Day: February 20, 2024

The Great Texas Blackout of 2021: Triumph of the Unreliables

Three years ago this month, a prolonged, extensive cold snap did the unthinkable to Texas’s huge electricity grid. The shared narrative from proponents/apologists of forced energy transformation (‘Energy Transition’, ‘Decarbonization’, ‘Net Zero’, ‘Green New Deal’, ‘Virtual Power Plant’) focused on the failure of natural gas infrastructure as the cause of the debacle, a sort of “market failure” from “an Act of God.”

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“The Kiesling/Giberson (et al.) narrative is a call for more government. MORE wind. MORE solar. MORE Batteries. MORE central planning to correct prior. And rationing from ‘smart meters’ to forgive all that came before. Think Big Brother, the Electricity Road to Serfdom.”

Three years ago this month, a prolonged, extensive cold snap did the unthinkable to Texas’s huge electricity grid. The shared narrative from proponents/apologists of forced energy transformation (‘Energy Transition’, ‘Decarbonization’, ‘Net Zero’, ‘Green New Deal’, ‘Virtual Power Plant’) focused on the failure of natural gas infrastructure as the cause of the debacle, a sort of “market failure” from “an Act of God.” The cancer in the system, intermittent wind and solar ($66 billion worth), was forgiven, and central planning of the state’s grid by Austin politicians, regulators, and administrators was treated as a neutrality.

Faux free-market advocates Lynne Kiesling and Michael Giberson pushed this false narrative, refusing to get from the physical why to the analytical why. Bad analytics, bad historical interpretation. And their recommendation: more intervention, not less, coordinated by government agents.

Background

Wiki summarized the physical side of the event:

In February 2021, the state of Texas suffered a major power crisis, which came about during three severe winter storms sweeping across the United States on February 10–11, 13–17, and 15–20. The storms triggered the worst energy infrastructure failure in Texas state history, leading to shortages of water, food, and heat. More than 4.5 million homes and businesses were left without power, some for several days. At least 246 people were killed directly or indirectly, with some estimates as high as 702 killed as a result of the crisis.

The human and economic toll of the Great Texas Blackout is in the books. But the “why-behind-the-why” of the unprecedented debacle has been neglected, even by “free market” electricity specialists wed to the state’s ISO central planning model.

Getting back to fundamental causality requires a lot of analysis beyond the simplistic surface effects. It brings in a worldview of free-market processes and government intervention. As I concluded in a counter-analysis the month after the event, “Renewables ‘Market-Failed‘ Natural Gas in Texas:

The second draft of history is pointing toward a massive government planning failure in America’s second most regulated industry (next to money & banking), as well as the intended and unintended consequences of pro-renewable, anti-fossil-fuel decarbonization policies. There is much more evidence to come, but the picture is getting clearer.

I updated my initial thoughts on the second anniversary of the debacle: “Wind, Solar, and the Great Texas Blackout: Guilty as Charged.”

Unreliable capacity that never should have been built crowded out the reliables—as intended by “magical thinking” policymakers. Storm Uri was not the straw that broke the camel’s back, it was the moment that showed the animal’s back was badly broken.

The way forward is the opposite of what the UT-Austin authors recommend. Wind, solar, and batteries should no longer receive government advantage. The wholesale power grid now run by ERCOT should be denationalized and mandatory transmission rules rescinded. Third, franchise protection and other “public utility” regulation should be removed for the denationalized grid, a program outlined elsewhere.

Central planning for a forced energy transformation produced the debacle of debacles two [now three] years ago in Texas. It is time for a new era for U.S. electricity policy, premised on market entrepreneurship.

Specifically,

  • Wind and solar predictably disappeared at the (weather-generated) peak
  • The reliables were wounded by (artificially) low margins created by the take policies of ERCOT (the central planning agency) in light of the (very low) marginal cost of wind and solar. Pricing for reliability under such central planning failed.
  • On-the-shelf winterization technology behind a number of gas-well freeze-ups was not in place from a variety of government interventions (forced disintegration, artificially low margins/prices, and government weather-forecasting error). The 1989 and 2011 experiences with gas freezing went unlearned and unheeded thanks to non-free-market distortions.
  • Central planning errors from monopolistic ERCOT (covering 90 percent of the state), which replaced utility control and the “obligation-to-serve”, was a Hayekian planning failure.
  • Forced/jawboned electrification of gas compressor stations from natural gas fell victim to power cutoffs (also see here).
  • Climate model prediction and NASA/NOAA forecast of a warm winter in general and specifically for Texas, respectively, misled the market.

The narrative of natural-gas failure as market failure has been weakened by ERCOT’s repeated conservation alerts since the February 2021 debacle (example here). Wind, solar, and batteries are rushing in, and politics is Texas trying to subsidize new gas-fired capacity in the face of renewables’ predatory pricing. Will a duplicated centrally planned grid be the solution?

Conclusion

It is not a coincidence that the worst event in the history of the U.S. electricity market occurred in the state most hampered by government intervention. It was predicted by free marketeers and not predicted by the wind/solar apologists.

Blaming natural gas in a market where natural gas was wounded by predatory renewables is disingenuous. Worse, the Kiesling/Giberson, et al., narrative calls for more government. MORE wind. MORE solar. MORE Batteries. MORE central planning to correct prior. And rationing from “smart meters” to forgive all that came before. Think Big Brother, the Electricity Road to Serfdom.

Biden is realising just how unpopular green EVs are – with help from the unions

‘With each passing day, it becomes clearer the electric vehicle mandate is unrealistic’

‘With each passing day, it becomes clearer the electric vehicle mandate is unrealistic’

So, what is more important to the Biden White House, campaign politics or meeting its nominal climate goals? The administration’s rhetorical flourishes say one thing, but its policy actions seldom manage to match the narrative.

The New York Times reported Saturday that the Biden administration will delay its onerous new tailpipe emissions standards as an election-year sop to the United Auto Workers and other union special interests.

The Telegraph has the story.

Citing only unnamed sources, the Times said the Biden regime would delay current requirements for automakers to rapidly increase EV sales in just the next few years, pushing the targets back until after 2030.

The sub-head to the article gives away the purely political motivations behind the move, saying, “The change to planned rules was an election-year concession to labor unions and auto executives, according to people familiar with the plan.”

In addition to labor union pressure, this latest move by the administration to adjust its agenda was likely impacted by the letter it received last November from nearly 4,000 US car dealerships urging a slowdown in its EV mandate agenda due to low consumer demand for the cars.

“While the goals of the regulations are admirable, they require consumer acceptance to become a reality,” the signatories wrote. “With each passing day, it becomes more apparent that this attempted electric vehicle mandate is unrealistic based on current and forecasted customer demand.”

It is key to note that the Times story also specifies pressures coming into the White House from auto executives, which should hardly surprise anyone. One can easily envision complaints from executives at Ford, for example, which just reported a whopping $4.7 billion loss for 2023 in its Model e EV division, along with an expectation the division will  lose another $5.5 billion for 2024.

Losses at General Motors’ EV business also ran into the billions for the year. Regardless of the utopian desires of the Biden regulators, investors in these and other US automakers are going to have only so much patience for this sort of financial malpractice before a general rebellion begins.

The truth, of course, is that every element of the Biden energy and climate agenda is motivated almost entirely by partisan politics. If a given policy move is not a response to pressure from the climate alarm lobby that has collectively become one of the Democrat party’s biggest source of campaign funding, it is likely a payoff to labor unions who play a slightly smaller funding role, or to trial lawyer interests who support the administration’s lawfare efforts to put its political opposition – most notably presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump – into prison before this November.

Biden’s move in January to halt permitting processes related to proposed new export facilities for liquefied natural gas is another clear example. The Wall Street Journal reported on February 8 that decision was motivated by pressures from leftwing billionaire interests like the Rockefeller Family Fund and Michael Bloomberg who “have provided millions of dollars in recent years to front-line environmental groups that are campaigning against fossil-fuel projects, including LNG terminals that have been proposed on the Gulf Coast.”

Following an intense multi-year pressure campaign, the WSJ quotes one unnamed White House source as stating, “They got our attention.” Next thing you know, a new executive order disrupting a rapidly expanding global LNG market is drafted and signed for the obvious motivation of keeping all the dark money flowing from the billionaires into Biden campaign-supporting political action committees.

Read the full story here.

New Study: Climate Models Get Water Vapor Wildly Wrong – A ‘Major Gap In Our Understanding

“Here, we have demonstrated a major discrepancy between observation-based and climate model-based historical trends in near-surface atmospheric water vapor in arid and semi-ari regions.” – Simpson et al., 2024

From NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 19. February 2024

“Here, we have demonstrated a major discrepancy between observation-based and climate model-based historical trends in near-surface atmospheric water vapor in arid and semi-ari regions.” – Simpson et al., 2024

A new study published in PNAS has demonstrated, once again, that climate models fail to simulate what happens in the real world with regard to fundamental climate change variables like water vapor. This is a devastating finding, as water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas due to its alleged “feedback” capacity, accelerating warming well beyond what CO2 is said to be capable of alone.

The authors do not understate the significance of this climate modeling failure.

“This represents a major gap in our understanding and in climate model fidelity that must be understood and fixed as soon as possible in order to provide reliable hydroclimate projections for arid/semi-arid regions in the coming decades.”

Per state-of-the-art climate models, specific humidity (SH) should increase as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show no increasing SH trend over arid/semi-arid regions.

Per state-of-the-art climate models, relative humidity (RH) should decline slightly as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show not a slight declining trend, but a declining trend that is “about an order of magnitude more than the models on average.” In other words, the climate models are wrong by a factor of 10.

Image Source: Simpson et al., 2024

A few years ago another study documented how wildly wrong 102 state-of-the-art climate models have been with regard to a 60-year temperature trends (1958-2017) over tropical regions.

The models say the tropical warming rate should have been nearly 3 times larger than the observations show – “0.389 ± 0.173°C per decade (models) and 0.142 ± 0.115°C per decade (observed)” – due to the assumed feedback response to CO2 forcing over warm regions. Instead, there is a “clear and significant tendency on the part of the models to overstate warming.”

These authors also do not understate the significance of this modeling failure. Climate models are not even realistic.

“Instead, we observe a discrepancy across all runs of all models, taking the form of a warming bias at a sufficiently strong rate as to reject the hypothesis that the models are realistic.”

“[T]he major hypothesis in contemporary climate models, namely, the theoretically based negative lapse rate feedback response to increasing greenhouse gases in the tropical atmosphere, is incorrect.”

There may be no other branch of physical science with model-observation discrepancies (failures) this profound, this fundamental.

Image Source: McKitrick and Christy, 2018
simpson23pnasHerunterladen

Earth-and-Space-Science-2018-McKitrick-A-Test-of-the-Tropical-200‐-to-300‐hPa-Warming-Rate-in-Climate-ModelsHerunterladen

Biden’s War on Domestic Energy Intensifies

On Jan. 26, President Joe Biden took an aggressive step forward in his war on American energy by halting the permitting of new liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminals. This action has massive global implications, as TPPF’s Mark Mills laid out when the decision was publicly announced.

From RealClearEnergy

By Matt Egan & Brent Bennett

On Jan. 26, President Joe Biden took an aggressive step forward in his war on American energy by halting the permitting of new liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminals. This action has massive global implications, as TPPF’s Mark Mills laid out when the decision was publicly announced.

It also has the added benefit for the president of attacking primarily Texas and Louisiana, red states that account for the bulk of U.S. LNG exports. This decision comes on the heels of Texas taking steps to secure its border with Mexico, putting the state directly at odds with the administration—once again.

But the president’s politically motivated actions will reverberate far beyond America’s natural gas producing regions. By locking global supply and demand imbalances in place for longer, this decision will send billions of dollars to foreign producers and raise the cost of energy globally. Any short-term drop in domestic prices will ultimately be negated by reductions in future domestic production.

If this decision doesn’t help Americans and hurts our allies, why do it? Politics, of course, primarily appeasing the radical green cartel that forms a key part of the president’s base, and, perhaps to the surprise of a casual observer, rent-seeking industries looking to hoard short-term supply.

President Biden’s environmental extremism means our allies will become more reliant on our adversaries. For context, 87% of US LNG exports went primarily to U.S. allies in Europe and Asia. The Biden administration blunting America’s ability to participate on the world energy stage creates a vacuum that will undoubtedly be filled by the other major natural gas exporting countries—Russia, Qatar, and Iran—who are certainly not friends of the U.S.

Bear in mind that the Department of Energy (DOE) has never denied an LNG export application, for environmental reasons or otherwise, and rejected a petition to do so just six months ago. President Biden could be pushing for more U.S. LNG exports, because the U.S. produces natural gas more responsibly and with fewer emissions than any LNG exporting country save Australia. However, despite the obvious fact that domestic gas has been a major driver of U.S. GHG emissions reductions and air quality improvements, the green cartels are trying to make the case that LNG exports will not do the same for other countries.

Also, serious questions surround the administration’s legal authority to issue such an all-encompassing, job-killing freeze in energy exports. Congress has not authorized the DOE to take such drastic actions, which would have implications both inside and outside our borders. It is also absurd that the Natural Gas Act, a relic of 1930s-era policymaking, gives the DOE power to deny imports and exports, outside the bounds of trade agreements. States need to take the administration to the courts over this decision, and fortunately, many are already expressing a willingness to do so.

This LNG export ban may be the most strong-armed, authoritative action against American energy producers taken by an administration that has become known for such transgressions. Luckily, Congress is already working to reverse this massive mistake by advancing a bipartisan bill, Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act.

It’s notable when President Biden’s anti-energy policies become so extreme that they elicit condemnations from members of his own party. By rolling back this executive action and ensuring the president cannot have unilateral control over vital energy production and exports, Congress would take a significant step to secure American energy leadership now and for years to come.

Matt Eagan is the Director of Federal Affairs at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Brent Bennett, Ph.D., is the policy director for Life:Powered, an initiative of the Texas Public Policy Foundation to raise America’s energy IQ.

Germany Likely In Recession, Central Bank Partially Blames Green Agenda

Germany appears to be in a technical recession thanks in part to climate policies, according to the country’s central bank.

From The Daily Caller

NICK POPE

CONTRIBUTOR

Germany appears to be in a technical recession thanks in part to climate policies, according to the country’s central bank.

The German economy has struggled since 2022, flashing strong indicators that its economically-crucial manufacturing sector is hollowing out amid a prolonged energy crisis. The Bundesbank, Germany’s central bank, said Monday that while the economy’s sluggishness may meet the technical definition of a recession, the institution does not presently believe that there are credible indications that the German economy is experiencing the deep and prolonged economic decline colloquially associated with a state of recession.

“German economic output contracted in the final quarter of 2023, according to the February Monthly Report. Fourth-quarter real gross domestic product (GDP) fell by a seasonally adjusted 0.3% on the quarter according to the Federal Statistical Office’s flash estimate, after virtually stagnating in the first three quarters of 2023,” the Bundesbank said in a statement. “Bundesbank economists believe that uncertainty about transformation and climate policy is also likely to have weighed on economic activity.” (RELATED: German Farmers Kick Off Massive Protests Against Policy That Could Threaten Their Livelihoods)

Germany’s climate agenda has the country aiming to generate 80% of its electricity from sources like wind and solar by 2050, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

In the third quarter of 2023, the German electricity sector produced 20% less power than it did in the same period in 2022, according to the GMK Center. In terms of demand, Germany’s 2023 energy consumption checked in at about 8% lower than 2022’s levels, and approximately 25% lower than 1990 levels, according to Clean Energy Wire.

The country’s consumer price index for electricity was nearly 50% higher in December 2023 than in January 2021, according to data from Eurostat.

Germany has spent of hundreds of billions of euros to push a broad green energy transition, but the country is on track to miss its climate targets despite that spending. Officials moved to shutter the country’s remaining nuclear power plants in April 2023 amid serious concerns about the long-term energy supply.

The Bundesbank is also projecting that economic output will decline again in the first quarter of this year, according to its statement. The central bank also acknowledged that a growing share of manufacturers — 37% of all such firms as of the end of 2023 — are reporting shortfalls of orders.

The German manufacturing sector has posted either flat growth or contracted for four straight quarters, a dynamic which elevated interest rates have not helped, according to Reuters.

Numerous manufacturers and industrial companies have warned for months that the deteriorating situation in Germany may force them to shift their operations elsewhere, and some have already initiated this process, according to Bloomberg News. A collapse in German manufacturing would be devastating for the country’s economy, once widely considered the powerhouse of Europe, given that the sector has historically provided about 20% of annual GDP, according to Bloomberg News.

Germany’s economic woes appear to be shaking up the political scene, as well. The Alternative for Germany (AfD), the leading right-wing populist party, has seen its popularity more than double since the Ukraine war started and kicked the country’s energy problems into overdrive, according to polling data aggregated by Politico.

The Bundesbank did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Boom in Battery Metals for EVs Is Turning to Bust

Producers of lithium and nickel pause projects after prices collapsed, and momentum slows for electric-vehicle sales.

