The Future Of Energy In The U.S.: Which Projection Do You Believe?


Francis Menton

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:

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.

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.”

Read the full post here.

5 21 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
April 11, 2022 10:09 am

NetZero is a fantasy. Going nuclear, and dumping wind and solar would technically work to reduce emissions. But the Green Blob would go ballistic.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 11, 2022 10:39 am

I favor using the reliable 24/7/365 solar (those naughty “f” words- f*ss!l fu*ls) we’ve been using for years. The Green Blob’s been wrong >97% of the time!

Last edited 2 months ago by Old Man Winter
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 11, 2022 10:45 am

NetZero is a counterproductive slogan. It’s actually an obstacle to economically sustainable reductions in GHG emissions.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  David Middleton
April 11, 2022 11:45 am

I remain skeptical that there is very much room for “economically sustainable” reductions in GHG’s unless we are talking about moving toward nuclear under a cost regime different from today. CCS schemes that may coincidently benefit the oil patch are going to be severely limited by geography. Everywhere else, pretty much a bust.

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
April 11, 2022 1:06 pm

We will need t o capture the carbon to use as feedstock to make the synthetic hydrocarbon fuels…

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Leo Smith
April 11, 2022 1:13 pm

And we can use that to run generators for powering the lights that we can shine on solar panels at night.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
April 12, 2022 7:53 am

When you draw significant amounts of CO2 out of the air, an ‘idea’ getting a lot of press since the recent IPCC’s hysterical campaign releases, the ocean releases more CO2 and the biosphere sequesters less. The result is little change. So all the avenues considered for “doing something” will go nowhere.

Reply to  David Middleton
April 11, 2022 3:54 pm

“ economically sustainable reductions in GHG emissions.”

Why would we want that?

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 11, 2022 11:07 am

The fact that NetZero a fantasy is it’s most insignificant problem. The fact that it will have no detectable effect on the climate even if the IPCC was close to correct about the influence of CO2 is a bigger problem. Even worse, the IPCC is so wrong, it’s an embarrassment to the scientific method making NetZero’s only tangible effects significant harm to the environment and the failure of successful economies.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 11, 2022 11:12 pm

its, not it’s

Reply to  Maxbert
April 12, 2022 7:47 am

The IPCC may posses an embarrassing collection of pseudo science but it is an embarrassment to science that they do.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 11, 2022 11:34 am

Ballistic eh? Like free-fall? Sounds good to me.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 11, 2022 1:03 pm

They would go “ballistic” over nuclear power because their Climate Religion actually has nothing to do with emissions or climate.

April 11, 2022 10:30 am

Does this mean that the AEO and the EIA believe the climate kings so green have no clothes?

Reply to  Sean
April 11, 2022 10:43 am

EIA is simply projecting current trends in their AEO… It’s not what they would like to see happen.

Although it clearly demonstrates the futility of this sort of nonsense:

comment image

Since most “stated policies” aren’t likely to be achievable, people will just have to learn to adapt to whatever happens in the future. If the world does wind up 3-4 C warmer in 2100 than it was in 1850 (highly doubtful), will that be a bad thing? Or a good thing? Or just a thing?

Whatever happens to the weather in the future, dealing with it with access to abundant, affordable, reliable energy will be a lot easier than without that access.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  David Middleton
April 11, 2022 11:47 am

…will that be a bad thing? Or a good thing? Or just a thing?

I’m going to go with “b”, with a possible tendency to “c”. Definitely not “a”, under any circumstance.

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
April 11, 2022 6:12 pm

It’s all “just a thing.” While we will almost certainly reduce the “carbon intensity” of oil & gas production over the next few decades, we aren’t going to actually reduce oil & gas consumption.

Whatever effect this has on the weather, if any, we’ll just have to adapt to whatever happens.

The odds are that the benefits of fossil fuel consumption will massively outweigh whatever the weather does, good, bad or indifferent.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  David Middleton
April 12, 2022 8:04 am

The o&g and coal industries should claim a tax deduction for greening the planet an the doubling and redoubling of harvests. Maybe even for the substantial increase in the Bengal tiger pop in India and Bangladesh, etc. They have fate outdone the environmental good of all eco-folk combined.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  David Middleton
April 15, 2022 6:21 am

What route do you see to reducing “carbon intensity”? Are there game-changing technologies on the horizon, or only incremental improvements in existing processes?

Reply to  David Middleton
April 11, 2022 12:52 pm

They are not projecting current trends in crude oil production. They have the steep upward trend abruptly stopping and leveling out. A huge change from the current trend.

Reply to  David Wojick
April 11, 2022 4:43 pm


comment image

They carry the current trend out to the late 2020’s before leveling off. This is based on forecasts of population growth, GDP growth, production rates from existing fields, oil prices and crude oil consumption.

Last edited 2 months ago by David Middleton
Reply to  David Middleton
April 11, 2022 5:52 pm

The reference case is based on EIA’s most likely oil price scenario, the low and high oil price scenarios paint totally different pictures:

comment image

Ron Long
April 11, 2022 10:36 am

Looks like “Net Zero” is the thinking capability of the CAGW crowd. However, this lurching back-and-forth with different administrations is very costly and wasteful. Go Right!

April 11, 2022 10:42 am

“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” ― Yogi Berra
Where’s my flying car? I was promised aflying car by now.

Seriously. There are so many energy ideas “in the lab” that is it inconceivable that at least one doesn’t make it to practicality. Near room temperature superconductivity. Doubled energy density batteries. 60% cheaper batteries. Catalytic disassociation of water. Small scale safe nuclear. Doubled PV efficiency. Algae tower fuel oils.

With that many potential game changers any predictions degrade at least 5-10% per year.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
April 11, 2022 1:08 pm

Flying cars will be available in 10 years, getting their power from nuclear fusion.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
April 11, 2022 5:58 pm

That will definitely happen if governments make it mandatory 🤣.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
April 11, 2022 1:21 pm

I can conceive of not even one of them ever being practical.
How many such big new technologies have emerged from the lab in the past 30 years?
Most improvements are incremental ones to existing technology.

I will be willing to bet none of those on that list become game changers.

For one thing, I am seeing no reason to think we are training a legion of great inventors these days.
More like legions of indoctrinated head nodders.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 2:27 pm

Have you followed any? The critical temperature of superconduction over time? The energy density of batteries? The price per Watt of storage? Price per Watt or Watt per square meter of photovoltaics? Lots of engineering incremental progress sure but also instances of great leaps forward. Science is not linear.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
April 11, 2022 4:47 pm

Historically there have of course been major technological breakthroughs.
In recent decades re new energy technologies that become disruptive, not so much.
It would be great to have a superconducting electric grid, but the improvements in that area seem unlikely to lead to such an application.
Years ago there was talk of a superconducting supergrid.
Here we are, no superconducting grid.

