Tag Archives: renewable “green” energy

Alaska Energy Future Needs Informed Voters (gas, hydro under political assault)

From Master Resource

By Kassie Andrews 

“We do not have a gas shortage problem; we have a gas contract renewal ‘problem’ that the incumbents on the board refuse to address.”

“How can a board member do both: support green unreliable energy and meet their fiduciary responsibilities of lowest cost, highest reliability, best service, and safety?”

Chugach Electric Association members face politicized, expensive, and unreliable power options that are certainly not the fault of rich, local resources that have proven their worth for many decades. Only inaction in the face of nefarious “green” can make it happen. Will Chugach members wake up to what economists call the concentrated benefit/diffuse cost problem?

Radical green politicization of electric co-op boards has been a long time in the making, specifically for the 90,000 members of Anchorage-area Chugach Electric Association (CEA). Here is the latest.

‘Green’ Incumbents CEA Board

Sam Cason and Mark Wiggin, green incumbents on the CEA board, are endorsed by the Alaska Center.  The Alaska Center supports a carbon tax and is funded by the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which is managed by Arabella Advisors, the largest political dark money network in the country. The Alaska Center is advocating for the removal of the Eklutna Dam, Chugach’s single largest source of clean and firm renewable energy, accounting for 24% of the renewable energy portfolio and 5-6% of the total electricity for the Railbelt. 

The Eklutna Dam provides the lowest cost of firm power in the Southcentral region.  Aside from removing the lowest-cost clean energy, dam removal would affect Anchorage’s drinking water as 90% of the water comes from Eklutna Lake.

Cason and Wiggin are also endorsed by Renewable Energy Alaska Project (Renewable Energy Alaska Project, which is supported monetarily by National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a federally funded program with an annual budget of over half a billion dollars. NREL’s mission is heavily geared towards “Energy Justice,” aiming to convince folks that windmills and solar panels equate to equity and diversity.

According to the endorsement 

These two candidates have each shown their commitment to REAP’s mission of increasing the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency in Alaska throughout their time on the Chugach Board. And together they have pledged to address this Cook Inlet Gas Crisis in a transparent manner by diversifying Chugach Electric’s generation portfolio away from a dangerous dependency on natural gas towards a mix of local, reliable, stably-priced renewable energy sources.

Unfortunately for ratepayers, REAP has nothing to gain by advocating to keep clean, reliable, affordable power from Eklutna Dam. In fact, REAP stands to benefit from the removal of the dam under the proposal to deactivate “as soon as a different renewable energy source replaces the hydroelectric project’s output.”

Eighty percent (80%) of the power generation for CEA members is provided by natural gas. CEA has raised the red flag on dwindling gas supplies and the need to find “alternative sources” of energy to fill the gap. This “gap” is due to natural gas contracts expiring. New contracts need new provisions, an everyday practice. But green board members do not want to extend/renew natural gas contracts if their friends and current board members are all in the business of providing wind and solar solutions.

The conflict-of-interest at the expense of ratepayers is obvious. Unfortunately, the coop has decarbonization goals at odds with their primary duty of providing price-competitive, reliable power. The incumbents also reject proposals such as a coal plant with carbon capture as a policy of distraction and delay. Fair enough but proponents of wind and solar are engaged in just that.

We do not have a gas shortage problem; we have an economic problem that the incumbents on the board refuse to own. Instead, board members sit on their hands, allowing ENGOs to infiltrate our state government to draft and lobby legislation that will hold them harmless from liability for their terrible decisions to come. These ENGOs such as REAP are regularly invited to Juneau to testify on green bills enacting renewable mandates, central planning organizations, green banks, and to further subsidize and “level the playing field” for for-profit renewable independent power producers.

In turn, there is no one invited to testify as to the true economical impacts of this legislation. While these ENGOs such as REAP and Launch Alaska (energy transition accelerator) claim to be non-profit, they are implementing profiteering.

At the end of the day, the totality of the “all of the above” energy legislation that is cycling through our capital will result in no accountability from the boards that represent the rate payers, as well as higher costs – either the board members know this and do not care to represent ratepayers, or they are not paying attention. How can a board member do both: support green unreliable energy and meet their fiduciary responsibilities of lowest cost, highest reliability, best service, and safety? We are well on our way to becoming ratepayers without representation with a very expensive utility bill.

All of the Above = Bad

The “all of the above” approach to energy is a terribly misinformed mantra that is repeated at all levels, including by Governor Mike Dunleavy, who is the primary champion for all of these green policies.  When they openly tell us what their plans are, we should listen to and believe them. Including ALL power alternatives implies unreliable, very expensive, and environmentally destructive sources will be put on our grid. As physicist John Droz sagaciously asks:

How do we advance our economy and our society by allowing unreliable, expensive, and environmentally ruinous power sources on the grid? Who really benefits from an “All of the Above” policy? Well it certainly is not taxpayers, ratepayers, or the environment. The primary beneficiaries are foreign conglomerates who supply us with energy sources that are unreliable, expensive and environmentally devastating — plus China who we will owe an even larger debt to!  All of the Sensible is the obvious answer.”

Yes indeed, sensible options needed for the ratepayers, please.

Folks, if you like representation in your power co-op, we need to elect board members who are not driven by green politics and greed, and who are prepared and willing to do the job – no matter how tough it gets. What will it look like when Chugach members are battling with .45¢/kwh power rates and social justice billing? Will we be forced to eat it like Californians? 

Today we have an advantage over models in the lower-48 where we have representation and nonprofits that provide our power; it is ours to keep. It is through ignorance or corruption that our nonprofit energy infrastructure is being dismantled.

Election Opportunity

The incumbents believe decisions they are responsible for are better left up to the government, ENGOs and bureaucracies. As Alaskans, we’ve lived through this progressive reliance on government as it has become a costly impediment to our way of life and our freedoms. In this election, we have a unique opportunity to keep our representation and align it with our values as Alaskans. Neither candidate running against the incumbents are beholden to special interests – they see the train coming and their background, experience and dedication to transparency equip them to deal with our challenges ahead.

Dan Rogers is an engineer and business owner with decades of experience in improving power system reliability and cost.  Dan was once employed with Chugach and is the co-founder of one of the largest power system engineering companies in Alaska.  He has been involved in many projects including the firm and reliable Bradley Lake Project.  His clear-eyed take is that renewable projects can be done at Chugach, “but only if a dispassionate look is taken at the options available.”

Todd Lindley is an engineer and business owner with a firm understanding of economics, energy systems and many years of applying logic driven solutions.  Todd has an extraordinary breadth of experience at home in the United States and abroad in design and evaluation/risk scoring on projects large and small.  Todd has been actively involved in the study of carbon legislation and energy policy.  He brings a unique perspective to the electrical utility realm as so much of our firm power is reliant on the oil and gas industry where he has spent his career as a Mechanical Engineer.

Ballots are in the mail – Retrieve your election passcode from your ballot packet and vote online here through May 17th. Watch the Anchorage Chamber “Make it Monday” forum with the candidates here.

Kassie Andrews is a Principal at MasterResource who regularly comments on Alaska energy policy.

Climate Obsessed Democrats Demand an Oil Exploration Halt in the Middle of a Gasoline Price Crisis

UNITED STATES – JANUARY 31: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., speaks during the news conference to oppose the chained Consumer Price Index to cut benefits for Social Security and disabled veterans on Thursday, Jan. 31, 2013. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Who needs Gasoline?

Big oil privately acknowledged efforts to downplay climate crisis, joint committee investigation finds

Internal documents revealed by committee show companies lobbied against climate laws they publicly claimed to support

Dharna Noor Tue 30 Apr 2024 23.00 AEST

Big oil has privately acknowledged its efforts to downplay the dangers of burning fossil fuels, US Democrats have found.

Major fossil-fuel firms have also pledged support for international climate efforts, but internally admit these efforts are incompatible with their own climate plans. And they have lobbied against climate laws and regulations they have publicly claimed to support, documents newly revealed by the committee show.

The tranche of subpoenaed communications were unveiled on Tuesday morning by Democrats on the House oversight committee before a Wednesday hearing.

“For decades, the fossil-fuel industry has known about the economic and climate harms of its products but has deceived the American public to keep collecting more than $600bn each year in subsidies while raking in record-breaking profits,” said Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, who chairs the committee.

…

In a 2019 memo to the CEO, for instance, an Exxon official suggested removing reference to the Paris accord from a document because referencing it “could create a potential commitment to advocate on the Paris agreement goals”.

And in February 2020, BP announced plans to become a net zero emissions company by 2050 or sooner and to “help the world get to net zero”. Private emails sent months before, however, indicate that company top brass may have doubted that goal was achievable.

…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/30/big-oil-climate-crisis-us-senate-report

The demand for a halt to oil and gas exploration is contained in Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s committee report.

… Perhaps most telling, despite its previous statements supportive of the Paris Agreement, BP’s CEO announced earlier this year that the company would increase oil and gas production from 2024 through 2027, citing increased global demand for energy.94 The increase in production is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement. Scientists are clear that to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, new and expanded oil and gas exploration must stop immediately. 95 MSCI found in its “Implied Temperature Rise” ratings that, if BP’s business plan was extrapolated to the global economy, the world would warm 3.1°C—similar to Exxon’s and Chevron’s ratings and well above Paris Agreement targets.96 The documents, actions, and analyses suggest that BP’s stated commitment to the Paris Agreement is not credible.

Like its peer companies, Shell also first expressed support for the Paris Agreement in 2015 and now claims that it “supports the more ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit the rise in global average temperature this century to 1.5° Celsius. ”97 However, MSCI still estimates that, if extrapolated across the economy, Shell’s activities would be consistent with 2.3°C of warming.98 In 2021, Shell promised to undertake a gradual decline of about 1–2 % a year in total oil production through 2030, including divestments.99 Then, last summer, Shell announced plans to boost fossil fuel production. 100 It now states that oil and gas production will remain stable until 2030 and that it will invest $40 billion in fossil fuel production between 2023 and 2035.101 Shell’s current oil and gas expansion plans are inconsistent with the Paris Agreement. Despite originally pledging to reach net zero by 2050 for its total emissions consistent with the Paris Agreement, Shell now concedes that the “2050 target is ‘currently outside our planning period.’”102Read more: https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fossil_fuel_report1.pdf

Senator Whitehouse does make some valid points. I’m pretty disappointed by the behaviour of some oil companies, their weak mismanagement of this political confrontation with Democrats is doing nobody any good.

Whitehouse claims that Shell promised a 1-2% / annum drawdown in total oil production. I checked Senator Whitehouse’s reference to this promise, while this isn’t exactly what Shell said, I believe Senator Whitehouse’s interpretation of Shell’s public commitment is a reasonable interpretation, and I accept Senator Whitehouse’s criticism that some oil companies do not appear to have lived up to some of their public commitments.

But Senator Whitehouse’s claim that oil companies concealed their knowledge that climate change would have a catastrophic impact also does not stand up to scrutiny.

For example, Senator Whitehouse’s report rehashes tired claims about ancient internal memos, but the memos I have read in my opinion are not what Senator Whitehouse claims they are.

Read one for yourself.

1982_ExxonHerunterladen

The memo, and bear in mind this was a private internal memo, is anything but certain that climate change will have catastrophic impact. For example, at the bottom of Page 4, continuing to the top of Page 5.

“There is currently no unambiguous evidence that the earth is warming. If the earth is on a warming trend, we’re not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5° needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations. On the other hand, if climate modelling uncertainties have exaggerated the temperature rise, it is possible that a carbon dioxide induced “greenhouse effect” may not be detected until 2020 at the earliest”.

What is the next move in this ridiculous charade?

Obviously I’d like oil companies who have been trying to cosy up to the Democrats to up their game, stop leading politicians like Whitehouse with assurances they are onboard with Democrat climate initiatives, without following through on those assurances. This kind of behaviour severely weakens the position of oil companies, it makes oil companies look like liars. Such behaviour might even expose oil companies to legal liability, if green investors claim they suffered reputational damage because they were misled by false assurances that oil companies intended to switch to green energy.

But Senator Whitehouse’s apparent acceptance of claims that “new and expanded oil and gas exploration must stop immediately” as established fact is even more absurd than an oil company promising to get out of the oil business.

Senator Whitehouse, if you believe there is a viable alternative to fossil fuel, it is time for you to stop being such a hypocrite. If you truly believe oil and gas are on the brink of ruining the planet, that oil and gas companies are like tobacco companies, that renewables can replace oil and gas, then put your money where your mouth is, and push for an outright ban on oil and gas. Consult your scientists and tell us a hard deadline beyond which we cannot use oil and gas, and make that deadline law. Because without concrete action, all your words are just empty political posturing.

A Shockingly Inept Report From The IEA On Battery Storage Of Energy

From Manhattan Contrarian

From Francis Menton

In my self-designated role critiquing various schemes for total transformation of the world energy system, I get to review large amounts of poor, shoddy, and incompetent work. When people get into advocating for this “energy transition,” the stars regularly align to bring forth the most extreme levels of ineptitude. Start with the fact that the “smartest” people are filled with arrogance and hubris, but are not actually very smart. Add that many innumerate Politics and English majors have flooded into a field that cries out for engineering calculations. Add too that groupthink and orthodoxy enforcement prevent anyone from pointing out obvious flaws. And then throw in a strong dose of religious zealotry that obstructs the intrusion of anything resembling critical thinking. All in all, it’s a prescription for catastrophe.

But in a field rife with bad, worse, still worse, and even dangerously incompetent work, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen anything as shockingly inept as the Report just out from the International Energy Agency with the title “Batteries and Secure Energy Transitions.” The Report has a date only specified to the month of “April 2024,” but the press release came out just two days ago on April 25.

If I had been given the assignment by the North Koreans to write the Report to somehow induce the West to self-destruct, I don’t know how I would have done it differently.

Are you familiar with the International Energy Agency? It is not part of the UN, but rather a separate consortium currently of some 40+ countries, mostly Western and mostly rich, founded in the wake of the oil shocks of the 1970s with a then-goal of promoting energy security. It is based, of course, in Paris. The current (and since 2015) head is a guy named Fatih Barol. Here is a picture of Barol from Wikipedia:

Somewhere along the line the IEA completely lost track of the energy security mission, and turned into an unabashed advocate for the green energy transition. That’s where they are today.

I don’t know how many people work at the IEA, but it seems like most to all of them got in on writing this Report. On page 5 there is a list of some 35 “directors,” “lead authors,” and “principal authors” from among IEA employees, plus another 4 who provided “support,” and then, on pages 6 to 8, some 89 people said to be “high-level government representatives and international experts from outside of the IEA” who somehow “contributed to the process.” From the content of the Report, one has to wonder if any of these people ever completed the study of arithmetic at the sixth-grade level, let alone if any have read any of the important work in this area.

The thesis of the Report is that batteries, and particularly lithium ion batteries, are the key to the impending energy transition, and need to be scaled up massively and immediately with whatever amount of government subsidies and handouts that it takes. Here are a few quotes from the press release:

After their deployment in the power sector more than doubled last year, batteries need to lead a sixfold increase in global energy storage to enable the world to meet 2030 targets. . . . In the first comprehensive analysis of the entire battery ecosystem, the IEA’s Special Report on Batteries and Secure Energy Transitions sets out the role that batteries can play alongside renewables as a competitive, secure and sustainable alternative to electricity generation from fossil fuels. . . . IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol [said,] “Batteries will provide the foundations in both areas, playing an invaluable role in scaling up renewables and electrifying transport while delivering secure and sustainable energy for businesses and households.

I suppose it would be too much for me to expect these grandees to have read my energy storage report, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation in December 2022. But if you are claiming that you have at hand a “competitive, secure and sustainable alternative to electricity generation from fossil fuels,” as these guys are, there is a series of very obvious question that must be addressed. Those include:

  • Quantitatively, how much energy storage, in watt-hours (or gigawatt-hours) will be necessary to provide full back-up to a national electricity grid once all fossil fuel back-up has been banished and the storage is all that is available when the instantaneous generators are not supplying the full demand?
  • How much will that amount of storage cost?
  • What is the maximum length of time that energy must be held in storage before it is called upon, and is the proposed storage technology capable of the task of storing energy for that period of time?

There are other comparably important questions, but at least those are absolutely essential.

The IEA Report addresses none of them.

What we get instead is endless happy talk about the wonders of lithium ion battery technology, how the costs are falling rapidly, how deployments are soaring, and how utopia (i.e., meeting UN COP 28 emissions reduction targets) is right around the corner if only we accelerate the process with massive government “support.” The full Report is some 159 pages (with appendices and references), so I can only give you a small sample. But here are a few choice quotes from the Executive Summary:

  • From page 11: “Batteries are an essential part of the global energy system today and the fastest growing energy technology on the market. Battery storage in the power sector was the fastest growing energy technology in 2023 that was commercially available, with deployment more than doubling year-on-year.”
  • Also from page 11: “Lithium-ion batteries dominate battery use due to recent cost reductions and performance improvements. Lithium-ion batteries have outclassed alternatives over the last decade, thanks to 90% cost reductions since 2010, higher energy densities and longer lifetimes.”
  • From page 12: “Policy support has given a boost for batteries deployment in many markets but the supply chain for batteries is very concentrated. Strong government support for the rollout of EVs and incentives for battery storage are expanding markets for batteries around the world.” [For the obtuse among the readership, “policy support” is code for vast subsidies and handouts.]
  • More from page 12: “Batteries are key to the transition away from fossil fuels and accelerate the pace of energy efficiency through electrification and greater use of renewables in power.”
  • Still on page 12: “To triple global renewable energy capacity by 2030 while maintaining electricity security, energy storage needs to increase six-times. To facilitate the rapid uptake of new solar PV and wind, global energy storage capacity increases to 1 500 GW by 2030 in the NZE Scenario, which meets the Paris Agreement target of limiting global average temperature increases to 1.5°C or less in 2100. Battery storage delivers 90% of that growth, rising 14-fold to 1200 GW by 2030.”

Check out that last bullet point. Yes, they are so dumb that they discuss energy storage capacity in GW rather than GWh. How did they come up with the line that to reach their goals “energy storage needs to increase six-times” when they don’t even know the right units to do the calculations? You won’t find an answer in this Report. In my own energy storage report, I calculated that to reach a zero-emissions electricity sector that could get through a year without fossil fuel back-up would require increasing energy storage by something around 10,000 times. I used the correct units and showed how my calculations were done.

And how about the question of the length of time that energy must remain in storage to back-up a wind/solar powered grid, and whether the proposed technology is up to the task? In my own report, which only considered scenarios of getting through a single year, I showed that much of the stored energy would need to be held for 6 – 12 months before use. In a further blog post on September 28, 2023, I covered a new report then out from the UK’s Royal Society (described by me as “semi-competent”), which used 37 years of data. Based on the 37 years of data, that report concluded that hundreds of hours worth of grid peak usage would need to be held in storage for multiple decades in order to get through worst-case sun and wind droughts. I had this quote from the Executive Summary of the Royal Society report:

Wind supply can vary over time scales of decades and tens of TWhs of very long-duration storage will be needed. The scale is over 1000 times that currently provided by pumped hydro in the UK, and far more than could conceivably be provided by conventional batteries.

(Emphasis mine.). I’m ready to forgive these IEA guys for not being familiar with my own report, but not for complete ignorance of the Royal Society’s effort.

The entire discussion that I can find in the IEA Report on the problem of need for massive amounts of very long duration storage consists of a chart and one paragraph of text on page 47. Here is the chart:

And the text:

Iron air and other battery technologies that potentially could enable the storage of electricity over longer durations measured in weeks, are still in their infancy. Currently it is not clear whether those technologies can be developed so as to provide what is required in a cost-efficient way. For even longer duration storage, such as seasonal storage, battery technologies are not fit for purpose, and other mechanical, e.g. pumped storage hydro, and chemical, e.g. hydrogen storage, technologies need to be deployed.

So 90 plus percent of the storage needed to back up the intermittently-supplied grid needs to be stored for months and years, but the only battery technologies that can even last for “weeks” are things that are “in their infancy” and where it is “not clear” that they can be provided in a “cost-efficient way.”

Overall, a shockingly inept and embarrassing piece of work from the IEA. Undoubtedly our government will react by piling forth a few more hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize batteries to do a job for which they are completely “unsuitable.”

A Multi-Polar World at Risk

From Friends of Science Calgary

Executive Summary 

In the 1970s and 1980s, energy security meant assuring a stable supply of affordable oil and reduced vulnerability to the threat of embargos and price manipulations by exporters. Many of the measures introduced were aimed at reducing oil imports and exports, diversifying the sources of energy (and specifically oil) supply, increasing energy efficiency, establishing strategic oil reserves and imposing controls on the price of oil.


For most of the post-2000 period, the governments of the world have abandoned their energy security concerns as they shifted focus towards attaining the goals of climate policy. Most OECD governments are now voluntarily committed to work towards the so-called “net-zero” emissions goal by 2050.


A new set of security concerns is arising as a result. One of the central features of global efforts to reduce GHG emissions is their reliance on accelerating the production and deployment of five critical technologies: solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity, industrial wind turbines, batteries to store electricity in bulk, electrolysers for the production of hydrogen, and heat pumps. The International Energy Agency now reports frequently on the trends with respect to these technologies and advocates for policies that will increase their production and use. In 2023, the IEA published an Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP) Special Briefing intended to provide policy makers with “strategic insights” in this area.


Manufacturing operations are highly geographically concentrated: currently, four countries and the European Union account for 80-90% of global manufacturing capacity for the five clean technologies examined in this briefing. China alone accounts for 40-80% across these technologies. If all announced projects were to be realized, these shares would shift to 70-95% and 30-80% respectively.


China also has a major role in the production of some critical minerals that are used in the renewable energy sector and in batteries. It is the dominant player in global mineral processing, and its upstream control over raw commodities is also increasing. It refines 68% of the world’s nickel, 40% of the copper, 59% of lithium, and 73% of cobalt. As for minerals, it produces over 60% of the world’s vanadium and graphite, and 40% of the world’s molybdenum, aluminum, and lead. Rare earth elements over which China has a substantial hold over mining activity include 17 metallic elements, four of which – neodymium, dysprosium, praseodymium, and terbium -are of particular importance to “clean” energy technologies.


This is not an accident. China has achieved this manufacturing and market dominance as a result of clear and sustained policy signals and deployment targets in its Five-Year-Plans.


China’s state-owned and controlled companies are directed by the government (i.e. the Chinese Communist Party) to operate in ways differently than the privately-owned and operated firms in most OECD countries. China engages in trade that is based not solely or even principally on markets but on government protection and mercantilism. Mercantilism is a nationalist economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports for an economy. In other words, it seeks to maximize the accumulation of resources within the country and use those resources for one-sided trade. Their objective in trade is often to drive their higher cost competitors out of business, gain a near monopoly on supply, and then raise prices. They also can serve the broader strategic interests of the Chinese state.


Due to their climate policies, OECD countries are increasing their dependence on a single country for their future energy supplies. The concentration of supply capabilities in one country far exceeds what OPEC had in 1973. The fact that China is continually challenging western countries for geopolitical supremacy adds to the risks that it might use its domination of supply capability in future to unilaterally determine the supply and price conditions. In effect, OECD countries are endangering their own people. They are making China great again.

multi-polarworldatriskHerunterladen

Earth Day and 54 Years of Predictive Failures – The Climate Realism Show #107

On episode 107 of The Climate Realism Show, we look Earth Day 2024 and how it has been holding up as the poster holiday for the environmental left.

Since it was first started in 1970, dozens of predictions have been announced each Earth Day. For example, April 1970, Population Bomb author Paul Erlich was quoted as saying “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

Or, this gem. On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press said in an ominous article, “Rising Seas Could Obliterate Nations,” containing a jaw-dropping opener: “A senior UN environmental official (Noel Brown) says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”
Special guest Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com has been following these predictions for years, and will join us to provide his always interesting color commentary.

Join host Anthony Watts, Marc Marono, and The Heartland Institute’s usual climate crew of H. Sterling Burnett and Linnea Lueken, to talk about these failured predictions and also the Crazy Climate News of the Week. Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET (12 p.m. CT) for the kind of climate realism you can’t find anywhere else, and join the chat to get your questions answered, too.

EV, heat pump mandates just the tip of the iceberg

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin

Midsection of businessman stacking coins with electric car at wooden table

“Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Lord Acton

Modern governments are infected with the idea that they are anointed to squelch the desires of ordinary humans. To hold onto power, they force compliance – in even insignificant ways – with their whims. They try to crush anyone who speaks or acts against their power.

Here’s an unspoken truth. While it is true that governments have subsidized the rich who buy electric vehicles, heat pumps, solar panels, wind turbines, and other products, their motives are far from the altruistic myth they spread across even kindergarten classrooms. They are rubbing our faces in the mud, saying, “Gimme your lunch money, or you will be sorry!”

And they are not ashamed, even when their pet policies create great harm to their “subjects.”

In the United Kingdom, the very birthplace of the Magna Carta and the modern theory of the “rights of man,” the government has decided to ban tobacco products, phasing it in over time. This comes on top of a myriad of other diktats – electric vehicles, heat pumps, and multi-front assaults on traditional culture.

Elsewhere in Europe, governments are just as smugly arrogant. As part of a putsch to force 40 million Europeans to buy electric vehicles (up from 8 million today), governments offer bribes to auto buyers to force-feed a future EV monopoly. Even in tiny Malta, 50 million euros have been allocated to “help” 5,000 Maltese into total dependency on the electric grid.

In the United States, government has decided to ban the export of natural gas, impose electric vehicle mandates, ignore laws protecting endangered species in the name of “saving the planet,” attack the very foundations of liberty inscribed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and lock up those who resist and ignored their right to a speedy trial. Another mandate requires all new vehicles to have a government-controlled “kill switch.”

New York is now monitoring social media writings, collecting data, and using law enforcement to stifle expression it dubs as “hate speech.” As nearly everything from mathematics to Taylor Swift lyrics is now deemed by somebody as “racist,” it becomes clear that New York intends to suppress any opinion the monarchy does not like.

In Canada, the Prime Minister debanked truckers who fought for their jobs. Now, a new “Online Harms Act” would empower the government to put people in prison for life for “hate speech” (defined by them, of course). Talk about squelching freedom!

It’s not just the monarchy that wants to crush free people. In pre-pandemic 2019, The Atlantic “warned” that “Overtourism is destroying the planet.” Last year, The New Yorker made a new case against travel, asserting that “travel turns us into the worst version of ourselves while convincing us that we’re at our best.”

That is, of course, unless you were an Antifa rioter traveling from city to city to burn down buildings and assault the police. Or John Kerry and his merrie men out “saving the planet” on private jets.

Funny how this viewpoint dovetails with globalist demands for “15-minute cities,” which the BBC glowingly describes as a glorious model that “requires minimal travel among housing, offices, restaurants, parks, hospitals, and cultural venues.” Then there’s the push for per-mile highway taxes to further suppress private travel.

More people now see that would-be monarchs and their courtiers are hell-bent on forcing society to bend to their oft-misguided will. No wonder that anyone who challenges government power is tarred as a “right-wing extremist.”

American colonists rebelled against a 4 percent tea tax because the revenues were being sent to the monarchy. Today, much higher taxes are being extracted for earmarks, foreign “aid” that never helps ordinary people, and subsidies to the rich and powerful that harm average taxpayers.

The 2024 U.S. elections could be a referendum on the abuses of government power against the people – a vote up or down on the elitist control. Rest assured that the powerful will do all in their power to distract, obfuscate, and even encourage street violence to prevent any serious challenge to their rule. Consider how quickly House Speaker Mike Johnson became a mouse.

There is a budding revolt, even in once-free Britain. Evidence includes the fact that £173 million of a £300 million subsidy program for heat pumps to replace gas boilers remains unused after 2 years of the bribery scheme (only the rich took the money). Even new electric vehicle sales to private individuals fell by 14 percent last year despite government bribes and threats.

Eschewing Biden’s mandates, consumers cite marathon charging times, higher insurance rates, and benefits to China among their objections to being forced to abandon their 300 million cars and trucks just so their “leaders” can earn brownie points in Davos.

In what might be deemed a shocking development (a betrayal of her class), Rebecca Grynspan, secretary-general of the UN Conference on Trade and Development, admitted that “rich countries are using the green transition as an excuse to boost their own economies at the expense of developing ones, exploiting outdated WTO rules.”

Grynspan said developing countries see Biden’s “Inflation Reduction Act” and its European Union counterparts that subsidize domestic production of silicon chips, critical minerals, and green technology as “protectionist.”

She may as well have said “racist.” Developing nations are pressed to comply with EU- and UN-imposed “net zero” mandates via restrictions to trade, duties, and new taxes – all of which work against development of indigenous economies.

The massive wealth transfers to largely unregulated tech giants, the Big Three hedge funds (Black Rock, State Street, and Vanguard), and well-protected Big Pharma reveal just how much influence government has today over who wins and loses — and how the rich skew the game to their own advantage.

At the same time, leaders have brought the entire world to the brink of nuclear war.

A reckoning is coming.

Freedom that comes via oppression is only for the few.

The world today is crying out for freedom despite all the efforts of the monarchies and their courts to suppress and control the freedoms earned over centuries by those we once revered.

The battle is just now heating up.

As Coriolanus Snow might say, “Let the games begin.”

Tracking The Demise Of The U.S. Green Energy Transition

From The Manhattan Contrarian

Francis Menton

We’re coming up on three and a half years into the Biden presidency — a presidency which from the outset promised an “all of government” regulatory onslaught to force a transition away from fossil fuels and to “green” energy. And the regulatory onslaught has indeed come forth. But how about the actual transition in energy use? Not so much.

Let’s have a round-up of some recent data points.

On the regulatory onslaught front, on March 7, 2024 Thomas Pyle of the Institute for Energy Research put out a list of “200 Ways the Biden Administration and Democrats Have Made it Harder to Produce Oil & Gas.” The list is chronological, beginning with Executive Orders that Biden issued on his first day in office (January 20, 2021) and continuing right up to the date of the post. Yes there is some duplication and overlap in the list (e.g., separately listing multiple steps toward approval of a single regulation); but even with that, the sheer number of efforts to restrict, hamper, harass and extort fossil fuel producers is breathtaking. You will probably remember most of this stuff, but it’s remarkable to see it all put together in one place. By all means look through the full list, but meanwhile here is a small sample of the more significant items:

  • Item 1, January 20, 2021: “[C]anceling the Keystone XL pipeline.”
  • Item 2, also January 20, 2021: “[I]ssuing a moratorium on all oil and natural gas leasing activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”
  • Item 5, January 27, 2021: “{I}ssu[ing] an executive order announcing a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on public lands.”
  • Item 10, also January 27, 2021: By the same Executive Order, “promoting ‘ending international financing of carbon-intensive fossil fuel-based energy while simultaneously advancing sustainable development and a green recovery.’”
  • Item 14, February 19, 2021: “[R]ejoin[ing] the Paris Climate Agreement.”
  • Item 24, April 22, 2024: “[I]ssu[ing] the U.S. International Climate Finance Plan to funnel international financing toward green industries and away from oil and gas.”
  • Item 33, September 3, 2021: “[I]ssu[ing] a proposed rule that would update the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2024–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks to increase fuel economy regulations on passenger cars and light vehicles.”
  • Item 48, November 12, 2021: “[Issuing] New Source Review . . . regulations target[ing] new, modified, and reconstructed oil and natural gas sources, and would require states to reduce methane emissions from hundreds of thousands of existing sources nationwide for the first time.”
  • Item 66, February 18, 2022: “[Updating policy] for assessing proposed natural gas pipelines, adding new considerations for landowners, environmental justice communities, and other factors. In a separate but related decision, the commission also laid out a framework for evaluating projects’ greenhouse gas emissions.”
  • Item 75, March 21, 2022: “The SEC [issues a] proposed rule [that] would require public companies to disclose greenhouse gas emissions.”
  • Item 95, April 21, 2022: Climate Czar John Kerry announces, “We have to put the industry on notice: You’ve got six years, eight years, no more than 10 years or so, within which you’ve got to come up with a means by which you’re going to capture, and if you’re not capturing, then we have to deploy alternative sources of energy.”
  • Item 105, June 8, 2022: “President Biden’s Interior Department announced it will reduce the fees on renewable projects on federal lands after announcing recently that royalty rates and rents would increase as much as 50% for oil and gas projects on federal lands.”
  • Item 139, January 17, 2023: “Biden appointee [Richard Trumka] proposes ban on gas stoves.”
  • Item 152, April 12, 2023: “[Issuing] new rules to force electric Vehicles on Americans.  The New York Times notes that EPA is releasing rules that are intended to ensure that electric cars represent between 54 and 60 percent of all new cars sold in the United States by 2030 and 64 to 67 percent by 2032—in 9 years.”
  • Item 153, April 12, 2023: “[Issuing] new GHG emissions regulations for heavy duty vehicles.”
  • Item 156, May 15, 2023: “EPA proposes new regulations requiring power plants to reduce GHG emissions and require carbon capture and sequestration or hydrogen co-firing even though these are uneconomic technologies.”
  • Item 167, August 1, 2023: “EPA proposes updated greenhouse gas reporting requirements for the oil and natural gas industry.”
  • Item 171, August 7, 2023: “Biden proposed 236-pages of revisions to NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) guidance to make it harder to permit any natural gas, oil, or coal project.”
  • Item 180, October 27, 2023: “A proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule on hydrofluoric-acid-based alkylation could spur a round of refinery closures as the cost of replacing hydrofluoric acid based alkylation with alternatives is extremely high.”
  • Item 193, January 26, 2024: “Biden halts permitting for new LNG export facilities.”

That’s only 20 of the 200. There are plenty of other significant ones that I skipped over.

At the same time, the Biden Administration has dramatically ramped up subsidies and other favors and incentives for so-called “green” energy. The badly misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act” of August 2022 alone contained over $400 billion of subsidies and handouts to the green energy industry.

So with the double whammy of endless restrictions and harassment of fossil fuel producers, and subsidies for the wind and sun, undoubtedly oil and gas production must be shrinking rapidly? Not at all. In fact, domestic production of both has just recently hit all-time records. Here is a chart of U.S. crude oil production from the EIA, with data through January 2024:

Production reached an all-time record of 13.29 million bbl/day in December 2023, before having a small down-tick in January. The current production level is well over double where it was when Barack Obama took office in 2009. You really have to hand it to these oil and gas producers for somehow getting around whatever the government throws at them.

And here’s another chart from the same source showing natural gas production through December 2023:

From EIA: “U.S. natural gas production grew by 4% in 2023, or 5.0 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d), to average 125.0 Bcf/d, according to our Natural Gas Monthly.” There had also been increases in 2023 and 2022.

Well, but surely the transition to electric vehicles is taking off? Maybe — but the latest data would seem to indicate that the electric vehicle market is suddenly in big trouble. For an overview, Robert Bryce has a long post at his Substack today, titled “Tesla In Turmoil: The EV Meltdown In 10 Charts.” You may know that Tesla has just announced that it is laying off 10% of its workforce. Bryce concludes: “I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it one more time: Electric vehicles are The Next Big Thing, and they always will be.”

Here’s a chart not from Bryce, but from Statista, on Tesla sales by quarter:

Does it seem that Tesla is going gangbusters? It does until you look closely. Tesla sold 485,000 cars in 4Q 2023, and only 387,000 in 1Q 2024. That’s rather a sudden and dramatic decline. Elsewhere in the EV biz, the story is the same. From Cox Automotive, April 11:

Sales [of EVs in the U.S.] in Q1 rose 2.6% year over year, but fell 15.2% compared to Q4 2023.

Do these declines represent a one-quarter blip, or an accelerating trend. I’m betting with Bryce that this is the trend. My prognosis is that the EV market is close to saturated. I have no interest in buying one of them, let alone paying a premium to do it. Do you? But meanwhile the large automakers (except Toyota) have all made big, big bets that the government can make its mandates stick. If consumers don’t go along, this could be the end of Ford and GM, let alone Audi, Mercedes and BMW. Tough luck, guys.

Our current rulers think that they have infinite ability to tell the people how to live, and infinite money to force the people to change their ways. They are wrong, and reality will catch up to them, if only gradually.

No Care & No Responsibility: Massive Subsidies Only Reason Wind & Solar ‘Industries’ Exist

From STOP THESE THINGS

Sun’s up, wind’s blowing and wind and solar power is flowing. Wind drops, Sun sets and you’re on your own. The so-called wind and solar ‘industries’ couldn’t care less whether you’re left freezing in the dark. Your power supply is somebody else’s problem.

In this three-part essay, Edward A Reid Jr targets the unhealthy relationship between (witless) governments and (ruthless) crony capitalists as they have come to dominate the energy domain over the last 20 years.

Government Responsibility
The Right Insight
Edward A Reid Jr
6 February 2024

Government, at all levels, apparently believes that its responsibility in the proposed energy transition is to establish the goals, set the timeline, pick the winning technologies and incentivize their market adoption. This perception led to Net Zero by 2050, all-electric everything, wind and solar generation, electric vehicles and a variety of incentives, subsidies and mandates. Would that life were so simple.

First, the goal of Net Zero by 2050 would require a complete revision of the energy system over a period of 27 years, a very short period of time for such a major change. Fortunately, both the goal itself and the accelerated timeline are unnecessary, but unfortunately, they are being pursued anyway, driven by politics rather than science.

Second, the technologies picked as the winners (wind, solar and EVs) are not winning technologies for a variety of reasons: wind and solar are intermittent generators which have low capacity factors compared with coal, natural gas and nuclear generation. They therefore require either continued support from conventional generation or support from electricity storage which is not available for the storage and discharge durations required to assure a reliable grid. Government assumes that the required storage technology would evolve, though it would be needed in the very short term. Also, wind, solar and storage, including EV batteries, all depend on the availability of several rare earth minerals which are not currently produced in the US, are not globally available in the quantities which would be required and are currently controlled globally by unfriendly nations.

The transition to all-electric everything in the residential and commercial markets would be relatively straightforward from a technology standpoint, since all of the technology already exists. However, the conversions are expected to encounter significant installation issues which would add to the expense. The transition to all-electric everything in the industrial market would be far more difficult, since there are no commercial electric technology approaches available for many industrial processes. Government assumes that the required industrial technologies would evolve.

The transition to all-electric everything would require an approximate tripling of the capacity of the electric grid from generation capacity through transmission and distribution. Government has erected numerous barriers which would significantly hinder this massive, rapid expansion particularly in transmission. Transmission project approvals currently require 10+ years, longer if delayed by lawsuits. Government could streamline this process, but so far has not seen fit to do so.

Tripling of real generation capacity would require an approximate 9-12 times increase in wind and solar rating plate capacity because of their low capacity factors. Wind and solar capacity additions would also require long approval times, especially if challenged in court. This issue is compounded by the requirement for storage technology which is not currently commercialized.

Government has promoted the notion that wind and solar generated electricity is cheaper than electricity from conventional generation. However, to assure a reliable grid, wind and solar generation must be dispatchable, which means that they must be coupled with storage adequate to assure their availability to meet peak demand. The combined requirement for multiples of rating plate capacity plus storage to achieve dispatchability assures that wind and solar generated electricity would be more expensive than conventionally generated electricity, driving up electric rates.

Finally, government must address a satisfactory approach to providing emergency generation in the event of grid outages for hospitals, nursing homes and rehabilitation facilities, prisons and other facilities which cannot be without power. These generators are typically fueled with natural gas, propane or diesel fuel, none of which are compatible with a Net Zero energy economy.

Currently, government is forcing pursuit of a goal without a plan based on unsuitable or non-existent technologies. Government is responsible for this situation, but would be unlikely to accept responsibility for its adverse impacts.

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. -Ronald Reagan
The Right Insight

Renewables Responsibility
The Right Insight
Edward A Reid Jr
13 February 2024

The renewable energy industry apparently believes that its responsibility in the proposed energy transition is take maximum advantage of federal and state subsidies, incentives, preferences and mandates by installing as much generating capacity as the industry participants can finance and get connected to the grid. The industry also believes that the grid should accept all of its output whenever it is available. The opportunity the industry perceives is the result of Net Zero by 2050, all-electric everything, and the selection of wind and solar as the winning technologies. Would that life were so simple.

The renewable energy industry believes that it should be free to install its generation facilities at whatever locations and that the operators of the existing electric utility grid should be responsible for extending the grid to their facilities.

The renewable industry is aware that the output of its facilities varies minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month, season-to-season, and year-to-year. The industry believes that it is the responsibility of the grid operator to smooth renewable generation output, to fill in the gaps when the generators are not operating, and to manage the generation of the difference between the available renewable energy and the contemporaneous demand on the grid.

The renewable energy industry is aware that the electricity it generates displaces energy which would otherwise have been generated by the conventional generators which serve the grid. The industry also recognizes that this displacement reduces the cumulative output and the revenues of the conventional generators, including utility owned generation. The renewable energy industry believes that this is not their problem; and, realizes that it actually benefits their industry by increasing the prices the conventional generators must charge to remain profitable, and thus the prices paid for their renewable energy as well.

The renewable energy industry is aware that, as conventional generators leave the grid as renewable generation increases, conventional generators age out or are required to cease operation by government edict or because their operation has become uneconomic, the gaps in renewable generation would have to be filled by withdrawals from electricity storage systems. The industry also realizes that the transition from conventional generation backup to storage backup would create demand for additional renewable generating capacity. The industry accepts no responsibility for the need for electricity storage to provide a stable and reliable grid.

The renewable energy industry understands that the expansion of intermittent generation of the electric utility grid adversely affects grid stability and reliability and complicates the effective management of the grid. However, the industry accepts no responsibility for these issues and places that responsibility solely on the grid operators.

The renewable energy industry also holds the grid operators responsible for the fact the  industry cannot get new renewable generating capacity connected to the grid as rapidly as it would like. Difficulties with receiving regulatory approvals for transmission grid expansion is viewed as not being the renewable energy industry’s responsibility.

FERC, NERC and several ISOs and RTOs have recognized the potential reliability issues facing the grid and have become more vocal regarding the need for caution as the energy transition proceeds.
The Right Insight

Grid Responsibility
The Right Insight
Edward A Reid Jr
20 February 2024

Previous commentaries (Renewables Responsibility and Government Responsibility) dealt with the government and renewables industry perceptions of their responsibilities regarding the proposed energy transformation.

Government, at all levels, apparently believes that its responsibility in the proposed energy transition is to establish the goals, set the timeline, pick the winning technologies and incentivize their market adoption. This perception led to Net Zero by 2050, all-electric everything, wind and solar generation, electric vehicles and a variety of incentives, subsidies and mandates.

The renewable energy industry apparently believes that its responsibility in the proposed energy transition is take maximum advantage of federal and state subsidies, incentives, preferences and mandates by installing as much generating capacity as the industry participants can finance and get connected to the grid. The industry also believes that the grid should accept all of its output whenever it is available. The opportunity the industry perceives is the result of Net Zero by 2050, all-electric everything, and the selection of wind and solar as the winning technologies.

The overall responsibility of the utilities, which own and operate the grid and much of the generating capacity which feeds the grid, and the ISOs and RTOs through which they coordinate their generation and transmission operations, is to assure reliable and economical electricity service. Their operational and financial performance are overseen by state utility commissions and consumers’ counsels.

The utilities are required to connect non-utility generators to the grid. Conventional non-utility generators have historically been subject to economic dispatch. However, the proposed energy transition has changed this process by requiring that the output of connected renewable generators, which cannot be dispatched at will, be taken whenever it is available and supplemented by electricity dispatched from both utility and non-utility generators to meet the contemporaneous demand on the grid. In situations in which the renewable generator output exceeds demand, the grid operators would be expected to store the excess electricity for later use.

As the fraction of subsidized renewable generation connected to the grid increases, the output of the conventional generation to the grid decreases, reducing the revenues to those generators and increasing the rates they must charge to remain profitable. However, the intermittency of the renewable generation requires that the conventional capacity remain operating, even at zero net output, to supply the grid demand when the renewable generation declines significantly or is unavailable. However, conventional generation is being retired far more rapidly than renewable generation is being added to the grid, reducing the capacity reserve margin available to meet peak demand and threatening grid stability and reliability.

The grid operators, which typically connected a relatively small number of relatively high-capacity dispatchable generators, are now required to connect a relatively large number of relatively low-capacity non-dispatchable generators, spread over a far larger geographic area. As the energy transition proceeds, the number of relatively low-capacity non-dispatchable generators would increase dramatically, rendering the continued operation of conventional generation uneconomical. Fossil fueled conventional generation would also be driven from the grid by government edict.

When the rating plate capacity of the connected renewable generation exceeds the capacity of the conventional generation, the grid operators would be required to add dispatchable electricity storage to the grid to satisfy grid demand when renewable generation is unavailable or inadequate. This storage capacity would be recharged using surplus renewable electricity when available, supplemented by conventional generation while available. However, as the conventional generation is retired, additional grid storage capacity would be required, and additional renewable generation capacity would be required to assure that grid storage capacity is charged and available as required.

The grid scale storage required by the energy transition is currently either extremely expensive (short duration) or unavailable (medium to long duration). This would make the grid operators’ responsibility to ensure reliable and economical electricity service very difficult to fulfill.

Finally, there has not been a successful demonstration of a stable and reliable renewable plus storage grid, so there remain questions about whether the grid operators’ responsibilities could be fulfilled.
The Right Insight

“We need to be honest”: Building Renewables is Expensive

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Establishment energy players wriggling on the hook of their own flawed green energy narratives.

Your power bills are going up, according to one energy boss. Here’s why

By national regional affairs reporter Jane Norman

You came here for truths and straight talk, so, here’s a doozy.”

Standing on stage at the National Press Club — being beamed live into offices and lounge rooms across the country — one of Australia’s top energy bosses was preparing to say what few in the industry will acknowledge publicly.

Jeff Dimery — CEO of Alinta Energy — looked up from his notes on the lectern and delivered the promised doozy to the audience.

“Australians will have to pay more for energy in future,” he says.

“We need to be honest about that.“

…

Yes, renewables are the “lowest cost, new form of generation”.

But building the wind and solar farms at the scale required to replace coal, together with the batteries needed to store the power, and the new network of transmission lines to distribute that power to consumers will involve tens of billions of dollars’ worth of investment.

The Australian Energy Market Operator’s own figures suggest the transition will cost around $383 billion between now and 2050.

When asked who pays, Dimery replied: “it all comes from consumers, whether through the bill directly or through the tax base.“

…Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-12/power-prices-to-rise-in-clean-energy-transition/103696450

This is a big change from previous claims that renewables would bring down near term prices.

Electricity prices predicted to fall as renewable supply increases, gas price falls

Posted Mon 21 Dec 2020 at 5:32am

Key points:

  • Electricity prices are expected to fall by 9 per cent over the next three years
  • More renewable energy production is behind the fall
  • Power prices in Canberra are predicted to buck the trend

Household electricity bills are expected to fall by 9 per cent over the next three years as more renewable generation joins the grid.

A new report by the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) predicts all states in the National Electricity Market — NSW, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania — will have lower energy prices in 2023.

The residential electricity price trends report 2020, published by the advisory body today, projects the ACT will have a slight rise in electricity prices over the next three years.

…

The report says the main reason for the drop is lower gas prices and the introduction of new sources of energy generation like solar and wind.

It also says network costs and environmental costs are falling, too, although they contribute less to the overall reduction.

…Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-21/electricity-prices-expected-to-fall-as-renewable-supply-increase/12999538

It is not just the ABC. The AEMO, the industry body tasked with regulating the East Coast Australian energy grid, has also frequently added to the confusion about the true cost of renewables;

Renewables push NEM electricity prices down to historical levels

23/10/2023

AEMO’s latest Quarterly Energy Dynamics report shows that wholesale electricity prices averaged $63 per megawatt hour (MWh) in the September quarter, down 41% from the June quarter ($108/MWh) and 71% ($216/MWh) from Q3 2022.

By region, South Australia recorded the highest average quarterly price at $92/MWh, followed by New South Wales ($81/MWh), Queensland ($65/MWh), Victoria ($49/MWh) and Tasmania ($29/MWh).

Total electricity supply by fuel type saw renewables (wind, grid-scale and rooftop solar, hydro and other sources) contribute 38.9% of total supply, up 4.6%, while black coal’s share fell 3.4%, primarily due to the Liddell Power station closure, and gas fell 2.3%. Brown coal’s market share increased 1%, mainly due to fewer unplanned outages.

AEMO Executive General Manager Reform Delivery, Violette Mouchaileh, said that the growing influence of renewables in the NEM was apparent in the warmer September quarter as prices returned to historical levels.

“Record renewable generation output helped push down average wholesale electricity prices by more than two-thirds, double the occurrence of zero or negative wholesale prices (19%) and reduce total emissions by 11% compared to the previous September quarter,” Ms Mouchaileh said.

“Renewables also supplied a record 70% of total energy used over a half-hour period, with rooftop solar contributing 39%, again highlighting the likely benefit from coordinating rooftop solar and home batteries.

…Read more: https://aemo.com.au/newsroom/media-release/renewables-push-nem-electricity-prices-down-to-historical-levels

There is no excuse for this confusing messaging about prices. Renewables were always going to be expensive. It was up to the industry oversight body to keep people informed. Does leaving out the bit about how much renewables cost seem like a reasonable effort to keep people informed?

According to the AEMO “Who we are” page, “… AEMO provides the detailed, independent planning, forecasting and modelling information and advice that drives effective and strategic decision-making, regulatory changes and investment. …”. Do articles like the fluff piece above, which somehow fails to mention that any renewable driven cost reduction is temporary, that someone has to pay for all the green infrastructure, does any of this seem like the AEMO is adequately discharging its duty to provide independent advice?

$383 billion is just under $15,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia, or $39,000 for every working person in Australia, just to pay for initial construction. All those extra transmission lines and renewable systems will have to be maintained, at a cost of billions of dollars every year in addition to the cost of maintaining existing infrastructure.

Australia’s peak demand was 31GW in 2023-24, serviced by a capacity of 55GW. According to Wikipedia, the capital cost of building new coal capacity is US $4,074 / Kw to around $1,201 / Kw for gas.

Isn’t climate change supposed to create superstorms and violent weather? If say a big hail storm comes along and wrecks a vast acreage of solar panels, as happened last year in Nebraska, well that will have to be paid for as well.

What are the alternatives to renewables?

Underinvestment in Australia’s energy infrastructure has left most of it in a decrepit state. Lets assume for a moment we have to replace it all.

55GW x 1000000 (convert to Kw) x $4074 = US $224 billion to completely replace all of Australia’s coal capacity with coal. Multiply by 1.54 to get Australian dollars, and you have $345 billion – well short of the $383 billion Energy CEO Jeff Dimery estimated for renewables. If the coal plants use brown coal, which has zero value except as fuel to be shovelled into an adjacent generator, that is a saving of $38 billion in capital costs, + the system does not incur higher transmission line maintenance charges, and a massive cost every time. We save at least $38 billion, and since coal is dispatchable, we wouldn’t have to panic every time the wind dies.

And of course there is the very real risk the $383 billion costing is a massive underestimate. A lot of rather arbitrary assumptions go into calculating such numbers, such as the battery capacity required to accomodate renewable intermittency. Extreme excursions from normal weather conditions such as season long wind droughts over large geographical regions occur often enough to be a problem.

Even when the power doesn’t completely fail, economically damaging spikes in electricity prices can devastate the finances of energy intensive businesses. No energy intensive business can afford $5000 / MWh on a regular basis.

Hands up who still thinks renewable energy sounds cheap? How many people who voted for this train wreck of a left wing green government fell for their dubious claim that renewables would bring down prices? How many voters knew the true cost of green energy, before they cast their vote?

Green energy is a bottomless money pit, always was, always will be. It is time for politicians to be honest with voters, and put a stop this colossal waste of taxpayer resources, before they burn even more money for no benefit.

How Green Energy and EVs endanger America

** FILE ** Cars try to navigate their way through New York City during a blackout that hit U.S. and Canadian cities in this Aug. 14, 2003, file photo. A year after the nation’s worst ever blackout, utilities have made improvements and New York has spent millions of dollars on new high-tech gadgets to avert the chaos that followed. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II, File)

from CFACT

By Larry Bell

Color scale with arrow from red to green. The measuring device icon. Risk level indicator. Colorful infographic gauge element. 3D rendering

This article draws upon narratives and information in the author’s book Cyberwarfare: Targeting America, Our Infrastructure, and Our Future, Stairway Press, 2020.

Consider some inescapable self-inflicted scenarios from hell that government “experts” never warned you about regarding utopian visions of carbon-free vehicles powered by friendly breezes and sunbeams.

So, imagine it’s one of those warm, beautiful days when the first news breaks about a big hurricane or tropical storm heading your way.

You immediately begin thinking about stocking up on food supplies that don’t require refrigeration and charging up your electric plug-in to get out of town in a hurry if necessary … just like, it seems, everyone else is doing.

Or maybe, with no warning, “poof,” all power goes off because the grid is down for suspicious reasons no one fully understands or can inform you about.

As it turns out, a foreign adversary cyberattack precludes either of those previous options, plus an added problem.

Along with knocking out all power transformers, the malign hackers also took remote control of both autonomous and operator-controlled electric vehicles, jamming exit highways with colossal human and metal crash wreckage.

In both cases, it’s already too late.

In the first scenario, there isn’t enough available electrical power to serve the broad hurricane zone. It has been in dangerously short supply since millions of EV cars and trucks have been added to an ancient grid that has depended upon natural gas turbines to balance fluctuating wind and solar loads.

It seems that shutting down those fossil companies through “net-zero” carbon policies didn’t prevent extreme weather after all.

Instead, extreme ideological EPA policies such as imposing costly, useless carbon capture requirements on those natural gas producers prevented energy companies from economically competing with heavily government-subsidized “green” fantasies.

A March 2024 ruling adding heavy-duty trucks to its original all-electric light vehicle mandate dealt another crushing drain on already slim power margins: each one of them consuming seven times as much electricity on a single charge as a typical daily home.

Sadly, your plug-in has no plug with any juice due to emergency rationing necessary to support medical care facilities and other critical services. And forget about any hopes of using municipal or commercial recharging stations, which have the same problem.

The situation soon becomes more expansive and dangerous as high winds have downed long transmission lines connecting remote wind and solar sites to the grid, sparking massive fires and extending regional power outages.

Deluges of rain have flooded metropolitan centers and small lowland communities, making them inaccessible for emergency rescue by now-useless electric ambulances, fire trucks, and police vehicles with depleted batteries.

Downed trees collapse local power lines, further blocking access and operations of similarly stranded maintenance crews.

Even then, circumstances could have been much worse with cyber scenario two.

Neighbors and friends with battery backup radios finally inform you that one of three power grids serving the entire nation has been disabled by hackers of unknown geographic origin, with transmission connections to the other two intentionally switched off to prevent universal overload collapse.

Darkness soon descends everywhere around you except where backup energy generators temporarily powered by batteries and purloined natural gas provide isolated pockets of light that are soon extinguished as well.

Hospitals are rapidly losing limited generator-supplied electricity to operate life-critical equipment. Meanwhile, primary power can’t be restored any time soon due to melted power transmission lines and damaged turbines at the few remaining conventional fossil and nuclear power plants.

Supplies of clean water are being depleted as well.

Whereas metropolitan areas with high water towers atop high-rise buildings will have enough gravity flow to supply most basic living needs for, at best, a few days, when that runs out, taps will go dry, toilets won’t flush, and emergency supplies of bottled water will become exhausted.

Mountains of uncollected waste, including human biological material, soon create a previously unimaginable unsanitary health crisis.

If you are fortunate enough to live within walking distance of a nondepleted grocery, plan to use cash because the credit card system won’t be operative. Ditto, any ATM machine.

In any case, those stores can’t be restocked because of stranded EV long-haul and local delivery trucks.

Meanwhile, police and fire responses who are busily engaged in rescuing people trapped in elevators and other emergency services have also become overwhelmed by widespread store looting by desperately hungry individuals and families.

As tens or hundreds of millions of others over many states share such chaotic dilemmas, there is no way of predicting when power will be restored. And whereas present weather and temperature conditions may be moderate, many of these regions – including yours – anticipate a coming winter home heating crisis that will put countless lives at risk.

There are few opportunities for people to leave for warmer climes. Personal EVs are useless, as are commercial EV buses and moving vans.

Contemplating either of such avoidably catastrophic scenarios might provide cause to seriously doubt those government experts who continue to warn us of climate change and extreme weather being our greatest threat, with the solution being to load our ancient, cyberattack-prone power grids with weather-dependent energy systems overloaded with voracious EV electricity consumption.

No, climate change isn’t nearly as great as the threat presented by their own policies, with the best solution of all…powerful winds of regime change sanity blowing through November voting booths before it is too late.

This article originally appeared at NewsMax