No cheap oil left, but we have options

Republican readers may be sitting back and ordering Christmas sweaters featuring newborns sitting on oil rigs ("Drill, baby, drill"), but I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't remind everyone: If you're hoping that drilling for oil is sufficient to create low, stable energy prices and U.S. energy independence, your information about energy costs and alternatives is out of date. Even the reddest of red hat wearers has reasons to be in favor of more renewable energy development in the U.S.

After 165 years of oil exploration in the U.S., we've found all the cheap, readily accessible oil. It's pointless to drill at conventional depths in, say, Kansas. Kansas has been so thoroughly drilled that there's no possibility of finding enough oil to pay for drilling. New drilling has to be done in expensive locations, e.g., deep water and arctic locations. Fracking is expensive, too. On average, producing oil from a new well in the U.S. costs around $62/barrel.

Oil companies produce oil to make money. Making money on new U.S. oil probably requires at least $70/barrel. Even the most successful, realistically imaginable, U.S. drilling program can't keep oil prices much below $70 a barrel for very long, because U.S. producers have to stop producing if they aren't making money.

Even when the U.S. is the world's single largest oil producer, prices are set on a global market. If OPEC+ countries significantly cut production, the sudden increase in oil prices will disrupt our economy, just like similar cuts did in 1973 and 1979. U.S. oil producers will make more money and drill even more, but any resulting oil would take time to enter the market. Exploration and development take time. Delivery infrastructure would have to be built.

And, if OPEC+ countries significantly increase production and drive prices below the U.S. cost of production, American producers will have to close.

Following the 1973 and 1979 oil crises, the U.S. started aggressive R&D aimed at reducing our dependence on oil. "Energy independence" isn't for the purpose of creating a North Korea-like autarky in which the U.S. keeps its own oil. Its goal is to keep energy prices stable within the U.S., to avoid economic shocks caused by the actions of hostile foreign governments.

After 50 years of energy R&D, we've had some incredible successes. The cost of solar generation has fallen from around $120 per watt, to about $0.20 a watt. Wind costs, while not down as significantly as solar, have fallen more than 99%. When lithium batteries were new, in 1994 or so, they cost about $400,000 per kilowatt-hour. Now, they're around $140. Energy-efficient devices and appliances like lights, heat pumps and refrigerators use far less energy than they used to. We have almost eliminated the use of oil on the electric grid, except in very remote locations and for emergency backup generation.

Adding more renewable energy to the mix at today's low prices helps keep costs down. This should be interesting to Reagan Republicans (double-income-no-kids-but-we-won't-tell-JD-we-have-a-cat).

For MAGA Republicans, some non-alternative facts: Adding renewable energy to the U.S. energy supply promotes the independence of the U.S. energy supply from foreign influence. Solar, wind and battery farms are built with U.S. engineering, by U.S. labor, on U.S. soil. Domestic power production helps prevent the export of money and jobs to hostile countries.