Biden Admin Classifies Martha's Vineyard And Other Elite Enclaves 'Low-Income' To Push EV Charger Subsidies
Some of the wealthiest liberal enclaves in the country are being classified by the Biden administration as "low-income" in order to qualify for an electric vehicle (EV) charger subsidy program contained within the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the Daily Caller reports.
The locales includes Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts, as well as Montauk and Fishers Island in New York. Yes, the same Martha's Vineyard that freaked out over a few migrants on their hallowed soil.
The administration’s EV charger tax credit program — made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), President Joe Biden’s signature climate bill — is specifically designed to route subsidies to “low-income” or “non-urban” areas of the country. The “low-income” emphasis for eligibility aligns in spirit with the Biden administration’s wider pursuit of so-called “environmental justice,” which is effectively the combination of social justice ideology and green policy.
Numerous elite hangouts and locales — including Montauk and Fishers Island in New York, and parts of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket in Massachusetts — are among the areas that the administration has classified as “low-income” and eligible for receipt of EV charger subsidies, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) interactive eligibility map.
The nationwide charging network is a central plank of the Biden administration's EV agenda. While plenty of charging stations are located in wealthy areas (where people can afford EVs), the IRA was supposed to blunt the costs of charger construction in non-urban, less wealthy areas of the country that would be less likely to implement them on their own.
"This tax credit provides up to 30% off the cost of the charger to individuals and businesses in low-income communities and non-urban areas, making it more affordable to install EV charging infrastructure and increasing access to EV charging in underserved communities," the White House boasted on Jan. 19.
In order to meet the definition of "low-income," a given area must have a poverty rate of 20% or more, or, if the median family income is below 80% of the median family income in the wider metropolitan area, or if a given Census tract isn't attached to any specific metro, according to section 45D(e) of IRS code, the Caller reports.
But the latter definition for a "low-income" area has enabled many areas, according to the report.
For example, nearly half of the landmass of Nantucket Island, one of the ritziest summer vacation destinations favored by New England’s elite, is eligible for EV charger subsidies, according to the DOE’s interactive eligibility map.
The Vineyard Haven area of Martha’s Vineyard, another destination frequented by New England’s upper crust, is also eligible as a “low-income” area, according to the DOE’s map. For context, many of the homes in the covered area are valued at well over $1 million, with several properties valued between about $2 million and $5 million. Former President Barack Obama also owns a massive $11.7 million estate on the island.
Weblink to read the full article:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-admin-classifies-marthas-...
Views: 13
Comment
-
Comment by Willem Post on February 8, 2024 at 10:22am
-
APPENDIX 1
Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind...
World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021
During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW
Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%
At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-repo...
Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!
Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.
Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:
1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and
2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.
Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)
See below Norwegian floating offshore cost of $8,300/installed kW
Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in specialized ships, also designed and made in Europe, then unloaded at the about $400-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging area, then barged to specialized erection ships, also designed and made in Europe, for erection of the floating turbines
About 300 Maine people would have pre-assembly/staging/erection jobs, during the erection phase
The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships
About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs during the 20-y electricity production phase
The projects would produce electricity at about 40 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 20 c/kWh, with subsidies, the wholesale price at which utilities would buy from Owners (higher prices after 2023)
https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill...
The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies
The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government
The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to all the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024
The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.
The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment
Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.
Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh
Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 17.913 c/kWh
NOTE: If li-ion battery systems were contemplated, they would add 20 to 40 c/kWh to the cost of any electricity passing through them, during their about 15-y useful service lives! See Part 1 of URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-agingNOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:
Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh
Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Additional Gridwork on Shore
A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support systemThere would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England high voltage grid.
The onshore grid will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.
Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People
Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy.
Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.
APPENDIX 2
Floating Offshore Wind in Norway
Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company
Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.
On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.
The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365
The generators will provide almost all the electricity during low-wind periods, and 100% during high-wind periods, when rotors are feathered and locked.
The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = $8,300/kW. See URL
That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher
The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites
https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/arti...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine
The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies
In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.
Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.
Floating Offshore Wind in Maine: If such floating units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of:
1) The additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus
2) The additional $300 to $500 million capital cost of any onshore facilities for storing/pre-assembly/staging/barging to erection sites
3) A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system
The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid..
.
APPENDIX 3
World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offsho...US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals
1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government
2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disconnected-from-markets UK governmentThose US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about 9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See article
US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...NOTE: During an interview, a commentator was reported to say” “renewables are not always reliable”
That shows the types of ignorami driving the bus
The commentator should have said: Wind and solar are never, ever reliableElectricity production about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.
Electricity Cost, c/kWh: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at $5,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.
Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh
Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 30.273 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 15.137 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.
Not included: At a future 30% wind/solar on the grid:
Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about 2 c/kWh
Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about 2.0 c/kWh
In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid
Cost of curtailments, 2.0 c/kWh
Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites
APPENDIX 4
Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.
Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.
With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.
Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies
The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.
The adders become exponentially greater, with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid
The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems
Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.
Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.
The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.
W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies
W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.
1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365
4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and 100% during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,
5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced
6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.
.
.
APPENDIX 5
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...EXCERPT:
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh
At 10% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh
At 40% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites.
NOTE: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal agingTesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
COMMENT ON CALCULATION
Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid, no matter what.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investmentIf you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.
According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.
A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening.
They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculationsRemember, you have to draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid, because of a-to-z system losses. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.
APPENDIX 6
SolarEdge Technologies shares plunged about two weeks ago, after it warned about decreasing European demand.
Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-...
SolarEdge Melts Down After Weak Guidance
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-s...
The Great Green Crash – Solar Down 40%
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-...
APPENDIX 7
World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offsho...
US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...
Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow...
Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-ec...
Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-proje...
EV Owners Facing Soaring Insurance Costs in the US and UK
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soari...
U.S. Offshore Wind Plans Are Utterly Collapsing
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plan...
Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plu...
Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catc...
The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debac...
Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-o...
Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-...
IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renew...UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-proje...
CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-c...
AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-....
IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...
APPENDIX 8
Nuclear Plants by Russia: According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW
Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england
Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.
The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.
A typical plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually about 1,200 MW each
.
In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW,
The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.
As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU.
In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom
.
In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.
Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed
In Bangladesh: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the Rooppur Power Station
Capital cost $12.65 billion is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
.
Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures
Nuclear vs Wind: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions
They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years
Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France
.
Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.
They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy placesThey last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment
They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have producedMajor Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.
Tripling Nuclear A Total Fantasy: During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.
https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html
Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants
Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.
Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table
Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation,
Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050.
Infrastructures and Manpower: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-202....
.
Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022
370200
Proposed tripling
3
Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050
1110600
New Nuclear, MW
740400
MW/reactor
1200
Reactors
617
New Reactors, rounded
620
Reactors/site
2
Sites
310
New nuclear production, MWh, 2050
5841311760
Conversion factor
1000000
%
New nuclear production, TWh, 2050
5841
11
World total production, TWh, 2050
53000
APPENDIX 9
Electricity prices vary by type of customer: Retail electricity prices are usually highest for residential and commercial consumers, because it costs more to distribute electricity to them.
Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive.
In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢/kWh.1
The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were: Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh; Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh; Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh; Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh
Electricity prices vary by locality: Electricity prices vary by locality based on the availability of power plants and fuels, local fuel costs, and pricing regulations. In 2022, the annual average retail electricity price ranged from 39.85¢/kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢/kWh in Wyoming.2.
Sources:
1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.
2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the Electric Power Monthly, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary. See URL
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-...
US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y
With a lot of wind/solar/batteries/EVs by 2050, and ratepayers buying 8000 billion kWh/y, because of electrification, the average rate to ratepayers would be about 25 c/kWh,
US ratepayers would pay: two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y
Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented
NOTE: All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollarsAPPENDIX 10
LIFE WITHOUT OIL?
Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro, which can be done theoretically, but only at enormous cost.
Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.
The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.
If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.
Every experienced engineer knows, almost all the parts of wind, solar and battery systems, for electricity generation and storage, from mining materials to manufacturing parts, to installation and commissioning, in addition to the infrastructures that produce materials, parts, specialized ships, etc., are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.
Without Crude Oil, there can be no Electricity.
.
-
-
Buyers are Avoiding EVs, a Key Pillar of Biden’s Fantasy Climate Agenda
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/investors-are-avoiding...
CONTRIBUTOR
.
Buyers are avoiding electric vehicle (EV), which adversely affects charging companies, a key sector in the Biden’s wider climate agenda, which is floundering, including regarding offshore wind turbines, etc., The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
.
Major companies in the industry— including ChargePoint, EVgo and Blink Charging— have seen their stock prices tumble over the past year, as investors worry about their long-term profitability, a sign of potential trouble for an industry, the White House is counting on to reach its aggressive longer-term EV targets, according to the WSJ, and to get re-elected, and stay in power, and spend even more money of such follies.
.
The administration has set aside billions of dollars to boost the industry, by heavily subsidizing the development of a nationwide network of charging stations.
.
ChargePoint’s stock price is down 74% in 2023, while EVgo and Blink Charging have seen their shares lose 21% and 67% of their value, respectively, in an up market, according to the WSJ.
(RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Ernst Is Pulling The Plug On Biden’s Elec...
Buttigieg, a former financial services advisor, says, you don’t have to worry about gas prices, if you buy an electric vehicle…someone should remind him how out of touch he sounds pic.twitter.com/tiJVkl7wB3
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 7, 2022
ChargePoint, which the administration has touted in the recent past, is currently subject to a class action lawsuit, that alleges , company executives engaged in securities fraud by making misleading statements, that unduly inflated the firm’s share price.
.
“I think investors have grown suspicious of the industry’s lack of profitability,” Blink Charging’s CEO Brendan Jones told the WSJ.
Highly promoted EV charging companies once received lofty valuations from investors, Jones told the WSJ.
.
The Biden administration has already spent $7.5 billion authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act, IRA, and Infrastructure Act, to subsidize the building of a nationwide network of 500,000 charging stations, to reach its goal of having 50% of all new car sales be EVs by 2030.
That goal always was a total rah-rah fantasy, picked out of a hat, by a cabal of unrealistic, woke people, in Washington, DC, who just love to spend other people's money, as if there is no to-morrow.
.
McKinsey, a leading consulting firm, has estimated, there will need to be about 1.5 million public chargers installed by 2030, if that target is to be achieved, according to the WSJ.
.
That means the above $7.5 billion likely is underestimated by a factor of three
More such "goals" will drive the US people into the poor house
.
At present, there are only 160,000 public chargers available at approximately 60,000 locations nationwide.
.
Only 10% of 1.5 million charging stations is implemented, and $7.5 BILLION was wastefully spent.
No wonder our national deficit is out of control
.
EV charging companies (and EV manufacturing companies) are generally struggling to turn a profit right now, but they expect to attain profitability within the next year or two, according to the WSJ.
Just keep sending them the tens of $billions and they will do fine, while all others croak.
However, the wider EV industry is lagging despite the Biden administration’s efforts to support it, and charging companies find themselves in a difficult bind: more consumers need to abandon their gasoline cars and buy EVs, so these companies sell more electricity.
However, consumers, in a free country, are not "switching to EVs".
ChargePoint, EVgo, Blink Charging and the White House, in a state of panic, did not respond to requests for any comments.
Some Measures to Boost EV Sales
Firstly, the woke wackos have not yet realized you can’t just subsidize EVs.
They have to ban gasoline cars for the locals and for those crossing State borders, so the Feds and States can drop the unsustainable EV subsidies.
If you can’t afford an EV they don’t care, because taking away your freedom of movement is the whole point in the first place.
Secondly, which I’m surprised we haven’t heard yet, they need to phase out all gasoline and diesel fuel production, so we don’t end up with Havana Syndrome, i.e., maintaining old cars decades past their expected useful life.
When the story plays out, most people will have to go without a personal vehicle, other than their e-bicycle, or e-tricycle (for geriatric folks).
Those wealthy enough to afford an EV, will be subject to restrictions on when and where they may travel, which would be enforced by remotely controlled kill-switch.
Private planes would fly, as usual, without any additional restrictions.
How else would one be able to attend future COPs in the poshest of places?
Some Comments
Wow, it does not get much better than this.
The Washington, DC, perpetrators of these EV follies want to be re-elected to have power over you, to use more of your money, to do more of the same follies, "for as long as it takes"All that is even more true, because the EV charging stations are unreliable, often are out of service, and to top it of, EVs are unreliable, have high repair bills, and have poor range in cold weather, especially when having more than one passenger, and some cargo, and going uphill, on cold, snowy days, as in New England, etc.
..
Currently, the vast majority of charging infrastructure is concentrated in more densely populated coastal areas, as opposed to more rural areas of the country, according to the Department of Energy (DOE).
Almost all people in rural areas, often with dirt roads, and snow and ice and cold, and longer distances, are definitely not giving up their pick-ups and SUVs to "switch to EVs", especially in impoverished states, such as Maine and Vermont. Their Socialist governments lost all sense of reality, and think money grows on trees.
Insurance Costs Very High: Because EVs are much more costly to repair, EV insurance rates are about 3 times the rate of gasoline vehicles, completely wiping out any energy savings.
Monthly Payments Very High: Because EVs are more expensive and interest rates are high, monthly payments are much higher than for gasoline cars, completely wiping out any benefits of tax credit subsidies.
Useful Service Life Very Short: EV useful service lives are very short, usually at most 8 years.
No one in his/her right mind, would spend at least $15,000 to $20,000 to replace a battery in an 8-y-old EV, which by then. would have lost almost all of its value, unlike a gasoline vehicle.
Charging Cost Very High: EV charging cost is very high on the road, usually at least 30 c/kWh, at home at least 20 c/kWh in New England
As a result, annual fuel cost savings are minimal, because EVs are driven fewer miles per year than gasoline cars, and the price of gasoline is about $3.20/gallonPublic charger prices, c/kWh, are two to three times home charging costs.
Minimal CO2 Reduction: EVs driven, on average, about 72,000 miles for 8 years, according to various studies, do not reduce CO2 emissions compared to efficient gasoline vehicles driven the same miles, if CO2 evaluations are made on a mine to hazardous-waste landfill basis, and same-mile basis.
The useful service lives of gasoline cars is much longer than of EVs.
Range Usually Much Less Than Advertised: EV owners experience much less range than advertised by EPA, especially with one or more passengers, with some luggage or a heavy load, cold weather, up and down hills, on wet/snowy dirt roads, hot weather, etc.
Teslas EVs, driven 75,000 to 80,000 miles, will have lost about 15 to 20% of battery capacity at end of year 8.
If traveling with one or more passengers, with some luggage, was a challenge on a longer trip, and even more of a challenge on a cold/snowy day, then an older EV has all that, and more, which is a good reason not to buy one.Battery Aging a Serious Issue: If a new EV, it takes about 1.15 kWh to add a 1.0 kWh charge in the battery, plus, there is a loss of about 5% to get 1.0 kWh out of the battery to the drive train of the EV, etc.
If a 5-y-old EV, it takes about 1.25 kWh to add 1.0 kWh charge in the battery, plus there is a loss of about 5.5% to get 1.0 kWh out of the battery
The older the EV, the greater the losses, plus the battery has lost capacity, the ability to do work and go the distance; all that is worse on a cold day, or hot day, heavy loads, and other adverse conditions.
Charging Batteries at Less than 32 F: If an EV owner parks at an airport, goes away for a few days or a week, upon return he/she may find the EV with an empty battery (if the battery had a somewhat low charge to begin with), if during that week the weather were below freezing, because the battery thermal management system, BTMS, will maintain battery temperature, until the battery is empty, then the battery freezes to 32F, or less.
Charging would not be allowed, until the battery is warmed up in a garage.In the future, with thousands of EVs at the airport, a percentage would have empty batteries. You would have to wait your turn to get a tow to the warm garage, get charged, pay up to $500, and be on your way, after 8 hours or so!!
Losing Value After 3 Years: Used EVs retain about 60% of their high original value, whereas gasoline vehicles retain at least 70% of their not so high original value, by the end of year 3.
Losing 40% of a $45,000 EV = $18,000
Losing 30% of an equivalent size, $35,000 gasoline vehicle = $10,500
The loss difference wipes out any tax credit subsidies.
The below yellow line is mostly for Teslas, because they are more ubiquitous.
.
Electric Buses for Municipalities
Electric buses have been failures in Oslo, Minnesota, etc., but nations, states and municipalities, wanting to polish their green credentials, keep on doing the impossible with other people's money, despite abundant contrary evidence.
Minnesota Cities Used $Millions in Federal Grants to Buy Electric Buses For Public Transit, But the Buses Failed During Cold Weather, Had Charging Issues
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/minnesota-cities-used-...
Oslo’s E-Bus Fleet Could Use Some Warming…City Paralyzed As Buses “Break Down” Due To Cold
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/oslo-s-e-bus-fleet-cou...
-
-
Two very expensive New Jersey Offshore wind projects, mostly supplied by European companies.
.
The turbines will be made in Europe, shipped by specialized European ships, elected by Europeans.
New Jersey folks will be soooo lucky to get to do some of the maintenance, with mostly European replacement parts.
MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN
.
One project for 2400 MW to be completed in 2031/2032, FIRST YEAR cost $112.50/MWh, escalating at ?% for 20 years
.
The second project at 1342 MW, no completion date, FIRST YEAR cost $131.00/MWh, escalating at ?% for 20 years
The escalations are the NJ economy killers, which nitwit Murphy and co-conspirators are perpetrating
.
If anyone has escalation %, please let me knowhttps://whyy.org/articles/new-jersey-board-public-utilities-offshor....
Here are some prices with no escalation
.
New York State had signed contracts with EU big wind companies for four offshore wind projects
Sometime later, the companies were trying to coerce an additional $25.35 billion (per Wind Watch) from New York ratepayers and taxpayers over at least 20 years, because they had bid at lower prices than they should have.
New York State denied the request on October 12, 2023; “a deal is a deal”, said the Commissioner
.
Owners want a return on investment of at least 10%/y, if bank loans for risky projects are 6.5%/y, and project cost inflation and uncertainties are high
The about 3.5% is a minimum for all the years of hassles of designing, building, erecting, and paperwork of a project
.
The project prices, with no subsidies, would be about two times the agreed contract price, paid by Utilities to owners.
.
The reduction is due to US subsidies provided, per various US laws
All contractors had bid too low. When they realized there would be huge losses, they asked for higher contract prices.
It looks like the contract prices will need to be at least $150/MWh, for contractors to make money. Those contract prices would be at least 60% higher than in 2021
.
Oersted, Denmark, Sunrise wind, contract price $110.37/MWh, contractor needs $139.99/MWh, a 27% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 1 wind, contract price $118.38/MWh, contractor needs $159.64/MWh, a 35% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 2 wind, contract price $107.50/MWh, contractor needs $177.84/MWh, a 66% increase
Equinor, Norway, Beacon Wind, contract price $118.00/MWh, contractor needs $190.82/MWh, a 62% increase
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/liars-lies-exposed-as-...
.
NOTE: Empire Wind 2, 1260 MW, near Long- Island, was cancelled.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/equinor-bp-cancel-contract-...
.
NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 – 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:
.
Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh
Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Maine as Third World Country:
CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power
Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.
Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT
******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********
(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/
Not yet a member?
Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?
We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi
Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!
Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law
Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future
"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."
https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine