|
Post by bjspokanimal on Jan 18, 2024 0:21:15 GMT -5
People in fairbanks AK have heaters under the hood they plug in in zero degree weather. I had one in my jeep when growing up as a teen near the Canadian border and had to park outside at night. We did that for our starter batteries. I'm sure that Norwegians all do that too but people in the states with their EV's don't. I will never own an EV... ever.
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Jan 18, 2024 8:30:58 GMT -5
Human tragedy and pollution problems that are rarely mentioned by the far Left in their ESG Looney Tunes... Largest Lithium Deposit in the World Suspends Output By Alex Kimani - Jan 15, 2024 oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Largest-Lithium-Deposit-in-the-World-Suspends-Output.html- Chile's SQM has announced that it has suspended operations at the Atacama salt flat due to widespread protests by an indigenous community. - Local groups have taken to the streets demanding to be included in talks between SQM and the government. - Some Indigenous leaders are open to supporting lithium extraction at a fair price. Chile’s lithium mining giant, Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A (NYSE:SQM), has announced that it has suspended operations at the Atacama salt flat due to widespread protests by an indigenous community. About 500 protesters of the indigenous Toconao community have blocked six different spots on public roads in the southern area of the salt flat, the world's largest lithium deposit, disrupting the movement of workers and mining equipment. Local groups have taken to the streets demanding to be included in talks between SQM and the government, claiming they were sidelined in an agreement that was recently signed between SQM and state-run copper firm Codelco. Chile is home to the world's largest lithium reserves, 90% of which are in the Atacama desert. Chile's millennial President Gabriel Boric has unveiled plans to nationalize the country’s lithium sector in a bid to boost the economy and protect biodiversity. Boric has pledged to achieve this by pioneering environmentally-friendly technology as well as engaging personally in talks with local Indigenous communities. He envisions expanding mining with public-private partnerships controlled by a new state lithium company. The Chilean government has opened negotiations with SQM for state control and plans to do so with Albemarle before its contract expires in 2043. But local communities living around the salt flats, once tightly grouped under a regional council, are skeptical and are proving harder to work with. Some community leaders are demanding more profits be channeled their way, while others are strongly opposed to any new lithium mining within their lands. Related:Iran Turns to Dirty Heavy Fuel Oil amid Gas Shortage "We're in the most arid desert and to exchange what we have in water and vegetation for a lithium battery is going to leave us with nothing," Francisco Mondaca, a civil engineer and head of the environmental unit of the Atacama Indigenous Council, has told Reuters. "The Chilean government starts selling this lithium without asking us native people, the people who live here, the homeowners, the Lickan Antay people. This method of the Chilean state dealing with native communities never changes. When they want to install new mining operations, they roll over communities," Cristian Espindola, a Toconao security officer on the Tara flat, has told Reuters, calling the move "irresponsible" and a continuation of previous policy. Some Indigenous leaders are open to supporting lithium extraction at a fair price. Since 2017, Albemarle Corp. (NYSE:ALB) has given 3.5% of its sales each year to the Atacama Indigenous Council, divided evenly among the 18 member communities. That has frequently led to disagreements, "There are communities with ten people who get $2 million and communities with 3,000 who get the same," Alonso Barros, a lawyer for the council, has told Reuters. Some communities now plan to hold individual negotiations with the government, bypassing the council altogether. SQM has already adopted this model, striking individual deals with communities closest to its operations. Ecuador’s NOC Declares Force Majeure Disruptions by local communities are becoming increasingly common in Latin America’s energy sector. Last month, Ecuador's state-run oil company, Petroecuador, declared force majeure on three oil blocks following protests by the indigenous Kichwa community. The three blocks were producing ~142,000 barrels of oil equivalent before production fell to about 122,500 after the disruption. Petroecudor produces ~ 362,000 barrels of crude per day. The community has accused Petroecuador of breaching agreements, though the company says it’s open to dialogue. This comes as yet another blow to Ecuador's beleaguered oil and gas sector. Last year, Ecuador’s energy minister Fernando Santos revealed that fuel imports have now surpassed exports for the first time in more than 50 years. Ecuador's crude and fuel oil exports clocked in at $2.9bn during the first six months of 2023, $100m lower than imports. This marked the first time Ecuador’s fuel imports have exceeded exports ever since the country started exporting oil in 1972. And, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to drill for more oil. Last year, Ecuadorians voted against drilling for oil in Yasuni National Park, home to the Tagaeri and Taromenani who live in self-isolation. Designated a world biosphere reserve by UNESCO in 1989, Yasuni encompasses a surface area of over 1 million hectares (2.5 million acres) and is home to 610 bird species, 121 reptiles species and139 amphibian species. Ecuadorian President Guillermo Lasso has been desperately trying to advocate for oil drilling in Yasuni in a bid to boost the country’s flagging oil exports. Unfortunately, last year’s referendum means that Petroecuador will have to look elsewhere.S&P Global has projected that Ecuador's crude production will grow slightly to 510,000 b/d in the current year before gradually declining. By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Jan 23, 2024 8:10:50 GMT -5
I've noticed that even the ESG-biased main stream major networks' prime time evening news programs are broadcasting people saying they're ditching their EVs... stuck in ditches or stranded on the side of the road with go-juice left in their batteries, in favor of ICE vehicles. And now this... Cold Weather Has Increased Range Anxiety For EV Drivers By Alex Kimani - Jan 22, 2024, 7:00 PM CST oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Cold-Weather-Has-Increased-Range-Anxiety-For-EV-Drivers.html- A study by the American Automobile Association (AAA) found that an EV can lose as much as 12% of its range when temperatures drop to 20 degrees Fahrenheit or -6 celsius. - To make matters worse for EVs, charging times can double or even triple for older EVs amid low temperatures. - To be fair, the performance of ICE vehicles also suffers when temperatures plummet, with the U.S. Department of Energy reporting that the gas mileage of a conventional gasoline car is 15% lower at 20 degrees (-6C) than at 77 (25C) degrees. Three years ago, the Biden-Harris administration set an ambitious goal to have up to half of all new vehicle sales in the country electric by the year 2030 as part of the government’s mission to achieve a net-zero emissions economy by 2050. Not long after, New York state doubled down and announced it will ban the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035. However, last year’s reports regarding a shortage of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations across New York City raised serious doubts about the practicality and achievability of those goals. According to the city of New York's last credible report in 2020, the city is home to a mere 1,500 public charging plugs compared to the ~40,000 additional charging plugs it requires by 2030 to phase out gas cars. The ongoing frigid weather in much of the country has exposed yet another Achilles heel of the EV revolution: cold weather is the kryptonite of electric vehicles. A study by the American Automobile Association (AAA) found that an EV can lose as much as 12% of its range when temperatures drop to 20 degrees, a figure that shoots up to 40% if you turn on the cabin heater. To put it another way, for every 100 miles of combined urban/highway driving, the range of an EV at 20°F would be reduced to 59 miles. These figures vary according to the EV model, with a BMW 13s suffering an average 20.4% reduction in range at 21 F in combined HVAC on/off scenarios; Tesla Model S 75D sees a 11.3% deterioration while a Volkswagen 3-golf only loses about 6.9%. The ideal operating temperature range for an EV battery is considered to be between 68 and 86 degrees, depending on the model. When a battery charges, lithium ions stored in the cathode are transferred back to the anode. In cold charging conditions, the ions flow less efficiently through the anode thus taking a toll on the battery's capacity. Related: Exxon Looks to Tap Guyana's Gas Riches To make matters worse for EVs, charging times can double or even triple for older EVs. Low temperatures, therefore, make the chemical processes that electric vehicle batteries use to store and generate energy slow down, leading to reduced battery performance and increased charging times. It’s a nightmare scenario for Uber and taxi drivers: “When I should be asleep, I’m outside charging my vehicle, falling asleep in my car. I’m not making any money,” Marcus Campbell, an Uber driver in Chicago, has told NBC News. To be fair, the performance of ICE vehicles also suffers when temperatures plummet, with the U.S. Department of Energy reporting that the gas mileage of a conventional gasoline car is 15% lower at 20 degrees than at 77 degrees. But, obviously, EV drivers are having it far much worse in the sub-freezing conditions reaching as far south as Texas and Florida. Rapid EV Adoption Currently, less than 2% of all vehicles in the United States are electric, so the vast majority of drivers are not panicking that their vehicles might run out of juice sooner than expected. Further, the Golden State of California, where extreme cold is uncommon, is leading the country in EV sales. However, that is rapidly changing. In 2023, a record 1.2 million EVs were sold in the United States, good for a robust 51% Y/Y increase. In the same year, the EV share of the total U.S. vehicle market rose to 7.6%, up from 5.9% in 2022. The proportion of people buying electric vehicles has been trending higher for years: EV sales in the fourth quarter set a record for both volume and share, at 317,168 and 8.1%, respectively. Thankfully for EV bulls, the Arctic blast is unlikely to slow down the EV revolution thanks in large part to one powerful secular trend: falling lithium prices. Lithium carbonate prices have crashed spectacularly from an all-time high of CNY 592,500 per tonne ($82,295/tonne) in November 2022 to CNY 97,500 per tonne ($13,550/tonne) currently due to a deluge of supply coming online over the past couple of years. An EV’s powertrain constitutes as much as 70% of its sticker price, and falling lithium prices played a part in bringing down the average cost of EVs by 18% in 2023. In the meantime, lithium stocks are plunging–fast, with fears of further deterioration as miners struggle to raise money. Earlier this month, Australia-based Core Lithium Ltd. said it would halt mining at its Grants open pit mine until conditions improve, and altered shareholders to a potential asset writedown. “Through 2022 and in early ‘23, we took money off the table in lithium as the price spiked well beyond the cost curve,” AustralianSuper fund senior portfolio manager Luke Smith told Mining.com. But that has also sparked some potential opportunities, Smith suggested, with AustraliaSuper now looking to take advantage of the plunge. “Clearly, we’re seeing now the opportunity become more attractive,” Mining.com quoted him as saying. By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Jan 26, 2024 7:18:01 GMT -5
Opinion: Evidence EVs are a fading fad is ‘rolling in fast’ as Tesla, GM and Ford slash prices Jan.25, 2024 - By Todd G. Buchholz www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-gm-and-ford-price-cuts-suggest-that-electric-cars-may-be-at-a-dead-end-1091aa16EV doubters like Toyota bet on hybrids, and now look prescient Electric-vehicle sales have started to stall. MARKETWATCH PHOTO ILLUSTRATION/TESLA, ISTOCKPHOTO As consumers start to shy away from EVs, their choice will affect not just the car industry, but U.S.-China relations, state budgets and commodity prices. In the early 1990s, every self-respecting American yuppie and retired suburban couple bought an electric bread maker, with sales hitting 4 million units. But the fad soon faded as these amateur bakers discovered that stuffing a precise quantity and ratio of flour, eggs, butter, yeast and salt into a metal box takes time and costs much more than strolling to the corner bakery. Are plug-in electric vehicles the bread makers of our day? Despite Tesla TSLA, -12.13% Chief Executive Elon Musk’s entrepreneurial brilliance and billions of dollars in U.S. government subsidies to support EVs, it appears that consumers still prefer to drive to a gas station for a five-minute fill-up than to retrofit their garage and suffer the range anxiety that comes from hunting for a charging station in the parking lot of an abandoned shopping mall. J.D. Power reports that 21% of public chargers do not work in any case. As consumers start to shy away from EVs, their choice will affect not just the car industry, but U.S.-China relations, state budgets and commodity prices. The evidence is rolling in fast. Earlier this month, Hertz HTZ, +3.42%, which purchased 100,000 Teslas to great fanfare in 2021, executed a squealing 180-degree turn and began dumping one-third of its EV fleet, taking a $245 million charge against its earnings. Its pledge to buy 175,000 EVs from GM GM, +1.33% will likely go up in smoke, too. EVs tend to sit on dealer lots for about three weeks longer than gasoline-powered cars. Outside of wealthy, trendy communities, consumers are walking past plug-in EVs and snapping up hybrids and gasoline-powered engines instead. In the fourth quarter of 2023, EV sales crawled up by just 1.3%. According to Edmunds, EVs tend to sit on dealer lots for about three weeks longer than gasoline-powered cars. With Mercedes Benz MBG, 2.18% EQS units languishing for four months, the company’s chief financial officer recently acknowledged that the market is a “pretty brutal space.” Customers are staying away despite a price war in which Ford F, +2.81%, Tesla, and GM slashed EV prices by 20%, on average, leading Ford to lose $36,000 on each unit sold. Read: Tesla warns Wall Street it may grow more slowly this year State governments have been pumping EVs with enormous subsidies, even as their own budgets are bleeding red. At the same time, state governments have been pumping EVs with enormous subsidies, even as their own budgets are bleeding red. California still pours $7,000 into each new EV (on top of the maximum $7,500 federal credit), despite reporting a record $68 billion budget deficit. New Jersey sends a $4,000 check to EV buyers, despite shrinking revenues. How long can these states keep the money spigot open? EV doubters like Toyota 7203, -2.41% — which instead bet on hybrids — now look prescient. Over the past year, Toyota’s share price outperformed GM’s by 40%. After taking flak from EV enthusiasts and Wall Street analysts, Toyota Chairman Akio Toyoda declared last October that people are “finally seeing reality.” Automobile unions surely are relieved, considering that EVs require 90% fewer parts and 30% fewer man-hours to manufacture. None of this diminishes the ingenuity of EV engineers and designers. Watching smart cars race and then parallel-park themselves, it’s hard to believe that they were once dismissed as golf carts with hood ornaments. Musk has been called many things — some of them unprintable — but his cars outrun Porsches, his rockets soar past NASA’s, and his brushes with insider trading leave Securities and Exchange Commission lawyers in the dust. Still, that does not mean he always wins. EVs face obstacles even beyond physics and consumer inertia: Namely, a faulty electrical grid. More Americans today are spending more hours sitting in the dark. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that between 2013 and 2021, the average duration of a blackout doubled, from 3.5 hours to more than seven hours, while their frequency jumped by nearly 20%. No wonder people are reluctant to tie their mobility to a wall plug, especially given doubts about the reliability of renewable-energy sources like solar and wind, which will always be vulnerable to clouds and stagnant air. The U.S. is not alone, of course. China’s BYD 002594, -2.13% (“Build Your Dreams”) automaker recently earned headlines for selling 3 million EVs last year, compared to Tesla’s 1.8 million. Yet the wobbly Chinese economy is vulnerable to weaker U.S. sales. The Chinese government and private sector have bet big on battery production and on countries like Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cuba and Russia, which mine lithium, cobalt, cadmium and other key minerals. But will China continue to buy off African political leaders as these commodity prices slump? How long will that spigot stay open? The 1990s bread-machine fad never benefited from public subsidies, government mandates or furious discounting to gain market share. If it had, perhaps it would have continued for a few more years. EVs have been promoted by presidents, governors, the IRS and tech wizards. But the public isn’t listening. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who looked great in a 60-horsepower jeep, once warned that “you don’t lead by hitting people over the head: That’s assault, not leadership.” In the automobile market, the internal combustion engine is still in the lead. Todd G. Buchholz, a former White House director of economic policy under President George W. Bush and managing director of the Tiger hedge fund, is the recipient of the Harvard Department of Economics’ Allyn Young Teaching Prize. He is the author of New Ideas from Dead Economists (Plume, 2021), The Price of Prosperity (Harper, 2016), and co-author of the musical Glory Ride. This commentary was published with the permission of Project Syndicate — Are Electric Cars a Dead End?
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 1, 2024 14:36:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 13, 2024 9:17:43 GMT -5
U.S. Firms Slow Hiring for ESG Roles By Tsvetana Paraskova - Feb 13, 2024, 6:38 AM CST oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Firms-Slow-Hiring-for-ESG-Roles.htmlThe American bubble of hiring managers in environmental, social, and governance roles is starting to bust amid pressures for firms to cut costs and backlash from investors against ESG. The number of departures in ESG roles exceeded arrivals in six of last year’s 12 months, per data from employment data provider Live Data Technologies cited by The Wall Street Journal. Tech giants Amazon, Meta, and Google saw the biggest outflows as the sector began job cuts. Consulting companies have also shrunk ESG roles, according to the data reported by the Journal. More ESG departures than arrivals in these roles reverse a multi-year trend in which ESG was the buzzword and companies were racing to hire ESG professionals as many pledged to be more proactive in reducing emissions from their businesses. However, the ESG fad has now started to cool, also reflected in fewer hires for such roles at U.S. firms. Claims of greenwashing and the underperformance of sustainable funds have also contributed to fewer ESG roles at U.S. companies. Last year, investors began withdrawing money from sustainable funds as the ESG enthusiasm of the past few years started waning amid high interest rates, poor returns, plunging renewable energy stocks, tightened SEC rules, and political backlash. It’s not only the recent flop in renewable energy stocks that’s keeping Wall Street away from sustainable investments. The high interest rates and politicians targeting sustainable investing have also played a role in investor decisions, industry executives and analysts say. In addition, sustainable investing in the U.S. has been criticized by Republican states, most notably Texas, which says that ESG standards are harming America’s energy industry and threatening millions of jobs. Texas prohibits state contracts and investments with companies that boycott energy companies. Last year, the Florida Treasury divested $2 billion worth of assets under management by BlackRock because of the ESG investing by the world’s largest asset manager. “If Larry, or his friends on Wall Street, want to change the world – run for office,” Florida Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Jimmy Patronis said at the end of 2022. By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com
|
|
|
Post by bjspokanimal on Feb 13, 2024 19:40:16 GMT -5
Hey, if they can stand up to ESG nuts in Germany, we can do it in the U.S.
I rode up a chairlift today with a kid who brought up black history month. Amazingly, he asked me when white history month is. I was amazed that he looked so perplexed when I broke out laughing.
I think his IQ was low enough that he thought all people are still created equal in America... like he'd been in a cave since we caucasians became the under-class.
I told him to just stick with the teachings of Martin Luther King... that it's about the "content of his character", and he'd do alright.
Pretty good skier for a not so bright kid though, hit those moguls pretty hard.
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 14, 2024 7:36:43 GMT -5
The article has several charts that available by using the link. And now this... The Six Months That Short-Circuited the Electric-Vehicle Revolution Automakers went all in on battery power, but buyers have proven more hesitant Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickups being assembled in Dearborn, Mich. ANDIA/UNIVERSAL IMAGES GROUP/GETTY IMAGES By Mike Colias, Nora Eckert, and Sean McLain - Feb. 14, 2024 www.wsj.com/business/autos/ev-electric-vehicle-slowdown-ford-gm-tesla-b20a748eThe Michigan plant where the F-150 Lightning electric truck is built used to vibrate with excitement. President Biden visited in 2021 and test drove the blazing-fast pickup. Before the first ones even started rolling off the assembly line in the spring of 2022, Ford said it would expand the factory to quadruple the number it could build. That energy is rapidly fading. Ford is cutting the plant’s output by half, and workers are relocating to other facilities, mostly those making gas-powered pickups and SUVs. The sudden change “was a little bit of a shocker,” said Matthew Schulte, who inspects trucks at the factory in suburban Detroit. “Reality has set in.” As recently as a year ago, automakers were struggling to meet the hot demand for electric vehicles. In a span of months, though, the dynamic flipped, leaving them hitting the brakes on what for many had been an all-out push toward an electric transformation. A confluence of factors had led many auto executives to see the potential for a dramatic societal shift to electric cars: government regulations, corporate climate goals, the rise of Chinese EV makers, and Tesla’s stock valuation, which, at roughly $600 billion, still towers over the legacy car companies. But the push overlooked an important constituency: the consumer. Last summer, dealers began warning of unsold electric vehicles clogging their lots. Ford, General Motors, Volkswagen and others shifted from frenetic spending on EVs to delaying or downsizing some projects. Dealers who had been begging automakers to ship more EVs faster are now turning them down. Even Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk warned of “notably lower” growth in vehicle deliveries for the company in 2024. “This has been a seismic change in the last six months of last year that will rapidly sort out winners and losers in our industry,” said Ford Chief Executive Jim Farley on an earnings call in early February. EV sales continue to grow, and auto executives say they remain committed to the technology. But many are recalibrating their plans. Ford has pulled back on EV investment and could delay some vehicle launches, while increasing production of hybrids, which run on both gasoline and electricity. It lost a staggering $4.7 billion last year on its battery-powered car business and projects an even bigger loss this year, in the range of $5 billion to $5.5 billion. Ford employees listen to a speech by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen at an EV factory in September 2022. PHOTO: SARAH RICE/GETTY IMAGES Some auto executives acknowledge they got ahead of the market with overzealous demand projections. Pandemic-era supply-chain shocks and a resulting car shortage created long waiting lists and early buzz for EVs, making the industry overly optimistic. Only later, as a barrage of new EVs hit the market, did executives realize that car buyers were more discerning than they expected. Many were hesitant to pay a premium for a vehicle that came with compromises. Farley and other industry CEOs are still confident that EVs will eventually take off, albeit at a slower pace than initially envisioned. But for now, the massive miscalculation has left the industry in a bind, facing a potential glut of EVs and half-empty factories while still having to meet stricter environmental regulations globally. “Ultimately, we will follow the customer,” GM Chief Executive Mary Barra told analysts this month. In 2020, as the car market unexpectedly heated up during pandemic lockdowns, traditional automakers shifted from dabbling in electric cars to launching an all-out blitz. They outlined plans to build dozens of battery factories, EV assembly plants and vehicle models, pledging more than a half-trillion dollars of investment in the technology through 2026, according to consulting firm AlixPartners. The rapid rise of Elon Musk’s Tesla added to the urgency. Over just a few years, its market value rocketed past those of legacy car companies. Wall Street cheered strategic moves toward electrics and bid up shares of EV startups. Tougher auto-emissions restrictions in Europe and China gave car companies little choice but to add more EVs or risk penalties. The Biden administration steered the industry toward more environmentally friendly cars, earmarking hundreds of billions in subsidies for battery production, consumer tax breaks and EV chargers. New Teslas being trucked from a factory in Fremont, Calif., in 2020. PHOTO: STEPHEN LAM/REUTERS At the start of 2023, car executives were expecting to cash in on their EV bets. GM’s Barra had been among the earliest and most vocal industry advocates of shifting to EVs. The Detroit automaker set a goal of phasing out nearly all gas-engine vehicles by 2035. “This is a breakout year,” Barra said on GM’s January 2023 earnings call. GM was finally making its own batteries and said it was ready to start cranking out EVs to satisfy pent-up demand for a new electric Cadillac SUV and Hummer pickup truck. Ford, emboldened by swelling orders for the F-150 Lightning, increased prices for the pickups by as much as $20,000 over the original sticker. Elsewhere, car executives were talking up their plans to accelerate EV factory work. Trouble ahead Then warning signs began to appear. In mid-January of last year, Tesla slashed prices on some models by more than 20%, triggering a chain reaction. Used-car dealers who had Tesla Model 3s and Model Ys in stock saw their values plummet by thousands of dollars. Customers who had bought Teslas at higher prices were furious. “Why cut EV prices when demand is greater than supply?” Bank of America analyst John Murphy wondered. Musk insisted that there was no demand problem. The company was trying to broaden appeal by making its cars more affordable, he told analysts. A charging station at a Tesla facility in Travis County, Texas. PHOTO: BRANDON BELL/GETTY IMAGES Inside Ford, staffers analyzed what Tesla’s cuts might mean for its own EV sales. About two weeks later, Ford reduced prices on some versions of its Mustang Mach-E SUVs by nearly 9%. Speaking to analysts in May, Farley largely shrugged off the pricing pressures, saying they weren’t reflective of broader interest in EVs. He remained upbeat about Ford’s outlook, reiterating plans to expand Lightning output. Around that time, car dealer Mickey Anderson began noticing that EVs were accumulating on his lots in Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado. At first, Anderson and other retailers thought the slower sales were a fluke. At meetings with manufacturers in the late spring and summer, the dealers compared notes. “We were worried,” Anderson recalled. “We went from wait lists to six months of supply, seemingly in a matter of weeks.” As car companies entered the summer-selling season, there were other worrying signs. U.S. EV sales for the first half of 2023 rose 50% from a year earlier, down from a 71% increase in the first half of 2022. The wave of early EV adopters willing to splurge had receded, and the next round of potential customers was proving more hesitant. They had more questions about how far a car could go on a single charge, and the life expectancy of batteries. They worried about charging times, repair costs, and not having enough places to plug in, according to dealers and surveys. Interest rates were rising, pushing up monthly payments on EVs, which already were selling, on average, for about $14,000 more per vehicle than gas-engine models, according to research firm J.D. Power. Lyndsey Grover, a Dallas-based pediatric anesthesiologist, said her husband was pushing her last year to replace her hybrid Volvo with an all-electric version, for environmental reasons. She looked at a Rivian SUV, Tesla Model Y and an electric Mercedes, but ended up with another Volvo—a plug-in hybrid that could travel some distance on battery power before switching to traditional hybrid mode. Her husband already had a Tesla Model S. She said it often requires a full night of charging at home, and even then, its range on a single charge often fell below estimates displayed by the vehicle. She felt the family needed at least one gas-powered vehicle. GM was having trouble processing battery cells, a bottleneck that was preventing it from getting EVs to showrooms. Manufacturing delays left buyers waiting for delivery of models such as the Cadillac SUV and Hummer pickup truck. Late last July, GM’s Barra told analysts plenty of consumers still wanted the company’s EVs. “These vehicles are getting to the dealers’ lots, and if they’re not already sold, they’ve got a list of people who are waiting for them,” she said. Two days later, Ford’s Farley struck a different tone. “The paradigm has shifted,” he told analysts. Although consumers were still buying EVs, Ford’s pricing power was deteriorating compared with gas-engine models, he said, and the market for EVs would remain volatile. Jefferies analyst Philippe Houchois asked Farley what had changed. “A few weeks ago when we saw you in Detroit…it’s like you had religion” on EVs, he told the CEO. Farley replied that Ford was responding to market realities. A Ford spokesman said that producing significant numbers of electric pickups before its rivals enabled the company to become an EV truck leader and to attract customers from other brands. Learning about the habits of EV buyers, he said, would benefit future vehicle development. F-150 Lightnings moving along Ford’s production line in Dearborn in 2022. PHOTO: JEFF KOWALSKY/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES Late last summer, Ford dealer Ed Jolliffe saw on his store’s computer system that the factory planned to ship him about a dozen Lightnings. That worried him. Earlier, his Detroit-area dealership had been receiving one or two Lightnings at a time, and his salespeople had had no trouble finding buyers. More recently, prospective customers seemed more hung up on the monthly payment of nearly $1,000. Jolliffe had spent a half-million dollars installing EV fast chargers. He was getting ready to rent a billboard along the nearby interstate declaring: “Fastest Chargers Downriver!” “We were all-in,” he said. So he swallowed hard and agreed to take the trucks. Changing plans The unraveling came swiftly. In a single month last fall, the average interest rate on an electric-car purchase jumped from 4.9% to 7%, making monthly payments even less affordable for some shoppers, said Tyson Jominy, vice president of data and analytics for J.D. Power. Suddenly, once-long waiting lists for EVs shrank and buyers dropped reservations. Over a 10-day span in October, the tone of automakers in Detroit and beyond turned gloomier. GM said it would delay by one year a $4 billion overhaul of a suburban Detroit factory to build new electric pickup trucks, citing “evolving EV demand.” The next day, Elon Musk said that not as many people could afford a Tesla given higher interest rates and tougher economic conditions. Affordability was keeping a lid on demand, he said during a call to discuss third-quarter results. A week later, on GM’s quarterly call, Barra described the transition to EVs as “bumpy,” and said the company wouldn’t meet a self-imposed goal of producing 400,000 EVs over a two-year period through mid-2024. Two days later, Ford said it would defer $12 billion in electric-vehicle investments and focus on increasing hybrid production, citing the need to better match demand. By late last year, it was becoming clear that sales of hybrids—once dismissed by some automakers as an unnecessary half-measure—were taking off and would outsell EVs in 2023. “People are finally seeing reality,” said Toyota Motor Chairman Akio Toyoda. For years, Toyota and other EV-cautious carmakers had been touting hybrids as a consumer-friendly way to reduce carbon emissions. Some prospective EV buyers worry about not having enough places to plug in. A new Electrify America indoor charging facility in San Francisco in February. PHOTO: ERIC RISBERG/ASSOCIATED PRESS In November, thousands of U.S. dealers signed a letter urging Biden to ease proposed regulations that would push the industry to sell more battery-powered cars. “Last year, there was a lot of hope and hype about EVs,” the dealers wrote. “But that enthusiasm has stalled.” Some auto retailers say that they are now selling EVs at a loss to clear unwanted inventory. Jolliffe, whose car dealership is a 25-minute drive from the Lightning plant, is struggling to understand what happened. On a recent weekday, he peeked out his window at eight Lightnings and four Mach-Es. “Nobody’s opening the door” to check them out, he said. “There just seems to be this hesitancy that is hitting hard.”
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Feb 15, 2024 8:38:08 GMT -5
Corporate America Retreats from ESG Rhetoric By ZeroHedge - Feb 08, 2024, 1:00 PM CST oilprice.com/Finance/the-Markets/Corporate-America-Retreats-from-ESG-Rhetoric.html- ESG funds in the US experienced net outflows of $13 billion in the last year, marking a significant downturn in investor interest. - Accusations of greenwashing and increased political scrutiny have contributed to a "chilling effect" on demand for ESG investments. - Corporate mentions of ESG and related terms have dramatically decreased in earnings calls, indicating a shift in focus away from ESG rhetoric amid the current economic and political climate. Investors are pulling funds from sustainable investments as the ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) bubble deflates, triggered by high interest rates, poor returns, plummeting stocks in renewable energy, stricter SEC regulations, political backlash, and Elon Musk's war on woke capitalism. At the same time, ESG mentions on earnings calls by corporate America have plunged. In 2021, during the pandemic boom, US ESG funds hit a record $358 billion in assets, up from $95 billion in 2017. But since then, investor interest has waned as higher borrowing costs impact capital-intensive clean tech stocks. Last week, Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld published a stunning graphic, citing Morningstar data. It shows investors dumped $5 billion from ESG exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in the fourth quarter, marking the fifth consecutive quarter of net outflows. For the full year, investors disposed of $13 billion in US ESG ETFs, more than offsetting positive flows in Europe and sending the entire global industry into turmoil. This was the worst calendar year for these funds since Morningstar began tracking a decade ago. "We're at a bit of an inflection point within the sustainable investing landscape in the US, where it's really incumbent upon sustainable investing advocates to be very clear about what they're doing within their investment processes to regain investor confidence in the sector," Alyssa Stankiewicz, associate director of sustainability research at Morningstar, told Yahoo Finance while referring to the Morningstar report. Stankiewicz said that political scrutiny over ESG funds has surged primarily because of "greenwashing," which has had a "chilling effect" on demand. The underperformance of ESG investing comes as corporate America has dialed back the number of mentions of "ESG" or synonyms related to ESG on investor calls this earnings season. For some context, peak ESG and related synonyms, such as "climate change" and "clean energy" and green energy" and net zero," among other terms, peaked at 28,000 mentions in the first quarter of 2022. Ever since, the number of mentions has rapidly plunged. Halfway through the first quarter earnings season, mentions are around 4,800. Andy Wiechmann, the Chief Financial Officer of MSCI, mentioned during his earnings call that "Clients are taking a more measured approach to how they integrate ESG." On a Jan. 12 earnings call, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink explained how his firm plans to purchase private equity firm Global Infrastructure Partners without mentioning ESG. This makes sense since BlackRock dropped the ESG term after blowback last summer. Woke capitalism is undergoing a rebranding, and the term ESG is being phased out by corporate America. By Zerohedge.com
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Mar 3, 2024 11:50:27 GMT -5
Here's another example of ESG's many exaggerations exposed as fantasy and why peak oil is farther away and ICE vehicles will not go away anytime soon...
The Renewable Revolution’s $3 Trillion Problem
By Rystad Energy - Mar 03, 2024, 10:00 AM CST oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Renewable-Revolutions-3-Trillion-Problem.html
To limit global warming and accommodate the electrification drive, an additional 18 million kilometers of grid network is needed by 2030, requiring substantial investments in infrastructure and materials like copper.
While Asia, led by China and India, is set to contribute significantly to grid expansion investments, regions like the US and Europe are also making substantial commitments to upgrade and revamp their power infrastructure.
Beyond traditional methods, solutions such as large-scale battery storage, grid digitalization, and distributed energy sources like rooftop solar are being explored to address grid intensity issues and streamline regulatory frameworks for a smoother energy transition.
Renewable energy developments continue at break-neck speed, with $644 billion to be spent on new capacity in 2024, but outdated and inadequate power grids could prove to be a significant stumbling block to the energy transition.
If the world is to limit global warming to 1.8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, $3.1 trillion of grid infrastructure investments are required before 2030, according to Rystad Energy research.
In that scenario, an additional 18 million kilometers of grid network would be needed to keep pace with the electrification underway across cities and counties, including new renewable energy capacity and the rapid adoption of electric vehicles. This would take the total length of all power grids worldwide to 104 million kilometers in 2030, expanding to 140 million kilometers in 2050 – almost the same distance from Earth to the sun. The immediate expansion by 18 million kilometers would necessitate nearly 30 million tonnes of copper, a commodity already in short supply.
Growing global power demand is the main factor driving the need for grid enhancements. This rise is driven by population expansion, industrialization and urbanization in developing countries, and efforts to mitigate climate change through electrification. Cybersecurity, geopolitics and the increasing priority for securing reliable national energy supply also contribute to the need.
Yet, inefficient regulatory frameworks could significantly delay grid developments and, in turn, the energy transition.
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Mar 7, 2024 6:46:26 GMT -5
Consumers are waking to woke as uneconomical. Just watch what happens to EV sales when the $7500 incentive goes away. It's already getting more difficult to use per this: If you are considering buying an electric car in 2024, there's good news — and bad news: A hefty federal tax credit for electric vehicles is going to get easier to access this year, but fewer vehicles qualify for the full $7,500 credit. And now this... Tesla is not one of the 10 largest U.S. companies for first time in 13 months Published: March 6, 2024 at 5:43 p.m. ET - By Emily BaryFollow www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-is-not-one-of-the-10-largest-u-s-companies-for-first-time-in-13-months-152f21cbVisa eclipses Tesla in market capitalization for the first time since January 2023 Tesla Inc. is no longer one of the 10 largest U.S. companies by market capitalization, dropping out of that elite club Wednesday for the first time in 13 months. The electric-vehicle company ended Wednesday’s session with a $562.24 billion market cap, putting it behind Visa Inc. V, +0.38%, which finished the day at $563.37 billion. Tesla TSLA, -2.32% last ranked outside the top 10 on Jan. 20, 2023, according to Dow Jones Market Data. It last trailed Visa a few days later, on Jan. 25, 2023. Shares of Tesla lost 2.3% in Wednesday’s session, racking up their third consecutive trading day of declines. The stock is off 12.9% over that three-session stretch and down about 29% on a year-to-date basis. Tesla’s stock selloff so far this year has erased $228 billion from the company’s market cap, according to Dow Jones Market Data. The stock has come under recent pressure as Wall Street worries about factors such as price cuts and China trends. “Commentary regarding price cuts and the potential choppiness of cost improvements implies that margins may not have bottomed,” Baird analyst Ben Kallo wrote overnight. While gross margins improved sequentially in the fourth quarter of 2023, Kallo expects they’ll turn lower in the first quarter. Further, he says that though delivery estimates have come down for the company, he thinks they still have room to fall. Kallo has an outperform rating on the stock but established it as a “bearish fresh pick” in late January, given his concerns about delivery expectations. Read: A Tesla bull turns bearish, and warns EV maker could lose money this year Meanwhile, Visa shares have remained relatively resilient, up about 8% so far this year and 24% higher over a 12-month basis. The stock sits less than 2% below its record close of $285.63, achieved Feb. 28. Visa Chief Executive Ryan McInerney said at an RBC investor conference Tuesday that the company was seeing a “steady-as-she-goes” spending landscape in the U.S., even as there’s been some spending deceleration in certain international markets with a high percentage of variable-rate mortgages. The company is also benefiting from the continued growth of travel in and out of China and accelerating growth for inbound travel to the U.S. //////////////////// A Tesla bull turns bearish, and warns EV maker could lose money this year Published: March 6, 2024 at 12:07 p.m. ET - By Claudia AssisFollow www.marketwatch.com/story/a-tesla-bull-turns-bearish-and-warns-ev-maker-could-lose-money-this-year-2095776bTesla’s stock heads to lowest in nearly a year after bearish Morgan Stanley note
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Mar 7, 2024 6:57:32 GMT -5
This isn't happening because there's a consumer stampede to buy EVs... peak oil consumption is getting pushed way out beyond the 2030s. Goldman Sachs: Price Rout in Key Battery Metals Isn’t Over By Tsvetana Paraskova - Mar 06, 2024, 7:00 PM CST oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Goldman-Sachs-Price-Rout-in-Key-Battery-Metals-Isnt-Over.html- Prices of key battery metals such as lithium, cobalt and nickel have plunged over the last 18 months. - Goldman Sachs sees further price declines over the next 12 months. - The crash in lithium prices over the past year is holding back reinvestment in new supply, the world’s largest lithium producer, Albemarle, says. Sizeable surpluses in the lithium, cobalt, and nickel markets have led to a plunge in the prices of key battery metals over the past year and a half. The price rout is far from over, according to Goldman Sachs. Prices still have room to drop, and the end of the bear markets is nowhere in sight, the Wall Street bank said in a note this week. “Despite the significant downside in battery metals prices, with nickel, lithium and cobalt prices down 60%, 80% and 65% from cycle peak, respectively, we believe it is too early to call a decisive end to these respective bear markets,” Goldman Sachs analysts wrote in a Tuesday note carried by CNBC. The bank’s strategists see further price declines over the next 12 months – they forecast a 12% drop in cobalt prices, 15% in nickel, and a 25% plunge in lithium carbonate prices. In the lithium market, slowing growth in electric vehicle sales, including in the top EV market, China, and a market oversupply sent lithium prices crashing by 80% in the past year, prompting lithium miners to pause and scale back expansion projects. After warnings of project reviews and moves to preserve cash from U.S. and Australian lithium mining firms, some of China’s biggest miners also warned of a plunge in profits and potential asset write-downs. Related: Two Countries That Could Break Putin's Gas Grip On Europe The crash in lithium prices over the past year is holding back reinvestment in new supply, the world’s largest lithium producer, Albemarle, says. Yet, the deferral of new supply developments amid the low prices is setting the stage for the next lithium supply crunch later this decade, according to executives and analysts. Oversupply is weighing on the cobalt market and prices, too. The surplus could last for years, until 2028, according to an annual report by UK-based cobalt trader Darton Commodities, cited by the Financial Times. Production ramp-ups in Indonesia and by Chinese producer CMOC in the Democratic Republic of Congo boosted supply by 17% last year, compared to demand growth of 12% amid slower EV demand growth, Andries Gerbens, director of Darton Commodities, told FT. The nickel market has also been a bear market for some time amid oversupply. Top nickel exporter Indonesia said last week that the country would ensure a well-supplied market to keep costs lower for EV manufacturers, and investors shouldn’t expect a price recovery. Some nickel producers have already announced output curtailments due to the price plunge. “The glut is so significant coming out of Indonesia and that’s now impacting on Class-I nickel prices. We do expect that could continue until the end of the decade,” Mike Henry, chief executive at mining giant BHP, said on an earnings call last month. Despite the plunge in nickel prices, Indonesia is unlikely to slow its supply, as it is more resilient to potential output cuts due to cheap labor, subsidized power, and abundant raw materials, Ewa Manthey, Commodities Strategist at ING, said last month. “Meanwhile, the newly elected president of Indonesia, Prabowo Subianto, is likely to continue the current government’s mining policies in the country. We believe rising output in Indonesia will continue to pressure nickel prices this year,” Manthey noted. But some analysts expect the surplus to begin shrinking earlier than feared and nickel prices to recover earlier than expected.
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Mar 13, 2024 11:48:38 GMT -5
Using the link you can see some charts if you're that interested. And now this... EV euphoria is dead. Automakers are scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans PUBLISHED WED, MAR 13 20247:00 AM EDTUPDATED 43 MIN AGO - Michael Wayland www.cnbc.com/2024/03/13/ev-euphoria-is-dead-automakers-trumpet-consumer-choice-in-us.htmlKEY POINTS - Automakers from Ford Motor and General Motors to Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin are scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans. - Though consumer demand for EVs hasn’t shown up in the way executives had expected, sales of the vehicles are still predicted to increase in the years to come. - A broad return to a more mixed offering of vehicles — with lineups of gas-powered vehicles alongside hybrids and fully electric options — assumes an all-electric future at a much slower pace, and it calls attention to ambitious EV targets set for the years ahead. Although consumer demand for EVs hasn’t shown up in the way executives had expected, sales of the vehicles are still predicted to increase in the years to come. Andrew Merry | Moment | Getty Images DETROIT — The buzz around electric vehicles is wearing off. For years, the automotive industry has been in a state of EV euphoria. Automakers trotted out optimistic sales forecasts for electric models and announced ambitious targets for EV growth. Wall Street boosted valuations for legacy automakers and startup entrants alike, based in part on their visions for an EV future. Now the hype is dwindling, and companies are again cheering consumer choice. Automakers from Ford Motor and General Motors to Mercedes-Benz , Volkswagen , Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin are scaling back or delaying their electric vehicle plans. Even U.S. EV leader Tesla, which is estimated to have accounted for 55% of EV sales in the country in 2023, is bracing for what “may be a notably lower” rate of growth, CEO Elon Musk said in late January. The broad return to a more mixed offering of vehicles — with lineups of gas-powered vehicles alongside hybrids and fully-electric options — still assumes an all-electric future, eventually, but at a much slower pace of adoption than previously expected. “What we saw in ’21 and ’22 was a temporary market spike where the demand for EVs really took off,” said Marin Gjaja, chief operating officer for Ford’s EV unit, during a recent interview with CNBC. “It’s still growing but not nearly at the rate we thought it might have in ’21, ’22.” Ford is significantly increasing its production and sales of hybrid models, which can help ease the transition to electrified vehicles for drivers who may not be ready for fully electric models. They can also help companies meet tighter federal standards for carbon emissions. GM, which was the first traditional automaker to go all in on EVs, plans to roll out plug-in hybrid electric vehicles for consumers alongside EVs and gas cars. Others, such as Hyundai Motor, Kia, Toyota Motor and, potentially, Volkswagen, plan to offer different levels of electrification across their lineups. “I think the balanced approach is the best way,” VW of America CEO Pablo Di Si told CNBC last month, adding he is in discussions to bring hybrid vehicles to the U.S. The automaker currently sells hybrid vehicles in Europe, but none stateside. A VW ID.BUZZ EV vehicle Scott Mlyn | CNBC “These technologies exist within the VW group, whether it’s hybrids or plug-in hybrids,” he said. “I think it’s just a matter of time until we bring it here.” To be clear, although consumer demand for EVs hasn’t shown up in the way executives had expected, sales of the vehicles are still predicted to increase in the years to come. U.S. EV sales were a record 1.2 million units last year, representing 7.6% of the overall national market, Cox Automotive estimates. That share is expected to increase to between 30% and 39% by the end of the decade, according to analyst forecasts. “The market was never going to make a smooth transition to EVs, and we expected a slowdown in this shift as early adopters were satisfied,” said Sam Fiorani, vice president of global vehicle forecasting at AutoForecast Solutions. “Moving on to less tech-savvy buyers will slow the EV market share growth over the next few years.” EV targets As ESG investing — or investing geared toward environmental, social and governance principles — emerged in recent years and as Tesla rose from niche EV player to the most valued automaker by market cap globally in 2020, the automotive industry largely took note and began plotting its path forward in EVs. Automakers wanted to emulate Tesla’s success, with some promising to exclusively offer EVs in the not-too-distant future. Five-year stock comparison between Tesla and the “Big Three” automakers. Among those targets: Stellantis -owned Alfa Romeo said its vehicle lineup would be all-electric by 2027. Jaguar Land Rover and Volvo said the same but by 2030. GM said it would offer only electric consumer vehicles by 2035, with its brands Buick and Cadillac aiming to exclusively offer EVs five years sooner. Honda Motor set its target to exclusively sell EVs and fuel-cell-powered vehicles in North America by 2040. Other, more specialized brands such as Lotus and Bentley have also announced EV-exclusive targets. While none of those automakers has officially announced changes to its long-term goals, there’s been a notable shift in tone and messaging around their goals. Companies are monitoring consumer adoption, global emissions regulations and EV charging infrastructure to determine future plans, officials have said. Since first adopting an all-electric deadline, of sorts, in January 2021, GM CEO Mary Barra and other executives have more recently said customer demand will steer its efforts. They maintain that the 2035 goal remains its guiding plan. Cadillac now says it will offer a full lineup of EVs, but not necessarily end production of all gas-powered models by 2030. “We have the best of both worlds right now,” Cadillac Vice President John Roth said last month during an interview. “We’ll see where it heads here in the future, but we are still committed to offering a full EV portfolio by the end of the decade.” Ford, for its part, has never stated plans to exclusively offer EVs globally, but it did set targets to be all-electric in Europe by 2030, for 50% of its sales in North America to be electric by that same year and to achieve an 8% EV profit margin by 2026. It has since backed off many targets and is cranking out hybrids — specifically trucks — along with EVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles for the U.S. “We’ve always had a freedom-of-choice kind of approach,” Gjaja said. “Some of that was to protect ourselves against going too far in one direction, because the market right now, as we’ve seen, is very uncertain.” Ford Motor Co., CEO Jim Farley gives the thumbs up sign before announcing Ford Motor will partner with Chinese-based, Amperex Technology, to build an all-electric vehicle battery plant in Marshall, Michigan, during a press conference in Romulus, Michigan U.S., February 13, 2023. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook Ford Motor Co., CEO Jim Farley gives the thumbs up sign before announcing Ford Motor will partner with Chinese-based, Amperex Technology, to build an all-electric vehicle battery plant in Marshall, Michigan, during a press conference in Romulus, Michigan February 13, 2023. Rebecca Cook | Reuters CEO Oliver Blume during Porsche’s annual media event Tuesday said the German sports carmaker is “in a flexible position” regarding its vehicle manufacturing. He said the company is monitoring EV adoption and regulations but still has a goal of EVs making up 80% of its global sales by 2030. “We have to keep tabs on it ... although the ramp-up is slower than planned last year, we are always in a position to respond flexibly,” he said, adding the company will “have to see in 2026 and 2027″ regarding its plans to significantly reduce spending on gas-powered vehicles. The widespread shift in sentiment brings more automakers closer to the ethos of Toyota. Led by Chairman and former CEO Akio Toyoda, the world’s top-selling automaker has argued for years that a diversified lineup was the right strategy to meet all customer needs and reach its goal of being carbon-neutral by 2050. The Japanese automaker is now expected to reap the benefits of its strategy, which includes hybrids, plug-in hybrids, EVs and hydrogen fuel cells. “Toyota is almost completely absent from the [battery electric vehicle] market yet will gain more U.S. market share than any other car company this year. Let that sink in,” Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote in an investor note last week. “EVs may be ‘the future’ but are struggling in the present. Hybrid sales are growing 5x faster than EVs in the US.” What happened? After significant interest from early EV adopters — bolstered by low interest rates and Tesla’s rise — interest rates skyrocketed, raw materials costs surged and the vehicles became much more expensive compared with their traditional counterparts. It’s also become clear that the automotive industry and the Biden administration, which set its own target for half of new U.S. vehicle sales to be electric by 2030, overestimated the willingness of consumers to adopt a new technology without a reliable and prevalent charging infrastructure. U.S. President Joe Biden gestures after driving a Hummer EV during a tour at the General Motors 'Factory ZERO' electric vehicle assembly plant in Detroit, Michigan, November 17, 2021. Jonathan Ernst | Reuters The adoption curve of EVs rapidly went through first adopters and some “EV curious” consumers, but has been a tougher sell with mainstream buyers. “The expectations for EV growth in the U.S. market have shifted from ‘rosy to reality’ as sales increase, but customer acceptance of EVs isn’t keeping pace,” Cox Automotive said in its 2024 forecast report. The available inventory of EVs in the U.S., measured in days’ supply, has ballooned to 136 days, according to Cox. That compares to the overall U.S. industry at a 78 days’ supply of new vehicles. The data excludes Tesla, Rivian and other automakers that sell directly to consumers rather than through franchised dealers. “A few years ago, there were wildly ambitious ideas of how EV sales would go and it seemed like nobody was thinking about bumps in this road,” said Michelle Krebs, an executive analyst at Cox. “Now they’re here, and so reality has set in.” The slower adoption of EVs has led to price cuts or discounts on several models such as the Ford Mustang Mach-E, Tesla Model Y and, most recently, the Nissan Ariya. Trisha Jung, senior director of Nissan U.S. EV strategy and transformation, said the cuts of up to $6,000 will “improve the model’s competitiveness and ensure we are delivering maximum value to our customers.” What’s next? Industry strategy with regard to EVs may shift even more drastically in the months ahead, depending on political pressures, including the finalization of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fuel economy and emissions standards. A driving force behind the rollout of EVs by traditional automakers, particularly the so-called Detroit Three, was the need to meet federal vehicle emissions and fuel economy requirements to avoid costly penalties. Proposals currently under review by the Biden administration to hike fuel economy standards through 2032 could cost automakers more than $14 billion in fines based on the fuel efficiencies of their current fleets, according to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents the largest automakers operating in the U.S. Cars make their way heading east out of Los Angeles during the evening rush hour on January 25, 2024. California lawmaker State Senator Scott Wiener introduced on January 23, 2024 a bill requiring new passenger vehicles and large trucks sold in California have technology to prevent drivers from going more than 10 miles an hour above the speed limit in response to surging traffic deaths in the US. (Photo by Frederic J. BROWN / AFP) (Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images) Cars make their way in traffic on a Los Angeles freeway on January 25, 2024. Frederic J. Brown | AFP | Getty Images A separate letter to federal regulators last year by the American Automotive Policy Council estimated such regulations would cost GM $6.5 billion in fines and Jeep parent Stellantis $3 billion. The council, which represents the Detroit automakers, said Ford’s penalties would total about $1 billion. Shifting strategy comes with its own costs: Automakers that invested heavily in EV infrastructure and have since changed course could face write-downs or higher capital needs to shore up different production lines. But without consumer sales, they’re left with little option. It’s unclear how much hybrids and plug-in hybrids would help automakers to meet the potential regulations, given the standards were crafted with a fast EV adoption in mind. But the automakers’ product mix will need to satisfy federal guidelines to remain a viable path forward. Automakers’ fuel economies are based on a fleetwide mix of vehicles sold. The better fuel economy and fewer emissions a vehicle produces, the better it is for the automaker’s overall score. “It all depends on what the final regulation looks like,” said Matt Blunt, president of the American Automotive Policy Council. Blunt said the trade group hopes the Biden administration listens to the industry’s concerns and “understands that a part of transitioning to electric vehicles is having a reasonable fuel economy regulation in place.” Biden is reportedly expected to dial back certain targets amid the slower-than-expected pace of EV adoption, which was a major piece of his plans to combat climate change. Looming in the distance, too, is the U.S. presidential election in November. If former President Donald Trump is reelected, he’s expected to scale back or remove the fuel economy mandates, as he did during his first term in office. A reversal of those standards come January could pave the way for an even longer era of gas-powered and hybrid models. Automakers operating in Europe face stricter governmental EV regulations, which currently aim to ban sales of traditional, fossil-fuel vehicles by 2035. However, changes have already been made to the regulations and conservative groups such as the European People’s Party have called for dropping the ban.
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Mar 21, 2024 7:21:15 GMT -5
When your policies fail based on economics go ahead and flail with tougher regulation laws that make the situation even worse for businesses. And now this... Biden seeks to accelerate the EV transition in biggest climate move yet Story by Maxine Joselow - March 20, 2024 www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-seeks-to-accelerate-the-ev-transition-in-biggest-climate-move-yet/ar-BB1ked6r?bncnt=BroadcastNews_TopStories&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&FORM=BNC001&cvid=0bc517fd42b1442394563f6ae0041296&ei=25The Biden administration finalized the United States’ toughest limits on planet-warming emissions from passenger cars and light trucks Wednesday, in a controversial bid to accelerate the nation’s halting transition to electric vehicles. The Environmental Protection Agency rule — President Biden’s most far-reaching climate regulation yet — will require automakers to ramp up sales of electric vehicles while slashing carbon emissions from gasoline-powered models, which account for about one-fifth of America’s contribution to global warming. But unlike last year’s proposed rule, automakers will not need to dramatically boost electric vehicle (EV) sales until after 2030. The delayed timeline reflects an election-year concession to labor unions, a key Democratic constituency that has raised concerns about a rapid shift to EVs. In another change from the proposal, automakers could comply by boosting sales of plug-in hybrid vehicles in addition to all-electric vehicles. Plug-in hybrids have recently proved more popular with U.S. consumers, in part because of concerns about a lack of public charging infrastructure. The final rule will still prevent 7.2 billion metric tons of carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere through 2055, according to the EPA. It will also reduce fine particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, preventing up to 2,500 premature deaths from air pollution annually starting in 2055, the agency said. “Our final rule delivers the same — if not more — pollution reduction than we set out at proposal,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said on a call with reporters Tuesday previewing the announcement. “These final standards will also reduce some of the most serious pollutants that impact public health.” Republican-led states and fossil fuel companies are likely to challenge the rule in court. But the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group whose members include Ford, General Motors, Stellantis and Toyota, praised the EPA’s decision to delay the stricter EV requirements until after 2030. “Moderating the pace of EV adoption in 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030 was the right call,” John Bozzella, president and CEO of the alliance, said in a statement. “… These adjusted EV targets — still a stretch goal — should give the market and supply chains a chance to catch up.” U.S. EV sales have cooled in recent months. According to estimates from Kelley Blue Book, U.S. EV sales increased year-over-year by 40 percent in the fourth quarter of 2023, down from a 49 percent jump in the third quarter and a 52 percent spike in the second quarter. Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association and the son of former vice president Al Gore, said other figures paint a more encouraging picture. He noted that a record 1.2 million EVs were sold in the United States last year, bringing EVs’ market share to 7.6 percent in 2023 compared with 5.9 percent in 2022. “Whether or not we’re talking about a real slowdown, the trend line for EVs has been one of phenomenal growth over the last couple of years,” Gore said. The price of EVs is also plunging so fast that they’re now almost as cheap as gas-powered cars. The average price difference last month was $5,000, according to data from Cox Automotive. Still, the recent sales slowdown has prompted some automakers to scale back their EV plans, with Ford slashing production of the much-touted F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck. Many automakers are now pivoting to better-selling plug-in hybrids — a compromise between the internal combustion engines of the past and the batteries of the future. Wednesday’s rule comes after a contentious back-and-forth between the United Auto Workers and the Biden administration over whether — and how — the shift to EVs will benefit workers. In September, the UAW launched a historic strike against Detroit’s three biggest automakers — Ford, General Motors and Stellantis. The workers warned that the rise of EVs could erase well-paying jobs in the auto industry, since many EV plants are being built in Southern states less friendly to union labor. Despite these warnings, the EPA issued an ambitious proposed rule last April that called for EVs to account for 67 percent of all new passenger car and light-duty truck sales by 2032. Weeks later, UAW President Shawn Fain wrote that the union was withholding its endorsement of Biden’s reelection campaign over “concerns with the electric vehicle transition.” The union reversed course and coalesced around Biden after the EPA signaled it would relax the timeline in the final rule. The UAW endorsed the president at its annual legislative conference in January, and Fain attended Biden’s State of the Union address this month. Automakers could still comply with the final rule by making EVs account for 67 percent of new car sales in 2032, according to the EPA. But they could also meet the requirements by making all-electric vehicles account for 56 percent and making plug-in hybrids represent 13 percent, the agency said. Former president Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has called Fain a “dope” and has repeatedly bashed Biden’s EV goals. He has falsely claimed that EVs cannot travel far on a single charge, and he has pledged to scrap the EPA rule on day two of a second term. On Monday, Trump sought to defend his declaration over the weekend that there would be a “bloodbath” if he lost in November, saying he was merely describing a bloodbath for the auto sector. He wrote on his social media platform that he was “simply referring to [EV] imports” allowed by Biden, which he said “are killing the automobile industry.” Manish Bapna, president and CEO of NRDC Action Fund, the political arm of the Natural Resources Defense Council, criticized Trump’s anti-EV rhetoric. “The industry is betting its future on electric cars, drivers are buying them in record numbers and last fall’s UAW agreement makes sure workers benefit,” Bapna said in an email. “Biden’s got a strategy to support that shift. Trump wants to slam it into reverse.” The fossil fuel industry has sought to drum up opposition to the EPA rule, which could eat into demand for its petroleum products. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), an industry trade group, has launched a seven-figure campaign against what it calls a de facto “gas car ban.” The campaign includes ads in battleground states warning that the rule will restrict consumer choice. “To be sure, the administration refers to these regulations as ‘standards,’ not ‘bans’ or ‘mandates,’” AFPM President and CEO Chet Thompson said on a call with reporters this month. “But they do that because they know how unpopular bans are with Americans.” The AFPM’s members include fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Marathon Petroleum and Valero Energy. Marathon Petroleum, the nation’s largest refiner, waged a covert campaign in 2018 to roll back the car emissions standards set by President Barack Obama. Mike Sommers, chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute, said the oil industry lobby group plans to challenge the new standards in court. “We’ll do everything we can to stop the rule,” he said in an interview Wednesday at an energy conference in Houston. California regulators are going further than the EPA, seeking to end statewide sales of new gas cars by 2035. In the past, more than a dozen other states have opted to follow California’s tougher tailpipe pollution rules. The California Air Resources Board announced Tuesday a deal with Stellantis, the owner of the Jeep and Ram brands. Under the deal, Stellantis agreed to comply with California’s EV sales requirements even if they are blocked by a court or a potential second Trump administration. The automaker had previously blasted those requirements for handing rivals an unfair advantage. But on Tuesday, Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares called the agreement a “win-win solution” that will avoid 10 million to 12 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions through 2030. “The biggest and most influential companies in the world understand that this is how we can fight climate change together,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said in a statement.
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Mar 25, 2024 15:30:59 GMT -5
I drove through whole of Texas last Spring. I can tell you they have just about every sort of power known to man. I saw acres and acres of windmills, solar farms, and, oil & gas pumps as well as nuclear power. So, the state is not anti-renewable power. They anti-bad ESG polices and investment practices. And now this... Texas Takes a Stand Against the Radical ESG Agenda By Alex Kimani - Mar 21, 2024, 6:00 PM CDT oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Texas-Takes-a-Stand-Against-the-Radical-ESG-Agenda.html- Texas has barred state entities, including pensions, from investing in roughly 350 funds that oppose fossil fuel investing. - A growing number of red states are now pursuing similar legislation to boycott financial institutions over policies that appear to threaten their livelihoods. - Five of the largest underwriters namely Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Fidelity exited the market, leading to lower competition for borrowing and higher borrowing costs. Three years ago, Texas passed two laws in 2021 that restrict the state from doing business with companies that are deemed to be hostile to fossil fuels and firearm industries.The two laws are just a handful of the many new laws Republicans have been pushing that oppose environmental, social and governance aka ESG investing and financing. Many Republicans consider screening potential investments for their environmental and social impact as part of the left’s efforts to impose their “woke” political views on the masses and have labeled ESG investing as anti-capitalist. “ESG is just a hate factory. It’s a factory for naming enemies,” Republican mega-donor Peter Thiel has declared, while former Vice President Mike Pence has lamented that firms have been pushing a “radical ESG agenda.” And, the effects of those controversial laws are now being felt across the ESG universe. Texas has barred state entities, including pensions, from investing in roughly 350 funds that oppose fossil fuel investing while other firms have been blacklisted for opposing firearms. To wit, the Republican-leaning state has banned Wall Street behemoths BlackRock Inc., Citigroup Inc. Barclays Plc and members of Net Zero Banking Alliance that have committed to “financing ambitious climate action to transition the real economy to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” Just days ago, Texas Permanent School Fund terminated its contract with BlackRock to manage $8.5 billion of state money due to the money manager’s hardline stance on fossil fuel investments. Costing Taxpayers The anti-ESG laws have also come at a considerable cost for the State of Texas and its residents. Five of the largest underwriters namely Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Fidelity exited the market shortly after the laws were enacted, leading to lower competition for borrowing and higher borrowing costs. Related: Why Do we Still Have Investor-Owned Utilities? “This is a really big rule for the municipal space. This is not the first time we’ve seen states use municipal markets as a way to enforce bank behavior they want to see, but this is new in its scale in that five large banks left Texas. [They] used to underwrite about 35% of the debt in the market, so they’ve left a really big gap,” professor Daniel Garret, co-author of a Wharton paper on the subject, has said. The study estimates that Texas cities paid an additional $303 million to $532 million in interest on $32 billion in bonds in the first eight months alone after the laws were passed. But the implications go beyond Texas because a growing number of red states are now pursuing similar legislation to boycott financial institutions over policies that appear to threaten their livelihoods. Last year, a coalition of 19 states, led by Florida, created the anti-ESG alliance that’s opposed to using ESG criteria in government investing. The coalition claims the Department of Labor’s final rule permitting the use of ESG factors when selecting retirement plan investments prioritizes a political agenda ahead of financial returns and will end up costing Americans money. “The proliferation of ESG throughout America is a direct threat to the American economy, individual economic freedom, and our way of life, putting investment decisions in the hands of the woke mob to bypass the ballot box and inject political ideology into investment decisions, corporate governance, and the everyday economy,” they said in a joint statement. Source: Visual Capitalist ESG investing spiked in 2020 and 2021 amid the COVID-19 pandemic with low oil prices driving more investments beyond fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the latest oil price boom and political backlash against ESG led by Republican politicians have made ESG investing lose steam. Indeed, LSEG Lipper data showed that in the first 11 months of 2023, ESG funds only managed to pull $68 billion in net new deposits, a sharp drop from $158 billion in 2022 and $558 billion in 2021. Big Oil is also pumping the brakes on its ambitious decarbonization drive. A few days ago, Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE:XOM) announced that it will not move forward with one of the world's largest low-carbon hydrogen projects if the Biden administration does not provide tax incentives for natural gas-fed facilities. Current guidelines provide incentives for projects that produce "green" hydrogen by using water and renewable energy, but Exxon wants them extended to"blue" hydrogen from gas by trapping carbon emissions. That’s an interesting take because last week, at the CERAWeek conference in Houston, Exxon CEO Darren Woods expressed his doubts about the efficacy of carbon capture at lowering emissions because ‘‘…the technology works for high concentration streams of gases but is too expensive for low concentration streams.’’ Last year, BP Inc. (NYSE:BP) unveiled a new [less aggressive] decarbonization strategy that entails (1) a slower decline in upstream investments and scrapped former plans to shrink refining; (2) focus more on higher-margin hydrogen and biofuels as well as offshore wind; and (3) higher spending in both oil and gas as well as low carbon. According to the company, the new strategy will offer higher shareholder returns, especially critical to the company after it severed ties with Russia’s Rosneft. BP’s nearly 20% stake in Rosneft helped to add several billion dollars to its bottomline. By Alex Kimani for Oilprice.com
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Mar 29, 2024 7:07:27 GMT -5
Citigroup Says 42% of Clients Have No Energy Transition Plan By Julianne Geiger - Mar 28, 2024, 11:30 AM CDT oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Citigroup-Says-42-of-Clients-Have-No-Energy-Transition-Plan.htmlMore than 40% of Citigroup’s clients lack a “substantive plan” for cutting their emissions to align with net-zero ambitions or are unlikely to transition at all, the bank’s latest climate report showed. The report, published earlier this week, is based on initial results from its net zero review template, which monitors its clients’ readiness to adapt to the energy transition. Among the energy sector, according to Citigroup, 42% of its clients have a “low” transition-plan alignment, and 29% have a “medium-low” score—meaning they do have a clear climate plan, but they may not have the means to execute that plan. For the bank’s power-sector clients, things are more optimistic for reaching stated goals, with 59% of customers within this industry having “strong” transition plan alignment. In 2022, Citigroup pledged net-zero emissions by 2050, with a 29% absolute reduction in financed emissions in the energy sector by 2030, and a 63% reduction in portfolio emissions intensity in the power sector. This only works, however, if their clients follow through with their own emissions reduction programs. Citigroup’s CEO Jane Fraser said that the bank is “working side-by-side with clients to help them achieve their goals, whilst remaining highly mindful of near-term energy needs and related economic impacts.” Fraser has suggested that talking about “energy evolution” rather than “energy transition” would be more appropriate. “This shift will not be linear and will include a series of cumulative leaps and tipping points over the next few decades.” Last summer, Citigroup recommended that traders short oil after summer was over, estimating a 200,000 bpd surplus in the oil markets in 2023, and a 1.8 million bpd surplus in 2024, with too little demand growth and extra supplies expected to come from non-OPEC+ and OPEC+ alike. In January of this year, Citi adjusted its Brent forecast to $74 this year. At the time, Brent was trading around $84.60 per barrel—roughly $3 under where it is today.
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Apr 6, 2024 7:20:53 GMT -5
North Sea Oil and Gas Firms Continue Drilling Despite Climate Goals By Felicity Bradstock - Apr 05, 2024, 6:00 PM CDT oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/North-Sea-Oil-and-Gas-Firms-Continue-Drilling-Despite-Climate-Goals.html- Major North Sea oil and gas companies have no plans to stop drilling to achieve the 1.5oC global heating limit. - Norway, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark have not aligned their oil and gas policies with their climate promises under the Paris Agreement. - Denmark stands out in reducing oil production by half in the last five years, but environmentalists call for closing loopholes in licensing. All major North Sea oil countries are expected to continue drilling for oil and gas as they fail to agree on climate measures. The major oil-producing countries operating in the North Sea have all announced ambitious production goals for the coming years, despite pressure from European governments and environmentalists to reduce fossil fuel production in favour of renewable energy projects. A new report found that none of the major oil and gas companies operating in the North Sea have plans to stop drilling in time to achieve the 1.5oC global heating limit. The Oil Change International report says that the U.K., Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark have not been able to align their oil and gas policies with their climate promises under the Paris Agreement. The report suggested that the policies in Norway and the U.K. were furthest from the Paris climate agreement as they were both “aggressively” exploring and licensing new oil and gas fields. Meanwhile, the Netherlands hopes to increase its oil and gas production. While Germany produces only small quantities of oil and gas in the region, the government has failed to set adequate climate policies for a green shift. Denmark came out on top, having reduced its oil production by half in the last five years. The Scandinavian country has set an end date for oil and gas production and has cancelled new state-initiated licensing rounds. However, environmentalists are calling on the Danish government to close loopholes that allow new licensing under certain circumstances to be closed by the early 2030s rather than in 2050. The co-author of the report, Silje Ask Lundberg, emphasised the need for governments in the region to do more to curb oil production and act on climate pledges. Lundberg stated, “Failure to address these issues not only undermines international climate goals but also jeopardises the liveability of our planet.” Many believe that the five North Sea countries should be leading the way when it comes to climate action, rather than contributing to the problem. These are some of the world’s richest countries and it is unjust to expect the developing world to undergo a green transition while they continue to benefit from oil and gas production. Truls Gulowsen, the head of the Norwegian branch of the environmental group Friends of the Earth, stated of Norway’s role in the North Sea, “Despite having all the tools in the world to ensure a just transition, our government’s choice is to continue to be Europe’s most aggressive oil and gas explorer. This is completely out of place, and totally unaligned with the Paris Agreement and our climate responsibility.” The U.K. has been heavily criticised for its ongoing support of oil and gas production, as the government announced 24 new North Sea oil and gas licences in January. Licenses were given to 17 oil firms, including Shell and BP, to drill in the Central North Sea, Northern North Sea, and West of Shetland areas. Opposition MPs and environmentalists labelled the move as “grossly irresponsible” and suggested that the government was overstating the economic benefits of the North Sea and compromising the U.K.’s climate leadership. Graham Stuart, the minister for energy security and net zero, defended the move, stating, “If we didn’t have new oil and gas licences we would import new [liquefied natural gas] from abroad which is four times as carbon-intensive as the gas produced here. I accept it’s counterintuitive but it’s not a complex argument to see it’s the right thing to do.” He added, “New oil and licences strengthen our ability to get to net zero, they strengthen and support our climate leadership.” However, critics suggest that although the move secure billions in oil and gas revenues, it will do little to secure the country’s energy supplies or decrease energy bills because the new licences will mostly produce oil that the U.K. typically exports to European refineries. Others accuse the government of greenwashing for suggesting that new oil and gas production could ever contribute to the country’s decarbonisation efforts. Meanwhile, in Norway, oil and gas companies plan to invest a total of $21.85 billion in 2024, marking an increase from $20.5 billion in 2023. This is an increase from the previous forecast of around $18 billion. This comes following several new developments and the expansion of existing projects, as well as inflation and a weak currency. Despite deriving around 98 percent of its domestic energy from renewable sources, Norway continues to be Europe’s largest oil and gas producer, with an output of around 4 million bpd. The government’s aim to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 appears to be at odds with its strategy to continue to explore for and develop new oil and gas fields. Instead of leading the world in a shift away from fossil fuels to renewable alternatives, five of the world’s richest countries and proponents of a green transition continue to support oil and gas production in the North Sea. The countries have no clear plan to cut production or work together to establish steps to achieve their climate pledges when it comes to North Sea operations, undermining their roles as ‘climate leaders’. By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Apr 25, 2024 6:18:53 GMT -5
European ESG Funds Witness Heavy Decline in Inflows By Irina Slav - Apr 25, 2024, 6:00 AM CDT oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/European-ESG-Funds-Witness-Heavy-Decline-in-Inflows.htmlEuropean exchange-traded funds with a focus on ESG investing saw a substantial decline in inflows in the first quarter amid what Morningstar called “an existential crisis”. According to the Financial Times, net inflows into these funds totaled 7.1 billion euros, or $7.62 billion, in the first three months of the year. This was down from 13.8 billion euros in the final three months of 2023, equal to $14.8 billion. As a result, the portion of ESG fund inflows during the period fell to 16% of total net flows into exchange-traded funds, down from 29% in November to December 2023. The trend is the latest sign of trouble in energy transition industries as wind, solar, and EV companies struggle with persistently high interest rates, rising raw material costs, and growing competition from low-cost Chinese producers. “This means further deceleration from the highs of 2022 when close to 65 percent of all flows into the European ETF market were directed to ESG-themed strategies,” Morningstar associate director of passive strategies Jose Garcia-Zarate said. The news follows a revelation in March that a total of 70% of passive funds passed off as “sustainable” by five of the largest asset managers in the U.S. and Europe were exposed to companies developing new oil and gas projects, according to a report by environmental organization Reclaim Finance. Reclaim Finance has examined 430 “sustainable” passive funds managed by five of the biggest passive fund managers – Amundi, BlackRock, DWS, Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM), and UBS AM – and found that 70% of the passive funds are exposed to companies developing new fossil fuel projects. These giant asset managers “are turning a blind eye to the climate impact of their passive investments, with funds invested in oil giants including TotalEnergies, Shell and ExxonMobil, and coal developers such as Glencore and Adani,” Reclaim Finance said in the report. By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com
|
|
|
Post by bjspokanimal on Apr 25, 2024 10:40:48 GMT -5
The problems with wind projects, solar projects, EV sales and ESG fund investing are all part of a trend toward reliability and ROI. The problem is governments that mandate what people don't want or things that will cause problems. An example is the banning of the use of the world's cleanest hydrocarbon, natural gas, for use in electrical generation when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Humans really CAN be so extremist that they're basically stupid.
As an example, why would a democrat-socialist governor like Washington governor Jay Inslee mandate EVs by 2030 without mandating an expensive expansion of the power grid to accommodate it. And how can a federal agency like the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) expand the power grid when the money it would take to do it would expand the federal deficits from $2 Trillion per year to $3 Trillion per year and move up the impending date of U.S. Economic Ruin by many years?
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Apr 25, 2024 11:17:09 GMT -5
The problems with wind projects, solar projects, EV sales and ESG fund investing are all part of a trend toward reliability and ROI. The problem is governments that mandate what people don't want or things that will cause problems. An example is the banning of the use of the world's cleanest hydrocarbon, natural gas, for use in electrical generation when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Humans really CAN be so extremist that they're basically stupid. There are a lot fantasies and fair tales that people believe. I also remember a ESG Kool Aid all in one gulp expecting it to take me to heaven's gate on the comet Hale-Bopp.
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Apr 29, 2024 9:51:11 GMT -5
$2-Trillion Funding Gap Casts Shadow over Energy Transition By Irina Slav - Apr 24, 2024, 5:00 PM CDT oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/2-Trillion-Funding-Gap-Casts-Shadow-over-Energy-Transition.html- Blackrock: investments in the energy transition are falling behind. - Blackrock: annual investments in the shift away from hydrocarbons need to almost double from their current record levels. - Blackrock: government assistance would need to come in the form of favorable energy pricing policies and market deregulation. Investments in the energy transition are falling way short of what is needed for its success. The fresh warning comes from BlackRock, which said annual investments in the shift away from hydrocarbons need to almost double from their current record levels. But it’s getting less likely this would ever happen. In a new edition of its Investment Institute Transition Scenario, the bank said that moving the transition forward would require more money from both public and private sources and that, for its part, would require “alignment between government action, companies and partnerships with communities,” according to Michael Dennis, head of APAC Alternatives Strategy & Capital Markets at BlackRock, as quoted by CNBC. BlackRock mentioned the $4-trillion figure as the necessary sum to be invested in the transition annually back in December when it released the original IITS. The amount was as impressive then as it is now, not least because it was double the amount of earlier investment estimates. What makes it even more impressive is the fact that last year’s record transition investments came in at less than half that, at $1.8 trillion. Related: Why Biden is Unlikely to Enforce the New Iran Oil Sanctions There is little hope that this will change, at least in a positive direction. As more and more analysts begin to issue warnings about the effects of higher interest rates on transition industries, investors are turning away, too, and returning to oil and gas. It must be the worst imaginable transition scenario that not even the BlackRock analysts could come up with in their report. Last month, Equinor vice president of international exploration and production Philippe Mathieu said investor sentiment towards the oil and gas industry had “completely shifted” from a few years ago. Speaking at CERAWeek, Mathieu said that while the transition remains a priority, energy security has also become one following the pandemic and the Ukraine war. He was not the only one, either. Investors are flocking to energy stocks seeking to protect themselves against inflation and take advantage of higher oil prices, Reuters reported recently, citing a portfolio manager from Wealth Enhancement Group as saying, “If inflation is going to pop up again ... the hedge is to have some commodities exposure.” The situation is very much different for transition companies. Many of these are struggling to stay afloat amid higher-for-longer rates despite generous government help. Many are folding or, in the case of European companies, relocating to the U.S. where government help is even more generous. Turning in a profit has become a major challenge, and investors are not sticking around to find out if wind and solar developers are going to overcome it. This makes filling the $2-trillion annual gap quite a challenge as well—especially since close to two-thirds of the necessary money—at least in the developing world—would need to come from the private sector, according to BlackRock’s Dennis. The funds, he says, are there, but they need to be mobilized and this could only happen with government help. This help, according to the executive, would need to come in the form of favorable energy pricing policies and market deregulation. Indeed, deregulation is a favorite of energy investors as it tends to make electricity more expensive for consumers, pushing returns for the suppliers higher. However, deregulation is tricky business in developing nations with high levels of poverty—it does not win more voters. Energy market deregulation is not the only tricky part of the transition. Lately, it seems that everything has become quite tricky and risky, from EV sales, which dropped the moment incentives were phased out, to solar installations, which are driving down European electricity prices, with some plunging below zero. Whether the $2-trillion annual investment gap calculated by BlackRock would ever be filled remains an open question. By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com
|
|
|
Post by Blitz on Apr 30, 2024 12:25:15 GMT -5
Cars are gathered at a port in in Yantai, Shandong province, China, for export Electric cars pile up at European ports as Chinese firms struggle to find buyers Published: April 29, 2024 12:07pm EDT theconversation.com/electric-cars-pile-up-at-european-ports-as-chinese-firms-struggle-to-find-buyers-228473China’s automotive industry has revolutionised over the past decade, from producing basic western clones to making cars that equal the world’s best. As the manufacturing powerhouse of the world, China is also producing them in huge volumes. However, Chinese cars are facing difficulties in finding buyers in Europe. Imported cars, many of which are Chinese electric vehicles, are piling up at European ports, with some spending up to 18 months in port car parks as manufacturers struggle to get them onto people’s driveways. Why is this, though? Chinese electric vehicles in particular are getting positive reviews. Having driven them myself, I can attest to them matching, or even exceeding, the well-known European brands in range, quality and technology. But entering an established market as a challenger is a complex operation. Chinese makers will have to contend with buyer wariness, a lack of brand image, trade protectionism and rapid outdatedness. Lack of buyer faith China’s automotive expansion programme draws parallels with the moves made by Japan in the 1960s and 70s. At that time, the product coming from Japan was commendable but lacked the finesse, design and longevity of their western counterparts. Japanese cars were thought of as tinny, underpowered and susceptible to rusting, as well as looking very generic compared to stylish European designs. Memories of Japan’s involvement in the second world war were also fresh in (particularly American) buyer’s minds, who were slow to forgive a nation that launched the Pearl Harbour attacks. However, by constantly focusing on a reliable, relatively cheap and increasingly stylish product, Japan slowly turned this around to become the automotive powerhouse of the 1990s and 2000s. China is viewed with suspicion by many westerners, and its carmakers are similarly hampered by their recent legacy of producing both endorsed and illegal clones of European cars. But with the lessons of the Japanese to learn from, Chinese cars are rapidly advancing to match and exceed existing alternatives. Strategic purchases of brands like Volvo, Lotus and MG have also given China existing brands that are respected and, more importantly, have some of the best engineering knowledge in the world. Yet, even after buying up western brands, Chinese automakers have proven unable to buy loyalty from existing customers of brands like BMW, Porsche, Ferrari and Ford. For these buyers, the history of the brand in terms of known reliability and even things like motor sport success is something that Chinese makers, like the Japanese, will have to build up over time. It was Ford dealers who, in the 1960s, coined the phrase: “Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday”. The phrase is as an adage to attest the fact that if buyers see a car winning a race, they’ll be motivated to go out and buy one. Existing manufacturers also have a legacy of reliability that buyers have experienced for themselves, giving a huge brand loyalty benefit. Add to this a lack of an established dealer network outside of China and you see how Chinese makers struggle against the established competition. A challenging trade environment China has a price advantage compared to Europe or the US. Economies of scale, excellent shipping links and cheap labour mean that Chinese cars are cheaper both to make and buy. However, in many countries they are subject to high import tariffs. The EU currently imposes a 10% import tariff on each car brought in. And in the US, car imports from China are subject to a 27.5% tariff. These tariffs may well rise further. The EU is conducting an investigation into whether its tariff is too low. If it concludes this later this year, higher duties will be applied retrospectively to imported cars. Cars, and specifically electric vehicles, are also in a phase of their development where they see rapid changes and updates. Traditionally, vehicle models would see a market life of between four and seven years, perhaps with small updates in trim, colour palette or feature availability. But Tesla has turned this on its head. The Tesla Model S, for example, has seen almost continuous product updates that make it barely recognisable in terms of hardware from a car released in 2012. Chinese automakers have taken note. They are bringing out new models around 30% faster than in most other nations. Tesla is supporting owners of older cars with upgrades, at extra expense, to bring them in line with the latest hardware. Without guaranteed software support like this, the rate at which Chinese automakers are bringing out new models could make buyers wary that the product they have bought will soon become outdated compared to buying a car on a more traditional update cycle. How to succeed Many of these factors can be fixed. They also chime more with private buyers than business buyers, who are more concerned with cost. Chinese makers would be well-advised to push harder into this market. In the UK, the fleet market dwarfs the private market, and the situation is similar in Europe. Selling en masse to fleets and rental companies gets more cars on the road and allows more data about reliability to feed into the market. The road to succeeding in a new market such as the EU will be slow and bumpy. But it’s clear that China is laser focused on its global push. It remains to be seen whether this lack of buyers can be turned around.
|
|