From: edmhdotme

By: Ed Hoskins

Date: April 27, 2025

Comparing Power Generation Technologies

Introduction

The Industrial Revolution and the exploitation of fossil fuels has provided and can continue to provide an ample supply of abundant energy for Mankind.  Fossil fuels have advanced the quality of life and prosperity particularly of the Western world over the past 2 centuries.  There remains a very large proportion of the Global population who are yet to see similar benefits and the same advances to their wellbeing.

Nonetheless, in spite of the rapid growth in the Global population there has still been a progressive advance of the well-being of Man-kind with the reduction of poverty levels and climate related losses worldwide.

Green Thinking is now a major obstruction to the availability of abundant energy.  At the same time Western Nations in tackling their idea that there is a Climate emergency and by promoting the concept of  “Net Zero“,  try to demonstrate their “Virtue” by demonising Carbon Dioxide as pollutant.  

This has to be nonsensical as atmospheric CO2 is the essential Gas upon which all life-on-Earth depends.

This posts collates, summarises and illustrates the performance characteristics of the different power generation technologies in a unified visual format.

 
Considerations in this post

This post considers the following power generation technologies:

• Onshore Wind
• Offshore Wind
• Solar PV on grid
• Gas-fired CCGT
• Advanced Nuclear
• Biomass
• Coal / Lignite
• Hydro + Pumped.

This post provides illustrated comparisons between these power generation technologies from the following points of view:

• Energy Return on Energy Investment, ERoEI ratio
• Achieved productivity / capacity percentages
  • Mass of installations required for a comparable power output: tonnes / GW
  • Non-fuel CO2 emissions embedded in various generation technologies:  tonnes / GW
  • CO2 emissions from Fossil fuels
  • Land Usage for comparable power output:  sqkm / GW
  • Estimated construction times for power generators
  • Approximate service life of generation installations
• Cost effectiveness comparisons between generation technologies:  $bn / GW
• Excess expenditures on Weather-Dependent Renewables in Europe:  $bn / GW (continue reading)

Comparing Power Generation Technologies

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for identifying air, soil and water pollutants which can be harmful to human health and safety, determining the exposure levels at which those pollutants become harmful to human health and establishing and administering regulations which limit the emissions of those pollutants to maintain safe exposure levels.

The control levels for each pollutant are established in many cases by analyzing studies of populations which have been exposed to the pollutant and have manifested adverse health effects. These studies are a sensitive issue because they involve the collection of data on individuals including family history, personal health history, personal habits, exposure frequency and duration, specific adverse impacts and their severity. This information is required to be secured by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA) to prevent uncontrolled and unnecessary access to protected health information.

These studies are frequently referred to as “secret science” because EPA has been unwilling to share access to more than the reported results of the studies. During the first Trump Administration, EPA  issued the “secret science rule” which required scientists to disclose their raw data and confidential medical records for their results to be used in developing agency regulations. This rule was later vacated by a federal court.

This should not have been an issue since coding the medical records to protect the names of the study subjects would avoid the release of protected personal data while allowing access to the detailed information about the subject relative to the study objectives. Analysts assessing the validity of the study have no need for nor interest in the names of the study subjects. Alternatively, the analysts could be subjected to the same Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) as the scientists who conducted the study and analyzed its results.

The primary concerns regarding secret science are the statistical validity of the studies’ conclusions and of the emissions limits established by EPA based on those conclusions. This is a particular concern because EPA tends to attempt to apply the concept of Linear No Threshold hypothesis, which holds that any exposure greater than zero increases the risk of adverse effects, even in the case of low dose and limited exposure. This approach to regulation leads to very restrictive emissions limits which can result in very high compliance costs or the inability to comply.

This issue is of specific concern regarding climate science because the conclusions of numerous climate studies and numerous climate related health studies have been determined to be invalid or the reported adverse effects statistically insignificant because of improper study structure or scope and inaccurate or improper statistical analysis of the results. These issues have led to the issuance of overly restrictive regulations which have imposed unnecessary and excessive costs on affected industries.

This issue is of special concern regarding climate because the resulting regulations are based not on measured, statistically valid studies of actual effects, but rather on projections of potential future adverse effects based on the outputs of unverified and unvalidated climate models.

From: Cornwall Alliance

By: David Legates

Date: February 28, 2025

Hydrogen Energy: Not Clean, Not Green, and Not Cheap

If only it were that simple!

Hydrogen. The first element in the Periodic Table and the most abundant element in the Universe. It is also the simplest element—the most common isotope has only one proton and one electron. It has been called the “Future of Energy”; after all, the Sun relies on hydrogen to keep emitting light and, if it is good enough for our Sun, why isn’t it good enough for us?

No doubt you have heard all the clamor associated with a hydrogen-based energy economy. Jeremy Rifkin published a book entitled The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the Worldwide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth. He claimed that “globalization represents the end stage of the fossil-fuel era” and that turning “toward hydrogen is a promissory note for a safer world.”

In his State of the Union Address, the President stated that “with a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles” to taking hydrogen-fueled automobiles “from laboratory to showroom so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.” The Administration then announced a collaborative effort with the European Union to develop a hydrogen economy, including the technologies “needed for mass production of safe and affordable hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles,” and stated that this would “improve America’s energy security by significantly reducing the need for imported oil.”

The Chicago Sun-Times ran a story that proclaimed, “The first steps toward what proponents call the hydrogen economy are [now] being taken.” And the US House of Representatives held the first of two “investigative hearings on the subject of hydrogen—its production, utilization, and potential effects on our energy economy of the future.” The chairman of the hearing claimed hydrogen “has the potential of playing the same kind of role in our energy system as electricity does today.” (continue reading)

Hydrogen Energy: Not Clean, Not Green, and Not Cheap

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and clean energy standards (CES) are either requirements or goals for energy producers or providers to supply energy from low- or zero-carbon emission sources. US EIA

The Trump Administration has ended the federal government focus on Net Zero and refocused on energy dominance. This refocus includes assuring that the US has sufficient economical energy to satisfy the demands of a vigorously growing economy. The Administration has also announced its support for restarting shuttered coal generators and constructing new clean coal power plants as well as new natural gas generators. The Administration position allows electric utilities to select the generation mix which best suits the needs of their growing customer base.

The Administration is also expected to dramatically reduce or eliminate the federal incentives currently available for renewable generation, storage and transmission interconnections. Utilities would still be able to select wind, solar and storage options as part of their generation portfolios, though without the support of substantial federal subsidies.

However, most US states have legislated RPS and utilities in those states and their utility commissions will not have the full flexibility offered by the Administration positions.

Utilities in the RPS states will be required to increase their renewable generation fleets in line with the legislated percentages and deadlines or targets. The states with RPS will continue to see their electric rates increase as renewable generation is expanded in parallel with the conventional generation required to provide backup for the intermittent renewable generation. These increases will result both from the incremental returns required by the increased generation investment and from the effects of Dutch Auction pricing on the entire generating fleet.

As the percentage of generation from renewables increases, the percentage of generation from the conventional generation fleet, which must remain capable of meeting grid demand in the absence of renewable generation output, continues to decrease, adversely affecting the operating economics of the conventional generation fleet. Plant retirements resulting from aging or unacceptable operating economics would eventually require the addition of energy storage capacity to provide renewable generation backup or the installation of Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources (DEFRs). Either of these alternatives would require substantial investment in new generation or storage facilities, significantly increasing utility ratebases and thus utility rates.

The developers of data centers and artificial intelligence facilities have determined that renewable generation is not a suitable source of power for their high demand, continuous operation facilities. In states without RPS, these developers might choose to take their power from the local grid. However, in states with RPS they might choose to install their own dedicated generation systems to assure the desired reliability and stability. It is not certain whether these dedicated generation systems could be fossil fueled in RPS states, since they would not be part of the state utility grid. That decision would depend of the specific wording of the state RPS and might become the subject of litigation.

The differences in state utility rates resulting from the different generation fleets would likely result in increased competition among the states for data centers and other new industrial customers.

From: IER

Date: January 22, 2025

The American Energy Blueprint
A Guide to Unleashing American Energy

Summary

The American Energy Blueprint is a comprehensive set of policy recommendations to guide the new Trump administration’s approach to energy policy. The Blueprint outlines key reforms in areas such as federal land and water use, expanding consumer choice, reducing subsidies, curbing government spending and taxation, streamlining regulations, and modernizing the permitting process.

Federal Lands and Waters

The Biden administration launched an unprecedented attack on energy development on federal lands. From restricting land use to slowing or halting permitting approvals and raising fees, the administration did seemingly everything to make energy development on federal lands more difficult and more expensive as part of its pledge to “end fossil fuels.” The Trump administration should take swift action to reverse these actions and Congress should update statutes to ensure such abuse cannot happen again in the future.

Source: Bureau of Land Management

Administrative Actions:

• Reverse restrictive Biden actions in ANWR and NPR-A, and revoke other Alaska land-use limitations on energy and minerals. Alaska is over twice the size of Texas; two-thirds of it is federally owned and 86% of it is inaccessible by road.
• Reverse the illegal denial of an access road to Alaska’s Ambler Mining District, one of the U.S.’s most potentially prolific sources of valuable rare earth minerals. (continue reading)

The American Energy Blueprint
A Guide to Unleashing American Energy

US EPA  Administrator Lee Zeldin recently announced the EPA would be reassessing a number of past regulatory actions. Many of the actions being questioned were developed based on the application of the concept of the Linear No Threshold model to pollutant exposure. Essentially, the application of this model assumes that if a pollutant is dangerous at some concentration, it is dangerous at any concentration and must be controlled; and, once a control method has been identified, it must be applied.

Many of these regulations were initiated by lawsuits filed by environmental organizations or other NGOs, many funded in part by EPA. EPA then agreed to settle the lawsuit by implementing a new or enhanced regulation. This process, typically referred to as “Sue and Settle” appears to have originated with EPA, though it has since metastasized to other Executive Branch departments and agencies.

The reassessments planned by EPA will almost certainly result in numerous lawsuits by states, cities and NGOs which would expect to be affected. However, it appears that Administrator Zeldin has ended “Sue and Settle” at EPA and will choose to litigate. This suggests that the process of implementing the results of the reassessments will be long and acrimonious, both in the courts and in the media.

The EPA 2009 Endangerment Finding regarding vehicle emissions led to the combination of much more restrictive CAFÉ Standards and much more restrictive tailpipe emission standards which are commonly referred to as the “Electric Vehicle Mandate”, since only electric vehicles could meet the standards while supposedly providing the required vehicle utility.

The EPA Endangerment Finding also led to the Clean Power Plan 2 (CPP2). Under this plan, as with the motor vehicle standards, EPA did not ban the continued operation of existing coal and natural gas generators or the construction of new natural gas generators. Rather, it established emissions standards for these powerplants which are unattainable with currently available technologies and which would result in reduced net generator capacity of 25-40% if advanced versions of those control technologies were able to achieve the required emissions reductions. CPP2 is essentially a wind, solar and storage mandate.

CPP2 caused numerous owners of existing coal generating stations to move forward their scheduled retirement dates rather than commit the capital necessary to adapt existing and partially depreciated powerplants for operation with carbon capture and storage systems which might not be capable of achieving the required emissions reductions, but would reduce generating capacity and increase operation and maintenance expenses. The powerplant owners also expected resistance to the required plant investment from state regulatory commissions because of the projected adverse impacts on rates.

The prospect of early powerplant closures driven by CPP2 became a cause of concern for both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) because of the projected loss of dispatchable generating capacity at a time when capacity reserve margins were already shrinking and electricity demand was projected to grow rapidly, driven by federal electrification initiatives and the projected growth of data centers and AI.

From: Science Matters

By: Ron Clutz

Date: March 22, 2025

Beware: Flawed Energy Assumptions Incite Delusional Scenarios

Mark P. Mills and Neil Atkinson blow the whistle on projections written in International Energy Agency’s (IEA) latest report, the World Energy Outlook.  Below is the announcement of the report findings, key exhibits and Executive summary, excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images. Link to full study at the end.

Overview

Industry players consider the International Energy Agency’s signature annual report, the World Energy Outlook, to contain highly credible analyses. However, a new critique from the National Center of Energy Analytics experts finds the IEA’s latest scenarios on future oil demand to be problematic and potentially, dangerously wrong.

“When it comes to policy or investment planning, there is a distinction with a critical difference when it comes to what constitutes a “forecast” (what is likely to happen) versus a “scenario” (a possibility based on assumptions). The challenge is not in determining whether the scenarios are completely factual per se, but instead whether they are factually complete,” wrote the authors in their report.

The most widely reported WEO scenario is that the world will see peak oil demand by the early 2030s. NCEA co-authors Mark P. Mills and Neil Atkinson believe that this conclusion is a prima facie case; minimally, the IEA should include business as usual (BAU) scenarios, not those based on all “high cases” or unrealistic possibilities. (continue reading)

Beware: Flawed Energy Assumptions Incite Delusional Scenarios

Reengineer: to reorganize the operations of (an organization) so as to improve efficiency

The Trump Administration has begun a comprehensive reengineering effort in the federal Executive Branch agencies. The agencies of concern regarding climate change include US EPA, NASA and the Departments of Energy, Interior and Commerce. The focus of the effort will be on societal and economic value added and will concentrate on current and potential future value.

The early focus at US EPA will be on the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the Powerplant Rule, both of which impose current and future societal and economic costs. EPA’s vehicle emission standards represent a virtual mandate for a transition from fossil fueled vehicles to electric vehicles. Many classes of vehicles are not commercially available as EVs. EVs are also significantly more expensive than their fossil fueled equivalents, even with substantial federal subsidies.

The Powerplant Rule would require coal and natural gas generators to equip both existing and new generators with systems capable of collecting and later storing 90% of the CO2 they emit. EPA has declared that these CCS systems are Best Available Current Technology and are commercially available, though there has been no successful demonstration of CCS at that capture percentage. It has been estimated that CO2 capture at that level would impose a 25-40% parasitic power consumption penalty on powerplant net output, thus dramatically increasing power cost.

The early focus at the Department of Energy will likely be on the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. DOE has advocated for “all-electric everything” for decades and has distorted building energy efficiency by focusing on efficiency at the site of use, rather than on full cycle efficiency. DOE has also conducted numerous renewable generation R&D programs. DOE would also have been the lead agency regarding building sector decarbonization.

The Department of Interior is responsible for federal lands, including land use for oil & gas exploration and production as well as for installation of renewable generation facilities. DOI has acted to exclude large areas of federal land from oil and gas activity, coal mining, uranium mining and other mineral mining activities.

The Department of Commerce is home to NOAA, which has been heavily involved in collection and analysis of near-surface temperature measurements in cooperation with NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

It is likely that many of these activities add little or no societal and economic value while imposing significant societal and economic costs.
The outside audit of government spending and financial control systems is long overdue. Early results from the audit activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) suggest that current government spending controls are totally inadequate, particularly in light of the levels of spending involved. It also appears that internal Agency and Departmental audits and audits by the Office of Management and Budget have been inadequate, as has Congressional oversight.

Reports of EPA “throwing gold bars off the Titanic” in the final months of the previous Administration and “parking” $ billions in banks and NGOs do not inspire confidence in the process.

From: Cato Institute

By: Travis Fisher and Joshua Loucks

Date: March 17, 2025

Answering Frequently Asked Questions about the Inflation Reduction Act’s Energy Subsidies

Last week, Cato published Policy Analysis No. 992, titled “The Budgetary Cost of the Inflation Reduction Act’s Energy Subsidies: IRA Energy Tax Credits Could Cost $4.7 Trillion by 2050.” This work is significant because the IRA is the largest climate subsidy package in US history (possibly in world history), yet no one has a clear picture of just how much the IRA’s energy provisions will cost American taxpayers.

Our analysis is also timely because members of Congress are debating which parts of the IRA to reform or repeal. We find that energy spending under the IRA is much higher than government estimates would indicate, up to $4.7 trillion, and faces no binding cap. The energy subsidies in the IRA could continue to climb each year through 2050.

We hope Congress will fully repeal the IRA’s energy subsidies as part of the coming budget reconciliation package. At a minimum, the IRA’s significant spending deserves scrutiny. Along those lines, we appreciate the feedback we have received on our estimates of the cost of the IRA’s energy subsidies. Here are our responses to some of the most common questions and critiques of our policy analysis. (continue reading)

Answering Frequently Asked Questions about the Inflation Reduction Act’s Energy Subsidies

The Trump Administration has paused funding of climate change research and of numerous climate related initiatives and incentives. The pauses are intended to permit the new department and agency leadership to identify how the funding is moving into the markets, who is receiving the funding and for what they are using the funding.

The Administration has been accused of taking a sledgehammer to the projects rather than using a scalpel to carefully dissect the range of projects and defund those it judges to be unworthy of funding. Unfortunately, many of the ongoing or proposed projects have been funded through grants to NGOs which then determine which projects will be funded and at what levels. That approach effectively removes Executive Branch agency managers from direct oversight and control of the projects.

Using a “scalpel” approach to analyzing the large number of individual projects and activities is a laborious and time-consuming process, during which funding continues to flow to the projects regardless of their value. While the funding flowing to individual projects and activities might be relatively modest, the total funding at stake is $ billions. The “sledgehammer” approach effectively halts the flow of funding to all projects and activities until the projects and activities have been evaluated and continued funding approved or terminated.

One type of project which is almost certain to be terminated is tactical projects which use unrealistic concentration pathways and overly sensitive climate models to create scary scenarios intended to scare the populace into accepting radical climate policies. These studies are designed to support and reinforce the consensus climate crisis narrative which is not accepted by the Trump Administration.

Projects intended to advance understanding of the climate and how and why it changes are likely to receive continued funding as the review process proceeds. Such projects have largely been ignored by the IPCC, as they do not universally support and advance the consensus climate change narrative.

The Administration has also paused funding for the participation of US government funded scientists in the IPCC Assessment Report Process, since the process does not assess all relevant research, but focuses on research which supports or advances the climate change consensus. The Administration is also frustrated with the process of developing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which is driven by politicians and does not represent a true summary of the conclusions of the IPCC Working Groups, but rather a source of political and media climate crisis hype.

The Administration has also paused funding for the UN Green Climate Fund and the UN Loss and Damage Fund. The Administration is not supportive of the intended activities and projects to be funded by the Green Climate Fund and is suspicious of the standards of evidence to be used to determine incremental loss and damage alleged to have been caused by climate change.

The Administration is also likely to eliminate or dramatically reduce US funding for and participation in the UNFCCC Conferences of the Parties, which have become “all sound and fury, signifying nothing”. (HT: William Shakespeare)

From: Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

By: Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Date: March 3, 2025

Hey, EPA, Why Not Regulate Water Vapor Emissions While You are At It?

Some Background

I will admit that the legal profession mystifies me. Every time I say anything related to environmental law, one or more lawyers will correct me. But I suppose “turnabout is fair play”, since I will usually correct any lawyers about their details describing climate change science.

Lawyers aren’t like us normal people. Their brains work differently. I first suspected this when one of my daughters took the LSAT and gave me examples of questions, most of which my brain was not wired to answer correctly. I became further convinced of this when she went to law school, and told me about the questions they deal with, how lawyers can impress judges just by being novel in their arguments, etc.

I know I could never be a lawyer (even after staying at a Holiday Inn Express), and I never even played one on TV. But I did co-author a paper in Energy Law Journal (relating to the Daubert Standard) on my view that science cannot demonstrate causation in any rigorous way in the theory of human-caused climate change.

Regulating CO2: Is the EPA Really Trying to Help Us?

The regulation of CO2 emissions (and some other chemicals) by the EPA has also mystified me. However many of the EPA’s ~185 lawyers worked on the 2009 Endangerment Finding, they must have known that regulating CO2 emissions from U.S. cars and light-duty trucks would have no measurable impact on global climate, including sea level rise (which was a major argument in Massachusetts v. EPA).

None.

But apparently actually trying to “fix” the climate “problem” is not the EPA’s concern.

Their reason for existence is to regulate pollutants (and it doesn’t matter if Nature produces far more of a “pollutant” than people produce). And once they start regulating it, they won’t stop with certain thresholds. They will keep lowering the threshold. This keeps everyone in jobs. (continue reading)

Hey, EPA, Why Not Regulate Water Vapor Emissions While You are At It?

An Urban Heat Island (UHI) is a localized area, typically in a city, where temperatures are significantly higher than the surrounding rural areas due to human activities and modifications of the landscape. This phenomenon is caused by factors such as increased impervious surfaces, limited vegetation, and the heat generated from buildings and vehicles.

U.S. EPA--https://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.jsp?med_id=75857&from=mn

A heat wave is essentially a 3-5°F temperature anomaly from regional climatology which persists for 2 or more days, as discussed in the previous commentary. Conditions in an urban heat island are essentially a virtually continuous “heat wave” relative to the current temperatures in the rural areas surrounding the urban area. The figure above illustrates the temperature impact of varying levels of development within an urban heat island. Tall, dense infrastructure and large paved areas are major contributors to urban heating.

One of the suggested responses to climate change is the development of “15-minute cities”, to minimize personal vehicle travel and encourage walking and the use of bicycles and public transit to move around the cities. These cities would offer the normal services residents require including medical and dental offices, emergency care facilities, schools, retail stores, health clubs, etc. To support the services in the 15-minute cities, the population density of these cities would have to be several times the population density of typical large cities; and, population density increases the UHI effect.

The photo below is an example of a city environment required to support high population density. The tall, dense buildings effectively block the wind and cause the heat collected and generated in the city to be trapped.

 
Detailed attention to building spacing and orientation, building construction, and the inclusion of green spaces would be essential to prevent such very densely populated cities from becoming even more intense urban heat islands.

If climate change is increasing the frequency and/or intensity of heat waves, as is suggested by IPCC AR6, then an increase in city size and population density, as would be the case with 15-minute cities, would appear to be a step in the wrong direction from the standpoints of public health and safety, particularly during the summer months. The normal elevation of temperature caused by the UHI effect would increase the temperatures in the areas surrounding the cities, as shown in the first graphic above. The temperatures in the cities and in the regions surrounding the cities would be further increased by the occurrence of heat waves in the regions. The cities would tend to be less affected by cold waves because of their internal heat gains and the effects of wind blocking.

There are also significant sociological issues with very high population density developments. The US experience with such developments, frequently referred to as “projects”, has not been positive, though most of this experience is with rental properties rather than owned residences.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Ross McKitrick

Date: February 21, 2025

Debunking the 2023 hike in the Social Cost of Carbon

I have a new paper out in the journal Nature Scientific Reports in which I re-examine some empirical work regarding agricultural yield changes under CO2-induced climate warming. An influential 2017 study had argued that warming would cause large losses in agricultural outputs on a global scale, and this played a large role in an upward revision to the Biden Administration’s Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimate, which drives regulatory decision in US climate rulemaking. I show that a lot of data had been left out of the statistical modeling, and once it is included there was no evidence of yield losses even out to 5 C warming.

Background

In 2023 a team of economists working for the Biden Administration concluded the SCC needed to be increased by a considerable amount. The higher the SCC, the costlier the regulatory burden that can be justified by the agency. This not only affected US regulations but Canada’s as well since our own environment ministry adopted the new US values when justifying a sweeping set of new greenhouse gas regulations. I wrote an op-ed about the SCC change in May 2023 in which I drew attention to the important role played by a revision to projected agricultural yield damages. While it is difficult to trace where, precisely, all the changes came from, I estimate about $50 of an approximately $100 increase in the 2030 value of the SCC (holding the discount rate constant) was attributable to the revised agricultural yield damage estimates. (continue reading)

Debunking the 2023 hike in the Social Cost of Carbon

IPCC AR6 Chapter 12, in its section on the Emergence of Climate Impact Drivers, identifies high confidence that increasing mean air temperatures and extreme heat have already emerged in the historical period and medium confidence that decreasing cold spells are beginning to emerge.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) defines heat waves and cold waves as follows:

HEAT WAVE: a heatwave can be defined as a period of marked and unusually hot weather persisting for at least two consecutive days.

COLD WAVE: a cold wave can be defined as marked and unusually cold weather, which can be associated with a sharp and significant drop of air temperatures near the Earth’s surface and persisting for at least two consecutive days.

Heat wave definitions vary by country, largely as a function of their climates. For example:

• a period of at least 3 consecutive days in which the average maximum temperature across more than half the country exceeds 28°C (82.4°F) (Denmark)
• at least five days in a row with a daily high exceeding 25°C (77.0°F) (Sweden)
• three consecutive days with temperatures at 39°C (102°F) or higher (Greece)
• a period of at least five consecutive days in which the maximum temperature in De Bilt exceeds 25°C (77°F). During this period the maximum temperature in De Bilt must exceed 30°C (86°F) for at least three days. (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg)
• at least three days above 25°C (77°F) across much of the country. Greater London has a threshold of 28°C (82°F). (UK)
• temperatures exceeding 25°C (77°F) for five or more consecutive days. (Ireland)
• temperatures between 28°C (82°F) in Newfoundland and 35°C (95°F) in interior (British Columbia)
• five consecutive days at or above 35°C (95°F), or three consecutive days at or over 40°C (104°F) (Australia)
• temperature threshold ranging between 27°C (81 °F) in Greymouth and 32°C (90°F) in Gisborne.  (New Zealand)
• temperature reaches or exceeds 90°F (32.2°C) for three consecutive days (US Northeast).
• temperature reaches 100°F (37.8°C) for three or more consecutive days over a wide area (California)

Cold wave definitions are less country or region specific. For example:

• a rapid fall in temperature within a 24-hour period requiring substantially increased protection to agriculture, industry, commerce, and social activities. (US National Weather Service)
• temperature below 20°F

The relatively mild temperatures which define heat waves in much of Europe and portions of Canada and New Zealand lead to a significant increase in heat waves, whereas the requirement for a rapid decrease in temperature within a 24-hour period and a 20°F temperature lead to a significant decrease in cold waves. There is greater interest in heat waves than in cold waves, since heat waves support the global warming / climate change narrative, despite the fact that cold causes more than an order of magnitude more deaths annually than heat according to data reported by Lancet.

While both heat waves and cold waves are described as extreme weather, temperatures at or below 20°F are far more dangerous (~78° below body temperature) than temperatures at or above 77-95°F (3-20°F below normal body temperature).

Clearly, some extremes are more extreme than other extremes.

From: AEI

By: Benjamin Zycher

Date: February 12, 2025

The Collapse of Offshore Wind Power Is Only the Beginning

The “clean energy transition” — the wholesale replacement of conventional (for the most part fossil) energy with such unconventional technologies as wind and solar power — has been the raison d’être for great masses of the well-off living in comfort in Western economies for many years. And they now are grieving. Why? Because that transition, aided with massive subsidies and guaranteed market shares and other policy subventions, is collapsing both in the United States  and in Europe.

Again, why? Because unconventional energy is not and cannot be competitive. Even with the policy favoritism bestowed upon it, it imposes very large economic and environmental costs upon large numbers of ordinary working people. Let us begin with recent cancellations of offshore wind power projects in the United States. In January, “Orsted A/S recorded a … $1.7 billion hit on its earnings as the costs of offshore wind farms, particularly in the US, keep rising.” Also in January, “Shell disclosed a $996 million write-off following its withdrawal from the Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind project.” In early February, the New Jersey State Board of Public Utilities “cancelled the bidding process for the state’s fourth offshore wind solicitation, citing the uncertainty driven by recent federal actions affecting the industry.”

It is easy enough to blame Donald Trump’s recent executive order “withdraw[ing] from disposition for wind energy leasing all areas within the Offshore Continental Shelf (OCS),” but that is a mere symptom of a far more fundamental reality: Offshore wind power is even less economic than other forms of unconventional electricity; ultimately, the excess costs for all of them must be paid by power consumers and taxpayers. (continue reading)

The Collapse of Offshore Wind Power Is Only the Beginning