Producers of lithium and nickel pause projects after prices collapsed, and momentum slows for electric-vehicle sales.

When the world’s most valuable lithium company last year announced plans for a $1.3 billion plant in South Carolina, local officials hailed it as transformative for the Palmetto State.

The high-tech project from Charlotte, N.C.-based Albemarle was designed to process different sources of lithium, including from recycled batteries, and serve as a supplier of the critical mineral for South Carolina’s burgeoning electric-vehicle industry. The WSJ has the story.

Less than a year later, those plans have been hobbled by a crash in battery metal prices, undercut by a slowdown in electric-vehicle sales growth in the U.S. and China. Albemarle has deferred spending on the project, amid companywide cost-cutting that includes layoffs and delays to other investments as well.

Producers of lithium and nickel, which are used in lithium-ion batteries for EVs, have been stalling projects and closing mines to save cash after a painfully quick fall in commodity prices. Prices of lithium are down as much as 90% since the start of last year, while the price of nickel has roughly halved.

Swiss mining and trading giant Glencore last week said production would be suspended at an unprofitable nickel mine and processing plant in New Caledonia, a French island group in the Pacific that provides more than 6% of the world’s supply. It will seek a buyer for its stake in the operation, a decision the company attributed to high operating costs and a weak market.

Days later, BHP Group, the world’s biggest miner by market value, said it may need to shutter its Australian nickel business for an unspecified period, cautioning that it doesn’t anticipate a quick market recovery. BHP has supply deals with Tesla and Ford Motor.

The world is suddenly awash with the metals after producers ramped up new projects to feed the global EV industry when sales of the vehicles have been losing momentum.

Several automakers, including Ford, General Motors and Volvo, are delaying investments and striking a more cautious tone about the outlook for EV consumer demand. British electric-vehicle maker Arrival’s U.K. business filed for bankruptcy this month, citing challenging macroeconomic and market conditions that delayed its products getting to market.

‘The global nickel situation is dire’

​Boom-and-bust cycles are commonplace in metals markets, given demand can be unpredictable and new mines typically take many years to develop.

Some analysts see the scale of the cutbacks to date as subdued, a possible indication that some miners remain sanguine about longer-term demand.

EV adoption is happening, just not as fast as anticipated, and sharply lower metal prices could help automotive companies reignite sales growth by luring buyers with cheaper models and discounts. The mining slowdown risks shortages of the metals if demand quickly heats up, once again leaving carmakers scrambling for supplies.

Most large suppliers in the fledgling lithium industry have favored pausing coming projects over shutting down existing operations, bolstered by cash piles built up in recent years when prices for the commodity were surging.

In the more-established nickel industry, some miners say they have been left with no choice but to close unprofitable mines that are struggling to compete with cheap Indonesian exports. The downturn has wiped out more than a fifth of Australia’s mine supply, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, which says there could be more casualties to come.

Australian officials on Friday designated nickel as a critical mineral, a move that will give companies the opportunity to apply for government grants.

Some Western policymakers fear the current situation will derail recent efforts to diversify critical-mineral supply chains away from China, which refines more than half the world’s lithium and has spearheaded Indonesia’s nickel boom with big investments. Officials also have concerns that global markets will be full of metal from low-cost but high-polluting mines if producers with stricter standards are priced out.

“The global nickel situation is dire and it is, in my view, an extreme threat to national/international security as well as the environment,” U.S. Department of Energy deputy director for batteries and critical materials Ashley Zumwalt-Forbes said in a LinkedIn post.

Read the full story here.

Peer review expert journal accidentally publishes fake AI image with gibberish and giant gonads on a rat

It’s not just that a clever AI image slipped through peer review, it’s that it was garishly fake in a supersize kind of way. Scientifically everything about it was radioactive satire and yet it still got through “peer review”.  The words are gibberish. The editors didn’t even run a spell checker on it before publishing it, let alone the gaze of a single trained biologist in the field.

By Jo Nova

This paper shows exactly how good “Peer Review” is

It’s not just that a clever AI image slipped through peer review, it’s that it was garishly fake in a supersize kind of way. Scientifically everything about it was radioactive satire and yet it still got through “peer review”.  The words are gibberish. The editors didn’t even run a spell checker on it before publishing it, let alone the gaze of a single trained biologist in the field.

The paper has been retracted thanks to the real peer review which happened on social media. This was a case of X (formerly Twitter) saves the day. Where normal peer review can take up to two years (if you are an unpopular skeptic) it was only three days from the X review to retraction.

 The Telegraph sums it up:

A scientific paper purporting to show the signalling pathway of sperm stem cells has met with widespread ridicule after it depicted a rodent with an anatomically eye-watering appendage and four giant testicles.

The creature, labelled “rat”, was also sitting upright in the manner of a squirrel, while the graphic was littered with nonsensical words such as “dissilced”, “testtomcels” and “senctolic”.

FIGURE 1
Spermatogonial stem cells, isolated, purified and cultured from rat testes.

The macrophages have become Macromages. The Natural killer T-Cells have become “nokillas”, but it’s not a name-swap, it’s just complete and utter nonsense — like a  microbiology word soup met a UFO.

The JAK/STAT pathway and immune regulation in spermatogonial stem cells

The researchers even told them the images were faked: “(Images in this article were generated by Midjourney).”

At best, perhaps this is a real paper with junk AI images. There are no obviously imaginary words in the text (unlike the graphics). But it’s still a devastating take on “peer review”. I mean, these images are practically satire… If rushed scientists are using AI to help them write, and AI to get cheap images, and the Peer review journals are just posting anything without even checking, modern science is a zombie.

This is not a one off problem, and the use of AI to create images in peer reviewed science is widespread:

[The Telegraph]  Writing on the Science Integrity Digest, Dr Elisabeth Bik, the Dutch microbiologist who works spotting manipulation in scientific papers, said: “Of course, we can have a good laugh at these figures, and wonder how on earth the handling editor and the two peer reviewers didn’t catch this.

“These figures are clearly not scientifically correct, but if such botched illustrations can pass peer review so easily, more realistic-looking AI-generated figures have likely already infiltrated the scientific literature.”

Dr Bik has identified more than 1,000 papers which have fraudulent imagery, most of which she believes was generated by AI.

Amanda Yeo claims as many six real people supposedly gave it a tick:

It isn’t clear exactly how these diagrams made it all the way to publication without being picked up. The article was edited by a member of Frontiers‘ editorial team as well as reviewed by two other parties, which means at least six people gave it their approval. In a statement to Motherboard, one of the reviewers said that he had only assessed the paper for its scientific aspects, and that it was not his responsibility to check the accuracy of the AI-generated images.

For what it’s worth, Frontiers in Cell and Development Biology (Front Cell Dev Biol) is not a big name in the medical world, but they have apparently published 10,730 papers in the National Library of Medicine.  The umbrella publishing unit called Frontiers –says it is the 3rd most cited publisher.

The retraction message isn’t exactly confidence boosting:

Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the nature of its AI-generated figures. The article does not meet the standards of editorial and scientific rigor for Frontiers in Cell and Development Biology; therefore, the article has been retracted.

This retraction was approved by the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. Frontiers would like to thank the concerned readers who contacted us regarding the published article.

The lead author Xinyu Guo supposedly works at the Department of Spine Surgery, Hong Hui Hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China, and has published some genetic sort of research. Maybe they are real? Hard to say without digging deeper.

REFERENCE

Citation: Guo X, Dong L and Hao D (2024) Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 11:1339390. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2023.1339390

*Title changed in an effort to encourage more on topic comments.

The ‘Energy Trilemma’ And The Cost Of Electricity – OpEd

The unpopular truth, which is undisputed even by top energy economic institutions such as OECD and IEA, is that (a) wind and solar at grid scale are always more expensive than coal and gas, even nuclear, and (b) the total costs to an economy rises exponentially with higher wind and solar share in the power system. The result is that the proposed “energy transition” would cost over 7 – 10% of the global GDP, amounting to trillions of dollars, and as per IPCC data would supersedes the cost of a warming climate. 

From Watts Up With That?

Eurasia Review

By Dr. Lars Schernikau

Why “Renewables” cannot save but cost Billions

Over the last 150 years, abundant electricity from coal and gas led to an unprecedented reduction in poverty, as well as an increase in longevity and health. Currently, these low cost, reliable power sources generate approximately 60% of electricity and 50% of primary energy worldwide. Primarily due to climate change concerns, coal and gas fuels are now slowly replaced by ‘renewables’, such as wind and solar based energy. But this comes with a cost. 

Bloomberg issued their latest global Levelized Cost of Electricity (1) (LCOE) analysis in 2023, comparing the historical LCOE of various ‘renewables’ with the cost of coal, gas, and nuclear, drawing a misleading conclusion of wind and solar being most cost-effective (Figure 1). LCOE based reports and analyses also by other organizations such as IEA, IRENA, IEEFA, IMF, Agora, form the basis for many governments to mistakenly conclude that the transition from a coal and gas based power system to wind and solar will save billions, if not trillions at global scale.

Political decision makers know the three pillars of a successful energy policy (a) reliability, (b) affordability, and (c) environmental sustainability. But when taking a closer look, it becomes apparent that, power ministries are struggling to find a balance within this ‘Energy Trilemma’ and moreover, that the three pillars follow a specific priority:

As a prime concern, access to reliable energy is needed, before considering the affordability thereof. Once the balance between reliable and affordable energy is achieved, only then environmental sustainability can be tackled in a meaningful way.

Claiming “renewable” energy from wind and solar is cheap and comes without environmental consequences, is a crucial and detrimental energy economic misunderstanding.

The unpopular truth, which is undisputed even by top energy economic institutions such as OECD and IEA, is that (a) wind and solar at grid scale are always more expensive than coal and gas, even nuclear, and (b) the total costs to an economy rises exponentially with higher wind and solar share in the power system. The result is that the proposed “energy transition” would cost over 7 – 10% of the global GDP, amounting to trillions of dollars, and as per IPCC data would supersedes the cost of a warming climate. 

Note: CCS = Carbon Capture & Storage, PV = Photovoltaic
 Figure 1: Bloomberg LCOE analysis (source Bloomberg New Energy Finance BNEF)

Why is it wrong to use LCOE when evaluating the cost of power to a country?

LCOE, levelized cost of electricity, is s a “micro economic” instead of total system view, excluding seven cost categories (listed below), and therefore, will never be an accurate indicator for governments to base energy policy decision on. 

LCOE is misleading because it does not consider nor account for intermittency, low natural capacity factors, correlating wind and solar ‘availability’ across continents, and the locational disparity of demand and supply.

Obvious costs omitted from LCOE: 

  1. Backup or long duration energy storage (LDES): Wind and solar require at least 100% backup or storage for every installed MW. (2)
  2. Network integration, including costs for transmission, distribution, balancing, and conditioning.

Not so obvious costs omitted from LCOE at grid scale include:

  1. Efficiency losses – more wind and solar means less asset utilization (3) of backup or grid systems.
  2. ‘Room’ costs Space requirements? driven by low energy density (per m²) of wind and solar. There is an economic and environmental cost to “utilizing” thousands of km² to capture the diffuse energy from the sun and wind.
  3. Recycling costs, driven by low energy density (per kg) and short lifetime of wind and solar.
  4. Environmental costs – i.e. damage to plant and animal life, negative effects on climate systems, including from warming, wind extraction, and atmospheric changes.
  5. Raw material and net energy inefficiency (eROI) – of production, processing, transportation, upgrading, manufacturing, and recycling of the entire system, including its environmental impacts.

Only an estimate of the Full Cost of Electricity FCOE will include all costs and should be used (Figure 2) to evaluate the total cost to a country or system.

What is the impact on humanity, when grid scale wind and solar technologies increase energy costs and reduce energy reliability? The Economist estimated that, in the UK during the winter of 2022/23 alone, high energy prices resulted in over 65.000 excess deaths, more than those caused by Covid19. High energy costs cause increased suffering for the poor and slow industrial development not only in developing nations.

Not every solar panel or windmill is undesirable, there are applications and locations where they make sense. However, logically, if wind and solar are a substandard grid-scale power solution, so is hydrogen, produced from wind and solar. Remember, H2 for storage “loses” 65-80% of input energy for production, storage, transportation, and repowering. Hydrogen is hazardous to store and transport, highly explosive and so “thin” that it penetrates and embrittles steel. When leaked it’s “warming impact” would be 12 times that of CO2.

In conclusion, we can agree that we must endeavour to reduce the environmental externalities of all our energy systems. However, the ‘transition’ to wind, solar and hydrogen leads to an increase in the cost of energy and reduction in reliability, as well as serious impacts on ecosystems which is counterproductive and results in undesired consequences for humanity.

Poverty, peace, health, education, and the environment should have our highest attention and are short of funds. We should divert investment from wind, solar and hydrogen and/or batteries to where the money will make a genuine positive impact to our environment and economies. For a truly long-term sustainable, 

energy dense future, in addition to more R&D and fission/fusion, we should invest in building/upgrading to newest high efficiency thermal power plants and installing up-to-date filter systems, globally.

We urgently need investments in power plants, fuels, and refineries to avoid a prolonged global energy crisis with all its consequences to lives, health, and wealth, especially for the impoverished. 

The first precursors to this energy crisis appeared in 2021 prior to the Ukraine war.

For a more in-depth explanation on these issues touched upon in this article, please refer to our recent book. “The Unpopular Truth… about Electricity and the Future of Energy”, at Amazon and www.unpopular-truth.com.

A selected list of references supporting that LCOE cannot be used to compare wind and solar with dispatchable thermal power generation at grid scale can be found here https://unpopular-truth.com/lcoe-links-htm/ .

Notes:

  1.  LCOE measures only the cost of building, operating, and providing fuel (usually inc CO2 taxation) for generating electricity. It does not include other costs, such as but not limited to network integration, backup/storage, recycling, etc. See Figure 2
  2.  I say at least because of energy losses of backup/storage systems, and short and long-duration energy storage maybe two systems.
  3.  Asset utilization can be explained with a car. Compare the total cost of a car such as purchase, maintenance, insurance, and fuel per km when you (a) drive it once every week for 5 min vs. (b) when you drive it every day for 2 hours straight without interruption.

Climatists Mistake Means for Ends

As of 2024, data on natural changes in temperature, rainfall, and sea level
do not show any statistically significant difference to historical records.

From Science Matters (rclutz.com)

By Ron Clutz

Roy Gilbert exposes the fundamental mistaken thinking regarded global warming/climate change.  His Spectator Australia article is Conceptual Error in Climate Change Analysis.  H/T John Ray  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

It is often said that the ‘science is in on climate change’. Is it? We should always adhere to the principle of the ‘working hypothesis’ and have an open mind on scientific questions no matter how well-recognised the researchers are. In the study of science, there is always the chance new information can come along to cause a rethink.

A common error in problem-solving and policy development is to confuse
a technical strategy for a desired client outcome.

Our Climate Change Minister could be accused of this. Reducing emissions is a ‘strategy’, not the fundamental desired client outcome. With the mission ‘to reduce carbon emissions’ by increasing renewable energy, the way to assess performance is to concentrate on measuring emission reduction, and then to follow this up with how quickly the renewables are built and their cost (wind farms, solar panels, transmission lines).

Instead of the current strategy-driven mission, a fundamental client outcome statement would be: ‘To protect against, and where possible, prevent damage from extreme off-trend fluctuations in climate.’ How would you go about managing your program using this mission statement?

First, you gather accurate temperature, rainfall, and weather measurements. They are the valid and fundamental ‘outcome’ measures – not data on CO2 emissions. If there is an undeniable and dangerous increase in temperature and rainfall, more cyclones, and a clear and unabated rise in sea level, then the possible cause must be thoroughly identified. Depending on the answer, you would adopt appropriate mitigation strategies, or strategies that adapt to weather patterns and temperature levels.

Another principle of problem-solving is to map out the total picture and not be driven by ideology. The Climate Change Minister should consider possible causes other than human-induced emissions. It was announced in April 2023 that coronal cones 20 times larger than Earth have been discovered and may cause a massive outburst of energy from the sun. What could be the implications for our planet? Ask solar physicists.

Chief scientist in applied helio-physics at John Hopkins, Ian Cohen, has suggested that solar storms could take out satellites, cut power and shut down the internet. In 1972 a solar storm caused 4,000 magnetically sensitive mines in water off Vietnam to detonate. Earth is said to be entering a period of peak activity as part of an eleven-year cycle. It is suggested this potentially could be more violent than the solar cycles of the past three decades. Now that would be something for climate scientists to really worry about…

With respect to the world’s temperature, there are several sources that claim to present the precise figure. One says the 2023 average global temperature was 1.45c above the 1950-90 average. Another says since 1880, Earth’s temperature has increased by 0.08c. Another says during the last 50 years the increase is 0.13c. To the unscientific mind, these temperatures do not appear to be verging on catastrophic boiling us all to death.

As of 2024, data on natural changes in temperature, rainfall, and sea level
do not show any statistically significant difference to historical records.

There are respected scientists who question the current climate orthodoxy. Physicist Prof. William Happer of Princeton University and Prof. Richard Lindzen, Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT have argued science demonstrates there is no climate-related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2, and that 600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradicts the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming. They state reliable scientific theories come from validating theoretical predictions with observations, not consensus, peer review, government opinion, or manipulated data.

In July 2023, the International Monetary Fund cancelled a planned talk on climate change by 2022 Nobel physicist John Clauser when they learned he had stated publicly: ‘I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis, and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events. The IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous disinformation.’  Clauser pointed out that the US Environmental Protection Authority has charts that show a heatwave Index going back to 1895, showing heatwaves were more common before the 1960s and especially in the 1930s.

In addition to these physicists, there are eminent Australian geologists who challenge the CO2 cause theory. Emeritus Prof. Ian Pilmer of the University of Melbourne, and Prof. Michael Asten of Monash University, have argued that throughout the history of the planet, there have been long periods of major change in climate due to natural forces. This would indicate recent human-based emissions may not be the important factor that we have been led to believe.

With respect to measuring emissions (nitrous oxide and methane), there is an expectation that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would have collected accurate data. Then one reads an independent 2023 report of these greenhouse gas emissions from farm dams in Australia’s irrigation regions, that the measurements had been massively over-estimated by the IPCC by 4 to 5 per cent.

To add further confusion to the issue, a 2023 research paper submitted to the European Physical Journal Plus claimed climate science has become ‘highly politicised’. Italian scientists analysed long-term data on heat, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and ecosystem productivity, and found no clear trend of extreme events. The statements by these scientists would appear worthy of examination. Unfortunately, comments to the publisher by other climate scientists caused the withdrawal of the article.

If activists are correct, and if temperatures and rainfall start to show a significant increase without any influence from natural factors such as the sun or outer atmospheric disturbances, the second ‘outcome’ mission opens your mind to several strategies that could be compared against each other on cost and effectiveness – renewables, outer space satellites capturing solar energy and transmitting to Earth, small nuclear, carbon capture, examine possibility of amalgamating carbon and turning it into a useful product, lower emission coal-fired power stations, hydro, hydrogen fuel cells, a scientific search for a predator for carbon other than trees (or the planting of more trees), and so on.

A valid client ‘outcome’ statement encourages you not to jump to a conclusion
in the initial stages of critical thinking about the cause of any global warming.

If you make a mistake at that point, there are significant productivity implications. Governments could waste a significant amount of money (a catastrophic amount) on a less than optimum strategy. Rather than relying almost entirely on climate scientists who concentrate on carbon emissions, a politician with a mind focused on validity could bring together an inter-disciplinary team – climate scientists, nuclear physicists, solar physicists, atmospheric physicists, examine the moon’s behaviour, plant technologists, oceanographers, geologists, volcanologists, botanists, bushfire specialists and so on. Has any national government followed this approach? Has any Minister for Energy, in any country, expanded their vision beyond their own narrow ideology is a potential danger to their country…?

There are very obvious reasons why some politicians and many rich investors in renewable energy would oppose a serious questioning of the renewable strategy and switching to nuclear instead. If small nuclear was introduced – as is being done in many countries – it would make current renewable energy strategies redundant. That would mean all the billions of dollars spent on wind and solar would have been a waste of money. We wouldn’t need them. Admitting that would be far too embarrassing for any ideological politician and far too financially damaging to any rich wind farm investor obtaining government grants.

If the Sun is found to be the fundamental cause of the problem (variations in energy output, massive infrequent solar flares, and/or variations in distance between Earth and Sun), or if there is a slight tilting of the Earth on its axis, or the Moon changes position, or even disturbance further out in our solar system, you would evaluate adaptation strategies.

It seemed reasonable for some people to assume the vast flooding in 2022 could be attributed to human-induced climate change. There is however, a different possibility … nature. Environment analyst Graham Lloyd explained.

‘The meteorological processes at play are well understood. Three consecutive La Nina weather patterns have left the eastern seaboard soaked and prone to flooding. Triple La Ninas have happened four times in the Bureau of Meteorology’s 120-year record … The Southern Annular Mode is a climate driver that can influence rainfall and temperature. Although wet, the latest BoM figures show that 2022 was the ninth wettest year on record (not the wettest).’

When the above material, stressing the need to examine the total picture in any critical thinking, was shown to a high school Principal, to a high school science teacher and to an environmental engineer, they were all surprised and quite critical that one would want to show this to students. Annoyed actually. One was emphatic…

‘Why waste the students’ time having them look at irrelevant issues?
We KNOW what the problem is. It is CO2 emissions.
And we KNOW what the solution is. It is 100 per cent renewables.’

My answer to them was:

‘The difference between you and me, is that you want to tell the students WHAT to think. I want to teach them HOW to think. I want them to understand insightful thinking. Not to be indoctrinated’.  You can be the judge as to who is on the right track.

The Coming Collapse Of El Nino and The Ramifications on The Atlantic Basin Tropical Season

Above-normal sea surface temperatures continue this month across most of the equatorial part of the Pacific Ocean, but there are signs that this El Nino episode which began about a year ago will flip to La Nina conditions (colder-than-normal) by the early part of the 2024 summer season.

Paul Dorian

This forecast map by the North American Multi-Model Ensemble (NMME) of sea surface temperature anomalies for the August/September/October 3-month time period features colder-than-normal conditions (La Nina) across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Map courtesy NOAA

Overview

Above-normal sea surface temperatures continue this month across most of the equatorial part of the Pacific Ocean, but there are signs that this El Nino episode which began about a year ago will flip to La Nina conditions (colder-than-normal) by the early part of the 2024 summer season. A flip from El Nino to La Nino across the equatorial Pacific Ocean can have big implications on the upcoming 2024 Atlantic Basin tropical season. In fact, this expected dramatic change in sea surface temperatures across the Pacific Ocean may be a major contributor to a very active tropical season in the Atlantic Basin as atmospheric conditions are typically more favorable (lower wind shear) during La Nina episodes for the development and intensification of tropical storms. A second favorable factor for a very active tropical season in the Atlantic Basin is the likely continuation there of widespread warmer-than-normal sea surface temperatures. Finally, as oceanic cycles play a critical role in global temperatures, a flip from El Nino to La Nina in the world’s largest ocean could mean a return to closer-to-normal levels following a spike during the past year or so. 

The Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), which combines both oceanic and atmospheric variables, facilitates in a single index an assessment of ENSO. It especially gives real-time indications of ENSO intensity, and through historical analysis – provides a context for meaningful comparative study of evolving conditions. The MEI is said to capture a more holistic representation of the atmospheric and oceanic anomalies that occur during ENSO events than do single-variables timeseries like the “NinoSST” indices. Plot courtesy NOAA/PSL

Details

A transition from El Nino to ENSO-neutral is likely by spring 2024 and odds are increasing for a full-blown La Nina by the time we get to the early summer which coincides with the beginning of the Atlantic Basin (includes Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico) tropical season. This El Nino event began about a year ago following back-to-back-to-back years in which La Nina dominated the scene in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. For the past several years, most El Nino events have been rather short-lived lasting on average about 12-18 months whereas La Nina occurrences have usually lasted for a considerably longer periods of time.

Sub-surface temperatures: depth-longitude section of equatorial Pacific upper-ocean (0-300m) temperature anomalies (°C) centered on 28 January 2024. Colder-than-normal water is lurking just beneath the surface across much of the tropical Pacific and increases the chance for a return to La Nina. Map courtesy NOAA/CPC, International Research Institute

While sea surface temperatures are currently at above-normal levels in the tropical Pacific Ocean, there are changes lurking just beneath the surface…literally. Water temperatures in the 100 meters or so beneath the surface have averaged near normal in recent weeks, but below-average temperatures were widespread at greater depths. Also, in recent weeks, low-level winds were near average over the equatorial Pacific while upper-level wind anomalies were generally easterly over the east-central Pacific. Convection (i.e., thunderstorm activity) remained slightly enhanced in the central Pacific and close to average in areas to the west of there. Collectively, the coupled ocean-atmosphere system reflects an El Nino in an overall weakening phase.

Forecasts of sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies for the “Nino 3.4” region (5 °N-5°S, 120°W-170°W) by a collection of computer forecast models. Courtesy NOAA, ECMWF, Canadian Met Centre, International Research Institute (IRI)

In addition to oceanic and atmospheric observational reasons to support the idea of a change in the near-term, numerous computer forecast models indicate a transition to “ENSO-neutral” during the spring 2024 and then to La Nina during summer 2024. Specifically, temperatures in the “El Nino 3.4” region (central part of the equatorial Pacific Ocean) are predicted to drop in most computer forecast models from the current 1.5-2.0°C higher-than-normal levels to near neutral during the spring season, and then down to 1.0 °C or so below-normal by the early part of the summer season.

Sea surface temperature anomalies centered for the week centered on 31 January 2024 reflect El Nino conditions with warmer-than-normal water in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. This is likely to change dramatically in coming weeks so that La Nina conditions (colder-than-normal) will dominate the scene by the summer (tropical) season in the Atlantic Basin. Map courtesy NOAA/CPC, International Research Institute

In terms of impact on weather, El Nino has indeed contributed to a stormy winter season across California with numerous powerful ocean storms moving from the Pacific Ocean into the western part of the US and this unsettled pattern is likely to continue at least for the next few weeks. This enhanced storm activity in California is rather typical of an El Nino winter season with plenty of rain in low-lying sections and snow in the higher elevations. (By the way, what was not typical was the La Nina winter season of 2022-2023 in which California was pounded by numerous storms resulting in high rainfall amounts in low-lying sections and record snowfall in the higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada Mountains).

The El Nino region of the Pacific Ocean is sub-divided by meteorologists into sub-sections as outlined on this map with “Nino 3.4” in the central part of the equatorial Pacific Ocean and “Nino 1+2” positioned near the west coast of South America.

In terms of an impact on the upcoming 2024 Atlantic Basin tropical season, La Nina conditions in the Pacific Ocean can be a critical contributing factor to what I fear could be a very active year in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico. In general, La Nina summer seasons feature lower wind shear levels across the breeding grounds of the Atlantic Ocean and this reduction is more favorable for the development and intensification of tropical storms (shear defined as change of wind speed and direction with height).

The likelihood of La Nina conditions this summer (tropical) season in the equatorial Pacific Ocean is a “red flag” for enhanced tropical activity in the Atlantic Basin. A second favorable factor for a very active season is the likelihood for continued warmer-than-normal sea surface temperatures in the breeding grounds of the tropical Atlantic. Map courtesy NOAA, tropicaltidbits.com

In addition to the favorable aspect for tropical activity helped along by La Nina conditions in the Pacific, the breeding grounds of the tropical Atlantic Ocean are currently featuring much warmer-than-normal sea surface temperatures and this pattern is likely to continue right into the summer (tropical) season. Warmer-than-normal sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic Basin is favorable for tropical storm development and intensification. One final note on the potential impact of La Nina, oceanic cycles are critical in terms of global temperature patterns; especially, when dealing with the world’s largest (Pacific) ocean. There has been a spike in global temperatures since the formation of this latest El Nino about a year ago and, if indeed, La Nina forms and is sustained – as is likely – then global temperatures are likely to return to much closer-to-normal levels.

Meteorologist Paul Dorian
Arcfield
arcfieldweather.com

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube