From: Master Resource

By: Robert Bradley Jr.

Date: July 30, 2025

Climate Science Reset at the U.S. Department of Energy (realism, not alarmism)

“This report supports a more nuanced and evidence-based approach for informing climate policy that explicitly acknowledges uncertainties…. [I]t will be important to make realistic assumptions about future emissions, re-evaluate climate models to address biases and uncertainties, and clearly acknowledge the limitations of extreme event attribution studies … for informed and effective decision-making.”

The Climate Working Group of the U.S. Department of Energy (John Christy, Ph.D.; Judith Curry, Ph.D.; Steven Koonin, Ph.D.; Ross McKitrick, Ph.D.; Roy Spencer, Ph.D.) published a new study that injects realism and humility into the politicized, climate-model-driven debate. This 141-page summary of CO2 science, climate science, climate economics, and related public policy reverses the John Holdren et al. bias of prior like reports.

The executive summary and conclusion from “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” (July 23, 2025) follow. (continue reading)

Climate Science Reset at the U.S. Department of Energy (realism, not alarmism)

The electric vehicle “market” in the US is a creature of the EPA 2009 Endangerment Finding, “unachievable” Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, extremely restrictive NOx emission standards, the California Zero Emission Vehicle mandate, federal subsidies for EV purchase, federal funding for EV fueling infrastructure, federal loan guarantees for the manufacture of EVs and EV batteries, federal incentives for the purchase of EV school buses, transit buses, fire emergency vehicles and medium and heavy duty trucks, etc. Essentially these programs were designed to end the market for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

This incentivized “market” led to the introduction of a broad range of electric vehicles by numerous manufacturers, including medium and heavy duty trucks, transit and school buses, fire trucks and trash compactors. US EV sales peaked in the 4th quarter of 2024 at an 8.7% market share, but declined to 7.5% in the 1st quarter of 2025.

Each of these vehicle types has been plagued with spontaneous battery fires which propagate rapidly, burn extremely hot, are prone to explosion and are very difficult to extinguish. EVs have also had difficulty charging in extremely cold weather and lose significant range in both hot and cold weather. California has also asked EV owners not to recharge their vehicles in the late afternoon and early evening when grid demand is high due to grid capacity constraints.

The Congress has voted to terminate the California EV mandate waiver, which would also terminate “copycat” waivers in several other states. The Administration intends to eliminate the current EV subsidy and terminate the public vehicle fueling infrastructure program. The Administration is also reviewing the loan guarantees issued by the DOE Loan Office for vehicle and battery production facilities.

Electric vehicles will likely continue to be produced by the current EV manufacturers, though the number of vehicles produced will likely decrease as the subsidies and incentives are terminated. Several marginal EV manufacturers will likely terminate production and sale of their vehicles and file bankruptcy petitions, which would not bode well for the availability of parts and service for their vehicles. Proterra, the largest US transit bus manufacturer, has filed bankruptcy but is continuing operations. Several transit operators report buses out of service because of replacement parts availability issues.

The industry had great hopes for major sales into the rental vehicle market. However, Hertz has discontinued purchase of EVs for their rental fleets and has sold off many of their EVs at very low prices because of lack of rental customer interest or rental customer concerns about vehicle range and fueling infrastructure.

The termination of state EV mandates and the reductions of federal purchase incentives and charging infrastructure support will likely continue to reduce EV market share and the variety of EVs available. The market will likely shift towards hybrid and plug hybrid vehicles.

There has been strong resistance to the mandates for heavy duty trucks because of their high cost and driving range issues. It appears likely that, without mandates, the heavy-duty EV truck market will not develop.

From: CFACT

By: CFACT Ed

Date: June 2025

EPA Releases Proposal to Rescind Obama-Era Endangerment Finding, Regulations that Paved the Way for Electric Vehicle Mandates

OFFICIAL EPA RELEASE

INDIANAPOLIS – At an auto dealership in Indiana, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin released the agency’s proposal to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which has been used to justify over $1 trillion in regulations, including the Biden-Harris Administration’s electric vehicle (EV) mandate. If finalized, the proposal would repeal all resulting greenhouse gas emissions regulations for motor vehicles and engines, thereby reinstating consumer choice and giving Americans the ability to purchase a safe and affordable car for their family while decreasing the cost of living on all products that trucks deliver. Administrator Zeldin was joined by U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, Indiana Governor Mike Braun, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, U.S. Representative Jim Baird (R-IN-04), Indiana Secretary of Energy and Natural Resources Suzanne Jaworowski, and the Indiana Motor Truck Association.

