MDN’s Energy Stories of Interest: Tue, Jun 24, 2025 [FREE ACCESS]

OTHER U.S. REGIONS: New York launches first nuclear energy project in US in 15 years; NATIONAL: What if the foundation of the climate scare was a calculated lie?; Natural gas price slides below $3.90 as momentum cools after failed breakout; How the end of carbon capture could spark a new industrial revolution; INTERNATIONAL: Oil settles down 7% after Iran attacks US military base in Qatar, not tankers; Global turmoil proves urgency of energy independence; The U.N. Human Rights Council’s plan to crush the fossil fuels industry; Gas power is making China dependent on LNG shipping.

OTHER U.S. REGIONS

New York launches first nuclear energy project in US in 15 years
NTD/John Haughey
On June 23, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced the development of a new zero-emission advanced nuclear power plant in Upstate New York, marking the first nuclear energy project in the U.S. in over 15 years and the state’s first in 50 years. Directed to the New York Power Authority, the initiative aims to construct a facility with at least one gigawatt of electricity capacity to bolster the state’s stressed electric grid and support its clean energy goals. Hochul emphasized energy independence and supply chain security, highlighting the need for reliable power to attract manufacturers and ensure affordability. The project, potentially involving small modular reactors, will involve evaluating technologies and locations, with possible private partnerships. This move aligns with broader national efforts to revive nuclear energy, despite past challenges like cost overruns, as seen in recent projects like Plant Vogtle in Georgia. [MDN: This is too little, too late to save NY, but at least Hochul is bucking her radicalized base. It shows she may be willing to buck them on natgas pipelines, too.]

NATIONAL

What if the foundation of the climate scare was a calculated lie?
Issues & Insights
The article from Issues & Insights argues that the foundation of the climate change narrative is built on a deliberate falsehood, driven by political motives rather than scientific evidence. It cites a paper by MIT’s Richard Lindzen and Princeton’s William Happer, who assert that CO2 emissions do not cause catastrophic climate change or extreme weather, challenging the EPA’s Endangerment Finding. They argue that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas with diminishing impact as levels rise, and the UN’s IPCC reports are government-controlled, prioritizing political agendas over science. The article claims the 1995 IPCC report was altered to falsely suggest human influence on climate, a distortion perpetuated since. It portrays climate alarmism as a tool for political power and financial gain, dismissing the “97% consensus” as misleading and highlighting public skepticism, as evidenced by consistent polls ranking climate change low among concerns. [MDN: The bottom line here is that most people, who have common sense, don’t believe the climate hysteria the left is peddling. People can sniff out a lie a mile away, and man-made catastrophic global warming is one of the biggest lies of them all.]

Natural gas price slides below $3.90 as momentum cools after failed breakout
TradersUnion.com/Jainam Mehta
On June 23, 2025, Traders Union reported that natural gas prices fell below $3.90, settling at $3.87 per million Btu, following a rejection of a high at $4.13. The price drop was attributed to fading momentum after a failed breakout attempt, with market dynamics showing weakened bullish sentiment. Key support levels are identified between $3.73 and $3.83, which traders are closely monitoring for potential stabilization or further declines. The article highlights a cautious market outlook, with technical indicators suggesting a lack of sustained upward pressure. Factors such as recent heat waves and geopolitical tensions were noted but did not prevent the price slide, as supply dynamics and reduced demand expectations weighed heavily. Traders are advised to watch for a potential breakdown below the support range or a renewed push toward resistance levels, with the market poised for volatility amid these conditions. [MDN: While weather, war, and other factors play a role, sometimes it appears that charts and software play a bigger role in where the price of natgas goes. It’s frustrating and befuddling.]

How the end of carbon capture could spark a new industrial revolution
The Conversation/Andres Clarens
The U.S. Department of Energy’s decision to retract $3.7 billion in grants for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, as outlined in an article from The Conversation, may unexpectedly drive innovation in American manufacturing. Previously, CCS was seen as vital for reducing industrial carbon emissions by capturing and storing CO2 underground, particularly in hard-to-decarbonize sectors like chemicals and cement. However, the policy shift under the Trump administration could force industries to adopt alternative emissions-reduction strategies, such as energy efficiency, electrification, and zero-carbon hydrogen. This change might accelerate the development of sustainable technologies, potentially sparking a new industrial revolution. While CCS has faced challenges like high costs and project failures, this funding cut could redirect focus toward more immediate and effective decarbonization methods, fostering innovation and competitiveness in U.S. industry while addressing climate goals. [MDN: We would argue CCS isn’t necessary at all. However, the point of this article is that Americans are creative, and Trump’s clawing back of big money dedicated to CCS isn’t the horrible disaster the left makes it out to be. It may actually accomplish the same goals of the left in a shorter period of time!]

INTERNATIONAL

Oil settles down 7% after Iran attacks US military base in Qatar, not tankers
Reuters/Arathy Somasekhar
Oil prices plummeted over 7% on Monday, with Brent crude and U.S. West Texas Intermediate both dropping $5.53 to $71.48 and $68.51 per barrel, respectively, after Iran refrained from disrupting oil and gas tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passage for a fifth of global oil supply. Instead, Iran retaliated against U.S. airstrikes on its nuclear facilities by attacking a U.S. military base in Qatar, causing no casualties. Early concerns in Asia drove Brent up nearly 6%, but prices fell nearly 9% in after-hours trading as no further Iranian attacks materialized. Analysts suggest that without escalation or disruption to oil flows, geopolitical risk premiums may ease. QatarEnergy reported no interruptions, and while some oil majors evacuated staff from Iraqi oilfields, the Strait remained open. Investors remain cautious, with potential for price spikes if tensions escalate further. [MDN: While war is not amusing, what happened yesterday was. Iran is soiling its pants after Trump bombed its nuke program into oblivion and threatened he would come after the Mullahs next. The Mullahs told us, “We’re going to send a few missiles at the base in Qatar.” They gave us enough time to evacuate the base and line up our anti-missile defenses, which easily batted those missiles out of the sky. And that’s it. Iran didn’t bomb energy fields, didn’t block the Strait of Hormuz, didn’t do anything. They essentially surrendered (“please don’t kill us!”) without calling it that. And oil (as we predicted) went back down—into the $60s in the case of WTI. Back to the perfect zone.]

Global turmoil proves urgency of energy independence
CO2 Coalition/Vijay Jayaraj
The article argues that the pursuit of renewable energy sources like wind and solar, driven by climate agendas, has led wealthy democracies to neglect their domestic fossil fuel resources, creating energy vulnerabilities exposed by geopolitical conflicts involving major oil and gas suppliers like Russia and Iran. It criticizes the high costs and unreliability of renewables, noting that Europe’s dependence on Russian gas caused economic hardship when supplies were disrupted, while OPEC’s leverage exacerbates price spikes that harm the poor. The piece highlights vast untapped fossil fuel reserves in the U.S., Canada, and India, arguing that trillions misspent on subsidized renewables should have funded exploration and infrastructure to ensure energy security. Instead, it claims, policies vilifying hydrocarbons have starved the fossil fuel industry, guaranteeing tighter supplies and higher prices, and urges resource-rich nations to prioritize domestic drilling and mining to avoid future energy crises. [MDN: We must continue to expose the Big Lie that unreliable renewables are the future of energy. They are not. Fossil energy is the future.]

The U.N. Human Rights Council’s plan to crush the fossil fuels industry
Energy Security and Freedom/Tom Shepstone
The article from Energy Security and Freedom criticizes the United Nations Human Rights Council’s plan to fundamentally restructure the global economy under the guise of climate action and human rights. It argues that the UN’s agenda, rooted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, seeks to impose a carbon market and restrictions on travel, meat consumption, and utilities, which the author views as an overreach threatening individual freedoms and national sovereignty. The piece highlights the UN’s collaboration with the World Economic Forum and NGOs like the National Resources Defense Council, accusing them of pushing a radical environmental narrative that prioritizes centralized control over practical energy solutions. It suggests that these policies could destabilize economies, particularly in the U.S., and calls for resistance against such globalist initiatives. The author advocates for defunding NGOs and redirecting focus to practical energy policies that ensure security and freedom, citing Donald Trump’s election as a public rejection of these plans. [MDN: A fantastic/must-read post from our friend Tom Shepstone, exposing the UN for the fraudulent, tyrannical organization it is. There is NO REASON we should still support or belong to the UN. Time to kick them out of this country, and to end ALL funding.]

Gas power is making China dependent on LNG shipping
Maritime Executive/Yu Aiqun, Maggie Zheng
China’s rapid expansion of gas-fired power plants is increasing its reliance on imported liquefied natural gas (LNG), making LNG shipping a critical component of its energy strategy. With gas power capacity growing, particularly in coastal regions like Guangdong, where 70% of gas plants depend on imported LNG, China faces vulnerabilities due to global gas price volatility and geopolitical risks, as seen during the 2022 Ukraine crisis when soaring LNG prices halted many Guangdong plants. Despite gas being promoted as a cleaner alternative to coal, its high cost—$30-40 more per megawatt-hour—and supply uncertainties limit its role in China’s energy mix, where it constitutes only 3.2% of power generation compared to coal’s dominance. The nation’s focus on renewables and its “dual carbon goals” further complicates gas’s position, as its fossil fuel nature and import dependence make it a risky and expensive detour in China’s energy transition. [MDN: The more China uses natural gas for power generation, the more it relies on importing LNG. That’s the upshot of this article. However, China is still building and using far more coal-fired plants than gas-fired plants. That’s the reality, and why the West’s insistence on meeting “climate goals” is nonsensical. China alone undoes all of the “gains” made by the West because of its enormous coal usage.]