Climate Change

Climategate was an ugly blot on the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the consensed climate science community and the IPCC in which they participated. The release of a batch of e-mails among a number of climate scientists in 2009 laid bare a coordinated effort to manage the consensus climate narrative by controlling which scientific studies were included in the IPCC assessments. This release was met with complaints that the e-mails released “lacked context”. This triggered a second e-mail release which provided the necessary and equally damning context and was followed later by a third release of all of the “purloined” e-mails collected by “Mr. FOIA”.

The activities disclosed in the e-mails included:

“cherry-picking” data;
refusing to release data for review by other scientists;
threatening to destroy data rather than share it with other scientists;
corrupting the peer review process;
ignoring scientific studies which did not conform with their consensus;
threatening the careers of scientific journal editors; and,
attempting to destroy the careers of skeptical scientists.

A series of investigations of this conduct did not find any violations of law, but rather numerous violations of good scientific practice and ethics. The investigations attempted to put an end to the Climategate controversy. Regrettably, they did not put an end to the activities which triggered the controversy.

Perhaps the most egregious of the continuing practices are the efforts to keep scientific studies which do not conform with the consensus from publication and from inclusion in the periodic scientific assessments prepared by the IPCC.

Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado at Boulder recently reported that he had been informed by an editor at the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) journal that he should not bother to submit material for publication because PNAS would not be able to find peer reviewers willing to review and comment upon his work.

Professor Pielke also reports that the contents of a paper submitted to IPCC for consideration in AR6 regarding disaster loss normalization were ignored, with the exception of a single “outlier” paper which fit the consensus.

Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has reported that two journal editors were fired after publishing papers he had submitted.

The consensed climate science community was successful in creating a toxic professional environment which caused Sally Baliunas and Judith Curry to leave university positions in the climate field. They were also successful in having Dr. David Legates removed as the Maryland State Climatologist based on his skepticism.

Climate researchers including Dr. Wei-Hock Soon, Dr. William Happer, Dr. William van Wijngaarden and others continue to report difficulty having their scientific papers published in US scientific journals and have resorted to publication in peer-reviewed foreign journals. Some have even resorted to “crowd review” on internet sites to get their work into the public domain.

These continuing actions by the consensed climate science community certainly do not conform to proper scientific practice and could properly be described using the epithet “anti-science”, which they frequently throw at skeptics.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Willis Eschenbach

Date: July 3, 2023

The Myth Of Replacing Fossil Fuels

A hat tip to the commenter on one of my posts who was kind enough to give me a heads-up as follows:

Mark BLR June 30, 2023 2:23 am

BP handed over the production of their “Statistical Review of World Energy” to an outfit called the “Energy Institute” at the end of last year.

They released the new version, with annual data updated to 2022, on Monday (4 days ago).

The latest (.xlsx) spreadsheet can be downloaded from the following URL :
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review/resources-and-data-downloads

Since I had the new data, I thought I’d update the following graphic that I made a few years ago, which only covered up to 2019.

Figure 1. The 2019 version of energy consumption.

When I put that out, people were saying things like “You don’t understand. Solar and wind are growing exponentially! Just wait a few years and you’ll see!”

So, having now waited a few years, here’s the 2022 version. This time I’ve split out fossil fuels as a separate line. I’ve also added a line for traditional biomass. All the data is from the BP spreadsheet linked above except traditional biomass, which is from Our World In Data.

Figure 2. The 2022 version, including traditional biomass and fossil fuels as separate lines.

There are some very interesting things about this graphic. First, all the solar and wind in the world combined doesn’t provide even a third of the energy we get from wood and dung. (continue reading)

The Myth Of Replacing Fossil Fuels

Six Phases of a Project

1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the guilty
5. Punishment of the innocent
6. Praise and honors for the non-participants

This “smart joke” apparently originated in computer science in the 1970s and spread rapidly from there. It provides a humorous perspective on the history of a failing project and the fallout from its failure. It also provides a perspective from which we can analyze the current state of the “Net Zero by 2050” project.

The Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario is an International Energy Agency scenario which identifies a potential path for all nations of the globe to achieve net zero annual CO2 emissions by 2050 to achieve the objectives of the Paris Accords. The almost universal agreement to the objectives of the Paris Accords by UN member nations led to great enthusiasm regarding potential future emissions reductions.

“The Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario is built on the following principles:

• The uptake of all the available technologies and emissions reduction options is dictated by costs, technology maturity, policy preferences, and market and country conditions.
• All countries co-operate towards achieving net zero emissions worldwide. This involves all countries participating in efforts to meet the net zero goal, working together in an effective and mutually beneficial way, and recognising the different stages of economic development of countries and regions, and the importance of ensuring a just transition.  
• An orderly transition across the energy sector. This includes ensuring the security of fuel and electricity supplies at all times, minimising stranded assets where possible and aiming to avoid volatility in energy markets.”

Disillusionment followed enthusiasm as night follows day as the violation of the above principles developed. Issues of the cost of technologies and emissions reduction options were offset by government subsidies and incentives, technology maturity was replaced by technology forcing regulations and market and country conditions were ignored. The only unaffected component of the first principle above was policy preferences.

The all-country cooperation called for in the second principle above succumbed to economic development priorities in the developing nations and disagreements over the requirements of a just transition. China, India, Indonesia and numerous African nations prioritized economic development over net zero pursuit and chose to base much of their economic development on increased use of coal and other fossil fuels. There are also continuing concerns over development funding from the developed nations to the developing nations.

The orderly transition across the energy sector fell prey to the intermittency of renewable generation, the immaturity of the storage technologies necessary to support renewable generation during periods of low/no renewable generation, the premature closure of conventional generation capacity, the Russian war in Ukraine and the US Administration war on the fossil fuels industries. Significant volatility in the energy markets in Europe, North America, Japan and Australia has resulted.

The failure of the IEA principles has led to panic in Europe and the UK as energy supplies have decreased and energy prices have increased rapidly. Numerous European industries have shut down or reduced production as the result of energy supply shortages and rising energy prices.

The political classes in the developed nations have focused the search for the guilty on Russia, though there is plenty of guilt to go around and they will ultimately share in it.

The punishment of the innocent is focused on the citizens and industries in the developed nations exposed to rising energy prices and the possibility of major energy shortages.

So far there has been no apparent effort to provide praise and honors for the non-participants, whoever they are.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Roger Caiazza

Date: July 2, 2023

RGGI Investment Report Lessons for Cap and Invest Programs

Cap-and-invest emission reduction programs are supposed to effectively reduce emissions and generate revenues.  The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is an electric sector cap-and-invest program in the NE United States that can provide insight into the potential of these programs.  This post reviews the latest RGGI annual Investments of Proceeds report to determine how well the investments are producing emission reductions and the lessons that should be kept in mind from the observed results.

Background

RGGI is a market-based program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to RGGI:

"The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia to cap and reduce power sector CO2 emissions.

RGGI is composed of individual CO2 Budget Trading Programs in each participating state. Through independent regulations, based on the RGGI Model Rule, each state’s CO2 Budget Trading Program limits emissions of CO2 from electric power plants, issues CO2 allowances and establishes participation in regional CO2 allowance auctions. (continue reading)

RGGI Investment Report Lessons for Cap and Invest Programs

The broad concept of 15-Minute Cities is not new, though the proposed version of the future is very different from its predecessors. The earlier 15-minute cities in the United States were voluntarily established small neighborhoods distinguished by the common ethnic or religious backgrounds of their residents. Many US cities still have Italian, Irish, Polish and Slavic neighborhoods. Many large cities have a Chinatown or a Koreatown or a Little Italy. Many also have Jewish neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods, such as the Harlem neighborhood in Manhattan, grew and later divided into two neighborhoods. Some cities even have suburbs which are predominantly populated by a single ethnic or religious group.

However, the 15-minute cities being proposed as an approach to reducing anthropogenic climate change are very different. First, they would have far greater population density, leading to clusters of high-rise mixed-use buildings housing schools, retail establishments, business offices, restaurants, recreation facilities, medical and dental offices, emergency medical facilities and other service businesses. High population density is necessary to assure a customer base sufficient to support the various non-residential facilities within the city.

The proposed 15-minute cities bear some resemblance to the housing projects built in numerous US cities to provide low-income housing, many of which either started out as or later became racially segregated. However, the current emphasis on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) should avoid racial, religious or ethnic segregation, at least by intent. Economic segregation might be far more difficult to avoid.

Developing 15-minute cities within existing major cities would be very difficult because of the diverse ownership of the existing property and infrastructure. It would also be a major exercise in “broken window economics”, removing existing functional infrastructure to replace it with higher density, mixed-use infrastructure. Redevelopment would displace current residents and businesses for several years while demolition and construction occurred. Construction would require large quantities of concrete, steel, brick and glass. Fabrication of these materials is very energy intensive and current production methods require the use of fossil fuels.

The primary climate change benefits expected from 15-minute cities are reductions in vehicle use and emissions and improved building energy efficiency. Transportation outside the 15-minute cities would be primarily by electrified public transit operating on perimeter roads.

The success of individual 15-minute cities would depend upon their geographic location, the quality and character of the specific non-residential facilities and services available within the city and the features and quality of the residential dwelling units. Cities with excellent schools and recreational facilities would be likely to attract younger couples and families. Other cities might be more attractive to 55 and older residents based on the nature of the non-residential facilities available, perhaps including assisted living functionality and more extensive medical and rehabilitation facilities.

Cities with higher end shopping and restaurants, perhaps even concierge services, would be more attractive to wealthy potential occupants and would likely lead to some degree of economic self-segregation.

The selection of a 15-minute city with the optimal combination of facilities would be more critical than the current situation, since travel out of the 15-minute city would be less convenient than is typical currently.

By: The Aspen Institute

The 15-Minute City is a relatively recent fascination of those interested in fomenting concern about climate change and using that concern to expand control over our lives.

The basic premise is a city, or section of a larger city, in which residents would have access to basic human needs including work, shopping, education, healthcare and leisure within a 15-minute walk or bicycle ride from anywhere in the city. To put that in perspective, a typical walking pace is approximately 3 miles per hour, while a typical cycling pace is approximately 15 miles per hour. Therefore, the diagonal distance between the opposite corners of a square 15-minute city would be between approximately three quarters of a mile and three and three quarters miles. If we assume that not all residents have or use bicycles, our square city would be approximately one-half mile square, or one quarter of a square mile, or approximately 5 city blocks on a side. This 15-minute city would have a population of 50,000 to 100,000, or 200,000 to 400,000 per square mile. Manhattan Island, for comparison, has a population density of approximately 74,000 per square mile and is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. Therefore, the population density of the 15-minute city would be almost 2.5 times the population density of Manhattan Island.

Activities such a manufacturing and farming would almost certainly not occur within the 15-minute city, but 15-minute cities could be constructed adjacent to manufacturing facilities or surrounded by farmland to minimize travel distances for those working in the factories or on the farms. Such cities would be reminiscent of the “company towns” built by many industrial facilities to provide employee housing and services.

The size of dwelling units would be far smaller than is currently typical in the US. For example, assuming an average occupancy of 3 persons and an average dwelling size of 600 square feet, the 15-minute city would require approximately 16,000 to 30,000 dwelling units with a total area of 10-20 million square feet in a total land area of approximately 1.7 million square feet. Assuming a 25% land area allocation for parks, recreation facilities and walking/cycling paths, plus building space allocations for offices, stores, schools, hospitals or urgent care facilities and indoor leisure facilities, the buildings in the 15-minute city would average approximately 10-20 stories.

These cities would be expected to constitute substantial urban heat islands, with average near-surface temperatures 6-8°F warmer than the surrounding rural areas. This warming would be the result of the combination of wind blocking by the multi-story buildings and heat absorption by the building mass during the day, which would be released at night, raising nighttime temperatures. The UHI effect would likely be offset somewhat by the relative absence of road surfaces and vehicle traffic.

These conditions might be relatively acceptable to current city dwellers, despite the minimal living spaces and the increased population density. However, they would likely be unpleasant for current suburban and rural dwellers.

From: ResearchGate

By: Roger Higgs

Date: April, 2019

33 simple 'Bullet Points' prove CO2 is innocent of global warming: by a GEOLOGIST for a change

Abstract

GEOCLASTICA LTD TECHNICAL NOTE 2019-11, updated Feb 2023. Firstly, please be aware that ALL GEOLOGISTS ARE ENVIRONMENTALISTS; we adore nature and abhor pollution. Welcome. You're one of >40,000 people to visit since I posted this item in April 2019. After reading these 33 simple 'bullet points', you will know that: (1) harmless CO2 is certainly not a 'pollutant' (as if!); and (2) it is madness to waste trillions of taxpayer dollars on 'carbon capture and storage' (CCS) that is both needless (CO2's small greenhouse effect is negated by feedbacks omitted in 'climate models') and undesirable (man's CO2 additions have made Earth greener, stimulating vital crop yields and forest growth). Nevertheless WE DO NEED TO TRANSITION AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS (i.e. oil, gas, coal; NB I'm a geology consultant for oil companies), but not due to life-giving CO2, instead because they will become too expensive as they grow scarcer. THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE: (A) freeze fossil-fuel usage at current levels (no new fossil-fuel-burning power stations or industry); (B) ban petrol & diesel vehicles & the REAL pollution they emit (nitrous oxides, unburnt diesel, tyre dust, etc.) immediately in cities & towns; (C) rapidly expand nuclear power (it produces ZERO air pollution; ample barren locations exist for radioactive-waste storage) while we … (D) urgently accelerate development of clean nuclear FUSION. PLEASE SHARE THESE 'BULLET POINTS', which collectively prove CO2 did not cause the 'Modern Global Warming'. I have assembled these 33 unquestionable FACTS (as opposed to INTERPRETATIONS, always open to question) during my 7 years, to date (Feb 2023), of self-funded (hence unbiased) full-time literature research on ALL the scientific disciplines relevant to climate- and sea-level change (i.e. geology, geophysics, archaeology, astrophysics, meteorology, oceanography, physics, chemistry, etc.), backed by 35 years as a geological consultant, preceded by a doctorate (Oxford 1982-86), MSc (Calgary) and BSc (London), all in geology. Contrast the IPCC's 2013/14 and 2021/22 reports, each with more than 700 authors, NONE (or possibly 1) of them a geologist (see my 1-page Technical Note 2019-10 here on ResearchGate). We urgently need to get the truth about CO2 out to the public and especially into schools and universities, to end the brainwashing of YOUR children and grandchildren with the 'CO2 is a pollutant' fallacy. The money squandered needlessly and ineffectually 'tackling' beneficial(!) CO2 should instead be spent alleviating GENUINE problems faced by world society, including overpopulation, poverty, famine, REAL pollution (auto emissions, chemical spills, plastics, sewage, etc.) and the IMMINENT >2-METRES SEA-LEVEL RISE jointly driven by (A) man's emissions of airborne soot and (B) our Sun's recently ended, record-breaking 'Grand Maximum' (Bullet 17). For literature SOURCES, please click on 'Linked data'. (continue reading)

33 simple 'Bullet Points' prove CO2 is innocent of global warming: by a GEOLOGIST for a change

The United States energy independence achieved in 2020 has been sacrificed on the altar of climate change, terminated with malice as part of an effort to “end fossil fuels”. This effort would ultimately make the entire US energy economy dependent upon intermittent renewable generation, some form of energy storage plus existing nuclear, hydro, geothermal, biomass generation and as yet undefined “Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources”.

The ”end fossil fuels” effort has proceeded faster on the supply side than on the demand side, causing the US Administration to go “hat in hand” to OPEC, Venezuela and even Iran seeking to arrange imports of foreign oil to fill the growing gap between domestic supply and demand. This Administration effort has not been well received by those potential suppliers. OPEC has recently announced a 1 million barrel per day reduction in production. US dependence, in this case, is amplified by sales of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which have left the SPR dangerously depleted.

The transition to a largely renewables plus storage energy economy increases our dependence on weather, as well as on foreign supplies of key materials required for the manufacture of wind turbines, solar collectors and storage batteries. Many of these materials are rare earth minerals, most of which are not currently available in the quantities which would be required to repower the US energy economy and some of which might not ever be available in those quantities. Many of those minerals are primarily controlled by nations which are unfriendly to the US, leaving us dependent on our enemies for our future wellbeing.

The requirement for energy storage in the renewables plus storage energy economy leaves us dependent upon technology which, for the most part, does not exist today and might never exist. The large seasonal variation in wind and solar generator output creates a requirement for long-duration storage capable of storing energy over a period of months when generation is in surplus for use during months when generation is inadequate to meet grid demand. The only established technology for such storage currently in use is pumped hydro storage. However, there has been major environmentalist resistance to the construction of pumped hydro storage facilities, particularly flow of stream facilities which require damming existing waterways.

Elimination of fossil fuel use also faces major challenges in several industries for which there is no existing electric alternative process, such as the production of iron and the calcining of coal. The impact of the “end of fossil fuels” on industrial processes which rely on fossil fuels for their process chemistry, on the synthetic fertilizer industry and on the production of the thousands of products made from derivatives of oil remains uncertain.

Our growing dependence is purportedly driven by a perceived need to avoid the adverse effects of climate change resulting from the emissions of CO2 and CH4 from fossil fuel production and use. However, numerous other nations of the world are increasing their consumption of fossil fuels in the interests of economic development and energy independence. As a result, our growing dependence on weather, renewable energy and energy storage, the increasing cost of energy in our economy and the decreasing reliability and resilience of our electric grid will have no measurable effect on future climate change, but will likely result in economic de-development.

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

H. L. Mencken

From: Just Facts Daily

By: James D. Agresti

Date: October 17, 2019

Climate Change Fears of Teen Activist Are Empirically Baseless

At a recent United Nations summit, 16-year-old activist Greta Thunberg claimed that the Earth is on the brink of destruction and that older generations are betraying younger ones by not doing enough to stop climate change. The media has amplified these allegations by giving her speech broad, glowing coverage, but the fears she expressed are not grounded in reality.

The End of Humanity?

Thunberg says that she is “one of the lucky ones” who are not already “dying” from global warming and claims that with “today’s emissions levels our remaining CO2 budget will be gone in less than 8.5 years.” She frets that if we exceed this so-called budget, we risk “setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.”

Such apocalyptic beliefs are common among young people. A recent Scott Rasmussen/HarrisX poll found that 51% of U.S. voters under the age of 35 believe it is “somewhat likely” or “very likely” that the “the earth will become uninhabitable and humanity will be wiped out” in “the next 10–15 years.”

Thunberg says her fears are justified by “more than 30 years” of “crystal-clear” science, but as detailed below, just the opposite is true. Contrary to predictions made three decades ago, a broad range of environmental and human welfare indicators related to the effects of climate change have stayed level or improved. Yet, in accord with a stratagem published at the outset of this period, many people are unaware of this.

“Getting Loads of Media Coverage”

Exactly 30 years ago in 1989, climatologist Stephen Schneider—the creator of the journal Climatic Change and one of the founding members of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—told Discover magazine that in order to “reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change”: (continue reading)

Climate Change Fears of Teen Activist Are Empirically Baseless

Government regulators periodically issue regulations which they are fully aware cannot be met with currently available technology; that is, the regulations force the development of the new technology needed to satisfy them within some defined time frame. In some cases, the regulation is expected, not to result in new technology development and implementation, but rather to drive non-compliant equipment and processes from the market when the technology forcing is unsuccessful or the resulting technology is uneconomic.

Government’s climate change efforts include several cases of technology forcing, some clearly intended to drive equipment and processes from the market. One very recent example is US EPA’s proposed tightening of PM 2.5 emission standards to a level which would make compliance of coal-fired generating stations either impossible or uneconomic. The Administration goal to terminate coal-fired electric generation by 2030 virtually guarantees that, even if complying technology became available, it would not be economically justified to install it in a power plant required to cease operation in 2030.

Similarly, requirements to reduce CO2 emissions from natural gas combined-cycle powerplants by applying high level Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) systems would likely drive most or all such generators from the market by the administration’s 2035 goal, since design and installation cost recovery would be virtually impossible over the next 12 years. CCUS would significantly reduce power plant capacity and efficiency and increase operating costs.

The electricity generating system intended to replace coal and natural gas generation is also facing technology forcing. Wind and solar generators operate intermittently and require electricity storage to provide continuous output. There are currently batteries which can provide output smoothing for wind and solar generation for periods of approximately 4 hours. Research is underway on batteries capable of operation over approximately 8 hours. However, the only technologies capable of long-duration support for intermittent generators are pumped hydro and compressed air storage.

The largest current pumped hydro storage facility in the US, the Bath County Pumped Storage Station (BCPSS) has a generating capacity of 3 GW and a storage capacity of 24 GWh. Therefore, it could support intermittent generation with a capacity of 3 GW for a period of 8 full load hours. It would require 15 such storage facilities to replace 3 GW of wind generation with a 50% capacity factor through a 10 day “wind drought”. There has been significant resistance to the construction of such large pumped hydro storage facilities in the US.

Another example of technology forcing is EV batteries. Current light duty EVs are range limited, particularly in very hot and very cold weather. Medium duty trucks and transit buses and similar vehicles require larger batteries to permit full day operation without recharging. Long-haul, over-the-road tractors require sufficient battery capacity to haul maximum legal loads for the maximum number of miles and hours their drivers are permitted to operate. These requirements must be met by 2035 if production of ICE vehicles of those classes is to be banned then.

Finally, while there has been some development effort regarding battery-powered railroad engines, it appears likely that electrification of freight rail will follow the development of electrified passenger rail, drawing power from overhead catenaries using pantographs.

While technology forcing can be effective, there is significant risk to the overall enterprise if the required technology does not become available on the required schedule or its capabilities do not meet the required performance parameters.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Clintel

Date: May 10, 2023

Thorough analysis by Clintel shows serious errors in latest IPCC report

• IPCC hides good news about disaster losses and climate-related deaths
• IPCC wrongly claimed the estimate of climate sensitivity is above 2.5°C; it is more likely below 2°C
• IPCC misleads policy makers by focusing on an implausible worst-case emissions scenario
• Errors in the AR6 report are worse than those that led to the IAC Review in 2010

The IPCC ignored crucial peer-reviewed literature showing that normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and that human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920. The IPCC, by cherry picking from the literature, drew the opposite conclusions, claiming increases in damage and mortality due to anthropogenic climate change. These are two important conclusions of the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, published by the Clintel Foundation.

The 180-page report is – as far as we know – the first serious international ‘assessment’ of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report. In 13 chapters the Clintel report shows the IPCC rewrote climate history, emphasizes an implausible worst-case scenario, has a huge bias in favour of ‘bad news’ and against ‘good news’, and keeps the good news out of the Summary for Policy Makers.

The errors and biases that Clintel documents in the report are far worse than those that led to the investigation of the IPCC by the Interacademy Council (IAC Review) in 2010. Clintel believes that the IPCC should reform or be dismantled.

With the recently published Synthesis Report, the IPCC finished its sixth assessment cycle, consisting of seven reports in total. An international team of scientists from the Clintel network has analysed several claims from the Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) and Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) reports. This has now led to the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC. (continue reading)

Thorough analysis by Clintel shows serious errors in latest IPCC report

Preference :the act, fact, or principle of giving advantages to some over others
:priority in the right to demand and receive satisfaction of an obligation

The federal government, state governments and state utility regulators have established preferences for wind and solar electric generators, requiring that they be the first generators in line to supply power to the grid when weather conditions permit, while essentially freeing them from the obligation to serve since they are understood to be intermittent generators which cannot be dispatched. They are “source of opportunity” power generators, used when they are available and replaced by conventional generation when they are not available.

Wind and solar are widely acclaimed as being the lowest cost source of electricity. They are also preferred because their operation does not result in CO2 emissions which might contribute to climate change. The availability of production tax credits allows wind and solar generators to consistently bid low wholesale prices into utility, ISO (Independent System Operators) and RTO (Regional Transmission Organizations) supply bidding processes. However, their intermittency requires the grids they serve to provide smoothing services and to maintain rapid response generation capacity to compensate for longer interruptions. These services and generation resources add to the real cost of wind and solar generation.

The output of wind and solar generation facilities displaces a portion of the generating capacity of conventional generation in the generation mix. However, the intermittency of wind and solar generation require that conventional generation capacity be available to meet grid demand during periods when wind and solar are not generating, or are not generating at capacity.

Utilities, ISOs and RTOs must maintain operating conventional generation capacity to replace the output of wind and solar facilities when they are not generating, as well as capacity to replace the capacity of the largest conventional generator in operation should it experience an unscheduled outage to assure grid reliability.
 
As the generating capacity of wind and solar increase, the operating outputs of the conventional generators are decreased, though they must remain in operation, ready to satisfy grid demand if wind and/or solar generator output decrease. This increases their cost of operation per MWh generated. The wholesale electricity price is determined by the cost of the next unit of capacity required to meet grid demand. Therefore, as the cost of operation of conventional generation increases, the cost of wholesale power also increases, as does the profitability of wind and solar generation.

Most of the coal-fired conventional generation capacity is utility owned. However, much of the natural gas combined-cycle generation capacity is owned and operated by merchant generators. The utilities are generally able to negotiate rates which maintain the profitability of their coal generation assets. However, the merchant generators might require proportionally higher prices to maintain profitability, further moving them down the dispatch order and further increasing wholesale electricity prices.

The combination of these factors are the reason why intermittent wind and solar generation, while supposedly less costly than conventional generation, have not resulted in reduced electricity rates as promised.

By: PragerU

Broken Window Economics: an event that seems to be beneficial for those immediately involved can have negative economic consequences for many others.

The US and most countries have energy economies based on fossil fuels, plus contributions from nuclear, hydro, geothermal and biomass. The US and the other OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries have announced goals to replace the fossil fuel uses in their economies with renewable generated electricity across the entire spectrum of energy uses. These goals have been accompanied by mandates to eliminate specific fossil fuel end uses for electric generation, to halt the production of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and to replace all fossil fuel end uses by dates certain.

These mandates require the retirement of existing electric generation, vehicle production and appliance production facilities, many before the end of their useful lives and the construction and outfitting of new, replacement facilities. The Biden Administration has argued that these efforts would result in the creation of millions of new, high paying union jobs, though they would also likely result in the elimination of a similar number of similar jobs.

The US currently has a fleet of 200 GW of coal generation capacity, 50 GW of which is scheduled to be retired by the 2030 mandated retirement goal for coal generation. The remaining 150 GW has been scheduled to be retired over the period from 2030 – 2048. Early retirement of these coal plants would strand approximately $35-40 billion of undepreciated private generation assets. It would also strand approximately $30 trillion of coal resources. It is uncertain how the owners of these assets would be compensated for their forced abandonment. Those costs would represent a societal cost of the mandate to close the generating facilities and the resulting abandonment of the coal resources.

The US currently has a fleet of 500 GW of natural gas generation capacity. Approximately 400 GW of that capacity is less than 30 years old, which is a common mid-life for natural gas generators. This suggests that more than 200 GW of natural gas generating capacity would be forced out of service by the 2035 mandated retirement goal for gas generation. Early retirement of these plants would strand another $35-40 billion of undepreciated private generation assets. Again, it is uncertain how the owners of these assets would be compensated for their forced abandonment. These costs would also represent a societal cost of the mandate to close the generating facilities and the resulting abandonment of billions of dollars of natural gas resources and underutilization of natural gas pipeline capacity.

The US also has tens of billions of dollars of automotive manufacturing facilities which the owners would be forced to retire and replace with facilities designed to manufacture EVs and EV batteries, at the same time stranding several billion of dollars of oil resources and oil refining capacity.

Investments in ICE vehicles and natural gas appliances and equipment would be unlikely to be affected by the mandates, since they would likely have outlived their usefulness by 2050.