Even the European left understands what the Ukraine invasion means for fossil fuels.

Republicans know it. The European left knows it. Joe Manchin knows it. Even some of the Beltway press knows it. Now let’s see how long it takes Joe Biden to recognize that the Ukraine war has reset energy politics and that his climate agenda risks dooming his party this fall.

Biden is in Climate Denial

He certainly hasn’t sussed it out yet. The Joe Biden who showed up Monday at his first in-person fundraiser as president sounded like a man in a time warp. “Let me begin by saying: [Climate change] is the existential threat to humanity,” he opened, proceeding to recite an environmental agenda identical to the one he campaigned on. Ukraine got one mention, and only then as further reason why Americans (among other things) need to “weatherize homes and businesses.”

His administration is similarly proceeding as if Vladimir Putin weren’t exploiting his energy dominance to kill Ukrainians. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently announced a new pipeline review policy that will stop most projects. The White House continues its near-moratorium on new leases to drill on federal land and its block of Alaskan drilling. The president announced he’ll attempt to impose his Green New Deal via executive order. The House Progressive Caucus this week offered ideas, calling on him to “declare a national climate emergency,” and use it to ban “fossil fuel leases,” and force companies to build renewables under the Defense Production Act.

Across the pond, things look exactly opposite. The Europeans have embraced the climate religion with a fervor to rival Bernie Sanders. Yet Mr. Putin’s shocking violence in Ukraine—his willingness to wield energy as a weapon—sobered the Continent overnight. No one is giving up on renewables, but nobody is any longer pretending they are the basis of energy reliability or security. Fossil fuels will remain for decades a currency of global power, and Russia’s invasion highlights the stupidity of being broke.

Germany’s government is stockpiling coal and expediting terminals for liquefied natural gas. Europe is working to get more gas through pipelines from Norway and Azerbaijan. Poland plans new nuclear plants. The U.K. may restart onshore fracking and ramp up North Sea drilling. Norway plans to expand Arctic exploration.

Sen. Manchin gets the shift, and this week he deep-sixed Mr. Biden’s nominee to the Federal Reserve, the anti-fossil-fuel Sarah Bloom Raskin, saying that at this “historic moment” the U.S. needs policy leaders focused on the most pressing issues—“specifically rising inflation and energy costs.” Republicans are flooding the zone with ideas to accelerate fossil-fuel production, and even the pro-Biden media is beginning to fret about the president’s failure to see what’s happening.

The inconvenient truth is that Mr. Biden’s climate agenda—no matter how much the liberal press wants to differ—has never been popular. It’s a concoction of the party’s progressive left and radical activist groups. A recent survey from Democratic pollster Impact Research of likely voters in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Arizona (three states with Senate races this year) found that 78% had a favorable view of natural gas, and only 22% want an energy policy that looks like the Green New Deal.

And voters aren’t buying Mr. Biden’s argument that the response to Russia should be to double down on his climate visions. In a HarrisX poll this week, nearly 70% of voters said “yes” to the question of whether, in light of Russia’s attack, the administration should “ease its focus on climate change and allow more oil and natural gas exploration.” They want energy and economic security, not electric-car charging stations.

The other risk to Democrats sticking their heads in the non-tar sands is that they make the situation worse substantively as well as politically. Desperate to remain on climate autopilot, Mr. Biden and other Democrats are now trying to blame higher prices on Big Oil and Big Gas and debating a windfall profits tax—a move that would depress production and further raise prices. Democratic governors are clamoring for a federal gasoline-tax holiday, but it’s a gimmick that would only temporarily mask true prices, and may not count for much in any event.

Which gets to the heart of the problem. Democrats want to make the problem go away without addressing its roots. Russia’s invasion has forced energy security to the center of the political debate, where it is likely to stay through the midterms. Voters will cast ballots for candidates who prove they understand the problem and have a plan for fixing it. Democrats who continue to wallow in platitudes about an “existential” climate crisis may find themselves out of jobs.

Write to kim@wsj.com.

Views: 116


You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on March 18, 2022 at 2:39pm




German Energy Sector, ENERGIEWENDE, and Global Competitiveness


Germany is currently buying pipeline gas from Russia, under long-term contracts, at about $280 per 1000 cubic meter, or $7.93/million Btu. For comparison, US long-term pipeline gas prices for new contracts are about $5/million Btu


Germany would be buying LNG gas, for many years, at spot prices of up to $1500 per 1000 cubic meter, or $42.47/million Btu



There is no way Germany could shut down coal and nuclear plants, and have more wind and solar, as part of its multi-decade ENERGIEWENDE, without having much more low-cost pipeline gas from Russia


The additional gas is planned to arrive, via the completed Nordstream 2 pipeline under the Baltic Sea, from Russia to Germany.


Germany would have to buy very large quantities of LNG, at very high spot prices, from whatever unstable countries.


That cost adder would totally ruin Germany's world competitiveness, and very large annual trade surpluses.

The ENERGIEWENDE, and fighting climate change, would have to be on the back burner for up to 10 years. 


A New Way to Make Solar and Wind More Attractive 


Just create a massive shortage of oil, gas and coal, such as by means of a war, and their spot prices will go up, and wind and solar, supported by expensive batteries, etc., will FINALLY become attractive, even without HUGE subsidies.


Germany is using the Ukraine war as an excuse to keep nuclear plants in service for at least 10 years, because it will take that long to partially replace Russian pipeline gas with LNG

The LNG will sell at astronomical spot prices of $40 to $50/million Btu, vs US Spot prices at $5/million Btu.


Natural Gas Price in Europe Smashes All-time High



European natural gas futures spiked above $2,200 per 1,000 cubic meters on Wednesday for the first time in market history. The escalating crisis between Russia and Ukraine has raised fears of supply shortages.


Because 1000 m3 contains 1000 x 35.315 ft3/m3 x 1000 Btu/ft3 = 35,315,000 Btu, the futures price becomes $2,200/35.315 million Btu = $62.30/million Btu, versus the US spot price at $4.5/million Btu


The April gas futures at the TTF hub in the Netherlands soared from around $1,500 to $2,226 per 1,000 cubic meters, or $213 per megawatt-hour (i.e., $213/3,412,000 Btu) in household terms, by 09:30 GMT, hitting an all-time high, data from the London ICE exchange shows.


The spike in prices follows sanctions placed on Russia by a number of Western states due to Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine.


A huge increase in applications (i.e., demand for gas futures) is raising the price by the minute, Kaushal Ramesh, senior analyst at Rystad Energy, told Vesti.


He said it had also been affected by fears of supply outages due to: 1) possible damage to infrastructure in Ukraine, through which the majority of Russian gas is delivered to Europe, and 2) the possibility of supply restrictions on Russian oil and gas.


It looks like anything made in Europe will become very expensive, far more expensive than if that same product were made in the US.


The US/UK-led NATO, baiting Putin to start a war in Ukraine, is one way for the US to become more competitive in international markets, at the expense of Russia, and the EU, and everyone else.


The gas shortage condition would be in place for up to 10 years, because it would take that long to build up additional:


- Gas production capacity, elsewhere in the world, to replace Russia’s 200 bcm/y of pipeline gas.

- LNG production plants and sending ports

- LNG carriers; average capacity 170,000 cubic meter of LNG

- LNG receiving ports and gasification plants

- Connections to existing onshore pipe systems, all while:


1) EU inflation would be off-the-charts

2) EU exports would dwindle.


NOTE: The above production and infrastructure build-ups would be in addition to what is required for the projected world-market growth of LNG



Comment by Willem Post on March 18, 2022 at 2:36pm




Brussels Career Bureaucrats: They likely have little hands-on experience in the energy sector. They urged EU countries not to sign long-term gas supply contracts with Russia, because that would send the wrong “virtue signal” regarding “weaning the EU off fossil fuels”. Just google, if you find this incredible.


Their myopic decisions did not foresee EU spot prices for natural gas would become “volatile”, i.e., about 5 to 10 times the prices of Russian gas, under long-term contracts.


Naïve career bureaucrats likely thought Russia would supply enough gas to lower spot prices, but Russia did not.


Various folks, including Brussels bureaucrats did not take any blame for their stupidity.

Instead, they tried besmirching Russia, but the gas system operating data did not co-operate.


However, Russia made sure to reliably provide pipeline gas, to clients with signed long-term contracts, as confirmed by Brussels, Germany, Turkey, etc. i.e., Russia was not to blame for high spot prices.


Russia has no contractual obligation to supply gas to the EU spot market.

Russia has no contractual obligation to fill the EU above- and belowground gas storage reservoirs


This was known by Brussels career bureaucrats, prior to their myopic decisions.


The net result was Europe’s energy costs increased by at least $200 BILLION per year, which offsets any benefits from Europe’s international trade.


NOTE: There is some consolation in all this. After all, there is the important “benefit” of strengthening the US/UK/EU long-term policy of squeezing/diminishing Russia.



LNG Consumption in Europe: Historically, the EU has imported very minor quantities of LNG, because LNG prices are about 25% to 30% higher than pipeline gas bought from Russia, under long-term contracts. That will always be the case, due to cost differences of applicable technologies.



The recent, cleverly-designed sanctions imposed on Russia did not include any restrictions on energy and materials flow from Russia to avoid additional price increases on world markets


Russia will make money, which will partially offset the cost of fighting in Ukraine, and of the long-lasting sanctions


The US/UK-led NATO will send more weapons and disguised trainers/mercenaries to Ukraine to increase the cost of fighting Ukraine

The end result will be more death and destruction lasting more than a few days.


Calculation of Additional LNG Carrier Loads


Assume an average LNG carrier capacity at 170,000 m3, equivalent to 76,500 metric ton of LNG

In 2020, world LNG demand was 360 million metric ton, equivalent to 4,706 LNG carrier loads/y. See URL

The 200 bcm/y of pipeline gas supply from Russia is equivalent to 1903 LNG carrier loads/y


There would need to be an enormous, worldwide increase in LNG carrier loads of about (4706 + 1903)/4706 = 40.4%, if Russian gas to the EU were stopped. See table


There would be a gigantic, additional strain on the world’s LNG system, which would send spot prices to unprecedented levels for many years.

At present, Europe lacks the capacity to receive and gasify that many carrier loads.

At present, there is a significant shortage of large-capacity LNG carriers






Russian gas supply


billion m3/y


Carrier load, LNG




gal/m3, conversion factor



Carrier load, LNG

170000 x 264.172



gal LNG/million Btu



Carrier load

449092240 x (10^6/12.1)

million Btu


Btu/cf, gas



cf/m3, conversion factor



Btu/m3, gas



Carrier load

3711507 x 10^6/35315

million m3


Carrier load


billion m3


Carrier loads/y

200 bcm/y/0.105


Carrier loads/week




Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on March 18, 2022 at 12:37pm

https://thebluestateconservative.com/2022/03/18/one-twitter-user-cr... Twitter User Created A Must-Read Thread Of The Hunter Biden laptop Saga

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on March 18, 2022 at 12:33pm

Elections have consequences. Stolen elections have grave consequences.
Biden Energy Secretary Granholm Says War In Ukraine Is Chance To Transistion To Green Energy (VIDEO)

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on March 18, 2022 at 12:29pm

Start Walking: International Energy Agency Calls for Urgent Restrictions on Domestic Oil Supplies

Comment by Willem Post on March 18, 2022 at 11:31am

The European left understanding about fossil fuels?

They did, do not now, and will never in the future, understand about fossil fuels, because they have not made the effort to learn about the plethora of wonders that became possible with fossil fuels, which would be enormously more difficult and expensive to achieve with the cripples called wind, solar and hydro


Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power


Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT


(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."


© 2022   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service