Extracting, transporting, manufacturing, and distributing gas takes quite a lot of energy. ~30-50% of gas CO2 emissions occur before you burn it though exact number depends on the specific source etc. But what we care about is vehicle ranges etc not this wider picture.
Thus, local is better.
So being local is again basically meaningless here.
The rise of EV’s will therefore strand more oil as smaller scale processing/distribution is less efficient. Being local to you doesn’t help because oil is transported to refineries before useful products are sent to you.
The crash continues to strand more production as refineries shut down.
It would seem that preventing local production and extraction for political reasons, would be a mistake. It would also seem that preventing pipelines would be too.
This makes sense. People are trying to stop a thing, via 100 paper cuts, instead of just stopping it. Meanwhile, this results in suboptimal production, which inceeases pollution.
If you expect future prices to spike then the wise choice is to avoid drilling until you can maximize gains.
If you expect future prices to remain unchanged then the wise choice is to avoid harming your local environment and have other countries despoil the own.
Only if you expect future prices to tank does it become a good idea to extract while the prices remain high.
Even combined, that is pretty much exactly the population of France alone, or about 15 million less than Germany alone - and neither of those is exactly a huge country.
Canada and Scandinavia, on the global scale, are small markets.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=canada+population+%2F+w...
How about you do it? I'm getting bored of recreating the character of Sigourney Weaver > Gwen DeMarco > Lieutenant Tawny Madison in Galaxy Quest.
Hint: less than Canada even when combined, both population and GDP.
> The parts of Russia where the rich people live
Central London?
>Central London?
Just voting for this wasn't enough.
It seems if you are sufficiently prepared they are not needed.
This is different to a standard car, because losses during refueling are negligible, but losses in the drivetrain obviously aren't. And of course for both types of vehicle you have additional upstream effects, e.g. production and transportation of fuel versus production of electricity, production of the vehicle, etc.
The reason I raised the issue is because I hear a lot about well-to-wheels efficiency of BEVs, but I've never heard anyone take into account the effect that conditioning the battery has in certain climates. It's one thing to say that the well-to-wheels efficiency of a BEV is around 60% compared to 16% for ICEVs, but if you're neglecting a large multiplicative efficiency hit in your chain, things like hybrid electric vehicles suddenly compare a lot more favorably.
And if you're comparing mileage on the basis of miles per gallon using energy input at a pump or cable that you paid for, it seems like a reasonable question to ask. Is that mpg figure calculated using the energy of the battery, or the energy that was paid for?
But again, as soon as you move up the chain on one car you need to move up the chain on the other or you’ll get as distorted picture of the tradeoffs.
NYC doesn’t really get cold enough to matter, average temperatures in January are above freezing. So you’re really talking about a subset of unusually cold days where it’s even slightly an issue.