wonder if New England’s will ever wake up to the fact that they are deprived of natural gas because NY won’t let pipelines from the Marcellas get to them and they have to pay ridiculously high price for LNG imports from OPEC
Not as long as Markey is in the senate. He's got one or more (?) LNG **import** stations in his district. Well, I guess it isn't district any more since he's in the Senate now. But anyway, he's always done everything possible to head off competition to his little fiefdom of expensive imported LNG. Helped kill Vermont Yankee and Indian Point. Opposes anything that would ease gas supply restrictions.
Right? What about bridge to nowhere, useless governmental agencies, and EV chargers that no one will use and that will be outdated before anyone might ever use them?
Renewables will never be the primary source of power because they have low availability and are totally unmanageable on a 24/7 basis. All we need to make all our power is gas/steam turbines driven by both coal and gas, plus nuclear if it ever grows more, and it definitely should!
I used to point out to renewables advocates that Wind and Solar are just expensive ways to burn more natural gas because of their unreliable, intermittent nature and need for constantly available backup.
If that's what you want, just skip building the wind and solar and put up the gas plants. We'd all save a lot of money in the process.
In 2023, Canada exported 7.8 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas, all of which went to the U.S. In 2023, natural gas exports to the U.S. were valued at $13 billion.
“Claims about "stranded assets" and…"lock in" reflect a disregard for what consumers actually want.”
Not only that, but despite the protestations of AGW calamitists, there are NO plans to power the world without hydrocarbons.
This is why AGW alarmists want to discuss AGW minutiae ad nauseum, but never solutions to what many claim is an existential threat to our planet.
We’ve all run into AGW warmists on social media. Ask any of them, “OK, let’s posit AGW is a problem. And if so, our response is the only thing that matters. What are the specific details of the plan you propose or endorse to power the world without hydrocarbons?”
You will be yelled at, called a “Denier,” and blocked for having the temerity to ask about actually doing something instead of just talking about it.
Now, I’m sure there are many nice people who just want to do something to help our fellow man, are not technical types, and logically believe what many powerful have told them: NetZero is achievable, and saves money, to boot! Win-Win!
Most people, of course, have no concept of what would truly be needed in service of this endeavor. My experience is that many think a few wind turbines here, a few solar farms there, maybe some batteries…et voila!
Realists of course know it truly does not matter if AGW is a problem; to generate all needed power would require so many turbines, panels and batteries in concurrent use, along with huge grid expansions…the needed numbers are so laughably high, and the new mining capacity needed for such a vast increase in metal & mineral is off the chart.
This, of course, is why there’s never been a successful demonstration of grid-scale non-dispatchable power generation, even by a small utility. Anywhere. Ever.
You’ll encounter plenty who’ll confidently relate that Utility X ran 4 days solely on wind & solar, and if they had just a few more cheap turbines, panels or batteries they do so much more.
What most do not know is that somewhere on the grid there’s a turbine spinning to provide needed inertia, and/or backup needed when a cloud passes by or the wind dies.
At least to date, all utilities need some type of thermal generation to stay running. I encourage all of you, when encountering an AGW alarmist, to forcefully ask what is the action plan they propose or endorse in response to the AGW threat.
It’s really time for people to realize there are no plans to power the world without thermal generation, and that usually means hydrocarbons-fired.
When an emergency exists, the only thing that matters is response. Everyone should learn there are no plans!
One thought: I love the use of the term “Stranded assets” by people who a) have no private industry experience, b) have no vested interest in whether a business invests in assets that may or may not turn out to be stranded, and c) are probably not smart enough to know the difference between “stranded assets” and “a strand of asses.”
I think the Dems are stranded Asshats.
Notice all these loonies worried about stranded assets are Blue states.
What about the useless wind and solar installations that wear out at 50% of their expected life span
wonder if New England’s will ever wake up to the fact that they are deprived of natural gas because NY won’t let pipelines from the Marcellas get to them and they have to pay ridiculously high price for LNG imports from OPEC
Not as long as Markey is in the senate. He's got one or more (?) LNG **import** stations in his district. Well, I guess it isn't district any more since he's in the Senate now. But anyway, he's always done everything possible to head off competition to his little fiefdom of expensive imported LNG. Helped kill Vermont Yankee and Indian Point. Opposes anything that would ease gas supply restrictions.
I am wide awake to that but CT legislature is run by dummies and ideologues. 🤦🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Right? What about bridge to nowhere, useless governmental agencies, and EV chargers that no one will use and that will be outdated before anyone might ever use them?
Renewables will never be the primary source of power because they have low availability and are totally unmanageable on a 24/7 basis. All we need to make all our power is gas/steam turbines driven by both coal and gas, plus nuclear if it ever grows more, and it definitely should!
I used to point out to renewables advocates that Wind and Solar are just expensive ways to burn more natural gas because of their unreliable, intermittent nature and need for constantly available backup.
If that's what you want, just skip building the wind and solar and put up the gas plants. We'd all save a lot of money in the process.
Can't say I changed any minds, but it was fun.
If California is concerned about "stranded assets" they should examine the stranded billion$ of high-speed rail investments.
and solar that have a short life
Donald Trump ends the unjust trade war that he started:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7JS5DWywo
"I said, “we don’t need your energy, because, for a limited time, you can buy TRUMP FLASHLIGHTS.”"
In 2023, Canada exported 7.8 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas, all of which went to the U.S. In 2023, natural gas exports to the U.S. were valued at $13 billion.
https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2025/market-snapshot-overview-of-canada-us-energy-trade.html
“Claims about "stranded assets" and…"lock in" reflect a disregard for what consumers actually want.”
Not only that, but despite the protestations of AGW calamitists, there are NO plans to power the world without hydrocarbons.
This is why AGW alarmists want to discuss AGW minutiae ad nauseum, but never solutions to what many claim is an existential threat to our planet.
We’ve all run into AGW warmists on social media. Ask any of them, “OK, let’s posit AGW is a problem. And if so, our response is the only thing that matters. What are the specific details of the plan you propose or endorse to power the world without hydrocarbons?”
You will be yelled at, called a “Denier,” and blocked for having the temerity to ask about actually doing something instead of just talking about it.
Now, I’m sure there are many nice people who just want to do something to help our fellow man, are not technical types, and logically believe what many powerful have told them: NetZero is achievable, and saves money, to boot! Win-Win!
Most people, of course, have no concept of what would truly be needed in service of this endeavor. My experience is that many think a few wind turbines here, a few solar farms there, maybe some batteries…et voila!
Realists of course know it truly does not matter if AGW is a problem; to generate all needed power would require so many turbines, panels and batteries in concurrent use, along with huge grid expansions…the needed numbers are so laughably high, and the new mining capacity needed for such a vast increase in metal & mineral is off the chart.
This, of course, is why there’s never been a successful demonstration of grid-scale non-dispatchable power generation, even by a small utility. Anywhere. Ever.
You’ll encounter plenty who’ll confidently relate that Utility X ran 4 days solely on wind & solar, and if they had just a few more cheap turbines, panels or batteries they do so much more.
What most do not know is that somewhere on the grid there’s a turbine spinning to provide needed inertia, and/or backup needed when a cloud passes by or the wind dies.
At least to date, all utilities need some type of thermal generation to stay running. I encourage all of you, when encountering an AGW alarmist, to forcefully ask what is the action plan they propose or endorse in response to the AGW threat.
It’s really time for people to realize there are no plans to power the world without thermal generation, and that usually means hydrocarbons-fired.
When an emergency exists, the only thing that matters is response. Everyone should learn there are no plans!
Great piece, Stu.
One thought: I love the use of the term “Stranded assets” by people who a) have no private industry experience, b) have no vested interest in whether a business invests in assets that may or may not turn out to be stranded, and c) are probably not smart enough to know the difference between “stranded assets” and “a strand of asses.”
Just so stupid.