Europe has next to no gas left – Gazprom - "Underground gas storage facilities (UGS) in Europe were 95.3% empty as of February 17, Russia’s state energy giant and major gas exporter Gazprom said on Saturday, citing data from Gas Infrastructure Europe. This means that Europe now has only 4.7% of its gas reserves left for the remainder of the winter season... According to Gazprom, gas reserves in underground storage facilities in Ukraine are also at a minimum, having dropped to 10.6 billion cubic meters, which is 45% less than last year. Also, earlier this week, authorities in Germany, which has one of the largest underground storage capacities in Europe, reported a plunge in storage volumes to historically low levels compared to previous years."
Expensive petrol forever as climate warrior investors force oil companies to slash new drilling
Europe Faces Dire Winter as Nuclear Outages Deepen Energy Crunch - Bloomberg - "Electricite de France SA is halting reactors accounting for 10% of the nation’s nuclear capacity, worsening Europe’s energy shortages and leaving the continent at the mercy of the weather at the height of winter in January and February. Even before the outages, a shortage of natural gas had already forced Europe to rely on burning coal to keep the lights on. Supply concerns plaguing Europe have sent gas and electricity prices breaking fresh records several times this year, a headache for policy makers already contending with rising inflation... Europe could experience rolling blackouts in case of a cold winter. “Europe will have a lot of problems if it gets cold,” said Emeric de Vigan, CEO of energy analysis firm COR-e. “Now it would only take 2-3 degrees Celsius below the seasonal normal to get into trouble.” The French nuclear fleet is a crucial round-the-clock source of power not just nationally but at peak times in markets such as Germany, Italy and Britain... Before this latest blow, markets were already under severe strain. Gas prices that are more than six times higher than usual have pushed up the cost of generating electricity, and Europe’s wide network of renewable energy sources hasn’t been able to fill the gap due to low wind speeds. High energy prices risk further industrial shutdowns, halts to cross-border power flows and even full on blackouts."
German indulgence in their national religion of renewable energy is only sustainable due to nuclear backup from France
Germany’s Energy Surrender - WSJ - "One might expect that a country suffering a generational energy crunch would be trying everything possible to expand supply. Yet Germany is proceeding with the closure of three nuclear power plants—around half of the country’s nuclear power generation—by the end of the year... German one-year forward electricity prices have hit €300 per megawatt hour. For comparison, the 2010 to 2020 average was under €50 per megawatt hour. The antinuclear move has support from many of Germany’s climate-change obsessives, but abandoning carbon-free nuclear power has had predictable results on emissions. Coal was the country’s top energy source in the first half of 2021, generating more than a quarter of Germany’s electricity. Wind and solar produced 22% and 9%, respectively, as nuclear has fallen to around 12%. France, which relies heavily on nuclear power, puts out about half as much carbon dioxide per capita as Germany. The French also are coping with high energy prices as a result of nuclear outages and greater exposure to skyrocketing natural gas prices. But Paris is responding by building more nuclear reactors. Berlin—at the self-made mercy of the sun and wind—is now deepening its reliance on Russian gas to keep the lights on. This is the background explanation for its weak response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. Germany’s staunch support for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia, despite opposition from allies, undermines the West’s response to Vladimir Putin’s designs to dominate Eastern Europe. Germany is now pushing to keep nuclear power off the European Union’s list of “environmentally sustainable economic activities,” a designation that could lower the cost of financing nuclear projects. It’s bad enough that the Germans have undermined their own energy security, but they shouldn’t foist their self-destructive policy on the rest of the Continent."
Germany Follows California Into Energy Danger - WSJ - "“Germany’s Energy Surrender” (Review and Outlook, Dec. 23) makes one wonder what the German leaders and people fear more: Russia’s use of natural gas to control the European economy through blackmail, the generation of carbon-dioxide emissions from coal, or the one-half ounce (14.175 grams) of spent fuel generated from a nuclear reactor per capita over a person’s lifetime? With a conscious effort, society can safely manage and mitigate the last two consequences. The Russian government has said it would never use its natural-gas supply for geopolitical exploitation. When was the last time the Russian government could be trusted?
Germany appears to be following the route of California, where the state’s electrical-power industries are caught between the “rock” of mandated carbon-free power generation and the “hard place” of the laws of physics. A classic example was Southern California Edison’s decision to decommission the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant. Edison and the user community lost 2,115 megawatt an hour of “dispatchable,” reliable and carbon-free electrical power, which could have been used during the brown outs of last summer. Now, Pacific Gas and Electric plans to decommission the Diable Canyon Nuclear Plant, the last nuclear facility in the state. Windmills and solar panels can hardly make up the loss. Case in point: Los Angeles Water and Power, for which I worked, built the Pine Tree Wind Farm with 90 windmills on 8,000 acres for $425 million. On average, it provides only 0.43% of the energy required to power Los Angeles."
Meme - Robert Reich: "Abolishing fossil fuels is a good thing."
Robert Reich: "Let me ask again: Why isn't the media reporting that oil companies chose to raise prices rather than increase supplies?"
Millionaire with many homes calls for you to make sacrifices to save the planet - " Energy prices in the US are set to rise by over 50% this winter, yet Joe Biden wants to cut supplies still further, while Barack Obama advocates that ordinary people should change their lifestyles and become poorer (and colder). As the US faces the likelihood that the country’s heating costs this winter could be the highest on record thanks to energy price inflation that according to the government could reach 54%, President Biden is recommending a truly Democrat remedy: He wants to cut the amount of energy available to the country, making prices go higher still... To come up with this remedy, President Joe jetted off to Scotland last week with his fellow Americo-European liberal elites in fossil-fuel-powered jet planes to plot how the rest of us will make the sacrifices necessary so they can continue to make our life better via another, interminable Climate Change Conference, COP26... “All of us have a part to play. All of us have work to do. All of us have sacrifices to make,” Obama promised. “But those of us who live in wealthy nations, those of us who helped to precipitate the problem... we have an added burden.” And when he says “we,” what he really means is “you.” And when he says “burden,” he also means “you.” As in you will bear the many burdens. Because whatever else the Americo-European liberal elite require as they guide the world from crisis to crisis, they don’t mean to change their own lives, unless it’s for the better. “The great man announced he is prepared to make great sacrifices for the planet… let’s not forget his holiday home in Hawaii, which will be built on the site used for the 1980s TV show Magnum P.I.,” said Sky News host Rita Panahi of Obama’s call for sacrifice. “Because, you know, climate emergency… what a hypocrite.” The same hypocrite refused to cancel his party at his other estate on Martha’s Vineyard as he celebrated his 60th birthday while his fellow Democrats called for universal lockdowns because of Covid-19. Obama couldn’t cancel it because it wasn’t really a birthday party, but a fundraiser held exclusively for the various Obama foundations that allow him to organize and fund his activities, including a $485 million down payment on his estimated $700 million Chicago headquarters to be built via anonymous donations near his other, other estate... Appearing on Bloomberg, host Tom Keene asked the politician what her plan was to bring down gas prices at the pump for ordinary Americans: “What is the Granholm plan to increase oil production in America?” In response, Granholm laughed. And laughed. And laughed again. Granholm laughed until it was painful to watch. Talking about sacrifice, she sacrificed a lot of her dignity and almost all of her self-respect in that TV appearance. But that’s probably not the sacrifice Obama was talking about. “That is hilarious,” Granholm, who is in charge of energy policy for the biggest energy producer and user in the world, finally answered. “Would that I had the magic wand on this.” According to data by the Energy Information Agency, Americans are paying $144 million more PER DAY for gasoline under Biden than they did under Trump, despite using less gasoline. No need for an energy secretary with a magic wand on that, but we do need one with a policy that evokes something besides tears and laughter. But wait. Her work wasn’t done yet. Appearing on CNN later, Granholm was asked what the administration was going to do about impending winter heating demand to increase gas available to heat homes and businesses. Her answer was literally “Nothing.”... Looking back in retrospect, Granholm’s answer seems a lot more reasonable than it did at the time. Perhaps she knew even then that Biden’s solution – shutting down another oil pipeline – was worse. That is even worse than doing nothing to solve the winter’s energy crisis, Uncle Joe would do less than nothing and would actually make the problem worse. It’s chilling, in all senses."
Gripped by Energy Crisis, Europe Considers Breaking Climate Promises and Turning to Coal - "The price of natural gas on the continent has risen sharply over the past year with the European benchmark up nearly 600 percent as of Thursday and the European Union (EU) seeking more gas supply from Russian energy firm Gazprom, which is already Europe's largest supplier, providing 35 percent of the continent's needs... Putin Holds All the Cards, U.S. Strategy to Stop Energy Crisis in Disarray Coal is the most polluting fossil fuel and European countries have committed to phasing out its use and closing all coal plants by 2030, according to Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, a climate change nongovernmental organization (NGO). Europe was already halfway to that goal as of March this year but the energy crunch has led some power producers to ask Russia for greater supplies of coal as well as gas, while API2 Rotterdam coal futures - a benchmark price reference for coal imported into northwest Europe - rose $80 per metric tonne in September and passed $230 per metric tonne. Coal stocks have also rallied as demand has increased, with European producers turning to coal as a result of the energy crisis... Ralph Schoellhammer, an assistant professor of international relations at Webster Vienna Private University in Vienna, Austria, pointed to the issue of nuclear power. "In Europe reality has now finally caught up with ideology since climate policy has been formulated primarily by NGOs and young climate activists but not the hard scientific evidence," Schoellhammer told Newsweek. "This becomes particularly obvious in the case of nuclear energy, which in many respects would be a climate-friendly way of producing energy, but it is ideological concerns that caused the abandonment of nuclear energy, for example in Germany by 2022, and at the moment a U-turn seems unlikely."... "All of this causes severe energy shortages – Sweden had to power up two oil-based power plants that burn 140,000 liters of oil per hour, while having simultaneously shut down six out of its 12 nuclear power plants." "Politically for the moment, it seems that a return to coal is more 'sellable' than a return to nuclear, because exiting the latter has been promoted as an enormous success that it never was," Schoellhammer went on... "The turn away from fossil fuels was always based on the mirage that it would have no real-life consequences for the average European, or that they would not fully comprehend slowly rising energy prices as part of general inflation," Schoellhammer told Newsweek. "With the risk of runaway inflation, however, people are becoming increasingly more sensitive to what their monthly bills consist of, and at some point using fossil fuels and nuclear energy will be politically more expedient than clinging to climate change goals. "This was already reflected in the German elections on September 26, where first-time voters were more attracted to the pro-nuclear energy FDP than the Greens," he went on. "All the major parties in Europe fear people at the risk of freezing to death like what happened in Texas in March of 2021 due to widespread energy outages. But even if human casualties can be avoided, energy poverty becomes an ever more realistic prospect for large parts of the European populace, a risk driven mainly by ideological decisions that were based on very little scientific evidence. "If things continue the way they are developing at the moment, this could well be the first step of the Green movement's ultimate decline, since the costs for switching Europe to alternative energy sources are slowly but surely exceeding the sacrifices particularly the lower classes are willing to shoulder"... As prices spike, the public's willingness to pay a significant premium to avoid greenhouse gas emissions wanes. "So policies need to focus not just on clean energy and renewable power but also on cheaper and more reliable electricity. In this regard, European leaders have made some serious policy mistakes including a commitment to shut down nuclear powerplants before renewable energy was available at scale and competitive cost," he went on. "More generally, there has been too much emphasis on renewable energy targets and too little focus on the strategies and market incentives needed to ramp up clean energy in a cost-effective way""
If you freeze to death, you lower your carbon emissions. Win!
EU warns of fuel poverty due to energy price crunch - "In September, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) warned that more than 2.7 million people in Europe could not afford to keep their homes reasonably warm, even though they had jobs. Last week, Germany slashed its tax on renewable energy by a third. The levy accounts for one-fifth of German consumers' power bills"
Facebook - "Energy prices out of control: Wholesale gas prices in EU up 429% since 2019 Wholesale electricity prices in EU up 230% since 2019 Now, 2.7 million additional people in Europe can not afford to keep their homes war, even though they have a job Welcome to the cold"
Joe Oliver: Our energy self-delusion continues - "Economically developed countries have committed to start transitioning off fossil fuels, even though that commitment is disconnected from technological and economic reality. As a result, their policies have exacerbated a global energy crisis, with severe geopolitical and domestic implications. Canada is an active participant in the self-delusion. We are ceaselessly told that the justification for radically transforming our energy system, which has brought unprecedented prosperity to billions of people, is to reduce GHG emissions and thereby save the planet from an impending climate catastrophe. Even though Canada represents only 1.6 per cent of total emissions and cannot make a difference to global climate, we have a moral obligation to do our part in a worldwide effort. A common-sense approach would be to optimize our contribution while limiting damage to the economy. Instead, we seem determined to minimize our effectiveness and maximize self-harm. According to a recent report from Queen’s University’s Institute for Sustainable Finance, Canada will need to spend over $200 billion to fulfill the federal government’s latest pledge to reduce GHG emissions by 40-45 per cent below 2020 levels this decade. That does not include the immense opportunity cost of not developing and exporting oil and gas overseas. Furthermore, the proposed transition could jeopardize 800,000 direct and indirect jobs, including many held by Indigenous people, who account for 7.4 per cent of oil and gas sector employment. Even more bracing, RBC Economics concluded that Canada will need to spend $2 trillion to achieve net-zero emissions in 30 years. The federal government is effectively killing any chance to reduce net global emissions by substituting Canadian gas for much higher-emitting coal in Asia —even though the oil and gas we do not export is made up for by less environmentally responsible countries. Canada cannot hector other oil- and gas- producing countries into reducing production because that would cause economic devastation. Indeed, Europe is all but begging Vladimir Putin for natural gas while President Biden did beg OPEC to increase oil production — after he turned down Keystone XL. Meanwhile, both China and India intend to increase GHG emissions until at least 2030 and Russia is maxing out its energy sales. Since these three countries together account for 40 per cent of global emissions, there is no chance of keeping temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees celsius, according to climate models. Yet environmental NGOs argue, with serene certitude, that green energy can be a cost-effective substitute for fossil fuels. Perhaps some day, but not yet. Hence the crucial need for natural gas to bridge the transition by supplying backup energy when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. Right now, the U.K. and European Union are facing an energy crisis, with rising prices and risk of blackouts, bankruptcies and, as in China, government intervention to reduce energy consumption. Since blackouts and unaffordable prices can be politically fatal, the effort to transition to green energy is in jeopardy... Calgary’s new mayor, Jyoti Gondek, used her first interview to declare a climate emergency, presumably to encourage her city’s biggest employer to reconcile itself to oblivion. That is like the Lord Mayor of London exhorting Londoners to keep the lights on at night during the blitz... A more substantive and disturbing development last week was the decision of Canada’s six largest chartered banks to join the UN-convened Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), to which the International Energy Agency had previously added a demand of no financing for new oil and gas projects. Their decision is a major score for former Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney on the dystopian road to stakeholder capitalism. Other carbon-intensive sectors targeted by NZBA include agriculture, cement, real estate and transportation. Our banks are not usually in the business of chasing away creditworthy borrowers. After all, the five largest have invested $726 billion in the fossil fuel industry since the Paris Agreement. Nor would they be expected to deliberately undermine Canada’s employment and economic growth prospects, jack up energy prices and advantage less environmentally compliant international competitors. Well-informed bank CEOs obviously understand all this. Presumably, they feared further attacks by social justice warriors for supporting an evil industry, even one that brought prosperity to the country and attractive profits to their shareholders"
When virtue signalling is actively harmful
Derek H. Burney: The fallout from the global energy crisis demands a reality check in Canada - "An energy shortage and resulting dramatic spikes in oil and natural gas prices are stimulating a worldwide crisis, exacerbated in Canada by banks and major pension funds, like Quebec’s Caisse de dépôt, that are divesting fossil fuel assets. Investment decisions normally reflect market principles. Yet, in their rush to embrace trendy political judgments and earn public favour, financial lenders are ignoring the most fundamental laws of supply and demand. Natural gas stocks are alarmingly low globally and prices have never been higher. As governments wean their economies from coal to gas in order to reduce carbon emissions, many are simultaneously discouraging investment in gas production and LNG infrastructure. But they have miscalculated the pace and scale of the shift to renewables and are now paying the price... The perennial stumbling block for greater reliance on renewables is that they are intermittent. Offsetting gas supplies with renewables requires advances in battery technology or heating by hydrogen, neither of which is imminent. Ironically, leading investment institutions are vacating markets that now offer the best opportunities. Writing in the Financial Post, Eric Nuttall described the investment community as “stuck in an apathetic coma resulting from too many years of poor stock performance, energy ignorance and environmental, social and governance (ESG) pressures.” Investors are steering capital away from fossil fuels towards companies that rank highly on ESG virtue-signalling... Developing countries in particular want reliable, not intermittent, energy supplies for their economic growth. Demonstrating climate hypocrisy at play, Glasgow organizers are reportedly using diesel generators to charge the Teslas transporting delegates to the conference. Neither China nor India is making commitments that would support the climate goals solemnly proclaimed for 2035 and 2050. China faces an energy crisis of its own. Demand for electricity is soaring as factories increase production to meet rising consumer demand in the West. Even though power consumption has been curbed in two-thirds of the country, China is using more, not less, coal. A similar power crunch in India highlights the enduring importance of coal, a dirty but essential energy source... After squeezing oil and gas producers to limit production and eventually go out of business, President Joe Biden is now humiliatingly beseeching the industry for help “to bring down rising fuel costs” that are already up 50 per cent. Fossil fuels provide about 80 per cent of American energy. Europe’s climate obsession is creating fuel shortages and price spikes that are rippling through global markets. Demand for LNG in Europe soared due to waning wind production, the shutdown of coal and nuclear plants and lower gas deliveries from Russia. Natural gas import prices for the EU are up 440 per cent from a year ago. The EU remains dangerously dependent on Russian exports and the whims of President Vladimir Putin. As Helen Thomas observed in the Financial Times, “Energy consumption cannot be deferred until the future arrives. It can only occur at high prices or be rationed by the state.” As Europeans switch to more coal, their carbon commitments inevitably fall by the wayside. Canada stands alone among major oil and gas producers with a carbon tax slated to rise to $170 per tonne by 2030. But, as gasoline prices are already 30 per cent higher than last year, will more taxes diminish consumption? Canada’s high carbon tax becomes counterproductive when it causes more damage (higher energy prices and reduced economic growth) than climate change benefits. Emissions are being reduced primarily by innovative technologies, not taxes. The global energy crisis could have been a bonanza for oil- and gas-rich Canada but pressure from environmental activists has blocked the development of pipeline and port infrastructure and dampened the enthusiasm of investors to expand production. Nuttall declared “It is time to connect the dots. Canada produces one of the cleanest and most ethical barrels of oil anywhere in a world where hydrocarbon demand will likely grow for at least the next 15 years.” The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts increasing demand for oil up to 2040 but supply is predicated on new investments in existing sources and the discovery of new fields — opportunities ignored by many financial institutions. OPEC cautioned that oil prices could skyrocket without increased investment in production, estimating that $11.8 trillion will be needed through 2045 to meet demand growth and compensate for declines from existing fields. Building new capacity takes years and is encumbered by regulations that hobble fossil fuel production. When rocketing energy prices increase inflation, paralyze industrial activity and slow the revival of the global economy, something has to give. As Mead declared, “Climate policy that is geopolitically and economically unsustainable will ultimately fail.”"
GOLDSTEIN: Scrapping coal-fired electricity costly, ineffective, says report | Toronto Sun - "Replacing coal-fired electricity with renewable energy will cost Canadian taxpayers and hydro ratepayers up to $33.7 billion annually, with only minor reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change... The report, Canadian Climate Policy and its Implications for Electricity Grids by University of Victoria economics professor G. Cornelis van Kooten, said replacing coal-fired electricity with wind and solar power would only cut Canada’s annual emissions by 7.4%... the increased costs of operating the electricity grid across Canada — between $16.8 billion and $33.7 billion annually or 1% to 2% of Canada’s annual GDP — would result from having to retain natural gas as a backup to intermittent wind and solar power, which cannot provide baseload power to the electricity grid on demand. Van Kooten said his cost estimates are conservative because his study “could not account for scenarios where the scale of intermittency turned out worse than indicated in our dataset … the costs associated with the value of land in other alternative uses, the need for added transmission lines, environmental and human health costs and the life-cycle costs of using intermittent renewable sources of energy, including costs related to the disposal of hazardous wastes from solar panels and wind turbines.” If nuclear power was used to replace coal-fired electricity, the study says, costs would drop by half — $8.3 billion to $16.7 billion annually — but that’s unrealistic because of the time it takes to build nuclear plants and public opposition to them."
Bill Bewick: Let’s be clear — Canada should not 'move past' oil and gas - "Should Canada, with the third-largest proven reserves in the world, and the largest by far of those open to independent producers, step aside to let Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other unjust regimes meet the steadily growing demand? No. Along with Norway, Canada is the global leader in responsible energy production based on each jurisdiction’s environmental, social, and governance policies — popularly known as ESG. Our human rights and labour laws obviously far surpass this rogue’s gallery of competitors; many Indigenous communities are counting on resource development growth for prosperity; and environmentally, Canada is a leader in emissions reductions, hydrogen production, landowner rights, methane regulations, and CCS (carbon capture, storage, and utilization), among others."
GOLDSTEIN: Reports of the ‘death of oil’ greatly exaggerated | Toronto Sun - "Proclaiming the death of oil at the start of the pandemic was foolish because the reason oil prices crashed was the global recession caused by the pandemic... A sensible energy policy going forward for Canada would be to sell our vast resources of oil and natural gas globally and use the increased tax money generated to help pay for our transition to a low-carbon economy. That’s actually Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s stated economic policy when it comes to fossil fuels and green energy. However, he seems to spend more time promoting green energy than ensuring we have the necessary infrastructure to sell our oil and natural gas resources at the best prices globally."
Peter Tertzakian: We are witnessing the perils of a disorderly energy transition - "Dismissing the importance of fossil fuel systems before having sufficient, secure and affordable clean energy substitutes is only half the problem. The other half is more ominous and reflective of past crises. Western countries have allowed the control of oil and gas markets to regress into the hands of countries that have a history of leveraging political muscle with their energy supply... Post-pandemic resurgence in total, primary energy demand has been swift, reinforcing past trends as if the virus did nothing. Looking at individual energy sources, growth in coal seems arrested, but any decline is hardly convincing. Oil and gas continue to grow linearly. Hydro and nuclear power show modest growth. Renewables — mostly wind, solar and biofuels — are demonstrating the most impressive growth, an exponential curve. Yet substitution, hence transition, is elusive. From a global perspective the world’s energy supplies are diversifying into renewables, not yet transitioning off the deeply entrenched fossil fuel paradigm. In other words, renewables going up is not translating into oil and gas going down. Attend any conference on the future of energy and you’re likely to see variations of charts that shows only growth in renewables and electric vehicles. Exclusion of oil and gas trends yields a confirmation bias that reinforces a belief that substitution of fossil fuels is happening when it’s not. Six years after the signing of the Paris agreement, progress towards energy transition has been glacially slow. Only a handful of countries can claim meaningful transition trends — the world as a collective has far to go... Thinning wallets, queuing at gas stations and having to choose between a cold shower and a hot meal leads people to think about political change, not energy change. Someone who is throwing a fist in a petrol queue isn’t thinking about climate change and the role of hydrogen in a thirty-year plan. They’re thinking about getting through the queue, getting home and paying their crushing utility bills before 30 days at the end of the month. Disorder that penetrates households can create civil unrest. At a minimum disorder breeds the blame game, with politicians the first target of discontent. Governments are already acquiescing to civilian pressures by subsidizing fuel prices, easing climate policies and naively reassuring people that they will get back to normal as soon as possible... The rise of renewables between 2010 and 2020 will be recorded as one of the biggest events in energy history. But it wasn’t the biggest. Whether measured in Joules or dollars, the rise of U.S. shale gas and oil was a bigger transformation. American independent oil companies (IOCs) aggressively took global oil market share, so much so that for the first time in five decades the control of oil markets shifted from the OPEC cartel to greater free-market, global competition. Market leverage held by Middle Eastern and Russian interests was suppressed as the phrase ‘energy dominance’ entered the American lexicon around 2014. Unfortunately, the possibility that western IOCs could tilt the balance of power in global oil markets was a short-lived notion. Growing oil supply to meet demand requires ongoing investment. Since 2018 or so, western IOCs have been under increasing pressure from environmental groups, energy agencies and financial institutions to contract their investment and hold production flat. Arguments were made that oil production can’t be decarbonized, that the world won’t need more oil, and demand will collapse because of the transition to wind, solar and electric vehicles. Unfortunately, nobody told the consumer to contract their petroleum consumption at the same rate as the producers. Nor did the realization sink in that, people like redundancy (like the security of a paper map) before they transition to something new, lest they feel lost and have to endure inconvenience and hardship. The pandemic has been hard on all supply chains including oil and gas. Like IOCs, nationally-owned oil companies (NOCs) also reduced investment to adjust to the momentary fall in demand due to COVID-19. But the snubbing of western IOCs through divestment and other dismissive directives is exacerbating price volatility. Western market influence that was gained in the 2010s has been lost. We don’t need a lot of analysis to understand where we are at: It’s telling that the President of the United States now has to make calls to OPEC to stabilize the brewing energy crisis, instead of calling the CEOs of Western IOCs. Similarly, European leaders are now hostage to Russian natural gas interests. The notion of working with Western oil and gas companies to reduce emissions quickly and be part of an orderly transition to a clean energy future is anathema to those working hard on clean energy transformations and climate change policy. But animosities go even deeper. Non-emitting nuclear power is often left out of discussion too... As a side note, the grass isn’t greener on the clean side of the energy fence: Lithium prices for electric vehicle batteries are now at an all-time high and many vital minerals clean energy technologies are in short supply. Everyone is tired of hearing the commoditized saying “never waste a good crisis,” especially as it seems we just go from one to another. At a minimum let’s avoid the ones that are made by human fallibilities, for example hearing only what we want to hear and being dismissive of complex geopolitical realities."
Germany 'faces economic crisis' caused by spiralling fuel prices - "German business leaders on Tuesday called for emergency tax cuts to avert an “economic crisis” caused by rapidly rising petrol and diesel prices. The influential Mittelstand Association (BVMW) warned of an “explosion” in fuel prices as the cost of diesel reached an all-time record in Germany this week... Germans have taken to travelling to neighbouring countries in search of cheaper fuel. In the Czech Republic, where prices are as much as €0.40 (£0.34) a litre lower, there are reports of long queues at petrol stations as Germans cross to fill gerrycans and whatever they can get their hands on. Motoring organisations have warned that new CO2 taxes introduced at the beginning of the year are exacerbating the rise in prices."
Damn Brexit! Or was it damn Trump?
Virtue signalling is not free
Why are energy prices increasing? | bonkers.ie - "There has also been a lack of wind output in recent months. For example, according to the World Climate Service, June and July 2021 was the least windy period since at least 1960 in parts of Ireland, the UK, and the North Sea. And according to Met Eireann, 2021 as a whole was the least windy year nationally in over a decade, and the least windy year since 1959 in Dublin. Indeed, on some days during the summer, over 90% of our electricity had to come from burning fossil fuels as there simply wasn't enough wind power being generated. The vast majority of Ireland's renewable energy comes from on-shore wind farms, so when it's not windy on land, gas and coal-fired power plants have to take up a lot of the slack. But as mentioned, gas has skyrocketed in price (partly because it's in high demand due to low wind output) while some gas-powered plants are out of action - all creating the perfect storm for an energy crisis...
Ireland’s level of renewable energy output has increased hugely in recent years and consumers often wonder why this hasn’t led to more downward pressure on electricity prices. Wind is 'free' after all, no? It’s a controversial topic between supporters of green energy and climate change sceptics but we need to remember that renewable energy isn’t free... Indeed, under the Government’s Climate Action Plan, 70% of Ireland's electricity is to be generated by renewable means by 2030, with most of this to come from wind and solar. But for this to be possible, there needs to be considerable investment in the national grid. Depending on which approach is taken, that could cost between €500mn and over €2bn. And this money will most likely be recouped through higher TUoS and DUoS tariffs. Which in turn will be passed on to consumers... The final point is that renewable energy is volatile – we can’t tell very far in advance how windy or sunny it’s going to be and therefore how much energy will be generated. As a result, back-up power plants which generate their electricity from fossil fuels are still needed, and will be for a long time, for when renewable energy dips. But turning these on and off at irregular intervals depending on how windy or sunny it may or may not be isn’t very efficient and can add to costs too."
Opinion: Spare Germany the blackouts - "The German government needed a rap on the knuckles from the country's Constitutional Court to realize it needed to be more ambitious when it came to its carbon emission reduction goals... Setting an ambitious target is one thing, achieving it is a different beast altogether. And Germany knows it well; it would have even missed its modest 2020 climate goals had it not been for pandemic-induced lockdowns and economic slump. An internal government report projects that Germany is on track to cut emissions by just 49% by 2030. Merkel must be relieved that the onus of meeting the legally binding targets is now on her successor... A hastier phaseout of coal coupled with slow uptake of renewables and a higher rise in power demand would not only drive up electricity bills for German homes, already among the highest in Europe, but also raise the specter of frequent power outages, especially during chilly winters. In addition to candlelight dinners possibly becoming the norm, power interruptions could prove extremely costly for the German economy. While concrete data on costs of power outages remain scarce, a 2013 study by the Institute of Energy Economics in Cologne calculated that the costs of blackouts in Germany could amount to €430 million ($505 million) per hour."
Too bad they ignore the practical answers and conclude the government should just ram through more wind energy. As if that will solve intermittency
Low-wind year sends electricity prices skyrocketing - "According to energy lobby organisation Dansk Energi, 80 percent of Denmark’s electricity consumption in 2020 came from green energy sources – wind turbines and Norwegian hydroelectric plants. That may sound good in terms of sustainability, but it could very well have a negative impact on future electricity bills for consumers. Electricity prices are currently the highest seen since the financial crisis, mainly due to Denmark experiencing 10 percent less wind than normal, which makes the country more dependent on natural gas production."
Denmark’s energy prices hit highest level for nine years - "High prices are in part a result of relatively low rainfall in Norway during the summer, according to Kristian Skriver, senior economist with the Danish Chamber of Commerce (Dansk Erhverv). “That has worn down water supplies at the Nordic water power stations which produce energy to countries including Denmark, thereby sending electricity prices soaring,” Skriver commented. “On top of that, less wind during the summer has resulted in less wind production of electricity,” he added."
Electricity prices reach record high in Belgium - "Prices shot up to €2,300 per MegaWatt-hour due to a lack of wind and sun, causing wind turbines and solar panels to barely produce any renewable energy. Solar and wind energy took a record share of 23% on the electricity grid in October as an increasing number of solar panels and wind farms are being put in place in Belgium. In addition, temperatures have been low in Belgium, causing many to turn on electric heaters. That combined with France’s lack of nuclear capacity made the cost of electricity supply rise to €66/MWh."
I wonder what the common element in all these European countries with pricey energy is
