Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
So-called “green hydrogen” is in trouble, big trouble. Free marketeers on one side and environmentalists on the other are critical of government subsidies for greenwashing.
“I’ve been around automotive for a long time, but I’ve NEVER seen incentives that represent 90% of new vehicle price. For a Toyota, 10% is the most I’ve seen. Yet, this is exactly what’s happening for the Toyota Mirai.” (James Carter, below)
EVs compete against hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles–at least in California where some one hundred hydrogen dispensing stations are. The range and fill-time of HFCVs is quite competitive with EVs. But it is downhill from there–and a major mess for sellers and buyers. The California Energy Commission (remember Methanol?) has failed again.
Toyota’s innovative Mirai might just be the best deal on the car market right now, but access to hydrogen fuel is getting harder.
Even with ~$60,000 in total discounts, Mirai is still a BAD deal.
“The $40,000 cash incentive deal is limited to 2023 model year Mirai Limited models, and includes zero percent financing for qualifying buyers. All new Mirais include $15,000 in complimentary fuel at the time of sale.”
I’ve been around automotive for a long time, but I’ve NEVER seen incentives that represent 90% of new vehicle price. For a Toyota, 10% is the most I’ve seen. Yet, this is exactly what’s happening for the Toyota Mirai.
Detail
Vehicle: $66,000, less $40,000 discount
Finance: $6,500 interest, less $6,500 discount
Fuel for 5 years /15,000 miles annually: $45,000, less $15,000
So, in total, this car will cost you $56,000 over 5 years, which is roughly the same as a Model Y Performance mostly charged from home. Perhaps add $5k for interest payments for the Y.
Here’s the rub: At the end of 5 years, that Model Y will be worth about $25,000. The Mirai? Likely $2,000 to $3,000, based on history. In other words, that hugely discounted Mirai is still a BAD DEAL.
Why is it still bad? Because the only Hydrogen stations are in California, and all suffer very irregular supply. In other words, there’s no guarantee you’ll get fuel when you need it. Which, unfortunately, is rule #1….
Conclusion: “Driveway Jewelry”
For FCEV, unless you stay within California, road trips are impossible. So, this car is really no more than driveway jewelry, and while it is a good looking car, I personally would still want to go places. And at that task it fails miserably.
Comment
So-called “green hydrogen” is in trouble, big trouble. Free marketeers on one side and environmentalists on the other are critical of government subsidies for greenwashing. ExxonMobil most recently has warned that without enough government subsidies, it will scrap its one-year-old plan to construct the world’s largest clean hydrogen facility. Such would be good news all ’round–even for ExxonMobil to call costs to date sunk and gear its operations to consumer demand, not transient political fads.
A recent essay from The Atlantic Council, a “nonpartisan organization that galvanizes U.S. leadership and engagement in the world,” claims that the countries of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) are facing an “existential threat” due to climate change. This is false.
A recent essay from The Atlantic Council, a “nonpartisan organization that galvanizes U.S. leadership and engagement in the world,” claims that the countries of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) are facing an “existential threat” due to climate change. This is false. The countries in the region are mostly hot and arid climates, but there is no data showing that climate change is making things worse for them. In fact, by almost every measure imaginable, life is improving across MENA as the planet modestly warms.
The essay, titled “Climate crisis fuels change in MENA region,” actually does not discuss climate change very much at all in the body text. The vast majority of the report focuses on economic, political, and legal freedom, inequality, and prosperity in the region. The phrase “climate change” only appears four times in the entire piece, all thrown into the concluding section, and what mention is made about it is entirely unsubstantiated.
Author Rabah Arezki claims that MENA is “extremely exposed to the existential threat posed by climate change,” and that it is “simply making the Middle East and North Africa unlivable at a faster rate than any other region.”
Arezki goes on:
“Specifically, temperatures have reached record highs and a water crisis is looming in the region, which could lead to heightened domestic tensions and interstate conflicts. The crisis is made worse by the inadequate governance of the water sector and other utilities, which has exacerbated the frustration of the citizenry over poor public services.
The region also needs to transition away from fossil fuels. Oil prices have been persistently high and this has provided some respite to the many oil-exporting countries in the region. Yet, as the world moves away from fossil fuels, the vast reserves of oil and natural gas with which MENA is endowed will eventually become stranded—and so will the capital investment in the sector.”
These claims are factually incorrect. Almost all metrics that show how “livable” a country is have been getting better over time, not worse, amid recent warming.
GDP has skyrocketed in the MENA region since even just the 1990s, increasing by about 447 percent according to data from the World Bank. (See figure below)
Arezki claims that the region needs to transition away from fossil fuels, even as he admits that most of the gain in GDP for the region is due to the development, use, and international sale of fossil fuel’s found there.
Even if countries in Europe and North America “moved away” from fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation, the vast majority of products in the world, including renewable energy products like wind turbines and solar panels, are manufactured with plastics and other materials that come from hydrocarbons. These products are not so easily abandoned. Other countries, like China, have shown no interest at all in actually decreasing their fuel consumption, and so to claim that the reserves of oil and gas in MENA will become “stranded” is foolish on two fronts.
Crop yields are not being negatively impacted by any water crisis or heat, supposedly driven by climate change, rather yields are improving.
According to data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, cereal crop production and yields have improved substantially across Northern Africa and the Middle East over the last few decades. (See figure below)
Since 1990:
North African cereal yield has increased 27 percent;
North African production has increased 69 percent;
West Asian cereal yield increased 62 percent;
West Asian cereal production increased 18 percent.
Life expectancy has also improved dramatically over time, with a dip around 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but has otherwise improved from an average of 65 years, to 74, before the pandemic.
Far from becoming more “unlivable,” from a strictly economic standpoint without touching on social and political issues, people in the Middle East and Northern Africa have seen their living standards, economies, and crop production, improve amid modest warming, even as many countries in both regions have suffered from nearly continuous political turmoil and war over recent decades. The Atlantic Council should acknowledge the fact that no climate change signal is obvious in the available data for MENA, and quit hyping unwarranted fears of catastrophic climate change that is nowhere in evidence there.
A “perfect storm” of increased demand because of net zero, the closure of existing nuclear power stations and delays to the delivery of Hinkley Point C, which is being built by French state-owned power company EDF, will leave the country facing a “crunch point” that risks blackouts.
Hinkley Point C delays and closure of other nuclear stations leave UK facing ‘crunch point’, analysis finds.
Delays to French-built nuclear power stations will leave the UK at risk of blackouts by 2028, new research has warned.
A “perfect storm” of increased demand because of net zero, the closure of existing nuclear power stations and delays to the delivery of Hinkley Point C, which is being built by French state-owned power company EDF, will leave the country facing a “crunch point” that risks blackouts. The Telegraph has the story.
It coincides with new government data showing consumers will have £2.8bn added to their bills in 2028 – about £100 per householder – to pay power station owners to provide generating capacity.
Analysis by Public First predicts that the UK’s demand for power will exceed baseload capacity by 7.5GW at peak times by 2028 – a shortfall equivalent to the power used by more than 7 million homes.
A shortfall is expected as ageing British power infrastructure is set to close in the coming years. Ratcliffe-on-Soar, the UK’s last remaining coal-fired power station, is scheduled to shut down this year.
Hartlepool and Heysham I nuclear power stations will be decommissioned in March 2026 and Heysham II and Torness come offline in March 2028.
At the same time, demand for electricity is expected to increase sharply as Britain shifts away from fossil fuels and adopts technology such as electric vehicles and heat pumps.
The warning comes amid a political row between Westminster and Paris over who will pay for cost overruns on the long-delayed Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor, which was scheduled to open in 2025 at the time of approval but will now not come online until at least 2031.
French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire has demanded “an equitable sharing of costs” but the UK Government insisted the EDF-led development must be privately financed.
The cost of building Hinkley Point C, which is under construction in Somerset, has risen from £18bn to £46bn – equivalent to £700 for everyone in the UK.
Public First’s warning is politically highly sensitive as it implies the UK could face power shortages and consequent increases in prices, or even the risk of blackouts, around the time of a general election.
The report, Mind the Gap: Exploring Britain’s energy crunch, was commissioned by Drax Power, the owner of the controversial Drax power station that once burned coal but is now fuelled largely by wood chips imported from “sustainable” forests in North America.
It generates about 4pc of the UK’s electricity but is reliant on taxpayer subsidies that last year earned Drax £617m, but which comes to an end in 2027. Drax is lobbying politicians to extend those subsidies.
The report said expected shortfalls in generation capacity will leave the UK even more dependent on international generation – meaning power imported via undersea cable from France, Norway and other European countries.
2023 marked 50 years of international cooperation to protect polar bears across the Arctic. Those efforts have been a conservation success story: from a population estimated at about 12,000 bears in the late 1960s, numbers have almost tripled, to just over 32,000 in 2023.
In my State of the Polar Bear 2023 report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, I discuss recent news relevant to polar bear conservation and science issues. The most startling of these is the revelation that Western Hudson Bay polar bear numbers have not declined since 2004.
Press release (27 February 2024), Global Warming Policy Foundation
50 years after hunting ban polar bears are thriving, new report shows
London, 27 February: 2023 marked 50 years of international cooperation to protect polar bears across the Arctic. Those efforts have been a conservation success story: from a population estimated at about 12,000 bears in the late 1960s, numbers have almost tripled, to just over 32,000 in 2023.
Despite this dramatic increase in polar bear populations, claims that their numbers are falling due to climate change still dominate most media coverage.
Since 2004 we have been told that polar bear numbers in Western Hudson Bay have been steadily declining, but a new study made public in 2023 reveals that this isn’t actually true. In the State of the Polar Bear Report 2023, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) on International Polar Bear Day, zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford provides the details on this explosive news.
Among other issues addressed in this year’s report, Crockford explains that population surveys of Western Hudson Bay polar bears completed in 2011, 2016, and 2021 generated lower estimates than a survey done in 2004. However, these differences in bear counts are not statistically significant from each other, which means there has been no negative trend during the last 20 years.
Crockford said the consequences of this survey are enormous.
“It means there has been no statistically significant trend in Western Hudson Bay polar bear numbers since at least 2004. This result absolutely guts computer model predictions of future polar bear catastrophe that assume Western Hudson Bay numbers have been steadily declining.”
She also said the Western Hudson Bay survey raised questions about previously-unknown movements of hundreds of bears across subpopulation boundaries in Hudson Bay.
“There is now fairly strong evidence that the subpopulation boundaries in Hudson Bay need to be adjusted and have their previous population estimates recalculated. A similar issue is acknowledged in Alaska, where for decades fairly large numbers of Southern Beaufort polar bears have moved back and forth over the current boundary between the Chukchi Sea to the west and the Northern Beaufort Sea to the east. This means that if you count Southern Beaufort bears in one area at one point in time, it may look like a population decline has taken place when it actually hasn’t.”
Crockford added, “Western Hudson Bay and the Southern Beaufort are the only polar bear subpopulations which appeared to show strong support for the premise that sea ice declines blamed on human-caused global warming have reduced bear abundance. Now we know previous claims are almost certainly incorrect.”
Key Findings
There were no reports from the Arctic in 2023 indicating polar bears were being harmed due to lack of summer sea ice habitat, in part because Arctic sea ice in summer has not declined since 2007.
Contrary to expectations, a study in Svalbard found a decrease in polar bears killed in defense of life or property over the last 40 years, despite profound declines in sea ice over the last two decades.
A survey of Southern Hudson Bay polar bears in 2021 showed an astonishing 30% increase over five years, which adds another 223 bears to the global total.
A concurrent survey of Western Hudson Bay polar bears in 2021 showed that numbers had not declined since 2011, which also means they have not declined since 2004. Movement of bears across boundaries with neighbouring subpopulations may account for the appearance of a decline, when none actually occurred.
The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group has ignored a 2016 recommendation that the boundaries of three Hudson Bay subpopulations (Western HB, Southern HB, and Foxe Basin) be adjusted to account for genetic distinctiveness of bears inhabiting the Hudson Bay region; a similar boundary issue in the western Arctic between the Chukchi Sea, and the Southern and Northern Beaufort subpopulations, based on known movements of bears between regions, has been acknowledged since 2014 but has not yet been resolved.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, in their 2023 reports, failed to officially acknowledge the new-found South-East Greenland population as the 20th subpopulation, despite undisputed evidence this is a genetically distinct and geographically isolated group. Numbers are estimated at 234 individuals.
Citation for the report: Crockford, S.J. 2024. State of the Polar Bear 2023. Briefing Paper 67. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Download pdf here.
Backgrounder: Western Hudson Bay population surveys
Here is a short summary of Western Hudson Bay (WH) polar bear population size survey results since 1987, which includes the 95% confidence interval calculated (listed as the ‘range’ of possible accurate estimates) for each mean estimate. These surveys used a dizzying mix of field methods, geographic areas covered within the WH subpopulation boundary (see map below), and mathematical models to generate population estimates.
This study area map is Figure 1 from Lunn et al. 2013. The 2011a mark-recapture study (Lunn et al. 2013) did not include bears from Areas A or D, and only a few from Area B, while surveys in 1987 & 2004 included only Area C, so the totals were extrapolated for the entire region assuming few bears in Areas A & D. The 2011b aerial survey (Stapleton et al. 2014) covered Areas A-D & found many bears in Area D. This is why the estimate of 1030 from the 2011b aerial survey is considered the most accurate assessment.
1987, based on geographically-restricted (Area C only) capture-recapture study: 1184 (range 993-1411), calculated by Lunn et al. (2016:1313) for comparison to their 2011a study; note this figure is slightly different (i.e., 1194, range 1020-1368) than used by Regehr et al. (2007) to compare to 2004 data.
2004, based on geographically-restricted (Area C only) capture-recapture study: 935 (range 794-1076), a statistically insignificant decline of 22% since 1987 (Regehr et al. 2007:2679).
2011a, based on geographically-restricted capture-recapture (Area C + some of Area B): 806 (653-984) is the one most often quoted (Lunn et al. 2013, 2016). As happened in 2022 regarding the 2021 survey, in 2013 polar bear researchers shared results of the 2011 survey with the media before the report was available to the public.
2011b, based on comprehensive aerial survey: 1030 (range 754-1406), accepted by the PBSG in 2014 (Stapleton et al. 2014; see also PBSG 2023).
2011c, 949 (range 618-1280) is a recalculation of the 2011b estimate to make it comparable to 2016 and 2021 (see Dyck et al. 2017:3).
2016, based on an aerial survey with some differences from 2011b aerial survey: 842 (range 562-1121) (Dyck et al. 2017)
2021, based on an aerial survey with some differences from 2011b aerial survey: 618 (range 385-852), not statistically different from the 2016 or 2011a estimates. Atkinson et al. 2022:29 stated (my bold): Estimates derived for the WH subpopulation indicate a possible decline in total bear abundance between 2011 and 2021. …Although differences amongst these estimates [for 2011, 2016, and 2021]were not statistically significant, total abundance has declined consistentlybetween successive surveys.
They say that “total abundance has declined consistently between successive surveys” as if that over-rules the previous statement but it does not. The rules of mathematics say that without statistical significance, there has been no decline over time, as I explain below.
Confidence intervals for W. Hudson Bay population size estimates, 1987-2021 (not to scale). Red intervals are based on limited-area capture-recapture data, blue from limited-area aerial surveys, and black from a full-subpopulation aerial survey. Dates of surveys are on the right, with mean estimates in brackets. Only non-overlapping intervals are statistically significant (** and *), see explanation below.
With two exceptions, all WH population size estimates since 1987 are not statistically different from each other because of the overlap in their ‘confidence intervals’ (i.e., the ‘range’ of possible correct estimates (e.g., 993-1411 for 1987). As shown in the chart above, the first and last survey years (1987 and 2021) have clear non-overlapping confidence intervals (marked **), with the caveat that entirely different methods were used for these estimates, so the we should be careful concluding that a real decline in abundance has taken place.
And while the 2011a estimate has a non-overlapping confidence interval compared to 1987 (marked *), indicating a statistically significant decline between 1987 and 2011, the interval does overlap with the estimate for 2004 and for every other estimate since then. This suggests that no definitive declining trend in WH polar bear abundance can be said to have occurred between 2004 and 2021.
Therefore, the comprehensive aerial survey (2011b) which generated an estimate of 1030 bears is likely still the best assessment of abundance — and since it is also not statistically different from the 1987 estimate, it suggests the WH population has probably been stable for more than three decades.
Polar bear researchers continue to make public statements claiming that a continuous population decline has occurred in WH when the data they have collected simply do not support that conclusion. They defend this falsehood by insisting that numbers of adult females and subadults have declined significantly the last 20 years, just as they predicted would happen due to declining sea ice.
But according to their own data, sea ice conditions have not declined over the last two decades. There was a step-change in breakup and freeze-up dates that happened about 1998, which in most years added about three weeks to the length of time that WH polar bears had to remain onshore. Since then there has been no change in the length of the onshore period, which they freely admit (Atkinson et al. 2022; Castro de la Guardia et al. 2017; Lunn et al. 2013, 2016; Miller et al. 2022; Stapleton et al. 2014).
And if lack of sea ice isn’t driving the apparent decline in adult females and subadult, what is? Movement between subpopulation boundaries, especially into Foxe Basin, is one strong possibility that has not been adequately addressed. See the polar bear report for details.
Atkinson, S.N., Boulanger, J., Campbell, M., Trim, V. Ware, J., and Roberto-Charron, A. 2022. 2021 Aerial survey of the Western Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation. Final report to the Government of Nunavut, 16 November 2022.
Castro de la Guardia, L., Myers, P.G., Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J., Terwisscha van Scheltinga, A.D. 2017. Sea ice cycle in western Hudson Bay, Canada, from a polar bear perspective. Marine Ecology Progress Series 564: 225–233. http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v564/p225-233/
Dyck, M., Campbell, M., Lee, D., Boulanger, J. and Hedman, D. 2017. Aerial survey of the Western Hudson Bay polar bear sub-population 2016, final report (26 June 2017). Status report 2017-xx, Nunavut Department of Environment, Wildlife Research Section. Igloolik, Nunavut. pdf here.
Lunn, N.J., Stirling, I., Andriashek, D. and Kolenosky, G.B. 1997. Re-estimating the size of the polar bear population in Western Hudson Bay. Arctic 50(3): 234-240.
Lunn, N.J., Regehr, E.V., Servanty, S., Converse, S., Richardson, E. and Stirling, I. 2013.Demography and population assessment of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay, Canada. Environment Canada Research Report. 26 November 2013. PDF HERE
Miller, E.N., Lunn, N.J., McGeachy, D., and Derocher, A.E. 2022. Autumn migration phenology of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in Hudson Bay, Canada. Polar Biology 45:1023-1034.
PBSG. 2023. ‘Status Report on the World’s Polar Bear Subpopulations’. IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, 17 October. https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/
Regehr, E.V., Lunn, N.J., Amstrup, S.C., and Stirling, I. 2007. Effects of earlier sea ice breakup on survival and population size of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8):2673-2683.
Stapleton S., Atkinson, S., Hedman, D., and Garshelis, D. 2014. Revisiting Western Hudson Bay: using aerial surveys to update polar bear abundance in a sentinel population. Biological Conservation170:38-47. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320713004618#
Last week, there were more victories for the rule of law over the rule of climate bureaucrats and activists when the judiciary reversed a lower court ruling on a federal coal moratorium and rejected a bogus class-action lawsuit on emissions.
Last week, there were more victories for the rule of law over the rule of climate bureaucrats and activists when the judiciary reversed a lower court ruling on a federal coal moratorium and rejected a bogus class-action lawsuit on emissions.
These were encouraging steps, but the larger threat from extra-legal climate actions by the Biden administration very much remains.
First, the ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a district court ruling in 2022 that upheld the Obama administration’s initial moratorium by the Department of the Interior on new leases for coal mining on federally owned lands. The Trump administration had rescinded the moratorium and was sued by (so-called) environmental groups. The federal district court reinstated the moratorium even though the Biden administration reversed Trump’s recission on the initial action – except, the Appeals Court ruled, the Biden order technically failed to rescind the Trump Interior Department’s restoration of coal leases.
The National Association of Mining, a litigant in the case, was pleased with the outcome but has little to celebrate since the Biden administration views coal as climate kryptonite and will surely keep the door closed on new mining leases.
Second, federal Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the northern district of California, a Biden appointee, mostly threw out a class-action lawsuit against GE Appliances for what the lawsuit claimed were fraudulent assertions about its gas-powered stove. This is because the climate plaintiff believed stoves contributed to climate change from natural gas emissions.
When the courts invalidate climate policies, this further makes a mockery of President Biden’s admonitions that “democracy is threatened” by his political opponents since it is climate actions that are anti-democracy when they reach beyond laws duly enacted by Congress. This requires the courts to “check” the executive actions with no basis in law. A parallel problem is when Congress defers too much power and discretion to the executive branch, which is then exploited by climate fanatics wielding bureaucratic edicts.
Recent prominent examples of the judicial branch reigning in climate policy overreach occurred with the 2022 case, West Virginia v. EPA. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Clean Power Plan “generation shifting” rule on the basis that Congress did not grant the Environmental Protection Agency such sweeping authority to devise such emissions caps. Last May, the high court also struck down the Biden EPA regulations governing the waters of the United States in its ruling, Sackett v. EPA. However, subsequently, the EPA proceeded with another set of regulations that narrowly interpreted the Court’s decision, which is likely to be litigated again.
The legacy of this modern bureaucratic overreach also can be dated to the Supreme Court itself, which ruled in a 1984 case, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, that federal agencies had wide discretion in their interpretation of laws so long as they were “reasonable.” Forty years later, the Court may undo this Chevron deference to finally reign in the federal bureaucracy as it considers two cases, which CFACT described here.
Meanwhile, the regulatory beat goes on and will continue to have real-life consequences for America’s economy and living standards. The head of the National Association of Manufacturers, Jay Timmons, recently warned that new EPA air quality rules, entitled the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, could “wipe out up to one million jobs” in the U.S. and move “manufacturing investment away from the United States to countries with lower standards.”
Electric vehicle mandates, including tighter regulations on emissions from gasoline vehicles, will further subjugate America by making travel more expensive and restrictive and traditional autos with combustion engines unaffordable to more Americans. And let’s not forget President Biden’s recently imposed moratorium on new leases for facilities to export liquified natural gas on the grounds it can “study” its effects on climate change. What of the effects on lost American jobs, higher fuel prices, and our European allies’ energy needs while Russia wars on Ukraine? Never mind, says our president. Climate diktats prevail over such common sense.
The list goes on.
Did America vote for any of this? Did I miss Congress passing the Green New Deal? Is actual democracy becoming a fiction in the United States?
These questions answer themselves. America did not vote to lower its living standards nor cripple its energy sources, and Congress has not passed much of anything beyond corporate welfare for big business to produce so-called “renewable” energy under the misbegotten title, the “Inflation Reduction Act”.
But that will not stop the Biden administration, populated by climate fanatics and influenced by extremist groups funded by millionaires and billionaires who bend the knee at the climate alter. Moreover, many in Congress would just as well end democracy when it comes to climate policies by having the president declare an “climate emergency” and become a dictator on the issue.
The rest of America can “eat cake,” to quote Marie Antoinette’s 18th-century euphemism.
Yet rather than reforming this pricing system, easing household bills, the government raids renewable profits – an ever-increasing household energy “stealth tax”.
Reports of lower energy bills have been greatly exaggerated.
From April, households using an average amount of energy will face an annual bill of £1,690 for their combined gas and electricity – down from £1,928 between January and March.
Ofgem’s decision to lower the household energy price cap by 12pc means a saving of £238 a year for the typical household. But given that the price cap is set on a quarterly basis, with this newly announced level in place until the end of June, it makes more sense to think of an average saving of around £20 a month.
And while gas and electricity bills will fall for around 29m households from the start of April, the actual amount you pay still depends on how much you use, as the cap is on unit rates, not on your total bill.
Bills are also way above where they were before Russia invaded Ukraine two years ago, causing turmoil on global energy markets.
During January, domestic end-user electricity prices averaged 29.08 c€/kWh (euro cents per kilowatt hour) in France and just 22.04 c€/kWh in Spain. In the UK, the average was up at 40.73 c€/kWh – some 62pc above the European Union average.
In the US, while there is variation from state to state, average domestic electricity prices were the equivalent of just 16.27 c€/kWh last month. This at least partly reflects America’s success in transforming itself from a major importer to a major exporter of energy, a change driven by the impact of the fracking revolution on US oil and gas industry output.
Back in 2020, the last full year before signs of escalating tensions between Russia and Ukraine started spooking global energy markets, UK electricity prices averaged around 27.15 c€/kWh – a third lower than now.
Lingering high energy costs are a major reason why UK inflation remains at 4pc, double the Bank of England’s target. The comparable figures in the US and eurozone are 3.1pc and 2.8pc respectively, reflecting much lower electricity costs.
One reason UK electricity is so expensive is that wholesale energy costs – which have fallen sharply since the height of the Russia-Ukraine conflict – make up just half of the average household gas and electricity bill. Along with VAT at 5pc, and energy companies’ (relatively modest) profit margins, UK customers also pay hefty “policy costs” and even larger “network costs”.
“Policy costs”, according to Ofgem, are “levies that support low carbon generation, energy efficiency and vulnerable customers”. “Network costs”, meanwhile, reflect further subsidies to the renewables industry which, in turn, reflect the UK’s “marginal-cost electricity-pricing model”.
Over recent years, wind, solar and other renewables have generated around two fifths of the UK’s electricity – roughly the same as gas-fired power stations. Coal is now used to generate only around 2pc of our electricity, down from 35pc just 20 years ago.
But “cheap” renewables, far from cutting consumer energy bills, are pushing prices up. That’s because renewables still depend heavily on subsidies to get the wind turbines built and the solar panels up and running.
The UK’s now renewable-heavy energy mix also needs to have a large fleet of gas-fired power stations on standby – so they are there, ready to be fired up on days when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun doesn’t shine. The alternative is that the lights go out – with all the economic and societal chaos that would involve.
Such “intermittent” periods can last weeks in the UK, especially during winter, when energy demand is high.
But having gas-fired stations on standby to facilitate the more extensive use of renewables is hugely expensive – as the sky-high fixed costs of being able to produce energy at short notice are spread across much smaller revenues, given that the gas-fired stations in question are, for long-periods, standing idle.
Even on days when it is sunny and windy, UK electricity prices are driven by the marginal cost of generation – that is, the spot price of gas. And the shift to renewables is significantly inflating this marginal cost, pushing up household bills too – whatever we’re told about “low cost” renewable energy.
For now, renewable companies make serious money from the very intermittency problems they’re meant to be solving. The government meanwhile takes a big slice – via a low-key but hefty renewable windfall tax.
As such, the operation of our renewable-heavy electricity market has seriously aggravated the cost of living crisis. Yet rather than reforming this pricing system, easing household bills, the government raids renewable profits – an ever-increasing household energy “stealth tax”.
The year 1957 is memorable for at least two historic launches. The launch by the Soviet Socialist Union of the Sputnik, the world’s first artificial satellite, prompted the U.S. to create the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) the very next year.
The year 1957 is memorable for at least two historic launches. The launch by the Soviet Socialist Union of the Sputnik, the world’s first artificial satellite, prompted the U.S. to create the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) the very next year.
Eleven years later, Neil Armstrong stepped out of Apollo 11 and famously proclaimed, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
Barely three years later, Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene Cernan announced the end of the manned space flight experiment: “We shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind.”
Many believe that the Challenger launch failure in 1986, with teacher Christa McAuliffe one of the seven dead, and the disintegration of Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003, in which another seven astronauts died, ended the U.S. dream of manned space flight.
Former NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory systems engineer Mark Adler spilled the beans in 2015. “The bottom-line answer is that it was … way too expensive. The shuttle never met its promise for low-cost access to space.” [Well, it was a government program!]
Cost-cutting and bureaucratic overkill were behind the Challenger (whose politically correct O-rings failed) and Columbia disasters. As chief NASA historian Bill Barry told Newsweek, “People realized that [Columbia] was a lot more risky than generally thought [mostly] because of [design] compromises … due to cutbacks in the budget [emphasis added].”
The other historic 1957 launch was Ford Motor Company’s much-heralded Edsel. Ten years in the making, at a development cost of $250 million ($2.78 billion in 2024 dollars), Ford dealers saw thousands lining up to buy the new dream car that September, but by yearend monthly sales had fallen by a third.
Two years later, Ford ceased production of the Edsel and revamped its production lines to build compact cars. According to Time reporter Lily Rothman, “As it turned out, the Edsel was a classic case of the wrong car for the wrong market at the wrong time.”
Ford had relied on market research showing that within a decade half of U.S. families could buy then-popular medium-priced vehicles. Further studies led Ford to design “the smart car for the younger executive or professional family on its way up.”
To Ford’s sad surprise, by 1957 the lust for medium-priced cars was usurped by a new boom in the compact field, an area the Edsel research had overlooked completely, said Rothman.
Much as with the space program, the federal government has spent huge sums subsidizing the construction and purchase of electric vehicles, including 18-wheelers, airplanes, and tanks. All of this has been driven, ostensibly, by the perceived threat posed by the plant food carbon dioxide.
Much as with the Edsel, the electric vehicles that European, American, and other Western governments have been subsidizing are “the wrong car for the wrong market at the wrong time.”
Around the planet, individuals, automakers, and even policy advisors are waking up to this gross miscalculation.
Meanwhile, the Chinese, who long ago cornered the market on the primary raw materials and technologies needed for producing EVs in quantity, stand to be the primary sellers of vehicles Western governments have mandated that the hoi polloi purchase.
The largest Chinese automaker, Biyadi (BYD), uses the slogan “Build Your Dream” to lure buyers into even greater reliance on Chinese technology that will erase tens of thousands of American jobs.
BYD sells battery-electric vehicles in China for US$26,000. BYD makes its own batteries, semiconductors, and seal upholstery, and its nearly 30,000 patents owned or filed puts BYD light years ahead of any Western automaker.
The only brakes on China destroying the world auto market are tariffs and other import restrictions – or ending the EV mandates. But the tariffs would likely be passed onto customers, forcing Americans to pay double if Washington forces Chinese EVs down their throats.
And, as noted, without the tariffs, Ford, General Motors, and every other non-Chinese automaker could quickly be forced into bankruptcy. The United Auto Workers know this and hedged their bets for 2024 by throwing money in both directions. Western automakers, joining Toyota, have already pulled back from their EV production commitments.
Ford, which has been losing $60,000 – more than the selling price – on every EV it sells, saw sales of its Lightning F-150 fall 46% in third quarter 2023. Mercedes downsized its EV sales projections by 2030 by 50% and announced it will update its petrol-fueled fleet engines into the next decade. Now Ford has halted all shipments of the Lightning F-150.
Rivian, too, has fallen on hard times, laying off 10% of its workforce, signaling a significant decline in demand. With prices starting at $70,000 for its pickup and $75,000 for its SUV, the sales downturn led to a corporate loss of $1.52 billion in the first quarter of fiscal 2023.
Slackening demand for EVs has even led to entire mines shutting down as the supply of rare-earth minerals now exceeds demand. Albemarle announced it was deferring spending on a planned $1.3 billion plant in North Carolina. The price of lithium has shrunk by 90%, and the price of nickel has been cut in half. As a result, a nickel mine in New Caledonia recently suspended operations.
In the UK, auto dealers are offering discounts of up to 25% on EVs sitting idle on their lots. The Lords Committee says British drivers are “giving the cold shoulder” to the electric transition despite dramatic drops in finance rates for EVs in an effort to boost flagging sales. Non-fleet EV purchases in the UK fell by 25% from the prior year, with yet another reason being much higher auto insurance rates.
The obvious ability of China to dominate the EV market, coupled with increasing public resistance to EV mandates, has put pressure on the European Union and its member states. A year ago, the EU took a baby step backward, agreeing to allow sales and registration of internal combustion engine vehicles after the 2035 deadline if they operate only on carbon-neutral fuels.
In the U.S., President Biden had until very recently doubled down on his EV demands, ignoring the concerns of automakers, auto unions, and the auto buying public. Just a week ago, the EPA indicated it was “considering” delaying EV mandates beyond 2030, an election-year concession that could quickly be reversed.
A 2023 Gallup poll showed that only 16% of Americans with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 either own or are “seriously” considering purchasing an electric vehicle. The most likely EV buyer is a Democrat who lives in a Pacific Coast state, but only 28% of U.S. Democrats and 25% on the West Coast either own or are “seriously” considering an EV.
As Mark Knopfler’s Romeo said to Juliet, “the timing was all wrong,” perhaps the only real flaw with the current EV mandates is that the supply chain – especially in the West – is just not ready for prime time.
But in another few years, things could change. After all, the privately funded Odysseus Moon lander just became the first new U.S. presence on the lunar surface in 55 years.
On the other hand, unless the West cedes EV manufacturing to China, the EV may soon become so unpopular it will go the way of the Edsel.
Duggan Flanakin is a senior policy analyst at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow who writes on a wide variety of public policy issues.
The green energy push seeks to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions to fight human-caused global warming. Leaders tell us that without a complete transformation of electric power, transportation, and home appliances to achieve Net Zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, we are doomed to suffer from increasingly severe climate change impacts.
“The green movement calls for a shutdown of coal and gas power plants. At the same time, it demands a switch to electric vehicles, electric home appliances, and green hydrogen produced by power-intensive electrolyzers. This and the AI revolution portend a breakdown of the so-called energy transition.”
Twenty-three states have adopted goals to move to 100 percent clean energy by 2050. State governments propose to retire coal- and gas-fired power plants and adopt wind and solar systems. But these goals conflict with efforts to promote electric vehicles (EVs), electric appliances, and a new application (AI) that will increase the demand for electric power.
The green energy push seeks to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions to fight human-caused global warming. Leaders tell us that without a complete transformation of electric power, transportation, and home appliances to achieve Net Zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, we are doomed to suffer from increasingly severe climate change impacts.
Michigan
For example, Michigan passed Senate Bill 271 on December 29 of last year, as part of its “Healthy Climate Plan.” The bill requires 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2050. Michigan’s electrical power in 2022 was generated by gas (34%), coal (29%), nuclear (22%), with wind and solar at 12%.
Michigan plans to close its gas and coal plants, which provide 63 percent of the electric power, while also retiring nuclear plants. At the same time, the state wants residents to switch to EVs and electric appliances.
The Healthy Climate Plan calls for two million EVs to be on the road by 2030 along with expanded electric-powered mass transit. It calls for replacement of gas appliances with electric heat pumps. But today, more than three quarters of Michigan homes are heated with natural gas. The state is also the largest user of propane fuel for home heating.
Efforts to adopt EVs and heat pumps will produce rising electricity demand and directly conflict with efforts to close power plants. Michigan’s carbon-free electricity goals appear to be impossible to achieve.
In 2022, 60 percent of US electric power was generated by coal and natural gas. About 85 percent came from the traditional generators: gas (40%), coal (20%), nuclear (18%), and hydroelectric (6%). After two decades of subsidies, wind and solar provided only about 15 percent of US electricity.
US demand for electricity has not grown since about 2005. But the push to electrify homes and transition to EVs will usher in a new era of rising power demand.
Almost all states striving for Net Zero by 2050 will run into the problem that Michigan faces. Shutting down coal and gas plants while promoting electric vehicles and heat pumps will produce electric power shortages. The only states that may be able to approach carbon-free electricity are Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, where hydroelectric generators produce most of the power.
ISO – NE Warning
The New England Integrated System Operator (ISO) issued a report in 2022 that looked at four scenarios to decarbonize the New England power grid by 2040. The report projected increases in power demand from EVs and electrification of home and business heating.
Only one scenario could meet state decarbonization goals and rising demand. That scenario called for 84 gigawatts of new wind, solar, and storage, to provide 56 percent of electricity by 2040.
But the ISO concluded that such a wind-, solar-, and battery-dominated system would not be reliable, requiring periodic operator-imposed blackouts. Even with 2,400 gigawatt-hours of battery-energy capacity and system reserve margins that were 300 percent over typical electricity demand, the system would fail for an estimated 15 days, and be at risk of failure an additional 36 days each year.
Wind and solar buildouts also conflict with alarming climate forecasts. Climate warnings call for increasingly severe weather, including stronger and more frequent storms, floods, and droughts. Yet climate-policy advocates demand a switch to intermittent wind and solar electricity sources. Wind and solar typically fail to operate during heatwave, cloudy, rainy, snowy, or stormy weather conditions.
After a transition to electrified energy systems, blackouts would be more severe. When the lights go out, residents won’t be able to cook with an electric stove or drive an EV either.
Other nations also depend upon coal, gas, and oil generators for much of their electricity. Examples of hydrocarbon-produced power in 2022 were Australia (52%), China (64%), Europe (38%), India (77%), and Japan (65%). Switching to EVs and heat pumps while shuttering coal and natural gas generators will not be possible in most countries.
Two additional trends will drive electric power demand. First, the revolution in artificial intelligence (AI) requires data centers to upgrade servers with high-performance computer processors. Data center power consumption will jump by a factor of six to ten over the next decade, rising from about 1.5 percent of world power demand today to approach ten percent of world demand.
Second, governments are pushing to establish a new green hydrogen fuel business to power heavy industries such as steel. Production of green hydrogen from electrolysis of water is very electricity intensive.
The electricity required to drive electrolyzers to produce hydrogen to power a single steel plant with a four-million-ton annual capacity will require solar installations covering an area of approximately 70 square miles. About 5,000 terawatt-hours of electricity would be needed to drive electrolyzers to generate hydrogen for the world steel industry, equaling one and one-half times total non-hydroelectric global renewable electricity generated today.
The green movement calls for a shutdown of coal and gas power plants. At the same time, it demands a switch to electric vehicles, electric home appliances, and green hydrogen produced by power-intensive electrolyzers. This and the AI revolution portend a breakdown of the so-called energy transition.
—————————-
Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and the author of the new bestselling bookGreen Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure. His previous posts at MasterResource can be accessed here.
Globally, winter cold kills more people than summer heat, and winter in Central Asia is no gentle visitor. Temperatures can plummet to minus 40°C (-40°F), transforming bustling cities into frozen landscapes and testing the limits of human endurance.
Globally, winter cold kills more people than summer heat, and winter in Central Asia is no gentle visitor. Temperatures can plummet to minus 40°C (-40°F), transforming bustling cities into frozen landscapes and testing the limits of human endurance.
Rich in history and diverse in geography, the region is also known for biting cold that tests the resilience of its inhabitants. The winter struggle is especially intense in rural areas, where shelter and other infrastructure are often rudimentary. Wood and coal have long been used for heat.
For example, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan – three Central Asian countries seldom mentioned in the media – rely heavily on abundant coal reserves for heat and energy. They all have insecure energy systems, and their major cities regularly face power blackouts in Winter.
However, this economical energy source, along with natural gas and oil, have come under attack by international political institutions like the European Union and United Nations and leftist politicians and funding entities. Armed with the pseudoscience of climate change, fearmongering opportunists are seeking to ban the fuels that are a lifeline for the people of Central Asia.
Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan generate more than 95% of their electricity from gas, oil and coal. Uzbekistan is set to increase coal production by 22% and is conducting geological exploration across 31 thousand square kilometers of new sites. Meanwhile, Kazakhstan is increasing oil production and plans to increase exports to Eastern Europe.
Kyrgyzstan has more than 33% of its population living in poverty, making it significantly poorer than Uzbekistan (17% in poverty) to the west and Kazakhstan (5%) to the north. Half of Kyrgyzstan depends on traditional coal-fired stoves for cooking, and nearly all citizens depend on solid fuels such as wood, coal, and rubber for winter heating.
Raw coal prices have risen so sharply that nonprofits now are giving out free coal for families in Kyrgyzstan to stay warm. In 2021, people queued for hours in freezing weather to receive coal handouts from the government.
“In a cold winter, we burn about 5-6 (metric) tonnes,” says a Kyrgyz housewife. “It is expensive for us to buy coal at 5,500 soms ($62 a tonne). Therefore, I stand in line for three-four hours. And what are we supposed to do, freeze?”
More than 90% of Kyrgyzstan’s electricity comes from hydroelectric plants, which allows it to export the generated electricity during times of surplus. Though hydropower is a valuable resource, such high dependency on it increases the risk of power shortages in winter, which is one of the drier seasons in this relatively arid country.
Kyrgyzstan is now supplementing winter energy supplies with imported electricity from Tajikistan and recently signed contracts for importing 2 billion kilowatt/hours of electricity from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.
Supplies have proven to be insufficient, nonetheless. Speaking about power blackouts in January, Kyrgyz Energy Minister Taalaibek Ibrayev noted, “Electricity consumption has grown many times over, and daily usage has increased by 20.5 million kilowatt/hours. We were ready for anything but emergency power outages. We did not take such abnormal cold into consideration.”
The most obvious solution to filling its energy needs are Kyrgyzstan’s coal reserves. Undeterred by the political noise of climate change, Kyrgyzstan is embarking on an ambitious program to increase coal production with advanced technology and by privatizing mines. Mining has increased by around 30% during the past 15 years. Most of the mined coal is brown coal, or lignite, an inferior fuel that is mostly exported. The demand for higher quality coal is met predominantly by imports.
To bolster the movement of electricity imports and exports, the country is investing in the 500‑kilovolt Datka-Khodjent-Sangtuda power transmission line connecting Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. There is also a long-term partnership with Gazprom to improve gas supply in the country.
In addition to withstanding the annual assault of winter, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan all have interests in overall security and economic development that make exploitation of natural resources like fossil fuels all the more important.
Despite the overwhelming need to develop hydrocarbon resources, restrictive climate policies press in the opposite direction. Influenced by the politics of a global green agenda, Uzbekistan’s lawmakers are aiming for a renewable energy target of 27 GW by 2030, proposing that the country should get 40% of electricity from non-fossil fuel sources. This will divert attention to expensive and unreliable wind and solar sources rather than to immediate problems like an outdated power infrastructure.
Analysts at The Diplomat say, “In Kyrgyzstan, the degree of deterioration of the power system reached 50% and now causes up to 80% of emergency shutdowns. … Without addressing the problems of outdated power transmission infrastructure, the contribution of sustainable energy transition initiatives to preventing future energy crises will still be limited.”
Climate politics has no place in the frigid expanses of Central Asia, and the region must steer clear of costly green mistakes.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.
Biden’s Inflation Increase Act intends to spend $7.5 billion taxpayer money to build charging stations for electric car owners. Two years later, no EV chargers were built. And that’s good.
The modern sheen of the electric car is running into the medieval state of American cities.
Seattle began installing dozens of EV chargers only for thieves to show up and raid at least eight of the charging cables for copper requiring thousands of dollars worth of repairs.
In response, the city is planning to put the chargers high up on poles that can only be lowered by an app. This will cost even more money and in an environment in which brazen copper thieves toppled an FM radio tower in Oklahoma, isn’t likely to deter the criminals.
EV owners who suffered from copper theft while leaving their cars to be charged in public places were told by the Seattle Police Department to “stay with the vehicle if you can while it’s being charged,” Considering that it can take an electric car hours to charge, that’s gonna be a wait.
In Oakhurst, CA , every cable was cut on a Tesla ‘supercharger’ station almost as soon as it had been set up. At a nonprofit in Van Nuys, 38 cables were stolen. Since the thieves rarely see any real punishment in cities where property crime has effectively been legalized, it’s getting worse.
The problem has become commonplace enough that Biden’s Department of Energy rolled out a special guide to stopping charging cable theft by warning that “the theft of EV charging cables can lead to a decrease in the use of EVs, which can have a negative impact on the environment.” Proposals from the DOE include charging your electric car at home.
Not that only charging electric cars at home is enough because thieves have taken to going after charging cables right in driveways as the EVs are being charged overnight.
Charging cables for the already overpriced electric cars can cost over $1,000.
Thieves on bicycles ride from suburban house to house, seizing cables and riding away with them. It’s estimated that an experienced crook can make off with one cable in 13 seconds.
And so electric car owners are warned to make sure that they lock their car in the garage. Then they’re told to lock their cables with padlocks and make sure their insurance covers their cables.
The incredible convenience of electric cars is now such that owners can only charge them while locked in their garages, with a padlock on the cable and the cable under the car’s wheel.
But it’s not just Teslas. Copper thieves are coming for every piece of ‘green’ infrastructure.
In Fresno, CA, $100,000 in copper wire was stolen from a solar farm, but wind farms, because they’re often far away from people, are an even more attractive target for copper thieves. And wind turbines have massive amounts of copper in them, making them even more desirable.
Copper thieves cut into a turbine, haul out cables and then drive away causing as much as millions of dollars in damage. Such thefts have been reported from Arizona to Minnesota to Iowa to Massachusetts, Internationally in the UK, there was a 48% increase in solar and cable ‘green’ copper theft, and 5,000 major solar thefts across Europe.
But where is all that copper going? The answer is appropriately green. It’s being recycled.
After the copper is stolen, it’s taken to recycling centers, many of which boast of their “sustainability” and contributions to the planet. There the copper is resold, often to China, which spurred the original copper boom, and transformed into more green energy equipment that the copper thieves will steal and then recycle to continue the cycle of environmental crime.
Green energy gear, from EV charging cables to solar panels and wind turbines, require a lot of copper. This demand for copper raises the price of copper and drives copper thefts.
Recycling soda and beer cans depended on homeless people digging through the trash and hauling giant garbage bags full of cans to be exchanged for 5 cents each. Copper theft is a more advanced version of the same game. The perpetrators are often addicts stealing copper and turning it over to organized criminals or selling it to recyclers and buying fentanyl.
Videos have documented trucks picking up ‘harvested’ copper and providing fentanyl.
That’s the kind of dysfunctional misery that the green revolution rests on and always has. The recycling junkie thieves aren’t just looking through the trash for Coke cans, they’re tearing up copper wire, but that’s a difference in scale, not in substance. Recycling was always theft.
Biden’s Department of Energy claims that looting electric cars is a threat to the planet. “EVs are an essential part of the transition to a more sustainable future, and any obstacles to their adoption must be addressed,” it warns. But it doesn’t call for cracking down on crime.
And it’s the electric cars and other green tech that’s driving the copper theft wave.
Electric cars use four times as much copper as real cars. One Tesla needs a mile of copper just to hook up the battery packs. Solar panels need 5.5 tons of copper for each megawatt. A wind farm can use as much as 7,000 tons of copper. There’s nothing ‘green’ about any of this.
Green energy demands a lot of mining and then outsources that to Communist China. And China helps the cartels manufacture fentanyl which they trade to junkies for copper.
From the Chinese Communist perspective, it’s a beautiful virtuous cycle.
The zombies they create steal our copper, send it to them and they resell it to us. The more we go ‘green’, the more copper we need, and the more China makes money by selling us ‘green’. And the more Americans it can turn into fentanyl zombies to steal it back to China.
Green crime does pay: at least for thieves, Communists and environmentalists.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
You must be logged in to post a comment.