{"id":340723,"date":"2024-08-26T14:33:14","date_gmt":"2024-08-26T12:33:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=340723"},"modified":"2024-08-26T14:33:16","modified_gmt":"2024-08-26T12:33:16","slug":"diary-of-a-madnatural-gas-producerman","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=340723","title":{"rendered":"Diary of a Mad(Natural Gas Producer)man"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From BOE Report<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00a0By Terry Etam<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With all due respect to Ozzy Osbourne, a guy that lived the rockstar life; who drank enough alcohol to float an aircraft carrier; who took enough drugs to stun a small nation; who survived all that, raised a family, survived to age 76\/counting, and is worth $200 million\u2026that\u2019s not a madman. That\u2019s genius. Well played, sir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The story of natural gas markets and producers, on the other hand, can righteously lay claim to the title.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Don\u2019t take my word for it. Have a look at this chart that depicts US natural gas production (black line) and Henry Hub prices (orange) for the last quarter century or so:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In what industry, you might wonder, would producers accelerate production at such a rapid clip, while simultaneously driving prices into the toilet. You would not be crazy in asking that. Over the period of the arrows above, the industry gave a whole new meaning to the term \u201cvalue destruction\u201d. Investors did not care for the strategy much at all, surprise surprise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The two arrows, in isolation, do make the market look crazier than 8th<\/sup> Avenue at 7 pm (Calgary\u2019s up and coming East Hastings proxy), and it is pretty bad, but, to be fair to the beleaguered participants, there is a bit of context that needs explaining.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the gradual increase in production from about 2006 onwards was the result of the high prices of 2002-2006, which spurred development and led to the unlocking of the US\u2019 vast shale gas resource. High prices footed the bill for shale exploration and experimentation, which set the stage for future growth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the biggest reasons for these wild trajectories is that the industry just keeps getting better and better at getting gas out of tough formations. (While there are many ways drilling and completions are improving, these advancements should not be confused with the simple act of drilling longer horizontals which is often viewed as an efficiency gain \u2013 it is a capital efficiency gain, no doubt, but not like an improved frac is \u2013 a longer lateral simply chews up the reservoir faster. One day in a decade or two we will look back and go, oh yeah, maybe that was significant\u2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those technological\/fracking improvements drove the first waves of growth, but don\u2019t completely explain the steepest part of the curve. Note in particular the pinkish shaded box, corresponding to roughly April 2017 to April 2021. Over that four-year period, the US added about 27 bcf\/d, which is about 1.5 times Canada\u2019s entire output, while prices fell from about $3.00\/mmbtu to $2.00. That\u2019s the sort of antics a guy like Warren Buffett really frowns on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s true, those trajectories do look like the product of madness, but as with pretty much everything that has ever happened in history, we have to go back to the context of the times. In that period, an enormous amount of new natural gas pipeline infrastructure came into service, projects that had been kicked off some years before, in the 2014-15 timeframe, when it became clear that there was a market for all the new gas. Pipeline and gas plant builders needed volume commitments from producers to build the infrastructure, so once completed, producers did what they were obligated to do \u2013 fill up the pipe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a macro perspective, that kind of worked \u2013 the pipes did indeed fill up, but on the other hand the enthusiasm led to some pretty spectacular bankruptcies (hello, Chesapeake). Producers burned through vast piles of cash to flood a market that couldn\u2019t handle the output.29dk2902lhttps:\/\/boereport.com\/29dk2902l.html<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The significance of this (over) development can hardly be overstated, in energy terms; in 2006 the US produced about 50 billion cubic feet per day (bcf\/d); 18 years later it produces over 100 bcf\/d. Early this century, some 20 years ago, the US was looking to construct LNG import<\/em> terminals; 20 years later, the US is the world\u2019s largest natural gas exporter<\/em>. Now that truly is crazy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, here in mid 2024, the future is murky. We know a few things: that the US (and Canada) are both capable of a lot more natural gas production. We know that demand is going to go up over the next half decade at a minimum, possibly by as much as 30 percent, due to new LNG export terminals and data center\/AI demand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What we don\u2019t know is how easy it will be to build any new infrastructure to enable new volumes to get to where they need to be. We\u2019re well used to this problem in Canada, of course, which is a basket case; it is a miracle that Coastal GasLink was built at all, and it is hard to imagine any entity having the intestinal fortitude to attempt any new greenfield interprovincial infrastructure, which is federally regulated, which means the ruling alliance would laugh you off Parliament Hill for even showing up with your briefcase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US is not far behind; the only significant interstate gas pipeline to go into service in the past few years has been the Mountain Valley Pipeline which was many years delayed by swarming activist attacks, and was completed at double the initial cost estimate (MVP was first proposed in 2014, and was scheduled to come onstream in 2018; it finally started flowing gas in 2024). A more realistic reading of the current US natural gas interstate pipeline system is this: In July 2020 the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a large and critical new pipe that would have taken excess Appalachia gas to a thirsty US east coast, which was six years in planning, was shelved<\/a> despite receiving a 7-2 vote of approval from the United States Supreme Court (from the project cancellation news release: \u201cA series of legal challenges to the project\u2019s federal and state permits has caused significant project cost increases and timing delays. These lawsuits and decisions have sought to dramatically rewrite decades of permitting and legal precedent including as implemented by presidential administrations of both political parties. As a result, recent public guidance of project cost has increased to $8 billion from the original estimate of $4.5 to $5.0 billion\u2026 This new information and litigation risk, among other continuing execution risks, make the project too uncertain to justify investing more shareholder capital.\u201d)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To emphasize just how tough it is to actually build a new pipeline, Dominion Energy, one of the Atlantic Coast partners, took a $2.8 billion charge to earnings in cancelling the project. Think about that. A public company chose to eat a $2.8 billion loss rather than attempt to build a new, approved pipeline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, things are much more complicated than that oversimplification. Texas, for example, has no problems building pipelines within the state. A lot of gas is produced in Texas, and many LNG terminals are or will be located there too. So perhaps that aligns as a path for gas production growth. Similarly, AI data center owners are figuring out that they can build their data centers right alongside gas fields, bypassing a whole bucket of headaches \u2013 no interstate gas pipeline requirements, avoid grid transmission\/distribution power charges, get the things built in months rather than years. So there\u2019s another clear path between producers and consumers that might facilitate added production and consumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But it won\u2019t be all that smooth. Big fields over time become smaller fields, and new developments may well be in other states. The inability to build gas infrastructure will haunt the economy in one way or another. Associated gas may or may not continue to flood the market, the amount of which available is as much a function of oil prices as anything else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then on top of this complicated business, layer in politics. One presidential candidate loathes hydrocarbons, and in past has supported a ban on fracking. The other candidate has sworn to cut energy prices in half, a promise which boggles the mind at the best of times, and causes cranial explosions if he\u2019s including natural gas prices. He wants to cut those<\/em> in half? See: chart above\u2026not sure that is a well-thought-out proposal, not when it comes to natural gas anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Add it all together and it is a market like no other, and it is mighty hard on the head. A wise colleague offered his own version of the above chart, a Rorschach-type interpretation that is probably a better fit for anyone involved in the natural gas business these days. The beast is obvious, if you play in this sandbox:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In what industry, you might wonder, would producers accelerate production at such a rapid clip, while simultaneously driving prices into the toilet. You would not be crazy in asking that. Over the period of the arrows above, the industry gave a whole new meaning to the term \u201cvalue destruction\u201d. Investors did not care for the strategy much at all, surprise surprise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The two arrows, in isolation, do make the market look crazier than 8th<\/sup> Avenue at 7 pm (Calgary\u2019s up and coming East Hastings proxy), and it is pretty bad, but, to be fair to the beleaguered participants, there is a bit of context that needs explaining.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the gradual increase in production from about 2006 onwards was the result of the high prices of 2002-2006, which spurred development and led to the unlocking of the US\u2019 vast shale gas resource. High prices footed the bill for shale exploration and experimentation, which set the stage for future growth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the biggest reasons for these wild trajectories is that the industry just keeps getting better and better at getting gas out of tough formations. (While there are many ways drilling and completions are improving, these advancements should not be confused with the simple act of drilling longer horizontals which is often viewed as an efficiency gain \u2013 it is a capital efficiency gain, no doubt, but not like an improved frac is \u2013 a longer lateral simply chews up the reservoir faster. One day in a decade or two we will look back and go, oh yeah, maybe that was significant\u2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those technological\/fracking improvements drove the first waves of growth, but don\u2019t completely explain the steepest part of the curve. Note in particular the pinkish shaded box, corresponding to roughly April 2017 to April 2021. Over that four-year period, the US added about 27 bcf\/d, which is about 1.5 times Canada\u2019s entire output, while prices fell from about $3.00\/mmbtu to $2.00. That\u2019s the sort of antics a guy like Warren Buffett really frowns on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s true, those trajectories do look like the product of madness, but as with pretty much everything that has ever happened in history, we have to go back to the context of the times. In that period, an enormous amount of new natural gas pipeline infrastructure came into service, projects that had been kicked off some years before, in the 2014-15 timeframe, when it became clear that there was a market for all the new gas. Pipeline and gas plant builders needed volume commitments from producers to build the infrastructure, so once completed, producers did what they were obligated to do \u2013 fill up the pipe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a macro perspective, that kind of worked \u2013 the pipes did indeed fill up, but on the other hand the enthusiasm led to some pretty spectacular bankruptcies (hello, Chesapeake). Producers burned through vast piles of cash to flood a market that couldn\u2019t handle the output.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The significance of this (over) development can hardly be overstated, in energy terms; in 2006 the US produced about 50 billion cubic feet per day (bcf\/d); 18 years later it produces over 100 bcf\/d. Early this century, some 20 years ago, the US was looking to construct LNG import<\/em> terminals; 20 years later, the US is the world\u2019s largest natural gas exporter<\/em>. Now that truly is crazy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, here in mid 2024, the future is murky. We know a few things: that the US (and Canada) are both capable of a lot more natural gas production. We know that demand is going to go up over the next half decade at a minimum, possibly by as much as 30 percent, due to new LNG export terminals and data center\/AI demand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What we don\u2019t know is how easy it will be to build any new infrastructure to enable new volumes to get to where they need to be. We\u2019re well used to this problem in Canada, of course, which is a basket case; it is a miracle that Coastal GasLink was built at all, and it is hard to imagine any entity having the intestinal fortitude to attempt any new greenfield interprovincial infrastructure, which is federally regulated, which means the ruling alliance would laugh you off Parliament Hill for even showing up with your briefcase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US is not far behind; the only significant interstate gas pipeline to go into service in the past few years has been the Mountain Valley Pipeline which was many years delayed by swarming activist attacks, and was completed at double the initial cost estimate (MVP was first proposed in 2014, and was scheduled to come onstream in 2018; it finally started flowing gas in 2024). A more realistic reading of the current US natural gas interstate pipeline system is this: In July 2020 the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a large and critical new pipe that would have taken excess Appalachia gas to a thirsty US east coast, which was six years in planning, was shelved<\/a> despite receiving a 7-2 vote of approval from the United States Supreme Court (from the project cancellation news release: \u201cA series of legal challenges to the project\u2019s federal and state permits has caused significant project cost increases and timing delays. These lawsuits and decisions have sought to dramatically rewrite decades of permitting and legal precedent including as implemented by presidential administrations of both political parties. As a result, recent public guidance of project cost has increased to $8 billion from the original estimate of $4.5 to $5.0 billion\u2026 This new information and litigation risk, among other continuing execution risks, make the project too uncertain to justify investing more shareholder capital.\u201d)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To emphasize just how tough it is to actually build a new pipeline, Dominion Energy, one of the Atlantic Coast partners, took a $2.8 billion charge to earnings in cancelling the project. Think about that. A public company chose to eat a $2.8 billion loss rather than attempt to build a new, approved pipeline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, things are much more complicated than that oversimplification. Texas, for example, has no problems building pipelines within the state. A lot of gas is produced in Texas, and many LNG terminals are or will be located there too. So perhaps that aligns as a path for gas production growth. Similarly, AI data center owners are figuring out that they can build their data centers right alongside gas fields, bypassing a whole bucket of headaches \u2013 no interstate gas pipeline requirements, avoid grid transmission\/distribution power charges, get the things built in months rather than years. So there\u2019s another clear path between producers and consumers that might facilitate added production and consumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But it won\u2019t be all that smooth. Big fields over time become smaller fields, and new developments may well be in other states. The inability to build gas infrastructure will haunt the economy in one way or another. Associated gas may or may not continue to flood the market, the amount of which available is as much a function of oil prices as anything else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then on top of this complicated business, layer in politics. One presidential candidate loathes hydrocarbons, and in past has supported a ban on fracking. The other candidate has sworn to cut energy prices in half, a promise which boggles the mind at the best of times, and causes cranial explosions if he\u2019s including natural gas prices. He wants to cut those<\/em> in half? See: chart above\u2026not sure that is a well-thought-out proposal, not when it comes to natural gas anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Add it all together and it is a market like no other, and it is mighty hard on the head. A wise colleague offered his own version of the above chart, a Rorschach-type interpretation that is probably a better fit for anyone involved in the natural gas business these days. The beast is obvious, if you play in this sandbox:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Whatever. Something will come up out of the blue to send the gas market into more spasms, and in a year gas prices will be fifty cents or twelve dollars or maybe both in one day. Don\u2019t look behind the curtain please. We\u2019re not well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the world desperately needs \u2013 energy clarity. And a few laughs. Pick up The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity,  a<\/em>vailable at <\/em>Amazon.ca<\/a>, <\/em>Indigo.ca<\/a>, or <\/em>Amazon.com.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam here,<\/a> or email Terry here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

With all due respect to Ozzy Osbourne, a guy that lived the rockstar life; who drank enough alcohol to float an aircraft carrier; who took enough drugs to stun a small nation; who survived all that, raised a family, survived to age 76\/counting, and is worth $200 million\u2026that\u2019s not a madman. That\u2019s genius. Well played, sir.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":340729,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691819776,691819423,691826963],"class_list":{"0":"post-340723","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-dominion-energy","9":"tag-lng","10":"tag-methane-ch4","12":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0Natgaschart2.png?fit=1408%2C769&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1qDx","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":264372,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=264372","url_meta":{"origin":340723,"position":0},"title":"IndiGo\u2019s Record Aircraft Order Ignores Climate Action Goals","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"28\/06\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Indian low-cost carrier IndiGo recently made headlines with its record-breaking order of Airbus passenger jets. The deal, worth an estimated $50 billion, is the largest single order in Airbus history.","rel":"","context":"In \"Air India\"","block_context":{"text":"Air India","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=air-india"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-IndiGo.jpeg?fit=1200%2C848&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-IndiGo.jpeg?fit=1200%2C848&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-IndiGo.jpeg?fit=1200%2C848&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-IndiGo.jpeg?fit=1200%2C848&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0-IndiGo.jpeg?fit=1200%2C848&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":264445,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=264445","url_meta":{"origin":340723,"position":1},"title":"India\u2019s Record Aircraft Orders Ignore Climate Goals","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"29\/06\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Indian low-cost carrier IndiGo recently made headlines with its record-breaking order of Airbus passenger jets. The deal, worth an estimated $50 billion, is the largest single order in Airbus history.","rel":"","context":"In \"A320neo\"","block_context":{"text":"A320neo","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=a320neo"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00indigo-cover.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00indigo-cover.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00indigo-cover.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00indigo-cover.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00indigo-cover.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":285099,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=285099","url_meta":{"origin":340723,"position":2},"title":"BBC Planet Earth III\u00a0Exposed","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"26\/10\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIf sea levels rise as predicted within the next 30 years, Raine Island will disappear beneath the waves,\u201d said Sir David. But research by James Cook University, in Australia, suggests that Raine Island has actually been growing in recent years. From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT By Paul\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"BBC Planet Earth III\"","block_context":{"text":"BBC Planet Earth III","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bbc-planet-earth-iii"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/image-719.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/image-719.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/image-719.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/image-719.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/image-719.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":262739,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=262739","url_meta":{"origin":340723,"position":3},"title":"Watch: UN Chief claims fossil fuels are \u2018incompatible with human survival\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"18\/06\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Ant\u00f3nio Guterres lashed out at the fossil fuels industry following a meeting with civil society groups, the Associated Press reported. The industry, he said, is \"trading the future\" for money. Guterres urged them to move \"away from a product incompatible with human survival.\" \"The problem is not simply fossil fuel\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Development\"","block_context":{"text":"Development","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=development"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00Screenshot-2023-06-17-at-07.45.32.png?fit=1200%2C666&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00Screenshot-2023-06-17-at-07.45.32.png?fit=1200%2C666&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00Screenshot-2023-06-17-at-07.45.32.png?fit=1200%2C666&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00Screenshot-2023-06-17-at-07.45.32.png?fit=1200%2C666&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/00Screenshot-2023-06-17-at-07.45.32.png?fit=1200%2C666&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213492,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=213492","url_meta":{"origin":340723,"position":4},"title":"The Energy-crisis is pulling Europe apart","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"14\/08\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Orban points out how the Energy-crisis is pulling Europe apart.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/03460450_2048_1151.jpg?fit=1024%2C576&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/03460450_2048_1151.jpg?fit=1024%2C576&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/03460450_2048_1151.jpg?fit=1024%2C576&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/03460450_2048_1151.jpg?fit=1024%2C576&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":336144,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=336144","url_meta":{"origin":340723,"position":5},"title":"The U.S. Navy proves nuclear is better","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/07\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cBad Boys\u201d Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling, both formerly of the Minnesota-based Center for the American Experiment, just posted an article contending that, in the long run, nuclear energy is cheaper (and better) than wind or solar (though not as cheap as coal or natural gas) despite high up-front capital\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Net zero\"","block_context":{"text":"Net zero","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=net-zero"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0-U.S.-Navy-proves-nuclear-is-better.jpeg?fit=1200%2C772&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0-U.S.-Navy-proves-nuclear-is-better.jpeg?fit=1200%2C772&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0-U.S.-Navy-proves-nuclear-is-better.jpeg?fit=1200%2C772&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0-U.S.-Navy-proves-nuclear-is-better.jpeg?fit=1200%2C772&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0-U.S.-Navy-proves-nuclear-is-better.jpeg?fit=1200%2C772&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/340723","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=340723"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/340723\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":340733,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/340723\/revisions\/340733"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/340729"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=340723"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=340723"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=340723"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}