Category: Energy

Let Wind and Solar Energy Subsides Expire

Wind energy is doing very well…even though renewable sources of energy are still just a fraction of energy output in the United States with significant federal and state subsides. The success that some states have had with wind energy production is encouraging other states to expand their wind energy production offshore. However, offshore wind facilities will be very expensive to build and maintain.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA):

  • Offshore wind is 2.6 times more expensive as onshore wind power and is 3.4 times more expensive than power produced by a natural gas combined cycle plant.
  • On a kilowatt hour basis, offshore wind power is estimated to cost 22.15 cents per kilowatt hour, while onshore wind is estimated to cost 8.66 cents per kilowatt hour and natural gas combined cycle is estimated to cost 6.56 per kilowatt hour.
  • Overnight capital costs (excludes financing charges) are 2.8 times higher for offshore wind than onshore wind power.
  • An offshore wind farm is estimated to cost $6,230 per kilowatt, while those costs for an onshore wind farm are estimated to be $2,213 per kilowatt.

Apparently, solar energy is now more affordable. If solar energy is now affordable, then the federal subsidies are no longer needed. These federal subsidies have provided wind and solar developers with as much as $24 billion from 2008 to 2014.

The biggest wind and solar tax credits have expired or will expire by 2016. Let the renewable energy sources compete in the market by letting their subsidies expire.

Nov 11, 2015 | 3 comments | by

War on Domestic Energy Supply

Anti-energy activists are planning to attack the oil and natural gas supply in the United States through a critical strategy. They want the federal government to stop new leases for oil and natural gas development. The damage to our domestic supply and energy output could:

  • Increase oil imports and greater dependence on foreign oil. As EIA projects, the United States will continue to use oil well into the future, and more imports would increase U.S. dependency on others for its energy needs.
  • Diminish U.S. energy security. At home and abroad, less domestic energy production and increased dependency would make the U.S. less secure in the world, more vulnerable to global energy pressures.
  • Weaken the economy. Oil and natural gas are the engines of our economy, and cutting domestic development will mean job losses, lower GDP, less revenue for government and higher household costs.
Oct 28, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Federal Solar Energy Subsidy Expires 2016

The Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) is expected to expire in 2016. The solar energy industry is trying to get another extension to last until the year 2022. They believe that without this critical subsidy, then they will lose 80,000 jobs in just 2017 alone.

  • The ITC is a 30 percent tax credit for solar systems on residential (under Section 25D) and commercial (under Section 48) properties.
  • The multiple-year extension of the residential and commercial solar ITC has helped annual solar installation grow by over 1,600 percent since the ITC was implemented in 2006 — a compound annual growth rate of 76 percent.

CEO of solar developer Greenwood Energy calls for reducing the ITC to 10 in 2017 and letting it expire in 2018.

As of December 2013, the United States Treasury Department had awarded more than $4.4 billion to solar projects.

Once the ITC expires, the solar energy market will level out, losing the inflated strength it has been receiving from the ITC and become more competitive within the energy market.

Sep 28, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Close to Lifting the U.S. Crude Oil Export Ban

Congress is planning to vote on lifting the ban on U.S. crude oil exports by the end of this month. Across the aisle, most Republicans support the end of the export ban. In fact, the Republican-controlled House is scheduled to vote on legislation that would lift the restrictions. In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said for the first time he supports lifting the ban.

Congress passed the ban after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which sent gas prices soaring. Now, the “shale revolution” has stimulated tremendous domestic oil and natural gas production, thanks mainly to hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling methods. The Obama administration has permitted exports of some exchanges of oil with Mexico and federal policies permit exports of crude oil to Canada.

The EIA projects the U.S. will eliminate net energy imports sometime between 2020 and 2030. Rising oil prices would mean the U.S. reaches this landmark turning point sooner, but even low prices are unlikely to stop the swing from importer to exporter. The U.S. has been a net importer of energy since the 1950s.

Opponents of lifting the ban include former Secretary of State and presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton who said she would only support lifting the U.S.’s 40-year-old ban on oil exports if it was part of a broader plan that included concessions from the oil and natural gas industry. The United Steelworkers, which represent workers at several Louisiana refineries, contends that lifting the ban would jeopardize U.S. energy security and adversely affect gas prices.

The controversy over whether or not to lift the ban centers around fears that no ban could mean higher gasoline prices held by some Democrats and consumer groups. Further, environmentalists worry lifting the ban would lead to more oil & gas exploration and development. Even, President Obama opposes such legislation.

However, a recent Government Accountability Office review noted wide agreement among analysts that allowing crude exports would tend to decrease international oil prices, which is the way to depress gasoline prices. That is why analysts predict that lifting the export ban would increase U.S. crude oil prices by $2 to $8 per barrel but reduce U.S. gasoline prices by 1.5 cents to 13 cents per gallon.

Another recent report by the United States Energy Information Administration says that although unrestricted exports of U.S. crude oil would either leave global crude prices unchanged or result in a small price reduction compared to parallel cases that maintain current restrictions on crude oil exports, other factors affecting global supply and demand will largely determine whether global crude prices remain close to their current level.

Sep 21, 2015 | 1 comment | by

The Failure of U.S. Biofuels Program

Ending a relationship is never easy, even one with a proven history of broken promises, twisted logic, weak justifications and financial exploitation. Such is the bond between the American taxpayer and the domestic ethanol industry. In the beginning, statements of common goals sparked hopeful enthusiasm. Many eagerly supported the romantic notion of growing our way to energy independence and an American-led green-based movement towards world prosperity. But, alas, the thrill is gone, and the truth exposed. The once proud, almost pompous, biofuels sector is struggling for justification.

The affair began in 2007 with the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). Contained within the act is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) provisions that sets forth incentives for the development of biofuels such as plant-based ethanol and biodiesel. At the time, Bush had committed to the goal of ending American’s addiction to fossil fuel. The original promise was a reduced dependency on Middle Eastern oil, cleaner air, a boon to agriculture and reduced fuel costs for consumers.

Unfortunately, ethanol has failed to live up to its promised benefits. Recent low prices at the pump have exposed its life-support dependency on the government. Although direct subsidies have expired, ethanol producers continue to benefit from other financial incentives and federal mandates. A study by the NARC Consulting Group calls the program an economic death-spiral and discloses its many flaws. Yet, industry groups rally for maintaining, even increasing, RFS percentages in the face of mounting evidence of the program’s failure. Still, in a recent rule change proposal, the EPA published a plan to amend the mandates.

The statutory requirement to blend government-supported biofuels with free-market fuels is market manipulation. If the value of ethanol and other biofuels were legitimate, forced consumption, through the RFS, would not be necessary. Congress should end this failed relationship and costly experiment. Let the free market drive innovation and job development. Below, are but a few of the adverse effects of the RFS:

  • disruptive to agriculture markets
  • increases food costs
  • rife with fraud
  • lacks self-sustainability
  • burdens Taxpayers
  • environmental damage
  • violates free-market principles
Sep 14, 2015 | 2 comments | by

New Study Looks at Lifting the Crude Oil Export Ban

According to a new report out from the United States Energy Information Administration:

Recent increases in domestic crude oil production and the prospect of continued supply growth have sparked discussion on the topic of how rising domestic crude oil volumes might be absorbed, including the possibility of removing or relaxing current restrictions on U.S. crude oil exports.

Current laws and regulations allow for unlimited exports of petroleum products, but require licensing of crude oil exports.Through the first five months of 2015, crude oil exports averaged 491,000 b/d. In addition, exports of processed condensate through the first five months of 2015 are estimated to have reached an average of 84,000 b/d.

  • The discount of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude to North Sea Brent, the latter a key marker for waterborne light crudes, is expected to increase to more than $10/b in cases where current crude oil export policy is maintained and domestic production reaches or exceeds about 11.7 million b/d by 2025.
  • In cases where the Brent-WTI spread grows beyond $6/b–$8/b, removal of current restrictions on crude oil exports would result in higher wellhead prices for domestic producers, who would then respond with additional production.
  • Petroleum product prices in the United States, including gasoline prices, would be either unchanged or slightly reduced by the removal of current restrictions on crude oil exports.
  • Combined net exports of crude oil and petroleum products from the United States are generally higher in cases with higher levels of U.S. crude oil production regardless of U.S. crude oil export policies. However, crude oil export policies materially affect the mix between crude and product exports, particularly in the HOGR and HOGR/LP cases, which have high levels of domestic production.
  • Refiner margins (measured as the spread between crude input costs and wholesale product prices), which tend to increase as the Brent-WTI spread widens, would be lower without current restrictions on crude oil exports than with them in high-production cases where export restrictions lead to a widening Brent-WTI spread.

Although unrestricted exports of U.S. crude oil would either leave global crude prices unchanged or result in a small price reduction compared to parallel cases that maintain current restrictions on crude oil exports, other factors affecting global supply and demand will largely determine whether global crude prices remain close to their current level, as in the Low Oil Price case, or rise along a path closer to the Reference case trajectory.

Sep 09, 2015 | 1 comment | by

Increased Energy Use Raises Standard of Living in Developing Nations

Global production of oil and natural gas has increased in recent years, and prices have been falling.  This is not only good news for consumers in developed countries, but also for the poor in developing countries around the world.  Increased energy use is essential in developing countries if they are to raise the living standards of the poor and grow the middle class.  Even rapidly growing economies use much less energy than developed countries.  For instance, India uses one-tenth as much energy per person as the United States and, despite decades of rapid economic growth, China still uses only one-third as much energy per capita.  [See the figure.]

jaiwin fossil fuel

 

Special contribution by NCPA research associate Jiawen Chen. 

Aug 24, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Lifting Crude Oil Export Ban Benefits U.S. Economy

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) suggests that removing crude oil export restrictions could both reduce consumer fuel prices and increase the price of U.S. crude oil from ~$2 to ~$8 per barrel.

Regulations implemented 40 years ago are being reviewed as technological advances in the extraction of crude oil from shale formations, commonly known as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking”, have contributed to increased U.S. oil production. In recent years U.S. crude oil prices have been lower than international prices but removing export restrictions could generate more revenue for oil companies and cause international crude oil prices to decrease.

If, as estimated, international crude oil prices do decrease, consumers could see anywhere from 1.5 to 13 cents per gallon drop for refined oil products such as gasoline and diesel. However, experts cautioned that estimates of the price implications of removing export restrictions are subject to uncertainties and there could be important regional differences.

Additionally, removing crude oil export restrictions could benefit in the following areas:

  • Economy: Removing export restrictions would lead to increased investment in crude oil production and increases in employment. This could result in additional positive effects for employment and government revenue.
  • Industry: Increased domestic production of crude oil will result from eliminating current export restrictions. Estimates range from an additional 130,000 to 3.3 million barrels on average per day until 2035.

After decades of generally calling U.S. crude oil production, from 2008 through 2014 production increased by about 74%. Perhaps, lifting the restrictions on crude oil could help both the economy of the U.S. and the average consumer.

Aug 12, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

NCPA Nationwide Survey of Anti-Fracking Activism – the “Frac Map”

3038

The NCPA completed a nationwide survey of successful anti-fracking activism that we presented to state legislators, energy associations and think tanks. This map demonstrates the threat of misguided activism to oil and gas production, the key to continuing our economic recovery, addressing the national debt, lowering the trade deficit and preserving U.S. superpower status into the future.

The NCPA “Frac Map” was also featured at the Washington Post.

 

 

Aug 10, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

The Changing Price of Oil Relative to Gold

It is true that a shift in supply or demand will change prices in any market; however, not all market-price movements are necessarily due to a change in market supply or demand — especially in the case of prices for commodities as highly political as crude oil. Longer term trends in the price of oil also reflect cumulative changes in the purchasing power of the dollar. Looking at oil prices relative to gold prices instead of U.S. dollars takes account of the long-term decline in the value of the dollar and allows us to recognize more clearly the effect of supply, demand and public-policy factors that influence the price of petroleum.

The long historical tendency for the price of crude oil to parallel the price of gold and other precious metals is well known. As a whole, the trend is toward an average annual increase in the oil-gold price ratio through 2014 of 1.1 percent. The long-term increase is attributable to:

  • The slowly increasing scarcity of crude oil.
  • The fact that the cost of exploiting crude oil reserves has risen faster than the cost of exploiting gold reserves.
  • The growth of market forces that also govern the relative flow of capital into the oil and goldmining industries.

If it takes two years to half-close the gap in current oil prices compared to the equilibrium price suggested by the table, it would be reasonable to expect the price of crude to rise at an annual rate of about eight dollars a barrel over the next 12 months.

Source: R. David Ranson, “The Changing Price of Oil Relative to Gold,” National Center for Policy Analysis, July 27, 2015.

Aug 05, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by
« Previous Page — Next Page »