Climate Change

From: Clintel

By: Guus Berkhout

Date: October, 2022

There is No Climate Emergency, a Message to the People

In the past decades the public has been flooded with fear-mongering stories, telling them that global temperatures will rise to catastrophically high levels.

Climate activists claim that the cause of all this impending doom is the increasing amount of CO2 produced by human activities. The proposed solution is the so-called net-zero emission policy, aimed at lowering human net CO2-emissions to the levels of the pre-industrial era of the late 1700s.

Those activists also claim that people should panic, and that time is running out: “Be aware that it is five minutes to midnight, we must act without delay!” Many thousands of scientists disagree; More than 1400 are Clintel signatories.

In his numerous ‘last warning’ speeches, Antonio Guterres refers to computer simulations, not the real world. Greta Thunberg testified to the US Congress that there was ‘no science’ behind her ‘panic’ comment.  This info cannot be found in the media.

So why is there such a big difference between the scaring climate activists’ narrative and the optimistic climate scientists’ message, who believe there is no climate emergency? Please, before you continue reading, watch our message: Consensus meet CLINTEL

Not many citizens are aware that all the frightening climate predictions have been generated by computer models. And we know from experience in many other complex areas, how misleading computer models can be.

For example, think of the many wrong predictions by economic models or think of the large mistakes in recent pandemic modeling. The output of computer models depends fully on the assumptions that modelmakers put into them. In the past 50 years, the predictions of climate models about global warming and their dire effects have all been wrong. In the engineering community, they would be qualified as useless. (continue reading)

There is No Climate Emergency, a Message to the People

Dominion Energy has proposed to build Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) a 176 wind turbine farm off the Virginia coast. The Virginia Legislature had predetermined that such a project was in the public interest. The Virginia State Corporation Commission (VSCC) has approved a rate increase related to funding of CVOW, though many project details remain to be finalized and many environmental approvals are outstanding.

The rating plate generating capacity of CVOW is 2.6 GW. Project output would be expected to range from 0 GW to 2.6 GW. The International Energy Agency estimates an annual capacity factor of 50% for offshore wind turbines. I will use that estimate here, since there is no significant US experience with wind farms off the US East coast. Therefore, CVOW would be expected to generate an annual average of ~1.3 GW, ranging from ~1.6 GW in Winter to ~0.8 GW in Summer.

The daily and seasonal output variations would require significant long-duration storage to allow the output of CVOW to be dispatchable. For example, the stored electricity required to make up the difference between annual average capacity and average summer capacity (1.3 GW – 0.8 GW = 0.5 GW) for a single Summer month would be approximately 372 GWh (0.5 GW * 24 hours/day * 31 days), while the capacity required to make up the difference between average winter capacity and average summer capacity would be approximately 595 GWh (0.8 GW * 24 * 31).

Dominion Energy is the majority owner of the Bath County Pumped Storage Station (BCPSS), which was frequently described as “the largest storage battery in the world”. BCPSS has a generating capacity of 3 GW and a total storage capacity of 24 GWh. Therefore, BCPSS could replace the full capacity of CVOW for approximately 9 hours (24 GWh / 2.6 GW). It would require 15-25 storage stations like BCPSS to render CVOW dispatchable seasonally based on storage capacity.

Construction of a pumped storage facility with the capacity of BCPSS would cost approximately $4 billion, or approximately $160 per kWh ($4,000,000,000 / 24,000,000 kWh), or approximately half the NREL estimated cost of battery storage. The cost of each new storage station would be approximately 40% of the estimated cost of CVOW.

Of course, the above calculations are all estimates since all of the inputs to the calculations are estimates. However, the largest uncertainty regarding the overall project is the amount of storage capacity which would be required in the Dominion Energy grid to maximize the value of the contribution of CVOW on an annual basis. Determining the optimal storage capacity would require a detailed analysis of the generating capacity mix planned for the future Dominion Energy renewable plus storage grid, including allowances for load growth resulting from population increases and from accommodating the federal goal of Net Zero by 2050.

The 2050 Net Zero Dominion Energy grid would be expected to exhibit annual electricity demand and consumption approximately 4 times current demand and consumption. That would be a massive technical and economic challenge.

From: Master Resource

By: Robert Bradley Jr.

Date: October 12, 2022

‘Deep Optimism Manifesto’ (David Siegel’s cure for ‘climate anxiety’)

David Siegel is a man with a message. His Deep Optimism Manifesto spells out a new approach to viewing the world that is at once realistic and optimistic. Written last year, its message is timeless and timely. His opening quotation comes from Julian Simon’s essay in The State of Humanity, p. 642.

I am writing this in response to the Ecomodernism manifesto. It’s a group of smart people doing very important work to help improve the future for humanity and nature.

I think if they looked more into the science of climate change and the economics of abundance, they would arrive at Deep Optimism, a term coined by Matt Ridley, the rational optimist.

People who understand the economics of abundance don’t apply enough critical thinking to understanding climate and the natural world (Hans Rosling, Bjorn Lomborg, Peter Diamandis, Tyler Cowen, Steven Pinker). They take model projections of doom and gloom at face value, which dampens their message of abundance.

Here I present the basic principles as I see them. (Opinions expressed here are my own.)

In a Nutshell

Capitalism works. Capitalism does more to help the world than the UN, World Economic Forum, Club of Rome, NASA, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and a long list of clueless celebrities put together. Capitalism helps humans escape poverty and improve the environment. There are a few incentive problems to address, but here is the track record so far … (continue reading)

‘Deep Optimism Manifesto’ (David Siegel’s cure for ‘climate anxiety’)

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H. L. Mencken

The UN and the governments of several nations in western Europe, North America and Australia and the media in those nations have labeled climate change “Code Red”, a “crisis”, an “existential threat” and an “emergency”. They have blamed anthropogenic CO2 emissions for climate change. They have blamed climate change for sea level rise, glacier retreat, heat waves, cold waves, droughts, floods, increased frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones and tornadoes. These assertions are not supported by the IPCC Working Group reports. They are supported, to some extent, by the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which is a political rather than a scientific document.

These efforts have so far not accomplished the desired alarm among their populations. Recent polls place climate change at or near the bottom of the list of concerns among their populations. Polling indicates that their populations would be interested in or even willing to take various actions to slow climate change, though there is little or no willingness to pay additional taxes or pay more for energy in the process.

This lack of enthusiastic population response has led governments to take actions which cause inconvenience, pain and suffering for their populations. The US government’s actions intended to limit the supplies of oil and natural gas in the economy have resulted in a doubling of the prices for these commodities. The rapid increase in gasoline prices has stressed people’s budgets but is having the effect of reducing gasoline consumption as people decide to drive less to reduce expenses. The decrease in natural gas availability and the resulting increase in natural gas prices has resulted in an increase in electricity prices as the quantity of gas available in the spot market decreases.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. - Groucho Marx

Politicians looking for an issue which would alarm a relatively comfortable and secure populace discovered global warming, then global cooling, then global warming again. This reversal led to a refocus on climate change. They then found climate change everywhere, in sea level rise, glacial retreat, droughts, floods, tropical cyclones and tornadoes. They diagnosed these troubles as resulting from anthropogenic CO2 emissions, though sea level rise and glacial retreat have been occurring at least since the end of the Little Ice Age and droughts, floods, tropical cyclones and tornadoes have been recurring weather events since long before anthropogenic global warming began.

Politicians then decided that the solution to this trouble they found was replacing the use of fossil fuels in their economies with wind and solar electric generation, backed up with electricity storage. In doing so, they chose to ignore the intermittency of these generation technologies and the unavailability of the storage technology required to assure a stable and reliable electric grid. The result has been increased electricity prices and reduced electricity reliability.

From: RealClear Energy

By: Joseph Toomey

Date: September, 2022

Energy Inflation Was by Design

FOREWORD
by Rupert Darwall

The West is experiencing its third energy crisis. The first, in 1973, was caused by the near-quintupling of the price of crude oil by Gulf oil producers in response to America’s support for Israel in the Yom Kippur war. Their action brought an end to what the French call the trente glorieuses-the unprecedented post-World War II economic expansion. The second occurred at the end of the 1970s, when Iran’s Islamic revolution led to a more than doubling of oil prices. This again inflicted great economic hardship, but the policy response was far better. Inflation was purged at the cost of deep recession. Energy markets were permitted to function. High oil prices induced substitution effects, particularly in the power sector, and stimulated increased supply. In the space of nine months, the oil price cratered from $30 a barrel in November 1985 to $10 a barrel in July 1986. It’s no wonder that the economic expansion that started under Ronald Reagan had such long legs.

This time is different. The third energy crisis was not sparked by Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies or by Iranian ayatollahs. It was self-inflicted, a foreseeable outcome of policy choices made by the West: Germany’s disastrous Energiewende that empowered Vladimir Putin to launch an energy war against Europe; Britain’s self-regarding and self-destructive policy of “powering past coal” and its decision to ban fracking; and, as Joseph Toomey shows in his powerful essay, President Biden’s war on the American oil and gas industry.

Hostilities were declared during Joe Biden’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. “I guarantee you. We’re going to end fossil fuel,” candidate Biden told a climate activist in September 2019, words that the White House surely hopes get lost down a memory hole. Toomey’s paper has all the receipts, so there’s no danger of that. As he observes, Biden’s position in 2022 resembles Barack Obama’s in 2012, when rising gas prices threatened to sink his reelection. Obama responded with a ruthlessness that his erstwhile running mate lacks. He simply stopped talking about climate and switched to an all-of-theabove energy policy, shamelessly claiming credit for the fracking revolution that his own EPA tried to strangle at birth.(continue reading)

Energy Inflation Was by Design

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
George Santayana

“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Winston Churchill

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

History: a chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes
Merriam-Webster

History does not repeat itself identically because too many factors surrounding events differ or are subject to change during and after the events. History is easier to understand the more recent it is because more detail regarding an event is available for analysis and the factors surrounding the event have had less time to change. The ideal situation is the ability to analyze a series of events as they unfold in real-time, on their way to becoming history.

We currently have the opportunity to analyze several series of events regarding the transition from conventional sources of energy to renewable plus storage energy systems based on wind and solar generation. These series of events have occurred in two different states in the US and in two different nations in Western Europe. While each series of events was and is impacted by a unique set of surrounding factors, they share several common characteristics.

Each series of events involved aggressive introduction of renewable generation, while virtually ignoring electricity storage and relying on conventional generation to provide backup power when the intermittent renewable generation was either unavailable or operating below rating plate capacity.

Each series of events involved premature closure of conventional generating capacity, primarily coal and nuclear generation, thus reducing the backup capability of the remaining conventional generation.

Each series of events involved an unusual, but not unprecedented, weather event which significantly reduced the availability of the intermittent renewable generation capacity for a period of several days. These weather events included wind droughts in California and western Europe and unusually cold weather in Texas.

Each of these series of events has been accompanied by a significant increase in electric energy prices, despite government assurances that the transition to renewable generation would reduce electricity prices. These price increases are largely the result of the fact that the renewable generation is redundant capacity, since it continues to require equivalent conventional generation capacity as backup.

The consequences of these series of events in Western Europe have been aggravated by Russian reductions in natural gas deliveries, which then reduced the available natural gas combined-cycle generation output. This has resulted in numerous business and industry closures or output reductions due to reduced competitiveness or insufficient energy availability. Several Western European nations have altered planned conventional generation closures and begun reopening closed conventional generation.

States and nations which have not yet experienced similar series of events and their effects have the opportunity to learn from this history as it unfolds around them in real-time. Scheduled conventional generation plant closures are being deferred and expansion of electricity storage capacity is being re-evaluated. Continuing to do the same things is being questioned.

From: Energy Talking Points

By: Alex Epstein

Date: October 5, 2022

25 myths about extreme weather, refuted

With Hurricane Ian, the media have once again put forward the narrative that fossil fuels make extreme weather danger worse—and that fossil fuel supporters like Governor Ron Desantis are to blame.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Myth 1: The world is experiencing unprecedented danger from extreme weather thanks to fossil fuels.

Truth: The world is experiencing unprecedented safety from extreme weather thanks to fossil fuels—because fossil fuels' climate mastery benefits overwhelm any negative climate side-effects.

Myth 2: The media and its designated experts are accurately reporting on fossil fuels and extreme weather.

Truth: The media and its “experts” are:
1. totally ignoring how fossil fuels make us safer than ever from extreme weather
2. wildly overstating fossil fuels' negative impact on weather.

Myth 3: The effect of fossil fuels on extreme weather danger is solely negative.

Truth: Not only can warming from fossil fuels have significant benefits (fewer cold deaths) but the low-cost energy fossil fuels provide for billions gives us an unprecedented ability to master extreme weather. (continue reading)

25 myths about extreme weather, refuted

“That's why I think we need to recognize it has to be about innovation instead. If we focus on making green energy so cheap that eventually everyone will want it, then we can get everybody on board, and we can do so very, very cheaply. So, we can spend less money and do much more good by investing in research and development, rather than focusing on what has failed for the last 20 years”. - Bjorn Lomborg

Energy has been a critical factor in improving humans’ quality of life and lifespan. Lomborg has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the availability of adequate energy, clean water and sanitation to improve the quality of life in developing nations. He has also criticized the developed nations’ focus on investments in current technology intermittent renewable electricity generation, which he views as relatively less important.

Lomborg’s focus on innovation to make “green energy so cheap that eventually everyone will want it” makes eminent good sense. Unfortunately, that is the exact opposite of the path being followed by the UN, EU, UK, US, Canada and Australia. The UN is demanding and the developed nations are forcing an accelerated conversion of their energy economies to reliance on intermittent wind, solar and electricity storage. These conversions are being driven, not by citizen demand, but rather by legislation and regulations requiring replacement of fossil fuels for all energy end uses with renewable generation and storage. They are also being supported by government incentives which have been available for decades.

This enforced transition has resulted in dramatic increases in energy prices in these countries, despite government and developer assertions that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electricity. It is also leading to impending shortages of energy, energy consumption restrictions and electric grid unreliability and instability. These issues are also being aggravated in Western Europe by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russia’s use of the natural gas it sells to those nations as a geopolitical bargaining tool, reducing gas deliveries below contracted volumes.

The current situation, rather than “making green energy so cheap that eventually everyone will want it”, is making green energy so expensive that eventually no one will want it. In the process, it is also making fossil fuel generation more expensive, since fossil generators are required to provide backup for the intermittent renewables when they are not generating, causing the fossil generators to be operated for fewer hours and to generate less power while their fixed costs remain constant.

The same governments are also forcing a transition to electric vehicles, again driven by legislation and supported by incentives for vehicle purchase and for installation of vehicle charging stations. However, the EVs are more expensive than internal combustion engine vehicles and there are growing concerns about battery cost and life. EVs have also been plagued recently by a rash of battery fires in personal vehicles, light trucks and transit buses. These fires spread rapidly and are virtually impossible to extinguish. Several jurisdictions are considering banning parking and charging EVs in parking structures because of this issue.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Nicola Scafetta

Date: September 25, 2022

CMIP6 GCMs versus global surface temperatures: ECS discussion

Two publications examining the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) have recently been published in Climate Dynamics:

Scafetta, N. (2022a). CMIP6 GCM ensemble members versus global surface temperatures.

Lewis, N. (2022). Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence.

These two papers are significant because they take different but complimentary approaches and achieve the same result – ECS <3°C. Scafetta (2022a) extends and confirm Scafetta (2022b) previously published in GRL.

Lewis study was discussed in a previous post, let us here briefly present the main findings of Scafetta (2022).

The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (phase 6) (CMIP6) global circulation (GCM) models project equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) values ranging from 1.8 to 5.7°C. To reduce this range, the 38 GCM were divided into low (1.5<ECS<3.0 °C), medium (3.0<ECS<4.5°C), and high (4.5<ECs<6.0°C) ECS subgroups and their accuracy and precision were evaluated in hindcasting the average global surface warming observed from 1980-1990 to 2011-2021. The study used global surface temperature records are ERA5-T2m, HadCRUT5, GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and the satellite-based lower troposphere global temperature UAH-MSU lt v6 record was added as well. (continue reading)

CMIP6 GCMs versus global surface temperatures: ECS discussion

Observing and analyzing climate and climate change is an interesting experiment. The experimentalist can establish the events and characteristics to be observed and/or measured, the timing of the start of the observation period and the timing of the end of the observation period. However, the experimentalist has no control over the design of the experiment, which has been ongoing since before the observation period and will continue after the end of the observation period.

The observation of the climate experiment must be conducted and recorded with extreme care, since the experiment cannot be repeated in the event of an observational or measurement problem. Missed observations and unmeasured or inaccurate data cannot be replaced by running another test, since the test conditions cannot be duplicated. No period during the duration of the experiment will ever reoccur.

Weather has been of concern to humans because of the positive and negative impacts it has on their lives. Instrumental monitoring of temperature began with the Central England Temperature record in the mid-1600s, expanded to the US and several other countries by the mid-1800s and became nearly global in the mid-1900s. Satellite monitoring of global tropospheric temperature began in 1979. Regular monitoring of precipitation began in the mid-1700s and became nearly global in the mid-1900s. Extensive regular monitoring of sea level began in the early 1900s. Instrumental monitoring of atmospheric CO2 concentrations began in the mid-1950s. The global instrumental record is relatively short (~70 years) and still does not provide complete coverage. However, it is the basis upon which the theory of anthropogenic climate change has been developed; and, the basis upon which the climate models and the model projections of future climate change have been developed.

The theory of anthropogenic climate change, as exemplified by the outputs of the various CMIP6 climate models, does not agree well with the experiment, as exemplified by comparison of the projections of the models and observations, as shown below in a series of graphs from a paper co-authored by Ross McKittrick and John Christy, shown below.

Figure 3 - Trends and 95% CIs for individual models (red dots and thin bars), CMIP6 mean (red dot and thick bar), and observational series (blue). Horizontal dashed line shows mean satellite trend.

Clearly, the projections of the global and tropical temperature anomaly trends produced by the CMIP6 climate models do not agree well with the observational data series. Therefore, by Feynman’s criteria, they are wrong. The CMIP6 model ensemble has falsified itself, as was the case with the CMIP5 models. The CMIP6 models projected temperature anomaly changes as much as four times the observed temperature anomaly changes.

Clearly, if the theory is wrong, as embodied in the CMIP6 climate models, it is not a reasonable basis for precipitous climate actions, as are being insisted upon by the UN and implemented by numerous nations. It is essential that an accurate theory be developed and tested before precipitous climate actions are implemented unnecessarily.

By: Tom Nelson

The earth has a single atmosphere. There is reputedly a “scientific consensus” that the earth’s climate is being changed by human emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other trace gases and that these climate changes will produce adverse results. The “scientific consensus” is that these emissions must cease to avoid the perceived adverse impacts. The UN has hosted a series of Conferences of the Parties (COPs) to develop plans to address the issue and solicit national commitments to reduce emissions.

The perceived climate change has been measured by numerous agencies and analyzed by numerous scientists, much of whose research has been analyzed and reported by the IPCC. The IPCC technical reports do not document a “climate crisis”. The IPCC Summary for Policymakers alleges greater concern for the future effects of climate change than the supporting technical reports. The UN, however, perceives a “crisis”, purportedly based on the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

National governments in the EU, UK, US, Canada and Australia have concluded that the ongoing climate change represents a “crisis” and are pursuing efforts to eliminate carbon dioxide, methane and other trace gas emissions from their economies by 2050, thus achieving “Net Zero” emissions. These efforts require major changes throughout their energy economies. Governments are promoting the promised reduced cost of renewable generation, though their experience has been increased costs. At present, reliable renewable generation requires the application of technology which does not exist or is not commercially available at scale at reasonable cost. However, governments continue to pursue these efforts, apparently anticipating that the necessary technology will become available when it is needed.

National governments in Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa have also participated in the UN COPs and given “lip service” to national commitments to reduce emissions. These national commitments are generally dependent upon funding from the developed nations for climate change mitigation, adaptation and reparations for perceived damages. This funding has yet to materialize at the levels demanded by the developing nations.

The national governments in Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa do not perceive climate change as a “crisis” which requires them to totally revise their energy economies to reduce emissions. They have decided that economic development is more important for their nations than reducing emissions. They continue to build new fossil fuel power generation and industrial production infrastructure, frequently relying on coal as their primary fuel. This economic development results in rapidly increasing emissions, not only of “greenhouse gases”, but also of criteria pollutants which adversely impact air quality in those nations.

Climate change is a global phenomenon, though its effects vary regionally to some extent. However, on a global basis, climate change is either a “crisis” or it is not. The nations which are home to more than half of the world’s population are not treating climate change as a crisis. These positions seem to be consistent with the scientific assessment of the IPCC technical reports, while the “crisis” assessments of the UN and other national governments seem overwrought.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Gianluca Alimonti, Luigi Mariani, Franco Prodi & Renato Angelo Ricci (The European Physical Journal Plus)

Date: September 22, 2022

A Critical Assessment of Extreme Events Trends in Times of Global Warming

Abstract

This article reviews recent bibliography on time series of some extreme weather events and related response indicators in order to understand whether an increase in intensity and/or frequency is detectable. The most robust global changes in climate extremes are found in yearly values of heatwaves (number of days, maximum duration and cumulated heat), while global trends in heatwave intensity are not significant. Daily precipitation intensity and extreme precipitation frequency are stationary in the main part of the weather stations. Trend analysis of the time series of tropical cyclones show a substantial temporal invariance and the same is true for tornadoes in the USA. At the same time, the impact of warming on surface wind speed remains unclear. The analysis is then extended to some global response indicators of extreme meteorological events, namely natural disasters, floods, droughts, ecosystem productivity and yields of the four main crops (maize, rice, soybean and wheat). None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet. It would be nevertheless extremely important to define mitigation and adaptation strategies that take into account current trends.

Introduction

The average surface temperature of our planet has increased by about one degree centigrade from the pre-industrial era and various studies highlight variations in cloud cover, precipitation, relative humidity and wind speed. This article reviews recent bibliography on some extreme weather events by comparing them with time series in order to understand whether an increase in intensity and/or frequency is found. (continue reading)

A Critical Assessment of Extreme Events Trends in Times of Global Warming

Intermittent renewable generation displaces a portion of the output of conventional coal and natural gas generators, but does not replace those generators. However, depending on intermittent renewable market penetration, the annual output of the conventional generators is reduced and the operation of some generators might be suspended, particularly during the shoulder months.

The reduced operation of these conventional generators increases the unit cost of their output because the fixed costs of the plants and the labor costs of operating and maintaining the plants remain relatively unchanged, but must be allocated to lower generation output. Unit fuel costs also increase slightly as modulated or intermittent operation reduce generator efficiency.

Uncertainty regarding required generator output creates fuel supply issues for the conventional generators. Coal plants maintain a coal pile on the generation site, from which coal is moved to the steam boiler. The coal in the pile represents an unrecovered expense for the generator. Therefore, the pile must remain large enough to meet demand without burdening the generator with excessive unrecovered expense throughout the year. While coal generators can load-follow over a wide range of output, restarting a coal generator from a “cold start” can take 10 or more hours. A decision to shut down a coal plant must take this restart time into account.

Natural gas generators do not maintain on-site fuel supply, but rely on contemporaneous pipeline fuel delivery. This typically has not been an issue when adequate pipeline capacity and adequate gas quantities are available. However, with variable or interruptible generator operation, the generator cannot enter into firm, fixed-price contracts for natural gas delivery and is reluctant to contract for firm pipeline capacity. Therefore, natural gas generators typically rely on interruptible pipeline capacity and purchase their natural gas in the spot market as required.

However, changes in the market are having an impact on this gas supply scenario. Numerous utilities with significant coal generation capacity will be required to retire those generators by 2030 to meet the Administration’s emission reduction goals. Several of these utilities are considering adding natural gas generators to replace the coal generating capacity. However, the Administration’s actions limiting oil and gas exploration and production will limit future gas availability, while its resistance to new natural gas pipeline construction will limit access to natural gas for future natural gas generators.

As natural gas production declines, the quantity of natural gas available in the spot market will also decline, increasing the spot market price and reducing generator access to fuel when required. This situation manifested in Texas in 2021, when high gas demand for heating in very cold weather dramatically reduced spot market gas availability and restricted gas plant generation. This problem was compounded by difficulties in restarting inoperative gas generators which had not been winterized.

This issue will become more critical as the market penetration of intermittent renewables increases and as the US energy market transitions to ‘all-electric everything” until grid-scale storage is available to support the intermittent generation. There remains a risk that storage capacity additions lag behind the loss of conventional generation capacity.

From: American Energy Alliance

By: Thomas Pyle

Date: May 26, 2022

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

Joe Biden and the leadership of the Democratic party have a plan for American energy: make it harder to produce and more expensive to purchase. Since Biden took office, his administration and Congressional Democrats have taken over 100 actions deliberately designed to make it harder to produce energy here in America.

32 of these anti-energy proclamations were enacted after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which Biden regularly touts as an excuse for rising gas prices.

This is exactly what the Green New Deal agenda is, making the sources of energy needed every day for families around the country too expensive to afford.

The Democratic plan for lower gas prices is simple: blame everyone else, buy an electric vehicle, and don’t be poor. The Biden administration has made it clear they value the support of the radical environmental lobby more than lowering prices at the pump.

Below is a list of 100 explicitly anti-energy actions taken by the administration since Biden took office last January. (continue reading)

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