Day: May 15, 2024

The Green Energy Wall Can’t Arrive Quickly Enough

We are fast approaching something I have called the “Green Energy Wall.” The “Wall” consists of some combination of real-world obstacles, partly cost and partly physics, that will inevitably end the quest for emissions-free “net zero” electricity generation well before the goal of zero emissions is reached. I first identified the approaching Wall in this post in December 2021, and remarked that it was “gradually coming into focus” in this follow-up post in November 2023. Everyone who pays attention and is capable of doing basic arithmetic knows that the we are approaching this Wall, some jurisdictions much faster than others. (New York has voluntarily put itself in the front ranks.).

From The Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

We are fast approaching something I have called the “Green Energy Wall.” The “Wall” consists of some combination of real-world obstacles, partly cost and partly physics, that will inevitably end the quest for emissions-free “net zero” electricity generation well before the goal of zero emissions is reached. I first identified the approaching Wall in this post in December 2021, and remarked that it was “gradually coming into focus” in this follow-up post in November 2023. Everyone who pays attention and is capable of doing basic arithmetic knows that the we are approaching this Wall, some jurisdictions much faster than others. (New York has voluntarily put itself in the front ranks.).

What we don’t know is how the hitting of the Wall will manifest itself: Widespread and frequent blackouts? Regular, enforced load-shedding brown-outs? Tripling or quadrupling of electricity prices? A political uprising as people realize that they have been duped by scammers claiming that an energy transition would be easy and cheap? Or perhaps it will be all of the above.

Meanwhile, the years pass slowly. The impossibility of the situation we are digging into becomes more and more obvious, but so far there is no obvious crisis. Will it arrive in another year, or two? Or maybe five?

Consider New York. Multiple statutes and regulations commit us to energy-transition mandates that simply will not be met. Among the fantasies are two major statutes passed in 2019, one for New York State (Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act), and the other for the City (Local Law 97); and vehicle emissions standards adopted in 2022 by New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation.

Start with those vehicle emissions standards. In 2022 the DEC adopted for New York the standards and requirements set forth in the California Air Resources Board’s “Advanced Clean Cars II” regulation. California’s regulations call for minimum percentages of vehicles sold to be “zero emissions” starting with the 2026 model year, and then rapidly scaling up to 100% “zero emissions” by the 2035 model year. Here is a chart from CARB of the percentages of vehicles sold, by model year, that are supposed to be “zero emissions.”:

EVs are not the only things that qualify as “zero emissions” (e.g., hydrogen vehicles qualify), but EVs are the only things that qualify and also exist in meaningful numbers. The 2026 model year begins around September 2025 — that is, about 16 months away. What is the current percent of vehicles sold in New York that are “zero emissions”? A piece on March 6, 2024 in the New York Times puts the percentage of electric vehicles sold in the New York “metropolitan area” in 2023 at less than 10%. The article does not give a figure for New York State as a whole, but undoubtedly the figure for the state — including rural upstate areas — is well less than the percentage in the City and suburbs. Meanwhile many sources report that EV sales have suddenly declined sharply in the first quarter of 2024. (I can’t find statistics on that broken down by state.). But even if EV sales in New York State continued to increase in the first months of this year, are they really going to somehow get to 35% of all sales within a little more than a year? And then to 43% after just one more year, and then 51% after one more year, and so on to 100% by 2035? This is completely ridiculous.

Equally ridiculous is the mandate in the CLCPA for 70% of electricity generation from “renewables” by 2030. The people in charge of implementing this mandate are completely incompetent and have no idea what they are doing. After passage of the Act in 2019, the first significant step, in 2020 and 2021, was to close the two zero-emissions nuclear reactors at Indian Point that provided about 25% of New York City’s electricity, and replace them with two brand new natural gas plants, thus substantially increasing emissions. So to date, the progress toward the so-called 70 x 30 goal has been negative.

The signature initiative to achieve the 70 x 30 goal is a plan for 9000 MW of offshore wind off the coast of Long Island. In this post on March 5 I did the simple arithmetic to calculate that, if all of that capacity actually gets built, it would at best provide about 16% of New York’s current electricity consumption — before the addition of new loads from the electrification of the vehicle fleet and of home heating. Granted, we have the large hydro plant at Niagara Falls that they count as “renewable,” plus some other hydro resources that, together with Niagara Falls, might come to 20% of consumption. So with those plus the offshore wind, perhaps we can get to 35% of consumption. (Meanwhile, the offshore wind projects keep getting canceled and delayed as the developers maneuver to get themselves increased prices.)

How are we going to get to 70% from renewables in under 6 years? They literally have no clue. Something called a “Scoping Plan” has been generated pursuant to the CLCPA. It foresees a need for something they call the “Dispatchable Emissions Free Resource.” This is something that does not currently exist, and likely will not exist during any relevant time frame.

Yet the lack of any viable replacement has not prevented New York from pledging to close its well-functioning natural gas plants. Several were scheduled for closure this year. But then, back in November, somebody noticed that there was nothing to replace the plants, so the forced retirement of four of these plants got postponed for two years. News flash: two years from now, we’re still not going to have anything to replace these plants. The same will be true four years from now, and six and eight and ten. Will they simply keep postponing the mandated closure? Perhaps this is how we avoid smashing into the Green Energy Wall.

And then we have Local Law 97, supposedly mandating all large (25,000 square feet and up) residential buildings to convert to electric heat, mostly by 2030. This will represent an increase in the demand on the grid by something in the range of 30%. This at the same time as the natural gas plants are mandated to close, to be only partially replaced by some highly irregular offshore wind that will not fully replace the gas generation, let alone begin to supply the increased demand.

Something has to give here, and it will give. It will be much for the best if this happens quickly, rather than dragging on for years and years.

Why the PROVE IT Act Would Result in Carbon Taxes

The PROVE IT Act (S. 1863) is not a benign information collection bill on the carbon intensity of domestic and foreign goods. Instead, it would put in motion the creation of carbon taxes: a carbon tax on imported goods and a domestic carbon tax. It would also help the Biden administration as it works with the EU to impose carbon taxes on imported metals.

From ClimateRealism

Guest post by Daren Bakst

The PROVE IT Act (S. 1863) is not a benign information collection bill on the carbon intensity of domestic and foreign goods. Instead, it would put in motion the creation of carbon taxes: a carbon tax on imported goods and a domestic carbon tax. It would also help the Biden administration as it works with the EU to impose carbon taxes on imported metals. Here’s why:

