Gas prices expected to stay high despite release of national oil reserves

Michael Bielawski/TNR

TOO HIGH: Vermonters are paying more than a dollar extra on average per gallon of gasoline compared with a year ago, and that trend may only get worse before it gets better.

Gas prices are expected to remain high over the holidays and rural Vermont drivers will have to accommodate those added expenses despite President Joe Biden’s move to release strategic oil reserves.

According to a new report by Gasbuddy, Vermont’s gas prices rose 7 cents over the past month, and it’s $1.34 higher per gallon than a year ago. These trends mirror the national averages, including gas per gallon is up 7 cents in the past month and $1.28 since a year ago.

The recent high in the state was found in Woodstock, where prices are $3.72 per gallon; the lowest price was $3.20 in Middlebury.

According to Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy, oil prices have recently come down by about $10 per barrel from a peak of $85 per barrel, and that could translate to lower or sustained prices at the pump over the coming months. He cautioned that the stabilizing of prices would have more to do with the release of strategic reserves than any tangible changes in national energy policy.

“While there’s reason to be optimistic that the peak of gas prices will soon be behind us, the decline in the price of oil is likely reflecting the possibility of a coordinated global release of oil from strategic reserves,” he said. “If that doesn’t happen, oil could again rally.”

He adds that if societies start to close down again due to fear of the coronavirus, then that could reduce travel and potentially reduce demand for oil.

Some estimates on the future of oil prices are not good. The OPEC oil cartel is predicting oil prices much higher through 2023.

“Rising oil prices are here to stay according to JPMorgan, with the bank estimating that Brent prices could hit $150/bl in 2023 as the OPEC+ cartel control supply and defend higher prices,” Matthew Fox wrote for Business Insider.

Fox also downplayed any notion that new COVID surges will substantially impact prices.

“And while the Omicron COVID-19 variant put a dent into oil prices on Friday, with investors fearing that potential country lockdowns would reduce travel and therefore lower demand for oil, JPMorgan viewed that price move as an overreaction,” he wrote.

Last Friday, the Biden administration indicated that it would increase the cost to open up oil and gas leasing on public lands. The “Report on the Federal Gas and Oil Leasing Program” by the Interior Department calls for raising the royalty rates for drillers, further restricting where drilling is allowed, which may contribute to rising costs.

The energy industry is unimpressed with the current federal administration’s handling of gas and oil policy. Bethany Blankley, writing for the Center Square, reported that President Joe Biden’s recent plan to release 50 million barrels from the nation’s strategic reserves is going to cost Americans more in the long run.

“It will be released two ways: 18 million barrels will be released over the next several months, which were previously authorized by Congress,” Blankley wrote. “Another 32 million barrels will be released through an exchange that will eventually return to the reserve, costing those who purchase it more money over the long run and increasing gas prices, critics say.”

Andrew M. Lipow, CEO of Houston-based Lipow Oil Associates LLC, told the Center Square the prices are not coming down now because “the release does not get more oil out of the ground, it just moves supply into the near term.”

Michael Bielawski is a reporter for True North. Send him news tips at bielawski82@yahoo.com and follow him on Twitter @TrueNorthMikeB.

Image courtesy of Michael Bielawski/TNR
Spread the love

12 thoughts on “Gas prices expected to stay high despite release of national oil reserves

  1. Read my below….but this quote explains. It is mostly sour crude in SPR that any release largely benefits Asia with cheaper oil! Leave it to energy ignorant lliberals!

    “The sale of SPR oil, which is mainly blended sour crude, is expected to depress the value of U.S. sour crude and benefit buyers in Asia which processes mainly high-sulphur oil.”

  2. The release from ‘Strategic Reserves” is a joke!. All the oil in it comes from offshore gulf of Mexico production (US get’s it as lease royalty payments for free). It does not come from onshore or Texas. All the oil from SPR and the Gulf is SOUR CRUDE….a high sulphur content. Oil from Texas and other onshore is LIGHT SWEET CRUDE. refiners want light sweet crude because it is easier, faster and cheaper to refine to products. SOUR crude needs specially dedicated refinery. BUT! The EPA has so many onerous restrictions, NO new major refinery has been built in 40 years. MANy have shut down because they cannot operate profitably with massive environmental ugradees $$ EPA demanded. SO! ALL that sour crude released in SPR has fewer places to go domestically….sour crude refineries in USA are full already, mostly. So majority of the oil released in SPR will got to places that want the cheaper sour crude and they have reffineries to do it and buy it. Guess where they are? China and India. So releasing the SPR will have not much impact, really….long run (besides political optics) Almost all USA refineries want sweet crude from onshore USA. OH? The last major east coast refineries in NJ and PA shut down….EPA rules made them not viable to continue. So much of the HEATING OIL that VT uses comes from….Europe! Cheaper for huge ocean tankers to transport to northeast than truck it up from gulf coast refineries! AND GOD FORBID you propose to build a pipeline to N.E. to transport cheaper heating oil 🙂

  3. The Transportation Climate Initiative is DEAD AND BURIED

    The TCI was proposed about 2 years ago. The word “climate” was inserted for political correctness.
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-transportation-climate-initiative-is-dead-and-buried

    There is no way, any and all measures, by all of the US northeast, could ever affect the world climate, while China, India, and others, are allowed to continue burning at least 8 BILLION metric ton of coal each year, with NO time limit, as agreed to by Glasgow COP26

    This article was written BY STEVE MACDONALD / 21 NOVEMBER 2021

    Yesterday, we reported on the death of the TCI, another taxation-without-representation scheme that would milk motorists to fund the ill-conceived Dem/Prog “climate-change-fighting” schemes, such as expensive electric buses and expensive, catching-fire EVs, electric trains and bicycles, ride-sharing, carpooling.

    Charlie Baker, a huge supporter of TCI, backed out, leaving only Rhode Island, which had stepped away, but not formally retracted its interest in TCI. With Massachusetts out and Connecticut long gone, RI said it is done trying to make TCI work.

    TCI has no takers and is dead and buried; but not the financing of the various, nefarious Dem/Prog shake-down schemes
    Laundering money is still the goal, and transportation is still a target, but forcing gas taxes down people’s throats (“break their will”) was not even a politically viable option, when gas was cheap.

    Gas prices have increased 50 plus percent, in just a few months, thanks to idiotic energy policies of the extreme-leftist posses that are handling Biden

    Massachusetts and Rhode Island are planning to “combat climate changes” using other financing means.

    THEIR goal is to replace gas-powered vehicles with electric vehicles; a pipe dream of non-technical RE folks, that does not reduce CO2 anywhere near any claims by those RE folk, according to independent energy systems analysts.

    That means, the taxpayer solution to the problem is to remove such RE folks from office in 2022, by turning out to vote in such large numbers, to more than offset any frauds by Election Officials and Dem/ Prog operatives.

    TCI is DEAD.

    Charlie Baker had been clinging to the TCI as a new revenue stream. It would add a Commission-imposed tax on all motor fuel. The tax would be passed down to drivers.

    The money would be laundered through the Commission, and then, minus hefty fees, back to states, under the assumption they would use money to “save the planet”.

    Sure, if by “planet,” you mean the gaping holes in state budgets, due to decades of irresponsible/excessive spending habits of Dem/Prog-run states.

    We have about 50 articles related to the infamous TCI scheme, including news and commentary about almost every state that considered, and then dropped, the idea of joining. I will not rehash that here, because that might look like gloating.

    But, I am gloating.

    So, what happened? How did this “we have to have this, or we’re all going to die” climate-cult-cash grab lose favor so quickly? It is very easy to explain.

    The only climate politicians care about is the one that gets them re-elected again and again, due to a lack of term limits. Here is a double-speak, weasel-word obfuscation.

    “The Baker Administration always maintained the Commonwealth would only move forward with the TCI, if multiple states committed, and, as that commitment does not exist, the TCI is no longer the best solution for the Commonwealth’s transportation and environmental needs,” said Terry MacCormack, the governor’s press secretary, in a statement.

    Even before Biden-in-the-basement-inflation, the idea of saddling working-class voters with a massive gas tax was a tough sell. But, it was one Baker and his RE minions were prepared to embrace.

    They would conjure up a, de facto, gas tax, that would start small, and then grow and grow, to generate $BILLIONS in revenue outside the election process.

    That would be the Nirvana dream-come-true for big-spending Dem/Progs; they could not be accused of imposing any price increases!!
    BTW, Vermont’s GWSA is a similar avoiding-responsibility scheme to save the hides of non-technical RE Dem/Progs

    The US economy has since gone into a slide. Black Friday was sort of a bust, and 2022 is looking like a steeper slide. Piling taxes, on top of existing gas taxes, is not what voters want.

    A regional plan to reduce emissions, even just on paper, needed more than one interested party. Baker had no one else left to dance with, so he headed for the exit, and he is not coming back.

    A non-possibility not all that long ago.

    Katie Theoharides, the governor’s secretary of energy and environmental affairs, said in December 2020, when Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia announced they were moving forward with TCI.

    “Massachusetts needed the program, if it was going to have a chance of reaching its goal of net-zero emissions; we cannot get there without a program like this,” she said.

    This is just another a statement by technically challenged ignoramus.

    How do these people even get into these jobs?

    They’ll have to find another way. A third way, perhaps?

    Or did someone finally have to admit that zero-emissions are just another fairy tale cheaters tell to justify shaking down voters for cash?

    Even if every state signed on, it would have always been about redistributing money from people who could least afford it, to pay for the “climate-change-fighting” priorities of a well-to-do spectrum of RE folks who could.

  4. Pennsylvania Home s “Total Loss” After Charging Tesla In Driveway Spontaneously Combusts

    BY TYLER DURDEN
    SATURDAY, NOV 27, 2021
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/pennsylvania-home-s-total-loss-after-charging-tesla-in-driveway

    Once again, an inanimate Tesla has burst into flames.

    The latest incident comes from Upper Dublin, Pennsylvania, where a charging Tesla in the driveway of a home reportedly caught fire, resulting in what could be a “total loss” of the home it was parked at.

    The Tesla was parked in a driveway and caught fire at about 10:30pm, the report from Patch says. ABC also posted video of the incident

    The Fort Washington fire department was dispatched to the scene at about 10:19 after a report of a vehicle on fire. When they arrived at the scene, fire was “eminating from the rear of the Tesla” and had made its way to the house and the attached garage, the report says.

    There was “extensive damage” to the vehicle and the house. Photos posted to the Fort Washington fire department’s website show a car engulfed in flames.

    CBS later reported that the home was a “total loss” following the incident.

    It’s the second incident of a Tesla catching fire in the Philadelphia suburbs this year. This summer, a Model S Plaid Tesla caught fire with the driver at the wheel. The driver’s lawyer claimed the vehicle “burst into flames while the owner was driving” it.

    In other news, the NHTSA has yet to act on a wide ranging investigation it is performing into hundreds of thousands of Tesla vehicles, while the NTSB continues to warn consumers about safety issues related to the vehicles’ autonomous driving features.
    The NHTSA said it had opened a formal investigation into Tesla’s Model X, S, and 3 for model years 2014-2021.

  5. CHEVY BOLT CATCHES FIRE WHILE CHARGING ON DRIVEWAY IN VERMONT
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/chevy-bolt-catches-fire-while-charging-on-driveway-in-vermont

    THETFORD; July 2, 2021 — A fire destroyed a 2019 Chevy Bolt, 66 kWh battery, battery pack cost about $10,000, or 10000/66 = $152/kWh, EPA range 238 miles, owned by state Rep. Tim Briglin, D-Thetford, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Technology.

    He had been driving back and forth from Thetford, VT, to Montpelier, VT, with his EV, about 100 miles via I-89
    He had parked his 2019 Chevy Bolt on the driveway, throughout the winter, per GM recall of Chevy Bolts
    He had plugged his EV into a 240-volt charger.
    His battery was at about 10% charge at start of charging, at 8 PM, and he had charged it to 100% charge at 4 AM; 8 hours of charging.
    Charging over such a wide range is detrimental for the battery. However, it is required for “range-driving”, i.e., making long trips. See Note

    NOTE: Range-driving is not recommended, except on rare occasions, as it would 1) pre-maturely age/damage the battery, 2) reduce range sooner, 3) increase charging loss, and 4) increase kWh/mile.

    Charging at 32F or less
    Li-ions would plate out on the anode each time when charging, especially when such charging occurred at battery temperatures of 32F or less.

    Fire in Driveway: Firefighters were called to Briglin’s house on Tucker Hill Road, around 9 AM Thursday.
    Investigators from the Vermont Department of Public Safety Fire and Explosion Investigation Unit determined:

    1) The fire started in a compartment in the back of the passenger’s side of the vehicle
    2) It was likely due to an “electrical failure”. See Note

    NOTE: Actually, it likely was one or more battery cells shorting out, which creates heat, which burns nearby items, which creates a fire that is very hard to extinguish. See Appendix

    GM Recall of Chevy Bolts: In 2020, GM issued a worldwide recall of 68,667 Chevy Bolts, all 2017, 2018 and 2019 models, plus, in 2021, a recall for another 73,000 Bolts, all 2020, 2021, and 2022 models.
    GM set aside $1.8 BILLION to replace battery modules, or 1.8 BILLION/(68,667 + 73,000) = $12,706/EV.

    Owners were advised not to charge them in a garage, and not to leave them unattended while charging, which may take up to 8 hours; what a nuisance!
    I wonder what could happen during rush hour traffic, or in a parking garage, or at a shopping mall, etc.
    Rep. Briglin heeded the GM recall by not charging in his garage. See URLs

    NOTE:
    – Cost of replacing the battery packs of 80,000 Hyundai Konas was estimated at $900 million, about $11,000 per vehicle
    – EV batteries should be charged from 20 to 80%, to achieve minimal degradation and long life, plus the charging loss is minimal in that range
    – Charging EVs from 0 to 20% charge, and from 80 to 100% charge:

    1) Uses more kWh AC from the wall outlet per kWh DC charged into the battery, and
    2) Is detrimental to the battery.
    3) Requires additional kWh for cooling the battery while charging.

    – EV batteries must never be charged, when the battery temperature is less than 32F; if charged anyway, the plating out of Li-ions on the anode would permanently damage the battery.

  6. HEAT PUMPS ARE MONEY LOSERS IN MY VERMONT HOUSE, AS THEY ARE IN ALMOST ALL NEW ENGLAND HOUSES
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/heat-pumps-are-money-losers-in-my-vermont-house-as-they-are-in

    I installed three heat pumps by Mitsubishi, rated 24,000 Btu/h at 47F, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads, each with remote control; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.
    The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.
    The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000

    My Well-Sealed, Well-Insulated House

    The HPs are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3,600 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, except the basement, which has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.

    I do not operate my HPs at 15F or below, because HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing temperatures.
    The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my efficient propane furnace. See table 3

    High Electricity Prices

    Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would:

    1) Increase already-high electric rates and
    2) Worsen the already-poor economics of HPs (and of EVs)!!

    Energy Cost Reduction is Minimal

    – HP electricity consumption was from my electric bills
    – Vermont electricity prices, including taxes, fees and surcharges, are about 20 c/kWh.
    – My HPs provide space heat to 2,300 sq ft, about the same area as an average Vermont house
    – Two small propane heaters (electricity not required) provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement
    – My average HP coefficient of performance, COP, was 2.64, which required, at 35% displacement of fuel, 2489 kWh; 100% displacement would require 8997 kWh
    – The average Vermont house COP was 3.34, which required, at 27.6% displacement, 2085 kWh, per VT-DPS/CADMUS survey.
    – I operate my HPs at temperatures of 15F and greater; less $/h than propane
    – I operate my traditional propane system at temperatures of 15F and less; less $/h than HP

    Before HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 850 gal for Viessmann furnace, for a total propane of 1,200 gal/y

    After HPs: I used 100 gal for DHW + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,489 kWh of electricity.

    My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 – 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of 2.339/gal = $702/y
    My displaced fuel was 100 x (1 – 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%
    My purchased electricity cost increase was 2,489 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $498/y

    My energy cost savings due to the HPs were 702 – 498 = $204/y, on an investment of $24,000!!

    Amortizing Heat Pumps

    Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.
    This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.

    Other Annual Costs

    There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.
    This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.

    Energy Savings of Propane versus HPs

    Site Energy Basis: RE folks claim there would be a major energy reduction, due to using HPs. They compare the thermal Btus of 300 gallon of propane x 84250 Btu/gal = 25,275,000 Btu vs the electrical Btus of 2489 kWh of electricity x 3412 Btu/kWh = 8,492,469 Btu.

    However, that comparison would equate thermal Btus with electrical Btus, which all engineers know is an absolute no-no.

    A-to-Z Energy Basis: A proper comparison would be thermal Btus in propane vs thermal Btus to power plants, i.e., 25,275,000 Btu vs 23,312,490 Btu, i.e., a minor energy reduction. See table 1A

  7. ELECTRIC TRANSIT AND SCHOOL BUS SYSTEMS REDUCE LITTLE CO2, ARE NOT COST-EFFECTIVE
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-likely-not-cost-effective-in-vermont-at

    China has made electric buses and EVs a priority in urban areas to reduce excessive air pollution, due to: 1) coal-fired power plants, and 2) increased vehicle traffic.

    The US has much less of a pollution problem than China, except in its larger urban areas.
    The US uses much less coal, more domestic natural gas, and CO2-free nuclear is still around.

    New England has a pollution problem in its southern urban areas.
    Vermont has a minor pollution problem in Burlington and a few other urban areas.

    RE folks want to “Electrify Everything”; an easily uttered slogan

    It would require:

    – Additional power plants, such as nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, bio
    – Additional grid augmentation/expansion to connect wind and solar systems, and to carry the loads for EVs and heat pumps
    – Additional battery systems to store midday solar output surges for later use, i.e., DUCK-curve management.
    – Additional centralized, command/control/orchestrating (turning off/on appliances, heat pumps, EVs, etc.) by utilities to avoid overloading distribution and high voltage electric grids regarding:

    1) Charging times of EVs and operating times of heat pumps, and major appliances
    2) Demands of commercial/industrial businesses

    RE Folks Want More EVs and Buses Bought With “Free” Money

    RE folks drive the energy priorities of New England governments. RE folks want to use about $40 million of “free” federal COVID money and Volkswagen Settlement money to buy electric transit and school buses to deal with a minor pollution problem in a few urban areas in Vermont. RE folks urge Vermonters to buy:

    Mass Transit Buses
    Electric: $750,000 – $1,000,000 each, plus infrastructures, such as indoor parking, high-speed charging systems.
    Standard Diesel: $380,000 – $420,000; indoor parking and charging systems not required.

    School Buses
    Electric: $330,000 – $375,000, plus infrastructures
    Standard Diesel: about $100,000

    This article shows the 2 Proterra transit buses in Burlington, VT, would reduce CO2 at very high cost per metric ton, and the minor annual operating cost reduction would be overwhelmed by the cost of amortizing $million buses that last about 12 to 15 years.

    The $40 million of “free” money would be far better used to build zero-energy, and energy-surplus houses for suffering households; such housing would last at least 50 to 75 years.

    NOTE: Spending huge amounts of borrowed capital on various projects that 1) have very poor financials, and 2) yield minor reductions in CO2 at high cost, is a recipe for 1) low economic efficiency, and 2) low economic growth, on a state-wide and nation-wide scale, which would 1) adversely affect Vermont and US competitiveness in markets, and 2) adversely affect living standards and 3) inhibit unsubsidized/efficient/profitable job creation.

    Real Costs of Government RE Programs Likely Will Remain Hidden

    Vermont’s government engaging in electric bus demonstration programs, financed with “free” money, likely will prove to be expensive undertakings, requiring hidden subsidies, white-washing and obfuscation.

    Lifetime spreadsheets, with 1) turnkey capital costs, 2) annual cashflows, 3) annual energy cost savings, 4) annual CO2 reductions, and 5) cost of CO2 reduction/metric ton, with all assumptions clearly stated and explained, likely will never see the light of day.

    Including Amortizing Capital Cost for a Rational Approach to Projects

    RE folks do not want to include amortizing costs, because it makes the financial economics of their dubious RE projects appear dismal. This is certainly the case with expensive electric buses. If any private-enterprise business were to ignore amortizing costs, it would be out of business in a short time.

    Capital cost of electric school bus, plus charger, $327,500 + $25,000 = $352,500
    Battery system cost, $100,000, for a 100-mile range.
    Capital cost of diesel school bus, $100,000
    Additional capital cost “to go electric” 352500 – 100000 = $252,500

  8. POOR ECONOMICS AND MINIMAL CO2 REDUCTION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN NEW ENGLAND
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-electric-vehicles-in-new-england

    This article describes the efficiency of electric vehicles, EVs, and their charging loss, when charging at home and on-the-road, and the economics, when compared with efficient gasoline vehicles.

    In this article,

    Total cost of an EV, c/mile = Operating cost, c/mile + Owning cost, c/mile, i.e., amortizing the difference of the MSRPs of an EV versus an equivalent, efficient gasoline vehicle; no options, no destination charge, no sales tax, no subsidies.

    CO2 reduction of equivalent vehicles, on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis = CO2 emissions of an efficient gasoline vehicle, say 30 to 40 mpg – CO2 emissions of an EV

    SUMMARY

    Real-World Concerns About the Economics of EVs

    It may not be such a good idea to have a proliferation of EVs, because of:

    1) Their high initial capital costs; about 50% greater than equivalent gasoline vehicles.
    2) The widespread high-speed charging facilities required for charging “on the road”.
    3) The loss of valuable time when charging “on the road”.
    4) The high cost of charging/kWh, plus exorbitant penalties, when charging “on-the-road”.

    High-Mileage Hybrids a Much Better Alternative Than EVs

    The Toyota Prius, and Toyota Prius plug-in, which get up to 54 mpg, EPA combined, would:

    1) Have much less annual owning and operating costs than any EV, for at least the next ten years.
    2) Have minimal wait-times, as almost all such plug-ins would be charging at home
    3) Be less damaging to the environment, because their batteries would have very low capacity, kWh
    4) Impose much less of an additional burden on the electric grids.

    Hybrid vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius, save about the same amount of CO₂ as electric cars over their lifetime, plus:

    1) They are cost-competitive with gasoline vehicles, even without subsidies.
    2) They do not require EV chargers, do not induce range anxiety, can be refilled in minutes, instead of hours.
    3) Climate change does not care about where CO₂ comes from. Gasoline cars are only about 7% of global CO2 emissions. Replacing them with electric cars would only help just a little, on an A to Z, lifetime basis.

    “Electrify Everything”; an easily uttered slogan

    It would require:

    – Additional power plants, such as nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, bio
    – Additional grid augmentation/expansion to connect wind and solar systems, and to carry the loads for EVs and heat pumps
    – Additional battery systems to store midday solar output surges for later use, i.e., DUCK-curve management.
    – Additional command/control-orchestrating (turning off/on appliances, heat pumps, EVs, etc.) by utilities to avoid overloading distribution and high voltage electric grids regarding:

    1) Charging times of EVs and operating times of heat pumps
    2) Operating times of major appliances
    3) Demands of commercial/industrial businesses

    Comments on Table

    Summary table 1 shows the CO2 emissions for four vehicles, lifetime, A-to-Z basis.
    The table shows higher-mileage gasoline and hybrid vehicles have CO2 emissions comparable with equivalent EVs.
    It was assumed 20% of charging would be on the road and 80% at home.
    The Model Y kWh/mile values were prorated from real-world Model 3 values.

  9. See section Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions in URL
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governments-play-deceptive-games-with-co2-emissions

    Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions

    A 3-layer tape (cathode, separator and anode) is wound on a core to make a battery cell.
    An EV battery pack has several thousand cells. The cells are arranged in strings, i.e., in series, to achieve the desired voltage
    The strings are arranged in parallel to achieve the desired amps.
    Power, in Watts = Volts x Amps

    EV Normal Operation at 32F and below: On cold/freezing days, EVs would use on-board systems to heat the battery, as needed, during daily operation

    EV Parking at 32 F and below: When at home, it is best to keep EVs plugged in during periods at 32F and below, whether parked indoors or outdoors.
    When parking at an airport, which may not have enough charging stations, it is best to fully charge EVs prior to parking, to enable the on-board systems to heat the battery during parking, as needed.

    Charging at 32F and below: Li-ion batteries must never be charged when the battery temperature is at 32F or below. Do not plug it in. Turn on “pre-conditioning”, to enable the battery heating/cooling system (which could be a heat pump) to very slowly heat up the battery to about 40F. After the battery is “up to temperature”, normal charging can be started, either at home, or at a fast-charging rate on the road.

    If the battery does not have enough charge to heat itself at about 40F, it needs to be heated by an external heat source, such as an electric heater under the battery, or towed/driven to a warm garage. All this, while cumbersome, needs to be done to safeguard the expensive battery.

    Pre-conditioning can be set to:

    1) Preheat the cabin and/or seats
    2) Defrost windshield wipers, windows, door handles and charge port, etc., in case of freezing rain conditions; newer Teslas have charge port heaters. See URL
    3) Pre-heat the battery, before arriving at a fast charger.

    Power Outage, while parked at 32F and below: During a power outage, partially charged batteries, connected to dead chargers, could use much of their remaining charge to keep the batteries at about 40F.
    If the power is restored, and the EV is plugged in, charging must never begin, unless the battery temperature is 35 to 40F
    See URLs.

    During charging, Li-ions (pos.) are absorbed by the anode (pos.) at decreasing rates as the battery temperature decreases from 32F
    Any excess Li-ions arriving at the anode will plate out on the anode and permanently reduce the absorption rate.

    The plating is not smooth, like chrome plating; it is roughish and may have dendrites, which could penetrate the thin separator between the anode and cathode, and cause a short and a fire.

    A similar condition exists, if charging from 0 to 20% and from 80 to 100%; the more often such charging, the greater the anode resistance to absorbing Li-ions, and the greater the likelihood of plating.

    The plating condition is permanent, i.e., cannot be reversed.

    Also, frequently charging from 0 to 20% and from 80 to 100%, increases the charging percentage, increases kWh/mile of travel, and reduces range.

    NOTE:
    – EV batteries have miscellaneous losses to provide electricity to on-board systems
    – On cold/freezing days, an electric bus should be ready for service as soon as the driver enters the bus
    – On cold/freezing days, the bus driver would need at least 70% charge, because travel would require more kWh per mile

    NOTE:
    If the battery temperature is less than 40F or more than 115F, it will use more kWh/mile of travel
    The best efficiency, charging and discharging, is at battery temperatures of 60 to 80F.
    Batteries have greater internal resistance at lower temperatures and at high temperatures.
    Pro-bus folks often point to California regarding electric buses, but in New England, using electric buses to transport children would be a whole new ballgame, especially on colder days. See URLs

    EV Electricity Supply: Where would the electricity come from, to charge and protect from cold, expensive batteries during extended electricity outages/rolling blackouts, due to multi-day, hot and cold weather events, with minimal wind and solar, as occur in New England throughout the year?
    Would charging electricity be supplied by emergency standby diesel-generators, or emergency standby batteries?

  10. Deep freeze in Arctic Europe sends power prices soaring
    By Paul Homewood
    It’s so cold, even Norwegians refuse to ski
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/01/deep-freeze-in-arctic-europe-sends-power-prices-soaring/

    On the Finnmark plateau, between Kautokeino and Karasjok, temperatures dropped down to -35°C on Sunday. The forecast for the coming week shows a temperature anomaly for the last days of November of 10°C below the reference period 1961-1990, the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute informs.

    Coldest out is Nikkaluokta near Gällivare in Norrbotten with -36°C.

    In times of climate change, the current freeze comes in sharp contrast to last fall, when meteorologists reported about the hottest October and early November ever measured, with an average of 6,7°C above normal across the Arctic.

    Cold weather even sweeps the coast of northernmost Norway where the Arctic waters are kept ice-free by the warm Gulf Stream. In Kirkenes, on the border to Russia, the thermometer read -25°C on Saturday outside the Barents Observer’s office.

    On the Kola Peninsula, Sunday November 28 came with temperatures from -18°C to -30°C the news online Severpost reported.

    Further east in the Russian Arctic, quickly accumulating sea-ice on the Northern Sea Route has created a critical situation as a number of ships have been trapped in thick sea-ice for several weeks.

    At the ski resort Ruka near Kuusamo in northern Finland, this weekend’s opening of FIS Cross-Country World Championship is deeply troubled by the frost. With temperatures below -20°C, the start of the competitions was in jeopardy. Norway’s team withdraw from the race, arguing it was too cold to ski.

    Extreme freeze over northern Scandinavia causes energy prices to soar to a record high. The main reason is high consumption combined with ice formation on rivers with hydropower plants in northern Sweden. The northern regions of Norway and Sweden are closely linked together in the same electricity grid.

    Low production in Sweden pushes prices up, also in northernmost Noway. On Sunday, a kWh came with a price-tag of 1,92 kroner/kWh (€0,19/kWh) on the spot market, the highest cost for electricity inside the Arctic Circle since 2010. Current prices are up to 10 times higher compared to the average daily over the three first weeks of November.

    And it’s not just the Barents Sea, the situation is now getting critical at the other end of Siberia:

    The quickly accumulating sea-ice on the Northern Sea Route is creating a potentially critical situation along Russia’s east Arctic coast. For several weeks, a number of ships have been trapped in thick sea-ice.

    Several ships have also been waiting to sail into the area. For many days, the Tiksi, Yamal Ibris, I. Trubin, Polar King and Arshenevsky were located in the Kara Sea awaiting icebreaker assistance to their destinations. On board the ships was thousands of tons of equipment needed by local authorities and companies in the Chukotka region.

    However, none of the ships will reach their destinations. In mid-November, they all turned back westwards and are now about to make it to Arkhangelsk where the cargo will be unloaded.

    According to regional authorities in Chukotka a replacement will come in early January when nuclear-powered container ship Sevmorput will bring the cargo to destination.

  11. Using the strategic reserve to gain political points should be a impeachable offense
    , better yet a hanging offense for making us less able fight back if attacked.
    The reserve was built back up by President Trump when his energy policy make oil
    Cheap and plentiful..for this dimwit puppet to be selling it to Asia and now unloading
    3 days worth of the supply to up his poll numbers is the epitome of dumb azz moves.
    Why is the media not hounding him about selling it off??? and now selling it back
    to us for a second time??? our tax dollars put it there to begin with. Where is the media that hounded Pres Trump every minute of every day????

  12. #hat would one expect when Illegitimate Joe, shut down oil production in the US and then
    begs Opec for a deal and they tell this” feckless fool ” NO ….they see it and so does the
    world.

    Then Big deal Joe makes a major announcement, he’s releasing 50m barrels of US oil from
    the Strategic Reserve, what a strategy, ……. what a joke, that’s like spitting into the ocean.

    So let’s see Joe has been in office eleven months, we now have an oil shortage, inflation an
    out-of-control ” Wuhan Virus ” and open borders, so the so-called 81M who voted for the senile
    old fool…… So how’s your leader ” Of The Free World” doing ????

Comments are closed.