Denying Access to Energy: The New Normal?

From the CO2 Coalition

by Vijay Jayaraj

Whether it’s a hot Colorado summer or a cold United Kingdom winter, the misery of “green” policies becomes an everyday reality as hapless consumers are denied access to energy. When state lawmakers and energy providers choose to increase “renewable” technologies in their energy mix, the inevitable results are grid instability, power shortages, higher prices and a whole lot of blackout-driven chaos.

Is this the new normal that the governing elites of our world want us to embrace? Then we must accept the denial of a basic necessity in modern society — affordable and available energy.

In Colorado, energy demand peaked on August 30 due to soaring temperatures. The Epoch Times reports that “more than 22,000 Xcel Energy customers in Colorado were greeted with the message ‘energy emergency’ on their smart thermostats, preventing them from reducing the temperature below 78 degrees.”

Xcel said that this affected only customers who signed up for a special rewards program that gives cash incentives to consumers, who are free to opt out of it. While the voluntary nature of the program makes it less than authoritarian, the mindset of our energy masters is unsettling, nonetheless.

The truth is that Xcel’s rationing of energy is not a weather problem, but rather a result of the utility’s embrace of the foolishness of replacing economical and plentiful fossil fuels with so-called renewable energy sources that are ill-suited for making electricity for large populations.

More of the same can be expected, according to The Colorado Sun: “Xcel plans to double its renewable energy generation by 2030. It’ll cost consumers $8 billion to do it. Big new solar and wind projects are planned to get Xcel Energy to 80 percent renewable generation in Colorado.” This will leave millions with unreliable power supplies.

In one recent week in green-obsessed California, natural gas provided most of the state’s demand in the evening hours because its renewables can’t keep up with demand. For those unaware, California “had the 10th-largest increase (48.75 percent) in renewable energy production between 2014 and 2019.” The state received the third most funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for renewable energy from 2004 to 2021, when it received $557.8 million in federal dollars. No state has more incentives and policies geared toward renewables than California, which has 170.

So, what we have is a threat of millions of customers across the country heading toward energy shortages because of their providers’ aversion to fossil fuels and willful blindness to the risks of sacrificing energy security to a faux climate emergency.

But this is not just a U.S. problem. In 2017, citizens in many Chinese provinces were unable to get coal for winter heating because of a policy that required a reduction in use of the fuel. The South China Morning Post reported that “shivering villagers in northern China resorted to burning corn cobs and wood scraps.”  In the UK, insufficient heating in homes for the elderly due to the high cost of energy was linked to excess deaths.

In Africa, the continent’s biggest funder of developmental projects — the African Development Bank — has stopped supporting coal projects that are needed to spur economic growth and alleviate crushing poverty in many countries.

Perhaps most disturbing is that the misbegotten global movement to decarbonize the energy sector is still in its infancy. Given the pain already inflicted on consumers, a fully developed “energy transition” will impose a dearth of energy of unimaginable proportions. In regions like many in Africa, this means that economic growth will be stopped before it starts. In developed countries, citizens will take giant steps backward in lifestyle and some will sink into poverty.

Humankind has made great strides at great costs during the past few centuries to reach the current state of energy abundance that civilization enjoys. Elite policy makers are reversing this progress by denying people the energy they need to prosper and even to survive.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, VA. He holds a masters degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, UK and resides in India.

This commentary was first published at Real Clear Energy September 14, 2022.

4.9 39 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

63 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
dodgy geezer
September 17, 2022 10:30 pm

Denial of energy is nothing. We have been denied safe and effective medicines for Covid, and several countries such as Shri Lanka are being denied food.

We have all watched the denial of democratic input into these decisions, and in many cases people have been thrown out of work for refusing to deny basic truths about gender….

Reply to  dodgy geezer
September 18, 2022 6:06 am

Dystopia – it kills.

Huxley
Reply to  dodgy geezer
September 19, 2022 10:45 am

Relax.

Everything that troubles you is just a matter of perspective — which is why all manner of justification for comprehensive marijuana availability has been so urgently pushed to the masses.

Soma, anyone?

😉

Pete Bonk
September 17, 2022 10:42 pm

Let’s face it, the political elite and the so called Greens want many of us to just go away, permanently. Tell them to bugger off and resist at every turn.

