We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsPolitics of Energy

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Brumar89 who wrote (82690)11/11/2019 8:00:17 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 83319
How To Trigger A Global Recession In One Easy Step: Ban Fracking

By Mark P. Mills
November 08, 2019

In a time long ago, seven years this month, President Obama and candidate Mitt Romney sparred in their second debate over the extent to which Obama deserved credit for increasing America’s oil and natural gas production. Three years later President Obama would, without fanfare, sign epic legislation reversing a 40-year-old petroleum export ban.

The United States used to be the world’s biggest importer of oil. Now, for the first time since 1949, the U.S. is a net exporter of petroleum thanks to fracking technology. America’s new role in global energy markets has already blunted others using energy as a geopolitical weapon.

So, what would happen if America’s next president were to make good on a promise to ban fracking? We know the answer.

Enthusiasms for alternatives aside, solar and wind combined supply less than 2 percent of world energy, while 54 percent still comes from oil and natural gas. Many analysts have pointed to the domestic jobs and revenues that will be lost were America to shut down fracking. But that’s the least of it. Far more significant: removing that quantity of fuel from world markets would trigger the biggest energy price spike in history, and a global recession.

We know that because history has witnessed the effect of similar amounts of oil suddenly taken from markets for political reasons. During the infamous 1973 Arab oil embargo, a share of oil trade comparable to what a frack-ban would cause, was taken off the market by the Saudis. That episode drove world oil prices up over 350% and triggered a global recession. Again in 1979, a similar loss to energy markets happened when Iran’s Mullahs revolted and that nation’s exports collapsed. That event caused a 200% global price spike and triggered another recession.

It bears noting that an American frack-ban would in our time constitute a kind of double ‘whammy’ as it would also take off global markets a Saudi Arabia’s worth of oil in the form of liquefied natural gas. The latter is the fastest growing source of global energy trade. And according to the International Energy Agency, America is expected to supply the majority of new energy traded on global markets.

Many assume talk of a ban is mere posturing during a contentious election season. But that proposal is repeatedly front and center.

While VP Biden and many of the other presidential aspirants merely promise to “phase-out all fossil fuels,” Senators Warren, Sanders and Harris and four other candidates have all called for an outright frack ban. Apparently they read the polls showing 58% of democratic primary voters would support a ban.

Some skeptics caution against over-reacting, regardless of electioneering, claiming a ban couldn’t really be put into effect because of practical limits on presidential authority. That’s naive.

Executive orders have impact. Even more, a president’s authority over the Administrative branch can engender creative interpretations of the labyrinth of rules, and the issuance of aggressive “notices” from myriad agencies. A fusillade of such actions can slow-walk or outright stop all manner of industrial activities up and down the supply chain, from permitting to moving materials, to building pipelines and ports. Similar friction can be generated in capital markets that have, thus far, enthusiastically funded fracking.

Frack-banners have honed shut-down tactics at the state level. Consider the highly choreographed protests in 2017 over the Dakota Access pipeline, a project that simply paralleled an already existing pipe. Another bellwether; New York State’s elastic use of groundwater regulations to effectively ban a hundred-mile gas pipeline, to the detriment of New Yorkers, despite 4,000 miles of similar pipes in that state and 300,000 miles more nationally.

Lest we forget, if the Democratic Party also wins both houses of Congress, frack-banning lawmakers could just pass a law. It wouldn’t be the first time. Back in 1972 and 1982, Congress banned oil production on over 90% of America’s offshore domains. And that happened despite fears back then of Middle East oil hegemony.

Meanwhile, on-shore hydraulic fracturing of oil- and gas-bearing shale has eliminated the need for over $1 trillion of energy imports during the past decade; and by lowering prices, saved U.S. consumers over $2 trillion. America’s production resurgence also lowered global prices, thereby transferring trillions of dollars from producers, like Russia and OPEC, into consumers’ pockets.

America’s emergence as a third major source of oil and gas on world markets should be considered in the context of a geopolitical reality: 75% of the global economy is found in five regions: North America, Europe, China, Japan and India. All, except North America, are major net energy importers. Incalculable, if subterranean, geopolitical consequences would follow from America exiting the export market.

It is magical thinking to believe that shale production could be replaced quickly by wind and solar – at any price, and regardless of climate change motivations. To put this in perspective: since 2007, American fracking technology has added 500 percent more energy to markets than have all of the planet’s wind and solar farms combined.

Thus the wild card actually on the table this political season is whether America might literally pull the rug out from under the world’s economy. Consumers here and abroad might take seriously a phrase that’s become popular in our political lexicon: elections have consequences.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82691)11/11/2019 7:07:38 PM
From: Brumar89
   of 83319
Greta Thunberg Mural Equipped With Laser Eyes That Shoot At SUVs
November 11th, 2019

SAN FRANCISCO, CA—A new mural in downtown San Francisco of Swedish teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg has a surprise for passersby: her eyes are equipped with high-powered lasers designed to seek and destroy carbon-emitting SUVs on the streets below.

“We want the mural to really make a positive impact in the fight against climate change,” a spokesperson told sources. “Greta’s pouty glare is certain to generate guilt and shame in many motorists, but that didn’t seem like enough. By adding the lasers, we can begin taking out the worst offenders in their Hummers and Land Rovers.”

When the lasers were first activated, they immediately targeted the carbon-emitting hydraulic cranes and aerosol paint sprayers used to create the mural. The glitch has since been fixed.

Sources confirm the lasers will be suspended when Al Gore and other climate activist celebrities visit San Francisco and drive through town with their fleet of Suburbans and Escalades.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82692)11/11/2019 7:10:33 PM
From: Brumar89
   of 83319
More Electric Vehicles Could Lead To A Mountain Of Battery Waste

In 2017, more than 1 million electric vehicles were sold for the first time. That number doubled to 2 million in 2018 and by 2040 electric cars could make up more than half of all new sales.

Electric vehicles will play a pivotal role in meeting global targets to reduce carbon emissions, but new research warns the world is unprepared to deal with the lithium-ion batteries that power these cars once they reach the end of their useful life span.

Based on the number of electric cars sold in 2017, researchers in the United Kingdom calculated that 250,000 metric tons, or half a million cubic meters, of unprocessed battery pack waste will result when these vehicles reach the end of their lives in about 15 to 20 years — enough to fill 67 Olympic swimming pools.
“Landfill is clearly not an option for this amount of waste,” said University of Leicester professor Andrew Abbott, co-author of the review that was published in the scientific journal Nature on Wednesday.

“Finding ways to recycle EV (electric vehicle) batteries will not only avoid a huge burden on landfill, it will also help us secure the supply of critical materials, such as cobalt and lithium, that surely hold the key to a sustainable automotive industry,” he said in a press statement.

Lithium-ion batteries cannot be treated like normal waste; they are flammable and could release toxic chemicals into the environment.

When Batteries Retire

The report says that more needs to be done to identify uses for vehicle batteries once they reach retirement age. Even if they can’t power a passenger car, the batteries may be able to do less demanding tasks such as store electricity from wind turbines and solar farms.

The report also says better ways to gauge the health of a battery would make it easier to assess whether it can be reused or repaired.

And if the batteries can no longer be used or, as forecast, the supply of batteries exceeds second-hand demand, rapid and more efficient recycling methods need to be developed that can extract the valuable raw materials such as lithium and cobalt, which can be environmentally damaging to mine.

“We believe that it is possible to move to more advanced recycling technologies that can not only recover a larger proportion of the materials in the battery but also will be better able to handle the volume of EV waste batteries we anticipate coming through the system,” Gavin Harper, Faraday Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham, who was the lead author on the paper, told CNN.

Currently in the United Kingdom, there are no dedicated operating facilities for processing electric vehicle waste batteries. What batteries do get processed are exported and recycled using a pyrometallurgical method, which uses high temperatures to smelt the batteries and extract some reusable components. However, it’s wasteful and inefficient, which means some materials can’t be recovered, he said.

There’s also a general lack of technical know-how, with a 2015 survey from the UK Institute of the Motor Industry finding there were only 1,000 trained technicians in the country capable of servicing electric vehicles, with another 1,000 in training — less than 2% of the country’s 170,000 motor technicians.

The batteries produced by different manufacturers vary widely and the paper calls for more standardization to allow easier recycling. Current designs also don’t lend themselves to easy deconstruction by hand or machine.

“The recycling challenge is not straightforward: There is enormous variety in the chemistries, shapes and designs of lithium ion batteries used in EVs,” said Harper.

“If you look at lead acid batteries, we have really high recovery rates of around 95 % because the technology is there to recycle them and it makes economic sense … the battery has a value.”
“We need to get to a similar place with EV batteries where they are seen as an opportunity and not a burden,” he added.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82693)11/12/2019 6:28:06 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 83319
Scientists extract hydrogen gas from oil and bitumen, giving potential pollution-free energy
charles the moderator


by Goldschmidt Conference

Hydrogen. Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Scientists have developed a large-scale economical method to extract hydrogen (H2) from oil sands (natural bitumen) and oil fields. This can be used to power hydrogen-powered vehicles, which are already marketed in some countries, as well as to generate electricity; hydrogen is regarded as an efficient transport fuel, similar to petrol and diesel, but with no pollution problems. The process can extract hydrogen from existing oil sands reservoirs, with huge existing supplies found in Canada and Venezuela. Interestingly, this process can be applied to mainstream oil fields, causing them to produce hydrogen instead of oil.

Hydrogen powered vehicles, including cars, buses, and trains, have been in development for many years. These vehicles have been acknowledged to be efficient, but the high price of extracting the Hydrogen from oil reserves has meant that the technology has not been economically viable. Now a group of Canadian engineers have developed a cheap method of extracting H2 from oil sands. They are presenting this work at the Goldschmidt Geochemistry Conference in Barcelona.

“There are vast oil sand reservoirs in several countries, with huge fields in Alberta in Canada, but also in Venezuela and other countries” said Dr. Ian Gates, of the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Calgary, and of Proton Technologies Inc.).

Oil fields, even abandoned oil fields, still contain significant amounts of oil. The researchers have found that injecting oxygen into the fields raises the temperature and liberates H2, which can then be separated from other gases via specialist filters. Hydrogen is not pre-existing in the reservoirs, but pumping oxygen means that the reaction to form hydrogen can take place.

Grant Strem, CEO of Proton Technologies which is commercializing the process says “This technique can draw up huge quantities of hydrogen while leaving the carbon in the ground. When working at production level, we anticipate we will be able to use the existing infrastructure and distribution chains to produce H2 for between 10 and 50 cents per kilo. This means it potentially costs a fraction of gasoline for equivalent output”. This compares with current H2 production costs of around $2/kilo. Around 5% of the H2 produced then powers the oxygen production plant, so the system more than pays for itself.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82694)11/12/2019 6:31:27 PM
From: Brumar89
1 Recommendation   of 83319
Prominent Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack dissents – Laments ‘hubris’ of those who ‘believe that we can ‘control’ climate

Global Warming/Climate Change began as a scientific discussion. It has evolved into a polarizing political argument (whenever a scientific understanding depends on a “consensus”, we know it has become political), and from there to a semi-religious campaign advanced by well-intended people who feel, deep in their hearts, that they are “saving the planet”.

Many of those people have chosen to allow their good intentions to override their scientific objectivity. As soon as people who disagree about scientific conclusions start calling each other pejorative names, we know that the discussion has become primarily political, not scientific.

I know the work of [MIT’s Dr. Richard] Lindzen, [Climatologist Dr. Roy] Spencer, [Georgia Tech Climatologist Dr. Judith] Curry, [Climatologist Dr. John] Christy, [Princeton Physicist Dr. Will] Happer, etc.I share the skepticism that these people have expressed that anthropogenic CO2 emissions represent the primary driver of the climate change now under way.

We know that the climate “warmed”, with a few unexplained reversals, from ~18,000 years ago until ~1830 AD, as a consequence of factors that have controlled climate for all of Phanerozoic time. It defies the imagination to suggest that those factors abruptly ceased to operate ~300 years ago just to accommodate our need to attribute contemporary climate change to human activity.

It beggars the imagination to assert that the natural factors that drove the warming trend from 18,000 years ago to ~300 years ago (with some unexplained temperature reversals) abruptly stopped operating at the end of the Little Ice Age to accommodate our political need to attribute climate variability to human industrial activity.

Climate models are instructive, but they lead to scenarios, not predictions. They can be manipulated to yield desired outputs.
Removing the groundwater contribution, not directly the consequence of climate change, yields a rate of global sea-level rise that is the slowest in the last 18,000 years. In prior “interglacial” times, most recently to ~125,000 years ago, global sea level rose to levels higher than the present sea level, and no humans were burning fossil fuels.

We run an insidious risk: When/if a) we learn that anthropogenic CO2 is not the primary driver of contemporary climate change; b) we drastically reduce anthropogenic output of CO2 and the climate does not respond as we have predicted; or c) we enter a period of unexplained cooling, as the mid-20th-century cooling episode, or the Little Ice Age, the credibility of climate scientists will be dashed, and with it the credibility of any scientist who tries to inform environmental policy via rigorous science.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82695)11/13/2019 7:15:33 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 83319
Arctic blast has arrived in the eastern US…numerous record low temperatures by early Wednesday
Guest Blogger / 10 hours ago November 12, 2019

Guest post by Paul Dorian,

Numerous record low temperatures were set this morning for the day and, in some cases, the all-time low temperature for November was recorded; map courtesy, NOAA

*Arctic blast has arrived in the eastern US…numerous record low temperatures by early Wednesday*


The strong cold front representing the leading edge of a widespread Arctic air mass passed through the DC-to-Philly-to-NYC corridor early this morning and temperatures have fallen into the 30’s from early day highs. Precipitation is being enhanced in the cold air behind the front as a strong jet streak aloft generates upward motion in the I-95 corridor. As a result, a changeover to snow is likely during the mid-day and early afternoon hours in the immediate DC-to-Philly-to-NYC corridor and this changeover to snow is likely all the way to coastal New Jersey and Delmarva. Some spots could receive small snow accumulations and as temperatures drop to near freezing later in the day, watch for the possibility of “black ice” on some roadways. Precipitation winds down later today and the cold will become the main story with record low temperatures in numerous Mid-Atlantic/NE US locations by early tomorrow. Widespread records were set earlier today from Texas to the Great Lakes with some stations recording their lowest temperature ever for the month of November and we are not even at the halfway point.

An upper-level jet streak is helping to prolong the precipitation in the I-95 corridor as it helps to generate strong upward motion in the atmosphere; map courtesy NOAA,


Often times the passage of a frontal system signals the end of the precipitation, but that is not the case today as an upper-level jet streak is enhancing upward motion and helping to generate some post-frontal precipitation in the I-95 corridor. As temperatures continue to drop, the rain is changing over to snow in many locations and this changeover threat will extend all the way to the east coast over the next couple of hours. Small snow accumulations are possible and there is the possibility of some “black ice” to form on the roadways later today as temperatures slide towards the freezing mark.

There is some post-frontal “jet-streak induced” precipitation (arrow) and this raises the chances for a changeover to snow from the immediate I-95 corridor all the way to the coastline; map courtesy NOA

A widespread region of the country experienced daily record or near record lows this morning and, in some cases, the lowest temperature ever recorded for the month of November took place which is particularly impressive since we haven’t even reached the mid-way point of the month. This area of record or near record lows will shift to the Mid-Atlantic/NE US by early tomorrow morning as many low temperature records are well within reach. For example, at Philly Int’l Airport (PHL), the record low for November 13th (Wednesday) is 24 degrees and this is certainly within reach and many suburban locations along the I-95 corridor will drop to the teens in the overnight hours. In addition to the potential for overnight low temperature records, high temperatures on Wednesday will be confined to the low-to-mid 30’s along the I-95 corridor and these may turn out to be the “lowest” high temperatures ever recorded for the date of November 13th.

This is one of the coldest starts to the month of November across the nation since the middle 1990’s. Map courtesy Weather Bell Analytics, NOAA

Some of the very impressive weather observations from this morning include monthly temperature records at Clinton, Oklahoma (12 degrees), Altus AFB, Oklahoma (13 degrees), Mt. Vernon, Illinois (10 degrees), and Fort Worth, Texas (20 degrees). This is especially impressive given the fact that we haven’t even reached mid-month and most monthly records are set near the end of the given month. In addition, the daily record set this morning at Indianapolis, Indiana of 8 degrees shatters the prior record set 108 years ago and Chicago, Illinois dropped to a record of 7 degrees – both of these are the lowest temperatures ever for so early in the season. In Detroit, Michigan, the Arctic blast resulted in nearly 10 inches of snow…the most ever there for the month of November. Finally, and not to be outdone, it dropped all the way down to 7 degrees in Amarillo, Texas earlier today.

Meteorologist Paul Dorian
Perspecta, Inc.

Justin Burch

November 12, 2019 at 6:10 pm

One of my alarmist relatives explained it to me this way. Because global warming is heating up and melting the arctic twice as fast as the USA, the cold air has no where to go so it slides south. She did not take me laughing at her well.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82696)11/13/2019 7:23:36 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 83319
Apple Co-Founder Gives Up On Self Driving CarsBy Jon LeSage - Nov 12, 2019, 12:00 PM CST

For those betting on 2030 being the tipping point year for autonomous, electric vehicles taking over global new vehicle sales — you might want to take a second look.

While 2030 has been named the magic year in a few market reports and conference keynote speeches, the timeline for automated EVs to become the industry norm in global vehicle manufacturing and sales likely will be taking much longer.

"The hurdles to battery electric vehicles and complete autonomous driving are still quite high," Honda CEO Takahiro Hachigo recently said in an interview at Honda Motor Co.'s global headquarters.

His company will focus on gasoline-electric hybrids, not full EVs, through 2030. As for fully autonomous vehicles, Honda will roll out incremental advances that offer real-world safety at affordable prices. It makes more sense for the cautious Japanese company that prefers long-ended timeframes over immediate results.

"I don't know whether other manufacturers are becoming too optimistic or not, but apparently the approach in going about these regulations differs from one company to another," he said.

The automaker already has a number of new technologies ready to include in its new vehicle lineup, including a hands-off autonomous system for highways. But the company will be taking a “wait-and-see” approach with autonomous and electric vehicles.

Hachigo’s perspectives are shared by other leaders in auto manufacturing, including Japanese rival Toyota’s Executive Vice President Shigeki Tomoyama. The executive last month said in a speech that even with its $10 billion R&D budget, Toyota has always seen the path to commercialization as long and challenging.

Last month, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak said he’s “given up” on ever seeing Level 5 fully autonomous vehicles being allowed on public roads during his lifetime. Apple is still working on a self-driving car project, but Wozniak said it’s become much harder to achieve than had originally been thought.

General Motors’ CEO Mary Barra in recent years had emphasized that her company will become the global leader in advanced, autonomous, and electric vehicles as automakers shift over from vehicle manufacturers to full-service mobility service providers. Reaching that end goal will be taking much longer than expected.

Its self driving car unit, GM Cruise, said in July it was backing off plans to make available autonomous taxis (called “robotaxis”) by the end of this year. GM has a $2.75 billion stake in Cruise.

GM’s $500 million investment in ride-hailing firm Lyft in 2016 has moved far away from any type of joint project, with Lyft continuing to test its own small fleet of self-driving cars without GM’s involvement.

A new survey by J.D. Power last month supports that conclusion. The study found that consumer sentiment about self-driving vehicles and electrification has stayed flat recently, even through the technology growth has been impressive.

J.D. Power’s 2019 Q3 Mobility Confidence Index Study found that opinions haven’t changed since the last survey three month prior. The index now stands at 36 (on a 100-point scale) for self-driving vehicles and 55 for battery-electric vehicles — identical to the previous one.

“It was a little surprising to find consumer sentiment about self-driving vehicles and electrification has stayed flat,” said Kristin Kolodge, J.D. Power’s executive director-driver interaction and human-machine interface research. “But it shows that consumers are really steadfast in their opinions about new mobility technologies right now, regardless of how close they are to being available for purchase.”

The studies polled more than 5,000 consumers and industry experts on self-driving vehicles, and another 5,000 on battery-electric vehicles.

One industry expert in the study agrees with colleagues on how tough the challenge has become. “Tech and automotive companies continue to learn how difficult the problem really is,” the expert said.

Another blow could be that the world's largest EV market, China, is considering further cuts to subsidies for EV purchases, according to people familiar with the matter. It would be another blow to a once-booming industry that’s facing an unprecedented slump. In the US, a battle between the Trump administration and California’s clean car and zero emission vehicle standards is expected to hurt EV sales in America.

In 2018, China saw about 1,256,000 units sold in its “new energy vehicle” EV segment of battery electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. That made up about 62 percent of global EV sales last year. Generous subsidies has been behind China’s EV sales boom since 2015.

But discussions have shifted over to a further cut in these subsidies beyond the national government’s recent initial announcement. These new vehicle purchase incentives have started being softened already this year in an attempt to let EV makers become more appealing and competitive in the overall auto market.

Chinese government officials want to see new vehicle sales come back to offset a recessionary economy in the country. Car sales slumped 5.2 percent annually in September, extending the annual sales decline for the 15th month in a row.

In the world’s second largest EV market, a battle between the Trump administration and California’s clean car and zero emission vehicle standards is expected to hurt EV sales in America. General Motors, Toyota, FCA, Hyundai, and the National Automobile Dealers Association, are backing the Trump administration’s efforts to gut fuel economy standards and California’s ability to keep the bar high.

These companies said that in recent a filing with a U.S. appeals court, arguing the administration’s rule provided “vehicle manufacturers with the certainty that states cannot interfere with federal fuel economy standards.”

In July, Ford, Honda, and Volkswagen made a deal with California supporting the state’s policies. The Trump administration is preparing to soon roll back the fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama Administration and revoke California’s ability to set stricter clean-car standards. In September, the US Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published its overhauled rule, called “SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Standard,” to take effect November 26.

AVs and EVs will need to see regulatory hurdles cleared as one of the key challenges for mass adoption.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82697)11/13/2019 7:25:01 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 83319
Americans Aren’t Buying Into The EV HypeBy Tsvetana Paraskova - Nov 12, 2019, 1:30 PM CST
Sales of electric vehicles (EVs), hybrid vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles in the United States slumped in Q3 much more than the slight decline in the overall passenger car market, due to a lack of choice on the U.S. greener car market, analyst company Canalys said in new research.

Total passenger car deliveries in the U.S. dropped by 1.3 percent year on year to 4.2 million vehicles in the third quarter, Canalys said.

Sales of new energy vehicles (NEVs) in America continue to disappoint, plunging in Q3 by 18 percent on the year, to 90,000 plug-in hybrid, fully electric, and fuel cell vehicles, the company has estimated.

NEVs accounted for just 2.2 percent of all passenger cars sold in the U.S. in Q3, while sales of SUVs and non-commercial small and medium-sized pick-up trucks all increased between July and September, according to Canalys. Sales of other passenger cars fell by 10 percent on the year.

Among NEVs, Tesla continues to be the market leader, selling more than all its competitors combined and holding a market share of 60 percent in NEV sales in Q3. Yet, even Tesla’s sales in the U.S. dropped by 20 percent on the year in the third quarter, Canalys said.

“There is a severe lack of choice when it comes to NEVs in the US,” Chris Jones, Chief Analyst for automotive at Canalys, said, commenting on the research.

Tesla’s Model 3 deliveries in the U.S. have peaked, while the competitors haven’t offered anything new to challenge the market leader, he added.

“This needs to change in order to grow the EV charging network, spur demand for zero emission vehicles and, as a result, improve air quality in US cities,” Jones noted.

Canalys’s research on U.S. EV sales and Tesla’s market share are similar to that of CleanTechnica, which has recently estimated that Tesla’s models are undisputedly the best-selling electric cars in America. Tesla Model 3 is beating by a wide margin all other makes in the U.S. EV market—the mass-market EV represented 59 percent of all U.S. EV sales in October, and 62 percent of all sales of EVs in America between January and October.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82698)11/13/2019 4:57:08 PM
From: Brumar89
   of 83319
Greta sets sail on new plastic yacht

By Craig Rucker |November 13th, 2019| Climate| 1 Comment

Swedish climate kid Greta Thunberg is headed back across the Atlantic today from Virginia to Spain on “La Vagabonde,” an Outremer 45 Catamaran owned by Australian sailing couple Riley Whitelum and Elayna Carausu.

Greta is protesting fossil fuels by avoiding flying to attend UN climate conferences. She found herself stranded on the wrong side of the pond when Chile abruptly pulled out of hosting COP 25, the most important UN climate event of the year, which is scheduled to open December 2nd.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party stepped in and offered Madrid as an alternative venue which the UN promptly accepted. (CFACT will be there!). Moving the conference to Spain prompted Thunberg to tweet, “It turns out I’ve travelled half around the world, the wrong way:)…If anyone could help me find transport I would be so grateful.”

Greta was ferried to America on board the elite racing yacht Malizia II by Pierre Casiragh i, a member of Monaco’s ruling Grimaldi family, and the youngest grandson of Princess Grace Kelly. The irony of protesting capitalism and oil on board a carbon-fiber (petrochemical) yacht owned by European royals who made billions operating Monaco as a tax haven was rich.

Thunberg’s predicament in finding her way home to Europe illustrates just how impractical sailing is as a means of international travel.

A few years ago, Elayna Carausu was bumming her way around the world working as a part-time scuba guide. She met Riley Whitelum in Greece and joined him on board his Beneteau cruising yacht. They later flew to France to purchase an Outremer 45 catamaran. The couple funds their cruising lifestyle through online fundraising boosted by a popular video blog. Latching on to Greta Thunberg’s celebrity is a great way for them to boost their reach and top off their “cruising kitty.”

Greta’s return trip remains rife with irony. An Outremer 45 weighs 17,400 pounds and is made of fiberglass, or fiber-reinforced plastic. It draws auxiliary power from twin Volvo diesel engines. The yacht costs $757,000, though it appears that Carausu and Whitelum got a substantial discount from Outremer. The corporation was interested in the publicity it would garner from the couple’s celebrity and must be thrilled to have Greta join the mix.

Sailing’s fantastic, but sadly does not scale. Turning back the travel clock to the nineteenth century’s method of crossing oceans offers no practical solution for most people’s travel needs. Sailing requires not only vast outlays of time to cross oceans in weeks instead of hours, but vast sums of money as well. Thumbing rides with tax haven princes or publicity-seeking cruising couples is not likely to meet your travel needs or mine.

Both Maliza II and La Vagabonde were both, in effect, pumped out of the ground by oil companies. Watch workers spray petrochemicals into molds to construct La Vagabonde here and to make an Imoca 60 class racing sister yacht to Maliza II here.

An organization called “Sail to the COP” sought to emulate Greta and also found themselves stranded when COP 25 moved to Madrid. They haven’t a clue and are “sailing to Belém, Brazil, and will decide on our next steps there.” A ship of fools indeed.

Sailing plastic yachts across oceans may be fun, but is neither Green, nor practical.

Trying to kill air travel is eco-nihilism at its worst.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82699)11/13/2019 4:58:46 PM
From: Brumar89
1 Recommendation   of 83319
Wind turbine waste

By Craig Rucker |November 8th, 2019| Energy| 4 Comments

The answer to our energy challenges is not blowing in the wind.

CFACT senior policy advisor Paul Driessen explains in detail at

Wind “farms”? Like some cute, rustic Old McDonald family farm? Are you kidding me? These would be massive offshore electricity factories, with thousands, even millions, of turbines and blades towering 500-700 feet above the waves. Only a certifiable lunatic, congenital liar, complete true believer, would-be global overseer or campaign-cash-hungry politician could possibly repeat this IEA hype – or call these wind energy factories renewable, sustainable or eco-friendly.

Take a look at Driessen’s full account. The case against wind turbines is overwhelming, as countries such as Spain and Germany have already found out to their detriment. Their citizens are revolting and subsidies have been slashed.

Wind energy is expensive, intermittent, inefficient, highly subsidized, born from the dirtiest strip mines on Earth and kills birds. When they wear out they can’t be recycled.

Every wind turbine that goes up means higher prices for everyone. They are not up to the task of powering the future.

Meanwhile, the Green-Left, blithe to the inefficiencies of so-called “renewable” energy, now wants to also kill our ever-popular and affordable gas cooking and heating.

Steve Goreham posted details on plans to ban gas appliances at

Some cooks love their electric cooktops. Many, including serious chefs, prefer the precise control and instant on and off they get cooking with gas. Pretty much everyone heating with gas loves it.

Green ideologues want to simultaneously mandate electricity, while at the same time making electricity more expensive and less reliable.

We should take ideology out of energy, and replace it with smarter thinking and consumer choice.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10