Major automakers’ production plans for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (EVs and PHEVs) “are far below sales targets set by countries,” announced the International Energy Agency (IEA) in a press release accompanying the agency’s newly updated Electric Vehicle Roadmap report.
Major manufacturer production plans add up to 0.9 million units by 2015 and 1.4 million annually by 2020. In contrast, governments have set sales targets of 1.5 million units by 2015 and 7 million annually by 2020.
Evidently, policymakers have mis-underestimated (as a former President might say) market demand for EVs and PHEVs. The gap between production plans and political targets would be larger still without political props for those vehicles such as a federal tax credit up to $7,500 and billions in federal R&D support.
IEA believes more incentives and R&D — including coordinated federal, state, and local support for re-charging infrastructure — will do the trick. Now there’s a big surprise!
Arthur Brisbane of the NYT this weekend published an op-ed which reads a bit like a ‘mea culpa’ in response to repeated criticisms of reporter Ian Urbina’s jumbling attack on natural gas hydraulic fracturing published late last month:
I also asked why The Times didn’t include input from the energy giants, like Exxon Mobil, that have invested billions in natural gas recently. If shale gas is a Ponzi scheme, I wondered, why would the nation’s energy leader jump in?
Mr. Urbina and Adam Bryant, a deputy national editor, said the focus was not on the major companies but on the “independents” that focus on shale gas, because these firms have been the most vocal boosters of shale gas, have benefited most from federal rules changes regarding reserves and are most vulnerable to sharp financial swings. The independents, in industry parlance, are a diverse group that are smaller than major companies like Exxon Mobil and don’t operate major-brand gas stations.
[click to continue…]
Exhausting the Reserve Fund: The Big Picture Limits to Big Government
Richard Ebeling, Master Resource, 18 July 2011
Phony “Reform” Emerges on Ethanol
Tim Carney, Washington Examiner, 17 July 2011
Britain’s Green Suicide
Matt Ridley, Rational Optimist, 17 July 2011
Why Hasn’t the Earth Warmed in 15 Years?
Patrick Michaels, Forbes, 15 July 2011
Greenpeace Destroys Crops in Act of Eco-terrorism
Miles Gough, Cosmos, 14 July 2011
In the summer of 2009, former Rep. Rick Boucher* (D-VA) negotiated a deal on behalf a small block of lawmakers representing coal-dependent districts in the House of Representatives, whereby they agreed to support the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy-rationing bill (the American Clean Energy and Security Act) in exchange for generous taxpayer subsidies for carbon capture and sequestration. CCS is an as-yet-undemonstrated technology that would capture millions of tons of greenhouse gases, concentrate them, and then pipe them into underground geologic formations for permanent storage. The imprudence of Rep. Boucher’s “deal” was evidenced last Thursday, when American Electric Power, an Ohio-based utility, shelved a $668 million pilot project to retrofit with CCS a 1,300 megawatt coal-fired power plant in New Haven, West Virginia. The Department of Energy had agreed to pay for half the cost of the project, yet it was still too risky for AEP.
The failure of this CCS demonstration project, despite ultra-generous taxpayer subsidies, is not the only reason that lawmakers from coal-states should be wary of this “deal” (i.e., trading a cap-and-trade vote for CCS subsidies). Even if AEP had continued with the CCS retrofit, environmental extremists, for whom coal is an evil, would have litigated at every turn. Given the uncertain science of permanently storing millions of tons of gases underground, there would be virtually unlimited opportunities for these special interests to sue.
[click to continue…]
The price of everything is going up and much of the increase can be traced back to energy costs. With unemployment high and the economy threatening a double dip, wouldn’t you think our elected officials would be doing everything possible to cut energy costs and, therefore, lower prices to help ease the pain the public is feeling? Not!
Legislators in more than half the states have voted for mandatory renewable energy standards—usually called an RPS for Renewable Portfolio Standards. While the numbers vary state-by-state, an RPS generally requires that an increasing percentage of a state’s electricity come from renewable sources—primarily wind and solar—by set dates. Most of the mandates coincide with the year: 15% by 2015, 20% by 2020, etc. Most states voted in the RPS back when the economy was thriving and “green” energy sounded like a good idea—after all the wind and the sun are “free.” Voting against “renewables” was akin to not liking puppies. Elected officials from both parties have voted for their state’s RPS. But, renewable energy systems have not proven to be free, and most cannot survive without special mandates and subsidies paid for by your tax dollars.
[click to continue…]
House Votes To Block the Light Bulb Ban
The House on Friday passed the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2012. Included was an amendment adopted on a voice vote that would block the ban on standard incandescent light bulbs that is currently scheduled to start going into effect on January 1, 2012. The amendment was offered by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Tex.).
On Tuesday, the House failed to pass a stand-alone bill sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), H. R. 2417, that would repeal the ban permanently. The vote on the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act was 233 to 193, but failed because it was brought to the floor under a special, expedited procedure that requires a two-thirds majority. Ten Republicans voted No, but more surprisingly only five Democrats voted Yes. Democratic support for repealing the light bulb ban collapsed when Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and then the White House cracked the whip.
[click to continue…]
China Continues to Sail Forward with Coal
As the U.S. government wages war on coal, China is moving ahead with a number of large coal-mining projects to provide cheap, reliable energy to meet their ever-growing demand. The latest, in the Xinjiang region, is a project with U.S. based Peabody Energy Co. It is expected to produce 50 million metric tons per year, about 2% of China’s 2010 production of 3.3 billion metric tons and 3 times the annual U.S. production of roughly 1 billion metric tons. As China’s energy needs continue to increase, their production and consumption of coal is projected to steadily rise well into the future.
[click to continue…]
Following up on Marlo’s post yesterday concerning the difficulties of bringing cellulosic ethanol to market, the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial about the (lack of) fuel, and EPA’s decision to require refiners to buy ‘credits’ — Cellulosic Ethanol and Unicorns:
The EPA set the 2011 standard at six million gallons. Reality hasn’t cooperated. Zero gallons have been produced in the last six months and the corner isn’t visible over the next six months either. The EPA has only approved a single plant to sell the stuff, operated by Range Fuels near Soperton, Georgia. The company used to be a press corps favorite and has been lauded by the last two Presidents, but it shut down its cellulosic operations earlier this year to work through technical snafus.
[click to continue…]
Yesterday’s edition of Greenwire features an amazing column on cellulosic biofuels by reporter Paul Voosen. It’s got interviews with leading researchers, industrial history going back to WWII, science, economics, and the narrative suspense of a detective story.
Voosen’s main point: Despite substantial private and public investment, there have been “no Eureka moments” in the “long U.S. campaign” to scale up Nature’s digestive processes (found in fungi and the guts of termites, cows, dung beetles, and other fauna) to break down cellulose and create affordable alcohol fuels from prairie grasses, wood wastes, and other fibrous plant materials.
[click to continue…]
President Obama is refusing accept deals that would raise the federal debt ceiling because they would require him to accept cuts in wasteful green-jobs and rail boondoggles and stimulus spending: “The president has made a bipartisan agreement even more difficult by declaring certain spending off-limits to cuts. Mr. Obama’s ‘untouchable’ list includes his $1 trillion health-care reform, $128 billion in unspent stimulus funds, education and training outlays, his $53 billion high-speed rail proposal, spending on ‘green’ jobs and student loans, and virtually any structural changes to entitlements except further squeezing payments to doctors, hospitals and health-care professionals.” If the debt ceiling is not raised, America’s credit rating may be downgraded, leading to higher interest payments on the debt in the future.
Obama’s refusal to reconsider green-jobs spending is unfortunate given how such spending has backfired, effectively outsourcing thousands of American jobs at taxpayer expense. ABC News reports on the subsidies for Chinese wind turbines contained in the stimulus package:
[click to continue…]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org