In honor of Earth Day, we are posting Alex Epstein’s latest video, “Why You Should Love Fossil Fuels.” As Alex quite rightly notes, the widespread use of fossil fuels has actually allowed us to make our environment cleaner and healthier.
Here is another article that looks at the true costs of generating electricity from wind. As I have noted in many previous Coalblog posts, we consistently hear how wind generation has achieved “cost parity” with fossil fuels. However, a closer look at the actual costs involved reveal a much different story, with wind power coming in at an estimated $149 / MWh.
Over the past 35 years, wind energy – which supplied just 4.4% of US electricity in 2014 – has received US$30 billion in federal subsidies and grants. These subsidies shield people from the uncomfortable truth of just how much wind power actually costs and transfer money from average taxpayers to wealthy wind farm owners, many of which are units of foreign companies. …
Interesting discussion on FOX Business channel. Tom Borelli and John Pippy, CEO of the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance discuss the “fundamental transformation” of American energy production.
This post is a little late, but it is still well worth sharing. Thanks to Dale Jr. and his sister Kelley for taking the time to recognize the important role that women play in America’s energy industry.
I was recently interviewed by CNS News and asked for comment on the joint Sierra Club, Bloomberg media event (held on April 8th). In this event former NY mayor Michael Bloomberg and senior Sierra Club staffers, like CEO Michael Brune, exulted in their ability to pour tens of millions of dollars into misleading pressure campaigns, aimed at putting coal industry workers into unemployment lines. The gist of their recently expanded campaign is to spend Mr. Bloomberg’s $80 million, along with tens of millions of matching donations, “to shutter 50 percent of (coal) plants by 2017.”
Editor’s note: Paul Driessen’s latest article hits at the heart of the green campaigns aimed at shutting down energy production and stopping industrial activity across North America. While the proponents of these campaigns claim they have a “moral” imperative, the reality is that, if actually implemented as they are proposed, they will promote untold human suffering and misery as they cost real human lives, put millions out of work, and cost trillions in lost economic activity. As we see more of the actual outcomes of these green campaigns, we also begin to recognize their far-reaching anti-human impacts.
Current climate policies mean energy deprivation, poverty, disease and death for billions
Editor’s note: this article from University of Guelph Professor of Economics, Ross McKitrick points out the flawed reasoning behind the concept of “Earth Hour,” where people around the planet are supposed to turn out their lights and stop using energy and electricity for an hour at a specific time each year. Earth Hour organizers claim that having people stop using energy in this fashion will help “take a first step toward changing climate change.” However, as Professor McKitrick quite rightly argues, Earth Hour celebrates an anti-human, backward, and regressive notion that humanity would be better off if it used less electricity. In reality, it is abundant and affordable electricity that has brought billions of people up and out of poverty, reduced sickness, and saved multiple billions of lives.
Editor’s note: This guest editorial, prepared by Dennis Drebsky with Nixon Peabody, LLP, takes a decidedly different look at coal use forecasts. While many energy experts are predicting declines in coal use, Drebsky argues that the sheer size of the Chinese energy market, along with the affordability and reliability of coal, and the Chinese focus on economic development entails a long-term Chinese reliance on coal-based energy.
China is the world’s largest producer and consumer of coal. However, there have been repeated predictions that China’s use of coal will substantially decline during the next decade due to environmental concerns. That China should be a prime target of these concerns should be no surprise since China produces and consumes almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined. A recent survey found that China accounts for 46 percent of the world’s coal production and 49 percent of consumption. To put this in context, China produces nearly four times as much coal as the second largest producer, the United States. Coal accounts for approximately 70 percent of Chinese energy consumption and this use has held steady, if not increased, during the last 30 years.
Via E&E Publishing,
WOTUS critics may have gained 60th Senate vote
Opponents of the Obama administration’s controversial water rule may have won their 60th vote.
A Senate budget resolution amendment from Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) that was seen by many as a referendum on the proposed “Waters of the United States” rule was approved by the upper chamber last night by a vote of 59-40. Only a simple majority was required for passage. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who is already on record in opposition to the rule, did not vote. …