EVs and Renewables Crush Oil, but the Pump Doesn't Care
Oil prices stay low due to the renewable boom and EVs, but high fuel costs and lack of chargers leave the thesis half-finished.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
EVs crush oil demand, but the pump doesn't notice
The thesis is blunt: solar and wind are now the cheapest energy sources globally, storage is cheaper, and electric vehicles are dominating oil demand. The energy architecture is shifting fast. Yet, weekly refuelers see no change in prices. Barrels remain cheap thanks to the renewable boom and EVs, despite geopolitical tensions. The uncomfortable question is why this macro savings doesn't reach wallets or the grid.
€1.30 per liter and the bill that won't drop
The first shock is perceptual. While the demand collapse is celebrated, diesel costs €1.30 per liter at the pump, with some noting it's still cheaper in real terms than years ago. The argument circulating is that currency devaluation has eaten the drop, and nominal prices remain contained for political reasons. When that bursts, they warn, it will be felt.
Electricity is similar. Some claim solar produces much more—panels generate more than consumed—yet bills show €26 with surpluses nearly four times consumption. Popularization hasn't arrived: street chargers are anecdotal, community garage chargers nearly non-existent, and gas stations are the same. Without infrastructure, they say, the bike won't sell.
Why no chargers on the street?
Because deployment lags behind discourse. The most repeated criticism doesn't deny electrification, but its real weight: there will be some EVs in the fleet, but at this rate, it will take long to move the percentage. Meanwhile, some manufacturers return to diesel, others to hydrogen. Consumers who can't plug at home don't buy.
The other pillar is stability. The peninsular blackout episode was used as a weapon: some blame renewables, others recall countries without renewables have more blackouts. The nuanced position is that renewables weren't the trigger, but their high weight conditions system behavior and stability needs. Denying any technical relationship, they argue, is also misinformation.
The math that doesn't add up: making panels burns hydrocarbons
The hardest argument against the green narrative is energetic. Panels and turbines require huge energy for manufacturing, today from hydrocarbons. If made with electricity from other panels, the transition would take millennia. The standard response is the energy return rate is 10:1 to 25:1: over its life, a panel produces much more electricity than it cost to make.
The problem is this calculation doesn't include the full system. An isolated system with batteries and serious storage costs no less than €80,000, and to power a family with real subsistence agriculture, half a hectare in optimal conditions is needed. Multiplied by millions of families, there is no country. Individual self-sufficiency sounds good until the accounts are made.
China manufactures, the world consumes (and prices don't move)
The data ordering the board is industrial. China concentrates around 70% of solar panels, 60% of EVs, and 80% of the world's batteries. It manufactures to flood the market and kill competition, with state support. Its hydrocarbon consumption stagnation may be due to overcapacity, construction slowdown, or both. The effect on crude prices is real, but it doesn't miccionan the transition is resolved.
Helium, the origin of oil, and other coffee shop theories
The thread leads to less conventional terrains. It's argued that oil always appears with helium, and since it's an inert gas, its systematic presence can't be explained only by chemistry: it would be a trace of nuclear processes in the mantle. Conventional geology attributes it to uranium and thorium decay in the crust, which migrates and accumulates in the same traps. Some recall that helium, like nitrogen, dissolves in water and hydrocarbons under pressure, and finding oil, helium, and water together only indicates they share a lower compression zone. The discussion doesn't close.
With these threads, the reasonable prediction is that oil remains contained for a while by Chinese overcapacity and EV advancement, and the pump continues not to reflect it. Whether the demand collapse is structural or just a trade war artifact, no one signs yet.
The thesis is blunt: solar and wind are now the cheapest energy sources globally, storage is cheaper, and electric vehicles are dominating oil demand. The energy architecture is shifting fast. Yet, weekly refuelers see no change in prices. Barrels remain cheap thanks to the renewable boom and EVs, despite geopolitical tensions. The uncomfortable question is why this macro savings doesn't reach wallets or the grid.
€1.30 per liter and the bill that won't drop
The first shock is perceptual. While the demand collapse is celebrated, diesel costs €1.30 per liter at the pump, with some noting it's still cheaper in real terms than years ago. The argument circulating is that currency devaluation has eaten the drop, and nominal prices remain contained for political reasons. When that bursts, they warn, it will be felt.
Electricity is similar. Some claim solar produces much more—panels generate more than consumed—yet bills show €26 with surpluses nearly four times consumption. Popularization hasn't arrived: street chargers are anecdotal, community garage chargers nearly non-existent, and gas stations are the same. Without infrastructure, they say, the bike won't sell.
Why no chargers on the street?
Because deployment lags behind discourse. The most repeated criticism doesn't deny electrification, but its real weight: there will be some EVs in the fleet, but at this rate, it will take long to move the percentage. Meanwhile, some manufacturers return to diesel, others to hydrogen. Consumers who can't plug at home don't buy.
The other pillar is stability. The peninsular blackout episode was used as a weapon: some blame renewables, others recall countries without renewables have more blackouts. The nuanced position is that renewables weren't the trigger, but their high weight conditions system behavior and stability needs. Denying any technical relationship, they argue, is also misinformation.
The math that doesn't add up: making panels burns hydrocarbons
The hardest argument against the green narrative is energetic. Panels and turbines require huge energy for manufacturing, today from hydrocarbons. If made with electricity from other panels, the transition would take millennia. The standard response is the energy return rate is 10:1 to 25:1: over its life, a panel produces much more electricity than it cost to make.
The problem is this calculation doesn't include the full system. An isolated system with batteries and serious storage costs no less than €80,000, and to power a family with real subsistence agriculture, half a hectare in optimal conditions is needed. Multiplied by millions of families, there is no country. Individual self-sufficiency sounds good until the accounts are made.
China manufactures, the world consumes (and prices don't move)
The data ordering the board is industrial. China concentrates around 70% of solar panels, 60% of EVs, and 80% of the world's batteries. It manufactures to flood the market and kill competition, with state support. Its hydrocarbon consumption stagnation may be due to overcapacity, construction slowdown, or both. The effect on crude prices is real, but it doesn't miccionan the transition is resolved.
Helium, the origin of oil, and other coffee shop theories
The thread leads to less conventional terrains. It's argued that oil always appears with helium, and since it's an inert gas, its systematic presence can't be explained only by chemistry: it would be a trace of nuclear processes in the mantle. Conventional geology attributes it to uranium and thorium decay in the crust, which migrates and accumulates in the same traps. Some recall that helium, like nitrogen, dissolves in water and hydrocarbons under pressure, and finding oil, helium, and water together only indicates they share a lower compression zone. The discussion doesn't close.
With these threads, the reasonable prediction is that oil remains contained for a while by Chinese overcapacity and EV advancement, and the pump continues not to reflect it. Whether the demand collapse is structural or just a trade war artifact, no one signs yet.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (193 replies).
More summaries
-
Electric quadricycle vs. EV: can it really save money?
A family with four cars and solar panels considers a small electric quadricycle to cut costs. Does it make sense versus a conventional EV? A cost analysis.
-
Forum user runs electric car and solar panels at home
Are solar panels worth it for charging an electric car? Real data: 757 kWh/year, 4,450 km, and the scheduling and cost problems.
-
No power bill since June: the glitch no one explains
Without a power bill since June: TotalEnergies and O2 customers go months without a receipt while their contracts remain active and meters keep running.
-
Bluetooth Headphones: The Comfort Scam Exposed
Are Bluetooth headphones worth it? We analyze price, sound quality, battery life, and health risks. Data suggests wired options still win.
-
Andreu Bacardit Promises Free Energy, Raising Fraud Concerns
The Onion Project claims infinite clean energy, but its promoter has a history of failed products. We analyze the red flags and potential scam patterns.
-
Latin American Food in Spain: Mediocre or Misunderstood?
Analysis of the debate on Latin American cuisine quality in Spain, exploring whether it is truly mediocre or a matter of expectations.