Experts Raise Alarm After Biden Strikes Agreement With China To End ‘Fossil Fuels’
U.S. energy experts are warning of the economic and national security implications of President Biden’s pact with China this week to move towards shutting down ‘fossil fuel’ production in favor of ‘green’ energy
The State Department announced this week it had struck a deal with its Chinese counterparts pledging to “accelerate the substitution for coal, oil and gas generation” with ‘green’ energy sources like wind and solar power.
The nations, which account for nearly half of global ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions, also agreed to “deepen policy exchanges” on reducing ‘carbon’ emissions in various sectors, like power, industry, buildings, and transportation, across their economies.
But the agreement — in which the nations further pledged to “sufficiently accelerate renewable energy deployment in their respective economies through 2030” — was criticized over its potential impact on U.S. consumers.
Experts also noted that China has rarely followed through on international accords and stands to financially benefit from such an agreement since it controls much of the world’s green energy supply chain.
“The agreement speaks heavily about advancing — doubling down and tripling down on renewables, wind and solar. The majority of them are made in China,” Daniel Turner, the founder and executive director of Power The Future, told Fox News Digital in an interview.
“So, you’re basically writing an agreement that guarantees China a customer and guarantees their manufacturing sector decades of purchasing. Of course, China would love this agreement. And their obligations — they’ll just ignore that. They’ve ignored every other obligation,” Turner added. “It is basically guaranteeing China decades of wealth, guaranteeing America is going to buy their products.”
In addition, the U.S. and China pledged under the agreement Tuesday to advance five large-scale carbon capture, utilization, and storage projects by the end of the decade.
‘Carbon capture’ is a nascent and expensive technology that is designed to catch a power plant’s emissions before they can enter the atmosphere, but it hasn’t been deployed at any power plant nationwide.
The agreement was finalized during Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry’s meeting with Chinese Special Envoy for Climate Change Xie Zhenhua in Sunnylands, California, last week. And it came shortly before Biden met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in San Francisco.
“The cooperative initiatives outlined by the State Department will create make-work for bureaucrats, subsidies for rent-seekers, photo ops for local politicians, and new opportunities for Chinese agents of influence and industrial spies,” Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Marlo Lewis told Fox News Digital.
“The effect on climate change, if any, will be negative, as the ‘cooperation’ will nudge the United States closer to Beijing-style central planning, production quotas, and groupthink,” he continued.
Overall, while the U.S. is the largest global producer of oil and gas, which still drives every major industry from transportation and power to manufacturing and construction, Chinese companies have established a major foothold in green energy markets.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), China produces about 75 percent of all lithium-ion batteries, a key component of electric vehicles (EV), worldwide. The nation also boasts 70 percent of [cathode production capacity] and 85 percent for anodes, two key parts of such batteries.
In addition, more than 50 percent of lithium, cobalt, and graphite processing and refining capacity is located in China, the IEA data showed. Those three critical minerals, in addition to copper and nickel, are vital for EV batteries and other ‘green’ energy technologies.
Chinese investment firms have also been aggressive in purchasing stakes in African mines in recent years to ensure firm control over mineral production.
China also continues to dominate the global solar supply chain even as Western nations attempt to increase domestic manufacturing capabilities.
According to a July 2022 IEA report, China has a greater than 80 percent share in all the manufacturing stages of solar panels [production].
China further produces a staggering 95 percent of all global polysilicon, ingot, and wafer supplies necessary for solar products.
“After ESG extremists like Larry Fink met with Chinese Dictator Xi Jinping this week, the Biden Administration reaffirmed its commitment to China to push climate policies that will effectively destroy the U.S. energy industry in favor of ‘green’ energy initiatives that rely on China’s production of solar panels and batteries,” Will Hild, the executive director of Consumers’ Research, an advocacy group, told Fox News Digital.
“Consumers are fed up with EV mandates, gas appliance bans, and other climate initiatives the Biden Administration continues to peddle,” he said.
“Clearly, climate alarmism remains a higher priority to President Biden than ensuring American consumers have access to affordable energy and consumer goods. Consumers’ Research will continue to call out these ideologically-driven policies that hurt American consumers while helping the Chinese Communist Party.”
While China has established a stranglehold of green energy supply chains, it has also led a massive expansion of coal power to sustain its massive economy.
In 2022, the nation permitted a whopping 106 gigawatts of new coal power capacity, roughly quadrupling the amount permitted in 2021, an analysis published by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air and Global Energy Monitor showed.
