Biden Renews Obama’s War On Coal

The draft agreement from COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland calls on parties to accelerate phasing out “unabated” coal consumption and John Kerry, COP26 participant and U.S. climate envoy, claims the United States won’t have coal by 2030. In an interview, Kerry stated, “We will not have coal plants.”  Yet, coal generation in the United States is expected to increase its share of electric generation to 23 percent this year—up from 19 percent last year—and regaining its 2019 share. This will be the first increase in coal generation since 2014. Coal is regaining market share from higher-priced natural gas, whose share is expected to drop to 36 percent in 2021, down from 39 percent last year.

The Biden administration’s war on the oil and gas industry has escalated natural gas prices to over $6 per thousand cubic feet at the city gate and paved the way for coal’s entrance back into the utility market. In fact, coal’s increased generation through July of this year compared to the same period last year is 4 times larger than the combined increase in wind and solar generation for the same period. Unlike in Europe that is seeing soaring energy prices, U.S. electricity generators have turned to coal because they have the coal power plant capacity and because it is cheaper for electricity rate payers due to the abundance of coal resources in the United States.

John Kerry’s prediction that the United States will have no coal plants in 2030 is almost laughable when the United States has the largest coal reserves in the world—23 percent compared to Russia’s 15 percent and Australia’s 14 percent. China with 13 percent of the world’s coal reserves generates over 60 percent of its electricity from coal and India with 10 percent of the world’s coal reserves generates over 75 percent of its electricity from coal. Even Japan gets over 30 percent of its electricity generation from coal and has no plans to phase it out.

Globally, coal is still the main source of electricity generation at 37 percent of the world’s total generation. China added 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power capacity in 2020, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world, bringing its total coal-fired capacity to well over 1,000 gigawatts—about the total generating capacity in the United States from all sources. In the first half of 2021, Chinese provincial governments approved 24 domestic coal plants and Chinese localities have around 104 gigawatts in top-priority coal-power capacity planned—more than what’s currently installed in Japan and Russia combined.

Coal is not just used for electricity generation, it is also the backbone of steel production. China produces 57 percent of the world’s steel while the United States, United Kingdom and the European Union produce 13 percent. China relies on energy-intensive industries like steel, cement, and chemicals to power its growth and coal powers around 56 percent of China’s industry-heavy economy. And, for the countries transitioning to a “green” economy, coal-produced electricity and steel make it integral to the construction of windmills and solar panels. It is just that the carbon dioxide emissions that result from the production of those solar panels and windmills are emitted in China, not in the countries spouting the need for a non-carbon future. What hypocrisy!

China’s Dominance of Solar Panel Manufacturing

Chinese factories supply more than three-quarters of the world’s polysilicon, an essential component in most solar panels. Polysilicon factories refine silicon metal using a process that consumes large amounts of electricity, making access to cheap power a cost advantage. Chinese authorities built an array of coal-burning power plants in sparsely populated areas such as Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia to support polysilicon manufacturers and other energy-hungry industries where the cost of generation is half that of the rest of the nation. These factories also use Muslim Uyghurs for ‘slave’ labor.

China is also home to most of the companies that slice polysilicon into wafers, package the wafers into cells and assemble the cells into panels. U.S. tariffs on Chinese solar panels and cells have pushed Chinese companies to set up factories for these parts in other countries but Chinese controlled companies dominate the world’s solar panel manufacturing.

The solar industry’s reliance on Chinese coal will create a huge increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the future as manufacturers rapidly scale up production of solar panels to meet demand for a carbon free future being forced upon consumers in Western nations. That would make the solar industry one of the world’s most prolific polluters, undermining some of the emissions reductions achieved from widespread solar adoption. Because of the use of cheap coal, producing a solar panel in China creates around twice as much carbon dioxide as making it in Europe where other forms of energy are available, but at a higher cost. For example, in Germany the number of jobs in solar PV panel production and installation fell from a record 133,000 in 2011 to under 28,000 seven years later as many companies were forced out of business thanks to cheaper competitors from China scooping up most of the market.

Conclusion

Coal is still king for electricity generation world-wide and for steel production. While the United States under the Biden administration is trying to phase coal out, the Administration’s policies on oil and gas is bringing coal back for generation in order to keep electric prices from skyrocketing for U.S. consumers. The United States has the most coal reserves of any country in the world and can power the country with low-cost, reliable and abundant coal if it were allowed to as it is in China and India, producing well over 60 percent of their power. While China’s economy grows, the U.S. economy stagnates. The United States should follow China’s lead, rather than Biden’s hypocrisy.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

AEA Congratulates the other Joe on Infrastructure “Win”


The trillion-dollar boondoggle will do nothing to fix the actual problems facing America today and those which voters are most concerned about:  the supply chain crisis and rocketing inflation.


WASHINGTON DC (November 16, 2021) – The American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, opposed the $1 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which President Biden signed into law yesterday. AEA President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement in response to its passage:

“Congratulations to Joe on the passage of the trillion-dollar spending bill. Not President Joe Biden, but the other Joe from West Virginia. The bill, like Senator Manchin himself, is an old-timey brand of Democratic party legislating:  spend a lot of money across preferred special interests and constituencies. Meanwhile, American families will get very little in return. 

“Senator Manchin doesn’t deserve all the credit, however. I would be remiss to ignore the contribution of Senator Krysten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who worked hard to attract GOP Senate support for the bloated bill. And finally, the baker’s dozen House Republicans who provided Speaker Pelosi the necessary votes to get the bill over the finish line.

“Spending with no return is the theme of this bill. Tens of billions for rail, which few Americans choose, let alone use. It seems Congress insists on repeating and expanding the fantastically expensive bullet train boondoggle in California. Expanding mass transit in our largest cities, which forces people together, in an era of pandemic and physical distancing is mindboggling. Even the spending on actual highways, a mere 10% or so of the total bill, is likely to net only a limited gain.” 

“This infrastructure bill does nothing to fix the actual problems facing America today and those which voters are most concerned about: the supply chain crisis and rocketing inflation. That this wasteful and unnecessary legislation has consumed the attention of Congress for half the year is an indictment of the institution. We can only hope that wasted time and wasted money are the only consequences of this legislation.”


Additional resources:


For media inquiries please contact:
[email protected]

The Unregulated Podcast #57: Political Malpractice

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss what happened with Biden’s “infrastructure” bill and the fallout from COP26.

Links:

No, Senators, the United States Is Not Currently a Net Oil Exporting Country

On Monday, a group of 11 U.S. Senators wrote a letter to President Biden complaining about the high price of gasoline. Like the Secretary of Energy, these Senators get some basic facts wrong about the oil market in the United States and around the world. In this case, the Senators are wrong because the United States has been a net oil importer this year.   

The Senators correctly note that high prices burden families. They write: 

“According to AAA, the national average price for a gallon of gasoline is the highest it has been since 2014, with an increase of more than $1 per gallon since this time last year. In our home states, high gasoline prices have placed an undue burden on families and small businesses trying to make ends meet, and have proven especially burdensome as our constituents continue to recover from the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic.”  

This is correct. But what they get completely wrong is blaming U.S. oil exports as a problem. They blame “domestic leaseholders and producers [who] continue to export U.S. petroleum, threaten[ing] to send already record prices even higher. Continued U.S. exports and overseas supply collusion could be devastating to many in our states, contributing to higher bills for American families and businesses.”

First, a quick note on terms. Generally, when people talk about “oil” and U.S. oil imports and exports, they are almost always referring to petroleum and petroleum products, such as what is included in the Energy Information Administration’s Petroleum Overview. But “oil” can also refer to “crude oil.” This matters in this context, because according to EIA’s data here, the United States has never been a net exporter of crude oil. As shown below, the United States has been a net exporter of petroleum.   

In fact, just last year, the United States was a net petroleum exporter, however, so far this year it has been a net petroleum importer, not an exporter. Here’s the latest petroleum data from the Energy Information Administration in thousand barrels per day.   

Every month, the United States imports and exports some oil as well as refined petroleum products. The United States was a net exporter of petroleum in January, February and April, but otherwise this year it has been a net importer of petroleum. To suggest that oil prices are high because of petroleum exports is to ignore the data. 

If these Senators and President Biden are concerned about the price of gasoline, then it’s time to push for more domestic production instead of attacking domestic oil and gas producers. That means more safe and dependable pipelines and a stable and predictable leasing system on federal lands. OPEC+ has stated their intention of not ramping up their oil exports to combat globally high prices. OPEC+ countries, after all, are happy making billions of dollars with oil above $80 a barrel. Russia is happy to have become the #2 importer of oil into the United States this year. But the United States is the world’s largest oil producer. And as we have previously shown, over the past decade, as oil prices have moderated, the biggest supplier of new oil on the international market was the United States. It’s time to stop attacking domestic oil producers and start reducing the hurdles to higher domestic oil production. That would truly help American businesses and consumers. 

When Will Secretary Granholm Stop Lying About OPEC?

Last week, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm erroneously claimed that “OPEC controls more than 50 percent of petroleum supply.” This week she was back on TV with new inaccurate claims. For example, on State of the Union on CNN, she erroneously claimed, “OPEC is a cartel, and it controls over 50 percent of the supply of gasoline.” She also stated that “OPEC is controlling the agenda with respect to oil prices.” While the United States it the world’s largest oil producer and contributed the vast majority of new oil on the market over the past decade, she does not mention anything about U.S. oil production.

Maybe She is Talking about Refining?

We thought that maybe Secretary Granholm changed her claim slightly from last week because she realized it was wrong. But is claiming that OPEC controls over 50 percent of the gasoline supply any more correct? Nope.

Gasoline is a refined product. Data from the International Energy Agency shows that of the top ten countries by refining capacity, only Saudi Arabia and Iran are members of OPEC and they account for a mere 5.1 percent of global refining capacity—a far cry from “over 50 percent.”

Maybe She is Referring to other Definitions of Oil Supply?

Last week we showed that data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which Secretary Granholm oversees, shows that in Q2 of 2021, OPEC only produced 32.5 percent of the world’s total supply of petroleum and other liquids (30779.18 Mb/d out of 94764.01 Mb/d).

There are different ways to define oil production. In the example last week example, we used EIA’s “total supply of petroleum and other liquids.” Maybe Secretary Granholm is referring to a different definition of oil supply—maybe a more European definition. Let’s see what the BP uses in their well-regarded Statistical Review of World Energy 2021. On page 18 of the BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2021, it shows OPEC production is a mere 34.7 percent of world oil production.

Again, 34.7 percent if significantly less than “over 50 percent.” It is unacceptable for the person who oversees the world’s premier energy statistical agency to continually get these basic statistics wrong.

If Secretary Granholm continues to make this basic mistake, we will be forced to conclude that she is not making the mistake out of ignorance, as we assumed last week, but that she is being intentionally dishonest with the American people.

She Fails to Mention Anything about U.S. Oil Production

In her interview on CNN, Secretary Granholm also states that “OPEC is controlling the agenda with respect to oil prices.” This a bizarre statement for the U.S. Secretary of Energy to make when the United States is the world’s largest oil producer. According to BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2021, the United States produced 18.6 percent of the world’s oil in 2020, compared to OPEC producing 34.7 percent of the world’s oil.

Not only that, over the past 10 years, the United States, not OPEC, has “controlled the agenda” with respect to oil prices with the United States being the biggest player in supplying the market with more oil.

The chart below uses data from BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2021. Over the past 10 years, global oil production has increased by 11,668,000 barrels a day. The U.S. produced an additional 9,513,000 barrels a day which is 82 percent of 11,668,000 barrels a day.

OPEC, on the other hand, only contributed 1,149,000 barrels a day to the global increase in oil production. That is a mere 12 percent of the U.S.’s increase over the last decade.

Oil is a Global Market—but the U.S. has been the Most Important Player

Secretary Granholm is certainly correct that the oil market is a global market and OPEC plays a large role. However, OPEC contributes about a third of the global production and not a half. Not only that, the United States has played the most important role of supplying new oil to the market over the last decade.

But instead of further trying to increase domestic oil production, President Biden is working to increase the cost of oil by canceling leases, stalling new lease sales, and proposing sky-high new taxes on oil and gas production. No wonder global oil prices have increased.


*This article was adapted from content originally published by the Institute for Energy Research.

An Infrastructure “Win” That No One Needed

Congratulations are in order on the passage of the so-called bipartisan infrastructure bill. Not to President Joe Biden, whose own priorities barely feature in the legislation, but to another Joe, the one from West Virginia (though we would be remiss if we didn’t also congratulate Senator Krysten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who worked hard to attract GOP support for the bloated bill). The legislation, which finally passed the House months after passing the Senate, was really Senator Joe Manchin’s vision of what infrastructure spending should be The Manchin infrastructure bill, like Senator Manchin himself, is an old-timey brand of Democratic party legislating:  spending a lot of money, but getting very little in return. 

What do we get for all this spending?

Spending with no return is the feature of all the biggest components of the bill.  

  • Tens of billions of dollars for passenger rail, which is used by few Americans, makes little sense in a country the size of the US, and is fantastically expensive, as the California high speed rail boondoggle has shown over the last ten years.
  • Tens of billions of dollars for mass transit, ridership of which collapsed due to the pandemic and may never recover, is concentrated in only a small number of cities, is of questionable economic benefit, and again is hugely expensive for what often mediocre service it provides.
  • Tens of billions of dollars for electricity transmission which is mostly unneeded. As AEA noted in its score opposing this legislation, the grid works just fine for reliable baseload electricity generation. What causes struggles, from Texas to California is the proliferation of unreliable wind and solar generation, whose wild swings in output require expensive backups and redundancies. So this spending is not about “improving the grid,” it is an indirect subsidy to intermittent generation sources, trying to paper over their inadequacies with federal cash. Again, all this spending does nothing to improve our electricity system: it neither saves ratepayers money nor improves reliability. It just is a quixotic attempt to replace the electricity generation we already have with more expensive and less reliable generation.
  • Even the spending on actual highways (a mere 10% or so of the total spending) is likely to net only a limited gain. The bill eats away at the value of this spending with union mandates that raise the cost of any projects funded. Combined with the Biden administration’s announced efforts to roll back some Trump administration reforms of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and inject vague new infrastructure roadblocks in the guise of “environmental justice,” most of the increase in highway spending will be eaten up by higher costs, bureaucracy, litigation and delays.

The “infrastructure” bill includes numerous other subsidies and slush funds for favored interests: little-used electric vehicle charging stations, subsidies for existing nuclear plants to protect them from the subsidies handed out to wind and solar, slush funds for vaguely defined “climate resilience” and research programs at the Department of Energy. All certainly send money out the door and put cash in the pockets of government clients, their actual economic value is seemingly irrelevant. At a time of rocketing inflation, this trillion-dollar spending spree seems especially poorly timed.

What about the politics?

The three-month delay between Senate and House passage was due to infighting among the Democratic party over linkage of the infrastructure bill with an even larger, and much more destructive, spending spree contained in a reconciliation bill that the Democrats will try to ram through without any attempt at bipartisanship. While we certainly opposed it outright, The linkage of these two pieces of legislation was among the reasons AEA fought this legislation so hard. With passage of the infrastructure bill last week and no timeline for the reconciliation bill to be completed, the immediate linkage is now seemingly broken. The only question now is whether the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate can unite the warring factions amongst their ranks and pass the budget busting monstrosity. 

Some in the administration cling to the hope that passage of the infrastructure bill somehow resuscitates the Biden agenda. But this infrastructure bill does nothing to fix the actual problems facing America today the voters are most concerned about:  the supply chain crisis and rocketing inflation. The legislation completely ignores supply disruption issues, instead choosing to simply spread government pork to everyone with a good lobbyist. As to inflation, its $550 billion boost to federal spending can only put more pressure on inflation, with that new federal money chasing workers and goods that are already in short supply. Ignoring the concerns of voters to focus on running up spending for the sake of spending does not make for a catchy campaign message.

Conclusion

The infrastructure bill spends a lot of money, can be expected to accomplish little of benefit, and is of questionable value politically. What it does not do is contribute in any way to addressing the ongoing supply chain crisis choking America’s ports and disrupting delivery of goods, nor will it do anything but add to inflationary pressure throughout the economy. That this wasteful and unnecessary legislation has consumed the attention of Congress for half the year is an indictment of the institution. We can only hope that that wasted time and wasted money are the only consequences of this legislation.

The Unregulated Podcast #56: Meet The Depressed

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss the results of the 2021 state elections in Virginia and elsewhere and what Glenn’s Youngkin’s victory means for the rest of the country.

The Unregulated Podcast #55: The Diplomat

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna respond to breaking news and discuss the efforts of everyone’s favorite globe-trotting “diplomat.”

Links:

The Unregulated Podcast #54: Words of Wisdom

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna dispense a few words of wisdom for our elected leaders and anyone else who will listen.

The Unregulated Podcast #53: What is it Exactly That You Do Here?

On this episode of The Unregulated Podcast, Tom Pyle and Mike McKenna discuss election updates from around the country, prospects for 2024, and headlines from around the world.

Links: