From: Real Clear Wire

By: Rick Whitbeck

Date: January 4, 2024

New Report Highlights Green Failure in Europe and Warns America

As one digests Rupert Darwall’s latest report for the RealClear Foundation, the well-known quote from Spanish philosopher George Santayana might ring through the mind: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Anyone looking to combat the activists pushing a ‘net zero’ agenda here in the U.S. would be wise to read Darwall’s piece, entitled “The Folly of Climate Leadership.”

The analysis tells the story of Great Britain heeding the cries for decarbonization, starting when Parliament wrote an 80% decrease in emissions target into law in 2008. They raised it to 100% – or “net zero” – in 2019. The results have clearly been catastrophic.

Since decarbonization efforts commenced, Britain’s economy has grown at half the rate as it did from 1990-2008. According to a research study from noted British economic historian Nicholas Crafts, that’s the second-worst period of British peacetime growth since 1780.

In addition to the economic malaise, British energy prices have skyrocketed, and Britons are now concerned with how to survive the effect of those costs on their wallets, as they look to heat and power their homes and businesses, travel for work and pleasure and live life as best they can.

The differences between British energy costs and those here in the U.S. are staggering: Britons paid an average of $228 per megawatt hour (MWh) for electricity generated from coal in 2022, whereas Americans paid an average of $27 per MWh. For natural gas, 2022 saw Britons paying $251 per MWh, versus American consumers averaging $61 per MWh for their power.

Darwall’s report also highlights the effects of unchecked and anti-market driven government investment in ‘green’ energy on grid reliability, as intermittent production from wind and solar – coupled with a lack of utility-grade energy storage – dropped electricity generated per gigawatt of capacity falling 28% since 2009. (continue reading)

New Report Highlights Green Failure in Europe and Warns America

The year, 2023, was not a good year for the offshore wind industry, which has seemingly been beset by adversity on all sides.

Supply chain disruptions, largely resulting from the COVID pandemic and national efforts to deal with the pandemic, have resulted in material and equipment unavailability and/or delivery delays. Inflation has increased the cost of equipment and the cost of installation. Rising interest rates have increased project financing costs. All of these factors have combined to delay projects and increase the delivered cost of the electricity to be produced by the projects.

Several project developers have cancelled projects or sought to renegotiate existing contracts for both existing and proposed projects. Others are threatening to walk away from project negotiations unless substantially increased subsidies are made available for the projects. While increased subsidies can reduce the delivered cost of the output of the projects to their customers, they do not reduce the societal cost of the project output and might arguably increase the societal cost.

In addition to the issues facing proposed projects, the industry is also dealing with major cost issues associated with existing projects. Several manufacturers and project developers have experienced higher than projected maintenance and repair requirements. This issue is more significant with offshore wind because of the higher cost of performing maintenance and repair work on the high seas.

These issues have been compounded by the rush to increase the capacity of offshore wind turbines. These larger wind turbines have been plagued with rapid gear box wear and blade failures resulting from vibration of the rotating components. These problems reflect inadequate design and insufficient testing prior to commercial installation of the much larger wind turbines. The typical onshore wind turbine has a capacity of approximately 3 MW, while the newer offshore wind turbines have capacities of up to 15 MW. These large wind turbines have blades approximately 380 feet long, which must be able to flex along their length as wind conditions change.

Increased maintenance and repair costs in existing large wind turbine projects has caused 2+ billion dollar financial losses for several wind turbine manufacturers, including Oersted, General Electric and Siemens Gamesa. Others, including Vestas and Iberdrola, have also experienced losses due to increased maintenance and repair costs. It is likely that such losses will increase until the affected components are replaced with improved versions.

Some offshore wind turbines in Northern Europe have been damaged by gusting high winds. However, these winds are far less potentially damaging than the winds generated by hurricanes off the East Coast of the United States. There is no experience with these large offshore wind turbines in a category 4 or 5 hurricane such as hurricane Lee, which moved up off the coast until finally making landfall in Maine and Nova Scotia.

There is also no experience regarding the cost of insuring these large capacity wind turbines in an area prone to hurricane exposure.

Finally, there remain serious questions regarding the effect of these large wind turbine projects on marine life, particularly the endangered Right Whales which migrate up and down the US East Coast.

From: Thunder Said Energy

Date: December 12, 2023

Thermodynamics of prime movers: energy from first principles?

A highlight of 2023 has been going back to first principles, to study the underpinnings of prime movers in the global energy system. Context matters. There is no energy source to rule them all. However, if you understand the thermodynamics of prime movers, you will inevitably conclude that the world is evolving towards solar, semi-conductors, electro-magnetic motors, lithium batteries and high-grade gas turbines.

Muscle power was the original prime mover in the pre-industrial energy system (chart below). But a typical horse outputs 0.75 kW of power, converts only c10-30% of food energy to useful work (depending on how hard you work the horse), can only cover 25-40 miles in a day, must be treated humanely and annoyingly poops everywhere. So we would score horses as a 1 out of 6 on our score of prime movers. It is remarkable that despite these limitations, the total global population of horses remains flat on 1960, with around 60 million horses in the world today, showing how hard it is to disrupt established technologies. (continue reading)

Thermodynamics of prime movers: energy from first principles?

Altruism dies when it costs.

The promise of the transition from a fossil fuel energy economy to a renewable energy economy was and is lower energy prices and an improved environment. That promise is clearly broken irreparably. Energy prices have increased globally. Electricity prices have increased by the largest percentage in those jurisdictions in which renewable generation has made the greatest penetration. The resulting economic pain has begun erasing the altruism with which global populations approached the energy transition.

The population has been suffering “the death by a thousand cuts” until the cuts became sufficiently numerous and painful. Energy poverty has spread through industries heavily dependent on energy, resulting in the loss of jobs and the relocation of industries to countries more concerned about economic development than reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The loss of jobs combined with rising energy prices has caused energy poverty to spread to the general populations in the nations aggressively pursuing the goal of Net Zero by 2050.

Expensive government mandates regarding home heating systems, banning fossil fueled boilers in favor of heat pumps and moving toward banning of all fossil fueled appliances have imposed inconvenience and costs on residential and commercial energy consumers. These programs have stoked consumer resistance and inspired some back pedaling by governments.

Government mandates regarding electric vehicles have imposed massive costs and losses on vehicle manufacturers. The limited availability of public vehicle charging stations has resulted in significant inconvenience for EV owners and diminished interest in EV ownership. Spontaneous ignition and explosion of EVs has also cooled customer enthusiasm and contributed to massive increases in EV insurance rates. EV inventories are building in dealer inventories, forcing price reductions and manufacturer decisions to reduce production to match demand.

The push to reduce meat consumption, replacing it with veggie burgers, “frankenmeat” and mass production bugs has made consumers aware of the extent to which their governments are willing to go to reduce carbon dioxide and methane emissions in the effort to control climate change.

The efforts of some EU governments to force agricultural land out of production and to forcibly reduce meat and dairy animal herds has spawned active resistance by both farmers and the general populations in those countries. These efforts are difficult to understand in context of concerns regarding food poverty.

Media coverage of suggestions that air travel be limited to four trips in a lifetime, that vacations be replaced by “staycations”, that private vehicle ownership be limited in favor of public transportation and that people give up their suburban lifestyles in favor of living in “15-Minute” cities have raised awareness of and concern regarding possible futures.

There appears to be growing resistance to government efforts to restrict personal and corporate freedoms. There also appears to be growing awareness that achieving Net Zero by 2050 is not plausible and likely not possible without significant additional personal and societal pain. This awareness will likely increase resistance to the proposed transition.

Perhaps this will be the year when governments acknowledge the pain their climate change goals are causing and rethink their approaches to the energy transition.

“It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.”, Niels Bohr?

From: Climate Etc.

By: Judith Curry

Date: December 5, 2023

NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals

“Working in global energy and development, I often hear people say, 'Because of climate, we just can't afford for everyone to live our lifestyles.' That viewpoint is worse than patronizing. It’s a form of racism, and it’s creating a two-tier global energy system, with energy abundance for the rich and tiny solar lamps for Africans.” – Kenyan activist and materials scientist Rose Mutiso

“To deny the developing world access to the very infrastructure that has propelled us forward, all in the name of an uncertain future, is not environmentalism, but neocolonialism masquerading as virtue.” – Earth Scientist Matthew Wielicki

100 years ago, the global population was 2 billion.  Over the past century, the population has increased to 8 billion, life expectancy has more than doubled, a much smaller percent of the global population is living in poverty, global wealth has increased by a factor of 20, agricultural productivity and yields have increased substantially, and a far smaller fraction of the population die from extreme weather and climate events.  Hannah Ritchie’s ourworldindata.org provides fascinating data on global progress.

And all this has occurred during a period where the global temperatures have increased by about 1ºC.  The UN has dropped the extreme emissions scenarios (RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5) from use in policy making, and the UNFCCC COP27 worked from an estimated 2100 warming of 2.5ºC.[1] The 2023 IEA Roadmap to NetZero Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) projects a rise in average global temperature of 2.4ºC by 2100.[2] When plausible scenarios of natural climate variability and values of climate sensitivity on the lower end of the IPCC range are accounted for, the expected warming could be significantly lower.

So our current best estimates of global warming by 2100 indicate that we will likely be close to, or within, the 2ºC target by 2100, based on our current understanding.   So we are looking at an additional 0.8 to 1.2ºC warming over the remainder of the 21st century, according to our current understanding.  Natural climate variability is of course a wild card that can cut both ways, but the portion of the 21st century warming that the UN is hoping to control is order of 1ºC.

The world has already shown that it can thrive under a warming rate of 1oC/century.  To support continued human development and progress in the 21st century, there is widespread international agreement on the UNSDG Sustainable Development Goals, which provides a ranked list of 17 goals.[3]  The goals related to climate and energy policy include (with numerical ranking): (continue reading)

NETZERO is impeding progress on UN Sustainable Development Goals

The Administration war on fossil fuels continues, with reduced lease sales, lease cancellations, new emissions rules for electric powerplants and gasoline and diesel vehicles and electric vehicle mandates.

The Administration has less than half a plan for the “all-electric everything” transition. Plans are in place for fossil powerplant shutdowns and reduced availability of oil and natural gas. However, there are no plans in place for replacement of the dispatchable fossil fueled generating capacity with dispatchable renewable generation or a combination of intermittent renewable generation and grid storage. There are also no plans in place for the timely expansion of grid capacity.

A recent study by Dr. Roy Spencer has determined that the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI) doubles actual warming. While the study focused on the US, it is highly likely that the effect pervades the entire global record.

A recent study by Drs. Roy Spencer and John Christy calculates that Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) to atmospheric CO2 is less than 1.9°C, rather than the 2.5-4.5°C projected in IPCC AR6. Based on this work, there is no climate crisis, existential or climate emergency.

Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. reports that the IPCC has determined that RCP 8.5 is implausible and should not be used as a “business-as-usual” scenario in future climate studies. Actual warming has been occurring at a pace lower than projected by RCP 4.5. However, governments and many climate scientists continue to use RCP 8.5 to create “scary scenarios” of future climate catastrophe.

IPCC AR6 reports that extreme weather is not getting more frequent or intense, though this position is contradicted by the AR6 Summary for Policymakers, numerous governments and environmental organizations and the media.

Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. reports that extreme weather damage is declining relative to global GDP, though the current dollar cost of the damage continues to increase. This increase is largely due to inflation of property values and the construction of additional infrastructure in areas prone to damage from extreme weather events.

Dr. William Happer and William Van Wijngaarden have determined that the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is essentially saturated, so that additional atmospheric CO2 will have minimal effect on global near-surface temperatures.

Dr. David Wojick reports that offshore wind development is currently being challenged by increasing costs, attributed to inflation, supply chain disruptions and greater-than-predicted maintenance costs and failure rates. US offshore wind development is also being challenged because of its adverse effects on marine mammals.

Robert Brice reports that public resistance to renewable development is increasing, with numerous rejections of proposed wind and solar developments.

The UK, Germany and other EU countries have begun delaying Net Zero mandates in the face of rapidly rising energy costs and threats of energy shortages.

The Inflation Reduction Act doesn’t reduce inflation, but is actually increasing inflation by rapidly increasing taxpayer funding for renewable generation infrastructure, electric vehicle charging facilities and electric vehicle incentives in the face of supply chain disruptions.

Meanwhile, electric vehicle inventories have grown to over 100 days as manufacturers increase production faster than growth in market demand.

Packaging, marketing, advertising and even incentives are meaningless “if the dogs won’t eat the dog food”. (HT: G. W. Myler)

From: Climate Etc.

By: Balázs M. Fekete

Date: November 14, 2023

Net-Zero Targets: Sustainable Future or CO2 Obsession Driven Dead-end?

For over three decades, the reduction of CO2 emission was the primary motivation for promoting the transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources. Concerns about the inevitable exhaustion of fossil fuels were considered particularly during energy crises, but these concerns died out quickly as discoveries of new fossil fuel reserves such as the shale revolution in the US that appeared to secure energy supplies.

An under-appreciated paper by Murphy et al. (1) offers very strong arguments that the energy transition is a must that has to happen in a short time. Anyone looking at Figure 1 from this paper should be more concerned about running out of fossil fuels than climate change. It is almost certain that the spike on Figure 1 will only last for a few centuries irrespective of the exact location of the star, and fossil fuel era will be only a fraction of the history of human civilizations. This period will not last long enough to deserve the proposed anthropocene[1] designation. The industrial era might rightfully be called a geological event that triggers post-anthropocene, but by no means will it last long enough to qualify as geological age or epoch.

Murphy et al. (1) demonstrates vividly how short the energy transition has to be via a seemingly absurd calculation based on the modest 2.4% annual growth rate () of energy consumption (originally observed in the US that the global energy consumption follows now). This growth rate conveniently corresponds to a 10-fold increase per century.

On a similar basis, a crude estimate of the declining limp of Figure 1 might be established by considering present day carbon concentration as a “fuel gauge”. If the total amount of fossil fuel buried under ground is proportional to the difference in atmospheric CO2 concentration at the time when fossil fuel formation started 500 millions years ago:  (17) and the pre-industrial era:  then the contemporary  carbon concentration suggests that the fossil fuels burned so far is  of the total reserves. The remaining 92% will be exhausted in  if the energy consumption continues to grow at the present rate. (continue reading)

Net-Zero Targets: Sustainable Future or CO2 Obsession Driven Dead-end?

The US federal government has set a goal of transitioning the US energy economy to a fossil-fuel-free, “all-electric everything” energy economy by 2050. This transition would require an approximate tripling of the US electricity grid by 2050 to accommodate the energy requirements of the residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and agricultural loads currently served directly by fossil fuels as well as anticipated electric load growth. The expense of converting existing fossil fuel end uses to electricity would be the responsibility of the end users.

Expanding electric generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure and maintaining reliable electric service is the responsibility of the electric utilities, under the oversight of the state utility commissions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as well as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. Most electric utilities coordinate generation and transmission planning through Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) or Independent System Operators (ISOs).

Utilities, their RTOs and ISOs, FERC and NERC have begun to realize that the transition sought by the Administration is a goal without a plan and that there is no reasonably achievable plan which would achieve the Administration’s goal on the desired schedule. The “canary in the coal mine” was apparently the realization that existing fossil-fueled generation is being retired faster than it is being replaced; and, that the Administration’s schedule for shuttering the remaining coal and natural gas generators is incompatible with the operation of a reliable electric grid, no less with accommodating the electric demand and consumption growth associated with the transition to “all-electric everything”.

The transition requires not only the addition of the intermittent renewable generation capacity to replace the existing fossil-fueled generation but also the addition of the intermittent renewable generation to replace the existing direct fossil-fueled end uses, plus storage to compensate for the intermittency of the renewable generation and the seasonal variation in renewable generation performance. The renewable generation must have the capacity to meet the demands of the grid under peak demand conditions, but also the capacity to recharge storage to assure that it is available to replace the output of the renewable generators when they are unavailable because of weather conditions or maintenance and repair.

The renewable generators are currently only willing to accept responsibility for providing power to the grid when weather conditions permit their operation. The renewable generators have taken the position that the responsibility for providing, operating and maintaining the storage necessary to compensate for their intermittency and seasonal capacity loss lies with the utilities and their RTOs and ISOs. That is not the most efficient approach to storage, nor is it the appropriate assignment of responsibility for providing reliable generation.

The utilities, RTOs and ISOs are realizing that they have been set up to fail; and, that they will be held responsible for that failure because they were told in advance what they had to do and on what schedule. The Administration will clearly accept no blame for the failure, despite the fact that it provided no plan for its success. The renewable generators will also accept no blame for the failure, since they aggressively offered the utilities vastly increased capacity and they cannot control the weather which controls their generation.

Anything is possible if someone else is responsible for achieving it.

From: Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York

By: Roger Caiazza

Date: October 1, 2023

New Climate Reality is Passing New York By

Note: For quite a while now I have put my Citizens Guide to the Climate Act article as the top post on the website because it summarizes the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act). This post updates my current thoughts about the Climate Act and will replaces that post at the top of the list of articles on October 2, 2023

There is a new climate reality and it is passing New York by.  New York decision makers are going to have to address the new reality that proves that the Hochul Administration’s Scoping Plan to implement the Climate Act will adversely affect affordability, reliability, and the environment.  This post highlights articles by others that address my concerns.

I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 350 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  I have devoted a lot of time to the Climate Act because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good by increasing costs unacceptably, threatening electric system reliability, and have major unintended environmental impacts.  The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.

Climate Act Background

The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050.  It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. The Climate Action Council is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.”  In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible using zero-emissions electricity. The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies.  That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan.  After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022.  In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation and legislation. (continue reading)

New Climate Reality is Passing New York By

“Loss and damage refers to the negative effects of climate change that occur despite mitigation and adaptation efforts.”, UNEP

The UN established the Loss and Damage fund at COP27. The first trickle of funding for the Loss & Damage Fund occurred at COP28. The Loss & Damage Fund represents “the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow” for the wizards of climate attribution and their vaunted (unvalidated and unverified) climate models.

The Loss & Damage Fund is intended to fund the incremental cost of severe weather events resulting from the effects of climate change, not to fund the total costs of severe weather events. Weather events are not new. However, the UN and numerous national governments assert that climate change is making weather events more frequent and more severe. Available data suggests that severe weather event frequency and intensity are either stable or declining slightly globally. That, however, does not mean that some aspects of some specific weather events might not be affected by climate change. For example, it has been suggested that a specific tropical cyclone was stronger, or moved at a different speed, or caused greater rainfall as the result of climate change; or, that a specific drought was more intense or of greater duration.

The challenge for the Loss & Damage Fund is to estimate the percentage of the physical loss and damage caused by a specific severe weather event which is attributable to climate change. Clearly, it is not possible to know the exact impact that climate change had on a specific severe weather event. Therefore, the Fund would be required to rely on attribution studies to estimate the extent of the climate change impact of each severe weather event.

It is not clear that there will be an effort on the part of the Fund to discourage actions which would increase the potential loss and damage from a severe weather event, such as construction of new infrastructure in areas prone to loss and damage from severe weather events, such as coastal regions exposed to the risk of tropical cyclones or flood plains.

There is currently no evidence that climate change has affected the loss or damage resulting from severe weather events, though that is frequently asserted by UN officials and the heads of governments of nations which have experienced significant losses. It is frequently asserted that the growing magnitude of financial losses from severe weather events is proof of the effects of climate change. However, when these financial losses are normalized based on Gross Domestic Product, there does not appear to be any trend of increased losses.

There would almost certainly be an effort on the part of affected nations to maximize the effects attributed to climate change by the attribution studies. It appears likely that the UN would be disposed to be generous in the attribution process, since it is already generous in attributing severe weather loss and damage to climate change. The wizards of climate attribution would be hard pressed to perform the role of “honest broker” under these conditions.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Judith Curry

Date: November 17, 2023

A bad recipe for science

Politically-motivated manufacture of scientific consensus corrupts the scientific process and leads to poor policy decisions

An essay with excerpts from my new book Climate Uncertainty and Risk.

In the 21st century, humankind is facing a myriad of complex societal problems that are characterized by deep uncertainties, systemic risks and disagreements about values. Climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic are prominent examples of such wicked problems. For such problems, the relevant science has become increasingly like litigation, where truth seeking has become secondary to politics and advocacy on behalf of a preferred policy solution.

How does politics influence the scientific process for societally relevant issues? Political bias influences research funding priorities, the scientific questions that are asked, how the findings are interpreted, what is cited, and what gets canonized.  Factual statements are filtered in assessment reports and by the media with an eye to downstream political use.

How does politics influence the behavior of scientists? There is pressure on scientists to support consensus positions, moral objectives and the relevant policies.  This pressure comes from universities and professional societies, scientists themselves who are activists, journalists and from federal funding agencies in terms of research funding priorities. Because evaluations by one’s colleagues are so central to success in academia, it is easy to induce fear of social sanctions for expressing the ideas that, though not necessarily shown to be factually or scientifically wrong, are widely unpopular.

Activist scientists use their privileged position to advance moral and political agendas. This political activism extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. This activism has a gatekeeping effect on what gets published, who gets heard at conferences, and who receives professional recognition. Virtually all professional societies whose membership has any link to climate research have issued policy statements on climate change, urging action to eliminate fossil fuel emissions. (continue reading)

A bad recipe for science

The 2023 hurricane season has not provided many opportunities for the wizards of instant climate change attribution to assess the impacts of climate change on the performance of individual tropical cyclones. Perhaps this represents an opportunity for them to refocus from “separating the fly specks from the pepper” and apply their vaunted models and analytical skills to understanding why tropical depressions, storms and cyclones form and what determines how they move and develop after they form. The 2023 hurricane season certainly offers some interesting study subjects.

Hurricane Hillary, which formed off the coast of Baja, California made landfall in southern California as a tropical storm and saturated portions of southern California and Nevada. Hillary was an unusual, but not unprecedented storm. What caused this storm to form and what caused it to track through the US Southwest?

What caused tropical storm Otis to form and then rapidly intensify to Cat 5 before making landfall in Acapulco, Mexico?

What caused Hurricane Idalia to form and what caused it to make landfall in a portion of Florida which has not ever experienced a hurricane landfall? What caused it to turn East and move into the Atlantic?

What caused Hurricane Lee to move up the East coast of the US and only make landfall as a tropical storm in Maine and Nova Scotia?

What caused tropical storm Ophelia to form and then to make landfall in North Carolina and move North through the US Northeast?

Why did so many 2023 storms stall or turn North in the mid-Atlantic and then dissipate?

To put these questions in the format preferred by the climate change attribution wizards:

• What impact (if any) did climate change have on the number of tropical waves which formed in 2023?
• What impact (if any) did climate change have on the location at which tropical waves developed?
• What impact (if any) did climate change have on the number of tropical waves which developed into tropical disturbances?
• What impact (if any) did climate change have on the number of tropical waves which developed into tropical depressions?
• What impact (if any) did climate change have on the number of tropical depressions which developed into tropical storms?
• What impact (if any) did climate change have on the number of tropical storms which developed into hurricanes?
• What impact (if any) did climate change have on the number of hurricanes which developed into major hurricanes?
• What impact (if any) did climate change have on the number of these major hurricanes which made landfall?
• What impact (if any) did climate change have on rapid intensification?

It is interesting to ask these questions against the background of a less active than normal hurricane season with only two landfalling hurricanes; and, in a year in which a rare, but not unprecedented, tropical storm made landfall in southern California.

Asking these questions in a year of below average tropical cyclone activity in all of the basins prone to tropical cyclone development might seem strange and perhaps a bit unfair to the climate change attribution wizards, but they must be asked and hopefully answered.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Balázs M. Fekete

Date: November 14, 2023

Net-Zero Targets: Sustainable Future or CO2 Obsession Driven Dead-end?

For over three decades, the reduction of CO2 emission was the primary motivation for promoting the transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources. Concerns about the inevitable exhaustion of fossil fuels were considered particularly during energy crises, but these concerns died out quickly as discoveries of new fossil fuel reserves such as the shale revolution in the US that appeared to secure energy supplies.

An under-appreciated paper by Murphy et al. (1) offers very strong arguments that the energy transition is a must that has to happen in a short time. Anyone looking at Figure 1 from this paper should be more concerned about running out of fossil fuels than climate change. It is almost certain that the spike on Figure 1 will only last for a few centuries irrespective of the exact location of the star, and fossil fuel era will be only a fraction of the history of human civilizations. This period will not last long enough to deserve the proposed anthropocene[1] designation. The industrial era might rightfully be called a geological event that triggers post-anthropocene, but by no means will it last long enough to qualify as geological age or epoch.

Murphy et al. (1) demonstrates vividly how short the energy transition has to be via a seemingly absurd calculation based on the modest 2.4% annual growth rate () of energy consumption (originally observed in the US that the global energy consumption follows now). This growth rate conveniently corresponds to a 10-fold increase per century. (continue reading)

Net-Zero Targets: Sustainable Future or CO2 Obsession Driven Dead-end?

The stated goal of the US Administration’s renewable energy transition is to replace all dispatchable fossil-fueled electricity generation and all direct fossil fuel usage with renewable electricity to reduce CO2 emissions. Logically, the first fossil-fueled generation to be replaced would be coal-fired generation, since it emits the largest quantity of CO2 per unit of electricity output.

There has yet to be a successful demonstration of an electric grid powered predominantly by renewable generation. Potential approaches to such a demonstration have been proposed here, here, here and here. However, each of these demonstration proposals would have involved a very extensive and expensive program.

The demonstration challenge proposed here would be a far simpler and less expensive demonstration, not of an entire renewable grid, but only of the direct replacement of a coal-fired generator with renewable generation plus storage sufficient to render the renewable generation the dispatchable equivalent of the displaced coal-fired generator.

Coal-fired generators are historically available to generate electricity at their rating plate capacity approximately 85% of the hours of the year. Therefore, a 100 MW coal-fired generator would be available to generate approximately 745,000 MWhrs (8760 hrs * 0.85 * 100 MW) each year.

Wind generators are historically able to generate at variable capacities up to rating plate capacity as a function of available wind speeds. Total generation in any given month historically ranges from 23-43% of rating plate capacity, averages approximately 36% and may approach or be zero for periods of hours or days. Therefore, a wind generation system capable of providing 100 MW capacity generation 85% of the time would require rating plate capacity of approximately 300 - 400 MW and storage sufficient to store excess electricity generated when the wind is blowing for use when the wind is not blowing or is blowing at lower speeds.

Solar generators are historically able to generate at variable capacities up to rating plate capacity as a function of available solar insolation. Total generation in any given month historically ranges from 13–32% of rating plate capacity, averages approximately 25%, may approach zero during the day and will achieve zero at night. Therefore, a solar generation system capable of providing 100 MW capacity generation 85% of the time would require a rating plate capacity of approximately 300-700 MW and storage sufficient to store excess electricity generated during the day for use at night and during periods of low insolation.

In both cases, some of the excess generation capacity required during months when generation is low could be offset with long-duration storage, though that storage is not currently available.

The challenge presented here is to build a wind plus storage generation system and a solar plus storage generation system which demonstrate the ability to be dispatched in the same way as a coal-fired generator is dispatched for 85% of the hours of the year. Once this capability has been demonstrated, it should be straightforward to calculate the adjustments to generation and storage capacity required to replace a natural gas fired combined-cycle generator (~90% availability) or a nuclear generator (~95% availability).

The installed cost of the demonstration systems could then be compared with the installed costs of the coal, natural gas and nuclear generators. The cost per kWh delivered by each of the systems could also be compared.

TANSTAAFL – There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

From: Thunder Said Energy

Date: November, 2023

Thermal energy storage: cost model?

This data-file captures the costs of thermal energy storage, buying renewable electricity, heating up a storage media, then releasing the heat for industrial, commercial or residential use. Our base case requires 13.5 c/kWh-th for a 10% IRR, however 5-10 c/kWh-th heat could be achieved with lower capex costs.

Thermal energy storage solutions aim to help integrate solar and wind into power grids, by absorbing excess generation that would otherwise be curtailed, and then re-releasing the heat later when renewables are not generating.

Different storage media are compared in one of the back-up tabs of the model. However, one-third of the companies in our thermal energy storage company screen are pursuing molten salt systems, hence our thermal energy storage model focuses on this option. (continue reading)

Thermal energy storage: cost model?