According to the American Geosciences Institute, burning coal produces more ‘carbon’ emissions compared to burning any other ‘fossil fuel’. Coal power can have as much as twice the ‘carbon footprint’ of natural gas.
China already accounts for about 27 percent of total global ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions, according to Rhodium Group. The nation’s emissions output is equivalent to triple the total of the U.S., which is the world’s second-largest emitter.
“The Sunnylands agreement is nothing more than political sop from Communist China to try to help Biden and Kerry politically, and to keep the America-hurting climate hoax going,” Steve Milloy, a senior legal fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, told Fox News Digital. “The agreement does not bind China to cut emissions or to do anything else of importance.”
“But keeping the climate hoax alive is very important to China for three reasons: 1) climate spending and climate regulations hurt the U.S. economy and help the Chinese economy; 2) mandates for green technology deepen U.S. dependence on China for that technology; and 3) both of the aforementioned compromise US national security and further China’s goal of becoming the lone global superpower by 2049,” Milloy continued.
And Jason Isaac, the CEO and founder of The American Energy Institute, told Fox News Digital that the agreement was “laughable” since it states China remains committed to the 2015 Paris Accords.
“Not a single country complies with the Paris Agreement, not even France. The Paris Agreement is based on the false premise that CO2, a trace gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, is causing catastrophic warming,” Isaac said.
“It’s not, and China knows it. That’s why the global consumption of coal in 2022 increased by 9%, and China built two coal plants per week to generate affordable, reliable electricity.”
“Xi knows that the grid in America is getting crushed under the weight of a so-called energy transition. Over 80 percent of our reliable thermal generation from natural gas and coal will age out in the next two decades,” he added. “Instead of aging out, we need to build new generation more than ever.”
“Yet, the current administration is making new, reliable electric generation construction nearly impossible. Biden’s bailout of China has turned our foreign policy to ‘China first, America last.’”
*******************************************
Heating Your Home: More Difficult, More Expensive
Remember when we said government bureaucrats were coming for our gas stoves? Remember how they insisted up and down they weren’t going to do it?
“To be clear,” said Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman Alexander D. Hoehn-Saric at the time, “[we are] not looking to ban gas stoves, and the CPSC has no proceeding to do so.” Turns out it wasn’t an outright ban, but a regulatory squeeze that would act in the same manner.
Later, during the summer, we revealed that Congress was on to the ruse. “There are other rulemakings under consideration for dishwashers, refrigerators, water heaters, furnaces, air conditioners, and other household appliances under the guise of improving energy efficiency as proscribed by the Environmental Policy and Conservation Act,” explained Texas Congressman Pat Fallon, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs.
As winter approaches, though, many Americans rely on their furnace to keep their homes warm. For many in urban areas, that furnace burns natural gas to provide the heat, while rural areas generally have a propane system. In both cases, consumers have essentially decided that they prefer the warmth of a gas furnace, but that’s not good enough for the regulatory do-gooders in the Biden administration. Back in September, the Department of Energy proposed stringent new regulations that would eliminate much of the current gas furnace technology by 2028.
That was step one. Now, in the wake of the most recent National Climate Assessment — an assessment rigged to make it appear we’re in a crisis — the regime has decided to dust off the 1950 Defense Production Act to reward the makers of electric heat pumps to the tune of $169 million in “investments” and game the home heating market still further.
“Today’s Defense Production Act funds for heat pump manufacturing show that President Biden is treating climate change as the crisis it is,” says ancient bureaucrat and longtime Beltway insider John Podesta, who was once chief of staff for Bill Clinton and is now our nation’s “clean energy czar.” “These awards will grow domestic manufacturing, create good-paying jobs, and boost American competitiveness in industries of the future.” This might almost make sense, except the funds are going to several multinational corporations — meaning there’s no real guarantee of domestic job creation.
It didn’t take analysts long to put two and two together. As energy expert Robert Bryce pointed out: “Some of America’s richest NGOs are pushing policies that ban the direct use of natural gas in homes and businesses. While they claim the ban on gas is needed to address climate change, these bans will result in dramatic increases in energy costs and impose a regressive tax on the poor and the middle class.” Bryce also cited Energy Information Administration data stating that average homeowners who heat with electricity will pay a 77% premium this winter over those homeowners who can heat with gas. For a home in the snowy Northeast, the electricity toll is $1,465, compared to just $761 for gas. These are the numbers provided by the same federal government that’s trying to regulate away both gas furnaces and the production of electricity from natural gas sources. Yet natural-gas-powered electricity is still necessary as a backup plan if the favored “renewable” wind and solar power isn’t available.
Furthermore, “Biden’s action to promote heat pumps was ‘necessary’ because Biden’s new regulations on gas furnaces will make them unaffordable where they aren’t unavailable,” explained PJ Media’s Stephen Green. “When the new regs go into effect in 2028, Biden’s rules mandate that all new gas furnaces operate at 95% efficiency, up from today’s 80%. The non-condensing furnaces used in most homes almost certainly won’t make the cut.”
While there are already duly efficient gas furnaces on the market, the difference comes from the expensive process of sealed combustion. This brings outside air directly into the furnace via additional retrofitted ductwork, which is required to convert an 80% efficient furnace to a 95% one.
So here’s the bottom line: Through the onerous power of regulation, the Biden administration is trying to eliminate natural gas as a fuel source. Why? Because it’s inexpensive and reliable and was once considered “clean” but has fallen out of favor with environmentalists, who now prefer that we use less reliable but more profitable solar and wind power, for which components are generally not available domestically but are sold to us by a nation with missiles pointed at us — China.
As we see it, this is awe-inspiring stupidity. But elections have consequences.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/102310-heating-your-home-more-difficult-more-expensive-2023-11-21
****************************************************Unrealistic Plans to Crack Down on U.S. Power Plant Emissions Won’t Work
The Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a new plan that would limit carbon emissions from power plants, despite rising electricity demand. Its stated intention is to force utilities to rely much more heavily on hydrogen and other green fuels, coupled with carbon capture technologies, to generate electricity.
The EPA’s proposed rule would force power plant owners to decide virtually overnight whether to install unproven and absurdly expensive carbon capture technologies or close their plants altogether to meet emission reduction targets—an unreasonable choice that’s being presented at a time when the U.S. Energy Department estimates that the U.S. will need to double its generating capacity by 2050 just to keep up with soaring electricity demand.
The likely consequences couldn’t be clearer. As James Robb, president and CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, recently warned at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) annual reliability conference, the “rapid, often disorderly transformation of the generation resource base” has increased the potential for “more frequent and more serious long-duration reliability disruptions, including the possibility of national-consequence events.” Translation: The rush to eliminate fossil fuels from the electric power mix could potentially expose America to large-scale brownouts or blackouts.
We’ve been down this road before
President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, promulgated in 2015 under the authority of the Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended), sought to replace coal-fired electricity with renewables and more environmentally friendly natural gas. Last year, a six-to-three Supreme Court majority struck down that plan, ruling in West Virginia v. EPA that the plan overstepped the EPA’s regulatory authority.
Going further than Obama’s original Clean Power Plan, which at least acknowledged the importance of natural gas, the Biden administration’s response to such worries has been to double down on restrictions: proposing to eliminate the coal and gas-fired power plants that keep America’s machines running and our lights on.
This, Clair Moeller, president and COO of Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., told the FERC conference, “is bringing about a level of complexity and risk that is unprecedented.”
Given current technologies, the presumption that renewables can entirely replace coal’s baseload power is a fantasy. Wind and solar power are intermittent, whereas coal plants supply electricity around the clock, day in and day out. Moreover, power from coal-fired plants is dispatchable on demand because many utilities maintain large coal supplies on-site.
Green dreams and extravagant flops
The current debates about power generation focus on its environmental impacts rather than on the reliability of the grid that delivers power to homes and businesses. Coal and natural gas-fired generators not only are essential for supplying reliable baseload power but also as backup power sources when renewables are offline. The efficiency of solar panels degrades in extreme heat or cold. Windmill blades spin only when air is moving past them, and despite its greenness, nuclear power cannot be ramped up or down quickly in response to changes in electricity demand.
That’s why utilities and major grid operators are voicing concerns about grid reliability and the prospect of significant power shortages.
Green dreams aside, coal continues to generate a significant proportion of America’s electric power—about 19% overall. In some states the percentages are much higher: 74% in Missouri, 57% in Indiana, 70% in Kentucky, 41% in Colorado, 42% in Wisconsin, 61% in Utah, and 90% in West Virginia. All told, coal is the most important source of power generation in 18 states.
Another part of the story is that the U.S. currently lacks the infrastructure (transmission capacity) for carrying wind and solar energy from rural areas or offshore sites to population and manufacturing centers. Building out the needed infrastructure will require significant spending, which ultimately will rest on the shoulders of taxpayers or utility customers.
For years, NERC officials have been warning that the rapid loss of baseload power plants poses risks to America’s reliable electricity supply. The question now is how many shuttered coal plants will have to be brought back into operation—as Germany has been forced to do to keep people there from freezing in the dark during the winter—to reduce the gap between electricity demand and supply.
Just because a technology for generating power is technologically feasible doesn’t make it economically viable. Even a billion-dollar subsidy didn’t stop the giant Danish energy conglomerate, Ørsted, from walking away from a major wind farm project off New Jersey’s shores.
One of the lessons learned from that extravagant flop is that fossil fuels will be essential for the foreseeable future despite the administration’s unrealistic plans.
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14737&omhide=true&trk=title
***************************************************Australia’s regulatory environment ‘killing’ $91bn LNG industry, says Santos CEO Kevin Gallagher
Australia’s $91bn LNG export industry is being “killed” by regulatory ambiguity that has been used by opponents to hinder work on several gas developments and deterring much-needed inward investment, the chief executive of energy giant Santos has warned.
Environmental advocates have in recent months won a spate of legal victories to suspend work on new gas developments – a tactic that has badly affected Santos especially.
The company’s $5.3bn Barossa development has been hampered by two legal challenges that threaten the production timetables for a project that Santos has earmarked to fuel future growth.
Santos chief executive Kevin Gallagher said the legal challenges have been permitted by regulatory ambiguity around who a company must consult and consider when developing environment plans, and that threatens Australia’s broader LNG market.
“Nothing will drive investment away faster than this regulatory environment,” Mr Gallagher said. “The uncertainty is killing us.”
The warning to Australia’s $91bn LNG export industry is the latest in a string of alarms raised by Australia’s gas industry, which has claimed legal-induced delays to projects will threaten local and regional energy security and inflame diplomatic tensions.
Nations in Asia that are energy resource poor – notably Japan, Korea and China – are major buyers of Australian LNG shipments and have moved to lock in supplies with co-investments in new projects.
But Australia’s perceived willingness to allow legal blocks to new developments had potentially dire consequences for the region. Japan’s former ambassador, Shingo Yamagami, said Australia in March was “quiet quitting” LNG.
Anthony Albanese insists his government understands the vital role of gas to the country’s $2.5tr economy but critics said its lack of urgency in limiting legal avenues to slow LNG developments indicates its commitment to the fuel source.
The federal government insists it will move on the issue, and earlier this month The Australian exclusively earlier revealed that Labor was considering narrowing the criteria about who must be consulted prior to works beginning, but any regulatory changes will not occur before late 2024.
The changes, however, will come too late to ease the legal burden on the Barossa project.
Drilling work at the Santos gas project in the Timor Sea has been suspended since 2022 after the Federal Court found the oil giant failed to consult local Indigenous people adequately on the development.
Adding to its woes, a second Federal Court ruled Santos could not complete works on an undersea pipeline until January 2024 at the earliest, following claims by a Tiwi Islands traditional owner Simon Munkara that the 262KM pipeline would cause irreparable harm to traditional owners’ connection to sea.
To resume drilling, Santos must receive approval from regulator NOPSEMA for its amended environment plan. Mr Gallagher said that if the company can resume operations by the end of the year then it can meet its timetable, but conceded delays and potential cost blowouts could occur if the company continues to await regulatory approval.
Further issues could also occur should the Federal Court rule in favour of Mr Munkara and Santos is forced to submit a new environmental plan.
The previous version of the plan, developed after Santos was barred from drilling, took more than a year to establish.
Mr Gallagher said Santos will vigorously defend itself at a hearing scheduled next month, but warned the company has little wriggle room left.
“We had some contingency in the project, but that has largely all gone now,” Mr Gallagher told investors.
The regulatory environment, Mr Gallagher said, will not only define the Barossa project but potential other investments that Santos could make in Australia.
“It will be very difficult for us to take [final investment decision] on projects in Australia.”
Mr Gallagher said the regulatory environment in Alaska and Papua New Guinea, where it is developing two other LNG projects, is far more amenable to further investment.
Santos has the option to progress its Dorado project in WA, but Mr Gallagher said the company’s appetite for that investment would be limited without legislative changes.
Santos is under pressure to spur future growth, with a group of investors in October urging the company to split the business to create a single LNG entity to unlock share growth.
Mr Gallagher told investors he was frustrated with a stagnant share price, and the board would consider all proposals.
***************************************
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