A Comprehensive Roundup of Official Energy Madness

From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

At this website, I try to give readers a steady flow of the latest instances of official energy madness, the ongoing efforts of our politicians, bureaucrats, academics and journalists to undermine and destroy the energy infrastructure that is the basis for our prosperity and our comfortable lives. But if you just read these examples one by one, however outrageous they may be individually, you can lose track of the overall picture. In the big picture, our government, aided and abetted by academics and journalists, is conducting a full scale war on the energy sector of the economy.

Now comes along a guy named Joseph Toomey, who has published a relatively long piece at RealClearEnergy with the title “Energy Inflation Was By Design.” Toomey is identified as a “career management consultant” in the energy field, and author of a 2014 book with the title “An Unworthy Future,” that critiqued the Obama administration’s energy policies. Other than that, Toomey has not been a regular contributor to the energy policy debates. But he makes up for an extended absence with this comprehensive roundup.

At 35 pages in length, Toomey’s piece is a seemingly endless litany of one intentionally destructive policy after another. Even if you follow this issue regularly, as I do, you can’t help but be astounded when you see the full extent of the destruction organized into one piece. An energy infrastructure built up over a century and more that actually provides reliable and affordable energy to millions of people — a true miracle of human ingenuity! — is being systematically and intentionally attacked and wrecked by ignorant fools who have no idea how difficult the existing system was to create, and equally have no idea how to make something to replace it that might actually work.

The piece begins with the clear proof that this is all completely intentional on the part of the government, and particularly of President Joe Biden. A few direct quotes suffice, like this from a February 2020 rally (“We are going to get rid of fossil fuels. . . . That’s okay. These guys are okay. They want to do the same thing I want to do. They want to phase out fossil fuels, and we’re going to phase out fossil fuels.”) or this from a CNN debate on March 15, 2020 (“No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period. [It] ends.”)

And then the litany of the intentional wreckage begins. It’s way too long to include everything in this one short blog post, but here are some examples of section heading, each of them followed by several paragraphs of details: Canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline; Halting Lease Sales in Alaska’s ANWR; Placing a Moratorium on Drilling on Federal Lands; Rejoining the Paris Climate Accord; Proposing Energy-Inhibiting Budgets; Canceling Oil and Gas Drilling Leases; Initiating Punitive Government Investigations; Restricting Permian Basin Drilling Using Ozone Rules; Imposing Stricter Methane Emissions Rules.

And those are just a few of the better-known examples. But then there are also long sections on some of the lesser-known elements of the war on energy. For example, two sections are devoted to what Toomey calls the “refinery squeeze” — the collection of regulations and incentives that have driven a drop in US refinery capacity by about 5% just since 2020. It seems that multiple refineries have been incentivized to switch from refining petroleum to “biofuels” (i.e., ethanol), which takes their capacity down by some 90%. And then, the process of building a new refinery to replace lost capacity has become almost impossible. Toomey: “Observers cite onerous environmental regulations and permitting red-tape hurdles as the primary reasons for avoiding new refinery permit applications.”

Another section gives examples of some of the many anti-energy zealots that Biden has appointed to infest every corner of the government. The two most prominent are John Kerry, the so-called “Climate Envoy,” and Gina McCarthy, until recently senior White House Climate Advisor. Then there’s John Podesta, who has just replaced McCarthy in that role. But perhaps even more illuminating are Toomey’s discussions of a couple of failed Biden nominees, Saule Omarova for Comptroller of the Currency and Sarah Bloom Raskin for Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve Board. Choice quotes from Omarova include “A lot of the smaller players in that industry are going to probably go bankrupt in short order—at least we want them to go bankrupt if we want to tackle climate change” and “The way we basically get rid of these carbon financiers is we starve them of their source of capital.” Raskin is identified as “a vocal proponent of expanding the statutory mandate of the Federal Reserve to include climate-change considerations in bank-lending practices and risk-management measure” and quoted as saying “Financial regulators must reimagine their own role so that they can play their part in the broader reimagining of the economy.”

Concluding lines:

Assured of the righteousness of that cause, the Biden team has begun paring back the supply of CO2-emitting fossil fuel output today, decades before the multi-exa- joule-producing low-carbon infrastructure is in place, which will presumably act as a substitute. They have driven us into “the energy transition’s looming valley of death” without a compass, a map, or any idea of how to escape.

Meanwhile, the Biden people have spent the last several days begging OPEC for more production, only to have OPEC announce that it is cutting production instead. And this morning, the Wall Street Journal reports that Biden is planning loosening sanctions on Venezuela to permit the importation of more crude from there.

For the full post read here.

4.9 36 votes
Article Rating
112 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
October 7, 2022 6:13 am

It is not a bug, it is a feature.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 7, 2022 6:58 am

A la Intel, an undocumented feature

Dave Yaussy
October 7, 2022 6:19 am

It’s delusional to think that you can simply replace fossil fuels overnight, with nothing to take their place.

But then, the Soviet Union existed for more than 70 years, vainly trying to implement Marxism despite clear evidence that it was not working. People’s ability to delude themselves is stounding and never-ending

Scissor
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 7, 2022 6:49 am

They plan on getting it right this time.

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  Scissor
October 7, 2022 7:09 pm

Hahaha, can I use that? So funny!

H.R.
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 7, 2022 6:58 am

Oh, Marxism worked just fine for the Soviets, Dave. The Polit Bureau members had their nice places in the capital and their dachas in the country. The had special stores that provided all the goodies they could want. They had a car and driver to move them about the country.

So Marxism works just fine, so long as you are just a little bit more equal than everyone else.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 7, 2022 8:10 am

At least the old marxists didn’t mess with critical technology for survival like the neo marxists today.

Brad-DXT
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 7, 2022 9:08 am

Apparently you missed reading about Trofim Lysenko. He contributed to the failure of crops and the starvation of millions in the USSR.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Brad-DXT
October 7, 2022 2:51 pm

I doubt Gary missed that as he’s been here forever. I think the present paradigm of science being used as a political weapon far exceeds any in recent history on a global scale. He might agree.

Spetzer86
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 7, 2022 1:16 pm

Mao’s Great Leap Forward not do it enough for you?

jeffery p
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 7, 2022 8:31 am

Read “The Gulag Archepelligo” and learn about the “wreckers.” “Wreckers” were engineering types who tried to tell the Soviet Komisars “you can’t do that.” When the schemes failed, the ones that tried to warn them were blamed for the inevitable failure.

That’s what we’re dealing with today. If only the deniers would stop protecting Big Oil, we could create the new world green paradise.

Dena
Reply to  jeffery p
October 7, 2022 5:35 pm

Unfortunately we are dealing with the educated elite. They went to college and received a degree so they are smarter and better able to lead. They have never attempted anything and haven’t learned the lesson of caution that failure teaches you. This is the progressive way and they were exactly the same during the progressive era as they are today. Read the writings of Woodrow Wilson and you will find just how truly messed up they are.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Dena
October 8, 2022 9:58 am

You are confusing “educated” with physical understanding of how the world works at the physical level.
Put an arts and drama doctorate in charge of energy production and I’ll guarantee he will accomplish less than a wheeltapper’s apprentice.

‘Feelings” have nothing to to with real world engineering and physics.

TonyG
Reply to  Ken Irwin
October 9, 2022 9:13 am

I think Dena was expressing their own beliefs about themselves.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 7, 2022 9:54 am

The Soviet Union collapsed because its police and soldiers finally refused to kill dissenters. A simplification, but essentially true. The ruling elites were quite happy with the status quo.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 7, 2022 2:36 pm

Biden reminds me of somebody trying to quit cigarettes by not buying any and then bumming them from strangers because he didn’t buy some gum or patches to supply his nicotine habit.

Steve Case
October 7, 2022 6:21 am

Someone here on WUWT recently said about Climate Change policy that no one could be that stupid for this long unless there was some other motive behind their actions. More and more people on these pages are saying that curbing CO2 and other green house gases isn’t the goal, curbing world population or simply a power grab by a billionaires club is behind it.

The duck test, (what does it look like?) confirms that suspicion.

KevinM
Reply to  Steve Case
October 7, 2022 8:03 am

Be careful the world doesn’t shrink too small.
(edit “to” -> “too”)

Last edited 1 month ago by KevinM
AndyHce
Reply to  KevinM
October 7, 2022 4:02 pm

That all eventually work out for Alice. Why not Biden? (because Biden will never wake up)

Thomas
Reply to  Steve Case
October 7, 2022 11:48 am

Who benefits? Russia and China. If they have not been funding the green movement in Western democracies, they are stupid. Russia and China are not stupid.

Drake
Reply to  Thomas
October 7, 2022 4:32 pm

The Ukraine fiasco does not show me that Russia is not stupid.

Richard Page
October 7, 2022 6:23 am

Venezuela can’t increase production without more involvement from the US companies it kicked out – why would they want to go back? Venezuela sells most of it’s oil through Russia, despite sanctions, so where is the incentive to sell to America?
I don’t see that the Biden regime has anything to offer except threats and I’m not sure even they are going to go there.

Smart Rock
Reply to  Richard Page
October 7, 2022 9:23 am

He could of course revisit the XL pipeline, but apparently Venezualan heavy crude doesn’t affect the climate like the stuff from Alberta.

Richard Page
Reply to  Smart Rock
October 7, 2022 10:11 am

Trains are easier to stop than a pipeline.

mikewaite
Reply to  Richard Page
October 7, 2022 11:59 am

Sure? The US Navy had no difficulty with Nordstream2 .

Richard Page
Reply to  mikewaite
October 7, 2022 12:44 pm

Oh stop it. We all know that it was Jacinda Ahearn’s deadly Green Ninja’s that performed the dastardly act to stop Thermageddon!

Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Page
October 7, 2022 3:45 pm

Alternatively, it’s not that far from where Greta lives and we know she has friends who own a boat…

Drake
Reply to  Richard Page
October 7, 2022 4:33 pm

The trains are owned by supporters of the Democrat party.

Richard Page
Reply to  Drake
October 8, 2022 2:08 pm

Warren Buffet’s trains do not carry Canadian oil. Yes, I was bloody surprised to learn that as well.

Brad-DXT
Reply to  Richard Page
October 7, 2022 9:35 am

This is all for show and a stalling tactic. The administration is just putting it out there so they can say that they tried to do something. They think that they can stall this out and people will forget that the U.S. used to be energy independant.

As I understand it, Venezulelan oil requires refinery setup different from what is commonly in place. You think the Biden crime family will allow another refinery to be built?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Brad-DXT
October 7, 2022 10:04 am

They are trying to stall it out until after the midterms.

Brad-DXT
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 7, 2022 12:08 pm

Just like they’re stalling the Hunter prosecution trial.
They’re hoping we forget and/or that there’s enough dems and rinos left to not impeach the big guy.

Richard Page
Reply to  Brad-DXT
October 7, 2022 12:46 pm

What was it Joe said -“No-one f-¥-s with a Biden!” The fix is in.

Brad-DXT
Reply to  Richard Page
October 7, 2022 9:46 pm

Slo Joe isn’t all there. It is unadvisable to take heed of what he says, the Saudis and Putin sure don’t.

The Biden crime family is out of favor and will go down. The sooner the better.

Nick Graves
Reply to  Richard Page
October 8, 2022 2:02 am

I prefer Barack H Obama’s quote. Looks like he was right about that.

Mark Krebs
Reply to  Nick Graves
October 8, 2022 8:10 am

Yep.. Biden is the anti-Midas. Everything he touches turns to $h!+

Mason
Reply to  Richard Page
October 7, 2022 12:12 pm

Chevron wants to go back.

strativarius
October 7, 2022 7:14 am

“A Comprehensive Roundup of Official Energy Madness”

Well, I don’t know about you but the UK is screwed. Despite the rhetoric.

“Ramping up North Sea oil and gas is not a short-term solution to Europe’s reliance on Russian supplies, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-60692928

She is oblivious to Scotland’s economic position?

“Scottish public spending deficit doubles”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58256028

Phew, there’s always the Barnett formula to bail them out….

Spending per capita 2021

Scotland: £14,842 (11% above the UK average)
Wales: £14,222 (6% above the UK average)
Northern Ireland £15,357 (14% above the UK average).
England  £13,166 (2% below the UK average)

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04033/

Scottish independence – now!

Last edited 1 month ago by strativarius
KevinM
Reply to  strativarius
October 7, 2022 8:06 am

Clarify. “above the UK average” Average what? Spend, earn, disposable income, net, gross, public, private? And wht is UK’s the benchmark?


Last edited 1 month ago by KevinM
Chris Foskett
Reply to  KevinM
October 7, 2022 9:15 am

That’s taxes handed back to citizens as benefits.

jeffery p
Reply to  strativarius
October 7, 2022 8:34 am

I agree, ramping up North Sea oil and gas is not a short term solution.

Dave Fair
Reply to  jeffery p
October 7, 2022 10:01 am

But an unequivocable government-wide commitment to do so would affect markets favorably. Good luck with that any time soon. It will take the coming disaster to change governmental practices.

jeffery p
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 7, 2022 10:44 am

Yes, the markets would respond favorably in anticipation of greater supply. For those who are contemporary economics majors, this means the price goes down.

John Oliver
October 7, 2022 7:44 am

I sold off most of my small business a few years ago but kept a few customers in the list for some extra retirement money and just to keep my options open, glad I did.

The customers I kept I know well from years of servicing their various (alternative heating systems) i also pretty much know who supports what politically. Several of my more liberal customers have been complaining about the price wood or pellets (or just everything!) I feel like saying: “well this is what you ask for when you voted for your candidate, they even told you exactly what they were going to do.”
They all also hate Trump and really all conservative politicians so much that they will still go right back out and vote for liberal Dems again!

Dave Fair
Reply to  John Oliver
October 7, 2022 10:02 am

Until they are hurt badly enough.

Thomas
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 7, 2022 11:51 am

Which might be too late.

AndyHce
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 7, 2022 4:07 pm

Even then for a large number of them.

Mark Krebs
Reply to  John Oliver
October 8, 2022 8:12 am

The Bible refers to that as “returning to their vomit.”

Gary Pearse
October 7, 2022 7:57 am

“They have driven us into “the energy transition’s looming valley of death” without a compass, a map, or any idea of how to escape.”

It’s amazing to me and horrific how relatively calmly everyone is plodding along, already entering the baked-in “Valley of Death” prepared for us by high priests of the WEF/UN, carried out by the weakest and dullest crop of heads of state ever, and enabled by useful fool talentless climate scientists and charlatan news media. The modern Pol Pot is0

I’m reminded of the observation of a very bright friend who got a job at an abattoir to earn his tuition to a university. He said the cattle calmly walked into the abattoir and died without fuss, but the sheep were milling around, nervous, bleating loudly and were difficult to drive in. They seemed to know their fate. I’d like to see a bit more milling around at this stage.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 7, 2022 8:24 am

In the intelligence stakes sheep are dark horses. A lot brighter than people think.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 7, 2022 9:18 am

I had a mixed farm while raising a large family, big garden, 40 sheep, 8 pigs, dairy cow (and calf raised for beef), chickens, ducks, geese… getting sheep into the barn for the season in an Ontario, Canada early winter was a frustrating chore even with oats as bait.

DonM
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 7, 2022 9:09 am

Seemed to me that about 1 out of 100 of the cattle did not like the concept. Some fought like hell; one poor guy took a half an hour to kill. (If I were in charge of the whole thing, and had the resources, those 1 in 100 would be shed back out the field).

Sheep don’t like to be told what to do, regardless of the outcome. So, I never did associate their ‘nervousness’ with their specific current situation.

Last edited 1 month ago by DonM
Gary Pearse
Reply to  DonM
October 10, 2022 2:47 pm

Don, the Soviet Union had a very low percentage of dissidents (the ones that lived anyway) and they were the first link in the chain that cracked and finally led to collapse, and I often think that although the study that estimated 97% of scientists being all-in with “The Science” of Global Warming is bogus, it may be true of the population as a whole (3% dissidents). Given the anger and calling for locking us up for blocking the multitudes from realizing their “dreams”, I take courage with such a number. We seem to have a disproportionate affect. Gandhi was an example. He basically took down the British/European Empire (eventually).

KevinM
October 7, 2022 8:01 am

I listened to an older Freakonomics podcast about nuclear energy this morning. Is anyone here against more Nuclear plants? I don’t want to stigmatize any individual, I’m just curious.

Chris Foskett
Reply to  KevinM
October 7, 2022 9:22 am

Nuclear is the only realistic alternative to coal and gas powered electricity generation. There is a move in the UK to develop small modular nuclear generators, similar to those used in submarines, to provide a relative cheaper option to the large installations that are taking far longer to build than was anticipated.
BTW, where is all the research on thorium, outside of China?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Chris Foskett
October 7, 2022 11:05 am

Nuclear is fine for baseline power generation, but natural gas power generation is still needed to respond to changes unload.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Chris Foskett
October 10, 2022 2:58 pm

Canada had a molten salt reactor at Chalk River, Ontario before 1950 and it was shut down ~1995. Oakridge built one in the mid 1950s and demonstrated it. It was shut down in the early 1960s because the Atomic Energy Agency wanted ones that produced plutonium. They showed you could feed it nuclear waste from the U235 reactors. India and China are copying this tech

Dena
Reply to  KevinM
October 7, 2022 5:42 pm

I would guess Griff however he makes a point of seeing how many minus points he can earn with a single post in a thread. Sometimes he can rack up some impressive numbers.

Gary Pearse
October 7, 2022 8:06 am

[Mods] would appreciate early reviewal of my comment. It is apropos and the offending word is quoted from the article.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 7, 2022 9:20 am

[Thnx]

Larry Sprague
October 7, 2022 8:40 am

I posted this the elsewhere but would be interested in any comments as to the accuracy.

  No matter how cheap the cost of the generation of electricity by the renewables wind and solar, the use of wind and solar power will result in an increase in our electrical costs. The reason is because wind and solar power generation are unreliable and must be backed up 100 percent by an on-demand system. The cost of the on-demand power generation and transmission lines must be paid for regardless of the amount of renewable power used. If a power company needs $100 million to pay for the fixed costs of the generation facilities and transmission lines, it needs $100 million in revenue regardless of the percentage of power generated by renewables. If renewables generate 30 percent of the power, rates for the electricity provided by the on-demand power generation must go up, because the fixed costs of $100 million must be paid for. Renewables can only add to the capital costs (and expense) of generating electricity because the renewables add nothing to the on-demand supply of power and thus their capital costs are an added burden on the cost structure. While wind and solar may be “free”, the capital costs (and maintenance costs) are not and the fixed costs of the on-demand system must also be fully covered.  
  
The only way that the renewables make economic sense is if they produce both enough electricity and produce it so cheaply that they can pay for their own capital costs plus the capital cost of the on-demand plants. Thus if renewables generate 30% of the power, their revenue must cover 30% of the fixed costs of the on-demand generation as well as their own capital costs.
  
This is not just theoretical. We have a real world example in Germany which has gone in a big way in the use of wind and solar to power their grid. Prices have not declined with the increased use of renewables and in fact are approximately three times what they are in the United States (13 cents/KWh (cheapest US) vs. 44 cents per KWh (Germany)). This resultant higher price level is based on the inherent economics of wind and solar power. Germany’s higher costs are not due to them not “doing it right” and in fact are due to the inherent unreliability of solar and wind.
 
 In very broad terms, the three components of delivering electricity to a customer – power plant, fuel and transmission – each costs approximately a third of the total cost. This means that, broadly speaking, two-thirds of the costs of providing power are fixed and must be paid for whether or not the power plant is used. If a homeowner has solar panels on his roof and is able to generate all of the power he needs during the day, the full capital costs of the on- demand generating plant and transmission lines must still be paid for. One might argue that the electricity generated by the solar panel allowed the power company to avoid the fuel costs, but that is not helpful because unless the power company generates and sells electricity it is unable to generate the revenue to pay for the $100 million in fixed costs. Unless the homeowner is completely “off the grid” and is never part of the power company’s demand load, solar power only adds to the total cost structure, and hence adds to the total cost of the electrical power system. The homeowner may pay less, but the system’s costs are higher. 

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Larry Sprague
October 7, 2022 9:28 am

You are right. Unreliables are intermittent and need reliable back up constantly available for immediate use when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. Here in the UK demand for electricity has been going down (industrial demand has declined 20% since 2000 as more industry is out sourced to China etc) but capacity has had to increase by over 20GW.

The intermittency of unreliables effectively makes all generation intermittent. This has a drastic effect on gas generation as it means the recovery of fixed and capital costs for the gas producer takes longer and is more uncertain and also that gas can only be provided to the gas power stations on demand with the gas supplier not knowing when it will be required. This forces the cost of the gas up and stops the gas power station from taking up long term contracts for supply.

The more unreliables there are the more all these costs rise.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Larry Sprague
October 7, 2022 10:11 am

That is why I’m LMAO all the way to the bank: The other power consumers on the grid are subsidizing the costs of my rooftop solar installation. Thank you, fools.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 7, 2022 11:40 am

Those “fools” didn’t get a choice in the matter. You better keep your smug better concealed before you suddenly find yourself tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail (a fate usually reserved for those short-sighted enough to attempt to fool around with another man’s wife).

Dave Fair
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
October 7, 2022 8:55 pm

They are fools: 1) They voted in the Leftists that gave us portfolio standards, other mandates, ruinables subsidies and the insane rooftop solar subsidies; and 2) They didn’t take advantage of the other fools and get on the Leftist gravy train.

Just for you and others that might want to manhandle me; I am armed, trained and dangerous.

Mark Krebs
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 8, 2022 8:16 am

Shame on you for exploiting the mentally handicapped.

Richard Page
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 8, 2022 2:12 pm

I wouldn’t want to ‘manhandle’ you, Dave, the very idea. Not when you’re vulnerable to bricks thrown onto your roof, anyway! Hehe.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Richard Page
October 8, 2022 3:38 pm

Bricks come in, lead goes out.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 7, 2022 2:55 pm

So you are happy that the rich, who can afford such things, are being subsidised by the poor, who cannot? It’s the same with EVs.

The poor get no choice, but to have their wealth stolen from them by greedy, selfish bounders such as you describe yourself.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 7, 2022 9:01 pm

They voted for it. People get what they want from the government and they get it good and hard.

Ziggy, exactly what was it I said that described myself as a greedy, selfish bounder? Tell me that you wouldn’t bend over to pick up a $100 bill on the ground. That is in essence what the NV Leftist politicians did.

Leslie MacMillan
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 8, 2022 8:29 am

I’m surprised by the negative reaction you are getting here. You are following the incentives that foolish people voted for and you are pointing out why they are fools for having done so. I’m sure you are reasonable enough to accept that your subsidies will end once non-fool’s like yourself gain the upper hand. Meantime, good on ya.

Leslie MacMillan
Reply to  Leslie MacMillan
October 8, 2022 8:32 am

*fools, not fool’s
Auto-correct sprinkle’s random apostrophe’s.

AndyHce
Reply to  Larry Sprague
October 7, 2022 4:19 pm

Unreliable generation also needs stabilization, DC to AC conversion, and, often, extensive additional transmission facilities relative to rational generation types. None of those are cheap.

Gregory Woods
October 7, 2022 8:44 am

Traitor Joe at work…

Dave Fair
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 7, 2022 10:13 am

Nice wordplay, Gregory.

Smart Rock
October 7, 2022 9:01 am

In some ways, we should thank that demented Russian autocrat attacking an adjacent country. It has led directly to the current energy shortage; it’s brought the consequences of “climate action” to the attention of just about everyone in the developed world, and there are signs — at least in the UK — that some traces of sanity may appear in public policy.

If the Ukraine thing hadn’t happened, it might have been years before the energy crisis appeared, and we would have been that much further into the Valley Of No Return, that much harder to get out of it.

OTOH, the western response to the Ukraine thing might end up destroying everything, making the “climate” issue moot. At least, during the Cuban missile crisis, the leaders of the US and the USSR were relatively sane; that’s certainly not the case now. Brinkmanship is at unprecedented levels, and not many folk seem to realise this or appreciate where it could lead. It makes you wonder if it could actually be part of a bigger strategy.

Richard Page
Reply to  Smart Rock
October 7, 2022 10:15 am

Certainly the nordstream sabotage could be used to widen the conflict and pull the EU in on Ukraine’s side but only the insane or suicidally desperate would want to do something like that.

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  Richard Page
October 7, 2022 7:24 pm

Hey! There’s no need to bring Hunter and Brandon into this! /sarc

Reply to  Smart Rock
October 7, 2022 11:02 am

 “we should thank that demented Russian autocrat attacking an adjacent country. It has led directly to the current energy shortage; “

The Russian attack on Ukraine is expensive, so higher corporate tax income from Russian companies that export natural gas to the EU, such as Gazprom, are wanted by the Russian government.

It was the harsh EU economic sanctions on Russia that led to the Russia – EU political war over natural gas. Putin versus EU leaders. Gazprom wanted to sell as much gas as possible to Europe. And EU customers would prefer to buy cheaper pipeline gas from Russia rather than more expensive LNG arriving by ships. But there is a political war interfering with that trade.

Gazprom has already lost half their gas sales to Europe. There is no way any Russian energy company benefits from EU nations cutting down their imports from Russia. Russia does not benefit. The EU nations do not benefit. This is a situation where it appears that everyone loses!

Germany and the UK were heading toward an energy shortage caused by their Nut Zero policies. The 2022 political war over natural gas just accelerated what was already happening.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Gary Pearse
Reply to  Smart Rock
October 7, 2022 11:19 am

The fossil fuel industry was already a couple of years into destruction by Western neomarxist elitists before Putin invaded. I’m sure Putin weighed his decision taking all the factors into account. He faced a crop of the stupidest Western world leaders ever put together, all working assiduously toward self destruction. He new their airy fairy energy plan (feelings?) was a loser and basically told them so while trying to negotiate long term gas contracts at a 10th of today’s prices. (Remember Russia’s Academy of Science climate model is the only one tracking observed global temperatures, and they built the world’s largest icebreakers while we pray for global warming to break the ice)

EU turned the contracts down. The Western “Policy-Caused” harm done to the fuels industry began to bite hard as economies rose in their post-Covid recovery. Oil, gas and coal prices shot up.
Back-up natural gas needed to make renewables ‘work’ made already expensive renewable-burdened grid power double and redouble in price and even high prices didn’t motivate investment in new supply (rules, regs, activist investment institutions,…).

Yeah, Putin was presented with an irresistible scenario. Achieve strategic objectives in Ukraine with Europe and America committed to
self-impoverishment and having no appetite for boots on the ground, capitalize on windfall profits for gas, oil, farm produce metals for years into the future, replace the dollar as the medium for international trade (this, too, was a gift from the West in their monetary sanctions – like everything they do, the unintended consequences are the elephant in the room). Putin did a favor bringing the whole Western Policy-Caused disaster to a head, and he was rewarded handsomely for it.

AndyHce
Reply to  Smart Rock
October 7, 2022 4:26 pm

it’s brought the consequences of “climate action” to the attention of just about everyone in the developed world

It seems to me that the great majority of believers, which means a large fraction of voters, fully believe the narrative and will continue to agitate for more of the same, regardless of real world consequences.

Garboard
October 7, 2022 9:07 am

Hard to imagine doddering old joe Biden meeting with young vigorous vicious MBS , trying to negotiate while suffering from destinesia – whenever he gets somewhere he can’t remember what he came there for

Garboard
Reply to  Garboard
October 7, 2022 9:09 am

Would make a good SNL skit if they dared

Carlo, Monte
October 7, 2022 9:16 am

Battery cars and floods don’t mix, the flood water shorts out individual batteries which then heat up and cause lithium fires:

https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2022/10/06/oops-electric-vehicles-are-exploding-after-water-damage-from-hurricane-ian-n638942

roaddog
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 8, 2022 1:21 am

Everything is getting better and better, each and every day.

Mark Krebs
Reply to  roaddog
October 8, 2022 8:20 am

Isn’t that a quote from Kevin Costner in his movie “The Postman?”

I guess that once you’ve totaled society, the only direction is up.

John the Econ
October 7, 2022 9:16 am

I try to tell Progressives that they literally voted for this. The price America is paying to get rid of the bad orange man.

Wondering Aloud
October 7, 2022 9:20 am

If they honestly believed CO2 was a problem wouldn’t they have been building nuclear and geothermal power plants for the last 30 years?

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Wondering Aloud
October 7, 2022 11:17 am

Greens aren’t “pro-green”, but “anti-establishment”. They hate
us cuz we stand in their way of power. While they usually Will
take a position opposite to ours, they can take any position
they want to as long as it gains more PR points than it loses.
That’s why Greens aren’t bound by rational thinking & can do
things that make no sense at all!

John Hultquist
October 7, 2022 9:36 am

Regarding the image at the top: Who, What, Where, When?

AndyHce
Reply to  John Hultquist
October 7, 2022 5:07 pm

Take this as a hint:
https://youtu.be/ZCKdPhepB1s

Graemethecat
Reply to  AndyHce
October 8, 2022 1:03 pm

For some reason I find these AI-generated images absolutely horrifying.

Mike Maguire
October 7, 2022 10:33 am

“the “refinery squeeze” — the collection of regulations and incentives that have driven a drop in US refinery capacity by about 5% just since 2020”

The amount of heating oil in storage right now is the lowest in history(going back to 1982) for the end of September, just a tad lower than 1996 at this time. This is going into the Winter. The Northeast uses most of the heating oil in the United States.
This is extremely poor planning which WILL cause people in the Northeast to pay very high residential heating prices this Winter and potentially lead to shortages if we have a cold Winter.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/88558/#89539

Screenshot 2022-10-07 at 12-15-09 Weekly U.S. Ending Stocks of Distillate Fuel Oil (Thousand Barrels).png
Mike Maguire
Reply to  Mike Maguire
October 7, 2022 11:02 am

Here’s a better graph to show how low heating oil inventory is right now:

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/marketreview/petproducts.php

Screenshot 2022-10-07 at 12-56-27 Short-Term Energy Outlook - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).png
Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Mike Maguire
October 7, 2022 11:12 am

It will be blamed on the greedy oil companies.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 7, 2022 4:08 pm

Jim,
Yes, on greedy oil companies or, the favorite target to blame in 2022 is Putin:
From the link above:
“Western sanctions against Russia’s petroleum product exports following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February have been a major driver of global distillate markets and subsequent inventory draws this year.”

However, it you look at the graph, heating oil inventory was already well below the lowest level of the previous 5 years. Looking at the actual data, tells us that 2014 was the last time inventory was this low in February.

One thing they will NEVER do is take responsibility for the bad energy policies leading up to these supply crisis’s that are increasing as the fake green energy scheme’s are imposed with more gusto.
And there never was any doubt this would happen in the minds of many of us.

Fairy tale/manufactured green energy schemes/promises based on crony capitalism and politics that depart from the indisputable laws of energy in the real world but never have to be proven before they are imposed………..will ALWAYS fail.

Here’s why they got so far.

They’ve convinced people in a fake climate crisis (during this authentic, scientific climate optimum for life on the greening planet). People WANT to believe in actions that will save our planet.
Wind power, which is the 1 form of energy that can truly be described as being from environmental hell……is being presented as a green energy saving the planet.

And people believe it because they want to believe in things that will save the planet.

Twenty-Five Industrial Wind Energy Deceptions
https://www.masterresource.org/droz-john-awed/25-industrial-wind-energy-deceptions/

Green Energy Scores a 76X ROI for Their Lobbying Efforts

https://www.transparencyusa.org/article/green-energy-lobby-roi

The cost to completely electrify and get rid of fossil fuels is at least $433 trillion.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-1-14-calculating-the-full-costs-of-electrifying-everything-using-only-wind-solar-and-batteries

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 7, 2022 4:20 pm

Ironically, wind turbines are wrecking the planet and fossil fuels are greening the planet up as well as massively increasing food for animals and humans (without them over a billion people would starve within 3 years).

Old Man Winter
October 7, 2022 10:36 am

“In light of the challenges ahead, De Croo stressed the need to “support
each other in these difficult times.”

A month after making this statement, he shut down a 1 GW nuclear reactor,
10% of their generating output. What Belgians don’t need is an enemy
from within who betrays them while feigning empathy about a situation he’s
causing!

https://realclimatescience.com/2022/10/support-each-other-in-these-difficult-times/

Belghard.jpg
Last edited 1 month ago by Old Man Winter
Beta Blocker
Reply to  Old Man Winter
October 7, 2022 4:20 pm

The nuclear fuel needed to keep the reactor operating beyond its planned closure date had to have been ordered three years ago. Long-term plant maintenance and system upgrade tasks necessary to ensure the plant could operate safely beyond 2023 were probably cancelled three or more years ago as part of Belgium’s planned nuclear phase out.

Even keeping the plant on temporary stand-by isn’t an option at this point, because the plant could not be safely operated unless it was refueled.

Here in the US, efforts to keep Diablo Canyon open beyond 2025 face similar issues. IMHO, the permanent closure of Diablo Canyon is pretty much a done deal at this point. California will face the same problem as Belgium, how to get by without the nuclear-generated electricity which is readily available today.

markl
October 7, 2022 10:43 am

What better way to defeat Capitalism than destroy the productivity that makes it work? The Marxists have slowly and methodically executed their plan for dominance. Successful? I think they bit off more than they can chew. People are not willing to go back a century in their lifestyle for an unproven theory. You can lie about catastrophe in the future but when the cure is worse than the disease people take notice.

Reply to  markl
October 7, 2022 11:14 am

“What better way to defeat Capitalism than destroy the productivity that makes it work?”

And the Biden Administration obviously wants to cause as much chaos as possible with decision after decision that hurts the United States. From the energy “transition” to open borders. The decisions only make sense if you understand the Cloward-Piven Strategy for fundamentally transforming a nation.

Cloward–Piven strategy – Wikipedia

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Petit_Barde
October 7, 2022 11:33 am

It’s all about Malthusian psychopaths who – based on disproven pseudo-science – want to depopulate the planet since decades. See the Meadows report of the Club de Rome (1972), the “sustainability concept” (Maurice Strong 1987), the UN agenda 21 (1997?) (exposed by Rosa Koire 10 years ago), etc.

Depriving a population of energy is a great (and rapid) way to cull it.

Never was about climate science anyway.

Last edited 1 month ago by Petit-Barde
HotScot
October 7, 2022 11:48 am

We have achieved ‘optimum flip’.

That point at which the world recognises it is heading down the wrong path in terms of energy.

No one knows what to do, politicians are a decade behind in ‘flip recognition’ (as usual) but it’s undoubtedly happening.

The public in the northern hemisphere are about to recognise they are being deprived of the worlds most valuable commodity, cheap, reliable energy.

The Powers That Be are in a tizz. Russia and China are laughing at the west, and some are reaching the conclusion that the threat is not from them, but from within.

China is now where America was when WW2 broke out, the most powerful industrial nation in the world. Best make friends with them than replicate the mistake Yamamoto allegedly pointed out “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve”.

We either adapt or perish.

Bob
October 7, 2022 1:32 pm

These are all terrible people.

Alasdair
October 7, 2022 3:36 pm

This seems to be very USA orientated. Not a criticism but leaves out examples of disastrous policies in other countries. (Eg: Fracking prevention here in the U.K.)

It is Global thing which IMO stems from the setting up of The IPCC as an acolyte of the UN. There was no Climate Crisis before this happened.

The IPCC stands for ‘INTERGOVERNMENTAL Panel for Climate Change’ which removes any ideas that it is a scientific Institution. NO it is highly Political and Marxist to boot having been well infiltrated by these covert activists over the years. (Witness some of the ‘off the cuff’ comments of those at the top of the hierarchy ).

In this context the Biden Administration is merely following this Leftwing/Marxist route along with the Mantra that “The End Justifies The Means” which removes matters of honesty and
ethical considerations from the decision making.

To be fair, many on the Leftwing have little idea of what they are actually involved with here, and think mainly with the touchy-feely side of their brains in all innocence. They would be horrified by any suggestion that they had been manipulated, duped, or otherwise brainwashed etc. by the Chinese Communist Party.

I am no expert but do reckon I learnt a great deal about the way the Communist mind works, during my time in Liverpool (U.K.) around the late 60s to early 70s in the the days of Trotsky political situation there at the time. I was running a smallEngineering business at the time and was also a chairman of a small Youth Club for by sins so got both sides of the picture.

I see it all now when I look at the behaviour of the UN, it’s tentacles and it’s acolytes. Otherwise how do you explain the organised fiasco of outright lies and misinformation which emanate from these dreadful COP# events?

Geoff Sherrington
October 7, 2022 5:04 pm

Upthread, John Oliver noted “They all also hate Trump and really all conservative politicians so much that they will still go right back out and vote for liberal Dems again”
As an onlooker from Australia, a country still very close to the US in friendship, I am fairly certain that it is vital for Donald Trump to stand again for POTUS. If he does, he will win. That will be the show of confidence that is needed to finally convince the average US voter that something was horribly wrong with the Dems.
In the last Australian federal election, the Conservatives lost because they failed to grasp the nettle and speak the truth about climate change by getting out of the UN Paris agreement. Australia’s economy is strongly assisted by exports of coal and gas that need to be protected from the woke. Our Conservatives failed in their duty, so now we have the near-Communist alternative prancing around on the public stage like little girls in tutus, singing about ESG and so on, when we hard-nosed voters know that ESG means “Energy Shortages Guaranteed.” The US is demonstrating this for those whose eyes have opened.

niceguy
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
October 7, 2022 10:00 pm

Yes right wing politicians still believe in the selling ice cream on the beach model for election: each vendor wants to be closer to beachgoers, but you can only be close to so many people. So both move not to be close to people but to be closer (than the other vendor) to more beachgoers. Both go to the middle. (That is, mathematically, in the simplistic model.)

Now, that isn’t at all how politics work. You better be ready to show you stand for something and not just move closer to interest groups.

Edward Katz
October 7, 2022 5:48 pm

The irony of the whole business of phasing out fossil fuels lies in the fact that renewables like wind and solar haven’t even come close to showing that they can make up the energy shortfall that results in the absence of coal, natural gas and oil.

observa
October 7, 2022 7:01 pm

Just trust the science and the scientists OK-
A psychiatry researcher who taught his students depression was caused by a ‘chemical imbalance’ in the brain says everything he thought he knew about SSRIs is wrong (msn.com)
Fixing depression is a noble cause and what better noble cause is there than fixing global weather extremes?

niceguy
October 7, 2022 7:31 pm

We used to have a legitimate sound math informed commentariat in France and yet now we have people validating stuff like electrochemical storage for medium term handling of intermittent “renewables”.
I mean, for France.
We had a record peak electric consumption of 102 GW. (And that’s with at lot of voluntary cuts made by industries.)
Is that the scale at which they believe we can handle variations with batteries?

Also, wind power to H2 to storage to H2 to power is being considered “seriously”.

Zane
October 7, 2022 7:55 pm

Biden is just a puppet. The real people behind the artificial energy shortage and the climate change agenda are the same people who set it up in the 60s: the Rockefellers in cahoots with the Anglo-American oil/banking cartels that prop up the petrodollar – with a little help from folks like the CIA and the Pentagon. Middle East oil costs $3 a barrel to produce. Sell it for $90 and someone is laughing all the way to the bank.

Dean
October 8, 2022 9:05 pm

The movie scene of a car driving along an unfinished flyover comes to mind.

%d bloggers like this: