Wind is not a new technology. It was one of our principal sources of energy, along with wood and water, prior to the carbon era. But the use of renewables in the pre-carbon age was very different from the current use of renewables. Today, people rely on energy being available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, regardless of whether the sun shines, the wind blows, or there are high or low water levels.  We now have over 1,000 gigawatts of generating plants[1], and a large and elaborate electrical grid that requires great coordination among system operators to avoid disruptions.

Also, in the pre-carbon energy era, when renewables were the sole source of energy, there were no coal-fired or natural-gas fired power plants to provide back-up power. Studies have found that the efficiency of those carbon-based plants is affected by incorporating wind energy into the system. When a plant’s efficiency is reduced, its fuel consumption and emissions increase, causing unintended consequences that wind proponents do not disclose. Requiring even larger amounts of renewable energy through renewable portfolio standards will only exacerbate this problem.

Background

Our various electricity generating technologies were designed and constructed to meet electricity demand based on their best operating characteristics for meeting portions of the electricity load duration curve. The load duration curve illustrates periods of constant demand that are served by base-load power versus periods of intermediate and peak demand. Owing to their high capital cost, low fuel cost, and high capacity factors, technologies such as coal and nuclear were designed to operate continuously to meet the base-load demand component. Owing to their lower capital costs but higher fuel costs, natural gas technologies, including combined-cycle and turbine plants, were designed to meet intermediate and peak electrical load.

Wind is an intermittent technology since it can generate power only when the wind blows. Its low operating cost (with no fuel component) and the mandates of state Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) make it practically a “must take” technology for system operators. RPSs require that a certain amount of electricity generation be produced by renewable fuels. The renewable target mandates tend to start out low but increase over time, with those of most RPS states reaching 15 to 30 percent by 2020 or 2025.[2] Wind tends to be the primary technology for meeting RPS targets, since it is lower in capital cost than solar, thermal, and photovoltaic technologies, the other politically acceptable “green” technologies.

Part of the rationale for introducing RPSs is that the substitution of “green” technologies for carbon technologies is supposed to reduce pollution emissions as well as carbon dioxide emissions. However, studies have shown that this may not be the case. As conventional generation (coal or natural gas) is reduced to make room for wind generation and is then increased as wind generation subsides, its heat rate rises. The heat rate is a measure of a generating station’s thermal efficiency commonly stated in units of Btu per kilowatt-hour. This reduction in efficiency  increases its fuel consumption and emissions. When sudden increases or decreases occur in generation output, it is referred to as “cycling”.

The Bentek Study

Bentek did a study of the results of integrating wind into the generation mix of the Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO), using data from the company’s financial reports, the Energy Information Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.[3] PSCO is a largely coal-fired utility with 3,764 megawatts of coal-fired generators, 3,236 megawatts of gas-fired combined-cycle and gas turbine capacity, 405 megawatts of hydro and pumped storage capacity, and 1,064 megawatts of wind generators. Colorado has an RPS that required 3 percent of the electricity generated by investor-owned utilities come from qualifying renewable technologies by 2007, and 30 percent by 2020.[4]

Colorado’s energy demand is highest during the day, peaking in late afternoon or early evening. Wind generation, however, is greatest between the hours of 9 pm and 5 am; it cannot be counted on to provide power when most needed, and so is used when available to meet the RPS. Most of the time that wind generation is available, it backs out (or replaces) natural gas. However, there are times when coal generation, which provides over 50 percent of PSCO’s base-load generation, is backed out to make room for the wind generation. When this happens, coal generation is cycled, causing its heat rate to increase and resulting in more fuel consumption and emissions. In PSCO, coal cycling predominates because of the low amount of gas generation in the system since most of its gas-fired generation is from turbines and because wind is strongest at night when coal use is even more pronounced.

In the Denver non-attainment area, PSCO has 4 coal-fired plants: Arapahoe, Valmont, Pawnee, and Cherokee. Between 2006 and 2009, these coal-fired plants have experienced higher emission rates ranging from 17 to 172 percent higher for sulfur dioxide, 0 to 9 percent higher for nitrous oxide, and 0 to 9 percent higher for carbon dioxide. In 2008, Cherokee even switched to a lower sulfur coal, but still ended up with sulfur dioxide emissions higher by 18 percent. And, between 2006 and 2009, these plants reduced their generation by over 37 percent, exacerbating further the increase in emissions.

Because the PSCO data are limited, Bentek checked their results against data from the Energy Reliability Council of Texas, whose utilities are required to report generation levels by fuel every 15 minutes. Texas has the most wind capacity in the country—over 9,500 megawatts.[5] Texas also has an RPS that was instituted during George W. Bush’s governorship and that pushed Texas ahead of California in wind capacity during 2006. The Texas renewable portfolio standard requires that utilities have 5,880 megawatts of renewable capacity by 2015, including a target of 500 megawatts of renewable-energy capacity from resources other than wind. The legislation also set a target of reaching 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2025, although it will be exceeded much earlier.[6] However, even in Texas, which has a large natural gas–fired capacity base, with over 40 percent of its generation being natural gas-fired,[7] coal-fired generation is cycled as is shown in the graph below.

Another benefit that wind power generators get is that their forecast power generation entails no penalty if it is not available. Other generators must provide their own back-up power if their generation is suddenly unavailable. But the owners of wind generators believe that they can’t be held accountable for whether the wind blows and thus for inaccuracies in their forecasting capability. For example, on February 26, 2008, a cold front moved through West Texas and rendered wind’s output 1,000 megawatts less than promised, and that unexpectedly had to be made up by other generating technologies.[8] Only careful and extensive coordination, such as was carried out in West Texas on that cold February day, can divert brown outs and black outs from occurring.

The Netherlands Experience[9]

Two researchers, C. le Pair and K. de Groot, found that the Netherlands Government was overestimating the amount of carbon dioxide reductions associated with wind production. The government was using incorrect data because it did not correct for the reduction in efficiency of the conventional power plants once wind was introduced into the system. Using data provided by CBS, the Dutch Institute for Statistics, the researchers made an estimate of the “turning point” where the efficiency reduction of conventional power plants balances out the fuel savings from wind energy. Using data for 2007, when wind power was at 3 percent, they found the turning point to be at an efficiency reduction of 2 percent based on all the power stations serving the Netherlands. That is, when the efficiency of the back-up plants was reduced by over 2 percent due to cycling caused by the integration of wind energy into the system, fuel use and emissions of the back-up plants increased.

Heat Rate Simulations

An engineer, Kent Hawkins, evaluated several heat rate simulations to represent cycling of the plants when wind is introduced into the system.[10] One set of simulations evaluates wind energy replacing coal power with different technologies serving as the back-up power to wind, in order to evaluate their effect on fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions. He found that because of cycling, carbon dioxide emissions increase with the incorporation of wind energy if coal is the sole back-up power for wind. If coal and gas turbines or gas combined-cycle and gas turbines are used to back up the wind power, carbon dioxide emissions are reduced mainly due to the lower carbon dioxide emissions produced from natural gas generators as compared to coal generators. This is best seen by examining the last bar in the chart below where the lowest carbon dioxide emissions result when natural gas combined-cycle plants are solely used to replace coal.

An interesting consequence of this analysis is that certain areas of the world where wind is integrated into a system that is primarily coal-based may result in an increase in total carbon dioxide emissions from using wind in their generating sector. That is, in these circumstances, wind would not be providing an offset in carbon dioxide emissions, but would actually be providing an increase in those emissions. China, for example, relies on coal for 80 percent of its generation and natural gas for only 2 percent. [11] China also added the most wind power of any country in 2009, 13 gigawatts,[12] ranking third in the world in total wind capacity, with the United States first and Germany second.[13] Since China’s wind would primarily be backed up by power from coal-fired generating units, it is no wonder that China’s carbon dioxide emissions increased by 9 percent in 2009.[14]

Conclusion

As more wind units are built and data become available regarding their integration into conventional energy systems, we will learn more about the effects of wind units on the operation of conventional plants. A few studies have been done showing that the effect of wind integration on both fuel consumption and emission reductions can in fact be negative. Further evaluation of our current wind units and their effects on fuel consumption and emissions should be done before increasing the penetration of renewable energy to the 20 and 30 percent levels currently mandated by some state renewable portfolio standards, and before a national renewable portfolio standard is considered for enactment.

[2] Institute for Energy Research, Energy Regulation of the States: A Wake-up Call, www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/

[3] Bentek Energy LLC, How Less Became More: Wind, Power and Unintended Consequences in the Colorado Energy Market, http://www.bentekenergy.com/WindCoalandGasStudy.aspx

[4] Institute for Energy Research, Energy Regulation of the States: A Wake-up Call, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/colorado/

[5] American Wind Energy Association, http://www.awea.org/projects/projects.aspx?s=Texas

[6] Institute for Energy Research, Energy Regulation of the States: A Wake-up Call, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/texas/

[7] Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, March 2010, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/electricity/epm/02261003.pdf

[8] The Wall Street Journal, Natural Gas Tilts at Windmills in Power Feud, March 2, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704188104575083982637451248.html?K

[9] The impact of wind generated electricity on fossil fuel consumption, C. le Pair and K. de Groot, http://www.clepair.net/windefficiency.html

[10] Wind Integration: Incremental Emissions from Back-Up Generation Cycling (Part V: Calculator Update), Kent Hawkins, February 12, 2010, http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-v-calculator-update/#more-7271

[11] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2010, Tables H10, H12, and H13, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/ieoecg.pdf

[12] Global Wind Energy Council, Global wind power boom continues amid economic woes, March 2, 2010, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=247&tx_ttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=1196e940a0

[13] Global Wind Energy Council, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=13, and Global Wind Energy Council, Global wind power boom continues amid economic woes, March 2, 2010, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=247&tx_ttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=1196e940a0

[14] Reuters, China top carbon emitter for second year running, June 9, 2010, http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6580Y1.htm

Various legislative and other proposals have promoted policies that would tax or place a price floor on petroleum-based transportation fuels such as gasoline because as President Obama stated in his recent address, “we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.”[1] Their object is to spur conservation and promote the manufacture of more efficient vehicles, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase national security (by lessening our dependence on foreign oil), and decrease congestion. But such policies assume that oil is unduly scarce, even though current worldwide oil reserves are the highest ever. And reserves are only a fraction of potential oil resources, not to mention that technology is continually unlocking new resources.  Moreover, as the experience of Europe has shown, setting an artificially high price for petroleum-based transportation fuels will not change the growth of U. S. carbon dioxide emissions, which are the largest component of greenhouse gas emissions. In any case, lessened U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be dwarfed by future increases in those emissions from developing countries, particularly China, making unilateral action problematic.

Introduction

Numerous policy proposals advocate higher prices on gasoline and other transportation fuels in order to spur conservation by both producers and consumers. Advocates of such policies believe that charging customers a “fair” or “socially optimal” price for their use of a “depleting fuel” will promote the manufacture of more efficient vehicles and foster consumers’ use of mass transit, carpooling, home relocation, or other fuel-reducing endeavors. An example of such a policy is the tax on gasoline in the American Power Act, a legislative proposal by Senators Kerry and Lieberman to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Another proposal appears in a paper by Thomas Merrill and David Schizer,[2] where they advocate a plan that would both increase the stability of the price of transportation fuels by not allowing them to fall and be revenue neutral. According to the plan, a fee would be added to the price of transportation fuels, and that fee would rise if the price of crude oil fell, but fall if the price of crude oil rose. In theory, this would keep the price of transportation fuels more stable by setting a dynamic floor on the price. In any case, the price of transportation fuels would never fall below the prices they had when the plan was launched, since the fee would keep rising to offset any decline in the price of crude oil. In order to ensure revenue neutrality, and thus to sell the policy politically, the stabilizing fee would not be kept by the government but would be rebated back to citizens, minus administrative costs. The fee, however, would not be rebated back to purchasers but would be distributed to all persons of driving age, so that those who used mass transit or drove less than the average amount would garner a sizable share.

The goals of these policies are to reduce greenhouse emissions, improve national security by decreasing oil imports, and hopefully reduce road congestion. But another reason for promoting such a proposal is to “help the economy adjust to a future of scarce petroleum”. That is simply not an issue, as will be seen below. In addition, as history has shown and as forecasters continue to show, carbon dioxide emissions, the largest component of greenhouse gas emissions, will continue to grow despite increasing crude oil prices and thus despite any such policies.

Global Oil Reserves vs. Oil Resources

Almost as long as people have been using oil, people have been declaring that we are running out of it.  Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason Magazine, writes:[3]

Predictions of imminent catastrophic depletion are almost as old as the oil industry. An 1855 advertisement for Kier’s Rock Oil, a patent medicine whose key ingredient was petroleum bubbling up from salt wells near Pittsburgh, urged customers to buy soon before “this wonderful product is depleted from Nature’s laboratory.” The ad appeared four years before Pennsylvania’s first oil well was drilled. In 1919 David White of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) predicted that world oil production would peak in nine years. And in 1943 the Standard Oil geologist Wallace Pratt calculated that the world would ultimately produce 600 billion barrels of oil.

During the 1970s, the Club of Rome report The Limits to Growth projected that, assuming consumption remained flat, all known oil reserves would be entirely consumed in just 31 years. With exponential growth in consumption, it added, all the known oil reserves would be consumed in 20 years.

Some other interesting factoids from the past regarding oil depletion are:[4]

• In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey indicated that there was little or no chance of discovering oil in California.
• In 1914, an official of the U.S. Bureau of Mines estimated total future production at 5.7 billion barrels. (By 1984, more than 34 billion barrels had been produced.)
• In 1920, the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey predicted that the U.S. had nearly reached peak production. (By 1984, production was over four times the 1920 rate.)
• In 1939, the Interior Department predicted U.S. oil supplies would last thirteen years.
• In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior predicted that the end of U.S. oil supplies was almost in sight.

On the other hand, and more currently:

• Edward L. Morse, an energy official in Carter’s State Department, indicates that the world’s deep-water oil and gas reserves are significantly larger than was thought in the 1990s, and high prices have spurred development of technologies  for extracting them. The costs of developing oil sands are declining, so projects that were not economic last year with the price of oil under $90 a barrel are now viable with oil at $79 a barrel.[5]
• Daniel H. Yergin, co-founder and chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, writes “careful examination of the world’s resource base . . . indicates that the resource endowment of the planet is sufficient to keep up with demand for decades to come.” [6]

According to the Journal of Oil and Gas, global proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2009, were 1,342 billion barrels,[7] the highest level ever, and about 10 billion barrels higher than in 2008. Thus, enough reserves were found in 2008 to meet demand in that year and to add 10 billion barrels to the global reserve level. The Middle East holds the majority of proved oil reserves at 746 billion barrels,[8] followed by North America with 210 billion barrels. Canada with 178 billion barrels (85% of the North American share)[9] is second in rank only to Saudi Arabia with 267 billion barrels of proved oil reserves.

Proved reserves of crude oil are the estimated quantities that geological and engineering data indicate can be recovered from known reservoirs with existing technology and current economic and operating conditions. That is, they are quantities of oil that can be retrieved by producing companies to meet demand in the near future, without needing new technology or having to explore and develop a totally new oil well.  As such, they represent the lowest estimate of petroleum supplies. Estimates of proved reserves are developed from data reported to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,[10] foreign government reports, and international geologic assessments.

Thus, the term ‘proved reserves’ refers to oil deposits that have actually been discovered and carefully estimated. Although it is true that every barrel of oil removed from the ground reduces the physical total by one, the economically relevant fact is that humans historically go out and find more usable oil reserves in order to keep pace with consumption.

The Institute for Energy Research put together a table of global oil reserves beginning with the year 1971 (when proved reserves were at a level of 521 billion barrels) and continuing through 2007 (when they were at 1,317 billion barrels).[11] Between 1971 and 2007, the world consumed 910.3 billion barrels of petroleum[12], which would have made the reserve total 2,227 billion barrels were they not used. As the table shows, in this 36-year time span, proved oil reserves worldwide have grown by a factor of 2.5, while global oil demand over the same period has grown by a factor of 1.7.  Thus, at the 2007 level of global demand, 31.3 billion barrels per year,[13] proved oil reserves were capable of meeting that demand for 42 years. As the table indicates, there have been periods during which global oil reserves have increased more than 200 billion barrels.[14] One such period occurred early this decade with the addition of Canadian oil sands reserves. Currently, the U.S. benefits from these reserves from our northern neighbor, but proposed government policies (such as a low-carbon fuel standard[15] or legislation enacting a cap-and-trade policy on greenhouse gas emissions[16]) could endanger this source of proved reserves, allowing other countries without such policies to benefit instead.

U.S. Oil Resources

Proved oil reserves are a subset of the oil resource base, which includes estimated quantities of both discovered and undiscovered oil that have the potential of being classified as reserves in the future. These oil resources may be difficult to produce with current technology or their access may be limited by government policy. Thus, new technologies and better government oil recovery policies, as well as “risk mitigation” incentives, could help industry convert the higher-cost, undeveloped domestic oil resources into economically feasible reserves. Access to additional offshore, Alaskan, and public-land resources could be accelerated rather than stalled, as under the current Administration.[17]

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that light and heavy oil resources in the United States total 1,124 billion barrels, with 40% believed to be recoverable.[18] In addition, the U.S. has a world-leading 2,118 billion barrels of in-place oil shale,[19] of which 800 billion barrels is estimated to be recoverable.[20] Other estimates have the recoverable shale oil number even higher, at approximately 1.38 trillion barrels.[21] That’s five times the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia.

Oil shale is found largely in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, and the best sources are believed to be on public lands. Oil producers need to have access to these resources in order to demonstrate that they can produce shale oil at current prices with technologies they believe will work. However, access is currently being stalled by the owner of the public lands, the federal government. [22]

The Denver Post carried an article that addressed this issue:[23]

Colorado is sitting on a bounty of oil shale that could make energy cheaper in America and free it from the whims of Middle Eastern oil barons. Unfortunately, it looks like oil companies can’t do the work necessary to extract the fuel because of political roadblocks. And this attitude seems to go all the way to the top. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, one of Colorado’s two U.S. senators until he joined the Obama administration this year, tossed the latest obstacle into the path to progress in February when he canceled leases for oil-shale development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Salazar’s backward thinking is typical of the politicians who embrace environmental hysteria. They seem to despise fossil fuels and want to stop Americans from using them.

Price Stabilization Policy Formulation

Analysts, such as Merrill and Schizer, who advocate policies that would stabilize transportation fuels, know that they need to make their fee formulation easy to implement and as free of administrative burden as possible. That is why they advocate having the IRS handle the fee: that agency collects the Federal taxes on gasoline. They also advocate that the fee should be based on the price of crude oil, since that is the largest component of the price of transportation fuels and is determined by global forces of supply and demand, making it less amenable to manipulation by domestic producers, refiners, and retailers. But one pitfall in their plan is that the price of the petroleum product does not always follow the price of crude oil, as can be seen by the following chart for gasoline.

The price of gasoline is based on four price components: crude oil, Federal and State taxes, refining operations and profits, and distribution and marketing.[24] In 2008, crude oil represented 69 percent of the gasoline price while the refining component represented only 7 percent. That was not typical of the past 9 years, however, when the refining component represented an average of 15 percent. Generally, there are certain times of the year when the refining component spikes gasoline prices. One example is in the spring, when refiners switch from winter grade gasoline to summer blends. This switch takes place the end of April and in May, causing the price of gasoline to spike, as seen in the chart for the years 2006 and 2007. Another phenomenon that affects the refining component is weather, and in the fall of 2005 the price of gasoline increased because many of the Gulf of Mexico refineries were shut in, owing to hurricane Katrina.

Another factor to note is that a price stabilization policy could in fact inflict a higher fee on petroleum transportation fuels than a likely cap-and-trade policy would provide. For example, if the price stabilization policy had been in effect in 2008, the world oil price increase would have resulted in a fee of about $2.50 per gallon, while according to EIA’s analysis of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, the “tax” on gasoline would have been closer to 35 cents per gallon.[25] Also, as we saw in 2008, the higher prices for petroleum-based transportation fuels had a secondary impact on consumer spending, increasing food prices and other products requiring transportation to move them to market.

The question remains whether a price stabilization policy or a gasoline tax will have the desired affects of limiting greenhouse gas emissions and increasing national security by reducing oil imports. To evaluate these issues, we’ll examine three oil price scenarios that the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2010 forecasts using different prices of crude oil.[26] The cases are the reference case, the high oil-price case, and the low oil-price case. They are depicted in the graph below:

In the reference case, the crude oil price rises gradually, until by 2035 it reaches $133 per barrel (in 2008 dollars), about $60 per barrel more than the current price. In the low price case, the crude oil price decreases to $51 per barrel during the next several years and remains there through 2035, the end of the forecast period. In the high price case, the crude oil price increases to $209 per barrel (in 2008 dollars) by 2035. Both the high price case and the reference case could very well represent a price stabilization scenario since the price of crude oil never falls and steadily rises.

The following graph depicts the carbon dioxide emissions, the largest component of greenhouse gases, in the 3 scenarios. Note that in each of the three cases, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions increase over time and by 2035 range from 2.5 percent to 12.5 percent higher than they were in 2007.

Another way to look at this issue is with the European experience in mind. Since World War II, European countries have had a hefty tax on gasoline to encourage the use of more efficient transportation fuels. Over the past 25 years, carbon dioxide emissions in Europe have ranged between 4,300 and 4,750 million metric tons, and in 2008 they were 5.5 percent higher than in 1983.[27]

The next graph depicts the net petroleum import share for each of the three price cases. The imported amount varies with the demand for liquid fuels, which is dependent on the price of crude oil, and which in 2035 varies by less than 4 million barrels per day across the three cases: 20.8 million barrels per day in the high price case and 24.5 million barrels per day in the low price case.

The petroleum import share also varies with the amount of ethanol production, which is mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA2007). That Act mandates the production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels, such as ethanol, by 2022.[28] It also requires the sale of flex-fuel vehicles that can burn E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline—a much higher percentage of ethanol than the 10 percent blend that conventional gasoline vehicles can safely use without causing damage to the vehicle.

A further factor is the stricter mandates for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. EISA2007 requires the fuel efficiency of the combined fleet of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. in model year 2020 to be equal to or exceed 35 miles per gallon, 34 percent higher than the current fleet average of 26.4 miles per gallon.[29] In none of the three cases are petroleum imports at a level that is independent from foreign oil, and in fact, in none of the cases is the U.S. independent of petroleum imports from non-North American countries. In the high price case, where petroleum imports are the least, the higher oil prices increase the penetration of biofuels and the use of flex fuel vehicles.

World Implications

The Energy Information Administration provides forecasts of the next 18 months in their Short-Term Energy Outlook.[30] The next chart shows world demand for petroleum and the annual change in demand for the United States, China, and the rest of the world from 2003 through 2011. In 2008 and 2009, U.S. demand for petroleum declined. However, China’s petroleum demand increased in both 2008 and in 2009, even though the U.S. and the rest of the world’s demand decreased in 2009, and its demand is expected to continue to increase. Thus, any reduction in U.S. petroleum consumption will be made up by China or other countries.

As can be seen from the next chart, China’s domestic oil production is fairly flat, but its oil consumption is increasing at a fast pace, making its reliance on oil imports grow. The growth in oil consumption is primarily to provide for its expanding transportation sector. From 1996 to 2006, growth in the combined length of China’s highways averaged 11.3 percent per year. With this level of highway construction, China is on track to exceed the United States in total highways in the next decade.[31]

Infrastructure projects in China account for 15 percent of China’s gross domestic product, which grew by 8.7 percent in 2009, when the economies of the United States and Europe did not grow at all. Besides highway construction, their inventory projects include almost 100 new airports, some in isolated cities, and dozens of subways.[32]

In 2006, China became the world’s second-largest vehicle market, after the United States, and in 2009, it has overtaken the U.S market in vehicle sales.[33] New passenger car sales rose 55 percent in February of this year from a year earlier, following a 116 percent increase in January, aided by the extension of government incentives to boost purchases of smaller vehicles and spur rural demand for cars.[34]

In 2007, China produced nearly 8.9 million motor vehicles, an increase of 22 percent over production in 2006. The country is now the third largest vehicle producer in the world, after Japan and the United States. According the Energy information Administration, China’s passenger transportation use per capita is projected to triple by 2030.[35]

China is not endowed with a lot of oil resources. Its oil reserves totaled 16 billion barrels in January 2009.[36] As a result, China has spent nearly $200 billion on oil deals during the past few years, joining with more than 19 countries —including Russia, Turkmenistan, Kuwait, Yemen, Libya, Angola, Venezuela and Brazil[37]— and paying for exploration, production, infrastructure construction, as well as “loans for energy” deals.[38] Recently, China’s Sinopec International Petroleum Exploration and Production Company agreed to buy, for $4.65 billion, the 9 percent interest that ConocoPhillips holds in Syncrude,[39] a Canadian business involved in the production of oil sands (an asphalt-like heavy oil). .It is even pursuing buying leases in U.S. waters, in the Gulf of Mexico.[40]

During the first quarter of this year, China set records with huge year-over-year increases in oil demand.  In February, China’s oil demand rose 19.4 percent over a year earlier, the second fastest rise on record.  China is the world’s second largest oil user (second to the United States).[41] China’s oil imports were up 13.8 percent in March over February, reaching 4.95 million barrels per day, according to preliminary data from China’s General Administration of Customs.[42] In part, these large oil increases are fueling China’s passenger car fleet.

China’s economic and energy profile can be summarized as follows:[43]

• Between 2000 and 2008, China’s real gross domestic product averaged 10 percent per year. While its economic growth in 2008 and in the first half of 2009 is less than this average rate, its $586 billion economic stimulus package is expected to stimulate more normal growth in the second half of 2009 and in 2010.
• China is the world’s most populous country and the second largest energy consumer behind the United States.  Rising oil demand and imports have made China a significant factor in world oil markets.
• China is the world’s second-largest consumer of oil behind the United States, and the third-largest net importer of oil after the U.S. and Japan.
• China’s largest oil fields are mature and production has peaked, leading companies to focus on developing largely untapped reserves in the western interior provinces and offshore fields.
• In 2006, 93 percent of China’s energy consumption was from fossil fuels. (See figure below.)

China is the largest producer and consumer of coal in the world, with 70 percent of its demand for energy coming from coal. In the late 1980s, China surpassed the U.S. in coal consumption and the Energy Information Administration expects China’s coal consumption to be 4.5 times that of the U.S. by 2035.[44] Many of China’s large coal reserves have yet to be developed. 

• China’s electricity generation is dominated by fossil fuel sources, particularly coal. In 2007, coal-fired generators produced 80 percent of China’s electricity and the Energy Information Administration predicts that, by 2035, coal-fired generators will produce 74 percent of its electricity, with mainly wind and nuclear power making up the difference in coal’s lower share.[45] (See figure below.)

Because of China’s large population, high economic growth rate, and large consumption of fossil fuels, it is the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, which is the largest component of greenhouse gas emissions. China surpassed the United States in emissions of carbon dioxide in 2006 and is expected to emit over twice as much carbon dioxide than the United States in 2035.

Since 2002, the average annual increase in China’s carbon dioxide emissions has been over 550 million metric tons.[46] In 2009, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from transportation uses were 1,851 million metric tons.[47] Thus, if China continues its high level of economic growth and its use of fossil fuels as forecast, in just over 3 years, its increase in carbon dioxide emissions will equal the total carbon dioxide emitted from the U.S. transportation sector. Small, incremental changes in U.S. transportation emissions will not have an effect on overall global greenhouse gas concentrations.

And while China has professed that it will meet renewable generation goals, it will not partake in meeting targets for greenhouse gas reductions that will hurt its projected economic growth and its future status as a major world power.[48] Instead, China is willing to make reductions in greenhouse gas intensity (greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP), a measure proposed by the U.S. almost a decade ago, that allows for both economic growth and lower emissions per unit of GDP from improved efficiency and technology.[49]

Conclusion

Concerns about traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and the use of foreign oil are valid concerns, but increasing the price of oil does not do a good job of addressing those concerns. Policies that artificially raise the price of petroleum-based transportation fuels will have the desired effects of limiting usage and reducing demand. But even with the price of crude oil at a $200 per barrel (in 2008 dollars) the U.S. will still increase its carbon dioxide emissions and will still be dependent on non-North American sources of imported oil. Reductions of petroleum demand in the United States will just make crude more available for other countries to use, with little progress in reducing global carbon dioxide emissions.

The U.S. has transitioned to other sources of energy in the past without the need for government policies. The picture below from a 1910 Midwestern town depicts the transition from horse and buggy transportation to the horseless carriage. The smoke from the early autos was felt to be far less polluting than the horse excrement and carcasses on the street. Early autos were noisy and belched smoke, but they kept the streets clean of tons of waste and dead bodies of thousands of horses.[50] Now, of course, technology has improved automobile engines so that they are more powerful, efficient, and cleaner than those of the past, supporting our thirst for increased transportation, better mobility, and a higher quality of life—all at reduced emissions of criteria pollutants. The “ultimate resource” of human ingenuity has indeed improved the economic and environmental characteristics of petroleum.

[2] Thomas Merrill and David Schizer, “Advancing Energy Policy Goals in an Economic Downturn: A Proposed
Petroleum Fuel Price Stabilization Plan”, November, 2009.

[3] Ronald Bailey, “Peak Oil Panic”,  May 2006, http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/peak-oil-panic

[4] William M. Brown, “The Outlook for Future Petroleum Supplies,” in Julian Simon and Herman Kahn, eds., The Resourceful Earth (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1984), p. 362.

[5] www.foreignaffairs.com

[6] www.foreignpolicy.com

[7] “Worldwide Look at Reserves and Production,” Oil and Gas Journal, Vol. 106, No. 48, December 22, 2008, pp. 23-24.

[8] Since the Middle East has had a high concentration of global oil reserves for decades, its reserve level is not an indicator of market share.

[9] A large portion of Canadian reserves are oil sands, which cannot be produced at the same rate as conventional oil, so the 178 billion barrels of Canadian reserves are not functionally equivalent to 178 billion barrels of conventional oil.

[10] Companies whose stocks are publicly traded on U.S. stock markets are required to report their holdings of domestic and international proved reserves to the SEC.

[11] Institute for Energy Research, August 26, 2008, www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/08/26/has-oil-reached-its-peak/

[12] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2008, Table 11.10, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec11_21.pdf

[13] In 2007, the U.S. demand for petroleum was 20.68 million barrels per day or 7.548 billion barrels per year, approximately one-fourth of the world total. See Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2008, Table 5.1, www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/petro.html

[14] The increase in Middle Eastern oil reserves in the late-1980s is somewhat controversial and has been questioned by some to be, in part, paper increases.

[15] A Low Carbon Fuel Standard reduces the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by requiring that the mix of fuels sold reaches pre-specified targets of carbon reduction. Since oil sands yield heavier crude, more energy is required for producing and refining it, thus giving that crude a higher carbon intensity than conventional crude.

[16] H.R. 2454 is a cap-and-trade proposal that the House of Representatives has passed to reduce future levels of greenhouse gas emissions. It requires that lower targets for emissions be met by manufacturers and other producers, either by reducing emissions themselves or by purchasing emissions permits from producers that can economically reduce their emissions at lower cost. The American Power Act is the Senate’s version of H.R. 2454 that proposes a cap and trade regime on electric utilities and later (in 2016) on industrial sources, and taxes gasoline consumption.

[17] Greenwire, “Oil and Gas: Industry knocks Obama admin claims on Utah leases,” November 20, 2009, www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2009/11/20/archive/9?terms=salazar;  and Land Letter, “Oil and Gas: Interior agencies showing marked shift in leasing policies”, November 19, 2009, www.eenews.net/Landletter/2009/22/19/archive/3?terms=salazar ; Greenwire, Offshore Drilling: Lift shallow-water moratorium, Landrieu tells Obama admin, May 20, 2010, http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2010/05/20/archive/6?terms=offshore+oil+moratorium,  the Washington Post, “Obama presses for action on energy bill”, June 16, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061505595.html?sub=AR , and the Wall Street Journal, Crude Politics, The drilling experts speak out on the Obama deepwater moratorium, June 17, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575311033371466938.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[18] U.S. Department of energy, Office of Fossil energy, “Undeveloped Domestic Oil Resources: The Foundation for Increasing  Oil Production and a Viable Domestic Oil Industry,” February 2006, http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/publications/eor_co2/Undeveloped_Oil_Document.pdf

[19] The U.S. Geological Survey recently updated its assessment of the Piceance Basin in western Colorado and found it to have oil shale resources that are 50% higher than the previous estimate of 1 trillion barrels. That resource update would increase the total U.S. shale oil resources to 2.6 trillion barrels. See http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2182

[20] Strategic Unconventional Fuels Integrated Program Plan, February 2007, http://www.unconventionalfuels.org/publications/reports/executiveSummary.pdf

[21] The Congressional Research Service, October 20, 2009, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=01feb68b-ef57-4748-8f5c-d88c0e7d6bd5

[22] E&E Publishing, “Oil and Gas: Industry chafes over Interior’s revised oil shale leases,” October 29, 2009, www.eenews.net/Landletter/2009/10/29/archive/1?terms=oil+shale

[23] The Denver Post, “Oil shale opponents aren’t just evil—they’re just wrong,”’ November 23, 2009, http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_13846941?source=commented-

[24] Energy Information Administration, “Factors Affecting Gasoline Prices,” http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=gasoline_factors_affecting_prices

[25] Energy Information Administration, “Energy market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” August 4, 2009, www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hr2454/index.html

[26] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010, www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html

[27] Energy Information Administration, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8

[28] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/leg_reg.html

[29] Ibid.

[30] Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook,  June 2010, www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html

[31] The Washington Post, China may have dug a financial hole, June 18, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/17/AR2010061705794.html

[32] Ibid.

[33] “China’s Car Sales Down in October—To 80 Percent Growth”, November 7, 2009, http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/china%E2%80%99s-car-sales-down-in-october-%E2%80%93-to-80-percent-growth/

[34] Reuters, China oil demand rise second fastest, inventories drag, March 22, 2010, http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINTOE62L01Z20100322?sp=true

[35] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009,  http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

[36] “Worldwide Look at Reserves and Production,” Oil and Gas Journal, Vol. 106, No. 48 (December 22, 2008), pp. 23-24.

[37] For example, Venezuela signed a deal with China under which the latter would invest $16 billion over three years. The deal could raise oil output by several hundred thousand barrels a day. http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2009/09/18/. China National Petroleum Corp. received a $30 billion low-interest loan from a state-run bank to finance overseas acquisitions, Beijing’s latest bid to secure mineral resources to fuel the country’s burgeoning economy. http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2009/09/09/. CNOOC and Sinopec have agreed to buy a 20 percent stake in an oil field off the coast of Angola for $1.3 billion, the latest in a series of Chinese acquisitions of overseas energy and mining assets. http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2009/07/20/

[38] Politico, To compete with China, U.S. must tap natural gas, April 13, 2010, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35689.html#ixzz0kyYru8gb

[39] Reuters, China bags oil sands stake, not finished yet, April 13, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63C17X20100413 and www.conocophillips.com

[40]David Pierson, “China’s push for oil in the Gulf of Mexico puts U.S. in awkward spot,” Los Angeles  Times, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-china-oil22-2009oct22,0,2776603.story?track=rss.

[41] Reuters, China oil demand rise second fastest, inventories drag, March 22, 2010, http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINTOE62L01Z20100322?sp=true

[42] Reuters, Oil falls as demand, inventories weigh, April 12, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6142V820100412

[43] Energy Information Administration, Country Analysis Brief on China, www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/Background.html

[44] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2010,  Table A7, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/ieorefcase.pdf

[45]Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2010, Appendix H, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/ieoecg.pdf

[46] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2008, Table 11.19, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec11_39.pdf, and International Energy Outlook 2010

[47] Energy Information Administration, U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2009: A Retrospective Review, May 5, 2010, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/environment/emissions/carbon/index.html

[48] Institute for Energy Research,  Lost in Translation,   http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/07/28/lost-in-translation/.

[49]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html

[50] Robert L. Bradley, Jr. and Richard W. Fulmer, Energy: The Master Resource (Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 2004), page 49.

Many Americans may be surprised to hear that former President George W. Bush addressed wind energy advocates at Big Wind’s annual conference in Dallas, Texas this week.  After all, throughout George W. Bush’s presidency, his ties to the oil and gas industry were a subject of scrutiny; he was widely derided for not funneling enough government money into supporting expensive, unreliable, intermittent forms of energy, such as that generated from the wind.

As a former oil executive, President Bush faced critics who accused him of favoring increased drilling over investment of other energy sources.  As a result, Bush is thought of as a pro-drilling, pro-oil and gas, anti-renewable President.  A closer look at the facts, however, demonstrates that nothing could be further from the truth.  In fact, that the executives who rely on government subsidies and regulations to support the very profitable wind industry are celebrating the former president and Texas governor should come as no surprise at all.

Bush has a long history of supporting the massive subsidies and government regulations that make wind energy possible.  In 1999, as the governor of Texas, Bush championed and signed legislation to enforce a renewable electricity mandate in his home state.  As a result, Texas today leads the nation in wind generating capacity with 9,410 megawatts, over 25 percent of the total wind capacity in the U.S.[i] Texas generates almost five percent of its electricity from wind—and, despite the abundant natural resources available in the state—pays the 16^th highest electricity rates in the nation.

As President, he reinstated or extended the production tax credit for wind and other renewable energy sources several times[ii], and generally included over $50 million per year for wind energy research and development in his annual budget requests.[iii] In FY 2007, for example, $690 million was estimated to have been spent on the production tax credit, for which wind was the major beneficiary.[iv] In fact, from 2004 through 2008, over one-third of the electricity capacity added in the US was from wind power[v], largely due to federal subsidies and other government tax breaks.

As for his purported preferential treatment toward oil and gas production, an IER analysis found that the Bush Administration offered fewer federal lands for lease throughout his presidency than any other—until President Obama surpassed this illustrious achievement in 2009.

As it turns out, it isn’t Big Oil that has all the politicians in their pocket; it’s Big Wind.  And as a result?  They’ve got plenty of taxpayer money in there too.

[ii] The following laws signed by President George W. Bush had reinstatements or extensions of the production tax credit for wind: Job Creation and Workers Assistance Act of 2002, The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, Tax Relief and health Care Act of 2006, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. See Table 10 in http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap2.pdf

[iii] In FY 2007, the wind budget was $57.8 million, in FY 2008, the wind budget was $49.3 million, and in FY 2009, it was $52.5 million. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap3.pdf and http://www.windpowermonthly.com/news/login/962579/

[iv] http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap2.pdf

[v] http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html

A few months ago we brought to your attention the cozy relationship between the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). This unique relationship between a taxpayer funded entity (NREL) and a special interest lobbying group (AWEA) came to our attention after NREL issued a white paper which was designed to rebut a study of the Spanish experience with renewable energy. The Institute for Energy Research (IER) commissioned the ground-breaking Spanish analysis in question.

Documents obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) through a FOIA request later revealed that the NREL rebuttal, NREL Response to the Report Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources from King Juan Carlos University (Spain), was intended to debunk damaging economic conclusions reached in the Spanish study. In other words, never mind the economic analysis, just find a way to discredit the findings because it’s getting traction. We have posted a detailed response to the NREL rebuttal, here if you’re interested. These documents also revealed the role AWEA, the Center for American Progress (CAP) and the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) played in the development of NREL’s work.

Today, we read a letter from a gentleman named Steven Chalk addressed to U.S. Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). Mr. Chalk is the Chief Operating Officer at the Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). EERE is led by Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi. Prior to her arrival at EERE, Ms. Zoi was the CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection, a venture Al Gore funded to advance his anti-coal agenda.

In this letter, Mr. Chalk acknowledges that EERE has an “on-going and pre-existing relationship with AWEA…” and that “AWEA is one of many trade associations that NREL work with…” We thank Mr. Chalk for his honesty. However, Mr. Chalk also notes that “NREL had no direct contact with either the Center for American Progress or with the Union for Concerned Scientists related to the Spanish Study.”

Mr. Chalk was very careful with his language. It doesn’t say that NREL had no contact with the Center for American Progress or the Union of Concerned Scientists, but rather they had no direct contact. Mr. Chalk had to be so careful with his language because they obviously had contact. And according to the documents Mr. Chalk included as an attachment to his letter to Congressman Sensenbrenner, NREL employees used employees at AWEA as their conduit, a middle man so to speak, to get input from CAP. In an NREL employees words: “Liz (Elizabeth Salerno is an AWEA employee), would you send this [draft of the NREL rebuttal] to the CAP folks?” (See page 3, question six and page 50 of this document)

Now it very well may be that the National Labs work with folks in industry on technological matters. We would encourage that cooperation, but like the President, we also encourage openness and honesty. Seeking input from special interest groups with a political agenda and then pretending you didn’t crosses the line.

AWEA and CAP are two of the fiercest supporters of using taxpayer dollars to fund expensive, and often unreliable energy development from the wind and solar industries – that is their mission. IER has a different point of view, especially when it comes to protecting American taxpayers and the consumers of energy (also known as American families).

But while groups like IER, AWEA and CAP do battle in the public policy arena, it is not the role of the federal government, and the taxpayer funded agencies under its control, to engage or collude with narrow special interest groups to advance a political agenda on the taxpayer’s dime.

Sounds fair, right?

Oh and by the way, the ironic twist to the NREL response to the Spanish Green Jobs study is that the central government of Spain has recently affirmed many of the findings in the Spanish report NREL attempted to dismiss. Funny how things work out, eh?

WASHINGTON, DC—Institute for Energy Research (IER) president Thomas J. Pyle today released the following statement in response to Secretary of the Interior Salazar’s approval of the Cape Wind project.

“It is promising to see that Secretary Salazar has, for this first time in his tenure as Interior Secretary, demonstrated his knowledge of the fact that Americans need increased access to energy. And while we applaud the Secretary’s decision to finally move forward a project to produce energy offshore, there is no way around reality; Secretary Salazar has chosen to allow production of one of the most expensive and unreliable sources of energy—and one of the few sources of energy that doesn’t translate into more jobs for Americans.

“Contrary to his actions to date, today’s decision proves that Secretary Salazar is, in fact, capable of making a decision that increases our energy supplies. Now it is time for the Secretary to show the same commitment to energy security toward the affordable, reliable, job-creating sources America has in abundant supply.”

According to the Energy Information Administration, to build and produce, offshore wind is 2.4 times more expensive per megawatt hour than natural gas, 1.9 times more expensive than coal and 1.6 times more expensive than nuclear.

Background:

• Lease Police: Salazar Works to Make Domestic Energy Production Difficult, Expensive
• Drill Gate: Obama Administration Enacts De Facto Ban on Offshore Energy Resources
• IER Fact Check: Salazar Energy Leasing Program
• Actions Speak Louder than Words on Energy Production

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 28, 2010
CONTACT:
Patrick Creighton: 202.621.2947
Laura Henderson: 202.621.2951

China Setting Records: China Oil Demand, Coal Production and Vehicle Sales Up in 2010

During January, February, and March of this year, China was again setting records with huge year-over-year increases in oil demand.  In February, China’s oil demand rose 19.4 percent over a year earlier, the second fastest rise on record. According to Reuters, China is the world’s second largest oil user (second to the United States) and consumed 8.65 million barrels of oil per day in February, an increase of 9.4 percent or 604,000 barrels per day over January’s consumption.[i] Oil imports were up 13.8 percent in March over February, reaching 4.95 million barrels per day, according to preliminary data from China’s General Administration of Customs.[ii] In part, these large oil increases are fueling China’s passenger car fleet. New passenger car sales rose 55 percent in February from a year earlier, following a 116 percent increase in January, most likely aided by the extension of government incentives to boost purchases of smaller vehicles and spur rural demand for cars.  [iii]

China has spent nearly $200 billion on oil deals during the past few years, joining with more than 19 countries —including Russia, Turkmenistan, Kuwait, Yemen, Libya, Angola, Venezuela and Brazil— and paying for exploration, production, infrastructure construction, as well as “loans for energy” deals.[iv] Recently, China’s Sinopec International Petroleum Exploration and Production Company agreed to buy, for $4.65 billion, the 9 percent interest that ConocoPhillips holds in Syncrude,[v] a Canadian business involved in the production of oil sands (an asphalt-like heavy oil).[vi] Approval from the Canadian and Chinese governments is expected in the third quarter of this year.

Along with China’s Canadian oil pursuits, long thought to be a safe and secure supply for U.S. oil demand, the state-owned China Development Bank has promised to lend $20 billion to Venezuela to build new power plants, highways, and other projects, which will be repaid with Venezuelan crude oil. Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez has long complained about the United States’ standing as the largest buyer of Venezuelan oil, and so he is more than pleased to offer his country’s oil to China instead.[vii] Both the Canadian crude and the Venezuelan crude are heavy oils, and the United States owns most of the refineries that can process heavy crude oils. So, to prepare itself for future heavy oil supplies, China has approved plans for construction of such a refinery. As the United States loses neighboring oil supplies to China, one wonders how the U.S. will meet future oil demand, especially as the Obama Administration has been slow to open new offshore areas to oil development (claiming further study is needed) but speedy at advocating climate legislation and a low-carbon fuel standard, both policies aimed at reducing the demand for fossil fuels without providing comparable energy substitutes.

Oil resources are not the only target on China’s energy wish-list. It also plans to increase its consumption of natural gas; last year, its liquefied natural gas imports rose by two-thirds, to 5.53 million tons or 7.7 billion cubic meters.[viii] China also continues to consume large quantities of its primary fuel, coal, in its industrial and electric generation sectors. According to China’s National Bureau of Statistics, the country’s coal output grew more than 28 percent, to well over 751 million tons in the first quarter of 2010. A report by China’s National Coal Association estimates China’s total coal production capacity exceeds 3.6 billion tons.[ix] This is in sharp contrast to coal mining in the United States, where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a new policy aimed at curbing mountain top removal mining[x] and is scrutinizing surface coal mine permits.  EPA is revoking or blocking Clean Water Act permits for mountain top mining citing irreversible damage to the environment. Some of the permits were awarded years ago.[xi]

Seventy percent of China’s energy comes from coal,[xii] the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel. China already consumes more than twice the coal as  the United States, and by 2030, China is expected to consume 3.7 times as much coal.[xiii] As a result, China emits more carbon dioxide than any other country in the world including the United States, and by 2030, it is expected to release 82 percent more carbon dioxide emissions than the United States.[xiv]

China’s Race to Electrification; U.S. Stagnation

Between 2004 and 2008, China added 346 gigawatts of generating capacity, of which 272 gigawatts were conventional thermal power (mostly coal) and 66 gigawatts were hydroelectric power. This compares to a total installed US hydroelectric capacity of 77 gigawatts.  China is estimated to have added an additional 85 gigawatts in 2009, reaching a total of 874 gigawatts,[xv] about 15 percent less than the total capacity in the United States. Of the 85 gigawatts added in 2009, 51 gigawatts were conventional thermal, again mostly coal, 25 gigawatts were hydroelectric, and 9 gigawatts were wind power.[xvi] Many of China’s wind turbines were funded by the U.N.’s Clean Development Mechanism,   under which wealthy countries fund projects in developing countries and receive carbon credits so long as those projects would not have been accomplished otherwise.[xvii]

In contrast, the United States added only 47 gigawatts of generating capacity from 2004 to 2008 (14 percent of the capacity China added), of which 26 gigawatts were natural gas-fired units and 18 gigawatts were wind turbines. New coal-fired capacity additions are practically non-existent in the United States primarily owing to objections regarding emissions of carbon dioxide. Coal-fired projects in the United States have either been cancelled or delayed because of permitting problems, reviews and re-reviews by EPA and resulting financing problems. While the United States has more coal than any other country in the world, with over 200 years of reserves at current usage rates, coal’s share of new U.S. generating markets has been replaced by natural gas and renewable units that are  more politically in vogue.

China’s Economic Growth and Export Market
China’s economy, the second-largest in the world in terms of purchasing power, is currently about half the size of the U.S. gross domestic product. According to China’s central bank, the country’s economy grew at an annual rate of 10.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009,[xviii] a rate almost twice the U.S. rate of 5.6 percent for the same time period.[xix] And in the first quarter of 2010, China’s economy grew by 11.9 percent. Forecasters predict that China’s economy will exceed that of the United States in 10 to 15 years.[xx]

China became the world’s largest exporter last year, edging out Germany and the United States. Despite a decline in total world trade, China’s exports fell less than those of other big powers. A report by the World Trade Organization calculates that the total value of merchandise exports fell by 23 percent in 2009. Among the top ten exporters, Japan’s shipments were the worst affected, falling by 26 percent. Because China’s exports fell by only 16 percent, it is now the single largest exporter. The World Trade Organization expects trade to rebound by nearly 10 percent this year.[xxi]

Lessons to Be Learned

Many environmentalists and politicians seem to believe that China is winning the green energy race, but nothing could be further from reality.[xxii] China is in a race for energy—all forms of energy—to fuel its growing economy. The size and scope of its investments in conventional forms of energy dwarf their commitment to “green energy.” It is providing loans around the world to invest in future oil projects, and it cares not that the oil is less than the lightest and sweetest. Canadian oil sands and Venezuelan heavy crude are perfectly fine. China is building a coal-fired generating plant each and every week on average, and increasing its coal mining capacity to fuel them. This belies any stated concerns about increasing their carbon dioxide emissions, already the highest of any country in the world. China is building wind turbines too, but if wealthy countries are willing to pay—why not? It matters not at all that the transmission capacity is not yet there to operate almost a third of these wind turbines. And China’s large-scale hydroelectric projects are engineering feats par excellence, built regardless of environmental concerns.

China is ensuring energy supplies will be available to fuel its growing economy. The United States should take note.

[ii] Reuters, Oil falls as demand, inventories weigh, April 12, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6142V820100412

[iii] Reuters, China oil demand rise second fastest, inventories drag, March 22, 2010, http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINTOE62L01Z20100322?sp=true

[iv] Politico, To compete with China, U.S. must tap natural gas, April 13, 2010, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35689.html#ixzz0kyYru8gb

[v] Reuters, China bags oil sands stake, not finished yet, April 13, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63C17X20100413 and www.conocophillips.com

[vi] Syncrude, http://www.syncrude.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5753

[vii] The Wall Street Journal, China’s $20 Billion Bolsters Chavez, April 18, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703594404575191671972897694.html

[viii] Reuters, China bags oil sands stake, not finished yet, April 13, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63C17X20100413

[ix] China Daily, China’s coal output up 28.1% in Q1, April 15, 2010, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2010-04/15/content_9736151.htm

[x] Environmental protection Agency, New Releases, EPA issues comprehensive guidance to protect Appalachian communities from harmful environmental impacts of mountaintop mining, April 1, 2010, http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/4145c96189a17239852576f8005867bd!OpenDocument
[xi] Associated Press, Arch Coal sues EPA over veto of W.Va. mine permit, April 2, 2010, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100402/ap_on_bi_ge/wv_epa_coal_lawsuit
[xii] Energy Information Administration, China, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/Background.html

[xiii] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

[xiv] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

[xv] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_China

[xvi] China’s power generation goes greener with total capacity up 10%, January 7, 2010, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/07/content_12771880.htm

[xvii] http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/03/24/kyotos-clean-development-mechanism-is-it-producing-results-for-whom/

[xviii] Politico, To compete with China, U.S. must tap natural gas, April 13, 2010,  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35689.html#ixzz0kyYru8gb

[xix] http://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

[xx] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

[xxi] China overtakes Germany to become the biggest exporter of all, March 31, 2010, http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15836406&fsrc=nwl

[xxii] http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/03/15/the-u-s-in-the-world-race-for-clean-electric-generating-capacity/

The Manteo Prospect off the shore of North Carolina is an exploration target estimated to contain as much as five trillion cubic feet of natural gas (TCF), [1] potentially the largest domestic find of conventional natural gas since Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay in 1968.[2]

For comparison sake, Independence Hub in the Gulf of Mexico can access an estimated two TCF in proven natural gas reserves. [3] Independence Hub consists of multiple subsea wells that are tied back to one centrally-located host platform producing approximately 850 million cubic feet of natural gas per day.[4] Given than the Manteo Prospect appears to have access to a larger reserve of natural gas, it is reasonable to assume that the Manteo Prospect could produce as much as, if not more than Independence Hub.

Cape Wind is a proposed wind project for offshore Massachusetts in Nantucket Sound. The Cape Wind developers propose installing 130 wind turbines, each with a maximum capacity of 3.6 megawatts, standing 440 feet tall across an area of approximately 25 square miles.[5] Overall, the project is estimated to have a maximum delivered capacity of 454 megawatts based on a design wind velocity of 30 miles per hour and greater to a maximum operational velocity of 55 miles per hour. Based on the average wind speed of the Nantucket Sound of 19.75 miles per hour, however, the average generation capacity of the Cape Wind project would be approximately 182.6 megawatts.[6] At this capacity, the Cape Wind project would annually deliver about 1,600 gigawatt-hours of energy.[7]

To compare offshore natural gas production and wind energy generation, the potential energy production for the Manteo and Cape Wind projects has been converted to British thermal units (Btu). If the Manteo project produced as much as Independence Hub, and as noted above, this is every reason to believe it will, it would supply 320 trillion Btu of energy[8]annually, while the Cape Wind project would supply 5.4 trillion Btu[9]. Therefore, it would take about 59 Cape Wind developments to equal the energy output of the Manteo project.

Both natural gas and wind energy developments pose some oil spill risk if the facilities are damaged or destroyed. Natural gas is often produced in combination with condensate, a form of liquid hydrocarbon, and the tanks and equipment on the production platform hold lubricating oils and other fluids. The turbines and service platforms that make up a wind farm also contain lubricating oils and other fluids. The Manteo worst-case scenario listed below is based on the Independence Hub worst-case discharge of 10,795 barrels of oil.[10] The equivalent wind farm scenario of 98,058 barrels is based on estimates of the Cape Wind project. This includes 27,820 gallons from 130 turbines and 42,000 gallons from one electric service platform, or about 1,662 barrels of oil, multiplied by 59 to equal the annual potential energy production of the Manteo development.[11] While a larger offshore wind farm may require fewer service platforms depending on the design, for simplicity, we are assuming the same ratio of turbines to service platforms.

[2] http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/us/bp_us_english/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/a/A03_prudhoe_bay_fact_sheet.pdf

[3] E&P, Independence Project, p. 10, www.epplp.com/PDF/Ind_Hub_FINAL.pdf.

[4] http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/egom/independence_hub.html

[5] http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Section2.0DescriptionofProposedAction.pdf

[6] http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Section2.0DescriptionofProposedAction.pdf

[7] http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Section2.0DescriptionofProposedAction.pdf

[8] Based on 1 cubic foot equaling 1,028 Btu

[9] Based on 1 kilowatt hour equaling 3,412 Btu

[10] http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/nepa/MMS2005-064.pdf – Pages 119 and 120, Tables A-3 and A-4

[11] http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Section5.0EnvironmentalandSocioeconomicConsequences.pdf, Page 5-24

[12] http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Archives/Offshore/Big%20Map.htm

[13] http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Section2.0DescriptionofProposedAction.pdf

[14] http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/nepa/MMS2005-064.pdf, page 7

[15] http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Appendix%20A%20-%20FiguresMapsTables/Fig2.1.1-1PropWTG.pdf

[16] http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Appendix%20A%20-%20FiguresMapsTables/Fig5.3.3-1DaytimeSimulation.pdf

[17]1.2 surface acres (page 7 of EIS for Independence Hub), 5053 subsea/seafloor acres (latter based on MMS high end for Independence Hub sea bottom impact of between 304 and 5,053 acres — high end estimate based on use of catenary mooring lines – p. 67 of EIS). EIS at: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/nepa/MMS2005-064.pdf

[18] Based on 59 sites of 25 square miles each.

[19] http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/nepa/MMS2005-064.pdf – Pages 119 and 120, Tables A-3 and A-4

[20] http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/Section5.0EnvironmentalandSocioeconomicConsequences.pdf, Page 5-24

WASHINGTON – Citing the intransigence of Mother Earth and the increasingly irreconcilable differences between the dictates of U.S. energy policy and the ethereal realities of the celestial universe, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) announced today a first-of-its-kind legal effort that, in cooperation with the Sierra Club and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), will seek to compel the wind to blow when it’s needed most, allowing publicly funded but privately owned turbines to generate low-cost, baseload power during times of peak demand. A companion suit will be filed against the sun.

“American taxpayers and energy consumers deserve a national energy policy that leverages the dynamic forces of the market to deliver affordable, reliable and secure sources of essential energy,” said IER president Thomas J. Pyle. “But in the absence of that policy, Americans deserve to know that the billions of taxpayer dollars being spent to prop up unreliable, intermittent sources of energy such as wind and solar aren’t just being thrown down a rat hole. With public money comes the obligation of public accountability, and it’s about time we start seeing more of that from the natural world.”

As it relates to wind, Pyle cited inconsistencies with static friction coefficients and a lack of credible data associated with a phenomenon known as “convection mixing” as issues in need of immediate redress from the court. Recent IER analysis has confirmed that wind-related pressure gradients tend to be at their strongest when demand for wind-generated electricity is at its lowest – and at their weakest during times of increased need. That reality has caused some to question why the White House continues to spend billions to subsidize the operations of largely foreign wind manufacturers – especially in absence of a serious plan to alter the rotational axis of the earth.

“For us, this issue fundamentally boils down to one of access,” AWEA president Denise Bode said. “Thanks to the current administration, we now have in place the infrastructure we need to make a real difference – and the business certainty that comes from endless supplies of taxpayer funds stacked up alongside a policy that guarantees our markets, and awards us top dollar for ‘serving’ them. All we need now is greater access to the raw materials in question. Dragging the universe to court to make it cough up more wind in the future may seem like a dramatic step, but I can assure you, it’s an effort we intend to win.”

Top Sierra Club lobbyist Athan Manuel dismissed suggestions that jurisprudential authority of U.S. courts doesn’t extend to the cosmos. “If the Congress of the United States can legislate the climate, there’s absolutely no reason why the judicial branch can’t adjudicate the precession of the equinoxes,” Manuel confirmed.

The suit was filed today in federal court in San Francisco.

April Fools!

China has already made its choice.  China is spending about $9 billion a month on clean energy.  It is also investing $44 billion by 2012 and $88 billion by 2020 in Ultra High Voltage transmission lines.  These lines will allow China to transmit power from huge wind and solar farms far from its cities.  While every country’s transmission needs are different, this is a clear sign of China’s commitment to developing renewable energy.

The United States, meanwhile, has fallen behind.

– U.S. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu

In an attempt to generate support for implementing a cap on carbon dioxide, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and others paint a very dire picture of the U.S.-vs.-China race for clean energy, implying that China is quickly outstripping us in that race.[i] However, all the facts are not on the table. In both 2008 and 2009, the U.S. added more non-hydroelectric renewable capacity than it added traditional capacity (natural gas, coal, oil, and nuclear).[ii] At the end of 2009, the U.S. ranked first in wind capacity in the world with China’s wind capacity about 30 percent less than the U.S. level. At the end of 2008 (the most recent data available), the U.S. ranked fourth in solar capacity, with only Germany, Spain, and Japan having a larger amount. Where China is outstripping us in domestic construction is in coal-fired, nuclear, and hydroelectric generating technologies. Because of U.S. legal and regulatory red tape, it is much harder to build these energy technologies in the U.S. than in China.

What Does the Capacity Data Show for Wind and Solar Power?

According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, the U.S. ranks fourth in the world in solar capacity with 8,800 megawatts at the end of 2008.[iii] Germany, Spain, and Japan, in that order, had larger amounts of solar power at the end of 2008 than the U.S.[iv] China had just 0.3 megawatts of installed solar PV capacity at the end of 2009[v] or 0.003 percent of the solar capacity of the U.S.

According to the Global Wind Energy Council, the U.S. leads the world in wind generating capacity, with 35.2 gigawatts at the end of 2009; Germany is second with 25.8 gigawatts, and China is third with 25.1 gigawatts.[vi] In 2009, the U.S. installed almost 10 gigawatts of wind capacity, a record,[vii] and China installed 13 gigawatts.[viii]

Why is China Building Wind and Solar Capacity?

China builds wind and solar because ratepayers in other countries are paying them to do so. China has been taking advantage of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol to obtain funding for its solar and wind power.[ix] Under this program, administered by the United Nations, wealthy countries can contribute funds and get credit for “clean technology” built elsewhere as long as it is additional, that is, as long as that technology would not have been built otherwise. China is the world’s largest beneficiary of the program and has benefited to the point where 30 percent of its wind capacity is not operable because it is not connected to the grid.[x] However, in mid 2009, the U.N. started questioning whether the Chinese CDM program was in fact “additional,” because the U.N. found that China was lowering its subsidies to qualify for the program.[xi] That is, China was reducing its own government’s support in order to get international subsidies.

How Do the U.S. and China Electric Construction Programs Compare?

While China is building non-hydro renewable slightly faster than the United States, overall it is building new electrical generation much, much faster than the United States. The most comparable international database on electric generating capacity is found on the Energy Information Administration (EIA) website.[xii] Comparing the electric generating capacity data by technology type for the two countries, at the end of 2007 (the last year of comparable data), the Chinese had a total of 716 gigawatts of generating capacity, about 280 gigawatts less than the 995 gigawatts of capacity in the U.S.

The U.S. has been building generating capacity at a very slow rate, adding between 8 and 15 gigawatts a year since 2004. The Chinese in contrast, to fuel their bulging economy, have added between 75 and 106 gigawatts a year, from 2004 to 2007. Based on Secretary Chu’s comments, one might think that the additional capacity that China was adding was all non-hydroelectric renewable and nuclear capacity. However, that has not been the case. Between 2004 and 2007, the Chinese have added 226 gigawatts of fossil fuel generating capacity, 40 gigawatts of hydroelectric capacity, 2 gigawatts of nuclear capacity, and only 6 gigawatts of non-hydro renewable capacity.

What are China’s Electric Construction Plans?

Both China’s generating sector and its industrial sector rely heavily on coal, with 79 percent of its electric generation being coal-fired.[xiii] According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), from 2004 through 2007, China has been building 30 to 70 gigawatts of coal-fired power a year, and has about 70 gigawatts more under construction. NETL sees China building over 185 gigawatts of coal-fired plants in the future.[xiv] (See figure below.)

According to Australia, China is planning to build 500 coal-fired plants over the next ten years.[xv] That means: every week or so, for the next decade, China will open another large coal-fired power plant.[xvi] Australia has just signed a $60 billion deal with China to build a coal mine in Queensland and a 311-mile rail way for transporting the coal to the coast for export to China’s power plants.[xvii]

While China has been slow in adding nuclear power plants, it currently has 20 nuclear reactors under construction and more starting construction this year.[xviii] Four AP 1000 reactors are under construction at 2 different sites: Haiyang and Sanmen.[xix] These are the same reactors that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has ruled need additional analysis, testing, or design modifications of the shield building to ensure compliance with NRC requirements before they can be constructed in the U.S.[xx] China expects to achieve a total nuclear capacity of 60 gigawatts by 2020, and 120 to 160 gigawatts by 2030,[xxi] surpassing the total nuclear capacity of the United States.

China has a goal to produce 15 percent of its energy from renewables by 2020.[xxii] To help meet this goal, China is planning to build the world’s largest wind farm in the northwest part of the country. The plan is for 5 gigawatts in 2010, expanding to 20 gigawatts in 2020, at a cost of $1 million per megawatt,[xxiii] or $1,000 per kilowatt, about half the cost of an onshore wind unit in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Administration.[xxiv]

What about the U.S.?

The U.S. has made it difficult to build generating plants in this country, particularly coal-fired and nuclear power plants. According to NETL, only eight coal-fired plants totaling 3,218 megawatts became operational in the U.S. in 2009, the largest increase in coal-fired capacity additions in one year since 1991.[xxv] Prospects of cap-and-trade legislation, reviews and re-reviews by the Environmental Protection Agency, direct action protests, petition drives, renewable portfolio standards in many states, competition from wind power, and lawsuits have slowed the construction of new coal-fired plants.[xxvi] As of late February, activists had derailed 97 of the 151 new plants that were in the pipeline in May 2007. According to the Sierra Club, 126 coal plants have been stopped since 2001.  And, for the first time in more than 6 years, not one new coal plant broke ground in 2009. The graph above compares the coal-plant additions in the U.S. to that of China, showing only a handful of coal plants under construction in the U.S.  With new coal-fired plants extremely limited by the above, some are purporting that the current direction for activists may be to phase out the existing fleet of coal-fired power plants.[xxvii] Because the capital cost of most of our coal-fired plants has been paid, that fleet produces almost 50 percent of our electricity at very little cost. Average production costs for coal-fired generators in 2008 were only 2.75 cents per kilowatt hour, second to our nuclear plants at 1.87 cents per kilowatt hour.[xxviii]

No nuclear plant has started up in the U.S. since 1996,[xxix] and no construction permits have been issued since 1979.[xxx]NRC requirements, financing difficulties, and slow fulfillment of the nuclear provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 have slowed the construction of new nuclear power reactors. However, as part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, President Obama announced last month that his administration is offering conditional commitments for $8.33 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power construction and operation. Two new 1,100 megawatt Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors are to be constructed at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke, Georgia, supplementing the two reactors already at the site. The two new nuclear generating units are expected to begin commercial operation in 2016 and 2017 at a cost of $14 billion. As part of the conditional loan guarantee deal, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission must determine if the AP1000 fulfills the regulatory requirements for a construction and operating license.[xxxi] (These are the same units permitted, licensed, and being constructed in China right now.) But, as a recent Wall Street Journal energy conference noted, loan guarantees are “meaningless in the absence of regulatory certainty.” Further, Obama’s budget cutbacks for Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear waste repository, are yet another signal that President Obama may not “walk the talk.”[xxxii]

Natural gas and wind power are the technologies that seem best able to surmount the financial, regulatory, and legal hurdles of getting plants permitted and operational. In 2008, the U.S. added over 15,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity, of which 4,556 megawatts was natural gas-fired and 8,136 megawatts was wind power.[xxxiii] However, organized local opposition has halted even some renewable energy projects by using “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) issues, changing zoning laws, opposing permits, filing lawsuits, and bleeding projects of their financing.[xxxiv]

The Energy information Administration projects that the U.S. will need 200 gigawatts of additional generating capacity by 2035 to replace capacity that will be retired and to meet new electricity demand.[xxxv] Of that amount, EIA expects that 13 percent will be coal-fired, 53 percent natural gas-fired, 4 percent will be from nuclear power, and 29 percent from renewable power (23 percent is expected to be wind power), assuming that no changes would be made to current laws and regulations.[xxxvi]

Conclusion

China realizes that it needs affordable energy to fuel its economic growth, and is building all forms of generating technologies at breakneck speed. By contrast, the electric generating construction program in the United States has slowed tremendously, owing to regulatory, financial, and legal problems. Without reasonably priced energy, it will be difficult to achieve high levels of economic growth in the U.S., and industry will move offshore where energy is more affordable. Will Secretary Chu’s policies get us to affordable energy, or will the administration’s policies divert us from obtaining the energy that we need to fuel our economy?

[ii] Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21^st Century, Renewables Global Status Report 2009 Update, May 13, 2009, http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_Update.pdf

[iii] http://www.seia.org/cs/about_solar_energy/industry_data

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Center for American Progress, Out of the Running, March 2010, http://www.eenews.net/public/25/14571/features/documents/2010/03/04/document_cw_01.pdf

[vi] Global Wind Energy Council, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=13, and Global Wind Energy Council, Global wind power boom continues amid economic woes, March 2, 2010, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=247&tx_ttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=1196e940a0

[vii] American Wind Energy Association, U.S. Wind Energy breaks all records, January 26, 2010, http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/01-26-10_AWEA_Q4_and_Year-End_Report_Release.html

[viii] Global Wind Energy Council, Global wind power boom continues amid economic woes, March 2, 2010, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=247&tx_ttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=1196e940a0

[ix] CNN, U.N. halts funds to China wind farms, December 1, 2010, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/12/01/un.china.wind.ft/index.html

[x] The Wall Street Journal, “China’s Wind Farms Come with a Catch: Coal Plants”, September 28, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html

[xi] CNN, U.N. halts funds to China wind farms, December 1, 2010, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/12/01/un.china.wind.ft/index.html

[xii]http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=34&aid=7&cid=r1,&syid=2004&eyid=2008&unit=MK

[xiii] Energy information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009,  http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

[xiv] National Energy Technology Laboratory, Tracking New Coal-fired Power Plants, January 8, 2010,  http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf

[xv] http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/china-building-500-coal-plants/

[xvi] The New York Times, “Pollution From Chinese Coal Casts a Global Shadow”, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?_r=1

[xvii] Australia Signs Huge China Coal Deal, http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/australia-signs-huge-china-coal-deal/

[xviii] Nuclear Power in China”, World Nuclear Association, November 6, 2009, www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

[xix] Westinghouse News Releases, “Westinghouse and the Shaw Group Celebrate First Concrete Pour at Haiyang Nuclear Site in China”, September 29, 2009, http://westinghousenuclear.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=200

[xx] Westinghouse Statement Regarding NRC News Release on AP1000 Shield Building, http://westinghousenuclear.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=203

[xxi] Nuclear Power in China, World Nuclear Association, November 6, 2009, www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

[xxii] USA Today, “China Pushes Solar, Wind Power Development”, http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2009-11-17-chinasolar17_CV_N.htm

[xxiii] The Wall Street Journal, “Wind Power: China’s Massive and Cheap Bet on Wind Farms”, July 6, 2009, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/07/06/wind-power-chinas-massive-and-cheap-bet-on-wind-farms/

[xxiv] Energy information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009, Table 8.2, Electricity Market Module, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/index.html

[xxv] National Energy Technology Laboratory, Tracking New Coal-fired Power Plants, January 8, 2010,  http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf

[xxvi] A messy but practical strategy for phasing out the U.S. coal fleet, http://www.grist.org/article/death-of-a-thousand-cuts/

[xxvii]Ibid.

[xxviii]http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/uselectricityproductioncosts

[xxix] “Nuclear Power: Outlook for new U.S. Reactors”, Congressional Research Service, March 9, 2007, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442.pdf

[xxx] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2008, Table 9.1, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec9_3.pdf

[xxxi] Environment News Service, Obama Backs First New U.S. Nuclear Plant with $8.3 Billion, February 16, 2010, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2010/2010-02-16-091.html

[xxxii] The Wall Street Journal, An Energy Head Fake, March 11,2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704784904575112144130306052.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

[xxxiii] Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual, Tables 1.1 and 1.1.A, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html

[xxxiv] For a repository of stalled and stopped energy projects, see U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “Project No Project Energy-Back On Track”, http://pnp.uschamber.com/

[xxxv] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Early Release, Table A9, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/appa.pdf

[xxxvi] Ibid.

And at the same time, top Administration officials have worked hand-in-glove to ensure that the same bad actors – who were to be the beneficiaries of billions in tax dollars through the stimulus’ “green jobs” slush fund – secure even more carve-outs, special favors, and sweetheart deals. Why? It’s quite simple. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), or “Big Wind,” understands full well that in order to exist, the wind industry must continue to receive massive streams of taxpayer handouts.

Top Energy Dept. Officials, “Big Wind” in Cahoots

Chicago Tribune: “Questions swirl around wind-jobs studies … The [Spanish] study, funded by a free-market think tank with links to the fossil fuel industry, calculated that government subsidies for the wind-power industry killed more jobs than they created, because the subsidies drained money from the (more efficient) private sector. … Climate activists scheduled a conference call to discuss how to refute the Spanish researcher’s claims. The group included officials from the American Wind Energy Association – a wind industry trade group, known as AWEA, which spent millions of dollars lobbying last year in Washington. The call also included researchers from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a division of the Energy Department. … “AWEA policy people are quite concerned.” A [Energy Dept.] colleague replied: “We need to come up with an appropriate response to these criticisms soon. I just spoke to a few people at AWEA about this.” … Emails show the Laboratory researchers shared a draft of those findings with officials from the wind industry group before the white paper was published. “ (3/3/10)

Washington Examiner: “Obama administration colluded with ‘windmill welfare queens’ to rebut European ‘green job’ studies … “Windmill welfare queens” — the corporations who stand to benefit from carbon regulation, and who already benefit from massive subsidies — are telling Americans that they can “have their cake and eat it too” when it comes to emissions controls and so-called “green jobs.” A FOIA request now reveals that as the Obama administration scrambled to respond last year to strong evidence that “green jobs” are a massive an economic drain, costing 570,000 Euros apiece, Department of Energy officials relied heavily on Big Wind and its monied backers. …the Left in government and the rent-seeking corporations who make their money not by producing anything, but by putting their hands in the next guy’s pocket.” (3/4/10)

American Thinker: “Obama administration protecting the ‘green’ investments of its friends … Crony capitalism is alive and well in Barack Obama’s Washington. … Green energy promoters are raking in our tax dollars, often for wasteful “investments .” … Now comes word that the Obama administration’s Department of Energy has engaged in some “monkey business” to rebut a study that showed investments in wind energy costs far more jobs than they create. A Spanish university study had calculated that government subsidies for the wind power industry killed more jobs because they diverted money from more efficient private businesses. … The Obama administration’s attack on the Spanish study was written by two non-economist, pro-wind activists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. This is a part of the Department of Energy and is overseen by Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi , who previously served as the CEO of Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection. Al has a pal to protect his vast investments in renewable energy.” (3/4/10)

The Hill: “Senior Republican seeks info on Energy Department, clean energy group secret talks … Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) wants to know the extent to which Energy Department officials talked to supporters of clean energy subsidies before DoE published an unusual rebuttal to a study critical of green job programs. He fired off a letter to a DoE official on Wednesday asking a series of pointed questions about discussions between government officials and groups like the American Wind Energy Association and the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank run by White House confidant John Podesta. … A recently released batch of emails showing possible collaboration between DoE and a group whose members stand to benefit from clean energy subsidies won’t help. … The controversy seemed largely over until the release this week of emails, obtained by a free-market think tank through public records laws, that suggest some measure of cooperation among DoE officials and representatives from AWEA, CAP, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.” (3/4/10)

CEI’s Chris Horner on Pajamas Media: “‘Anti-Lobbyist’ Obama Administration Recruited Left-Wing Lobbyists to Sell Bogus ‘Green Jobs’ … The Department of Energy – specifically the office headed by Al Gore’s company’s former CEO, Cathy Zoi – turned to George Soros’ Center for American Progress and other wind industry lobbyists to help push Obama’s wind energy proposals. … As candidate and president, on eight separate occasions Barack Obama instructed Americans to “think about what’s happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany” if they wanted to know what successful “green jobs” policies look like, and if they wanted to know what we should expect here in the U.S. from his agenda. … After the Spanish study embarrassed the White House, prompting substantial media attention and even questioning at a press conference, Obama swapped out Denmark for Spain for later references to an enacted “green jobs” program. … The American Wind Energy Association – the lobby for “Big Wind” in Washington, D.C., which includes a few Spanish wind giants – also attacked the publication of the Spanish paper. Soon, the Obama administration published a five-page talking points memo assailing the economic assessment – written by two young, non-economist, pro-wind activists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).” (3/3/10)

The Hill: “Spanish jobs spat revisited … The Competitive Enterprise Institute, used public records laws to obtain emails showing NREL shared its response with groups supporting renewable energy policy, like the American Wind Energy Association, before releasing the rebuttal publicly.” (3/3/10)

Reason: “Restoring Science to Its Rightful Place — Shilling for Green Jobs … Last year, a study released by researchers at Spain’s King Juan Carlos University found that subsidized green jobs were an economic black hole. … The green lobbyists just knew the study must be wrong and breathed huge satisfied sigh of relief when a new study refuting the JCU study was produced by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Science had once again triumphed over rightwing anti-science ideology – green jobs forever! But some cynical people were suspicious of the provenance of the NREL study. So they filed a Freedom on Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of Energy to see how the study came about. It turns out that it was vetted by the renewable energy industry, specifically the lobbyists at the American Wind Energy Association.” (3/3/10)

Washington Post: “Wind industry influenced DOE report … The Chicago Tribune first reported the connection, which came to light after the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute gave the paper the results of its Freedom of Information Act request. The controversy centers on the Aug. 1 white paper, “National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) Response to the Report ‘Study of the Effects on the Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources’ from King Juan Carlos University (Spain).” (3/3/10)

That’s a Great Question: “What, exactly, is a ‘green’ job?”

IER’s Robert Murphy on The Daily Caller: “What, exactly, is a ‘green’ job? … By their very nature, government-created green jobs are unsustainable. If they weren’t, it wouldn’t take government mandates or billions in taxpayer subsidies to create them in the first place – and it certainly wouldn’t take billions more to sustain them. … The Spanish embarked on the world’s most aggressive renewables program – President Obama specifically praised it soon after his inauguration as a model for his own agenda. Yet, as the Spanish government faced budget difficulties, it was forced to rein in its support for renewables. … Apparently, even this monumental handout wasn’t enough to sustain those jobs: The Spanish bubble popped, and today the country is wracked with an unemployment rate on the doorstep of 20 percent. … For every “green” job the government “creates” in one area, it destroys a real job somewhere else. But the whole charade isn’t simply a wash, because government green jobs policies make the economy less productive. They raise prices – especially for energy – across the board and make consumers poorer.” (3/3/10)

Iain Murray on NRO: “Green-Jobs Fantasy … Germany and Spain went down the green-jobs road many years ago, for much the same reasons as the ad­ministration. They saw it as a way to make their countries world leaders in coming technologies, provide good jobs to replace decaying industries, and insulate against energy shocks originating overseas. It didn’t work out that way. … The story is the same in Spain, which set out to be the world leader in solar technology. A study by a team from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid led by Gabriel Calzada Alvarez found that the opportunity costs of public investment in renewable energy were very high, resulting not just in significant numbers of jobs destroyed or never created, but in unsustainable bubbles in the renewables sector. … There are already signs that green jobs created in the U.S. are going to be just as expensive as the German and Spanish ones.” (3/4/10)

Orange County Register, Op-Ed: “We need green money, not green jobs … The love affair on the left with “green jobs” is, of course, about ideology, which is why facts are irrelevant. It is another excuse to grow government and bring European socialism to America. … In a Zogby poll done after the presidential election, 73 percent of blacks said they were opposed to taxing fossil fuels to promote alternative energy. The Carter Administration invested $2.1 billion in the Great Plains Coal Gasification Plant to convert coal to gas. The result? Zero. Federal government spending since 1961 on “advanced energy technologies and basic energy science research” totals $187 billion with hardly anything to show. Poor folks don’t need socialism or green jobs. They need green money. They’ll get more of it being free, going to school, getting married and going to work.” (3/3/10)

#####

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 4, 2010
CONTACT:
LAURA HENDERSON, 202.621.2951
PATRICK CREIGHTON, 202.621.2947