How Trading Renewable Energy Will Grow the Industry

As the world becomes more environmentally aware, all eyes are on finding sustainable, long-term solutions to replace the use of non-renewable materials such as fossil fuels. Great steps are being taken to reduce greenhouse gases, notably carbon emissions, with recruiters like NES constantly looking to place talented individuals into key positions within the energy industry – but what could Europe’s renewable energy revolution have in store for the industry?

International power grid

Believe it or not, a relatively quiet mission is currently underway to create an economically significant and internationally successful power grid. It will help many countries benefit from natural resources like never before. It may sound like something from a futuristic movie, but an impressively intricate project has already begun to connect Britain to Norway’s huge hydroelectric power supplies.

The project will take years to complete, but when finished power lines running through a Norwegian mountain near Kvilldal will connect to Blythe in Northumberland via the longest undersea power cable in the world, stretching 450 kilometers.

The plan? To allow the UK and Norway to import and export natural power sources. The UK could import 1400 megawatts of electricity, enough to power over 750,000 homes. Norway will benefit from wind energy exported from the UK in a scheme that’s both intelligent and efficient.

The trade of surplus energy

The trade of surplus energy from one country to another forms the backbone of Europe’s renewable energy revolution. Using power interconnectors to link nations together in an eco-friendly way is a logical step when it comes to reducing emissions. But what does this mean for the future of energy usage?

An international power grid can theoretically produce more reliable energy supplies by helping to reduce the effects of intermittent energy produced by renewables such as wind and solar power.

Northern European countries, for instance, that produce large amounts of energy from the wind can trade electricity with sunnier European climates offering reliable and efficient solar power. The use of surplus energy is an innovative and forward-thinking approach to reducing the carbon footprint here on Earth and, if successful, could go a long way to reducing greenhouse gases. A successful international network of natural power could also drive down wholesale energy prices as people are given an alternative to how they fuel their lives.

Interconnectors already in use

With the Norwegian-UK project well underway, it’s also worth noting that interconnectors are already being used. The UK is connected to electricity sources in France and Ireland. Interconnectors in multiple other countries, including Belgium are in the advanced stages of planning or construction. Indeed a new interconnector linking the UK with France has recently been approved and looks set to power up to two million homes ensuring Britain’s energy supply is continuously resilient.

Europe’s large-scale renewable energy revolution will potentially make the world a greener environment with cleaner living gathering momentum across the globe.

Pay with rays

Tesla Cars Aren't As Carbon (And Taxpayer) Friendly As You Think

Authored by Duane Norman via Free Market Shooter,

Tesla proponents love to remind people how their vehicles are “carbon free” (in spite of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s own carbon profligate lifestyle):

Fact: the Tesla Model S is an environmentally friendly, zero emissions electric vehicle that won’t pollute the air like gas-powered cars. Carbon emissions from a gas car’s tailpipe has a dangerous impact on global warming…. In addition, Tesla CEO Elon Musk explains that, “combustion cars emit toxic gases. According to an MIT study, there are 53,000 deaths per year in the U.S. alone from auto emissions.”

But in reminding people about how they don’t burn fossil fuels, they make sure to omit and/or obfuscate all the other emissions-laden factors that go into production of Tesla automobiles, including the oft-unspoken costs of the vehicles to the taxpayer and to other auto manufacturers.

Start with the power source for the Tesla; their electric power plant uses lithium-ion batteries to store the electricity required to run the car.  And while a good amount of lithium is produced at salt lake brines that use chemical processes to extract the requisite lithium…

…a large (and growing) amount of lithium is sourced from hard-rock mining, which is also referred to as strip mining:

This type of mining involves not just all the carbon used to extract the lithium from mines, it “strips” the land of its forests, which is far more environmentally (and carbon) detrimental.  And while it is likely impossible to know exactly where Tesla sources its materials from, a closer examination on Tesla’s impact on the mining industry should paint a crystal clear picture:

Should the concept capture the imagination of Americans who are increasingly conscious of reducing their carbon footprint demand for these crucial elements could skyrocket in addition to the already robust global demand for lithium, nickel and copper. Major mining companies are already “future proofing” their businesses for climate change by focusing more investment into commodities that will be required by the renewable energy industry.

You can’t make this stuff up – Tesla and other renewable energy industries are going to save the world by mining its natural resources to excess, without regard for the environmental impact and carbon emissions generated in the process.  You shouldn’t be surprised to seldom hear this mentioned by Elon Musk, or the liberal crowd that champions electric vehicles.

It’s hardly the only way Tesla’s manufacturing process is anything but emissions-free.  Just take a look at their factory:

Even TreeHugger.com, of all places, muses at the irony of the Tesla plant:

The factory is in the middle of nowhere, really — 23 miles from the nearest city of any size, Reno, Nevada. If we assume that this is the average distance workers are commuting (and it is likely a lot farther), that the cars are powered by gasoline, and that they are average size, then according to the EPA they pump out about 411 grams of CO2 per mile or 18.9 kilograms per round trip. Multiply that by 3,000 and you have 57 tonnes of CO2 generated every day just by the the workers driving to the factory. The average car puts out 4.7 tonnes per year. So every day that the Gigafactory workers drive to work to make batteries for carbon-saving electric cars, they generate as much CO2 as 12 conventional cars do in a year.

And though no one should put it past Tesla to source power for its plant via a “renewable” source, would you really be surprised to find some fossil fuel powered machinery in the plant, given Musk’s own callous attitude towards carbon emissions when it comes to space launches and his own private flights?

None of this even mentions the tax incentives Tesla receives.  Electric vehicles are subsidized by the federal government via a tax credit, which is no small chunk of change; $7,500, to be exact:

The federal incentive to purchase an electric vehicle comes in the form of a $7,500 tax credit. In order to qualify for this credit, one must have a tax burden of at least $7,500 and take ownership of a newly purchased electric car before the vehicle manufacturer reaches its 200,000th EV sold in the U.S.

Since Tesla has not sold 200,000 vehicles in the US, the tax credit is still alive and well.  Which means that if you say the average sticker price of a Tesla is $100,000 (still high according to estimates), the federal government is subsidizing 7.5% of the purchase price.

And that is before you even count the “Zero-Emission Vehicle” (ZEV) credits that Tesla makes a mint on.  Bloomberg explained exactly how important these are to Tesla:

I’m referring to zero-emission vehicle, or ZEV, credits. California and several other states require that a certain proportion of the vehicles sold by an automaker emit no greenhouse gases. These cars earn the automaker credits, and if they don’t have enough to meet their quota, they can buy extra ones from someone who does. As Tesla only makes vehicles that run on batteries and emit nothing, it usually has a surplus for sale.

The profit margin on these is very high, perhaps 95 percent. The implied $95 million of profit equates to about 58 cents a share. Tesla reported a loss of $1.33 per share this week — beating the consensus forecast by 55 cents.

So Tesla earns a subsidy not just from the American taxpayer, it earns a subsidy from all the auto companies that are forced to buy ZEV credits from Tesla in states (primarily California) that force ZEVs upon automakers.  And somehow, Tesla still spends more money than it takes in.  

That’s correct; in spite of the massive subsidies it receives to operate, Tesla is not even profit-neutral, and the cars are not carbon-neutral, despite what the proponents will have you believe.  Of course, none of this even factors in the carbon impact of whatever electricity source Tesla owners charge their cars with, which is a topic you could write a whole ‘nother article on.

Tesla cars are subsidized using a business model that is anything but “dollar-neutral”,  and they are built and operated using anything but a “carbon-neutral” process .  Can you imagine what could happen if the subsidy “plug” was pulled?

Note: What would be a “solution” for the “climate change” crowd to push that would actually be honest?  Look no further than the aforementioned TreeHugger.com to fill you in:

Nothing has changed, which is why this TreeHugger will continue being critical of any kind of car, and will continue to promote walkable cities, bicycles and public transport as the real solutions to the problem of decarbonizing our society.

“Decarbonizing” our society obviously isn’t something I believe in, so don’t expect me to join Lloyd Alter in his carbon-free city.  However, I acknowledge that he’s at the very least participating in an intellectually honest discussion about CO2, and not grandstanding about how much he’s helping the environment by plopping himself behind the wheel of a Tesla. 

"We're Taking Matters Into Our Own Hands": de Blasio Signs Executive Order Committing NYC To Paris Agreement

The symbolic resistance against Trump"s climate agenda took another step on Friday evening, when New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed an executive order reaffirming the city’s commitment to the Paris climate change agreement despite, or rather due to, Trump withdrawing the U.S. from the agreement.

We"re taking matters into our own hands. pic.twitter.com/F3zHYHVBFR

— NYC Mayor"s Office (@NYCMayorsOffice) June 2, 2017

“We here in New York City are shocked at the development this week in Washington, D.C., to see the president of the United States pull out of the Paris accord and literally set this nation, and the whole globe, on the path of denial,” de Blasio said.

De Blasio’s order instructs New York City to adopt the principles of the Paris climate agreement, supporting its key principles of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 and keeping a global temperature increase below 1.5 degrees Celsius. It also directs city agencies to work with the mayor’s Office of Sustainability to create a plan by September 30 to further reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions, and notes that New York City will work with other U.S. cities, states and countries to meet commitments set in the agreement.

I signed Executive Order 26 because New York City"s future is threatened by climate change. We will honor the goals of the #ParisAgreement. pic.twitter.com/ujskQl2q2o

— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) June 2, 2017

“The actions of President Trump have undermined what we’re doing and what cities and states all over the country are doing, and that means we have to go farther,” de Blasio said. “We have to take matters into our own hands.”

In a series of tweets on Wednesday, de Blasio slammed Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the agreement, calling it “horribly destructive.”

De Blasio joins Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, who also signed an executive order this week affirming his city’s compliance with the Paris agreement.

Furthermore, as reported last night, billionaire and former NYC mayor, Michael Bloomberg, announced that he is developing a coalition of U.S. states, cities and business leaders to defy the President"s decision and comply with the terms of the original deal. And yet, considering that Trump won the presidency among other things on the vow to do precisely what he did, and withdraw from the Paris agreement, some have suggested that while global climate trends may a priority for Bloomberg, a man who flies around the world on a fleet of private jets and whose carbon emissions footprint is an "outlier", it is likely safe to say that a majority of Americans, especially those living outside the safe spaces of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle, either disagree, don"t feel the urge to be lectured by hypocrites, or simply don"t care.

Incidentally, here is the NYT on Mike Bloomberg"s carbon footprint:

Meanwhile, speaking of carbon footprints, here is a Elon Musk"s brand new Gulfstream G650 ER private jet, purchased in 2015.

Elon Musk private jet (Photo by Royal King)

President Trump Withdraws U.S. from Paris Climate Accord

President Donald Trump announced June 1, 2017, that he was withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate accord, keeping a campaign promise many had hoped he would abandon.

During a White House press conference, Trump said he was open to renegotiating aspects of the agreement. But France, Germany, and Italy said they considered the accord “a cornerstone in the cooperation between our countries, for effectively and timely tackling climate change” that could not be renegotiated. [1]

Even before becoming President, Trump considered the agreement to be an American job-killer and little more than a way for other nations to take advantage of the United States. Speaking from the Rose Garden, Trump asked:

“At what point does America get demeaned? At what point do they start laughing at us as a country? We want fair treatment. We don’t want other countries and other leaders to laugh at us anymore.” [2]

Trump had been under intense pressure from other world leaders, business executives, and his own daughter, Ivanka, to remain a part of the deal. However, the President said he was carrying out the will of his supporters and remaining true to his “America First” policy, exclaiming:

“I was elected by the citizen of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto responded to Trump’s remark by tweeting:

“Fact: Hillary Clinton received 80% of the vote in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh stands with the world & will follow Paris agreement.”

As it stands, only the United States, Syria, and Nicaragua are not part of the accord. Even North Korea is in on the deal.

Immediately following Trump’s announcement that he would be withdrawing from the agreement, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, and Disney CEO Robert Iger said that they would resign from the President’s advisory councils.

The Paris (Dis)agreement

The Paris Agreement was brokered in 2015 and went into effect in November 2016. It is aimed at preventing increases in global temperatures by gradually reducing man-made emissions linked to rising temperatures. The specific goal of the agreement is to keep Earth from warming by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius. [3]

Former President Barack Obama made a non-binding pledge to participate in the accord, vowing to lower American emissions by 26%-28% by 2025, and promised $3 billion to the United Nations Green Climate Fund. Those funds are not included in Congress’ most recent spending deal.

In a statement, the U.N. Secretary General’s office called Trump’s decision “a major disappointment for global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote global security.”

Some Trump Trouble

On November 6, 2012, Trump tweeted the following:

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

The President later said his statement was a joke.

When asked in late May 2017 whether Trump believes scientific evidence that human activity is contributing to climate change, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer couldn’t give a definitive answer, saying:

“Honestly, I haven’t asked him.”

Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt expressed doubts in the past about the origins of climate change, and in March 2017 questioned whether carbon dioxide is the main contributor to global warming.

What’s more, how much we’re actually contributing to what people deem climate change is not definitive, and is arguably not comparable to how natural world events impact the global environment. One thing is for sure though, and that is there is no doubt that we can make improvements on a global scale.

Sources:

[1] The Boston Globe

[2] CNN

[3] NBC News

U.S. Centers for Disease Control

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Former Afghan President Accuses Current Regime of 'Treason' For Permitting America to Drop MOAB

Remember Hamid Karzai? That was Bush"s puppet in Afghanistan, post Taliban. Thanks to Karzai, Afghanistan"s opium production rose an impressive 20x under his rule -- fulfilling an insatiable appetite for drug addled Americans in need of firm opiate-laced needles in their necks.

Now retired, he"s pissed off that the current Afghan ruler, Ashraf Ghani, permitted the United States to drop the MOAB on their ISIS loving asses, saying, "How could you permit Americans to bomb your country with a device equal to an atom bomb? If the government has permitted them to do this, that was wrong and it has committed a national treason."

Ghani"s  answer to Karzai"s charges was, err, freedom: "Every Afghan has the right to speak their mind. This is a country of free speech."

Clearly, Karzai doesn"t agree with Fox and Friends assertion that the MOAB is equal to freedom.

Why should Afghanistan suffer in such a massive way with a bomb so big, so dangerous that they themselves call it the "mother of all bombs".

— Hamid Karzai (@KarzaiH) April 16, 2017

More from the former Afghan leader, calling the bomb "poison" and bad for the environment -- because ISIS is all about preserving a low carbon footprint.

Local villagers said they thought the end of the world was upon them, after the U.S. dropped a MOAB on the terrorists traversing underneath the ground in elaborate tunnels.
 

Via Daily Caller:
 
“The earth felt like a boat in a storm,” one villager told The Guardian. He continued, “My ears were deaf for a while. My windows and doors are broken. There are cracks in the walls.” Achin’s Mayor Naweed Shinwari said “my relatives thought the end of the world had come.”
 
“Last night’s bomb was really huge, when it dropped, everywhere, it was shaking,” one resident told Reuters. He characterized the strike as a “positive move” to rid the village of ISIS fighters. One man who lived two miles from the blast area told CNN “we were all scared and my children and my wife were crying. We thought it had happened right in front of our house.”

 
Freedom.

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com