Your Morning Energy News

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
MORNING ENERGY NEWS | 08/11/2020
Subscribe Now ([link removed])


** A resounding endorsement from the locals. Not.
------------------------------------------------------------
Times-Call ([link removed]) (8/4/20) column: "On July 30, the Times-Call ran a wind and solar 'puff piece' based on a study by a self-proclaimed conservative organization known as The Western Way...The report contains the usual bloviation expected from wind and solar advocates. It says that renewable energy, mostly wind, across the eastern plains of Colorado is expected to grow to 6,069 megawatts by 2024. That means, based on the cited 95,000 acres required for the 600 megawatt Xcel Rush Creek facility, there will be about 950,000 acres of eastern Colorado dedicated to these bird-killing monstrosities. And the power they actually provide, on average about 20% of the nameplate rating, will be about 1,200 megawatts. That same amount of power could be provided by one modern natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plant on about 500 acres or less. And that 1,200 megawatts of power from the 950,000 acres of wind turbines is essentially
worthless because it cannot be depended upon to be available when required so it must be backed up by conventional power plants of the same capacity. It could even be said to be less than worthless because of the deleterious effects of the intermittent wind power on the stability and reliability of the electrical grid. As to the economic benefits cited, it comes mostly from government subsidies anyhow. We’d all be better off if those subsidies were just given directly to the farmers instead of being cycled through the wind and solar developers."

[link removed]


** "Biden and the eco-left are eager to implement energy policies to save the world, but they would only allow China to control even more of it. When China controls our wind, solar, batteries, EVs, and all green technology by maintaining its monopoly on rare earths, 'climate change' will be the least of our problems."
------------------------------------------------------------


– Daniel Turner, Power The Future ([link removed])

============================================================

Didn't they tell us renewable energy was free?

** E&E News ([link removed])
(8/10/20) reports: "More than one in six Americans living at or below the federal poverty level said they were unable to pay an energy bill in April when many states enacted stay-at-home orders, with people of color hit the hardest, according to new research. But the researchers who conducted the survey suspect that the findings are an understatement of conditions during the pandemic and that the problem has gotten worse as COVID-19 relief benefits and moratoriums on utility service shut-offs expire, said David Konisky, the report's co-lead author and a professor of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University...While 4% may seem like a small number of disconnections, the researchers estimate the number translates to 800,000 low-income households having their electricity service disconnected at the height of a pandemic."

Barely Profitable

** Reuters ([link removed])
(8/10/20) reports: "BP will need to invest tens of billions of dollars over the next decade and may have to accept lower returns than it can get from oil if it is to meet its target of becoming one of the world’s largest renewable power generators. The British oil and gas company wants 50 gigawatts (GW) of renewables such as wind, solar and hydropower in its portfolio by 2030, up from just 2.5 GW now and more than the total renewable capacity in the United Kingdom at the moment. European oil firms are under pressure from activists, banks, investors and some governments to shift away from fossil fuels and are trying to find business models that offer higher margins than the mere production of renewable energy would generate."

Dick "Tone Deaf" Durbin

** Girst ([link removed])
(8/10/20) reports: "For years, the idea of putting a price on carbon emissions seemed like a no-brainer — economists claimed that it would cut fossil fuel pollution quickly and efficiently, and at the same time, could even give money back to the American public. But lately the policy has fallen out of favor. Over the past few months, as Democrats have rolled out multiple comprehensive plans to slow down climate change and turbocharge renewable energy, the idea of a “carbon tax” has been notably absent. One lawmaker doesn’t seem to have gotten the memo. On Friday, Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, introduced the 'America’s Clean Future Fund Act,' which would set a steadily rising price on carbon dioxide emissions. The tax would start at $25 per metric ton of emissions (that’s the equivalent of about 22 cents extra per gallon of gasoline) and rise by $10 or more per year. Given the COVID-19 economic downturn, the bill suggests waiting to institute the price until 'the U.S.
economy is no longer in economic turmoil due to the current pandemic,' but no later than 2023."

Energy Markets


WTI Crude Oil: ↑ $42.68
Natural Gas: ↑ $2.18
Gasoline: ~ $2.17

Diesel: ~ $2.42
Heating Oil: ↑ $126.01
Brent Crude Oil: ↑ $45.54
** US Rig Count ([link removed])
: ↓ 284



** Friend on Facebook ([link removed])
** Friend on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow on Twitter ([link removed])
** Forward to a Friend ([link removed])
** Forward to a Friend ([link removed])
Our mailing address is:
** 1155 15th Street NW ([link removed])

** Suite 900 ([link removed])

** Washington, DC xxxxxx ([link removed])
Want to change how you receive these emails?
** update your preferences ([link removed])

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])