Mike Smith
Reply to  Pete Bonk
September 18, 2022 6:44 am

Not go away. The elites need cheap labor. They want an obedient and compliant workforce with no power or discretion. i.e. legalized slavery.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Pete Bonk
September 18, 2022 6:51 am

Martha’s Vineyard immediately comes to mind.

Steve Case
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 21, 2022 2:48 am

Damn, I’m on an IPad and I bumped the minus (-) on the way to making it plus 13

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Steve Case
September 22, 2022 7:54 am

Bump it again

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Pete Bonk
September 22, 2022 7:57 am

Remember, you can’t fix stupid! I read that somewhere.

John V. Wright
September 17, 2022 11:04 pm

It’s even worse than that here in the U.K. You see, there are not many countries in the world which CAN be self-sufficient in energy. We can – we have huge fields of offshore gas and oil both in the North Sea and off the Falkland Islands in the south Atlantic. And massive shale deposits beneath our feet in central England and elsewhere just begging to be fracked.
But because we are led by bonehead MPs we actually choose NOT to be energy-independent. Yes, that’s right folks we have either discouraged – or in the case of fracking actually BANNED – the development of our own fossil fuel resources in favour of buying it elsewhere in the world.
Our MPs have all refused to read and understand the science, thrown logic to the winds and jumped on the idiotic Green bandwagon.
Here is one fine example. We are officially committed to Net Zero, reducing our CO2 emissions until we are carbon neutral in our daily lives. Net Zero is the endpoint. Not a single journalist has asked the question “Where are we starting from?”. Fairly obvious you would think, to enquire what our nation’s current contribution to global CO2 was before embarking on a CO2 reduction programme. But no, nobody bothered to work it out and, of course, the Government has not told us.
They haven’t told us because the answer is 0.000012%. Yes, that’s right. The UK currently contributes 0.000012% of the world’s manmade CO2 production. And from there we are aiming to go to Net Zero.
No matter who we vote into power, left or right, they are almost all irredeemably stupid people, nodding gormlessly in agreement at the warmist fanatics and not doing their own research. We are truly led by donkeys.

Editor
Reply to  John V. Wright
September 18, 2022 12:30 am

John

Is that figure right? I thought the UK contributed 1% of the worlds man made CO2. Is your figure the percentage of ALL CO2 , 96% of which is natural?

Tonyb

Rich Davis
Reply to  tonyb
September 18, 2022 4:24 am

These are truly stupid talking points, either way. Do you suppose that you can convince a mother that you are going to put only a wee bit of poison in her baby’s bottle? No, you must explain that the vitamins are good for the baby.

CO2 is not pollution. Fossil fuels bring prosperity and long life.

Now, if your argument is “sure CO2 emissions are a problem but I shouldn’t do anything about it because the UK is 68 millions and China is 1426 millions, let them stop first”, then you stand on the moral high ground of the Marianas Trench. If it were truly a problem, then it would truly be a moral imperative to do your part.

You obviously are a bigger part of the “problem” than any random person selected on the streets of Wuhan. Making the case that an arbitrary set of 68 million people contribute less CO2 than a different arbitrary set of people 21 times bigger is a non sequitur. How much would China contribute if their per capita contribution matched the UK?

Making arguments like that is a counterproductive approach. Those who are deluded into believing that CO2 is pollution will never be persuaded and will just say that you are a selfish evil bastard. Their reasoning is not a non sequitur in the context of their false premise.

Editor
Reply to  Rich Davis
September 18, 2022 6:09 am

I was merely correcting what appears to be a mistake. Providing incorrect information does not help anyone.

Looking at the wider picture if people believe co2 to be a problem they need to address those creating the most, not those who if they disappeared tomorrow would make a difference of 1/200th of a degree reduction.

jeffery P
Reply to  Rich Davis
September 18, 2022 1:34 pm

I know CO2 to be harmless in the current concentration and in any “predicted” concentration for this century. The models “tell us” CO2 is going to cause society to collapse. Run the same models with the UK going Net Zero and you’ll see no measurable difference in outcomes. That’s a valid argument. No need to concede anything.

Last edited 10 days ago by jeffery P
Josh
Reply to  Rich Davis
September 18, 2022 11:32 pm

It is perfectly valid to argue that since large country X doesn’t reduce CO2 emmissions neither should we. Assuming CO2 is a problem (I don’t think it is, and quite likely it is more effective to try to argue that it isn’t a problem than it is to argue about what to do with this hypothetical argument) we can either a) spend money reducing CO2 or b) spend money on dealing with the consequences of more CO2 (e.g. build better sea defences etc). Option a) is only an option if global CO2 emmisions are dealt with. Since large country X isn’t cutting emmisions, option a) isn’t an option and we should do b) instead.

H.R.
Reply to  tonyb
September 18, 2022 5:05 am

John V. Wright: “Fairly obvious you would think, to enquire what our nation’s current contribution to global CO2 […]”

Seems to me that he’s calculating UKs contribution to all of the CO2 in the world. That’s how I read it and that’s how the numbers work out.

The UK could turn out the lights and everyone go jump in the ocean tomorrow and the needle on the Global CO2 meter wouldn’t even quiver.

Come to think of it, all of the Covid lockdowns had minimal effect on Global CO2. Even the Guardian had to take a shot at smoothing over the fact that the CO2 PPM numbers from the lockdowns were no different from the decadal average. (But of course, CO2 will roar back with a vengeance).

Atmospheric CO2 levels rise sharply despite Covid-19 lockdowns | Greenhouse gas emissions | The Guardian

It’s kind of a fun read. Cliff’s Notes: Nothing happened, but we can be sure it will get worse.

Editor
Reply to  H.R.
September 18, 2022 6:13 am

That is not what he writes. He explicitly references UK contribution to the worlds manmade CO2 production not ALL of CO2 -including nature. The figure in that context seems incorrect and the danger is that someone will use it in good faith and be told they are incorrect.

michel
Reply to  tonyb
September 18, 2022 8:55 am

Yes, UK does about 450 million tons a year out of a global total of about 37 billion. A bit over 1% of total human emissions.

Maybe he is reckoning the global total of CO2 in the atmosphere and then calculating what the percentage increase of that would be from UK emissions?

H.R.
Reply to  tonyb
September 18, 2022 12:16 pm

It is hard to say, tonyb. michel has another take on it.

If it can be taken 3 ways, there’s probably a 4th way and 3 ways are sufficient to say John V. Wright wasn’t exactly clear about that number.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  H.R.
September 19, 2022 6:29 am

There definitely is another way of looking at it.

Since 2000 the industrial demand for electricity in the UK has fallen by 20%. Some of this is down to improvements in energy use but the vast majority is because the UK, like the EU and US, has outsourced industry particularly to China and, of course, Chinese emissions are rising rapidly.

Last edited 10 days ago by Dave Andrews
william Johnston
Reply to  John V. Wright
September 18, 2022 6:29 am

Sheep led by donkeys.

Richard Page
Reply to  John V. Wright
September 18, 2022 9:06 am

Just to correct one further point in your post – fracking has never been banned in the UK, despite the Labour, Green and Lib Dem parties calling for the government to put a permanent ban in place. The Labour, Lib Dem, Green coalition did make it virtually impossible for fracking to get going and the Tories did their part by encouraging local councils to reject fracking applications but it has never actually been banned and putting the word in capital letters still doesn’t make it true.

Drake
Reply to  Richard Page
September 18, 2022 6:12 pm

And saying it has not been banned when the requirement for the .5 earthquake limitation is not a virtual ban, but a true BAN.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Richard Page
September 19, 2022 3:46 pm

There was a complete moratorium on fracking for gas, which has only just been lifted. It still remains subject to the absurd traffic light rules that require operations to be halted for slight mcro seismic events.

Fracking for geothermal or lithium brine has not been subjected to the same regime. They only have to gal operations if they produce a terror of ML4 or higher, which is something like a 1 in a million or more probability.

Chris Hanley
September 17, 2022 11:08 pm

In Africa, the continent’s biggest funder of developmental projects — the African Development Bank — has stopped supporting coal projects

It cannot necessarily be assumed that the AfDB acts in the interest of all Africans.
For a start around 40% of the voting powers are held by non-African nations including US UK and EU countries and the largest single African voting power is held by Nigeria that relies on oil for 40% of GDP (Wiki), for example from the link:
But while AfDB is now committed to not financing coal, it is still involved in financing other fossil fuel projects. For example, late last year it approved a loan for a heavy fuel oil power plant in Senegal.