Batteries are famous for lagging behind nearly every other technological improvement since they were invented. A very large amount of money and research has been devoted to find such a breakthrough as you mention, and although we occasionally hear about a huge breakthrough, none has materialized since lithium ion batteries became dominant.

Price per watt of storage was going down for a while, but now the world is short of lithium and other critical elements, and prices are suddenly spiking up. The US needs to build 17.5 million new cars and light trucks every year to maintain the 260 million or so fleet of cars and light trucks. Tesla is up to about 1.3 million per year, and those are not even all in the US. With the entire world passing laws mandating an end to ICE vehicles, competition for lithium resources seems likely to outstrip supplies to the point of halting increases in production at some point soon.

PV panels. With 80% of world production in China, seems like a bad idea to rely on them for our power supply anytime soon. They have gotten less expensive, but still depend on tax credits to sell as well as they do.
And installation is not gonna get any cheaper, and it has long been as expensive as the panels, such that installing an array is at least twice as much as the cost per watt of panels. Wage inflation is rapid at this point, especially for skilled labor. I wonder if there will be a resurgence in the do it yourself abilities of the average American? Seems unlikely.

Science is indeed not linear, but these basic science is not the same as disruptive technology for practical applications.

Most common issue with things that have seemed promising relates to scalability, or so it seems to me.
Biofuels is a good example of that.

I think it is as likely that instead of some big breakthrough, many of the things that have been the focus of recent changes, like wind turbines and solar panels, will lose their luster as, for examples, subsidies lapse, or units which have been installed at great expense wear out, leaving very bad taste in the mouth of whoever paid for them.

I hope I am wrong about all the things I am pessimistic about.
I hope someone announces they have solved fusion and starts selling reactors by Christmas.
Not holding my breathe.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 12, 2022 8:11 am

The International Energy Agencyrecently said that the world faced potential shortages of lithium and cobalt as early as 2025

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
April 12, 2022 1:20 am

You have to put together a quantified scenario to see if its plausible, and then you see that you need not just one out of the list, but several at once, and the chances of that happening in the next ten years (which is what you need, to have a conversion at scale in the next 20 years) are almost zero.

For instance, take EVs. You’ll need both to double PV efficiency AND double battery density AND halve (at least) battery costs if nations are going to be able to move to EVs. And even then you won’t get enough power and storage to make up for the increased demand, you will not even be able to power the existing demand without heavy conventional generation.

Small nuclear? Maybe. Where are the pilot sites, how are they going? Where are the safety reports, the uptime numbers?

As for Algae tower fuel oils! Be serious. We are talking millions of barrels a day for it to have any effect. This is pure fantasy.

Or rather, its something one commonly reads in these debates. Its using the approach of modern literary criticism to an engineering problem which the author is mistaking for thought rigorous enough to guide policy.

April 11, 2022 10:42 am

More proof that we’re being ‘governed’ by idiots.

jeffery p
Reply to  FrozenOhio
April 11, 2022 12:04 pm

Brandon has always been a dim bulb but smart enough to know which way the big money in the party wants to go. Stupid, arrogant and corrupt describe Uncle Joe (the Big Guy) to a tee.

Last edited 2 months ago by jeffery p
Reply to  FrozenOhio
April 11, 2022 2:14 pm

Malicious may be idiotic to some people but it doesn’t stem from the same base source. Bad, but not openly acknowledge by all participants, is more certain that just plain dumb.

Rud Istvan
April 11, 2022 11:05 am

This contradiction figures. EIA is in the Department of Energy, run by Granholm, who knows nothing about Energy and proved an incompetent as Michigan governor. She is proving it again at DoE.

joe x
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 11, 2022 12:24 pm

i’m from michigan and i agree with your message.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 11, 2022 4:31 pm

Yet, the cowardly republicans that controlled the legislative bodies and governor after her did nothing to reverse any of her bad policies.

Dave Fair
April 11, 2022 11:08 am

How is it that a loyal part of the governmental apparatus is allowed to ignore the 30-year decree (six times better than the Soviet Union’s 5-year plans) of our glorious leader Brandon? The Department of Injustice must correct this in short order! Call in the KGB … er … FBI to bring them in line.

Could it be that the EIA believes FJB’s administration is a temporary negative aberration in the United States’ continued economic development based on reliable and inexpensive energy?

April 11, 2022 11:08 am

Add in the current surge in hybrid and EV demand and you will have overshoot in the next AEO release. Volatility is not handled very well in underspecified models.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  ResourceGuy
April 11, 2022 1:35 pm

At this point we are running into big problems with supplies of essential materials that will not be solved quickly.
Lithium is shooting up in price, and I am not seeing where any huge new supplies are about to rapidly come online.
Things are being mandated which the world does not have the supply of to meet.
We will need a sweeping repeal of regulations to even speed up permitting for new mines.
The groups that use the courts and existing regulatory frameworks to stall new projects until the developers just give up, have become very effective at what they do.
We need lithium mining, we need rare earths, we need to start a massive buildout of nuclear power plants.
We have the resources here in the US.
But looking around, I see no indication of movement towards making those things happen.
In fact, just the opposite is going on.
This administration is basically doing the exact opposite of what is required to make their plans a reality.
And there is zero indication Biden’s administration is budging on domestic energy.
Whatever is gonna happen, it is not gonna happen anytime soon, is my outlook on all of this.
I wish and hope I am wrong, but there is what we would like to see, and then there is what is actually happening.

Biden is now pivoting to gun regulations and pretending to care about crime.
Outlawing ghost guns.
The big plan now is to use fear of Trump to gin up votes in November.
IOW, they are not going to address any of the actual things people are pissed off about.

Mark A Luhman
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 2:25 pm

Add in Brandon block access to the largest coper, nickel and Cobol deposit in the US. How that going to work out

Rich Davis
Reply to  Mark A Luhman
April 11, 2022 3:04 pm

Ah Cobol. So much more common in the 80s, almost nobody uses it anymore.

Reply to  Rich Davis
April 11, 2022 3:58 pm

Lol…but Biden is training the coal miners to code in Cobol.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 5:04 pm

We have the resources here in the US.

Resources to do what?

Extracting energy from wind and solar with adequate storage to reliably power the US economy, anything like the present energy intensity, is impossible with current technology. And if there is nothing visible for achieving that now then there will be nothing doing that on a significant scale in 30 years.

USA has twice the energy use per capita of EU but it is also impossible for EU to provide their energy needs from solar and wind plus storage.

The simple fact is that solar and wind plus storage can never power the industrial processes required to produce the energy extractors and storage needed for stable industrial processes. It is a fool’s errand even attempting this with current technology.

Humans would need to create industrial processes that replicate what trees can already do to make sustainable solar extractors. I doubt proposed green hydrogen projects can match what trees can already achieve.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  RickWill
April 12, 2022 5:01 am

Resources to do any thing we choose as a policy goal.
Like a push into building out baseload capacity in nuclear.
There are plenty of people who would be perfectly happy driving an electric car if they were competitive with ICE. Plenty want them even though they are more money.
Running cars on uranium does not sound like an awful idea to me.
At the very least, it takes price pressure of FF and extends supplies.
It is arguable that using nat gas to run cars is wasteful, given it is feedstock for so many things, including fertilizers and polymers.
But we are using nat gas for a large percentage of electricity, so that is exactly what we are doing.
Coal is cheaper than gas at some price point for nat gas, or at least it would be if not for the industry killing regulations meant to choke of the industry.
To keep energy costs low, logically we would do best to use all of our resources in the mix.
There are circumstances where intermittent make sense, in remote areas and such, so as much time as we spend pointing out the problems with them, they are not worthless at all scales and all places.

And finally, resources to increase supply of each of the FF sources we have.
The goal should be price and industry stability, balanced with cost.
In all industries that are involved in getting us the stuff we need to have the civilization we enjoy.

April 11, 2022 11:26 am

In 2050, I will be 100 years old.

Not a single relative of mine anywhere ever, made it past 90.

Realizing this, I don’t care one whit about what happens in 2050. I also realize that no one can predict the future. If they could, the first destination would be at the racetrack placing bets on the exacta.

Reply to  Doonman
April 11, 2022 12:49 pm

Doonman we share birth years and like you I very much doubt I’ll be alive. However before becoming aware of the CAGW scam I did fear for my grandchildren, no more, at least not regarding their well being other than being concerned about how they’ll support themselves when taxes will have to rise substantially in years to come.

Reply to  tomsa
April 11, 2022 4:40 pm

My grandchildren will survive the climate. I’ve never had any doubt about that. What I am sure of is that they will have lower standards of living than I had, all due to political policy. I’m not afraid for them, I’m just sad for them.

Reply to  Doonman
April 11, 2022 1:10 pm

I intend to buy a brand-new ICE car in 2029.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
April 11, 2022 5:35 pm

You had better put your order in early as there is sure to be a rush.

Reply to  Doonman
April 12, 2022 10:26 am

Yup. I will be 120. Let’s get together to celebrate. I’ll bring the beer.

April 11, 2022 11:26 am

There actually isn’t a choice. Global surface temperatures will continue to rise until net greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to zero.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Simon
April 11, 2022 12:04 pm

Global temperatures haven’t risen. Average temperatures have gone up. But maximums haven’t. So the world is not ‘warmer.’ England is not experiencing France’s climate. Virginia is not experiencing Florida’s climate. Canadians are not moving to Hudson Bay for the new beach front property.
Once you understand this, then you will realize that greenhouse gases are not evil and do not need to be reduced.

Reply to  Matt Kiro
April 11, 2022 12:51 pm

Oh darn, and I was hoping not to have to leave the province, so was hoping for that beach house in Churchill where I could watch the polar bears, oh wait a minute guess there won’t be any polar bears there then.

Reply to  tomsa
April 11, 2022 7:43 pm

Are you sure about the polar bears? Here’s one evolving to thrive in that future tropical paradise called Churchill.

comment image

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Matt Kiro
April 12, 2022 5:06 am

Wait a second…are you saying the orange grove I am planting in Saskatchewan may not be the best investment idea?

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Simon
April 11, 2022 12:05 pm

Pssssst, Simon- You might want to read this as it may have been part of the
reason that the global temperature is so stable as it’s been ± ~ 3% (~8.5°C)
for the last 600M yrs. It actually acts counter to all forcings that try to raise
the global temperature beyond a certain temperature but yet allow the earth
to warm if it’s too cold, just like a thermostat! It’s amazing the Team™ & the
MSM haven’t shared this great news with all the cultist True Believers!

Gone are the days of being afraid that “Oh, noes! It’s worse
than we thought. W’ere all going to die!” unless you remain
gullible enough to follow The Team™ over the cliff!!!!

Last edited 2 months ago by Old Man Winter
Reply to  Simon
April 11, 2022 12:07 pm

Please give a link to one proof that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have any or even much effect on global surface temperatures.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Simon
April 11, 2022 12:18 pm

Simon, you so funny!

Reply to  Simon
April 11, 2022 12:58 pm

Simple Simon.

The scientific data, in reality, supports a prediction that a very small warming will happen. However, in most places that will be beneficial. Claim otherwise, and you’re lying (AGAIN).

There’s no evidence that supports the claim that extreme weather will increase dramatically – in fact weather like hurricanes and tornados is more likely to decrease. Adaptation to bad climate effects in the places that will see any are CLEARLY a better approach than freezing and starving millions of people that WILL happen if the brain-dead GangGreen gets its way.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Meab
April 11, 2022 1:10 pm

Scientifically manipulated data you mean?
Here is data that does not support increasing temps going forward:

HADCRUT NH unadjusted and UAH.png
Reply to  Simon
April 11, 2022 1:04 pm

“Global surface temperatures will continue to rise”

Scientifically unsupportable BS. !

Reply to  Simon
April 11, 2022 3:59 pm

Russia colluuuusion clown appears. Geez you are not bright.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Simon
April 11, 2022 6:17 pm

The direct relationship between increasing CO2 and temperature is logarithmic, for every doubling of the CO2 concentration = +1C.

Reply to  Simon
April 11, 2022 10:59 pm

Net zero will never be achieved unless you want to print fake carbon credit paper which is exactly how most companies currently claim net-zero.

Reply to  Simon
April 12, 2022 9:27 am

Surface temperatures rise by hundredths of degrees only after adjustment of past temperatures.

Old Man Winter
April 11, 2022 11:32 am

What’s the status of using high temperature incineration of waste- sans
practical recyclables & hazardous items? It could generate electricity as
well as save the energy used in sending garbage barges half way around the
world. CO2’s plant food & most Green’s emit more CO2 over a weekend
communing with Gaia by lighting a low-temperature fire than their ICE does
on the round-trip. So it’s hypocracy over something that’s irrelevant!

Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 11, 2022 2:22 pm

Complet destruction of alltoxic substances and recycle of all material (at the atomic level) has be technological possible for decades but the energy cost is too high for it to be practical. That means it consumes more energy than it can generate as usable output energy.

Reply to  AndyHce
April 11, 2022 7:29 pm

Let’s ignore the nonsense about recycling all material at the atomic level. You are correct that it has been possible to incinerate waste and decompose all toxics for decades, and it is a net energy benefit in addition to saving the space, land cost, and regulatory compliance costs of sanitary landfills. But the religious environmentalists hate incinerators even more than they hate nuclear power reactors.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Kemaris
April 11, 2022 8:52 pm

Thanks! That’s what I thought.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Old Man Winter
April 12, 2022 10:13 am

Lot’s of places, including SW Florida where I live, have been burning solid waste after separating out recyclables for many years.
Other parts of Florida bury solid waste in large enclosed landfills called bioreactors, which are set up to capture leachate, and also the methane that is produced.
This gas is then used for fuel.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 12, 2022 10:20 am

No one talks about it, no one complains.
It is clean and efficient, and the size of required landfills is minimal.
Everyone gets two large wheeled trash bins.
One is for mixed recyclables, and other for everything else.
Yard waste is collected same day at curbside piles.
Yard waste is converted into mulch and compost.
Mulch is given away for free at scattered sites where a large pile is dumped every day.
Compost must be picked up, and is excellent topsoil and can be used to add organics to gardens and growing beds.
Cost is low, sold by the cubic yard.
Far cheaper than the bagged stuff they sell as topsoil at home stores.

Last edited 2 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
Michael in Dublin
April 11, 2022 11:53 am

These projections are as certain as finding a huge herd of unicorns to provide future transport.

Last edited 2 months ago by Michael in Dublin
John Hultquist
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 11, 2022 12:18 pm

Albert Einstein is reported to have said one unicorn would be sufficient, I don’t need an entire herd. – or something like that –

jeffery p
April 11, 2022 12:00 pm

Side one is sniffing unicorn farts. They are unable to understand basic physical or chemical science or even math (maths for non-Americans).

Side one doesn’t understand the difference between the real world and computer models. Computer models do not output facts or data. A computer model is a hypothesis at best, speculative science-fiction at worst.

Side one believes in imaginary technology. They imagine it, so it must exist. In their minds, we don’t have practical green energy because the powers-that-be are holding everything back to line their pockets with the profits of dirty fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  jeffery p
April 11, 2022 12:51 pm

Perhaps it also indicates that the Side One politicians – entirely ignorant of science and engineering – have faith that we will continue, as in the past, to find that Side Two scientists and engineers will always find a solution to their problems. Such hopefulness can entirely forget such basic matters as natural laws.

Reply to  jeffery p
April 11, 2022 1:07 pm

“Computer models”

There are lots of “simulation” programs available for purchase.. they are called computer GAMES !

Reply to  jeffery p
April 12, 2022 9:30 am

This is what happens when policy makers with art degrees make technical plans.

John Hultquist
April 11, 2022 12:12 pm

 The Climate Cult should have provided workable replacements for coal, oil, and gas before they started their campaigns. Often forgotten is that there are other uses for these things other than moving electrons and vehicles. The various uses compliment the others and is so complex very few have a clue about it. EX: carbon fiber and modern tennis rackets.
Further, “The Climate” doesn’t care.

Reply to  John Hultquist
April 11, 2022 1:11 pm

Compliment “That’s a nice dress”
Complement “It matches your handbag”

Reply to  Leo Smith
April 11, 2022 7:53 pm

That’s fine for you to say, Leo. Now just try convincing my AutoCorrupt program.

It ain’t buyin’ what you’re sellin’.

Reply to  John Hultquist
April 11, 2022 2:24 pm

They did not and do not care about ‘workable replacements’.

Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 12:31 pm

The electorate is going to hold responsible the people who caused the sharp increases in the prices of everything.
Investors will not tolerate money managers who bet on losers.
And future legislatures will not be bound for a second to plans made by their predecessors.
I am not even sure how it is legal for people elected today or yesterday to make plans that will restrict what will be allowed after the politicians who enacted those laws are long gone.

One thing I know for sure, is that polls of generic congressional voting preference have never looked like they do recently.
I am sure these polls are still tilted left by 5 points or more.
The Dems will lose massively in November.
It may be the biggest change in over 100 years.
It may be the largest shift ever.
Hard to predict such a thing, but I am predicting it will be akin to 2010 or 1994.
At least.

Capture 4.PNG
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 12:42 pm

Here is a diagram of the party makeup of the US congress back to the beginning of the present two party system.
Note that there tend to be multidecadal trends in voter preference, and that it has been shifting from D to R for almost 20 years now.
We have not seen in the post WWII period anything like the majorities that used to sometimes be elected, but maybe we will again.
There is right now a list of separate issues that are each causing a large number of voters to change their voting preference from D to R, and I am not seeing much chance of many people going the other way anytime soon.

My most probable scenario is that things are bad by next November, and by 2024 the mood will be like it was in 1968 or 1980.
Conservatives have won some recent local elections in places that have not elected a Republican in many decades.
Between 1916 and 1922, the house went from 65% D to 70% R.
R’s held the House, Senate, and then the White House by huge majorities for the next ten years after 1922:

Capture 5.PNG
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 12:50 pm

Those were the sorts of majorities that can pass constitutional amendments.
Here is an idea for one: All elections for federal offices will be held on election day, with voters required to personally vote at their local polling places. All voters must show valid government issued ID. No Early voting, no voting by mail.
All ballots shall be paper, and shall be retained for the purpose of recounts of settling disputes.
All votes will be tabulated withing 3 hours of the close of the polling station, and all results shall be revealed simultaneously after all votes for each state are counted and ready to be transmitted.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 12:56 pm

Cheaters love have the results dribble in over the course of entire nights and even into the next day.
Notice how in every case of big changes at the end of counting, it is due to a few heavily democratic precincts who do not report until everyone else has sent in results?
Early voting and voting by mail make chain of custody of ballots impossible to keep secure. Voting by mail invites problems of every sort, including vote fraud.
This is exactly why most countries do not allow it.
It was determined to be a terrible idea by a bipartisan election commission in the US over 15 years ago.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 4:51 pm

Never in the course of this country have we ever had “Election months” as we do now. That was all blamed on Covid19.

I think if you are that concerned about “democracy”, you can certainly find the time to make your way to the polls to vote on election day, where the chain of custody of all ballots is preserved.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Doonman
April 11, 2022 5:16 pm

They manage to vote in one day in places where people with no shoes have to walk miles over sharp stones to vote.
Large majorities in both parties and among independent voters support mandatory voter ID.
In many places they stamp your hand after you vote, indelible ink.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 2:17 pm

Nice graphic. Just eyeballing the last 30 years, it looks like the UniParty has been in complete control.

Tom Gasloli
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 1:44 pm

Yes, the Dems will lose control of Congress and then Repubs will do what they always do, nothing. The Dems push to an extreme, lose power, Repubs do nothing, Dems come back into power and push things farther.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Tom Gasloli
April 11, 2022 2:23 pm

The Republicans are the ratchet mechanism. They figure out how to somehow keep the contraption moving, while the Democrats recharge their batteries on Martha’s Vineyard or work on their squash game while teaching grad courses at their favorite prestige university.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
April 11, 2022 4:02 pm

Awe Frank…right on point as always.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
April 11, 2022 4:10 pm

It can be hard to recall the factors that changed how various states voted in national elections, but there have been political realignments about once a generation going back as far as I have studied these elections.
I have a hunch we are near such a cusp right now.
Bunches of states occasionally switch from one party to the other, and this winds up being sticky in major political realignments.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 6:49 pm

Man, I hope you’re right. The mid-terms, at least, ought to be an uncontested layup for the Republicans, since even the perennially progressive suburban wine women are getting fed up with having their kids messed with.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tom Gasloli
April 11, 2022 3:50 pm

Yeah, if nothing changes, then it will be same as it ever was.
However, there are more and more RINOs on the way out.
many are already gone.
Plenty more are not even running for re-election.
Historically, things need to get very messed up before any sort of consensus for sweeping changes occurs.
After Carter, Democrats did not come close to winning a presidential election until they had a candidate who abandoned the baggage that was holding their candidates back (there were several single issue voter issues, and to get the nomination, a Democrat candidate had to endorse some unpopular policies)
And even then, if not for Ross Perot, it seems unlikely Clinton would have won.
2024 seems like it may be ripe for a strong 3rd party candidate who will siphon off a critical number of votes from one party or the other.
It is gonna be interesting to see how the next few years plays out.

In the immediate term, there seem to be more and more reasons to think the Democrats will do something to give Joe/Kamala the heave ho.
Honestly it is hard to imagine what might happen if he stays until January of 2025

Last edited 2 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 4:05 pm

If Trump is not nominated he well might do a 3rd party and hand the Dems an impossible win. That might help get him nominated.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  David Wojick
April 11, 2022 5:18 pm

He leads every poll I have seen by a wide margin.
The big question is, who are the democrats gonna nominate?
Weekend at Bernies was an amusing film, but I think it would make an awful presidential campaign.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 7:40 pm

The Democrat nominee in 2024 will be Kamala Harris. It is simply inconceivable that the person who was president from 2023 to 2024 would not also be the presidential nominee in 2024. Even Gerald Ford was able to run as a sitting president. What is still open for bets is how Kamala will take power. Will she invoke the 25th amendment, or will Hunter’s corruption finally become a pressing issue after this year’s election, “forcing” Senile Joe to resign.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Kemaris
April 12, 2022 5:22 am

She polls lower than Joe.
Not even her own staff have any faith in her.
Many who have written about this feel that it will be untenable to retire Joe while she is in the VP seat.
There are precedents, most recently in the case of Spiro Agnew.
She could be forced to step down, replaced by someone like…Obama?…and then Joe given the 25th vote.

But until he punches out someone or pees on the podium at a press conference, I do not think Joe’s cabinet will be able to bring themselves to do it.

But any such thing will not be accepted by large majorities of voters.
Best case scenario in my hookah smoking caterpillar’s fondest Wonderland pipe dream is, R’s win a huge super majority, elect Trump as Speaker of the House (any citizen can be elected speaker), then Joe and Kamala are impeached by the House, and then tried and removed by the Senate.

Last edited 2 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tom Gasloli
April 11, 2022 7:33 pm

Republicans don’t “do nothing”. They are prevented from doing as much as they would like by either the filibuster in the Senate or by the failure to discipline a few Mavericks (John McCain, for one) who then sell out their avowed principles for a better headline.

jeffery p
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 2:01 pm

Our voters have poor memories. Maybe they will learn something and take it to heart or perhaps they will continue to endorse ridiculous ideas because change.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  jeffery p
April 11, 2022 4:56 pm

I agree that the record of such is less than sterling.
But it does occasionally happen that large numbers of people switch who they vote for and never switch back.
15 years ago, every Democrat I knew was 100% sure that Republicans would never win another election. Then again, they were also sure drill baby drill was dumb because there was not more than a year or twos worth of new oil to be found under the US.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 4:00 pm

It’s the Russian’s fault 😉

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Derg
April 11, 2022 5:20 pm

If only Trump had been tough in Russia like Obama was!

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 5:21 pm

Maybe another reset?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 5:23 pm

Maybe she forgot to double click it.

April 11, 2022 12:34 pm

They see the dramatic increase in crude oil production quickly leveling out. Peal oil production is here? Seems an extreme forecast.

Reply to  David Wojick
April 11, 2022 12:35 pm

Sorry that’s peak not peal. Very strange but perhaps they explain their reasoning.

Reply to  David Wojick
April 11, 2022 1:37 pm

Oil production merely matches prices as the EIA forecasts. Increasing prices will make more production from harder to get resources more profitable.
Tar sands, bituminous deposits all become more profitable to derive petroleum, and there are lots of those available today compared to conventional and even “tight oil.”
And it will be produced, because the world’s population will demand it. And even a Green Germany proved, even coal production will increase.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 11, 2022 5:38 pm

I agree, it will all be dug up and burned.
There will never be a time that is not just like the present: When politicians choke off supply, prices spike massively up, and people get very mad.
If it was only fuel, that would be bad enough, but the price of everything responds to energy prices.

April 11, 2022 12:36 pm

I suppose, if you believe. You need to BELIEVE.

We now have an example of not net zero, but absolute zero energy usage.
All the charts mark the current year, then stabilize in a few years time, with just slight growth to the year 2050. Fine.
So what else is going on?
The southern border has been opened for unrestrained immigration. This year the US is projected to gain an extra 3 million new arrivals. This trend is forecast to continue into the future as far as the eye can see. So it is easy to see that by 2032 we will have increased the population of the US by 30 million people.
Are we really to presume that all these new arrivals will not consume any energy at all? Apparently so. There is no room for it in the EIA projections, which make no allowance for the new arrivals at all.
It make no difference what anybody thinks of the current US immigration policy. Love it – hate it, win, lose, draw. The one thing we should not do is blithely ignore the consequences.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  TonyL
April 11, 2022 1:04 pm

The wall will get built after this administration is out, maybe before.
There have been periods where for decades immigration was barely allowed.
Crap like this is what led to those times.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 2:33 pm

The wall will get built after this administration is out, maybe before.
Sure. The wall will get built in the future, maybe in the far future. maybe in the far distant future. My money is on “not at all”, You may bet differently. We shall see.
There will have to be “comprehensive immigration reform” to secure the border. (Interesting, you break the immigration system so you can claim the need to fix it.)
So what does “comprehensive immigration reform” look like????
1) Blanket amnesty for all current and new arrivals.
2) Secure the border, sometimes in the future.
We have gone with “comprehensive immigration reform” time after time.
The Results:
Blanket amnesty is enacted immediately and with vigor.
Securing the border never seems to happen.

The first blanket amnesty of the modern ere was signed by President Ronald Reagan.
He would call it the greatest mistake of his presidency. Proponents claimed 700,000 immigrants, actual was 7 million. They lied by a factor of 10x.
Blanket amnesties have been granted ever since, always with the promise to “secure the border”.

“There have been periods where for decades immigration was barely allowed.”
Not in my memory. Has to have been before the Reagan presidency.

But the Southern border is not the only venue for illegal immigration. I list a few scams which have been going on for decades. Congress has immigration caps in place, mandated by law. All these scams share the property that incoming aliens are not counted towards the mandated limits when using these exploits.
1) The Work Visa program.
Congress mandated a limit of 80,000 visas. Enter the “corporate visa”. One visa is given to one company who then brings in thousands of immigrants and turns them loose with work permits. Counts as 1 visa.
2) The Student Visa.
Universitys were given the privilege of granting visas. Turns out they were giving the out like candy on Halloween to all comers. Visas were even given out to Iranians, Iraqis, etc. who never set one foot on campus or paid a tuition bill. But they got in country. Eventually the Immigration Dept. challenged the universities about it. Tjhe universities went all outrage, claiming they are not law enforcement. The Immigration Dept. backed down.
3) Family Reunification.
Oh what a horror when families get ripped apart. Like one pioneering member makes their way to the US. The family must be allowed to reunite.
The current masters of Family Reunification are The Republic of the Philippines. Just one legal entry from there produces an avalanche of ~150+ chain migrations under Family Reunification. The whole clan comes over. No wonder families will sell their daughters off. The big fat target for the young ladies are the US sailors on shore leave at the huge naval station at Subic Bay. Get a stupid or naive sailor to marry them, and the whole family and clan is set for life.
4) Ports of Entry.
Imagine coming back from a Caribbean vacation and getting run through the wringer. (Again) Waiting in line for another of those damn custom inspections. See the illegal come up with no passport, no documentation at all, does not speak English. Knows one word, says it over and over again. “Refugee”, refugee” refugee”.
Said “refuge” makes it to the luggage carousel before I do.

Have A Nice Day.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  TonyL
April 11, 2022 3:35 pm

OK, so anything that happened before Reagan, you have no way of knowing about it?
I have chosen not to be so limited.

There was only one “blanket amnesty” passed by congress.
The others were all limited and targeted at specific groups.

Immigration into the US fell in absolute numbers from the 1930s through the 1970s.
By the 1970s, less than 5% of the population was foreign born.
From the 1930s through the 1970s, more people born outside the country were dying than were being replaced by new immigration.

The wall was blocked from most of the time Trump was President.
By the time he was able to figure out how to do it without a vote from congress, construction was proceeding rapidly.
Most of the wall he was able to get built was focused on replacing crappy walls already in place.
The next Republican President will pick up from where it was left off.
Much of the early stages was held up by land acquisition and other preconstruction necessities.
Then a design had to be settled on and contractors hired.
It will be much easier to resume construction that it was to get it started to begin with.
Besides, between now and then, there is gonna be a bad scene, and I expect it will get bad enough that it leaves a very large impression for many years to come.
Texas has been proceeding on their own since last Summer.

OIP (2).jpg
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 4:03 pm

“OK, so anything that happened before Reagan, you have no way of knowing about it?”
That is a bit harsh. Yes I am aware of the 1930s-1960s.
I simply take a look around the situation today.
I observe the atmosphere around immigration in Washington, D.C. I see the motivations, and all the vested interests at work.
I simply concluded that there is no way we are going back to the 1950s or 1960s with immigration policy. The attitudes among the Washington D.C. crowd have changed. The incentives have changed.
Policy has changed.
Your chart says it all.

Good for Texas.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  TonyL
April 11, 2022 5:49 pm

Yeah, you are right, I should not have said that.
The projections for future decades are merely extrapolations.
Nothing happening now locks into place the current situation.
In any case, there is a big difference between an open border where people come in unchecked with no vetting, and an orderly process that is agreed upon in advance.

Attitudes change.
People get fed up.
Elections occasionally have consequences.
Opinions on things like this tend to swing like a pendulum, ponderous at times, and when a mood shifts, it typically goes all the way in the opposite direction.

jeff corbin
April 11, 2022 12:50 pm

The us produces twice as much oil than natural gas but has 20% more proven reserves of natural gas than oil. So it appears that natural gas production could be increased by 120%. This begs the question… why not? We know this is as much a political question as it is a financial question. We also know that the hydrocarbon fuel markets are globalized and colluded. Why more than double NG supply at lower unit prices and lower oil prices and profit especially when they are gleefully high for the Mean Green Liberals and the Global Energy Oligarchs?. Maybe it’s time to use antitrust laws to force competition between NG and oil in the US. The Putin War demonstrates the reality of the world’s dependency on hydrocarbon fuel and how little real impact renewables and e-cars make. CNG cars make an impact, e-cars do not.. People have to pay the higher oil prices, increased prices do not decrease demand in the short run, they only increase supply in the long colluded run and then prices fall especially if we make the Saudi Prince Happy.. Who needs nukes… too expensive and there is plenty of global NG. We shall see in the coming weeks if Turkey’s decision to move the Khashoggi case back to Saudi Arabia makes the Prince happy and OPEC increases oil supply. Remember Biden,2/26/2021declared the Saudi Prince approved the murder of Khashoggi. Now we are quietly back pedaling politically to lower oil prices. The issue about carbon is a red herring without the Holy Grail: The Next Gen Battery. Mum’s the word from the Biden administration about the Khashoggi trail move to Saudi Arabia.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  jeff corbin
April 11, 2022 1:07 pm

Transportation seems to be one bottleneck for gas.
Also entire states have outlawed fracking.
Those resources are counted as reserves (or whatever it is called), but cannot add to production until those laws are repealed.

Gordon A. Dressler
April 11, 2022 1:14 pm

Monty, I believe I’ll take door #2.

April 11, 2022 1:20 pm

There are Black Swans everywhere that we can’t see now, circling, waiting to land and surprise us. And they all tie back to the the Left’s War on Fossil Fuels.

The current run-up in global oil prices (use Brent Crude as a benchmark for energy) and resulting inflation (remember last summer inflation was claimed to be transitory) will LEAD to a deep global recession and inflation of the kind we haven’t seen since the Arab Oil embargo of the 1970’s, back when Global Cooling was the scare du jour. Now it will be amplified by the Left’s War on Fossil Fuels driven by their Climate Religion fervor, acting as a positive feedback loop to amplify the effects, a feedback that wasn’t present in the 1970’s.

The Dem’s War on Fossil Fuels went “hot” when Joe Biden took office last January 2021 and issued his raft of energy-hating EO’s and then began appointing idiot ideologue Democrats throughout the Executive branch to affect this Fossil Fuel War via the regulatory machine of Washington to destroy domestic oil gas, and coal production.

World Oil and gas prices began to rise starting with the Biden Admin. Then Russia’s treasury inflows accelerated through the summer 2021. Putin got the money he needed to run a War on Ukraine he thought would last 3-7 days and survive sanctions. Now all Hell has broken loose on world food markets and synergizing with world energy price increases … and it’s about to get a lot worse by the Fall of 2022.

There are going to conflicts now erupting throughout the world as whole nations go hungry and enter famine, and the resulting mass migrations that will cause to the richer countries that can still afford food.
The foreseeable and inevitable results will be regional Wars, civil unrest, accelerated mass migrations of desperate starving people will land Black Swans that no one can predict the effects that are about to befall the world.

And it all goes back to the Dem’s War on Fossil Fuels and the cascading set of effects and events it has now put in motion across the globe.

Last edited 2 months ago by joelobryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 11, 2022 1:27 pm

There are no “Black Swans” here.
Bright day-glow red ones. Some fluorescent orange ones. All of them honking away like Canada geese. People, media and politicians especially, are working very hard to not notice them.

Reply to  TonyL
April 11, 2022 1:42 pm

Dementia Joe tried to ignore Russia’s impending War on Ukraine…. unitl he couldn’t. Congress and the public, along with his cratering opinion poll numbers, forced the Democrats hand.
Their response, open up the US SPR to the tune of 1 million BBL/day, which will have zero noticeable affect on oil prices.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 11, 2022 4:09 pm

Executive orders to hammer every bit of the energy industry vulnerable to federal interference. Disaster strikes after the policy shift as night followes day.
Plan A: follow up with a useless and ineffectual policy move to satisfy the “Do Something” brigades.
Plan B: None.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 11, 2022 5:55 pm

I think the storage capacity of the SPR needs to increase by a factor of at least 4. Ten would be better.
When oil gets below a certain price, the federal government buys it up, and when it goes above some other price, they sell it.
This would stabilize markets, pay for the expansion in storage and eventually turn a profit.
Most of all, it would tend to support prices at or above the level of profitability for the marginal producers, which would hopefully keep everyone in business and investing capital looking for supply and maintaining adequate production.
If such a plan worked, we could avoid at least some of these crazy price excursions.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 11, 2022 7:27 pm

‘When oil gets below a certain price, the federal government buys it up, and when it goes above some other price, they sell it.’

Sounds like you want the government to replicate a ‘put option’ for the benefit of the producers. Don’t get me wrong (I highly respect oil and gas producers), but going down this road just tells the progressives that the market interventions they happen to favor are also justified.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
April 12, 2022 5:29 am

Consumers love it when the price collapses, but this will always lead to an eventual shortage and what we see now.
Sometimes not as bad, but sometimes worse.
In any case, the SPR is the same size it was several decades ago when, topped off, it was a far larger amount in terms of days of supply.
When prices spike, the SPR has almost always been tapped.
I am proposing to have a larger reserve and use it as part of a plan to have a more rational energy market and stronger energy infrastructure and industry.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 12, 2022 5:34 am

If we had a huge excess SPR capacity, Trump could have filled it up when the price was dirt cheap a few years ago [and even got some of those negative price futures contracts 😉 ].

That would have been good, no?
If our country had a few billion barrels that were bought far lower?
Those low prices, engineered by OPEC+, harmed our energy companies and are at least part of the reason we have lower production numbers now than a few years ago.
(I may be wrong about detail here…happy to debate it)

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 12, 2022 6:01 am

I am not suggesting we have a target price like OPEC did (still does?), but a target range, outside of which action is taken.
Very low prices: Buy
Very high prices: Sell

This is not merely a put for the industry.
Because it also calls for selling if and when prices get way too high.
Market prices are set by futures markets, and traders respond to anticipation of future supply and demand balances or imbalances.
This is why, for example, prices began to shoot up the day after the election of Biden, and still more the minute he cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline.
These events did not have any immediate effect on supply or demand, but they sure did change perceptions and anticipations of what was likely to happen going forward.

Last edited 2 months ago by Nicholas McGinley
Gary Pearse
April 11, 2022 2:12 pm

“Which Side do you think is right?”

I ask myself how (and why) one believes that going forward with an ultra high cost electrical generating technology that people can’t afford and that doesnt work without a yet undiscovered, more costly
technology to duct tape to it so that it might be made to work, is a good idea!

Coeur de Lion
April 11, 2022 2:36 pm

The UK’s parliamentary Public Accounts Committee says amid a lot of other shattering criticism that neither the public nor the Civil Service have the skills to deliver the Net Zero strategy.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
April 12, 2022 8:36 am

Yep Their report says

“The Government has unveiled a plan without answers to key questions of how it will fund the transition to net Zero………….The Government has no reliable estimate of what the process of implementing the net zero policy is likely to cost British consumers, households, businesses and government itself.”

“The Government has no clear plan for how the transition to net Zero will be funded”

“vague performance measures” ” lack of an overall budget” “limited assessment of the cost impact on consumers”

April 11, 2022 2:42 pm

Across the pond, BBC’s news in Bristol featured a wedding cancelled due to a fire on the roof of the sports hall venue.

What was it on the roof that caused the fire 🔥 ? Not mentioned, but the culprit was clear in an aerial photo:

Reply to  Phil Salmon
April 11, 2022 3:00 pm


roof panel fire.jpg
Reply to  Phil Salmon
April 11, 2022 3:13 pm

actually its Woodlands Metro Church at Millennium Square next to the Aquarium.,-2.6006194,271a,35y,44.91t/

But anyone who thinks solar PV at latitude 51 N in cloudy England makes sense needs their head examined.

willem post
April 11, 2022 3:10 pm

These EIA graphs are not in accordance with White House pronouncements.
EIA is tone deaf?
EIA is realistic?
EIA is like protesting the corrupt IPCC Holy Grail, like Martin Luther protesting the corrupt Roman Catholic Church?
What about Net Zero?
WTH is Net-Zero?

With wind and solar, batteries are required, because on low-wind nights, which in New England occur almost EVERY DAY, both wind and solar are zero or near-zero.

Batteries to the rescue?




