Category Archives: Energy

A Weighty Question, by Eric Peters

Electric car batteries are heavy, which makes them more dangerous in a collision. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Here’s an interesting – a weighty – question:

If “safety” is so important to the government – i.e., to the busybodies in Washington who force us to buy what they think is important – then why don’t they think it’s important to protect us from the consequences of what they’re forcing us to buy?

Such as two-ton-plus electric cars that are a physical threat to other cars – and the people inside them?

A subcompact-sized electric car like the Chevy Bolt – which is only 163.2 inches long – weighs 3,589 pounds. A compact-sized car like the Hyundai Accent – which is 172.6 inches long and so a substantially larger car – weighs 2,679 pounds.

The difference between the two is 910 pounds.

It’s a big difference when a 3,589 pound car pile-drives into a 2,679 pound car. F=ma and all that.

It’s an even bigger difference when an electric half-ton truck like the Ford Lightning – which weighs in at more than three tons – 6,500 pounds – which is  a ton (2,000 pounds) heavier than a non-electric F-150 pick-up – pile-drives into a 2,679 pound compact like the Accent.

Or even another F-150.

Heck, even another Lightning. See that business about F=ma again.

Whatever happened to saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety first?

The more weight rolling around out there, the greater the risk to people who aren’t driving one of these massively heavy potential pile-drivers. Perhaps this is intentional; another way to get rid of cars that aren’t electric – and perhaps some of the people who don’t want them along the way. But the risk is also greater, for everyone.

Continue reading→

Hardly Able, by Eric Peters

They’re trying to kill love of internal combustion autos. They’ll never kill love of IC motorcycles. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

People who ride motorcycles still care about motorcycles – as opposed to all-too-many-drivers, who view cars as appliances. Who have been conditioned to view them as such.

Evidence of this disparity in attitude comes in the form of what sells – and what doesn’t.

Like electric “motorcycles” – the latter being an absurdity on par with a meatless vegan double “cheeseburger.” Those don’t sell, either. And neither has the Harley LiveWire, which is the electric scooter Harley hilariously thought people who like motorcycles would buy.

To be fair, Harley has sold a few LiveWires. As in 69 of them in the last quarter of 2022. Probably comparable to the number of “plant-based” (i.e., meatless) Impossible Whoppers sold by Burger King. Does anyone bother to wonder why a person who doesn’t want a burger would go to Burger King?

Harley apparently hasn’t thought about essentially the same question. An electric scooter being essentially the same thing (on wheels) as an Impossible Whopper on your plate; i.e., something ersatz. And even that isn’t quite accurate since “ersatz” simply means substitute, as in margarine rather than butter. An electric “motorcycle” – like a meatless “burger” – is a kind of fraud. A thing that wants to be taken for the real thing. 

Motorcycle people won’t abide it. 

Continue reading→

The Covid and Green Energy Tyrannies, by Chuck Baldwin

It can’t be said often enough: it’s all about power and control, not health and the environment, and the weapon of choice is lies. From Chuck Baldwin at lewrockwell.com:

The phony Covid and Green Energy narratives have absolutely nothing to do with science and health and everything to do with tyranny and the destruction of Natural/Constitutional Liberty in the United States. And the two reports I’m referencing in this column more than substantiate that statement.

The Phony Covid Narrative 

After three years of lies, deception, fearmongering and the destruction of what was a free, prosperous economy, a sizable percentage of Americans now realize that Anthony Fauci, the pharmaceutical industry and the CDC orchestrated a first-class con job—the world’s greatest Ponzi scheme ever.

So, now that the cons who perpetrated this global hoax know that the jig is up, President Biden is saying he will suspend the emergency orders—signed into law by Donald Trump and extended by Biden—on May 11. But that’s not enough. The criminals that orchestrated and implemented this insanity, that killed and ruined the lives and businesses of multiplied thousands, must be held accountable. They cannot just walk away scot-free with the billions of dollars in profits from this mass global extortion.

For example, along with Fauci, Deborah Birx was the other half of the “medical expert” tandem that falsified medical science for the express purpose of personal enrichment. Birx has even admitted that they knowingly misled the public.

Continue reading→

Why Smart Meters Are Good for Utility Companies, Bad for Consumers by Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.

The usual suspects are pushing smart meters, which means heavy skepticism is in order. From Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., at childrenshealthdefense.org:

Proponents of smart meters say the devices promote energy conservation by providing detailed feedback to consumers about their habits, but critics say the technology can be harmful to health and it poses real privacy concerns.

Smart meters — or “advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) installations” — are wireless devices that use radiofrequency (RF) radiation to transmit information about how much water, gas and electricity consumers use to utility companies.

The U.S. rolled out its first smart meters in 2009 when Congress introduced the Smart Grid Investment Grant (SGIG) program as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

According to the SGIG website, the program “aimed to accelerate the modernization of the nation’s electric transmission and distribution systems.”

In 2015, smart meters got a big push from the Obama administration, which funded the rollout of about 18 million smart meters.

In 2021, U.S. electric utility companies installed more than 111 million smart meters — roughly 88% of the meters were installed in personal residences.

Promoters of the technology argue the meters promote energy conservation because they measure and record electricity usage frequently and provide the data to the utility company and consumer at least once a day, allowing the consumer to get detailed feedback on their energy habits.

However, critics say the technology can be harmful to health, especially for those who experience electromagnetic sensitivity — and especially for children.

They also cite privacy and personal liberty concerns about how utility companies use the data collected by smart meters — and who they share that data with.

‘People unwittingly sleep … on the other side of the wall and get very, very ill’

“Smart meters are a bad idea because they use two-way radiofrequency microwave radiation to send your usage data for electric, gas, water, solar and propane energy,” said Cecelia Doucette, a technology safety educator and the director of Massachusetts for Safe Technology.

Continue reading→

The EU’s Response To Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act Is Finally Here, by Felicity Bradstock

The U.S. government and the EU are engaging in a classic battle to see who can subsidize uneconomical technologies the most. The loser wins. From Felicity Bradstock at oilprice.com:

  • ollowing the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S., pressure grew on the EU to introduce its own legislation to help fund the clean energy push on the continent.
  • Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resultant energy security issues in Europe have only added to the pressure on EU politicians to solve the bloc’s energy problems.
  • The EC’s new draft proposal is designed to encourage companies to remain in the EU rather than move operations to the U.S. to take advantage of IRA-related benefits.
When President Biden introduced his Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) last summer, he surprised the world with the extent of the climate commitments within it While supposedly aimed at inflation reduction, the legislation also provides extensive political support and funding for the green transition, providing tax cuts, subsidies, and other incentives for companies looking to use cleaner alternatives to fossil fuels. The EU has long been hailed as the leader in the switch to renewable energy, encouraging other countries worldwide to follow in its footsteps when it comes to climate pledges and policies. However, following the introduction of the IRA, pressure on the EU grew to introduce its own far-reaching, region-wide climate policy. After several months, it appears that the EU is ready to launch a transition policy that will provide the funding needed to keep up with the U.S. in the race to green.  The EU has announced plans to reduce restrictions on tax credits for renewable energy projects in response to Biden’s IRA. Following mounting public pressure to expand its climate policy following the introduction of the new U.S. law, the European Commission (EC) has stated that it aims to loosen state aid rules to encourage greater investment in production facilities in the green energy industry. However, this kind of major policy shift requires broad support from its 27 member states, which often slows down the introduction of new laws.

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine and subsequent sanctions on Russian energy, the EU and many other parts of the world have experienced severe energy shortages and rising consumer costs. This has led to greater pressure from the public and policymakers to accelerate the green transition, to ensure the future of the region’s energy security. The EC’s draft proposal reportedly proposes the redirection of some of the $869.8 billion in Covid-19 recovery funding to green tax credits. It states: “The provisions on tax benefits would enable member states to align their national fiscal incentives on a common scheme, and thereby offer greater transparency and predictability to businesses across the EU.”

Continue reading→

A tale of two worlds, by Alasdair Macleod

One world is based on debt and fiat currencies, the other world is moving towards production and gold. Which shall prevail? From Alasdair Macleod at goldmoney.com:

In the war between the western alliance and the Asian axis, the media focus is on the Ukrainian battlefield. The real war is in currencies, with Russia capable of destroying the dollar.

So far, Putin’s actions have been relatively passive. But already, both Russia and China have accumulated enough gold to implement gold standards. It is now overwhelmingly in their interests to do so.

From Sergey Glazyev’s recent article in a Russian business newspaper, it is clear that settlement of trade balances between members, dialog partners, and associate members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) optionally will be in gold. Furthermore, the Russian economy would benefit enormously from a decline in borrowing rates from current levels of over 13% to a level more consistent with sound money.

To understand the consequences, in this article the comparison is made between the western alliance’s fiat currency and deficit spending regime and the Russian-Chinese axis’s planned industrial revolution for some 3.8 billion people in the SCO family. China has a remarkable savings rate, which will underscore the investment capital for a rapid increase in Asian industrialisation, without inflationary consequences.

With a new round of military action in Ukraine shortly to kick off, it will be in Putin’s interest to move from passivity to financial aggression. It will not take much for him to undermine the entire western fiat currency system — a danger barely recognised by a gung-ho NATO military complex.

Introduction

In the geopolitical tussle between the old and new hegemons, we see the best of strategies and the worst of strategies, where belief is pitted against credulity. It is the season of light and the season of darkness, the spring of hope and the winter of despair…

Recalling some of Charles Dickens’ famous opening lines from his Tale of Two Cities to describe the current state of global politics sums up the potential of a new industrial revolution throughout Asia and much of the rest of the under-developed world (the best of times), compared with the western alliance abetted by its military arm, NATO, which is determined to suppress the plans for the new hegemons at its own peoples’ expense (the worst of times). Ironically, the nations which will benefit most from the western alliance’s proxy war are those which align themselves with its enemies. 

Continue reading→

Why the End of the Petrodollar Spells Trouble for the US Regime, by Ryan McMaken

Saudi Arabia’s move away from the petrodollar is yet another sign of the U.S. government’s diminishing influence and power. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:

On January 17, the Saudi minister of finance, Mohammed Al-Jadaan, announced that the Saudi state is open to selling oil in currencies other than the dollar. “There are no issues with discussing how we settle our trade arrangements, whether it is in the US dollar, whether it is the euro, whether it is the Saudi riyal,” Al-Jadaan told Bloomberg TV.

If the Saudi regime does indeed embrace substantial trade in currencies other than the dollar as part of its oil-export business, this would signal a shift away from the dollar as the dominant currency in global oil payments. Or measured another way, this would signal the end of the so-called petrodollar.

But how large of a shift is this? With the increasingly frequent Saudi comments about trading in nondollar currencies, we’ve also seen an increasing number of pundits announcing the “collapse” of the dollar or the imminent implosion of the dollar’s currently outsized global power.

Will a shift away from the dollar in the global oil trade really lead to a big relative decline in the dollar? Probably and eventually. But a number of other dominoes would need to fall first, most especially the domino we call “Eurodollars.”

On the other hand, it would be foolish to simply dismiss the potential end of the Saudi preference for the dollar with hand-waving. The end of the petrodollar would indeed weaken the dollar, even if this would not be a mortal blow in itself. Moreover, it is especially foolhardy to ignore the status of the petrodollar because that status also has geopolitical implications. Saudi comments on the dollar signal that the Saudis no longer consider its alliance with the United States to be as important as it has been since the 1970s. What’s not an immediate economic problem for the US regime or the dollar may nonetheless be an immediate geopolitical problem.

Continue reading→

Paying People to Not Buy What Sells, by Eric Peters

Nowadays, car company executives figure out what’s selling and what’s not and then make fewer of the former and more of the latter. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

There is so much buyer interest in the Ford Bronco – which isn’t electric – that Ford can’t build enough to meet demand and is actually offering people who ordered one $2,500 store credit to cancel their order in favor of something else.

Some have been waiting more than a year for a Bronco – which Ford revived for the 2021 model year (my review can be found here). It has been a hugely successful vehicle for Ford. It is – clearly – the kind of vehicle lots of people want to buy.

No subsidies – or mandates – needed.

In the old normal, Ford would build more Broncos to meet the market demand for them. The whole point of being in the car business once-upon-a-time being to sell as many vehicles as people wanted to buy. But we live in the New Abnormal. It is characterized by – among other things – the building of vehicles for which there isn’t market demand, because government requires them to be built.

Irrespective of whether they can be sold at a profit.

We all know which vehicles these are.

Two figures will make the point.

The first one is 39,458. This is the number of Mach-e “Mustangs” (my review of this one can be found here) that Ford sold last year (2022). The second number is 94,031. That is the number of Broncos Ford sold during the same time period. In other words, Ford sold more than twice as many Broncos as Mach-e “Mustangs” – and could have sold many more had there been more Broncos to sell.

Continue reading→

Fuel Costs Of Electric Vehicles Overtake Gas-Powered Cars: Study, by Allen Zhong

This is funny, and it’s happening when uptake of electric vehicles is still fairly low. From Allen Zhong at The Epoch Times via zerohedge.com:

The cost to fuel electric vehicles in the United States is higher than gas-powered cars for the first time in 18 months, a consulting company said.

“In Q4 2022, typical mid-priced ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) car drivers paid about $11.29 to fuel their vehicles for 100 miles of driving. That cost was around $0.31 cheaper than the amount paid by mid-priced EV drivers charging mostly at home, and over $3 less than the cost borne by comparable EV drivers charging commercially,” Anderson Economic Group (AEG) said in an analysis.

A Tesla Inc. electric vehicle charges at a supercharger station in Redondo Beach, Calif., on Jan. 4, 2021. (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)

However, luxury EVs still enjoy a cost advantage against their gas-powered counterparts.

It costs luxury EV owners $12.4 to drive every 100 miles on average if they charge their cars mostly at home or $15.95 if they charge their cars mostly at commercial charger stations in the 4th quarter of 2022.

Meanwhile, the fuel costs for luxury gas-powered cars are $19.96 per 100 miles on average.

AEG is a consulting firm based in Michigan that offers research and consulting in economics, valuation, market analysis, and public policy, according to the company’s website.

The fuel costs in the analysis are based on real-world U.S. driving conditions including the cost of underlying energy, state taxes charged for road maintenance, the cost of operating a pump or charger, and the cost to drive to a fueling station, AEG said.

Continue reading→

Are You Really Against Fossil Fuels? Read This Before You Answer, by Vijay Jayara

Without fossil fuels, modern American life becomes difficult to impossible. From Vijay Jayara at realclearenergy.org:

It is easy for anyone to say that they are against fossil fuels. Opposition to coal, oil and natural gas is fashionable and will prompt heads to nod and even hands to applaud in most places.

But are people aware of the extent to which their lives are dependent on fossil fuels? Do they know that more than 90 percent of things used in their everyday lives are derived from fossil fuels?

From your toothbrush to your car tire, a majority of the things you use today has been made possible because of fossil fuels. Shoes, refrigerators, washing machines, coffee makers, furniture, pens, eating utensils, eyeglasses, commodes, medical gear, camping equipment, and the list goes on and on.

Consider the computer or the phone from which you are reading this article. They are made of glass, metal, plastic, lithium and silicon – all of which require fossil fuels to mine, process or manufacture. While some are chemical derivatives of fossil fuels, all depend one way or another on their combustion for electricity generation, process heat or transportation.

You wouldn’t have the iPhone, Android or MacBook without fossil fuels. Imagine the irony of typing out “end oil” from a phone that is made from fossil fuels! Or supporting climate activism by relaying video that was recorded with a camera made from fossil fuels! Of course, this sort of irony is displayed regularly and missed constantly.

Continue reading→