Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

Limiting US export of LNG will help push Europe to even more renewables adoption and compete with China as the leader on renewables!
It wouldn't matter. LNG is expensive and used only when piped supplies are inadequate.

I think the aim of this restriction is just to keep US natural gas prices low to help keep energy costs down.
 

Ten days ago Joe Biden did something remarkable, and almost without precedent – he actually said no to big oil. His administration halted the granting of new permits for building liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals, something Washington had been handing out like M&Ms on Halloween for nearly a decade. It’s a provisional “no” – Department of Energy experts will spend the coming months figuring out a new formula for granting the licenses that takes the latest science and economics into account – but you can tell what a big deal it is because of the howls of rage coming from the petroleum industry and its gaggle of politicians. And you can tell something else too: just how threadbare their arguments have become over time. Biden has called their bluff, and it’s beautiful to watch.

What’s more – as new research this fall showed – when you put fracked gas on a boat and send it on a long ocean cruise, so much leaks out that it’s far worse than coal. If the White House had kept granting all the permits that industry wanted, within a decade US natural gas would be producing more greenhouse gas emissions than everything that happens on the continent of Europe. It’s the biggest fossil fuel expansion project on Earth.
 
No question on efficiency improvements, but we should add an "asterisk" to the developing EV situation.

Probably somewhat still in the noise at a national level. But it's a little early to say with current and near future EV impacts. California is ahead of the EV game and total electricity use has been increasing here the last 2 years of record, quite possibly due to that. Based on prior releases, we wont see 2023 data until this summer to see if the trend is sustained.

TSEG2022_chart1.png



2022 Total System Electric Generation
Interesting chart @iPlug. It must be derived from different data than the CAISO supplied data, though I haven't checked the source provided.

I have been tracking the CAISO supplied data for total electric power. See my second screen capture for where I pull the data from for the first chart, that shows total power. If my data only includes California, then it should somewhat match the Gold data you show here. The increase from 2020 to 2022 really doesn't match what my CAISO data shows. Actually, now that I eyeball it a bit more, they do seem to match. A dip after 2016, rise from 2020 to 2022, then the drop I show that isn't yet in the chart you show.

total power.png
total power 2.png
 
Interesting chart @iPlug. It must be derived from different data than the CAISO supplied data, though I haven't checked the source provided.

I have been tracking the CAISO supplied data for total electric power. See my second screen capture for where I pull the data from for the first chart, that shows total power. If my data only includes California, then it should somewhat match the Gold data you show here. The increase from 2020 to 2022 really doesn't match what my CAISO data shows. Actually, now that I eyeball it a bit more, they do seem to match. A dip after 2016, rise from 2020 to 2022, then the drop I show that isn't yet in the chart you show.

View attachment 1016171View attachment 1016172
Can you post links? Not sure what we are measuring and comparing here. Y-axis unit in my referenced chart was energy (GWh). Y-axis unit in your first chart here is not labeled, but title suggests not energy but power (W) and it’s a rolling 12-month average. Your second chart is then energy (in your highlighted red box), but for renewables. But the red box looks to be total demand for that day (unrelated to renewables)?
 
Last edited:
Can you post links? Not sure what we are measuring and comparing here. Y-axis unit in my referenced chart was energy (GWh). Y-axis unit in your first chart here is not labeled, but title suggests not energy but power (W) and it’s a rolling 12-month average. Your second chart is then energy (in your highlighted red box), but for renewables. But the red box looks to be total demand for that day (unrelated to renewables)?

Go to Renewables trend -> Options -> View peaks and daily production

The Y-Axis in my chart is MWh. I add these up every day and compare a rolling 12 month average.

RT
 

Go to Renewables trend -> Options -> View peaks and daily production

The Y-Axis in my chart is MWh. I add these up every day and compare a rolling 12 month average.

RT
I can pull up the CAISO data as you describe for your second chart. But are you saying you manually compile the first chart you posted from individual days reported on your second chart? The numbers you posted do not match the CEC data (in-State generation or total which includes imports).

Indeed, the CEC has not posted 2023 data yet (typically they do the following summer). But here is more granular CEC data from 2011-2022:

California Electrical Energy Generation


Perhaps the problem with reconciling the data stems from what the red highlighted box you placed really means. Is this total electricity supplied to California for that day, does it subtract out small renewable contributions, and/or does this represent something else.
 
Last edited:
Wyoming is still all in on fossil fuels.


Last month, the Wyoming Energy Authority, the state agency Gov. Mark Gordon tasked with distributing $150 million from the newly created Energy Matching Funds program for “projects related to Wyoming energy needs,” awarded the project $7.79 million dollars. So far, the Energy Matching Funds have paid out $57.6 million to projects that would creatively generate fossil fuels, capture or sequester carbon or explore hydrogen fuel generation.

The Energy Matching Funds appear to be Wyoming’s largest bet on its energy future, and as more of those funds get tied up in industries that could extend the Cowboy state’s dependency on fossil fuels, some who follow the state’s energy sector have wondered how wisely Wyoming is spending its own taxpayer dollars, of which there are few to begin with.

Compounding the need to spend wisely is the state’s apparent lack of interest in the millions of dollars in clean energy funding available to Wyoming through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which have gained little traction in the state. Last November, Gordon rejected IRA grants to tamp down pollution, in part due to his desire to preserve “Wyoming’s ‘all-of-the-above’ energy development.” Wyoming school districts are the only ones in the country yet to utilize IIJA funds to purchase electric school buses.
 
Wyoming is still all in on fossil fuels.


Last month, the Wyoming Energy Authority, the state agency Gov. Mark Gordon tasked with distributing $150 million from the newly created Energy Matching Funds program for “projects related to Wyoming energy needs,” awarded the project $7.79 million dollars. So far, the Energy Matching Funds have paid out $57.6 million to projects that would creatively generate fossil fuels, capture or sequester carbon or explore hydrogen fuel generation.

The Energy Matching Funds appear to be Wyoming’s largest bet on its energy future, and as more of those funds get tied up in industries that could extend the Cowboy state’s dependency on fossil fuels, some who follow the state’s energy sector have wondered how wisely Wyoming is spending its own taxpayer dollars, of which there are few to begin with.

Compounding the need to spend wisely is the state’s apparent lack of interest in the millions of dollars in clean energy funding available to Wyoming through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which have gained little traction in the state. Last November, Gordon rejected IRA grants to tamp down pollution, in part due to his desire to preserve “Wyoming’s ‘all-of-the-above’ energy development.” Wyoming school districts are the only ones in the country yet to utilize IIJA funds to purchase electric school buses.

It's all about keeping high barriers to entry. Fossil Fuel = high cost to entry. Compressed Hydrogen = high cost to entry.

When you go electric, with price decreases for solar and battery, you can be on your own... that is not good when you are a business and need to lock in customers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrGriz and fhteagle
It's all about keeping high barriers to entry. Fossil Fuel = high cost to entry. Compressed Hydrogen = high cost to entry.

When you go electric, with price decreases for solar and battery, you can be on your own... that is not good when you are a business and need to lock in customers.
Good point. Hydrogen requires a big investment both on the supply end and the use end. Once you've made that, you have signed up for the long term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrGriz

On January 2, 2024, Chevron Corporation announced that for fourth quarter 2023, the Company will be impairing a portion of its U.S. upstream assets, primarily in California, due to continuing regulatory challenges in the state that have resulted in lower anticipated future investment levels in its business plans. The Company expects to continue operating the impacted assets for many years to come. In addition, the Company will be recognizing a loss related to abandonment and decommissioning obligations from previously sold oil and gas production assets in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, as companies that purchased these assets have filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and we believe it is now probable and estimable that a portion of these obligations will revert to the Company. We expect to undertake the decommissioning activities on these assets over the next decade

Chevron, like all the oil majors, had counted on dumping these low-producing wells on smalls LLC's destined for bankruptcy, but are now stuck with them," said Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Director at FracTracker Alliance. "Chevron should have been plugging these bad assets over the course of the last four decades. These financial losses are their own doing."

Corporations like Chevron are able to get away with what they do in the “’green” and “progressive” state of California and across the nation because they have captured the regulatory agencies and politicians for many decades. Big Oil and Big Gas spent an all-time yearly record of $27,003,931 on lobbying in Sacramento in 2023. The lobbying expenditures for the last quarter alone were $4,983,305.
 

Certified natural gas – or methane gas that is purportedly produced in a low-emissions manner – is a “dangerous greenwashing scheme”, a group of progressive senators wrote in a letter to federal regulators on Monday.