Climate science focuses on two fundamental issues: the current status of the changed climate; and, projections of future changes in the climate. The science is not “settled” regarding either of these issues.

The key aspects of interest regarding the current status of the changed climate are: atmospheric GHG concentration; global average near-surface temperature; tropospheric temperature; sea level; extreme weather events; and, ocean pH. Projections of future changes in the climate also focus on these issues and rely on climate models.

The Mauna Loa data on the atmospheric concentration of CO2 are broadly accepted and document a rough doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration since the pre-industrial period.

The global average near-surface temperature data and sea surface temperature data remain problematic as the result non-uniform global coverage, particularly in the Southern hemisphere and in the global oceans, urban sprawl, aging and malfunctioning measuring stations and large areas with no measuring stations. This continues to result in “adjusting” measurements and “infilling” estimates where no data are available. The US Climate Reference Network continues to demonstrate the ability to measure near-surface temperature accurately and reliably, but there appears to be little interest in establishing such a network on a global basis.

The tropospheric temperature data provide almost complete global coverage and indicate a slower rate of warming than the near-surface temperature anomaly products. The reasons for this discrepancy remain unexplained.

The sea level data are also problematic. The rate of sea level rise measured by satellite is approximately twice the rate of increase measured by geologically stable tide gauges. This discrepancy also remains unexplained.

There are no increasing trends in the frequency, severity or duration of extreme weather events, including floods, droughts, tropical cyclones or tornadoes, despite frequent political handwringing to the contrary.

Ocean pH has decreased very slightly but remains solidly basic at 8+.

There are numerous climate models used to project future global near-surface temperature change. All the models have projected temperature increases greater than observed, on average nearly twice as great. None of the models have been validated and verified. The models influence and are influenced by climate sensitivity, climate forcings and feedbacks, as well as by the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) selected to estimate future atmospheric CO2 increases.

The climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is unknown, but is estimated to range from 1.5 – 4.5 degrees C. Recent research suggests that sensitivity is near, or even below, the bottom of that range. The magnitude of climate forcings are also estimated. The magnitude and direction of climate feedbacks are also unknown but estimated. Finally, the rate at which additional CO2 will accumulate in the atmosphere is unknown, though there are several Representative Concentration Pathways in current use. The combination of these uncertainties results in model projections of future temperatures which vary significantly and diverge rapidly into the future.

The most commonly used RCP is RCP8.5, which projects the greatest increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. RCP8.5 has frequently been referred to as the “business-as-usual” scenario, though there is growing recognition that it is implausible. It does, however, produce the scariest scenarios of future climate catastrophe.

Models are also being used to attempt to attribute some fraction of some extreme weather event to climate change. However, these models are also unverified and unvalidated. Most recently, there has been a growing effort to provide “instant attribution” to take advantage of the news cycle immediately after the event.

From: Manhattan Contrarian

By: Francis Menton

Date: December 4, 2022

My Energy Storage Report: Hydrogen As An Alternative To Batteries

As mentioned in the last post, my new energy storage report, The Energy Storage Conundrum, mostly deals with issues that have previously been discussed on this blog; but the Report goes into considerable further detail on some of them.

One issue where the Report contains much additional detail is the issue of hydrogen as an alternative to batteries as the medium of energy storage.  For examples of previous discussion on this blog of hydrogen as the medium of storage to back up an electrical grid see, for example, “The Idiot’s Answer To Global Warming: Hydrogen” from August 12, 2021, and “Hydrogen Is Unlikely Ever To Be A Viable Solution To The Energy Storage Conundrum” from June 13, 2022.

At first blush, hydrogen may seem to offer the obvious solution to the most difficult issues of energy storage for backing up intermittent renewable generation.  In particular, the seasonal patterns of generation from wind and sun require a storage solution that can receive excess power production gradually for months in a row, and then discharge the stored energy over the course of as long as a year.  No existing battery technology can do anything like that, largely because most of the stored energy will simply dissipate if it is left in a battery for a year before being called upon.  But if you can make hydrogen from some source, you can store it somewhere for a year or even longer without significant loss.  Problem solved!

Well, there must be some problem with hydrogen, or otherwise people would already be using it extensively.  And indeed, the problems with hydrogen, while different from those of battery storage, are nevertheless equivalently huge.  Mostly, to produce large amounts of hydrogen without generating the very greenhouse gas emissions you are seeking to avoid, turns out to be enormously costly.  And then, once you have the hydrogen, distributing it and handling it are very challenging.

Unlike, say, oxygen or nitrogen, which are ubiquitous as free gases in the atmosphere, there is almost no free hydrogen available for the taking.  It is all bound up either in hydrocarbons (aka fossil fuels — coal, oil and natural gas), carbohydrates (aka plants and animals), or water.  To obtain free hydrogen, it must be separated from one or another of these substances by the input of energy.  The easiest and cheapest way to get free hydrogen is to separate it from the carbon in natural gas.  This is commonly done by a process called “steam reformation,” which leads to the carbon from the natural gas getting emitted into the atmosphere in the form of CO2.  In other words, obtaining hydrogen from natural gas by the inexpensive process of steam reformation offers no benefits in terms of carbon emissions over just burning the natural gas.  So, if you insist on getting free hydrogen without carbon emissions, you are going to have to get it from water by a process of electrolysis.  Hydrogen obtained from water by electrolysis is known by environmental cognoscenti as “green hydrogen,” because of the avoidance of carbon emissions.  Unfortunately, the electrolysis process requires a very large input of energy. (continue reading)

My Energy Storage Report: Hydrogen As An Alternative To Batteries

The electric utility industry functions within the framework of federal, state and local legislation and regulation. The legislators and regulators are influenced by the renewable energy industry and by numerous environmental advocacy groups. In this environment, the utilities have been required to connect wind and solar generation to the grid and to accept all of the electricity generated by these intermittent renewables on a priority basis whenever it is available.

This intermittent renewable electricity displaces output from conventional electric generators owned and operated by the utilities and their wholesale suppliers to the extent that it is available. However, the conventional generators are still required to provide power during periods when the renewable sources are not generating. Therefore, the fixed costs of the conventional generation are largely unaffected, but the revenue from generation and the associated variable costs are reduced. The net result in an increase in the cost of the power produced by the conventional generators.

Increasing renewable generation further decreases the cumulative output of the conventional generators, but does not reduce the conventional generation capacity required to satisfy grid demand when renewable generation is unavailable. In fact, increased electric demand from customer load growth and fuel switching would increase the capacity of conventional generation required to support the grid even as renewable generation capacity increased, though a portion of the increased conventional capacity requirement could be offset by the addition of electricity storage.

Utilities have agreed to accept the output of renewable generation as produced, without smoothing to eliminate the frequent fluctuations in renewable output or storage capacity sufficient to render the renewable generators dispatchable. This approach reduces the apparent cost of the renewable electricity, but increases the cost and complexity of utility operations.

Utilities could have and likely should have fought to require renewable generators to provide smoothed and dispatchable power meeting the same requirements as their own and their wholesale suppliers’ generators. That approach would have reflected the full cost of renewable generation, which would have been several times the cost of “source of opportunity” generation.

This issue will become critical as renewable generation proliferates and conventional coal and natural gas generators are required to discontinue operation under federal mandates over the next 13 years. The grid support currently provided by the conventional generators would have to be provided by electricity storage, while the stability provided by the inertia of the large rotating turbine generators would have to be provided by power electronics.

Electric utilities earnings are based on an allowable rate of return on net physical plant in service. Electric utility physical plant is typically 70-80% generation. Displacement of utility coal and natural gas generation with third party generation reduces utility earnings potential. This is currently causing utilities to seek to invest in renewable generation capacity, as well as to focus on the investment required to provide electricity storage to support the grid through periods of low/no renewable generation. These investment requirements will be substantially increased by the federal push for “all-electric everything”.

It appears highly unlikely that pursuing this path would result in the long-promised reduced energy costs.

From: The Global Warming Policy Foundation

By: Francis Menton

Date: December, 2022

THE ENERGY STORAGE CONUNDRUM

Introduction and Executive Summary

Advanced economies – including most of Europe, much of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and others – have embarked upon a quest to ‘decarbonise’ their economies and achieve ‘Net Zero’ emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The Net Zero plans turn almost entirely on building large numbers of wind turbines and solar panels to replace generation facilities that use fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) to produce electricity. The idea is that, as enough wind turbines and solar panels are built, the former coal, oil, and gas-burning central stations can gradually be closed, leaving an emissions-free electricity system.

But wind and solar facilities provide only intermittent power, which must be fully backed up by something – fossil fuel generators, nuclear plants, batteries, or some other form of energy storage – so that customer demand can be matched at times of low wind and sun, thus keeping the grid from failing. The governments in question have then mostly or entirely ruled out fossil fuels and nuclear as the backup, leaving some form of storage as the main or only remaining option. They have then simply assumed that storage in some form will become available. Their consideration of how much storage will be needed, how it will work, and how much it will cost has been entirely inadequate.

Energy storage to back up a predominantly wind/solar generation system to achieve Net Zero is an enormous problem, and very likely an unsolvable one. At this time, there is no proven and costed energy storage solution that can take a wind/solar electricity generation system all the way to Net Zero emissions, or anything close to it. Governments are simply setting forth blindly, without any real idea of how or whether the system they mandate might ultimately work or how much it will cost. The truth is that, barring some sort of miracle, there is no possibility that any suitable storage technology will be feasible, let alone at affordable cost, in any timeframe relevant to the announced plans of the politicians, if ever.

This report seeks to shine a light on the critical aspects of the energy storage problem that governments have been willfully ignoring.

Section 1 shows that full backup is indispensable in an electricity grid powered mainly by intermittent generation. Without it, there would be frequent blackouts, if not grid collapse. It doesn’t matter if one builds wind and/or solar facilities with capacity of ten or one hundred or even one thousand times peak electricity usage. On a calm night, or during days or weeks of deep wind/sun drought, those facilities will produce nothing, or close to it, and only full backup of some sort – that is, backup sufficient to supply all of peak demand for as long as it takes – will keep the grid from failing. (continue reading)

THE ENERGY STORAGE CONUNDRUM

Electric utilities find themselves positioned between the renewable generation industries (wind and solar) and electricity end users. Their relationships with these groups are controlled or influenced by legislation and regulation at the federal, state and local levels. Utilities are coming to regret some decisions they have made in this highly politically charged environment as the percentage of renewable energy generation increases.

Several electric utilities agreed to serve residential and small commercial customers with on-site solar generation capacity using simple net metering, in which the customers’ electric meters run backwards when customer generation exceeds on-site energy demand. This was viewed as a trivial issue when on-site solar installations were  less common, but has become a significant issue as on-site solar generation has proliferated.

Residential and small commercial electric rates typically consist of a fixed monthly service charge and a variable consumption charge. These charges are set in rate cases filed with state utility commissions. It is common for the fixed monthly service charge to recover only a fraction of the utilities’ fixed costs (25-50%). The remainder of the fixed costs are recovered in the variable portion of the rate, based on the quantity of electricity sold to each customer class during a “test year”.

Simple net metering allows the on-site generating customers to be compensated not only for the current wholesale cost of avoided incremental electricity generated or purchased by the utilities, but also for the portion of the utilities’ fixed costs included in the variable portion of the rate. This causes the utilities to under-recover their fixed costs until the next rate case, when that portion of the fixed costs could be reallocated, increasing the variable rate paid by all customers in the class.

Simple net metering results in a subsidy from non-generating customers to on-site generating customers. Several electric utilities have approached their regulatory commissions to switch from simple net metering to an arrangement which compensates the on-site generating customers for only the utilities’ avoided wholesale cost of power. These efforts have been aggressively resisted by the solar energy industry and by on-site generation consumer groups and climate advocacy groups, because this compensation approach significantly reduces the on-site generation customers’ annual electricity cost savings.

Many customers’ solar purchase decisions were and are based on the assumption of continued simple net metering. Compensation at a reduced rate decreases the attractiveness on on-site solar for both existing and potential future solar generation customers. Existing on-site generation customers believe they are entitled to continue to benefit from the cost shifting to non-generating customers, since their purchase decisions were based on this compensation approach. Solar contractors see their future business volumes threatened by the reduced customer compensation per kilowatt hour returned to the grid.

Several state utility commissions have attempted to take the Solomonic approach to resolving the issue, suggesting customer compensation somewhere between the wholesale and retail cost of electricity. However, such an approach only reduces, but does not eliminate, the cross subsidy from non-generating to on-site generating customers. It remains unfair to the utilities and their non-generating customers.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Planning Engineer (Russell Schussler)

Date: November 28, 2022

Exploiters Versus Experts

The unfolding saga around FTX, the cryptocurrency exchange currently in bankruptcy, appears to share some similarities with factors which led to the demise of Enron. Enron and FTX both initially achieved success because they were able to exploit some of the inefficiencies present in a complex system.

While it is a great thing to identify and correct inefficiency, the abilities of those who do so may be greatly overestimated at times.  As with Enron, it may have taken a special brilliance for Sam Bankman-Fried to capitalize on some shortcomings in crypto markets. But is the influence he received, the many speaking engagements and the adoring press commensurate with accomplishments and abilities?

You don’t have to be an overall expert in regards to a complex system in order to discover and tinker with particular inefficiencies and shortcomings within that system. In fact, successful exploiters may be grossly ignorant or worse, misinformed about major factors of the complex system. The ability to exploit a system does not mean that the exploiter is capable of redesigning the system, building a system ground up or even maintaining their edge. This post examines the initial success and ultimate failure of Enron’s attempt to transform the energy market before concluding with some thoughts around exploiters and experts.

Before Enron

In the period prior to the emergence of Enron and other power marketers, utilities operated in a more isolated fashion when developing, operating and scheduling their power supply. While there were power sales between utilities which might be triggered by supply and demand imbalances, the concept of short-term sales of energy based on incremental cost differentials was not even on the radar of many within the power industry. (continue reading)

Exploiters Versus Experts

The principal thrust of the UNFCCC and the IPCC has been on climate change mitigation through reductions in global annual emissions of CO2 and other ‘Green House Gases’ (GHGs). The focal point of their efforts has been keeping the increase in the global average temperature anomaly to 2°C (later 1.5°C), primarily through reductions in global annual CO2 emissions. Increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations are believed to be driving the global average temperature anomaly increase and to be exacerbating the frequency, intensity and duration of extreme weather events.

The EU nations, the US, Canada and Australia have adopted goals to reduce annual CO2 emissions and to achieve net zero annual CO2 emissions by 2050. The path to achieving these emissions reductions involves closing coal and natural gas generating units, and in some cases nuclear generating units, and replacing them with intermittent renewable wind and solar generation, supported by electricity storage and “Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources” (DEFRs).

The UN has determined that these nations are not achieving the emissions reduction pledges they have made and is calling for “greater ambition” on their part. These efforts are being bolstered by declaration of a “red alert” and repeated cries of “climate crisis”, “existential threat" and “climate emergency”. The response of these nations, in the face of a global energy crisis, has been “lip service”, delays in planned nuclear and fossil generating plant closures and an increase in fossil generation.

The increased CO2 emissions resulting from the developed nations response to the energy crisis are being swamped by rapid increases in developing nation CO2 emissions, primarily from increases in coal-fired generation, but also from increases in natural gas generation. The result has been an unabated rate of increase of global annual CO2 emissions, rather than the reduction perceived to be necessary to reduce or eliminate climate change.

This situation is focusing increased attention on efforts to adapt to climate change by adapting to the impact of severe weather events which might be affected by climate change. Severe weather events, such as droughts, floods, tropical cyclones and tornadoes are not new occurrences and any affect of climate change on the frequency, severity and duration of those events is questionable at best. Wildfires are not severe weather events but are often triggered by weather events such as lightning storms.

Adaptation efforts can include construction of reservoirs to retain flood waters to prevent or lessen downstream damage and provide additional supplies of water for irrigation and residential, commercial and industrial consumption. Adaptation can also include avoiding placement of infrastructure on shorelines and in flood plains. Structures can be hardened to resist the effects of tropical cyclones and tornadoes. Forests can be cleared of underbrush and debris to reduce the availability of combustibles in the path of fires.

Mitigation efforts will not end climate change, which has been occurring for the entire history we have been able to study, though they might reduce or eliminate any anthropogenic component of future climate change. Adaptation efforts will not eliminate losses from severe weather events, though they reduce the resulting loss of life and property damage.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Judith Curry

Date: November 2, 2022

The climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be

Growing realization by the climate establishment  that the threat of future warming has been cut in half over the past 5 years.

Summary:  The climate “catastrophe” isn’t what it used to be. Circa 2013 with publication of the IPCC AR5 Report, RCP8.5 was regarded as the business-as-usual emissions scenario, with expected warming of 4 to 5 oC by 2100. Now there is growing acceptance that RCP8.5 is implausible, and RCP4.5 is arguably the current business-as-usual emissions scenario. Only a few years ago, an emissions trajectory that followed RCP4.5 with 2 to 3 oC warming was regarded as climate policy success. As limiting warming to 2 oC seems to be in reach (now deemed to be the “threshold of catastrophe”),[i] the goal posts were moved in 2018 to reduce the warming target to 1.5 oC. Climate catastrophe rhetoric now seems linked to extreme weather events, most of which are difficult to identify any role for human-caused climate change in increasing either their intensity or frequency.

The main stream media is currently awash with articles from prominent journalists on how the global warming threat less than we thought.  Here are some prominent articles:

• NYTimes David Wallace-Wells: Beyond catastrophe: A new climate reality is coming into view.
• WSJ:  Good climate change news is fit to print.  Slowly its percolating into the journalistic mind that recent research is upbeat
• NYT Bret Stephens: Yes Greenland’s melting but . . .(continue reading)

The climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be

Fascism
1: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Elements of fascism have reared their ugly heads in the US response to climate change including autocratic government, economic regimentation and forceable suppression of opposition.

Examples of autocratic federal government actions include: ordering an end to coal-fired electric generation by 2030; ordering an end to natural gas-fired generation by 2035; ordering an end to fossil fuel combustion by 2050; terminating oil and gas leasing and revoking oil and gas production permits; ordering half of vehicles sold to be EVs by 2030; and, ordering all new vehicles sold to be EVs by 2035.

Ending coal and natural gas generation will shutter numerous generators which have not yet reached the ends of their useful lives, destroy the primary market for bituminous coal and a major market for natural gas, terminate the employment of numerous powerplant workers, coal miners and oil and gas field workers and strand $ trillions of coal and natural gas reserves. The federal government is effectively expropriating the property of the power plant and coal mine owners, likely with no compensation for their losses. Shuttering the coal and natural gas generating stations will also remove the primary sources of the power required to compensate for the intermittency of wind and solar generation.

Terminating oil and gas leasing and operating permits will cause oil and gas availability to decline as existing producing wells are depleted. The federal government has made no obvious provisions to assure that oil and gas supplies will remain sufficient to meet demand as supplies are depleted.

The federal government and several state governments have mandated a transition from ICE vehicles to EVs. Manufacturers are being forced to transition their product lines to EVs until all new vehicles sold must be EVs. Purchasers will face declining vehicle choices, higher vehicle prices, reduced vehicle utility and expensive battery replacement. This transition is being forced in the face of unresolved issues with spontaneous battery fires in personal vehicles, light duty trucks and transit buses. Owners retaining ICE vehicles will be faced with challenges regarding fuel and maintenance availability.

The federal government is also coordinating with the broadcast and print media and with internet social media organizations to suppress skepticism regarding the government’s climate change initiatives. The various media organizations are employing “fact checkers” to suggest that information from skeptical sources is labeled as disinformation or misinformation. The federal government has also acted against numerous climate scientists who question the government’s narrative regarding the future dangers of climate change. These scientists’ employers have been periodically harassed by senators and congressmen. Some scientists have been removed from state and federal government positions for refusing to support the government narrative.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Jim Steele

Date: October 28, 2022

Climate Fear Mongering Bad Analyses Cause Bad Remedies

A review of how the media has been fear mongering a fabricated climate crisis which is only misdirecting and obscuring the best remedies needed to address environmental issues, and instead promoting solutions that are ultimately dangerous.

Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition.

Transcript below.

Thanks for having me here. First, I am not a climate scientist. I am an ecologist, and I humbly note ecology requires a higher degree of thinking to untangle the many contributing causes of complex problems.

While director of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, I was monitored 6 meadow systems in the Sierra Nevada for the Forest Service. One meadow began to dry, vegetation withered, and wildlife began disappearing. When I showed students and colleagues this meadow’s deterioration, I was struck by their knee jerk response. Despite just a half-hour visit, most declared this was just what global warming theory predicted. Rising CO2 was making the land warmer, drier and causing animals to go extinct. (continue reading)

Climate Fear Mongering Bad Analyses Cause Bad Remedies

We have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving and much to be concerned about as well.

We can be thankful that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has contributed to increased agricultural productivity, which is essential to feed our growing population.

We can be thankful that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has contributed to global greening, both by increasing tree and plant growth and by making plants more efficient in their use of available water.

We can be thankful that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has contributed to modest warming and has not resulted in the far greater warming predicted by the climate models.

We can be thankful that the modest warming has manifested primarily as warmer minimum temperatures rather than as increased maximum temperatures.

We can be thankful that the predicted increases in the frequency, intensity and duration of adverse weather events such as tropical cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, floods and heat waves have not occurred.

We can be thankful that the modest rate of increase of sea level which began toward the end of the Little Ice Age has continued, contrary to predictions of much more rapid rise which might have submerged islands and inundated low-lying coastal communities.

We can be thankful that ongoing research indicates that our climate is less sensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 than had been predicted.

Finally, we can be thankful that there is no evidence of a current or impending climate “crisis”, or that the current climate change represents an “existential threat” to our survival or the survival of the planet, or that there is scientific justification for declaring a climate “state of emergency”.

We should be concerned about efforts to unnecessarily and rapidly transition our energy economy from reliance on fossil fuels, nuclear energy, hydroelectric and geothermal generation to reliance on intermittent renewable forms of generation such as wind and solar combined with yet-to-be-developed long-duration storage and/or as yet undefined “Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources”.

We should be concerned about the pace of decommissioning of the conventional generation resources required to provide backup generation during periods of renewable generation intermittency.

We should be concerned about the reliance of intermittent renewable generation and storage systems on materials controlled largely by unfriendly and aggressive foreign nations and produced frequently by child and slave labor in unhealthy working conditions.

We should be concerned about the continued affordability of energy in the US economy and about the continued reliability of our energy supply and energy delivery infrastructure.

We should be concerned about our growing reliance on energy supplies from unfriendly foreign nations.

We should be concerned about our government’s efforts to destroy a US industry which is essential to the continued supply of reliable and affordable energy.

We should be concerned about our government’s efforts to prohibit the production and sale of internal combustion engine vehicles and force their replacement with electric vehicles. We should be particularly concerned about the government’s intent to force a transition from diesel engine transit and school buses to electric buses in light of the numerous spontaneous battery fires which have rapidly destroyed transit buses in Germany, France, China and the US.

Finally, we should be concerned about the growing fascism of our government as it advances its climate change agenda.

By: Mark Moss

Precautionary Principle: An expression of a need by decision-makers to anticipate harm before it occurs. Within this element lies an implicit reversal of the onus of proof: under the precautionary principle it is the responsibility of an activity-proponent to establish that the proposed activity will not (or is very unlikely to) result in significant harm.

Murphy's Law: An observation: anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

Environmental activists have frequently asserted the Precautionary Principle as the basis for immediate and aggressive actions to limit climate change despite the manifold uncertainties in climate science’s projections of future climate conditions. Their approach frequently appears to be based in part on Murphy’s Law.

While environmental activists have been very vocal regarding the uncertain, projected future dangers of climate change based on the outputs of unverified climate models, they have been far less vocal regarding the clear and present dangers of Lithium battery fires, both in EVs and in grid-scale storage installations.

Fortunately, there appear not to have been any fatalities in EV fires, except when the vehicle was involved in a crash. However, there have been numerous instances of spontaneous vehicle fires, some during charging and others when the vehicle was parked. There also appear to have been no fatalities in EV transit bus fires, which have occurred both when the buses were being charged and when they were parked waiting to begin a scheduled route. (here, here and here) There have been no reported battery fires in transit buses while carrying passengers. There have so far been no reported incidents of battery fires in EV school buses.

A fire aboard the trans-Atlantic vehicle ship Felicity Ace, which was carrying approximately 4,000 vehicles including numerous EVs, destroyed the ship and its cargo. The cause of the fire is uncertain, though it appears likely that a spontaneous EV battery fire was the cause. EV batteries were certainly a major contributor to the fire, which the ship’s crew were not able to control.

There have also been Lithium battery fires in grid-scale storage batteries. (here, here) In both cases, these incidents appear to have been triggered by malfunctions of the battery cooling systems.

Numerous owners and operators are considering banning parking and charging of EVs in parking structures, including the basements of apartment complexes and shopping centers because of the fire risk and the extreme difficulty of extinguishing Lithium battery fires.

It would seem that environmental activists promoting the application of the Precautionary Principle regarding potential future climate change should be at least as concerned regarding the clear and present danger of EV battery fires. There is no urgent need to adopt EVs for a variety of uses until the issue of spontaneous battery fires has been addressed and resolved. These fires are a particular concern in school buses and transit buses because the fires are so intense and spread so quickly that evacuation might be hindered or even prevented. This is also the case for parking and charging EVs under apartment buildings.

From: Clintel

By: Guus Berkhout

Date: October, 2022

There is No Climate Emergency, a Message to the People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is No Climate Emergency, a Message to the People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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