JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

On 6/28/2022 at 6:49 AM, Ecocharger said:

The Green Revolution is now officially over and done

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/germany-pushes-for-g-7-reversal-on-fossil-fuels-in-climate-blow-1.1783650

 "...G-7 shift from a commitment initiated last year and firmed up in May would be a u-turn in global efforts to fight climate change. It would make it harder to rally the rest of the world around more stringent targets and direct investments toward cleaner sources of energy. 

It would also go against International Energy Agency advice that no new oil and gas projects should be developed if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. 

G-7 ministers, in making their commitment to end direct international financing of fossil fuels by the end of 2022, acknowledged for the first time that fossil fuel subsidies were incompatible with the Paris Agreement. The group also reaffirmed a commitment to end “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies by 2025."

they might have been  underinformed. New cult info indicates a summary attached below on real culprit(s) of global warming. It is from someone who does not have any conflict of interest in getting any thing in any deal i.e just an outsider.....

image.png.fbf5f006d3645cf748fb34d8be065ce1.png

fossil fuel might not be the single causal agent but much larger problem in larger scale might be involved.......

Taking the end of a hair and spinning at that location will not solve things happening at the root, or at the top of head, efficiently. More often than not, it could make things worse by enthusiastically echoing  over something that one can't see clearly due to over-focus at one small end point ( *p/s: over focus from a lens would blurr the target and/ or blurr out everything else in a larger picture).

the problem with subsidy is taking the trouble to know how it is used. It might not surprise anyone that no one, disregard if it's officer at the top or the public, is taking any interest to know how it works, why it works, how it is reported and what has gone wrong. Cutting it directly without those basic knowledge could have disastrous impact on socio economy of a country........ They must keep themselves better informed before making announcement like that, yes? :(

On 7/1/2022 at 2:27 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

That oil pipeline wasn't shutdown because of carbon. Green energy is doing just fine and the people want clean air so this is going to backfire on you. Green energy is less expensive than fossil so it is going to win. 

the energy might have always been green on majority. If green means better for plants, then, what could be better in sources producing CO2 that nourishes them than fossil fuel? If it means energy from natural resources e.g sun light, wind, wave etc, could we mean clean?

EU just categorized nuclear and gas as clean energy. Combining with hydro power, this group of clean energy might make up more than 50 to 60% of energy supply, on average in the world? Fossil fuel 25 to 30%?  If the aim of dispute is to produce energy that is economic, efficient, affordable by the public, good to the environment etc, we must take into account each factor mentioned before we go all in at one direction, yes?

Things, often, could co-exist. It does not have to be one or the other, no?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2022 at 9:58 AM, Ron Wagner said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

I rode these as a child. They covered greater Los Angeles. They now have new versions that run in a few areas but seem to have low use comparatively. 

thank you for the link. Read it briefly....

It's a pity...... it gives way to freedom to drive on  streets without the need to entertain specific grid of street cars, yes? Add-on development and poor management could also be the problem.......

As mentioned, the cousins bumper cars and trams could use the grid without additional charging facility, power supply etc..... One needs to regulate how electric flying cars are moving any way in the future. Might as well put all letric cars, on ground and/ or flying, in a grid, like shown in an 80's movie, Taxi, led by  Bruce Willis?

image.png.5229320dfbaded6e56e37686216713f0.png

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2022 at 3:13 PM, Old-Ruffneck said:

Now I will call you a name, "Socialist, Commie-Fag."  Your IEA graph is outdated from 2015 to 2019 and a 4 week rolling average? Yup, just keep posting crap that"s meaningless. 

5 dollar gas hurts mainly the sub-middle class. 

Here is a graph that show more realistic demand. 

EIA: Growing global production limits crude oil price increases in the most  recent forecast | AJOT.COM

Love the Oil market today???? realistic demand??????

Guess you can take ownership for all things related to big oil......

Real demand today?????? markets are getting creamed as your beloved oil market is taking a dump in your backyard...enjoy cleaning up the mess

PS your petty name calling shows you really are a low-life.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 6/28/2022 at 9:11 AM, Ecocharger said:

You are far removed from any intelligent market analysis...but no surprise there.

 

On 6/28/2022 at 5:01 AM, notsonice said:

Fed chairman just ended the commodities super-cycle. His next rate increase will devastate commodities including oil $90 oil by Thanksgiving????? $80 by Xmas????? anyone want to toss down where they think oil will end in 2022????

Ecochump, how are you doing with my market analysis today??????? was I too conservative in my $90 oil by Thanksgiving??????

You can thank demand destruction is working overtime and thank god to EV's and hybrids... We,  working together, can make sure Peak oil happened  in the past......

Enjoy the oil crash of 2022, it is not over yet. The Fed is not done with its wrecking ball.

Edited by notsonice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, notsonice said:

Love the Oil market today???? realistic demand??????

Guess you can take ownership for all things related to big oil......

Real demand today?????? markets are getting creamed as your beloved oil market is taking a dump in your backyard...enjoy cleaning up the mess

PS your petty name calling shows you really are a low-life.....

go back to July 2nd. You belittle and name call. i was returning the favor ya. Low life? You have no clue who I am.  A clue is that my business is dependent on oil produced products and prices of shipping. Been in business 32 years and am pretty damn successful. My foreman has been with me 30 years, and other two sub-foremen 18 and 16 years. Even my laborers seem to stick like glue as I pay well and treat 'em like Men. So you may think I am a low life, but I do pay probably in taxes what you make in a year. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, notsonice said:

 

Ecochump, how are you doing with my market analysis today??????? was I too conservative in my $90 oil by Thanksgiving??????

You can thank demand destruction is working overtime and thank god to EV's and hybrids... We,  working together, can make sure Peak oil happened  in the past......

Enjoy the oil crash of 2022, it is not over yet. The Fed is not done with its wrecking ball.

The Fed is not the main problem it is the Democrat socialist plan which has hampered the oil and gas industry while promoting "sustainable" energy which is not presently even in existence. It is the main wrecking ball. EV's are not yet affordable for the middle class so obviously not by the lower class. My sister just bought a $140,000 Porsche Taycan EV. She is well to do and can afford it. She decided against a Tesla, even though she owns stock in Tesla. 

The next election will change a lot of things, so hopefully there will be improvement in our policies and governance. 

All products depend on fossil fuel for energy in manufacture and transport it is a very large part of inflation. That is obvious to everyone. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said:

The Fed is not the main problem it is the Democrat socialist plan which has hampered the oil and gas industry while promoting "sustainable" energy which is not presently even in existence. It is the main wrecking ball. EV's are not yet affordable for the middle class so obviously not by the lower class. My sister just bought a $140,000 Porsche Taycan EV. She is well to do and can afford it. She decided against a Tesla, even though she owns stock in Tesla. 

The next election will change a lot of things, so hopefully there will be improvement in our policies and governance. 

All products depend on fossil fuel for energy in manufacture and transport it is a very large part of inflation. That is obvious to everyone. 

Yeah Putin's invasion and banning Russian oil didn't have anything to do with the price spike in oil and gas that happened on the same day,

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

go back to July 2nd. You belittle and name call. i was returning the favor ya. Low life? You have no clue who I am.  A clue is that my business is dependent on oil produced products and prices of shipping. Been in business 32 years and am pretty damn successful. My foreman has been with me 30 years, and other two sub-foremen 18 and 16 years. Even my laborers seem to stick like glue as I pay well and treat 'em like Men. So you may think I am a low life, but I do pay probably in taxes what you make in a year. 

you really take the cake.......

when you post Socialist, Commie-Fag......

you show off that you are a petty person......yep all you are......

who cares what you are selling or your taxes you pay ....it does not make you a better person than anyone else

your taxes ????? Oh boy, guess your type believes that you are some big shot because you pay a few bucks in taxes.....

the only thing, on this forum, is that you have proved that you are  a petty person

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by notsonice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

The Fed is not the main problem it is the Democrat socialist plan which has hampered the oil and gas industry while promoting "sustainable" energy which is not presently even in existence. It is the main wrecking ball. EV's are not yet affordable for the middle class so obviously not by the lower class. My sister just bought a $140,000 Porsche Taycan EV. She is well to do and can afford it. She decided against a Tesla, even though she owns stock in Tesla. 

