Author Topic: Energy Politics & Science  (Read 685521 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19829
    • View Profile
"zero emissions" energy fraud
« Reply #1350 on: August 15, 2024, 04:59:08 AM »
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-8-13-zero-emissions-grid-demonstration-project-follies-no-fraudulent-demonstration-projects-allowed

By the way, the Dem party changed it's platform to pro nuclear 4 years ago for the first time in 48 years.  Has anyone seen those new nuclear plants? Or was that a fraud as well?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19829
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: August 16, 2024, 06:31:06 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73597
    • View Profile
FO
« Reply #1352 on: August 24, 2024, 10:22:49 AM »


(3) CEO: OIL & GAS EXPANSION NEEDS MORE THAN TRUMP: The CEO of Enbridge, a Canada-based oil pipeline company, said that infrastructure, permitting, and legislative challenges would hamper a potential Trump administration’s ability to expand oil and gas production.
“[Y]ou have to be able to build the infrastructure. That’s going to take time. That’s going to take crossing multiple jurisdictions of all different stripes. And I don’t think you can do it by executive caveat or even just pure legislation,” CEO Greg Ebel said.
Ebel also discussed the artificial intelligence industry’s impact on electricity demand. “Our view is that it will add somewhere between half a percent and 2%, which might not sound like much, but per annum through 2030, that’s a colossal move,” Ebel said.
Why It Matters: We continue to see indicators that a potential Trump victory in November won’t lead to a quick turnaround on electricity or oil production. – M.S.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73597
    • View Profile
GPF: The Paradox of Russian Energy-- lessons here for us too
« Reply #1353 on: August 27, 2024, 08:02:16 AM »
August 26, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

The Paradox of Russian Energy
How is a country so rich in resources facing energy deficits?
By: Ekaterina Zolotova

In early August, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law that, starting Nov. 1, legalizes the mining of cryptocurrency, which the Kremlin sees as a handy tool for circumventing international sanctions and replenishing its budget. Crypto mining is notoriously energy intensive, but all it requires is electricity, something Russia has in abundance. But even for Russia, uncontrolled growth in electricity consumption could lead to a power shortage in certain regions that are already struggling amid sanctions and the war in Ukraine.

It’s an increasingly precarious issue for a country that, in its search for new income sources, has decided to expand its data economy. The data center market in Russia grew by 21 percent in 2023, its rise facilitated by the use of Russian-made equipment and Russian cloud services. For scale, the data center near Balakovo will use as much electricity as the entire city, which boasts a population of 200,000 people and is home to several manufacturing plants. And this is to say nothing of the expected growth in digital services and the eventual introduction of artificial intelligence.

Put simply, the development of a digital economy requires reliable electric power infrastructure capable of ensuring data security and a mature IT sector. Uninterrupted electricity, then, is important not just for the niceties of everyday life but also for a burgeoning technology market. And though Russia is among the world’s biggest energy producers, the risk is that demand may grow faster than Moscow can build new infrastructure. Last year, electricity consumption increased by 1.4 percent, reaching a record volume of 1.1 trillion kilowatts per hour. Power consumption also reached a historic high of 171.1 gigawatts. In addition, Russia sells a ton of electricity. In the first half of 2024, it exported 3.5 billion kWh to Kazakhstan, 600 million kWh to Mongolia, and 500 million kWh to China.

Production & Consumption of Electric Energy in Russia

(click to enlarge)

Complicating the situation is the nature of the Russian grid. Every region has its own energy issues, and supply can vary widely with the changing of the seasons. The Unified Energy System of Russia does what it can to centralize operational control, but the country is so vast, and its population centers so few and far between, that it’s difficult to evenly distribute capacity. Some regions cannot be connected to each other at all. It also explains why Russia can have so much energy that it exports to nearby markets but can nonetheless have regional deficits.



(click to enlarge)

The energy industry thus may be unable to match the Kremlin's ambitions to increase energy production for new IT enterprises, balance power distribution, overcome deficits in certain regions and literally keep the lights on. Even now some regions are unable to cope with the growth of electricity consumption. For example, in southeastern Siberia, it’s impossible to connect new large-scale consumers, and in the south, power outage schedules have had to be introduced to support heavier loads on networks during summer temperature spikes. Even Moscow may face an electricity deficit, according to the draft of the General Scheme for the Development of Russian Energy (a shortage of 1.6 GW of capacity by 2030 and 4.2 GW by 2042). Insufficient capacity will also limit Russian energy exports. By the end of 2023, the country had reduced electricity exports by 21 percent to 10.7 billion kWh. This owed partly to European sanctions, which brought exports there to a halt, and partly to a lack of capacity in the Far East, which forced Russia to reduce exports to China by a third.

Infrastructure is also a problem. Unscheduled outages and emergency repairs in older facilities often take capacity offline. Recently in the south, for example, generators failed at the Rostov nuclear power plant, and on Aug. 16, damaged equipment halted generation in Vladivostok and other nearby cities. Power grid firm System Operator notes that the current fleet of turbines used to generate electricity, which were put in place from 1960 to 1990, is all but exhausted. In distribution networks of medium and low voltage infrastructure – which constitutes more than 80 percent of total infrastructure – the situation is even worse. Upgrading existing infrastructure – and building new facilities outright – is time-consuming and expensive.

