Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #569 • Watts Up With That?

The Week That Was: 2023-09-23 (September 23, 2023)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”— Richard Feynman

Number of the Week:12 hours, 20 minutes to Zero

THIS WEEK:

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Scope: The following topics will be discussed: In his opening remarks to the UN Climate Ambition Summit, during Climate Week NYC, UN Secretary-General António Guterres employed old-fashioned fire and brimstone. Writing for the CO2 Coalition, Burce Everett and Edward Hoskins discuss issues frequently ignored by advocates of Net Zero. UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is trying to delay the onset of Net Zero in the UK. The US Department of Energy made a modest effort to recognize that electricity storage is a problem that has not been addressed. Some observations from hearings on five-year electric power plans in Virginia.

******************

Green Fundamentalism: In the USA in the early 20^th century, particularly in the Southeast, fundamentalist religions were noted for revival meetings to inspire active members and gain converts. They would feature a preacher with sermons full of fire and brimstone, the threat of Hell or damnation. Based on his opening remarks at the Climate Ambition Summit in NYC on September 20, UN Secretary-General António Guterres thinks of himself as a revivalist preacher. He began:

“Our focus here is on climate solutions – and our task is urgent. 

Humanity has opened the gates of hell. 

Horrendous heat is having horrendous effects. 

Distraught farmers watching crops carried away by floods. 

Sweltering temperatures spawning disease.

And thousands fleeing in fear as historic fires rage. 

Climate action is dwarfed by the scale of the challenge. 

If nothing changes, we are heading towards a 2.8-degree temperature rise – towards a dangerous and unstable world. 

But the future is not fixed.

It is for leaders like you to write it. 

We can still limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5 degrees. We can still build a world of clear air, green jobs, and affordable clean power for all. 

The path forward is clear. 

It has been forged by fighters and trailblazers – some of whom are with us today:

Activists refusing to be silenced;” [Boldface added, temperatures in C]

It is doubtful that China, the world’s largest CO2 emitter, or the rest of BRICS who are using fossil fuels to free themselves from extreme poverty are impressed. Nor is anyone else who has knowledge of Earth’s changing temperatures. See links under Defending the Orthodoxy.

******************

Cold Water: Writing for the CO2 Coalition, oil market specialist Bruce Everett and architecture applied research specialist Edward Hoskins ask some serious questions which those participating in the UN revival ignore. In summary, they address:

“The climate policy debate has two components: scientific and economic. In terms of the science, people should ask the following questions:

• On what basis do climate activists refer to carbon dioxide (CO2), a life-giving molecule essential for all life on Earth, as “pollution”?
• Are the computer models which generate catastrophic climate scenarios reliable?
• Is it true that adverse events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfire, floods, ice melt, etc. are actually increasing or is our recent experience within the range of natural variation?

In terms of economics, people should ask:

• What is the role of energy in the economy?
• Who emits carbon dioxide in the world?
• What are the costs involved in actions to reduce CO2 emissions?
• What are the actual trends in energy use?

Others have addressed the scientific controversies in detail. This monograph will offer a primer on the economic landscape of CO2 and provide a basis for interested readers to ‘run the numbers’ and make up their own minds about the costs and benefits of proposed climate policies.’

After carefully addressing these issues with significant data, Everett and Hoskins conclude:

‘The two main sources of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are electric power generation and transportation.

Regarding electric power generation:

• Since electricity cannot be stored, modern electricity grids require a high proportion of dispatchable generating capacity. Too much intermittent power, like wind and solar, undermines the reliability and stability of the grid.

• When the costs of back-up capacity are included, wind and solar power are much more expensive than electricity generated by fossil fuels.

• The industrial countries are struggling to find a political balance between the need for a high-quality electricity grid and the demands of climate activists.

• In seeking this balance, politicians in the industrial countries will push renewable energy into the marketplace until they hit limits based on the voting public’s willingness to tolerate high costs, unreliable electricity supply and national security risks.

• The developing countries are growing their electricity grids rapidly with whatever local and affordable sources are available, mainly fossil fuels and hydro.

• The growth in renewable energy in the developing world is largely an artifact of international lending institutions responding not to the needs of the poor but to the political demands of wealthy countries.

Regarding transportation:

• Automobile ownership in the industrialized countries is reaching a plateau. In the developing countries, however, the driving age population is growing rapidly, and they will demand mobility.

• Gasoline-powered vehicles provide that mobility at the lowest cost and best performance.

• Powered by heavy subsidies, electric vehicles have made slight inroads in the U.S. and some other countries, but these vehicles remain much more expensive than gasoline-powered cars, and the numbers are still small.

• The high cost and limited performance of batteries are the main obstacles to further market penetration by EVs. Battery technology is likely to improve, but there is no guarantee that the improvement will be sufficient to allow widespread adoption of EVs.

• In the U.S., EVs are a niche market serving mainly upper middle-class males in California.

• Aviation is a high growth segment throughout the world, and there are no viable substitutes for jet fuel in the foreseeable future.

• Public transport remains a small part of total travel throughout the world. Even major increases in travel on public transit would have a negligible impact on CO2 emissions.

• The recently passed Infrastructure and Jobs Act and the proposed Build Back Better Act offer expensive, but largely symbolic carbon reductions in an effort to help President Biden fulfil his largely rhetorical 2030 promise.

• The current objective of the climate movement is ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050.

• The technology for carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) does not yet exist, implying that ‘net zero’ must be accomplished entirely by reductions in CO2 emissions.

• Climate politics are significant primarily in the industrial countries. The developing world ‘talks the talk’ primarily to encourage financial flows from the rich countries.

• None of the pledges made by the developing countries in the various climate agreements has yet been translated into real actions, and nothing in the numbers suggests any trend toward ‘net zero’ emissions.

• An ‘energy transition’ away from fossil fuels may happen, but there is no evidence that it is happening now.

• According to the latest projections by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the trends evident in the last 25 years are likely to continue. Specifically, the strong growth of CO2 emissions in the developing world will probably overshadow any actions taken by the industrial countries. Even if the industrial countries reduced their CO2 emissions to zero, total global emissions would still increase through 2050.

• The climate debate is not over pathways to ‘net zero’ emissions, but rather about whether to spend large amounts of money in order to achieve modest reductions in the rate of growth in CO2 emissions.” [Boldface in original]

The issue of vehicles is particularly appropriate. Henry Ford did not need subsidies or mandates to replace the polluting horse with the less polluting automobile. He offered a better, affordable product. Why do Ford Motor Company and other manufacturers need huge mandates and subsidies to replace the clean internal combustion engine with a slightly cleaner (ignoring mining requirements) and more expensive electric vehicles? See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

******************

Sensing the Wall: UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is scaling back the Net Zero policies the UK adopted after adopting the Climate Change Act of 2008 following statistical manipulations by an honored economist and the UN IPCC’s faulty Fourth Assessment Report (2007) showing acceleration of sea rise, false plunge of Northern Hemisphere snow fall, and false changes in physical and biological systems associated with false sharp increases in surface temperatures.

However, optimism expressed by some opponents of the Act may be premature. As Ben Pile wrote for Net Zero Watch:

“Rishi Sunak could not have done less to correct the Net Zero mess. But what he has done is a good thing. And it includes setting a trap for the eco-catastrophists. The more they howl and wail, the more they will expose their utter contempt for ordinary people.”

“It was the mildest possible reversal. It is in fact an attempt to save Net Zero, not roll it back.”

In correspondence, Cornwall observer Richard Courtney cautions against assigning political party or economic ideology labels to the issue (in the UK the Tory party is considered conservative and the Labor Party liberal). IPCC critic Courtney wrote:

1. “A UK (Tory) government created the political issue of ‘global warming.’

• After that, a succession of UK governments (both Tory and Labor) promoted the ‘climate nonsense’.

• Since the mid-1980s the British public has been subjected to a constant barrage of ‘climate nonsense’ from the BBC.

• Lack of opposition to the barrage has resulted in the bulk of the British public believing the ‘climate nonsense’.

• Clear evidence exists that members of the British public can be ‘converted’ to climate realism by exposure to the facts of the ‘climate nonsense’; e.g., to their surprise, Courtney, Morner, and Monkton won the ‘Climate Debate’ at St Andrews University.

• The next Labor government will not want to accept the costs of the ‘Net Zero’ project and may lack the ability to accept them.

• Points 1 to 6 suggest climate realists need to provide the Labor Party with evidence and arguments needed to justify the next Labor government postponing the ‘Net Zero’ project prior to ‘forgetting’ the project at a later time.

So, I think we need to provide the British Labor Party with selected (tailored?) information from CLINTEL, the CO2 Coalition, Ed Berry, etc. which the next Labor government can use to justify postponing the ‘Net Zero’ project. i.e., give the next Labor government an ability to do what we – and they will – want them to do.

Please remember that a change to UK government policy on ‘Net Zero’ is likely to disrupt the ‘climate nonsense’ everywhere because a UK government created the political issue of ‘global warming’ and a succession of UK governments (both Tory and Labor) have been the world leader of the ‘climate nonsense’ since then.”

[Boldface in original.]

In Western Europe, the issue covers political party distinctions and economic ideologies. But not so much in the US. See links under Questioning European Green.

******************

Storage: The Department of Energy announced the spending of $325 million for long-duration energy storage. The press release states:

“Funded by President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, these demonstration projects will increase community control of local power systems, mitigate risks associated with disruptions to the grid, and help communities develop reliable and affordable energy systems. Today’s announcement will help DOE realize its Long Duration Storage Shot goal of reducing the cost of LDES by 90% by 2030 and supports the Biden-Harris Administration’s efforts to advance critical clean energy technologies, expand the adoption of renewable energy resources, and strengthen America’s energy security.  

‘As we build our clean energy future, reliable energy storage systems will play a key role in protecting communities by providing dependable sources of electricity when and where it’s needed most, particularly in the aftermath of extreme weather events or natural disasters,’ said U.S Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm.”

“According to DOE’s Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: LDES report, cheaper, longer, and more efficient storage is needed to meet energy demand that fluctuates throughout the day and night. For example, solar power generated during the day could be stored for nighttime use or nuclear energy generated in low demand periods can be used when demand increases. 

The LDES Demonstrations Program, managed by DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), funds a range of different technology types intended to overcome technical and institutional barriers to full-scale deployment of LDES systems in diverse geographies and climates. Projects selected will feature a range of intraday (10 to 36 hours) and multiday (36 to 160+ hours) storage solutions, which can minimize the frequency and length of power interruptions caused by events such as severe weather or cyberattacks on the grid.’

At least some in Washington recognize we do not yet have the technology to turn off natural gas or coal-fired power plants. But there is no indication they have any understanding of the scale and the cost of long-term storage required. See links under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy – Storage.

******************

Green Dreams: This week, the Virginia State Corporation Commission held hearings on the five-year plans of Dominion Electricity and its subsidy Virginia Power on its 2023 Integrated Resource Plan. Having signed up to give oral testimony, Ken Haapala monitored part of the hearings. The hearings were continued to October 24. Two noteworthy observations were made: 1) many environmental groups do not understand the importance of carbon dioxide for green plants; hence for all life on Earth; and 2) local governments are promoting data centers which require massive amounts of highly reliable electricity, which many government officials have voted to undermine.

For example, experts for the Sierra Club emphasized the fabricated social cost of carbon (dioxide), apparently totally unaware that thanks to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide green life on this planet is flourishing. This is sad because some of the so-called experts are professors at major universities.

On the second issue, Loudoun County has become a data center for Virginia. Today, tax revenues from data centers account for more than 30% of Loudoun County’s operating budget. The equipment in data centers is very expensive, the counties tax centers and equipment, yet the data centers employ few people and do not strain government services. Properly zoned land prices in Loudoun are about two to three million dollars per acre. One of the first things planned and built in a new data center is an electric power substation. Typically, the substation is 100 megawatts, the planning costs are $200,000 to $300,000 and the construction costs are $20 to $30 million. Yet, many politicians in the state who desire such facilities voted for wind and solar power which cannot deliver the reliable electricity needed. See links under Energy Issues – US.

******************

Number of the Week: 12 hours, 20 minutes to Zero. Since Washington is seeking long term electricity storage solutions, it is useful to have a basic understanding of what is needed to replace reliable electricity from coal and natural gas with wind and solar. California has the greatest penetration of wind and solar in its electricity system of any state in the continuous 48 states, and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) posts supply (generation) and demand (consumption) data every 5 minutes and keeps records. California has far more solar power than wind power and has the highest residential electricity prices in the 48 states.

TWTW examined these records for the longest day of the year and the shortest day of the year. Ignoring nuclear and hydro power, on June 21, 2023, total renewables (wind and solar) exceeded natural gas generation and imports for 12 hours and 20 minutes. For about 20 minutes, power was available to recharge batteries. On December 21, 2022, total renewables never exceeded natural gas and imports and only matched natural gas generation for 2 hours and 30 minutes. At no time was any power available to recharge batteries. The batteries were recharged, but not by renewable power. No matter what type of storage is used, the system must be replenished or recharged – something that many organizations have difficulty understanding. See link under California Dreaming.

Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?

New Study: Earth Will Cool By 1°C Over The Next Decades Due To The Upcoming Grand Solar Minimum

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Sep 22, 2023