From: Watts Up With That

By: Doug R Rogers

Date: January 19, 2023

A Critical Examination of the Six Pillars of Climate Change Despair

World still ‘on brink of climate catastrophe’[1]
World close to ‘irreversible’ climate breakdown[2]
Large regions of the world are becoming unlivable – lethal for 3 to 5 billion of us[3]
…slaughter, death, and starvation of 6 billion people[4] – Roger Hallam, Extinction Rebellion

    In 2023 it’s hard to avoid seeing images and headlines like these. The result for many is a deep seated fear[5], anxiety[6] [7], and pessimism[8] [9] about the future. The topic of Climate Change (CC) has seeped into nearly every facet of our lives, and never in a positive way. It’s always present as a dark cloud hanging over society; a source of guilt for those who indulge in some of life’s most basic pleasures, the basis of moralistic judgments by those who like to signal their concern, and the cause of nihilism[10] [11] and hopelessness[12] felt by many in the youngest generations.

    Why does CC have such deeply negative connotations and harmful effects on people’s mental well being? Because we are constantly reminded of the six dark and destructive consequences of CC:

      1) heat will cause millions to die or live in misery

      2) tens of millions (some say billions) will be forced to migrate

      3) a million or more species will become extinct in just a few decades

      4) sea level rise will have disastrous world-wide consequences

      5) agricultural production will be devastated, causing widespread famine

      6) humanity will suffer floods, droughts, and other terrible natural disasters

    These are the six pillars of climate change despair that activists and the media obsess over. The activists do it because they think they are saving the planet; the media do it because bad news gets more clicks than good news. Plus, they both do it to appear virtuous. They both keep ramping up the rhetoric so that with each passing year the predictions about each of these consequences become even more frightening and apocalyptic. There are some lesser concerns (eg. Arctic and glacier melting), but these six are the catastrophic ones.

    No wonder so many people are depressed and pessimistic about the future. It shouldn’t be surprising there’s an epidemic of “climate change anxiety”. (continue reading)

A Critical Examination of the Six Pillars of Climate Change Despair

Tropical cyclones (hurricanes in the Atlantic and Northeast Pacific basins and typhoons in the Pacific and Indian Ocean basins) are weather events which involve wind, rain, thunderstorms and storm surge and can trigger tornadoes. The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale rates tropical cyclones based on their maximum sustained wind speed. Storms are rated in categories 1-5 based on maximum wind speed range, which is associated with the extent of expected damage to infrastructure in the path of the storms.

Each tropical cyclone is unique because of the myriad of weather conditions each storm encounters throughout its duration. Each storm begins as a tropical depression which might or might not develop into a tropical storm, which then might or might not develop into a tropical cyclone. In the current satellite era, each tropical depression is identified and tracked throughout its duration.

The intense global focus on climate change and its potential effects on weather events such as tropical cyclones, tornadoes, floods, droughts and heat waves has led to the development of climate model-based attribution studies which attempt to identify the extent to which climate change might have affected the frequency, intensity and other characteristics of weather events. These attribution studies have recently evolved into attempts at “instant attribution”, which permits estimates of potential climate change affects on severe weather events to be reported while the weather event is still in the news and fresh in the public’s minds.

The attribution studies for tropical cyclones focus on storm frequency, intensity, speed, associated rainfall and track. One recent example is the attribution of a 10% increase in rainfall associated with Hurricane Ian. This attribution was based on analysis of those characteristics for similar storms in the past. However, our limited understanding suggests that these attributions are premature.

While the focus of attribution studies has been on the damage caused by tropical cyclones, there has been little focus on other potential attribution issues related to tropical cyclones. These issues include whether climate change has any impact on the frequency and timing of the formation of tropical depressions, or the frequency with which tropical depressions develop into tropical storms and tropical storms develop into tropical cyclones. There has also been little focus on the potential affects of climate change on the paths of tropical cyclones or the frequency with which tropical cyclones dissipate at sea.

The 2022 hurricane season is a case in point. The map below shows the tracks of all named tropical storms in the Atlantic Basin in 2022. The season was originally predicted to be above average, but was nearly average on most metrics, though accumulated cyclone energy was significantly lower.

The media predictably focused on the loss of life and financial damage caused by Hurricane Ian. However, Ian’s track and potential landfall location were predicted accurately well in advance of landfall, allowing ample time to secure properties and evacuate. The financial damage, while major, was consistent with historical norms on a GDP adjusted basis, because of the continuing construction of expensive infrastructure in areas subject to hurricane landfalls.

From: Master Resource

By: Mark Krebs

Date: January 12, 2023

“Rare Earths,” Electrification Mandates, and Energy Security (Part II)

“What we have is one-way bureaucratic command-and-control making poor decisions with funding derived from captive consumers and one-sided radical agendas. Accordingly, the environmental zealots demonize fossil fuels, while maintaining that only wind and solar are ‘green’ enough to ‘save the planet.’ This itself is greenwashing.”

Like Rob Bradley’s “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’” (see Part I), my colleague Tom Tanton wrote a major piece about the over-regulation of the rare-earth extraction industry in the U.S.: “Dig it!  If you want more information on the importance of rare earths within the U.S economy, this would be a good place to start.

The long-term feasibility of this transition to renewables simply assumes sufficient raw materials exist for it at all. Professor Michaux of the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK) has studied these issues, probably more extensively than anyone else and thinks not. Professor Simon Michaux took on these issues via the following ground-breaking work:

It’s Time to Wake Up – The Currently Known Global Mineral Reserves Will Not Be Sufficient to Supply Enough Metals to Manufacture the Planned Non-fossil Fuel Industrial Systems

The upshot of Professor Michaux’s work is that “we need a new plan” as there are not enough raw materials to sustain this transition nor can recycling or reprocessing mining waste make up for the shortfall.  Since the success of free market economies is predicated upon informed citizens, I urge you to visit Professor Michaux’s website or, at a minimum, view the following YouTube: (continue reading)

“Rare Earths,” Electrification Mandates, and Energy Security (Part II)

They're rioting in Africa
There's strife in Iran
What nature doesn't do to us
Will be done by our fellow man.

The Merry Minuet, Sheldon Harnick

Mother Nature has been providing the earth with numerous types of severe weather and climate events over the millennia. Heat waves, cold waves, droughts, heavy rains, tropical cyclones and tornadoes are all part of weather history. Ice ages and warm and cool periods during interglacials accompanied by rising and falling sea levels are part of climate history. These weather and climate events have occurred almost exclusively without human influence.

However, since the inception of the industrial revolution, humans have been emitting “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide to the atmosphere. The addition of these anthropogenic GHGs is believed to have contributed to a warming of the global climate, though it is not possible to measure the relative contributions of anthropogenic emissions and natural climate variability to this warming.

There exists an alarmist faction which insists that most or all of the recent warming has been anthropogenic, that it poses an existential threat to life on earth and that the burning of fossil fuels must be halted rapidly to avoid climageddon. This faction also asserts that this anthropogenic warming is increasing the frequency, severity and duration of severe weather events. Both the threat assessments and the attribution assertions are based on unvalidated and unverified climate models.

Virtually all of the nations of the globe have agreed to take steps to reduce GHG emissions, though the specific steps and their timing varies greatly among the nations. The developed nations, which have been accused of responsibility for the recent warming, have focused on achieving net zero GHG emissions by 2050. Their programs have included closing coal and natural gas electric generating stations, incentivizing renewable electric generation, limiting or eliminating oil and gas exploration and production, banning new natural gas end uses and requiring production of electric vehicles. Some have even suggested closure of farms to reduce GHG emissions, threatening food supply, while others are restarting coal plants to deal with a perceived energy crisis.

Developing nations, while giving lip service to emissions reductions, remain focused on economic development, including expansion of electric service based on coal and natural gas generation. Nations in Asia, including China, India, Indonesia and South Korea are in the process of constructing more than 175 GW of new coal generating capacity. Numerous nations in Africa are expanding coal and natural gas production for both local consumption and sale. Several nations have expressed a willingness to consider pursuing lower emissions trajectories if the developed nations fund the programs.

Assuming a general agreement to reduce global annual CO2 and other GHG emissions, the contrast between massive coal-fired generation increases in the developing nations and plans to close farms in the developed nations is awe-inspiring. The experience of Sri Lankan agricultural failure after its ban on the use of synthetic fertilizers to limit nitrous oxide emissions should cause national governments to carefully evaluate steps to reduce agricultural GHG emissions.

From: Master Resource

By: Mark Krebs

Date: January 11, 2023

“Rare Earths,” Electrification Mandates, and Energy Security (Part I)

“My major argument: any planned transition to an all-electric renewable energy monoculture is likely to fail, at least in America. That is mainly because peak winter heating requirements can greatly exceed peak summer cooling requirements by as much as 400 to 500 percent in cold climates and because the required minerals are severely limited.”

On August 27, 1997, the Cato Institute published “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’,” written by Robert L. Bradley Jr. (A 58-page PDF of the study is available here and a 25th anniversary review here.)  Bradley’s piece focused on the many stark ecological tradeoffs of politically favored renewables, as well as the high cost/low value associated of dilute, intermittent sourcing. This post extends that thinking to the deep decarbonization/all-electrification government program.

Rare earth minerals, on which the forced transition to “clean energy” depends, are critically constrained by many of the same factors as fossil fuels. Supplies of these minerals are dominated by regimes with intent to cultivate and exploit our growing dependency on them. As these raw materials are extracted and the strategic dominance of China increases, prices will have a premium that will impact consumers. Finding and developing supply chain alternatives will also bring increased energy expenditures necessary to secure and process these rare earth minerals. This will decrease ostensible environmental benefits from “green energy.” (continue reading)

“Rare Earths,” Electrification Mandates, and Energy Security (Part I)

Electric grids have demonstrated the ability to adapt to some fraction of intermittent renewable generation, as long as there is sufficient dispatchable generation available to meet contemporaneous grid demand when the intermittent renewables are not producing power or are producing power at less than rated capacity. The dispatchable generating capacity is currently predominantly fossil fueled, since existing nuclear generating capacity is largely base loaded.

However, as grid demand grows as the result of population growth and a move to “all-electric everything” and the quantity of intermittent renewable generation increases, there will be a growing need for additional dispatchable generating capacity. However, the parallel pressure to close both coal and natural gas generating facilities will lead to decreased, rather than increased, dispatchable fossil-fueled generation capacity in both absolute and percentage terms. This would lead to reduced grid reliability and resiliency, and probably to managed blackouts to avoid grid collapse.

The current industry paradigm is for the utility industry to accept connection to unsmoothed and non-dispatchable intermittent renewable generation and to accept all power produced by those generators on a priority basis. That paradigm is sustainable as long as dispatchable generation capacity exceeds intermittent renewable generating capacity. However, current federal climate change efforts to promote intermittent renewables and force closure of dispatchable fossil-fueled generation presage the end to that paradigm.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is currently raising concerns about grid reliability and resilience. NERC should work with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners to assure that the transition to a grid based on intermittent renewable generators continues to provide economical, reliable power. Two essential aspects of such a transition are dispatchable generation and economic dispatch.

The federal and state regulators should encourage and support a utility requirement that all new intermittent renewable generation sources connected to their grids include sufficient storage to render them dispatchable and sufficient excess generating capacity to recharge storage after use. The storage necessary to meet this requirement would depend on the maximum number of consecutive hours or days during which the generators were unable to operate because of low solar insolation or inadequate or excessive wind conditions and the frequency of such occurrences. The generators could be required to be dispatchable 85% of the year, which is the common dispatchability percentage for coal generating stations.

The resulting dispatchable renewable generators would be capable of replacing conventional coal and natural gas generators, rather than merely displacing the output of conventional generation when the intermittent generators were operating. Their ownership and operating costs would be directly comparable to the ownership and operating costs of conventional generators, particularly if current federal and state incentives were terminated. A return to economic dispatch would maximize power supplied by the lowest cost generators, eliminating the current preferences for renewable generation and minimizing wholesale power costs.

The storage required to render intermittent renewable generators dispatchable is currently very expensive and is not capable of delivering stored power for the expected duration of renewable generation unavailability. This is a critical impediment.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Judith Curry

Date: December 13, 2022

Misperception and amplification of climate risk

“Something frightening poses a perceived risk. Something dangerous poses a real risk.” – Swedish physician Hans Rosling et al.[i]

This post is a follow on to my recent post Victims of the faux climate ‘crisis’. Part I: Children.  The issue of psychological trauma of children is one that I am continuing to work on, to identify root causes and a way forward.

The theme of this particular post is how our perceptions of risk differ from the actual risk itself.  Understanding this difference provides insights to understanding these fears, as well as providing insights into how these differences are manipulated by propagandists.

Apart from the objective facts about a risk, the social sciences find that our interpretation of those facts is ultimately subjective.  Risk science makes a clear distinction between professional judgments about risk versus the public perception of risk. Risk perception is a person’s subjective judgement or appraisal of risk, which can involve social, cultural and psychological factors.

No matter how strongly we feel about our perceptions of risk, we often get risk wrong. People worry about some things more than the evidence warrants (e.g. nuclear radiation, genetically modified food), and less about other threats than the evidence warrants (e.g., obesity, using mobile phones while driving). This gap in risk perception produces social policies that protect us more from what we are afraid of than from what actually threatens us the most.  Understanding the psychology of risk perception is important for rationally managing the risks that arise when our subjective risk perception system gets things dangerously wrong. (continue reading)

Misperception and amplification of climate risk

"The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots."    Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny

It currently appears that the Administration’s vision of the future US electric grid, supplied predominantly by intermittent renewables and supported by electricity storage, is a master fantasy designed by politicians for execution by geniuses with the unique talent of Rumpelstiltskin. There appears to be no plan to assure that the required number of geniuses will be available timely.

Wind and solar generation operate intermittently, and their output fluctuates continuously when they are operating. The grid is currently required to accept this intermittent, fluctuating output on a priority basis and to smooth the output and dispatch alternative sources of generation when the intermittent generator output declines or ceases as the result of time of day or weather conditions. This requirement imposes predictable but uncontrollable costs on the grid and on the conventional generation capacity which supplies the grid during periods of low/no intermittent generation.

As the grid expands in line with the Administration’s “all-electric everything” goal and the capacity of fossil-fueled conventional generation declines as the result of federal mandates and the unfavorable economics of reduced operating hours, there will be a growing need for increased electricity storage capacity and for “Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources”(DEFR). Unfortunately, the long-duration storage which would be required to support the grid through multi-day renewable energy “droughts” is not currently available and the DEFR remain undefined.

One approach to long-duration storage is pumped hydroelectric facilities. These facilities require paired reservoirs separated by significant elevation differences. There are approximately 23 GW of pumped storage capacity  in the US. This compares with a total US generating capacity of approximately 1,200 GW, of which approximately 140 GW is wind and 65 GW is solar renewable generating capacity. The move to “all-electric everything” over the next 28 years would require a rough tripling of US generating capacity, to approximately 3,600 GW, assuming no demand growth.

The conventional generating capacity which would be replaced by renewable generation plus storage consists of coal (~85% availability), Natural gas (~90% availability) and Nuclear (~95% availability). The renewable generation would consist of wind (~35% capacity factor times ~85% availability) and solar (~25% capacity factor times ~ 90% availability). Therefore, the rating plate capacity of the renewable generation required would be approximately four times the rating plate capacity of conventional generation capacity to serve the same grid demand, or approximately 14,000 GW.

The storage capacity required to support renewable generators during periods when they are not available to generate is the capacity of the generator times the maximum number of consecutive hours over which the renewable generation might be unavailable. The current US electricity storage capacity of 23 GW would be capable of replacing only one third of the current solar generating capacity. Assuming that storage capacity is all 8-hour storage (8 hr * 23 GW = 184 GWh), that storage capacity is the equivalent of replacing current US solar generating capacity for approximately 3 hours.

The ”all-electric everything” grid would require approximately 70 times current US renewable generating capacity and approximately 5,000 times current US electricity storage capacity.

By: Oxford Union

Wind and solar generation are intermittent forms of renewable generation. Wind generation functions only when wind velocity is above a minimum threshold and below a maximum threshold. Solar functions only during the daytime, and then only when the sun shines. This wind velocity intermittency is reasonably predictable over the short term. The nighttime unavailability of solar is totally predictable and the sunshine intermittency is reasonably predictable over the short term.
However, these are not the only intermittency issues with wind and solar. There are also second-by-second volatility events which affect the output of wind and solar generators. The graphs below are taken from papers authored by Thunder Said Energy.
The graph below displays the short-term volatility of wind output from a 25 MW wind facility over a one-month period. During this month there were an average of 75 short-term volatility events per day during which power output dropped by more than 10% and as much as 100% for at least 1 second and fewer than 100,000 seconds (~28 hours). While every day and every month are unique, this monthly record displays a type of wind variability which is rarely discussed. This volatile wind facility output is fed to an electric grid which must match supply and demand for 60 cycles every second.

The next graph shows the variation of wind power output from the 25 MW wind facility over the course of a single day, during which maximum output was approximately 6.5 MW, or approximately 25% of rating plate capacity, and the average output was 2.3 MW, or approximately 10% of rating plate capacity.

The next graph shows the output of the 25 MW wind facility over a period of a single day during which maximum output was approximately 2.3 MW and the average output was 0.1 MW.

The graph below displays the short-term volatility of solar output over a period of 1 year. During this year there were an average of 96 volatility events per day during which power output dropped by more than 10% and as much as 95% for at least 1 second and fewer than approximately 13,000 seconds (~3.6 hours).

The final graph shows the variation in solar insolation on a single day. This is the type of intermittency which is generally discussed regarding solar energy. The times of day when measurable insolation becomes available and ceases to be available would change with latitude and with the seasons, as would the maximum daily insolation.

Currently, it is the responsibility of the grid operator to compensate for the volatility of wind and solar generation output. Typically, the grid operator is dealing with input to the grid from numerous wind facilities and/or solar fields, each of which is experiencing volatility to some degree. The volatility might be either synchronous or asynchronous at any given time. Smoothing this volatility imposes costs on the grid which result in increased electricity prices.
To level the playing field for the various sources of electric generation, the volatility of wind and solar output should be smoothed prior to output delivery to the grid. Smoothing could be accomplished with capacitors or batteries, or a combination of both. This will become increasingly important as the fraction of intermittent generation on the grid increases and the availability of dispatchable conventional generation to compensate for wind and solar volatility decreases. Of course, the maximum output of the wind and solar generation facilities would be reduced somewhat by the need to recharge capacitors or storage used to smooth the output volatility.

From: Manhattan Contrarian

By: Francis Menton

Date: December 13, 2022

Policy Implications Of The Energy Storage Conundrum

It occurs to me that before moving on from my obsession with energy storage and and its manifest limitations, I should address the policy implications of this situation.  I apologize if these implications may seem terribly obvious to regular readers, or for that matter to people who have just thought about these issues for, say, five minutes.  Unfortunately, our powers-that-be don’t seem to have those five minutes to figure out the obvious, so we’ll just have to bash them over the head with it.

Here are the three most obvious policy implications that nobody in power seems to have figured out:

(1) More and more wind turbines and solar panels are essentially useless because they can never fully supply an electrical grid or provide energy security without full dispatchable backup.

Here in the U.S. the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” of 2022 provides some hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies and tax credits to build more wind turbines and solar panels.  Simultaneously, the Biden Administration, directed by a series of Executive Orders from the President, proceeds with an all-of-government effort to suppress the dispatchable backup known as fossil fuels.  Does somebody think this can actually work?  It can’t.  

And then there’s the December 6 press release from the UN’s International Energy Agency, touting how renewable energy sources (wind and solar) are being “turbocharged” to provide countries with “energy security.”  The headline is: “Renewable power’s growth is being turbocharged as countries seek to strengthen energy security.”   Excerpt: (continue reading)

Policy Implications Of The Energy Storage Conundrum

The UN COP27 concluded in mid-November with an agreement to work toward establishment of a funding mechanism to compensate developing countries for “loss and damage” resulting from the effects of anthropogenic climate change. This concept is problematic on several levels.

First, weather events such as floods, droughts, tropical cyclones, tornadoes and lightning ignited wildfires have always caused “loss and damage”. The frequency, duration and severity of these events has varied over time. No nation or group of nations is in any way responsible for the occurrence of these weather events. However, nations affected by these weather events are, at least in part, responsible for the magnitude of the “loss and damage” caused by the events as the result of placing infrastructure and people in harm's way in flood plains and on seashores and by failing to build flood control dams and water storage reservoirs. This is the case in both developed and developing countries.

Second, climate has always changed over the entire historical period we have been able to study. It is not possible to measure the alleged effects of anthropogenic emissions on climate change. Both climate warming and cooling events occurred prior to the period in which humans began adding CO2 and other GHGs to the atmosphere; and, they have continued since. Had climate been unchanging prior to the advent of anthropogenic emissions, it might have been possible to attribute changes in climate to the anthropogenic emissions. However, that is not the case.

The “loss and damage” compensation issue raised at COP27 is based on the assumption that incremental climate change caused by CO2 and other GHG emissions from the developed nations has somehow contributed to the frequency and/or severity of these various weather events. However, observations do not support the assertions of increased frequency, duration or severity of adverse weather events. Data do support assertions of increased absolute financial costs of the “loss and damage” from these weather events resulting from increased infrastructure investment in areas subject to damage from the weather events, though there is no increase relative to GDP.

The assertions of increased “loss and damage” from anthropogenic climate change are based on the outputs of a class of climate models referred to as attribution models. These models are of relatively recent origin. They are unverified and unvalidated, as are the global climate models on which they are based. The current ensemble of global climate models project temperature anomaly increases, on average, twice as large as the observed temperature anomaly increases.

The attribution models attempt to identify the differences between the actual weather event as it occurred and what the event might have been like in the absence of anthropogenic climate change. For example, there was much discussion regarding the potential effects of anthropogenic climate change on what was expected to be an above average Atlantic hurricane season in 2022. The actual 2022 Atlantic hurricane season was far below normal, suggesting that our understanding of the effects of climate change on weather events is “not ready for prime time”.

Our understanding is certainly not sufficient to serve as the basis for massive transfer payments from the developed nations to the developing nations based on “responsibility” for computer estimated incremental “loss and damage”.

From: Manhattan Contrarian

By: Francis Menton

Date: December 10, 2022

The Impossibility Of Bridging The "Last 10%" On The Way To "100% Clean Electricity"

As my last post reported, the Official Party Line from our government holds that we have this “100% Clean Electricity” thing about 90% solved.  As the government-funded NREL put it in their August 30, 2022 press release, “[a] growing body of research has demonstrated that cost-effective high-renewable power systems are possible.”  But then they admit that that statement does not cover what they call the "last 10% challenge” — providing for the worst seasonal droughts of sun and wind, that result in periods when there is no renewable power to meet around 10% of annual electricity demand.  That last 10%, says NREL, will require one or more “technologies that have not yet been deployed at scale.”  

But hey, we’ve got 90% of this renewable transition thing solved.  How hard could figuring out that last 10% really be?

And on that basis the government has embarked upon forcing the closure of large numbers of power plants that use fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, as well as on suppressing exploration for fossil fuels and other things like pipelines and refineries.  After all, if we’re transitioning at least 90% to renewables, we won’t need 90% of the fossil fuel infrastructure any more, will we?

Actually, that’s completely wrong.  Until the full solution to the so-called “last 10% challenge” is in place, we need 100% of our fossil fuel backup infrastructure to remain in place, fully maintained, and ready to step in when the wind and sun fail.  

Let’s take a brief look at what bridging the last piece of the renewable transition actually looks like.

NREL’s August 2022 Report titled “Examining Supply-Side Options to Achieve 100% Clean Electricity by 2035” lays out several scenarios for supposedly achieving that goal.  For all the scenarios, the most important piece is the same:  building and deploying lots more wind turbines and solar panels.  (The scenarios differ in the degree of deployment of other elements like transmission lines, battery storage, carbon capture technology, and additional nuclear.). As foreseen by NREL, by 2035, total electricity generation capacity in the U.S. has more than tripled, with the large majority of the additions being wind and solar.  There is substantial overbuilding of the wind and solar facilities, presumably to provide enough electricity on days of light wind or some clouds, while having large surpluses to discard on days of full wind and sun.  Some storage has been provided, but mostly “diurnal” (intra-day) and not seasonal. (continue reading)

The Impossibility Of Bridging The "Last 10%" On The Way To "100% Clean Electricity"

“Predictions are hard, especially about the future.”, Yogi Berra, American philosopher

Considering Yogi’s caution above, I will not make predictions regarding climate science or climate change policy in 2023. Rather, I will discuss what I believe should happen in 2023 to advance the state of climate science and climate change policy.

An important first step in advancing the state of climate science is improving the quality of the data being used to measure the impacts of climate change. This includes expanding the coverage of both near-surface land temperatures and sea surface temperatures, so that “infilling” of estimated temperatures is no longer necessary. It also includes improving the quality of the data, so that “adjustments” to the data are no longer necessary. The US Climate Reference Network and the Argo buoys provide suitable data quality, but they do not provide global coverage. Satellite temperature measurements provide near-global coverage in the troposphere but display differences with the near-surface land and sea surface temperatures which should be analyzed and resolved.

There is also a major data quality issue regarding the rate of sea level rise which should be addressed and resolved. The sea level rise measured by satellite is approximately twice the rate measured by tide gauges in geologically stable locations. The rate of sea level rise measured by the satellites has increased inexplicably with each new satellite placed into service, while the rate of rise measured by the tide gauges has not changed. The tide gauge record begins well before the presumed start of anthropogenic warming, so it records natural variation associated with the recovery from the Little Ice Age.

The projections of future anthropogenic warming rely on the outputs of numerous climate models, none of which have been verified and validated. All of the climate models over-project warming relative to both near-surface and satellite-based observations and their outputs diverge significantly into the future. The models have been “tuned” by hindcasting to the near-surface temperature anomaly records which have issues as described above. A single, validated and verified model would constitute a far more solid basis for climate policy formation than the current situation.

There remains major uncertainty regarding the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. IP AR6 identifies a range of 2.5 – 4 degrees C, with a likely value of 3 degrees C and a very low likelihood of a value lower than 1.5 degrees C. However, recent research not reflected in AR6 suggests that sensitivity might well be less than or equal to 1.5 degrees C. This uncertainty has a dramatic effect on the range of projected temperature futures and should be the focus of aggressive research to resolve it.

There also remains uncertainty regarding the magnitude of climate feedbacks and whether the feedbacks are net positive or negative. The assumption of positive net feedback increases the temperature increases projected by the climate models.

There also remains uncertainty regarding the Representative Concentration Pathway used to project future atmospheric CO2 concentrations. While it is not possible to predict the actual future pathway, there is growing agreement that RCP 8.5 is implausible and should not be assumed to represent a “business-as-usual” future scenario.

Each of the above issues is of far greater significance to the formation of rational climate policy than the production of “scary scenarios” based on RCP 8.5, which has been a persistent focus of recent climate research.

The UN and national governments should abandon the “climate crisis”, “existential threat”, “climate emergency” political narrative, which is not supported by the climate science, and refocus on getting the climate science right.

Politicians would do well to contemplate the following observation.    
 
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”   Groucho Marx

From: Manhattan Contrarian

By: Francis Menton

Date: December 8, 2022

Looking For The Official Party Line On Energy Storage

If you’ve read my energy storage report, or just the summaries of parts of it that have appeared on this blog, you have probably thought:  this stuff is kind of obvious.  Surely the powers that be must have thought of at least some of these issues, and there must be some kind of official position on the responses out there somewhere.

So I thought to look around for the closest thing I could find to the Official Party Line on how the U.S. is supposedly going to get to Net Zero emissions from the electricity sector by some early date.  The most authoritative thing I have found is a big Report out in August 2022 from something called the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, titled “Examining Supply-Side Options to Achieve 100% Clean Electricity by 2035.”  An accompanying press release with a date of August 30 has the headline “NREL Study Identifies the Opportunities and Challenges of Achieving the U.S. Transformational Goal of 100% Clean Electricity by 2035.”  

What is NREL?  The Report identifies it as a private lab “operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract.”  In other words, it’s an explicit advocacy group for “renewable” energy that gets infinite oodles of taxpayer money to put out advocacy pieces making it seem like the organization’s preferred schemes will work.

Make no mistake, this Report is a big piece of work.  The Report identifies some 5 “lead authors,” 6 “contributing authors,” and 56 editors, contributors, commenters and others.  Undoubtedly millions of your taxpayer dollars were spent producing the Report and the underlying models (which compares to the zero dollars and zero cents that the Manhattan Contrarian was paid for his energy storage report).  The end product is an excellent illustration of why central planning does not work and can never work.

So now that our President has supposedly committed the country to this “100% clean electricity” thing by 2035, surely these geniuses are going to tell us exactly how that is going to be done and how much it will cost.  Good luck finding that in here.  From the press release: (continue reading)

Looking For The Official Party Line On Energy Storage