Month: June 2024

The EV Tax Credit Is a Climate Lemon

By Oliver McPherson-Smith

The Inflation Reduction Act’s consumer tax credit for electric vehicles (EVs) is a fiscal blowout and a gift to Chinese mineral companies. If that isn’t bad enough, it also swindles American taxpayers into paying up to $821 per ton of avoided emissions, which is several multiples above the Biden Administration’s own estimates of the cost of carbon. At that staggering price, the scheme is a spectacularly inefficient way to reduce emissions.

Through the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, taxpayers subsidize the purchase of new electric vehicles by up to $7,500. But how many tons of carbon emissions does that actually stop from reaching the atmosphere? Compared to a conventional vehicle, the International Energy Agency estimates that using an EV avoids the equivalent of around 22.24 tons of carbon dioxide across its lifecycle. This means that the EV tax credit costs around $337 to avoid each ton of carbon emissions.

However, the true cost is actually higher because proper accounting should exclude EV consumers who would buy electric vehicles regardless of the tax credit. Because the tax credit doesn’t sway those consumers, the associated avoided emissions shouldn’t be attributed to the credit. The credit has the same $7,500 value, but the scheme is actually avoiding fewer carbon emissions, so the price per ton is higher.

According to a 2021 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, 70% of consumers who claimed the federal EV tax credit would have done so in its absence, which would imply a $1,123 implicit cost of carbon. Since then, the Inflation Reduction Act introduced new conditions on the tax credit, including limits on eligibility for high-income buyers. Even if one generously assumes that the remaining pool of very motivated buyers is only half the size — meaning only 35% would purchase an EV without it — then the implicit cost of carbon is still $519 per ton.

The federal splurge on carbon gets a further boost thanks to President Biden’s onerous fuel efficiency standards. Mandating higher fuel efficiency means that a shift from a conventional vehicle to an EV has less of an effect in terms of avoided emissions. In May 2022, the Department of Transportation mandated that new cars on the roads in 2026 be 33% more fuel efficient than the 2021 standards. When consumers choose EVs over these more efficient gas-fueled vehicles, the implicit price of carbon within the EV credit jumps to $775. As the Biden Administration progressively ratchets these efficiency standards higher, so too goes the implicit price on carbon. By 2031, federal taxpayers will be forking over the equivalent of $821 for each ton of carbon the EV tax credit prevents from reaching the atmosphere.

Frittering away more than $800 for a ton of carbon is a rip-off that not even the most unscrupulous used car salesman could dream up. Compare this figure to recent estimates of the “social cost of carbon,” which the federal government uses to quantify the impact of emissions when making regulatory decisions. While the Trump Administration estimated it to be between $1 to $7 per ton, the Biden Administration blew the roof off in 2023 by raising that cost to $190. That progressive overstatement now looks like a steal.

Even within the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax and spend circus, the EV tax credit is a spectacularly wasteful way to reduce carbon emissions. For example, the natural gas tax, which solely punishes the oil and gas industry under a thin guise of environmentalism, levies a fee equivalent to $36 per ton of carbon. Meanwhile, the tax credit for vacuuming emissions out of the air is worth up to $180 per ton. These dramatically different prices, even within a single act of Congress, underscore the practical futility of calculating an efficient price on carbon for a carbon tax or tariff.

Progressives like to measure the success of their policies by how much taxpayer money they can burn through, and the White House periodically reminds taxpayers that the Inflation Reduction Act is the largest single climate spending spree in human history. What they don’t mention is that the American public is being ripped off at the car lot with a climate lemon of a tax credit.

Oliver McPherson-Smith, Ph.D., is the Director of the Center for Energy & Environment at the America First Policy Institute and a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/rMDXn6L

June 12, 2024 at 08:05AM

How Jacinda Ardern left New Zealand on the brink of blackouts

By Paul Homewood

 

 

image

Sir Keir Starmer is standing by a pledge to ban new drilling in the North Sea, despite New Zealand abandoning a similar policy amid blackout fears.

Labour’s manifesto, due out on Thursday, will feature a pledge to block all new licensing for oil and gas as one of its key energy policies.

The party “will not be issuing licences to explore new [oil and gas] fields as we accelerate to clean power”, a Labour spokesman confirmed on Tuesday.

It follows last weekend’s announcement that New Zealand’s government was lifting a ban on new oil and gas exploration.

The ban was announced by former prime minister Jacinda Ardern in 2018. “The world has moved on from fossil fuels,” Ardern proclaimed at the time.

New Zealand’s trailblazing policy, which was the first of its kind, became a key inspiration for the Labour Party’s own plan.

However, some in the party are now questioning the commitment after New Zealand resources minister Shane Jones last weekend denounced its own ban as a disaster – and revoked it.

It followed three years of rising energy prices that have left 110,000 households unable to warm their homes, 19pc of households struggling with bills and 40,000 of them having their power cut off due to unpaid bills, according to Consumer NZ.

Since April the situation has further deteriorated: Transpower, the equivalent of our National Grid, warned that the nation was at high risk of blackouts.

New Zealand’s shift to renewables meant it no longer had the generating power to keep the lights on during the cold spells that mark the Antipodean winter, said Transpower, as it begged consumers to cut their electricity consumption.

‘.

image

.

The threat to New Zealand’s energy security comes despite the fact that geologists have discovered billions of cubic metres of natural gas in the seabeds around the country.

Sean Rush, a leading New Zealand barrister specialising in petroleum licensing law and climate litigation, called the oil and gas ban “economic vandalism at its worst in exchange for virtue signalling at its finest”.

Rush warned Labour off a copycat policy, saying: “There will be no benefits to UK energy security by banning new exploration drilling. You will simply disown an industry in which the UK has been world-leading.”

Jones said last week: “Natural gas is critical to keeping our lights on and our economy running, especially during peak electricity demand and when generation dips because of more intermittent sources like wind, solar and hydro.”

Such warnings are echoed by energy experts in the UK, where over 75pc of total energy consumed still comes from oil and gas.

Half comes from UK waters – but it too will drop off a cliff if Labour implements a ban on new drilling, warns the industry.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/12/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-blackout-keir-starmer-learn/

.

Although New Zealand gets more than half its electricity from hydro, only 7% comes from wind and solar. Hence the need for fossil fuels.

Meanwhile the idiots who will be in charge of the UK in a few weeks time carry on living in La La Land:

Last night a Labour spokesman said the UK would do better than New Zealand.

“Unlike this government, we will have a proper plan to take advantage of our North Sea resources in carbon capture, hydrogen and offshore wind, to deliver for our coastal communities and workers.

“Labour’s plan to make the UK a clean energy superpower will reduce the UKs dependence on imported energy, as we increase the percentage of British renewable and nuclear power in our energy mix.”

 

Carbon capture? So they have decided we will still need fossil fuels, it just won’t come from the North Sea!

You could not make it up!

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/jM6n2pX

June 12, 2024 at 08:01AM

Global Heating Will Increase Parasite Outbreaks–SSW

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Paul Kolk

 

First we had the boss of Network Rail blaming the Stonehaven crash on global warming, before his company was fined for negligence.

Now SSW are trying to deflect the blame for the cryptosporidium outbreak in Devon:

 

 

image

The owner of South West Water has warned that global heating will increase the risk of outbreaks of the parasite that caused diarrhoea and vomiting in south Devon. Pennon Group said that “gradual and significant increasing average and high temperatures” could pose “risks to water quality and water treatment” – including the cryptosporidium parasite – in its annual report, published this week

https://www.sharecast.com/news/press-round-up-short-premium/wednesday-newspaper-round-up-entain-invesco-deltic-energy–16930096.html

.

As the BBC reported a month ago, responsibility for the outbreak lay solely with SSW themselves:

image

The boss of South West Water (SWW) says she is "truly sorry" for the outbreak of a diarrhoea-type illness in south Devon.

A total of 22 cases of cryptosporidiosis were confirmed in the Brixham area by UKHSA on Wednesday, with more than 100 people reporting symptoms to their GP in the last week.

SWW said it believed it had located the source where the parasite could have entered the water network.

About 16,000 homes and businesses have been served boil water notices, with SWW CEO Susan Davy saying the company had "fallen significantly short".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgyg47wg16o

The idea that slightly warmer reservoirs will make any difference to the parasite is patent nonsense, and fraudulent.

The simple fact is that cryptosporidium is already endemic in the UK, and around the world regardless of climate.

That is why water companies are supposed to go to such lengths in water treatment to kill of parasites like this one and many others.

That is why in the last two months at least two petting farms, which invite families to cuddle barnyard animals, have also been hit by suspected cryptosporidium outbreaks.

It’s a simple question of hygiene, not climate.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/W8vuL7c

June 12, 2024 at 07:37AM

Hydrogen CfD Costs

By Paul Homewood

 

 

In my post on hydrogen costings yesterday, I had forgotten that the government had already awarded CfDs for small hydrogen projects a few months ago:

image

Following the launch of the first hydrogen allocation round (HAR1) in July 2022, we have selected the successful projects to be offered contracts. We are pleased to announce 11 successful projects, totalling 125MW capacity.

HAR1 puts the UK in a leading position internationally: this represents the largest number of commercial scale green hydrogen production projects announced at once anywhere in Europe. This round will provide over £2 billion of revenue support from the Hydrogen Production Business Model, which will start to be paid once projects become operational. Over £90 million from the Net Zero Hydrogen Fund has been allocated to support the construction of these projects.

We have conducted a robust allocation process to ensure only deliverable projects that represent value for money are awarded contracts. The 11 projects have been agreed at a weighted average [footnote 1] strike price of £241/MWh (£175/MWh in 2012 prices). This compares well to the strike prices of other nascent technologies such as floating offshore wind and tidal stream.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hydrogen-production-business-model-net-zero-hydrogen-fund-shortlisted-projects/hydrogen-production-business-model-net-zero-hydrogen-fund-har1-successful-projects

My costings yesterday came to an estimate of £246/MWh, so I must have been on the right track!

 

The  above projects appear to be largely reliant on buying up chunks of renewable energy from solar and onshore wind farms. Offshore wind would be dearer of course.

And what we also need to remember is that the aforesaid wind and solar power may already be heavily subsidised, so the price paid by these hydrogen projects probably understate the true cost.

Of course, just buying up existing renewable energy does not make the hydrogen “green”. The power will still come off the grid as a mixture from various sources. It is in effect just an accounting trick, a mirage. The only way they can claim it is “green” is if the electrolysers are directly linked to a wind or solar farm; in practice this would make the whole operation horribly intermittent and inefficient.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/YaLR4ls

June 12, 2024 at 05:19AM