In addition to the difficulty of introducing new power capacities, there is a risk that existing ones will underperform. The Ukraine war, for example, creates security risks all along Russia’s western border, where important facilities in the Russian grid are located. The recent breakthrough of Ukrainian troops in Kursk region has cast doubt on whether the Kursk nuclear power plant will continue to be a part of the electrical system. The Kursk facility is one of the largest of Russia’s 11 nuclear power plants, so Moscow can ill afford to lose it as Russia has plans for it to offset Moscow’s looming energy deficit. (However, the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no reason to worry about nuclear safety at the Kursk plant.)

Meanwhile, the international sanctions campaign against Russia has also affected its energy industry. The sheer volume of Russian energy exports has been dramatically reduced, as have the number of markets available to its sellers. Restrictions introduced in 2022-23 hurt cable and conductor supplies and equipment imports. Russia was thus forced to restructure production as it endeavored to increase capacity. But import substitution brought on by sanctions slowed the implementation of projects meant to overcome energy deficits. (Renewable energy projects were especially affected.)

The paradox of the Russian energy system as a whole is that it can theoretically produce large capacities, overcome its deficits and, in the event of a failure of one station or another, tap into energy reserves to transfer electricity to and from various regions. So – again, in theory – Moscow should have no problem mining cryptocurrencies and building out new data centers. Yet the Kremlin will have to also build new infrastructure, update old stations, stabilize existing power plants, ensure the safety of its facilities and guarantee the provision of the imported material needed to do all of this. In light of these risks, Russia may not be able to absorb as much loss as many seem to think.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20123
    • View Profile
Epoch Times: latest progress on Fusion
« Reply #1354 on: September 02, 2024, 09:30:01 AM »
maybe some of the problems solved in 5 to 10 yrs and some insiders speculate it could be 40 to 50 yrs ( :-o) for actual widespread commercial usage:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/nuclear-fusion-a-perpetually-distant-dream-moves-closer-to-reality-5714994?ea_src=frontpage&ea_cnt=a&ea_med=top-news-4-special-report-top-news-top-news-4-special-report-0-title-0

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19829
    • View Profile
Epic Fail on so-called Green Energy
« Reply #1355 on: September 04, 2024, 06:39:52 AM »
The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change follows up on my post.  (below)

US just spent $300 billion on the Green New Deal in one spending package and who knows how much else in other subsidies and spending programs.

The world emitted 1.7% more CO2 last year compared to the previous year.

The whole increase in CO2 comes from increased use of coal in China and India.

As part of the Biden Harris war on energy, they made it illegal for the US to export natural gas.

Consuming natural gas emits 40% less CO2 than coal.
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/what-is-liquefied-natural-gas-lng#:~:text=LNG%20produces%2040%25%20less%20carbon,cleanest%20of%20the%20fossil%20fuels.

CO2 in overabundance  we are told is the deadliest toxin on the planet.

Atmospheric CO2 is a global phenomenon. What's done in one country or one continent is relevant only in relation to the total.

We spent hundreds of billions, maybe trillions to make things worse.

We are blocking, to the extent we can, the use of a product that would make the increased energy use going in China or India 40% cleaner, safer.

What am I missing?

Epic Fail on "green Energy
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/09/03/epic-fail-there-is-no-progress-on-climate-u-s-still-consumes-82-of-our-energy-from-fossil-fuels-in-2023-despite-hundreds-of-billions-spent-by-biden-harris/

Epic Fail: ‘There is NO progress on climate’ – U.S. still consumes 82% of our energy from fossil fuels in 2023 – despite hundreds of billions spent by Biden-Harris – In 2023 world burned more fossil fuels than at any other time in history’

Fossil Fuels = 82%

Nuclear Power = 9%

Wind = 1.5%

Solar = 1.0%

[Doug]  How much money did we put into wind and solar?  How much money did we put into electric vehicles - that still run off of fossil fuels?

The progress on CO2 and so-called climate change comes in two ways, build new nuclear, which we aren't doing, and switching out older coal plants for newer natural gas power.

Nothing in climate natters but the global number.  The LNG exports we ban are being made up for with increased coal usage - in India and China in particular.

Every watt of new solar and new wind power must be backed up with a new watt of fossil fuel use for every minute the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.  The oil companies know this.   Intermittent sources are not 'base energy'.  If we wanted zero CO2 emissions we would need zero reliance on solar and wind. How many of your liberal friends and family know that?

Democrats put increased nuclear power in their platform in 2020 for the first time in 48 years.  A sign of hope?  No, it was a head fake.  For unknown reasons, they stick to 2% solutions and ignore potential 80% solutions.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19829
    • View Profile
Britain rations gas cars
« Reply #1356 on: September 04, 2024, 06:43:41 AM »
We thought Tory leadership was bad, how about this?