Philip CM
September 18, 2022 12:32 am

Serf’s up!

fretslider
September 18, 2022 1:44 am

When we moved into this leaky old Edwardian house we replaced a fireplace that had been covered up. Smart move as it turns out years later. I think we are going to need it….

“”Tory MP begins ‘net zero tour’ to defend green policies Chris Skidmore has urged the new prime minister to resist ‘siren calls’ to row back on green policies.””

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/chris-skidmore-liz-truss-conservative-liverpool-manchester-b2162297.html

What are they on?

Editor
Reply to  fretslider
September 18, 2022 2:02 am

fretslider

Hubris?

fretslider
Reply to  tonyb
September 18, 2022 2:12 am

Given the delusion it could well be ayahuasca, tony

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  fretslider
September 18, 2022 5:22 am

Today’s new knowledge thank you

Redge
Reply to  fretslider
September 18, 2022 3:19 am

A percentage?

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  fretslider
September 22, 2022 8:01 am

Well, as I said earlier on a different post, “You an’t fix stupid”! Problem is, the stupid never quite understand that!

fretslider
September 18, 2022 2:21 am

Sir David King is very upset…

‘[It beggars belief’: Liz Truss energy plan ‘shows government doesn’t understand climate crisis’

Exclusive: Liz Truss and Jacob Rees-Mogg’s energy plans are ‘completely at odds’ with legal climate targets, government’s ex chief scientific advisor has said]. – The Independent

Trebles all round!

Last edited 11 days ago by fretslider
Reply to  fretslider
September 18, 2022 2:52 am

Don’t like (or trust ) Liz Truss & Jacob Rees-Mogg …
but if they upset Sir David King, they can both go on my Xmas list.

Last edited 11 days ago by saveenergy
fretslider
Reply to  saveenergy
September 18, 2022 4:32 am

Anyone in British politics sees no problem with the system

Parliament is the problem, it’s sole concern is maintaining the status quo.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  fretslider
September 18, 2022 5:26 am

The British big two political parties are quite happy to see 60% of the people who voted to get a government they don’t want, as long as they get their share of 10 years in every 20. This may change if the Red Wall shows no sign of reverting back to red

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  fretslider
September 22, 2022 8:04 am

The real problems of the world are ALL because of the governments! In other words, the government IS the problem, but they never see it that way! Sometimes it’s up to the people to make them change their ways! Just sayin…

Reply to  fretslider
September 18, 2022 5:19 am

King Bonnie Prince Charlie is heavily into climate change like Biden!

He will become the King of Climate Craziness.

jeffery P
Reply to  JON P PETERSON
September 18, 2022 1:39 pm

Didn’t Charlie promise to give up his causes?

Barnes Moore
September 18, 2022 3:31 am

Yet this is what is being published by the MSM. Anyone living in California or anywhere else want to comment on this article or on CA’s push to install even more batteries? According to the article:During a critical peak the evening of Sept. 5, when the grid was quickly approaching capacity, California’s batteries provided more power — over 3,360 megawatts — than the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, the state’s largest electric generator, which tops out at 2,250. From 5:45 to 8:45 p.m. on that Monday, when the threats of mandatory blackouts were at their greatest, the state’s batteries pumped 2,000 megawatts or more continuously into the grid — a full three hours of grid-saving power. Batteries provided about 4% of supply during the peak demand, which averted rolling blackouts”. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-09-13/california-electric-grid-batteries-heat-wave-september-2022

Sounds impressive, but were the batteries then drained, and if so, how long does it take to recharge them? Can solar recharge them fully during a single day while also powering the rest of the grid? Can solar do this on a cloudy day in December when there are fewer hours of daylight? How much solar and battery capacity would need to be added to enable this to happen and how much would it cost. Willis has already provided a lot of info here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/17/bright-green-californian-impossibilities/

What the greens are claiming is that the back-up power can be supplied completely by batteries and will point to articles like the LA Times. A claim they have been making for some time now and they point to this event as proof – that batteries providing 4% of the supply averted disaster. So, what happens if you get rid of the other 96% – or whatever amount is being provided by nuclear and fossil fuels?

The other hysterical claim is that all this infrastructure reduces costs because the batteries charge up during the day when solar energy is cheap then discharge at the time when electricity costs as highest, thereby making it all cheaper, but they fail to mention much less explain why CA has among the highest electricity rates in the continental US and still imports much of it’s electricity from other states.

Reply to  Barnes Moore
September 18, 2022 11:19 am

Ya – balance all that ‘extra’ capability consisting of battery cost (and supporting gear, like inverters and charge supervision equiipment) versus cost of nat gas ‘peaker’ plants.

Also, which has the capability for greater reserve capacity – batteries or peaker plants, HAD they installed peaker plants? That last part is the kicker – NO provisions for nat gas powered peaker plants vs the money laid out for big-azz battery plants (I say plants, because, the article is not clear if its many, distributed battery storage plants or a few really big ones.)

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Barnes Moore
September 18, 2022 11:24 am

Great points.
And what happens when you increase demand for electricity by 40% by going from 1% electric cars to entirely electric vehicles?

Problem:
Too much demand and not enough RELIABLE, PEAK supply.

Fake Green solution:
Increase demand. Reduce reliable, peak supply.

2hotel9
September 18, 2022 5:11 am

They are already in poverty, now the leftards’ big plan is to cause mass starvation and outbreaks of disease to eliminate all these black and brown people they have always hated.

griff
September 18, 2022 7:12 am

grid instability, power shortages, higher prices and a whole lot of blackout-driven chaos’?

Nonsense. In the countries with the most renewable energy we do not see grid instability, power shortages or blackout-driven chaos and high prices are down to the cost of natural gas.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
September 18, 2022 9:28 am

Rubbish and delusionary propaganda. Germany, California and other areas with large amounts of renewables have narrowly avoided power outages by transferring power from surrounding states to keep themselves (barely) afloat at huge cost and strain on their electricity grids. You say that increased costs are due to cost of natural gas, true but why? Because renewables are failing to supply enough energy, necessitating the use of gas to cover their inadequacies and renewable energy suppliers are jumping on that bandwagon, matching their prices to LNG prices and raking in record profits while the going is good. So, gas is absolutely needed to cover renewables failure and with a combination of profiteering and refusal to buy Russian gas the prices of electricity is shooting up. Soon either electricity will be priced as a luxury item or states will not have the money to supply electricity in quantity – whichever happens, blackouts and shortages will increase in frequency and duration. Get used to the new normal, Griffy.

Last edited 11 days ago by Richard Page
Bryan A
Reply to  griff
September 18, 2022 9:37 am

WRONG…
High energy prices aren’t down to the cost of natural gas.
You’re putting the Cart before the Horse
Natural Gas prices are Up to the cost of renewable energy.

jeffery P
Reply to  griff
September 18, 2022 1:41 pm

Twaddle and poppycock.

aussiecol
Reply to  griff
September 18, 2022 2:46 pm

Rubbish, in California alone there have been over 20,000 blackout events a year since 2018 and getting worse each year.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  aussiecol
September 22, 2022 8:10 am

It usually pays to ask the people who LIVE in a given area about THEIR experience!

lee riffee
September 18, 2022 7:51 am

What I’d like to know is just how bad things will be allowed to get before people really start fighting back in earnest. And I don’t necessarily mean literally fighting, I mean simply voting en-masse for candidates who don’t push the hard core net zero nonsense. Lawsuits and court battles against the green blight.
However, in some countries I fear it may come to literal fighting and violence…..
I wonder why people haven’t gone bonkers in CA with regards to the eventual ban on affordable cars and trucks, plus the ban on generators and lawn equipment. I don’t know, perhaps because these bans are in the future, years away, people don’t think it will affect them?
But then again, maybe I don’t really want to know how bad things will get…

jeffery P
Reply to  lee riffee
September 18, 2022 1:45 pm

Do voters in the UK have a choice? In the US, the 2 maj9r politicsl parties only different in how much. One is all in for Net Zero, the other wants Net Zero light. Only the insurgent members of the Republican party want to stand firm. The establishment Republicans would rather lose elections than see the insurgents gain power.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  jeffery P
September 19, 2022 6:11 am

In mainland UK all the major political parties – Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National and Plaid Cymru – are signed up to Net Zero and the Climate Change Act. People will vote for parties based on other policies.

TonyG
Reply to  lee riffee
September 19, 2022 8:52 am

“perhaps because these bans are in the future, years away, people don’t think it will affect them?”

