Day: May 9, 2023

The three D’s of the climate change agenda: Deception, Distortion, Delusion

This is the centerpiece of the left-wing agenda being pushed today. I happen to believe that all this is flowing into using the climate as the straw that breaks the camel’s back of freedom. But they all share Deception, Distortion, and Delusion.

Concept of a narcissistic and egoistic man. Silhouette of a man standing, motivating himself at the mirror and sees in the reflection of himself with a crown on his head

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi 

This is the centerpiece of the left-wing agenda being pushed today. I happen to believe that all this is flowing into using the climate as the straw that breaks the camel’s back of freedom. But they all share Deception, Distortion, and Delusion.

I will offer some glaring examples in climate here, but the onslaught is coming daily and in waves. Are the people pushing this evil? No. Are they influenced by an evil that denies a creation that they must adapt to for their own good to advance, and instead seek to control that creation? I believe so.  What’s next, stopping the sun from rising?

First let’s look at some definitions:

Deception: the act of causing someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid

Distortion: the act of twisting or altering something out of its true, natural, or original state

Delusion:  implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind

Look around you and if you are rational, you can see the linkage in all the matters trying to disrupt and destroy our way of life.

Salon put this out:

This flies in the face of multiple known’s, hich I will be happy to show you here.

First of all, CO2 is not a pollutant. Secondly, in true polluting China is by far the biggest polluter. Why bully your own country?But,in no particular order, some obvious refutation:

How you can possibly link  the rise of CO2 with the deaths from climate?  In fact, since 1930 was really when the fossil fuel age took off—given the population increase—112 times the number of people should be dying from climate.

They do this stuff all the time. It is like Gore with his damages increasing ideas. Never mind there are so many more people and so much more property in the way. What next?  Saying more people are dying in a year globally today than ever before?  There are 4x more people, so of course that would be the case. What is remarkable is how FEW PEOPLE are dying now from the very thing we are being told is killing them. So its deception, distortion, and delusion.

Here is something from NASA:

The earth is growing greener. Globally, more food is being grown today than ever.  How does a so-called Green Agenda advocate for policies that would stop this?  They use deception, distortion and delusion because their agenda plainly is actually not about this.

You have seen this before:

Why are the leaders of the US so hell-bent (which is where they are trying to drive this country into a hellish Venezuelan like system) on attacking our way of life when you can plainly see China building 2 coal plants a week and is thumbing their nose at the rest of the world?  They are either afraid of China, or in bed with them in some form or one more possibility—they are totally clueless about reality, though I doubt that.  Again, this is deception, distortion and delusion to change the perception of reality.

Rabbi Jonathan Cahn says it best (paraphrased): When absolutes become subjective, then the subjective can become absolutes.

The bottom line deception, distortion, and delusion accomplish this.

The idea that colder is better than warmer—pushing this is pure deception, distortion and delusion:

Then of course there is the melting Arctic ice. You can check off the list of ice-free arctic predictions one after another:

But this is nothing new.

Look at this headline from 1939:

Or the idea there would be no more snow on Kilimanjaro:

By the way, arctic sea ice now is above the 10 year running mean and very close to the 20-year.  What we have been seeing is less increase in the winter, but LESS DECREASE  in the warm part of the year (light blue is last 10 years, middle line is now, and gray is 2001-2010).

Would make sense given we are not warming the Arctic in the warm time of the year, again a direct linkage to water vapor increases, not CO2:

We can go on and on. Yet Salon put this out. Deception? Well if you don’t show the entire picture, what is that? Distortion: You push a result that is plainly not where the natural course of where we are is showing ITS OPPOSITE. Delusion? How do you come to the opposite conclusion or at least not see that the current trend is the opposite of what you are saying.

One more thing before I go. Recently, much has been made about how warm it is in Canada It is. And it’s a worthy news story. Just as the flooding that is occurring due to the heavy winter snows in the Rockies and the inevitable warm-up of spring is BUT IF IT HAD NOT SNOWED SO MUCH THERE WOULD NOT BE THE FLOODING. Snowfall in the northern hemisphere is INCREASING

That again is not co2, it’s Water vapor ( more moisture) so the opposite of what was being pushed is happening in the big picture.  But read this

The Canadian heat wave is making headlines, predictably with climate implications

It should make headlines. That is extremely warm. About 75% of North America is above normal for the next 10 days

The land mass of North America is

9,540,000 square miles

But here is something that is all too common. Frankly, I do not know if I could make it as a meteorologist today if I were in school or just out, as you can no longer question authority.

Look at Asia

I would say 80% of Asia is below normal

How big is Asia?

17.21 million mi²

The cold over the Himalayas is almost as impressive as the warmth in Canada. And far larger area of Asia are cold

Here is a bigger picture

There appears to be more cold than warm globally. And a rare event both polar regions are cold at the same time.

