Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
It’s the sixth mass extinction of life on Earth and one country is building six times as much new coal power as the rest of the world combined. But no one cares.
Sinful Australia hasn’t even built a coal plant in 12 long years, but Saint China is approving a new one every three and a half days. One nation is theoretically destroying the world’s corals, creating droughts, floods and bad storms, and making reef fish reckless but no one is gluing themselves to the Chinese Embassy. The same universities who lecture us on carbon pollution are not even boycotting Chinese students. We have to ask — do reef fish matter? Are floods a bad thing?
Either CO2 is just a shiny amulet or everyone who cares about it is functionally innumerate. It could be both.
Meanwhile on the cat-walks of intellectual fashion shows the Western world’s elite competes to be more concerned than the next guy about the dire problems of CO2. President Xi cheers them on, promises to act, then builds another coal plant.
UPDATE: The pledge was to phase coal down between 2026 – 2030
China aims to peak CO2 emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060
China has stated in the updated NDC that it will stringently curb coal-powered projects, set strict limits on the increase in coal consumption during 2021-2025 and to phase it down during 2026-2030.
A “peak” before 2030 means a permanent reduction. If you were planning a permanent reduction from Dec 2029, would you be building 100 coal plants a year, just seven years before then, or would you be lying…
But a tactic of pretending to be Green whilst doing the exact opposite — as your adversaries wreck their own industrial bases — would make you a bad citizen, but a good strategist, if you can get away with it. Remember the research group that says pro-China groups are posing as fake green protestors to try to stop rare earth mines in the US.
China last year approved the largest expansion of coal-fired power plants since 2015, according to a study published Monday, despite its vow to begin phasing down use of the fossil fuel in just three years.
The coal power capacity that China began building in 2022 was six times as much as that in the rest of the world combined, the report by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) in Finland and the Global Energy Monitor (GEM) added.
China needs these coal plants for “when renewables fail”
Local officials say new coal plants will serve as a backup to ensure stable supplies when renewables fail.
So the West is demolishing coal plants, and hoping to use batteries and pumped hydro for back up power, but China is using coal, and if it accidentally finds out that coal is cheaper than coal-plus-wind they can just keep running the back up plants can’t they, while someone slowly restores the trailing edge on the wind blades. The slower the better.
It’s one of those rare times when the more maintenance you do, the cheaper it gets.
Another coal fired boom started in China last year:
“The speed at which projects progressed through permitting to construction in 2022 was extraordinary.”
A total of 106 GW of new coal power projects were approved in 2022—the equivalent of two large coal plants per week—it said.
Plants accounting for around a third of that capacity have already begun construction, with some gaining permits, securing financing and breaking ground “within a matter of months”.
Only $1.5b in subsidies?
The rush for approvals started after China’s cabinet in May announced 10 billion yuan ($1.5 billion) of investment in coal power generation.
“This is the same dynamic that we saw during the previous boom in 2015,” Lauri Myllyvirta, Lead Analyst at CREA, told AFP.
“No one knows how long the floodgates will stay open, so local governments try to rush as many projects through as they can.”
There are no calls here for carbon tariffs on Chinese goods made with coal power. No boycott and divestment program. No protestors lying on the road in front of the Chinese Ambassador. No threats from BlackRock to raise the interest rates of China if they don’t comply.
It’s almost like the news stories and protest groups were approved by President Xi?
Germany has set aside more than €260 billion ($275 billion) to deal with the immediate risks of an energy crisis triggered by Russia’s war in Ukraine, but the ultimate fix will be much costlier — if the country can pull it off at all.
Germany has set aside more than €260 billion ($275 billion) to deal with the immediate risks of an energy crisis triggered by Russia’s war in Ukraine, but the ultimate fix will be much costlier — if the country can pull it off at all.
The pending price tag for future-proofing the country’s energy system is projected to amount to over $1 trillion by 2030, according to BloombergNEF. The costs include investments in upgrading power grids and above all new generation to manage the phase out of nuclear and coal plants, handle increased demand from electric cars and heating systems, and meet climate commitments.
The transition will require the installation of solar panels covering the equivalent of 43 soccer fields and 1,600 heat pumps every day. It also needs 27 new onshore and four offshore wind plants to be built per week, according to a wish list presented by Chancellor Olaf Scholz during a recent visit to Volkswagen AG’s headquarters in Wolfsburg.
“This is a bold undertaking — possibly the boldest project since the reconstruction of Germany,” Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, who oversees climate and energy policy, said earlier this month.
Around 250 gigawatts of new capacity will have to be installed by 2030 — when power demand is expected to be about a third higher than it is now — according to estimates from Germany’s network regulator and think tank Agora Energiewende.
To put the scale of the challenge in context, the required generation is enough to cover current household demand for all 448 million people in the European Union. The additions will be a mix of renewables and gas-fired plants — that might one day be converted to run on hydrogen.
It will be a long road to get there. This week, the government announced it will prepare tenders this year for gas plants that account for about a tenth of that capacity. And for renewable expansion, setting up a single wind mast can takes as long as seven years to clear Germany’s red tape.
BASF SE’s plans to cut 2,600 jobs as it faces strains from the energy crisis is a sign of the urgency. The chemical giant’s operations in Germany swung to a loss during the second half, and it’s now closing a number of energy-intensive factories, including two ammonia plants and related fertilizer facilities, resulting in 700 job cuts at its main Ludwigshafen site.
A warming event that spans only one year, with decades of stable temperatures before and after, would not appear to align with rapidly rising human CO2 emissions or a gradually rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.
A warming event that spans only one year, with decades of stable temperatures before and after, would not appear to align with rapidly rising human CO2 emissions or a gradually rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.
From 1958 to 2020, as CO2 rose from 320 ppm to 410 ppm, Greenland had a warming period of 1°C that lasted one year – 1994. Over the next 26 years (1994-2020) and spanning the years 1958 to 1993, there have been “relatively constant” temperatures across Greenland (Zhang et al., 2022).
These temperature trends appear to align much better with phases of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Greenland blocking indexes (GBI), and volcanism better than they do with any anthropogenic causal agents.
Other scientists have also reported Greenland warming “is not evident” (Hanna et al., 2021, Matsumura et al., 2022) in recent decades. Instead, temperature stations document slight cooling trends.
Evans explains that the British government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has pushed policies on farmers that focus more on climate change than on food production. In some cases, DEGRA is paying farmers to remove their land from production.
A recent Epoch Times article describes how the British government’s efforts to attain net-zero carbon dioxide emissions are hindering British agriculture, leading to food shortages that will likely get worse. The author, Owen Evans, interviews British farmers who say that government incentives and climate initiatives have resulted in farmers reducing the amount of land they devote to farming.
Evans explains that the British government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has pushed policies on farmers that focus more on climate change than on food production. In some cases, DEGRA is paying farmers to remove their land from production.
“Farmers and landowners are also encouraged to create new woodland via £10,000 grants for every hectare created,” Evans explains. In addition, potential plans that would “restrict solar panels from being installed on productive agricultural lands” have been abandoned, putting even more farmland at risk of being sacrificed to climate action.
Evans also mentions that animal feed, nitrogen fertilizers, and fuel prices are becoming prohibitively expensive for some farmers, which can also all be tied back to the government’s destructive climate policies.
Climate Realism has previously made these connections as well, for example, in “Thanks, Center Square, For Reporting on the Effects of High Fossil Fuel Prices on Food Prices.” In that post, we point out that operating costs have some of the most direct impacts on food prices. Tractors and machinery necessary to maintain high farming yields, are suffering from high and volatile fuel prices tied to policies limiting the exploration, production, and use of fossil fuels, which increase fuel prices.
Nitrogen fertilizers and soil additives also are impacted by the price of oil and natural gas, from which they are often produced and delivered. These synthetic fertilizers are also essential for making the most out of limited farm land, and as discussed on Climate Realism in a post that discussed the harmful effect that resulted from banning synthetic fertilizers in Sri Lanka.
Fuel costs can be partially tied to western countries’ assault on fossil fuels, and net-zero policies, so it is really an attack on farming from two fronts: land use and operating costs.
Discouraging farming in the British Isles will mean relying more on imports, and as one farmer interviewed by Evans explains, “government policy is driving our food sovereignty into the ground.” Also imported food is often produced in countries where farm machinery lacks or has less stringent emission controls and is then shipped across oceans on vessels which run on fossil fuels. Hardly net-zero!
Carbon dioxide emissions have contributed to a general greening of the earth and substantially increased crop yields globally, and in the United Kingdom. As a result, the British government’s net zero agriculture policies, like those that encourage farmers to stop farming and devote arable farmland to renewables, subvert the U.K.’s food security and are contributing recent shortages in British grocery stores. The Epoch Times should be lauded for highlighting the deleterious impacts of net zero policies on agriculture in the United Kingdom.
Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”
Net Zero Plans Are Dangerous and Unsupported by Science and the Scientific Method
Net Zero initiatives of governments and private organizations are scientifically invalid and will lead to worldwide impoverishment and starvation if implemented, according to a paper published by the CO2 Coalition.
The 46-page paper details how the objectives of Net Zero to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and the emissions of greenhouse gases are based on analytical methods that violate fundamental tenets of the scientific method which originated more than 300 years ago.
“Reliable scientific knowledge is determined by the scientific method, where theoretical predictions are validated by observations or rejected by failing to do so,” say the paper’s authors – two renowned physicists and a geologist of more than 40 years.
“Agreement with observations is the measure of scientific truth,” continues the paper. “Scientific progress proceeds by the interplay of theory and observation. Theory explains observations and makes predictions of what will be observed in the future. Observations anchor understanding and weed out theories that don’t work.”
The paper predicts global starvation if fossil fuels are eliminated. At risk in coming decades would be half of the world’s 8.5 billion to 10 billion people who are fed by crops grown with fertilizers derived from fossil fuels. Listed as an example of Net Zero’s potential consequences is the economic and social calamity of Sri Lanka which had banned the use of fertilizers and pesticides made from fossil fuels.
“The recent experience in Sri Lanka provides a red alert. The world has just witnessed the collapse of the once bountiful agricultural sector of Sri Lanka as a result of government restrictions on mineral fertilizer,” the paper says.
The paper says that 600 million years of geological evidence shows that CO2 levels are near a record low and that atmospheric increases of the gas follow warming periods rather than precede them.
These data “are good enough to demolish the argument that atmospheric CO2 concentrations control Earth’s climate and the theory that fossil fuels and CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming. They will not.”
The paper’s authors are Dr. William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University; Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Gregory Wrightstone, a geologist and executive director of the CO2 Coalition.
The paper says Net Zero regulations and actions are scientifically invalid because they:
Fabricate data or omit data that contradict their conclusions. Net Zero proponents regularly report that extreme weather is more severe and frequent because of climate change while the evidence shows no increase – and, in some cases, a decrease – in such events.
Rely on computer models that do not An analysis of 102 computer models used by Net Zero proponents found that 101 of them had failed significantly to match real-world observations. “Simply stated, the (computer) model essential to every government Net Zero regulation, action and the trillions of dollars subsidizing renewables and electric cars, trucks, home heating, appliances and many other products do not work,” said the paper.
Rely on findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that are government opinions, not The paper says that the conclusions of IPCC scientists that contradict the narrative of catastrophic global warming from fossil fuels are rewritten by government bureaucrats for public reports to support the false narrative of Net Zero proponents.
Omit the extraordinary social benefits of CO2 and fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide, including that from the burning of fossil fuels, serves as plant food that increases crop production and enables the feeding of more people. CO2, as well as the greenhouse gases of methane and nitrous oxide, help to keep Earth at temperatures conducive to life; without them, people would suffer. Fossil fuels are economical and abundant sources of energy necessary for modern societies and are critical feedstocks for fertilizers and pesticides that support the lives of billions of people.
Omit the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO2 emissions to Net Zero. “It cannot be overemphasized that eliminating fossil fuels and implementing Net Zero policies and actions mean the elimination of fossil fuel-derived nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides that will result in about half the world’s population not having enough food to eat,” says the
Reject the science that demonstrates there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2. “We are not aware of any reliable science that supports the National Climate Assessment’s or others’ theory that fossil fuels and CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming,” said the paper’s authors, “We have written extensively on this issue for decades.”
The Arlington-based CO2 Coalition is a nonprofit organization of more than 100 scientists and researchers engaged in educating the public and policymakers on the benefits of carbon dioxide and on the role of the gas in climate dynamics.
No surprise to find that ‘Surging demand and insecure supply has left the country vulnerable indefinitely’, after years of climate-driven policies on electricity supply. The self-induced emergency has led to desperate measures like these ‘effectively jet engines’. Another case of replacing what worked with what sounded good.
No surprise to find that ‘Surging demand and insecure supply has left the country vulnerable indefinitely’, after years of climate-driven policies on electricity supply. The self-induced emergency has led to desperate measures like these ‘effectively jet engines’. Another case of replacing what worked with what sounded good. – – – Back-up power generators have started to arrive in Ireland to help it keep the lights on during the next few winters, reports The Telegraph.
Demand for electricity has leapt in the country, driven in part by the growing number of energy-hungry data centres set up in Dublin CREDIT: David Soanes/Getty Images
The mobile turbines, described as “effectively jet engines”, are set to be installed in areas including Dublin and nearby County Meath.
The €350m (£308m) temporary capacity was ordered by environment minister Eamon Ryan last year as a “last resort”, after regulators flagged a looming shortfall in generation.
“This is an electricity emergency,” minister of state Ossian Smyth told its parliament in October.
“It is a national scandal,” retorted Darren O’Rourke, the Teachta Dála for Meath East.
Fears of blackouts across Europe and the UK this winter – first sparked by market turmoil linked to Russia’s war on Ukraine – have started to recede as spring looms.
Yet concerns about the future remain: in Ireland, surging demand for electricity and the closure of ageing gas-fired power stations have left the country vulnerable next winter and beyond.
Critics have also warned that Ireland is becoming too reliant on imports of gas, as domestic fossil fuel generation is sidelined in pursuit of green goals.
Quote: “These are effectively jet engines,” Environment Minister Eamon Ryan said. “You put a transformer on them and a fuel supply attached to them.” He described their purchase as a “last resort”.
The proportion of car buyers considering purchasing an electric model this year has slumped to less than a fifth compared with one in four a year ago, its research found.
It came as the boss of Stellantis, which owns Vauxhall, warned that the middle classes cannot afford the cost of electric cars without the support of state subsidies.
Carlos Tavares, chief executive of Stellantis, said: “The most significant problem of electrification is the affordability for the middle classes.
“That’s what we are now fighting against – how fast can we reduce the costs to bring the EV [electric vehicle] to the level of affordability that people can pay for without subsidies.”
For example, a Volkswagen Golf costs from around £25,000, while a similarly-sized all-electric VW ID.3 starts at about £36,400. Prices for Nissan’s battery-powered Leaf start at £29,000, while its combustion engine model Juke starts at £20,700.
At the same time, falling prices at the pump means many drivers are holding onto petrol and diesel cars for longer.
After rocketing following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, petrol prices have declined from highs of more than 191 pence per litre in the summer to an average of 148.4 pence per litre. Meanwhile, diesel prices have fallen to the lowest level since just after the start of the Ukraine war.
Higher wholesale gas prices have also driven up electricity prices, making it most expensive to charge an electric vehicle both at home and on the road.
