GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

3 hours ago, notsonice said:

India is going up......and the rest of the world is going down....

what you get, overall,  is no growth.....and the future is down down down

US oil consumption over the last 20 years...The number one user (4 times that of India)

 

 

EU and CIS

oil consumption over the last 20 years... (4 times that of India) and going down down down

 

I guess you must have missed this above,

"This year, China is seen to account for about half of global oil demand growth."

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

21 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Actually, the context of this passage is idolatry, which is the "detestable" offense referred to here. 

Not mining of resources, which is not regarded as an idolatry or a defilement in the Good Book. 

Mining is related to idolatry, 

"You shall not make anything to be with Me—gods of silver or gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves."

You just enjoy mining and worshipping crude instead of gold.

Edited April 5, 2023 by TailingsPond

[turbguy + 1,544]

2 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Mining is related to idolatry, 

"You shall not make anything to be with Me—gods of silver or gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves."

You just enjoy mining and worshipping crude instead of gold.

Or?  Gods of money??

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

3 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Mining is related to idolatry, 

"You shall not make anything to be with Me—gods of silver or gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves."

You just enjoy mining and worshipping crude instead of gold.

There is nothing in the Good Book to suggest that mining is a form of idolatry.

Making a god of anything other than the Creator is a form of idolatry, be it material, animate, human or ideological. Idolators worship the creation rather than the Creator.

The worship of humanity is a form of idolatry.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ron Wagner + 710]

https://www.nysun.com/article/american-forests-are-being-razed-so-europe-can-cling-to-its-green-energy-ambitions

 

ECONOMY

American Forests Are Being Razed So Europe Can Cling to ‘Green’ Energy

Instead of clearing its own forests to flout its green credentials, Europe is using America’s.

Much of Europe's so-called renewable energy comes not from solar or wind, but from burning old-fashioned wood. AP/Alvaro Barrientos, file

MATTHEW RICEThursday, March 30, 202306:14:32 am

To bolster its climate-friendly credentials, Europe is increasingly reliant on an energy source as old as fire itself — dead trees.

While European Union officials refer to it as the more environmentally friendly “biomass” and call it a “renewable resource,” little of it is coming from the continent itself. Much of the forests being razed to heat and cool the continent are in the southeastern United States.

A German green energy entrepreneur, Simon Göss, recently published a report on the future of biomass and biogas as a method of transitioning toward a carbon-free Europe by 2050. Mr. Göss found that as of today, woody biomass makes up a majority of Europe’s “green” energy sector — nearly 60 percent across the continent. 

“Most of the time, wind and solar or energy carriers and technologies such as hydrogen or batteries make it to the headlines,” he wrote in his report. “The larger part of the EU’s renewable energy mix is, however, made up of biomass … in different forms (liquid, gaseous, solid) and origins (wood, grasses, agricultural residues by-products, etc).”

In the continent’s largest countries, biomass plants are cropping up in the thousands. In Germany, there are 14,922 plants that burn some form of biomass — a 17.5 percent increase in the last 10 years. The United Kingdom is home to 226 biomass plants nationwide, which is enough to supply the energy needs of more than eight million homes. 

The main use of these biomass sources is for heating and cooling — something vital to the lives of everyday Europeans as gas prices reached historic highs this past winter. Nearly 75 percent of the biomass used in Europe is for heating homes in the winter or cooling them in the summer. 

The sustainability of woody biomass — most notably trees — has been questioned by climate activists and scientists in recent years as deforestation has increased. Between 2001 and 2021, the world lost 11 percent of its total tree coverage. 

Despite these concerns, the European Union and its legislative body, the European parliament, have fully embraced the practice. In September 2022, when gas prices were three times their current rate on the continent, the European parliament voted to adopt the Renewable Energy Directive, which called for more investment in and use of biomass as an energy source. The parliament voted at the same time to strengthen protections for its own forests and implemented new “sustainability guidelines” to maintain tree cover levels. 

Instead of razing its own forests to flout its green credentials, Europe is using America’s. Tree farms in the southeast provide tens of millions of tons of biomass to Europe every year, and some residents of the Deep South are starting to balk about it.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Europe consumed 23 million metric tons of wood pellets in 2021 and was on pace to burn 24 million metric tons in 2022. At the time, most of it came from Russia and the United States. The war in Ukraine and subsequent sanctions against Russia cut off that source, and now the United States provides as much as 99 percent of the wood pellets needed to power Europe annually.

The Southern Environmental Law Center is one group seeking to slow down the expansion of the industry in America. “Along with CO2, manufacturing and burning wood pellets produces harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and microscopic dust particles that contribute to serious health risks,” the group’s website states. 

Millions of tons of trees are extracted from the southeastern United States to feed this green energy sector, and many are issuing warnings about deforestation and the risks associated with it. 

“Biomass energy has received growing attention in the United States,” the law group wrote. “We are committed to ensuring American lawmakers don’t make the same mistakes made in other countries, and that policy makers know the threats the biomass industry poses to the climate, local communities, and the South’s air, water, and millions of acres of forest land.”

MATTHEW RICE

Mr. Rice is a Staff Reporter based at Boston. He covers current events in politics.

 

[Ron Wagner + 710]

On 3/31/2023 at 10:01 PM, turbguy said:

Petroleum is not a major contributor to generation (about 1/2%  or less of total generation).  I try to upload a chart for today's generation, but I keep getting server errors.

Today, wind alone, exceeded all other forms of generation, except for nat gas.  That's the first time I've seen that!

Go here and scroll down to the "generation by source" chart (fourth chart from the top).

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48

 

I keep trying to tell you folks that energy is not just electricity. It is more transportation, natural gas heat, shipping, trains etc. You need to look at the big picture. https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix#:~:text=Globally we get the largest,than 80% of energy consumption.

[turbguy + 1,544]

15 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

I keep trying to tell you folks that energy is not just electricity. It is more transportation, natural gas heat, shipping, trains etc. You need to look at the big picture. https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix#:~:text=Globally we get the largest,than 80% of energy consumption.

I don't disagree.   It is eye-opening to realize the number of internal combustion engines running, right at this moment.

Electric generation is the current "low-hanging fruit" for decarbonization of energy. You can generate and distribute electricity WITHOUT BURNING ANYTHING!  And, boy, it really is addicting!

The cost of electricity can vary depending on the source of the electricity. Electricity generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar tend to be cheaper than electricity generated from fossil fuels. In some regions, the cost of electricity from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas may be comparable to or even lower than the cost of petroleum.

