In a memorable early scene of the inaugural episode of AMC’s thriller series The Walking Dead, the show’s main protagonist Rick Grimes makes his way past a miles long traffic jam on Atlanta’s I-85. The cars had been abandoned due to a zombie apocalypse, and Grimes was left to travel into the city by horseback.
Last week, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released its latest annual forecast of U.S. energy, the Annual Energy Outlook 2018 (AEO2018). This year’s edition goes out to 2050 and provides a look at where the agency thinks production, consumption, imports, and exports of all major energy sources in the United States are headed.
Among the countless issues and storylines that drove the historic 2016 presidential election, few if any drew a more striking contrast than the Trump and Clinton campaigns’ respective approach to energy policy, and coal in particular. Mrs.
Yogi Berra once famously said “A nickel ain’t worth a dime anymore.” If he had been talking about EPA’s Regional Haze regulations, he could have been talking about a whole lot more nickels--$2 billion dollars worth to be exact.
It may not have received as much attention as marquee Senate and House races, but energy was very much on the ballot in the 2018 midterms.
The Global Energy Institute just released a scorecard covering the results of some of the most significant ballot referendums on Election Day.
Even in places that are considered strongholds for environmental activists, a clear trend emerged—voters are reluctant to force government restrictions, mandates and taxes on our domestic energy resources.
The world is hungry for energy. The Department of Energy (DOE) projects that global energy consumption will increase nearly 30% between 2015 and 2040, driven primarily by developing countries seeking energy access to lift their populations out of poverty.