Green and Free Market solutions

[Crafty_Dog]

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4211882-tesla-sales-soaring-competition-failing?ifp=0

[DougMacG]

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4211882-tesla-sales-soaring-competition-failing?ifp=0

Great story happening in real time.  Clayton Christensen Disruptive Innovation proved right in so many ways.  The market dominating players cannot pull off this big of a disruptive innovation because their own revenues are the casualty.

I wrote my Tesla test drive review here last January:
https://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1411.msg107876;topicseen#msg107876

One problem for the people who buy EV's for the clean energy side of it is that we still use coal to power the grid.  If we want to move the transportation energy sector to the grid, build nuclear.  How does the charge overnight strategy work when the wind typically goes down with the sun? 
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/9/17336330/duck-curve-solar-energy-supply-demand-problem-caiso-nrel 
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6254782 

"The problem with solar panels on vehicles is that they don't generate enough electricity to do much of anything."
https://electrek.co/2017/02/28/tesla-model-3-solar-roof-panasonic/

Coal, nuclear, natural gas, choose at least one to increase at a pace at least equal to the demand market.
----
The competitor for the EV should be the natural gas hybrid with its own home 'recharging' systems.  Also, what happened to Hydrogen vehicles?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle
"as of 2014, 95% of hydrogen is made from methane"  [natural gas]

It keeps coming back to natural gas, the cleanest of the fossil fuels.  Thank God (and oil companies and red states) for fracking.

Build nuclear today and drive without CO2 emissions tomorrow.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z3ZjnwbA3s

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/environmental-impacts-of-natural-gas?fbclid=IwAR3E6VVhQ3WYeLi3HoTUQwcqzRgzw23YUWpx5CnAqQoa8M_jcjS2XoNB1eU#.W8pV8vZRfcs

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-natural-gas-will-reduce-global-warming-pollution/?fbclid=IwAR1s9EFw428TLnvFU8UcTQtba-ba8Oux6P7EyQwFND-O9uYxlh8OTE40470

[Crafty_Dog]

Pete Buttigieg’s Highway to Green Heaven
The spending bill gives him new power to force CO2 cuts on states.
By The Editorial Board
Dec. 2, 2021 6:42 pm ET


Progressives are grousing that the tax and spending bill passed by the House doesn’t include an “enforcement mechanism” to reduce greenhouse gases. If only. The fine print grants the Biden Administration new authority to force CO2 reductions across much of the economy.

One provision would give the Federal Highway Administration $50 million “to establish a greenhouse gas performance measure that requires States to set performance targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” The agency would also “establish an incentive structure to reward States that demonstrate the most significant progress”—and “consequences” for those that don’t meet the standard.



This is similar to the Obama Clean Power Plan, which was killed by the courts, and the Biden Clean Electricity Payment Program that Sen. Joe Manchin nixed. But the enforcement mechanism would apply to transportation rather than power plants. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg would have broad discretion over the program’s rules.

He’s likely to require states to reduce CO2 emissions from vehicles by heavily subsidizing electric cars or banning internal combustion engines. Mr. Buttigieg could withhold funds from states or require that they spend money on bike paths and public transit. States that exceed the emissions target could get more money to subsidize EVs or bullet trains.


The program may be unconstitutional since it would conscript states into carrying out federal policy. It also runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s non-delegation doctrine that says Congress can’t delegate legislative power to administrative agencies. Democrats want to hand this power to regulators to avoid political accountability for their policies. When higher energy prices materialize, they can duck and cover.

The bill also gives the Environmental Protection Agency $50 million to regulate greenhouse gases economy-wide under the Clean Air Act. This includes smelters, refineries, steel mills, concrete factories, tractors, chain-saws, airplanes, ice rinks, air conditioners and even vending machines—no joke.

In Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the Supreme Court allowed EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as an “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act if it found the emissions endangered public health or welfare. Four Justices dissented, and the Court recently agreed to hear a challenge to the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants. The case gives the Justices an opportunity to revisit Massachusetts v. EPA, and Democrats want to prevent that by explicitly authorizing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases.

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito plans to file an amendment to nix these two anti-fossil fuel provisions on the Senate floor. They are another example of destructive policy that progressives are trying to sneak through in their some 2,400-page bill, which Americans will discover after President Biden signs it.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/12/30/chevy-bolt-gm/

[Crafty_Dog]

Americans Should Pay More for Gas, Not Less
There are some glaring holes in the way the U.S. regulates fuel economy and emissions. Understanding how it works (or doesn’t) is key to understanding why oil demand is likely to remain high.
Looser fuel-efficiency standards for SUVs give auto makers an incentive to churn out gas guzzlers. DAMIAN DOVARGANES/ASSOCIATED PRE
By Jinjoo Lee
Jan. 21, 2022 5:30 am ET


They are a jalopy badly in need of repairs, but America’s fuel-economy rules have been rolling along since 1975, burning more oil and spewing more pollution than their builders intended. Still, when it comes to one of the few roadworthy policies available, a tuneup makes more sense than a trip to the scrap heap.

Many economists will tell you that higher gas taxes make more sense than forcing car makers to sell more efficient vehicles, and they are right. Politics is the art of the possible, though. Last month, the Biden administration tightened up the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards that the Trump administration had loosened. Unfortunately, CAFE’s design flaws remain: Auto makers selling larger cars face less stringent targets than those selling smaller ones. That difference is generally even wider between passenger cars and light trucks—a category that actually includes larger crossovers and some SUVs, such as the Toyota Rav4, Nissan Rogue and Ford Escape. The discrepancy mattered less in the 1970s when most people drove normal passenger cars.

Projected
Actual
2012
'15
'20
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
%
Economists point out that the size-based feature gives car companies an incentive to manufacture and sell bigger vehicles: to make fuel economy standards easier to meet. There is no clear mechanism in the rule that works to limit the number of gas guzzlers an auto maker sells. There also are several loopholes, such as credit given for technologies that don’t directly improve fuel economy.

“The real-world stringency of footprint-based CAFE standards is by far the most important thing the market doesn’t understand about future oil demand,” says Bob McNally, president of consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group. “I’m shocked it has persisted this long.”

The numbers speak for themselves. Even as standards have tightened over time, the actual sales-adjusted fuel economy rating of new vehicles has been unchanged at around 25 miles per gallon since 2014. That was the year Saudi Arabia and others flooded the oil market to gain market share against U.S. shale.

No wonder U.S. vehicles are among the least efficient globally: The average fuel consumption of newly sold U.S. light-duty vehicles, which include passenger cars and light trucks, exceeds the world’s average by 21% and Europe’s by 46%, according to the International Energy Agency. CAFE hasn’t bent the curve in absolute terms either. Carbon dioxide emissions from motor gasoline (excluding ethanol) were 23% higher in 2019 than in 1980 and the U.S. transportation sector’s motor gasoline consumption has risen by 39% over the same period, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Estimated fuel-economy rating of new​vehicles, adjusted for sales volume
EPA projected fuel-economy targets
2008
'10
'15
'20
15
20
25
30
35
miles per gallon
That makes the EPA’s bold 2026 model year goal—55 miles per gallon based on lab tests and 40 based on how people really drive—look iffy. It depends on gas prices and what vehicles people prefer. Detroit certainly won’t be hiring the EPA’s forecasters. Back in 2012, the agency expected about a third of U.S. new vehicle sales in 2020 to come from the sale of light trucks. They actually accounted for more than half.


The EPA says final standards for model years 2023 to 2026 can be reached with a “growing percentage of electrified vehicles,” projecting that electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids will account for 17% of cars manufactured in 2026. That is up from less than 3% of U.S. light-duty vehicle sales in 2021. That seems ambitious.

The rules have evolved over time to close some loopholes that previously reduced compliance costs without boosting gas mileage. For example, EVs were often double-counted and so-called flex-fuel vehicles able to use more ethanol were treated as if their drivers regularly used high-ethanol fuels, giving gas guzzlers stellar mileage on paper. Those flex-fuel vehicles rarely operated on high-ethanol blends and offered no improvement in real-world efficiency, according to a 2017 policy paper by Prof. Michael Greenstone at the University of Chicago, Prof. Cass Sunstein at Harvard and Sam Ori, executive director at the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago.

Projected
Actual
2012
'15
'20
200
220
240
260
280
300
grams per mile
Taxing carbon emissions or gasoline directly, as Europe does, would be far more cost-efficient. An analysis by Prof. Mark Jacobsen at the University of California, San Diego, showed that the cost per gallon saved through the fuel-economy standard is three to six times higher than a gasoline tax. But raising federal gasoline taxes, which have stayed at an inflation-unadjusted 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993, would be political suicide. Carbon taxes are deeply unpopular, too.

Instead, economists have come up with some tweaks government agencies might be able to implement within the existing statute. In a policy paper published last year, Prof. Koichiro Ito at the University of Chicago suggested getting rid of the distinction between cars and light trucks, arguing “there is no economic rationale that can justify less stringent economy regulations for SUVs than other passenger cars.” Prof. Ito suggests that the Transportation Department might be able to do this on its own. Messrs. Greenstone, Sunstein and Ori propose a cap-and-trade system that starts with a limit on a vehicle’s lifetime fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions from each year’s new vehicle sales, suggesting that the EPA should have broad discretion to do this.


Fuel-economy standards, laments Mr. Ori, “have a deceptive way of being palatable, specifically because car buyers don’t actually see the cost broken out.”

Luckily for government agencies, plenty of research has been done to point out exactly what those costs are and where the holes are located. They can still use the tools they have to tighten the screws and soup up this clunker.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/with-lithium-prices-up-ninefold-report-underscores-u-s-dependence-on-foreign-minerals_4397391.html?utm_source=China&utm_campaign=uschina-2022-04-13&utm_medium=email&est=9Zx%2BL1gOxF1U5qZ%2FiYUfcNi7Y5o0Apl3xBVzYjhcO998GDYcTOyHvo1pai7KxdThJq9F

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.westernjournal.com/man-plugs-80k-electric-truck-house-finds-will-take-4-days-charge/?fbclid=IwAR3RTqv1LR7uS5_ydqjCxK1x_-lsstEZfqq35c7oOp54t7c0bmCRFB7JIso

[DougMacG]

That's probably with ordinary house current (coal).  With a solar panel it would be much worse.

