agree, but there lies the problem. Let me go a different route. Let's say there is a cake, if it is a cupcake or a small cake and you are hungry for something sweet maybe you can eat the whole cake. But if it is too much (or there are other people) you might only want a piece. Now when that happens, what makes more sense, to cut a vertical slice and have some of all the layers or horizontally and have a piece that is only the icing on the top of the cake? In real life (like the cake a subject might be too big and so someone decides to tackle a single discussion (like Fin asking what would happen to the grid if we all drove electric vehicles) but it does not make sense to just broadly look at an aspect ( or more)

For example you said



but does it make sense? on the surface when you don't really think about it, maybe but

1) here is an article from 2010. Shell decided to shut down the refining part of their largest refinery in Canada and transform the location into a distribution terminal. Instead of bringing in crude they are bringing in large quantities of gas and propane and...... everything that crude would have made from around the world and distributing it from there. It is wrong to assume that oil needs to be refined locally. If it makes sense we could be driving electric cars and the oil refined here and the gas shipped elsewhere or we can be driving gas guzzlers and the oil refined elsewhere and the gas shipped here.

2) You assume China and the developing world is backwards, and in some ways it is, but when it comes to electric transportation (namely because of stuff like the high speed trains that are heavily used) China is way ahead of the US. When it comes to adding infrastructure when there is little or nothing there and something is needed it is easy to make the decision to look at the future instead of the past, on the other hand deciding to get rid of what works to make it better at large costs is much harder.

3) you look at that chart (with the breakdown of things derived from oil) and you see it as fixed when it is not. The oil and the refining process will determine the % of each thing. So if gas fro cars is less needed that slice could be made smaller and get more of the other stuff that are needed

3) you are assuming that gas=transportation and that is not accurate. Some of it goes to home use (like my lawn mower and back up generator), industrial use and even electricity production (in the US that accounts for roughly 1% of gas use and 1% of electricity made). So it is a lot more complicated than a simple we drive electric cars and so we need less gas. Like I pointed out in previous posts I am assuming that if gas prices fall due to electric vehicles it will make sense for there to be more gas powered electric generation plants

4) you see transportation as cars but it it is not that simple. I have a friend that has a cottage (cabin....) near a lake, he has a boat on the communal dock for those 6 or 8 properties, would it make sense for him to have an electric boat and bring a wire from his home through the two neighbours to the dock? It might make sense for the guy that drives 50 miles to work and back to have an electric car that can do 300 miles on a charge but how about the traveling sales man or the long haul driver?

5) let's assume you are right and electric cars mean a lot less gas and that means refineries scaling down, electric cars also mean more electricity and that means power plants scaling up. I don't know how the two will match up but it is not as simple as the example I gave above with the Montreal refinery which went from ~500 people to ~ 30 people.

I could do the same with everything else you said Your analysis of the situation appears to be "things will change, that means some stuff will disappear (or become less important)" and that is bad. But you miss that change is not A is gone but A becomes B. Without the B part (what it will replace what disappears) the analysis is missing the most important part