Zero-emission vehicles, their batteries & subsidies/rebates for them.- No politics regarding the subsidies!

[beefkabob]

Germany's energy decisions were mainly the product of corrupt politics. Below, I gifted the article that explains how Russians paid Gerhard Schröder millions to get Germany hooked on Russian energy.

The Former Chancellor Who Became Putin’s Man in Germany (Published 2022)

Gerhard Schröder, who is paid almost $1 million a year by Russian-controlled energy companies, has become a pariah. But he is also a symbol of Germany’s Russia policy.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Ron Texas]

@Blumlein 88 I was able to read it yesterday, but not anymore. One of their points was the world should be relying more on nuclear and natural gas to replace coal rather than a dogmatic rush to wind and solar. They said more reductions in carbon emissions have been achieved with natural gas than by any other means. I have read an analysis of using wind and solar with battery backup to supply a grid with no other sources. It was prepared by utility analysts. It's so expensive that it isn't worth even trying. In the US the true cost of wind and solar are masked by subsidies. In Germany it is not and their residential electricity rates are around 38 cents per KW/hr, among the highest in the world. In Texas we pay a 5.5 cent per KWhr grid charge to subsidize transmission lines from the wind farms in West Texas to other parts of the state. These do not reach Houston but we pay for it anyway. So, on top of getting 30% back on construction, and a sizable payment for each KW hr generated the wind producers get their transmission lines for free. They are asking for another $2 billion investment. One of the causes of the 2021 blackout was years of wind subsidies made building and maintaining the natural gas infrastructure uneconomic. When the windmills froze up, the gas side wasn't ready so everything quit at once. There were other problems. A recent lawsuit claims gas producers colluded to raise prices. There have been a lot of reforms since 2021. The system held up during the most recent extreme cold weather last December.

 

[RayDunzl]

I think WSJ lets you have a few free articles and then it is a paywall.

Try www.archive.is

Go to a paywalled site, get the link of the page you want.

Paste link into the lower area.

 

[pseudoid]

I attempted to turn the (#$%^) Journal article into a *pdf for continuity.
Hope it works!

 

[beefkabob]

As for energy policy in California, Pete Wilson deregulated California power in 1996, which led to decades of problems that we're literally still paying for. Having PGE as a for-profit company meant corrupt executives bleeding off profits as they let California infrastructure crumble. The cause of California's problems are de-regulation and the free market. The solutions are regulation and public takeover.

I will say that in the past two years, PGE has stepped up their game, but the recent wind storms causing a massive number of outages show how far behind the game they are. They are literally 25 years behind, thanks to Pete Wilson.

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

As for energy policy in California, Pete Wilson deregulated California power in 1996, which led to decades of problems that we're literally still paying for. Having PGE as a for-profit company meant corrupt executives bleeding off profits as they let California infrastructure crumble. The cause of California's problems are de-regulation and the free market. The solutions are regulation and public takeover.

I will say that in the past two years, PGE has stepped up their game, but the recent wind storms causing a massive number of outages show how far behind the game they are. They are literally 25 years behind, thanks to Pete Wilson.

Started work and trained with MANWEB, a nationalised electrical supply company. We were proud of the service we provided, the reason it was denationalised was our overheads were too high. Our district engineer had us in for a meeting and we were astonished how many fleas were on the dogs back. He read out how much was spent on technical personnel and materials. He then read out our overhead costs and they were 1.2 times the cost of the technical provision, he said he was due to public sector accountability.
Did privatisation work in the UK? I don’t believe it did! Competition only works when there is competition! There is only one transmission and distribution system and the water industry only has one pipe connecting us to the water supply. Open ended utilities aren’t suitable for privatisation.

 

[ctrl]

In Germany it is not and their residential electricity rates are around 38 cents per KW/hr, among the highest in the world. In Texas we pay a 5.5 cent per KWhr grid charge to subsidize transmission lines from the wind farms in West Texas to other parts of the state.

In Germany, electricity prices are very high because of taxes, high electricity grid charges (these are quasi monopolies) and because of the special way in which electricity prices are set on the electricity exchange where the "merit order principle" applies (where the power plant with the highest electricity costs determines the electricity price for all - first the electricity demand is served with the cheapest power plants [solar, wind, nuclear], then with the next most expensive ones, until the electricity demand is covered and the electricity price from the most expensive power plant [these days mostly by natural gas power plants] then applies as the electricity exchange price for all).

If the total annual share of renewable energy in Germany were not 50%, the price of electricity would be even higher.

Of course, it is better to use natural gas instead of coal for electricity production. But what is not included in the electricity prices from gas-fired (or coal-fired) power plants is the Social Cost (SC) of Greenhouse Gases.

An idea about the magnitude of this is provided by EPA. A gas-fired power plant in the USA has an average emission of 0.5 metric tons of CO2 per MWh. One metric ton of CO2 causes SC of $120-340 (three scenarios in the EPA report), which is about 6-17 cents per kWh additional cost.

Those who generate electricity from gas-fired (or coal-fired) power plants are living at the expense of others - so we have to get away from that.

 

[Blumlein 88]

In Germany, electricity prices are very high because of taxes, high electricity grid charges (these are quasi monopolies) and because of the special way in which electricity prices are set on the electricity exchange where the "merit order principle" applies (where the power plant with the highest electricity costs determines the electricity price for all - first the electricity demand is served with the cheapest power plants [solar, wind, nuclear], then with the next most expensive ones, until the electricity demand is covered and the electricity price from the most expensive power plant [these days mostly by natural gas power plants] then applies as the electricity exchange price for all).

If the total annual share of renewable energy in Germany were not 50%, the price of electricity would be even higher.

Of course, it is better to use natural gas instead of coal for electricity production. But what is not included in the electricity prices from gas-fired (or coal-fired) power plants is the Social Cost (SC) of Greenhouse Gases.

An idea about the magnitude of this is provided by EPA. A gas-fired power plant in the USA has an average emission of 0.5 metric tons of CO2 per MWh. One metric ton of CO2 causes SC of $120-340 (three scenarios in the EPA report), which is about 6-17 cents per kWh additional cost.

Those who generate electricity from gas-fired (or coal-fired) power plants are living at the expense of others - so we have to get away from that.

You need to talk to India and China then. Everyone else is merely fleas on their back so to speak. Germany, and the USA could both have zero carbon emissions, and it will hardly make a difference.

 

[Ron Texas]

@ctrl are the gas plants referenced open cycle boilers which are coal plants converted to gas, or state of the art combined cycle plants which are far more efficient, or an average? The SC of $120 to $340 is way high. The Obama administration estimate was $45, which would be $55 now with inflation. These sorts of SC estimates are not reliable because regulators like the EPA want them as high as possible so they can justify draconian measures. Most recently there are claims of lung disease which are dubious at best. The EPA will find one paper which fits their goal and ignore many which do not.

Selling electricity at the highest cost is done in Texas too. However we pay about 11 cents for the power and another 5.5 cents for the grid. Wind and solar get dispatched first. The subsidies are so large that at times wind producers will pay utilities to take their power and still make a profit. These subsidies can only go on for so long. I view it as a form of fiscal irresponsibility.

 

[Ron Texas]

You need to talk to India and China then. Everyone else is merely fleas on their back so to speak. Germany, and the USA could both have zero carbon emissions, and it will hardly make a difference.

This is exactly why decarbonization will fail no matter how much we spend on it. It's also why we should concentrate on gas and nuclear which are affordable low carbon sources and forget the religious quest for net zero. Further, the money should be spent on resilience. That means flood control, draught resistant crops, and plans to relocate places like the Maldives. The emphasis on net zero is a political decision assuming the science is correct. Instead of making Elon Musk ever richer with EV subsidies for cars he can't build fast enough, some of that money should be spent flood proofing Miami.

 

[ctrl]

I attempted to turn the (#$%^) Journal article into a *pdf for continuity.
Hope it works!

Thanks for your efforts.

Now we also have the "evidence" for the claim that @Ron Texas cited: "Keep in mind that the IPCC report is a political document. It is intended to scare the public and motivate politicians to reduce CO2 emissions no matter the cost, which by the way the report summary never mentions."

Is it evidence of inaccuracies or even fabricated studies in the IPCC reports? No it is a claim by a politician who also provides no evidence for his claim. But it's used as evidence for the statement made

 

[pseudoid]

Now we also have the "evidence" for the claim that @Ron Texas cited:

@Ron Texas for US Energy Czar!

 

[ctrl]

@ctrl are the gas plants referenced open cycle boilers which are coal plants converted to gas, or state of the art combined cycle plants which are far more efficient, or an average? The SC of $120 to $340 is way high. The Obama administration estimate was $45, which would be $55 now with inflation.

These were the most recent numbers I could find, right at the beginning it says:

This report presents new estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO 2 ), social cost of methane (SC-CH 4 ),
and social cost of nitrous oxide (SC-N 2 O), collectively referred to as the “social cost of greenhouse gases”
(SC-GHG). These estimates reflect recent advances in the scientific literature on climate change and its
economic impacts and incorporate recommendations made by the National Academies of Science,
Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies 2017).

It's on the average:

Source

You need to talk to India and China then. Everyone else is merely fleas on their back so to speak. Germany, and the USA could both have zero carbon emissions, and it will hardly make a difference.

Since a considerable part of the emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries to millennia, the total emission of CO2 since the beginning of industrialization is crucial.

If we take the emissions of the USA, UK and EU together, the result is roughly a little less than 800 billion tons of cumulative CO2 emission with currently 11% of the world population. China and India emitted less than 300 billion tons of cumulative CO2 emission with currently 35% of the world population.
China and India can still emit a lot of CO2 until they reach the per capita level of the West - probably these countries will not even come close to this level.

The U.S. and Germany have spent decades increasing their wealth at the expense of the poorest countries.
The richest countries have the money for an immediate transition to renewable energy to buy more time for the poorer countries (of course this will not happen).

Source

 

[Blumlein 88]

These were the most recent numbers I could find, right at the beginning it says:






Since a considerable part of the emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries to millennia, the total emission of CO2 since the beginning of industrialization is crucial.

If we take the emissions of the USA, UK and EU together, the result is roughly a little less than 800 billion tons of cumulative CO2 emission with currently 11% of the world population. China and India emitted less than 300 billion tons of cumulative CO2 emission with currently 35% of the world population.
China and India can still emit a lot of CO2 until they reach the per capita level of the West - probably these countries will not even come close to this level.

The U.S. and Germany have spent decades increasing their wealth at the expense of the poorest countries.
The richest countries have the money for an immediate transition to renewable energy to buy more time for the poorer countries (of course this will not happen).

Source

While true it is meaningless. We cannot put the genie back into the bottle. Currently China and India both create the overwhelming majority of emissions. Both are building additional coal powered plants. The USA is not and Germany is not. In any case if you don't get control of the CO2 in China and India (which may ultimately emit more than China) the rest is not enough to matter. Spending money to reduce emissions in a country that isn't a majority player now because they were in the past does little for CO2 in the air now or the future. I'm not saying we should just spew it out for this reason. The idea it will save the world is unrealistic.

 

[Ron Texas]

Cumulative carbon emissions are nonsense. It's just a way to justify emissions by more recently developed countries while calling for strict curbs on the US. It has the smell of using climate change to redistribute income across national borders

The EPA statistics on carbon from natural gas is a cumulative total which means it does not break out the newest combined cycle plants from converted coal plants. Converted coal plants should be viewed in terns of reduction achieved.

The entire thing is crazy because we are risking wrecking the economy today for something that may or may not happen in 75 years. It will cost a lot less to move the population of the Maldives and a few other places to high ground.

Besides, decarbonization is bound to fail. It's just a political ploy to create a state of fear and the pols have been very successful at it. All it will take is a different president in the US and the brakes will get slammed on these expensive policies.

 

[ctrl]

While true it is meaningless. We cannot put the genie back into the bottle.

Oh, that's an interesting approach. If someone in the US steals money for decades and then gets caught today, the judge will say that the past is meaningless and convict just for the one day he got caught?

Currently China and India both create the overwhelming majority of emissions. Both are building additional coal powered plants.

Even if you only look at the most recent emissions, how can one convince countries like China, India or others to massively reduce their emissions if the richest countries on earth with extremely high per capita emissions do not do so? This is the Western hypocrisy that the rest of the world is fed up with.

 

[pseudoid]

The naive/ignorant me just dialed up a search for "per capita energy consumption by country" to see if I can get something equivalent to mpg for humans.
I should not have:

Top 10 Biggest Energy-Consuming Countries - Total (billion kWh 2020)*

1. China — 145.46
2. United States — 87.79
3. India — 31.98
4. Russia — 28.31
5. Japan — 17.03
6. Canada — 13.63
7. Germany — 12.11
8. Iran — 12.03
9. Brazil — 12.01
10. South Korea — 11.79

In terms of overall energy consumption, the United States and China dwarf all other countries, with China using the most electricity and the U.S. consuming the most oil.
From <https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/energy-consumption-by-country>

What little I saw gave me an overwhelming sense of guilt. I stopped searching!

 

[beefkabob]

Once the US and Europe get emissions down, it will be easy to turn to China and India and say, "Well, we're going to charge you for carbon capture then."

 

[Blumlein 88]

Oh, that's an interesting approach. If someone in the US steals money for decades and then gets caught today, the judge will say that the past is meaningless and convict just for the one day he got caught?




Even if you only look at the most recent emissions, how can one convince countries like China, India or others to massively reduce their emissions if the richest countries on earth with extremely high per capita emissions do not do so? This is the Western hypocrisy that the rest of the world is fed up with.

View attachment 273243

The USA currently is responsible for about 1/8th of the total. Per capita is in fact meaningless as regards any climate effects. Climate doesn't care who does the emissions now or per capita only total emissions matter. You cannot undo the past. This is incredibly ridiculous. I feel zero guilt. I was not alive or in a position for years prior to my birth and any guilt I do or don't feel is meaningless to the physical world. Hypocrisy doesn't enter into it. I would not even ask other countries to change for one, they are not going to listen, they will do what is in their best interests. So should we. Our guilt is having zero effect on China or India building new coal plants which they are doing at a rate no one including the USA has ever done before. Qatar has the highest per capita, but the size of the population means it is a meager contributor. Constructing such things to spread guilt is perhaps satisfying to some, but not at all constructive to change something.

By all means be efficient, be clean, improve, but don't destroy our energy output with the idea we have some collective sin to atone for. Whether you like it or not China is the big contributor and as I've said if the USA reached zero emissions it won't have saved anything if China doesn't do the same.

Oh, that's an interesting approach. If someone in the US steals money for decades and then gets caught today, the judge will say that the past is meaningless and convict just for the one day he got caught?

No what you have in mind is more akin to your great-great-great grandfather robbed a bank, and so they'll make you serve the sentence for it. Such thinking is unfortunately popular among some today. It is one of the worst ideas ever.

 

[pseudoid]

Once the US and Europe get emissions down, it will be easy to turn to China and India and say, "Well, we're going to charge you for carbon capture then."

I heard some rumblings from the Third World Countries that they may be getting ready to submit a compensation package demand for not even being on the "shame-on-you" list.