In this newsletter:
1) Renewable energy prices soar as Ukraine war is the 'last straw' for the sector
Reuters, 13 April 2022
2) North American renewable energy prices skyrocket nearly 30% in one year, threatening corporate and federal net zero ambitions
Business Wire, 13 April 2022
3) Inflation soars to 7% as energy bills and petrol prices cripple consumers
The Sun, 13 April 2022
The Sun, 13 April 2022
4) Pensioners sleep in coats and may have to go back to work at 83 to pay rising energy bills
The Sun, 12 April 2022
5) Four in 10 more worried about energy bills than catching Covid
The Daily Telegraph, 12 April 2022
6) Ex Brexit minister Lord Frost warns Boris's plan to ramp up building of wind turbines across UK could see Britain RATIONING energy if the weather isn't right
Daily Mail, 13 April 2022
The Sun, 12 April 2022
5) Four in 10 more worried about energy bills than catching Covid
The Daily Telegraph, 12 April 2022
6) Ex Brexit minister Lord Frost warns Boris's plan to ramp up building of wind turbines across UK could see Britain RATIONING energy if the weather isn't right
Daily Mail, 13 April 2022
7) Europe’s warming fears enable Putin’s destruction of Ukraine
Editorial, The Washington Times, 11 April 2022
Editorial, The Washington Times, 11 April 2022
8) Biden's ethanol boondoggle will drive up food inflation
Washington Examiner, 12 April 2022
Washington Examiner, 12 April 2022
9) Putin's useful idiots urging to ‘nationalize U.S. fossil fuel industry’ to fight climate change
Newsbuster, 12 April 2022
Newsbuster, 12 April 2022
10) Francis Menton: The future of energy in the U.S.: Which projection do you believe?
Manhattan Contrarian, 10 April 2022
Manhattan Contrarian, 10 April 2022
Full details:
1) Renewable energy prices soar as Ukraine war is the 'last straw' for the sector
Reuters, 13 April 2022
Reuters, 13 April 2022
Prices for wind and solar power in major global markets have climbed nearly 30 per cent in a year, as developers struggle with "chaotic" supply chains and surging costs.
This has impacted everything from shipping to parts to labour, according to a report published on Wednesday.
Contract prices for renewables jumped 28.5 per cent in North America and 27.5 per cent in Europe in the last year, according to a quarterly index by LevelTen Energy that tracks the deals, known in the industry as power purchase agreements (PPAs).
These kind of market disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic have worsened since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reversing a decade of cost declines for the renewable energy sector.
There is a risk higher costs could slow demand growth at a time when the United Nations has called for clean energy to expand more rapidly to avoid the worst effects of a warming climate.
Full story
2) North American renewable energy prices skyrocket nearly 30% in one year, threatening corporate and federal Net Zero ambitions
Business Wire, 13 April 2022
According to a new report from LevelTen Energy, the leading provider of renewable transaction infrastructure and operator of the world’s largest PPA marketplace, North American renewable energy developers are struggling to build solar and wind projects fast enough to keep up with demand because of the extremely difficult development landscape.
This is leading to a shortage of power purchase agreements for corporations and other large energy buyers, which are critical to bringing new clean energy projects online and meeting corporate and federal net zero targets. This rapidly growing imbalance between PPA supply and demand, combined with skyrocketing development costs, has raised PPA prices 9.7% during the first quarter of 2022 to nearly $40 per MWh, according to LevelTen’s Q1 PPA Price Index report. Year-over-year, this represents an astounding 28.5% increase. [...]
This has impacted everything from shipping to parts to labour, according to a report published on Wednesday.
Contract prices for renewables jumped 28.5 per cent in North America and 27.5 per cent in Europe in the last year, according to a quarterly index by LevelTen Energy that tracks the deals, known in the industry as power purchase agreements (PPAs).
These kind of market disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic have worsened since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reversing a decade of cost declines for the renewable energy sector.
There is a risk higher costs could slow demand growth at a time when the United Nations has called for clean energy to expand more rapidly to avoid the worst effects of a warming climate.
Full story
2) North American renewable energy prices skyrocket nearly 30% in one year, threatening corporate and federal Net Zero ambitions
Business Wire, 13 April 2022
According to a new report from LevelTen Energy, the leading provider of renewable transaction infrastructure and operator of the world’s largest PPA marketplace, North American renewable energy developers are struggling to build solar and wind projects fast enough to keep up with demand because of the extremely difficult development landscape.
This is leading to a shortage of power purchase agreements for corporations and other large energy buyers, which are critical to bringing new clean energy projects online and meeting corporate and federal net zero targets. This rapidly growing imbalance between PPA supply and demand, combined with skyrocketing development costs, has raised PPA prices 9.7% during the first quarter of 2022 to nearly $40 per MWh, according to LevelTen’s Q1 PPA Price Index report. Year-over-year, this represents an astounding 28.5% increase. [...]
Many developers rely on PPAs – long-term energy contracts – with corporations and other large-scale energy buyers in order to secure the financing required to construct new multi-million dollar solar and wind projects. But the cost models used to price PPAs are becoming increasingly unwieldy as regulatory, interconnection, and supply chain challenges make it difficult to pin down costs and construction timelines.
“Every aspect of project development has risks to evaluate and balance,” said Gia Clark, senior director of Developer Services at LevelTen Energy. “These days, these risks feel particularly high-stakes. Developers must factor these complexities and uncertainties into PPA offers to safeguard their project success, as well as their business’ long-term financial security. As long as these myriad headwinds persist, we can expect elevated PPA prices across North America.”
Supply chain issues have also taken a toll on developers in terms of rising costs and shipment delays. A LevelTen survey of 57 developers this quarter revealed that 40% said they were able to find new suppliers that can more reliably deliver components. However, 28% were unable to make changes to supply chain operations despite wanting to do so.
Full story
“Every aspect of project development has risks to evaluate and balance,” said Gia Clark, senior director of Developer Services at LevelTen Energy. “These days, these risks feel particularly high-stakes. Developers must factor these complexities and uncertainties into PPA offers to safeguard their project success, as well as their business’ long-term financial security. As long as these myriad headwinds persist, we can expect elevated PPA prices across North America.”
Supply chain issues have also taken a toll on developers in terms of rising costs and shipment delays. A LevelTen survey of 57 developers this quarter revealed that 40% said they were able to find new suppliers that can more reliably deliver components. However, 28% were unable to make changes to supply chain operations despite wanting to do so.
Full story
3) Inflation soars to 7% as energy bills and petrol prices cripple consumers
The Sun, 13 April 2022
The Sun, 13 April 2022
INFLATION has soared to 7% according to new data from the Office for National Statistics in another bitter blow to family finances.
The consumer price index (CPI) rose by another 0.8 percentage points in March, up from 6.2% in February.
Inflation is a measure of how much the prices of goods and services have changed over time.
When it goes up, prices on everyday items and essentials and bills also rise - which means you need to make your money stretch further.
Soaring energy bills and and petrol prices were the main drivers behind the rocketing rate of inflation, the ONS said.
Fuel prices have soared to record highs recently, mainly down to supply concerns due to the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
While millions of families have been battling against eye-watering energy price rises - with some forced into choosing between heating or eating.
The eye-watering hike means inflation is now at the highest rate since March 1992, when it stood at 7.1%.
It has increased at a faster rate than economists predicted - experts estimated that it would rise to 6.7%.
ONS chief economist Grant Fitzner said price rises saw inflation "increase sharply" in March.
He added: "Amongst the largest increases were petrol costs, with prices mostly collected before the recent cut in fuel duty, and furniture."
Full story
The consumer price index (CPI) rose by another 0.8 percentage points in March, up from 6.2% in February.
Inflation is a measure of how much the prices of goods and services have changed over time.
When it goes up, prices on everyday items and essentials and bills also rise - which means you need to make your money stretch further.
Soaring energy bills and and petrol prices were the main drivers behind the rocketing rate of inflation, the ONS said.
Fuel prices have soared to record highs recently, mainly down to supply concerns due to the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
While millions of families have been battling against eye-watering energy price rises - with some forced into choosing between heating or eating.
The eye-watering hike means inflation is now at the highest rate since March 1992, when it stood at 7.1%.
It has increased at a faster rate than economists predicted - experts estimated that it would rise to 6.7%.
ONS chief economist Grant Fitzner said price rises saw inflation "increase sharply" in March.
He added: "Amongst the largest increases were petrol costs, with prices mostly collected before the recent cut in fuel duty, and furniture."
Full story
4) Pensioners sleep in coats and may have to go back to work at 83 to pay rising energy bills
The Sun, 12 April 2022
The Sun, 12 April 2022
AN ELDERLY couple are forced to sleep in their COATS after being left unable to afford their heating.
Gerald Porter, 83, fears he might have to go back to work to help pay the bills after they doubled in one month at home in Melksham, Wiltshire.
The ex-Royal Air Force serviceman's wife Mair, 80, was recently diagnosed with dementia - and the pair have to watch "every penny".
Gerald and Mair, like countless others, have been hit by the cost of living crisis.
Their energy bill soared from £110 to £295, leaving Gerald forced to turn off the central heating and opt for hot water bottles to keep warm.
They have also stopped using their oven - relying entirely on their cheaper-to-run microwave.
Gerald told the Mirror: "I don’t want to complain really because I‘ve had a good life, but it comes as a huge disappointment."
He added: "I can’t imagine a time that I can turn the heating on again, there’s nothing in sight and there’s nothing else I can do.
“The difference between £110 and £295 - it’s a chasm that I can’t cross. I’m not putting the heating on because I refuse to go into debt.”
"At night, we cover the bed in coats and use an extra blanket because Mair is particularly susceptible to the cold.
"We wear coats indoors now. They’re like long jackets lined with synthetic wool.
"We’re having to use those in bed too just to make sure we keep warm."
Gerald - who doesn't want to have to rely on benefits - is debating going back to work to "earn a few extra pennies".
Full story
5) Four in 10 more worried about energy bills than catching Covid
The Daily Telegraph, 12 April 2022
Gerald Porter, 83, fears he might have to go back to work to help pay the bills after they doubled in one month at home in Melksham, Wiltshire.
The ex-Royal Air Force serviceman's wife Mair, 80, was recently diagnosed with dementia - and the pair have to watch "every penny".
Gerald and Mair, like countless others, have been hit by the cost of living crisis.
Their energy bill soared from £110 to £295, leaving Gerald forced to turn off the central heating and opt for hot water bottles to keep warm.
They have also stopped using their oven - relying entirely on their cheaper-to-run microwave.
Gerald told the Mirror: "I don’t want to complain really because I‘ve had a good life, but it comes as a huge disappointment."
He added: "I can’t imagine a time that I can turn the heating on again, there’s nothing in sight and there’s nothing else I can do.
“The difference between £110 and £295 - it’s a chasm that I can’t cross. I’m not putting the heating on because I refuse to go into debt.”
"At night, we cover the bed in coats and use an extra blanket because Mair is particularly susceptible to the cold.
"We wear coats indoors now. They’re like long jackets lined with synthetic wool.
"We’re having to use those in bed too just to make sure we keep warm."
Gerald - who doesn't want to have to rely on benefits - is debating going back to work to "earn a few extra pennies".
Full story
5) Four in 10 more worried about energy bills than catching Covid
The Daily Telegraph, 12 April 2022
Impact of cost-of-living crisis laid bare as study reveals more people are anxious about their finances than their health
Financial worries are now outstripping concerns about Covid, research has shown, with nearly four in 10 Britons anxious about meeting daily living costs – the highest figure since the start of the pandemic.
The latest data from the University College London (UCL) Covid-19 Social Study show that 33 per cent of people were worried about catching the virus last month, compared with 38 per cent who were concerned about their finances.
It is a marked shift from January, when 32 per cent of people were uneasy about their financial situation and 40 per cent were concerned about catching or becoming ill from Covid.
Researchers said the switch in priorities was likely to be a reflection of the cost-of-living crisis, which has seen eye-watering rises in fuel, council tax and food prices. Last month, 56 per cent of people felt in control of their finances, compared to 63 per cent six months ago, the survey found.
Dr Daisy Fancourt, of UCL’s institute of epidemiology and healthcare and the lead author, said: “It is notable that the last few months have seen a cost-of-living crisis emerge.
“Concerns about money have been increasing, with people now more concerned about finances than about Covid-19. This suggests that new psychological stressors are becoming dominant for individuals.”
The findings are based on a survey of 28,495 people taken on March 21.The results showed that working-age adults were twice as likely to report concerns about their finances as older people, with two in five workers feeling the pinch, compared to one in five of those of retirement age.
Full story
6) Ex Brexit minister Lord Frost warns Boris's plan to ramp up building of wind turbines across UK could see Britain rationing energy if the weather isn't right
Daily Mail, 13 April 2022
Financial worries are now outstripping concerns about Covid, research has shown, with nearly four in 10 Britons anxious about meeting daily living costs – the highest figure since the start of the pandemic.
The latest data from the University College London (UCL) Covid-19 Social Study show that 33 per cent of people were worried about catching the virus last month, compared with 38 per cent who were concerned about their finances.
It is a marked shift from January, when 32 per cent of people were uneasy about their financial situation and 40 per cent were concerned about catching or becoming ill from Covid.
Researchers said the switch in priorities was likely to be a reflection of the cost-of-living crisis, which has seen eye-watering rises in fuel, council tax and food prices. Last month, 56 per cent of people felt in control of their finances, compared to 63 per cent six months ago, the survey found.
Dr Daisy Fancourt, of UCL’s institute of epidemiology and healthcare and the lead author, said: “It is notable that the last few months have seen a cost-of-living crisis emerge.
“Concerns about money have been increasing, with people now more concerned about finances than about Covid-19. This suggests that new psychological stressors are becoming dominant for individuals.”
The findings are based on a survey of 28,495 people taken on March 21.The results showed that working-age adults were twice as likely to report concerns about their finances as older people, with two in five workers feeling the pinch, compared to one in five of those of retirement age.
Full story
6) Ex Brexit minister Lord Frost warns Boris's plan to ramp up building of wind turbines across UK could see Britain rationing energy if the weather isn't right
Daily Mail, 13 April 2022
Former Cabinet minister Lord Frost tears into the PM's energy security strategy and questions how homes will be powered 'when the wind doesn't blow'
Boris Johnson's former Brexit chief has warned Britons could face the rationing of energy under the government's current plans to reach net-zero by 2050.
Lord Frost tore into the Prime Minister's energy security strategy, published last week, which put offshore wind and nuclear power at the centre of UK energy policy.
The former Cabinet minister, who oversaw Brexit negotiations with the EU, warned the document failed to take account of how homes and businesses would be powered 'when the wind doesn't blow'.
Ministers drew up the new energy strategy in response to the cost-of-living crisis and Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, with the PM leading efforts to wean Western nations off Russian supplies of oil and gas.
Mr Johnson resisted pressure from Conservative MPs to use the energy paper to order a resumption of fracking in the UK to extract shale gas - although ministers have asked for a scientific review of a 2019 ban.
Lord Frost, who was among Tories to call for the return of fracking, said he 'wasn't massively convinced' that the energy security strategy 'really changed anything much'.
'I think it doesn't deal with the problem that, it's all very well to build a lot of wind power but it needs back-up by other power for when the wind doesn't blow,' he told LBC radio.
'I didn't see that problem really addressed in the security paper.
'My worry is the government is on a plan where it's not engaging with the trade-offs.
'It won't be possible to deliver net-zero on the timetable they want and we will end up with rationing and behavioural change.
'I think that will be an extremely bad outcome. I don't think the British people will put up with it.'
Full story
Boris Johnson's former Brexit chief has warned Britons could face the rationing of energy under the government's current plans to reach net-zero by 2050.
Lord Frost tore into the Prime Minister's energy security strategy, published last week, which put offshore wind and nuclear power at the centre of UK energy policy.
The former Cabinet minister, who oversaw Brexit negotiations with the EU, warned the document failed to take account of how homes and businesses would be powered 'when the wind doesn't blow'.
Ministers drew up the new energy strategy in response to the cost-of-living crisis and Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, with the PM leading efforts to wean Western nations off Russian supplies of oil and gas.
Mr Johnson resisted pressure from Conservative MPs to use the energy paper to order a resumption of fracking in the UK to extract shale gas - although ministers have asked for a scientific review of a 2019 ban.
Lord Frost, who was among Tories to call for the return of fracking, said he 'wasn't massively convinced' that the energy security strategy 'really changed anything much'.
'I think it doesn't deal with the problem that, it's all very well to build a lot of wind power but it needs back-up by other power for when the wind doesn't blow,' he told LBC radio.
'I didn't see that problem really addressed in the security paper.
'My worry is the government is on a plan where it's not engaging with the trade-offs.
'It won't be possible to deliver net-zero on the timetable they want and we will end up with rationing and behavioural change.
'I think that will be an extremely bad outcome. I don't think the British people will put up with it.'
Full story
7) Europe’s warming fears enable Putin’s destruction of Ukraine
Editorial, The Washington Times, 11 April 2022
Editorial, The Washington Times, 11 April 2022
If there is a lesson to be learned from the broadening turmoil, it is that unbridled global warmism could prove nearly as deadly as the danger it purports to prevent.
Panic is seldom a productive basis for policy. Panic, though, is the consequence of a widely held belief that human beings are wreaking havoc on Earth’s ecosystem.
As catastrophe warnings become ever more shrill, it is clear the alarm they engender has played a role in precipitating a modern-world climate war, in Ukraine. If there is a lesson to be learned from the broadening turmoil, it is that unbridled global warmism could prove nearly as deadly as the danger it purports to prevent.
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released a fresh warning that nations are falling far short of their common goal to restrain global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Simply put, the world is “on a fast track to climate disaster,” said U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The 2,800-page report concluded that the planet has three years to cut emissions enough to get back on track. “It’s now or never,” added report co-chair Jim Skea.
The U.N.’s chilling global warming rhetoric has convinced officials in Europe and elsewhere that, yes, the sky is falling, and only the most extreme remedies can save humanity.
Germany, Europe’s economic powerhouse, mobilized early, cutting its use of emissions-heavy coal in half since 2000 and plans to phase out the other half by 2030. With expensive renewable energy now supplying nearly half of its electricity, Germany is also taking the foolish step of scrapping its emissions-free nuclear power industry.
Germans and their neighbors — with the wise exception of the French — have chosen to rely on Russia to provide an energy bridge to a fossil-fuel-free future. Despite former President Donald Trump’s warning during his presidency about overreliance on an antagonistic source for energy, the Europeans have bought Russian natural gas and oil by the billions of euros.
Nonetheless, the temperature record raises doubts over whether it is the U.N.’s climate predictions that are off-track. Atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration has climbed by 32% since 1958 to 418 parts per million, according to NASA, yet the planet has warmed a single degree in 140 years. It is not unreasonable to wonder whether dire warnings of global warming could prove as faulty as frightening forecasts in 1970 of a coming Ice Age.
“Absolutely nothing in this IPCC report is true,” tweeted Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who holds a doctorate in ecology. “It is all fake and threatens the existence of civilization, especially the West because the East and the South don’t buy it.”
Fake or not, the West has bought the blueprint for going “green,” and Russian President Vladimir Putin has capitalized on it. Profits from Russian gas and oil sales have purchased the military might that is currently ravaging Ukraine. Some European nations have since vowed to end their energy dependence on Moscow, but the bitter fruits of their folly are already harvested.
U.N. doomsayers have instigated unwise energy policies, giving the modern world a climate war. May there be no more.
Panic is seldom a productive basis for policy. Panic, though, is the consequence of a widely held belief that human beings are wreaking havoc on Earth’s ecosystem.
As catastrophe warnings become ever more shrill, it is clear the alarm they engender has played a role in precipitating a modern-world climate war, in Ukraine. If there is a lesson to be learned from the broadening turmoil, it is that unbridled global warmism could prove nearly as deadly as the danger it purports to prevent.
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released a fresh warning that nations are falling far short of their common goal to restrain global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Simply put, the world is “on a fast track to climate disaster,” said U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The 2,800-page report concluded that the planet has three years to cut emissions enough to get back on track. “It’s now or never,” added report co-chair Jim Skea.
The U.N.’s chilling global warming rhetoric has convinced officials in Europe and elsewhere that, yes, the sky is falling, and only the most extreme remedies can save humanity.
Germany, Europe’s economic powerhouse, mobilized early, cutting its use of emissions-heavy coal in half since 2000 and plans to phase out the other half by 2030. With expensive renewable energy now supplying nearly half of its electricity, Germany is also taking the foolish step of scrapping its emissions-free nuclear power industry.
Germans and their neighbors — with the wise exception of the French — have chosen to rely on Russia to provide an energy bridge to a fossil-fuel-free future. Despite former President Donald Trump’s warning during his presidency about overreliance on an antagonistic source for energy, the Europeans have bought Russian natural gas and oil by the billions of euros.
Nonetheless, the temperature record raises doubts over whether it is the U.N.’s climate predictions that are off-track. Atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration has climbed by 32% since 1958 to 418 parts per million, according to NASA, yet the planet has warmed a single degree in 140 years. It is not unreasonable to wonder whether dire warnings of global warming could prove as faulty as frightening forecasts in 1970 of a coming Ice Age.
“Absolutely nothing in this IPCC report is true,” tweeted Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who holds a doctorate in ecology. “It is all fake and threatens the existence of civilization, especially the West because the East and the South don’t buy it.”
Fake or not, the West has bought the blueprint for going “green,” and Russian President Vladimir Putin has capitalized on it. Profits from Russian gas and oil sales have purchased the military might that is currently ravaging Ukraine. Some European nations have since vowed to end their energy dependence on Moscow, but the bitter fruits of their folly are already harvested.
U.N. doomsayers have instigated unwise energy policies, giving the modern world a climate war. May there be no more.
8) Biden's ethanol boondoggle will drive up food inflation
Washington Examiner, 12 April 2022
President Joe Biden has a federal solution to lowering the price of gas, but it’s not a serious one. It’s a cronyist measure that will increase the cost of living in other ways.
Washington Examiner, 12 April 2022
President Joe Biden has a federal solution to lowering the price of gas, but it’s not a serious one. It’s a cronyist measure that will increase the cost of living in other ways.
The Environmental Protection Agency will issue a national waiver to lift some restrictions on the use of E15 fuel. The waiver will last from June 1 to Sept. 15.
It’s a cronyist measure that will increase the cost of living in other ways. E15 fuel is a blend that includes 85% gasoline and 15% ethanol. The latter is a biofuel made from produce, mostly corn, and soybeans.
Thanks to the George W. Bush-era Renewable Fuel Standard , gas we buy at the gas station contains 10% ethanol. Meanwhile, E85 has 50% more ethanol than the average gallon of fuel one puts into their car. It’s a corporate welfare handout to big agriculture — one that artificially raises demand for crops. And when demand rises, so do prices. The move won’t alleviate inflation: It will likely make the problem worse.
Every food product with corn in it will become more expensive . That’s not just corn on the cob or canned corn. This also includes many breakfast cereals, sugary snacks, and the cornmeal used to feed livestock. Therefore, Biden’s move will increase the cost of meat.
The benefit? The White House says E85 will knock the cost of gas down by 10 cents per gallon. It’s unclear if it will work as they intend, however. Ethanol is 30% less fuel-efficient than gas, so one has to purchase more gas to travel the same distance (in this case about 1.67% more). Plus, increasing the demand for ethanol will increase the price of ethanol. Not to mention, gas prices are already dropping.
If Biden wanted to make fuel more affordable, his administration would offer Jones Act waivers . Instead, this is about giving the ethanol lobby something they want and pandering to politicians in the Midwest.
Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst, both Iowa Republicans, are big supporters of ethanol. The same is true of Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Illinois Democrats. That’s because those states grow a lot of corn — and special-interest groups who want to artificially increase demand for corn can donate money to their campaigns.
Special-interest groups will get even richer from this Biden administration rule change. However, it won’t benefit the American people; it will make the cost of living even higher for them.
It’s a cronyist measure that will increase the cost of living in other ways. E15 fuel is a blend that includes 85% gasoline and 15% ethanol. The latter is a biofuel made from produce, mostly corn, and soybeans.
Thanks to the George W. Bush-era Renewable Fuel Standard , gas we buy at the gas station contains 10% ethanol. Meanwhile, E85 has 50% more ethanol than the average gallon of fuel one puts into their car. It’s a corporate welfare handout to big agriculture — one that artificially raises demand for crops. And when demand rises, so do prices. The move won’t alleviate inflation: It will likely make the problem worse.
Every food product with corn in it will become more expensive . That’s not just corn on the cob or canned corn. This also includes many breakfast cereals, sugary snacks, and the cornmeal used to feed livestock. Therefore, Biden’s move will increase the cost of meat.
The benefit? The White House says E85 will knock the cost of gas down by 10 cents per gallon. It’s unclear if it will work as they intend, however. Ethanol is 30% less fuel-efficient than gas, so one has to purchase more gas to travel the same distance (in this case about 1.67% more). Plus, increasing the demand for ethanol will increase the price of ethanol. Not to mention, gas prices are already dropping.
If Biden wanted to make fuel more affordable, his administration would offer Jones Act waivers . Instead, this is about giving the ethanol lobby something they want and pandering to politicians in the Midwest.
Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst, both Iowa Republicans, are big supporters of ethanol. The same is true of Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Illinois Democrats. That’s because those states grow a lot of corn — and special-interest groups who want to artificially increase demand for corn can donate money to their campaigns.
Special-interest groups will get even richer from this Biden administration rule change. However, it won’t benefit the American people; it will make the cost of living even higher for them.
9) Putin's useful idiots urging to ‘nationalize U.S. fossil fuel industry’ to fight climate change
Newsbuster, 12 April 2022
A leftist magazine co-founded by former President Bill Clinton's Secretary of Labor Robert Reich urged the federal government to seize control of the fossil fuel industry. Because … climate change.
The American Prospect, of which Reich is founding editor, ran an April 8 article headlined, “Nationalize the U.S. Fossil Fuel Industry to Save the Planet.” Leftist economist Robert Pollin argued that “Turning the biggest oil companies over to public ownership would serve several goals at once, including climate resilience.”
This is the same Pollin who co-authored a book with radical philosopher Noam Chomsky pushing a “Global Green New Deal.” In his new article, Pollin exploited the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest climate doom-mongering report to argue: “[W]e must begin advancing far more aggressive climate stabilization solutions than anything that has been undertaken thus far.”
Pollin channeled his inner John Kerry and fallaciously tried to compare Russia’s murderous invasion of Ukraine and so-called climate change:
Vladimir Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine proceeds and concerns over the subsequent high gas prices proliferate, we cannot forget that the climate crisis remains a dire emergency, [emphasis added.]
Pollin said that his tyrannical idea “would entail the federal government purchasing controlling ownership of at least the three dominant U.S. oil and gas corporations:
"ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips.” Why did Pollin cherry-pick these three companies in particular? He offered his explanation: “We could start with these giants because they are far larger and more powerful than all the U.S. coal companies combined, as well as all of the smaller U.S. oil and gas companies.” His so-called “straightforward” justification was actually pathetic:
“The single most important factor causing climate change is that we continue to burn oil, natural gas, and coal to produce energy.”
Pollin demanded that “we must stop burning fossil fuels to have any chance of moving the global economy onto a viable climate stabilization path.” Did he forget that the U.S. is currently in an energy crisis largely because of the many restrictions placed on the industry?
But Pollin wouldn’t quit his absurd reasoning. He even suggested that the government enforce price controls on energy, which is ridiculous because of the sector’s high volatility. “The government could determine fossil fuel energy production levels and prices to reflect both the needs of consumers and the requirements of the clean-energy transition,” Pollin wrote. “This transition could also be structured to provide maximum support for the workers and communities that are presently dependent on fossil fuel companies for their well-being.”
CATO Institute adjunct scholar Jason Johnston wrote in 2017: “[T]he 100% renewables goal is yet another piece of progressive environmental rhetoric that in reality means higher costs for consumers and no improvement for the present environment.”
Newsbuster, 12 April 2022
A leftist magazine co-founded by former President Bill Clinton's Secretary of Labor Robert Reich urged the federal government to seize control of the fossil fuel industry. Because … climate change.
The American Prospect, of which Reich is founding editor, ran an April 8 article headlined, “Nationalize the U.S. Fossil Fuel Industry to Save the Planet.” Leftist economist Robert Pollin argued that “Turning the biggest oil companies over to public ownership would serve several goals at once, including climate resilience.”
This is the same Pollin who co-authored a book with radical philosopher Noam Chomsky pushing a “Global Green New Deal.” In his new article, Pollin exploited the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest climate doom-mongering report to argue: “[W]e must begin advancing far more aggressive climate stabilization solutions than anything that has been undertaken thus far.”
Pollin channeled his inner John Kerry and fallaciously tried to compare Russia’s murderous invasion of Ukraine and so-called climate change:
Vladimir Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine proceeds and concerns over the subsequent high gas prices proliferate, we cannot forget that the climate crisis remains a dire emergency, [emphasis added.]
Pollin said that his tyrannical idea “would entail the federal government purchasing controlling ownership of at least the three dominant U.S. oil and gas corporations:
"ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips.” Why did Pollin cherry-pick these three companies in particular? He offered his explanation: “We could start with these giants because they are far larger and more powerful than all the U.S. coal companies combined, as well as all of the smaller U.S. oil and gas companies.” His so-called “straightforward” justification was actually pathetic:
“The single most important factor causing climate change is that we continue to burn oil, natural gas, and coal to produce energy.”
Pollin demanded that “we must stop burning fossil fuels to have any chance of moving the global economy onto a viable climate stabilization path.” Did he forget that the U.S. is currently in an energy crisis largely because of the many restrictions placed on the industry?
But Pollin wouldn’t quit his absurd reasoning. He even suggested that the government enforce price controls on energy, which is ridiculous because of the sector’s high volatility. “The government could determine fossil fuel energy production levels and prices to reflect both the needs of consumers and the requirements of the clean-energy transition,” Pollin wrote. “This transition could also be structured to provide maximum support for the workers and communities that are presently dependent on fossil fuel companies for their well-being.”
CATO Institute adjunct scholar Jason Johnston wrote in 2017: “[T]he 100% renewables goal is yet another piece of progressive environmental rhetoric that in reality means higher costs for consumers and no improvement for the present environment.”
10) Francis Menton: The future of energy in the U.S.: Which projection do you believe?
Manhattan Contrarian, 10 April 2022
What will the production and consumption of energy look like in the United States in 2050? There are two very different answers to that question.
On Side One are those who assert that we face a “climate crisis” that can only be addressed by the rapid forced suppression of the production and use of fossil fuels. Therefore, some combination of government coercion, investor pressure and voluntary institutional action will shortly drive coal, oil and natural gas from the energy marketplace, to be replaced by carbon-free “renewables.” And thus by 2050 we will have achieved the utopia of “net zero” carbon emissions.
Those on Side Two think that the Side One vision is completely unrealistic fantasy. Simple arithmetic shows that without massive energy storage no amount of building of wind and solar generators can make much difference in fossil fuel use for electricity production; and adequate energy storage devices to fill the gap do not even exist as a technical matter, let alone at remotely reasonable cost. Result: no matter what the grandees say, fossil fuel production and use in 2050 will be as high or higher than they are now.
Which Side do you think is right?
At the moment, all of the Great and the Good seem to have planted their flags on Side One. President Biden leaves no doubt as to where he stands. By Press Release of April 22, 2021, Biden committed the U.S. to a “net zero” economy by 2050:
"On Day One, President Biden fulfilled his promise to rejoin the Paris Agreement and set a course for the United States to tackle the climate crisis at home and abroad, reaching net zero emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050."
And by various Executive Orders, Biden has the whole federal bureaucracy committed to the fossil fuel suppression project, from stopping drilling to blocking pipelines to decommissioning power plants.
In the investment world, all of the biggest banks and money managers are on board. Here is a link to the “Road to Net Zero” web page of BlackRock, the nation’s largest mutual fund manager. Pithy quote:
"We believe that the transition to a net zero world is the shared responsibility of every citizen, corporation, and government. . . . In January 2021, we committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner – and announced a number of steps to help our clients navigate the transition."
And it goes without saying that the world of academia has joined Side One with full unanimity. After all, these are the “smartest” people; and the “smartest” people all know that the “climate crisis” can only be solved by suppressing fossil fuels. Here is a representative statement from President Peter Salovey of Yale University, June 24, 2021:
"To avoid the most severe outcomes of climate change, experts recommend taking immediate action to reach world-wide carbon net neutrality in the next three decades. Yale will become a net zero carbon emissions campus in less than half of that time. Along our path to zero actual emission by 2050, we expect to reduce our actual emissions by at least 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2035."
So surely then, with this kind of unanimous agreement from the top, backed by the full force of federal government coercion, fossil fuels will be completely gone by 2050.
Perhaps before getting too confident in that conclusion, we should check in with the Energy Information Administration. The EIA is the part of the federal Department of Energy that provides data and statistics on U.S. energy production and consumption, both historical and projected. Once a year, generally in March, they issue what they call their Annual Energy Outlook, or AEO. AEO2022 just came out on March 3. The opening page of AEO2022 provides a wealth of links that can keep you busy for hours if you have the inclination.
The incredible thing about this AEO is it’s like nobody told them that the fossil fuels are about to be suppressed. Basically, they treat the whole “net zero by 2050” clamor as so much background noise. For example, what is the EIA’s view as to U.S. natural gas consumption from now through 2050? That’s in this chart:
Manhattan Contrarian, 10 April 2022
What will the production and consumption of energy look like in the United States in 2050? There are two very different answers to that question.
On Side One are those who assert that we face a “climate crisis” that can only be addressed by the rapid forced suppression of the production and use of fossil fuels. Therefore, some combination of government coercion, investor pressure and voluntary institutional action will shortly drive coal, oil and natural gas from the energy marketplace, to be replaced by carbon-free “renewables.” And thus by 2050 we will have achieved the utopia of “net zero” carbon emissions.
Those on Side Two think that the Side One vision is completely unrealistic fantasy. Simple arithmetic shows that without massive energy storage no amount of building of wind and solar generators can make much difference in fossil fuel use for electricity production; and adequate energy storage devices to fill the gap do not even exist as a technical matter, let alone at remotely reasonable cost. Result: no matter what the grandees say, fossil fuel production and use in 2050 will be as high or higher than they are now.
Which Side do you think is right?
At the moment, all of the Great and the Good seem to have planted their flags on Side One. President Biden leaves no doubt as to where he stands. By Press Release of April 22, 2021, Biden committed the U.S. to a “net zero” economy by 2050:
"On Day One, President Biden fulfilled his promise to rejoin the Paris Agreement and set a course for the United States to tackle the climate crisis at home and abroad, reaching net zero emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050."
And by various Executive Orders, Biden has the whole federal bureaucracy committed to the fossil fuel suppression project, from stopping drilling to blocking pipelines to decommissioning power plants.
In the investment world, all of the biggest banks and money managers are on board. Here is a link to the “Road to Net Zero” web page of BlackRock, the nation’s largest mutual fund manager. Pithy quote:
"We believe that the transition to a net zero world is the shared responsibility of every citizen, corporation, and government. . . . In January 2021, we committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner – and announced a number of steps to help our clients navigate the transition."
And it goes without saying that the world of academia has joined Side One with full unanimity. After all, these are the “smartest” people; and the “smartest” people all know that the “climate crisis” can only be solved by suppressing fossil fuels. Here is a representative statement from President Peter Salovey of Yale University, June 24, 2021:
"To avoid the most severe outcomes of climate change, experts recommend taking immediate action to reach world-wide carbon net neutrality in the next three decades. Yale will become a net zero carbon emissions campus in less than half of that time. Along our path to zero actual emission by 2050, we expect to reduce our actual emissions by at least 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2035."
So surely then, with this kind of unanimous agreement from the top, backed by the full force of federal government coercion, fossil fuels will be completely gone by 2050.
Perhaps before getting too confident in that conclusion, we should check in with the Energy Information Administration. The EIA is the part of the federal Department of Energy that provides data and statistics on U.S. energy production and consumption, both historical and projected. Once a year, generally in March, they issue what they call their Annual Energy Outlook, or AEO. AEO2022 just came out on March 3. The opening page of AEO2022 provides a wealth of links that can keep you busy for hours if you have the inclination.
The incredible thing about this AEO is it’s like nobody told them that the fossil fuels are about to be suppressed. Basically, they treat the whole “net zero by 2050” clamor as so much background noise. For example, what is the EIA’s view as to U.S. natural gas consumption from now through 2050? That’s in this chart:
Net zero anyone? Instead, it looks like ongoing slow but steady growth throughout the entire projection period.
How about U.S. crude oil production? Surely that will plummet toward zero well before 2050. Not according to the EIA:
How about U.S. crude oil production? Surely that will plummet toward zero well before 2050. Not according to the EIA:
Basically, they predict that U.S. crude production will increase substantially over the next few years, and then level out and remain there through 2050.
To be fair, the two charts above represent what they call their “reference case.” They have other charts that show high production/consumption cases and also low production/consumption cases. However, the high cases are driven by high prices, and the low cases are driven by low prices. There is no effect discernible in the EIA projections resulting from regulatory suppression, let alone from woke investors or the pompous pronouncements of academia.
One of my favorite charts is this one covering projected “light duty vehicle” sales, aka cars.
To be fair, the two charts above represent what they call their “reference case.” They have other charts that show high production/consumption cases and also low production/consumption cases. However, the high cases are driven by high prices, and the low cases are driven by low prices. There is no effect discernible in the EIA projections resulting from regulatory suppression, let alone from woke investors or the pompous pronouncements of academia.
One of my favorite charts is this one covering projected “light duty vehicle” sales, aka cars.
And you thought that buying anything but a fully-electric vehicle would be illegal by 2030? The EIA’s projection is that even by 2050, fully-electric vehicles will not have achieved 10% of the market, while fully gasoline-powered vehicles will still have a market share around 75%.
Numerous other links on the AEO2022 intro page provide for fascinating reading, essentially contradicting everything about our energy future that is coming out of the White House. For example, there is “EIA projects U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions fall in the near term, then rise.” In other words, the claims of “net zero” emissions by 2050 are so much hot air. Or there’s “Petroleum and natural gas are the most-used fuels in the United States through 2050.”
So place your bet as to which projections you believe. For myself, obviously I’m going with reality over fantasy.
Numerous other links on the AEO2022 intro page provide for fascinating reading, essentially contradicting everything about our energy future that is coming out of the White House. For example, there is “EIA projects U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions fall in the near term, then rise.” In other words, the claims of “net zero” emissions by 2050 are so much hot air. Or there’s “Petroleum and natural gas are the most-used fuels in the United States through 2050.”
So place your bet as to which projections you believe. For myself, obviously I’m going with reality over fantasy.
The London-based Net Zero Watch is a campaign group set up to highlight and discuss the serious implications of expensive and poorly considered climate change policies. The Net Zero Watch newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.netzerowatch.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment