France drops renewables targets, prioritises nuclear in new energy bill
Critics are deriding as a step backward a new French energy bill that favours the further development of nuclear power and avoids setting targets for solar and wind power and other renewables.
France, like other EU countries, aims to achieve carbon neutrality in 2050.
The proposed text, which is slated to go before the cabinet early next month and then be submitted to lawmakers, reaffirms France’s commitment to nuclear power to ensure “energy sovereignty”.
The country became a leader in nuclear power generation after the 1973 oil crisis, building over 50 such power plants that produced around two-thirds of the country’s electricity.
But those reactors are ageing and France has yet to bring the first of a new generation of nuclear power plants online.
The proposed text affirms “the sustainable choice of using nuclear energy as a competitive and carbon-free” source of electricity, and targets the construction of at least six but as many as 14 new reactors to pull off the transition to clean energy and meet climate change goals.
But the proposed text sets no such targets for building renewable capacity, in particular wind and solar, whereas previous energy laws did.
The Ministry of Energy Transition said “it is false to say that there is no renewables objective” as the government will set the targets itself later.
But that pledge does not satisfy activists and experts.
“It’s a terrible step back,” said Arnaud Gosse, a lawyer specialising in environmental law.
He recalled that in a 2019 law, parliament stated the desire to debate the share of different energy sources in overall production.
‘Tending’ instead of targets
“If you only quantify nuclear power, you do not know the share of non-renewable energies. As a result, nuclear gets prioritised and, depending on remaining coverage needs, non-renewables will be the subject of floating (future) decrees. It’s no longer a mix,” Gosse said.
To reach its stated ambition of carbon neutrality by 2050 France will have to massively ramp up the production and share of renewables, studies have repeatedly shown.
After years of prevarication, France last year voted through two bills designed to speed up progress on nuclear as well as renewables.
In November, the government put forward initial figures proposing a doubling to 18 GW of offshore wind power in 2035 as well as setting out the annual rate of deployment of solar panels needed to hit 75 GW in 2035, while also aiming for a doubling of onshore wind power capacity to 40 GW in 2035.
Jules Nyssen, president of France’s Renewable Energies Union, declared himself “stunned” after discovering that renewables targets did not appear in the draft.
The text promises to make efforts rather than set objectives and uses formulations such as “tending towards a reduction”.
For Anne Bringault, energy transition manager of the Climate Action Network, “this is an extremely significant step backwards, and totally inconsistent with European objectives.
“Even if the objectives are raised, we no longer have such a strong commitment to them,” she said.
The draft law also drops targets for reducing energy consumption via renovation of buildings.
************************************************
Policy Obstacles to Natural Gas Delivery Pose Winter Danger
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) just released its 2023-24 Winter Reliability Assessment and it has concerning implications for the winter ahead.
The report highlighted many points of grid stress, especially during colder months, pointing out that, “a large portion of the North American BPS is at risk of insufficient electricity supplies during peak winter conditions”. Another key element of the report is NERC’s discussion of the importance of reliable natural gas supply chains.
When it comes to grid reliability, policymakers are imposing self-inflicted wounds. The United States has the most natural gas production in the world. But, current policy choices limit our ability to rely on domestic gas. The Jones Act makes it difficult to move natural gas around the country by ship, and the failure to permit new pipeline capacity means that moving it over land is similarly difficult.
This need for reliable gas supplies is especially apparent in New England, which is hamstrung by the absence of good pipeline infrastructure and by restrictions imposed by the Jones Act. The Jones Act bars the transport of goods (including LNG) between two US ports by any ship that is not US-owned, -built, -crewed, and -registered. Unfortunately, there are no Jones Act compliant LNG tankers. As a result, these obstacles make the region predominantly reliant on imports
The NERC report highlights the limited natural gas infrastructure of New England, pointing out that, “potential constraints on the fuel delivery systems and the limited inventory of liquid fuels may exacerbate the risks for fuel-based generator outages and output reductions that result in energy emergencies during extreme weather.”
For grid operators, maintaining adequate gas supplies in cold weather is a balancing act. Some portion of the infrastructure will inevitably be taken out of service during a winter storm or an especially cold period. In these situations, even if the best infrastructure were in place, it’s still difficult to ensure reliable natural gas delivery from well-head to power plant because of the effects of the low temperatures. It’s difficult enough to maintain adequate supply during these periods, artificial constraints on energy supply only make matters worse.
One key example of the supply issues for New England is its reliance on fuel oil for power production on the coldest days. Although most natural gas plants are capable of burning oil, they don’t often do so because it is a comparatively expensive fuel and is also not efficient for electricity generation purposes. Therefore, power plants don’t generally burn oil for power unless the grid is in a pinch for supply. In New England, this option is regularly taken on the coldest days to make up for supply shortfalls (that are created in large part by the region’s lack of gas infrastructure).
In fact, there are even some days in New England where more electricity is generated from oil than from any other source. For example, from Christmas Eve to the Day after Christmas in 2022, freezing cold temperatures throughout the Northeast resulted in oil dominating the grid.
The use of oil for electricity, given all of its shortcomings for power plant operators, shows that something is seriously amiss on the New England grid.
Natural gas-fired generation has reliable output, but its fuel availability is not always similarly reliable, largely due to poor policy choices. Working to ameliorate these issues by permitting new pipeline capacity and reforming the Jones Act would go a long way toward firming up reliability and resilience for winter weather events. The situation in New England serves as an example of the need for pipeline infrastructure, and Jones Act reform.
https://catalyst.independent.org/2024/01/03/policy-obstacles-gas-delivery-winter/?omhide=true
********************************************************Appeals Court Hits ‘Off’ Switch on Biden’s Dishwasher, Washing Machine Regulations
A federal appeals court on Monday shot down the Biden administration’s efforts to repeal existing regulations on dishwashers and clothes washers.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a legal battle between 11 red states and the federal government over the Department of Energy’s efforts to impose energy- and water-efficiency standards for dishwashers and clothes washers that asserted it “is unclear that DOE has statutory authority to regulate water use in dishwashers and clothes washers,” according to the opinion’s text.
The Biden administration has attempted to push new standards for both appliances since coming into office in 2021 as part of a wider push to nudge the market toward more energy-efficient appliances, which in some cases are generally less effective than their other models, the court asserted in its opinion.
In March 2018, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) proposed standards for dishwashers that allow the sale of models that run faster cycles, using more energy and water than standard dishwashers in the process. The Trump administration then adopted similar guidelines as policy in 2020, but the Biden DOE repealed those standards in 2021 before advancing its own standards in May 2023 that crack down on the faster models advantaged by the Trump administration’s rules. (RELATED: Biden Admin Fires Next Salvo In War On Appliances)
“But even if DOE has water-usage authority over the relevant appliances, the Department (b) failed to adequately consider the negative consequences of the Repeal Rule, including the substitution effects of energy-and-water-wasting rewashing, prewashing, and handwashing,” the opinion states. “In promulgating the Repeal Rule, DOE stated that its energy conservation program must promote ‘water conservation’ and regulate ‘water use.’ … But it is unclear how or why DOE thinks it has any statutory authority to regulate ‘water use’ in dishwashers and washing machines.”
The court’s opinion also points out that there is “ample evidence” to support that DOE’s dishwasher standards actually accomplish the opposite of their intent, stating that “they make Americans use more energy and more water for the simple reason that purportedly ‘energy efficient’ appliances do not work.”
Beyond clothes washers and dishwashers, the Biden DOE has also sought to impose energy-efficiency regulations for items such as water heaters, furnaces, and pool pump motors. The administration has also spent hundreds of millions of dollars on helping state and municipal governments pursue building codes.
“In this opinion, the court has forced DOE to follow the law and even noted that one of the positions DOE took in this suit ‘borders on frivolous.’ This decision allows manufacturers to build better dishwashers, not be encumbered by counterproductive federal regulations,” Devin Watkins, an attorney for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said of the opinion.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/01/09/federal-court-throws-wrench-biden-admins-war-appliances/
***************************************************Australia: Logging operations to continue between NSW and Queensland after judge rejects environmentalists' court bid
Environmentalists have lost a legal challenge to a forestry agreement between the NSW and Commonwealth governments, meaning logging operations can continue within a vast coastal area between Sydney and the Queensland border.
The North East Regional Forestry Agreement was originally signed in 2000 and renewed in 2018.
The North East Forest Alliance (NEFA) asked the Federal Court to declare that the renewed agreement did not meet the definition of such agreements under relevant laws.
On behalf of the alliance, the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) argued the Commonwealth was required to assess environmental values and principles of ecologically sustainable management when it was renewed, but failed to do so.
These included impacts on endangered species, climate change and old growth forests.
Justice Melissa Perry today rejected that argument and ruled the requirement to assess environmental values applied only when the intergovernmental agreement began, not when it was extended.
Summarising her decision, the judge said the effect of a regional forest agreement was not to leave a "regulatory void" with respect to the regions covered by the agreement.
Rather, it provided an "alternative mechanism" by which the objectives of biodiversity laws could be achieved through intergovernmental agreement.
"The question of whether or not to enter into or vary an intergovernmental agreement of this nature is essentially a political one," Justice Perry said.
"The merits of which are matters for the government parties and not the courts to determine."
The evidence considered by the court
A deed extending the agreement was executed under former prime minister Scott Morrison and former premier Gladys Berejiklian.
As part of the extension, there was an assessment report which relied on published data and formal five-yearly reviews of regional forestry agreements.
But the EDO argued there was no "reasonably contemporaneous" assessment of the projected impacts of climate change on forests.
In her full written judgement, Justice Perry said there was no expert evidence presented to court allowing it to assess whether the information relied on to extend the agreement was out of date.
She also noted all parties agreed the Commonwealth was aware of and had published material recognising Australia's weather and climate were changing.
In relation to endangered species, the EDO argued material relied on at the time of renewal was also not reasonably contemporaneous.
But Justice Perry similarly highlighted a lack of expert evidence that would allow the court to assess that claim, including whether historical information was no longer relevant or whether more recent data on endangered species existed.
'People will take to the front lines'
Greens MP and former Environmental Defenders Office lawyer Sue Higginson said it was a disappointing outcome, although it was always a "very ambitious case" by NEFA.
She said the final words from Justice Perry in the court this morning that the matter was in the hands of politicians sent a "very strong message".
"I do suspect people will take to the front lines again, as they've been doing," Ms Higginson said.
"All eggs will be placed in the basket of pressuring those that have the power to change the direction forest management is taking, and that is squarely on our politicians right now."
North Coast Environment Council volunteer Ashley Love said an end to that type of logging is especially important as work progresses on the Great Koala National Park.
The park will connect 300,000 hectares of state forests and existing national parks between Coffs Harbour and Kempsey on the mid-north coast.
Forestry industry relieved
The case was the first challenge to a regional forestry agreement in NSW.
Prior to the decision, NSW Nationals leader Dugald Saunders raised concerns that if the EDO won, "serious ramifications" would follow, including an "almost immediate shutdown" of the forestry industry.
More than 5,000 workers could have been impacted, Mr Dugald said.
He said NSW had "some of the strictest regulations" in the world when it came to forestry operations.
Andrew Hurford said the forestry industry felt relieved by the court outcome on Wednesday.(ABC North Coast: Leah White)
President of Timber New South Wales Andrew Hurford said the industry was buoyed by the court's ruling today.
Mr Hurford said the Regional Forestry Agreement process was designed to managed the resource comprehensively, and that 87 per cent of forest in the region were reserved from harvesting.
"We just need a bit of balance here," he said.
"We manage 12 per cent of the public estate in a sustainable fashion, very careful of the environment and very careful to ensure that we have timber availability into the future."
'It's not the same forest now as it was then'
North East Forest Alliance president Dailan Pugh disagreed with the reliance on an assessment done three years prior to the original agreement.
"It's extremely disappointing that the federal and state governments can do these regional forest agreements based on an assessment done in 1997, and to continually renew them," he said.
He said the assessment was based on "reasonable information available at the time", but argued that more information was now available.
"We know that climate change ... is having a major impact on our threatened species," he said.
"It's not the same forest now as it was then, and our species have continued to decline despite the regional forest agreement.
"The judge has said it's not a legal issue, it's a political decision, so it's up to the politicians to decide whether that is an acceptable approach."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-10/nsw-forestry-court-decision-logging-nefa/103300986
***************************************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