Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
USA Today published a supposed fact check claiming solar activity is not responsible for climate change. This is misleading at best, and foolishly wrong at worst. Various types of changes in solar activity have long been associated with changes in the Earth’s temperature and climate, on short, mid-term, and longer time scales.
USA Today published a supposed fact check claiming solar activity is not responsible for climate change. This is misleading at best, and foolishly wrong at worst. Various types of changes in solar activity have long been associated with changes in the Earth’s temperature and climate, on short, mid-term, and longer time scales.
The USA Today article by Kate S. Petersen, “The sun is mighty, but modern climate change is caused by human activity | Fact check,” presents itself as a fact check on a popular Facebook post. Wow! Responding to somebody’s certainly Facebook post is taking on hard hitting news from a reliable source! Still, when one examines the post, and compares it to the supposed fact check, the Facebook post is closer to the truth than Petersen’s and USA Today’s story.
“The implied claim is wrong,” Petersen writes. “While the sun significantly impacts Earth’s climate, it is not responsible for modern climate change.
“While the amount of solar energy striking the Earth fluctuates on an 11-year cycle, there hasn’t been a net increase since the 1950s, according to NASA,” Petersen continues. “However, global surface temperatures have risen dramatically.”
Petersen either is unaware of or simply ignored the fact that the 11-year solar cycles during which Sol’s magnetic fields flip are just one type of solar cycle that can drive temperature and climate changes on the earth. Sunspots and solar flares happen seemingly randomly though with some consistency, and 1,000 and 1,500 year cycles, and Milankovitch cycles also occur. All of these activities and others impact the Earth’s temperatures. As discussed at Climate at a Glance: The Sun’s Impact on Climate Change, historically through the present day, solar activity correlates quite well with climate change, better than changes in CO2. (see figures 1-3, below)
Figure 1. Changes in the Sun’s energy output since 1900. The Sun’s energy output has increased since the 1600’s with its most recent increase occurring during the 20th century. Source: J. Lean, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 27, No. 16 (2000).
Figure 2: Temperature history according to the United Nations IPCC First Assessment Report. The top graph shows temperatures during the past 1 million years. The middle graph shows temperatures during the past 12,000 years. The bottom graph shows temperatures during the past 1,000 years. Present temperatures are at the far right. Source: IPCC First Assessment Report, United Nations, p. 202.
Figure 3. Temperature changes vs. changes in the Sun’s energy output and changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The graph on the left shows 20th century temperature changes in blue vs. changes in the Sun’s energy output in red. The graph on the right shows 20th century changes in blue vs. changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions in red. W. Soon, et al., “Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 93, 45-56.
All the myriad ways solar activity impacts the Earth are not fully understood. Changes in solar output and their impact on solar winds are plausible explanations for temperature shifts on some time scales. Scientific research also suggests another type of forcing from the sun, its impact on volume of cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere, which also impacts cloud formation and rainfall.
The point is, when Petersen and the government agencies she references state that the sun can’t be a factor in current climate change, they are only looking at one type of solar activity on a single time scale. Our solar system isn’t that simple.
To buttress her claim that the sun isn’t causing or significantly contributing to present climate change Petersen quotes Josh Willis, a NASA climate scientist, who told USA Today that “the amount of warming we see matches what we expect based on the increased CO2 we’ve added. The timing of the warming matches the timing of the CO2 increase caused by people.”
Willis’s claim doesn’t match the facts. The Earth began to warm in the mid- to late 19th century, before humans began emitting large significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, then after the 1940s, even as global industrialization and anthropogenic CO2 emissions were increasing at a rapid pace, the earth began cooling, leading some scientists and media outlets by the 1970s to warn that an ice age might be coming. Then, the Earth started warming in the 1980s, only to plateau or pause for 15 years beginning in the late 1990s, despite CO2’s steady increase. There has, in fact, been no good correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature changes throughout the latter 20th and early 21st centuries.
Also, as we’ve discussed dozens of times at Climate Realism, CO2 driven temperature changes projected by climate models don’t, in fact, accurately reflect recent warming trends. Ground-level temperature measurements, weather balloon temperature measurements, and satellite temperature measurements are far lower than model projections built on the assumption that CO2 is the prime forcing factor for global warming. As a result, Willis is simply wrong when he says, “the amount of warming we see matches what we expect based on the increased CO2 we’ve added.”
The physics and factors that drive the Earth’s climate conditions are many, varied, and complex. The Earth is not the simple linear system described in climate models and presented by Petersen and USA Today. Carbon dioxide is likely one factor influencing the recent modest warming, but the sun and numerous other factors are almost certainly having an impact as well—arguably playing role greater than the increase in greenhouse gases.
A slowdown in the growth of electric vehicle (EV) demand has led to entire mines being shut down as the supply of rare earth minerals essential for EV components exceeds demand, according to The Wall Street Journal.
A slowdown in the growth of electric vehicle (EV) demand has led to entire mines being shut down as the supply of rare earth minerals essential for EV components exceeds demand, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Mines around the world are ceasing operations or halting construction projects in response to the falling demand, such as a $1.3 billion plant in North Carolina operated by Albemarle. which announced that it was deferring spending on the project amid the market turmoil, according to the WSJ The total market share of EVs rose from 3.1% in January 2023 to 3.6% in December 2023, while the share of U.S. vehicle inventory grew from 2.8% to 5.7% in that same time frame as demand fails to keep up with supply. (RELATED: California EV Sales Decline For First Time In A Decade As State Continues Green Push)
Over the last few years, global mineral producers have ramped up mining operations in an attempt to capitalize on the emerging EV market, but consumers have declined to adopt EVs at the rate producers were expecting, leading to rare minerals flooding the market and driving down prices, according to the WSJ. The market for metals is often subject to boom-and-bust cycles due to unpredictable demand and the slow speed at which mines can be brought into operation.
The price of lithium is down around 90% since the beginning of last year, and the price of nickel has been cut in half in that same time frame, according to the WSJ. A mine on the French Pacific island of New Caledonia recently suspended operations, despite providing more than 6% of the world’s nickel supply.
A scramble to secure strategic minerals such as copper, cobalt, lithium, and nickel could increase price pressures and raise the cost of the climate transition, IMF economists write in the latest issue of F&D. https://t.co/X72oppqbAepic.twitter.com/hoqLoenEdb
The decline in mineral demand is particularly dire to the Australian mining industry and economy in general, with the country’s government recently designating nickel as a critical mineral to give corporations access to government grants in order to provide some stimulus to struggling companies, according to the WSJ. The collapse of mineral prices has led to a loss of more than one-fifth of Australia’s mine supply.
China controls around 87% of the world’s rare earth mineral refining capacity, leading the U.S. to attempt to subsidize projects outside of China to secure access to the resources. The Biden administration has included provisions in EV tax credits that require a certain percentage of minerals not to be from a foreign entity of concern like China to be eligible.
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.
We are constantly bombarded by news about “species” – Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Vanishing Species, Loss of Species such as “Researchers estimate that the current rate of species loss varies between 100 and 10,000 times the background extinction rate”
Note by Kip Hansen — 22 February 2024 — 1600 words/8 minutes
We are constantly bombarded by news about “species” – Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Vanishing Species, Loss of Species such as “Researchers estimate that the current rate of species loss varies between 100 and 10,000 times the background extinction rate” [ source: Britannica Feb 15, 2024 ]. Let me clarify that: Britannica says that the Earth is losing species at a rate of 100 to 50,000 species per year.
How can such an impossibly wide range even be considered an “estimate”? Easy! There is no agreed upon scientific definition of what a species is – so there can be no count either of existing species nor of species loss or extinction, in the present or in the past.
There are ‘equally good’ estimates of the number of existing species: 8.7 million. “That is a new, estimated total number of species on Earth—the most precise calculation ever offered—with 6.5 million species found on land and 2.2 million dwelling in the ocean depths.” [ source ]
or
“As of 2021, we have identified and describedapproximately 2.13 million species.“ “Estimates suggest that around 20% of described species may be undiscovered synonyms [the same species under a different name]. Adjusting for this, the actual number of described species might be closer to 1.7 million.” Taking into account estimates of undiscovered or undescribed species: “The true number of species remains elusive. Estimates vary widely: 5 to 10 million eukaryotes (excluding viruses and bacteria). Numbers exceeding 100 million or as low as 3 million.” [ source ]
So, here’s the summary of exert knowledge:
Number of Species
8.7 million or maybe 2.13 million or maybe 1.7 million or maybe 100 million or maybe 3 million.
Of which we are reportedly losing between 100 to 50,000 per year.
He touches on the number-of-species issue giving: “So far, researchers have named about 2.3 million species, but there are millions — perhaps even billions — left to be discovered.” So, to the above summary we might have to add “or maybe billions.”
Zimmer goes on to explain:
“As if this quest isn’t hard enough, biologists cannot agree on what a species is. A 2021 survey found that practicing biologists used 16 different approaches to categorizing species. Any two of the scientists picked at random were overwhelmingly likely to use different ones.
“Everyone uses the term, but no one knows what it is,” said Michal Grabowski, a biologist at the University of Lodz in Poland.
The debate over species is more than an academic pastime. In the current extinction crisis, scientists urgently need to take stock of the world’s biological diversity.” [ NY Times as above ]
Zimmer is not kidding about the 16 major categories of opinions that biologists hold about the definition of what constitutes a species. In Current Biology, Sean Stankowski and Mark Ravinet, wrote “Quantifying the use of species concepts” in which they describe the “species problem” this way:
“Dozens of species concepts are currently recognized, but we lack a concrete understanding of how much researchers actually disagree and the factors that cause them to think differently. To address this, we used a survey to quantify the species problem for the first time. The results indicate that the disagreement is extensive: two randomly chosen respondents will most likely disagree on the nature of species.”
Here is their chart (see the .pdf file for a better look):
Why do we even think about “what is a species?” As we started out, the world is agog about species, loss of, discovery of, rediscovery of and extinction of.
Governments, national and international, have been passing laws and signing treaties dealing with the protection of species deemed threatened by or endangered by extinction. These treaties and laws require governments to protect and save these species.
How can we determine what to save if we don’t even know what we are talking about?
In the United States, we have the famous (or infamous, opinions vary) Endangered Species Act (ESA). It is available, in all its glory, in a .pdf file available here. Hey, there’s a law and any lawyer (even a poor one) will tell you that laws are required to have clear-cut definitions of terms used in that law – least they be deemed “ambiguous” and in danger of being invalidated by the courts.
So, surely, the ESA defines species, right? Let’s see…. Section 3. Definitions— that should have it. Here are the pertinent points of Section 3:
(16) The term “species” includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.
(6) The term “endangered species” means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man.
(20) The term “threatened species” means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Wait a minute! Surely there is a definition of “species” other than the fact that it is meant include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” We get a fine definition of “a subspecies or a distinct population” but not the primary definition of a species.
Does it matter? Don’t all those taxonomists and biologists agree, at least generally, that a species is a population “which interbreeds when mature.”
Nope again, that is just the high-school version (ask any A-non-I chat) of what it a species is. And, in the eyes of biologists, it only includes two of the 16 major divisions of species concepts according to Stankowski and Ravinet :
Biological Species Concept I (BSCI) (Mayr 1942, 1995) Species are a group of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups
Biological Species Concept II (BSCII) (Coyne & Orr 2004) Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are substantially but not necessarily completely reproductively isolated from other such groups
Note that it does not include the basic Darwinian definition, which is:
Darwinian Species Concept (DSC) (Jolly 2014) A species is an evolutionary lineage, or lineage segment, that is phenotypically distinguishable from all other such units and is usefully distinguished in scientific discourse.
There are 13 others, found in Stankowski’s Supplemental Materials, for those wishing to disappear down the species rabbit hole.
I suggest reading Carl Zimmer’s piece in the NY Times (this link should be good even if you don’t subscribe to the Times) to see what all the fuss is about. The Mass Extinction types are worried about what will happen if they spend their time trying to figure out what a species really is:
“Thomas Wells, a botanist at the University of Oxford, is concerned that debates about the nature of species are slowing down the work of discovering new ones. Taxonomy is traditionally a slow process, especially for plants. It can take decades for a new species of plant to be formally named in a scientific publication after it is first discovered. That sluggish pace is unacceptable, he said, when three out of four undescribed species of plants are already threatened with extinction.” [ from NY Times – Zimmer ]
How Wells can know, absent a solid working definition of “species” how many of the millions, or perhaps billions, of not-yet discovered and not-yet described “somethings we might decide to call species” are “already threatened with extinction” is a mystery to me. I might even call that opinion unscientific.
Accounts of the misuse of the U.S.’s ESA are widely known – like protecting the Red Wolf which is a hybrid of the Gray Wolf and Coyote as a “species” by breeding captured animals that appeared to be Red Wolves to supplement the existing but shrinking population, rejecting those with too much wolf or too much coyote genes. This has been going on for 50 years. More importantly, the ESA is widely used by radical environmental groups to block development projects (like pipelines) to which they object for other unrelated reasons (see the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse). Readers can supply local examples.
Bottom Lines:
1. The “Species Problem” is still going strong and is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.
2. That means that there will be those who take advantage of the ambiguity of species definitions to use the Endangered Species Act – ESA – (in the U.S.) and its international counterparts to forward other agendas.
3. The U.S. ESA is intentionally so broad that it could be conceivably be stretched to demanding protection of anthropogenically created sub-populations of rare animals and plants.
4. We need pragmatic reform of the U.S. ESA and re-evaluation of international treaties concerning endangered animals and plants.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
We have had good coverage here at WUWT of the species problem and the so-called 6th Mass Extinction event from several authors including the Willis and Jim Steele.
The Endangered Species Act is a well-meaning but poorly written and perversely implemented piece of legislation and is desperate for reform. It lacks any boundaries for biological significance and pragmatic application.
Specious means: “superficially plausible, but actually wrong.”
Feeling the heat from farmers dumping manure in front of government buildings across the Continent, European Commission President Ursela von der Leyen is pumping the brakes on a pillar of the European Union’s Net-Zero climate policy and withdrawing an EU-wide bill that would force farmers to reduce the use of chemical pesticides by 50% by 2030.
Feeling the heat from farmers dumping manure in front of government buildings across the Continent, European Commission President Ursela von der Leyen is pumping the brakes on a pillar of the European Union’s Net-Zero climate policy and withdrawing an EU-wide bill that would force farmers to reduce the use of chemical pesticides by 50% by 2030.
With elections to the European Parliament in Brussels set for later this year, backing away from one of Net-Zero’s most radical measures is an act of political realism. Europe is being rocked by soaring energy and food prices, much of it brought on by the political class’s obsession with lowering greenhouse gas emissions from all sources, including agriculture. With peasants running amok, the “climate crisis” will just have to wait.
Blissfully oblivious to what’s happening across the pond, the Biden administration is doubling down on its own version of Net-Zero emissions, and the American public may be in for some nasty surprises. And a new report by the Columbus, Ohio-based Buckeye Institute shows just how nasty those surprises will be. The report, “Net-Zero Climate-Control Policies Will Fail the Farm,” was authored by Trevor W. Lewis and M. Ankith Reddy.
The problems start with provisions in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and Biden administration regulations favoring EVs over traditionally-powered vehicles in the agricultural sector, the report says.
Forced Transition to EVs
“First, EVs are significantly less reliable and more expensive to purchase, repair, power, and maintain than combustion engine vehicles, making them impractical and ill-suited to working farms. Farm equipment must be durable and capable of operating in all weather conditions,” the Buckeye report points out. “Tractors and farm equipment must operate in offroad environments on poorly paved roads under constant risk of collisions that can permanently damage an electric vehicle’s sensitive parts, rendering it useless.”
“EV batteries drain faster in extreme cold and heat, and EVs lose range in the rain due to lower resistance between the car and the road and power diversion to the windshield wipers and headlights…Replacing an electric vehicle battery typically costs from $5,000 – $15,000, and general EV repairs require more labor and cost 25% more than standard vehicles,” the report adds.
“These reliability and financial concerns make EVs unattractive as farm equipment and make running a successful farm more expensive, but Biden administration rules will all but force farmers to buy or subsidize them anyway,” Lewis and Reddy note.
Reliance on Intermittent Energy
“Second, a nationwide transition to electric energy depends entirely on intermittent, unreliable zero-emission sources of electric power, namely wind and solar. Wind and solar do not produce power consistently throughout the day, and the variation in renewable power makes it harder for operators to schedule power demand, which makes energy prices volatile and ultimately more expensive,” the report says.
Easing the strains intermittent power puts on an already shaky electric grid requires bringing more natural gas power plants online, lest the country face more blackouts and brownouts. But in July 2023, the report notes, the White House Council on Environmental Quality increased the bureaucratic red tape on the approval of new natural gas projects.
“The Biden administration’s efforts to force farmers to adopt electric equipment ill-suited to farming and to replace natural gas generators with unreliable renewable energy sources is a recipe for unsustainable farming. Unfortunately, Washington’s central planners seem oblivious to that stubborn fact and remain committed to making Europe’s mistakes,” Buckeye points out.
Tracking Emissions from Farm to Table
American farmers also find themselves in the bull’s eye of ESG (environmental social, and governance) reporting requirements proposed by the Biden White House. In March 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a mandatory ESG disclosure rule that would apply to every publicly traded company. “The rule would mandate costly ESG emissions reporting for a firm’s entire supply chain, requiring large publicly traded food processing companies, grocery stores, and restaurant groups to track and report emissions from farm to table,” the report explains. “Large companies looking to reduce their overall emissions would stop purchasing food from farms with high emission rates, once again applying financial costs and pressures to the American farmer.”
“With its heavy use of artificial fertilizers and fossil fuels, livestock methane emissions, weed and bug sprays, and genetically modified crops, agriculture has been targeted by ESG fiduciaries,” Lewis and Reddy note. And now farmer Brown is being targeted by the Biden SEC.
The EU calls one of its Net-Zero agriculture programs “Farm to Fork.” But Europe’s farmers are in open revolt, and the powers that be in Brussels have taken notice. And the SEC’s power grab may also be in for some rough sledding. The Biden plan faces a stiff court challenge, with plaintiffs arguing that the SEC – under the “major questions doctrine” adopted by the current Supreme Court – lacks congressional authority to regulate an industry’s, including agriculture, entire supply chain.
Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT.
“Renewable good, non-renewable bad” is far too simplistic and unfortunately influential
Previous posts have argued that renewable does not necessarily mean green, sustainable or environmentally sound. Non-renewable generation may meet green goals, be highly sustainable and environmentally sound. The dichotomy adds more confusion than value. Additionally, the grid impacts of resources lumped together as renewable are so diverse that it makes no sense to speak of them as a group in that context. This posting will, through a couple examples, challenge and highlight the dangerous idea that all “renewables” are basically “good” and all “nonrenewable” are basically bad.
Do We Want More Renewables and Less Nonrenewable?
Technology and our ability to tap various resources change over time. With key technological developments, very poor options can become very good options. With extensive adoptions, good options can become very bad. Attempting to implement any option before its time is usually counterproductive. Options that are beneficial on a small scale may have serious negative consequences when scaled up. Renewable-good, non-renewable-bad is far too simplistic.
Biomass projects may unduly benefit from being classified as a renewable generation resource. Various biomass projects are frequently criticized across the political spectrum for a variety of environmental ills. Nevertheless, biomass projects meet regulatory requirements for renewable energy and are selected over alternatives that may be better by most all other relevant criteria.
Nuclear power is another example of another resource that does not work well with the renewable/nonrenewable dichotomy. Nuclear minimizes many of the problems associated with fossil fuel generation. Certainly, objections can be raised against nuclear power, but sustainability is not a major concern at this time. Current efforts to increase nuclear power face additional challenges because nuclear resources are not considered renewable. Nuclear power should be competing with various “renewable” sources based on their specific merits for specific applications and criticized based on whatever concerns can be raised. But they should not be handicapped because of the rubric of renewables.
Our energy future likely will be impacted by many new alternatives that work even less well with the renewable/non-renewable framework. Simplistic thinking can help to sideline emerging beneficial technology and advance more suspect technology. We should have many goals for are future energy sources, but properly fitting into the renewable category should not take precedence.
Could a Non-Renewable Non- Sustainable Fossil Fuel Based Resource be a Great Option?
While not wanting to promote any technology before it’s time, I will argue that we may want to keep the door open for beneficial generation options that could emerge in the future that might not be renewable. For example, huge amounts of tires end up in landfills where their decomposition can result in leeching, leading to various consequential environmental problems. Eventually we may be able to transform waste tires into energy, with net benefits across a range of environmental measures. Consider that with improved technology, large amounts of waste tires could be seen as potential fossil fuel-based resources instead of toxic dumps.
Currently, considerable efforts center around recycling waste tires and their components. There are various technologies. Circulating fluidized bed technology makes use of a hot bed of ash at 850 to 900 C. This flameless combustion can produce tremendous energy while allowing pollutants to be captured in the ash bed. Pyrolysis, heat in the absence of oxygen, may prove to be a superior technology for extracting energy from tires while minimizing their waste impact. Imagine transforming and eventually eliminating toxic waste dumps while capturing valuable synchronous, dependable electrical energy. If such plants were successful, might we clear out all dumps and exceed capabilities of future waste tires? Yes, we could. But wouldn’t it be a great thing to drive such waste to extinction in a process that was known to be unsustainable?
Such approaches are outside of the renewable/nonrenewable dichotomy. But in many cases, that may be where we want to go. Renewable thinking argues our resources must last forever. That is a true statement for many things we depend on. But transitory resources have provided great benefits in the past. As noted above, who cares if we don’t have enough waste tire dumps to last forever. This is a fossil fuel-based resource that cries out to be depleted in the interest of environmental concerns.
Don’t get Suckered into Huge Waste Because the Energy Part is Renewable
Renewable energy has a scary power to push the adoption of many marginal technologies. To illustrate this, I will summarize the solar roadways story. Many were overly enthusiastic about the potential for solar roadways when this concept exploded in 2014. Solar Roadways is a specific company, but other named companies have promoted and have run various projects seeking to produce electricity using panels on roadways. The basic approaches involve high-tech interlocking solar panels with many other additional functionalities. There were big pushes to capitalize on “abundant”, “free”, “green” power through solar roadways. The potential benefits touted also included reduced highway maintenance, jobs, warning of obstructions through weight sensors, the ability to charge vehicles using the roads, roads which would melt the snow and enhanced road signaling through embedded LED technology.
Many people were naïve and seduced by the potential benefits. Money came from many sources to the Solar Roadways Incorporated Company. The Department of Transportation provided funding for various feasibility projects. A crowdfunding drive at Indiegogo, bolstered by Georgie Takei and this video, raised $2.2 Million for Solar Roadways. Like many videos, this one looks a bit dated after nearly a decade, but it was powerful then and captured the hearts and minds of many.
Responsible people would occasionally ask me my take on solar roadways. I would probe and respond carefully. “Do you have extra money you need to spend on something? Are you wanting to do something for positive PR? Do you want to be altruistic and support preliminary research?” These weren’t their prime drivers and when they let me know that, I’d tell them that I didn’t believe getting an early start on a technology with so much development ahead could possibly help their consumers or their bottom line.
What should rational individuals have been thinking about the potential for solar roadways back then?
“This is going to take a long while at best. Nothing has been demonstrated on even a small scale. It costs an awful lot to just cover roads with asphalt. How much will it cost to cover them with glass devices that are more complicated and have greater functionality than iPhones? Do you think we can leave them exposed to the elements with trucks and cars and who knows what driving over them? What could possibly go wrong? What about road traction? This can’t easily be hooked up and made to work with controls and connected to the grid or other power supply stations. How long might individual panels last? Maintenance of such a system on the roadway seems challenging to say the least. Aren’t solar panels angled for good reasons? Shouldn’t we see a whole bunch of successful implementations of solar roofs before you might reasonably expect solar roads to be doable? Aren’t there all sorts of potential problems not yet thought of that are likely to emerge? I’m going to have to hear a lot more before I become enchanted by this one.”
But such questions did not get much visibility. People were largely enchanted or distracted by the prospect of free renewable energy.
How have these programs performed? A $3.9 million prototype in Idaho found 83% of the panels broke the first week. Had it worked, it may have been able to power a drinking fountain and lighting for a restroom. France spent over $5 million to install 2,800 photovoltaic panels covering .62 miles of road. Despite the special silicone resin intended to protect the road from 19-wheeler traffic, the panels couldn’t hold. Initially the project generated half of the expected energy, but within a few years it was closer to 10% of original projections. The impacts of thunderstorms, leaf mold and tractors were not adequately anticipated. The resin coating that helped protect the panels, generated so much noise that the speed limit had to be lowered to 79 km/h (43 mph). China opened a .62-mile solar road in 2017. However, it closed within a week due to damage from traffic and panel theft.
Today there is one functioning solar roadway today in the US, located in Peachtree City, Georgia. Data for this small 50 square meter project is hard to come by, but the anticipated annual electric output of the project could be purchased for less than $200 using the average Georgia residential rate. Maybe this small application is the right size scale for such a project a decade after the initial great promise and hope and who knows how long before the technology may prove fruitful.
These are terrible results. Maybe worse than might have been expected by even some of the most extreme of skeptics. As questionable as the big concept was, there was a plethora of smaller sub problems that needed a lot of development. Despite some of the honest appraisals available, it was hard to dampen the enthusiasm for these projects. Accompanied by much acclaim, solar roadway projects got funding and proceeded with fairly large-scale testing, despite the supporting materials being only in the most primitive stages of development.
Conclusions
The terms renewable and nonrenewable command a lot of undeserved power and influence with the public and policy makers. Rather than educating and informing, they often serve to confuse and misdirect energy policy. More sophisticated understandings around what is clean, green, sustainable, environmentally sound and workable are needed. The renewable/nonrenewable dichotomy is hurting our ability to move forward with potentially valuable workable technologies and giving too big a boost to poorly thought-out boondoggles.
Correction/Clarification: In Part II of this series, and perhaps going further back, I refer to “run of the river” hydro as being rare and mostly insignificant. This series was picked up in another forum and a commenter there noted that the US has many large hydro facilities classified as run of river. I should have referred to run of river facilities without pondage. The Corps of Engineers refers to hydro dams with extensive storage facilities (seasonal and multi-year) as stored hydro. Those with more limited storage ability (days, weeks and possibly months) are credited with “pondage” capabilities as opposed to storage. Basically, pondage allows operators to hold back flows until they are needed and useful. It is a limited form of storage. Large facilities with considerable pondage (as opposed to long term storage) are classified as run of the river (or in some documents as “basically run of the river”) by Federal authorities. While pondage is not long-term storage, it provides capacity value and allows Planners to count on these facilities to meet peak demand. Pondage allows operators to dispatch these facilities to follow load and support the system when needed. Hydro facilities with pondage are not correctly called intermittent and would be similar to a wind or solar facility with extensive battery backup. My use of the term “run of river” came from modelling experience where it referred to resources that showed up intermittently and were uncontrollable. I should have been more precise here because of the differing definitions. Hydro without pondage or storage is usually small and not significant.
An Australian news site, InQueensland, reports that a new study has found that there are 25 percent more coral reefs on Earth than previously thought. This is good news showing that corals are resilient in the face of climate change, which data indicates is not harming them.
An Australian news site, InQueensland, reports that a new study has found that there are 25 percent more coral reefs on Earth than previously thought. This is good news showing that corals are resilient in the face of climate change, which data indicates is not harming them.
InQueensland reports, “the scientists found an extra 64,000 square kilometres of coral reefs – an area the size of Ireland,” that were unknown and unmapped. This is great news, since coral reefs support a large number of marine animals, according to the article, “[t]hese wonders of biodiversity are home to a quarter of the ocean’s species.”
Unfortunately, amid this good news, the article’s writers had to throw in some unsupported climate alarm, writing that that “coral reefs are reeling” because “[c]limate change is steadily heating up the sea and making it more acidic.”
It may be true that coral polyps, the anemone-like animals that actually build the reef structure, can struggle in “too much” heat, but oceans are nowhere near those levels. As explained in Climate at a Glance: Coral Reefs, corals typically thrive in warmer waters, not cold, and have survived for the past 60 million years, through periods where temperatures and carbon dioxide levels were far higher than they are today. The vast number of corals exist in tropical or subtropical waters, near the equator, and rather than disappearing, have been expanding their range slightly towards the poles amid recent modest warming
It is true that corals can get shocked and suffer a bleaching event, where the symbiotic algae that gives coral their color dies or disappears, when temperatures change dramatically in a short period. This is not the same thing as coral death, however. While the algae may be gone, the polyps themselves are often still alive, and the algae often returns and recolonizes the coral structures. InQueensland’s writers should be well aware of this fact, since one of the best examples demonstrating that coral bleaching is not tantamount to coral death comes from Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR). As covered by Climate Realismhere, here, and here, for example, the GBR has undergone repeated regional bleachings and recoveries amid recent warm temperature anomalies. The GBR is now setting records for coral extent in modestly warmer seas.
Climate Realism has also refuted the claim that oceans are acidifying threatening crustaceans, shellfish, and other ocean species in multiple articles, here, here, and here, to cite a few. Surface ocean waters may have fallen by about 0.1 pH units since 1750, from 8.2 to 8.1 on the pH scale, though it is unclear if that is more than a regional and temporary drop. But regardless, 8.1 pH is still alkaline and not at all acidic. A fluid is not acidic until it drops below 7 on the pH scale, and there is no evidence suggesting that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide – we are already half-way there – would cause the oceans to become acidic. Regardless, ocean pH is not the same everywhere, and in reality, ranges from about 7.8 to 8.5. Different corals can and do already exist in a variety of pH conditions.
It is great news that more coral reefs are constantly discovered, whether by technically complex methods using remote sensing like the one covered in the InQueensland article, or by on-site surveys. Based on this new study and others like it, there is no reason whatsoever to twist the good news of newly discovered coral abundance into another doomsaying tale, falsely claiming that corals are being harmed by the modest warming of the past hundred-plus years. Instead, the knowledge that there are likely more reef systems to discover, should give readers some reassurance that corals are more resilient than the alarmist media often claims.
IWTs Generating 1.8% of their Capacity than jumping to 80.4% only a few days later
Yesterday, February 9th, 2024, those IWT spread throughout Ontario were impressive generating 94,605 MWhor about what 3.1 million average households would consume in a day suggesting they are the panacea to stop climate change! Mere days before on February 3rdand the first seven hours on February 4th they generated only2,673 MWhwhich was 1.8% of their capacity in those 31 hours.
As the expression goes; they continually demonstrate their “traditional yo yo” tendencies as the followingscreenshot from IESO February 5th to the 10thdemonstrates. They are the “green” in the chart which basically shows their intermittent and unreliable nature whereas the dark blue is natural gas which has the ability to ramp up and down as demand changes and to keep our grid from failing and causing blackouts.
Wind in green, NatGas in dark blue, Hydro in light blue, Nuclear in orange
So, the question one should ask, was the power delivered by those IWT on the 9th of February needed here in the province?
As it turns out 65.8% of the IWT generation or 62,259 MW were not really needed as IESO’s intertie data (net-exports) shows it went to our neighbours in Quebec, New York and Michigan and the average sale price over the 24 hours was $19.42/MWh and well below what we Ontario ratepayers/taxpayers paid for it. If we assume it was all surplus IWT generation those net-exports, we paid those contracted parties $135/MWh for; suggests the total cost of what was sold to our neighbours came to $8,404,965 but the price we were paid by our neighbours was an average of only that $19.42/MWh. Using the latter average price received over the 24 hours means we earned only $1,227,774!
The net result is we Ontario ratepayers/taxpayers have to eat the loss of $7,177,218 for just that one day’s IWT generation. The foregoing is not the exception particularly when Ontario’s peak demand is relatively low as it was yesterday reaching only 17,057 MW at hour 19.
For the foregoing reasons, we should wonder why the Ontario Minister of Energy is instructing IESO to extend the IWT contracts when their 20-year terms are up as they do nothing but increase our electricity costs. Those costs will be exacerbated by the addition of BESS (battery energy storage systems) as the latter will simply add another costly layer in an attempt to keep our grid reliable!
The IESO current Contracted Generation List associated with BESS (battery energy storage systems) suggests they are expecting to contract for 1,140 MW! BESS are able to provide their rated capacity for four hours meaning the 1,140 MW could provide 4,560 MW before needing to be recharged. It is humorous the megawatts those BESS units may be able to provide is only slightly more then the IWT provided during their peak generation hour yesterday. Today (Feb. 19) at Hour 9 those IWT only generated 316 MW!
At this point we should wonder if the batteries to be utilized by those BESS contracted generators will include CATL batteries, manufactured in China and now banned in the USA as pointed out in a recent article. If so, Canada could be in trouble with its neighbour, the USA, who have security concerns about CATL batteries. That may have a negative impact on our intertie connections with US States, amusingly, where much of our surplus IWT generation went to yesterday!
Oh, what tangled webs we weave!
Footnote More Grid Corrosion from Wind and Solar
Not mentioned above is a slow deterioration of baseload electricity because of renewables unreliables. Gail Tverberg explains in the background post below:
In fact, I have come to the rather astounding conclusion that even if wind turbines and solar PV could be built at zero cost, it would not make sense to continue to add them to the electric grid in the absence of very much better and cheaper electricity storage than we have today. There are too many costs outside building the devices themselves. It is these secondary costs that are problematic. Also, the presence of intermittent electricity disrupts competitive prices, leading to electricity prices that are far too low for other electricity providers, including those providing electricity using nuclear or natural gas. The tiny contribution of wind and solar to grid electricity cannot make up for the loss of more traditional electricity sources due to low prices.
Here’s the problem, however. All the major European governments, including the UK of course, are still fanatically committed to net zero, and that stops them from responding properly.
Instead of sparking a manufacturing renaissance in Europe, the pursuit of net zero is leading instead to imminent deindustrialisation.
In the United States, there are massive subsidies. In China, there is an industrial strategy pursued with ruthless effectiveness. And yet in Europe, there are just “deadlines and fines”.
Luca de Meo, the boss of the giant French car manufacturer Renault, didn’t mince his words when he called this week for a coherent response from Britain, France, and the rest of the major European industrial nations, to the threat posed by imports of cheap foreign electric vehicles.
Sure, it would be easy to dismiss that as just another industrial leader calling for soft loans and tariffs to rescue an uncompetitive industry. And yet de Meo is on to something. Net zero has turned into a Chinese weapon aimed right at the heart of Western competitiveness. The Telegraph has the story.
If we don’t wake up and recognise soon that we have to figure out a better way of combatting climate change, our industries are about to get wiped out.
The transition from petrol to battery-powered vehicles is not working quite as planned. It was meant to spark a wave of investment, create a swathe of “well-paid green jobs” and dramatically cut carbon emissions at the same time.
Renault, in turn, looked set to play a leading role. With models such as the ZOE, the company was an early pioneer in the space of relatively affordable EVs. It looked as if it was all set to become a global leader.
“The UK may no longer be part of the EU, but on this issue I think we face the same challenges together,” argued De Meo in an article for Autocar.
“With the internal combustion engine, our leadership was undisputed…and it was a barrier to entry for newcomers. Today, Europeans find themselves in a position of relative fragility”. His argument is that the EU and the UK have to work together to fight back, and protect what remains one of the continent’s most significant industries.
He is certainly right about that. In the US, President Biden has launched a tax credit scheme that will pour nearly $400bn into subsidies, and while not all the money will be well spent it will give America a chance to build a substantial industry.
Meanwhile, China has funnelled massive amounts of money into building EVs, it has taken control of critical minerals needed to make them cheaply, and it is now about to flood the West with models that could well outcompete European manufacturers on both quality and price.
Instead of sparking a manufacturing renaissance in Europe, the pursuit of net zero is leading instead to imminent deindustrialisation. It might be starting with the mighty automotive industry, in which the Continent once led the world, but it is being repeated again and again elsewhere.
Indeed only this week a group of major European industries launched the “Antwerp declaration”, calling on the EU to relax regulations, lower energy costs and increase investment, while it still has some industry left.
Signed by 73 major companies, from 17 sectors including chemicals, pharmaceuticals and engineering, it argued that “sites are being closed, production halted, people let go…Europe needs a business case urgently.”
Here’s the problem, however. All the major European governments, including the UK of course, are still fanatically committed to net zero, and that stops them from responding properly.
Take cars for example. Normally, the EU or Britain would likely launch an “anti-dumping” action against cheap imports of Chinese EVs, and impose tariffs to allow our manufacturers to compete.
Relative sea level change over the Holocene documents a much warmer past than today.
Because it was so much warmer during the Early to Middle Holocene (~8000 to ~4000 years ago), there was significantly less water locked up on land (Greenland, Antarctica) in the form of ice sheets and glaciers. Instead, this water occupied ocean basins, explaining the meters-higher-than-present relative sea levels (RSL).
Indeed, the reason sea levels were 2-3 m higher than today (and the shoreline tens of kilometers further inland relative to today) along the Persian Gulf ~6000 years ago was “almost wholly the consequence of the water-load term” (Lambeck, 1996).
Now another new study (Ballian et al, 2024) reveals sea levels were 2-5 m higher than present 4000-7000 years ago in the tropics (Thailand) before they gradually fell to present levels over the last millennia. These higher sea levels are evidenced by beach ridges dated to 3500 years at 4 m elevations found 6 km inland from current shorelines.
A similar study for this region was published a few years ago (Oliver and Terry, 2019) revealing oyster fossil remains are encrusted into shoreline rock meters above the current water level, providing evidence sea surface temperatures were 2.6°C warmer than today and sea levels were “between 3.8 m ±0.1 m and 2.5 ±0.1 m above present day” along the coasts of Thailand during the Mid-Holocene.
Last week, two of the most notable electrolyser technology developers – Plug Power and Bloom Energy Corp – revealed the depth of their problems as they try to achieve massive scale while improving and reducing the cost of the technologies they are developing.
Oops. The hydrogen producers are in big trouble. The hydrogen production will never be economically viable.
Hydrogen electrolyser manufacturers are staring into the valley of death, as the hype-fuelled valuations of 2021 and high hopes of the hydrogen economy come crashing down around their ears.
Last week, two of the most notable electrolyser technology developers – Plug Power and Bloom Energy Corp – revealed the depth of their problems as they try to achieve massive scale while improving and reducing the cost of the technologies they are developing. The RenewEconomy has the story.
Shares in the two US-based companies, along with the US-listed Fuel Cell Energy and Ballard Power Systems, have been sinking since July last year, and none have come back from the hype-fuelled peak of early 2021.
In contrast, European companies appear to be in less financial trouble but their investors are just as glum, with Nel ASA and McPhy Energy also trading at five year lows.
Hydrogen bubble has popped
The electrolyser manufacturing industry wasn’t supposed to be in this shape in 2024. At least, not for those who believed the assumptions being made at the time.
In 2021, costs were expected to fall but instead they rose dramatically, while expectations of exponential, tech-like revenue growth for the first movers led to hyped up valuations.
Today, the bubble has popped, along with the realisation that while hydrogen will play an important role in some key industries, it’s not likely to make much ground in sectors such as passenger cars of home appliances.
“The electrolyser manufacturing sector is going through a massive learning-by-doing as they’re flying the plane,” says Clean Energy Finance director Tim Buckley.
“It reminds me of the internet bubble 20 years ago where you had the hype and the bubble burst, and a decade later a lot of the expectations came through and the industry was transformed. But you’ve got to get through the valley of death and we’re only three years into that.”
An example of the kinds of wild figures being tossed around was speed of electrolyser cost reductions suggested by McKinsey and global industry lobby group the Hydrogen Council.
In February 2021, at the very peak of the hydrogen hype cycle, the two organisations issued a report forecasting electrolyser costs falling to $US480-620 per kilowatt (kW) by 2025 and $US230-380 per KW by 2030.
Two years later in February 2023, consultancy EY said costs had only fallen by a fraction of what was expected, with alkaline electrolysers at $US700-1,100 per kW and PEM technology at $US1,200-2,000 per kW.
“As the PEM technology advances, it is expected to achieve parity with alkaline (about $US500 per kW) by FY2030,” the report read.
Also in 2021, Norwegian electrolyser maker Nel ASA said it would cut the cost of its electrolysers by 75 per cent and reduce the price of green hydrogen to $US1.50 per kg by 2025, with a new 2GW factory. It got its first 500 MW production line running by 2022, but has delayed those initial ambitions from 2025 to 2028.
Green hydrogen still costs about $US5/kg to make.
The outlook generally is positive, but the market is taking longer to develop than expected as the industry figures out what models and markets will actually work, Evercore senior managing director James West told industry publication Hydrogen Insight in November.
Some of the troubles are being attributed to the slow rollout of government support programs, but these are finally expected to start paying out this year.
The Regional Hydrogen Hubs programme in the US, part of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, hasn’t issued any funding yet. And the $US3/kg production tax credits from the US Inflation Reduction Act are being held up by delays in rules from the Treasury Department as to who qualifies for them.
In Europe, developers are also claiming that country-level funding via that Important Projects of Common European Interest has been too slow.
China leads on prices – again
In contrast, Chinese companies appear to be beating the McKinsey forecast.
A public tender by state-owned China Energy Engineering Group saw alkaline machines sold in at an average of $US210 per kW and PEM electrolysers at $US630 per kW.
These are figures that will put pressure on Asia-focused companies, such as Bloom Energy which is leaning hard on sales to Korea, and on startups in Australia which are still in their infancy.
And they’re figures that non-Chinese companies will only be able to beat if Asian nations create a joint regional carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) – a carbon price – that makes green hydrogen competitive with fossil fuels, says Buckley.
“In some respects there is huge potential for seaborne hydrogen and ammonia exports but consensus about where the real market will be… all of that presumes there is going to be significant policy framework. Calling it bluntly, a price on carbon in the Asian market,” he says.
“There’s got to be a carbon price so we can compare hydrogen against LNG or coal. Otherwise we’re looking at open-ended subsidies for hydrogen.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.