► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Energy’ Category

Food in Your Gas Tank…Let’s Burn Our Food!

by coldwarrior ( 150 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Energy, Open thread at May 7th, 2014 - 1:00 pm

Heads Up! Global Warming is now called ‘Climate Disruption’, got it? OK, let’s proceed.


Here is a link-filled article for reference about the absurd idea of Ethanol subsidies.

The Ethanol Disaster

America’s renewables policy is bad for consumers, the environment, and the global poor.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)Last November, when the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) proposed moderating years of escalating mandates by reducing the amount of ethanol that must be mixed into gasoline, a top ethanol lobbyist seemed perplexed. “We’re all just sort of scratching our heads here today and wondering why this administration is telling us to burn less of a clean-burning American fuel,” Bob Dineen, head of the Renewable Fuels Association, told The New York Times.

Here are a few possible reasons why: America’s ethanol requirement destroys the environment, damages car engines, increases gas prices, and contributes to the starvation of the global poor. It’s an unmitigated disaster on nearly every level.

Start with the environment. After all, when the renewable fuel standard (RFS), which since 2005 has set forth a minimum annual volume of renewable fuels nationwide, was first set, one of the primary arguments for mandating ethanol use was that it was a greener, more environmentally friendly source of fuel that released fewer greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

This turns out to be complete hogwash. Researchers have known for years that, when the entire production process is taken into account, most supposedly green biofuels actually emit more greenhouse gasses than traditional fuels.

Some proponents of the ethanol mandate have argued that the requirement was nonetheless necessary in order to spur demand for and development of more advanced, environmentally friendly biofuel like cellulosic ethanol, which is converted into fuel from corn-farm leftovers. But there are two serious problems with cellosic ethanol. The first is that cellulosic ethanol turns out to be rather difficult to produce; despite EPA projections that the market would produce at least 5 million gallons in 2010 and 6.6 million in 2011, the United States produced exactly zero gallons both years—and just 20,069 gallons in 2012.

The second is that cellulosic ethanol is also bad for the environment. At least in the short-term, the corn-residue biofuels release about 7 percent more greenhouse gases than traditional fuels, according to a federally funded, peer-reviewed study that appeared in the journal Nature Climate Change last month.

The environmental evidence against ethanol seems to mount almost daily: Another study published last week in Nature Geoscience found that in São Paulo, Brazil, the more ethanol that drivers used, the more local ozone levels increased. The study is particularly important because it relies on real-world measurements rather than on models, many of which predicted that increased ethanol use would cause ozone levels to decline.

To make things worse, ethanol requirements are bad for cars and drivers. Automakers say that gasoline blended with ethanol can damage vehicles by corroding fuel lines and injectors. An ethanol glut caused by a misalignment of regulatory quotas and demand has helped drive up prices at the pump. And the product is actually worse: ethanol blends are less energy dense than regular gasoline, which means that cars relying on it significantly worse mileage per gallon.

American drivers have it bad, but the global poor have it far worse. Ethanol requirements at home have helped drive up the price of food worldwide by diverting corn production to energy, which dramatically reducing the available calorie supply. A 25-gallon tank full of pure ethanol requires about 450 pounds of corn—roughly the amount of calories required to feed someone for a year. Some 40 percent of U.S. corn crops go to ethanol production, which in effect means we’re burning food for automobile fuel rather than eating it. Studies by economists at the World Bank have found that a one percent increase in world food prices correlates with a half-percent decrease in calorie consumption amongst the world’s poor. When world food prices spiked between 2007 and 2008, between 20 and 40 percent of the effect was attributable to increased global reliance on biofuels. The effect on world hunger is simply devastating.

Ethanol lobbyists are still pretending the renewable fuels mandate is a success, and Senators from corn-friendly states in the Midwest are still urging the agency not to proceed with the proposed reduction to the mandate. But at this point, ethanol requirements have few serious defenders except the people who profit from its production and the politicians who rely on those people for votes and campaign contributions.

Judging by the cut it proposed last November, even the EPA seems to be wavering. A final regulation has yet to be submitted, but the proposal would reduce the amount of renewable fuels the agency requires this year from 18.15 billion gallons to 15.2 billion gallons. That’s if the EPA sticks to its original plan. The agency is under heavy pressure to moderate its proposed cuts, or avoid them entirely.

Those cuts, if approved, would represent a productive step forward. But they wouldn’t be enough. Congress should vote to repeal the renewable fuel standard entirely. The federal government shouldn’t be telling people to burn less ethanol; it shouldn’t be telling anyone to burn any of it at all.

Russian Gas and American Production

by coldwarrior ( 156 Comments › )
Filed under America, Chechnya, Economy, Energy, Open thread, Politics, Russia at April 8th, 2014 - 9:00 am

This is an interesting take on the possibility of American Gas exports ‘hurting Russia’.


Why Russia Isn’t Afraid of U.S. Gas Exports


During his recent speech in Brussels, U.S. President Barack Obama said the U.S. could soon become a major supplier of gas to Europe and allow countries that are currently “hostage” to gas imports from Russia to have an alternative supply source at a cheaper price. We heard the same sentiment from the chairman of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ed Royce, during his March 26 address at a committee hearing on ”The Geopolitical Potential of the U.S. Energy Boom.” While Obama placed his comments in the context of energy supply security, Royce was much more explicit about the real objective of an energy dump into Europe. “America’s newly developing energy supplies could make a difference,” he said. “They could sap Putin’s strength, while bolstering Ukraine’s and that of other European countries.”

We have heard similar comments from many politicians in Europe as well as the U.S., and from executives in companies operating in the shale gas industry. We also heard similar comments from many others promoting the idea that the U.S. Energy Department might release oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve to increase global supply and depress the world price of crude. The basic line has been to send cheap U.S. gas or oil to Europe to kill off demand for Russian exports and to debilitate the Russian economy. Some have also emphasized the benefits, as they see it, to the European economy from cheaper energy and to the U.S. economy because of higher export volumes. But the key objective, the argument goes, is causing collateral damage to the Russian economy.

You can see where they are coming from. The widely held perception among those who only superficially look at the structure of Russia’s budget and economy is that it is a hydrocarbon-­dependent country and even a slight twitch in the price of export oil or gas would destabilize the country. That certainly was the case in the late 1980s, in the late 1990s and again in late 2008. But much has changed even since 2008. and the continuing legacy of various wars across North Africa and in the Middle East means there is little threat to the price of crude oil. Brent crude has been more or less stable just under $110 per barrel for more than three years, and looming problems in Venezuela and reports of increasing violence in Nigeria offer little medium-term comfort for oil bears.

But it is Russia’s gas position that has attracted most attention since the Crimea referendum. And it is against the backdrop of political emotionalism that basic fact-checking has been ignored. Here are some important facts. Gas production has certainly grown very rapidly in the U.S. since the middle of the last decade. According to BP’s most recent Statistical Review of World Energy, the U.S. has increased annual gas production from 550 billion cubic meters in 2007 to more than 750 bcm last year, overtaking Russian production of about 600 bcm. But according to the BP report, the U.S. currently consumes almost all of the gas it produces. It exports almost no gas.

To be sure, if the U.S. can sustain the rapid pace of production growth seen since 2007, it will eventually become a large exporter of gas via LNG tankers. But this will be possible only if it adds a significant amount of export infrastructure, namely LNG loading terminals. The first of these, at Sabine Pass in Louisiana, is not due online until late next year or early 2016, while some others are bogged down in environmental disputes and are not expected until 2019 or 2020. But even then, U.S. gas producers, which have been booking export contracts far in advance, are all planning to send their LNG volumes to Asia. The price of gas is much higher in Asia than Gazprom charges its European customers. It is difficult to see why a U.S. LNG tanker would sail to Europe just to make a political point rather than to the far more profitable markets in Asia.

In addition, the price of gas sold domestically in the U.S. is extremely inexpensive compared to world prices. This is regularly cited by economists — and lauded by politicians — as an important factor behind the revival in the U.S. economy. It is no surprise that U.S. gas executives are pushing for approvals for more export facilities. The Russia angle is purely convenient for a profit-orientated industry keen to sell to the highest bidder and to break free from the depressed local market. One wonders what the attitude of lawmakers will be when the price of domestic gas eventually starts to rise because of competition from the export market.

That is not to say that Russia can be in any way complacent about economic vulnerability to energy exports. By the time LNG volumes are sailing in large volumes into European ports, overall demand will be much higher, and Russia will be a major player in the global LNG business. Novatek’s Yamal-based LNG terminal is expected online by 2017, and more than 70 percent of the planned production is already sold to Asian customers. The plant will double in capacity between 2015 and 2020. By 2018, the LNG plant currently under construction in Sakhalin, which is jointly owned by ExxonMobil, Rosneft, ONGC of India and Japanese investors, will also be online. Russia’s first LNG plant came online in March 2009 as part of the Gazprom-Shell Sakhalin-2 project, and another bigger Gazprom foray into LNG production cannot be far off. By the start of the next decade, Russia is likely to be a much larger exporter of LNG than the U.S. Exports from both countries will sail to Asia rather than to Europe

What about Europe’s ability to produce more of its own gas? Europe is much more sensitive to environment risk than is the U.S. Germany has decided to cut nuclear power, and most countries are dragging their feet when it comes to alternative energy projects, such as wind farms, because of the aesthetic and other environment damage. It is therefore naive to assume that Europe will embrace the shale gas revolution in the same way as the U.S. has. The first television images of homeowners in Britain, France or Germany setting light to gas coming out of their water faucets, a very familiar sight in many parts of the U.S., will send the environmentalists to court for injunctions faster than politicians will deny they ever supported the project.

Russia’s current share of the European gas market share is about 30 percent. For Gazprom to maintain that market share as overall gas demand rises on the continent, it must complete the South Stream pipeline across the Black Sea despite objections from Brussels. Customer countries, such as Bulgaria, are in favor of South Stream because it bypasses the troublesome transit route through Ukraine. For the same reason, Germany wanted the twin-pipe Nord Steam connection which delivers 55 bcm of Russian gas directly into its industrial heartland.

U.S. and European Union officials are, of course, quite correct to emphasize long-term energy security. The long-term alternatives — that is, from Iran, Central Asia or Africa — hardly offer more assurance. And we already know that price differential between Europe and Asia means that U.S. LNG tankers will not be in any hurry to supply the market when they eventually do set sail.

Chris Weafer is senior partner with Macro Advisory, a consultancy advising macro hedge funds and foreign companies looking at investment opportunities in Russia.

Gas Versus Wind to Make Electricity

by coldwarrior ( 138 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Energy, Environmentalism, Open thread, Politics at April 7th, 2014 - 1:38 pm

Here is a pretty good article that gets into the nuts and bolts and costs of generating power with gas or wind.



Shale Gas Boom Leaves Wind Companies Seeking More Subsidy




Photographer: Eddie Seal/Bloomberg

Wind turbine blades wait to be shipped out by rail at the Port of Corpus Christi in… Read More


Wind power in the U.S. is on a respirator.


The $14 billion industry, the world’s second-largest buyer of wind turbines, is reeling from a double blow — cheap natural gas unleashed by the hydraulic fracturing revolution and the death last year of federal subsidies that made wind the most competitive of all renewable energy sources in the U.S.


Without restoration of subsidies, worth $23 per megawatt hour to turbine owners, the industry may not recover, and the U.S. may lose ground in its race to reduce dependence on the fossil fuels driving global warming, say wind-power advocates.


They place the subsidy argument in the context of fairness, pointing out that wind’s chief fossil-fuel rival, the gas industry, is aided by the ability to form master limited partnerships that allow pipeline operators to avoid paying income tax. This helps drive down the cost of natural gas.


“If gas prices weren’t so cheap, then wind might be able to compete on its own,” said South Dakota’s Republican Governor Dennis Daugaard.


Consider that gas averaged $8.90 a million British thermal units in 2008 and plunged to $3.73 last year, making the fuel a cheaper source of electricity for utilities. Congress allowed the wind Production Tax Credit to expire last year, and wind farm construction plunged 92 percent.

Photographer: Eddie Seal/Bloomberg

Cattle graze near wind turbines that are part of Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Group’s… Read More


‘Cheap Gas’


The shift in fortunes for the two fuels arrives at the moment when wind was beginning to rival gas on price alone, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That means the industry’s future will be shaped by the debate over what counts as support from the government and when, or if, Congress moves to rethink the credit.


“Cheap gas has definitely made it harder to compete,” said David Crane, chief executive officer of NRG Energy Inc., which builds both gas and renewable power plants. He said that with the subsidy, companies were able to propose wind projects “below the price of gas.”


Both wind and gas cost about $84 a megawatt hour to install worldwide, excluding subsidies, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That’s 3 percent higher than a coal-fired power plant costs and about half that of nuclear reactors.


The research group hosts a conference today in New York, where officials from the U.S. government’s energy research agency and Jeff Immelt, chief executive officer of General Electric Co., will debate the future shape of energy markets. GE is the biggest U.S. turbine supplier.


Lapsed Credits


Governor Daugaard joined Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, in pushing to extend the Production Tax Credit, which expired in December and is part of a package of 50 lapsed tax breaks the committee agreed on April 4 to extend.


The credit appeals to Democrats and Republicans alike in places that have strong wind resources such as South Dakota and Texas, as well as those with turbine and blade factories, like Kansas and Colorado. Still, the Republican-led House of Representatives may not support efforts to extend the tax credits before the November election, according to the American Wind Energy Association.


“It awaits a vehicle that can pass both the House and Senate,” Peter Kelley, a spokesman for the Washington-based industry group, said on a March 31 conference call.


More MLPs


America’s Natural Gas Alliance, which represents independent gas producers in Washington, has no position on the tax credits for wind, said Dan Whitten, a spokesman. The group also welcomes proposals to expand master limited partnerships to additional energy sources such as wind.


Nowhere is the economic debate about wind versus gas more finely balanced than in the U.S. While North America ranks behind China in terms of total installations, the price of gas and structure of support for the industries has made it among the most competitive markets in the world.


The best wind farms in the breeziest areas such as south Texas can be built for $60 a megawatt-hour, below the $65 price of a high-efficiency gas turbine, according to New Energy Finance.


Behind those headline figures are hundreds of variables that determine whether a utility picks wind or gas. The best wind farms may operate 45 percent of the time, while ordinary ones work less than a third of the day. The tax credit often is the decisive factor in determining whether to build a wind farm.


No Parity


“Without the Production Tax Credit, we don’t expect wind to be at cost parity with gas” in most places in the U.S., said Stephen Munro, an analyst at New Energy Finance.


Power technologies don’t compete on price alone. Most states require utilities to supply an increasing amount of their electricity from renewables.


And most utility executives have scars from swings in fossil fuel costs. A deep freeze in New England increased the cash price for gas near Boston tenfold to more than $76 per MMBtu in January.


“The polar vortex showed us the problem with relying too much on gas,” Tom Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, said in an interview.


Munro of New Energy Finance said, “wind has none of gas’s price drama. It’s visible for 20-year or 25-year contracts. Financial hedges on gas prices typically go out no more than five years.”


Energy ‘Frenemies’


Gas-fired generators have the advantage of the ability to scale up or down their output hour by hour. That gives utilities flexibility to integrate more variable supplies from wind and solar farms into the electric grid. It makes the two fuels symbiotic “frenemies with benefits,” supporting each other’s development, said Dexter Gauntlett, an analyst at Navigant Consulting in Vancouver, Washington.


Three variables — the individual renewable needs of each state, the on-again-off-again tax credits awarded by Congress and the price of natural gas relative to wind — have made forecasting turbine installations difficult.


“The dynamic between these three drivers has been a roller coaster over the past five years,” Gauntlett said.


With the outlook for the tax credit uncertain, utilities are refocusing on the price of the fuels. Hydraulic fracturing technology, otherwise known as fracking, makes gas wells profitable at $4.50 per MMBtu, according to Samantha Dart, an analyst at Goldman Sachs Group Inc.


That should keep gas prices within a range of $4 to $6 for at least a few years, she said in a note to clients on Feb. 3.


“Power-purchase agreements in the U.S. are under severe pricing pressure because of the shale gas boom,” said Jurgen Zeschky, CEO of Nordex SE, a German wind-turbine maker. “That’s putting pressure on prices for wind power and makes investments very difficult.”

America’s New Energy Boom

by coldwarrior ( 9 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Energy, Politics, Special Report at January 8th, 2014 - 10:56 am

I’ve been saying that America  on the cusp of a huge energy boom that will be a game changer in the world, we are also on the cusp of revitalized manufacturing. The right political leaders could end our economic malaise by getting out of the way. I am quite bullish on America’s financial on general future. that makes me a minority here!


Try this article on for size:

Unforeseen U.S. Oil Boom Upends Markets as Drilling Spreads


Photographer: Matthew Staver/Bloomberg

A worker transfers 240 barrels of oil into a tank at an Enbridge Inc. facility outside… Read More

The U.S. oil boom has put European refineries out of business and undercut West African crude suppliers. Now domestic drillers threaten to roil Asian markets and challenge producers in the Middle East and South America.

Fifteen European refineries have closed in the past five years, with a 16th due to shut this year, the International Energy Agency said, as the U.S. went from depending on fuel from Europe to being a major exporter to the region. Nigeria, which used to send the equivalent of a dozen supertankers of crude a month to the U.S., now ships fewer than three, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And cheap oil from the Rocky Mountains, where output has grown 31 percent since 2011, will soon allow West Coast companies to cut back on imports of pricier grades from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela that they process for customers in Asia, the world’s fastest-growing market.

“I don’t really think anyone saw this coming,” said Steve Sawyer, an analyst with FACTS Global Energy in London. “The U.S. shale boom happened much faster than people thought. We’re in the middle of a new game. There’s nothing in the past that predicts what the future will be.”

Advances in extracting oil from shale rock drove a 39 percent jump in U.S. production since 2011, the steepest rise in history, and will boost output to a 28-year high this year, according to the EIA. While drilling in shale is more expensive than other methods and poses environmental challenges, the prospect of a growing supply is encouraging analysts to predict a more energy-independent nation.

Photographer: Ty Wright/Bloomberg

Rig hands thread together drilling pipe at a hydraulic fracturing site owned by EQT… Read More

Crude Exports

With U.S. exports of gasoline and other refined products hitting a record last month and the country on pace to become the world’s largest oil producer by 2015, five years faster than the IEA’s earlier predictions, industry advocates such as Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are calling for an end to 39-year-old restrictions on U.S. crude exports.

In a measure of just how quickly the oil market has changed, President Barack Obama unveiled in March 2011 a goal considered so outrageous that correspondent Christopher Mims wrote on the environmental news website Grist that it could be accomplished only by “an economic crash bigger than any ever seen in U.S. history, or perhaps an alien race forcing all of us to take to our bicycles.” Obama said that by 2025 the U.S. would cut crude imports by one-third.

It didn’t take 14 years. It took less than three.



EMP: Power industry is literally playing games instead of taking action to harden infrastructure

by 1389AD ( 117 Comments › )
Filed under Astronomy, Energy, Technology at October 30th, 2013 - 5:00 pm
Staging elaborate simulation games is beside the point. We already know how to harden our infrastructure at a cost that we can easily afford. The technical know-how exists. What’s missing is the political will to get it done.


Real American Blackout: Will GridEx II Protect Against It or Ensure It Happens?

Published on Oct 28, 2013 by securefreedom


On October 27th, 2013, National Geographic aired a docu-drama entitled “American Blackout.” It simulated what would happen to our country, its economy and its people if a cyber attack shut down the nation’s electric power distribution system known as “the grid.”

As the movie makes clear, in just 10 days, hundreds of thousands lost their lives, vast destruction of property occurred and societal breakdown was underway.

Is such an horrific scenario a real possibility? Could the grid, in fact, be taken down in other ways that would deny the nation electrical power for far longer than 10 days? If so, what would be the consequences?

Even if no rogue nuclear power or cyber hackers successfully attack our grid, another solar event will sooner or later occur that will take down our power grids. Every nation must take steps to harden itself against solar EMP.

Earth just barely missed another solar Carrington event (EMP catastrophe) in July, 2013

Iran, the sun, and the EMP threat

Securing America from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP): Technical and Policy Challenges

Published on Oct 25, 2013 by securefreedom

Moderator — Frank J. Gaffney Jr., CSP


Brigadier General (ret.) Ken Chrosniak, Member of EMPact America, a firefighter with Carlisle Fire Rescue, VP of Cumberland Goodwill Ambulance (EMS) Company, and member of the FBI vetted InfraGard EMP Special Interest Group. Ken is an instructor at the Army War College’s Center for Strategic Leadership Development.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Chair, Congressional Electromagnetic Pulse Caucus; Member, Intelligence, Emerging Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittee; Member, Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Major General (ret.) Robert Newman, Former Adjutant General of Virginia; Deputy Assistant to the Governor, Virginia; Vice Director of Operations & Logistics at US Joint Forces Command ; Deputy Director of Homeland Security at National Guard Bureau.

The backbone of the United States and its 21st Century society is our electric grid. Without it, every critical infrastructure — including food, water, medicine, telecommunications, finance and transportation — would be inoperable, with catastrophic consequences for many millions of Americans whose lives would be imperiled by the loss of such services.

Unfortunately, the U.S. bulk power system is presently vulnerable to widespread damage and possible destruction from a variety of sources. Arguably, the most serious of these is electromagoetic pulse (EMP), whether induced by natural phenomena (i.e., solar flaring and the resultant space weather) or enemy actions (e.g., localized attacks on the grid’s critical nodes- roughly 1,000 transformers- involving radio frequency weapons or strategic attacks utilizing exoatmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons). Either could have the effect of blacking out large parts of the United States for protracted periods of time.

This panel will consider the emerging consensus that such threats are real and must be remediated; examine how best to make the present and future grids resilient against these and related dangers (including cyber-warfare); and address the necessary federal-and state-level legislative and executive branch actions required to effect such changes.

Halloween Special: Creatures That Won’t Die Part One – Cap And Trade.

by Flyovercountry ( 233 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Energy, Republican Party at October 16th, 2013 - 8:00 am

Do you remember Cap and Trade’s unceremonious defeat in the Senate during the summer and fall of 2010? That was the same time that Obamacare was also hogging up center stage in this malevolent fundamental changing of our nation. One piece of crap legislative effort failed and the other succeeded. Just to refresh you memory, and because I like highlighting pathological liars, here’s Joe Manchin (D) Liarville, during his campaign to become a U.S. Senator representing the State of West Virginia, promising to put an end to both, while also pledging to defend the Second Amendment and stop run away government spending. (I do so love that special breed of Democrat who promises to be fiscally responsible. They never are, once elected, and worse yet, they are never held to account. Manchin for instance has voted in lock step with his party every step of the way, for every spending increase, to remove America’s Second Amendment Rights, to keep Obamacare and keep it funded, and has done nothing to stop this President’s Executive Fiat strategy which usurped the authority of the Legislative Branch in order to inflict Cap and Trade on us anyhow.)

As you may have guessed, our first Halloween Zombie this year is the Cap and Trade. This honor has been bestowed due to the undead way in which this economy killing idea was able to be implemented despite being killed by the Senate during the early fall of 2010. So, here we sit, Nine painful months into the second term of the Zero, and everything that many of us were screaming would be the consequences for electing this man child to be our President has indeed been proven correct. As Americans continue to act surprised, failing to connect Barack Obama to the consequences of his agenda, even though the man himself told us what he would be up to, I hope the phrase, “elections have consequences,” remains indelibly ingrained in the collective minds of the apathetic. Don’t take my word for it Obama bots, listen to the man himself tell you, way back in the ancient date of July, 2008.

Believe it or not my friends, just like in every wretched Zombie movie ever inflicted upon a near comatose audience, an unlikely hero has emerged to fight in one final scene with the Zombie army. That unlikely hero, will be played by the Supreme Court, who in the spring session of 2014, will listen to the arguments consolidated from several cases in which the EPA has been accused of reaching far beyond their mandate.

From the Hotair dot com article:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would consider challenges to Environmental Protect Agency limits on greenhouse-gas emissions, throwing the Obama administration’s landmark rules into a state of uncertainty. …

A three-judge panel in June 2012 upheld the agency’s finding that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide endangered public health and were likely responsible for global warming. The appeals court further upheld EPA emissions limits for new vehicles and refused to entertain the challengers’ efforts to stop the agency from phasing in emissions regulations on industrial facilities like power plants.

The Supreme Court will review part of that ruling. The justices said in a short written order that they will consider the EPA’s decision to impose greenhouse-gas permitting requirements on power plants and other stationary sources.

So, in a nut shell, when Cap and Trade lost in the Senate, or President signed an order which told the EPA to start holding America’s Power Plants up to the same emission standards as cars. You paid for it of course in the form of spiking electricity rates, which Barack Obama told you to blame on Republicans. The more stupid among you obliged him in this, and are predisposed to place such blame anyhow. Most of you probably shrugged your shoulders and simply blamed those fat cat energy company executives. Barack Obama of course, he escaped the perception of having any connection to this consequence of his policies what so ever. He after all is the first President to not be ultimately responsible for anything he does or says.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

New Australian Administration Scraps Climate Commission.

by huckfunn ( 4 Comments › )
Filed under Breaking News, Business, Economy, Energy, Environmentalism, Global Warming Hoax, government, Headlines, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Socialism, taxation at September 19th, 2013 - 9:23 am

Good news indeed! Newly elected Australian PM Tony Abbott was sworn in yesterday. One of his first acts was the closing of the Climate Commission, the agency responsible for administering Julia Gillard’s (the PM that Abbott recently defeated) carbon tax. By the way, Gillard’s tax on carbon emissions is similar to the emissions tax  imposed on the coal industry by Obama’s EPA. That tax was Obama’s way of side-stepping Congress’ rejection of Cap and Trade.

Tony Abbott was sworn in yesterday. Today Greg Hunt rang Tim Flannery to tell him the commission is closed. His $180,000 3-day-a-week job as a sales agent for “climate change” is over.

BREAKING (ABC):  The Abbott Government has abolished the Climate Commission, pushing ahead with its plan to scrap government bodies associated with Labor’s carbon pricing scheme and climate change policy.

The commission was set up under then prime minister Julia Gillard in February 2011 as an independent body “to provide reliable and authoritative” information on climate change.

Jo Nova applauds the Abbott government decision to cut waste and to stop funding an inept unscientific agency which was unbalanced to the point of being government advertising in disguise.  Today is a great day for taxpayers. This agency propped up billions of dollars in pointless futile government spending trying to change the weather. Nothing will bring back money spent on desal plants that were mothballed when the floods came that real scientists predicted. Likewise the money burned on solar panels and windfarms is gone for good too, and still going.

Read the entire article here.  HT – Climate Depot

Fracking Makes the U.S. the World’s Top Petroleum Producer

by huckfunn ( 11 Comments › )
Filed under Cult of Obama, Economy, Energy, Environmentalism, EPA, government, Special Report at August 9th, 2013 - 9:56 pm

OK, I give up. The media has now unofficially re-named the practice of hydraulic fracturing from “fracing” to “fracking”. So be it. At any rate, the practice of fracking hydrocarbon bearing rock formations has been around for over 60 years. It has been used to great success most recently in the newly discovered shale fields around the U.S. Fracking has been so successful that the U.S. now leads the world in petroleum production and has held that lead since April. Saudi Arabia now sees fracking in the U.S. as a direct threat to its economic future. The U.S.  surge in production has resulted in spite of every effort by the EPA and environmental groups to vilify and ban the practice of fracking.

The United States was the world’s top petroleum producer in April, according to recently released federal data, marking six straight months of dominance in the market that experts attribute to the ongoing shale oil boom.

Those experts say that the data point to a new era of energy abundance, undercutting long-held theories that oil shortages would force the United States to seek other means of energy production.

According to data released this week by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. produced 12.09 million barrels per day (mbpd) of petroleum in April. That outpaced Saudi Arabia, which produced 11.2 mbpd that month.

It marked the sixth straight month for the U.S. as the world’s leading petroleum producer. The trend began in November of last year.

Mark Perry, an economics and finance professor at the University of Michigan-Flint, noted that EIA data showed that the United States in April produced more petroleum than all countries in Europe, Central America, and South America combined.

“This is more evidence that America’s shale energy revolution is taking us from ‘resource scarcity’ to a new era of ‘resource abundance,’” Perry wrote on the American Enterprise Institute website, where he is a scholar.

“This energy bonanza in the U.S. … would have been largely unthinkable even five years ago,” Perry explained. “But then thanks to revolutionary drilling techniques developed by America’s ‘petropreneurs’ like George P. Mitchell, we’ve unlocked vast oceans of shale oil and gas across the U.S.”

Mitchell, who died of natural causes at age 94 last week, pioneered the revolutionary oil and gas extraction technique known as hydraulic fracturing, which experts credit with unlocking massive reserves of oil and gas deposits in shale formations around the country.

Despite the economic benefits brought on by the technology, environmentalists have vociferously opposed hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking.” Many have relied on factual misstatements or outright falsehoods to support their case against the practice.

While many parts of the U.S. are now enjoying booming economies from higher production, the New York legislature has placed a 5 year moratorium on fracking thus denying economic benefits to New York landowners and a revenue windfall to the state treasury.

After fighting anti-fracking forces in the state of New York for years, Chesapeake Energy has decided to walk away from its natural gas drilling leases and go elsewhere.

Since 2008, the state of New York has imposed a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing—known more commonly as “fracking.” Groups like New Yorkers Against Fracking have kept the pressure on, hosting star-studded concert rallies featuring actors Mark Ruffalo and Melissa Leo, as well as Natalie Merchant, John Sebastian, Joan Osborne, and others.

The ban and anti-fracking advocacy, combined with a costly legal battle to renew natural gas drilling leases  under their original, more favorable terms, prompted Chesapeake to give up its fight and leave New Yorkers out of jobs and without economic growth “while neighboring states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia experience an energy drilling renaissance,” says Reuters.

Kevin Colosimo, a trustee at large for the Energy and Mineral Law Foundation, says citizens in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania are reaping big rewards from the natural gas boom.

“Almost a quarter-million people in Pennsylvania work to produce natural gas from the Marcellus Shale or in related industries… The average salary in core fracking industries is more than $90,000 a year,” writes Colosimo. “In 2010 alone, oil and gas development utilizing fracking contributed more than $11 billion to Pennsylvania’s economy.”

Experts say the earliest New York might lift its ban on fracking would be in 2014.

Read the entire article here.  Hat top – The Washington Free Beacon


Lord Monckton: Scientific Consensus on Global Warming is 0.3%, Not 97%

by huckfunn ( 79 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Corruption, Economy, Energy, Environmentalism, EPA, Global Warming Hoax, government, Political Correctness, Progressives, Regulation, Socialism, taxation at July 2nd, 2013 - 7:00 am

Lord Christopher Monckton of the UK’s Science and Public Policy Institute has just released an exhaustive statistical research paper that concludes that scientific consensus affirming man-made global warming is just 0.3%, not the 97% claimed by the global whiners. Just last Tuesday Obama repeated the “97%” lie in his speech outlining his “climate change” initiative. Obama even tweeted…

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

Monckton begins his paper by refuting the notion that consensus has a role in science:

Though Cook et al. (2013) reviewed abstracts of 11,944 papers on climate change and concluded that 97.1% of those expressing an opinion supported consensus, the philosophy of science allows no role for head-count. Aristotle, in his Sophistical Refutations, (c. 350 B.C.E.), identified the argument from consensus as one of the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse.

Al-Haytham, the astronomer and philosopher of science in 11th-century Iraq who is recognized as the father of the scientific method, wrote that “the seeker after truth” – his phrase for the scientist – does not place his faith in any mere consensus, however venerable. Instead, he checks. “The road to the truth,” said al-Haytham, “is long and hard, but that is the road we must follow.”

In 1860 T.H. Huxley said: “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties: blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”


In the scientific method, then, there is no place for mere consensus. A hypothesis that is demonstrated – such as Pythagoras’ theorem – needs no consensus, for it is objectively true. A hypothesis that is disproven needs no consensus, for it is objectively false. A hypothesis that is neither demonstrated nor disproven gains credibility, and not because a dozen or even 12,000 papers endorse it but because – and to the extent that – it has not been demonstrated to be false. Science is not a belief system. A priori, then, head-counts are inappropriate tests of scientific results.

Read the entire article here. Hat tip – Climate Depot

Admin Note: This Thread has been republish to give it the attention it deserves.

Obama’s Climate Plan; Economic Disaster Based Upon Bogus Science

by huckfunn ( 87 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Energy, Environmentalism, EPA, Global Warming Hoax, government, Misery Index, Progressives, Regulation, Socialism, taxation, unemployment at June 29th, 2013 - 12:00 pm

In addition to the fact that his climate plan is based upon the totally false premise of man-made global warming, The Heritage Foundation lists 11 problems with Obama’s climate plan.

1. Higher energy bills.

2. Lost jobs.

3. Higher natural gas prices would stomp the manufacturing renaissance. 

4. No impact on climate change.

5. Ambiguous on Keystone XL Pipeline.

6. No admission of temperatures leveling off and wrong predictions.

7. Efficiency mandates drive up prices, drive away choice.

8. Subsidies for me but not for thee.

9. Pretending China and the developing world will cut emissions.

10. Hides Obama’s anti-nuclear policy behind pro-nuclear rhetoric.

11. Bypasses Congress and the American people.

For the sake of brevity, I didn’t paste in the entire article but it can be found here and it’s well worth the read. There is a paragraph, with links, for each of the above points.

Also, I recommend that you bookmark Rick Morano’s Climate Depot which offers links to daily articles regarding the Global Warming Hoax. It’s something like a Drudge Report for information relating to the biggest scam ever unleashed on world.