Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
In our recently released Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), we forecast that U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will continue to lead growth in U.S. natural gas trade as three LNG export projects currently under construction start operations and ramp up to full production by the end of 2025. We also forecast increased natural gas exports by pipeline, mainly to Mexico. In our STEO forecast, net exports of U.S. natural gas (exports minus imports) grow 6% to 13.6 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in 2024 compared with 2023. In 2025, net exports increase another 20% to 16.4 Bcf/d.
In our recently released Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), we forecast that U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will continue to lead growth in U.S. natural gas trade as three LNG export projects currently under construction start operations and ramp up to full production by the end of 2025. We also forecast increased natural gas exports by pipeline, mainly to Mexico. In our STEO forecast, net exports of U.S. natural gas (exports minus imports) grow 6% to 13.6 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in 2024 compared with 2023. In 2025, net exports increase another 20% to 16.4 Bcf/d.
We forecast that U.S. LNG exports increase 2% in 2024 to average 12.2 Bcf/d. In 2025, we forecast that LNG exports grow by an additional 18% (2.1 Bcf/d). We forecast U.S. natural gas exports by pipeline to grow by 3% (0.3 Bcf/d) in 2024 and by 4% in 2025. We expect pipeline imports to decline by 0.4 Bcf/d in 2024 and then increase slightly (0.1 Bcf/d) in 2025.
In 2024–25, we forecast that existing U.S. LNG export facilities will run at similar utilization rates as in 2023. Annual maintenance typically occurs in the spring and fall, when global LNG demand is lower and temperatures are mild. In April and May 2024, we expect LNG exports to decline while two of the three trains at the Freeport LNG export facility undergo annual maintenance. Later in 2024, we expect that Plaquemines LNG Phase I and Corpus Christi Stage 3 will begin LNG production and load first cargoes by the end of the year. In 2025, the developers of Golden Pass LNG plan to place in service the first two trains of this new three-train LNG export facility.
We forecast an increase in U.S. natural gas pipeline exports to Mexico as several pipelines in Mexico—Tula-Villa de Reyes, Tuxpan-Tula, and Cuxtal Phase II connecting to the Energía Mayakan pipeline on the Yucatán Peninsula—become fully operational in 2024–25. These pipelines started partial service in 2022–23 but have not been operating at full capacity. Also, flows via the Sur de Texas-Tuxpan underwater pipeline are likely to increase slightly in 2024 when it begins delivering natural gas from the United States to Mexico’s first LNG export project, Fast LNG Altamira.
U.S. natural gas pipeline imports from Canada remained relatively unchanged over the last two years (2022–23), averaging 8.1 Bcf/d. We expect pipeline imports from Canada to remain a key supply source, particularly for the U.S. Midwest region during winter months.
Biden’s imbecilic pause did not affect LNG facilities that are fully permitted and/or under construction. By the time the next president reverses this malfeasance next year, LNG exports will have climbed by about 2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) as new facilities come online. Projects currently under construction will add enough capacity (~17 Bcf/d) to more than double the current export volume (~12 Bcf/d).
At worst, the moronic pause in Department of Energy (DOE) permitting will delay final investment decisions (FID) for about 13 Bcf/d of capacity additions. 7 Bcf/d of that total have already been approved by FERC.
FERC is the agency that approves the construction of LNG facilities. DOE approves permits to export LNG to nations that do not have free trade agreements (FTA) with the US.
An Amazingly “Futile and Stupid Gesture”
Sixteen states have sued the Biden administration over this unlawful pause in LNG export permitting:
March 21, 2024 | Press Release
Attorney General Ken Paxton Sues Biden to Stop Unlawful Ban on LNG Exports
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed suit to block the Biden Administration’s unlawful and indefinite ban on approving applications to export liquified natural gas (“LNG”) that the Department of Energy itself has already acknowledged has “no factual or legal basis.”
Texas, along with Louisiana and fourteen other states, has filed a lawsuit to void the unconstitutional LNG export ban, which ignores the Natural Gas Act’s presumption in favor of exports, decades of Department of Energy policy, and State and private reliance on exports. Texas is the nation’s leading producer of both crude oil and natural gas. The Biden Administration’s ban stands to harm the Texas economy and the millions who rely on Texas energy.
“Biden’s unilateral decree disregards statutory mandates, flouts the legal process, upends the oil and gas industry, disrupts the Texas economy, and subverts our constitutional structure,” said Attorney General Paxton. “The ban will drive billions of dollars in investment away from Texas, hinder our ability to maximize revenue for public schools, force Texas producers to flare excess natural gas instead of taking it to market, and annihilate critical jobs. I will not stand by while Biden attacks Texas.”
Reporting has also unveiled other possible motivations behind the unexplained LNG Export Ban. For example, White House officials have acknowledged that “one significant reason for the” LNG Export Ban “was to address concerns of young and climate-focused voters,” whom “the administration needs . . . in the fall.” R. Rapier, How An American LNG Export Pause Could Increase Global Carbon Emissions, Forbes (Jan. 29, 2024), https://perma.cc/3WQR-84HK. The “hope is that announcing this pause will energize them to vote for Biden in the November election.” Id.
Other reporting describes President Biden’s climate envoy, John Podesta, as an architect of the LNG Export Ban, and notes that Podesta’s brother is a lobbyist for foreign interests— including Russian LNG oligarchs—who stand to benefit significantly from the Ban. See A. Goodman, John Podesta Was Behind Biden’s Decision To Pause Natural Gas Exports. His Lobbyist Brother Stands To Benefit, Wash. Free Beacon (Feb. 15, 2024), https://perma.cc/P3JW-AZSA.
World demand for products and fuels made from fossil fuels that did not exist before the 1800s is giving dollars to oil producers to increase supply, then claiming the suppliers are causing climate change.
World demand for products and fuels made from fossil fuels that did not exist before the 1800s is giving dollars to oil producers to increase supply, then claiming the suppliers are causing climate change.
Thanks to all the products and fuels, human ingenuity has been able to develop over the last 200 years, after the discovery of crude oil, the world has populated from 1 to 8 billion. Today, crude oil is the basis of our materialistic society and the lifeblood of our civilization.
Looking back at the history of the petroleum industry, it illustrates that the black cruddy looking crude oil was virtually useless unless it could be manufactured (refineries) into oil derivatives that are now the basis of transportation fuels and also the oil derivatives that are the basis of products, such as silicon-based semiconductor chips, plastics, lubricants, and medications, that are essential for supporting modern lifestyles.
The few wealthy countries of the United States, Germany, England, and Australia, representing about 6 percent of the world’s population (509 million vs. 8 billion), are mandating social changes to achieve net zero emissions.
As a reminder, we had a net-zero emissions society before the 1800s when there was no fuel-based transportation of cars, trucks, planes, ships, militaries, or launches into space, and no coal-fired power plants, no natural gas power plants and no crude oil to be manufactured at refineries into usable products.
Before the 1800s, there was nothing that needed electricity, such as iPhones, computers, and data centers, which are all made from oil that now require electricity to operate.
The wealthier developed countries may not be cognizant that 80 percent of the 8 billion on this planet, which is more than 6 billion on this earth, are earning less than $10 a day, may never be able to enjoy the materialistic living styles of those in wealthier countries, or ever own an automobile.
Those developed countries have come a long way from the zero-emissions society that existed before the 1800s when:
There were no iPhones, computers, or data centers
There were no coal-fired power plants before the 1800s
There were no natural gas-powered plants before the 1800s
There were no nuclear power plants before the 1800s
There were no products for heating, cooling, or irrigation to prevent weather-related fatalities and injuries before the 1800s
There were no tires or asphalt to support transportation infrastructures
Life expectancy was short, as life longevity was about 40 years of age before the 1800s
When people were born, they seldom traveled more than 100 miles from their birthplace before the 1800s
There was no medical industry before the 1800s
There were no electronics before the 1800s
There were no transportation infrastructures before the 1800s
There were airplanes and thus no airports before the 1800s
There were no cruise ships nor merchant ships, other than sailing vessels, before the 1800s
There were no military ships or planes before the 1800s
More than 6,000 products that are based on oil are being used for the health and well-being of humanity, and the generation of electricity did not exist a few short centuries ago.
In two short centuries since 1800, we now have more than 50,000 merchant ships, more than 20,000 commercial aircraft and more than 50,000 military aircraft that use the fuels manufactured from crude oil.
The more developed countries are continually seeking:
Smaller, faster, and greater capacity of their iPhones, computers, and semiconductor chips
Larger and faster planes and ships
Greater access to space exploration
Before we accuse big oil of not having a zero-emission society, we need to ask ourselves: “How dare WE in the wealthier countries continue to increase our demand for the products and fuels manufactured from crude oil that make OUR lives more comfortable?”
Without a replacement for those petrochemical derivatives manufactured from crude oil, phasing out oil would phase out the medical industry, militaries, transportation, communications, and electrical power industries, none of which existed before the 1800s.
Sarcastically, or more realistically, these are a few boomerang impacts of a society less addicted to the fuels and products from crude oil:
Without oil, there would be a significant loss of billions of lives of the 8 billion on this planet from starvation, diseases, and weather-related fatalities because of shortages of food, medications, and products and a reduction in transportation infrastructures, all of which are based on components made from fossil fuels!
Without oil, we would drastically reduce the homeless population as all the tents and sleeping bags utilized by the homeless are made from fossil fuels! The homeless will need to live like cavemen in a non-materialistic society like that in the pre-1800s.
Without oil, we would drastically reduce the unfunded pension liabilities associated with those who retire early from business or start collecting Social Security in their mid-60s and collect pensions well into their 80s, as few people would live beyond their 40s!
Without oil, a smaller number of colleges would be needed because there would be no need for doctors for hospitals or engineers for infrastructure development, as those hospitals and various infrastructures are all based on components made from fossil fuels!
Climate change may impact millions, but without fossil fuels and the infrastructures and products we have today that did not exist before the 1800s, we may lose billions from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths.
Eradicating the world of crude oil usage would ground the 20,000 commercial aircraft, ground more than 50,000 military aircraft in the world, leave the 50,000 merchant ships tied up at docks, and discontinue the military and space programs!
“Big oil” only exists because the wealthier countries are addicted to the products and fuels that are manufactured from fossil fuels that make our life more comfortable?”
Reducing the demand for the products and fuels manufactured from crude oil will end the fossil fuels era! Are we ready to revert to the zero-emission society that existed before the 1800s?
Please share this information with your friends to encourage energy literacy conversations at the family dinner table.
Evaporation is supposed to increase with warming. But, per a new study (Jin et al., 2024), “observation results around the world have shown that evaporation has been steadily declining since the 1950s.” This is referred to as the anthropogenic global warming “evaporation paradox” problem, where models and assumptions are contradicted by observations.
Evaporation is supposed to increase with warming. But, per a new study (Jin et al., 2024), “observation results around the world have shown that evaporation has been steadily declining since the 1950s.” This is referred to as the anthropogenic global warming “evaporation paradox” problem, where models and assumptions are contradicted by observations.
According to the IPCC (AR6) and the most seminal paper on the subject (Trenberth, 2011, with 3800 citations), “anthropogenic forcings will drive an increase in global mean evaporation over most oceanic areas (high confidence),” as “increased heating leads to greater evaporation.”
But new paper once again points out that observations conflict with the anthropogenic global warming narrative.
“Paradoxically, against the backdrop of rising global temperatures, terrestrial observation results around the world have shown that Epan has been steadily declining since the 1950s…”
“The ‘evaporation paradox’ phenomenon has been reported in many studies on regional or global scales.”
The authors acknowledge it is “widely proposed” there will be “increased evaporation in open water bodies” with warming. So their results, which show declining evaporation since the 1950s, may “seem surprising.”
“At first glance, these results may seem surprising, since the near-surface air temperature has been rising, and it is widely proposed that warming climate will make the air drier and promote the hydrological cycle, which will lead to increased evaporation in open water bodies, including pan evaporators.”
If it can indeed be established that evaporation increases with warming, and, simultaneously, evaporation trends can be shown to be declining, at what point do we question if there has indeed been sufficiently significant warming in the regions where evaporation is declining? Why is referring to these trends as a surprising “paradox” that can perhaps be explained away with more assumptions the better option?
Positive feedbacks now became the stock in trade of all climate models
which now were producing responses to doubling CO2 of 3°C
and even 4°C rather than a paltry 1°C or less.
How did the current obsession with decarbonization arise?
Part of a lecture given by Prof. R, Lindzen to MIT Students for Free Inquiry on March 6, 2024 is posted by John Ray at his blog Greenie Watch. Excerpts in italics with my bold and added images.
Currently, there is great emphasis on the march through the educational institutions: first the schools of education and then higher education in the humanities and the social sciences and now STEM.
What is usually ignored is that the first institutions to be captured were professional societies. My wife attended a meeting of the Modern Language Association in the late 60’s , and it was already fully ‘woke.’ While there is currently a focus on the capture of education, DEI was not the only goal of the march through the institutions. I think it would be a mistake to ignore the traditional focus of revolutionary movements on the means of production.
The vehicle for this was the capture of the environmental movement.
Prior to 1970, the focus of this movement was on things like whales, endangered species, landscape, clean air and water, and population. However, with the first Earth Day in April of 1970 , the focus turned to the energy sector which, after all, is fundamental to all production, and relatedly, involves trillions of dollars. This was accompanied by the creation of new environmental organizations like Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council. It was also accompanied by new governmental organizations like the EPA and the Department of Transportation.
Once again, professional societies were easy pickings: the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and even the honorary societies like the National Academy of Science, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, etc. There was a bit of floundering to begin with. The movement initially attempted to focus on global cooling due to the reflection of sunlight by sulfate aerosols emitted by coal fired generators . After all, there seemed to have been global cooling between the 1930’s and the 1970’s. However, the cooling ended in the 1970’s.
There was an additional effort to tie the sulfates to acid rain which was allegedly killing forests. This also turned out to be a dud. In the 70’s, attention turned to CO2 and its contribution to warming via the greenhouse effect. The attraction of controlling CO2 to political control freaks was obvious. It was the inevitable product of all burning of carbon – based fuels. It was also the product of breathing.
However, there was a problem: CO2 was a minor greenhouse gas compared to the naturally produced water vapor. Doubling CO2 would only lead to warming of less than 1°C. A paper in the early 70’s by Manabe and Wetherald came to the rescue. Using a highly unrealistic one – dimensional model of the atmosphere, they found that assuming (without any basis) that relative humidity remained constant as the atmosphere warmed would provide a positive feedback that would amplify the impact of CO2 by a factor of 2. This violated Le Chatelier’s Principle that held that natural systems tended to oppose change, but to be fair, the principle was not something that had been rigorously proven.
Positive feedbacks now became the stock in trade of all climate models which now were producing responses to doubling CO2 of 3°C and even 4°C rather than a paltry 1°C or less.
The enthusiasm of politicians became boundless. Virtue signaling elites promised to achieve net zero emissions within a decade or 2 or 3 with no ideaof how to achieve this without destroying their society. Ordinary people, confronted with impossible demands on their own well – being, have not found warming of a few degrees to be very impressive. Few of them contemplate retiring to the arctic rather than Florida.
Excited politicians, confronted by this resistance, have frantically changed their story. Rather than emphasizing miniscule changes in their temperature metric, they now point to weather extremes which occur almost daily some place on earth, as proof not only of climate change but of climate change due to increasing CO2 (and now also to the even more negligible contributors to the greenhouse effect like methane and nitrous oxide) even though such extremes show no significant correlation with the emissions.
From the political point of view, extremes provide convenient visuals that have more emotional impact than small temperature changes.
The desperation of political figures often goes beyond this to claiming that climate change is an existential threat (associated with alleged ‘tipping points’) even though the official documents produced to support climate concerns never come close to claiming this, and where there is no theoretical or observational basis for tipping points .
I should note that there was one exception to the focus on warming, and that was the ozone depletion issue. However, even this issue served a purpose. When Richard Benedick, the American negotiator of the Montreal Convention which banned Freon passed through MIT on his way back from Montreal, he gloated over his success, but assured us that we hadn’t seen anything yet; we should wait to see what they would do with CO2 . In brief the ozone issue constituted a dry run for global warming.
Yes, they are projecting more than 100 Trillion US$.
To be sure, the EPA ’ s activities still include conventional pollution control, but energy dominates. Of course, the attraction of power is not the only thing motivating politicians. The ability to award trillions of dollars to reorient our energy sector means that there are recipients of these trillions of dollars, and these recipients must only share a few percent of these trillions of dollars to support the campaigns of these politicians for many election cycles and guarantee the support of these politicians for the policies associated with the reorientation.
“Wind and solar pose inherent problems; especially to the ultra-high electric energy ‘purity’ requirements of AI/data centers. Data centers and AI generally require nine-nines reliability and quality metrics such as voltage, frequency, harmonics, etc.”
“Wind and solar pose inherent problems; especially to the ultra-high electric energy ‘purity’ requirements of AI/data centers. Data centers and AI generally require nine-nines reliability and quality metrics such as voltage, frequency, harmonics, etc.”
Several recent articles have highlighted that artificial intelligence (AI) and data centers are increasing electricity usage, creating concern about adequate supply and its effect on local communities. These articles include:
The nation’s 2,700 data centers sapped more than 4 percent of the country’s total electricity in 2022, according to the International Energy Agency. Its projections show that by 2026, they will consume 6 percent.
While the hyperscalers typically need 10-14kW per rack in existing data centers, this is likely to rise to 40-60kW for AI-ready racks equipped with resource-hungry GPUs. This means that overall consumption of data centers across the US is likely to reach 35GW by 2030, up from 17GW in 2022.
Fundamentally, supporting accelerating AI/ML adoption requires more power and cooling than much of the existing data center inventory can accommodate,” the report said. “Not all existing data centers lend themselves to retrofitting, catalyzing demand for new product in both existing and emerging markets.
Meanwhile, the Biden Administration, largely through the perversely titled “Inflation Reduction Act” (IRA), is providing massive and unsustainable economic incentives to move the electric generation market towards virtually exclusive reliance upon renewable energies (wind and solar in particular) plus batteries. However, such forms of electric energy pose inherent problems; especially to the ultra-high electric energy “purity” requirements of AI/data centers. Data centers and AI generally require nine-nines reliability and quality metrics such as voltage, frequency, harmonics, etc.
A recent WSJ article cogently articulated such problems as follows:
Meantime, the Inflation Reduction Act’s huge renewable subsidies make it harder for fossil-fuel and nuclear plants to compete in wholesale power markets. The cost of producing power from solar and wind is roughly the same as from natural gas. But IRA tax credits can offset up to 50% of the cost of renewable operators.
Many (if not most) electric utilities take these perverse subsidies as long as they can get them blessed by their (Federal, State and/or local regulators). Electric utilities probably self-justify such actions as serving their fiduciary duties. Typically, however, they receive massive bonuses too. In so doing, they ignore both the physics denying reality of all renewables all the time for everything and the long-term economic devastation thereof.
Other free market advocates are also weighing-in on these issues. They include:
The purpose of this article is to call for increased attention to be paid to market-based technology approaches for addressing these problems. That focuses upon (but is not limited to) the rapidly growing needs of AI/data centers. An approach, previously known as cogeneration and combined heat and power (CHP) gained popularity beginning in 1978 with the passage of PURPA. Great technology, bad policy.[1]
CHP technologies under the Biden Administration have lost favor given the myopic fixation upon establishing an energy monoculture via renewables, with all electricity and the electric grids necessary to deliver this fantasy. Customer-sited supply is taking a backseat. Recent estimates, just for the U.S., and just for storage batteries places the total costs of this transition in the range of multiples of the world GDP. These costs could double if the unlikely objective to “electrify everything” takes hold. [For more information see Climate Change Conundrum (and comments) and “State-by-State “Electrification” Costs Report”.]
CHP provides a case-in-point showing how electric and natural gas infrastructures can and should work together for the betterment of the economy, the environment and the public-at-large focusing on data centers burgeoning electrical demand. Certainly, there are many more energy end-use examples that could likewise benefit from diversity. Unfortunately, at present, diversity has become a priority of the Biden Administration for everything except energy.
4% of 4,240,000,000,000 kWh = 169,600,000,000 kWh/year (2022 electric consumption of data centers)
169,600,000,000 kWh/year ÷ 2,700 data centers = 62,814,815 kWh/year per data center. Assuming 8,760 hours per year of base-loaded operation, this equates to 7,170.64 kW (or 7.17 MW ) of demand.
This demand puts average data centers in the technology range of aero-derivative gas combustion turbines (a.k.a. CT’s; e.g., Solar Turbines) and/or an array of VERY large reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE; e.g., Jenbacher or Caterpillar). The latter (RICE) alternative may provide more economical redundancy by having at least one more “genset” than needed to meet peak demand in times of scheduled (maintenance) or unscheduled outages.
At present, it is common practice to install diesel-fueled generators for emergency backup. Therefore, it is a manageable incremental cost to upgrade to continuous duty-rated natural gas engines and use them as such for CHP.
Since every kWh of data center CPU/GPU electricity consumption use produces 3412 Btu’s of heat energy, that heat must be removed to safeguard equipment and operations. Consequently, a significant portion of the electricity used in AI and data centers is for large tonnage electric motor driven centrifugal chillers to deal with internal heat gain from electric operated computing devices (etc.). In this analysis we are taking a SWAG that 25% of the total 7.17 MW load is for cooling equipment to deal with such internal heat gains.
Such cooling loads can be at least partially offset through engine heat recovery absorption chillers (e.g., Broad USA, Hitachi, Carrier, etc.). Conversely, heat from engines in this size range can power steam boilers, that can be coupled to electric generators to make even more electricity. Even still, there is ample excess heat to power absorption chillers. In any case, installing heat recovery absorption chillers instead of electric motor-drive centrifugal chillers substantially lowers the added investment for absorption alternatives.
Simply assuming a cooling load of 7,171kW times 3,412 Btu’s per kilowatt hour then divided by 12,000 Btu per ton-hour equates to 2,039 tons of refrigeration for a typical or average data center. But that’s not just for the CPU/GPU load. There is also some internal heat gain from lighting fans, people, etc., but that’s probably not much relative to CPU/GPU load from pushing electrons through silicone. Let building designers thoroughly calculate cooling requirements. According to Broad USA, their heat recovery absorption chillers operate at an average of 140 % efficiency (i.e., a C.O.P. of 1.4) as long as the heat recovered meets their products’ requirements as far as flow rate, temperature, etc., etc.
At this point, analyses become site/application specific. To begin to conduct a proper feasibility study, a full 12 months of electric utility bills for an actual facility are needed and cooling load percentages factored in. With utility billing records in hand, a “’before & after” spreadsheet can be created that looks at utility billing impacts for a given facility operations with and without on-site generation and heat recovery absorption cooling systems.
To be meaningful, the spreadsheet should be based upon actual electric rate tariff sheets that the facility is billed on. If the analyst can replicate monthly utility bills based upon monthly demand and consumption, they are off to a good start to estimate savings potential. In addition to pecuniary savings, improvements in power quality and reliability from having generation on site should be evaluated.
One significant benefit of such an approach is the savings that accrue to other customers. As perfect power quality customers like data centers increase in number and demand, should the grid be designed and operated to meet their requirements and allocate those cost to all? Or should the power quality and reliability of the masses be met, and those with more stringent demands self-serve their nine-nines requirements.
Of course, permitting such systems has become increasingly complicated. Therefore, it’s important to use the services of knowledgeable experienced consulting engineers to develop plans and get them through permitting processes.
Summary & Conclusions
Combined heat and power using waste heat recovery is a natural for AI/data centers deserves more consideration. We hope that we have lit that spark. Whether that spark grows or not depends upon how permanently the Biden Administration has stifled market-based alternatives to renewables plus batteries via the “Inflation Reduction Act” that strongly moves the market to higher and unsustainable levels of “clean energy” electrification.
The last of the additional references below indicates that there may be certain incentives for CHP through this Act, but we maintain that all such incentives are hidden taxes that are fueled by massive and ruinous deficit spending. Worse, there is no nexus between the subsidy levels and the value of CHP in specific cases. It is highly likely that some projects would see an excess level or insufficient level. We would be far better off as a society if everyone “just said no” and the Federal government got out of the way of innovation instead of trying to manage it.
Mark Krebs, a mechanical engineer and energy policy consultant, has been involved with energy efficiency design and program evaluation for over thirty years. Mark has served as an expert witness in dozens of State energy efficiency proceedings, has been an advisor to DOE and has submitted scores of Federal energy-efficiency filings. His many MasterResource posts on natural gas vs. electricity and “Deep Decarbonization” federal policy can be found here. Mark’s first article was in Public Utilities Fortnightly, titled “It’s a War Out There: A Gas Man Questions Electric Efficiency” (December 1996). Recently retired from Spire Inc., Krebs has formed an energy policy consultancy (Gas Analytic & Advocacy Services) with other veteran energy analysts.
Tom Tanton is the Director of Science and Technology Assessment for E&E Legal. He is also president of T² & Associates, a firm providing services to the energy and technology industries. Tanton has 45 years of direct and responsible experience in energy technology and legislative interface, having been central to many of the critical legislative changes that enable technology choice. Until 2000, Tanton was the Principal Policy Advisor with the California Energy Commission (CEC) in Sacramento, California. As General Manager at EPRI, from 2000 to 2003, Tanton was responsible for the overall management and direction of collaborative research and development programs in electric generation technologies, integrating technology, market infrastructure, and public policy. From 2003 through 2007, Tanton was Senior Fellow and Vice President of the Houston based Institute for Energy Research. He was also a Senior Fellow in Energy Studies with the Pacific Research Institute until 2010.
[1] The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) was placed into law November 9, 1978 National Energy Act. It promoted energy conservation greater use of domestic energy and renewable energy (increase supply) and reflected the beginning of major increases in government intervention energy markets. One example of this intervention is the mandate for utilities to buy the output, at government determined prices, from cogeneration facilities.
The goal of reaching “Net Zero” global anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide sounds overwhelmingly difficult. While humanity continues producing CO2 at increasing rates (with a temporary pause during COVID), how can we ever reach the point where these emissions start to fall, let alone reach zero by 2050 or 2060?
The goal of reaching “Net Zero” global anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide sounds overwhelmingly difficult. While humanity continues producing CO2 at increasing rates (with a temporary pause during COVID), how can we ever reach the point where these emissions start to fall, let alone reach zero by 2050 or 2060?
What isn’t being discussed (as far as I can tell) is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels (which we will assume for the sake of discussion causes global warming) will start to fall even while humanity is producing lots of CO2.
Let me repeat that, in case you missed the point:
Atmospheric CO2 levels will start to fall even with modest reductions in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Why is that? The reason is due to something called the CO2 “sink rate”. It has been observed that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more quickly nature removes the excess. The NASA studies showing “global greening” in satellite imagery since the 1980s is evidence of that.
Last year I published a paper showing that the record of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa, HI suggests that each year nature removes an average of 2% of the atmospheric excess above 295 ppm (parts per million). The purpose of the paper was to not only show how well a simple CO2 budget model fits the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, but also to demonstrate that the common assumption that nature is becoming less able to remove “excess” CO2 from the atmosphere appears to be an artifact of El Nino and La Nina activity since monitoring began in 1959. As a result, that 2% sink rate has remained remarkably constant over the last 60+ years. (By the way, the previously popular CO2 “airborne fraction” has huge problems as a meaningful statistic, and I wish it had never been invented. If you doubt this, just assume CO2 emissions are cut in half and see what the computed airborne fraction does. It’s meaningless.)
Here’s my latest model fit to the Mauna Loa record through 2023, where I have added a stratospheric aerosol term to account for the fact that major volcanic eruptions actually *reduce* atmospheric CO2 due to increased photosynthesis from diffuse sunlight penetrating deeper into vegetation canopies:
What Would a “Modest” 1% per Year Reduction in Global CO2 Emissions Do?
The U.N. claims that CO2 emissions will need to decline rapidly to achieve Net Zero by mid-Century. Specifically, they say 45% reductions below 2010 levels will need to be made by 2030, and Net Zero will need to be achieved by 2050, in order to limit future global warming to the (rather arbitrary) goal of 1.5 deg. C.
But let’s look at what a much more modest reduction in CO2 emissions (1% per year) would do to future atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Here’s a plot of the history of global CO2 emissions, and how that trajectory would change with 1% per year reductions from 2023 onward. (Even this seems optimistic, but we can all agree the U.N.’s goal is delusional),
When we run the CO2 model with these assumed emissions, here’s how the atmospheric CO2 concentration responds:
Even though the CO2 emissions continue, atmospheric CO2 levels start to fall around 2060. Also shown for reference are the four CMIP5 scenarios of future CO2 emissions, with RCP8.5 often being the one used to scare people regarding future climate change, despite it being extremely unlikely.
The message here is that CO2 emissions don’t have to be cut very much for atmospheric CO2 levels to reverse their climb, and start to fall. The reason is that nature removes CO2 in proportion to how much excess CO2 resides in the atmosphere, and that rate of removal can actually exceed our CO2 emissions with modest cuts in emissions.
I don’t understand why this issue is not being discussed. All of the Net Zero rhetoric I see seems to imply that warming will continue if we don’t cut our CO2 emissions to essentially zero. But that’s not true, because that’s not how nature works.
BBC oddball Chris Packham has hit back at claims reported on Neil Oliver‘s GB News show that half the world’s population could die if Net Zero was implemented in full. “So Ofcom can you please explain how you allow this utter BS to be broadcast,” he wails. Running to Ofcom would appear to be a trade protection measure – millions will die has been the tried and trusted modus operandi of climate catastrophist Chris for decades.
BBC oddball Chris Packham has hit back at claims reported on Neil Oliver‘s GB News show that half the world’s population could die if Net Zero was implemented in full. “So Ofcom can you please explain how you allow this utter BS to be broadcast,” he wails. Running to Ofcom would appear to be a trade protection measure – millions will die has been the tried and trusted modus operandi of climate catastrophist Chris for decades.
This would appear to be the same Chris Packham who told the Telegraph in October 2010 that there were too many humans on the planet, and “we need to do something about it”. In 2020, he informed the Daily Mail that “quite frankly” smallpox, measles, mumps and malaria were there “to regulate our population”. Over his broadcast career, untroubled by Ofcom interest, Packham has claimed mass extinctions of all life on Earth unless humans stop burning hydrocarbons. Of course there are those who point out that these popular mass extinctions only seem to exist in computer models. Hydrocarbons, meanwhile, have led to unprecedented prosperity and health, unimaginable to previous generations, across many parts of a planet that now supports a sustainable population of humans numbering eight billion.
Of course Net Zero is not going to kill four billion people because Net Zero is never going to happen. Day-by-day, support is crumbling around the world as the political collectivisation project, supported by increasingly discredited computer-modelled opinions, is starting to fall apart as it bumps into the hard rock of reality. History teaches us that tribes that grow weak and decadent are easy prey for their stronger neighbours. But the suggestion that four billion will die if Net Zero should ever be inflicted on global populations is worth examining. After all, it is likely to be true.
The four billion dead noted on GB News came from a remark made by Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace. Interviewed on Fox News, he said: “If we ban fossil fuels, agricultural production would collapse. People will begin to starve, and half the population will die in a very short period of time”. Four billion dead if artificial fertiliser is banned is not ‘BS’, it is an almost guaranteed outcome. In a recent science paper, Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen of Princeton and MIT respectively noted that “eliminating fossil fuel-derived nitrogen fertiliser and pesticides will create worldwide starvation”. With the use of nitrogen fertiliser, crop yields around the world have soared in recent decades and natural famines, as opposed to those local outbreaks caused by humans, have largely disappeared.
Much of the luxury middle class Net Zero obsession is based on a seeming hatred of human progress. It is a campaign to push back the benefit of mass industrialisation, although it is doubtful that many of the ardent promoters think the drastic reductions in standards of living will apply to them. It is narcissism on stilts and based on an almost complete ignorance of how the food in their faddy diets arrives on their plates. It shows a complete disregard for the central role that hydrocarbons play in their lives. It is based on a profound distaste for almost any modern manufacturing process. These days, they do not know people who actually make things, and when they meet them they often dislike them. Nutty Guardianista George Monbiot recently tweeted that ending animal farming is as important as leaving fossil fuels in the ground. “Eating meat, milk and eggs is an indulgence the planet cannot afford,” he added.
Leaving fossil fuels in the ground will mean the following products will largely disappear.
Circulated on social media and recently published by Paul Homewood, the illustration is a wake-up call to the importance of hydrocarbons. Without it, humans would struggle to make many medicines and plastics. Similar difficulties would be found in the manufacture of common products such as clothing, food preservatives, cleaning products and soft contact lens.
Alec Epstein, the author of the best-selling book Fossil Future, agrees that Net Zero policies by 2050 would be “apocalyptically destructive”, and have in fact already been catastrophically destructive when barely implemented. A reference here, perhaps, to the wicked policies conducted by Western banks and elites in refusing to loan money to build hydrocarbon-fuelled water treatment plants in the poorer parts of the developing world. Billions still lack the cost-effective energy they need to live lives of abundance and safety, notes Epstein. Many people in developing countries still use wood and dung for cooking. Like Happer and Lindzen, he believes that if Net Zero is followed, “virtually all the world’s eight billion people will plunge into poverty and premature death”.
Much of what is planned is hiding in plain sight. The C40 group, funded by wealthy billionaires and chaired by London mayor Sadiq Khan, has investigated World War 2 style rationing with a daily meat allowance of 44g. Reduced private transport and massive restrictions on air travel have all been considered. Labour party member Khan has already made a cracking start on his elite paymasters’ concerns having recently driven many of the cars of the less affluent off London roads with specialist charging penalties.
Honesty rules the day at the U.K. Government-funded UK FIRES operation where Ivory Tower academics produce gruesomely frank reports showing that Net Zero would cut available energy by around three quarters. They assume, rightly, that there is no realistic technology currently available, or likely in the foreseeable future, to back up power sourced from the intermittent breezes and sun beams. No flying, no shipping, drastic cuts in meat consumption and no home heating are all discussed. A ruthless purge of modern building material is also proposed with traditional building supplies replaced by new materials such as “rammed earth”
A move back to primitivism is also foreshadowed by a recent United Nations report which suggested building using mud bricks, bamboo and forest ‘detritus’. It might be thought that mud and grass huts will hardly be enough to deter unfriendly foreign hordes that hove into future view on the horizon. And no point in asking the last person to turn out the lights, because there won’t be electricity anyway.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.