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.
In Grid-Scale Storage of Renewable Energy: The Impossible Dream, Energy Matters (November 20, 2017), Euan Mearns used a full year of data from England and Scotland, with one hour resolution, to calculate that to have firm power, it would be necessary to have 390 watt hours of storage per watt of average demand.
Inย Is 100 Percent Renewable Energy Possible?ย (May 25, 2018), Norman Rogers performed a similar calculation for Texas and concluded that 400 watt hours would be necessary.
I obtained data from theย California Independent System Operatorย with one hour resolution from 1 January 2011 until 30 November 2020, and five minute resolution thereafter. The situation for California is much worse than Mearns calculated for Britain, or Rogers calculated for Texas. The details of the calculation method are explained inย Storage Situation is Worse than Mearns and Rogers Calculated.
The graph shows the accumulated difference between generation by renewable sources, and demand, that is, how much would be accumulated into or discharged from storage, assuming average generating capacity is equal to average demand. The notional capacity of renewable generators is much larger than average capacity; the capacity factor for solar generators is around 25%, and around 30% for wind.
The โEqual Increaseโ line assumes all renewable generation sources are magnified by the same amount, so that all demand is satisfied by renewable sources. It is unlikely that biomass and geothermal can increase as much as solar and wind. Activists want to remove dams, so hydro might well decrease. The โWeighted Increaseโ line increases each renewable source by its average growth in output during the period of analysis, which depends upon weather conditions. The California Energy Department predicts total demand, but does not predict growth of supply, either in toto or separately by generation technology.
The storage capacity necessary to avoid blackouts is the difference between the maximum surplus and the deepest deficit. Between 1 April 2015 and 13 January 2023, the greatest surplus is 873 watt hours per watt of average demand on 27 July 2022, and the deepest deficit is 2003 watt hours per watt of average demand on 28 February 2017. To avoid blackouts, a capacity of 873 + 2003 = 2876 watt hours per watt of average demand would be necessary, precharged to 2003 watt hours per watt of average demand on 1 April 2015.
Activists insist that an all-electric United States energy economy would have average demand of about 1.7 TWe. Assume California average generating conditions from 2015 through 2022 apply to the entire nation, and therefore 2876 watt hours of storage per watt of average demand is adequate (this is optimistic). The total cost for Tesla PowerWall 2 storage units, not including installation, with 2876 ร 1.7 terawatts = 4.89 quadrillion watt hours’ capacity would be 4.89 quadrillion ร $0.543 = $2.66 quadrillion, or about 133 times total US 2018 GDP (about $20 trillion). Assuming batteries last ten years (the Tesla warranty period), the cost per year would be 13.3 times total US 2018 GDP. The cost for each of America’s 128 million households would be about $2,075,000 per month. This analysis assumes 100% battery charge and discharge efficiency. They’re closer to 90% (81% round-trip), so the necessary capacity and cost would be about 25% more.
Update 14 March 2023:ย The same calculations were performed using nationwide hourly generation data provided by theย Energy Information Agencyย since 2018. The situation is more optimistic but still impossible. 848 watt hours of storage capacity per watt of average demand would be required to provide firm power. The cost would be โonlyโ about 3.8 times total GDP per year for batteries alone, or โonlyโ about $49,776 per household per month. This is, of course, an optimistic estimate that assumes no calamity such as the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora on Sumbawa Island in the Dutch East Indies, that gave us the โyear without a summerโ in 1816. Something similarย willย happen again. The only question is โwhen?โ
Either way, Elon Musk would have more money than God.
If average renewables’ generating capacity were to have been increased to three times average demand, and 12 hours’ storage were provided, as is claimed to be sufficient by many environmentalists, power would have been available 97.5% of the time, i.e., blackouts 2.5% of the time. The industry definition for โfirm powerโ is 99.97% availability, or about two hours and forty minutes per year without power. 2.32 gigawatt hours of output โ 134% of total demand or 42% of average capacity โ would have been dumped.
The cost for only twelve hours’ storage, for an all-electric 1.7 TWe American energy economy, would be $11 trillion, or about $1.1 trillion per year. The cost per American household would be about $721 per month (for batteries alone). And electricity would still be available only 97.5% of the time.
Renewables provided 36.6% of California electricity between 2020 April 1 and 2022 December 15. Electricity satisfies about one third of total California energy demand. To provide all California energy from renewable electricity sources whose average generating capacity is three times average demand would require a capacity increase of 2460% above the capacity to satisfy all current California electricity demand. Increasing hydro at all, or increasing biogas, biomass and geothermal by 2460%, is unlikely. With solar and wind alone, blackouts are frequent.
Other analyses might reach different conclusions in detail, but probably not overall.
There is a significant problem with increasing generating capacity above average demand, or indeed building enough capacity. This was explained in The Great Green Energy Transition Is Impossible: The amounts of materials necessary to build the โtechnology unitsโ demanded in the Great Green Reset dreamt of by the International Energy Agency simply do not exist. Six times more copper is needed than humans have so far extracted from the Earth, or about five times more than is known to be recoverable. The situation for other metals, such as nickel and cobalt, is worse.
The bottom line is that an all-renewable energy system is simply not possible. If it really is necessary to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions arising from energy production (and there are real scientists who have doubts about this necessity), the only way forward is to switch to natural gas in the short term, and nuclear power in the long term.