The next election will change a lot of things, so hopefully there will be improvement in our policies and governance. 

All products depend on fossil fuel for energy in manufacture and transport it is a very large part of inflation. That is obvious to everyone. 

the main problem it is the Democrat socialist plan??????

oh boy , another rant out of a Trump loser. 

What hampered oil and gas in the last few years..... the 2020 crash in oil and gas prices..... remember the good old days of 2020 ?????

Just another Trump failure to keep business running in 2020......Remember him bragging that COVID would dissappear by itself.... Idiots running around not wearing masks??????? He let COVID take over....only a million plus dead Americans from Covid.

I bet you were stocking up on Trumps horse dewormer remedy.

 

Back to the topic .....if you look at crude it has done a 90 degree turn to the down side the day the Fed did the 3/4 point raise..........are you telling me that the Fed is running some Democrat socialist plan by raising rates?????? pretty clear that all commodities got hit hard since the rate increase.......

yet again you go off babbling ..............the main problem it is the Democrat socialist plan......

what does promoting renewables have to do with the metals that would cause the markets for all of them to fall???

Reality since the Fed did the 3/4% increase

copper hit hard

iron ore hit hard

gold hit

silver got creamed

Lithium down

Lead creamed

Zinc hammered

Aluminum creamed

Nickel creamed

Steel rebar off the cliff

 

Dollar strengthened on the Fed Increase which always creams the commodities.

 

 

Edited by notsonice
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All commodities require fuel to produce them and depend on manufacturers to buy them and turn them into products. Then those products need to be shipped to wholesalers and stores. The price of fuel is basic to all commodities whether agricultural or anything. Oil, gasoline, diesel, etc. When those are repressed by lack of investment due to green fanatics it is clear what will happen and what has happened. Biden has done all he can to repress fuel and so have all his greenie allies in the financial world. 

That does not mean that wind turbines and solar power are not good. It just means that they are not viable substitutes for fossil fuels and nuclear. Some day in the distant future they will be. I hope that wave becomes a major source also. 

I am looking forward to the next election. Lets see what the people who are needing to fill up their vehicles say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, specinho said:

they might have been  underinformed. New cult info indicates a summary attached below on real culprit(s) of global warming. It is from someone who does not have any conflict of interest in getting any thing in any deal i.e just an outsider.....

 

 

image.png.fbf5f006d3645cf748fb34d8be065ce1.png

 

 

fossil fuel might not be the single causal agent but much larger problem in larger scale might be involved.......

Taking the end of a hair and spinning at that location will not solve things happening at the root, or at the top of head, efficiently. More often than not, it could make things worse by enthusiastically echoing  over something that one can't see clearly due to over-focus at one small end point ( *p/s: over focus from a lens would blurr the target and/ or blurr out everything else in a larger picture).

 

 

the problem with subsidy is taking the trouble to know how it is used. It might not surprise anyone that no one, disregard if it's officer at the top or the public, is taking any interest to know how it works, why it works, how it is reported and what has gone wrong. Cutting it directly without those basic knowledge could have disastrous impact on socio economy of a country........ They must keep themselves better informed before making announcement like that, yes? :(

 

 

 

 

 

the energy might have always been green on majority. If green means better for plants, then, what could be better in sources producing CO2 that nourishes them than fossil fuel? If it means energy from natural resources e.g sun light, wind, wave etc, could we mean clean?

EU just categorized nuclear and gas as clean energy. Combining with hydro power, this group of clean energy might make up more than 50 to 60% of energy supply, on average in the world? Fossil fuel 25 to 30%?  If the aim of dispute is to produce energy that is economic, efficient, affordable by the public, good to the environment etc, we must take into account each factor mentioned before we go all in at one direction, yes?

Things, often, could co-exist. It does not have to be one or the other, no?

 

Let the woke try one more time to bring you to environmental enlightenment. It’s the air, it’s the water. You see, if you pollute the air and water, the pollution be carried into the human body. Obviously you been sniffing some sage and rustling around the mushrooms. 

Edited by Boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

45 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

All commodities require fuel to produce them and depend on manufacturers to buy them and turn them into products. Then those products need to be shipped to wholesalers and stores. The price of fuel is basic to all commodities whether agricultural or anything. Oil, gasoline, diesel, etc. When those are repressed by lack of investment due to green fanatics it is clear what will happen and what has happened. Biden has done all he can to repress fuel and so have all his greenie allies in the financial world. 

That does not mean that wind turbines and solar power are not good. It just means that they are not viable substitutes for fossil fuels and nuclear. Some day in the distant future they will be. I hope that wave becomes a major source also. 

I am looking forward to the next election. Lets see what the people who are needing to fill up their vehicles say.

Your new nuke Republican plant in GA is as corrupt as a Putin gas service. It really isn’t the gas and oil that is so bad. It’s more the corrupt humans it seems to attract. Never seen such a bunch of liars and con artists. The world will run so much smoother and with less volatility when fossile fuels play a much smaller role. Needless to say there will be less killing going on. Guys like you know the hundreds of thousands to millions of fossile fuel products exported every day and then claim its Biden’s fault? Or lack of refinery capacity when exporting millions of barrels oil products every day? Your momma should slap your mouth for deceit. Spank your ass for being incorrigible. A stain on the human race Putin style I say. 😎

Edited by Boat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

All commodities require fuel to produce them and depend on manufacturers to buy them and turn them into products. Then those products need to be shipped to wholesalers and stores. The price of fuel is basic to all commodities whether agricultural or anything. Oil, gasoline, diesel, etc. When those are repressed by lack of investment due to green fanatics it is clear what will happen and what has happened. Biden has done all he can to repress fuel and so have all his greenie allies in the financial world. 

That does not mean that wind turbines and solar power are not good. It just means that they are not viable substitutes for fossil fuels and nuclear. Some day in the distant future they will be. I hope that wave becomes a major source also. 

I am looking forward to the next election. Lets see what the people who are needing to fill up their vehicles say.

When those are repressed by lack of investment due to green fanatics????

 

dude you really are babbling BS.....Please take all of your money , cash in your house and invest all you want in a coal mine or an oil well......

No one is repressing you......The only one repressing you is yourself....... Go For it...... You will be sooooooooooo rich....

some great deals today....lots of losers want to unload their shares in Oil......Great Opportunities 

If you have not noticed price of oil and gasoline is crashing....before the election the Fed will raise rates again...........

Where do you think Gas will be by November???? $3.50 a gallon???? ohhhhhhhhhh

gas on the futures today less than $3.25, down over a dollar since the Fed raised rates by 3/4 %.....pay attention 

 

 

Edited by notsonice
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, notsonice said:

you really take the cake.......

when you post Socialist, Commie-Fag......

you show off that you are a petty person......yep all you are......

who cares what you are selling or your taxes you pay ....it does not make you a better person than anyone else

your taxes ????? Oh boy, guess your type believes that you are some big shot because you pay a few bucks in taxes.....

the only thing, on this forum, is that you have proved that you are  a petty person

 

 

 

 

 

People who interact with such bravado frequently are trying to mask their own insecurities. The orange man takes that to the nth degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2022 at 6:28 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Well the North Sea is highly trafficked by freighters and fishermen and is full of wind turbines but no word on this being a problem they haven't solved.

Not so fast:

May, 2022

But the advent of offshore wind farms (OWFs) is changing all that.

Already the planting of thousands of turbines by Big Wind over just the past decade, especially in the Southern North Sea, is generating problems as developers muscle in on traditional fishing grounds and shipping routes especially.

And it’s going to get worse, exacerbated by poor quality “Marine Spatial Planning” at EU and local UK levels.

MSP is still a fresh concept and being tried in about 70 countries. A research paper published by Elsevier late last year highlighted a “myriad” of challenges, including political frameworks, climate change and balancing economic development and marine ecosystem conservation.

Meanwhile, an EU briefing to MSPs and updated only last month highlighted big issues including a heightened risk of maritime accidents and diversion of shipping routes.

First the risk of accidents, which is aggravated by increased marine traffic, turbine population and reduced sea space, which might lead to the creation of choke points.

Certain layouts of offshore wind farms are also riskier in terms of accidents than others, which can become an issue in case there are problems with a ship’s on-board navigation equipment. O&M (operations and maintenance) vessels might also pose a risk – and be at risk themselves – while crossing major shipping routes en-route to an offshore wind farm.

These can lead to large financial losses for all parties involved. In the worst- case scenario, such accidents can lead to human casualties or serious environmental damage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, JoMack said:

Not so fast:

May, 2022

But the advent of offshore wind farms (OWFs) is changing all that.

Already the planting of thousands of turbines by Big Wind over just the past decade, especially in the Southern North Sea, is generating problems as developers muscle in on traditional fishing grounds and shipping routes especially.

And it’s going to get worse, exacerbated by poor quality “Marine Spatial Planning” at EU and local UK levels.

MSP is still a fresh concept and being tried in about 70 countries. A research paper published by Elsevier late last year highlighted a “myriad” of challenges, including political frameworks, climate change and balancing economic development and marine ecosystem conservation.

Meanwhile, an EU briefing to MSPs and updated only last month highlighted big issues including a heightened risk of maritime accidents and diversion of shipping routes.

First the risk of accidents, which is aggravated by increased marine traffic, turbine population and reduced sea space, which might lead to the creation of choke points.

Certain layouts of offshore wind farms are also riskier in terms of accidents than others, which can become an issue in case there are problems with a ship’s on-board navigation equipment. O&M (operations and maintenance) vessels might also pose a risk – and be at risk themselves – while crossing major shipping routes en-route to an offshore wind farm.

These can lead to large financial losses for all parties involved. In the worst- case scenario, such accidents can lead to human casualties or serious environmental damage.

 

From the end of the actual article which is actually about fishing:

“Look, after a bumpy start, our relationship with the oil and gas industry settled down into something that was actually quite constructive. We want to achieve the same with renewables; establish a mature dialogue where both parties do what they have to do and set up the arrangements (framework) that allow us to co-exist.” https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/wind/uk-wind/390966/north-sea-offshore-wind-fishermen/

The solution is just planning.

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US EV Sales Hit New Record in Q2 2022

This much we know: New-vehicle sales in the second quarter struggled, up only modestly from the first quarter and down more than 20% from Q2 2021. The reasons are well documented – tight inventory, high prices, consumer sentiment dropping. There were a few positive notes in the Q2 sales numbers, and among them EV sales stood out the most. Sales of battery-powered electric vehicles – pure EVs – jumped to 196,788, a record high and a 13% increase from Q1.

Q2-2022-electrified-sales-chart.jpg?w=1024

 

  1. Tesla remains the dominant player in the market. Not the EV market, but the luxury market in total. In Q2, Tesla was the top-selling luxury brand in the U.S., outpacing all the established names: Audi, BMW, Cadillac, Lexus, Mercedes-Benz, etc. As new EV models continue to enter the market, Tesla’s share of the EV segment is dropping. Last quarter, it fell to 66%, down 9% from Q1. Still, Tesla’s EV share is expected to shrink as the EV market expand. The bigger story is Tesla’s continued growth. Last quarter, the free-wheeling brand from Austin nearly outsold Subaru in the U.S.
  2. Sales of electrified vehicles – combined EVs, hybrids, and fuel-cell-powered vehicles – jumped to 442,740 in Q2, an increase of 12.9% from year-ago levels. Electrified vehicles account for 12.6% of the U.S. market last quarter.
  3. In Q2, BEV sales accounted for 5.6% of the total market, an increase from 5.3% in Q1 and a record high. BEV share in Q2 2021 was 2.7%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, notsonice said:

When those are repressed by lack of investment due to green fanatics????

 

dude you really are babbling BS.....Please take all of your money , cash in your house and invest all you want in a coal mine or an oil well......

No one is repressing you......The only one repressing you is yourself....... Go For it...... You will be sooooooooooo rich....

some great deals today....lots of losers want to unload their shares in Oil......Great Opportunities 

If you have not noticed price of oil and gasoline is crashing....before the election the Fed will raise rates again...........

Where do you think Gas will be by November???? $3.50 a gallon???? ohhhhhhhhhh

gas on the futures today less than $3.25, down over a dollar since the Fed raised rates by 3/4 %.....pay attention 

 

 

As I have said many times before, I am for all of the above. I am not trying to repress solar like you would like to suppress fossil fuels. You would be working on Asian coal use if you were serious though.

I just bought an emergency solar generator kit in case I need it. I already have a gasoline generator and a small natural gas furnace that requires no electricity. If my electricity bill gets high like in California I will expand my solar system and get a larger gasoline generator. Maybe a big propane tank too. I believe in energy redundancy and security. The source is secondary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Boat said:

Your new nuke Republican plant in GA is as corrupt as a Putin gas service. It really isn’t the gas and oil that is so bad. It’s more the corrupt humans it seems to attract. Never seen such a bunch of liars and con artists. The world will run so much smoother and with less volatility when fossile fuels play a much smaller role. Needless to say there will be less killing going on. Guys like you know the hundreds of thousands to millions of fossile fuel products exported every day and then claim its Biden’s fault? Or lack of refinery capacity when exporting millions of barrels oil products every day? Your momma should slap your mouth for deceit. Spank your ass for being incorrigible. A stain on the human race Putin style I say. 😎

I never supported that plant in Georgia and opposed all nuclear until solar fanatics caused prices to go up and energy prices to soar. Anyone with intelligence knows that we need all types of fuel to make sure we keep things running and prices reasonable. Green fanatics are causing all the problems in energy. The Europeans really screwed up by their false Green Dreams. Idiots like you led them into today's emergency. We are bailing them out to the best of our ability. The end result of all of this will help destroy the Russian ambitions to control Europe. That is worth all the trouble. Russia is falling. China is next. 

People who do not have a good argument, like you and many others here, often like to use ad hominem attacks to salve their egos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LA Times report warns about 'environmental danger' in solar transition

California has excess solar panel waste and limited means of disposal, The Times reported

The LA Times published a report Thursday detailing the "environmental danger" of expired solar panels on the environment. 

"California has been a pioneer in pushing for rooftop solar power, building up the largest solar market in the U.S.," the article began. "More than 20 years and 1.3 million rooftops later, the bill is coming due."

The Times' Rachel Kisela reported that many solar panels that were purchased beginning in 2006, when the California government "showered subsidies on homeowners" to inspire a transition away from fossil fuels, are now reaching the end of their lifespan.

"Beginning in 2006, the state, focused on how to incentivize people to take up solar power, showered subsidies on homeowners who installed photovoltaic panels but had no comprehensive plan to dispose of them. Now, panels purchased under those programs are nearing the end of their 25-year lifecycle," Kisela reported.

CNN HOST DEMANDS REPUBLICANS BE TREATED AS ‘VERY DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY’

 

Indian workers walk past solar panels at the Gujarat Solar Park at Charanka in Patan district, about 250 kilometers (155 miles) from Ahmadabad, India, Saturday, April 14, 2012. (AP Photo/Ajit Solanki)

Indian workers walk past solar panels at the Gujarat Solar Park at Charanka in Patan district, about 250 kilometers (155 miles) from Ahmadabad, India, Saturday, April 14, 2012. (AP Photo/Ajit Solanki)

The problem is, when solar panels end up in landfills, "components that contain toxic heavy metals such as selenium and cadmium can contaminate groundwater." 

This is an example of how environmental policies can have unintended consequences. "The looming challenge over how to handle truckloads of contaminated waste illustrates how cutting-edge environmental policy can create unforeseen hazards down the road," she said. 

The Times reported that "as California barreled ahead on its renewable-energy program, focusing on rebates and — more recently — a proposed solar tax, questions about how to handle the toxic waste that would accrue years later were never fully addressed." 

"Now, both regulators and panel manufacturers are realizing that they don’t have the capacity to handle what comes next," she continued.

BIDEN'S ENERGY POLICIES MAKING INFLATION WORSE, TOP ENERGY GROUP SAYS

 

May 13, 2015: Some of the more than 37,000 solar panels gather sunlight at the Space Coast Next Generation Solar Center, in Merritt Island, Fla.

May 13, 2015: Some of the more than 37,000 solar panels gather sunlight at the Space Coast Next Generation Solar Center, in Merritt Island, Fla. (AP)

Toxic waste from solar panels is not just a Californian problem, but a problem nationwide. "About 140,000 panels are installed every day in the United States, and the solar industry is expected to quadruple in size between 2020 and 2030," Kisela said. 

But there are difficulties surrounding disposal of solar panels, "Recycling solar panels isn’t a simple process. Highly specialized equipment and workers are needed to separate the aluminum frame and junction box from the panel without shattering it into glass shards."

"Specialized furnaces are used to heat panels to recover silicon. In most states, panels are classified as hazardous materials, which require expensive restrictions on packaging, transport and storage," she continued.

"A lack of consumer awareness about the toxicity of materials in the panels and how to dispose of them is part of the problem," Kisela wrote.

 

Solar panels are seen next to a Southern California Edison electricity station in Carson, California March 4.

Solar panels are seen next to a Southern California Edison electricity station in Carson, California March 4. (REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

LA Times report warns about 'environmental danger' in solar transition

California has excess solar panel waste and limited means of disposal, The Times reported

The LA Times published a report Thursday detailing the "environmental danger" of expired solar panels on the environment. 

"California has been a pioneer in pushing for rooftop solar power, building up the largest solar market in the U.S.," the article began. "More than 20 years and 1.3 million rooftops later, the bill is coming due."

The Times' Rachel Kisela reported that many solar panels that were purchased beginning in 2006, when the California government "showered subsidies on homeowners" to inspire a transition away from fossil fuels, are now reaching the end of their lifespan.

"Beginning in 2006, the state, focused on how to incentivize people to take up solar power, showered subsidies on homeowners who installed photovoltaic panels but had no comprehensive plan to dispose of them. Now, panels purchased under those programs are nearing the end of their 25-year lifecycle," Kisela reported.

CNN HOST DEMANDS REPUBLICANS BE TREATED AS ‘VERY DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY’

 

Indian workers walk past solar panels at the Gujarat Solar Park at Charanka in Patan district, about 250 kilometers (155 miles) from Ahmadabad, India, Saturday, April 14, 2012. (AP Photo/Ajit Solanki)

Indian workers walk past solar panels at the Gujarat Solar Park at Charanka in Patan district, about 250 kilometers (155 miles) from Ahmadabad, India, Saturday, April 14, 2012. (AP Photo/Ajit Solanki)

The problem is, when solar panels end up in landfills, "components that contain toxic heavy metals such as selenium and cadmium can contaminate groundwater." 

This is an example of how environmental policies can have unintended consequences. "The looming challenge over how to handle truckloads of contaminated waste illustrates how cutting-edge environmental policy can create unforeseen hazards down the road," she said. 

The Times reported that "as California barreled ahead on its renewable-energy program, focusing on rebates and — more recently — a proposed solar tax, questions about how to handle the toxic waste that would accrue years later were never fully addressed." 

"Now, both regulators and panel manufacturers are realizing that they don’t have the capacity to handle what comes next," she continued.

BIDEN'S ENERGY POLICIES MAKING INFLATION WORSE, TOP ENERGY GROUP SAYS

 

May 13, 2015: Some of the more than 37,000 solar panels gather sunlight at the Space Coast Next Generation Solar Center, in Merritt Island, Fla.

May 13, 2015: Some of the more than 37,000 solar panels gather sunlight at the Space Coast Next Generation Solar Center, in Merritt Island, Fla. (AP)

Toxic waste from solar panels is not just a Californian problem, but a problem nationwide. "About 140,000 panels are installed every day in the United States, and the solar industry is expected to quadruple in size between 2020 and 2030," Kisela said. 

But there are difficulties surrounding disposal of solar panels, "Recycling solar panels isn’t a simple process. Highly specialized equipment and workers are needed to separate the aluminum frame and junction box from the panel without shattering it into glass shards."

"Specialized furnaces are used to heat panels to recover silicon. In most states, panels are classified as hazardous materials, which require expensive restrictions on packaging, transport and storage," she continued.

"A lack of consumer awareness about the toxicity of materials in the panels and how to dispose of them is part of the problem," Kisela wrote.

 

Solar panels are seen next to a Southern California Edison electricity station in Carson, California March 4.

Solar panels are seen next to a Southern California Edison electricity station in Carson, California March 4. (REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson)

Yep we are working on ramping up the recycling chain. How are you guys doing on recycling a gallon of burnt gas or a pound of burnt coal? All that toxicity just spewed into the environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yep we are working on ramping up the recycling chain. How are you guys doing on recycling a gallon of burnt gas or a pound of burnt coal? All that toxicity just spewed into the environment.

How is the Beneficial Use of Coal Ash Currently Regulated?

Currently, state environmental agencies are primarily responsible for regulating beneficial use. Beneficial use of coal combustion residuals is currently excluded from federal regulation under EPA's May 2000 regulatory determinationEXITEXIT EPA WEBSITE that the Bevill amendment applies to such uses. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, federal action could be taken if there were a finding of imminent or substantial endangerment in a specific circumstance.

The April 2015 final CCR disposal rule reaffirms EPA's Bevill determination for beneficial use, and provides a definition to distinguish between beneficial use and disposal. The beneficial use of CCR definition is comprised of four criteria:

  • the CCR must provide a functional benefit;
  • the CCR must substitute for the use of a virgin material;
  • meets product specifications and/or design standards; and
  • when unencapsulated use of CCR involves placement on the land of 12,400 tons or more in non-roadway applications, the user must demonstrate and provide documentation upon request, that environmental releases to ground water, surface water, soil, and air are comparable to or lower than those from analogous products made without CCR, or that releases will be below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks for human and ecological receptors.

This rule does not affect beneficial use applications completed before the effective date of the rule; only applications to be started after the effective date of the rule need to determine if they comply with the criteria contained in the final rule distinguishing between beneficial use and disposal.


Encapsulated Beneficial Use

Encapsulated uses of CCR involve binding the coal ash, such as in wallboard, concrete, roofing materials, and bricks in a way that minimizes the CCR from escaping into the surrounding environment. There are important benefits to the environment and the economy from the use of coal ash in encapsulated form. The two largest encapsulated uses reported by the ACAA in 2018 are fly ash used in "concrete/concrete products/grout" (13.4 million tons) and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) material gypsum used in "gypsum panel products" (12.3 million tons), making up over 60 percent of the total amount of coal ash beneficially used.

In 2013, EPA developed a methodology for evaluating encapsulated beneficial uses of CCR. This methodology can support beneficial use determinations by allowing the user to demonstrate whether releases from an encapsulated beneficial use of coal ash are comparable to or lower than those from analogous products made without coal ash, or are at or below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks, during use.

EPA used the methodology to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated from fly ash used as a direct substitute for portland cement in concrete, and from FGD gypsum used as a replacement for mined gypsum in wallboard. EPA’s evaluation concluded that the beneficial use of encapsulated CCR in concrete and wallboard is appropriate because environmental releases are comparable to or lower than those from analogous non-CCR products or are at or below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks.


Unencapsulated Beneficial Use

Unencapsulated uses of coal ash are those where coal ash is used in a loose particulate, sludge or other unbound form. In 2018, ACAA reported about 20 percent of CCR (8.1 million tons) are beneficially used in unencapsulated uses. The largest unencapsulated use is CCR used in “structural fills/embankments” (4.6 million tons). In developing a framework to evaluate the potential risks associated with unencapsulated uses of industrial non-hazardous secondary materials (secondary materials) including CCR, the Agency determined that the principles outlined in the 2013 Methodology for Evaluating Encapsulated Beneficial Uses of Coal Combustion Residuals are also applicable and relevant to unencapsulated uses. Therefore, EPA combined the discussion of encapsulated and unencapsulated uses into a single document and renamed it the Methodology for Evaluating Beneficial Uses of Industrial Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (BU Methodology) to reflect the broader scope. EPA’s BU Methodology may be used to evaluate both encapsulated and unencapsulated uses of a wide range of secondary materials, including CCR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.