As explained below, the move against gas stoves is just an opening into a larger war against methane because of its CO2 emissions. Coal was bashed as a fuel already long ago, and now activists want to disqualify gas lest it serve as a bridge energy source with much lower CO2 emissions, delaying the desired upheaval. The current assault on domestic appliances should be seen as the thin edge of a wedge to destroy natural gas supply, in parallel with actions against coal and oil.
Half of gas stove models sold in the United States today won’t comply with a first-ever efficiency regulation on cooking appliances, according to a new analysis from the Department of Energy.
The projection, which DOE posted online two weeks after the rule’s release Jan. 31, aims to provide more clarification on the expected impact of a proposal earlier this month that is now receiving comments from the public (Energywire, Feb. 1).
DOE says the cooking regulation will preserve some market share for gas stoves that have at least one high-input rate burner and continuous cast iron grates, two features that DOE determined are priorities for the public. Both features use a lot of energy.
If enacted, the proposed rule would be the second major DOE regulation affecting stovetops — existing standards prohibit constant burning pilots for gas cooking products. DOE is moving forward with the rule along with other efficiency standards, including for distribution transformers, washing machines and refrigerators (Energywire, Feb. 16).
Background from Previous Post: Gas Stoves Just a Starter
Mark Krebs and Tom Tanton explain the ins and outs of this new phase encroaching upon the citizenry where they live. Their Master Resource article is Gas Stoves: The Beloved Blue Flame is Just Better. Some excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images and headers.
The Larger Federal Goal: Transition Away from Natural Gas
The concern should not be about gas stove usage but the public policy of The Biden Administrative State to wean consumers off the direct use of natural gas and propane and on to electric appliances, ASAP. This “transition” includes how to heat your home, heat your water, cook, and drive.
Gas cooking is highly valued by consumers, virtually all of whom have normal taste buds. It is the one gas appliance that consumers see and use daily. The blue flame is part of home life, as is the fireplace run by gas or propane.
In contrast, the furnace and water heater usually tucked away in the basement or equipment closet and operate unseen. Also unseen are the legions of new electric power plants transmission lines and battery storage system to provide ostensibly “clean” juice for these new electric appliances and the serious environmental, strategic, and human rights impacts from mining and processing heavy metals and rare earths.
In fact, no one has done a comparative full fuel cycle analysis to document whether electrification is a good idea or a bad one; at least not a transparent analysis that has been subject to independent technical debate. Neither have the all-electrification busybodies presented a comprehensive plan to produce the millions of batteries necessary for the electrical grid to be able to handle all these new uses, while burdened by intermittent wind and solar.
Govt. Misdirection: Claims Gas Stoves Hazardous to Indoor Air Quality
The first ploy was to claim gas stoves are unsafe concerning air pollutants. Several problems with this attempt to regulate away these cooking appliances.
Fear mongering about the “existential threat” from Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hasn’t been working as well as planned. So maybe, they hope, additional fearmongering about how parents are putting their own children at risk due to respiratory ailments, such as asthma from your stove will do the trick.
There are at least three agencies leading the Biden Administration’s whole-of-government fossil-fuel eradication efforts. These are:
DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy” (EERE)
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
None of these agencies have Congressional authority to regulate “indoor air pollution.” EERE has been pushing electrification at least since the Obama Administration, and it continued even throughout the Trump Administration. The Biden Administration simply removed the nominal (if any) restraints there may have been under Biden’s “whole of government” executive orders (EOs) to reduce GHG’s: e.g., Executive Order (EO) 13990.
In EERE’s case certain EO obstacles include that they still must act “as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.” The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) is one such law. EPCA is also supposed to promote regulatory objectivity. Under EPCA, DOE/EERE must also “consider” safety.
The science that the Biden Administration claims to guide such regulatory decisions is far from conclusive that gas stoves are harmful.
Instead, the Biden Administration and its supporters “cherry pick” data that supports regulatory expansion. In this case, the science comes from the highly partisan Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). A major activity (and bias) of RMI is its “Electricity Innovation Lab. It reiterates RMI’s mission to achieve a carbon-free electricity monopoly.
According to independent scientific researchers with a deep knowledge of this subject, most of the “indoor air pollution” is emitted from the food itself being cooked. Such pollution is in the form of particulates from cooking food regardless of what form of energy is doing the cooking. Those particulates may be especially harmful to adolescent asthmatics.
More Govt. Hype: Replacements More Efficient than Gas Stoves
Government Orange Gas?
What is it exactly that DOE wants to force on consumers under the guise of “energy efficiency in the case of gas stoves? It appears to be a relatively new type of gas stove burner that glows orange (infrared, a.k.a., “radiant”) instead of the blue flames present in traditional burners that consumers are accustomed to. Infrared burners have been around for a long time, especially for gas BBQ grills but they don’t last long. Infrared burner adoption for consumer kitchen cooking appliances have been limited to a few high-end “prosumer” gas ranges. Costs for such models tend to be in the vicinity of $7,000 to $9,000. One example is Wolf/Sub Zero’s Model # GR364G with a MSRP of $8,760. And only the griddle portionof that model is infrared. According to DOE, there may be one model that is all infrared but good luck finding it.
In comparison, a basic electric range can be purchased for under $500. Granted, if DOE mandates infrared gas burners, mass production could decrease cost premiums. But for cost-conscious consumers, such premiums will likely far exceed those of electric stoves, even induction electric stoves.
Forcibly moving the market via equipment costs is a typical DOE strategy. And then they say, “let the market decide.
Part of DOE’s bag of tricks for justifying higher gas appliance efficiencies is to minimize maintenance costs and safety concerns. At a minimum, “worst-case scenario” analyses are needed to determine how infrared burners perform in the “real world” of “messy” stoves. In messy situations, infrared burners may turn into product liabilities. And they may have to be replaced; that can quickly get expensive. It is at least possible that “dirty” infrared burners emit more pollutants than traditional blue flame burners. DOE needs to “consider” safety consequences of its energy efficiency proposals going forward. It is not evident that they have.
Likewise, DOE tends to minimize its estimations for what the increased prices will be that consumers must bear from increased efficiency. Taken together with other forms of analytical “trickery,” consumer cost-effectiveness can quickly become negative.
Since pictures are “worth a thousand words, see Shutterstock’s 223 images of infrared gas stoves. Several of these are pictures of infrared burners that have experienced obvious degradation from cooking spills.
There’s also movement on the electrical stove side of all this. That is, electric stoves continue to change and the technology du jour is the induction stove. Induction stoves electro-magnetically couple the stove with the pan, directly heating the pan and not the stove. They are more efficient than tradition hot coil electric resistance stoves but are also more expensive and require magnetic cookware. They too, have associated health risks (Induction stoves may not be safe to use with pacemakers; “People with pacemakers are better off avoiding induction stoves.”)
Perverse Incentives in Inflation reduction Act
The so-called Inflation Reduction Act provides perverse incentives for switching to electricity. These incentives are summarized as follows:
DOE also needs to consider the safety feature of having a gas stove during extended electric grid blackouts that may make the difference between consumers and their water pipes freezing or not. This benefit was widely observed in Texas during Winter Storm Uri.
To make a logical scientific argument about consumer safety concerns with gas burners, DOE must clearly and transparently demonstrate a safety issue with conventional “blue flame” burners. Instead, DOE is proposing a one-way move to infrared burners based upon theoretical economic operating cost advantages of a few percentage points.
Meanwhile, DOE is not mandating a move from electric resistance stoves to higher efficiency electric induction stoves that, according to the EPA, can be “5-10% more efficient than conventional electric resistance units.” EPA’s verbiage following that quote states: “and about 3 times more efficient than gas.” That latter verbiage is tantamount to professing a belief that electricity is magically created inside of the house’s electric meter. This is pretty much “par for the course” for the Biden Administration’s “Green New Deal” energy and environmental policies.
Under EPCA’s anti-backsliding provisions, once infrared burners are mandated, there is no going back to traditional (blue flame) gas burners. Thus, if consumers want to regain better cooking maintenance and reliability, they can only switch to electric stoves. We think that’s their plan! Consumers will probably choose electric resistance varieties due to their relatively low initial purchase cost. What this portends, at least for the next few decades, is that energy efficiency when measured over the complete fuel-cycle is massively reduced throughout most of the United States where fossil fuels still dominate electric grid generation. The same goes for emissions when measured along the complete fuel-cycle.
The direct use of natural gas makes the most sense economically and environmentally for consumers. Consumers are losing that choice.
Conclusion–Why The Crusade?
Why is the Biden Administration messing with a piece of Americana. Is it to try the hardest part first? Or because “clean” electrification is where the money is? With passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, it is definitely where the subsidies are. The enormity of these subsidies are like an all-you-can-eat buffet for Green New Deal enrichment.
Phasing out natural gas and propane is not merely for the U.S. to meet its commitments for “deep decarbonization” per the UN’s Paris accords. It’s also about “great reset” social control. With the advent of “smart” electric meters and appliances, it’s relatively easy to centrally control electricity usage.
Coupled with digital currency, it then becomes relatively easy to control behavior, such as remotely changing YOUR living room thermostat or disabling your car. Early dinner? No: you’ll cook when the power is temporarily turned on to your stove. But if you project the correct attitude of cheerful compliance, you may be awarded with an extra ration of electricity.
DOE needs to stop politicizing energy appliances on unfounded predictions that “clean” renewable electricity will soon dominate the grid. This scenario is not at all probable given the cost and enormity of the quest. Big Brother is already running wild and must be leashed/removed. Given that DOE’s proposed rule calls for yearly energy consumption limits for cooking appliances, rationing might not be totally far-fetched. The time to expose and eradicate is now.
Appendices to Master Resource Article
Appendix A: Call To Action (Next Steps, What You Can Do)
Appendix B: Further Reading
Footnote
Obviously, bans against ICE vehicles will also prohibit those running on LNG (Liquified Natural Gas). See Consumers Report: Tesla Road Trip
As for fertilizer banning, half of the people on Earth are alive today thanks to nitrogenous fertilizers made of and with natural gas. So why are governments at home and abroad scrambling to cut off humanity’s natural gas supply?
The old idea of machinery that produces electricity providing security is on the way out, due to climate obsessions. Now it’s expensive devices such as this which merely store power that are supposed to guarantee the lights stay on, with the obvious problem that the power still has to be generated somewhere, sometime.
The old idea of machinery that produces electricity providing security is on the way out, due to climate obsessions. Now it’s expensive devices such as this which merely store power that are supposed to guarantee the lights stay on, with the obvious problem that the power still has to be generated somewhere, sometime. – – – Work is starting and completion is expected by mid 2025 to install the biggest energy storage battery in the southern hemisphere –– the 850 megawatt Waratah Super Battery at the former Munmorah coal-fired power station site, says Coast Community News.
NSW Treasurer and Energy Minister, Matt Kean, announced approval of the project when he visited the site last Thursday, along with Transgrid Executive General Manager of Network, Marie Jordan.
“Transgrid is on track to ensure the super battery, the System Integrity Protection Scheme and network upgrades are completed by mid 2025 in advance of Eraring power station’s earliest closure date,” Jordan said.
“Transgrid is connecting the Waratah Super Battery to the grid via its existing Munmorah substation ensuring additional energy is located near the high-growth Lake Macquarie and Central Coast regions.
“Part of project will be major upgrades to existing transmission lines and substations and we will also develop and operate a $30M System Integrity Protection Scheme to control the standby network battery’s activation when additional energy is required, ensuring it can respond almost instantly to any disruptions in the power system.”
Jordan said delivery of this critical infrastructure would also provide a secure, reliable and affordable energy supply to homes and businesses in Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong.
Let’s take a look at what caused this surge in capacity prices and what its implications are for flexible asset investment, both in the UK and more broadly across Europe.
The UK capacity market auction process normally takes two days of bidding rounds before a result. This year’s auction for 2026-27 capacity was over almost before it started.
The auction cleared at a record 63 £/kW/yr, around 3 times the average clearing price of previous T-4 auctions. Successful new build projects were dominated by batteries, engines, DSR, a CCGT & an interconnector. These will benefit from a substantial portion of required revenue being underwritten by multi-year fixed price capacity agreements (15 years in most cases).
Let’s take a look at what caused this surge in capacity prices and what its implications are for flexible asset investment, both in the UK and more broadly across Europe.
Auction deconstruction
It was clear before the event that this was going to be a tight auction. There was a structural deficit of existing capacity (38.48 GW) vs the government set auction demand target (43.00 GW at the clearing price). This was exacerbated by an older CCGT (0.75 GW) exiting the auction early (South Humber 1).
Chart 1: Deconstruction of 2026-27 T-4 capacity auction result
Successful new capacity was dominated by a new CCGT (EPH’s Eggborough 1.55 GW project), batteries (1.25 GW derated), the Viking Interconnector (1.04 GW), DSR (0.79 GW) and gas engines (0.51 GW). The high auction price saw 352 MW of 4-hour duration batteries successful, which have less penal derating factors than shorter duration BESS.
Much tougher battery derating factors also contributed to the capacity deficit in this auction. For example 2-hour BESS projects were derated at 23.63% (vs 39.73% in last year’s auction). Tougher derating factors saw 5.0 GW of nominal BESS capacity contribute only 1.2GW of derated capacity. BESS derating factors are likely to decline further in future as the marginal capacity contribution of batteries erodes with scaling.
The big surprise in the auction was how high offer price levels were for new build capacity. Historically there has been a strong overhang of new build gas engine & CCGT projects above 30 £/kW/yr that have acted as strong price resistance. The increase in cost structure of this thermal capacity is playing an important role in pulling up capacity prices.
5 factors driving the capacity price surge
At the simplest level, the reasons for a high clearing price were:
A relatively aggressive government demand target
An increase in the cost structure of new build capacity to meet that target.
Digging a level deeper reveals a set of drivers that are relevant for capacity prices & flexible asset investment across all power markets in Europe.
For example the impact of the current energy crisis is likely to see governments providing more proactive capacity payment support to reduce the risk of extreme market tightness as experienced across 2022 (note this will likely weigh on wholesale power prices). A strong policy push towards decarbonisation is also acting to drive up the cost of the marginal sources of flexible thermal capacity.
Previous auctions have been running at a cost of about a billion a year, but this one, which comes into effect in 2026/27, will cost £2.7 billion, equivalent to £100 per household.
The main reason for the jump in cost is much simpler than Timera think; it is the gradual disappearance of existing capacity which previously won contracts, notably coal and nuclear. This has brought new build on to the scene, but this needs much higher capacity support to justify the capital costs involved. In contrast, for existing capacity capacity payments are just bunce.
It is also worth noting Timera’s comments about the high risks faced by new CCGTs, including the risk of being excluded from the market after 2035, and ESG mandates. Investors will be reluctant to put money into such risky projects. Also the comments on interconnectors are interesting – much of the business case so far has been to take advantage of price spreads, buying cheap from Europe and selling high in the UK, and often the other way round. But more significant is the concern about the security of supply in a tight market; in short, the firm operating the interconnector may end up losing money to fulfil its Capacity Market obligations.
The graph below from the EMR shows how tight the market is becoming. Raising demand from 43 to 46 GW would push the price up from £60 to £75/KW/yr
More alarmingly though is the lack of new generation being brought forward. While gas and interconnectors still dominate the overall mix, there is only one new CCGT, Eggborough, rated at 1.5 GW. As existing gas plants age and shut down, this lack of new capacity will come back to haunt us.
.jpg){kind=link}
You must be logged in to post a comment.