GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ron Wagner + 642]

13 hours ago, turbguy said:

"Those young patches of trees may take up CO₂ more strongly than the older patches they replace"...

Isn't that in direct support what I posted?

A agree that a tree that dies is no longer a carbon sink.

This ignores the effect of other species that arise that can survive, and even thrive, climate change.

For instance, large swaths of beetle-killed fir and pine trees in the western US are being replaced by fast growing Aspen stands.

Climate change introduces alterations to an existing chaotic situation.

 

Ecology "experts" forget that evolution of biomes changes over time depending on many factors including the distribution of different insects. They want it to stay the same forever. That can't always be affordable or possible. Neither can climate of a given region. Vast areas of America were once under water. Much in solid form. 

[TailingsPond + 461]

2 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

Ecology "experts" forget that evolution of biomes changes over time depending on many factors including the distribution of different insects. They want it to stay the same forever. That can't always be affordable or possible. Neither can climate of a given region. Vast areas of America were once under water. Much in solid form. 

Glad you accept evolution

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

How about Nature, for one:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585

"Climate change is a response to energy imbalances in the climate system. For example, rising greenhouse gases directly cause an initial imbalance, the radiative forcing, in the planetary radiation budget, and surface temperatures increase in response as the climate attempts to restore balance. The radiative forcing and subsequent radiative feedbacks dictate the amount of warming. While there are well-established observational records of greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures, there is not yet a global measure of the radiative forcing, in part because current satellite observations of Earth’s radiation only measure the sum total of radiation changes that occur. We use the radiative kernel technique to isolate radiative forcing from total radiative changes and find it has increased from 2003 to 2018, accounting for nearly all of the long-term growth in the total top-of-atmosphere radiation imbalance during this period. We confirm that rising greenhouse gas concentrations account for most of the increases in the radiative forcing, along with reductions in reflective aerosols. This serves as direct evidence that anthropogenic activity has affected Earth’s energy budget in the recent past".

Or, you might rather prefer:

"Cosmic rays and global warming" by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics in 2007.

 

COSMIC RAYS AND EARTH'S CLIMATE
HENRIK SVENSMARK
Danish Space Research Institute, DK-2100 Copenhagen (i), Denmark
(Received 13 August 1999; accepted 10 June 2000)
Abstract. During the last solar cycle the Earth's cloud cover underwent a modulation in phase with
the cosmic ray flux. Assuming that there is a causal relationship between the two, it is expected
and found that the Earth's temperature follows more closely decade variations in cosmic ray flux
than other solar activity parameters. If the relationship is real the state of the Heliosphere affects the
Earth's climate.
 

Introduction
 

The physical cause of climate variability is not know in detail. There are several
physical factors that are believed to influence the Earth's climate. For example:
(1) Orbital changes in the Earth's motion around the Sun is believed to cause ice-
ages. (2) Internal variability in the climate system, e.g., changes in atmospheric and
ocean circulation. (3) Large volcanic eruptions, which are known to cause a sudden
cooling lasting 2-3 years. A period with high volcanic activity could potentially
lead to a cooling of the Earth. (4) Changes in concentration of greenhouse gases.
Due to burning of fossil fuel during the last 100 years there has been an increase
in atmospheric C0 2 concentration from about 280 to 365 ppm. Because C0 2 is
a greenhouse gas that traps outgoing long wave radiation, and that the surface
temperature has increased by approximately 0.7 oc during the last 100 years, there
is a worry that this increase is leading to a warmer climate. (5) Changes in solar
activity, which will be discussed further in this paper. The relative importance of
the above different influences is not know very well.
 

BTW, subsequent studies have failed to replicate Svensmark and Friis-Christensen's findings.

 

 

 

The studies of solar variables have actually done a good job of explaining variations in earth temperatures. Most of these are relatively recent studies within the past five years.

The CO2 explanation fails on several counts, the CO2 curves are lagged behind changes in earth temperature, which rules out the possibility that CO2 is a causative factor in earth temperature, but rather suggests the opposite, that changes in earth temperature cause changes in CO2 levels. Also, the studies which isolate CO2 in relation to earth temperature fail to account for the impact of changes in atmospheric particulate levels, which by itself could explain any deviation from the expected earth temperature change with respect to solar variables. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said:

https://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-epa-car-rule-203512290.html

AP sources: EPA car rule to push huge increase in EV sales

 

AP sources: EPA car rule to push huge increase in EV sales

32

•  

   

   

   

• 

  Joe Biden

 

 

 

1 / 5

EPA Electric Vehicles

FILE - An International Electric MV Series truck is seen on display in Austin, Texas, Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2023. The Biden administration will propose new automobile pollution limits this week that would require at least 54% of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2030, ramping up quickly to as high as 67% by 2032. That's according to three people briefed on the plan. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, FIle)

ASSOCIATED PRESS

TOM KRISHER and MATTHEW DALY

Mon, April 10, 2023 at 3:35 PM CDT

 

 

In this article:

•  

   

   

   

• 

  Joe Biden

  President of the United States since 2021

 

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration will propose strict new automobile pollution limits this week that would require at least 54% of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2030 and as many as two of every three by 2032, according to industry and environmental officials briefed on the plan.

The proposed regulation, to be released Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Agency, would set greenhouse gas emissions limits for the 2027 through 2032 model years for passenger vehicles that would be even stricter than goals the auto industry agreed to in 2021.

The EPA will offer a range of options that the agency can select after a public comment period, the officials said. They asked not to be identified because the proposal hasn't been made public. The proposed regulation isn't expected to become final until next year.

Environmental groups are applauding the ambitious numbers, which were first reported over the weekend by The New York Times. But the plan is likely to get strong pushback from the auto industry, which pledged in August 2021 to make EVs half of U.S. new car sales by 2030 as it moves toward a history-making transition away from internal combustion engines.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

Even the low end of the EPA’s 2030 range is 4 percentage points higher than the 2021 goal, which came after strong pressure from President Joe Biden. An executive order signed by Biden set a target for half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 to be zero-emissions vehicles, including battery electric, plug-in hybrid electric or fuel cell electric vehicles.

Biden also wants automakers to raise gas mileage and cut tailpipe pollution between now and model year 2026. That would mark a significant step toward meeting his pledge to cut America's planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 as he pushes a once-almost-unthinkable shift from gasoline-powered engines to battery-powered vehicles.

With electric vehicles accounting for just 7.2% of U.S. vehicle sales in the first quarter of this year, the industry has a long way to go to even approach the administration's targets. However, the percentage of EV sales is growing. Last year it was 5.8% of new vehicles sales.

The EPA declined to offer details ahead of Wednesday's announcement, but said in a statement that as directed by Biden's order, it is “developing new standards that will ... accelerate the transition to a zero-emissions transportation future, protecting people and the planet.''

The EPA tailpipe pollution limits don’t actually require a specific number of electric vehicles to be sold every year, but instead mandate limits on greenhouse gas emissions. That amounts to roughly the same thing, according to agency calculations of the number of EVs that likely would be needed to comply with the stricter pollution limits.

The auto industry likely will need to sell a lot more EVs to meet the requirements. It's already pushed up the mileage of gasoline vehicles with more efficient engines and transmissions, reducing weight and other measures. Many in the industry say they’d rather spend investment dollars developing new EVs that are likely to dominate the industry in coming years.

Suggesting a brake on the optimistic idea of vast emission improvements simply through rule making, however, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade association that includes Ford, General Motors and other automakers, said, “Regulatory mandates alone will not address the conditions that will determine the ultimate success of the EV transition.”

The EPA proposal "requires a massive, 100-year change to the U.S. industrial base and the way Americans drive,” the group said.

Supportive policies such as tax credits for EV purchases and funding of a nationwide network of charging stations are needed, the alliance said in a statement before the EPA rule was announced. EVs have to become more affordable, parts and domestic critical mineral supply chains have to be set up and utility generating capacity must be addressed, the statement said.

Transportation is the single largest source of carbon emissions in the U.S., but it is followed closely by electricity generation.

Environmental groups say stricter tailpipe pollution standards are needed, and provisions of the sweeping Inflation Reduction Act passed last year will help reach the tougher requirements. “Tailpipe emissions pollute the air we breathe and worsen severe weather,” Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement.

The Inflation Reduction Act, a climate and health care law passed with only Democratic votes, has tax credits for electric vehicle manufacturing and for purchases of new and used EVs.

At present, many new EVs manufactured in North America are eligible for a $7,500 tax credit, while used EVs can get up to $4,000.

However, there are price and purchaser income limits that make some vehicles ineligible. And starting April 18, new requirements by the Treasury Department will result in fewer new electric vehicles qualifying for a full $7,500 federal tax credit.

The rules require that certain percentages of battery parts and minerals come from North America or countries with which the U.S. has free trade agreements. Industry analysts say the requirements, announced March 31, could cut the $7,500 credit in half on many vehicles. A smaller credit may not be enough to attract new buyers for EVs that now cost an average of $58,600 according to Kelley Blue Book.

The price is down from $63,500 a year ago as more lower-priced EV models hit the market. Still, EVs are more expensive than the average vehicle sold in the U.S., which costs just under $46,000.

____

Krisher reported from Detroit.

This is surely political propaganda, nothing of this sort of change could occur by 2030.EVs are only 7% of world sales of autos. That is not going to change.

"However, the percentage of EV sales is growing. Last year it was 5.8% of new vehicles sales."

This means that the existing levels of fossil fuel vehicles is growing rapidly to all-time highs. Almost 95% of new auto sales are brand new fossil fuel cars, and about 100%  of sales of used cars are fossil fuel cars. The used car market is about three or four times the size of the new market, so that means that about 99% of car sales are fossil fuel cars.

What are these guys dreaming of? The transition is not happening now or ever.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Ecocharger

[specinho + 439]

On 4/10/2023 at 7:33 AM, turbguy said:

Growing trees become a carbon sink when they are able to remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they release through respiration.

This occurs through photosynthesis, where trees absorb carbon dioxide and water to produce glucose and oxygen. The glucose is used to fuel the tree's growth and is stored in various parts of the tree, including its roots, trunk, and branches.

As a tree continues to grow, it accumulates more and more carbon in its tissues, making it an increasingly effective carbon sink. The rate at which a tree becomes a carbon sink can vary depending on factors such as the tree species, age, climate, soil conditions, and management practices.

In general, younger trees tend to absorb more carbon dioxide than older trees, as they are actively growing and producing new tissue. As trees mature, their rate of carbon uptake slows down (and they may eventually reach a point where they are no longer net carbon sinks).

For example, research has shown that young sugar maple trees (Acer saccharum) can sequester large amounts of carbon during their first few years of growth. In one study, sugar maple seedlings planted in a temperate forest sequestered an average of 1.4 kg of carbon per tree, per year, over a 3-year period.  As maple trees mature and reach their full size, their rate of carbon uptake slows down, and they may eventually become carbon-neutral or even release carbon back into the atmosphere through the processes of respiration and decay.

However, some mature trees can continue to absorb carbon through the process of photosynthesis, albeit at a slower rate.

From articles of newsletter and updates on latest research, there seems to be a confusion amidst researchers and academicians when they talk about "mangrove as carbon sink", "forest as carbon sink" etc.... There was a research trying to look at if bubbling crabs contribute to carbon sink..........😣

 

In order to have a clearer position while using the word "carbon sink" or "carbon source" we need to consider these:

1. Carbon source = carbon material added into the environment e.g.

a) dead and decaying leaves, branches, trees;

b) feces and domestic waste channelled directly into coastal areas and retained especially mangroves;

c) organic fertilizer added

d) respiration of living things

e) activities of microbs etc

 

2. Carbon sink = carbon material removed from the environment e.g.

a) CO2 taken in by plants during photosynthesis

b) carbon material eaten by animals; degraded by microbs

c) etc

 

A tree, a living thing, would have these basic characteristics: it

a) eats ( using sugar),

b) drinks (taking up water and soluble minerals),

c) shits ( discarding unwanted minerals, structure or leaves)

d) breaths,

e) works/plays ( synthesis food, deliver excessive food to grow cells, structure, become larger, and for some develop fruit)

From here, we can deduce taking in carbon material, using carbon material, discarding carbon material might be an constant effort, disregard age of a plant.

A plant can grow forever shall space, nutrients, water, sunlight, other essential factors are not a limiting factor for growth. 

Shall one or a few of those become limiting factors, regardless of age, the plant would gradually decay. Carbon material e.g. plant structure and leaves, removed but added into soil. We could call this carbon sink ( removal of plant) and later carbon source ( adding of decaying matter into soil).

The origin of carbon sink might be in the mangrove or coastal area. According to a research ranging from the river mouth to the sea, more than 90% of organic matter retained in the river mouth. There could be another reason for the low detection in the sea i.e. dilution by much larger volume of seawater. The term was used to describe this condition (90% carbon sinks in coastal area and only ~10% found outside of sea), in short.

How has it adopted by other scientists for other scenario is uncertain. But, as it shows in the section "things to be considered", this concept is probably not matured or fully accurate to be used in any condition...

What do you think?

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by specinho

[specinho + 439]

18 hours ago, turbguy said:

The physics behind the "greenhouse effect" is as follows:

Solar radiation arrives in the form of short-wavelength radiation (visible light and ultraviolet (UV). It travels through space and reaches the Earth's atmosphere and surface.

Some of the solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth's surface, some of it is reflected back into space. The Earth's surface and atmosphere reflect about 30% of the incoming radiation, while the remaining 70% is absorbed.

As the Earth's surface absorbs the incoming solar radiation, it begins to warm up. The surface then emits energy in the form of long-wavelength infrared (IR) radiation.

A fraction of the IR radiation emitted by the Earth's surface is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (CO2, CH4, and H2O). This absorption causes the greenhouse gases to become excited, which leading to an increase in gas temperature.

The greenhouse gases then emit some of this IR energy back to the Earth's surface, which warms up further as a result.

This continues until a new thermal equilibrium is reached, where the amount of energy absorbed by the Earth's surface is equal to the amount of energy radiated back into space.

This concept was probably repositioned in a discussion somewhere here...

Roughly quote it here:

" Sunlight reaching the earth.

Initially, UV and the rest of high energy, harmful short radiation were blocked by ozone and/or cloud. Some energy from UV was absorbed to degrade chemical bonds e.g. ozone, halogen and halogenous compound, CH4 etc. Other energy is absorbed and blocked by water vapour in the sky, particularly cloud.

With formation of ozone hole, more high energy rays reaching earth crust.

Over earth crust, there are a few landscapes i.e.

a) 30% land ( forest, grassland, tundra, ice capped/ permafrost, soil, rocky, desert etc)

b) 70% sea (~1% fresh water riverine and lakes)

From the above, energy from sunlight is absorbed by all entities. Water warms up; ice melts; soil, rock, barren land, desert heated up; greeneries absorb sunlight for photosynthesis etc.

Merely light is reflected. For examples, snow, permafrost, sea etc.

Not heat.

When heat capacity is reached, excessive heat is released by those entities.

Not reflected.

If consensus can be reached, green house effect is hence an event caused by heat absorbed and retained by the atmosphere. Like a blanket, clouds and water vapour protect the regions from extreme change of temperature.

The origin of green house was an experiment that tried to grow veges during winter. The pioneer built a glass house with controlled factors essential for growth of vege e.g. water, humidity, nutrients, temperature, carbon dioxide etc.

This green house might not have showed direct correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature.

How has the term being adopted and/or expanded usage on earth is uncertain. Common guessing is when concept is conveyed by words, with each change of hands, something is going to be added or omitted. Personal interpretation might be misleading at times. The more mouths involved, the larger the skew....

A game shows how this is happening. The name of the game is " pass the words".

There is a row of 20 persons. This game aims to pass words from the first to the last person. 

First person:

sun shines brightly today. Feeling good, I go out for a walk. Upon reaching a park, I step on a big pile of dog shit..... Mood spoilt. I walk home quickly leaving a trail of shit ...

2nd person:

Sunshines brightly today. I go out for a walk. I step on a pile of dog shit and I walk quickly home with that shit...

3rd person

It is a good day. I walk out and step on shit..... 

....19th...

20th person:

Today, I open the door, but blocked by a pile of door height shit ...

 

Conclusion: the more people involved in spreading it, the more skewed initial info becomes.

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by specinho

[notsonice + 1,064]

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

This is surely political propaganda, nothing of this sort of change could occur by 2030.EVs are only 7% of world sales of autos. That is not going to change.

"However, the percentage of EV sales is growing. Last year it was 5.8% of new vehicles sales."

This means that the existing levels of fossil fuel vehicles is growing rapidly to all-time highs. Almost 95% of new auto sales are brand new fossil fuel cars, and about 100%  of sales of used cars are fossil fuel cars. The used car market is about three or four times the size of the new market, so that means that about 99% of car sales are fossil fuel cars.

What are these guys dreaming of? The transition is not happening now or ever.

.EVs are only 7% of world sales of autos. That is not going to change.????

The transition is not happening now or ever????

ha ha ha....living in denial is all that you have....

enjoy the transition....I am

Reality.................

will it is a change from 2022 .......

so in reality 

EVs are only 7% of world sales of autos. That is going to change ........

2023 end of year......9 to 10 percent

2024.....over 10 percent

2025 over 15 to 20 percent

2030 over 40 percent

Edited April 11, 2023 by notsonice

[bloodman33 + 20]

AOC! She's my gale, shill take Clarence Thomas and put him in jail!!!!

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

16 hours ago, notsonice said:

.EVs are only 7% of world sales of autos. That is not going to change.????

The transition is not happening now or ever????

ha ha ha....living in denial is all that you have....

enjoy the transition....I am

Reality.................

will it is a change from 2022 .......

so in reality 

EVs are only 7% of world sales of autos. That is going to change ........

2023 end of year......9 to 10 percent

2024.....over 10 percent

2025 over 15 to 20 percent

2030 over 40 percent

Without further ado....

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

Just now, notsonice said:

.EVs are only 7% of world sales of autos. That is not going to change.????

The transition is not happening now or ever????

ha ha ha....living in denial is all that you have....

enjoy the transition....I am

Reality.................

will it is a change from 2022 .......

so in reality 

EVs are only 7% of world sales of autos. That is going to change ........

2023 end of year......9 to 10 percent

2024.....over 10 percent

2025 over 15 to 20 percent

2030 over 40 percent

99% or more of auto sales remain fossil fuel vehicles....there is no discernible transition taking place.

[Ron Wagner + 642]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/hold-on-tight-to-your-gas-powered-car-193629839.html

 

7.5k

Rick Newman

·Senior Columnist

Wed, April 12, 2023 at 7:51 AM CDT

 

 

Hooray for electric vehicles. Someday, they’re going to help slash carbon emissions and get global warming under control.

Getting there, however, is not likely to be an effortless glide on gleaming blacktop. This is going to be a bumpy road, and the faster we go, the bumpier it’s going to get. Get ready to surround yourself with airbags. And get a helmet, maybe.

The Biden administration plans to tighten car-pollution standards in a way that's meant to dramatically speed the adoption of electric vehicles, or EVs. On April 12, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed new rules that would cut the allowable pollution from cars by more than half by 2032. The amount of pollution a car produces is directly related to the amount of fuel it burns. Since there's no way to boost the fuel efficiency of gas-powered cars by that much, the new rules will effectively force automakers to build way more EVs, and way fewer gas-powered cars, in order to comply.

[Drop Rick Newman a note, follow him on Twitter, or sign up for his newsletter.]

 

FILE - A Tesla electric vehicle, left, sits in a charging station at a dealership, Thursday, Feb. 18, 2021, in Dedham, Mass. Shares of Tesla and Twitter have tumbled this week as investors deal with the fallout and potential legal issues surrounding Tesla CEO Elon Musk and his $44 billion bid to buy the social media platform. Of the two, Musk's electric vehicle company has fared worse, with its stock down almost 16% so far this week to $728. (AP Photo/Steven Senne, File) More

The goal is laudable. The implementation, however, could be a multi-car pileup. The Biden administration is basically proposing the forced adoption of new technology on a scale unprecedented in the auto industry. The government has been tightening fuel-economy standards since the 1970s, but that has largely been a gradual process. Even then, unintended consequences have caused unforeseen problems.

The adoption of federal mileage requirements in the 1970s, in response to the Middle East oil shocks, was supposed to force automakers to build more efficient cars that burned less gas. That did happen. But other things happened that weren’t supposed to. For one, automakers began to build more vehicles that qualified as “light trucks” rather than passenger cars, because those were subject to looser efficiency rules. That’s how the roads ended up clogged with giant SUVs that get worse mileage than many cars from the 1970s. While trying to drive efficiency, the government inadvertently created an incentive to make bigger vehicles, as well.

To make care more efficient, automakers made them lighter. That made them less survivable in crashes and probably caused more highway deaths. Economists also discovered something they dubbed the “rebound effect,” in which drivers saving money from more-efficient cars end up driving more, with their cars therefore emitting more. Some two- or multi-car families that own one efficient car even buy a gas-guzzler as a kind of treat for themselves, figuring they’re already doing their share by owning the fuel-sipper.

What could the unintended consequences of hyperactive EV adoption be? There are a couple of obvious guesses. One is that charging networks won’t keep up with demand. There’s already a shortage of charging stations outside the big coastal cities, plus even the fastest charging can take 20 to 30 minutes. Who wants to be fifth in line for the only supercharger available between St. Louis and Denver?

There could also be shortages of minerals needed for EV batteries, such as cobalt, lithium, manganese, and nickel. Even if this doesn’t cause a shortage of vehicles, it could push prices up.

"If this rate of EV market share requirement is implemented, within the proposed time frame, it will impact every aspect of the auto industry in the form of lost jobs and dramatic price hikes for both EVs and gasoline models," Karl Brauer, executive analyst of iSeeCars, said in a statement. "These increases will either drive the price of new vehicles beyond the average American’s budget or put multiple global automakers in financial peril."

Some automakers are likely to fight the new rules, which means they could end up less stringent once finalized. There could also be lawsuits charging that the government is overstepping its authority, with an act of Congress required to make such a dramatic change in the way the federal government regulates cars.

EVs may not even be the ultimate climate solution. Since they charge from the electrical grid, they’re only “clean” if the energy used to produce the electricity is also clean. Right now, about 22% of all electricity in the United States comes from renewables and that is forecast to rise steadily—but not to 100% any time soon. The same permitting barriers that block oil and gas pipelines stand in the way of new high-voltage transmission lines and other types of green energy infrastructure. It’s possible hydrogen fuel cells or some other technology will be a better solution in the long run, and we’ll need yet another fueling infrastructure.

Then there’s the possibility—perhaps likelihood—that a future presidential administration will reverse Biden’s moves. That’s been happening for a decade. President Obama tried to ramp up fuel-economy rules, then President Trump reversed the Obama moves, then Biden reversed the Trump moves and went further than Obama. Will the next president keep the green-energy revolution on cruise control or shift gears?

As turbulent as the green-energy transition is likely to be, there are some trusty ground rules for consumers. If you rely on one car and occasionally make long trips, you should either hold off buying an EV or make sure there are plenty of chargers wherever you’re likely to go. If you have more than one car and one of them is a commuter, an EV might be a great choice, if you can charge at home and are unlikely to need the electric for a road trip. If you want to be part of the revolution and don’t mind being inconvenienced, then get an EV and always keep some engaging reading material in your car, in case charge-ups go long.

Finally, nobody should feel left out or guilt-ridden for holding onto that dear old gas-powered car or buying one in the future. Internal-combustion vehicles are reliable, terrifically convenient, and cheap if you shop prudently. You can buy just as much horsepower as you need—no more—and mature supply chains probably mean you won’t be unwittingly paying for blood minerals. In fact, if you can keep a gas-powered car in the stable until the green-energy revolution is over, you probably won’t regret it.

Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Twitter at @rickjnewman

Click here for politics news related to business and money

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

2 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/hold-on-tight-to-your-gas-powered-car-193629839.html

 

7.5k

Rick Newman

·Senior Columnist

Wed, April 12, 2023 at 7:51 AM CDT

 

 

Hooray for electric vehicles. Someday, they’re going to help slash carbon emissions and get global warming under control.

Getting there, however, is not likely to be an effortless glide on gleaming blacktop. This is going to be a bumpy road, and the faster we go, the bumpier it’s going to get. Get ready to surround yourself with airbags. And get a helmet, maybe.

The Biden administration plans to tighten car-pollution standards in a way that's meant to dramatically speed the adoption of electric vehicles, or EVs. On April 12, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed new rules that would cut the allowable pollution from cars by more than half by 2032. The amount of pollution a car produces is directly related to the amount of fuel it burns. Since there's no way to boost the fuel efficiency of gas-powered cars by that much, the new rules will effectively force automakers to build way more EVs, and way fewer gas-powered cars, in order to comply.

[Drop Rick Newman a note, follow him on Twitter, or sign up for his newsletter.]

 

FILE - A Tesla electric vehicle, left, sits in a charging station at a dealership, Thursday, Feb. 18, 2021, in Dedham, Mass. Shares of Tesla and Twitter have tumbled this week as investors deal with the fallout and potential legal issues surrounding Tesla CEO Elon Musk and his $44 billion bid to buy the social media platform. Of the two, Musk's electric vehicle company has fared worse, with its stock down almost 16% so far this week to $728. (AP Photo/Steven Senne, File) More

The goal is laudable. The implementation, however, could be a multi-car pileup. The Biden administration is basically proposing the forced adoption of new technology on a scale unprecedented in the auto industry. The government has been tightening fuel-economy standards since the 1970s, but that has largely been a gradual process. Even then, unintended consequences have caused unforeseen problems.

The adoption of federal mileage requirements in the 1970s, in response to the Middle East oil shocks, was supposed to force automakers to build more efficient cars that burned less gas. That did happen. But other things happened that weren’t supposed to. For one, automakers began to build more vehicles that qualified as “light trucks” rather than passenger cars, because those were subject to looser efficiency rules. That’s how the roads ended up clogged with giant SUVs that get worse mileage than many cars from the 1970s. While trying to drive efficiency, the government inadvertently created an incentive to make bigger vehicles, as well.

To make care more efficient, automakers made them lighter. That made them less survivable in crashes and probably caused more highway deaths. Economists also discovered something they dubbed the “rebound effect,” in which drivers saving money from more-efficient cars end up driving more, with their cars therefore emitting more. Some two- or multi-car families that own one efficient car even buy a gas-guzzler as a kind of treat for themselves, figuring they’re already doing their share by owning the fuel-sipper.

What could the unintended consequences of hyperactive EV adoption be? There are a couple of obvious guesses. One is that charging networks won’t keep up with demand. There’s already a shortage of charging stations outside the big coastal cities, plus even the fastest charging can take 20 to 30 minutes. Who wants to be fifth in line for the only supercharger available between St. Louis and Denver?

There could also be shortages of minerals needed for EV batteries, such as cobalt, lithium, manganese, and nickel. Even if this doesn’t cause a shortage of vehicles, it could push prices up.

"If this rate of EV market share requirement is implemented, within the proposed time frame, it will impact every aspect of the auto industry in the form of lost jobs and dramatic price hikes for both EVs and gasoline models," Karl Brauer, executive analyst of iSeeCars, said in a statement. "These increases will either drive the price of new vehicles beyond the average American’s budget or put multiple global automakers in financial peril."

Some automakers are likely to fight the new rules, which means they could end up less stringent once finalized. There could also be lawsuits charging that the government is overstepping its authority, with an act of Congress required to make such a dramatic change in the way the federal government regulates cars.

EVs may not even be the ultimate climate solution. Since they charge from the electrical grid, they’re only “clean” if the energy used to produce the electricity is also clean. Right now, about 22% of all electricity in the United States comes from renewables and that is forecast to rise steadily—but not to 100% any time soon. The same permitting barriers that block oil and gas pipelines stand in the way of new high-voltage transmission lines and other types of green energy infrastructure. It’s possible hydrogen fuel cells or some other technology will be a better solution in the long run, and we’ll need yet another fueling infrastructure.

Then there’s the possibility—perhaps likelihood—that a future presidential administration will reverse Biden’s moves. That’s been happening for a decade. President Obama tried to ramp up fuel-economy rules, then President Trump reversed the Obama moves, then Biden reversed the Trump moves and went further than Obama. Will the next president keep the green-energy revolution on cruise control or shift gears?

As turbulent as the green-energy transition is likely to be, there are some trusty ground rules for consumers. If you rely on one car and occasionally make long trips, you should either hold off buying an EV or make sure there are plenty of chargers wherever you’re likely to go. If you have more than one car and one of them is a commuter, an EV might be a great choice, if you can charge at home and are unlikely to need the electric for a road trip. If you want to be part of the revolution and don’t mind being inconvenienced, then get an EV and always keep some engaging reading material in your car, in case charge-ups go long.

Finally, nobody should feel left out or guilt-ridden for holding onto that dear old gas-powered car or buying one in the future. Internal-combustion vehicles are reliable, terrifically convenient, and cheap if you shop prudently. You can buy just as much horsepower as you need—no more—and mature supply chains probably mean you won’t be unwittingly paying for blood minerals. In fact, if you can keep a gas-powered car in the stable until the green-energy revolution is over, you probably won’t regret it.

Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Twitter at @rickjnewman

Click here for politics news related to business and money

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

Fantastic article, dead on target. Biden & Co. are attempting to destroy the standards of living for his own political base, who rely on fossil fuel cars.

How misguided is that, both politically and economically?

Great advice in this article,

"In fact, if you can keep a gas-powered car in the stable until the green-energy revolution is over, you probably won’t regret it."

I already don't regret it.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Ecocharger

[notsonice + 1,064]

 

enjoy the fall of fossil fuels.....it is downhill for Coal...

“2022 will be remembered as a turning point in the world’s transition to clean power”
The Transition has now taking over and fossil fuels are now in a permanent decline in eletricity production

projected decline in 2023 of .3 percent for fossil fuel use for electricity production....all due to renewables and the transition

 

2025 EVs take over and the decline of ICE vehicles starts

Cash for clunkers???? 

Coal fired power plants a thing of the past.....Enjoy

 

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Clean-Energy-Sources-Produced-39-Of-Global-Electricity-In-2022.html

 

Clean Energy Sources Produced 39% Of Global Electricity In 2022

By City A.M - Apr 12, 2023, 11:00 AM CDT

• Fossil fuel use for electricity production is expected to decrease this year, with renewables meeting all demand growth.
• China's contribution to the boom in renewable energy is a significant factor driving the transition to clean power.
• Clean sources accounted for nearly 40% of global energy production in 2022, with wind and solar power providing 12% of global electricity.

Join Our Community

The world is on course for the first annual drop in the use of coal, oil and gas to generate electricity outside of a global recession or pandemic, according to a new climate change report.

Renewables are now due to meet all growth in demand this year, a new study titled the Global Electricity Review 2023, claimed today.

The report says “2022 will be remembered as a turning point in the world’s transition to clean power”, with non-fossil fuel-based energy sources now accounting for almost 40 percent.

“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine made many governments rethink their plans amid spiking fossil fuel prices and security concerns about relying on fossil fuel imports.

“It also accelerated electrification: more heat pumps, more electric vehicles, more electrolysers. These will drive reductions in emissions for other sectors, and will put more pressure to build clean power more quickly.”

Breakdown of clean power for electricity

Wind and solar power now produce 12 percent of global electricity, with enough wind turbines added worldwide last year to power almost all of the UK.

Around the world, solar grew by 24 percent last year, enough to meet the annual demands of a country as big as South Africa.

Taken together with nuclear and hydropower, clean sources produced 39 percent of global electricity in 2022.

This means energy produced last year was effectively the cleanest ever made.

Why is this shift happening?

Ember attributes this to a boom in renewable energy, chiefly powered by China – which added around 40 percent of the world’s new solar panels last year, with large numbers of rooftop installations

Making electricity is the largest contributor to global warming, responsible for over a third of energy-related carbon emissions in 2021.

However, it believes a new era of falling power sector emissions is “very close.”

It said: “Wind and solar will need to maintain high growth rates this decade, even as they mature. More growth is needed from all other clean electricity sources, while more attention to efficiency is needed to avoid runaway growth in electricity demand.

“Urgent work is needed on ensuring wind and solar can be integrated into the grid: planning permissions, grid connections, grid flexibility and market design”

 

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by notsonice

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

On 4/13/2023 at 3:12 AM, notsonice said:

 

enjoy the fall of fossil fuels.....it is downhill for Coal...

“2022 will be remembered as a turning point in the world’s transition to clean power”
The Transition has now taking over and fossil fuels are now in a permanent decline in eletricity production

projected decline in 2023 of .3 percent for fossil fuel use for electricity production....all due to renewables and the transition

 

2025 EVs take over and the decline of ICE vehicles starts

Cash for clunkers???? 

Coal fired power plants a thing of the past.....Enjoy

 

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Clean-Energy-Sources-Produced-39-Of-Global-Electricity-In-2022.html

 

Clean Energy Sources Produced 39% Of Global Electricity In 2022

By City A.M - Apr 12, 2023, 11:00 AM CDT

• Fossil fuel use for electricity production is expected to decrease this year, with renewables meeting all demand growth.
• China's contribution to the boom in renewable energy is a significant factor driving the transition to clean power.
• Clean sources accounted for nearly 40% of global energy production in 2022, with wind and solar power providing 12% of global electricity.

Join Our Community

The world is on course for the first annual drop in the use of coal, oil and gas to generate electricity outside of a global recession or pandemic, according to a new climate change report.

Renewables are now due to meet all growth in demand this year, a new study titled the Global Electricity Review 2023, claimed today.

The report says “2022 will be remembered as a turning point in the world’s transition to clean power”, with non-fossil fuel-based energy sources now accounting for almost 40 percent.

“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine made many governments rethink their plans amid spiking fossil fuel prices and security concerns about relying on fossil fuel imports.

“It also accelerated electrification: more heat pumps, more electric vehicles, more electrolysers. These will drive reductions in emissions for other sectors, and will put more pressure to build clean power more quickly.”

Breakdown of clean power for electricity

Wind and solar power now produce 12 percent of global electricity, with enough wind turbines added worldwide last year to power almost all of the UK.

Around the world, solar grew by 24 percent last year, enough to meet the annual demands of a country as big as South Africa.

Taken together with nuclear and hydropower, clean sources produced 39 percent of global electricity in 2022.

This means energy produced last year was effectively the cleanest ever made.

Why is this shift happening?

Ember attributes this to a boom in renewable energy, chiefly powered by China – which added around 40 percent of the world’s new solar panels last year, with large numbers of rooftop installations

Making electricity is the largest contributor to global warming, responsible for over a third of energy-related carbon emissions in 2021.

However, it believes a new era of falling power sector emissions is “very close.”

It said: “Wind and solar will need to maintain high growth rates this decade, even as they mature. More growth is needed from all other clean electricity sources, while more attention to efficiency is needed to avoid runaway growth in electricity demand.

“Urgent work is needed on ensuring wind and solar can be integrated into the grid: planning permissions, grid connections, grid flexibility and market design”

 

 

Coal production is upward and onward world wide...enjoy it.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

Here is why EVs have not succeeded in penetrating the vehicle market to any notable extent, and why widespread EV usage will never happen.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Americans-Arent-Buying-EVs.html

"The U.S. is lagging behind much of the developed world in electric vehicle (EV) adoption.

Only 2 in 10 Americans are very likely to buy an EV, even with the additional subsidies offered by the Inflation Reduction Act.

Cost, charger availability, and price remain key issues hindering the widespread adoption of EVs in the US."

"As FT concluded, "economics still trumps ideology". 

But don't worry, the Biden administration won't take this as a lesson on why government control of the economy doesn't work - rather, we're certain they'll see it as a prompt to shell out more taxpayer purchasing power as "incentives" to fundamentally alter the course of the notoriously low-margin, capital intensive, auto business - and then blame Donald Trump when their plans don't work out."

Edited April 13, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ron Wagner + 642]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-approves-massive-gas-pipeline-huge-blow-climate-activists

 

Biden admin approves massive gas pipeline project in huge blow to climate activists

Environmental group says project will 'exacerbate the climate crisis'

By Thomas Catenacci | Fox News

• Facebook
•  
• Twitter
•  
• Flipboard
•  
• Comments
•  
• Print
•  
• Email

Dan Sullivan: Willow Oil Project is a ‘victory’ for America

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) outlines the economic and environmental benefits of the Alaska Willow Oil Project on ‘America Reports.’

The Biden administration green-lit an 807-mile natural gas pipeline project in Alaska that environmentalists blasted as a threat to the climate and wildlife.

The Department of Energy (DOE) issued a supplemental record of decision, reaffirming its original approval of the project in 2020 under the Trump administration, but amending it to include additional environmental protections. In addition to the pipeline, the $38.7 billion project proposed by the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) also includes liquefied natural gas (LNG) export infrastructure.

"The Department of Energy today issued an order amending a 2020 decision to impose new environmental requirements that prevents venting carbon dioxide, in addition to reaffirming all prior environmental conditions," the DOE said in a statement. "This order does not approve construction of the project — that was done by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 2020." 

"This order also does not evaluate the long-term viability of the project related to factors outside of DOE’s regulatory scope," the statement continued. "FERC, an independent agency, has regulatory oversight of the siting, construction, and operation of the Alaska LNG project. The State of Alaska’s [AGDC] is developing an Alaska LNG project and has not yet reached a final investment decision on whether to construct the project at all."

MASSIVE OIL PROJECT SPARKED CIVIL WAR WITHIN BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, LAWMAKERS SAY

 

President Biden has made fighting climate change a top priority of his administration since taking office in 2021. (M. Scott Brauer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The AGDC — which the Alaska state legislature officially created a decade ago with a mandate of maximizing the state's vast natural gas reserves — first proposed the LNG pipeline and export project in 2014.  After years of environmental impact analysis, FERC authorized the project to be constructed in May 2020.

Also in 2020, the DOE authorized AGDC to export LNG produced from Alaskan sources to any country with which the United States has not entered into a free trade agreement. The decision Thursday reaffirms that authorization with the added carbon dioxide venting prohibitions.

AOC, TOP DEMOCRATS ISSUE STINGING REBUKE OF BIDEN OVER FAILED CLIMATE PROMISES

"With this supplemental record of decision, the Biden Administration has reaffirmed the authorization for and climate benefits of the Alaska LNG Project, which will provide Alaskans and U.S. allies with a significant source of low-emissions, responsibly produced energy consistent with international environmental priorities," AGDC President Frank Richards said in a statement.

"Upon initial review this supplemental decision adds to the record of support for Alaska LNG and we will review it carefully as our work developing this important project continues," he added.

SPONSORED by The B-Line

Experience The B-Line

A bourbon experience at its best; you do the rest. Must be 21+ to participate. Please drink responsibly.

Learn More

 

Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm speaks at a news conference on Dec. 13.  (REUTERS/Mary F. Calver/File Photo)

In early January, the DOE published its final supplemental environmental impact statement which determined the project would have a negligible greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impact and may even result in lower emissions worldwide. The report stated the project "would not increase GHG emissions when providing the same services to society (through production of natural gas and crude oil)."

According to AGDC, the project would additionally create 10,000 jobs during construction and 1,000 permanent jobs. It would also have an average throughput of 3.1 billion cubic feet of LNG per day, much of which would be delivered to Alaskans.

DARK MONEY ECO GROUP APPEARS TO BE ASTROTURFING OPPOSITION TO MAJOR OIL PROJECT

"This is a significant step toward getting more jobs for our families and a boost toward getting the Alaska LNG pipeline project built," said Rick Whitbeck, the Alaska state director of Power The Future, a pro-energy group. "The approval proves that the Biden Administration finally acknowledges the key role fossil fuels play in our energy future." 

 

Existing liquefied natural gas export infrastructure is pictured in Kenai, Alaska, in 2008. (Farah Nosh/Getty Images)

However, environmental groups led by the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity blasted the decision and said it would worsen climate change. They also threatened legal action.

"The proposed Alaska LNG export project would threaten Arctic wildlife and exacerbate the climate crisis by locking in decades of increased gas extraction and exports at a time when the science is clear that we must rapidly transition away from fossil fuels," said Andrea Feniger, the director of Sierra Club's Alaska chapter. 

"Claiming that a project like this could possibly be in the public interest isn’t just out of step with the Biden administration’s stated commitment to climate action — it’s out of step with reality. We will pursue every available avenue to ensure that this ill-advised project is never built."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Liz Jones, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, added that it was "painful" to see the DOE green-light the project a month after the Biden administration approved the Willow Project, a massive oil drilling project in northern Alaska.

"This project will send billions of cubic feet of gas a day across Alaska and through waters teeming with wildlife, all to be burned up on foreign shores into our overheating atmosphere," Jones said. "The Alaska LNG project should never have been approved."

[Boat + 1,315]

On 4/24/2021 at 7:21 PM, markslawson said:

And you lost that earlier argument, and you mostly misunderstood what I posted.. You are talking about pushing aside what was mostly a much cheaper system and replacing it with expensive batteries and interconnections while still also requiring the gas plants. The batteries may take the edge off and give time for the peaking plants to start up, but the gas plants will still be required. End of story. This is not a recipe for creating jobs, it is one for destroying them. But I can see you are living in your own fantasy world. wouldn't you be better off on another forum where you can indulge your fantasies without difficult people like me pointing our realities? Anyway, I've probably spent enough time on this. Leave it with you.  

The peak expensive part of the electrical day is in the evening as workers go home and crank up the ac. Batteries will save money as they replace the peaker plants for 4-6 hrs. After that has happened the next discussion will require a cheaper battery, solar and wind. But we gotta build a bunch of batter factories first and install some solar with transmission lines. Eh? This buildout will take a few years. It’s a rather large undertaking. 

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

4 hours ago, Boat said:

The peak expensive part of the electrical day is in the evening as workers go home and crank up the ac. Batteries will save money as they replace the peaker plants for 4-6 hrs. After that has happened the next discussion will require a cheaper battery, solar and wind. But we gotta build a bunch of batter factories first and install some solar with transmission lines. Eh? This buildout will take a few years. It’s a rather large undertaking. 

You must be joking again, "a few years"? Try a few centuries. This just ain't gonna happen in your lifetime or mine.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

46 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You must be joking again, "a few years"? Try a few centuries. This just ain't gonna happen in your lifetime or mine.

Well in defense of boat... he actually almost said the truth.  He should have said batteries can ***partially*** replace peaker NG plants.  Peaker plants are required for this thing called winter...

[turbguy + 1,391]

You guys would be surprised.  Just look at the last week's generation sources.  Wind beats coal, by a LOT!  Yes, nat gas is still king, and will be for about a decade or so.

How can a coal plant compete with a generation source that requires zero fuel, uses zero water, produces zero operation waste, and requires less "heads per MWh"?  

Wait until AI gets involved!  For instance:

• AI can help to optimize the grid. AI can be used to analyze data from the grid to identify areas where efficiency can be improved. For example, AI can be used to identify transmission lines that are underutilized or that are experiencing congestion. AI can also be used to develop new algorithms for dispatching power generation resources, which can help to ensure that the grid is operating as efficiently as possible.
• AI can help to balance supply and demand. Non-dispatchable renewable generation, such as solar and wind power, can be intermittent, meaning that they do not always produce electricity at the same rate. AI can be used to help balance supply and demand by predicting when non-dispatchable renewable generation will be available and by dispatching other power generation resources accordingly. This can help to ensure that the grid has enough electricity to meet demand even when non-dispatchable renewable generation is not available.
• AI can help to manage peak demand. Peak demand is the highest level of electricity demand that occurs during a given day. AI can be used to help manage peak demand by forecasting when peak demand will occur and by dispatching power generation resources accordingly. This can help to avoid blackouts and brownouts that can occur when peak demand exceeds the capacity of the grid.
• AI can help to improve grid resilience. The grid is susceptible to a variety of disruptions, such as natural disasters and cyberattacks. AI can be used to help improve grid resilience by identifying and mitigating these risks. For example, AI can be used to monitor the grid for signs of trouble and to take corrective action before a disruption occurs.

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by turbguy

[markslawson + 1,042]

6 hours ago, Boat said:

The peak expensive part of the electrical day is in the evening as workers go home and crank up the ac. Batteries will save money as they replace the peaker plants for 4-6 hrs. After that has happened the next discussion will require a cheaper battery, solar and wind. But we gotta build a bunch of batter factories first and install some solar with transmission lines. Eh? This buildout will take a few years. It’s a rather large undertaking. 

Again this is all hopeful nonsense. The problem is that wind and solar systems have a bad habit of going AWOL at crucial times. When wind dies it is now known to do so over a wide area. Look up the term "wind droughts" and start reading. Batteries may help in tiding over the grid until the back-up plants come on line but we will still need those plants. There is no getting around it. Leave it with you.. 

[turbguy + 1,391]

17 minutes ago, markslawson said:

 Batteries may help in tiding over the grid until the back-up plants come on line but we will still need those plants. There is no getting around it. Leave it with you.. 

I agree. That is the current situation we are in.  BTW, we've been there since the time of Edison and Tesla.  Eventually, fast start peakers will be used less and less (based in bidding into the market).  Electricity prices will become more volatile, permitting the consumers to adjust consumption.

There have been about 20 GW's of coal-fired plants retired in the US within the last 5 years.  Here's a short list:

1. Navajo Generating Station, Arizona (2,250 MW)
2. Bruce Mansfield Power Plant, Pennsylvania (2,490 MW)
3. Paradise Fossil Plant, Kentucky (1,150 MW)
4. Joppa Steam Plant, Illinois (1,002 MW)
5. Sherburne County Generating Station, Minnesota (884 MW)
6. Allen S. King Generating Station, Minnesota (680 MW)
7. Carleton Fossil Plant, Tennessee (1,076 MW)
8. Somerset Power Plant, Texas (1,091 MW)
9. Mill Creek Generating Station, Kentucky (1,472 MW)
10. R. Paul Smith Power Plant, Kentucky (352 MW)
11. Centralia Coal Plant, Washington (1,340 MW)
12. Robert W. Scherer Power Plant, Georgia (3,520 MW) - one unit retired
13. Sims Municipal Generating Station, Michigan (377 MW)
14. Boardman Coal Plant, Oregon (550 MW)

A lot is gonna change.  The way we generate, and the way we consume.

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by turbguy

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

24 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I agree. That is the current situation we are in.  BTW, we've been there since the time of Edison and Tesla.  Eventually, fast start peakers will be used less and less (based in bidding into the market).  Electricity prices will become more volatile, permitting the consumers to adjust consumption.

There have been about 20 GW's of coal-fired plants retired in the US within the last 5 years.  Here's a short list:

1. Navajo Generating Station, Arizona (2,250 MW)
2. Bruce Mansfield Power Plant, Pennsylvania (2,490 MW)
3. Paradise Fossil Plant, Kentucky (1,150 MW)
4. Joppa Steam Plant, Illinois (1,002 MW)
5. Sherburne County Generating Station, Minnesota (884 MW)
6. Allen S. King Generating Station, Minnesota (680 MW)
7. Carleton Fossil Plant, Tennessee (1,076 MW)
8. Somerset Power Plant, Texas (1,091 MW)
9. Mill Creek Generating Station, Kentucky (1,472 MW)
10. R. Paul Smith Power Plant, Kentucky (352 MW)
11. Centralia Coal Plant, Washington (1,340 MW)
12. Robert W. Scherer Power Plant, Georgia (3,520 MW) - one unit retired
13. Sims Municipal Generating Station, Michigan (377 MW)
14. Boardman Coal Plant, Oregon (550 MW)

A lot is gonna change.  The way we generate, and the way we consume.

 

Many of those, like the Centralia plant in Washington state, the Boardman coal plant in Oregon, were forced to close or be converted to NG by government fiat mandate.  Oregon just decided to blow theirs up and then bitch and whine about not enough power in their state... Yea, not kidding... Not due to costs.  Many others were simply regulated out of existence not due to costs. Others, like the one in Texas, closed due to dirt cheap NG... hrmm I wonder if they still think that after all those extra LNG plants opened and NG prices doubled... though right now, it is back to basement dwelling reality so one has to ask... what gives?  USA really has that much spare NG capacity for LNG?  Guess so. Isn't it something like 10%? 15% of total produced? 

Edited April 17, 2023 by footeab@yahoo.com

[turbguy + 1,391]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Many of those, like the Centralia plant in Washington state, the Boardman coal plant in Oregon, were forced to close or be converted to NG by government fiat mandate.  Oregon just decided to blow theirs up and then bitch and whine about not enough power in their state... Yea, not kidding... Not due to costs.  Many others were simply regulated out of existence not due to costs. Others, like the one in Texas, closed due to dirt cheap NG... hrmm I wonder if they still think that after all those extra LNG plants opened and NG prices doubled... though right now, it is back to basement dwelling reality so one has to ask... what gives?  USA really has that much spare NG capacity for LNG?  Guess so. Isn't it something like 10%? 15% of total produced? 

No, they closed due to costs.  Some were impacted by the capital required to continue to add more "muffler"   Some were getting too old and thus too expensive to maintain, Some were retired because they couldn't compete on a margin basis with other sources.

Washington state EXPORTS more MWh's than the total fossil fuels used to generate within the state.

Oregon state EXPORTS WAY more MWh's than coal produces within the state.

Hydro, much??

 

Again:

How can a coal plant compete with a generation source that requires zero fuel, uses zero water, produces zero operation waste, and requires less "heads per MWh"?  

Now, can the grid collapse?  Sure!  It's already happened several times, back when solar and wind penetration wasn't even 1% of generation.   Typically sections of the grid collapsed, isolating other areas and limiting the spread.  ERCOT got real close a few years ago, and I'm personally paying for that fiasco, and will for years to come.

BTW, there's gonna be a whole lot more coal-fired plants closed in the next year...

Edited April 17, 2023 by turbguy

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

No, they closed due to costs.  Some were impacted by the capital required to continue to add more "muffler"   Some were getting too old and thus too expensive to maintain, Some were retired because they couldn't compete on a margin basis with other sources.

Washington state EXPORTS more MWh's than the total fossil fuels used to generate within the state.

Oregon state EXPORTS WAY more MWh's than coal produces within the state.

Hydro, much??

 

Again:

How can a coal plant compete with a generation source that requires zero fuel, uses zero water, produces zero operation waste, and requires less "heads per MWh"?  

Now, can the grid collapse?  Sure!  It's already happened several times, back when solar and wind penetration wasn't even 1% of generation.   Typically sections of the grid collapsed, isolating other areas and limiting the spread.  ERCOT got real close a few years ago, and I'm personally paying for that fiasco, and will for years to come.

BTW, there's gonna be a whole lot more coal-fired plants closed in the next year...

Do yourself a favor... your ignorance is supreme! Keep posting.  PNW does not export power and has not done so going on 40 years now Yo, ripvanwinkle, time to wake up.  For ~1 month during snowmelt flood season, WA exports a little power.  WA/OR only get ~50% to 2/3 of their electrical power from Hydro.