Category Archives: energy

Federal Energy Subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

Here are some data regarding the magnitude of favoritism the Federal government is displaying for one American industry over others. These are from the government’s own Energy Information Administration.

  • Renewable energy, led by wind and solar, received $15.6 billion in federal government subsidies in fiscal year 2022
  • natural gas and petroleum liquids industry received $2.3 billion
  • coal industry received $0.873 billion

“Green”-sourced energy is getting orders of magnitude more taxpayer money than are the far cheaper and reliable fossil fuel-sourced energy.

This is how much green energy is supported by taxpayer funds rather than by energy users with the rates they pay their utilities.

This is how desperate “green” energy pushers are for funding because of how far distant “green” energy is from being economically viable.

Energy Subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

This table shows the size of the subsidy for the indicated energy source along with the size of the subsidy per trillion BTU produced by that energy source.

Million$/ TrillionBTU Million $ Trillion BTU
Solar 4.153 7,522 1,811
Geothermal 1.665 353 212
Wind 0.947 3,592 3,791
Coal 0.072 873 12,033
Biomass 0.06 312 5,171
Nuclear 0.048 390 8,065
Oil & Nat Gas 0.033 2,304 68,804

The table is constructed from data in the EIA report, Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Years 2016–2022.

Notice that the Solar subsidy is orders of magnitude greater than those for coal or for oil and natural gas. The wind subsidy is similarly bloated.

Despite these actual facts, the Mainstream Left keeps pushing the myth of too much subsidy for hydrocarbons.

 

H/t: DrBob2 at The Motley Fool.

Cowardice in DoE

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm tried a cross-country trip in her electric vehicle convoy and that, along the way on a hot and humid Georgia day, a staffer driving a gasoline-powered vehicle blocked off an EV charging station so that when the rest of Granholm’s group arrived, one of the EVs in her convoy would have a place to recharge. Police were called over the behavior by a separate EV driver who needed a charge and had a small baby in the car.

Last Tuesday, Granholm was called to testify before the House Science and Technology Committee about that incident among other items. Responding to Congressman Scott Franklin’s (R, FL) question about the incident, Granholm said,

Let me just say, I have a fantastic young staff, just fantastic. It was poor judgment on the part of the team.

Fair enough, openly acknowledging the error like that.

But when pressed by Franklin,

Granholm also sidestepped blame during the back-and-forth with Franklin on Thursday, saying that it was not her that was “saving the spot.”

But whose error, again? Isn’t she the one in charge? Wasn’t her fantastic young staffer only acting within the department culture and associated imperatives that she has consciously developed during her tenure?

This is the arrogance of Government above all, and the MFWIC of DoE above all of that. Not her fault; she’s the one in charge, she’s not one of the worker bees who, you know, actually do things.

Electrifying Transportation

Posted on by
Reply

A Wall Street Journal editorial centered on California’s idiotic push to fully electrify cars and trucks—yes, including heavy duty freight trucks—within the next dozen years, has this tidbit, which is canonical in exemplifying such foolishness anywhere in the US:

One trucking company wanted to install charging stations for 30 trucks at a terminal in Joliet, Illinois, only to be told by local officials they would draw more power than the entire city.

And this, specific to California and its already existing green ideology:

In January northern California utility PG&E told a charging provider that one of its large fleet customers couldn’t charge its trucks on summer afternoons owing to a power crunch.

A power crunch which PG&E knew six months in advance was going to occur. It’s clear: neither facts nor the fiscal or quality of life costs of ignoring them matter to the mainstream Left. They’re right, and if you have questions about that, they’ll enthusiastically disabuse you of your questions. Never mind that

[a] Southern California Edison executive recently said some fleets are powering chargers using diesel generators so electric trucks don’t go unused.

Pay no attention to the zealot behind the door.

Achieving Energy Security

Posted on by
Reply

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm thinks it would be good for our energy security were we to eliminate the 60% of our oil-centered energy that we import and switching over to 100% clean electricity by 2035.

It’s true that wiping out that 60% of our oil imports would help our energy security, but only if it’s done right. We shouldn’t be importing any energy, much less from enemy nations or from nations vulnerable to enemy nations. The right way to eliminate those imports is to release our own oil—and natural gas and coal, come to that—producers to produce from our own, domestic, hydrocarbon-based sources. It’s highly important, too, to get the regulators out of the way of our producers’ ability to produce nuclear power. Sadly, though, Granholm—Energy Secretary Granholm, mind you—seems unable even to say the words “nuclear power,” or at least she never does say them.

The problem with Granholm’s wish to supplant those imports with 100% clean electricity—as even Granholm knows full well—is that the raw materials needed for “renewable,” or “green,” or “clean” energy production come from Peoples Republic of China mines, or PRC-controlled mines in Africa and Siberia (the latter are not yet developed, but they will be). Beyond that, far too many components for “renewable” energy production come from PRC-domiciled factories. Granholm’s move in no way reduces our dependence on enemy nations for our energy.

It is, however, a distinct elimination of our ability to have energy security.