by Russ Schussler (Planning Engineer)
Prequel to “Unravelling the narrative supporting a green energy transition.”
There is a powerful but misleading narrative supporting a green energy transition. A follow up piece will look more broadly at the general narrative supporting a transition to net zero. This prequel will provide some detail on a few components of the energy narrative and how this misleading narrative was established. The green energy narrative works somewhat like a magician’s patter, overemphasizing many things of irrelevance and distracting the audience from the important things going on. Misdirection ensures small truths are misinterpreted and magnified, leading to completely unrealistic hopes and expectations.
Misleading green narratives often start with Academics. As I noted here:
Overwhelmingly the academic articles I read are good. Usually, the authors carefully describe the limitations of their findings and recommendations. Sometimes they hint as to what remains to be worked out. I’m afraid this does not stop individuals, the media, and some policy makers from ignoring the qualifications and limitations inherent in their findings. The situation is worse when they leave it to the reader to ferret out the limitations of their findings. In very rare instances some academics will go beyond what has been demonstrated with exaggerated claims. I don’t know if this is done through ignorance, accident, hubris or for purposes of self-advancement.
For example, there have been many simple studies examining how much energy might be produced by a green resource, or set of green resources, such as wind and solar power. These studies ignore important issues such as deliverability, timing, reliability and costs. Based on simple studies the media, activists and policy makers frequently conclude that such resources can be used near universally on a large scale to provide electric service to consumers effectively, efficiently and economically.
Slightly more sophisticated studies or demonstrations will look at additional factors beyond potential availability of energy. But typically, not enough relevant factors to justify the hope and expectations they engender. Justifying a green energy transition requires that multiple critical factors all be compared in the same assessment. For example, looking at what reliability levels might be achieved without considering potential costs cannot inform policy makers as to the feasibility of such options. Similarly looking at potential costs without considering the reliability impacts of the resources does not provide sufficient guidance either. Millions of incomplete studies looking at various needs divorced from other critical needs when studied, cannot later be combined to provide the big picture needed for a major green transition.
As with the magician’s patter, the spun narrative saying “look here” at isolated “facts” distracts the audience from what is hidden. Mechanisms of narrative control and misdirection support the green energy narrative as well. A magician will make quite a showing that the levitating lady is not supported from below. He will then go on to focus your attention as he shows there is no support from the side. Concluding will show you clearly there is no support from above. But rest assured the whole time she is supported and not floating. The means of support shifts as the magician goes through his patter. In the green energy narrative costs have been demonstrated, environmental impacts have been demonstrated, reliability has been demonstrated, deliverability has been demonstrated and all shown to possibly work, BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME. In the eyes of many, such demonstrations cumulatively strengthen the green energy narrative. However, the gullible audience will be shocked when wind, solar and batteries are not at all well suited to support electric generation on their own.
The green energy narrative may be losing steam at this point, leaving many to wonder, “why is that movement stalling when this narrative is so compelling?” This piece and the follow up will provide some explanation as to why the narrative is not what it appears to be. This “prequel” posting will now highlight three tricks of the green energy narrative: misleading language, false problem and narrative control.
Misleading Language
It’s often not possible to know what is being claimed for various green alternatives because of vagaries in the language employed. There are crucial differences between installed capacity, effective capacity and firm capacity. However, it’s not uncommon to see references only to similar capacity levels when comparing installed wind capacity to firm hydro capacity. Costs can be referenced as fixed, variable, incremental, sunk, avoidable, O&M, lifetime and more. It’s not uncommon to see comparisons of resources where the type of cost being compare is not specified and even in some cases where resources are compared on using incompatible cost comparisons. There are many misleading uses of language that could be referenced, but perhaps the term “renewable” itself is one of the most misleading bits of language advancing the green agenda.
All “renewable” options have a variety of pros and cons. In terms of providing reliable power that supports the grid, hydro power is a great resource. Hydro dams are among the strongest resources on the grid for serving challenging loads but they cannot be conveniently located in most cases. In terms of the environment and ecosystems, hydro raises serious concerns for many. Biomass too, provides good support but it also is plagued by environmental concerns. The availability of geothermal plants, another grid supporting resource, is severely limited and some take issue with them because they emit CO2. Wind, solar and batteries are usually seen as less environmentally challenging. Additionally, many areas can harness some wind and solar more readily than hydro or geothermal energy. Unfortunately, these resources do not readily support the grid.
Different “renewable” resources have vastly differing capabilities. There is vast potential to develop some ‘renewables”. Some “renewables do a great job supporting the grid. Some “renewables” have low energy costs in some areas. Some “renewables” are environmentally sound in some areas. No matter how well individual “renewable” resources might be combined to tick off all the boxes of importance, that doesn’t mean that any combination of “renewable” resources can be found that will work well for any given area. It means little that hydro and geothermal provide excellent support for the grid in an area where you can only add wind and solar. Similarly, just because solar and wind have potential environmental benefits that doesn’t cancel out environmental concerns around hydro in delicate ecosystems.
The green energy transition hopes to obtain high penetration levels of seemingly generic “renewables”. Unfortunately, for most areas, there are no compatible combinations that at any significantly high penetration level that can provide affordable, environmentally responsible energy in a reliable manner. Referring broadly to what “renewables” can and might do, serves to hide this inconvenient truth.
For further information, these positing discuss in more detail the confusion introduced by the term “renewables” and how that serves to unduly bolster the narrative: Time to retire the term ‘renewable energy’ from serious discussion and energy policy directives , Part II and Part 3. These postings concluded with this observation:
The terms renewable and nonrenewable command a lot of undeserved power and influence with the public and policy makers. Rather than educating and informing, they often serve to confuse and misdirect energy policy. More sophisticated understandings around what is clean, green, sustainable, environmentally sound and workable are needed. The renewable/nonrenewable dichotomy is hurting our ability to move forward with potentially valuable workable technologies and giving too big a boost to poorly thought-out boondoggles.
The False Problem – Intermittency is not THE problem for Wind and Solar
It is a fallacy to assume that because part or some of the difficulties associated with a technology can be overcome, that therefore all of the problems associated with a technology can be overcome. Worst case for a “partial solutions fallacy” is when a major problem is hidden by presenting a minor problem as the major stumbling block. Primarily focusing on the minor problem incorrectly implies that there will be smooth sailing once this solvable problem is overcome by hiding the large problem.
To implement a green transition bolstered by heavy wind and solar, all associated problems must be addressed. The major problem associated with wide-scale use of these resources cannot be ignored.
The real problem is that wind, solar and batteries do not readily provide essential reliability services and support the grid. Most of the talk is around addressing intermittency through batteries and other storage approaches. Misdirection here focuses on intermittency, the smaller problem, while ignoring the major problem.
The intermittency of wind and solar certainly produce challenges for a green energy transition. These challenges are likely not insurmountable ones. I have written on the problems of intermittency and how accommodating the impacts of wind and solar will raise costs and lower reliability above projections. These assessments have been proven correct over the intervening years. Yes, intermittency can be addressed through storage and backup, albeit at substantial costs and complexity. The long-term problems associated with wind and solar due to their intermittency could and may likely be made manageable with improved technology and decreasing costs. But such changes will not make wind, solar and batteries comparable to more conventional generating resources, such that they can play a large role in a green energy transition, because the large problem is not intermittency.
Overcoming intermittency though complex and expensive resource additions at best gets us around a molehill which will leave a huge mountain ahead. Where will grid support come from? Wind, solar and batteries provide energy through an electronic inverter. In practice, they lean on and are supported by conventional rotating machines. Essential Reliability Services include the ability to ramp up and down, frequency support, inertia and voltage support. For more details on the real problem see this posting. “Wind and Solar Can’t Support the Grid” describes the situation and contains links to other past postings provide greater detail on the problems.
The green energy narrative is misleading in presenting intermittency as the major problem and implying that as we address this problem, wind and solar become comparable resources to more conventional generating resources. The green energy narrative hides the problems of asynchronous inverter-based generation when it can, and minimizes the concerns around this technology when it can’t.
When forced to confront the fact that inverter-based generation causes problems, the green response is that inverter technology can be made to perform “like” conventional rotating generation. “Like” will not be near good enough in the foreseeable future. As the real problem becomes more apparent, the narrative falls back on misleading language to further hide the real problem.
Narrative Control – Shameless Hucksterism and the Media
The green energy narrative is propelled by stories of success. Often these “successes” are very different from what seemed to be represented. We see great stories of planned projects that should do wonderful things, but they go down the memory hole as they prove not to work out. We see incomplete stories where they talk of power generated but not of associated costs or how much better other alternatives might have been. There is no shortage of examples relating to the green overhype that we could examine. Here is a recent one that I’ve been seeing advanced a lot lately: seven countries now use renewables for 100% of their energy. The narrative uses this story to tell us we can do the green transition. Let’s look a little deeper at what is really going.
Under the Headline that “Seven countries now use renewable energy for 100% of their electricity”, the UN’s Renewable Energy Institute bolstered by fluff, from a Stanford Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering. makes the claim that:
Recent data has shown that in 2022, countries including Albania, Paraguay, Ethiopia & Nepal produced more than 99.7% of the electricity they consumed using geothermal, hydro, solar and wind power marking what scientists say is an “irreversible tipping point” that will see fossil fuels phased out.
An “irreversible tipping point” in “renewable” energy is quite a claim. Before buying into this “irreversible tipping point, let’s take a cursory look at those seven countries.
- Albania – 98% hydro, 2% solar PV.
- Paraguay, – 99+% from hydro dams. They sell excess hydro power to their neighbors.
- Ethiopia – 96% hydro. Rest is mostly wind.
- Nepal – 98.6% hydro 1.4% solar. Non-electric burning of biofuels prevalent.
- Bhutan 100% hydro.
- Iceland 75% hydro 24.5 Geothermal.
- Congo 100% hydro (only 20% of population has access to electricity)
Iceland stands out by being the only nation with geothermal, which make up almost a quarter of their energy supply. This is not surprising as geography greatly limits geothermal opportunities. Albania and Nepal are the only countries with solar making any significant contribution, at around the 2% level. Solar irradiation in these countries ranges from good to high. Ethiopia alone has a significant contribution to electric generation from wind at around 4%. Despite several other countries within this group having excellent potential for wind, they are not taking advantage it. I suspect the advancement of wind in Ethiopia may have more to do with the interest and goals of players in the international community, like France and China, rather than the interests of Ethiopians whose future generations have been saddled by considerable debt to pay for these large foreign sponsored wind projects.
The above headline talks about how these countries get 99.7% of their electricity from geothermal, hydro, solar, and wind power. Without the spin, collectively those countries get close to 99% of their energy from rotating synchronous geothermal and hydro resources and less that 2% of their combined electric energy from wind and solar. The fact that some countries have high amounts of hydro, does not provide evidence that we are approaching a tipping point involving wind and solar. In fact, one could observe that high levels of renewable penetration are associated with low levels of wind and solar.
Let’s focus on the main commonality of hydro power. The base technology is not new and many do not consider large dams to be green. Untapped potential for hydro is largely limited in the developed world. First world countries saw their explosion of hydro dams between the 1930s and 1970s. Reliable power from hydro dams likely will improve lives and economic conditions within these developing countries. But it’s quite a stretch to suggest that their development in third world countries offer any optimism for “renewables” in say California, where they are reverting to older water flow patterns by destroying hydro dams and seeking to replace the energy with expanded wind, solar and batteries.
It should be clear and well known to anyone in the energy or renewable arena that there is hardly any wind generation found within these seven countries. But this wind energy trade association headlines the developments in these seven countries anyway. Somehow, they begin a push for more wind power with bolstering from these seven countries. As a transition they then bring in Norway with a hydro/wind mix. (Readers should note – Norway has only around 5% wind. Additionally, when you look at the total grid which Norway is only a part, the percentage of wind declines even further. Serving sub-components of a grid with high levels of inverter-based generation does not support any claims that an entire grid can have a similarly sized portion of inverter-based generation.) The posting then shamelessly mirrors the magician’s patter to go on about “renewables” and their generic capability, as if that were really a thing. Rounding out, they then talk about how much wind is being installed worldwide in completely different countries. It’s all bunched together in a jumble claiming that we are somehow moving together in the right direction to fight climate change, ending with a plea that the wind permitting process should be made easier.
Six developing countries using basic technology over a century old, joined with Iceland to approach targets nearing 100% “renewable” energy. This somehow is a bellwether for increasing wind and solar? It’s not a substantive argument, just a bunch of disjointed information in a jumble. But unfortunately. the quality of green arguments usually doesn’t matter. Much of the public and even policy makers gobble that stuff up despite the lack of rigor underling the arguments. Glowing headlines of advancements are shared all over social media. In the end, although low on meaningful evidence. it all propels the green energy narrative while feeding hope and increasing expectations. Confidence is built and the committed grow more committed.
Conclusion
It is becoming increasingly apparent that wind, solar and batteries when pursued at high penetration levels result in high costs, lower reliability and poorer operational outcomes. Expectations from the green energy narrative and real-world results are not consistent and this gulf will continue to widen as long as policy makers continue to reflexively buy into the green energy narrative. This piece has attempted to illuminate some of the mechanisms that served to produce and sustain the exceedingly and overly high expectations for a green transition. The narrative was built upon these and other various deceptions to provide disinformation and hide the real-world challenges. Such methods continue to be employed with increasing frequency. The follow to this piece up will more systemically examine the components of the green energy narrative and raise many items of critical importance considerations that the green energy narrative ignores.
The last sentence of the conclusion needs editing. Change “follow” to “follow-up” and delete the other “up”
Thankyou again for yet another excellent reference piece to be shared – preferably among those who need to learn. What a pity the majority don’t as they are happy with their own prejudices and accompanying knowledge base.
Hitler was right: “What good fortune for government that people do not think.” Nothing has changed.
Thank you for the revelation about the use of deceptive statistics in pushing renewable energy narrative. I’m sure most of the public, just like me, would have read the 99.7% for those 7 countries and assumed they were making great progress in the use of solar and wind for supporting their energy needs.
Like many other things involving AGW, looking under the hood paints a different picture.
The “good” of renewable energy seems to be the obverse of the “bad” of sea level rise. It’s always just a few years away. And then just a few decades away. And then just a few centuries away.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GiZRi4OaUAEGhlO?format=jpg&name=large
As Stated in the article ‘ ” There are crucial differences between installed capacity, effective capacity and firm capacity. However, it’s not uncommon to see references only to similar capacity levels when comparing installed wind capacity to firm hydro capacity. ”
Russ – that is a very important distinction. Unfortunately, at least one commentator has routinely defended using the deceptive gross installed capacity number. As noted by you in your post today, many activists rely heavily on deception, incomplete facts, out of context facts and half truths.
They are not deceptively gross, they are facts that you don’t seem able to handle. If you wish to modify EIA’s numbers with unknown and irrelevant locational averages, and insist you are talking only about utility scale solar installations when you use wide-range unreferenced data for all solar installations. I gave the EIA reference for capacity. Where is your reference for capacity factors and where they apply (the capacity applies all the time). That would actually be helpful. Oh wait, everybody already knows and there are lots of apps for figuring it out. Joe, the unknown wise man, is just not very good at building straw men or insults out of EIA’s data.
Skeptical science has a series of posts on Busting 33 myths about renewables. One of the socalled myths is that Solar is unreliable in the cold. an example of creating a fake myth, busting the fake myth while ignoring the substantive issue.
EIA website provides a wealth of information and is a great source to cross check the data , thus dispelling many myths .
The source data from the EIA website shows the combined decrease in electric generation from wind and solar during the winter months is approx 30%-40% lower than during the spring and fall (even before taking into account the frequent 2-5 day wind doldrums that occur during the winter).
Electric demand during the winter is approximately 30%-40 higher than during the spring and fall. As heating is converted to electric, the demand from the spring/fall vs winter demand will continue to widen. As such, gross capacity of renewables for the winter needs to be approx 2x of the needed capacity during spring and fall to cover the winter demand.
Adding to my comment and Russ’s comment regarding high penetration and the effect on LCOE.
Currently all the costs of maintaining stability of the grid due to the high variability of wind and solar and the wind /solar doldrums is borne by fossil fuel generation.
As those costs are shifted to renewables ie storage etc and due to the excessive redundancy, the LCOE costs for wind and solar are going to skyrocket. As noted above, the minimum redundancy for wind as solar is 2x for the winter months vs the spring and fall months. Suddenly there is 6 months of excess generation which destroys the math currently used for lcoe.
That doesnt even include the 2-10 days with little or no generation from wind or solar during the winter. See germany’s grid monitor for example.
The grid is the one of the greatest inventions of mankind but if you want a little independence, security and maybe save some money solar is an option.
Step 1: estimate your demand < you must get this right
Step 2: is your location solar ready? Check here: https://sunroof.withgoogle.com/
Step 3: how much power can you generate per square meter? Check here: https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php
Step 4: Add 15% to account for future demand
Step 5: Add 20% compensate for normal 25 year panel degradation.
Step 6: get estimate and calculate cost per installed PV watt.
Step 7: calculate estimated lifetime output divided by total system cost = lifetime price per killowatt hour. (my cost is .06¢/KWH)
Step: 8: estimate the rate of inflation of electricity cost times your demand calculated in Step 1 vs. final KWH cost in Step 7 vs. the earned interest on the twenty year US Treasury.
Step 9: Pick the lowest cost option.
Most people never get past Step 3 because fewer than 20% of roofs are good for solar.
Russ wrote; "The availability of geothermal plants, another grid supporting resource, is severely limited and some take issue with them because they emit CO2." I don't think CO2 emissions are much of a problem with geothermal energy.
But if we ever solve the technical issues with ultra deep geothermal we won't need any of this renewable energy (or coal & gas) for electricity.
https://www.noemamag.com/searching-for-climate-salvation-in-deep-hellfire/
” I don’t think CO2 emissions are much of a problem with geothermal energy” They are. Together with the hot geothermal fluids, there are dissolved gases, mainly C)2 but some hydrogen sulphide.
The proportion of these gases varies field to field, and is typically 1=2% but going up to 4-5% on some or even 10% on one or two fields. Because of the low energy value of the geothermal fluid, some geothermal stations emit more CO2 per MW than gas fired power stations.
There have been some efforts to capture these gases and reinject the fluid back into the ground. That is only economic if there is a high cost carbon charges regime.
Joe K. said “A further point that the proponents gloss over is the demand is much greater in winter and the increase in demand will also nearly skyrocket as new heating will shift from gas to electric.”
We don’t even mention it, because it is not true. Whether it be residential, commercial, or industrial. Commercial and Industrial have almost no increase in winter demand, and the residential winter demand (compared to equinoxes is still less than for the summer.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10211
Bushaw – Again demonstrating he doesnt understand the subject.
Its the delta between demand and suppy that is the issue.
you again cherrypick misleading data because you dont understand the subject.
No Joe, the point is that you lied when you made up “demand is much greater in winter”. I gave a reference to show it, and you couldn’t refute it. Instead, all you’ve got is your repeated insults. Who knows, perhaps you are trying out prosocial censorship; it is certainly much easier than factual and scientific responses. Regardless, pretty pathetic, almost as bad as Clint.
B A Bushaw | January 31, 2025 at 3:17 pm |
No Joe, the point is that you lied when you made up “demand is much greater in winter”.
A) You link doesnt show what you claimed – you would know that if you understood the data – you need to learn how to read & understand the data .
B) I provided a link on multiple occasions. I will provide the link again.
there are 4 real time charts of data
Demand
Generation by source
demand by region
interchange between us/mexico / canada.
you can drill down further by region, by time period, etc.
virtually ever response you have made on this thread has either been dead wrong or so highly distort – a clear sign to everyone that you have zero clue on the topic.
Just to be clear – my response to Bb was in response to B’s inane demonstration of his ____.
Actual real time data from EIA shows Baby doesnt know his own level of ignorance.
B A Bushaw | January 31, 2025 at 3:17 pm |
No Joe, the point is that you lied when you made up “demand is much greater in winter”.
B A Bushaw | January 31, 2025 at 3:17 pm |
No Joe, the point is that you lied when you made up “demand is much greater in winter”.
Baby – Care to provide the entire statement which shows my statement is 100% correct – or do you prefer to continue to be dishonest and truncate key portions of the statement –
Dishonesty is your forte. You get caught lying
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48
Link to EIA grid monitor – Source data
Joey, I gave you an EIA reference. You can argue with them all you want if you can’t interpret their graph.
BAB – “Whether it be residential, commercial, or industrial. Commercial and Industrial have almost no increase in winter demand, and the residential winter demand (compared to equinoxes is still less than for the summer.”
Living in an all electric house, I can say unequivocally, my electric bill is higher in winter than summer with traditional A/C and resistance heater (I am along the gulf coast). And, heat pump units do not keep up with the winter lows of late here…
There were demand outages with the larger energy supplier, that supplements with solar, during our recent gulf coast snowfall and temp plunge.
J Anderton – switch to natural gas. You will be glad you did.
JA, Can you say, unequivocally, that your personal anecdote is representative of the whole country? That is what I was talking about and the graph I referenced.
If you didn’t buy a big enough heat pump to handle the extreme gulf weather a couple of weeks ago, that is no surprise, it was unexpected climate change. For that situation, perhaps a couple of 1.5 kW electric resistive space heaters, and hope the grid doesn’t down.
B A Bushaw | February 1, 2025 at 11:18 am |
JA, Can you say, unequivocally, that your personal anecdote is representative of the whole country? That is what I was talking about and the graph I referenced.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48
J A – Your personal experience is consistent with the data from the EIA grid monitor. Look at the much more comprehensive EIA . gov grid monitor which I linked to. Its the total electric demand that matters. Segregating electric demand by sector will give misleading impression.
Seems someone accusing others of not knowing how to read a graph is the one needing to learn to read a graph.
Encouraging more domestic solar is a major reason why grid management has got a lot more difficult and expensive. To the grid operations, it has no visibility. It does not provide any power (or reduce grid loads) through the difficult peaks. As PE wrote, it does not provide grid reliability or system support services. It makes the problem worse.
Domestic solar is great for off-grid or remote areas at the end of long spurs. If load coincides with generation, there are real benefits. However, for places where there are strong distribution system connections, it is only of benefit to virtue signallers.
CM I concur –
Also worth noting is solar actual generation during the winter months is less than 1/3 of the summer months, which is a peak demand period. See EIA website for real time source data
Joe K,
Click on my name to view my system. I have 12+ years of data and winter is not 1/3 of summer output. There has been a lot of inflation since 2012 but I’m on a fixed price deal that locks me in at six cents per KWH if I hit 212 MWH by 2032. This PV array has generated 122 MWH since 2012. So far so good.
Jack – I am discussing utility solar, See the data at EIA.gov, which cover the whole US not just your local area in tarrant/wise county. Solar is approx 1/3 generation in the Nov/dec/jan/feb time frame. Its even worse north of the 43/44th parallel.
A further point that the proponents gloss over is the demand is much greater in winter and the increase in demand will also nearly skyrocket as new heating will shift from gas to electric.
What solar and wind currently provide is the saving of a MWh’s worth of fossil fuels or hydro water for every MWh of electricity they produce. High penetration is a straw man that is being addressed, but currently is not a problem. I guess I must just be more optimistic about the ever-increasing capabilities in STEM fields.
Joe, that’s a half-truth. What you left out is that solar is very well-matched to summer air conditioning demands.
PS ~ my solar array (in Colorado) produces a little over half as much in January as it does in July. That is why EIA (previously referenced) reports new solar construction in terms of capacity, not capacity factors, which vary widely with site location.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/19/8998
Capacity factors are well understood, averages are pretty meaningless. Maybe we could hear from a solar site planning engineer, instead of biased and unreferenced ruminations from an unknown.
Since you bring up EIA, here is their latest, with a real reference.
“New solar plants expected to support most U.S. electric generation growth” (1/24/25)
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64364
Enjoy. Note, it is about actual electricity generation, not capacity and estimated capacity factors, and it is only projecting out 2 years. So much for that straw man.
B A Bushaw | January 31, 2025 at 11:55 am |
Baby’s comment – “Capacity factors are well understood, averages are pretty meaningless. Maybe we could hear from a solar site planning engineer, instead of biased and unreferenced ruminations from an unknown.”
Thats not what Bushaw stated previously – Over several months Bushaw stated empatically that Averages were the correct metric.
Over several months Bushaw stated emphatically that name plate capacity was the correct metric.
Hard to keep your story straight when you are perpetually dishonest.
You missed the opportunity to point out that the term “green” is meaningless, unless you are talking about paint chips. Yet another term that poorly educated people latch on to. They even named their radical environmentalist political parties “green.” Green used to mean untrained, inexperienced, or seasick. That’s closer to the truth.
Green used to mean untrained, inexperienced, or seasick. That’s closer to the truth.
ouch!
B A Bushaw:
You need to read Prof. Will Happer’s paper “There is no climate emergency: Doubling CO2 makes no difference”
Burl,
No I don’t. No such paper exists. There is a blog summary of one of his lectures with that title, written by somebody else. If you know of a paper, you’d have to give the source. That title is the blog writer’s creation, not Happer’s belief. He also believes CO2 causes global warming, he just thinks the climate sensitivity is a bit less than the range of accepted values.
Your, paper “proving” CO2 can’t cause global warming is still disproven.
Thanks anyway, but I’ll go with:
https://romps.berkeley.edu/papers/pubdata/2020/logarithmic/20logarithmic.pdf
No I don’t. He hasn’t written a paper with that title, there is just a blog description of one of Happer’s lectures with that title. The title is the blog writer’s. It is wrong and does not represent Happer’s position.
Your claim that CO2 can’t cause warming has still been disproven. But thanks for yet another deflection from your failure.
We can achieve 99.7% of our energy from sources other than fossil fuels if we’re all willing to give up the benefits of modernity.
B A Bushaw:
No, you are wrong.
He was a guest lecturer on the Jan 24 “Watts Up With That” blog, and the title of his lecture was “How to think about Climate Change”, about 19 pages long.
He concluded that there is no climate emergency, CO2 levels are currently saturated, and they could be doubled or tripled or more, without any noticeable effect, except for plants.
Which supports my claim that CO2 can’t cause warming.
However, our climate IS warming, and that is because SO2 aerosol pollution levels are decreasing, increasing the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.
You still claim that you have disproven my SO2 warming “hypothesis” but I have disproven your disproof, and you refuse to even discuss it , calling it a “deflection”. Otherwise, your ego would be shattered, when you can’t disprove me.
Sorry, I find nothing with that title at WUWT. Give a link, if you know how. You hypothesis remains disproven.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/24/how-to-think-about-climate-change/
Pingback: Was andere Medien sagen
Thank you Planning Engineer for identifying the pea and thimble misdirection of wind/solar , the larger problem not their intermittency but their asynchronicity to the grid.
I see 4 major problems with high penetration of wind and solar
a) the intermittency and/or the long periods of doldrums last 1 or 2 days up to 6-10 days
b) the high hour by hour/ minute by minute variability of wind and solar. See the EIA website to see how much wind and solar change on an hourly basis
c) the synchroonicity of wind and solar / integration into the grid maintaining frequency, etc
D) the huge increase in total costs. The lcoe math doesnt work when you include the high level of redundancy required and the high level of storage back up.
As Russ notes, the advocates gloss over the intermittency with solutions as ” the wind is always blowing somewhere” , while ignoring the other more substantive issues.
B A Bushaw:
It’s on WUWT, a Jan 24 post, Titled “How to think about Climate Change”, as I had told you.
“Your hypothesis remains disproven”
Lets discuss it.
I was referring to the first title you gave, Happer didn’t write it, nor does he say doubling has no effect. He thinks the climate sensitivity is about 1 C, an outlier, somewhat less than the accepted range of 2 – 5 C [1]; but he still believes CO2 causes warming. You are about as good at lying as you are at science – you are incompetent. (Thanks for calling me that, untrue, but gives me license to say it about you, where it is true.)
https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/climate-sensitivity
No, I’m not much interested in discussing further, we have already discussed it much more that your paper deserved, but I’ll try once more.
And no, blogs are not papers. If they are of scientific nature, they are things the author isn’t able to publish in the scientific literature.
Hint, real atmospheric scientists know how large SO2 effects are, unfortunately you apparently don’t know how large CO2 or SO2 effects are, and are willfully ignorant. I calculated it for you, using untruncated data for temperature, SO2, and CO2(e), over the instrumental age. But then, math isn’t your strong suit. And, no, the fact that I assume SO2 and CO2 MAY have effects does not negate my disproof. The analysis allows that either one may have zero effect – that makes the disproof even stronger.
But for you, let’s leave the math out of it. SO2 emission 1950 – 1980 increase and temperature increases over the period (ΔT/Δ[SO2] is positive); 1980 – present, SO2 decreases and temperature still increases (ΔT/Δ[SO2] is negative). If you can grasp it, that means zero first-order correlation, and there must be another (much) larger effect that any SO2 effects must ride on top of. But then, you didn’t understand that either.
So, maybe you should enjoy your retirement instead of buying $30 DOIs, thinking that will make people believe you can do science.
beththeserf
your simple statement: “.. not their intermittency but their asynchronicity to the grid.” clarified for me the issue. I had been stuck in a lot of jargon. Thank you
Wonderful!
In winter it is cold. We have natural gas coming to our houses – we burn gas and get warm.
Interesting, This routine is changing now. They will built many gas powered electricity generators.
Generators will burn gas, produce electricity.
We shall have in our houses heat pumps. So we shall operate the heat pumps with electricity from the gas powered generators.
And… get warm.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
B A Bushaw:
You say that SO2 emissions 1950-1980 increase, and temperature increases. over the period.
That is a blanket statement which is NOT true. The temperature trend over that period was negative, because of rising levels of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution, with a few exceptions where temperatures TEMPORARILY rose because of warming from an El Nino or a recession.
Recall that there were fears of a return to a new ice age at that time !
You are dis-honestly cherry-picking the data!
You also say that “real atmospheric scientists know how large SO2 effects are” As an atmospheric “scientist”, please tell me what YOU think that number is.
Sorry, Burl.
The change over a period is the end value minus the start value. You’re wrong – you have already shown that you can’t understand or do math.
You are wrong, have been disproven, and don’t understand it. Pathetic.
“You are dis-honestly cherry-picking the data!”
No, you are the one that cherry-picked by using only data after the peak of SO2 emissions. I used all the available data since 1900 for the disproof, and data before that for establishing preindustrial baselines. You didn’t: you are the cherry-picker, and a liar to boot.
I’m not an “atmospheric” scientist (rather, a PhD physicist (AMOP) and developmental analytical chemist – see my patents and publications). The “number” from my analysis, for year 2000 (kinda the middle of your truncated/cherry-picked data interval for reduced SO2 emission) was, in year2000, about 7% of the global warming had come from reductions in SO2 emission.
You may calculate that “number” for any year 1900 – present. All you have to do is plug in the SO2 emissions and CO2 concentration for the given year into the equation that I derived in the disproof. Uncertainties for the fit constants are given, and the correlation coefficient. If you include the uncertainties in the SO2 emission and CO2 concentration for the chosen year, and do proper uncertainty propagation, it will give you a proper scientific number (value, uncertainty). I’ll leave that as an exercise for you.
100% is just plain silly hand-waving, and you are still disproven. Get over it.
Russ, “These studies ignore important issues such as deliverability, timing, reliability and costs.”
No, some people that read (often only the titles) seem to ignore the important issues within the reports. I see strong opinion divisions between public and media, and even science hobbyist “factors” (contrarians and alarmists). I don’t see much of that among scientists.
No doubt you can provide links to the reports by scientists which discuss in detail the issues (not by modelling but having real-world data, then its analysis) that you say PE is ignoring. Because I haven’t seen them.
CM – B who is also consistent with the renewable scientists/academics such as jacobson, are verymuch out of their depth. They dont comment on actual issues because they little or no real world experience nor the ability to recognize those issues. B repetitively demonstrates he is vastly out of his depth with his comments.
Joe
AEMO – the engineering part, not the executive toilet suits – have recognised that the politicians’ promises have left them with major issues that even by throwing eyewatering amounts of money at aren’t going to solve. A major part of the “solution” is a massive increase in transmission lines crisscrossing the country connecting so called Energy Hubs to loads. It is easy to draw lines on a map. When one then goes into what actually is needed to build and operate reliably a 1000km HVAC double circuit line or a DC line, that is when problems exponentially multiply. In recognition of this, they have lowered the reliability and performance standards. Not only will you be more likely to get involuntary load shedding/ rolling blackouts, you will pay more for that privilege. They can’t be far away as the grid has already declared a number of actual LOR2s.
Living in interesting times doesn’t cover half of the situation as politicians are starting to be confronted by the consequences of their virtue signalling. Voters aren’t impressed when the lights go out. Look forward to more panicked decisions like those SA made in 2016.
Not unless you say specifically what issues you want addressed. Sorry, you don’t get to rule out modelling, that is mostly what science does, sometimes it will model the past, and therefore has data, sometimes it models the future and there is no data, and usually it does both for consistency check and projection.
And, of course, Russ, likely falsifies himself by making a blanket statement … “These studies ignore important issues such as deliverability, timing, reliability and costs.” (which studies) I don’t think it will be hard to find a report, only one needed, that disproves his statement. Hyperbole, a favorite tool of contrarians, does not make convincing evidence.
Please provide the links to the papers that completely cover this issues, Mr. B.
No thanks, not unless you can be more specific what “this issues” are, preferably one at a time. Better yet, do your own research. Here’s a search term for starters, “Difficulties in energy transition”, or perhaps:
https://iee.psu.edu/news/blog/transitioning-renewable-energy-challenges-and-opportunities
B A Bushaw | January 31, 2025 at 4:24 pm |
No thanks, not unless you can be more specific what “this issues” are, preferably one at a time. ”
Read the article – the multitude of issues were detail extensively in this article and numerous other articles written by Russ.
Thanks, Joseph.
So, you can’t specify the issues, either.
The PSU link is fine. It’s from 2024 and it’s calling for careful consideration of many issues (as I do). I couldn’t find where it referenced that any such work of that sort already completed that supported wind, solar and batteries at the grid level for widespread use on any grid. I didn’t see any reference to any research that was done and worthwhile. Note the green narrative I am speaking Olof, formed from “”research” in the past. Not what someone is getting around to calling for in 2024.
All right BAB – where is the academic paper on how there would be voltage support on the grid for underfrequency events caused by a large unit trip? The paper would need to discuss a real life event – there have been plenty – and how it would be managed for that event. There are plenty of reports out there of the actual grid behaviour, that could be used as a basis. The Queensland islanding when U4 Callide destroyed itself as an example.
Your 4:24 link is just another garbage link. Nothing real in it, just a lot of buzzwords.
CM,
here’s one:
https://energy.sandia.gov/wp-content/gallery/uploads/SAND-2014-3122-VFRT_Paper_April-2014.pdf
You can find other relevant papers citing the above scientific report by copying the above citation into google scholar, and looking for the citations there.
APE doesn’t seem to agree with your opinion on the psu article. Not a surprise, he doesn’t seem to engage in contentless hyperbole like you.
BAB That paper is distribution system, not transmission. You also didn’t bother reading the paper, otherwise you would have seen this:
1. “The DR aggregate capacity is less than one-third of the minimum load of the Local EPS.
2. The DR is certified to pass an applicable non-islanding test.
3. The DR installation contains reverse or minimum power flow protection, sensed between the Point of DR Connection and the PCC, which will disconnect or isolate the DR if power flow from the Area EPS to the Local EPS reverses or falls below a set threshold.
4. The DR contains other non-islanding means, such as a) forced frequency or voltage shifting, b) transfer trip, or c) governor and excitation controls that maintain constant power and constant power factor.”
CM – Yes. They address some of the concerns that you and APE have expressed. That’s what you asked for. Sorry, it was so easy.
BTW, How does that distribution system work without transmission.
BAB Don’t Lie.
PE wrote: “I couldn’t find where it referenced that any such work of that sort already completed that supported wind, solar and batteries at the grid level for widespread use on any grid. I didn’t see any reference to any research that was done and worthwhile. ” So it was a paper of no value to the issues he raised. He is just more polite in his comments than me.
With regards the Sandia paper, it was not academic nor was he a scientist. It was a commissioned piece by a very experienced industry engineer about what issues compliance with a new standard will cause. The consultant had a CV very similar to PE. They probably moved in the same circles.
Your last sentence just confirms what Joe perceptively wrote about you.
CM – I gave you what you asked for. I don’t care what additional requirements you decide you put on it, when it turned out to be so easy.
Yes – it is really easy to claim an irrelevant 10 year old paper in non-specifics by a non-scientist answered the question. Your Googling ability is so much greater than your comprehension skills.
Looks like Mr. B’s reference says it will be difficult to integrate DR into the grid. It doesn’t seem to include battery or other storage, so it is still incomplete. At any rate, it’s not a plus for unreliable energy sources.
CM – Russ, also said “The PSU link is fine. It’s from 2024 and it’s calling for careful consideration of many issues (as I do).”
CM is just another biased cherry-picker, like all the others around here.
Joe, I don’t know who Jacobsen is. I am consistent with 90+% of scientists and 99+% publishing climate related scientists. I am not consistent with contrarian views such as yours. Your continued insults are pathetic, but it is good to know how insecure you are.
With regard to you commentary on renewables You are extremely consistent with academics who are out of the depth.
I have pointed out errors/ distortions/ misrepresentations on numerous occasions, frequently with links to source data that directly point out your error.
B A Bushaw | January 31, 2025 at 4:01 pm | Reply
Joe, I don’t know who Jacobsen is.
That is dubious –
Thanks, Joe. Always a pleasure to hear your thoughts.
Joe, your doubts have no weight. You couldn’t possibly know what I do and don’t know. However, I do know how to use the internet, and now I know which “Jacobsen” you mean. Yeah, I more or less agree with his views, and I trust his credentials and published papers much more than yours (zero).
B A Bushaw | January 31, 2025 at 4:52 pm |
Thanks, Joe. Always a pleasure to hear your thoughts.
You only have yourself to blame – You have earned a reputation for dishonesty.
Joey, thanks for your thoughts. But, coming as personal attacks from a nobody, I don’t care what you think.
B A Bushaw:
Industrial SO2 aerosol pollution levels in the atmosphere peaked at 141 million tons in 1979, then began falling circa 1980 due to the Clean Air legislation enacted in the 1970’s.
As the amount of pollution in the air decreased, the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface increased, and warming naturally occurred.
This an irrefutable FACT, and is the reason why I maintain that SO2 aerosols are the control knob for our climate!
Burl, You said that all before, and I’ve answered it many times. As a major professor once told me, “You’re repeating yourself, if you can’t think of anything new, be quiet.” You probably don’t realize it, but the opening two words of your title, “Scientific Proof.” is sufficient to disprove you. It is neither scientific or a proof. What you should have said is “Evidence” (and not believable evidence). But then, no science background makes for s**ty science.
Search term: “Is there proof is science?”. Just a completely independent disproof that you are incorrect. Ignorance is not an excuse, particularly for peer-reviewed (WJARR – HaHa) publication.
Keep flapping those wings. It’s funny.
B A Bushaw:
I keep repeating myself because you just DON’T get it. It seems to be due to either sheer stupidity, or to willful ignorance!
“Decreasing levels of atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution ALWAYS cause temperatures to rise, because they increase the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface”.
As I pointed our earlier, there were 32 American business recessions between 1854 and 2007, and in every instance temperatures rose because there were fewer SO2 aerosol emissions due to idled foundries, factories, etc.
So, for 153 years temperatures temporarily rose whenever SO2 aerosol levels decreased, and they have continued to do so, since circa 1980, when their levels began to decrease because of Clean Air legislation.
The ONLY way to disprove my “hypothesis” is to prove that warming does NOT occur whenever atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution levels decrease. Your CO2 separation graph ASSUMES that CO2 has some climatic effect, and thus is worthless.
There has never been any intentional testing to determine whether CO2 actually causes any GLOBAL warming, so it is just an untested hypothesis. whereas the effects of changing levels of SO2 aerosol pollution are affirmed with every volcanic eruption, or significant change in industrial activity.
Further, Scientific Proof CAN be established whenever it is supported by empirical evidence.
No, I’m not afraid to discuss it. Here ya go.
“Decreasing levels of atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution ALWAYS cause temperatures to rise, because they increase the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface”.
Not Always – that is a self-negation by hyperbole – it doesn’t work in science and neither do you. Further, it has nothing to do with the title and claim of your paper, that CO2 can’t cause warming because Burl thinks it’s 100% because of human SO2. They are two different effects – you have done nothing to quantify them. I have – you have been disproven, by me and other scientists that actually work on the subject.
Basically you cherry-picked a data range to find a correlation (which you did not calculate and specify) and somehow think that proves causality.
Have you noticed that while there are plenty of people here very willing to attack me, not one of them is willing to jump in and defend Burl’s fake science.
Basically wrong on all counts, Burl. You are incompetent, don’t understand science or math (maybe arithmetic), and refuse to learn. I don’t believe what you say, and apparently nobody else does either: 17 publications, and 6 citations (LOL) – tell us how may of those are self-citations (its checkable).
And, no supporting comments from the contrarian tribe here. I assume they don’t believe you – certainly Rob, Christos, and Dan don’t – but the tribe etiquette apparently doesn’t permit negative comments about fellow contrarians. Must be quite an ethical conundrum – attacking things you don’t like, even if somewhere deep down in your willful ignorance, you know they are right, while ignoring things that you like, but know are incorrect.
And yes, I understand what you are saying – every GD time you repeat yourself. Trouble is, there is no evidence SO2 effects negate warming by CO2, only wing flapping. Scientists (not you) who work in the field understand SO2 emissions ares radiatively important, but it’s cooling only counteracts on the order of 10% of warming from other processes. And no evidence is not proof, particularly if there is any counter evidence.
Let’s take a closer look at the paper in question’s structure:
TITLE, ABSTRACT, INTRODUCTION, CONCLUSIONS, REFERENCES (such as they are).
Oops, you forgot the BODY of the paper, and so did the “peer reviewers” and “editors”. Not a surprise, as it took 3 day from receiving the manuscript to accepting it, just about how long it would take to process the WJARR fee payments (LMAO). And without some kind of body, where did you hide your so-called evidence?
” The ONLY way to disprove my “hypothesis” is to prove that warming does NOT occur whenever atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution levels decrease. Your CO2 separation graph ASSUMES that CO2 has some climatic effect, and thus is worthless.”
Sorry, you don’t get to define what can disprove your hypotheses.
The basic thing you don’t understand is that a proof must cover all instances, a disproof only requires one.
And, no, the disproof assumes nothing since about since the fit could be zero, but it wasn’t: It found CO2 warming to be about 13 times as large as negative SO2 cooling. Because the evolution of GHG concentrations and SO2 emissions have such different shapes, they are easily separated with by the two-dimensional analysis. It is your paper that is worthless, making the ridiculous claim that SO2 is responsible for ALL (100%) of warming, without any quantitative analysis.
BTW, I accept that reducing SO2 allows faster warming. My disproof, and evidence from many other scientists, shows that it is responsible for around 10% of the warming. You waved your hands and claimed it is 100% – utter nonsense.
“Further, Scientific Proof CAN be established whenever it is supported by empirical evidence”
No, it can’t – all caps doesn’t make your ignorance correct. A scientific hypothesis can become an accepted theory if there is sufficient evidence to support it. It cannot be proven correct. You could start by understanding the difference between deductive and inductive logic. I gave you a reference, and there are many more – haven’t read them, have you? You have clearly never studied the philosophy of science, logic or reason – it shows, your hypothesis is disproven, and you are making a fool of yourself. You may have been a good electrical engineer in 1957-60, but it also makes you quite old; have you checked with your doctor about mental decline?
Your hypothesis (paper title) has been disproven by me, and in more detail by other scientists – I already gave you references. I don’t believe you, and it appears nobody else does either, not even in the dominant tribe here.
For your own good, just shut up, go away, and enjoy what little time you may have left.
Thank you, B A.
Please explain why Earth is warmer than Moon?
Earth’s Albedo is a =0,306 while Moon’s Albedo is a =0,11
The difference in Albedo makes Moon receive 28% more solar light than Earth. Yet Earth is much warmer.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, Because the earth has an atmosphere containing IR absorbing molecules and moving fluids on the surface.
Also, nobody, except maybe me, pays attention to all you repeated comments. Watch out, Geoff might scold you for thread bombing.
Thank you, B A.
“Christos, Because the earth has an atmosphere containing IR absorbing molecules and moving fluids on the surface.”
Maybe it is good when Earth had somewhat the Moon’s temperature.
But Earth’s temperature is much-much higher than Moon’s.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: How the Green Energy Narrative confuses things – Climate- Science.press
Russ … always enjoy your pieces. Look forward to the next one. Thank you.
In the Soviet Union Trofim Lysenko, who was a genetics denier was in charge of genetics and with the support of Stalin held back agricultural advances by decades, even causing mass starvation. When grids fail and we all freeze to death, will we eventually realise that the green drum has been beaten by the Lysenkos of the world and that our political leaders were not good at choosing champions?
Russ,
Thank you for this article, another one showing the value of actual experience in the topic.
The present tension between theorists and practical people seems to me to arise because the energy/electricity/climate scene is complex and often multivariate and it is hard to make a short general statement that is both correct and not subject to attack by critics. Unless commenters understand that nuances or caveats are commonly required, they lose their credibility to comment.
I have just been through a thread bombing exercise on another blog on the topic of heatwaves in Australia. The thread bomber succeeded in taking the topic away from my measurements, in favour of a large volume of unrelated matter. It is a pity that your postings have attracted another serial pest, but I do not know of a solution.
I have not been put off further articles on topics I know from hands-on, but I do feel for others who might feel it not worth the effort. to cope with thread bombing. It surprises me when a scientist becomes involved in it, because it is anti-science.
Geoff S
You are ever so correct Geoff. However, one needs to differentiate operational engineering from theoretical science. They are two totally different disciplines with little or no crossover and the latter has no expertise in the former.
Grids operate at 99.999% reliability. Because of this, the operators are real worry warts. Modelling is done on load and generation forecast in the worst conditions – frosty mornings are a favorite round here. No solar, wind or batteries working. That gives significantly different generation and load distribution to normal conditions. The model can do major changes every trading period.
When one sees people using averages or nameplate ratings for their analyses, it identifies that person is an idiot about these matters, no matter how credentialed they are. I have dealt with more than a few Engineering Professors who can’t understand that basic fact. Even resorted to speaking slowly using simple words without success, then I just write them off.
People need to get their heads around (I will give them the benefit of the doubt and not put it down to deliberate ignoring it) that grid operations are predicated on things going wrong. The system has to cope with the largest credible event. This may be a large generator or heavily loaded transmission line tripping off. That is why they carry what seems to be very large reserves with varying degrees of time needed to get full power. With long transmission lines, and remote generation, you need the reserves close to a strong grid node. Even then, one can get caught out. Look at the recent problems in NSW. You also need cover for the issues PE listed. They can be more important than meeting dispatch.
EPRI did a very good training manual for System Operations. About 75MB. I’ve lost the link as I have it just as a pdf. A real doorstopper of a document to be mentally digested and memorised. It only deals in generalisations, not individual system nuances, but it is great for an insight into what needs to be considered.
Way back in the 80s, the System Operations here was the second largest user of computing power in the country. Things have changed since then, but the complexity of the grid has only increased. For one example, frequency control has been automated. One only has to read reports of grid incidents to see that events leading to failure occurred under a set of circumstances no-one had considered.
Chris
I am bi, nearly finished B Eng Aeronatical when a car crash ended if so I switched to Science. Career wise I probably worked more with engineers, mainly mining, and did discern a difference in ways to solve problems. Medical researchers use another approach using the constancy of the human body in their logic. The important part is intellectual honesty – I agree with Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman’s guidelines. Geoff S
Chris
“… the complexity of the grid has only increased. ”
A one way street, not to be reversed. And with that fragility.
I’ve told my kids don’t think that just because reliability of the systems, whatever systems, they have gotten used to, will always be that way. Be prepared for disruption, of any kind.
“..even resorted to speaking slowly…”
A little levity early in the morning is a good way to start the day. Especially with another long day of driving. I’m on my way to the shores of the Gulf of Mexico….err…Gulf of America, to see the non sea level rise for the annual, in person, measurements with my wooden ruler.
CM – Completely agree with your comment on people using averages.
The real time data from the EIA grid monitor shows why “averages” are a very poor metric. Far too much volitility from wind and solar. Same issue with Name plate capacity.
CM: “EPRI did a very good training manual for System Operations. About 75MB. I’ve lost the link as I have it just as a pdf.
Might help if you looked at your PDF and gave the actual title, I assume you meant:
EPRI Power System Dynamics Tutorial (published July 27, 2009)
Instructions for accessing it can be found at:
https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=297&q=EPRI+good+training+manual+for+Power+System+Operations&cvid=bd20f7ae3eb94bd690cd4b8a93fbe100&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOdIBCTI3NDIyajBqMagCALACAA&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531
Also at:
https://studylib.net/doc/25397106/epri-manual
Download here:
https://www.epri.com/research/products/000000000001016042
Yes thats it BAB though mine’s an earlier version. May have to do a comparison to see what changes were made.
Chris, I agree. Most people don’t understand the complexities of system engineering and operation. Even when they do, the accomplishments of SpaceX still appear as magic. Not just in the launching and landings of rockets and bosters, but also in the operation of a communications satellite system consisting of thousands of satellites. Of course, one can’t afford potentially destructive experiments with operational power generation and distribution systems.
One other thing that many don’t understand is what’s often referred to as the cliff effect. The more you optimize a system, the worse the fail when it finally occurs. A good example is anti-lock brakes and vehicle stability systems. Before these existed you knew when you were driving in slippery conditions and needed to slow down. Now, when you reach the point when those systems can’t save you from driving too fast for conditions, you’re not going to be saved by your own efforts — there’s nothing left to do but pray.
Geoff,
I took a look at your WUWT article. I see you didn’t learn how to use the LINEST function for uncertainty analysis, you only provide the small R^2s that are typical of nearly flat lines with some scatter. LINEST provides much more statistical information than the canned “trendline” least-squares analysis. In your case, it would give uncertainties on the slope and intercept. Without which, readers (and you) are not able to ascertain if your determined slopes have any statistical significance whatsoever.
Maybe it would have served you better to have listened to my suggestions, instead of getting mad at me because I didn’t think it was good/complete work. Sorry, but I still feel the same way about the WUWT version.
” I have not covered stations that host 2 or more hot heatwaves in a year.”
Well, that kinda ruins the whole thing – biases against more HWs in recent times, and leaves out available data (cherry-picking). I might also question the appropriateness of bar graphs for this kind of graph, particularly for the additionally cherry- picked “top-40”, where the irregularly spaced years are given equal spacing on the time axis.
And then you sign off as:
Geoff Sherrington,
Scientist
Now that you’ve announced it publically, have you got any evidence for that “scientist” bit? I’ve asked before, but you seem to ignore those questions.
I checked the books in our library today. The information on the practicalities on how managing the grid for day-to-day operations really works I meant to reference was BEI’s Modern Power Station Practice Volume L System Operation. Only about 300 A4 pages but as it’s narrowly focused and written specifically for engineers/ senior operators, it has info on the philosophy and logic that EPRI doc doesn’t. A fantastic resource to check facts with lots of graphs and the old- style informative diagrams. Ours are 2nd Edition but I think there is a new version out. There may also be reprints in India as they would use the series as a guide for training the engineers to run all their new coal fired power stations. The Indians are great at keeping the technical engineering book selection going.
It might be over 40 years old, but things haven’t significantly changed. All the issues PE listed are in it and it details why they are critical. Frequency support for day-to-day operations starts on P129. And just for you BAB, it is ISBN 0-08-040521-5
Aw, poor Geoff, I must have hurt his feeling, RE his high-school science project. But thanks for sharing your summary work sheet graph with us. Sometime, I’ll take a look at WUWT and see if you have made improvements suggested.
I’m not sure what thread bombing is. Oh yeah, it means somebody makes a lot of comments, and it is an attempt to denigrate them; it is also a contentless ad hominem. I happen to think it correlated pretty well with the all there is to be skeptical about on this blog, and elsewhere; with the addition burden of having to respond to all the prosocial censorship (insults and name-calling). Instead, you might address my comments that are addressed to you, such as: Where is the evidence that you are the scientist you claim to be? It’s alright, at this point I can guess.
Now: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-01/heatwave-flooding-forecast-australia/104876066
Geoff,
I looked at the WUWT paper. I see that you didn’t learn to use LINEST, as I suggested. Too bad, without uncertainty on the slope, we have no idea if they have any statistical significance Whatsoever. Useless.
You also claimed to be a scientist in signing off on your blog. I’ll ask again – got any evidence for that?
Also I note: “I have not covered stations that host 2 or more hot heatwaves in a year.”
Well, that a convenient way to suppress recent increases.
Bushaw wrote ” I see that you didn’t learn to use LINEST, as I suggested”. I was using LINEST 15 years ago for the study of heatwaves. My WUWT article displays 160 graphs, each with a linear least squares fit y = A + Bx and an R squared calculation, which is the guts of what LINEST does. I use Excel when encouraging others to calculate, while I prefer other programs like SAS JMP for most statistical work.
You also wrote “Also I note: “I have not covered stations that host 2 or more hot heatwaves in a year. Well, that a convenient way to suppress recent increases.” I explained in the article that it is a complex software operation to detect more than one hot heatwave in a year. It is not required to do this when calculating if heatwaves are becoming hotter, because I have already selected for the hottest each year. Besides, I have looked for the multi-heatwave-in-a-year topic by browsing many hours of data, finding that this is an uncommon event, whose treatment in the simple, first instance is simply to not deal with it. As I also explained, I am trying to keep the topic simple so that people lacking software experience can be confident of being able to follow the bouncing ball and do their own analysis. (I started learning software with a machine language course in 1970, after private purchase of a Data General Nova computer, then a PDP-8).
It is sad to see how far you have progressed down the path of assuming that you are correct without testing if you are correct. Experienced, hard scientists are aware of the need to avoid unwarranted and unproven assumptions. Climate research has popularised this anti-science error.
You should learn to apologise for getting it wrong so often. Geoff S
Geoff,
Very nice excuses, you still don’t have uncertainties on the most important parameter of your blog article – slopes – and we still have no idea of the statistical importance, if any. So what if you used LINEST 15 years ago – you didn’t now, where it is needed. And no, LINEST is not like the canned trend analyses: it gives uncertainties and can handle multidimensional analysis.
“I explained in the article that it is a complex software operation to detect more than one hot heatwave in a year.”
Maybe complex for you, but it still distorts the data, in that it removes second-largest heat waves. You should really analyze all heat waves. Using only the hottest per year, is cherry-picking, and then using the top 40 is further cherry-picking.
I’ll ask again:
Where is the evidence that you are the scientist you claim to be? Is it that difficult to give out that information, or maybe there isn’t any?
The quality of your blog article (and using bar graphs for irregular time series) argues against it.
Gee, Geoff. Sounds like a bunch of excuses for poor/incomplete work. Thanks anyway. Let me know if you can ever explain why you think you are a scientist. Thanks for the usual insults.
LINEST is not like the simple canned trend-line function you used. It provides uncertainties and can handle multiple dimensions. But yes they both use least-squares methods, that does not make them the same.
Geoff, not interested in all your excuses.
sherro01: Thanks for the explanation. It is a window onto another ‘art’ in studying the environment.
But I refer to this section “finding that this is an uncommon event, whose treatment in the simple [sample?], first instance is simply to not deal with it.”
I misled myself – like several others before me- to ignore two outlier measurements of over 3000 yrs of obliquity measurements, only to discover 15yrs later that I threw out the baby and kept the bathwater. In that those outlier measurements actually caught an earth axial disturbance. The cause was planetary inferior conjunction.
I mention this because such event also has effect on earth temperature, in that a sudden small gravity reduction (or reverse depending where the site happens to be relevant to the conjunction line) has a pressure/temperature effect. Such can lead to significant bias which may not be from any global warming effects (but important for other studies).
‘Expectations from the green energy narrative and real-world results are not consistent and this gulf will continue to widen as long as policy makers continue to reflexively buy into the green energy narrative.’
The Eurocommies descended into the gulf created by the pseudoscience of the climate change narrative and in Britain, for example, they’re still on course to let their older generation burn books to stay warm if there’s another cold winter and in Germany, their industry is crippled when winds slow. America’s hope is that it is last into the insanity and the first out of it… no thanks to a politicized Western academia.
Quote “– descended into the gulf created by the pseudoscience of the climate change narrative and in Britain, for example, they’re still on course to let their older generation burn books to stay warm –”
I bet those books are on engineering. Engineering is a tough life style to follow. Drama is better and pays more.
Pingback: How the Green Energy Narrative confuses things – Watts Up With That? - All about Farming
Pingback: How the Green Energy Narrative confuses things – Watts Up With That?
Green hydrogen project threatens pristine Paranal skies in Chile
Details are emerging about the plant, whose proposed location in the Atacama Desert is concerning astronomers.
https://www.astronomy.com/science/green-hydrogen-project-threatens-pristine-paranal-skies-in-chile/
The US may be forced to consider how to address asylum claims at the US border based on those seeking protection from persecution in their home countries for engaging in activities that utilize energy like… running a business that provides a product that everyone needs.
I think it
It’s odd that since Trump was elected, we are now seeing people tell the truth about unreliable energy sources and “green” energy policy.
Poland needs to rapidly overhaul its costly power system as the country risks losing a competitive edge in terms of luring new investors, according to billionaire Michal Solowow.
Elevated taxes, including carbon allowance permits, and aging power plants have propelled electricity bills for the country’s businesses to one of the highest in the world
Source of the comment:(www)bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-03/poland-needs-deep-energy-changes-to-stay-competitive-billionaire-solowow-says
More rebellion against unreliable “green” energy sources. From the article: The Independent Food Distributors Australia (IDFA) which supplies food to 60,000 shops and markets in Australia has broken with other large industry bodies and said the government should drop the “ideological” renewables target and upgrade our coal power plants and install new gas plants.
The source for this is Jo–anne-nova’s site.
The source is Joe NoeVah’s site.
What is Musk doing inside the Treasury payment system? He has access to all your banking and social security information. FYI, access to this system is fully bidirectional. It can deposit AND withdraw funds into any account. I think it would be a neat way to drain out billions in US$ and replace it with crypto. So much winning!
jacksmith4tx | February 3, 2025 at 9:30 am |
What is Musk doing inside the Treasury payment system? He has access to all your banking and social security information.
Jack – that is likely not true. Very few, if any, treasury department employee will have the password, security authorizations neccesary to access to drill down into the various levels of data. It is very doubtful that Musk as an outsider would ever be granted access to obtain that info.
jacksmith4tx: “What is Musk doing inside the Treasury payment system?”
Joe K: “… that is likely not true.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/01/us/politics/elon-musk-doge-federal-payments-system.html
We’ll see.
Pat
Jack’s statement was musk would access to personal data.
Your confirms my rebuttal to jack’s assertion
“Aides to Elon Musk …have locked career civil servants out of computer systems that contain the personal data of millions of federal employees, according to two agency officials….”We have no visibility into what they are doing with the computer and data systems,” one of the officials said.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-aides-lock-government-workers-out-computer-systems-us-agency-sources-say-2025-01-31/
I’m sure everything will be fine…
Pat -You keep scoring own goals!
Its easy to get mislead when you get your information from the MSM and reach wrong conclusions.
Both articles state that civil service employees lost their access to confidential personal information. Nowhere does it state the musk has access to personal information and it is highly unlikely that he will be granted access to personal information.
Free link to NYT story: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/01/us/politics/elon-musk-doge-federal-payments-system.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uE4.HKJ3.Nbaf-owIg-YJ&smid=url-share
“In a process typically run by civil servants, the Treasury Department carries out payments submitted by agencies across the government, disbursing more than $5 trillion in fiscal year 2023. Access to the system has historically been closely held because it includes sensitive personal information about the millions of Americans who receive Social Security checks, tax refunds, Medicare payments and other payments from the federal government.”
Now that Musk has unrestricted access to the Treasury Trump has created a US sovereign wealth fund. Great idea! Finally, a place to put all those billions of surplus dollars sloshing around in the Federal Reserve.
https://www.axios.com/2025/02/03/what-to-know-trump-sovereign-wealth-fund
“Sovereign wealth funds are common in oil-rich, typically non-Western countries that run budget surpluses.
The U.S. has only run a budget surplus four times in the last 50 years, per federal data, most recently in 2001.
The largest sovereign wealth funds are in Norway, China, Abu Dhabi and Singapore.”
The Democrat party has not been this unpopular since losing the presidential election to the Whigs in 1792.
Jack & Pat –
A) Its a story done by the NYT & rueters, so as usual, the msm stories are misleading.
B) That being said, both of you need to learn how to read – while avoiding getting fooled.
It does not state
Repeat
“It Does not State”
that musk has access to personal data.
If you say so Joe K.
https://www.muskwatch.com/p/musk-associates-given-unfettered
Nothing to see here:
“According to two members of OPM staff with direct knowledge, the Musk team running OPM has the ability to extract information from databases that store medical histories, personally identifiable information, workplace evaluations, and other private data. The staffers spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly and feared professional retaliation. Musk Watch also reviewed internal OPM correspondence confirming that expansive access to the database was provided to Musk associates.
…
The civil servants who oversee the OPM’s information technology services were then instructed to provide access to Musk’s associates, according to the OPM staffers who spoke to Musk Watch. One of the OPM staffers received an email from the agency’s new leadership instructing them to give Musk’s team “access [to] the system as an admin user” and “code read and write permissions.”
“They have access to the code itself, which means they can make updates to anything that they want,” the staffer explained.”
It does not state
Repeat
“It Does not State”
that musk has been denied access to personal data.
The context indicates that he has it if he wants it.
OPM has already lost a lot of that PII to hackers…. If he has access, much of that information was already had by outsiders.
Chris Wright was confirmed to lead the Department of Energy …
Denver fracking contractor Chris Wright is a scientist and engineer who supports fossil fuels and renewable energy development.
The Senate has confirmed Colorado fracking services contractor Chris Wright to lead the Department of Energy (DOE) in its management of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile, national labs in energy development, and in implementing President Donald Trump’s energy policies.
The Senate endorsed Wright to serve as energy secretary on Feb. 3 in a 59–38 vote that drew objections from some Democrats over his support for fossil fuel development in taking the reins of the DOE 14,000-employee workforce and its $52 billion annual budget.
Boiling Point: Farewell to Ivanpah, the world’s ugliest solar plant
Sometimes, government makes a bad bet.
Case in point: the Ivanpah solar project. Maybe you’ve seen the unsightly, blindingly bright towers while traveling from L.A. to Las Vegas, in the Mojave Desert near the California-Nevada state line. Maybe you’ve read about birds getting fried to death as they fly through the sunlight directed to the tops of the towers by fields of mirrors.
https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2025-01-27/boiling-point-farewell-to-ivanpah-the-worlds-ugliest-solar-plant-boiling-point
Not a new phenomenon- e.g.,
“Seventeen years ago, Spain’s socialist government decided to inject subsidies into renewable energy. As a result, thousands of Spanish families massively invested in photovoltaic energy. But, as you’ll see in our report, the dream rapidly turned into a nightmare…”
“Spain’s Solar Energy Crisis: 62,000 People Bankrupt After Investing in Solar Panels…”
Bill,
Yes, sometimes government makes a bad bet, but keep reading the article you posted:
“But on the whole, clean power investments have worked out. The U.S. Department of Energy reported that as of Dec. 31, it had disbursed $40.5 billion in loans. Of that amount, $15.2 billion had already been repaid. The federal government was on the hook for $1.03 billion in estimated losses but had reaped $5.6 billion in interest.”
Excellent article, Judith
Never seen before, but possibly of interest, this site comes up with a warning from malwarebytes – possible trojan outgoing to 91.212.166.21 blocked
and the search finds
91.212.166.21 was found in our database!
This IP was reported 609 times. Confidence of Abuse is 0%:0%
ISP Proton66 LLC
Usage Type Fixed Line ISP
ASN AS198953
Domain Name proton66.ru
Country Russian Federation
City Saint Petersburg, St.-Petersburg
https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/91.212.166.21
Anybody else see this?
The Global warming alarmists really don’t care if the Democrat party turns an energy-deprived American economy into another Greece or Spain or GM or Boston or California.
Thank you for a rewarding read, Mr Schussler.
I especially liked your scene setting using the magician’s many distracting methods to get the trick to work (even if you know how the ‘magic’ works a magician with a high skill set will still make the magic fly way over your head). Whilst it is fitting to point out net zero’s layers of ‘green’ trickery the skill set involved is not very high at all and suggests net zero is totally relying on government force and dictatorial policy obtained via regulation.
This is all typical arrant woke nonsense a bit like the stretching of our human gender description in order to incorporate a very poor and inappropriate virtue signal. Meanwhile the correct way to obtain an intelligent, reliable and almost squeaky clean energy policy is via efficient fuel sources. The most efficient fuel is nuclear followed by traditional methods which do not and never should include wind or solar unless your main objective is to totally destroy the environment – land, sea and air.
If only we had some intelligent politicians who actually bother to do their own research and not engage in taking salaries under false pretences let alone reward certain entrepreneurs for misleading us both financially and practically. When are ordinary people going to get all that misappropriated cash back?
B A, please explain what do you mean by that:
“And, no supporting comments from the contrarian tribe here. I assume they don’t believe you – certainly Rob, Christos, and Dan don’t – but the tribe etiquette apparently doesn’t permit negative comments about fellow contrarians. Must be quite an ethical conundrum – attacking things you don’t like, even if somewhere deep down in your willful ignorance, you know they are right, while ignoring things that you like, but know are incorrect.”
“even if somewhere deep down in your willful ignorance, you know they are right, while ignoring things that you like, but know are incorrect.”
B A, everyone claiming AGW theory is wrong – they are not contrarians, everyone is capable distinquishing how much wrong the AGW theory is – and it is wrong all the way possible, it is wrong from all kinds of perspectives.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
As emissaries of communist, socialist, fascist, totalitarian and terrorist nations and tin-pot dictatorships meet in places like Copenhagen, Cancun, Monaco and Rio to figure out how to control energy, and by extension, means of production and all human endeavor, the future of individual liberty, economic freedom and personal responsibility has been under continual attack by America-hating Eurocommies and Leftist Western academia for decades.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-we-blame/201709/willful-ignorance-and-self-deception?msockid=0e7df573745465ef28b7e5f67569643c
I’m more interested in where the AGW theory is right. Try it. Your rejection is false.
