Three recent items of note on the energy front from the National Center for Policy Analysis:
Fracking More Eco-Friendly Then Originally Thought
Hydraulic fracturing has contributed to the recent decrease in natural gas prices, resulting in an average savings of $200 per year per household from 2007- 2013. Yet many are still concerned about this development in energy technology, specifically regarding air and water pollution and quality of life for communities near a fracking site. Do the economic benefits of the new energy source need to be mitigated to account for the environmental costs?
Common concerns regarding hydraulic fracturing include:
• Methane Emissions: Electricity from natural gas has half the total greenhouse gas footprint of an equivalent amount of coal.
• Air Quality: Areas surrounding fracking sites can, and have, experienced increased emissions but these incidences tend to be localized and do not cause the toxic reactions some have claimed.
• Water Quality: Direct contamination of water supplies are unlikely as the fracking chemicals would need to migrate up through thousands of feet of solid rock to pollute groundwater supplies which are typically only a few hundred feet below the surface. Only 10 cases out of 250,000 were noted in an EPA study where contamination was related to drilling or construction of oil and gas wells.
• Water Availability: Hydraulic fracturing operations use less than 1 percent of the local fresh water and actually saves water as coal steam turbine plants require 25-50 times more water than “fracking.”
The energy boom of the recent years, led by hydraulic fracturing, has increased U.S. GDP by $283 billion. With so much revenue at stake it is no surprise that the energy community is attempting to allay the fears of many environmentally minded. Every energy source has advantages and drawbacks, but perhaps those drawbacks associated with “fracking” are fewer than first imagined.
Source: Josiah Neeley, “The Green Side of Fracking,” R Street Institute, September 16, 2015.
Wind capacity factors can vary greatly across regions because the output from wind turbines are dependent on the wind resources in the area. Capacity factors for wind units on the U.S. West Coast for the first five months of this year were consistently below their previous five-year average because wind speeds dropped in California, Oregon and Washington.
Because the amount of electrical energy produced by a wind turbine varies nonlinearly with wind speed, small changes in wind speed can result in much larger changes in output:
In January, wind speeds were approximately 20 percent to 45 percent lower than normal for portions of the West Coast.
Capacity factors for wind plants in California, Oregon, and Washington were about 50 percent lower than the January average of the previous five years.
At the end of 2009, California, Oregon and Washington had 6.3 gigawatts of wind capacity. By the end of 2014, they had increased that capacity by an additional 5.3 gigawatts and more than double their wind generation due to state Renewable Portfolio Standards and to lucrative subsidies at the Federal and State levels.
The cost to the taxpayer and consumer is much more than the cost of generating power from existing power plants. Due to the variability of wind speeds, back-up power is needed to provide generation to meet demand when the wind does not blow or slows. So, consumers are paying again to have that back-up power available when needed. Wind is not a free good, despite environmentalists wanting us to believe that it is so.
Source: “Wind Capacity Factors Drop on West Coast Due to Poor Wind Speeds,” Institute for Energy Studies, September 28, 2015.
The fact that the same level of nuclear / gas/ coal/ hydro infrastructure has to be maintained to make the pretend case for wind should tell taxpayers what an appalling ripoff is being inflicted on them. There is no way wind can reliably substitute for other forms of energy.
Americans Don’t Want to Pay for Neighbor’s Electric Vehicle
To cut carbon emissions Congress has passed numerous incentives to encourage consumers to make eco-friendly decisions, such as the purchase of electric vehicles (EV). A recent survey of voter attitudes toward government subsidization of electric vehicles shows that of a sample of 1013 likely voters, U.S. taxpayers were skeptical of government decisions regarding vehicles or fuels.
• Those making $150,000 a year or more should not receive a $7,500 tax credit for purchasing an EV, responded 76 percent of those surveyed.
• 83 percent replied they did not trust the federal government to decide which kinds of cars should be subsidized or mandated.
• Electricity rate payers should not be compelled to pay for EV charging stations according to 74 percent of respondents.
Overwhelmingly, it seems U.S. taxpayers are opposed to government involvement in energy and transportation choices. Policymakers would do well to allow the electric-vehicle industry compete on its own merits rather than encouraging taxpayers through subsidies to purchase EVs.
Source: “Survey: Americans Don’t Want to Pay for Neighbor’s EV,” American Energy Alliance. September 15, 2015.
Reading a little more into the referenced site we found this:
Despite being alerted to a host of potentially positive aspects of electric vehicles, voters are unwilling to pay for electric vehicles purchased by others. When asked how much they would personally be willing to pay, each year, to support the development of electric vehicles, 68% of voters answered “nothing”. More generally, when asked whether they should pay for people to buy electric vehicles, 81% answered no. Even self-identified Democrats (72% said no) and self-identified liberals (73% said no).
The poll’s particulars shows that the respondents were tipped toward Democrats! That sort of general response should give pause to crony capitalist Republicans intent on continuing subsidies to the renewable fuels boondoggle / taxpayer ripoff.
R Mall
