Ed. Note: Yesterday, ten amendments limiting HB 50 – Carbon Storage were defeated in the Alaska legislature, indicating a path to passage. See the comment section for more information.

“To summarize, Alaska’s Carbon Storage bill ranks among the worst of the worst. When was the last time you as an Alaskan were asked if you wanted to participate in a carbon reduction strategy at all, especially considering our limited footprint on the global scale?”

Governor Mike Dunleavy’s “Carbon Management and Monetization Bill Package” is double trouble for Alaska. HB 50/SB 49 – Carbon Storage, introduced by Dunleavy at the beginning of the 33^rd session (2023–2024), is coupled with a carbon offset bill, HB 49/SB 48. “The package consists of two pieces of legislation focusing on a carbon offset program; and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) program”

The carbon offset legislation (“tree bill”) passed last session despite unanimous public testimony in opposition. The…

“Do we need a clean energy industry that depends on government handouts forever? Yes, if you ascribe to the climate disaster mantra…. Does anyone consider letting market forces drive technology development?”

An op-ed in Monday’s Houston Chronicle, “Houston is making a losing bet on fossil fuels,” greeted visitors to CERAWeek. Author Randall Morton attacked oil company CEOs and Houston business leaders for defending a “declining” industry. His opening sentence? “Leaders of the oil and gas industry are in Houston for CERAWeek, grappling with the inevitable decline of the industry.”

Morton then goes after the “economic development leaders at the Greater Houston Partnership [who] are doubling down on this declining industry.” He specifically identifies the GHP’s Energy Transition Initiative – hydrogen and carbon capture – as failed technologies.

Fair enough, but he misses a critical point. …

The inherent unreliability of wind power is highlighted by the recent experience in Texas.

I have written extensively about the intermittent nature of wind power (here, here, and here), highlighting that the only way wind power has survived and continues to increase is through federal tax subsidies. Wind proponents have long argued that the intermittent nature of wind is offset by over-building wind generation, based on the theory that the wind is always blowing somewhere.

The reality that the wind is not always blowing where it is needed, even over very large areas, is highlighted by the fact that wind power in Texas has been declining.

Total wind power generation in January 2024 was less than in January 2023. According to Reuters in an article published on February 16, 2024:

Cumulative wind power output in 2023 was 4,500,000 MWh, compared to 4,400,000 MWh in 2022, LSEG data shows.

“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”

– Milton Friedman

It was supposed to be a ten year window to allow commercial nuclear power to prove its economy and safety. But the Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act of 1957 (Price-Anderson Act), capping damage claims and establishing a fund “to protect the public and to encourage the development of the atomic energy industry,” is still with us today, some two-thirds of a century later.

The 1957 law’s limit of $60 million per plant (about 10x in today’s dollars) was supplemented by an up-to-$500 million indemnification guarantee per accident. [1] These provisions, vetted among the parties, was just enough to remove a major barrier to the commercialization of nuclear power for electric utilities and for Westinghouse, GE, and others to build.…