White House Said to Delay Decision on Enormous Natural Gas Export Terminal

Energy News Beat

Before deciding whether to approve it, the Energy Department will analyze the climate impacts of CP2, one of 17 proposed LNG export terminals.

The Biden administration is pausing a decision on whether to approve what would be the largest natural gas export terminal in the United States, a delay that could stretch past the November election and spell trouble for that project and 16 other proposed terminals, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.

The White House is directing the Energy Department to expand its evaluation of the project to consider its impact on climate change, as well as the economy and national security, said these people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss internal deliberations. The Energy Department has never rejected a proposed natural gas project because of its expected environmental impact.

The move comes as Mr. Biden gears up for what is likely to be a contentious re-election campaign. He is courting climate voters, particularly the young activists who helped him win election in 2020 and who have been angered by his administration’s approval last year of the Willow project, an enormous oil drilling operation in Alaska.

It also comes as the United States leads the world in both liquefied natural gas exports and oil and gas production. The country has seven export terminals with five more already under construction.

The project in question, Calcasieu Pass 2, is among 17 additional terminals that have been proposed by the fossil fuel industry.

Still, Republicans and former President Donald J. Trump, who is expected to be his party’s choice to challenge Mr. Biden in November, are sure to try to use any delay in permitting against him, charging that Mr. Biden is hampering American energy.

“This move would amount to a functional ban on new LNG export permits,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “The administration’s war on affordable domestic energy has been bad news for American workers and consumers alike.”

Mr. Trump, who has inaccurately called global warming a “hoax,” has promised to expand fossil fuel production and shred Mr. Biden’s climate agenda. “We’re going to drill, baby drill, right away,” he told voters after he won the Iowa caucuses earlier this month.

Calcasieu Pass 2, or CP2, would dwarf the country’s existing export terminals. The $10 billion project would be situated along a shipping channel that connects the Gulf of Mexico to Lake Charles, La. It would export up to 20 million tons of natural gas per year, increasing the current amount of exported American gas by about 20 percent.

The project first requires approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission before it shifts to the Energy Department for consideration.

The Biden Administration’s Environmental Agenda

Disaster Relief: The Biden administration is overhauling the country’s disaster assistance programs, expanding aid for survivors of hurricanes, wildfires and other catastrophes and making it easier to access.
Methane Fines: Under a new plan announced by the Biden administration, American oil and gas companies would be required for the first time to pay a fee for emitting methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
John Kerry: President Biden’s special envoy for climate plans to step down by spring, ending a three-year run in a major diplomatic role that was created especially for him and which will face an uncertain future with his departure.
CP2 Project: A proposed export terminal for liquefied natural gas on the Louisiana coast could be a boon for the U.S. economy, according to its supporters. Critics say the project is bad for the planet. It is up to the Biden administration to decide whether it moves forward.

The Energy Department is required to weigh whether the export terminal is in “the public interest,” a subjective determination. But now, the White House has requested an additional analysis of the climate impacts of CP2.

Natural gas, which is primarily composed of methane, is cleaner than coal when it is burned. But methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas in the short term, compared with carbon dioxide, and it can leak anywhere along the supply chain, from the production wellhead to processing plants to the stovetop. The process of liquefying gas to make it suitable for transport is incredibly energy intensive as well, creating yet more emissions.

Whatever new criteria is used to evaluate CP2 would be expected to be applied to the other 16 proposed natural gas terminals that are awaiting approval.

Scientists have overwhelmingly said that nations must deeply and quickly cut the emissions from burning gas, oil and coal if humanity is to avoid climate catastrophe. Last month at the United Nations climate summit in Dubai, the United States joined 196 other countries in promising to transition away from fossil fuels.
More than 150 scientists signed a Dec. 19 letter to Mr. Biden, urging him to reject CP2 and the additional proposed facilities. “The magnitude of the proposed build out of LNG over the next several years is staggering,” they wrote. Approving new terminals would “put us on a continued path toward escalating climate chaos,” the letter said.

Given the scientific imperative, experts say that it is reasonable to consider climate impacts before building new gas export terminals.

“So far there is really no requirement to consider the cumulative climate, economic or market impact of all those facilities,” said Ben Cahill, a senior fellow in the energy security and climate change program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan research organization. “And it’s a very valid question.”

Shaylyn Hynes a spokeswoman for Venture Global LNG, the Virginia-based company that wants to build CP2, wrote in an email that “it appears the administration may be putting a moratorium on the entire US LNG industry. Such an action would shock the global energy market, having the impact of an economic sanction, and send a devastating signal to our allies that they can no longer rely on the United States.”

A delay of many months could jeopardize the financing for CP2. Venture Global LNG, has other gas export terminals that have already run into equipment and shipping problems and legal disputes.

That’s exactly the hope of climate activists who launched a social media campaign last fall to urge Mr. Biden to reject CP2.

“We see CP2 as stopping the first fraction of the largest LNG build out to date,” said Alex Haraus, a 25-year-old Colorado social media influencer who has led a TikTok and Instagram campaign aimed at urging young voters to demand that Mr. Biden reject the project. His posts have received about 7 million views on TikTok and Instagram.

Among those who saw the posts were Ali Zaidi and John Podesta, senior advisers to Mr. Biden on climate policy. Mr. Podesta is also a veteran of climate advocacy and presidential campaigns. Mr. Haraus had a Zoom meeting with Mr. Zaidi this week and with Mr. Podesta last month to discuss the project, one of several meetings about CP2 between White House climate officials and environmental groups.

Climate activists have compared their CP2 campaign with a successful effort waged over a decade ago to persuade President Barack Obama to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

In that campaign, the climate activist Bill McKibben was able to transform an obscure oil pipeline project that had been on track for routine federal approval into a high profile symbol of Mr. Obama’s commitment to fighting climate change.

The Obama administration found that the pipeline was not “in the public interest” because of the emissions associated with producing the oil that would be moved through the pipeline.

Mr. McKibben has also taken a large role in organizing the CP2 campaign.

“Keystone is a great example of how this can work,” Mr. Haraus said. “And we absolutely will reward or punish him on this decision,” he added, referring to Mr. Biden.

Within the White House, there is little division over the decision to delay CP2, in part because it is not seen as a major energy security issue, said people familiar with the discussion. That’s because the United States is already producing and exporting so much gas. That capacity is set to nearly double over the next four years, making the need for CP2 less urgent.

American dominance of the natural gas market is a recent tale. Until 2016, the United States did not export any natural gas. But the expansion of hydraulic fracking translated into tremendous growth in natural gas supplies and a new export industry.

After Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States redirected exports from Asia to Europe in order to help allies that had been reliant on Russian gas.

But Republicans, oil and gas companies, and some energy analysts warn that even the glut of natural gas exports may not be enough to prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin from wielding natural gas supplies as a weapon.

“No one hates U.S. L.N.G. more than Vladimir Putin,” said Daniel Yergin, the vice chairman of S & P Global and an oil industry historian.

Speaking this week at an energy conference, Mike Sommers, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, which represents oil and gas companies, said curtailing the construction of future terminals would be damaging to American allies, “particularly those in Europe who are desperate for American natural gas.”

for the rest of the story : The New York Times: 

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post White House Said to Delay Decision on Enormous Natural Gas Export Terminal appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

“For Natural Gas, It’s Buckle Up and Hang On for 2024” – Steve Reese, CEO

Energy News Beat

ENB Pub Note: Steve Reese, CEO of Reese Energy Consulting Company is a global thought leader in the natural gas markets. I have had the pleasure of getting to know Steve through our podcast interviews and phone calls. It will be fantastic to visit with Steve at NAPE live. Take a look at his opinions on the natural gas markets. 

If market forecasters are correct, natural gas producers will take it on the chin again in 2024 before the heavens part and gears start turning at new LNG export terminals adding capacity in 2025. Reese Energy Consulting today is following the latest on a perfect storm at hand for natural gas, whipped up by an unseasonably warmer winter, hammered prices, oversupply, a delayed startup on a large Gulf Coast LNG plant—and, of course, an election year that could flip everything on its head.

In an ironic twist to a milder winter, a weeklong freeze this month triggered the cancellation of five LNG cargoes set to sail from La., and Texas. To put this in $$$ perspective, Cheniere Energy, Inc. requires a 40-day notice for cancellations. Gas storage is up to its eyeballs as producers continue to output prolific volumes and inventory more supplies ahead of that holy-moly moment when more LNG lights come on. But here comes that storm as one of those LNG lights—ExxonMobil’s Golden Pass LNG terminal with a peak capacity of 18.1 MTA—has recently pushed startup to 2025. Plaquemines LNG Phase 1 and the Corpus Christi Stage 3 expansions, however, are expected to welcome first feedgas flows this summer.

Then there’s an election year—and it’s a most pivotal one that could decide the fate of the U.S. LNG industry dependent on natural gas, of which we are the world’s largest producer of both. The administration is now rattling global markets reliant on our supplies by pausing any new LNG permits this year. Our take? Storms pass, heavens part, gears start running, and the cream always rises to the top. What do you think? Learn more about REC and our natural gas and LNG consulting services at https://lnkd.in/ebXT2mS.

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post “For Natural Gas, It’s Buckle Up and Hang On for 2024” – Steve Reese, CEO appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Navigating Market Sensitivities: A Deep Dive into Winter Forecast Impacts on LNG Trade

Energy News Beat

Navigating Seasonal Uncertainties

In the volatile world of LNG trade, understanding the impact of winter on market dynamics is crucial. This commentary introduces a novel approach: scenario planning as a strategic tool for navigating seasonal uncertainties. The key insight is that grasping market trends and dynamics is more critical than predicting exact price levels. This methodology is essential for industry players, offering a framework to anticipate and strategize around market fluctuations.

As winter approaches, energy consumption and pricing tend to become less predictable, making sensitivity analysis an essential tool. Weather patterns are ever-changing and can disrupt the balance between demand and pricing, particularly in the LNG trade. It is crucial to have a comprehensive understanding of these dynamics as they serve as an early warning sign of market shifts, turning precision forecasting into a strategic asset.

Europe versus Asia

In a globally connected marketplace, disruptions in one region can have ripple effects in another. Our analysis examines the European and Northeast Asian markets, highlighting the complex interplay between trade and energy. The data reveals a stark contrast between the two regions. While Asia’s market displays a looser correlation between consumption and imports, Europe’s graph shows a tighter cluster with heightened sensitivity to the coming winter’s chill.

Over the past few years, LNG price volatility during winter seasons has profoundly impacted global markets. Colder-than-expected winters have led to sudden increases in demand, causing price surges and supply shortages. Europe and Asia, where LNG is a crucial energy source, have been hit particularly hard. For instance, the winter of 2021 saw a record surge in LNG prices due to unexpected cold snaps, causing disruptions in energy supplies and influencing global energy strategies. Therefore, conducting robust market analysis, including the various sensitivities, can make you much more prepared for such events and is crucial to mitigate their impact.

Sensitivity Analysis

The LNG market is a complex and dynamic environment that demands attention and action from its key players. The interplay between LNG imports and fluctuating prices is intricate and impactful, particularly in Europe, where import volumes are sensitive to shifting weather patterns. Sensitivity analysis is a valuable tool that allows market players to prepare for diverse scenarios and to respond to potential market changes with agility.

RBAC’s G2M2® Market Simulator can help shed light on how weather patterns can influence the market. By analyzing 20 years of historical data, we can better understand the potential for significant volatility. Our research shows that meteorological variability can significantly impact market dynamics, affecting both supply and demand. It’s like painting a canvas with shades of market dynamics and brushstrokes of weather patterns.

The methodology for conducting risk analysis in this context involves creating a range of weather event scenarios, each with varying degrees of severity and likelihood. This involves using historical data to model potential outcomes and then running these scenarios through market simulators like RBAC’s G2M2®. By doing so, we can anticipate different market responses, from supply chain disruptions to price fluctuations. This planned scenario approach is crucial for strategic decision-making, allowing market players to prepare for a spectrum of possibilities rather than react to unexpected events.

The Analysis

The forecasting period begins in December 2023, runs through both winters of 2023-2024 and 2024-2025, and ends in March 2025 (the end of the heating season).  The simulations were built based on the G2M2’s 23Q3 base case release, which includes historical data through October 20231.

The following charts (as Figure 1) present key results from this weather-based sensitivity work. On the left panel, we see the forecasted price for Asian and European LNG from the simulations plotted with the base case forecast in $/MMBtu, and on the right panel is the forecasted Asia and Europe LNG imports in BCM/month.

We note a few interesting observations:

23Q3base describes a muted LNG price projection for the upcoming winters due to the concerns of economic recovery and a relatively balanced global gas market.
The weather-based sensitivity analysis consists of normal to colder to coldest, as well as the normal to warmer to warmest, based on HDD data from the past 20 years in both Europe and Northeast Asia (mainly Japan and South Korea). This variation in weather sensitivity has helped create a range of possible outcomes for regional prices and imports of LNG throughout the forecast period.
With the seasonality of natural gas demand, we observe a wider band of prices in the November to March winter months. In the Asia market, we see a + 51% and –42% of price variation away from its baseline for the peak months, with +12% and –11% of LNG import swings. In comparison, the European market presents a price variation of +56% and –51% from the baseline forecast, with +26%/-27% in LNG import swings.

Figure 1: Weather-driven sensitivity forecasts LNG price ($/mmbtu) and LNG imports (bcm per month): a) Asia Europe LNG and LNG imports. Source: G2M2® Market Simulator for Global Gas and LNG

The complexity of LNG dynamics is significantly influenced by the regional nuances of supply and demand. This becomes particularly pertinent when considering price sensitivities to weather fluctuations, as we observe here.

Europe’s gas market demonstrates more sensitivity to such changes than the markets of South Korea and Japan. This heightened sensitivity in Europe is partially due to its reliance on a network of pipelines and underground storage facilities. Underground storage can contribute up to 10-12% of the region’s seasonal gas supply, but as pipeline imports have been declining since 2022, LNG imports have had to pick up the slack and constituted about 25% of Europe’s gas supply in 2023. That proportion is expected to grow to 35% by 2025, further exposing the market to potential price swings.

Conversely, Japan and South Korea are almost entirely dependent on LNG imports due to their scant domestic production and the absence of underground storage. For the broader Asian region, despite LNG imports making up 35-40% of the supply mix, a similar percentage to the European market, the region’s gas balance is fundamentally different. The lack of extensive pipeline infrastructure and storage in Asia means LNG plays a different role in the region’s energy balance.

This discrepancy is evident in Figure 2, which illustrates the regional variations in LNG import dependence and underscores the diverse ways in which regions respond to changes in the gas balance, such as those brought on by weather impacts. For Europe, LNG could be more of a swing supply to meet marginal demand in the region, while for the Asian market, there is not as much aggregated flexibility in supply optionality in general, with more isolated local demand for each country, especially for Northeast Asia.

Figure 2: Regional gas balance for Asia and Europe (unit: bcm per month). Source: G2M2® Market Simulator for Global Gas and LNG

Figure 3 illustrates the correlation of regional LNG imports versus regional gas consumption based on sensitivity simulation, describing how LNG imports correlate as part of the supply mix to meet corresponding gas consumption. The x-axis is the range of gas consumption in the region, and the y-axis is the range of LNG imports. Each dot in the chart represents a single sensitivity run, and the color of the dot represents if the weather scenario of the sensitivity run is warmer than baseline, as the “green” color series with higher HDDs, or colder than baseline, as the “orange” color series, with lower HDDs. Here, “HDDs” is “heating degree days,” which is usually defined as the amount below 65 degrees in the recorded temperature (in Fahrenheit) each day, summed up for the month and is correlated to and used when planning for energy consumption. Higher HDDs indicate higher needs for space heating as a result of colder weather, while lower HDDs indicate lower needs for space heating as a result of warmer weather.

Figure 3: Correlation between LNG imports versus gas consumption for a) Asia and b) Europe. Note that the sensitivity is only applied to South Korean and Japanese markets for Asia. Source: G2M2® Market Simulator for Global Gas and LNG

Summing it Up

Adopting scenario-based sensitivity analysis in the LNG industry holds significant value for the market’s stakeholders. The relationship between LNG imports and fluctuating prices is as intricate as it is impactful. These numbers tell a story of caution and opportunity, a narrative that demands attention and action from the market’s key players.

By anticipating possible market changes, energy analysts, traders, and investors can respond with agility and prepare for diverse scenarios, ensuring that they are well-positioned to capitalize on opportunities and mitigate risks. This approach enables a more proactive and strategic approach to risk management and helps players stay ahead in a market that is as dynamic as it is interconnected.

Such energy market scenario analysis enables:

Robust Risk Management: This approach comprehensively evaluates different risk factors, allowing market players to prepare for diverse scenarios.
Agility in Market Response: By anticipating possible market changes, stakeholders can respond more swiftly and effectively to actual market developments.
Understanding Market Interdependencies: Scenario planning highlights the interconnected nature of global markets, showing how regional events can influence global dynamics.
Data-Driven Decision Making: Leveraging historical data and predictive analytics aligns with the trend toward informed, data-based strategies.

How can various energy professionals use this type of scenario-based analysis?For Energy Producers: They can adjust production strategies based on weather patterns, optimizing supply and pricing to match potential demand fluctuations.

For Distributors and Suppliers: This approach helps manage inventory levels efficiently, ensures adequate supply during high-demand periods, and prevents overstocking during off-peak times.

For Financial Analysts and Traders: Understanding a range of market scenarios aids in making informed investment and trading decisions and balancing risks and opportunities more effectively.

For Policy Makers: These insights are valuable for formulating policies that ensure energy security and stable pricing, especially critical during high-demand winter months.

The LNG market, with its susceptibility to winter weather uncertainties and geopolitical influences, stands to benefit immensely from scenario planning. This approach equips market players with tools to stimulate insights needed to navigate the complexities of the market, transforming unpredictability into a landscape of informed possibilities and strategic preparation. G2M2® Market Simulator for Global Gas and LNG has proven to be an exceptional tool for conducting such scenario analysis.

Source: Rbac.com

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Navigating Market Sensitivities: A Deep Dive into Winter Forecast Impacts on LNG Trade appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Microsoft goes atomic — World’s most valuable company just hired a director of nuclear development acceleration to help power its very own AI revolution

Energy News Beat

It’s well-known that data centers consume a staggering amount of energy, with about 1-1.5% of all global electricity usage thought to be dedicated to their operation.

Tech companies have largely focused on powering these through renewable and sustainable energy sources in an effort to boost their green credentials and address climate change. However, increased energy demand caused by the arrival of new technologies like AI is making the task tricky, as this field alone consumes about four times as much power as servers used for cloud applications.

Recognizing the future pressures on its data centers, Microsoft has taken the somewhat controversial step of appointing a Director of Nuclear Development Acceleration.

Going nuclear

According to McKinsey, the power requirements of US data centers are projected to jump from 17 gigawatts (GW) in 2022 to 35 GW by 2030. Electricity isn’t the only concern. GPUs used for AI have higher cooling needs than traditional servers, and Microsoft’s water usage in data centers rose by 34% in 2022. This figure is expected to surge as the tech giant further increases its investments in AI.

Stepping into this role is Erin Henderson, PhD, MBA, PMP, who brings a wealth of experience from her 13-year tenure at the Tennessee Valley Authority, where she served as the General Manager of Transmission Projects.

Henderson will, among other things, devise a global strategy for small modular reactors and microreactors to power Microsoft’s data centers. Yes, that’s right, the company really is going nuclear.

Writing on LinkedIn about her new post, Henderson said “I am very excited to share that I’ve joined Microsoft in a new role, Director of Nuclear Development Acceleration. Microsoft is leading the way in advocating for a clean and sustainable energy future. I am looking forward to contributing to the datacenter R&D team’s success.”

Data Center Dynamics recently reported Microsoft spent six months collaborating with Terra Praxis, a nonprofit that advocates for transforming old coal plant sites into modern SMR homes.

Together the two firms worked on a generative AI model to speed up the lengthy and expensive nuclear regulatory and licensing process, a clear signpost towards Microsoft’s nuclear ambitions.

Source: Techradar.com

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Microsoft goes atomic — World’s most valuable company just hired a director of nuclear development acceleration to help power its very own AI revolution appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Prodigy and Westinghouse Targeting Launch of eVinci Floating Nuclear Plant in Canada by 2030

Energy News Beat

Westinghouse has revealed it is designing a transportable nuclear power plant (TNPP) featuring an eVinci microreactor with Canadian firm Prodigy Clean Energy, aiming to deliver a first project in Canada by 2030.

The project will potentially integrate a single or multiple 5-MWe eVinci microreactors within a Prodigy Microreactor Power Station—a purpose-designed floating facility that will likely be deployed at a shoreline. The TNPP would be pre-fabricated and transported to site to supply reliable power and heat to “remote industrial sites, data centers, communities, defense installations, and to islands and island nations,” Westinghouse said in a blog post on Jan. 23.

While the target location in Canada is subject to a non-disclosure agreement, Prodigy told POWER the company is currently “working with end-users in the mining industry in Canada to conduct site feasibility assessments for potential deployment of a TNPP featuring the eVinci microreactor.”

A Novel Approach to Enable Nuclear Fleet Deployment

The TNPP project will mark Prodigy’s entry into the global floating nuclear power plant (FNPP) market, which has flourished in recent years, propelled by a global urgency to add new nuclear capacity to address modern power challenges.

While FNPPs—mainly naval facilities and nuclear icebreakers—have operated since the mid-1960s, industry observers point to new potential roles for the niche market, including to provide reliable power and heat to remote and off-grid areas, to bolster renewables-heavy grids, and to furnish power-intensive industries with new clean energy options. The prospect of reliable mobile power and heat may open up new applications for offshore oil and gas platforms, commercial ports, mining and deep-sea mining, hydrogen and synthetic fuel production, aquafarming, ocean cleanup, desalination, and data centers, they suggest.

So far, only one purpose-built FNPP is operational: the 70-MWe/58-MWth Akademik Lomonosov, in Pevek, Chukotka, in Russia’s Far East, which Russia’s state-owned nuclear company Rosatom officially began operating in May 2020. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) records at least eight water-cooled marine-based small modular reactors (SMRs) among 83 SMR designs under development and deployment worldwide. At least five FNPP designs are in the detailed design stage, it notes.

Prodigy underscores flexibility will be a key driver for the emerging FNPP market. But rather than developing reactors, its approach is to partner with leading SMR vendors to offer a standardized, scalable, and fully transportable nuclear power plant system—essentially by linking expertise in three mature industries: nuclear, maritime, and transport.

A Transportable Nuclear Option

The distinction carried by TNPPs, as Westinghouse noted on Tuesday, is important. “The IAEA defines a TNPP as ‘a factory manufactured, movable nuclear power plant… capable of producing final energy products such as electricity and heat.’” it said. “This includes ‘Floating Nuclear Power Plants’ that are docked close to where the energy is needed, reducing the need for building the permanent infrastructure.”

Under Prodigy’s model, the structure would be shipyard-fabricated and, after outfitting, would be transported by a dedicated heavy-lift carrier to its deployment location. “But then the deployment itself would have specific infrastructure in place to hold and house the vessel in a safe place,” as Prodigy Clean Energy President and CEO Mathias Trojer explained during a November 2023 panel at the IAEA’s first symposium on FNPPs.

“FNPPs is not just about reactor ownership, it is an integrated facility whose systems—nuclear as well as non-nuclear—must work together to demonstrate that nuclear, marine, maritime transport and environmental regulations are being met, and that nuclear materials will be appropriately safeguarded,” he noted.

“We are merging proven technologies in nuclear engineering and nuclear civil construction with decades of experience in marine manufacturing, [operations and maintenance (O&M), lifecycle management of vessels, and integrating these with well-established approaches to nuclear and heavy equipment transport,” he said. “By selecting SMRs with proven safety and operability features at an adequate level of technology readiness, and capitalizing on best practices across these three industries, Prodigy will deliver FNPPs that are safe, robust, economical, but most importantly, licensable under current frameworks and ready for near-term implementation,” he said.

For now, the company’s focus is centered on developing two active programs to allow SMR developers to package their reactors into TNPPs—the Microreactor Power Station, which can be marine or land-based variants, and the Grid-Scale Station, which would be installed at a shoreline within a protected harbor.

Prodigy, notably, already has a memorandum of understanding with NuScale Power for a grid-scale marine TNPP that could feature six to 12 NuScale modules (for a combined output of 924-MWe). Since the companies completed conceptual design and economic assessments for the potential project in 2021, work has been ongoing “to progress” the design, it told POWER on Tuesday. In November,  Prodigy’s Trojer suggested the company was slated to begin a site pre-feasibility assessment with end-users that could factor in the power needs of a “large industrial site.” Prodigy is also continuing to work with Kinectrics, a testing, inspection, certification, and consulting firm, “given their significant expertise, especially in nuclear regulations and nuclear safety analysis,” the company noted. 

Its first project, however, will be its Mirocreactor Power Station TNPP featuring a Westinghouse eVinci microreactor. “All practices being developed, including methodologies to licensing, transport, logistics, deployment, and decommissioning, to support Prodigy’s microreactor TNPP program, are directly translational to Prodigy’s grid-scale marine TNPP program,” the company said.

eVinci—A ‘Plug and Play’ Design Well-Suited for TNPPs

As Westinghouse noted on Tuesday, its project with Prodigy stems from a 2019 collaboration that sought to evaluate deployment models for the eVinci microreactor. Westinghouse’s flagship microreactor, introduced in 2017, is a fully passive heat pipe–cooled design that will use tristructural isotropic (TRISO) fuel and alkali metal heat pipe technology. The design, which can provide a reliable source of industrial-grade heat—of up to 600C—features few moving parts, requires no water, and can operate for eight-plus years without refueling. Westinghouse has told POWER the design is well-suited to various applications, including remote mining operations, remote communities, industry, and distributed energy.

The design, notably, already has a potential first customer—Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC), Canada’s second-largest research and technology organization. SRC has said it plans to pilot an eVinci microreactor by 2029, though that timeframe will be subject to licensing and regulatory requirements. Saskatchewan’s provincial government is expected to determine that project’s location as it progresses.

The eVinci microreactor has very few moving parts, working “essentially as a battery, providing the versatility for power systems ranging from several kilowatts to 5 MW of electricity, delivered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for eight-plus years without refueling,” Westinghouse says. “It can also produce high temperature heat suitable for industrial applications including alternative fuel production such as hydrogen, and has the flexibility to balance renewable output.” The technology is 100% factory built and assembled before it is shipped in a container to any location. Courtesy: Westinghouse

Work toward a potential TNPP design for the eVinci, has also progressed relatively quickly. “A multinational corporation operating strategic critical minerals assets in Canada funded a study in 2019-2020 to identify more reliable clean energy sources,” Westinghouse said on Tuesday. “In the study, Prodigy assessed the eVinci microreactor for deployment in a marine facility fixed at shoreside to power a remote mine.”

In 2022, Westinghouse and Prodigy signed an agreement to further a potential TNPP design customized for eVinci. So far, backed with an award from Canada’s Strategic Innovation Fund, the companies have completed milestones for conceptual engineering and regulatory studies.

“Next steps for Westinghouse and Prodigy include completing the TNPP design for the eVinci microreactor, completing development of a nuclear oversight model for TNPP manufacturing, outfitting and transport, and progressing licensing and site assessments to support a first project in Canada by 2030,” Westinghouse said.

According to Jon Ball, president of eVinci Technologies at Westinghouse, the TNPP from Prodigy “brings an additional value to the inherent transportability of the technology.” From the start, “our eVinci technology was designed to be transportable, that was a key design principle,” he noted.

Prodigy’s Trojer, meanwhile, noted eVinci’s “compact design and simplified operating requirements make it optimal for integration into a Prodigy TNPP.” The technology “will enable fleet deployment of the eVinci, accelerating the timeline to deliver clean, reliable, and affordable power at commercial scale to remote regions,” he said.

FNPP Companies Are Embarking on Uncharted Waters

While Prodigy’s model could provide a simplified new pathway for reactor vendors to potentially integrate their SMR designs into standardized TNPPs, Trojer has acknowledged that several challenges lie ahead for the widespread deployment of FNPPs.

“Executing the development and deployment of an FNPP is a very complex exercise that needs to be carefully planned and systematically carried out,” he said during the IAEA’s panel in November. While the Akademik Lomonosov “is a highly successful proof of concept,” as the industry sets out to “pioneer a new paradigm, there are significant questions that must be answered around the design, replicability, standardization, the regulations, and more generally, the legal framework,” he said.

Prodigy’s choice of Canada as its first project was “strategic,” he noted, given the country’s “highly mature regulatory framework and regulator.” Canada also offers strong government support for local innovations, he said. “Prodigy’s emergency planning approach is informed by the safety features of the SMR and decides conditions where the facility will be deployed. We’re using the IAEA safety and security framework as a benchmark, and where more precision and detail is required, we look at the Canadian and U.S. nuclear regulatory framework,” said Trojer.

Several companies in the emerging FNPP market, however, are considering broader approaches that support offshore commercial activities such as mining and oil and gas projects, while others are exploring deploying nuclear reactors in commercial cargo ships to decarbonize shipping.

Danish technology firm Seaborg, for example, is developing the Compact Molten Salt Reactor (CMSR) power barge, a 250-MWth/100-MWe molten salt reactor designed for use in modular floating nuclear power barges. According to Seaborg CEO and co-founder Navid Samandari, the modular power barge, which will be serially produced at shipyards, “can be constructed fast and at low cost.” The biggest challenges Seaborg faces, however, relate to licensing, he noted.

“That’s where two worlds need to meet,” Samandari noted during the November IAEA symposium panel. “Currently, there is no regulatory framework for molten salt reactors, and there is no regulatory framework for floating nuclear facilities. That’s why the regulatory pre-engagement is key, and where we are now is the first step in this dialogue on a potential licensing.” The two worlds that will significantly “need to meet” include the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which maintains a regulatory framework for international shipping, and national regulatory bodies, he said. 

At the November IAEA event, Andrey Rozhdestvin, general director of JSC Rusatom Energy Projects, highlighted Russia’s progress on FNPPs after its rollout of the Akademik Lomonosov—a project that spanned more than 15 years from construction start to completion. The pioneering FNPP recently completed its first 3-year refueling of its KLT-40S reactors, which have a cartridge-type core.

Russia has since adopted the RITM-200M, derived from the latest Russian icebreaker projects, for its fleet of Optimized Floating Power Units, which are considered the second generation of marine-based SMRs. So far, six RITM-200 reactors, built as a series of icebreakers, have already been successfully installed in Russia’s Arctic, Siberian, and Ural regions, manufactured under a unique “conveyor belt” model by Rosatom’s Mechanical Engineering Division in Podolsk. However, a contract for the supply of the power units has ended.

According to the IAEA, another design, the ABV-6E, “although in its finished final design, it has not yet been licensed. The VBER-300, a unique design completely relying on passive safety systems, is in the stage of completing its basic design documentation.” Russia, notably, is also working on a water-cooled RITM-200N that adapts adapts a shipboard design for a ground-based SMR and a project Yakutia is expected to begin operations in 2028.

Russia’s civil marine reactor evolution. Courtesy: Rosatom

However, Rozhdestvin also underscored a list of challenges the FNPP sector must consider. These include “mobility,” along with safety improvements, and cost reductions. Another issue hovers around shipbuilding capacity. “We are facing the lack of capacities. We have preliminary interest in 50 nuclear plants, and even if we can internally produce our reactors to fulfill market demand, if we talk about shipyards, we have to go not only in Russia but abroad,” he said. “It means if you are talking to shipyards and you want to scale up, you need to explain the program based on serial production, and [this poses] uncertainty regarding [nuclear and maritime] regulations and requirements in each country, as well as international requirements.”

Mikal Bøe CEO and founder of Core Power, a UK company that is developing nuclear ships and working to become a “a licensed, type-approved advanced nuclear-electric power package for ocean transportation and heavy industry,” also suggested mobility will always be a key challenge.” He said the sector will need to ensure “various strands are tied together to do that.” Core Power, notably, is working with TerraPower, Southern Co., and the U.S. Department of Energy on the Molten Chloride Fast Reactor (MCFR), that “will go live in 2026” and inform a final design for a larger machine. “They’ll go into the FNPPs that we aim to launch,” he said.

Challenges associated with rolling out a first-of-a-kind FNPP are related to safety, Bøe suggested.“It’s really a different approach to safety,” he said. “If we’re going to have seafarers and nonnuclear technicians operate on the nuclear power side like this, we’re going to have to have a passive walkaway safety system. Most of the reactors, certainly Gen III+ to Gen IV reactors, are the sign for passive safety, so that’s not a hard hurdle to climb, we think,” he said. “Importantly, I think one of those is a low-pressure system or an ambient pressure system, and the reason for that is related to the emergency planning zone.”

Waste management will also emerge as a challenge, Bøe predicted. “The handling of waste the handling of spent nuclear fuels and radioisotopes imports is always going to be a contentious issue. If we can avoid this by having very long fuel cycles in closed-cycle reactor technology, we can start to overcome them,” he said.

The world’s first floating nuclear power plant, Rosatom’s Akademik Lomonosov, moored in Pevek in Russia’s Chukotka region, recently completed its first refueling procedure. The KLT-40S reactors, featuring cartridge-type cores, have an increased refueling interval of 3–3.5 years, and during refueling, the entire reactor core’s fuel assemblies are replaced. Spent fuel assemblies were removed and placed into storage, with both fresh and spent fuel stored on board the FNPP in dedicated isolated rooms. Courtesy: Rosatom

Trojer noted that Prodigy, too, considered the potential for commercial nuclear propulsion  in ocean-going and internationally sailing vessels as part of a two-year shipping industry–funded project that ended in 2020. While the study determined that microreactors “were technically feasible,” the regulatory and legal frameworks needed to support near-term commercialization of nuclear shipping, “or more simply, deploying an operating reactor onboard self-propelled civilian vessels do not currently exist,” he told POWER. “It became clear to Prodigy that the immediate path to market would be non-self-propelled, shoreside-installed marine microreactor facilities.”

For now, Prodigy continues engagement with the IAEA, but it is also actively working with the U.S. National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) Marine Nuclear Application Group (MNAG). “In each case, representatives from the nuclear and marine sectors are laying out approaches to deploy marine TNPPs and to identify and resolve any legal and regulatory gaps that might impede these technologies from being successfully deployed. For example, Prodigy is working within MNAG to publish a report that covers ‘a review of the Regulatory and Licensing Landscape’ for marine-based TNPP facilities,” the company said.

Source: Powermag.com

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Prodigy and Westinghouse Targeting Launch of eVinci Floating Nuclear Plant in Canada by 2030 appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

The US says it needs 22m acres for the solar energy transition – here’s what that looks like

Energy News Beat

The Bureau of Land Management proposed using 22m acres of public land for solar projects – roughly the size of Maine, or an area larger than Scotland

If the US is to rid itself of fossil fuels then one of its primary replacements, solar energy, is going to need land. A lot of land.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which oversees more of the public realm than any other federal government agency, has outlined exactly how much of western America should be made available for solar panels and their associated cables and transformers – 22m acres. That is roughly the size of Maine, or an area larger than Scotland.

This total, part of a new administration plan to accelerate solar energy in the US west, will give the US “maximum flexibility” to meet climate goals, the BLM said.

A smaller area of this available land, around 700,000 acres, will definitely need to be dotted with solar panels to meet a goal set by Joe Biden to have a 100% clean electricity grid by 2035. This is still a big leap from the status quo, where only around 34,000 acres of bureau land is used for solar.

Solar may currently contribute little more than 3% of the US’s electricity generation but it is having something of a moment, with projects bolstered by Biden’s huge tranche of clean energy subsidies. The BLM is progressing several major solar projects – the largest, in Nevada, is set to be 5,500 acres in size, enough to power more than 200,000 homes – and utility-scale solar generation is expected to grow 75% by next year compared to last, adding 79,000 megawatts of new capacity.

The scale of this growth, however, has unsettled some residents who oppose solar farms in their communities or on farmland, as well as environmentalists who fret over the fate of species such as the desert tortoise as seemingly empty habitat is upended into a new, mirrored, reality.

Even if land is used for a solar project, though, it can still be utilized for some other agricultural uses and BLM said it would prefer development to take place within 10 miles of existing transmission lines, with exclusions for habitat and cultural reasons.

Green groups say a detente can be found between the desire to protect food-producing land and habitat for threatened species while also tackling a climate crisis that menaces both people and wildlife.

“Renewable energy on public lands can be a win-win-win,” said Justin Meuse, a campaigner at the Wilderness Society. “It’s imperative and it’s possible.”

The post The US says it needs 22m acres for the solar energy transition – here’s what that looks like appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

FERC COMMISSIONER MARK CHRISTIE – WE’RE HEADED TOWARD A VERY BAD PLACE

Energy News Beat

Commissioner Mark Christie, who is a strong advocate for grid reliability, took the opportunity to talk about the week’s winter storms during a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) January 18, 2024, open meeting. Commissioner Christie commended the nation’s system operators for a job well done in maintaining power throughout frigid temperatures and snow that blanketed much of the country. He spoke about the energy supply mix in the PJM and Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) regions during the previous several days, specifically offering January 17 as an example of the performance of dispatchable resources.

On that day, PJM saw electricity demand peak at around 135 gigawatts (GW) with 90 percent of generation supplied by dispatchables that kept “the heat pumps going so people wouldn’t freeze.” MISO peaked at around 105 GW with dispatchable resources providing 77 percent of electricity; natural gas and coal each providing 34 percent of generation, and nuclear 9 percent.

But about the future, Commissioner Christie had this to say, “We know in PJM, because they’ve already told us, they’re going to lose anywhere from 40 to 50 GW of dispatchable resources in the next few years. We know that MISO is losing dispatchable resources. They’ve warned that they’re going to be looking at a shortfall of around 5 GW within just a few years.”

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has been warning that the pace of the energy transition to wind and solar is unsustainable primarily because of the expected loss of dispatchable resources. NERC’s 2023 Long-Term Reliability Assessment reported that the nation could expect to lose almost 83 GW of dispatchable resources, mostly coal and nuclear, within the next decade.

That worries Commissioner Christie who pointed out that the nation is headed toward a “very bad place” if the pace continues. Directing his comments to PJM and MISO, Commissioner Christie cautioned that “If you don’t maintain these dispatchable resources until you have adequate replacements, we’re not going to have the success we had in the last three or four days. And instead of having those lights stay on and those heat pumps keep running, they’re not.”

Commissioner Christie concluded with one last observation, “The pace of retirements is a significant issue that we all have to deal with because that’s the threat that’s coming.” We anticipate more winter storms over the next several months and we expect that FERC and Commissioner Christie will continue to keep the pressure on grid operators and utilities to take responsible action to ensure grid reliability.

Source: Americaspower.org

The post FERC COMMISSIONER MARK CHRISTIE – WE’RE HEADED TOWARD A VERY BAD PLACE appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

The IL-76 Shootdown By A US Patriot Missile Could Lead To Zaluzhny’s Replacement With Budanov

Energy News Beat

All things considered, blaming Zaluzhny – perhaps by claiming that he should have verified alleged intelligence about the IL-76’s cargo before shooting it down in order to make this seem like an unfortunate accident – is the most politically convenient option at Zelensky and his US patron’s disposal. It could shift the blame from them to him and facilitate Zaluzhny’s replacement with the much more politically reliable Budanov without much resistance from the armed forces or civil society.

Kiev shot down a Russian Il-76 military transport plane carrying 65 Ukrainian POWs as it was flying over the border region of Belgorod on Wednesday. Patriot missiles were reportedly used during the attack, which was carried out with the aid of American instructors. The regime was informed of the flight ahead of time and was aware that it was carrying its detained troops. The planned swap has now been called off and questions are swirling about why Kiev would kill its own POWs.

CNN ridiculously suggested that it might have been a case of friendly fire by drawing attention to a prior air alert and drone interception an hour before the incident, while some Ukrainian sources circulated the conspiracy theory that the plane was allegedly carrying only S-300 air defense missiles onboard. The first narrative is meant to smear the reputation of the Russian Armed Forces while the second is a “face-saving” deflection from Kiev’s culpability for what happened.

A more realistic interpretation is that American proxy war tactics are shifting as the conflict began to wind down late last year after Kiev was pushed back on the defensive following its failed counteroffensive. That theory also has its faults, however, since five Russian military aircraft were reportedly shot down by Patriot missiles over the border region of Bryansk last May so there isn’t anything new this time except that 65 Ukrainian POWs were killed after Kiev knew they were on board.

The specifics of this incident therefore lead to suspicion that these detained troops were deliberately targeted by those American-advised Ukrainian air defense controllers who were operating the Patriot air defense systems on Wednesday for the reasons that will now be explained. The backdrop to what happened was that Russia’s foreign spy agency predicted an impending bureaucratic reshuffle on Monday a day before a former Pentagon official reported on rumors that Zelensky might oust Zaluzhny.

Stephen Bryen, who served as staff director of the Near East Subcommittee of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as deputy undersecretary of defense for policy and is currently a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and Yorktown Institute, published the article on his Substack. According to him, the Ukrainian leader wants to replace the Commander-in-Chief with military intelligence head Budanov, and he’s planning to do so by blaming Zaluzhny for recent battlefield losses near Avdeevka.

Zelensky’s top rival commands immense respect among the armed forces and civil society, the first of which are growing so angry with their leadership’s military plans that there was even a whiff of mutiny in the New York Times’ report last month about the Kyrnki debacle. Aware of how much Ukraine’s already fragile military-political dynamics had been destabilized by the failed counteroffensive, an expert from the influential Atlantic Council called on Zelensky to form a “government of national unity” a month ago.

Adrian Karatnycky’s demand was made through his article for Politico and sold as the best way to preemptively avert potentially forthcoming protests with the innuendo being that it could also neutralize any possibly impending plans for a military coup that could occur independently of those protests. The dilemma that Zelensky found himself in is that complying with Karatnycky’s proposal could signal weakness and lead to the end of his political career while removing Zaluzhny could lead to a mutiny.

Delaying any action also has its detriments too since grassroots and military pressure could reach uncontrollable proportions in the coming future, further worsening the strategic situation that he found himself in. Russia’s foreign spy agency didn’t mention any military reshuffle plans in their statement earlier this week, however, which might be because they were unaware of them or wagered that it’s better not to comment since doing so could influence the process in ways adverse to their interests.

In any case, the sequence of events from mid-December up until Wednesday’s IL-76 incident – especially the aforementioned statement that preceded Bryen’s report about Zelensky’s plans to replace Zaluzhny with the much more politically reliable Budanov by a single day – suggested deepening intrigue in Kiev. After what just happened following Kiev’s downing of a plane full of Ukrainian POWs by American-advised air defense operators, the public pretext has now been created for replacing him if he wants to.

That’s not to say that Zelensky will certainly do so since any such a move is fraught with the very real risk of blowback due to how popular Zaluzhny is among the armed forces and civil society, but both categories of his supporters might only put up mild resistance if he’s blamed for this incident. It’s not implausible that Zelensky will either directly blame him or do so via media surrogates since he himself wants to eschew responsibility and he definitely doesn’t want anyone pointing fingers at America.

All things considered, blaming Zaluzhny – perhaps by claiming that he should have verified alleged intelligence about the IL-76’s cargo before shooting it down in order to make this seem like an unfortunate accident – is the most politically convenient option at Zelensky and his US patron’s disposal. It could shift the blame from them to him and facilitate Zaluzhny’s replacement with Budanov without much resistance from the armed forces or civil society.

As for why the US might want him to go, it could be that he’s deemed more amendable to the peace talks that America’s leading liberal-globalist policymaking faction is still reluctant to relaunch, in which case they could fear that a possible coup would stop their proxy war plans and doom Biden’s re-election. They might of course also calculate that the risk of a coup, which could possibly be preceded by large-scale protests across the country in his support, would spike with his removal and thus call it off.

Whatever ultimately ends up happening, it’s important for observers not to extend credence to CNN and Ukraine’s conspiracy theories about Russia accidentally shooting down its own plane and it supposedly only carrying S-300s respectively, since Kiev definitely knew that there were POWs on board. It therefore remains to be seen why its American-advised air defense operators still shot it down, but more clarity is expected as time passes and the military and/or political consequences of this incident become known.

Source: Korybko.substack.com

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post The IL-76 Shootdown By A US Patriot Missile Could Lead To Zaluzhny’s Replacement With Budanov appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Senate Opens Door to Massive Carbon Tax Despite Critical Economic Concerns

Energy News Beat

This week, Congress took a step toward passing a carbon tax—an inflationary, regressive tax on all products that would lower economic growth; make all Americans worse off; and disproportionately harm poor people, farmers, and small businesses. Politicians have rightly rejected carbon taxes in the past and should continue to do so.

On Jan. 18, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted to send a proposed law to the full Senate that would require the federal government to conduct a study calculating the carbon emissions of a broad range of different products made in America and other countries. These include construction materials, plastics, and fertilizers—all vital to small businesses and corporations that power the economy.

This study is the first step to imposing a carbon tax on these products. The bill, sponsored by Sens. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., and Chris Coons, D-Del., is titled the Providing Reliable, Objective, Verifiable Emissions Intensity and Transparency (PROVE IT) Act.

The bill’s proponents say they are responding to carbon taxes in Europe, which will be implemented in 2024. The European Union, which has 21 countries with a carbon tax, is preparing laws to tax imports based on greenhouse gases emitted in their production. This border tax proposal is meant to prevent companies from shifting production outside the EU to avoid carbon taxes.

The complexity of this proposed European legislation, and the pushback from emerging economies, is one reason that it is unwise for America to follow. Europe’s current carbon taxes do not cover carbon emissions from all products. On average, the carbon tax covers 38% of total national carbon emissions, ranging from a high of 81% in Liechtenstein with a rate of $131 per ton to a low of 2% in Spain with a rate of $16 per ton.

In taxing carbon dioxide, Congress would end up reducing energy use while, according to carbon tax proponents, raising revenue that might permit a reduction of income tax rates to compensate.

The U.S. Treasury estimated in 2017 that a carbon tax of $49 per ton, rising at 2% a year, would raise $2.2 trillion over 10 years. Such a carbon tax would raise taxes on gasoline by 44 cents per gallon, on natural gas by about $2.60 per thousand cubic feet, on oil by $21.50 per barrel, and on coal by $62 to $126 per ton, depending on its carbon content.

The carbon tax is a favorite of individual economists across the political spectrum for restructuring the tax system. Proponents include Tuft University’s Gilbert Metcalf, American Enterprise Institute scholar Alex Brill, and Donald Marron and Eric Toder of the Tax Policy Center. The Climate Leadership Council, which cleverly refers to the carbon tax as “carbon dividends,” has as its founding members former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Harvard professors Larry Summers and Greg Mankiw, and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen (listed on the website as inactive due to her current position).

But a carbon tax has four major disadvantages—it is inflationary and regressive, it causes regional disparities, it is complex, and it drives production offshore. America is stronger without it.

Inflationary and Regressive. One major problem with the carbon tax is that it would raise prices, because all products contain carbon. Inflation is running at almost 4% and has reduced Americans’ real incomes. Since low-income people spend more on energy as a percent of their income than high-income people, a switch to a carbon tax would have to be accompanied by income transfers to low-income groups—i.e., some type of subsidy paid for by taxpayers.

Proponents suggest that offsets, paid for by carbon tax revenues, can be returned to taxpayers through lower income taxes, perhaps with the proceeds going chiefly to poor people who are disproportionately hurt by what is in essence an energy consumption tax.

However, Congress rarely cuts one tax by as much as it raises another tax, so Americans will end up paying more in taxes. Further, many poor people are not required to file tax returns, and they would have to do so in order to be identified and compensated. That means extra work for them and for the Internal Revenue Service.

Regional Disparities. Another problem is that carbon-intensive sectors, such as coal, heavy manufacturing, and agriculture, would be the biggest losers under the new tax. This means higher prices for food and gasoline for everyone, especially in rural areas, as well as companies announcing that they are moving offshore. Farmers in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium are rioting against the new climate provisions.

Complexity. A carbon tax is complex to set up, as can be seen from the PROVE IT Act. The bill selects which products are analyzed and then open to be taxed. Practically all products have some carbon in the content or in the manufacturing process or both, even food and clothing. That is why European carbon taxes range from 2%  to 81% of carbon emissions.

Proponents of the tax suggest putting tariffs on imports in proportion to their carbon content so that American companies will not be at a disadvantage. But the precise quantities are complex to calculate, and tariffs might be illegal under World Trade Organization regulations.

Greater Offshore Production Increases Global Emissions. Carbon taxes raise the prices of domestic energy-intensive goods compared to imports from countries without carbon taxes. If American goods were taxed, Americans would prefer to buy cheaper, untaxed imports, and American firms would relocate abroad to avoid the tax or lose business to foreign companies.

This potential relocation reduces the goal of the tax, namely to lower global emissions and global temperatures. It also potentially sends millions of jobs overseas.

With production going abroad to countries with less stringent environmental regulations, global emissions might well rise rather than decline. Without a carbon tax, U.S. carbon emissions declined by 1,000 million metric tons over the past 16 years due to the substitution of natural gas for coal. Other countries do not have America’s inexpensive natural gas and rely more on coal. Therefore, companies relocating overseas would rely on dirtier, coal-produced energy.

A carbon tax would hurt the poor and raise domestic prices relative to the prices of many imports. It would be another add-on levy, with exemptions for political friends and punishments for enemies. The PROVE IT Act is a first step toward the tax, and Congress would be wise to reject the bill.

Source: Dailysignal.com

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Senate Opens Door to Massive Carbon Tax Despite Critical Economic Concerns appeared first on Energy News Beat.

 

Nuclear power output expected to break global records in 2025

Energy News Beat

Nuclear power generation is likely to break records in 2025 as more countries invest in reactors to fuel the shift to a low-carbon global economy, while renewable energy is likely to overtake coal as a power source early next year, data has shown.

China, India, Korea and Europe are likely to have new reactors come on stream, while several in Japan are also forecast to return to generation, and French output should increase, according to a report on the state of global electricity markets published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) on Wednesday.

Electricity demand is also expected to increase around the world, fuelled largely by the move to a low-carbon economy. Electric vehicles and heat pumps, as well as many low-carbon industrial processes, require electricity rather than oil and gas.

Continuing rapid growth in renewable energy supply means these additional demands are likely to be covered in full by generation from wind, solar and other clean energy sources. Renewables will make up roughly a third of total electricity generation globally by early next year.

Dave Jones, the insights director at energy thinktank Ember, said the findings marked a potential turning point. “It’s the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era,” he said. “Finally, the world seems like it is past peak fossil power, a crucial milestone in the energy transition. [This report] shows that 2023 will mark the end of fossil power growth. As of this year we are likely to be in a new era of declining fossil power.”

But he added: “Peaking is not enough – we need deep and rapid CO2 cuts to keep within our vanishingly small carbon budget. We are doing the right things, we just need to do them even faster.”

Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director, hailed the developments as a positive sign for the fight against climate breakdown, though he said far more effort was needed.

“The power sector produces more carbon dioxide emissions than any other in the world economy, so it’s encouraging to see that the rapid growth of renewables and a steady expansion of nuclear power are on course to match all the increase in global electricity demand over the next three years,” he said.

“This is largely thanks to the huge momentum behind renewables, with ever cheaper solar leading the way, and support from the important comeback of nuclear power. While more progress is needed, and fast, these are very promising trends.”

The IEA’s annual analysis of market developments and policies, Electricity 2024, published on Wednesday, showed that global electricity demand increased by 2.2% in 2023, and was likely to reach about 3.4% from 2024 to 2026. Most of the increase was expected to come from rapidly emerging economies:chiefly China, India and south-east Asia.

However, the IEA also warned that the growth of power capacity was still uneven around the world. For instance, while electricity supply has increased overall in Africa, on a per capita basis power use across the continent has remained stagnant for more than three decades.

This is a brake on economic and social development, as people in poverty turn to polluting sources of energy such as biomass and paraffin. A lack of readily available electricity also holds back children from education and imperils health whenever hospitals experience blackouts.

Birol said: “The international community needs to work with African governments to enable the urgent progress [in electricity access] that is needed.”

Africa has some of the world’s greatest potential for solar and wind generation, and many of the vital minerals needed for renewable generation components, but would-be generators face large obstacles in the form of a high cost of capital for renewable energy projects. Many governments are urging institutions such as the World Bank to adjust their practices to make such development easier.

Source: Amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org

1031 Exchange E-Book

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

The post Nuclear power output expected to break global records in 2025 appeared first on Energy News Beat.