Call or complete the form to contact us for details and to book directly with us
888-854-5871 (Toll-free USA)


Contact Owner

Skip to Primary Navigation Skip to Primary Content Skip to Footer Navigation
▽ Explore More ▽ Hide

Climate and Climate Change

Climate and Climate Change

Climate Change

Two days before Halloween, 2011, New England was struck by a freak winter storm. Heavy snow descended onto trees covered with leaves.  Overloaded branches fell on power lines.  Blue flashes of light in the sky indicated exploding transformers.  Electricity was out for days in some areas and for weeks in others. Damage to property and disruption of lives was widespread.

That disastrous restriction on human energy supplies was produced by Nature.  However, current and future energy curtailments are being forced on the populace by Federal policies in the name of dangerous “climate change/global warming”.  Yet, despite the contradictions between what people are being told and what people have seen and can see about the weather and about the climate, they continue to be effectively steered away from the knowledge of such contradictions to focus on the claimed disaster effects of  “climate change/global warming” (AGW, “Anthropogenic Global Warming”). 

People are seldom told HOW MUCH is the increase of temperatures or that there has been no increase in globally averaged temperature for over 18 years.  They are seldom told how miniscule is that increase compared to swings in daily temperatures. They are seldom told about the dangerous effects of government policies on their supply of “base load” energy — the uninterrupted energy that citizens depend on 24/7 — or about the consequences of forced curtailment of industry-wide energy production with its hindrance of production of their and their family’s food, shelter, and clothing. People are, in essence, kept mostly ignorant about the OTHER SIDE of the AGW debate.

Major scientific organizations — once devoted to the consistent pursuit of understanding the natural world — have compromised their integrity and diverted membership dues in support of some administrators’ AGW agenda.   Schools throughout the United States continue to engage in relentless AGW indoctrination of  students, from kindergarten through university.  Governments worldwide have been appropriating vast sums for “scientific” research, attempting to convince the populace that the use of fossil fuels must be severely curtailed to “save the planet.”  Prominent businesses — in league with various politicians who pour ever more citizen earnings into schemes such as ethanol in gasoline, solar panels, and wind turbines — continue to tilt against imaginary threats of AGW.  And even religious leaders and organizations have joined in to proclaim such threats.   As a consequence, AGW propaganda is proving to be an extraordinary vehicle for the exponential expansion of government power over the lives of its citizens. 

Reasoning is hindered by minds frequently in a state of alarm.  The object of this website is an attempt to promote a reasoned approach; to let people know of issues pertaining to the other side of the AGW issue and the ways in which it conflicts with the widespread side of AGW alarm (AGWA, for short).  In that way it is hoped that all members of society can make informed decisions.

200 Ways the Biden Administration and Democrats Have Made it Harder to Produce Oil & Gas - Highlighted Article

  • 4/11/24 at 06:00 AM

From: IER

By: Thomas J. Pyle

Date: March 7, 2024

200 Ways the Biden Administration and Democrats Have Made it Harder to Produce Oil & Gas

President Biden and Democrats have a plan for American energy: make it harder to produce and more expensive to purchase. Since Mr. Biden took office, his administration and its allies have taken over 200 actions deliberately designed to make it harder to produce energy here in America. A list of those actions, which includes a few high-profile actions taken in states like New York and California, appears below. A PDF of the full list is available to download here.


On January 20, 2021,

  • Besides canceling the Keystone XL pipeline,
  • President Biden restricted domestic production by issuing a moratorium on all oil and natural gas leasing activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  • He also restored and expanded the use of the government-created social cost of carbon metric to artificially increase the regulatory costs of energy production of fossil fuels when performing analyses, as well as artificially increase the so-called “benefits” of decreasing production.
  • Biden continued to revoke Trump administration executive orders, including those related to the Waters of the United States rule and the Antiquities Act. The Trump-era actions decreased regulations on Federal land and expanded the ability to produce energy domestically

On January 27, 2021,

  • Biden issued an executive order announcing a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on public lands
  • or in offshore waters
  • and reconsideration of Federal oil and gas permitting and leasing practices.
  • He directed his Interior Department to conduct a review of permitting and leasing policies.
  • Also, by Executive Order, Biden directed agencies to eliminate federal fossil fuel “subsidies” wherever possible, disadvantaging oil and natural gas compared to other industries that receive similar Federal tax treatments or other energy sources which receive direct subsidies.
  • This Biden Executive Order attacked the energy industry by promoting “ending international financing of carbon-intensive fossil fuel-based energy while simultaneously advancing sustainable development and a green recovery.” In other words, the U.S. government would leverage its power to attack oil and gas producers while subsidizing favored industries.
  • Biden’s EO pushed for an increase in enforcement of “environmental justice” violations and support for such efforts, which typically are advanced by radical environmental organizations and slip-and-fall lawyers hoping to cash in on the backs of energy consumers. (continue reading)


200 Ways the Biden Administration and Democrats Have Made it Harder to Produce Oil & Gas


Tags: Highlighted Article

Current Storage Deficit - ORIGNAL CONTENT

In a summary of a recent peer-reviewed paper, the principal author stated that an electric grid predominantly powered by intermittent renewables such as wind and solar would require storage approximately equal to 25% of annual generation to be reliable. Other studies have reported similar results (here, here and here).

US wind and solar generation in 2023 totaled approximately 575,000 GWH. Based on the Fekete paper, the US would require a total of approximately 140,000 GWH of electricity storage to render this intermittent generation dispatchable, capable of replacing fossil fueled dispatchable generation. The US currently has approximately 60 GWH of battery storage and approximately 25,000 GWH of pumped hydro storage. This leaves an estimated storage deficit of approximately 115,000 GWH.

The primary battery storage system currently being installed for grid level storage is the Tesla Megapack, which stores 19.3 MWH deliverable at a rate of 4.9 MW over a 4-hour period. Eliminating the current US electricity storage deficit with Tesla Megapacks would require installation of 5,887,347 units at an estimated installed cost of $8,128,870 per unit, for a total installed cost of $48 trillion.

Research suggests that battery life can be extended by operating the batteries between 20% and 80% of full charge. Grid scale batteries would be expected to operate below 20% of full charge very rarely, so the lower limit can essentially be ignored. However, limiting the batteries to a maximum charge of 80%, while maintaining necessary electricity storage would require increasing the installed battery capacity by 25%, at an installed cost of approximately $12 trillion, increasing the total battery system installed cost to approximately $60 trillion. (Note: These costs do not include the land required for installation or the cost of grid connection.)

Tesla reports a roundtrip efficiency of approximately 95% for its Megapacks, significantly higher than the approximate 80% efficiency reported by EIA. NREL estimates current 4-hour battery costs at $500 per kWh, which is projected to drop to approximately $250 per kWh by 2050. The Tesla Megapack stores 19,600 kWh at an installed cost of approximately $415 per kWh.

Wind and solar currently generate approximately 12% of US utility scale electricity. Hydro, biomass and geothermal generate approximately 8%. Nuclear generates approximately 20%. The remaining 60% is generated using fossil fuels. Replacing these fossil fuel generators with dispatchable wind and solar generation plus storage would require installation of wind and solar capable of generating approximately an additional 2,540,000 GWH of electricity and storage capable of storing approximately an additional 630,000 GWH of electricity, preferably with much longer duration storage capability.

With apologies to the late Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen (R, IL);
“A trillion here. A trillion there. Soon you’re talking about real money.”


Tags: Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Electric Power Dispatchable, Energy Storage / Batteries

Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data - Highlighted Article

  • 4/4/24 at 06:00 AM


From: The Epoch Times

By: Alex Newman

Date: February 28, 2024

Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data

‘Climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century—heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,’ said astrophysicist Willie Soon.


Temperature records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that then forecast dangerous manmade global warming repercussions have serious problems and even corruption in the data, multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue told The Epoch Times.

The Biden administration leans on its latest National Climate Assessment report as evidence that global warming is accelerating because of human activities. The document states that human emissions of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the Earth.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds the same view, and its leaders are pushing major global policy changes in response.

But scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields are pushing back. In peer-reviewed studies, they cite a wide range of flaws with the global temperature data used to reach the dire conclusions; they say it’s time to reexamine the whole narrative.

Problems with temperature data include a lack of geographically and historically representative data, contamination of the records by heat from urban areas, and corruption of the data introduced by a process known as “homogenization.”

The flaws are so significant that they make the temperature data—and the models based on it—essentially useless or worse, three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) explained. (continue reading)


Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data


Tags: Highlighted Article

Wind Capacity Factor - ORIGINAL CONTENT

The capacity factor of wind generation systems varies as a function of geography, season of the year and time of day. The capacity of wind generation systems varies as a function of swept area, wind speed and turbine height. The current US wind turbine generation fleet has a capacity factor of approximately 35%. The capacity factor peaks in Spring at more than 40% and reaches a low in the mid-to-upper 20% range in Summer.

The map below shows the annual average wind speed at an elevation of 80 meters in the United States. Wind power density varies as the cube of wind speed, so wind speed is an extremely important siting factor. For example, an area with an average wind speed of 8 meters per second would offer a wind power density 8 times the wind power density available at an average wind speed of 4 meters per second. The area of the US with the highest annual average wind speeds extends North to South through the center of the contiguous 48 states, as shown below.


Annual Average Wind Speed at 80 m


The viewer at this link shows the locations of US wind facilities. The viewer can be adjusted to show the heights of the wind turbines and their capacities. The average individual wind turbine capacity at the installations shown in the viewer is 2 MW. Note that the wind turbine elevation at most of these installations exceeds 100 meters and approaches 200 meters.

The map below illustrates the US wind resource at an elevation of 100 meters, showing the greatest resource in the mid-continent, around the upper Great Lakes and along the East, West and Gulf coasts.



Annual Average Wind Speed at 100 m



The map below illustrates the US wind resource at an elevation of 200 meters, showing a similar resource distribution, but a significant increase in the magnitude of the available wind resource. This is clearly the incentive for increasing wind turbine mounting heights.


Annual Average Wind Speed at 200 m



These maps also illustrate the reason for the interest in offshore wind. The offshore wind velocities are significantly higher than onshore wind velocities near the coasts. Offshore location avoids wind installations in the densely populated coastal areas. Also, offshore wind installations would reduce transmission distances from the generator installations to the population centers along the coasts.
The images below show the relative height of the Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument and the 15 MW wind turbines planned for the Dominion Energy Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) project. The Statue of Liberty stands 305 feet (93 meters) above sea level. The Washington Monument stands 555 feet (169 meters) above local grade. The turbine towers of CVOW would be approximately the same height as the Washington Monument. The rotor diameter would exceed 450 feet (137 meters), with a peak elevation above sea level of more than 800 feet (244 meters).



Windmill height comparison



The International Energy Agency (IEA) uses a capacity factor of 50% for offshore wind turbines, or approximately 40% higher than for onshore wind turbines. However, the cost per unit capacity for offshore wind turbines is higher than for onshore turbines and the cost of maintenance and repair is significantly higher.


Tags: Wind Energy

Climate Model Bias Series - Highlighted Series

  • 3/28/24 at 06:00 AM


From: Watts Up With That

By: Andy May

Date: February 28 - March 13, 2024

Climate Model Bias Series 1-7


Climate Model Bias 1: What is a Model? - February 28, 2024

Climate Model Bias 2: Modeling Greenhouse Gases - March 1, 2024

Climate Model Bias 3: Solar Input - March 3, 2024

Climate Model Bias 4: Convection and atmospheric circulation - March 4, 2024

Climate Model Bias 5: Storminess - March 9, 2024

Climate Model Bias 6: WGII - March 12, 2024

Climate Model Bias 7: WGIII - March 13, 2024


Climate Model Bias Series 1-7


Tags: Highlighted Article

Solar Capacity Factor - ORIGINAL CONTENT

The capacity factor of solar photovoltaic generation systems varies as a function of geography, season, time of day, weather conditions and solar collector type. The most common utility scale solar array consists of numerous parallel rows of flat plate collectors mounted in a fixed orientation and at a fixed mounting angle. In this installation configuration, the incoming solar insolation is perfectly perpendicular to the collector surface twice each year. Throughout the remainder of the year, the insolation strikes the collector surface from a above or below and from further East or West than the perpendicular, which reduces the ability of the solar system to achieve rating plate capacity.

The current fleet of these fixed solar arrays achieve an average annual capacity factor of approximately 25%. However, the monthly average capacity factor of current systems ranges from a high of ~32% in May and June to a low of ~13% in December, as the result of both lower sun elevation and reduced hours of daylight. These capacity factors are primarily for solar installations in the US desert southwest, where the seasonal variation in daily solar insolation varies by a factor of approximately 2.5, as illustrated in the maps shown here.

The map below illustrates the variation of annual direct solar insolation across the US.

Direct Normal Solar Irradiance Map - NREL

As utility scale solar installations continue to expand beyond the US southwest, the annual capacity factor of the solar installations will decrease as the result of lower sun angle and shorter hours of daylight, particularly during the winter months. For example, the realistic average daily solar insolation in Phoenix, Arizona reaches a peak of `6.7 kWh/m2/day in June and declines to ~2.5 kWh/m2/day in December, an approximate 63% reduction from peak. However, in Buffalo, New York the realistic average daily solar insolation reaches a peak of ~4.9 kWh/m2/day and declines to ~0.9 kWh/m2/day in December, an approximate 82% reduction from peak. Fairbanks, Alaska experiences a realistic average daily solar insolation peak of ~4.6 kWh/m2/day in June and declines to ~0 kWh/m2/day in December, an approximate 100% reduction.

The lower peak average daily solar insolation in most of the US, relative to the average daily solar insolation in the desert southwest, suggests that solar installations in most of the US would achieve lower capacity factors throughout the year, but especially in the winter, and would therefore have to be significantly larger than southwest installations to achieve the same annual generation output. For example, a solar installation in Buffalo, NY would be expected to have an annual capacity factor of approximately 18%.

The reduced solar capacity factors in the winter months would become an increasing concern as the US energy economy transitioned to “all-electric everything”, as most electric utilities would transition from summer peaking to winter peaking as fossil fueled space and water heating systems are replaced with electric appliances and equipment. Peak electricity demand would coincide with significantly reduced solar electricity generation, magnifying the need for electricity storage to bridge the gap between supply and demand.


Tags: Solar Energy

The ‘Energy Trilemma’ And The Cost Of Electricity – OpEd - Highlighted Article

  • 3/21/24 at 06:00 AM


From: Eurasia Review

By: Dr. Lars Schernikau

Date: January 17, 2024

The ‘Energy Trilemma’ And The Cost Of Electricity – OpEd

Why “Renewables” cannot save but cost Billions

Over the last 150 years, abundant electricity from coal and gas led to an unprecedented reduction in poverty, as well as an increase in longevity and health. Currently, these low cost, reliable power sources generate approximately 60% of electricity and 50% of primary energy worldwide. Primarily due to climate change concerns, coal and gas fuels are now slowly replaced by ‘renewables’, such as wind and solar based energy. But this comes with a cost.

Bloomberg issued their latest global Levelized Cost of Electricity (1) (LCOE) analysis in 2023, comparing the historical LCOE of various ‘renewables’ with the cost of coal, gas, and nuclear, drawing a misleading conclusion of wind and solar being most cost-effective (Figure 1). LCOE based reports and analyses also by other organizations such as IEA, IRENA, IEEFA, IMF, Agora, form the basis for many governments to mistakenly conclude that the transition from a coal and gas based power system to wind and solar will save billions, if not trillions at global scale.

Political decision makers know the three pillars of a successful energy policy (a) reliability, (b) affordability, and (c) environmental sustainability. But when taking a closer look, it becomes apparent that, power ministries are struggling to find a balance within this ‘Energy Trilemma’ and moreover, that the three pillars follow a specific priority:

As a prime concern, access to reliable energy is needed, before considering the affordability thereof. Once the balance between reliable and affordable energy is achieved, only then environmental sustainability can be tackled in a meaningful way.

Claiming “renewable” energy from wind and solar is cheap and comes without environmental consequences, is a crucial and detrimental energy economic misunderstanding.(continue reading)


The ‘Energy Trilemma’ And The Cost Of Electricity – OpEd


Tags: Highlighted Article

Anomaly vs. Temperature - ORIGINAL CONTENT


anomaly: something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified: something anomalous

temperature: degree of hotness or coldness measured on a definite scale

Source: Merriam-Webster


The primary focus of the global warming / climate change issue has been on the anomaly of current temperatures relative to temperatures at some time, or over some period, in the past. One of the primary reasons for focusing on anomalies has been the inaccuracy of global average temperature measurements. Even if absolute temperature measurements are inaccurate, anomalies can accurately reflect temperature changes over time, as long as the conditions surrounding the temperature measurement instrument do not change and the instrument calibration remains stable. Anomalies lose accuracy when the area surrounding the instrument changes, the instrument is moved or the instrument drifts out of calibration.

The consensed climate science community routinely “adjusts” measured temperatures to “correct’ for perceived inaccuracies in the temperature measurements; and, these “adjustments” affect the calculated temperature anomalies. The anomalies are frequently presented in graphical form with severely truncated “y” axes, which make the anomalies appear larger and the changes in the anomalies appear to be greater or occurring more rapidly, as shown in the graph below from


Magnified Global Warming


A focus on actual temperatures presents a very different picture, particularly when presented in graphical form with a “y” axis representative of the entire range of historical temperatures experienced in the area exhibiting the temperature anomaly, as shown in the graph below from


Global Warming in the Scale of Human Temperature Experience


The surface temperatures on earth range from a maximum of +58°C to a minimum of – 88°C (+136°F to – 126°F). The global annual mean surface temperature is thought to be approximately 15°C (59°F), but is difficult to determine accurately because of the limited availability and coverage of temperature measuring stations and questions about the accuracy of the temperature readings from those stations. The average daily temperature range for the earth is estimated to be between 11 to 12°C (~20 to 22°F). It is in this context that we discuss global mean near-surface temperature anomaly estimated to be approximately 1°C (1.8°F) over the 140 year period since 1880.

The daily near surface temperature range of 11-12°C occurs throughout the calendar year. However, in a region with an annual mean surface temperature approximately equal to the global annual mean surface temperature, the average daily temperature in the peak summer month would be approximately 28°C (50°F) warmer than the average daily temperature in the peak winter month.

Compared to the range of near surface temperatures measured on the earth, the current global annual mean temperature anomaly represents approximately a 0.7% increase. Compared to the global average mean temperature, the current anomaly is approximately a 7% increase. However, note that the global annual mean near surface temperature is approximately 5°C below the typical control temperature of heating and cooling systems for occupied spaces. Also note that approximately 60% of the anomaly manifests as an increase in nighttime temperatures, largely as the result of the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect and agricultural irrigation effects on atmospheric humidity.


Tags: Temperature Record, Global Temperature, Temperature Anomaly

Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part II - Highlighted Article

  • 3/14/24 at 06:00 AM

From: Climate Etc.

By: Planning Engineer (Russ Schussler)

Date: February 16, 2024

Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part II

“Renewables”:  some resources support a healthy grid, other challenge it

The first part of this series discussed some of the shortcomings of the renewable/nonrenewable dichotomy.  Renewable generation resources are not necessarily sustainable or environmentally sound and non-renewable options can be clean and highly sustainable.  For example, you will find many ardent environmentalist groups strongly opposed to “renewable” biomass generation. Similarly, more and more environmentalists are dropping their objections to “nonrenewable” nuclear power. For those who are concerned with the health of the planet as well as those who want to use the earth for human flourishing the renewable/nonrenewable dichotomy is losing relevance. Referring generally to “renewable” and “nonrenewable”  resources or structuring policy to favor renewable does more harm than good as we face the complicate challenges ahead in maintain an adequate electric power supply in an environmentally responsible manner.

This posting examines the impacts of various generation alternatives s on the power system and the electric grid.   Renewable resources do not have a general impact on the grid; impacts vary by resource type. The various renewable resources alternatives available today differ greatly in how they impact the grid and should not be clustered.  Hydro resources with storage for example, work well to support the electric grid.  In fact, it may be the best resource available considering the varied needs of the major grids. Demanding loads that stress the system are often best located near hydro resources.  Other “renewable” resources to a greater or lesser extent may  present challenges to the operation of the grid and grid reliability.  In assessing the challenges of changing resources,  reports  that a particular grid is operating with 80% renewables may be impressive or virtually meaningless.  Of course, a grid can function well depending on 80% hydro resources, or 78% hydro and 2% wind and solar.  That’s very different and much less challenging than operating a grid with a penetration level of 40% wind and solar. Let’ look at some of the important characteristics of generation resources and how they differ among resource types. (continue reading)


Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part II


Tags: Highlighted Article

Net Zero Emergency Power - ORIGINAL CONTENT

Many electricity customers in all customer classes have fossil fueled emergency or standby generators which they use to power some or all of their electrical loads in the event of a grid power outage. For some commercial customers, such as hospitals, standby power systems are essential to assure the safety of patients such as those undergoing surgical procedures. For some industrial customers, such as those who operate continuous processes, standby generators are required to avoid loss of product in process or to avoid damage to equipment. For many other customers, emergency or standby generators are used to avoid the inconvenience of power outages.

The net zero energy economy would require elimination of these on-site fossil fueled generators since they are too small to justify implementation of carbon capture and storage systems to eliminate CO2 emissions. In some cases, on-site generation could be replaced by electricity storage systems, charged either by the grid or by on-site solar and/or wind generation.

State laws generally require that standby generators for hospitals must either be fueled by pipeline natural gas or supported by on-site fuel storage. The design process for these installations includes determination of the demands of essential electrical loads which are to be supported by the generator and the duration of the grid outage through which the system must be able to operate. This information is used to size the generator(s) and to determine the required on-site storage for other than pipeline-delivered fuels.

The design process would be similar for standby systems based on electric storage batteries. Battery system design would determine both the cumulative demand of the loads to be supported by the batteries and the cumulative power consumption of those loads over the expected duration of the grid outage. This design process must be conservative, since the batteries cannot be recharged during power outages. Also, these battery systems would require long-duration batteries capable of supporting the required loads during multiple day outages.

Some larger customers might negotiate with the grid operators to install grid scale storage capacity on their properties, with the understanding that the customers would have first call on the battery capacity in the event of a grid outage. However, that would require that battery capacity installed on the customer sites be long-duration and that it be first in line for recharging in the event of storage drawdown due to limited wind or solar generation output.

Some larger customers or groups of customers might choose to install small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) on-site. However, those customers would likely choose to use the SMRs as their primary source of electricity and to use the grid as backup or to supply loads which could be safely shed in the event of a grid outage.

An “all-electric everything” renewable plus storage grid is likely to be somewhat less reliable than the current predominantly fossil plus nuclear grid, especially during the period of rapid capacity and demand growth. This might lead greater numbers of customers to install on-site electricity storage systems.


Tags: Backup Power, Energy Storage / Batteries, Electric Power Reliability

The Retreat from Net Zero - Highlighted Article

  • 3/7/24 at 06:00 AM


From: Net Zero Watch

By: Ross Clark

Date: February 8, 2024

The Retreat from Net Zero



The UN meetings on climate change have become renowned for their platitudes, with national leaders falling over each other to say what desparate straits the world is in, how we must decarbonise ever faster – before returning to their home countries and putting economic development well ahead of their promises to cut emissions. But the president of COP28 in Dubai in December 2023, Sultan Al Jaber, was unusually frank. Al Jaber, who also serves as the chair of Abu Dhabi state oil corporation, ADNOC, which recently announced a $150 billion investment to increase oil production by nearly 50 percent to 5 million barrels a day by 2027, appealed to former Irish President Mary Robinson: ‘show me a road map for the phase out of fossil fuel that allows for social, sustainable development…unless you want to take the world back into caves’.

Al Jaber was eviscerated for his comments, yet they were in tune with a silent majority. An analysis by the website Zero Tracker reveals that even countries with net zero targets are heavily resisting pressure to phase out exploration for and development of fossil fuel resources. There are 93 oil-producing countries that have net zero targets, but only six of them have plans to phase out oil. Only five out of 94 gas-producing countries with a net zero target have plans to phase out gas. As for coal-producing countries, only 65 of those with net zero targets have plans to stop production.

As always with COP meetings, the event ended with a communiqué promising that the world would try to ‘transition away’ from fossil fuels – which is a long way from agreeing to phase them out by a certain date, as many activists demanded. After two weeks and several hundred thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide spewed out by private jets and the like, the 98,000 delegates who had signed up for COP28 had come up with nothing more than an empty promise.

In fact, the list of countries with plans to phase out fossil fuels is showing few signs of growing. The new government in New Zealand has just reneged on the previous administration‘s pledge to do so. In Germany, Federal Economics Minister Robert Habeck recently announced that he may delay the country’s planned phase-out of coal by 2030 because of the energy crisis provoked by the invasion of Ukraine.(continue reading)


The Retreat from Net Zero


Tags: Highlighted Article

Green New Dangers - ORIGINAL CONTENT

Much has been written regarding the effects of the “energy transition” on energy cost, availability, reliability and the structure and operation of the electric grid. Those are all important issues. All are fraught with degrees of uncertainty, since there has not been a successful demonstration of a renewable plus storage grid anywhere and there are no plans to conduct such a demonstration.

Little has been written about the effects of the “energy transition” on the lives of individuals and families who would be totally dependent on the electric grid for their energy needs. These effects would vary significantly depending on the local climate and also on local population density.

Residents of the northern plains, upper Midwest and New England are regularly subjected to harsh winters during which ambient temperatures can drop to as much as 125°F below body temperature. Residents of the southern tier of the US are regularly subjected to hot summers in which ambient temperatures can reach as much as 25°F above body temperature. This difference in ambient temperature relative to body temperature is the underlying reason why cold temperatures contribute to approximately 10 times more deaths more deaths than hot temperatures.

Residents of areas frequently exposed to very low ambient winter temperatures typically use natural gas, propane or fuel oil for space and water heating since these sources are more reliable than the electric grid in severe weather conditions; and, because electric space and water heating is more expensive than the alternatives. The use of electric heat pump space and water heaters is not common because of the poor low temperature performance of typical heat pumps. However, the fossil fuel space and water heating equipment would no longer be available after the “energy transition”.

Many residents in colder climates rely on gasoline or diesel emergency generators or natural gas, propane or diesel standby generators to supply power in the event of a grid outage. However, these generators would no longer be available after the “energy transition”.

Residents in these colder climates would instead be required to rely on electric heat pumps designed for cold weather operation. These heat pumps are beginning to enter the market but are not yet broadly available. They would also be required to rely on batteries to meet their emergency power needs in the event of a grid outage.

The most common gas furnace capacity is 100,000 Btu/hr. A furnace of this heating capacity would require less than 0.5 kW to power its controls and circulating fan, so the furnace could operate continuously in extremely cold weather for one day on a battery capacity of approximately 12 kWh. The Tesla Powerwall has a rated capacity of 13.5 kWh, so a fully charged Powerwall could support a typical gas furnace for approximately a full day, at an installed cost of approximately $9,000 – 13,000.

An electric heat pump operating at very low ambient temperature, or the strip heaters used to back up the heat pump, would require an input of approximately 30 kW to match the output of the gas furnace, or approximately 60 times the electric input required to operate the gas furnace. The installed cost of the Tesla Powerwalls required to operate the heat pump or strip heaters continuously in extremely cold weather for one day would range from $500,000 – 700,000, well beyond the financial reach of most homeowners.

Clearly, the elimination of fossil fuel space and water heating and the elimination of fossil fuel emergency and standby generators would increase the likelihood of deaths caused by grid outages in extremely cold weather. US EPA estimates the value of a “statistical life” at approximately $10 million, so grid outages in extremely cold weather could have both a major human and a major financial cost, with no discernable benefit.


Tags: Fossil Fuel Elimination / Reduction, Severe Weather, Energy Ratepayers, Green Energy Transition

The Folly Of Climate Leadership - Highlighted Article

  • 2/29/24 at 06:00 AM


From: Forbes

By: Tilak Doshi

Date: January 29, 2024

The Folly Of Climate Leadership

Lessons of UK Energy Policy Failure

Citing an International Energy Agency report, The Daily Telegraph reported on Wednesday that UK electricity prices have risen faster than almost any other developed country since 2019. The price of electricity in the UK rose by 19 percent in 2023 alone, compared to the US where electricity prices have risen by 5 percent annually since 2019. Referencing a separate report from the House of Commons library, the same article finds that the price increases have been driven by taxes and levies linked to the country’s commitment to the “net zero” emissions target which made up almost a fifth of household electricity prices.

Rupert Darwall’s 76-page penetrating analysis of Britain’s energy policy, “The folly of climate leadership: Net Zero and Britain’s disastrous energy policies” with a foreword written by Andy Puzder was published last month by the RealClear Foundation. It provides the context necessary to understand how UK’s political elites practically sleep-walked the country into its binding net zero legislation. The follies of quixotic climate leadership are not Britain’s alone, as the Biden Administration took office three years ago as America’s first “environmental administration”. Mr. Darwall’s analysis provides an excellent assessment of the lessons of Britain’s failing energy policies for those of the Biden administration. Under Democrat leadership, the US government unleashed a tsunami of green subsidies under its misnamed Inflation Reduction Act to achieve its net zero targets.


Lies, Damn Lies and Wind Energy

Not to be outdone in its claims to global “climate leadership”, the UK Labour government under Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2008 committed the country to a legally binding target of reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 below the 1990 level. It was all the more remarkable that this policy target was implemented during the global Great Recession that began with the financial crisis in the United States in late 2007 and which lasted until mid-2009. (continue reading)


The Folly Of Climate Leadership


Tags: Highlighted Article

Energy User Responsibility - ORIGINAL CONTENT

Previous commentaries (Government Responsibility, Renewables Responsibility and Grid Responsibility) dealt with the government, renewables industry and grid operator perceptions of their responsibilities regarding the proposed energy transformation.

Government, at all levels, apparently believes that its responsibility in the proposed energy transition is to establish the goals, set the timeline, pick the winning technologies and incentivize their market adoption. This perception led to Net Zero by 2050, all-electric everything, wind and solar generation, electric vehicles and a variety of incentives, subsidies and mandates.

The renewable energy industry apparently believes that its responsibility in the proposed energy transition is take maximum advantage of federal and state subsidies, incentives, preferences and mandates by installing as much generating capacity as the industry participants can finance and get connected to the grid. The industry also believes that the grid should accept all of its output whenever it is available. The opportunity the industry perceives is the result of Net Zero by 2050, all-electric everything, and the selection of wind and solar as the winning technologies.

The overall responsibility of the utilities, which own and operate the grid and much of the generating capacity which feeds the grid, and the ISOs and RTOs through which they coordinate their generation and transmission operations, is to assure reliable and economical electricity service Their operational and financial performance are overseen by state utility commissions and consumers’ counsels.

Energy users do not escape responsibility during the proposed energy transition. They are already responsible for paying higher electricity rates as a result of the redundant electricity generation investments required by the transition, which would likely continue to grow as the fraction of renewable generation on the grid increases.

Energy users would also be required to replace fossil fueled end use equipment with electric end use equipment as the transition to all-electric everything proceeds. Customers would be responsible not only for the cost of the replacement equipment, but also for the costs of building modifications necessary to accommodate the electric end use equipment. Many customer buildings would likely also require electric service upgrades to support the increased electricity demand. Many sections of the electric distribution grid would also likely require capacity upgrades, which would be reflected in customer bills.

Energy users might also be required to increase the thermal and electrical efficiency of their buildings to reduce energy demand and consumption. Building Green analyzed “The Challenge of Existing Homes: Retrofitting for Dramatic Energy Savings” several years ago. The intent of the energy transition is to accomplish what Building Green refers to as a major energy retrofit, which they estimated would incur an average cost of approximately $50,000 per dwelling unit. No such estimates are available for commercial, institutional and industrial buildings, though the average cost would be substantially greater than for residential dwelling units.

Many industrial fossil fuel energy end uses do not currently have alternative electric replacements. Customers and their equipment suppliers would be responsible for developing and installing electric alternatives. Their transition would require large distribution upgrades and, in some cases, transmission upgrades to serve the increased demand.

Vehicle owners would be required to replace internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles with electric vehicles, which are currently significantly more expensive than ICE vehicles while offering diminished utility. Battery charging facilities for these electric vehicles would likely require additional customer electric service upgrades as well as distribution grid upgrades which would be reflected in customer electricity bills.

Government is also interested in “herding” individuals, families, businesses and service providers into “15-Minute Cities” to limit the need for personal travel. This would constitute a significant loss of personal freedom for many of those affected.

Much of the cost of the end user changes would likely be offset with government subsidies, which would appear to reduce end user direct costs, but would only transfer that portion of the costs to taxpayers, thus not reducing the societal costs of the changes, but likely increasing them, since the subsidies would be funded with new government interest-bearing debt.  

TANSTAAFL: There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.


Tags: Green Energy Transition, Net Zero Emissions, Energy Ratepayers

Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say - Highlighted Article

  • 2/22/24 at 06:00 AM


From: The Epoch Times

By: Katie Spence

Date: February 1, 2024

Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say
Meteorologist finds 96 percent of NOAA temperature stations located in ‘urban heat islands,’ including next to exhaust fans and on ‘blistering-hot rooftops.’

To preserve a “livable planet,” the Earth can’t warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the United Nations warns.

Failure to maintain that level could lead to several catastrophes, including increased droughts and weather-related disasters, more heat-related illnesses and deaths, and less food and more poverty, according to NASA.

To avert the looming tribulations and limit global temperature increases, 194 member states and the European Union in 2016 signed the U.N. Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty with a goal to “substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.”

After the agreement, global spending on climate-related projects increased exponentially.

In 2021 and 2022, the world’s taxpayers spent, on average, $1.3 trillion on such projects each year, according to the nonprofit advisory group Climate Policy Initiative.

That’s more than double the spending rate in 2019 and 2020, which came in at $653 billion per year, and it’s significantly up from the $364 billion per year in 2011 and 2012, the report found.

Despite the money pouring in, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that 2023 was the hottest year on record.

NOAA’s climate monitoring stations found that the Earth’s average land and ocean surface temperature in 2023 was 1.35 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average.

“Not only was 2023 the warmest year in NOAA’s 174-year climate record—it was the warmest by far,” said Sarah Kapnick, NOAA’s chief scientist. (continue reading)


Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say


Tags: Highlighted Article
Search Older Blog Posts