This is a glaring example of one-sided WEATHER reporting that has been showing up without showing the entire picture. Why would you not look at the entire picture, or let people know about it?

When pushing an agenda, hiding the truth via deception, distortion, and delusion is used. And across the board, not just climate and weather, that linkage should be clear to any free-thinking and rational person today.

Author

  • Joe BastardiJoe Bastardi
  • Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting.
  • He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore — and Others” which you can purchase at the CFACT bookstore.
  • His new book The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate war can be found here. phonyclimatewar.com

UK Government is playing into Putin’s hands

Net Zero Watch has warned that the Government’s ban on fracking and its strangling of North Sea oil and gas investment is playing into Russian hands.

From Net Zero Watch

London, 9 May – Net Zero Watch has warned that the Government’s ban on fracking and its strangling of North Sea oil and gas investment is playing into Russian hands.

The merchant bank Goldman Sachs has today warned that European gas prices could triple this winter, triggering a new energy cost crisis, even before the possibility of Russia sabotaging undersea cables and pipelines, a real threat raised by security experts last week.

Net Zero Watch has been warning for years that Britain’s energy security can only be safeguarded by developing domestic energy resources. Its director Andrew Montford said:

Putin barely needs to attack oil and gas infrastructure in the UK, because the Government is doing such a good job of restricting domestic supply without him. Net Zero policy plays straight into his hands.”

Net Zero Watch has been highlighting the fact that prioritising renewable energy over reliable energy sources represents a major threat to national security for several years.

Andrew Montford said:

The government are sacrificing everything on the altar of their Net Zero dogma: economic security and national security just don’t seem to matter to them any longer.”

Further information

* Net Zero Watch calls for emergency restart of fracking

* Government’s years of irresponsible neglect has left Britain “at mercy of Putin”

* Revitalise North Sea exploration and start fracking — or lose Putin’s energy war for good

* How UK shale gas was killed by Green lies and Russian propaganda

The Auto Industry in Jonestown

The notorious events in Jonestown took place so long ago that most readers probably don’t have personal memory of them. In November 1978, in the jungles of Guyana, under the powerful spell of a religious cult with a charismatic leader, and of an all-embracing groupthink, some 900 people somehow agreed to participate in a mass suicide.

From MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

By Francis Menton

The notorious events in Jonestown took place so long ago that most readers probably don’t have personal memory of them. In November 1978, in the jungles of Guyana, under the powerful spell of a religious cult with a charismatic leader, and of an all-embracing groupthink, some 900 people somehow agreed to participate in a mass suicide. It was a shocking instance of the kind of collective insanity to which humans can be susceptible.

You might think that the Jonestown massacre was a uniquely extreme example of such a mass psychosis, perhaps attributable largely to unusually susceptible subjects or to the isolated location. Surely our best and brightest leaders of government and business would never fall prey to such collective craziness.

If you think that, then perhaps you should look at what is currently going on in the automotive sector of the economy, under the spell of the climate cult and of government functionaries demanding fealty to anti-carbon doctrines.

On April 12, 2023 the EPA released its most recent proposed regulation of automobile emissions. The document is titled “Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light- Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles.” It is 262 pages long in the standard Federal Register single-spaced three-column format, thus designed to be virtually impossible to read for anyone who is not getting paid to do it. But the heart of the proposed new rule is that, over a period of a few years, it is to become difficult-to-impossible for automobile manufacturers to continue to sell any significant number of internal combustion engine vehicles. Of course EPA never states that explicitly, and makes the game as difficult as possible for any layman to decipher. But try this language from page 29,196 (12 pages into the document and still in the early part of the Executive Summary):

GHG Emissions Standards. . . . The proposed standards are projected to result in an industry-wide average target for the light-duty fleet of 82 grams/mile (g/mile) of CO2 in MY 2032, representing a 56 percent reduction in projected fleet average GHG emissions target levels from the existing MY 2026 standards.

As I understand it, no internal-combustion car can meet this 82 g/mile CO2 emission standard on its own, so the standard effectively means that a manufacturer can only sell IC cars if it can also make and sell enough “zero-emission” cars to get an average down to this level. Thus does EPA deviously announce its intention to force manufacturers to make, and consumers to buy, all or almost all electric vehicles.

Now, at this point this is only a proposed rule. Currently, despite wide availability of electric vehicles, they have only about a 7% market share in the U.S. They also have many disadvantages as against combustion vehicles, including higher price, difficulty to repair when damaged, poor resale value, limited range, long time to recharge, and so forth. And all those are before you get to the most important problem with EVs, which is that the government geniuses are simultaneously working to destroy the electrical grid that is supposed to be the source of the energy for these things.

Might you think that the auto makers would be pushing back on behalf of themselves and their customers to keep combustion vehicles available? You would be wrong. From all appearances, the manufacturers are falling all over themselves to get on the electric car bandwagon. The EPA document itself contains a long list of industry announcements (from page 12,190 – 12,191):

A proliferation of announcements by automakers in the past two years signals a rapidly growing shift in product development focus among automakers away from internal-combustion technologies and toward electrification. For example, in January 2021, General Motors announced plans to become carbon neutral by 2040, including an effort to shift its light-duty vehicles entirely to zero-emissions by 2035. In March 2021, Volvo announced plans to make only electric cars by 2030, and Volkswagen announced that it expects half of its U.S. sales will be all-electric by 2030. In April 2021, Honda announced a full electrification plan to take effect by 2040, with 40 percent of North American sales expected to be fully electric or fuel cell vehicles by 2030, 80 percent by 2035 and 100 percent by 2040. In May 2021, Ford announced that they expect 40 percent of their global sales will be all-electric by 2030. In June 2021, Fiat announced a move to all electric vehicles by 2030, and in July 2021 its parent corporation Stellantis announced an intensified focus on electrification across all of its brands. Also in July 2021, Mercedes-Benz announced that all of its new architectures would be electric-only from 2025, with plans to become ready to go all-electric by 2030 where possible.

But as with the transformation of the electrical grid — where we forge ahead without ever having gotten a demonstration of feasibility or cost — the automakers are also forging ahead en masse into EVs with no demonstration that electric cars can become a successful mass product that fulfills all the functions that IC cars can fulfill. Tesla seems recently to have turned the corner into profitability, but with an expensive niche product that only the wealthy can afford and which is almost always a second (or third or fourth) car.

How is it going with other manufacturers? The Wall Street Journal had an editorial on May 3 summarizing the results so far for a collection of EV startups. There’s Lordstown:

Lordstown had manufactured only 31 vehicles by late February 2023—most of which had to be recalled. Losing patience, Foxconn on April 21 threatened to withdraw its investment, triggering Lordstown’s bankruptcy warning.

And Rivian:

Rivian commanded a $153.3 billion market capitalization. Now it’s worth less than $12 billion.

The WSJ summarizes stock trends of other EV startups:

[O]ther EV startups have crashed from their pandemic highs, including Canoo (down 96%), Nikola (99%), Faraday Future Intelligent Electric (99%), Rivian (90%), Lucid (87%) and Fisker(81%).

How about at the big traditional manufacturers. Robert Bryce at his Substack on May 3 collects some recent information as to Ford:

In March, Ford Motor Company announced that it lost $2.1 billion on its EV business last year. Those losses were double the losses it had on EVs in 2021. As I noted in a video I posted on TikTok on March 23, Ford made 61,575 EVs in 2022. Thus, the company lost about $34,000 on every EV it sold last year. I also noted that the costs of making EVs aren’t falling. Last year, the cost of battery packs for EVs went up by 7%. . . . Indeed, it appears Ford’s 2022 losses were only a warm-up lap. Yesterday afternoon, Ford reported a $722 million loss on its EV business over the first three months of 2023. During that span, Ford sold 10,866 EVs, meaning it lost $66,446 on every EV it sold.

Bryce goes on to quote a JD Power report from May 1: “[M]any new vehicle shoppers are becoming more adamant about their decision to not consider an EV for their next purchase.”

When I last had a post on EVs (February 23), several commenters expressed the opinion that they thought the manufacturers could overcome all the manufacturing problems (cost, battery capacity, charging, etc.) and thus EVs would shortly become the superior product in the marketplace. I suppose that is possible, although if central planning turns out to work in this instance it will be the first time ever anywhere. And further, there is nothing the manufacturers can do to make a country of 200 million or so EVs work when all the reliable generation on the electrical grid has been removed, and home heat has also been electrified. The auto manufacturers seem to be only too willing to go along with a collective suicide, a la Jonestown.

Beatrice’s Missing Output–The Plot Thickens!

In short then, Beatrice has not only received £33 million from constraint payments, it appears to have sold all of that output anyway. Worse still, the price they received from that sale was higher than their strike price.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

I’ve now got some more information concerning the “missing” 551 GWh of output at Beatrice Offshore Windfarm in their y/e March 2022.

You will recall that their Annual Accounts listed output as 2084.7 GWh, but the amount they declared to the LCCC for CfD purposes was only 1533.6 GWh.

Andrew Montford has provided data on the constraint payments to Beatrice, and for that year they were paid £33.1 million for constraining output of 539.9 GWh. In other words pretty much all of the missing output was constrained, i.e. not exported to the transmission network.

The constraint payment to Beatrice averages £61.42/MWh. Yet their guaranteed strike price via CfD was £164.73/MWh at that time, so they certainly would not have given up that revenue just for the constraint payments.

And, as we know, they did not give it up. Let’s do a few sums.

  • The revenue from the 1533.6 GWh, which was declared for CfD, would have been £252.6 million, at £164.73/MWh
  • The total revenue listed in the Annual Accounts was £392.9 million.
  • Constraint payments were £33.1 million.
  • Therefore other income, that is excluding CfD and constraints, amounted to £107.2 million, and equates to £198.55/MWh, based on the constrained 539.9 GWh.

In short then, Beatrice has not only received £33 million from constraint payments, it appears to have sold all of that output anyway. Worse still, the price they received from that sale was higher than their strike price.

The mystery now is just where that missing electricity went.

Germany Opens the Door to High Inflation, with an 80% Green Energy Bill Subsidy Proposal

Germany considers electricity price cap to support industry

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

The plan is to continue the subsidy, until investment in renewables brings energy prices down.

Germany considers electricity price cap to support industry

05/05/2023May 5, 2023

Economy Minister Robert Habeck wants to support German industry for years to come with lower electricity prices. His electricity price cap proposal is intended to ensure that energy-intensive companies remain in Germany.

Germany’s Economy Minister Robert Habeck on Friday unveiled plans to cap electricity prices for energy-intensive industries to protect the sector from sharp cost increases.

According to the plan, the upper limit of €0.06 (roughly $0.07) per kilowatt hour (KWh) should apply until 2030.

It should cover at least 80% of the electricity consumption of a clearly defined group of German companies from energy-intensive industries such as chemicals, steel and glass manufacturing.

…

Habeck, who represents the Greens in the government, is perhaps counterintuitively recommending that the taxpayer subsidize some of Germany’s biggest polluters. He described the proposal as a necessary long-term “bridge” solution until renewable capacity is expanded and prices fall. Otherwise, the government argues, there’s a risk that the major employers and sometimes systemically important industries relocate from the country. 

…

The idea was “economically unwise”, said Lindner, whose party the FDP has championed Germany’s balanced-budget orthodoxy.

…Read more: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-considers-electricity-price-cap-to-support-industry/a-65531798

I had high hopes for Habeck, the green leader who admitted coal is required to solve Germany’s energy crisis. I thought, maybe it is possible a green finally came to his senses.

I guess I was wrong.

This latest plan is economic insanity. Renewables will not produce a sustained fall in energy prices. Even if renewables were theoretically capable of delivering a sustained fall in energy prices, Germany is too far North. German solar panels barely work in Summer. In winter at best Germany sees a few hours sunlight per day, and the skies are frequently overcast.

What about wind power?

If you think wind power will be enough, think again. Europe experienced a prolonged wind drought in 2021, prompting fears of “global stilling”, a global warming driven reduction in wind speed. The wind drought which engulfed Europe in 2021 will happen again.

Lets hope German leaders regain their senses, before they run out of money.

An easy guide to rational energy policies

There are extensive technical and lengthy discussions and proposed solutions, both pros and cons, about climate change, rising oceans, extreme weather events, the impact of emissions, net-zero, EV mandates, wind and solar mandates, pollution, temperature change, and energy subsidies.

From CFACT

By Ronald Stein

manhattan skyline, brooklyn bridge and the statue of liberty at night lights, new york city

There are extensive technical and lengthy discussions and proposed solutions, both pros and cons, about climate change, rising oceans, extreme weather events, the impact of emissions, net-zero, EV mandates, wind and solar mandates, pollution, temperature change, and energy subsidies.

The elephant in the room that is seldom discussed is the simple and easy to understand fact of life that the world is facing shortages of the same products and fuels manufactured from crude oil that were the basis of the planets’ population growth from one to eight billion in less than two hundred years.

A non-technical explanation for these upcoming shortages is that wind turbines and solar panels can only generate electricity but cannot manufacture any products for humanity.

With no backup plan to maintain the supply chain for all the products and fuels supporting the eight billion on this planet, the following should be helpful for new regulations, mandates, and laws that would restore sensible, affordable, and rational energy policies.

