Energy News Beat

Supply-chain chaos, edgy US-China relations, and scary dependence on China triggered a rethink, now showing up as investments in manufacturing plants.

By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

In December, companies plowed $18.4 billion into the construction of manufacturing plants in the US ($220 billion annualized), up by 64% from a year ago, up by 131% from two years ago, and up by 170% from December 2019, according to data from the Commerce Department. The boom in investment in manufacturing plants started in mid-2021.

For the whole year 2023, spending on factory construction spiked by 71% from 2022, and by 138% from 2021, to $196 billion. This is an eyepopping boom. It’s the result of the supply-chain and transportation chaos that companies ran into during the pandemic, the fragile and edgy relationship between the US and China, the scary dependence of US companies on production in China, and in terms of semiconductors, the dependence on production in Taiwan. It all triggered a corporate and government rethink.

And yet, the government subsidies for the semiconductor industry haven’t even made it out the door yet and haven’t shown up in this data here yet, as we’ll see in a moment. That will come later. And the boom wasn’t construction-cost inflation either in 2023 because that has largely settled down:

The US is the second largest manufacturing country by output, behind China and has a greater share of global production than the next three countries combined, Germany, Japan, and India. But it has fallen far behind China in manufacturing. And many US companies and entire sectors are brutally dependent on China, and they got a wake-up call during the shortages and supply-chain chaos of 2020-2021.

The $53 billion CHIPS Act: funds have not yet been disbursed – that’s still coming.

The CHIPS Act, passed in 2022, is a package of grants, loans, loan guarantees, and tax credits for semiconductor makers to entice them to onshore semiconductor production. Of the $53 billion, $39 billion are manufacturing grants that cover up to 15% of the total cost of the fab, up to $3 billion per fab.

About 80% of the cost of a fab is the equipment; construction costs are only a small part of the total. In terms of the data here, we’re just looking at spending on factory construction, not equipment.

But the process of approving the projects and disbursing the cash has been slow. Over 170 companies have applied, including giants such as Intel, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), Samsung, and Texas Instruments. But other than two small grants, no money has been disbursed yet, according to the WSJ.

“This is a merit-based process with tough commercial negotiations – CHIPS awards will be entirely dependent upon which projects will advance U.S. economic and national security,” a Commerce Department spokeswoman told the WSJ.

Industry executives familiar with the negotiations told the WSJ that announcements of large grants will be forthcoming over the next couple of months. The announcements would be preliminary, to be followed by due diligence and then final agreements. Funds will be disbursed in phases as the projects progress. But because of permitting issues and other delays, it could still be years before the plants will be completed.

Among the complications and delays are the CHIPS Act’s requirements on national security, potential shortages of skilled workers – given this sudden boom in activity – and the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires large federally funded projects to pass environmental review before grants are released, which can take years, according to the WSJ.

So these government funds are in the future, and haven’t yet seeped into this data here of factory construction spending.

But there has been a flood of corporate investment: Semiconductor makers already have large projects underway. Intel is building fabs in several states for a total investment of over $43 billion. TSMC has two fabs under construction near Phoenix, for a total investment of $40 billion. Samsung Electronics is investing $17 billion in a fab near Austin. Texas Instruments is investing $30 billion in a massive project near Sherman, TX. Etc.

These are total project costs, including equipment. Construction costs alone are only a small portion of it. But it does add up.

All this activity is happening before the government funds have been disbursed, and before those government funds have made it into the data here on factory construction.

Construction cost inflation was not behind the 2023 spike.

The Producer Price Index for construction of nonresidential buildings hit a peak in January 2023 and has since then declined by 1.4%, and is roughly flat year-over-year. So construction cost inflation was not a major factor in the 2023 spike of construction spending, though it was a factor in 2022.

Investing in manufacturing plants has a large-scale long-term impact on the economy.

Construction spending is the one-time activity to get the building and infrastructure in place. Then there’s the purchase and installation of the equipment. Modern plants are highly automated. And the equipment is more expensive than the building. And then there’s the actual production for many years, with its secondary and tertiary effects on the local and national economy.

Automation equipment and industrial robots cost roughly the same in the US as in China. US labor costs are far higher, but other costs are reduced by bringing manufacturing onshore: Transportation costs are lower, lead times are shorter, there is less geopolitical uncertainty, less risk of losing or having to surrender the IP via technology transfer, etc. So somewhere along the line during the pandemic, something seems to have clicked in the corporate mindset.

We also note: employment in manufacturing rose to a 15-year high:

In January, jobs in manufacturing rose to 13.0 million, the highest in 15 years, according to the jobs report on Friday:

And employment in construction rose to an all-time high:

In January, jobs in manufacturing rose to 8.1 million, the highest ever, according to the jobs report on Friday:

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.

The post Eyepopping Factory Construction Boom in the US: Chip Makers on Forefront, but CHIPS Act Funds Not Even Released Yet appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Ron Miller stops by and talks about the diversified energy approach. Calculations, physics, and the economy matter!

Ron and I had a blast visiting his research and the Colorado School of Mines. His big event with the school is extremely cool and helps show a dedication to getting the story about the importance of the balanced approach to energy.

Thank you Ron for stopping by! Let us know how the big event goes with the School of Mines!

Follow Ron on his LinkedIn HERE: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ronmillerenergyindustryvaluecreator/

Highlights of the Podcast

00:00 – Intro

2:47 – Ron Miller emphasizes the importance of accurate information and commits to educating through monthly LinkedIn articles for informed decision-making in the energy sector.

05:00 – How would you respond to somebody who’s saying wind and solar is the cheapest on the planet?

8:17 – Discusses the need for a diversified energy approach, highlighting economic challenges in renewables and the importance of considering costs for consumers.

12:49 – Raises concerns about environmental and economic aspects of renewable energy projects, questioning taxpayer subsidies for solar and wind.

16:17 – How are they the cost per energy? Can you describe how it’s not fairly being calculated out?

23:40 – Highlights CO2 emission reduction and cost savings for consumers with the transition from coal to natural gas since 2008.

27:27 – Discusses complexities of renewable energy investment, expressing optimism for solar and addressing grid balancing challenges.

32:28 – Emphasizes the need for reliable global grids and advocates for proactive solutions to ensure access to clean and consistent energy

36:39 – Advocates for open discussions and diverse perspectives in the energy sector to foster progress and innovation.

38:41 – Provides contact information for further engagement.

40:16 – Outro

 

Stuart Turley [00:00:03] Hello, everybody. Welcome to the Energy News Me podcast. My name’s Stu Turley, President, CEO, Sandstone Group. You know, with COP 20 coming out right now, there’s a lot of information out there. I don’t know about you, but I have a real headache trying to figure out facts. Matter. Money. Lowest kilowatt per hour. What’s right? What’s wrong? I’ll tell you. Would I get to be able to reach out to a wonderful individual? His name’s Ron Miller, and he is in the energy space. He’s got a great, great program coming up in with the School of Mines. It is renewable energy, one on one, online and in person. But we’ve been talking about what is energy. Thank you, Ron, for stopping by the podcast.

 

Ron Miller [00:00:56] It’s great to be here. Still always enjoy your podcasts and learn a lot. Some interesting guest. I hope that tune continues today as well.

 

Stuart Turley [00:01:04] We thank you, Ron. I’ll tell you, the School of Minds is so cool. Let out by your house and golden.

 

Ron Miller [00:01:11] Yeah, it’s got an excellent reputation engineering work. Well, we’re glad they’re graduates. So what our national mining companies do, and they’re a great sponsor partner for this one day webinar, in-person class there at the Colorado School of Mines. So very happy.

 

Stuart Turley [00:01:32] There. I am a little bit biased about the School of Mines. Michael Tanner, my co-host, is graduated from there and then got his master’s also. So he is shy. Don’t tell anybody, but he’s a freak. I mean, he is one of the coolest freaks out there, understanding just about everything around energy between the geology of oil and gas and finances and the School of Mines should be just very proud of the the students that they do produce. So hats off for having them as a sponsor. But let’s backtrack just here a little bit. When we’re sitting here, we kind of wonder about the information. Education with facts matter. I don’t know about you, but when I was going to school, they hit us with a stick. And if the facts mattered, that seems like that’s going away. Well, when you got to this point of even having this webinar, how did you get to the point when you’re saying, what is the women are and what kind of material are you putting in there?

 

Ron Miller [00:02:47] Well, I’ll tell you, I have a little background. I’ve been in the energy sector my entire career, a long career, and very enjoyable for me. It is my passion, but I think a lot of the information that we’re getting from different multiple sources, it may not be fully factual. And sometimes the worst of information is a half truth. Not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to to kind of quote a legal term that we’re all familiar with. And I think that’s the one thing I want an energy article on LinkedIn. Every month, about three quarters of them are picked up on Energy Center dot com. But I really believe in sharing information from my career from different oil and gas, renewables, mining, utilities to really help to educate. And I don’t mean that in a dismissive manner, but to help, you know, help people understand some of the dynamics and the fundamentals of energy so we can with any information that we can, we begin making not only better energy decisions, but things that take a lot of different criteria, meaning cost, reliability, you bet. And emissions, all those three areas in making that decision, not just one preferentially.

 

Stuart Turley [00:04:24] We know when we sit back and we kind of think there’s such a the diverse opinions on gas bad, fossil fuels bad but they’re 80% of the energy in the world. Nuclear is bad, but it provides the most stable baseload out there. Wind and solar have always been getting cheaper. How do you how do you talk or how do you tie up your normal discussion? Let’s say you’re on an elevator and somebody says, I like some cheap energy. I think wind and solar are great. How would you respond to somebody who’s saying wind and solar is the cheapest on the planet?

 

Ron Miller [00:05:07] Still, I tell you, there’s so many graphs that you can look at and they have facts. Yeah, but they show the levelized cost of energy and a number of entities have put those out in the old factual for the production cost of wind, solar, nuclear, gas, coal at all. And that’s really that that word production is a real key not knowing a word because if everyone would buy a utility scale 100 megawatt and up solar wind farm right where the electricity comes directly to their hands, yes, it is the cheapest. But getting a wind farm that’s out in the boonies, you have a lot of land. Same thing with solar, a lot less land into urban areas where the majority of the US population lives in involves transmission and reliability issues. When you look at production costs which are low for solar and wind, but they look at areas, countries and states that have high renewable energy penetration and you look at as renewable energy penetration increases, does the retail price that the consumer pays, whether it be at your home, your business or your industry, is it also dropped by 90% since 2000? The answer is emphatically no. It’s gone the other way because of high capital expenditures for transmission that’s not always use and 100% capacity factor. So I think that’s some of the the interesting things that we look at is, well, it’s great there at that site or if you have a new route, it’s directly going to the demand. No transmission, no capital costs. So maybe 100 feet of water, copper wire. Right. Lot different than 100 or 200 megawatt solar plant or wind farm out of Wyoming, Kansas, the eastern plains of Colorado, etc.. So I think that’s one element. People need to.

 

Stuart Turley [00:07:29] Bring up a lot of great points. Right. But let me ask this, because in New York, in California, are twice the expense of Texas is electrical to its consumers. Right. And so we spent over $3.5 billion in Texas to bring the wind farm energy to the west, eastern part of the state. But we have nuclear, we have natural gas. We have when we’re going to be the largest solar and it’s blending everything together. It seems to work. Okay. If you blend everything together and not permitting and on just one wind or solar only. Is that a fair statement or is it?

 

Ron Miller [00:08:17] Well, I think you bring up a really good point in that it’s not energy either or, unless we dramatically reduce our energy consumption and the last 300 years, it’s gone up. We we need all the above, you know, to be the multiple choices, all of the above. And I like to use the analogy for transmission. So you have a solar or wind farm connecting to the grid versus a natural gas plant that’s baseload, not a peaker baseload. Right. Build that transmission line and just for a minute, assume that the transmission line is like an airplane, commercial aircraft. Right. Aircraft one handles solar, wind, another one So services the gas plant. How many airlines make money from the capacity factor or the amount of passengers on the plane is about 95% versus the other plane that’s only got 25 to 35%, which is the renewables, because they’re intermittent solar variable in emerging markets, solar or wind under say. The reality is you go out and for 6 hours of the day, perhaps for solar, you’ve got a grossly underutilized asset that you’ve paid a lot of money to. And I think that’s the one thing when you look at it, spin as much money as you want. I don’t care if electricity is the 30, 50, $0.60 a kilowatt hour. If that’s the mindset and the building population is your idea of what’s right. That’s fine. We live in a republic. So but I think people will at some point get see prices increasing. And as much as they want to do the right thing, whatever, right, then to a lot of people may be right. I think the almighty wallet issue comes up and raises its ugly face a lot. And a lot of times we see that in reality. That ugly face of I don’t want to pay that much money. What’s the alternative? Right.

 

Stuart Turley [00:10:43] But, you know, and we sit back and we get to go. I did a bunch of studies. I’m trying to get to the bottom of, you know, the the when the life expectancy or the fiscal responsibility of a wind farm is zero without tax subsidies. I mean, from day one, they’re not fiscally responsible. And we’ve seen worse, Dad, lose billions. We’ve seen, you know, the wind farms not being bid on on the East Coast now. And so we’re we’re losing those kind of things. And then when you see the everybody says they’re carbon neutral and they’re free, they don’t become carbon neutral until ten years. And the maintenance numbers now around that I put together is after eight years with tax subsidies, the tax subsidies typically will run out into that. You range after that point. They are no longer fiscally capable of being sustained because the maintenance has kicked in at this time and they cannot be sustained without rates increasing to the ratepayers. So if now you’ve got a real problem, then recommendation recommendation, that’s a no issue way to talk given the nation and know I think the School of Mines would have a better way of teaching their students to talk about the reclamation of a wind farm is over $380,000 just to get rid of the concrete on pad. I mean, it’s just crazy when the wind farms are failing, you know, and they’re going to be walked away from. And that, to me, is the sad part about the ESG and the energy side is nobody’s pricing in the reclamation of the wind farms when you’re done after ten years.

 

Ron Miller [00:12:49] Yeah, it is big of a couple of really frightening points. One is the environmental the emissions of 1500 tons of concrete amount of steel, tons of steel. When you look at what’s the carbon footprint of those materials that are in plastics will be wind turbine blades. We will look at that. That’s it starts out like a capital project. You’re in the hole when you invest negative face time to get up to zero before you start getting much more of the direct that that you want. The other thing and part of this the real energy water one course I actually looked at to a solar plant in a wind farm a hundred megawatts. It would be investment tax credit for solar and the accelerated depreciation six years you depreciate 85% of the CapEx. It was similar for wind farm production tax credit, which is 2.6 cents per kilowatt hour, and they get the accelerated depreciation. Now, when you look at both those types of forms with the federal tax benefits and without in the first five years, your rate of return with what you had with all these been. This is twice the return. If it had no incentive. All right, so you’re without the tax credits, you’d be having a much lower rate of return already on that project. So it really makes it. Which brings up another point that I’ll just throw out. Well, gasoline to a fire. If silver and wind are the lowest cost production cost of energy. Why do we subsidize through tax reduction, tax credit, investment, tax credit, settlement depreciation, the lowest price usually when things are high price. But society disturbance, we need to do this. Let’s instead let’s get the economies of scale one gigawatt. We want ten gigawatts and right ten gigawatts, the price curve will be it’s the lowest price. What is the US taxpayer getting for their tax benefit extended to solar and wind developers? You know, it’s you know, if the tax law gives a benefit, it’s legal. But here’s the question At what point do we give money that is just making developers very wealthy, right? They may not have done it at that generous tax benefit that extended to them. And that’s that’s the question. That’s what the Bush tax like as a consumer paying my monthly bills. Yeah. I’ve got to ask those questions because I don’t think people are really looking at it and saying what a great value we’re getting for our dollar.

 

Stuart Turley [00:15:57] Okay. You brought up some excellent points. Well, we were chitchatting beforehand, and it’s kind of like when we sit back and look at the dollar, what’s the cost per dollar or the per kilowatt hour and who’s paying for it sitting there idle. And as you go through and you and you say, how are they the cost per energy? Can you describe how it’s not fairly being calculated out in there, if that makes sense?

 

Ron Miller [00:16:28] Well, I’ll tell you, I’ll give you one example. Sue is in 2022. California had 2.4 million megawatt hours curtailed because when the energy is available to be produced and mainly solar, but they’re saying, well, guess what, there’s not demand and electricity. You have to match solar or match supply and demand every second of every day of every every month. So when you don’t have demand, there’s no place for it to go unless you have energy storage facilities. So you have to tell that solar and wind developer turn your shoes off, but there’s no home for it. So the point is, for 2.4 million megawatt hours last year, you look at a taxpayer say, hey, to that, to burn that we gave you, it’s an accelerated depreciation over 20 years. That comes to about a $0.02 per kilowatt hour subsidy that federal taxpayers are paying. But guess what? We didn’t get 2.4 million megawatt hours. So we’re paying for something upfront. That we were getting as a consumer. And I think that’s that gets that cost of curtailment to the federal taxpayer is about $48 million last year for California alone. So once again, it’s it’s all about are you getting value? Who questions whether or not what solar wind is good about emissions. It is they they do they’re lower than coal not as good as yesteryear. But when you look at it, if you look at expenditure, think that plane before all the testing with passengers that pay the freight. Right. Well well we’re just going to curtail it. And I’m sorry you raise the money, federal taxpayer, but that’s just the way things are, right? I question whether that’s really a good model for our energy policy. And from a consumer and environmental standpoint.

 

Stuart Turley [00:18:55] It just really kind of explained it out a lot better than than I did. And when we sit back and take a look at the cost per kilowatt hour, you know, the only way to really get humanity elevated out of poverty is through energy. And Alex Epstein does a great job, you know, talking about work and the power and the you know, how much does it cost to get energy done so we don’t have to plant the crops or go walk two miles to get the water and those things. That is what energy should be used for, is elevating people out of poverty. So with the least impact on the environment, that to me is critical. But boy King, Coal is coming back big time. It’s because of the the world meeting all forms of energy. Boy. And China has got 400 coal plants on the map. So the school mines may be sending a bunch of guys over to join us.

 

Ron Miller [00:20:06] And it’s interesting, last decade of the decade of 2010, the United States and the EU retired 49,200 megawatts of coal power plants. Wow. The I think this next number will have been inflated. But in this decade, 2020, China is building 250,000 megawatts, five times of new coal. Yep. I think that number has gone north since that statistic was out there. So yeah, once again, it’s a little bit of an irony is that Q plant built in China is helping to build wind farms and solar plants and solar panels so that the West can have these things and feel good that we’re solving our climate crisis. All the while China is just churning out. And if there was a way in God’s green earth to say all the emissions from any country that is really just putting it out in the United States is the second largest emitter for it to stay in its own airspace. But I don’t think that’s the way the world the globe works with, whether I think their pollution will eventually be our pollution.

 

Stuart Turley [00:21:35] So here’s the you bring up a great I think we need to draw map and I get my eye crayon out here because I got about the way I think I’ve got about 15 different maps going on in my head right now.

 

Ron Miller [00:21:49] Yeah.

 

Stuart Turley [00:21:49] And the close over, you just nailed it. And that is we are buying through tax credits and the consumers are paying higher kilowatt per hour for solar and wind because the battery is right now, if you’re putting storage on a farm, I believe it’s $500 per kilowatt hour or something, then it needs to be down into that 50 range. Before that, it’s really affordable without subsidies. So you’re 500 versus that 50. We’re subsidizing all of this with trillions of dollars. We’re shipping the orders over to China for them to make the gear. The gear is being shipped over back to the United States for us to install to pay higher. And then they’re taking the profits and putting low cost coal plants in so they can pollute. Their pollution has gone up. Their CO2 emissions has gone up. 220% in the last few years. Ours has actually gone down 22% because of the elimination of the natural gas, the elimination of the coal plants, and turning those to natural gas. That was from the EIA last year. Said that was the only reason that we did was because of the transition to natural gas. This year the EIA put out another report and said it may have. They didn’t want to give natural gas any credit at all. So would you bring up a paradigm that we really need to have our graphics team work on? Because this little hamster wheel that we are now on is terrible.

 

Ron Miller [00:23:40] Every year you mentioned the natural gas. One of my articles of how natural gas fracking in the US has reduced emissions, CO2 emissions. It’s it’s out there on my LinkedIn site. I’ve spoken at the Association of Energy Engineers World Conferences. It’s been published in their journal. But the this this big miracle, say of technology and once again, I’ll be fair if there’s breakthroughs in solar or wind, geothermal or oil, gas, you have to recognize all of them. But the fact that since 2008, when you look at the emissions of the United States in the energy sector, exactly what you said. Replacing more polluting coal with not perfectly clean natural gas, but much more of an improvement, it’s been a dramatic shift in our emissions. But also, when you look at the the rate of electricity prices from 1990 to 2008, 2008 to 2022, if the pressure is very steep, 2.3% per year increase since 2008, a lot more natural gas is abundant. It’s cheaper. It’s a plateau, albeit about 2.5%. So since 2008, being the analytical engineering guy that I am, I calculated the amount of energy electricity cost savings for the American consumer is about 547 billion with a B. So not only are we lowering our emissions, the consumer is getting a less emitting cheaper electricity. So we do now partially renewable energy. You could say there’s a part. Yes. But when you look at the lion’s share of energy in the United States, 39.2% is natural gas. Wow. Big change for the wallets of American consumers in addition to the improvement in our emissions performance. So, you know, to absorb cost and emissions that I’ll look at, but are not just one in a vacuum. So you.

 

Stuart Turley [00:26:10] Bet. Well, now, boy, you emit wow, I’m sitting here going, Oh, that was good.

 

Ron Miller [00:26:19] I was like.

 

Stuart Turley [00:26:20] Man, I wish I thought of that, but I just pulled up your article here and I had read it before, but I don’t have links in the show notes. So it’s funny that you said that. No one that I’ve read. Yes. So well down on that article, I’ll make sure that that’s in the show notes.

 

Ron Miller [00:26:39] So just interject one thing. The trouble I see is even though this was going on. It’s like An Inconvenient Truth. You’ll never see that in the news broadcasts, even though it’s a lot of value, both emissions and dollars to the consumers. Why isn’t that fact on the news that we are acknowledging this achievement? I think it’s a bit but bias that they don’t say, oh, great deal on solar generation then coal plants now. Right. And to be even handed. Did you also know this fracking whichever your opinion it does have benefits to air.

 

Stuart Turley [00:27:27] So I love the article. I also think that solar has more the legs than wind. Wind is now falling apart and falling off of the scale because of the expense. I believe that leg, the solar stills got a lot more play for investors. Taking a look at where am I going to make my money? Because the energy investing space has been complicated. Ron, was Bill Gates coming out just recently and saying that old climate change is not going to kill us? Okay. And then you have BlackRock, Larry Fink, coming out and saying where our funds are okay to invest in oil and gas for ESG or ESG, investors are doing it. So you have two gigantic hypocrisy stories going on right here. And I still feel the solar is going to be easier to find investors in when they’re taking look getting their money back. I don’t know. What are your thoughts on because it’s tough to get the money back on on wind. It seems like it’s going to be easier on solar. I don’t have any data to say that. That’s a feeling that I have right now.

 

Ron Miller [00:28:51] Yeah, I think the I would agree with you. Solar is, I guess, less moving parts, even though you have the single axis tracking it tracks from east to west to catch the early morning sun is facing east in the afternoon. It’s facing west. But as far as moving parts, it’s not like a wind turbine. That’s the blades turn away after 300 feet or more of of the ground. I think the only concern I see, I’ll say problem concern with solar is look at the California dot curve where they have this rush of solar from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m.. In real terms, obviously different times of the year, it’s a little bit different, but it’s a huge influx of solar energy to the grid, which satisfies the demand at 8 to 4. Right. But like most Americans, we have a line from 4 p.m. to 8 a.m. that requires energy, especially if you’re a cold climate like the Dakotas or.

 

Stuart Turley [00:29:59] For trying to charge your TV.

 

Ron Miller [00:30:02] Yeah. Yes. So I think that that part, that dynamic of how do you address this. One of the topics in my my webinars, the darker know what it does what it doesn’t do. Is this a concern? Should we be looking to find alternatives that we can accept low emissions energy but not say, well, it’s 5:00. Go build a fire in the backyard to cook a meal tonight because people have electricity. That’s that’s going to be a concern I think people need to be aware of. And that’s that’s part of the reason for this course is to make make sure people are aware of all the facts that may interfere with their lifestyle in the future. So.

 

Stuart Turley [00:30:50] Hey. Thanks, Mr. Saxon. Physics. Yes.

 

Ron Miller [00:30:55] Sir.

 

Stuart Turley [00:30:57] You know, I can’t wait to hear more about this thing that you have the renewable energy one on one. There’s going to be a big deal. And I really want to help get the word out on this, because your story needs to get out there and sit back and evaluate the right numbers. I mean, it’s just we all we want all types of energy. I just don’t want to print money. Fiscally, the world cannot print anymore. I just think that it’s a mistake. And we need to get the lowest cost kilowatt per hour to everyone on the planet, even through the disproportionately impacted communities, because energy poverty is real. And it just breaks my heart that the financial systems are not geared up to deliver the lower cost kilowatt per hour. You got to look at the whole grid. And I’ll tell you what, I would not want to be a balancing authority. Can you imagine sitting there with those guys going, I need 500 watts over here. I need to run it once and I need you to spin up. I need you to stand down. And I guarantee I’d be like, in the corner drinking rather than having to fire up and tell them, Hey, you’re on standby over here. You know, that’s a tough job balancing the grid. It’s not just, oh, plug it into the wall and think that you’re going to have energy come out. There’s a machine behind that.

 

Ron Miller [00:32:28] I tell you, Stuart, I used to work open, got all West African mining in there. And they have you know, they used to have outages they called load shedding where you you’re your facility is next for energy one day out of every three sometimes you know that one day might be. And it’s really makes you think we live in a privileged society in the US. When I turn the switch on, I don’t have to think, what is the light going to come on? Is the pump going to work? Is the air conditioner? You know, we have very good reliability, but over other countries and Ghana has improved dramatically since those times. That’s a real concern. And the problem that they do with not working, that’s not even 1% renewables is the alternative for it. Not working is in 17 seconds, the emergency diesel engine set brakes on. But those lucky people at a hotel or business that they have it after that, they’re coming in. It’s real polluting. They’re getting from a better natural gas, solar, wind from the grid. So having a grid that works that’s reliable is really better in the for the overall energy slash emissions slash cost equation. We just got to get the word out that we don’t want all these other gensets at people’s homes. Wherever you live in the world, it’s not real efficient and it’s not real, not real green. It really isn’t, you know.

 

Stuart Turley [00:34:11] Yeah, I’ve got multiple places and generators at each and because you have to be able to survive the if he has this in closing up here in just in a few minutes the FARC just put out and said we’re going to have a lot of blackouts, potentially a lot of blackouts now because of the grid’s problems in and everything else. Well, did you see that report come out?

 

Ron Miller [00:34:37] I have light. And I’ll tell you, I obviously, we’re working on this this webinar almost my slide deck. But I tell you, I think the world and I’m not knocking renewables. I think with any situation you solve what can make it work and you, you mitigate the risk rather than just accept it. You know, I don’t like blackouts. What do we do? It would put in more hydro pumped storage, more battery, more whatever loadshedding term of use rates, whatever you would have to do. But I think not having power that we’re in electricity in our country, we have been so spoiled by not only cheap electricity but reliable electricity. And I don’t think people want to go back to where we were in the 1920s or earlier where it was not that reliable or we had people do not have access. So it gives me a social issue too. Like you’re saying, no access, yellow wood. So country is being done for it. Exactly. Not very healthy for your your respiratory system at all. So. No. Anyway, one answer to a short question is do.

 

Stuart Turley [00:35:57] These, unfortunately, between the geopolitical, the financial, in the energy types, everybody here, it seems like. Well, and everybody’s siloed into their little specialty. And and so it’s kind of nice to have the broader discussions because it is fiscal, it is geopolitical, it is farming. I mean, it is when you start putting all this stuff together, the farmers use more energy than just about anybody else. But if they do all of this than they do, I mean, it’s a head game. I mean, this is a big chess match just to get the world out of poverty.

 

Ron Miller [00:36:39] So I think one problem that we have, it’s like your your keyword is siloed. And I think more of what we need is a more open discussion, right? Both openness to different ideas to calibrate. I use a quote in all of my articles that I don’t have in front of me, but basically it says it’s better to have low resolution with a lot of discussion rather than having a resolution that has no discussion because you’re not letting your peer challenge you to say, Hey, Ron, I disagree with this area, brings your proof. I don’t see it this way. I found my professional life, you know, letting a colleague look at a presentation, they can kind of stress test it and say, Hey, I think it’s weak. We’re not doing that in a lot of areas with our energy strategy. We’re not putting dissenting votes, dissenting opinions, dissenting scientific analysis come into the fray and say, hey, I think there’s a better product out there. Right? We have to find ways to be open. Reminds you at all. You can probably if you want to go for go alone. If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, find a partner. And we’re not doing the partnering side of the coin to your point about getting more people aware. Allow dissenting votes, essentially conversations. That’s the only way we progress as a society on anything medicine, engineering, energy, education at all. So.

 

Stuart Turley [00:38:33] Well, no. Ron, how do people find you? I’m going to have your LinkedIn account in the show notes. And so is there anything else that people need to know about you or how to get a hold of you.

 

Ron Miller [00:38:47] If they want to link you? It’s warm weather. Karma Capital P. Capital. Aim for professional engineer and you’ll find me. And I would love to have people a in look at my energy articles. I’m always open for comment. That’s one thing I’ve learned. One of the things I present not only to mining and energy conferences, but any chapters in universities. And some of the very best questions I’ve had had been from students that, as I say, did go by 30 years in corporate America. Oh, this is the way you have to think. And they’re very, very sharp. But they’re also, you know, how do you deal with this? Well, no one’s ever asked that question. That’s the kind of question that you want to get. If you’re looking for continuous improvement. Yep. But yeah.

 

Stuart Turley [00:39:49] I loved having you on and I love your attitude. Education and open conversation is the most critical way to get poverty solved in the world.

 

Ron Miller [00:40:02] Yes.

 

Stuart Turley [00:40:03] It’s I think it’s the only way we’re going to sleep. But if not, I’m going to sign up for airlines flight to Mars. I think that I’ll be a hoot. I’ll tell you. Yeah.

 

Ron Miller [00:40:15] Yeah. Well, thank.

 

Stuart Turley [00:40:16] You very much, Ron. And all your contact info will be in the show notes. And for the energy news me team, my name, Stu Turley.

 

The post ENB #181 Ron Miller stops by and talks about the diversified energy approach. Calculations, physics, and the economy matter! Sustainable means you will never have to say your sorry for printing money. appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Ethiopia spent nearly $6 billion to import fossil fuels last year — with more than half of that spending going to fuel vehicles. In response, Ethiopia’s Transport and Logistics Ministries have announced that automobiles cannot enter Ethiopia, unless they are electric. (!)

Last February, the European Union approved a law that would ban the sale of combustion engine cars in its member states from 2035 — joining several US states, Canada, Japan, Singapore, India, New Zealand, and a number of other nations with similar bans already on the books (see chart, below). Ethiopia, however, isn’t waiting for 2035.

Ethiopia is trying to ban ICE vehicles now.

According to a news update from the parliament, Alemu Sime, the Ethiopian Minister for Transport and Logistics, announced the completion of the nations Logistics Master Plan Monday. Details were scarce, but he has announced that, “a decision has been made, that automobiles cannot enter Ethiopia unless they are electric ones.”

Planned phase-out of ICE cars, by nation

Official targets for the complete phase-out of the sale of new ICE cars, by country; Via STATISTA.

Minister Sime went on to highlight the implementation of new practices in strategic affairs and addressed the committee on the Ministry’s initiatives related to “Green Transport” initiatives throughout Ethiopia.

Sime further explained that efforts to establish charging stations for electric cars remain a high priority, and offered that the nation’s inability to access favorable foreign exchange resources has contributed to its inability to afford to continue importing gasoline and diesel.

Electrek’s Take

As you can imagine, this story sparked a lively conversation in the Electrek group chat.

The post It begins: Ethiopia set to become first country to ban internal combustion cars appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Last Friday’s Department of Energy (DOE) move to temporarily pause pending requests to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) outside the United States has elicited not only a firestorm of criticism (including from us), but also proposals in Congress to reverse the DOE action. Just two days ago, for example, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers announced that the House would soon vote on a measure to overturn the LNG pause, while a group of Republican senators introduced legislation to eliminate DOE’s power to block natural exports altogether.

At stake is a burgeoning industry with domestic and international significance, both economically and geopolitically. The recent growth in LNG exports from the United States should not be taken for granted—the fact that the United States went from importing LNG just fifteen years ago to the world’s largest exporter is an amazing feat and a testament to the powerful growth enabled by (mostly) unhindered production and free trade.

 

As I explained in a new column for The Dispatch and in a 2013 Cato briefing paper on US energy export restrictions, systemic reform—not simply a narrow reversal of this week’s DOE pause—is needed here. That’s because current law (the Natural Gas Act of 1938 and its amendments) provides DOE—and thus any president who might just be in the middle of a close reelection campaign—with essentially unlimited discretion to block natural gas exports destined for countries without a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States on undefined “public interest” grounds.

Given that many US LNG export shipments are “destination flexible,” and that most of the world’s biggest and most geopolitically‐​important LNG consumers—including in Europe and Asia—don’t have a US FTA, getting a DOE‐​approved export license is essential for US LNG projects. That fact, in turn, makes the approval process an almost‐​irresistible point of attack for anti‐​fossil fuel activists and any politician wanting to win their support. Reforming that process to take DOE—and thus politics—out of the equation (and thus put far more knowledgeable private investors in charge of these important, billion‐​dollar projects) is a smart and obvious move.

There is, moreover, precedent for just this kind of reform. Back in 2013, for example, I advocated for eliminating the outright ban on US exports of crude oil—something Congress finally did via a 2016 law that allowed the president to block US oil exports only in times of a declared national emergency. (Who says Congress doesn’t work fast?!) After decades of exporting virtually no crude oil, the United States has become a global oil export powerhouse, improving both domestic and global energy security.

 

(Web source.)

At the same time, liberalization did not put significant upward pressure on domestic gasoline prices: As the US Government Accountability Office explained in a 2020 report, “[b]ecause gasoline prices are largely determined on the global market, U.S. refiners could not pass on to consumers the additional costs associated with the increase in crude oil prices.” Even though last Friday’s action affects only pending LNG export applications and thus leaves current approved capacity unaffected, all US natural gas producers and exporters deserve this same freedom, to the benefit of not only these market players but also global energy markets, the US economy, and US foreign policy.

Congress seems poised to act. For example, Senator Tim Scott’s (R‑S.C.) Unlocking Domestic LNG Potential Act of 2024 removes the “public interest” determination from the DOE’s purview and hands it—in a stricter form—to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This would be a positive move in at least two respects.

First, Congress should not let the DOE play politics the way it did last week—it should take back the authority the DOE so clearly abused. Second, returning the authority to FERC is consistent with past practice (recall that the original authority in the Natural Gas Act of 1938 went to the Federal Power Commission, renamed to FERC in 1977), would give LNG exporters a one‐​stop‐​shop for environmental and public interest review, and would mitigate against future political abuse.

Although FERC is not perfect, it has been a bulwark against Executive Branch politics, as it demonstrated in rejecting a 2018 DOE proposal to bail out coal and nuclear power plants. An additional reform that would make the transport and trade of natural gas the default policy would be to allow some Natural Gas Act filings to go into effect by operation of law, as with Federal Power Act filings, rather than languish at a deadlocked or understaffed FERC.

Of course, it’s not just the Natural Gas Act that needs reform. As I noted this week (and repeatedly in the past), US trade law is littered with measures that let the Executive Branch—and thus politics— decide the fate of private commercial transactions that just‐​so‐​happen to cross national borders. The Trump‐​era Department of Justice, in fact, went so far as to claim in court that one of those laws— Section 232 of the Trade Enforcement Act of 1962—would let the president ban imported peanut butter on subjective “national security” grounds. And US courts have been loath to question such declarations, even when the president himself admits that the laws’ conditions haven’t been met.

Other potential declarations of national emergency have crept into the energy space, including proposals to use Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act (another DOE function) to prop up coal‐​fired power plants. At one point in President Trump’s efforts to boost the domestic coal industry, invoking the Defense Production Act was on the table.

Because the risk of politicization is ever‐​present, these laws need reform too. But, as the LNG pause demonstrates (and given the stakes involved), the Natural Gas Act is a great place to start.

Travis Fisher, Cato’s Director of Energy and Environmental Policy Studies, contributed to this article.

Source: Cato.org

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Congress Should Demote the DOE and Unleash LNG Exports appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

 

Net purchases in 2023 almost matched the previous year’s record, the World Gold Council has said

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Central-bank buying spree driving demand for gold – report appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Tehran’s foreign ministry has commented on recent operations targeting militia groups in Syria and Iraq

The post US strikes in Middle East are ‘strategic mistake’ – Iran appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

Daily Standup Weekly Top Stories

Energy Bills Set to Soar as Report Finds Almost All Major Studies on Net Zero Grossly Underestimate Cost

‘African leaders have the right to define their own energy policy’

Follow Stuart On LinkedIn and Twitter

Follow Michael On LinkedIn and Twitter

ENB Top News

ENB

Energy Dashboard

ENB Podcast

ENB Substack

– Get in Contact With The Show –

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

Stuart Turley: [00:00:15] Hello, everybody. Welcome to the Energy News Beat Daily stand up. Today is the weekly recap. Today is Saturday, February 3rd. I hope you had an absolutely fantastic week. It has been a wild week in the news. We even had some drop on Friday that we’re just go check out energy news. Meeko. U.S. officials deliver, warning that Chinese hackers are targeting the infrastructure. Warning about the real question is more Myakka in on it? I’ve been writing about this since, 2020. That the Chinese have had a huge impact on our grid. Lots more information there. If you are an energy expert and you want to come on the podcast, please reach out to us on Energy News Beat subscribe to our Substack and we are having an absolute blast. We’re averaging about 35,000 people on our website news site every day. So thank you so much. And look forward, buckle up and have a great weekend. Cocktails and energy bills set to soar as report finds. Almost all major studies on net zero grossly underestimate cost. Michael, this is a really, really interesting story. And it is by the Royal Society is a direct quote in here. This is out of the UK. The Royal Society, for example, assumes that the cost almost everything will have an efficiency will soar. It’s not that impossible, but imprudent. Let me read you some of the numbers. I’m just going to read these bullet points, Michael. The assumptions 60% reduction in offshore wind capital cost, 70% reduction in offshore wind operating costs 50%. Increase in offshore wind output, 30% in reduction in solar cap back, 70% in solar Opic 90% reduction in electrolyzer CapEx, 45% in electrolyzer efficiency, 60% in reciprocating engine compared to 55% in reciprocating engine efficiency. This is bull hockey. I mean, I the the whole Royal Society was they hell on this report. I’ve got the link in here for everybody to download the report. [00:02:52][156.6]

Michael Tanner: [00:02:53] My what I really want to know is did the did the IEA come up with these assumptions. Because these assumptions are out of nowhere. I mean you’re talking about oh it’s going to be the assumptions are basically cheaper to build, cheaper to operate, more electricity output. I mean, in what world does that happen? Yes, technology gets bigger over time. We do bring down the cost of things, but we’re not even. You’re talking about this. Are you talking about inflation? I mean, you think about the world we’re in right now. It actually is getting more expensive to drill and expensive to outlay all of this capital stuff. [00:03:25][32.1]

Stuart Turley: [00:03:25] And we’ve had billions lost in dollars. I mean, Siemens has lost several billion. And there are wind farms that are not being bid on right now. The, U.S. government went out and put the stuff on the East Coast, and nobody bid on any of it. You can’t make any money now on offshore wind anyway. [00:03:50][24.9]

Michael Tanner: [00:03:50] Yeah. I mean, offshore wind is probably holding up the best under the circumstances. Solar is what’s really getting crushed. [00:03:58][7.1]

Stuart Turley: [00:03:58] Solar. I’m going to I am going to disagree with you, my young padawan. And that is so we’re has a little bit more legs because it does not have the moving part. [00:04:08][9.8]

Michael Tanner: [00:04:09] Okay. [00:04:09][0.0]

Stuart Turley: [00:04:10] Wind actually eight years is in number, and I mean eight years. You got to walk away from these things in eight years. [00:04:17][7.9]

Michael Tanner: [00:04:18] Yeah, I’ve done a lot of offshore wind. I’m with an onshore wind. [00:04:21][3.1]

Stuart Turley: [00:04:21] I’m talking offshore wind is now I’m. My numbers are now coming in lower than eight. Anybody that says they’re going to last 30 years. Oh yes. And then you’re a trades one energy risk for another. The U.S. is not reliable Michael I would not do business with the U.S.. I would not rely on the U.S.. We are worthless. Friday, the Biden administration got in a war with Governor Abbott. He went out in, this started out the other day. He, Thursday, I believe it was he put a delay on a very large, lng thing knowing. [00:05:04][42.7]

Michael Tanner: [00:05:04] Well he hold. Well, this is key. What did he do on Friday? [00:05:07][2.4]

Stuart Turley: [00:05:08] He halted LNG exports and. [00:05:12][3.9]

Michael Tanner: [00:05:12] Well, new LNG. Sports until they can determine some new EPA regulations again. This is it’s it’s pretty crazy. Existing LNG facilities are good, but new permits for new facilities. Specifically that what’s crazy is we just saw a Chesapeake Southwestern merger. What was the big selling point of that merger? Massive new LNG export capacity. Well, what it would have been nice to know that four weeks ago before that merger took place. Whoa. [00:05:44][31.3]

Stuart Turley: [00:05:45] I’ll tell you what I absolutely disgusting. The world is relying on globe, our global gas on energy news beat. I now have the global energy monitor. You have to kind of take a look at this with a grain of salt. Natural gas has 4118 projects going on. Let me get rid of the pipelines. There are now 1251 LNG exports and terminals going on. Let’s get rid of the terminals. And then I’m going to go ahead and tell you, operating and under construction there are 206 under construction. There are 43 LNG export terminals under construction. Let’s go under imports. Under construction. There are 64 LNG imports under construction around the world. Unbelievable. They need this natural, this LNG. The only reason we are able to it is the largest export that we’re having. If you owe $34 trillion on your debt, you got to have some export. This man is breaking the economy, ruining us as a part. Here’s a quote out of it. U.S. LNG continues to be the cornerstone of Europe’s supply and diversification strategy, said Leslie Paul de Guzman, head of research and marketing at Sinovac. The Biden decision sends a real message regarding solidarity and the reliability of its supply and medium to long term. This is partially crucial at a particularly crucial juncture, where supplies from Russia and other ships can be mired in unpredictability. This goes along with one of our others in the next story here, Michael. Russia is the winner out of this. Yeah. Good car. [00:07:50][124.5]

Michael Tanner: [00:07:51] Is there. If you don’t mind pulling up that second image from this article. U.S. LNG is increasingly replacing gas from Russia. Look at that share of gas supplies that are from the EU that are coming from the United States. It’s absolutely spiked. We were that lock bar down there, spike. And Russia has contracted almost threefold since quarter one, 2021. [00:08:13][22.5]

Stuart Turley: [00:08:14] On a on this article, Michael, I’m going to embed the video of all the graphs and all the charts that I did in preparation for this article. People will be able to see everything I just said, and it’s in the video in this hour. So that’ll be up here in the June up. [00:08:31][16.9]

Michael Tanner: [00:08:31] Yeah. No, absolutely. [00:08:32][0.5]

Stuart Turley: [00:08:33] Miss producer, can you bring this picture up here? I really think the wind turbine explodes after bursting into flames on quiet Welsh farm, showering broken parts. This looks like my brother and I on the farm when we were having potato guns fights, and we would put M80 in the, tire pumps and just blow each other up. Larry, the cable guy learned from us because we bring each other up all the time. So let’s go into this, this portal thing. Nick and his wife, 61 and 51, were stunned when they saw burning parts of the turbine farm more than 100ft to the ground. They’re not very friendly when they start blowing up. [00:09:17][44.1]

Michael Tanner: [00:09:18] No. And, you know, I mean, this unfortunately, is, you know, one of the it’s it there’s downsides. Everything. But having exploding, exploding engines on a farm is not good. And and I think the other issue is this is obviously catastrophic failure for the wind farm. So the question is you have to decommission the wind farm. Do you what actually then happens once these things, you know, once this thing explodes, really look what’s next. [00:09:48][30.7]

Stuart Turley: [00:09:49] You got to take the ones that are, er, repairable after so many years, which is anywhere between 3 and 8 years. And it’s in Texas. It’s over $480,000 just to take one down. Doesn’t include transportation, doesn’t include getting rid of stuff. That is just the cement problem. So here’s the farmers here and the. Biggest problem that David Blackmon and I arena and Tammy brought up on the podcast on Monday for the the energy realities is the fact that, you have so many wind farms do not have the reclamation at the end in the price. So these monoliths to, the Green New Deal, nobody is going to pull them out. European energy channels, wind project offshore cancel. So here we are. Let’s have a moment of silence for this wind project. Off of the coast. Okay. Thank you. They they can’t afford it. Here, where it is. We’ve tried to get the project to fly, among other things, and coexistence with nature, but we have to, note that the authorities and politicians have not much interest in this, so they’re only when they get their kickback as a politician, they don’t care if it actually gets installed. They don’t care. Listen to this one. Since our feasibility study permit has a height limit of 200m, and today’s offshore wind turbines have become 256m. It goes without saying. The project has no future. So I didn’t see how much they’ve already been in it. But it’s a bunch. [00:11:37][108.2]

Michael Tanner: [00:11:39] Yeah, it’s I mean, it’s it’s unfortunate because if anything, offshore wind has held up the best economically relative to all of the others. And if we can’t even get a new project installed, what does that tell you about the long. [00:11:53][14.6]

Stuart Turley: [00:11:54] Term outlook of this stuff? The one that we talked about a little while ago was the one off the Great Lakes, that had for, was a 52 million, 82 million, 52 million for, for wind turbines and 27 of that, was already spent on permitting. And they never got any. And the African leaders have the right to define their own energy policy. This is talking about NJ. And, you know, in one of his, recent interviews, I had the pleasure of interviewing him in the staff is now working on it in production with Cyrus Brooks. This is really important as, he is the head of the African Energy Chamber, and he was being interviewed, here. And there are just some, you know, wonderful discussions in here, Africa. His point is, Africa is capable of financing its own future. The world Bank is forcing Africa to try to put in renewable energy. And they won’t fund coal plants. They won’t fund natural gas, they won’t fund pipelines. And, this is where I think he’s bringing out some strategic differences. He’s talking about Africa should change its perspective and not depend on foreign aid. He wants to go ahead. And his big platform is reaching out, developing jobs, developing the technology. And he and I even talked about having the same ability to mine that the the Congo to mine things in Africa, but yet bring the technology in and ship out finished goods from Africa that would bring the jobs to Africa, that would bring the elevate humanity out of poverty in Africa, rather than shipping all their natural resources out. And this article really goes, he he says my position is clear. Rather than succumbing to external pressure, African states should exploit their own oil and gas reserves to stimulate growth, create opportunities, job income, and reduce energy poverty. I absolutely love what he is talking about and he is a man of action. Take a look at this article. It is a fabulous set up for the interview with, that I talked about that will be, releasing here shortly. Norway defends deep sea mining, which says it may break China and Russia’s rare earth, stronghold. This one might be also a either Tammy name is or Irene a slam email that had this one in it and, Norway. I love Norway. From the standpoint that they have a lot, natural gas, they several years ago, they had slowed down and were turning off their natural gas fields. They have a lot of hydro that they sell to other countries. But let’s go through the top bullet points in this. In a vote earlier this month that attracted cross-party support, Norway Parliament voted 80 to 20 to approve the government proposal to a vast ocean area for commercial deep sea mining. I honestly do not know the ESG impact of deep. See mining. I’m going to be studying this. And the environmental campaign group say that the approval of, extremely destructive process sends a terrible signal to the rest of the world. The problem that Norway is trying to solve is that they turn back on their natural gas fields. They are now a major supplier through the, their gas pipelines to the UK and the EU. And then when you sit back and take a look, we have China and we have, it’s crushing, it’s crushing blow to the, critical minerals. And so you couldn’t even think about doing EVs or the, energy transition. However, I want to give a shout out to Pomerleau Hill on the Crude Truth Substack he put out there in his comment, Was China on book? This was on a different one. I just want to give him out a shout out. This was on actually the China on the, book oil. Pablo Hill on the Crude Truth Substack. I’m not. I had an interview with Captain Current, Kelly, who is such an ocean, defender of the ocean. And I’m going to reach out to him and some of the, issues that were out there were that in the deep, deep coal, like the North Sea, deep sea mining may not have as big of a environmental impact, I don’t know, but on the other hand, we’ve got to figure out ways of not harming the children in the Congo and taking advantage of Africa and then also getting away from the stranglehold on, China. None of this is easy. And if you have solutions, give me a call. [00:11:54][0.0][683.6]

– Get in Contact With The Show –

 

The post Daily Energy Standup Episode #300 – Weekly Recap: Net Zero Cost Concerns, LNG Export Halt, Turbine Explosions, and Africa’s Energy Vision appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Energy News Beat

 

At the AME Roundup conference in Vancouver last week, attended by 6,200 delegates, Geoscience BC launched the Critical Minerals and Metals in BC Mine Tailings and Waste Rock program — a province-wide study to determine where potential concentrations of critical metals and minerals may be found in mine tailings and waste rock.

The first phase, Geoscience BC said, will collate and analyze existing information from current and historic mining operations to identify sites for future laboratory and fieldwork studies, looking to identify potential sources of critical metals and minerals that were not considered recoverable or valuable at the time of extraction — but that may now prove otherwise.

The first phase research funders are Arca Climate Technologies, which recently launched a pilot project with BHP to capture CO2 from mine waste, New Gold Inc. and Geoscience BC, with program support from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation’s Abandoned Mines Branch.

Geoscience BC simultaneously released the findings of a report indicates the potential for coalfields in British Columbia’s East Kootenays to host elevated concentrations of rare earth elements (REEs).

Traditional REE deposits are becoming depleted, while demand is anticipated to increase substantially over the next 15-20 years.

Coal deposits are known to be a potential source of REEs, and work is underway in the US and elsewhere to separate and concentrate REEs during coal processing.

Owing to the presence of REEs in some coal seams, BC’s search for inventories puts the spotlight on coalfields in the province’s southeast region.

This study has, for the first time, characterized REEs in BC coal. Over one hundred samples were tested, with elevated REE concentrations recorded, Geoscience BC said, adding that preliminary testing of extraction techniques also demonstrated the techniques recommended for further study.

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post British Columbia coalfields could become critical minerals source – report appeared first on Energy News Beat.