From: edmhdotme

By: Ed Hoskins

Date: October 15, 2024

Comparing Power Generation Technologies

Introduction
The Industrial Revolution and the exploitation of fossil fuels has provided and can continue to provide an ample supply of abundant energy for Mankind.  Fossil fuels have advanced the quality of life and prosperity particularly of the Western world over the past 2 centuries.  There remains a very large proportion of the Global population who are yet to see similar benefits and the same advances to their wellbeing.

Nonetheless, in spite of the rapid growth in the Global population there has still been a progressive advance of the well-being of Man-kind with the reduction of poverty levels and climate related losses worldwide.

Green Thinking is now a major obstruction to the availability of abundant energy.  At the same time Western Nations in tackling their idea that there is a Climate emergency and by promoting the concept of  “Net Zero“,  try to demonstrate their “Virtue” by demonising Carbon Dioxide as pollutant.  

This has to be nonsensical as atmospheric CO2 is the essential Gas upon which all life-on-Earth depends.

This posts collates, summarises and illustrates the performance characteristics of the different power generation technologies in a unified visual format.

Considerations in this post
This post considers the following power generation technologies:

• Onshore Wind
• Offshore Wind
• Solar PV on grid
• Gas-fired CCGT
• Advanced Nuclear
• Biomass
• Coal / Lignite
• Hydro + Pumped.

This post provides illustrated comparisons between these power generation technologies from the following points of view:

• Energy Return on Energy Investment, ERoEI ratio
• Achieved productivity / capacity percentages
  • Mass of installations required for a comparable power output: tonnes / GW
  • Non-fuel CO2 emissions embedded in various generation technologies:  tonnes / GW
  • CO2 emissions from Fossil fuels
  • Land Usage for comparable power output:  sqkm / GW
  • Estimated construction times for power generators
  • Approximate service life of generation installations
• Cost effectiveness comparisons between generation technologies:  $bn / GW
• Excess expenditures on Weather-Dependent Renewables in Europe:  $bn / GW

(continue reading)

Comparing Power Generation Technologies

Several “Big Tech” companies are planning to build data centers or AI facilities which would require as much as 1 gigawatt of reliable power supply. The first move in this direction was Microsoft’s decision to contract with Constellation Energy to reopen one reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant to supply a Microsoft data center exclusively over a 20-year period. Other companies are pursuing powering their data centers and AI facilities with modular nuclear reactors in the 200-megawatt class.

As the grid transitions toward a renewable plus storage generation structure, it seems likely that data center and AI facility developers will choose to install dedicated DEFR generation (SMRs) to assure the availability of reliable power and avoid exposure to grid outages resulting from either generation inadequacy or transmission and distribution infrastructure damage. A 1-gigawatt facility could be powered by a fleet of 5 SMRs, if adequate support were available from the utility in the region, or by a fleet of 6 SMRs if adequate utility capacity to carry the facility through a refueling or unplanned outage of a single generator were not available. Refueling can typically be scheduled for the shoulder months when utility demand is unlikely to peak. It is telling that, at least so far, no data center or AI facility developer has proposed to power a standalone facility with a combination of renewable generation and storage.

Large loads which operate 24/7/365 operate at a much higher load factor than the utility grid, making more efficient and cost-effective use of generation infrastructure. Ownership and operation of dedicated generation infrastructure allows the facilities to control their energy costs. Ownership also assures that adequate power will be available when the data center or AI facility is ready to begin operation, rather than relying on adequate and timely response from the local utility and its regulators.

Integration of onsite generation also offers the opportunity to recover heat from the generators to provide space heating or to power absorption chillers for facility and equipment cooling. Recovery of heat rejected by the onsite generators increases the overall energy efficiency of the installation, since it offsets the requirement to use electricity generated at the site for cooling. Cooling is likely to be a year-round requirement in these large facilities because of the heat given off by the computing and communications equipment. However, some heating might also be required in office and maintenance spaces during the winter months.

This approach places the investment required to power the data center or AI facilities on the owners of the facility, isolating utility ratepayers from those incremental generation and transmission investment costs. That will be important as the transition proceeds, since the investments in generation, transmission and distribution facilities necessitated by “all-electric everything” would strain utilities abilities to finance them. Also, the state utility commissions are likely to resist these large investments because of the impact on consumer rates. The utility commissions would also be dealing with the issues surrounding decommissioning of existing fossil fuel generators and the natural gas transmission and distribution facilities which currently serve those generators and other direct end uses, as well as recovery of undepreciated utility investment in the decommissioned facilities.

From: Watts Up With That

By: David Shelley

Date: November 14, 2024

The Geological Record of Climate Change and Why Today’s Increase in Atmospheric CO2 Is the Result of Global Warming, Not the Cause

The climate is changing, and the geological record of climate change clearly shows that (a) we live in an unusually cold climate, (b) recent warming is neither dangerous or unusual, and (c) the main drivers of climate change are the sun, the oceans, and plate tectonics.

First, I will describe climate change over the last million years, and especially the last 120,000 years, including local (Christchurch, NZ) and other well-known examples. Then I will put this in the context of the last 540,000,000 years, a period known as the Phanerozoic during which most complex life forms developed and evolved. This period was almost always much warmer than today, with this warmer climate being punctuated by three important cold periods, one of which we remain in today.

I will then discuss in section 3 below the roles CO2 and our emissions play in climate. I will argue that almost all our emissions should have dissolved in the oceans to maintain an equilibrium partitioning of ca. 50/1 CO2 between the oceans and the atmosphere, which means that all other things being equal, CO2 levels in the atmosphere should have risen by only 7 ppm. This is not what has happened, and climate scientists have proposed, therefore, that our CO2 emissions must “hang around” in the atmosphere for 300 to 1000 years. However, that idea makes no sense, given that every water droplet in clouds is dissolving CO2 and transporting it via rain into the oceans. No reason to hang around at all. Instead, I propose that the observed ocean warming since 1905 (probably due to the sun, possibly volcanic activity) has resulted in the release of oceanic CO2, which is the main reason why atmospheric CO2 has increased by 140 ppm. I propose, too, that ocean warming is responsible for warming the lower atmosphere. Our emissions play no part whatsoever in the global warming.

I go on to discuss the disgraceful mismatch between facts and the political and activist commentaries on present-day warming. It is remarkable that the UN and climate activists do not correctly report what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes about severe weather events and their frequency. It is a fact that the IPCC finds no clear evidence for attributing most such events to the influence of human emissions.

I provide a section on agriculture and methane emissions. It is significant that a distinguished climate scientist has recently described those emissions as “not a problem”.

Finally, I discuss what comes next, climate-wise. A very cold glaciation in 80,000 years is probable. In the meantime we do need to cut our use of fossil fuels, but there is no rush, and we would do this, not to control emissions or climate, but because fossil fuels are valuable finite resources. (continue reading)

The Geological Record of Climate Change and Why Today’s Increase in Atmospheric CO2 Is the Result of Global Warming, Not the Cause

The current US Administration has set a goal to achieve Net Zero by 2050. However, this goal relies solely on Executive Branch initiatives rather than being established in law. Therefore, the goal is subject to adjustment or abandonment with a change of Administration or even a change of Administration focus. This situation creates major uncertainties for those who must invest in and manage the transition and its multi-trillion-dollar costs.

There is no plan in place for the transition, largely because many of the elements essential to the transition do not currently exist and their future availability is uncertain. While government can fund research and development focused on these elements, it cannot assure success nor schedule the timing of commercial availability. The key elements currently unavailable for the electric sector include long-duration storage and Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources (DEFRs). The key elements currently unavailable for the direct fossil fuel end use transition include numerous industrial processes, such as steelmaking and cement production.

The electric industry is faced with a potential tripling of demand and consumption resulting from the transition to “all-electric everything” in existing markets. It is also faced with rapid increases in demand resulting from the growth of data centers and artificial intelligence facilities, some of which are projected to impose approximately one gigawatt of demand on a continuous basis.

The absence of a plan leaves the pace of the “all-electric everything” transition uncertain, as does the growing resistance to key elements of that transition, including renewable generation installations, electric vehicles and heat pumps. Robert Bryce has documented more than 700 renewable installations which have been blocked by local resistance efforts. This issue has caused states including Illinois, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and California to take siting decisions out of the hands of local governments. Consumers are also resisting purchase of electric vehicles and the replacement of natural gas, propane and oil furnaces, boilers and water heaters with electric heat pumps.

Renewable generation facilities cannot be sited unless they have access to the grid, but grid operators cannot afford to extend the grid to the locations of facilities which might not be built. Data centers and AI centers require access to large quantities of reliable power, but many grids do not currently have the capacity to support their demands and are unwilling to add generating capacity without assurance that the large data centers and AI centers will actually be built. Both of these situations have contributed to reconsideration of “take or pay” contacts with grid operators prior to grid and generation expansion. They have also caused grid operators to consider ownership of renewable generation and data center developers to consider ownership of dedicated generation resources.

Generation capacity expansions must lead load growth to assure grid reliability. However, FERC, NERC and many grid operators are already concerned about declining capacity reserve margins, closures of coal and natural gas generators and the long lead times necessary to add generation and transmission capacity. There is also the growing realization that current electricity storage capacity is inadequate to support the current intermittent renewable generation fleet as conventional generation assets are retired; and, that the cost of adding the necessary storage capacity is enormous.

These uncertainties add to the cost and complexity of funding the required expansion of the electric grid.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Roger Caiazza

Date: November 14, 2024

Renewable Transition Raw Materials Challenge

The Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Finland “publishes the results of scientific research that is thematically or geographically connected to Finnish or Fennoscandian geology.”  Bulletin 416 Special Issue publishes two articles by Simon P. Michaux that are of interest to anyone concerned about challenges of the transition away from fossil fuels.

The Preface to the Bulletin explains the purpose of the report:

The two contributions published in this Special Issue of the Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Finland highlight that a successful transition to renewable energy requires a comprehensive raw materials strategy that considers both the upstream metal demands and the downstream infrastructure needs. In technological and innovation space, exploring alternative battery chemistries, improving recycling rates, and developing more resource-efficient technologies will be crucial to mitigating the strain imposed on metal supply chains.

The earlier work of the sole author of these two papers has been widely quoted, debated, and criticized in the media and amongst policy makers and academic audiences in the past few years. The premises, process, and conclusions of these studies have questioned the validity of some of the basic assumptions underlying the current energy and natural resource policy, but have still, largely mistakenly, been taken as a statement in favor of the status quo. On the contrary, these contributions are intended as the beginning of a discourse and attempt to bring alternative, often overlooked, views into the discussion about the basic assumptions underlying the material requirements of the energy transition. Out of necessity, they make simplifications in recognizing and mapping out the scale of some key challenges in the raw materials sector that need to be overcome if the energy transition is to be realized. Calculations and estimations need to be refined and, naturally, in addition to raw materials production and the material transition, other crucial aspects such as technology and infrastructure development, workforce requirements, land use changes, and societal impacts, among others, also need to be considered.

Nevertheless, the challenges related to the complex and interconnected nature of the problem should not be taken as a cause to halt the development and innovation needed to overcome it. Further research, policy interventions, and international collaboration are all essential in securing sustainable supply chains, promoting responsible sourcing practices, and ensuring a just and equitable green and digital transition for everyone. (continue reading)

Renewable Transition Raw Materials Challenge

Energy security is critical for advanced societies. The most secure energy system relies on diverse domestic resources and infrastructure with a comfortable margin of safety under peak demand conditions. This is the type of energy system the US and many developed nations had prior to the adoption of Net Zero by 2050 as a “global” goal. That “global” goal, currently pursued almost exclusively by the developed nations, is driving an energy transition away from a domestic fossil fuel-based energy system and toward an energy system based on intermittent renewable generation and storage. This energy system is more susceptible to cyberattacks from unfriendly nations as well as to operation interruptions and physical damage from unfriendly weather.

The US DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has been concerned regarding cyberattacks on wind energy generation systems for more than a decade. DOE has documented eight incidents over the past ten years which have disrupted wind energy systems. The Idaho National Laboratory report, “Attack Surface of Wind Energy Technologies in the United States” evaluates both cyberattack and weather event risks to wind generation. The growing remote monitoring of wind facilities potentially increases their exposure to cyberattacks, particularly if components of the wind turbines have been sourced from unfriendly nations.

There has been relatively limited concern regarding solar arrays until recently. However, a “white hat” Dutch hacker recently demonstrated that large solar arrays are vulnerable to remote cyberattacks, again largely resulting from the systems put in place to monitor their performance.

A combined cyberattack on wind and solar generation facilities on a peak day could endanger lives and wreak havoc with the energy system in the affected nation(s). This is of particular concern regarding solar PV collectors produced in China and solar and wind infrastructure using components, including semiconductor chips, made in China.

Concerns about cybersecurity risks have recently been heightened as the result of an Israeli military campaign which apparently remotely triggered explosions of pagers, walkie talkies and cell phones used by Hezbollah militants. Similar actions against wind and solar infrastructure, either using explosives or “kill switches” embedded in semiconductors could permanently disable, rather than just interfere with, vital energy system infrastructure. EV batteries and grid scale storage systems are also susceptible to interference or damage from such attacks.

The US military bans the purchase and use of any systems or components containing microchips manufactured in China as the first line of defense against hostile interference in military operations, particularly since China might well constitute the “enemy” in future military operations.

It is critical that the US and other nations proceeding on an energy system transition to intermittent renewable generation, battery-based storage systems and battery-based transportation, particularly if based largely on components and systems sourced from unfriendly nations, harden their energy system infrastructure against cyberattacks.

It is also critical that these nations reassess the risks to that more physically fragile infrastructure associated with weather events, such as hailstorms, snow and freezing rain, tornadoes and hurricanes which have demonstrated the ability to severely damage or destroy solar arrays and wind turbines.

From: American Thinker

By: Jonathan Gault

Date: October 25, 2024

Simple Facts Expose The Climate Change Hoax

To believe in the climate change hoax, you must believe 5 (palpably untrue) things:

CO2 is the “control knob” for the climate. This has been proven to be ridiculous. CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, while 96–99% of the atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen. Water vapor, a much larger determinant of temperature, varies from 1-4%. But what determines temperature more than anything else? Changes in the Earth’s solar orbit (obviously). NASA has admitted this.

CO2 is harmful. Wrong! CO2 is plant food. Humans inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Plants do the reverse. It is scientific fact that higher levels of CO2 lead to greater plant growth. This is essential if we are going to continue to be able to feed an increasing world population and one of the reasons why the planet now supports 8 billion humans.

We are at historically high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Again, not true. We are actually at historically low levels of CO2. Before the Industrial Revolution, the seminal starting point for climate hysteria (often cited by climate hysterics), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was approximately 290 ppm (parts per million). Plant life begins to succumb (it dies) around 150ppm. The amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is roughly 420ppm.

But is this historically high? Hardly. During the period of the dinosaurs, cold-blooded reptiles that required warm climates, consumed massive volumes of vegetation, and perished when the earth cooled, CO2 levels were roughly 3600ppm, creating the Jurassic conditions that enabled the dinosaurs to flourish, roaming the earth for millions of years.

Were the dinosaurs driving larger SUVs than Americans now drive? What caused CO2 levels to reach such heights then? It certainly wasn’t humans. It occurred, as it always does and has, due to solar cycles, which NASA has admitted.  (continue reading)

Simple Facts Expose The Climate Change Hoax

The previous commentary did a “freeze frame” and looked at the energy transition as a steady state event for simplicity. However, the actual transition is far from a steady state event. Electricity demand and consumption is growing, both as the result of the transition to “all-electric everything” and as a result of the growing demand and consumption of data centers and Artificial Intelligence.

At the beginning of the transition the US had an energy system which satisfied the needs of the market for electricity and fossil energy. However, the goal of the transition is replacement of the current fossil energy end uses with electric end uses, progressively decommissioning the infrastructure which supports the fossil fuel markets.

The new electric infrastructure constructed to replace the existing fossil fuel infrastructure is inflationary, as it is investment which results in no additional production, but merely replaces the current infrastructure supporting production. It also renders the current infrastructure progressively obsolete, arguably before the end of its useful life. This progressive obsolescence produces a societal cost with no offsetting economic benefit.

As the progressive obsolescence proceeds, the cost per unit of energy delivered by the fossil energy infrastructure would increase, causing further inflation, until the fossil energy infrastructure ceased operation. This progressive obsolescence affects the oil, natural gas and propane and coal industries, including exploration, production, distribution and sales.

The electric vehicle transition would obsolete a broad range of manufacturing facilities currently dedicated to the production of gasoline and Diesel vehicles and their unique components. The EV transition also requires construction of EV charging infrastructure on a national scale and the expansion of electricity transmission and distribution to support the distributed charging infrastructure.

The “all-electric everything” transition would ultimately require replacement of all fossil fuel residential and commercial end use appliances and equipment with electric appliances and equipment. Given appropriate lead time, this replacement could occur at the end of the useful life of the fossil fuel equipment. However, the high efficiency electric end use appliances and equipment required as replacements are currently 2-4 times as expensive as the fossil fuel appliances and equipment they would replace, producing further inflation as the replacement equipment would provide the same utility at substantially higher cost.

The residential and commercial equipment with the highest incremental installed cost are electric heat pumps, particularly cold climate heat pumps. This is especially true for buildings which are currently equipped with steam or hot water boilers for space heating and would require more complicated retrofit.

The residential and commercial appliance and equipment replacement would also likely require electric distribution system upgrades, utility service upgrades and installation of internal building wiring to serve end uses currently served with natural gas, propane or fuel oil.

The situation in the industrial markets is far more difficult to analyze since many of the current fossil-fueled production processes do not have commercially available electric substitutes and thus the transition infrastructure investment and the effects on operating costs are indeterminable.

The infrastructure investments required to serve new load growth from data centers and artificial intelligence are not inflationary, as they result in additional production rather than replacement of existing functional infrastructure.

From: edmhdotme

By: Ed Hoskins

Date: October 31, 2024

The myth of cheap “Renewable” Power in the UK and Europe

Firstly the Non-Problem
As at its current concentration atmospheric CO2 at ~420 ppmv is already ~85%+ saturated, the Global warming potential of added atmospheric CO2 is now almost exhausted.

As at its current concentration atmospheric CO2 at ~420 ppmv even doubling to 840 ppm would  cause little additional warming, (a ~1% effect) but that CO2 increase would be a huge benefit to agriculture.

All attempts by Mankind to limit further CO2 emissions or other Greenhouse gasses will have no further useful controlling effect on Global temperature.

Any further actions by the Western minority of Man-kind to protect against a supposed Global Overheating Catastrophe by reducing or controlling their diminishing proportion of Greenhouse Gas emissions are self-harming and pointless.

Summary
In order to promote Western actions to oppose “Man-made Climate Change / Anthropogenic Global Warming”, it is regularly claimed that Weather-Dependent “Renewables” are substantially cheaper than the use of conventional generation technologies using Fossil fuels and/or Nuclear technology for power generation.

In the UK “Renewables” are routinely officially claimed to be “9 times cheaper than Fossil Fuels”.

It has to be the most innumerate mind that thinks that one can replace controllable power generation, providing ~90% productivity / capacity with undispatchable, (uncontrollable) power generation.  Overall  Weather-Dependent “Renewable” installations  only worked at the following combined productivity / capacity percentages in Europe in 2023:

• Germany    14.8%:  has a high proportion of Solar power.
• UK             19.6%:  has substantial Offshore Wind installations.
• France        19.7%:  has a southern aspect.
• EU(27)+UK 17.5%.

This means that “Renewables” installations have to be more than 5 times larger to unreliably produce an equivalent level of power output.  As “Renewables” are more expensive than Gas-fired installations in both capital and running costs it is clear that installations using “Renewables” will have to be significantltly dearer for the power produced.

The calculations here show that the mandating of Weather-Dependent “Renewables”,  Wind and Solar electrical power generation, imposes very substantial wasted costs on the taxpayers of any Nation that responds to the putative “Climate Emergency” and implements radical policies to achieve “Net Zero”.  These dogmatic, self-harming policies are only ever being applied in the Western world.  This post focusses on the power generation transition being attempted in the UK. (continue reading)

The myth of cheap “Renewable” Power in the UK and Europe

Energy has been described as the master resource as it affects virtually all aspects of our lives. Therefore, energy cost inflation has the potential to drive inflation throughout the economy.

The ongoing energy transition toward “all-electric everything” and Net Zero by 2050 is creating inflation in the electricity sectors of all developed economies pursuing the transition. The effects of this inflation are propagating throughout these economies, appearing first as increases in electricity prices, which then drive increases in prices in all sectors of the economy which consume electricity.

The goal of the transition is the replacement of fossil-fueled energy processes with electric processes powered by solar and wind and potentially other renewable resources. The transition is complicated by the fact that both solar and wind are intermittent resources which are neither predictable, reliable nor dispatchable.

Perhaps it is easiest to understand how the transition is driving inflation by “freezing the frame” and analyzing it incrementally. Stipulate that the US has an electricity system which currently satisfies its customers’ demands. The transition process then adds incremental intermittent solar and/or wind capacity to the system. However, since the new generation resources are intermittent and non-dispatchable, existing conventional generation resources cannot be replaced by the new generation resources, since their output is required to meet grid demand when the intermittent resources are providing low/no output. The result is that the investment in the electricity system is increased, though electricity demand and consumption have not increased. This increased investment requires increased investment returns and adds increased operation and maintenance expenses, with no increase in electricity generation, so cost per kWh generated increases.

This inflationary effect is compounded by the transition’s approach to wholesale electricity pricing, under which each generator providing electricity output to the grid is paid the same price per kWh. The output from solar and wind generation is typically required to be used when it is available, reducing the output required from the conventional generators, but not reducing the conventional generators’ ownership, operation and maintenance costs, with the exception of fuel purchases. Reduced output results in conventional generator fixed costs being distributed across reduced generator output, thus increasing the cost per unit of generator output and the wholesale price required for that output to maintain generator profitability. These higher wholesale prices flow across the entire generation fleet output, inducing further price inflation.

These effects are further compounded by the various government incentives available for solar and wind generation. These incentives are paid with borrowed money, increasing the funds in circulation in the economy with no increase in electricity production. While these incentives reduce the apparent cost of solar and wind generation, they do not decrease the societal cost. Societal costs are actually increased by the interest payments required to support this new federal debt.

Further, solar and wind generators have installed costs similar to the installed costs of fossil-fueled generators per unit of capacity, but their expected useful service lives are a third to a half of the service lives of fossil-fueled generators, resulting in depreciation expenses which are two to three times higher.

From: Watts Up With That

By: David Archibald

Date: October 19, 2024

Our Energy Future: Conserve to Convert

Introduction

There was an inspiring story in the magazine Tablet about Palmer Luckey, the founder of the first-person-viewer company bought out by Meta. As recounted in Tablet, Mr Luckey had an epiphany – instead of developing the next iteration in that technology, he should develop the ultimate technology. He did, made billions and went on to found a yet more successful company in defence technology.

So that begs the question: what is the ultimate technology in energy? What technology will our great grandchildren have settled on to keep the lights on, the wheels turning and the grain growing? No matter what we are doing in energy at the moment, we, as a civilisation, should prepare for adopting the ultimate technology. Preparation starting as soon as possible will reduce the pain and suffering in getting to that shining city on a hill.

That choice won’t be between wind and solar, on one hand, and fossil fuels on the other. The fossil fuels will largely be exhausted in three generations so they won’t be part of the solution. And believe it or not, wind and solar won’t be part of the solution either.

The reason for that is that you can’t make wind turbines and solar panels with power produced from wind turbines and solar panels. Those things are artefacts of currently cheap Chinese coal prices. In fact, polysilicon production in China for making solar panels has moved 3,000 km inland to the province of Xinjiang where the coal and the Uigher slave labour are cheapest.

Power in China at US$0.05/kWh makes solar panels which, under the most ideal conditions on the planet – supplying gold mines out the Australian desert, produces power at the price of power from diesel at US$0.20/kWh. So, if you used power from solar panels at US$0.20/kWh to make solar panels, what would the cost of power from that second generation of solar panels be? It is likely to be of the order of US$0.80/kWh and so on to infinity. That ignores the lubricating effect of oil as a high energy-density liquid fuel in keeping industry going.

Wind turbines and solar panels are neither renewable or sustainable. Solar panels only last 15 to 20 years. And then what? They are mostly glass and not worth more than empty beer bottles. Will the metals smeared on them as thinly as possible be worth recovering? Nobody has bothered to do so yet and likely never will. There goes the renewable label. What is worse is that the metals used to make solar panels include cadmium. Cadmium is more poisonous than lead. It is highly toxic when ingested or inhaled, primarily affecting the kidneys, bones, and lungs. Inhalation of cadmium dust or fumes is particularly dangerous and can lead to lung cancer. Cadmium can accumulate in the environment, especially in soil and water. It is taken up by plants, entering the food chain and potentially impacting human health through contaminated food. Cadmium loading is up to 10 grams per square metre of solar panel. To avoid environmental damage, solar panels will have to end up in engineered repositories. There is nothing renewable, sustainable, economical, rational or joyous about solar panels. (continue reading)

Our Energy Future: Conserve to Convert

The UN Secretary General, the authors of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, numerous developed country governments and much of the consensed climate science community assert that the climate is in crisis, that fossil fuel use must be eliminated and that the globe must achieve Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050 to avoid Climageddon. The current US Administration has been supportive of this position and has spent an enormous fortune on climate “research” intended to create scary scenarios of potential future climate conditions based on fantastic Representative Concentration Pathways and overheated climate “models”.

The incoming US President does not accept the climate crisis narrative. He and his Administration can be expected to reassess the state of the climate based on the available data rather than the narrative hype, to redirect climate research funding to address significant climate issues, and to question the continuation of incentives and subsidies for the ongoing energy transition.

Much of the consensed climate science community asserts that “the science is settled”. This blog has dealt almost exclusively with the issues of unsettled “settled climate science” and with unrealistic climate change policies. It is hard to reconcile the concept of “settled science” with the fact that there are still multiple climate models, climate sensitivity is still expressed as a potential range of values, and it is uncertain whether climate feedbacks are positive or negative. These are issues which should have been aggressively addressed and resolved before spending trillions of dollars on unplanned mitigation efforts relying on unavailable or uneconomical technology.

It is unreasonable to be overly concerned about global warming of approximately 1.5°C when approximately half of that measured warming is the result of the Urban Heat Island effect and manifests as increased nighttime temperatures.

This blog has previously questioned the incentives and subsidies provided by the current Administration to solar, wind and electric storage battery installations. These three technologies are mature. They have been and are being installed in numerous countries all over the globe. They should be able to compete for market share without incentives and subsidies.

The new Administration is also expected to question numerous “all-of-government” regulations intended to reduce CO2 emissions including the EPA Powerplant Rule, the effective EV “mandate” driven by revised CAFÉ standards for fossil fueled vehicles and the SEC CO2 emissions reporting requirements. The end of EV “mandates” would likely also curtail the current, but ineffective, EV charging station installation program.

The implementation of intermittent renewable generation has resulted in the installation of redundant generation capacity which requires ongoing support from the existing conventional generation fleet. Were this renewable generation combined with sufficient electricity storage capacity it might cease to be redundant. However, as this blog has pointed out (here), the current electricity storage capacity constitutes a significant storage deficit. The storage requirements to eliminate coal and natural gas generation are daunting. The scale of incremental generation and storage requirements to achieve “all-electric everything” are mind-boggling. It is highly unlikely that the new Administration would continue to pursue replacement of the current electric generation fleet with renewables plus storage or to continue to pursue all-electric everything.

Regrettably, the inflation which has resulted from the installation and subsidy of redundant renewable generation capacity is likely “baked in” and will persist.

The United States electorate reached “The Fork in the Road” last Tuesday. They chose the fork to the right, away from the Green New Deal, Net Zero by 2050, “all-electric everything”, electric vehicle promotion, renewable generation and massive federal subsidies; and, toward a rational economic transition to advanced energy technologies.

The new Administration can be expected to restore scheduled leasing of federal land and offshore tracts for oil and gas exploration and to end the “slow walking” of exploration, development and production permitting. It can also be expected to support LNG exportation.

Federal government support for offshore wind development will likely be dramatically reduced, since offshore wind generated electricity is several times more expensive than current wholesale electric rates in the markets it would serve and would therefore increase electricity prices.

The end of “all-electric everything” will reduce the rate of growth of electricity consumption and demand and the generation and transmission infrastructure growth required to serve load growth.

Reduction or elimination of subsidies and mandates for renewable generation and storage would require those technologies to compete fairly with alternative generation technologies. Since intermittent renewable generation requires backup from conventional generation or storage, it is parasitic to the electric grid and is redundant capacity which has increased generation and transmission investment and cost.

Unfortunately, the renewable generation which has already been installed has increased the average wholesale cost of electricity, increasing operating costs throughout the US economy and producing inflation which is, to a large extent, ”baked into” the economy. The Administration’s efforts to reduce energy costs will be limited by the existence of this redundant capacity.

The new Administration is expected to renounce the “all of government” effort to reduce CO2 emissions, withdraw the EPA Powerplant Rule and the EPA vehicle fuel economy standards which constituted an effective electric vehicle mandate and withdraw the onerous SEC emissions reporting requirements.

The new Administration is expected to exit the Paris Accords again, discontinue contributions to the UN Green Climate Fund and actively resist the UN effort to establish a “loss and damage fund”.

The Administration can be expected to work to halt and reverse our growing dependence on China, particularly with respect to rare earth minerals. The expansion of solar and wind generation has increased our dependence on China for raw materials, processed materials and finished goods. This has not been a serious issue to date, because we are not dependent on solar and wind to meet our electricity requirements. However, as renewable generation plus storage would have grown and replaced conventional generation, we would have become dependent on it and would have been at risk when it became necessary to replace the wind, solar and battery infrastructure. China has demonstrated a willingness to restrict export of rare earth minerals critical to the operations of US industry and the US military. We ignore dependence on unfriendly nations at our peril.

From: environMENTAL - Substack

By: Environmental

Date: October 13, 2024

The Bright Green Line

“Of course, the world is full of problems. But on the other hand it's important to get the sense... are we generally moving in the right direction or the wrong direction?” - Bjorn Lomborg

At the 1979 Cannes Film Festival, an American film with rather uncanny timing (pun intended) previewed. In The China Syndrome, a television reporter and her camera man happen to be inside nuclear power plant during a turbine trip event and the emergency shutdown process known as a SCRAM.

What unfolds is a story of sticking gauges, panicked plant operations, safety coverups, intrigue, and ultimately State-sponsored assassination to keep a lid on the whole affair, all in order to hide from the public the fact that a power plant outside Los Angeles came dangerously close to a core reactor meltdown.

The film made its debut in American theaters on March 16, 1979. Twelve days later, at around 4:00 a.m., an incident began at a nuclear power plant built on an island in the Susquehanna River near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. When the dust had cleared at the Three Mile Island (TMI) Nuclear Generation Station, an uncontrolled partial thermal meltdown destroyed reactor unit 2.

At the time of the TMI accident, “environmentalism,” was a growing political force in the U.S., fueled by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb (1968), and the discovery in the late 1970s of Hooker Chemical Company’s contamination of the Love Canal neighborhood in Niagara Falls, NY. (Love Canal would ultimately lead to the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, CERCLA, aka “Superfund”).

After TMI, new nuclear power generation in the U.S. was over, killed by a public fear and panic which no fact, data, reason, or logic would penetrate for nearly half a century. Falling oil and natural gas prices after two 1970’s “energy crises” changed the economics of nuclear energy, to be sure. But, after TMI “environmentalists” (and even fossil fuel interests) exploited the public’s fear of nuclear energy, and it could not be overcome. The Chernobyl disaster seven years later in 1986 was similarly exploited. When the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident occurred 25 years later in 2011, the loudest and most angry voices were “environmentalists”. (continue reading)

The Bright Green Line

Population and population control have been the subjects of discussion for a variety of reasons for centuries. They have become a persistent issue in climate change discussions because of the narrative that recent climate change is the result of human activity and therefore increasing population is likely to result in increasing climate change. This is a particular concern regarding the developing nations as they increase their economic activity, standards of living and emissions.

The concerns regarding population are frequently based on the concept of the “carrying capacity” of the earth; that is, “the maximum population size an environment can sustain indefinitely”. However, estimates of the carrying capacity of the earth range from 500,000,000 to 1 trillion, though most estimates are in the range of 8 billion, roughly the current population. Clearly, there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the concept of carrying capacity.

There are numerous approaches to controlling the growth of population, including contraception, abstinence, abortion, sterilization and euthanasia. There are also multiple methods of reducing population, including war, famine and plagues. There have also been efforts to reduce the population of specific groups, including eugenics and the holocaust. Those who advocate for population reduction rarely discuss the methods they would choose to employ since they are typically abhorrent. However, there was a recent suggestion that the earth needs another pandemic to reduce population. Continued “gain of function” research offers the potential development of infectious agents more dangerous than COVID 19 which could produce such a pandemic.

The earth is able to sustain its current population as the result of several factors, including improved farming methods, the use of synthetic fertilizers and global greening resulting from increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. However, numerous national governments are taking or proposing actions which would remove agricultural land from production, limit the use of synthetic fertilizers, reduce the numbers of ruminant animals and otherwise limit farm production. These actions are being aggressively resisted by the farmers who would be deprived of their land, animals and livelihoods. While these actions are not currently extensive enough to result in global famine, they would certainly reduce the availability and increase the cost of food. A recent effort in Sri Lanka to convert to organic farming resulted in significantly reduced food production and localized famine.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization is actively promoting the adoption of alternatives to meat and dairy products from ruminant animals, including textured vegetable protein meat analogues, laboratory grown “meat”, nut and legume “milks” and the substitution of factory grown insects as a source of protein.

There is also growing resistance to the taking of productive farmland for the installation of massive arrays of solar collectors and wind turbines. Cattle appear to be largely unaffected by grazing in close proximity to wind turbines. Sheep and goats are also able to graze in proximity to solar collector arrays which are installed far enough above the soil to permit the animals to graze unhindered and adequately spaced to permit grass to continue growing vigorously beneath them.