Lawfare has been a very popular approach for political jurisdictions seeking a “Jerry Maguire Moment” at the expense of the fossil energy industries. The most notorious of these lawfare efforts are the numerous “Exxon Knew” lawsuits, which allege that Exxon “knew” 30 years ago what the IPCC acknowledges it does not “know” today regarding the purported catastrophic effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

More recently, California attempted to hold oil companies responsible for the Los Angeles fires, while New York and Vermont passed laws requiring massive payments as reparation for past damage. A group of 17 State Attorneys General have sued to have these laws declared unconstitutional.

Since President Trump’s re-election, numerous federal district judges have imposed nationwide injunctions to prevent a broad range of Trump initiatives, including climate change initiatives, from proceeding. The Trump Administration has appealed these injunctions with some success.

The US Supreme Court has been involved in the climate lawfare issue since 2007, when it determined that EPA could regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air act, which became the basis for the 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding. EPA then developed the Clean Power Plan which regulated CO2 emissions from fossil fueled powerplants. The State of West Virginia sued EPA, arguing that EPA did not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  The Supreme Court ruled in WV vs. EPA that EPA did not have that authority based on the “major issues doctrine”. This decision effectively the principle known as “Chevron deference” under which the Supreme Court had typically deferred to the decisions of the executive branch agencies.

The Supreme Court has since ruled that individual federal district judges do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions. This decision effectively ends what has been the major opposition tactic to block Trump initiatives to reverse Biden Administration policies in numerous areas including climate.

Many NGOs have conspired with executive branch agencies, especially EPA, using a technique referred to as “sue and settle”. These NGOs, which typically receive federal government funding, would sue EPA to cause or prevent a specific action, frequently at EPA’s request. EPA would then “negotiate” to settle the suit to the mutual satisfaction of the NGOs and EPA. The first Trump Administration ended “sue and settle”, but it was quickly restored by the Biden Administration. The current Trump Administration has again ended “sue and settle” and is aggressively fighting such lawsuits or countersuing.

NGOs have sued to force closure of coal generating stations with some success. However, the Administration declared an “Energy Emergency” in recognition of the rapid growth of electric demand, the premature closure of coal and natural gas generating stations and the declining capacity reserve margin on the nation’s electric grid. The Administration has been sued on the grounds that there is no energy emergency and therefore that planned coal plant closures should proceed.

US EPA is proceeding with a plan to vacate the 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding, which will likely trigger another round of climate lawfare which would be finally disposed by the Supreme Court.

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts.  If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
- Carl Sandburg

From: IER

By: Thomas J. Pyle

Date: August 7, 2025

200 Actions the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans Have Taken to Unleash Our Energy Potential

Since President Trump took office, his administration, along with Congress, have taken over 200 actions to unleash America’s energy potential. A list of those actions appears below.

January 20, 2025 

1. President Donald J. Trump had a whirlwind first day in office on January 20, signing some 200 executive orders, many redirecting federal policies on energy, such as: Executive order declaring a national energy emergency.
2. Executive order revoking and rescinding the U.S. International Climate Finance Plan.
3. Executive order pausing government agencies and departments from issuing new rules until a department head approves.
4. Executive order reviewing agency activities that burden the production of U.S. energy.
5. Executive order allowing drilling and reversing restrictions placed by the Federal Government on Alaskan energy production.
6. Executive order resuming the processing of export permit applications for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects.
7. An offshore wind moratorium and a 60-day stop of new wind and solar permits on federal lands.
8. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and revoking any financial commitments under the UNFCCC.
9. Rescinded previous executive actions, including: Executive Order 13990 of January 20, 2021 (Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis).
10. Executive Order 14013 of February 4, 2021 (Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs To Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration).
11. Executive Order 14027 of May 7, 2021 (Establishment of the Climate Change Support Office).
12. Executive Order 14057 of December 8, 2021 (Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability).

(continue reading)

200 Actions the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans Have Taken to Unleash Our Energy Potential

The response to global warming began with the apparent expectation of altruism on the part of the global population. Suggestions were made regarding actions people could take to reduce their energy consumption. The results were underwhelming.

The transition from altruistic voluntary action to command-and-control began with the establishment of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. The process progressed through the Kyoto Accords in 1997 to the Paris Accords in 2015. The UN intended both Accords to be treaties, binding the signatory nations to specific reductions in CO2 emissions by specific dates. The Paris Accords ultimately led to the establishment of a maximum global near-surface average temperature target (2°C) and the establishment of the goal of achieving Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050.

US President Clinton chose not to submit the Kyoto Accords to the Senate for ratification because he knew the ratification effort would fail. President Obama also chose not to submit the Paris Accords to the Senate for ratification for the same reason. However, both presidents “committed” the US to emissions reduction goals and schedules, though no plans to achieve those goals were developed.

President Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Accords during his first term. President Biden re-entered the Accords immediately after his election and “committed” the US to ongoing contributions to the UN Green Climate Fund. President Trump has again acted to withdraw the US from the Paris Accords and halted US contributions to the Green Climate Fund.

The governments of the developed nations including the US, Canada, Australia, UK and the EU set emissions reduction goals for specific segments, primarily electric power generation and motor vehicles. These goals were typically supported by subsidies and incentives intended to accelerate the market transitions.

President Biden dramatically expanded the “command-and-control” approach to achieving Net Zero in the US. He took numerous actions in his “war on fossil fuels” including cancelling previously approved oil and gas pipeline projects and delaying or failing to hold legally required oil and gas lease sales in federal lands onshore and offshore. He also required that electric power generation be emissions free by 2035 and that all vehicles sold after 2035 be electric vehicles. His Administration also attempted to ban the sale of gas ranges while several local jurisdictions acted to ban new residential and commercial gas connections. The US Congress passed the “Inflation Reduction Act” (sic), which massively increased the subsidies and incentives available for the Net Zero transition.

President Trump, in his current term, has halted most of the planned offshore wind capacity sought by the Biden Administration and has resumed oil and gas leasing on federal lands onshore and offshore. He has ended the electric vehicle mandate. The One Big Beautiful Act (OBBA) eliminated the electric vehicle subsidies and the subsidies for private solar installations.  The OBBA also placed a time limit on industrial solar and wind subsidies and incentives.

Resistance to the command-and-control approach had been building prior to President Trump’s re-election and has continued to build as electric rates have increased with the implementation of redundant, intermittent solar and wind generation. Concern also continues to grow regarding the adequacy, reliability and stability of the electric grid as renewable generation capacity grows.

Resistance is also growing in the other developed nations and several of their national leaders have begun to realize that Net Zero is not likely to be achieved by 2050, if it can be achieved at all, and that ultimately it might not even be desirable.

From: Watts Up With That

By: DOE

Date: July 31, 2025

Full Posting of: A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate

Background

On July 29, 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a report entitled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, evaluating existing peer-reviewed literature and government data on climate impacts of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and providing a critical assessment of the conventional narrative on climate change.  

Among the key findings, the report concludes that carbon dioxide (CO2) -induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation strategies could be more harmful than beneficial. Additionally, the report finds that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays. 

The report was developed by the 2025 Climate Working Group, a group of five independent scientists assembled by Energy Secretary Chris Wright with diverse expertise in physical science, economics, climate science and academic research.

Summary

This report: 

• Reviews scientific certainties and uncertainties in how anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other GHGs have affected, or will affect, the Nation’s climate, extreme weather events, and metrics of societal well-being.
• Assesses the near-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including enhanced plant growth and reduced ocean alkalinity.
• Evaluates data and projections regarding long-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including estimates of future warming.
• Finds that claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data.
• Asserts that CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial.
• Finds that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays. (continue reading)

Full Posting of: A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate

The Governors of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware have recently complained about high electric prices in the area served by the PJM ISO. They asserted that these high rates were caused by PJM’s failure to add renewables to the grid more rapidly, rather than more expensive natural gas generators. Governor Murphy of New Jersey said: “PJM has lost the plot.” It appears more likely that the “plot” in question was a political goal rather than an economic plan. However, it is clear that the governors and PJM are not “singing out of the same hymn book”.

US EIA reports the following construction costs for electric generators installed in 2022 and their capacity factors (CF):
 

The PJM region possesses the following generation capacity by type:

The annual output of the renewable generation in the PJM region is approximately.

This renewable generation output largely displaces an equivalent quantity of output from the natural gas and coal generation operating in the PJM region. The primary roles of the renewable generation are to replace retiring coal and natural gas generators at the end of life and to provide additional generating capacity to accommodate load growth in the region. However, replacing existing fossil generators and adding reliable incremental generation capacity with solar and wind requires the addition of electricity storage capacity to render the renewable generation dispatchable.

The current electricity storage resources in the PJM region total 4,853 MW and approximately 20,000MWh, or approximately the 25% of annual renewable generator output required to assure dispatchability.

Replacing 1 GW of coal generation with a CF of ~85% would require installation of approximately 0.85/0.19 = 4.5 GW of solar capacity, approximately 0.85/0.30 = 2.8 GW of wind capacity and approximately 1 GW * 0.85 CF * 8760 hrs/yr * 0.25 = 1,862 GWh of electricity storage. The primary battery storage system currently being installed for grid level storage is the Tesla Megapack, which stores 19.3 MWH deliverable at a rate of 4.9 MW over a 4-hour period. Replacing 1 GW of coal generation with solar generation would thus require (1,862 GWh * 1,000 MWh/GWh) / (19.3 MWh) = 96,500 Megapacks, at an estimated installed cost of $8,128,870 per unit, or a total cost of approximately $784 billion.
Therefore, the total cost of replacing 1 GW of dispatchable coal generation with dispatchable solar generation would be approximately 4.5 GW * 1,000,000 kW/GW * $1,588/kW = $7.1 billion + $784 billion = ~$791 billion. The total cost of replacing 1 GW of dispatchable coal generation with dispatchable wind generation would be approximately 2.8 GW * 1,000,000 kW/GW * $ 1,451/kW = $4.1 billion + $784 billion = ~$788 billion.

The total cost of replacing 1 GW of coal generation with natural gas combined-cycle generation would be approximately $850/kW * 1,000,000 kW/GW = $850,000,000. The NG generator fuel cost would be approximately [3,412 Btu/kWh / (50% efficiency)] * 1,000,000 kWh/GWh * 1/1,000,000 Btu/mcf * $3.00/mcf = $20,500 / GWh or approximately $20,500 * 8760 * 0.45 (grid annual load factor) = ~$81 million per year, or ~$3.2 billion over a 40-year service life.

Therefore, ignoring O&M costs, dispatchable solar and wind would cost ~$790 billion over a 20-year service life vs. dispatchable natural gas at ~$4 billion over a 40-year service life.

I think the governors have not discovered the “plot”, or they are “gaslighting” their constituents.

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.