Natural Gas vs. Subsidized Renewables Is No Contest
A “fractivist” ended the recent Otsego County Natural Gas Advisory Committee’s meeting by intoning the following statement:
A dollar spent on natural gas is one less dollar spent on renewables.
Very deep, but what does this mean? It’s probably about subsidies, so let’s scroll back to Economics 101.
Demand determines where money is spent in free markets. However, in command-and-control societies, the money goes where the kings and commissars (the elites) deem it best. Our society is a little of both, but thankfully, still more of the former. So, in spite of loan guarantees, tax credits, state supported rebates, state mandates and quotas, direct subsidies and grants, and manipulated tariffs, renewables still fail to make the market.
Take solar heated homes. After decades of popularization and righteous approval, and with tons of subsidies, solar heated homes are still marginal in the United States. According to the 2010 Census (American Community Survey), there are only 38,000 in the entire country. In contrast, there are 57,000,000 homes heated with natural gas. Why? Natural gas is cheaper, more reliable, more adaptable to a mass market (i.e., scaleable), and more builder friendly. In other words, people like it.
This holds true for wind, biomass, hydro, wave, geothermal and other forms of renewable energy. Renewables gobble up massive subsidies and, yet, are nowhere near fossil fuel pricing. Competitive? Not even with the pork barrel.
But, hey, that doesn’t mean people can’t make a buck on them. Massive subsidies attract the wheeler/dealers and the crony capitalists. Never mind the business wont fly. When Uncle Sam picks up the tab, roll ‘em, and let it ride! More money where that came from, baby!
Solyndra, anyone? Or Evergreen Solar? One third of the companies in the renewable segment underwritten by the stimulus bill are flirting with bankruptcy. No problemo! Uncle Sam picks up the tab.
And, get this. When First Solar was found by the government to be unable to “meet requirements in time,” the company experienced production drops and a stock market slide. That didn’t prevent First Solar from picking up new guaranteed loans while selling off solar farms to Exelon and General Electric. Now blue chip Exelon and General Electric are on the renewable dole. Go figure!
There’s a better way for government to support renewables, a way that takes the government out of venture capitalist game of picking winners and losers, a game it has never played well. Perhaps that offers fodder for a future post.
In the meantime, there’s natural gas. If folks could pull themselves away from the Josh Fox press and actually go to the raw data and statistics coming out of the states (and countries) with shale production, they’d see an economic uptick, with acceptable risk, in oil and gas production, in baseload electricity, in manufacturing, and in chemicals. They’d see economic growth in other words … and jobs. Natural gas will also play an increasing role in transportation as infrastructure expands. Witness Otsego County’s recent decisions on natural gas fueled vehicles. Also, witness the opposition, driven by ideology over economics.
Renewable purists can always buy a mule, card wool for clothing, cook over a campfire and walk the trails to town. (Yeah, road tar and asphalt are hydrocarbon products.) That way, they can signal their moral support to the renewables mentioned at the Natural Gas Advisory Committee while making sure their dollars don’t go to a natural gas company.
Any takers?
Note: A version of this article appeared in the Oneonta Star.

Dano
Posted at 22:33h, 29 JulyYour cynical, sarcastic language is so biased it undermines your point and your credibility. Interesting read though.
Tom Shepstone
Posted at 23:09h, 29 JulyBiased – yes. We are definitely biased in favor of natural gas development, energy independence and economic freedom. No apologies.
Kim Feil
Posted at 08:55h, 30 JulyPlease address these issues on natural gas…Besides the water waste and disposal issues and the related seismic events, there is the failure of emission control technologies and accident prevention layered protocols to prevent ….
1) drilling hazards like drilling mud that “dries and flys into the air”, Bentonite’s MSDS says it is toxic to the lungs
2) fracking silicia dust blowing off the sites (silicosis is a permanant disease)
3) flowback emissions they try to call “steam” but has hydrocarbons than can and HAS killed a worker last January-even Green Completion equipment is late to be deployed and exposes us to “top flowback” water vapors
4) diesel emissions in neighborhoods during all phases of the life cycle of the wells (diesel has benzene in it and is a carcinogen).
5) accidents that should be a zero tolerance in urban areas and the acknowledgement that the build out being so big that aggregate emission events and spills are not an “acceptable risk”
6) methane leaks that speed up climate change
7) piping that is earthquake and leak proof over the test of time
Tom Shepstone
Posted at 11:22h, 30 JulyI suppose you think this list is impressive but each and every one of these is a supposition. Let’s have some facts.
Concerned Scientist
Posted at 15:20h, 30 JulyI am 100% for deploying solar as fast as we can where it makes sense. This blog loses me when it puts up anti-solar nonsense or canned right wing attacks on solar.
As someone who does not stand to benefit financially from shale gas, the main reason I support it is the environmental upside. It is way better than coal and significantly better than oil from a GHG and air pollution perspective. It is also much better from a land use perspective than coal. As long as we are burning coal, shale gas is a huge winner from an environmental perspective.
There are plenty of oil and gas companies that go bankrupt. does that mean that gas is not a good fuel? No. It means their ideas did not work out. that is what happened with Solyndra and the others. They were committed to ideas that didn’t turn out as well as some other ideas. Plus the chinese are dumping their solar panels here at below cost to try to crush American companies.
Full speed ahead with wind, solar, tidal, hydro, geothermal and natural gas until we stop burning coal altogether.
J Howard
Posted at 21:41h, 30 JulyDick
Great article. As always you have succinctly stated your point of view. Many thanks for your efforts on behalf of the upstate propery owners.
Thanks again.
Bill desRosiers
Posted at 15:26h, 31 JulyDick, as usual great job, I really like how your work ticked off so many people who think the taxpaying citizens of this country should be forced to spend money on technology that is neither efficient nor cost effective. Using their wisdom, I think Coca-Cola should be forced to stop making sugary drinks and focus exclusively on fresh fruit juices. I mean, after all, fresh fruit juice is so much better for us than soda. Furthermore, the US government should use its tax revenue to make this change.
Does this sound stupid? I hope so because the argument from anti-natural gas is profoundly stupid.
Without rambling on for hours, nobody is stopping you from using solar power. Pay for it yourself and stop using electricity and fossil fuels (which nobody makes you uses) everyday. Then come back to this website and make comments about a life only powered by solar.
I challenge anyone who reads this blog and supports natural gas, growing economies, new job creation to speak up. Write the EID team to share your stories and feelings with them.