Since the 2009 Endangerment Finding was issued, many have stated that the American people and auto manufacturing have suffered from significant uncertainties and massive costs related to general regulations of greenhouse gases from vehicles and trucks. Finally, EPA is proposing to provide much needed certainty and regulatory relief, so companies can plan appropriately, and the American people can have affordable choices when deciding to buy a car.

“With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,” said EPA Administrator Zeldin. “In our work so far, many stakeholders have told me that the Obama and Biden EPAs twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year. We heard loud and clear the concern that EPA’s GHG emissions standards themselves, not carbon dioxide which the Finding never assessed independently, was the real threat to Americans’ livelihoods. If finalized, rescinding the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations would end $1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families.” (continue reading)

EPA Releases Proposal to Rescind Obama-Era Endangerment Finding, Regulations that Paved the Way for Electric Vehicle Mandates

Recently a Dutch “white hat” hacker demonstrated that the Chinese solar collector systems installed in the UK could be interfered with remotely, either caused to cease functioning temporarily or potentially destroyed. Examination of system components determined that the Chinese manufacturers of the power inverters used to convert the DC output of solar and wind generation systems to AC had installed cellular radio addressable “kill switches” in their products.

Examination of renewable generation systems installed in the US including Chinese components revealed the presence of “kill switches” in the US systems as well. At the current penetration rate of Chinese renewable generation equipment in the US market, these “kill switches” represent a potentially expensive nuisance. However, as the renewable generation system share of electric generation increased and the US became more dependent on renewable generation and battery storage, these “kill switches” could become a significant national security risk.

The Trump Administration’s actions on numerous fronts will likely slow the adoption of renewable generation and battery storage in the US market and delay the potential security risk. This will also provide time for the existing systems to be examined and any “kill switches” removed. It is also likely that the Administration would ban the installation of Chinese renewable generation equipment or require a thorough inspection of all Chinese provided components to assure that there are no “kill switches” installed in any of the components.

US government agencies are prohibited from purchasing electronic equipment produced in China or containing components produced in China. The concern has not historically been for operational interference as much as for intelligence gathering, particularly of sensitive national defense intelligence. The recent supply chain interruptions and constraints have created serious issues for many US suppliers of electronic equipment since, in many cases, the only available source of certain essential electronic components was China.

The UK and the EU have expressed concerns regarding the potential installation of equipment used for spying in Chinese produced electric vehicles and have restricted access of these vehicles to military bases and other potentially sensitive locations. The extensive electronics installed in modern vehicles and the external sensors they support represent fertile opportunities to incorporate spying functionality.

China has made no secret of its continuing interest in and focus on global domination. It has used its “Belt and Road Initiative” to establish influence on and dependency of African nations with large deposits of rare earth minerals to expand their control over their supply. Its reliance on low-cost coal power generation, prison and slave labor has allowed it to undercut the prices of metals and cement in world markets, driving the production of these materials from Western nations, especially in the UK and the EU.

While the UK, EU, Canada and Australia have continued to pursue Net zero by 2050, China has continued to pursue additional coal generation capacity and increase its share of world markets at their expense. The Trump Administration has moved aggressively to reverse that trend in the US with significant success.

The US Middle Atlantic and Southeast states experienced five days in a heat dome from June 23-27, 2025. This extensive heat dome stressed the electric generation, transmission and distribution resources of the region, including those of the Pennsylvania / New Jersey / Maryland (PJM) Regional Transmission Operator (RTO), the largest ISO in the US. PJM issued an emergency declaration in anticipation of the effects of this heat dome on demand and consumption, requiring all generation resources to be available for full capacity operation throughout the period, as displayed on the PJM Live Dashboard.

The graphs below show the sources and magnitudes of the generation resources employed throughout the five days.

On Monday, June 23rd, demand peaked at approximately 160 GW, including 7.73 GW of solar and 4.52 GW of wind. Natural gas generation was adjusted to follow growing load from 44.32 to 72.93 GW. Hydro and oil generation were also increased to meet peak.

On Tuesday, June 24th, demand again peaked at approximately 160 GW, including 8.87 GW of solar and 1.22 GW of wind. Natural gas generation was adjusted to follow growing load from 49.7 GW to 74.38 GW. Hydro and oil generation were again increased to meet peak.

On Wednesday June 25th, demand again peaked at approximately 155 GW, including 9.15 GW of solar and 1.0 GW wind. Solar had peaked earlier at 10.85 GW. Wind peaked later at 1.79 GW. Natural gas generation was adjusted from 49.19 GW to 70.79 GW throughout the day. Hydro and oil generation were also increased.

On Thursday, June 26th, Peak demand decreased to approximately 147 GW, including 7.45 GW of solar and 1.6 GW of wind. Solar peaked earlier at 10.81 GW. Wind peaked later at 3.21 GW. Natural gas generation was adjusted from 46.9 GW to 64.73 GW to meet demand. Hydro and oil generation were also increased.

On Friday, June 27th, demand peaked at 130 GW, with solar at 7.02 GW and wind at 3.98 GW. Solar peaked earlier at 8.14 Natural gas generation was adjusted from 44.37 GW to 54.13 GW to meet demand. Hydro and oil generation were also increased.

Nuclear generation remained constant throughout the week at 32.71 GW. Coal generation varied from approximately 20 to 25 GW. The maximum renewable contribution did not exceed 11 GW during the week. Storage made no significant contribution, although PJM does have pumped hydro storage available.

The chart below summarizes the PJM experience through the heat dome, showing the contributions of the various generating sources through the period. Fortunately the heat dome began to dissipate after the first two days, providing some relief to the natural gas and oil generation resources.

The chart below summarizes the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) experience during the heat dome. MISO adjusted both coal and natural gas generation output to match demand. Wind made significant contributions on days one, three and four. MISO also took advantage of electricity imports from adjacent utilities on all five days, as well as undefined “other” resources.

The chart below summarizes Duke Energy (Carolinas) experience during the heat dome event. Duke adjusted both coal and natural gas generation to meet peak demand. Duke also relied on significant pumped storage on peak, as well as hydro. There was very limited solar contribution and no wind contribution on peak.

It appears that all three systems operated without significant disruption during the heat dome. However, all three systems appear to have experienced significant stress during the period. It is clear in all cases that these systems remain heavily reliant on coal and natural gas generation. It will be important for all three systems to continue to operate their existing coal generation plants to maintain generating capacity until new generation resources can be brought online to replace them and meet expected demand growth.

The recent blackout on the Iberian Peninsula was apparently triggered by an as yet unidentified “event” on the Spanish grid, which was being powered by approximately 70% renewable generation, mostly solar, which provides no inertia to the grid. It appears that the combination of conventional generation on the grid and the power provided by the interconnection to the French grid did not provide sufficient inertia to carry the grid through the “event” and the grid shut down when it exceeded either voltage or frequency tolerance limits.

This blackout has raised numerous questions about the stability and resilience of renewable powered grids. These questions include:

•     Can a renewable plus storage grid operate reliably and stably?
•     What is the maximum percentage of renewables consistent with reliability?
•     Is there a maximum percentage of solar generation on a reliable grid?
•     Is there a maximum percentage of wind generation on a reliable grid?
•     Does a reliable grid require inertia; and, if so, how much?
•     Is the physical location of the inertia sources on the grid important?
•     What is the relative inertia contribution of steam turbines vs. gas turbines?
•     What would be the inertia contributions of small modular nuclear generators?
•     What is the effect of modulated output on inertia contribution?
•     What effect does grid-scale storage have on inertia?
•     Can inertia be effectively provided electronically?

The first question is the most fundamental. It cannot currently be answered based on observation, since there are currently no 100% renewable plus storage grids. Grid reliability concerns have continued to grow as the percentage of renewable generation on grids has increased. These concerns have been magnified as conventional generating capacity on these grids has been retired, reducing capacity reserve margins and inertial capacity.

The Spanish grid is one of the most renewable dependent grids. This blackout suggests that the Spanish grid might have reached or exceeded the maximum percentage of renewables or the maximum percentage of solar on the grid without the application of grid-forming inverters and expanded battery storage capacity.

Conventionally powered grids are powered by multiple steam and gas turbine generators which provide inertia. This inertia is frequently relied upon when there is a system “event” which affects voltage or frequency on the grid. Operation of renewable grids presents additional challenges, as both solar and wind generator output can transition rapidly from full rating plate capacity output to very low or zero output. Grid-scale battery storage can respond rapidly to changes in generator output, but its contribution to inertia is uncertain, especially since current grid-scale battery storage is very limited relative to the rating plate capacity of existing renewable generators.

It is likely that the location of either conventional generation or grid-scale battery storage capacity relative to the location of the “event” and the capacity of the grid between the inertia source and the disturbance “event” would affect the ability of the grid to survive the event. This might represent an advantage for the application of small modular nuclear generators as they would likely be located at a larger number of locations distributed throughout the grid service area.

From: American Experiment

By: Sarah Montalbano

Date: June 2025

Shattered Green Dreams - The environmental costs of wind and solar

Executive Summary

Wind turbines, solar panels, battery storage, and other “green energy” technologies are too often hailed as unqualified goods for the environment. However, there are no solutions, only tradeoffs, and the same is true for energy production and its environmental impact. All human activities have an impact on the environment.

Debates about the U.S.’ energy mix almost entirely overlook or minimize the negative environmental impacts of wind, solar, and batteries while diminishing the positive impacts of oil and gas, coal, and nuclear. Policymakers must consider the costs of wind and solar and the benefits of oil and gas, coal, and nuclear when determining the desirability and feasibility of ambitious energy transition goals. Further, communities ought to be fully informed of the costs of wind and solar when debating the merits of proposed projects in their areas.

This executive summary is offered based on the findings of this report.

• Every form of energy generation comes with its own set of challenges and benefits. All renewable and hydrocarbon energy sources — wind and solar, hydropower, coal, natural gas, and nuclear — have environmental impacts. The mining of raw materials, manufacturing, and construction, the landscape footprints and ecological impacts of utility-scale wind and solar projects, and repowering and recycling costs must be considered.
• The negative impacts of wind and solar on the environment are too often overlooked. A wide variety and large quantity of minerals are used in solar panels, wind turbines, battery storage, transmission lines, and more. The U.S. currently sources most of its minerals from foreign countries that do not adhere to modern environmental or worker health and safety standards, which exacerbates environmental impacts that could be managed with domestic mining.
• The positive impacts of nuclear, natural gas, oil, and coal are rarely discussed. These sources of energy are highly reliable, 24/7 power sources that provide baseload and peaking power to the grid. They are scalable, affordable, and have small landscape footprints.
• Existing estimates of material intensity of net-zero carbon emissions, both U.S. and global, reflect the enormity of this industrial undertaking. Some methodologies may be significant underestimates due to optimistic capacity factors for wind and solar, high uptake of recycling, and other model assumptions.
• Every form of energy production requires real estate. The low electricity density of wind and solar generation means that they require at least 10 times as much land per unit of power produced as coal- or natural gas-fired power plants. If the U.S. were powered entirely by wind turbines, the land area necessary would exceed two Californias.
• The ecological impacts of wind and solar cannot be discounted. Evidence is growing that offshore wind turbines are disruptive to whale populations and wind turbines strike bird and bat populations. Habitat fragmentation disrupts nesting, migration, and wintering activities of some species. Large land use footprints exacerbate habitat loss and disruption to wildlife, endanger prime agricultural lands, and lead to zoning conflicts with residents.
• Decommissioning and repowering wind and solar energy is required more often than other forms of electricity generation, compounding costs. The operating lifespan of wind turbines and solar panels is between 20 and 25 years at maximum, while natural gas plants may operate for 40 years, and nuclear plants operate between 40 and 80 years. Repowering often occurs well before expected lifespans, which further exacerbates the environmental impacts of wind and solar.
• Some components in wind turbines and solar panels are hazardous, with few commercial recycling pathways. Current recycling pathways are uneconomic and underutilized, which means that decommissioned wind turbines and solar panels often end up in landfills.
• Recycling and technological advances may help reduce mineral needs, but they will not entirely mitigate the need for new materials. Technological advances may eventually change the types and quantities of minerals needed for wind and solar power but are unlikely to radically change system-wide material intensity, as it is not possible to recycle materials that have not been manufactured.
• Debates about the feasibility and desirability of an “energy transition” should include the negative impacts of wind and solar. If voters and policymakers decide the benefits outweigh the costs, it should only be done with a clear accounting of both. (continue reading)

Shattered Green Dreams - The environmental costs of wind and solar

The Trump Administration has led the US off the path to Net Zero by 2050 using Executive Orders, which could be easily reversed by a later climate activist/alarmist administration. The Trump EOs provide a 4- year respite for the US, while climate activist administrations in the EU, UK, Canada and Australia continue their pursuit of Net Zero through the rapid expansion of renewable generation and battery storage.

There has still not been a successful demonstration of a renewable plus storage grid, though there have been several resounding failures of high percentage renewable grids in the Canary Islands, Australia and recently in the Iberian Peninsula. However, the governments of the developed nations, with the exception of the US, are still aggressively pursuing renewable nirvana while exposing their citizens to rising energy costs, the threat of energy poverty and reduced electric grid stability and resilience.

I have written previously (here, here, here and here).advocating a carefully controlled and monitored demonstration program. I have also issued a more limited demonstration challenge (here). Several others have also advocated for either a demonstration program or a detailed engineering plan to no avail.

The Trump Administration could perform an important service by conducting such a demonstration, which could clearly demonstrate the complexity and cost of a renewable plus storage grid, its effects on consumer costs and its impacts on grid reliability and resilience. It is essential that this demonstration include no federal or state subsidies or tax benefits not available to other grid participants. Such a demonstration could dissuade future US administrations from returning to pursuit of a renewable plus storage grid. Other nations could also benefit from such a demonstration.

The Trump Administration could also perform an important service by contracting for the installation and operation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) on an existing coal generating station and an existing natural gas combined-cycle generating station which were scheduled to be retired from service. The Biden Administration EPA Clean Power Plan 2 (CPP2) regulation asserted that CCS was the Best Available Control Technology for such generators and required that such plants be controlled to remove 90% of CO2 from the plant exhausts or removed from service.

The demonstration installations should be designed, installed and commissioned by mechanical contractors with extensive utility generation experience. The goals would be to demonstrate the cost of equipping existing coal and natural gas generators with CCS, the capability of achieving 90% emissions reduction, the increase in plant operating costs and the decrease in net plant generation capacity for each plant. Such a demonstration could dissuade future administrations from reinstituting CPP2 or similar CO2 emission control requirements. Other nations might also benefit from the results of such a demonstration.

It is doubtful that any rational utility management would commit to the major investment required to install CCS on an existing generator in the absence of a successful demonstration, or that any rational state utility commission would agree to including such an investment in the utility rate base.

From: CO2 Coalition

By: Richard Lindzen, William Happer

Date: June 13, 2025

Physics Demonstrates That Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming, Extreme Weather or Any Harm

More Carbon Dioxide Will Create More Food.
Driving Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Net Zero and
Eliminating Fossil Fuels Will Be Disastrous for People Worldwide.

SUMMARY
At the outset it is important to understand that carbon dioxide has two relevant properties, as a creator of food and oxygen, and as a greenhouse gas (GHG).

As to food and oxygen, carbon dioxide is essential to nearly all life on earth by creating food and oxygen by photosynthesis.  Further, it creates more food as its level in the atmosphere increases.  For example, doubling carbon dioxide from today’s approximately 420 ppm to 840 ppm would increase the amount of food available to people worldwide by roughly 40%, and doing so would have a negligible effect on temperature.

As to carbon dioxide as a GHG, the United States and countries worldwide are vigorously pursuing rules and subsidies under the Net Zero Theory that carbon dioxide  and other GHG emissions must be reduced to Net Zero and the use of fossil fuels must be eliminated by 2050 to avoid catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather.  A key premise stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is  the “evidence is clear that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main driver of climate change,” where “main driver means responsible for more than 50% of the change.”

The Biden Administration adopted over 100 rules and Congress has provided enormous subsidies promoting alternatives to fossil fuel premised on the Net Zero Theory. The EPA Endangerment Finding, for example, asserts “elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and to endanger the public welfare of current and future generations.”

On April 9, 2025 President Trump issued a “Memorandum on Directing Repeal of Unlawful Rules” and Fact Sheet stating “agencies shall immediately take steps to effectuate the repeal of any [unlawful] regulation” under Supreme Court precedents, inter alia, where “the scientific and policy premises undergirding it had been shown to be wrong,” or “where the costs imposed are not justified by the public benefits.”  We understand the Supreme Court has also ruled in the leading case State Farm that an agency regulation is arbitrary, capricious and thus invalid where, inter alia:

“the agency has … entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem”
“the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider.”
We are career physicists with a special expertise in radiation physics, which describes how CO2  and GHGs affect heat flow in Earth’s atmosphere.  In our scientific opinion, contrary to most media reporting and many people’s understanding, the “scientific premises undergirding” the Net Zero Theory, all the Biden Net Zero Theory rules and congressional subsidies are scientifically false and “wrong,” and  violate these two State Farm mandates.(continue reading)

Physics Demonstrates That Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming, Extreme Weather or Any Harm

President Trump has issued several Executive Orders (EOs) intended to encourage the continued operation of existing coal generating stations, to return some recently shuttered generating stations to operation and to restore access to available coal resources to help meet the expected rapid growth of electricity demand and consumption.

While these EOs would likely help avoid some further loss of reliable, dispatchable generating capacity, it is unlikely that they would stimulate investment in major life extension projects for existing generators or in new coal generating facilities, since the EOs could easily be reversed by a subsequent federal administration focused on Net Zero by 2050 or some other CO2 emissions reduction goal.

Investment in construction of new coal generating capacity would likely require Congressional action to assure that those powerplants, once constructed, would be permitted to operate throughout their expected useful lives, preferably including life extension, without the imposition of extremely expensive high percentage carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems which would both increase operating costs and reduce powerplant net generating capacity to support the parasitic power requirements of the CCS systems.
 
Coal powerplants have the advantage of relatively inexpensive onsite fuel storage to assure their availability even during periods of fuel supply disruption. Their output can also be adjusted to match changing grid demand as well as the changing supply from intermittent renewable generators, though they cannot adjust as rapidly as natural gas combined-cycle or simple-cycle turbine generators.

States with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), while they would likely allow continued operation of existing coal generating facilities as backup for intermittent renewable generation, would also likely resist life extension for those coal plants or the construction of new coal generation capacity, even if additional conventional generation capacity were required to provide additional backup for a growing renewable generation fleet.

State RPSs were intended to achieve Net Zero by 2050, and to achieve zero emissions from electricity generation by some earlier date, typically 2035 or 2040. The transition of energy end uses other than electric generation would require an approximate tripling of electric generation capacity by 2050. The anticipated growth of AI and other data centers would require substantial additional growth of generating capacity.

However, the developers of AI and data centers are unwilling to rely on intermittent renewable generation to power their facilities. Various developers have taken differing approaches to reliable electricity supply, including restarting currently inactive nuclear generating capacity, installing multiple natural gas combined-cycle powerplants and installing fleets of small modular nuclear generators (SMRs). Most of these proposed approaches would be independent of the existing, regulated electricity generation systems in the regions in which they would be located.

While these independent generation facilities would likely be acceptable in states without RPSs, it is uncertain how the states with RPSs would respond to the installation of large generating facilities which did not advance the percentage of renewable generation operating in the states. This issue could have a major influence on the location of AI and data centers.

From: GWPF

By: Harry Wilkinson

Date: June 2025

The Net Zero Straitjacket - Five Reasons Net Zero Will Bankrupt Britain

Executive summary

No one can be in any doubt that Net Zero will be incredibly expensive. Estimates for the total capital cost range widely, from £1.4 trillion (Climate Change Committee), to £3 trillion (National Grid), or even as high as £6–10 trillion (Net Zero Watch). The Energy Technologies Institute has suggested that the cost of decarbonising housing alone could be up to £2 trillion. Even the lower end of this range represents a staggering level of spending, comparable in scale to fighting a major war. This is not sustainable, and there are worrying reasons to believe these sums will be higher, rather than lower. This short paper sets out five key reasons why Net Zero will bankrupt Britain:

1. The cost of renewable energy has been underestimated. Published official analyses have not adequately accounted for variable weather patterns which mean there can be periods known as Dunkelflaute, when there is low renewable power output, and even whole wind drought years. This means that the quantity of electricity generation and storage required in 2050 has not been calculated correctly.
2. Electricity prices are likely to rise further, an outcome that the renewable industry appears to be betting on, and which is ‘built in’ by rising renewable energy subsidies and growing grid inefficiency.
3. Compulsory policies put Britain in a straitjacket and can only leave the public poorer. Mandating the use of EVs, heat pumps and overly strict environmental standards reduces consumer choice and leaves the public worse off. The Climate Change Act ties all future governments to these rigid requirements.
4. We will miss out on using the energy under our feet. The opportunity costs of Net Zero need to be recognised. Failing to extract our significant fossil fuel reserves means large sums of potential tax revenues go uncollected and many people miss out on high-skilled and high-paid jobs. Importing gas and oil means tax revenues, jobs and investments go abroad.
5. The benefits don’t stack up. The Government uses flawed ‘carbon values’ to claim large benefits for its climate policies. However, these are highly contestable and don’t represent real benefits for the British public from lower emissions. (continue reading)

The Net Zero Straitjacket - Five Reasons Net Zero Will Bankrupt Britain

The federal goals of Net Zero by 2050 and “all-electric everything” have been placed “on hold” at least temporarily. Therefore, the primary drivers of electric demand and consumption growth are now expected to be data centers and AI. Each of these loads are expected to demand 0.5 to 3 GW and to experience relatively constant consumption throughout the year.

