Tracking The Demise Of The U.S. Green Energy Transition

From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

We’re coming up on three and a half years into the Biden presidency — a presidency which from the outset promised an “all of government” regulatory onslaught to force a transition away from fossil fuels and to “green” energy. And the regulatory onslaught has indeed come forth. But how about the actual transition in energy use? Not so much.

Let’s have a round-up of some recent data points.

On the regulatory onslaught front, on March 7, 2024 Thomas Pyle of the Institute for Energy Research put out a list of “200 Ways the Biden Administration and Democrats Have Made it Harder to Produce Oil & Gas.” The list is chronological, beginning with Executive Orders that Biden issued on his first day in office (January 20, 2021) and continuing right up to the date of the post. Yes there is some duplication and overlap in the list (e.g., separately listing multiple steps toward approval of a single regulation); but even with that, the sheer number of efforts to restrict, hamper, harass and extort fossil fuel producers is breathtaking. You will probably remember most of this stuff, but it’s remarkable to see it all put together in one place. By all means look through the full list, but meanwhile here is a small sample of the more significant items:

  • Item 1, January 20, 2021: “[C]anceling the Keystone XL pipeline.”
  • Item 2, also January 20, 2021: “[I]ssuing a moratorium on all oil and natural gas leasing activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”
  • Item 5, January 27, 2021: “{I}ssu[ing] an executive order announcing a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on public lands.”
  • Item 10, also January 27, 2021: By the same Executive Order, “promoting ‘ending international financing of carbon-intensive fossil fuel-based energy while simultaneously advancing sustainable development and a green recovery.’”
  • Item 14, February 19, 2021: “[R]ejoin[ing] the Paris Climate Agreement.”
  • Item 24, April 22, 2024: “[I]ssu[ing] the U.S. International Climate Finance Plan to funnel international financing toward green industries and away from oil and gas.”
  • Item 33, September 3, 2021: “[I]ssu[ing] a proposed rule that would update the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2024–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks to increase fuel economy regulations on passenger cars and light vehicles.”
  • Item 48, November 12, 2021: “[Issuing] New Source Review . . . regulations target[ing] new, modified, and reconstructed oil and natural gas sources, and would require states to reduce methane emissions from hundreds of thousands of existing sources nationwide for the first time.”
  • Item 66, February 18, 2022: “[Updating policy] for assessing proposed natural gas pipelines, adding new considerations for landowners, environmental justice communities, and other factors. In a separate but related decision, the commission also laid out a framework for evaluating projects’ greenhouse gas emissions.”
  • Item 75, March 21, 2022: “The SEC [issues a] proposed rule [that] would require public companies to disclose greenhouse gas emissions.”
  • Item 95, April 21, 2022: Climate Czar John Kerry announces, “We have to put the industry on notice: You’ve got six years, eight years, no more than 10 years or so, within which you’ve got to come up with a means by which you’re going to capture, and if you’re not capturing, then we have to deploy alternative sources of energy.”
  • Item 105, June 8, 2022: “President Biden’s Interior Department announced it will reduce the fees on renewable projects on federal lands after announcing recently that royalty rates and rents would increase as much as 50% for oil and gas projects on federal lands.”
  • Item 139, January 17, 2023: “Biden appointee [Richard Trumka] proposes ban on gas stoves.”
  • Item 152, April 12, 2023: “[Issuing] new rules to force electric Vehicles on Americans.  The New York Times notes that EPA is releasing rules that are intended to ensure that electric cars represent between 54 and 60 percent of all new cars sold in the United States by 2030 and 64 to 67 percent by 2032—in 9 years.”
  • Item 153, April 12, 2023: “[Issuing] new GHG emissions regulations for heavy duty vehicles.”
  • Item 156, May 15, 2023: “EPA proposes new regulations requiring power plants to reduce GHG emissions and require carbon capture and sequestration or hydrogen co-firing even though these are uneconomic technologies.”
  • Item 167, August 1, 2023: “EPA proposes updated greenhouse gas reporting requirements for the oil and natural gas industry.”
  • Item 171, August 7, 2023: “Biden proposed 236-pages of revisions to NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) guidance to make it harder to permit any natural gas, oil, or coal project.”
  • Item 180, October 27, 2023: “A proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule on hydrofluoric-acid-based alkylation could spur a round of refinery closures as the cost of replacing hydrofluoric acid based alkylation with alternatives is extremely high.”
  • Item 193, January 26, 2024: “Biden halts permitting for new LNG export facilities.”

That’s only 20 of the 200. There are plenty of other significant ones that I skipped over.

At the same time, the Biden Administration has dramatically ramped up subsidies and other favors and incentives for so-called “green” energy. The badly misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act” of August 2022 alone contained over $400 billion of subsidies and handouts to the green energy industry.

So with the double whammy of endless restrictions and harassment of fossil fuel producers, and subsidies for the wind and sun, undoubtedly oil and gas production must be shrinking rapidly? Not at all. In fact, domestic production of both has just recently hit all-time records. Here is a chart of U.S. crude oil production from the EIA, with data through January 2024:

Production reached an all-time record of 13.29 million bbl/day in December 2023, before having a small down-tick in January. The current production level is well over double where it was when Barack Obama took office in 2009. You really have to hand it to these oil and gas producers for somehow getting around whatever the government throws at them.

And here’s another chart from the same source showing natural gas production through December 2023:

From EIA: “U.S. natural gas production grew by 4% in 2023, or 5.0 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d), to average 125.0 Bcf/d, according to our Natural Gas Monthly.” There had also been increases in 2023 and 2022.

Well, but surely the transition to electric vehicles is taking off? Maybe — but the latest data would seem to indicate that the electric vehicle market is suddenly in big trouble. For an overview, Robert Bryce has a long post at his Substack today, titled “Tesla In Turmoil: The EV Meltdown In 10 Charts.” You may know that Tesla has just announced that it is laying off 10% of its workforce. Bryce concludes: “I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it one more time: Electric vehicles are The Next Big Thing, and they always will be.”

Here’s a chart not from Bryce, but from Statista, on Tesla sales by quarter:

Does it seem that Tesla is going gangbusters? It does until you look closely. Tesla sold 485,000 cars in 4Q 2023, and only 387,000 in 1Q 2024. That’s rather a sudden and dramatic decline. Elsewhere in the EV biz, the story is the same. From Cox Automotive, April 11:

Sales [of EVs in the U.S.] in Q1 rose 2.6% year over year, but fell 15.2% compared to Q4 2023.

Do these declines represent a one-quarter blip, or an accelerating trend. I’m betting with Bryce that this is the trend. My prognosis is that the EV market is close to saturated. I have no interest in buying one of them, let alone paying a premium to do it. Do you? But meanwhile the large automakers (except Toyota) have all made big, big bets that the government can make its mandates stick. If consumers don’t go along, this could be the end of Ford and GM, let alone Audi, Mercedes and BMW. Tough luck, guys.

Our current rulers think that they have infinite ability to tell the people how to live, and infinite money to force the people to change their ways. They are wrong, and reality will catch up to them, if only gradually.

5 25 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

68 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
April 24, 2024 6:05 am

For a euphemism, That dog don’t hunt!

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 25, 2024 1:34 pm

Paraphrasing Donald Sutherland from Disclosure – TRANSITION to wind and solar?! They’re too smart for that. That’s like trying to convince a duck to TRANSITION to “a l’orange!”

James Snook
April 24, 2024 6:16 am
Reply to  James Snook
April 25, 2024 3:46 am

All the eggs in one basket.

Not a smart idea.

Drake
Reply to  HotScot
April 25, 2024 9:22 am

This one basket was intentional.

In northern Nevada, where they are trying to begin mining for rare earths (they only mention lithium) again, there were active rare earth mines 40 years ago until China priced US domestic production out of the market. So what a federal government is for, to maintain independent production of national security materials, IMO, the US government failed to do.

The LAW as passed by congress said no subsidies for foreign made batteries, BUT the bought and paid for Brandon administration has done everything they can to circumvent that requirement.

April 24, 2024 6:20 am

Don’t forget that in 2021 Lloyd Austin, Brandon’s woke Secretary of Defense, declared that the #1 priority of the US Dept. of Defense is fighting climate change.

Not national defense — but climate change.

Reply to  karlomonte
April 24, 2024 7:32 am

I think since then he has woken up! no pun intended

JamesB_684
Reply to  karlomonte
April 24, 2024 11:10 am

He was trying to make the Chinese People’s Liberation Army & Navy laugh themselves to death.
The CCP responded by increasing funds to the Students for Justice In Palestine, AntiFa and BLM.

April 24, 2024 6:24 am

I have no interest in buying one of them, let alone paying a premium to do it.

This raises an interesting point.

The Australian Federal Government has indicated it will sell off EVs into the secondhand market as they reach their use-by date – lets say after 3 years from new.

If the government offered these to the public at no cost, would you be interested in one? Do they have any useful purpose beyond virtue signalling? Do you have room to garage it?. Would you garage it indoors? Would you be allowed to garage it in your high rise basement carpark? Can you afford the insurance? Would you insure it? Have you get a power outlet suited to charge it? Do you have easy access to a public charge point?

I know three families now who have BEVs. Only one is their sole vehicle but train is within walking distance. The others use them as second cars. They use real cars for transport. Their expensive BEVs are used mostly for shopping and school runs. My suggestion to them was to set up smoke detectors in the garages in the hope that any electrical fault while charging could be detected early. They only charge them at home when the sun is shining to soak up rooftop power.

Reply to  RickWill
April 24, 2024 7:23 am

I wouldn’t take a BEV or a hybrid for free but I would pay good money for an ICE vehicle if I needed a new one. EV’s are so 19th century. 😉

Mr.
Reply to  Matthew Bergin
April 24, 2024 10:17 am

Had a polite conversation with a 40s-something woman I just happened to be seated next to at a social event recently.

The topic of cars came up, as she had mentioned she was in the market for a new vehicle.

We talked about preferences and options, and she mentioned interest in an EV.

I was in no way critical of her interest in an EV, I just said it’s interesting that the wheel appears to have turned the full circle with EVs, and they are now again not regarded as a practical choice for most folks.

She asked me – “what do you mean by turned the full circle”?

I answered that the first “horseless carriages” were in fact EVs.
Which were fairly quickly made obsolete when Herr Rudolf Diesel invented and released his ICE engine.

The limited range and battery recharging time were the inconveniences of EVs that made Herr Diesel’s ICE powered conveyances the more popular choice for motorists.

She was shocked to learn of this bit of history, but I was even more shocked that she didn’t know the history of the EV and ICE vehicles.

Am I being alarmist to think that we seem to be living in an increasingly dumbed-down civilisation?

Paul S
Reply to  Mr.
April 24, 2024 10:59 am

It is indeed alarming that the department of education has substantially dumbed down our populace.

Reply to  Paul S
April 24, 2024 4:08 pm

There is so much information available today that nobody knows more than a tiny fraction of it.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Mr.
April 24, 2024 12:12 pm

” I was even more shocked that she didn’t know the history

I did not learn about such history until very recently. I did learn about the electric starter. EVs in the USA were used because the crank-start was troublesome. See:  1911 by Charles F. Kettering

Reply to  Mr.
April 24, 2024 1:38 pm

Nit pick incoming:

The internal combustion engine was invented by Nikolaus Otto in 1867 when Diesel was 9 years old. Diesel developed the compression ignition aspect (1893 IIRC) to replace the more complex carburettor + electric ignition system. However, both systems have advantages and disadvantages, so both systems are still in use. Long may they continue.

Mr.
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
April 24, 2024 2:22 pm

Yes there was quite a bit of tag-teaming with Benz, Daimler, Brown.

And if we go further back to Cugnot with his steam-powered automobile in 1770, we can see that many keen minds were at work to give us mobility options that didn’t involve 4-legged animals.

What’s next – a micro reactor?

DonK31
Reply to  Mr.
April 24, 2024 4:35 pm

Dr. Fusion

Reply to  DonK31
April 25, 2024 7:32 am

Just add your favorite beverage!

comment image

Reply to  Mr.
April 24, 2024 6:23 pm

Wouldn’t that be sweet. A little modular reactor. That would make the electric vehicle viable or dare I say it, the Moller Skycar. 🤔😉

James Snook
Reply to  RickWill
April 24, 2024 7:57 am

AND, if in the U.K., they are probably ‘perk’ company cars that get a truly obscene tax break.

Idle Eric
Reply to  RickWill
April 24, 2024 9:28 am

Sure I’d take one for free at say 3 years old, I have off-road parking, can take advantage of cheap rate electricity, and they suit my driving profile.

I just wouldn’t pay good money for them, because the economics doesn’t suit my driving profile.

Reply to  Idle Eric
April 24, 2024 2:53 pm

One of the EV owners I mentioned above is in this position. They are a 5 person family with 5 cars. So the electric was bought as a toy for school runs for the youngest. It is only charged when the sun is shining off rooftop. It is big enough for the whole 5 on the rare occasion they go out for a function.

The owner likes the aspect of not having to visit a refuelling station. It also makes better use of electricity that would otherwise be exported to the grid at 5c/kWh.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  RickWill
April 24, 2024 11:09 am

I would not, and only a little of it is shear stubbornness. If it’s given to me free, then I don’t get the tax rebate (subsidy). I will never pay to replace those batteries, and at ~3 years old, isn’t it due for same? I also consider them dangerous, unsafe at ANY speed including parked, and their excess weight make them far more dangerous to other vehicles in the event of an accident, and that ignores the potential of battery combustion. I do not have rooftop solar to charge them, and arm-twisting of businesses to provide “free” charging to employees has about hit its limit, and those businesses that did install free charging for employees are likely to retrofit them to start charging for the electricity they consume (it is possible, anyone used a credit card enabled parking meter? the same method can be used to charge for your charging). And if I accepted one, I would have to insure it to be able to drive it (in this state you must show proof of insurance to get a license plate or a plate renewal tag), and I shudder to think what that insurance may cost, I can’t afford the insurance I have already. The short range between refuelings is bad enough, but add the complication that it’s so damn unpredictable!!! The mileage of my ICE powered pickup varies under varying conditions which are known and thus the affect on range can be predicted, the varying range of a battery charge, not so much. For example, temperature, my mileage in my ICE pickup will be reduced if I run the air conditioner, but not if I need to run the heater, but in a battery car, the heater will reduce the range AND the low temperatures will also reduce the range, and the ratios/proportions are unknown, good luck with that. Really, I can’t think of any benefit it would give me (virtue signaling I also count as a negative, don’t try to blow smoke up my ass.)

April 24, 2024 6:38 am

The badly misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act” “

It’s not badly misnamed at all when the intention is to lie to people. It has been another democrat party success story, and it still has legs.

Unfortunately, you have to remember that language was invented so that humans could lie to each other.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  philincalifornia
April 24, 2024 11:10 am

It’s the “Orwellian named…” Act.

Reply to  philincalifornia
April 24, 2024 12:02 pm

You just forgot standard democrat program naming protocol misdirection. They actually meant a deflation of your pocketbook.

Sean2828
April 24, 2024 6:52 am

I predict Biden will highlight the highest US oil production ever in Dec. 2023 as an accomplishment for his administration during his re-election campaign.

Lee Riffee
Reply to  Sean2828
April 24, 2024 12:09 pm

That wouldn’t surprise me at all. This administration is like deliberately tripping someone and causing them to fall (when no one is looking) and then making a big production out of helping their victim up off the floor (or at least appearing to do so…).

Badgercat55
April 24, 2024 6:54 am

Waited 8 months to get my gas-powered 2022 Ford F-250 (for my small farm), and now with only 18,000 miles on it the dealer is begging me to sell it back or trade it in. People aren’t buying EVs, they’re holding on to their ICE vehicles, and the dealers’ used inventory is shrinking. This is going to just get worse for dealers. No way I’m getting rid of my truck….maybe until the offer reaches 6-figures.

Reply to  Badgercat55
April 24, 2024 7:35 am

my Tacoma is 20 years old and going strong

Mr.
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 24, 2024 10:21 am

V8 or 4.5 litre 6-cylinder?

Reply to  Mr.
April 24, 2024 3:43 pm

4 cylinder- I think 2004 was the last year they made that engine- it now has 175K miles on it- never had any engine, transmission or clutch problem

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 24, 2024 11:07 am

I have a 2003 Toyota 4Runner with over 360,000 miles. Seat covers are a little torn and a few scratches and dings, but still runs great.

Reply to  Phil R
April 24, 2024 3:44 pm

And I also now have a Rav4, great car, other than my wife getting several dents in it.

mal
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 25, 2024 1:05 am

I took a 4 cylinder carbureted Toyota motor to 405,000 miles the engine was not the problem is was the body cancer from salted roads that was it undoing. I drove it to the junk yard. It was the best cars I ever owned.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Badgercat55
April 24, 2024 11:12 am

I had owned my 2nd-hand F-250 <4 months when a dealer sent me a postcard offering to buy it from me.

Lee Riffee
Reply to  Badgercat55
April 24, 2024 12:12 pm

I have a ten year old Honda CRV pushing 200K miles. Has a minor issue with the starter, but otherwise (knock on wood) it runs like a top. The seats are grungy, the steering wheel is worn, and it has some scratches and dents. But it’s mine and I can fill it up in less than 5 minutes and I can go more than 400 miles.

observa
April 24, 2024 7:27 am

Does it seem that Tesla is going gangbusters? It does until you look closely.
EVs aren’t even WORTH FIXING, sent to JUNK YARD instead | MGUY Australia – YouTube
Word is getting around like the Canadian Ioniq5 owner that ran over a dislodged muffler on the road and Hyundai wanted $60,000 CAD for replacement battery which was more than he paid for the car. Without it he’d lose his new Hyundai battery warranty so his comprehensive insurer paid him out and he was no longer an EV fan.

These tales have meant horror depreciation for used EVs and the market has woken up to what Hertz has discovered along with gun shy insurers. Essentially EVs are dearer to run than ICE and once bitten twice shy for early adopters.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  observa
April 24, 2024 8:12 am

Here in the UK first quarter sales of BEVs were at 15.5% of market share compared to petrol ICE vehicles at 56.3%. Of the BEVs only 9% were private buyers. The person in the street does not want an EV.

Meanwhile Tesla has laid off 14,000 of its workers and let 2 senior executives go due to falling sales and BP has cut 10% of its EV charging workforce and pulled out of several markets after an expected rapid growth in commercial EV fleets failed to materialise.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  observa
April 24, 2024 11:14 am

And the fact that Hertz’ 2nd hand EVs are hitting the market in significant chunks depresses used prices even further, I would guess.

Rud Istvan
April 24, 2024 7:37 am

It is possible to ignore reality, but not the consequences of ignoring reality.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 24, 2024 9:52 am

“It is possible to ignore reality, but not the consequences of ignoring reality.”

That’s not entirely true. New Yorkers and Californians not only ignore reality, they also ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Their local and state politicians, and the people who faithfully vote for these politicians year in and year out, are especially prone to this behavior.

I think it possible that the brains of New Yorkers and Californians have been programmed with a form of Brain Assembler Language (BAL) which constains multiple storage locations for consequence ignoration brain stack overflow.

According to my theory, this feature of how their brains are programmed supplies a mental buffer for recursively ignoring the consequences of ignoring multiple instantiations of reality ignoration behavior.

Just my two cents here.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Beta Blocker
April 24, 2024 11:15 am

You sure know how to mangle a phrase!

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
April 24, 2024 11:55 am

Efficient recursive mangling of phrases is key to the internal process of using Brain Assembler Language as a mental tool in ignoring the consequences of ignoring reality.

It all makes sense if you think about it hard enough.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Beta Blocker
April 24, 2024 3:15 pm

When you are a leftist, everything works perfectly on paper, even a perpetual motion machine.

Reply to  Richard Greene
April 24, 2024 7:14 pm

Yeah, like pumping water uphill to release it later to generate electricity.

Reply to  doonman
April 24, 2024 10:47 pm

Well that actually works – when you have excess power generation at certain times and excess demand at others and a couple of conveniently located reservoirs. Even the Niagara Falls generating stations have reservoirs so that the Falls look great during the day for the tourists during high electricity demand – topping up the reservoirs at night when no one’s looking.

Especially useful if you have loads of wind and solar you have to make work by government decree.

But totally unnecessary if you have CCGTs and unhindered access to gas.

Reply to  PCman999
April 25, 2024 10:52 am

The fact that electrical generation can be wasted on negative output says a lot more about political and engineering planning skills than anything else. There is no free lunch. Purposely imposing inefficiency is just stupid.

J Boles
April 24, 2024 7:58 am

Story tip – The Case for an Inclusive Energy Strategy – American Greatness (amgreatness.com)

The justification for rapidly transitioning the global energy economy to renewables is to avert a catastrophic environmental crisis. It is based on the premise that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from the combustion of coal, natural gas, and oil, are altering our atmosphere, which in turn is leading to a host of negative consequences too numerous to mention.

MarkW
Reply to  J Boles
April 24, 2024 9:02 am

Warming the world by a few tenths of a degree will not cause any kind of crisis and is on the whole a good thing for the planet.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  MarkW
April 24, 2024 12:43 pm

STORY TIP: Nearly all of us reading this have concluded the temperature record(s) is(are) not fit for purpose, that is, the purpose of proving Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate Anything™ even exists (and since I threw in “Catastrophic” at the beginning of that, I don’t have to add the unnecessary, “…and is bad for us…”), so why does the WUWT website continually link to it? The falsified data plots to a misleading curve, and in reality has told us nothing, aren’t we here to enlighten? i.e., provide useful information? So what should we link to? Maybe instead of a story tip this could/should be an open thread, but could we post a prominent graph of the reduction in loss of human life/population level/significant “weather” event? Maybe a daily link to a current headline, alongside a headline from 100 (120? 150?) years ago showing the exact same thing? A current headline alongside a headline from 40 years ago proclaiming exactly the opposite? A complete graph showing the reduction of forest fires over the last 200 years? The repeated headline, “It’s been 17,688 days and General Francisco Franco is still dead.”, with it accurately counting up the time? Maybe the more appropriate “It has been 13,089 days since the staged Congressional testimony, and the climate hasn’t tipped yet!” I get it, if it leads, it bleeds, and thus a headline reporting, “It’s 10:00 o’clock and all is well!” doesn’t exactly sell newspapers, but that’s kind of my point, how can we adequately and graphically indicate the Climate is the same as it ever was? Link to a video of the Talking Heads in a performance of Once In A Lifetime?

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  J Boles
April 24, 2024 11:17 am

It is based on the [routinely disproven] premise that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from the combustion of coal, natural gas, and oil, are altering our atmosphere, which in turn is leading to a host of negative consequences too numerous to mention.

TFIFY.

kwinterkorn
Reply to  J Boles
April 24, 2024 3:03 pm

Except there is no imminent catastrophe. We do not even know if warming would be a net negative or positive for Life on Earth.

But
We know CO2 promotes plant growth. We know that Life on Earth thrived during eras many degrees warmer than now in the geologic past.
We know know 8-10 people die of cold for each who dies of warm weather. We know far more people die every winter than in summer.

We know that in the era of fossils fuels and the warming of the last two centuries that the human population has increased eightfold, yet food production has more than kept up—-right up to the present with hunger and starvation falling dramatically all over the world.

Climate alarmism is not even close to serious science. Climate alarmism is almost exclusively a leftwing political movement.

Reply to  kwinterkorn
April 24, 2024 10:51 pm

Definitely warming would improve things – any warmer periods since the time of the dinosaurs have been biologically more active than cooler periods – and we’re actually in a cooler period, heading downhill for the past 10K years.

Reply to  J Boles
April 24, 2024 6:29 pm

We need to make more CO2 not less. The world is running short of it.🤷‍♂️

Reply to  Matthew Bergin
April 24, 2024 10:52 pm

Right on – plants die at about 180ppm CO2 and thrive above 1500ppm, and we’re currently closer to the dangerous end and not the Cretaceous end.

c1ue
April 24, 2024 7:59 am

Anyone who has rented an EV and has recharged it for return, understands just how bad an alternative that EVs are vs ICE vehicles.
The recharge time is so long that it is literally a bandwidth issue: if 25% of all the vehicles in the US were magically turned into EVs, there would need to be multiples of charging stations over gas stations in order to meet demand because the time needed to recharge an EV is so much longer than filling a tank of gas. We are talking multiples of hours vs. 5 to 10 minutes. And yes, this does assume that the majority of charging occurs at home.
So beyond the tire wear/rubber dust issue, the closely related road wear and highway tax issue, the input materials for batteries and lighter bodies/frames issue, the cost issue, the grid issue, the cost to upgrade home electrical setups for fast charging issue, the electrical fire issue, the cold weather impact on battery performance/charging issue, etc etc – EVs are simply a bad solution to anything except Silicon Valley myth/money making.

ferdberple
April 24, 2024 9:05 am

The sub prime meltdown is the only solution that worked to cut oil production.

Reply to  ferdberple
April 24, 2024 10:54 pm

And police enforced covid quarantines.

Bob
April 24, 2024 9:44 am

We have a government problem not a climate problem. It is as simple as that.

Reply to  Bob
April 24, 2024 7:23 pm

A Nanny state is not a free state. A Nanny state is a fascist state.

April 24, 2024 9:48 am

‘My prognosis is that the EV market is close to saturated.’

Just what I would expect to hear from EV deniers!

/sarc

Lee Riffee
April 24, 2024 12:29 pm

The basic fact here is that EVs are niche vehicles and always will be. They are not unlike sports cars, convertibles, motorcycles, trikes, and motorhomes. They do have their fans but they also have limitations that everyday, ordinary “workhorse” cars and trucks do not have. They require special care and are only suitable or desirable for some applications. If you have a motorcycle, chances are excellent that it won’t be your only vehicle, and you will only be riding it in suitable weather. If you have a Corvette or other pricey sports car, chances are you aren’t commuting to work in it every day. And you won’t be taking all the grandkids on a road trip to Disneyland in it.
But at least all of those types of vehicles can easily be refueled and can go long distances if need be.
Imagine the government mandating that only motorcycles will be sold after 2035. For most people in most places, that would be unworkable and a huge hindrance on travel. EV mandates are every bit as ridiculous.
And then there’s the push to eliminate FF heating and cooking. That also won’t fly, as when most people replace an HVAC system, they are only interested (and can afford) to replace like for like. Failures often happen without warning and homeowners may have to scramble to find the funds to replace equipment. No one wants to “upgrade” to some fancy heat pump system.
Same thing with cooking – again, people will replace like for like. Anyone who prefers a gas stove is going to want one if they build a house or buy one that doesn’t already have one.

Reply to  Lee Riffee
April 25, 2024 10:59 am

Niche, yes…I can see myself using an EV to drive to where I left my dozer for the night…

Edward Katz
April 24, 2024 2:28 pm

When governments try to mandate lifestyles and collude with the providers for these lifestyles to drive up prices and impose new laws and restrictions on consumers, we’re guaranteed a recipe for failure. The declining demand for EVs, alternate energies and overpriced green products is yet another example of citizens refusing to buy into the theories forced onto them by politicians, bureaucrats, academics and assorted environmental hucksters.

D Sandberg
April 24, 2024 9:45 pm

Meanwhile back at the NY State ranch, the greenlight blinked but i’s back on as bright as ever.

Quote:
Amanda Lefton, vice president of RWE, one of the development firms with a cancelled project, acknowledged a likely rebid. “RWE is completely committed to move forward,” she said. “It’s not an if, it’s a when. We are focused on de-risking our projects to insure they are successfully developed and built.”

Translation
We are focused on (getting Biden before his demise this Fall to provide government guaranteed loans with a no-repayment option) de-risking our projects to insure they are successfully developed and built.

Retiredinky
April 25, 2024 5:17 am

“But meanwhile the large automakers (except Toyota) have all made”. There are a lot, and I mean a lot of Toyotas around these days. The local Toyota lot is empty while the Ford lot is full. The local Toyota dealer doesn’t advertise on TV but the Ford dealer is on continuously. Most of the Ford dealer’s ads are for buying and selling used cars.

April 25, 2024 1:02 pm

HEAT PUMPS ARE MONEY LOSERS IN MY VERMONT HOUSE, AS THEY ARE IN ALMOST ALL NEW ENGLAND HOUSES
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/heat-pumps-are-money-losers-in-my-vermont-house-as-they-are-in

My Experience with HPs in my Well-Insulated, Well-Sealed House

I installed three heat pumps by Mitsubishi, rated 24,000 Btu/h at 47F, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads, each with remote control; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms. 
The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.
The HPs last about 15 years. 
Turnkey capital cost was $24,000, less $2,400 subsidy from GMP 
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-of-HPs-is-based-on-misrepresentations

My Well-Sealed, Well-Insulated House 

The HPs are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3,600 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house.
The basement, 1,200 sq ft, has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.
 
I do not operate my HPs below 10F to 15F (depending on sun and wind conditions), because all HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing outdoor temperatures. 
The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my efficient propane furnace. See table 3

High Electricity Prices

Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would: 

1) Increase already-high electric rates and 
2) Worsen the already-poor economics of HPs (and of EVs)!!
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems

My Energy Cost Reduction is Minimal 
 
– HP electricity consumption was from my electric bills, and an HP system electric meter. 
– Vermont electricity prices, including taxes, fees and surcharges, are assumed at 20 c/kWh.
– My HPs provide space heat to 2,300 sq ft, about the same area as an average Vermont house 
– Two small propane heaters (electricity not required) provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement
– I operate my HPs at temperatures of 10 to 15F and greater (depending on wind and sun conditions)
– I operate my traditional propane system at temperatures of 10f to 15F and less

– My average HP coefficient of performance, COP, was 2.64
– My HPs required 2,489 kWh to replace 35% of my fossil Btus. 
– My HPs would require 8,997 kWh, to replace 100% of my fossil Btus.

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-019-0199-y
https://acrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/HeatPumps-ACRPC-5_20.pdf

Before HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 850 gal for Viessmann furnace, for a total propane of 1,200 gal/y
 
After HPs: I used 100 gal for DHW + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,489 kWh of electricity.

My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 – 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of $2.339/gal (buyers plan) = $702/y
My displaced fossil Btus was 100 x (1 – 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%
My purchased electricity cost increase was 2,489 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $498/y

My energy cost savings due to the HPs were 702 – 498 = $204/y, on an investment of $24,000!!

Amortizing Heat Pumps 

Amortizing the 24000 – 2400 = $21,600 turnkey capital cost at 6%/y for 15 years costs about $2,187/y.
This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.
https://www.myamortizationchart.com

Other Annual Costs

There likely would be annual cleaning of HPs at $200/HP, and parts and labor, as the years go by.
This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.
 
My Energy Savings of Propane versus HPs

Site Energy Basis: RE folks claim there would be a major energy reduction, due to using HPs. They compare the thermal Btus of 300 gallon of propane x 84,250 Btu/gal = 25,275,000 Btu vs the electrical Btus of 2,489 kWh of electricity x 3,412 Btu/kWh = 8,492,469 Btu. However, that comparison would equate thermal Btus with electrical Btus, which all ethical engineers know is an absolute no-no.

A-to-Z Energy Basis: A proper comparison would be thermal Btus of propane vs thermal Btus fed to power plants, i.e., 25,275,000 Btu vs 23,312,490 Btu, i.e., a minor energy reduction. See table 1A