by Planning Engineer (Russ Schussler)
Wind and solar power are often touted as the cheapest sources of electricity in many regions, capable of delivering low-cost energy for the vast majority of the time. At first glance, this might suggest that an energy mix heavily weighted toward renewables would be the most economical choice. However, this assumption overlooks a critical issue: the fat tail problem. Just because a resource is cheaper most of the time does not mean it reduces overall system costs. This post, the first in a series, explores why prioritizing wind and solar can lead to higher costs, starting with an analogy from the financial world.
The Fat Tail in Finance: A Cautionary Tale
To understand the fat tail problem, let’s consider a financial scam once common in late-night infomercials: “Make money on over 90% of your trades—guaranteed!” These ads promised that with their trading strategy, you’d win on 90% of your trades and lose on less than 10%. Sounds like a surefire path to wealth, right?
Not so fast, this is too easy. The flaw lies in the magnitude of the wins and losses. Investments often rise gradually but can plummet dramatically. If you make small gains 90% of the time but suffer massive losses the other 10%, the overall result can be catastrophic. The percentage of winning trades is a poor metric for profitability when the losses are disproportionately large. This is the fat tail problem: rare but extreme events drive the economics.
The Fat Tail in Power Systems
Just as rare but massive losses in trading can wipe out gains, peak demand periods in power systems drive costs that overshadow renewables’ savings during easy times. Electricity demand fluctuates, and supplying power is far more challenging—and expensive—during certain periods. At the end of this post, I have provided a more detailed and quantitative discussion as to how and why the fat tail becomes a major factor impacting energy costs. So as not to lose many readers, I will proceed with a more generalized description here.
Typically, the most difficult times are peak demand periods in winter and summer, which account for less than 5% of the year. During a single hour of peak demand, electricity costs can spike orders of magnitude higher than the typical average cost, forcing utilities to rely on expensive backup plants that sit idle most of the year. For example, during the January 2014 Polar Vortex, a massive cold snap gripped the eastern U.S., driving electricity demand for heating across the PJM Interconnection to record levels. With no spare power to share among states, wholesale prices soared to $2,000 per megawatt-hour, over 60 times the typical $30/MWH average. Smaller localized events are more common with less drastic price fluctuations, but they contribute as well to the fat tail problem.
These types of scenarios can be greatly worsened by the duck curve as illustrated and described below.
Figure 1: The Duck Curve, showing how solar power creates sharp demand spikes at dusk, driving fat tail costs
As a worst case, imagine the duck curve scenario on a peak summer day. As consumers need more and more electricity commercial and home solar drop off significantly requiring a massive fast ramping from an array of dependable generation resource. For annual peak conditions, large costly resources, that may not be needed again all year might have to be called into service at great cost. For a winter peak a similar situation happens just before daybreak. High levels of electricity are required as individuals, businesses and factories deal with oppressive cold and prepare for the coming day.
In contrast, “easy” times, when demand is low and supply is abundant, make up 90% or more of the year and this is where energy and variable cost average are set. It’s a completely different story during hard times for demand and fixed charges. Historically, a single hour of peak demand could determine a utility’s annual peaking charges, highlighting the outsized impact of these extreme conditions.
Wind and solar often shine during easy times, producing electricity at a lower marginal cost than traditional sources like natural gas or nuclear. However, their output is intermittent and less reliable during peak periods, when weather conditions may not align with demand. Relying heavily on renewables requires backup systems—often expensive fossil fuel or nuclear plants—to ensure reliability during these critical fat tail events. The cost of maintaining these backup systems, combined with the infrastructure needed to integrate intermittent renewables, can greatly outweigh the savings from cheap renewable energy during easy times.
As I’ve noted before, “Energy ‘plans’ that call for wholesale changes but do not consider how the final overall system might work are not plans but rather only naïve wish lists.” Policymakers often push wind and solar based on their low costs in favorable conditions, ignoring the fat tail problem and the higher system-wide costs that result.
A Car Analogy: Efficiency/Marginal Costs Aren’t Everything
Consider a practical example. Imagine you’re choosing between two cars. Car A is fuel-efficient and meets your needs 90% of the time, but 10% of the time, you need Car B, which has more power and extra seating. Car B is less efficient, but it’s essential for those critical moments. Would you also buy Car A just because it’s cheaper to operate 90% of the time? Probably not—owning two cars would likely cost more than paying the extra fuel costs for Car B alone.
Similarly, building wind and solar farms to supply cheap energy during easy times doesn’t eliminate the need for reliable resources like natural gas or nuclear during peak periods. The added costs of constructing, maintaining, and integrating renewables—while still paying for backup systems—often make the overall system more expensive. Detailed power system modeling and real-world experience confirm this, yet the misconception persists that renewables’ low marginal costs guarantee economic benefits.
Talking Past Each Other
The fat tail problem may explain why energy debates often feel like ships passing in the night. Proponents of renewables emphasize their low average costs, while generation planners focus on the system-wide associated with the full array of needed generation resources. This disconnect stems from a kind of innumeracy—failing to go beyond average costs to account for the disproportionate impacts of serving peak periods and rare costly events.
In a sad case of common sense gone wrong, Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and similar mandates were enacted under the assumption that renewables are inherently economic. The experts’ models showed otherwise but were often dismissed as biased since they didn’t reflect the value of the “cheap” renewables. In reality, they reflected the fat tail’s harsh arithmetic. This critical insight was overlooked by too many policymakers focused on short-term goals, advocates driven by enthusiasm, and academics unaware of real-world considerations.
Why do financial scams, which also exploit fat tail misunderstandings, fool fewer people than renewable energy promises? Perhaps energy systems’ complexity obscures the fat tail problem, while emotional appeals and trusted institutions lend renewables undue credibility. Also, unlike personal investments, energy policy involves collective costs, perhaps reducing individual scrutiny.
Modern civilization needs electricity most all of the time. Otherwise wind and solar would be a better deal. But having energy 80% or 90% of the time is not enough. Although there are many programs and approaches employed to limit electric use during peak times, large amounts of electricity are not shiftable away from peak periods. Consumers need cooling when it is hot and heating when the temperature is frigid. Those needs ensure the fat tail can’t be significantly slimmed down.
To be clear, I don’t think the issues have commonly been discussed in terms of fat tails. We’ve had a lot of engineers and financial analysts speaking in terms of system costs, that went past and over the heads of the relevant audience. The rebuttals of academics and advocates, as to the economics of wind and solar, have puzzled the engineers and financial experts who generally have not had the clout to cross examine and seek to find clarification. In most cases policy makers with or without needed understandings had the power and made the decisions based on overly optimistic expectations for wind and solar. A word to the wise – those speaking only in terms of average costs should not be trusted in decision making for complex systems. Beware of misleading metrics.
Looking Ahead
The fat tail is just one piece of the puzzle. While it’s a critical and often misunderstood factor, other issues also drive up the cost of wind and solar. Future posts in this series will explore these factors in detail, providing a comprehensive explanation for why “cheaper” wind and solar can and usually do lead to greatly increased electricity costs. Future posts will discuss home solar, focus on utility economics, discuss problems with energy markets and delve into many of the often ignored unaccounted costs associated with wind and solar.
For now, the key takeaway is this: in power systems, as in finance, focusing on what happens most of the time can blind us to the catastrophic costs of what happens less often. The fat tail problem demands a holistic approach to energy planning—one that prioritizes reliability and affordability over simplistic cost comparisons.
Bonus Section: Why are there Fat Tails in Power Systems?
Let’s look at some of the reasons electric systems are prone to have fat tails. Electric demand varies based on the time of day, the day of the week, time of year and of course across many weather-related conditions most importantly temperature. The variance caused by these factors can be seen in a load duration curve. Load duration curves are formed by ordering annual hourly demand from the maximum value observed during the year to the minimum value. Below is a typical load duration curve.
Figure 2: Load Duration Curve, illustrating how peak demand (right) occurs briefly but drives system costs
Moving from right to left we see that values near the peak do not persist for long and as we move to the left, we see that the load drops well below 40% of the peak value for almost a third of the time. For this typical system, only 1.5 % of the time is the load within 90% of the peak value. As shown above only 5% of the time is load within 80% of the peak value. Lower load levels predominate as 50% of the time the load is less than 46% of the peak value.
More pronounced than the changes in demand associated with an electric system are the differences in energy costs hour to hour. The incremental cost of the next bit of energy is called the system lambda. This is a good indicator of the variable cost to serve extra energy each hour. For ERCOT (Texas) last year, the average system lambda was around $25 to $30/MWh. Most values fell between $10 and $100/MWh. But the full range extended from -$10/MWh to around $5,000/MWh. The California ISO maintains a System Marginal Energy Cost similar to a system lambda which last year averaged $20 to $30/MWh, with most values in the range of 0 to $100/MWh, but the full range extended from -$100/MWh to $2,000/MWh.
The range of marginal (incremental) costs is sweeping. Increased wind and solar work to make the ranges even more pronounced than they would be otherwise. Some of you may be scratching your heads seeing the negative values above. Let me explain: Nuclear today pretty much runs full out all the time. Other units, like coal and natural gas combustion turbines have minimum operating levels. There are costs associated with shutting down nuclear, coal and combined cycle units and once shut down they have various minimum down times which might prevent them from being available later if needed. For many units providing needed power during high demand periods means they must generate 24 hours a day. Sometimes wind and solar are given priority to operate whether the power is needed or not. The above factors lead to more energy being available than can be used by the system. A negative lambda is used to discourage generation, and plants are charged for contributing power during these times. (Note- in some times and places due to contractual arrangements and regulations wind and solar might be paid during times of energy surplus even when others are charged for contributing energy.)
We haven’t considered fixed prices here, but just the above-mentioned factors indicate that fat tails can play a big role. High-cost system lambdas may be a couple orders of magnitude above the average system lambda and even worse at times the value of energy is negative.
Before there were significant penetrations of intermittent resources, generation was generally classified as peaking, intermediate and baseload. The incremental costs of each were limited, often well-known and bounded at all but the most extreme times. It was fairly easy to predict load and determine what generation patterns would follow and their associated costs. Intermittent generation changed that situation drastically. Loads can be rising as intermittent generation is decreasing or the reverse. The resulting changes in incremental costs can be stunning at times. As intermittent resources increase power system costs are a fat tail problem on steroids.
article is too long and too generic
90%, 10% and fat tails are a poor summary’ of the problem
In the US, peak electricity demand typically occurs during the late afternoon and early evening, often between 4 PM and 9 PM on weekdays. This is when people are returning home from work, preparing meals, and using entertainment devices, leading to increased electricity usage.
In these peak hours, there will be little or no solar power and sometimes little or no wind power. some days will require 100% fossil fuel / nuclear / hydro backup. When electricity is most needed, solar and wind are the worst choices. That is the problem in plain English.
No, Richard, that is not the simple explanation. It relies, for example, on assumptions like even though wind will stop blowing at a place, it will still blow somewhere else and so wind energy will be continuous provided you build and connect to more windmills than seem to be needed.
Shown to be an expensive fail.
Russell’s argument has to be detailed to get the message across to the few readers who are not as bright as you. Geoff S
Geof
Good point on the false assumption used by renewable advocates that the wind is always blowing somewhere.
The EIA grid monitor shows otherwise
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/US48/US48/GenerationByEnergySource-4/edit
In 2021 Texas had little wind for over a week. Probably the longest US wind drought for an area that large. Nearby states did not have much wind either.
The there will always be wind argument was not mentioned or implied in my comment.
That argument assumes extra wind power would be available for sale, not needed where it is blowing and there will be high capacity interconnection too (which Texas did not have).
“to the few readers who are not as bright as you. Geoff S
I’ll add that to my resume
Richard – the wind drought in Feb 2021 was across the entire continent for the 7-10 days ( in varying degrees with drops of 60%-95% depending on location). Where as the fossil lost 40% for 2 days.
Yet the renewable advocates absolve wind and solar because the loss was anticipated.
Richard Greene later wrote “The there will always be wind argument was not mentioned or implied in my comment.”
Note that I qualified my comment with “assumptions like”. In any case, it is the intermittency of wind and measures required to combat it that is part of the cost of wind and the frequent words that renewables are cheaper than hydrocarbons for electricity. Geoff S
Too long? Really? Think harder, Richard.
“article is too long and too generic”
But for articles on energy, it is still above average
I read over 5,000 climate and energy articles a year.
Russ Schussler is the best author featured at this website, even if I don’t believe every one of his articles is a masterpiece.
“Fat Tail” is a statistics term that does not communicate well
“Duck curve” too
a grid has to provide maximum supply only for small portion of a day. That was true before wind and solar too. Grid investment always had to meet peak electricity demand plus a safety margin.
Investing in wind and solar increases costs because100% non-wind and solar are still needed for the possibility of no sun and no wind (compound drought) during a peak demand hour of a day.
The problems:
solar is worthless during peak demand hours and wind is too often weak too. Therefore, they can rarely help reduce electricity spot prices at peak demand hours of a day
In electricity markets, power prices are known to be fat-tailed, meaning they are prone to significant and unexpected price spikes. This volatility is a key characteristic of electricity markets.
While wind power can reduce the overall burden on a utility company during peak times, it will not reliably reduce prices during the peak demand hours.
solar power’s contribution to peak demand hours may be minimal, as it’s not optimally aligned with the period of highest demand.
Some studies suggest that wind power generation can actually increase price volatility in certain markets, especially during peak hours.
.
Designed energy storage must be a difficult concept, or maybe it disproves your thesis. Try worrying about something besides how much it costs, like how much it is worth.
https://www.primergygemini.com/project-overview
4hr battery backup – Beta phi delta
Let me add that opportunity cost is involved too.
The money available for grids is limited so spending on unreliable solar and wind means less spending on reliables … which will be the only source of power at times, including some peak demand hours during a year.
To B A Bushaw | May 14, 2025 at 8:23 am |
Designed energy storage is very expensive compared with peaker gas plants or other gas plants on spinning reserve. Batteries would make solar and wind far more expensive
Richard,
“very expensive” and “far more expensive” are not quantitative enough to engage my interest. As said, “Try worrying about something besides how much it costs, like how much it is worth.”
https://solarpower.guide/solar-energy-insights/infographics/types-energy-ranked-cost-megawatt-hour.png
Might also want to amortize costs by how long fuel will be available for a given generation method, and include the costs of GHG mitigation/capture for fossil fuels.
Yes, B A,
“Might also want to amortize costs by how long fuel will be available for a given generation method, and include the costs of GHG mitigation/capture for fossil fuels.”
Why do not we go 100% hydro then?
Because we are logical – there is not so much water in our rivers to cover the ever growing electricity demand.
What if there is no wind and sun available then?
No matter how many wind turbines, and no matter how many solar panels installed, there will be no electricity available.
Please do not capture CO2 emissions. There is a growing new-environmentalists-movement. Because – they claim – CO2 is plants food.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bush gave us a link for electric generation using LCOE
LCOE on includes the cost of generation, yet omits costs of stability, reliability, intermettincy, frequency, etc.
LSFCOE provides a much better and more comprehensive cost analysis.
Secondly, this post “Why “cheaper” wind and solar raise costs. Part I: The fat tail problem” provides a very good explanation why LCOE analysis is very superficial and deceiving
Jo, If “LSFCOE” is so much better than LCOE, why isn’t it used? Why do internet searches and AI not even find it? Thanks for your opinion and reference, which are, as usual, useless.
Jo,
Did you dyslexiate “LSFCOE” (should be LFSCOE) on purpose? Incompetence or trying to hide something?
LFSCOE isn’t used because it is useless fantasy unrelated to reality – calculating costs based on a single generation method providing 100% of all electricity demand. It is based on a single-author single paper, and citations thereof are scarce, including your lack of citation and misspelling of the acronym.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124905
In spite of knowing better, you continue to link to sources that provide incomplete analysis. There is considerable analysis within almost every LCOE discussing the limitations of its use.
is it a comprehension problem or an honesty problem?
Even lazards admits the issue
Russ has pointed out – “Except as illustratively sensitized herein, this analysis does not consider the intermittent nature of selected renewables energy technologies or the related grid impacts of incremental renewable energy deployment”
EIA discussion has similar comments on the limitation of LCOE.
Jo, I gave a reference with numbers. You didn’t. In fact, you gave no reference at all and misspelled the acronym to boot. Yes, the LCOE has limits, but it is what is used for comparison, not LFSCOE. Your opinion of “better” is meaningless, and your treatment of the subject demonstrates incompetence.
You keep demonstrating a very superficial understanding of the topic. LCOE is a reasonable estimate of the cost of generation with in a narrow range of penetration. LCOE does not include the cost of stability, reliability, overcoming intermittency, etc. Once wind and solar share of penetration begins to exceed 40-50%, the LCOE numbers for wind and solar become a joke. As multitude of others have explained to you, its total costs that matter, not the cost of a single component.
What part of “LCOE on includes the cost of generation, yet omits costs of stability, reliability, intermettincy, frequency, etc.”
Russ asserts in this article that nuclear is a “reliable” source of power.Really? All nuclear plants have planned outages ( shut-downs) for routine maintenance, core reconfiguration etc) sometimes lasting several months at a time. Some nuclear plants suffer unplanned outages, such as emergency shut-downs( eg SCRAMs); others suffer catastrophic failures Chornobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima Da’aichi.Such big accidents cause shut down permanently, with the knock on effect of multiple other reactor shut downs, such as happened in Japan , creating hugely expensive stranded assets that earn no revenue, but have to be maintained 24/7. Nuclear power plants are notoriously difficult to successfully load following, so are not useful to kick-in when power demand peaks when renewables are at their extreme in intermittency.
The ‘commodity value’ of denatured electricity is meaningless; flexibility is evidently more valuable. “Sometimes wind and solar are given priority to operate whether the power is needed or not” isn’t this the problem? Curtailing wind should be much easier than curtailing a nuke, no? Which would make this a market design/subsidy error rather than an inherent shortcoming of wind.
Great Article. Anecdotal case. I personally paid $160,000 for two 20 k solar systems. One on my house. One on my barn. I got a low interest tax payer subsidized loan for part of the cost. I got a 40,000 tax payer subsidized tax credit from the federal government and a 3,000 per year over 10 year state of SC subsidized tax credit for 10 years. Started with SunPro who was purchased by ADT who 6 months after completion went out of solar. System was Enphase. Fortunately Enphase has stayed in business. After 1 year the system stopped working but from beginning never produced much power. It turns out internet connections were improper. Took 2 years and finally the system works. It has been a nightmare. Nobody will work on the system in my area now. Still little reduction in electric bills
To make matters worse you devalued your property by putting all those ugly solar panels on your house.
Bad designers may be very expensive.
Another excellent article.
“ This critical insight was overlooked by…academics unaware of real-world considerations.”
A modification “…academics unaware of or unwilling to accept real-world considerations.”
Utopians flourish in denialism.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/US48/US48/GenerationByEnergySource-4/edit
The electric generation by source grid monitor shows the huge swings in electric generation by the various sources. The biggest swings are with wind and solar, which those swings force the fossil fuel generation to have opposite swings to make up for the gaps causes by the swings of wind and solar.
The swings with wind by the hour or by the day are often quite significant.
Those are great charts. Thank you! Solar and wind “tell us” when we are going to get power — unlike fossil fuel, hydro, nuclear where we “tell it” how much power we want at a given point in time. The inopportune opportunity for a mismatch of demand and supply increases dramatically as a result.
CAISO also provides very informative charts including the marginal cost of electricity at each node in the system.
https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook
For decades we’ve witnessed the correlation of increasing electrical costs with increasing build out of wind and solar. Germany and the UK have been prime examples. Why has this knowledge been overlooked, and the “promise” of wind and solar always valued more than the obvious data? Are there some examples, maybe Texas, where the build out of wind and solar have actually decreased the cost of electrical generation?
well at least some of the increasing electrical costs have been due to the ETS and the rising cost of carbon emissions. but in inflation adjusted terms the cost of power across europe is a fair bit lower than it was 10-15 years ago, and at least some of that is due to renewables. The last 3 or 4 have been outliers due to the Ukraine war, which was quite obviously driven by hydrocarbon prices, though theres a good argument that retiring nukes and banning shale contrinuted, this isn’t due to renewables per se.
There is a big cost missing in this analysis: the cost of putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Hence the argument for carbon fees and dividends.
CO2 emissions benefit our planet
all costs are imaginary
You have no credible estimate of the costs or benefits of CO2.
David,
Not good enough to generalize with your “big cost” assertion.
We need the real cost and its uncertainty, please.
Can you put numbers on your “big cost”?
Geoff S
Plenty has been written about the societal cost of carbon emissions, based on global damage from drought, flooding, wildfires, etc. Damage is occurring now, but the bulk of it is in the future. To account for future costs, analyses apply a discount rate. (The present value of a future cost is evaluated as the amount which, if invested now at the discount rate, would be sufficient to cover the future cost.) Here is one article; you could find others. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2021/06/professors-explain-social-cost-carbon
The article notes that different analyses have gotten different numbers:
• $43/ton (Obama admin, using 3% discount rate)
• $3-$5/ton (first DJT admin, using 7-10% discount rate)
• $51/ton (Biden admin, using 3% discount rate)
A more recent article estimated $300/ton.
It is amusing that the DJT calculation counted only damage done in the US, while the other estimates were of global damage. (Geoff, I am afraid our present leader doesn’t care what US emissions do to Aussies.)
US power plants emit on average .8231 lb/kwhr (coal would be higher, natural gas lower). So at $51/ton, emissions from producing a kwhr of electricity do about $.02 worth of damage. That is not an insignificant fraction of the retail price of electricity.
A much better paper on SCC is from Ross McKitrick, published at Financial Post: The Social Cost of Carbon game. His conclusion:
“Thus I reiterate that SCC estimates are if-then statements. They are not intrinsically true or false: what matters is the credibility of the assumptions. If emissions follow the RCP8.5 scenario (which they won’t), and if people don’t adapt to climate change (which they will), and if CO2 and warm weather stop being good for plants (which is unlikely), then the SCC could be five times larger than previously thought. More likely it isn’t, and very well could be much smaller.”
https://financialpost.com/opinion/junk-science-week-social-cost-of-carbon-game
Ron,
The premise of the Russ Schussler article that is the subject of this thread is that renewables raise energy costs. My original post was that the Schussler analysis ignores the social costs of carbon, which are of course the main motivation for the switch to renewables that is underway. Any credible comparison of the economics of nuclear vs fossil vs renewables needs to address ALL costs, including external ones. I used a modest $51/ton to conclude that Schussler is hiding a not insignificant $.02/ kwhr of cost of US electricity production.
Ross McKitrick’s “junk science” paper that you recommend demonstrates the typical outrage of his genre but does not change the facts. He is outraged that a new analysis came up with $247/ton (~$.10/kwhr) instead of $54/ton, similar to what I used. He is outraged that the high emission RCP8.5 scenario is used when the energy transition underway (along with the switch from coal to natural gas) has already reduced the emission growth rate somewhat. He is silent on the effect of drought on agricultural productivity. He is correct in making the uncontroversial statement that SCC estimates depend upon the assumptions made. I am glad we can agree on something, but I don’t see how that statement makes his tirade a “much better paper”.
The basic equation is actually rather simple: Intermittent wind and solar must be backed up by dispatchable power with capacity to at least match peak demand. The capital cost of wind and solar is therefore entirely an additional cost because no dispatchable capacity is released and no running and maintenance costs other than some fuel are saved. There are very large additional costs for transmission, because large scale wind and solar tend to be remote from where the electricity is used, and there are significant additional costs for covering wind and solar variability and for grid stability. The end result is that wind and solar add a lot to the overall cost, and the electricity is therefore more expensive. You can easily verify that this is the case because electricity is most expensive in countries with the highest percentage of wind and solar.
Some people argue that the indirect effect of CO2 on climate should be factored in. It is arguable how much net benefit there is from the warming and greening of the planet, reduced excess winter deaths, and increased food production, so suffice it to say that if these indirect effects were included, wind and solar could come out as even more expensive. But this increment is very small, because the data shows that wind and solar have actually had almost no impact on fossil fuel consumption for electricity generation.
Great comment
“Intermittent wind and solar must be backed up by dispatchable power with capacity to at least match peak demand.”
… also some % of the 100% has to be gas on spinning reserve for grid stability … wasting fuel like a car idling in a driveway.
Part quote: “– no running and maintenance costs other than some fuel are saved.–”
In conventional gen at low loads – and near wet steam conditions- maintenance cost would likely increase. As for fuel, the turbine efficiency curve likely is nearer to half of what it is at MCR, the design point, so there is actually no fuel saving either.
Under such conditions plant for ‘Two shifting’ duties might offer a better alternative. However detailed careful design throughout is a must (and that includes operating staff).
If 50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere was “zeroed” out we’d have a dead planet. No thanks. I prefer a bit more buffer. I rather like the fact that flora has increased 14% over the last 30 years. Guess this fact makes all the greenies oxymorons.
The increase in ‘flora’ is probably due to giant blooms of toxic algae in the oceans. Oxygen levels are declining – down 7% since 1990.
https://www.oxygenlevels.org/
correction, down .07%.
“If 50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere was “zeroed” out we’d have a dead planet.”
CO2 428ppm now
was 180ppm 8 times in past 800,000 years
We are still here
C4 plants will survive down to 10 ppm
They’re 30% of all food crops
C4 plants are better equipped to thrive and survive in low CO2 environments compared to C3 plants, which is why they have evolved in such environments.
Life does not end at 150 ppm, which would make many C3 plants too small for food.
Based on reading at least 200 plant – CO2 studies since 1997, a good rule of thumb is: +100ppm CO2 will increase food crop biomass by at least 10% (C3 plants more than C4 plants).
That’ why CO2 is the staff of life for our planet
More CO2= more life.
“More CO2= more life”
Richard,
That’s an oversimplification and easily falsified. May we ask you to live in a 5% CO2 atmosphere, likely without sufficient water. Then report back about that “more life”.
Note that most of the observed “greening” is observed in first world countries, which would indicate that awareness and land use practices have increased reforestation, and more significantly than CO2 increases worldwide.
Greene, my prior post was satire, nonetheless, even satire needs a modicum of accuracy. I went over my skis on the absolute % of CO2 required to maintain life as we know it.
If 50% of CO2 were zeroed out, flora would only be severely stressed (perhaps some extinction of species). Zeroing out CO2 by 65%, to 150ish ppm (your reference), the planet would witness mass extinctions of flora. This doesn’t mean all flora would be extinct, as you stated. Regardless, while C4 flora represent 30% of food crops, it only represents 3% of all flora, it’s moot to this discussion.
But we are apparently mostly aligned in that you’re correct that at 150 ppm CO2 life doesn’t end, yet for all practical purposes it’s an end to life as we know it.
Also, yes, CO2 has dropped to the low 200’s several times over the millennia, though it did come with a good amount of extinction.
“More CO2= more life”: We do agree on this.
I digress, but it’s a bit funny that I’m talking to C4 Greene on this topic.
Countries like Texas, where wind and solar provide 34% of electricity generation (up from 12% a decade ago) and residential prices are 10.7 cents per kWh?
“Very small” = 17% of the nation’s electricity generation – that’s the biggest difference between pseudoscience and real science; quantification that allows falsification.
Texas is funding $38.9 billion for additional NG power plants, adding approx. 56 gigawatts to the Texas grid in the coming years—to stabilize it.
Earlier you were bothered that Joe got an acronym wrong, misplacing letters—since trivia is a concern you have, Texas is a state, not a country.
Trunks,
No, false references and intellectual incompetence are not trivia, but not wearing underpants is. You are entitled to your opinion – doesn’t make it important. People who don’t understand sarcasm – Texas is its own country (it is with respect to electrical grids) – are also short on intellectual competence. Is your jerk knee getting tired?
Polly, while you’re winging along with a prayer, chirping tripe and tropes, Texas will be rapidly ramping-up securing its grid infrastructure, doubling down on NG power generation—roost on that for awhile.
Underpants, 34% of Texas’ electricity comes from wind and solar, 17% for the whole nation, both continuing to grow. I suppose the insult fest is your way of avoiding the facts.
https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/gateway/2024/12/ACP_Storage-in-ERCOT_2024_Analysis.pdf
You believe the pie chart showing the sources of power generation in Texas will remain the same after the NG wedge doubles. Interesting take.
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/04/16/texas-senate-passes-anti-solar-wind-bill/
While the prior link expresses a lament over legislative pressure brought to bear on renewable infrastructure interests in Texas, the point is the “Bill” headline. NG will be expanding. My guess is that Exxon/Chevron will play a role in new NG plants.
Like you would know what I believe – LMAO. I believe the mix will continue to change in the future, not stay the same.
We’ll see how the Texas House votes on Bill 819.
Texas is betting big on Crypto mining, also being a major player in AI infrastructure. The state is seeing an influx of population.
Renewables will play an increasingly smaller role in power generation in Texas because the technology isn’t robust enough to handle the massive energy requirements the state needs in the near-term—thus the NG power plant ramp-up.
We ‘all’ know what you think because of the din of squawks and chirps you lay down when you land, Polly, you tell us what you believe.
Texas is not a country(yet)
The purpose of this site has shifted, from a discussion of climate science by world class experts, e.g. Dr. J. Curry, something I know little about, to a discussion of energy costs, on which I spent my career. It can be a game played by many to achieve their hidden agenda; count me skeptical. So I take other views to assess the interrelated issues.
Consider a technology which keeps you alive 95% of the time, but then kills you. Is that a good investment? Is man’s activities destroying the climate and thus our survival?, When? Where? How?
Will the magma chamber under a volcano be uninhabitable a million years from now? Will a spent fuel cemetery be lethal then? Did a virus kill 1,500,000 Americans within the last few years? Where did it come from and did some human activity cause it? What did our government do in this technology?
How many Americans have died from radiation in civilian nuclear power plants since it began, 1954? (no immediate deaths.) How many have be killed by a drunk driver since then? (Several million.) What is the difference between that plume, two blocks long, emitting from the cooling tower of a thermal generating plant and a cloud formation which spans from the Gulf of America to Greenland? Nothing; it is water vapor, evidence of some 2/3 of the energy created in the plant; the other 1/3 is electricity which is invisible. Why do all news articles on a nuke begin with a dark red photograph of the plant? (Infrared photographs records heat; zoomies are invisible.)
That newborn American, born this morning, owes others $115,000, its share of our national debt, the fat tail created by our government leaders. Are fat tails a bigger problem than CO2 in the air?
My climate and energy blog recommends 12 to 15 related articles every day of the year. It has been easier to find good energy articles than good climate articles for years.
That may be because the warming climate is good news, but net zero / wind / solar are a waste of money.
Honest Climate Science and Energy
Celebrating more CO2 & global warming! 1,123,000 page views. CO2 warming: Mainly in colder nations, in coldest months & at “night” (TMIN). More CO2 = Larger food plants & longer growing seasons.
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of America lol
In any society there are always people willing to quickly fall into line with whatever the dictator says. It’s been true for millennia.
It could be argued that fire-resistant homes weren’t needed in the Pacific Palisades since 1929 or that nothing more is needed there than shorts and a t-shirt, 90% of the time.
Escape Earth’s gravity using only wind and solar power? I doubt it.
Readers might also want to check into the “inertia” issue associated with the recent Iberian Peninsula outages — where traditional rotating machines (turbine-generator) maintain grid stability and solar and wind inverter-based generation doesn’t unless you add even more cost to your grid to compensate. Grid operators must be required to add this element of “backup” to their systems as higher percentages of the power are coming from wind and solar. We have massive exposure here if this isn’t done. More here on the outages in case you hadn’t heard about them: https://sepapower.org/knowledge/april-2025-iberian-blackout/
Engineers use a term “all in costs”.
It is common in business negotiations to put a necessary, vital cost for some technical matter, silently left out, outside the agreement. This is often followed by heated litigation afterwards, “You should have known…. ” This happens in politics also.
Spinning inertia, dispatchable, reliable, 24 – 7, conditioned, back-up power are all used.
I use, “You are personally responsible” for reliable juice , at point A, 24-7, at a voltage, current, phase angle, guaranteed for a generation, on date certain or I own you. I will take everything you have.
Engineers value clarity.
I would prefer to learn about climate science on this site.
RL Hails – I likewise prefer learning about climate science,
That being said, this renewable discussion is somewhat of a proxy for the quality of the climate science.
Much of what is written by the alarmists on topics such as renewables, tax subsidies, extreme weather events, climate related economics, etc is grotestly wrong.
If the climate scientists and alarmists cant get the easy topics correct, how can you trust their honesty or intellectual analysis with the complexity of climate science?
To err is human, but to make a real mess you need a computer.
Intro to an article I wrote:
“Inertia in a power grid is the resistance of the grid to changes in frequency.
Without sufficient inertia, the grid’s ability to respond to sudden changes in supply or demand is reduced, increasing the risk of outages.
For years, Spain has had many low inertia hours on most days during mid-day on sunny days. But only one blackout. If that blackout was caused by low inertia, then why did low inertial not cause a blackout 99% of the time?
That question needs an answer before low inerta is blamed for the blackout.
One more open issue is whether safety systems shut down solar plants that should not have been shut down.”
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/2025/05/inertia-in-power-grid-is-resistance-of.html
Thanks, Russ. Nice detail, clear.
That sun and wind energy sources would lead to cheaper electricity (than coal etc.) is an old myth that looked highly suspect when initially circulated and surely by now has been entirely debunked. Can’t we just leave it at that?
Bankrupting 340 million people in the US doesn’t do anything for controlling the world’s output of CO2 by its 8 billion inhabitants. AGW catastrophism is nothing more than thinly disguised malthusian catastrophism theory. Although China has never accepted controls on its CO2 output, they did buy into the malthusian theory by limiting childbirth. What next, unleash a worldwide pandemic?
Here is a new flow battery chemistry that looks promising for grid scale energy storage/backup.
Inexpensive:
We are committed to making sustainable energy solutions accessible to all. By leveraging cost-effective materials and processes, we’re driving down the cost of long-duration energy storage.
Safe and Stable:
Safety is non-negotiable. Our cutting-edge chemistry ensures that our energy storage systems are inherently safe and stable, providing peace of mind to users and communities.
Long-lived:
We understand the importance of durability in the energy storage industry. Our solutions are engineered for longevity, reducing the need for frequent replacements, and minimizing environmental impact.
Scalable:
Energy needs are not static, and neither are our solutions. Our technology is designed to scale seamlessly, from small-scale applications to powering some of the largest energy storage projects worldwide.
LINK:https://staging-b711-tom50dbe8aef13a5.wpcomstaging.com/
Would it be helpful when comparing generation systems to include the cost of back-up generation? All generation systems through out the grid have a mix generation capacity of primary, back-up and purchased generation available for peak demand. The USA grid currently has a large array of generation systems with a varied mix of wind/solar, gas, coal, hydro and nuclear, etc…. use for both primary and back up. This diversity may provide a unique and valuable opportunity for data collection.
Perhaps requiring utilities to track and publish yearly month to month generation costs listing primary and back-up generation separately will provide a picture of actual “average Kwh cost” over a wide range of generation combinations.
The data might lead to better and more detailed understanding of system costs. Debating can only go so far.
Yes. That will eveentually be covered in this series. I wanted to give specific attention to the fat tail problem in this one.
Adding to Jonas request – Can you also add discussion of different cost of generation between base generation, intermediate generation and peak generation.
My recollection of prior discussions was that peak generation was the most costly, yet fortunately only needed for short periods. I also notice that the advocates use LCOE try to compare peak generation cost against wind generation cost, even though wind generation doesnt really provide much generation in that space. (intentionally comparing dissimilar generation in order to make renewable costs look lower by comparison)
Bank of America’s securities people made a stab at comparing the “all in” costs of electricity sources – they found wind and solar to be the most expensive.
See figure 21 on page 12.
https://advisoranalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/bofa-the-ric-report-the-nuclear-necessity-20230509.pdf
Richard Greene made the comment:
“If 50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere was “zeroed” out we’d have a dead planet.”
As CO2 is measured by first removing water vapor from the air sample, the sample then represent an atmosphere that do not support life on Earth. Earth will be frozen over.
Are we fooling ourselves?
If 50% of atmospheric CO2 was “zeroed” (big if!) it would be about 212 ppmv. The earth has reached that many times during the glacial periods over the last million years of the current ice age – tropical region regions became more temperate, but the planet didn’t die.
You are fooling yourself or making misrepresentations. The goal is not zero CO2, but zero CO2 concentration growth. Perhaps even a reduction of 20% to get back to mid 20th century levels.
B A,
“Perhaps even a reduction of 20% to get back to mid 20th century levels.”
It is an impossible taks. The CO2 levels will continue growing no matter what messures taken.
The CO2 content growth in atmosphere is a natural phenomenon – it is not caused by human activities.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, thanks for your calculations and references. I am already aware of your personal opinions, and find them unsupportable.
Thank you, B A. I know what you mean:
“His theory contrasts with NASA’s evidence linking Earth’s warming to greenhouse gases, such as a 2°F rise since the late 19th century driven by CO2 increases, highlighting a scientific debate where Vournas’ model lacks peer-reviewed support, while mainstream climate science relies on extensive data like ice core samples showing CO2’s role in rapid warming.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, “his [Christos’] theory” is in contrast to NASA’s [and other] evidence.
‘His’ model lacks peer-reviewed support because it has not been published, and because it is unsupportable. There is no scientific debate, except maybe between Christos and the Universe.
The Illeism is entertaining.
“In English grammar, illeism is the act of referring to oneself (often habitually) in the third person. Also called self-talk.”
it is not me, it is the AI
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The goal is not zero CO2, but zero CO2 concentration growth.” Bushaw
The impossible green dream.
Atmospheric CO2 will increase unless all economic activity stops in all nations,
and more CO2 will be good news for Earth
***************************************
“The CO2 content growth in atmosphere is a natural phenomenon – it is not caused by human activities.” Vournas
All CO2 growth (+50%) was manmade in the past 150 years. Nature has been a net CO2 absorber for billions of years. You are a science denier living in la la land
Over the past few million years, the Earth has experienced many cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with ice sheets covering vast areas of the Northern Hemisphere during these ice age periods. … Absolute Humidity is lower when the atmosphere is colder.
Humans and plants survived the ice … allowing me to say your comment, below, was wrong:
“the sample then represent an atmosphere that do not support life on Earth. Earth will be frozen over.”
Earth is currently in an ice age called the “Quaternary Ice Age,” which began about 2.5 million years ago. This ice age is characterized by cyclical periods of glacial expansion and retreat, but it doesn’t involve a complete freeze-over of the planet.
Humans have survived previous ice ages by adapting to colder climates, developing technologies like fire and clothing, and migrating to more temperate regions.
Previous Snowball Earth:
The concept of a “Snowball Earth” (where the planet was almost entirely frozen) is a geohistorical hypothesis that suggests such an event occurred from 720 to 635 million years ago, during the Cryogenian period.
CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been declining for billions of years. Making it unlikely they were ever lower than 180ppm about 20,000 years ago.
Energy production should be entirely funded and operated by the private sector, without reliance on government subsidies. Such financial support is unnecessary, as carbon dioxide—according to established physics—does not have the capacity to warm the Earth. This concept is explored in detail in the following article:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/05/cosmic_rays_not_carbon_dioxide_cause_climate_change.html
What makes you a Physics Scientist? Certainly not the blog you cite.
B A Bushaw | May 21, 2025 at 8:42 am |
Geoff, “There is no climate emergency”. I personally find that an objectionable position.
I was referring specifically to the mathematical specifics that Dr Clauser presented. They challenge the social conclusion, not shared by all, that there is a climate emergency.
Have you yet read any Clauser math? One example is here:
https://www.sepp.org/science_papers/John_Clauser_ICSF_FINAL_May-8_2024.pdf
Geoff S
Geoff, I’ll look at Clauser’s climate “math”, when it is accepted for publication with peer review. Otherwise, it is just a logical fallacy that appeals to your denialistic wish for bias confirmation. Enjoy the Australian weather.
Ya know, anybody (like you) can call themselves a scientist – there are no requirements. The same is not true for specific sciences. I note that you claimed to be a chemist – where did you get your bachelor’s degree in chemistry? For that matter, what, and where, did you achieve a science a degree of any kind at all?
Thanks Geoff, the silence is golden.
A series of 4 prick comments from Bush
Yeah, and several comments from Jo that have no content except being a prick – typical.
bush – Several commentators have provided substantive information and data to correct you errors.
Your responses have always been arrogant and prickish. The more wrong you are, the more arrogant and prickish your comments.
Bushaw,
The graduation ceremony for my Bachelor of Science degree was on 26th February 1968. Back then, the concept of professionalism was strong. I cannot recall a single person, ever, with the temerity to question if I did indeed have a degree until you popped up on this Judith Curry blog. Readers, please sample this rudeness from Bushaw:
B A Bushaw | May 22, 2025 at 8:34 am | “I note that you claimed to be a chemist – where did you get your bachelor’s degree in chemistry? For that matter, what, and where, did you achieve a science a degree of any kind at all?”
I am not obliged to do your searches for you. There are scores of mentions of my professional status searchable on the Net. Some synonyms of “temerity” are –
Audacity, Brass, Cheek, Chutzpah, Effrontery, Foolhardiness and Gall.
Apart from the B.Sc, there was another year of what is now named “Honours” but then was named “Master of Science Qualifying”, which I passed. Before that, I was into my third year of a Bachelor of Engineering (Aeronautical) at the high-prestige Royal Australian Air Force College, started in Jan 1959, with the later RAAF years being at University of Sydney. A car crash stopped this and my test pilot career, unfinished, so I switched to Science. All in, I spent 9 years around universities while marriage, employment with CSIRO, gaining Bursaries to defray Uni fees, starting a family, working two jobs at once – this was the domestic scene. Post-war times were tough.
My father organised my entry to the RAAF College. He had been an Officer in the RAAF, 1940 to 1947 I believe, responsible for maintaining World War II radio networks in New Guinea. He made rare visits back to my Mum and brothers in Australia, finally demobed and settling down when I was 6 y o. Times were tough, but you did what you could.
My work took me finally to a level of being asked by Governments to advise them about good Science policy. You do not get to do this level with a fake degree or fake performance.
My Chief Geochemist science work starting 1975 took me to joint management (with Chief Geologist and Chief Geophysicist) of a team of graduates, up to 75 at times, in mineral exploration. (Nicknamed “Geopeko University). This team performed at the leading edge of world best, with 14 new mines discovered (some before my time there). The cumulative money value of sales of products from these mines is now of the order of $Aust 70,000 million in today’s terms. Times were tough, but we as a team did what was asked by society.
Nobody, just nobody, has ever said “Thank You” for this effort. Bushaw, would you like to break that duck?
Geoff S
So what is warming our atmosphere besides the sun and the water? If we withdraw subsidies for renewables, where do we find construction of affordable and reliable electricity generators?
Back to Governments and taxpayers’ contributions. Isn’t that where we came from before this silly climate change started?
About 60% of the warming in past 50 years is TMIN, most likely caused by a larger greenhouse effect, amplified by a positive water vapor feedback. TMIN is usually just after dawn, so is not affected by changes in absorbed solar rdiation (aka sunlight)
About 40% is TMAX, most likely caused by less air pollution and a reduction in cloud coverage %
Dr John Clauser morphed from an award winning physicist to a global warming denying climate science crackpot.
There is no polite way to say this.
He is a fool on the subject of climate science.
Not only does he falsely claim CO2 does nothing, but he has also falsely claimed at least once there was no global warming in the past 50 years!
His statements on climate science have reached unbelievable levels of ignorance.
Richard Greene:
Your TMIN and TMAX comments are absolute nonsense!
To Burl Henry who usually claims SO2 pollution is the sole cause of climate change:
My TMAX and TMIN statements are facts based on surface temperature measurements. Most global warming in the past 50 years has been TMIN. Your insult will not refute facts.
Insults never do.
The compelling evidence is that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Richard Greene,
Dr Clauser has made public his detailed arguments in support of his position. He is into mathematics so the reader needs more than minimal math to make progress with understanding his logic. I have worked through his examples and do not find them defective (given the limits of my own skills and comprehension).
What, specifically, do you find objectionable about this Clauser position? Geoff S
Geoff, “There is no climate emergency”. I personally find that an objectionable position. Physical and sociological evidence say otherwise.
https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/changing-climate/climate-trends/australian-trends/
Pingback: Why “cheaper” wind and solar raise costs. Part I: The fat tail problem – Climate- Science.press
The richest 10 percent of the world’s population is responsible for about 65 percent of the rise in average global temperature between 1990 and 2019, according to a new study hosted in the leading scientific journal Nature Climate Change.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We have some acceptable standard of living. Wish all the people on the planet have an acceptable standard of living.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The CO2 is not responsible of the rise in average global temperature,
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Acceptable? The ever-narrowing confines of acceptable conduct that is established at the whim of politicians and demanding that employers police the business’s compliance with an ever-growing set of rules and performance criteria–as interpreted by government bureaucratic fiat–should henceforth be considered to be an impossible standard for employers to meet. WHENEVER YOU HEAR THAT THE ECONOMY IS GROWING UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A VERY BIG LIE. Hiring an attorney to help navigate a regulatory minefield or hiring a Compliance Officer to satisfy the requirements of a heavy-handed government edict is not growth. It is not a sign of economic growth.
Humans have zero influence of any average global temperature increase. That rests with water vapor. My unscientific finding is that 69% of increases in temperature is caused by water vapor. I was beat by Coe, Fabinski and Wiegleb who state 89% of global warming is caused by water vapor.
From CF&W: “From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming [relative to the mythical atmosphere free earth], with CO2 contributing 3.3K”
https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12
Hence, the 89%. However, note that the current ~50%
increase (~1/3 of current total) in CO2 concentration is consistent with currently observed average warming (~1.3 K).
As AI (copilot) explains:
“… water vapor is indeed the most abundant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere, but its concentration is largely controlled by temperature rather than being a direct driver of climate change.
Unlike CO₂, which accumulates due to human activities, water vapor acts as a feedback mechanism—meaning that as temperatures rise (often due to CO₂ and other greenhouse gases), more water evaporates, amplifying the warming effect.”
All of the human contribution to climate change can be accounted for by humanity’s contribution to the increase in water vapor. (The trend of average global water vapor has been increasing about 1.4 % per decade since before it began to be accurately measured using satellite instrumentation by NASA/RSS in 1988). https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Richard Greene:
The FACTS are that EVERY temperature increase or decrease of at least 0.2 deg. C. can be associated with an increase or a decrease in global SO2 aerosol levels–due to the presence or absence of volcanic eruptions, increasing or decreasing levels of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution, and decreased industrial SO2 aerosol levels during American business recessions.
The ACTUAL temperature change during those events is completely meaningless., it is what it is.
Temperature increased from 1975 to 1980
SO2 level increased: Your theory is falsified.
SO2 pollution reduction after 1980 did contribute to rising TMAX but did not contribute to the majority of warming, which was TMIN after dawn, with very little solar energy that could be affected by SO2
For you to be right about SO2, over 99.9% of scientists since 1896, including almost every skeptic scientist, has to be wrong about CO2. And every lab measurement of CO2 has to be wrong too. That can oly be true in a fantasyland
The CO2 Does Nothing science deniers have shown up in force in this thread. They are the reason science literate conservatives are not taken seriously when correctly claiming there is no climate crisis. The CO2 Does Nothing Nutters had already ruined their reputations before they spoke up about honest climate science vs. false predictions of climate doom
Sorry.
https://i.ibb.co/B29zzVTL/ventusky-cape-20250516t0000-36n91w.jpg
Richard Greene:
You say that temperatures increased from 1975 to 1980, which is correct.
HOWEVER , Jan-Dec HadCRUT temperatures for 1974 were (-)0.173 deg C, for 1975, (-)1.11 C, for 1976 (-)0.216 C, 1977 (+) 0.103 C, 1978(+)0.05C, and 1979(+).091 C.
The decreasing trend was halted by the El Ninos of Aug 1976-Mar 1977, Aug 1977-Feb 1978, and Sep 1979-Mar 1980, whose warming exceeded the cooling effect of the industrial SO2 aerosol pollution of 1978 (137 million tons), and 1979 (130 million tons).
So, my theory is NOT falsified, but instead it IS confirmed, since the El Ninos were also caused by the 7 million ton DECREASE in the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution
I would also point out that it can be PROVEN that CO2 does NOT cause global warming. Richard Greene, and your 99.9% of CO2 nutters have it all WRONG!.
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR.2024-0884.pdf
So we have cheap electricity when the renewables are operating and expensive electricity when the fossil fuel plants are operating.
This is not an argument for fossil fuels, it is an argument for extra renewables plus storage.
We pay more now, than we paid without renewables.
Shouldn’t we pay now – when renewables have cheap electricity – should’t we pay now less?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
LCOE shows that renewables are the least expensive generation source for electiricity. Its also an open secret that LCOE omits the cost of reliability and stability from the computation. LCOE uses an inflated denominator that doesnt take into account the overproduction of electricity due to the redundancy required to solve the intermetticy problem.
Thank you, Joe.
It looks like more renewables impletation will only rise the cost of electricity, not lower it.
Tha renewables should be implemented very caciously, in a slow pace.
They role is a supplementary to the basic load electricity production, when to see the energy prices lowering.
Also, there is not any reason for the coal firered electric plants closure, because there is not any relation between the CO2 content in air and the Global Warming.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
‘This is not an argument for fossil fuels…’
That logic is about like saying, when the Sun rises people get out and around, the grass grows, people get out of the house, walk the dog, go jogging, ride bikes, go to work and earn a living but when the Sun goes down they go indoors, it gets cold, people go to bed… nothing happens for hours.
Another aspect of ‘the fat tail problem’ is that the cost/benefit proposition underlying solar panels, for instance, is that their useful life will not be as long as advertised and much like the blades of windmills, they have no recycle value. Useless black panels on rooftops will actually make homes hotter.
What is the recycling value of used coal mines, used coal power plants, used oil wells, natural gas power plants, natural gas flared into the atmosphere, oil tankers, stripped-mined mountaintops, the recycling value of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide, of anthropogenic oceanic carbon dioxide, of the mercury burning coal puts into streams and rivers?
How many people have useless oil wells on the rooves of their homes?
Pingback: Load Duration Curves Matter – small dead animals
” … the engineers and financial experts who generally have not had the clout to cross examine …”
(part quote from the Russ S article).
That lack of public megaphone clout is not an accident.
Again, I enjoy reading Russ S articles. Informative.
One of the bets my colleagues and myself have on these articles is how many comments will it take to avoid the actual content of the articles completely and become irrelevant. The rough answer is 4 – 5, then the usual sluggo tennis match commences.
Oh! the pretense– much like those of the MSM who only suddenly have become aware of those on their side of the political divide who refused to, ‘see the log in their own eye,’ that was obvious to all others?
The difference as to what has been going on in Western academia concerning the AGW conjecture compared to what goes here is that while people are entitled to believe whatever they want – even when such beliefs fail in the marketplace of ideas (and, even fail the sanity test like believing aliens live on the dark side of the comet Hale-Bopp) – they’re not entitled to their own facts nor are they entitled to pick the pockets of the productive to push their loony ideas.
British Gas Boss Says Renewables Will Not Bring Electricity Prices Down
The UK government claims its goal to decarbonize the whole economy will lower the cost of electricity and lower bills.
https://www.ntd.com/british-gas-boss-says-renewables-will-not-bring-electricity-prices-down_1067188.html
21 dead, half a million without power as deadly storms, tornadoes sweep across Central, Eastern US.There are victims of tornadoes. Another warning.
https://i.ibb.co/jvVwf6W6/ventusky-cape-20250518t2100-33n98w.jpg
https://www.accuweather.com/en/severe-weather/new-severe-weather-outbreak-looms-for-next-week-in-central-us/1774919
Thunderstorms from Oklahoma will move east.
https://i.ibb.co/3yyQ38YG/ventusky-rain-3h-20250521t0000-37n90w.jpg
In the detailed technical appendix at the bottom, be you seem to have reversed the first graph, left-vs-right, without rewriting the accompanying prose. Oops!
Severe weather dangers spread eastward into midweek, flood risk to increase
On Tuesday, the severe weather threat will move eastward into the lower Ohio Valley and Tennessee Valley, putting regions that were impacted by powerful storms as recently as last Friday once again at risk.
74° Southwest coastal dropping to 70°…
…i.e., the average for late May.
Don’t see much fact checking done over the last 10 years about all of horrible things that, if not reversed, unchecked man-caused global warming would bring, (e.g., starting with the letter ‘a’), as follows:
‘Acne, agricultural land increase, Africa devastated, African aid threatened, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, allergies increase, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased…’
Albedo ? 😊
There is as much CO2 content in atmosphere as Earth’s system permits at given temperature..
Let’s say, we had a technology and suddenly removed the entire CO2 from atmosphere…
In a while, the Earth’s system would replace the removed 420 ppm – and everything wiil be back to normal.
The oceans is an enormous reservoir of CO2. There is nothing we can do against it.
But what for the effort? A trace gas CO2 doesn’t warm Earth’s surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Let’s say it is a correct assertion the Tmean – Te = 288K -255K = 33°C. (which is of course not, because there is not such a thing as Te, because it is a pure theoretical abstraction)…
But let’s say it is correct, and there is a 33°C atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.
And the 420 ppm – 280 ppm = 140 ppm of CO2 had risen the average surface temperature by 1,5°C since predindustrial 1850 average surface temperature.
–
But the assertion doesn’t align with the numbers.
Let’s explain:
the 140 ppm caused a 1,5°C rise in temperature. The predindustrial 280 ppm of CO2 had to be a cause of 3°C from the Te = 255K, so there should be by now the average surface temperature of our planet Earth 255K + 3°C + 1,5°C = 260K..
But it is 288K. And 288K – 260K = 28°C. The 28°C difference where to be attributed then?
–
But there is another greenhouse gas with average 3% content in atmosphere, which is 30000 ppm.
Ok, 30000 ppm /28°C = 1071 ppm/°C for water vapor.
And, for comparison, 140 ppm /1,5°C = 93 ppm/°C for CO2.
–
Something is very wrong here. I think there is not any 33°C atmospheric greenhouse effect, because the Te = 255K is a mathematical abstraction.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sorry, you’re about a decade behind the times — states serious about solar and other renewables have been going big on battery storage and other kinds of storage that entirely moot your points. I wrote this piece recently for UtilityDive showing how CA and TX and both, through very different markets, pursuing battery storage in a very big way, making blackouts a thing of the past and with power much cheaper than the status quo. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-texas-blackouts-energy-storage-trump-renewable-energy/742229/
Ah yes … the Spanish experience.
Tam, your article is good. I think it is about the same level of depth as Russ’s article.
What I am looking for from both articles is to give more numbers about the marginal cost at these extreme demand events when resources are brought on grid that get only 1-10% annual usage.
Similarly, it is hard to find the cost of electricity for these battery systems for the whole lifecycle. The total cost to consumers in California is second only to Hawaii (I think). For a state so blessed with abundant solar resources, if solar and storage was so economical, we should see it in the consumer’s bills but we do not so I tend to think the solar/storage advocates are hiding the truth.
This post, the first in a series, explores why prioritizing wind and solar can lead to higher costs, starting with an analogy from the financial world.
Doubtful, since
1) the world is turning to clean energy, and I’m sure the experts can do the cost calculations better than this author. They’re turning to renewables as fast as they can.
2) the author ignores the costs of climate change. Why aren’t they factored into his calculation? And the negative externalities from fossil fuel air and water pollution?
The world is not turning to clean energy so you don’t know what you are talking about.. After wasting trillions of dollars, how much of energy worldwide from non-fossil fuel sources changed since mid-90s? Here is the graph for last 70 years to put trends in context
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-countrys
Chris Morris wrote:
The world is not turning to clean energy so you don’t know what you are talking about..
“Installation of renewable energy worldwide hit a record high last year, with 92.5% of all new electricity brought online coming from the sun, wind or other clean sources, an international agency reports.”
Associated Press, 3/26/25
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/renewable-energy-jumps-to-new-high-powered-by-china-solar-boom/ar-AA1BGb4X
So other that give actual facts, you give advocacy PR as your evidence. Yeah-right. And by the way, electricity is only part of the energy use. You first used the word energy. I gave you actual energy percentage data (the actual amount is a massive expansion) and you come back with a puff piece by a organisation desperate to try and establish their importance.
Making beginner mistakes like that shows why your lack of knowledge is only matched by your arrogance in pretending you have expertise.
As you don’t seem to have the intellectual capability of doing your own research David, but rely on mouthing off incorrect platitudes, here is the actual energy consumption showing coal oil and gas not only make up the vast majority of world energy use, that consumption is increasing.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
Sort of pokes another hole in your statements doesn’t it. Currently your argument seems about as watertight as a North Korean destroyer
Your ourworldindata.org link doesn’t work.
Chris Morris wrote:
So other that give actual facts, you give advocacy PR as your evidence.
What are you talking about?? I gave data, *actual facts*. It’s not PR. All you gave was a broken link.
…you come back with a puff piece by a organisation desperate to try and establish their importance.
Puff piece?? It’s an article by the Associated Press, one of the most reputable journalism organizations in the world.
Then you insult the organization that provided the data based on…nothing at all. Nothing.
Making beginner mistakes like that shows why your lack of knowledge is only matched by your arrogance in pretending you have expertise.
Beginner mistakes like providing a broken link? LOL.
I never claim to be an expert in anything. I presented data reported by the AP. Your response is highly emotional, not analytical.
Try to get a handle on your feelings before you type a reply.
Chris Morris wrote:
As you don’t seem to have the intellectual capability of doing your own research David, but rely on mouthing off incorrect platitudes,
You can’t stop insulting me. You can’t stop replying emotionally. So I’m blocking you, just like I block all rude people here, filtering the emails with your comments straight to trash.
Grow up, Chris.
David you are no position to complain about being insulted. That is your stock in trade. Many people can remember when you used to dominate comments on this blog with off-topic rants.
https://www.masterresource.org/climate-hate-speech/david-appell-another-bad-climate-apple/
It seems you have resumed your old ways.
Appel
The ‘experts” such as lazards do an excellent job of computing the cost of generation (within a reasonable level of tolerance).
However, the experts such as lazards omit the costs of reliability, stability, and 24/7/365 dispachability.
Factor in all those omitted costs and the much lower effective capacity factor (due to the excess redundancy needed) which results in a much higher numerator and a much lower denominator.
Basic math which you ignore
Basic math which is common place with the arrogant.
LCOS and LACE. They are addressed even if you are unaware.
Bush – Thanks for confirming you dont understand the topic. You need a much broader understanding.
Bush – For the record – both lazards and EIA disclose that the costs of reliability and stability are not properly included in the LCOE or LACE computations.
Many commentators have also provided you with the basic information.
You really need to stop cherrypicking the information you choose to understand.
You forgot LCOS. You need to shut up.
LCOS – does not fully include the cost of reliability and stability.
The piece you are missing is the cost of redundancy that is required as renewable penetration increases. The Effective actual capacity drops big time.
You have been told that multiple time by multiple people with actual knowledge.
Let us know when you can grasp basic economics
Jojo, Thanks for your opinions.
BAB gets schooled again.
Rob, thanks for your opinion. Like Jojo’s ,they are wrong and tiresome.
Electric locomotives have it all- electricity to run the traction motors that drive the wheels. Genius! They’re “electric,” but rely on diesel engines not solar panels or windmills to power the generator which then produces the electricity.
Wagathon wrote:
Electric locomotives have it all- electricity to run the traction motors that drive the wheels. Genius! They’re “electric,” but rely on diesel engines not solar panels or windmills to power the generator which then produces the electricity.
Would it be cheaper/better if they were all diesel? Apparently not.
Chris Morris wrote:
here is the actual energy consumption showing coal oil and gas not only make up the vast majority of world energy use, that consumption is increasing.
The post at the top is about electrical power, not all the different types of energy. I was replying in that context.
If you meant electricity, why did you not use that word? Or just post hoc reasoning by you to cover your mistakes.
If you go on electrical energy produced, coal and gas are over half https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked
Yes, fossil fuel use is increasing in absolute terms. The good news is that the fraction of electricity produced by all the different FFs is declining, significantly. Progress, but too slow.
https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix
‘The Fat Tail in Finance: A Cautionary Tale…’
Another analogy from the financial world when it comes to prioritizing relevant costs to make rational decisions: you’d save fuel costs by flattening every railroad in the country. Over time the fuel savings would pay the cost to flatten the rails. But, it only makes sense if the cost of money is zero. Of course, the real problem is that global warming alarmist government planners act like money – your money – is free! The opportunity cost of money is ignored because, the Hot World catastrophists of Western academia will say there is no alternative- that’s the con. That’s the hoax.
We have not seen the real problem that is wind and solar generation of electricity. The equipment used to convert the cheap sunshine and wind gusts has an average life of 20 years. Operators/owners receive government subsidies. So far I do not know of any of these individuals are committed to rebuild after the system breaks down, subsidies or not, or if they are even going to remove these eyesores.
Before long there will be demands that operators be held responsible for dismantling obsolete power structures that litter the landscape, otherwise vistas will begin to take on the look of half-finished/broken down childhood Erector Set projects as far as the eye can see.
Unless culture settles for a dystopic looking future, we’ll be forced to pay for alternatives both coming and going, via subsidies, of course. The decommissioned back-end isn’t something typically thought about when it comes to subsidy.
Fortunately “cheap” won’t be so cheap much longer, subsidies are going to be wrung out of the system. Operators will have real world margins to contend with. I have no problem if they continue on as enterprises, but they’ll need to foot the bill on the front and backend, while providing competitive pricing (the only way to stay in business).
The portfolio of energy options will broaden greatly over the next 20 years, the myopic focus over wind and solar is an ideological web that’s strangling the collective intelligence of the cult. With luck, AI may jolt the complete lack of peripheral vision they have.
Within 20 years, not only will AI be already producing unimaginable technologies, but it will be doing so exponentially quicker, through quantum computing. I really do believe this is where fusion energy becomes reality. No need going to the poor house building expensive ad hoc Erector Set solutions today, and having to look at them.
AI will be quicker in twenty years from now. Of course it will be quicker. And of course it will be much quicker.
Quicker doesn’t mean smarter.
If AI was as smart as it is being advertised, how AI failed to recognize there is not any danger from fossil-fuels burning for climate ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, I agree that nascent AI technology isn’t “intelligent” today, but I don’t consider this current weakness a guiding light for its future.
Experts are saying that AI tech will advance at lightening speed going forward (once its energy infrastructure is in place). Intelligence is its future, though when is a good question. It can go really good, or really bad; but whether we like the risk or not the genie is out of the proverbial bottle. AI technology will eventually offer unlimited numbers of solution “wishes”, those that physics allow for–hopefully not “nightmares”.
We certainly need to be concerned about bad actors, but overall I look at it from a glass half full perspective, we’re kinda forced to have this perspective because we’re all going along for the ride.
Of course, because AI doesn’t worrie about AI future. AI doesn’t care if it is not there, if it is just switched off…
Also AI is not interested about anything, because AI doesn’t have a motive to exist.
Pingback: Negativa spotpriser på el – riska att man behöver betala – Norra Ängby Trädgårdsstadsförening
Pingback: SCIENCE, CLIMATE, ENERGY AND POLITICAL NEWS ROUNDUP 2025 MAY | wryheat
Pingback: Why "cheaper" wind and solar raise costs. Part III: The problem with power markets - Climate Etc.
Pingback: Stop These Things’ Weekly Round Up: 1 June 2025. | ajmarciniak
Pingback: Wind and solar can never be a meaningful power source, and they are more expensive - The Expose
Pingback: Vântul și solarul nu pot fi niciodată o sursă de energie semnificativă și sunt mai scumpe - Statul Paralel - Dăm pe față minciunile
Every once in a while I check this site to see where it is going. My reaction, with respect, is that arguing about infinite things like “climate” (that gets energy input from space) may be very useful, but it does not focus on the much more concrete realities of the physical policies of “climate change” here on Earth. Folks who advocate “green” solutions for “climate change” rarely look at the obvious long term realities of wind, solar, etc. Small teams of us have been mapping out the physical realities of energy and environment worldwide for almost 50 years now. As young pups, we documented, on the ground, the total costs of CAFE and stationary emissions laws of US and EU. We finally convinced US Feds and EU that making cars with lower tailpipe emissions would be almost irrelevant to long term “CO2” in the atmosphere. The only way to tell whether a large “gas guzzler” was worse than a “compact” car, was to map out the total life cycle of each vehicle with this framework: mine, melt, make, sell new, use, sell used, drive used car, disassemble and sell used parts, then when all these parts were useless, how did melting used parts/cars avoid new mining. This proved that large cars from Toyota/Honda were much more life-cycle pollution friendly than heavy US gas cars. Over the past 30 years we have been doing the same global life-cycle maps of “green” solar, wind, technology etc. Bottom line? Carbon fiber windmills come from oil and are almost impossible to recycle, so they are burned. Same for most solar panels and “utility batteries”. So, much “green tech” is huge polluter and contributor to environmental damage. Now along comes “AI” whose life cycle effects make big cars and trucks look like amateur hour. Run the mine,melt,make, use, scrap, recycle life cycle of AI facilities, and you will find the next global wave of hyper pollution. Oh yes. And get a globe. Turn it upside down. See oceans. Ask, “how many carbon/temp sensors” are there on the ocean part of Earth, and how much atmospheric “carbon” does that big water recycle? Models of air are important. Models of global deep-physical systems even more concrete and important. YMMV. Marty
Turn the globe upside down “how many carbon/temp sensors” are there on the ocean part of Earth”.
As many as the number of pixels over the oceans that satellites take measurements on. There used to be over 1300 drift buoys, but they are being phased out, tho’ still enough left for satellite calibration and validation.
” The first satellite mission designed to measure CO2 was the Interferometric Monitor for Greenhouse Gases (IMG) on board the ADEOS I satellite in 1996. This mission lasted less than a year. Since then, additional space-based measurements have begun, including those from two high-precision (better than 0.3% or 1 ppm) satellites (GOSAT and OCO-2).” [Wiki]