Petroleum, on the other hand, is primarily used as a fuel for transportation, and the cost of petroleum can vary depending on a number of factors such as global oil prices, transportation costs, and taxes. In general, the cost of petroleum tends to be higher than the cost of electricity on a per kWh basis.

That said, petroleum is gonna be around for a while. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by turbguy

[notsonice + 1,255]

27 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

https://www.nysun.com/article/american-forests-are-being-razed-so-europe-can-cling-to-its-green-energy-ambitions

 

ECONOMY

American Forests Are Being Razed So Europe Can Cling to ‘Green’ Energy

Instead of clearing its own forests to flout its green credentials, Europe is using America’s.

Much of Europe's so-called renewable energy comes not from solar or wind, but from burning old-fashioned wood. AP/Alvaro Barrientos, file

MATTHEW RICEThursday, March 30, 202306:14:32 am

 

To bolster its climate-friendly credentials, Europe is increasingly reliant on an energy source as old as fire itself — dead trees.

While European Union officials refer to it as the more environmentally friendly “biomass” and call it a “renewable resource,” little of it is coming from the continent itself. Much of the forests being razed to heat and cool the continent are in the southeastern United States.

A German green energy entrepreneur, Simon Göss, recently published a report on the future of biomass and biogas as a method of transitioning toward a carbon-free Europe by 2050. Mr. Göss found that as of today, woody biomass makes up a majority of Europe’s “green” energy sector — nearly 60 percent across the continent. 

“Most of the time, wind and solar or energy carriers and technologies such as hydrogen or batteries make it to the headlines,” he wrote in his report. “The larger part of the EU’s renewable energy mix is, however, made up of biomass … in different forms (liquid, gaseous, solid) and origins (wood, grasses, agricultural residues by-products, etc).”

In the continent’s largest countries, biomass plants are cropping up in the thousands. In Germany, there are 14,922 plants that burn some form of biomass — a 17.5 percent increase in the last 10 years. The United Kingdom is home to 226 biomass plants nationwide, which is enough to supply the energy needs of more than eight million homes. 

The main use of these biomass sources is for heating and cooling — something vital to the lives of everyday Europeans as gas prices reached historic highs this past winter. Nearly 75 percent of the biomass used in Europe is for heating homes in the winter or cooling them in the summer. 

The sustainability of woody biomass — most notably trees — has been questioned by climate activists and scientists in recent years as deforestation has increased. Between 2001 and 2021, the world lost 11 percent of its total tree coverage. 

Despite these concerns, the European Union and its legislative body, the European parliament, have fully embraced the practice. In September 2022, when gas prices were three times their current rate on the continent, the European parliament voted to adopt the Renewable Energy Directive, which called for more investment in and use of biomass as an energy source. The parliament voted at the same time to strengthen protections for its own forests and implemented new “sustainability guidelines” to maintain tree cover levels. 

Instead of razing its own forests to flout its green credentials, Europe is using America’s. Tree farms in the southeast provide tens of millions of tons of biomass to Europe every year, and some residents of the Deep South are starting to balk about it.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Europe consumed 23 million metric tons of wood pellets in 2021 and was on pace to burn 24 million metric tons in 2022. At the time, most of it came from Russia and the United States. The war in Ukraine and subsequent sanctions against Russia cut off that source, and now the United States provides as much as 99 percent of the wood pellets needed to power Europe annually.

The Southern Environmental Law Center is one group seeking to slow down the expansion of the industry in America. “Along with CO2, manufacturing and burning wood pellets produces harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and microscopic dust particles that contribute to serious health risks,” the group’s website states. 

Millions of tons of trees are extracted from the southeastern United States to feed this green energy sector, and many are issuing warnings about deforestation and the risks associated with it. 

“Biomass energy has received growing attention in the United States,” the law group wrote. “We are committed to ensuring American lawmakers don’t make the same mistakes made in other countries, and that policy makers know the threats the biomass industry poses to the climate, local communities, and the South’s air, water, and millions of acres of forest land.”

MATTHEW RICE

Mr. Rice is a Staff Reporter based at Boston. He covers current events in politics.

 

the forests being razed to heat and cool the continent are in the southeastern United States.????

these are farm forests...Pines planted on spent farm land that is poor is soil quality ...thanks to the overfarming of Cotton......

 

The residue from pulp....think bark and residues from saw mills......2 x 4 production leaves a lot of waste

 

the residues are now turned into pellets and exported . In the past the residues were burned domestically fueling boilers .........but nat gas is so cheap .... and wood pellets have good value in Europe ...Cheaper than LNG

 

forest razed??? and replanted over and over again.....Industrial forests.........they make a steady casd return to landowners who own crappy spent farmland

[specinho + 470]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

There is nothing in the Good Book to suggest that mining is a form of idolatry.

Making a god of anything other than the Creator is a form of idolatry, be it material, animate, human or ideological. Idolators worship the creation rather than the Creator.

The worship of humanity is a form of idolatry.

There was a cult discussion on 'why human need to explore into the space'. It might provide a perspective onto your first statement ...:

" People shot out into the space with an initial question: what is up there?

They attempted to find heaven, paradise and Gods.

To their disappointment, there was only darkness.......infinity of it........ dust...... other space debris....... with no breathable air.

When they dug down the depth of earth, with an attempt to find hell, lost souls/ long lost great grand relatives, souls of ancient ancestors like octopus, salamander that could speak etc, they found heaven of wealth e.g. minerals, oil, coal etc ........"

From then on, mining became the new heaven. People idolized places with those.....

Regarding the second statement, "Making a god of anything other than the creator is idolization", can we deduce you might have meant all beliefs in the world are a form of idolization? 

E.g. Moses, Jesus, prophet Mohamed, Budha etc

- human born

We made them examples of mankind. We followed what they did, what they said. We taught others to do the same.

If so, religious conflict of the world could be solved in no time.............? 😯 🥳

[specinho + 470]

2 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

https://www.nysun.com/article/american-forests-are-being-razed-so-europe-can-cling-to-its-green-energy-ambitions

 

ECONOMY

American Forests Are Being Razed So Europe Can Cling to ‘Green’ Energy

Instead of clearing its own forests to flout its green credentials, Europe is using America’s.

Much of Europe's so-called renewable energy comes not from solar or wind, but from burning old-fashioned wood. AP/Alvaro Barrientos, file

MATTHEW RICEThursday, March 30, 202306:14:32 am

 

To bolster its climate-friendly credentials, Europe is increasingly reliant on an energy source as old as fire itself — dead trees.

While European Union officials refer to it as the more environmentally friendly “biomass” and call it a “renewable resource,” little of it is coming from the continent itself. Much of the forests being razed to heat and cool the continent are in the southeastern United States.

A German green energy entrepreneur, Simon Göss, recently published a report on the future of biomass and biogas as a method of transitioning toward a carbon-free Europe by 2050. Mr. Göss found that as of today, woody biomass makes up a majority of Europe’s “green” energy sector — nearly 60 percent across the continent. 

“Most of the time, wind and solar or energy carriers and technologies such as hydrogen or batteries make it to the headlines,” he wrote in his report. “The larger part of the EU’s renewable energy mix is, however, made up of biomass … in different forms (liquid, gaseous, solid) and origins (wood, grasses, agricultural residues by-products, etc).”

In the continent’s largest countries, biomass plants are cropping up in the thousands. In Germany, there are 14,922 plants that burn some form of biomass — a 17.5 percent increase in the last 10 years. The United Kingdom is home to 226 biomass plants nationwide, which is enough to supply the energy needs of more than eight million homes. 

The main use of these biomass sources is for heating and cooling — something vital to the lives of everyday Europeans as gas prices reached historic highs this past winter. Nearly 75 percent of the biomass used in Europe is for heating homes in the winter or cooling them in the summer. 

The sustainability of woody biomass — most notably trees — has been questioned by climate activists and scientists in recent years as deforestation has increased. Between 2001 and 2021, the world lost 11 percent of its total tree coverage. 

Despite these concerns, the European Union and its legislative body, the European parliament, have fully embraced the practice. In September 2022, when gas prices were three times their current rate on the continent, the European parliament voted to adopt the Renewable Energy Directive, which called for more investment in and use of biomass as an energy source. The parliament voted at the same time to strengthen protections for its own forests and implemented new “sustainability guidelines” to maintain tree cover levels. 

Instead of razing its own forests to flout its green credentials, Europe is using America’s. Tree farms in the southeast provide tens of millions of tons of biomass to Europe every year, and some residents of the Deep South are starting to balk about it.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Europe consumed 23 million metric tons of wood pellets in 2021 and was on pace to burn 24 million metric tons in 2022. At the time, most of it came from Russia and the United States. The war in Ukraine and subsequent sanctions against Russia cut off that source, and now the United States provides as much as 99 percent of the wood pellets needed to power Europe annually.

The Southern Environmental Law Center is one group seeking to slow down the expansion of the industry in America. “Along with CO2, manufacturing and burning wood pellets produces harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and microscopic dust particles that contribute to serious health risks,” the group’s website states. 

Millions of tons of trees are extracted from the southeastern United States to feed this green energy sector, and many are issuing warnings about deforestation and the risks associated with it. 

“Biomass energy has received growing attention in the United States,” the law group wrote. “We are committed to ensuring American lawmakers don’t make the same mistakes made in other countries, and that policy makers know the threats the biomass industry poses to the climate, local communities, and the South’s air, water, and millions of acres of forest land.”

MATTHEW RICE

Mr. Rice is a Staff Reporter based at Boston. He covers current events in politics.

 

Those jokers...... Wood as renewable green energy, right?.... 🤭

[notsonice + 1,255]

19 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

I guess you must have missed this above,

"This year, China is seen to account for about half of global oil demand growth."

growth in China????? did not happen in the 1st quarter......

once again China is in a real bad real estate recession that is dragging them down..........

EVs are booming in China....35 percent of sales now.......

Poof to your claim of demand growth .....

OPEC had to cut production severely just to maintain the price......Demand growth would move the price up not down.....

OPEC cut production just to maintain $80 Brent........  an oversupplied market

 

BYD doubles EV sales in March as it chases down Tesla to be world’s biggest

 

 

[bloodman33 + 22]

Court orders Total to drop "misleading" CO2-neutral oil claims

Refined Products GHG

8h ago

A court has ruled that TotalEnergies had misled customers in Germany by marketing heating oil as ‘climate-neutral’

 

[Ron Wagner + 710]

https://news.yahoo.com/hydrogen-research-reminds-us-humanity-190000017.html

 

New Hydrogen Research Reminds Us Humanity Just Can't Win With Fuel Alternatives

368

 

Adam Ismail

Wed, April 5, 2023 at 2:00 PM CDT

 

 

 

A person fills up a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle in Japan.

There is no perfect energy source, nothing that will power our vehicles without some kind of catch. Consider hydrogen. For decades it’s been propped up as a worthy alternative to oil, even if infrastructure-related hiccups seem to always hold it back from reaching its full potential. Nevertheless, there seems to be a bit of space left for hydrogen-powered vehicles even in a battery electric-dominated world. But new research indicates that hydrogen buildup could have adverse effects on the climate, not terribly unlike the fuel it’s meant to replace.

In case you missed it:

• All 12 Gran Turismo Games Ranked From Worst to Best

• The Cars That You Think Would Be Better Topless

• 2024 Mercedes GLS Adds a Bit of Power and a Controversial Steering Wheel

- ADVERTISEMENT -

The study was conducted by Princeton University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Hydrogen reacts with another molecule called hydroxyl radical (OH) that, on its own, typically reduces the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The researchers found that once a certain threshold of hydrogen emissions is surpassed, OH cannot do its job, leading to an overabundance of methane. From Sci Tech Daily:

Read more

• These Are Your Guilty Pleasure Cars

• The 15 Most Successful Formula 1 Cars of All Time

• These Cars Should Never Have Been Killed Off

The hydroxyl radical also reacts with hydrogen gas in the atmosphere. And since a limited amount of OH is generated each day, any spike in hydrogen emissions means that more OH would be used to break down hydrogen, leaving less OH available to break down methane. As a consequence, methane would stay longer in the atmosphere, extending its warming impacts.

According to Bertagni, the effects of a hydrogen spike that might occur as government incentives for hydrogen production expand could have decades-long climate consequences for the planet.

“If you emit some hydrogen into the atmosphere now, it will lead to a progressive build-up of methane in the following years,” [postdoctoral researcher at High Meadows Environmental Institute Matteo] Bertagni said. “Even though hydrogen only has a lifespan of around two years in the atmosphere, you’ll still have the methane feedback from that hydrogen in 30 years from now.”

In the study, the researchers identified the tipping point at which hydrogen emissions would lead to an increase in atmospheric methane and thereby undermine some of the near-term benefits of hydrogen as a clean fuel. By identifying that threshold, the researchers established targets for managing hydrogen emissions.

It’s critical that hydrogen emissions are kept below that tipping point, even if it’s being used to broadly replace fossil fuels. Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles emit only water vapor of course, but the key here is that there are always leaks in the production and transport process. And if enough methane and hydrogen are leaked together, well — you may as well have just burned gasoline.

“Managing leakage rates of hydrogen and methane will be critical,” Bertagni said. “If you have just a small amount of methane leakage and a bit of hydrogen leakage, then the blue hydrogen that you produce really might not be much better than using fossil fuels, at least for the next 20 to 30 years.”

So maybe it’s good that automakers aren’t hurrying to pump out hydrogen fuel-cell cars in droves. Maybe. Lithium production will have to increase six-fold by 2035 to support the number of EVs manufacturers plan to build, electricity is likely to get real pricey at night and battery-powered big rigs will need charging stations supplied with a small town’s worth of energy to stay on the road. Meanwhile, synthetic e-fuels are still exorbitantly inexpensive because the process to create them is remarkably inefficient — and even if that weren’t true, they’d still pollute city air as badly the real stuff. There are no easy answers here.

More from Jalopnik

• Don't Expect Used Car Prices to Collapse Anytime Soon

• NYPD Arrests Cyclist For Uncovering Obscured License Plate, Lets Driver Go

Sign up for Jalopnik's Newsletter. For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Click here to read the full article.

[Ron Wagner + 710]

21 hours ago, turbguy said:

I don't disagree.   It is eye-opening to realize the number of internal combustion engines running, right at this moment.

Electric generation is the current "low-hanging fruit" for decarbonization of energy. You can generate and distribute electricity WITHOUT BURNING ANYTHING!  And, boy, it really is addicting!

The cost of electricity can vary depending on the source of the electricity. Electricity generated from renewable sources such as wind and solar tend to be cheaper than electricity generated from fossil fuels. In some regions, the cost of electricity from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas may be comparable to or even lower than the cost of petroleum.

Petroleum, on the other hand, is primarily used as a fuel for transportation, and the cost of petroleum can vary depending on a number of factors such as global oil prices, transportation costs, and taxes. In general, the cost of petroleum tends to be higher than the cost of electricity on a per kWh basis.

That said, petroleum is gonna be around for a while. 

The determination of cost benefit ratios requires an honest look at all the costs including delivery, health, taxation, cost of production and equipment used, etc. It is not as simple as what the average arguments present. My main consideration is that the playing field should be as fair as possible without predetermined winners based on political considerations but on market realities. The customers must be able to afford the product needed. 

[Ron Wagner + 710]

21 hours ago, notsonice said:

the forests being razed to heat and cool the continent are in the southeastern United States.????

these are farm forests...Pines planted on spent farm land that is poor is soil quality ...thanks to the overfarming of Cotton......

 

The residue from pulp....think bark and residues from saw mills......2 x 4 production leaves a lot of waste

 

the residues are now turned into pellets and exported . In the past the residues were burned domestically fueling boilers .........but nat gas is so cheap .... and wood pellets have good value in Europe ...Cheaper than LNG

 

forest razed??? and replanted over and over again.....Industrial forests.........they make a steady casd return to landowners who own crappy spent farmland

I agree, but there are forests in other areas too. That is fine with me as long as good forestry plans are used and enforced. Forests need professional management to make sure that they are here for future generations. I have been in all fifty states. Most of the woodland I see is not treated as a resource, but is let to grow without any management at all. I also spent two years in Germany. They invented forestry and do a far better job. Their forests look good and are not full of underbrush that prevents the growth of usable trees. It also makes it difficult to walk through. ( I am not talking about state and federal forests which are managed and used wisely). The problem there is often not allowing sufficient roads, and parking to allow for recreation and travel. 

[turbguy + 1,544]

2 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

The determination of cost benefit ratios requires an honest look at all the costs including delivery, health, taxation, cost of production and equipment used, etc. It is not as simple as what the average arguments present. My main consideration is that the playing field should be as fair as possible without predetermined winners based on political considerations but on market realities. The customers must be able to afford the product needed. 

I would agree.  The bottom line is what I and you actually pay.

I can burn 1 gallon of gasoline,at 100% efficiency (which uses about 6 KWh to produce, but we will ignore that), and get about 34 KWh of heat.  That costs me here about $3.40 today.

OR: 

I can use 34 KWh of electricity at $0.12/KWh, run a heat pump with a COP of 2 (which is really poor heat pump), and get 68 KWh of heat, for about  $4.10.

Let's see...which should I choose???

Edited April 7, 2023 by turbguy

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

2 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

I agree, but there are forests in other areas too. That is fine with me as long as good forestry plans are used and enforced. Forests need professional management to make sure that they are here for future generations. I have been in all fifty states. Most of the woodland I see is not treated as a resource, but is let to grow without any management at all. I also spent two years in Germany. They invented forestry and do a far better job. Their forests look good and are not full of underbrush that prevents the growth of usable trees. It also makes it difficult to walk through. ( I am not talking about state and federal forests which are managed and used wisely). The problem there is often not allowing sufficient roads, and parking to allow for recreation and travel. 

Eww, embarrassing.......

No, state/federal forests are not being "managed wisely".  If you had been paying any attention at all, you would know they are being left to ROT in place(unthinned) creating GARGANTUAN fire hazards which then create MONSTOROUS fires due to envirowackos who have gotten in charge out here in the Western USA who refuse to allow anyone to thin/log anymore.  Active logging acerage is down 50%.  Road mileage upkept on federal lands has dropped by 40%(this number I think is high lets call it 25%). 

Type of trees bud.  Germany has Evergreens near elusively in any managed forest areas.  Straight growing evergreen trees take care of themselves and block out all underbrush all by themselves, Being farther north drops underbrush quotient a lot as well.  Evergreen trees require zero management required other than thinning purely for economic benefits not underbrush.  Deciduous, or mixed forest, do not block out the sunlight in the spring/fall and therefore allow underbrush to grow.  Likewise Deciduous trees(with few exceptions) do not grow straight, tall, dense together.  Also the 1 straight tall Deciduous tree which used to dominate the Eastern USA, Chestnut, died out due to blight brought over from Europe.  Also, Due to Gargantuan Evergreen tree plantations throughout the western USA/BC Canada, Eastern USA forests have essentially stopped being harvested for lumber other than furniture and flooring.  Add in giant increase in importation of exotic lumber from the tropics and this smashed the Eastern USA lumber uses once again.  Wait, we are not done yet, due to the advent of digitization and the internet, paper usage has dropped by 40%.  Most of the trees shipped off to Europe allowing them to pretend they are "green", are actually harvested off old paper plantations.  

PS: All that "horrible" underbrush which the Indians used to burn off every autumn and which we do not anymore(leading to yet much LARGER forest fires especially out west), is home to all the animals which is why Eastern North America has an abundance of wildlife only surpassed by the Tropics. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

52 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I would agree.  The bottom line is what I and you actually pay.

I can burn 1 gallon of gasoline,at 100% efficiency (which uses about 6 KWh to produce, but we will ignore that), and get about 34 KWh of heat.  That costs me here about $3.40 today.

OR: 

I can use 34 KWh of electricity at $0.12/KWh, run a heat pump with a COP of 2 (which is really poor heat pump), and get 68 KWh of heat, for about  $4.10.

Let's see...which should I choose???

Move the goal posts much....  to only residence heating... 🤑

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

12 hours ago, notsonice said:

growth in China????? did not happen in the 1st quarter......

once again China is in a real bad real estate recession that is dragging them down..........

EVs are booming in China....35 percent of sales now.......

Poof to your claim of demand growth .....

OPEC had to cut production severely just to maintain the price......Demand growth would move the price up not down.....

OPEC cut production just to maintain $80 Brent........  an oversupplied market

 

BYD doubles EV sales in March as it chases down Tesla to be world’s biggest

 

 

You are peddling the usual garbage...over 99% of the transportation sector is fossil fuel and needs oil and gasoline. 

EVs are and will always be a very marginal player in the transport sector.

You can borrow my handkerchief and weep into it, friend.

[turbguy + 1,544]

7 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Move the goal posts much....  to only residence heating... 🤑

Or...

I can operate a Tesla to drive 100 miles on about 25 KWh. 

Those 100 miles  will cost  (at $0.12/KWh) about $3.00 (supplied by a large fraction via burning stuff).

Riding my Harley for that same distance, at 50 miles/gallon (if I'm careful and conservative with the throttle, but what's the fun in that), would consume 2 gallons, or about $6.80.

Hmmm...

Not so much moving the goal posts, but perhaps focusing on a specific human demand.

The installed base of fossil fuel demand is indeed HUGE!  It ain't going away for a long time.

For electric generation, there is a more rapid change occurring in our lifetime.

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by turbguy

[Ron Wagner + 710]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-considering-cracking-down-gas-090035358.html

 

Biden considering cracking down on gas cars after stripping EVs of tax credits

 

Biden considering cracking down on gas cars after stripping EVs of tax credits

1.4k

Thomas Catenacci

Fri, April 7, 2023 at 4:00 AM CDT

 

 

The Biden administration is weighing an aggressive proposal to implement the tightest-ever federal regulations governing tailpipe emissions in an effort to boost electric vehicles.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to announce the new standards, which will impact cars manufactured between 2027-2032, next week during a ceremony in Detroit, Bloomberg reported on Thursday, citing officials briefed on the proposal. In a statement, the EPA confirmed the standards are designed to incentivize consumers to purchase electric vehicles (EV).

"Already, President Biden’s Investing in America agenda is powering a domestic clean energy manufacturing boom, lowering costs for American families, and creating good-paying union jobs," the EPA told Fox News Digital.

"As directed by the President in an executive order, the EPA is developing new standards that will build on this historic progress and support the transition to a zero-emissions transportation future, lowering costs for consumers, and protecting people and the planet," the agency's statement continued. "Because they are currently under interagency review, EPA cannot comment further on the rules."

 

JOE MANCHIN BLASTS BIDEN ADMIN FOR CEDING CONTROL TO CCP ON GREEN ENERGY: 'PATHETIC'

 

President Biden makes his entrance at General Motors' Factory ZERO electric vehicle assembly plant in Detroit, Michigan, on Nov. 21, 2021.

In August 2021, President Biden signed an executive order, requiring the EPA to introduce fuel efficiency and emissions standards to "tackle the climate crisis." Months later, in a move reversing a Trump administration rule, the EPA finalized greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles made between 2023 and 2026, regulations the agency billed at the time as the "most ambitious" rules of their kind.

READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP

The proposal expected next week is set to be introduced as the Biden administration continues its aggressive push for more Americans to switch to EVs and to electrify home appliances in an effort to combat global warming. Biden set a goal shortly after taking office for half of all cars sold in the U.S. to be zero emissions by 2030 and has repeatedly visited EV manufacturing facilities.

"The future of the auto industry is electric," Biden remarked during a visit to a Ford EV center in Michigan early in his presidency. "There’s no turning back."

BIDEN NOMINEE COORDINATED DARK MONEY CLIMATE NUISANCE LAWSUITS INVOLVING LEONARDO DICAPRIO

Despite the massive push from Biden and Democratic-led states for Americans to more quickly adopt EVs, traditional gas-powered cars represented 93% of all new car sales in 2022, according to a recent report from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. And EVs remain far more expensive and less efficient than alternatives.

Overall, the average cost of an EV was $64,338 while the average cost of a compact gas-powered car was $26,101 as of last year, according to Kelley Blue Book. In addition, the Department of Energy reported that the average range of model year 2021 gasoline vehicles was 403 miles compared to the median 234-mile range of model year 2021 EVs.

Last year, meanwhile, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) unveiled new fuel economy standards that it said would boost fuel efficiency, but acknowledged it would cost automakers about $236.5 billion and eventually make cars $1,000 more expensive. The standards are projected to increase fuel efficiency 8% annually for model years 2024-2025 and 10% annually for model year 2026.

BIDEN NOMINEE WANTS TO HIJACK LITTLE-KNOWN AGENCY TO RAM THROUGH CLIMATE AGENDA

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said at the time that the regulations would "protect communities by reducing carbon emissions." However, critics blasted the rule for increasing consumer costs amid high inflation.

"NHTSA’s new fuel economy standards will only add to the cost of new cars, depriving people of safe, affordable vehicles, at a time when they are already struggling," said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., the current chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

"It also enforces burdensome penalties on manufacturers—who are finding it difficult to keep up with high demand and inventory shortages as it is—which will only increase prices further as these ’penalties’ are passed along to the consumers."

In addition, the EPA's ambitious standards are set to come shortly after the Biden administration proposed a series of rules on how it would implement EV tax credit provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. Under the provisions, consumers will only be able to receive tax credits for EVs that are manufactured with a certain amount of critical minerals and components from the U.S. or nations the U.S. is in a free trade agreement with.

However, because the U.S. supply chain currently sources an outsized share of its critical minerals and EV battery components from China and other foreign nations, the rules will greatly restrict which EVs will ultimately be eligible for the tax credits. China currently boasts 78% of the world’s cell manufacturing capacity for EV batteries, according to a Brookings Institution analysis released in July.

A Biden administration official told reporters during a call on March 31 that they were unsure how many vehicles would actually be eligible for tax credits under its proposed rules.

[Polyphia + 83]

23 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-considering-cracking-down-gas-090035358.html

 

Biden considering cracking down on gas cars after stripping EVs of tax credits

 

Biden considering cracking down on gas cars after stripping EVs of tax credits

1.4k

Thomas Catenacci

Fri, April 7, 2023 at 4:00 AM CDT

 

 

The Biden administration is weighing an aggressive proposal to implement the tightest-ever federal regulations governing tailpipe emissions in an effort to boost electric vehicles.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to announce the new standards, which will impact cars manufactured between 2027-2032, next week during a ceremony in Detroit, Bloomberg reported on Thursday, citing officials briefed on the proposal. In a statement, the EPA confirmed the standards are designed to incentivize consumers to purchase electric vehicles (EV).

"Already, President Biden’s Investing in America agenda is powering a domestic clean energy manufacturing boom, lowering costs for American families, and creating good-paying union jobs," the EPA told Fox News Digital.

"As directed by the President in an executive order, the EPA is developing new standards that will build on this historic progress and support the transition to a zero-emissions transportation future, lowering costs for consumers, and protecting people and the planet," the agency's statement continued. "Because they are currently under interagency review, EPA cannot comment further on the rules."

 

JOE MANCHIN BLASTS BIDEN ADMIN FOR CEDING CONTROL TO CCP ON GREEN ENERGY: 'PATHETIC'

 

President Biden makes his entrance at General Motors' Factory ZERO electric vehicle assembly plant in Detroit, Michigan, on Nov. 21, 2021.

In August 2021, President Biden signed an executive order, requiring the EPA to introduce fuel efficiency and emissions standards to "tackle the climate crisis." Months later, in a move reversing a Trump administration rule, the EPA finalized greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles made between 2023 and 2026, regulations the agency billed at the time as the "most ambitious" rules of their kind.

READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP

The proposal expected next week is set to be introduced as the Biden administration continues its aggressive push for more Americans to switch to EVs and to electrify home appliances in an effort to combat global warming. Biden set a goal shortly after taking office for half of all cars sold in the U.S. to be zero emissions by 2030 and has repeatedly visited EV manufacturing facilities.

"The future of the auto industry is electric," Biden remarked during a visit to a Ford EV center in Michigan early in his presidency. "There’s no turning back."

BIDEN NOMINEE COORDINATED DARK MONEY CLIMATE NUISANCE LAWSUITS INVOLVING LEONARDO DICAPRIO

Despite the massive push from Biden and Democratic-led states for Americans to more quickly adopt EVs, traditional gas-powered cars represented 93% of all new car sales in 2022, according to a recent report from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. And EVs remain far more expensive and less efficient than alternatives.

Overall, the average cost of an EV was $64,338 while the average cost of a compact gas-powered car was $26,101 as of last year, according to Kelley Blue Book. In addition, the Department of Energy reported that the average range of model year 2021 gasoline vehicles was 403 miles compared to the median 234-mile range of model year 2021 EVs.

Last year, meanwhile, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) unveiled new fuel economy standards that it said would boost fuel efficiency, but acknowledged it would cost automakers about $236.5 billion and eventually make cars $1,000 more expensive. The standards are projected to increase fuel efficiency 8% annually for model years 2024-2025 and 10% annually for model year 2026.

BIDEN NOMINEE WANTS TO HIJACK LITTLE-KNOWN AGENCY TO RAM THROUGH CLIMATE AGENDA

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said at the time that the regulations would "protect communities by reducing carbon emissions." However, critics blasted the rule for increasing consumer costs amid high inflation.

"NHTSA’s new fuel economy standards will only add to the cost of new cars, depriving people of safe, affordable vehicles, at a time when they are already struggling," said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., the current chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

"It also enforces burdensome penalties on manufacturers—who are finding it difficult to keep up with high demand and inventory shortages as it is—which will only increase prices further as these ’penalties’ are passed along to the consumers."

In addition, the EPA's ambitious standards are set to come shortly after the Biden administration proposed a series of rules on how it would implement EV tax credit provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. Under the provisions, consumers will only be able to receive tax credits for EVs that are manufactured with a certain amount of critical minerals and components from the U.S. or nations the U.S. is in a free trade agreement with.

However, because the U.S. supply chain currently sources an outsized share of its critical minerals and EV battery components from China and other foreign nations, the rules will greatly restrict which EVs will ultimately be eligible for the tax credits. China currently boasts 78% of the world’s cell manufacturing capacity for EV batteries, according to a Brookings Institution analysis released in July.

A Biden administration official told reporters during a call on March 31 that they were unsure how many vehicles would actually be eligible for tax credits under its proposed rules.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/South-Korea-Pledges-5-Billion-In-Support-For-Battery-Makers-In-The-US.html

South Korea Pledges $5 Billion In Support For Battery Makers In The U.S.

[Ron Wagner + 710]

17 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Eww, embarrassing.......

No, state/federal forests are not being "managed wisely".  If you had been paying any attention at all, you would know they are being left to ROT in place(unthinned) creating GARGANTUAN fire hazards which then create MONSTOROUS fires due to envirowackos who have gotten in charge out here in the Western USA who refuse to allow anyone to thin/log anymore.  Active logging acerage is down 50%.  Road mileage upkept on federal lands has dropped by 40%(this number I think is high lets call it 25%). 

Type of trees bud.  Germany has Evergreens near elusively in any managed forest areas.  Straight growing evergreen trees take care of themselves and block out all underbrush all by themselves, Being farther north drops underbrush quotient a lot as well.  Evergreen trees require zero management required other than thinning purely for economic benefits not underbrush.  Deciduous, or mixed forest, do not block out the sunlight in the spring/fall and therefore allow underbrush to grow.  Likewise Deciduous trees(with few exceptions) do not grow straight, tall, dense together.  Also the 1 straight tall Deciduous tree which used to dominate the Eastern USA, Chestnut, died out due to blight brought over from Europe.  Also, Due to Gargantuan Evergreen tree plantations throughout the western USA/BC Canada, Eastern USA forests have essentially stopped being harvested for lumber other than furniture and flooring.  Add in giant increase in importation of exotic lumber from the tropics and this smashed the Eastern USA lumber uses once again.  Wait, we are not done yet, due to the advent of digitization and the internet, paper usage has dropped by 40%.  Most of the trees shipped off to Europe allowing them to pretend they are "green", are actually harvested off old paper plantations.  

PS: All that "horrible" underbrush which the Indians used to burn off every autumn and which we do not anymore(leading to yet much LARGER forest fires especially out west), is home to all the animals which is why Eastern North America has an abundance of wildlife only surpassed by the Tropics. 

All good points, but not the whole picture. Forest fires burned for weeks before modern firefighting equipment came along. Housing encourages undergrowth for the appearance and appeal desired. Housing is now covering a lot of California's area that used to burn off on a fairly regular area due to lighting strikes. The populations in the West have grown dramatically and accidents involving sparks or fire from mufflers, accidents, and arsonists cause a lot of the fires that cause damage to settled areas that can be very great as the Paradise, California fire was. I lived near that area for over three years. Fires are expected and happen frequently and now affect far more people and do far more damage. The grass is also underbrush. It is not always enough to destroy the trees depending on the wind, humidity, etc. I know live in an average Midwest area with lots of trees, but lots of rain so we rarely have any forest  fires whatsoever.

Pellet plants are also found in the North, Northeast etc. 

https://biomassmagazine.com/plants/listplants/pellet/US/https://www.wfae.org/energy-environment/2021-12-14/as-the-wood-pellet-industry-expands-in-north-carolina-global-debate-ensues

Complete list at the above link. Please check it out. 

 

U.S. Pellet Plants

 Canadian Plants    Online Plant Map

 Operational Proposed Under Construction 

Last Modified on January 03, 2023 *Capacity noted in (Metric tons/yr)

 

Plant	Location	Feedstock	Capacity
Alabama Pellets-Aliceville	AL		260,000
Alabama Pellets-Demopolis	AL		260,000
American Wood Fibers-Circleville	OH		40,800
American Wood Fibers-Marion	VA		40,800
Amite BioEnergy	MS		484,900
Appalachian Wood Pellets	WV		45,400
Appling County Pellets LLC	GA		181,400
AWF-Laurinburg	NC		45,400
Barefoot Pellet	PA		63,500
Blackstone Pellets	CT		8,200
Blue Mountain Lumber Products	OR		20,000
C&C Smith Lumber Pellet Plant	MO		10,900
Crossville Pellets	AL		99,800
Curran Renewable Energy LLC	NY		108,900
Dejno's Inc.	WI		45,400
Drax Leola	AR		40,000
Drax Russellville	AR		40,000
Drax-Entwistle	AB		400,000
Dry Creek Wood Pellets	NY		77,100
Easy Heat Wood Pellets-Indianapolis	IN		21,800
Easy Heat Wood Pellets-S. Charleston	OH		13,600
EasyPellet Products	VA		90,700
Energex American Inc.	PA		113,400
Enviva Pellets Amory	MS		107,500
Enviva Pellets Greenwood LLC	SC		500,000
Enviva Pellets Northampton LLC	NC		750,000
Enviva Pellets Southampton LLC	VA		760,000
Enviva Pellets Waycross	GA		750,000
Essex Pallet & Pellet	NY		800
Fiber By-Products Corp.	MI		103,400
Fiber Energy Products AR	AK		31,800
Forest Energy Mendocino LLC	CA		34,900
Forest Energy Oregon LLC	OR		43,500
Forest Energy Show Low	AZ		54,400
Forest Products Distributors	SD		22,600
Frank Pellets LLC	OR		21,300
Greene Team Pellet Fuel Co.	PA		45,400
Hamer Pellet Fuel	WV		66,000
Hassell & Hughes Lumber Co.	TN		16,300
Hazlehurst Wood Pellets LLC	GA		317,500
Hearthside Wood Pellets	NY		1,800
Highland Pellets LLC-Pine Bluff	AK		675,000
Horizon Biofuels Inc.	NE		2,000
Indeck Energy Ladysmith LLC	WI		81,600
Ironstone Mills	PA		1,800
Jasper Pellets	TN		108,900
Jensen Lumber Co.	ID		13,600
Kingdom Biofuels	PA		9,100
LaSalle BioEnergy	LA		578,300
Lemhi Valley Pellets	ID		2,800
Lignetics of Idaho Inc.	ID		59,000
Lignetics of Maine Inc.	ME		69,900
Lignetics of New England-Allegheny	PA		54,400
Lignetics of New England-Deposit	NY		79,800
Lignetics of New England-Jaffrey	NH		81,600
Lignetics of New England-Schuyler	NY		54,400
Lignetics of Oregon-Brownsville	OR		108,900
Lignetics of Oregon-Cascade Locks	OR		34,800
Lignetics of Virginia Inc.	VA		79,800
Lignetics of West Virginia Inc.	WV		111,500
Lignetics of Wisconsin-Marathon	WI		27,200
Lignetics of Wisconsin-Peshtigo	WI		27,200
LJR Forest Products	GA		226,800
Maeder Brothers Quality Wood Pellets Inc.	MI		13,600
Maine Woods Pellet Co.	ME		99,800
Mallard Creek Inc.	CA		90,700
Manke Lumber Co.	WA		31,800
Michigan Wood Fuels	MI		45,400
Morehouse BioEnergy	LA		614,400
Mt. Taylor Machine Pellet Fuel-Albuquerque	NM		4,100
Mt. Taylor Machine Pellet Fuel-Milan	NM		4,100
North Idaho Energy Logs-Hauser	ID		54,400
North Idaho Energy Logs-Moyie Springs	ID		45,400
Northeast Pellets LLC	ME		7,300
Northland Pallet Inc.	MN		13,600
O'Malley Wood Pellets	VA		36,300
Ozark Hardwood Products	MO		127,000
PA Pellets	PA		44,300
Pacific Coast Pellets	WA		59,000
Patterson Wood Products Inc.	TX		36,300
Pellheat Inc.	PA		2,900
Penn Wood Products Inc.	PA		4,900
Pennington Seed Inc.	MO		4,500
Quitman Pellets	MS		120,000
Restoration Fuels	OR		90,700
Rocky Canyon Pellet Co.	ID		7,300
Smith Creek Inc.	IN		1,700
Snow Timber Pellets LLC	WI		4,500
Somerset Pellet Fuel	KY		49,900
Southern Indiana Hardwoods	IN		4,500
Southern Kentucky Pellet Mill Inc.	KY		7,700
Spearfish Pellet Co.	SD		40,800
Sugar Creek Shavings	OH		2,300
Superior Pellet Fuels LLC	AK		31,800
T&D Wood Energy	ME		33,600
Telfair Forest Products LLC	GA		122,500
Timberland Pellets - Lenoir	NC		30,000
Timberland Pellets-Fruitland	ID		30,000
Turman Hardwood Pellets	VA		26,300
Varn Wood Pellets	GA		80,000
Vermont Wood Pellet Co. LLC	VT		14,500
Vulcan Wood Products Inc.	MI		8,200
Western Wood Products Inc.	NM		10,000
WestWind Logistics LLC	IA		13,600
Wood Pellets C&C Smith Lumber	PA		22,700
Woodscape of Utah	UT		8,200
Woodville Pellets LLC	TX		460,000

Total Plants: 107

Total capacity(Metric tons/yr):

11,188,200

Edited April 8, 2023 by Ron Wagner

[specinho + 470]

On 4/7/2023 at 7:00 AM, bloodman33 said:

Court orders Total to drop "misleading" CO2-neutral oil claims

Refined Products GHG

8h ago

A court has ruled that TotalEnergies had misled customers in Germany by marketing heating oil as ‘climate-neutral’

 

Germany has put in enormous effort in the past 15 years to reforest what was gone. Forest coverage has arisen from less than 8 to 10% to existing 28 to 32%. 

If the amount of CO2 released by burning oil in a particular area could equate the amount to be absorbed by the nearby forests, the claim might not be misleading at all....

In short, if

amount of CO2 released

= amount of co2 absorbed,

net CO2 released = 0 i.e. neutral....

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

7 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-considering-cracking-down-gas-090035358.html

 

Biden considering cracking down on gas cars after stripping EVs of tax credits

 

Biden considering cracking down on gas cars after stripping EVs of tax credits

1.4k

Thomas Catenacci

Fri, April 7, 2023 at 4:00 AM CDT

 

 

The Biden administration is weighing an aggressive proposal to implement the tightest-ever federal regulations governing tailpipe emissions in an effort to boost electric vehicles.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to announce the new standards, which will impact cars manufactured between 2027-2032, next week during a ceremony in Detroit, Bloomberg reported on Thursday, citing officials briefed on the proposal. In a statement, the EPA confirmed the standards are designed to incentivize consumers to purchase electric vehicles (EV).

"Already, President Biden’s Investing in America agenda is powering a domestic clean energy manufacturing boom, lowering costs for American families, and creating good-paying union jobs," the EPA told Fox News Digital.

"As directed by the President in an executive order, the EPA is developing new standards that will build on this historic progress and support the transition to a zero-emissions transportation future, lowering costs for consumers, and protecting people and the planet," the agency's statement continued. "Because they are currently under interagency review, EPA cannot comment further on the rules."

 

JOE MANCHIN BLASTS BIDEN ADMIN FOR CEDING CONTROL TO CCP ON GREEN ENERGY: 'PATHETIC'

 

President Biden makes his entrance at General Motors' Factory ZERO electric vehicle assembly plant in Detroit, Michigan, on Nov. 21, 2021.

In August 2021, President Biden signed an executive order, requiring the EPA to introduce fuel efficiency and emissions standards to "tackle the climate crisis." Months later, in a move reversing a Trump administration rule, the EPA finalized greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles made between 2023 and 2026, regulations the agency billed at the time as the "most ambitious" rules of their kind.

READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP

The proposal expected next week is set to be introduced as the Biden administration continues its aggressive push for more Americans to switch to EVs and to electrify home appliances in an effort to combat global warming. Biden set a goal shortly after taking office for half of all cars sold in the U.S. to be zero emissions by 2030 and has repeatedly visited EV manufacturing facilities.

"The future of the auto industry is electric," Biden remarked during a visit to a Ford EV center in Michigan early in his presidency. "There’s no turning back."

BIDEN NOMINEE COORDINATED DARK MONEY CLIMATE NUISANCE LAWSUITS INVOLVING LEONARDO DICAPRIO

Despite the massive push from Biden and Democratic-led states for Americans to more quickly adopt EVs, traditional gas-powered cars represented 93% of all new car sales in 2022, according to a recent report from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. And EVs remain far more expensive and less efficient than alternatives.

Overall, the average cost of an EV was $64,338 while the average cost of a compact gas-powered car was $26,101 as of last year, according to Kelley Blue Book. In addition, the Department of Energy reported that the average range of model year 2021 gasoline vehicles was 403 miles compared to the median 234-mile range of model year 2021 EVs.

Last year, meanwhile, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) unveiled new fuel economy standards that it said would boost fuel efficiency, but acknowledged it would cost automakers about $236.5 billion and eventually make cars $1,000 more expensive. The standards are projected to increase fuel efficiency 8% annually for model years 2024-2025 and 10% annually for model year 2026.

BIDEN NOMINEE WANTS TO HIJACK LITTLE-KNOWN AGENCY TO RAM THROUGH CLIMATE AGENDA

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said at the time that the regulations would "protect communities by reducing carbon emissions." However, critics blasted the rule for increasing consumer costs amid high inflation.

"NHTSA’s new fuel economy standards will only add to the cost of new cars, depriving people of safe, affordable vehicles, at a time when they are already struggling," said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., the current chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

"It also enforces burdensome penalties on manufacturers—who are finding it difficult to keep up with high demand and inventory shortages as it is—which will only increase prices further as these ’penalties’ are passed along to the consumers."

In addition, the EPA's ambitious standards are set to come shortly after the Biden administration proposed a series of rules on how it would implement EV tax credit provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. Under the provisions, consumers will only be able to receive tax credits for EVs that are manufactured with a certain amount of critical minerals and components from the U.S. or nations the U.S. is in a free trade agreement with.

However, because the U.S. supply chain currently sources an outsized share of its critical minerals and EV battery components from China and other foreign nations, the rules will greatly restrict which EVs will ultimately be eligible for the tax credits. China currently boasts 78% of the world’s cell manufacturing capacity for EV batteries, according to a Brookings Institution analysis released in July.

A Biden administration official told reporters during a call on March 31 that they were unsure how many vehicles would actually be eligible for tax credits under its proposed rules.

Here is the crux of the matter, no one in their right mind would buy an EV.

"Despite the massive push from Biden and Democratic-led states for Americans to more quickly adopt EVs, traditional gas-powered cars represented 93% of all new car sales in 2022, according to a recent report from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. And EVs remain far more expensive and less efficient than alternatives.

Overall, the average cost of an EV was $64,338 while the average cost of a compact gas-powered car was $26,101 as of last year, according to Kelley Blue Book. In addition, the Department of Energy reported that the average range of model year 2021 gasoline vehicles was 403 miles compared to the median 234-mile range of model year 2021 EVs."