By Peter Galuszka

When it comes to energy, the 2012 election campaign may present one version of reality but another world – that of cold, hard economics – presents something else. In the process, a number of myths are being shattered.

The most recent news is that Richmond-based Dominion is shutting down its Wisconsin-based Kewaunee Power Station because it is too old and small to continue operating. According to the New York Times, Dominion agreed to contracts for the aging reactor it bought in 2005 to keep providing electricity at certain rates, but now those contracts are expiring and energy prices are so low otherwise that Dominion can’t find a reason to keep it running.

“This decision is based purely on economics,” says Thomas F. Farrell II, Dominion’s president, chief executive and chairman and no stranger to the Virginia political scene.

For a bigger picture look at what is going on, skip over to the op-ed pieces of the Wall Street Journal where energy expert Daniel Yergin lauds the boom in natural gas and oil production. Shale gas is now 10 percent of production. New technology has boosted the production of U.S. oil by 25 percent, resulting in 1.7 million new jobs. This could go up to three million by 2020 and add $62 billion to federal and state revenues this year.

The U.S. is tinkering with the idea of exporting liquefied natural gas whereas just a few years ago, it was widely assumed that we’d always be importing it.

Internationally, this gives the U.S. a hole card more powerful than an aircraft carrier or a drone missile strike. According to Yergin, “The increase in U.S. oil production since 2008 is equivalent to almost 80 percent of what was Iran’s export level before the imposition of sanctions on the Tehran regime. “ In other words, the U.S. has more leverage over mullahs building A-bombs because we need their oil and gas less and less.

The news does raise some troubling questions as well as some stark realities. The Kewaunee nuclear station went into service in 1974, the year I graduated from college. All of the 104 nuclear power stations were in operation or under construction that year. Although maybe five more will be built, the vast majority of the fleet is getting old.

Dominion is planning to maybe build a third unit at North Anna but is taking it slowly, given Fukushima and the August 2011 Virginia earthquake that scrammed its rods. Dominion officials insist they won’t need billions in federal loan guarantees to get financing, but with the gas and oil dynamics being what they are, they can’t help but be a factor when bankers consider loans.

The Republicans in various races have incredibly accused President Obama of dismantling the fossil fuel industry, but when it comes to oil and gas, the opposite seems true.

They claim there’s a “War on Coal” but many of the coal-fired stations face the same problems as the Wisconsin reactor: they are old and they can’t compete, pricewise, with the new reality of American energy.

Bad news for southwest Virginia and the rest of Central Appalachia: coal seams are getting too thin and expensive to mine unless prices go past a certain threshold. New, cheap natural gas has set the price bar too high. When Patriot Coal, which Peabody spun off a few years ago, went bankrupt this summer, it didn’t not blame over-regulation. Nor did Alpha Natural Resources of Bristol, at least publicly, when it announced layoffs last month. (Alpha, however, is a major contributor to the “War on Coal” campaign.)

Yergin goes so far as to describe the boom in gas and oil as “the real stimulus.” Funny how the news never seems to trickle down like tax breaks for the rich are supposed to.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. DJRippert Avatar

    While the Republicans may be misguided in their “war on coal” missive, the Obama Administration is not so pristine either. Much like the rooster taking credit for the dawn, the Obama Administration crows over its energy record while routinely trying to use backdoor regulations to hamper fracking.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-backdoor-attack-on-fracking/article/2504809#.UIaeaWl25VQ

    Barack Obama’s blessing in disguise is that his administration is so hopelessly incompetent that it can’t slow down something even when it tries. Yet, nothing prevents Obama from singing the praises of big government …

    ” Whatever Obama’s reasons, this crackdown on natural gas is irreconcilable with his praise for the industry’s success. In this year’s State of the Union address, Obama spoke of gas in a fashion that presaged his more recent “you didn’t build that” campaign-trail argument in favor of higher taxes and bigger government. “[I]t was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock,” he said.

    Obama’s claim is untrue – the federal government spent little to research fracking and stopped altogether in 1992 – but leave that aside. Even as Obama hails the natural gas boom as a vindication of his philosophy, his administration is crippling it with a sudden backdoor rule change. It says a lot about how this president has subordinated the creation of good-paying, long-lasting jobs to the whims of environmentalist bundlers and donors in New York and Hollywood.”.

  2. DJRippert – I think you are ignoring the point of Peter’s article, which is that it’s the economics that are driving the changes in energy policy, not the politics, that is, not the “war on coal” or a conspiracy theory propagated by the always reliable Washington Examiner. The fact is there is more natural gas and more oil and that’s what is significant for the energy industry and geopolitically.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Richard:

      Your point is fair. However, I believe that America’s improved energy position is happening in spite of both parties. The problems in coal country may not be caused by a “war on coal”. However, our new found energy strength is not due to the Democrats’ long term endorsement of the technical marvel of fracking. Frack was a dirty five letter word among most progressives as recently as 2010. Will it once again become a dirty five letter word? The odd change in trucking regulations indicates to me that the question is still open for debate. So, one could argue that the Obama Administration has shown a spark of interest in anti-fracking regulation and, therefore, can claim to be fighting the “war for coal”. Any takers among the progressives for that logic?

      As for the Washington Examiner … I have given up looking for unbiased commentary anywhere in the MSM (if you can call the Examiner MSM). I think the approach used by Jim Bacon has more merit – invite people with known left or right leanings to contribute. How many other political blogs encourage dissenting opinions? BVBL.Net? BlueVirginia?

      And, in case you missed it … Chris Mathews’ latest rant about “the right”:

      “I think they hate Obama. They want him out of the White House more than they want to destroy Al Qaeda. Their No. 1 enemy in the world right now, on the right, is their hatred, hatred for Obama. And we can go into that about the white working class in the South and looking at these numbers we’re getting the last couple days about racial hatred in many cases … this isn’t about being a better president, they want to get rid of this president,’ he said.”

      I see. The “progressives” are the heroes of the working class until they vote Republican. Then, the “white working class in the South” can be accused of racial hatred.

      Is there such a thing as a fair MSM newspaper, magazine or television show anymore?

      1. Chris Mathews?

        jesus gawd. have you caught O’Reilly, Hannity, Malkin, or Limbaugh lately?

  3. DJ’s comment makes no sense as natural gas production has expanded so much that the price is plummeting SO MUCH that it’s cheaper to produce electricity from NG than coal and THAT’s what’s driving the downturn in coal power plants as much as anything else.

    It’s simply cheaper to build and operate NG turbine plants and the other, little-noticed effect is that NG turbines can go up and down quickly which means they can meld quite nicely with solar/wind.

    Coal Plants could not …so much in fact, they are characterized as “base load”.

    there’s another benefit. Non-attainment in places like NoVa is now a game-changer since NG emissions are less than 1/2 of coal.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Larry – why has natural gas production skyrocketed?

      Fracking?

      And who was it that opposed fracking?

      Republicans?

      The Tea Party?

      Progressives?

      What do you think, Larry? Is fracking OK?

      Does accepting the possible negative environmental consequences of fracking constitute a “war on coal”?

      Is fracking environmentally safer than burning coal?

      What about clean coal?

      1. re: fracking

        1. some of the loony left, YES but not ALL progressives by a long shot guy – you’ve been listening to the right again haven’t you?

        2. how come Obama managed to shut down the Keystone, stop drilling on public lands and the Gulf but not stop fracking?

        what’s the deal?

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          So, back to Peter’s post. You can say there is no “war on coal” from the Obama Administration. Or, you could say that the Obama Administration’s willingness to “look the other way” on the ecological problems with fracking has created a “war on coal”.

          Here’s a web site that has a movie called GASLAND. If you buy this argument (and many do) then it gets hard to understand why fracking is OK but coal fired electrical plants should be driven into bankruptcy.

          http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/

          Again, the recent “economic miracle” of natural gas in the US is entirely because of fracking. Fracking enjoys specific loopholes in the EPA regulation. One such loophole, enacted in 2005, was derisively named “the Halliburton loophole” by the progressives who opposed it back then. Four years into the Obama Administration the loophole (and many others) remain in force.

          Progressives would dearly love to convince people in coal country (especially Ohio and Pennsylvania) to vote for Obama. Despite Obama’s overt and heavy handed rhetoric from 2008, Progressives want the people in coal country to blame their recent misery on “simple economics” rather than a “war on coal”. However, underneath the “simple economics” is a twisted regulatory framework that could, in many reasonable ways, be construed as a “war on coal”.

          Sorry, guys but this one just isn’t all that straightforward.

          .

  4. I think fracking is fine and the Canadian pipeline as well, provided that they meet environmental standards like everyone else. Requiring natural gas companies to refrain from polluting acquifers is exactly what environmental regulation is about – we can’t allow one person’s enterprise to make money at the expense of everyone else’s water. Business has to pay for its own externalities.

  5. me too but the pipeline was never for America. The reason it goes all the way to the Gulf is they’re going to export it – it has nothing to do with American energy in the shorter term.

  6. DJRippert Avatar

    Here’s a video of a man lighting his tap water on fire … presumably due to the methane from fracking …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A

    Good thing Obama has the sense to bankrupt coal fired electrical generation plants in favor of the safe, clean fun of fracking.

  7. DJ – you can get gas in your well even if there is no fracking at all going on.

    Did you know that you can set coal on fire and it will burn for decades also?

Leave a Reply