US Why an energy crisis and $5 gas aren’t spurring a green revolution - As high prices move consumers to rethink their attachment to oil and gas, America is struggling to meet the moment


1655428700620.png

Electric power lines and wind turbines along Interstate 10 in Palm Springs, Calif. The United States' goal is for all carbon pollution to be gone from the electricity sector by 2035.

Big solar projects are facing major delays. Plans to adapt the grid to clean energy are confronting mountains of red tape. Affordable electric vehicles are in short supply.

The United States is struggling to squeeze opportunity out of an energy crisis that should have been a catalyst for cleaner, domestically produced power. After decades of putting the climate on the back burner, the country is finding itself unprepared to seize the moment and at risk of emerging from the crisis even more reliant on fossil fuels.

The problem is not entirely unique to the United States. Across the globe, climate leaders are warning that energy shortages prompted by Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and high gas prices driven by inflation threaten to make the energy transition an afterthought — potentially thwarting efforts to keep global temperature rise under 1.5 degrees Celsius.

“The energy crisis exacerbated by the war in Ukraine has seen a perilous doubling down on fossil fuels by the major economies,” U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said at a conference in Vienna on Tuesday, according to prepared remarks. He warned governments and investors that a failure to immediately and more aggressively embrace clean energy could be disastrous for the planet.

U.S. climate envoy John F. Kerry suggested that nations are falling prey to a flawed logic that fossil fuels will help them weather this period of instability, which has seen gas prices climb to a record-high national average of $5 per gallon. “You have this new revisionism suggesting that we have to be pumping oil like crazy, and we have to be moving into long-term [fossil fuel] infrastructure building,” he said at the Time100 Summit in New York this month. “We have to push back.”

1655428756055.png

Climate envoy John F. Kerry attends the Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles on June 8. Kerry has criticized the tendency to turn toward fossil fuels in times of uncertainty.

In the United States — the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China — the hurdles go beyond the supply chain crunch and sanctions linked to the war in Ukraine. The country’s lofty goals for all carbon pollution to be gone from the electricity sector by 2035 and for half the cars sold to be electric by 2030 are jeopardized by years of neglect of the electrical grid, regulatory hurdles that have set projects back years, and failures by Congress and policymakers to plan ahead.

The challenges are further compounded by plans to build costly new infrastructure for drilling and exporting natural gas that will make it even harder to transition away from the fossil fuel.

“We are running into structural challenges preventing consumers and businesses from going cleaner, even at this time of high oil and gas prices,” said Paul Bledsoe, a climate adviser in the Clinton administration who now works on strategy at the Progressive Policy Institute, a center-left think tank. “It is a little alarming that even now, Congress is barely talking about clean energy.”

Consumers are eager for more wind and solar. Companies looking to go carbon-neutral are facing growing waitlists for access to green energy, and a Pew Research Center poll in late January found that two-thirds of Americans want the United States to prioritize alternative energy over fossil fuel production.

But lawmakers have balked for more than a decade at making most of the fundamental economic and policy changes that experts widely agree are crucial to an orderly and accelerated energy transition. The United States does not have a tax on carbon, nor a national cap-and-trade program that would reorient markets toward lowering emissions. The unraveling in Congress of President Biden’s $1.75 trillion Build Back Better plan has added to the head winds that green-energy developers face.

1655428810551.png

Vice President Harris tours electric school buses at Meridian High School in Falls Church, Va., on May 20.

“There is literally nothing pushing this forward in the U.S. beyond the tax code and some state laws,” said Heather Zichal, a former White House climate adviser who is now the chief executive of the American Clean Power Association.

The effects of the U.S. government’s halting approach are being felt by solar-panel installers, who saw the number of projects in the most recent quarter fall to the lowest level since the pandemic began. There was 24 percent less solar installed in the first quarter of 2022 than in the same quarter of 2021.

The holdup largely stems from a Commerce Department investigation into alleged tariff-dodging by Chinese manufacturers. Faced with the potential for steep retroactive penalties, hundreds of industrial-scale solar projects were frozen in early April. Weak federal policies to encourage investment in solar manufacturing left American companies ill-equipped to fill the void.

“We shut down multiple projects and had to lay off dozens of people,” said George Hershman, chief executive of SOLV Energy, which specializes in large solar installations. SOLV, like dozens of other solar companies, is now scrambling to reassemble those projects after the administration announced a pause of the tariffs.

Meanwhile, adding clean electricity to the power grid has become an increasingly complicated undertaking, given the failure to plan for adequate transmission lines and long delays connecting viable wind and solar projects to the electricity network.

1655428866462.png

Bill Ford, executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company, speaks at the launch of the electric F-150 Lightning pickup at the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center on April 26 in Dearborn, Mich. Only 4 percent of vehicles sold in the United States last year were electric, but interest is growing.

While the United States is hitting some significant benchmarks in the transition to greener electricity, boasting record installations of clean power in the first quarter of this year, the rate of growth has slowed and lags where it needs to be to reach key climate goals. The country is not alone in this predicament.

The record growth in wind and solar last year was outpaced by the world’s rising demand for energy, according to Ember, a European think tank that tracks the energy transition. Clean power could meet only a third of that growth in 2021. The rest was largely met by burning more coal.

“We are seeing progress in the transition, but it is not fast enough,” said Roberto Bocca, head of energy at the World Economic Forum. “And it is not resilient enough to the increased volatility in the current economic and political environment.”

The United States needs to triple its pace of emissions reductions to meet the targets it has set for itself, according to a new study by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Electric Power Research Institute and other institutions.

There are numerous hurdles in the way, as outdated federal rules and local planning disputes slow projects down. In November, for instance, one of the country’s larger clean-energy projects faltered in the Northeast. Maine voters stymied plans for a transmission line that would bring enough clean electricity from hydroelectric plants fueled by dams in Canada to power 900,000 homes in New England.

1655428998124.png

In April 2021, workers mark land on a power-line corridor near Bingham, Maine, that was widened to make way for the New England Clean Energy Connect, a transmission line that would bring clean electricity from hydroelectric plants in Canada. A ballot initiative last November killed the project.

The plan was opposed by some local conservation groups that argued the lines would create an environmental menace in Maine’s North Woods and that hydroelectric power is detrimental to fragile aquatic ecosystems. But the most potent opposition came from energy companies heavily invested in fossil fuel, which spent $24 million supporting the ballot initiative campaign to kill the transmission line.

That fight was sobering to Richard Barringer, a champion of the project and former commissioner of conservation and director of state planning who had served three Maine governors.

“The very local opposition did not surprise me,” Barringer said. “What did surprise me was the amount of money that poured in.”

The vote reversed a years-long, multimillion-dollar state approval process during which, Barringer said, environmental concerns were thoroughly considered and mitigated. And voter antipathy toward the project was driven in large part by distrust for the local utility partner on it, Central Maine Power, which has a dismal customer service record and a history of outages.

The project, which supporters are asking the courts to get back on track, was a key building block of the climate action plan for New England’s most populous state, Massachusetts.

Its troubles are indicative of a much bigger nationwide challenge in building transmission lines for all forms of clean energy. The Department of Energy reports that transmission systems need to be expanded by 60 percent by 2030 to meet the administration’s goals. And they may need to triple in capacity by 2050.

Patching wind and solar projects into the grid infrastructure that does exist, meanwhile, is increasingly challenging. Over the last decade, the time it takes to get a project online has jumped from two years to longer than three and a half years, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Its researchers say grid operators are taking longer to study project viability and are overwhelmed by a dramatic rise in the number of projects in the queue.

The Biden administration is promising to ease congestion and shore up the grid through billions of dollars in spending on transmission lines and other improvements authorized in the infrastructure package that Congress passed. But it will probably be years before the upgrades and expansions are operational.

The operators of PJM Interconnection, a grid that serves 13 states stretching from North Carolina to Illinois, as well as D.C., are so backlogged with proposals for solar and wind farms that they are putting most of them on hold as they overhaul their procedures. The pause on new hookups, said Mary Kate Francis, director of energy sourcing at Edison Energy, a company that helps large companies secure clean power, means that “new projects companies wanted to develop in that area will face a multiyear wait to even be considered.”

Clean-power producers are also hitting numerous barriers in their bid to generate huge volumes of energy with offshore wind turbines. Among them is a provision in the House bill funding the Coast Guard mandating that only American ships can be involved in construction work on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Amid a shortage of such American ships and trained crews to operate them, wind energy developers warn, the measure would effectively halt production of offshore wind.

As the clean-electricity industry confronts these growing pains, promoters of electric cars are running into their own obstacles.

Government programs that exist to promote zero-emissions vehicle production are sending mixed signals to manufacturers and drivers as some tax credits expire, Congress delays extending them and regulations give automakers leeway to set their own timelines for getting more electric cars into showrooms.

A new report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance finds that the United States and other countries need to dramatically step up production to meet their goal of making all transportation carbon-neutral by 2050. It would require zero-emission cars and trucks to make up 61 percent of all vehicles sold worldwide by 2030.

1655429124770.png

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg discusses investments in the U.S. electric-vehicle charging network outside Transportation Department headquarters in Washington in February. The administration plans to install hundreds of thousands of new charging stations.

Only 4 percent of cars sold in the United States last year were electric vehicles.

The sticker price of a new electric vehicle is $10,000 more than a comparable gas-powered model, and lawmakers have so far balked at renewing some of the subsidies designed to bring the price down while the industry scales up. Even so, interest in the vehicles is so high that many buyers eager to get in an electric car or hybrid have found themselves instead on a waitlist.

A plan the administration unveiled Thursday to install hundreds of thousands of new charging stations will help accelerate the transition. But even more crucial right now are $7,500 federal tax credits that make the cars affordable for consumers. They have expired for several models and cannot be used to purchase used vehicles.

Joe Britton, executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, said the goal is clear: to flood the market with millions of electric cars a year — and to make them in the United States. To that end, the group is aggressively lobbying Congress to extend the tax credits.

“We need to scale, and we need to make sure we are making these vehicles here,” Britton said.




"Reeeeeee muh green revolution isn't working!!"
:thinking:
 
Correction: green energy is too early to implement completely. Eliminating existing options isn't going to have people just adapt to whatever new energy craze is on the news.
That would require patience and working the kinks of of green tech. Powers that be are more concerned with the potential for control however and want to get to the fun stuff now.
 
This should say everything about 'green' energy as popularized in media.

View attachment 3396104
View attachment 3396113
As I personally maintain, people have confused 'gizmo-green' with actual green- the former is simply another form of cons00merism that largely tries to maintain mainstream standards of wasteful living (eat the bug burgers, live in the pods, keep cons00ming).
The capacity factor needed for solar panels and batteries is insane. You need 150% of your usage as batteries for night power (the extra is because you need a buffer to preserve the life of the battery). Solar panels only generate peak power for a few hours a day, so you need more panels to generate enough power in the morning and evening (so you have to use the morning rating, not the noon rating, which requires more panels). Days get shorter for half the year, so you need enough panels to generate all your power on the Winter Solstice. You also need more panels to account for clouds; you can generate as little as 10% of the rated power on cloudy days, so you need ten times as many panels to account for overcast days. You need even more panels to account for peak loads; you can’t use average load because you can’t draw on the grid for brief peaks if you are independent or if the power goes out for extended periods of time. Batteries can help with this, but you have to be careful not to consume too much power unless you have a ton of batteries or else you won’t have power during the night. You also need enough panels to charge your batteries while using energy to do household things. Also, you need even more panels to account for the loss in production over time so that in 20 years you can still meet your energy needs. If you have an electric car or two, you need to double or triple your setup because those things use more power than a house (one of the F-150 Lightning’s selling points is it can power your house for 10 days, which means if you depleted it and want it fully charged by tomorrow morning, you need to have enough panels and batteries to power your house for 11 days (21 days if you have two cars)). It also is probably a good idea to get a fire suppression system for your garage to stop your house from burning down if your batteries catch on fire. One last thing, if you aren’t connected to the grid, you need somewhere to dump all the extra energy you’re producing on good days (likely as heat) or some sort of shade to cover up the panels.

My math is a little pessimistic and handwavy here, but the point is that if you want to be energy independent in a worse case scenario with a modern lifestyle using “green” tech, you will need a lot of money and space to keep the same reliability and capability that we are used to from our current grid. A truly independent household solar system with battery storage for a typical house with all the modern amenities costs well into the six figures. So at least the rich leftists won’t be affect by the green energy policies they support. If you used a fossil fuel generator instead, you would only need to have one large enough for your peak energy load, which is constant.

Utilities have the same problems, they just hide them by filling in the gaps with other energy sources. Nowhere is energy independent on renewable energy. California and Germany, the wokest power regions in the US and Europe respectively, would not be able to function if their neighbors refused to sell them power. Renewable energy is the most expensive form of energy by far if you have to rely exclusively on it. Its only use is to burn less gas or coal when it is sunny or windy out but you still need the non-renewable plant and you can buy a lot of gas or coal for the cost of a solar or wind farm.
 
Last edited:
Correction: green energy is too early to implement completely. Eliminating existing options isn't going to have people just adapt to whatever new energy craze is on the news.
No, it doesn’t work. For numerous technical reasons, but one is reactivity.

If you have low reactivity, you might notice when you turn on your dryer the house lights dim a bit. Basically one of the things the grid needs to do is handle sudden increases in load. If you want to turn on, say, a factory, you need high reactivity.

If you’ve even tried living with a solar panel on a camping trip, you know what I’m talking about. You can’t turn on a toaster and stove at the same time.

Solar and wind absolutely cannot do this. Think of solar as miles wide/an inch deep. Hydro, natural gas and nuclear are much better, but nothing beats coal.

We are not even talking about how non-recyclable solar panels and windmills are, or how most places do not have reliable sun and wind.

The idea that a grid that can power electric cars (lolno, we need as much copper as humanity has ever mined) can be powered by wind and solar is laughable.

I would like the green tech to work, but I don’t see it getting there before these lunatics put us back in a pre-industrial society and no one will have power at all.

This is all just either a fantasy or a lie. Or both, I suppose.
 
For starters, if you wanted to replace every single car in America with an EV, it would require us to mine more resources than what we ever mined existing on this planet.

Green energy solutions like solar power and wind farms are not reliable and can damage the environment still (toxic materials in solar panels, they also can drastically raise the temperature of their surrounding areas, windmills have killed birds and require petroleum based lubricant to remain operational).

Gee its almost like Green Energy is wishful thinking at best and outright impossible, expensive, and inefficient at its worst.
 
No, it doesn’t work. For numerous technical reasons, but one is reactivity.

If you have low reactivity, you might notice when you turn on your dryer the house lights dim a bit. Basically one of the things the grid needs to do is handle sudden increases in load. If you want to turn on, say, a factory, you need high reactivity.

If you’ve even tried living with a solar panel on a camping trip, you know what I’m talking about. You can’t turn on a toaster and stove at the same time.

Solar and wind absolutely cannot do this. Think of solar as miles wide/an inch deep. Hydro, natural gas and nuclear are much better, but nothing beats coal.

We are not even talking about how non-recyclable solar panels and windmills are, or how most places do not have reliable sun and wind.

The idea that a grid that can power electric cars (lolno, we need as much copper as humanity has ever mined) can be powered by wind and solar is laughable.

I would like the green tech to work, but I don’t see it getting there before these lunatics put us back in a pre-industrial society and no one will have power at all.

This is all just either a fantasy or a lie. Or both, I suppose.
IMO, solar shouldn't be the linchpin of energy, but rather something supplemental, to lighten the burden on the grid. Put some panels on your house so you aren't entirely dependent on outside power.
 
IMO, solar shouldn't be the linchpin of energy, but rather something supplemental, to lighten the burden on the grid. Put some panels on your house so you aren't entirely dependent on outside power.
I agree 100%. All of these alternative power sources have an appropriate use case, and we should do it everywhere it makes sense.

Is anyone else old enough to remember how in at least the 80s and 90s, California would mandate some sort of fuel efficiency or emissions target, and all automakers would jump through hoops to engineer something to meet them, because they didn’t want to miss out on the California market?

I feel like a) they picked some low-hanging fruit and b) started thinking that regulations could cause any problem to be solved (wet streets cause rain). So now they expect to just issue targets and <hand wave> lesser mortals iron out the minor details.

But we now just have multi-faceted, complicated problems. Which could be improved, probably, but there is no reasoning with the nutters running everything.
 
The truth is

No matter how much the greenies wish, no matter how much they twist and contort the issues

The raw truth is that we do no currently have the technology to match the energy density of fossils fuels. Oil is 300 million years of concentrated sunlight in a tiny easily transported drop.

It's got a million uses aside from energy but of course the greenies and their shills would never admit to that even as they type out their ridiculous plans on devices built on oil, powered by oil, transported to the store by oil while eating food grown by oil and yet they still STILL! think we can just snap our fingers and drop oil as if its just something we do for shits and giggles.

I almost believe its not just sheer stupidity but honest to god will full blindness on their part to keep pushing for a oil free world. Yes we need to get a handle on pollution and the absolute raping that China and India are doing to the oceans but that shit ain't happening anytime soon. All "going green" will do it wipe out the middle class, leaving the elites, who of course can use oil products because some animals are just more equal then others, the sole class with a decent quality of life.

And I swear this is the plan. Convince everyone to drop oil and go back to scraping a living out of the dirt why they, the chosen elites, go on to keep living high on the hog.
 
Just like the tale of the guy who apparently made a water powered engine who suddenly woke up with two shots at the back of the head. It seems for these alt fuel innovations to catch on, it needs to be spread like crack. Or designs be sold to countries that would make far better use of it which would force the current rulers to suddenly "adopt" this.

Also, won't be surprised if looking up any of the designs would get you red-flagged like they do with explosives.

Kinda like the security guard killed in the Buffalo shooting?

 
I would like the green tech to work, but I don’t see it getting there before these lunatics put us back in a pre-industrial society and no one will have power at all.
Its unfortunate that the politics around these causes full of zealots tend to not allow for this kind of nuance. So often, if you point out that a "solution" doesn't work or makes things worse, you're shouted down as "not wanting to fix the problem". So many just want to feel like they're "doing something" even if its ineffective and actually counterproductive.
 
Wouldn't the better answer to climate change be to secrete carbon from the atmosphere? It's insane to call lithium batteries "green technology", they're anything but.
 
Well what else are we supposed to use, you autistic fuckass?
Expensive energy is a problem because of long term development that assumes expensive energy is unthinkable. You could easily build things to be far less energy-intensive over, say, in the 50 years since the last oil crisis. There was just no need to do it. Even the smallest compromise or change in overall lifestyles was a bridge too far, because expensive energy is unthinkable. Even if the other lifestyle is a lot better for some people. They can’t have it, because it would threaten the autistic obsession with driving cars for everywhere even if there’s no reason to do so.

But now the unthinkable is happening and no one can apply the brakes.

To reiterate: The alternative to an energy-intensive lifestyle is an energy-respecting lifestyle. Replacing your energy intensive gas-fired vehicle with an energy intensive battery-powered vehicle does not do much. You are still fundamentally dependent on low cost energy, just slightly less than before. Electric vehicles are a cope, not a solution.
 
the autistic obsession with driving cars for everywhere even if there’s no reason to do so.
There's also the problem that me having a 30-mile-round-trip to work, with no public transit alternative available, and not likely to ever be, is chalked up as me being "autistic" or "obsessed" with my car by the same people writing policy.

If you want me to use something else, you'll have to provide it and not just leave me to "figure it out" or "do the right thing" by the environment, I gotta eat at the end of the day, (which requires groceries, which also requires a round-trip in the same areas) so the "right" thing? Me "figuring it out"? is to own a car, and the only kind I can afford is secondhand, which by definition right now is a traditional gas powered car.

And, for that? I get blamed for being the problem and not being willing to "sacrifice"

If I may be so bold, you're darn right.

I'm not sacrificing my ability to reasonably support myself. And until they build an office and a grocer across the street from me, it's unreasonable to assign me moral or legal blame for DRIVING to said places because the closest ones are a half-hour away.

Like someone upthread said, too many of these green ideas flat out ignore the hard economic and social realities that are what PUT people into cars every day, not that we cackle like villains as we drive down the road to our jobs, screaming "YOU"LL NEVER LIMIT MY FREEDOM! TAKE THAT! MOTHER NATURE!"

And too many policy-setters think we do because they never actually ask themselves why we do what we do, they just assume our deviance from the "correct" way of living (the blue city standard, naturally) is proof of our moral rot, so we can be literally unplugged for our dissonance.

We asked for it.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure....

It's also hypocrisy, the millions of commuters who go to work every day are the ones ultimately responsible for their fortunes, they tend to write these unsustainable edicts either ignorant of that, or, in a vain attempt to justify their continuing draining of Lake Meade to keep their lawns, pools and golf courses (absolute luxuries, unlike my job commute) full and lush with water..... in a desert.... "Well, certainly I"M not at fault for anything! I told everyone to buy a Tesla!"

You wanna talk about "autisticly obsessed" ? Why does every one of them have a mansion? Sometimes several? And never agrees to turn down THEIR ac?
 
Last edited:
In certain countries, yes. In others like the US it's an artificially created problem.
Germany as well. So many nice things we COULD have will never happen because of political spergery, bureaucracy or Not in my Backyard shit.

Public transport will stay shit, the railway will stay shit and Internet infrastructure will stay shit etc etc. But eh, who cares when unchecked immigration will make us a third world shithole anyways in the next 20-40 years.
 
Back