficiency. With more and more wind/solar, we will have a small chance to avoid cataclysmic global warming disasters.
But we have to hurry.

we need to make more use of hemp. that’s why (among other reasons) we need immediate legalization of the “international herb” immediately:


the whole basis for making weed illegal was bogus anyway…

This is why companies like Ford are working on ditching petroleum based plastics, in favor of alternative sources of plastics and foams.


Better example of Ford using alternate source for plastics. The Tequila Connection:


Actually refineries have a lot of flexibility in producing the different hydrocarbons. Heavier hydrocarbons can be broken down and lighter ones can be “built up” into heavier ones. Given an energy source you can synthesize hydrocarbons from various carbon and hydrogen sources.

See the flow diagram on the Wikipedia Oil Refinery page. Also the Wikipedia pages for Power to Gas and for Synthetic Fuel to get a feel for the processes.

Excellent point by PuPu. The change will be so gradual that oil companies will adapt. Those that don’t will be out of business, but big guys like Shell, Exxon, etc. will still be around, probably going to another line of business related to energy.

In the short term, they’re going to cry and bitch to big brother to put in more regulations in the guise of “government knows best”, similar to carmakers on mandatory dealer networks. Those tactics only delay the inevitable.

the “regulations” are what make electric vehicles feasible. how many posters have you seen posting in this forum to fret about whether they will get their tesla model 3 before the US government ends the tax credit on electric vehicles?

You’re absolutely right. No one would buy Tesla P100DL if not for regulations

*rolls eyes like slot machine*

You are not addressing his point. People buying current Teslas don’t need to worry about the tax credit. Working class folks, looking to buy a barely affordable $30K+ EV, definitely want the tax credit.

As Chevy pointed out with Bolt release, average car transaction is about $35K. While everyone would like to get discount on everything they buy, the reality is that $35K for a new car is typical.

I use P100DL of today, but the fact is, Tesla 3 delivers whole lot of bang for the buck for $35K with self driving mode (yeah, I know, $8K more), high efficiency, kickass performance and so on. While 80 miles range EV of 3 year old tech like SparkEV needed subsidy, that won’t be true in near future. I’m not even sure if it was ever needed other than to push Tesla a bit by GM and resulting quickening of the pace. Well, it did benefit GM by having a great test vehicle on the market.

Don’t get me wrong; I love getting EV subsidy, almost as much as I like getting far higher subsidy on my home mortgage interest. But in the end, regulations won’t be needed for EV takeover of the world. Rather, it will be oil companies trying to push regulations.

setting aside the fact that the *average* transaction price for a car (which is actually a few thousand dollars less than you stated) is skewed by the people buying SUVs with 7 year loans (you actually have to look at *median* selling price to get a sense of what is really going on with car sales), the $35,000 that you cite for a tesla model 3 is a *base* price. i would dare say that the *average* tesla model 3 is going to sell for a lot more than $35,000.

compare the base price of a tesla model 3 ($35,000) with the base price of the current best selling car, toyota camry ($23,000), and you can see that without incentives, the tesla model 3 is in the price category with the benz c-class. while you personally might be able to afford to buy a tesla P100D, most people are stretching to afford to pay the prices of today’s cars. that’s probably why you see people posting comments in which they are expressing concerns about how much longer tax credits will be available to purchase tesla cars.

You left out one important detail. These same people will be saving TONS of $$$ on “fuel” for their electric vehicles.

I mean, $24 for 1,000 miles is pretty hard to beat!

It’s about $159 to do that in my gas SUV. Yes, I am aware Model S/Model 3 isn’t an SUV.

That covers a LOT of the $181 extra/month on a loan that is $10K higher. (60 month loan @ 3.11%).

*Based on $.08/kWh and not assuming any charging losses – since I figure these are more than covered using the supercharger network. Yes, I pay .08/kWh.

Fueling a gasser just isn’t that expensive any longer. If you want to keep your auto purchase cost and your fuel cost down, it is easy to find a roomy car that gets 30+ mpg. Take the Honda Fit. 33-35 combined mpg for less than $16,000. If gas is around $2.20, your fuel cost is less than $75 a month. At $3 a gallon it is almost $100. That isn’t bad.
I wish my Volt was as roomy as a Fit.
Gassers have gotten efficient lately.

Obviously a Volt/Fit isn’t an SUV but there are a lot of people who don’t need the SUV’s to get around. And many of those people are driving one anyway. Go figure.

your accounting-based argument is a very difficult one with gasoline at $2/gallon. but the thing is, gasoline prices do not reflect the full cost of gasoline, including externalities. one reason why electric vehicles are an easier sell in europe is that there are not only incentives to buy electric vehicles, but there are also disincentives to buying ICEVs (higher prices for petrol and annual carbon taxes on cars).

attempts to promote energy efficiency in the US are generally compromised because of the artificially low cost of energy. i have long believed that what is needed is higher taxes on energy and carbon taxes on non-energy efficient automobiles. of course, it’s a matter of “good luck” in getting either of these passed in the US.

the reason why you need a mix of incentives and disincentives to help promote electric vehicles is because there actually are some advantages that ICEVs hold over BEVs. thus, the incentives and disincentives are needed to give consumers a bit of a “push” toward more fuel efficient cars. ev enthusiasts need no such “push”, of course, but the ev enthusiast population is comparatively small in comparison to the general automobile market.

P100 would not exist without regulations and subsidies. Because Tesla would not exist either, or would be making 100 exotic cars per year for $2,000,000 each.

Oh wake up already, no one on this site is gonna fall for that!

Lol, serial Tesla-hater and big-oil fool cell promoter is struggling to fight back against the nascent and growing Tesla/BEV challenge to all his conservative beliefs and allies.

Tesla today exists because of the hard work and skillful entrepreneurship of the leading technological disruptor on the planet Mr. Elon Musk.

With the Trumpster Fire that is engulfing the anti-competitive Republican Party the pressure on the fossil fools will continue to grow and accelerate.

In approximately 1-2 years when Tesla is selling compelling EVs by the hundreds of thousands it will be too late for zzzzz’s friends to turn back the clock because the technological genie will have fully escaped the bottle the Koch Heads and others are trying to keep it in.

BINGO..very well stated.

Oil companies would not exist any more without the 5,300 trillions they receive from governments, and would go out of business fast if they had to pay for all the environmental trash they externalities. A gallon of gas would cost 20$

if i had the kind of money where i could afford to buy a tesla P100D, i wouldn’t care about the tax credit. then again, if i had that kind of money, i would be rolling triple-deuce (w222) b#@z-o s-class.

..zzzzzzzzzz options are expanding EVs sure are a threat..We just added a second BMW BEV i3 (2014 used) to our family!

…used i3s are half the price of the originals. No need for federal tax credits, 30% discount on EV Level 2 chargers, still receive AZ BEV incentives (very reduced registration fees), no emission testing…it all adds up to a great buy..

The attraction for EVs is their simplicity, performance, as well as clean driving.

This is an incredible deal considering the used i3s are in use only two years or less. For an electric car this is still brand new.

They have 400000 reservations worldwide.

Many without incentiveals apart from next to no fuel cost and blisteringly fast and silent acceleration.

At least in UK Shell is getting ready. If new petrol(gas) station being built with services, like small restaurants and such, its all the time having at least 2 Type 2 7kw charging posts.
7kw is not a lot, but still better than nothing.
Last time I stopped for a meal on the way and instead of wasting 30min – I’ve got my meal, wasn’t hungry and added 15 miles to my EV battery.

the main driver for electric vehicles is government regulation. the problem that this creates is that “big oil” can lobby governments to delay mandates. it’s not like there is a groundswell of demand from car buyers specifically for electric vehicles, because most people don’t care about the technology of what is under the hood. so the demand driver is going to be from the “top” (government) “down” (to consumers) with government incentives to encourage people to adopt electric vehicles.

And how will big government replace the oil tax revenues when EV become prevalent?

as jill stein has pointed out, when you go to a greener environment policy, there are savings in reduced costs in reduced damage to the environment due to pollution and reduced healthcare costs since people don’t became sick from the (lack of) pollution. in other words, while there are revenues from oil taxes, that revenue isn’t “free” because it does not account for the externalities costs associated with the use of oil.

i make no comment on whether jill stein is a better choice than hillary or trump, that’s up to each individual voting to decide. but i do generally agree with the points that she has made with regard to the expansion of “green” initiatives.

No more Fossil Fuel powered vehicles in 100yrs..if whom ever is left here is Lucky enough..

i bet there will be some in the museum like the cars from 100 years ago nowadays.

Big companies live and die on incremental growth. 2-3% is goldilocks.

Steal that growth which ev’s and fuel efficiency measures are soon to achieve and they struggle, fail, merge etc etc.

This is about the stock market.
Stock market is about bets on the future.
And if the – even not near – future looks bad, then getting money gets expensive right now.

The stock market has priced in Zero growth for Ford and GM. Look at their PE’s.

The right wing media is constantly bashing Tesla,
however, “The Market” is All In on Tesla.

The shorts are funding negative media bad journalism against Tesla, but, it’s not working.

If the oil industry starts to see Zero YoY growth, those stocks will crash.

And that’s why I tell my friends to look into a No Carbon ETF, like ETHO and SPYX.

It’s never too soon, to get out of a sure-thing crash in the carbon market. These are the highs right now for Exxon, BP, Shell, etc.

The conversion of most of the world’s fleet of cars to all-electric may not be imminent, but the *realization* that most new cars will be EVs by 2025 may indeed be imminent. Since markets are always looking towards the future, the bottom could drop out of the oil market years before the conversion actually happens. For example, why drill new offshore oil wells at very high cost if the expected consumption rate of oil has just about peaked and will drop significantly by the end of the next decade? That investment money can dry up very quickly, if enough investors see this as reality.

Donald Trump lose will be a tremendous set back for the Kock brothers and the coal/oil agenda, and a opening for alternative energy to keep growing.

There’s no way Dump will get elected, so there’s no need to spend any grey matter to worry about that a-hole.

What does worry me is She-lery and if she’ll take money from fossil fuel industry. If the past is any indication of her taking money to promote policy, that’s what should worry you.

Hillary will adopt the Obama “All-Energy” policy, but with luck, she’ll have to get it thru a Warren-Sanders inspired Senate, and it will need to be modified to lean into cleaner energy sources.

You can only hope Exxon returns to the pre-1980’s management and science team, you know, the reality based team.

George W. ‘born again’ Bush did save the oil industry in 2003 by crushing EV1 and Rav4 and starting a war against Irak. Let’s hope history doesn’t repeat itself.

W was considered to be the Father of the Modern Electric Car in 2007, and by Fox News no less. W pushed for and signed into law the Energy Security Act of 2007. This is the law that enacted the $7500 tax credit for electric cars. Without W, there wouldn’t be a Chevy Volt or a Nissan Leaf.
I couldn’t care less about the EV1. It was gestated too early. The batteries needed were still way too expensive. And the knowledge GM gained with the EV1 went into the Volt, which is a better car by any reasonable standard. We hear complaints about the lack of a 5th seat from time to time. The EV1 didn’t even have a 3rd seat. LOL!

Who are you kidding man?
The law was voted by the congress after some revisions.
W pushed nothing. Everybody was worried he will use his veto against it.
W just didn’t use his veto.

” Presidents traditionally get credit for the actions taken below their pay grade, but in Bush’s case, there’s every reason to attach him to the bill beyond his signature, and to modern electric cars, reasons beyond drowning out the tired “Halliburton big-oil buddy” chant. After all, President Bill Clinton outmaneuvered the GOP on balanced budgets, and put his name to welfare reform–and rightly gets the win for signing his name to history. Bush gets credit for the energy bill, which was the cumulative work of both parties but landed on his desk in direct response to his State of the Union address in 2007, where he called for incentives to drive down gas consumption by 2017 within ten years. He explicitly linked gas mileage and electric cars with national security–something the EV makers themselves should be doing almost as often as they promise to green up the planet. ” Fox News didn’t like the bailout but they do note that the bill was in response to Bush’s State of the Union Speech in which he pushed for, ” President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law on December 19, 2007, in response to his “Twenty in Ten” challenge to reduce… Read more »
Another Euro point of View

Adoption of EV’s will go faster than many think IMO, in Europe with our expensive gas prices it is even more obvious. On top of it going green is posh & trendy in of most west Europe so as soon as 20% of cars are ev’s the remaining ICE owners will feel like left behind loosers, thus accelerating EV adoption even more. The only limit I see is charging time, 300 kw chargers will be needed for mass adoption. 150kw charging is just too slow, 50 kw charging useless. Now cars accepting this type of charging still needs to be designed. Germans first brought the idea of 300 kw charging and I understand them so well, I am not German but one thing I share with many of them is their highway driving, almost never under 85mph unless heavy rain or too much traffic. This makes 300kw charging a necessity.

You got something wrong, norm speed at autobahn in germany is 81 mph not 85 mph. Big difference 😀

On the unrestricted speed stretches of the autobahn 110 mph is normal. You still get passed by the more high end cars but 110mph is a good average high speed for a reasonable new car, like the 2014 Skoda Diesel I was driving in last July. Wished I could have brought my tesla instead lol…

belive it or not, but 110 mph is around the maximum my Skoda can drive 😀

When I test drove the Leaf it had no trouble getting up to freeway speeds.

Most of the people are at least doing 90 to a 100 miles on hour on open stretches of interstate in Indiana.

One of the strangest spaces for driving fast is West Vriginia in that everyone likes going at least 75 in the turning and twisting mountains.

Thank goodness they raised the speed limit 70 in Vriginia.

Another Euro point of view

This has nothing to do with speed limits. Just the speed you feel comfortable considering visibility and traffic conditions, rest is speed tickets budget issues. In many European countries a sizeable chunk of highway traffic (a third ?) drives above the speed limit. I understood that in California exactly same situation exists. The only place I know where speed limits are very strictly enforced on highways is Switzerland where speeding tickets of USD 1000 is fairly common. I got one of USD 900 for driving at 145 km/h instead of the 120 km/h limit.

In Switzerland it’s based on your annual income if you’re local. Google the story about the guy overspending with Ferrari and what fine did he get

Driving fast really depends on the type of car your driving. Such as I have the worst ever invented car that is kind of terrifying to drive when I get up to 70 in it. This is due to the engine being under powered and the breaks on it not being anti lock breaks.

The leaf to me personally does great at high speeds.

You are wrong. 150 kW is not too slow and 50 kW is not worthless. You are still stuck in the gas tank mentality.

With a 300 mile range car (which I’m sure will be the standard around 2020-2025) the vast majority of people will need to fast charge maybe 10 times per year, at most. If you have to stay for 40 minutes charging on those very few occasions then so be it. It’s not a huge issue at all, it will even out in the long run anyway.
In many cases you will only need to stay for much shorter than that, you just need a top-up to get enough juice to reach your destination.

Another Euro point of view

I understand that in the US most people have a garage so home charging is the norm, not in Europe. Then only option left for many will be fast charging.

Once EVs gains a significant market share there will be (slow) chargers everywhere.

I say let them die.

Oil for transport will decline in the mid-term strongly outside long-range transport (long-haul trucks, some trains, large ships).
There’ll still be a significant need for oil to produce plastics (although more of that will go into recycling existing plastic), pharmaceuticals, consumer items etc.

Oil companies will need to find different sources of income and/or there will be fewer of them, and they’ll be smaller.
The most reasonable path is for them to morph from resource-extraction to service/infrastructure companies in the energy sector. I suspect those that won’t will disappear.

electric cars? really

It’s a slowly rising tide that will take decades to completely erode the sand castles of the oil industry.

In the US, we like to think this is all about what we do. But we aren’t leading the EV revolution anymore like we did in 2011-2014.

Now it is all about China, and what happens in China. And frankly, China is kicking our butts. Oil is fungible and global. What China does with EV’s will impact the entire global energy market.

China is dwarfing US electric car sales by a full order of magnitude, and out-growing US EV sales in spectacular ways.

“The spectacular growth of the New Energy Vehicle (NEV) market in China continues; state media reports that sales were up a massive 162% to 170,000 units in the first half of the year. NEVs include pure-electric vehicles (EV) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV).

The 170,000 NEVs were divided by 134,000 EVs and 36,000 PHEVs.

The new numbers confirm China’s position as the largest market worldwide for NEVs. The United States follows at a respectable distance in second place with sales of 64,000 EVs and PHEVs.”


When Chinese made EVs hit American shores for half the price of American made EVs is when the fossil fuel industry will be in trouble. This is why fossil fuel industry prefers Trump because he will be charged with shutting down imported Chinese EVs.

“This is why fossil fuel industry prefers Trump”

Really? Then why are they backing Hillary and not Trump?

My proof that fossil fuel industry likes Trump is in the electoral map, oil and coal producing states are generally voting Republican. At trump rallies you see signs stating “trump loves coal”. What is your evidence?

I wonder what percentage of the oil company revenue is from personal vehicle consumption versus other consumers (plastics, chemical synthesis, drayage, shipping, airlines, etc.). I suspect the oil industry revenues are diverse, but they will see a gradual decline over time and will be maybe 50% of its current size and revenue.

I would much rather purchase electricity from a public utility than purchase gasoline from an oil company. Most public utilities have a Public Utilities Commission that regulates rate increases.

Big Oil’s biggest threat isn’t EV’s. It’s oil depletion. New discoveries have plummeted. They are producing/selling a product that is becoming increasingly hard/expensive to find and produce. They are essentially killing their own futures one barrel at a time.

“We have met the enemy and they is us.”

Oil shell has dramatically increased oil supplies. Granted cheap deep wells like in SA are a dieing bread but we will stop needing oil way before we run out. There are still large fields we haven’t touched out there.

The interesting thing are the baby steps…You get an EV then you realize getting solar panels are now more attractive…

Why did you let the cat out of the bag? Lol