GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The dramatic increase in cost for coal and natural gas makes solar and wind more competitive than ever before. 

Tell that to the Chinese.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Tell that to the Chinese.

Oh they are quite aware of the situation and that if they don't get it fixed soon they are in big trouble.

 

 

[turbguy + 1,391]

58 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Tell that to the Chinese.

I'm certain they already know...

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Oh they are quite aware of the situation and that if they don't get it fixed soon they are in big trouble.

 

 

The Chinese are ramping up coal production and use....where is Greta?

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

Things are returning to normal quickly, oil demand is surging back to pre-pandemic levels and beyond.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Hedge-Funds-Are-Turning-Bullish-On-Oil-Again.html

"Europe’s road fuel demand rebounded during the summer holidays, with gasoline demand back to and even higher than pre-COVID levels of the 2019 holidays. 

In addition, rush-hour traffic in England’s largest cities returned to pre-COVID levels at the start of this week as schools returned from holidays and commuters returned to offices. Rush-hour traffic congestion in London, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, Leicester, and Liverpool was back at the levels seen in 2019, according to figures cited by The Times. 

China, the world’s top crude importer, saw its oil imports rebound in August from a low in July. Analysts said earlier this month that Chinese refiners were already ramping up buying as the latest round of Covid-19-related movement restrictions ended and were willing to pay higher prices to secure supply for the end of the year. 

Oil prices may not have much room to rise in the near term, but last month’s correction may be over."

Edited September 10, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

11 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Britain is firing up their coal plants again, and relying heavily on natural gas....wind and solar sources are just not good enough to meet the need.

This is true, however the levels of coal powergen are currently at 2.8% of the energy mix and this will be a temporary fix. We have had an unusually lengthy spell of high pressure which means light winds which didn't help. Coal is still an option until September 2024 in the UK but after that it wont be.

https://grid.iamkate.com/

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Government bans are not forcing people to buy EVs. People are buying rapidly

This isnt the whole story Jay.

Governments are incentivising consumers to buy EV's by giving tax incentives to buy them and offsetting this by taxing ICE vehicles to pay for it, so its a double whammy for the consumer if they choose to buy ICE.

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The US has no lack of demand for EV's, we have a lack of supply and that is going to change starting next year.

Supply of EV's or hybrids is a massive problem for EV growth. For a decent EV or hybrid currently in the UK you will be on a waiting list for at least 6 months. This will clearly have a negative affect on EV sales going forward and is currently stalling any growth.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

This isnt the whole story Jay.

Governments are incentivising consumers to buy EV's by giving tax incentives to buy them and offsetting this by taxing ICE vehicles to pay for it, so its a double whammy for the consumer if they choose to buy ICE.

What that shows is that at the proper price point people choose EV.  As EVs drop in price incentives won't be needed.

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

What that shows is that at the proper price point people choose EV.  As EVs drop in price incentives won't be needed.

Or actually what it shows is that on a level playing field people would choose ICE over EV's/Hybrids, I know I would. I drive a hybrid because of this disparity in tax, its purely a financial reason.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Rob Plant said:

Or actually what it shows is that on a level playing field people would choose ICE over EV's/Hybrids, I know I would. I drive a hybrid because of this disparity in tax, its purely a financial reason.

On a level playing field as you say, if EVs were cheap enough you would make the same purely financial reason and drive an EV because you would be saving the same amount of money as the disparity in taxes. All that has happened is that your financial decision has been moved forward in time.  As EVs scale, their cost will decrease well below that of ICE.

Here in the US Tesla has a 5 month waiting list and they get no federal subsidy, just some local incentives. They have had to keep raising the price to try and keep the waiting list from getting longer. Their price increases are as much as the local incentives and it hasn't made any difference in demand. Effectively Tesla does not need any incentives to sell all the cars they can make.

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

23 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

On a level playing field as you say, if EVs were cheap enough you would make the same purely financial reason and drive an EV because you would be saving the same amount of money as the disparity in taxes. All that has happened is that your financial decision has been moved forward in time.  As EVs scale, their cost will decrease well below that of ICE.

Here in the US Tesla has a 5 month waiting list and they get no federal subsidy, just some local incentives. They have had to keep raising the price to try and keep the waiting list from getting longer. Their price increases are as much as the local incentives and it hasn't made any difference in demand. Effectively Tesla does not need any incentives to sell all the cars they can make.

Jay that may be so, I just know my own choice and others have been forced down the road of EV/hybrid because it makes no sense paying an additional 12% tax year on year, if that wasn't there I would still be driving a nice 3 ltr turbo diesel.

In fact the company I work for has now put as their policy that no leased company cars will be anything other than EV/hybrid so the choice has been removed. They have done this to promote the business as one that values "sustainability" but in reality these cars have a 3 year lease from new and will use more Co2 than will ever get back over this term. Leasing of company cars are commonplace in the UK as they are elsewhere in Europe, but I resent the fact my choice has been forcibly removed. Many other companies  are doing the same.

[wrs + 893]

15 hours ago, ronwagn said:

No references provided. I see little evidence of a high percentage of electric vehicle sales by 2030. The price of electricity is now a major issue due to his anti fossil fuel options. Wind turbines and solar will face equal cost issues. This is eco-fascism in action and the average person is facing horrendous inflation in energy and vehicle prices. 

We are facing inflationary economic policies from the far left. Everyone but the wealthy have great reason to be worried about the value of the dollar. Taxes will also be higher. Retirement income will not keep up with inflation. Government inflation estimates do not include groceries and fuel. 

The president does not have the power to enforce EV mandates without the continued support of congress, which will likely disappear in 16 months. There will be a lot of resistance to any dictatorial rules regarding what people choose to drive. 

With NG at $5/mcf and climbing, California is adding NG generation to make up the shortfall of the closed nukes and failure of solar and wind to fill the gap.  I think electric rates are going to be rising significantly and we will see how much people like paying up to charge their cars.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

California has thrown in the towel, the Green Dream is an illusion,

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/California-Looks-To-Burn-More-Fossil-Fuels-To-Avert-Blackouts.html

"The state is struggling to balance its clean energy push, and the request to the DoE is a sore eye for environmentalists who've been on a crusade to ban fossil fuel generation from the grid. It's also negative news for President Biden's infrastructure spending that aims of "achieving 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2035."  If the widespread blackouts that shocked Texas earlier this year due to a cold snap that froze wind power generation sources was a lesson for the future of green power grids - then maybe America is not ready for Biden's 2035 decarbonization target. "

Edited September 10, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

For Biden & Co.'s Green targets to be reached, electricity transmission lines will have to triple, creating the problems of further forest wildfires.

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/us-not-ready-all-electric-future

"Princeton University’s research found that the United States will need to expand its electricity transmission systems by 60 percent by 2030, and may need to triple it by 2050 to handle the high-electrification pathway to net-zero America.

“The current power grid took 150 years to build. Now, to get to net-zero emissions by 2050, we have to build that amount of transmission again in the next 15 years and then build that much more again in the 15 years after that. It’s a huge amount of change,” Jesse Jenkins, assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering and the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, said, commenting on the study."

Edited September 10, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

What that shows is that at the proper price point people choose EV.  As EVs drop in price incentives won't be needed.

What it shows is that the market is NOT deciding the choice of transportation, the markets are grossly distorted by government intervention to manufacture consumer choice...I thought that you studied economics, Jay?

Edited September 10, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

They have done this to promote the business as one that values "sustainability" but in reality these cars have a 3 year lease from new and will use more Co2 than will ever get back over this term. Leasing of company cars are commonplace in the UK as they are elsewhere in Europe, but I resent the fact my choice has been forcibly removed. Many other companies  are doing the same.

Your choice has been removed by your employer for marketing reasons not the government. That is called free market business decision. 

So when the lease on the car is up in three years it is going to be sold as scrap?? C'mon Rob you know better than that. That car will continue to be used for many many more years while it goes carbon negative. Besides the UK grid is on the green side so as long as you keep pluging it in it the carbon neutrality date may only be 3 years out or less.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

What it shows is that the market is NOT deciding the choice of transportation, the markets are grossly distorted by government intervention to manufacture consumer choice...I thought that you studied economics, Jay?

Yes I learned economics far beyond what you understand. The market is a tool not a god. The market does not provide the best solution in all situations because it does not have perfect information and has some significant failure points. It needs to be properly regulated and goals set. The role of the market is then to find and implement an efficient method for achieving those goals. 

[Wombat1 + 33]

On 4/25/2021 at 11:31 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

No Mark, I am quite certain that it is my reporting of what California's doing with big batteries that is upsetting your fantasy world. At this point you are in complete denial of reality and wishing I would go away. Sad.

May I interrupt? I think you are both half right and half wrong. Jay, everything you say is quite correct but Mark is also correct that Cali will need gas backup generators (lots of them), for quite some time. What is missing from this discussion is the role that Hydrogen will play in 7-8 years time. Once Cali and Texas have sufficient solar to meet 50% of peak (summer) electricity demand, there will be a large surplus of electricity in Autumn and Spring. It will be used to produce H2 and be mixed with natural gas. This is already happening in South Australia and I can guarantee that Cali and Texas are only 7-8 years behind. Mark is correct that the energy transition will be expensive, but foolish to think that will be the case long-term. Electricity prices in most of USA are likely to double over next decade, plateau for 5 years, then gradually start to fall again in both absolute and real terms. That is what is happening in Australia. The inflation rate (true one) is about 5% (cost of food, insurance etc), but electricity prices have just started to fall. That is despite the fact that we spent $80bn "gold-plating" our grid a decade ago, a very wise move in hindsight.

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

8 minutes ago, Wombat1 said:

May I interrupt? I think you are both half right and half wrong. Jay, everything you say is quite correct but Mark is also correct that Cali will need gas backup generators (lots of them), for quite some time. What is missing from this discussion is the role that Hydrogen will play in 7-8 years time. Once Cali and Texas have sufficient solar to meet 50% of peak (summer) electricity demand, there will be a large surplus of electricity in Autumn and Spring. It will be used to produce H2 and be mixed with natural gas. This is already happening in South Australia and I can guarantee that Cali and Texas are only 7-8 years behind. Mark is correct that the energy transition will be expensive, but foolish to think that will be the case long-term. Electricity prices in most of USA are likely to double over next decade, plateau for 5 years, then gradually start to fall again in both absolute and real terms. That is what is happening in Australia. The inflation rate (true one) is about 5% (cost of food, insurance etc), but electricity prices have just started to fall. That is despite the fact that we spent $80bn "gold-plating" our grid a decade ago, a very wise move in hindsight.

 

By law we don't go gas free until 2045. We will have gas generators until then.

We are more likely to import H2 from Australia for a while. It is going to take time to get our renewables to the level of excess needed for H2 production. Australia just has so much more space for solar and wind than we do.

I'm not convinced that the early adoption renewable cost bubble will continue to occur with the advent of affordable grid batteries.  Australian prices seem to have started dropping just as soon as you started building batteries. Almost every new solar or wind farm in the US is now being built with a battery.

 

[Wombat1 + 33]

7 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

By law we don't go gas free until 2045. We will have gas generators until then.

We are more likely to import H2 from Australia for a while. It is going to take time to get our renewables to the level of excess needed for H2 production. Australia just has so much more space for solar and wind than we do.

I'm not convinced that the early adoption renewable cost bubble will continue to occur with the advent of affordable grid batteries.  Australian prices seem to have started dropping just as soon as you started building batteries. Almost every new solar or wind farm in the US is now being built with a battery.

 

A good point about the batteries Jay, but believe me, the ageing US grid will need a major overhaul soon (regardless of renewables), and it will hurt the consumer and renewables will (wrongly) cop the blame. Just as happened here. Batteries have helped here at the margin, but main reasons for lower costs are lower wholesale prices due to excess generation capacity, and lower interest rates on the debt for the grid upgrade. Wholesale electricity costs will spike again in 2023 when another of our large coal plants in NSW gets decommissioned, but yes, more batteries will be available so the hit will not be as large as last time. Also, Snowy 2.0 will be operational around 2025 and will permanently reduce wholesale costs. I highly recommend that you google it if you would like to see what is possible with pumped hydro when there is a consensus regarding water issues. It looks as though California will need to consider building some large desal plants just as Australia was forced to do. And the moment they are built, you will also get a severe flood and everyone will whinge about the cost until the following drought

 

[Wombat1 + 33]

On 4/27/2021 at 8:08 AM, ceo_energemsier said:

And perhaps you would still be emitting your CO2 for him to suck up!!! Maybe someone should give the idea to the climate emergency, climate change prophetic Democrats to tax people for CO2 emitted by every individual and then charge Elon to suck it up and then give $$$ back to each individual in proportion to their emitted CO2 volume.

😁

Now now Mr energemsier, would you prefer a "circular economy" or a Laisez-faire system that involves a circle of poverty and violence? Gotta weigh up both the costs and benefits of taxation?

 

[Wombat1 + 33]

On 4/27/2021 at 11:44 AM, Ecocharger said:

You will eventually have to forbid internal combustion engines by government fiat to reduce their numbers for the Paris Climate commitments. Big Brother has taken over Washington.

That would never happen in the USA (or Australia) IMHO. Only have to look at the percentage of vehicle sales that are SUV's (the majority). Would be political suicide. The Europeans are different, have always been energy misers. 

[turbguy + 1,391]

11 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

For Biden & Co.'s Green targets to be reached, electricity transmission lines will have to triple, creating the problems of further forest wildfires.

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/us-not-ready-all-electric-future

"Princeton University’s research found that the United States will need to expand its electricity transmission systems by 60 percent by 2030, and may need to triple it by 2050 to handle the high-electrification pathway to net-zero America.

“The current power grid took 150 years to build. Now, to get to net-zero emissions by 2050, we have to build that amount of transmission again in the next 15 years and then build that much more again in the 15 years after that. It’s a huge amount of change,” Jesse Jenkins, assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering and the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, said, commenting on the study."

 

Show me ANY part of the "existing power grid" that is 150 years old.

Heck, Edison and Tesla were still arguing back then...

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by turbguy

[turbguy + 1,391]

34 minutes ago, Wombat1 said:

That would never happen in the USA (or Australia) IMHO. Only have to look at the percentage of vehicle sales that are SUV's (the majority). Would be political suicide. The Europeans are different, have always been energy misers. 

The only reason t will "never happen in the USA" is parallel to why people still use horses to get around.

It feels great!  OH!  My Harley in second gear!