Get Started

Tesla Model Y is #2 US Bestseller in 2023 through Q3, Behind Perennial #1 Ford F-150, and Ahead of Toyota RAV4

Energy News Beat

Sales of EVs soar 56.7% in 2023 through Q3. Sales of vehicles with gasoline engines languish at +1.4%. The new registrations are out.

By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

Tesla’s Model Y was the #2 bestseller in the US in 2023 through Q3, with a market share of 2.5% of all new light vehicles sold, according to registration data provided by Experian today.

The Ford F-150, the bestseller for eons, was again the #1 bestseller with a share of 3.5%. Toyota’s RAV4 was #3. Tesla’s Model 3 was the #10 bestseller, with a share of 1.4%, just behind the Toyota Corolla.

Share by automaker. In terms of new vehicle registrations by automaker, spread across all their brands: GM (Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, and GMC) was #1, Toyota (Toyota, Lexus) was #2, and Ford (Ford, Lincoln) was #3. Tesla was #9 with a share of 4.2%.

Sales of EVs Soar, sales of ICE vehicles languish. In 2023 through Q3, new registrations of pure EVs soared by 56.7% year-over-year, to nearly 900,000 (no hybrids included). The full year 2023 will the first year when EV sales will exceed 1 million (likely somewhere north of 1.1 million).

New registrations, % change, year-over-year:

EVs: +56.7%
Vehicles with gasoline engines: +1.4%
Vehicles with diesel engines: -3.5%
Hybrids (plug-in and non-plugin): +43.1%.

Among EV brands, it’s still Tesla v. All Others.

There are now 30 EV brands with registrations (not just announcements) in the US. Some are EV-only automakers, such as Tesla and Rivian. Others are legacy automakers trying to chase after Tesla. And for them it has been a slog with lots of setbacks. But little by little, those 29 non-Tesla brands combined are whittling away at Tesla’s share of the booming EV market.

Tesla’s market share among EV makers declined to 57.4% in 2023 through Q3, down from 65.4% in 2022, from 68.2% in 2021, from 79.4% in 2020, and from 100% when it first put its Model S on the road.

The share of the other 29 automakers combined rose to 42.6%.

Chevrolet was #2 with a share of 5.9%, on the strength of its old Bolt and Bolt EUV, which after the price cuts, have been selling very well, and 2023 is by far their best year ever with nearly 50,000 deliveries through Q3.

But earlier this year, GM announced that it would discontinue the Bolt and Bolt EUV by the end of this year, and that would be the end of the Bolt. Then in July, it did an about-face and announced that it wouldn’t be the end of the Bolt after all, that there would be a new Bolt sometime in the future based on its Ultium platform. But until the whenever-arrival of the future Bolt, there will be no Bolt at all, and GM will just abandon this lower-priced EV segment. The infinite wisdom of the US legacy automakers never ceases to astound.

Ford was #3 with a share of 5.5%, with its F-150 Lightning, its Mustang Mach-E compact SUV, and a retrofitted electric van, the E-Transit.

Ford and GM have encountered numerous problems, surprising problems, including Tesla’s price cuts, which nixed their dream of selling large numbers of overpriced EVs and making $20,000 on each of them. Now they have to go back to the drawing board to be able to compete.

But instead of going back to the drawing board and investing this cash in the development of EVs that can compete, they announced that they would incinerate billions of dollars on more share buybacks to prop up their shares. Like I said, the infinite wisdom of the US legacy automakers never ceases to astound.

Hyundai was #4 with a share of 4.8%.

Others: Rivian, the startup selling full-size pickups and SUVs whose deliveries soared by 136% year-over-year, jumped to #6 with a share of 3.5%, sandwiched between BMW (3.7%) and Mercedes-Benz (3.2%). Volkswagen was #8 with a share of 3.2%.

Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. Click on the beer and iced-tea mug to find out how:

Would you like to be notified via email when WOLF STREET publishes a new article? Sign up here.

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Tesla Model Y is #2 US Bestseller in 2023 through Q3, Behind Perennial #1 Ford F-150, and Ahead of Toyota RAV4 appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Andrey Sushentsov: Will the UN survive and what could replace it?

Energy News Beat

Global players may decide that the organization is too Western dominated and look for a new arrangement in the 21st century

The world has entered a period of qualitative change that will irreversibly alter the structure of the international system and usher in a new format for international affairs. Over the past hundred years, humanity has learned some important lessons from situations like the one we’re in now. 

One of these has been a common understanding of the value of life on the planet and the realization that humanity possesses catastrophic powers of destruction, the imprudent use of which could lead to the death of our species.

This common interest continues to unite leading countries in the effort to avoid a global nuclear war and to preserve the general contour of stability in international relations. However, this does not exclude regional and local military flashpoints.

However, the UN and its Security Council continue to fulfill the primary purpose for which they were created – to prevent a devastating showdown between the great powers. In this respect, the institution is still relevant.

Often, technical questions about the location of the secretariat of these organizations in the United States and Western European states lead to a Western-centric narrative. These countries can also dominate the spirit and paradigm of engagement within the apparatus. The UN, as a result, is vulnerable to being a victim of Western manipulation and ceases to be a truly multilateral platform. In it, we often see pressure from leading Western countries on small and medium-sized powers and their representatives, many of whom keep their material resources and savings in those states or to educate their children there. This makes them susceptible to such leverage.

The true multilateralism and inclusiveness of this organization is gradually being washed away by the West. The UN is less and less reflective of the civilizational diversity of contemporary international relations. It is in danger of becoming less effective than it was a few decades ago because of its significant Western bias.

At the same time, the current state of the UN is a reflection of today’s international relations and crises. The situation will not return to normal until a new global balance of power becomes apparent to all. It is the lack of a firm understanding of what such a state-of-affairs looks like that disorients both the apparatus of this organization and many countries, as can be seen at the UN General Assembly. 

Once a new balance is found, the key states participating in this system will decide whether there is a need to reorganize the UN, reform it, or create another body to replace it in order to regulate relations between them in a reasonable way.

The US is trying to portray the Ukrainian crisis as a global upheaval that will define the character of the entire 21st century, offering countries a Manichean choice between black and white. Most states see the opportunities the crisis offers them and are trying to gain an advantage. But, at the same time, many powerful players realize that the steps the US is taking towards Russia and China could very easily be applied to them – and are making the rational decision to join BRICS.

Humanity came close to a major nuclear conflict several times in the 20th century, but each time common sense prevailed. The Cold War was useful in that it sobered up hotheads and made it clear that international security and stability are of equal concern to all and require considerable effort to maintain. That is why, in the Cuban Missile Crisis and in several other episodes where nuclear weapons could have been used, both sides shied away from using these instruments to achieve their political ends.

Unfortunately, this practice and experience is disappearing as a useful tool in the strategic thinking of many Western states. We hear statements that it is possible, for example, to transfer nuclear weapons to Ukraine. This makes us wonder about the reasonableness and sanity of some in the West.

Russia, before other countries, was faced with the need to determine the optimal rules of interaction with the West, which would be different from what the West itself offers to all states of the world. These principles have been shaped by Russian experts over several decades and are now of interest to many in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It is possible that, over time, a broad international consensus will emerge that these ideas are the most reasonable basis for interaction between states in the 21st century.

 

The post Andrey Sushentsov: Will the UN survive and what could replace it? appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Tensions escalating in Arctic – top Russian admiral

Energy News Beat

Washington and its allies are seeking to impede Moscow’s economic activity in the region, Nikolay Yevmenov has said

Russia is facing a growing security threat in the Arctic, the nation’s Navy commander, Admiral Nikolay Yevmenov, said on Thursday. The threat is particularly linked to the “growing foreign presence” in the region owing to Finland’s accession to NATO, he told an Arctic forum in St. Petersburg.

Last year, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that Russia posed a strategic challenge to the alliance in the Arctic, calling for an expanded military footprint in the region. Against this backdrop, Finland and Sweden applied to join NATO in May 2022 after the Ukraine conflict began. While Helsinki officially became part of the US-led military bloc in April, Stockholm’s application remains in limbo over the positions of Türkiye and Hungary.

Moscow is witnessing “negative tendencies in the field of regional security,” Yevmenov said, referring to the Arctic. He called Helsinki’s accession to the US-led military bloc and Stockholm’s aspirations to join it one of the key factors leading to such negative developments.

Competition among the leading world powers over access to the resources in the Arctic and the regional transport routes is growing, the admiral warned. “The collective West is ramping up efforts to impede Russia’s economic activities in the Arctic,” he said, adding that Norway particularly seeks to push Russia out of the Spitsbergen archipelago, also known as Salbard.

A Norwegian territory, Spitsbergen still has a Russian presence in the form of the Arktikugol mining company and the mining community of Barentsburg. Russia enjoys an equal right to engage in commercial activities on the archipelago alongside 13 other nations in accordance with the 1920 Svalbard Treaty, which also made the territory a demilitarized free-trade zone while recognizing Norway’s sovereignty over it.

Moscow warned back in September that NATO military expansion in the Arctic undermines regional security. The US-led bloc supports “forceful scenarios to increase its own security in the North at the expense of the security of other countries,” a senior Russian diplomat, Nikolay Korchunov, told RIA Novosti at that time. The official also warned that Moscow would respond to the challenge with “a set of necessary measures, including preventive ones.”

 

The post Tensions escalating in Arctic – top Russian admiral appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

ExxonMobil, Chevron set sights on more oil & gas along with low-carbon and new energies

Energy News Beat

Two U.S. energy giants, ExxonMobil and Chevron, have disclosed their capital investment expectations, encompassing oil and gas plays, which go shoulder to shoulder with emission-reduction solutions, as these oil majors are no strangers to the uncertainly that surrounds the energy transition and low-carbon landscape. As a result, they are taking a shot at chasing more hydrocarbons alongside decarbonization.

While climate action heats up at COP28, many new decarbonization efforts are springing up to slash emissions from the energy sector, with recent signs indicating that the final text of the climate talks is heading towards a showdown on the question of phasing out fossil fuels. There is no doubt that throwing a commitment to exit the fossil fuels age into the final agreement at COP28 is no small feat, especially in the light of Sultan Al-Jaber’s remarks that limiting warming to 1.5°C does not necessarily require phasing out fossil fuels.

While some may not be on the same page as the COP28 President when it comes to fossil energy, as they do not think that ending oil, gas, and coal production would send humanity back to the Stone Age, the energy crisis has pushed countries into putting all energy sources at their disposal to good use to avoid a new supply crunch down the road.

Well-versed in the nuances of the current energy ecosystem, ExxonMobil’s Chairman and CEO, Darren Woods, said at the APEC Summit in San Francisco last month that the plan to tackle climate change and energy demands would need to go beyond expanding wind, solar, and EVs. According to ExxonMobil’s CEO, the world needs to commit to solving its “energy and emissions challenges simultaneously” to bridge the global North-South divide.

Woods also stated that the problem was not oil and gas but emissions, echoing Kevin Gallagher, Santos’ Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, who underscored that “the climate enemy is emissions, not fossil fuels” while addressing a WA Energy Club luncheon in Perth, Western Australia.

ExxonMobil steps up its low-carbon game with over $20 billion

Based on ExxonMobil’s updated corporate plan through 2027, the company is intent on continuing the execution of its strategy to provide the energy products the world needs and to lower not just its own emissions but also those of others. The U.S. player highlights that the execution of its strategy has increased the earnings power of the corporation, adding about $10 billion to its annual earnings and cash flow at a real Brent price of $60 per barrel since 2019.

For the oil major, these improvements provide “a strong foundation” to further grow annual earnings and cash flow by $14 billion from year-end 2023 through 2027, as it continues to reduce structural costs and improve the mix of its business by growing production from low-cost-of-supply, advantaged assets and increasing sales of high-value performance chemicals, lower-emission fuels, and performance lubricants.

“By any measure, our plans have and will continue to deliver exceptional value. We remain committed to providing the energy and products that raise living standards around the world while building a new business to reduce emissions in hard-to-decarbonize parts of the economy. ExxonMobil is uniquely equipped to do both, and we’re confident that both present significant opportunities for profitable growth,” underlined Woods.

ExxonMobil plans to deliver $6 billion in additional structural cost reductions by year-end 2027, bringing the total structural cost savings to approximately $15 billion versus 2019, while Upstream earnings potential is on track to more than double by 2027 versus 2019, resulting from investments in high-return, low-cost-of-supply projects. Over the next five years, approximately 90% of the firm’s planned Upstream capital investments in new oil and flowing gas production are expected to generate returns greater than 10% at a Brent price of $35/bbl.

In line with its decarbonization agenda, the U.S. giant has made inroads in executing its plan to reduce Upstream operated greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 40% to 50% by 2030, compared with 2016 levels, having already achieved approximately half of this planned reduction. The firm expects oil and gas production in 2024 to be about 3.8 million oil-equivalent barrels per day, rising to about 4.2 million oil-equivalent barrels per day by 2027, driven by growth in the Permian and Guyana.

ExxonMobil now anticipates total annual capital expenditures and exploration expenses of $23 billion to $25 billion in 2024 and $22 billion to $27 billion annually from 2025 through 2027, generating an average return of approximately 30%. Greater than 90% of the capex has payback periods of less than ten years. The company points out that the increase in capex from 2025 is driven by the growth in Low Carbon Solutions’ opportunities to reduce emissions.

The U.S. oil major remains on track to complete $17.5 billion in share repurchases in 2023 as part of the $35 billion repurchase program previously announced for 2023 and 2024. After the Pioneer merger closes, the go-forward pace of the program in 2024 will be increased to $20 billion annually through 2025, assuming reasonable market conditions.

Source: Offshore-energy.biz

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

 

The post ExxonMobil, Chevron set sights on more oil & gas along with low-carbon and new energies appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Some Democrats join Republicans in voting to strike down Biden’s EV mandate

Energy News Beat

The House voted Wednesday evening in favor of legislation striking down federal regulations targeting gas-powered vehicles which, according to the White House, are designed to “accelerate the transition to electric vehicles.”

In a 221-197 vote, the House approved the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales (CARS) Act with 216 Republicans and five Democrats voting in favor. A group of more than a dozen Republican lawmakers, led by Reps. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., and Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., introduced the legislation in July in response to the Biden administration’s tailpipe emissions regulations unveiled months earlier.

“The passage of the CARS Act is a massive victory for every consumer and the entire American auto industry,” Walberg told Fox News Digital. “Biden’s mandate has always been unrealistic, and a textbook study on how central planning and Bidenomics simply do not work. Mandating EVs has never been a responsible or affordable solution.”

“Americans should always have the option to buy whatever car suits them the best and the House has taken a massive step toward ensuring that opportunity still exists,” he added.

Opponents of EPA’s actions — which are part of the Biden administration’s broader effort to increase EV ownership in the U.S. and fight global warming by curbing carbon emissions produced by the transportation sector — have argued the new standards would ultimately harm consumers through higher costs and by forcing them to buy certain vehicles.

They have also argued that a large EV push will benefit Chinese industry which currently dominates global EV battery supply chains.

“Voting for the CARS Act and taking a stand against EPA’s de facto ban on most new gasoline, diesel, flex fuel and hybrid vehicles should not be a partisan issue for members of the House,” American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Vice President of Government Relations Aaron Ringel told Fox News Digital prior to the vote Wednesday.

“Banning vehicle and fuel technologies based on just one category of emissions is unlawful, illogical and bad for consumers, families and our national security,” Ringel said. “It would trade our hard-earned energy security for dependence on China.”

He noted, under the CARS Act, the EPA would maintain its authority to issue technology-neutral vehicle emission standards, but that those standards could not be manipulated to “force vehicle electrification.”

Ahead of the vote Wednesday, though, Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee circulated a memo stating that aggressive emissions standards are vital to reduce pollution and reduce premature deaths.

“Republicans are employing scare tactics to deliberately mislead the American people about EVs in order to prop up Big Oil corporations,” the memo stated. “The reality is that EVs are already popular, cheaper to own, and ongoing technological advancements are translating to better options for consumers every year.”

Following the vote Wednesday, the CARS Act now moves to the Senate, where it has already received bipartisan support. However, the White House said in a statement Monday that President Biden would veto the CARS Act if it is passed.

Source: Foxnews.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Some Democrats join Republicans in voting to strike down Biden’s EV mandate appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Chevron Plans to Spend $14 Billion on Oil and Natural Gas Production in 2024

Energy News Beat

Chevron will allocate $14 billion for upstream investments in 2024, the company said in a budget update that saw the total capex planned for 2024 at between $18.5 billion and $19.5 billion.

That would be an 11% increase on 2023 spending, Reuters noted in a report on the news.

Of the amount dedicated to upstream investment, Chevron plans to spend two-thirds on domestic projects. Of that sum, $6.5 billion will be spent on shale oil and gas, Chevron said. Almost all of that shale spending, or $5 billion, will go towards developments in the Permian.

At the same time, Chevron said it will allocate a quarter of its total U.S. investments for Gulf of Mexico projects, including the Anchor project scheduled to start commercial production in 2024. The Anchor project, which was greenlighted in 2019, is the first deepwater high-pressure oil development project in the region.

The company will also spend about $1.5 billion on offshore operations in Kazakhstan, with the sum constituting half of its affiliates budget for 2024.

Investments planned for the downstream segment are significantly smaller than the upstream total, at $1.5 billion, with 80% of this to be spent at home, Chevron also said.

“Included in the upstream and downstream budgets is approximately $2 billion in lower carbon capex to lower the carbon intensity of traditional operations and grow new energy business lines,” the company said, adding “Chevron’s Geismar renewable diesel expansion project is expected to start-up in 2024.”

In pursuit of its oil and gas expansion plans, Chevron in October took over Hess Corp. for $53 billion in stock. The acquisition has given the company access to the Stabroek Block in Guyana, where Hess and Exxon have tapped more than 11 billion barrels in oil reserves.

“We’re maintaining capital discipline in both traditional and new energies,” CEO Mike Wirth said. “These investments are expected to underpin durable free cash flow growth to support our objective of returning more cash to shareholders.”

Source: Oilprice.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Chevron Plans to Spend $14 Billion on Oil and Natural Gas Production in 2024 appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

The Oil Demand Outlook COP28 Leaders Would Hate

Energy News Beat
The International Energy Agency said in its recent oil report that oil consumption is close to peaking, thanks to transition efforts and energy efficiency gains.
Goehring and Rozencwajg: In 12 of the past 14 years, the IEA has underestimated oil demand by an average annual of 820,000 barrels per day. 
Goehring and Rozencwajg: “If the IEA’s error were a country, it would be the world’s 21st largest oil consumer,”.

This week, a report from a climate organization warned that emissions from the combustion of hydrocarbons are set for a record this year.

This is despite the massive buildout of wind and solar capacity, hundreds of billions of investments in alternatives of hydrocarbons, and pledges for a lot more.

There appears to be a gap between stated goals and ambitions and reality. It might be more difficult to see looking at the oil futures market, but it is there. And it may be getting deeper.

Like emissions, oil demand rose this year. Yet the International Energy Agency said it is close to peaking, thanks to transition efforts and energy efficiency gains. Oil producers slammed the IEA for manipulating data. The investment world was divided. And some recalled the Jevons Paradox as proof that the hopes being pinned on energy efficiency, especially as it related to oil demand, were empty ones.

In their latest quarterly market commentary, contrarian natural resource investment managers Goehring and Rozencwajg did just that: they reminded everyone watching COP28 and listening to all the talk about efficiency and demand for hydrocarbons that gains in the former never lead to a decline in the latter.

“It is a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.” This is what William Stanley Jevons, a British economist and logician, wrote in the 19th century. He was talking about coal. Close to 200 years later, the paradox still stands.

Yet it is not just the mistaken belief that greater energy efficiency would lead to lower consumption of hydrocarbons that has led Goehring and Rozencwajg to predict that oil demand is set to continue strong for more than a decade yet. There is also an issue with the IEA’s demand forecasts: they have been underestimating oil demand for more than a decade.

In 12 of the past 14 years, the IEA, according to the investment firm, has underestimated oil demand by an average annual of 820,000 barrels per day. This is quite a substantial amount when something as important as oil demand is being estimated.

“If the IEA’s error were a country, it would be the world’s 21st largest oil consumer,” Goehring and Rozencwajg wrote. But this error can create a false narrative on the futures market that could end in a nasty surprise for many.

The IEA said in its latest World Energy Outlook that tripling generation capacity from wind and solar and other low-carbon sources must go hand in hand with an annual rate of energy efficiency improvements of 4%.

What it did not say is that even if this annual rate of efficiency gains is achieved, it will only lead to more energy demand, which would translate into more oil and gas demand. This is because the new low-carbon sources of energy that transition advocates favor cannot compete with hydrocarbons on supply reliability, at least not yet.

While all this is happening, the oil industry is not investing enough in future production, not least because of the transition pressures applied to it by activists, governments, and financing institutions.

As a result, Goehring and Rozencwajg write, “When the realization dawns that oil and gas demand is not in free fall, investors will be forced to confront how little the industry has invested to offset declines.” This will lead to a reversal in investor thinking and a rush to buy into oil and gas. Needless to say, this will not exactly be bearish for prices.

The rush will likely be a stampede, too, because of something else that tends to get overlooked amid all the transition commitment noise. China is the biggest wind, solar, and EV market. India has major ambitions in all three areas. Yet these two countries alone represent the biggest driver for oil, gas, and coal demand. And their role in global hydrocarbon demand growth is only going to become bigger.

Emerging markets as a whole currently account for 45% of global GDP. By 2040, this will rise to 53%, representing 70% of global GDP growth. And these markets are energy intensive, meaning energy demand will be rising over the next 17 years, at least, efficiency gains and all. With that, demand for hydrocarbons will be rising, too, whatever commitments current governments make at the COP28.

The reason for that last prediction is evident in the report on emissions cited earlier: when energy demand grows, so does hydrocarbon demand because they can supply energy quickly in the form of liquid fuels and reliably in the form of baseload electricity generation.

Predictions from the IEA and other transition-oriented outlets seem to assume that a reversal in these processes is possible. They seem to assume that it is possible to cut energy demand in the developed world by a significant percentage.

It is quite likely that these assumptions are wrong because they go against fundamental truths about human civilization, such as the fact that going from comfort to forced discomfort is not something many would readily embrace, to put it mildly. The implications of basing investment decisions on wrong assumptions should be obvious enough—as many offshore wind investors realized earlier this year.

Source: Oilprice.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post The Oil Demand Outlook COP28 Leaders Would Hate appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

IMF boss says governments need to impose global carbon tax on citizens to punish them for using energy

Energy News Beat

Kristalina Georgieva, a Bulgarian economist who serves as the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said Monday that the IMF wants to see countries implement punishing new carbon taxes to “fight climate change.”

She delivered her dire message at the United Nations COP28 climate summit, where globalists in attendance flew in on jets and you can bet they are being chauffeured around in luxury automobiles and dining on the finest cuts of beef and other delicacies.

“We are very keen to give the biggest possible incentive for decarbonization, which is putting a price on carbon,” Georgieva said at the summit in the United Arab Emirates. “That price needs to go up, up, up if we are to speed up decarbonization.”

The IMF boss also tried to justify carbon taxes by saying they would raise revenues for governments.

“We are a huge proponent of carbon price,” she said, in a bold statement that seems to indicate only the rich will be allowed to maintain their current lifestyles if the globalists get their way on climate change policies.

Check out her audacious comments in the video below.

Georgieva has broken it down in very simple terms for us serfs. Climate change means more money for governments to expand their power and control over the way we live our lives. It will provide a wonderful new excuse to reach into our pockets and rob us of your hard-earned money, then using that stolen money to hire more bureaucrats whose sole purpose will be to disrupt the middle-class lifestyle while creating new barriers for poor people seeking to rise up into the middle class.

Georgieva is a globalist elitist sitting there at COP28 under the banner of the IMF and World Bank, admitting in the wide open that what the globalists want is a global tax that punishes people for driving gas-powered cars, heating their homes, cooking on gas ranges, eating meat, flying on planes, etc.

These are all things that your typical middle-class family sees not as luxuries but as everyday necessities. If the globalists get their way, only the rich will be able to afford these things. The rest of us will be left to fend for ourselves in cold, dank little apartments, riding our bicycles to work, or catching the bus, while coming home to a dinner of meal worms and crickets.

No thanks.

These people sitting on their high and lofty perches at these globalist summits have somehow gotten the mistaken idea that they can lord their perverse ideology over us and make us conform to a lifestyle fit for the Middle Ages, while they dine on filet mignon and caviar and move about in their expensive SUVs and private jets.

As more people figure out what decarbonization and net zero emissions will actually mean for their own way of life, you can bet these globalists are going to have to run for cover.

That’s why we do what we do here at LeoHohmann.com, reporting and informing in an effort to wake up the sleeping masses. We must get them to realize that if we remain on the current trajectory, we will live as slaves.

In order to truly enforce such a dystopian society, they will crash the dollar and the rest of the global fiat currencies, replace them with digital and programmable CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies), and require biometric digital IDs of all people, with your digital ID tied to your bank account. Once this is enforcement mechanism is in place, it’s game over. I believe this is all set to be accomplished by the end of 2025. That means 2024 will be a pivotal year in which a series of crises are launched aimed at gettting more of us into a desperate situation. For only a desperate people will accept a life of techno-slavery in a 24/7 surveillance state.

Live free. Never comply. Use cash whenever possible. Never submit to a digital ID. There’s been too much compliance already, which is why we stand at the door of domination by these evil parasites.

LeoHohmann.com is 100 percent reader supported and receives no ads, sponsorships or grants from any government or corporate entity. This allows me to be 100 percent independent in my reporting. If you appreciate my work and would like to support it, you man send a donation of any size c/o Leo Hohmann, P.O. Box 291, Newnan, GA 30264. Thank you for your support.

Source: Leohohmann.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post IMF boss says governments need to impose global carbon tax on citizens to punish them for using energy appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

“Green” Energy Stocks Are Not Faring Well

Energy News Beat

Despite well over $1 trillion so far spent by governments on “green energy,” the iShares Global Clean Energy E.T.F., an exchange-traded fund that tracks the entire industry, is down more than 30 percent this year. Further, since the start of 2021, the fund has lost more than 50 percent. The portfolio of the iShares Global Clean Energy ETF is heavily invested in solar, wind, and hydrogen stocks, including SolarEdge, First Solar, Sunrun, Orsted, and Plug Power. Therefore, it is not surprising that solar and wind stock funds have also dropped. The Invesco Solar E.T.F. is down more than 40 percent this year and almost 60 percent since January 1, 2021. The First Trust Global Wind Energy E.T.F. lost about 20 percent this year and about 40 percent since January 1, 2021. Renewable energy companies have been hard hit as rising interest rates from torrid government spending increased costs and moderated consumer enthusiasm in many countries, reducing stock valuations for renewable companies that are not producing large profits.

A Brutal Correction

The largest clean energy ETF, QCLN, has suffered an almost 50 percent decline since its peak in 2021.

Source: Securities.io

Individual renewable companies are also seeing the same stock trend. SolarEdge, which provides equipment that converts energy from solar panels into power that can be transmitted through electric grids, warned on October 17 that demand for its products was lagging. The market responded by dropping it share value by almost 30 percent in a single day. Other solar companies are seeing the same fate. Enphase Energy, a rival firm, lost almost 40 percent since October 17.

Wind energy companies also saw the same fate. Shares of Orsted, the Danish wind turbine company, fell nearly 26 percent after it announced that it might have to write down as much as $5.6 billion on the value of its offshore wind projects in the United States. The company canceled two projects, known as Ocean Wind 1 and 2, that were to supply New Jersey with electricity, and some of its projects for New York and Connecticut have also run into trouble. In October, New York State’s Public Service Commission rejected requests from Orsted and several other companies — including BP and Equinor — for billions in electric rate increases to help defray their escalating costs that are caused by inflation and higher interest rates. Orsted, however, is completing a N.Y. offshore wind project. South Fork Wind, a set of wind turbines 30 miles east of Montauk Point, Long Island, is scheduled to generate electricity before the end of the year.

Shares in Siemens Energy fell to record lows after the energy-technology company said it was asking the German government and banks for guarantees to back long-term projects. Its stock fell by 39 percent in Frankfurt, hitting the lowest levels since it was spun off as a public company in 2020. Shares in former owner Siemens, a large shareholder, fell nearly 5 percent. Siemens Energy expects its wind business, Siemens Gamesa, to record lower revenues and higher losses than market expectations through the next fiscal year. The industry is challenged by higher borrowing costs that builds on years of supply-chain disruptions from Covid-19 lockdowns and higher costs.

The selling in renewables intensified after NextEra Energy Partners, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy focused on renewables, cut its growth target by half to 6 percent through at least 2026 as tighter monetary policy and higher interest rates affected the financing needed to grow distributions at 12 percent. NextEra Energy Partners is down 69.27 percent year to date, on pace for its worst year on record, while its parent company NextEra Energy hit a 52-week low recently, down 42 percent year to date. NextEra is the world’s largest renewable developer.

Background

Some of the biggest solar companies initially rallied after Russia invaded Ukraine in late February 2022 and oil prices spiked. The invasion hastened investments towards green technologies in Europe and the United States as oil and natural gas became more expensive and governments justified a need to rely on other sources of energy. Biden’s climate legislation, the Democrat-passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 was also a boon for renewable energy companies, with “clean” energy stocks the clear winners. The IRA provides tax credits for companies to manufacture items like solar panels and wind turbine parts in the United States. The law also offers credits of up to $7,500 for electric vehicles assembled domestically. The Biden administration has directed more than $1 trillion in spending commitments in the U.S. alone.

But some of the federal and local government’s green initiatives are scaling back. Earlier this year, policy changes went into effect in California, the largest U.S. solar market. The new measures reduced the money credited to rooftop solar panel owners for sending excess power into the grid. California’s net metering reform created headwinds for companies like Enphase Energy. In April, the solar inverter maker’s stock fell 25 percent in one day following disappointing second quarter revenue guidance amid concerns of slowing demand. In July, the stock took another hit of 11 percent in one day after Enphase Energy’s third quarter guidance came in weaker than expected.

The delay of offshore wind farms in the Northeast is another setback for the renewable industry. Six Democratic governors recently sent a letter to the Biden Administration asking for even more federal help with planned projects after wind developers asked to renegotiate contracts due to rising costs, dwindling supply chain issues, and tighter credit.

Without federal action, offshore wind deployment in the United States is at serious risk of stalling because ratepayers are unable to absorb the significant new costs, particularly given that offshore wind is a very expensive technology to begin with. This is in addition to its already enormous subsidies, reduced royalties, and other inducements. It is more than triple the cost of onshore wind. The Democratic governors are asking for the Biden Administration to ensure offshore wind projects are fully eligible for federal clean energy tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, and they also want the government to expedite clean energy permitting.

Will It Continue?

The latest Bloomberg MLIV Pulse survey of over 600 professional and retail investors revealed that more than half expect the downturn in ‘green’ energy stocks to persist into next year. The survey was conducted from November 13 to the 24th globally. Most respondents, 57 percent (353), expect the selloff to continue next year. And, 43 percent (267) expect “green stocks” to find a near-term bottom.

Conclusion

Renewable stocks are taking a beating in the utility sector. It may be a sign that Investors are betting that going green will take longer and require more capital in a higher-for-longer interest rate environment. Utilities struggle with converting to more green energy as their operating margins are squeezed until they can get their utility rates increased by their Public Service Commissions.  Higher interest rates are impacting the renewable sector because “clean” energy projects are capital intensive. And, falling valuations are making it harder for companies to tap into public markets to fund their projects. Despite the common interpretation that renewable (wind and solar) energy are “free” because the resource is free, the reality is that they are capital intensive, weather-driven, and intermittent—not affordable nor reliable. It clearly is expensive to go “green”.

Source: Instituteforenergyresearch.org

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post “Green” Energy Stocks Are Not Faring Well appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

The Black Lie at the Heart of Net Zero Energy Fantasies

Energy News Beat

Temperatures plunged last week across Europe and the wind stopped blowing for a number of days. Without gas- and coal-fired turbines coming immediately to the rescue, thousands of people could have perished in the bitter cold. Yet natural gas is being legislated out of existence as a source of electricity across the continent. The black lie at the heart of Net Zero energy fantasies is that there are workable back-ups for intermittent wind and solar. Apart from oil and gas, there are none. Once politicians remove them from the mix – if elected, the British Labour party plans this in barely 60 months – the old and the infirm will shiver and die when a windless electricity grid produces negligible amounts of crucial power.

Exaggeration? Not really. Earlier this year, Lord Frost delivered the annual GWPF lecture on Net Zero which he titled ‘Not Dark Yet, But’s It’s Getting There’. He felt that members of Western governments “actively prefer to live in complete cognitive dissonance rather than confront what they know in their hearts: that they are pursuing unfeasible and internally contradictory policies”. There can be no excuse for what Lord Frost describes as “high status” opinions on Net Zero. The lack of ‘green’ back-up for intermittent power is becoming obvious to all but the most blinkered and boneheaded. But a wilful refusal to confront the issue is the current default ‘settled’ position. If the grid collapses in a few years’ time, the politicians and all their trusted messengers in the media will have a great deal of explaining to do. As the frozen bodies pile up, their trite, pseudoscientific, ‘saving the planet’ political slogans will be found somewhat wanting.

The idea that we can power most of our energy from the wind and the sun has been kept afloat by the promise of massive battery storage. There can be no further excuse for peddling this delusion. Earlier this year, the U.K. Royal Society published a wide-ranging storage paper pointing out that current batteries cannot possibly store more than a fraction of the energy needed to support the grid when wind fails. And fail it does, not just during spells of extremely cold weather but, as the Royal Society pointed out, during past annual low wind speed periods. Desperate to keep the Net Zero fiction alive, the Royal Society promoted hydrogen as a back-up, an idea only slightly less dumb than digging up the planet to produce vast quantities of limited life batteries.

Highly explosive, expensive to extract, weak kinetic energy compared to natural gas, difficult to store and move around – there is no end to the disadvantages of hydrogen. The Royal Society seems to envisage a new nationwide complex of storage and pipes that would likely cost hundreds of billions of pounds. Francis Menton of the Manhattan Contrarian noted that the Royal Society’s paper contained valuable information, but was “actually useless for any public policy purpose”.

Wherever you look, promoters of green energy engage in largely unchallenged deceptions. To coincide with COP28, Channel 4 is running a ‘climate emergency’ season. “With their combined, deep expertise, Kevin McCloud, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Mary Portas will front a powerful three-part series aiming to kickstart real change, by identifying the practical steps that governments and big business can take to eliminate our carbon emissions,” reads the press release. It’s an odd choice of “deep expertise” on offer, namely, the Grand Designs TV host, a TV cook and a shop window dresser. Within minutes into the first programme, the zombie statistic that wind was nine times cheaper than gas last winter was trotted out. In fact, this occurred only briefly with a number of abnormal wholesale price spikes in electricity in the wake of developments in Ukraine. Suggesting that wind is nine times cheaper than gas is as wilfully misleading as stating that wind was infinitely more expensive when oil prices turned negative at the start of global Covid lockdowns.

Without reliable back-up, subsidy-hunting promoters can add as many windmills as they like, but it will not make any difference when there is no wind. Last week, wind struggled to provide 3% of Britain’s electricity. As the investigative climate journalist (and former accountant) Paul Homewood is fond of noting – twice nothing is still nothing. In the meantime, British electricity users are set to pay almost £100 billion in subsidies for renewables supplying the grid over the next six years. Even when the wind is blowing, this growing subsidy covers barely 5% of total U.K. energy, since the grid only accounts for 25% of consumed energy. Last week’s dismal contribution brought that down to almost zero.

The true insanity of Net Zero has yet to be faced by global elites seeking to ‘transform’ human societies in collectivist ways never attempted in the past. Since this is a political project, truth is the first casualty in the war on wicked humanity. Nobody is paying much attention to the work of the Government-funded U.K. FIRES that notes that the U.K. is likely to have barely a quarter of the energy promised by the Government and the Climate Change Committee in 2050 if all legal obligations of Net Zero are followed. In its latest energy review, U.K. FIRES writes that the “whole excitement“ of its project has been to recognise that such a shortfall is close to a certain reality. As the Daily Sceptic has reported, U.K. FIRES bases it findings on a brutally honest reality. It does not assume that technology still to be perfected, or even invented, will somehow lead to minimal disturbance in comfortable industrialised lifestyles. A world of little energy means no personal transport, no flying and shipping, freezing homes, meat-free diets and dwellings made of “rammed” Earth. And, probably, far fewer humans.

In his recent paper, Lord Frost identified a current active determination across politicians and opinion formers not too look too closely at all the Net Zero issues. This was worrying, he commented, adding the words of the political and economic writer Sir Alfred Sherman: “You can wake a man who’s asleep, but you can’t wake a man who’s pretending to be asleep.”

Source: Dailysceptic.or

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post The Black Lie at the Heart of Net Zero Energy Fantasies appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Current and prospective investors, please call our Pecos Country Operating offices at (817) 581-3877.

Pecos Country Operating, LLC is a privately owned oil and gas exploration and production company headquartered in Fort Worth. We own and operate wells across the South Central United States with our predominant means of production coming out of West and North Texas.

About

  • Stories
  • Community
  • Blog
  • Careers