[G M]

https://www.westernjournal.com/man-plugs-80k-electric-truck-house-finds-will-take-4-days-charge/?fbclid=IwAR3RTqv1LR7uS5_ydqjCxK1x_-lsstEZfqq35c7oOp54t7c0bmCRFB7JIso

It takes a special kind of stupid to buy an electric truck.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/fuel-costs-of-electric-vehicles-overtake-gas-powered-cars-study_5017783.html?utm_source=News&src_src=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2023-01-30-1&src_cmp=breaking-2023-01-30-1&utm_medium=email&est=N5NveFq6nG3d4CwHdNaaQGgauPHlCSXF5FOocqxqcxPxnN9XAqGkaBn%2FMy0HwgdmEyfN

[G M]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/fuel-costs-of-electric-vehicles-overtake-gas-powered-cars-study_5017783.html?utm_source=News&src_src=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2023-01-30-1&src_cmp=breaking-2023-01-30-1&utm_medium=email&est=N5NveFq6nG3d4CwHdNaaQGgauPHlCSXF5FOocqxqcxPxnN9XAqGkaBn%2FMy0HwgdmEyfN

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/01/electric_vehicles_are_an_ideologically_driven_economic_misadventure.html

[G M]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/fuel-costs-of-electric-vehicles-overtake-gas-powered-cars-study_5017783.html?utm_source=News&src_src=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2023-01-30-1&src_cmp=breaking-2023-01-30-1&utm_medium=email&est=N5NveFq6nG3d4CwHdNaaQGgauPHlCSXF5FOocqxqcxPxnN9XAqGkaBn%2FMy0HwgdmEyfN

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/01/electric_vehicles_are_an_ideologically_driven_economic_misadventure.html

https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/one-electric-car-battery.jpg

[Crafty_Dog]

https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/03/biden-offshore-wind-push-turbines-break-down/?utm_medium=email&pnespid=tLt2WCJGJKcLwOvR.CqxA4CPrw2qWJl5JuKhwLtvoR1mijyDrt3dCi5MOO0q1c5GiIqQAkBO

[Crafty_Dog]

Not So Fast on Electric Cars
Toyota’s CEO delivers a timely warning, and many states echo it.
Allysia Finley hedcutBy Allysia FinleyFollow
Dec. 25, 2022 6:20 pm ET


A Tesla Model 3 at a charging station in Colonie, N.Y., Nov. 22. PHOTO: PAUL HENNESSY/ZUMA PRESS
Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda recently caused the climate lobby to blow a fuse by speaking a truth about battery electric vehicles that his fellow auto executives dare not. “Just like the fully autonomous cars that we were all supposed to be driving by now,” Mr. Toyoda said in Thailand, “I think BEVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than the media would like us to believe.” He added that a “silent majority” in the auto industry share his view, “but they think it’s the trend, so they can’t speak out loudly.”

The Biden administration seems to believe that millions of Americans will rush out to buy electric vehicles if only the government throws enough subsidies at them. Last year’s infrastructure bill included $7.5 billion in grants for states to expand their charging networks. But it’s a problem when even the states are warning the administration that electric vehicles aren’t ready to go mainstream.

Maine notes in a plan submitted to the Federal Highway Administration this summer that “cold temperatures will remain a top challenge” for adoption, since “cold weather reduces EV range and increases charging times.” When temperatures drop to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, the cars achieve only 54% of their quoted range. A vehicle that’s supposed to be able to go 250 miles between charges will make it only 135 miles on average. At 32 degrees—a typical winter day in much of the country—a Tesla Model 3 that in ideal conditions can go 282 miles between charges will make it only 173 miles.

Imagine if the 100 million Americans who took to the road over the holidays were driving electric cars. How many would have been stranded as temperatures plunged? There wouldn’t be enough tow trucks—or emergency medics—for people freezing in their cars.

The Transportation Department is requiring states to build charging stations every 50 miles along interstate highways and within a mile of off-ramps to reduce the likelihood of these scenarios. But most state electrical grids aren’t built to handle this many charging stations and will thus require expensive upgrades. Illinois, for one, warns of “challenges related to sufficient electric grid capacity, particularly in rural areas of the state.”

Charging stations in rural areas with little traffic are also unlikely to be profitable and could become “stranded assets,” as many states warn. Wyoming says out-of-state traffic from non-Tesla electric vehicles would have to increase 100-fold to cover charger costs under the administration’s rules. Tesla has already scoped out premier charging locations for its proprietary network. Good luck to competitors.

New Mexico warns that “poor station maintenance can lead to stations being perpetually broken and unusable, particularly in rural or hard to access locations. If an EV charging station is built in an area without electrical capacity and infrastructure to support its use, it will be unusable until the appropriate upgrades are installed.”

J
Arizona says “private businesses may build and operate a station if a grant pays for the first five years of operations and maintenance” but might abandon the project if it later proves unprofitable. Many other states echo this concern, noting that federal funds could result in stranded assets.

The administration aims to build 500,000 stations, but states will likely have to spend their own money to keep them running. Like other federal inducements, these grants may entice states to assume what could become huge financial liabilities.

