Ron Wagner

How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy

Recommended Posts

On 5/10/2022 at 12:03 AM, nsdp said:

The results are taken  from two  different samples with no common members so your results and conclusions are garbage. Did you fail set theory?

As usual, you miss the point. The point is that scientific consensus changes with the prevailing political winds.

The scientists in Germany in the 1930's fell into line in support of the political climate of the day.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Germany is ramping up its availability of natural gas, relying more on fossil fuels going forward.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Economy-Minister-Germany-Can-Survive-Without-Russian-Gas.html

"Germany has plans for four floating liquefied natural gas import terminals, and if two of these get connected to the grid before the start of the next heating season, Germany would be able to get through the winter “to some extent” in case Russia cuts off gas deliveries.

Germany is the biggest importer of Russian natural gas, which puts it in a challenging position when it comes to diversifying gas sources. Because of the readiness of the U.S. to supply Europe with LNG, Germany has started building import terminals urgently, and it has also sought to negotiate deliveries from Qatar."

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Germany is ramping up its availability of natural gas, relying more on fossil fuels going forward.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Economy-Minister-Germany-Can-Survive-Without-Russian-Gas.html

"Germany has plans for four floating liquefied natural gas import terminals, and if two of these get connected to the grid before the start of the next heating season, Germany would be able to get through the winter “to some extent” in case Russia cuts off gas deliveries.

Germany is the biggest importer of Russian natural gas, which puts it in a challenging position when it comes to diversifying gas sources. Because of the readiness of the U.S. to supply Europe with LNG, Germany has started building import terminals urgently, and it has also sought to negotiate deliveries from Qatar."

They are changing supplier not increasing consumption.

Germany boosts renewables with “biggest energy policy reform in decades”

clew_julian_wettengel_solar_pv_maerkisch
The German government has increased renewables targets again - solar PV capacity is to grow by 22 GW annually as of 2026. Photo: Wettengel/CLEW.

Germany wants to fight the climate crisis and its heavy dependence on fossil fuel imports by speeding up the rollout of renewables with a massive overhaul of key energy legislation. In the “biggest energy policy reform in decades,” the coalition of Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and Free Democrats (FDP) proposes to lift the rollout of wind and solar power “to a completely new level” in a draft law amounting to more than 500 pages. It aims to free up new land for green power production, speed up permit procedures, and massively increase wind and solar additions to achieve a nearly 100-percent renewable power supply by 2035. The energy industry welcomed the package as a good starting point for the necessary faster roll-out of wind and solar energy in Germany.

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2022 at 5:56 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

or not

image.thumb.png.183678c6e1162c1960dcc3adc017f565.png

Ahem. $47,000 US is about $1 million Aussie right now?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theepochtimes.com/challenging-un-study-finds-sun-not-co2-may-be-behind-global-warming_3950089.html

 

People enjoy the sunshine as they walk along the beach in Blackpool, Lancashire, United Kingdom on March 16, 2021. (Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images)
People enjoy the sunshine as they walk along the beach in Blackpool, Lancashire, United Kingdom on March 16, 2021. (Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images)

Study Finds Sun—Not CO2—May Be Behind Global Warming

New peer-reviewed paper finds evidence of systemic bias in UN IPCC's data selection to support climate-change narrative
By Alex Newman
 
August 16, 2021 Updated: August 28, 2021
 

The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study with findings that sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The peer-reviewed paper, produced by a team of almost two dozen scientists from around the world, concluded that previous studies did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperatures.

The new study was released just as the UN released its sixth “Assessment Report,” known as AR6, that once again argued in favor of the view that man-kind’s emissions of CO2 were to blame for global warming. The report said human responsibility was “unequivocal.”

But the new study casts serious doubt on the hypothesis.

Calling the blaming of CO2 by the IPCC “premature,” the climate scientists and solar physicists argued in the new paper that the UN IPCC’s conclusions blaming human emissions were based on “narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total irradiance.”

Indeed, the global climate body appears to display deliberate and systemic bias in what views, studies, and data are included in its influential reports, multiple authors told The Epoch Times in a series of phone and video interviews.

“Depending on which published data and studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different data set to come up with the opposite conclusion,” lead study author Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. told The Epoch Times in a video interview.

“In their insistence on forcing a so-called scientific consensus, the IPCC seems to have decided to consider only those data sets and studies that support their chosen narrative,” he added.

The implications, from a policy perspective, are enormous, especially in this field where trillions of dollars are at stake and a dramatic re-organization of the global economy is being proposed.

Epoch Times Photo Wind turbines stand behind a solar power park near Werder, Germany on Oct. 30, 2013. (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Paper Examines Sun Vs. CO2

Using publicly available data sets from the U.S. government and other sources, it is easy to explain all of the warming observed in recent decades using nothing but changes in solar energy arriving on Earth, according to the new paper.

Indeed, while it agrees that using the data sets chosen by the UN would imply humans are largely to blame, the study includes multiples graphs showing that simply choosing different data sets not used by the UN upends the IPCC’s conclusion.

If confirmed, the study, published in the international scientific journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA) by experts from over a dozen countries, would represent a devastating blow to the UN IPCC and its conclusion that man’s emissions of CO2 are the sole or even primary driver of warming.

While the paper calls for further research to resolve differences between conflicting data sets and studies, the authors show conclusively that, depending on the data sets being used, it is entirely possible that most or even all of the warming has nothing to do with man.

Using 16 different estimates on the amount of solar energy, dubbed “Total Solar Irradiance,” the review compares that data with over 25 estimates of temperatures in the Northern hemisphere stretching back to the 1800s.

When solar data from NASA’s “ACRIM” sun-monitoring satellites are compared to reliable temperature data, for example, virtually all of the warming would be explained by the sun, with almost no role at all for human emissions.

And yet, for reasons that the study authors say are murky at best, the UN chooses to ignore the NASA ACRIM data and other data sets in favor of those that support the hypothesis of human responsibility for climate change.

The UN IPCC reports, including the recently released 6th Assessment Report, have consistently blamed human activities such as the emission of so-called “greenhouse gases” for the observed changes. Many studies in the scientific literature have agreed with the UN IPCC position.

However, the new study, titled “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate,” cites dozens of other studies that have pointed to the sun—not human activity—as the primary driver of climate changes.

According to the study authors, these dissenting scientific views have been deliberately suppressed by the IPCC and have not been reflected in the UN IPCC reports, for reasons that have not been adequately explained.

A spokesman for the IPCC denied wrongdoing by the UN body in comments to The Epoch Times and said the new study had been accepted for publication after the deadline for consideration.

The paper in RAA agrees that the planet has warmed somewhat since the late 19th century, when reliable data collection began in the northern hemisphere.

