Mexican President Stands Firm on Renewable Energy Ban: “One of the typical scams of the neoliberals”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Richard, NoTricksZone – according to  Deutsche Welle, the Mexican President is standing firm on his prohibition of all new grid connections to renewable energy plants, a policy shift which was originally reported by WUWT at the start of May.

Mexico stops the energy transition

5/22/2020

At the height of the pandemic, Mexico’s government slows down renewable energies and relies on heavy oil power plants. The U-turn startles environmentalists and investors – and also affects German companies.

At the end of March, when Mexico was already in quarantine, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador traveled to Oaxaca. He had his caravan stop in front of bare hills, on the top of which were white  turbines from a wind turbine . “These wind turbines mess up the landscape,” he said into the camera. “They produce little energy and are owned by private companies that are subsidized for it. One of the typical scams of the neoliberals.” This was neither populist tapping nor ignorance, but part of a plan that has now been unveiled – and is angry with investors and environmentalists alike.

The now published guidelines of the Ministry of Energy prohibit new connections to plants that generate renewable energies due to alleged “instability in the network”. It is the third regulatory intervention in the electricity market where private providers have been competing with the state-owned company CFE since the 2013 energy reform. At that time, the expansion of renewable energies was outsourced to private providers. The regulatory authority CENACE set the technical framework and was obliged to give preference to the most efficient suppliers when it came to the feed-in. This secured the acceptance for the renewables.

Read more (German): https://www.dw.com/de/mexiko-stoppt-die-energiewende/a-53510746
Translated using a Chrome Browser / Google Translate

I don’t understand why investors are so upset about not being allowed to connect to the grid, about being cut off from government subsidies. Surely they can just use their free energy renewables to produce climate friendly hydrogen by electrolysing seawater, and ship hydrogen straight to consumers, without having to rely on Mexico’s shaky grid infrastructure. Australia’s chief scientist assures us the renewable hydrogen economy is a huge opportunity. Just over the border in California, advocates assure us there is a hydrogen boom.

WTOP accuses the Mexican President of using Coronavirus as an excuse to prop up State owned big oil;

Mexico cites virus in slapping down renewable energy

The Associated Press 
May 17, 2020, 4:47 PM

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The Mexican government has cited the coronavirus pandemic as a justification for new rules that will reduce the role of renewable energies like solar and wind power, granting a reprieve to the government’s own ageing, fossil-fuel power plants. 

The decree over the weekend has sparked outrage among Mexican and foreign investors who had been allowed to sell their power into the government-operated grid. Industry associations said it will affect 28 solar and wind projects that were ready to go online, and 16 more under construction, with a total of $6.4 billion in investments, much of it from foreign firms.

“This represents a frontal attack on legal security for investments in Mexico, and causes serious consequences for the country, including the loss of jobs and investor confidence,” Mexico’s Business Coordinating Council wrote Sunday. The council cited $30 billion in affected investments, noting “this does not just discriminate against renewable energy, it also allows authorities to artificially inflate the price of electricity in the country and arbitrarily displace any private sector power generation project.”

It is not the first such tussle for President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a champion of the state-owned oil industry who dislikes renewables and private-sector energy projects. Since taking office in December 2018, he has canceled planned bidding on private oil exploration and forced private firms to renegotiate gas pipeline contracts.

Read more: https://wtop.com/latin-america/2020/05/mexico-cites-virus-in-slapping-down-renewable-energy/

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is an interesting guy. He has extended free college and government spending, but cut pay for politicians. In 2004 he hired Trump Attorney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to help solve Mexico City’s crime problem. A big statist but a pragmatist. Maybe kind of an old style socialist, like someone from the time before Anglosphere socialists stopped caring about ordinary people and embraced the green agenda.

Advertisements

104 thoughts on “Mexican President Stands Firm on Renewable Energy Ban: “One of the typical scams of the neoliberals”

  1. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador looks like an honest man, which makes him stand out from other poilticians. He has obviously done the sums on ‘renewables’ and has noticed that the Hindenburg hydrogen experiment showed on 6 May 1937 that the renewable hydrogen economy is a not such a huge opportunity but rather a very bad idea.

    • You know of course that town gas, produced by destructive distillation, is around 50% by volume pure hydrogen ? The rest was methane and carbonmonoxide, typically.

      • The CO was deadlier than the H2. Still, a hydrogen boom isn’t necessarily desirable.

      • There is a really simple solution to the entire debacle.
        For a renewable producer to be able to shunt power into the national grid (in an effort to maintain Grid Stability due to intermittent ideal weather) the supplier Must Guarantee a predetermined quantity of MWH of generation daily. That is what they get paid for.
        How much they contract to produce is between them and the State they sell to.
        They must supply that much electricity daily even if that requires THEM to install:
        Battery Backup
        Small scale Gas Generation
        Small scale Pumped Storage
        In an effort to backup and deliver on their promised production quota

        If the Wind Farm has a nameplate of 540MW, and they contract for 540MW production, it is their responsibility to ensure they produce 540MW 24/7/365.
        Put the onus on the generator to ensure grid stability by guaranteeing an uninterrupted production quantity.

        • Guaranteed MW with FCAS to boot as that would produce a level playing field and levelled the dumpers certainly would be.

        • Brilliant, Bryan! I can’t see a flaw in that at all. Could we add that they don’t get paid anything until the contracted energy rate has been reached?–although I’m sure that’s what you are thinking.

          That said, it will be funny in the extreme to see Mexicans trying to get back south through the Trump Wall because their government back home made the sensible decisions–with Americans looking for prosperity pushing on the steel beside them.

          • Here’s a Trump supporter who wants you to compete as effectively possible. We can all win, and if Mexico is better, I’ll go there because you have some beautiful places and beautiful weather. You don’t need the pull of the US welfare state dragging foreigners through your country either, and you should have integrity on your own southern border.

        • Bryan,

          there is more to grid stability than providing x amount of power as per contract. Large thermal plants have heavy rotating parts (U.K. they spin at 3000 rpm generally) this inertia helps smooth out current dips and surges, much like the flywheel in a car engine. Wind and solar have no inertia so too much wind genertaion relative to thermal (or hydr) make sthe grid less stable. Thi sphenomenon is what we have now in the U.K. due to lockdown, Grid trips are more likely with this scenario.

          • Bryan is still absolutely correct, just need to add that piece onto it. Renewables should be responsible for their own backup generation as well as off setting the instability they cause in the grid. If they were required to supply those two things, we’d quickly see the sky high cost of “free” wind and solar energy.

          • Wind and solar have no inertia

            Sorry Iain, you are talking rubbish. Are seriously saying 50m – 80m long blades and the generators themselves have “no inertial” ? Plus there are thousands of them at many wind farms. I’d like to see actual numbers on this.

            It takes thousands of wind turbines to produce the same as one thermal plant generator. How does the “spinning inertia” of those thousands turbines compare ? It’s not zero.

            Is it possible to add some flywheel inertia to each turbine to provide this ?

            I would not have thought that the added structural load of a fixed mass would be a problem in view of the massive sideload these towers have to support. It would affect bearing load though.

          • Greg,
            “Are seriously saying 50m – 80m long blades and the generators themselves have “no inertial” ?”
            It isn’t synchronous inertia. They aren’t spinning at 50 Hz.

            But a spinning 50Hz flywheel is just one way of stabilising frequency. It is easily done synthetically, provided that can be backed with sufficient power. In South Australia and beyond, this role is now performed by the Hornsdale battery, which has far more reserve energy than a flywheel. It does the job better and cheaper.

          • Greg
            May 24, 2020 at 12:23 am

            Greg,
            It is simpler than the way you looking at from.

            It is very simply shown from experience and reality (numbers and engineering also) that wind and solar are completely
            unstable and incompatible for grid operations, not just less stable.

            Let me use these three terms;

            a) dumb grids.
            b) smart grids.
            c) semi smart grids.

            For all grids, in all categories given, as for example above, there is a grid operational feature,
            an unavoidable “vital” essential operational given.

            It is the localization of faults in parts of the grid, when such occasions arise.
            Meaning “automatic” repeated connection to the faulty part(s) of the grid.

            With “dumb” grids, that either is automatic, like “machinery” + plus human operation,
            or semi automatic, like human operation plus “machinery”.

            With smart grids it is a fully computerized automatic operation, very very fast and very very efficient.

            With semi smart grids is a mix of both, where a part of a grid is smart, and part(s) of the grid are “dumb”, a mix of both in a given grid.

            But in all this is clearly shown that the wind and solar have a very very small range of withstanding, or properly operating under such a condition.

            There is no conceptual proposition of any kind of grid operation without the ARC,
            (Automatic Repeated Connection), especially for Smart and “semi smart” grids.

            Wind and solar totally incompatible with such as a grid essential operation,
            to a point that at a certain capacity penetration,
            failure of wind and solar to withstand will trigger a grid cascading blackout, either partial or total.
            (lots of damages when such happens)

            There is no patching or adjusting of such handicap of wind and solar.
            Which ever way looked at or addressed, in the end always only losses to be expected.

            A permanent penetration of wind and solar at ~5% is quite extravagant, but sustainable in case of smart grids, like a very expensive but still affordable “jewellery” for the sake of extravagant fashionable waste.

            A smart grid ending up to dumb operation modus, is not a condition to cheer
            about.
            Very very dangerous for populations living in dense cities.
            A partial or total blackout in densely populated modern environments is quite dangerous, even more more so when triggered and accommodated from the unstable and incompatible power sources connected to it.
            Very very costly also.

            cheers

          • Nick is partly right it’s synthetically cheaper and easier to provide inertia but there is a massive proviso that you have something stable to synchronize the inertia against. There is no clock or timing pulse on the power system to fix timings against the synchronization is against the very signal you are trying to add to in generation.

            That means things like solar panel inverters and even the largest battery backup systems require the grid to be running to be able to get synchronization come online and then add to generating capacity. If you knocked out a large enough section of grid due to some failure you would require to bring the grid back up bit by bit because the solar panel inverters and battery backup systems won’t start generating until they already have stable power and can synchronize to it.

        • “Put the onus on the generator, ensure they produce 540MW 24/7/365.” right on – call it baseload renewable BR Or, Renewable Baseload RB.

    • Obredo is a unionist and CFE has powerful unions. This is not about renewables. It’s about unions.

      • And a Socialist Gov’t shutting out independent electricity producers of any type. If they lower the price of electricity to account for the IPP replacement, then at least good for the industry/consumer. But it will be interesting to see if electricity prices are much different than other jurisdictions as a result of this. It is a socialist Gov’t and this revenue will be hard to give up. Especially now.

      • Whatever it takes. Just make the producers guarantee steady power delivery, independent of wind or sun. Then we’ll see there’s a good reason besides unionism. But maybe not, so try it and see.

      • It’s not about unions.

        It’s about “Wind power – it doesn’t just blow, it sucks!”

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/04/brief-details-how-the-green-new-deal-would-be-an-environmental-disaster/#comment-2909362

        The four most beautiful words in our common language: “I told you so.”
        – Gore Vidal, October 3, 1925 – July 31, 2012

        We published in 2002:

        “THE ULTIMATE AGENDA OF PRO-KYOTO ADVOCATES IS TO ELIMINATE FOSSIL FUELS, BUT THIS WOULD RESULT IN A CATASTROPHIC SHORTFALL IN GLOBAL ENERGY SUPPLY – THE WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT ENERGY SOLUTIONS PROPOSED BY KYOTO ADVOCATES SIMPLY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS.”

        Source:
        DEBATE ON THE KYOTO ACCORD
        The PEGG, November 2002, Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta,
        by Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and Allan MacRae
        reprinted in edited form at their request by several professional journals, the Globe and Mail and La Presse.
        http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf

        Wind and solar power do NOT contribute significant useful (dispatchable) electric power to the grid. This is a simple, proved hypothesis, yet many trillions of dollars have been wasted globally on this intermittent green energy nonsense.

        So next time, good people, please listen to your Uncle Allan, who cares for your well-being, and does not want you to waste trillions on foolish green energy schemes/scams – just to drive up energy costs, reduce grid reliability, and needlessly increase Winter Deaths.

        To try to convey this message to the lower-end of the intellectual spectrum, especially our green politicians, I simplified the message about a decade ago, as follows:

        “WIND POWER – IT DOESN’T JUST BLOW – IT SUCKS!”

        “SOLAR POWER – STICK IT WHERE THE SUN DON’T SHINE!”

        Bundle up, good people – it’s getting colder out there.

      • Thomas,
        No offense intended but I often find that the less someone knows about a subject, the more certain they are. I did a little checking. It seems Pemex is under fire from all quarters with unions being just one. There’s nothing to indicate that their union workers are the sole reason for Obrador’s actions. In fact, he seems to be walking a tightrope trying to clean up the corporate side of Pemex and the union side.
        Pemex is owned by the State.

        Pemex and the Mexican Economy
        by Deborah Watkins of LM Capital Group, 3/8/19
        https://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/2019/03/08/pemex-and-the-mexican-economy

        …Until 2014, oil exports were Mexico’s primary source of foreign exchange. Although it has dropped to second place behind remittances, [from Mexicans in the US] it is still one of the primary contributors of U.S. dollars to the Mexican economy. In 2017 remittances, exports of petroleum and tourism contributed $28.8 billion, $21.9 billion and $21.3 billion USD respectively to the Mexican economy.[13,20,21] Manufacturing would dwarf these numbers; however, it is generally considered too broad of an industry to be counted as a single source of foreign exchange.

        So, for the all important foreign dollars, Pemex is of vital importance to the Mexican economy.
        As for their unions, they are another source of problems in and of themselves with corruption, as in the corporate side, leading.

        Mexican president confirms Pemex union boss under investigation
        https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-union-idUSKBN1WU2GQ

        MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – The veteran leader of Mexico’s powerful oil workers’ union faces formal accusations of wrongdoing, President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said on Tuesday, slowly turning up pressure on the labor boss to step aside.

        Union members make up the vast majority of employees at national oil company Pemex, a state-run company Lopez Obrador has pledged to strengthen while rooting out corruption.
        …Media reports of the lavish lifestyle of Romero Deschamps [LEADER of the PEMEX oil workers union] and his family, which included trips on private jets and the purchase of luxury sports cars, despite his modest official salary, have for years stoked accusations of corruption.

        Pemex will fail if AMLO does not overthrow the corrupt structure of Deschamps
        December 29, 2018
        https://themazatlanpost.com/2018/12/29/pemex-will-fail-if-amlo-does-not-overthrow-the-corrupt-structure-of-deschamps/

        Their manufacturing is a major components of their GDP. High priced “green” electricity will harm this sector and harm exports of their manufactured good.

        Mexico has many very real problems and many demands on its Governments revenues. They can hardly afford high dollar, feel-good wind and solar which will, also, drive up energy prices as it has
        everywhere its been put in large scale use as Aus., UK. and Germany, for instance. It’s a rich nation’s toy and is even worsening poverty in rich nations.

        The bottom line is that Mexico simply cannot afford the luxury of expensive “green”, unreliable electricity and Obrador is smart enough to know this and brave enough to say it out loud. He, like a number of other leaders, have chosen the people of their nations over being in the Cool Rick Kids Green Club.

    • nicolas,
      Obrador is a raving Chavez style populist maniac. ” a champion of the state-owned oil industry”? That’s absolutely ridiculous. He is trying to roll back the constitutional changes made by his predecessors that allowed foreign oil companies to operate in Mexico for the first time since the 100% state owned company was created in 1938. He has cut PEMEX’s exploration and development budgets to almost nothing. He is one of those brilliant politicians that think if you have substantial oil reserves (and Mexico does) that you simply have to turn on a tap, and out it will come. He wants to build refineries, but because no one is drilling (including PEMEX) they would have to IMPORT crude to refine! PEMEX cannot pay it’s service contractors, and the industry that was once at least 20% of the country’s GDP is disintegrating. This a repeat of the lunacy perpetrated by Chavez in Venezuela with the “purging” of the apolitical PDVSA. I worked in Mexico as country manager for a large oilfield services company from 1999 – 2010. At that time, upper and middle class Mexicans were horrified at his rising popularity among the uneducated low income population (an important demographic in Mexico I met the man in 2010, when he was still a member of the PRD. His adoring followers were already increasing, and becoming more vocal and occasionally violent.
      The following is taken from good old Wiki, but is accurate.

      “López Obrador was a candidate for the third time in the 2018 presidential election, representing Juntos Haremos Historia, a coalition of the left-wing Labor Party, right-wing Social Encounter Party, and MORENA. This time he won in a landslide victory, taking 53% of the vote. His policy proposals include increases in financial aid for 11 million students, doubling the pension for the elderly, doubling the minimum wage, and granting amnesty to drug criminals,[5] construction of 100 universities and universal access to public colleges,[6] ending the war on drugs, cancellation of the Mexico City New International Airport,[7][8] a referendum on past energy reforms implemented in 2013 that ended Pemex’s 75 year state-own control of the oil company, the profits represented 18% of the total budget revenues of the public sector,[9] stimulus and subsidiaries of the country’s agricultural sector, delay of the renegotiation of NAFTA until after the elections,[5][10] the construction of more oil refineries, increased social spending, decreasing politicians’ salaries,[11] and decentralizing the executive cabinet by moving some key government departments and agencies from the capital to the states. López Obrador was a candidate for the third time in the 2018 presidential election, representing Juntos Haremos Historia, a coalition of the left-wing Labor Party, right-wing Social Encounter Party, and MORENA. This time he won in a landslide victory, taking 53% of the vote. His policy proposals include increases in financial aid for 11 million students, doubling the pension for the elderly, doubling the minimum wage, and granting amnesty to drug criminals,[5] construction of 100 universities and universal access to public colleges,[6] ending the war on drugs, cancellation of the Mexico City New International Airport,[7][8] a referendum on past energy reforms implemented in 2013 that ended Pemex’s 75 year state-own control of the oil company, the profits represented 18% of the total budget revenues of the public sector,[9] stimulus and subsidiaries of the country’s agricultural sector, delay of the renegotiation of NAFTA until after the elections,[5][10] the construction of more oil refineries, increased social spending, decreasing politicians’ salaries,[11] and decentralizing the executive cabinet by moving some key government departments and agencies from the capital to the states.” López Obrador was a candidate for the third time in the 2018 presidential election, representing Juntos Haremos Historia, a coalition of the left-wing Labor Party, right-wing Social Encounter Party, and MORENA. This time he won in a landslide victory, taking 53% of the vote. His policy proposals include increases in financial aid for 11 million students, doubling the pension for the elderly, doubling the minimum wage, and granting amnesty to drug criminals,[5] construction of 100 universities and universal access to public colleges,[6] ending the war on drugs, cancellation of the Mexico City New International Airport,[7][8] a referendum on past energy reforms implemented in 2013 that ended Pemex’s 75 year state-own control of the oil company, the profits represented 18% of the total budget revenues of the public sector,[9] stimulus and subsidiaries of the country’s agricultural sector, delay of the renegotiation of NAFTA until after the elections,[5][10] the construction of more oil refineries, increased social spending, decreasing politicians’ salaries,[11] and decentralizing the executive cabinet by moving some key government departments and agencies from the capital to the states.” López Obrador was a candidate for the third time in the 2018 presidential election, representing Juntos Haremos Historia, a coalition of the left-wing Labor Party, right-wing Social Encounter Party, and MORENA. This time he won in a landslide victory, taking 53% of the vote. His policy proposals include increases in financial aid for 11 million students, doubling the pension for the elderly, doubling the minimum wage, and granting amnesty to drug criminals,[5] construction of 100 universities and universal access to public colleges,[6] ending the war on drugs, cancellation of the Mexico City New International Airport,[7][8] a referendum on past energy reforms implemented in 2013 that ended Pemex’s 75 year state-own control of the oil company, the profits represented 18% of the total budget revenues of the public sector,[9] stimulus and subsidiaries of the country’s agricultural sector, delay of the renegotiation of NAFTA until after the elections,[5][10] the construction of more oil refineries, increased social spending, decreasing politicians’ salaries,[11] and decentralizing the executive cabinet by moving some key government departments and agencies from the capital to the states.[12]”

      The ONLY positive thing one could say about this person is that he doesn’t like renewables. He is a Hugo Chavez in the making. He is of the “I’ll buy you a chicken and a sewing machine if you vote for me” ilk. The productive middle class of Venezuela has effectively evacuated the country. We can expect to see the same from Mexico. Contrary to popular belief, 3 years ago, most Mexicans had no desire to leave their country. That is no longer true.

      • Peter,
        “…His policy proposals include increases in financial aid for 11 million students, doubling the pension for the elderly, doubling the minimum wage, and granting amnesty to drug criminals,[5] construction of 100 universities and universal access to public colleges,[6] ending the war on drugs, cancellation of the Mexico City New International Airport,[7][8] a referendum on past energy reforms implemented in 2013 that ended Pemex’s 75 year state-own control of the oil company, the profits represented 18% of the total budget revenues of the public sector,[9] stimulus and subsidiaries of the country’s agricultural sector, delay of the renegotiation of NAFTA until after the elections,[5][10] the construction of more oil refineries, increased social spending, decreasing politicians’ salaries,[11] and decentralizing the executive cabinet by moving some key government departments and agencies from the capital to the states.”

        Peter,
        With the exceptions of the following,
        …granting amnesty to drug criminals, [6] ending the war on drugs, and, maybe, 8] a referendum on past energy reforms implemented in 2013 that ended Pemex’s 75 year state-own control of the oil company (I don’t know enough about what he’s proposing to opine)

        I can’t find great fault with his proposals and, compared to US Democrats, he looks totally sane. We should be so lucky.

        • KcTaz,

          Mexico doesn’t need 100 more universities, and public universities costs a student $300 -$800 per year. The minimum wage is, and always has been unenforceable,and PEMEX has known for years that it can’t develop its petroleum resources without foreign investment. Obrador wants to repeal legislation that would gradually allow it. He has conducted referendums worded with questions like: “Should we be giving our national treasure to foreigners?” People that have no idea what is involved in evaluating and developing an oilfield, say “Hell, no!” Everything he tells the public is empty, meaningless, political posturing, and he has zero support from the middle class. Subsistence level workers are his base. I did mention Venezuela? Chavez \ Maduro? Obrador has the same playbook.

    • Obrador is as corrupt as any past Mexican president. He hates anyone educated. His policies make it impossible for the Mexican economy to grow. The jack ass is shipping oil via tanker truck. He canceled an airport that we badly needed and is building one which has no utility. Our gdp is in the toilet even before the corona. Do some basic research on this authoritarian ass. The only thing he has done right, unless the contacts were backed by the government? I do not know. the cancellation of wind power etc is the only good thing he has done. But oil should be sold or refined and not used for power generation. Si they guy is still an idiota.

      • Hydride tanks don’t explode even when shot with incendiary bullets. It is the safest way to store hydrogen but density is still a problem along with leaks etc. Hydrogen is a wonderful energy carrier but like electricity, storing it inexpensively for a reasonable amount of time (1+ month) isn’t happening.

  2. Good, it long overdue for the Green industry to stand on its own two feet and either survive or fail by the rules of the free enterprise system .

    With so many countries badly affected by borrowing to save lives the worries of the green movement that might happen in 100 years time will be quietly forgotten in =e of the fare of far more serious threat to our economy now facing us.

    VK5ELL MJE

    • ‘Renewables? Ha! We don’t need no stinkin’ renewables ….” Is the translated response of El Presidente channeling the deceased Jim Belushi’s cinematic line about “badges”.

      • Actually the cinematic origin of the line is Alfonso Bedoya character in 1948 film adaptation of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. The line has been repeated/paraphrased numerous times by numerous individuals over the year (Mickey Dolenz on the Monkees tv show, Mel Brook’s Blazing Saddles, Johnny Fever from WKRP In Cincinnati, for just a small sampling of examples). Belushi’s was hardly the first or only such rendition of the badges line.

  3. The Green [political] myths are not weathering well. People… persons aren’t so green. That’s one less blight on the environment. One more foundation for a productive economy.

  4. One of the typical scams of the neoliberals.

    What the heck is a neoliberal? I always thought it was folks like Reagan and Thatcher. link Now it seems to mean something else. Aargh! In any event, it probably doesn’t describe the kind of liberal who pushes renewable energy.

    • Probably using that term in the sense of “corporatist”, (allegedly) corrupt capitalist. It looks like the President is upset about subsidised energy deals negotiated by previous Mexican governments.

      I’m not suggesting President Lopez Obrador is perfect, but whatever his faults, challenging a $30 billion dollar business in a place like Mexico in the name of lowering energy prices for ordinary people shows a lot of guts – I suspect his security detail is working overtime.

    • Neoliberals, armt they the folks that pay for and guide the Greenies. Neoliberals are the background folks.

    • An obscure fundamental of socialism/communism/collectivism is that it originated, according to F.A. Hayek (a fair authority), among a bunch of French philosophes –Auguste Comte, Georges Sorel, Henri de Saint Simon, et al. – generally termed “totalitarians.”
      They wanted to reverse the “perennial malady” of Westerners, “the revolt of the individual against the species.” Their idea was to restore traditional social structure under “planning boards” that would organize everything and everybody into well behaved groups who followed what could politely be called “philosopher kings.” Sorel allowed that people who didn’t like the planning boards “would be treated like cattle.” Pretty good solution, eh?
      Hayek observed that it didn’t have wide appeal, so it wasn’t until the revolutions of 1848, when the ideas had been toned down into “democratic socialism,” that it gained traction. The problem was that social democracy didn’t go anywhere fast enough. So the get-things-done crowd stepped in and set up really good Nazism, Communism, and fascism and did the job. Comte, Sorel and Saint Simon would have been proud.
      Somehow the system has never gotten along without plenty of word play, so, just as old fashioned free-market liberalism was dying from its own problems, the socialists (also known as the Left because they sat there in the Revolutionary French Assembly) borrowed “liberal” for themselves, and everybody has been bamboozled ever since. Myself, I prefer totalitarian.

  5. Wonder how soon till Mexico starts building nuclear power plants and selling the power to the US?

      • What would make more sense is for Mexico to use nuclear and sell all that renewable infrastructure to California…

        Well, it would make to California. Nobody else.

    • From memory, they have at least one nuclear plant and they do sell electricity to California.

  6. Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador stated:
    “These wind turbines mess up the landscape. They produce little energy and are owned by private companies that are subsidized for it. One of the typical scams of the neoliberals.”

    The now published guidelines of the Ministry of Energy prohibit new connections to plants that generate renewable energies due to alleged “instability in the network”.

    I have two engineering degrees and a career in energy. I will compare my energy achievements with anyone on the planet, and I say President Obrador is correct. Recently, I wrote the following:

    A GREEN ENERGY PRIMER – GRID-CONNECTED WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY BOTH FAIL DUE TO INTERMITTENCY AND DIFFUSIVITY.

    INTERMITTENCY means the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow 24/7, and the electric grid needs reliable dispatchable generation, not generation that goes up and down uncontrollably. Battery storage is touted as the solution, but it does not economically exist at grid-scale.

    DIFFUSIVITY means it takes far too much land area to replace conventional energy with wind and/or solar generation – it would take fully ~10% of all the land area in Britain to do so. In the USA, this 10% would total about 300,000 square miles, or all of Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

    Energy experts have known these facts since ~forever. In 2002 my co-authors and I published the following statements that have both proven correct–to-date:

    a. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

    b. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

    “DEBATE ON THE KYOTO ACCORD”
    Published by APEGA in the PEGG, reprinted by other professional journals, The Globe and Mail and La Presse,
    by Dr. Sallie Baliunas (Harvard-Smithsonian), Dr. Tim Patterson (Carleton U) and Allan MacRae, November 2002

    Since 2002, trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered on worthless green energy schemes that are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy. The result of this green energy virtue-signalling has been the destabilization of electrical grids, runaway energy costs, energy poverty, increased winter deaths, and INsignificant reduction in CO2 emissions. What a foolish green debacle!

    Regards, Allan

      • badEnglish

        This is Michael Kelly’s follow up to a report he produced last year for the GWPF. It doesn’t actually say much more than it did first time around but it is of course it’s still being ignored by our government.

        I think one of the most important points he makes is that the UK simply doesn’t have the physical manpower to make even part of the changes required to reach netzero.

        By complete coincidence I did a Beer Mat calculation based on converting my own small house to be as thermally efficient as I could possibly make it. I gave up when I reached £75,000, multiply it up and it add in a few assumptions about a few other things like making provision for EV’s (excluding, as Kelly did the upgrading of the entire Grid) and it was precisely the Sum Kelly reached, some £3bn.

        Not bad for an ill educated oaf with only a pencil and a soggy Beer Mat. The point being that if I can make the calculation, so can everyone else, educated or otherwise.

        I wrote to my MP with the calculations and he passed it on to some bureaucratic government entity who replied with a lot of nonsense about economies of scale, but of course entirely ignored the concept that every street in the country would need to be dug up to install cabling fit for EV charging. It also ignored the practicalities of having innumerable electric cables trailing across pavements for the 40% of residents who don’t have off street parking.

        The solution to that, of course, is to have overhead cabling along every street. Although along streets, like ours, which have a mixture of mostly off street parking, and some on street parking, the solution must be bespoke, as would many streets – simply added cost and work.

        What Kelly doesn’t highlight is the manpower required to make the wind turbines our lives will depend on. Sold by governments as an solution to unemployment (in a market that had amongst the lowest unemployment we have ever had) the fact that once this massive engineering feat is accomplished, there will be tens of thousands (millions?) again unemployed.

        Society doesn’t develop through revolution, it progressed by evolution.

        If wind turbines, EV’s and domestic home modification were practical, we would be doing it (and in some cases we are) but to spend £3tn+++ in 30 years, which might take 100 years + to spend is economic madness.

        But then I’m preaching to the converted, and most of you don’t even need the Beer Mat.

        • Thank you Gentlemen,

          I did see Dr. Kelly’s recent paper published by the GWPF and wrote him to express my agreement and gratitude for his good work.

          Yes HotScot, the electric car concept will require not only new distribution lines (low voltage) but also new transmission lines (high voltage) and double or triple the electrical generation capacity, and intermittent wind or solar power will not do the job – green energy is not green and does not produce much useful (dispatchable) energy.

          The electric car is a climate fraudster’s wet dream that simply will not work at even part scale, let alone full scale when every household has an electric car. In some local neighborhoods, the lights dim when more than 2 or 3 electric cars are plugged in at the same time.

          • You don’t get it.
            The objective is to ‘get us out of our cars’.
            They ain’t planning on having cars.

          • Lee – I get it – I published this last year.

            The Science and Technology Select Committee … officially announced “In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation”
            https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49425402
            __________________________________________

            THE LIBERALS’ COVERT GREEN PLAN FOR CANADA – POVERTY AND DICTATORSHIP
            by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., October 1, 2019
            wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/01/the-liberals-covert-green-plan-for-canada-poverty-and-dictatorship/
            [excerpt – See origin for links.]

            Zero-carbon means huge changes for society. Prof Sir Ian Boyd, the government’s chief environment scientist, said the public had little idea of the scale of the challenge from Britain’s “Net Zero CO2” emissions target. Roger Harrabin of the BBC wrote: “People must use less transport, eat less red meat and buy fewer clothes if the UK is to virtually halt greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the government’s chief environment scientist has warned. … We will all have to accept big lifestyle changes – travel less, eat less, consume less. But eventually some form of compulsion or rationing will be necessary, if climate targets are to be met. The Science and Technology Select Committee … officially announced “In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation”. When they ultimately find themselves being told what they can and cannot consume, where they can travel and what foods they are allowed to eat, they will be furious about the way they have been misled.”

            But these radical changes to society have even more catastrophic consequences. The socialists want total control, and have a history of extreme incompetence, environmental destruction and violent repression of dissent.

            Radical green extremists have cost society trillions of dollars and millions of lives to date. Their 30-year effective ban of DDT and opposition to golden rice have blinded and killed tens of millions, mostly children under five.

            Costly, ineffective green energy schemes have destabilized the electric grid, damaged the environment and squandered trillions of dollars of scarce global resources. Properly allocated, these wasted trillions might have ended malaria and world hunger.

            The number of shattered lives caused by radical-green activism rivals the death tolls of the great killers of the 20th Century- Stalin, Hitler and Mao. Radical greens advocate similar tightly-controlled totalitarian states and are indifferent to the resulting environmental destruction and human suffering… …and if unchecked, radical environmentalism will cost us our freedom.

            ” The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
            – H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956

  7. How is Anlo on the cartels? If they are the big recipients of payola, then of course they would be against Green commie energy as that’s nothing but a moneypit for the entrenched bureaucracy, not transferable to the cartel heads. Only direct taxation is liquid enough to pay off the cartels, and the cartels can only use real energy anyway.

  8. The Americas (Canada a holdout) are showing they won’t go for an assault on common sense. The threat of global warming wasn’t an unreasonable concern 20 years ago perhaps. But with a total failure of all forecasts basically throughout the first 20yrs of the 21st century, science has been abandoned and replaced by social scientists, politicians and yellow journalism perveyors hammering the table with their shoes.

    Manhattan’s East Side Highway in 2000 was still 10ft above the water, not submerged as Hansen predicted 12 yrs before. Two years after the famous hockey stick blade of rapidly rising temperatures was published, we found we had aready been in the first 4 years of an 18 year long hiatus in global temperatures, which was interrupted only by an el Nino in 2016 and the last three years of cooling may find us still in the hiatus.

    Moreover, In 2009, an insider at UE Anglia, the center of warming hyperbole, dumped the devastating thousands of emails between the familiar EU – N. American climate cast of characters detailing the malfeasance, data cooking and dirty tricks of our most prominent researchers. That broke the back of the beast.

    Since, Trump dropped out of the Paris Agreement, China, the rest of Asia and Africa began building hundreds of coal fired electricity plants, Brazil, dropped out Chilean gov had to resign because of protests on cost of living, etc. Lefty Mike Moore did a documentary showing renewables as a crony capitalist boondoggle that don’t work and now Covid lockdown showing no noticeable reduction in CO2 so far. This may be the final curtain. As it is, only W Europe is still in it and this may be just posturing now.

    • Gary, you write: “social scientists, politicians and yellow journalism perveyors hammering the table with their shoes”. Oh, yes, Mr. Nikita Sergejewitsch Khruschev did the same in 1958 in the UN-HQ in NY suggesting, that communism will take over from capitalism and free market economy. Of course capitalism and free market economy are far from being ideal, however, they are seemingly better and more effective than socialism/communism. Luckily the end of the story is well known: Socialism and communism have led to total economical and social banktruptcy. However, the socialists/communists haven’t gave up: They have changed to the “water melone mode” (inside deep red, the outer rind is deep green). They have also a new political slogan instead of “Workers of all lands, unite!: “Globalists and climate hysterics of all lands, unite!”. Hopefully, this “new” movement will end on the same way than the movement of their predecessors (socialists/communists).

  9. When you’ve lost AMLO…. You’ve lost populism. Renewables will never be popular. It’s costing supporters elections worldwide. The Australian left lost the last election and everyone was saying they couldn’t lose – but they did. They embraced renewables: they touched the third rail.

    AMLO is all about winning elections. Renewables are a political loser.

  10. From the DW report:
    ” Today, 24 percent of the electricity generated comes from renewable sources, and the annual growth rate was 4.5 percent. However, this is at the expense of the thermal power plants operated by CFE with the sulfur-containing heavy oil from the heavily indebted state-owned company PEMEX. The rescue of PEMEX and stronger government regulation are strategic goals of the president. “

    24%. PEMEX. Hmm…

      • In any case, if PEMEX was all the Mexican President cared about, why not simply throw them a subsidy lifeline, get PEMEX to jump into the renewable race?

          • Careful Nick, that’s awfully close to an admission that renewables don’t produce a positive return on investment without government help.

          • No, his problem is that renewables are too successful in competing with PEMEX and FF.
            “The regulatory authority CENACE set the technical framework and was obliged to give preference to the most efficient suppliers when it came to the feed-in. This secured the acceptance for the renewables.”
            If renewables were relying on government assistance he could remove that, instead of actually prohibiting them from connecting to the grid.

          • Then my original point stands – if renewables without subsidy or forced sales are such a good idea, PEMEX could have fixed its finances by joining the renewables gold rush, without upsetting foreign investors.

          • What don’t you understand, Nick?

            Renewables destabilise the grid.

            They also require continued payments to even survive.

            And continued costs to try to counter the introduced instability.

            This happens anywhere they are implemented in even small amounts.

            No sane government would bother with them

          • If renewables were relying on government assistance he could remove that, instead

            Without examining the language of the existing contracts, you cannot make that claim . I suspect the opposite is true. He couldn’t pull that lever, so he pulled one he could.

            BTW, forcing someone to buy something even if they don’t need it is just a subsidy in disguise.

          • Nick,

            Did you succeed in finding a paper that actually compares costs of ff and renewables without policy restrictions like RET and Paris agreement? For Australia primarily, but anywhere will do. Geoff S

          • Geoff,
            It is impossible to make that comparison in Australia, because fossil fuel generation with mining, or at least coal, was almost entirely developed by government directly (here SECV). Government developed the mines, built the power stations, transmission cables. They later sold rights to private companies on basically an auction basis – not related to cost recovery.

            There is a paper here describing levels of subsidy for renewables, and a paper here describing fossil fuel subsidies. Renewable subsidies affecting utility-scale economics are dominated by the LRET scheme. The cost to FF producers is related to the shortfall of RE relative to targets, and that cost is rapidly diminishing. The first paper describes costs of about $75 per MWh in 2016. This is down to $44 in Oct 2019, with forward prices (then) of $34,75 in 2020 and $15.60 in 2021 (Aust Gov Clean energy regulator report Oct 2019).

          • “It is impossible to make that comparison in Australia, because fossil fuel generation with mining, or at least coal, was almost entirely developed by government directly”

            They may have Nick (actually my WWII parents’ generation went without to do that) but then come the 70s and beyond with the explosion of the public sector (Whitlam Govt) the States milked their utilities for dividends for those burgeoning payrolls failing to put away for depreciation. When the writing was on the wall with that (for SA it was the State Bank going bust immediacy) plus Keating opening up power competition they flogged them off so private enterprise could be the messenger with the bad news.

            Add the cost of unreliables to that and now States like SA have some of the highest power prices in the world and no featherbedded sheltered workshop ETSA was ever going to change that outcome.

          • Have to love the greens who like to try and hide everything that doesn’t produce the right outcome.

            You could run the numbers from the last big Coal Power station built being Kogan Creek in Queensland (2007). It produces 4Million tonnes of green house gases per year 🙂

            Simply run the numbers on trying to replace the 5000GWh of energy it provides to the grid per year.

          • “Simply run the numbers on trying to replace the 5000GWh of energy it provides to the grid per year.”
            report
            In 2019, wind energy in Australia generated 19.487 GWh
            Large scale solar 5141 GWh
            Small scale solar 12269 GWh.

  11. This sounds like great news for me. I just invested heavily in ATCO. Atlas corp whose apr subsidiary builds gas turbines for mexican power plants.

  12. What an appropriate phrase: “Hydrogen boom” – with the Hindenburg the most famous BOOM of all!

  13. That’s the beauty of climate change. We’ve always got another 10 years before the tipsters tip another tipping point again-

    “We run the risk within the next probably five to 10 years, that we may trigger irreversible tipping points in the climate system,”

    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/has-coronavirus-killed-our-chance-to-stop-climate-change-getting-worse-or-given-us-a-opportunity-to-act/ar-BB14vucS

    Ian Dunlop is a well to do ex oil gas and coal industry exec who naturally ascribes to the Club of Rome in his dotage and looking for a Breakthrough or Code Red or something or other-
    https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/contributors
    Ian joins a long illustrious list of tipping point tipsters going back to the UN in 1989 that we were all doomed in 10 years time unless we gave up doing what they were doing.

  14. If you can’t store it cheaply for a decent length of time (1+ month) then you have to use it directly. That can work as air conditioning and irrigation pumps need to work when it is hot and sunny so exactly when you will get peak output. But ….

    That drives the payback time way out to 30+ years and usually beyond the life of the equipment.

    Until the storage problem is solved intermittent energy sources are niche products.

  15. At this point, whenever I read an article whose author has written that modern economies can transition to wind and solar, I dump the article, meaning that I read it with the understanding that the author of it doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Or he does and is being paid by a green energy profiteer.

    It is scandal that wind turbine sellers have become rich. Wind turbines are not sold as consumer goods on open markets. The buyers of them are governments, and the money spent has been taxed from citizens.

  16. Just over the border in California, advocates assure us there is a hydrogen boom.

    Well, “boom” is about the most likely outcome of storing or transporting lots of hydrogen, so that’s not really wrong…

  17. adjective: neoliberal
    relating to or denoting a modified form of liberalism tending to favour free-market capitalism.
    noun
    noun: neoliberal
    a person with neo-liberal views.

    Well from that definition, the Green movement, which is entirely based on state support is not neoliberal.
    The Green movement, which brings us the joys of unproductive capital investments such as, wind farms and solar arrays, energy supply by definition is off for at least 50% of the time. Those are not examples of capitalism, that is the epitome of state forced unproductive inefficiency/lunacy.
    I think the Mexican President needs to update his political labels. He needs to call the Greens what they actually are, i.e. state support junkies, or maybe just Greediots for short.
    Here is an example of the political character I am referring to, a typical greedy Green idiot or Greediot.
    George Monbiot
    He attends XR rallies, he advocates for Solar Farms and Wind Turbines. The intermittent nature of those energy sources, matters not at all to him, in fact it helps his anti capitalism objective/ambition. Steady growth is a feature of capitalism and requires constant energy to achieve that growth. Monbiot actually demands the end of capitalism, he actually advocates/demands decline! He is the poster child (sorry Greta) for so called neoliberals yet his basic ambition is to crash the economies of the world? He is openly anti growth, anti capitalism anti liberal and now clearly, anti Mexican too.

  18. Austrian-school libertarians are often misnomered ‘Neoliberals’ too.

    The term is therefore confused and not helpful.

  19. “… there is a hydrogen boom…”
    Is this actually meant to be a pun?
    If locals will block any plans to build a nuke in their backyard, would they be so naive to accept a rocket fuel storage facility?
    Just sayin…..

  20. IMHO the main factor in all this is not COVID19 — it’s the sharp decrease in money transfers into Mexico from citizens in the US (legal and illegal). Those “remittances” are in the tens of billions of dollars annually, and essentially comprise the nation’s entire welfare state. This is (indirectly) how Trump is making Mexico pay for the border wall.

    • The new trade deal Trump did with Mexico will more than pay for the Southern Border Wall all by itself, as it will keep billions of dollars per year, that would have gone to Mexico in the past, under the old trade deal, to stay in the United States, where that money is taxed and is then used to generate additional economic activity in the United States.

      Trump reduces our deficit with Mexico with the new trade deal, and that money stays in the United States instead of going into some else’s economy, like it did in the past.

      And Trump has reduced the U.S. deficit with Japan, South Korea and China and is working on reducing the deficit with the EU. Trump is adding billions of dollars to the U.S. economy with each trade deal he makes.

      Noone else would have done what Trump has done with trade. Our past leaders were content to let the whole world steal from the United States. Trump is not content with that and he is changing it.

      And the nations he is dealing with are not whining and crying over the new deals (other than China), they are relatively happy with how things turned out. Trump isn’t trying to steal from them, he is just trying to level the playing field, and those he is dealing with know it, so there is no cause for resentment because there is no unfairness involved.

  21. Sorry, Nick, but what fossil fuels mostly receive are tax breaks which technically aren’t subsidies. The media erroneously lumps actual subsidies and tax breaks under the banner of “subsidies”, so as to be able to say “look, ff receive subsidies, too!”. A subsidy is defined as the giving of money by a government. With tax breaks, no one is “giving” you anything, rather you’re allowed to keep more of what was yours to begin with. So an apples to apples comparison would obviously be money handed out to money handed out, tax break to tax break. The results would be nothing like in your link

    • Most of the Greenies you talk to think fossil fuel corporations are getting subsidies if they’re not being taxed on the revenues rather than net income after expenses. Fair dinkum they think capital depreciation is a tax subsidy except with windmills and solar panels presumably but the reality is they’re utterly clueless about what defines profit.

      • observa,
        To be fair, they are utterly clueless about everything but, especially, anything doing with math and science.

      • Yes I have seen a number of greens argue that and not realizing so would renewable and every other company because it is how the tax system works.

  22. Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Spain and 15 other EU countries would like to meet mexican minister Nahle to protect the interests of EU and Canadian companies impacted by the decision of the mexican President. The mexican decision could be very well understood: Mexico will not finance the take over of the mexican energy sector by foreign invaders, especially not from mexican tax money. It seems that Canada and certain EU countries think that Mexico is a colony of Canadian and EU greenies.

    https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/2020/05/24/mexikanische-pattsituation-investoren-von-wind-und-solar-sind-wuetend-da-die-mexikanische-regierung-alle-neuen-anlagen-blockiert/

  23. I suspect the Mexican President may be covertly involved in Trumps mostly covert assault on the cartels.
    Eradication of the cartels is vital and may finally be getting the kind of effort that may do so.

    But shh!
    The Cartel doesn’t like suggestions like this.

  24. The U-turn startles environmentalists and investors – and also affects German companies.

    Better be careful pi**ing off those Germans…..

  25. WTOP accuses the Mexican President

    And guess where WTOP comes out of? You guessed it, the bowels of the marxist tax-seeking, tax-funded regulatory swamp, Wash DC.

  26. As a Mexican national and living in Mexico, I can assure you AMLO is not an honest man.
    He is a populist of the worst kind. His main interest is to have total control on energy companies.

    His great desire is to rescue PEMEX, the broken state owned company, to produce more sulphur loaded fuel oil, a commodity nobody needs and is now banned even to be used at sea. And to do so, the thermoelectric plants will be using this fuel as well as carbon to power them. All of this, not for economical or technical reasons, but for political reasons and to favor his corrupt friends.

    Actually the cost of producing electricity by the state owned electric company monopoly is 6 times higher (and +1000% more polluting) than that produced by privately owned companies using natural gas plants, and wind and solar farms.

    And to be clear, no government subsidies are used by these privately owned plants.

    The dilema is using or not using renewables. The problem is trying to keep a state monopoly at all costs, even if the people suffers economically and environmentally from these decisions. A way of controlling peoples lives and the energy they choose to use.

    An issue promoted by zoocialists from all over the world.

    • Gonzalo,

      I do not live in Mexico but from the northern side of the border, I expected the worst with Obrador and have been pleasantly surprised by him. For all I know, he may be another Chavez but, so far, he doesn’t appear to be. For one thing, he is obviously far more intelligent than Chavez (and Maduro).
      As one who has many friends from Mexico, I hope for the best and he has not been nearly as bad as I thought he’d be. Time will tell.
      These people (link below) are betting money on him and they provide their reasons for doing so. I wouldn’t put my money on him myself but I sure hope they are right for Mexico’s sake.
      Pemex and the Mexican Economy
      by Deborah Watkins of LM Capital Group, 3/8/19
      https://www.advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/2019/03/08/pemex-and-the-mexican-economyand

      These are their reasons for staying invested in Mexico.The Pemex bonds are a holding in spite of their huge debt and mediocre management for the following reasons:
      * They are a SOE (state-owned-enterprise), and a default would destroy the credit of Mexico, which has to refinance 40 billion dollars in the next two years.
      * Pemex doesn’t have to pay for the crude it sells and, therefore, has huge operating profits
      * Taxation for Pemex is not consistent with the tax code for other companies. The government uses it to finance other expenses and can, if it has to do so, lower Pemex’s taxes it to maintain them as a viable entity.
      * Pemex is now in the world’s spotlight, and the government will make it its poster child in the fight against corruption.
      * None of the joint ventures created in the Peña Nieto administration under the energy reform rules have been cancelled.
      * Lopez Obrador knows he will be measured by what happens in Pemex, as it is an easy way to judge if his policies are successful; so he will do what is necessary to ensure its success.
      Barring dramatic changes, we will continue to hold our positions in Pemex bonds, and we feel the current yield over 7% amply covers the perceived risk of the issuer not paying interest or principal.

      • KcTaz,
        After living and working in Mexico’s oil industry for 12 years, I also have many friends there, and they UNANIMOUSLY think Obrador is their worst nightmare. Both PEMEX and contractors. Contractors to PEMEX have not been paid in 180 days and longer.

  27. Renewable supporters, IMHO, fall into two categories. 1) Willfully uninformed who want to believe the world can be powered by sunshine and breezes and 2) Corrupt liars that are someway in the game as suppliers, employees, landowners, grant seeking scientists, campaign contribution seeking politicians, etc If there is a 3rd category I will welcome hearing of the new insight.

  28. Good on the President for has stand against wind turbines.
    Wait until he finds out that the WT’s produce no real energy. A WT cannot boil a jug.
    Let me explain. WT’s are asynchronous and do not produce the legally required 50/60Hz wave form energy essential for our homes and industry.
    They do produce lots of harmonics termed in the industry as ‘dirty energy’ which through smart meters are fraudulently added to consumers power accounts.
    Being asynchronous WT’s cannot be synchronised with the grid which is a legal requirement.
    WT’s in their life time cannot produce the energy that went into making them.
    They are manufactured by an industrial economy and their toxic blades go to landfill.
    They are not green and the sooner the whole damned lot are switched off the better.

Comments are closed.