Green Energy / Climate Issues - Failures - Lies and Falsehoods

[GURPS]

Biden says coal plants 'all across America' will be shut down, replaced with wind and solar​

"I was in Massachusetts about a month ago on the site of the largest old coal plant in America," Biden said at an event in Carlsbad, California, on Friday. "Guess what? It cost them too much money. They can't count. No one is building new coal plants because they can’t rely on it. Even if they have all the coal guaranteed for the rest of the existence of the plant.

"So it's going to become a wind generation. And all they're doing is it’s going to save them a hell of a lot of money and using the same transmission line that they transmitted the coal-fired electric on, we're going to be shutting these plants down all across America and having wind and solar power, also providing tax credits to help families buy energy efficient appliances, whether it's your refrigerator or your coffee maker, for solar panels on your home, weatherize your home, things that save an average, experts say, a minimum of $500 a year for the average family."

 

[GURPS]

Gore announces fossil fuel emissions inventory at UN summit​

The inventory was compiled by Climate TRACE, a coalition of researchers, data analysts and non-governmental organizations who use multiple open sources including satellite coverage, remote sensing and artificial intelligence to track who exactly is polluting, and how much.

Emissions stemming from oil and gas production were already estimated to be about double what was reported to the U.N. last year and new data on methane leaks and flaring suggests that emissions are likely three times higher than what was reported, Gore said. Methane is a greenhouse gas which is around 80 times more potent in the short term than carbon dioxide.

Gore said the data shows the extent of the “deep cut in greenhouse gas pollution we need to prevent the most catastrophic impacts of the climate crisis.”

 

[GURPS]

Climate activists: Whoa! We're shipping way too much natural gas​

More countries around the world, particularly in Europe, are realizing something that United States has known for a long time. (Or at least we knew it until Joe Biden took office.) Natural gas is one of the most plentiful and affordable energy sources we have at our disposal and it meets the needs of humanity in both heating and power generation when given the opportunity to do so. Sadly, we are still in the midst of a global energy crisis, but that issue is slowly being tamed via US exports of natural gas, particularly LNG (liquified natural gas). But this week we saw various news outlets including the Associated Press raising the alarm and saying that all of this natural gas being shipped around the planet will “catastrophically hinder” the chances of reducing global warming. Apparently, they expect a lot of people to voluntarily freeze to death this winter in the name of climate change.

The war-inspired natural gas boom is undermining already insufficient efforts to limit future warming to just a few more tenths of a degree, a new report says.
Planning and build-up of liquified and other natural gas — due to an energy crisis triggered by Russian’s invasion of Ukraine — would add 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (1.9 billion metric tons) a year to the air by 2030, according to a report released Thursday by Climate Action Tracker at international climate talks in Egypt.
That’s enough greenhouse gas to “hinder if not catastrophically hinder chances of achieving 1.5 degrees” Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times, the international warming-limiting goal, said climate scientist Bill Hare, chief executive officer of Climate Analytics, one of the groups behind Climate Action Tracker, which monitors and analyzes climate promises and action.

The first thing to take note of here is how the AP continues to push the White House PR line of blaming the energy crisis entirely on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The war certainly hasn’t helped matters any, but it’s hardly the only contributing factor to the ongoing shortages. But this incorrect explanation allows both the United States government and those of many European nations to dodge the blame for the damages their own “green energy” policies have created.

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

First Solar selects Alabama for new factory as Inflation Reduction Act prompts domestic manufacturing boom​

First Solar will spend around $1.1 billion on the facility in North Alabama’s Lawrence County. The company announced plans for a new facility in August, but hadn’t yet disclosed the location. First Solar CEO Mark Widmar previously told CNBC that the Inflation Reduction Act was the key catalyst that led First Solar to choose the U.S. for its latest factory.

The new facility will produce 3.5 gigawatts of solar modules annually by 2025. The company said the site will create more than 700 new jobs.

All told, First Solar plans to manufacture more than 10 gigawatts of solar modules by 2025. The company’s other three facilities – one of which is slated to come online during the first half of 2023 – are in Ohio. With the latest Alabama factory announcement, First Solar said it’s invested more than $4 billion in U.S. manufacturing.

 

[Kyle]

I wonder if anyone mentioned to them that all these solar absorbing panel farms are diminishing the natural reflection of a portion of heat that radiates to the planet and are likely contributing to the continued warming of the earth.

 

[spr1975wshs]

I wonder if anyone mentioned to them that all these solar absorbing panel farms are diminishing the natural reflection of a portion of heat that radiates to the planet and are likely contributing to the continued warming of the earth.

I venture the guess they do not know what albedo is...

 

[GURPS]

How Joe Biden caused the diesel supply crisis he is complaining about​

During recent public appearances, President Joe Biden has continued to complain about energy prices as well as the potentially catastrophic shortage of diesel that has been forecast to hit the United States soon, particularly in the northeast. Of course, he never takes the blame for any of this himself. He instead tries to blame the “greedy” energy companies or, of course, Vladimir Putin. He has called for bans on oil and gas exports and even suggested a mandate that diesel stocks be maintained at a higher level. But a new report from the Institute for Energy Research addresses the actual root of these problems. What we’re facing is a significant loss in refinery capacity in the United States and its various territories. We’ve lost more than a million barrels per day in production capacity, but rather than working to rebuild that capacity, the White House is issuing new edicts that will result in diminishing it further.

President Biden is complaining about diesel prices and production and his Administration is looking at banning petroleum exports or placing minimum requirements on diesel stocks, which they think will fix the problem. The real problem is that the United States lost one million barrels a day of refinery capacity due to reductions in demand from COVID lockdowns, refinery conversions to biofuels due to lucrative subsidies and onerous environmental regulations.
Emissions rules and general regulations have increased under the Biden administration, raising operating costs and causing some refineries to either shut down or not expand operations. The Biden Administration is doing nothing to fix the real problem. Instead, it is putting new environmental requirements on a refinery in St. Croix that could help the diesel situation in the Northeast.

Banning petroleum exports (which are already at severely low levels) would only cut off markets, making the American oil and gas industry even less profitable, thereby disincentivizing any efforts to expand capacity. And as for an executive order directing a specific amount of diesel to be kept in stock, well… that’s simply insane. You can’t order more diesel to magically appear with a few scribbles of a pen. Someone has to produce the required oil, move it to a refinery, and create the diesel.

 

[GURPS]

State Attorneys General Move To Block Vanguard’s Climate Crusade From Impacting Public Power Grids​

Attorneys general from multiple conservative states and nonprofit organization Consumers’ Research filed motions seeking to prevent Vanguard from purchasing shares in publicly traded utilities out of a concern that the company’s climate change efforts will raise prices and decrease energy reliability.

The motions filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission argue that Vanguard should not be eligible for blanket authorization to buy shares in public utilities under the Federal Power Act because the asset manager uses market power to advance decarbonization goals. Along with rival firms BlackRock and State Street, Vanguard participates in the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, through which the companies commit to seek “net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner” using investment funds.

“We took this action on behalf of American energy consumers because time and time again we see massive Wall Street firms pretending to ‘passively’ manage their shares, but instead they use those assets to bully utility companies into adopting radical left-wing policies that drive up electric bills and risk the stability of our power grid,” Consumers’ Research Executive Director Will Hild remarked in a statement provided to The Daily Wire.

Among other examples, the group’s complaint noted that Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street coordinated to elect three climate-conscious board members to Exxon Mobil, which subsequently announced a $15 billion commitment to lower emissions while abandoning certain oil and gas projects. BlackRock has taken “voting action on climate issues” against dozens of its portfolio companies, according to an investment stewardship report.

 

[GURPS]

Cha-ching! EPA quietly quadruples regulatory cost of carbon emissions in new war on fossil fuels​

The new estimate has sent shockwaves through the energy industry and raised the stakes for ongoing litigation being brought by Republican attorneys general in states like Louisiana that are challenging the Biden administration Social Cost of Carbon rule making as unconstitutional.

One of the key litigators told Just the News that if the Social Coat of Carbon rule stands it one day will affect the prices consumers pay on products from the dinner table to the heating furnace.

"If you think about the fact that they would impose this damage factor, let's say on farmers, because it applies to fertilizer," Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Muiller said in an interview on the John Solomon Reports podcast. "Fertilizer emits nitrous oxide. So fertilizer is a big contributor. If every family farmer now is going to have to pay more to obtain fertilizer to fertilize crops that feed us, well, what's that going to do to the price of food?

"If you're industrial, if you use plastic products in anything that's touched by petroleum, it's going to increase the cost of producing those goods. And that's all going to be passed on to the consumer."

The next arguments in Louisiana's case occur Dec. 7 in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Muiller said the government has tried to argue the Social Cost of Carbon figure isn't being used yet in official government actions but she and other states have evidence it is already being used in the regulatory process.

The Social Cost of Carbon is a concept first embraced by the Obama administration in 2009, which set up an interagency working group that calculated the cost to be $51 per metric ton of greenhouse gas emissions. The Trump administration reduced that estimate to $1 to $7 per metric ton, and then Biden's team returned to the $51 figure in 2021.

While loathed by the energy industry and energy-producing states and mostly unknown to most Americans, the Social Cost of Carbon effort is championed by environmental groups. The Sierra Club, for instance, last year published an article boasting the rule was the "most important climate policy lever you've never heard about."

"Right-wing free-market fundamentalists hate it," the environmental group wrote. "Progressive policy wonks love it. Some climate advocates say that without it the United States has little chance of getting a grip on our greenhouse gas problem."

The EPA is the first agency to publicly propose a massive adjustment upwards. It buried the new figure in a 137-page draft supplemental report that was attached this month to new methane emissions rules for the natural gas industry, catching many by surprise.

[clip]

Tim Stewart, the president of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, told Just the News on Wednesday that his industry has already calculated the future increases Americans will pay on products based on the new estimates the Biden administration put forth this month.

At the $340 price point, for instance, there would be a $2.99 tax/penalty per gallon of gasoline and $3.47 per gallon of diesel, Stewart said.

"In other words, EPA is saying you're causing $3 in damages for every gallon of gasoline you use," he explained.

 

[GURPS]

Swiss Prepare to Spend the Winter Bored, Cold, and Trapped at Home​

The contingency plan calls for three levels of energy rationing.

Under the least extreme, most buildings would be limited to 20C (68F) and “people will be asked to limit their washing machines to a maximum of 40C [104F].”

Under the mid-tier, retail stores could find their hours reduced by two each shopping day, many buildings would have their heat limited to 19C (66F), and nightclubs wouldn’t be allowed any heat at all — although given the other restrictions, that point might be moot.

Sports stadiums? Closed. Movie theaters, too.

But the Swiss might not find much relief at home, either. Should the worst come to pass, gaming consoles and streaming services like Netflix will go on the verboten list.

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

The coming crash of the Climate Cult​

We live beside a major highway in Queensland, Australia, and we can hear the roar of the traffic.

The road is quiet at night, but as day dawns, the real workers start moving — big diesel trucks off to pick up the day's loads of gravel, machinery, cattle, tanks, pipes, hay, timber, bricks, and concrete. Then comes the traffic that sustains urban life: meat vans, milk tankers, and refrigerated trucks of produce to fill supermarket shelves every day. Around sunrise come the commuters heading for city jobs, and the city's electric trains, elevators, and escalators start to run. Then kids are delivered to school, and sirens announce the occasional passing of ambulances, fire engines, and police bikes and cars. Finally, the tree-change bureaucrats cruise past in their electric cars, heading for their leisurely staggered starts. By 9 A.M., the traffic falls off.

To achieve net-zero nirvana, all of this early-morning traffic rush must be battery-powered. Untold thousands of batteries will need to be fully charged overnight — well before the vast paddocks of Chinese solar panels can deliver one amp of green electricity.

Listen here to Australia's new prime minister during the recent election campaign explaining how rooftop solar will charge all those Tesla batteries overnight.

 

[GURPS]

 

[spr1975wshs]

I'd be willing to go with a hybrid, not a full electric.

 

[GURPS]

GUESS WHAT: ELECTRICITY ISN’T FREE​

One of my favorite indicators of ignorance are the people who buy personalized license plates, or affix stickers, for their electric cars that say “Emission Free.” Even if you ignore the enormous environmental impacts associated with manufacturing an electric car (which are significantly higher than a gasoline-powered car), if you live in a state that generates a lot of its electricity from coal, you are essentially driving a coal-powered car.
The next most ignorant view is that at least you don’t have to buy expensive gasoline! People seem to forget that electricity isn’t free, from whatever source. It seems Europe is waking up to this:

Rising Power Prices in Europe Are Making EV Ownership More Expensive

BERLIN—Rocketing electricity prices are increasing the cost of driving electric vehicles in Europe, in some cases making them more expensive to run than gas-powered models—a change that could threaten the continent’s electric transition. . .
Coming just as some governments are removing subsidies for EV buyers, this change could slow down EV sales, threaten the region’s greenhouse-gas emission targets, and make it hard for European car makers to recoup the high costs of their electric transition. . .

 

[Kyle]

GUESS WHAT: ELECTRICITY ISN’T FREE​

One of my favorite indicators of ignorance are the people who buy personalized license plates, or affix stickers, for their electric cars that say “Emission Free.” Even if you ignore the enormous environmental impacts associated with manufacturing an electric car (which are significantly higher than a gasoline-powered car), if you live in a state that generates a lot of its electricity from coal, you are essentially driving a coal-powered car.
The next most ignorant view is that at least you don’t have to buy expensive gasoline! People seem to forget that electricity isn’t free, from whatever source. It seems Europe is waking up to this:

Imagine that.

higher demand, causing higher prices.

Who’d have thunk it?

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

Brace yourself for mountains of pain and misery under Gov. Hochul’s zero-emissions fantasy plan​

Meanwhile, all New Yorkers will personally have to make big-time sacrifices — and not just because of the skyrocketing energy bills they’ll face. As the plan states bluntly: “Every sector [of the economy] will see significant transformation over the next decade and beyond.”

Prefer gas-powered cars to zero-emission ones? Forget about buying one in New York after 2035. Indeed, in just seven years, the plan projects 3 million electric vehicles on New York’s roads.

It also wants New Yorkers to switch to heat pumps, with up to 2 million to be installed by 2030; buildings will have to phase out fossil-fuel sources for heating. Manufacturers will also need to shift to new technologies, with steep costs passed to the public.

And that’s just the start: As Hanley put it, the plan dictates “what types of consumer products New Yorkers will be able to buy . . . how much workers in the green economy will be paid” — those who work on renewable-energy projects get a union-rate premium — “how quickly reliable sources of electricity will shut down and what types of businesses will be bribed to set up shop in the state.”

[clip]

And if, by some miracle, the plan does work, what do New Yorkers get for all that pain and expense? A reduction in global emissions by the state’s share: all of 0.4% — though, as Hanley also points out, that benefit will be enjoyed by the entire world, not just New Yorkers.

In the meantime, nations like China and India will be boosting emissions, wiping out any gains by New York. Greenies in the state will feel great about their contributions, though they’ll do virtually nothing to tame rising temps.

It’s absolute madness — putting New Yorkers through a risky, painful exercise with virtually nothing to be gained. And here’s the kicker: The entire justification is based on the myth that humans face catastrophe unless warming is slowed.

 

[GURPS]