Feds Admit Fossil Fuels Are Still the Cheapest
A Department of Energy analysis found natural gas is the cheapest residential energy source on the market.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has released its 2024 World Energy Outlook, an annual market forecast regarded as the authoritative standard for global energy analysis. This year's report predicts that fossil fuel demand will peak by 2030, that clean energy sources will generate more than half of the world's energy by the end of the decade, and that global energy prices will decline as traditional energy use phases out.
As many cheered the IEA's report, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) quickly tempered expectations with its own study identifying natural gas as the cheapest residential energy source available. Electricity (energy derived from an electrical current rather than a pipeline) was the most expensive, costing 3.5 times more than natural gas. In real-world terms, households that heat their homes with electricity this winter will pay 75 percent more than those that use natural gas.
The DOE's report tells an inconvenient truth that many governments, including the Biden administration, want to ignore: Fossil fuels are cheap, abundant, and critical to meeting the world's energy needs. Restricting access to these sources will increase costs for consumers, stifle global economic development, and do little to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Fossil fuels meet more than 80 percent of global energy demand, a dominant position that they will likely hold as emerging economies become more industrialized. As people become more prosperous, they will be able to transition away from heating and cooking with dung, which is estimated to prematurely kill 3.7 million people per year through indoor air pollution. Higher levels of wealth allow societies to focus on basic needs, such as sanitation and infrastructure.
Forcing countries to use more expensive forms of energy will keep poor nations poor and hurt industrialized ones too.
In the U.S., consumers are beginning to feel the impacts of state and federal policies that favor certain technologies over cost and reliability. In July, PJM Interconnection, the organization that regulates electricity in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions, announced it was increasing its rates by more than 800 percent. Dwindling supply is driving these cost increases: Baseload power sources have been forced to close because of state-implemented green energy mandates and steep demand forecasts from electric vehicles and data centers.
The U.S. electric grid is not the only one experiencing supply shortfalls. The European Union (E.U.) is expecting total electricity consumption to rise by 60 percent through 2030. To meet demand, the E.U. says it needs to invest 584 billion euros ($632 billion) by the end of the decade. The IEA, meanwhile, projects global consumption will increase by as much as 34 percent. Without access to abundant and affordable energy, consumers will be left paying more for less reliable electricity.
The steep cost of government preferences for renewable energy sources will come with negligible environmental benefits. European countries whose penchant for solar and wind led to the forced closure of nuclear power plants are increasingly turning to coal to provide backup generation when the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing.
While the IEA's utopian world may seem nice, the DOE's report shows that natural gas is still the most affordable energy source available. A rushed transition to renewable sources will increase energy costs while hurting grid reliability and economic mobility.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Is this one of those cases where only dummies trust the government, or are the government numbers good this time?
I tend to trust government numbers when they match more closely to what I'm seeing with my own two eyes. For instance, when all the storefronts are closed in what just a few years ago was a vibrant, public space, and I'm watching large numbers of people run out of stores with their arms full of merchandise, I laugh when I see that *checks Reason articles* the economy is growing at "an impressive clip" or that "crime is cratering".
The good news is... the feds usually quietly revise those numbers a few months later and then I still don't believe them, but at least I know they're going in the right direction. All that's left is lawyerly definitions of 'rising' or 'skyrocketing'.
Seattle, Portland and San Francisco (and much of SoCal) are what happens when you are openly hostile to law enforcement and try overly hard to help "those experiencing homelessness/open addiction". They are rapidly becoming liberal shitholes. With that said, it is still possible for the crime rate to be down nationally. Looking at the FBI Crime Data Explorer for homicide, robbery and ag assault, the crime rate is higher and sometimes much,much higher in Washington, Oregon and California over the past 10 years or so. The trend from this year to last year is mostly meaningless but it won't stop the headline makers from making baseless assumptions.
The government agencies usually provide accurate numbers BASED ON THEIR ASSUMPTIONS, that they carefully hide or misrepresent. Check the assumptions and you’ll know.
As a 45-year veteran in the Nat gas arena, I can tell you that even the IEA has published that they expect Nat gas to be the least expensive energy source through at least 2050.
And, likely, the least 'enviro-damaging', once all the data are in
Not sure who to believe. Your gas is as good as mine.
It’s a shocking revelation.
Remember, remember, the fifth of November.
And solar and wind are still more expensive, on a sunny, windy tropical island whose fuel prices are ravaged by the Jones act.
Garbage!
So, tell us how all those windmills did last summer and winter in Texas.
Did they all keep working through the heat and cold, or did they melt and freeze?
They blew.
It’s because they suck.
+1 We wouldn’t have dwindling baseload supply if Trump would just repeal the Jones Act so that we can pay foreign-owned and staffed ships to transport the electricity from China.
J D Vance was wrong about fossil fuel.
The plan is simple and easy to see for anyone not blinded by her own aspirational narrative. Claim a looming disaster to create a panic. Then impose common-sense regulations to head off the fictional disaster. Then, when your regulations damage the alleged culprit, leading to shortages that cannot be filled by the proposed savior alternatives which cause actual disasters, impose even more regulations like rolling brownouts and rationing, never admitting that an imaginary disaster at some point in the indefinite future could never have been worse than the real here-and-now disaster you created.
"never admitting that an imaginary disaster at some point in the indefinite future could never have been worse than the real here-and-now disaster you created"
That deserves a repeat +100000000000
WORD.
Fossil fuels are not going away any time soon, and if there if there was a way to safely eliminate nuclear waste, then nuclear power would make a big comeback.
There is a way. It's called a breeder reactor. It uses spent nuclear fuel to create new nuclear fuel. The radiation in the left overs decays at a faster rate.
Thanks for the info.
Gen IV for the win.
Hopefully Terrapower's Natrium Kemmerer 1 reactor which broke ground earlier this year in Wyoming goes close to "as planned". Unfortunately, the required initial HALEU fuel (significantly more highly enriched than that used in conventional commercial reactors but significantly less highly enriched than weapons grade or that used to fuel reactors on Navy ships/subs) was to come from Russia but then Ukraine happened and it's now being refined in the US. As I understand it this delays the availability of the fuel and was expected to delay the "go live" date by a couple years although. Although I suspect other unexpected (i.e., "unknown unknowns") delays in other parts of the project would have extended the "go live" date anyway.
It's so refreshing to see the environmentalists' "anti nuclear" fervor die down. Mostly I think that's just because they have been shown to be so, so wrong in their position by nearly killing additional nuclear power generation in the US over the past 50 years -- resulting in more global climate change an they are embarrassed. Perhaps, if were more charitable, I could attribute the reduction in their fervor to them understanding newer safer (both from "meltdown" and "waste" products standpoint) designs however that would require them to actually understand risks and engineering but their actions over the past 50 years does not suggest that's the case so I'm not feeling very charitable.
That said, even at that, fossil fuels still aren’t going away anytime soon.
Cheap abundant energy from nuclear power down copper lines to every home is great for the homes that sit in place and don’t move, but for pretty much everything else fossil fuels are still going to be an order of magnitude (or more) lighter and/or more energy dense for at least a generation. With unlimited power, you can transform CO2 into organic fuel and back and use and clean up lithium effortlessly… and barring some as-yet-undiscovered thermodynamic magic… you would *still* choose fossil/organic fuels as you could produce them more abundantly and transport them more easily. Portable nuclear would/could displace fossil fuels but given the (un)likelihood of building out current nuclear power and supporting it with breeder reactors… portable seems to be just this side of as-yet-undiscovered thermodynamic magic at best.
Even just economically, if everybody else is competing with each other to buy up the lithium to charge their electric lawn mowers in their garage, petroleum producers would be giving away free gas at local gas stations that only old, backwards ICE lawnmower owners could use.
Trains, planes, and ships require high energy density storage. Trains might be converted to electric by replacing the diesel part of the diesel-electric with wires from a stationary power plant, but that is a large and costly infrastructure change.
Nuclear powered freighters are possible but very unlikely, so some chemical storage composed of carbon bound to hydrogen atoms will have to do.
No, it wouldn’t. The democrats and their NGO’s will never allow it. Thats why you can’t get nuclear power plants built.
Nuclear plants are mainly being built in China (25) and India (7) today. France (1), Turkey (2), Russia (2), Korea (2), Slovakia (1), Bangladesh (2). None of those have a damn thing to do with domestic US politics. All of them are highly statist when it comes to building reactors. There is NO free market demand for constructing nuclear reactors. Only political demand.
Microsoft disagrees.
Word
You don't understand the difference between reopening and constructing?
Ok Jeff.
The US regulatory burden makes nuclear uneconomical, not technical or safety.
Well maybe. What part of the regulatory burden isn't safety? The free market will NEVER deal with actual safety costs. The industry doesn't even cover its own insurance costs. When you're asking govt to cover 90% of the insurance costs - then govt imposes regulations. When the free market covers those insurance costs, then nuclear is no longer built.
JFucked is to be ignored; a steaming pile of lefty shit. Tell us about masks again, asshole.
Pretty sure everyone but the “Artsy-actors of $cience” (propagandists) have known that all along.
Throwing solar panels all over your car STILL can’t push your car down the road at 80mph now can it.
Well, you can. Sort of. But not really practical.
https://www.solarcarchallenge.org/challenge/
"The schedule was the same throughout the trip. Get up early and flip up the solar panels on the car to take advantage of the low-level light. After two hours, the battery would be 95 percent full and ready for the first driver."
"Competing solar vehicles were allowed 5kW hours of stored energy, that's about 10% of what's needed for the roughly 1,860 mile distance"
"First place in the Challenger class was Belgium's Innoptus Infinite, with an average overall speed of about 55 miles per hour. The addition of a retractable fin at the top allowed the car to sail with the wind, rather than fight against it, and may have helped give the Innoptus Solar Team the edge during reportedly high gusts."
"It looks like a satellite and was doing a blistering 35 mph on Highway 62"
"A 560-pound vehicle"
Interesting but a FAR cry from "practical".
It’s an engineering exercise.
So long as ‘Guns’ against the citizenry isn’t part of it…
I’m actually a huge fan of engineering; even solar for its practical purposes of which seems to be getting ignored by ‘Gun’ funded pipe-dreams.
Course if it was practical it wouldn't need 'Gun' involvement in the first place.
In real-world terms, households that heat their homes with electricity this winter will pay 75 percent more than those that use natural gas.
Meh. My primary heat fuel is wood. It’s free (not including my labor), and I’m not reliant on any "energy" provider.
"Unsettled"
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/unsettled--what-climate-science-tells-us-what-it-doesnt-and-why-we-get-it-wrong/26774806/item/46959912/?mkwid=%7cdc&pcrid=77447028765180&pkw=&pmt=be&slid=&product=46959912&plc=&pgrid=1239149900900141&ptaid=pla-4581046492312219%3aaud-805998392&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Shopping+-+High+Vol+Frontlist+-+Under+%2410&utm_term=&utm_content=%7cdc%7cpcrid%7c77447028765180%7cpkw%7c%7cpmt%7cbe%7cproduct%7c46959912%7cslid%7c%7cpgrid%7c1239149900900141%7cptaid%7cpla-4581046492312219%3aaud-805998392%7c&msclkid=3c1f42f5fc361b3db2f825d754283b3d#idiq=46959912&edition=41750704
Scientist tired of the dishonesty and outright lies, and he has the numbers to support it.
Better: “Climate Uncertainty and Risk” by Judith Curry
Now on my list. TY.
My goodness! It is priced as a university text. Gonna buy it anyhow; I can afford it if it saves us from leakin' Joe's EV mandate.
Obama said it out loud many years ago. Come up with a plan. Be nice to people and offer incentives to people to get on board. When that does not work, create a crisis. Exaggerate things. Make it painful for people to refuse to get on board.
See what is happening?