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.
BYD, Chinaโs largest EV auto maker, which recently surpassed Tesla as the worldโs biggest seller of electric vehicles, isย reviewing potential locations for a plantย in Mexico that would allow it to bring its low-cost electric vehicles into the United States.
Chinaโs BYD, the worldโs largest EV maker, is scoping out Mexico, where labor costs are low, to locate a new EV plant as a backdoor manufacturing hub for their entrance into the U.S. market.
2
Cars imported directly into the United States from China are assessed a 27.5 percent tariff, while those from Mexico are assessed at most a 2.5 percent tariff.
3
American manufacturers are concerned because China can manufacture cars at a much lower cost as it dominates and controls the EV energy supply chain, including the processing of necessary minerals.
4
BYD currently sells most of its vehicles domestically in China but is making inroads by offshoring manufacturing in obliging countries.
5
The U.S. EV market is ripe due to Bidenโs strident push for electric vehicles including subsidies and mandates designed to force people out of internal combustion vehicles.
BYD, Chinaโs largest EV auto maker, which recently surpassed Tesla as the worldโs biggest seller of electric vehicles, is reviewing potential locations for a plant in Mexico that would allow it to bring its low-cost electric vehicles into the United States. Mexico offers close proximity to U.S. markets, relatively low labor costs and the opportunity to take advantage of low or zero tariffs on made-in-Mexico vehicles. Some of the locations BYD is considering are near the U.S. border. At least a dozen Chinese electric-car component suppliers have also announced new factories or added to their existing investments in Mexico in recent years. They are responding to a U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal that encourages carmakers in North America to use locally sourced materials.
BYD is looking to expand globally as it has an excess domestic EV inventory. CEOs at rival automakers have warned about the potential threat from China, with some suggesting the need for more government action to avert such competition in the United States as Chinese automakers have a big cost advantage in the electric vehicle market with Chinaโs dominance of the battery supply chain and processing of essential minerals. Through engineering, government subsidies and lower labor costs, BYD and other China-based EV makers have been able to entice customers with stylish and technologically advanced electric vehicles at attractive prices. If China can lock buyers into electric vehicles dependent upon its dominant supply chains, it would strengthen its position as the worldโs leading car manufacturer.
BYDโs low-price electric vehicles have gained traction with buyers in places such as Europe and Southeast Asia. Europe, where Chinese EV imports are strong due to their lower price and Europeโs net zero carbon goals, is conducting an investigation into whether China provided subsidies to the industry unfairly, making it more difficult for European EV carmakers to compete. The investigation could result in new tariffs if EU officials find the Chinese companies are receiving unfair subsidies. The Biden administration is monitoring Chinese investment in Mexico amid concerns Chinese businesses could take advantage of North American free-trade agreement rules.
Carlos Tavares, chief executive of Chrysler-parent Stellantis, likened Chinaโs potential entry in the United States to the arrival of the Japanese automakers in the 1970s and South Korean firms in the 1990s, calling their expansion as โvery Powerful.โ Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk also expressed similar concerns, saying the Chinese companies have already had significant success outside of China and are now the โmost competitiveโ in the world.
Currently, Chinese-built electric vehicles are subject to a 27.5 percent tariff when imported into the United States that is composed of a 2.5 percent tariff that generally applies to imported cars plus an additional 25 percent tariff on Chinese-made cars that was introduced by the Trump administration in 2018. The Biden administration is debating whether to raise tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles further, and the Inflation Reduction Act limits eligibility for a $7,500 consumer tax credit for cars built with batteries made by Chinese companies.
In comparison, cars made at a Chinese-owned factory in Mexico would only be faced with the 2.5 percent tariff upon entering the United States and could possibly pay no tariff if they met stringent standards for local content under the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Agreement adopted in 2020.
Executives at Toyota estimated that Chinese companies had a 25 percent to 30 percent cost advantage over global competitors when manufacturing electric vehiclesโmore than enough to overcome the small 2.5-percent U.S. tariff. Pushing EV adoption too quickly would serve, however, as an invitation for Chinese EV companies including BYD, Geely and NIO to enter rigorously into the U.S. EV market. President Biden has a goal of electric vehicles making up 50 percent of new car sales by 2030, and his EPA and Department of Transportation have proposed rules that would effectively force electric vehicles to make up two-thirds of new car sales in 2032. The Biden Administration is pushing electric vehicles upon manufacturers and consumers and enticing them with subsidies for vehicles and charging stations.
BYD sees other potential uses for the plant in Mexico, including using it as an export hub for shipping cars to South America or sending batteries and other car parts to the United States. In China, BYD makes many EV parts in-house, including its EV batteries, to reduce costsโadvantages it may or may not be able to replicate in Mexico. In North America, the company currently sells electric buses and trucks made at its location in Lancaster, California.
Conclusion
Chinese companies are looking into building EV car factories in Mexico to take advantage of the Mexico-U.S.-Canada trade agreement and avoid hefty tariffs on imports of electric vehicles coming directly from China. In particular, BYD, Chinaโs largest EV automaker that recently surpassed Tesla in sales, is looking at locations in Mexico near the U.S. border. Chinese companies have a 25 to 30 percent cost advantage over U.S. competitors because of dominance in the EV battery supply chain and processing of critical minerals as well as low-cost labor and attractive energy prices. CEOs of U.S. automakers are worried that China could make a serious dent in the EV market as Japan and South Korea have done in the conventional auto market previously. With onerous proposed EV rules by Biden administration agencies on U.S. carmakers, the competition could be disastrous for legacy car makers, who areย currently losing vast sumsย on meeting Bidenโs EV goals.
