Author Topic: Energy Politics & Science  (Read 659664 times)


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #951 on: July 26, 2022, 06:27:43 AM »

"https://fee.org/articles/41-inconvenient-truths-on-the-new-energy-economy/?fbclid=IwAR2c8h3tqSVgdVEZmfXLjFaTkxh_OcbxtUoyVfbJV3jfr8m2uYXNYUSoItc"

good post

Yes.  So much to learn there.  It costs 400 times more to store energy in batteries than in fossil fuels.  What level subsidy overcomes that?

I was disappointed he didn't get to nuclear. 80% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels.  Maybe if we redirected the renewable push to building nuclear power plants we could drop that to 70% or 60% fossil fuels and see a huge reduction in CO2 emissions.

Solar and wind backed up batteries is not the answer.
----------
"Politicians and pundits like to invoke “moonshot” language. But transforming the energy economy is not like putting a few people on the moon a few times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon—permanently."

"Storing the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil, which weighs 300 pounds, requires 20,000 pounds of Tesla batteries ($200,000 worth)."

  - See if that jet or helicopter will fly.

(Mining for those batteries will require digging up 2 million pounds of earth - using fossil fuels?)
« Last Edit: July 26, 2022, 06:39:20 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #952 on: July 26, 2022, 09:41:59 AM »

"https://fee.org/articles/41-inconvenient-truths-on-the-new-energy-economy/?fbclid=IwAR2c8h3tqSVgdVEZmfXLjFaTkxh_OcbxtUoyVfbJV3jfr8m2uYXNYUSoItc"

good post

Yes.  So much to learn there.  It costs 400 times more to store energy in batteries than in fossil fuels.  What level subsidy overcomes that?

I was disappointed he didn't get to nuclear. 80% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels.  Maybe if we redirected the renewable push to building nuclear power plants we could drop that to 70% or 60% fossil fuels and see a huge reduction in CO2 emissions.

Solar and wind backed up batteries is not the answer.
----------
"Politicians and pundits like to invoke “moonshot” language. But transforming the energy economy is not like putting a few people on the moon a few times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon—permanently."

"Storing the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil, which weighs 300 pounds, requires 20,000 pounds of Tesla batteries ($200,000 worth)."

  - See if that jet or helicopter will fly.

(Mining for those batteries will require digging up 2 million pounds of earth - using fossil fuels?)


(Mining for those batteries will require digging up 2 million pounds of earth - using fossil fuels?)

Using children.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabeltogoh/2019/12/17/apple-and-tesla-among-tech-giants-being-sued-over-the-deaths-and-injuries-of-child-cobalt-miners-in-drc/?sh=3170a6523107

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #953 on: July 26, 2022, 08:11:26 PM »
Dems oppose safe clean mining done with union labor in MN but don't mind having children slaves do it with no environmental safeguards in third world countries. Go figure.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Enjoy the winter, europe!
« Reply #954 on: July 27, 2022, 10:26:44 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: Enjoy the winter, europe!
« Reply #955 on: July 28, 2022, 06:24:59 AM »
https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1552167739674042369

Gaia requires you freeze to death.

The wind is down so they are burning gas for electricity, gas they should be saving for winter.

The wind is down 70% of the time, it's not a complete surprise...

Every megawatt of wind power requires one megawatt of gas or coal power to back it up, used more than twice as much as the wind power, round the clock forever. The nuclear power they recently shut off didn't require any backup and had no emissions. The gas comes from Russia, not domestic sources.  And now war with Russia and pipeline shutdowns. Great plan?

Hard to believe all these Leftists are smarter than us when you see how they govern.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2022, 06:28:30 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: The Power of Siberia
« Reply #957 on: July 28, 2022, 11:28:18 AM »
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2022/07/28/the-power-of-siberia/

Outsmarted again.

Imagine if we had a pipeline running from the oil fields of Alberta through the oil fields of North Dakota to the refineries in Houston to the Gulf of mexico. Keystone XL. Oh well, let the commies win.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #958 on: July 28, 2022, 01:48:06 PM »
"Imagine if we had a pipeline running from the oil fields of Alberta through the oil fields of North Dakota to the refineries in Houston to the Gulf of mexico. Keystone XL. Oh well, let the commies win."

and imagine if we only supplied red states with gas and oil
while the blue states can continue to "rely" on wind and solar .

think of the jobs that could be created is a hundred billion was spent to build water line from
Mississippi to the Left coast..........



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #962 on: August 01, 2022, 07:10:23 PM »
"Life is tough.  It is tougher when you are stupid."

John Wayne

Our turn is coming , , ,

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
out turn is coming......
« Reply #963 on: August 01, 2022, 08:30:02 PM »
yup

" Europe's catastrophic experience with the "Green transition" where an entire continent moved to "energy alternatives" some 30 years before it was ready to replace fossil fuels, is coming to at least one American state."

green will not be ready in 30 yrs either
it can't be

it is fantasy gobbly-goop

unless we go nuclear
or fission is finally tamed

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Anarchy in the UK?
« Reply #964 on: August 03, 2022, 03:57:56 PM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Energy Politics, Spain regulating heating and cooling
« Reply #966 on: August 04, 2022, 05:05:57 AM »
https://summit.news/2022/08/03/spain-bans-air-conditioning-dropping-below-27c/

Spain bans AC below 27 C (80) and heat above 19 (66).

These should be suggestions, not mandates.  Strangely, government can't know everyone's circumstance, at every moment, as much as they try.

In other leftist news, air conditioning is/should be a human right. 
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/air-conditioning-should-be-a-human-right-in-the-climate-crisis/

No, moving north (or south) should be a human right - unless you are incarcerated:
https://time.com/4405338/air-conditioning-human-right/
« Last Edit: August 04, 2022, 07:57:05 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #967 on: August 04, 2022, 09:24:46 AM »
Strange that the great new green climate deal has nothing for carbon free nuclear.

Dems included support for nuclear power in their party platform 2020, for the first time in 48 years, getting one thing right.  Then refuse to do it. 

Further proof that these documents and these people lie.  And (almost?) never do what is in the nation's best interest.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #969 on: August 08, 2022, 03:47:01 AM »
Oil is down to $88.

Why?

Biden emptying our oil reserves?

Or?


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #970 on: August 08, 2022, 07:47:27 AM »
Oil is down to $88.

Why?

Biden emptying our oil reserves?

Or?

Best explanation is from the futures market perspective.  Price ran too far up on supply fears and comes down hard on global recession fears.

I don't have data but assume producers made efforts to produce more in response to high prices.  That switch doesn't turn on and off quickly or easily with labor, machinery, capacity issues.
-----
Regarding Russia navy post and Russia military threat, we need to drill, drill, drill etc and go BIG and FAST on nuclear for 10 years to end Putin’s career and bankrupt his plans. The threat is China and we don't need the Russian distraction or a China Russia partnership fighting against us.

Energy isn't an industry. It's part of all industries.  Run a hospital without power for a day and see.  It's part of agriculture we learned, and part of housing, part of life, and military...
« Last Edit: August 08, 2022, 10:28:02 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #971 on: August 08, 2022, 08:40:26 AM »
".Energy isn't an industry. It's part of all industries. "

what was that movie decades ago
where some corporate snob was telling someone

EXXON is the United States
with something like NOT DC!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Stratfor on why global oil prices have eased
« Reply #972 on: August 08, 2022, 03:40:08 PM »
Global Oil Prices Ease, but for How Long?
9 MIN READAug 8, 2022 | 22:01 GMT





White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre discusses the recent drop in U.S. gas prices during her daily press briefing in Washington D.C. on Aug. 3, 2022.
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre discusses the recent drop in U.S. gas prices during her daily media briefing in Washington D.C. on Aug. 3, 2022.

(MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)

Although oil prices have fallen to pre-Ukraine war levels, supply constraints and high risks in global markets could make this recent slide temporary. On Aug. 4, West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the U.S. crude oil benchmark, fell below $90 per barrel for the first time since Feb. 10, two weeks before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine. The same day, the European crude oil benchmark Brent (which is most commonly used to price other crude grades traded globally) fell below $95 per barrel for the first time since the war began. Since then, WTI has nudged back above $90 per barrel, but as of late Aug. 8, was still just $90.36 per barrel. These developments, however, have coincided with a number of risks on the oil supply side of the market.

During an OPEC+ meeting on Aug. 4, the world's top oil-producing countries agreed to increase production in September by just 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) — around 0.1% of the global oil market. But OPEC+ will likely still fail to reach even that production growth figure, as the bloc's compliance with the production deal was over 300% in the month of June, which signals most producers are already struggling to reach their quotas and will continue to do so.
In the United States, the drop in oil prices was partially caused by an unexpected increase in U.S. crude oil inventories. On Aug. 3, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that crude stocks had risen by 4.5 million barrels compared with the previous week — contrasting with industry analysts' forecast, which saw stocks declining by 600,000 barrels during the same time period. This signals a softening in U.S. oil demand, which typically surges in July and August during the busy summer travel season.
Why Are Prices Falling?
The recent decline in oil prices has been primarily driven by an expected drop in global demand amid an increasingly gloomy economic outlook. In late July, the International Monetary Fund slashed its global economic growth projections by 0.4 and 0.7 percentage points for 2022 and 2023, respectively, from its April forecast — citing widespread inflation, the ongoing Ukraine crisis and China's economic slowdown. Within this ''gloomy and more uncertain'' climate, the institution said it now expects the world economy to expand only 3.2% before slowing further to 2.9% next year. On July 28, the United States also reported negative economic growth for the second consecutive quarter — a commonly accepted definition of a recession — in the second quarter. Worsening expectations about the global economy are being buoyed by several forces, including high inflation (induced in part by high oil and natural gas prices) as well as multiple central banks raising interest rates to combat that high inflation — a policy that will choke off economic growth as borrowing costs increase. Within this climate, growth in global oil demand is likely to slow and perhaps turn negative.

Downgrades in expected global economic growth have led the Paris-based International Energy Agency to cut its projection for global oil demand growth in 2022 by 100,000 bpd since its May forecast and in 2023 by 300,000 bpd since its June forecast.
A fragile deal in Libya to bring more oil to the market, along with the potential easing of EU sanctions on Russian exports, has also contributed to the price drop. On the supply side of the equation, the most significant factor has been a deal signed in early July between Libya's political rivals ending a two-month blockade on most of the country's oil exports. The agreement has brought the country's oil production back to 1.2 million bpd, according to Libya's state-owned National Oil Corporation, effectively doubling output from levels reported in late June. The European Union's recent moves to weaken some of its Ukraine-related sanctions on Russian oil have also raised the specter of more Russian oil being available than expected. For example, while the bloc's ban on shipping insurance for Russian oil is still slated to go into effect on Dec. 5, on July 22 the European Union exempted transactions with state-owned Russian companies like Rosneft to allow European trading houses to provide financial services to Russian exports of oil and agricultural products to third countries. This, coupled with the watering down of the original EU oil embargo on Russian oil, suggests the bloc could issue more exemptions as a means to reduce the knock-on effects of sanctions on energy prices.

What Could Send Prices Back Up?
While a global recession may send oil prices lower, risks stemming from the ongoing war in Ukraine could easily push global oil prices back above $100 per barrel — if not much higher. These include:

A gas crisis in Europe: Natural gas prices in Europe have further increased in recent weeks after Russian natural gas giant Gazprom cut throughput on Nord Stream 1 — the most important Russian pipeline to Germany — to just 20% of its capacity. The Kremlin has also repeatedly made veiled threats of cutting off or keeping Europe's natural gas supplies low this winter. Dutch TTF, the largest continental European natural gas benchmark, is trading at around 200 euros per megawatt-hour (MWh), comparable to about $350 per barrel in oil price terms. Gas prices in Europe could surge much higher when demand increases this winter, which would send Europe into a recession. Such a price hike could also result in an oil crisis as energy-starved European countries start substituting oil products for natural gas in certain applications.
A G-7 oil price gap: The developed economies in the Group of 7 (G-7) are also hoping to reach an agreement to cap Russian oil prices at $40 to $60 per barrel. The deal would ideally go into effect before the European Union begins to implement its shipping insurance ban on Dec. 5. Such a cap, however, risks only further increasing global oil prices. Not only has the proposed cap been criticized for being difficult to enforce, but it could trigger Russia to cut oil exports, particularly if the West puts into place strong enforcement mechanisms, such as secondary sanctions targeting Chinese and Indian companies still buying Russian oil. Thus far, the United States has ruled out this move and Russia has refrained from cutting oil exports substantially to put further economic pressure on the West. But the G-7 price cap may lead the Kremlin to cut exports to countries unwilling to violate the price cap or implement a similar ruble-for-oil mechanism that led to many European companies shedding Russian natural gas imports over an unwillingness to pay for gas in rubles. Such moves could also push the United States to abandon its current hesitation over imposing secondary sanctions, further elevating global economic risks, if Russia cuts oil exports first.
Developments unrelated to Ukraine could also send oil prices hurdling in the opposite direction. These include:

Political turmoil in Libya, Brazil and Iraq: Political crisis in major oil-producing nations could shoot oil prices back up by decreasing global supplies. Despite the July deal to end Libya's oil blockade, the country is still mired in a deep political crisis that could lead to the blockade being re-implemented at any time. Indeed, the country still has two political figures claiming to be the country's sole prime minister and both are backed by different armed groups that are currently fighting against one another in the country's capital of Tripoli. But Libya isn't the only major oil producer that could experience a political crisis in the coming months that could disrupt oil production. In Brazil, a country that produces about 3 million bpd, President Jair Bolsonaro has already started to discredit the country's electoral institutions and electoral process in what could presage a disputed election if he loses a narrow vote in the country's October presidential election. In Iraq, a country that produces about 4.4 million bpd, rival Shiite factions are also preventing a government from forming that could lead to rising intra-Shiite violence and more demonstrations at oil sites in the country's Shiite-dominated south.
An Iran nuclear crisis: Although the greatest geopolitical risk remains the Ukraine war, Iran's accelerating nuclear development could also trigger a foreign policy crisis that causes similar turmoil in global oil markets. Iranian officials have repeatedly stated in recent weeks that the country now has the technical capability to build a bomb. Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium to 60% (very close to 90% weapons grade) is already enough to produce a crude nuclear device if enriched further. Indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran to rejoin the 2015 Iran nuclear deal restarted in Vienna on Aug. 4 and EU officials said on Aug. 8 that a final text was ready. But it remains unclear whether Iran will accept the agreement currently on the table, which does not offer Tehran any face-saving concessions from the West.
Looking Ahead
Going forward, the most acute risk will remain a sudden and widespread disruption in Russian oil exports, which is one of the reasons Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are hesitating to increase production. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates effectively act as the central bank for the world's oil production. They are also the only two countries with significant spare capacity to increase their oil output. The Arab Gulf neighbors are likely seeking to prepare in case Russia curbs its oil exports and sends prices skyrocketing in retaliation to Western sanctions and/or in an effort to gain leverage against Ukraine and the West in negotiations. In such a worst-case scenario, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi may need to announce a massive production hike to prevent runaway crude oil prices akin to that seen in Europe's natural gas market. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are thus likely taking a cautious approach to ensure they have room to quickly ramp production when it matters most. And the limited steps that other OPEC+ members have taken in recent months to boost production, along with the concurrent decline in oil prices amid the world's deteriorating global economic environment, will likely only further validate this approach.

With Russia's oil production currently stymied by Ukraine-related sanctions, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are realistically the only OPEC+ members with enough spare capacity bound by the pact to increase production in a meaningful way. As part of the OPEC+ pact, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi agreed to only increase their production by just 26,000 and 7,000 bpd in September, respectively.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Most EVs won't qualify for federal tax credit
« Reply #973 on: August 10, 2022, 05:36:22 AM »
Very interesting! 

Off the top of my head I would say that if there is to be such a credit, then the criteria here make sense.
===============================

Most electric vehicles won’t qualify for federal tax credit

BY TOM KRISHER ASSOCIATED PRESS DETROIT | A tax credit of up to $7,500 could be used to defray the cost of an electric vehicle under the Inflation Reduction Act now moving toward final approval in Congress.

But the auto industry is warning that the vast majority of EV purchases won’t qualify for a tax credit that large.

That’s mainly due to the bill’s requirement that, to qualify for the credit, an electric vehicle must contain a battery built in North America with minerals mined or recycled on the continent.

Those rules become more stringent over time — to the point where, in a few years, it’s possible that no EVs would qualify, says John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance of Automotive Innovation.

The alliance estimates that about 50 of the 72 electric, hydrogen or plug-in hybrid models now sold in the United States wouldn’t meet the requirements.

“The $7,500 credit might exist on paper,” Mr. Bozzella said in a statement, “but no vehicles will qualify for this purchase over the next few years.”

The idea behind the requirement is to encourage domestic manufacturing and mining, build a robust battery supply chain in North America, and lessen the industry’s dependence on overseas supply chains that could be subject to disruptions.

Production of lithium and other minerals that are used to produce EV batteries is now dominated by China. And the world’s leading producer of cobalt, another component of the EV batteries, is the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Under the $740 billion economic package, which passed the Senate over the weekend and is nearing approval in the House, the tax credits would take effect next year. For an EV buyer to qualify for the full credit, 40% of the metals used in a vehicle’s battery must come from North America. By 2027, that required threshold would reach 80%.

If the metals requirement isn’t met, the automaker and its buyers would be eligible for half the tax credit, $3,750.

A separate rule would require that half the batteries’ value must be manufactured or assembled in the North America. If not, the rest of the tax credit would be lost. Those requirements also grow stricter each year, eventually reaching 100% in 2029. Still another rule would require that the EV itself be manufactured in North America, thereby excluding from the tax credit any vehicles made overseas.

Automakers rarely release their components’ origin, but some versions of Tesla’s Model Y and Model 3, the Chevrolet Bolt and the Ford Mustang Mach E likely would be eligible for at least part of the credit because assembled in North America.

The industry says the North American battery supply chain is too small right now to meet the battery component requirements. It has proposed that the measure expand the list of countries whose battery materials would be eligible for the tax credit to nations that maintain defense agreements with the United States, including NATO members.

One component of the bill would require that after 2024, no vehicle would be eligible for the tax credit if its battery components came from China. Most vehicles now have some parts sourced in China, the alliance said.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #975 on: August 18, 2022, 05:03:15 PM »
https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-revives-biggest-offshore-oil-and-gas-lease-sale-in-americas-history_4673007.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-08-18-2&utm_medium=email&est=xUcrYUJXt6rVNTIi1yAAk2zelOqp627cBs7TVQTI3AESnclNNntt8Xx9gmLidmWC38DP

From the article :
"While reinstating lease sale 257 is a positive step forward for American energy leadership, the legislation as a whole falls well short of addressing America’s long-term energy needs,” API Senior Vice President of Policy, Economics, and Regulatory Affairs Frank Macchiarola told The Epoch Times

   -  Odd.  Why would they get do one thing right?
« Last Edit: August 18, 2022, 06:27:31 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #976 on: August 18, 2022, 06:40:35 PM »
To buy a vote?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #977 on: August 19, 2022, 05:56:14 AM »
To buy a vote?

Yes.  That's it.

I just couldn't figure out how they can be so wrong all day, everyday, and then do something right, especially with fossil fuels.

Some of us out here,  even Democrat voters,  would still like to heat our homes, drive, fly, charge our phones and have the fridge and the toaster work.

Wouldn't it be great if the ambulances and snow plows and fire trucks all had full tanks of gas when you need them, and if the schools, libraries and government offices had lights that work,  if not the homes and factories.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-17/toyota-and-catl-shut-plants-in-sichuan-as-power-crisis-worsens


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
And yet electricity prices continue to go up - because of your policies
« Reply #979 on: August 22, 2022, 05:51:19 AM »
Sec. Granholm on Fox:

Free this and 30% off that,  yet electricity costs (and inflation)  keep going up.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/08/land-of-the-freebie.php

WHY CAN'T PEOPLE SEE THROUGH THIS CRAP?
« Last Edit: August 22, 2022, 05:56:29 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
FREE FREE FREE DISCOUNTS DISCOUNTS DISCOUNTS
« Reply #980 on: August 22, 2022, 06:23:52 AM »
"WHY CAN'T PEOPLE SEE THROUGH THIS CRAP?"

you mean that it could 20 yrs to make your money back on switching to solar?

 :wink:

MAKE THE DIRTY RICH PAY!!!!!


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Japan PM Kishida orders new nuclear power plant construction
« Reply #981 on: August 24, 2022, 07:24:04 AM »
Japan PM Kishida orders new nuclear power plant construction
Major shift in energy policy would focus on next-generation types of facilities
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Japan-PM-Kishida-orders-new-nuclear-power-plant-construction

"... plan to restart up to 17 nuclear power plants beginning in the summer of 2023"

"The main objective going forward from 2030 will be to consider construction of next-generation nuclear power plants. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has already compiled a draft on such plants -- specifically safer, light water reactors -- with plans to start commercial operation in the 2030s."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Doug]  Who knew that Japan would lead the way in post tsunami nuclear power?

For one thing, it was the diesel generators that failed in the tsunami.

There is no carbon-free energy in our lifetime without nuclear energy.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Gavin Newsome against shutting down Diablo Canyon
« Reply #982 on: August 24, 2022, 08:27:38 AM »
Gavin Newsom Spokesman: Greens’ New Energy Proposal Is ‘Fantasy and Fairy Dust’

On the menu today: California governor Gavin Newsom took a long look at his state’s energy needs and concluded that the state’s lone nuclear plant can’t shut down as scheduled in the coming years. Now, his fight with green members of his own state party is heating up faster than . . . well, the planet. Meanwhile, the Florida Democratic gubernatorial primary shook out the way it was expected to, and Florida Democrats had the good sense to reject that Grim Reaper guy. Also, the law holds Nancy Pelosi’s husband accountable.

Don’t Blink: Gavin Newsom Is Getting One Right out There

They keep telling us that California is America’s future. Then again, the dystopian future of Blade Runner was set in California, too.

This morning, the odd and consequential news is that Gavin Newsom — yes, that Gavin Newsom — is on the right side of a political issue, both ideologically and factually. The California governor contends that his state isn’t ready to give up nuclear power, and he’s getting into an increasingly heated fight with environmental activists over keeping the state’s sole nuclear plant open.

The state’s last nuclear-power plant, Diablo Canyon, is scheduled to shut down its two reactors in 2024 and 2025; those reactors currently produce about 9 percent of the state’s electrical energy. Earlier this month, Newsom proposed keeping the two units of the Diablo Canyon online until 2029 and exploring the option of extending the plant’s life through 2035. He’s proposing a $1.4 billion loan from the state’s general fund to Pacific Gas & Electric, the operator of the plant, to cover the cost of relicensing the plant.

Back in May, state energy officials warned that the state’s power grid and supply systems lacked “sufficient capacity to keep the lights on this summer and beyond if heatwaves, wildfires or other extreme events take their toll. . . . The officials forecast a potential shortfall of 1,700 megawatts this year, a number that could go as high as 5,000 MW if the grid is taxed by multiple challenges that reduce available power while sending demand soaring. Supply gaps along those lines could leave between 1 million and 4 million people without power.”

Green Democrats in the state legislature don’t like the idea of keeping the reactors running, and instead are talking up an “alternative” that promotes energy-efficient cooling and lighting and tax credits to the poor for setting up solar panels. If you doubt that California can shut off nearly one-tenth of the state’s electricity-generating capacity and make up for it with new light bulbs and tax credits for solar panels, you’re not alone. Newsom spokesman Anthony York said that the legislators’ proposal “feels like fantasy and fairy dust and reflects a lack of vision and a lack of understanding about the scope of the climate problem.”

You won’t find a bigger cheerleader for alternative energy than Newsom, and the state actually reached a brief point this year when all of the energy being used came from renewables. But Newsom, whatever his other flaws, recognizes that his state’s need for energy isn’t going to shrink in the coming years; a growing economy and population require plentiful energy supplies. California’s official count is that it is home to 39.1 million people; for all the talk of businesses leaving and frustrated residents moving to Austin, the state lost 117,552 residents last year. (It is fair to wonder whether the official figures count everyone; if attempts to cross the border are soaring, it is safe to assume that a healthy chunk of those illegal immigrants are ending up in California.)

The state’s official projections from 2020 foresaw California’s population surpassing 40 million sometime this year, 41 million by 2026, and 42 million by 2031. We can quibble with the precise numbers, but the gist is clear: All those people will need electricity, and renewables by themselves are extremely unlikely to be enough. Without reliable power sources, Silicon Valley will become a ghost town.

In a recent issue of the magazine, Kevin Williamson quoted pro-nuclear climate-change activist Mark Lynas:

‘People have to realize that nuclear is the only zero-carbon source we’ve got that works everywhere all the time. We all know that wind and solar are intermittent, that hydro you can only build in the mountains.’ Nuclear doesn’t have those disadvantages, and it offers one critical geopolitical advantage. ‘With nuclear, you can stockpile fuel so that you have energy security for years at a time, without worrying about Middle Eastern despots and Russian dictators.’

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Gavin Newsome against shutting down Diablo Canyon
« Reply #983 on: August 24, 2022, 08:46:30 AM »
"They keep telling us that California is America’s future. Then again, the dystopian future of Blade Runner was set in California, too."

Blade Runner CA would be a distinct improvement over current dystopian CA.

Go back an watch the original RoboCop. The Detroit of the movie looks much better than the actual Detroit of today.


Gavin Newsom Spokesman: Greens’ New Energy Proposal Is ‘Fantasy and Fairy Dust’

On the menu today: California governor Gavin Newsom took a long look at his state’s energy needs and concluded that the state’s lone nuclear plant can’t shut down as scheduled in the coming years. Now, his fight with green members of his own state party is heating up faster than . . . well, the planet. Meanwhile, the Florida Democratic gubernatorial primary shook out the way it was expected to, and Florida Democrats had the good sense to reject that Grim Reaper guy. Also, the law holds Nancy Pelosi’s husband accountable.

Don’t Blink: Gavin Newsom Is Getting One Right out There

They keep telling us that California is America’s future. Then again, the dystopian future of Blade Runner was set in California, too.

This morning, the odd and consequential news is that Gavin Newsom — yes, that Gavin Newsom — is on the right side of a political issue, both ideologically and factually. The California governor contends that his state isn’t ready to give up nuclear power, and he’s getting into an increasingly heated fight with environmental activists over keeping the state’s sole nuclear plant open.

The state’s last nuclear-power plant, Diablo Canyon, is scheduled to shut down its two reactors in 2024 and 2025; those reactors currently produce about 9 percent of the state’s electrical energy. Earlier this month, Newsom proposed keeping the two units of the Diablo Canyon online until 2029 and exploring the option of extending the plant’s life through 2035. He’s proposing a $1.4 billion loan from the state’s general fund to Pacific Gas & Electric, the operator of the plant, to cover the cost of relicensing the plant.

Back in May, state energy officials warned that the state’s power grid and supply systems lacked “sufficient capacity to keep the lights on this summer and beyond if heatwaves, wildfires or other extreme events take their toll. . . . The officials forecast a potential shortfall of 1,700 megawatts this year, a number that could go as high as 5,000 MW if the grid is taxed by multiple challenges that reduce available power while sending demand soaring. Supply gaps along those lines could leave between 1 million and 4 million people without power.”

Green Democrats in the state legislature don’t like the idea of keeping the reactors running, and instead are talking up an “alternative” that promotes energy-efficient cooling and lighting and tax credits to the poor for setting up solar panels. If you doubt that California can shut off nearly one-tenth of the state’s electricity-generating capacity and make up for it with new light bulbs and tax credits for solar panels, you’re not alone. Newsom spokesman Anthony York said that the legislators’ proposal “feels like fantasy and fairy dust and reflects a lack of vision and a lack of understanding about the scope of the climate problem.”

You won’t find a bigger cheerleader for alternative energy than Newsom, and the state actually reached a brief point this year when all of the energy being used came from renewables. But Newsom, whatever his other flaws, recognizes that his state’s need for energy isn’t going to shrink in the coming years; a growing economy and population require plentiful energy supplies. California’s official count is that it is home to 39.1 million people; for all the talk of businesses leaving and frustrated residents moving to Austin, the state lost 117,552 residents last year. (It is fair to wonder whether the official figures count everyone; if attempts to cross the border are soaring, it is safe to assume that a healthy chunk of those illegal immigrants are ending up in California.)

The state’s official projections from 2020 foresaw California’s population surpassing 40 million sometime this year, 41 million by 2026, and 42 million by 2031. We can quibble with the precise numbers, but the gist is clear: All those people will need electricity, and renewables by themselves are extremely unlikely to be enough. Without reliable power sources, Silicon Valley will become a ghost town.

In a recent issue of the magazine, Kevin Williamson quoted pro-nuclear climate-change activist Mark Lynas:

‘People have to realize that nuclear is the only zero-carbon source we’ve got that works everywhere all the time. We all know that wind and solar are intermittent, that hydro you can only build in the mountains.’ Nuclear doesn’t have those disadvantages, and it offers one critical geopolitical advantage. ‘With nuclear, you can stockpile fuel so that you have energy security for years at a time, without worrying about Middle Eastern despots and Russian dictators.’

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Finland: Rolling blackouts this winter
« Reply #984 on: August 24, 2022, 09:21:16 AM »
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/finland-braces-rolling-blackouts-winter

Between the blackouts and the food shortages, Europe is in for some fun times!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #985 on: August 24, 2022, 02:00:22 PM »
I've no idea of the specifics of the CA constitution with regard to the Separation of Powers and the Delegation Doctrine, but I'm thinking if the EPA were to try this it would be a violation of our Constitution.

https://dailycaller.com/2022/08/24/california-gas-cars-sales-emissions/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2680&pnespid=v7d1VScfJrwY0OjdpTXkEY2HsA2_VYFxdfC5xfIzqBNmddpGGW8tGpvm_ULq0ueDc.6dS179

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
ET: Chinese dominace of REEs not necessary
« Reply #986 on: August 25, 2022, 07:25:59 AM »
US ‘Heavily Dependent’ on China for Rare Earth Elements: Experts
By Andrew Thornebrooke August 24, 2022 Updated: August 24, 2022biggersmaller Print

0:00
3:41



1

The U.S. dependency on China for rare earth elements is a security risk and is being exacerbated by the Biden administration’s forced transition to so-called green technologies, according to lawmakers and experts.

The Biden administration’s top-down push toward renewable energy requires an enormous growth in the mining of rare earth elements. Currently, the United States relies on the mining and processing powers of China, which has far worse environmental regulations, to achieve many of its needs.

“We’re heavily dependent on foreign adversarial nations,” Rep. Pete Stauber (R-Minn.) said during an Aug. 22 interview with NTD, an affiliate media outlet of The Epoch Times. “If today, the communist country of China stopped selling us their critical and rare earth minerals, we would be in deep trouble from our national defense to our manufacturing across the globe.”

Rare earth elements are a number of elements with unique characteristics that have made them vital to new technologies. Critical minerals are those rare earth elements that have no substitute, are limited in supply, or are economically vital.

Stauber’s comments come just weeks after U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the United States would try to end its “undue dependence” on rare earths, which it requires to manufacture various technologies, from solar panels to electric vehicle batteries to smartphones.

“It’s unfortunate that this administration has put their dependency for both critical minerals and rare earth minerals in the hands of the communist country of China,” Stauber said. “It’s simply unacceptable when we have the critical minerals and a few of the rare earths right here in the United States. This administration just won’t let us mine.”

US-RAREEARTHS
Wheel loaders fill trucks with ore at the MP Materials rare earth mine in Mountain Pass, Calif., on Jan. 30, 2020. (Steve Marcus/Reuters)
According to Stauber, the Biden administration lacks the political will to simply mine the needed elements domestically. For example, nickel, copper, and cobalt are all present at extant mining operations in Minnesota. However, instead of allowing U.S. companies to mine these, the administration is pursuing a policy of “friendshoring,” wherein it merely transfers supply chains for offshored goods from China to more friendly nations, such as South Korea.

“We have the best environmental standards, best labor standards, and the opportunity to secure our supply chain dependency and put the destiny of our great nation in the palm of our own hands,” Stauber said.

“It doesn’t have to be this way. We must have an administration that understands the importance of securing our critical minerals and our rare earth minerals. We have to return this country, the United States of America, to mining and mineral dominance. And we can do that, if we have the political will.”

China Weaponizing Rare Earths
Ann Bridges, a Silicon Valley author and policy adviser at the Heartland Institute, said the fear of China weaponizing its growing power of rare and critical elements isn’t without precedent.

“In 2010, Japan and China actually had a conflict over rare earths,” Bridges told NTD. “China responded by cutting off Japan’s access to the rare earths, which really had an impact on Japan’s manufacturing capabilities.

“So it is not outside of the scope of the imagination to believe that in a time of warfare, indeed, China would leverage this kind of power.”

China is the largest global player in many critical minerals, for which demand is currently skyrocketing because of technological development. To that end, Bridges said the administration’s top-down push for electric vehicles and other global climate initiatives could ultimately threaten U.S. security if it’s not more carefully conducted.

“The current administration is all about climate, right, saving the environment?” Bridges said. “A big part of that is the push into electric vehicles, but that needs a lot of rare earth minerals and elements. And then suddenly, it’s like, well, where are we getting that? China?

“We need to be very careful about how we accept kind of a single worldview, whether it’s coming from communist China, whether it’s coming from the World Economic Forum.”

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: ET: Chinese dominace of REEs not necessary
« Reply #987 on: August 25, 2022, 09:07:46 AM »
Right on the money.  Good coverage of a critical issue.

From the article:
“We have the best environmental standards, best labor standards, and the opportunity to secure our supply chain dependency and put the destiny of our great nation in the palm of our own hands,” Rep. Pete Stauber said.
------------------

Very interesting politics here.  Stauber's congressional district, MN-8 covers a huge part of northern Minnesota which is very beautiful wilderness with lakes and forests and rich with minerals, including the area known as the Iron Range. Rep. Stauber was a national champion and pro hockey player from the port city of Duluth:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stauber

From the 1940s to 2010 the region showed solid blue (Democrat) on all the political maps even after most of the non-urban heartland had turned red.  Democrat because is was blue collar working people up there, a Democrat strength. 

There was a famous legal case where the iron ore company was dumping taconite tailings into Lake Superior (mining waste product), permitted pollution in the face of rising environmental awareness and the origin of the EPA.  It was finally shut down by a federal judge in 1980.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reserve_Mining_Company

In the last 10 or 15 years the arguments have shifted.  The mining up there today does not directly pollute but, like a pipeline, has a risk of leakage or pollution, less risk than anywhere else in the world mining is done.  The powers in St. Paul (and Washington) want all activity and commerce stopped in the wilderness areas and the people who live there want to make a living - so the politics flipped.

Old mine area have been converted beautiful golf courses, from barren waste back to green and tourism money:
https://www.giantsridge.com/golf/the-quarry/

Everyone has an opinion on mining.  One (Dem) relative said, I just don't think they should mine up there (in the pristine wilderness).  I said, fair enough, but then don't use those - pointing to his i-phone, and he said, good point, acknowledging the contradiction.

Mining of minerals necessary for solar panels, wind turbines, computer chips, batteries and all electronic devices intended to make fossil fuels obsolete must come from somewhere,  cleanest is here.

There are so many contradictions in government.  Right now they are trying to mandate we buy things that we are banned from producing.  As Stauber suggests, the country (China) we leave to supply it happens to be a communist, totalitarian regime (that we are on the brink of war with).  What could go wrong? 

Even without the strategic economic and military adversarial issue, allowing China to produce all the world's essential items gives them enormous advantage.  A very bad idea.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2022, 10:30:19 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #989 on: August 25, 2022, 10:33:28 AM »
Watch the market for used cars go nuts when they ban the sale of new gas cars.  Also the rush before the ban.

Can't people just buy them somewhere else and bring them in?   Is there not freedom to travel between states?  Maybe they'll designate the shoulder for gas cars?

Singapore (Island nation state all urban) has a  restrictive law regarding new car sales.   Must trade in a used car to buy a new one. The used car market is nuts, making new cars and used cars unaffordable to the masses. Just what the Left wants here.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #990 on: August 25, 2022, 10:44:21 AM »
As usual, it’s not about policy, it’s about power.


Watch the market for used cars go nuts when they ban the sale of new gas cars.  Also the rush before the ban.

Can't people just buy them somewhere else and bring them in?   Is there not freedom to travel between states?  Maybe they'll designate the shoulder for gas cars?

Singapore (Island nation state all urban) has a  restrictive law regarding new car sales.   Must trade in a used car to buy a new one. The used car market is nuts, making new cars and used cars unaffordable to the masses. Just what the Left wants here.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: Just think of Greta and the Ukraine as you freeze to death
« Reply #992 on: August 26, 2022, 04:32:16 AM »
Greta yes, but Ukraine is not why we will freeze to death.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Just think of Greta and the Ukraine as you freeze to death
« Reply #993 on: August 26, 2022, 06:27:12 AM »
Greta yes, but Ukraine is not why we will freeze to death.

Please watch the video for the context.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Biden’s Push for Electric Vehicles Will Benefit China: House Republicans
By Frank Fang August 25, 2022 Updated: August 25, 2022biggersmaller Print

0:00
3:57



1

The Chinese Communist Party will likely become the beneficiary of President Joe Biden’s push to fill U.S. streets with electric vehicles, according to 16 Republicans on the House Oversight Committee.

The lawmakers, led by the committee’s ranking Republican member, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), and Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), sounded the alarm in an Aug. 24 letter (pdf) to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. They wrote that Oversight Committee Republicans are examining “the false claims” made by the Biden administration about the impact of electric vehicles on U.S. jobs.

To rebuke the administration’s claims, the lawmakers pointed out how Ford will cut about 8,000 jobs this summer to “boost profits to fund its push into the electric-vehicle market,” citing a July article from Bloomberg.

Epoch Times Photo
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) speaks during the Rally To Protect Our Elections conference in Phoenix on July 24, 2021. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
“Most of the 8,000 jobs will be salaried workers in the United States, representing as much as 25 percent of Ford’s American salaried workers,” they wrote. “Ford is focusing on eliminating employees from its gas-fueled vehicle line.”

Aside from the job cuts, Ford has turned to a Chinese supplier for battery packs. According to a statement from Ford’s website, the U.S. automaker inked a cooperation agreement with China-based Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Ltd. (CATL) in July. Under the terms of the agreement, CATL will supply electric batteries for certain models of Ford’s electric pickup trucks and SUVs beginning in 2023.

CATL stated that its agreement with Ford allows the two firms to “leverage their respective strengths to jointly explore new business opportunities worldwide.”

However, the lawmakers warned about CATL’s ties to the Chinese communist regime.

“CATL is influential in the Chinese government—being able to independently draft government safety regulations while completely dominating the EV battery market with support from the Chinese government,” they wrote.

CATL, the world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) battery manufacturer, has obtained billions in subsidies from Chinese authorities, according to China’s state-run media outlets. The company’s chairman, Zeng Yuqun, is also a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), a political advisory body.

The CPPCC is currently headed by Wang Yang, former Chinese vice premier and a current member of the Chinese regime’s top decision-making body, the Politburo Standing Committee.

“This raises concerns about whether the push for EVs over gas-fueled vehicles will make America even more reliant on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) instead of American energy resources,” the lawmakers wrote. “It is troubling that the Administration-endorsed EV future is already eliminating American jobs while benefiting China.”

In August 2021, Biden signed an executive order, with one of the goals being that half of all vehicles sold in the United States in 2030 be zero-transmission vehicles. In May, electric vehicles accounted for 6.1 percent of new cars sold in the United States.


The Inflation Reduction Act, legislation that Biden signed into law on Aug. 16, offers tax credits of up to $7,500 for people buying a new electric vehicle and $4,000 for those purchasing a used one. The tax relief program has been criticized by some Republican lawmakers as benefiting only wealthy Americans, given the higher cost of electric vehicles compared to gasoline models.

Pete Buttigieg
Secretary of the Department of Transportation Pete Buttigieg delivers remarks on new transportation initiatives at an event in the South Court Auditorium at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on March 7, 2022. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Also in their letter, the lawmakers questioned Buttigieg’s statement during a congressional hearing in July, when he said the rise of U.S. domestic clean energy production would be “creating a lot of jobs.”

“As the Secretary for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and an advocate for Americans’ widespread adoption of EVs, your agency is in a position to explain how Ford’s actions help American workers and the economy,” the letter reads.

The lawmakers wanted Buttigieg to schedule a briefing with Oversight Committee Republicans before Aug. 31.

“We request that you provide the Republican staff of the Committee a briefing to address the loss of American jobs and industry to China and other nations,” the lawmakers wrote.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Tax Credit Requirement complications
« Reply #996 on: August 28, 2022, 04:35:35 PM »
Democrats Obstruct Their Electric Vehicle Push With Surprising Tax Credit Requirements
By Katie Spence August 27, 2022 Updated: August 28, 2022biggersmaller Print

 

The federal government’s electric vehicle (EV) transition is in full swing, and Democrats have hyped the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as an accelerant to that evolution.

Further, gas prices’ continual pounding of consumers at the pump has spurred EV interest to rise to 36 percent, according to a 2022 Consumer Reports survey. That may not sound like much, but it’s a significant increase from the 2020 report, when EV interest was at 4 percent.

Still, one of the hurdles to increased EV adoption is price. On July 12, Kelley Blue Book reported that the average cost of an EV was more than $66,000, while the price for an average gas-powered vehicle was $43,942—a $22,000 difference.

Tesla

Rows of Tesla Model 3 electric vehicles are seen in Richmond, Calif., on June 22, 2018. (Stephen Lam/Reuters)
To help allay concerns about price toward increasing adoption, Democrats proposed an expansion of EV tax credits in the IRA; the credits took effect on Aug. 16. However, since the IRA was enacted, some experts are pointing out that the new credits exclude lower-priced EVs and could phase out entirely in 2023.

Indeed, economically priced EVs from Toyota and Hyundai are now ineligible for EV tax credits, while Audi’s Q5 PHEV (plug-in hybrid EV) and BMW’s 330e qualify for up to $7,500—for now.

Why? Democrats tied the EV credits to an “assembled in North America” requirement, and, in 2023, that includes the battery.

Assembled in North America

Before the IRA went into effect, there were approximately 72 EVs eligible for a tax credit, according to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation industry trade group.

Now, just 16 model year 2022 personal vehicles qualify for the federal tax credit, and only three 2023 models are eligible, according to the Department of Energy. If you’re looking for a commercial vehicle, two 2022 vehicles qualify.

The average manufacturer’s suggested retail price is $54,897 for the 2022 qualifying base models. That price doesn’t include taxes, fees, or other extra charges, trade-ins, or discounts.

Further, only two base models on the list are below $36,000, five are between $43,000 and $47,650, and the remaining nine are between $51,000 and $87,400.

Dream Edition P

People test drive Dream Edition P and Dream Edition R electric vehicles at the Lucid Motors plant in Casa Grande, Ariz., on Sept. 28, 2021. (Caitlin O’Hara/Reuters)
However, starting in January 2023, zero EVs or PHEVs are eligible for the tax credits, Alliance for Automotive Innovation reports.

“The $7,500 credit might exist on paper, but no vehicles will qualify for this purchase incentive over the next few years. That’s going to be a major setback to our collective target of 40-50 percent electric vehicle sales by 2030.”

In the IRA, Senate Democrats added a $4,000 consumer tax credit for lower- and middle-income individuals to buy used “clean vehicles” and up to $7,500 tax credit to purchase new “clean vehicles.” The new vehicle credit caps at $150,000 for a single person and $300,000 for a married couple.

Also, starting Jan. 1, 2023, the previous 200,000-car cap disappears, allowing Tesla and General Motors vehicles to qualify for a tax credit (they’d previously sold more than 200,000 vehicles and met the limit).

Tesla Gruenheide cars

A line of Tesla Model Y electric vehicles at the “Gigafactory” in Gruenheide, southeast of Berlin, on March 22, 2022. (Patrick Pleul/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
While the IRA’s $7,500 tax credit might sound great if you’re planning to purchase an EV, the law’s North America assembly stipulation means that most previously qualifying EVs are now ineligible.

Additional provisions go into effect on Jan. 1, 2023. They include the requirement that EV battery components contain a certain percentage of minerals from North America or a country with a free trade agreement with the United States.

Plus, most of the battery must be manufactured or assembled in North America.

“That’s going to be a huge burden and hurdle to overcome. We don’t have the mining, we don’t have the critical minerals that are needed in North America or from our free trade partners, and almost 90 percent of the refining is done in China,” Carla Bailo, CEO of the Center for Automotive Research, told NPR.

Domestic Manufacturing Push

On Feb. 22, the Biden administration conceded that the United States increasingly depends on China to refine “cobalt, lithium, rare earth, and other critical minerals” for EV batteries. China controls about three-quarters of the market.

Biden has said that reliance constitutes a “national and economic security” threat. To combat it, he released a statement saying that the United States would expand domestic production and transition away from its reliance on China.

Additionally, on July 28, 2021, Biden released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which directed a change to the “Buy American” statute.

“The Buy American statute says products bought with taxpayer dollars must ‘substantially all’ be made in the U.S. However, today, products could qualify if just 55 percent … of the value of their component parts was manufactured here. The NPRM proposes an immediate increase of the threshold to 60 percent and a phased increase to 75 percent.”

The above EV tax credit requirements in the IRA are part of Biden’s domestic manufacturing push.

Indeed, Biden stated that the IRA will “Support American workers with targeted tax incentives aimed at manufacturing U.S.-sourced products such as batteries, solar, and offshore wind components, and technologies for carbon capture systems.”

Still, John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, stated, “We share the goal of increased domestic capacity and supply, but the requirements ought to be an inducement to industrial base change—not unattainable and punitive to consumers.

“A more gradual phase in of the battery component, critical mineral and final assembly requirements—that better reflect current geopolitical, sourcing and mineral extraction realities—will preserve the credit for millions of Americans and keep the country focused on building domestic supply chains able to support our electrified transportation future,” he added.

The push to reduce the United States’ reliance on China is important, however, neither the United States nor its allies are currently capable of meeting demand, Bozzella said.

If Democrats and the Biden administration insist on maintaining the EV tax credit requirements, it could severely affect the 2030 goal of 40 to 50 percent electric vehicle sales, he said.

Bozzella’s point is weighty when considering the Consumer Reports survey, which found that half of the respondents said they were unaware of federal and state tax incentives. Consumer Reports noted that awareness of this benefit “might sway someone to make an EV purchase.”

Katie Spence

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Stratfor: Chinese Energy
« Reply #997 on: August 30, 2022, 12:45:23 AM »
Not what I was expecting:
===============
The Obstacles China Will Face in Fixing Its Energy Grid
8 MIN READAug 29, 2022 | 21:12 GMT


Editor's Note: The primary author of this assessment, Satvik Pendyala, is an Applied Geopolitics Fellow at RANE who has conducted significant research over the summer into China's electricity policy.

China's implementation of renewable grid reforms may address longstanding connectivity issues, but the emphasis on transmission infrastructure may raise new concerns about the grid's ability to respond to challenges. China is reinvigorating plans for long-range ultra-high voltage (UHV) power lines to connect underutilized renewable energy supplies to centers of consumption. Beijing is also expanding its plans for and implementation of smart grids to manage the complex flow of electric power across the country as Beijing seeks to advance its carbon reduction commitments, as well as mitigate concerns regarding pollution levels and regional imbalances in power production and consumption. These efforts have the potential to ease the greater challenges currently plaguing China's domestic development — namely, interregional competition, centralization of governance, mismatched regional implementation of national policies, and a poorly optimized electricity grid. If the reforms are enacted, China can finally integrate its renewables into a larger grid to reduce the amount of wasted power generation. An interconnected grid, however, also creates new vulnerabilities. And this, combined with climate-related shortages of hydroelectricity, may result in more power disruptions in the future.

For the next few years, China's electricity policy will focus on grid interconnectivity, peripheral installed capacity, and introducing ''smart grid'' technologies.

China has been continuing to develop the West-East Transmission grid project, which aims to connect the country's more power-generating provinces in the west with the more power-consuming provinces in the east. Significant UHV lines and generation infrastructure has already been constructed as part of the project, with more slated to be built over the coming year.

China's 14th Five-Year Plan, released in 2021 and updated in March 2022, emphasizes ''smart grid'' management along with UHV transmission and storage, increasing the central government's ability to track local grids given the interprovincial connectivity of such a smart grid system
In April, China's Central Comprehensively Deepening Reforms Commission (CCDRC) announced that environmental performance would be a key part of future cadre evaluation for promotion, which suggests local cadres may align their environmental policies with Beijing's to advance their careers.

Through these grid projects, Beijing is hoping to address the connectivity issues that have plagued its renewable sector. China's installed renewable capacity has rapidly expanded over the past decade. In 2010, solar and wind power together comprised only 3% of installed capacity, but as of 2020, they comprised nearly 25%. China has also invested billions in installing renewable energy in western, peripheral provinces. Connectivity issues, however, have hindered the utilization of this newly installed power capacity. Due to over-construction, renewables in China have had a high rate of ''curtailment,'' which is the amount of potentially generated energy that was not delivered to the grid. This largely stems from local governments in China building power capacity without concern for integration into the national network due to development incentives and regional development evaluations. For China's power grid, this scattershot approach to the energy transition has come at the cost of reduced efficiency and reliability.

Curtailment rates for renewables in China have often spiked above 8% over the last decade. The curtailment rate for wind energy in the country temporarily decreased after the central government imposed limits on renewable construction in 2017. But in 2020, wind and solar developments exploded amid the reintroduction of government subsidies, which has increased China's curtailment rate by causing the country's potential power capacity to further exceed absorption ability. So far, in 2022, Inner Mongolia and Qinghai reportedly face curtailment rates of up to 10-12% for renewables (the U.S. state of California, by comparison, averaged about a 3% curtailment rate in 2021).

Hydropower makes up the largest portion of China's installed renewable capacity. But in recent years, extended droughts related to climate change have significantly reduced the reliability of this energy source by leaving dams without enough water to generate electricity. In provinces like Yunnan, low rainfall in 2020 and 2021 reduced hydropower generation by 30% in some months. Sichuan — which relies on hydroelectricity for 80% of its power generation — is also currently facing a major ongoing drought, which recently forced the province to implement power cuts for industrial operations. Nonetheless, new dams have just finished construction in southwestern China and more are scheduled to be built.

The underutilization of installed renewable capacity in China partially reflects central-local and inter-regional policy disagreements on electricity production and transmission. Beijing's policy priorities are codified in its Five-Year Plans, but their implementation is left to local officials who must balance those central priorities against their region's economic and social interests. The Chinese government financially incentivizes provinces to develop local renewable energy sources by offering subsidies, guaranteed pricing and feed-in tariffs, which has resulted in oversupply and inadequate connections for built installed capacity. Another form of regional protectionism arises when local energy providers provide tax revenue for provincial governments, which incentives cadres to buy power from local power generators (and deters them from relying on inter-provincial transmitted power). This often results in the propping up of unprofitable companies, insecure financing for renewable ventures, and an unwillingness to fully utilize national UHV transmission lines.

For China's power grid, this scattershot approach to the energy transition has come at the cost of reduced efficiency and reliability. In August 2021, the NDRC reprimanded several provinces for failing to maintain ''low energy intensity,'' a measure of how efficiently energy gets turned into economic output. In 2020, China also failed to meet its 15% national energy intensity reduction goal laid out in its 13th Five-Year Plan. In the wake of these failures, China modified its energy intensity caps to encourage renewable energy production and greater efficiency, as well as bolster renewable usage and grid connections, while phasing out traditional energy generators. But grid disruptions have nonetheless continued to draw widespread attention.

In September 2021, due to coal shortages and concerns about industrial power use, the Chinese government ordered power-intensive industries to slow operations, which caused production delays. This iteration of cuts spanned many northern provinces and extended until December. Since then, power cuts have resumed amid a series of heat waves and droughts, which have increased the demand and slashed hydropower capacity.

China's energy plans can significantly reduce curtailment and promote regional interconnectivity in the long term. The political capital of leading renewable investment is not lost on Chinese leaders, who are keen on bolstering its domestic production of renewable components with an international market in mind. ''Smart grid'' technology, in particular, has been a major focus for the export market. Many countries that look to Beijing for energy leadership may request China to help upgrade their own grids.

Popular sentiment in coastal provinces has been to shift pollution- and land-intensive energy production out to China's western regions. As the central government is politically dominated by coastal provinces, Beijing has been massively investing in solar and wind power in the west, with Xinjiang alone planning to increase its solar and wind capacity to 80 gigawatts by 2025. This is bolstered by new UHV lines meant to increase transmissions eastward, contrary to regional protectionism that prioritizes local generation. Recent power cuts have tempered Beijing's ambitions, but have not slowed projects aimed at increasing China's peripheral generation and transmission. As of July, major interconnectivity projects are set to finish before the end of this year, such as the Huadian Jinshang Suwalong hydropower station in Sichuan.
The West-East Transmission project, connecting as far west as Xinjiang and Tibet to as far East as Jiangsu and Anhui, is expected to accelerate in the coming years. As this transmission grid matures, and as more provinces are connected out west and renewables are further able to deliver electricity, China will once again be able to bring its curtailment rates under control.
But this reform push will also come with trade-offs, including:

Increased risk of social unrest. As China increases its focus on renewables and prioritizes energy transmission, local traditional power generators in some areas risk going bankrupt, leaving people without jobs. In areas that are heavily dependent on coal-fired power generation, like Inner Mongolia and Shaanxi, unemployment in local energy sectors may cause social unrest and disrupt the implementation of the improved grid.

Potential for construction-related outages. There are some risks inherent in the construction of UHV lines. They are points of failure that increase the risks of outages by sabotage or accident. These lines become critical nodes, which may serve as points of reduced physical redundancy for the grid.

Continued vulnerability to extreme climate events. China's grid remains heavily dependent on hydropower generation in the West. This will leave the country's power grid vulnerable to supply disruptions as climate change increases the length and severity of droughts and, in turn, decreases the generative capacity of China's rivers. Such disruptions may eventually force China to walk back some of its more ambitious renewable transition goals and/or scale up non-hydropower energy sources. Beijing could also possibly look to nuclear to replace hydroelectricity as the base power load of its grid.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile