DAVID BLACKMON: A Reckoning Is Coming For The Failing Energy Transition

Energy News Beat

It didn’t make a ton of news in the United States media, but a new study published by the International Energy Agency in mid-October emphasizes the enormous potential roadblock to a successful energy transition posed by a projected need to refurbish and double capacity on global electricity grids.

The study, titled, “Electricity Grids and Secure Energy Transitions,” advises governments that investments in expanding and refurbishing power grids must “nearly double by 2030 to over USD 600 billion per year after over a decade of stagnation at the global level, with emphasis on digitalising and modernising distribution grids.” That level of new investment in just this single piece of the overarching plans for a complete re-tooling of the global energy system is not currently a part of existing policies around the world. Given that most developed countries are already saddled with overwhelming public debt and the lack of means in developing countries, the prospect for a doubling of current grid investments seems dubious at best.

But, if anything, the goals laid out in this IEA missive only become more implausible as one reads through the list. Perhaps the most extraordinary among them is the agency’s estimate that reaching the UN’s goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would require the refurbishment, upgrading and build-out of 80 million kilometers of new transmission lines by 2040. For those who struggle with conversion factors, 80 million km is roughly the equivalent of 50 million miles, or 2,000 times the Earth’s circumference.

That is the equivalent of all the transmission capacity built by mankind in history, and the IEA says it must be accomplished in just 17 years for this energy transition to succeed. IEA notes that achieving this extraordinary goal – among other improbable propositions laid out in the report – will require “secure supply chains and a skilled workforce,” neither of which currently exists.

How will this massive expansion in necessary skilled workers be achieved? The report doesn’t really say.

How will those supply chains – almost all of which are currently dominated by a single country, China – be secured? The report says only “Governments can support the expansion of supply chains by creating firm and transparent project pipelines and by standardising procurement and technical installations.” Sounds easy, right? But the U.S. congress has a hard time just agreeing what day of the week it is: The thought that it will suddenly develop the ability to engage in that sort of complex thinking and legislating in a constructive way is absurdly unlikely.

The report then somewhat hilariously points to another elephant residing in the energy transition’s living room, noting that governments all over the world need to streamline their energy permitting processes to accommodate this massive grid expansion. Again, using the U.S. congress as an example, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin has spent the last 19 months trying to put together enough votes to approve legislation that would address just a small portion of what is really needed in this realm and had no success, with no real prospects of that changing until, at best, 2025, when the next congress will be sworn into office.

Think about this in the context of a story I wrote in June about the TransWest Express transmission project, which had finally received its final permits from the federal government. This is a line that is about 1300 miles long, designed to carry electricity generated by Wyoming wind farms to customers on the West coast. The punch line on this single transmission project is that the permitting process took 17 years to achieve. Assuming no new litigation arises, it will now take about another 3 years to complete and place into service.

Like so many of the work products published by the IEA in recent years, this report’s findings seem to be motivated mostly to help achieve political goals based mainly on wishful thinking, with little consideration given to long-ingrained dynamics at play in the real world. Even if overwhelming debt burdens and resource and supply chain challenges could be just wished away, the political impediments to achieving these unrealistic goals seem destined to force a day of reckoning for the entire energy transition plan.

Source: Dailycaller.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post DAVID BLACKMON: A Reckoning Is Coming For The Failing Energy Transition appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Why Norway — the poster child for electric cars — is having second thoughts

Energy News Beat

OSLO, Norway — With motor vehicles generating nearly a 10th of global CO2 emissions, governments and environmentalists around the world are scrambling to mitigate the damage. In wealthy countries, strategies often revolve around electrifying cars — and for good reason, many are looking to Norway for inspiration.

Over the last decade, Norway has emerged as the world’s undisputed leader in electric vehicle adoption. With generous government incentives available, 87 percent of the country’s new car sales are now fully electric, a share that dwarfs that of the European Union (13 percent) and the United States (7 percent). Norway’s muscular EV push has garnered headlines in outlets like the New York Times and the Guardian while drawing praise from the Environmental Defense Fund, the World Economic Forum, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. “I’d like to thank the people of Norway again for their incredible support of electric vehicles,” he tweeted last December. “Norway rocks!!”

I’ve been writing about transportation for the better part of a decade, so all that fawning international attention piqued my curiosity. Does Norway offer a climate strategy that other countries could copy chapter and verse? Or has the hype outpaced the reality?

So I flew across the Atlantic to see what the fuss was about. I discovered a Norwegian EV bonanza that has indeed reduced emissions — but at the expense of compromising vital societal goals. Eye-popping EV subsidies have flowed largely to the affluent, contributing to the gap between rich and poor in a country proud of its egalitarian social policies.

Worse, the EV boom has hobbled Norwegian cities’ efforts to untether themselves from the automobile and enable residents to instead travel by transit or bicycle, decisions that do more to reduce emissions, enhance road safety, and enliven urban life than swapping a gas-powered car for an electric one.

Despite the hosannas from abroad, Norway’s government has begun to unwind some of its electrification subsidies in order to mitigate the downsides of no-holds-barred EV promotion.

“Countries should introduce EV subsidies in a way that doesn’t widen inequality or stimulate car use at the expense of other transport modes,” Bjørne Grimsrud, director of the transportation research center TØI, told me over coffee in Oslo. “But that’s what ended up happening here in Norway.”

And it could happen in other countries, too, including in the United States, where transportation is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. The federal government now offers tantalizing rebates to Americans in the market for an electric car, but nothing at all for more climate-friendly vehicles like e-bikes or golf carts (nor a financial lifeline for beleaguered public subway and bus systems).

Ending the sales of gas-powered cars, as Norway is close to doing, is an essential step toward addressing climate change. But a 2020 study found that even the most optimistic forecasts for global EV adoption would not prevent a potentially catastrophic 2 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures. Reducing driving — not just gas-powered driving — is crucial.

As the world’s EV trendsetter, Norway’s experience offers a bevy of lessons for other nations seeking to decarbonize transportation. But some of those lessons are cautionary.

How Norway fell in love with the electric car

At first glance, Norway’s EV embrace might seem odd. The country lacks a domestic auto industry and its dominant export is, of all things, fossil fuels. Nevertheless, Norway’s unique geography and identity helped put it at the vanguard of car electrification.

Historically, Norway has been mostly rural; as recently as 1960, half the nation’s population resided in the countryside. But as the postwar economy boomed, Norwegians migrated to cities, and especially to their fast-growing, sprawling suburbs (much as Americans did at the time). They also fell hard for the automobile.

“The car was this genius idea for Norwegians,” Ulrik Eriksen, author of the book A Country on Four Wheels, told me over dinner in Oslo, after stashing his cargo e-bike. “Because there is plenty of land, cars opened up urban space for people to live in, letting more of them get sizable single-family homes.”

Norway embarked on a road-building binge, constructing bridges over fjords and boring tunnels through mountains to connect downtowns with new neighborhoods on the urban fringe. As Norwegian cities expanded, public transit took a back seat. Bergen, for instance, shuttered its extensive tramway service in the 1960s, dumping some of the trams into the North Sea.

Those decisions cast a long shadow: Norway still has one of Europe’s lowest rates of public transportation usage and a higher car ownership rate than Denmark and Sweden, its Scandinavian neighbors. “Most Norwegian cities now have more of a car-centric, American approach toward transportation than a multi-modal, European one,” Eriksen said.

Norway’s city residents often own an automobile even though they seldom use it, Oslo-based urban planner Anine Hartmann told me. “Norwegians identify as coming from the place where their parents or grandparents come from,” she said. “Many people have a car to return to that place or simply to visit a cabin in the country.”

By the 1990s, the automobile was Norway’s indispensable vehicle. It was then that Norwegian entrepreneurs launched two early electric car startups, Buddy and Think. Though their models were clunky and inefficient by today’s standards, the companies spurred excitement that Norway could become a global hub of EV production. Seeking to give the carmakers a tailwind, the Norwegian government exempted EVs from the country’s steep taxes on car purchases, which today add an average of $27,000 to each sale. Even better, EV owners — who at the time were few and far between — would not pay for tolls, parking, or ferries (over all those fjords) anywhere in the country.

Norway’s dreams of becoming a global hub of EV manufacturing quickly fizzled when the companies ran into financial problems. (This summer, I spotted a tiny, aged Buddy squeezed into an Oslo parking spot, dwarfed by SUVs on either side.) But the incentives remained on the books; since few people were buying EVs, their cost was negligible.

That changed as the global EV market improved in the mid-2010s, with carmakers like Tesla offering stylish, high-performance models that attracted more buyers. Norway’s EV policies were now championed as a centerpiece of the national effort to slow climate change in an economy whose electricity is already clean, produced largely from hydropower. “We want people to buy electric cars,” Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg said in 2019. “It is the most important thing you can do personally and privately to help reduce climate emissions.”

As EV models improved, Norwegians began to realize how valuable the cost savings from government incentives could be, particularly for urban commuters. After an already discounted EV purchase, owners’ ongoing expenses were minimal because Norwegian electricity is inexpensive (due to abundant hydropower), and EVs were exempt from tolls, parking, and ferries. EV owners were even invited to drive in bus-only lanes.

Hundreds of thousands of Norwegians responded to the government’s invitation to buy an EV, seemingly saving money and the planet in one fell swoop. But not every EV purchase replaced a gas guzzler; Grimsrud noted that the Norwegians owned 10 percent more cars per capita at the end of the 2010s than they did at the decade’s outset, in large part due to the EV incentives. “The families who could afford a second or third car ran off to the shop and bought one,” he said.

Norway’s incentives have unquestionably reshaped the country’s car market and reduced carbon emissions. EVs’ share of new vehicle sales surged from 1 percent in 2014 to 83 percent today. Around one in four cars on Norwegian roads is now electric, and the country’s surface transportation emissions fell 8.3 percent between 2014 and 2023.

The national government seems ready to declare victory. “When it comes to electrical vehicles, I’m quite proud,” Cecilie Knibe Kroglund, Norway’s state secretary for transportation, told me at the Oslo headquarters of the Ministry of Transport. “My main lesson is that incentives work. We have succeeded at a large scale.”

But not everyone shares her enthusiasm. Although the EV rush has reduced tailpipe emissions, it has also entrenched car dependence, which inflicts other kinds of damage. “Climate change gave Norway an opportunity to change how we travel,” said Eriksen. “I worry we had this once-in-a-generation chance to fix our transportation network, and we blew it.”

EV subsidies fueled car sales, but Norway’s cities want fewer cars

As electric car sales picked up throughout the 2010s, Norway placed few constraints on its EV incentives. Wealthy Norwegians could buy as many high-end EVs as they liked, receiving a full package of subsidies on each one. Luxury carmakers like Porsche advertised Norway’s promotions in their marketing materials.

Although the EV policies were fueling a car-buying frenzy for affluent residents, they offered little to those of limited means. Many low-income Norwegians do not own a car: In Bergen, for instance, 67 percent of households in the lowest income quartile go without one. One recent study found the likelihood that a Norwegian household would purchase an EV rose 26 percent with each 100,000 Norwegian Krones (around $11,000) in annual income, suggesting that electrification subsidies — which ballooned to $4 billion in 2022, equivalent to 2 percent of the national budget — have redistributed resources toward the rich.

Meanwhile, EV incentives have undermined the shift away from automobiles that Norwegian city officials, like their counterparts throughout Europe, are increasingly encouraging. “Everyone agrees that 100 percent of cars should be electric. That’s not the question,” Tiina Ruohonen, a climate advisor to the mayor of Oslo, told me. “The real question is whether you really need to own a car in Oslo.”

Over the last decade, Oslo has joined Bergen, Trondheim, and Stavanger (Norway’s four largest cities) in committing to meet all future trip growth through transit, biking, and walking — not cars. Seeking to reduce driving, Oslo has removed over 4,000 parking spots since 2016 while also building bike lanes, widening sidewalks, and adjusting traffic patterns to reduce through traffic. Those efforts helped the city achieve a remarkable milestone in 2019: For a full year, not a single pedestrian or cyclist was killed in a crash.

A street in Oslo’s city center. David Zipper for Vox

Walking and biking through Oslo helped me understand how it became so safe. The few motor vehicles I encountered within the city center moved carefully through streets thronged with pedestrians (some blocks are entirely car-free). Traffic typically moved at the speed of my e-bike; my one moment of anxiety came when a passing streetcar startled me as I gazed at Oslo’s picturesque harbor.

Many local leaders recognize that reducing car dependence will enhance urban life. “I am certain that when people imagine their ideal city, it would not be a dream of polluted air, cars jammed in endless traffic, or streets filled up with parked cars,” Hanne Marcussen, Oslo’s former vice mayor of urban development, told Fast Company in 2019.

But there are inherent conflicts between cities’ efforts to limit driving and the Norwegian government’s promotion of EVs. Oslo’s elimination of street parking and creation of pedestrian-only streets, for instance, nudge Norwegians away from driving, but they also diminish EVs’ usefulness.

“The way to get people to buy EVs is to make them easy and cheap to use,” said Eriksen. “But cities don’t want driving cars to be easy and cheap.” A recent study of EV subsidies in Bergen underscores those tensions, finding that promoting EV adoption hampers cities’ ability to build dense neighborhoods that shorten trips and strengthen transit.

The effect of EV adoption on public transportation has been a particular concern for Norway’s cities because boosting transit ridership has been a linchpin of local mobility strategies. Bergen, for instance, opened its first light rail line in 2010, and Trondheim overhauled its bus fleet in 2019. But because generous EV incentives make driving cheaper, they make public transportation relatively less cost-competitive.

Worse, EV promotions have shrunk the funding available to invest in transit improvements because Norwegian public transportation budgets are partly funded through the road tolls that the national government exempted EV owners from paying. As more Norwegians purchased EVs, transit revenue fell, threatening major investments like a new metro line in Oslo. “One of my primary concerns is that because we are subsidizing EVs through the cheaper toll roads, we don’t have the money to pay for big transit infrastructure projects,” said Eivind Trædal, an Oslo city councilmember who until a few weeks ago led the city’s council’s environment and transportation committee.

National officials, for their part, have stuck to pro-EV messaging and refrained from discouraging driving. Despite its generous incentives for electric cars, the Norwegian government provides no discounts for those buying e-bikes or e-cargo bikes (Oslo and Bergen offer limited programs for residents). The country’s current 12-year National Transport Plan includes initiatives to catalyze the adoption of zero-emissions vehicles, but none to reduce car trips.

Trædal said that politics led the Norwegian government to downplay reducing transportation emissions through transit, biking, and walking — all of which produce significantly fewer emissions than driving an EV. “Nobody’s mad about getting a cheaper new car, right?” he shrugged. “It’s politically easier to just give them car subsidies.”

When I asked Kroglund, the country’s transportation state secretary, if Norway’s government seeks to reduce total kilometers driven, she said it does not. “We don’t have a specific goal [to reduce driving],” she told me. “Of course, we would like to get more people on public transportation and bikes. But that is more something that cities work on.”

But national policy decisions inevitably affect local transportation efforts — and sometimes undermine them. Last October, the Norwegian Public Roads Administration opened E39, a four-lane highway into Bergen that the city had opposed due to concerns that it would increase driving. Those fears proved justified. Lars Ove Kvalbein, a Bergen city adviser on sustainable mobility, told me that before E39 opened, 30 percent of those traveling into the city from the south had used a car, but after the highway opened that share jumped to 40 percent.

“E39 was part of a national plan that smashed all the positive local plans to pieces,” he said.

Other countries can avoid repeating Norway’s mistakes

In the last few years, Norway has begun to confront the tensions within its push for car electrification. In 2017, the country began requiring EV owners to pay for parking, road tolls, and ferries, although they still receive a discount. As of this past January, only the first $45,000 of a new EV’s purchase price is tax-free. Buyers of the largest (and often priciest) EVs must also pay an additional fee that scales with vehicle weight.

“The argument is to make the tax system more fair,” said transportation state secretary Kroglund, “and not give benefits for things that are unnecessary for the transition to EVs.” As a result of the new policies, Norwegian sales of some high-end EVs, like the enormous Chinese Hongqi SUV, have collapsed.

Looking to the future, TØI’s Grimsrud hopes that Norway’s next 12-year National Transport Plan beginning in 2025 will include a goal of limiting total driving, which could restrain highway expansion plans and direct more investment toward transit. “If you start with a national goal for reducing transportation emissions, it will force you to focus more on public transportation and less on road construction,” he said.

For other countries, a clear Norwegian lesson is that a focus on reducing transportation emissions through electric car adoption can worsen inequality. Capping the price of eligible vehicles and limiting the number of EVs that a household can purchase tax-free are intuitive moves that Norway took only belatedly.

At the same time, Norway offers a warning about the dangers of promoting EVs at the expense of modes that are more beneficial to the environment as well as urban life. The national government’s decision to subsidize electric cars but not e-bikes makes no sense from a climate perspective, although the United States Congress made the same mistake when it passed the Inflation Reduction Act last year. At a minimum, countries should ensure that EV adoption does not deplete resources needed for public transportation investments, as has happened in Norway and could occur in the US, since EVs reduce gasoline tax revenues, a portion of which funds American transit.

With frequent bus and rail service, walkable city centers, and expanding networks of bike lanes (including, in Bergen, the longest purpose-built bike tunnel in the world), Norwegian cities are far ahead of American peers in providing viable alternatives to driving. Nevertheless, over the last decade, US cities have taken significant steps forward: Bike share programs are now a fixture, and new bus rapid transit lines have emerged in places like Madison, Richmond, and Washington, DC. New York City and San Francisco have even experimented with making major thoroughfares car-free. But if local initiatives aren’t matched with supportive federal policies, Norway’s experience suggests that an influx of electric vehicles can hinder efforts to escape the automobile’s urban stranglehold.

“The mistake is to think that EVs solve all your problems when it comes to transport,” said Ruohonen, the Oslo mayoral adviser. “They don’t.”

Source: Vox.com

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Why Norway — the poster child for electric cars — is having second thoughts appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

The Writing’s On The Great Wall For A China Crash

Energy News Beat

Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

As the saying goes, if you want to know what’s really going on, follow the money. That catchphrase doesn’t just apply to foreign companies and investors backing out of China. It also applies to the Chinese economy.

A No-Confidence Vote

In the midst of widespread economic duress and growing social disruption, following the money trail shows how Chinese investors are voting with their wallets.

Consumer spending is down, and the savings rate is up.

Capital is flowing out of China any way it can, and it all amounts to a definite no-confidence vote for Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The CCP Tries to Hide the Facts

In true CCP fashion, the state puts the blame for its failed policies on those who point them out. Anyone who mentions the crumbling economy, for example, is guilty of creating “financial stability.” Even though the CCP would consider prosecuting journalists and economists who report accurately about the falling employment numbers and the high debt levels that plague local governments, China’s worsening economic conditions are too dramatic and widespread to hide.

Of course, financial stability isn’t threatened by people talking about it. It’s the CCP that’s destroying the economy. Even recent history shows that the less involved the Party is in the economy, the better it performs.

The property market and the development sector are perfect examples, though not the only ones. Both continue to be heavily manipulated by the CCP, and both are hemorrhaging value, as financial ruin in flagship companies such as Evergrande and Country Garden contribute to deteriorating conditions in the wider economy. Completed projects that remain unsold are being demolished, work on existing projects is being halted, and other development plans are being canceled, even as the development companies owe billions to creditors.

More Than a Cyclical Downturn

The reality of what’s happening is starting to dawn on the Chinese. Many understand that the current trend is much more than a cyclical downturn, which is typical of capitalist economies. Growth in the second quarter of 2023 was reported to be only 0.8 percent. Still, that statistic is hardly trustworthy in a country that runs on graft and political favors and routinely fudges the numbers. The reported third-quarter gain of 4.9 percent is touted but not believable, given the real estate collapse, falling consumer spending, and lower exports.

Going forward, as the CCP takes more control, a stagnant economy may be the best-case scenario. Jobs in property development, related industries, and manufacturing sectors are all struggling as foreign companies leave China’s shores.

A Stagnating Middle Class

Meanwhile, individual investors, mostly from the middle class—who put their life savings into properties that aren’t even built and likely won’t ever be built—are seeing their wealth evaporate before their eyes as valuations crater.

This stagnation is primarily due to two factors: internal policies and external ones. Internally, an economy based on graft and corruption rather than one based on market signals—such as the price mechanism that allocates resources and assets where they’re most needed in the economy—can’t sustain itself. Thus, turning profitable private enterprises into debt-ridden state-owned enterprises, which is a euphemism for confiscation by the CCP, has destroyed entrepreneurship—the economic engine of China.

Add to that the CCP’s fundamental shift from economic growth to internal security and stability. It’s a vicious cycle wherein more Party control results in less economic activity, financial duress, and civil discontent. The Party then doubles down on more state control and more oppression.

In short, the Party is more concerned with maintaining its grip on power than it is with growing the economy or supporting the middle class.

Companies Are Fleeing ‘Uninvestible’ China

But there are external factors, or consequences, as well.

Over the past year, the flight of Western manufacturers out of China has accelerated. American and European firms are seeing the writing on the wall. They see the world’s growing disenchantment with Beijing’s trade and foreign policies, with many anticipating a decline in economic stability and a greater degree of decoupling from China in the foreseeable future. As a result, they’re relocating their operations out of China to friendlier nations.

‘Friendshoring’ Making Things Worse

This trend is known as “friendshoring.” In essence, countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, India, and Mexico are capturing companies exiting China. They offer less political risk, friendlier trade policies, lower labor costs, and are closer to markets. Barring any major shifts in Chinese leadership, companies leaving China are unlikely to return, which is a growing economic and financial gap for the CCP to fill.

Youth Unemployment Rate at Record High

Other symptoms of the collapse are evident, such as the soaring unemployment rate for young people. It is now a reported 20 percent, but counting those who live with their parents for financial reasons, it’s likely approaching 50 percent. Underemployment makes that picture even worse, which is leading to an angry younger generation. Disaffected youth who see no good options for a better future can be a volatile force to reckon with.

The Race to Exit Chinese Real Estate

All of these reasons and others are why some wealthy Chinese have been selling their China properties as quickly as they can. They’re desperately trying to move their money out of China and invest abroad before the value of their Chinese real estate holdings loses even more value. They know the trajectory of the Chinese economy and want out.

Many are buying real estate in Japan.

It’s not just proximity attracting Chinese investors to Japanese real estate, although that is a significant factor. Another enticement is that owning real estate (or a profitable business) in Japan can lead to long-term or even permanent residency visas. That gives Chinese investors an easy way out of the country to avoid the coming meltdown, as well as avoiding the iron hand of the CCP.

The “China miracle” is no more.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Loading…

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post The Writing’s On The Great Wall For A China Crash appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Cost of critical energy fuel spikes

Energy News Beat

Global uranium prices reached their highest point in more than 15 years in late October, according to COMEX data, with analysts attributing the sharp rise to a range of factors, including geopolitical tensions.

Uranium futures for November delivery jumped to $74.5 per pound on Monday, data shows. The radioactive metal’s price is up 55% since the beginning of the year.

Resurgent demand for uranium – which is widely used for nuclear energy – has been putting pressure on prices in light of limited global reserves. Analysts have been reporting renewed global interest in nuclear power amid declining energy supplies from Russia.

Adding to those concerns, Canadian miner Cameco, the world’s second largest uranium producer, has lowered output forecast for 2023. Another major producer, France’s Orano, has also been facing difficulties due to a recent coup in Niger, which accounts for 4% of global uranium output. The African country was the second-largest supplier of uranium to the EU last year as Russian energy supplies dwindled.


READ MORE:
Niger coup triggers global uranium price warning

The International Energy Agency (IEA) had previously projected a spike in worldwide demand for critical minerals, including uranium, due to renewed interest in nuclear power.

A recent report from the World Nuclear Association has forecast nuclear capacity growing nearly 80% and demand for uranium roughly doubling by 2040.

For more stories on economy & finance visit RT’s business section

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Cost of critical energy fuel spikes appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Russia’s Oil Exports Climb Despite Its Commitment To Cut Supply

Energy News Beat

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

Russia’s crude oil exports by sea have been exceeding the country’s targeted export reductions as part of the OPEC+ pact for weeks, with the most recent week’s observed shipments as high as 360,000 barrels per day (bpd) above target, tanker-tracking data monitored by Bloomberg showed on Tuesday. Despite edging lower, four-week average volumes exceeded it by almost 200,000 barrels a day in the most recent period.

In the week to October 29, Russia shipped around 3.64 million bpd of crude oil from its oil export terminals, up by 110,000 compared to the week prior, according to the data reported by Bloomberg’s Julian Lee.

Higher shipments out of the port of Novorossiysk in the Black Sea contributed to most of the gains in crude flows from Russia in the last week of October and were only partially offset by a lower number of crude oil tankers that left Russia’s ports in the Baltic Sea and on the Pacific.

The four-week average crude oil shipments out of Russia were slightly lower at 3.48 million bpd in the week to October 29, a drop of around 20,000 bpd compared to the four-week average in the four weeks to October 22.

Even this slightly lower 3.48 million bpd export volume for the average of the four weeks to October 29 was nearly 200,000 bpd higher than the exports Russia would have to ideally stick to in order to fulfill its pledge to cut exports by 300,000 bpd, Bloomberg notes.

Russia has never been quite clear about what exports it is cutting and how it calculates those volumes.

Russia’s commitment to reduce its oil exports by 300,000 bpd includes oil products, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said earlier this month in remarks that sowed further confusion about how much oil supply Russia is really withholding from the market.

Russia has pledged to reduce its oil exports by 300,000 bpd until the end of 2023, in a show of solidarity with its OPEC+ partner Saudi Arabia, which is voluntarily reducing its oil production by 1 million bpd until 2023.

Loading…

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Russia’s Oil Exports Climb Despite Its Commitment To Cut Supply appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Russia poised to ‘sharply increase’ oil exports in November – Kpler

Energy News Beat

Analysts link the move to maintenance works at several refineries and higher global crude prices

Russia is likely to sharply increase oil exports in November, business daily Kommersant reported on Tuesday, citing Kpler analysts.

According to the report, the country’s seaborne shipments are set to surge by some 200,000 barrels per day (bpd) next month compared to October, reaching up to 3.7 million bpd – the highest levels since May.

Analysts note that the spike in exports is expected to come amid continued maintenance works at several Russian refineries, which forced companies to redirect oil for export.

However, most repairs at refineries are expected to be completed by November 15, which may cause a drop in oil exports from December onward.

Another possible reason for the increase in Russian oil exports is the surge in global crude prices, Kpler experts say. Moscow had been forced to redirect oil shipments to Asian markets amid Western sanctions and a price cap imposed on the country’s crude.

Russia also started to gradually reduce its output in order to adjust to changes and support global prices, which at the time dropped to around $72 per barrel. However, crude prices have since recovered amid reduced supplies from Saudi Arabia and, more recently, the escalation of the Israel-Hamas conflict. Global benchmark Brent is currently trading at roughly $88 per barrel.


READ MORE:
Russia’s oil revenues surge – IEA

The seasonal drop in domestic demand for fuel, along with Russia’s current restrictions on the export of gasoline and diesel, may also create the conditions for the redirection of crude oil for export, analysts predict.

For more stories on economy & finance visit RT’s business section

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Russia poised to ‘sharply increase’ oil exports in November – Kpler appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Watch: Pro-Palestinian Activists Throw Box Of Live Rats Into British McDonald’s

Energy News Beat

Pro-Palestinian activists in the west (many of them far-leftists with no ties to Palestinians or Muslim culture) have called for boycotts and punishment directed at any major companies seen as providing aid to Israel. 

McDonald’s angered the woke mob recently with its offer of free food to members of the Israeli military (McDonald’s also gave $1 million to the Red Cross and the World Food Program providing aid to Palestinians), while Starbucks and Google have triggered their wrath as well.

Given that woke activism has been on the decline in terms of effectiveness and many in the public have taken to ignoring their demands, protesters are changing their tactics in some bizarre ways.  

Customers were waiting for meals at the McDonald’s branch at the Star City leisure complex in Birmingham as an activist threw a box of what appear to be rats into the building.

The rats were spray painted the colors of the Palestinian flag…

Actions like this might be sending a message that pro-Palestinians did not intend.

Loading…

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Watch: Pro-Palestinian Activists Throw Box Of Live Rats Into British McDonald’s appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

EU looks to expand sanctions on Russia – Bloomberg

Energy News Beat

The bloc has so far imposed 11 packages of restrictions against Moscow over the Ukraine conflict

The European Union is in talks on a new round of sanctions that would impact some €5 billion ($5.3 billion) in trade with Russia, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing its sources.

According to the report, the bloc’s 12th package will tighten restrictions on Moscow’s revenue sources and industry.

People familiar with the matter told the news agency that the new measures could include export restrictions on welding machines, chemicals and technology used for military purposes. The EU is reportedly also considering software license bans and restrictive measures on imports of a small number of processed metals and aluminum products, as well as construction items, transportation-related goods, and diamonds.

The sources suggested that the newly proposed import and export measures on Russia would add up to about €2.5 billion each. The diamond ban is reportedly dependent on a G7 agreement to track and trace the precious stones across borders. The measure is expected to be finalized soon, the sources said.

“The package aims to disrupt Russia’s ability to skirt existing bans through third countries, where it gets access to components, technologies and electronics used in weapons in Ukraine or to manufacture them,” Bloomberg wrote.


READ MORE:
Anti-Russia sanctions have failed – billionaire tycoon

Brussels is looking to add more goods to an existing transit ban and list additional companies in third countries, the sources claimed.

For more stories on economy & finance visit RT’s business section

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post EU looks to expand sanctions on Russia – Bloomberg appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

German Defense Chief Says Public Must Get Used To Possibility Of ‘War In Europe’

Energy News Beat

Starting last month, top Ukrainian officials began pushing an alarmist narrative that “world war 3 has already begun” – as the head Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council Aleksey Danilov had claimed in early September. The words were spoken after it became clear that Ukraine’s military was losing, and now Time magazine has confirmed the military doesn’t have the manpower to fight off the Russians. Naturally, Kiev must find new ways to draw in more direct support of key European powers.

“If somebody thinks that World War III hasn’t started then it’s a huge mistake. It has already begun. It had been underway in a hybrid period for some time and has now entered an active phase,” Danilov said before the Kiev Security Forum at the time (early Sept). More than a month later, some European leaders have begun to echo the same warning.

Significantly, this week Germany Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said in a media interview that German residents must start getting used to the idea of the specter of war in Europe.

“We have to get used to the idea that there may be a threat of war in Europe,” he said in the national broadcast interview. “Germany must be able to defend itself. We must be prepared for war.”

He was responding to questions related to Germany being slow to rearmament itself in the wake of the Russian war in Ukraine, and now with the prospect of the Gaza-Israel conflict spilling over into broader Mideast regional war:

He believes that the conflict in the Middle East and Russia’s war against Ukraine shall have consequences for German society. In particular, Germany must be able to defend itself, and this applies to both the Bundeswehr and society.

“We have to become capable of fighting,” Pistorius said.

“Unfortunately, everything that has been spoiled for 30 years cannot be fixed in 19 months,” Pistorius admitted in the fresh remarks. But he still pushed back against the critics:

Pistorius rejected accusations that the federal government was too slow to react to the so-called turning point. He stressed that not only had a €100 billion special fund for the Bundeswehr been set up, but that state bodies had also been changed.

Germany has meanwhile been among those western powers which see conflicts in the Middle East and Eastern Europe as related, with Russia being a prime bad actor exacerbating tensions (the Kremlin has in turn said the same thing about the West, and the US in particular).

On Monday, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg claimed that President Vladimir Putin is taking joy in the crisis in the Middle East. “We can see that the Russian president is certainly happy, given the situation in the Middle East. That is why we are looking at Ukraine even more closely than we have done in the past,” she said.

Zelensky too has expressed increased concern that world powers have taken their eye off the ball as they focus on events in Gaza. But Defense Minister Pistorius has along with Baerbock sought to assure the Ukrainians that Berlin will not lessen its support to Kiev based on the Israel-Gaza conflict.

A fresh segment on Russian TV wherein popular pundits threaten war on Germany:

Meanwhile, Germany’s new ‘turn’ toward rebuilding its military could helping drive new populist politicians’ efforts at curtailing this new expanse of Berlin’s reviving military-industrial complex:

Wagenknecht’s politics clearly resonate with the German public. A recent survey of German voters found that 14% would vote for a Wagenknecht party, putting it just one point behind the governing Social Democrats (SPD) and two points ahead of the Green party. It speaks to the breadth of Wagenknecht’s coalition that, if initial polls are to be believed, she would take votes not only from her own former political home, but also from the centre-right CDU, the left-leaning Greens and the pro-business FDP. Most of all, though, Wagenknecht is trying to appeal to a section of AfD voters. Much of the party’s success in recent elections, she claims, comes from Germans who “don’t vote for the AfD because they’re rightwing. They vote for the AfD because they’re angry.” Wagenknecht’s attempts to siphon off the AfD’s protest voters currently seems like the only viable plan to mitigate the far-right party’s electoral success.

Far left and far right movements in Germany, and broadly in Europe remain distrustful of increased military spending, especially accompanied by politicians’ pleas for society to “prepare for war” – while silencing voices which seek ceasefire and a diplomatic offramp.

Loading…

Real Estate Investor Pulse

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post German Defense Chief Says Public Must Get Used To Possibility Of ‘War In Europe’ appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

N.C. manufacturers move to abolish Duke Energy customer assistance program, dismaying advocates

Energy News Beat

A powerful consortium of pulp mills, pipe foundries and other manufacturers has moved to block an aid program for Duke Energy’s poorest residential customers — provoking dismay among the clean energy advocates who had championed it.

Set to begin early next year, the Customer Assistance Program would give a $42 discount for 12 months to customers struggling to pay their electric bills, more than offsetting coming rate hikes. Large industrial customers would help pay for the program with a $1.70 monthly fee.

The Utilities Commission this summer greenlit the initiative for Duke Energy Progress, covering eastern and parts of western North Carolina, and had been expected to do the same for Duke Energy Carolinas. Some 124,000 households were predicted to benefit.

But in a pair of Oct. 17 filings, the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates claimed regulators lacked authority to order the program and said it violated the principle that one class of customers shouldn’t subsidize another.

Pending an appeal to the state Supreme Court to overrule the program that could take years to resolve, the industrial group asked the Utilities Commission to delay it.

“No party to this proceeding would be prejudiced by entry of a limited stay of the Order,” the industrial group said in its motion.

In a flurry of responses filed this week, numerous parties said otherwise.

“Staying implementation of the [program] while the matter is appealed could result in irreparable harm to otherwise eligible low-income ratepayers,” wrote Robert Josey, an attorney with Public Staff, the state-sanctioned customer advocate.

And in a press release, a chorus of advocates including the state NAACP and the North Carolina Housing Coalition said it would be “shameful” if factories with monthly bills in the tens of thousands of dollars toppled the program over a fee that amounted to a rounding error.

“While large industrial and manufacturing customers are up in arms about an additional $1.70 a month, there are people all across our state struggling to keep the lights on,” said Mikaela Curry, field manager with the Sierra Club.

The notion that no one would be negatively impacted by the program’s suspension caused special alarm.

“It’s just not true,” said David Neal, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, in an interview. “Tens of thousands of people would be prejudiced. It would be dreadful.”

Beyond its potential harm to low-income families, Neal says the industrial group’s legal challenge doesn’t make financial sense: It could easily cost more than its members’ $1.70 monthly charges. “It’s misguided and irrational,” he said.

Manufacturing customers will already see lower rate hikes than other customer classes, advocates pointed out to the commission. While Duke requested residential increases in the 20% range, they proposed 11% for some of their largest industrial customers.

Far from representing a cross-class subsidy, the $1.70 fee is most likely a bargain for large customers, who would otherwise chip in for unpaid bills from disconnected residential accounts.

“There’s great evidence in the record that it’s going to reduce the amount of bad debt otherwise recovered from all customer classes,” Neal said. “If you didn’t have any contribution from industrial customers, they would be getting a benefit without having paid the cost.”

He also dismissed the idea that the Utilities Commission needs explicit direction from the state legislature to implement the program.

For one thing, a 2021 law allows the panel to consider whether multi-year rate increase applications — such as that submitted by Duke — reduce low-income energy burdens. What’s more, Duke Energy Carolinas has run a much smaller assistance program for older, low-income customers since 1978, and the General Assembly has never objected.

“The idea that there’s something unlawful here,” Neal said, “doesn’t fit with the commission’s broad authority to set rates that are in the public interest and fair and reasonable.”

Still, the industrial group’s appeal, which the Republican-controlled state Supreme Court must hear by law, has high stakes. “They’re saying the commission does not have the authority to ever institute a low-income bill payment assistance program,” Neal said. “That’s really aggressive.”

The members of the Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates are not publicized, but they originated with the pulp and paper industry and are separated according to which utility serves them.

While the Duke Energy customer groups have formed alliances with clean energy and low-income advocates before, executives at the prominent member Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company have also denied climate science and decried renewables.

Christina Cress, the attorney representing the group’s entities before the Utilities Commission, declined to comment for this story, citing the pending case for Duke Energy Carolinas.

For now, consumer and clean energy advocates are looking to regulators to save the customer assistance plan.

“This program has the support of the public staff, Duke Energy, the utility commission, and advocacy groups across the state,” said Reggie Shuford, the executive director of the North Carolina Justice Center, in a release. “It should not be derailed by a group of faceless corporate entities.”

But Neal also holds out hope that the industrial group itself will reconsider its decision and reverse course.

“I really believe that most industrial customers in North Carolina want to be good corporate citizens,” he said. “If they really looked at this, they would be happy to pay $1.70 knowing that they’re contributing to something that improves the lives of the people of this state.”

He added, “that’s why I’m hopeful that there’s a path forward.”

Clarification: This story has been updated to remove a reference to a member of the Dominion Energy customer group. The Carolina Industrial Group for Fair Utility Rates is divided into separate organizations based on utility territories, and the company named in an earlier version of this story is part of a division not involved with the challenge.

The post N.C. manufacturers move to abolish Duke Energy customer assistance program, dismaying advocates appeared first on Energy News Beat.