Climate Change

Green Hydrogen has emerged as the great green hope of the climate change alarmist community. It would be produced using emission free, intermittent renewable energy generated by wind and solar generators. It could be used for long-duration energy storage, as motor vehicle fuel and as a replacement for natural gas in residential and commercial space and water heating and in numerous industrial process applications. The quantity of Hydrogen required would depend on the ultimate applications and the percentage of those applications served by the green Hydrogen.

Production of green Hydrogen in the quantities required to make a meaningful contribution to achieving Net Zero in these applications would require that sea water be used as the source., since it is far more abundant than fresh water, which is in limited supply in many parts of the world. The Hydrogen would ultimately be combusted or otherwise reacted, releasing water vapor, approximately 70% of which would return to the oceans directly as rainfall while the remainder would return to the oceans indirectly.

The current industrial approaches to producing Hydrogen by electrolysis require the use of pure water. There are approaches to producing Hydrogen directly from sea water being researched, but none have so far been demonstrated on a commercial scale. The current approaches to purifying sea water for electrolysis consist of filtration and distillation and condensation or reverse osmosis desalination. The “all-in” cost of a 100 million gallon per day sea water desalination plant is approximately $1 billion.

The pure water production of this desalination plant would then be fed to a hydrolyzer, which would be capable of producing approximately 1 kilogram (kg) of Hydrogen per 11 kg of inlet water. (100,000,000 gal * 8 lb. per gal / 2.2 lb. per kg = 364,000,000 kg) water or (364,000,000 kg / 11 kg water per kg Hydrogen = 33,000,000 kg) Hydrogen. The higher heating value of Hydrogen is 39.39 kWh per kg or (39.39 kWh/kg * 3,413 Btu/kwh = 134,438 Btu/kg). Therefore, daily Hydrogen production of (33,000,000 kg * 39.39 kWh/kg = 1,300,000,000 kWh) or (1,300,000,000 kWh * 3,413 Btu/kwh = 4,436,456,000,000 Btu) could be produced from this desalinated water stream. At an electrolyzer cost of approximately $1,000 per kw, the cost of a plant with this capacity would be (1,300,000,000 kWh * $1,000/kW / 24 hrs = $54,167,000,000) and the cost of the Hydrogen produced would be approximately $5-6/kg or approximately ( $5.50/kg / 134,438 Btu/kg = $40.91 per million Btu,) compared with ~$3.00 per million Btu for natural gas. Others have estimated even higher costs.

The resulting Hydrogen must then be transported and stored for later use. Hydrogen can be stored as a high pressure gas, as a cryogenic liquid or with an absorbent or adsorbent, depending on the intended use of the hydrogen. Hydrogen for use as a vehicle fuel would typically be stored as a 5,000 - 10,000 psi gas and delivered to the vehicles from a storage cascade. Hydrogen used as a replacement for natural gas or propane for residential and commercial space and water heating or for process applications would be compressed to approximately 1,000 psi, piped to the point of use and regulated to lower pressure for use.

Hydrogen for electricity production could be stored in underground caverns and fed to either fuel cells or gas turbine generators to generate electricity at an approximate efficiency of 60%.

The US currently consumes approximately 32 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year for all applications. The output of the desalination plus hydrolyzer facilities described above would be approximately 4.4 billion cubic feet per day, or approximately (4.4 bcfd * 365 days per year = 1.6 trillion cubic feet per year), or 0.5% of current annual natural gas consumption.

US DOE is funding significant Hydrogen production and storage research which might reduce the Hydrogen costs calculated here. However, if Hydrogen is to be a major player in long-duration energy storage, or as a transportation fuel, its application cannot wait to begin until the results of this research are commercialized.

From: IER

Date: May 14, 2024

2024 North American Energy Inventory

In 2011, IER released the first edition of the North American Energy Inventory. At the time, the U.S. energy situation looked far different than it does today. In 2011, the United States was the third largest oil producer behind Russia and Saudi Arabia and conventional wisdom held that we were running out of oil, natural gas, and even coal.

At the time, then President Obama echoed this sentiment in numerous speeches when he claimed that because the United States only had 2 or 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves we couldn’t “simply drill our way out of our energy problems.” President Obama, it seems, did not understand what is really meant by the term “oil reserves.” In reality, “oil reserves” represent only a fraction of the total oil resources available. Consequently, we successfully addressed many of our energy challenges by tapping into this broader pool of resources. Put another way, we did drill our way to energy security and more stable prices.

The first edition of the Inventory successfully challenged the myth of energy scarcity. We demonstrated that North America has vast energy resources—far more energy resources than people thought or believed at the time.

The Inventory was released when the shale revolution was beginning to pick up steam. Since 2005, oil production in the U.S. has increased by 149 percent and natural gas production has more than doubled. These massive increases, which have catapulted the U.S. to the world’s top producer of both oil and natural gas, were the result of a combination of hydraulic fracturing, precision drilling, and private ownership of the subsurface in key parts of the United States. The hydraulic fracturing revolution has spread to some federal lands, but due to more onerous federal regulations, the benefits of increased production have occurred largely on private lands. (continue reading)

2024 North American Energy Inventory

The two defining characteristics of electric grid-scale storage systems are the amount of power they can deliver continuously (MW, GW, TW) and the total amount of power they can deliver before they are depleted (MWh, GWh, TWh). For example, a storage system used to backup a 10 MW generator system must be able to deliver 10 MW if that generator system is not operating for any reason. If the storage system is required to provide 10 MW backup for up to 4 hours, it must have a capacity of 40 MWh. Such storage systems are typically referred to as 4-hour systems, though they are capable of providing power for a longer period of time if the demand on the system is below its rated capacity.

The most common storage system currently used in grid scale applications is the Tesla Megapack. The Megapack is classed as a short-duration storage system. The Megapack is available in both a 4-hour and a 2-hour configuration. In the 4-hour configuration it has a storage capacity of 19.6 MWh and can deliver power at a rate of up to 4.9 MW. In the 2-hour configuration, the storage capacity decreases to 10.3 MWh and the power delivery rate iincreases to 9.6 MW. The Megapack 4-hour configuration has an estimated installed cost of $8,128,870, while the 2-hour configuration has an estimated installed cost of $9,759,770. This compares with an installed cost of approximately $5,000,000 for a 5 MW utility scale solar photovoltaic array, which the Megapack could backup for 4 hours. The minimum time required to recharge the Megapack is approximately equal to the discharge time, though the recharge time might be much longer, depending on the availability of surplus power. However, the storage system must be recharged before it can be used again.

There is research underway to develop grid-scale storage systems with larger storage capacity relative to their power output, referred to as medium-duration storage systems. However, these systems are not yet defined.

The California Energy Commission (CEC) has recently funded a grant to Form Energy for construction of a long-duration storage system  The system is a 5 MW, 500 MWh system, so it could backup a 5 MW utility-scale solar array for up to 100 hours. Form Energy estimates that this storage system can achieve storage capacity of ~3 MW / 300 MWH per acre in utility-scale installations. This storage technology is an iron/air battery system, which functions based on reversible rusting. While the system is capable of delivering power over a longer time than Li-ion battery systems such as the Tesla Megapack, it also takes far longer to recharge.

The largest grid-scale storage system currently operating in the US is the Bath County Pumped Storage Station in Virginia, which has a generating capacity of ~3000 MW from 6 turbines and a storage capacity of 24,000MWh. This system could backup a 5 MW solar array for 4800 hours or a 500 MW generating system for approximately 48 hours. At full generating capacity of 3000 MW, the system could operate for approximately 8 hours.

From: Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein - Substack

By: Alex Epstein

Date: May 22, 2024

How EPA's power plant rule will destroy our grid

EPA's rule is literally the single greatest threat to our grid in the history of electricity, since it would ban up to 1/6 of our reliable power and prevent replacements amid an electricity crisis

4 reasons EPA’s power plant rule will destroy our grid:

1. Our grid is in crisis
2. EV + AI demand will make things far worse
3. EPA’s rule will shut down almost all our coal plants and prevent new natural gas replacement plants
4. Unreliable solar and wind can't make up the difference

1. Our grid is in crisis
Premature shutdowns of reliable fossil fuel plants without sufficient reliable replacements have plunged our grid into crisis nationwide.

Most of North America is at elevated/high risk of electricity shortfalls between 2024-2028. (continue reading)

How EPA's power plant rule will destroy our grid

The ongoing transition of the US energy economy to an “all-electric everything” energy economy can be analyzed and understood as a set of causes and effects.

CAUSE: The underlying cause which precipitated the transition is the amplification of the mild global warming currently underway by political opportunists into a “crisis”, “existential threat” or “emergency”.

EFFECT: The resulting effect is the adoption of a “global” effort to achieve anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions of “Net Zero by 2050”, primarily by replacing fossil electricity generation with wind and solar generation and existing fossil fuel applications with electric applications.

CAUSE: Installation of intermittent wind and solar generation increased investment in electricity generation, since these intermittent sources require full backup when they are unavailable.

EFFECT: Wholesale electric prices increase.

CAUSE: Intermittent renewable generation displaces generation from fossil powerplants, reducing fossil powerplant output and increasing fixed powerplant cost recovery per unit of output.

EFFECT: Wholesale electric prices increase.

CAUSE: Renewable generation output price is adjusted up based on price of the last increment of fossil generation output acquired to meet grid demand.

EFFECT: Wholesale electric prices increase.

CAUSE: Electric end use transition increases grid demand, driving increase in intermittent renewable generating capacity and requirement for full backup.

EFFECT: Wholesale electric prices increase.

CAUSE: Electric end use transition increases grid demand, driving increase in grid transmission capacity.

EFFECT: Retail electric prices increase.

CAUSE: Electric end use transition increases end use electric demand, driving increase in grid distribution capacity.

EFFECT: Retail electric prices increase.

CAUSE: Remote location of renewable generation requires grid expansion to connect the larger number of smaller generators.

EFFECT: Retail electric prices increase.

CAUSE: Resistance to increased fossil generation capacity as renewable backup requires addition of electricity storage and generating capacity. Storage cost is 2.5 times the cost of natural gas combined cycle generation per kW and approximately 30 times the cost per kWh.

EFFECT: Wholesale electric prices increase.

CAUSE: Fossil generation capacity is shuttered as the result of government edict or unsustainable economics and is replaced by additional renewable generation plus storage sufficient to render the intermittent generation dispatchable. Undepreciated fossil generation asset value is securitized and recovered through rates.

EFFECT: Wholesale electric prices increase.

CAUSE: Intermittent renewable generation life expectancy is approximately half of fossil generation life expectancy, requiring more rapid depreciation.

EFFECT: Wholesale electric prices increase.

CAUSE: Electricity storage life expectancy is approximately one quarter of fossil generation life expectancy, requiring more rapid depreciation.

EFFECT: Wholesale electricity prices increase.

SUMMARY: Numerous aspects of the transition to an “all-electric everything” energy economy contribute to an increase in wholesale and retail electric rates, rather than to the promised reductions which were supposed to result from the conversion to renewable generation. The magnitude of the increases might be reduced in the future if electricity storage costs can be reduced. However, the proponents of the transition appear unwilling to wait for the evolution of storage technology.

From: Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

By: Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Date: April 18 & 23, 2024

Net Zero CO2 Emissions: A Damaging and Totally Unnecessary Goal

Unnecessary Net Zero, Part II: A Demonstration with Global Carbon Project Data

The goal of reaching “Net Zero” global anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide sounds overwhelmingly difficult. While humanity continues producing CO2 at increasing rates (with a temporary pause during COVID), how can we ever reach the point where these emissions start to fall, let alone reach zero by 2050 or 2060?

What isn’t being discussed (as far as I can tell) is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels (which we will assume for the sake of discussion causes global warming) will start to fall even while humanity is producing lots of CO2.

Let me repeat that, in case you missed the point:

Atmospheric CO2 levels will start to fall even with modest reductions in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Why is that? The reason is due to something called the CO2 “sink rate”. It has been observed that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more quickly nature removes the excess. The NASA studies showing “global greening” in satellite imagery since the 1980s is evidence of that.

Last year I published a paper showing that the record of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa, HI suggests that each year nature removes an average of 2% of the atmospheric excess above 295 ppm (parts per million). The purpose of the paper was to not only show how well a simple CO2 budget model fits the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, but also to demonstrate that the common assumption that nature is becoming less able to remove “excess” CO2 from the atmosphere appears to be an artifact of El Nino and La Nina activity since monitoring began in 1959. As a result, that 2% sink rate has remained remarkably constant over the last 60+ years. (By the way, the previously popular CO2 “airborne fraction” has huge problems as a meaningful statistic, and I wish it had never been invented. If you doubt this, just assume CO2 emissions are cut in half and see what the computed airborne fraction does. It’s meaningless.)

Here’s my latest model fit to the Mauna Loa record through 2023, where I have added a stratospheric aerosol term to account for the fact that major volcanic eruptions actually *reduce* atmospheric CO2 due to increased photosynthesis from diffuse sunlight penetrating deeper into vegetation canopies: (continue reading)

Net Zero CO2 Emissions: A Damaging and Totally Unnecessary Goal

Unnecessary Net Zero, Part II: A Demonstration with Global Carbon Project Data

The Administration has set the nation on a rapid transition to an “all-electric everything” energy economy powered predominantly by intermittent renewable energy. The goal is to complete this transition by 2050. There is significant uncertainty regarding the wisdom and necessity of achieving this goal, the target date for achieving it is arbitrary and the approach currently being pursued to achieve it is irrational.

However, if we stipulate that the transition is necessary, there is a rational path to pursuing it, though it is extremely unlikely that the transition would be complete by 2050. Pursuing this rational path begins with the acknowledgement that a reliable electric grid powered predominantly by intermittent renewable generation would require a combination of short-, medium- and long-duration storage infrastructure capable of storing approximately 25% of annual generation.

The first step in the process would be to terminate all subsidies, incentives and preferences for deployment of renewable generation. Wind and solar are relatively mature technologies. Their costs have been reduced dramatically and their promoters contend that they are already generating the cheapest electricity. There are more critical uses for the funds which are currently dedicated to these subsidies and incentives.

The second step in the process would be to terminate all subsidies, incentives and preferences for deployment of short-duration storage. Lithium-ion short-duration storage systems are commercially available and are being installed worldwide. The funds currently dedicated to these subsidies would be redirected to research, development, demonstration and deployment of medium- and long-duration storage technology.

The next step in the process would be to eliminate the current storage deficit which resulted from the installation of intermittent renewable generation without the storage required to render this generation dispatchable. The required storage capacity is approximately 115,000 GWH.

The next step in the process would be a requirement that all new intermittent renewable generation connected to the grid include sufficient storage capacity to render the generation dispatchable.

The next step in the process would be to delay any forced closures of coal generation facilities until sufficient dispatchable renewable generating capacity is installed and operating within the region currently served by those plants.

The next step in the process would be to delay any forced closures of natural gas generation facilities until sufficient dispatchable renewable generating capacity had been installed to meet the anticipated load growth in the region as well as replacing the existing natural gas generating capacity.

The funds currently used to subsidize and incentivize wind and solar generation should be redirected to research, development, demonstration and deployment of Dispatchable Emission Free Resources (DEFRs) for connection to the grid and for use as standby power systems for uninterruptible loads.

The time required for this transition is difficult to estimate because medium- and long-duration storage systems and DEFRs do not currently exist commercially and the time required for their RDD&D is uncertain. The time required for installation of the required generation and storage infrastructure is also uncertain because of the numerous delays encountered in infrastructure development projects. The time required for conversion of numerous industrial processes to electric power is uncertain because the required technology does not exist or is in its infancy.

Finally, completion of the project might well be delayed by the ability of the economy to fund the required new generation, storage, transmission and distribution infrastructure, including “last mile” upgrades to residential and commercial service transformers, service lines, and power panels..

From: Breakthrough Institute - Substack

By: Jessica Weinkle

Date: May 3, 2024

The Climate Industry’s Misdirection Campaign

“If you could control someone’s attention,” asked the famous pick-pocket Apollo Robbins in a 2013 TED talk, “what would you do with it?”

Well, you may use it for misdirection — or the ability, as Robbins described it, to hold an audience’s attention intensely on one thing to distract them from some other thing. It is how a thief, as he demonstrated, can remove a watch from your wrist even as you focus on your hand.

Misdirection is as much a skill of the gentleman thief as it is of politicians and the media, which, in our era of short attention spans and constant flow of information, collude to create what journalist Mark Leibovich once called a “culture of distraction-mongering.” Our individual and collective attention has been artfully focused away from what is going on right in front of us.

We watch a constant flow of reporting on climate change: elite research publications drive media storms — and careers; the IPCC puts out reports with easily downloadable images and flashy movie trailers; weather-tainment channels offer a constant play-by-play on temperature stats; public tensions rise over insurance affordability; anxious youth plaintiffs take to the courtrooms; and the seasoned American political leader, John Kerry, decries the “demagoguery” that impedes progress towards net zero emissions and puts “the whole world at risk” of planetary destruction.

But what we don’t see — what most simply cannot see because it is too deep in the weeds of footnotes, methodological assumptions, and researcher professional networks — is how, behind all this noise, the climate industry is quietly pilfering the legitimacy of our institutions of knowledge and democratic governance. (continue reading)

The Climate Industry’s Misdirection Campaign

The United Nations and the leaders of the developed nations have declared that the continued anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere represent an existential threat to humanity and must cease. They have established a goal of achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and have initiated a variety of actions intended to achieve that goal. They contemplate a transition to “all-electric everything”.

The apparent enthusiasm of the UN and the governments of the developed nations for Net Zero by 2050 is not shared by the developing and not-yet-developing nations, which place higher priority on economic development, with little regard for the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. That assures that, even if the developed nations achieved their net zero goals, the globe would not reach net zero by 2050.

However, it appears extremely unlikely that the developed nations would achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The transition could only be achieved with a combination of massive expenditures, successful commercialization and implementation of currently non-existent technology and processes, elimination of the government-imposed “red tape” which delays project approvals and construction schedules, societal acceptance of the resulting upheaval and an enormous amount of good luck. Expecting to achieve this transition by 2050 is not rational. It is also not necessary.

The transition has begun by providing extremely generous government subsidies and incentives to encourage the installation of intermittent renewable wind and solar electric generation and the sale and use of electric vehicles. However, there has been very little attention paid to the electricity storage infrastructure necessary to allow smooth integration of the intermittent renewable generation into a reliable grid. There has been no effort to demonstrate that an intermittent renewable plus storage supplied grid could be reliable. There has been limited attention paid to the utility and reliability of electric vehicles, or to the development of the fueling infrastructure necessary to adequately support them.

There is growing attention being paid to various societal sacrifices which would be a necessary part of the transition, including personal and business travel restrictions, personal consumption of goods and services restrictions and dietary changes. There is also active promotion of the concept of “15-Minute” cities and discussion of population control, though there is very little discussion of how it would be accomplished.

A rational approach to a transition of this magnitude would be based on technologies and processes which have been thoroughly tested and demonstrated and have shown that they can be implemented economically while improving quality of life. This is clearly not the case today. Rather, the controlling bureaucracies: HOPE that sufficient renewable generating capacity can be manufactured and installed timely; HOPE that economical short-term, medium-term and long-term storage technology can be developed, manufactured and installed timely; HOPE that the combination of renewable generation plus storage can successfully replace coal and natural gas generation; HOPE that the new electric equipment and processes required to replace existing fossil fueled equipment and processes can be developed and installed timely; HOPE that the required expansion of the grid, including the “last mile” can be completed timely; HOPE that the issues of electric vehicle utility and charging can be resolved timely; and HOPE that the national economies survive the process.

Regrettably, HOPE is not a strategy and relying on HOPE is not rational.

By: The Global Warming Policy Foundation

The US energy industry is subject to intense regulation and oversight at both the federal and state levels. Federal regulation is provided by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). National oversight of the electric energy industry is provided by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which is itself overseen by FERC. State regulation is provided by individual state utility commissions, which share information through the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). State oversight is provided by individual state consumer advocates or consumer counsels, which share information through the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA).

While each of these agencies and organizations has its own unique mission, their missions share several common elements.

FERC: FERC's Mission: Assist consumers in obtaining reliable, safe, secure, and economically efficient energy services at a reasonable cost through appropriate regulatory and market means, and collaborative efforts.

NERC:  Our mission is to assure the effective and efficient reduction of risks to the reliability and security of the grid.

NARUC: Our mission is to serve the public interest by improving the quality and effectiveness of public utility regulation. Under state laws, NARUC's members have an obligation to ensure the establishment and maintenance of utility services as may be required by law and to ensure that such services are provided at rates and conditions that are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory for all consumers.

NASUCA: NASUCA’s members are designated by the laws of their respective jurisdictions to represent the interests of utility consumers before state and federal regulators and in the courts.

FERC and NERC have both warned that the energy transition being pushed by the current Administration, as it is currently being pursued, threatens the reliability, safety, security and economic efficiency of the electric utility grid. Their primary expressed concerns are the rapid decommissioning of dispatchable coal and natural gas powerplants and the slower pace of commissioning of renewable generation capacity, which is resulting in a decrease in the capacity reserve margin on peak as well as the ability of dispatchable generation to respond to renewable intermittency.

However, they will soon be required to focus on the growing share of grid generating capacity which is intermittent and non-dispatchable. The grid requires the ability to dispatch resources as required to meet contemporaneous demand. As the intermittent renewable share of generating capacity increases, it will be essential to add dispatchable storage capacity to the grid to maintain reliability. However, grid scale storage is currently extremely expensive and duration limited. Storage systems capable of discharging large quantities of electricity over prolonged periods are not currently available.

State utility commissions are just beginning to respond (react) to the economic impacts of the energy transition. Utilities have begun filing rate increase requests tied to the costs of the transition. Commissions in several East Coast states have encountered requests for increases in contract prices for electricity from offshore wind projects. Several offshore wind projects have been cancelled and others have been rebid at prices as much as 50% higher than the original contract prices. The contract prices being sought for offshore wind are significantly above the current wholesale price of electricity; and, in many cases, above the current retail prices of electricity.

The energy transition faces a conflict with the “fair and reasonable” rates focus of NARUC and its members. However, this conflict appears likely to result in a head-on collision as state regulators are faced with the need to correct the current storage deficit associated with the existing renewable generating capacity on the grid and the massive costs of implementing sufficient storage on the grid to assure continued reliability as the share of intermittent renewable generation on the grid increases.

The state commissions will also be faced with the necessity of shifting from 40-year straight line depreciation of most utility assets to depreciation over the shorter expected lives of wind turbines, solar collectors and electricity storage infrastructure.

The state utility commissions will also soon be faced with rate increase requests tied to the expansion of the grid required to accommodate the Administration’s “all-electric everything” goal, as well as requests for the securitization of undepreciated investments in coal and natural gas powerplants required to cease operation to comply with Net Zero mandates.

"If there is light at the end of this tunnel, it might well be the headlight of an oncoming train." - Slavoj Zizek

From: Master Resource

By: Robert Bradley Jr.

Date: April 24, 2024

False Energy Transition: The View from Australia (Nick Cater, Menzies Research Centre)
 

“Previous energy transitions adopted energy sources of greater density and efficiency than those they replaced. Those advantages became a natural incentive for their adoption. In the current ‘transition’, the process is reversed unless we are prepared to countenance the mass use of nuclear technology.” – Nick Cater, below

The political “energy transition” has predictably violated comparative energy physics and thus consumer preferences–and best industry practices. A re-look at the failing, impossible “energy transition” was penned by Nick Cater, senior fellow at Menzies Research Centre in Australia. [1] His analysis deserves wide attention, as does his other work at the energy-centric Reality Bites.

As the First Fleet vessels, propelled by wind and muscle, made their way to Australia, the last energy transition was making headway in Europe and the United States. The first commercial steamboat completed a successful trial on the Delaware River in New Jersey on August 20, 1787, heralding the arrival of a more powerful and efficient source of energy.

The ability to turn energy-dense fossil fuel into usable energy would be the key to accelerating economic growth in Australia, which began with European settlement. By the time the colony of New South Wales marked a century of settlement in 1878, steam-powered ocean-going vessels were starting to be constructed from steel. Frederick Wolseley was demonstrating a prototype set of steam-driven mechanical shears. This Australian invention secured Australia’s dominance in the supply of wool to steam-powered woollen mills on the other side of the world. (continue reading)

False Energy Transition: The View from Australia (Nick Cater, Menzies Research Centre)

The Administration’s All-Electric Everything goal would require the addition of approximately 4,800 GW of storage supported rating plate capacity renewable generation with a capacity factor of approximately 30%, depending on the ultimate proportion of wind and solar generating capacity. The EIA Annual Energy Review projects that solar would provide approximately twice the electricity provided by wind generation. For purposes of this analysis, we will assume 3,200 GW of additional solar generation and 1,600 GW of new wind generation.

The installed cost of premium solar photovoltaic collectors is approximately $1.06 per Watt. Therefore, the estimated installed cost of 3,200 GW of premium solar collectors would be $3.4 trillion. ($1.06/W * 1,000,000,000 W/GW * 3,200 GW).

The installed cost of utility-scale wind turbines is approximately $1,500,000 per MW. Therefore, the estimated installed cost of 1,600 GW of wind generation would be $2.4 trillion. ($1,500,000/MW * 1,000 MW/GW * 1,600 GW).

Therefore, the estimated total installed cost of the additional 4,800 GW of renewable generating capacity would be approximately $5.8 trillion, or approximately $220 billion per year through 2050. These costs do not include the cost of the land required for installation, the cost of tripling the capacity of the existing utility grid, or the cost of connecting the generation systems to the grid.

This additional intermittent renewable generation would require storage support to ensure grid reliability. The additional generation would produce approximately 12,600 TWH per year (4,800 GW * 0.30 CF * 8760 hrs/yr). The storage required for support of this intermittent renewable generating capacity would be approximately 3,200 TWH. (12,600 TWH * 0.25).

The installed cost of the storage capacity, restricted to a maximum charge of 80% to extend battery life, would be approximately $414 trillion, [(3,200 TWH * 1,000,000 MWH/TWH) * 25 * $8,128,870) /15.7 MWH] or approximately $16 trillion per year through 2050.

There are expected to be lower cost storage options, some with longer storage duration, in the future. 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. Form Energy claims that their iron-air battery could be sold for 10% of the price of a lithium battery such as the Tesla Megapack, though their battery is not yet available commercially. However, even if this or other lower cost, longer duration batteries became commercial immediately, they would reduce the projected incremental cost of storage for the all-electric transition from $414 trillion to $41 trillion.

The installed cost of the storage required to support intermittent renewable generation is currently approximately 70 times the cost of the generation, though different storage technology could potentially reduce the cost of storage to 7 times the cost of the generation. Regardless, storage is clearly the most expensive aspect of a renewable plus storage generation system. This cost has been ignored or trivialized for far too long.

From: U.S. Department of Energy

Date: April, 2024

DECARBONIZING THE U.S. ECONOMY BY 2050
A National Blueprint for the Buildings Sector

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Residential and commercial buildings are among the largest sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States, responsible for more than one-third of total U.S. GHG emissions. There are nearly 130 million existing buildings in the United States, with 40 million new homes and 60 billion square feet of commercial floorspace expected to be constructed between now and 2050. Today, most buildings consume large amounts of energy and cause significant climate pollution to meet our basic needs. Buildings account for 74% of U.S. electricity use and building heating and cooling drives peak electricity demand. Moreover, buildings are where electric vehicles (EVs), solar, storage, heat pumps, water heaters, and other distributed energy resources integrate with the electricity system. Consequently, the buildings sector will play a key role in achieving economywide net-zero emissions by 2050.

People spend 90% of their time in buildings and expend substantial sums of money on building energy costs—upwards of $370 billion annually. One in five American households is behind on energy bill payments, with people in economically marginalized communities more likely to face energy insecurity due to high energy costs. Such communities also bear the brunt of healthharming pollution emitted from burning fossil fuels and safety risks from substandard building conditions. Transitioning buildings to clean energy sources and reducing overall energy consumption will therefore address not just climate risks but also the physical and financial well-being of all Americans. (continue reading)

DECARBONIZING THE U.S. ECONOMY BY 2050
A National Blueprint for the Buildings Sector

The energy transition envisioned by the current US Administration is an enormous financial endeavor. It would increase the current US electricity sector investment in generation, transmission and distribution facilities from approximately $150 billion per year to approximately $250 billion per year through 2050, roughly tripling industry capitalization to approximately $6 trillion.

The transition would also require the electricity sector to invest between $8 – 80 trillion per year over the period in electricity storage facilities, depending on the ultimate cost of electricity storage infrastructure.

It is difficult to imagine that an electric utility industry with a capitalization of approximately $2 trillion, currently investing approximately $150 billion annually, could increase annual investment by 50X through 2050, no less by 500 times.

It is inconceivable that this level of increased investment in the electric grid could result in the promised reduction in customer electricity cost, especially considering the anticipated securitization of existing, functional and not fully depreciated coal and natural gas generation assets and the far more rapid depreciation of the new generating and storage assets.

Note also that, over the 26-year period to 2050, much of the renewable generation equipment and storage facilities installed early in the transition would begin to require replacement, further increasing investments.

The replacement of fossil end use equipment would largely be the responsibility of the equipment owners and much of the equipment would be replaced with electric equipment at the end of its useful life, so the incremental societal cost of the equipment replacement is not possible to calculate.

The above information is in the public domain and is known by US DOE, FERC and the electric utilities.

The often-repeated promise of cheaper renewable electricity is a fraudulent fantasy.

It is difficult to imagine how a nation with an approximate $28 trillion GDP and a $30 trillion national debt could increase investment in its energy sector alone by $8 - 80 trillion per year through 2050. It is also difficult to imagine how such a nation could justify continued long-term subsidies and incentives funded with increasingly expensive borrowing.

It is also difficult to imagine how US industry would be able to remain competitive in the global economy in competition with industry in China, India, Indonesia and other nations continuing to rely on fossil fuels for their energy needs. Industries are already reducing or terminating production in the UK and Germany, which are further along in their energy transitions than the US.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
H. L. Mencken