President Donald Trump announced he’s lifting Obama-era policies preventing the financing of overseas coal plants, along with reviewing policies hindering nuclear energy. “We will begin to revive and expand our nuclear energy sector, which I’m so happy about, which produces clean, renewable and emissions-free energy,” Trump said during a speech Wednesday. “A complete review of U.S. nuclear energy policy will help us find new ways to revitalize this crucial energy resource.” Trump will encourage the World Bank to finance coal plants in developing nations, and his administration will begin a comprehensive review of U.S. nuclear power policy. The administration is expected to push a permanent nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. –Andrew Follett, Daily Caller, 29 June 2017
President Donald Trump said he is lifting an Obama-era policy that curtailed the financing of coal-fired power plants overseas, as he seeks to reorient the U.S. government away from fighting climate change and toward American “energy dominance.” “We are now on the cusp of a true energy revolution,” Trump told a crowd of executives, lobbyists, and laborers at the Energy Department on Thursday. “We are a top producer of petroleum and the No. 1 producer of natural gas. We have so much more than we ever thought possible. We are really in the driver’s seat.” –Jennifer A Dlouhy, Bloomberg, 29 June 2017
The Trump Administration has declared this week to be “Energy Week”, a week during which the President and his senior officials are focusing on the theme of “U.S. Energy Dominance.” Not “energy independence” or “energy security”, both themes past presidential administrations have focused upon – “energy dominance.” So, what does it all mean, and can the United States actually achieve it? Here are some answers. First, when President Trump talks about his goal of Energy Dominance, he’s referring to a plan that envisions implementing policies that encourage four major elements: • Taking full advantage of America’s amazing abundance of oil, natural gas and coal; • Increasing exports of all three of those fossil fuels and their related products; • Relying more on imports of oil from Canada, Mexico and other Western Hemisphere nations, and less on imports from the Middle East and North Africa; and • Leveraging all of those three elements to enhance U.S. bargaining positions in its foreign policy initiatives. –David Blackmon, OilPrice, 28 June 2017
Germany’s G20 presidency dramatically weakened a climate action plan, gutting it of ambitious language and defining gas, and potentially even some coal power, as “clean technologies”, in an attempt to appeal to US President Donald Trump. –Arthur Neslen, Climate Home, 29 June 2017
The problem, argues energy editor John Constable in a critique for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, is the inexcusably one-sided way in which the Bank of England has handled it. The report’s focus is directed almost entirely towards the risks posed by fossil fuels. But we don’t hear about the more plausible and immediate economic risks posed by renewables. The most obvious one is what will happen if taxpayers around the world tire of being milked to subsidise bird-frazzling solar arrays, bat-chomping eco-crucifixes, river-polluting anaerobic digesters, electric cars whose batteries alone create more CO2 during manufacture than a petrol car does in eight years, and suchlike, and the Potemkin industry that is renewables comes crashing to a sudden halt? It’s not as if clever people haven’t considered this possibility. Look at what is now happening in the US under their new president. Consider the repercussions when the Bank of England fails to do its due diligence. –James Delingpole, The Spectator, 1 July 2017
Trackback from your site.