Tag Archives: International Energy Agency (IEA)

The Impact Of President Trump’s Energy Policies

Posted on by

On Saturday, Stephen Moore posted an article at Hot Air discussing the impact of President Trump’s energy policies.

The article notes:

Well, so much for the vaunted renewable energy “transition” to save the planet. This was always a fable. We get 80% of our energy from fossil fuels, and with Donald Trump now in the White House, that ratio is rising, not falling.

A Reuters headline from recent days tells the real story: “US crude production to hit record 13.41 million (barrels per day) in 2025 before falling.”

The data from the International Energy Agency tells the same story about clean natural gas: We’re producing more of it than ever before. Why shouldn’t we? The U.S. has greater access to clean, cheap, reliable and made-in-America natural gas than any other nation. Natural gas is far cheaper and less land-intensive than ugly wind and solar farms that industrialize America’s natural landscape beauty.

All told, American energy in the ground is a $50 trillion treasure chest right under our feet. The commercial value of this abundance is — nearly enough to pay off our entire national debt. We would be lunatic to leave it in the ground.

The rapid revival of America as an energy superpower under Trump should come as no surprise. This is continuation of a 15-year trend thanks to the fracking and horizontal drilling revolution that has nearly tripled U.S. annual production.

The principle of supply and demand applies to fossil fuels.

The article notes:

Crude was over $100 in 2022 and generally ranged between $70 and $85 for the rest of Biden’s term. At $100 a barrel, drillers will search for oil in your backyard. If it were not for Biden’s environmental regulations and the cancellation of vital energy infrastructure, such as the Keystone XL pipeline, we would have produced far more oil under Biden. Gas wouldn’t have gone up to $5 a gallon.

What’s impressive about the Trump oil production spike is that it’s happened even as the global spot price of oil has fallen. In other words, we’re getting the best of both worlds: made-in-America energy AND low prices at the pump. The Energy Information Administration reports forecasts that gas prices will keep falling to below $3 a gallon by next year. That is, unless you live in California, where gas still costs above $5 a gallon.

Let’s not forget the national security benefits from this pro-drilling strategy. More U.S. drilling means less profits for Iran, Russia and other enemies of freedom. It weakens Vladimir Putin’s hand and drives him to the negotiating table since the Russian economy is dependent on natural gas exports for survival.

As I have previously stated, when the crude oil price comes down to $55 a barrel, the Ukraine war will end. It won’t have anything to do with anyone’s negotiating skills–it will be the result of the economic situation in Russia caused by falling oil and gas prices.

The Fallout From The Iberian Blackout

Posted on by

On Sunday, WattsUpWithThat posted an article about the future of energy transition from fossil fuels to green energy. It’s not looking good.

The article reports:

It’s no secret that the Republican’s “Big Beautiful Bill” plans to axe large swaths of mandates and billions of dollars in subsidies directed at achieving a so-called “energy transition.” If that budget axe falls, it will be the proverbial third strike that puts to rest the idea that the U.S., never mind the world, will abandon fossil fuels. The other two strikes already happened.

Strike two came last month with the Great Iberian blackout. Preliminary forensics make clear that over-enthusiastic deployment of unreliable solar and wind power was the fulcrum that put 55 million people in the dark for days. Few politicians will want to risk allowing something like that to happen again, anywhere. And, as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation keeps warning, blackout risks are rising here, and for the same reason. Reliability used to be the core feature of electric grid designs, before the rush to push an energy transition in service of climate goals.

And strike one came a few weeks prior to the Iberian calamity with the release of a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) titled Energy and AI. That report sought to answer the question about how to reliably meet the surprising jump in power demands expected in the coming decade’s boom in artificial intelligence (AI) data centers. Answering that also answers, even if not intentionally, the same question about meeting society’s future demands.

The article concludes:

This doesn’t mean Big Tech or the IEA are backing off climate pledges. Nor does it mean the climate debate is settled. Nor will we see any diminution in transition fervor from the climate-industrial complex. Likely that fervor heats up as the Trump Administration attempts to deliver on its promise to defund the panoply of climate-energy programs marbled throughout federal agencies.

What it does mean is that whatever one believes about the science of the climate, the fact is that mandates and subsidies can’t change the physics of energy systems. Systems that can deliver reliable power at the scales necessary for robust growth remain anchored in precisely the fuels the transitionists want to abandon.

Fossil fuels are not perfect (although natural gas is close), but they have been the backbone of the world’s economy for generations. It is possible that one day green energy can discover the technology to make it as reliable and inexpensive as fossil fuel, but that has not yet happened. The best way to spur on the green energy research is to get the governments out of it and let the inventors and private investors make a profit.

This Is Not A Surprise To Anyone Who Has Been Paying Attention

Posted on by

One America News is reporting the following today:

U.S. President Joe Biden’s global energy security adviser said on Monday that Russian President Vladimir Putin is getting close to using natural gas as a political tool if Russia is holding back fuel exports to Europe as it suffers an energy crunch.

“I think we are getting close to that line if Russia indeed has the gas to supply and it chooses not to, and it will only do so if Europe accedes to other demands that are completely unrelated,” Amos Hochstein, Biden’s adviser, told reporters, when asked if Putin was using gas as a weapon.

Hochstein said gas prices in Europe have been driven higher not just by events in the region but also by a dry season in China that has reduced energy output from hydropower and increased global competition for natural gas.

Still, while a number of factors have led to the European gas crisis, Russia is best placed to come to the aid of Europe, he said.

“There is no doubt in my mind, and the (International Energy Agency) has itself validated, that the only supplier that can really make a big difference for European energy security at the moment for this winter is Russia,” Hochstein said.

He said Russia can increase upstream production of gas, and should do it quickly through existing pipelines.

Under the Trump administration, America was approaching the point where its natural gas exports would be a counter to the energy blackmail Russia has historically practiced. Ending America’s energy independence will be looked on in the future as one of the biggest mistakes made by the Biden administration.

What The Mainstream Media Isn’t Telling You About Electric Cars

Posted on by

The Biden administration is attempting to shift America from gasoline-powered cars to electric-powered cars. However, there are a lot of things that they are not telling Americans about what is involved in that shift. We were given a clue recently when California, which has a lot of electric cars, asked the owners of those cars not to charge their vehicles because of power shortages. There are some valid questions as to whether or not the American power grid has the ability to support the widespread use of electric cars. It is also interesting that just as America became capable of being energy independent (we enjoyed energy independence under the Trump administration) because of natural gas and petroleum resources, the Biden administration decided not to use those domestic resources and is instead proposing something that would put America at the mercy of foreign supply chains.

Lets look at some of the environmental facts regarding electric vehicles. First of all, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the typical electric car contains six times more minerals than a gas-powered car.

In May 2021, the IEA reported the following:

The special report, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, is the most comprehensive global study to date on the central importance of minerals such as copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt and rare earth elements in a secure and rapid transformation of the global energy sector. Building on the IEA’s longstanding leadership role in energy security, the report recommends six key areas of action for policy makers to ensure that critical minerals enable an accelerated transition to clean energy rather than becoming a bottleneck.

“Today, the data shows a looming mismatch between the world’s strengthened climate ambitions and the availability of critical minerals that are essential to realising those ambitions,” said Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the IEA. “The challenges are not insurmountable, but governments must give clear signals about how they plan to turn their climate pledges into action. By acting now and acting together, they can significantly reduce the risks of price volatility and supply disruptions.”

“Left unaddressed, these potential vulnerabilities could make global progress towards a clean energy future slower and more costly – and therefore hamper international efforts to tackle climate change,” Dr Birol said. “This is what energy security looks like in the 21st century, and the IEA is fully committed to helping governments ensure that these hazards don’t derail the global drive to accelerate energy transitions.”

Keep in mind that the IEA is one of the groups supporting getting away from fossil fuels. Somehow getting away from fossil fuels was not a worldwide goal until it was discovered that America had a lifetime supply of fossil fuels.

So lets look at some of the minerals involved. Although America has large lithium reserves, we only have one lithium mine. Mining lithium is energy-intensive and polluting.

In 2018 Fair Planet noted:

Behind a burgeoning demand for cobalt, a key component in Lithium-ion batteries used in electronic gadgets and vehicles, is the heartrending story of tens of thousands of children, some as young as seven, involved in back breaking and hazardous mining of the precious commodity in the Democratic Republic of Congo while earning a paltry one dollar a day.

Yet this represents a small fraction of a practice now entrenched world over with studies estimating that up to one million children are working in mines globally.

From the gold fields of Tanzania, Mali and Ghana to diamonds in the Central Africa Republic, these young ones will work for up to 24 hours a day digging deep pits to reach the minerals, breaking stones, and carrying heavy loads while being exposed to some of the most harmful toxins like mercury which they use to process the minerals.

There’s more. Nickel mining in Indonesia is a major source of pollution. Coal produces a large portion of the electricity used around the world (particularly in China). More electricity will be needed to power the electric cars the environmentalists are encouraging all of us to buy. Lithium-ion batteries need to be recycled properly–if not properly recycled, they can cause fires.

The bottom line is simple–we don’t know as much about electric cars as we should before we encourage the replacement of gasoline engines. Moving to electric cars may actually cause more harm to the environment than gasoline-powered cars.