Think it can't happen here?  Depends on how people vote.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/09/04/petrol-cars-rationed-to-meet-net-zero-targets/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73597
    • View Profile
FO: 23% increase in RI electricity rates
« Reply #1357 on: September 23, 2024, 10:30:46 AM »


(3) RI POWER BILLS TO JUMP 23% THIS WINTER: The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission approved a 23% increase on electricity rates starting 1 October.

“We share in the concerns about the high price of energy supply — primarily driven by geo-political events around the globe as well as supply and demand,” Rhode Island Energy spokeswoman Caroline Pretyman said.

Why It Matters: Electricity prices are likely to increase before shortages start hitting in 2025. The northeast remains the most vulnerable region in the short term due to fossil fuel power plant retirements, and the mid-Atlantic is close behind. Electricity prices in the northeast and mid-Atlantic are likely to climb higher next year, Power capacity prices in the mid-Atlantic have jumped significantly, and are likely to increase again during PJM Interconnection’s December capacity auction. – R.C.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19829
    • View Profile
Energy Politics, Policy choice is simple
« Reply #1358 on: September 24, 2024, 07:48:32 AM »
The choice is simple.  If you want people starved for energy (and food and money) there is a candidate for you.  If you want energy to be affordable, there is a choice.

We put how much public and utility money into solar and wind and now solar contributes 0.9% to our total energy production and wind 1.5%.  All the reductions in CO2 emissions came from the switch from coal to natural gas, keyword 'fracking'.

It affects food and other goods of course but also affects our foreign policy.  Russia is enriched by the US driving up oil prices.  Also Iran, cf. Hamas, Hezbollah.  Stop doing that!

We replace fossil fuels fastest by becoming prosperous, not poorer.  Do the math; look around the world.

For Biden Harris, look at the record not the rhetoric.  Look at the policies, not the promises.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/09/24/on_energy_voters_must_decide_trump_successes_harris_risks_151665.html

From the article:
"By the time he left office in January 2021, President Trump had contributed mightily to the United States becoming an energy superpower. According to the Department of Energy, 2019 marked the first time in 67 years that U.S. annual gross energy exports exceeded gross energy."

« Last Edit: September 24, 2024, 07:52:25 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73597
    • View Profile
FO: Rate of increase in shale set to decline
« Reply #1359 on: September 24, 2024, 05:08:20 PM »


“The U.S. shale revolution has run its course,” Quantum Energy Partners CEO Wil VanLoh said. Rystad Energy analysts said oil production growth in the U.S. will drop 50% this year, and decrease further in 2025. (The U.S. oil production boom started in 2018, and Biden officials recently said oil production growth has kept inflation and energy prices in check. However, if energy analysts are correct that production growth drops long term, supply constraints will likely increase energy prices in the long term. – R.C.)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19829
    • View Profile
Where is the AI electricity going to come from?
« Reply #1360 on: September 25, 2024, 07:07:23 AM »
[Doug] Let's see, the wind and solar trillion dollar subsidy craze has resulted so far in wind supplying 1.5% of our total energy and solar 0.9%.  Additional energy needed big time isn't coming from there.  They say nuclear power plants take 10 years to build. A nice time to start them would have been 10 years ago.  Barack Obama's puppet masters who still run the country were asleep at the wheel.  Still are. 

Major AI data centers will need the electricity of a large city to run.  Try plugging those into our grid.

I wonder if Kamala Harris will be asked about this in her next serious interview...  guess not.

Marginal increases in energy come from fossil fuels.  If that is illegal or impractical here, the main AI work will go to China and other places perfectly willing to burn more coal and put the same CO2 we fear into the same atmosphere.

God are we stupid.
--------------------
Bloomberg today:

OpenAI has pitched the Biden administration on the need for massive data centers that could each use as much power as entire cities, framing the unprecedented expansion as necessary to develop more advanced artificial intelligence models and compete with China. Following a recent meeting at the White House, which was attended by OpenAI Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman and other tech leaders, the startup shared a document with government officials outlining the economic and national security benefits of building 5 gigawatt data centers in various US states, based on an analysis the company engaged with outside experts on. To put that in context, 5 GW is roughly the equivalent of five nuclear reactors, or enough to power almost 3 million homes. Altman has spent much of this year trying to form a global coalition of investors to fund the costly physical infrastructure required to support rapid AI development, while also working to secure the US government’s blessing for the project. But the details on the energy capacity of the data centers Altman and OpenAI are calling for have not previously been reported. (Source: bloomberg.com)
------------------
Washington Post today:

"Before we can use the most advanced microchips and run our state-of-the-art AI models, we need interstate-type corridors to transmit sufficient, reliable power to our data centers. More than 150 AI experts that we have interviewed in the last year affirmed that our outdated electric grid capacity is holding us back. If America’s computer servers hit their limits, suddenly the GPS in your car will take a while to load. The robotics assisting your gall bladder surgery will pause to compute. Even critical cybersecurity and infrastructure systems could be affected.

It takes the United States 10 to 20 years to get approval for and build new transmission lines. Compare that to China’s autocratic centralized efficiency: Beijing has largely consolidated its regional utilities into one state-run organization, and it can build new power lines in under five years. China now has a power system with a speed and scale that may be challenging for the United States to match; from 2014 to 2021 China built 80 times the interregional grid capacity that we did."
(Source: washingtonpost.com)
------------------------

[Doug]  We need ALL these new transmission lines while Democrats block copper mining in Tim Walz' MN.  https://www.mining.com/web/us-blocks-mining-in-parts-of-minnesota-dealing-latest-blow-to-antofagastas-copper-project/.  First level thinking?  Not even that.  Bleeping morons.

They will do the mining cleaner in China?  In the Congo? Than in highly regulated Minnesota?  Good grief.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2024, 07:17:46 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19829
    • View Profile
Energy Politics & Science, Grading the Grid
« Reply #1361 on: September 30, 2024, 06:20:39 AM »
The Best and Worst Forms of Energy for America's Future

America is going to need to roughly double our electricity production to meet our economic and lifestyle needs over the next several decades.

... New report by Timothy G. Nash, director of the McNair Center for the Advancement of Free Enterprise at Northwood University. Titled "Grading the Grid: A National Energy Report Card," the report grades eight electricity sources based on capacity, reliability, environmental/human impact, technology/innovation, and market feasibility. Those are all vital factors in choosing the right energy mix for America.
-------------
Spoiler:
Natural Gas. A
Nuclear. B
Wind. F
Solar. F
« Last Edit: September 30, 2024, 06:27:19 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20123
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1362 on: September 30, 2024, 06:24:26 AM »
I would also add hot air coming from the Democrats mouths as F.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19829
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1363 on: September 30, 2024, 06:33:39 AM »
I would also add hot air coming from the Democrats mouths as F.

Right!  Their hot air is just not powering the grid the way we hoped.

$6 Trillion in "Build Back Better" and they forgot the grid, (and the border).

We need a source that measures in GigaWatts, not bad breath.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73597
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1364 on: September 30, 2024, 08:00:18 AM »
I'm sensing an overlap between this thread and the Electricity thread. 

https://firehydrantoffreedom.com/index.php?topic=2430.100

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73597
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20123
    • View Profile
more "jobs"
« Reply #1366 on: October 01, 2024, 07:55:00 AM »
And GREEN jobs too !!!    Got it?   :wink:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73597
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1367 on: October 01, 2024, 07:57:11 AM »
Yup, I forgot to include that!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73597
    • View Profile
FO: Biden pivoting to nuke power
« Reply #1368 on: October 09, 2024, 06:14:47 PM »


(1) BIDEN ADMINISTRATION PLANNING NUCLEAR PIVOT: White House climate advisor Ali Zaidi said the Biden administration is planning to reactivate and rebuild decommissioned nuclear power plants to meet growing electricity demand.
According to Zaidi, in addition to Constellation’s plans to restart Three Mile Island Unit 1, planning is underway to restart the Holtec Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan.

Why It Matters: The timeline to restart old and build new nuclear power plants is likely too long to avoid shortages beginning in 2025. Bank of America Global Research estimates as much as 300 gigawatts of new power generation could be needed across the U.S. by 2035. And the production capacity of each of these re-started nuclear plants is less than 1GW. The Palisades Plant is estimated to take at least two years to restart, and Three Mile Island Unit 1 is expected to restart in 2028, if there are no delays. – R.C.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3577
    • View Profile
World Bank Can’t Account for Tens of Billions in Climate Spending
« Reply #1369 on: October 20, 2024, 10:18:44 AM »
How can you tell when the True Believers promulgating Church of Anthropomorphic Climate Apocalypse’s doom struck propaganda know their effort to stampeded humanity into embracing policy prescriptions that would result in a new Dark Age is founded on a pack of likes? When they can’t even account for tens of billions of dollars they’ve supposedly spent in accordance with their CACA goals:

https://dailycaller.com/2024/10/17/gaps-inconsistencies-41-billion-world-bank-climate-handouts-unaccounted-report-finds/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3577
    • View Profile
Energy Sanity Looming?
« Reply #1370 on: October 26, 2024, 05:06:20 AM »
Signs that even the pols who carry water for True Believers are moderating their “green” energy prescriptions:

Suddenly Energy Realism Is a Winning Political Issue
11 hours ago  Guest Blogger  34 Comments
October 23, 2024

For well over two decades, the linked causes of climate alarmism and energy transition have provided their adherents with a powerful upper hand in American politics. For that matter, supporters of those causes have had just as strong, if not a stronger upper hand in the politics of all the countries with advanced economies, whether in the EU, or Canada, Australia, and others. Here in the U.S., for all this time, almost no politician — even those claiming to advocate generally for smaller government or less regulation — has been willing to push back directly against assertions of “climate crisis,” or against demands for reducing “carbon emissions” or for achieving a “net zero” energy economy via government coercion and massive subsidies. Most Republicans seeking office have been cowed into deflecting and deferring on these issues, if indeed they have not openly gone along with the left’s energy program.