Most likely. It’s not immediate so they don’t see the pain, and by the time it actually happens they won’t be able to fix it.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  TonyG
September 22, 2022 8:12 am

Yep, it’s like putting a frog in a pan of cold water, then turning on the heat. By the time they realize the danger, it’s too late!

Mike Maguire
September 18, 2022 11:13 am

Looky here at the proposed solution. Doubling down on exactly what’s caused them to be so reliable energy supply vulnerable and much of the current problems.

European Commission proposes Regulation introducing electricity revenue cap and solidarity contribution of fossil sector
September 15, 2022

https://taxnews.ey.com/news/2022-1382-european-commission-proposes-regulation-introducing-electricity-revenue-cap-and-solidarity-contribution-of-fossil-sector

Again, the Commission proposes that Member State revenues from this contribution are used to finance reduced energy bills for vulnerable households and (energy-intensive) businesses, and to support a faster move to green energy. To that end, it is proposed that a share of the revenue could be allocated towards Member States’ national plans to implement the “RePowerEU” initiative: this is the EU’s plan, announced in May 2022, to reduce reliance on Russian gas and accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/88903/

Old.George
September 18, 2022 12:19 pm

Denial of energy is everything.
Civilization requires energy. Full stop.

jeffery P
September 18, 2022 1:29 pm

When does this become newsworthy. It’s being repressed by the media. Instead of covering energy shortages and rising prices we get bogus climate change stories.

TonyG
Reply to  jeffery P
September 19, 2022 8:54 am

Probably when they start announcing that your daily energy ration is being increased from 90 minutes to 60 minutes.

Bob
September 18, 2022 4:57 pm

Vijay Jayaraj and many others see this as the beginning of a very dark time. It’s true things may get darker but these politicians, bureaucrats, administrators and CEOs have been screwing people over for a while. People will only stand for a limited amount of that kind of mistreatment and disrespect. They are going to step on the wrong toes at some point and it will become personal. Not everybody is as patient and timid as you and I here at WUWT.

roaddog
September 18, 2022 5:17 pm

Colorado is an energy disaster, and the denial of objective reality continues to get increasingly worse. Importing Californians by the planeload only exaggerates the situation.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  roaddog
September 22, 2022 8:17 am

Yes, and sadly Texas, Florida and other Gulf Cost states are starting to FILL UP with the liberals (and, alas, Democrats) who are trying to escape from their former Democrat-controlled paradises, bringing their liberal ‘democratic’ ideas with them! This just spreads the misery around and does nothing to stop the lunacy!

Jtom
September 18, 2022 7:17 pm

There are signs that despite the careful plans of the green cabal, the fates have other ideas. The pain this year looks to be sharp enough to push countries to be as energy self-sufficient as possible. Depending on the country that could be nuclear, gas, oil, or coal. The one thing made clear is that renewables are not close to being ready for prime time, and this has been revealed just before being too late to salvage many of the power plants scheduled for closure..

And nature, God, intelligent-something, or whatever you believe in seems to be giving us time to change our course. This hurricane season was predicted by everyone to be busier than average. It has fizzled. Though a major hurricane may get us yet, we are past the peak of the season, and historical averages for storms now drop significantly daily until the end of the season. Most importantly, there been no hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and we are significantly past the peak season for storms in that region. Imagine the situation we would be in if storms had shut down oil production in the Gulf or damaged refineries on the Gulf Coast.

If this is followed by a very mild European winter, I may have to start going to church again.

Finally, look at Africa. Namibia has spent years looking fruitlessly for oil and gas deposits. They have plenty of sun and wind, so they began constructing a helium producing plant powered by wind and solar to produce hydrogen to feed a new hydrogen electric power plant to open in 2024. You can guess what has happened; they finally discovered oil, lots of it. Their attitude is, green is nice but the world still pays well for oil, so let the drilling begin. An oil and gas conference was held in Senegal. Senegal has discovered a lot of oil; so has Ghana; Uganda has oil, although they have not produced yet. So has Equatorial Guinea, so has Angola, so has Nigeria. Will any (evil colonizing) western power try to tell them they can’t drill? Oil will be around and at reasonable prices for a long time.

Last edited 10 days ago by Jtom
chicago vota
September 19, 2022 9:00 am

The Chinese are laughing the heads off at how successful Russian ad Chinese propaganda has been.

%d bloggers like this: