1. The Utility Paradox "Across much of the world, electric utilities find themselves in the crosshairs of change. They have been broken up, put back together again, privatized, separated from the grid, given the grid back; a dizzying mass of measures designed to “improve” the electricity markets. Yet the utilities are in no way motivated to support decreased consumer energy consumption let alone to reduce carbon emissions.

This is what I brand the Utility Paradox. Energy companies that are best positioned to curb energy consumption and improve energy efficiencies are the least incentivized to do just that. In fact, they quite blatantly encourage the opposite because it is good for business. The more oil or electricity sold, the more money flows into their coffers. As long as an energy company’s profitability is tied to the amount of energy sold, we should not expect any significant decreases in energy use". Excerpts from (Gerard Reid, 2020): https://energypost.eu/the-six-energy-paradoxes-that-slow-the-sectors-progress/

2. The Market Efficiency Paradox. "Market proponents from Adam Smith to Eugena Fama have been explaining for years, even centuries, why the market acts as a good mechanism to utilize resources and why the markets are generally efficient. However, these same proponents have also been very good at pointing out when and why the market does not work correctly. One such situation is when there is a monopoly in place, or when the market is controlled by a small group of players, allowing the “monopolist” to control either price or output to the disadvantage of the consumer. This has been the case with oil for many decades, until the recent huge increases in oil production in North America and Russia reduced the power of OPEC.

Unsurprisingly, in the electricity space there is still not enough competition, meaning customers cannot adequately adjust their demand to changes in the power price. In fact, the system was set up so that the utility adjusts its supply to expected changes in demand. What this means is that large power generators and utilities still have formidable power. That is why we call this the Market Efficiency Paradox".

Excerpts from (Gerard Reid, 2020):

https://energypost.eu/the-six-energy-paradoxes-that-slow-the-sectors-progress/

3. The Jevons Paradox: "The nineteenth century English economist, William Stanley Jevons, observed that Britain’s consumption of coal had soared after a more cost efficient and cost-effective steam engine came to the market. This in turn increased the adoption of the steam engine in a wide range of industries, leading to a further increase in total coal consumption, despite the fact that the amount of coal required for the individual applications actually fell.

Today the Jevons Paradox, perhaps the most widely known paradox in environmental economics, is better known as the Rebound Effect. It demonstrates how technological progress, which increases energy efficiency, does not necessarily lead to a decrease in energy consumption; rather it actually tends to increase it and that rising consumption can offset the beneficial effects, along with some of the savings.

One of the reasons for this is that efficiency gains are passed onto the consumer through price reductions. Consequently, consumer demand rises further. A good example of this is lighting. While today we may increasingly use low cost energy saving LED lightbulbs, the paradox is that we now have many more light bulbs in our homes and gardens than we did a decade ago.

Excerpts from (Gerard Reid, 2020):

https://energypost.eu/the-six-energy-paradoxes-that-slow-the-sectors-progress/

4. The “Not In My Backyard,” NIMBY Paradox. Otherwise known as NIMBYism. It is often the case that those who are strong advocates for a particular energy solution, such as renewable energy, suddenly become opponents if there is a suggestion that a corresponding wind turbine or power line may be built near their home. NIMBYism is a major reason why projects are delayed or fail to even make it out of the starting blocks.

Figure Source: See Legend.

Excerpts from (Gerard Reid, 2020):

https://energypost.eu/the-six-energy-paradoxes-that-slow-the-sectors-progress/

5. The Renewable Energy Paradox is the fact that even though solar and wind may be the cheapest form of electricity in many parts of the world, these renewables may not be the most valuable. The issue with wind and solar is that they are both intermittent which means that other forms of generation or energy storage are required in order to 24/7 meet our energy needs. We are also seeing wholesale power prices collapse during sunny or windy periods. We are even seeing prices go negative.

So even if the Levelized cost of wind or solar energy is below the average wholesale power price and other forms of generation, where is the incentive to build out new renewable capacity when the capture price on the market is going to be very low?

In contrast, the most valuable (and less renewable) sources of power are flexible, such as gas reciprocal engines, with the ability to respond to changes in both the weather and demand.

Figure Source: See Legend.

Excerpts from (Gerard Reid, 2020):

https://energypost.eu/the-six-energy-paradoxes-that-slow-the-sectors-progress/

6. The Philosophy Paradox. The United States is one of the most complicated energy markets in the world because essentially each state has its own policy. Some states still have fully regulated utilities in place; others have liberalised markets with competition at both the retail and power generation levels with the key focus on keeping power prices low for the consumer. In Europe, it is somewhat easier as all European markets have liberalised markets meaning that there is competition throughout all parts of the value chain and across borders.

Why do we have such radical differences? We have them because of philosophy differences. Case in point is how the US supports renewable buildout. It does this through tax credits which in Europe are considered not equitable. In contrast, in Europe the support mechanisms used for building out renewables are put onto the energy costs the consumer pays. In the US the consumer would not tolerate higher energy prices.

Perhaps the greatest paradox of all is the need to find appropriate solutions for dealing with ongoing environmental damage across the world, which is even more important and challenging, as if we don’t, then a move to a cleaner, low carbon world becomes less and less attainable.

Excerpts from (Gerard Reid, 2020):

https://energypost.eu/the-six-energy-paradoxes-that-slow-the-sectors-progress/

Permanent electrified highway to charge EVs while on the go. "Sweden is planning to build a first-of-its-kind, permanent electrified highway by 2025 that would enable EVs to charge while on the go. Different electrified road systems have been tested. Among them, one Swedish company thinks its technology is the answer. At a demonstration site in the town of Lund in southern Sweden is EVolution Road. It’s a regular city asphalt road — with a difference. Embedded at the center of one lane is an electrified rail that can charge vehicles as they drive along it".

Read the article on:

https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace-tech/swedens-building-an-electric-road-that-could-charge-evs-while-driving/

Washington Times, August 15, 2023 By Bob Latta Rush to expand electric vehicle fleets is misguided, We need less government intervention, not more. Excerpts: "As we have seen time and time again, when government imposes its will on free markets, economies falter and fail, leaving hardworking families to pick up the pieces. Under the Biden administration, the use of the government’s heavy hand has become the norm. Look no further than the concerted effort to end production of internal combustion engine vehicles and rapidly expand electric vehicle fleets.

Just this year, the administration announced its plan to have half of new vehicle sales be of electric ones by 2030. And the Environmental Protection Agency released a stringent new tailpipe emissions standard that would require nearly two-thirds of new U.S. vehicles to be electric by 2032.These out-of-touch proposals will severely limit consumer choice and prevent American companies from producing and selling ICE vehicles".

Read the article on:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/aug/15/rush-to-expand-electric-vehicle-fleets-is-misguide/

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Electric_Vehicle_Battery_and_Rare_Earths_Technological_Economic_and_Environmental_Issues

"The Paradoxes of Quantifying Electric Vehicles’ Emissions in Regulated Economies" is the title of a paper by Massiani and Modena (2023). The authors came to the ultimate conclusion: "...more than the actual value corresponding to a given country and a given year, more important is the concept that emissions triggered by an additional EV actually depends on the regulatory context... Policy assessments that exploit our results may raise objections since they entail a paradox, hence they are a challenge for policy-advisors and evaluators. No easy solution is available to ensure proper communication of these results"

Abstract of the paper: Electric vehicles (EV) and other so-called low-emission vehicles (LEV) are promoted as means to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. Economists routinely assess the corresponding saving in emissions by considering that EV emit only “in the power plant”, based on the technological features of the energy generation system. Such quantification neglects regulations on CO2 emissions, such as Corporate Average Fleet Emissions and Emission Trading System, typically present in the EU. But these regulations can profoundly alter EVs emissions, although indirectly. This mostly takes place through a compensation mechanism between EVs and conventional fleet’s emissions and through the capping of emissions in the energy sector. While most scholarly literature and policymakers suggest that EVs do not emit on the road but do so, instead, in power plants, our analysis concludes that EVs increase tailpipe emissions but do not increase energy production emissions; this is due to indirect and counterintuitive impacts triggered by regulation. This paradoxical result is robust to a large set of evolutions and adaptation strategies such as increase in renewables, technological progress, Vehicle-to-Grid, etc. Our analysis implies a correction of electric vehicles’ emissions quantification in use in countries where regulations produce these effects and, consequently, a reformulation of policy recommendations.

Paper available on:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4417852

See Also: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Electric_Vehicle_Battery_and_Rare_Earths_Technological_Economic_and_Environmental_Issues/5

Oustanding insights on Nuclear energy and shale gas environmental issues in this paper by Alley et al. (2014) "Nuclear Waste Disposal: A Cautionary Tale for Shale Gas The shale gas industry can learn from the controversy over waste disposal that the nuclear energy industry has faced. https://newspack-dev.eos.org/opinions/nuclear-waste-disposal-cautionary-tale-shale-gas

One may read within the paper: "Nuclear energy and shale gas development each began with the promise of cheap, abundant energy and prospects for national energy independence. Nuclear energy was touted as “too cheap to meter,” and shale gas promised jobs and other economic benefits during a recession. In each case, industry and government moved quickly to realize the economic and political benefits. It is perhaps ironic that nuclear energy, a mature technology with low greenhouse gas emissions, is now being replaced by lower-cost shale gas, for which the environmental impacts are hotly debated. After more than half a century, the nuclear industry still has no place for final disposition of its most dangerous wastes. Likewise, the shale gas industry may find itself facing decades of vociferous public opposition. There are lessons to be learned from similarities in the factors driving these controversies. Given the uncertainties and economic importance of shale gas development, a comprehensive scientific effort is needed to evaluate the environmental impacts and inform the regulatory framework".

The authors came to the conclusion that "... studies have resulted in contradictory findings and fostered a lack of consensus within the scientific community. They also lead to a false sense that the issues are being addressed in a meaningful way for an industry that contributes an estimated $238 billion to the U.S. economy [IHS, 2012]. In the absence of more rigorous study, lack of evidence should not be used as evidence for lack of impacts, nor should every high-methane occurrence be attributed to shale gas development".

Adam Szymański (2020) showed that the Levelized Cost Of Energy (LCOE) definition is incorrect as it leads to an Economic Paradox.

Demonstration: In Equations (1&2) C ( t) [USD] denotes the capital cost in period t of an investment, D(t) is the non-dimensional discount function, P (t) [MWh] describes the energy produced in period t and the parameter TL denotes the lifetime of an energy source. The mean value theorem for integrals is given by Equation (3) (See figure and comments)

Conclusions: The paper demonstrates that definition (1), which is reproduced almost everywhere (see IEA/NEA (2015); IRENA

(2020), as examples only) is inconsistent from an economic point of view. Thus, there is no point in using it. The incorrect treatment of the discounting procedure is a source of problems.

Szymański, A. (2020). Levelized cost of energy definition–An economic paradox. The Electricity Journal, 33(7). To be requested on:

Article Levelized cost of energy definition – An economic paradox

Paradoxical Perceptions of Problems Associated with Unconventional Natural Gas Development. This is the title of the well-cited paper [1] by Theodori, G. L. (2009), where one may read within the conclusion: In essence, the results of this study reveal a paradox among the general population. On one hand, it appears the members of the general public typically dislike the potentially problematic social and/or environmental issues perceived to accompany natural gas development. However, on the other hand, local citizens generally appreciate and view favorably the economic and/or service-related benefits that normally accompany such development.

[1] Theodori, G. L. (2009). Paradoxical perceptions of problems associated with unconventional natural gas development. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 24(3), 7.

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1370&context=jrss

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_energy_pattern_and_the_perspective_of_large-scale_exploitation_of_shale_gas_What_alternative_solutions/29

Hereafter are some fundamental elements on the issue "System LCOE: What are the costs of Variable REnewables?" excerpted from the conclusion of the well-known paper (around 700 citations) by Ueckerdt et al., 2013 [1] "....Levelized costs of electricity (LCOE) are typically used ...However, they are an incomplete indicator because they do not account for integration costs. An LCOE comparison of VRE and conventional plants would tend to overestimate the economic efficiency of VRE in particular at high shares. In other words, LCOE of wind falling below those of conventional power plants does not imply that wind deployment is economically efficient or competitive. In this paper we have introduced a new cost metric to overcome this deficit. System LCOE of a technology are the sum of its marginal generation costs (LCOE) and marginal integration costs per generated energy unit. We show that System LCOE can be interpreted as the marginal economic costs of VRE including the costs induced by their variability on a system level...As a central result we find that at wind shares above 20%, marginal integration costs can be in the same range as generation costs if integration options like storage or long-distance transmission are not deployed. Moreover, System LCOE and integration costs significantly increase with VRE penetration and can thus become an economic barrier to further deployment of wind and solar power. That does not mean that optimal shares of VRE are low in particular when negative externalities like climate change and further benefits of VRE are internalized...."

[1] Ueckerdt, F., Hirth, L., Luderer, G., & Edenhofer, O. (2013). System LCOE: What are the costs of variable renewables?. Energy, 63, 61-75. Available on:

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/SystemLCOE.pdf

Abstract – Levelized costs of electricity (LCOE) are a common metric for comparing power generating technologies. However, there is criticism particularly towards evaluating variable renewables like wind and solar PV power based on LCOE because it ignores variability and integration costs. We propose a new metric System LCOE that accounts for integration and generation costs. For this purpose we develop a new mathematical definition of integration costs that directly relates to economic theory. As a result System LCOE allow the economic comparison of generating technologies and deriving optimal quantities in particular for VRE. To demonstrate the new concept we quantify System LCOE from a simple power system model and literature values. We find that at high wind shares integration costs can be in the same range as generation costs of wind power and conventional plants in particular due to a cost component “profile costs” captured by the new definition. Integration costs increase with growing wind shares and might become an economic barrier to deploying VRE at high shares. System LCOE help understanding and resolving the challenge of integrating VRE and can guide research and policy makers in realizing a cost-efficient transformation towards an energy system with potentially high shares of variable renewables.

Reuters, August 22, 2023, By Sakura Murakami and Tom Bateman, Japan to release Fukushima water into ocean from Aug. 24 "Japan said on Tuesday it will start releasing into the sea more than 1 million metric tons of treated radioactive water ... going ahead with a plan heavily criticised by China...."I expect the water release to start on August 24, weather conditions permitting," Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said...Japan has said that the water release is safe. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog, greenlighted the plan in July, saying that it met international standards and that the impact it would have on people and the environment was "negligible"...Despite assurances, some neighbouring countries have also expressed scepticism over the safety of the plan, with Beijing the biggest critic. Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin called the move "extremely selfish". He said China was deeply concerned about the decision and had lodged a formal complaint. Wang said China "will take all necessary measures to protect the marine environment, food safety, and public health," but did not mention any specific measures. Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee called the discharge "irresponsible" and said the city would "immediately activate" import controls on Japanese seafood from regions including capital Tokyo and Fukushima starting Thursday..."

Read the article on:

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-release-fukushima-water-into-ocean-starting-aug-24-2023-08-22/#:~:text=TOKYO%2C%20Aug%2022%20(Reuters),plan%20heavily%20criticised%20by%20China.

In line with the previous post, IAEA, Aug. 22, 2023, IAEA Director General Statement on Discharge of Fukushima Daiichi ALPS Treated Water [1] "... Over the past two years the IAEA has conducted a detailed review of the safety related aspects of handling and discharge of ALPS treated water and issued its comprehensive report 4 July 2023 (report available on [2]).

The report concluded that the approach and activities for this discharge are consistent with relevant international safety standards and would have a negligible radiological impact on people and the environment.

The Director General of the IAEA, Rafael Mariano Grossi, has committed to the IAEA continuing its impartial, independent, and objective safety review during the discharge phase.

Therefore, the IAEA and Japan agreed that the IAEA will maintain an onsite presence at Fukushima Daiichi, and the IAEA has opened its IAEA Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (NPS) Office in July 2023..."

[1] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-director-general-statement-on-discharge-of-fukushima-daiichi-alps-treated-water

[2] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/iaea_comprehensive_alps_report.pdf

Concluding remarks: a 180° turn in the New ‘Great Game’? It is to this question that Kirkham (2022) tried to provide elements of response as a conclusion to his paper "The Paradox of the New Great Game: Do Europe and China Need More Pipelines from Eurasia?. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 24(1), 1-23.". One may read there (Excerpts): ".. despite the expected decline in gas demand after 2050 due to decarbonization, it is too early to play the funeral march for the gas industry: natural gas consumption will be substantial enough for pipeline-operating companies to cover all expenses and maintain profitability of existing pipelines that run across Central Asia and the South Caucasus to Europe, and possibly, to return a profit on pipelines that are in the initial stages of construction, such as the CAC's Line D, ... From the point of view of European (and Asian) investors, TCP looks less appealing than the expansion of LNG infrastructure. It is more likely that the EU will increase gas imports from the US, rather than promote the construction of TCP, given intensive lobbying efforts by American LNG producers, relying on LNG exports ...That said, OFAC's pressure on Germany to leave the Nord Stream-2 uncompleted has been mainly motivated by the need to create new markets for US LNG exports, ...As for Western and Northern Europe , despite a massive US sanctions campaign against Nord Stream-2, and the desire to reduce dependence on Russia, pipeline gas import is more commercially justifiable than a costly expansion of LNG terminals. Moreover, recently declared plans by some LNG operators to redesign to produce green hydrogen, will make it even more problematic ... Also, some businesses are very skeptical about the European Commission's goal to double 'the share of renewables'."

The paper is available on:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19448953.2021.1992192

The report by Expert Market Research titled, ‘Global Managed Pressure Drilling Services Market Size, Share, Price, Trends, Growth, Report, and Forecast 2021-2026’, gives an in-depth analysis of the Global Managed Pressure Drilling Services market, assessing the market based on its segments like technology, application and major regions like North America, Europe, the Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East and Africa. The report tracks the latest trends in the industry and studies their impact on the overall market. It also assesses the market dynamics, covering the key demand and price indicators, along with analyzing the market based on the SWOT and Porter’s Five Forces models. Read more: https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/global-managed-pressure-drilling-services-market-to-be-driven-by-increased-demand-for-safer-drilling-methods-in-the-forecast-period-of-2021-2026#ixzz7Omz3nHGC

See also: https://www.researchgate.net/post/On_the_perspective_of_large-scale_exploitation_of_shale_gas

What is indisputable is that the comparison of the LCOEs of Continuous Energy production and that of Variable REnewables (VRE) falls under a characterized "False Equivalency" since the comparison relates to two non-equivalent products. For the comparison to hold water, it would be necessary to take into account the costs relating to the Energy Regulation. For this purpose I recommend reading this well-known old paper (around 700 citations) by Ueckerdt et al., 2013 [1] "System LCOE: What are the costs of Variable REnewables?". You may read within the conclusion: "....Levelized costs of electricity (LCOE) are typically used ...However, they are an incomplete indicator because they do not account for integration costs. An LCOE comparison of VRE and conventional plants would tend to overestimate the economic efficiency of VRE in particular at high shares. In other words, LCOE of wind falling below those of conventional power plants does not imply that wind deployment is economically efficient or competitive. In this paper we have introduced a new cost metric to overcome this deficit. System LCOE of a technology are the sum of its marginal generation costs (LCOE) and marginal integration costs per generated energy unit. We show that System LCOE can be interpreted as the marginal economic costs of VRE including the costs induced by their variability on a system level...As a central result we find that at wind shares above 20%, marginal integration costs can be in the same range as generation costs if integration options like storage or long-distance transmission are not deployed. Moreover, System LCOE and integration costs significantly increase with VRE penetration and can thus become an economic barrier to further deployment of wind and solar power. That does not mean that optimal shares of VRE are low in particular when negative externalities like climate change and further benefits of VRE are internalized...."

[1] Ueckerdt, F., Hirth, L., Luderer, G., & Edenhofer, O. (2013). System LCOE: What are the costs of variable renewables?. Energy, 63, 61-75. Available on:

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/SystemLCOE.pdf

This is an excerpt from the conclusion of the well-cited recent paper by Adebayo et al., 2022 [1] "... Sweden should strive to engage in the manufacturing of non-energy consuming and environmentally sustainable products, forcing companies in polluting industries to relocate to nations with more relaxed environmental regulations. ... it is critical to use trade openness to promote non-polluting industries by imposing taxes on polluting industries and offering incentives to non-polluting industries to allow producers to transition to healthier and more eco-friendly sustainable industries ..."

[1] Adebayo, .S., Rjoub, H., Akinsola, G.D. et al. The asymmetric effects of renewable energy consumption and trade openness on carbon emissions in Sweden: new evidence from quantile-on-quantile regression approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 1875–1886 (2022). Available on:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-021-15706-4#citeas

Eluded idea: In a paper published in May, 2022, Vladimir Slivyak awarded the Right Livelihood in 2021, is telling that "while much of the debate has been focused on oil and gas, unearthed another energy dependency that is hardly talked about: nuclear fuel"... "Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary and Slovakia currently have old Soviet-built VVER reactors operated on their territory, all entirely reliant on fuel supplied by Russian state-owned Rosatom".... "But the issue of nuclear energy dependency was not raised at the EU summit this week and was also not discussed during the negotiations preceding it.... "different kind of dependency" on Russian nuclear fuel and services, which Putin could use to "blackmail" certain members". Read more on: https://euobserver.com/ukraine/155108

Read more on international Rosatom activities on Shunning Rosatom Prospects of Russia’s nuclear expansion in the context of widening global sanctions; May, 2022 https://ecdru.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/shunningrosatom-v1.pdf

Generally speaking, nuclear energy would be part of National Security issues, and as such, the laws of the energy market do not apply "religiously" in this case, especially since, even with the nuclear deterrence additional cost, the price of nuclear electricity remains comparatively within the admissible level. On the other hand everywhere in the world, renewable energies benefit from financial incentives, some of which are questioned. For example, US legislation on renewable energy and federal taxes exclude hydroelectricity from the renewable energy packages and a large number of dams with hydroelectric devices are being removed. This paradox, related to the environmental impacts of Hydroelectric infrastructures is explained in the article by Tarlock, D. (2012) "Hydro law and the future of hydroelectric power generation in the United States. Vand. L. Rev., 65, 1723"

An editorial by Nies, S. (2022) presents relevant points of view on "New uncertainties and new paradigms for European energy and climate policy?. European Energy & Climate Journal, 11(1), 1-2."...Gas and oil from Russia have been a reality for Europe since the 1970s. Is this now coming to an end? Are we assisting the geopolitical change from East to West – Russian gas swapped for US shale gas? LNG terminals are to be developed, for the first time, in countries like Germany. Next winter will be tough – can we claim we will stop using Russian gas? Do we need to continue using coal to ensure our security of supply? Belgium has just extended the lifetime of two reactors by 10 years, and Germany will keep coal plants running. We see shops half empty, food prices surge, and energy becoming expensive and scarce. This is an unheard-of experience for Europeans. Our ignorance has become evident on the origin of our food. Who truly knew that such quantities of cereals, vegetables and fruits, but also fertilizer and many other products come not only from Ukraine, but also Russia? And should we have known, when the labels on products do not provide this information?

Will Russia turn to China, India and the East and sell its gas and oil to these nations? Are we witnessing new regional blocs emerge at this very moment?..."

Paper available on: https://www.elgaronline.com/view/journals/eecj/11/1/article-p1.xml

Perhaps we need to take a more wholistic approach. e.g. Solar power is of great interest of late. But has it factored the pollution generqated in its manufacture? What about its disposal after 15+ years? Have these been properly thought out and addressed?

EV's are another area of concern. As long as electricity generated is not green (or net zero), it does not address the global warming issue. Furthermore the battery production is a major polluter. Batteries have useful lives and will need replacement. Have these issues been adequatly addressed, before we all surround ourselves with failed EV?

Shyam Lakshmanan Thank you for the insights. You rightly wrote, "EV's are another area of concern. As long as electricity generated is not green (or net zero), it does not address the global warming issue. Furthermore...". This is precisely The Paradox of EVs. Excerpts from: https://www.smartgreenpost.com/2021/10/06/the-paradox-of-electric-cars/ ".. one of the buzzwords if you will, is electric cars. This could be a good start, or just a way of hiding behind a finger, clearing one’s conscience, and perhaps saying that one has done everything possible to avoid the climate disaster we are heading for. For two reasons.

The first is linked to a simple numerical statement: if you want to talk about a plan to tackle climate change, you have to take into account all human activities that cause greenhouse gas emissions: according to the latest estimates (IPCC data: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data) focusing on cars means, at best, acting on about 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Very, very little. At the top of the list, though decidedly against our perception, are agriculture, livestock farming and industrial power generation.

The second reason is linked to the failure to address the choice of electric cars with an integrated and supply chain strategy: it is true that these cars are powered by electricity, but most of this energy is still derived from power plants that are (still) based on coal"....

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Electric_Vehicle_Battery_and_Rare_Earths_Technological_Economic_and_Environmental_Issues/2

The conclusion derived from the research study by Deshwal and Sangwan "Enhancing Solar Energy Integration: A Techno-Economic Viability Assessment in India. Wireless Pers Commun, 21 Aug. 2023" shows "that the LCOE of solar + storage is already economical for commercial and industrial category in majority of the states for both open access (group-captive model) and rooftop projects. Solar + storage is also a viable option for the standalone system where there is no Grid connectivity and the electricity is generated using Diesel gen-sets"

Paper available on:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11277-023-10691-y#citeas

"Cost of energy" is not just a matter of price or LCOE, but covers major geopolitical issues. This paper [1] by Bocse (2020) "From the United States with shale gas" is, two years after, surprisingly topical. It explains the major geopolitical and economic stakes related to the energy issue in Europe. One may read in the paper's conclusion: "After 2014, the US argued openly that strategic considerations need to be strongly considered and can trump market considerations when developing pipelines key to enhancing EU energy security. Public intervention in pipeline development can be considered an exceptional measure, a suspension of pure market forces to cope with a security threat.

The value attached to strategic considerations (such as the diversification of the EU gas supply and routes away from Russia) rather than pure market considerations explains the support of the US for the Southern Gas Corridor and their opposition towards Nord Stream 2. Sure, some might claim that the American opposition to Nord Stream 2 is explained by the desire to open the EU market to American LNG. However, if the US position is motivated exclusively by such economic considerations, we cannot explain the US support for the Southern Gas Corridor.

However, securitization did not go as far as creating the momentum needed to conclude the negotiations on a TTIP inclusive of an energy chapter. But it cannot be denied that the crisis contributed to setting the US energy policy towards EU on a new path maintained to a considerable degree by the Trump administration (when it comes to the support for LNG gas exports, support for supply and routes diversification infrastructure and opposition to Nord Stream), a surprising development given the clash between the Obama and the Trump administrations in other policy areas. Bilateral interactions between US and EU high officials and policymakers, in the framework of the EU-US Energy Council, or outside it, play an important role in the transatlantic cooperation on energy"

Illustration Source: From [1]

[1] Bocse, A. M. (2020). From the United States with shale gas: Ukraine, energy securitization, and the reshaping of transatlantic energy relations. Energy research & social science, 69, 101553.

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_energy_pattern_and_the_perspective_of_large-scale_exploitation_of_shale_gas_What_alternative_solutions

The well-cited paper [1] by Casals et al. (2016) calculates the Electric Vehicle (EV) Global Warming Potential (GWP) which is compared to that of ICEV (Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle). Results from [1] propose "a new approach when addressing the suitability of several European countries to the widespread use of EVs as an environmentally efficient alternative to conventional vehicles". The authors come to the conclusion that "the coupling between renewable share and EV penetration is clear, and hence, it is crucial to consider the energy generation sector before promoting EV penetration"

[1] Casals, L. C., Martinez-Laserna, E., García, B. A., & Nieto, N. (2016). Sustainability analysis of the electric vehicle use in Europe for CO2 emissions reduction. Journal of cleaner production, 127, 425-437.

Available on:

https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/86796/REsubmission_Sustainability%20analysis%20of%20the%20electric%20vehicle%20use%20V2_DRAC.pdf

Excerpts from the conclusion: ...It can be concluded that for most countries covered in the analysis, current electricity generation MIX is well suited to accommodate EV market penetration, and the usage of EVs will generally imply reductions in the net GHG emissions from the transportation sector.

Moreover, most European countries are transforming and decarbonizing their electricity generation fleet. However, U.K., Germany and Netherlands (being in the TOP 5 most EV selling countries) still feature highly polluting electricity power plant fleets. In those cases, an

improvement of the infrastructure and increases on the renewable share should precede EV penetration in order to ensure reductions in the net GHG emissions produced by both electricity and transportation sector. It should be noted that according to the results presented, with their current electric energy production fleet, the introduction of EVs in these countries does not ensure GWP reduction.

This study covered only the GWP of EVs in the European Countries selling most EVs. Knowing that the environmental impact of EVs goes beyond the GWP; it should be noted that even in the cases where the EVs penetration does not imply GHG emissions reduction, other benefits still may arise from the electrification of transportation, such as lower dependency on fossil fuels, environmental consciousness-raising or reductions on the air pollution in urban areas, which entails important consequences over human health.

To further delve into the EV environmental impact, a deeper analysis of other phases of the LCA (e.g. maintenance or disposal) could be advisable in order to achieve more reliable results, although significant deviations from the results obtained in this study are not foreseen....

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Electric_Vehicle_Battery_and_Rare_Earths_Technological_Economic_and_Environmental_Issues/5

La Nouvelle Tribune; September 3, 2023. Uranium: the Financial Times announces a price increase because of Niger (own translation) "... The impact of the recent coup d'état in Niger, one of the main suppliers of uranium, is being felt strongly on world markets. According to the Financial Times, retail investors are turning to funds linked to uranium due to fears over the stability of supply. These concerns have been amplified by geopolitical tensions, notably the war in Ukraine, which have exacerbated concerns over gas supplies. These events pushed the price of uranium concentrate to a 16-month high, reaching $58.8 per pound...."

Read the article in French at:

https://lanouvelletribune.info/2023/09/uranium-le-financial-times-annonce-une-augmentation-du-prix-a-cause-du-niger/

G20 Summit should, IMHO, tackle seriously the threatening issue of Shale Gas as well as all other forms of Unconventional Natural Gas resources. Large-scale extractions of Unconventional Natural Gas (The Shale gas revolution) using fracking are all the more worrying since, after the US, China with its even more immense reserves, its greed for energy, its demographic potential, and its will for power will have catastrophic effects on the environment and sustainability.

To hear some congratulating themselves on the shale gas revolution and the immense profits associated with the LNG trade! It sends shivers down one spine when one learns that the Chinese are preparing their own shale gas revolution. The recent paper "Baiyegunhi, T.L.; Baiyegunhi, C.; Pharoe, B.K. Global Research Trends on Shale Gas from 2010–2020 Using a Bibliometric Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3461" tackles Global Research Trends in shale gas technology. What is striking is the very strong activity of Chinese universities and research centers on the topic: this explains that!

Map: Global Shale Gas Reserves, source: A.R.I. (2013) & EIA via Reuters

A.R.I. 2013. EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment Arlington , USA: Advanced Resources International, Inc.

Great Work on Solar Energy in Puerto Rico. Excerpt from: "De Onís, C. M. (2018). Energy colonialism powers the ongoing unnatural disaster in Puerto Rico. Frontiers in Communication, 3, 2." "On September 20, 2017, Hurricane María made landfall in Puerto Rico. Blasting the Caribbean archipelago with 155-mile/h winds, this, in many ways, unnatural disaster exposed the brutal consequences of energy colonialism and an extractivist economy, as well as ongoing and increasing advocacy for decentralized solar infrastructure by many local residents and other renewables supporters. This paper argues that acknowledging colonial power relations and their consequences is essential for studying the interplay of energy systems, environments, and actors. To support this claim, this essay outlines Puerto Rico’s history as a US colony by focusing on key policies and their implications; examines openings for and barriers to decentralized, community solar in Puerto Rico; and concludes by discussing future research directions on just energy transitions and the imperative of uprooting colonialism and agitating for community self-determination and energy justice in these transformations."

Paper available on:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00002/full

Here are excerpts from the paper [1] by Khurshid et al., 2023: Critical metals in uncertainty: How Russia-Ukraine conflict drives their prices? "The expansion of the electric vehicle (EV) market is an essential factor pushing up demand for critical minerals. They are less expensive, and their readily available supply makes them economical, popular, and viable. As a result, governments deploy their resources for transportation, mining, processing, and production of critical mineral-based products. Governments with a predominance in these minerals want more investment to maximize the advantages of this source of income. For instance, several countries, notably China, are eager to boost the supply of these essential minerals to meet rising demand. China is a dominating operator in the mineral supply chain, so the Western world is concerned about China's future dominance in the energy market. China controls the majority of essential mining refineries and raw materials, including 73% of cobalt refineries, 68% of nickel refineries, 59% of lithium refineries, and 40% of copper refineries. In addition, China's role as a significant supplier for producing battery cells is crucial, as most such components are made in China".

The authors wrote in conclusion: "The findings depict that the war between Russia and Ukraine influences the price of critical metals. The results show rapid divergence from counterfactual predictions, and the critical metals prices are consistently higher than expected without conflict"

[1] Adnan Khurshid, Yufeng Chen, Abdur Rauf, Khalid Khan, Critical metals in uncertainty: How Russia-Ukraine conflict drives their prices?, Resources Policy, Volume 85, Part B, 2023,

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Electric_Vehicle_Battery_and_Rare_Earths_Technological_Economic_and_Environmental_Issues/5

The South has to consider its future differently, off the beaten track of economic and especially political corruption in energy trade. An outstanding illustration of the heatable current situation is given by trial related to Multinationals ELF and its affairs in Africa, especially in Gabon is majestically rendered in Lucas Belvaux's film "The Predators": All the actors are extraordinary but Nicole Garcia and the late Claude Brasseur are breathtaking: The film produced in 2007 has recently been on youtube to the delight of moviegoers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWFylTjWJiw

This paper [1] should call out all climatologists and other scientists interested in climate change. Published in "Entropy Sept. 2022", a journal that publishes research related to Mathematical Physics, this article proposes an original formulation of the heat balance of the lithosphere based on fundamental principles of classical physics and thermodynamics. The conclusions are disconcerting vis-à-vis what is accepted as "Their Own Truths" by both climate alarmists and climate septics.

[1] Woodcock, L. V. (2022). Global Warming by Geothermal Heat from Fracking: Energy Industry’s Enthalpy Footprints. Entropy, 24(9), 1316.

Available on:

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/9/1316/pdf?version=1663637486

"Shale Gas Revolution" or "Foretold Planetary Disaster"? The Paradox with the shale gas revolution (to be understood as accessible at relatively low costs) is related to the immense reserves of shale gas, everywhere in the world, which are much higher than conventional resources. See for example [1] where one may read "If unconventional oil resources (oil shale, oil sands, extra heavy oil, and natural bitumen) are accounted for, the global oil reserves quadruple current conventional reserves".

Now as the "Shale Gas Revolution" is open and the Shale Gas Rush is announced, policy-making should consider real existent factors related to expected injuries to the climate, water resources, and populations: a "Foretold Planetary Disaster". (See the Map)

[1] https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/unconventional-fossil-fuels-factsheet

Map: Global Shale Gas Reserves, source: A.R.I. (2013) & EIA via Reuters

A.R.I. 2013. EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment Arlington, USA: Advanced Resources International, Inc.

Excerpts from the Japanese Prime Minister Kishida declaration at the G20 Summit "...Regarding climate and energy, Prime Minister Kishida pointed out that the implementation of the Paris Agreement is an urgent challenge in order to limit temperature rise to 1.5℃ He called for commitments by all Parties to achieving net zero by 2050 and peaking out global greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, toward COP28 (28th session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). Prime Minister Kishida also stated that it is imperative to achieve transformation to a decarbonized economy through inclusive investments without compromising economic growth and energy security. Stressing the need to aim to achieve the common goal of net zero through various pathways, in line with national circumstances, he also expressed Japan’s intention to utilize all technologies and energy sources to promote innovation and support the efforts of each country. In addition, Prime Minister Kishida pointed out that further support for vulnerable countries is necessary, noting that the goal of annually mobilizing 100 billion dollars jointly by developed countries is expected to be achieved within this year. He stated that it is also important for all affluent Parties and stakeholders to contribute to finance mobilization from here on"

Read more on:

https://www.mofa.go.jp/ecm/ec/page1e_000768.html

On life-cycle performance in studying environmental impact issues. This paper [1] by Petrakopoulou & Batuecasby (2021), "introduced and validated an exergy-based socioeconomic analysis (ESEC) method that can be used to evaluate energy systems at their design stage under thermodynamic, economic, and environmental criteria. The environmental performance is evaluated with a life-cycle assessment and the environmental impacts calculated are converted into costs. These external costs are combined with those of a conventional economic analysis and the resulting total costs are coupled with an exergetic analysis to carry out the component-level ESEC evaluation...The two power plants used in the study were a conventional combined-cycle power plant (reference plant) and a plant with similar structure including chemical looping combustion (CLC) for CO2 capture....As expected, the environmental implications of the construction phase (i.e., construction materials needed in a plant) were much less significant when compared to the operational phase (i.e., the fuel consumption). The inclusion of the external costs of the construction phase led to a small increase in the levelized cost of electricity. However, the inclusion of the operational phase, increased the LCOE by 35.4% and 17.6% in the reference and CLC cases, respectively..."

[1] Petrakopoulou, F., & Batuecas, E. (2021). Introduction to an exergy-based socioeconomic analysis. Energy Conversion and Management, 249, 114853.

available on:

https://fontina-petrakopoulou.github.io/files/articles/2021_ESEC_EnConvMan.pdf

Book: New Release on September 09 2023, Guerre de l'énergie Au cœur du nouveau conflit mondial (Energy war At the heart of the new world conflict), by Fabien Bouglé, Editions du Rocher.

Presentation (Own translation): World War III has begun. It's an energy war. It broke out on September 26, 2022 with the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines which connected Russia and Germany via the Baltic Sea. States that control energy resources have powerful geopolitical leverage. Vladimir Putin went further: he used energy, and in particular gas, as a political tool and weapon of economic war.

Energy is of vital importance for our economies, our health, our industrial or food production. Control of its production is decisive for nations that want to ensure their sovereignty and political independence. Gas shock, inflation, confrontations between the Russian and American empires, control of gas and nuclear power, weakening of Europe, faltering Franco-German friendship, war in Ukraine, anti-nuclear propaganda, NGOs in troubled waters, loss of sovereignty... This work deciphers the motives and issues of this Third World War.

About the author:

Fabien Bouglé, energy policy expert, published in 2021 Nuclear, the hidden truths and in 2019, Wind turbines, the dark side of the ecological transition. He is the author of numerous studies and columns

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/War_Peace/11

Statistics from Energy Information Agency of US Dept of Energy does not support renewable or natural gas as apocalyptic options energetically but rather proven and improved options economical options superior over coal, nuclear, and petroleum without the so called collapse of the centralized grid as falsely theorized.

The false postulation of a renewable paradox of renewable energy does not follow a real history of its demonstrated potential.

The actual experience of Iowa the North America wind leader show its successful impletementation and not the falsely portrayed systematic collapse.

In the state of Iowa in 2012 63% of the electrical production was focused on thermoelectric coal generation.

Currently in Iowa the 2012 24% of wind generation has risen to 65% and cost of energy has remained in the top 5 lowerest in continental United States.

Electricity has not been exorbitantly priced and the reliability of the system has been excellent.

The paradox is not a renewable apocalypse of our centralized energy system but why the promotion of uneconomical nuclear coal petroleum when natural gas and renewables are far cheaper less costly while special interested parties have been shamelessly promoted on false arguments such as the unreliability and high cost of the true cost competitive and renewable solution.

IOWA   📷 Energy Information Agency US Department of Engery

State Profile and Energy Estimates

Changes to the State Energy Data System (SEDS) Notice: In October 2023, we are updating the way we calculate primary energy consumption of electricity generation from noncombustible renewable energy sources (solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal). Visit our Changes to 1960—2022 conversion factor for renewable energy page to learn more.

Profile AnalysisPrint State Energy Profile (overview, data, & analysis)

Last Updated: August 17, 2023

Overview

Located between the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, Iowa's gently rolling plains have some of the richest farmland in the nation and significant renewable energy resources. The state's climate, with rainfall in the growing season and dry air at harvest, together with Iowa's deep topsoil, produce abundant grain crops.1 Iowa leads the nation in the production of both corn and ethanol.2,3 Along with corn stalks, wind turbines rise above the prairie grasses throughout the state. Unobstructed winds blow across Iowa's open prairie, giving the state significant wind energy resources.4 With many days of sunshine each year, Iowa has solar energy potential as well.5,6 However, the state has few economically recoverable fossil energy reserves and no crude oil, natural gas, or coal production.7,8,9,10

Iowa ranks among the top 5 states in per capita total energy consumption.

Iowa is the only non-crude oil-producing state among the top five states in total energy consumption per capita, mainly because of its small population and large industrial sector.11 The industrial sector leads Iowa's end-use energy consumption, accounting for slightly more than half of the state total.12 Iowa ranks among the top 10 states in total industrial sector energy use.13 Agriculture, food production, biofuels production, and manufacturing are key Iowa industries.14 The state's major manufactured products include machinery; food and beverages; chemicals; computers and electronics; plastics; and motor vehicles and parts.15 The transportation sector is the second-largest energy user, accounting for almost one-fifth of the state's total. The residential sector makes up about one-seventh of the state's energy consumption and the commercial sector accounts for about one-eighth.16

Renewable energy

Iowa produces more fuel ethanol and biodiesel than any other state in the nation.

Iowa is the top fuel ethanol-producing state in the nation and has about one-fourth of the nation's total fuel ethanol production capacity. The state's ethanol plants can produce nearly 4.7 billion gallons per year, which is almost 30 times greater than the 177 million gallons of ethanol consumed annually in the state. Iowa's fertile cornfields provide the feedstock for the state's 41 ethanol plants.17,18,19,20 Iowa also leads the nation in biodiesel production. Its 11 biodiesel plants have a combined production capacity of 470 million gallons per year, which is one-fifth of the nation's total capacity and the largest biodiesel production capacity of any state. Iowa's biodiesel production is almost eight times larger than the state's biodiesel use of about 63 million gallons a year.21,22,23

In 2022, 62% of Iowa’s total electricity net generation came from wind, the largest wind power share of any state.

In 2022, nearly two-thirds of Iowa's total electricity net generation came from renewable resources, almost all of it from wind.24 The state was the second-largest wind power producer, after Texas. Wind energy powered 62% of Iowa's net generation, the highest share of any state. Iowa's wind power is expected to increase, as about 224 megawatts of new wind power generating capacity are scheduled to come online in 2023.25,26 The strongest winds occur in northwestern Iowa, and although there are wind farms across the state, most are in the state's northern and western areas.27,28

About 3% of Iowa's in-state electricity generation in 2022 came from renewable energy resources other than wind, with hydroelectric power, solar energy, and biomass each contributing a small amount of the state's electricity.29 The largest of Iowa's four hydroelectric power plants—the Keokuk plant with 15 turbine generators and 146 megawatts of generating capacity—is 110 years old. It is the largest privately-owned and operated dam and hydroelectric plant on the Mississippi River.30,31 Nearly three-fifths of the state's small, but growing, solar power supply is provided by utility-scale (1 megawatt or larger) solar arrays and about two-fifths come from customer-sited, small-scale generating systems (less than 1 megawatt each).32 The state's largest solar generating facility, the 100-megawatt Holiday Creek Solar Farm, came online in mid-2022.33 Iowa's best solar power resources are found in the southwestern corner of the state.34 The state's biomass resources include landfill gas and agricultural biodigesters that both produce methane gas as fuel for electricity-generating facilities. The largest biomass-fueled generating plant is an 11-megawatt facility located near Des Moines that uses methane produced from a landfill.35,36,37 Iowa's biomass resources also provide feedstock to the state's one wood pellet plant, which can process wood waste into 10,000 tons of pellets annually.38

In 1983, Iowa became the first state in the nation to adopt a renewable portfolio standard (RPS). State regulators required Iowa's two investor-owned electric utilities to own or to contract for a combined 105 megawatts of total renewable generating capacity.39 Capacity from eligible renewable resources has far exceeded the RPS goals. At the beginning of 2023, Iowa had about 12,800 megawatts of in-state generating capacity fueled by renewable energy sources at utility-scale power facilities.40

Electricity

In 2019, wind turbines in Iowa generated more electricity than the state's coal-fired power plants for the first time. In 2022, coal's share declined to 25% of the state's total electricity net generation, which was down from 44% five years earlier. During the same five-year period, wind power grew from 37% of the state's net generation to 62% in 2022. However, 5 of Iowa's 10 largest power plants by generating capacity are coal-fired, and only 2 wind farms are in the top 10. When ranked by generation, 4 of the top 10 plants are wind-powered and 3 are coal-fired.41,42

Natural gas-fired power plants contributed 9% of Iowa's in-state generation in 2022, with total generation from natural gas the second-lowest since 2017. Iowa has had no nuclear power generation since mid-2020 after the state's one nuclear plant stopped operating.43 The 601-megawatt Duane Arnold nuclear power plant closed in August 2020 when storm winds damaged the power station's cooling towers. The plant's owner plans to build a 200-megawatt solar power farm at the site by the end of 2024.44,45,46 The state's remaining 3% of electricity generation came from hydropower, solar, biomass, and petroleum.47

Since 2008, Iowa has generated more electricity each year than the state consumed. The excess power is sent to other states over the regional electric grid.48 Iowa ranks in the top 10 states in total electricity sales per capita.49 Almost half of electricity sales in Iowa go to the industrial sector, nearly three-tenths go to the residential sector, and the commercial sector accounts for slightly more than one-fourth.50 Iowa ranks among the 10 states with the lowest average electricity price.51 About one in four Iowa households rely on electricity for home heating.52

Petroleum

Iowa is not a crude oil-producing state and does not have any proved oil reserves.53,54 Of more than 100 exploratory wells drilled in the state, only a handful ever produced oil. Those wells no longer produce, and their combined production was less than 500 barrels of crude oil.55,56 Iowa does not have any oil refineries and relies on pipelines to bring in petroleum products from other states.57 Nearly 12,000 miles of petroleum product pipelines cross the state.58

One in eight Iowa homes heat with propane, almost triple the national rate.

The transportation sector accounts for about three-fifths of Iowa's petroleum use.59 About 41% of the petroleum consumed in Iowa is used as motor gasoline, 30% is diesel fuel, and 23% is propane. Jet fuel, residual fuel, and other petroleum products account for the rest.60 Conventional motor gasoline without ethanol can be sold statewide in Iowa, although almost all U.S. gasoline is blended with at least 10% ethanol.61,62 About 330 public fueling stations in the state dispense E85, a blend of motor gasoline with 85% ethanol, and about 310 stations sell biodiesel.63,64 Iowa's industrial sector makes up about three-tenths of the state's petroleum consumption. The remaining one-tenth of petroleum use is split between the state's residential and commercial sectors. A small amount of petroleum is used by the electric power sector.65 The state's petroleum consumption includes hydrocarbon gas liquids (HGL), mostly propane. Iowa ranks fourth among the states in HGL consumption. The industrial sector consumes more than two-thirds of the HGLs, where farmers use propane to dry their harvested corn crop.66,67,68 About one in eight Iowa households heats with propane, almost triple the national rate.69

Natural gas

Iowa does not have any natural gas reserves or production, but the state is crossed by several interstate natural gas pipeline systems.70,71,72 Natural gas enters Iowa by pipelines primarily from Minnesota, Nebraska, and Missouri. About three-fourths of the natural gas that enters Iowa exits the state and continues on to Illinois and Minnesota on its way to markets in those states and farther east.73,74,75 Some of the gas is also stored in Iowa's four natural gas storage fields that together can hold 288 billion cubic feet of gas, which accounts for about 3% of U.S. natural gas storage capacity by volume.76

Natural gas accounts for about one-fourth of the total energy consumed in Iowa.77 In 2022, the industrial sector accounted for 58% of the natural gas consumed in the state. Iowa's residential sector, where 6 out of 10 households use natural gas as their primary heating fuel, accounted for 17% of natural gas use. The commercial sector consumed about 13%, and the electric power sector used 12%. A small amount of natural gas is also used in the transportation sector.78,79

Coal

Coal mining began in Iowa in the 1840s and continued until the 1990s. Most of the coal mines were located in the southern half of the state and supplied coal to run the railroads that first reached Iowa in the 1860s.80 Today, there are no active coal mines in Iowa, but the state still has about 1.1 billion tons of estimated recoverable coal reserves, located primarily in south-central Iowa.81,82

Almost all of the coal consumed in Iowa is brought by rail from Wyoming and delivered to power plants. A few small coal shipments from Wyoming, Illinois, and Kentucky are also delivered to Iowa's industrial, commercial, and institutional users.83 In 2022, Iowa ranked 16th among the states in coal use for electricity generation.84

Endnotes

1 Hillaker, Harry, Iowa's Climate, The Community Collaborative Rain, Hail & Snow Network, State Climate Series, accessed July 5, 2023. 2 Rodriguez, Hannah, "No state produces more corn than Iowa. Here are more ways Iowa farmers lead the nation," Des Moines Register (December 30, 2021). 3 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), State Energy Data System, Table P4B, Primary Energy Production Estimates, Biofuels, in Thousand Barrels, Ranked by State, 2021. 4 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, WINDExchange, Wind Energy in Iowa, Maps & Data, accessed July 5, 2023. 5 Current Results, Weather and Science Facts, Days of Sunshine per Year in Iowa, accessed July 5, 2023. 6 U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Geospatial Data Science, Solar Resource Maps and Data, Iowa, accessed July 5, 2023. 7 U.S. EIA, Annual Coal Report 2021 (October 18, 2022), Table 15, Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines, Estimated Recoverable Reserves, and Demonstrated Reserve Base by Mining Method, 2021. 8 U.S. EIA, Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production, Gross Withdrawals, Annual-Million Cubic Feet, 2017-22. 9 U.S. EIA, Crude Oil Production, Annual-Thousand Barrels per Day, 2017-22. 10 U.S. EIA, Annual Coal Report 2021 (October 18, 2022), Table 1, Coal Production and Number of Mines by State and Mine Type, 2021 and 2020. 11 U.S. EIA, State Energy Data System, Table C14, Total Energy Consumption Estimates per Capita by End-Use Sector, Ranked by State, 2021. 12 U.S. EIA, State Energy Data System, Table C1, Energy Consumption Overview: Estimates by Energy Source and End-Use Sector, 2021. 13 U.S. EIA, State Energy Data Systems, Table C11, Energy Consumption Estimates by End-Use Sector, Ranked by State, 2021. 14 Iowa Area Development Group, Target Industries, accessed July 5, 2023. 15 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Interactive Data, Regional Data, GDP & Personal Income, Annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by State, GDP in current dollars, NAICS, Iowa, All Statistics in Table, 2021. 16 U.S. EIA, State Energy Data System, Table C1, Energy Consumption Overview: Estimates by Energy Source and End-Use Sector, 2021. 17 U.S. EIA, State Energy Data System, Table P4B, Primary Energy Production Estimates, Biofuels, in Thousand Barrels, Ranked by State, 2021. 18 U.S. EIA, U.S. Fuel Ethanol Plant Production Capacity (August 8, 2022), Detailed nameplate capacity of fuel ethanol plants by Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PAD District) are available in XLS. 19 U.S. EIA, State Energy Data System, Table F25, Fuel ethanol consumption estimates, 2021. 20 U.S. Ethanol Plants, Operational, Ethanol Producer Magazine, updated April 16, 2023. 21 U.S. EIA, Table P4B, Primary Energy Production Estimates, Biofuels, in Thousand Barrels, Ranked by State, 2021. 22 U.S. EIA, U.S. Biodiesel Plant Production Capacity (August 8, 2022), Detailed annual production capacity by plant is available in XLS format. 23 U.S. EIA, State Energy Data System, Table F26, Biodiesel Consumption Estimates, 2021. 24 U. S. EIA, Electricity Data Browser, Net generation for all sectors (thousand megawatthours), Annual, 2019-22. 25 U.S. EIA, Electric Power Monthly (February 2023), Tables 1.3.B, 1.11.B, 1.14.B. 26 U.S. EIA, Electricity, Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory (based on Form EIA-860M as a supplement to Form EIA-860), Inventory of Planned Generators as of December 2022, Plant State: Iowa, Technology: Onshore Wind Turbine. 27 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, WINDExchange, Wind Energy in Iowa, Maps & Data, accessed July 6, 2023. 28 U.S. EIA, U.S. Energy Atlas, All Energy Infrastructure and Resources, Iowa, accessed July 6, 2023. 29 U.S. EIA, Electricity Data Browser, Net generation for all sectors (thousand megawatthours), Annual, 2019-22. 30 U.S. EIA, Electricity, Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory (based on Form EIA-860M as a supplement to Form EIA-860), Inventory of Operating Generators as of June 2023, Plant State: Iowa, Technology: Conventional Hydroelectric. 31 "American Hydro to modernize two units at 142-MW Keokuk hydroelectric plant," Hydro Review (October 16, 2020). 32 U.S. EIA, Electricity Data Browser, Net generation for all sectors (thousand megawatthours), Annual, 2019-22. 33 U.S. EIA, Electricity, Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory (based on Form EIA-860M as a supplement to Form EIA-860), Inventory of Operating Generators as of June 2023, Plant State: Iowa, Technology: Solar Photovoltaic. 34 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Geospatial Data Science, Solar Resource Maps and Data, U.S. Annual Solar GHI, Iowa, February 22, 2018. 35 U.S. EIA, Electricity, Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory (based on Form EIA-860M as a supplement to Form EIA-860), Inventory of Operating Generators as of June 2023, Plant State: Iowa, Technology: Landfill gas, Other Waste Biomass. 36 TrackMyElectricity, AgriReNew Methane Center, About, accessed July 6, 2023. 37 "WM Plans to Expand Iowa Landfill Gas Recovery Facility," Waste Today Magazine (July 16, 2013). 38 U.S. EIA, Monthly Densified Biomass Fuel Report (August 1, 2023), Highlights, Table 1, Densified biomass fuel manufacturing facilities in the United States by state, region, and capacity, May 2023, Download. 39 NC Clean Energy Technology Center, DSIRE, Iowa Alternative Energy Law, updated November 18, 2012. 40 U.S. EIA, Electric Power Monthly (February 2023), Table 6.2.A. 41 U.S. EIA, Electricity Data Browser, Net generation for all sectors (thousand megawatthours), Annual, 2019-22. 42 U.S. EIA, Iowa Electricity Profile 2021, Table 2A, Ten largest plants by capacity, Table 2B, Ten largest plants by generation, 2021. 43 U.S. EIA, Electricity Data Browser, Net generation for all sectors (thousand megawatthours), Annual, 2019-22. 44 U.S. EIA, U.S. Nuclear Generation and Generating Capacity, 2019, 2020. 45 Steppe, John, "Duane Arnold nuclear plant won't restart after Iowa derecho damage," The Gazette (August 25, 2021). 46 NextEra Energy Resources, Duane Arnold Solar Project, accessed July 7, 2023. 47 U.S. EIA, Electricity Data Browser, Net generation for all sectors (thousand megawatthours), Annual, 2019-22. 48 U.S. EIA, Iowa Electricity Profile 2021, Table 10, Supply and disposition of electricity, 1990 through 2021. 49 U.S. EIA, State Energy Data System, Table C17, Electricity Retail Sales, Total and Residential, Total and per Capita, Ranked by State, 2021. 50 U.S. EIA, Electricity Data Browser, Retail sales of electricity (million kilowatthours), 2019-22. 51 U.S. EIA, Electric Power Monthly (February 2023), Table 5.6.B. 52 U.S. Census Bureau, House Heating Fuel, Table B25040, 2021 ACS 1-Year Estimates Detailed Tables, Iowa. 53 U.S. EIA, Crude Oil Production, Annual-Thousand Barrels, 2017-22. 54 U.S. EIA, Crude Oil Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production, Proved Reserves as of 12/31, Annual, 2016-21. 55 Anderson, Raymond R., Oil Exploration in Iowa, adapted from Iowa Geology 1992, No. 17, Centennial Edition, Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 56 Iowa Department of Natural Resources, McKay, Robert M., Mineral Resource Facts, Energy Resources, Oil and Gas, accessed July 7, 2023. 57 U.S. EIA, Number and Capacity of Petroleum Refineries, Total Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1, 2018-23. 58 U.S. Department of Energy, State of Iowa Energy Sector Risk Profile, p. 4, accessed July 7, 2023. 59 U.S. EIA, State Energy Data System, Table F16, Total Petroleum Consumption Estimates, 2021. 60 U.S. EIA, State Energy Data System, Table C2, Energy Consumption Estimates for Major Energy Sources in Physical Units, 2021. 61 Gardner, K. W., U.S. Gasoline Requirements, American Petroleum Institute (January 2018). 62 U.S. EIA, "Almost all U.S. gasoline is blended with 10% ethanol," Today in Energy (May 4, 2016). 63 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, Alternative Fueling Station Locator, Ethanol (E85), Iowa, and Biodiesel (B20 and above), accessed July 7, 2023. 64 Hardy, Kevin, "Why Iowans will likely see more E15 and E85 gas at the pump soon," Des Moines Register (June 5, 2017). 65 U.S. EIA, State Energy Data System, Table F16, Total Petroleum Consumption Estimates, 2021. 66 U.S. EIA, "Propane Use for Crop Drying Depends on Weather and Corn Markets as well as Crop Size," Today in Energy (October 2, 2014). 67 U.S. EIA, State Energy Data System, Table F11, Hydrocarbon Gas Liquids Consumption Estimates, 2021. 68 U.S. EIA, Hydrocarbon gas liquids explained, Where do hydrocarbon gas liquids comes from?, updated September 13, 2022. 69 U.S. Census Bureau, House Heating Fuel, Table B25040, 2021 ACS 1-Year Estimates Detailed Tables, Iowa, United States. 70 U.S. EIA, Natural Gas Reserves Summary as of Dec. 31, Dry Natural Gas, Annual, 2016-21. 71 U.S. EIA, Natural Gas Gross Withdrawal and Production, Gross Withdrawals, Annual-Million Cubic Feet, 2017-22. 72 U.S. EIA, U.S. Energy Atlas, All Energy Infrastructure and Resources, Iowa, accessed July 17, 2023. 73 U.S. EIA, International and Interstate Movements of Natural Gas by State, Iowa, Annual, 2016-21. 74 U.S. EIA, About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines in the Midwest Region, accessed July 17, 2023. 75 U.S. EIA, About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines in the Central Region, accessed July 17, 2023. 76 U.S. EIA, Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity, Total Number of Existing Fields, 2016-21 and Total Storage Capacity, Annual, 2016-21. 77 U.S. EIA, State Energy Data System, Table C1, Energy Consumption Overview: Estimates by Energy Source and End-Use Sector, 2021. 78 U.S. Census Bureau, House Heating Fuel, Table B25040, 2021 ACS 1-Year Estimates Detailed Tables, Iowa. 79 U.S. EIA, Natural Gas Consumption by End Use, Iowa, Annual, 2017-22. 80 Iowa Pathways, Types of Business and Industry, accessed July 18, 2023. 81 U.S. EIA, Annual Coal Report 2021 (October 18, 2022), Table 1, Coal Production and Number of Mines by State and Mine Type, 2021 and 2020; Table 15, Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines, Estimated Recoverable Reserves, and Demonstrated Reserve Base by Mining Method, 2021. 82 U.S. EIA, U.S. Energy Atlas, All Energy Infrastructure and Resources, Iowa, accessed July 18, 2023. 83 U.S. EIA, Annual Coal Distribution Report 2021 (October 18, 2022), Domestic Distribution of U.S. coal by: Destination State, consumer, destination and method of transportation, Iowa, Table DS-13, Domestic Coal Distribution, by Destination State, 2021. 84 U.S. EIA, Electric Power Monthly (February 2023), Table 4.6.B.

On Unconventional Natural Gas Paradox. The paper by Gene L. Theodori from the Sam Houston State University "Paradoxical Perceptions of Problems Associated with Unconventional Natural Gas Development, Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 24(3), 2009" is in this regard remarkably insightful. Excerpt "..In essence, the results of this study reveal a paradox among the general population. On one hand, it appears the members of the general public typically dislike the potentially problematic social and/or environmental issues perceived to accompany natural gas development. However, on the other hand, local citizens generally appreciate and view favorably the economic and/or service-related benefits that normally accompany such development..."

The paper is available at:

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/ jrss/vol24/iss3/7

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_energy_pattern_and_the_perspective_of_large-scale_exploitation_of_shale_gas_What_alternative_solutions

New publication (September 14, 2023): The book (in French) “Le Piège Nord Stream (The Nord Stream Trap)” by Marion Van Renterghem, Editions Les Arènes, 269 pages. Presentation (Own Translation): "On September 26, 2022, two criminal explosions ripped apart Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, the two underwater gas pipelines that connect Russia to Germany across the Baltic. The saboteurs leave no trace, no claims.

The Nord Stream explosion is one of the extensions of the Ukrainian war. It is the culmination of a wildly perverse relationship between Vladimir Putin and the West. For twenty years, the Russian president patiently advanced his pawns to make Europe dependent on its gas, using the greed and blindness of his interlocutors. Nord Stream is the central character of a diabolical trap in which ex-KGB spies, political leaders under influence, several dozen suspicious deaths, but also leading personalities such as Gerhard Schröder, François Fillon and Angela Merkel take part. Nord Stream's corpse is still moving. Here is his biography: a geopolitical thriller where everything is true, a long investigation carried out with a hundred actors and witnesses, from Kyiv to Berlin, from Paris to Warsaw.

The trap was almost perfect."

The Ukranine War has exposed many things. For sure there is geopoltical struggle for dwindling nonrenewable energy resources which costs our planet much.

It is true that this struggle dwarves the economic benefits.

The paradox is that we have not used our renewable resources to the mas which are cheaper or fully exploited conservation and energy efficiency.

It is wildly paradoxical that Ukraine which is full of untapped resources of this this type is concentrated on nuclear energy which has been highly damaging to it and surraounding countries.

Ukraine has the ability to use its ample and renewable resources to be fully independent and provide excess energy to European economies.

The geopolitical struggle for scarce resources is real. The focus on energy effeciency and conservation the use of renewable energy and the development of low carbon fossil fuels as a bridge to the future will make the energy economy both competitive in price and stable now and for future needs.

Two remarks when speaking of Energy Costs or National Energy Security: 1. LCOE does not have universal values, as is it a national variable, that depends on the socioeconomic, industrial, and environmental policies of the countries as well as on their natural and human resources and their Sovereign National Security Concerns. So no universal comparison can hold water. 2. Entering the environmental impacts and risk costs into the LCOE equation from various energy sources will lead to energy price configuration, for each country, within a sustainable environmental integration that include National Security Concerns.

Moral. Without explicitly considering the costs of environmental and National Security Concerns into the intrinsic prices of all energy sources, comparing the LCOEs is only a "False Equivalency" which only serves to maintain the different interested interpretations

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Energy_Renewable_Energy_and_Levelized_Cost_Of_Energy_LCOE_Paradoxes

Control of energy and its sources is and has always been one of the cornerstones of world leadership no matter how it is dressed up: Nationalism, colonialism, inference use and misuse of human rights, freedoms, environmental protection, fight against climate change, and other universal principles, new colonialism, free and unfair trade, multinational occult activities, corruption, military interventions, support for armed movements, mercenary companies, support for totalitarian and sometimes criminal powers, NGO and connections, Humanitarian aid, military or civil coups. All means and methods are well provided so that the black blood of the earth flows in the right direction.

Sovereign countries built their strategies on the basis of National Security Doctrines. This goes for National Energy Security, a Sovereign conception, based on the natural, technological, and human resources of Nations. Nations assume then their costs and environmental implications. In this regard and as an example, the report of the commission of inquiry of the French National Assembly "aiming to establish the reasons for the loss of sovereignty and energy independence of France" was presented on Thursday, April 6, 2023. The report makes 30 recommendations, most largely in support of nuclear revival, but also in favor of hydroelectricity and the development of heating networks.

Read more (in French) on:

https://www.lemondedelenergie.com/energie-france-a-pris-30-ans-retard-selon-commission-enquete-parlementaire/2023/04/07/

In the same vein as my previous post. A second example of Sovereign National Decisions on Energy Politics and related Strategies is that of the UK, The British Geological Survey (BGS) produced, for the request of The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) an outstanding well-documented report (not less than 160 references)

Baptie, B., Segou, M., Hough, E., & Hennissen, J. A. I. (2022). Recent scientific advances in the understanding of induced seismicity from hydraulic fracturing of shales.

The report is damning for fracking. It highlights its harmful effects and draws attention to their disastrous long-term implications. The UK had decreed a moratory on shale gas extraction.

Read more on:

https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/533240/1/OR22050.pdf

In the same vein, one can only respect the intelligence of sovereign peoples and their elites as well as their National Security choices. Within this principle, each sovereign Country or Nation freely chooses its energy security according to its natural, technological, and human resources. As for the French Nuclear perspective of revival, well we assist with a similar trend in the UK: the same causes produce the same effects. This very recent paper is in this regard uplifting:

Caglar, A. E. (2023). Can nuclear energy technology budgets pave the way for a transition toward low‐carbon economy: insights from the United Kingdom. Sustainable Development, 31(1), 198-210.

Available on:

Article Can nuclear energy technology budgets pave the way for a tra...

One may read within the conclusion: "Our study demonstrated the positive impact on the environmental quality of the government's increased R&D spending for nuclear power. Thus, the government should allocate more budget to R&D investments for nuclear energy during the transition to a low-carbon economy until renewable energy matures. There has been an increase in R&D budgets, especially since 2008. However, when compared to 1974, the budget is relatively low. The government can move away from fossil fuels and control energy security by allocating more resources from the general budget for nuclear power R&D".

LCOE is a predictive quantity that only makes sense with respect to the hypotheses adopted for their calculation. It is, therefore, a quantity, fundamentally submitted to the uncertainties relating to the projections and therefore by definition evolving. The use of this quantity for any comparison whatsoever only makes sense when comparing comparable things. Suppose for example that we want to use the LCOE of the KWH to compare the modes of production of electrical energy produced by fossil energy, nuclear energy, and wind/solar energy. Such a comparison would be incomplete and falls under "false equivalency" if it does not take into account:

- that production using fossil energy produces CO2 and other emissions, the treatment/disposal of which has a direct cost

- that the nuclear industry produces radioactive waste and other emissions, the treatment/disposal of which has a direct cost and,

- that wind/solar power produces variable energy, the regulation of which has a direct cost. It may also produce waste the treatment/disposal of which has a direct cost

On the energy security of sovereign nations. This is an interesting recent overview [1] of civil nuclear energy in the world and the associated geopolitical issues by Lewandowski (2023): "Change climate and energy crisis: new deal for global civil nuclear power". One may read there: "The second largest source of low-carbon electricity in the world, the first in the EU, it is a major asset in the fight against climate change. It also contributes, over the long term, to the security of electricity supply and the economic development of the countries that use it. It is in the light of these different criteria that the “return to grace” of nuclear power observed in several European countries since 2020 is assessed. “Nuclear diplomacy” is therefore more active than ever: while the barycenter of new nuclear power is now in Russia and China, the United States is very committed to regaining its leadership by massively supporting its research and its national industry, especially in the field of small modular reactors, and by developing its international partnerships. In this context, the success of the resumption of the great adventure of civil nuclear power in France requires a major national project allowing human, industrial and financial mobilization that will allow it to recover its vocation as a nuclear power".

[1] Lewandowski, C. (2023). Change climate and energy crisis: new deal for global civil nuclear power. Herodote, 188(1), 119-138.

Toward a Green New International Economic Order. This is what the Chapter [1] by Bowles and Andrew (released two days ago) "Global Extractive Bargains for Green New Deals" tries to put into perspective. "Many national governments, regional bodies and political parties in the Global North have advanced various versions of ‘Green New Deals’ (GNDs) designed to cut carbon dioxide emissions to meet climate change objectives. Taken together, these would involve a shift away from fossil fuels and an increase in energy from solar and wind sources as well as an expansion of ‘clean’ forms of transportation such as electric vehicles (EVs). The shift to renewables and EVs, however, will require a rise in extractivism in other parts of the global political economy especially in the Global South to supply the minerals required to power this shift. We argue that the implied ‘parallel bargains’ accompanying the GNDs are problematic and propose a new lens for global extractive bargains based on a Green New International Economic Order."

[1] Bowles, P., Andrews, N. (2023). Global Extractive Bargains for Green New Deals. In: Bowles, P., Andrews, N. (eds) Extractive Bargains. Frontiers of Globalization. Palgrave Macmillan,

Peter Zeihan a geopolitical analyst of renown points to the breakdown of insured global order related to the Brentwood Accord post World War 2 in the cold war aftermath. In this compact US navy guaranteed world access to markets.

At Brentwood the United States will the only standing navy of importance said it would guarantee the world market access if its allies would work together to contain the socialistic states.

With the fall of Soviet Union the enormous investment of US to assure global markets is becoming very untenable.

It appears that idea is no longer workable and the burden from US standpoint is not justified for the outside parties which are largest beneficiaries as export economies.

The Arab oil embargo and the Russian antics are pointing to system of geopoltical extortion.

The massive technological developments lifting many out of poverty are the result of this system which is now seeming to breakdown.

As for US its ability for self-sufficiency can make the rearrangement of the world order very suitable for a North America regional economy which is not overly dependent on nations with sworn antagonism to its people and purpose.

The Soviet Afghan adventure and United States adventures in Mideast are increasingly counterproductive.

When nations are energy self-sufficient the ability of being held hostage is minimized and this is a need under the global politics.

The success of the socialistic societies of bringing prosperity to their societies is anything but encouraging. Cuba Venezuela Nicaragua and Bolivia are wonderful examples of how socialism gives little hope of better lives but does seem highly effective in promoting misery.

There is little evidence that top down autocratic governments are effective in giving broad improvements in societal happiness nor prosperity.

So the real paradox is socialism suggesting they offer equally and progress and in reality it offers neither one or the other. That is a paradox.

par·a·dox

[ˈperəˌdäks]

NOUN

Share

The paradox of Electric Vehicles. Excerpts from: https://www.smartgreenpost.com/2021/10/06/the-paradox-of-electric-cars/ ".. one of the buzzwords if you will, is electric cars. This could be a good start, or just a way of hiding behind a finger, clearing one’s conscience, and perhaps saying that one has done everything possible to avoid the climate disaster we are heading for. For two reasons.

The first is linked to a simple numerical statement: if you want to talk about a plan to tackle climate change, you have to take into account all human activities that cause greenhouse gas emissions: according to the latest estimates (IPCC data: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data) focusing on cars means, at best, acting on about 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Very, very little. At the top of the list, though decidedly against our perception, are agriculture, livestock farming and industrial power generation.

The second reason is linked to the failure to address the choice of electric cars with an integrated and supply chain strategy: it is true that these cars are powered by electricity, but most of this energy is still derived from power plants that are (still) based on coal"....

See Also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Sciences_Paradoxes

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Electric_Vehicle_Battery_and_Rare_Earths_Technological_Economic_and_Environmental_Issues/6

"Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), by combining several energy resources, are considered as a crucial solution to decrease fossil fuel consumption and improve the environmental challenges. The existence of an alternative energy resource and the internal combustion engine together provides optimal power distribution among them to maximise power usage and minimise fuel consumption." Excerpt from:

Azim Mohseni, N., Bayati, N., & Ebel, T. (2023). Energy management strategies of hybrid electric vehicles: A comparative review. IET Smart Grid.

Released A week ago, available on:

https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1049/stg2.12133

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Electric_Vehicle_Battery_and_Rare_Earths_Technological_Economic_and_Environmental_Issues/6

The graph above represents an outstanding illustration of the CO2 emission Paradox. It is of remarkable relevance and clarity for these reasons.

1. CO2 emissions are broken down into specific per capita values, which immediately shows that per capita CO2 footprints are much larger in developed and/or rich countries than in developing and/or poor countries. This raises the fundamental question relating to which categories of countries should be held responsible for the effects of global warming.

2. The countries or regions are broken down in population so that the relative CO2 emissions are only the areas of the rectangles calculated as the product (Population X emissions per capita) which gives the areas of the colored rectangles.

3. The surface of the rectangle China (in blue) is the highest: it is the emissions of China that weigh the most on the planet even if the emissions per Chinese inhabitant represent only half of the emissions of a North American or an Arabic- Saudi.

4. The poorest countries (India & all countries in Africa, for example) have very low levels of emissions per inhabitant but relatively large populations. There are two solutions: (i) Reduce populations, (ii) reduce emissions. Solution (i) is morally unacceptable, and solution (ii) is unfair unless all the world population would have the same average per per capita emission.

Source graph: See Legend

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Depopulation_versus_Overpopulation_Demographic_Growth_Transition_and_Decline_What_else_Demographic_Crisis_or_even_Demographic_Crash/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Sciences_Paradoxes

"Shale Gas Revolution" or "Foretold Planetary Disaster"? The Paradox with the shale gas revolution (to be understood as accessible at relatively low costs) is related to the immense reserves of shale gas, everywhere in the world, which are much higher than conventional resources. See for example [1] where one may read "If unconventional oil resources (oil shale, oil sands, extra heavy oil, and natural bitumen) are accounted for, the global oil reserves quadruple current conventional reserves".

Now as the "Shale Gas Revolution" is open and the Shale Gas Rush is announced, policy-making should consider real existent factors related to expected injuries to the climate, water resources, and populations: a "Foretold Planetary Disaster". (See the Map)

[1] https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/unconventional-fossil-fuels-factsheet

Map: Global Shale Gas Reserves, source: A.R.I. (2013) & EIA via Reuters

A.R.I. 2013. EIA/ARI World Shale Gas and Shale Oil Resource Assessment Arlington, USA: Advanced Resources International, Inc

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Sciences_Paradoxes

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_energy_pattern_and_the_perspective_of_large-scale_exploitation_of_shale_gas_What_alternative_solutions

About the North Stream Gas Pipeline. It is quite common when reading the news to find opposing points of view on the same subject. It’s even natural, interesting, and enriching. On the other hand, when the same press group provides us, without further explanation, with divergent analyses on a given subject, we question the unsaid reasons for information/disinformation.

In May 2021, Le Monde Diplomatique gave us an article on the North Stream Gas Pipeline entitled “American forcing to supplant Russian deliveries. How to sabotage a gas pipeline (Own Translation); Where one can read: “Tube diplomacy was better before. In the 1970s, gas exchanges between Western Europe and the Soviet Union delighted the chancelleries: stable, and durable, the gas pipelines built a bridge between the two rival blocks of the Old Continent. And, when the Americans decide to disturb the "détente", they must be disillusioned: in 1982, President Ronald Reagan sanctioned several European companies involved in the construction of a Euro-Siberian gas pipeline which, in his eyes, would make Europe dependent on “reds”. But the ten members of the European Economic Community (EEC) refused to apply the embargo, and France requisitioned a company to force it to deliver equipment to the Soviets... A few months later, Washington backed down."

Read the article on (in French):

https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2021/05/RIMBERT/63053

On the same subject, Le Monde, from September 14, 2023, gives us a new reading of the subject in an article entitled “The Nord Stream Trap”: Putin’s “diabolical pipe” (Own translation); Where one can read “In a book too gripping as a thriller, journalist Marion Van Renterghem tells how the head of the Kremlin patiently weaved his web to make Europeans dependent on his gas... Nord Stream is the centerpiece of the premeditated trap that Vladimir Putin set for Europe to make it hostage to its gas.

Read the article on (in French):

https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2023/09/14/le-piege-nord-stream-le-tuyau-diabolique-de-poutine_6189334_3232.html

When speaking of Energy, Development, and Sustainability, one should at first look consider that 30% of the world's population is responsible for 80% of CO2 emissions. The carbon footprint (by person) is directly correlated to consumption and thus to per capita income (see the order of magnitude of figures on the graph). This does not mean that we designate those responsible or that we make the rich feel guilty, not at all. This is a fact that should be highlighted to put into perspective fair, equitable, and effective measures to ensure sustainability. Unfortunately, the driving forces that govern decision-makers on a global scale do not allow today to consider this perception of the "Human Dimension" directly involved in all questions relating to the impacts of anthropic activities on the Environment.

Graph Source: See Legend

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Depopulation_versus_Overpopulation_Demographic_Growth_Transition_and_Decline_What_else_Demographic_Crisis_or_even_Demographic_Crash

One can only respect the intelligence of sovereign peoples and their National Security choices. Within this principle, each sovereign Country or Nation freely chooses its energy security according to its natural, technological, and human resources. In the same way, as in France, we observe a recent trend toward Nuclear Revival in the UK (the same causes produce the same effects). This very recent paper is in this regard uplifting:

Caglar, A. E. (2023). Can nuclear energy technology budgets pave the way for a transition toward low‐carbon economy: insights from the United Kingdom. Sustainable Development, 31(1), 198-210.

Available on:

Article Can nuclear energy technology budgets pave the way for a tra...

One may read within the conclusion: "Our study demonstrated the positive impact on the environmental quality of the government's increased R&D spending for nuclear power. Thus, the government should allocate more budget to R&D investments for nuclear energy during the transition to a low-carbon economy until renewable energy matures. There has been an increase in R&D budgets, especially since 2008. However, when compared to 1974, the budget is relatively low. The government can move away from fossil fuels and control energy security by allocating more resources from the general budget for nuclear power R&D".

Interesting paper on The Jevons paradox by Freire-González, J., & Puig-Ventosa, I. (2015). Energy efficiency policies and the Jevons paradox. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 5(1), 69-79.

Abstract: "Energy and climate change policies are often strongly based on achieving energy efficiency targets. These policies are supposed to reduce energy consumption and consequently, associated pollutant emissions, but the Jevons paradox may pose a question mark on this assumption. Rebound effects produced by reduction in costs of energy services have not been generally taken into account in policy making (there is only one known exception). Although there is no scientific consensus about its magnitude, there is consensus about its existence and in acknowledging the harmful effects it has on achieving energy or climate targets. It is necessary to address the rebound effect through behavioral, legal and economic instruments. This paper analyzes the main available policies to minimize the rebound effect in households with special emphasis on economic instruments and, particularly, on energy taxation"

Available on:

https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/361368

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Sciences_Paradoxes/7

The critical review [1] on wind power by McKenna et al. (2022) questions various unfavorable aspects of wind energy, and comes to a mitigate conclusion: "Assessments of wind potentials need to draw up a complete balance sheet, including all costs and benefits, to be assessed within a systems framework "

[1] McKenna, R., Pfenninger, S., Heinrichs, H., Schmidt, J., Staffell, I., Bauer, C., ... & Wohland, J. (2022). High-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy assessments: A review of potential definitions, methodologies and future research needs. Renewable Energy, 182, 659-684. Available on:

Article High-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy assessments:...

Absolutely the assessments of wind energy needs to give a complete comparison of costs and benefits. When a person cites this as a way of negating the view of a real cost competitive and proven alternative their contribution is disingenuous.

The LCOE of wind is currently breaking under 30 USD per MW capacity the assessment of its viability is proven in the state of Iowa where over 60% of electrical requirement is wind generated.

If we look at nuclear which currently is breaking in at over 200 USD per MW capacity the comparative analysis is not favorable in terms of oveSrall economics. The French nuclear monoply experienced 18 billion USD of annual loss in 2022 alone.

The high resolution large scale onshore wind assessment is that it is wholly economic and wildly successful in its application.

The idea of suggesting that it is not is intellectually and academically disingenusous.

US legislation on renewable energy and federal taxes exclude hydroelectricity from the renewable energy packages. This paradox is explained in the article by Tarlock, D. (2012) "Hydro law and the future of hydroelectric power generation in the United States. Vand. L. Rev., 65, 1723", where one may read: "...The EIA estimates that the United States' hydro-generating capacity is projected to grow at a rate of only 0.1% per year. Initially, this conclusion is paradoxical because the International Energy Agency ("IEA") estimates that the United States has tapped only 16% of its potential hydro production. The conventional answer to this paradox is that hydro is nonetheless a developed technology, has high environmental costs compared to wind and solar energy, and is both a climate change adaptation option and an energy source stressed by climate change. Therefore, the prevailing consensus is that there is no need to provide substantial incentives for its expansion, like those available for wind, solar, biomass, and other alternative renewables.

To borrow from equilibrium ecology, hydro has reached its climax stage.' This assumption is reflected in state renewable portfolio standards legislation and federal tax incentives, which exclude conventional hydro from definitions of renewable energy...."

The paper is available on:

https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1363&context=vlr

Erroneous us of the term Paradox

There are certainly a plethora of concerning situations of our energy use and future.

. The re imagining of the the energy system has multiple options all of which have costs and issues.

Among the renewable options all have costs and potential side effects. These issues must be put into context of holistic cost and benefit analysis.

Some people are championing nuclear and putting it into the renewable camp. But it is not renewable and is not cost effective.

Suggesting that nuclear represents a cost effective and renewable energy reserve is a Paradox and represents misrepresentation of the technology.

Supporters of nuclear energy to maintain their special interest vilify real energy alternatives in favor of the nuclear trough of propaganda making false claims of nuclear cost and benefit while slandering real alternatives.

Compared to nuclear On the other hand renewables are both cost effective and are renewable.

In the United States abundant natural gas is capable of proving all the electrical and transporation needs if employed fully for the next several hundred years. By geopolitical security need cost and availability hard to beat as a transitioning energy resource.

Solar and wind with storage and natural gas will provide the majority of electrical energy requirement within a decade. Proven effective and cost competitive.

The cost side of equation is that nuclear would at present technology drive the prices of energy significantly upward and the issues with its wastes operations and security are still festering without resolution.

The definition paradox is as follows

par·a·dox

[ˈperəˌdäks]

NOUN

Suggesting that nuclear is either renewable or cost competitive is a paradox the use of renewable resources and abundant natural gas with latest low nitrogen and carbon generation is certainly not a paradox.

Alarmist arm flagging may create. attention it certainly does lead to progress or resolution of real issues such as energy needs and the issues related to energy policiy.

Bottomline nuclear energy is a paradox the use of renewables and the transition using natuiral gas with latest technological improvement is not.

The China wind paradox. China is the world leader in wind power installed capacity. However, wind curtailment – i.e., when the power grid frequently interrupts the power connection of installed wind capacity – has become an increasingly serious problem. Despite wind power Companies are continuing to invest. The study [1] by Zhu et al 2019, "The China wind paradox" shows "that there is a lot to learn from applying traditional market theories to markets in transition such as the Chinese power sector". It also provides "strong implications for wind power policy-making and solutions for the wind curtailment issue".

[1] Zhu, M., Qi, Y., Belis, D., Lu, J., & Kerremans, B. (2019). The China wind paradox: the role of state-owned enterprises in wind power investment versus wind curtailment. Energy Policy, 127, 200-212. Available on:

https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/525096

Other places, other Wind Energy Paradoxes. The Province of Ontario is pursuing an ambitious Wind Energy Program while conflicts surrounding technology development continue to grow. The paper by Songsore, E., & Buzzelli, M. 2015, "Wind energy development in Ontario: A process/product paradox. Local Environment, 20(12), 1428-1451" shed insights into the situation. Paper Available on:

https://www.academia.edu/download/50713741/Emmanuel_Songsore-_Wind_energy_development_in_Ontario_a_process_product_paradox.pdf

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Sciences_Paradoxes/7

Other Place Same old Misrepresentation and Arm Waving for Selective Interest

Once again at total misuse of paradox. China distribution of energy renews into renewables is totally defensible based on the lower cost compared to its chief reliance on the massive health issues with its primary energy resource which is highly polluting coal in which it has planned major dependence.

The use of renewable resources which have very significantly lower climate and health impact while having significantly is a rational policy.

The governance of a one ruler state without significant on going corrections based on autocratic rule without guard rails is the crux of a reliance of top down management which does not have the correction mechanisms based on a faulty governance system.

The reality of clear power of wind to supply reliable and effective energy resource is the case of private wind power in US and the stellar example that Iowa the chief state incentived area produces about two thirds of its electrical requirement while not impinging on the agricultural lands which produce renewable biofuels and does a significant amount of mantaining the food and fiber system.

Now the very high cost of nuclear and its now renewable and sustainable nature and the security issues it generates that would fit the definition of paradox.

par·a·dox

[ˈperəˌdäks]

NOUN

Wind Paradox Hoax

Here is what the EIA would say about state of renewables according the Energy Information Agency of US Departement of Energy.

The model of Iowa

QUICK FACTS

• Iowa is the nation's largest fuel ethanol and biodiesel producer. It accounts for about one-fourth of U.S. fuel ethanol production capacity and almost one-fifth of biodiesel production capacity.
• In 2022, wind turbines generated 62% of Iowa's electricity, the highest wind power share for any state.
• Iowa ranks among the 10 states with the highest electricity sales per capita and is among the 10 states with the lowest average electricity price.
• Iowa is the only non-crude oil-producing state among the top five states in total energy consumption per capita.
• Iowa is the fourth-largest consumer of hydrocarbon gas liquids, mostly propane--which is used for drying the state's large harvested corn crop and for heating one in eight Iowa households.

Last Updated: August 17, 2023

Wind energy is PQ performance qualified a propaganda campaign does not change that reality but its misrepresentations are indeed inimical to truth and represents a real paradox rather than propaganda ploy.

The Electric System of Canada

Quoted from energy.ca

The Main Electricity Sources in Canada by Province

Looking for cheaper electricity or natural gas? Find a better rate with Canada’s top energy comparison site.

Find a cheaper energy rate

• Electricity Natural Gas
• Type of service:ResidentialSmall Business – Monthly Energy Bills under $1,500Business - Monthly Energy Bills between $1,500 - $3,000Commercial - Monthly Energy Bills between $3,000 - $10,000Large Commercial - Monthly Energy Bills between $10,000 - $35,000Industrial - Monthly Energy Bills over $35,000

As reported by the National Energy Board (NEB) in 2017, two-thirds of the electricity sources in Canada come from renewable energy, with a combination of wind power, hydroelectric generation, solar power and even biomass energy. Despite a reputation for a fossil-fuel-based economy, over 80% of our electricity is produced via net-zero carbon sources with hydroelectricity accounting for 60% of our total production, per the Canada Energy Regulator.

Yet, there is a lot more to know about energy distribution in Canada. In order to understand the Canadian energy market, you need to go way beyond voltages, rates and your utility bills. Generating electricity in such a large country requires an understanding of the particularities of each province and its power frameworks.

Read on to learn not only how much of Canada’s energy is renewable, but what are the main sources (clean or not) of electricity generation by province.

📷From coast to coast, find out the main electricity sources for each province in Canada (Photo: Daniel Novykov on Unsplash)

What is the cheapest energy source?

Unfortunately, this question doesn’t have a simple answer. There is no particular source of energy that can be evaluated on those grounds.

Different provinces rely on different resources available locally to power their grid, meaning that even if one source was cheaper overall, it may be the most expensive option to consider depending on your province. For example, despite Canada largely relying on hydroelectricity, a few prairie provinces and northern territories rely primarily on fossil fuels due to availability. So, it may be more expensive or even impossible to use hydroelectricity in those areas.

It doesn’t get any easier if you compare a singular unit of energy as a commodity either. How utilities are calculated varies between provinces, with places like Ontario charging different rates depending on the time of use; or Alberta and Ontario having deregulated markets which allow you to get different rates depending on your provider and plan while others have regulated markets in which prices are set.

According to NRCan, British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec have the lowest electricity prices. This comes as no surprise considering that these three provinces have access to an abundance of hydroelectricity projects that are able to meet greater demand at a low cost.

Commentary

Hydroelectric provides Canada with reliable ample and cost effective renewable energy.

Ontario has put the majority eggs in the nuclear basket while Quebec is almost completely hydroelectric.

The result of the nuclear decision is a higher energy cost in Ontario and its effect to increase of cost living.

Renewable resources available locally provide a cost effect energy resource and a potent economic multiplier effect.

Renewables like hydroelectric wind solar and geothermal is not a paradox in any way what so ever. What is a paradox are academics who distort information to vilify renewable cost effective energy resources needed for economic well being and allaying of environmental health and climate issues.

On Shortcomings of the Traditional “Levelized Cost Of Energy”[LCOE] "With this paper it is intended to show that the traditional LCOE calculation is unprecise as long as energy price rise is not considered (which is usually the case) and can therefore lead to faulty investment or subsidizing decisions... This may concern not only companies but also households as well as policy makers". This is the ultimate conclusion of the paper by Nissen, U., & Harfst, N. (2019). Shortcomings of the traditional “levelized cost of energy”[LCOE] for the determination of grid parity. Energy, 171, 1009-1016. One may read there: "We believe an improvement is necessary because the traditional way of calculating the LCOE does not deliver target leading results. Reason for the problem is that the traditional LCOE neglects energy price changes, an issue which has been addressed by a few authors already. Joskow – for example – argues that due to the neglect of price variations the “conventional levelized cost is a flawed metric for comparing the economic attractiveness of technologies” [16 p.239]. However, he is only referring to the price variations for electricity within one period due to changing rates that correspond to demand and supply of energy in the grid. Reichelstein et al. offer a solution for this short time perspective. They include varying energy prices by correcting the LCOE with a correction factor called 'Co-Variation Coefficient ' that accounts for “any synergies, or complementarities, between the time-varying patterns of electricity generation and pricing” [17 p.97]. Although price variations are covered, these corrections do not account for changes over the whole lifetime of an ERI . But these changes are usual in practical reality, lead to increasing cash flows, thus to an increasing NPV and bring investments therefore closer to the point of grid parity. Especially when looking at ‘socket parity’ (i.e. competitiveness of an LCOE with electricity user prices) this aspect is relevant as the specific price does not often vary strongly within a period but over the lifetime of the investment".

[16] Joskow PL. Comparing the costs of intermittent and dispatchable electricity generating technologies. Am Econ Rev 2011 May;101(3):238e41.

[17] Reichelstein S, Sahoo A. Time of day pricing and the levelized cost of intermittent power generation. Energy Econ 2015 Mar 1;48:97e108.

Beyond all economic, environmental, and technological considerations, each sovereign Country or Nation freely chooses its National Energy Security according to its natural, technological, and human resources. Starting from this principle, what is decided within a given Country's National Energy Strategy should be suitable for its People, and so much the better for him. The same goes for all National Security Issues (Water Security, Food Security, Social Security ...) and that's normal, as long as each country assumes its choices, decisions, and eventual financial implications and environmental consequences. One can only respect the intelligence of sovereign peoples and their choices. It is up to third-party countries to draw conclusions and, where appropriate, to act accordingly.

Winston Churchill said [1]: "We must take change by the hand or rest assuredly, change will take us by the throat". It seems that Europe has not taken this into account for its energy security and decision-makers are realizing this. Better late than never! In this respect, the commission of inquiry of the National Assembly "aiming to establish the reasons for the loss of sovereignty and energy independence of France" produced a report, presented on Thursday, April 6, 2023. The report makes 30 recommendations, most largely in support of nuclear revival, but also in favor of hydroelectricity and the development of heating networks.

Read more (in French) on:

https://www.lemondedelenergie.com/energie-france-a-pris-30-ans-retard-selon-commission-enquete-parlementaire/2023/04/07/

[1] https://www.pinterest.com/pin/we-must-take-change-by-the-hand-or-rest-assuredly-change-will-take-us-by-the-throat-winston-churchill- -198510296058348575/

The US legislation on renewable energy and federal taxes exclude hydroelectricity from the renewable energy packages. This paradox is explained in the article by Tarlock, D. (2012) "Hydro law and the future of hydroelectric power generation in the United States. Vand. L. Rev., 65, 1723", where one may read: "...The EIA estimates that the United States' hydro-generating capacity is projected to grow at a rate of only 0.1% per year. Initially, this conclusion is paradoxical because the International Energy Agency ("IEA") estimates that the United States has tapped only 16% of its potential hydro production. The conventional answer to this paradox is that hydro is nonetheless a developed technology, has high environmental costs compared to wind and solar energy, and is both a climate change adaptation option and an energy source stressed by climate change. Therefore, the prevailing consensus is that there is no need to provide substantial incentives for its expansion, like those available for wind, solar, biomass, and other alternative renewables.

To borrow from equilibrium ecology, hydro has reached its climax stage.' This assumption is reflected in state renewable portfolio standards legislation and federal tax incentives, which exclude conventional hydro from definitions of renewable energy...."

The paper is available on:

https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1363&context=vlr

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Sciences_Paradoxes

On trade Agreements and Decarbonization. Interesting Chapter published in the wake of The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) held in Glasgow (31 Oct–12 Nov 2021) and by the yardstick of the ongoing COP27. According to António Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations, the results of the conference, the "Glasgow Climate Pact" and the approved texts constitute a compromise and "reflect the interests, the situations, the contradictions and the degree of political will in the world today". today. They mark important milestones, but the collective political will has not been sufficient to overcome some deep contradictions. The chapter by Leal-Arcas et al. (2022) returns in a relevant way on these questions, the implications of which are planetary.

Leal-Arcas, R., Faktaufon, M., Kasak-Gliboff, H., Li, C., Guantai, L., & Smajic, E. (2022). Mega-Regional Trade Agreements and Decarbonization. In International Trade and Sustainability (pp. 65-113). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

See also

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Adaptation_and_Resilience_to_Climate_Change_Temporal_Paradox_versus_Chronology_Protection_Conjecture/34

This is an outstanding paper "CLIMATE GEOENGINEERING TECHNOLOGIES: CORRUPTION AND INTEGRITY GAPS", 03 June 2022, Where one may read: "Among CDR technologies, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage...For SRM, marine cloud brightening and stratospheric aerosol injection..However, if deployed at large-scale, CDR and SRM technologies are likely to come with “far-reaching and profound social, political, and environmental risks and impacts. The effects would – by nature of the intervention – be transboundary as well as potentially large-scale, unpredictable and irreversible.” For example, according to the IPCC, “[m]ost current and potential CDR measures could have significant impacts on land, energy, water or nutrients if deployed at large scale …. Afforestation and bioenergy may compete with other land uses and may have significant impacts on agricultural and food systems, biodiversity, and other ecosystem functions and services...Corruption risks exist in a situation where governments are placed in a position to grant rights or privileges..to enhance patent eligibility, geoengineering technology inventors could try to conceal, suppress or misrepresent adverse information about the risks and impacts of such technologies while at the same time portraying such technologies as the solutions to climate change and its impacts, or try to establish “patent thickets” to block follow-on innovation or extract maximal royalties... Such actions would undermine the patent system and negate any public good rationale that may have been behind the patent grant in the first place...This would create patent and cost barriers to the rapid diffusion, uptake, adoption and adaptation of such inventions and technologies in the rest of the world. Patent barriers could make it more difficult for developing countries to obtain the technologies they need to undertake effective climate action and ultimately develop their own endogenous environmental technologies". Paper available on: https://www.transparency.org/en/publications/climate-geoengineering-technologies-corruption-integrity-gaps

The renewable energy policy Paradox

Author links open overlay panelJorge Blazquez a, Rolando Fuentes-Bracamontes a, Carlo Andrea Bollino b, Nora Nezamuddin a

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.002Get rights and content

Under a Creative Commons license

open access

Abstract

One major avenue for policymakers to meet climate targets is by decarbonizing the power sector, one component of which is raising the share of renewable energy sources (renewables) in electricity generation.

However, promoting renewables --in liberalized power markets-- creates a paradox in that successful penetration of renewables could fall victim to its own success. With the current market architecture, future deployment of renewable energy will necessarily be more costly and less scalable. Moreover, transition towards a full 100% renewable electricity sector is unattainable. Paradoxically, in order for renewable technologies to continue growing their market share, they need to co-exist with fossil fuel technologies. Ignoring these findings can slow adoption and increase the costs of deploying new renewable technologies.

This paper spots the incompatibility between electricity liberalization and renewable policy, regardless of the country, location or renewable technologies. The Paradox holds as long as market clear prices with short term marginal costs, and renewable technology's marginal cost is close to zero and not dispatchable.

Critique of the preceding work

Critique of the so called paradox that successful application of renewable energy is a victim of its own success.

Such incredible nonsense is part of a strategy to define success as failure.

So the advance of renewable is both not possible and if it indeed was it would not be a success this is a good example of nonsense and whimsy.

Let us look at the erroneous precept first is the idea that renewables are not capble of being employed for satsfying the energy need. The situation in Quebec Canada where over 90% of the energy is supplied by hydroenergy disproves the position and that is not supposition that is reality.

Let us look at the erroneous precept first is the idea that renewables are not capble of being employed for satsfying the energy need.

The situation in Quebec Canada where over 90% of the energy is supplied by hydroenergy disproves the position and that is not suppositionn it is reality.

Another example is the experience of wind power as employed in Iowa this was employed for about two thrids of electric requirement and the substitution as led to a predictable decrease in their use of coal as the source of the energy required for the the life supportive function.

The paradox which mean a condition in of itself is that such obviously deficient pondering would ever be accepted and considered valid for a academic venue.

Does not conform to being paradox it is just unfounded unfortunate and certainly unsupported point of view showing clear deficient in supportive content. .

The Natural solution for storing CO2 lies in the amplification of photosynthetic activity wherever possible: reforestation, fight against deforestation: planting, and planting again. This simply amounts to storing CO2 in the form of vegetal production or useful wood, pleasant and good for the environment because everything is completely biodegradable.

The fundamental question would be: what would be at the global scale, the best way to use the immense funds that humanity is ready to allocate to the question of GHE? Subsidiary question: Are we in the process of posing the problem badly by going too quickly in admitting alternative technical solutions as an unavoidable Option?

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Adaptation_and_Resilience_to_Climate_Change_Temporal_Paradox_versus_Chronology_Protection_Conjecture

In line with the previous post. To measure the paramount issue related to the organic link between the CO2 budget and the natural forests, it is enough to examine the extent of Deforestation in certain regions of the globe which is not without Effects on the Natural Cycles of Water, Carbon, Nitrogen, etc. But we can continue to bury our heads in the sand "like the ostrich", if we do not want to see; and blame everything on the so-called "Politics" even if politicians have their part and must assume the responsibilities that are theirs.

What if the immense funds that humanity is ready to allocate to the control of CO2 emissions are allocated to restore the Forest Couverture on a planetary scale to the level it had before industrialization?

Illustration Maps: Virgin Forest in the U.S. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States

Dear Folks the issue of our carbon and nitrogen balance is not a consequence of deforestation but rather the imbalance of massive emissions from our fossil fuel use and the lack of sufficient carbon nitrogen sequestration.

Concentrating on just the need to sequestraer more carbon and nitrogen does not remediate the major source cause which is our emissions.

Policy of the governing authorities which is related to societal politics is a legitmate tool and education and individual and group personal responsibilits are also important.

Reforestation is one tool and roles of corals estuary mangroves and a need energy and agriculture system are all important contributors.

Major emissions of GHG are electricity transportation and cement industries.

Working on both emission reduction and increased sequestration will both be needed to mitigate. AGW

A paradox of renewable energy is that is low carbon and can be used to be integrated in carbon nitrogen sequestration practices for example mixed regenerative agriculture. A good example is about two thirds of energy for Iowa is wind and the agricultural scape can foster mixed farming practies with are documented to sequester major GHG content fo the soil.

The paradox continues that some parties would prefer non renewable and much much higher cost alternatives like nuclear energy which is not renewable and not cost competitive.

Iceland utilizes its vast geothermal resource to give lowered impact of aluminum production and the electrical and heating systems.

Quebec is fully dependent on renewable hydro and all these have the core value of less cost compared to fossil fuels and especially nuclear energy.

Since economic resources are needed to convert our economic systems to address the real issue of AGW the paradox is the misrepresentation of renewables as so sort of enemy when in reality they are very much part and parcel of the solution and not the problem.

The is a paradox of mispresenting the renewable resource and the favoring of unfavorable and uneconomic pseudo alternatives.

The famous paper (around 6k Citations) by Bonan, G. B. (2008) "Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. science, 320(5882), 1444-1449" explains how"The world's forests influence climate through physical, chemical, and biological processes that affect planetary energetics, the hydrologic cycle, and atmospheric composition"

Paper Available on:

http://web-static-aws.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Bonan_2008.pdf

"The performance of electric vehicles in terms of greenhouse gas emissions compared to ICEVs is a subject of significant debate among scholars and practitioners" Read more on: Kantumuchu, V. C. (2023). Challenges and Limitations of Electric Vehicles. In The Future of Road Transportation: Electrification and Automation, CRC Press, - 322 pages (released 5 days ago)

https://books.google.tn/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=-MzeEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA159&dq=%22greenhouse+gas+emissions%22&ots=qDvqU_Lxue&sig=MXemybi7tU5YrDRvPtRKUhfNZoA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22greenhouse%20gas%20emissions%22&f=false

See also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Electric_Vehicle_Battery_and_Rare_Earths_Technological_Economic_and_Environmental_Issues/7

"...The costs of reducing carbon emissions ...pose several challenges. One ... is that some politically appealing programs, ... appear low-cost—but are not. A second challenge is the reverse, where highly visible programs are perceived as high-cost, but are not... A third challenge is that the static costs provide at best an incomplete picture of the true costs of a particular action..." Excerpt from the conclusion of the paper (396 Citations):

Gillingham, K., & Stock, J. H. (2018). The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(4), 53-72.

Available on:

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257%2Fjep.32.4.53

See Also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Energy_Renewable_Energy_and_Levelized_Cost_Of_Energy_LCOE_Paradoxes

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Adaptation_and_Resilience_to_Climate_Change_Temporal_Paradox_versus_Chronology_Protection_Conjecture

"The LCOE can change from one project to another, depending on the size of project, the location’s DNI level, the solar thermal technology, capital and operating costs" Extract from the following paper released 2 weeks ago.

Gobio-Thomas, L. B., Darwish, M., & Stojceska, V. (2023). Review on the economic impacts of solar thermal power plants. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress, 46, 102224.

To be requested on:

Article Review on the Economic Impacts of Solar Thermal Power Plants

See also

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Energy_Renewable_Energy_and_Levelized_Cost_Of_Energy_LCOE_Paradoxes

On the black blood of the earth. Control of energy and its sources is and has always been one of the cornerstones of world leadership no matter how it is dressed up: Nationalism, colonialism, inference to impose human rights, freedoms, and other universal principles, new colonialism, free and fair trade, multinational activities, corruption, military interventions, support for democracies, emancipations of peoples, mercenary companies, environmental protection, fight against climate change, support for totalitarian and sometimes criminal powers, NGO and connections, Humanitarian aid, military or civil coups. All means and methods are well provided that the black blood of the earth flows in the right direction

On Energy Paradoxes: The Market Efficiency Paradox. "Market proponents from Adam Smith to Eugena Fama have been explaining for years, even centuries, why the market acts as a good mechanism to utilize resources and why the markets are generally efficient. However, these same proponents have also been very good at pointing out when and why the market does not work correctly. One such situation is when there is a monopoly in place, or when the market is controlled by a small group of players, allowing the “monopolist” to control either price or output to the disadvantage of the consumer. This has been the case with oil for many decades, until the recent huge increases in oil production in North America and Russia reduced the power of OPEC.

Unsurprisingly, in the electricity space there is still not enough competition, meaning customers cannot adequately adjust their demand to changes in the power price. In fact, the system was set up so that the utility adjusts its supply to expected changes in demand. What this means is that large power generators and utilities still have formidable power. That is why we call this the Market Efficiency Paradox".

Excerpts from (Gerard Reid, 2020):

https://energypost.eu/the-six-energy-paradoxes-that-slow-the-sectors-progress/

See Also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Energy_Renewable_Energy_and_Levelized_Cost_Of_Energy_LCOE_Paradoxes

On Earth Energy Budget. The energy transfers within the earth interfaces, analyzed by Woodcock, indicate that the associated budget of CO2 or Vapor in the atmosphere if increased vis-à-vis a reference state, should be accompanied by a relative cooling effect. IMHO, these results are incomplete, not because they are discordant with what is admitted as "consensus", but because these come under the "two-by-two separate parameters analysis" fundamentally unsuitable to tackle all nonlinear interactions involved in Climate determinants.

However and quite surprisingly, Woodcock's results, compared with the data, succeeded in explaining the temperature anomalies observed in different regions of the planet, not only by reference to fracking but also by other considerations; among them the various elements of the natural and anthropic carbon cycle

[1] Woodcock, L. V. (2022). Global Warming by Geothermal Heat from Fracking: Energy Industry’s Enthalpy Footprints. Entropy, 24(9), 1316.

Available on:

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/9/1316/pdf?version=1663637486

Speaking on Energy paradoxes France and the United States are supporting nuclear power and getting substantiation amounts of uranium for Russia.

At the same time both countries reject the Russian invasion of Ukraine but are blind to the role of uranium purchases which precedes go to Russia effectively subsidize the Ukraine aggression.

In addition both France and Unied States would suggest that nuclear power is making them more self sufficient which is clearly not the case.

The use of nuclear power and the hypocritical use of it from

Russian resources are a clear paradox of suggesting the opposite of what really happens the societies are not made mode self sufficient and the large amounts of profits go to attack the country they say they support.

Yes in nuclear power the paradoxes are present and pustulent.

"This study [1] reveals 4 (four) important representations of electric vehicles described by the mass media in its campaign discourses: (1) electric vehicles are environmentally friendly, (2) electric vehicles are technologically advanced, (3) electric vehicles are economical, and (4) electric vehicles are a growing innovation. The mass media makes use of certain choices of words, phrases, and clauses as linguistic features to realize these four representations"

[1] Zewitra, Z., Bakhti, K. Y., & Nugraha, D. G. (2023). How does the Mass Media Represent the Concept of Electric Vehicles?. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 6(8), 37-44.

Available on:

https://al-kindipublisher.com/index.php/ijllt/article/download/5656/4797

And yet! Pietri Francois Xavier's book "Voiture électrique : ils sont devenus fous", (Electric Car: they have gone crazy, published on October 12, 2022 by l'Observatoire), tells a whole different story. Excerpt. "....The list of grievances posed by the big boss is as long as an arm. Industrial risk of course, but it also includes social, societal, environmental, financial risks... However, a few weeks later, a complete U-turn. March 1, 2022, Carlos Tavares reiterates his objective of 100% electric vehicles produced in Europe in 2030, and announces record profitability objectives. Above all, he declares that the electric car “is the best path to protect the company, its employees and future generations…” It’s beyond comprehension. The about-face is radical.

Except that this bipolarity has become the lot of all manufacturers. Everyone is sorry for the diktat from Brussels. To say that it was very poorly received by the profession is an understatement. As for the political choice, it was clearly guided by lobbies which brought together, for once, ecological organizations and major electricians in the same approach. It must be said that the automobile industry is, in theory, the most easily electrifiable sector. Easier to install a battery in a vehicle than in an airplane or a factory that runs on gas or oil. Electricity then, first and foremost, even if it is nuclear or... coal, so to speak..."

In the study (released 4 days ago) by Bichler, S., & Nitzan, J., Blood and Oil in the Orient: A 2023 Update. Working Papers on Capital as Power, (2023/03), 1-13, the authors argue "that the current war between Hamas and Israel shares an important common denominator with prior clashes in the region – namely, that it constitutes an energy conflict and that it correlates with the differential nature of capital accumulation..."

Read the paper on:

https://bnarchives.yorku.ca/806/2/20231100_blood_and_oil_in_the_orient_2023_wpcasp.pdf

In a remarkable paper, Vladimir Slivyak awarded the Right Livelyhood in 2021, is telling that "while much of the debate has been focused on oil and gas, unearthed another energy dependency that is hardly talked about: nuclear fuel"..."Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary and Slovakia currently have old Soviet-built VVER reactors operated on their territory, all entirely reliant on fuel supplied by Russian state-owned Rosatom"...."But the issue of nuclear energy dependency was not raised at the EU summit this week and was also not discussed during the negotiations preceding it...."different kind of dependency" on Russian nuclear fuel and services, which Putin could use to "blackmail" certain members".

Read more on: https://euobserver.com/ukraine/155108

Read more on international Rosatom activities on: Shunning Rosatom Prospects of Russia’s nuclear expansion in the context of widening global sanctions; May, 2022 https://ecdru.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/shunningrosatom-v1.pdf

See Also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Energy_Renewable_Energy_and_Levelized_Cost_Of_Energy_LCOE_Paradoxes

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_energy_pattern_and_the_perspective_of_large-scale_exploitation_of_shale_gas_What_alternative_solutions

In our fight against climate change, nuclear is emerging as a surprisingly popular carbon-zero fuel, By Frank Giustra, July 11, 2023 "Charles Oppenheimer, the grandson of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist in charge of the Manhattan Project’s Los Alamos Laboratory that created the atomic bomb (a creation he later regretted), wrote in a recent Time Magazine article that nuclear energy’s moment has come. His reasoning includes an inconvenient truth: Despite all the growth and advances in renewable energy, we consume more fossil fuels now than ever before, and our CO2 production is increasing, not heading near zero.

The transition to renewables, such as solar and wind, has taken longer than anticipated, and there are still many challenges ahead. These include affordable energy storage capacity due to renewables intermittent availability, the amount of space required for infrastructure and its low efficiency.

Nuclear energy, on the other hand, has many advantages over renewables. First and foremost, nuclear energy produces zero carbon emissions. And according to a recent Bank of America report, it has many additional benefits over other energy sources including:

A one-inch uranium pellet is equal to 120 gallons of oil, 17,300 cubic feet of natural gas and one ton of coal. Ten pellets can power a household for one year.

Nuclear plants average an ‘uptime’ of 93 per cent versus 40 per cent for coal, 57 per cent for natural gas, 35 per cent for wind and 25 per cent for solar.

It costs $122 per megawatt hour to build and generate nuclear power on an all-in basis compared to wind plus battery at $291 and solar plus battery at $413...."

Read more on:

https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2023/07/11/in-our-fight-against-climate-change-how-about-a-carbon-zero-fuel-why-nuclears-moment-is-now-.html

Erroneous information

“Ignorance and arrogance not only rhyme, they often go together”, Jacques Sternberg (1923-2006, French-speaking Belgian writer), Dictionnaire des idées revues. (Own translation).

Speaks French that is the qualification

he can join the other 100 plus speakers and celebrate that achievement

Meanwhile the chief language of science is English

but being in English does make true either

Chahed you definitely are proven that ignorance and arrogance do go together and projection in that is astounding in any language that is my Translation my arrogant ignorant projector

In September 2013, the Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) presented a valuable study on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the production of shale gas in the UK. This very interesting report (see attached) examines local GHG emissions associated with shale gas exploration and production and presents comparisons between the emissions associated with the use of shale gas, conventional gas, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), and coal.

See more on Shale gas on:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/On_the_perspective_of_large-scale_exploitation_of_shale_and_tight_gas

With levelivd cost new nuclear now surpassing 200 usd per mw capacity our 700 cites 20% integration sur cost .

So wind on land us coming at less 30 usd per mw cap add 20% that would 36 compared to over 200 for vogt or hinckley c you see they have an agenda to favor the most unfavorable and invent numbers as they feel appropriate.

Interesting when talking natural the discussion focused on seismicity

So how many economic insurance losses have ever been documented in 75 year franking history that would the grand number zilch

Meanwhile this advancement has demonstratedly increased air quality and fostered robust economics I s native proponents many from control autocratic malevolent authoitues

Mr chahed has quite the agenda supported studies that clouds holding no water.

Uranium has not made France nor USA self sufficient it is clearly non-renewable extremely high cost and has insurmountable issues of long term waste and security

The special interest love it's monopolistic nature and the idea it is shrouded and disclosed they are fine with consumers kept in dark and paying the bill.

False depiction of these issue part of a myth of a peaceful atom and the myth if energy without cost brought to you hidden agenda of providing weapons of mass destruction manipulating the tax payer and consumer

"Chahed you.. Mr chahed has.." Previous reply on May, 14, 2023 to Paul Reed Hepperly ".. unqualifiable hateful speech.. "your truths" of hatred and racism no longer exist.. because generations.. fought.. for freedom, human, and civic rights.. Personally, I only denounce plagiarism and scientific misconduct. Here too, you have a heavy tribute to pay in shame and self-contempt. I don't want to have any further contact with you. I would be ashamed of myself if I did so.

For any useful purpose, I am reporting hereafter the entire reply by Paul Reed Hepperly on May, 14, 2023.

"I am aware your truths are not mine and are not truth.

According to Betsy Reed the Guardian editor and opinion who is being shared'

In her article entitled quote What is in a name? The legacy of slavery endures in Tunisia unquote.

She said quote Black people in North Africa country (Tunisia) suffer hardship and disadvantage and many still carry the label (in their names) of being slaves (in the past) unquote.

According Ms. Reed 10 to 15% of Tunisians are black.

Saadia Mosbah says quote lack of education couple with amnesia allows a lapse to address the complicity with slave trade and are drivers of racism unquote.

Bilel talking under confidentiality for fear of retribution says quote I never imagined that things would be this way that I would encounter racism in Africa unquote.

S. Mosbah continued quote Tunisians do not know and It is not taught in the schools. It is not in the history books. It is the cause of the amnesia unquote.

Yes Jamel your truth is not mine and your truth is not the truth.

Your slander of my citing of governance and slavery as untruth and racially motivative that is your untruth. My truth which is supported by serious scholarship is slavery legacy is real and governance issues are pervasive and these will need to address for the benefit of victims of oppression and the oppressors alike.

Scholarship is amazing as much can be learned."

Previous reply to Paul Reed Hepperly on May 13 2023

Your truths are not mine. They are not those of African and Indian peoples. So please stop, out of modesty and respect for others and for victims' memories, claiming you are telling the truth. Your words are hurtful and contemptuous for Africans and for the victims of the U Carbide disaster in Bhopal, who have nothing to do with your truths. You must learn a little about the history of peoples and their cultures, about ancient and recent civilizations in their human and inhuman dimensions, about the progress and blockages of human thought, about fundamental values and ethics... I promise you that if you do that, you're going to find "your truths" to be just plain infamous and hateful. Here is what you wrote "by way of your truths": "the issues in Africa to me are mostly related to legacy of poor governance rooted in the slavery trade" Question by JC: Do you find this worthy or decent? The answer (by PRH) is "Absolutely. The issues of poor governance and the legacy of slavery trade is no illusion". PRH Wrote "The Union Carbide disaster was only possible based on the policies in India which did not create the human dimension..." Question by JC: Is this worthy and decent? PRH's answer is "My opinion is consistent it absolutely is truth worthy and decent".

Warning: Extracts from the RG User-Obligations terms of service https://www.researchgate.net/terms-of-service#User-Obligations

you shall not:

Post content which constitutes hate speech, including, but not limited to, that which attacks people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, political or religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, age, immigration status, disabilities or diseases;

Previous reply to Paul Reed Hepperly on May 12 2023

Here is what you wrote with all the rigor of the Cut/Paste transcription (See previous posts and replies):

Paul Reed Hepperly wrote, "the issues in Africa to me are mostly related to legacy of poor governance rooted in the slavery trade"

Paul Reed Hepperly wrote, "Absolutely. The issues of poor governance and the legacy of slavery trade is no illusion".

Paul Reed Hepperly wrote,"The African slave trade was using Africans to hunt Africans and destabilized effects were found in all the areas involved"

Paul Reed Hepperly wrote,"Boy that is certainly a comforting for you I am sure..."

Paul Reed Hepperly wrote, "The Union Carbide disaster was only possible based on the policies in India which did not create the human dimension..."

Paul Reed Hepperly wrote, "I have no need to apologize to Africans Indians French Russians or other others for starting truth that is supported by documentation"

Paul Reed Hepperly wrote, "As for deflection since you suggest my core statement on the importance of slavery and governance are not correct you make an apology for a statement which is fully supported"

Paul Reed Hepperly wrote, "Rather they are clearly cuts and pastes. This in my opinion is a valid way to cite the real source".

Paul Reed Hepperly wrote,"The documentation by Wikipedia was clearly not a plagiarism as it was clearly cited and not attributed to my person"

Paul Reed Hepperly wrote, "As for the philosophy of Albert Camus of absurdist meaninglessness I will eschew from that and pity the followers thereof"

Paul Reed Hepperly wrote, "I see we have Albert Camus a Nobel winning dramatist who has no expertise in the subject matter of history and its legacy effects"

Paul Reed Hepperly wrote,, "In science something that exists can be proven the absence of existence is not a provable hypothesis"

Paul Reed Hepperly wrote,, "...you can lobby your President to ban natural gas and accelerate the collaboration of France and Russia to ... It is clear that representative democratic governments .."

Simple question: Tell readers if you continue to maintain and assume all these inappropriate statements and condemnable scientific misconduct.

Modern Diplomacy, Nov. 25, 2023, The Ukraine war is a ‘great bargain’ for US in the Black Sea. For the United States, this war represents an opportunity to achieve its goals, which are far from supporting Ukraine. "...Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), who has been pressuring the Biden administration to devise a formal strategy for the Black Sea, praised its efforts to create a “new east-west energy corridor that would go under the Black Sea and provide an alternative for energy coming out of Central Asia into Europe.” U.S. energy companies also depend on the region’s pipelines. Chevron and ExxonMobil, both of which maintain operations in Kazakhstan, rely on a pipeline that leads to the Black Sea. Earlier this year, Defense Department official Mara Karlin spoke about the “critical geostrategic importance” of the Black Sea region, characterizing it as a major frontline for the transatlantic alliance, a major link between Europe and the Middle East, and “a key node for transit infrastructure and energy resources.” State Department official Geoffrey Pyatt, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who now leads U.S. energy diplomacy, explained that the United States is facing extraordinary opportunities in the Black Sea region, which he described as “one of the fulcrums of the energy map of Europe today.” One of the most significant regional transformations, Pyatt explained, is “the redrawing of the energy map around the Black Sea that’s taking place.” It includes “new pipeline infrastructure,” such as “the Southern Gas Corridor to bring gas from Central Asia to European consumers.”

Read on:

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/11/25/the-ukraine-war-is-a-great-bargain-for-us-in-the-black-sea/

See Also:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/War_Peace

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Europe-Africa_Europe-America_Europe-Asia_Je_taime_moi_non_plus

So again you bring nonsense that Russian war against Ukraine is a bargain for usa

This is ridiculous non sense

The reality is that Russia illegally invaded the sovereign country of Ukraine that was not a plan of either Ukraine or USA.

As such the false polemic is more howash.