I have long said that this situation can’t last. The reason is that the proposed energy transition is infeasible and can’t possibly work; and the effort to achieve the impossible via government mandates and subsidies would inevitably drive up costs and otherwise impact voters directly in ways they would see. At some point the voters would react. But when would that occur?

You may not have noticed, but in the current election, push-back against insane energy transition policies has suddenly become a winning political issue. For the first time, Republicans are explicitly using the now patent consequences of the energy transition as a key strategy to win close races, including the presidency.

Consider the issue of electric vehicle mandates. There is no question about where Kamala Harris stands on this issue right now as a matter of official government action in which she has been personally involved. The Biden-Harris administration worked on developing a form of mandates for EVs from the day those two took office, as part of the administration’s “all of government” approach to, supposedly, controlling climate change through regulations. Two major rules were initiated on the subject, and gradually crept their way through the regulatory labyrinth. After years of process, the two rules became final on, respectively, April 18 and June 7, 2024. This is not ancient history, but rather something that occurred just over four months ago, and was big news at the time. The two Rules are in effect right now. There is no pretending this does not exist, or that it is part of some long-ago talking points of prior Harris campaigns that she has since moved on from. I covered these two rules in a post on June 8 titled “The Latest On The Federal War Against Internal Combustion Vehicles.”

For those not following this closely, let’s have a review of the bidding. The April 18 Rule came from EPA, with the title “Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles.” It is 373 pages long in the three-column single-spaced format of the Federal Register. The gist is to progressively tighten the permissible emissions from internal combustion cars such that only fewer and fewer and smaller and smaller cars can meet them. The June 7 Rule came from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and sets fuel economy standards for combustion vehicles. Its title is “Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks for Model Years 2027 and Beyond and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030 and Beyond.” This one, often known as the “CAFE” standards, is 1004 pages in standard double-spaced typing.

Although the Rules are couched in terms of emissions and fuel economy standards, it is obvious on their face that the standards are set in a way that most internal combustion engine cars cannot meet them, thus forcing a transition to mostly EVs by the early 2030s. My June 8 post cited a March 25 analysis from Atlas EV Hub, which concluded that the EPA Rule alone could force EVs to be as much as 69% of new vehicle sales by 2032:

The regulation is set to bring significant changes to the auto industry, potentially putting the United States on the glide path to full electrification. . . . Under this final rule, battery electric and plug-in hybrid electric light-duty vehicles could make up 32 percent of all new vehicle sales in model year 2027, increasing to 69 percent by model year 2032.

Some time in late September or early October, the Trump campaign, sensing political advantage, began running an ad in Michigan explicitly stating that Harris is seeking to ban gasoline-powered cars. Video of the ad can be seen at this link. Here are the first few sentences of text:

Auto workers. Kamala Harris wants to end all gas powered cars. Crazy but true. Harris’s push requiring electric only is failing big and Michigan auto workers are paying the price. Massive layoffs already started. You could be next. President Trump’s committed to protecting America’s auto workers.

On October 4, reported by the New York Post here, Harris responded at a campaign rally in Flint, Michigan, with a statement saying:

“Michigan, let us be clear: Contrary to what my opponent is suggesting, I will never tell you what kind of car you have to drive.”

Of course Harris did not give anyone a chance to press her on the issue, or to ask her to explain how the two new Rules do not constitute an attempt to tell people “what kind of car they can drive.”

Meanwhile, over in the Senate, on July 31 Ted Cruz proposed a resolution rescinding the EPA and NHTSA Rules, which Cruz correctly characterizes as “the Biden-Harris gas car ban.” The resolution ultimately came to a vote in both the House and Senate, forcing Democratic Senate candidates in close races to take a position and defend it. One of those was Michigan Senate candidate Elissa Slotkin, currently in the House. Here is her statement defending her vote to uphold the Rules. Excerpt:

“In March, the EPA announced new emissions standards that had been drafted in close consultation with Michigan’s auto industry and Michigan’s auto workers. After responding to legitimate concerns from our auto manufacturers, the administration developed standards that were tough and aggressive, but also achievable — and earned the support of the auto industry and the UAW.”

The statement goes on and on from there in carefully calculated dissembling. It’s fun to watch her squirm.

A very similar dynamic has been unfolding in Pennsylvania, where Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey is now pretending that he has been a big supporter of fracking all along.