It was twenty years today that the Guardian informed us we would all be destroyed by climate change now:
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a โSiberianโ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
โDisruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,โ concludes the Pentagon analysis. โOnce again, warfare would define human life.โ
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.
The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Climate change โshould be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concernโ, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is โplausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediatelyโ, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.
Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.
A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that Americaโs public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.
One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blairโs chief scientific adviser, after he branded the Presidentโs position on the issue as indefensible.
Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UKโs leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagonโs internal fears should prove the โtipping pointโ in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.
Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office โ and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism โ said: โIf the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.โ
Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagonโs dire warnings could no longer be ignored.
โCan Bush ignore the Pentagon? Itโs going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bushโs single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,โ added Watson.
โYouโve got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river youโve got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. Itโs pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,โ said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.
Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 โcatastrophicโ shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.
Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. โThis is depressing stuff,โ he said. โIt is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.โ
Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. โWe donโt know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,โ he said.
โThe consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.โ
So dramatic are the reportโs scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bushโs stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.
The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerryโs cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed โYodaโ by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defenceโs push on ballistic-missile defence.
Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. โIt is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.โ
Symons said the Bush administrationโs close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. โThis administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,โ he added.
Those eager to tax U.S. and imported hydrocarbon energy products that emit CO2 in order to end many millions of years of climate change should be cautious regarding the โgreen alternativesโ they wish for.
Those eager to tax U.S. and imported hydrocarbon energy products that emit CO2 in order to end many millions of years of climate change should be cautious regarding the โgreen alternativesโ they wish for.
Look no further than โForeign Pollution Fee Actโ (FPFA) legislation proposed by Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., which would establish a misguided precedent for labeling plant-nourishing CO2 as a โpollutantโ domestically as well.
As stated, the bill would amend the IRS Code of 1986 to impose a fee on certain imports based on their โpollution intensityโ production in striving for โenvironmental protection in order to protect human health.โ
Tariffs would be imposed on 16 categories of goods produced with higher CO2 emissions than in the U.S., including solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicle (EV) battery minerals.
In addition to the steel, aluminum, concrete, and plastic needed to build them, the legislation would also tax the crude oil and petrochemicals that fuel their production and keep them operating.
Hydropower and nuclear combined add about another 11%, with just over 4% of primary energy from nuclear, which faces cutbacks with about 25% of existing capacity in advanced economies expected to be shut down by 2025.
Bear in mind that it requires lots of that primary energy โ again, not just electricity โ to produce all those solar panels and construct those giant fields of wind turbines.
Materials must be excavated by heavy machinery, transported to production facilities, melted, and fabricated into parts . . . then delivered to the installation site and constructed.
According to Mark Mills at the Manhattan Institute, constructing and replacing each wind turbine is estimated to consume about 30,000 tons of iron ore, 50,000 tons of concrete, and 900 tons of plastics for the huge blades.
They are also short on longevity and long on maintenance.
Many of those already installed are reaching their 15-20-year end of life to become enormous forests of costly junk.
A solar plant with enough output to supply about 75,000 homes would require half again more tonnage in cement, steel, and glass.
And after all, werenโt those so-called โalternativeโ sources supposed to be environmentally friendly?
Well, maybe not so much.
Wind and solar require huge amounts of land and expensive transmission lines to deliver electricity from remote sites to high-demand metropolitan centers (plus power transmission losses).
Nearby landowners are filing numerous โnot in my backyardโ (NIMBY) lawsuits over wind projects for health concerns, including such symptoms as headaches, nausea, sleeplessness, and ringing in the ears resulting from prolonged exposure to inaudible low โinfrasoundโ frequencies that penetrate walls.
Environmentalists also decry wind turbines as โCuisinarts in the skyโ for bird and bat slaughters.
And thereโs nothing clean about many millions of tons of nonrecyclable solar panels and massive worn-out turbine blades that will wind up in landfills along with toxic elements such as dysprosium.
Then, since wind and solar are intermittent and weather dependent, humungous amounts of rare earth materials will be required for batteries to provide power on demand when needed . . . most of it to be purchased and transported from China (lithium) and the Congo (cobalt) which provide more than 80% of the world supply.
On top of that, donโt forget that those highly tax-subsidized EVs our government is pushing on already overloaded grids canโt be recharged by sunbeams at night or cloudy days, nor friendly breezes when the wind isnโt blowing.
So, we also need a โspinning reserveโ backup of reliable energy, typically natural gas turbines, to balance out and make up for fluctuating supply intermittence.
This isnโt very efficient โ like driving a car in heavy traffic โ plus it puts heavy stresses along with enormously increased EV recharging power demands on those already overburdened grids.
Yes, and donโt forget those โcleanโ EVs need batteries, tooโฆreally big ones.
Each Tesla-class battery requires mining, moving, and processing more than 500,000 pounds of materials: 20 times more than the 25,000 pounds of petroleum that a typical internal combustion engine uses over the life of a car.
Mark Mills calculates that averaged over a 1,000-pound batteryโs life, each mile of driving an EV โconsumesโ about five pounds of earth moved by hydrocarbon-powered vehicles . . . a comparable petroleum-fueled vehicle only consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.
Although FPFA is largely politically marketed as a device to economically disadvantage China โ a recognized true polluter with terrible environmental safeguards โ it is their uncontrolled particulate emissions, not carbon dioxide, that offer real cause for health and competitive pricing concerns as they continue to build the equivalence of about two new coal-fired plants weekly.
In any case, we are going to need oil โ and natural gas โ for many decades, most likely centuries, because there is no current replacement source capable of filling a huge supply gap.
And regarding the whole idea of wind, solar, or EVs eliminating โcarbon pollutionโ or climate change, donโt believe it for a moment.
The only thing truly โgreenโ about any of them will come from pocketbooks of taxpayer subsidies, hiked-up energy costs, and other inflation that fall heaviest upon the poorest among us.
What can one wind facility in Southwestern Minnesota tell us about the state of the American electric grid? Quite a lot, actually.
In 2007, Minnesota began its quest to power the state with wind turbines and solar panels when the Next Generation Energy Act (NGEA) was signed into law. This legislation mandated that 25 percent of the stateโs electricity come from โrenewableโ energy sources by 2025.
These mandates, along with generous federal tax subsidies and monopoly utilities seeking to maximize their government-approved profits by building new infrastructure, led to a building boom in wind turbines and solar panels.
From 2007 through 2022, Minnesota built thousands of wind turbines totaling 3,690 megawatts (MW) of installed capacity and 1,143 MW of solar capacity en route to meeting the mandates in 2020, five years ahead of schedule.
However, many of the turbines built to comply with the 25 percent mandate are already being refurbished or โrepoweredโ long before the end of their supposed 25-year useful lives. In fact, one of these wind facilities, the Nobles wind farm, has already been repowered after just 12 years in service.
But why was Nobles refurbished more than a decade before the end of its useful life at a cost of $240 million? The official reason provided by Xcel Energy for repowering Nobles was to spur economic activity in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and extend the retirement date of the facility from the year 2035 to 2045.
This story makes for a good newspaper headline, but the data tell a very different story. Digging deeper into the reasons surrounding Xcelโs decision to repower the Nobles facility illustrates how our state and federal energy policies are causing Americaโs energy decisions to grow increasingly irrational.
What is Repowering, and Why Does it Occur?
To fully understand the depth and gravity of this situation and why it has a profound impact on energy policy moving forward, itโs helpful to take a closer look at what repowering is and why it is done.
Repowering is the process of retrofitting or replacing wind turbines in full (full repowering) or in part (partial repowering). Full repowering is the act of completely decommissioning smaller existing wind turbines at a facility and replacing them with larger, but typically fewer, wind turbines.
Partial repowering is the most common form of repowering, and it consists of replacing portions of old turbines, such as the gearbox, hub, main shaft, bearing assembly, rotor, and blades, while maintaining the original steel towers and concrete foundations.
NREL researchers replaceย an existing gearbox (front) with a fully instrumented Winergy gearbox and SKF main bearing in the DOE-owned GE 1.5-megawatt wind turbine at NREL’s Flatirons Campus.ย Photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL
New gearboxes can be needed because the bearings responsible for helping convert the relatively slow rotations of a turbineโs blades into the high speeds needed to generate electricity can develop cracks, reducing the wind turbineโs efficiency. Larger rotors and longer blades are frequently placed on the original steel towers to increase the wingspan of the wind tower, thus allowing it to access more wind energy and convert it to electricity.
All of these actions help increase the productivity of wind turbines, but the biggest reason that companies seek to repower wind turbines has nothing to do with how they perform and everything to do with money. Repowering wind projects allows them to requalify for the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC), a lucrative federal subsidy that expires after the first 10 years of a projectโs life.
It should come as no surprise, then, that data from theย U.S. Department of Energyย shows that the wind facilities partially repowered in 2021โ totaling 1.6 GW of capacity, down from 3 GW in 2020 โ ranged in age from 9 to 16 years old, with the median age being 10 years.
In essence, the lucrative federal subsidies paid to wind turbine operators are creating a perverse incentive to prematurely refurbish or replace wind projects long before the end of their useful lifetimes, including the Nobles wind project in Minnesota.
Nobles: Promises Made
Nobles is a 201-megawatt (MW) wind facility consisting of 134 turbines spanning 26,880 acres just outside of Reading, Minnesota โ about 45 miles east of the South Dakota border. Construction of the wind โfarmโ cost $538 million (in 2010 dollars), and it began commercial operation in December 2010.
According to documents filed by Xcel Energy to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), the project was supposed to produce 40.9 percent of its potential energy output โ a metric known as its โcapacity factorโ โ every year over the course of an assumed 25-year lifetime.
From 2011 through 2020, Nobles did a relatively good job of meeting Xcelโs expectations, producing an average output of 38.2 percent of its theoretical potential during these years. But things changed in 2021 when the annual capacity factor of Nobles plummeted to 19.5 percent, and it performed only moderately better in 2022, with a capacity factor of 23.6 percent. These down years brought the 12-year average capacity factor of the facility down to 35.4 percent, which you can see in the accompanying graph below.
But why did electricity generation at Nobles fall so dramatically in 2021 and 2022 when the Nobles 2 wind project, a newer, larger wind project which is located just six miles to the northwest of the original Nobles, had a capacity factor of 42.7 percent in 2021, and 49.9 percent in 2022?
The answer illustrates how federal subsidies and state mandates are incentivizing the construction of so many wind turbines that the energy produced by them is often wasted.
Lost in Transmission, Congestion
Nobles is located in a very windy part of the state, which prompted the construction of dozens of wind facilities nearby to meet Minnesotaโs renewable energy mandate and to maximize the generation of electricity and federal tax credits.
Currently, there arenโt enough transmission lines to move the power generated from these wind facilities to other areas of the 15-state regional grid that could use it. This is because the existing transmission lines can only transport so much power at a time, similar to how water flowing down a sink is governed by the width of the drainpipe. As a result, the oversupply of electricity frequently causes power prices to go negative, which sends a signal to wind turbine operators to scale back supply, at least it works that way in theory.
In reality, the PTC pays wind projects $26 for each MWh of electricity the facility produces, whether or not that electricity is needed. The subsidies mean that electricity generated from wind farms could potentially be sold into the market at a price of negative $25 per MWh and still turn a profit for their owners. This is why the areas with the most wind turbines see the most negative prices, which you can see in the map below.
Without the subsidies, however, wind turbine operators are forced to reconcile with the realities of supply and demand because selling wind generation at negative prices would lead to substantial losses. This causes the turbine operator to shut the wind turbine down โ an industry process called curtailment โ when wind generation is high but wholesale power prices are low in an effort to avoid losing money.
Data from Minnesota PUC filings show a large increase in curtailment at Nobles in 2021 when 47.6 percent of the potential output from Nobles was curtailed, and in 2022, when curtailment rates reached 38 percent, as you can see in the graph below.
The spike in curtailment is important to understand because it suggests that wind facilities around the country are at risk of becoming uneconomical once the PTC expires after 10 years, long before the 20 to 25 years that are commonly cited as their useful lifetimes.
Wind advocates argue that we need to spend billions of dollars building hundreds of miles of new transmission lines โ which routinely cost $2.5 million per mile โ to transport larger quantities of wind-generated electricity to reduce the amount of wind power that is ultimately wasted.
However, this solution would be temporary, at best, because the availability of federal subsidies would once again distort the market and encourage utility companies to build an excess of wind facilities in an area where there isnโt adequate transmission capacity. In the end, we would end up in the same situation after spending more money at great cost to taxpayers and ratepayers in Minnesota.
Costs to Consumers: Is Repowering a Bait and Switch?
When Xcel Energy proposed its Nobles repowering project to the Minnesota PUC, the company claimed that customers would benefit from this and six other repowering projects by savingย $160 millionย in energy costs over the next 25 years. But the biggest beneficiary of the Nobles repowering project was Xcel Energy because repowering means the company will earn millions of dollars in profits for their shareholders at taxpayer expense.
Because investor-owned utilities in Minnesota, like Xcel Energy, are regulated monopolies created by the state of Minnesota, they are not allowed to make a profit on the electricity they sell. Instead, they are only allowed to charge enough to cover the cost of providing electricity to everyone, plus a government-approved 10.2 percent profit, or rate-of-return on equity, when they spend money on capital assets such as new power plants, transmission lines, and even new corporate offices, so long as the PUC approves those expenses. However, the 10.2 percent profit declines every year as the capital assets depreciate or lose value over time.
This gives Xcel a powerful incentive to spend millions of dollars building as many wind turbines as possible and to spend millions more repowering them long before the end of their useful lifetime.
The graph nearby shows the unsubsidized annual cost of the Nobles wind facility from 2011 through 2045, depicting the yearly cost of the project before and after the repowering project. As you can see, the total annual cost of the project jumps from around $51 million in 2022 to $74.8 million in 2023 after repowering. Xcelโs profits constitute the largest cost increase, rising from $22.9 million in 2022 to $39.6 million in 2023, a substantial dividend of $16.7 million that year.
We present the unsubsidized annual cost of the Nobles project because subsidies donโt change the cost of a good or service, they simply change who pays for it. In this instance, federal taxpayers, or future generations, are picking up part of the tab on behalf of Xcel Energyโs customers.
Our analysis did find that repowering the Nobles facility to requalify for the tax credit and extend the โbookโ life of the facility by ten years would slightly reduce the cost per MWh at Nobles for Xcelโs ratepayers compared to allowing the facility to run at lower capacity factors due to curtailment and allowing the subsidies to expire. That is, only if the facility operates for the โexpectedโ 25 years this time.
However, we also concluded that even the subsidized cost of the repowered Nobles project would never be lower than the cost of generating electricity at the Sherburne County (Sherco) coal plant or the Prairie Island nuclear plant, which produced electricity for $38.80 per MWh and $41.13 per MWh, respectively, as illustrated in the nearby graph. This is because the PUC allowed Xcel to continue earning profits on the original assets that were replaced through 2045.
Nobles would theoretically cost less than Prairie Island in 2034, but the PTC would expire after 2032, and Nobles would go back to being 75 percent more expensive than the existing nuclear plant.
These concepts are complex, but they are not impossible to understand. Unfortunately, it appears the five commissioners on the Minnesota PUC โ all of whom were either appointed or reappointed by Gov. Tim Walz โ do not seem to understand that voting to approve the repowering of the Nobles wind facility would increase electricity costs to Minnesota families and businesses compared to encouraging Xcel Energy to run the Sherco plant more frequently.
If the PUC commissioners were interested in protecting ratepayers from Xcel Energyโs bait-and-switch tactics and holding electricity prices to the standard of the โjust and reasonableโ clause in Minnesota statutes, they would question Xcel Energyโs perpetual money machine of building wind turbines and repowering them long before their 20-to-25-year useful lives. Instead, all five rubber-stamped the Nobles repowering project and the associated costs.
Final Thoughts: What Nobles Means for America
The life, premature demise, and repowering of the Nobles wind facility suggests the United States is No Country for Old Wind, and Nobles is no anomaly.
Data from the U.S. Department of Energy show that 30,000 MW of wind capacity will have been repowered by 2026, which would constitute 21.4 percent of the total wind capacity installed nationwide in 2022. It also isnโt unreasonable to think that the Nobles and other wind facilities will undergo another round of full or partial repowering if the federal subsidies are still available in 2032.
Taxpayer subsidies and utility profit motives are converging to incentivize the premature destruction and replacement of wind installations throughout America, and this trend will almost certainly become more common as an increasing number of wind turbines are added to the nationโs electric grid. Utility companies and wind turbine operators will seek to renew their access to the PTC to reduce the need for curtailment and to increase their government-approved profits on capital expenditures as long as these subsidies are available.
Itโs a green grift all the way down.
Be sure to like, subscribe and share this piece, or YOU will need to be โrepowered.โ
Also, enjoy this song from The Kinks, which was the inspiration for the title of this article.
In recent months a number of mainstream media outlets like theย New York Timesย andย Al Jazeera, and alternative media outlets, likeย Earth.com, have published articles claiming that global warming is threatening various fish stocks with extinction. The facts say just the opposite.
horizontal shot of tropical fishes underwater swimming.nature and it’s beauty.
Editorโs Note:In recent months a number of mainstream media outlets like the New York Times and Al Jazeera, and alternative media outlets, like Earth.com, have published articles claiming that global warming is threatening various fish stocks with extinction. The facts say just the opposite. Climate Realism has presented data across multiple articles showing that coral reefs, which provide shelter and food, and habitat to reproduce and rear the young for 25 percent of the oceanโs fish and other sea life, are not being threatened by climate change. Climate Realism has also directly refuted claims that climate change is threatening various species of fish and other types of sea life in various articles, here and here, for example. Below is an article from a scholar at the CO2 Coalition which cites various recent studies indicating that, if anything, modest warming is benefitting most fish species.โ
Guest essay by Vijay Jayaraj
The oceans are still very much a mystery to humankind, with a vast majority of it yet to be explored. Early in my career, I wanted to make an in-depth study of how climate affected marine life. After all, many media reports claimed that โoceans will become empty by 2048.โ
So, as a graduate research assistant, I explored the adaptability of marine fish and invertebrates to fluctuations in ocean temperatures. I found that both are highly adaptable to changes in the water around them. That is the way they are made.
Now, evidence emerging from scientific studies shows that marine life may be benefiting from the relative warmth of modern temperatures.
Contrary to the hyperbole of climate reporters, there has been no alarming increase in global sea-surface temperatures. Even if temperatures increase substantially, fish are free to migrate to cooler waters and do, as documented by scientific studies.
Fish also have natural adaptive mechanisms. Since their initial emergence in Earthโs waters, fish have developed genetically in ways that allow them not only to survive but to thrive in a variety of environments. In addition to the generational genetic adaptability, fish also display short-term phenotypic plasticity which allows them to adapt to temperatures and other physical factors. When combined, these mechanisms act as significant protection against the ill-effects of the physical environment.
Despite this, it is not uncommon to see news of fisheries crashing under the weight of a climate crisis. However, real-world data contradict such negative reports, indicating instead that global fish catches will improve in the coming decades.
A 2016 scientific study โassembled the largest-of-its-kind database and coupled it to state-of-the-art bioeconomic models for more than 4,500 fisheries around the world.โ The study found that global fisheries will profit from an increase in marine species. The degree of this commercial success will depend on a range of policy measures, including ones that enable increased catches for individuals and communities.
In 2020, there was a record 214 million tonnes of production from both wild catches and aquaculture. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022report says that this production is expected to grow 14 percent by 2030. Fish are expected to become more affordable and accessible, with prices decreasing between 2024-2029, according to two international bodies: the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and United Nationโs Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) that published the data in Agricultural Outlook.
As of 2017, around 65% of fish stocks were biologically sustainable. An index of population health is maximum sustainable yield (MSY), which is the point at which the stock can sustain itself without limits on fishing. The MSY calculation involves collaborative information gathering by marine biologists and fishers.
The 2022 report states that the number of catches from biologically sustainable stocks has been on the rise! This signals that catches can be increased without depleting the stock to levels that neither the species nor continued fishing is at risk. While some concerns remain for a few species, studies show that in regions where we have high-quality population data, the majority of fish stocks are either stable or improving.
In short, any threat to future catches is not โemptyโ seas but rather the effect of activities such as illegal fishing and overfishing. Fish as an important protein source is likely to remain available in large quantities. Reality contradicts the fallacious climate crisis that dominates popular media and politics.
This commentary was first published in American Thinker on February 10, 2024.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a masterโs degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.
PLENTY OF ASPECTS of the climate movement need revamping โ the terminology and phrases that only scientists, governments and corporate sustainability departments understand, the faceless statistics smeared across news headlines, the incessant admonishment of consumer behavior and the doom and gloom storytelling โ to name a few. Concurrently, while the way the climate narrative is relayed to the masses is part of the problem, by all counts, it can be an integral part of the solution, and Hollywood is playing its part.
โฆ
A Greener Kind of Screen
While searching for initiatives focused on bringing climate-based realities on-screen without scaring people away, along with Good Energy, I connected with the Hollywood Climate Summit. Embarking on its fourth year, the annual conference brings together entertainment and media professionals, activists and climate organizations to share knowledge and tools that can help Hollywood harness its massive platform to communicate climate stories in the most impactful way possible. Founded by Allison Begalman, Heather Fipps, Ali Weinstein and YEA! Impact, and presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, last year the event included think tanks, workshops and a star-studded roster of speakers, including Jane Fonda and Quinta Brunson.
โฆ
Climate change affects every aspect of our lifestyles. So it was only a matter of time before mainstream programming began reflecting this โ beyond the apocalyptic narratives many news headlines and dystopian films perpetuate. As the climate narrative continues to evolve and becomes more integrated into our culture, values-aligned companies have an opportunity to support efforts across the entertainment industry, as well as grassroots activism, through funding, branded content partnerships and creating their own campaigns to bring awareness to environmentalist practices.ย ย
I donโt think Hollywood has long until people just donโt bother with them anymore.
Around the world foreign movie studios are moving to fill the void left by Hollywoodโs unendurable wokeness. Foreign productions likeย Faudaย or the apocalyptic thrillerย To the Lake, starring the stunningly beautiful and talentedย Viktoriya Agalakova, with releases for English speaking audiences, are created to excite and entertain โ a skill Hollywood appears to have largely forgotten.
Regulations related to climate risks could prove a costly burden for Canadian corporations, institutions
The plannedย reset of global corporate capitalism to save the planetย continues to stumble toward the great unknown, in the sense that even after decades of effort theย machinery to expand regulatory control over investment and business decisionsย remains bogged downย in murky conceptual clay. Developments in regulatory and legal circles suggestย 2024ย will beย a pivotal yearย for the revolutionary ideas that are supposed toย lead to a fundamental transition from bad economic policy to green.
Theย underlying conceptsย are well known by name. We have corporate social responsibilityย (CSR),ย environmental and social governanceย (ESG),ย theย precautionary principle, and sustainable development.ย What all these buzz-phrases mean is another question. Looking through the latest developments around the initiatives, however, a certain sense ofย apprehension, doubt and even a bit of squeamish uncertainty seem to have taken hold.
In recent daysย major global investment firmsย such as U.S.-based JP Morgan and State Streetย haveย pulled awayย fromย Climate Action 100+, a global industry-ledย coalition with grandiose objectivesย to fight the โsystemic risksโ of climate change. The claim is that investors must ensure the businesses they own have strategies that โaccelerate the transition to net-zero emissions by 2050, or sooner, and align with the goal of the Paris Agreementโ set by the United Nations in 2015.ย
Despite decades of talk following the radicalย Limits to Growthย movement of the 1970s, the 1987ย Brundtlandย report and the 1992 Rio Earth Summitโs endorsement of โsustainable development,โ theย remake of corporations into vehicles for economic and climate control remains far from complete.In New York this week, the International Financial Reporting Standardsย (IFRS)ย Foundation held aย symposiumย to inform corporations, institutions, regulators and advisors on theย emerging accounting and reporting standards surrounding sustainable development.ย โAchieving a truly global baseline of sustainability-related disclosures necessitates a strong focus on supporting implementation across all economic settings, so that all market participants can access its benefits.โ
One of the symposium sessions was titled: โGet ready for jurisdictional adoption: How regulators are responding to the ISSBโ โ the International Sustainability Standards Board. Released last June, the ISSB standards will require corporations and investment organizations around the world to adopt common reporting approaches to climate and other environmental issues. Itโs an authoritarian, top-down and anti-competitive regime that leaves no country or sector free to set its own rules.
All nations and regulators are to be locked in a global climate-control structure.
Canada is part of that structure through theย Canadian Sustainability Standards Board,ย which this month announced a public consultation to advance adoption of sustainability disclosure standards in Canada. Theย consultationย begins in March and runs through to June. One objective is to determine, with provincial securities regulators, howย to impose mandatory reporting to replace voluntary standards on climate and environmental issues.
The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), which includes provincial securities commissions, is being pressured to take action on the grounds that Canada could get left behind. A paper released earlier this month by the Canada Climate Law Initiative at the University of British Columbia urged regulators to move forward quickly with new sustainability standards. Failure to act in concordance with the ISSB could cause Canada to lose international investment flows, the report claims.
The document continues through 20 pages of detailed recommendations covering climate-related strategies, investments, metrics, targets, performance, cash flows, scenarios, climate transition plans and science-based taxonomies. How any of this massive effort relates to corporate performance for shareholders is not addressed.
Looking to the future, the Law Initiative suggests the CSA should also begin thinking about requiring future reports related to a corporationโs โrelationship to terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats, ecosystems and populations of related fauna and flora species, including diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems, and their interrelation with Indigenous and affected communities.โ
Internationally, Canada must also deal with theย uncertainty surrounding the differing emerging global standards, including the still-to-be-determined U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approach to sustainable development. As the consulting firm EY put it in anย updated reportย last month, โEntities with significant operations in multiple jurisdictions need to understand the keyย differences among the SEC proposal, the ESRS [European Sustainability Reporting Standards] and the ISSB standardsย because they might be subject to more than one set of requirements.โย Anotherย EY reportย this week warns that sustainable development โcontinues to face a range ofย challengesโ in terms of costs, technologies and standardization.
The legal proposals would burden Canadian corporations and institutions with massive reporting responsibilities and costs related to climate risks. On corporate governance, for example, the Climate Law Initiative calls for securities issuers to โdisclose the governance processes, controls, and procedures it uses to monitor, manage, and oversee climate related risks and opportunities.โ
All of this is taking place on a shaky theoretical foundation in economics and environmental change.
The 1987 Brundtland Commission simplistically defined sustainable development as โdevelopment which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.โ Exactly what โneedsโ are is unclear. Maybe it was intended to capture Marxโs slogan: โFrom each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.โ Meaning: Take from wants of the developed world and give to the needs of the developing world?
The missing fundamentals of the 50-year-old movement to reshape the corporate model should receive a little more attention in the months ahead.ย Could it be that sustainable development is unsustainable?
Postscript
Meanwhile, theย sustainability movement is transitioning to students.ย In Kelowna, B.C., and Toronto this week the goal is to inspire the next woke generation of environmentally active citizens. At the Toronto event, the organizers summarized their plan. โWe welcomeย high school students and their teachersย to this dynamic one-day conference that brings together youth and community organizations from across Ontario to discuss,ย collaborate and learn how to make sustainable and equitable change in our world.โ
On episode 99 of Climate Change Roundtable, The Heartland Instituteโs Anthony Watts, H. Sterling Burnett, and Linnea Lueken Examine this issue as well as look at two new reports that have just been released: 1. A Climate Science Team Report on the Scientific Validity of EPAโS 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding. 2. Wyoming and Climate Change: CO2 Should Be Celebrated, Not Captured.
Climate change issues all center around increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere, however what is seldom mentioned by climate alarmists is the fact that CO2 can be both a benefit as well as a detriment. From the climate alarmism point of view CO2 is nothing but bad. But that’s really not true.
On episode 99 of Climate Change Roundtable, The Heartland Instituteโs Anthony Watts, H. Sterling Burnett, and Linnea Lueken Examine this issue as well as look at two new reports that have just been released:
1. A Climate Science Team Report on the Scientific Validity of EPAโS 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding – Climate- Science.press
2. Wyoming and Climate Change: CO2 Should Be Celebrated, Not Captured – CO2 Coalition
Plus, we will also have our regular weekly feature, Crazy Climate News – where we look at some of the most absurd climate alarmism stories of the week.
If coal is a planet wrecking problem, if it really mattered, about 30 countries are beating themselves up in acts of grandiose public flagellation, while one country is wrecking the planet and nobody cares. The truth is that no one is behaving like they think CO2 is causing a crisis.
If coal is a planet wrecking problem, if it really mattered, about 30 countries are beating themselves up in acts of grandiose public flagellation, while one country is wrecking the planet and nobody cares. The truth is that no one is behaving like they think CO2 is causing a crisis. All over the West everyone wears the hippie-care coat while buying the cheapest fridges, phones and fashion they can get from the global coal furnace. And China nods the nod then keeps on adding coal power plants.
Last year, the Chinese energy sectorโs carbon dioxide emissions increased 5.2 per cent, the same as gross domestic product, highlighting a failure to rein in energy-intensive growth, they estimated.
According to the Global Coal Plant Tracker 70 gigawatts of new coal power was built around the world in 2023. Of the 107 countries they tracked, one country built 47 gigawatts. The other 106 countries combined built 22 gigawatts. The distribution of new coal plants is thus:
Or put another way:
And this pattern has been repeated for 23 years.
This is the combined total of coal power installed around the world since the turn of the century:
So the rulers of the West buy their transformers, solar panels and wind turbines from The Coal Giant, while pretending they sincerely want to reduce coal use. And the populace buy their cheap t-shirts, lemon squeezers and avocado-slicers (and their fridges and freezers). And no one in polite society suggests sanctions or boycotts. (No one suggests โchecking the scienceโ either). Everyone wants their cheap stuff.
And so the charade continues, China pretends it will reduce emissions, and the West pretends it could happen:
โAnother year of rapidly rising emissions in 2023 leaves China way off track against its target of cutting carbon intensity by 18 per cent between 2021 and 2025,โ said Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA). โAs a result, carbon dioxide emissions would now need to fall by 4 to 6 per cent by 2025 to hit the goal.โ
I was wandering through the fabled land of X yesterday and came across the followingย post:
Figure 1. Post on X showing a shortened version of the original Figure 6 from the paper linked below.
Hmmm, sez I โฆ looks like an interesting study. Paleo CO2 levels back to about 65 million years ago, which peaked at about 2000 ppmv.
I was reminded of an earlier graphic Iโd done, showing paleo CO2ย levels over a much longer time span. Figure 1 above only covers the Tertiary and Quaternary ages, the far right two boxes on Figure 2 below.
Figure2. Full history of CO2 since the Cambrian Explosion of life.
FIgure 3. Panels a) and c) of Rae et al., Figure 6
The authors have fully bought into the โCO2 Roolz Climateโ theory, saying inter alia:
Changing levels of atmospheric CO2 have long been implicated in the well-documented cooling of the climate through the Cenozoic; however, outside of a handful of well-studied climate transitions, it has been hard to make a close link between CO2 and climate. Our new combined marine-based CO2 compilation shows, more clearly than in previous studies, a close correlation between CO2 and records of global temperature (based on either geochemical reconstructions and/or the state of the cryosphere) through the entire Cenozoic (Figure 6).
โฆ
Nonetheless, it is clear, even with these caveats, that atmospheric CO2 and temperature are closely coupled, both across the data set as a whole and within shorter time windows. While the data set as a whole suggests a relatively high climate sensitivity, much of this temperature change is apparently accomplished by jumps between different climate states.
Hmmm, sez I โฆ I wondered why they didnโt mention the value of what they claim is โa relatively high climate sensitivityโ for the data set as a whole. So I figured Iโd take a look at their data.
For the CO2 data, that was easy. They provide it in an Excel file in their Supplemental Material.
For the temperature data, the total opposite. They say โSurface temperature estimated from the benthic ฮด18O stack of Westerhold et al. (2020), using the algorithm of Hansen et al. (2013)โ โฆ except they donโt give you the relevant links to the data or the algorithm.
Grrr. I did that, dug out Westerholdโs data, found and applied the Hansen algorithm, links above, and dang, it took a while.
In any case, hereโs their CO2ย data.
Figure 4. Paleo CO2 levels to 66 million years ago
Our current levels are far from the highest even in just the last 5 million years, let alone 60 million years. (Note that I havenโt added a LOWESS smooth of the data as they did, because that effectively invents tens of millions of years of data.)
So my next question, of course, was how well the temperature corresponds with the log of the CO2ย levels. Figure 5 shows that relationship.
Figure 5. Paleo temperatures, and linear fit of the base 2 log of the CO2ย levels.
I have to say that is a very good agreement by climate and paleo standards, where measurements are always uncertain.
Next I looked in detail at the cluttered area at the lower right. Thatโs the time of the โice agesโ, periods of glaciation followed by periods of warmth. Figure 6 shows the ice ages.
Figure 6. Paleo temperatures, and linear fit of the base 2 log of the CO2ย levels. Iโve added lines between the temperature and fitted CO2ย values for each measurement time.
Once again, by the standards of paleo and climate, these are good fits.
So โฆ whatโs not to like? Does this actually show that CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere is really the secret global temperature control knob as the authors claim?
Perhaps not.
Letโs start by looking at the math. Iโll divide the math off so as not to bother folks who are math-averse โฆ for you, just jump over this section. Here is the summary of the linear fit of log2(CO2) and temperature.
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value P-value
(Intercept) 7.4810 0.1954 38.3 <2e-16
log2_CO2 6.3137 0.1087 58.1 <2e-16
Residual standard error: 2.468 on 644 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.8398, Adjusted R-squared: 0.8395
F-statistic: 3375 on 1 and 644 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16
โlog2_CO2โ is the base 2 logarithm of the change in CO2. The โEstimateโ of 6.3 in bold above is the climate sensitivity, the estimate of the temperature change corresponding to a doubling of CO2.
So yes, as the authors say above, this does show a โrelatively high climate sensitivityโ. The climate sensitivity of 6.3 is the third highest of 172 various past estimates of climate sensitivity. Hereโs a look at previous estimates.
Figure 7. Estimates of climate sensitivity from theory and reviews, observations, paleoclimate, climatology, and GCMs.
Another problem, beyond the climate sensitivity being one of the highest of the 173 estimates, is the much higher CO2 values earlier in the past shown in Figure 2. If climate sensitivity is 6.3ยฐC per doubling, that would put the global average surface temperature at around 40ยฐC in the Cambrian and around 36ยฐC in the Devonian โฆ seems unlikely.
However, thereโs a larger problem. The CO2 theory is that a rise in CO2 absorbs more upwelling longwave radiation. This causes an imbalance in the net radiation at the top of the atmosphere by redirecting some of the upwelling longwave back to the surface. The amount of this increased downwelling radiation is called the CO2 forcing.
The surface temperature then warms, increasing the upwelling surface longwave radiation to restore the balance.
Figure 8 below shows the difficulty factor. When the earthโs surface warms, it emits more radiation following something called the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Figure 8 below shows the increased forcing due to increased CO2ย levels in the past, along with the corresponding increase in surface upwelling longwave radiation from the temperature increases.
Figure 8. Changes in upwelling surface longwave radiation, and downwelling atmospheric longwave radiation due to CO2.
Yikes. So thereโs the perplexitudeโweโre told to believe that a change in CO2 forcing of 13 W/m2 causes a corresponding 128 W/m2 in upwelling surface longwave radiation.
But where does the extra energy come from? Seems like the tail is wagging the dog. After allowing for the 13 W/m2 of CO2 forcing, thereโs another 115 W/m2 of extra energy leaving the surface โฆ but where did it all come from?
By comparison, solar energy absorbed by the surface is 164 W/m2. So the surface needs to be getting another three-quarters of a sunโs worth of energy from โฆ somewhere โฆ
It would have to be some extraordinarily large feedback to the warming if thatโs what caused more warming. The feedback factor would have to be ~ 0.9 โฆ and if the feedback factor is greater than 1.0, it grows without end. And that would suggest that at some point in the past, the natural fluctuations in this feedback would have led to endless growth.
And itโs difficult to think of a physical process that would supply that 115 W/m2 to the surface. For example, total cloud albedo reflects about 75 W/m2 back to space. So if the positive cloud feedback led to the complete disappearance of the clouds, that would only increase the surface absorbed solar by 66 W/m2 after adjusting for increased surface reflection โฆ and weโre looking for 115 W/m2.
The same is true for the positive water feedback. The numbers arenโt big enough. The IPCC AR6 WG1 Chapter 7 Section 7.4.2.2 estimates a combined water vapor and lapse rate feedback at 1.12 W/m2 per ยฐC of warming. The warming back to 60 million years ago is about 15ยฐC. So water vapor+lapse rate feedback would be on the order of 15ยฐC * 1.12 W/m2 per ยฐC = 17 W/m2 โฆ and weโre looking for 115 W/m2.
What else โฆ the paleo temperature or paleo CO2 might be incorrectly calculated, in which case none of this shows anything.
A final possibility, of course, is that the warming has little to do with CO2 and that the CO2 levels are a function of temperature and not the other way around โฆ
I titled this post โA Curious Paleo Puzzleโ. Thatโs the puzzle. How can an increase of 13 W/m2 in CO2 forcing cause an increase of 115 W/m2 of upwelling surface longwave radiation?
All suggestions welcome.
Here on our redwood forested northern California hillside, thereโs a small triangle of the Pacific Ocean visible between the far hills on a warm sunny day after a long string of storms. The wind brings us the sound of the surf gnashing and gnawing on the coast six miles (ten km) in the distance. The grandkids, two and four years old, play and laugh in the next room.
With best wishes for sun, rain, and the joys of family in your life,
w.
You May Have Heard This Before: When you comment, I ask that you quote the exact words you are discussing. It avoids endless misunderstandings.
Data: Iโve made two CSV files containing the data used in this analysis so they can be used in Excel or the computer language of your choice. One contains the temperatures, 23,722 different paleo measurements.
The other contains the paleo CO2 data, 646 measurements. That one also contains the temperatures from the other dataset, interpolated at the dates of the CO2 measurements. This allows for the calculation and graphing of the relationship between the datasets.
You must be logged in to post a comment.