> The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) includes biofuels in consumption of petroleum products. In 2015, the United States consumed a total of 7.08 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.4 million barrels per day
Germany does not yet have any electric car mandate - the 2030 thing was misreported.
Norway, where more than 25% of new vehicles are already electric (and the electricity grid is 100% renewable) is likely to be the first country to achieve a ban on new combustion vehicles.
Germany does have impressive carbon reduction goals, and will need to switch a large portion of their vehicle fleet to zero-emission in order to achieve them.
> But also, aren't they huge on solar even though they get a fraction of the sun that the USA does?
They've put a ton of money into solar and wind, but these are extremely variable and there are days of the year that solar and wind produce practically 0% of Germany's energy, and usage keeps growing.
these are extremely variable and there are days of the year that solar and wind produce practically 0% of Germany's energy
Note that it tends to be more windy when it's less sunny, so the monthly variability of solar and wind energy production combined yields a factor of less than two. You're right than on a daily basis, there likely will be issues, but I don't know the statistics off-hand (besides the news stories that electricity tariffs can go negative on sunny days).
You can see that during 2014 the minimal combined solar and wind production for a day was just 0.022 TWh (just 4% of maximum combined wind and solar). While generally it was around 0.2TWh, the risk of dropping to almost no production means that Germany still can't really rely on wind and solar and still has to significantly rely on coal and gas (especially gas, since it is most flexible).
So much misinformation around fracking; incredubly sad the people that want it banned dont understand impermeable layers, sand injection, and salt water disposal.
You will always need crude oil, not for burning, but for the synthetics, plastics, and materials of the future in our electric cars. Fracking in the USA has allowed us to use our own ethically sourced resources, rather than fueling wars in the middle east.
>always need crude oil, not for burning, but for the synthetics, plastics, and materials of the future in our electric cars.
cheap crude oil just temporarily reduces the demand for renewable energy sources while accelerating the decline of the planet. fracking is just an attempt to delay the inevitable and make oil cheaper than it should be. bioplastics will eventually be able to do the things you mention.
so you are arguing that fracking must continue so that the people's right to buy cheap plastic garbage shall not be infringed? theres already enough oil now for the plastic crap to keep coming for a while, just not as cheaply as before. once the true cost of fossil fuel based plastics reach the consumer, there will be more incentive to pursue better options.
Probably not very much compared to the amount of oil used to drive those cars - tires are quire thin. I wouldn't be surprised if the oil used in transporting them dominated the equation. Also, 1 billion tires is about the number manufactured annually and it's unlikely everyone would replace their car with an electric one within a year, or eve a few years.
Manufacturing a car tire requires 7 gallons of oil. 5 are raw materials to produce the synthetic rubber, while 2 gallons supply the energy required.
Lets assume the energy is produced by alternative means, that leaves us with 5 gallons of oil per car tire.
That's 5 billion gallons of oil for 1 billion tires.
There's around 35 gallons of oil per barrel. That's 142,857,143 barrels of oil.
The US produces roughly 9.5 million barrels of crude per day. It would take around 15 days to make 1 billion new tires if 100% of US oil was dedicated to the cause.
Now that I've done the maths, it doesn't seem like such a huge problem. So I concede to your point.
> There's 250 million cars in the US. If every single one of them was replaced with an electric car, that would mean at least 1 billion new tires.
Huh. I didn't know that gasoline-car-tires are incompatible with electric-car-tires. That's too bad, because if they weren't, you could continue using the tires from your previous car on your new car.
You know, I'd much rather drop a plastic ornament on the floor than a glass one.
Thinking about the ornaments I'm familiar with, there are a couple glass ones, which need special care. Mostly they're wood / cloth / metal. Plastic is rare, mostly cheap souvenirs of elementary school.
I'll sell you one freshly printed on my 3d printer from PLA bioplastic, which is the most common material in use in desktop 3d printing (because of material properties, not because of the bio-ness of it)
I don't understand how people can be so confident in the computer models that show that it is safe to inject millions upon millions of gallons of toxic waste water deep underground. They say that it's safe over a timeline of hundreds of years, but we don't even have computer models that can predict the weather above ground for next week.
Even if the models turn out to be correct: There are accidents, things can break and release chemicals in other regions also typical shortcuts for cost saving are likely: Chemicals used are different than mandated to reduce costs, most of these chemicals are also patented and restricted trade secrets that have seen little unbiased research afaik.
It's similar to nuclear power. Nice on paper but if you add all real-life risks and costs and let the managers make the decisions that the engineers won't support or have scepticism about, bad things will happen.
Germany does not really need the technology and it's highly unpopular here so risking potential environmental harm is probably not worth it. The results from the USA are also rather mixed in regards to being harmless.
I don't understand how people can be so confident in the computer models that show that the Earth will become warmer and warmer. They even say that it's caused by human activity and it can be stopped if we avoid burning fuels, but we don't even have computer models that can predict the weather above ground for next week. So how can they predict exact temperature for next few hundreds years?
I get your point but you are wrong. Climate change is based on a lot of historical data and measurements and theoretical models from various sources.
Fracking depends on the geology and certain assumptions about what's going on while fracking and that everything is going according to a plan. Might be harmless in certain regions might be a problem in others. There is little data on fracking as it's recent technology - results on earthquakes are just in and don't look particular harmless.
Predicting exact temperature is impossible. Rather, we look at previous measurements (both direct and indirect) then use our knowledge of basic chemistry and physics to do what the dinosaurs could not: envision the future.
Comparing weather to geology is not fair. Geology has the benefit that its own history is recorded in a way that is scientifically repeatable, and is recorded by an independent third-party: the Earth. If you create a theory about a rock layer and observe things and one part of the world, another scientist can go and repeat your observations on the same rock layer elsewhere in the world.
You can't do that with the weather from a hundred years ago (Well actually you can, examining the geological record).
The real proof that was how many places in the world do you just see toxic crude oil squirting out of the ground? Almost nowhere. There is a reason why the rock layers are called impermeable.
Again, you should look up what actually happens in the fracking process. The substances initially injected are hydrocarbon derivatives (when you're drilling for hydrocarbons that's not a big deal) and then sand is injected to keep the rock layers from relapsing. Most of the chemicals now injected flow back out of the formation and can be recaptured.
Because for millions of years, they have remained that way despite having things oders of magnitude more force applied than humans ever could. Arguing what an impermeable layer is, is like saying the LHC is going to kill us from creating black holes.
>Fracking in the USA ... ethically sourced resources
Surely these two are mutually exclusive? The US oil lobby has even more powerful propaganda than I thought if people really believe fracking is ethical!
Yeah, the offshore drilling is done by Major corporations that probably have questionable ethics.
I don't have the numbers on hand, but I can tell you in the midwest there are a lot of small independent oil and gas firms. Most of the money is exchanged for the other small companies to handle things like, Oilfield Services, transport, testing, OSHA requirements, environmental assurance, abd site cleanup. Local economies are so strong actually that the big players have trouble breaking in because prices are so low and efficiently handled by the small companies competing with each other.
It's all relative. Compared to the Oil fields in say Sirte Libya, a fracking establishment next to an elementary school in California might be considered relatively ethical.
This is rather surprising, and also not. On one hand, it makes sense that a European (see: Rich and believes in climate change) country wouldn't want to frack under their own soil (I'm not against fracking but I am also happy it is banned here in New York) but fracking can certainly be done safely effectively if the right regulations are in place and enforced.
The only reason we see so many bad cases of fracking effects like earthquakes and so on is because the states that allow fracking also don't bother to regulate it. So it's just a matter of extra cost and engineering, which can decrease that relative cost over time.
Besides, if anyone can engineer themselves out of a problem, it's the Germans.
Russians have the greatest incentive for this ban, since they supply 1/3 of Germany consumption. Fracking has lowered the prices of oil and gas which is the greatest threat to stability of Russian Federation.
In Germany by law every car needs to inspected every two years by the TÜV. Cars are highly regulated in terms of what modifications you may perform on them and anything even slightly significant requires approval.
If you want to sell a car at decent value or you're leasing it, you're practically required to also perform the inspections offered by manufacturers.
When well-maintained and regularly serviced is the norm, it's inevitably going to influence your design.
That's part of it, but it doesn't quite explain the front suspension on a BMW bike. No one else makes a suspension so complicated, however, no one else has a bike that doesn't dive under braking. The engineers knew it was possible and pulled out every stop to deliver it.
It's a cultural thing, when we see a problem it must be fixed no matter how much complexity.
It's like when I'm making an app and there's a 5 fps drop when the a new table view cell is rendered, everyone I show can barely notice it, but I see it, and it bothers me until it's fixed. 60 FPS or GTFO.
> In Germany by law every car needs to inspected every two years by the TÜV. Cars are highly regulated in terms of what modifications you may perform on them and anything even slightly significant requires approval.
Is this a German thing or an EU thing?
Because in Spain you have to pass the ITV every to years until the car has 10 years and then, every year.
And almost any modification has to pass that inspection
The German regulation has existed for a long time, I doubt that's due to the EU. However you want to be able to sell and drive a everywhere in the EU. It only makes sense to deal with this on a EU level to harmonize existing regulation and force members lacking such regulations to implement it. If that hasn't happened already (which I find hard to believe), it will.
Every(?) European country has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection of some kind. Turkey adopted the German system last year. I wouldn't be surprised if the EU standardises the regulations at some point in the future.
It's not at all surprising. Germany has for decades now been very environmentally conscious. This is why Germany is doing the Energiewende and have had plans to shut down nuclear reactors since long before Fukushima.
Given fracking in the US as an example, it's no surprise at all that you'd find broad support for heavy regulation or a ban of fracking.
What's surprising about this is that it took so long.
Oil isn't a big industry in Germany, this is like Canada banning slaughtering of monkeys for palm oil, purely political, no one in Canada is going to have to shut down their palm orchards.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nuclear reactors have nothing to do with climate change. Reading GP then your reply seems ambiguous about the "environmentally conscious".
He does not mention climate change at all. Germanys antinuclear movement is against nuclear reactors because it is still unclear what happens to the waste. Remind you that were are speaking of a country that is populated quite evenly, there is no space where you could leave it for ever with noone affected. Same for fracking: somebody will live in the area where fracking occurs. But big money does not care about these people. Therefore Germans are against it altogether.
Waste disposal is almost entirely political. That Germany is shutting down the objectively cleanest reliable source of energy is tragic.
All of the nuclear waste Germany generates would fit in a single football stadium. Technically you'd pick something below the water table and geographically stable, like say, a salt mine.
Burning coal produces more nuclear waste, it just dumps it all into the atmosphere.
Nuclear waste disposal is a serious issue. But compared to burning fossil fuels for energy, it's by far the lesser of two evils.
Most of the more dangerous fission products will have decayed sufficiently to be "safe" after hundreds, or thousands of years. Nowhere near a million!
Anything that lasts longer than that emits so little radioactivity that it's pretty much background noise.
There are plenty of naturally occurring sources of radiation that are strong enough to be dangerous - like Radon in Cornwall, UK. Even if a future civilisation accidentally digs up one of our waste sites in a few thousand years time, it wouldn't really be any worse for them than digging up some natural radioactive source.
> it wouldn't really be any worse for them than digging up some natural radioactive source.
Really? That would be mostly oxidized uranium - white not really harmless it's something different than highly toxic plutonium - besides that you have extremly toxic decay products that e.g. pose a problem for the chernobyl area.
Besides that there are more than enough isotopes used in nuclear energy that have a half-life of millions of years.
If you look at the history of Europe in the past 2000 years it's not exactly been peaceful - also something to consider - especially as we have the knowledge to use nuclear reactors to weaponize this waste.
Nuclear waste shouldn't contain plutonium. That stuff is expensive, so there's an economic incentive, as well as environmental, to reprocess waste and recover any remaining fuel.
Chernobyl (and Fukushima) are entirely different (and much worse) because you do have the nuclear fuel itself being exposed to the environment. But waste fission products in a modern reactor are far less dangerous compared to the fuel that goes in, especially once they have been properly reprocessed and then stored for while.
Isotopes with half lives in the millions of years, as opposed to years or decades, really aren't all that dangerous in terms of radioactivity. Longer half life generally means less radiation.
While I agree that waste disposal is a solvable problem in the technical domain, I'm not so sure anymore that it is solvable in the political domain. Too much things have gone wrong there because of political shenanigans.
It may work in a dictatorship, where the will of the people (those who are close to the waste storage) can be ignored. But if I have the choice between nuclear power and democracy, my choice is clear.
In the US, it's a different discussion, mainly because you have large stretches with only few voters.
You're right. However in Germany environmental and anti nuclear groups are basically one and the same. The German Green Party has evolved out of the anti nuclear movement and forced all other parties to adopt environmental and anti nuclear policy.
Shutting down nuclear reactors, like the Energiewende, is a great example for the kind of power these groups have in German politics. That's why I mentioned it, to illustrate the power they have and that it's therefore not surprising that fracking would be banned.
I was shocked to learn water used in fracking is permanently "gone". Seems like an absolutely atrocious abuse of a resource we have a fundamental dependence on.
Fresh water represents an energy issue, not a materials issue. There's no shortage of H2O molecules, it's the fact that isolating them requires energy that is the issue. If you use some fresh water to get a net gain of energy, you aren't really "spending" the water.
The natural next response is to move the goal posts and start talking about carbon dioxide or something, but I suggest resisting that and actually thinking about the real issues for a moment. True as that may be, it's a separate issue.
Contrast this with helium, which we really are running out of in a way that, if not necessarily "irrevocable", is certainly going to be much harder to get around if we use it all up.
It's not gone it just becomes groundwater. Sure we won't see it back in any of our life times, but it's not as if we're going to run out any time soon.
In that respect fusion would be far more permanent.
Effectively lost mean different things on a human and a geological timescale.
It could take millennia (or longer) for the water to slowly push through various kinds of bedrock, to finally get above ground again. By that time whatever contaminants were in it will have been filtered away.
It's an incredibly slow process, but it's not as if we could somehow drain the oceans by fracking at full speed for several millennia.
Isn't the very reason fracking is claimed to be safe, that the water is pumped significantly below groundwater level? If that's the case how does it turn into groundwater, is it rising upwards?
I think we found what to do with the water from melting glaciers. /s (?)
(I can't say if I should put a /s on the end or not. If the alternative is drowning Venice, is it a good idea to throw water out of the hydrosphere entirely? ... But if nothing else, look at the scale differences; there's no way that hydraulic fracturing uses as much water as snowpack melting generates...)
Fresh water isn't a closed system such that sullying water ruins it for next year. Limitations on fresh water come from the amount of rainfall, which is a conversion process being sourced from the essentially infinite ocean. If you waste some of this year's water, this year's crops might suffer but nothing permanent has happened.
This isn't about polluting water, it's about injecting waste water into deep reservoirs from which it will not return to the surface in the meaningfully near future.
I understood iLoch's comment to be about "losing" the water ('I was shocked to learn water used in fracking is permanently "gone"'), and I was explaining why one-time loss of water is unimportant, because the oceans are limitless and our fresh water supply is a rate that is sourced by the ocean. It doesn't matter if the water is polluted, injected deep underground, or fired into space. If you want, you can replace "sullying" with "burying".
I suggest you read up on North American hydrology. Fresh water is being depleted at a rate significantly greater than it is being replenished. It's also a stretch to call wastewater injection a "one-time loss of water" when we can expect to be doing it for 30-50 years.
While that is true, thats a purly poitical problem. If their were a prober market solution that priced according to sound resource managment priniples it would not be a problem.
The price of water woild still be very low and it would not impact standards of living in any siginificant way.
Their are tons of easy ways to save water, pertocularly in farming but that will not happen.
Its a classical tragety of the commens. They had to solve the same problem when tjey were moving west, frontier society had very soffisticated systems of water managment.
You misunderstand. It seems clear that iLoch views this as a fundamentally different use of water than, say, watering your lawn, since he emphasizes the gone-ness but doesn't mention the magnitude of the usage. The point is that this use of water is no different than any other one-time use of fresh water. (We'll be farming for 30-50 years too, thereby depleting the ground water.)
Assuming the wastewater injected into the ground is ocean water (I don't know if it is), it has zero effect on either the fresh water supply or its replenishment rate.
Considering the fact that right now both the left and the green party (both anti-fracking) make up the opposition, I doubt a regime change would change much.
It is a compromise, not a ban. Certain tests will be allowed, until those are concluded there will be a moratorium (halt) on full-scale commercial fracking.
What's with the BS being reported about Germany lately? First the misreporting on the electric vehicles, now this.