  • Whereas, wind turbines and solar panels only generate electricity, but manufacture no products for humanity.
  • And whereas, ridding the world of fossil fuels would result in a reduction in each of the following, as all these infrastructures exist because of the products manufactured from crude oil, that cannot be manufactured by either wind turbines or solar panels.
  • And whereas that today, 700 oil refineries around the world are designed for specific crude oil feedstocks available to those sites, and then manufacture each 42-gallon barrel of oil into light and heavy hydrocarbon products available from that feedstock to support the world’s 8 billion on this planet that are dependent on the 50,000 jets moving people and products, and more than 50,000 merchant ships for global trade flows, and the militaries of each country, and space programs that are based on the heavy hydrocarbons for the various fuels manufactured from crude oil.
  • And whereas, the future does not bode well as 20 percent of the 700 worldwide aging refineries are projected to close in the next 5 years that will result in less manufacturing with the loss of 140 manufacturing sites to meet the ever-growing demands of ships, jets, and the derivatives needed for all the products demanded by society. With less manufacturing in wealthy countries in the days ahead, further shortages and inflation of both fuels and products in perpetuity are guaranteed.
  • And whereas, no new refinery has been built in America since 1977, 46 years ago, so the need for new American refinery manufacturing facilities to treat natural gas and/or coal may be a pipe dream to obtain environmental and construction permits for a new fossil fuel manufacturing site, when America is motivated to rid itself of both natural gas and coal, along with crude oil.
  • And whereas those light hydrocarbons are primarily used for making the more than 6,000 products for humanity and the infrastructures that did not exist before 1800.
  • And whereas, to achieve a world of only those light ends to make all the products now in society that supports lifestyles and all the infrastructures, there are thoughts among the green community that we can convert the existing old refineries to produce nothing but derivatives, and/or replace the existing refineries with derivative refineries, or just manufacturing those light ends. That may be another pipe dream as each refinery is designed for specific crude oil feedstocks available to those sites, and conversions may be technically too expensive and not even permittable.
  • And whereas, a 42-gallon barrel of oil contains about 90 percent of heavy hydrocarbons for various fuels, and about 10 percent of light hydrocarbons that are the basis of thousands of products made from those oil derivatives by -products. We can’t squeeze more light-end hydrocarbons from a barrel of oil.
  • And whereas, that such a switch of those old refineries to derivative refineries is a pipedream or an environmental and emissions disaster as 90 percent of that 42-gallon barrel of crude oil would need to be disposed of if not marketable as manufactured products like liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), automotive gasolines, jet fuels, distillate fuel oils, diesel fuels.
  • And whereas, it was fossil fuels that made it possible for humanity to grow from 1 to 8 billion in 200 years, because they can be manufactured into thousands of usable, life-enhancing and life-saving products. 
  • And whereas, that “transitioning” humanity to just electricity means converting to wind and solar systems that can manufacture none of these vital products. That transition to just electricity will very likely cause the death of BILLIONS of people from diseases, malnutrition, lowered living standards and weather-related disasters, whereas projections of millions of fatalities from “carbon emissions” and climate change are based on computer models that take none of these realities into account.  
  • And whereas, the sites for the mining of materials required to build wind, solar, and EV batteries exist in developing countries that 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 benefiting from those “green” materials.
  • And whereas, 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.
  • And whereas, the life cycle for electricity from wind turbines 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.   
  • And whereas, that ridding the world of oil, without a replacement in mind, would be immoral and evil, as extreme shortages of the products manufactured from fossil fuels which are supporting the 8 billion on this planet will result in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths. Shortages of fossil fuel products would necessitate lifestyles being mandated back to the horse and buggy days of the 1800’s and could be the greatest threat to the planet’s eight billion residents.

Before implementation of any policies that impact the supply chain of crude oil, a replacement must be identified that can maintain the supply chain of more than 6,000 products and various fuels that support the health and food requirements of the 8 billion now on this planet and the 50,000 merchant ships and 50,000 jets that are moving products around the world for global trade flows, and the military and space programs.

Author

  • Ronald SteinRonald Stein
  • Ronald Stein is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”

California’s Retail Electricity Price Highest in the Continental U.S. & More than Double the Western U.S. Average Price

California’s Retail Electricity Price Highest in the Continental U.S. & More than Double the Western U.S. Average Price

From Watts Up With That?

California’s Retail Electricity Price Highest in the Continental U.S. & More than Double the Western U.S. Average Price

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

During the last 25 years (the period inclusive of 1999 to 2023) Democrats have controlled the legislature of the State of California and adopted ineffective, misguided and economically damaging energy and climate legislation that created skyrocketing electricity prices for California residents, businesses, and organizations. 

The state legislature has imposed these high prices and their resulting economic consequences despite the real world reality that their politically contrived measures are completely irrelevant regarding any ability to produce globally meaningful energy and climate outcomes as addressed here.

The Democrat legislature pushed these measures claiming that they are providing global “influence” and “leadership” regarding renewable energy use and emissions reductions.  

The developing nations (led by massive coal burning China and India) totally control global energy use and emissions outcomes and have completely ignored and dismissed the Democrats efforts to “influence” and “lead” the world with their mandated and ineffective renewable energy use and emissions reduction schemes. 

EIA average retail electricity price data provides the Total Electric Industry price in each state (as well the average across the U.S.) which includes price information from all full-service providers, restructured retail service providers, energy-only providers, and delivery-only service providers. These electric service provider categories comprise the total electricity supply services utilized within each state.

The EIA average retail electricity price data are established for Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Transportation and Other consumer categories with an overall Total price average included for each state as well the average across the U.S.     

Each states EIA average retail electricity price data for years 1990 through 2020 are available here with updated data for year 2021 total average retail electricity prices available here.

The year 2021 EIA total average retail electricity price data for each state and U.S. average are shown below as provided on the latter EIA data link noted above.

The EIA year 1999 Total Electric Industry average retail electricity price data for each state and U.S. average are shown below with the blue colored area providing the Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Transportation, Other and Total electricity price values respectively as provided on the first EIA data link noted above.  

California’s ill-conceived energy and climate Democrat driven legislative schemes have resulted in California’s 2021 average retail electricity price now becoming, for the first time ever, the highest in the continental United States at 19.65 cents per kilowatt hour with an increase in price of 224.6% since the 1999 value of 8.75 cents per kilowatt hour.

During the 1999 to 2021 period EIA data shows that the average retail electricity price for the entire U.S. grew by only 67.16% (from 6.64 cents per kilowatt hour in 1999 to 11.10 cents per kilowatt hour in 2021) which is a factor of 3.34 times lower growth increase than occurred in California’s average retail electricity prices.

The map shown below shows California’s neighboring continental U.S. contiguous western states that share many of the same energy and climate characteristics of this region including extensively wide-ranging areas of desert, forest, and mountainous terrain along with normally occurring weather driven events involving droughts, wildfires, heat waves, freezing cold, significantly varying rainfall and snow, etc.

The 10 other states that make up the continental western U.S. region have a year 2021 average retail electricity price of only 9.19 cents per kilowatt hour verses California’s 2021 record high average retail electricity price of 19.65 cents per kilowatt hour. 

Incredibly, California’s year 2021 average retail electricity price has now grown to be 214% greater than the average of the other 10 western continental U.S. states. 

In year 1999 California’s average retail electricity price was only about 72% greater (8.75 cents per kilowatt hour versus 5.08 cents per kilowatt hour for the other 10 western states) than the average of the other western region states.   

The huge change amounting to nearly a factor of 3 growth in the average retail electricity price difference between California and the 10 other western states over this period has negatively impacted and been economically damaging to California with this outcome occurring because of the Democrats incompetently crafted energy and climate policy legislation.   

Given the extraordinary growth of California’s average retail electricity prices over the 1999 to 2021 period versus the much lower growth in these prices that occurred in the rest of the nation, including all of California’s contiguous western region states, the Democrats in the California legislature should be required to justify and be held accountable by the state’s voters for why and how these economically damaging extremely high electricity price increases were instigated and allowed to occur under their watch.

These huge California electricity price increases have had no meaningful impact on reducing global fossil fuel use or global emissions reductions nor have they had any impact on changing global energy and emissions policy actions of the world’s developing nations that dominate and control global energy use and emissions outcomes.    

A 10 Percent ‘Community Solar’ Discount? Think Again!

Think about this the next time you hear a solar industry flack or an administration mouthpiece or a corrupt media ideologue yammer about what a great deal ratepayers and taxpayers are getting for IRA-funded clean energy projects.

From Master Resource

By Joseph Toomey — May 9, 2023

“A 10% reduction off the retail rate for wholesale power would net Summit Ridge Energy a price of $0.1181 per kWh, which is 244% higher than the average wholesale rate in 2021 that all other power producers received. And that boost will be absorbed and passed on to all retail ratepayers.”

“The $2.5 billion investment in production plants that Q-Cells promises isn’t really coming from the company, but from the U.S. Treasury courtesy of federal taxpayers’ largesse and Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.”

Last month, Vice President Kamala Harris visited a Korean-owned solar photovoltaic module plant in Dalton, Georgia. Long known as the carpet capital of America (and perhaps less illustriously as the Home of the Blonde Bombshell), Dalton will now host a vastly-expanded Korean-owned solar panel production facility operated by a company called Q-Cells.

Those with long memories may recall the name Q-Cells as a spectacular crash-and-burn event during the previous decade. The company was originally German-owned, filing for bankruptcy in 2012, an event heralded by Der Spiegel as “the end of German solar.” The once high-flying company boasted a $150 share price and an €8 billion market capitalization. Fortunes waned in the face of stiff Chinese competition, and the company’s shares had collapsed to just 16 cents before declaring bankruptcy in April 2012. Six months after the German bankruptcy declaration, Q-Cells was acquired by South Korea’s Hanwha Solutions Group.

“Community Solar” Projects

During her visit, the Vice President proudly announced a deal whereby Q-Cells and Virginia-based Summit Ridge Energy will partner on what are called “community solar projects” to be deployed in three states, Maine, Maryland and Illinois. Two of these three states reside wholly or in part within the PJM balancing authority area. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory lists nearly 2,625 megawatts of community solar project capacity deployed as of June 2020.

Q-Cells will invest a combined $2.5 billion in two solar module production plants in Dalton and nearby Cartersville according to news reports. The investment will expand Q-Cells production capacity in Georgia to 8.4 gigawatts of solar modules per year.

The Biden administration claims that community solar projects result in a 10 percent annual savings for customers. Media outfits like Associated Press and National Public Radio parrot this dubious claim verbatim. Summit Ridge Energy shows a similar figure on its website, but avoids making any definitive claims.

Let’s Do the Math

Take a closer look at the actual written declaration about the promised 10% savings:

The installations will sell power between a 5–10% discount to current RETAIL UTILITY RATES under their local community solar programs….

See? They’re not saying you’re getting a 10% reduction on your RETAIL electricity bill. They’re saying they will sell solar power to utilities under Power Purchase Agreements — i.e. WHOLESALE agreements — that are priced at a level 10% below the RETAIL rate level.

How does that work in practice?

In 2021, the average wholesale power purchase price in the PJM territory where these projects were to be deployed was $0.0485 per kilowatt-hour. But the average retail power price in Maryland in 2021 was $0.1312 per kWh.

Thus, a 10% reduction off the retail rate for wholesale power would net Summit Ridge Energy a price of $0.1181 per kWh, which is 244% higher than the average wholesale rate in 2021 that all other power producers received. As you can see, your 10% “savings” is really just a massive 244% boost in the wholesale rate for the power produced by these projects in PJM. And that boost will be absorbed and passed on to all retail ratepayers.

One such series of community solar projects in Illinois and Maryland deployed 26.7 megawatts of solar capacity at a development cost of $78.7 million. These projects qualified for federal Investment Tax Credits of $26.6 million, meaning federal taxpayers paid fully one-third of the installation cost.

Tax Credits Galore

Interestingly, the tax credit schedule enacted in the wildly-misnamed Inflation Reduction Act shows a 7 cent per Watt tax credit for manufacturing of a solar module. Press reports indicate the Dalton plant will produce 5.1 gigawatts per year of solar modules while the Cartersville plant will produce another 3.3 gigawatts annually.

Together, the plant expansions will cost Q-Cells $2.5 billion in investment. That capacity will qualify the company to receive $588 million per year in federal tax credits, meaning that it will have completely recouped its $2.5 billion investment outlays in 4 years and 3 months. In essence, Q-Cells isn’t paying for the plants. Federal taxpayers are.

“These credits were absolutely critical to this expansion by Q-Cells,” says Michael Carr, Director of Solar Energy Manufacturers for America, a solar industry lobbying group. With the U.S. Treasury effectively buying solar manufacturing plants on the installment plan without receiving a single share of stock, one would be hard-pressed to disagree.

So, if you’ve been following closely, Q-Cells and Summit Ridge Energy will install community based solar projects in three states, but one-third of the cost of those projects will be funded by federal taxpayers. These community solar projects promise to deliver a 10 percent savings that actually entails a huge 244 percent increase in the cost of wholesale power purchased by utilities and the grid operator. And the $2.5 billion investment in production plants that Q-Cells promises isn’t really coming from the company, but from the U.S. Treasury courtesy of federal taxpayers’ largesse and Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

VP Harris Applauds

Vice President Harris offered some uncharacteristically stirring oratory to announce the Q-Cells deal with Summit Ridge Energy:

I am proud to be in Dalton today to announce the largest community solar order in American history — made possible by the investments our Administration has made to expand American manufacturing and increase demand for clean energy. When we invest in climate, clean energy, and manufacturing, we invest in America. President Biden and I will continue to fight to create opportunity in every community.

Actually, it wasn’t the administration making any investments. It was federal taxpayers and system ratepayers. And the administration’s “fight to create opportunity in every community” wasn’t really about creating opportunity in communities. It was actually about creating an opportunity for federal tax money to be used to line the pockets of Q-Cells and Summit Ridge Energy.

This isn’t just a story about the often-hidden cost of renewable energy, or the blatant dishonesty of the administration that championed a massive spending spree aimed at boosting wind and solar energy. It’s also a story about the corruption of the “fact check” media whose default position is to accept at face value any pronouncement from the Biden administration, to “run cover” for its misstatements.

Think about this the next time you hear a solar industry flack or an administration mouthpiece or a corrupt media ideologue yammer about what a great deal ratepayers and taxpayers are getting for IRA-funded clean energy projects.

———-

Joseph Toomey is a career management consultant with undergraduate and MBA finance degrees. His supply-chain-strategy consulting work for clients in the oil and gas, electric utilities, industrials, and renewable energy industries spans three decades across dozens of countries around the world. He is the author of An Unworthy Future: The Grim Reality of Obama’s Green Energy Future (2014), which critically appraises the Obama Administration’s energy policy.

Dozens Of Dem Lawmakers Pressure White House To Crack Down On Natural Gas

A group of 44 congressional Democrats on Monday sent a letter to the White House calling for the Biden administration to crack down on permitting for liquified natural gas (LNG) projects, in the interest of combatting climate change and promoting “environmental justice.”

From Daily Caller

By JOHN HUGH DEMASTRI

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

A group of 44 congressional Democrats on Monday sent a letter to the White House calling for the Biden administration to crack down on permitting for liquified natural gas (LNG) projects, in the interest of combatting climate change and promoting “environmental justice.”

The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) last year reversed Trump-era rules that barred the government from blocking projects based on their “indirect” climate impact, according to The Washington Post. The Democratic lawmakers in their letter called for the administration to scrutinize permits for LNG projects, arguing that current Trump-era rules failed to consider the emissions impact of methane gas and the harms that existing infrastructure caused to minority communities. (RELATED: Efforts To Defund The Oil And Gas Industry Fell Off A Cliff In 2022, Report Says)

“We are concerned about the United States’ continued expansion of liquefied fossil gas (LNG) infrastructure and capacity, despite recent reports and analyses questioning the necessity of such development and the effect that this buildout will have on this country’s climate goals and frontline communities,” the lawmakers wrote. “Our ability to combat the worst impacts of the climate crisis depends, to a significant degree, on whether the United States approves proposed LNG pipeline and export terminal projects on top of the already-substantial LNG infrastructure.”

The group also called for the CEQ to establish a “cross-agency team” from various federal agencies to consider the “combined climate and environmental justice” impacts of any future natural gas permits. The lawmakers recommended including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of State, Department of Energy and “other relevant agencies,” for membership in this team.

The administration in January issued updated guidance on greenhouse gas regulation, obligating federal agencies to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions, incorporate social costs into cost-benefit analysis and focus regulatory scrutiny on fossil fuel projects as opposed to green energy projects, according to a White House fact sheet. The move also requires federal agencies report their greenhouse gas emissions and establish “broad scale” analysis to increase the efficiency of future environmental reviews.

WASHINGTON, DC – NOVEMBER 17: Climate activist hold a demonstration to urge President Biden to reject the Willow Project at the US Department of Interior on November 17, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Sunrise AU)

The Biden administration has been under fire from some environmental activists over its recent approval of the Willow Project, a massive oil drilling operation in northern Alaska. The group of Democratic lawmakers on Monday described the Department of Energy’s analysis of the environmental impacts of the project as “not acceptable,” and alleged that the agency failed to conduct “rigorous analyses of alternatives” to the project.

The White House did not immediately respond to a Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Climate Extremists Vandalise Historic Roman Monument — Watts Up With That?

Last generation, in the fountain of the Four Rivers in Piazza Navona thrown charcoal: ‘Future as black as water’

Climate vandals attacking the Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi in Rome. Source Corriere Del Sera, fair use, low resolution image to identify the subject.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Another pathetic green attack on Western heritage, this time a fountain in Rome which was built in the late 1600s.

Last generation, in the fountain of the Four Rivers in Piazza Navona thrown charcoal: ‘Future as black as water’

by Ester Palma

Charcoal in the Fountain of the Four Rivers in Piazza Navona: Last generation returns to attack the Roman artistic heritage. At 15 four activists linked to the ‘Let’s not pay for the fossil’ campaign, promoted by the assault environmental group. After the blockades of cars on the Gra and the naked and chained demonstration in via del Tritone, the activists poured vegetable charcoal diluted in the water of the precious baroque work designed by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, to ‘to raise the alarm on the black future that awaits humanity and that is already manifesting itself with increasingly frequent droughts and floods’. In the evening, the Minister of Culture Gennaro Sangiuliano went to Piazza Navona: ‘I carried out an inspection to check the conditions of the fountain of the Four Rivers, today targeted by an action of the eco-vandals‘.

…Read more: https://roma.corriere.it/notizie/cronaca/23_maggio_06/ultima-generazione-nella-fontana-dei-quattro-fiumi-in-piazza-navona-gettato-carbone-vegetale-futuro-nero-come-l-acqua-3470063c-4811-4d67-b11b-30135335dxlk.shtml

This story reminds me of a horrible story I once heard, about a western tourist who was raped in New Guinea. The attackers cut off one of her fingers, so whenever she looked at her hand, she would remember the snarling faces of her attackers, their cruelty and mockery of her distress and pain.

Those eco-vandals wanted to permanently mark a piece of our a precious heritage, just as the rapists wanted to mark the body of that poor woman.

To be fair the eco-vandals didn’t try to hurt anyone, but this need to make a mark, to leave a permanent scar, seems disturbingly similar.

I doubt these extreme acts of vandalism are raising sympathy for climate action.