Friday, October 30, 2020

Biden Wants Renewable Energy, But It Can’t Do the Job

Joe Biden’s climate and energy plans mandate a carbon-free generation sector by 2035. Since new nuclear and carbon capture and sequestration technologies are not economically competitive, subsidized wind and solar power would have to make up the share from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) that currently make up 62 percent of the generation market. Biden’s plans call for large expenditures in renewable energy, including installing 500 million solar panels and manufacturing 60,000 wind turbines.

The Benton Public Utility District in Washington State said, in a report, that overly aggressive clean energy policies bring about an unacceptably high risk of power grid blackouts. While the development of wind farms may be “politically fashionable” and appeal to many in the general public, science and economics show that attempting to power modern civilization with intermittent electricity from wind and solar will come at a high financial and environmental cost. The report is consistent with what has happened in Germany and Australia, as residential electricity prices in Germany are among the highest in Europe and 50 percent more than they were in 2006.

In 2014, Germany’s solar production was just  6 percent and the country barely managed to escape an eclipse by importing electricity from neighboring countries. In August, still air hit California’s wind farms during a heat wave and smoke from its wild fires reduced solar power by 30 percent, causing rolling blackouts in some locales.

The enormity of the task Biden is making that some believe is doable can be best expressed by realizing that 80 percent of all U.S. energy comes from fossil fuels and almost 9 percent comes from nuclear power. Solar and wind combined contribute less than 4 percent. Solar and wind’s contribution in the generating sector is more sizable at 9 percent of U.S. generation because of the smaller market. Wind power and solar systems produce electricity at an average of just 25 percent to 35 percent of the year, while conventional natural gas plants have very high availability at 85 percent.

Because wind and solar are intermittent, they require back-up from natural gas technologies, which must be inefficiently ramped up and down like a car driving in stop-and-go traffic to balance the energy grid. Storage technologies (batteries) could substitute, but they are not currently economic. Further, China controls about 70 percent of the world’s lithium supply and 83 percent of the anodes to make them. A U.S. lithium project has been seeking approval to mine the material in a Nevada desert, but has been blocked for more than a decade by environmental groups.

Now consider that Biden also wants the U.S. energy economy to be totally carbon free by 2050. That means electric vehicles instead of gasoline and diesel vehicles. Then consider the electricity that these electric vehicles will need to charge their batteries. And add to that, the half million electric car chargers that Biden proposes to have taxpayers finance along with funding to help car makers convert their factories to electric vehicle production. Producing and recharging those electric vehicles will require that electricity is constantly available, which, based on California’s experience may not be achievable with renewable power.

Building wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity, as well as batteries to fuel electric vehicles, requires, on average, more than 10 times the quantity of materials, compared with building equivalent systems using fossil fuels to deliver the same amount of energy. To replace a single 100-megawatt gas-fired plant would take at least 20 wind turbines, each about the size of the Washington Monument and covering about 10 square miles of land. The wind farm would consume about 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete, as well as 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics for the blades. A solar plant with the same output would require half again more tonnage in cement, steel and glass. And, based on current plans, by 2050, the quantity of worn-out, non-recyclable solar panels will double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, and there will be over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades.

Conclusion

Biden’s plans to recreate the entire U.S. energy system beginning with electricity over the next 14 years will result in enormous costs for U.S. consumers and taxpayers. Further, it makes little sense to take a system that works efficiently and replace it with technologies that cannot do the job 24/7. Americans rightly expect electricity on demand and will continue to expect that while Biden creates large new uses for electricity that will tax the electric grid. His vision of American energy is one where air conditioning may not be available in the summer and heat may not be available during winter.

The post Biden Wants Renewable Energy, But It Can’t Do the Job appeared first on IER.

Sustainable Link Building: Increasing Your Chances of Getting Links — Best of Whiteboard Friday

Posted by Paddy_Moogan

Link building campaigns shouldn't have a start-and-stop date — they should be ongoing, continuing to earn you links over time. In this informative and enduringly relevant 2018 edition of Whiteboard Friday, guest host Paddy Moogan shares strategies to achieve sustainable link building, the kind that makes your content efforts lucrative far beyond your initial campaigns for them.

Sustainable Link Building: Increasing Your Chances of Getting Links

Click on the whiteboard image above to open a high-resolution version in a new tab!

Video Transcription

Hi, Moz fans. Welcome to Whiteboard Friday. I'm not Rand. I'm Paddy Moogan. I'm the cofounder of Aira. We're an agency in the UK, focusing on SEO, link building, and content marketing. You may have seen me write on the Moz Blog before, usually about link building. You may have read my link building book. If you have, thank you. Today, I'm going to talk about link building again. It's a topic I love, and I want to share some ideas around what I'm calling "sustainable link building."

Problems

Now, there are a few problems with link building that make it quite risky, and I want to talk about some problems first before giving you some potential solutions that help make your link building less risky. So a few problems first:

I. Content-driven link building is risky.

The problem with content-driven link building is that you're producing some content and you don't really know if it's going to work or not. It's quite risky, and you don't actually know for sure that you're going to get links.

II. A great content idea may not be a great content idea that gets links.

There's a massive difference between a great idea for content and a great idea that will get links. Knowing that difference is really, really important. So we're going to talk a little bit about how we can work that out.

III. It's a big investment of time and budget.

Producing content, particularly visual content, doing design and development takes time. It can take freelancers. It can take designers and developers. So it's a big investment of time and budget. If you're going to put time and budget into a marketing campaign, you want to know it's probably going to work and not be too risky.

IV. Think of link building as campaign-led: it starts & stops.

So you do a link building campaign, and then you stop and start a new one. I want to get away from that idea. I want to talk about the idea of treating link building as the ongoing activity and not treating it as a campaign that has a start date and a finish date and you forget about it and move on to the next one. So I'm going to talk a little bit about that as well.

Solutions

So those are some of the problems that we've got with content-driven link-building. I want to talk about some solutions of how to offset the risk of content-driven link building and how to increase the chances that you're actually going to get links and your campaign isn't going to fail and not work out for you.

I. Don't tie content to specific dates or events

So the first one, now, when you coming up with content ideas, it's really easy to tie content ideas into events or days of the year. If there are things going on in your client's industry that are quite important, current festivals and things like that, it's a great way of hooking a piece of content into an event. Now, the problem with that is if you produce a piece of content around a certain date and then that date passes and the content hasn't worked, then you're kind of stuck with a piece of content that is no longer relevant.

So an example here of what we've done at Aira, there's a client where they launch a piece of content around the Internet of Things Day. It turns out there's a day celebrating the Internet of Things, which is actually April 9th this year. Now, we produced a piece of content for them around the Internet of Things and its growth in the world and the impact it's having on the world. But importantly, we didn't tie it exactly to that date. So the piece itself didn't mention the date, but we launched it around that time and that outreach talked about Internet of Things Day. So the outreach focused on the date and the event, but the content piece itself didn't. What that meant was, after July 9th, we could still promote that piece of content because it was still relevant. It wasn't tied in with that exact date.

So it means that we're not gambling on a specific event or a specific date. If we get to July 9th and we've got no links, it obviously matters, but we can keep going. We can keep pushing that piece of content. So, by all means, produce content tied into dates and events, but try not to include that too much in the content piece itself and tie yourself to it.

II. Look for datasets which give you multiple angles for outreach

Number two, lots of content ideas can lead from data. So you can get a dataset and produce content ideas off the back of the data, but produce angles and stories using data. Now, that can be quite risky because you don't always know if data is going to give you a story or an angle until you've gone into it. So something we try and do at Aira when trying to produce content around data is from actually different angles you can use from that data.

So, for example:

  • Locations. Can you pitch a piece of content into different locations throughout the US or the UK so you can go after the local newspapers, local magazines for different areas of the country using different data points?
  • Demographics. Can you target different demographics? Can you target females, males, young people, old people? Can you slice the data in different ways to approach different demographics, which will give you multiple ways of actually outreaching that content?
  • Years. Is it updated every year? So it's 2018 at the moment. Is there a piece of data that will be updated in 2019? If there is and it's like a recurring annual thing where the data is updated, you can redo the content next year. So you can launch a piece of content now. When the data gets updated next year, plug the new data into it and relaunch it. So you're not having to rebuild a piece of a content every single time. You can use old content and then update the data afterwards.

III. Build up a bank of link-worthy content

Number three, now this is something which is working really, really well for us at the moment, something I wanted to share with you. This comes back to the idea of not treating link building as a start and stop campaign. You need to build up a bank of link-worthy content on your client websites or on your own websites. Try and build up content that's link worthy and not just have content as a one-off piece of work. What you can do with that is outreach over and over and over again.

We tend to think of the content process as something like this. You come up with your ideas. You do the design, then you do the outreach, and then you stop. In reality, what you should be doing is actually going back to the start and redoing this over and over again for the same piece of content.

What you end up with is multiple pieces of content on your client's website that are all getting links consistently. You're not just focusing on one, then moving past it, and then working on the next one. You can have this nice big bank of content there getting links for you all the time, rather than forgetting about it and moving on to the next one.

IV. Learn what content formats work for you

Number four, again, this is something that's worked really well for us recently. Because we're an agency, we work with lots of different clients, different industries and produce lots and lots of content, what we've done recently is try to work out what content formats are working the best for us. Which formats get the best results for our clients? The way we did this was a very, very simple chart showing how easy something was versus how hard it was, and then wherever it was a fail in terms of the links and the coverage, or wherever it was a really big win in terms of links and coverage and traffic for the client.

Now, what you may find when you do this is certain content formats fit within this grid. So, for example, you may find that doing data viz is actually really, really hard, but it gets you lots and lots of links, whereas you might find that producing maps and visuals around that kind of data is actually really hard but isn't very successful.

Identifying these content formats and knowing what works and doesn't work can then feed into your future content campaign. So when you're working for a client, you can confidently say, "Well, actually, we know that interactives aren't too difficult for us to build because we've got a good dev team, and they really likely to get links because we've done loads of them before and actually seen lots of successes from them." Whereas if you come up with an idea for a map that you know is actually really, really hard to do and actually might lead to a big fail, then that's not going to be so good, but you can say to a client, "Look, from our experience, we can see maps don't work very well. So let's try and do something else."

That's it in terms of tips and solutions for trying to make your link building more sustainable. I'd love to hear your comments and your feedback below. So if you've got any questions, anything you're not sure about, let me know. If you see it's working for your clients or not working, I'd love to hear that as well. Thank you.

Video transcription by Speechpad.com


Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

Thursday, October 29, 2020

Biden’s Energy Plan Abets China

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s climate and energy plans will further the aims of the Chinese government to and harm the U. S. economy and energy system.

Electric Vehicles

Joe Biden’s energy and climate plans will raise the fuel economy mandates for U.S. vehicles in order to promote electric vehicle adoption. China plans to be the world’s leader in manufacturing electric vehicles and batteries. It already makes more than half of the world’s electric vehicle batteries and is a major global supplier of critical elements that are needed to produce those batteries. A single Chinese company is set to dominate the electric vehicle battery market (CATL). Forecasts predict that China will be producing as much as 70 percent of the world’s electric vehicle batteries by 2021.

Source: Wall Street Journal

The Chinese government is highlighting electric vehicles as one of 10 commercial sectors central to its “Made in China” effort to boost advanced industrial technology. Government efforts include spending billions of dollars to subsidize manufacturing of electric vehicles and batteries, and directing businesses and consumers to buy them. Since China controls the supply chains for the minerals and materials necessary to build them, they have reduced the hurdles to their dominance in these areas.

There are currently almost 300 million cars in the United States. If those cars are replaced by electric vehicles, they would each need about a half-ton of batteries. Those batteries need critical materials such as lithium, cobalt, copper, neodymium, and molybdenum and China is currently the global leader in the production and processing of all these materials.

Electric Generation Sector

Biden’s plan to make the U.S. electric generation sector carbon-free by 2035 is essentially a push for more solar and wind farms since new nuclear and carbon capture and sequestration technologies cannot compete economically with federally subsidized and state mandated wind and solar power.

Nearly two-thirds of all solar panel equipment is produced in China. China has been investing in solar power for years, benefiting from its huge manufacturing base and low production costs, which resulted in its becoming the world’s biggest solar power producer. Chinese solar panel manufacturers leveraged that domestic boom and massive government support to dramatically increase their scale. That growth partially coincided with the 2007-8 financial crisis, which left other companies unable to compete, and allowed Chinese companies to capture global market share.

Wind turbines contain rare-earth elements—a group of 17 metals that share certain unique properties including heat resistance and high electrical conductivity. Wind turbine manufacturers Vestas, Siemens Gamesa and General Electric need rare earth elements for permanent-magnet synchronous generators used in wind turbines. Rare earth elements are actually not scarce, but they are very difficult to extract chemically. While rare earth reserves can be found worldwide, China dominates global rare earth production with about 80 to 90 percent market share. They have been developing this capability for decades.

China’s power regarding rare earth elements can be seen from this example. In 2010, China cut the supply of rare-earth elements to Japan over a territorial dispute, violating free trade rules established by the World Trade Organization. The export freeze had repercussions on Japan’s industrial sector and on American companies which rely on Japan for components using rare-earths.

Source: Sustainalytics

Paris Accord

President Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Accord, which he will formally do on November 4, because the agreement that the Obama-Biden Administration reached with China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, was unfair to U.S. citizens and companies. While the Obama/Biden Administration committed the United States to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, China is able to keep increasing its greenhouse gas emissions through 2030. To enable its economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, China is building 250 gigawatts of coal fired units—more than the entire U.S. coal generating fleet today. That will add to the over 1,000 gigawatts of existing coal power China already has that have an average life of just 14 years. Given that coal units can last 40 to 50 years, China will be emitting greenhouse gas emissions for a long time in the future.

The Paris Climate Agreement also allows China to receive grants from the Green Climate Fund as a “developing country.” The Obama-Biden Administration directed $1 billion in U.S. revenue to the fund before President Trump announced a withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden wants to reenter the Paris Accord, which will make it difficult for American firms to compete with China by capping U.S. emissions while allowing China’s emissions to grow.

Oil and Natural Gas

Biden’s plan commands the generation sector, which gets 62 percent of its generation from coal and natural gas, to be carbon-free by 2035 and the entire U.S. energy economy to be carbon-free by 2050. Unless Biden can convince foreign countries to commit to similar mandates (think China), Biden will make fossil fuels cheaper for everyone else, creating a massive rebound effect as foreign emitters capture market share for energy-intensive products at the expense of U.S. firms.

Proven fossil-fuel reserves in the United States are expected to be worth about $5 trillion. If Biden is successful, the value of reserves left in the ground would go to zero immediately, destroying $5 trillion in wealth. Announcing that the fuels will be worthless in a few years would create a race to extract them now, while they still have value, increasing carbon dioxide emissions in the short run.  It would also devalue U.S. energy companies artificially, as command-and-control policies destroy value for those companies who operate in the United States.

While Biden’s mandates may not be even feasible, the government orders to make the U.S. comply will economically harm American businesses and U.S. families. To accomplish these mandates, Biden will use various tools such as a carbon tax, banning drilling on federal lands and waters, banning fracking, and subsidizing as well as mandating renewable energy.

Conclusion

Biden’s climate and energy plans will benefit China and hurt U.S. families and businesses. China is allowed to grow its carbon dioxide emissions under Paris, while Biden will be cutting them here in the United States. The cost will be enormous to Americans, who are trying to recover from the coronavirus pandemic. Unilateral disarmament for our energy producers and a commitment to purchase energy-related products controlled by China are a recipe for American decline, which is what Biden’s plans are expected to do.

The post Biden’s Energy Plan Abets China appeared first on IER.

The Energy Update – Week of October 26, 2020

This week the team highlights a recent article focusing on the impacts of the Coronavirus lockdowns on energy markets, transportation demand, and infrastructure. Plus, get a preview of the latest episode of the Plugged In podcast where the crew weighs in on the election.

Links

• ARTICLE Coronavirus Pandemic Is Clobbering Energy Efficiency Crusade

• PODCAST Unregulated Podcast #9: Tom and Mike Reflect on Trump’s First Term

 

The post The Energy Update – Week of October 26, 2020 appeared first on IER.

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

California and New Jersey Jump on Biden’s Electric Vehicle Bandwagon

New Jersey is following California’s lead in banning the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035 in line with Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden’s push for electric vehicles and a net-zero carbon economy by 2050. Last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order to end the sale of new gasoline and diesel-powered passenger cars in the state by 2035. Recently, New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection called for a ban on gasoline car sales also by 2035. Biden, in his energy plan, pushes electric vehicles stating he would develop “rigorous new fuel economy standards aimed at ensuring 100% of new sales for light- and medium-duty vehicles will be electrified.” These actions are being justified by the states’ authorities under the Clean Air Act, with the states arguing they want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, even though carbon dioxide is not a “criteria pollutant” under the Act.

One Democratic senator has already started the legislative process. Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and four other Democrats introduced legislation that would mandate 100 percent of cars sold in 2035 be electric and 50 percent by 2025. Democrats now want to compel Americans to buy cars they cannot afford or do not want by banning the sale of internal-combustion engines. Since subsidies on electric cars have not worked, Democrats now plan to use government coercion to force them.

It will not be an easy task to change Americans’ desire willingly for internal combustion vehicles where they can select the type of vehicle they need based on cost, range, safety, space, and convenience. Only 1.6 percent of the nation’s vehicles today are electric. While other countries such as Norway are more into electric vehicles because of enormous subsidies and other incentives, Bloomberg expects just 8 percent of the global passenger vehicle fleet to be electric by 2030.

But, if the transportation sector is to stay in line with climate mitigation targets in the Paris Accord, a study found that 90 percent of America’s light-duty cars will need to be electric by 2050, which could mean that all of the nation’s new car sales need to be electric by 2035. The study estimated that if California’s target is adopted nationally, and current trends in car use and ownership continue, 350 million electric vehicles would be on America’s roads in 2050, using up the equivalent of 41 percent of the nation’s total power demand in 2018.

Solar and wind power mandates are already causing congestion problems on the U.S. electric grid. Adding electric vehicle demand to that nationwide, combined with Joe Biden’s plan to make the U.S. grid carbon free by 2035, will make California’s rolling black-outs this past summer hardly noticeable compared to the electricity demand problems that will befall the nation.

New Jersey Policies

New Jersey’s Global Warming Response Act mandates that the state reduce emissions of greenhouse gas by 20 percent below 2006 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 2006 levels by 2050—the 80×50 goal.

In 2019, another law created rebates for electric cars, set a 330,000 sales target for electric vehicles for 2025 and required all state-owned vehicles to be electric by a decade later. New Jersey residents get up to $5,000 off the purchase of an electric vehicle on top of any federal subsidy. The rebates are for vehicles under the price of $55,000 and provides $25 for each mile the car runs on electric power instead of gasoline, up to the $5,000 cap. Under the law signed by New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, the state was to allocate $30 million annually over the next decade for the rebate program, which is funded by a surcharge on customers’ electric and gas bills to pay for New Jersey’s clean-energy program, so people who need electricity in New Jersey but do not have an electric vehicle pay higher rates to reduce the burden on EV drivers. The coronavirus pandemic, however, resulted in $16 million being diverted from the fund. As of June, the New Jersey had about 31,000 zero emission vehicles on the road.

Not to be outdone by a neighboring state, New York State Senator Pete Harckham introduced a bill for New York State’s sales of new cars and trucks to be zero emissions by 2035.

Do States Have the Authority to Enact Such Bans?

Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, California was given special waiver authority to set more stringent air quality standards due to its unique air quality problems and geography, with each standard needing waiver approval from the Environmental Protection Agency. In the 2000’s, California applied for a waiver to impose tailpipe greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards. The waiver was initially denied by the Bush administration, but the denial was reversed by the Obama administration. In addition to the tailpipe GHG waiver, the Obama administration also approved a waiver for California’s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, which requires a certain percentage of cars sold to have zero GHG emissions. The mechanism for Governor Newsom’s ban on sales of gasoline and diesel vehicles is the ZEV program, mandating 100 percent ZEV vehicles by 2035. The Trump administration has revoked both waivers, contending the waivers conflict with other federal laws. A lawsuit is currently before a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. challenging this revocation.

When President Trump revoked California’s waiver, he instituted a single federal emissions standard, which will lower auto prices for consumers, create jobs and safer vehicles, while still lowering emissions.

Conclusion

Biden’s climate and energy plan calls for vehicle electrification and carbon free energy by 2050, with a carbon free grid by 2035. Some states are now instituting bans on sales of gasoline and diesel vehicles, which they may not have the authority to mandate since they conflict with federal laws. Such bans will result in higher prices for automobiles and restrict consumers’ ability to find vehicles that suit their needs regarding space, safety, performance, and refueling capability. Biden’s climate and energy plans are extremely radical and will result in a very expensive and complicated transition for consumers and taxpayers.

The post California and New Jersey Jump on Biden’s Electric Vehicle Bandwagon appeared first on IER.

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Solar energy education opportunities expand for Coloradans through Kenneth King Foundation Scholarships

Paonia, Colo., October 27, 2020 – Solar Energy International (SEI) and the Kenneth King Foundation announced today their partnership with support from GRID Alternatives Colorado to provide underserved Coloradans scholarships for solar skills job training, as well as performance-based stipends and support services to reduce the financial burden of pursuing career training and job placement support. 14 Coloradans living in the Denver Metro area will be eligible to receive 100% scholarship assistance, career resources, professional development, and job placement support between October 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021 to help facilitate their professional development and eventual entry into the solar energy workforce.

Focused on improving Coloradans lives with access to meaningful employment, Kenneth King Foundation scholarships have emerged as a beacon of hope amidst a sea of troubling times, with the goal of removing barriers to employment and empowering soon-to-be solar energy experts with the necessary training and support to join a growing and secure solar workforce.

“Working with the Kenneth King Foundation is empowering Solar Energy International (SEI) to really invest in our students and get them on a path to success. We are so grateful for their support. We’re also thrilled to work with GRID Alternatives Colorado, who will lead the way in offering wrap-around service to students, from securing work clothes to applying for benefits,” said Marla Korpar, Development Director at SEI.

Those looking to apply for scholarship funding must be Coloradans living in the Denver Metro area on the verge of, formerly or currently homeless, unemployed, previously incarcerated, immigrants, refugees, single parents, low-income families, justice involved individuals, and or people with disabilities.

“The Kenneth King Foundation is proud to support SEI and GRID Alternatives Colorado as they open pathways towards livable wage jobs in tomorrow’s economy,” said Janice Fritsch, President at The Kenneth King Foundation.

Selected candidates will be awarded tuition funds and support services to cover SEI’s online training and find meaningful employment in the solar industry.

“The partnership between SEI, GRID, and the Kenneth King Foundation will afford top-notch solar education and career support for folks who have historically been the least likely to access it. We’re looking forward to clean energy careers being catalyzed through this holistic effort,” said Brittany Heller, Workforce & Community Engagement Manager at GRID CO.

For more information and to apply for a Kenneth King Foundation Scholarship, visit: https://www.solarenergy.org/scholarship-funds/

 

About Solar Energy International (SEI)
Solar Energy International (SEI) was founded in 1991 as a nonprofit educational organization with a vision of a world powered by renewable energy. As a leader in solar PV training worldwide, SEI is dedicated to building the global solar energy workforce. SEI has trained 80,000+ solar professionals from 145 countries worldwide who have been involved with over 10% of the world’s installed solar capacity to date. For more information, visit https://www.solarenergy.org.

About Kenneth King Foundation
Established in 1990, the Kenneth King Foundation is a private, grant-making organization. Located in Denver, Colorado, the Foundation’s mission is to perpetuate and expand the humanitarian principles developed by their late founder, Kenneth King. Today, they support organizations that provide basic needs, create jobs, and foster entrepreneurship. For more information, visit https://www.kennethkingfoundation.org.

About GRID Alternatives Colorado
GRID Alternatives Colorado is an affiliate of GRID Alternatives, a national leader in renewable energy technology and job training accessible to underserved communities. Using a unique, people-first model, GRID Colorado develops and implements solar projects that serve qualifying households and affordable housing providers, while providing hands-on job training. GRID Colorado has installed over 7.5 MW of solar to date and helped households and housing providers save $27 million in lifetime electricity costs, while training over 1,400 people. For more information, visit www.gridalternatives.org/colorado.

###

Media Contacts
Marla Korpar: marla@solarenergy.org | 970-527-7657 x208
Brittany Heller: bheller@gridalternatives.org | 720-943-5174

Monday, October 26, 2020

Biden Plan Rids the United States of Oil and Gas

In his debate with President Trump on October 22, Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden said he would rid the nation of oil and gas—“over time, over time”. Biden’s costly and radical energy transition from oil and natural gas to renewable energy would hurt the U.S. economy, put the United States on a path to third-world status, subject the nation to rolling blackouts as the nation saw in California this past summer, lose American jobs to offshore countries, and help China to prosper more than ever for the Chinese control the supply chain for the critical metals that the United States needs for solar, wind, and electric vehicles. Biden’s transition is reminiscent of Germany’s Energiewende, or energy transition to renewable energy, where Germans are already paying three times the amount for residential electricity as U.S. homeowners.

After admitting to a desire for the elimination of the oil industry, Biden tried to back-pedal by saying, “because it has to be replaced by renewable energy over time, over time, and I’d stopped giving to the oil industry, I’d stop giving them federal subsidies. You won’t get federal subsidies to the gas, oh, excuse me to solar and wind.”

Tax Deductions vs. Tax Credits (Subsidies)

The Institute for Energy Research has explained the difference between the tax deductions that the oil and gas industry gets and the subsidies that the wind and solar industry gets numerous times and most recently here.  The tax credits that wind and solar receive were to spur the advent of young industries. The wind and solar industries are now decades old and should be able to advance without continued support from lawmakers.

The oil and gas industry receive tax deductions, not credits that are mainly targeted to small independent oil and natural gas producers, rather than the major integrated oil companies. One of the tax deductions is provided to all U.S. manufacturing firms, not just oil and gas producers, while the others are for typical business deductions in the tax code akin to research and development costs available to all industries.

Tax credits are something quite different.  In the case of wind, producers are literally paid by taxpayers to produce energy, whether it is needed or not. For solar, taxpayers assume a percentage of the capital cost of the systems. These are dollar-for-dollar credits against taxes owed, rather than deductions, which allow for tax obligations to be reduced by whatever tax rate applies.

The advantages and disadvantages of these incentives vary greatly in terms of benefits—revenues to the government, employment, and energy contribution. The small tax benefits available to oil and gas producers pale in comparison to the vast sums of taxpayer money being handed to wind and solar generators, especially when compared to the relative amounts of energy they produce. After billions of dollars to the wind and solar industries, the U.S. economy gets less than 4 percent of its energy from wind and solar, compared to 69 percent from natural gas and oil. And, wood produces more than twice the energy solar does.

Biden on Fracking 

At the debate, Biden said, “I do rule out banning fracking because the answer we need, we need other industries to transition, to get to ultimately a complete zero emissions by 2025. What I will do with fracking over time is make sure that we can capture the emissions from the fracking, capture the emissions from gas. We can do that and we can do that by investing money in doing it, but it’s a transition to that.”

Biden appears to have upped his zero emissions economy by 25 years from 2050 to 2025. It would be hard enough and extremely costly to achieve that goal by 2050, much less 25 years sooner.

But rather than dwell on his flub, let’s look at his continued confusion about fracking. In March 2020, in his debate with Bernie Sanders, Bidden said that he would ban new hydraulic fracturing, without qualifying it to federal lands, which he later tried to do. Biden back-tracked on the ban when campaigning in Pennsylvania because the state uses fracking mostly on private lands to produce natural gas. Pennsylvania’s economy runs on energy. The state is the nation’s second-largest producer of natural gas, third-largest producer of coal, 16th-largest producer of crude oil, and third-largest producer of electricity, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Biden added, for the first time, that he wants to capture the emissions from fracking. To do that he needs a technology called carbon capture and sequestration. A recent study showed that only 6 percent of existing coal and natural gas industrial and power plants could qualify for the current tax credit and economically retrofit to the carbon capture and sequestration technology. That is, only 418 U.S. facilities from over 6,500 could make the transition. Who is Biden trying to kid.

Solar and Wind Energy Jobs

Biden stated, “By the way, the fastest growing industry in America is the electric, excuse me, solar energy and wind…It’s the fastest growing jobs and they pay good prevailing wages, 45, 50 bucks an hour.”

While solar and wind energy, on a capacity basis, are the fastest growing industries in the electric sector, they only provided a combined 9 percent of generation in 2019 after decades of subsidies compared to coal and natural gas that provide 62 percent of generation. Wind and solar are intermittent technologies and generate electricity only when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining, regardless of whether electricity demand is high or low. This means that wind does not have much capacity value; it cannot be dispatched on an as-needed basis as coal, nuclear and natural gas technologies can. Thus, wind and solar get preferential treatment when they are available so that state mandates can be met and their industries can receive tax credits, which in the case of wind, literally pays them to generate electricity, regardless of whether the generation is needed at that time.

In reality, Biden’s proposed transition from oil and gas to renewable energy would result in lower pay for blue-collar workers and possibly lower benefits as well. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2019, the median annual pay for petroleum engineers was $137,210—three times that for solar panel installers ($44,890) and 2.6 times higher than the average salary for a wind turbine technician ($52,910). Even petroleum pump system operators and refinery operators ($72,570) made more than solar and wind technicians by 40 to 60 percent.

Assuming that solar and wind employees work 40 hour weeks over 52 weeks of the year and using the above salaries, solar installers would make $21.58 an hour and wind turbine technicians would make $25.44 an hour—twice what Biden is boasting his plan would produce. Plus, he would disrupt families, forcing them to move and the breadwinners to retrain for an entirely different work force.

Conclusion

Biden, if elected, would ruin America’s energy system, force the country toward third-world status, and hand China supremacy with its command of the critical elements needed for renewable energy technology, weapons, cell phones, and other technologies. Americans have a choice to keep the nation’s low cost and abundant energy resources fueling the U.S. economy or making a costly and radical transition to an energy future that some countries have tried only to see their follies.

The post Biden Plan Rids the United States of Oil and Gas appeared first on IER.

HTTPS Is Table Stakes for SEO in 2020

Posted by Dr-Pete

Back in the spring of 2017, I wrote that HTTPS results made up half of page-one Google organic URLs. In over three years, I haven't posted an update, which might lead you to believe that nothing changed. The reality is that a whole lot changed, but it changed so gradually that there was never a single event or clear "a-ha!" moment to write about.

Now, in the fall of 2020, HTTPS URLs make up 98% of page-one organic results in the MozCast 10,000-keyword tracking set. Here's the monthly growth since April 2017:

There was a bump in HTTPS after October 2017, when Google announced that Chrome would be displaying more warnings to users for non-secure forms, but otherwise forward momentum has been fairly steady. While browsers have continued to raise the stakes, there have been no announced or measured algorithm updates regarding HTTPS.

I scoff at your data!

So, why am I writing this update now? While the MozCast 10,000-keyword set is well-suited for tracking long-term trends (as it's consistent over time and has a long history), the data is focused on page-one, desktop results and is intentionally skewed toward more competitive terms.

Recently, I've been gifted access to our anonymized STAT ranking data — 7.5M keywords across desktop and mobile. Do these trends hold across devices, more pages, and more keywords?

The table above is just the page-one data. Across a much larger data set, the prevalence of HTTPS URLs on page one is very similar to MozCast and nearly identical across desktop and mobile. Now, let's expand to the top 50 organic results (broken up into groups of ten) ...

Even at the tail end of the top 50 organic results, more than 92% of URLs are HTTPS. There does seem to be a pattern of decline in HTTPS prevalence, with more non-secure URLs ranking deeper in Google results, but the prevalence of HTTPS remains very high even on page five of results.

Does this increase in HTTPS prevalence at the top of the rankings suggest that HTTPS is a ranking factor? Not by itself — it's possible that more authoritative sites tend to be more sensitive to perceived security and have more budget to implement it. However, we know Google has stated publicly that HTTPS is a "lightweight ranking signal", and this data seems to support that claim.

You can't make me switch!

I don't know why you're being so combative, but no, I can't really make you do anything. If you're not convinced that HTTPS is important when 97-98% of the top ten organic results have it, I'm not sure what's left to say. Of course, that's not going to stop me from talking some more.

When we focus on rankings, we sometimes ignore core relevance (this is a challenge in large-scale ranking studies). For example, having relevant keywords on your page isn't going to determine whether you win at rankings, but it's essential to ranking at all. It's table stakes — you can't even join the game without relevant keywords. The same goes for HTTPS in 2020 — it's probably not going to determine whether you rank #1 or #10, but it is going to determine whether you rank at all. Without a secure site, expect the bouncer to send you home.

As importantly, Google has made major changes around HTTPS/SSL in the Chrome browser, increasingly warning visitors if your site isn't secure. Even if you're still lucky enough to rank without HTTPS URLs, you're going to be providing a poor user experience to a lot of visitors.

There's not much left between 97% and 100%, and not many blog posts left to write about this particular trend. If you're not taking HTTPS/SSL seriously in 2020, this is your final wake-up call. 


Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

Friday, October 23, 2020

Biden Professes Support for Carbon Capture, But There Is a Problem

According to Democratic Presidential Candidate Biden’s plan, he will focus on “capturing carbon dioxide from power plant exhausts followed by sequestering it deep underground or using it make alternative products.” However, out of the 6,586 industrial and power plants in the United States, only 418 facilities that qualify for credits are capable of supplying carbon dioxide cheaply enough for carbon sequestration. That is only 6 percent of the U.S. industrial and electric power base. Limitations to qualifying include:

  • Access to a geologic storage site or a pipeline that could reach a site.
  • The projected cost of capture, which ranges from less than $20 a ton for ethanol and natural gas processing plants to $59 a ton for a steel mill.

The formations that could hold sufficient carbon dioxide are mostly located in a broad area from Montana through Texas to Louisiana, with small clusters in the Great Lakes area. Although there are a few existing carbon dioxide pipelines, most of the infrastructure would have to be built, and shorter lines would be cheaper to both build and operate.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration

Carbon capture and sequestration refers to a set of technologies that can reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal- and natural gas-fired power plants and large industrial sources. It consists of a three-step process that includes:

  • Capture of carbon dioxide from power plants or industrial processes
  • Transport of the captured and compressed carbon dioxide usually in pipelines
  • Underground injection and geologic sequestration (storage) of the carbon dioxide into deep underground rock formations. The formations are often a mile or more beneath the surface and consist of porous rock that holds the carbon dioxide. Overlying these formations are impermeable, non-porous layers of rock that trap the carbon dioxide and prevent it being released.

Tax Credit for Carbon Capture and Sequestration

The Internal Revenue Code offers tax credits for the sequestration of carbon dioxide at around $30 per metric ton and increasing to $50 per metric ton by 2026 for carbon dioxide that is locked away in geologic strata and a smaller tax credit for carbon dioxide that is pumped into petroleum wells to enhance their production of oil. That tax credit was passed by Congress in 2018.

The IRS code also limits the kinds of facilities that could claim a credit. Electric generating facilities have to capture at least 500,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, while an industrial facility like a steel mill or ammonia plant would need to capture 100,000 metric tons. According to a recent analysis of the near-term potential of carbon sequestration from a total of 6,586 industrial and power plants in the United States, about 1,500 facilities meet the threshold. Those 1,500 plants were screened, “based on facility operation, production, energy use, heat rate, and other factors,” to find those that would be capable of delivering carbon dioxide to a viable storage site in the near and medium-term.

 

Source: https://www.memagazinedigital.org/memagazine/september_2020/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1616141&app=false&cmsId=3839870#articleId1616141

The following is a list of the 418 plants by type that qualify for the tax credit and are projected to be capable of economically reducing carbon dioxide emissions by carbon capture and sequestration. The study was performed by Dane McFarlane and Elizabeth Abramson of the Great Plains Institute, a Minneapolis-based non-profit, and economist Jeffrey Brown of the Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute.

 

Source: https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/looking-for-capturable-carbon

Conclusion

Joe Biden is planning for a carbon-free electric sector by 2035 and a carbon-free economy by 2050 and to do so he needs to remove the 63 percent of U.S. generation that comes from coal, natural gas and petroleum by 2035 and the 63 percent of the industrial sector’s direct use of these fossil fuels by 2050. But, to do so, he will have to replace most of the current fossil fuel technology with renewable energy—mostly wind and solar—because only 6 percent of current facilities will be able to economically retrofit with carbon capture and sequestration technology given the current tax credit. That will be an enormous transition because the current technology in most cases is operable for many more decades. Not only will Biden charge taxpayers for the tax credit and other stimulus money to jump start the transition, but the companies that can survive such a massive change will need to charge Americans more for the goods that they produce, and those goods may be uncompetitive with those from places like China that play lip service to carbon dioxide reductions.  As a result, more Americans will probably be faced with energy poverty and fewer jobs.

The post Biden Professes Support for Carbon Capture, But There Is a Problem appeared first on IER.

Coronavirus Pandemic Is Clobbering Energy Efficiency

The worldwide economic downturn caused by the coronavirus pandemic is having widespread effects on investments in the energy sector. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), estimated investment in energy efficiency and end-use applications is expected to fall by 10 to15 percent this year as vehicle sales and construction activity weaken and spending on more efficient appliances and equipment is scaled back. Consumers are looking to pay their bills and to return to a more normal life.

That normal life may be a bit different after the pandemic is over, for consumer patterns are also changing. Consumers are leery about using public transportation. They are driving alone and many are purchasing used vehicles rather than the more efficient new cars on the market. Homeowners have delayed retrofits because they are leery of close contact with strangers that might be potential carriers of the coronavirus. Buildings are sitting empty because employees are working from home, but they are still consuming energy. Aviation connoisseurs are considering taking flights to nowhere so that they can stay home but still enjoy the thrill of a plane ride.

Transportation

Car ownership has become more popular during the pandemic, even in unlikely places like Manhattan where $400 a month is considered a “cheap price” for an indoor garage space. The New York State D.M.V. processed 73,933 original car registrations in the five New York City boroughs over June and July–an 18 percent increase over the 62,507 registrations from the same time last year. For many new car owners, cars represent freedom to travel to the beach, the countryside, or even a grocery store with a parking lot.

Ridership on commuter systems is way down but they are still operating and consuming energy. Ridership on commuter rails that bring white-collar workers into urban areas has plummeted by as much as 97 percent, while ridership on rail systems dropped by 90 percent. Municipal buses, where riders have less options, experienced a lesser drop—closer to two-thirds. About 27 percent of the college-educated workers in New York City reside outside the five boroughs, and if they will not take buses when they return to working at city businesses, the city will be faced with huge congestion issues.

Some metro areas have public relations campaigns to coax people back. For example, the Washington, D.C. Metro is providing individually wrapped face masks at stations, after receiving about one million masks from the federal government.

Buildings

Large buildings are almost empty as employees work at home, but the buildings are still consuming energy for heating and cooling, and they are cycling more outdoor air into ventilation systems. Some building operators are running their ventilation systems more frequently and with more outdoor air to ensure better air flow to fight the coronavirus, which could double or even triple energy use. Despite virtually all major U.S. cities having locked down in April and May with empty offices, energy consumption by commercial buildings declined by only 15 percent,

Restaurants are using outdoor heaters to warm the air as patrons prefer outdoor dining and/or local governments are limiting seating in indoor dining areas. Almost 50 percent of full-service restaurants are planning to extend outdoor dining seasons, including patio heaters, according to a survey by the National Restaurant Association. Other businesses, like ski lodges, are also buying more outdoor heaters. Heating outdoor patios is a new, non-trivial cost for businesses. The most popular energy source is propane, a liquid gas that comes from crude oil and natural gas, because the heater is freestanding and can be moved around more easily than electric heaters. One estimate is that restaurants in New York City using outdoor heaters consume about 1,600 barrels of propane a day. Approximately 100,000 barrels of propane are typically used for commercial uses throughout the entire United States. Paraco, a New York-based propane company, has increased its sales of fuel tanks from 100,000 per month to 250,000 tanks to New York City and surrounding areas. A big-box store that sells patio heaters indicated sales were up 1,500 percent.

Most schools are operating at least partially, virtually. In-person schools had an efficient teacher/student ratio of about 1 to 23. Ad hoc virtual schools have a ratio closer to 1 to 1. School buildings while only a fraction full are consuming energy as are the homes that students are in while studying virtually. Some states (e.g., California) are retrofitting school HVAC systems to make them safer from COVID contamination and to make them more energy efficient.

Cuts to Energy Efficiency Programs

Revenues for energy efficiency programs are being cut to help consumers pay bills. In Missouri, the Office of the Public Counsel recommended that the state’s regulators cut the charge on customers’ bills that funds energy efficiency programs as a way to ease the financial burden on customers dealing with economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic. In Ohio, the state’s consumer advocate suggested that utility efficiency program funds be diverted to bill payment programs.

Issues with Efficiency Programs

Savings from energy efficiency programs are often inflated because of free riders and the rebound effect. “Free riders” are customers that receive rebates for upgrades they would have made anyway, which are generally paid by federal and local governments. It is considered an example of a market failure. It is an inefficient distribution of goods or services that occurs when individuals pay less than their fair share of the costs.

The rebound effect occurs when efficiency improvements result in additional energy use due mainly to lower energy costs. For example, when a consumer buys a more efficient vehicle, the cost to fill the tank goes down so the vehicle owner ends up driving more negating some of the savings from the increased efficiency of the vehicle.

Conclusion

Energy efficiency improvements are on the decline as consumers fear close contact with potential coronavirus carriers. Consumer habits have also changed as work at home becomes the national norm to the extent that jobs allow. Traveling habits are changing as Americans are purchasing cars rather than use public transit. Air travelers are taking rides to nowhere. Commercial buildings, despite being devoid of workers, are still consuming energy and increasing ventilation. New sources of energy use have sprung up as restaurants and other areas are heating the outdoors to make patrons more comfortable. States are looking at ways to help consumers pay bills by cutting energy efficiency programs.

Despite these changes in energy efficiency investment and consumer habits, Democratic Presidential Candidate Biden has plans to radically change the U.S. energy system that will make energy more expensive, create new taxes for consumers to reduce fossil energy use, and push Americans into public transportation that they are currently escaping from. Biden needs a reality check—the American public is not in tune with his future plans. They want to recover from the hardship of the pandemic.

The post Coronavirus Pandemic Is Clobbering Energy Efficiency appeared first on IER.

4 Google My Business Fields That Impact Ranking (and 3 That Don't) — Whiteboard Friday

Posted by JoyHawkins

With so many customization options in your Google My Business profile, it can be tough to decide what to focus on. But when it comes to ranking on the SERP, there are actually only four GMB fields that influence where your business will land. 

In this brand new Whiteboard Friday, MozCon speaker and owner/founder of Sterling Sky, Joy Hawkins, takes us through the fields she and her team has found do (and do not) effect rankings.

4 GMB fields that impact ranking

Click on the whiteboard image above to open a high resolution version in a new tab!

Video Transcription

Hello, Moz fans. My name is Joy Hawkins, and today I'm going to be talking about which Google My Business fields impact ranking in the local pack. At my agency, Sterling Sky, we do a lot of testing to try and figure out what things actually influence ranking and what things do not.

We've come to the conclusion that there are only four things inside the Google My Business dashboard that a business owner or a marketing agency can edit that will have a direct influence on where they rank in the local results on Google. 

1. Business name

So to start us out, I'm going to start with the first thing that we found has impacted ranking, which is the business name. Now this is one that's kind of frustrating because I don't think it should have so much of an influence, but it does.

This year in the local search ranking factors study I actually put this as my number one. Of all the things that influence ranking, this one, in my experience, has the most weight, which is again unfortunate. So as a business owner, obviously you're thinking, "I can't really change my business name very easily". If you do happen to have a keyword rich business name, you will see an advantage there.

But the real action item would be to kind of look to see if your competitors are taking advantage of this by adding descriptive words into their business name and then submitting corrections to Google for it, because it is against the guidelines. So I'm not saying go out there and add a whole bunch of keywords to your business name on Google. Don't do that. But you should keep an eye on your competitors just to see if they're doing this, and if they are, you can report it to Google using the Google business complaint redressal form.

Now one thing that's kind of a tip here — it has nothing to do with Google — but we've seen the same thing on Bing, which doesn't get talked about a whole lot, but on Bing you're actually allowed to have descriptors in your business name, so go ahead and do it there. 

No impact: Q&A

Now I'm going to switch over to something that we found has not influenced ranking at all, which is Q&A. I kind of shoved it over to the section over there because it's not actually in the dashboard currently. There isn't a Q&A section in there, but it is on the knowledge panel on Google, and it is something that you should get an email alert about if somebody posts a question to your listing. 

So we did a bunch of testing on Q&A and found, despite putting random keywords and very specific things in questions that we posted and also in the answers, there was no measurable impact on ranking.

So, unfortunately, that is not one area where you can kind of manipulate ranking for your clients. 

2. Categories

Moving on to the second thing that we have found influences ranking — categories. Categories might sound kind of simple, because you go and you pick your categories. 

There are 10 that you can add on there, but one thing I want to point out is that Google has around 4,000 categories currently, and they keep adding categories, and then they also sometimes remove them.

So we have been tracking this month over month, and we usually find that there are about two to 10 (on average) changes every month to the categories. Sometimes they add ones that didn't exist before. For example, we found in the last year there have been a lot of restaurant categories added as well as auto dealer categories. But there are also some industries like dentists, for example, that got a new one a couple of months ago for dental implants.

So it is something that you want to kind of keep track of, and hopefully we will have a resource published soon where we can actually log all of the changes for you. 

No impact: services

Now moving on to another thing that does not impact ranking, we'll move over here to services

So the services section — at first glance it looks like an SEO dream. You can put all kinds of descriptive words in there. You can tell Google a lot about the different services you offer.

But we have found that whatever you put there has no actual bearing on where you rank. So it's not something I would spend a lot time on. Also, it's not very visible. Currently it's not really visible on desktop at all. Then if you go onto a mobile device, it's kind of hidden off to a tab. It's not something we have found really has a lot of weight, so spend a few minutes on it, but it's not something I would revisit quite often.

3. Website

Then moving back to the things that do impact ranking, number three would be the website field

So this is something where you do want to kind of think and possibly even test what page on your website to link your Google My Business listing to. Often people link to the homepage, which is fine. But we have also found with multi-location businesses sometimes it is better to link to a location page.

So you do want to kind of test that out. If you're a business that has lots of different listings — like you have departments or you have practitioner listings — you also want to try and make sure that you link those to different pages on your site, to kind of maximize your exposure and make sure that you're just not trying to rank all the listings for the same thing, because that won't happen. They'll just get filtered. So that is a section that I would definitely suggest doing some testing on and see what works best for you and your industry.

No impact: products

Now moving on to something that we have found did not impact rankings — products

So this is a feature that Google launched within I think about a year or so ago. It's available on most listings. They are actually slowly rolling it out at the moment to all listings with the exception of a few categories that don't have it. This section is kind of cool because it's very visual.

If you're a business that offers products or even if you offer services, you can technically list them in this section with photos. One of the neat things about the products section is that they are very visible on the knowledge panel on both desktop and on mobile. So it is something you want to fill out, but unfortunately we have found it doesn't impact ranking. However, it does have an impact on conversions for certain industries.

So if you're a business like a florist or a car dealer, it definitely makes sense to fill out that section and keep it up to date based on what products you're currently offering. 

4. Reviews

Then moving back to the final thing that we found: number four for what influences ranking would be reviews (which is probably not going to be shocking to most of you). But we have found that review quantity does make an impact on ranking.

But that being said, we've also found that it has kind of diminishing returns. So for example, if you're a business and you go from having no reviews to, let's say, 20 or 30 reviews, you might start to see your business rank further away from your office, which is great. But if you go from, let's say, 30 to 70, you may not see the same lift. So that's something to kind of keep in mind. 

But there are lots of reasons as a business, obviously, why you want to focus on reviews, and we do see that they actually have a direct impact on ranking.

There was an article that I wrote a couple of years ago that is still relevant, on Search Engine Land, that talks about the changes that I saw when a whole bunch of businesses lost reviews and just watching how their ranking actually dropped within a 24 to 48-hour period. So that is still true and still relevant, but it's something that I would also keep in mind when you're coming up with a strategy for your business.

Conclusion

So in summary, the four things that you need to remember that you can actually utilize inside Google My Business to influence your ranking: first is the business name, second would be the categories, third would be the website field, and finally the review section on Google. 

Thanks for listening. If you have any questions, please hit me up in the comments.


Ready for more?

You'll uncover even more SEO goodness in the MozCon 2020 video bundle. At this year's special low price of $129, this is invaluable content you can access again and again throughout the year to inspire and ignite your SEO strategy:

  • 21 full-length videos from some of the brightest minds in digital marketing
  • Instant downloads and streaming to your computer, tablet, or mobile device
  • Downloadable slide decks for presentations

Get my MozCon 2020 video bundle


Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

Thursday, October 22, 2020

The Energy Update – Week of October 19, 2020

This week the team highlights recent articles focusing on recent developments in American energy including new LNG infrastructure in Pennsylvania and recent executive orders on offshore development from the Trump administration.

Links

• ARTICLE Pennsylvania/New Jersey LNG Export Project

• ARTICLE Trump’s Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling in Southern States Also Restricts Offshore Wind

 

The post The Energy Update – Week of October 19, 2020 appeared first on IER.

Pebble Mine Could Reduce Dependence on China for Critical Metals

China dominates the supply chain for minerals critical to modern technology—weapons, batteries, cell phones, wind turbines, inverters, and numerous other technologies. Recently, President Trump signed an executive order declaring a national emergency and authorizing the use of the Defense Production Act to speed the development of critical minerals—the same law he used earlier to speed the production of medical supplies during the coronavirus pandemic. Luckily, President Trump has taken action for it takes about 10 years to set up a mine, which is only one step in the process. The processing of these resources into the materials needed to produce the final products is another major step that China also dominates. China gained its dominant position because of the abundance of critical metals in China, the country’s lax environmental laws that make it much easier and less costly to mine and process them, and through subsidizing their production and processing.

Source: Wall Street Journal

At one time, the United States was the world’s biggest producer of rare earth elements—35 minerals the U.S. government has deemed critical to economic and national security—and the technology to process them. However, only one producing mine in California and no processing plants remain in the United States due to the high cost of environmental regulations in this country, which makes it difficult to compete. President Trump’s executive order calls for an assessment of our dependence on China for critical minerals, and allows for grants and loans to start production and processing as well as imposing tariffs and quotas on imports from China.

Since 2017, the U.S. government has funded some projects. The Defense Department is part-funding the development of a processing facility at a mine in California, and also is supporting a separation plant in Texas. The U.S. Geological Survey invested around $30 million in critical minerals research.

Source: Must Read Alaska

Pebble Mine, Alaska

A new mine with extensive resources is awaiting a federal permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to begin construction in Southwest Alaska. Pebble Mine is one of the largest undeveloped reserves of coppermolybdenum, and gold in the world. Its mineral deposits also include silver and other critical metallic minerals such as pyrite, chalcopyrite, molybdenite, bornite, covellite, chalcocite, digenite, and magnetite. Pebble’s copper production is expected to average 318 million pounds a year, which could supply as much as 25 percent of our country’s copper needs over the next century. It is also expected to produce 14 million pounds of molybdenum, 362,000 ounces of gold, and 1.8 million ounces of silver per year. The Pebble Mine contains billions of pounds of rare earth elements. It is rich in two important rare minerals—palladium and rhenium, containing enough rhenium to supply the entire world’s needs for nearly half a century. Rhenium is used in the construction of military jet engines and as a catalyst in high-octane fuel combustion.

The Pebble Mine was proposed decades ago and is located in a remote winderness, in 20 square miles of Southwest Alaska. The first discovery of mineral deposits was made in 1988 by Cominco Alaska. The mine was later acquired by Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd in 2001. Over the next six years, the company did extensive environmental data collection, and geotechnical and engineering studies. In 2007, the project was placed under the Pebble Limited Partnership, which continued resource development exploration and began reaching out to the local villages, businesses, tribal elders, and other constituents. By 2013, it had held hundreds of meetings in the communities providing open forums and fostering public input in the planning of the project. By 2015, before the permitting process began, the Pebble Partnership spent over $750 million in exploratory and environmental studies. In July 2020, a final Environmental Impact Statement for the project and a record of decision were published, which incorporated public and agency comments.

Along with the Army Corps of Engineers, the project is awaiting U.S. Coast Guard permits for bridge construction, biological assessment consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the completion of the pipeline right-of-way from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. During construction, Alaska is expected to receive $25 million in annual state taxes, and during operation, $84 million in annual state taxes and royalties and $27 million in annual severances taxes.  The Pebble Mine is located on State of Alaska-owned lands.

In 2014, the Obama administration blocked the mine’s development based upon potential environmental issues. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden says he will stop the mine’s development, despite needing these critical metals for his climate and energy plans. That would mean the United States would remain dependent on China for critical components of much of our technology needs, including weaponry.

Conclusion

The Pebble Mine could be a valuable source of critical metals, which are needed for the construction of numerous technologies, many of which are part of Biden’s climate and energy plans and our currently necessary for our military defense needs. China dominates the world in both resources and in the processing of the ore into useable form because of its lax environmental regulations and high-level of subsidization. Due to the long time it takes to develop a mine (at least 10 years) and to develop processing plants, the United States needs to start immediately for we are already decades behind China. President Trump has taken action through executive orders, but Joe Biden could nix the opportunity as the Obama Administration did, claiming environmental issues. Thus, the United States could be dependent on China for these critical metals for a very long time if Joe Biden is elected.

The post Pebble Mine Could Reduce Dependence on China for Critical Metals appeared first on IER.