On The Move

The United States is pivoting away from fossil fuels and toward wind, solar and other renewable energy, even in areas dominated by the oil and gas industries.

Delivery vans in Pittsburgh. Buses in Milwaukee. Cranes loading freight at the Port of Los Angeles. Every municipal building in Houston. All are powered by electricity derived from the sun, wind or other sources of clean energy.

Across the country, a profound shift is taking place that is nearly invisible to most Americans. The nation that burned coal, oil and gas for more than a century to become the richest economy on the planet, as well as historically the most polluting, is rapidly shifting away from fossil fuels.

A similar energy transition is already well underway in Europe and elsewhere. But the United States is catching up, and globally, change is happening at a pace that is surprising even the experts who track it closely.

Wind and solar power are breaking records, and renewables are now expected to overtake coal by 2025 as the world’s largest source of electricity. Automakers have made electric vehicles central to their business strategies and are openly talking about an expiration date on the internal combustion engine. Heating, cooling, cooking and some manufacturing are going electric.

As the planet registers the highest temperatures on record, rising in some places to levels incompatible with human life, governments around the world are pouring trillions of dollars into clean energy to cut the carbon pollution that is broiling the planet.

A big shift in the way America produces energy is already underway.

The cost of generating electricity from the sun and wind is falling fast and in many areas is now cheaper than gas, oil or coal. Private investment is flooding into companies that are jockeying for advantage in emerging green industries.

“We look at energy data on a daily basis, and it’s astonishing what’s happening,” said Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency. “Clean energy is moving faster than many people think, and it’s become turbocharged lately.”

More than $1.7 trillion worldwide is expected to be invested in technologies such as wind, solar power, electric vehicles and batteries globally this year, according to the I.E.A., compared with just over $1 trillion in fossil fuels. That is by far the most ever spent on clean energy in a year.

Those investments are driving explosive growth. China, which already leads the world in the sheer amount of electricity produced by wind and solar power, is expected to double its capacity by 2025, five years ahead of schedule. In Britain, roughly one-third of electricity is generated by wind, solar and hydropower. And in the United States, 23 percent of electricity is expected to come from renewable sources this year, up 10 percentage points from a decade ago.

“The nature of these exponential curves sometimes causes us to underestimate how quickly changes occur once they reach these inflection points and begin accelerating,” said former Vice President Al Gore, who called attention to what he termed a “planetary crisis” 17 years ago in his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” “The trend is definitely in favor of more and more renewable energy and less fossil energy.”

Even as the pace of change in the United States is surprising everyone from energy experts to automobile executives, fossil fuels still dominate energy production at home and abroad.

Corporations are building new coal mines, oil rigs and gas pipelines. The government continues to award leases for drilling projects on public lands and in federal waters and still subsidizes the industries. After posting record profits last year, leading oil companies are backing away from recent promises to invest more heavily in renewable energy.

The scale of change required to remake the systems that power the United States — all the infrastructure that needs to be removed, re-engineered and replaced — is mind-boggling. There are major challenges involved in adding large amounts of renewable energy to antiquated electric grids and mining enough minerals for clean technologies. Some politicians, including most Republicans, want the country to continue burning fossil fuels, even in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus that their use is endangering life on the planet. Dozens of conservative groups organized by the Heritage Foundation have created a policy playbook, should a Republican win the 2024 presidential election, that would reverse course on lowering emissions. It would shred regulations designed to curb greenhouse gases, dismantle nearly every federal clean energy program and boost the production of fossil fuels.

And while energy systems are changing fast, so is the climate. It is far from certain whether the United States and other polluting countries will do what scientists say is required to avert catastrophe: stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by 2050. All of the investment so far has slowed the pace at which emissions are growing worldwide, but the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere is at record levels.

And yet, from Beijing to London, Tokyo to Washington, Oslo to Dubai, the energy transition is undeniably racing ahead. Change is here, even in oil country.

‘Energy Is Energy’

As the workday begins in Tulsa, Okla., the assembly line at the electric school bus factory rattles to life. Crews fan out across the city to install solar panels on century-old Tudor homes. Teslas and Ford F-150 Lightnings pull up to charging stations powered in part by the country’s second-largest wind farm. And at the University of Tulsa’s School of Petroleum Engineering, faculty are working on ways to use hydrogen as a clean energy source.

Tulsa, a former boomtown once known as the “Oil Capital of the World” where the minor league baseball team is the Drillers, is immersed in a new energy revolution.

At the port, an Italian company, Enel, is building a $1 billion solar panel factory. The bus factory is operated by Navistar, one of the biggest commercial vehicle makers in the world. And the city’s main electric utility, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, now harvests more than 28 percent of its power from wind.

Clean energy entrepreneurs are flocking to Oklahoma, too. Francis Energy, a fast-growing maker of electric vehicle charging stations, is based in Tulsa. Canoo, an electric vehicle start-up, is building a 100,000-square-foot battery factory at a nearby industrial park and a manufacturing plant for its trucks in Oklahoma City, though there are questions about whether the company will have enough funding to realize its plans. And teams from Solar Power of Oklahoma are busy fastening photovoltaic panels to the roofs of homes and businesses around Tulsa.

The city is embracing its shifting identity.

“We have a tremendous sense of pride in our history,” said Dewey F. Bartlett Jr., the Republican former mayor of Tulsa who was an oil and gas executive but now helps recruit clean energy companies to the region. “But we also understand that energy is energy, whether it is generated by wind, steam or whatever it might be.”

Around the country, clean energy is taking root in unlikely locales.

Houston, home to more than 500 oil and gas companies, also has more than 130 solar- and wind-related companies. Some of the country’s largest wind and solar farms are in the Texas flatlands outside the city, and a huge wind farm has been proposed off the coast of Galveston.

In Arkansas, a planned solar farm — the state’s biggest — is expected to help power a nearby U.S. Steel factory that is undergoing a $3 billion upgrade. When complete, the plant will use electric furnaces to mold scrap steel into new products. That will result in about 80 percent less greenhouse gases, the company says, and set the pace for an industry that has been a major polluter.

About two-thirds of the new investment in clean energy is in Republican-controlled states, where policymakers have historically resisted renewables. But with each passing month, the politics seem to matter less than the economics.

“We’re the reddest state in the country, and we’re an oil and gas state,” said J.W. Peters, president of Solar Power of Oklahoma. “So it took a lot of time to convince people that this wasn’t snake oil.”

Mr. Peters was broke six years ago, with less than $400 in his checking account after his contracting business slowed down. Then he responded to a help-wanted ad looking for workers to install solar panels, which were becoming more popular in Tulsa. He now employs 61 workers and has $18 million in annual sales. “The environmental benefits are nice,” he said, “but most people are doing this for the financial opportunity.”

‘Something Very Dramatic’

Fifteen years ago, solar panels, wind turbines and battery-powered vehicles were widely viewed as niche technologies, too expensive and unreliable for mainstream use.

But clean energy became cheap far faster than anyone expected. Since 2009, the cost of solar power has plunged by 83 percent, while the cost of producing wind power has fallen by more than half. The price of lithium-ion battery cells fell 97 percent over the past three decades.

Today, solar and wind power are the least expensive new sources of electricity in many markets, generating 12 percent of global electricity and rising. This year, for the first time, global investors are expected to pour more money into solar power — some $380 billion — than into drilling for oil.

The rapid drop in costs for solar energy, wind power and batteries can be traced to early government investment and steady improvements over time by hundreds of researchers, engineers and entrepreneurs around the world.

“The world has produced nearly three billion solar panels at this point, and every one of those has been an opportunity for people to try to improve the process,” said Gregory Nemet, a solar power expert at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “And all of those incremental improvements add up to something very dramatic.”

An equally potent force, along with the technological advances, has been an influx of money — in particular, a gusher since 2020 of government subsidies.

In the United States, President Biden signed a trio of laws during his first two years in office that allocated unprecedented funds for clean energy: A $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure law provided money to enhance the power grid, buy electric buses for schools and build a national network of electric vehicle chargers. The bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act set aside billions of dollars for semiconductors vital to car manufacturing. And the Inflation Reduction Act, which marks its first anniversary on Aug. 16, is by far the most ambitious attempt to fight climate change in American history.

That landmark law provided tax breaks related to electric vehicles, heat pumps and energy efficiency upgrades, solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing and clean hydrogen production. The government is also investing in efforts to capture carbon emissions and store them before they can reach the atmosphere, as well as technology that can remove them directly from the air.

Originally estimated to cost roughly $391 billion between 2022 and 2031, the tax breaks are proving so popular with manufacturers and consumers that estimates now put the cost as high as $1.2 trillion over the next decade.

Combined, the three laws have prompted companies to announce at least $230 billion in manufacturing investments so far. In Georgia, a Korean solar manufacturer, Qcells, is building a $2.5 billion plant. In Nevada, Tesla is building a new $3.6 billion electric truck factory. And in Oklahoma, the Enel and Canoo facilities are primed to benefit from the Inflation Reduction Act, as is a new $4.4 billion battery factory being considered by Panasonic, the Japanese conglomerate.

“There’s a lot of appetite to invest in the United States thanks to that law,” said Giovanni Bertolino, an executive at Enel, adding that the plant his company is building in Tulsa would not exist without the Inflation Reduction Act.

Regulations are also hastening the energy transition. Mr. Biden has proposed tough new federal pollution limits on tailpipes and smokestacks, but several states are acting on their own. California, with market muscle that influences the entire auto industry, plans to halt sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035 and new diesel-powered trucks by 2036 — and a handful of states are following suit. In May, New York became the first state to ban gas hookups in most new buildings, requiring all-electric heating and cooking starting in 2026. Several cities, including New York and San Francisco, have similar prohibitions, although some Republican-controlled states have blocked their municipalities from banning gas.

Heavy investment by the United States has spurred a spirited reaction from other wealthy nations. Countries that initially complained that the United States was unfairly subsidizing clean energy manufacturers have since engaged in a sort of friendly subsidy race.

Canada, South Korea and others have pushed for their companies to have better access to the American incentives, while offering similar subsidies to their domestic manufacturers. After Russia invaded Ukraine last year, the European Union moved to lessen its dependence on Russian oil and gas. In May, for the first time ever, wind and solar power in the E.U. generated more electricity than fossil fuels.

And in China, which is currently both the world’s top polluter and the global leader for renewable power, the government continues to invest in every stage of clean energy production, from solar cells to batteries, wind turbines and more. Like the United States, China provides subsidies to buyers of electric vehicles. Last year it spent $546 billion on clean energy, far more than any other country in the world.

With costs falling fast, manufacturing has picked up and installations of solar and wind projects have increased. The U.S. solar industry installed a record 6.1 gigawatts of capacity in the first quarter of 2023, a 47 percent increase over the same period last year.

And those low costs have led many of the United States’ biggest corporations, such as Alphabet, Amazon and General Motors, to purchase large amounts of wind and solar power, because it burnishes their reputations and because it makes good economic sense.

“We’re seeing the nonlinear change happen before us,” said Jon Creyts, chief executive of RMI, a nonprofit organization that promotes the energy transition. “And that’s important, because we’re facing a climate crisis right now.”

‘A National Phenomenon’

Steve Uerling’s Tulsa home is a model of energy efficiency. He replaced all his incandescent light bulbs with LEDs. He installed a heat pump and rooftop solar panels this year. And he drives a plug-in hybrid Ford Fusion and a Tesla Model 3.

Mr. Uerling, a mechanical engineer, said he wanted to see renewable power take off in Oklahoma and was trying to do his part. But he was also driven by his wallet.

“My fuel cost is equivalent to getting 200 miles a gallon on gasoline,” he said. “We charge at night, when we get a much cheaper rate on our electricity.”

The Clean Energy Future Is Arriving Faster Than You Think - The New York Times
Millions of people around the country are making similar calculations. Electric vehicles are by far the fastest-growing segment of the auto industry, with record sales of 300,000 in the second quarter of 2023, a 48 percent increase from a year earlier. Teslas are now among the best-selling cars in the country, and Ford has expanded its production of the F-150 Lightning, the electric version of its popular pickup truck, after a surge of initial demand created a waiting list.

Concerns among consumers about the availability of charging stations as well as the cost of some models have helped to cool sales somewhat, leading some automakers to slash prices. Still, federal tax credits of up to $7,500 have made the least expensive electric vehicles competitive with gas-powered cars. And about two dozen states offer additional tax credits, rebates or reduced fees, further pushing down their cost.

Government action is also helping heavier vehicles go electric. Sales of electric school buses are soaring, largely because of $5 billion in federal grants that can cover 100 percent of the cost for low-income communities. The Postal Service plans to spend nearly $10 billion to purchase 66,000 electric mail trucks — roughly 30 percent of its fleet — over the next five years.

In the private sector, Amazon has ordered 100,000 electric delivery trucks from Rivian. Tesla has an electric semitruck, as do several other manufacturers, including Peterbilt.

Companies that provide charging stations are springing up to meet the demand. Francis Energy has more than 400 chargers across Oklahoma and is expanding nationwide. EVgo, which has one of the largest fast-charging networks in the United States, plans to more than double the 3,000 charging stalls it operates.

“It is not a red-state, blue-state thing,” said Cathy Zoi, EVgo’s chief executive. “It is a national phenomenon.”

In an unusual move, seven carmakers — BMW Group, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz Group and Stellantis — are spending $1 billion in a joint venture to build 30,000 charging ports on major highways and other locations in the United States and Canada.

The shift is happening so quickly that some of America’s most iconic automakers are preparing for a world beyond gasoline-powered cars and trucks.

General Motors, which has the largest market share of any carmaker in the United States, has committed to selling only zero-emissions vehicles by 2035. It’s a “once-in-a-generation inflection point” for the 114-year-old automaker, according to Mary Barra, G.M.’s chief executive.

In an interview, Ms. Barra said her company began to consider an all-electric future in 2020. “We started to see this happening with the consumer research we did,” said Ms. Barra, who has subsequently bet billions on G.M.’s efforts to reorient its engineering, overhaul its manufacturing facilities and processes and build new battery plants.

As the cost of batteries comes down, and the number of charging stations nationwide goes up, Ms. Barra expects exponential growth. “I think it’s going to be definitely an upward trajectory,” she said. “It’ll be a little bumpy, but bumpy growing.”

Fixing A Problem

It seems pretty important for companies to take criticism to heart, look for and recognize problems, and then push themselves (and in turn push each other) to find solutions - to face the objections head-on.

I guess the Wind Energy sector can handle that, while the only thing the Dirty Fuels Cartel ever comes up with is better PR, flimflam, and fuckery to get people off their backs.

Bird deaths down 70 percent after painting wind turbine blades

The study ran for nine years at Norway's Smøla wind farm.

Something as simple as black paint could be the key to reducing the number of birds that are killed each year by wind turbines. According to a study conducted at a wind farm on the Norwegian archipelago of Smøla, changing the color of a single blade on a turbine from white to black resulted in a 70-percent drop in the number of bird deaths.

Wind power is surging right now, with more than 60GW of new generating capacity added worldwide in 2019. As long as you put the turbines in the right spot, wind power is reliably cheaper than burning fossil fuels. And most people would prefer to live next to a wind farm than any other kind of power plant—even solar.

Not everyone is a fan of wind turbines, however, because of their impact on local populations of flying fauna like birds and bats. Politicians with axes to grind against renewable energy say that we should continue to mine coal and extract oil because of the avian death toll, and US President Donald Trump has called wind turbines "bird graveyard[s]." Estimates from the US Fish and Wildlife Service calculated that approximately 300,000 birds were killed by wind turbines in 2015 (which is probably two orders of magnitude fewer than die as a result of colliding with electrical power lines each year), and bird deaths from turbines are trending down as the industry moves to larger turbine blades that move more slowly.

Wind power prices now lower than the cost of natural gas

Bird deaths caused by wind power may be overstated then, but they do still occur. Previous laboratory studies have suggested that birds may not be very good at seeing obstructions while they're flying, and adding visual cues like different colored fan blades can increase birds' chances of spotting a rapidly rotating fan.

At the Smøla wind farm, regular checks of four particular wind turbines—each 70m tall with three 40m-long blades—found six white-tailed eagle carcasses between 2006 and 2013. In total, the four turbines killed 18 birds that flew into the blades over those six years, along with five willow ptarmigans that are known to collide with the turbine towers rather than the blades. (Another four turbines selected as a control group were responsible for seven bird deaths, excluding willow ptarmigans, over the same timeframe.)

And so, in 2013, each of the four turbines in the test group had a single blade painted black. In the three years that followed, only six birds were found dead due to striking their turbine blades. By comparison, 18 bird deaths were recorded by the four control wind turbines - a 71.9% reduction in the annual fatality rate.

Digging into the data a little more showed some variation on bird deaths depending upon the season. During spring and autumn, fewer bird deaths were recorded at the painted turbines. But in summer, bird deaths actually increased at the painted turbines, and the authors note that the small number of turbines in the study and its relatively short duration both merit longer-term replication studies, both at Smøla and elsewhere.

Side Benefits

The house and car will merge — and change how we power our lives

Next generation of EV batteries will power homes and feed energy to the grid

When the power went out at Nate Graham’s New Mexico home last year, his family huddled around a fireplace in the cold and dark. Even the gas furnace was out, with no electricity for the fan. After failing to coax enough heat from the wood-burning fireplace, Graham’s wife and two children decamped for the comfort of a relative’s house until electricity returned two days later.

The next time the power failed, Graham was prepared. He had a $150 inverter, a device that converts direct current from batteries into the alternating current needed to run appliances, hooked up to his new Chevy Bolt, an electric vehicle. The Bolt’s battery powered his refrigerator, lights and other crucial devices with ease. As the rest of his neighborhood outside Albuquerque languished in darkness, Graham’s family life continued virtually unchanged. “It was a complete game changer making power outages a nonissue,” says Graham, 35, a manager at a software company. “It lasted a day-and-a-half, but it could have gone much longer.”

Today, Graham primarily powers his home appliances with rooftop solar panels and, when the power goes out, his Chevy Bolt. He has cut his monthly energy bill from about $220 to $8 per month. “I’m not a rich person, but it was relatively easy,” says Graham “You wind up in a magical position with no [natural] gas, no oil and no gasoline bill.”

Graham is a preview of what some automakers are now promising anyone with an EV: An enormous home battery on wheels that can reverse the flow of electricity to power the entire home through the main electric panel.

Beyond serving as an emissions-free backup generator, the EV has the potential of revolutionizing the car’s role in American society, transforming it from an enabler of a carbon-intensive existence into a key step in the nation’s transition into renewable energy.

note: Anybody care to hazard a guess as to why the Dirty Fuels cartel is working so hard to keep us all hooked on oil?

Home solar panels had already been chipping away at the United States’ centralized power system, forcing utilities to make electricity transfer a two-way street. More recently, home batteries have allowed households with solar arrays to become energy traders, recharging when electricity prices are low, replacing grid power when prices are high, and then selling electricity for a profit during peak hours.

But batteries are expensive. Using EVs makes this kind of home setup cheaper and a real possibility for more Americans.

So there may be a time, perhaps soon, when your car not only gets you from point A to point B, but also serves as the hub of your personal power plant.

I looked into new vehicles and hardware to answer the most common questions about how to power your home (and the grid) with your car.

Why power your home with an EV battery

America’s grid is not in good shape. Prices are up and reliability is down. Since 2000, the number of major outages has risen from less than two dozen to more than 180 per year, based on federal data, the Wall Street Journal reports. The average utility customer in 2020 endured about eight hours of power interruptions, double the previous decade.

Utilities’ relationship with their customers is set to get even rockier. Residential electricity prices, which have risen 21 percent since 2008, are predicted to keep climbing as utilities spend more than $1 trillion upgrading infrastructure, erecting transmission lines for renewable energy and protecting against extreme weather.

U.S. homeowners, increasingly, are opting out. About 8 percent of them have installed solar panels. An increasing number are adding home batteries from companies such as LG, Tesla and Panasonic. These are essentially banks of hundreds of battery cells, similar to those in your laptop, capable of storing energy and discharging electricity.

EnergySage, a renewable energy marketplace, says two-thirds of its customers now request battery quotes when soliciting bids for home solar panels, and about 15 percent install them. This setup allows homeowners to declare (at least partial) independence from the grid by storing and consuming solar power overnight, as well as supplying electricity during outages.

But it doesn’t come cheap. The average home consumes about 20 kilowatt-hours per day, a measure of energy over time. That works out to about $15,000 for enough batteries on your wall to ensure a full day of backup power (although the net cost is lower after incentives and other potential savings).

An alternative is in the driveway. A typical EV stores about 67 kWh in its battery, more than three days’ worth of electricity, sitting unused (vehicles are parked for about 95 percent of their useful life). Until recently, the only way to tap it was by rigging an inverter system like Graham’s. But bidirectional charging, the ability for vehicle electricity to flow both ways, is now a commercial reality in the United States. By 2024, numerous makes and models will be in dealerships.

You can even buy one today: The Ford F-150 Lightning, an all-electric version of America’s best-selling pickup truck. It’s scrambling the economics of home energy.

How an EV battery can power your home

Ford changed how customers saw their trucks when it rolled out a hybrid version of the F-150, says Ryan O’Gorman of Ford’s energy services program. The truck doubles as a generator sporting as many as 11 outlets spread around the vehicle, including a 240-volt outlet typically used for appliances like clothes dryers. During disasters like the 2021 ice storm that left millions of Texans without electricity, Ford dealers lent out their hybrid F-150s as home generators.

The Lighting, the fully electric version of the F-150, takes the next step by offering home backup power. Under each Lightning sits a massive 98 kWh to 131 kWh battery pack. That’s enough energy, Ford estimates, to power a home for three days (10 days if rationing). “The vehicle has an immense amount of power to move that much metal down the road at 80 mph,” says O’Gorman.

Instead of plugging appliances into the truck, the truck plugs into the house, replacing the grid. This requires some equipment: an 80-watt bidirectional charger and a home integration system, which is a hardware unit that allows you to disconnect your house from the grid and power it with the truck. Sunrun, the nation’s largest residential solar installer, is Ford’s preferred installation partner, although any licensed professional can install them.

How much it will cost

Installing the extra hardware will cost about $5,000. (Ford includes the bidirectional charger with its premium models). Home wiring upgrades, or an optional solar array, would push the cost higher.

Even at that price, the F-150 may be the cheapest home battery on the market.

When battery prices surged last year because of rising demand and supply chain issues, automakers were first in line thanks to their enormous scale. That allowed them to make deals that appear to have radically undercut home battery prices.

Take the $56,000 F-150 Lightning. With the standard 98 kWh battery, it offers energy storage equivalent to seven Tesla PowerWalls ($15,500 each installed) for about half the price per kWh. So, for slightly over the U.S. median car price of $50,000, you get a home battery and a car.

For now, the Lightening only offers a house-size backup battery. But the next round of software upgrades will monitor home energy usage to decide the best time (and price) to recharge vehicles. During peak hours, it can disconnect your home from the electricity grid, relying on battery power, until prices fall.

Utilities across the country are also starting to allow EVs to supply electricity to the grid. Owners can opt into vehicle-to-grid services that allow utilities to call on their car’s battery during peak demand, for a price. Sunrun CEO Mary Powell says the company has already received about 1,000 orders for the F-150’s home battery systems around the country, particularly in places like California and Texas rocked by blackouts related to extreme weather (about 10 percent also opted to add solar).

Eventually, it aims to build a coordinated network as it does for home stationary batteries that could help balance the grid and power millions of homes. The potential is enormous. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that if, as expected, California’s new clean air standards add 14 million zero-emission vehicles to garages by 2035, the collective battery storage could power all of California’s homes for three days.

Will this help the climate?

The idea is companies like Sunrun, along with utilities, will recruit vehicles like the F-150 Lightning to form virtual power plants. These networks of thousands or millions of devices can supply electricity during critical times. By 2030, according to the clean energy nonprofit RMI, this could reduce peak loads in the United States by 60 gigawatts, equivalent to the average consumption of 50 million households. That would cut the number of power plants we need to build, and help redistribute clean energy throughout the day.

Here’s why. Think of today’s electricity grid as a very expensive highway system with dozens of lanes crisscrossing the nation. Yet it’s only at full capacity a few times a year. Because utilities must always keep the lights on, they invest billions of dollars in (polluting) power plants that may only operate for a few hours or even a few minutes each year. As the share of renewable energy increases, utilities may need even more of these plants to smooth out fluctuations when the wind or sun isn’t available.

Batteries offer an alternative. By storing energy and dispatching it at the right time, they can help utilities ramp up renewables without expensive new natural gas plants as a backup.

Still, using an EV as a home battery might not be the best way to cut your overall emissions, especially if you buy an oversize one. (The new Hummer EV, for example, pollutes more per mile than small gas-powered sedans).

The most effective way to zero out emissions, researchers argue, is reducing personal dependence on cars. Mass transit, cycling, walkability, better zoning and land use planning are all necessary to hit emission reduction targets in the transportation sector, which is now the largest source of U.S. emissions, even as EVs replace their fossil fuel counterparts.

But cities won’t develop walkable designs and ubiquitous transit systems overnight — if they ever do. America was built for cars: 93 percent of U.S. households own a vehicle.

So if you aren’t getting rid of your vehicle, you’ll face new choices the next time you walk into a car dealership: How do you want to power your home and the grid?

Many of the EVs rolling off assembly lines today will give you that option, says Douglas Alfaro of WallBox, an EV charging and energy management company. The company is partnering with automakers to design hardware that works with almost any vehicle — Ford’s charging infrastructure, so far, is proprietary. This is already starting to happen: Makers of the Hyundai Ioniq 5, Lucid Air, Kia EV6, VW’s ID.4, Mitsubishi Outlander, and Chevy Silverado EV have announced they will offer home electricity services in the next year or so.

As Graham realized after his last power outage in New Mexico, electrifying your life means rethinking how your vehicle is connected to everything else. In the future, our cars will be plugged into our homes and other intelligent devices, trading electricity with each other and the outside world.

Energy

We're finally starting to see some acceleration as we make our move from dirty fuels to wind and solar. And of course, eventually, we'll transition from that to something else.

But you know what? I think it's a pretty good bet that we won't be faced with quite the shit-pile clean up that we have to deal with here at the end of the carbon-driven economy.

I remember very distinctly, back when I was a travelin' man, driving up I-95 approaching Philly from the south, and the smell - especially in the humidity of the summer months - was unbelievable. And it didn't stop at Philadelphia. The stench seemed to follow me all the way up the petro-chemical corridor thru New Jersey.

Once we get our heads a little farther out of our asses, we just might see some big leaps forward.

In the meantime, I can be optimistic about this, with that famous caveat from Mr Nixon: "Don't count on the fella that makes the mess to stick around and clean it up."

Reuters:

Wearing blue hard hats, white hazmat suits and respirator masks, workers carted away bags of debris on a recent morning from a sprawling and now-defunct oil refinery once operated by Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES).

Other laborers ripped asbestos from the guts of an old boiler house, part of a massive demolition and redevelopment of the plant, which closed in 2019 after a series of explosions at the facility.

Plans call for the nearly 1,400-acre site to be transformed into a new commercial hub with warehousing and offices. All it will take is a decade, hundreds of millions of dollars, and confronting 150 years’ worth of industrial pollution, including buried rail cars and a poisonous stew of waste fuels poured onto the ground. A U.S. refinery cleanup of this size and scope has no known precedent, remediation experts said.

It’s a glimpse of what lies ahead if the United States hopes to wean itself off fossil fuels and clean up the toxic legacy of oil, gas and coal.

President Joe Biden wants to bring the United States to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to fight climate change through a shift to clean-energy technologies, while reducing pollution in low-income and minority neighborhoods near industrial facilities.

It’s a transition fraught with challenges. Among the biggest is what to do with the detritus left behind. The old PES plant is just one of approximately 135 oil refineries nationwide, to say nothing of the country’s countless gas stations, pipelines, storage hubs, drill pads and other graying energy infrastructure.

In recent months, at least six other large U.S. oil refineries - from New Jersey to California - have announced they will close or cease oil refining as the coronavirus pandemic has sapped global fuel demand.

“The energy transition will require massive attention to both new infrastructure and addressing aging or outdated systems,” said Morgan Bazilian, director of the Payne School of Public Policy at the Colorado School of Mines.

In Philadelphia, a private-sector company is taking the lead. Hilco Redevelopment Partners, a real estate firm that specializes in renovating old industrial properties, bought the PES refinery out of bankruptcy for $225.5 million in June.

Asbestos abatement alone will require four years to complete, said Roberto Perez, chief executive of the Chicago-based company.

“There’s enough pipeline to connect you from here to Florida, and the majority of that pipeline today is wrapped in asbestos,” Perez said.

The full extent of the pollution won’t be understood for years. Also uncertain is the ability of the refinery’s previous owners to pay their share of the cleanup. The facility has had multiple owners over its lifetime and responsibility has been divided between them through business agreements and legal settlements.

A lot is riding on the outcome. Transformation of the refinery, the oldest and largest on the U.S. East Coast, could bring jobs to a low-income, racially diverse neighborhood that needs them.

But residents also want a say in how the work proceeds after enduring the brunt of the refinery’s pollution. Some complained about feeling shut out of the process during a recent virtual public meeting organized by companies involved in the cleanup.

The refinery’s previous owner, Sunoco Inc, had gone years without holding city-mandated public meetings about pollution at the site.

Evergreen Resources Group, LLC, a subsidiary of Sunoco’s parent company, Energy Transfer LP, which is in charge of managing a share of the cleanup, declined to comment on the lapse in meetings. It pointed to a website it launched last year to engage with the public about the project.

Hilco’s Perez has no illusions about the work ahead.

“This is a very heavy lift,” he said. “It’s probably one of the most complicated things I’ve ever done.”

SURPRISES IN A TOXIC SOUP

Oil refining at the Philadelphia site began in 1870, 100 years before the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Gasoline, once a worthless byproduct of heating oil, was routinely dumped by the refinery into the soil, according to historians and researchers. Leaks and accidents spewed more toxins. The June 2019 blasts alone released 676,000 pounds of hydrocarbons, PES said at the time.

The Philadelphia site is not unique. About half of America’s 450,000 polluted former industrial and commercial sites are contaminated with petroleum, according to the EPA.

“That’s one of the reasons that a lot of these refineries have been kept going for such a long time,” said Fred Quivik, a Minnesota-based industrial historian. “They’re so contaminated, it’s hard to figure out what else to do with them.”

Cleanup in Philadelphia will be painstaking. After asbestos abatement comes the demolition and removal of 3,000 tanks and vessels, along with more than 100 buildings and other infrastructure, the company said.

Then comes the ground itself. Hilco’s Perez said dirt quality varies widely on the site and will have to be handled differently depending on contamination levels. Clearing toxins like lead must be done with chemical rinses or other technologies, said Charles Haas, professor of environmental engineering at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

The site also has polluted groundwater and giant benzene pools lurking underneath, according to environmental reports Sunoco filed over the years with the federal and state governments.

Perez, Hilco’s chief executive, said clean energy will be a centerpiece of the final project. The warehouse complex, for example, will aim to feature charging stations for a fleet of electric delivery vehicles, he said.

The company is also considering a hotel, residential homes, and a restaurant on the site, two people familiar with the plans said.

The project is expected to take 10 to 15 years to finish. Cleanup and construction are projected to create about 13,000 jobs, the company said, with another 19,000 jobs tied to warehousing, offices and transporting goods.

PICKING UP THE BILL

The final price tag is unclear.

The development’s fate hinges on previous polluters paying their fair share. The site, founded by the Atlantic Refining Company, later known as ARCO, has cycled through several owners.

Sunoco, which owned the refinery for about two decades, sold its majority stake in 2012 to Carlyle Group Inc, which later formed PES. That deal stipulated that Sunoco assume all environmental liabilities dating to the plant’s inception in the 1800s. Energy Transfer, which bought Sunoco the same year as the refinery sale, now shoulders that burden.

Dallas-based Energy Transfer has $205 million in insurance to cover all of Sunoco’s decommissioned sites, including PES, according to the company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Amanda Goodin, a lawyer with the environmental group Earthjustice who has litigated major environmental cleanup cases, said comparable projects, such as clearing shuttered mining operations, can run into the billions of dollars.

“These cleanups are just enormously expensive, and companies basically never set aside enough money to fully remediate a site,” Goodin said.

Energy Transfer would not say how much it expects its share of the PES refinery cleanup to cost, but spokeswoman Vicki Granado said it is “fully funded”.

Hilco, as part of its 2020 purchase of PES, assumed liabilities tied to the last eight years of the refinery’s life, a tab it estimates will amount to “hundreds of millions” of dollars. The company declined to be more specific, but said it believes it has the funds for the job.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection said it has consent orders against Sunoco and Hilco that enable the regulator to sue the companies if they attempt to walk away, spokeswoman Virginia Cain said.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Abdul Muhammad, 34, who lives near the Philadelphia refinery, says life has improved since it shut down. His asthmatic baby son now sleeps through the night, while his wife’s chronic headaches have become less frequent.

“I just don’t want chemicals and environmentally contaminated things going in and out of there,” he said of his wishes for the site.

Philly Thrive, a community activist group, has been pressuring Hilco and city officials to ensure that neighborhood residents have a say in the cleanup and redevelopment.

Some of their hopes rest with the Biden administration, which has committed to direct 40% of any federal clean-energy investment to communities most impacted by industrial pollution.

But whether climate legislation emerges from a divided Congress remains to be seen.

Philadelphia officials hope PES can become a model for refinery cleanups elsewhere. Kenyatta Johnson, a city councilman who represents neighborhoods surrounding the facility, sees a healthy, more prosperous community emerging from its toxic shadow.

“Some may deem the site a health hazard and eyesore, but nevertheless it’s an opportunity,” Johnson said.

Our willingness to re-invent ourselves is a real strength. It's not uniquely American, but we've gotten pretty good at it.

To reiterate my position on "blessings in disguise" or "look for the silver lining":

Maybe we should try to figure out how to get to the blessing part without all the shit we put ourselves through on the front end.

- and -

I'd be a lot more cheery about the whole thing if that silver lining didn't always come wrapped in a dark cloud of fucked-up-edness.

Anyway, maybe things get better from here for a while.

What's In The Desert?

Sunshine.  There's lots and lots of it in the desert.  So instead of doing incredibly stoopid things like irrigating the sand in an attempt to magically transform it into a totally unsustainable garden; or poking holes in the ground to reach all that smelly goo that ends up choking us as we burn it - maybe we could try doing something with what the desert has to offer us - which doesn't require us to deny what the desert actually is, and doesn't make it necessary to rationalize blowing shit up and shooting people down.

Just a tho't.

Loser Sosh'list Dweebs

According to this piece from The Pachamama Alliance website, the idiots in the Swedish gubmint put together a program that's become so efficient, they've run out of garbage.

Of course here in God's USAmerica, we'd never allow such a thing - there's a not-so-subtle (even if subconcious) attempt to flaunt our status by making sure the neighbors can see the evidence of our latest acquisition, or the sheer volume of the shit we discard, cuz everybody knows the success of your lifestyle is directly proportional to the amount of trash you put out at the curb every week.

In order to continue fueling the waste-to-energy factories that provide electricity to a quarter of a million homes and 20 percent of the entire country’s district heating, Sweden is now importing trash from the landfills of other European countries. In fact, those countries are paying Sweden to do so.

You read that correctly, countries are paying to get rid of a source of fuel they themselves produced so that Sweden can continue to have the energy output they need. You don’t have to be an economist to know that’s one highly enviable energy model.

Why do we insist on being the Capital of Dumb-Ass-istan?