Science Biden set an energy trap for himself

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Article Archive

Biden set an energy trap for himself​

Thu, March 24, 2022
Gas prices: Debunking 5 myths about energy costs

President Biden has good intentions on climate change. His plan to halve carbon emissions by 2030 is on the scale energy and climate experts say is necessary to prevent the worst damage a warming planet could cause. He favors aggression action without the massive overshoot far-left schemes such as the “Green New Deal” would entail. That fits with his desire to make big changes that have at least some bipartisan support and can survive political turnover in Washington.

Yet Biden now finds himself snared in an energy trap he constructed himself. He has lobbied for the phase-out of fossil fuels that are now in short supply, causing gasoline and home-heating costs to surge. But the renewable energy he favors isn’t yet abundant enough to substitute for scarce fossil fuels. Biden hasn’t actually changed much in the energy industry, so far, yet voters hearing his anti-carbon rhetoric conclude he’s responsible for rising costs that are denting family budgets. It’s like he’s asking Americans to cross a bridge from old forms of energy to new, even though the span isn’t complete yet and the road is rough going.

Soaring gas prices and other types of inflation clearly threaten Biden’s presidency and Democrats’ grip on power in Washington. Biden’s approval rating has drifted down to 42%, from a high of 55% shortly after he took office in 2021. Recent polling shows about 40% of voters blame Biden for high gas prices, which have risen from an average of about $2.50 per gallon when he took office to $4.25 now. The most immediate threat for Biden is that voters will punish his fellow Democrats in this year’s midterm elections, and return both houses of Congress to Republican control.

Biden's green energy efforts haven't gotten far​

A bitter irony for Biden is that he has accomplished very few of his green energy priorities, even though some voters think he has remade the U.S. energy industry. Some of Biden’s biggest climate priorities require Congressional action, including broad new tax breaks for green-energy production, the elimination of federal tax breaks for oil and gas companies and subsidies for electric vehicles. Those provisions were part of the “build back better” legislation that died last year. Biden has rebranded his program as “build a better America,” yet in his March 1 State of the Union speech, he barely mentioned his climate goals, a sign that even Biden may now find them out of reach. The odds of Congress passing any of these provisions this year now looks remote.

Biden has tried to enact other green-energy policies through executive action. As with President Trump before him, some of these moves will stand and make a difference, while others will lose court challenges or fall far short of what the president intends. The Biden administration, for instance, rejoined the Paris climate accord and appointed climate activists to the top jobs at many agencies. It raised fuel-efficiency standardsand ran the biggest-ever offshore wind-power lease. Those types of moves could have lasting effect.

[Follow Rick Newman on Twitter, sign up for his newsletter or send in your thoughts.]

The recent effort by the Securities and Exchange Commission to force more corporate accounting of carbon use is more dubious. Biden’s SEC is trying to standardize public reporting on climate-related costs, and institutionalize reporting on climate issues as if it’s a normal financial risk shareholders ought to know about. But there are myriad questions about whether the SEC’s proposed rule is practicable and even within the SEC’s jurisdiction. The SEC could change the rule by the time it finalizes it later this year, but whatever the outcome, a legalpalooza seems certain.

U.S. President Joe Biden speaks at a meeting during the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland, Britain, November 2, 2021. REUTERS/Yves Herman

Biden also canceled the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office in 2021, and his administration paused new oil and gas leases on public land earlier this year, pending litigation relating to the cost of damage caused by carbon emissions. All told, it seems like Biden has done quite a lot to shackle the fossil-fuel industry and shift to renewables.

Biden blamed for rising gas prices​

Energy experts, however, say Biden’s executive actions have had very little effect on actual energy production in the United States.

“Biden administration policies haven’t really done anything to reduce U.S. oil production,” Raoul LeBlanc, vice president of the energy practice at S&P Global, told Yahoo Finance. “They may do so in the future. But right now, that’s not the root of the reason U.S. oil and gas production is not ramping up.”

Economic and market forces are mostly responsible for rising gas prices under Biden. From 2015 through 2020, U.S. oil firms overproduced, putting profits aside for the sake of growth. Gas prices dropped below $2 per gallon, which was great for motorists. But many energy firms lost money. Some went bankrupt, and investors began to back away. The business model has since shifted. Drillers now focus on short-term profits and returns to shareholders, while resisting capacity expansion. The Russian invasion of Ukraine made the problem worse, threatening supply from the world’s third-largest oil producer. But the market had already tightened substantially by then.

Some new U.S. production is coming online, and that should bring prices down eventually. But drillers are no longer willing to subsidize low gas prices by overproducing and losing money. That leaves Biden in a maddening bind. If he huddles at the White House with energy CEOs or proposes any federal incentive to stimulate fossil-fuel production, it will contradict his green-energy policies and enrage progressive Democrats Biden has worked hard to appease. But if he refuses to engage with the American fossil-fuel industry, it will reinforce the notion that he prioritizes green power over affordable energy and is indifferent to the financial pain of high gas prices.

The consequences go beyond the political. Green-energy advocates are generally correct when they say more renewable energy would make the United States more self-sufficient and less vulnerable to foreign energy disruptions. That’s because wind, solar and hydro power are harder to transport than oil and gas, and more likely to be used solely for regional or national needs. So a fossil-fuel crisis actually raises the incentive to develop renewables.

Many consumers see something different, however, because the push for green-energy transformation comes at the same time the fossil fuel we rely on now is spiking in price. The transmission from one to the other is not smooth, and it’s easy for fossil-fuel defenders and Biden critics to demagogue and create more of a causal connection than there is. That, in turn, could turn more people against renewables, because they think it will raise costs. It also damages the credibility of renewable advocates who say green energy will lower costs, which could happen eventually—but is definitely not happening right now.

The best hope for Biden is that energy markets straighten themselves out, with more supply gradually lowering prices and easing the pain for consumers. Even that lucky outcome, however, could leave Biden as the president who began the pivot to green energy, but tripped because it’s a much trickier move than he anticipated. He’ll leave a lot of work for future presidents to complete.

Rick Newman is the author of four books, including "Rebounders: How Winners Pivot from Setback to Success.” Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman. You can also send confidential tips.
 
This is the hole he dug himself into. You cannot just try to change from fossil fuel to green energy overnight and expect it to go very smoothly.
 
This is the hole he dug himself into. You cannot just try to change from fossil fuel to green energy overnight and expect it to go very smoothly.
1648231048668.jpeg
Fact: Uranium is the only true source of “green” energy.
 
Last edited:
Green energy is good! Sure it's inadequate, infeasible, and impossible to switch to, but pshaw that's only three negatives!

Take this line of thinking and hold it up to nearly everything the left does and believes. You'll find it applies to a lot of them. Who cares if it makes no sense, it's a "good idea"!
 
Shit blowing up in Biden's face is kind of his thing. He's like Wile E. Coyote.
 
Not a bug, a feature. It’s a deliberate stressor on the population to link in with the dismantling of the middle class and economy in general.
Over here in europe, we’ve been shuttering coal and nuke plants and our electricity bills have been going up to insane levels while we lose Russian gas. Friends over in Sweden got a 1000 quid equivalent bill for December alone. Green energy is fine In some circumstances- if you’ve got geothermal, or hydro nearby it can be a good local solution. But it’s PART of the grid and right now it can only ever be part.
The way our leaders and yours in the USA have deliberately neglected to pursue energy self sufficiency and security is treasonous. I just don’t see any other way to look at it.
Same goes for just in time supply chains etc and offshored cieitical manufacturing. The fact there are no specific chip foundries outside of SEA is insane. The fact we were inportant very basic critical drug and chemical supplies during covid and we almost ran out of some things is insane. We need to have shorter supply chains for critical items and we need energy security.
 
This is the hole he dug himself into. You cannot just try to change from fossil fuel to green energy overnight and expect it to go very smoothly.
The change itself is also physically impossible without nuclear being the backbone, assuming that green = no co2.

Our ability to store energy is relatively terrible, lithium ion has generally hit it's ceiling and Tesla spends billions buying out companies because they somehow unlocked another 5-10 percent of storage density, so the outlook for improvement isn't great. Our best energy storage tends to be literally pumping water up a hill into a reservoir then letting it flow back down into a generator later.

We may never be able to store energy efficiently and on a scale that would let us run on wind and ground-based solar alone (space-based solar is different if we ever commit to it), and they can't be arbitrarily throttled like gas or nuclear plants can, so our choice of backbone to the energy supply comes down to fossil fuels or nuclear, with hydro being a nice bonus when the location allows for it.

So unless we discover a magical rock that can store incredible amounts of electricity, the California/Germany situation ends up not being a bad transition but the final result, where the wind and solar is generally decorative and the power comes from fossil fuels, more so as the nuclear gets shut down.
 
I'm not sure what Biden expected when he killed pipeline projects and land leases for oil/natural gas companies, and didn't bother having suitable replacement energy sources ready. Green energy isn't green, and will always come with massive downsides.

The article is almost as exceptional as when Biden took a 70+ car motorcade to the climate change summit last year.
 
So unless we discover a magical rock that can store incredible amounts of electricity, the California/Germany situation ends up not being a bad transition but the final result, where the wind and solar is generally decorative and the power comes from fossil fuels, more so as the nuclear gets shut down.
California's situation is unique in that we get a lot of electricity from large hydro projects.

Our rolling blackouts in the past few years are more a problem of the clown not juggling the balls right than any problem with the balls themselves.


The blackout in Texas a couple years ago was also a cluster:

 
So unless we discover a magical rock that can store incredible amounts of electricity, the California/Germany situation ends up not being a bad transition but the final result, where the wind and solar is generally decorative and the power comes from fossil fuels, more so as the nuclear gets shut down.
It already exists, it's just expensive (much as the "pump water up a hill and let it flow back down" solution) which undermines the reputation of solar/wind as "cheapest form of energy per watt." You have flywheel storage systems (which are getting more efficient, especially since superconductors are becoming cheaper) or the really simple thermal energy storage systems which produce energy from heat therefore still work at night, during cloudy weather, etc.
 
No shit, the idea is to make everyone suffer on purpose.
Yeah.

These dummies actually think that deliberately making you jump through hoops to get $8 a gallon gas will make you angry at the GAS and demand green alternatives, not that you'd get angry at PEOPLE WHO PUT UP THE HOOPS and fucked up the economy to the point it cost $8 a gallon and demand they get booted out of office instead.... they don't think you're smart enough to figure out the causality. Heck, THEY aren't smart enough to figure it out.

Democrats and progressives in particular have a real problem admitting that ontology is a thing... that their big-brained progressive good ideas, at some point, have to actually make physical things happen or else it's, by definition, not a good idea.

They can't admit that good vibes and non-racist feelings are a starting point at best not all that's needed.

I've often said they honestly feel that putting a sign around their necks that says "TowinKarz" and then shitting their pants will make me mad at myself for crapping my drawers instead of the reality that they just pooped their own pants in self-indigent rage I won't listen to them....

Almost all their polices are based around this flawed notion that if they just frustrate you enough in your daily life through regulatory measures and shaming you'll see the light about how you're living the wrong way and submit to their wishes instead of becoming an even bigger opponent from having your life interrupted for purely political reasons and being denied a moments rest from it. These people will slash your tires and if caught, say "well, you should really use a bus anyway" as if that justifies vandalism.

"Expensive gas is good! It makes green energy look better!" Is pure "the beatings will continue until you stop angering Gaia" coping.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 3107788
Fact: Uranium is the only true source of “green” energy.
If I didn't know any better I'd think that was some kind of French cheese I was looking at. Uranium definitely has more calories than the average French cheese though.

I don't get the worry about a warming planet anyways. Yeah theoretically you lose a bunch of beachfront property but places like Alaska, Northern Canada, and Siberia become much more comfortable to live in. Also doesn't Antarctica have land under all the ice so we get a whole new actually hospitable continent. If these politician fags actually thought every beach city would be underwater in 10 years they wouldn't be buying mansions in Hawaii so it doesn't matter.
 
If I didn't know any better I'd think that was some kind of French cheese I was looking at. Uranium definitely has more calories than the average French cheese though.

I don't get the worry about a warming planet anyways. Yeah theoretically you lose a bunch of beachfront property but places like Alaska, Northern Canada, and Siberia become much more comfortable to live in. Also doesn't Antarctica have land under all the ice so we get a whole new actually hospitable continent. If these politician fags actually thought every beach city would be underwater in 10 years they wouldn't be buying mansions in Hawaii so it doesn't matter.
Even simpler, they've been saying we're going to be underwater in less than 10 years for ... over 35 years now.

I know this country is fucking terrible at math, but, surely your average person can run those numbers.

Hell, when I was in grade school, they were convinced we were going to be under GLACIERS by now because we were apparently overdue for another ice age according to someone's computer model......
 
Economic and market forces are mostly responsible for rising gas prices under Biden. From 2015 through 2020, U.S. oil firms overproduced, putting profits aside for the sake of growth. Gas prices dropped below $2 per gallon, which was great for motorists.
Gee, if only those 2015-2020 dates lined up with certain political events that made it more profitable to drill more oil and sell it to the public for cheaper. Perhaps the political and economic conditions are related in some way?

If only journoroaches could be honest for 0.78 nanoseconds...
 
Back
Top Bottom