Wednesday, September 15, 2021
U.S. fishing group sues Biden administration over offshore wind project
A U.S. fishing group on Monday sued the Biden administration over its approval of the huge Vineyard Wind offshore wind project off the East Coast, saying the government had failed to address industry concerns about its potential safety and environmental impacts.
The development is the latest in a string of clashes between the fishing industry and public and private efforts to create a new domestic renewable energy industry to help wean the economy off fossil fuels and combat climate change.
Fishing interests view offshore wind as a threat to catches of crucial stocks, including squid, scallops and clams, charging that towering wind turbines would interfere with navigation and alter habitats. If built, Vineyard Wind would be the nation's first major offshore wind farm.
The Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, which advocates for fishing industry interests in offshore wind development, said it filed a brief petition in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The petition asks the court to review the administration's approval of the project.
"This action is the culmination of many years of conscientious participation by fisheries professionals, only to see their expertise and value summarily ignored by decision makers during the leasing process," the alliance said in a statement.
The Biden administration approved Vineyard Wind in May. The facility is owned jointly by Avangrid Inc, based in Orange, Connecticut, and Danish investment firm Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, and will be located 14 miles (23 km) off the Massachusetts coast near Martha's Vineyard.
Offshore wind is a centerpiece of President Joe Biden's agenda to address global warming. His administration is seeking to add 30 gigawatts of the energy source to the nation's waters in just nine years.
Opposition from commercial fishing fleets is widely considered to be a major threat to that goal and has already contributed to delays in granting permits to the country's first commercial-scale projects.
*****************************************
Illinois Senate close to providing lifeline to 3 nuclear power plants
The Illinois Senate is expected to vote on a wide-ranging energy bill on Monday that contains incentives to prevent Exelon Corp from shutting three nuclear power plants just hours before the company threatened to close the first one.
The bill contains nearly $700 million over five years in carbon mitigation credits for the three plants, which were built more than 40 years ago. Exelon had said it would close its Byron plant on Monday, the Dresden plant in November, and that its Braidwood plant was also at risk.
"We don't anticipate any problems" passing the legislation, said John Patterson, a spokesperson for Senate President Don Harmon, a Democrat. "President Harmon will be voting 'Yes.'"
While nuclear power plants create toxic waste for which there is no permanent U.S. repository, they are also praised by some environmentalists and politicians for generating electricity virtually emissions-free.
The bill passed last week in the House after a compromise deal on coal plant closures approved by both environmentalists and labor groups.
It requires the closure of private coal-fired plants by 2030. Municipal coal plants are required to cut carbon emissions 45% by 2035 and reduce emissions to zero or close by 2045.
The bill requires 36 votes in the Senate to make it to the desk of Governor J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat who has said he looks forward to signing it as soon as possible. A previous and similar version of the bill recently got 39 votes in the Senate.
The United States leads the world with 93 nuclear reactors, but that is down from 104 in 2012 as aging plants struggle to compete with renewable power and natural gas plants.
Gina McCarthy, President Joe Biden's climate adviser, has said maintaining some of the existing nuclear plants is "absolutely essential" to hit U.S. goals to decarbonize the electric grid by 2035, and the administration has supported federal incentives for the industry.
********************************************
Experts condemn plan to install thousands of gas boilers across UK and also phase them out (!)
Energy bill-payers will be asked to subsidise the installation of tens of thousands of new gas boilers across the UK under government plans, at a time when experts say gas boilers should be urgently phased out.
Experts said it was baffling that ministers should be promoting the installation of new fossil fuel boilers, instead of low-carbon dioxide alternatives such as heat pumps.
At least 20,000 new gas boilers will be installed under the energy company obligation (Eco) scheme, which requires energy companies to fund improvements that should cut greenhouse gas emissions. The long-running scheme has been criticised in the past for providing discounts to well-off households to replace ageing gas boilers with more efficient models, rather than focusing on more difficult but more effective improvements, such as helping low-income households with home insulation.
In a consultation document, slipped out this summer without fanfare, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy laid out plans for how the Eco should work from March 2022 to March 2026. The government’s “preferred option”, shown in the 62-page document, is for 20,000 new gas boilers to be installed in homes that currently lack central heating.
A further 25,000 homes will have broken heaters repaired or replaced, which could also involve the repair of gas boilers or the installation of new ones.
Government plans to reduce emissions from home heating, which accounts for roughly 14% of the UK’s overall emissions and have remained stubbornly high despite two decades of efforts to reduce them, have been in disarray since the failure of the green homes grant earlier this year.
Under the £2bn green homes grant, announced last summer as part of the prime minister’s promise to “build back greener” from the Covid-19 pandemic, at least 600,000 homes were supposed to be upgraded with insulation, heat pumps and other low-CO2 improvements. But the scheme was beset by administrative problems and fewer than 50,000 households received the help envisaged. The scheme was scrapped after less than six months.
A new heat and buildings strategy has been in preparation for months, but has yet to be published, although time is running out before the UK hosts the Cop26 UN climate talks in Glasgow this November, at which all countries will be asked to come up with concrete plans for slashing emissions.
Ministers are understood to be nervous about proposals that would require all households with gas boilers – the dominant form of home heating in the UK – to rip them out and replace them in the next decade. The Treasury has also blocked proposals to subsidise the switch to low-CO2 heat pumps or electric boilers, and calls for ministers to ban new gas boilers from 2025.
Experts said the effective subsidies for new gas boilers ran contrary to the government’s targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, by 68% by 2030, and by 78% by 2035, compared with 1990 levels.
Jess Ralston, analyst at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said: “While it’s important that vulnerable households are supported in staying warm at home, installing new fossil fuel boilers – which contribute to harmful air pollution in homes that are already more likely to have poor air quality – just means that fuel-poor families are locked into dirtier, more expensive and more unhealthy heating systems for longer. It’s wasteful and baffling when it’s clear that a clean heating revolution is just around the corner and gas prices are rocketing.”
******************************************
Electric cars still expensive to run
Despite no gasoline costs. Figures from Australia below
The running costs for an electric vehicle have dropped more than $10,000 a year in the past five years, according to the RACQ.
The Queensland motoring group has included six electric vehicles during its annual review of the monthly and annual running costs of 81 different vehicles.
The survey measures all monthly expenses associated with normal private car ownership including loan repayments, fuel, tyres, servicing, insurance and government charges.
The survey finds the running costs of the most affordable electric vehicle on Queensland roads - MG’s ZS - is now $10,000 less than operating costs of the most affordable electric car five years ago.
Six electric vehicles were examined in the RACQ’s running costs survey, with the cheapest electric car costing $44,000 on-road, and the most expensive model $65,000.
RACQ spokeswoman Lauren Ritchie said electric vehicles were significantly more affordable but were more expensive than an average petrol car.
“The MG ZS is the cheapest EV on the market in Queensland and will set a buyer back $1086 per month to own and run,” Ms Ritchie said.
The RACQ’s on-road costs include loan repayments.
“Other EV models available include the Hyundai Ioniq Elite EV which costs $1207 per month, the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV at $1263 per month and the Nissan Leaf $1306 per month,” she said.
The average monthly running costs of all small cars in 2021 is $713, small SUVs $889; all medium-sized cars $1149; people movers $1336; electric car $1247; medium SUVs $1175; large SUVs $1388 and all-terrain vehicles $1599.
An equivalent petrol-run car is still on average $195 a month cheaper than an electric car, Ms Ritchie said.
“But with more models coming onto market and more EV charging infrastructure being rolled out in Queensland, now might be the right time to consider switching,” Ms Ritchie said.
She said the range of hybrid and full electric vehicles had surprised the RACQ’s on-road cost assessment teams.
She encouraged drivers considering an electric vehicle to explore the widening range of vehicles being offered.
“Drivers who are keen to transition to lower emissions transport but are concerned about range can also consider a plug-in hybrid or hybrid option,” she said.
“For example a $30,000 Toyota Corolla Ascent Sport Hybrid costs $821per month.”
The most affordable petrol-powered car in the survey is the MG3 Core, which costs $607 to run each month.
The most expensive car to run is the Nissan Y62 Patrol Ti at $2220 a month.
“The costs associated with owning and running a car really do add up for whichever vehicle you choose,” Mr Ritchie said.
“Drivers should do their homework and really weigh up just where they want to spend their money.”
The RACQ running-costs survey is based on driving 15,000 kilometres a year, with the full cost of the vehicle paid out over a five-year loan.
The cost of petrol used in the 2021 survey was 131.90 cents a litre for unleaded petrol, 146.40 cents per litre for premium petrol; 127.30 cents per litre for diesel engines.
Costs for electric vehicles were calculated using an average domestic electricity tariff of 23.93 cents per kilowatt hour.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment