DOE wants to ban gas stoves
The Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to revise their standards for natural gas stoves. The practical effect of the new standards is banning gas stoves by regulation and switching people from gas to electric stoves. The DOE itself admits that electricity costs 3.5 times the cost of natural gas per energy unit - $42 versus $12 for natural gas per million BTU, so the new rules will necessarily increase cooking costs greatly.
On April 17th, the CO2 Coalition filed an extensive 23-page comment for the DOE on these economically destructive and freedom-crippling regulations. In it we conclude that:
“…the scientific method proves there is no reliable science supporting the proposed standards based on the proposition that electric stoves are more energy efficient than gas stoves” and the estimates “used in the proposal are fatally flawed science.”
“Thus, the DOE standards must not be adopted and the IWG SCC Estimates must not be used. If adopted, the DOE standards should be ruled invalid by the courts.”
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/DOE-wants-to-ban-gas-stoves.html
*****************************************************A Texas-Sized Energy Fiasco
What a mess. Renewable subsidies have distorted and destabilized the Texas electric grid, which resulted in a week-long power outage during the February 2021 freeze. To prevent more blackouts, Republicans in the Lone Star State now plan to subsidize gas power plants.
The Texas Senate last week passed putative energy reforms to “level the playing field,” as Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick put it. Texans will now spend tens of billions of dollars to bolster natural-gas plants that provide reliable power but can’t make money because of competition from subsidized renewable energy.
Federal tax credits have encouraged an oversupply of wind power, which Lone Star State Republicans assisted last decade by charging rate payers $7 billion to build thousands of miles of transmission lines from West Texas and the Panhandle to big cities. Solar and wind supply about 30% of Texas power on average but sometimes can produce more than half.
Wind generators pocket a tax credit for every kilowatt hour they produce no matter if the grid needs it. A surfeit of wind is increasingly driving wholesale power prices negative—i.e., generators have to pay to offload their power. Wind producers can still make money because of the tax credits, but fossil-fuel plants that provide baseload power can’t.
Baseload plants were developed on the financial assumption that they’d run 85% to 90% of the time, but many aren’t because they are being squeezed by renewables. Coal plants are closing, and gas generators are at risk. Too few new gas plants are being built to support a growing population and industry. As a result, power is becoming unreliable, especially during extreme weather.
The state Senate’s answer is to create a Texas Energy Insurance Program to support gas generators to backstop renewables. The state would commission gas plants with as much as 10 gigawatts—enough to power about two million homes during peak demand—to run only during grid emergencies. Keeping them idle at other times isn’t efficient, but letting them compete in the wholesale power market could make it even harder for existing generators to make money.
The Senate Finance Committee set aside $10 billion in its budget proposal to fund part of the cost for these emergency plants, but the legislation also proposes charging consumers. An insurance program would finance zero-interest rate loans to existing gas generators to maintain their equipment, which they are struggling to do owing to negative power prices.
Another Senate bill would create financial incentives for “peaker” gas plants that could ramp up on demand. Yet building peaker gas plants that run only 10% of the time costs about three times more than a baseload gas plant that operates 85% to 90% of the time.
To sum up: Texas Republicans are trying to fix the enormous inefficiencies caused by federal and state renewable subsidies with state subsidies that cause more inefficiencies.
Texas’s grid mess offers a portent for the rest of the U.S. and another illustration of how the Inflation Reduction Act will cost Americans much more than the $391 billion that Democrats claimed. States may have to subsidize backup power generation to keep the lights on. Subsidies that create market distortions invariably lead to more subsidies and more distortions. California couldn’t have done it better.
**************************************************
Ignore the Earth Day hype: To save the planet, invest in fossil fuels
By John Stossel
Earth Day is Saturday! Hooray? “Saving humanity from the climate crisis,” says EarthDay.org, requires us to “push away from the dirty fossil fuel economy.”
Sounds logical. But my latest video explains why doing that is cruel to poor people.
“Three billion people in the world still use less electricity than a typical refrigerator,” explains Alex Epstein, author of “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.” If they’re going to have “their first well-paying jobs,” “their first consistent supply of clean water,” “a modern life,” “that’s going to depend on fossil fuels.”
But the greens say we have a better replacement: wind and solar power.
So I push back at Epstein: “Solar is getting cheaper all the time. It’s already cheaper than fossil fuels.”
“When we look at solar and wind around the world,” he answers, “it always correlates to rising prices and declining reliability. Why? Because solar and wind are intermittent. At any time, they can go near zero.”
That means wind turbines and solar farms don’t replace fossil-fuel plants. You have to build them in addition to fossil-fuel plants.
“We spent trillions of dollars in subsidies and mandates putting solar panels and wind turbines everywhere,” Epstein points out, “Yet we’re still having shortages of fossil fuels.”
Germany invested heavily in solar and wind power. Elites around the world praised German politicians for creating record renewable power. But that didn’t work so well when the winds slowed and clouds appeared.
Germany has even turned to coal for energy. Coal! Coal is the filthiest fuel. Yet Germany now imports coal from Russia and America.
OK, say the activists, even if renewables have problems, soon we’ll have better batteries so we can bank wind and solar energy and store it until it’s needed!
Batteries are “getting continually better and cheaper,” I say to Epstein. Backing up all solar and wind with batteries would cost “multiples of global” gross domestic product, responds Epstein. “This is a total fantasy.”
“You say unaffordable,” I push back, “but who’s to determine what that is?”
“The general narrative is we’re destroying the planet with fossil fuels, so who cares how much energy costs?” Epstein says. “The truth is, the planet is only livable because of low-cost, reliable energy from fossil fuels.”
Before fossil fuels, “Life expectancy was below 30. Income was basically nonexistent. The population was stagnant because people had such a high death rate. The basic reason is that nature is not a very livable place for human beings.”
By contrast, thanks to cheap fossil fuels, “We make it unnaturally safe by producing all forms of climate protection. We produce drought relief . . . sturdy buildings. We produce heat when it’s cold, we produce cold when it’s hot. We have this amazing, productive ability. That’s the only reason we experience the planet as livable.”
Unfortunately, because of today’s foolish hysteria over fossil fuels, energy prices will climb. “When you threaten an industry, you scare investors and producers. Massive threats to industry have definitely cut down production.”
America’s affluent protesters can afford the higher prices. But poor people will suffer. Allowing billions of the world’s poor to live a modern life requires energy from gas, oil and even coal.
The United Nations now puts pressure on countries to stop using fossil fuels. Governments in poor countries, eager for UN handouts, often listen.
“Their whole population is going to suffer,” warns Epstein. “People who have by far the least in the world [are] most subject to today’s international pressure against fossil fuels.”
If we want more of the poorest people to have decent lives, we need to invest in both fossil fuels and nuclear power.
https://nypost.com/2023/04/19/ignore-the-earth-day-hype-to-save-the-planet-invest-in-fossil-fuels/
****************************************************Service station owners are calling on the Federal Government to help them install EV charging bays on their forecourts
Another huge cost of the climate myth
Australian Association of Convenience Stores chief executive Theo Foukkare said it cost an estimated half a million dollars to upgrade a site’s electricity grid to accommodate EV chargers.
“We’ve got thousands of AACS members across the nation that want to go green but they’re not able to get their hands on half a million dollars on their own,” he said.
He said his members were supportive of the government’s new EV strategy, released this week.
“However, we really think a government funded program that helps small business owners to pay for these critical upgrades is essential to achieve that,” he said.
The recent surge in EV take-up – sales are up 150 per cent in the first three months of this year – meant there weren’t enough recharge stations to cope with existing drivers.
“Public infrastructure charging is being rolled out slowly by the federal and state and territory governments, however, most only include slow charging equipment. That means they can only be used by two cars at once, potentially leaving other drivers waiting hours before they are even able to plug in,” Mr Foukkare said.
A spokeswoman for Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen said small businesses could apply for a grant from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency ARENA, which had $70 million set aside to help businesses develop charging infrastructure.
Mr Bowen announced the latest round of grants yesterday and said infrastructure funding was a “critical step to make electric vehicles more accessible for all Australians”.
He said the latest funding round would make it easier to install the right type of public charging infrastructure and give Australians better access to facilities, particularly in remote and regional communities.
“Transport costs are a huge part of household budgets, and getting the charging infrastructure in place for electric vehicles is critical to ensuring households have a real choice when it comes to picking their next car,” Mr Bowen said.
But Mr Foukkare said that slower charging stations being rolled out by governments often lacked access to basic amenities.
“Australian motorists expect amenities like toilets, a place to sit and eat or enjoy a coffee, free Wi-Fi and even somewhere to do a small grocery top up,” he said.
“Our members already have those facilities – and they employ more than 70,000 people across Australia – so they could certainly do with the extra custom.
He said service station EV chargers could also address a “charging void” for the 25 per cent of Australian drivers who don’t have off street parking.
***************************************
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
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment