Government, at all levels, apparently believes that its responsibility in the proposed energy transition is to establish the goals, set the timeline, pick the winning technologies and incentivize their market adoption. This perception led to Net Zero by 2050, all-electric everything, wind and solar generation, electric vehicles and a variety of incentives, subsidies and mandates. Would that life were so simple.

First, the goal of Net Zero by 2050 would require a complete revision of the energy system over a period of 27 years, a very short period of time for such a major change. Fortunately, both the goal itself and the accelerated timeline are unnecessary, but unfortunately, they are being pursued anyway, driven by politics rather than science.

Second, the technologies picked as the winners (wind, solar and EVs) are not winning technologies for a variety of reasons Wind and solar are intermittent generators which have low capacity factors compared with coal, natural gas and nuclear generation. They therefore require either continued support from conventional generation or support from electricity storage which is not available for the storage and discharge durations required to assure a reliable grid. Government assumes that the required storage technology would evolve, though it would be needed in the very short term. Also, wind, solar and storage, including EV batteries, all depend on the availability of several rare earth minerals which are not currently produced in the US, are not globally available in the quantities which would be required and are currently controlled globally by unfriendly nations.

The transition to all-electric everything in the residential and commercial markets would be relatively straightforward from a technology standpoint, since all of the technology already exists. However, the conversions are expected to encounter significant installation issues which would add to the expense. The transition to all-electric everything in the industrial market would be far more difficult, since there are no commercial electric technology approaches available for many industrial processes. Government assumes that the required industrial technologies would evolve.

The transition to all-electric everything would require an approximate tripling of the capacity of the electric grid from generation capacity through transmission and distribution. Government has erected numerous barriers which would significantly hinder this massive, rapid expansion particularly in transmission. Transmission project approvals currently require 10+ years, longer if delayed by lawsuits. Government could streamline this process, but so far has not seen fit to do so.

Tripling of real generation capacity would require an approximate 9-12 times increase in wind and solar rating plate capacity because of their low capacity factors. Wind and solar capacity additions would also require long approval times, especially if challenged in court. This issue is compounded by the requirement for storage technology which is not currently commercialized.

Government has promoted the notion that wind and solar generated electricity is cheaper than electricity from conventional generation. However, to assure a reliable grid, wind and solar generation must be dispatchable, which means that they must be coupled with storage adequate to assure their availability to meet peak demand. The combined requirement for multiples of rating plate capacity plus storage to achieve dispatchability assures that wind and solar generated electricity would be more expensive than conventionally generated electricity, driving up electric rates.

Finally, government must address a satisfactory approach to providing emergency generation in the event of grid outages for hospitals, nursing homes and rehabilitation facilities, prisons and other facilities which cannot be without power. These generators are typically fueled with natural gas, propane or diesel fuel, none of which are compatible with a Net Zero energy economy.

Currently, government is forcing pursuit of a goal without a plan based on unsuitable or non-existent technologies. Government is responsible for this situation, but would be unlikely to accept responsibility for its adverse impacts.

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. -Ronald Reagan

From: The Heritage Foundation

By: Roy Spencer

Date: January 24, 2024

Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models

----- SUMMARY
Warming of the global climate system over the past half-century has averaged 43 percent less than that produced by computerized climate models used to promote changes in energy policy. In the United States during summer, the observed warming is much weaker than that produced by all 36 climate models surveyed here. While the cause of this relatively benign warming could theoretically be entirely due to humanity’s production of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning, this claim cannot be demonstrated through science. At least some of the measured warming could be natural. Contrary to media reports and environmental organizations’ press releases, global warming offers no justification for carbon-based regulation.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
1- The observed rate of global warming over the past 50 years has been weaker than that predicted by almost all computerized climate models.

2- Climate models that guide energy policy do not even conserve energy, a necessary condition for any physically based model of the climate system.

3- Public policy should be based on climate observations—which are rather unremarkable—rather than climate models that exaggerate climate impacts.

Average warming of the climate system over the past five decades has been widely attributed to greenhouse gas emissions—primarily carbon dioxide (CO2)—from the burning of fossil fuels. This belief has led to calls for greatly reducing humanity’s reliance on such fuels and a transition to “renewable” energy sources such as wind power and solar energy.

For the purposes of guiding public policy and for adaptation to any climate change that occurs, it is necessary to understand the claims of global warming science as promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). When it comes to increases in global average temperature since the 1970s, three questions are pertinent:

1. Is recent warming of the climate system materially attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, as is usually claimed?
2. Is the rate of observed warming close to what computer climate models—used to guide public policy—show?
3. Has the observed rate of warming been sufficient to justify alarm and extensive regulation of CO2 emissions?

While the climate system has warmed somewhat over the past five decades, the popular perception of a “climate crisis” and resulting calls for economically significant regulation of CO2 emissions is not supported by science. (continue reading)

Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models

The Administration’s stated goal for the energy transition is an energy system with “Net Zero” CO2 emissions after conversion of all energy end uses to all-electric systems. I often find, when trying to visualize a situation such as this, that it is helpful to visualize the end point of the transition and then analyze what had to be done to reach that end point. Such visualization and analysis are almost impossible in this situation because the possible paths from the current situation to the end point are dependent upon the development and implementation of several non-existent or non-commercial or non-economical technologies, not all of which are likely to be successfully developed and implemented at scale.

The technologies of concern include: offshore wind (fixed and floating); Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS); Direct Air Capture (DAC); medium-duration and long-duration electricity storage; green hydrogen; Distributed Emission-Free Resources (DEFR); and, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMR). Other technologies, less often discussed, include: dry hot rock geothermal; Ocean Thermal Energy conversion (OTEC); and, wave energy. Which of these technologies are successfully and economically developed and the timing of their availability would have a major influence on the end point of the proposed transition.

Offshore wind (fixed to the sea bed) is an established technology in Europe, although a variety of factors have recently increased its costs to prohibitive levels, which has caused the developers to cease proposing new installations until government subsidies and incentives are increased dramatically. The development of offshore wind off the US East Coast has similarly seen costs increase to prohibitive levels, causing several developers to withdraw from existing Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), while other developers have halted planning for larger proposed projects. These problems have been compounded by excessive maintenance and repair expenses or newer, larger offshore wind turbine installations in Europe. Floating offshore wind projects off the US West Coast await design and testing of floating platforms and mooring systems.

CCUS has been demonstrated in several small-scale installations, all of which have been extremely expensive and have been limited to low percentage carbon capture. Experiments indicate that high percentage carbon capture would require high parasitic power consumption, rendering them uneconomic. DAC is under development in numerous projects. However, the major challenge for DAC is the large amount of atmospheric air that must be processed per unit of CO2 extracted. There is also growing resistance to the construction of the pipelines necessary to transport the CO2 removed by either process to the underground storage facilities. The success of CCUS and DAC would be essential to the continued use of fossil fuels in electric generation.

Existing battery storage technology is limited to an approximate 4-hour discharge cycle, though longer duration could be achieved by staging banks of 4-hour batteries. Medium duration batteries (4 to12-hour duration) are under development. Long-duration batteries would be required to accommodate the seasonal variation in wind and solar capacity factors. The only existing technology suitable for this application is pumped hydro storage, but there is strong resistance to the construction of pumped hydro facilities. Other approaches are in early development stages.

Green hydrogen offers the potential for both power generation and vehicle propulsion applications. However, production of green hydrogen requires both pure water and large quantities of electricity. This would likely require sea water desalination followed by electrolysis. These processes face significant efficiency challenges.

Distributed Emissions-Free Resources (DEFRs) remain undefined, though they might well include small modular nuclear generators (SMRs). Therefore, they can only be considered “placeholders”.

Designing and building a reliable energy system on a tight time schedule based on non-existent, non-commercial and non-economical technologies is a massive and unreasonable challenge.

From: Master Resource

By: Mark Krebs

Date: January 11, 2024

“Green” Weaponization in Missouri: Ameren vs. Ratepayers, Taxpayers

“Ameren Corporation claims, putting in SO2 scrubbers would cost more than securitizing Rush Island’s ‘stranded assets.’ However, Ameren is avoiding what it would fully cost to replace Rush Island’s critically needed and reliable capacity.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote in Volume 4 of  Notes on Virginia:  “With money we will get men, said Cæsar, and with men we will get money.”[1]

Such threats to keeping our constitutional republic are increasingly evident with the weaponization of many Federal Agencies (e.g., the Department of Justice, FBI, etc.), as well as numerous Biden Executive Orders for federal agencies to fight the “existential” threat of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

These threats, coupled with the plague of “woke” political agendas promoting “Environmental, Social, and Governance” (ESG) and/or “Diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), are forcibly reaching leading “investment management” firms (e.g., BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity, State Street Global Advisors, and J.P. Morgan).

Enter Missouri, where our utility Ameren Corporation drinks the green Kool-Aid as evidenced by their “woke” pitch to J.P. Morgan on June 22, 2023, titled Powering a Smart, Sustainable Tomorrow.  

The ESG/DEI cult has also infiltrated energy utility trade associations.  For example:

• EEI-AGA ESG/Sustainability Template
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Report

(continue reading)

“Green” Weaponization in Missouri: Ameren vs. Ratepayers, Taxpayers

The UN and numerous national governments are promoting the fantasy that the global energy economy can transition to a fossil-fuel-free, all-electric everything energy economy by 2050. In this fantasy, intermittent renewable generation combined with electricity storage provides a reliable energy system at lower energy cost than the predominantly fossil fueled energy system it would replace.

This fantasy is a complete and utter fraud, since those promoting it know that the generation technology they are promoting is intermittent and that the storage that they suggest would be required to overcome this intermittency and provide a reliable energy grid is inadequate, extremely expensive and unsuitable for the application. They also know that storage batteries suitable for the application are not commercially available and might not be commercially feasible. The only current approach to long-duration storage is pumped hydro, but there are insufficient suitable sites available and there has been strong resistance to pumped hydro storage, especially run-of-river installations.

Further, the technology required to electrify some industrial processes is not commercially available and, if available, would be far more expensive than the current fossil-fueled processes. The calcining of limestone to produce cement, for example, even if it could be performed using electricity as the heat source, would require the application of carbon capture and storage systems capable of capturing 100% of the CO2  released from the limestone, significantly increasing the cost of the process.

Farming and animal husbandry have also been identified as significant sources of CO2 emissions. Some governments have suggested imposing limitations on the use of synthetic fertilizers. Others have suggested destroying large numbers of meat and dairy animals to reduce methane emissions. However, reducing the global food supply and increasing global food costs is hardly consistent with the fantasy. Famine is a cruel approach to population control. Other approaches to population control are also being considered.

The realization that replacing fossil fuels in numerous residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural applications would require new technology and massive investments in facilities has precipitated discussions about approaches to reducing overall demand on the energy system. These have included “herding” large portions of the population into 15-minute cities, which would reduce the need for private transportation. Others have suggested draconian travel restrictions, such as the elimination of airports suggested for the UK. Also included are transitions from eating meat to eating “veggie burgers”, laboratory produced meats and factory-grown insects. Some have even suggested an end to private ownership of anything. Again, hardly consistent with the fantasy.

Other proposals are even less palatable. One US newspaper has suggested that rolling blackouts would be acceptable if they helped reduce climate change. One source has even suggested infecting the population with Lyme disease to encourage the development of Alpha-gal Syndrome, which renders the human system allergic to meat. So far, there has been no suggestion of starting a new pandemic, though there have been suggestions of reinstituting “lockdowns” to reduce energy consumption.

Resistance to the proposed energy transition is beginning to grow as the financial burdens and losses of personal freedom become progressively more obvious.

From: Energy Bad Boys - Substack

By: Mitch Rolling and Isaac Orr

Date: January 6, 2024

Electricity Prices Are Soaring: It’s Time to Hold the “Energy Transition” Accountable

Rate cases throughout America tell the same story about the high cost of going green

Electricity prices in the United States are skyrocketing, with all-sectors electricity rates reaching new all-time highs in 2022 and 2023, but wind and solar advocates like to pretend that these energy sources are not responsible for the rising electricity costs paid by American families and businesses.

However, recent reports from Regulatory Research Associates (RRA), a division of S&P Global Commodity Insights, evaluating requests from electric companies to raise their prices (known as rate cases) clearly show that rising electricity prices are largely being driven by spending billions of dollars on wind turbines, solar panels, natural gas plants, and new transmission lines in pursuit of the so-called “energy transition.”

Our deeper-dive into the eight largest rate increase requests, as identified by RRA, reaffirms these findings by quoting directly from rate cases filed with state regulators, debunking the idea that wind and solar aren’t causing electricity rates to rise, once and for all.

Rate Making 101

Before we discuss the individual rate cases, it is important to understand that there is no free market for electricity, and there may never be.

In much of the country, electric companies are government-approved monopoly utilities that have the exclusive right to sell electricity in their service territories. Because electric companies are monopolies, it would be unfair to let them charge whatever they wish for electricity, so electricity prices are set by government regulatory bodies that oversee utilities, often called Public Utilities Commissions (PUCs) or Public Service Commissions (PSCs).  

When electric and gas utility companies want to raise prices on customers to pay for additional expenses, they must file rate cases with the PUC or PSC that justify the additional expenses in the company’s request.  

These additional expenses frequently consist of building new power plants, such as wind turbines, solar panels, or natural gas plants, as well as the additional ten percent profit utilities make on virtually every new asset they build and the cost of interest used to finance the construction of the plants. If the additional expenses outlined in the rate case are approved by the PUC or PSC, electricity rates go up for customers.

Rate increase requests have skyrocketed in recent years, according to the RRA reports, and so has the amount of money that electric companies are looking to raise from them. (continue reading)

Electricity Prices Are Soaring: It’s Time to Hold the “Energy Transition” Accountable

One of the most contentious issues in utility ratemaking has been the issue of allocation of both capital and operating costs among customer classes. This allocation has been accomplished through monthly service charges, time of day rates, seasonal rates, demand charges and various demand side management approaches.

However, the proposed transition from the current fossil and nuclear based electricity generation system to a system based largely on intermittent renewable generation presents a very different set of cost allocation issues. The current system costs include fuel supply costs and fuel inventories or supply contracts, depending on the generation technology. The system achieves stable output largely as the result of the large rotating masses of the steam and gas turbines which power the generators.

The system to which we have begun transitioning does not require fuel, but rather is dependent upon the intermittent availability of wind or sun. However, frequent fluctuations in wind availability and wind speed and frequent fluctuations in solar insolation result in generator output fluctuations which must be stabilized. Presently, these fluctuations represent a relatively minor fraction of cumulative generation. Short duration fluctuations (seconds to minutes in duration) can be stabilized with the application of power electronic devices and capacitors. Longer duration fluctuations (minutes to hours to days to weeks) are offset by adjustments to the operation of the fossil generation systems. The costs associated with stabilizing the outputs of intermittent renewable generators would appropriately be allocated to the intermittent generators, though this is not the current situation.

As the proposed transition proceeds, the capacity of intermittent renewable generation would increase and the capacity of existing fossil generation would be reduced. At some point, the remaining fossil generation would be insufficient to meet grid demand during periods of low/no renewable generation and some alternative method of achieving stable generation output would have to be implemented. The current assumption is that storage of some type, such as batteries, pumped hydro or compressed air storage would provide the stabilizing function. Regardless of whether this storage was collocated with each of the intermittent renewable generators or located at a number of strategically located grid hubs, the capital and operating costs of the storage required to stabilize the output of the renewable generators would appropriately be allocated to those generators.

Renewable generation developers have so far been able to claim that they provide electricity at lower cost than existing fossil and nuclear generators, as the utilities have borne the responsibility of adjusting the output of those generators to compensate for the fluctuations in renewable generator output. However, if the current costs of utility-provided output compensation or the costs of storage to provide output compensation were appropriately allocated to the renewable generators, the fallacy of their claim of lower electricity generating cost would become obvious.

Electric utilities earn a return on net physical plant in service (rate base). They are therefore faced with a Hobson’s Choice. Utilities could require that the intermittent renewable generation attached to their grids be dispatchable, in which case the investment in storage would be made by the renewable developers, increasing their delivered electricity costs, while the utilities” rate base and earnings potential declined as fossil generation was removed from service. Alternatively, the utilities could invest in the storage required to stabilize renewable generator output, increasing the utilities’ rate base investment and earnings potential, while accepting responsibility for increasing electricity costs.

Regardless of which approach were chosen, the transition would continue to increase electricity costs as long as the cost of storage capacity exceeds the cost of owning and operating fossil generation. Incentives and subsidies could offset all or a portion of the increase in rates, as they do now, but could only increase the real costs, as they do now.

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

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.