natural gas (page 3)

  • Post

    Federal energy subsidies and the battle between cronies

    The New York Times asks, "What would happen if the federal government ended its subsidies to companies that drill for oil and gas?" The American oil and gas industry has argued that such a move would leave the United States more dependent on foreign energy. Many environmental activists counter that ending subsidies could move the United States toward a future free of fossil fuels — helping it curtail its emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The first part of the NYT's answer is correct insofar as it would make foreign oil and gas marginally more competitive. The second part is utter fantasy and wrong in many ways. The question itself is far too narrow for a discussion of energy subsidies. It ignores the far, far greater subsidies for renewable energy, and it also ignore the massive regulatory burden placed on traditional energy sources — which are penalties or, in a different way of looking at it, negative subsidies. Further discussion and graphs follow.
    Jon Sanders, August 8, 2016
  • Post

    Even more reasons why renewable energy mandates make electricity cost much more than it should

    Here's a graph for you. Further down I'll explain what it means:
    Jon Sanders, August 4, 2016
  • Post

    Why solar and wind are the most expensive way to reduce emissions

    The most important consideration in electricity provision is cost to consumers. Electricity is a basic human need. In North Carolina that need gets met by a monopoly provider. There is, however, this idea that electricity provision is about creating more jobs and cutting emissions. (If you think about it for…
    Jon Sanders, June 20, 2016
  • Post

    A low-cost energy source that lowers rates and CO2 emissions, to boot

    That would be natural gas. Because of technological change in natural gas exploration, our rates are falling, on net (offsetting increases owing to the REPS law): Also falling: carbon dioxide emissions, as the federal Energy Information Administration has shown is mostly because of change to natural…
    Jon Sanders, May 26, 2016
  • Post

    Natural gas did most of this. Lower emissions from fracking. Or as the ‘Clean Energy C[ronies]’ call it, HYDRO-FRACKING!

    Here’s an interesting graph from the federal government’s Energy Information Administration today in a release entitled “U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2015 are 12% below their 2005 levels“: The EIA explains:  In 2015, U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were 12% below the 2005 levels, mostly because of…
    Jon Sanders, May 10, 2016
  • Post

    Zero-emissions, efficient, dispatchable nuclear energy creating division among environmentalists

    If you’re an environmentalist terrified by the prospect of a temperature increase of a quarter-degree Fahrenheit by 2100 unless the whole world acts now (you know, America could cease doing everything and it’d still have no impact on the climate), and if you don’t mind tearing down some industries, hiking…
    Jon Sanders, February 8, 2016
  • Post

    Energy cronyism whack-a-mole

    The new state budget contains a welcome instance of ending (years after it was supposed to have ended, don’t forget) a particularly generous tax credit for a special interest industry. That would be the 35 percent investment tax credit for solar energy, which filled that 35 percent shaped hole…
    Jon Sanders, September 18, 2015
  • Post

    Another guy hopes to use celebrity as proxy for expertise

    That guy is James Taylor. No, not that James Taylor — the James Taylor who became famous for having seen fire and having seen rain: Singer James Taylor is speaking out against fracking in North Carolina. Taylor, who was raised in Chapel Hill, is starring in TV spots…
    Jon Sanders, February 19, 2014