Federal funds also come with many rules, including “buy America” procurement requirements, which demand that chargers consist of mostly U.S.-made components. New Jersey says these could “delay implementation by several years” since only a few manufacturers can currently meet them. New York also says it will be challenging to comply with the web of federal rules, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, and a 1960 federal law that bars charging stations in rest areas.

Oh, and labor rules. The administration requires that electrical workers who install and maintain the stations be certified by the union-backed Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program. New Mexico says much of the state lacks contractors that meet this mandate, which will reduce competition and increase costs.

Technical problems abound too. Virginia says fast-charging hardware “has a short track record” and is “prone to malfunctions.” Equipment “previously installed privately in Virginia has had a high failure rate shown in user comments and reports on social media,” and “even compatibility with credit card readers has been unexpectedly complicated.”

A study this spring led by University of California researchers found that more than a quarter of public direct-current fast-charging stations in the San Francisco Bay Area were unusable. Drivers will be playing roulette every time they head to a station. If all this weren’t disconcerting enough, Arizona warns cyber vulnerabilities could compromise customer financial transactions, charging infrastructure, electric vehicles and the grid.

Politicians and auto makers racing to eliminate the internal-combustion engine are bound to crash into technological, logistic and financial realities, as Mr. Toyoda warned. The casualties will be taxpayers, but the administration doesn’t seem to care.

[G M]

EVs are an epic boondoggle. Like everything the left forces on us at government gunpoint.

Not So Fast on Electric Cars
Toyota’s CEO delivers a timely warning, and many states echo it.
Allysia Finley hedcutBy Allysia FinleyFollow
Dec. 25, 2022 6:20 pm ET


A Tesla Model 3 at a charging station in Colonie, N.Y., Nov. 22. PHOTO: PAUL HENNESSY/ZUMA PRESS
Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda recently caused the climate lobby to blow a fuse by speaking a truth about battery electric vehicles that his fellow auto executives dare not. “Just like the fully autonomous cars that we were all supposed to be driving by now,” Mr. Toyoda said in Thailand, “I think BEVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than the media would like us to believe.” He added that a “silent majority” in the auto industry share his view, “but they think it’s the trend, so they can’t speak out loudly.”

The Biden administration seems to believe that millions of Americans will rush out to buy electric vehicles if only the government throws enough subsidies at them. Last year’s infrastructure bill included $7.5 billion in grants for states to expand their charging networks. But it’s a problem when even the states are warning the administration that electric vehicles aren’t ready to go mainstream.

Maine notes in a plan submitted to the Federal Highway Administration this summer that “cold temperatures will remain a top challenge” for adoption, since “cold weather reduces EV range and increases charging times.” When temperatures drop to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, the cars achieve only 54% of their quoted range. A vehicle that’s supposed to be able to go 250 miles between charges will make it only 135 miles on average. At 32 degrees—a typical winter day in much of the country—a Tesla Model 3 that in ideal conditions can go 282 miles between charges will make it only 173 miles.

Imagine if the 100 million Americans who took to the road over the holidays were driving electric cars. How many would have been stranded as temperatures plunged? There wouldn’t be enough tow trucks—or emergency medics—for people freezing in their cars.

The Transportation Department is requiring states to build charging stations every 50 miles along interstate highways and within a mile of off-ramps to reduce the likelihood of these scenarios. But most state electrical grids aren’t built to handle this many charging stations and will thus require expensive upgrades. Illinois, for one, warns of “challenges related to sufficient electric grid capacity, particularly in rural areas of the state.”

Charging stations in rural areas with little traffic are also unlikely to be profitable and could become “stranded assets,” as many states warn. Wyoming says out-of-state traffic from non-Tesla electric vehicles would have to increase 100-fold to cover charger costs under the administration’s rules. Tesla has already scoped out premier charging locations for its proprietary network. Good luck to competitors.

New Mexico warns that “poor station maintenance can lead to stations being perpetually broken and unusable, particularly in rural or hard to access locations. If an EV charging station is built in an area without electrical capacity and infrastructure to support its use, it will be unusable until the appropriate upgrades are installed.”

J
Arizona says “private businesses may build and operate a station if a grant pays for the first five years of operations and maintenance” but might abandon the project if it later proves unprofitable. Many other states echo this concern, noting that federal funds could result in stranded assets.

The administration aims to build 500,000 stations, but states will likely have to spend their own money to keep them running. Like other federal inducements, these grants may entice states to assume what could become huge financial liabilities.

Federal funds also come with many rules, including “buy America” procurement requirements, which demand that chargers consist of mostly U.S.-made components. New Jersey says these could “delay implementation by several years” since only a few manufacturers can currently meet them. New York also says it will be challenging to comply with the web of federal rules, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, and a 1960 federal law that bars charging stations in rest areas.

Oh, and labor rules. The administration requires that electrical workers who install and maintain the stations be certified by the union-backed Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program. New Mexico says much of the state lacks contractors that meet this mandate, which will reduce competition and increase costs.

Technical problems abound too. Virginia says fast-charging hardware “has a short track record” and is “prone to malfunctions.” Equipment “previously installed privately in Virginia has had a high failure rate shown in user comments and reports on social media,” and “even compatibility with credit card readers has been unexpectedly complicated.”

A study this spring led by University of California researchers found that more than a quarter of public direct-current fast-charging stations in the San Francisco Bay Area were unusable. Drivers will be playing roulette every time they head to a station. If all this weren’t disconcerting enough, Arizona warns cyber vulnerabilities could compromise customer financial transactions, charging infrastructure, electric vehicles and the grid.

Politicians and auto makers racing to eliminate the internal-combustion engine are bound to crash into technological, logistic and financial realities, as Mr. Toyoda warned. The casualties will be taxpayers, but the administration doesn’t seem to care.

[Crafty_Dog]

Phil Murphy’s New Jersey Wind Flop
Roughly $1 billion in credits couldn’t save a green energy project, as wind power runs into trouble.
By The Editorial Board
Nov. 5, 2023 4:16 pm ET

Phil Murphy huffed and he puffed, and a giant wind boondoggle blew the New Jersey Governor down. That’s the story of another failed green-energy project, as the follies keep being exposed.

The renewable energy firm Ørsted last week backed out of two megaprojects along the Jersey shore that it started planning in 2019. With his eye on support from the climate lobby for a White House run, Mr. Murphy courted the developments, which were meant to provide electricity for hundreds of thousands of homes. The company says cost overruns have made them impossible, and it wrote off $4 billion for the first nine months of this year.

Mr. Murphy fumed in public, saying the cancellation casts doubt on Ørsted’s “credibility and competence.” The Danish firm blames its withdrawal on rising interest rates and component costs, but it has said little about what made the New Jersey project uniquely impractical. At least for now, the company is moving ahead with wind farms in New England and Maryland.

But it takes two to make a bad deal, and Mr. Murphy wants to shift blame for his poor due diligence on behalf of New Jersey ratepayers. The state prodded power company PSEG into a partnership with Ørsted, and PSEG bought a 25% stake in one of the offshore projects to prop up development. The utility sold its stake this year as cost overruns became critical.

Yet that was exactly when Mr. Murphy doubled down. He signed a bill in July to let Ørsted pocket federal tax credits it would earn from the wind farms, instead of using that money to reduce its electricity rates, as it promised to do in 2019. The change would have cost New Jersey residents up to $1 billion, but affordable energy was never the point. Like many progressive Governors today, Mr. Murphy was all in for the green bragging rights.

The New Jersey bust isn’t the only sign of wind industry woes. BP and Norwegian partner Equinor recently wrote-down a combined $840 million on New York state wind projects. “Offshore wind in the U.S. is fundamentally broken,” a BP clean energy executive told the press Wednesday. Developers often underestimate project costs so much that even a boatload of tax credits can’t make them economical.

The best result of Ørsted’s project failure would be for other states to re-examine their green follies. This is also something for voters to recall when politicians next try to sell their climate virtue.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

[Crafty_Dog]

https://thedailybs.com/2023/11/07/kevin-oleary-reveals-why-clean-energy-stocks-are-tanking/?utm_campaign=james&utm_content=11-8-23%20Daily%20AM&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=Get%20response&utm_term=email

also see

https://americanwirenews.com/ev-manufacturers-forced-to-cut-prices-to-move-out-unwanted-inventory/?utm_campaign=james&utm_content=11-8-23%20Daily%20AM&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=Get%20response&utm_term=email

[Crafty_Dog]

Lucid’s $227,802 EV Loss Leader
The electric-vehicle startup is struggling to find buyers for its cars.
By The Editorial Board
Nov. 9, 2023 6:38 pm ET



Wonder Land: Citing the president’s age lets Democrats off the hook for the political failure of his economic policies. Images: AP/AFP/EPA/Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly
Ford Motor Co. lost $62,016 on each electric vehicle it sold during this year’s third quarter. But that looks like a business success compared to Lucid Motors, the luxury electric-vehicle maker. On Tuesday the EV startup reported losing $227,802 per car sold in the latest quarter.

Like several other EV startups, Lucid went public during the pandemic through a merger with a blank-check company. In November 2021, it reached a stunning market value of $91 billion despite having delivered only 125 cars in its history. It’s been downhill since. Lucid’s stock price has fallen 93% from its peak as losses mount.

In the third quarter, it reported a $630.9 million net loss and $227,802 per car sold, not accounting for its overhead costs. It also cut its production forecast “to prudently align with deliveries”—which in plainer English means demand for its pricey EVs is flagging.

Who would have thought that millions of Americans would not be lining up to pay $125,000 for an EV? Lucid last week slashed prices to jolt demand, but its “affordable” EV still costs $74,900, which is beyond the budgets of most households. The high prices also disqualify buyers from tapping the $7,500 federal tax credit for EVs.

Lucid nonetheless assured investors that it still has $5.5 billion in cash to burn on making cars that consumers don’t seem to want. Lucid’s largest shareholder, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, has poured billions into the company to keep it afloat. It’s no small irony that oil profits are financing an EV unicorn.

By the way, Lucid recently opened a new production facility in Saudi Arabia, whose government has pledged to buy 100,000 of its vehicles. These will run on electricity produced almost entirely by oil and natural gas power plants. Remind us, again, how EVs are supposed to benefit the climate?

This week another EV unicorn, Rivian, reported a $30,648 loss in the third quarter, which was down from $67,329 in the first quarter and $124,162 in the one before that. So maybe there’s hope that Lucid can cut its losses. Still, as the chief financial officer of Mercedes-Benz noted recently, EVs are “a pretty brutal space” and “I can hardly imagine the current status quo is fully sustainable for everybody.”

Brutal indeed. Rarely has an industry been so heavily subsidized to make a product that so few consumers want or can afford to buy.

[Body-by-Guinness]

Several interesting—and damning—points made re EVs below:

3 Reasons There’s Something Sinister With the Big Push for Electric Vehicles
by Nick Giambruno
Electric Vehicles
25 refrigerators.

That’s how much the additional electricity consumption per household would be if the average US home adopted electric vehicles (EVs).

Congressman Thomas Massie—an electrical engineer—revealed this information while discussing with Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation, President Biden’s plan to have 50% of cars sold in the US be electric by 2030.

The current and future grid in most places will not be able to support each home running 25 refrigerators—not even close. Just look at California, where the grid is already buckling under the existing load.

Massie claims, correctly, in my view, that the notion of widespread adoption of electric vehicles anytime soon is a dangerous fantasy based on political science, not sound engineering.

Nonetheless, governments, the media, academia, large corporations, and celebrities tout an imminent “transition” to EVs as if it’s preordained from above.

It’s not.

They’re trying to manufacture your consent for a scam of almost unimaginable proportions.

Below are three reasons why something sinister is going on with the big push for EVs.

But first, a necessary clarification.

You no doubt have heard of the term “fossil fuels” before.

When the average person hears “fossil fuels,” they think of a dirty technology that belongs in the 1800s. Many believe they are burning dead dinosaurs to power their cars.

They also think “fossil fuels” will destroy the planet within a decade and run out soon—despite the fact that, after water, oil is the second most abundant liquid on this planet.

None of these ridiculous notions are true, but many people believe them. Using propaganda terms like “fossil fuels” plays a large role.

Orwell was correct when he said that corrupting the language can corrupt people’s thoughts.

I suggest expunging “fossil fuels” from your vocabulary in favor of hydrocarbons—a much better and more precise word.

A hydrocarbon is a molecule made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms. These molecules are the building blocks of many different substances, including energy sources like coal, oil, and gas. These energy sources have been the backbone of the global economy for decades, providing power for industries, transportation, and homes.

Now, on to the three reasons EVs are a giant scam at best and possibly something much worse.

Reason #1: EVs Are Not Green

The central premise for EVs is they help to save the planet from carbon because they use electricity instead of gas.

It’s astounding so few think to ask, what generates the electricity that powers EVs?

Hydrocarbons generate over 60% of the electricity in the US. That means there’s an excellent chance that oil, coal, or gas is behind the electricity charging an EV.

It’s important to emphasize carbon is an essential element for life on this planet. It’s what humans exhale and what plants need to survive.

After decades of propaganda, Malthusian hysterics have created a twisted perception in many people’s minds that carbon is a dangerous substance that must be reduced to save the planet.

Let’s entertain this bogus premise momentarily and assume carbon is bad.

Even by this logic, EVs do not really reduce carbon emissions; they just rearrange them.

Further, extracting and processing the exotic materials needed to make EVs requires tremendous power in remote locations, which only hydrocarbons can provide.

Additionally, EVs require an enormous amount of rare elements and metals—like lithium and cobalt—that companies mine in conditions that couldn’t remotely be considered friendly to the environment.

Analysts estimate that each EV requires around one kilogram of rare earth elements. Extracting and processing these rare elements produces a massive amount of toxic waste. That’s why it mainly occurs in China, which doesn’t care much about environmental concerns.

In short, the notion that EVs are green is laughable.

It’s simply the thin patina of propaganda that governments need as a pretext to justify the astronomical taxpayer subsidies for EVs.

Reason #2: EVs Can’t Compete Without Government Support

For many years, governments have heavily subsidized EVs through rebates, sales tax exemptions, loans, grants, tax credits, and other means.

According to the Wall Street Journal, US taxpayers will subsidize EVs by at least $393 billion in the coming years—more than the GDP of Hong Kong.

To put that in perspective, if you earned $1 a second 24/7/365—about $31 million per year—it would take you over 12,677 YEARS to make $393 billion.

And that’s not even considering the immense subsidies and government support that have occurred in the past.

Furthermore, governments impose burdensome regulations and taxes on gasoline vehicles to make EVs seem relatively more attractive.

Even with this enormous government support, EVs can barely compete with gasoline vehicles.

According to J.D. Power, a consumer research firm, the average EV still costs at least 21% more than the average gasoline vehicle.

Without government support, it’s not hard to see how the market for EVs would evaporate as they would become unaffordable for the vast majority of people.

In other words, the EV market is a giant mirage artificially propped up by extensive government intervention.

It begs the question, why are governments going all out to push an obviously uneconomic scam?

While they are undoubtedly corrupt thieves and simply stupid, something more nefarious could also be at play.

Reason #3: EVs Are About Controlling You

EVs are spying machines.

They collect an unimaginable amount of data on you, which governments can access easily.

Analysts estimate that cars generate about 25 gigabytes of data every hour.

Seeing how governments could integrate EVs into a larger high-tech control grid doesn’t take much imagination. The potential for busybodies—or worse—to abuse such a system is obvious.

Consider this.

The last thing any government wants is an incident like what happened with the Canadian truckers rebelling against vaccine mandates.

Had the Canadian truckers’ vehicles been EVs, the government would have been able to stamp out the resistance much easier.

Here’s the bottom line.

The people really in charge do not want the average person to have genuine freedom of movement or access to independent power sources.

They want to know everything, keep you dependent, and have the ability to control everything, just like how a farmer would with his cattle. They think of you in similar terms.

That’s why gasoline vehicles have to go and why they are trying to herd us into EVs.

Conclusion

To summarize, EVs are not green, cannot compete with gas cars without enormous government support, and are probably a crucial piece of the emerging high-tech control grid.

The solution is simple: eliminate all government subsidies and support and let EVs compete on their own merits in a totally free market.

But that’s unlikely to happen.

Instead, it’s only prudent to expect them to push EVs harder and harder.

If EVs were simply government-subsidized status symbols for wealthy liberals who want to virtue signal how they think they’re saving the planet, that would be bad enough.

But chances are, the big push for EVs represents something much worse.

Along with 15-minute cities, carbon credits, CBDCs, digital IDs, phasing out hydrocarbons and meat, vaccine passports, an ESG social credit system, and the war on farmers, EVs are likely an integral part of the Great Reset—the dystopian future the global elite has envisioned for mankind.

In reality, the so-called Great Reset is a high-tech form of feudalism.

Sadly, most of humanity has no idea what is coming.

Worse, many have become unwitting foot soldiers for this agenda because they have been gaslighted into believing they are saving the planet or acting for the greater good.

This trend is already in motion… and the coming weeks will be pivotal.

That’s precisely why I recently released an urgent video with legendary investor Doug Casey and renowned hedge fund manager Chris MacIntosh.

https://internationalman.com/articles/3-reasons-theres-something-sinister-with-the-big-push-for-electric-vehicles/

[Crafty_Dog]

The New Era of Clean Energy: Transcontinental Power Lines
British homes would be powered with African energy under an ambitious plan
By Ed BallardFollow
 | Graphics by Emma BrownFollow
 | Photographs by Laura Bilson for WSJ
June 29, 2024 5:30 am ET


It is the era of importing power from faraway lands.

A grandiose project to build a nearly 2,500-mile subsea power line would connect vast wind and solar farms in Morocco to the U.K., providing a reliable supply of electricity to meet a projected boom in demand.

The plan’s architect, Simon Morrish, said it is the U.K.’s best option for clean electricity.

“It was like, well, why is no one doing this?” said Morrish, a former management consultant who also runs a landscaping-services company.

Morrish has secured early-stage investment and hired a seasoned team, but his vision faces long odds. He needs to coax subsidies from the U.K. government, raise tens of billions of dollars and secure crucial permits from countries that control the seabed. The plan involves building Scotland’s tallest building—a giant cable factory—and a special ship to lay the lines.

The project nevertheless shows how the electricity map is changing.

Since coal and gas plants can sit near the areas they serve, their transmission lines generally don’t need to travel long distances. But big empty sites with lots of wind and sunshine tend to be far from cities that need electricity.

Already, grids in Northern Europe are being connected by subsea cables to share growing supplies of wind power. A 475-mile power line from the U.K. to Denmark, the world’s longest land-and-subsea grid connection, was switched on in December.

The Viking Link connects the grids of U.K. and Denmark.

NORWAY

SWEDEN

Glasgow

DENMARK

Copenhagen

North Sea

Revsing

475 miles

U.K.

Hamburg

Birmingham

Donington

Berlin

Amsterdam

GERMANY

NETHERLANDS

London

Dusseldorf

BELGIUM

Source: Viking Link
Singapore, which lacks space for wind and solar farms, wants to import 30% of its electricity by 2035. Last year, it granted conditional approvals on plans to import much of that electricity via subsea cables—some more than 600 miles long—from renewable-energy projects in Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Connecting Morocco to the U.K. takes the idea to another level.

Scotland’s tallest building
Few places are richer in green-energy potential than western Morocco. The shortest day gets 10 hours of sunshine, and strong winds pick up late in the day. Morrish’s venture, Xlinks, wants to build enough solar farms, wind turbines and batteries in the area to meet 8% of Britain’s electricity needs, or to power roughly seven million homes.

Advertisement



Xlinks wants to send power from Morocco to the U.K.

North Sea

U.K.

IRELAND

London

Paris

2,485 miles

FRANCE

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Madrid

PORTUGAL

Lisbon

SPAIN

Rabat

MOROCCO

Marrakesh

ALGERIA

Source: Xlinks
It will take nearly 10,000 miles of cable for four offshore transmission lines—far more than existing suppliers could serve up. So Morrish started a cable-supply company to build a factory, with a tower taller than the Washington Monument, in which colossal cables will be lowered as they are coated in insulation.

The factory’s construction near the Scottish village of Fairlie has been delayed several times. Locals are doubtful it will happen.

“It’s a nice area, a scenic area, and you’re going to build a huge factory running 24/7?” said Rita Holmes, a longtime Fairlie resident.

Transmission projects can take well over a decade to materialize. In the U.S., the Biden administration is pushing to ease permitting for lines that strengthen the country’s grid, boosting hopes for more projects.

A 339-mile high-voltage transmission line that is under construction will bring hydropower to New York City from Quebec. A 550-mile line will bring wind power to California and Arizona from New Mexico.

Advertisement


“What you need is a bit of a catalyst,” said Matthieu Muzumdar, partner and deputy chief executive at infrastructure investor Meridiam. “Some of the federal and state programs we’re seeing could be part of that.”


Nexans supplies high-voltage direct-current cables that can move electricity hundreds of miles with minimal losses.

A cross-section of an electric cable.
Overseas, Meridiam is the lead investor in the first connection between the U.K. and Germany, and intends to invest in a planned 750-mile power line connecting Greece to Israel, via Cyprus. The project will lower lengths of cable weighing as much as the Eiffel Tower to depths of around 2 miles in the Mediterranean.

“What we are trying is bigger than what has been done before, both in terms of the size of the project and in terms of the amount of electricity we are trying to transmit,” said Pascal Radue, who leads the generation and transmission unit at Nexans, a cable supplier working on the Greece-to-Cyprus first leg of that project.

The Great Sea Interconnector would connect Greece, Cyprus and Israel.

Istanbul

Ankara

GREECE

Izmir

TURKEY

Athens

CYPRUS

CRETE

751 miles

SYRIA

LEB.

Mediterranean Sea

Amman

LIBYA

ISRAEL

JORDAN

Cairo

EGYPT

Source: Independent Power Transmission Operator

Copper wires are wound into a larger cable.
Nexans is among a handful of companies that supply high-voltage direct-current cables that can move electricity hundreds of miles with minimal losses.

The company has sold out of the cables for nearly five years. Its rivals have similar backlogs.

The dream of African wind and sunshine
Demand for cable could sputter if the growth of renewables falls short of expectations—or if big projects falter.

Advertisement


Sweden’s government recently rejected a connection under the Baltic Sea to Germany, citing concerns it would increase prices at home.

Projects could be derailed for any number of reasons. An Xlinks-like plan to transmit Australian solar power to Singapore collapsed last year when the two billionaires leading it had a falling-out. The project has been revived by one of them, Mike Cannon-Brookes, the co-founder of software company Atlassian.

SunCable envisions sending Australian solar power to Singapore.

PHILIPPINES

THAILAND

Philippine Sea

Singapore

Jakarta

PAPUA NEW

GUINEA

Banda Sea

2,672 miles

Darwin

INDIAN OCEAN

AUSTRALIA

Brisbane

Perth

Sydney

Melbourne

Note: Cable lengths are not exact.

Source: SunCable
The uncertainty limits how much those cable suppliers are willing to expand. It is why Xlinks needs its own supply.

Morrish has persuaded investors including TotalEnergies, Abu Dhabi’s state-controlled utility company and General Electric’s power-and-wind spinoff to buy into his plan. Xlinks closed a £100 million funding round in April, equivalent to $126 million.

But construction costs alone will be between £22 billion and £24 billion, Xlinks says. The company is talking to the U.K. government about a subsidy that Morrish hopes would spur investments, but those discussions have dragged.


Morocco also has to buy into the idea. Xlinks says the country would gain jobs, investment and tax revenue.

The dream of sending North Africa’s wind and sunshine to Europe isn’t new. An earlier effort, which would have moved power over land, fell through over a decade ago amid infighting between its backers and political turmoil in the region.

Morrish said prospects are better now: Renewable-energy costs have fallen, and subsea cables can pass through fewer jurisdictions, making permitting easier.

“I have absolute confidence it will get done,” Morrish said. “It’s just taking a bit longer than I’d hoped.”

[ccp]

Does UK really want to get a large proportion of their energy from a Muslim country via undersea cables?

Of course Middle Eastern oil is basically the same idea I guess.

Is it a bit like Germany getting nat gas from Russia.

Being self sufficient is so important ala Trump and fracking style.

Here is Bill Gates love of nuclear again:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/smallbusiness/bill-gates-just-told-tech-companies-how-to-use-clean-energy-for-ai/ar-BB1oWRuz?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=f66864c4c5a443749eeeb56b008fce8d&ei=21

[ccp]

I prematurely called him a hypocrite in recent post.      I am taking my foot out of my mouth now.
In retrospect he has mentioned a nuclear need for green energy a long time.
I think he even spoke of his sodium instead of water cooling solution in nuclear with Terra Power in a 60 minute interview a few yrs ago as well.

The only thing is he states natural gas is cheapest source for electric energy but does not mention we should be promoting that as well.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/bill-gates-on-face-the-nation-with-margaret-brennan-full-interview/vi-BB1ok0s7?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=29c6bf4beac54fb5bc3af89d94f2dc22&ei=24

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Wyoming-TerraPower-groundbreaking

[Crafty_Dog]