Category Archives: energy

Growing Foreign Oil Dependency

Posted on by
Reply

Amid claims by the Obama administration that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil—and actual Republican and conservative efforts actually to do so by opening up access to our own gas and oil supplies, protect our coal producers, and their failed effort to facilitate American purchase of Canadian oil—we get this, from The New York Times, no less.

The United States is increasing its dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia, raising its imports from the kingdom by more than 20 percent this year, even as fears of military conflict in the tinderbox Persian Gulf region grow.

The increase in Saudi oil exports to the United States began slowly last summer and has picked up pace this year. Until then, the United States had decreased its dependence on foreign oil and from the Gulf in particular.

If the Obama administration weren’t slow-walking permits for off-shore drilling, closing off Federal lands to oil and gas development, and attacking natural gas fracking, we’d be getting access to increased American oil—and a major product substitute, gas—right about now, instead of having to buy more oil from Saudi Arabia, and thereby enriching a nation that has closed off Israeli access to its airspace should our erstwhile ally want to preempt an Iranian nuclear strike by attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.

If the Obama administration hadn’t closed off American access to Canadian oil by killing the Keystone XL pipeline, and thereby pushed Canada to sell its oil to the People’s Republic of China (which has its own purposes for getting Canadian oil), we’d have reduced further our dependence on oil from countries that don’t like us all that much.

Some Notes on Energy Subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

Here are some data taken from the US Energy Information Administration’s report Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010.

The following table is excerpted from the EIA report’s Table ES4, and it shows the amount of subsidy that each energy source received along with the per centage of the total of nearly $12 billion in subsidies handed out that each energy source received.

2010 Total (millions)

Share of Total Subsidies and Support
oal $1,189 10.0%
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids $654 5.5%
Nuclear $2,499 21.0%
Renewables $6,560 55.3%
    Biomass $114 1.0%
    Geothermal $200 1.7%
    Hydropower $215 1.8%
    Solar $968 8.2%
    Wind $4,986 42.0%
    Unallocated
Renewables		 $75 0.6%
Transmission and Distribution $971 8.2%
Total $11,873 100%

 

This table, excerpted from the report’s Table ES5, gives an indication of the relative amount of energy we taxpayers are receiving for our subsidy.

Share of 2010 Generation (percent)
Coal 44.9%
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids 25.0%
Nuclear 19.6%
Renewables 10.3%
    Biomass Power 1.4%
    Geothermal 0.4%
    Hydroelectric 6.2%
    Solar 0.0%
    Wind 2.3%
Total 100.0%

 

Notice that: coal, natural gas, and oil get 15.5% of the total subsidies while producing nearly 70% of our nation’s energy; renewables get over 55% of the subsidies and produce just 10% of our energy.

As the Wall Street Journal tells us that DoE, which owns the EIA,

…warned that “Focusing on a single year’s data does not capture the imbedded effects of subsidies that may have occurred over many years” for other energy sources.

Of course.  Because if we did consider such things, we’d have to notice that renewable energy subsidies have been costing taxpayers for 40 years—since the ’70s—with next to nothing to show for it.

“Get rid of the subsidies for the fat-cat oil and gas companies,” says Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama.  Ignoring the snide tone of his remark (albeit paraphrased by me), I agree—get rid of the oil and gas company subsidies.  Get rid of the alternative energy subsidies, too.  If the (renewable) energy industry cannot survive in the market on its own, this simply demonstrates that the industry isn’t ready for the market.

At least the oil and gas and coal companies, with their subsidies, are generating actual electricity, though: look at solar—it’s getting 8% of the total subsidies handed out, and generating no electricity (can you say, “Solyndra?”).  Not a watt, except for rounding error to get to that zero.

Subsidy and Food

Posted on by
Reply

Here are some minor facts concerning a particular subsidy, courtesy of an The Wall Street Journal op-ed.

USDA lowered its 2012 corn forecast by 13% from last year’s, to 10.8 billion bushels, the shortest harvest since 2006, even though the planted acreage is the highest since 1937 and 4% more than last year.

only 24% of the corn crop is in good or excellent condition in the 18 major corn belt states, down from 72% just since June.

USDA’s world agricultural outlook board estimated that global corn consumption will be reduced by 38.9 million tons, with US problems responsible for ¾ of the shortage.

As a result,

Corn futures are up nearly 50% over the last six weeks.  The US accounts for 60% of global exports, and corn feeds cows, pigs, chickens, and humans through its role as a key ingredient in a broad range of foods.

Those corn futures will be realized as actual, sharp price increases that consumers will pay.  The price increase wouldn’t be so bad, but for a certain Federal subsidy.

The food-to-fuel mandate, Renewable Fuels Standard, requires 13.2 billion gallons of ethanol to be blended into the gasoline supply this year, rising to 36 billion gallons by 2022.  Fully 40% of 2011’s corn production went to ethanol, and courtesy of our EPA (though the subsidy originated in an earlier administration), and now more corn is devoted to fuel than to livestock or other foods.

But not to worry.  Despite the drought, the resulting corn crop failures, and the succeeding price increases driven by the crop failure, despite all of these hardships and negative impacts on the food supply, the ethanol makers got theirs.  The Renewable Fuels Association put out a statement, without a trace of irony, that there’s no danger of an ethanol shortage:

obligated parties under the RFS will have every opportunity to demonstrate compliance this year.

Helps to have your priorities straight.

You Can’t Build This, Either

Posted on by
Reply

Paul H Rubin, Professor of Economics at Emory University, had some thoughts on President Obama’s “You didn’t build that” oratory.  After giving Obama the benefit of the doubt and allowing that he really meant, without denigrating the accomplishments of entrepreneurs and other businessmen, that government needed to help private enterprise with infrastructure, Professor Rubin added a few items of interest in the infrastructure milieu.

  • the Obama administration, in its first three years, adopted 106 major regulations that cost over $100 million, compared with 28 such regulations in the Bush the Younger administration, and it has 144 more in the pipeline.

Of more immediate impact, with regard to the infrastructure of roads and bridges, the administration’s attitude toward other necessary components of our transportation infrastructure is clear.  It has

  • refused to allow a private company to build the Keystone XL pipeline
  • reduced permits for offshore drilling
  • slow-walked permits for drilling on Federal land
  • increased EPA regulation of pollutants, well past the point of diminishing returns, yet
  • committed to spend billions on California’s riderless bullet train to nowhere

Concerning another area of necessary infrastructure, access to capital, there’re these:

  • regulations needed to implement Dodd–Frank are not even being written, negatively impacting business’ ability to reasonably predict their fiscal future—so some won’t lend, and others won’t borrow.
  • increased minimum wage discourages hiring entry-level workers, or older workers into low-value jobs
  • Obamacare increases uncertainty regarding future labor health-related costs

And so on.  RTWT.

How “Green” Energy is Working out for Germany

Posted on by
Reply

We’re getting an empirical lesson in the effectiveness of an economy whose energy is intended to come entirely from “green” sources.  The Obama administration would do well to observe closely the in-progress German demonstration.

Germany’s electricity prices have risen 10% in the last few years, since the beginning of the German push to rely exclusively on these sources and to walk away from coal, which Germany has in abundance.  That might not seem like much of an increase, but it hurts.

The Federation of German Consumer Organizations estimates that roughly 10% of German households are having trouble paying for their energy.  Some have been pushed over the threshold and can no longer pay—and their electricity is being turned off altogether: nearly 200,000 recipients of Hartz IV, a German benefits program for long-term unemployed, had their power cut off in 2011 because of unpaid bills.  There’s more: the Economy Ministry has estimated that prices will increase an additional 3-5 euro cents per kilowatt hour in the next year, just to finance renewable energy subsidies and grid expansion.  Those increases amount to an additional €105-€175 ($130-$220) for a family of three.

There are more cost increases to come.  The Federal Network Agency, a wide-ranging regulatory agency with its fingers in electricity, gas, telecommunications, post and railway markets, will announce this fall that rates will increase by 30%-50% above current levels.  Consumer “contributions” to renewable energy subsidies will rise by more than FGCO’s estimate of 3-5 cents; the FNA says the rise will be closer to 4.7-5.3 euro cents per kilowatt hour—plus VAT, they remind us.  Hartz recipients, and potentially programs like Hartz, will be hard-pressed to meet these increases.

We don’t need these headaches in the US.