Week in review – energy and policy edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Offshore wind farm under construction is first in USA. 5 turbines = 30 MW [link]

Texas blows up over the Clean Power Plan –  Ironically, Texas in good shape to ditch coal. [link]

And REAL energy investors pay no attention to divestment movement:  [link]

The political war over Florida solar power is escalating [link]

Renewable Bats: “Renewable energy? New research estimates that 600,000+ bats were killed by wind turbines in 2012”  [link]

Milloy coal prediction comes true — Soros buys coal stocks dirt cheap. Prediction: http://goo.gl/5Hrj8D Event: http://goo.gl/O92Wmr

New TVA nuclear plant — on-time & on-budget. [link]

#Biofuel consumption on the rise in developing countries across the world [link]

Alex Epstein: We don’t need a “Clean Power Plan”—a euphemism for a blackout plan. We need an Energy Liberation Plan: [link]

It’s time to invest in clean energy in Africa [link] …

Our estimates indicate EPA’s carbon rule could cause—on balance—14,000 more premature deaths by 2030 [link]

Jarrett: EPA’s Changes to Power Grid Could Wreck the Economy [link]

STUDY: @EPA’s Carbon Rule would raise household electric and heating bills by $680 annually. [link]

President Obama’s Clean Power Plan “essentially calls for the extinction of nuclear power.”[link]

“Tesla is hemorrhaging money despite millions in government subsidies” [link] …

China building huge solar power station, which could power a million homes [link]

EPA Carbon Rule sticker shock: $1.23 trillion over 10 years. [link]

Fracked natural gas to replace nuclear plant in Vermont that Bill McKibben advocated closing.

Turning cow poo into power is profitable for US farm [link]

How Asia Is Shaping the Future of ⁰Global Energy. Excellent article by @levi_m [link]

Andrew Weaver;  Floods, Power and Fish: A Damming History [link] …

Quote of the week from Presidential candidate Donald Trump [link]:

“Well I don’t actually think it’s a Chinese hoax but I’m not a believer in man-made climate change. And again I had uncles at M.I.T. and stuff. By the way many smart people agree with me.”

122 responses to “Week in review – energy and policy edition

  1. I like bats. It sucks that the wind turbines are killing so many.

  2. From the article:

    The lowest crude prices in six years might not be enough to put the brakes on the U.S. energy renaissance.

    Some parts of North Dakota’s Bakken shale play are profitable at less than $30 a barrel as companies tap bigger wells and benefit from lower drilling costs, according to a Bloomberg Intelligence analysis. That’s less than half the level of some estimates when the oil rout began last year.

    The breakeven price, based on production rates and drilling, completion and other costs, can vary widely within a play based on how prolific the geology is and the efficiency of the drilling company, according to Bloomberg Intelligence energy analysts William Foiles and Andrew Cosgrove.
    In McKenzie County, North Dakota, one of the core areas of the Bakken, the median breakeven price is a little more than $29 a barrel, Foiles said. That’s about a third less than in nearby Williams County, and it’s less than half the average breakeven price for the Bakken that banks and research firms estimated last fall.

    Bakken oil production in North Dakota has fallen less than 2 percent from its peak in December, while the number of oil rigs in the state has fallen by 60 percent. EOG Resources Inc., the largest shale driller, says it can make a 30 percent after-tax return on $50 oil in its best plays. Whiting Petroleum Corp., the largest Bakken producer, said it’s preparing to be able to grow production at $40 to $50 prices.

    “A single break-even price doesn’t actually exist,” Foiles said in a presentation. “Rather, what the model indicates is that at a realized oil price of $29.42, half of wells will generate returns exceeding 10%. This price is considerably lower than the $70 breakeven estimated by industry watchers at the start of the oil price slump.”


    • Important to know which “breakeven price” people are working from. Gary Shilling (a perpetual pessimist IMHO) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-14/-20-oil-three-things-we-learned-this-week puts the target oil price at $10-20, saying “Because fixed costs are already spent, drillers in a “price war” will keep pumping as long as prices are above the cash costs of production”. But in the longer term, the oil price is set by the full marginal cost, which includes the price of drilling etc. The impression I get is that the $30 they are talking about applies to a select part of the Bakken only (the Monterey is now dead), and that the full marginal cost at the last barrel of tomorrow’s demand will be nearer $55 – looking at Canada – and rising. The big fall in rig numbers supports this.

      • Mike, I believe you are essentially correct. The E&P companies are only drilling in the very best parts of the various formations. In fact, in the last few weeks the rig count has been creeping up again. Of course, that trend could reverse in short order. One factor that is making a big difference is that the cost of oilfield services has dropped significantly, making it cheaper to drill, complete, and produce wells. Of course, technological innovation marches on in the oilfield, driven even more strongly by the need to make a profit at a much cheaper price point.

    • I read it – yawn.

      • That’s OK, I didn’t expect you to backup Broecker’s scurrilous accusation against Mann with real science. You can’t.

      • I read it too. It’s fact-free.

      • Even if true/accurate, it is still boring and not that relevant

      • If that is the best you can do, you are a total troll failure.
        Read my books on this stuff. Better, grok from places liked Linked In who I am. Then bring it on. Tony Heller is partly right, partly wrong. Judith never sorted his stuff out, nor should she have. I tried to. So repeat, bring your stuff on.

      • Judith –

        ==> “Even if true/accurate, it is still boring and not that relevant”

        Do you think that Broecker is someone who has a reputation for leveling personal attacks against other scientists, someone who is territorial about his scientific theories?

        Because if so, it might be a tad….um….ironic? if you are referencing Broecker to protect scientific “integrity.”

        I mean really? “Even if true” it is “boring” and “not that relevant?”

      • From all reports that I have heard, Broecker is a revered scientist and a valued mentor for young scientists – one of the faculty members that I hired at Georgia Tech was one of Broecker’s mentees/protegees.

      • To boil down a wordy and poddy mouth post by this Heller guy:
        1) Mann avoided scientific engagements with those that might possibly not be on board to 100% support his train, whether they we junior or senior in stature. Therefore Mann directed his circle to keep Broecker out.

        2) Broecker is an abrasive old coot that does not like young whippersnappers giving him the cold shoulder and has no inhibition to tell people what he thinks of the veracity of Mann and his claims from his “$hitty data” [analysis].

        3) Heller feels that Steyn did not reveal enough to his readers that Broecker’s attack on Mann might be not be without a personality conflict issue due to lack of respect and a breakdown of personal trust. Broecker could have been slandering Mann for personal reasons. Or Broecker could have been slandering Hansen since Broecker’s quip was aimed at a “modeler.” (The publisher of the quote could have mis-identified the assailed.)

        4) Steyn was sloppy to have used this among his quotes showing Mann had harsh comments attributed to his work by senior climate scientists.

        5) Curry was sloppy to have not caught Steyn’s sloppiness and corrected it rather than allowing her readers to be exposed to it.

        Did I get this right? This is the stinging rebuttal to Steyn’s book?

      • That about sums it up. Interesting that so far this seems to be the most ‘scathing’ that the defenders of Mann can come up with.

      • Potemkin Laureate

        As for the vast Koch-Scaife CDM (Cabal of Disparagers of Mann), Dr Mann is right. The untold billions from the Koch Brothers, the Scaife Brothers and the Koch-Scaife Brothers have funded all kinds of sinister “front groups” and “hired guns” to discredit Mann. One thinks of hired gun “Hendrik Tennekes” of the obvious Potemkin organization “the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute” and former member of the notorious front group “the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences”, who attacked Dr Mann as “a disgrace to the profession”.

        Or paid hitman “John Christy”, frontman “lead author” of the transnational Potemkin village “the IPCC”, who said Mann “misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1,000 years”.

        Or hired assassin “I T Jolliffe” of the Koch-funded Potemkin tract “Principal Component Analysis” in the Scaife-funded Potemkin reference work “The International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science”, who said Mann’s science is “a piece of dubious statistics”.

        Or lavishly remunerated covert operative “Hans von Storch” of the Potemkin-peer-reviewed Potemkin journal “Annals of Geophysics” and winner of the Potemkin prize “the IMSC Achievement Award” awarded by the Potemkin judges of the totally bogus “International Meetings on Statistical Climatology”, who described Mann’s hockey stick as “rubbish”.


        Or hired double-agent “John Cook” of the Koch-Scaife Climate Denial Machine undercover website “Skeptical Science” and front man of the denialist tract “Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand”, who wrote, “Stay away from Mann’s 2008 paper… It has actually been invalidated.”

        Or Koch-funded infiltrator “Wallace Smith Broecker”, who in 1975 was given untold billions by the Scaife Brothers to invent the Potemkin term “global warming”. Following further billions from the Koch Brothers Fund for Mild Disparagement, “Broecker” dismissed Mann’s data as “sh*tty”.

        As you can tell from the above list, the vast Potemkin Village of Denialism is growing faster than the almost as vast Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Because it takes a Potemkin village to raze a Mann-child. Remember anyone who says anything mildly critical of Michael E Mann is only doing it because he or she is in the pay of the Denial Machine. Matter of fact, just to be on the safe side, assume that everyone is in the pay of the Koch-Scaife Brothers except Dr Mann, the Queen, both presidents Bush, Lady Gaga and the other blood-drinking shape-shifting space lizards.

        Global Warming in Hot Water

        As you know, Mann is suing me for describing his famous scary “hockey stick” graph as “fraudulent”, which it is. The graph shows a straight-line “shaft” of the stick representing 900 years of stable global temperature, followed by a sharp upturned blade representing the 20th century temperature rocketing up and out the top right-hand corner. The “message” (which Mann and his colleagues were concerned not to “dilute” with any subtleties or qualifications) was simple: We’re all outta graph paper. This thing’s off the charts with nowhere to go but up through the ceiling at an unprecedented rate. Give us all your money or the planet’s gonna fry.

      • Bill, Thanks. Who is this guy? I am guessing he is a sociopath trying to scare the real Tony Heller, who is a whistleblower, who used a protective alias, presumably as insulation against sociopaths. Is that right?

      • who knows. He has a very small twitter following, doesn’t seem to be making much of an impact even in the Sou crowd (although when he mentions me, he does get a retweet from mann).

      • Or hired double-agent “John Cook” of the Koch-Scaife Climate Denial Machine undercover website “Skeptical Science” and front man of the denialist tract “Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand”, who wrote, “Stay away from Mann’s 2008 paper… It has actually been invalidated.”

        That quote is apparently by Robert Way and was mistakenly attributed herr Cook.

    • Tony…exposed

      First, cover yourself up.

      Second, I guess Judith is very very important to you. You should get that treated.

      • It is not Steven Goddard or Tony Heller.

        It is a new made up identity to slander scientists from the shadows.

        Best to ignore.

    • Ron Graf, You know this is not the real Tony Heller, right? So, you might want to use scare quotes or asterisks like FOMD, I mean *hellerexposed* does.

    • From a clown who pretends to be someone else.

    • catweazle666

      Total, utter, unmitigated drivel from start to finish.

      I’ve some pretty rubbish trolls in my time – and that goes right back to the days of Compuserve – but you take the biscuit.

    • I will never get the 15 seconds I spent at your terrible blog back. I regret clicking on your link.

      • Scott,

        Consider it as your good deed. IE giving some poor butt clown a couple of hits more than he usually gets.

  3. From the article on Chinese solar power:

    China is set to build a giant solar power station in the Gobi desert, which could generate enough energy to supply one million homes.

    The proposed power station will measure 10 square miles and generate 200 megawatts of solar energy.

    10 square miles is 25,899,984 square meters, and 200 megaWatts is of course 200,000,000 Watts. That works out to 7.72 Watts per square meter. Plus 200 MW for one million homes means each house only uses 200 Watts. Something, somewhere, has to be wrong.

    • 200W=144 kWh per month. Not entirely unreasonable.

      • Curious George

        The sun shines in Gobi 24 hours a day.

      • catweazle666

        Jim D: “200W=144 kWh per month. Not entirely unreasonable.”

        Actually, a total waste of space.

        Arithmetic isn’t your strong suit, is it?

        Then of course there is the slight problem that every last milliwatt has to be backed up by thermal generation for well over 50% of the time, so not even close to 144 kWh per month, not even half that in fact, and the Gobi desert is a long, long way from where the power will be used – there aren’t many homes in it due to it’s a desert, so transmission losses will be high.

        Plus, there is the problem with dust, particularly dust storms, solar panels lose efficiency fast when they become dusty, and water is practically essential to clean them, once again a problem in a desert.

        So that was a pretty poor bit of tr0ll1ng, even by your standards/

      • If you had 144 kWh per month supplied by solar, that would be a significant fraction of your needs. Did they say it was 100%? No.

      • I have worked on a meteorological system installed on the edge of the Gobi desert. I’m not saying the planners won’t have thought about it, but the amount of dust there has to be seen to be believed, and at any time of year. Instrument optics required almost weekly cleaning to maintain accuracy.

    • What is important is the cost per average watt delivered.

      Furthermore, it will power zero homes unless it has energy stortage. It will need an enormous amount of energy storage to enable it to provide reliable power at night throughout the winter.

      The Chinese are smart. They realise the voting population in the west is gullible, ignorant, and easily duped by advocates of human caused climate catastrophe and they will continue to be duped into believing that renewables will save them.

    • Western journalist writes an article on Chinese solar power. And to reinforce the optimism, western journalist mentions a huge total investment in Chinese “renewables”. Not the investment in solar, but the investment in “renewables”. I mean, why spoil the mood?

      Go to other MSM (ie New Theology) sites and you will be presented with China’s investment in “non-fossil”. Or China’s investment in “non-thermal”. Or what is now called WWS power (wind, water, solar…as if you could take your pick between a whirlygig farm and the 98.8 TWh of Three Gorges Hydro.) Our western journalists go to a lot of trouble not to mention hydro and nukes. Tricky little bludgers.

      If you really insist on knowing more about Chinese wind and solar, you may be shown a dramatic graph showing soaring “growth” in those sectors, dwarfing naughty coal – that’s in the hope you may not know or care to know the difference between increase and total.

      Good try warmies.

    • and generate 200 megawatts

      Plus, the implicit 200 MW of Coal power to switch to during night.

    • From the link in the post RE nuclear plant: ” Watts Bar Unit 2 will produce 1,150 megawatts of carbon-free electricity”

      This is a GIGAWATT+ of electricity. This is about 160 watts/M2 (1700 acre site). Much better use of land.

    • There are places where they have electric power, but only enough for a light bulb or two and/or a radio or tv. There are places like that in Mexico. Just clean light at night does make a difference.

      • Yep, you don’t have to keep gathering dung and throwing it on the fire.

      • It beats me why the main push for niche alternatives hasn’t been directed at impoverished non-industrial, light-demand regions which could use a break.

        Biomass and fertilising dung would be conserved. Communications and illumination would surely be improved. As to health matters, disfigurement from those clunky kerosene pressure stoves and lung probs from dung burning are pretty severe third world problems. (I’m told Interplast, the plastic surgery charity, is kept especially busy by kerosene burns to children.)

        Solar is pretty good in its modest role (I’ve lived with it) and I imagine there would be millions who might benefit from light power infrastructure where storage demands are low. Solar cooking and pasteurising, pumping water…why not improve and implement solar where there is lots of sun and no heavy industry? If you’re fretful about carbon, does it matter if the solar project you fund is in Africa instead of in California? Same atmosphere, right?

        Why mount acres of solar panels at 50 degrees north in Europe’s industrial heartland as a green fetish and subsidy swindle when they might serve a real purpose somewhere?

        (Love this sort of thing: http://www.solavore.com/shop/solavoresport-solar-oven)

    • Jim

      200 w x 5 hrs per day x 30 days = 30 kWh generated per household per month

      30 kWh x (1 – 0.2 losses for storage and transmission) = 24 kWh available for each household each month

      This level of consumption is more typical for basic live-aboard boaters or third-world households than any household which a European or US resident would recognize.

      The author is either ignorant or intended to mislead her audience through omission, by asserting that this plant will supply a million households.

      Her phrase “proposed power station will measure 10 square miles and generate 200 megawatts of solar energy” makes me think she is ignorant as she is unable to distinguish between power and energy.

      • I should add that you would need to multiply that 24 kWh by 40-50 to reach a range more typical in the US, or about 20,000-25,000 households, not a million.

      • So, is 200 MW the peak, or average long-term power production. I would expect that it makes more sense to provide the average power production over long periods, cloudy and sunny, as a MW number, so that is why I used my numbers. When you compare power providers, the long-term average is the only way to do it sensibly, otherwise it is apples and oranges.

      • I believe it is to be 6 – 135MW concentrated solar bird fryers with about 15 hours of thermal storage.


      • The numbers have to be wrong. By their math the cells are only generating about 7 Watts per square meter. That’s less than 1 percent of the noon incoming energy at Chinese latitudes. Nobody has ever made a solar cell that performs that badly. It would be hard to find any solar technology that’s less than 10 percent efficient. So I’m guessing the numbers are in error.

      • “So, is 200 MW the peak, or average long-term power production.”

        You ask a valid and important question. The reality is that the article provides no useful information about the solar facility other than its location in China.

        This piece is nothing more than a puff to china’s pledge: “China’s carbon dioxide emission will peak by around 2030 and China will work hard to achieve the target at an even earlier date”. There is no mention of how far and fast CO2 output will grow in the meantime. Simply an example of using “non-lies” to create false impressions in the minds of readers.

        I would suspect that the build-out of this facility is at least partly a means to absorb variations in demand so that some key PV factories can run wide open. Not a bad idea. The key would be to find out some details as to the price being paid for the hardware: is this a good deal for the Chinese citizen, or is it a sweet deal for a few well-connected factory owners?

  4. Did Josh do your new twitter Avi?

    Well done, regardless ☺

  5. “The Renewables Future – A Summary of Findings” http://euanmearns.com/the-renewables-future-a-summary-of-findings/

    An excellent posts summarising 24 previous posts on diffierent aspects of the the viability of renewable energy.

    • I haven’t read it all, but what I have seen is excellent. Thanks for the link Peter.

  6. “Offshore wind farm under construction…30MW..”

    The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) touts a 30MW (sometimes) bird shredder.

    $271,000,000 = NREL FY 2014 budget

    With that much money we could give 2,710 pure science researchers $100,000/yr.

    Just saying …

    Oh, and there is this…dated, but interesting…


  7. The article on the first U.S. offshore wind farm does not well describe one important peice of the puzzle. From my memory, Block Island has been served by a costly diesel based microgrid. The new tie from the mainland to the wind farm through Block Island will allow grid service (and its many benefits) to Block Island and reduce costs associated with their (relatively) costly microgrid service. (Cheap service as far as microgrids go, but expensive compared to grid service). Take the benefits and drivers associated with providing bulk service to Block Island out of the equation and even with other heavily skewed priorities, incentives and subsidies it would be hard to get this one built. Transmission costs (unless ignored by those in power) are a deal killer for most offshore wind, but if the transmission serves other purposes AND facilitates offshore wind – wind farms are more likely to emerge.

    South of this one I believe one of the other major proposed U.S. offshore wind projects was bolstered by the proposed connections enabling bulk energy exchanges (not accomadated on existing paths) between the coastal participants.

    • If transmission costs are the big expense, could offshore wind be used to make diesel or jet fuel?

      • Yes. In a decade or so, the technology might be mature enough for it to be cost-effective. Perhaps.

      • I’m sure these technology options are expensive, but are there any real prospects for battery storage to do better? I’m not sure how many exotic catalysts are used. I believe the carbon comes from CO2 in sea water. It seems like Power plant exhaust plumes might offer a more concentrated source of CO2, but I don’t know the chemistry or technological details.

      • I’m sure these technology options are expensive, but are there any real prospects for battery storage to do better?

        Very slim, I’d say. Rud Istvan has several posts here, and many comments, detailing the reasons. There may be a (small) chance with flow batteries. Making them scalable might be an issue, though.
        IMO the best storage option, near-term is deep-sea pumped hydro. Which technology could be fostered with free subsidies.

        I believe the carbon comes from CO2 in sea water.

        The USNavy has some new research that bids fair to be fully scalable, and very cheap with learning curve and economies of scale.

        It seems like Power plant exhaust plumes might offer a more concentrated source of CO2, but I don’t know the chemistry or technological details.

        Actually, sea water has more CO2 than any but actual stack gasses. AFAIK the latter add too much cost for capture and cooling, although there’s lots of work being done on it.

        For me, the capture of ambient CO2 is a much lower-regrets alternative. There are manifold risks associated with depending on simply reducing emissions: the actual cause of increasing pCO2 may be due to some other aspect of the Industrial Revolution, such as whaling and over-fishing, land use changes, etc. And even if fossil emissions were responsible for putting it there, that doesn’t mean it’ll stop increasing when/if emissions stop. It’s a very complex non-linear system, whose behavior can only be guessed at.

      • There’s always the Hopium-Air battery.

      • Hopium sounds like something that could be smoked, with or without the H.

      • I wouldn’t say transmission is “the” bug expense, but it is “a” big expense on top of locating the wind turbines off shore.

  8. David Wojick

    This is impressive:

    “China added 39 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity in 2014 — 3 gigawatts more than it added in 2013, which is equivalent to three 1,000 megawatt units every four weeks.  At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added about two 600-megawatt coal plants a week, for 7 straight years.  And, China is expected to add the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for the next 10 years. The new coal plants that China is constructing are more efficient and cleaner than their old coal-fired plants.
    China consumes more than 4 billion tons of coal each year, compared to less than 1 billion tons in the United States and 600 million tons in the European Union. China surpassed the United States to become the largest global carbon dioxide emitter in 2007, and it is on track to double annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 2017. By 2040, China’s coal power fleet is expected to be 50 percent larger than it is today and these power plants typically operate for 40 years or more.”


    • Nice deliberately confusing argument.

      It talk’s about current coal consumption then switches to talking about generating capacity.

      China is going to need somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 GW of dispatchable capacity.

      As they currently have little in the way of natural gas.(if they did have natural gas it would go to things like fertizer) ‘dispatchable capacity’ means either coal of nuclear.

      As in the US..a large portion of dispatchable capacity ends up being seasonal peakers.

      • I do not see the confusion, so what is it? As I read it they start off talking about capacity, which is growing rapidly, then ‘switch’ to consumption in the second paragraph. At four billion tons they are clearly burning a lot of coal, more all the time. A decade or so ago they were burning just two billion, as I recall, and that was impressive given our US one billion. This is baseload generation. As for gas it is my understanding that they have a great deal of frackable gas. All capacity is dispatchable, so I do not understand your point.

      • Harry, can you really be that dense?

        The CPP is aimed at reducing emissions, supposedly to slow climate change. All you need to do is look at current numbers for China’s coal generation and project growth in same and be capable of performing simple arithmetic.

    • David,

      This is why I keep saying that all people need is to understand basic arithmetic to realize anything the US does to lower emissions is about as effective as spitting into a 75 mph headwind.

  9. https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2015/08/crude-prod.png?w=780&fit=max&auto=format


    The price of oil has lurched toward $40 from around $45. The year-out contango form WTI is up to $9, providing good incentive to move crude to storage.

    OIL 42.18
    BRENT 49.19
    NAT GAS 2.811
    RBOB GAS 1.6862

  10. Texas blows up over the Clean Power Plan – Ironically, Texas in good shape to ditch coal. [link]

    The war against CO2 is wrong and misguided. CO2 has not caused dangerous warming and will not, it cannot. Coal should be burned cleanly, which does not require reducing CO2, to help our gas and oil last longer.

  11. Soros’ purchase of 1 million shares of Peabody coal gives him a 0.4% stake in shares outstanding. His Arch Coal shares amount to a little over 2% of shares outstanding. He won’t be dominating the boards of these companies just yet.

    • Soros is a big hero of the left. He talks a lefty game but walks a Wall St. walk, not that I am bothered by his purchase at all. Warren Buffet bought a railroad a few years ago – he knows what those trains are going to haul, given the anti-pipeline sentiment. Those trains are going to haul coal and oil. Can we call the left reality dee nye errs?

    • Buffet is an opportunistic hypocrite, IMO. A Dimowit.

  12. From the article:

    The Environmental Protection Agency isn’t responding to claims by Todd Hennis, owner of the Gold King mine in Colorado that the agency coerced him to grant access to his property. Once taking over, of course, EPA’s incompetent attempts to remove debris created a massive 3 million gallon toxic waste spill from the mine.

    Hennis told the CBS Denver affiliate that unless he allowed the EPA to have access and authority to conduct operations on the site the agency had threatened him with daily fines of $35,000.

    “When you’re a small guy and you’re having a $35,000-a-day fine accrue against you, you have to run up the white flag,” Hennis explained.

    Breitbart News asked the EPA on Friday to confirm or deny Hennis’s claim, but has received no reply.


  13. From the article:

    “Mr. Trump, you said that the concept of global warming was created by China [to hurt the United States]. Can you explain precisely how China created the concept of global warming?” one reporter asked. Trump replied:

    I said that in a very sarcastic fashion—but it’s helping China because China is doing very little about global warming and this country has gone overboard. You saw what happened the other day with President Obama’s bill. It’s going to put costs out of control, and we have to compete with China. We have to compete with the rest of the world. China loves what we’re doing on global warming, that I can tell you. You go over to China and see what their factories are doing. Their factories are doing absolutely nothing having to do with global warming and they won’t for many, many years. China is making it impossible between their devaluations—I was just talking about with somebody who really knows the subject—their devaluations and the whole thing with global warming, China is making it impossible for our companies to compete and we better get smart on this.


  14. Bill McKibben is missing link (pun intended).

  15. From the article:
    Firm gets $40 million to commercialize biofuels

    “Ultimately, our work in Hobbs will inform and validate the design of our commercial units,” she said. “We intend to start construction of our first commercial-scale plant in late 2017, leveraging all that we learn in Hobbs.”


  16. The article, “Fracked natural gas to replace nuclear plant in Vermont that Bill McKibben advocated closing.” is missing the link. I think this is it:


    Green Vermont is buying FF power off the grid and nuclear power from NH. It is almost as if the true believers are in a trance – nothing shakes them out of their dee nye al.

    • Note, to be clear, Vermont closed a functioning nuclear plant to replace it with renewables, but they don’t have a renewable alternative.

      I love Vermont, it is a gorgeous state, a treasure, but it is being ruined by wealthy lefty refugees from New York City.

  17. By the way, thanks for the articles on the Columbia river dams and the National Geographic Magazine on the greening of African Deserts. Return to the African Wet Era with Crocs and Hippos in the Sahara and Salmon running free to the sea in Idaho & Washington states.

  18. “For over a year, energy experts, utility regulators, electric grid operators, and everyone else who understands how the power sector works have criticized the EPA’s proposed “Clean Power Plan” (CPP), saying it will increase electricity prices and jeopardize the reliability of America’s electric grid. So, what did the President do? Did he listen to the experts? No.”
    He listens to climate science experts though. Why one group of experts and not the implementation experts?

  19. David L. Hagen

    Risks: “Monkeys Are Wreaking Havoc On Solar Panels In India”

    The installation set in Challakere, north of Bangalore, is often invaded by monkeys that are wreaking havoc on the solar panels. The monkeys are said to chew on the electrical cables and even lick the panels that collect dew. . . .While the panels provide a hangout spot for the primates, the project will help India progress toward providing clean energy to the more than 300 million people who live without it.

    Why weren’t those funds invested into the cheapest power power – coal?

  20. For you Trump-doubters, how’s this for having one’s priorities straight? He wants to fix up the US before we go to Mars. Works for me!


  21. Here is another excellent post by Euan Mearns at Energy Matters:
    Green Mythology and the High Price of European Electricity

  22. Texas Transmission Line Upgrades Slash Wind Curtailment

    It is August and that means the latest version of The Wind Technologies Market Report (WTMR) has been released by the US DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) office. The WTMR is a chronicle of growth and economic and technology trends in the wind industry. Wind power has begun taking its place as a substantial contributor to electricity generation in the US. Due to its intermittent nature there is an increasing, and some suggest, premature, concern over limits on penetration. This is probably driven in large part by the large amounts of curtailment in Texas in 2009. The 2014 WTMR may put some of those concerns to rest. Data in the report show that in Texas, curtailment has been slashed from 17% in 2009 to 0.5% in 2014 (figure 1). This occurred despite the backdrop of increased wind generation in Texas. It was due in large part to bringing added transmission online.

  23. Just came across the following video, you’ve probably all seen it but I usually slow on the uptake.
    Get out your winter woollies and thermal undies the Earth apparently is going to get cooler from here on in

  24. “According to social activist and best-selling author Naomi Klein, climate change isn’t just destroying our planet — it’s making racism worse, too.”



  25. Trump is rocketing ahead and causing quite a … errrr … stir among the Redimowit stalwarts. From the article (4 stars were put there by moi) …

    Tuesday afternoon, Rick Wilson, a top Republican consultant who sometimes appears on CNN as an analyst, sent a tweet to conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter asking if Donald Trump pays her extra for **** sex. “Does Trump pay you more for ****?” Wilson tweeted.


  26. The subject is racism, but perhaps it applies to climate science:
    “I don’t believe you change hearts,” Mrs. Clinton says, summarizing her basic view of social policy movements. “I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.”
    “I think that what’s happening is Hillary Clinton’s saying, ‘We tried to change hearts, and it didn’t work.’ ”
    When people don’t care much about saving energy or building renewables we can turn to laws to kind of make them care. The two short videos at the link show a candid Clinton. She talks about pointing out problems probably isn’t going to amount to much. A plan is needed.

  27. Solar panels in Africa.

    While claiming economic viability, the article speaks of the need for “regulatory stability” – presumably a euphemism for ongoing political privilege (subsidies, impositions and restrictions on fossil, etc).

    Making the economic viability claim a bogus one.