Skip to content

Boring, But Important LCOEs

September 2, 2016

Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is what excites engineers and economists, and bores most other people, but can have profound effects on Americans.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes LCOEs for various methods of generating electricity, such as for coal and solar, but their estimates are based on today’s conditions, or conditions a few years from now, for building new power plants.

What’s important, is that the LCOEs supplied by the EIA do not reflect the cost of generating electricity from existing power plants. Plants that have already been built.

A new study by the Institute for Energy Research (IER) has calculated the LCOEs for existing power plants and compares them with the LCOEs for new power plants.

These include adjustments for intermittency and capacity factors for wind and solar.

Today, we are scrapping 110,000 MW of existing coal and nuclear power plants before the end of their useful lives, and replacing them with wind and PV solar.

In other words, we are replacing existing power plants that generate low-cost electricity with new power plants that generate expensive electricity, merely because of new regulations and a political effort to cut CO2 emissions.

As explained below, these actions can harm the American economy, which kills jobs.

Here are the LCOEs for existing power plants, by type from the IER study.

  • Coal-fired: 4 cents per kWh
  • Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC): 3.4 cents per kWh
  • Nuclear 2.9 cents per kWh
  • Hydroelectric: 3.5 cents per kWh

Here are the LCOEs for new wind and PV solar power plants, from the IER study.

  • Wind 10.4 cents per kWh
  • PV solar 14.3 cents per kWh

The IER study did not include Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) plants, such as Ivanpah, but CSP LCOEs will be approximately 8 cents greater than for PV solar, based on earlier EIA estimates.

Since it’s doubtful there will be any significant building of new nuclear or hydro power plants, we need only examine coal-fired and NGCC power plants.

It’s obvious that replacing existing power plants before the end of their economic lives, with wind or solar, will increase the cost of electricity for all Americans. The cost of electricity produced by wind and solar is two to three times the cost of generating electricity from existing coal-fired or NGCC power plants.

LCOEs are an abstract for most Americans, so here is what the higher LCOEs for wind and solar mean for the American economy.

Americans used 3.9 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity in 2015.

If all of this, excluding hydro and existing wind and solar, were generated from new PV solar power plants, where electricity cost 10.9 cents per kWh more than from existing NGCC power plants, it would cost Americans an additional $379 billion each year. For wind, where wind costs 6.4 cents per kWh more than existing coal-fired power plants, it would cost Americans an additional $223 billion each year. (See note)

Just as lower gasoline prices helped fuel the American economy, higher costs for electricity will be a drag on the economy.

Gasoline at $2 per gallon, rather than $3, saved Americans $140 billion and had a beneficial effect on the economy. (Americans used 140.43 billion gallons of gasoline in 2015 according to the EIA.)

Imagine the negative effect on the economy if Americans spent an additional $379 billion for their electricity by using PV solar.

And $2 gasoline is temporary, while the high cost of electricity would be permanent.

Not only would the average American be paying more for electricity, over $3,000 per household for PV solar, they will have fewer job opportunities due to the effect of higher energy costs on the economy.

While it’s physically impossible for wind and solar to replace all base load power generation, the use of wind and solar in place of coal-fired or NGCC power plants increases the cost burden on all Americans. This burden is made even greater if a carbon tax is added to the cost of generating electricity.

CAISO Duck Curve

CAISO Duck Curve

About the ISO “Duck” curve:

  • California ISO “Duck” curve showing negative impacts of adding wind and solar to the grid. (a) Gutting base load power plant output (b) Dramatic need for storage to prevent huge ramp-up when sun sets

In addition, the higher percentage of wind and solar on the grid, as demanded by the government, will require storage, and storage costs were not included in the IER study.

It’s a fact that wind and solar will be an economic burden on all Americans if current efforts to cut CO2 emissions continue.

Wind and solar are bad for Americans.

LCOEs may be boring, but they are important and can demonstrate how different energy policies can have a huge impact on Americans.

 

Note about cost comparisons:

If the comparison was between new wind and solar versus new coal-fired and NGCC power plants, the extra financial burden on Americans would be lower. For example, $306 billion rather than $379 billion for NGCC power plants, because the new build cost for NGCC plants is 5.5 cents per kWh rather than 3.4 cents for existing NGCC plants. The IER report made no LCOE calculation for new coal-fired power plants, because EPA rules prohibit building new coal-fired power plants.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Part 2, Renewables, explains why wind and solar cost more and why they adversely affect the grid, and, using the California ISO “Duck” Curve, how they endanger the ability of utilities to survive.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Reversing a Long Standing Wrong

August 30, 2016

Environmental groups have used fear of radiation to scare Americans into believing that all radiation is dangerous, and that nuclear power is dangerous because of radiation … no matter how small the dose.

The linear no-threshold model (LNT), used by the EPA and other environmental organizations, claims that radiation can cause cancer no matter how small the dose.

The LNT model has been debunked for years by many highly respected scientists.

Professor Wade Allison, a Fellow of Keble College and Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, is one of those distinguished scientists who has written about radiation and demonstrated that the LNT is wrong.

His book, Radiation and Reason, explains why.

He asks, with birds nesting unaffected in the Chernobyl sarcophagus and animals running around unscathed in the area around Chernobyl, “Is there something wrong with the accepted orthodox view of the dangers of radiation to life?”

Book Cover

Book Cover

Radiation and Reason describes, in considerable clarity, some of the basic principles surrounding radiation, including an overview of the entire radiation spectrum from AM radio to gamma rays. He explains why nuclear power is inherently safe, and made even safer with the latest designs that can shut down without fear of overheating the core.

By providing this overview, Professor Wade establishes a scientific basis for his comments that the reader can follow.

See an earlier article, Radiation Fears, for details about Chernobyl, and radiation around the world.

Now another scientist, Carol Marcus, M.D. and Ph.D, professor nuclear medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, says LNT is baloney, and, ”Essentially in the same category as, The Earth is flat.”

Dr. Marcus, in a pending petition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), is asking the NRC to abandon the LNT model. And, quoting another scientist, she calls LNT, “The greatest scientific scandal of the 20th century.”

Quoting from the Wall Street Journal, “Dr. Marcus advocates an approach that holds that low radiation doses aren’t harmful and could even benefit people’s health — a phenomenon known as hormesis, possibly reducing cancer rates by stimulating the body’s protective systems. Among other things, she wants the NRC to raise by 50-fold its allowable annual radiation dose to the public.”

Unfortunately, and true to form, the EPA is against any changes to the LNT model.

Extreme environmentalists who cry wolf at every mention of radiation have done our country a terrible disservice. They have played on people’s lack of knowledge about radiation so that every mention of radiation elicits a negative response.

Fear, promoted by extreme environmentalists and the EPA, has resulted in the gradual destruction of the nuclear industry in the United states.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Appendix, explains why nuclear power is dying in the United States.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Air Conditioning as Dangerous Climate Threat

August 26, 2016

According to environmental extremists, air-conditioning has been a disaster for the environment.

Secretary of State, John Kerry said, “Air-conditioners and refrigerators pose as big a threat to life on the planet as the threat of terrorism.”

Kerry made this claim because hydrofluorocarbons (HCF) refrigerants are a source of green house gas emissions that, according to extreme environmentalists, threaten the climate.

Kerry Cartoon re A:C

Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator, said, during negotiations in Vienna last month, “[A] global deal would match new EPA regulations to ban HFCs in the United States and promote alternative chemicals for use in appliances.”

Eliminating HCFs would create a problem for homeowners and businesses.

At present, HCFs that harm the Ozone layer are no longer being used in air conditioning units or refrigerators. Freon has been outlawed.

New HCFs, that don’t harm the Ozone layer, are used today. All air-conditioning units in the United States use these new HCFs. Here are some examples of refrigerants currently in use:

R-410A

  • Often referred to by a brand name such as Puron®, Suva® 9100, or Genetron® AZ-20®
  • It is a hydro-fluorocarbon (HFC) that does not contribute to ozone depletion

R-407C

  • Often referred to by a brand name such as Suva® 407C or Genetron® 407C
  • R-407C is a hydro-fluorocarbon (HFC) that does not contribute to ozone depletion
  • It provides the simplest conversion from R-22, i.e., Freon, due to its similar pressures

R-134a

  • Widely used in many air conditioning and refrigeration systems globally
  • It is a hydro-fluorocarbon (HFC) that does not contribute to ozone depletion

Eliminating HCFs will affect all Americans, and increase their costs unnecessarily.

Homeowners, automobile owners and businesses will all be affected.

It should be noted that HCFs are used because they are the most efficient low-cost chemical available for operating refrigeration units, including air-conditioners. They are also safe, and don’t present a fire hazard.

There are other chemicals that can be used as refrigerants.

For example, ammonia is an effective low-cost refrigerant, but it isn’t safe. An ammonia leak will drive people from their homes. As a youngster, I remember having to evacuate our apartment building because a refrigerator using ammonia in an apartment above us leaked. Chloroform can also be used as a refrigerant, but it has a major downside.

Automobiles will shift to HFO-1234yf in 2017, but older cars will find it increasingly difficult, and probably more expensive, to find R134a, the currently approved refrigerant for automobiles.

CO2 can also be used as a refrigerant, but it operates at much higher pressures, at over 1450 psi, or ten times the pressure of current air-conditioning units. CO2 as a refrigerant will result in more heavily constructed, and more expensive air-conditioning units.

Even if a new refrigerant is developed for home air-conditioning units, new units will probably operate at higher pressures, requiring more expensive components resulting in more costly new air-conditioning units. Homeowners will find they will have to replace their existing air-conditioning units with new units that comply with the new EPA regulations when supplies of currently approved HCFs run out.

Europeans won’t feel the impact of doing away with HCFs, since only a small percentage of the population uses air-conditioning. Europe is requiring CO2 to be used as the refrigerant.

Americans will bear the brunt of any ban on HCFs.

Older refrigerators will have to be scrapped.

Think of people living in Florida, or other states that have high summer temperatures, such as Arizona, who will be required, at some point, to buy new, more expensive air-conditioning units.

Kerry says air-conditioning is a greater threat to the world than ISIS. Tell that to homeowners in Florida and the desert southwest.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 14, An Impossible Objective, explains why it’s impossible to cut CO2 emissions 80% without destroying America’s standard of living.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

EPA Milage Gap & Paris Climate Accord

August 23, 2016

EPA insists automobile manufacturers must exceed the 54 mpg mileage requirement in 2025, so that the U.S. can meet carbon targets agreed to at the Paris COP Climate meeting.

Christopher Grundler, director of EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, said:

The U.S. will have to accelerate carbon reductions beyond current regulations … to meet targets called for in the global climate agreement reached in Paris last year.”

This conforms to the Democrat Platform, that said:

“We will transform American transportation by reducing oil consumption through cleaner fuels, vehicle electrification, and increasing the fuel efficiency of cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.”

The automobile manufacturers have already indicated they will not be able to meet the existing 2025 mpg requirements if they are to produce the type of cars Americans want.

This chart shows the huge disparity between the reality of todays actual 2016 mileage of 25.2 mpg, and the required 2025 mileage of 54 mpg, adjusted for allowances. See, Collision of Mileage Regulations and Technology, for information on these allowances.

Chart depicting large increase in mpg required by 2025.

Chart depicting large increase in mpg required by 2025.

Some might say car manufacturers have always cried wolf, but then met safety requirements despite their protestations. It’s difficult, however, to see how the mileage GAP can be addressed without the public buying tiny cars or expensive electric vehicles.

The public has demonstrated a desire for SUVs and pickup trucks, so the government will be forcing its wishes on Americans in order to meet the Paris climate, carbon agreement.

The mileage gap is around 30 mpg, or double existing actual mpg.

Yet, the EPA infers it wants even larger mileage mpg targets, so as to comply with the Paris climate, carbon accord.

EPA’s Grundler went on to say:

“We’re going to need to see a lot of zero and near-zero emissions technology coming into the fleet,” if we are to reduce CO2 emissions, as required by the Paris climate, accord.

This confirms the need for large numbers of expensive EVs, powered by batteries, if the U.S. is to meet the commitments of the Paris climate, carbon accord.

Americans will be forced by the EPA to buy these cars, or do without.

Is this the future Americans want?

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 15, An Alternative Hypothesis, describes why the sun is the far more likely cause of global warming..

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

At Stake: America’s Energy Future

August 19, 2016

There is a profound difference between the Democrat and Republican platforms, with each platform advancing diametrically opposed visions for America’s energy future.

The Democrat platform is based on a blind adherence to the Paris Climate Accord, proclaiming that cutting CO2 emissions is of paramount importance, specifically by “reducing greenhouse gas emissions more than 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.”

The platform declares:

“Our generation must lead the fight against climate change and we applaud President Obama’s leadership in forging the historic Paris climate change agreement. We will not only meet the goals we set in Paris, we will seek to exceed them …”

Screenshot of Democrat Platform Drafting Committee from CNN

Screenshot of Democrat Platform Drafting Committee from CNN

The Democrat platform’s extreme focus on cutting CO2 emissions ignores the real needs of Americans.

For example, the Democrat platform’s:

  • Support of wind and solar over traditional methods for generating electricity will impose higher electricity prices on all Americans
  • War on methane, i.e., natural gas will increase the cost of heating American homes
  • Proposed mandates for renewables of all kinds, with increased subsidies, will impose additional taxes on all Americans
  • Proposal to “transform American transportation” by imposing electric vehicles and biofuels on Americans, regardless of cost, will harm Americans
  • Proposal to impose a carbon tax on greenhouse gasses, including natural gas, i.e., methane, will drive up energy costs for all Americans
  • Support for banning fracking will create a shortage of natural gas and cut domestic oil production, which not only drives up the cost of heating homes and using electricity, but will also result in a need to import more oil from Mideast countries
  • Request to have the Justice Department investigate those who do not agree with the Democrat’s views on climate change is a threat to the freedom of all Americans

The Republican platform is the precise opposite of the Democrat platform, and places emphasis on stopping “unelected bureaucrats” from imposing their will on Americans.

The differences are both stark and profound.

There is no need to editorialize on the differences, because they speak for themselves.

Yet, the media virtually ignores these differences.

If it were merely a political issue, one might ignore the media’s continuing support of Democrats.

But this goes beyond politics.

It’s about America’s future, and the media, for the most part, shows a complete disregard for America and Americans. Five conglomerates own most of the newspapers and radio and TV stations in the United States, and this stifles the dissemination of information.

Without a free press, that is objective in its reporting, Americans are in danger of falling prey to mindless, uninformed social media rhetoric.

The differences between the two platforms are so profound that they deserve wide dissemination.

Unedited quotations from the Democrat and Republican energy platforms are at Energy Platform Comparisons.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear explains why CO2 isn’t to be feared. Chapter 15, An Alternative Hypothesis, describes Dr. Svensmark’s hypothesis on cosmic rays.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Now, Environmentalists Oppose Corn Ethanol

August 16, 2016

In a dramatic reversal, environmentalists now oppose ethanol produced from corn.

Groups such as Friends of the Earth, The Environmental Working Group and the National Wildlife Federation now say that producing ethanol from corn generates more greenhouse gasses than does gasoline, and that it harms the environment.

These same groups are now urging Congress to modify or do away with the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring that ethanol be used in gasoline.

The EPA and this Administration have been urging just the opposite, by endorsing a higher percentage of ethanol for use in gasoline. Currently, ethanol content is limited to 10% because most manufacturers say ethanol in higher amounts will damage automobile engines, unless the vehicle has been specially built for larger amounts of ethanol.

In 2004, The Natural Resources Defense Council used a 96-page report proclaiming boundless biofuel benefits, such as slashed greenhouse gas emissions, improved air quality and more wildlife habitat.

Of course, it’s now clear this was merely typical misinformation from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Eight states are the largest producers of corn, and these are the states that will be affected by changes to the RFS. Representatives Peter Welch (D) of Vermont, and Bob Goodlatte (R) of Virginia, are cosponsoring such changes.

  • Iowa
  • Illinois
  • Nebraska
  • Minnesota
  • Indiana
  • South Dakota
  • Kansas
  • Ohio

“Collin O’Mara, president of the National Wildlife Federation, told a House committee last month that the RFS program has wreaked severe, unintended consequences, including the loss of prairie land and water-supply damage that threatens wildlife.”

If these environmental groups have been wrong on this issue, why should they be believed about other issues, when there is substantial evidence they are wrong?

PV rooftop solar is a good example of programs promoted by environmental groups, and the Democrat Platform, that actually hurt Americans with higher costs for electricity and more tax payer money used for subsidies.

Only one state, Hawaii, might possibly be able to use PV Rooftop solar economically. Without subsidies, PV Rooftop solar is uneconomic in every other state, with payback periods ranging from 8 to over 20 years.

There are, of course, some proponents of ethanol who want to cling to the use of corn based ethanol, including the Renewable Fuels Association, an organization with an obvious self interest in perpetuating the program.

Corn-based ethanol has been a drain on American pocketbooks, without environmental benefits.

Chart showing required amounts of ethanol by type, by year. Yellow: Corn based, Blue: Cellulosic, Green: Other advanced, Red: biodiesel

Chart showing required amounts of ethanol by type, by year.
Yellow: Corn based, Blue: Cellulosic, Green: Other advanced, Red: biodiesel

Beyond corn, cellulosic ethanol has been a failure, in that volumes have been far below what had been promised, with subsidies harming ordinary tax payers.

The accompanying chart shows how much cellulosic ethanol is required by the existing RFS, where it is now obvious that it is impossible to produce the required amounts of cellulosic ethanol.

The RFS program is intellectually bankrupt. See, False Promise of Biofuels.

Ethanol was promoted to cut CO2 emissions, and cutting CO2 emissions is at the heart of the Democrat platform. See, Energy Platform Comparisons.

* * * * * *

From Chapter 10 of Nothing to Fear:

“The possibility of producing biofuels economically and in required quantities seems remote … if not absurd.”

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

How Outlawing Fracking Would Hurt Americans

August 12, 2016

The Democrat party platform calls for outlawing fracking wherever states have done so.

What would be the effect on Americans if fracking was outlawed?

To determine what would happen to Americans if fracking was outlawed, it’s necessary to view the situation before fracking was used to extract oil and natural gas from shale.

Natural Gas, i.e., Methane

Prior to the advent of fracking, the United States was running out of natural gas, and LNG import terminals were being built. It should be noted that Democrat activists opposed the building of LNG import terminals, which would have resulted in greater shortages of natural gas if fracking hadn’t been invented.

The price of natural gas was peaking at around $13 per million BTU in 2006 and 2009, compared with the recent henry hub price of around $2 per million BTU.

Eliminating fracking would result in a huge increase in the price of natural gas, which would increase the cost of heating American homes, and increase the cost of electricity for all Americans.

It would also kill jobs.

Since 2009, several chemical companies have been building new facilities in the United States to utilize the low-cost natural gas produced by fracking, to produce chemicals and fertilizer.

Eliminating fracking would result in much higher natural gas prices, causing chemical companies, once again, to export jobs to areas of the world, mostly in the Mideast, where there was low-cost natural gas. Over 400,000 jobs were lost during the 1990s and early 2000s as companies moved chemical plants to where the cost of natural gas was cheap.

Eliminating fracking would also eliminate the possibility of exporting natural gas, with the loss of additional American jobs.

Oil

In 2005, the United States imported 10 million barrels of oil daily, or roughly half of US oil consumption.

By 2015, oil imports had been reduced to 7.3 million barrels per day.

 

Oil imports, as reported by the EIA

Oil imports, as reported by the EIA

The ability of the United States to increase its oil production, as the result of fracking, had an important effect on the U.S. trade deficit.

 

Chart from the EIA

Chart from the EIA

 

As the chart shows, oil imports have a huge effect on the U.S. trade balance. With a nearly 30% reduction in oil imports, the trade deficit was substantially reduced. The exporting of petroleum products and crude oil also has a beneficial effect on America’s trade balance.

Without fracking, America’s balance of trade will be badly damaged, with a resulting increase in the, already huge, national debt.

Eliminating fracking also kills oil field jobs, just as the war on coal killed coal mining jobs.

Fracking has forced OPEC to stop attempting to control the price of oil. If fracking is eliminated, OPEC has nothing to prevent it from policies that result in higher oil prices.

Summary

Eliminating fracking, when even the EPA has said there was no systemic negative effects on water supply, would cause serious economic harm to the economy and to every American … especially the poor who can least afford higher prices for heating, food and electricity.

  • The cost of natural gas to heat homes would increase dramatically
  • Industries that use natural gas for producing materials such as steel would see their costs increase
  • The cost of electricity would increase, harming Americans and American industry
  • The cost of natural gas to chemical companies would increase substantially, with the resulting elimination of thousands of American jobs, just as happened in the 1990s and early 2000s
  • The cost of gasoline will increase as OPEC regains control of oil prices
  • The cost of food will increase as the cost of operating farm equipment and the cost of transporting farm produce increases as the result of higher oil prices
  • Jobs will be killed in the oil field and in manufacturing
  • The deficit, which is already over $19 trillion, will increase as trade balances deteriorate

Eliminating fracking would cause great harm to America and Americans.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 9, The Utility Death Spiral, explains why displacing fossil fuels with wind and solar will result in the bankruptcy of Utilities and the possible takeover of the industry by the government.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.