Battery Systems Losses due to Absorbing Midday Solar Bulges

Those losses are a major battery operating cost almost never mentioned by stakeholders. Those losses certainly are not obvious to lay people

About 219,000 kWh/y is drawn from the grid to absorb midday solar bulges during the year.
This solar electricity experiences a 20% loss as it passes through the battery system, AC-to-AC basis
This solar electricity has a heavily subsidized, all-in cost of about 22 c/kWh, if part of “net-metered program”. See URL

The remaining 182,500 kWh/y is fed to the grid during peak hours of late-afternoon/early-evening, when wholesale prices are about 8 c/kWh

The resulting electricity loss is about 219000 – 182500 = 36,500 kWh/y
The resulting dollar loss is about 219000 x 22 c/kWh – 182500 x 8 c/kWh = $48180 – $14600 = $33,580/y, or 33580/182500 = 18.4 c/kWh of annual throughput

The $33,580 is just one of the annual costs of dealing with midday solar bulges. 
A part of the annual costs for financing, owning and operating the battery system should also be allocated to dealing with midday solar bulges. (See PART 4)

Those costs are definitely not charged to solar system Owners (the grid disturbers) or battery system Owners
A utility likely “takes care of it” by burying it in the next rate increase request to the VT PUC, i.e., that loss is shifted onto ratepayers, taxpayers, and government debts

General Comments
All of the above is well known by the engineers of larger utilities, who proudly own multiple grid-scale battery systems.
Those utilities have the detailed operating and cost data to perform refined analyses. 
They share some of their data with the EIA, on an anonymous basis.
They do not publish the analyses on their websites, or in their reports, or in press releases, because there would likely be major blowback from a better-informed citizenry.
Utilities think it is best to keep things fuzzy, cozy, and happy, with lots of smiling employees, always there to serve you.

Big Bucks are at Stake in the Small State of Vermont
If the “big bucks” are multi-$billion in a small state, just imagine what they would be in a large state.
VELCO wants $2.2 BILLION to upgrade its Vermont HV grid to be ready for EVs, HPs and more Solar and Wind, as part of fighting 1) climate change, 2) global warming, 3) COVID, 4) China, 5) Russia, 6) Anything
GMP, a major Vermont utility, with about 78% of Vermont’s electricity market, owned by Canadian/French investors, likely wants a similar capital infusion for 1) extending/augmenting its distribution grids and 2) building out a state-wide system of EV chargers.
GMP gets its funding, via the VT PUC, the VT-DPS, and the Legislature 

Last edited 2 months ago by willem post
Reply to  willem post
April 11, 2022 3:21 pm

In California, all the BESS’s mandated by California law are plugged into natural gas generating plants so they can be recharged regardless of cloudy days/weather conditions.
Thus BESS’s do not reduce emissions one bit when all the factors of power conversion losses, recharging on natural gas made electricity, and their life cycle emissions related to manufacture, installation, and eventual removal and disposal are accounted for.

Willem post
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 11, 2022 6:57 pm

The California BESS are connected to a distribution grid or a high voltage grid.

They perform various functions during a day, including absorbing the highly subsidized, expensive midday solar output surge, and discharging about 80% of it during peak hours of late-afternoon/early-evening; the other 20% are various system losses.

Sometime in the morning, their charge is low, say 20% full, so they can absorb to about 80% full. See Parts 4 and 5 of my article

Reply to  Willem post
April 11, 2022 10:51 pm

And cloudy days????
They need a CCGT plant to charge them reliably everyday.

Willem post
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 12, 2022 6:24 am

Almost all days there is enough bulge to fill the batteries, even on cloudy days.

However, in New England, panels are often covered with SNOW.

On those days, there is no bulge and the batteries are filled with low-cost night-time electricity, of which 80% is used during peak hours

April 11, 2022 4:25 pm

In 2050, the way the moronic Western world is going, you’ll be all speaking Mandarin and bowing to your overlords the CCP. Look how the CCP treat their own citizens now, Shanghai’s covid starvation lockdown anyone. They will treat you worse than rats, welcome to your dystopian future kids, enjoy.

Chris Nisbet
April 11, 2022 7:33 pm

I suspect they’re not actually too bothered if we actually stop using fossil fuels at all.
They’ll tax fossil fuels as much as we can stand, declare victory over the climate at that point (showing us evidence of the world not overheating) and then find something else to tax.

April 12, 2022 1:26 am

Another fine piece from The Contrarian! Menton for President!

The interesting case study on this issue may turn out to be the UK. The question is whether they will really succeed in banning all sales of ICE cars in 2030 and of oil fired heating boilers in 2025. And if they do, what effects that will have.

I suspect the only effects will be people refusing to buy (or being unable to afford) new cars and boilers, used car prices soaring, average age of cars on the road rising, a great business in refurbishing old oil boilers, and no fall at all in oil/gas demand.

Ireneusz Palmowski
April 12, 2022 5:20 am

Winter temperatures in the western and northern US.
A major snowstorm in North Dakota and Montana.comment image

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
April 12, 2022 7:17 am

I have to take issue with one aspect of the EIA projection: they show Hybrid vehicle sales essentially flat out to 2050 while the battery electric sales increase steadily. I was dismissively skeptical about hybrids when the first Prius came out but I’ve changed my opinion since and have owned one for the past 4 years.

If you care about emissions, the hybrid’s reduced fuel consumption translates directly into lower emissions of all types. Depending on where you live, a pure electric vehicle may just be relocating emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant.

Hybrids require no changes or upgrades to existing infrastructure. The total cost of converting from pure IC vehicles to hybrids is included in the purchase price. A quick check with Edmunds on new Toyotas shows a hybrid costs roughly $1,200-$2,100 more than the comparable IC model. The premium is lower on models where the standard IC engine is a V6. At the US average of 12,000-15,000 miles per year a hybrid owner will make that premium back in two to three years — less if President Brandon continues wrecking domestic oil production.

The premium for a pure battery electric vehicle is substantially higher and doesn’t include all the necessary infrastructure upgrades.

Unlike pure electric vehicles, hybrids require almost no compromise. In my case all I lose is about 2 cu. ft. of trunk space. In exchange I get about 250 miles more range on a full tank. Unless needs include regular towing, there’s nothing a hybrid can’t do as well as the comparable IC model.

All of this means there should be much less buyer resistance for hybrids relative to electric vehicles, especially among apartment dwellers and others who use on-street parking.

So unless new government regulations distort the market, I’m betting sales of hybrids will significantly outpace those of battery electric vehicles.

April 12, 2022 10:23 pm

Such a shame that betting on horse races and craps games (or on anything) has become unfashionable, and that belief in models, predictions, and the media is more important than figuring odds. Advocacy of a position must now be based on religion or political ideology and not on reasoning or on strategy.
A casual observer of history, or of sociology, or of the stock market, would bet that none of those is right.

But an even more casual observer knows that rather than “President Biden leaves no doubt as to where he stands,” he is a dribbling fool of a front man for a criminal organization bent on lining its own pockets. Since no one is apparently ready to remove him from office for his several obvious disqualifications, or to deal with his giggling idiot replacement, the way to bet is this manipulation of the markets and the destruction of the U.S. Constitution and economy is going to continue for a while.

%d bloggers like this: