Tom Shepstone
Shepstone Management Company, Inc.

…

…

Readers pass along a lot of stuff every week about natural gas, fractivist antics, emissions, renewables, and other news relating to energy. As usual, emphasis is added.

Citizens Must Speak Out Against Dangerous Energy Bill

I was pleased to be quoted in this piece about the latest monster appearing out of the deep of the swamp:

…the American Wind Energy Association is planning to merge with the new lobby group with the goal of propelling “renewables to be the dominant power source in America,” it said in a letter to its members on September 3. If this comes about, it will be an unmitigated disaster to America’s economy. Wind and solar power cannot provide the reliable, inexpensive, base-load power requirements of any large, industrial society. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, explains:

“Achieving “100% decarbonization” in the United States would require a 14-fold increase in wind, solar, and hydroelectric capacity additions versus the U.S. historical average every year from 2015 to 2047 and beyond. That expansion of capacity is not just unprecedented in the United States history, it is six times as much as has ever been added in any one year in U.S. history.”

Convinced that the over $100 billion of federal subsidies the sector has already received was not enough, the lobbyists injected wind and solar power benefits into S.2657. The wording of the now-over-220 amendments to the bill (which has been renamed the “American Energy Innovation Act”) gave wind and solar power not only the same benefits originally slated to apply to deep-drilling geothermal but, in fact, much more (do a search on wind and solar in the Congressional Record to see for yourself)…

If the new Senate bill, S.2657, does pass, a reconciliation committee will be set up to try to work out, behind closed doors with lots of the usual horse trading, a “middle ground” version of the legislation. Since both bills are alarmist extremes, the final bill will undoubtedly be equally dangerous. Then that version would be submitted to, and probably passed by the Senate and House, following which it would be sent to President Donald Trump to sign, which, given the many pressures he is currently under, he could reluctantly endorse.

All of this is just a part of a frantic global movement to eliminate fossil fuels, the foundation of modern life, in favor of renewables. Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels is almost equivalent to believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. Energy expert Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute put it well: 

“You can build windmills with steel, but you can’t build steel with windmills.”

Write your Senator. This is an outrageous theft in progress and it needs to be stopped. Let natural gas supply our energy needs without these scams. Natural gas is clean, inexpensive and requires no government scams to succeed.

And, Here’s the Truth About What Congress Wants to Subsidize

Mark Mills gives some economic, environmental and physics lessons to “Shale Insight” conference attendees:

After hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies, solar and wind’s contribution to the global energy supply has grown significantly, but still makes up just 2% of the global supply, he said. The subsidies and mandates for renewables will continue to increase, thereby decreasing the demand for gas power slightly over the next 15 years.

But grid parity of fossil fuels versus wind and solar is a myth, he said. Wind and solar can’t supply energy on demand the way fossil fuels can, and the real costs of those renewables ranges for 200% to 300% higher. In Europe, wind and solar’s contributions to the grid have doubled, so have the rates.

Projections show that going 100% carbon-free with wind, solar and hydro would be 700% greater than any electric grid construction program to date, he said. “It’s a World War II level of construction mobilization.” It’s a way of saying it won’t happen.

Subsidies don’t eliminate physics, he said. In recent years, battery and wind and solar technology has gotten 10 times better in terms of cost and efficacy. But as with any technology, there’s a law of diminishing returns and they won’t get 10 times better again; continued improvements will be incremental, unlike digital technology.

Example of electric car battery system

Mills also looked at the materials involved in the transition. Bringing 400 million electric vehicles online across the world wouldn’t displace even 10% of all world oil use. But there will be more batteries. And that will require mining more materials, which will benefit other countries but not so much the U.S., where expanded mining is frowned upon.

A single car battery, he said, weighs 1,000 pounds and requires 500,000 pounds of materials moved to make it. So the electric vehicle revolution will require a 200% to 500% increase in mining for minerals, with all the associated environmental and energy impacts.

Amazing stats that we need to get out and about at every opportunity. Natural gas is the answer, not renewables.

And, This Is the Guy Who Called Trump A Clown?

You may have missed this with all the hype about the recent debate:

Biden waffled in the first presidential debate of the general election season on whether his climate plan was the “Green New Deal” or the “Biden plan” despite his campaign website saying, “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.” Democratic nominee Biden said, “The Green New Deal is not my plan.” But a moment later, he said: “The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward. You’re not going to build plants that in fact are great polluting plants.” After the debate, Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey said, “The liberal left is with Joe Biden, and we will pass a Green New Deal.” Markey made that claim despite Moderator Chris Wallace asking Biden, “You support the Green New Deal?” and Biden replying “No, I don’t support the Green New Deal.”

Mr. Biden is setting aside $2 trillion for his climate plan, which is supposed to replace fossil fuels on the electrical grid by 2035—10 years earlier than California’s state goal— and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. During the debate, Biden vowed to rejoin the Paris climate accord and to pressure Brazil to stop land clearing in the Amazon. President Trump then told the viewers that the estimated cost of the Green New Deal was more like $100 trillion.

Amazing and Joe Biden can’t make up his mind on fracking — natural gas development —either.