Another problem for Joe Biden’s plan to eliminate all emissions from American electricity production in 13 years.

President Joe Biden and the Democrats, greatly concerned about global warming climate change, have urged an all-electric future for the United States, phasing out fossil fuel usage in transportation by requiring all new vehicles sold by the year 2035 to be zero-emissions, and that electric power generation be zero-emission by the same year. In The Long-Term Strategy of the United States: Pathways to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050, John Kerry, Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, and Gina McCarthy, National Climate Advisor, said[1]The Long-Term Strategy of the United States: Pathways to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050, page 5 of .pdf file.:

    Electricity delivers diverse services to all sectors of the American economy. The transition to a clean electricity system has been accelerating in recent years — driven by plummeting costs for solar and wind technologies, federal and subnational policies, and consumer demand. Building on this success, the United States has set a goal of 100% clean electricity by 2035, a crucial foundation for net-zero emissions no later than 2050.

    We can affordably and efficiently electrify most of the economy, from cars to buildings and industrial processes. In areas where electrification presents technology challenges — for instance aviation, shipping, and some industrial processes — we can prioritize clean fuels like carbon-free hydrogen and sustainable biofuels.

About those “plummeting costs for solar and wind technologies”? From The Wall Street Journal:

    Ukraine War Drives Up Cost of Wind, Solar Power

    ‘Greenflation’ problems are particularly acute in U.S., where tariffs targeting China helped increase project costs, led to delays before Russian attack

    By Jennifer Hiller and Katherine Blunt | Sunday, March 27, 2022 | 5:30 AM EDT

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is further driving up the price of renewable-energy projects, which were already facing supply-chain strains and raw-materials increases before the war.

    The new pressures, which are hitting two years after the pandemic created bottlenecks for wind and solar developers, are adding to delays for completing many projects.

    The Biden administration and other governments around the world have called for speeding the transition to renewable-energy sources to avoid reliance on Russia for oil and gas. But project developers say it might be nearly impossible to move faster in the near term.

    Wind and solar development has boomed world-wide in the past decade as a result of rapidly falling costs that made the projects more competitive with traditional sources of power generation such as natural gas and nuclear, as well as growing government pressure to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to combat climate change.

    Globally, wind and solar accounted for about 6.4% and 4% of power generation last year, respectively, up from 3.8% and 1.4% five years prior, with further sharp growth projected, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights. The cost of solar generation fell to $45 for a megawatt-hour last year, down from $381 in 2010, S&P estimated. The cost of onshore wind generation, meanwhile, fell to $48 for a megawatt-hour, down from $89 in 2010.

Sounds good so far, but trouble comes with the next paragraph:

    But like many other businesses, renewable-energy projects are now being hit by soaring post-invasion prices for key materials such as aluminum and steel, as well as higher transportation costs stemming from higher oil prices, which have surged by more than 50% this year.

    The rising costs are particularly acute in the U.S., where many projects were already facing increases in part because of trade tariffs targeting China, a dominant producer of solar cells and other renewable-energy components. A third of U.S. utility-scale solar capacity scheduled for completion in the fourth quarter of 2021 was delayed by at least a quarter and 13% of the projects planned to complete this year have been delayed for a year or canceled, according to a new report from Wood Mackenzie and the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Infographic: China Dominates All Steps of Solar Panel Production | Statista Currently, the People’s Republic of China completely dominates all phases of solar panel production, producing 66% of polysilicon, 78% of all solar cells, and 72% of solar modules. More, 4% of solar cells and 1% of solar modules are produced in the Republic of China, Taiwan, which could be taken over by the People’s Republic any day.

Foreign Policy magazine noted that forced labor is used in much of China’s polysilicon production.

Back to the Journal:

    U.S. projects have also faced long wait times to receive necessary approvals to connect new projects to the electric grid, as developers rush to bring wind and solar farms online to capitalize on aggressive state mandates to reduce emissions, overwhelming grid operators. Those delays are adding to uncertainty for project investors.

Since Mr Biden took office, inflation has soared; the February year-over-year inflation rate was 7.9%, while real average hourly earnings decreased by 1.9%. Americans have been getting relatively poorer, and the data for the statistics were gathered before the invasion of Ukraine.

How, exactly, are we going to pay for this huge power generation transformation, all within 13 years? We’re going to be borrowing money, from Americans, from foreigners, and from China, to send to China, and having to pay back to investors, including Chinese investors.

We could, of course, do something really radical like build solar panel and module plants in the United States, but that will take years and, let’s tell the truth here, it will mean paying American wages, probably American union wages, to American workers, rather than the much lower Chinese wages, to build the solar collection systems, making them more expensive.

Ford’s plug-in electric F-150 Lightning can cost more than houses! When a car costs more than some houses, something is very, very wrong!

Sometimes I feel like I’m stepping on William Teach’s toes when I write about plug-in electric vehicles, but I’m sure that he’ll get over it. Ford Motor Company F: (%) has noted that the Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed its range miles for the 2022 F-150 Lightning plug-in electric truck:

300-320 miles for the Extended Range battery and 230 miles for the Standard Range battery.

Ford has officially confirmed the recently emerged EPA range numbers for the upcoming all-electric Ford F-150 Lightning pickup.

The manufacturer announced EPA Combined range values for all trim levels and both battery versions (Standard Range and Extended Range), emphasizing that in the case of ER battery, the range is actually 20 miles higher than the target.

In short, customers should expect:

  • Standard Range: 230 miles (370 km)
  • Extended Range (all trims, except of Platinum*): 320 miles (515 km) Platinum trim: 300 miles (483 km)

I used a screen capture of the article header as my headline because it showed an F-150 Lightning hooked up to a home charging station at a definitely expensive home. The link to the original is embedded in that header.

Why? Because at the bottom of the article was this chart.

The most basic electric F-150 is over $40,000, at $41,669.00. That tax credit? That isn’t what you pay pulling away from the dealer, but what you can get credited to your tax bill when you file your taxes, which could be the better part of a year after you but the vehicle. You’re going to have to pay the dealer $41,669, and, for most people, that means financing most of that amount, paying interest on most of that amount. Start adding options, and the price goes higher.

But what got to me was the costs of the F-150 with bigger wheels. An F-150 Lightning XLT ER with 20″ tires is going to cost you $74,169. Other versions can cost $69,169, $79,169 and $92,569.

As it happens, my wife and I bought a home in Estill County for her sister, 1,344 ft², with two bedrooms, one bathroom, and a detached one car garage. While my nephew and I did some plumbing work on it, and remodeled the bathroom, it was perfectly livable, and not a fixer upper. We paid $69,999 for the house.

In other words, we bought a perfectly livable house, built in 1920, just last December, for less than several versions of a Ford F-150 plug-in electric truck!

Ignore the furniture in the pictures; those are from the sales advertisement for the place.

Of course, that’s not the only house we’ve bought recently. In September of 2014, we bought our current house, a livable but nevertheless fixer-upper house, built in 1927, two bedrooms, one bathroom, with 7.92 acres of land and 500 feet of frontage on the Kentucky River, for a whopping $75,000.

No, that’s not a typo; I didn’t omit a trailing zero, or leading number to make it six digits.

Regular readers of this site — both of them — have seen photos of our kitchen before, but they were taken after we remodeled. 🙂

I bring this up because some of the liberal commenters on Mr Teach’s website keep telling us how wonderful plug-in electric vehicles are, and who knows, maybe they’re really great, but when your car costs more than a house, something is very, very wrong.

Yes, we live in east central Kentucky; the next county over, Lee, is the home of Beattyville, a place called the “poorest white town in America” from 2008 to 2012, so yes, housing prices around here are well below the national average. That doesn’t mean that houses here are undervalued; it means that houses elsewhere are over-inflated!