California’s disconsolate parallax views on global warming include, for examples, California’s willingness to spend billions on CO2 abatement while leaving reservoirs dry, wild lands untended and driving risk-insurers out of the state…
The weights that are given to various facts, beliefs and assumptions will vary from person-to-person and group-to-group. The complexity of the matter increases as we add the social and psychological dynamics of foundational principles like, accountability, personal responsibility and individual liberty until finally, we realize it is impossible to arrive at sensible solutions except with a market-based approach.
Wasn’t it trump that just ordered the release of 2.2 billion gallons from northern CA reservoirs; Resulting in the flooding of the central valley, and not much else. But it is obvious that trump thinks trump knows best about everything, and if an advisor challenges his decisions, the most likely result is firing. The classification, as malignant narcissist, is well deserved.
“When L.A. fires broke out, the 117-million gallon Santa Ynez Reservoir near Pacific Palisades was empty. Here’s what we know…” ~CBS News, 1-14-25
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/US48/US48/GenerationByEnergySource-4/edit
The above link is to the EIA grid monitor for electric generation by source. I set the time period covered for the calendar year 2024 for the continental US. The volatility of Wind is enourmas, ranging between 300mw a day to 1,900 mw a day with wind droughts lasting 2-6 days.
In his 100% renewable studies, Jacobson claims to have successfully demonstrated the grid will remain intact based on a one year modellying test with stress tests every 30 seconds. Of course, his study has been peer reviewed by other renewable experts.
Please take a look at the grid monitor – judge for yourselves whether claim of success of the 30 sec stress test is even remotely plausible.
References for the Jacobsen papers that you refer to, please.
A pdf – you will need to google search since I cant link a pdf
“Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with
100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and
solar for all purposes”
Mark Z. Jacobsona,1, Mark A. Delucchib, Mary A. Camerona, and Bethany A. Frewa
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148121016499
30sec test
Note S2 of the Supplementary Information (SI) describes the methodology used here for developing year-2050 roadmaps to transition each of the 50 U S. states and D.C. to 100% WWS in order to meet annual average load among all energy sectors. It then describes the weather-climate-air pollution model used to predict time-dependent solar, wind, and wave resources and building heat and cold loads. Finally, it details the grid integration model used to meet continuous load every 30 s for two years
Bottom line – jacobson’s every 30sec reliability / stress test is not credible.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/US48/US48/GenerationByEnergySource-4/edit
NNN, behind a paywall and 10 years old. No thanks. You’re kinda late to the party you started. Thanks anyway.
B A Bushaw | February 5, 2025 at 11:48 am |
NNN, behind a paywall and 10 years old. No thanks. You’re kinda late to the party you started. Thanks anyway.
Jacobson makes the same claim in most every one of his studies. Any reason for your prick comment – other than you just being a typical prick?
Joe, Your not knowing the difference between “prickly” and “prick” and using the latter, makes you the prick.
Would this paper from a Mr Mark Z Jacobson do?
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/ee/d2ee00722c
And here is what grid stress testing actually has to do.
https://www.ea.govt.nz/documents/5455/Stress_test_regime.pdf
It isn’t what some academic with no understanding of how grids work thinks it means.
Thanks.
On a slightly different subject. Both you and PE insist there must be rotational inertia for handling grid transients. Can you comment on the use of high-vacuum magnetic-bearing flywheels for that purpose? I understand they are used in some power plants, but I haven’t been able to determine how widespread their use is. Thanks.
The NZ stress test document looks like a financial stress test (futures financial assessment) calculated from existing data, not a physical engineering stress test. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
You are correct. My mistake. I picked it up from the link titles I had without reading it through. I will have to go back and look through my files for the grid performance requirements but I suspect it isn’t in one document – a series of interlinked documents.
AEMO has the minimum inertia requirements for each State which is part of the stress requirements. Here is the latest consultation document on how that is determined https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/stakeholder_consultation/consultations/nem-consultations/2024/amendments-to-the-inertia-requirements-methodology/inertia-requirements-methodology—draft.pdf?la=en
All generators have performance standards which they have to meet to be connected. Stuff like low voltage ride through limits. The AEMO have had to give a lot of dispensations because the unreliables can’t meet the standards. That will catch them out again like it did at Odessa and South Australia.
BAB with regards your question on spinning flywheels. How many MW seconds are they rated to? What is their operational performance record?
No, it doesn’t talk about Jacobsen’s stress testing, unless he calls it something different (I’ve word searched, but not yet read in detail).
BAAB
The performance of a grid under fault conditions under credible fault events is what is called a stress test. This includes what generators , transmission lines and grid components like transformers do. Even though the MW may indicate no problem, it may fail the tests. For example, having all your generation in Arizona and the load in San Francisco supplied by DC lines will almost certainly cause a grid collapse. Jacobson (I note your continued mis-spelling) did not do this. That is what Joe K stated and you asked him to prove the negative. It is up to you to prove he did do this.
Chris Moorris,
I didn’t ask Joe to prove a negative. I asked him for references for his claim. The reference you provided did not cover for him.
As for misspelling Jacobson – so what. You and many others misspell my name with intent. What a prickly insignificant deflection.
The figure I have seen for flywheel is 1.6 MW for 10 sec.
I don’t know about the operational record, that is why I asked a supposed expert in the field. Maybe PE will know.
But, I understand you are in attack mode. I’ll just put you in the same bin with Clint and Joe. Ciao.
CM – yes that is the correct paper (along with several others that jacobson has published).
Figure S2 is where he discusses his test.
Also worth noting how poorly the electric demand presented in tables s4, s5 & s6 reconcile with currect electric demand. There is not a good explanation in the study why the total energy demand in most countries (including the US) is around 50% of actual electric demand.
Also worth noting is the projected increase in demand from 2018 to 2050 barely covers enough for population increase.
Follow up on Jacobson’s 100% renewable study (Jan 2022 with 145 countries).
Jacobson’s 2050 model has 979 GW of annual electric usage and renewable capacity of 1379 gw (after the downward adjustment from nameplate capacity). That would indicate that there are sufficient reserves of renewables for 100% renewables. However, the current annual US Electric use is about 4terawatts. Where is jacobson getting his data?
Russ Schussler,
As often happens, the conversation has drifted away from your piece. I want to bring it back with a short comment. I make the comment as someone not at all knowledgeable about detailed grid issues, but as one with a career in technology development.
I am glad that you consider the intermittency problem of renewables to be surmountable. It is the one I have worried about the most, especially when considering seasonal variations in renewable output that are not easily smoothed by storage. That has led me to think of dispatchable backup as likely a long-term requirement. For now that backup is with gas or coal fired plants. For the long-term perhaps it will be small modular nuclear. (My thinking is certainly influenced by Bill Gates’ How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. I found Gates more convincing than Jacobson’s book.) Nuclear plus renewables is not an ideal combination since both have high capital costs, but use of renewables reduces the nuclear installation requirement and presumably reduces overall costs.
You say you are most concerned with the “problems of asynchronous inverter-based generation.” Nuclear plants have the stabilizing rotating machinery you desire. I do not know what level of penetration by wind and solar becomes problematic in what I will call the present day “Renewable Grid 1.0”. But a system to synchronize inverters in a future “Renewable Grid 2.0” does not strike me as impossible in a world where I can already measure the distance from where I am to the next flagstick on the golf course using GPS. Technology seldom stays put.
Storage technology of a kind often imagined but not yet even close to being realised would be a boon to all traditional forms of generation and would further render wind and solar as just a lunatic’s bad dream. Imagine every unit of power being available only when a customer wants/needs it by switching on and new generation only necessary when storage levels drop below our deduced optimum levels. Net zero waste and wholesale reductions in emissions.
That is why we need to invest time and money billions of miles away from wind and solar and instead invest in research for safe electrical storage methods of a kind that’ll need some inspired thinking – captured energy stored and only ready when needed. No more exploding batteries creating death traps for their users because the virtue signalers like it that way.
We are looking in all the wrong places because the easy money is in the wrong hands in a situation where virtue signals are too precious and sought after. Why work hard when its so easy to pocket a whole lot of cash for absurdity? That is why we are in such an awful mess that’ll need some hugely costly cleaning up when the penny drops.
David,
Thanks for answering my question (that CM couldn’t): extra sources of advanced rotational inertia are used in nuclear plants for additional reliability in fault conditions. I would think flywheel could be added to all generating systems, if needed. There are many projects underway for testing them for making renewables more reliable.
https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/electricity-supplies-storage-2-10-24/
As for long term-storage: gravity. It is available everywhere all the time, and does not degrade with time, and is free. Pumped storage is reliable and has been around for a long-time. Lifts or rail systems do not have the same location limitations.
Gotta wonder if hydrogen storage and compressed gas storage are so cheap, why don’t we already have working installations?
https://www.energy.gov/eere/analysis/2022-grid-energy-storage-technology-cost-and-performance-assessment
Pingback: How the Green Energy Narrative confuses things. | ajmarciniak
Thank you, B A.
“Christos, Because the earth has an atmosphere containing IR absorbing molecules and moving fluids on the surface.”
Well, maybe it is a sensible proposal, and we could have discussed it, when Earth had somewhat the Moon’s temperature.
But Earth’s temperature is much-much higher than Moon’s.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We discussed ever since I came to this site. You were intractable and wouldn’t fix obvious faults in your hypothesis, and I am no longer interested.
Is the AGW your hypothesis or not?
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Not, I it is Svante Arrhenius’. However, I believe it because I
understand the chemistry and physics. In addition, it has been heavily tested, refined and supported by real scientists for over a century, with no disproof. That means it has gone from hypothesis to accepted theory.
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Seems the yoyos here are desperate to disprove it. They haven’t yet, and probably won’t, as the evidence keeps piling up. Although after 75 years, we will probably lose our lead in STEM fields, as Trump will likely pull support.
Thank you B A, for a valuable reference to the Svante Arrhenius’ work:
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
On the Influence of Carbonic Acid
in the Air upon the Temperature of
the Ground
Svante Arrhenius
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science
Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.
This photocopy was prepared by Robert A. Rohde for Global Warming
Art (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/) from original printed material that is now in the public domain.
“Arrhenius’s paper is the first to quantify the contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect (Sections I-IV) and to speculate about whether variations in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide have contributed to long-term variations in climate (Section V).
Throughout this paper, Arrhenius refers to carbon dioxide as “carbonic acid” in accordance with the convention at the time he was writing. Contrary to some misunderstandings, Arrhenius does not explicitly suggest in this paper that the burning of fossil fuels will cause global warming, though it is clear that he is aware that fossil fuels are a potentially significant source of carbon dioxide (page 270), and he does explicitly suggest this outcome in later work.”
Thank you again,
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you are welcome. I am glad that you thought it was important enough to copy and paste the modern notes on Arrhenius’ 1896 paper.
Not performing the second step (this representation) of the scientific method, and doing it diligently, can make you waste a lot of time and make assumptions that are known to be false.
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/NIsk51hmJolmZ-q40J7eG5uZ8kE=/415×496/-/https/www.sciencebuddies.org/cdn/Files/5084/7/2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png
Communicate Results:
Because we have shown that for planets and moons without atmosphere (or with a thin atmosphere, Earth and Titan included), the satellite measured average surface temperatures (Tsat) relate as:
((Tsat).planet.1) /((Tsat).planet.2) =
= [ (Te.correct.1) /(Te.correct.2) ] * [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ]^1/16
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you should do steps 2-8, in order, before you communicate, so as not to make a fool of yourself.
Your calculations say nothing about whether there is AGW. Your uncertainty in Earth’s calculated surface temperature is ± 17 C; and your central result agreeing with the actual value for Earth to within 0.2 C is highly suspicious. It does not support your statement “there is no AGW”. That is just your uninformed, highly biased, and incorrect personal opinion.
What we have with the belief in AGW is something quite different in scope if not in effect: the leadership of the global warming alarmism movement is more broad-based. The movement is comprised of the tens of thousands of government ciphers in the public-funded Education Industrial Complex who have dedicated themselves to the use of fear to bring about social upheaval.
The public has never bought it but the party that has been pushing it has been getting away with it… for now. The Democrat party has never been this unpopular– finally… the truth hurts politicians and not voters who are capable of exercising common sense. Western academia has been failing America for decades and the anti-Americanism of the Left has never so exposed.
According to Bloomberg, some German CEOs are pushing for natural gas plants to make up energy lost from closed nuclear and coal plants. Interesting to watch a country commit econocide due to “green” energy policy.
And it is very sad too.
Because they do it for nothing. There is not any AGW.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I guess you don’t realize that was a description of you. You have nothing sensible to add to the subject. Bye bye
Thank you, B A ,
“Forget it is probably the best option.”
“Only one falsehood is enough for a disproof of your hypothesis. Here is one of the most obvious:
You claim the planet(oids) can be classified as smooth or rough, a binary choice (made by you), and then assigning light interaction pre-multipliers of either 1.00 or 0.47, a binary choice. That is obviously false. You are disproven; Fix it or forget it (see the side loops in the scientific method diagram I posted earlier today). The same applies to all the false assumptions you have made, and that I have already pointed out.”
Here it is Earth’s and Moon’s average surface temperatures comparison:
For equal average Albedo a=0,306
the mean surface temperatures
Tmean.earth = 288K
vs Tmean.moon = 206,7K
because Earth and Moon share the same intensity solar flux So = 1.361 W/m² , and therefore it makes the comparison most simple.
Because there is only one major parameter between Earth and Moon to compare has left –
the comparison for Earth and Moon,
their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root:
( N*cp )^1/16
So we shall have:
Tmean.earth /Tmean.moon =
= 288K /206.7K = 1.3933
and the comparison for Earth and Moon,
their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root:
[ Earth(N*cp) /Moon(N*cp) ] ^1/16=
= [ (1*1) /(0,0339*0,19)]^ 1/16 =
= (155,42)1/16= 1,3709
where
N.earth = 1 rot/day
N.moon = 0,0339 rot/day
Earth’s cp = 1 cal/gr*oC (oceanic waters, and land mostly wet)
Moon’s cp = 0,19 cal/gr*oC (dry lunar regolith)
………………………
When we look at the results of the two comparisons, (1,3933) and (1,3709), we recognize that they are almost identical.
They differ only by 1,63 %.
It is a demonstration of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
Planets’ and moons’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
(Tmean.planet.1) /(Tmean.planet.2) =
= [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ]^ 1/16
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I am quite familiar with your hypothesis, you need not repeat it.
Falsehood #2. You assume that the Earth is covered in liquid water, therefore the surface material has a bulk heat capacity, Cp, of 1.0 calorie/gm. Obviously not true, as heat capacity of ice and snow is less than half that of liquid water. Not to mention that Cp for salt (3.5%) water is 0.932. Your assumption is obviously false, again your hypothesis is disproven.
Need I go on, e.g., surface fluids and heat convection, or assuming the atmosphere can be ignored by calling it “thin”, when we know it can’t be ignored – it modifies both the ingoing and outgoing radiative fluxes (energy balance) significantly, and changing the atmospheric composition can change the energy balance significantly. Fix’em or forget’em.
Thank you, B A.
“I am quite familiar with your hypothesis, you need not repeat it.”
Thank you!
“Falsehood #2. You assume that the Earth is covered in liquid water, therefore the surface material has a bulk heat capacity, Cp, of 1.0 calorie/gm. Obviously not true, as heat capacity of ice and snow is less than half that of liquid water. Not to mention that Cp for salt (3.5%) water is 0.932. Your assumption is obviously false, again your hypothesis is disproven.”
It is Cp=1,0 but if you insist, have a value of Earth’s surface Cp of your choice,
Maybe, you may think, it is Cp =0,7 or 0,8 but the planet rotational warming phenomenon will not change too much, because still our Earth rotates 29,5 times faster than our Moon.
“Need I go on, e.g., surface fluids and heat convection, or assuming the atmosphere can be ignored by calling it “thin”, when we know it can’t be ignored – it modifies both the ingoing and outgoing radiative fluxes (energy balance) significantly, and changing the atmospheric composition can change the energy balance significantly. Fix’em or forget’em.”
B A, what I demonstrate is that the Earth’s atmosphere alleged greenhouse effect of +33°C does not exist.
” it modifies both the ingoing and outgoing radiative fluxes (energy balance) significantly, and changing the atmospheric composition can change the energy balance significantly.”
The adding of one (1) molecule of CO2 to already existing ten thousand (10000) molecules doesn’t change energy balance significantly.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
“B A, what I demonstrate is that the Earth’s atmosphere alleged greenhouse effect of +33°C does not exist.”
No, you real hypothesis is/was “AGW can’t exist, because the earth rotates”. You have made simplistic calculations that show nothing because of incompleteness, approximations, and false assumptions.
Christos,
You don’t have to go away. That saying just means, “don’t bother me anymore, and don’t address any more comments to me.” I have no further interest in your disproven hypothesis.
“There is not any AGW.”
Here is a historical review for Christos and anyone else interested
“CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today’s Earth System Models”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160932716300308
Good article, thank you B A.
It explains everything before you knew (September 2016).
The article says nothing about Earth’s atmosphere alleged greenhouse effect of +33°C.
Why, it was already a major concept at that time (September 2016).
My first appearance with Rotational Warming Phenomenon was later, it was at (October 2019).
And the claim was that there is not any +33°C greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“My first appearance with Rotational Warming Phenomenon was later, it was at (October 2019).”
Yes, and clearly you didn’t do step 2 of the scientific method – I gave you references, which you ignored.
“And the claim was that there is not any +33°C greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.”
That is probably right, there are an infinite number of numbers and 33 is only one of them. The 33 is only a crude “back of the envelope” calculation. It could be lower, could be higher. Dr. Roy Spencer’s simulations (2016) indicate it is slightly lower at 26-8 C. He didn’t it find important enough to pursue beyond a couple of entries on his blog. Probably because it is pseudo-science: There is no way to test his, or your, hypotheses, since you are unable to make measurements on “a world just like earth, but without atmosphere” because no such world exists. Thus does not constitute real physical science.
Thank you, B A,
“The 33 is only a crude “back of the envelope” calculation.”
It doesn’t look like “back of the envelope” calculation.”
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
“Scientists have determined that carbon dioxide plays a crucial role in maintaining the stability of Earth’s atmosphere. If carbon dioxide were removed, the terrestrial greenhouse effect would collapse, and Earth’s surface temperature would drop significantly, by approximately 33°C (59°F).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
“Matter emits thermal radiation at a rate that is directly proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. Some of the radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface is absorbed by greenhouse gases and clouds. Without this absorption, Earth’s surface would have an average temperature of −18 °C (−0.4 °F). However, because some of the radiation is absorbed, Earth’s average surface temperature is around 15 °C (59 °F). Thus, the Earth’s greenhouse effect may be measured as a temperature change of 33 °C (59 °F).”
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/greenhouse-effect/
“Greenhouse gases let the sun’s light shine onto Earth’s surface, but they trap the heat that reflects back up into the atmosphere. In this way, they act like the insulating glass walls of a greenhouse. The greenhouse effect keeps Earth’s climate comfortable. Without it, surface temperatures would be cooler by about 33 degrees Celsius (60 degrees Fahrenheit), and many life forms would freeze.”
–
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, your references show no calculations at all, those are results. And you know damn well what the “back of the envelope calculation.” is: You may review it here.
https://www.wired.com/story/what-would-earths-temperature-be-like-without-an-atmosphere/
You probably don’t realize it, but your calculations are very much “back of the envelope”, you are still at the hypothesis stage (without having done proper background study).
Only one falsehood is enough for a disproof of your hypothesis. Here is one of the most obvious:
You claim the planet(oids) can be classified as smooth or rough, a binary choice (made by you), and then assigning light interaction pre-multipliers of either 1.00 or 0.47, a binary choice. That is obviously false. You are disproven; Fix it or forget it (see the side loops in the scientific method diagram I posted earlier today). The same applies to all the false assumptions you have made, and that I have already pointed out.
Forget it is probably the best option.
Christos: “The adding of one (1) molecule of CO2 to already existing ten thousand (10000) molecules doesn’t change energy balance significantly.”
So what – stupid and irrelevant. Increasing those 10,000 molecules to 15,000, as has happened over the last 150 years, does change the energy balance.
Look up the definition of “climate”. Your assumption that the atmosphere can be ignored is utter nonsense, and so is your hypothesis. Forget it, it is not fixable, at least not by you.
Thank you, B A,
“Look up the definition of “climate”. Your assumption that the atmosphere can be ignored is utter nonsense, and so is your hypothesis. Forget it, it is not fixable, at least not by you.”
–
Please, do not confuse “climate” – the weather, with the planet radiative balance. Weather has to do with the air movements, it has to do with heat transfer by air, it has to do with convective warming and cooling.
Weather is the air temperatures measurements, not the by satellites the planetary surfaces temperatures measurements.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I am not confused. That would be you. There would be no weather or climate without an atmosphere. And, you wouldn’t be here to make a silly false hypothesis about it.
B A,
“So what – stupid and irrelevant. Increasing those 10,000 molecules to 15,000, as has happened over the last 150 years, does change the energy balance.”
–
What molecules? Do you reffer to 300 ppm CO2 becoming 400 ppm CO2 ? A 30% rise ?
If so it should be 13,000 malecules, not 15,000 !
Now, are you confused or not?
No, I refer to the increase from 278 (preindustrial) to 425 (present) ppmv CO2, which is more than 50%. Please stop your ignorant deflections and false restatements of what I say. Just go away.
278 *1,5 =417 not 425
B A, you are wrong again ! Close enough, though, must admit.
Now, why have you abandoned the ppm – the parts per million?
Yes, B A, you are right, I admit, – you said “is more than 50%” .
Christos,
“I refer to the increase from 278 (preindustrial) to 425 (present) ppmv CO2, which is more than 50%.”
ppmv = parts per million by volume, is correct, so is ppmm (molar). ppm (weight) is not.
Of course I’m right – you are almost always wrong. Go way.
Of course, B A.
What I am saying is that there is not any +33°C greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
I don’t care what you are saying, if you can’t present believable evidence, and you haven’t. Go away.
Please B A, do not answer my posts here. I am much longer than you here and you cannot address to me yours “go aways”…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
EU global warming alarmist hypocrisy is palpable, e.g.– ‘‘decarbonisation’ since 2000 – which is actually a deindustrialisation.’
Heavy snowstorm in the Northeast on February 9.
https://i.ibb.co/Xf8ktJvn/ventusky-rain-3h-20250209t0300-42n76w.jpg
Thanks for this great writeup. It’s nice that you put “renewable” in quotes. Another thing that should be put in quotes is “green”—it’s also meaningless. In fact, it’s great fun that no “green” thing is actually green. Wind turbines are white, the roads leading to them are brown, solar is black, and very often the areas all these cover used to be green, but not any more. Hydro is blue, except for the dams, which are gray, brown or white. In the 1970s and 1980s you would occasionally see a green car, but somehow this color is becoming rarer and rarer. “Green” cars are almost never green. I see great symbolic value in this discrepancy.
Antonis … Agreed. Chlorophyll is green. ;-)
Forecast of the feels temperature for February 10.
https://i.ibb.co/kkMXtyz/476435223-1171494761644165-6345663694194332306-n.jpg
The NERC have just put out an assessment document where they express concern about the increasing penetration of inverter based technology. Not only capacity but reliability issues. They have this as one of their recommendations: “Address performance deficiencies with existing and future inverter-based resources: Reliably integrating IBRs onto the grid is paramount, and evidence indicates that the risk of grid vulnerabilities from interconnection practices and IBR performance issues are growing. IBRs include most solar and wind generation as well as new BESS or hybrid generation and account for 85% of the new generation in development for connecting to the BPS. IBRs respond to disturbances and dynamic conditions based on programmed logic and inverter controls. The tripping of BPS-connected solar PV generating units and other control system behavior during grid faults has caused sudden loss of generation resources (over wide areas in some cases). Industry experience with unexpected tripping of BPS-connected solar PV generation units can be traced back to the 2016 Blue Cut fire in California, and similar events have occurred in new geographic areas as recently as the summer of 2023. A common thread with these events is the lack of IBR ride-through capability that causes a minor system disturbance to become a major disturbance. Based on the findings of a recent NERC alert, more ride-through and ERS capabilities can be enabled within existing solar PV resources to improve performance and support the reliable operation of the BPS. Industry adoption of the recommended practices set forth in NERC reliability guidelines and the NERC alert will reduce risks from IBR performance issues to the grid as NERC also develops mandatory Reliability Standards based on those reliability guidelines. It is also critically important for interconnection processes to include accurate modeling and studies requirements.”
Just reinforcing what PE wrote.
Chris,
Thanks, I’m glad your, and PE’s, concerns are being addressed, not ignored. I have great confidence they will be solved before penetration gets much deeper. From what I see, it is not so much a matter of discovering solutions, rather implementation, which can parallel increased penetration.
https://www.nrel.gov/grid/transient-dynamic-stability.html
Well, their “solutions” are pretty slow coming as their publications are a decade old. The fixes aren’t on the market yet as the problems are still there.
Chris, shall we compare to the references you have provided, nah, no need.
Sorry you are not aware of fixes on the market. I had presumed you would be aware of such things. Guess not, e.g.,
https://amberkinetics.com/
BAB
I gather your comment is in the wrong subthread. The NREC article I quoted was about protection and you are talking about inertia.
With your comments, you are living proof of Pope’s aphorism “A little learning is a dang’rous thing”. Yet again, need to repeat that Google is not a substitute for knowledge. You do not understand the subject. Your tedious smartarse comment is just Dunning Kruger writ large. There are huge parts of the grid and its behaviour that are beyond my knowledge, but at least I know my limitations.
With regards the device in your link, firstly it’s for a small unit suitable for a low voltage distribution system. That is not relevant for a HV transmission grid. You still don’t seem to comprehend even that basic text. Secondly, MW.s inertia on a grid is NOT equivalent to kWh energy storage. During an underfrequency event, a big unit may inject only an additional 100kWh into the grid over a two second period down to nadir; most of it in the first half-second. Now work out the current and hat wire size is needed to do that. Thirdly, that unit is a toy for heavy electrics. From the numbers in article, you would need about a million of those flywheels to provide same inertia as just one typical CCGT. Fourthly, 100ms is slow. CBs break a 1000MVA circuit with a fully extinguished arc in half that time. As a timing comparison: from the commissioning testing done for our new unit; from an event occurring to the unit fully tripped and running down is about 200ms and we are concerned with the lack of speed. Real inertia is there all the time, instantaneously available. Fifthly, what is the continuous operating power draw and cost of those units? As they go up in size, a lot more heat has to be dissipated and that increases parasitic load. That plus the iron losses. Those aren’t there for a synchronous generator.
Chris M –
Worth noting the frequency of the insults are directly correlated with level of ignorance of the subject matter.
Chris,
“The NERC have just put out an assessment document where they express concern about the increasing penetration of inverter based technology. Not only capacity but reliability issues.”
That’s not a quote, that’s a mention with your interpretation after. Try a reference.
You claim to be an expert. I asked you a question. You didn’t answer, instead, you asked me what the answers were, and then told me I didn’t understand the subject.
Does not change the fact that you trashed my relevant 10-year-old reference. While one of yours was wrong/irrelevant, or the other. a 40-year-old book on 40-year-old problems. I appreciate you admitting the first one not was not correct; however, you didn’t bother to give a reference to the right one. Thanks.
The NREL document is about protection, inertia and fly wheels are part of that.
Joe, I have to assume, your proportionality must refer to Chris’ most recent retort. If you’re referring to me, you tried that before: quote ’em and show that I started it. Otherwise – it is you.
Bab – Regarding the insults – I am absolutely refering to you. You have initiated the start of virtually every insult. The frequency of the insults is often directly proportional to the level of you ignorance or misconceptions or intentional distortions of the subject matter. Its also a sign of your extreme lack of maturity.
Joe: “You have initiated the start of virtually every insult.”
You said that before, but like now, you can’t provide a single example. But then, you are no-name nobody, with no known background, that just makes stuff up. P.O.
B A Bushaw | February 11, 2025 at 10:01 am |
Joe: “You have initiated the start of virtually every insult.”
You said that before, but like now, you can’t provide a single example. But then, you are no-name nobody, with no known background, that just makes stuff up. P.O.
Bab – I gave you cites before where you did in fact initiate the insults. Its been your standard operating procedure. I am not going to provide further citations.
Joe: “I gave you cites before where you did in fact initiate the insults.”
No you didn’t. You’re just an NNN-liar that can’t back up his false claims.
Just of few of the early insults – mild at first , but initiated by BaB just the same
ganon1950 | November 2, 2023 at 9:19 am |
ganon1950 | October 30, 2023 at 4:31 pm
ganon1950 | November 26, 2023 at 2:18 pm |
ganon1950 | November 5, 2023 at 6:43 pm |
ganon1950 | November 5, 2023 at 5:44 pm |
ganon1950 | November 6, 2023 at 11:41 am
ganon1950 | November 6, 2023 at 9:39 am |
ganon1950 | November 11, 2023 at 10:28 pm |
ganon1950 | November 12, 2023 at 5:20 pm |
ganon1950 | November 11, 2023 at 9:43 am |
ganon1950 | November 7, 2023 at 10:07 am |
Joe,
“I gave you cites before where you did in fact initiate the insults. Its been your standard operating procedure.”
No it is your standard operating procedure – playing games.
Where is the cite that supports the above claim?
I’ll bother to look at your list when you include the title of the blog articles that they can be found under.
Looking is Polly’s favorite pastime–aka mirror preening; he calls it perfect chemistry.
Thanks, Joe.
I’ll take a look, maybe when you make real citations. Can you cite where you previously cited my initiations? Otherwise, too little – too late, and incomplete (need to give the particular article that the comments can be found under.
Sorry, Chris, you are wrong. The fixes are there, they’ve just been redacted. DOGE will uncover the fact those fixes are up and working just fine! Just wait and see!
I’m not sure I’m catching on right on that. But it reminds me.
Past 50yrs ago, when I was first let loose to spend time in the control room, the religious icon on the wall with a lit candle in front of it struck me as being sort of affront to the staff, particularly the engineers.
Are we back to those days? I’m beginning to have serious doubts. Seems like so to me on this side of the pond.
Chris Morris | February 9, 2025 at 3:11 am | Reply
The NERC have just put out an assessment document where they express concern about the increasing penetration of inverter based technology. Not only capacity but reliability issues.
Chris – that is good point. Additionally the cost of electric generation will increase dramatically as renewable penetration increases. Currently the costs of firming, reliability, intermediacy, etc is borne by fossil fuels which means renewables are getting a free cost ride. That free ride starts to evaporate as penetration increases. Its the total cost that matter, not the incremental costs of a single type of generation.
Europe’s Electricity-Sharing Model Hitting Slack Water, Analysts Warn
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/europes-electricity-sharing-model-hitting-slack-water-analysts-warn-5806069
The planet effective temperature (Te) is a mathematical abstraction.
The planet average surface temperature is the result of the satellite measurements (Tsat).
Tsat – Te = 288K – 255K = 33°C greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface does not exist.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The climate is composed of many too many elements that simply cannot be added up and divided to arrive at a statistically meaningful average. The usefulness of an average global temperature has been compared to an average of all telephone numbers and calculating the world’s average currency exchange rate. Even if we could determine a statistically relevant, scientifically meaningful average global temperature, what will the gold standard of temperature be that we are all supposed to desire and work together to bring about? If we only could.
Christos, I asked perplexity.ai about a temperature:
“The temperature of a black body orbiting the Sun at 1 AU (Astronomical Unit) is approximately 279 K or 6°C (42.8°F)6. This temperature is derived from the equilibrium blackbody temperature equation:
T = 279 (1 – A)^(1/4) (r_p)^(-1/2) K
Where:
T is the equilibrium temperature in Kelvin
A is the albedo (reflectivity) of the object
r_p is the distance from the Sun in AU
For a perfect black body, the albedo (A) is 0, as it absorbs all incoming radiation. At 1 AU (Earth’s average distance from the Sun), r_p = 1. Plugging these values into the equation:
T = 279 (1 – 0)^(1/4) (1)^(-1/2) K = 279 K
This temperature represents the theoretical equilibrium temperature of a perfect black body at Earth’s distance from the Sun, without considering factors such as atmospheric effects or internal heat generation.”
The “equation” is, of course, a pure nonsense, but they surely got the 279K from somewhere. Where did you get 255K?
CG, the “279K” is the temperature of an imaginary sphere at Earth’s distance, with NO albedo (0.0).
With Earth’s albedo (0.3) the temperature of the imaginary sphere would be 255K.
The equation is valid. You just have to understand how it applies.
CG: the “equation” is, of course, a pure nonsense, but they surely got the 279K from somewhere.
Perhaps nonsense to you. It is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law for blackbodies. Your AI forgot to include the emissivity of imperfect blackbodies. If both albedo and earths emissivity (~0.9) are included the result is about 261 C. You could use some of your own intelligence to correct your description as “pure nonsense” by examining the derivation, e.g.:
https://www.wired.com/story/what-would-earths-temperature-be-like-without-an-atmosphere/
“…the 20th-century average of 57.0°F (13.9°C).”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Somebody doesn’t read the highlights of the article they quote, much less the whole thing.
Thank you, B A.
https://www.wired.com/story/what-would-earths-temperature-be-like-without-an-atmosphere/
–
Without an atmosphere Earth’s average surface temperature would be ~ 288 K.
–
Now, how much higher than the ~288 K, which is Earth’s without atmosphere average surface temperature, how much higher than ~288 K, how much higher the actual Earth’s with atmosphere the average surface temperature is ???
The confusion reigns here!
Let’s see if this helps:
An imaginary sphere at 1AU, with Earth’s albedo = 255K
An imaginary sphere at 1AU, with zero albedo = 279K
Earth, as it exists = 288K
NOAA doesn’t say “Earth, as it exists = 288K”.
Basically NOAA says nothing about how much the Earth’s average surface temperature is.
Climate Change: Global Temperature
Link:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Ok NOAA, the temperature rises, we know that already.
Now please tell us how much it is.
Thank you, B A.
“…the 20th-century average of 57.0°F (13.9°C).”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Somebody doesn’t read the highlights of the article they quote, much less the whole thing.:
“It was 2.12 °F (1.18 °C) above the 20th-century average of 57.0°F (13.9°C).”
–
Now, please tell how much it is?
(13.9°C) + (1.18 °C) = how much it is ???
Because one shouldn’t add the satellite measured (13.9°C) to the (so-called) “above surface air measured” (1.18 °C).
Because, in spite of both being temperature measurements, they are of different kinds of measurements.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, I know you have already admitted that you can’t do statistical analysis, but addition – come on, man.
13.9 C + 1.18 C + 273.16 C = 288.2 K as of 2023
“Without an atmosphere Earth’s average surface temperature would be ~ 288 K.”
No, it would not be that, you have calculated what you think it might be, and I have shown those calculations to be incorrect.
The 20th century average of 13.9 C is not a satellite measurement, it was a statistical analysis of many different, and different kinds, of temperature measurements to get a “best reference value”. If you don’t understand why temperature anomalies are used rather than absolute temperatures.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/global-temperature-anomalies?os=io…..&ref=app
Thank you, B A.
“No, it would not be that, you have calculated what you think it might be, and I have shown those calculations to be incorrect.”
B A,what would be Earth’s without atmosphere the average surface temperature then?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos: “B A, what would be Earth’s without atmosphere the average surface temperature then?”
Anything you want it to be: it is imaginary, not a part of the physical universe, and can’t be tested by experiment.
B A, thank you.
“The 20th century average of 13.9 C is not a satellite measurement, it was a statistical analysis of many different, and different kinds, of temperature measurements to get a “best reference value”.”
There is not a single publication saying that the 13.9 C is not a satellite measurement.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos: “There is not a single publication saying that the 13.9 C [average for the 2oth century] is not a satellite measurement.”
Satellite measurements for the whole earth have only been available since 1978. Some things are so obvious they don’t need to be said.
Thank you, B A.
“Some things are so obvious they don’t need to be said.”
–
It is obvious the Earth’s 288K is a satellite measurement.
It is an exact measurement – no wonder why the New Equation is capable of the almost precise estimation.
If it was for a “a statistical analysis of many different, and different kinds, of temperature measurements to get a “best reference value” ” – it wouldn’t be possible for a simple theoretical equation to come up with the almost precise result.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“…best reference value”
Why belabor value, Polly’s profile is beyond reproach.
Coincidence. Manufactured or not, the uncertainty on your value was ±17 C.
Not much value there, Polly, just circular hen scratching.
Jungletrunks, does that make your inner coward feel better?
B A,
““The 20th century average of 13.9 C is not a satellite measurement, it was a statistical analysis of many different, and different kinds, of temperature measurements to get a “best reference value”.”
There is not a single publication saying that the 13.9 C is not a satellite measurement.”
“Christos: “There is not a single publication saying that the 13.9 C [average for the 2oth century] is not a satellite measurement.”
Satellite measurements for the whole earth have only been available since 1978. Some things are so obvious they don’t need to be said.”
–
Please, B A, “a statistical analysis of many different, and different kinds, of temperature measurements to get a “best reference value”.”
It should have been published before 1978 then. But there is not a single publication.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’m not the one roosting, Polly –does squatting make you feel better? Guess so based on your laying.
Christos, Apparently you don’t understand what “20th-century average” means. Sorry, I can’t help further.
Jungletrunks didn’t answer the question. NNNNN
In a few days, the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will split into two vortices, one over eastern Canada and the other over Siberia, according to the distribution of the geomagnetic field in the north. The geomagnetic center over Canada will weaken and strengthen over Siberia.
https://i.ibb.co/wrb4CHjv/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
https://i.ibb.co/kgDWYRbb/MF-n-f.png
Some are now saying bombogenesis instead of polar vortex,, i.e., a disruptive global cooling trend…
Pingback: Stop These Things’ Weekly Round Up: 9 February 2025. | ajmarciniak
Europe is so, so fortunate to have all the innovative energy storage solutions hawked by some commentators here. That said, it’s odd how the price of natural gas there is going so high. Maybe these storage solutions aren’t helping in the larger picture.
Freezing temperatures and low wind power production will put further pressure on Europe’s strained energy market, as natural gas prices trade at the highest in more than two years.
…
European countries have drained their gas inventories to shore up power generation across a region that increasingly relies on intermittent renewable energy. A spate of windless days this winter, slightly colder weather and the loss of Russian gas transit via Ukraine has left European storage sites less than half full, the lowest for this time of year since 2022.
The source for the new information:(www)bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-11/europe-poised-for-blast-of-arctic-cold-as-gas-storage-drops
ground truth
n.
1. Factual data as ascertainable through direct observation rather than through inference from remote sensing.
2. The reality of a situation as experienced firsthand rather than by report: The regime claims to be winning, but the ground truth is that the rebels are making steady gains.
How Al Gore Used Politics to Destroy Bill Gray’s Career
In 2006, at the height of Gore’s climate fearmongering tour following the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Bill Gray spoke out against the exaggerated claims that hurricanes were becoming more intense due to climate change. Gray, armed with decades of observational data and deep expertise, pointed out that no such correlation existed.
https://open.substack.com/pub/irrationalfear/p/how-al-gore-silenced-bill-gray?r=2bzz54&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
“ The real question is: How many more scientists must be silenced before people realize that this was never about the climate… it was about control?”
Everything the left does is about control. There aren’t many people who have been as prescient as Orwell.
Let them eat cake? Only in the insane minds of Western academics and Heaven’s Gate end-of-world cultists can a Hot World, anti-energy, global warming hysteria, be tortuously made to fit an anti-fossil fuel agenda, forsaking energy, as a rational adaptation to what is nothing more than natural climate change.
The European narrative is still stuck on virtue signalling and there can be no virtue from saving something that doesn’t look as though it needs saving from anything. Hence the phony or, at the very least, highly questionable assertion that fossil fuel burning is an existential threat to Earth. There is no evidential basis to the threat other than the extreme political one. There are lies and damned lies based upon five decades of below the belt punching and phony scare stories from a wholly political and well past its sell by date UN, and its many subsidiary fraudster backers. The EU hasn’t helped either. Humans only understand one meaning of cleaning up and it has nothing to do with cleanliness.
The so called science has never given the people temperature forecasts with proven credence either globally or locally at a time when the planet appears to be going through a mild warming phase. The warnings of increased and more serious threats to human survival have arisen from crazy notions that the renewables – wind and solar -are the answer when we can now be sure that is absolutely not the case. Certainly there may be cleaner energy to be found but what are we doing to find it when solar and wind have failed so miserably to meet needs without the key energy storage technology we know we need? What a waste of resources that has been and what an addition to mankind’s ability to construct massive rubbish pits that will soon prove to be.
When the lots were drawn for the next official climate change casualty did Europe draw the wrong one and does that mean a decade or two of unnecessary pain just like it always seems to have to the losers? The reaction this time may teach the UN to poke their noses somewhere else in future or more preferentially just close up shop. Science manipulated by politicians is never a good thing.
Why do global warming alarmists fear the scientific method and what it reveals? It is because the truth must be hidden or moderated out of existence and replaced with the AGW politics of fear. It should matter that it is impossible to detect within the natural variation of continually changing climate, any global warming due to human activities whatsoever. The Leftists and their liberal comrades in the legacy pro-Left media really don’t care about the truth. The specter of human-caused climate change has so far been the best propaganda for bigger government that taxpayer money could ever buy and Western academia – much like the Democrat party that is busy fighting the exposure of corruption in federal government funding – is falling on its sword in not wanting to give up its manufacturing of hot air!
It will be an Arctic hit in the Midwest.
https://i.ibb.co/B5G2Dc0s/gfs-z100-nh-f00-1.png
Measured water vapor increase is more than twice the maximum possible from feedback from planet warming. This ‘extra’ WV can account for all climate change attributable to humanity. There is no correlation between average global temperature and CO2 during phanerozoic time (last 541 million years). This is documented in the analysis available at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
“There is no correlation between average global temperature and CO2 during [P]hanerozoic time (last 541 million years).”
There is a very strong correlation over the last 100 years. There is strong correlation over that last million years of glacial – interglacial periods; both are part of the Phanerozoic. Self-negation by hyperbole. What correlation coefficient did you find that allowed the conclusion of NO (zero) correlation?
The lack of correlation is depicted graphically in Section 11 of the analysis made available at the link.
Bushaw,
A few years ago I calculated the correlation coefficients between CO2 mixing ratio and global air temperature estimates.
Note that both these factors were calculated with some “best guess” annual infilled data because in many years the factor was not measured.
Findings.
From 1961 to 2011, r = 0.8474
From 1950 to 1960. r = 0.6001
This uses numbers from official government sources. I did not invent any. I took 1961 at the start of the annual Mauna Loa CO2 data which was used unchanged.
Anyone who works in Earth Sciences who regards a correlation coefficient of 0.6001 as a “very strong correlation” would be laughed out of court.
What did your own calculations reveal?
Geoff S
Dan,
So you didn’t calculate a correlation coefficient, just “eyeballed” it? As said, there is plenty of CO2 – T correlation over that last million years, and your comment is a false deflection from what is happening now.
Sherrington,
Sure, here is how I have done similar calculations:
https://mega.nz/file/4qc1ACyT#57PNs8KfMebGtKRfUJ3OVw4fGzn8-4mDmrw9NvguO5g
No cherry-picking or smoothing. Uses accepted international data sets (HadCRUT, CEDS, Mauna Loa + Berkeley Earth for older CO2). It fits the temperature evolution over the last 125 years, using only two variables which have known physical causality, and results R^2 = 0.895. Pretty damn good considering most of the uncertainty come from the interannual variability.
I appreciate the tries to deflect from the deficiencies of your heat wave analysis. Hasn’t worked. I still have the same opinion.
Anyone who cherry-picked climatic data down to a 10-year period, and claims it represents a (lack of) global climate trends, would be laughed out of court.
Dan … thanks for your link. Any thoughts on what contributes to ocean warming above 35 degrees latitude, aside from AGT increase feedback? Ocean currents?
I agree those two cover essentially all warming beyond 35 N and 35 S.
B A Bushaw:
You have never responded to my observations that between ~ 1854 and 2007 there were 32 American business recessions, and that global temperatures temporarily increased during those recessions, because of fewer SO2 aerosol emissions due to idled factories, foundries etc.
(14 of the temperature increases resulted in an El Nino).
So, over the 153 year period, there were undeniable temperature increases due to decreased SO2 aerosol emissions.
From 1980 on, SO2 aerosol emissions decreased due to “Clean Air” legislation, and temperatures naturally increased, clearly indicating that atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels are the actual Control Knob of our climate.
Burl, I’m not interested in responding to that.
There’s no confusion over the effects of “green energy” in Germany any more. They are learning a hard lesson about unreliable energy sources. Energy storage just isn’t there in any meaningful way. I will attempt to post relevant parts below.
From the source:When the weather in Germany is overcast and calm, the windmills and solar plants don’t send any power to the grid. Instead, they send shockwaves through the markets. One such “Dunkelflaute” day in mid-December saw spot power prices climb to more than €900 ($939) per megawatt-hour – nine times above average. That’s even higher than the increases in 2022, when the nation lost access to Russian pipeline gas after the invasion of Ukraine.
So in a near suicidal move, Germany is requiring companies to produce during periods of high energy supply, and stop producing when it low. I predict this will lead to the election of a conservative government that stops the green energy nonsense. It’s just a matter of time now.
From the source:That could prove fatal, warned Maximilian Strötzel, who heads industrial policy for the board of trade union IG Metall. With electricity prices soaring and subsidies incentivizing high use, he said, “the situation of some industrial companies is already existential.”
Source:(www)bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-14/german-industry-risks-new-setback-from-power-pricing-overhaul
B A Bushaw:
“Burl. I’m not interested in responding to that”
Thank you. That is tacit proof that I am correct and you cannot refute my findings.
No, it means it is horse crap, and it isn’t worth wasting any more of my time on your lack of scientific competence.
What can be done about this Heaven’s Gate Cult of global warming alarmism? As Victor Davis Hanson (Lecture, September 8, 2021) asked and answered, “What can the citizen do… we can vote… we have to say, ‘No’.”
B A Bushaw:
On Jan 8, 10:14 am, you wrote
“If you haven’t figured it out, every time you try to push your disproven hypotheses, I’ll refute them”
So, as you promised, I am waiting for your refutation
Update on fusion power “SPARC”:
https://blog.cfs.energy/how-cfs-is-building-a-fusion-factory-not-just-a-single-fusion-machine/
Russ Schussler (PE) insists that intermittency of W+S will be overcome with as yet unidentified technical additions, improvements, whatever. BAB, after one wades through his constant spiteful sarcasm, agrees.
Correlates well with Pollyanna.
I’ve drilled through these questions with (so far) 4 different AI’s. Always the bottom line ( which takes some persistence to reach) is that batteries, even at 1GWh scales, can help with asynchronicity but not with dunkelflautes. No AI can provide any example of “grid scale” batteries supplying power to even small towns for more than a couple of hours before they become exhausted and useless. Hydro only works with very specific geographical conditions.
Nonetheless, I urge PE to continue with his peripatetic articles. Following the situation as it develops closer and closer to widespread black starts is of real interest.
Are you certain PE insists intermittency will be overcome? My reading of it, especially the sentence “These challenges are likely not insurmountable ones. ” is that it isn’t beyond possibility. Nothing more.
Denying dunkelflautes just another way the Left denies the existence of nature in the history of climate change?
Have not met the Western global warming alarmist academic yet that argues for humanity’s return to subsistence farming.
Recognizing the benefits of modernity is not a Left versus right issue- it is a Left versus common sense issue. Just as, recognizing the value of vaccines is not a Left versus right issue. It’s a common sense versus right issue.
So RFK, Jr. is a man of the right? Who knew. There are anti-vaxxers on both sides of the aisle.
He’s definitely trying to change his image from ‘liberal lunatic’ to independent (which didn’t work well for him) to whatever you think of him now…
Nearly 4 years ago, Beer wrote in Forbes-Business: ‘Bob Enyart, a conservative radio talk show host in Denver who urged listeners to boycott Covid-19 vaccines and vowed never to get a shot, has lost his life after contracting the virus, one of his co-hosts announced earlier this week, in what is but the latest instance of a right-wing radio pundit succumbing to the coronavirus.’
Ianl
Compare and contrast the demand with the electric generation by source located at the EIA dot gov grid monitor. Wind has some massive volitale swings. For BFF example 3 weeks in July 2024 had electricity generation from wind running from 20% to 60% of normal. It takes a tremendous amount of back up or redundant capacity to cover that 3 week period.
Similar 2-3 week doldrums in Germany & Britain
It certainly makes no sense to allow wealthy Californians to charge their government-subsidized Teslas with electricity produced by Hoover Dam… energy that is not burdened with with excise taxes to pay the costs to build and maintain the roads and HOV lanes for electric cars. There’s a reason why the most popular market for Tesla is outside of California is Norway where hydroelectric power is plentiful. Considering the amount of CO2 that was liberated to manufacture the cement required to build Hoover Dam, the hypocrisy of the Left is palpable.
There are plenty of identified technical additions – have been for at least a decade, as previously referenced. No doubt there will be further, as yet unidentified, technical developments.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/73476.pdf
And the beat goes on …
https://www.primergygemini.com/
The thing a lot of people don’t seem to recognize is long-term storage is intrinsically provided by saving water (e.g., Lake Mead) and uranium.
I find it hilarious that the NNNs seem to think that what is already being done can’t work, and that nobody is addressing their concerns. It engenders sarcasm.
Your lake meade reference is interesting.
Geography severely limits much, if any, increase in electric generation from Hydro in the US. At the same, renewable advocates like to highlight the large electric generation storage capacity behind the dams, yet ignore the primary need of the dams and reservoirs Being flood control, irrigation and human consumption. Seems a little short sighted to assume the short supply water can be used for multiple purposes. You may want to ask the people of the western US where much of the region gets less than 20 inches of rain a year (often less than 15 inches). Especially ask the people of LA where there was insufficient water to fight the recent fires.
Mr. Starkely: ” Seems a little short sighted to assume the short supply water can be used for multiple purposes.”
That limited water supply is already used for multiple purposes. I don’t think you get to decide how it is partitioned. Seems a little short-sighted to not want to save as much as possible of that short supply of water.
“The thing a lot of people don’t seem to recognize is long-term storage is intrinsically provided by saving water (e.g., Lake Mead)”
The beat goes on, a lot of people don’t seem to recognize that Lake Mead’s water level is not far off its all time 2022 low, calling it a long-term storage narrative is “intrinsically” relative. Sometimes what is already being done works most of the time, or sometimes; until it doesn’t. Too bad CA refuses to build more dams.
I wonder if it can still be used for pumped storage if it goes dead-pool. Of course, need to have the perseverance to build/keep up an initial charge.
Given the well known history of long term droughts though out the western United States, is your response intended to be serious or simply inane deflection away from a viable solution.
With population growth , drought risks, etc,
https://news.agu.org/press-release/us-water-reservoirs-shrinking-climate/
M,
Serious – use less water for electricity, more water for other things.
CA already used its “more water for other things”—what’s their next great idea?
The largest lake west of the Mississippi, Tulare Lake, a massive lake that covered much of central CA is farmland now. In the late 19th century the lake dried up when water was diverted from its tributary rivers for agriculture and municipal water needs.
CA hypocrisy can be found at near every turn, no snail darter activists for the Thicktail chub fish in the day!
Build more dams.
Tulare Lake supplied CA’s aquifers. Diminishing aquifers, poor fire management; CA is a case study for what poor land management of natural resources looks like.
Can’t get anything out of a dead-pool—CA seems determined to be a leading exporter of dystopic land management, while hiding behind feel good faux green principles.
any truth to the rumor they’re appointing you to take Gavin’s place next week? haha
Great point! Visiting farms near me pick your own spots is a fantastic way to enjoy fresh, local produce. It’s a fun activity for families and a great way to support local farmers. Have you visited any recently? I’d love to hear about your experience and any favorite picks!
In brief, from the age of enlightenment we have emerged into the philosophy of post-modernism which sets aside evidence as the authority and asserts that the ‘truth’ is what you believe – if you believe it, then it is your ‘truth’. Importantly all opinions are to be given equal authority irrespective of the where the evidence may lie. These ideas have progressed to what is now called ‘Post Normal Science’. This holds that science is subservient to the story that must be told. The role of science is no longer about discovering new ‘truth’ but supporting the ‘story’ which is perceived to be the truth. This gives rise to the notion of “noble-cause science”, which allows scientists to ignore contrary evidence, or worse, manipulate the evidence, if the cause is noble. We have seen evidence of this in the climate change debate. (Doug Edmeades)
The evidence says the atmospheric greenhouse effect is much smaller than the observed 1,5 C warming.
Therefore the warming is not due to the fossil fuels burning, but it is due to natural causes and not because of the atmospheric CO2 content rise.
The CO2 content rise cannot warm Earth by 1,5 C, because the presence of atmosphere warms Earth the very little ~ 0,4 C.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The deserts of the Sahara and the jungles of the Americas are both hot, so obviously humidity is not the main factor. It’s abundant sunlight, not CO2, that results in more heat.
Western academia has become the study of politics, government, and power and, the efficient production and use of energy and by extension the economy and all else have become secondary to that.
The Paris Agreement Ten Years On Is A House of Cards Ready for the Toppling
A closer look at the transcript of a speech by the UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell delivered last week in Brasilia will illustrate this gap between what most observers would broadly regard as objective reality and the official narrative as delivered by a highly place UN functionary.
The speech starts off with the assertion that “without UN-convened global climate cooperation – with its origins right here in Brazil in 1992 – we would be headed towards up to 5 degrees of global heating – a death sentence for humanity as we know it.”
Mr. Chris Wright, the recently-appointed Energy Secretary of the Trump administration. He asked, “how has the energy transition gone so far”? And he answered, that after $2 trillion in subsidies over the 2 decades from 2000, the world dependence on fossil fuels for its primary energy demand “plunged” all the way down to 84% from 86%.
According to Jeff Currie, who was Goldman Sachs’ Global Head of Commodities Research, the contrast is even worse. In an interview in 2022, he said fossil fuels represented 81% of energy consumption at end-2021. “Ten years ago, they were at 82%…$3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuels from 82% to 81% of the overall energy consumption.”
Financial Times (February 5th): “World’s biggest offshore wind developer Ørsted slashes investment by 25%”
BBC News (February 6th): “Norwegian oil giant [Equinor] cuts green investment in half”
Nor are these headlines indicative of random business events. The Renewable Energy Industrial Index (RENIXX), a global stock capitalisation index of the 30 largest renewable energy industrial companies in the world, is down three years in a row from 2021, having lost half its value. This performance would have been far worse if the outperforming Tesla stock was removed from the index. The iShares Global Clean Energy ETF, constituting a set of key clean energy stocks around the world, fell in value by over 65% from a January 2021 peak to January 2025.
https://clintel.org/the-paris-agreement-ten-years-on-is-a-house-of-cards-ready-for-the-toppling/
Bill,
It is a very strange physical phenomenon: Things that are going up must level off before they go down. In this case, your data seems to show that “peak oil” has already been passed, at least as a percentage.
Bruce …
‘Peak oil’ seems to be one of those terms used as the planet’s quantity of oil can safely be called finite. Yet, when another field is discovered, such as Guyana, the term seems to recede.
From the article: “Global coal use is set to reach an all-time high in 2024, marking the third consecutive year of record-breaking consumption.”
For all the emphasis on renewables, it seems that fossil fuels aren’t going away.
Bill,
I put “peak oil” in quotes because it is an often used misnomer. Your quotes show that it is also applicable to fossil fuels in general. And, it refers to peak percentage of consumption, not % of (known or unknown) reserves.
Bruce …
“And, it refers to peak percentage of consumption, not % of (known or unknown) reserves.”
It’s used for both, consumption and % of known reserves, no doubt because of the interrelationship.
Bill, yeah I’m sure it’s used for both, and absolute values as well as percentages. Regardless of which you choose, “peak” is either here or rapidly approaching.
Some say maybe, some say no. On demand:
Falling oil demand in China also comes with the risk of stranded assets by oil companies. Indeed, experts are now warning that if that rate continues to level off, the $500 bn that oil companies are spending every year on oil exploration might be too high,“The jury is out on whether the demand will be there to absorb it or not,” Martijn Rats, an analyst at Morgan Stanley, told the Financial Times. “The answer may be that it is not.”
However, other energy agencies are not nearly as bearish. The EIA is the most bullish on long-term oil demand, and has predicted a demand peak will come in 2050 while the OPEC sees it coming five years earlier. Meanwhile, Standard Chartered has predicted global oil demand will hit 110.2 mb/d in 2030 and increase further to 113.5 mb/d in 2035. According to StanChart, a structural long-term peak is very unlikely within the next 10 years despite a high probability of cyclical downturns over the period. StanChart has argued that the current gulf between demand views creates significant investment uncertainty that’s likely to force longer-term prices higher.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Has-Chinas-Oil-Demand-Peaked.html
Looks like the subsidy wind in Germany has hit the doldrums.
Two years ago, Thyssenkrupp AG, the nation’s biggest steelmaker, was awarded €2 billion ($2.1 billion) in subsidies to help pay for a hydrogen furnace. It was the biggest-ever commitment of its kind, and a high point in Germany’s planned transition to clean fuel.
Yet plans to burn hydrogen are now on hold. Since the government collapsed late last year, funding for key energy transition programs have been frozen, and the leading political parties have made clear that their priorities lie elsewhere.
Source is Bloomberg.
Over 100 Cold Temperature Records Could Break Across Central US As Wind Chills Plummet Below Zero.
Another blast of bitterly cold arctic air will engulf the central states through the week, where temperatures will be 20 to 50 degrees below average. Over a hundred daily record lows could be set from the Plains to the northern Gulf Coast Tuesday through Friday mornings. Some of that cold air will also spill into the East, including much of Florida.
https://www.wunderground.com/article/forecast/regional/news/2025-02-16-arctic-blast-temperature-record-week-ahead
So WHY are we experiencing such cold temperatures?
The answer is that Chinese SO2 aerosol emissions are soaring, and approaching the levels of the late 1970’s when there were fears of a new Ice Age.
On February 20, a section of the polar vortex in the upper troposphere will be over the Great Lakes. The polar vortex in this layer of the atmosphere is completely broken up.
https://earth.nullschool.net/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIgNT5leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHXZdbfxvOuj4gp3hMKO_AMbK1jkLvdbLbpshWbotDeXsD4Hubxud2zGmug_aem_MZjTKjkkY4-hKwNwyVdqaA#2025/02/20/0900Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-103.00,49.42,696
Annual SO2 emissions have been relatively constant over the last 5 years, for both China and the World.
https://so2.gsfc.nasa.gov/measures.html
“Globally, January 2025 was the warmest January since records began in 1850”
https://berkeleyearth.org/january-2025-temperature-update/
I guess all the local cold records are just more evidence that chaotic systems become more chaotic when more energy is pumped into them.
You and the folks at Berkeley pretend to know the average temperature of the earth in 1850 to the 9/100s of a degree. Pretending to know the impossible is naive, maybe outright lying but… it’s not science.
Wagathon,
What is impossibly naive, is thinking you know how to read a graph: The first visible error bar (1851, 1850 hidden by the y-axis) is ~±0.7K and cover a range of 1.4 K. Making such stupid mistakes maybe outright lying, or maybe scientific incompetence, but it’s certainly not a science rebuttal; more like a butt-in’s ignorance.
Yet by the 1920’s/1930’s the error bar is in the range of 0.3k-0.4k.
Is that realistic ?
Mann’s hockey only has error bars in the range of 0.8k
Is that realistic or are the climate scientists overly confident?
Joe K,
Yes, it is realistic, perhaps even conservative.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/uncertainty/
“more chaotic” – how do you measure it?
Fear of global warming has never been anything more than the product of willful ignorance, simple charlatanism or liberal fascist propaganda.
Determine the Lyapunov exponent. That should be enough to start the chase if you are actually curious. Enjoy.
What we have seen in the past only inspires distrust.
Radiation Transport in Clouds
W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer
January, 2025
Abstract
We briefly review the dominant role of clouds in Earth’s climate. The earliest observational studies of heat transfer through Earth’s atmosphere, for example, those of John Leslie around 1800, showed that clouds have a large effect on radiative heat transfer from Earth’s surface to space. Greenhouse gases also affect heat transfer, but much less than clouds. For example, “instantaneously doubling” CO2 concentrations, a 100% increase, only decreases radiation to space by about 1%. To increase solar heating of the Earth by a few percent, low cloud cover only needs to decrease by a few percent. The first half of this paper reviews observational facts about how clouds affect heat transfer. The second half gives a brief summary of the new 2n-stream radiation transfer theory for quantitatively analysing how clouds scatter radiation incident from outside the cloud, and how they emit thermal radiation generated by their particulates.
Download the pdf from here:
https://co2coalition.org/publications/radiation-transport-in-clouds/
In the first paragraph of conclusion:
” An increase in low cloud cover of only about 1% could largely compensate for the doubling of CO2 [26].”
Yes it could, except that low cloud cover is decreasing – a temperature mediated positive feedback from GHG warming.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/30/10/jcli-d-15-0734.1.xml
Note that reference [26] in the new W&H release does not exist as given.
– McCoy calls that ‘robust’. Maybe, but not sure you want to hang your hat on that. Happer’s 1% increase in LCC statement gives context to his position on equilibrium climate sensitivity: ‘…a doubling of the concentration of CO2, for a cloudless sky only decreases radiation to space by 1%.’
Here’s the thing, Happer/Wijngaarten have put out another paper that calls into question the actual role of CO2 in the atmosphere. The amount of such papers are increasing. Any reference to a ‘consensus’ isn’t supported any longer.
Note 26 link gives an error message, I assume probably because one needs to utilize a program on the site.
Climatists have simply fabricated their GCMs out of whole cloth because their GCMs have no predictive ability whatsoever that much is certain.
Earth’s Energy Imbalance.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/imbalance/
“Model results from additional climate simulations are available from the Transient Simulations website; it presents various scenarios for extending the climate forcing to 2100 as well as simulations in which the stratospheric ozone change during the period 1979-1997 has been modified to match the trend of Randel and Wu (1999). In the runs given on the present page and in the Imbalance paper, the stratospheric ozone depletion in 1979-1997 was inadvertently only 5/9 as large as suggested by Randel and Wu. Use of the full Randel and Wu ozone depletion reduces the 1880-2003 climate forcing from 1.80 W/m2 to 1.78 W/m2.”
–
“the 1880-2003 climate forcing from 1.80 W/m2 to 1.78 W/m2.”
Is it a (123 years * 1,78 W/m2 ) = 218,94 W/m2 almost plus 219-220 W/m2, is it a 123 years climate radiative forcing rise?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The latter. Do a units check.
Thank you, B A.
“The latter. Do a units check.”
Is it a (123 years * 1.78 W/m2 ) = 218.94 W/m2 almost plus 219-220 W/m2, is it a 123 years climate radiative forcing rise?
Is it correct now?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, (123 years * 1,78 W/m2 ) = 218,94 W/m2 does not have matching units: not correct.
“It” (1,78 W/m2) is a 123-years climate radiative forcing rise. Yes, correct.
The point being made by NASA is that correcting a mistake in the processing of Ozone data did not significantly change the ERF. The part you are confused about is that forcings are instantaneous values, not integrals.
Thank you, B A.
So it mean’s “the 1880-2003 climate forcing from 1.80 W/m2 to 1.78 W/m2.” that instead of (in 123 years) rise of 1,80 W/m2 the actual rise was 1,78 W/m2 ?
Do I understand now rightly ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Now in North Dakota -40 degrees. Mornings at ground level may be locally below -50 F.
Shamrock, Texas is 11°… 30° below normal.
Must be all that Chinese SO2 cooling off the polar vortexes and making them unstable.
Blaming CO2 for the day being 0.09° hotter than it was in 1850 is like blaming the pyramids in Egypt for hurricanes in Florida.
Cold air coming down from the North Pole is replaced by warmer air from the South. The last I looked at the Japanese site that tracks sea ice extent, it looked like the maximum for Arctic sea ice extent would be lower than ever. Antarctic sea ice extent was also not looking very good. Global sea ice, Arctic plus Antarctic, continues its steady decline. The AMOC index is still high, possibly ending its apparent sixty some odd year oscillation. I think that’s fairly strong evidence that the planet is in a warming phase.
OTOH, I don’t think there’s anything effective being done to mitigate it if warming is caused by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. We should stop wasting money on ineffective mitigation efforts and start doing something about adaptation.
This year’s Arctic toxic algae blooms will be spectacular.
RE: adaption,
I guess you could call this adaption.
https://singularityhub.com/2025/02/17/what-does-every-human-gene-do-this-massive-project-will-find-out/
Just genetically engineer our DNA so we can survive in the new environment. Maybe we can erase racism if everybody looks the same. Compassionate Eugenics for the 21st century or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World?
A couple of ‘adaptations’ might include a couple attempts at finding the Northwest passage such as, the McClure expedition (looking for the lost Franklin expedition) who was first to actually accomplish the task albeit, in part, by sled over the ice.
When are we ‘gonna learn? We quickly figure out it’s icy cold in the Arctic and Antarctic when some greenies set off on an expedition to prove the Earth is doomed by global warming. This sort of hubris usually ends in some Herculean rescue effort, amputated and frostbitten fingers and eco-whackpots being rescued by copters or an oil tanker.
From a historical perspective the last 8000 yrs indicate that the near millennial (Eddy) cycle is the dominant one for human civilisations. The earth is nearing peak warming in its cycle, and it is no different than the previous 100k yrs glacial cycles. The next shift is to cold, but there are approx 4-8 decades to go.
Before one adapts one has to understand the earth’s tantrums – they are abrupt-. The present is the steep end of the exponential; the next is a dead cat’s drop.
A Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment.
Arctic Sea ice lower than ever? The baseline for Arctic ice coverage was just done in 1979…
A faster rotating planet has a higher the average surface EQUILIBRIUM temperature.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I think there is an implicit “recorded” in that. Of course, there were times – more than 33 million years ago – when the earth was free of year-round ice. I presume that was a deflection from the fact that world sea-ice has been trending negative for the last 45 years, and will likely have a new minimum in 2025.
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph#anchor-how-to-use-charctic
Pingback: Unraveling the Narrative Supporting a Green Energy Transition - Climate Etc.