It's not merely Germany. Newspapers and news agencies have become as reliable and unbiased as a news source as an average opinion blogger - on just about any topic.
Reuters could have better described the moratorium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moratorium_(law)) vs a law and should have avoided the word 'indefinitely' in the headline. But I don't think the article grossly misinforms the reader: it lists the 5 years, it lists the compromise, it mentions the exceptions for the tests.
Alex Epstien, who is widely despised, has written, in _The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels_ that to withhold cheap abundant energy, and the technology it enables, from the world's emerging populations is immoral and fundamentally anti-human. Supported by people who think this Earth would be a much better place if Man never set his filthy foot upon it.
Yeah, one of the main issues is clean drinking water. A third of the world is facing consequences of lack of clean drinking water. Energy from fossil fuels can be used to purify water. This is one of the main arguments for fossil fuels in the book.
I don't see what good being pro-human would do in this scenario - either those in the (future) developing world drown as global sea levels rise and traditional agriculture flounders under new climatic conditions (and in greater numbers), or they're unable to do so due to a lack of resources that enable food transit etc. Where does this illusion that we can just infinitely increase the world's population through reliance on technology come from? It's clearly untrue today, much less 50 years in the future.
This is such an obviously ahistorical sentiment it's hard to know where to start in rebutting it, but its discredited name might be a good place to start: Malthusianism.
Population growth on the order of what we had since about 1750 - 0.5 % per year or above - is unsustainable in relatively short time. That really is not worth discussing, it is a matter of fact.
But as I understand the comment the point is more that by burning more fossile fuels we would trade a benefit now for more issues in the future. Sure, it would be nice to have more energy at our disposal right now, but we know that burning fossile fuels causes problems in the future. Doing it anyway and hoping that future generations will find a way to deal with the consequences of our actions seems to me shortsighted and reckless at the very least.
I think an argument that can beade that not restricting emergin nations from using fossil fuel would allow them to grow faster and we know that when society grows more wealthy we automatically have more kids.
If you are conserned that their are to many people, then faster growth is the best solution.
The question is one of degree. We know it can be bad, but its highly variable. For some it is good as well. The longer timeframe you are talking about the more unknowns their are. So a moderate policy of supporting alternatives and restricting the most harful stuff is not a bad strategy.
I think an argument that can beade that not restricting emergin nations from using fossil fuel would allow them to grow faster and we know that when society grows more wealthy we automatically have more kids.
I assume you mean less children, right? More wealth means less children but only up to a certain point, after that the trend reverses and even more wealth means more children again. [1] I did not check the numbers but I will give the author the benefit of doubt. It certainly makes intuitive sense that more wealth gives you the opportunity to have the luxury of more children.
It is actually harder to understand the initial decline because it is not obvious that having more children when you are less wealthy is a good thing. Maybe it is just a indirect effect because of less education and human development in general but I discussed this before and am not sure of the best way to think about it, especially because of arguments like having many children is a substitute for other social security system in less wealthy societies which implies that it is not really an indirect effect.
But setting this aside and assuming that the observed pattern does not radically change in the future, then more wealth will not stop population growth but at best slow it down somewhat and the extend of that depends on where the countries finally end up. But it gets worse, not only does increasing wealth not reduce population growth in the long term, it also increases energy consumption per capita. [2]
So increasing wealth gives us more people, which is not good, and higher energy consumption, which is also not good unless it is clean energy. And there is another aspect - India adds 5 times as many people to the world population per year as the USA. But the energy consumption per capita in the USA is so large that the USA nonetheless adds more than twice the additional energy consumption of India per year. [3]
While population growth is a serious problem - a constant 1 % population growth per year will definitely kill every human on Earth within 1400 years - it just won't happen. If there are to many people, they will just die, either starve or get killed in resource wars. The problem will solve itself although I would much prefer that we proactively ensured that population growth will not be stopped by some disaster.
But the more pressing issue is the climate change due to our energy consumption and the way we produce it. We probably can not solve that problem by simply killing enough people. Therefore population growth is at least currently only an issue insofar as it contributes to the increase in energy consumption and trying to reduce population growth by increasing wealth and energy consumption is pretty likely counterproductive for both issues.
But admittedly the exact outcome is not so easy to predict. If countries would stay at the point where the trend in [1] reverses for a long time, then we could get reduced population growth or even a population decline without further increase in energy consumption per capita and the former might offset the later depending on the pace of the increase in wealth. But I do not see what kind of policy could keep countries there, one would essentially have to stop the further development of countries when the trend reverses.
Whats the evidence that people will increase the amount of children again? I really dont see such trends, the hole first world is flattening out or shrinking.
As for energy, I think that with continuing growth of population, you will have even more urbanisation and that means less energy per person. A New Yorker uses less energy then somebody in a small rual town.
The total energy output of the sun can be massivly harvested for energy. We also have nuclear that we could use far more of. We have lots of proven Gas left, and neither coal nor oil is used up. Their are of course a hole bunch of other viable option. Thats before even considering more futuristic tech.
Even should the price go up, the market can massivly react to it. Their are so many simple ways to save lots of energy that people just dont bother with right now.
As for Climat change, I think the economic predictions on it, are not all that bad. Because of the long time scale we have time to do a hige amount of adoption. Living near the equator will be less habitable, but loving in Canada might be improved. The economic models I have seen trying to account for the cost of adjustment are not actually that high.
Admitatly, if you are right that population growth will rise in the rich countries, we might have a problem in the long term bit their are many other problems that are far more worrying.
I'm sympathetic to Tom Murphy's analyses, as I used to be fairly doomer-minded as a result of reading them.
But I think it's safe to say that he's been proven wrong. Alternative energy technologies, mainly PV solar, really are tracking along Kurzweil's exponential growth curve, such that energy supply will not be appreciably impacted by the restriction of fossil fuels. (Not to mention he was also wrong about those constraints as well, given fracking of source rocks).
Being in the doomer echo chamber is fun, for a while. But at some point, we all have to leave, as Ran Prieur did, and recognize that the cornucopians are right.
I am not arguing that we are doomed, I am having as hard a time imagining that the party is over by the end of the century as predicted by the Club of Rome as most other people. It is just incredible hard to imagine how things could turn sour so quickly. On the other hand I try not to fool myself, complex systems are not intuitive and maybe we are really doomed.
But that is really besides my point in the comments here, I am just arguing that it is probably a bad idea to throw more fossil fuels at the problem then absolutely necessary. Especially I am doubtful that using more fossil fuels to overcome fossil fuel usage as quick as possible would yield a net positive outcome. I mean it could work if the boost in development would overcompensate a longer period of fossil fuel usage at lower levels and if that boost would not push us over some bad phase transition or what ever else might go wrong. But are there facts that would support such a decision, I am currently not aware of such.
With regard to Kurzweil's exponential growth curve and Ran Prieur, I will have to have look at that, I am not familiar with what they have to say about the topic.
We have not yet outlived the Club of Rome's projections. Globally, oil consumption continues to increase as if renewables did not exist. We live inside the OECD bubble where oil consumption is declining, and that's not the global trend.
There are some rays of hope in the form of population stabilization. But whether we're screwed or not depends quite a bit on what the number is: Is it 9 billion, or 15 billion? Are we already so far past long term sustainability ? Are we screwed due to climate change?
Maybe we'll be eating and burning stuff made in vats by CRISPR-ized algae and 15 billion will be OK, if by "OK" you mean everyone eats, just don't look to hard at the environmental degradation. But without some breakthroughs things could get rather tight.
Population growth levels of as people get richer. If China or India get their global population will level of dramatically.
Yes consumtion is still growing but the alternatives are there and could easly be scaled up. Sure price of energy would increase somewhat and that might lead to a small stagnation in living standerds. Nothing to worrying.
Food production can also be scaled, their is tons of potential land, changes in mode of production and thats even before we get into the more extrem options.
Such a small part of the global economy is food production, and I see very little reason why it cpuld not triple without living standerds going down. Even if the go down, because of general development, they should still rise on avg.
I see no concrete dates set for the end of use of coal. The fact that nuclear power generation is specifically set to phase out in 2022 means that they'll still be using coal by then.
They are indirectly set. Look at the table in the Wikipedia article. There are clear goals for a reduction in CO2 emissions and to achieve that coal has to be phased out
The US state of Wyoming produces more than 200,000 barrels per day. [2]
The US as a whole produces more than 7,400,000 barrels per day. [3]
[1] http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=de&product=oil... [2] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M... [3] http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil...