Welcome denialism!
With the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House, a political earthquake has been generated that has its aftershocks in the energy field. To the cry of “Drill, baby, drill”, regulations, decades-long policies to diversify the energy matrix and global goals to reduce the disastrous effects of growing greenhouse gas emissions have been ignored. While the goal seems economic (to monetize their abundant fossil resources), the arrogant tribe of deniers is dancing for what they see as an endorsement of their anti-scientific theories. In fact, the main goal of the deniers (there are even some in Bolivia!) is the Energy Transition (ET) which would presumably be close to a resounding failure. For starters, there is no such “final blow” to the “famous and banal” TE (as they write) for the change of tenant of the White House. With the data for 2022 and 2023, it is possible to say that, globally, the European Union (EU) generates between 22 and 25% of its consumption with renewable energy sources (hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, etc.), a percentage lower than the reviled China (30-35%) and similar to the United States (20-22%). Similarly, the EU consumes electricity from nuclear reactors in 25-30%, more than China (5%) and the United States (18-20%). By the way, the mistake of the deniers is to proclaim that renewable sources intend to replace fossil fuels overnight, when in reality there is an internal TE of fossil fuels that seeks to eliminate the combustion of coal, reduce oil consumption and keep the supply of natural gas stable, as a transition fuel. In the specific case of the EU, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has slowed down, but not stopped, ET because, in the face of the cut-off of Russian gas, it has forced investments to be diverted towards the purchase of expensive NLG from the US, not to mention growing spending on armaments. I don’t want to think about what would have happened to the EU if it had not secured 50% of its supply from non-fossil sources. In reality, the Energy Transition will continue to develop, albeit at different speeds, despite the denial tendencies of Climate Change and private interests, due to the environmental consciousness of society that is constantly growing and due to technological advances in the energy sector in favor of the efficiency and competitiveness of clean energy. In short, sustainable energy transformation is an inevitable path and will continue to advance in the future. So far, ET seems to be an ethical choice based on responsibility for the “common home” of humanity, a choice that the climate upheavals that are observed daily help to reinforce. But the situation in Bolivia is completely different. I never tire of repeating that for Bolivia, ET, more than an option in favor of the planetary climate, is a necessity and an urgency. And if you don’t believe me, look around today to see the consequences of the short-sightedness and incompetence of the MAS governments, unable to develop an adequate energy policy for the country. These governments, instead of denying the destruction of the energy sector caused by the nationalization of hydrocarbons and increasing the supply of fuels by spending and borrowing as much as they can, should have long ago embarked on a serious plan to convert transport to methane and to encourage the use of electricity produced from renewable sources. For not having done so, we now have endless queues at gas stations, with the consequent economic, social and psychological cost that is testing people’s patience for a failed economic model and a government in a coma.
Are lithium contracts profitable?
I wonder if the lithium contracts between YLB and Russian and Chinese companies are profitable. The answer is negative, due to the low internacional price of Lithium Carbonate, now and in the next years.
Lithium contracts: a desperate bet
This column is a general analysis on the Lithium contract for YLB, the nacional lithium corporation, with Uranium One Goup, a Russia Based company.
Electric cars in Bolivia: an obstacle course
The fuel crisis in Bolivia has two structural solutions, in the sense that both aim to reduce the demand for liquid fuels. The first is to convert cars with petrol engines to CNG (Car Natural Gas). The irrefutable convenience of this conversion for the user and for the State has already been demonstrated and I will not repeat it (See: https://fzaratti.blog/en/2024/12/06/sell-low-to-buy-high/). The other solution is electromobility, which consists of replacing a petrol vehicle with a 100% electric car, or “hybrid” if it runs on electricity and petrol. The economic convenience of a 100% electric vehicle, with current energy costs, is evident if we compare the consumption to travel 400 km (40 liters of gasoline in the city) with its electric equivalent (45 KW-h). The 40 liters of petrol (the cheapest) represent 150 Bs, while the equivalent cost of electricity (with house tariff) does not reach 60 Bs: a saving of 90 Bs (and time in queues at the pumps) for users and 336 Bs for the State for that petrol that is no longer imported. Well, if everyone wins, what prevents a massive shift to electromobility? In general, there is a lack of a clear energy transition policy. There is a well-known misunderstanding about the implications of this policy (which is an urgency, rather than an option), reduced to simple reductions in customs tariffs that do not affect the high prices of electric cars. This policy ranges from massive electricity production with renewable energy sources (hydroelectric and solar, “first and foremost”), to a financial plan to encourage the transition to electromobility, through infrastructure to facilitate the transition, with a non-statist approach, but open to private initiative. To write this column with full knowledge of the facts, in the last few days I wanted to explore the possibility of buying an electric car. My conclusion is that buying an electric car is a real obstacle course. First of all, there is the prohibitive price: almost 100% more than the equivalent of gasoline. This is basically due to economies of scale and a lack of real incentives. As far as the financing of the purchase is concerned, although some banks offer attractive conditions (credit in national currency for eight years with fixed interest), the scrapping of the petrol car that is stopped is not contemplated. If there were a program to receive the petrol car as a down payment, the credit would quickly pay for itself, thanks to energy savings, especially in public service or heavy-use vehicles. The question: “what to do with used petrol vehicles?” could be answered by moving them to the provinces, in competition with cars that continue to be illegally interned. In addition, the high price has consequences on the cost of insurance and taxes, although some incentives have been announced during the first three years of use. Finally, the issue of charging is complex: for a home, the 100% electric car is equipped with an inverter from AC to DC and a special charging plug. But if you live in an apartment, you need to find an outlet near your parking lot (when actually every parking lot should have one) and place a certified meter (at your expense), the inverter, and the charging plug. This is until the family rate can be applied. Nor what about the precarious charging infrastructure in public spaces (charging stations). We need entrepreneurs to invest in this sector and a State that stops being a “dog in the garden” if we want electric cars to become popular.