We are in the early days of this. Harris, Slotkin, Casey, et al., may still very well win their races. But however things come out this year, I predict that two and four years from now the needle will have swung further in the direction of energy sanity. Sooner or later, support for expensive and unworkable energy will become politically toxic. It can’t happen soon enough.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/10/25/suddenly-energy-realism-is-a-winning-political-issue/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=suddenly-energy-realism-is-a-winning-political-issue


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3577
    • View Profile
Note to Trump: Let Private Firms Find Nuclear Energy Solutions
« Reply #1372 on: November 01, 2024, 03:18:32 PM »
An interesting approach to expanding green nuclear energy. I didn’t know SpaceX had proven itself to be ten percent the cost of NASA, but it doesn’t surprise me:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/01/the-better-path-in-energy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-better-path-in-energy

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20123
    • View Profile
One way to pay down some Nat debt
« Reply #1373 on: November 09, 2024, 05:52:15 AM »
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/11/09/trump-effect-eu-chief-suggests-replacing-russian-gas-with-american-imports/

Under Trump this will happen.

Unless Dems find a way to stop.

Time to buy LNG?  or probably already at record prices.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73597
    • View Profile
GPF: Energy Market Volatility
« Reply #1374 on: November 14, 2024, 03:50:50 PM »
Graphs and charts not printing

November 13, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

Graphic Essay: Energy Market Volatility
Disappointing demand and excess supply have become chronic issues.
By: Geopolitical Futures

For many countries, including major geopolitical players, energy resources rank among the most politically and economically sensitive commodities. Prices for these resources are shaped by supply and demand but also by factors like logistical security, technical capacity and short-term political developments or maneuvers. Today's energy market is subject to sudden and dramatic price swings as a result of geopolitical uncertainty.



(click to enlarge)

In 2024, the energy market is cooling, reflecting an adjustment to post-pandemic conditions, stabilization in global economic growth and inflation in key countries. A prolonged excess supply and weak demand have become structural factors exerting downward pressure on prices. Demand growth in some regions is insufficient to offset the impact of China’s slowing economy, and Beijing’s stimulus efforts have yet to trigger a significant demand rebound. Meanwhile, OPEC+ countries’ commitment to production cuts has also kept commodity prices from rising significantly.



(click to enlarge)

Geopolitical events often create short-term volatility in oil and gas prices. The Ukraine conflict initially caused sharp price fluctuations due to the potential loss of Russian energy supplies, but as global trade adapted with new routes and diversified supplies, the impact eased. Notable price fluctuations in 2024 arose partly from concerns about attacks on ships in the Red Sea, affecting oil and gas transit through the Strait of Hormuz. Though short-lived, these disruptions highlight the Middle East conflict’s potential to intensify price risks.



(click to enlarge)


(click to enlarge)

Coal, meanwhile, faces a steady decline in production and consumption as alternative energy sources gain traction. Slower-than-expected growth in China and India has further depressed coal prices following a temporary spike driven by disruptions in Russian gas supplies. Commodity prices remain under pressure from a complex mix of short- and long-term factors affecting volatility.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19829
    • View Profile
Wasted solar
« Reply #1376 on: December 08, 2024, 07:47:31 PM »
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-11-24/california-has-so-much-solar-power-that-increasingly-it-goes-to-waste/

The grid needs way more base power, not more intermittent power.

When they built all that solar, I wonder if they knew all of California is in the same time zone.  Too much capacity in the daytime.  None at night.  Who knew?
« Last Edit: December 08, 2024, 07:52:22 PM by DougMacG »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73597
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1378 on: December 10, 2024, 08:41:25 AM »
Maybe they don't want to kill the whales?  :evil:

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20123
    • View Profile
Beautiful NJ shore
« Reply #1379 on: December 10, 2024, 08:50:46 AM »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3577
    • View Profile
The “Green” Cost Concealing Wind Energy Shell Game
« Reply #1380 on: January 06, 2025, 09:46:08 PM »
An apt exploration of the true cost of supposedly green wind energy production:

The True Cost of Wind Energy — Updated
Wind energy is one of our MOST EXPENSIVE energy options!
JOHN DROZ JR.
JAN 06, 2025

When I wrote the original version of this last year, some attentive readers said that although my list of ten costs were spot-on, I should have added more. My original list was intended to be a summary, not all inclusive. That said I believe that several of their suggested additions are not trivial, so I am reposting this commentary which now has fifteen typically ignored costs of industrial wind energy…

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Periodically I get asked: what is the TRUE cost of industrial wind energy?

It seems like that should be a relatively straightforward answer, but it is anything but.

To appreciate what is going on, we need to understand the Big Picture regarding wind energy. (FYI, the same applies to solar.) The system is setup to grease the skids for wind energy developers — not ratepayers. When it comes to wind energy, we are dealing with 21st century snake oil salespeople. They have a sophisticated multi-part strategy to profit at the public’s expense…

Their FIRST major strategy is to sell politicians on the bogus concept that our electrical Grid should be inclusive — i.e., include ALL electrical energy sources (whether they are good or bad. An all of the above policy makes no technical or economic or environmental sense. (For a discussion of this, see here.) My alternative motto is that our electrical grid should include all of the sensible.

Their SECOND major strategy is to sell politicians on the false belief that we need enormous amounts of industrial wind energy to “save the planet from pending climate catastrophe.” Ignoring the accuracy of the Climate Change fear-mongering aspect, the reality is that there has never been a genuine scientific study that has concluded that wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2! In fact, there have been multiple scientific studies that have concluded that wind energy can make Climate Change WORSE! (See here for some examples.)

Their THIRD major strategy is to sell politicians and the public on the illusion that industrial wind energy is inexpensive — so we should do it anyway (irrespective of points #1 and #2 above). So what is the true cost of industrial wind energy?

——————————

Why this is not a simple question to answer is because wind promoters are VERY well aware that industrial wind energy is MUCH more expensive than our other conventional sources of electricity (fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro). So to get politicians and the public onboard, they have gone to EXTREME lengths to obfuscate wind energy’s REAL cost.

Here are fifteen sample examples of wind energy costs that are NOT acknowledged by wind promoters, so are NOT factored into any of their “cost of wind energy” claims:

1- Production Tax Credit (PTC) —

How much is this? This objective report says: “While the original justification for the PTC was to boost a nascent industry, the PTC continues to subsidize a mature industry to the expected tune of nearly $24 billion from 2016-2020 according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. And that estimate will almost certainly be too low…”

2- Other Federal Handouts —

A good example is the $100 million for wind energy in the 2022 “Infrastructure” bill. As it spells out in a separate legislative document, this taxpayer money is for such nonsense as “To support the integration of wind energy technologies with the electric grid and other energy technologies and systems” and “To support the domestic wind industry, workforce, and supply chain.” Billions of federal dollars are hidden in wind related costs (e.g., see here). This expert concludes that: “New Treasury Department numbers show that soaring federal handouts for wind & solar dwarf all other energy-related provisions in the tax code and will cost taxpayers $421 billion by 2034.“

3- Time Value of Money for Federal Largess —

It’s bad enough that the federal government awards tens of billions to inferior but politically favored energy sources. However, the federal government does not have this money sitting in a bank account. Instead these tens of billions of dollars are mostly borrowed, so we also pay substantial interest costs on this foolishness. Yet another part of this absurdity is that communist China has loaned us almost a Trillion dollars of this — so they are directly profiting from this insanity. Now see this major red flag!

4- Transmission Cost —

A Nuclear power facility (for example), will have: a) one transmission line, and b) the distance will be relatively short, as it will almost always be located fairly near a population center. On the other hand, a very rough equivalent of wind energy will have: a) many transmission lines, and b) will be located a considerable distance from population centers. The transmission cost difference is substantial — but none of it is attributed to the root cause: industrial wind energy.

5- Auxiliary Power Cost —

The Electric Grid needs to have Supply and Demand balanced in a fraction of a second. Since wind energy is 100% unpredictable — and frequently goes to zero — 100% auxiliary power is necessary. For a variety of technical and economic reasons, the most appropriate auxiliary source is almost always gas. However, as with the preceding items, the cost and operation of whatever auxiliary source is used, is almost never attributed to the reason for it: wind energy.

6- Dutch Auction Cost —

This is a bit complicated, but once you understand it you will almost certainly say: this makes no sense whatsoever! That’s because it doesn’t.

A quickie summary is: let’s say that a Grid estimates that it needs 900 MWH next Tuesday. Five sources each bid to supply 200 MWH of it: Wind @ 1¢/KWH; Coal @ 2¢/KWH; Hydro @ 3¢/KWH; Nuclear @ 4¢/KWH; and Gas @ 6¢/KWH. The Grid takes the price of the highest accepted source (Gas), and then PAYS ALL THE SUPPLIERS THAT PRICE! Here is a good pictorial example of what happens.

What that means is that (in this case) wind gets 6¢/KWH (along with everyone else). But the wind people advertise that they are low cost (1¢/KWH) even though they got paid 6¢/KWH — and even though they knew that 1¢/KWH would never be the price they were paid (based on how the auction works). Dishonest.

7- No Penalty for Noncompliance —

Let’s say that Nuclear is unable to supply all their 200 MWH of electricity next Tuesday, as they had committed to (in #5). In this case the Grid manager heavily fines Nuclear, because the Grid manager now has to buy electricity on the spot market, which is quite expensive — so the fine is fair to ratepayers.

Let’s say that Wind is unable to supply all their 200 MWH of electricity next Tuesday, as they had committed to (also in #5). In this case the Grid manager does NOT fine wind, even though the Grid manager now has to buy electricity on the spot market, which is quite expensive. This is an ENORMOUS concession to wind developers, which is NOT fair to ratepayers. Further (like everything above), this extra Grid expense is NOT attributed to Wind — even though they caused it!

8- Payments for Non-Usage —

As if these Grid breaks aren’t enough, when the wind developers see the handouts that they are readily given, this green lights them to ask for more! Contrary to our traditional electricity sources, wind energy is not predictable — which is the excuse used for paying for underperformance of a bid. But, stunningly, in most cases wind energy also gets paid for over-performance as well! In other words, if they produce 100MWH that is not needed, in many cases they get paid to dump that (e.g., see here)! Of course, those payments are not attributable to wind energy’s cost.

9- Direct Host Community Costs —

There are numerous environmental costs to wind host communities — e.g., health costs to nearby residents (e.g., from infrasound), reduction of the values of nearby homes, etc., etc. There are multiple other costs that are spelled out here. No surprise, but none of these substantial costs are attributed to wind energy.

10- Indirect Host Community Costs —

There are several of these costs, like farmers reducing or stopping their crop production (after they sign a lease to host turbines). This means that they: lay off help, do not buy seed, fertilizer and equipment, do not provide food to the community, etc… Adverse military consequences (e.g., interfering with radar, etc.)… Trees are taken down (which are CO2 absorbers). Etc. None of these are factored into wind energy’s cost.

11- The High Cost of the Wind Supply Chain —

Some major turbine components are extraordinarily problematic from several perspectives. Rare Earth materials are a fine example. (Note: some 2 to 4 thousand pounds of Rare Earths are in every turbine!) The environmental and health cost of Rare Earths is staggering — but much of that is happening in China. Even though wind promoters say that climate impacts anywhere in the world are important to address, none of them are publicly objecting to this wind energy cost.

12- De-Industrialization —

Nowhere on earth can it be demonstrated that wind and solar grid imposters reduce electricity costs. Any country that pursues these fantasies is pursuing impoverishment because industry (and the economic benefits they create), will likely eventually leave for countries with cheaper, more reliable energy sources.

13- Utility Conflict Exposed —

The bribes (aka subsidies) doled out to wind and solar exposes a significant conflict of interest for power providers: are they acting in the best interest of shareholders or customers? For example, since utilities are often guaranteed a return on their "capital base" they are perversely incentivized to install a huge capital base of unreliables to increase their profits — even though that increases costs and reduces reliability to their customers. So where is their primary allegiance?

14- Loss of Serenity —

Serenity's legal definition is that environmental quality which provides the greatest sense of wellbeing. Industrial wind turbines are anathema to the serenity of pastoral communities. Just as with other key values in life (like happiness, contentment, peacefulness, etc.) there is no way to put a sufficient dollar value on this huge loss.

15- Loss of Community —

This frequently results when the wind industry uses citizen money to bribe local officials and select landowners in order to create an us vs. them conflict. Other nearby property owners then sign a so-called Good Neighbor Agreement by which they agree not to complain about the numerous liabilities of the industrial wind project. For an annual pittance of a bribe, these "good neighbors" cooperate in the torture of nearby non-participating residents afflicted with adverse health effects, property devaluation, etc.

The Bottom Line

This is a somewhat complicated, technical subject, so the above is a layperson’s summary. The takeaway is that — despite what the lobbyists are pitching to the non-critically thinking public — the real cost of wind energy is 3± times the cost of nuclear and other conventional sources of electricity. Solar is higher than that!

https://criticallythinking.substack.com/p/the-true-cost-of-wind-energy-updated?r=2k0c5&triedRedirect=true
« Last Edit: January 06, 2025, 09:47:57 PM by Body-by-Guinness »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19829
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1381 on: January 26, 2025, 06:13:49 AM »
https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-executive-order-energy-emergency-biden-climate

Mark Mills, The energy emergency is of Biden's making

From the article:

"The urgency of undoing Biden’s energy legacy should now be obvious. The Inflation Reduction Act, its destructive policies, and its massive subsidies (with their moral hazards) still remain the law of the land.

We have evidence of what will happen if the United States continues down this road. Two major economies—the United Kingdom’s and Germany’s—are further along the same “energy transition” path that the IRA funds. While both still depend heavily on fossil fuels, they have dramatically increased their use of wind and solar. The result? No meaningful change in emissions. But the costs of energy overall, and electricity in particular, have skyrocketed and continue to rise in both nations. The vicissitudes of wind and sunlight mean that both those countries are now subject to episodic, crushing price shocks. Meteorological data show that massive, long-duration “droughts” of sunlight (cloudy days) or wind lulls can last for weeks. (The Germans even have a word for the latter phenomena, Dunkelflaute, one of which is currently underway.) When that happens, energy prices soar high enough to collapse businesses and crush citizens. The German and British economies are not only accelerating their energy poverty but are also de-industrializing due to high energy costs.

Unsurprisingly, China has not pursued this agenda... "
« Last Edit: January 26, 2025, 06:27:16 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19829
    • View Profile
The answer is Blowin' in the wind
« Reply #1382 on: February 03, 2025, 08:12:32 AM »
Wind energy, it turns out, was not the answer.

In tribute to the Dylan movie:

How many billions must the wind lobby waste
Before we call it a scam?


https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/02/blowin-in-the-wind.php
« Last Edit: February 03, 2025, 08:14:28 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73597
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1383 on: February 03, 2025, 04:22:22 PM »
I'm hearing a major Obama funded solar farm in CA is going down in flames.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19829
    • View Profile
Premature Electrification
« Reply #1384 on: February 10, 2025, 09:54:40 PM »
Guys, don't make this mistake!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51r1fXIXezg
« Last Edit: February 10, 2025, 10:02:14 PM by DougMacG »