However, in another challenge to the UN’s influential report, even the temperature data sets used by the IPCC are subjected to criticism in the new paper and others.

Among other concerns, the study highlighted apparent flaws in the approach used by the IPCC for estimating global temperature changes using data from both urban and rural locations.

According to the study’s authors, including urban data sets results in an artificial upward skewing of temperatures due to the well-known “urban heat island” effect that must be taken into account.

Basically, cities tend to be warmer than the countryside due to human activity and structures, so temperature stations that had cities grow up around them will show artificial temperature increases caused by the urbanization rather than global warming.

The IPCC has rejected those concerns, arguing that urbanization only played a very minor role in the estimate temperature increase.

Epoch Times Photo Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. (courtesy Ronan Connolly)

Why the Apparent Bias?

Asked why these views have been ignored and even suppressed, lead study author Connolly suggested “confirmation bias” was at work. This is when individuals only consider information that supports their bias, something Connolly said affects all scientists.

While this may be at work in the IPCC’s selection of data sets and studies to consider and include, it is hard to know for sure, he said, expressing concern that the UN IPCC was only considering data sets and studies that “support the chosen narrative.”

“Whether they were deliberately doing it or whether it was simply confirmation bias is difficult to say, but it is clear that data sets are being selected that support the IPCC view while data contradicting it have been excluded,” added Connolly, who has a doctorate in Computational Chemistry and is affiliated with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES).

Connolly also said that the IPCC ignored key recent papers contradicting its conclusions, even denying that any such new papers existed despite leading IPCC scientists having cited those same papers in their own work.

For instance, a related 2015 paper published in the prestigious Earth-Science Reviews journal titled “Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century” was cited favorably by IPCC Working Group 1 Co-Chair Panmao Zhai of China. That paper argued, among other points, that the urban heat effect is not being properly addressed.

And yet, in the latest IPCC Assessment Report, the UN body claims that “No recent literature has emerged” that would cause an altering of its conclusion that the urbanization issue explains less than 10 percent of the apparent rise in global land temperatures.

Asked why the 2015 study in a major journal cited by one of its own leaders, among other key papers, was not mentioned in its latest report, a spokesman for the IPCC told The Epoch Times after consulting with IPCC Working Group 1 Co-Chair Zhai that “decisions on citations are up to the chapter team authors not the co-chairs.”

A spokesman for the UN body told The Epoch Times that he asked Zhai for an answer but that any potential response would not likely be forthcoming prior to publication.

In another case, the IPCC misrepresented a 2019 study that Connolly was involved in on snow cover, falsely implying that it showed less snow in all four seasons. In reality, the study showed more snow cover in fall and winter and that current climate models get all four seasons wrong.

Part of the problem is that the IPCC is mandated to find a scientific consensus, according to Connolly.

“This may have seemed like a good idea at the beginning, but where the scientific community has dissenting opinions, trying to force a premature consensus unfortunately hinders scientific progress—it is unhelpful and leads to an unjustified confidence in the conclusions,” Connolly told The Epoch Times in an interview.

Attempting to explain the absence of various published scientific viewpoints in the UN’s reports, the study cited researchers and papers to suggest that “scientific results that might potentially interfere with political goals are unwelcome.”

Epoch Times Photo In this handout from NASA, a solar eruption rises above the surface of the sun in space on Dec. 31, 2012. (NASA/SDO via Getty Images)

Systemic Bias … or Deliberate Fraud?

Another study author, Willie Soon, Ph.D. echoed those concerns and argued that ignoring the sun’s activity is the equivalent of ignoring the elephant in the room.

Blasting the IPCC as “cartoon science rather than science,” the astrophysicist from CERES essentially accuses the UN body of deliberate fraud.

“I think the latest IPCC report will continue to mislead most of the unsuspecting public on how their works will be a fair and objective review of all relevant scientific works published over the past 8 years,” he told The Epoch Times in one of a series of interviews on the subject.

Soon, who has been researching the relationship between the sun and the Earth’s climate at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics for three decades, blasted the IPCC’s “Summary For Policymakers” (SPM) as well.

“It is no wonder that the draft SPM report has sold everyone yet another blatant untruth, that it is all about the CO2 that has driven all the temperature change on Earth, while they continue to hide the fact that our new and comprehensive research paper concludes that all these conclusions are not only premature but factually misleading and confusing,” he said.

“Our scientific review shows that the changes in the Sun’s irradiance are a plausible and important factor that can explain most of the observed changes in the thermometer data,” added Soon. “So now why is IPCC still playing this childish hide-and-seek game while thinking that we can all be permanently hoodwinked by their one-trick agenda?”

Soon said he hopes the systematic review of the relationship between the sun and the climate can help the scientific community return to a “more realistic approach” to understanding changes in the planet’s climate systems.

“It is time for this abuse of science by the IPCC to be stopped,” he concluded.

Incidentally, Soon believes global temperatures may decline in the coming decades, also due to changes in solar activity.

Epoch Times Photo Chinese workers commute as smoke billows from a coal fired power plant in Shanxi, China on Nov. 25, 2015. (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

What is Climate Change?

Study co-author Professor László Szarka, a geophysicist and member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, told The Epoch Times that the new review represented a “crucial milestone” in restoring the scientific definition of “climate change.”

Asserting that the definition has become distorted over the last 30 years, Szarka argued that the scientific community must remember that science is not based on authority or consensus, but on the pursuit of truth.

“The definition of climate change was distorted in 1992 in a way that is incompatible with science,” the geophysicist explained, pointing to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its exclusion of natural causes from the definition of climate change.

In reality, the term climate change used to—and must again—include not just changes wrought by man, but also natural changes in temperature, rainfall, wind patterns, and other factors that occur over decades or longer time periods.

“The obscuration of the classical definition of climate change has paved the way for any change in the climate to be attributed and accounted to anthropogenic emission,” Szarka explained to The Epoch Times in highlighting the significance of the study.

But it does not have to be that way. He suggested that even non-scientist laymen could and should work to discover the truth.

“Regular people are able to decide who is fishing in troubled waters, if they systematically ask politicians, decision makers, and journalists what they mean by the term climate change,” he said.

Epoch Times Photo Rain from Tropical Storm Elsa covers the Empire State Building in New York City on July 8, 2012. (Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images)

Outside Opinions

Even some UN IPCC reviewers have expressed skepticism of the dominant narrative and support for the work of Soon and others.

When contacted by The Epoch Times, accredited UN IPCC reviewer Howard Brady, Ph.D. of Australia praised the work of Soon and other authors behind the study as “probably the best around.”

Acknowledging a lack of expertise regarding the sun specifically, Brady slammed the IPCC and its models.

Among other concerns, he noted that they “still predict more storms even though they are declining,” and “they still report accelerating sea level [rise] when that does not exist.”

Over the years, numerous IPCC scientists have dissented from the views advanced by their colleagues.

For instance, the late Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, who served as an IPCC reviewer on sea-level, frequently accused the UN body of getting it wrong—most likely for political rather than scientific reasons.

Another outside expert contacted by The Epoch Times for insight into the new study and the latest IPCC report also expressed major concerns.

Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, distinguished professor of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, noted that “the IPCC report indicates high confidence in model simulations while at the same time noting in the main body of the report how the models poorly represent the real atmosphere.”

The IPCC claims its models accurately portray the impact of all the forces that affect the climate and that nothing else could have caused the warming over the last 40 years except human emissions, he explained.

“This indicates a bit of hubris and lack of imagination,” said Christy, who also serves as the director of the Earth System Science Center.

Acknowledging that he had not had time to read the new paper or carefully review the latest IPCC report, the world-renowned climatologist told The Epoch Times that the UN’s models cannot even reproduce the natural variations of the last 150 years, such as the natural warming during the first half of the 20th century.

“They also overdo the warming of the last 40 years, again, not matching the real world,” he said.

“So, if they can’t reproduce natural variations with sufficient skill and they overheat the atmosphere over the last 40 years, how are they then endowed with the ability to tell us ‘why’ changes are happening with such ‘unequivocal’ confidence?” he asked.

Dr. Christy was blunt in his conclusions, saying “the models certainly don’t agree with each other regarding the future.”

That limits their results “to the realm of speculative hypotheses, not policy-determining tools.”

Epoch Times Photo Willie Soon, Ph.D. speaks at the 39th annual meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness in Tucson, Ariz. on July 31, 2021. (Courtesy of Willie Soon)

Response from NASA and IPCC

When contacted about the new paper, Gavin Schmidt, who serves as acting senior advisor on climate at NASA and the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was also blunt.

“This is total nonsense that no one sensible should waste any time on,” he told The Epoch Times.

He did not respond to a follow-up request for specific errors of fact or reasoning in the new RAA paper.

However, even Schmidt, a leading proponent of the man-made warming hypothesis, has conceded that the IPCC’s models have been inaccurate.

“You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scary—and wrong,” Schmidt was quoted as saying by the journal Science.

By contrast, IPCC Communications chief Jonathan Lynn told The Epoch Times that the UN body remained very confident in its conclusions.

Asked about the new paper and its authors’ assertions that the IPCC was inaccurately blaming human emissions, Lynn responded: “The IPCC doesn’t seek to blame anyone or anything for anything. We do try to attribute climate change to explain its causes.”

Pointing to Chapter 3 of the new IPCC report, Lynn echoed the UN body’s assessment that the more than 14,000 papers it examined demonstrate that warming has been driven by human emissions.

“The new 2021 paper may well challenge the underlying IPCC conclusion that CO2 and human emissions are behind the warming of recent decades,” Lynn added in a follow-up statement to The Epoch Times. “But if it is included in the next assessment, it’s unlikely to completely overturn that conclusion which is based on thousands of other pieces of research.”

The next IPCC assessment is expected more than five years from now.

One of the authors of the new IPCC report, Jim Kossin, celebrated that people were “starting to get scared” about climate changes due to the body’s findings.

“I think that’ll help to change people’s attitudes,” he said. “And hopefully that’ll affect the way they vote.”

Epoch Times Photo On the hottest day of the year a couple enjoy the sunshine on Brighton Palace Pier in Brighton, England on July 23, 2019. (Mike Hewitt/Getty Images)
Alex Newman 
Follow
Alex Newman is a freelance contributor. Newman is an award-winning international journalist, educator, author, and consultant who co-wrote the book “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.” He is the executive director of Public School Exit, serves as CEO of Liberty Sentinel Media, and writes for diverse publications in the United States and abroad.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said:

When solar data from NASA’s “ACRIM” sun-monitoring satellites are compared to reliable temperature data, for example, virtually all of the warming would be explained by the sun, with almost no role at all for human emissions.

And yet, for reasons that the study authors say are murky at best, the UN chooses to ignore the NASA ACRIM data and other data sets in favor of those that support the hypothesis of human responsibility for climate change.

ACRIM went off line 10 years ago. It was a series of three monitors and here is what was reported:

Details are in the caption following the image

image.png.4383d09386453f8578b104ba6fc57c04.png

 

No correlation to temperature:

image.thumb.png.2d3bd7c004cc14c1ce6a3d9aff0bd045.png

http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/GlobalSummaryTimeSeries-2021-1024x577.png

 

Your report is just another fossil fuel funded bit of funk. The head of CERES is a famous climate denier on the oil payroll.

Soon is a climate change denier,[4][6] disputing the scientific understanding of climate change, and contends that most global warming is caused by solar variation rather than by human activity.[7][8] He co-wrote a paper whose methodology was widely criticised by the scientific community.[9] Climate scientists such as Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies have refuted Soon's arguments, and the Smithsonian does not support his conclusions. He is nonetheless frequently cited by politicians opposed to climate-change legislation.[4][6]

From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work.[11] Of this industry funding, over half went on the Smithsonian's facility operating costs, with the remainder going to Soon as his salary.[12]

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2022 at 1:07 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

They are changing supplier not increasing consumption.

Germany boosts renewables with “biggest energy policy reform in decades”

clew_julian_wettengel_solar_pv_maerkisch
The German government has increased renewables targets again - solar PV capacity is to grow by 22 GW annually as of 2026. Photo: Wettengel/CLEW.

Germany wants to fight the climate crisis and its heavy dependence on fossil fuel imports by speeding up the rollout of renewables with a massive overhaul of key energy legislation. In the “biggest energy policy reform in decades,” the coalition of Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and Free Democrats (FDP) proposes to lift the rollout of wind and solar power “to a completely new level” in a draft law amounting to more than 500 pages. It aims to free up new land for green power production, speed up permit procedures, and massively increase wind and solar additions to achieve a nearly 100-percent renewable power supply by 2035. The energy industry welcomed the package as a good starting point for the necessary faster roll-out of wind and solar energy in Germany.

As usual, these are only PLANS which will never come into being.

Reality conflicts with dreams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Batteries are number one at maintaining Australia’s grid frequency

 
Neoen-Hornsdale.jpeg Hornsdale Power Reserve: the large-scale BESS which in many ways kicked off the journey Australia’s market is now on. Image: Neoen.

Battery storage has become the leading provider of frequency control ancillary services (FCAS) in the National Electricity Market (NEM) which covers most of Australia.

That’s according to quarterly figures released by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). The latest edition of AEMO’s Quarterly Energy Dynamics report covers the period from 1 January to 31 March 2022, highlighting facts, statistics and the trends that are shaping the NEM’s dynamics.

For the first time ever, the largest percentage of frequency regulation provided by technology type came from battery energy storage systems (BESS), with a 31% market share across the eight different FCAS markets. It was a full 10% lead over black coal and hydro which tied for second place with a 21% share each.

Total estimated net revenues for batteries in the NEM were around A$12 million (US$8.3 million) for the first quarter – a rise of A$2 million year-on-year from A$10 million netted in Q1 2021. It was a dip from revenues raised during the rest of last year, but comparisons perhaps tend to be fairer with equivalent quarters due to seasonality of electricity demand patterns.

At the same time, the cost of providing frequency control fell to about A$43 million, which was about a third the cost recorded in Q2, Q3 and Q4 2021 and about the same as was recorded in Q1 2021. This reduction was however largely driven by the impact of transmission system upgrades in Queensland which had led to high contingency FCAS prices for the state as scheduled outages took place in the three preceding quarters.

While batteries took first place in FCAS, other relatively new frequency regulation sources such as demand response and virtual power plants (VPPs) have also started to eat into the share provided by conventional generation, AEMO noted.

QED-Q1-2022-FCAS-Fuel-Volumes-chart-AEMO Image: AEMO

Batteries being used for energy as well as power

Perhaps the biggest takeaway for the energy storage industry is that the share of revenues earned through FCAS is in fact at the same time decreasing relative to those earned through energy markets.

In the last couple of years, frequency has been by far the largest revenue-earner for battery storage, with energy applications like arbitrage a way behind. In a recent article for our quarterly technical journal, PV Tech Power, Ben Cerini, managing consultant at energy market expert group Cornwall Insight Australia, said that about 80-90% of battery revenues have been coming from FCAS and about 10-20% from energy trading.

In Q1 2022 however, AEMO found that the proportion gross revenues earned in the energy market by batteries jumped from 24% in Q1 2021 to 49%.

Several new large projects drove this increase in share, like the 300MW/450MWh Victorian Big Battery in Victoria and the Wallgrove 50MW/75MWh battery system in Sydney, New South Wales.

AEMO noted than in Victoria, volume-weighted energy arbitrage value rose from A$18/MWh to A$95/MWh compared to Q1 2021.

Pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) also had a strong quarter: a record quarterly high A$56.5 million of spot market revenue was earned, compared to just A$2.9 million in Q1 2021.

This was largely driven by the performance of Wivenhoe pumped hydro plant in Queensland, which made a lot of money due to high electricity price volatility in the state during the quarter. The plant saw its utilisation increase 551% from Q1 2021 and was able to at times get paid at spot prices higher than A$300/MWh. Just three days of extremely volatile pricing earned the plant 74% of its quarterly revenue.

Fundamental market drivers mean Australia is poised for strong growth in energy storage capacity. The country’s first new pumped storage plant in nearly 40 years is under construction and more are likely to follow. It’s in batteries though that the fastest and largest growth in activity is expected.

Approval granted for ‘coal replacement’ BESS in NSW

AEMO said that while there are now 611MW of BESS operating in the NEM, there are 26,790MW of proposed new battery storage projects.

One of those is the Eraring project in New South Wales, a BESS with up to 700MW output and four hours’ duration (2,800MWh), proposed by major integrated energy retailer and generator Origin Energy.

The project would be built at the site of Origin’s Eraring 2,880MW black coal power plant, which the company is keen to place into retirement by 2025. Its role in the local energy mix would be replaced by the BESS, 2GW of aggregated virtual power plant capacity and other resources including Origin’s existing fleet of thermal generation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2022 at 6:05 AM, Wombat One said:

Ahem. $47,000 US is about $1 million Aussie right now?

only if the AU dollar is worth a nickel in US money.  At $1 US -1.427 OZZIE dollars or in this case around $70,000 Aussie dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

150 GW Of Wind Power From The North Sea — Deal Just Signed In Denmark

Probably the most ambitious agreement on renewable energy ever was signed today on the harbor of the city Esbjerg in Denmark. It’s called The Esbjerg Declaration — with the subtitle on The North Sea as a Green Power Plant of Europe.

According to Statista.com, approximately 837 gigawatts (GW) of wind power capacity was installed worldwide from 2001 to 2021. The section on wind power in The Esbjerg Declaration states targets for offshore wind up to at least 150 GW by 2050. The current wind power capacity in Denmark is about 5 GW, half onshore and half offshore.

we will increasingly replace fossil fuels, including Russian oil, coal and gas, with European renewable energy from the North Sea, including offshore wind and green hydrogen, contributing to both EU climate neutrality and energy security.

To achieve this and to pave the way for the further expansion of offshore wind, we have decided to jointly develop The North Sea as a Green Power Plant of Europe, an offshore renewable energy system connecting Belgium, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands and possibly other North Sea partners, including the members of the North Seas Energy Cooperation (NSEC). As Members of NSEC, we will build on the work already accomplished and will implement strategies to achieve our goals in close cooperation with the other regional countries and the European Commission. In doing so, we will strive for a balanced coexistence of economic and ecological needs.

The North Sea as a Green Power Plant of Europe will consist of multiple connected offshore energy projects and hubs, offshore wind production at massive scale as well as electricity and green hydrogen interconnectors. We aim for a cost-efficient buildout of offshore wind that will harvest the potential of the North Sea in the most beneficial way for both the connected countries and the European Union overall.

Together, we have set ambitious combined targets for offshore wind of at least 65 GW by 2030. Based on the North Sea as a Green Power Plant of Europe, together we aim to more than double our total capacity of offshore wind to at least 150 GW by 2050, delivering more than half of the capacity needed to reach EU climate neutrality according to the European Commission’s Strategy on Offshore Renewable Energy.

This will contribute to large-scale onshore and offshore production of green hydrogen. We have set combined targets of about 20 GW production capacity already by 2030 and look to expand our production even further for 2050.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2022 at 10:09 AM, Boat said:

I’m looking at that world coal number. What’s up with the Mongolian coal. Was there a flood or something? Where is the Indian uptick in demand. I guess I need to wait for more charts and some explaining.

I hate to tell you this Boat, but I have a graph that will make you shudder. Have a look at Graph 4 please? 

Is The Global Debt Bubble About To Burst? | OilPrice.com

Unfortunately, Ron Wagner is correct. We need to take an "all of the above" approach. The explosion in energy demand since about 1950 cannot possibly be met with renewables alone. Demand has grown, and is growing, so bloody fast that no matter how quickly we build wind and solar plus hydro and nuclear, there will still be growing demand for FF's as well. In short, the world is screwed unless we can crack fusion technology, preferably cold fusion. Maybe a breakthrough in wave power would help at the margins but would not change the fate of our species. I have been an optimist until now, but since discovering that we don't even have enough lithium on the planet to replace all current ICE cars with EV's, let alone the capacity to power them with zero-emission electricity, my hopes have seriously faded. We don't even have enough Uranium for a major shift in that direction. The situation is diabolical at this point in time. Before you call me crazy, the US congress is holding an inquiry into "Unexplained Aerial Phenomena". What used to be called UFO's. The Pentagon is focusing on what threat they may pose, but as far as I am concerned, they are also our only hope, if we are lucky. There is a US corporation that claims their power source is cold fusion, based on Muscovium, a super heavy element that is believed to exist in a "nearby" star. The physics does actually say it is possible, but our chances of mining another star without extraterrestrial help are slim to say the least. I am not religious but maybe it is time to pray?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2022 at 12:18 PM, nsdp said:

only if the AU dollar is worth a nickel in US money.  At $1 US -1.427 OZZIE dollars or in this case around $70,000 Aussie dollars.

Don't be so anal? Was clearly exaggerating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2022 at 10:44 AM, Eric Gagen said:

In theory, that is true - it's probably never going to be worthwhile to exploit undersea natural gas from coal beds.  There is significant infrastructure required which makes it very expensive offshore.  

Offshore wind by a landslide.  Offshore gas as noted by others is getting totally destroyed by gas on land from places where it is easy to get to.  

Offshore gas only makes sense in a few situations:

  • Where the amount available is really really large AND extremely cheap to get  
    • Then you can afford to develop the fields, develop LNG facilities or pipelines and send it to wherever it needs to go
  •  Where Demand and price of gas is very high and that demand and high price will be sustained for 20-30 years
    • Europe has these conditions right now, but how long they will last is highly suspect, and it's strongly inhibiting development of new gas supplies
  • Where there is a strategic need, or inability to get supplies in any other way
    • Europe is there now on the strategic front, but it CAN get supplies in other ways, and those competing suppliers will inhibit domestic development.  Nobody will spend a fortune developing undersea coal bed methane if they can import gas from Qatar or Australia or the US or other politically safe places at a fraction of the price. 
  • Where the amount available is large and cheap to get and infrastructure to transport it to markets already exists
    • This is what is driving the desire to connect up marginal conventional gas fields in the North Sea as an example, and has also been important for assisting the US shale revolution because key early areas had a lot of existing oil and gas infrastructure.

And that's pretty much it.  The amount of gas available right now from the US, Qatar, Russia or Iran is each individually able to meet ALL of Europe's demand.  Gas drillers here (US) are just now getting profitable as a result of the demand in Europe, but the ability to export it is too low to do much more than that.  That's because only Russia is set up from a logistics and infrastructure perspective to actually deliver the amounts required.  

How does the European Carbon Price affect imports of FF's versus domestic production? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wombat One said:

I hate to tell you this Boat, but I have a graph that will make you shudder. Have a look at Graph 4 please? 

Is The Global Debt Bubble About To Burst? | OilPrice.com

Unfortunately, Ron Wagner is correct. We need to take an "all of the above" approach. The explosion in energy demand since about 1950 cannot possibly be met with renewables alone. Demand has grown, and is growing, so bloody fast that no matter how quickly we build wind and solar plus hydro and nuclear, there will still be growing demand for FF's as well. In short, the world is screwed unless we can crack fusion technology, preferably cold fusion. Maybe a breakthrough in wave power would help at the margins but would not change the fate of our species. I have been an optimist until now, but since discovering that we don't even have enough lithium on the planet to replace all current ICE cars with EV's, let alone the capacity to power them with zero-emission electricity, my hopes have seriously faded. We don't even have enough Uranium for a major shift in that direction. The situation is diabolical at this point in time. Before you call me crazy, the US congress is holding an inquiry into "Unexplained Aerial Phenomena". What used to be called UFO's. The Pentagon is focusing on what threat they may pose, but as far as I am concerned, they are also our only hope, if we are lucky. There is a US corporation that claims their power source is cold fusion, based on Muscovium, a super heavy element that is believed to exist in a "nearby" star. The physics does actually say it is possible, but our chances of mining another star without extraterrestrial help are slim to say the least. I am not religious but maybe it is time to pray?

Not enough lithium?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02222-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2022 at 12:20 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Germany’s bold and ambitious 100% renewable power plan

andreas-gucklhorn-Ilpf2eUPpUE-unsplash Solar panels in a field in Offingen, Germany. Photo by Andreas Gücklhorn on Unsplash.

the grass behind those might be gone in a week?

would the heat arisen from the barren land heats up the panels and renders them no longer sensitive to the radiation from the sun? Hot temperature increases resistance in  conductivity? (this is deduced from an observation that it takes much longer time to charge a battery when it is very hot).........

Or low converting efficiency due to impurity that could possibly be amidst the panels unintentionally when things are produced massively, quickly?

One solution to a problem might have created other unintended problems instead? :|

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 5/14/2022 at 3:14 AM, Ron Wagner said:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/challenging-un-study-finds-sun-not-co2-may-be-behind-global-warming_3950089.html

The IPCC claims its models accurately portray the impact of all the forces that affect the climate and that nothing else could have caused the warming over the last 40 years except human emissions, he explained.

 

@Jay McKinsey also

the problem might be this:

all of us might have developed excellent ultra concentration ability from task specialization that we usually narrow down our focus into a singular issue/ factor only........ and deny the rest........

Why has it been not easy to accept that both natural factors and human activities are contributing to climate change? O.o

 

Edited by specinho
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2022 at 12:29 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

150 GW Of Wind Power From The North Sea — Deal Just Signed In Denmark

Probably the most ambitious agreement on renewable energy ever was signed today on the harbor of the city Esbjerg in Denmark. It’s called The Esbjerg Declaration — with the subtitle on The North Sea as a Green Power Plant of Europe.

According to Statista.com, approximately 837 gigawatts (GW) of wind power capacity was installed worldwide from 2001 to 2021. The section on wind power in The Esbjerg Declaration states targets for offshore wind up to at least 150 GW by 2050. The current wind power capacity in Denmark is about 5 GW, half onshore and half offshore.

we will increasingly replace fossil fuels, including Russian oil, coal and gas, with European renewable energy from the North Sea, including offshore wind and green hydrogen, contributing to both EU climate neutrality and energy security.

To achieve this and to pave the way for the further expansion of offshore wind, we have decided to jointly develop The North Sea as a Green Power Plant of Europe, an offshore renewable energy system connecting Belgium, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands and possibly other North Sea partners, including the members of the North Seas Energy Cooperation (NSEC). As Members of NSEC, we will build on the work already accomplished and will implement strategies to achieve our goals in close cooperation with the other regional countries and the European Commission. In doing so, we will strive for a balanced coexistence of economic and ecological needs.

The North Sea as a Green Power Plant of Europe will consist of multiple connected offshore energy projects and hubs, offshore wind production at massive scale as well as electricity and green hydrogen interconnectors. We aim for a cost-efficient buildout of offshore wind that will harvest the potential of the North Sea in the most beneficial way for both the connected countries and the European Union overall.

Together, we have set ambitious combined targets for offshore wind of at least 65 GW by 2030. Based on the North Sea as a Green Power Plant of Europe, together we aim to more than double our total capacity of offshore wind to at least 150 GW by 2050, delivering more than half of the capacity needed to reach EU climate neutrality according to the European Commission’s Strategy on Offshore Renewable Energy.

This will contribute to large-scale onshore and offshore production of green hydrogen. We have set combined targets of about 20 GW production capacity already by 2030 and look to expand our production even further for 2050.

Wind power doesn't work when the wind stops blowing, as the Europeans discovered this year.

Then you need coal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

45 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Wind power doesn't work when the wind stops blowing, as the Europeans discovered this year.

Then you need coal.

No, that is when you use batteries or green hydrogen.

If we are to meet our climate goals, and end our dependence on Russian fossil fuels, we must ramp up our ambition. That is why the European Commission, in its new plan, REPowerEU, has doubled the EU hydrogen targets for 2030 to ten million tons of renewable hydrogen produced annually in the EU by 2030. And another 10 million tons in annual imports. We must complete the construction of the European hydrogen economy so that we offer your industry the conditions to move faster.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_22_3185

But even without hydrogen the situation would be 50 weeks a year of green energy and two weeks a year of coal. That isn't much of a coal industry.

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Wombat One said:

There is a US corporation that claims their power source is cold fusion, based on Muscovium, a super heavy element that is believed to exist in a "nearby" star. The physics does actually say it is possible, but our chances of mining another star without extraterrestrial help are slim to say the least.

@Wombat That must be some serious shit you're smoking! 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, these numbers are not realistic, EV sales are less than 1% of the total vehicle market.

And now in the US 5.2 percent in the first quarter of 2022....

U.S. electric vehicle sales rose 76 percent in the first quarter, which was enough to double EVs’ share of the market to 5.2 percent

Rome was not built in a day..

Try to stay up with the times.......ICE vehicles are on the way out..... 

 

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28042022/inside-clean-energy-electric-vehicles-elon-musk-tesla-ford/

Inside Clean Energy: US Electric Vehicle Sales Soared in First Quarter, while Overall Auto Sales Slid

Tesla led the way in an EV sales surge that’s just getting started as the Ford F-150 Lightning arrives on the market.

Gearino2-150x150.jpg
April 28, 2022

In a challenging few months for the auto industry, sales of electric vehicles are rising while just about every other category is falling.

U.S. electric vehicle sales rose 76 percent in the first quarter, which was enough to double EVs’ share of the market to 5.2 percent, up from 2.5 percent in the first quarter of 2021, according to Kelley Blue Book.

Overall sales of new cars and trucks were down 15.7 percent for the quarter as automakers dealt with shortages of computer chips and other vital supplies, leading to slowdowns in production.

Clean energy advocates have reason to be excited that EVs are getting closer to the mainstream of the U.S. market, which is essential if the country is going to reduce emissions from transportation. Notably, the strong first-quarter results came before the most anticipated EV debut of the year, the Ford F-150 Lightning pickup, which began mass production on Tuesday.

Reaching 5 percent market share is an important milestone, said Matthew Degan, an editor for Kelley Blue Book and Autotrader. “This is just the beginning” of the ramp-up in EV sales, he told me.

But I don’t want to overstate the significance for the entire EV category, since the strong results were largely because one company—Tesla—had an incredible quarter. Tesla continues to expand and has been creative in finding ways to avoid delays due to parts shortages.

Even with strong financial results, Tesla’s share price took a beating on Tuesday because of investor concerns about how CEO Elon Musk’s plan to buy Twitter Inc. may affect the automaker. Tesla lost about $120 billion in market value in two days.

Tesla Continues to Dominate EV Sales

In the first quarter, Tesla sold 71,358 units of its top-seller, the Model Y, an increase of 89 percent from the prior-year quarter. Of all the EVs sold in the United States during the quarter, 41 percent were the Model Y—more than all of the non-Tesla EVs combined. The runner-up was the Tesla Model 3, with 46,707 vehicles sold, an increase of 126 percent.

Tesla has been more nimble than its peers in devising workarounds to parts shortages, especially of computer chips. The company rewrote software to accommodate new suppliers of computer chips that were filling the gap left by suppliers that are unable to fill orders, as Automotive News has reported. Also, the company has tweaked some of its designs to eliminate the need for some chips, according to CNBC.

Tesla’s success is pulling up the entire EV category, while progress by other automakers is more modest.

But competition is about to intensify.

Ford held a launch event Tuesday to mark the beginning of mass production of the F-150 Lightning at the company’s flagship Rouge assembly complex in Dearborn, Michigan.

“Whenever the world needed us, we met the moment with American ingenuity and American muscle,” Ford President and CEO Jim Farley said at the event. “And right now, the world needs zero-emissions vehicles, and more importantly it needs us to bring them to the many, not just the few.”

EV Sales Surged as Most Other Categories slipped

Ford said customers have made 200,000 reservations. The company is already playing catch-up to meet demand, with some customers unlikely to see their orders filled until late this year or into 2023.

Other automakers have also stepped up their games on EVs.

The Hyundai Ioniq5 ranked fifth on the EV best-seller chart in the first quarter, with 6,244 vehicles sold, and the Kia EV6 ranked sixth, with 5,281 vehicles sold. The models were released last year and have gotten good reviews.

Hyundai and Kia are the two largest automakers in South Korea, with some overlap in ownership. The companies are working together on electric vehicles, with Hyundai developing a battery and motor system that is being used in both of the new models.

Degan said the Ioniq5 and EV6, with prices that start at about $40,000 before tax credits, are EVs that a typical new-car buyer can afford. Each model is eligible for a $7,500 federal tax credit.

“Not everybody can afford to pay the price for a Tesla,” he said. For example, the Model Y has a starting price of about $62,000.

There have also been some disappointing performers. Among them is the Volkswagen ID.4, the first model from the company’s ID line of electric vehicles to be sold in the United States. The ID.4 was 11th on the best-seller list, with 2,755 vehicles sold.

Despite lots of talk about the potential of the ID line and some good reviews, sales of the ID.4 have suffered because of Volkswagen’s difficulties obtaining parts. Among the challenges, the production of the vehicle slowed down because the company couldn’t get parts from a supplier in Ukraine, a spokesman said.

Keep Environmental Journalism Alive

ICN provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going.

Donate Now

Looking ahead to the rest of the year, the F-150 Lightning should start going on sale in larger numbers, and Tesla should continue to increase its output at new plants, including the one opened this month in Texas. And many new models are scheduled to go on sale, including crossover SUVs from major brands: the Nissan Ariya and the “near-twin” models jointly developed by Subaru and Toyota, the Subaru Soltera and the Toyota bZ4X.

But since most of the growth is coming from Tesla, I’m going to give Musk the last word on the topic of his company’s ambitions.

“We only crossed 1 million units in the past 12 months recently,” said CEO Elon Musk about global production, in an April 20 presentation about Tesla’s first quarter financial performance. “We aspire to head to 20 million units a year. So, we’re basically 5 percent along the way towards our goal. And we are growing very, very rapidly year-over-year.”


Other stories about the energy transition to take note of this week:

Washington State to Require Electric Heating in Building Code Update: Washington has adopted rules to require all-electric heating and water heating in new commercial and multifamily buildings, the first state to take this step to cut emissions from buildings. The Washington State Building Code Council voted 11-3 to add the requirements to the state building code that will go into effect in 2023, as Tom DiChristopher reports for S&P Global Market Intelligence. “A strong energy code is a critical tool to ensure buildings are part of the climate solution, and Washington’s new energy code can be a model for other states,” Rachel Koller, a coordinator for Shift Zero, a building decarbonization advocacy group, told S&P.

Wind Energy Industry Is Reeling as Major Manufacturers Stumble: Demand for wind turbines is growing, but turbine manufacturers are struggling to turn soaring demand into profit. Companies like Vestas Wind Systems A/S, General Electric Co. and Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy SA are facing financial pressure on several fronts, as Will Mathis, Ryan Beene, and Josh Saul report for Bloomberg Green. The companies are dealing with rising costs of raw materials and pressure from buyers to cut prices. “What I’m seeing is a colossal market failure,” said Ben Backwell, CEO of the trade group Global Wind Energy Council, about the mismatch between government targets for new wind power and what’s happening in the market.

Despite Assurances that Captured Carbon Is Safe, States Are Transferring Long-Term Liability to the Public: As companies explore a variety of carbon storage projects, at least four states have passed laws over the last year that allow the businesses to transfer responsibility for the projects to state governments after the operations are shut down. At least three other states have similar statutes on the books, enacted years earlier. Some environmental advocates warn these states are setting a dangerous precedent, as my colleague Nick Kusnetz reports for ICN. “Statutes that relieve operators of liability without due regard to existing legal principles create an incentive for sloppy management, leaks and public opposition,” said Scott Anderson, senior director of energy transition at the Environmental Defense Fund.

A New Federal Proposal Would Task Grid Operators, States and Utilities with Planning a Grid that Can Support Clean Energy: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has begun the process of approving a plan to require owners of interstate power lines to develop new ways of planning for large projects and sharing costs. The idea is to build a grid capable of handling the transition to increased use of renewable energy, as Jeff St. John reports for Canary Media. The commission has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which begins a process in which interested parties can make comments and suggest revisions ahead of a final vote on the rule, which could happen before the end of the year.

Florida’s DeSantis Vetoes a Closely Watched Anti-Solar Bill: In a surprise move on Wednesday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed a bill that would have reduced the financial benefits of rooftop solar. DeSantis, a Republican, vetoed a measure that had passed the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature and was a top priority for the state’s largest utility, Florida Power & Light, as Christie Zizo reports for WKMG News 6. He said he could not support a bill that would impose additional charges on customers at a time when many families are dealing with high prices for gasoline and groceries. The veto is a blow to utility companies that have sought to rein in the growth of rooftop solar, and a victory for the solar industry, which views Florida as one of its most important growth markets.

Inside Clean Energy is ICN’s weekly bulletin of news and analysis about the energy transition. Send news tips and questions to dan.gearino@insideclimatenews.org.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, notsonice said:

And now in the US 5.2 percent in the first quarter of 2022....

U.S. electric vehicle sales rose 76 percent in the first quarter, which was enough to double EVs’ share of the market to 5.2 percent

Rome was not built in a day..

Try to stay up with the times.......ICE vehicles are on the way out..... 

 

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28042022/inside-clean-energy-electric-vehicles-elon-musk-tesla-ford/

Inside Clean Energy: US Electric Vehicle Sales Soared in First Quarter, while Overall Auto Sales Slid

Tesla led the way in an EV sales surge that’s just getting started as the Ford F-150 Lightning arrives on the market.

Gearino2-150x150.jpg
April 28, 2022

In a challenging few months for the auto industry, sales of electric vehicles are rising while just about every other category is falling.

U.S. electric vehicle sales rose 76 percent in the first quarter, which was enough to double EVs’ share of the market to 5.2 percent, up from 2.5 percent in the first quarter of 2021, according to Kelley Blue Book.

Overall sales of new cars and trucks were down 15.7 percent for the quarter as automakers dealt with shortages of computer chips and other vital supplies, leading to slowdowns in production.

Clean energy advocates have reason to be excited that EVs are getting closer to the mainstream of the U.S. market, which is essential if the country is going to reduce emissions from transportation. Notably, the strong first-quarter results came before the most anticipated EV debut of the year, the Ford F-150 Lightning pickup, which began mass production on Tuesday.

Reaching 5 percent market share is an important milestone, said Matthew Degan, an editor for Kelley Blue Book and Autotrader. “This is just the beginning” of the ramp-up in EV sales, he told me.

But I don’t want to overstate the significance for the entire EV category, since the strong results were largely because one company—Tesla—had an incredible quarter. Tesla continues to expand and has been creative in finding ways to avoid delays due to parts shortages.

Even with strong financial results, Tesla’s share price took a beating on Tuesday because of investor concerns about how CEO Elon Musk’s plan to buy Twitter Inc. may affect the automaker. Tesla lost about $120 billion in market value in two days.

Tesla Continues to Dominate EV Sales

In the first quarter, Tesla sold 71,358 units of its top-seller, the Model Y, an increase of 89 percent from the prior-year quarter. Of all the EVs sold in the United States during the quarter, 41 percent were the Model Y—more than all of the non-Tesla EVs combined. The runner-up was the Tesla Model 3, with 46,707 vehicles sold, an increase of 126 percent.

Tesla has been more nimble than its peers in devising workarounds to parts shortages, especially of computer chips. The company rewrote software to accommodate new suppliers of computer chips that were filling the gap left by suppliers that are unable to fill orders, as Automotive News has reported. Also, the company has tweaked some of its designs to eliminate the need for some chips, according to CNBC.

Tesla’s success is pulling up the entire EV category, while progress by other automakers is more modest.

But competition is about to intensify.

Ford held a launch event Tuesday to mark the beginning of mass production of the F-150 Lightning at the company’s flagship Rouge assembly complex in Dearborn, Michigan.

“Whenever the world needed us, we met the moment with American ingenuity and American muscle,” Ford President and CEO Jim Farley said at the event. “And right now, the world needs zero-emissions vehicles, and more importantly it needs us to bring them to the many, not just the few.”

EV Sales Surged as Most Other Categories slipped

Ford said customers have made 200,000 reservations. The company is already playing catch-up to meet demand, with some customers unlikely to see their orders filled until late this year or into 2023.

Other automakers have also stepped up their games on EVs.

The Hyundai Ioniq5 ranked fifth on the EV best-seller chart in the first quarter, with 6,244 vehicles sold, and the Kia EV6 ranked sixth, with 5,281 vehicles sold. The models were released last year and have gotten good reviews.

Hyundai and Kia are the two largest automakers in South Korea, with some overlap in ownership. The companies are working together on electric vehicles, with Hyundai developing a battery and motor system that is being used in both of the new models.

Degan said the Ioniq5 and EV6, with prices that start at about $40,000 before tax credits, are EVs that a typical new-car buyer can afford. Each model is eligible for a $7,500 federal tax credit.

“Not everybody can afford to pay the price for a Tesla,” he said. For example, the Model Y has a starting price of about $62,000.

There have also been some disappointing performers. Among them is the Volkswagen ID.4, the first model from the company’s ID line of electric vehicles to be sold in the United States. The ID.4 was 11th on the best-seller list, with 2,755 vehicles sold.

Despite lots of talk about the potential of the ID line and some good reviews, sales of the ID.4 have suffered because of Volkswagen’s difficulties obtaining parts. Among the challenges, the production of the vehicle slowed down because the company couldn’t get parts from a supplier in Ukraine, a spokesman said.

Keep Environmental Journalism Alive

ICN provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going.

Donate Now

Looking ahead to the rest of the year, the F-150 Lightning should start going on sale in larger numbers, and Tesla should continue to increase its output at new plants, including the one opened this month in Texas. And many new models are scheduled to go on sale, including crossover SUVs from major brands: the Nissan Ariya and the “near-twin” models jointly developed by Subaru and Toyota, the Subaru Soltera and the Toyota bZ4X.

But since most of the growth is coming from Tesla, I’m going to give Musk the last word on the topic of his company’s ambitions.

“We only crossed 1 million units in the past 12 months recently,” said CEO Elon Musk about global production, in an April 20 presentation about Tesla’s first quarter financial performance. “We aspire to head to 20 million units a year. So, we’re basically 5 percent along the way towards our goal. And we are growing very, very rapidly year-over-year.”


Other stories about the energy transition to take note of this week:

Washington State to Require Electric Heating in Building Code Update: Washington has adopted rules to require all-electric heating and water heating in new commercial and multifamily buildings, the first state to take this step to cut emissions from buildings. The Washington State Building Code Council voted 11-3 to add the requirements to the state building code that will go into effect in 2023, as Tom DiChristopher reports for S&P Global Market Intelligence. “A strong energy code is a critical tool to ensure buildings are part of the climate solution, and Washington’s new energy code can be a model for other states,” Rachel Koller, a coordinator for Shift Zero, a building decarbonization advocacy group, told S&P.

Wind Energy Industry Is Reeling as Major Manufacturers Stumble: Demand for wind turbines is growing, but turbine manufacturers are struggling to turn soaring demand into profit. Companies like Vestas Wind Systems A/S, General Electric Co. and Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy SA are facing financial pressure on several fronts, as Will Mathis, Ryan Beene, and Josh Saul report for Bloomberg Green. The companies are dealing with rising costs of raw materials and pressure from buyers to cut prices. “What I’m seeing is a colossal market failure,” said Ben Backwell, CEO of the trade group Global Wind Energy Council, about the mismatch between government targets for new wind power and what’s happening in the market.

Despite Assurances that Captured Carbon Is Safe, States Are Transferring Long-Term Liability to the Public: As companies explore a variety of carbon storage projects, at least four states have passed laws over the last year that allow the businesses to transfer responsibility for the projects to state governments after the operations are shut down. At least three other states have similar statutes on the books, enacted years earlier. Some environmental advocates warn these states are setting a dangerous precedent, as my colleague Nick Kusnetz reports for ICN. “Statutes that relieve operators of liability without due regard to existing legal principles create an incentive for sloppy management, leaks and public opposition,” said Scott Anderson, senior director of energy transition at the Environmental Defense Fund.

A New Federal Proposal Would Task Grid Operators, States and Utilities with Planning a Grid that Can Support Clean Energy: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has begun the process of approving a plan to require owners of interstate power lines to develop new ways of planning for large projects and sharing costs. The idea is to build a grid capable of handling the transition to increased use of renewable energy, as Jeff St. John reports for Canary Media. The commission has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which begins a process in which interested parties can make comments and suggest revisions ahead of a final vote on the rule, which could happen before the end of the year.

Florida’s DeSantis Vetoes a Closely Watched Anti-Solar Bill: In a surprise move on Wednesday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed a bill that would have reduced the financial benefits of rooftop solar. DeSantis, a Republican, vetoed a measure that had passed the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature and was a top priority for the state’s largest utility, Florida Power & Light, as Christie Zizo reports for WKMG News 6. He said he could not support a bill that would impose additional charges on customers at a time when many families are dealing with high prices for gasoline and groceries. The veto is a blow to utility companies that have sought to rein in the growth of rooftop solar, and a victory for the solar industry, which views Florida as one of its most important growth markets.

Inside Clean Energy is ICN’s weekly bulletin of news and analysis about the energy transition. Send news tips and questions to dan.gearino@insideclimatenews.org.

 

No, it is still below 1% of sales for the vehicle markets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No, that is when you use batteries or green hydrogen.

If we are to meet our climate goals, and end our dependence on Russian fossil fuels, we must ramp up our ambition. That is why the European Commission, in its new plan, REPowerEU, has doubled the EU hydrogen targets for 2030 to ten million tons of renewable hydrogen produced annually in the EU by 2030. And another 10 million tons in annual imports. We must complete the construction of the European hydrogen economy so that we offer your industry the conditions to move faster.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_22_3185

But even without hydrogen the situation would be 50 weeks a year of green energy and two weeks a year of coal. That isn't much of a coal industry.

 

The so-called "climate goals" are based on an obsolete science. 

We need CO2 for our planet to remain green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

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

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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