Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

The challenge now: To make every day Earth Day.

While the OFFICE of President remains in highest regard at NewEnergyNews, the administration's position on the climate crisis makes it impossible to regard THIS president with respect. Therefore, until November 2020, the NewEnergyNews theme song:


  • Weekend Video: Their Last Debate
  • Weekend Video: November 3: A Day Of Reckoning
  • Weekend Video: The Young Woman Who Spoke Out

  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-New Energy Beats The Recession And The Climate Crisis
  • FRIDAY WORLD HEADLINE-New Brain Trust To Accelerate The New Energy Transition


  • TTTA Wednesday-ORIGINAL REPORTING: Watching Utility Spending
  • TTTA Wednesday-Slow Transition To New Energy Threatens Music City

  • MONDAY STUDY: How To Spend $100 Billion On New Energy

  • Weekend Video: Solar Is The Lowest-Cost Electricity
  • Weekend Video: Another Big Oil Rape Of The Land
  • Weekend Video: The Climate Crisis On ‘60 Minutes’
  • --------------------------


    Founding Editor Herman K. Trabish



    Some details about NewEnergyNews and the man behind the curtain: Herman K. Trabish, Agua Dulce, CA., Doctor with my hands, Writer with my head, Student of New Energy and Human Experience with my heart




      A tip of the NewEnergyNews cap to Phillip Garcia for crucial assistance in the design implementation of this site. Thanks, Phillip.


    Pay a visit to the HARRY BOYKOFF page at Basketball Reference, sponsored by NewEnergyNews and Oil In Their Blood.

  • ---------------
  • MONDAY’S STUDY AT NewEnergyNews, October 26:
  • LNG Gets Sick From The Virus

    Monday, October 26, 2020

    MONDAY STUDY: LNG Gets Sick From The Virus

    Troubled Waters for LNG: The Covid-19 Recession and Overproduction Derail Planned Construction of Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals

    October 26, 2020 (Environmental Integrity Project)

    Executive Summary

    The coronavirus pandemic has sent shockwaves through global energy markets. Last year, the United States became a net exporter of natural gas and one of the largest exporters of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the world. This year, U.S. LNG exports have fallen by more than half1 and companies are delaying final investment decisions on proposed LNG export terminals amid rock-bottom energy prices and unprecedented declines in energy demand. The result is that six proposed LNG projects that regulators have approved for construction have been postponed by at least one year because companies have failed to make final investment decisions expected by now. On top of these six projects are another four that were significantly delayed before the March 2020 outbreak of the coronavirus. If built, these 10 new terminals and expansions – located in Texas, Louisiana, and Oregon – have permits that would allow them to emit 45.6 million tons of greenhouse gases a year. That’s more climate-warming pollution than from 10 large coal-fired power plants operating around the clock for a year, or from 8.9 million additional cars and trucks on America’s roads.2

    LNG is natural gas that has been cooled to a liquid state, allowing it to be exported on tankers to overseas markets that would otherwise be inaccessible through pipeline transport. It is produced using liquefaction units – called “trains” by the industry – which remove impurities and then liquefy or condense the gas at sub-zero temperatures.

    The COVID-19 recession came at a time when the world was already swimming in natural gas. In February, before the impacts of the crisis began to take effect, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that natural gas storage volumes were on track to reach the highest level ever recorded, partially as a result of additional production growth spurred by new and expanding LNG terminals.3

    The LNG industry had been expanding dramatically before the pandemic. On top of the 10 projects with known delays mentioned at the beginning of this report (because companies have failed to make final investment decisions expected by now) are another 7 projects that have received federal or state authorizations within the last 18 months whose status is unclear. In these cases, no construction has begun, but final investment decisions by the companies are not expected until later in 2020 or in future years. If all 17 of these projects become operational, they would have the potential to emit over 67 million tons of greenhouse gases annually. That figure also represents the greenhouse gases that could potentially be avoided if they are never built.

    That outcome is looking increasingly likely for many of these projects, with a majority already experiencing documented delays. The COVID-19 recession threatens to compound a situation for the LNG industry that was already tenuous because of overproduction, chronically low energy prices, and waning energy demand. 4

    This report attempts to analyze the scope of the LNG infrastructure buildout that is planned in the U.S., as well as its viability and environmental impact. Our analysis highlights which projects have already been delayed, as well as the emissions that could be avoided if projects that have not been constructed never materialize. The LNG terminals included in our analysis have been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission5 or have been issued final Clean Air Act construction permits by state agencies.

    To better illustrate the emissions impacts associated with the LNG infrastructure buildout, this report also takes into account potential emission increases from new or expanding compressor stations that are related to existing or proposed LNG terminals and their associated pipeline networks, but that have obtained separate major Clean Air Act construction permits.

    In addition to greenhouse gases, LNG terminals also release air pollutants that threaten the health of local residents, including tons of sulfur dioxide (which damages the lungs), nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (both of which contribute to smog), microscopic soot or particulate matter (which can trigger asthma and heart attacks), and carbon monoxide (which can inhibit oxygen intake to the heart and brain).

    Although the COVID-19 recession is a tragedy, it might also be an opportunity for companies and regulators to re-think projects that might not be necessary, given the glut of gas, the impact on the climate and public health, and the availability of increasingly cheap alternative energy sources. At the core of this issue is the question of what is really “necessary” for America’s future? Is it the Trump Administration’s policy of “energy dominance,” which is a backdrop for growing American LNG exports? Or are there cleaner (and sometimes cheaper) ways to meet our energy needs without compromising public health or fueling global warming?

    Key Findings of this Report

    ▪ Companies have been authorized to construct, but have yet to break ground on, 12 new LNG terminals and 5 expansions, including additions to plants already operating. Together, these 17 projects have the potential to emit over 67 million tons of greenhouse gases per year. That’s more climate-warming pollution than is released from 16 coal-fired power plants operating around the clock for a year.

    ▪ Included in these 17 projects are 10 with known delays that have the potential to emit 45.6 million tons of greenhouse gases per year. These delayed projects – six new terminals and four expansions – are expected to add 20 billion cubic feet per day of liquefaction capacity to the U.S. LNG sector by 2026.

    ▪ In addition to greenhouse gases, LNG terminals also release air pollutants that are hazardous to human health. If all 17 projects that have been authorized for construction by government but not yet built become operational, they could release up to 4,000 tons per year of particulate matter, as well as 17,900 tons of nitrogen oxides, 27,000 tons of volatile organic compounds, 1,200 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 42,300 tons of carbon monoxide.

    ▪ LNG terminals also are reliant on supporting infrastructure, such as pipelines and compressor stations. Our findings show that compressor stations alone could add more than 8 million tons of greenhouse gases to the LNG sector’s emissions footprint. That’s almost equivalent to the carbon output of two new coal-fired power plants.

    ▪ Construction of LNG terminals and their associated pipelines and compressors could harm local air quality by stirring up dust and particulate matter in the short-term and release nearly 11 million tons of greenhouse gases over a period of three to eight years.

    ▪ Many of these massive projects have been planned in minority or lower-income communities. About 38 percent of the people living within three miles of proposed LNG facilities are people of color and Hispanics or Latinos, and 39 percent are low-income (defined as households earning less than $24,120 annually). 6

    ▪ Six of the delayed LNG projects, including four new terminals and two expansion projects, have federal Clean Air Act permits that were issued more than three years ago. And two of these projects had permits whose extensions expired this year. In Jefferson County, Texas, the Port Arthur LNG terminal’s permit extension expired on August 17. In Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, the Magnolia LNG terminal’s extension expired on September 21.

    Policy Recommendations

    ▪ Several studies have shown that long-term exposure to air pollution increases the risk of illness or death from COVID-19.7 Local and state permitting authorities need to carefully consider the added health risks of proposed projects during this unprecedented public health crisis. Because communities of color and low-income populations are more likely to live near industrial facilities and other major pollution sources, policymakers also need to consider the disproportionate health burden they bear when approving permits.

    ▪ The natural gas industry has been struggling for years to finance proposed projects as a result of chronic oversupply, depressed energy prices, and public opposition. Despite the challenging economic climate, policymakers have continued to offer tax breaks and government incentives to risky LNG projects that threaten air quality while locking-in future demand for fossil fuels. Regulators need to take market realities into account, and stop allowing oil and gas companies’ volatile financing schedules to dictate project planning.

    ▪ The Clean Air Act requires facilities to begin construction within a reasonable amount of time after receiving the necessary permit approvals. Six of the planned LNG projects have permits that were issued more than three years ago. Given the significant impacts these projects would have on global warming and local air quality, and the shrinking global demand for LNG, state environmental agencies should consider canceling these permits and deferring approval of any more applications.

    Saturday, October 24, 2020

    Their Last Debate

    New Energy is in the last minute. Joe shows he knows where the best future is. The president shows he knows how to repeat lies. From Newsweek via YouTube

    November 3: A Day Of Reckoning

    Be a part of the solution. Help get out the vote at . From Climate Reality via YouTube

    The Young Woman Who Spoke Out

    Greta continues to make good trouble. “I don’t care about being popular. I care about climate justice.”From Mongrel Media via YouTube

    Friday, October 23, 2020

    New Energy Beats The Recession And The Climate Crisis

    Acting on climate change can get us out of recession. There are no excuses left; The IMF says we can increase economic growth over the next 15 years and decrease emissions to net zero by 2050

    Greg Jericho, 17 October 2020 (UK Guardian)

    “…October is generally not a good month for news on climate change…[NASA just] announced that September was the hottest September on record, and a new study found the Great Barrier Reef has more than halved in size over the past 25 years…And it is easy to ignore climate change in the midst of a pandemic and economic recession…[But, according to the International Monetary Fund 2020 World Energy Outlook, acting on climate change will help us deal with the recession because it] boosts growth in the short term and massively prevents economic destruction later…It estimated that on a business-as-usual approach, temperatures are likely to reach 5C above the pre-industrial average by 2095 – in 75 years’ time…

    …[Given the aim is to limit warming to just 2C, 5C] means frequent year-long droughts, southern Europe looking like the Sahara desert, and billions of people migrating closer to the poles…[But the IMF report also proposes a way out with a price on carbon] that starts at between US$6 and US$20 a ton of CO2 and reaches between US$40 and US$150 in 2050…The IMF estimates it will knock back annual GDP growth by a touch over 2% by the end of the decade…[But environmental measures] will boost economic growth…[A price on carbon and massive investment] can prevent catastrophic climate change while also getting us out of a recession…Win-win. And no political party has any excuse not to act.” click here for more

    New Brain Trust To Accelerate The New Energy Transition

    'Astounding effort': Global power networks link to boost renewables and halve emissions; New consortium hopes to sweep away technical barriers to wind and solar integration

    Andrew Lee, 20 October 2020 (RECHARGE)

    More than 30 of the world’s biggest power system operators will join forces in a bid to sweep away the technical barriers to getting more renewables onto electricity networks, with an aim to help drive down emissions by 50% in ten years…The Global Power System Transformation Consortium (G-PST) plans to ease the path for new technologies in power electronics and digitalisation, in what one group member called an “astounding” scale of collaboration and ambition…Outdated and under-invested power systems are emerging as a major focus of concern as the amount of variable renewable energy increases on networks around the world…

    …G-PST plans to “dramatically accelerate the transition to low emission and low cost, secure, and reliable power systems, contributing to >50% emission reductions of all pollutants globally over the next 10 years, by enabling the efficient integration of substantial clean energy investments into power systems”…Digitalisation, machine learning and other advanced technologies will all need to play a part in the transformation…” click here for more

    Wednesday, October 21, 2020

    ORIGINAL REPORTING: Watching Utility Spending

    Audit of Hawaiian Electric sends a postcard about the future of regulation; Hawaiian Electric’s shortcomings show the nation how traditional regulation's weaknesses drive the need for performance-based regulation in the power sector.

    Herman K. Trabish, July 13, 2020 (Utility Dive)

    Editor’s note: No major new audits announced this year, but let’s face it – this year doesn’t really count.

    Hawaii's latest postcard from the power sector's future is the management audit its Public Utility Commission (HPUC) ordered in the Hawaiian Electric 2019 general rate case, which highlighted significant opportunities for a new kind of regulation.

    The audit revealed weaknesses in business and operational practices that regulators, utility leaders and stakeholders can address as the state moves toward performance based regulation (PBR), the audit reported. The audit found strengths, but identified weaknesses, especially in the company's Energy Delivery division, where "urgent corrective actions" could "deliver annual benefits for customers" of $46 million by 2023.

    "We're taking ownership of the need shown in the audit for us to become more efficient in a lot of areas," Hawaiian Electric CEO Scott Seu told Utility Dive. "Our very explicit commitment is that we are going to do that as our company transitions to 100% renewables and new regulation."

    But the corporate culture revealed in the audit may prevent Hawaiian Electric from meeting that commitment, some stakeholders said. That prospect for failure will require special attention from regulators as Hawaii moves into the biggest U.S. test of PBR, they added.

    It also makes the audit a message to regulators across the country, Rábago Energy Principal and former Texas electric utilities regulator Karl Rábago told Utility Dive. "Audits are not uncommon, but they are more uncommon than they should be, given the transformation in the electric utility sector," Rábago said.

    A "management audit will help ensure Hawaiian Electric is operating in a prudent and efficient manner for the benefit of ratepayers" and "identify opportunities for improved performance," the HPUC's September 2019 order initiating the audit reported… click here for more

    Slow Transition To New Energy Threatens Music City

    The TVA’s slower pace toward renewable energy weakens Nashville’s future, report finds; The report suggests Nashville and communities in seven southeast states could suffer economically if the TVA doesn’t speed up its energy transition

    James Bruggers, October 7, 2020 (Inside Climate News)

    A growing number of electric utilities in the United States have made pledges to reach "net-zero" carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But not the Tennessee Valley Authority, the nation's largest public utility…[And, according to a new report, TVA's energy policies could make Nashville, also called Music City,] less attractive as a venue for businesses that are decarbonizing their operations… throughout the TVA's seven-state service area…As a monopoly, TVA is insulated from competitive market pressures. But it is also subject to pressure from the federal government…[B]efore the TVA board voted in 2019 to close two antiquated coal-fired power plants in Kentucky and Tennessee, it heard complaints from President Donald Trump, Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, and Gov. Matt Bevin, R-Kentucky…

    ...[L]arger cities within TVA's territory have been asking for more renewable energy…[and] have pledged to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement…Memphis has been studying whether to leave the TVA, and whether renewable energy could help lower electricity rates…[Nashville, Knoxville, and Memphis were recently ranked in the bottom half] among 100 major American cities in efforts to make buildings and transportation more energy efficient and to scale up the use of renewable energy…[TVA officials say nuclear and hydroelectric power will increase carbon-free electricity from 56 percent this year to 70 percent] by 2030…[but if] TVA's plans are projected to 2050, its percentage of total renewable energy capacity would be, on average, 40 percent less by 2050 than the utilities in [comparable] cities…The report recommends, among other things, that Nashville work with the TVA to set a 2050 carbon reduction goal that achieves at least 80 percent—and preferably, 100 percent—reduction in emissions…[and] increase renewable energy generation…” click here for more

    Monday, October 19, 2020

    MONDAY STUDY: How To Spend $100 Billion On New Energy

    Economic Impact Of Stimulus Investment In Advanced Energy; An Economic Assessment Of Applying Stimulus Funds To Advanced Energy Technologies, Products, And Services In California

    Paul Hibbard and Pavel Darling, September 2020 (Analysis Group via Advanced Energy Economy)

    Executive Summary

    In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, states will need to make decisions about where and how to invest government dollars – whether state funds dedicated for this purpose or potential stimulus funding from the federal government – to get their economies moving again.

    This report focuses on one way in which government stimulus dollars could be put to work in the state of California – investment in advanced energy technologies. Focusing stimulus spending on programs and infrastructure in advanced energy technologies can generate economic activity while also helping California achieve its ambitious energy and climate goals.

    For the purpose of this analysis, we postulate a hypothetical level of stimulus spending invested across a range of advanced energy technologies and services: energy efficiency, renewable energy (solar and wind), electrification of buildings, electrification of transportation (electric vehicles and charging infrastructure), energy storage, grid modernization (smart meters, microgrids), and high-voltage transmission.

    We then estimate the economic impact of these investments using an industry-standard macroeconomic model (IMPLAN), focusing on overall contribution to the California economy, level of private spending and investment stimulated by these investments, jobs created, and consumer savings on energy costs.

    The results of the analysis point to strong economic benefits associated with advanced energy technology investments. In short, an advanced energy stimulus investment of $100 billion in California would produce the following economic benefits:

    ž Over $700 billion added to the California economy;

    ž Over 4 million new jobs, measured in job-years, resulting in a mix of short-term construction/installation employment and more ongoing positions;

    ž Almost $46 billion in additional tax revenues to local and state governments; and

    ž Over $28 billion in annual consumer savings.

    A greater or lesser level of stimulus investment would result in greater or lesser economic impact. But our analysis finds that advanced energy stimulus investments can generate important and positive economic benefits in the state of California, adding substantial value to the California economy, creating millions of jobs, and sending additional revenue to state and local governments.

    Overview And Findings

    As of September, over 190 countries have responded to the worldwide coronavirus pandemic with some form of economic relief. 1 The specifics vary widely, but the basic idea is the same: introduce public money to bolster health care efforts, support people’s ability to meet basic needs, help businesses that are threatened, and stimulate economic activity to generate income and jobs.

    In the U.S., individual states have also had to respond to the public health crisis with emergency spending measures. Going forward, they too will be faced with the challenge of jumpstarting their economies in its wake. Whether in dedicating state funds for this purpose or making decisions about where to put federal stimulus funds (should they be forthcoming), states will need to make decisions about how to deploy dollars to stimulate economic growth.

    In this report we focus on one way in which government stimulus dollars could be put to use in the state of California – investment in advanced energy technologies. Focusing stimulus spending on programs and infrastructure in advanced energy technologies can generate economic activity while also helping California achieve its ambitious energy and climate goals. The advanced energy technologies considered for the analysis include:

    ž Energy efficiency (EE) measures and programs;

    ž Renewable electric generating resources (solar, wind);

    ž Electrification of buildings (electric heating, cooling, and appliance installations);

    ž Electrification of transportation (public investment in or support for private or commercial vehicle charging infrastructure, and support for the purchase of electric vehicles (EV));

    ž Energy storage installation;

    ž Grid modernization and distributed grid resources (e.g., smart meters, microgrids, combined heat and power, and other integrated distribution system technologies);

    ž High-voltage transmission to access remote renewable resources (e.g., new wind resources); and

    ž Other low/zero-carbon fuel sources.

    The analysis sets a hypothetical level of stimulus spending and allocates the stimulus dollars across advanced energy technologies. It then estimates the economic impacts of these investments using an industry-standard macroeconomic model (IMPLAN), focusing on a number of key questions:

    ž How would public investments in a range of advanced energy technologies affect the state’s economy, and generate jobs and tax revenues?

    ž To what extent would public spending in these areas stimulate private investment, and amplify the economic impacts of the stimulus spending?

    ž How do the results in overall economic activity, job growth, and other economic benefits vary across the technologies and programs?

    The starting point for the analysis is a hypothetical $100 billion of economic stimulus investment, spread across a range of advanced energy technologies (as described in Section III). Allocation of this investment is weighted toward technologies and products that based on historical experience are likely to generate significant in-state economic activity, with incentive levels designed to attract participation from customers and investors, thereby adding private investment to the overall economic impact.

    The results of the analysis point to advanced energy stimulus spending as a strong pump-primer for private investment, job creation, and economic growth. In short, $100 billion of advanced energy stimulus investment in California would generate the following economic benefits:

    ž Over $700 billion added to the California economy;

    ž Over 4 million new jobs, measured in job-years, resulting in a mix of short-term construction or installation employment and more ongoing positions;

    ž Almost $46 billion in additional tax revenues to local and state governments; and

    ž Over $28 billion in annual consumer savings.

    All categories of advanced energy stimulus spending generate positive impact on the economy, jobs, and tax revenue. The overall benefits accrue due to the direct impact of stimulus spending and private investment, as well as additional economic activity induced by the additional flow of dollars in the economy.

    Figures 1 and 2 show how our allocation of $100 billion in stimulus – which is representative rather than prescriptive – translates into economic activity on a technology-by-technology basis, as measured by overall economic impact (addition to Gross State Product, or GSP) and jobs created. In total, $100 billion of advanced energy stimulus results in $263 billion in complementary private investment, $727 billion in overall economic activity, and increase in employment of 4.1 million jobs, measured in job-years, for California.

    Energy efficiency investments give the greatest overall boost to the California economy, totaling $373 billion in GSP. The next biggest impact comes from renewable energy generation (solar and wind), totaling $163 billion, followed by electrification of transportation, with $80 billion in economic activity. Energy storage contributes $46 billion and building electrification $41 billion. Transmission and grid modernization combine for another $23 billion in GSP. (See Figure 1.)

    In terms of jobs, energy efficiency creates over 1.9 million jobs, calculated in job-years (i.e., a job created by stimulus spending that lasts one year equals one job-year; a new job that is supported by the spending for three years equals three job-years) and resulting in a mix of short-term construction or installation employment and more ongoing positions. Renewable energy investments produce over 850,000 jobs, and electric vehicles over 475,000. Energy storage investments generate nearly 380,000 jobs and building electrification over 320,000; over 180,000 new jobs result from grid modernization and transmission investments. (See Figure 2, next page.)

    In addition, certain advanced energy investments provide direct savings to consumers associated with reduced electricity consumption, increased savings from onsite solar production, and reduced fuel costs by use of electric vehicles.2 Based on our representative allocation of $100 billion of stimulus funds for California, energy savings would come to over $28 billion annually. Of this total, $15.3 billion in savings would come from residential energy efficiency, $3.1 billion from residential rooftop solar, $1.6 billion from EV fuel savings, and $8.7 billion from commercial energy efficiency and onsite solar. (See Figure 3, next page.)

    Finally, the additional economic activity created by $100 billion in advanced energy stimulus is projected to increase tax revenues for state and local government by $45.8 billion per year.

    A greater or lesser level of stimulus investment would result in greater or lesser economic impact. But our analysis finds that advanced energy stimulus investments can generate important and positive economic benefits in the state of California, adding substantial value to the California economy, creating millions of jobs, and sending additional revenue to state and local governments. In Section III we provide more detail on the analytic method and economic model behind this analysis, the data and assumptions applied, and the various modeling inputs and outputs resulting from the analysis…

    Saturday, October 17, 2020

    Solar Is The Lowest-Cost Electricity

    Solar is now the "cheapest electricity" ever, anywhere, in most major markets, according to the just-released International Energy Agenct World Energy Outlook 2020. From KXAN via YouTube

    Another Big Oil Rape Of The Land

    In the "Amazon Chernobyl," a 1,700-square-mile stretch of rain forest was turned into an environmental disaster by Texaco-Chevron. From Vice via YouTube

    The Climate Crisis On ‘60 Minutes’

    Forest fires and hurricanes are not the biggest problem. From 60 Minutes via YouTube

    Friday, October 16, 2020

    A Global Look Ahead At New Energy

    World Energy Outlook 2020 shows how the response to the Covid crisis can reshape the future of energy

    13 October 2020 (International Energy Agency)

    “…The Covid-19 crisis has caused more disruption than any other event in recent history…But whether this upheaval ultimately helps or hinders efforts to accelerate clean energy transitions and reach international energy and climate goals will depend on how governments respond to today’s challenges…[The World Energy Outlook 2020] provides the latest IEA analysis of the pandemic’s impact: global energy demand is set to drop by 5% in 2020, energy-related CO2 emissions by 7%, and energy investment by 18%...[It shows] how the energy sector could develop…

    …[Renewables meet 80% of global electricity demand growth over the next decade in] the Stated Policies Scenario, which reflects today’s announced policy intentions and targets, [and] global energy demand rebounds to its pre-crisis level in early 2023…[T]his does not happen until 2025 in the event of a prolonged pandemic and deeper slump, as shown in the Delayed Recovery Scenario. Slower demand growth lowers the outlook for oil and gas prices compared with pre-crisis trends. But large falls in investment increase the risk of future market volatility…

    …[Countries and companies hitt their announced net-zero emissions targets on time and in full, bringing the entire world to net zero by 2070 in the Sustainable Development Scenario…As well as rapid growth of solar, wind and energy efficiency technologies, the next 10 years would see a major scaling up of hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage, and new momentum behind nuclear power…[I]n the new Net Zero Emissions by 2050 case, would demand a set of dramatic additional actions over the next 10 years. Bringing about a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030 requires, for example, that low-emissions sources provide nearly 75% of global electricity generation in 2030, up from less than 40% in 2019 – and that more than 50% of passenger cars sold worldwide in 2030 are electric, up from 2.5% in 2019…” click here for more

    The Global Impacts Of Covid On New Energy’s Future

    An energy world in lockdown; How has Covid-19 changed the game?

    October 2020 (International Energy Agency)

    The Covid-19 pandemic has introduced major new uncertainties for the energy sector and increased dramatically the range of pathways that it could follow. The key questions include the duration of the pandemic, the shape of the recovery, and whether energy and sustainability are built into the strategies adopted by governments to kick-start their economies…Overall, we estimate that energy demand in 2020 is set to be 5% lower than in 2019. Since the most carbon-intensive fuels, coal and oil, are bearing the brunt of this demand reduction, and renewables are least affected, CO2 emissions are set to fall by nearly 7%.

    Capital investment in the energy sector is anticipated to fall by 18% in 2020, with the largest drop in spending on new oil and natural gas supply. This slump in investment is likely to have major repercussions for energy markets in the coming years, even though the economic downturn is also putting downward pressure on demand. The crisis is meanwhile provoking changes in the strategic orientation of companies and investors, as well as in consumer behaviour…There can be no single answer about where the energy world goes from here…” click here for more