Progress of clean energy technology

[Eric the Green]

New study reaches a stunning conclusion about the cost of solar and wind energy
Building new renewables is now cheaper than just running old coal and nuclear plants.

JOE ROMM
NOV 20, 2017, 11:34 AM

thinkprogress.org/solar-wind-keep-getting-cheaper-33c38350fb95/
https://thinkprogress.org/solar-wind-kee...38350fb95/



In one of the fastest and most astonishing turnarounds in the history of energy, building and running new renewable energy is now cheaper than just running existing coal and nuclear plants in many areas.

A widely-used yearly benchmarking study — the Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE) from the financial firm Lazard Ltd. — reached this stunning conclusion: In many regions “the full-lifecycle costs of building and operating renewables-based projects have dropped below the operating costs alone of conventional generation technologies such as coal or nuclear.”


Lazard focused on the cost of a power for a plant over its entire lifetime in North America, and how the “increasing economic advantage of renewables in the U.S.” will drive even deeper penetration of solar and wind here. But Lazard also makes a key global point: It’s more expensive to operate conventional energy sources in the developing world than it is in the United States. So the advantage renewables have over conventional sources is even larger in the rapidly growing electricity markets like India and China.

https://thinkprogress.org/renewables-pro...70e3792df/

Forget coal, solar will soon be cheaper than natural gas power
Renewables to capture three-fourths of the $10 trillion the world will invest in new generation through 2040.
https://thinkprogress.org/renewables-pro...70e3792df/

[color=#000000][size=large][font=tk-aktiv-grotesk, aktiv-grotesk, sans-serif]Since power from new renewables is cheaper than power from existing coal and nuclear, it’s no surprise that the lifetime cost of new renewables is much cheaper than new coal and nuclear power. And that gap is growing.


Lazard notes that in North America, the cost for utility scale solar and wind power dropped 6 percent last year, while the price for coal remained flat and the cost of nuclear soared. “The estimated levelized cost of energy for nuclear generation increased ~35 percent versus prior estimates, reflecting increased capital costs at various nuclear facilities currently in development,” the analysis found.

Indeed, as Lazard shows in this remarkable chart, while solar and wind have dropped dramatically in price since 2009, nuclear power has simply priced itself out of the market for new power.



The lifecycle cost of electricity from new nuclear plants is now $148 per megawatt-hour, or 14.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, while it is 5 c/kwh for utility scale solar and 4.5 c/kwh for wind. By comparison, the average price for electricity in United States is 11 cents per kWh.

So it’s no big shock that there’s only one new nuclear power plant still being built in the United States — or that even existing power plants are struggling to stay competitive.

Indeed, over half of all existing U.S. nuclear power plants are “bleeding cash,” according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance report released earlier this summer. Even the draft report from the U.S. Department of Energy staff for Secretary Rick Perry conceded that coal and nuclear are simply no longer economic.

Coal and nuclear are uneconomic — more bombshells from Perry’s draft grid study
“High levels of wind penetration can be integrated into the grid without harming reliability.”
https://thinkprogress.org/draft-doe-stud...1a62afefd/


Right now, as the chart above shows, new solar and wind are actually cheaper than new gas plants. The variability of solar and wind still give new gas power an edge in some markets. But with the price of electricity storage, especially lithium-ion batteries, coming down sharply, the future of renewable energy is sunnier than ever.

[pbrower2a]

So coal-fired generation is a dying industry due to excess cost per kilowatt-hour. The only way to preserve coal-burning as an economic activity is to mandate its use, which would be contrary even to free-market solutions.

If you are going to price something higher than alternatives, then what you offer must be really desirable (abalone, morel mushrooms), or your offering will fail.

Donald Trump may pose as a 'friend of coal', but coal has too many alternatives.

[Kinser79]

I notice that Eric here didn't post a $/KWh for solar which is still higher than coal. As I've said elsewhere wind in intermittent. Given that apart from hydroelectric and geothermal power most so-called clean energy platforms are at least intermittent the only real competition coal faces is from gas or nuclear.

Unless intermittent is addressed "clean" energy is a pipe dream unless the goal is to have a great leap backward in living standards.

As for nuclear, a large part of the problem there is the insurance regulations imposed by the department of energy.

[pbrower2a]

(11-26-2017, 02:15 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I notice that Eric here didn't post a $/KWh for solar which is still higher than coal.  As I've said elsewhere wind in intermittent.  Given that apart from hydroelectric and geothermal power most so-called clean energy platforms are at least intermittent the only real competition coal faces is from gas or nuclear.

Unless intermittent is addressed "clean" energy is a pipe dream unless the goal is to have a great leap backward in living standards.

As for nuclear, a large part of the problem there is the insurance regulations imposed by the department of energy.

Solar power can be done on an individual scale -- people using solar power to run such appliances as refrigerators and ovens and such items as electric lights and medical devices. It can also be used on a utility scale. Unless one uses solar heat or air conditioning, the refrigerator   is likely one's biggest use of electricity. Except for the windmill, the solar panel is so far the only means of generating personal energy. Using wind power to draw water from wells antedates the Amish themselves.

The Old-Order Amish have in some places adopted solar panels. To be sure they still use horses and buggies or bicycles for transportation and eschew the use of electricity for powering entertainment devices.  But using solar panels to operate  refrigerators and lights, or medical devices, may be unobjectionable to some. Rejecting the use of motor vehicles, flush toilets, telephones,   and electronic entertainments is enough to preserve their way of life and their religious beliefs. Electric lights are far safer than the more traditional hearth fires and kerosene lamps.

Transcript from an NPR program from ten years ago:

Quote:STEVE INSKEEP, host:
The Amish are not known for embracing modern life - quite the opposite. But when it comes to solar power, the Amish are turning out to be early technology adopters.
Fred Kight of member station WOUB at Athens, Ohio reports.
FRED KIGHT: This is Holmes County, an area in northeast Ohio that's home of the largest settlement of Amish in the world. Like their fellow Amish in other parts of the country, these Amish prefer the horse and buggy for getting around and use horses to pull their plows to work the fields.
(Soundbite of horses plowing)
KIGHT: But increasingly there's evidence of 21st century power here - solar panels appear on rooftops everywhere you look.
Eli Miller is Amish and sells solar equipment to his neighbors. He says about 80 percent of the Amish around here now use solar.
Mr. ELI MILLER (Solar Equipment Dealer): Well, for instance, it used to be like the wind would pump the water for the farm houses years and years ago, turning the windmills, and now of course it's a different way of getting power from the sun. I guess if you want to interpret it like that.
KIGHT: Jonathan Miller - no relation - is also Amish. He and his father own a furniture store in the town of Berlin that does a healthy solar sideline business.
Mr. JONATHAN MILLER (Furniture Store Owner): It's pretty aggressive right now. As far in the last five years, it's really been picking up among the Amish. They're learning what all they could do with it.
KIGHT: Miller says solar's popularity here has spread largely by word of mouth and convenience is a key factor. With a single two-feet-by-four-feet solar panel and an investment of less than a thousand dollars, there's enough energy to operate several lights, around 146 kilowatt hours a year.
(Soundbite of indistinct conversation)
KIGHT: Dairy farmer Owen Nesley(ph) belongs to the old order denomination and embraces the slow-paced Amish life, but he's enthusiastic about solar.
Mr. OWEN NESLEY (Dairy Farmer): What I really like is the renewable energy part. I'm out here doing my work and the sun is shining and I'm aware that juice is going into my batteries. Tonight I'll have it for my lighting at no cost other than, of course, the initial setup.
KIGHT: Another big bonus: having solar for lights greatly improves home safety.
Mr. NESLEY: This area, we have accepted that policy to use batteries and light. There were some issues with older people lighting the gaslights and having fires.
KIGHT: The Amish refuse to hook up to the power grid that serves other residents in this area who could never get by on a measly 146 kilowatt hours annually. With washing machines, televisions, microwaves and all the other appliances Amish shun - modern households need something like 100 times that amount of power.
To keep those appliances and enjoy the energy freedom many Amish now have, the typical homeowner would have to invest $20,000 in solar to live off the grid.
For NPR News, I'm Fred Kight in Athens, Ohio.

Copyright © 2007 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.


The source, NPR, WOUB in Athens, Ohio

My comment:

Although it is still possible to have one's own individual heating plant fueled by burning coal, fuel oil, or propane, having one's own turbine on an adequately-small scale is prohibitively expensive. Besides, transforming fuel to heat and then heat to electricity is far more inefficient than turning fuel into electricity. That is basic physics.

Solar panels are far less expensive and more efficient than they were ten years ago.

[Eric the Green]

" the argument from the fossil fuel industry that green power cannot stand alone no longer holds water.

"It seems like at these prices, and that's what's really amazing about how low we're getting... is that, yeah, it can compete, even though battery technology is expensive these days," says Shaffer. "You can out-compete coal and natural gas at these levels.""
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/electric...-1.4417616

Climate science deniers like kinser are still proclaiming that green power can't work because it's intermittant. Deniers are simply people that refuse to keep up with the facts, in order to hang onto right-wing ideology. It's that simple.

[pbrower2a]

(11-27-2017, 05:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: " the argument from the fossil fuel industry that green power cannot stand alone no longer holds water.

"It seems like at these prices, and that's what's really amazing about how low we're getting... is that, yeah, it can compete, even though battery technology is expensive these days," says Shaffer. "You can out-compete coal and natural gas at these levels.""
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/electric...-1.4417616

Climate science deniers like kinser are still proclaiming that green power can't work because it's intermittant. Deniers are simply people that refuse to keep up with the facts, in order to hang onto right-wing ideology. It's that simple.

There is chemical storage -- that excess power for a short time can be absorbed into an endothermic reaction , let us say breaking down a substance)  that in recombination releases energy.

The fossil fuel energy sets energy policies in some states.

[Eric the Green]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017...-100-days/

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/elon-musk-wins-bet-finishing-massive-battery-installation-in-100-days/

Tesla has completed construction of a massive 100-megawatt, 129-MWh battery installation in South Australia. The new facility boasts the largest megawatt rating for any grid-connected battery installation in the world.

The project was completed less than two months after the contract was signed on September 29, putting it ahead of schedule. Musk had promised Australian authorities that he would complete the project in 100 days or the project would be free. Musk has said it would cost Tesla "$50 million or more" if the company failed to meet the deadline.

"Congratulations to the Tesla crew and South Australian authorities who worked so hard to get this manufactured and installed in record time!" Musk tweeted late on Wednesday night (Thursday in Australia).

The state of South Australia saw a need to beef up its electricity infrastructure after a September 2016 storm caused a state-wide blackout. State officials wanted to ensure that didn't happen again, and they wanted to find a solution that made use of renewable energy.

The Hornsdale Wind Farm near Jamestown, South Australia, produces 315 megawatts of electricity, but, like any wind farm, it's not a steady source of power. So Tesla's batteries will charge up during periods when the wind farm is producing excess energy, then supply extra power to the grid during periods of peak demand.

FURTHER READING
Tesla announces truck prices lower than experts predicted

Tesla's involvement in the project originated from a March Twitter conversation between Musk and Australian billionaire and software entrepreneur Mike Cannon-Brookes. Musk said that if he got the contract, "Tesla will get the system installed and working 100 days from contract signature or it is free."

Tesla won a competitive bidding process in July and signed the contract in September. The system needs to undergo a few days of testing and is expected to be put into operation in early December.

Tesla is normally thought of as a car company, but this announcement underscores that Tesla is really a battery company that happens to put some of the batteries in cars. It has built a massive battery factory in Nevada and needs to make sure it can sell the correspondingly massive number of batteries that factory will be producing in the coming years.

Of course, most of those batteries are supposed to go into Tesla's cars. But developing a side business in battery packs for use by residential customers and electric utilities helps to diversify Tesla's business. If the car business hits unexpected snags—as it has with the Model 3 launch in recent months—Tesla can sell the extra batteries for non-car uses.

And it's going to take a lot more installations like the one in South Australia if the world is going to ultimately wean itself off fossil fuels. Wind and solar energy are becoming increasingly affordable, but both types of power produce energy intermittently. Huge battery installations ensure that utilities can supply households with electricity even when the supply of renewable electrons fluctuates.

[David Horn]

(11-29-2017, 04:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... Tesla is normally thought of as a car company, but this announcement underscores that Tesla is really a battery company that happens to put some of the batteries in cars. It has built a massive battery factory in Nevada and needs to make sure it can sell the correspondingly massive number of batteries that factory will be producing in the coming years.

Of course, most of those batteries are supposed to go into Tesla's cars. But developing a side business in battery packs for use by residential customers and electric utilities helps to diversify Tesla's business. If the car business hits unexpected snags—as it has with the Model 3 launch in recent months—Tesla can sell the extra batteries for non-car uses.

And it's going to take a lot more installations like the one in South Australia if the world is going to ultimately wean itself off fossil fuels. Wind and solar energy are becoming increasingly affordable, but both types of power produce energy intermittently. Huge battery installations ensure that utilities can supply households with electricity even when the supply of renewable electrons fluctuates.

Acquiring enough lithium to use batteries as the universal grid backup is unlikely in the extreme.  Pump-back storage systems are more likely for larger projects, but they don't work on flat land.  Geothermal is great, but not where the fault lines run very deep.  In fact, every back-up option has limitations, so a move to wind and solar will be a lot slower than the optimists expect.  Assume every viable option will be used where it makes sense.

We're too old to see it in anything like final form, but we'll see it developing.  Fusion is still developing too, and it has no apparent limitations except cost.  It will be the ultimate back-up when all others fail to meet expectations.

[Eric the Green]

Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: study
January 31, 2017 by Marlowe Hood
phys.org/news/2017-01-renewables-paris-climate-goals.html
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-renewables...goals.html


Expansion of renewable energy cannot by itself stave off catastrophic climate change, scientists warned Monday.

Even if solar and wind capacity continues to grow at breakneck speed, it will not be fast enough to cap global warming under two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the target set down in the landmark 2015 Paris climate treaty, they reported in the journal Nature Climate Change.

"The rapid deployment of wind, solar and electric cars gives some hope," lead author Glen Peters, a researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, Norway, told AFP. "But at this stage, these technologies are not really displacing the growth in fossil fuels or conventional transportation."

Earth is overheating mainly due to the burning of oil, gas and especially coal to power the global economy.

Barely 1C (1.8F) of warming so far has already led to deadly heatwaves, drought and superstorms engorged by rising seas.
The 196-nation Paris Agreement set a collective goal to cap warming, but lacks the tools to track progress, especially at the country level.

To provide a better toolkit, Peters and colleagues broke down the energy system into half-a-dozen indicators—GDP growth, energy used per unit of GDP, CO2 emissions per unit of energy, share of fossil fuels in the energy mix, etc.

What emerged was a sobering picture of narrowing options.

Barely a dent

"Wind and solar alone are not sufficient to meet the goals," Peters said.

The bottom line, the study suggests, is how much carbon pollution seeps into the atmosphere, and on that score renewable have—so far—barely made a dent.

Investment in solar and wind has soared, outstripping fossil fuels for the first time last year. And renewables' share of global energy consumption has increased five-fold since 2000. But it still only accounts for less than three percent of the total.

Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period.

Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century.

Compounding the challenge, other key policies and technologies deemed essential for holding down temperatures remain woefully underdeveloped, the study cautioned.

In particular, the capacity to keep or pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it securely—a cornerstone of end-of-century projections for a climate-safe world—is practically non-existent.

Vetted by the UN's top climate science panel, these scenarios presume that thousands of industrial-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities will be up-and-running by 2030.

As of today, there are only one or two, with a couple of dozen in various stages of construction.

Negative emissions

Another form of clean energy pencilled into most medium- and long-term forecasts that does not yet exist on any meaningful scale is carbon-neutral biofuels.

The idea is that CO2 captured while plants grow will compensate for greenhouse gases released when they are burned for energy. On paper, that carbon pollution will also be captured and stored, resulting in "negative emissions"—a net reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere.

But here again, reality is dragging its feet.

"It is uncertain whether bioenergy can be sustainably produced and made carbon-neutral at the scale required," the researchers noted. All of these technologies must come on line if we are to have a fighting chance of keeping a lid of global warming, which is currently on track to heat the planet by 3C to 4C (5.4F to 7.2F), the study concluded. Market momentum alone is not enough, Peters added. "There need to be a shift in focus," he said in an email exchange.

"Politician seem happy to support wind, solar and electric vehicles through subsidies. But they are not willing to put prices"—a carbon tax, for example—"on fossil fuels."

"Unless the emissions from fossil fuels goes down, the 2C target is an impossibility."

In an informal survey last week of top climate scientists, virtually all of them said that goal is probably already out of reach.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-renewables...s.html#jCp

[Eric the Green]

Morocco turns the Sahara desert into a solar energy oasis
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/morocc...ergy-oasis

[Ragnarök_62]

(11-29-2017, 04:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017...-100-days/

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/elon-musk-wins-bet-finishing-massive-battery-installation-in-100-days/

Tesla has completed construction of a massive 100-megawatt, 129-MWh battery installation in South Australia. The new facility boasts the largest megawatt rating for any grid-connected battery installation in the world.

The project was completed less than two months after the contract was signed on September 29, putting it ahead of schedule. Musk had promised Australian authorities that he would complete the project in 100 days or the project would be free. Musk has said it would cost Tesla "$50 million or more" if the company failed to meet the deadline.

"Congratulations to the Tesla crew and South Australian authorities who worked so hard to get this manufactured and installed in record time!" Musk tweeted late on Wednesday night (Thursday in Australia).

The state of South Australia saw a need to beef up its electricity infrastructure after a September 2016 storm caused a state-wide blackout. State officials wanted to ensure that didn't happen again, and they wanted to find a solution that made use of renewable energy.

The Hornsdale Wind Farm near Jamestown, South Australia, produces 315 megawatts of electricity, but, like any wind farm, it's not a steady source of power. So Tesla's batteries will charge up during periods when the wind farm is producing excess energy, then supply extra power to the grid during periods of peak demand.

FURTHER READING
Tesla announces truck prices lower than experts predicted

Tesla's involvement in the project originated from a March Twitter conversation between Musk and Australian billionaire and software entrepreneur Mike Cannon-Brookes. Musk said that if he got the contract, "Tesla will get the system installed and working 100 days from contract signature or it is free."

Tesla won a competitive bidding process in July and signed the contract in September. The system needs to undergo a few days of testing and is expected to be put into operation in early December.

Tesla is normally thought of as a car company, but this announcement underscores that Tesla is really a battery company that happens to put some of the batteries in cars. It has built a massive battery factory in Nevada and needs to make sure it can sell the correspondingly massive number of batteries that factory will be producing in the coming years.

Of course, most of those batteries are supposed to go into Tesla's cars. But developing a side business in battery packs for use by residential customers and electric utilities helps to diversify Tesla's business. If the car business hits unexpected snags—as it has with the Model 3 launch in recent months—Tesla can sell the extra batteries for non-car uses.

And it's going to take a lot more installations like the one in South Australia if the world is going to ultimately wean itself off fossil fuels. Wind and solar energy are becoming increasingly affordable, but both types of power produce energy intermittently. Huge battery installations ensure that utilities can supply households with electricity even when the supply of renewable electrons fluctuates.

Hahahahahaahahahaah!

:: Rags contacts his inner Xer here.

The Ausies might  want to see how long those batteries last, man.

Word: technonarcissism. 

What a turkey!  *

* Turkey award for Tesla.


 
And man, what an overstuffed turkey it is!

[David Horn]

(02-21-2018, 07:07 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: :: Rags contacts his inner Xer here.

The Ausies might  want to see how long those batteries last, man.

Word: technonarcissism. 

What a turkey!  *

* Turkey award for Tesla.

This is a good point. Lithium-ion batteries, or their Lithium-Polymer equivalents, have a shelf-life issue.  They need to be totally reworked every 10 years or so, often less as noted at the link.  It's a chemical thing, and not easily overcome.  They literally stop working, because they cease being the batteries they once were. Since it's more or less a total redo every time, assume your battery backup is on a 10 year total replacement cycle when pricing it ... and that's a best-case situation.

[pbrower2a]

(02-22-2018, 12:40 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-21-2018, 07:07 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: :: Rags contacts his inner Xer here.

The Ausies might  want to see how long those batteries last, man.

Word: technonarcissism. 

What a turkey!  *

* Turkey award for Tesla.

This is a good point. Lithium-ion batteries, or their Lithium-Polymer equivalents, have a shelf-life issue.  They need to be totally reworked every 10 years or so, often less as noted at the link.  It's a chemical thing, and not easily overcome.  They literally stop working, because they cease being the batteries they once were. Since it's more or less a total redo every time, assume your battery backup is on a 10 year total replacement cycle when pricing it ... and that's a best-case situation.

Ten years is a longer life than for many cars (depending on how they are maintained and driven, and the overall desirability of the car), let alone such components as tires. I would not be surprised to find that the lithium at the least is recyclable, and I would guess that it is more recyclable than the polymer plastic.

[David Horn]

(02-22-2018, 01:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Ten years is a longer life than for many cars (depending on how they are maintained and driven, and the overall desirability of the car), let alone such components as tires. I would not be surprised to find that the lithium at the least is recyclable, and I would guess that it is more recyclable than the polymer plastic.

The lithium can be recovered and returned the intercalated state that makes the batteries work.  That's the issue, if I understand it correctly.  Car batteries, and others stored in less than ideal conditions, have a shorter shelf life, though how much is arguable.  Note: shelf life applies to working and non-working batteries.  From what i understand, the intercalated state is not totally stable.

[pbrower2a]

from Bloomberg:  powerful evidence that Donald Trump is the anti-environment President

Trump to Seek Repeal of California's Smog-Fighting Power

Quote:(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration will seek to revoke California’s authority to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions -- including its mandate for electric car sales -- in a proposed revision of Obama-era standards, according to three people familiar with the plan.

The proposal, expected to be released this week, amounts to a frontal assault on one of former President Barack Obama’s signature regulatory programs to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. It also sets up a high-stakes battle over California’s unique ability to combat air pollution and, if finalized, is sure to set off a protracted courtroom battle.

The proposed revamp would also put the brakes on federal rules to boost fuel efficiency into the next decade, said the people, who asked to not be identified discussing the proposals before they are public. Instead it will cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which under federal law must be at least a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average, rather than letting them rise to roughly 50 mpg by 2025 as envisioned in the plan left behind by Obama, according to the people.

...............

The state’s 2009 waiver under the Clean Air Act has allowed California to set emissions rules for cars and trucks that are more stringent than the federal government’s. But the state has aligned its rules with those set by the EPA and NHTSA in a so-called national program of clean-car rules. Negotiations toward another set of harmonized rules has not yet yielded agreement.

If Trump’s plan sticks, it could be his biggest regulatory rollback yet. Agencies are expected to claim it will reduce traffic fatalities by making it cheaper for drivers to replace older, less-safe cars, while paring sticker prices for new vehicles even if motorists have to spend more for gasoline.

California, for its part, rejects the idea that its 48-year ability to write its own tailpipe emission rules should end. “We have the law on our side, as well as the people of the country and the people of the world,” said Dan Sperling, a member of the state’s Air Resources Board said.

The most-populous U.S. state and 16 others plus the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on May 2 seeking to block the Trump administration’s effort to unravel the Obama-era emissions targets. Sperling said that number will grow as more and more people come to realize how fundamentally Trump is attacking the idea of states’ rights.

Caught somewhere in the middle are automakers, which in recent months have stressed they would not support freezing the federal targets and want Washington and Sacramento to continue linking their vehicle efficiency goals. While they spent the first year of the Trump administration attacking Obama’s rules as too costly, they fear the regulatory uncertainty that a years-long court battle over a rollback would create. In addition, other major auto markets such as China and Europe are pressing forward with tougher mandates of their own for cleaner cars.

"This is nothing less than an outrageous attack on public health and states’ rights," said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "It’s a dumb move for an administration that claims it wants peace, because this will lead to an emissions war: progressive states versus a reactionary federal government. The big question: who will the car companies back?"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-...ar-BBL00jT

My comment:

What applies to California could apply to any region with a potential problem of smog, including such areas as the tri-state area  surrounding New York City, Greater Chicago, Greater Houston, Greater Atlanta, and Greater Phoenix. Of course, President Trump has an energy policy identical with that of the fossil-fuel industry -- to get people to buy cars that consume more fossil fuels and to rely more heavily upon fossil fuels.

But what can you expect from someone who sees the world exclusively as a matter of profit and loss, and deprivation of the poor for the indulgence of elites?

[beechnut79]

(07-23-2018, 07:35 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: from Bloomberg:  powerful evidence that Donald Trump is the anti-environment President

Trump to Seek Repeal of California's Smog-Fighting Power

Quote:(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration will seek to revoke California’s authority to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions -- including its mandate for electric car sales -- in a proposed revision of Obama-era standards, according to three people familiar with the plan.

The proposal, expected to be released this week, amounts to a frontal assault on one of former President Barack Obama’s signature regulatory programs to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. It also sets up a high-stakes battle over California’s unique ability to combat air pollution and, if finalized, is sure to set off a protracted courtroom battle.

The proposed revamp would also put the brakes on federal rules to boost fuel efficiency into the next decade, said the people, who asked to not be identified discussing the proposals before they are public. Instead it will cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which under federal law must be at least a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average, rather than letting them rise to roughly 50 mpg by 2025 as envisioned in the plan left behind by Obama, according to the people.

...............

The state’s 2009 waiver under the Clean Air Act has allowed California to set emissions rules for cars and trucks that are more stringent than the federal government’s. But the state has aligned its rules with those set by the EPA and NHTSA in a so-called national program of clean-car rules. Negotiations toward another set of harmonized rules has not yet yielded agreement.

If Trump’s plan sticks, it could be his biggest regulatory rollback yet. Agencies are expected to claim it will reduce traffic fatalities by making it cheaper for drivers to replace older, less-safe cars, while paring sticker prices for new vehicles even if motorists have to spend more for gasoline.

California, for its part, rejects the idea that its 48-year ability to write its own tailpipe emission rules should end. “We have the law on our side, as well as the people of the country and the people of the world,” said Dan Sperling, a member of the state’s Air Resources Board said.

The most-populous U.S. state and 16 others plus the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on May 2 seeking to block the Trump administration’s effort to unravel the Obama-era emissions targets. Sperling said that number will grow as more and more people come to realize how fundamentally Trump is attacking the idea of states’ rights.

Caught somewhere in the middle are automakers, which in recent months have stressed they would not support freezing the federal targets and want Washington and Sacramento to continue linking their vehicle efficiency goals. While they spent the first year of the Trump administration attacking Obama’s rules as too costly, they fear the regulatory uncertainty that a years-long court battle over a rollback would create. In addition, other major auto markets such as China and Europe are pressing forward with tougher mandates of their own for cleaner cars.

"This is nothing less than an outrageous attack on public health and states’ rights," said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "It’s a dumb move for an administration that claims it wants peace, because this will lead to an emissions war: progressive states versus a reactionary federal government. The big question: who will the car companies back?"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-...ar-BBL00jT

My comment:

What applies to California could apply to any region with a potential problem of smog, including such areas as the tri-state area  surrounding New York City, Greater Chicago,  Greater Houston, Greater Atlanta, and Greater Phoenix. Of course, President Trump has an energy policy identical with that of the fossil-fuel industry -- to get people to buy cars that consume more fossil fuels and to rely more heavily upon fossil fuels.

But what can you expect from someone who sees the world exclusively as a matter of profit and loss, and deprivation of the poor for the indulgence of elites?

But are we ever really going to see any reduction in car dependency? More and more it seems doubtful as nothing has really changed in the nearly half century since many folks had to wait in long lines just to get gasoline. If anything we are even more car dependent than we were back then with the expansion of what has come to be known as the exurbs. Not much interest in changing course is evident, and it is often said that the advent of the ride sharing and food delivery services has actually put more cars on the road as so many have fallen for the line that they could make big money on these so-called gig economy platforms.

[pbrower2a]

(07-24-2018, 10:21 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: But are we ever really going to see any reduction in car dependency? More and more it seems doubtful as nothing has really changed in the nearly half century since many folks had to wait in long lines just to get gasoline. If anything we are even more car dependent than we were back then with the expansion of what has come to be known as the exurbs. Not much interest in changing course is evident, and it is often said that the advent of the ride sharing and food delivery services has actually put more cars on the road as so many have fallen for the line that they could make big money on these so-called gig economy platforms.

The older suburbs (like Hayward , California; Southfield, Michigan; Aurora, Colorado; Cicero, Illinois; and Richardson, Texas -- not to mention a real cesspool like Ferguson, Missouri) become increasingly urban in character as apartment complexes supplant the post-WWII bungalows as the GIs and early-wave Silent are no longer around.  The gig economy is a reality for now, but I can see that becoming a target of literary and political assaults as it gets things done but at an excessive cost to the participants.

I can imagine a Trump objective of putting current freeways under tolls on behalf of profiteering monopolists. Add another $20 in the cost of living just for the enrichment of profiteering monopolists well-connected to a political elite, and along comes more anger at the system.

We will not reduce our car dependency until we can accept that extreme concentration of people in high-rise housing that effectively puts everybody within a walk or elevator ride (or both) between tiny living spaces and basic needs (which will be groceries, medicine, and low-brow entertainment) with commutes exclusively for getting to and from work. Even for the kiddies, school might be built into the 'multi-purpose behemoths.

We have let our cars become the means of escape from thoroughly-awful places in which to live. If you live in a depressed area like southeastern Kentucky, then you car is your chance to get to such a place as Atlanta or Indianapolis. If you live in a dreary hick town, then your car might be the means of getting somewhere 'where the action is'. If you are talking about some low-paying jobs as driving a taxi or a delivery vehicle, then cars create opportunities for semi-skilled labor (machine-operator category).

As it is, all the solutions that our elites of ownership and management offer are those that have a profit built in through monopoly pricing or cheap labor requiring little training.

[beechnut79]

(07-24-2018, 10:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-24-2018, 10:21 AM)beechnut79 Wrote: But are we ever really going to see any reduction in car dependency? More and more it seems doubtful as nothing has really changed in the nearly half century since many folks had to wait in long lines just to get gasoline. If anything we are even more car dependent than we were back then with the expansion of what has come to be known as the exurbs. Not much interest in changing course is evident, and it is often said that the advent of the ride sharing and food delivery services has actually put more cars on the road as so many have fallen for the line that they could make big money on these so-called gig economy platforms.

The older suburbs (like Hayward , California; Southfield, Michigan; Aurora, Colorado; Cicero, Illinois; and Richardson, Texas -- not to mention a real cesspool like Ferguson, Missouri) become increasingly urban in character as apartment complexes supplant the post-WWII bungalows as the GIs and early-wave Silent are no longer around.  The gig economy is a reality for now, but I can see that becoming a target of literary and political assaults as it gets things done but at an excessive cost to the participants.

I can imagine a Trump objective of putting current freeways under tolls on behalf of profiteering monopolists. Add another $20 in the cost of living just for the enrichment of profiteering monopolists well-connected to a political elite, and along comes more anger at the system.

We will not reduce our car dependency until we can accept that extreme concentration of people in high-rise housing that effectively puts everybody within a walk or elevator ride (or both) between tiny living spaces and basic needs (which will be groceries, medicine, and low-brow entertainment) with commutes exclusively for getting to and from work. Even for the kiddies, school might be built into the 'multi-purpose behemoths.

We have let our cars become the means of escape from thoroughly-awful places in which to live. If you live in a depressed area like southeastern Kentucky, then you car is your chance to get to such a place as Atlanta or Indianapolis. If you live in a dreary hick town, then your car might be the means of getting somewhere 'where the action is'. If you are talking about some low-paying jobs as driving a taxi or a delivery vehicle, then cars create opportunities for semi-skilled labor (machine-operator category).

As it is, all the solutions that our elites of ownership and management offer are those that have a profit built in through monopoly pricing or cheap labor requiring little training.

It wasn't until after WWII that owning a car became pretty much a necessity for a majority of the people. It would be nice, but I often wonder if a majority would ever accept self-contained communities? This was to an extent promoted with the hippie commune idea in the 1960s. In order for such to work in more places, suburban areas and many urban neighborhoods as well would need to break away from the idea of allowing only single family housing to be built, which has contributed a great deal to the homeless problem which began during the late 1980s.

[pbrower2a]

(07-24-2018, 03:49 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: It wasn't until after WWII that owning a car became pretty much a necessity for a majority of the people. It would be nice, but I often wonder if a majority would ever accept self-contained communities? This was to an extent promoted with the hippie commune idea in the 1960s. In order for such to work in more places, suburban areas and many urban neighborhoods as well would need to break away from the idea of allowing only single family housing to be built, which has contributed a great deal to the homeless problem which began during the late 1980s.

The World War II veterans got the GI bill which ensured cheap education and low interest for housing, Most WWII veterans wanted to become part of the middle class, including 'ethnic' white people who had recently known poverty as a norm. If one had been an officer who got saluted despite the surname "Kowalski" or "Rossi", one saw no reason for returning to a permanent underclass.

The returning white GIs had no desire to live in cramped apartments like the slums that many of them knew. Builders accommodated the whims and tastes of young buyers of new housing.

Note well that America also had a smaller population, so Americans could building single-family houses in what had recently been farmland near the urban fringe. So what is another ranch-style house in the grand scheme of things.