Fortunately, nuclear power is the safest thing humanity has ever done. In the entire civilized world, it is safer than Teddy Kennedyโs car. If the inherently unsafe, unlicensed, and incompetently operated Chernobyl reactor, built in a country that had neither safety culture nor licensing criteria is included, the death toll from nuclear power increases to 28. Nothing like the Chernobyl reactor will ever be built again.
On March 22, I will be testifying before the Senate Budget Committee on the topic โRisky Business: How Climate Change is Changing Insurance Markets.โ
The web site for Hearing is [here], you should be able to watch on C-SPAN.
Here is the list of witnesses:
โข Eric Anderson, President of Aon
โข Nancy Watkins, Principal & Consulting Actuary at Milliman
โข Dr. Benjamin Keys, Professor of Real Estate, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
โข Judith Curry, President of Climate Forecast Applications Network, Professor Emerita at Georgia Tech
โข Jerry Theodorou, Director of Finance, Insurance and Trade at R Street Institute
All of these individuals look interesting and representative of a broad range of perspectives
Note that I am the only witness with โclimate scienceโ in my remit. This Hearing clearly isnโt about climate science, but based on various assumptions about climate change and its impacts.
I hear through the grapevine that this is a tough Committee to testify before. Should be interesting.
So I heard about this Hearing from a Congressional staffer last Monday afternoon, and received my official invitation on Wednesday, with written testimony due next Tuesday at 10 a.m. So this gives the witness a week to prepare, if you start working right after the call from the staffer (gambling that the individual will actually be invited to testify).
My written testimony is almost finished (need to work on conclusions and formatting). I was able to use some material from my book (condensing and simplifying), which helped me pull this together. This is an interesting (and newly relevant) topic for me, given its emphasis on risk.
I will post my written testimony in a new blog post Wednesday morning before the Hearing starts. This should be an interesting Hearing, stay tuned.
Note: I am able to testify via Zoom, so I donโt have to travel. Out of the horrors of Covid-19, one useful practice has emerged: having people travel to meetings or Hearings to present in person is not necessary.
Every year official agencies like the UN and WMO tell us that weather disasters keep getting more frequent. Their evidence, they say, comes from the disaster database WM-DAT.
And every year I and others inconveniently point out that the apparent increase is not due to disasters becoming more common, but that we are now much better at recording them.
EM-DAT know this full well, because they wrote about it in their Annual Review for 2006:
Critics have hit back by noting that the number of deaths from weather disasters has massively shrunk over the years, something EM-DAT admit themselves, hardly supporting those hysterical claims of the UN.
How Dare We Criticise The Experts!
EM-DAT were not having this. So in their new review for 2022, they wrote this:
In short, they argue that if we exclude all of those mega disasters, the mortality trends have actually been increasing. Take that, you stupid deniers!
But what they fail to point out is that the number of recorded disasters has been rising exponentially since 1900, for reasons already outlined. If they worked the average number of deaths per disaster, they would see a drastic reduction.
The death toll appears to be rising for the same reason as the number of disasters does, the fact that we now religiously record them all, something we have only been doing since the 1990s. And, as their chart also shows, the death toll has been declining since then.
To be fair they do acknowledge this problem, and advise that it is โimpossible to draw conclusionsโ:
But that does not stop them from publishing these sort of misleading charts year after year, or allowing the UN to use them to spout lies.
The reality is thatย all the mineral products and metalsย needed to make wind turbines, solar panels, and EV batteries are mined and processed in places like Baotou, Inner Mongolia, Bolivia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, mostly under Chinese control.
The reality is that all the mineral products and metals needed to make wind turbines, solar panels, and EV batteries are mined and processed in places like Baotou, Inner Mongolia, Bolivia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, mostly under Chinese control. Decommissioning and restoration of those mining landscapes back to their original pristine condition is not in the cards in developing countries. Recycling of worn-out turbine blades, solar panels, and EV batteries, in wealthy countries is also not in the cards.
The sites for the mining of materials required to build wind, solar, and EV batteries are under minimal to nonexistent labor, wage, environmental, reclamation, and worker health and safety regulations. The mere extraction of those exotic minerals presents social challenges, human rights abuses, and environmental degradations worldwide, but are of no significance to the wealthy countries benefitting from those โgreenโ materials.
The climate cult COULD seek decommissioning and restoration standards in those developing countries down to the last dandelion, just like we have for decommissioned mines, oil, and nuclear sites in America, but the climate cult avoids the same in developing countries.
The life cycle for renewable electricity like wind and solar runs from design, procurement, and construction, through operations and maintenance, and repair, as well as the life ending decommissioning and disposal, but again, recycling and restoration of the landscaping back to its original pristine condition, is also not in the cards in the wealthy countries that are going green.
Those worn out wind turbines will be the equivalent weight of 215,000 locomotives. The demand of the wealthy economies for more wind turbines are projected to cause 43 million tons of blade waste worldwide by 2050 with China possessing 40 percent of the waste, Europe 25 percent, the United States 16 percent, and the rest of the world 19 percent.
The size and weight of the blades vary, but the average length is around 120 feet, and they weigh around five tons. Some of the largest can be as long as a football field and weigh 20 tons. Currently, there are no scalable, cost-effective technologies to recycle the blades, and most of them are going to landfills.
Those 1,000-pound EV batteries present similar challenges. With more than 40 percent of all EVโs in Amรฉrica being located in California, there are no EV-battery recycling plants in California, and only five up and running nationwide, according to CalEPA. Thatโs even though used lithium-ion batteries contain valuable minerals that otherwise must be mined from the earth, mostly from overseas operations in developing countries. Theโ throw awayโ society is alive and well in America.
With wealthy countries obsessed with a โgreenโ society, it looks like decommissioning, recycling, and restoration of the mining landscapes in developing countries and renewable generating sites in developed countries back to their original pristine conditions is not in the cards for the foreseeable future.
The vast majority of these critical minerals and elements are mined abroad, and almost all the refining of them is done by China alone.
Whatโs more, China is the largest single provider of most of the critical minerals and rare earths used around the globe, and is almost the only refiner of such products. This means minerals and rare earth elements mined elsewhere, often with Chinese funding, are shipped to China for processing into usable materials. Much of the mining and refining of materials in China is produced by forced or slave labor, often of persecuted religious minorities, like Falun Gong followers and Uighurs.
Still, the reality of todayโs globalized supply chain and Americaโs financial incentives that continuously encourage further exploitations of humanity and the environment makes it almost a certainty the massive green energy transition being pushed by the Biden administration will be built with minerals and parts produced using Chinese and/or African slave labor.
With insufficient intelligence on the ground in China or Africa to track forced-labor manufacturing, and less still the raw materials, wealthy countries will continue to exploit the folks with yellow, brown, and black skin in developing countries.
In economic terms, the wealthier countries climate hysteria is imposing severe negative externalities on developing countries. Ethically, the Westโs climate obsession is immorally condemning present generations of impoverished peoples and nations to continued perjury and early deaths in the years ahead. Make no mistake, this ruse exists to further enrich people in developed countries while they simultaneously exploit those in developing countries.
Ronald Stein is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book โClean Energy Exploitations.โ
We live in strange times, when the globalisation of a narrative formulated and
promoted by powerful interests linked to the lure of massive profit and control,
threatens 500 years of the enlightenment and science.
Robert Clancy expresses his consternation about the last three years in his Spectator Australia article Strange times. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
We live in strange times, when the globalisation of a narrative formulated and promoted by powerful interests linked to the lure of massive profit and control, threatens 500 years of the enlightenment and science.
As a clinical immunologistย with a research interest in mucosal immunology and airway infection, theย Covid-19 pandemicย became a point ofย convergenceย for my interests inย medicine, research and history.
The Rise of Pandemic Expert Knowledge
A pattern of confusion had evolved in Australian pandemics in the 20th century, followed by a science-based rebound led by great Australians such as Ashburton Thompson with plague in 1900 and, Macfarlane Burnet and Peter Doherty with influenza in 1919, 1957,1968 and Frank Fenner and eradication of smallpox in 1980. Lessons were learned and the community prepared for the next pandemic.
The response to the Covid pandemic by a powerful pharmaceutical industry became a point of difference.
Earlier pandemics were a tussle between medical and political leaderships, which between 1900 and 1970 diminished as science-based programmes were adopted and supported. Outcomes included strong public health systems and world leading research programmes in immunology and infection control.
An Australian response to pandemics over 70 years wasย a critical influence in public health and applied research reflecting informed leadership.
The Covid-19 pandemic has not followed that course.
Suddenly everyone was an โepidemiologistโ, dominating the airwaves and working with political and regulatory organisations to protect the global narrative, reinforced and uncritically accepted by the mainline press, to โcombat spread of harmful vaccine disinformationโ.
Three years ago, there was everyย reason to fear Covid-19.ย High mortality and transmission rates were reported in China, and the world experience with pandemics was sobering. No effective drug or vaccine existed, with management focused on public health measures.
Genetic vaccines were available from January 2021, with Australia becoming one of the most vaccinated countries. Total Covid-19 deaths per million paralleled global mortality, though later in the pandemic from the less virulent Omicron variant. This surge followed relaxation of lockdowns, and the vaccine booster programme
Returning to 2020, it was natural to think that vaccines may play a role in managing Covid-19. In various forms, vaccines were used in earlier pandemics without playing a decisive role. But there were important lessons that should have informed a less sanguine approach to the narrative of mRNA vaccines being the global panacea for Covid-19. This information was available before 2021!
The apologists backtracking on mistakes in the vaccine roll-out, with โwe just did not knowโ, have no argument.
First, 80 years of vaccine development for inhaled viral infections, failed to develop one sterilising vaccine capable of inducing herd immunity.
Second, no vaccine induces stronger immunity than that following the disease, yet it took a recent Lancet meta-analysis to confirm that post Covid-19 trumps vaccine immunity.
Third, respiratory viruses like Sars-CoV-2 infect a mucosal spaceย subject to the rules of mucosal immunology. The major difference from the systemic immune response to invasive pathogens is suppression of all immune responses by T reg cells (to control the inflammatory response to the sea of microbes bathing mucosal surfaces).
With Covid-19,ย immunity following injected vaccines is limited;ย repeatedย โboostersโ favour progressive immune suppressionย with more frequent and more severe infections.ย
โAllergy-shotsโ do the sameย โ they turn off damaging immune responses to inhaled antigens. There is little cross-over between compartments: injected vaccines will not prevent infection, or transmission of disease (a claim used to support community vaccination).
Fourth, RNA viruses undergo mutations facilitating โimmune escapeโ, risking โselectionโ of mutant virus by non-sterilising vaccines.
These โrulesโ predict outcomes of the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out.ย Vaccination induced systemic immunity probablyย prevented admission to hospital and deathย by neutralising virus that โescapedโ from the mucosal compartment, butย only early in the pandemicย when vaccine antigen matched prevailing virus and before priming of suppression from repeated vaccinations. There was no impact on infection or transmission of the virus.ย
Repeated โboostersโย gave 30 to 40 per cent protection for a couple of months, followed by cumulatingย โnegative protectionโ with more severe and frequent infections. New Zealand figures indicate higher Covid-19 mortality in every age bracket, in those with โboostersโ, reflecting a global pattern described by some asย a โpandemic of the vaccinatedโ.
The mRNA vaccines differ from classical antigen vaccines.
They spread and persist for months,ย producing Spike proteinย (the viral antigen stimulating immune protection)ย on cells throughout the body.ย The consequences are anย uncontrolled amount of antigenย that can downregulate antibody, and a new target for T cells to attack. Reports of seriousย adverse eventsย following Covid-19 vaccination including heart and brain damage and deathsย outstrips combined reports for all other vaccines.
Prospective study of adolescents using laboratory and MRI technology showed 2 to 3 per cent had myocarditis, contrasting with less sensitive hospital figures of one in 10,000 vaccinations.
Asymptomatic myocarditis leaves a scar, claimed to underpin a recent spate of adrenaline-initiated deaths on sporting fields.
German post-mortem studies confirm vaccine pathology as a significant cause of sudden unexplained deaths. Statisticians across the world are seeingย an increase in deathsย of the order of 10 to 20 per cent greater than noted in previous years,ย time-matched with vaccine rollouts.ย
These data demand proper assessment despite dismissal by authorities. Reversal of mRNA encoded information into host DNA has been documented, with unknown impact on the recipient or their progeny.
The point is this. How couldย a novel vaccineย involving mRNA withย scarce testing, withย no demonstrated advantageย over traditional vaccines,ย against all principles of mucosal immunology,ย and likely complicated byย major adverse events,ย notย beย red-flagged by the medical-regulatory networkย charged with our protection?
Peter Doshi, an editor of the prestigious BMJ, co-authored a review of the trial data used to underpin vaccine mandates. The authors concluded, โthe risk of serious adverse events surpassed the risk reduction for Covid-19 hospitalisationโ, demandingย a โformal harm-benefit analysisโ.ย Thisย never occurred.ย How can it be?
We live inย strange times,ย when theย globalisation of a narrative formulated and promoted by powerful interestsย linked to the lure of massive profit and control,ย threatens 500 years of the enlightenment and science.ย In Australia, acceptance of the Covid-narrative was made easy by the unrecognised power of these interests and aย disintegration of core medical structures that once would have demanded science-based analysis,ย regulatory integrity and effective review.
The introduction of unique, clever technology blindsided mainstream professionals whoย failed to understand the implications of genetic vaccines, or the immunology of the airway.ย These โexpertsโ and bureaucrats madeย poor decisionsย which becameย rubber-stamped by administrators and politicians.ย โCancellationโ threatsย to those scientists and clinicians wishing to speak out against the narrative,ย enabled disinformation to become convention, with frightening unknown consequences.
Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy AM was Foundation Professor of Pathology in the Medical School, University of Newcastle. He is a clinical immunologist.
In his recent post entitled Aussie Sea Level Rise Building Permit Chaos, Eric Worrall discussed how people in southern Australia are being prevented from building seaside structures due to fears of sea level rise.
So I thought Iโd see what the data has to say. There are not a lot of long-term tide gauges in southern Australia. Hereโs a map of their locations.
Figure 1. Long-term southern Australian tide stations. SOURCE:ย NOAA
Hereโs a look at the data. All of these are from the source above.
Figures 2 [1-6]. Tide gauge records at the stations indicated by the green arrows in Fig. 1
Given all of those, just how fast is the sea level rising around Australia? Figure 3 shows that result, in units of sea level rise per century.
Figure 3. Historical sea level rise rates, all long-term southern Australia stations
Gotta say โฆ I donโt see anything there to worry about.
โBut โฆ but โฆ but what about the dreaded acceleration in sea level rise theyโve been warning us about for forty years!!โ, I hear you thinking.
Well, to start with, look at the actual records above โฆ see any dangerous acceleration there? Because I sure donโt.
Figure 4. 30-year trailing acceleration, by dates of the end of the 30-year periods.
As you can see, the rate of sea level rise regularly accelerates, with no overall acceleration. Does this extend to the Australian sea levels as well? Hereโs the same data, for the Sydney tide gauge.
Figure 5. 30-year trailing acceleration of sea level rise, Sydney Fort Dennison tide gauge.
As with the data in Figure 4, the rate of sea level rise in Sydney Harbour has repeatedly varied between acceleration and deceleration. And the variations in Sydney match reasonably well with the global data.
However, the Sydney data in Figure 5 goes up to the end of 2021, compared to around 2017 in Figure 4 โฆ and in the last few years, the change in the rate of sea level rise has gone from acceleration to โฆ well, about zero.
The fact is that despite general warming over the last 120 years or so, and despite endless warnings of dire sea level rise drowning cities, there has been no overall acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. And as a result, the most reasonable prediction for the future is a continuation of the past, as shown in Figure 3 โฆ in other words, the Aussies can stop the auto-flagellation and get back to building by the sea.
My regards to all from rainy Northern California,
w.
As Usual: I politely ask that when you comment you quote the exact words youโre discussing. It avoids endless misunderstandings. And if you donโt do that, I may be unpolite.
An outcry went through the media: this is how expensive the “climate crisis” will be for Germany alone. All major media houses reported uncritically, with one exception.
An outcry went through the media: this is how expensive the “climate crisis” will be for Germany alone. All major media houses reported uncritically, with one exception. An extremely critical article appeared in “Welt”. The author Axel Bojanowski criticized above all that the basis for the current report on costs, a comprehensive report by the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) on the expected climate conditions for 2050 and 2100 from 2021, assumed far too high loads.
We therefore took a closer look at it. In its projections, the IPCC works with different scenarios with regard to the impact of man-made drives, roughly distinguishing between quite small sizes (1.9 or 2.6 W/mยฒ additional drive by 2100) and very strong (7.0 or 8.5 W/mยฒ). In between are medium loads (4.5W/mยฒ).
Which are likely? For some years now, a dispute has been raging among scientists as to whether 8.5 W/mยฒ should be classified as realistic at all, whether it could be a possible one that describes a “business as usual” in the use of fossil fuels. Already at the beginning of 2020, a comment appeared in “Nature”, which already described this in the headline as misleading. In the serious literature, there were then efforts to evaluate the scenarios soberly. Pielke et al (2022) concluded that the high values are very unlikely. The IPCC itself largely confirmed this and stated in the last assessment report:
“High-end scenarios (like RCP-8.5) can be very useful to explore high-end risks of climate change but are not typical “business-as-usual”.
So much for the current findings of science. The report (linked above), which shows the status of UBA on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection (responsible Minister Robert Habeck), took a completely different approach. Only the scenario “RCP 8.5” was used! Even the “optimistic cases” only reflect this scenario, then at the lower end of his expectations.
How do you justify this? Withย ย EINERย ย literature source from 2020, which attempted to draw conclusions from the emission data until 2019 about what will come until 2100. The limits of extrapolation are made clear elsewhere in the report:
“… because the different scenarios do not differ significantly at this stage.”ย (p.23).
“RCP8.5 for KWRA 2021 was selected for precautionary reasons in order to ensure sufficient dimensioning of possible adaptation measures.” (p.23).
So it was not a question of making realistic projections for the effects of climate change in Germany, they simply took the “highest impact” scenario as what awaits us with “business as usual”. The implications are extraordinarily far-reaching.
Tables 1 and 2 give figures for the increase in average air temperatures, for case 2100 it is up to almost 5ยฐC above the level of 1971… 2000. This is indeed the result of the CMIP-5 model mean under the scenario RCP8.5 for the territory of Germany. The RCP4.5 scenario, which is described in the literature as far more likely, suggests values of 2.5ยฐC, it should even be only 2ยฐC compared to 1971… 2000, recentย findingsย on the sensitivity of the climate system to CO2 increases are taken into account. Table 2, on the other hand, gives 3.1ยฐC as the lowest value to be feared.
The entire UBA study is thus misleading, to return to the title of Hausfather / Peters (2020). The 900 billion that are to be incurred as climate follow-up costs are plucked out of thin air. The fact that something like this will be sold as science in Germany by the Federal Environment Agency in 2023 is shameful.
Net Zero Watch notes that since the CfD strike prices are inflation-indexed the industryโs excuse does not hold water. On the contrary, the demand for tax breaks confirms that the low bids in the CfD auctions were never accurate reflections of underlying windpower costs.
After 30 years and plenty of talk about being โcompetitiveโ with coal, gas and nuclear, wind and solar are still being treated like untamable toddlers. The subsidies they begged for in the beginning were meant to help so-called โinfantโ industries get on their feet. But, even now, the mere mention of reducing subsidies turns them into bawling brats, furious at the prospect of ever having to make an honest dollar.
Even when the subsidy stream is flowing strong and steady, the rent-seekers that profit from the greatest economic and environmental scam of all time are always pressing for more. As John Constable explains below.
Demands for more subsidy expose the illusion of falling wind power costs Net Zero Watch John Constable 1 March 2023
Net Zero Watch is highlighting the fact that claims of falling wind power costs are contradicted by demands from wind power operators for additional subsidies on top of existing support.
This debate has been in progress since 2017, when research published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation indicated that the wind industryโs bids for Contracts for Difference subsidies (CfDs) were absurdly low and did not reflect underlying capital and operating costs.
These observations were confirmed by alternative methodologies and by other authors (details are given below), and critics repeatedly predicted that the industry would eventually beg for more subsidy.
Confirmation that we were correct can be found in the fact that the Financial Times is now reporting that wind farm developers, including the industry giants Vattenfall and รrsted, are asking for tax breaks in the forthcoming budget, offering the spurious justification that inflation has made uneconomic their low Contracts for Difference contracts awarded for delivery in 2024 (FT: โWind Farm Developers demand UK tax Breaks to offset Rising Costsโ).
Net Zero Watch notes that since the CfD strike prices are inflation-indexed the industryโs excuse does not hold water. On the contrary, the demand for tax breaks confirms that the low bids in the CfD auctions were never accurate reflections of underlying windpower costs.
Net Zero Watch says that the Chancellor should refuse to be blackmailed by the wind industry and must reject demands for further financial support.
Professor Gordon Hughes, author of several of the studies cited below, said:
โThe offshore wind developers seeking additional subsidies are treating taxpayers as fools. CfD contracts are inflation-indexed, so electricity customers will be paying higher prices for their electricity until 2040 and beyond as a consequence of recent inflation. The notion that there has been an unexpected increase in capital costs since bids were submitted last summer is ridiculous, as suppliers have been warning of severe cost pressures for at least 18 months.
The reality is that offshore operators have been submitting unsustainable CfD bids ever since 2017, hoping that something would turn up. Even a period of very high market prices is not enough, so now they want to be bailed out by tax breaks. The Chancellor should just say No.โ
Dr John Constable, NZWโs director of energy, said:
โThe belief in falling wind power costs is the central foundation of the governmentโs Net Zero enterprise, and it is demonstrably false. The absurdity of current Net Zero plans is now exposed for all to see.โ
Notes for Editors: Articles and studies on unrealistic offshore wind bids for Contracts for Difference
A couple of months ago, I came across another claim that the solar sunspot cycle affects weather down here at the earthโs surface, in particular, ocean temperatures in the El Nino region of the tropical Pacific Ocean.
A couple of months ago, I came across another claim that the solar sunspot cycle affects weather down here at the earthโs surface, in particular, ocean temperatures in the El Nino region of the tropical Pacific Ocean.
Now, folks who read my work may be aware that I started out as a true believer in the idea that sunspots affect surface weather. As a kid, Iโd read about William Herschelโs 1801 claim that sunspots affected wheat prices in England. So I thought it would be very easy to find evidence that the variations in solar energy caused by sunspots actually changed surface weather.
But when I first went to actually look at the data, I found โฆ nothing. So I kept looking. Since then Iโve looked at dozens and dozens of claimed correlations and found โฆ nothing. Well, thatโs not exactly true. I did find a scientific paper called โOn The Insignificance Of Herschelโs Sunspot Correlationโ, wherein the author looked for hard evidence to back up Herschelโs claim and found โฆ
Nothing.
So, I was interested in the MC2021 paper. It says:
After having downloaded and analysed hundreds of temperature records of the earth surface, eventually, we found clear evidence for the sunโs 11-years cycle signature in some few cases, while for the vast majority of the others this wasnโt detectable, buried under other oscillations (seasonal or El-Nino related) or noise. We found that two conditions are the most favourable in finding the proper sunโs signature in temperature records: as a rule of thumbs:
Focus on the sea surface tropical temperatures, in the range 5ยฐN โ 5ยฐS. This is not surprising, there solar rays transfer their energy to surface waters with less reflection or scattering and with an optimum incidence angle.
Forget anomalies or indices of whatever type; for our goals this is only data jamming.Look whenever possible to real sea surface temperatures (SST).
After careful analyses of the many temperature records of the whole earth surface temperature, as well as of selected regions, we identified two regions as the most affected by the 11-year solar cycle. Both of them refer to ocean equatorial regions, known to climatologist as El-Nino-3 and El-Nino-3-4.
Hmm, sez I โฆ hereโs their money graph showing the claimed relationship:
Figure 1. Figure 4 from MC2021, showing the relationship between sunspots and the cycles in the El Nino regions.
Hmmm, sez I โฆย so I went to see if I could replicate their findings. Instead of just using the Nino4 and Nino34 indexes, I also used theย Multivariate ENSO Indexย (MEI) and theย Southern Oscillation Indexย (SOI). All of these are known to correlate in some strong manner with the El Nino/La Nina oscillation in the tropical Pacific. (I have not used the NINO3 Index as they did, because it does not correlate with the others.) Hereโs that result, starting in 1979, which is the start of the MEI dataset.
Figure 2. A comparison of the underlying ~ 11-year cycles in the sunspots and the tropical Pacific Ocean. Cycles have been determined usingย Complete Empirical Ensemble Mode Decomposition.
Hmmm, sez I โฆ one thing is for sure. The Nino4, Nino34, MEI, and SOI are all clearly different measures of the same underlying phenomenon. In each dataset, you can see the recent very long La Nina conditions at the right side of the graph, and the datasets agree well with each other throughout.
And all of them line up quite well with the sunspots, with a lag of a couple of years between the sunspots and the tropical ocean indexes.
So whatโs not to like?
Well, whatโs not to like is that the data is very short. My rule of thumb is that you canโt tell much with only three cycles of some phenomenon, and Iโve been fooled more than once by even five cycles. And here we have only four cycles.
Fortunately, although the MEI only goes back to 1979, the other three indices go back much further. Here are the full datasets, starting in 1870.
Since there is reasonably good agreement between the timing of the cycles of the three datasets, let me use their average to represent the long-term conditions in the tropical Pacific, and compare that to the sunspot data.
Figure 4. A comparison of the post-1870 sunspots and the average underlying ~ 11-year cycles in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Cycles have been determined usingย Complete Empirical Ensemble Mode Decomposition.
Iโm sure you can see the difficulty. Prior to about 1945, the ocean is way out of phase with the sunspots. And the further back you go, the greater the disagreement between the two datasets. In addition, the envelopes of the signals are very dissimilar. Youโd expect that if the solar signal is strong, the temperature should be strong also โฆ but thatโs not the case at all.
You can see this via Fourier analysis as well. The more recent post-1960 part of the ENSO record has a clear 12-year cycle (not 11 but 12 years, blue line, right panel) โฆ but when you look at the full dataset back to 1870 (red line, right panel), that cycle disappears down into the noise and changes to a 13-year cycle. Note that this doesnโt happen with the sunspot data (left panel). There, the 11-year cycle is always clearly above the noise and remains steady at 11 years.
Figure 5. Fourier periodograms of the full-length (red) and post-1960 sunspots (left panel), and Nino4 index(right panel).
Unfortunately for those of us studying climate science, weโre looking at a hugely complex system. The climate is composed of six major subsystemsโthe atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, and electrosphere. Each of these subsystems has internal resonances and cycles occurring at a variety of timescales from milliseconds to millions of years. Not only that, but all the subsystems are exchanging energy on a variety of regular, intermittently regular, and random intervals on the same timescales. Finally, the system is fueled by a constantly varying source of energy.
Even the IPCC acknowledges that this system is totally chaotic, chaos that has existed for millions of years. And as a result, we often see what I call โpseudocyclesโ. These are cyclical variations in some given datasets. However, they are not true cyclesโthey appear without warning, last for some time, and then fade away and disappear, replaced by some other pseudocycles.
This problem is exacerbated by the fact that so many of our weather-related datasets are so short, often shorter than one human lifetime. The MSU dataset of the lower troposphere temperature is only 44 years of data, shorter than most lives. Same for the Multivariate Enso Index. Same for the post-1970 data used in the paper under discussion, MC2021.
And this intersection of short datasets and pseudocycles leads to lots of claims of cyclical behavior in surface temperature datasets, particularly regarding sunspots, where no true, unchanging cycles actually exist.
Thereโs a final problem. This has to do with the fact that natural weather datasets are often whatโs called โautocorrelatedโ. This means that todayโs temperature is often related to yesterdayโs temperature, and this monthโs temperature is often related to last monthโs temperature.
The problem is that autocorrelated data often includes cycles โฆ cycles that may or may not mean something. For example, hereโs a random autocorrelated dataset, of a type called โFractional Gaussian Noiseโ or โFGNโ. As the name implies, itโs just noise, no meaningful signals. Note how closely it resembles say a natural temperature dataset.
Figure 6. An example of random fractional gaussian noise (FGN).
And hereโs the CEEMD decomposition of that same FGN dataset. Remember, this is just noise, no actual signals present.
Figure 7. CEEMD analysis of an example of random fractional gaussian noise (FGN).
So โฆ what are we looking at here? Well, the left panel shows the individual signals resulting from the decomposition of the FGN noise. As you can see, there are signals at a variety of frequencies, with a residual showing whatโs left after all the regular signals are removed.
The right panel, on the other hand, shows โperiodogramsโ of each of the signals in the left panel, with corresponding colors. The periodograms show what the strongest cycles are in the decomposed signals. As you can see, the strongest cycle is at 10 years, shown in green. You can see that signal on the left panel. Must be from sunspots! โฆ oh, wait, itโs just random Gaussian noise โฆ
However, the ten-year cycles are far from a regular signal. Both the amplitude and the cycle length are constantly changing, as can be seen in the green line of the left-hand panel. Itโs also revealed by the smaller peaks in the green line on the right-hand panel.
That, dear friends, is what I have termed a โpseudocycleโ. Itโs โpseudoโ because it is not an unchanging, persistent cycle. Instead, itโs just one of the many cycles that we find in all autocorrelated data, meaningless cycles that appear, change, and disappear.
Notice also that the FGN noise contains a persistent trend, the black line at the bottom right of the left panel. This is the result of the same thing, autocorrelation. As discussed in the AGU article โNatureโs Style: Naturally Trendyโ, trends in natural datasets may mean just as little as the trend displayed by this FGN data.
And this is why in climate science folks must always, each and every time, adjust their statistical claims for autocorrelation โฆ for example, without adjustment for autocorrelation, the statistics of the FGN signal shown above say the trend is very meaningful, with a p-value of <2e-16.
But once we adjust for autocorrelation and use the Bonferroni calculation to adjust for the fact that I looked at 5 FGN datasets to find that one, it turns out that itโs not statistically significant at all, with an autocorrelation and Bonferroni adjusted p-value of 0.075 โฆ just random noise after all.
Climate science. Hidden potholes everywhere.
My best wishes to all,
w.
The Usual Request: Quote the exact words you are discussing. I can defend my words. I canโt defend your (mis) understandings of my words. Thanks.
Further Readings: Most of my prior sunspot investigations โฆ
Well, I wasnโt going to mention this paper, but it seems to be getting some play in the blogosphere. Our friend Nicola Scafetta is back again, this time with a paper called โSolar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMsโ. Heโsโฆ
Are there cycles in the sun and its associated electromagnetic phenomena? Assuredly. What are the lengths of the cycles? Well, thereโs the question. In the process of writing my recent post about cyclomania, I came across a very interesting paper entitled โCorrelation Between the Sunspot Number, the Total Solar Irradiance,โฆ
I came across a curious graph and claim today in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Hereโs the graph relating sunspots and the change in sea level: And here is the claim about the graph: Sea level change and solar activity A stronger effect related to solar cycles is seen in Fig.โฆ
Among the papers in the Copernicus Special Issue of Pattern Recognition in Physics, we find a paper from R. J. Salvador in which he says he has developed A mathematical model of the sunspot cycle for the past 1000 yr. Setting aside the difficulties of verification of sunspot numbers forโฆ
In a comment on a recent post, I was pointed to a study making the following surprising claim: Here, we analyze the stream flow of one of the largest rivers in the world, the Parana ฬ in southeastern South America. For the last century, we find a strong correlation withโฆ
Thereโs a new post up by Usoskin et al. entitled โEvidence for distinct modes of solar activityโ. To their credit, theyโve archived their data, itโs available here. Figure 1 shows their reconstructed decadal averages of sunspot numbers for the last three thousand years, from their paper: Figure 1. The resultsโฆ
I was pointed to a 2010 post by Dr. Roy Spencer over at his always-interesting blog. In it, he says that he can show a relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the HadCRUT3 global surface temperature anomalies. TSI is the strength of the sunโs energy at a specified distanceโฆ
In investigations of the past history of cosmic rays, the deposition rates (flux rates) of the beryllium isotope 10Be are often used as a proxy for the number of cosmic rays. This is because 10Be is produced, inter alia, by cosmic rays in the atmosphere. Being a congenitally inquisitive typeโฆ
A look at Gleissbergโs famous solar cycle reveals that it is constructed from some dubious signal analysis methods. This purported 80-year โGleissberg cycleโ in the sunspot numbers has excited much interest since Gleissbergโs original work. However, the claimed length of the cycle has varied widely.
ABSTRACT: Slow Fourier Transform (SFT) periodograms reveal the strength of the cycles in the full sunspot dataset (n=314), in the sunspot cycle maxima data alone (n=28), and the sunspot cycle maxima after they have been โsecularly smoothedโ using the method of Gleissberg (n = 24). In all three datasets, thereโฆ
I hear a lot of folks give the following explanation for the vagaries of the climate, viz: Itโs the sun, stupid. And in fact, when I first started looking at the climate I thought the very same thing. How could it not be the sun, I reasoned, since obviously, thatโsโฆ
I thought I was done with sunspots โฆ but as the well-known climate scientist Michael Corleone once remarked, โJust when I thought I was out โฆ they pull me back inโ. In this case, Marcel Crok, the well-known Dutch climate writer, asked me if Iโd seen the paper from Nirโฆ
In a recent interchange over at Joanne Novaโs always-interesting blog, Iโd said that the slow changes in the sun have little effect on temperature. Someone asked me, well, what about the cold temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima? And I thought โฆ hey, what about them? Iโฆ
Total solar irradiance, also called โTSIโ, is the total amount of energy coming from the sun at all frequencies. It is measured in watts per square meter (W/m2). Lots of folks claim that the small ~ 11-year variations in TSI are amplified by some unspecified mechanism, and thus these small changes in TSI make anโฆ
So once again, I have donned my Don Quijote armor and continued my quest for a ~11-year sunspot-related solar signal in some surface weather dataset. My plan for the quest has been simple. It is based on the fact that all of the phenomena commonly credited with affecting the temperature,โฆ
I keep reading how sunspots are supposed to affect volcanoes. In the comments to my last post, Tides, Earthquakes, and Volcanoes, someone approvingly quoted a volcano researcher who had looked at eleven eruptions of a particular type and stated: โฆ. Nine of the 11 events occurred during the solar inactive phaseโฆ
Well, as often happens I started out in one direction and then I got sidetractored โฆ I wanted to respond to Michele Casatiโs claim in the comments of my last post. His claim was that if we include the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s, itโs clear that volcanoes with aโฆ
In January there was a study published by The Royal Society entitled โSolar activity at birth predicted infant survival and womenโs fertility in historical Norwayโ, available here. It claimed that in Norway in the 1700s and 1800s, the solar activity at birth affected a childโs survival chances. As you might imagine, thisโฆ
[UPDATE:โUpon reading Dr. Shavivโs reply to this post, I have withdrawn any mention of โdeceptiveโ from this post. This term was over the top, as it ascribed motive to the authors. I have replaced the term with โmisleadingโ. This is more accurateโฆ
Dr. Nir Shaviv has kindly replied in the comments to my previous post. There, he says: Nir Shavivโ August 15, 2015, at 2:51 pm There is very little truth about any of the points raised by Eschenbach in this article. In particular, his analysis excludes the fact that the oโฆ
[UPDATE] In the comments, Nick Stokes pointed out that although I thought that Dr. Shavivโs harmonic solar component was a 12.6-year sine wave with a standard deviation of 1.7 centimeters, it is actually a 12.6-year sine wave with a standard deviation of 1.7 millimeโฆ
Dr. Nir Shaviv and others strongly believe that there is an ~ 11-year solar signal visible in the sea level height data. I donโt think such a signal is visible. So I decided to look for it another way, one Iโd not seen used before. One of the more sensitive โฆ
Over at Pierre Gosselinโs site, NoTricksZone, heโs trumpeting the fact that there are a bunch of new papers showing a solar effect on the climate. The headline is Already 23 Papers Supporting Sun As Major Climate Factor In 2015 โBurgeoning Evidence No Longer Dismissible!โฆ
Normal carbon has six neutrons and six protons, for an atomic weight of twelve. However, there is a slightly different form of carbon which has two extra neutrons. That form of carbon, called carbon-14 or โ14Cโ, has an atomic weight of fourteen. It is known to be formed by the โฆ
It might feel wet this week but experts are warning that parts of England need unseasonable rainfall to compensate for an abnormally dry winter.
Rivers in some of England and Wales ran their lowest on record for February, according to data from the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.
England had its driest February for 30 years, according to the Met Office.
Rivers and reservoirs that supply drinking water and feed crops rely on winter rain to top up before spring.
Without “unseasonably sustained rainfall” in the coming months, South West England and East Anglia are at risk of drought, the UKCEH explains.
“The wet weather and snow during the first two weeks of March has led to an increase in river flows and rewetting of the soils [but] some areas of England were starting March with below-average groundwater levels or below-average reservoir stocks,” Steve Turner at UKCEH told BBC News.
You must be logged in to post a comment.