Chinese tech giant rebounds from US sanctions

Energy News Beat

Huawei’s chipset subsidiary HiSilicon has become world’s fifth largest chipmaker, with a 3% share of the global chipset market, according to the latest analysis published by technology market-research firm Counterpoint.

The research, based on third-quarter results, shows the ranking led by Qualcomm products, which account for about 40% of the entire chipset market. The US multinational is followed by Apple, whose market share amounts to 31%.

Meanwhile, Taiwanese fabless semiconductor company MediaTek was ranked third, with a 15% market share. Counterpoint’s findings calculate that the three chipset majors together control up to 86% of the entire mobile processor market.

One of the largest global smartphone manufacturers, Samsung, was ranked fourth on the list, with a 7% market share.

Following Huawei in fifth place, China’s UNISOC ranks sixth and has a market share of 2%, while seventh-placing Google controls 1% of the global market with its Tensor processors.

The world’s largest manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, Huawei has found itself among the Chinese corporate majors that have been hit by a sweeping US technology ban.

In 2019, Washington banned US firms from selling software and equipment to Huawei and restricted international chipmakers using US-made technology from partnering with the Chinese firm. The White House attributed the tech ban to national-security concerns, including a potential for cyberattacks from or spying by Beijing.

Before 2020, Huawei was a global leader in the smartphone industry, behind only Samsung and Apple. However, it relied heavily on technology and components made in the US or produced by companies under American patents.

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Chinese tech giant rebounds from US sanctions appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

3 Podcasters Walk in a Bar – Episode 42 with Dr Ed Ireland

Energy News Beat

3 Podcasters Walk in a Bar – Episode 42 with Dr Ed Ireland

Highlights of the Podcast:

02:02 – The international energy transition and then the energy question

02:54 – The Brant Natural gas expected to generate half of U.S

03:47 – The Supreme Court voted down

04:38 – The reduction of coal plants and the increase of natural gas

05:57 – The grid managers from the regional grids in the United States were in Las Vegas

07:01 – The most economic way to build is with natural gas right now

10:12 – The new regulations are trying to do carbon capture

19:28 – For the government to convince people to switch from gas cars to. EVs

23:23 – Netflix movie with Julia Roberts

24:15 – The big movie market is over in China

 

With 3 unique personalities, backgrounds, and one horrible team sense of humor, it makes for fun talks around the energy markets.

David Blackmon is a Forbes author and currently writes Energy Absurdities of the Day. He has several active podcasts with ….. His industry leadership is evident, but a dry, calm way of expressing himself adds a different twist.

R.T. Trevillon is the podcast host of The Crude Truth filmed in Fort Worth Texas and runs an oil and gas E&P company. Pecos Country Operating has been in business for ….years and has a constant commitment to all of their stakeholders and is actively working in this oil and gas market.

Stu Turley is the co-podcast host of the Energy News Beat Podcast. While Stu is a legend in his own mind, [email protected]

 

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

 

David Blackmon LinkedIn

DB Energy Questions 

The Crude Truth with Rey Trevino

Rey Trevino LinkedIn

Energy Transition Weekly Conversation

David Blackmon LinkedIn

Irina Slav LinkedIn

Armando Cavanha LinkedIn

Follow Stuart On LinkedIn and Twitter

If you have any questions, please reach out to us. We want to answer all questions, and if you have what it takes to be a podcast host and you want your show reach out.

Also, sponsor slots are available. There is excellent reach with the four podcasts.

DB Energy Questions 

David Blackmon LinkedIn

The Crude Truth with Rey Trevino

Rey Trevino LinkedIn

The Energy News Beat Podcast

Stu Turley LinkedIn

 

Video Transcription edited for grammar. We disavow any errors unless they make us look better or smarter.

3 Podcasters Walk in a Bar – Episode 42 with Dr Ed Ireland

 

Stuart Turley [00:00:13] Hello, everybody. You ever heard that crazy old uncle. Now that it’s Christmas time and he’s sitting there and the uncle’s going at these three guys walk into the bar. Well, I have to know the other two crazy guys that walk into a bar. Hello. My name’s Stu Turley, president and CEO of the Sandstone Group. Today is a Fantastic episode of The Crude Truth. Oh, wait a minute. That’s his. This is RT RT is the podcast host for the Crude Truth, and he’s one of the big dogs over there at Pecos operating Country Country. How are you doing?

Rey Treviño [00:00:49] Good, Stu. How are you doing?

Stuart Turley [00:00:51] That root beer was a little tough today.

Rey Treviño [00:00:53] It’s good, though, that one Said Arnold Drake. It’s a good. Ah, yeah.

Stuart Turley [00:00:59] And we have a special guest that stopped by the podcast today. I mean, he is a myth. He is a legend. He is the Dr. Ireland. And you’ve got to follow him on his substack. Dr. Ireland, thank you for coming by.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:01:15] Thank you Stu, Glad to be here

Stuart Turley [00:01:16] I’ll tell you what, for our podcast listeners, I love his haircut, by the way. Just thought I’d share that with you, We have David Blackmon remote. He’s on assignment today and David Blackmon is one of them gigantic guys. He is a legend in my mind,

David Blackmon [00:01:35] And I’m getting Bigger all the time.

Stuart Turley [00:01:35]  Oh, yes. In fact, he’s had to order another ten gallon had so we can get 20 gallon in it. Pretty soon he’ll be there doing a barrel of oil in his hair. David is a Substack author. He’s on the crude tru, No. He’s on the crude.

David Blackmon [00:01:53] I am not . I wasn’t on the Crude Truth.

Stuart Turley [00:01:54]  And he was on the energy question. All that is, was the energy question. And when he’s also on the international energy transition and then the energy question. So, David, thank you for stopping by.

David Blackmon [00:02:10] Hey, I’m just so happy to be here and not there where you are and you just can’t imagine.

Stuart Turley [00:02:17] You sound like

David Blackmon [00:02:18] I’m kidding, I’m joking, I’m joking.

Stuart Turley [00:02:19] Okay. You sound like you had a hemorrhoid, but we’ll leave that.

Rey Treviño [00:02:23] That’s a good podcast.

Stuart Turley [00:02:24] That’s a whole lot. Yeah. The three hemorrhoids walked into a bar.

David Blackmon [00:02:27] There you go,.

Rey Treviño [00:02:28] Well,.

Stuart Turley [00:02:29] Okay,.

Rey Treviño [00:02:29] I’ll tell you what, I’m excited. I mean, to have David on as always, and to have Dr. Ed Ireland, who stumbled into the bar here a little while ago. We go Ed come on in and come join us today,.

Stuart Turley [00:02:40] And then we’re going to hand the tab to him.

Rey Treviño [00:02:42] Yes.

Stuart Turley [00:02:42] One of the things that I thought was this here is is for our folks at home, Ed Ireland Substack. He put out a heck of a substack in our team. We’re out in the Brant Natural gas expected to generate half of U.S. electricity in 2024 and the EPA announces new methane rules that will reduce natural gas supplies

David Blackmon [00:03:12] Changes. That’s genius. Government planning.

Stuart Turley [00:03:12] They’re genius.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:03:14] You just can’t make this stuff up.

Stuart Turley [00:03:16] Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. What were you thinking when you wrote that?

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:03:20] I was. I was irritated because the EPA has despised natural gas for years and they want to shut it down and they’re trying it again. They tried it last with the you know, during Obama President Obama, they that EPA, which by the way, is mostly the same people still hanging around and writing the same regulations that the Supreme Court voted down. But they’re doing it again and I’m sure it’ll be voted down again or squashed by the Supreme Court. But yet here they are. They’re saying natural gas, you know, we’re going to do away with it, at least make the supplies tighter than we would otherwise be the case. And. At a time when natural gas is expected to generate more than half of the electricity in the United States. And that’s just a formula for disaster. It’s crazy.

Stuart Turley [00:04:23] Now the EIA, the same chatter heads excuse me, the same folks we were talking about did last year. They said the only reason that the U.S. reduce their carbon output and David has had this on his stuff was because of the reduction of coal plants and the increase of natural gas. And so you would think that they’d be kind of happy about it, but they snuck in under the rug right before all these new regulations. Right.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:04:53] That’s right.

Stuart Turley [00:04:53] Holy smokes.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:04:55] And you know, in the background, too, there, they’re continuing to try to make the use of natural gas, illegal natural gas stoves, natural gas generators, natural gas heaters, net water heaters, furnaces. They just can’t help themselves. They just want to get rid of natural gas because it’s too good. And otherwise, they, you know, they would let the market work. But they’re not going to let the market work because they know the market is going to support natural gas and needs more gas. And that’s that’s their response.

Rey Treviño [00:05:31] You Know, David, I’m seeing you. You’re nodding your head more than I’ve seen. You agree with somebody in a lot, what your thoughts.

David Blackmon [00:05:38] Well, I finally got somebody on this show. Just make it sit with me here. You know, I’m usually with just you two guys, you know. Ed knows what he’s talking about. I just you know, it’s a joke, but it’s true, you know? And it’s no accident that all of the grid managers from the regional grids in the United States were in Las Vegas at a conference two weeks ago. And every one of them is talking about we’re going to have a hard time getting through this winter without blackout problems because we don’t have enough baseload. And why don’t we have enough baseload generating capacity? It’s because the federal government has cracked down on the building of new coal and new natural gas plants, and the going after the gas plants is insane. And it’s it’s a an intentional effort, I think. I mean, I don’t even know what to think about it. You have to believe it’s intentional that they want to have power blackouts during winter months. And because everyone knows what this is all leading to. There’s no mystery here. And you can’t build it. I mean, you can build all the windmills and solar arrays you want to build when the weather gets bad, they’re not going to perform and you have to have the baseload capacity. And the only way the the best way to build it, the most economic way to build is with natural gas right now. You know, maybe nuclear will have a nuclear revolution some point in the future that can also provide real 24 seven power generation. But, you know, we can’t we can’t have stability on our power grid with just renewables and everyone knows it. So all I can conclude from all what they’re doing is that they want, for whatever reason, for us to have an unstable grid and frequent blackouts.

Rey Treviño [00:07:35] You Know, one thing I’ll say and David, I know you’ve been a guest in Dr. Ireland’s class before. There

David Blackmon [00:07:43] Yes thats Great kids every semester.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:07:45] Yeah. Yeah, for sure. Yeah. David does a good job. They always love him.

Rey Treviño [00:07:50] Well, He I mean, it was the classic teachings of energy and entrepreneurship are entrepreneurship of energy. And God knows we need more of it, whether it’s clean burning or oil and gas. You need more jobs than we did yesterday. So I think it’s a very important class. But one thing I do know that in his class, it’s almost like every week he shows the power that ERCOT is being provided, whether it’s from wind, solar or natural gas. And, you know, you always look at it that natural gas is always the major provider of energy for ERCOT. And so my question really is, why is it that all they’re going to continue to do is, you know, demonize this natural gas when it provides us this real clean burning fuel source, and yet, you know, why? Why do they only continue to do that, especially when it’s so cheap? Right now, it’s less than $2 and it’s well, it’s about $2 to that sides.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:08:48] But I agree with David. I mean, it it it has to be intentional. Otherwise

Stuart Turley [00:08:53]  that the other ball.

Rey Treviño [00:08:55] I know.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:08:58] I’m sorry.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:09:00] No, and it has to be intentional to to want to destabilize the power grids in the United States. And otherwise it the only sane thing to do is let the market work, that we have plenty of natural gas and we have the so far we have the operating facilities to to move the gas around and generate electricity with it. But at every turn, you know, you look at the state, not only the EPA, but California, New York, trying to shut down pipelines, trying to shut down the use of natural gas. I mean, everywhere you turn, natural gas is the enemy and it makes no sense at all.

Stuart Turley [00:09:44] David, you brought up the coal plants. The the new regulatory issues are with having to I can’t remember the name of the coal plants that are going to be only approving or you have a term for them

David Blackmon [00:10:03] Unabated. Yeah, I mean, yeah, but you know, we don’t build unabated coal plants in the United States that have it for half a century now.

Stuart Turley [00:10:10] And so when we sit back and the new regulations are trying to do carbon capture or they’re trying to do this, but they won’t build they’re gonna they approved any time they want. They need 7000 miles of pipelines to haul the carbon off in the new regulatory agency, and they won’t approve any of that. Where’s the oxymoron in this? It takes a village to raise an idiot mom. I don’t know.

David Blackmon [00:10:38] Well, that’s debatable without but Denbury resources because Denbury has that extensive pipeline system for carbon dioxide and that will facilitate ExxonMobil’s carbon capture operations. But, you know, I mean, you got everyone else wants to do it, too, and you’re going to have to have a lot more pipe and crap.

Rey Treviño [00:10:57] Well, You know, you mentioned how everybody else is doing this natural gas. You know, what about the fact that the Chinese actually the Japanese company just came in and bought that? What did they buy? A natural gas.

David Blackmon [00:11:08] U.S. Steel they bought U.S. steel.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:11:12] U.S. steel.

Rey Treviño [00:11:13] No, That was no, that’s that’s one of them.

Stuart Turley [00:11:15] Right. There was another one that just bought a natural gas.

David Blackmon [00:11:19] Oh. I didn’t see that. I misspoke.

Rey Treviño [00:11:21] Yeah, No, that’s that’s a whole other subject right there. I mean, the fact that they’re buying U.S. Steel that was, you know, created by Carnegie and continued by J.P. Morgan, the original J.P. Morgan. Right. Now, is that a place where the I mean, if that doesn’t really show where we’re going in America, I just I don’t know what does anymore. I mean, you know, there’s always something else. And then, you know, as as your great substack articles are always talked about absurdities. I mean, I think just a total absurdity right there, the fact that we’re now selling a company called U.S. Steel.

Stuart Turley [00:11:55] Dr. Ireland, an absurdity.

Rey Treviño [00:11:56] No,.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:11:57] No,.

Stuart Turley [00:11:57] You’re talking about David Substack.

Rey Treviño [00:12:02] Yeah. No. So anyway, but there’s also a Japanese company that’s buying the natural gas. So it just shows that natural gas, just like oil, is not going away anytime soon.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:12:13] On its own so they have to force it.

Rey Treviño [00:12:15] Yeah. Yeah. They have to force it

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:12:17] Let the market work.

Rey Treviño [00:12:17] Yeah  I mean because if the market work, you would have so much more natural gas and you know, you were on my, my show the Crude Truth and we were talking about that the best price that natural gas could really be at is $5. And in MCF, where everybody’s happy, it’s not too expensive. And the M.P. companies can make a dollar, right? Yeah.

David Blackmon [00:12:38] Well, think about it. I mean, we’re in Texas, right? And Texas produces 30 to 35% of all the natural gas in the United States, the Permian Basin, second biggest natural gas producing basin in the country, second only to the Marcellus Shale. The Eagle Ford shale alone has enough natural gas in it, recoverable natural gas, or about a hundred years supply just in the Eagle Ford shale in this country. And so there’s there’s no reason why the Texas grid should ever have any stability issues and reliability issues. And yet we do. And the reason we do is because the federal government and to a lesser extent our state government, there’s all these incentives, disincentives in place for the building of new natural gas capacity. And that’s got to change before we start killing people with blackouts on the power grid.

Rey Treviño [00:13:35] You know and speaking of the Barnett Shale, you know, I want to highlight, you know, David, that you and Dr. Ireland have both been in the Barnett Shell since basically its inception. Well, you know, it’s been around for I’m sorry that that is probably the wrong word. It’s been around for a long time.

David Blackmon [00:13:52] It’s the horizontal drilling in.

Rey Treviño[00:13:54] Yeah, it’s all drilling. Inception. Yes. In about 2006 and now the Barnett Shale, it’s looking like it’s reaching all the way out to the Permian Basin. So, you know, just how much more natural gas could we even add to what we already have? We got big with good natural gas, our drilling in the Barnett in West Texas. Oh.

David Blackmon [00:14:14] Yeah. I mean, that’s just another another formation that’s going to be productive in the in the Permian Basin. But you know what? It’s a lot more liquid in the Barnett Shale rock out there in West Texas than there is up here in North Texas. And so it’s going to be a lot more associated condensate in that natural gas. And that’s a good thing, too, for the producers.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:14:36] Which also will keep the price of natural gas down.

David Blackmon [00:14:39]  right.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:14:39] More associated gas. Basically, marginal cost is zero.

Rey Treviño [00:14:43] Yeah , Ed and then, of course, you know, you figure any wells that were drilled on a straight oil, that’s just an ancillary benefit. It’s the natural gas. Because at $2 in MCF, I mean, I can’t see myself drilling just natural gas day in less than now if you’re going well. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. But no to get back to this, the Japanese company is Tokyo Gas is buying Rockcliffe energy for about $2.7 billion. So, I mean, obviously the world knows that natural gas is not going away anytime cheaper. And again, just like oil, I mean, you know, in fact, isn’t that one of the first questions you ask your students every semester is what would you ask your students?

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:15:27] I don’t know.

Stuart Turley [00:15:29]  What’s your name?

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:15:30] Right, Right, right. What do I ask my students?

David Blackmon [00:15:35] So what do I ask?

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:15:37] I as I ask them if. I said I have a question, my first question. Can renewables replace oil and gas? And the answer is yes. And in fact, I will say this. Everybody type it in. You have a laptop in front of you type in. Can renewables replace oil and gas? And if you type that in, it says yes, in capital letters. That’s what Google says. Yes. And of course, if you get in and read what? Is under that they they give the fans and but but the the answer will be yes. And for most people that’s where they stop. You know, they don’t go to the next level in the in the search. But so yeah it’s it’s no wonder that these students end up in college with, you know, 18 years being pounded into them. Climate change and fossil fuels back.

Rey Treviño [00:16:33] What a I can’t imagine by not coming in helps that having a bunch of students are like oh yeah, renewables can do that. They it’s like how how dumb can you be? Like I don’t mean to be. That’s the best way I could put it, I think.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:16:50] Yeah. You know, my view is it was not their fault. This one pounded into them, you know, from the beginning. So

David Blackmon [00:16:56]  I mean what else are they supposed to think? Every media outlet tells them that every the Google tells them that when they Google it. I mean. There’s no. No effort by the industry or or people, well-meaning people in politics or anywhere else to counter that message. And so, you know, I mean, smartest kids in the world, if they’re propagandized or not, not enough like they have been there, that’s what they’re going to believe. It’s not their Fault.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:17:24] Yeah, That’s right.

Rey Treviño [00:17:24] David,  I want to you have written two Substack articles in the past week since our last episode of three podcasts that were just downright hilarious, the first of which is the one about the incident that happened over in Washington, D.C. with a staffer. And you use the word drill.

David Blackmon [00:17:49] Well, yeah, we probably shouldn’t, but.

Stuart Turley [00:17:52] Did you guys see the GUTFELD show? You know, they. Oh, it was hilarious. The one liners in that bed.

Rey Treviño [00:17:59] And yours was hilarious talking about that. And then the other one that you wrote just yesterday was on that meme where it said, I broke up with him because he wanted to go buy an electric vehicle and he got huffing and puffing and put his hair up. And a man waited for the EV to charge. He drove off.

David Blackmon [00:18:19] As soon EVs charge in an hour. I’m out of here..

Stuart Turley [00:18:22]  Yeah.

Rey Treviño [00:18:25] Oh, my gosh. What made you write that article? I mean, that one was like I said, this week you have had. So that.

David Blackmon [00:18:32] Article was about, You know. You know, I came across this ad from from Tesla or it was a promo that they’re sending out to all their customers who have bought their cars, offering them free sessions with a charging consultant. Okay. Because ensuring you’re able to charge your Tesla and knowing where to do it and how to do it and and when the Chargers are going to be working and when they’re not is such a complicated matter. Tesla has to offer consulting services to their customers. And I thought my. First thought was, you know. I don’t have to have a consultant tell me where the gas station is and how to turn the pump on. It’s a whole lot. And this is one of the reasons why. And it’s serious. I mean, I’m serious about this. One of the reasons why it’s so hard.

Stuart Turley [00:19:26] It’s funny when it’s serious.

David Blackmon [00:19:28] Yeah, well. For the government to convince people to switch from gas cars to. EVs. Is owning a me really is complicated, man. And people have enough complications in their lives already. I don’t need, you know, at my age, I don’t need anybody confusing me or offering or complicating my life anymore, much less my damn car doing. Right. So you’re never going to convince me to buy an electric vehicle. But but it really is a problem for the electric vehicle industry. And Tesla recognizes that. And to their credit, they’re offering this consulting. Service to help people. Figure it all out. I mean, it’s just it’s just one thing on top of another with electric vehicles. And it’s no wonder people don’t want to buy.

Rey Treviño [00:20:16] Well, I enjoyed just the opening of that of your article which said, I don’t wake up in the morning and have to worry about basically where I’m going to go find a gas station. But that’s where your article opened up. And let’s not forget how many times we made fun of the Department of Energy. Granholm When she was trying to do that tour across America.

Stuart Turley [00:20:34] Oh, yeah.

Rey Treviño [00:20:34] And, you know, and she got arrested and staffers had to go ahead just to save her spot.

Stuart Turley [00:20:40] I think it’s the same one that was in the Senate.

David Blackmon [00:20:43] I don’t think it was the same guy. I think there was.

Stuart Turley [00:20:47] I don’t want to touch that. Okay. All right. I do. Okay. We’re out of that one. But but, you know, when you sit back and take a look at the EVs, Dr. Ireland, did you hear about when all the EV cars, the remote car, the driverless cars, the delivery cars all ganged up and met in one place? They hacked into.

David Blackmon [00:21:11] That. Was it San Francisco one or was it L.A.?

Stuart Turley [00:21:14] Yes, I believe so. I’ve got a video of it. And it was it was funny. All these cars are all lined up there, the driverless cars. And then Tesla just announced their recall on on almost all their cars. And that is bad. I got an inside scoop, some of it security, a whole bunch of security people can steal the Tesla and run over people with it. So it is a frightening we. I’m serious.

Rey Treviño [00:21:47] They recalled all of them.

Stuart Turley [00:21:49] There’s a big joke of it.

David Blackmon [00:21:51] It’s a download over the web. I mean. Right. They have to call it a recall. But you’re not having to take your Tesla Tesla.

Rey Treviño [00:22:00] Download the information to your car wow.

David Blackmon [00:22:03] You just downloaded.

Stuart Turley [00:22:05] Still there’s a whole. And and I’m telling you, it it ain’t in the Senate. It’s a hole in the in the firewall. So

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:22:13]  We’ll also I think one of the vulnerable places are the charging stations. They say that it’s easy tip apparently to hack into a charging station. And then when you plug your car in, you’re basically plugging in to the Internet and and your car is in communication can be hacked into at that point.

Stuart Turley [00:22:32] Exactly. Yeah, you’re up, bro.

Rey Treviño [00:22:35] Oh, David. Just like my job right there. What are whatever the days of the 1982 Chevrolet pickup. Just put the key and start.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:22:44] That’s right

David Blackmon [00:22:46] Now. I want my 66 Buick station wagon back and I

Stuart Turley [00:22:51] I like my Cuda

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:22:56] 66 Impala that’s what I had.

David Blackmon [00:22:56] There you go. Such a classic.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:22:59] Yeah, it is. I wish I still had it.

Stuart Turley [00:23:01] Yeah, but now this tells you how old I am. I actually had a 43 Willis love my 43 Willis.

David Blackmon [00:23:10] Truck the Willis truck.

Stuart Turley [00:23:13] No, it was 43 Willis. It was the first year they made a world War.

Rey Treviño [00:23:18] I will say this with all the Tesla. No, I did just get done watching that Netflix movie with Julia Roberts, where I don’t leave nobody behind. I remember.

Stuart Turley [00:23:29] Pretty Woman.

Rey Treviño [00:23:30] No, no.

David Blackmon [00:23:30] No levers behind. Right. Lever behind.

Rey Treviño [00:23:32] Lever something. But there was a scene where all of a sudden there’s nothing but Teslas on the highway. And they were all automatically charged, automatically driven to the same spot over and over and over again. It’s where it built up. Basically,.

David Blackmon [00:23:51] It’s about Cyber attack.

Rey Treviño [00:23:51] Yeah. Yeah, they couldn’t escape.

David Blackmon [00:23:52] We watched we watched that movie last weekend. Didn’t know it was an Obama production.

Rey Treviño [00:23:56] Either did I when I watched it. Yeah.

David Blackmon [00:23:59] But my favorite part of that movie was when they’re talking about Julia Roberts and the other fellow are talking about who’s behind the cyber attack and did you catch that? They say Korea’s behind not North Korea, not South Korea, and certainly not where the big movie market is over in China. They blame Korea, nebulous Korea, because if they got China, which is where it would come from if we had one. Well, in that movie, you know, nobody in China would be watching and then they’d lose hundreds of millions of dollars. That was my favorite part of the movie, aside from all the product placement from.

Stuart Turley [00:24:39] The Christmas was horrible. And then any don’t get me wrong, Julia Roberts is doing her own action in the past. But that same scene, this movie was made 20 years ago, Ethan Hawke would have been the one to get out of the car, go see what was going on, because she got out to go see what was going on. But, you know, 20 years ago, Ethan Hawke, her husband in the movie, would have been the one to get out, go see what’s going on, and would have ran back and drove the car. But she drove the car and it’s like there’s just certain things there that it’s like those don’t add up. Say, No, honey, you stay in the car, Let me go see what’s going on. And, you know, it’s so definitely it was definitely a 2023 movie. I won’t say.

Stuart Turley [00:25:15] I can’t imagine my wife doing anything like that. She was like, Oh, wait, hey, I heard something. You know, figure out if it’s a bear.

Rey Treviño [00:25:21] Yeah.

Stuart Turley [00:25:22] I’m like, All right, I don’t know about you, but know. But it’s a bear.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:25:28] Yep.

Stuart Turley [00:25:29] Yes,.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:25:29] Yes, dear.

Rey Treviño [00:25:34] Well, you know, Dr. Ireland, I cannot thank you enough, but you had a great opportunity to come and be on this show.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:25:43] I will. I appreciate. The opportunity.

Stuart Turley [00:25:43] I’ll tell you what I thought of a brand new show. If your y’all every y’all, every box of Sunday sports. They used to do this little bit with Barry Switzer and Jimmy Johnson. It was called the Angry Coaches Point. And I think you two would be great for the angry energy gone old man energy corner with you. I think.

Stuart Turley [00:26:07] Our first guest on the three podcasters and it’s one thing to insult me and David because that’s what you do anymore, but not ever great again. David, help me out here.

David Blackmon [00:26:20]  I didn’t insult anybody it was RT.

Stuart Turley [00:26:23] It’s RT. And I thought I was the squirrel. Oh, my, Doctor Ireland tell us how people can find you. Substack.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:26:32] Well, it is at Ireland dot substack dot com and please check it out.

Stuart Turley [00:26:37] Sounds fantastic in. And I’ll tell you what, I’m going to go take some of your classes just so I can get the ambiance and the aura of Dr. Ireland.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:26:50] You’ll get to hear David Blackmon talk to my class again.

Stuart Turley [00:26:54] Oh, I’m so sorry. And give us your laughs and give us your last words.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:27:00] Last words. Well, I’ll start. I’ll. I’ll get back to natural gas.

c [00:27:04] Okay.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:27:04] Just because that that’s my career is a natural gas. So I like to talk about it. But I will say it is and I emphasize this to my students. It is the fuel of the future. It’s not the transition fuel. It’s the future of the future. And one reason is we have a lot of it. And another. And therefore, it’s cheap. But in other news, it is clean. It is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, which, by the way, I think is exactly why that the EPA and other governments will not leave a decision about natural gas to the market because they know the market will. Ask for more natural gas, not less. So they’re out to make it illegal any way they can. And I always you know, you say, you know, it’s ch4. It’s almost pure hydrogen. It just has one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms and strip out the carbon. You got hydrogen. That’s, that’s the hydrogen that, that fires off the rockets that Elon Musk used.

Stuart Turley [00:28:12] I knew I liked. So.

Dr. Ed Ireland [00:28:15] I’ll stop there.

Stuart Turley [00:28:16] Oh, we’re all doing we’re not worthy. David, thank you so much. And we always appreciate you and thanks for letting me stalk you and RT. Thank you as well. Appreciate you guys. And thank you to all our wonderful listeners and I appreciate everybody. Stand, I’m going to sheet to that note. After the last one, I’ll answer your question. It was pretty embarrassing. All right. With that, we’ll thank you guys later. We’ll see guys soon.

 

The post 3 Podcasters Walk in a Bar – Episode 42 with Dr Ed Ireland appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Biden’s crazy rush to green energy will push us to endless blackouts

Energy News Beat

The “rush-to-green” policies of the Biden administration and congressional Democrats are based on a false premise that intermittent power generation can meet energy demand in the United States. This belief, and its forced reliance on China for the components necessary to implement the policy, is detrimental to Americans’ standard of living as well as our safety.

As the chairman of the House Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, most of my colleagues and I support renewable energy from sources like wind, solar, geothermal, and, potentially, hydrogen. We also support clean, renewable energy that comes from one of the oldest sources of energy production — hydropower.

Renewables will be a part of our energy matrix, but they must work in tandem with always-on baseload power generation. This is due to renewables’ ability to only generate power intermittently, not 24/7/365. From households to municipalities to manufacturing, America relies upon always-on, always available electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

Currently, renewables cannot provide that always-on, always-available energy that our nation requires. In its “rush-to-green,” the administration forced certain energy generation, like coal and natural gas, to be taken offline or made it extremely difficult to operate.

The Biden administration hampers coal and natural gas power generation through excessive regulation, slow permitting and the failure to allow the buildout of delivery infrastructure like pipelines.

Meanwhile, the administration is using subsidies to fast-track renewable projects like wind and solar, picking them as winners in the energy market despite their clear disadvantages compared to conventional power generation.

This is a problem, even for people who like renewables, because of two words — intermittent and dispatchable.

Wind and solar are intermittent producers, generating electrical energy when the wind blows and the sun shines. Dispatchable energy sources are those that are readily available to be ramped up or down to produce power to meet demand — ergo coal, natural gas, fuel oil, hydroelectric generation and, hopefully soon, small modular reactors.

Assuming an optimal sunny day with no climatic events like thunderstorms or cloud cover in my home state of South Carolina, solar generation makes up just north of 8% of our daily energy matrix, and that is only for one-half of the day. Solar generation begins each day at zero before the sun rises and ends each day at zero when the sun sets.

There is currently no on-shore or offshore wind generation in South Carolina. However, wind faces similar problems of intermittency. Wind energy is only produced when nature allows it, not when demand dictates.

While battery technologies such as lithium-ion batteries have the potential to store intermittent power and dispatch it to meet the demand of the grid, these technologies still require lots of advancements before they make intermittent power as reliable as conventional, dispatchable generation.

Most battery technologies, such as lithium-ion, hold a capacity for only four to six hours. Furthermore, we rely heavily on our adversaries like China for our battery supply chain, whose mining of the raw materials to make the batteries continues to come with major ethical concerns.

Solar power works when the sun is out, not at night. Which is why the U.S. needs other forms of energy, as well. FILE: Solar panels are set up in the solar farm at the University of California, Merced, in Merced, California, on August 17, 2022.

While our nation has high environmental standards, countries like China out compete America regarding growing domestic mining operations due to their minimal to nonexistent environmental and human rights standards.

However, we have another form of battery we can build through entirely domestic supply chains called pump storage, where a reservoir of water can be released to meet peak demand or for backup generation.

This has the potential to store and supply days’ worth of power at a moment’s notice and is limited by only the capacity of the reservoir. Unfortunately, the current regulatory landscape is not conducive to the licensing of new pump-storage operations.

Total reliance on renewable generation without adequate battery storage or dispatchable power generation could leave states without the electricity their citizens require. The citizens would be forced to hope that the will of nature aligns with the demand of the grid — the odds are slim to none.

Currently, renewables cannot provide that always-on, always-available energy that our nation requires. In its “rush-to-green,” the administration forced certain energy generation, like coal and natural gas, to be taken offline or made it extremely difficult to operate.

Furthermore, the Biden administration policies that replace reliable power generation with intermittent renewables cause the nation to face a potential crisis from brownouts and blackouts.

When the demand for electricity increases, utilities must be able to generate power immediately, not wait for the sun to rise or the wind to start blowing. In some states, like South Carolina, we can rely on nuclear power for a significant portion of our daily baseload generation. Nuclear makes up about 58% of power in the Palmetto State. That leaves 42% that must be generated by other sources.

As reliable generation like coal or older gas plants are taken offline, we must ensure they are replaced with comparable, dispatchable generation in the realm of megawatts or more. Of note, our nation is growing, which means the demand for power increases in tandem.

In Utopia, energy would be generated completely by wind, solar, or other renewables, but we must be realistic. Let’s be clear, we cannot put all our eggs into the basket of renewable generation without having significant, always available generation. Today, that means we should focus on replacing retiring power plants with adequate natural gas generation to meet our growing nation’s power needs and do so in a way that our utilities can provide affordable electricity for their customers.

Source: Foxnews.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Biden’s crazy rush to green energy will push us to endless blackouts appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Are Chinese Companies Complying With The US’ New Sanctions Against A Russian LNG Project?

Energy News Beat

Absent official confirmation of those Chinese companies’ decision, the veracity of Kommersant’s claim can only be speculated upon, but it was noteworthy that RT raised awareness of this report among their global audience.

RT reported on Monday that Russia’s reputable business daily Kommersant claimed that “French TotalEnergies, Chinese CNOOC and China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), and a consortium of Japanese Mitsui and JOGMEC declared force majeure on their participation” in Russia’s Arctic LNG 2 project. This decision was allegedly in response to new US sanctions from early November “banning third countries in Asia and Europe from purchasing LNG produced by the plant when it starts operating in 2024.”

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning was asked about this the day after on Tuesday, to which she responded as follows according to the ministry’s official transcript of her press conference:

“China and Russia conduct normal economic and trade cooperation on the basis of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit. Such cooperation should not become the target of any intervention or restriction by a third party.

What has happened shows that sanction and pressuring does not serve to achieve anything but can only cause negative spillover.

We oppose unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction that lack basis in international law and UN Security Council mandate. China and Russia will remain committed to normal economic and trade cooperation based on mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit.”

As can be seen, while she condemned unilateral sanctions and defended Chinese-Russian trade in consonance with her country’s consistent position, she nevertheless didn’t deny that report.

Absent official confirmation of those Chinese companies’ decision, the veracity of Kommersant’s claim can only be speculated upon, but it was noteworthy that RT raised awareness of this report among their global audience. This in turn hints that there’s some truth to those two complying with the US’ new sanctions against a Russian LNG project. The structural reasons for why they might be doing so were addressed in this analysis here from September 2022 that was written on this general subject.

To summarize, China’s export-driven economy remains in a relationship of complex economic interdependence with the US, which makes Beijing reluctant to risk secondary sanctions against its companies and any further escalation of their trade war that’s largely stabilized over the past few years. These concerns are especially sensitive nowadays after the latest Xi-Biden Summit in mid-November led to an incipient thaw in their ties, which the People’s Republic is seriously committed to maintaining.

The US is equally serious about it too as suggested by the curious worsening of ties with India in the weeks after that aforesaid event, which these analyses here and here assessed to be a signal showing Washington’s commitment to resuming talks on a New Détente with China. If that’s indeed the case, then it would therefore follow that the US might also request similar such proof of commitment from China as a reciprocal “goodwill gesture”, ergo its informal compliance with the latest sanctions.

This would explain why Mao condemned these sanctions and defended Chinese-Russian trade but conspicuously didn’t deny Kommersant’s report that RT amplified on their website. In other words, while Indo-US and Sino-Russo ties still maintain their strategic substance, the US and China might have requested tacit concessions from the other’s partnership with their rival in exchange for taking their thaw to the next level. As this process apparently unfolds, Russian-Indian relations have strengthened.

The timing of External Affairs Minister Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar’s seemingly impromptu ongoing five-day trip to Moscow in the last week of the year, the strategic importance of which was analyzed here and here, shows that both understand the need to expand relations as much as possible in this context. India’s top diplomat himself praised their ties as “exceptional” when addressing the Russian-based diaspora and noted that they’ve been the “one constant in world politics” “for 70-80 odd years”.

Those who’d like to learn more about India and Russia’s complementary balancing acts, especially vis-à-vis China, should reference these analyses here and here since it’s beyond the scope of the present one. The purpose in drawing attention to this is to inform the reader that China’s reported compliance with the latest US sanctions, which might have been done as a “goodwill gesture” to aimed at advancing the greater good of its incipient thaw with Washington as Beijing sees it, is already being balanced out.

The same goes for the latest trouble in Indo-US ties, which altogether confirms the multipolar nature of International Relations since it shows that all key actors in the global systemic transition actively attempt to balance one another whenever one of them takes certain steps towards or away from others. Accordingly, while the US might dislike India’s outreaches towards Russia just like Russia might dislike China’s reported compliance with the new sanctions, each nevertheless accepts and understands it.

Neither of these four moves – the incipient Sino-US thaw, the subsequent worsening of Indo-US ties, Chian reportedly complying with the US’ new anti-Russian sanctions, and the latest strengthening of Russian-Indian relations – has irreparably upset the geopolitical balance in the world. They’re all unfolding in sequence and none of them is a game changer, at least not yet, with the end result being that the international equilibrium remains and multipolarity therefore continues marching on.

Source: Korybko.substack.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Are Chinese Companies Complying With The US’ New Sanctions Against A Russian LNG Project? appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Williams to Buy Gas Assets for $1.95 Billion in LNG Bet

Energy News Beat

Pipeline operator Williams Cos. agreed to buy natural gas storage assets from an affiliate of Hartree Partners LP for $1.95 billion in a bet on demand growth for the fuel in the US and in overseas markets.

The deal includes six underground storage facilities in Louisiana and Mississippi, Williams said Wednesday in a statement. The company will also get 230 miles (370 kilometers) of pipeline plus 30 interconnects.

As well as giving Williams storage connected to Transco, the biggest US gas transmission conduit, the transaction positions Williams to gain from further expansion of the nation’s liquefied natural gas export industry. The US has grown in recent years to vie with Qatar and Australia as the world’s largest shipper of LNG. More capacity is planned for the US Gulf Coast, with three new LNG export terminals reaching a final investment decision this year.

Shares of Williams fell 0.3% at 9:31 a.m. in New York.

The purchase adds to Williams’ investments in the Gulf Coast to service LNG exports, which includes the Louisiana Energy Gateway pipeline expansion. Williams also inked a non-binding agreement with LNG export developer Sempra in 2022, though it hasn’t yet finalized the deal.

BofA Securities is the financial adviser to Williams on the deal and Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP is its legal adviser. For Hartree, Evercore is lead financial adviser and Wells Fargo Securities LLC is financial adviser. Milbank LLP is Hartree’s legal adviser.

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Williams to Buy Gas Assets for $1.95 Billion in LNG Bet appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

ENB #168 Kyle Reyes, Owner Blue Lives Matter Media, so does your families security get impacted with an open border? Will the grid be attacked?

Energy News Beat

I have been following Kyle and his Blue Lives Matter on LinkedIn for a long time. After seeing some of his posts on the open border crisis, I had to get him on the podcast.

There are over 30 major interconnects in the US Grid that China can access remotely, and after seeing the military-aged men standing at parade rest being processed for illegally crossing the border, it made both of my hairs stand up. The Biden administration warns that the grid may fail and be prepared, but many are not putting these pieces together.

During our discussion, I was humbled by Kyle and his commitment to our great law enforcement and our first responders facing PTSD. It is extremely cool to hear our discussion about how lives can be impacted for the good if we just listen. My wife understands how PTS has impacted my life.

As Americans we need to be ready to defend our homes and our neighbors until the first responders can arrive. My fear is that the “Think Blue Line” will be stretched beyond the breaking point soon.

Please follow Kyle on his LinkedIn Here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thesilentpartner/

Support our First Responders HERE: https://www.linkedin.com/company/blue-lives-matter/

Thank you for stopping by the podcast! I had an absolute blast, and let us know if we can help – Stu

Highlights of the Podcast

00:00 – Intro

02:08 – Emphasis on individual preparedness, criticism of defunding the police narrative, and concerns about Gavin Newsom’s potential presidential run.

04:54 – Kyle Reyes critiques Colorado’s constitutional rewrite, discusses political shifts with Stuart Turley, and shares mixed views on RFK Jr.’s positions.

08:14 – Proposal of electric vehicles as an energy crisis solution, criticism of the lack of a sustainable energy path, and humorous discussion on alternative plans.

10:58 – Concerns about open borders, citing European reactions and the influx of Venezuelans. Kyle Reyes attributes LinkedIn’s success to truthful content.

14:01 – Powerful story of a life saved by a post-traumatic stress video, the distinction between post-traumatic stress and disorder, and details on law enforcement initiatives.

19:32 – Alarm about the border crisis, referencing FBI Director Wray’s warning, immigrant influx, security risks, and the Biden administration’s role.

24:07 – Urgency for action against the border crisis, emphasizing the need to protect American values and address threats posed by unchecked immigration.

28:08 – Importance of owning marketing channels, overcoming censorship, and raising awareness about PTSD, especially among law enforcement officers.

30:21 – Acknowledgment of the persistent challenges faced by law enforcement, expressing gratitude for their dedication amid the growing crisis.

32:55 – Inquiry about contacting Kyle Reyes’ marketing firm.

33:46 – Outro

 

 

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book https://alternativeinvestments.sandstone-group.com/en-us/tax-benefits-sandstone-group-0-1-1-0

ENB Top News https://energynewsbeat.co/top-news/

ENB https://energynewsbeat.co/

Energy Dashboard https://app.sandstone-group.com/enb-dashboard-version-2

ENB Podcast https://energynewsbeat.co/industry-insights-2/

ENB Substack https://[email protected]

The post ENB #168 Kyle Reyes, Owner Blue Lives Matter Media, so does your families security get impacted with an open border? Will the grid be attacked? appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Britain’s Net Zero Disaster & The Wind Power Scam

Energy News Beat

“This is not about complicated issues of cryptocurrency,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicolas Roos declared in the Sam Bankman-Fried trial, after accusing the defendant of building FTX on a “pyramid of deceit.” Much the same can be said about the foundations of Britain’s net-zero experiment. Energy is complicated, and electricity is essential to modern society and our quality of life, but as with FTX, the underlying story is straightforward: Wind power and net zero are built on a pyramid of deceit.

Net zero was sold to Parliament and the British people on claims that wind-power costs were low and falling. This was untrue: Wind-power costs are high and have been rising. In the net-zero version of “crypto will make you rich,” official analyses produced by the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility rely on the falsehood that wind power is cheap, that net zero would have minimal costs, and that it could boost productivity and economic growth. None of these has any basis in reality.

The push for net zero began in 2019, when the UK’s Climate Change Committee produced a report urging the government to adopt the policy. Part of the justification was historic climate guilt. In the words of committee chair Lord Deben, Britain had been “one of the largest historical contributors to climate change.” But the key economic justification for raising Britain’s decarbonization from 80 percent to 100 percent by 2050—i.e., net zero—was “rapid cost reductions during mass deployment for key technologies,” notably in offshore wind. These illusory cost reductions, the committee claimed, “have made tighter emission reduction targets achievable at the same costs as previous looser targets.” It was green snake oil.

During the subsequent 88-minute debate in the House of Commons to write net zero into law, the clean-energy minister, Chris Skidmore, also asserted that net zero’s cost would be the same as the previous 80 percent target, which Parliament had approved in 2008. Challenged by a Labour MP on the absence of a regulatory-impact assessment, Mr. Skidmore misled Parliament, saying that there had been no regulatory-impact assessment in respect of raising the initial 60 percent target to 80 percent.

The regulatory-impact assessment that Mr. Skidmore says doesn’t exist gave a range of £324 billion (about $412 billion) to £404 billion when the target was raised to 80 percent—an estimate that excluded transitional costs—and cautioned that costs could exceed this range. Unlike today’s political pronouncements, the assessment was honest about the consequences of Britain acting if the rest of the world didn’t. “The economic case for the UK continuing to act alone where global action cannot be achieved would be weak,” it warned.

The Climate Change Act was passed to show Britain’s climate leadership and inspire the rest of the world to follow its example. How did that work out? In the 11 years that transpired from passing the Act to legislating net zero in 2019, Britain’s fossil fuel emissions fell by 180 million metric tons—a 33 percent reduction. Over the same period, the rest of the world’s emissions increased by 5,177 million metric tons—a rise of 16 percent. Put another way, 11 years of British emissions reduction were wiped out in about 140 days by increased emissions from the rest of the world.

Someone who claims that he’s a leader but who has no followers is typically regarded as a fool. It’s different with climate. Politicians parade their green virtue—Mr. Skidmore is to quit the House of Commons, and he teaches net-zero studies at Harvard’s Kennedy School—while voters get mugged with higher energy bills. Analysis of Britain’s Big Six energy companies’ regulatory filings reveals that fuel-input costs for gas- and coal-fired power stations were flat from 2009 to 2020. Still, the average price per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity paid by households rose 67 percent, driven by high environmental levies to subsidize renewable-energy investors. Yet, supposedly, the cost of renewable energy has plummeted.

During Prime Minister’s Questions earlier this year, Rishi Sunak claimed that the cost of offshore wind had fallen from £140 per megawatt hour (MWh) to £40 per MWh, numbers assiduously propagated by the wind lobby and the Climate Change Committee. His claim is flat-out false. The prime minister has been suckered by falling per MWh price bids made by wind investors in successive allocation-round bids for offshore wind subsidies.

The explanation for this is to be found not in falling costs but in a flawed bidding process that rewards opportunistic bidding by wind investors. The government was giving away valuable options that commit the government to honor the prices paid for winning bids but commit investors to nothing. Because investors don’t pay anything for these options, the only way they can get them is by cutting the price they offer—but aren’t obliged to take—for their electricity unless they choose to exercise their options much later in the process.

Falling prices in successive allocation rounds are thus an artifact of moral hazard hardwired into the allocation mechanism; they reveal nothing about the trend in the costs of offshore wind. Analysis of audited financial data of wind farm companies undertaken by a handful of independent researchers comprehensively debunks the falling wind costs claim. The unavoidable move to deeper waters offset any cost reductions and operating costs per MWh of electricity for new offshore wind projects; the prices for the move are about double those assumed in the subsidy bids.

Preeminent among these researchers is Gordon Hughes, a former economics professor at the University of Edinburgh and adviser to the World Bank on power plant economics. Mr. Hughes’s analysis shows that by the 12th year of operation, rising per-MWh operating costs of deep-water wind turbines exceed their government-guaranteed prices, squeezing out their capacity to repay their capital and financing costs

The intermittency and variability of wind and solar led the government to create a capacity market to pay for standby generation. In any economic appraisal of renewables, the costs of running the capacity market should be allocated to wind and solar as their intermittency and variability create the need for it. Electricity procured from the capacity market isn’t cheap. In 2020, German-owned Uniper’s thermal power stations obtained an average price of £224 per MWh, about four times the typical wholesale price.

Confirmation that offshore wind has huge, likely insuperable, cost and operating difficulties came in June, when Siemens Energy issued a shock profits warning and saw its shares plunge by 37 percent, in part because of higher-than-anticipated turbine failure rates. According to Mr. Hughes, the implication is that future wind operating costs will be higher, and output significantly lower, shortening the turbines’ economic lives. His conclusion is crushing:

“The whole justification for the falling costs of wind generation rested on the assumption that much bigger wind turbines would produce more output at lower capex cost per megawatt, without the large costs of generational change. Now we have confirmation that such optimism is entirely unjustified. … It follows that current energy policies in the UK, Europe, and the United States are based on foundations of sand—naive optimism reinforced by enthusiastic lobbying divorced from engineering reality.”

The British government has been conned into placing a massive bet on offshore wind and is forcing electricity consumers to spend billions of pounds on a dead-end technology.

The falling cost of wind deception contaminates official assessments of the macroeconomic consequences of net zero. The Office for Budget Responsibility claims that the cost of low-carbon generation has fallen so fast that it’s now cheaper than fossil fuel generation. Similarly, the Treasury erroneously took falling prices in wind subsidy allocation rounds as an indication of falling wind costs. Both see the economy riddled with multiple layers of market failures, while not recognizing the real danger of government policy being captured by vested interests, as, indeed, it has been. Taken to its logical conclusion, theirs is an argument for switching to central planning and a command-and-control economy.

The Treasury argues that “other things being equal,” the added investment required by renewable energy “will translate into additional GDP growth.” Other things, of course, aren’t equal. As recent history shows, there’s a world of difference between investors and politicians making capital-allocation decisions. The centrally planned economies of the former communist bloc squandered colossal amounts of capital, immiserating their populations. Few now believe that investment in those economies boosted growth.

We don’t need to hypothesize. Government data disprove the Treasury’s contention and demonstrate that increasing deployment of renewable capacity reduces the productivity of Britain’s grid. In 2009, 87.3 gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity, including only 5.1 percent of wind and solar, generated 376.8 terrawatt hours (TWh) of electricity. In 2020, 100.9 GW of generating capacity, with wind and solar accounting for 37.6 percent of capacity, produced 312.3 TWh of electricity. Thanks to renewables, 13.6 GW (15.6 percent) more generating capacity produced 64.5 TWh (17.1 percent) less electricity.

Those numbers are damning for renewables and demonstrate why they make electricity more expensive and people poorer. Before mass deployment of renewables, 1 MW of capacity in 2009 produced 4,312 MWh of electricity. In 2020, 1 MW of capacity generated 3,094 MWh, a decline of 28.3 percent. It’s as clear as can be: Investment in renewables shrinks the economy’s productive potential. This is confirmed by the International Energy Agency’s net-zero modeling. Its net-zero pathway sees the global energy sector in 2030 employing nearly 25 million more people, using $16.5 trillion more capital, and taking an additional land area the combined size of California and Texas for wind and solar farms and the combined size of Mexico and France for bioenergy—all to produce 7 percent less energy.

Britain’s energy-policy disaster has lessons for the United States. The physics and economics of wind power aren’t magically transformed when they cross the Atlantic. Whenever a politician or wind lobbyist touts wind as low-cost or says net zero will boost growth, they become accessories to the wind power scam. The data lead ineluctably to a decisive conclusion: Net zero is anti-growth. It’s a formula for prolonged economic stagnation. Anyone who wants the truth about renewables should look at Britain and the sorry state of its economy. For the past decade and a half, it has been going through its worst period of growth since 1780.

Unlike in business and finance, there are no criminal or civil penalties for those who promote policies based on fraud and misrepresentation. Rather, net zero is similar to communism. Like net zero, communism was based on a lie: that it would outproduce capitalism. But it failed to produce, and belief in communism evaporated. When the collapse came, it was sudden and rapid. The truth couldn’t be hidden. A similar fate awaits net zero.

Source: Zerohedge.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Britain’s Net Zero Disaster & The Wind Power Scam appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

China sharply reacts to Arctic LNG-2 sanctions, labels U.S. ‘interfering third party’

Energy News Beat

China has officially responded to the United States’ imposition of sanctions on the Russian project Arctic LNG-2, reports Reuters.

It is reported that the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the country’s participation in the Russian project for the production of liquefied natural gas, Arctic LNG-2, should not be the subject of any interference or restrictions by third parties.

Mao Ning, an official spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, added that economic cooperation between China and Russia is in line with the mutual interests of both countries and “should not be interfered with or restricted by any third party.”

“China has always opposed unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction without the basis of international law,” added Ning.

U.S. sanctions against Arctic LNG-2

On November 2, the Arctic LNG-2 project was included in the U.S. sanctions list concerning Russia’s production and export capabilities in the energy sector.

According to Jeffrey Payette, the Assistant Secretary of State for Energy, Washington aims to “kill” this Russian project.

Recently, Bloomberg reported that the start of gas deliveries from the advanced Russian Arctic LNG-2 would be delayed after the company declared force majeure due to U.S. sanctions.

Reuters also reported that Chinese state-owned oil companies CNPC and CNOOC had requested the U.S. government to be exempted from sanctions on the Russian Arctic LNG-2 project.

Today, it was announced that the Japanese company Mitsui & Co recalled all its employees from the Arctic LNG-2 project for the development of liquefied natural gas.

Source: Msn.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post China sharply reacts to Arctic LNG-2 sanctions, labels U.S. ‘interfering third party’ appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

2023 Energy Literacy In Review – OpEd

Energy News Beat

A: Airlines that would be grounded, and airports that would be closed, without a replacement for the crude oil that makes the fuels, that politicians want to rid the world of.

BBillions on this planet that exist because of all the products and various fuels made from crude oil that were not around before the 1800’s.

C: Climate policies that favor wind turbines and solar panels that only generate occasional electricity but CANNOT make any products.

D: Death spiral imposed on the auto industry to only manufacture EVs just for the elites to drive a vehicle.

E: Elephant in the Room is that the ruling class, powerful elite, and media, avoid energy literacy conversations as the end of crude oil that is manufactured into all the products and transportation fuels that built the world to eight billion, would be the end of civilization as “unreliable electricity” from breezes and sunshine cannot manufacture anything.

F: Fossil fuels manufacture everything for the 8 billion on this planet, i.e., products, and transportation fuels.

G: Give me a Break, as John Stossel often says about the very few parents, teachers, students, politicians, and those in the media, have any clues or understanding about the basis of the products in our daily lives!

H: Humanity abuses that support “clean energy” and the lack of transparency to the environmental degradation and humanity atrocities occurring in developing countries mining for those exotic minerals and metals to support the “green” movement.

I: Inventories of unsold EV’s continue to grow.

J: Jumping out of an airplane with a parachute without a plan to identify the replacement for the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil that are the basis of products, travel, and communications for the 8 billion on this planet.

K: Knowledge that renewable energy is only intermittent electricity generated from unreliable breezes and sunshine, as wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture anything for the 8 billion on this planet.

L: Life expectancy continues to increase from the products made from oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.

M: Materialistic society that we’ve become over the last 200 years, and the world has populated from 1 to 8 billion because of all the products and different fuels for planes, ships, trucks, cars, military, and the space programs that did not exist before the 1800’s.

N: No parts or components can be made from “just electricity” from wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear, and hydro, and for all the mining equipment used to extract the metals and minerals to build clean “electricity” as they are all made with the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil!

O: Only occasional electricity from wind turbines and solar panels, but no products for humanity.

P: Parts and components for wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear, and hydro, and for all the mining equipment used to extract the metals and minerals to build clean “electricity” are made with the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil!

Q: Quality of life that began after the 1800’s with the development of more than 6,000 products made from the oil derivatives manufactured from oil.

R: Ridding the world of crude oil usage, i.e., jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, while there is NO plan to identify the replacement for the oil derivatives that are the basis of everything.

S: Shockingly, very few parents, teachers, students, politicians, and those in the media, have any clues or understanding about the basis of the products in our daily lives!

T: Truck and automobile components and parts that CANNOT be made by wind turbines or solar panels.

U: Usage of crude oil is NOT for the generation of electricity, but to manufacture derivatives and fuels which are the ingredients of everything needed by economies and lifestyles to exist and prosper, i.e., all products that did not exist pre-1800’s

V: Vehicles that are 100% comprised of parts and components made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil..

W: Weather related fatalities have virtually disappeared with all the products and medications available today that are made with oil derivatives from crude oil that were not available a few centuries ago.

X: Xylenes, along with the primary chemicals of ammonia, methanol, ethylene, propylene, benzene, and toluene, all of which are manufactured from crude oil, but cannot be made by wind turbines or solar panels.

Y: Yet the state of California, the 4th largest economy in the world, but with only 0.5% of the world’s population believes it can change the world environment at the expense of those living in the State.

Z: Zero products being made from wind turbines and solar panels.

Happy Holidays and a Safe and Prosperous New Year to one and all

Source: Eurasiareview.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post 2023 Energy Literacy In Review – OpEd appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Pakistan court restores jailed ex-PM Imran Khan’s party election symbol

Energy News Beat

A court in Pakistan has ruled that former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s party can contest elections using its cricket bat logo – a relief for the jailed opposition leader in advance of national elections.

The High Court in the northwestern city of Peshawar on Tuesday suspended last week’s order by the Election Commission of Pakistan, barring Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party from using its election symbol.

“The election commission’s ruling against PTI, in which its election symbol, the cricket bat, was unjustly revoked through an illegal order, has been suspended,” said PTI lawyer Syed Ali Zafar.

“It has been further directed that our symbol be reinstated,” he said.

In a nation where the adult literacy rate is just 58 percent, according to World Bank data, election symbols are vital campaign tools for differentiating candidates on ballot papers.

The election commission said it made the move because of the party’s failure to hold internal elections in accordance with its constitution.

But the PTI said the move was another jab to prevent Khan – a former cricket star – from contesting the election, scheduled on February 8.

Khan, who enjoys support from a vast number of Pakistanis, was removed as prime minister last year after falling out with Pakistan’s powerful military leaders.

He is currently in prison and faces numerous cases, including the charge that he leaked classified state documents – a crime that carries a prison term of up to 14 years or even the death penalty.

Since Khan’s arrest earlier this year, PTI has faced a heavy crackdown by the government, with many party figures either jailed or “forced” to leave the party allegedly under the pressure of the military.

On Friday, PTI said it had filed Khan’s nomination papers for him to contest the general election.

But the nomination may be challenged based on the electoral commission having disqualified him from office over a corruption conviction earlier this year.

Khan’s party claimed the election body’s move was aimed at preventing him from contesting the February 8 polls.

The post Pakistan court restores jailed ex-PM Imran Khan’s party election symbol appeared first on Energy News Beat.