Monday, December 19, 2022
Jamie Dimon Is Right: ‘We Need Cheap, Reliable, Safe, Secure Energy’
Although I don’t agree with JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon all that often given his general affinity for more government oversight as the typical solution to social and economic problems, I absolutely agree with his stance on the self-induced energy crisis that is currently plaguing the United States, our European allies, and most of the developing world.
In early December, Dimon appeared on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” wherein he made this commonsensical statement, “We need cheap, reliable, safe, secure energy, of which 80 percent comes from oil and gas. And that number’s going to be very high for 10 or 20 years.”
To be clear, Dimon is not a shill for the fossil fuel industry, as the record shows that he is a full-fledged member of the “climate change is an existential crisis” club.
However, unlike most of the narrow-minded zealots who constitute the vast majority of the “global warming is going to destroy the planet” gang, it seems as though Dimon is at least conceding the fact that for the foreseeable future, it would behoove humanity to not completely abandon the backbone of our energy and transportation systems: oil and natural gas.
“Higher oil and gas prices are leading to more CO2. Having it cheaper has the virtue of reducing CO2, because all that’s happening around the world is that poorer nations and richer nations are turning back on their coal plants,” Dimon added while on CNBC.
Such is the case in Germany, which recently renewed five licenses for coal-fired power plants that were scheduled to be retired this year.
Germany, which went all-in on the renewable energy panacea decades ago, received a big slap of reality when its historical enemy Russia decided to turn off the flow of natural gas to mainland Europe after the Ukraine invasion.
By its own doing, Germany put itself in a very untenable position by placing its energy grid at the mercy of mercurial Vladimir Putin and uber-unreliable and uber-expensive renewable energy.
Even hard-core environmentalists agree with the decision to keep Germany’s coal-fired power plants operating. “We can understand the government restarting coal-fired power plants in Germany,” admitted Greenpeace Germany’s Karsten Smid.
Yet, while Germany serves as a prime example of why it is a very dumb idea to abandon fossil fuels while relying on unreliable renewable energy, the geniuses in Washington, DC seem to have missed this somehow.
Earlier this year, Dimon made it clear to Congress that the United States (and the world, for that matter) is not ready to shun fossil fuels in place of not-yet-ready-for-primetime renewable energy sources.
When Dimon was asked to take a pledge to stop funding fossil fuel companies by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Dimon responded to the inane request by stating that doing so “would be the road to hell.”
And it surely would be. Were the United States to stop investing in fossil fuels, our standard of living would plummet. Not only that, our entire economy would come to a screeching halt as society would devolve into a state of total chaos.
If you think the U.S. economy is struggling now with high inflation and an out-of-synch labor market, you can’t imagine the horror show that would ensue if we were to instantly cut-off funding for fossil fuels.
Like it or not, advanced societies depend on fossil fuels. In fact, the advent of fossil fuels has lifted more people from abject poverty than any other human technological feat or endeavor in modern times.
Fortunately, for now, it seems like some sane, rational people like Jamie Dimon are finally standing up against the insane, irrational calls for across-the board fossil fuel prohibitions. I just hope as time goes on that Dimon’s views on fossil fuels become more representative of the mainstream, and that those calling for an immediate end to fossil fuels are rightfully lambasted as the heretics that they are.
*************************************************
Incoherent energy policy will poison Britain’s future
With one hand the British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is banning exploration for natural gas onshore in the UK, and with the other he is encouraging further development of physically inferior energy sources such as wind and solar. It seems that the government does not understand the importance of thermodynamic quality in energy supply, and has misdiagnosed the causes of the present energy supply and cost crisis.
Britain’s energy crisis is the result of decades of failing renewables-centric energy policy, policy which has eroded energy security and left the country vulnerable to events such as Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine.
The Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is reportedly considering reintroducing policy support for onshore wind. Many media sources are misreporting this as the lifting of a “ban” on this technology, though in point of fact there is no such ban preventing the building of wind farms. The then Prime Minister, David Cameron, removed subsidies for onshore wind, and thus reduced development interest, since the technology, like nearly all renewables, remains fundamentally uneconomic due to its inferior physical properties.
Whether Mr Sunak will reintroduce direct income support subsidies or provide non-market support through other routes such as tax breaks and favourable Power Purchase Agreements with government bodies, or “must buy” status with the increasingly nationalised retail markets, remains unclear. But such measures will be necessary since wind cannot compete as a pure merchant generator due to the penalties that it would face for non-delivery caused by unpredictable intermittency.
Inevitably, such policy support for onshore wind must be paid for by burdening the consumer with additional costs at some point in the electricity supply system.
In parallel with this blunder, and compounding it, Mr Sunak’s government is dragging its feet in preventing developers of solar photovoltaic installations from covering quite literally hundreds of thousands of acres of British farmland with PV generation, thus swapping food production for low grade electricity.
Weak planning guidance has permitted and even encouraged development on Agricultural Land Class 3b, which is by no means bad land, and thus incentivised the misrepresentation of higher classes of land. It should be emphasised that all farmland is a national asset that should not be wasted by development as malinvestment in solar, or indeed as wind “farms”.
The situation suggests that Mr Sunak’s government is poorly informed and acting irresponsibly. Neither wind nor solar is thermodynamically competent, the fuels being of high entropy and of little intrinsic value. No capable government would encourage them. And no capable government would discourage exploration for high quality fuels such as natural gas, but this is precisely what Mr Sunak’s government is now doing with the ban on hydraulic fracturing.
Dr John Constable, NZW’s energy director, said:
"To continue intellectually bankrupt and counterproductive policies in the middle of an energy crisis of unprecedented magnitude suggests that the machinery of government in Westminster has ceased to work, and that rational analysis can no longer effect a change of course. The outlook for the consumer and the country as whole is very bleak.”
Contact:
Dr John Constable
e: john.constable.1837@gmail.com
*********************************************
Biden Starts a Climate Trade War
Wasn’t President Biden going to end Donald Trump’s destructive trade wars against allies? Apparently not. His “super aggressive” climate protectionism—to quote French President Emmanuel Macron—is infuriating U.S. friends and may set off a subsidy and tariff war.
U.S. allies are upset about the Inflation Reduction Act’s generous subsidies for domestically manufactured green technologies. In his trip to Washington last week, Mr. Macron said the U.S. subsidies may “perhaps fix your issue but you will increase my problem.” They’re really a problem for everybody.
The dispute involves tax credits for electric-vehicle and battery production. The IRA’s $7,500 consumer tax credit are restricted to EVs assembled in North America. Most foreign auto makers make EVs abroad and export them because the global and U.S. markets are still small. They can’t tap the consumer tax credit unless they invest in American production. But making EVs in the U.S.—or Canada or Mexico—may be more costly and could render their cars less competitive in other export markets.
Half of the U.S. $7,500 tax credit is also contingent on an increasing share of the vehicle’s battery minerals being extracted or processed in the U.S. or a country in which the U.S. has a free-trade agreement—starting at 40% in 2023 and increasing to 80% in 2027. The other half will be available only to EVs whose battery components are mostly made in North America, starting at 50% in 2023 and reaching 100% by 2029.
No auto maker is expected to qualify for the full $7,500 tax credit next year, but Tesla and GM may be eligible for half. Foreign auto makers will become less competitive in the U.S. and struggle to meet stringent fuel-economy mandates. The upshot? They will have to buy regulatory credits from Tesla and GM.
The law also offers generous tax credits for domestic EV battery production, including a $35 per kilowatt-hour credit for U.S.-made battery cells, plus $10 per kilowatt-hour for domestically produced modules. These credits are expected to shave the cost of producing an EV battery by 30% to 40% and reportedly prompted Tesla to reconsider plans to make battery cells in Germany.
The biggest winner of Mr. Biden’s climate protectionism may be GM, whose joint venture with LG Energy Solution this summer received a $2.5 billion federal loan guarantee to build three U.S. battery factories. RBC Capital Markets has estimated that GM could pocket $3 billion from the battery tax credit in 2025. GM recently projected the IRA tax credits will add $3,500 to $5,500 in profit to each EV.
The law also includes up to $40 billion in loans to build new EV and battery factories. Oh, and don’t forget the manufacturing tax credits for wind turbines, solar panels and other CO2-reducing technologies. “The U.S. has turned on a shop vac to suck up incentives and we’re standing here with a dust buster,” a Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters official said last month.
A Toyota spokesman in Canada spoke the truth: “While the IRA is being presented in many quarters as key legislation to fight climate change, in reality it is an act of trade protectionism.” The Canadian Steel Producers Association has warned that U.S. steel producers would also indirectly benefit from the climate subsidies without incurring carbon costs.
Ah, yes—carbon costs. Complaints by European and Canadian leaders would merit more sympathy if they hadn’t handicapped their own manufacturers with renewable subsidies that increase energy prices. Many European manufacturers are shifting investment from the Continent because of surging energy prices. Cap-and-trade systems in Europe and some Canadian provinces have also raised the cost of energy and manufacturing.
As for “climate protectionism,” Europeans also play the game. Europe is planning to implement a carbon border adjustment tariff on imports produced in countries with higher CO2 emissions, including possibly the U.S.
***
European leaders are threatening to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization if the Biden Administration doesn’t rewrite the IRA to extend subsidies to foreign EVs and green technologies. But the latter would compound the policy felony by forcing U.S. taxpayers to subsidize foreign-made cars. Europe could also impose subsidies for domestic manufacturers or tariffs against U.S.-made EVs.
The West’s climate policies are already harming consumers and slowing economic growth by raising energy prices and distorting investment. Now they are threatening a trade war that will cause more harm. The new climate protectionism won’t end well.
*******************************************************
Final 2022 Hurricane Season Results Disappoint NOAA’s Gloomy Forecast
While the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) held firm to its prediction of an above-normal hurricane season – despite zero hurricanes at the halfway mark – the 2022 season proved to be nothing out of the ordinary.
Hurricane season, which runs from June through November annually, turned out to be pretty average this year, NOAA’s end-of-season report reveals.
There were just two “major” hurricanes (categories 3-5), below the annual average of three and less than NOAA’s prediction that there would be 3-6. The eight total hurricanes (categories 1-5) this year falls dead-center in NOAA’s forecasted range. And, the total count of named storms (which had hurricane-potential) barely hit the lowest number in NOAA’s forecasted range:
Hurricanes Forecast: 6-10; actual: 8; average year: 7
Major Hurricanes Forecast: 3-6; actual: 2; average year: 3
Named Storms Forecast: 14-21, actual: 14; average year: 14
Two of this year’s hurricanes made landfall, with one hitting twice. NOAA does not forecast the number of hurricanes that will hit a U.S. coast.
Despite the mundane final results, NOAA characterizes the 2022 hurricane season as “unique”:
“This unique season was defined by a rare mid-season pause in storms that scientists preliminarily believe was caused by increased wind shear and suppressed atmospheric moisture high over the Atlantic Ocean.”
After June through August proved to be the slowest start to a hurricane season in 30 years, NOAA issued a minor revision to its forecast:
“NOAA forecasters have slightly decreased the likelihood of an above-normal Atlantic hurricane season to 60% (lowered from the outlook issued in May, which predicted a 65% chance).”
“NOAA still expects above-normal Atlantic hurricane season,” the revised forecast insisted.
But, not all experts have been quick to embrace NOAA’s gloomy forecast, or to attribute any increase in hurricane activity to climate change.
“[D]espite what you may have heard, Atlantic hurricanes are not becoming more frequent. In fact, the frequency of hurricanes making landfall in the continental U.S. has declined slightly since 1900, Hoover Institution Visiting Fellow Bjorn Lomborg noted in a piece published by The Wall Street Journal.
As Hot Air has reported, the “Number and strength of hurricanes stubbornly fail to increase.”
“There is no global trend in the number of tropical storms or hurricanes during the past 50+ years,” Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue agrees.
As for the effect of climate change, a study by The Global Warming Policy Foundation concluded that “[T]here is little evidence that global warming has resulted in more hurricanes, or more intense ones in recent years.”
“On the contrary,” the study finds: “available evidence confirms that hurricane and major hurricane frequency has been similar in many prior periods.”
Nonetheless, national media, like Reuters, that publish apocalyptic warnings about climate change, steadfastly continue to promote claims that blame climate change for hurricane frequency and intensity.
***************************************
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)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment