Ohio Clean Energy Campaign: Vote Yes For No Wind Turbines

Josh Strain, in Bucyrus, Ohio, wind campaign image by  Kris Maher, Wall Street Journal article below

The WSJ reports Wind Project Sparks Battle in Rural Ohio

A fight over a big wind project in central Ohio has become so contentious that some neighbors, longtime friends and even family members have stopped talking to each other.

The 300-megawatt Apex Clean Energy project, which could cover a swath of the county with 50 to 60 wind turbines that reach up to 650 feet high, is being put to a vote in a referendum in November. The referendum is the first countywide vote related to wind or solar development in Ohio, where a total of 10 counties passed resolutions this year banning such projects.

Apex has leased land in Crawford County for the past several years. But an anti-wind group gained momentum this year, and in May county commissioners passed a resolution by 2-1 vote banning wind projects under a state law, passed last year, that allows counties to ban wind and solar projects.

The resolution nearly killed the project, known as Honey Creek Wind. But a political-action committee funded by Apex gathered enough signatures this summer to put the resolution itself to a countywide vote in November.

Honey Creek Project 

Here’s a link to the Honey Creek Wind Project, obviously through the eyes of the proponents. 

Project Summary

  • Planned to be located on open farmland in rural Crawford County
  • Capable of producing up to 300 MW of clean, homegrown energy, enough to power approximately 85,000 U.S. homes each year
  • Turbines will be spaced approximately 1/4 to 1/2 mile apart on active farmland
  • Each wind turbine, including the access road, typically requires less than half an acre of land
  • Existing high-voltage power lines and highways would limit the need for new infrastructure
  • Farmers would continue farming their land with very limited disturbance
  • Will represent a significant investment in the local economy, with revenues for farmers, local government, and schools
  • Will create up to 100 jobs during construction

What About Birds?

I have no way to validate the above claim, made by the project.

Here is Audubon’s statement “Audubon strongly supports properly sited wind power as a renewable energy source that helps reduce the threat posed to birds and people by climate change.” 

What About Subsidies?

Real Clear Energy reports Ohio County Veto of Wind Project Shows It’s Time to End Federal Wind Subsidies

Rural Americans keep rejecting wind projects. On May 5, commissioners in Crawford County, Ohio voted 2-1 in favor of a measure that prohibits the construction of wind projects in the county. The move halts a 300-megawatt project being promoted by Apex Clean Energy called Honey Creek Wind.

The Crawford County vote matters for several reasons. First, it provides yet another example of the backlash in rural America against the landscape-blighting encroachment of giant wind turbines; and those rejections are piling up. The vote in Crawford County marks the 330th time that government entities from Maine to Hawaii have rejected or restricted wind projects since 2015. (Details on those rejections can be found in the Renewable Rejection Database.)

The Crawford County vote also matters because it is happening at the same time that the Biden administration and renewable energy promoters in academia are pushing for yet another extension of the production tax credit, the federal subsidy that is the key driver of the wind sector. The PTC, which expired at the beginning of this year, is the single most-expensive energy-related provision in the federal tax code. Between 2020 and 2029, the PTC will cost the federal treasury some $34 billion. Big utilities like NextEra Energy and MidAmerican Energy, which are collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits, want even more federal tax gravy. 

Tax Credits and Intimidation 

Real Clear Energy had these interesting paragraphs on tax credits and intimidation. 

NextEra sued the town of Hinton, Oklahoma — in both state and federal court — after the town of 3,200 passed an ordinance that labeled wind turbines a nuisance and restricted their construction. NextEra even sued a Canadian woman, Esther Wrightman, for calling the company “NextError” on the Internet.

MidAmerican, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, sued Madison County, Iowa, the province that’s famous for its covered wooden bridges, to force it to accept turbines the county voters did not want. In that litigation, MidAmerican effectively intimidated a county supervisor into switching her position on wind turbines. By prevailing in the litigation, the company won the right to add another 30 turbines in the county for which it could collect about $81 million in tax credits. 

Proponents of the Honey Creek Wind project say it’s their land and they should be able to do with it what they want.

But it’s taxpayers across the country subsidizing these projects. If Honey Creek is not viable as a commercial entity without subsides, and tax credits, then it is not a viable project.

More subsidies will fuel more battles like these.

I have a simple proposal: End all the subsidies and all the tariffs and let these projects stand or fall on their own merits, not government handouts.

This post originated at MishTalk.Com.

Thanks for Tuning In!

Please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Comments to this post are now closed.

105 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pontius
Pontius
3 years ago
Solar, wind, wave . . .. All the foregoing costly (in dollars, natural resources and end use waste) and inefficient, scars on the land. Almost as if we forgot . . . we have split the atom.
Nuclear for base generation with natural gas for intermittent load increase. Solution is right before our eye with the (gulp) French leading the way. Power your electric vehicles and let Mr. Musk do an annual launch of nuclear waste in Starship (would not trust NASA with having to meet grueling one launch a year schedule – cost+ is a wonderful thing.
Counter
Counter
3 years ago
I drive along a stretch of thruway in NY that has 10 million pre covid dollars of windmill statues. They never worked. The company from France went bankrupt soon after selling. In China there was a saying, to help but make it worse
Counter
Counter
3 years ago
Reply to  Counter

The wind industry has long denied that it has much impact by pointing out that house cats kill more birds than wind turbines.

But house cats can’t and don’t kill the large, slow-to-reproduce endangered and high-conservation value species like bald eagles, whooping cranes, and the European red kite, a raptor.

The evidence is mounting that industrial wind farms are having significant impacts. In 2017, leading bat scientists warned that if wind turbines continued to expand, they would make the hoary bat extinct.

Nuclear is the only energy source that has proven capable of fully replacing fossil fuels at low-cost in wealthy nations.

While hydro-electric dams can sometimes play that role, they are limited to nations with powerful rivers, many of which have already been dammed.

The underlying problem with solar and wind is that they are too unreliable and energy-dilute. Solar and wind farms require between 400 and 750 times more land than nuclear and natural gas plants.

Shellenberger argues that solar and wind cannot be produced at a competitive or commercially viable price. For example, Germany and California have increased their use of wind and solar energy quite rapidly. Unfortunately, the price of electricity has also increased significantly.
Why Renewables Can’t Save the Climate
Michael Shellenberger
granite
granite
3 years ago
The thing about the birds is that cats kill mostly small birds such as sparrows which are exceedingly abundant. Wind turbines mostly kill larger birds such as raptors which are not.
And calling these things ‘green’ is either a sick joke or extremely disingenuous. Each turbine requires tons of steel and concrete, hundreds of pounds of copper and rare earth metals – all produced by heavy industry using lots of petroleum.
Webej
Webej
3 years ago
The trope about turbines killing birds (picked up by erstwhile president Trump) has been around a long time.
I have seen similar figures about the comparative harm to birds many times; they seem pretty factual.
Rbm
Rbm
3 years ago

Topic of article seemed to change to subsidies. Against wind energy. How about the subsides and tax breaks fossil fuels have enjoyed for years.

Rbm
Rbm
3 years ago
Comes down to those who stand to make money. Ie farmers and those who wont.
Funny rode in a friends tesla yesterday. Hes got solar charges his car during the day or at night after the meter turned backwards all day. Power bill is about 200 a year ( in ca).
Got me thinking people just resist change. Egged on by people with interest (politics or money).
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  Rbm
“Comes down to those who stand to make money.”
It comes down to who is being handed stolen money. Noone is “making” anything. Just wasting capital on destroying ever more of America. For no other reason than facilitating the ever-so-useless getting a cut of the theft.
Nothing wrong with a farmer putting up a wind turbine. As long as he 1)has enough land to keep noise and other nuisances contained to HIS land, away from anyone else, including the public’s; and 2)pays for the darned thing. All of it.
Neither is the case in any of these useless-idiots-on-the-make-championed “wind projects.” Instead, all they are; no different from clearcutting of Southern forests in order to allow illiterate Eruogarbage of the Pippi Thunberg kind to preen around feeling “climate neutral”; are kludgy, destructive mechanisms put in place for no other reason than doing the exact same thing which constitutes all of progressivism, from 1880 and onwards: Stealing from the competent, in order to hand the loot to connected dilettantes who simply are not capable of doing anything useful whatsoever.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  Rbm
Many EV owners will be surprised when, depending on how aggressively they charge their EV’s, the battery wears out in 6-8 years and costs them more to replace at that point than the actual value of the car.
Using super chargers (SC) to charge an EV battery will cause it to wear out sooner. These heat up the battery significantly. You are supposed to wait until the battery cools down after using a SC. Very few people wait for the cool down period, thus contributing to shorter battery life.
Using an EV in cold weather with the heater running will cut available distance by 40% or more.

Anything that uses electricity in an EV reduces the range of the car. Towing something reduces the range significantly.

And even if you supposedly have an EV with 300 mile range, you don’t really. Manufacture’s warn to recharge when the battery hits 30%. That means a 300 mile range is actually a useable 210 miles.
As the idiom goes, “the devil is in the details”.
Pontius
Pontius
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
Battery technology rapidly improving. Most of comments true with respect to my 2016 Tesla S, no longer true with 2021 Tesla Y. Some of the earlier Teslas coming up on 10 years of service now – rest of car wears out before battery completely unusable for day to day driving. Volts/Bolts different engineering/manufacturing.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  Pontius
But everyone’s experience is going to be different. Depends on how you charge the batter, how fast you charge it, how often you charge it.
Without being able to test anything to predict the remaining life in the battery, how can you sell the car to someone else?
Billy
Billy
3 years ago
Why not just tax the subsidies at 50% in the county?
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
ROUND UP THE CATS
Webej
Webej
3 years ago
Reply to  vanderlyn
There are actually action groups that encourage people in certain natural zones to keep their cats inside or closer to home.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  Webej
yes. i’ve lived in a few localities like that. here in brooklyn, the wild cats carry all sorts of diseases, not to mention the abundance of rats, and the autos, in streets, and electric and motor scooters on every sidewalk…………….there are whacked out gangs of young turks, who go hunting rats and cats with weapons and combat boots and their dogs. urban fox hunting if you will.
Carl_R
Carl_R
3 years ago
I totally agree that subsidies should be eliminated. If wind power is cheaper, as it’s proponents say, then it will grow anyway. Government should never be the one to decide what technologies to promote; government planners are almost invariably wrong. Rather than subsidies, if there is a technology they want to replace, they should tax that one (hydrocarbon), and that will accelerate the move away from it, but as for accelerate to what, let the free market do what it does best, and let it sort it out and choose the winners, unfettered by artificial subsidies.
KidHorn
KidHorn
3 years ago
Wind turbines are ugly eye sores. Isn’t there a way to make them more attractive?
Whenever I see a cluster, seems a high pct are disabled. Do they break down a lot?
I hope fusion energy takes off. Seems decades away.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  KidHorn
eye sore. the mark of rich world 3rd base life. god bless you my son, for making me feel good about life in 21st century.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  KidHorn
Paisley.
They should all be painted paisley.
Perhaps a few painted patchwork madras, but mostly paisley.
GeorgeWP
GeorgeWP
3 years ago

New Wind Farms are cheaper than any other energy source, followed by Solar. Why would any country would want to lock it’s future into long term expensive carbon fuel based generation.

US might be a lucky country, lots of land and currently a lot of domestic oil, gas and coal, but duh, at some point, perhaps already, it reaches peak production while demand continues to increase
As Europe has rediscovered relying on imported fuel sucks. The fuel for Wind and Solar gets delivered locally free and is blockade proof
prumbly
prumbly
3 years ago
Reply to  GeorgeWP
“New Wind Farms are cheaper than any other energy source… ” Umm…. no.
Lip
Lip
3 years ago
Reply to  prumbly
“But the Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy says so!” Which is true if you’re selling electricity. Not so much if you want to purchase electricity 24/7/365.
Billy
Billy
3 years ago
Reply to  GeorgeWP
If it’s cheaper then why would their be a need for subsidies?
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  Billy
Because subsidies are the only way to ensure illiterate idiot dilettantes who can’t count, get to continue getting paid handsomely for spouting nonsense, instead of being forced to try their hand at a real job.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  GeorgeWP
Why would any country would want to lock it’s future into long term having more and more people?
If they don’t burn up all the resources, they will eventually eat them all.
Look at Ethiopia and similar ilk.
prumbly
prumbly
3 years ago
Doesn’t Ohio have plenty of clean, cheap natural gas? Why on Earth would they want expensive, unreliable wind generation to blight the landscape?
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  prumbly
They don’t. Noone does. What some among them do want, is being handed subsidy money others had to work for.
Christoball
Christoball
3 years ago
Start putting wind farms off the Santa Barbara coast and watch the reaction. The oil farms in Kern County don’t look so bad after all.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  Christoball
In general, the better the surf, the better the conditions for wave energy. The entire California coastline, is viable for clean wave energy. Inhabitants could pat themselves on the back for buying their energy “local”, even…..
Less flippantly: “Active” seawalls are probably less likely to be universally despised by locals exposed to supposedly increasing risk of “extreme” weather, than wind farms….
CNNfakeNews
CNNfakeNews
3 years ago
I prefer US energy. The energy we have beneath our feet. Not buying lithium from china that is being mined using diesel powered machines. The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
GodfreeRoberts
GodfreeRoberts
3 years ago
Nice work. The Chinese government cut out the middlemen and built the world’s biggest, most advanced wind equipment–so they would know the real ROI on that investment. Can a reader compare the wholesale price of wind-generated energy in China and the US? ROI?
prumbly
prumbly
3 years ago
Reply to  GodfreeRoberts
China is in a different energy situation to the US – they don’t have a whole lot of fossil fuels.
Dr. Odyssey
Dr. Odyssey
3 years ago
Reply to  prumbly
“China is in a different energy situation to the US – they don’t have a whole lot of fossil fuels.”
But they do. They import oil and gas from Russia. They now have a surplus of gas that they sell as LNG to Europe at a nice profit.
prumbly
prumbly
3 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Odyssey
That’s the point – they have to import it. It’s a strategic weakness – one that Europe NOW understands only too well…
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
3 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Odyssey
China has one of the richest coal deposits, and is mining them.
whirlaway
whirlaway
3 years ago
“End all the subsidies and all the tariffs and let these projects stand or fall on their own merits, not government handouts.”
Also, end ALL subsidies to all the other energy companies as well.

https://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  whirlaway
energy has always been subsidized by governments for past 1000 years.
8dots
8dots
3 years ago
Feldheim, a small village near Berlin, don’t care about E-ON & Putin. They produce more than 100% of their energy need from solar, wind and biogas, by building their own grid.
MikeC711
MikeC711
3 years ago
Not my circus, not my monkeys … but if I owned that farmland and could get great tax credits and some serious coin from the energy conglomerate for doing it … I’d grab it. And any time anyone complained about something I was doing, I’d say they must be right wing zealots angry about wind energy (total BS, but it would play great w/the media and hog-tie any gov’t official coming after me). As for the birds, I think cats kill mostly wrens and other tiny extremely high populated birds … and these high wind-mills tend to kill more eagles, falcons, and apex predators (beautiful birds who are far more scarce than the cat fodder). Not to be judgemental, but I see a wren and a bald eagle as having different value.
Felix_Mish
Felix_Mish
3 years ago
I must be the only person who thinks wind farms are really beautiful.
They can be loud, maybe, though waterfalls and ocean waves tend to be a lot louder and people seem to survive living near both.
Someone might make a fortune if they could figure a way for electric generators to sound like water.
Birds? Well, that 2 billion birds per year the bar chart blames on cats were, if memory serves, what windows in the US were supposed to have killed per year a while back. Mish’s skepticism about that graph seems well placed.
prumbly
prumbly
3 years ago
Reply to  Felix_Mish
The silly “cats kill more birds” argument. Cancer kills far more people than terrorism, so I guess terrorism is OK then.
I very much doubt the “cats kill more birds” thing is true anyway. Most cats I see are well fed and lazy.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  prumbly
The prumbly household must be a fun place (assuming you have a household).
prumbly
prumbly
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
Just a basement under my Mom’s, but I hope to get a girlfriend one day
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  prumbly
That explains a lot.
JRM
JRM
3 years ago
Reply to  Felix_Mish
So you support removing more farmland for food???
Felix_Mish
Felix_Mish
3 years ago
Reply to  JRM
I don’t understand the question.
JRM
JRM
3 years ago
Reply to  Felix_Mish
The base of the windmill doesn’t float in air!!!
Therefore it requires land to be used, removing land where food would be grown!!!
Felix_Mish
Felix_Mish
3 years ago
Reply to  JRM
Tradeoffs. You’ve probably noticed that towns/cities are typically located on the best farmland. Better farm land than wind farms are on, even.
I’d expect that those who lease out their farmland to wind farms would be able to evaluate where the value is. And farm around them, for that matter. Anyway, wind turbines and wings are big in the air but aren’t so big on the ground.
RonJ
RonJ
3 years ago
Vote Yes For No. What a great campaign slogan.
“In rural Ohio, it’s neighbor against neighbor.”
On California’s Prop 30, it’s Governor Newsom against the California Democratic Party. The party endorsed it, while Newsom is against it.
Newsom claims it is a corporate money grab which will hurt the state fiscally.
8dots
8dots
3 years ago
Energy shortages ==> XOM breached June 2014 high, after BU move higher, vertically higher, until DXY counter attack ==> recession (?) ==> XOM drop to 104, before 63/54..
shamrock
shamrock
3 years ago
The taxpayer subsidies are not at issue, if the project is worthwhile “on it’s own merits” there would still be objections to having the wind farms. It’s property rights versus NIMBY neighbors.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  shamrock
And NIMBY pretty much always wins and pretty much always will win such confrontations.
RonJ
RonJ
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Especially if they live in Martha’s Vineyard or the Hampton’s.
MikeC711
MikeC711
3 years ago
Reply to  RonJ
In defense of the people of Martha’s Vinyard, if Gov D would have equipped all migrants who defined as male with leaf blowers and those who define as the other 116 genders in gender neutral domestic servant uniforms … they’d have been far more welcome.
MPO45
MPO45
3 years ago
But it’s taxpayers across the country subsidizing these projects. If Honey Creek is not viable as a commercial entity without subsides, and tax credits, then it is not a viable project…I have a simple proposal: End all the subsidies and all the tariffs and let these projects stand or fall on their own merits, not government handouts.
With this philosophy, roads across the USA would never have been built because why should I, living in Chicago, subsidize roads in Wyoming that I will never drive on? What about schools? Hospitals? Why are rural people that don’t build their own hospitals allowed to use city ones subsidized by city taxpayers?
Is is ironic that as we head into the ‘graying’ of America where there will be HUGE dependencies on nursing homes across the country and we currently don’t have enough nursing homes for 60 million people much less care givers for this volume that at least 1/3 of America will be dependent on subsidies and handouts.
It will get worse not better, smart money is moving to younger pastures.
radar
radar
3 years ago
Reply to  MPO45
Sometimes there are no substitutes. There’s plenty for windmills.
MPO45
MPO45
3 years ago
Reply to  radar
Like gas that requires thousands of miles of pipelines across someone’s land?
radar
radar
3 years ago
Reply to  MPO45
Well at least they don’t make noise, rotate and kill birds. Nuke plants are also quiet.
Christoball
Christoball
3 years ago
Reply to  MPO45
Hopefully these old people raised kids who love them. So many people just want to stick their parents in rest homes. Out of sight, out of mind.
Avery
Avery
3 years ago
Reply to  MPO45
Even worse. I’ve never seen a car with Wyoming plates on the Tri-State Tollway.
Speed75
Speed75
3 years ago
Eventually deep geothermal energy will replace unsightly wind turbines as well as solar panels. The MIT professors who developed the company, Quaise, if successful will likely be a trillion $ enterprise. You can read about it on their site: quaise.com.
Webej
Webej
3 years ago
Reply to  Speed75
I have been reading about such projects since my youth.
Reminds me of the hydrogen, ammonia, and fusion economy.
I have grown sceptical.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  Webej
My favorite is extracting power from the quantum vacuum.
8dots
8dots
3 years ago
Green energy might be viable when natgas supply is disrupted. It’s hard to dislodge Putin. Higher energy cost might start a global
recession, DXY will rise and the CPI will dive. // Sugar is energy. In 1985, during the Plaza accord, when the dollar was 165, sugar was 2 cents. In 1999, during the previous dollar peak, 4 cents. When the dollar plunged in 2011 sugar rose to 36 cents. Sugar entered a seventy years trading range from 1974 : 28.00/17.55. Nixon deflated sugar, corn and oil. // In the next recession, if it comes, innovative co will produce batteries that provide energy for 12 hours and unstoppable minis.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  8dots
Green energy is already viable. But we are disrupting it as well.
Which doesn’t matter much to me. As long as I can find a way to profit from the energy shortage. Which is to own a lot of oil and gas stocks.
Similarly, I will try to profit from renewables as well. I am still investigating the possibilities.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Speaking of more subsidies. Don’t forget that Biden’s Inflation Reduction act is going to subsidize Hydrogen up to $3/kg.
This could result in the US leading the world in hydrogen development. Which could lead to some great investment opportunities.
I have been starting to acquire small positions in a variety of hydrogen and other renewable companies. Including PLUG, BLDP and LPEN.
My position is that you can waste your time complaining about subsidies, or you can investigate how to take advantage of them.
prumbly
prumbly
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Hydrogen makes even less sense than wind farms. Far less, in fact. Very inefficient. Very expensive.
But worst of all – it’s unsustainable. When hydrogen leaks – and it leaks a lot as the molecule is so small and difficult to contain – it rises up through the atmosphere and out into space. Gone forever.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  prumbly
Yes. This is forecast to be a problem eventually.
In 1 billion years, the Sun will be 10% brighter than it is now, making it hot enough for Earth to lose enough hydrogen to space to cause it to lose all of its water.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
In less than a billion years the Earth will be so overpopulated that body heat will boil off all the water. /s
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
My time frame for looking ahead is generally restricted to this century, with the biggest focus on this decade. I will leave it to prumbly to worry about billion year time frames.
I understood your sarcasm. Still:
There are currently around 7.8 billion people in the world. Experts believe the global population would peak at around 9.7 billion in 2064 before steadily declining to 8.79 billion by 2100.
To me this means increasing demand for energy and food for at least the next 4 decades.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
I think you owe me a commission for turning you on to H2!
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
Thanks for the tip! Good ideas are why I keep coming back here. First, oil and gas. Then Hydrogen. I wonder what is next?
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
H2 fuel cell vehicles and of course – FUSION, FUSION, FUSION!
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  prumbly
Thanks! I will keep that in mind as I invest. I will look for companies that are at less risk for this problem; or who will make money by solving this problem. Problems = opportunities.
Green_Squirrel
Green_Squirrel
3 years ago
They said peak oil in the 70’s, 2000, and now 2022, and yet they keep finding more and more oil and gas, and some old wells amazingly are refilling themselves…The USA has enough coal to supply our nation’s energy needs for the next 300 years, but no you environmental wackos and climate change terrorists…are severely hindering America’s prosperity, and economic growth, by supporting Bidens war on fossil fuels, that is the number one reason for the worst inflation in over 40yrs
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  Green_Squirrel
Economic growth isn’t the “be all, end all” in life for regular people.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  Green_Squirrel
Yes, but they aren’t finding it as fast as it’s being depleted and that’s the only question that really matters.
US oil production was projected to peak in the 70’s and it did until fracking came along 30 years later. But it’s not clear how long fracking will be able to continue (both environmentally and because of the huge resource drain of water it takes etc) and once it stops US oil production will fall off the table.
World oil was projected to peak around 2020. Whether it has or not isn’t clear yet and likely won’t be for a while. It’s virtually impossible to recognize a peak just like it’s virtually impossible to spot a market top/bottom. It’s only a bit later when we realize it happened.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Over the years I have noticed that.
Market peaks are not like mountain peaks.
PeterEV
PeterEV
3 years ago
Reply to  Green_Squirrel
Please read my two entries above.
Exxon is showing a relatively flat peaking around 2040. If you want to argue with Exxon, I’ll bring the popcorn.
There is an oil well in Pennsylvania near Colonel Drake’s first US oil well that is still pumping oil but I would not use it as an example of some miracle. So yes, there will be oil, gas and coal 300 years from now but NOT in the quantities to sustain our current usage on a national basis.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  PeterEV
Even more critical is the fact that “current” usage is not static, it continues to grow.
PeterEV
PeterEV
3 years ago
Correction: we do NOT import 17 to 18 million barrels of oil. We do USE that amount per day.
PeterEV
PeterEV
3 years ago
First, thank you for the code as a password. MUCH APPRECIATED!!
One of the issues in the not too distance future (and maybe already has with the Russian Invasion of the Ukraine), is the peaking of world production of fossil fuels. Exxon Mobil has a graph in its energy summary, a View to 2050, showing the peaking of world oil supplies:
In the fourth graph down, Global liquids supply by type – MBDOE, if you hold a ruler parallel to the x-axis at the 80 MBDOE, you’ll be able to see the curve at the top of Tight Oil peak around the 2040 mark. These are the oils that are used to produce gasoline, diesel, asphalt, etc. Natural Gas will follow around the same time. Wikipedia: “One forecast is for natural gas demand to peak in 2035.” A VP from BP back in 2009 said we have about 70 years of natural gas left [before peaking] **provided our usage stays the same**. From Wikipedia: Global coal consumption peaked in 2013.
The Energy Information Agency (EIA) says we import 17 to 18 million barrels of oil each day and we only take out of the ground around 12 million barrels of oil a day. We are a net energy importer of roughly 5 MBDOE and some of that was from Russia. When we cut off our us of Russian oil, our crude oil prices shot up and as we scrambled to bring more crude online, the prices at the gas pumps have come down.
Whether the folks in Ohio can come to a consensus or not, we need to have serious discussions on how we will be powering our future using renewables. We’re overusing our fossil fuel resources and we are running out of time to come up with alternatives.
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
3 years ago
Reply to  PeterEV
That’s funny! I was all into peak oil back in the 2000’s. Then along came horizonal drilling and the Permian oil basin.
FJB has shutoff all new oil & gas leases. That’s what you need to be freaking worried about, not peak oil which is a hoax, for now.
Relax, there’s ~2.3+T barrels of recoverable oil shale in the Green River basin of Wyoming.
And at $100+ / barrel, it’s economically viable. Don’t worry! We’re not running out of oil anytime soon.
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
And Iraq & Venezuela have tons of oil. We’d just have to deploy some neutron bombs to kill everyone before we send Exxon Mobil into pull it out of the ground for America.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
Yet here you are; freaking out. Or are you taking advantage and investing heavily in the oil and gas companies that are benefiting from the high prices? If you are, you have never mentioned it.
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Trust me. Running out of oil IS NOT something I’ll freak out about. I am pissed the that ATF is about to re-write their rule on pistol braces though.
See my other reply to you further down in the threads, where I address my investing portfolio ideas.
PeterEV
PeterEV
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
@worleyeoe
The oil shale in the Green River basin of Wyoming is ***NOT*** oil but a collection of hydrocarbons that have to be converted to a liquid for them to go through a pipeline to a refinery. IT TAKES WATER TO DO THAT; about 2.5 barrels of water to convert those hydrocarbons to 1 barrel of SHALE OIL from oil shale. The Green River Basin is in the high DESERT country of western Colorado where most of the water has been spoken for.
A Shell project manager says that to develop these hydrocarbons, water will have to be pumped in from the eastern side of the Continental Divide. The Missouri River and the Great Lakes have been mentioned as sources. If the EIA says we use 17 MBOD and we only produce 12 MBOD, that leaves a deficit of 5 MBOD to become “energy independent”. TO prove an illustration of what it would take to develop these hydrocarbons I will use 3 barrels of water to make 1 barrel of Shale Oil or 3 times 5 = 15 MBarrels of water needed for the conversion. The Alaskan Pipeline in its heyday, pumped an average of 1.6 MBOD for about 10 years. That’s close to 1.5 MBOD. It would take about 10 Alaskan Pipelines stretching from say the Great Lakes up over the Continental Divide to the Green River Basin. However, that manager said they might get their process down to 2 barrels of water. That’s 2/3 of 10 or 6.666 Alaskan Pipelines which has to be rounded up to 7. So a minimum of 7 or maybe up to 10 Alaskan Pipelines need to be constructed TO the area. 1.5 into 5 and rounded up, you’d need 4 Alaskan Pipelines to transport the Shale Oil out to a refinery. That is a minimum of 11 Alaskan Pipelines just to become “Energy Independent”.
The USGS says there are roughly 3 trillion barrels of hydrocarbons in the western Colorado and Utah area of which about 1 trillion are recoverable and this is according to an Exxon graph from a couple of years ago. The problem with all this is that those hydrocarbons are locked in mountainous formations with few roads.
The other problem is the waste streams would be flushed into the Colorado River. Try calming all those people along the Colorado River when you start mucking up their families’ drinking, cooking, and bathing water. Good luck with that. You need to deal with the mining waste because you mine those hydrocarbons.
The car and truck manufacturing company CEOs talk to Exxon, BP, ENI, and the other oil company CEOs about supplies and estimated costs. While we are not cc’ed on the internal memos, you can read what they are thinking by what they are offering. Why are they going to EV’s when they can make more profit on spark plug replacements and oil changes? Oil production IS peaking and they don’t want to be on the other side of the peak selling internal combustion engined vehicles. Some in the oil business are expecting the Permian Basin to be peaking in the next couple of years.
We need the oil for those things that really matter such as large machinery where electricity doesn’t hack it.
Where does this leave us? Scrambling to develop renewables with subsidies from governments, and grants from foundations, funds from venture capitalists. That coupled with the same for electrical energy storage (i.e., Power Walls, pumped hydro, etc.).
PS If the Main Stream Media is not helping you to understand this, they are not doing you any favors. Why?
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  PeterEV
Apparently you did not notice that most of that process water can be reused.
Of course if we did pump that much water the Western side of the Continental Divide would sink and California would fall into the ocean.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
3 years ago
I don’t know about Ohio, but solar panel projects are apparently popping up in picturesque UK countryside (or any other picturesque rural area).
This is stupid beyond belief. Agriculture captures sunlight energy converting it into chemical energy for storage.
Meanwhile invite more immigrants to fill jobs that wouldn’t exist if not for runaway money printing, so you need more land and renewable energy.
This is the result of political process where only clowns thrive.
The West was traditionally run by mostly rational politics, but that’s no longer the case.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Oh, come on.
There’s nothing more traditional than a nice big plate of blue-black silicon stretched out for a few (thousand) meters.
LCP
LCP
3 years ago
I could not agree more, Mish. Subsidies drive poor policy and so many other negatives. I’m tired of it all.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Hilarious! As energy demand continues to grow, we need all manner of energy, both fossil fuels and renewables. Yet, there are forces at work that continue to oppose one or the other.
One thing this type of scenario guarantees is energy supply being unable to meet energy demand.
Which keeps upward pressure on fossil fuel prices.
As always, I cannot change what is happening. But I can profit from it.
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
“Yet, there are forces at work that continue to oppose one or the other.”
Roger that, PapaD! It’s called FJB! And, he’s coming for your wallet.
My non-organic, English cucumber at Wally World finally succumbed to Bidenflation.
Boom! Up 62% over night. Had to pick one up from Aldi for $1.15. Hope it’s short-term.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
Perhaps you will never really understand my point of view. Your focus is on trying to blame Biden for everything you can think of. Whether its the price of energy or the price of your cucumber. I simply don’t care about laying blame. I don’t vote. I don’t care who is in the White House. I don’t care about either political party. Its a total waste of my time.
I merely accept that Biden (and others) are restricting fossil fuel supply. And as this story shows, there are others who are trying to restrict renewable energy supply. Or are you trying to say that Biden is also restricting renewables? You do seem to want to blame him for everything.
I cannot change what is happening. But I can profit from it.
Sorry about your cucumber. Perhaps you could afford it if you just made more money.
My focus is on making money. If I make enough, I don’t worry about inflation.
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
PapaD,
Trust me, I get your point of view, and I really can’t blame you at all for your approach. As the little guy, we can’t do anything to change things, but I enjoy pointing out how radical / corrupt Biden’s administration, the Dems, the MSM & Big Tech really are.
As for investing, I do my own, but unfortunately I’m mostly paralyzed by being overly conservative and trading in & out too much. I’ve been in all cash since February of this year. I’m 55 BTW. I have started to put significant monies into Brokered CDs. Back in 2021, I held a nice position in Marathon & Valero a few times throughout the year, then got cold feet. I really fail to invest for the long-term well. I’ve got a modest target of where I want my IRA to end up at. With these brokered CD’s getting up to really nice rates, that will make it easier. But I do have 25% that I’m holding back. Here’s my list of investments that I hope to jump into ahead of when the Fed signals rates have stopped rising:
SPLG S&P 500
TAN Green Energy
AMZN E-Commerce
QS Solid State Bat
AB Finance 11.7% dividend
GOOGL E-Commerce
PLTR Artificial Intelligence
QCLN Green Energy
SLDP Solid State Bat
GOOD REIT – Industrial (8.69% dividend)
COPX Commodity Copper (2.93% dividend)
MSB Commodity – Iron (15.68% dividend)
HJEN Hydrogen (2.55% dividend)
GWH Ind Battery
ENVX Solid State Bat Silica
TLT 20YT ETF – Whenever the Fed is forced to lower interest rates back to zero, this will zoom much higher. Recent Peak 3/17 @ $171.72. Currently trading @ $105.70.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
Hey. Thanks for sharing that. And please ignore another comment I made elsewhere here, stating that you don’t say what you are investing in. Because now you have. Much appreciated.
Regarding politics and corruption; its the same on both sides. And complaining only gets you stress and ulcers.
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
You’re welcome, PapaD! Respect!
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
PapaDave, you don’t vote?
Well, I guess that we can’t hold you even partially responsible for the mess we are in.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
Cukes are amazingly easy to grow with warm weather and good sun. And they taste far better than any store bought ones.
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
3 years ago
Solar, Wind, Hydro, nuclear SMRs, storage should all receive the same % of pork, assuming you’re okay with subsidies.
Fusion is still a ways off from commercial viability, so it should be private, venture capital only for now.
Hydrocarbons shouldn’t receive any government subsidies.
Felix_Mish
Felix_Mish
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
Dept of Defense is a large part of subsidies for oil/gas.
Bill Meyer
Bill Meyer
3 years ago
Most all so-called “Renewable” Gang Green energy fails without the government gravy. As for concerns about climate change, be more concerned about global cooling…that’s where the REAL die off occurs. Warming tends to be more of a real estate problem. One can’t help but notice that our climate church promoters largely buy multi-million dollar coastal mansions. Hmm, they don’t appear all that concerned?
prumbly
prumbly
3 years ago
Reply to  Bill Meyer
People who actually live on the coast know that sea levels aren’t rising in any meaningful way.
Remember when we were told that the Maldives would be underwater by now? In fact the land area of the Maldives has been increasing, not shrinking. This is also true globally – total land area has been increasing. This is due to glacial rebound and land reclamation.
KidHorn
KidHorn
3 years ago
Reply to  prumbly
Most sinking coastlines are because of land subsidence. Not because sea levels are rising. It’s normal for land to be created in continental interiors and sink back into the ocean along the coasts.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.