Showing posts with label EV alternative energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EV alternative energy. Show all posts

Friday, January 31, 2025

Subsidizing Error

Anthropic CEO Amodei said he was relatively confident that AI technology would surpass human intelligence in the next two or three years.

***

Gabbard, Trump’s national intelligence pick, was raised in a religious group tied to a firm suspected of running an international scam. A lot of smear/counter-smear at work in the hearings yesterday.

***


The CIA has concluded that the Covid-19 pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak, joining the FBI and Energy Department in identifying a mishap in Wuhan, China, as the virus’s probable source.

***


Subsidizing Error

Some numbers from the alternative energy distortion dance.

For decades, the federal government has propped up energy sources and technologies through subsidies and tax credits. From 2010 to 2023, the cumulative cost of these policies was $76 billion and $65 billion for solar and wind power, respectively, and $33 billion for oil and gas. Nuclear energy, meanwhile, received about $26 billion.

Not only have these subsidies been costly for taxpayers, but they have also proven ineffective in changing the energy landscape. Despite receiving more than twice the amount of money as fossil fuels and nuclear power since 2010, wind and solar only generated 10.2 percent and 3.9 percent of the country's electricity in 2023, respectively.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) supercharged subsidies for wind and solar energy while introducing new technology-specific tax credits for green hydrogen, nuclear power, sustainable aviation fuel, and more. Additionally, it established a $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles (E.V.s) assembled in North America. Households earning less than $300,000 and individuals earning less than $150,000 are also eligible for the one-time clean vehicle credit.

Initially projected at $369 billion over the next 10 years, these subsidies are now expected to add over $1 trillion to the federal deficit through 2032. And, with some provisions lacking an expiration date, this figure could feasibly reach $3 trillion.

Billions of dollars worth of solar and wind provisions have gone to companies like NextEra Energy—the world's largest utility company—and Chinese solar manufacturers.

Tax credits for EVs have been mostly cashed in by wealthy consumers who would have bought an electric vehicle without the credit anyway. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that every E.V. sold because of the IRA's credit costs taxpayers $32,000. $32,000.

Subsidies for wind and solar energy can cost up to $260 and $2,100, respectively, for every ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) reduced. For context, reforestation and tree planting cost about $10 per ton of CO2 reduced.

Just because a project is heartfelt and expensive does not mean it has value.

Friday, February 4, 2022

The Other Side of the Ledger


The Other Side of the Ledger


There are many a mystery in the world. Why do philosophies that result in mountains of dead people and poverty still get serious consideration from some? Why do people who favor decreasing law enforcement seem surprised when crime goes up? Why is the restriction of speech on campus seen as liberal? There are countless current beliefs that rival Middle Ages religion.

Perhaps the greatest current mystery--certainly in the damage promised--is the shift away from fossil fuel. Now this concept includes a basic, astonishing dogma: people and cultures who have not yet gained from the use of fossil fue
l will not get to do so.

Fossil fuel is available and cheap. Switching away will be very hard and expensive. But the ads are out. The car manufacturers already have slick, quick EVs. We're gonna do this. (Africa, however, will not be doing this. Nor are we going to let them use fossil fuel.)

The switch away from fossil fuels is based upon a speculation. The Little Ice Age in Europe began around 1300; a sharper and more abrupt onset of cold started in 1570 and lasted for about a hundred and ten years. Since then, there has been a rise in the earth's temperature. That rise is said to threaten life on earth and is said to be the result of fossil fuel use. The answer is to stop fossil fuel use.


The question of modeling here is probably the basic one. Are the modeling estimates convincing enough to reverse the greatest engine of economic, health, and comfort growth in history? That aside, what are the complexities? And what are the environmental and economic costs of this alternative miracle?

First, efficiency. Solar panels convert photons to electricity. The maximal conversion is about 33%. We currently are about 27% efficient. Wind turbines convert wind energy to electricity at about 60% max. Current technology is at about 45%. Coal efficiency is about 40% and natural gas efficiency is around 60%. This, coupled with the variability of the sun and wind, has stimulated the hope of a battery rescue.

There have not been significant advances in the battery in the last one hundred years. And the task is daunting. It is said that Tesla's huge battery factory in Nevada would need 500 years to build enough batteries to supply the U.S. with its needs for a single year. We could stack them on the border.

Second, the creation of a battery. A single EV battery weighs about 1/2 tons but requires the mining of 250 tons of earth for the minerals within it. Each. That is a huge project and will require a lot of environmental sacrifices. The scale is considerable. A 100 Megawatt wind farm could supply 75,000 American homes. However, it would take 30,000 tons of iron ore, 50,000 tons of concrete, and 900 tons of nonrecyclable plastics to build. Each. To build a solar farm for 75,000 homes would require 150% more iron ore, cement, and plastics. Each.

The mining of rare earths would have to increase by up to 2000%. This requires deference to nations incredibly hostile to the U.S., mostly child labor to turn a blind eye to, and an undetermined destruction of environmental resources with the historic risk of species extinction and the release of new perhaps toxic organisms. (China accounts for over 60% of rare earth element production in the world and controls around thirty percent of the world’s reserves, estimated at 99 million tons.)

There are other components. There are sizable energy requirements in the mining and refining. There is an unmeasured nonrecyclable waste. Wind and solar equipment last 20 years, gas turbines last 40. By 2050 the nonrecyclable solar waste will be 2X the current plastic waste. Plus wind and battery waste. (a lot from Mills)

Wealth does not come from making people safe. It comes from shortages.