Energy Policy

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 in 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

From: Hoover Institution - Tennenbaum Program for Fact-Based Policy

By: Steven E. Koonin

Date: September 26, 2024

The Factual Context For Climate And Energy Policy

Virtually all climate policy discussions assume that climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But any realistic policy must balance the hazards, risks, and benefits of a changing climate against the world’s growing demand for reliable, affordable, and clean energy. To strike that balance, climate policymakers will consider society’s values and priorities, its tolerance for risk, equities among generations and geographies, and the efficacy, costs, and collateral impacts of any policy. This paper reviews some of the scientific, techno-economic, and societal facts and circumstances that should inform those policy decisions and draws some straightforward conclusions from them.

CLIMATE IMPACTS

Projections of the impacts of future climate changes rely on assumptions about future greenhouse gas emissions fed into large computer models of the ocean and atmosphere. Although those models can give a hazy picture of what lies before us at the global scale, their deficiencies on smaller scales are legion. For example, two senior climate researchers firmly within the scientific mainstream have said this:

For many key applications that require regional climate model output or for assessing large-scale changes from small-scale processes, we believe that the current generation of models is not fit for purpose.

That’s particularly important because adaptation measures depend upon regional model projections. One of the same senior researchers noted the following:

It is difficult, and in many places impossible, to scientifically advise societal efforts to adapt in the face of unavoidable warming. Our knowledge gaps are frightful because they make it impossible to assess the extent to which a given degree of warming poses existential threats. (continue reading)

The Factual Context For Climate And Energy Policy

The Democrat and Republican Parties have held their National Conventions and approved their party’s platform for the 2024 presidential election.

The Democrat platform was developed prior to President Biden’s decision to end his campaign for a second term, so the platform is essentially the Biden platform, though it was adopted at the convention with the approval of Vice President Harris. The platform essentially continues and expands the Biden-Harris Administration priorities with regard to energy and climate change on both the national and international levels. Vice President Harris has not proposed any changes in direction regarding energy or climate change.

The Republican platform was developed with the knowledge that former President Trump would be the party’s nominee and it is clearly a Trump platform focused on the issues President Trump focused on during his term. The platform focuses on restoring US energy independence and pursuing US energy dominance. The platform also specifically mentions ending the EV. mandate.

The two parties have laid out very different future paths. The Democrat path is focused on climate change and environmental justice. The Republican path is focused on energy independence and reducing restrictive regulations.

“When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”, Yogi Berra, American Philosopher

Choose wisely.

The solar and wind industries and their government and NGO supporters continually assert that a renewable plus storage grid would be more economical and more resilient than the current grid. Both assertions are demonstrably false. These assertions are not merely misinformation. Rather, they are intentional disinformation.

Solar and wind generation facilities are approximately the same capital cost per unit of rated capacity as fossil fueled generation facilities. However, the renewable generators have a capacity factor approximately one third the capacity factor of the fossil generation facilities. Therefore, the renewable generation installed capacity must be significantly greater to produce the same annualized electricity output. Instantaneous renewable generator output in excess of contemporaneous demand must be stored for use when renewable generator output is less than contemporaneous demand. The installed cost of electricity storage is currently 7-10 times the cost of generation capacity.

During periods of peak grid demand, the entire rated capacity of the renewable generation facilities would be required to meet demand, even though the renewable generators might not be operating due to weather conditions. During such periods, storage would be required to supply any output deficiency, for whatever period required. Storage would also be required to compensate for seasonal variations in renewable generator output, which could persist for several weeks.

Also, the useful lives of solar and wind generators are approximately one quarter to one half of the useful lives of the fossil generators they would displace, requiring replacement in 20-30 years. The useful life of storage capacity varies significantly depending on the storage technology employed, but battery storage would require replacement in 10-15 years.

The resilience of renewable generation and storage facilities is also questionable. Entire solar generation arrays have been destroyed by hailstorms. Wind generators have been destroyed by lightning strikes and tornadoes. Near shore and offshore wind turbines have yet to demonstrate their ability to withstand hurricanes and Nor’easters along the US Atlantic coast. Battery storage systems have experienced spontaneous fires which have destroyed one or more batteries.

Solar collector arrays produce no output for two thirds of the day, and their output varies uncontrollably as the result of varying cloud cover, rain and snow. Wind turbines also produce little or no output for two thirds of the day, though less predictably, and their output varies with wind speed and can drop to zero very rapidly. Wind turbines also must be shut down when wind speeds exceed their rated speeds, as would be the case during many thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes and Nor’easters. Wind turbines can also be affected by snow and ice accumulations on their blades.

The resilience of the current grid is dependent upon the ability of the existing conventional generation capacity to ramp output to compensation for fluctuations in renewable generator output. However, conventional generation capacity is being retired faster than additional renewable generation capacity is being installed and far faster than additional electricity storage capacity is being installed. This issue is compounded by the rapid increase in grid demand resulting from data center and AI demand growth and the progressive electrification of the current fossil fuel applications including vehicle fuels, home heating and water heating and industrial process applications.

From: CFACT

By: Robert G. Eccles

Date: October 6, 2024

The small modular reactor revolution is arriving soon

It’s been a big year for nuclear energy in the U.S. The Department of Energy has allocated a large amount of capital to nuclear energy research and has committed $900 million to advance Gen III+ (more on them below) small modular reactors (SMRs). The Inflation Reduction Act’s inclusion of nuclear energy has opened opportunities for tax credits for investors in nuclear projects.  Southern Company’s Vogtle plant’s second new reactor started sending power to the grid in April.

Most recently, on September 20, Microsoft and Constellation announced that they will reopen a reactor at Constellation’s Three Mile Island nuclear energy center in Pennsylvania to power Microsoft data centers. Microsoft agreed to pay $16 billion to restart the Unit 1 reactor which has a capacity of 835 megawatts. It was shut down in 2019 under financial pressure from growing competition with cheap natural gas. (The Unit 2 reactor was destroyed in 1979 accident and is undergoing decommissioning;  however, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) noted there were no deaths or accidents, or discernible health effects from some small radioactive releases.) Microsoft has agreed to buy up to 100% of the electricity produced by Unit 1. This is part of the tech giant’s efforts to secure enough reliable, low-carbon electricity to supply its energy-thirsty data centers powering the boom in artificial intelligence.

An Overview of Nuclear Energy

For many years, nuclear energy existed in the shadows of failed projects and safety concerns. While solar and wind flourished and fossil fuels remained a standby, the nuclear power industry has made huge strides in increasing safety, commercial feasibility, and attractiveness of nuclear as a carbon-free, reliable, baseload power source. It’s no surprise that Microsoft is now making headlines as it secures nuclear power to fuel its growing AI demand.

The 2000+ page Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) on the mitigation of climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that nuclear energy capacity must nearly double by 2050 in order to keep the global temperature rise below 1.5°C. Nuclear power provides carbon-free baseload power without the intermittency inherent in wind and solar power. This report was published in 2022 and since then we have witnessed the growth of AI and its insatiable energy needs. AI is putting at risk all the net-zero commitments made by the big tech companies. This makes nuclear energy even more important. (continue reading)

The small modular reactor revolution is arriving soon

The US Department of Energy (US DOE) has published Decarbonizing the U.S. Economy by 2050: A National Blueprint for the Buildings Sector, which contains a link to the full study. The blueprint’s objectives include increasing energy efficiency, reducing on-site emissions and increasing demand flexibility. The following are some thoughts about a new construction decarbonized home.

The average US single family home contains approximately 2300 square feet of living space. The most efficient configuration for such a house is a two-story structure with approximately equal area on each floor. The structure would likely feature foamed-in-place insulation and limited window area. New homes built to match the DOE blueprint would be all-electric to eliminate on-site emissions. and the HVAC equipment and major appliances would be internet connected to maximize opportunities for demand management.

The home would provide approximately 500 square feet of South-facing roof with the roof pitch adjusted to maximize collection of solar energy from approximately 380 square feet of solar collectors or solar roof shingles. The solar system would generate approximately 7.5 kW at peak, or approximately 25-50 kWh per day, depending on location weather and season of the year. Approximately 40 kWh could be stored in on-site batteries. An average single family detached home uses approximately 10,000 – 16,000 kWh per year, depending on location and appliances and equipment, or approximately 25 – 45 kWh per day. Note that all-electric homes in cold climates would experience maximum energy consumption in winter, when the output of the solar collectors was significantly reduced as the result of lower sun angle and shorter days.

The average home would have a 2-car garage, which would be equipped with chargers for 2 electric vehicles. The electric vehicles would add approximately 10 – 15 kwh each to the home’s daily energy consumption. However, the EVs would typically have to be charged from the on-site batteries or the grid, since they would likely be away during the day and require charging at night, when solar collector output is zero.

The availability of electric power from the on-site solar and battery systems would reduce the demand on the electric utility grid. However, the similarity between average daily solar collection and average daily usage suggests that grid backup would be essential to assure power reliability during periods of low solar energy generation, such as cloudy, rainy or snowy days. Therefore, the grid would require substantial storage capacity, since it would likely experience low solar availability during the same times as its customers.

The installed cost of solar collectors is approximately $2.50 per watt. Therefore, the installed cost of the 7.5 kW system described above would be approximately $19,000. The on-site storage batteries would add approximately $42,000. One suggested approach to funding the solar installation is utility ownership of the solar system and inclusion of the system costs in the utility ratebase. System ownership and maintenance costs would be added to the utility’s monthly service charge.

The availability of solar energy from on-site generation would reduce the average load on the “grid edge” facilities, including distribution wiring and transformers. However, the increased demand.imposed by EVs and electric heat pumps would likely increase grid demand during periods of low solar availability.

The US Department of Energy (US DOE) has published Decarbonizing the U.S. Economy by 2050: A National Blueprint for the Buildings Sector, which contains a link to the full study.

The first strategic objective in the Blueprint is: Increase building energy efficiency - Reduce onsite energy use intensity in buildings 35% by 2035 and 50% by 2050 vs. 2005.This objective poses two distinct challenges: identifying the ideal characteristics of carbon-free buildings, as the basis for establishing building codes which assure that newly constructed buildings will be and will remain carbon-free; and, identifying the changes which can reasonably be made to existing buildings to achieve the required reductions in on-site energy use intensity.

The logical first focus of these efforts is on the building envelope. For new buildings, all components of the building envelope are candidates for optimization, including slabs, foundations, framing, sheathing, glazing, insulation, interior surface materials, weatherstripping and roofing. Building orientation is also a significant consideration with regard to solar and wind exposure, with particular emphasis on the ability to collect and store solar energy at the site.

The DOE Blueprint assumes that all new buildings would be all-electric. Buildings would be wired for electric appliances and equipment, including heat pump HVAC systems, heat pump water heaters, electric ranges and ovens, electric laundry dryers and EV chargers. Buildings would also be prewired for the installation of solar panels and storage batteries.

The larger challenge is the upgrading of the existing building stock. Ceiling insulation and crawl space insulation improvements are relatively straightforward and inexpensive, as are caulking and weatherstripping. Adding insulation to uninsulated exterior walls is also straightforward and relatively inexpensive. Improving the insulation values of already insulated exterior walls is problematic unless the exterior wall surfaces of the building are also being replaced. Replacing existing windows is expensive and might not be economically justified if the existing windows are double glazed.

Upgrading existing all-electric buildings with forced air HVAC systems should not require any modification to existing appliance and equipment connections. However, buildings with electric baseboard heating systems or steam or hot water radiator systems would require major modifications. Buildings with natural gas or propane appliances and equipment would require installation of electric appliance and equipment connections and might require upgrading of utility electric service and building power panels.

Almost all existing buildings would require installation of connections for EV charging systems. Buildings suitable for the installation of solar collectors would also require installation of the wiring and controls necessary to interface the solar collector system to the building power panels, on-site storage batteries and the utility service.

Achieving on-site emissions reductions would require replacing all natural gas, propane and oil appliances and equipment with electric appliances and equipment. This would likely be accomplished by banning the manufacture and sale of natural gas, propane and oil appliances and equipment and allowing the appliance and equipment replacement cycles to complete the process.

Tripling demand flexibility would likely require that all major appliances and equipment be internet connected to permit remote control of their operation; and, that all buildings be equipped with smart meters to facilitate creation of virtual powerplants. DOE envisions that this would also permit power to be drawn from EV batteries and solar storage batteries if required to support the grid.

As the decarbonization plan comes together, it is likely to include a combination of “carrots and sticks” intended to assure that the plan goals are achieved.

Capacity factor:  The ratio of the electrical energy produced by a generating unit for the period of time considered to the electrical energy that could have been produced at continuous full power operation during the same period. (EIA)

The US EIA Electric Power Monthly uses the above definition for both fossil and non-fossil generators. However, the definition is more appropriate for intermittent renewable generators (wind and solar) than for other types of generation, since the output of these renewable generators have first priority on the grid. Their full output is used, except in circumstances when that output exceeds the contemporaneous demand on the grid. Therefore, their capacity factors are an accurate measure of what they are capable of generating “for the period of time considered”.

The output of wind and solar generators varies uncontrolled over timeframes of seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, month, seasons and years. In the shorter timeframes, output can vary from 100% of rating plate capacity to zero. Over the longer timeframes, wind generator output can vary from approximately 24 – 47% on a monthly basis and from approximately 32 – 35% on an annual basis. Over the longer timeframes, solar output can vary from approximately 12 – 33% on a monthly basis and from approximately 23 - 26% on an annual basis. These numbers represent national averages for existing generating facilities.

The non-renewable generators supplying the grid are operated to generate the difference between the contemporaneous grid demand and the output of the intermittent renewable generators. Therefore, their “capacity factors” are not weather limited, as is the case with the intermittent renewable generators, but rather are “utilization factors” controlled by the output of the intermittent renewable generators and the contemporaneous grid demand. Therefore, the “capacity factors” of the non-renewable generators decrease as the quantity of renewable generation supplied to the grid increases, with the exception of the nuclear generators which are typically operated at full capacity because the variable cost of the generation they provide is low.

Nuclear generators are typically capable of operating at rated capacity approximately 95% of the year, natural gas combined-cycle generators approximately 90% of the year and coal generators approximately 85% of the year. The portion of the year when they are unavailable is typically scheduled for the shoulder months of the year, when grid demand is well below peak demand.

The lower “capacity factors” (utilization factors) reported by EIA are directly driven by contemporaneous grid demand and indirectly driven by weather impacts on intermittent renewable generation output.

Ultimately, the Administration goal is to replace dispatchable fossil generation with renewable generation plus storage. Assuming that storage can be recharged at approximately the same rate that it can be discharged, the maximum capacity factor for storage would be approximately 50%, in situations in which storage was discharged and recharged daily. However, in situations in which longer duration storage was charged during periods of high monthly or seasonal renewable availability for use during periods of lower monthly or seasonal renewable generation availability, storage capacity factor would be significantly lower. That has economic consequences, since storage is currently significantly more expensive than renewable generation.

It is broadly, though not universally, acknowledged that a Net Zero electric grid powered predominantly by intermittent renewable generation sources such as wind and solar would require support from dispatchable generation sources to “fill in the blanks” when wind and solar were unavailable or inadequate to meet the demands of the grid. These sources are generally referred to as Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources (DEFRs).

There are fundamentally two classes of DEFRs, those that depend on the output of the intermittent renewable resources for their operation and those which are able to function independent of the renewable generation.

The primary dependent DEFRs are storage batteries, pumped hydro dam complexes and Green Hydrogen systems. The primary independent DEFRs include hydroelectric dam systems, geothermal steam systems, biomass generation systems, wave energy systems, ocean thermal energy systems and small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).

Battery storage systems and pumped hydro storage systems are currently in use on a limited basis. Green Hydrogen is being pursued as a possible long-duration storage solution to cope with weekly, monthly, seasonal and annual renewable availability variations. However, current battery storage is extremely expensive and most suitable for short-term storage (2-4 hours). Pumped hydro systems are also expensive, but have faced strong resistance from citizen groups in the US. Green Hydrogen is the most complex potential storage solution, requiring sea water desalination, water hydrolysis, hydrogen compression, transmission and storage and either combustion turbine or fuel cell power generation resources.

The dependent DEFRs require the availability of surplus renewable electricity to be stored for later use. Their charging cycles are parasitic to the renewable grid. Battery systems have the highest round-trip efficiency (~95%) and thus require the least surplus energy per unit of delivery capacity. Green Hydrogen has the lowest round-trip efficiency of the dependent DEFRs (~50%) and thus requires nearly twice as much surplus energy per unit of delivery capacity.

Hydroelectric dam systems, geothermal generation and biomass generation are currently in use on the US grid, although they are currently used primarily to supply baseload generation rather than as DEFRs. There is strong environmentalist resistance to new hydroelectric dams and strong pressure to remove existing dam systems. The availability of natural geothermal steam sources is limited, though there is significant potential for expansion into dry hot rock geothermal with the application of hydraulic fracturing. Biomass generation is of questionable environmental benefit and its expansion is likely to be limited. There are numerous RD&D programs underway to develop small modular nuclear reactors which would be inherently safe and have the ability to load follow, which would make them ideally suited as DEFRs, assuming that the environmentalist resistance to new nuclear generation can be overcome and system costs can be reduced.

The independent DEFRs do not require the availability of surplus renewable electricity. In fact, the independent DEFRs would not require the existence of intermittent renewable generation to support a reliable grid. They effectively render the renewable generators redundant; and, redundancy is expensive.

Candor : unreserved, honest, or sincere expression : forthrightness : freedom from prejudice or malice : fairness

The proposed global energy transition to “all-electric everything” and Net Zero by 2050 is not unfolding as we were told it would. Rather, it is unravelling as many of us thought it would. Rising energy costs, declining energy reliability, fuel selection mandates, reduced freedom of movement, dietary changes and other real and perceived issues have spawned resistance to the transition. The lack of candor regarding the transition is palpable. It is clearly time for climate candor.

The UNFCCC and the IPCC need to be candid about the continued existence and influence of natural climate variation and include research into the causes of natural variation in their programs.

The IPCC Working Group authors need to be fair in including all relevant research in their evaluations, not just research which supports the consensus narrative.

The consensed climate science community needs to cease its efforts to prevent publication of climate research which does not comport with the consensus narrative.

The IPCC Working Group authors need to insist that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers is a real summary of the conclusions of the Working Groups and not a gross exaggeration describing the current situation as a “crisis” or “existential threat” of an emergency.

The UN Secretariat needs to tone down the “earth on fire” and “boiling oceans” rhetoric intended to scare the population into precipitous action.

NOAA and NASA need to justify why and explain how they repeatedly “adjust” historic temperature anomalies.

The renewable generation developers need to tone down the “cheapest electricity” rhetoric, acknowledge that their generation systems are redundant capacity and will remain so until hey are combined with sufficient storage capacity to render their generating capacity dispatchable.

Electric utilities need to clearly communicate their need for dispatchable capacity sufficient to meet current and projected future peak demand.

Electric utilities and their ISOs and RTOs need to clearly communicate to both government and regulatory agencies that existing coal and natural gas generation cannot be shuttered until sufficient alternative dispatchable generation has been commissioned to replace their generating capacity and accommodate growth in expected peak demand.

Electric utilities and their ISOs and RTOs need to clearly communicate that additional natural gas generation capacity might be necessary to accommodate peak demand growth if dispatchable renewable generation capacity is not connected to the grid rapidly enough to meet growing demand resulting from “all-electric everything”

Federal and state agencies responsible for the energy transition need to acknowledge that the Dispatchable Emissions-Free Resources (DEFRs) they are relying upon to supplement renewable generation do not exist and are therefore not currently available for deployment. These agencies also need to acknowledge that the future availability of these DEFRs is uncertain.

Federal and state agencies also need to acknowledge that DEFRs, if and when they become available, render intermittent renewable generation redundant capacity to the extent that they are employed as backup capacity to renewable generation.

Federal and state agencies need to acknowledge that the promise of reduced energy costs resulting from the energy transition is a fraudulent fantasy.

While the above actions need to occur in the interest of candor, it seems highly unlikely that they will occur before there is a major grid outage followed by a self-serving “blame game”.

A repetition of the “Six Phases of a Project” appears inevitable.