In the US oil refineries are tapped out. One on the East Coast closed last year and capacity overall is down. We need to really build several new ones. The number of active rigs depends on the scheduling of drilling equipment. When leases aren't coming out, and some are discovered prior to drilling to be not worth drilling, you end up with scheduling problems. For example, Obama did away with most new leasing in the Caribbean and that led to drill rigs being hauled elsewhere. That in turn created a long lead time to getting a rig back into a US offshore lease when they reopened.
Wind and solar are the most expensive, and the proof of that is in actual usage. The world's most expensive electricity is all in countries that have gone in heavy on wind and solar. Your problem is that you believe what the myopic and scientifically illiterate Left believes.
Just as an example: To get one kilowatt-day of electrical power from solar you need about 5 kw of installed generation and about 3 kw of storage. To get one kilowatt-day of power from natural gas, coal, nuclear, etc., you need one kilowatt of installed capacity. Since both wind and solar are unreliable and unpredictable generation sources you also need backup means of production to make electrical power when the wind doesn't blow, and the sun doesn't shine.
That's the real world. You refuse to see that, and focus on just the cost of the panels. If the solar panels were FREE, solar would still be too expensive.
This is a major reason California now has the highest per-kilowatt cost of electricity in the US: More solar and wind = higher production costs = higher consumer costs.
It's funny that you should mention that.
California produces 7.8% of its power with wind.
Texas produces 17% of its power with wind.
California produces 17% of its power with solar
Texas produces 4% of its power with solar.
By your argument, Texas power should cost as much per kwh as California. California is .25 and Texas is .13
Iowa gets 57% of its power from wind and 2% from solar and the price per kwh there is .12
MN gets 22% of its power from wind and 4% from solar and the price per kwh is .13
North Dakota gets 33% of its power from wind and the price per kwh is .10
Arizona gets 12% of its power from solar and the price per kwh is .13
Alaska only gets 2% of its power from solar and the price per kwh is .23
Nevada gets 28% of its power from solar and the price per kwh is .14
It would seem that California's problem is not the use of renewables but the fact that the state doesn't produce enough power so has to buy it from other states. Your argument seems to be nothing but bullshit since so many states produce more power from wind and solar than California but still have low electricity costs.
I am curious when the US ever did leasing in the Caribbean. Where exactly did that happen? In Haiti? Cuba? The Virgin Islands? Bermuda? Did you mean the Gulf of Mexico?