The recent federal and state efforts to expand renewable electric generation and discourage continued operation fossil fueled generation have reduced utility capacity reserve margins and therefore the reliability and resilience of their grids. Many utilities do not have the reliable additional generating capacity necessary to power these large new customer loads.

Data center and AI developers have approached utilities about providing service, but several developers have also expressed a willingness to develop dedicated generation resources to power their facilities if utilities are unable or unwilling to provide service. Microsoft has contracted with Constellation Energy to power a data center with output from one of the nuclear reactors at Three Mile Island which would be restarted specifically to serve their data center. Other developers are developing plans to power facilities with multiple natural gas combined-cycle generators, possibly bottomed with absorption chillers to provide cooling. Still other developers are considering using small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) to provide on-site power.

These new data centers and AI facilities will be located, at least initially, in areas where reliable utility power is available, or in areas with adequate natural gas supply and transmission capacity to fuel dedicated generation capacity. These facilities will require firm gas supply and transmission contracts to ensure that service is continued under extreme weather conditions. Facilities to be served by dedicated SMRs would probably have a longer planning horizon because of the newness of the technology, its limited availability and an expected longer approval process.

Some states with Renewable Portfolio Standards might object to the construction of new non-renewable generating capacity. Some states might object to the construction of dedicated non-utility generating capacity. Some utilities might object to the intrusion of non-utility generation in their franchise service territories. Such objections would likely cause the developers to seek alternative sites for their installations.

The large, relatively constant power consumption of these facilities might be the stimulus necessary to support development of new large scale nuclear power plants, which could be a major asset in stabilizing the operation of electric grids which include a high percentage of intermittent renewable generation. There is already one such facility in the planning stages which would require the output of three gigawatt-scale powerplants. Nuclear generation would be an ideal fit for these facilities since nuclear generators operate most economically at a constant capacity and these data centers and AI facilities represent almost constant loads year-round.

Nuclear generation also offers the advantage that it would be unaffected by the reimposition of CO2 emission controls such as the clean Power Plan which might occur under a different federal Administration.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Russ Schussler

Date: May 28, 2025

Why “cheaper” wind and solar raise costs. Part III: The problem with power markets

Part 3 of this series examines power markets, promoted by policymakers (FERC) and industry advocates to lower costs through competitive bidding and merit-order dispatch. While markets can optimize resource allocation in many sectors, they struggle to deliver affordability and reliability in electricity systems dominated by intermittent renewables. This post first explains how power markets operate, then highlights their challenges, and finally explores why they amplify the cost challenges associated with wind and solar.

In Part 1 of this series, we explored how the fat tail problem undermines the cost-saving potential of wind and solar.  It’s easy to supply electricity most of the time.  The fat tail occurs in the rarer periods of maximal demands, when wind and solar are not available.  These periods, not savings during easy times, drive system economics.  Part 2 discussed how rate structures distort perceptions of affordability for solar applications. 

How Power Markets Work (and Fail)

Power markets use a merit-order dispatch system, where generators bid their costs, and the market sets prices based on the most expensive unit needed. During “easy” times—when demand is low or renewable output is high—wind and solar often dominate. Their near-zero marginal costs (no fuel expenses) allow them to bid low, displacing higher-cost fossil fuel plants and driving down market prices. This creates the appearance of cheap electricity and fuels the narrative that renewables are inherently cost-effective.

However, during peak or extreme conditions, wind and solar often underperform due to weather or diurnal constraints. For example, wind speeds may drop during heatwaves, or solar output may be negligible at night or during cloudy winters. When demand spikes or renewables falter, markets rely on dispatchable resources—combined cycle plants, combustion turbines, or even older coal units—to meet the shortfall. These resources have higher marginal costs and are often called upon during the most expensive hours, driving market prices skyward. During Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, ERCOT prices surged to $9,000/MWh as renewables underperformed and demand soared. As discussed in the first posting, doing well most of the time is not enough. The challenge in providing costly backup during peak shortages exposes the limitations of power markets, as explored below. (continue reading)

Why “cheaper” wind and solar raise costs. Part III: The problem with power markets

Increasing the capacity of the electric utility grid requires both expansion of electricity transmission and the expansion of natural gas production and pipeline transmission capacity.

Increasing electric transmission capacity to support coal, natural gas and nuclear generators would be relatively straightforward compared with increasing capacity to support wind and solar generation and storage. The conventional generators would require a smaller number of sites and could be located adjacent to existing transmission corridors, whereas renewable generation installations are generally lower generating capacity facilities, frequently located in remote areas some distance from existing transmission corridors and requiring construction of new transmission facilities in new rights of way.

The capacity of conductors in existing transmission corridors would have to be increased to accommodate the output of the additional generators, but approvals for such capacity expansion would be expected to be less difficult and more rapid than approvals for new transmission corridors. The incremental investment would also be far lower than for new transmission corridors. The incremental transmission investment required to connect renewable generation facilities could also be reduced by the impact of grid-scale storage at the renewable generation sites.

The situation for natural gas transmission is similar. The natural gas transmission and storage system is designed to meet current customer demands. Many existing natural gas generators rely on curtailable or interruptible transmission service and on spot market gas availability to reduce costs. However, during periods of peak demand, transmission service to these customers is frequently curtailed and spot market gas is unavailable or in very short supply. This situation significantly affects electric utilities ability to meet peak demand.

Data centers and AI facilities would require firm transmission service and firm gas supply contracts. However, this should not be a significant issue for them, since their demand is relatively consistent throughout the year, reducing cost per unit delivered. However, satisfying their demand would require pipeline capacity expansion, though much of that expansion could likely be accomplished by installing parallel pipelines in existing pipeline rights-of-way and/or adding compression and storage. The additional capacity requirements of other additional natural gas generation facilities could be included in the pipeline and storage expansions.

The extent of the generation and transmission expansion would be reduced, at least in the short term, by the termination of the federal “all-electric everything” focus, which would have required a rough tripling of generation, transmission and distribution capacity to replace the energy currently supplied by natural gas, propane and fuel oil in the residential, commercial and industrial markets.

Again, Congress could improve the investment environment by clarifying the intent of the Clean Air Act regarding CO2 emissions. The investments required to support data center and AI energy requirements are very large and would typically be subject to 40-year straight line depreciation. It would be essential that the investors be able to rely on fully depreciating their investments over their useful lives. A consistent policy and regulatory environment would reduce the costs and risks associated with the required investments and consequently the consumer costs.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Andy May

Date: May 26, 2025

Musings on the AMO

We hear a lot about the AMO, or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. How much does it influence the global mean surface temperature or GMST? Exactly what is the AMO? These are the issues we will discuss. First let’s look at various definitions of the AMO.

Enfield, et al.: “The AMO index [is a] ten-year running mean of detrended Atlantic SSTA [sea surface temperature anomaly] north of the equator.”

Gray, et al.: Uses detrended raw tree-ring measurements to demonstrate a strong and regular 60-100 year variability in basin-wide (0-70°N) North Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) that has been persistent for the past five centuries.

Trenberth & Shea: “To deal with purely Atlantic variability, it is highly desirable to remove the larger-scale global signal that is associated with global [anthropogenic] processes, and is thus related to global warming in recent decades … Accordingly, the global mean SST has been subtracted to derive a revised AMO index.”

NCAR uses the Trenberth & Shea method, but NOAA uses the original methodology and detrends the North Atlantic temperatures using a least squares linear trend. We will also use the original Enfield and Gray method in this post.

The reason for the AMO SST 60-70-year pattern is unknown, but according to Gray et al. it extends back to 1567AD, so it is a natural oscillation of some kind. Some have speculated that it is a result of the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic or a “combination of natural and anthropogenic forcing during the historical era.” (Mann, Steinman, & Miller, 2020). But while interesting these ideas are speculative. Further if the oscillation has existed since 1567, it seems unlikely that it is caused by human CO2 and aerosol emissions.

It is clear that “global” warming is mostly an extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere phenomenon. This is discussed here in figures 1A & 1B and here in the discussion around figure 1, which is also shown as figure 1 below. Regions outside the extratropical Northern Hemisphere don’t change temperature as quickly or as drastically. (continue reading)

Musings on the AMO