Author Topic: Energy Politics & Science  (Read 652833 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19162
    • View Profile
Destroying the Myth of cheap wind and solar
« Reply #1300 on: April 04, 2024, 03:26:18 PM »
https://www.americanexperiment.org/how-to-destroy-the-myth-of-cheap-wind-and-solar/

https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2024/04/Screenshot-2024-04-03-at-5.39.26-PM.png

[LCOE Levelized Cost of Energy is a measure that includes some costs and omits others in order to show a desired, misleading result.]

LCOE estimates can make wind and solar look cheap, so long as you ignore most of the costs of integrating them on to the grid and backing them up.

Comparing LCOEs makes sense when examining reliable, dispatchable power plants because these power plants can be turned on or off to meet electricity demand. It makes very little sense when you start including intermittent and weather-based energy sources that don’t provide the same value as thermal generators.

The intermittency of wind and solar imposes unique expenses on the electric grid that require an evaluation of the entire electric system in order to derive meaningful cost estimates from these generators. This is difficult to do, which is why most people don’t do it.

Our modeling attempts to provide this apples-to-apples comparison of running a reliable grid with dispatchable energy sources like coal, natural gas, and nuclear versus that of intermittent facilities like wind and solar. In every case, the answer is clear: wind and solar are by far the most expensive.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
Re: Destroying the Myth of cheap wind and solar
« Reply #1301 on: April 04, 2024, 05:01:14 PM »
https://www.americanexperiment.org/how-to-destroy-the-myth-of-cheap-wind-and-solar/

https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2024/04/Screenshot-2024-04-03-at-5.39.26-PM.png

[LCOE Levelized Cost of Energy is a measure that includes some costs and omits others in order to show a desired, misleading result.]

LCOE estimates can make wind and solar look cheap, so long as you ignore most of the costs of integrating them on to the grid and backing them up.

Comparing LCOEs makes sense when examining reliable, dispatchable power plants because these power plants can be turned on or off to meet electricity demand. It makes very little sense when you start including intermittent and weather-based energy sources that don’t provide the same value as thermal generators.

The intermittency of wind and solar imposes unique expenses on the electric grid that require an evaluation of the entire electric system in order to derive meaningful cost estimates from these generators. This is difficult to do, which is why most people don’t do it.

Our modeling attempts to provide this apples-to-apples comparison of running a reliable grid with dispatchable energy sources like coal, natural gas, and nuclear versus that of intermittent facilities like wind and solar. In every case, the answer is clear: wind and solar are by far the most expensive.

An understandable and damning piece, Doug. Any idea what the difference between “natural gas CC” and “natural gas CT” is? Substantial cost difference shown in the graph and I’m trying to account for it.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19162
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1302 on: April 05, 2024, 07:23:02 AM »
I had the same question while posting that.

From the links below:
"Natural gas can be burned to produce electricity in a traditional combustion turbine (CT) power plant or a more modern and efficient combined cycle (CC) power plant.

A combined cycle power plant is a modern electrical generating plant that captures the energy from burning natural gas in two ways.

First - the gas turbine burns fuel and generates electricity:
The gas turbine compresses air and mixes it with fuel.
The mixture is ignited, creating an explosion that propels the very hot gas through the turbine.
The hot gas spins the gas turbine blades which rotates the turbine shaft.
The fast-spinning turbine shaft drives a generator that converts the spinning energy into electricity.
Second - the steam turbine utilizes the waste heat from the gas turbine exhaust that would otherwise escape through the exhaust stack to create additional electricity:
A heat exchanger captures exhaust heat from the gas turbine and boils water to create steam.
The steam spins the steam turbine blades which rotates the turbine shaft.
The steam turbine shaft drives a generator that delivers additional electricity.
This is the most efficient type of fossil fuel power plant. By combining these two systems, the overall net efficiency of the combustion process can be increased by 50 - 60 percent. Thus, from an overall efficiency of about 35% in a single cycle system one can achieve to an overall efficiency of 50-60% in a combined cycle system.

Either a single shart or multiple shaft configuration can be used for the combined cycle plant. In a single shaft system, the gas and steam turbines turn a common shaft with a single generator. This is the most efficient configuration. However, in larger plants it is more economical to have multiple gas turbines and a single steam turbine.

For large-scale power generation, a typical gas/steam turbine set would be a 270 MW gas turbine coupled to a 130 MW steam turbine giving a total of 400 MW. A typical power plant might consist of between 1 and 6 such sets. GE currently manufactures the largest gas turbine available at just over 500 MW."

https://www.ourworldofenergy.com/vignettes.php?type=electrical-power-generation&id=15

https://www.ourworldofenergy.com/vignettes.php?type=electrical-power-generation&id=9
« Last Edit: April 05, 2024, 08:07:16 AM by DougMacG »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1303 on: April 05, 2024, 08:07:55 AM »
I had the same question while posting that.

From the links below:
"Natural gas can be burned to produce electricity in a traditional combustion turbine (CT) power plant or a more modern and efficient combined cycle (CC) power plant.

A combined cycle power plant is a modern electrical generating plant that captures the energy from burning natural gas in two ways.

First - the gas turbine burns fuel and generates electricity:
The gas turbine compresses air and mixes it with fuel.
The mixture is ignited, creating an explosion that propels the very hot gas through the turbine.
The hot gas spins the gas turbine blades which rotates the turbine shaft.
The fast-spinning turbine shaft drives a generator that converts the spinning energy into electricity.
Second - the steam turbine utilizes the waste heat from the gas turbine exhaust that would otherwise escape through the exhaust stack to create additional electricity:
A heat exchanger captures exhaust heat from the gas turbine and boils water to create steam.
The steam spins the steam turbine blades which rotates the turbine shaft.
The steam turbine shaft drives a generator that delivers additional electricity.
This is the most efficient type of fossil fuel power plant. By combining these two systems, the overall net efficiency of the combustion process can be increased by 50 - 60 percent. Thus, from an overall efficiency of about 35% in a single cycle system one can achieve to an overall efficiency of 50-60% in a combined cycle system.

Either a single shart or multiple shaft configuration can be used for the combined cycle plant. In a single shaft system, the gas and steam turbines turn a common shaft with a single generator. This is the most efficient configuration. However, in larger plants it is more economical to have multiple gas turbines and a single steam turbine.

For large-scale power generation, a typical gas/steam turbine set would be a 270 MW gas turbine coupled to a 130 MW steam turbine giving a total of 400 MW. A typical power plant might consist of between 1 and 6 such sets. GE currently manufactures the largest gas turbine available at just over 500 MW."

https://www.ourworldofenergy.com/vignettes.php?type=electrical-power-generation&id=15

https://www.ourworldofenergy.com/vignettes.php?type=electrical-power-generation&id=9

Thanks! My quick search mostly returned “closed caption” or “Connecticut” hits so I quit wading through the results. Your deep dive into it here is appreciated?

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
Concrete Problems
« Reply #1304 on: April 06, 2024, 04:27:53 PM »
I know, in the name climate change let’s battle CO2 by leveling balsa forest carbon sinks for wind turbine blades, all supported by ton after ton of concrete which out-gasses huge amounts of CO2 both in its production and while it cures. That’ll fix the planet: 

https://the-pipeline.org/thicker-than-concrete-dumber-than-dirt/?fbclid=IwAR37W4c8U5AUnidHRR7vEk_JlOgafBDZ32WDnUo77ze-QQAp62WeYtSP2Ds

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71672
    • View Profile
FO: Chinese dumping of solar panels
« Reply #1305 on: April 08, 2024, 04:17:29 PM »
(2) INDUSTRY WARNS NEW SOLAR PANEL TRADE WAR COMING: The American Clean Power Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association said a major U.S. solar manufacturer will file a petition with the Biden administration, urging the government to investigate solar panel dumping in the U.S. market by Asian manufacturers.

At least one major U.S. solar wafer maker, CubicPV, scrapped plans for a U.S. factory, citing “a dramatic collapse in wafer prices.”
Why It Matters: China is using trade tactics to corner the solar wafer market, which it has used in other key infrastructure sectors, including port cranes, to undermine the U.S. domestic industry. Biden administration loans and grants to build a domestic green energy industry are effectively giving money to the Chinese government since U.S. battery, electric vehicle, and solar makers are reliant on Chinese components and supply chains. The Biden administration is putting pressure on the Chinese tech industry over semiconductors but is signaling reluctance to take stronger steps against China on trade in other industries. – R.C.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71672
    • View Profile
WSJ: Texas gets a scare
« Reply #1306 on: April 16, 2024, 10:03:10 AM »
Texas Gets a Spring Energy Scare
The Lone Star State power grid is already swooning and it’s only spring.
By
The Editorial Board
April 15, 2024 5:36 pm ET


Summer is two months away, yet the Texas power grid is already swooning. On Friday the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (Ercot) asked power generators to postpone scheduled maintenance early this week “to help alleviate potential tight conditions” as temperatures rise into the not-so-sizzling 80s.

The grid typically has excess power-generating capacity in the spring owing to mild weather. There’s also an abundance of solar and wind power. This is why plants go off-line for repairs in the spring to prepare for the summer when electricity use surges as people ramp up the air conditioning.

Yet merely warm spring weather is now enough to push the Texas grid to the brink. Tuesday’s high is forecast to be 89 degrees in Dallas and 84 in Houston. These temperatures shouldn’t force grid operators to break a sweat to keep the lights on, but they are.

One culprit is skyrocketing electricity demand from population growth, new data centers and manufacturing plants. A surge in Bitcoin prices has also made cypto-mining more profitable. Many miners located servers in Texas because—get this—they can arbitrage grid crunches to get paid to reduce power usage.

Data centers accounted for about 2.5% of U.S. electricity in 2022 and are expected to make up more than 20% by 2030. Artificial intelligence is magnifying this demand. A web search uses less than one watt of power while an AI-powered search can require 100 watts. Training an AI search uses around 1,000 watts.

The spring grid S.O.S. doesn’t augur well for the summer or the rest of the country. The past winter was one of the mildest on record, which eased the growing strain on the grid. Yet this summer is forecast to be one of the hottest, which means Americans will almost certainly be told to conserve power to prevent outages—i.e., don’t plan on plugging in your Tesla after getting home from work.

One risk is that power-plant maintenance that is delayed or canceled will lead to more plants failing in the summer when they are needed. Better get that emergency generator while it’s still in stock.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71672
    • View Profile
But of course , , ,
« Reply #1307 on: April 23, 2024, 07:38:22 AM »
BTW oil has dropped $3-4 in the last few days.

FO:

(1) BIDEN WILL KEEP IRAN OIL FLOWING DESPITE SANCTIONS BILL: Capital Alpha Partners director Jim Lucier said, “Oil traders are nonchalant because they know Biden will certainly sign whatever waivers are necessary to keep Iranian oil flowing into the market just as he is keeping Russian barrels flowing into the market.”

A person familiar with the matter said the Biden administration is still analyzing the Iran sanctions bill, but no impact on oil markets is expected before the fall.

According to Clearview Energy Partners, the sanctions bill, if implemented, would increase global oil prices by $8.40.

Why It Matters: The Biden administration is focused on maintaining energy price stability ahead of the election and is more likely to pursue sanctions against Iran in other sectors like military production to prevent global oil price fluctuations. The Biden administration ran into similar issues with sanctions against Russia, and economic interdependence means the U.S. economy will be impacted by sanctions against foreign adversaries that produce energy or other critical inputs. – R.C.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19433
    • View Profile
More coal regulations
« Reply #1308 on: April 25, 2024, 07:25:47 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/long-term-coal-power-plants-must-control-90-of-their-carbon-pollution-new-epa-rules-say/ar-AA1nDvbv?ocid=msedgdhphdr&cvid=6946e73529e24cafbe2e75acd0cc8dc2&ei=25

" all while "supporting the long-term reliable supply of the electricity needed to power America forward."   :roll:

"Together, the rules are expected to spur up to $370 billion in climate and public health net benefits over the next two decades"   :roll:

promises, promises.........


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
They Ain’t Banking on Net Zero No More
« Reply #1309 on: May 09, 2024, 04:27:20 PM »
« Last Edit: May 10, 2024, 01:45:48 PM by Body-by-Guinness »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71672
    • View Profile
FO
« Reply #1310 on: May 10, 2024, 07:41:31 AM »


(3) RED STATE COALITION BRINGS LAWSUIT AGAINST CLEAN POWER PLAN: West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is leading a coalition of 25 states in a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently finalized “Clean Power Plan 2.0” rule on carbon emissions set to shut down coal power plants.

Morrisey will ask the court to stay the EPA’s rule, preventing it from taking effect while the suit proceeds.

Why It Matters: A stay against the “Clean Power Plan 2.0” rule would pause the clock on the 60 legislative day window, increasing the likelihood a possible Trump administration and Congressional Republicans could strike down the rule using the Congressional Review Act. The Biden administration has raced to get these rules in place and requires a future Trump administration to slog through the years-long rule-making process to reverse rules that are very likely to increase energy prices and decrease reliability. – R.C.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
“Inform, but Not Prescribe”
« Reply #1311 on: May 13, 2024, 01:24:53 PM »
Well this is refreshing to see:

TODAY

More Honest Climate Science?

By James Freeman

Maybe scientific journals are ready to move past the era of politicized pronouncements.

Follow the WSJ in Apple News

A plague of our age is the abuse of scientific credentials to advance political ideologies. But maybe there’s hope that establishment scientific journals will now chart a different path. Giving cause for fresh hope is Nature magazine’s publication of a comment by Ulf Büntgen of the University of Cambridge, who writes on the importance of distinguishing scientific discovery from political advocacy:

… I am foremost concerned by an increasing number of climate scientists becoming climate activists, because scholars should not have a priori interests in the outcome of their studies. Like in any academic case, the quest for objectivity must also account for all aspects of global climate change research. While I have no problem with scholars taking public positions on climate issues, I see potential conflicts when scholars use information selectively or over-attribute problems to anthropogenic warming, and thus politicise climate and environmental change. Without self-critique and a diversity of viewpoints, scientists will ultimately harm the credibility of their research and possibly cause a wider public, political and economic backlash.

Likewise, I am worried about activists who pretend to be scientists, as this can be a misleading form of instrumentalization. In fact, there is just a thin line between the use and misuse of scientific certainty and uncertainty, and there is evidence for strategic and selective communication of scientific information for climate action. (Non-)specialist activists often adopt scientific arguments as a source of moral legitimation for their movements, which can be radical and destructive rather than rational and constructive. Unrestricted faith in scientific knowledge is, however, problematic because science is neither entitled to absolute truth nor ethical authority. The notion of science to be explanatory rather than exploratory is a naïve overestimation that can fuel the complex field of global climate change to become a dogmatic ersatz religion for the wider public. It is also utterly irrational if activists ask to “follow the science” if there is no single direction. Again, even a clear-cut case like anthropogenically-induced global climate change does not justify the deviation from long-lasting scientific standards, which have distinguished the academic world from socio-economic and political spheres.


Even scientists convinced that human activity is warming the planet should be careful to acknowledge the limits of current knowledge. Mr. Büntgen continues:

… I find it misleading when prominent organisations, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its latest summary for policymakers, tend to overstate scientific understanding of the rate of recent anthropogenic warming relative to the range of past natural temperature variability over 2000 and even 125,000 years. The quality and quantity of available climate proxy records are merely too low to allow for a robust comparison of the observed annual temperature extremes in the 21st century against reconstructed long-term climate means of the Holocene and before. Like all science, climate science is tentative and fallible. This universal caveat emphasises the need for more research to reliably contextualise anthropogenic warming and better understand the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate system at different spatiotemporal scales. Along these lines, I agree that the IPCC would benefit from a stronger involvement in economic research, and that its neutral reports should inform but not prescribe climate policy.

Ensuring honest research is the most important reason to separate scientific investigation from policy-making. But there are other compelling reasons, especially when it comes to the study of the climate.  Even if one believes pessimistic scenarios on the course of world temperatures, it does not immediately follow that the most costly responses currently recommended by activists will be the most sensible and effective.

https://apple.news/Acq5amdEYSM-pYk7yQjcfDQ

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19162
    • View Profile
Energy Economics, Cognitive Dissonance of the Biden Left
« Reply #1312 on: May 14, 2024, 03:32:27 AM »
This is from Dec. 2022, WSJ, (sorry I don't have access to quote more of it). 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-turns-the-us-into-a-shadow-member-of-opec-supply-profit-taxes-domestic-production-cartel-energy-11670966873

"President Biden has urged the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase production of oil and criticized the cartel harshly when it declines to do so—most recently on Dec. 4. But actions speak louder than words. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. has been acting as shadow member of the cartel.

America has committed itself to constrain its own supply through regulations and legislation, which has enabled OPEC to achieve record profits. The White House response to higher cartel profits was to double down by proposing a profit tax that would further limit U.S. supply. The new House Republican majority could help consumers by blocking further cartel-enabling policies."

-----------------------------

What I'm looking for is a recent quote where Biden criticizes/attacks OPEC for curtailing supply, driving up oil prices, hurting the American economy (and his chances of reelection), but the above will do.  Still true.

Curtailing supply is his policy, starting with canceling the Keystone XL pipeline his first hour in office.  Curtailing supply drives up prices, he accidentally spoke truth.  That was the point, make it harder to produce gas and oil across the land.
 Trying to get Americans to choose some other form of energy such as EVs, which also run on the fossil fuels that power our grid was a waste of good money since he hasn't done jack to replace fossil fuel grid energy with carbon free nuclear, even though it was finally in the Dem platform in 2020 after being AWOL for 48 years.

This admission is an Econ 101 breakthrough for Democrats led slow sleepy Joe.  Curtailing supply drives up prices.  Who bleeping knew, and it's exactly what he has done, and everyone knows that result, or at least the 80% who disapprove of prices of everything increasing under Biden.

He did it.  He knows it, and he tried to cover it up with his massive release of the Strategic Midterm Petroleum Reserve, but how many times can he release what he never replenished?  He's running out of tools to cover up the damage he's done to the economy, consumers, voters and the energy sector.

The only way he could fix it (ironically) would be to adopt Republican policies and it's late in the game for that.

It isn't that one gallon of gas went up $1.50.  It's the number on the credit card bill accumulating every time you fill up - if you work for a living or have any other reason to require mobility.  It's costing you thousands more per year when you figure in all of the impact.  Thousands you don't have for other spending and thousands you're not adding to your savings.  Thousands on carry forward credit card debt for millions, plus 24% compounding interest.

The amount you pay over and above true energy cost is a tax.  A tax on people making less than 400k per year, exposing a lie.  All for what??  We constrain our consuming on a path to going broke while China and India build and open more coal plants.  Total emissions are UP.

Did anyone notice cheap flights are mostly gone as well, and rich Democrats like to travel while the rest of us work.  He's hurting his own people.

Someone tell what we gained from all the unnecessary pain.  Pricing us out of energy is not how you clean the planet.  Prosperity is.  When you have more abundance and more prosperity you can work on higher pursuits.  Richer countries have always been cleaner.  cf. the mess we found in East Germany during reunification and the plastic flowing through the rivers of Africa and Asia today.

If we had abundant nuclear energy, the push for electrifying transportation might have worked.  Instead it's just one more costly, unpopular Dem failure.

Under Obama Biden, we are a state sponsor of terror and a de facto member of OPEC.  And like Putin we frame and jail our opponents.  And call it "democracy".
« Last Edit: May 14, 2024, 04:02:36 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71672
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1313 on: May 14, 2024, 04:51:26 AM »
The Prog Green Leap Forward policies drive up revenues to Russia and Iran.

Trump is dead on with this and I suspect part of his intended leverage with Putin re Ukraine is to remind him of how he (Trump) is about to drive Russian oil and gas revenues down dramatically.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19162
    • View Profile
Energy Politics: State-run Refineries - "on the table"
« Reply #1315 on: May 16, 2024, 11:27:26 AM »
https://instapundit.com/647805/

What happens in California - comes quickly to other states and to the nation.

Why wouldn't we have state-run refineries, we have state-closed one, don't we?

Begs the question, in what circumstance would an oil refinery not be able to turn a profit - with people paying $7/gal for gasoline?  They used to make a profit when gas was 29.9 cents.

[Answer:  Being regulated out of business.]

https://www.10news.com/news/fact-or-fiction/fact-or-fiction-california-gas-station-charging-7-per-gallon

911 Dispatch:  We'll have an ambulance right out to you ma'am, right as soon as he finds a charging station.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2024, 11:34:12 AM by DougMacG »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19162
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19433
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1318 on: May 22, 2024, 07:48:12 AM »
watch the greens and thus the Dems go nuts over this.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
Re: So much for national security
« Reply #1319 on: May 22, 2024, 03:16:09 PM »
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/biden-releasing-1-million-barrels-gasoline-northeast-reserve-110438755

He’s doing it because he feels for the fiscal plight of Americans in the current economy. It has nothing to do with the upcoming election, honest. And when whoever gets around to refilling the strategic oil reserve—which Biden has dipped into just before elections previously, that additional demand will have no impact on pump prices, again honest….

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
A Better Way to Lower Gas Prices
« Reply #1320 on: May 22, 2024, 07:43:38 PM »
Yo Joe: revert back to Trump’s energy policies and you can reduce gas prices more reliably, and without emptying the strategic reserve you are using as an electoral piggy bank:

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/05/22/the-election-is-coming-its-time-for-biden-to-raid-the-strategic-petroleum-reserve-n4929229


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19162
    • View Profile
'EV' battery fire, "emission free" Lithium
« Reply #1322 on: May 25, 2024, 05:19:58 AM »
https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2024/05/24/the-lithium-ion-battery-energy-storage-facility-blaze-you-hadnt-heard-aboutis-still-burning-n3788991

They are trying to contain it to the bldg it started in.

My question, Are the DOE, EPA, state regulators measuring the emissions?  If it exceeds Fed or state maximums, will it be shut down?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2024, 07:22:50 AM by DougMacG »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
Environmentalism Replaced by Climatism
« Reply #1323 on: May 27, 2024, 02:18:12 PM »
This guy is on to something, Big Time, with his an element of his thesis being that environmentalism has morphed into something that no longer serves the environment, but instead serves anti-science, anti-environment, anti-carbon fetishism that clearly don’t serve their claimed ends.

This is the first time I’ve encountered Bryce; I’ll be sniffing around his other posts to see what he’s unearthed regarding the funding for Climatism. He’s done some work showing various above the board corporate/banking interests do so for charitable and likely mercenary meetings, and that all donations totaled dwarf the budgets for petroleum and atomic energy lobbyists (an irony in that Church of Anthropomorphic Climate Apocalypse adherents invariably claim vast sums taint anything said by petro- or atomic energy groups while ignoring the untold wads of cash in their collection plates).

If Trump is reelected I say—as soon as the DOJ is swept clean—task one is untangling who is behind climatist funding and bringing those findings to light. I’d bet any amount China has supplied a great deal of those funds directly and indirectly, and that Useful Idiots are alive, well, and drawing pay as climatists:

Environmentalism In America Is Dead
It has been replaced by climatism and renewable energy fetishism.
MAY 24, 2024

Two North Atlantic Right Whales photographed in 2016 by Tim Cole, NOAA Fisheries.
Environmentalism in America is dead. It has been replaced by climatism and renewable energy fetishism.     

The movement birthed by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in the early 1960s and Earth Day in the 1970s — a movement that once aimed to protect landscapes, wildlands, whales, and wildlife — has morphed into the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex. Rather than preserve wildlands and wildlife, today’s “green” NGOs have devolved into a sprawling network of nonprofit and for-profit groups aligned with big corporations, big banks, and big law firms. In the name of climate change, these NGOs want to pave vast swaths of America’s countryside with oceans of solar panels and forests of 600-foot-high wind turbines. They are also promoting the industrialization of our oceans, a move that could put hundreds of massive offshore wind turbines in the middle of some of our best fisheries and right atop known habitat of the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale.

The simplest way to understand how climatism and renewable energy fetishism have swamped concerns about conservation and wildlife protection is to follow the money. Over the past decade or so, the business of climate activism has become just that — a business. As I reported last year in “The Anti-Industry Industry,” the top 25 climate nonprofits are spending some $4.5 billion per year. As seen below, the gross receipts of the top 25 climate-focused NGOs now total about $4.7 billion per year.



Subscribe
These groups — which are uniformly opposed to both nuclear energy and hydrocarbons — have budgets that dwarf those of pro-nuclear and pro-hydrocarbon outfits like the Nuclear Energy Institute, which, according to the latest figures from Guidestar, has gross receipts of $194 million, and the American Petroleum Institute which has gross receipts of $254 million. (Unless otherwise noted, the NGO figures are from Guidestar, which defines gross receipts as a “gross figure that does not subtract rental expenses, costs, sales expenses, direct expenses, and costs of goods sold.” Also note that in many cases, Guidestar’s gross receipts figure doesn’t match the revenue that the NGOs are reporting on their Form 990s.)   

To understand the staggering amount of money being spent by the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex, look at the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Colorado-based group founded by Amory Lovins, the college dropout who, for nearly 50 years, has been the leading cheerleader for the “soft” energy path of wind, solar, biofuels, and energy efficiency. (Click here for my 2007 article on Lovins.) Between 2012 and 2022, according to ProPublica, Rocky Mountain Institute’s annual budget skyrocketed, going from $10 million to $117 million.



Subscribe
Indeed, the group provides a prime example of how corporate cash and dark money are fueling the growth of the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex.  Among its biggest donors are corporations that are profiting from the alt-energy craze. Last year, Wells Fargo, a mega-bank that is among the world’s biggest providers of tax-equity financing for alt-energy projects, gave Rocky Mountain Institute at least $1 million. On its website, Wells Fargo says it is “one of the most active tax-equity investors in the nation’s renewable energy sector, financing projects in 38 states.” In 2021, the bank bragged that it had surpassed “$10 billion in tax-equity investments in the wind, solar, and fuel cell industries. Wells Fargo has invested in more than 500 projects, helping to finance 12% of all wind and solar energy capacity in the U.S. over the past 10 years.”

Another mega-bank giving big bucks to RMI is J.P.  Morgan Chase, which gave at least $500,000 in 2023. I took a deep dive into alt-energy finance last year in “Jamie Dimon’s Climate Corporatism.” I explained: 

About half of all the tax equity finance deals in the country (worth about $10 billion per year) are being done by just two big banks, J.P. Morgan and Bank of America. The two outfits have the resources to handle the tax credits that are generated by renewable projects and pair those “tax subsidies” (the term used by Norton Rose Fulbright) with the capital financing needed to get the projects built.

Last year, Rocky Mountain Institute got a similar amount from European oil giant Shell PLC, which has been active in both onshore and offshore wind. In addition, last year, the Rocky Mountain Institute published a report in  partnership with the Bezos Earth Fund, which claimed, “the fossil fuel era is over.” The Bezos Earth Fund, of course, gets its cash from Amazon zillionaire Jeff Bezos. Last year, Bezos’s group gave Rocky Mountain Institute at least $1 million. In addition, Amazon, which claims to be “the world’s largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy,” is a significant donor and was the sole funder of a report published earlier this year by RMI that promotes increased use of — what else? — solar, wind, and batteries.

RMI also got at least $1 million from two NGOs — ClimateWorks Foundation and the Climate Imperative Foundation — which funnel massive amounts of dark money to climate activist groups. San Francisco-based ClimateWorks has gross receipts of $350 million. ClimateWorks lists about two dozen major funders on its website, including the Bezos Earth Fund, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Ford Foundation, and the Hewlett Foundation. However, the group’s tax filings show that it gets most of its funding from individuals, none of whom are disclosed on its Form 990. In 2022, ClimateWorks got $128 million from an unnamed individual, $45 million from another individual, and $24 million from another. In all, ClimateWorks collected about $277 million — or roughly 84% of its funding — from a handful of unnamed oligarchs. Who are they? ClimateWorks doesn’t say, but notes that it has “several funders that [sic] prefer to remain anonymous.”

Climate Imperative, also based in San Francisco, doesn’t reveal the identities of its funders, nor does it publish the names of all the activist groups it funds. But it is giving staggering sums of money to climate groups. Climate Imperative’s gross receipts total $289 million. The group’s goals include the “rapid scaling of renewable energy, widespread electrification of buildings and transportation, [and] stopping the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure.”

Elite academics produce studies that provide ammunition to the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex. Last year, in an article published in the left-wing magazine Mother Jones, Jesse Jenkins, an assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Princeton University, claimed, “We now have the potential to rebuild a better America.”



Subscribe
Doing so, he explained, will require a much larger electric grid with “up to 75,000 miles of new high-voltage transmission lines by 2035.” That’s enough, he noted, to “circle the Earth three times.” He continued, saying the U.S. will also need utility-scale solar projects covering “an area the size of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut combined, and wind farms that span an area equal to that of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.”

Jenkins claims we can have a “better America” by covering an area the size of eight states with solar panels (most of which are made with Chinese components) and endless forests of massive, noisy, bird-and-bat-killing wind turbines. Put another way, the Princeton net-zero plan would require paving some 239,000 square miles (620,000 square kilometers) of land with solar and wind projects, and that doesn’t include the territory needed for all the high-voltage transmission lines that would be needed!

On its face, the notion is absurd.

Nevertheless, the scheme, published in 2020 and known as the Net-Zero America study, got positive coverage in major media outlets, including the New York Times.


Despite the cartoonish amount of land and raw materials it would require, the Princeton net-zero plan shows how renewable energy fetishism dominates today’s energy policy discussions. Nearly every large climate-focused NGO in America claims our economy must soon be fueled solely by solar, wind, and batteries, with no hydrocarbons or nuclear allowed. But those claims ignore the raging land-use conflicts happening across America — and in numerous countries around the world — as rural communities fight back against the encroachment of Big Wind and Big Solar.

Perhaps the most striking example of the environmental betrayal now underway is the climate activists’ support for installing hundreds, or even thousands, of offshore wind platforms on the Eastern Seaboard, smack in the middle of the North Atlantic Right Whale’s habitat. Last month, I published this video showing habitat maps and the areas proposed for wind development.



Subscribe
Among the climate groups shilling for offshore wind is the Center for American Progress (gross receipts: $40 million), founded by John Podesta, who now serves as President Biden’s advisor on “clean energy innovation and implementation.” Last year, Podesta’s group published an article claiming “oil money” was pushing “misinformation” about offshore wind.

Rather than defend whales, the group claimed the offshore wind sector is “a major jobs creator and an important tool in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Who funds the Center for American Progress? Among its $1 million funders are big foundations, including Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Gates Foundation, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. Two familiar names, Climate Imperative and ClimateWorks, each gave the group up to $500,000 last year. On the corporate side, the group got up to $500,000 from Amazon.com and Microsoft.

Now, let’s look at the Sierra Club (gross receipts: $184 million), a group whose mission statement states that it aims “To explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth.”

Alas, protecting wild places doesn’t include our oceans. In March, Ben Jealous, the executive director of the Sierra Club, defended the offshore wind industry, claiming that “fossil fuel industry front groups” were trying to make “whales and other marine species a cultural wedge issue.” He also claimed that “disruptions in the whales’ feeding patterns, water salinity, and currents are likely the result of climate change,” adding that “climate change perhaps is the largest overriding problem, and our transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy the solution.”

Just for a moment, imagine what Podesta’s group, or the  Sierra Club, would be saying if those scalawags from the oil industry were planning to put hundreds of offshore platforms in the middle of whale habitat. The wailing and gnashing of teeth would be audible from here to Montauk. Those NGOs would be running endless articles about the dangers facing the Right Whale — of which there are only about 360 individuals left, including fewer than 70 “reproductively active females.” But since the industry aiming to industrialize vast swaths of our oceans has been branded as “clean,” the response from the Sierra Clubbers has been, well, crickets.

If the climate groups are seriously concerned about reducing emissions, they would be clamoring for the increased use of nuclear energy, the safest form of zero-carbon electricity generation. It also has the smallest environmental footprint. But the Sierra Club, in its own words, “remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy.” Furthermore, leaders at the Natural Resources Defense Council (gross receipts: $548 million) cheered in 2021 when the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York was prematurely shuttered. What does NRDC claim we can use to replace nuclear? Offshore wind, of course.

The punchline here is obvious: it’s time to discard the shopworn label of “environmentalism.” The NGOs discussed above, and others like them, are not environmental groups. Their response to the specter of catastrophic climate change will require wrecking our rural landscapes, the killing of untold numbers of bats, birds, and insects, and industrializing our oceans with large-scale alt-energy projects.

America needs a new generation of activists who want to spare nature, wildlife, and marine mammals by utilizing high-density, low-emission energy sources like natural gas and nuclear energy. We need advocates and academics who will push for a weather-resilient electric grid, not a weather-dependent one. Above all, we need true conservationists who promote a realistic view of our energy and power systems. That view will include a positive view of our place on this planet, a view that seeks to conserve natural places, not to pave them.

https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/environmentalism-in-america-is-dead?r=ownpk&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
Wind Subsidies Rise, Wind Power Production Doesn’t
« Reply #1324 on: June 05, 2024, 06:03:06 PM »
Hmm, something appears to e wrong with this picture:

Wind Subsidies Are Rising…

The Beacon / by Paige Lambermont / Jun 3, 2024 at 7:38 PM

New data recently released by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows a decrease in wind power production in 2023. Despite record highs in installed wind capacity and continually rising subsidies production is falling.

Thanks to these subsidies, including the longstanding Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and the extensions that these credits received in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), subsidies for wind power have seen a dramatic increase over the last decade. The IRA extended these credits through 2025, and replaces them with the new, but similar, Clean Energy PTC and Clean Energy ITC through 2032. It also added provisions to provide even larger subsidies for projects that meet “Environmental Justice” requirements. All of this together will maintain and increase both the scope of subsidies for wind and the impact that those subsidies have on the overall market for electricity.

Will this money do any good for the power grid? Will added investment in renewable sources, particularly wind, lead to any increase in the amount of wind power generated? And will that capacity increase or decrease the resiliency of the grid?

The answer to all of the preceding questions is an emphatic “no,” and recent reality bears this out.

The highest installed wind capacity on record was last year, with nearly 150 gigawatts of installed wind capacity in the US.

Even with this record capacity last year, there was also a decline in power generated from wind for the first time. There was 2.1 percent less wind power generated in 2023 than in 2022. This was in part due to slower wind speeds that year, an inherent flaw of wind power. The intermittency of the source also means that sometimes wind power is unavailable when demand is high, but available when it is not, which can also result in less wind power being used.

These aren’t problems that subsidy dollars can solve. They’re inherent to the technology. Despite this, lawmakers have continually tried throwing money at the problem. From 2016 to 2022, the federal government spent approximately $18.7 billion on subsidies for wind power alone. This is a massive amount of money. It’s even more considerable given that wind’s intermittency heavily limits its benefit to reliability.

During that period, wind subsidies were much higher than those for any of the conventional power sources: natural gas, coal, and nuclear. Specifically, the wind subsidies were about 2.5 times greater than both coal subsidies and refined coal subsidies and greater than both coal and refined coal subsidies combined. The wind subsidies were also about double the subsidies for natural gas and petroleum liquids and about 6.5 times greater than nuclear subsidies.

Renewables received 46 percent of overall power subsidies despite constituting a very small portion of overall power generation.

These aren’t subsidies per kilowatt hour of generation. It’s total subsidies. If it were per kilowatt hour of generation, the disparity would be even more extreme given how much more output conventional sources have. To be clear, policymakers shouldn’t be increasing the subsidies for reliable sources to account for this disparity. The way to fix power markets is to subsidize everything less (ideally not at all). The solution to grid reliability problems is certainly not to subsidize the least reliable sources the most.

Decreasing wind generation makes wind’s power production limitations more obvious. It also emphasizes what many reliability advocates have been saying for years: government meddling in electricity markets in favor of unreliable sources will have consequences for reliability as money is funneled away from what works and toward what does not.

As a general matter, lawmakers should stop subsidizing energy sources. To protect reliability, lawmakers should look to repeal the IRA extensions of wind and solar tax credits as a first step toward repairing the damage that these subsidies have done to electricity markets.


This article was originally featured on Catalyst. You can read the original here.

The post Wind Subsidies Are Rising… appeared first on The Beacon.

https://blog.independent.org/2024/06/03/wind-subsidies-are-rising/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wind-subsidies-are-rising

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
This is Yuge: Global Warming Policies Cause Global Warming
« Reply #1325 on: June 05, 2024, 07:55:58 PM »
I had to reread this piece and follow the link as it read like a parody … but it ain’t. Wait, do you hear that? I believe it’s the sound of True Believer’s heads exploding:

Almost All Recent Global Warming Caused by Green Air Policies – Shock Revelation From NASA
BY CHRIS MORRISON  4 JUNE 2024 7:00 AM

The world of climate science is in shock following extraordinary findings from a team of high-powered NASA scientists that suggest most of the recent global temperature increases are due to the introduction of draconian fuel shipping regulations designed to help prevent global warming. The fantasy world of Net Zero is of course full of unintended consequences, but it is claimed that the abrupt 80% cut in sulphur dioxide emissions from international shipping in 2020 has accounted for 80% of global warming since the turn of the decade. Although the extra heat is described as “transient”, the warming is extraordinary and is expected to rise during the 2020s at a rate of 0.24°C a decade, 20% higher than the claimed warming trend since 1980.

The news is likely to cause considerable concern among the mainstream climate hoaxers in media, academia and politics. They have had a field day of late by pointing to rises in temperature as evidence for their evidence-free prediction that the climate is in danger of imminent collapse. But the NASA scientists, working out of the Goddard Space Flight Centre, predict a trend of rising temperatures due to the IMO2020 regulations going forward, and state, “the 2023 record warmth is within the ranges of our expected trajectory”.

The science behind the NASA findings, which have been published in Nature, is simple. Fewer fuel particles injected into the atmosphere reduce cloud droplet density and this leads to clouds that reflect less solar radiation back into space. As the scientists note: “IMO2020 effectively represents a termination shock for the inadvertent geoengineering experiment through a reverse marine cloud dimming through reducing cloud droplet number concentration.” In the course of their work, the team calculated large particle reductions in major shipping routes in the North Atlantic, the Caribbean Sea and the South China Sea.

The NASA paper is likely to be fiercely contested, not least because it blows holes in all the attribution pseudoscience attempting to blame recent temperature rises and individual weather events on human-induced increases in carbon dioxide. Already the climate activists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact say the observation period is too short, and man-made greenhouse gases continue to play the decisive role in climate change. Much of this thinking, that provides the ’settled’ science base for the planned Net Zero collectivisation, is supported by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC promotes the view that almost all climate change since around 1900 is caused by the activities of humans. This unproven opinion looks shakier by the day. The NASA scientists have forced the issue of particles, or aerosols, to the centre of the climate debate, although there are other explanations for the recent rise in temperatures. These include a now departing strong El Niño, and possible changes in the upper atmosphere caused by the huge injection of water by the early 2022 Hunga Tonga submarine eruption.

The El Niño effect is well known and strong past oscillations, which involve global transfers of heat from oceans to the atmosphere, have shown short-term temperature spikes. As the current El Niño declines, to be likely replaced in short order by the cooling effects of a La Niña, there are signs that sea temperatures are falling. It will be up to the scientists to fight it out over what has played a more significant role in recent temperature rises – aerosols or El Niño – with some backing for third place Hunga Tonga. Moving further out in the betting – odds lengthening all the time, it seems – is the inventive notion that humans control the overall climate by burning hydrocarbons. What is clear, of course, is that climate is impossible to predict. The recent temperature rise is tiny and well within the natural variation seen across all known and reliable records. When it comes to making political decisions about human society, computer models that claim to replicate and forecast future climate trends need careful examination, while in the hands of powerful people with wrongheaded or even sinister agendas they are potentially dangerous.

The effect of the Hunga Tonga eruption continues to intrigue some scientists, although their curiosity is not reciprocated by the all-in mainstream CO2 promoters. Recently a team of Australian climatologists used the eruption, which increased the amount of water vapour in the stratosphere by up to 10%, as a ‘base case’ for further scientific work. Working out of the University of New South Wales, they reported that volcanoes blasting water vapour – a strong if short-lived ‘greenhouse’ gas – into the high atmosphere, “can have significant inputs on the climate system”. In fact they found that surface temperatures across large regions of the world could increase by over 1.5°C for several years, although some areas could cool by up to 1°C.

Yet more fascinating, conflicting and debatable climate science that under no circumstances should be drawn to the attention of the general public.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/04/almost-all-recent-global-warming-caused-by-green-air-policies-shock-revelation-from-nasa/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
Greens Can’t do Energy Math & Governments Don’t Add Value
« Reply #1326 on: June 09, 2024, 10:59:30 AM »
Some basic energy computations and the government’s role in them:

Energy: the Heart of All Living Systems

Peter Smith • 09 Jun, 2024 • 4 Min Read
 
Just keep the government out of it.
Opening my national newspaper the other day, I came across a full-page advertisement by Standard Chartered Bank. Headed: “Accelerating Australia’s net zero journey: the Melbourne Renewable Energy Hub.” I suppose the intent is to portray Standard Chartered as the financial institution of choice if you intend establishing a renewable-energy boondoggle and need to borrow funds. Though the wokesters at the bank might not quite put it that way.

The project is to install Tesla batteries on the fringe of Melbourne’s suburban sprawl. One of the world’s biggest array of batteries, we are told. The renewable-energy construction company Equis is installing the batteries on behalf of the Victoria state government’s State Electricity Commission (SEC). Comrade Daniel Andrews, when premier, revived the SEC to make renewable energy part of government. Might as well. After all, taxpayers meet the bills one way or another.

There are three battery packs. Each of two of them provide 200 megawatts for two hours and the third provides 200 megawatts for four hours. Those quick at arithmetic will calculate that the total dischargeable power is 1.6 gigawatt hours; provided, of course, the batteries are charged sufficiently beforehand. A reminder, batteries don’t generate power, but only store it.


The free market at work and play.

The cost of the project is expected to be about one billion Aussie dollars and counting. For a battery? “Tish-tosh, never mind the money,” scolds never-had-a-real-job Jacinta Allan, the replacement socialist premier of the heavily-indebted socialist state. “Imagine the role these shiny new batteries will play in meeting our goal of going from nine percent of electricity provided by renewables today to 95 percent by 2035.” I know, it is beyond parody.

Victoria consumes about 42,000 gigawatt hours of power each year. That comes to about 115 gigawatt hours each day or 72 times the discharging capacity of the batteries. Victoria has three remaining brown coal power stations. Yallourn, due for closure in 2028, provides 1.45 gigawatts of power each and every hour. So the batteries could fill in, when fully charged, for just a smidgen over one hour before the lights go out. Need a bigger battery. Many bigger batteries; and enough spare power to keep them charged.

Someone is making money out of this. Xi Jinping and his crony industrialists, the owners of Singapore-based Equis, Standard Chartered, Elon Musk and his fellow Tesla shareholders, those shipping and trucking batteries; and not forgetting lobbyists and those along the way getting the odd kickback or two. Develop an artificial need, subsidise it, and those looking for an opportunity to make easy money will come a-running. Incidentally, a word to the wise, don’t get between a subsidy and a carpetbagger.

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with moneymaking per se. It is an essential feature of free-market capitalism. It drives the process of allocating resources in ways which produce prosperity and sustained growth. However, in this case, the moneymaking is not a product of free-market forces. It is a product of a government-funded contrivance; inevitably resulting in resources being misdirected and wasted.


Works for everybody.

Entertain no doubt: only free-market capitalism steers resources judiciously. Nothing else works. Capitalism works due to its having the characteristics of a living system. Living systems are open systems, which self-organise and interact with their environment. James Grier Miller (Living Systems, 1978) wrote the defining work on the subject. Open systems have the capacity to survive and grow. The second law of thermodynamics has its way with all closed systems. Entropy undoes them.

Open systems have both outputs and inputs, the latter being relatively complex in order to continually reinvigorate the system. And they have a “decider” which regulates the interactions of inputs. Among alternative systems of organising economic affairs, capitalism uniquely fits the bill.

Capitalism draws in a complexity of inputs (resources): raw materials; physical and financial capital; labor and skills; invention, innovation and entrepreneurship; and enough energy to drive machines, without which nothing happens. It produces outputs in the form of structures, goods and services. Its “decider” is market prices which modulate the use and application of resources in order to repair and renew the system, and to produce outputs of more value than the value of the resources which were used in their production.


Why store electricity when you can generate it?

Now consider big batteries. Built as a result of government fiat in a walled-off climate-cult echo chamber. Market forces are prevented from operating. Price is whatever it takes. Is more value produced than the value of the inputs? No, but who cares, there’s a planet to save. As Miller notes:

Walling off living systems to prevent [free] exchanges across their boundaries results in death by confinement... entropy will always increase in walled-off living systems.

Effective sources of energy are being discarded and replaced with costly, heavily-subsidised, ineffective sources; supposedly to cool the planet. The destruction of value which this quixotic quest is bringing about is unparalleled in peacetime. And the carnage is only beginning. Coal, oil and gas still accounted for 82 percent of the world’s energy consumption in 2022. So much to do, and so little time before the planet boils.

Nothing new about governments destroying value. Clearly, wages paid to bloated armies of public servants well exceed the value they bring to society. Capitalism is robust enough to shrug off this waste, as it is to accommodate any number of prodigal harebrained government programs and schemes. Energy is in a different ballpark. Energy is at the heart of all living systems. Mess with that enough and we are destined to regress to a ruder state of society. And from there, who knows to what deprivations and degradations.

After a career in economics, banking and payment-systems management, Peter Smith now blogs on the topics of the day. He writes for Quadrant, Australia’s leading conservative online site and magazine. He has written Bad Economics, of which, he notes, there is much.

https://the-pipeline.org/energy-the-heart-of-all-living-systems/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19433
    • View Profile
From BBG post #1325
« Reply #1327 on: June 09, 2024, 12:09:29 PM »
80% of recent global warming caused by Climate Change policies

study published by NASA in Nature.

 :-o

yet those making the money and the IPCC, of course, from the Climate Change all caused by fossil fuels deny it

 :-P

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71672
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1328 on: June 09, 2024, 12:44:13 PM »
Who could have seen that coming?!?!?!?

 :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71672
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1331 on: June 14, 2024, 01:02:19 PM »
Federalism for the win!

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed …”
« Reply #1332 on: June 14, 2024, 02:47:58 PM »
… “anything else is public relations.”

New Report Reveals Massive Scale of Green Billionaire Funding of ‘Climate Emergency’ Reporting in Mainstream Media
3 days ago  Guest Blogger  58 Comments
The DAILY SCEPTIC

BY CHRIS MORRISON

A massive global grooming programme aimed at mostly mainstream media involving climate catastrophism and Net Zero promotion is detailed in a recently published report from the green billionaire-funded Internews’s Earth Journalism Network (EJN). The work is a shocking insight into the corruption of independent, investigative journalism. At one point the report observes “a concerning trend among journalists in some countries still seeking to ‘balance’ their climate change reporting”. The report shows clearly that the green billionaires are calling most of the shots in promoting stories of Net Zero-inspired climate collapse. It is noted that they may fund journalists “to cover stories in a particular subject area, determined by funder interests and goals”.

Over the last 20 years the tax-efficient billionaire foundations have stepped into the funding gaps left by declining circulation and advertising sales across mainstream media. It is noted by the EJN that journalists “overwhelmingly agreed” that support from external funding organisations was “essential” to enabling their climate and environmental reporting. Any journalist can apply to be a member of the EJN and the “primary benefit” is said to be access to grant funding for stories and “training opportunities”. The operation claims over 25,000 members in 200 countries.

The list of EJN funders is a long one and includes many well-known supporters of climate fear-mongering work. Included is the European Climate Foundation, heavily supported by Michael Bloomberg and Extinction Rebellion paymaster Sir Christopher Hohn. Other supporters include Tides, Gulbenkian, Oak, Packard, Climate Justice Resilience, MacArthur and Rockefeller. Helping out with taxpayer money are political and government organisations including the United Nations and the British Foreign Office.

The EJN report is said to provide a novel, truly global benchmark of the current state of climate and environmental journalism. Unhappily this would appear to be true. As we have seen in many past issues of the Daily Sceptic, very few ‘grassroots’ green operations can survive without elite billionaire funding. The same is true of media coverage. Much of the global barrage of climate catastrophe reporting would not exist without this vital outside lifeline. It is obvious that the cash handouts have a clear political agenda, namely an elite-mandated Net Zero global collectivisation made easier by the growth of supranational organisations.

The report makes the obvious point that climate and environmental journalists have long been criticised for lacking objectivity. However the “literature” is said to suggest that journalism as a whole “has been moving away from objectivity as a professional practice in the digital landscape”.  Some researchers are said to have pointed to a need to think ‘beyond journalism’ and to formulate a broader definition.

It might be argued that if you are being paid to be a poodle, you are already ‘beyond journalism’. As 1984 author George Orwell once wrote: “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; anything else is public relations.”

Alas, it would seem that some climate scepticism remains, despite all the best funding efforts. The scientific opinion that humans control the climate thermostat by burning hydrocarbons is disputed by some of the finest scientific minds in the world. Fudged figures, pseudoscientific weather attributions and the huge downplaying of the role of natural variations do not convince everyone. According to the EJN, this means that in many countries, media audiences are being led to believe that the causes of climate change are not clear. Certainly it might be said that the causes of climate change are unclear to believers in the scientific discovery process, such as the 2022 winner of the Nobel physics prize Dr. John Clauser. He said recently that the link between temperature and carbon dioxide was a “crock of crap”. Or the distinguished Princeton Emeritus Professor William Happer, who when asked to choose between ‘climate scam’ or ‘hoax’, said he preferred ‘scam’, but could live with ‘hoax’.

For the billionaire-funded EJN this is “highly problematic”, since widespread public understanding of the causes and impacts of climate change “is so urgently needed to support climate action on a global scale”.

Alas, again, the report seemed to find some disturbing evidence that some Comrades are not fully on board with the wishes of Big Climate Brother and the ‘settled’ science promoted by the Ministry of Truth. Citizens are reminded that at the time of the Great COVID-19 Pandemic, “media in many countries clearly aligned with government positions on vaccine mandates and lockdown orders – often under the uniting phrase of ‘we are all in this together’”. On the basis of this example, it is suggested that journalists should be less hesitant to advocate the climate message in the ‘public interest’.

Given that the newsrooms of the world are full of journalists trying to hide their manic support for cloth mask wearing, implausible computer modelling, years of social distancing and school closures, untested and novel medicines, economy-destroying lockdowns and crippling public debt, there might be some concern that another science-lite campaign could eventually lead to more grovelling public accountability, laughable scorn and diminished credibility.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/12/new-report-reveals-massive-scale-of-green-billionaire-funding-of-climate-emergency-reporting-in-mainstream-media/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=new-report-reveals-massive-scale-of-green-billionaire-funding-of-climate-emergency-reporting-in-mainstream-media

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19162
    • View Profile
Energy Politics Nuclear, Sec of Energy reads the forum
« Reply #1333 on: June 17, 2024, 10:34:38 AM »
President Biden’s Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm said that if the United States is going to meet it ambitious Net-Zero emissions by 2050 target, “we have to at least triple our current nuclear capacity in this country."

https://the-pipeline.org/wanted-a-return-to-common-sense/

WHERE have we heard this before??

Since they allegedly take 10 years to build, when would be a good time to start?     NOW.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19433
    • View Profile
Bill Gates big advocate for nuclear energy
« Reply #1334 on: June 17, 2024, 10:43:47 AM »
Dough has been advocating this for 25 yrs!

Gates is touting new tech for nuc energy that is big breakthrough:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bill-gates-says-support-for-nuclear-power-is-very-impressive-in-both-parties/ar-BB1okbRu?ocid=BingNewsSerp

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19162
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Gates big advocate for nuclear energy
« Reply #1335 on: June 17, 2024, 12:16:40 PM »
Maybe I won't brag about writing energy policy for the Democrats...

This is most likely a head fake too, like the alleged border tightening, but the truth of what she said won't go away. 

They want greater dependence on the grid?  The tripling of nuclear capacity would be merely a start.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19433
    • View Profile
interesting the new found corporate push for nuclear energy
« Reply #1336 on: June 19, 2024, 09:31:44 AM »
suddenly coincides with obvious realization that AI - the biggest corporate mania - requires huge amounts of energy:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/terrapower-ceo-strong-business-case-for-nuclear-to-meet-the-power-demands-of-ai/vi-BB1of9RE?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=49de49c3008048c6b0217cfdc7857fad&ei=22

I love at the end he states Democrats are lately realizing nuclear energy is clean.

He has to be kidding.

Now the corporates see the profits from AI they are suddenly going in on nuclear and probably bribing the polls to go along.

Doug was so far out in front and no one listened.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19162
    • View Profile
Energy Report Card 2024, Fossil fuels winning
« Reply #1337 on: June 27, 2024, 11:28:37 AM »
Over the last 20 years $4.7 T was invested in solar and wind but energy produced byt fossil fuels increased 3.2 times faster.
   - Statistical Review of World Energy, 2024




[Doug says]  Massively build nuclear now - or hydrocarbon use will continue to soar.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2024, 11:30:09 AM by DougMacG »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
Coal Consumption Graph
« Reply #1338 on: July 08, 2024, 08:36:22 PM »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
Repubs Torpedo Biden DOE Appliance Regs
« Reply #1339 on: July 11, 2024, 10:21:12 AM »
And are joined by Dems. It’s worth noting DOE savings estimates are near or exceed the likely life of the appliances in question, and that assumes they in fact work as well as the appliances they replace. Given how well low flow toilets, for one, work, my response is “fat chance.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-biden-admin-relentless-assault-americans-fridges-dishwashers

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
Wind Power: It’s Worse Than You Think
« Reply #1340 on: July 17, 2024, 10:16:46 PM »
Graph heavy piece that destroys wind power and its mythology:

https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/offshore-wind-scandal-is-worse-than-you-think

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
Aluminum Graphene Batteries on the Horizon?
« Reply #1341 on: July 24, 2024, 11:44:07 AM »
If so they address many of the shortcomings of lithium ion batteries:

Aluminum Graphene Battery The Holy Grail?
Posted on 24 July 2024 by E.M.Smith
IF you believe the hype and sales pitch, the Aluminum Graphene battery solves all the problems with the current Lion batteries while giving greater range and life measured in decades, along with no fire risk. Is it hopium? More “free beer tomorrow”?

The big feature of Al is that it has a valence of 3+ as an ion. It can donate 3 electrons per atom, not just the one of Lithium. The problems arise at the other end where the cathode material sits. The claim is that Graphene fixes the issues with other cathode materials.

Supposedly this gives you the opportunity to have a 1000 km charge in your car, fill the battery in 5 minutes, and do it for a million miles. All while not having the flaming car issues or the heat management issues of Lion (and while charging in a Chicago Winter or Phoenix Summer too). It also dodges Li costs / shortages and cobalt mining by children.

IF real, that makes the eCar a viable option for most folks. Though one still has that minor problem of needing to entirely double the electrical grid capacity to charge them all and the limiting capacity of copper mining.

This article looks to me like it works and can be manufactured.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aao7233

INTRODUCTION
Aluminum-ion battery (AIB) has significant merits of low cost, nonflammability, and high capacity of metallic aluminum anode based on three-electron redox property. However, due to the inadequate cathodic performance, especially capacity, high-rate capability, and cycle life, AIB still cannot compete with Li-ion batteries and supercapacitors (1). The energy density of AIB (40 to 60 Wh kg−1) (2, 3) is much lower than that of commercialized Li-ion battery (150 to 250 Wh kg−1), and its power density (3 to 30 kW kg−1) and cycle life (200 to 25,000 cycles) are obviously lower than those of advanced supercapacitors (30 to 100 kW kg−1 and 10,000 to 100,000 cycles) (2, 4). Hence, finding a new design to comprehensively upgrade the cathode performance is of crucial importance.

Graphite, graphene, sulfur, and metal sulfide have been selected as the cathode materials of AIB, of which graphitic carbon is highly promising in terms of fast charging and stable cycling. For a desired carbon-based cathode, four basic requirements should be fulfilled simultaneously: (i) highly crystallized defect-free graphene lattice as active anion intercalation site affording available energy storage capacities (2); (ii) continuous electron-conducting matrix for large current transportation and internal polarization mitigation; (iii) high mechanical strength and Young’s modulus for preventing material collapsing or disintegrating during repeated anion intercalation and deintercalation (5); and (iv) interconnected channels facilitating high electrolyte permeability, ion diffusion, and further fast redox reaction between electrolyte and active material. Previous studies have demonstrated that nonoriented graphitic/graphene foams (1, 6, 7) and dense natural graphite (1, 3, 8, 9) can afford partially decent performance as the cathode of AIB, whereas their cycle life and rate capability are limited mainly because of unsatisfying aforementioned requirements, leading to insufficient cell performance compared with supercapacitors.

To address these issues, we propose a “trihigh tricontinuous (3H3C) design” to achieve the ideal graphene film (GF-HC) cathode with excellent electrochemical performances. Ordered assembling of graphene liquid crystal led to a highly oriented structure satisfying requirement (iii). High temperature annealing and concomitant “gas pressure” contributed to high-quality yet high channeling graphene structure that met requirements (i), (ii), and (iv) simultaneously. Owing to this targeted “3H3C design,” the resulting aluminum-graphene battery (Al-GB) achieved ultralong cycle life (91.7% retention after 250,000 cycles), unprecedented high-rate capability (111 mAh g−1 at 400 A g−1 based on the cathode), wide operation temperature range (−40° to 120°C), unique flexibility, and nonflammability.

RESULTS
… [very technical discussion of how the graphene is made, etc.]

Electrochemical performance of the GF-HC cathode
Owing to such a perfectly matched 3H3C design, the GF-HC cathode showed unprecedented electrochemical performances. At a high current density of 6 A g−1 (charge in 72 s; Fig. 3A), the GF-HC cathode afforded a high specific capacity of 120 mAh g−1 and Coulombic efficiency above 98% without activation cycles. After 16,000 cycles, the cathodic capacity was 100% retained. Significantly, the charge/discharge curves throughout these cycles almost overlapped, demonstrating excellent reversibility of the GF-HC cathode (Fig. 3B).

Wide operation temperature range of Al-GB
Regarding real applications such as electric car operation in cold/hot climates or at high-altitude drones and tropical zone, low and high temperature electrochemical performances are fundamentally important in determining the pragmatic feasibility of an energy storage system (7, 26). Benefiting from both ideal cathode design and thermal stability of ionic liquid electrolyte (27), the resulting Al-GB exhibits special superiority of stable cell performances at both high and low temperature (Fig. 4A) representing a pragmatic “all-climate battery.” The GF-HC cathode afforded the same specific capacity and Coulombic efficiency at 60°C as those at 25°C. When the temperature was further enhanced to 80° or 100°C, stable discharge capacities (>115 mAh g−1) with decreased Coulombic efficiency were found. To mitigate electrolyte decomposition and enhance the Coulombic efficiency (fig. S15), we applied a cutoff voltage optimization strategy to improve cycling stability (2, 21). When the charge cutoff voltage was optimized to 2.44 V at 80°C, the GF-HC cathode showed neglectable decrease in specific capacity (119 to 117 mAh g−1) yet high improvement in Coulombic efficiency (from 53 to 90%). Such a capacity can be 100% retained after 12,000 cycles with Coulombic efficiency above 97% (Fig. 4B). This cutoff voltage optimization strategy was also valid when the temperature was further enhanced to 100° or 120°C, achieving stable 45,000 cycles at 100°C (fig. S15E). The GF-HC cathode also afforded remarkable performance at low temperature: At 0° to −30°C, more than 70% of original capacity was retained, and even more than 55% capacity retention was achieved at −40°C (Fig. 4C and fig. S16). At −30°C, the GF-HC cathode still delivered specific capacity of higher than 85 mAh g−1 at 0.2 and 0.5 A g−1 with 100% capacity retention after 1000 cycles (Fig. 4B). By contrast, the GF-p cathode exhibited less capacity retention at low temperature due to less permeability (fig. S17). Hence, the excellent low temperature performance of Al-GB benefits not only from the high ionic conductivity of ionic liquid electrolyte (15 mS cm−1 at room temperature; fig. S16) but also from the unique 3H3C design of the GF-HC cathode (7, 28). As a result, the Al-GB achieves a remarkable temperature endurance superior to those of lithium-ion battery (29, 30) and supercapacitor (Fig. 4D) (31). This makes Al-GB applicable at wide temperature range. For instance, the Al-GB cell successfully ignited light-emitting diode (LED) lights under the ice-salt bath or 100°C baking (Fig. 4B).

DISCUSSION
Targeted 3H3C design is proposed to essentially resolve the “short slab” cathode problem of AIB, achieving high-performance Al-GBs with record rate capability, cycle life, and operation temperature range among all kinds of rechargeable batteries. Together with future innovation in low-cost electrolyte such as [Et3NH]AlxCly (fig. S21), the emerging Al-GB provides a highly competitive choice for the capacitor-dominant high-power density energy storage system. In addition, the 3H3C design philosophy can also be extended to other electrode materials to effectively improve their electrochemical performances for practical electric power applications.

The Tesla Hype:


Tesla is on the verge of revolutionizing its vehicle lineup with advanced graphene battery technology. These new batteries promise energy densities five times higher than standard lithium-ion batteries, capable of storing an impressive 1,000 watt-hours per kilogram, and potentially lasting up to 200 years with an energy conversion efficiency of up to 98%. In today’s video, we’ll explore the pivotal advancements that have pushed Tesla’s graphene-based batteries to the forefront of the industry and uncover what makes these batteries so incredibly durable.


There is a transcript available at the Youtube video channel.

So Elon is essentially claiming they have moved this from Laboratory Scale to Usable Scale and solved various design issues. Next would be moving to Manufacturing Scale. I’d give it about 2 years given how Tesla innovates rapidly (and assuming some Giga-Factory Battery equipment changes and ordering lead time for various machinery and materials).

I’d expect that we’ll see a Sample Car demo in about 1 year.

This could actually make eCars useful for more than around town, and safe enough to have in my garage. Still “has issues”, not the least of which is how to move that much electricity in 5 to 10 minutes into a car without burning up the wires in your home or neighborhood. It will require a HUGE high voltage distribution system to get power for several of these to charge at once into a “gas station” and replacement of the present “fast chargers” with even faster ones. So there are still issues before I’m ready to adopt one…

But if all it does initially is end the Flaming Car problem, it is well worth it. Though as I understand it, some newer Tesla models now come with LiFePO4 batteries so have largely removed the Lion Flaming Battery problem.

We’ll see.

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2024/07/24/aluminum-graphene-battery-the-holy-grail/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71672
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1342 on: July 24, 2024, 12:14:59 PM »
Very interesting.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71672
    • View Profile
FO: Now that he is not running Biden notices SPR is low
« Reply #1343 on: July 30, 2024, 02:00:34 PM »
(1) BIDEN ADMIN ASKING FOR MORE MONEY TO REFILL SPR, STOP SALES: Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk said the Department of Energy (DOE) only has $1.2 billion left to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), and the DOE is asking Congress for more money.
Turk added that the DOE is asking Congress to cancel the sale of 100 million more barrels of oil from the SPR after successfully canceling the sale of 140 million barrels scheduled through 2027.

Why It Matters: The Biden administration is likely moving to shore up the SPR in anticipation of a crisis or conflict with China. Officials have increasingly warned that energy shortages are likely, and a crisis or conflict is coming by 2027, likely making shoring up U.S. energy supply a priority for the administration. – R.C.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
Re: FO: Now that he is not running Biden notices SPR is low
« Reply #1344 on: July 30, 2024, 02:05:02 PM »
(1) BIDEN ADMIN ASKING FOR MORE MONEY TO REFILL SPR, STOP SALES: Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk said the Department of Energy (DOE) only has $1.2 billion left to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), and the DOE is asking Congress for more money.
Turk added that the DOE is asking Congress to cancel the sale of 100 million more barrels of oil from the SPR after successfully canceling the sale of 140 million barrels scheduled through 2027.

Why It Matters: The Biden administration is likely moving to shore up the SPR in anticipation of a crisis or conflict with China. Officials have increasingly warned that energy shortages are likely, and a crisis or conflict is coming by 2027, likely making shoring up U.S. energy supply a priority for the administration. – R.C.

Ooh, what a lovey FU to Kamala. Take that for invoking the 25th, biotch! Gas prices will rise if they start refilling the SPR, though alas the other economic impacts won’t trickle down until after the election.

But at least this proves someone is at the helm at the WH, and the implicit spite suggests it is indeed some flavor of Biden.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71672
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1345 on: July 30, 2024, 02:06:24 PM »
This won't hit before the election I'm thinking.  More of a CYA on his way out the door.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1346 on: July 30, 2024, 02:11:26 PM »
This won't hit before the election I'm thinking.  More of a CYA on his way out the door.

Gas mixtures change in October IIRC due to EPA seasonal regs and prices always spike then due to supply chain issues in swapping out mixes (mandated demand and suppressed supply due to delivery choke points caused by mandated start date). With some luck, if you want to call it that, we’ll get an October Non-Surprise here.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71672
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1347 on: July 30, 2024, 02:17:50 PM »
Which is distinct from getting money appropriated for refilling the SPR and then actually spending it.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 71672
    • View Profile
Well, that explains it
« Reply #1348 on: July 30, 2024, 03:59:10 PM »
https://dailycaller.com/2024/07/29/excuse-me-fox-news-harris-faulkner-spars-with-former-dem-congressman-over-kamala-harris-energy-record/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=29912&pnespid=prJmDjxJP6cFhubHrT_7A8nV4QKnToAofeSjnLUzthxm4GOL1zQyN2LzNC5MOie49niuhqQY


Murphy said the Biden administration presided over the most drilling for fossil fuels in American history, though the increase in production occurred on private and state lands as Biden passed laws limiting production on federal property, the Daily Caller News Foundation reported in November.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
Re: Energy Politics & Science
« Reply #1349 on: July 30, 2024, 06:06:02 PM »
Which is distinct from getting money appropriated for refilling the SPR and then actually spending it.

Which will no doubt dissuade the futures speculators from speculating.