  • Congress has already demonstrated what will happen with PROVE IT Act information. Just over a year ago in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was a partisan reconciliation bill, Congress took information collected under the EPA’s greenhouse gas reporting program  to create a methane tax. The Senate passed the IRA on a 51-50 party-line vote with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tiebreaker.
  • Many bill supporters have shown they would replicate what happened with the methane tax. In the Senate EPW Committee markup of the bill, all Committee Democrats voted to kill an amendment that would have helped block the future use of reconciliation to impose a carbon tax on imported goods or a domestic carbon tax based on PROVE IT Act information. Chairman Tom Carper (D-DE) opposed the amendment precisely because it “prohibits any revenue measure based on the greenhouse gas emissions associated with commodities or products.”
  • When PROVE IT Act supporters argue the bill is a way to hold foreign countries accountable, they reveal that the legislation is about more than information. Supporters, including lead sponsors Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Chris Coons (D-DE), have argued that the PROVE IT Act is a way to hold other countries accountable for their emissions. Merely providing information cannot hold any country accountable. Their arguments are a tacit admission that the bill will be used to impose carbon taxes on imports, at a minimum.
  • Bill supporters openly acknowledge that the PROVE IT Act is intended to lead to more taxes. Many of the bill supporters are expressly admitting that the legislation will mean carbon taxes of some kind. Sen. Coons (D-DE) has said about the bill, “figuring out a fair process for imposing tariffs on countries that don’t have any transparency around their emissions is also going to be a complex part of any border carbon adjustment mechanism.” The European Union (EU) has created the first and only carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) and it includes both a carbon tax on imports and a domestic carbon pricing scheme. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has said the bill will “help us construct a carbon border adjustment of our own.” Since 2021, about half of the sponsors of the PROVE IT Act have sponsored bills imposing carbon taxes on imports, with many of these bills also imposing domestic carbon taxes. Senator Coons, a lead sponsor of the PROVE IT Act and two co-sponsors, Sens. Whitehouse and Martin Heinrich (D-NM), sponsored the Clean Competition Act, which uses carbon intensity data to impose carbon taxes on imported goods and a domestic carbon tax.
  • The bill helps to collaborate with the EU on its harmful climate policy. Senator Cramer has repeatedly argued for working with the EU on climate policy. He wrote: “We have an opportunity to counter Putin’s playbook with a bold initiative consistent with European priorities… One aspect of that initiative could be a joint trade mechanism between the United States and the European Union that levels a common carbon fee on imported goods.” Instead of fighting and rejecting the EU’s disastrous climate policy, the PROVE IT Act embraces what the EU is doing. Many supporters advocate for a CBAM similar to the EU’s, and seek to create a “carbon club” of countries that join together to impose carbon taxes in some fashion.
  • The PROVE IT Act will help the Biden administration in its negotiations with the EU to tax the carbon intensity of metals. The Biden administration and EU are working on the Global Arrangement on Sustainable Steel and Aluminum that would impose taxes on imported metals based on their carbon intensity. This is part of the Biden administration’s broader plan as USTR explains to “use trade tools to decarbonize our economies.” The PROVE IT Act would legitimize these efforts and help the Biden administration reach an agreement with the EU on carbon taxes by pointing to this domestic effort to develop carbon taxes. It would also provide the Biden administration the data necessary to try and unilaterally impose carbon taxes on imports, such as under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Action of 1974.
  • Creating a carbon tax on imported goods leads inexorably to a domestic carbon tax.1) To be part of a “carbon club” with the EU, as many bill supporters want, the US would logically need to have a system like the EU CBAM that includes a domestic carbon pricing mechanism. Not surprisingly, the PROVE IT Act helps to create the framework to implement an EU-type system.2) The US would sooner or later impose a domestic carbon tax if it imposes a carbon tax on imports. This is not simply due to trade law obligations but also because environmental groups and others would not stay silent as domestic industries failed to meet similar greenhouse gas reduction commitments.3) The PROVE IT Act is a way to build a lobby for a carbon tax on imports that can then be used to secure a domestic carbon tax. Domestic manufacturers would oppose a domestic carbon tax absent a corresponding tax on imports to “level the playing field.” Therefore, the PROVE IT Act is a political solution for domestic carbon tax supporters: The bill will lead to carbon taxes on imports, which will lead to a domestic carbon tax.

Bottom line

The PROVE IT Act would make carbon taxes a reality. If legislators genuinely oppose carbon taxes, then why even take the risk of facilitating their enactment and implementation by building the administrative framework and lobbying base for such taxes? And this would be a huge risk given that many bill supporters would use the reconciliation process to impose carbon taxes once they have the PROVE IT Act information.

World Bank Launches First Global Framework for Agri-Food Emissions

The recent report from the World Bank, “Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System,” touts the possibility of making significant cuts to global agrifood emissions through a variety of prescriptive measures. The historical record of such centralized initiatives suggests a high probability of resulting in unintended and often detrimental consequences.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

The recent report from the World Bank, “Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System,” touts the possibility of making significant cuts to global agrifood emissions through a variety of prescriptive measures. The historical record of such centralized initiatives suggests a high probability of resulting in unintended and often detrimental consequences.

The report asserts:

“The global agrifood system presents a huge opportunity to cut almost a third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions through affordable and readily available actions, while continuing to feed a growing population.”

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2024/05/07/recipe-for-livable-planet

This sweeping statement masks the complexity and potential dangers of radically altering food production and land use, particularly in the vulnerable regions of the world. The claim that such changes can be implemented without jeopardizing food security is optimistic at best and recklessly naive at worst.

Axel van Trotsenburg of the World Bank further champions these changes:

“While the food on your table may taste good, it is also a hefty slice of the climate change emissions pie. The good news is that the global food system can heal the planet – making soils, ecosystems, and people healthier, while keeping carbon in the ground. This is within reach in our lifetimes, but countries must act now: simply changing how middle-income countries use land, such as forests and ecosystems, for food production can cut agrifood emissions by a third by 2030.”

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2024/05/07/recipe-for-livable-planet

This narrative promotes a troubling confidence in the efficacy of sweeping regulatory changes, disregarding the diverse agricultural practices that have been honed by local farmers over centuries. The assumption that such top-down mandates can lead to positive outcomes without disruptive side effects reflects a misunderstanding of ecological, social, and economic interdependencies.

The World Bank’s plan includes a broad array of actions:

“Action should happen across all countries to get to net zero, through a comprehensive approach to reducing emissions in food systems, including in fertilizers and energy, crop and livestock production, and packaging and distribution across the value chain from farm to table.”

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2024/05/07/recipe-for-livable-planet

This proposal to standardize farming practices across vastly different regions and cultures not only smacks of overreach but also underestimates the complexity of local ecosystems and the adaptability required to manage them effectively.

The framework posits that high investment costs will yield significant returns:

“Annual investments will need to increase to $260 billion a year to cut in half agrifood emissions by 2030 and to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Making these investments would lead to more than $4 trillion in benefits, from improvements in human health, food and nutrition security, better quality jobs and profits for farmers, to more carbon retained in forests and soils.”

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2024/05/07/recipe-for-livable-planet

However, the focus on monetary investment and projected returns overlooks the real-world complexities of agricultural economics. Such massive redirection of funds risks creating new economic imbalances, potentially leading to increased food prices and decreased access to necessary resources for the world’s poorest populations.

Ultimately, the World Bank’s ambitious project to restructure global agriculture underestimates the risks of unintended consequences, including food shortages, economic disruption, and increased hardship for the most vulnerable. History teaches that centralized interventions in complex systems such as global agriculture often lead to outcomes opposite those intended, driven by a failure to account for the organic and evolved nature of these systems. The portrayal of these interventions as low-risk and high-return is not only misleading but potentially dangerous, paving the way for a future where the global food supply is less secure and more susceptible to the whims of bureaucratic mismanagement.

At the very least the pursuit of such grandiose plans should be viewed with skepticism and caution, as history has repeatedly shown that the road to disaster is often paved with well-intentioned global initiatives.

The Goodness of Global Warming

Both the last eight+ years of a cooling trend and
the last century and a half of moderate warming portend
no imminent catastrophe, but should be celebrated.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Catherine Salgado provides unreported news from Climate Experts: ‘Global Warming’ Makes Ecosystems Thrive at PJ Media.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Three climate experts have called out the “global warming apocalypse” narrative and the totally failed record of climate alarmists’ predictions. A warming climate helps ecosystems thrive, and climate models predicting global crisis have consistently over-predicted.

CO2 Coalition Executive Director Greg Wrightstone, Heartland Institute President James Taylor, and Junk Science’s Steve Milloy all spoke during a media call last week about climate alarmist lies and the truths woke media and government don’t want you to hear. These include the fact that moderate warming has actually been found beneficial for ecosystems, including for plants (and food crops) and animals.

Both the last eight+ years of a cooling trend and
the last century and a half of moderate warming portend
no imminent catastrophe, but should be celebrated.

That’s just one hard truth the experts highlighted during the call, providing data that illustrates climate alarmists aren’t concerned with science or reality; rather, they are manipulating data or making unverifiable claims for political or financial reasons. Taylor stated emphatically, “There is no climate crisis.”

Wrightstone particularly highlighted the decrease in natural disasters, including fires, and especially the “significant decline” in global droughts. According to Wrightstone, ecosystems are showing the beneficial effects of a lengthy trend of warming. Taylor provided further context on why “global warming” should be no big concern. “We are currently experiencing the second and the third strongest El Niño ever recorded,” he said, noting that this can increase temperatures; but El Niño and La Niña always and normally create a cycle of warming or cooling effects.

“Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age, which was the coldest period of the past 10,000 years, that ended about 150 years ago,” Taylor said. “Temperatures should continue to set ‘records’ so long as climate activists define the ‘record’ as the past 150 years or so, recovering from the Little Ice Age.” In other words, the globe should be warming— and the current “records” only hold if one ignores the temperatures from the previous cooling period!

Taylor continued that, for much of human civilization, “temperatures have been significantly warmer than today, and humans and nature fared just fine.” And therefore, in fact, comparatively speaking, the globe is currently “unusually cool.” Milloy added his support to the arguments of the other two experts by noting that “global warming” isn’t man-made, either. Indeed, despite the oft-repeated assertion that every emission causes the planet to heat up, April 2024 was a third of a degree Farenheit cooler than April 1981 despite decades of emissions, Milloy added. In fact, in reality, carbon is not only beneficial but absolutely necessary for all life on earth, including humans.

No major climate prediction for 50+ years has come true; often, the predictions are wildly wrong. As Milloy noted, it’s a hallmark of science to be able to make reasonably accurate predictions, and yet climate alarmists never do — more typically, they make temporarily unverifiable predictions or claims about the past and far into the future. Greg Wrightstone agreed, “One of the things driving these failed predictions [is] they’re … basing a lot of these forward-looking projections on climate models, climate models that we know for a fact over-predict warming significantly.”

He continued, “And if you look at the 100+ models that are used, there’s only one that has accurately predicted the temperature into the future compared to actual temperatures, and that’s the Russian model. The others, we see, [on] average, over-predict warming by 2.5 to 3 times too much.” If climate alarmists really followed the scientific method, they’d have to admit that their hypothesis is not supported by evidence and needs to be reformulated. Unfortunately, climate alarmists find their narrative too convenient a political tool to surrender to reality.

Jail the Deniers? British Environmentalist Demands Criminal Sanctions

Andrew Doyle clashes with environmentalist demanding climate denial is criminalised: ‘Tyranny by stealth!’

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Climedown – “Its time”: Speaking on GB News, British environmentalist Jim Dale demanded criminalisation of public climate denial.

Andrew Doyle clashes with environmentalist demanding climate denial is criminalised: ‘Tyranny by stealth!’

By Ben Chapman 
Published: 13/05/2024 – 09:57

Jim Dale likened climate denial to flat earth conspiracy theories

  • Andrew Doyle and Jim Dale clashed over whether climate denial should be criminalised
  • JOIN THE DEBATE – Should climate denial be illegal? COMMENT NOW

Andrew Doyle became embroiled in a feisty free speech row with environmentalist Jim Dale as the latter demanded climate denial is criminalised.

Speaking on GB News, Dale likened climate denial to flat earth conspiracy theories, arguing they are too dangerous for public discourse.

Andrew took a differing perspective on the matter, asking what Dale expects to achieve by silencing climate change sceptics.

…

“Denial is factually wrong and it pollutes the political discourse.

“It puts certain politicians in certain spins. They don’t necessarily know about the climatology or the meteorology that’s involved.

“Therefore, they go off on a tangent or sit on a fence like Rishi Sunak, and we end up going nowhere fast when we have to act.”

…Read more: https://www.gbnews.com/news/andrew-doyle-environmentalist-climate-denial-tyranny-latest

I watched the video of the interview. According to environmentalist Jim Dale, climate skeptics would still be allowed to talk to family and friends, “nobody would kick in the door”, but would face criminal sanctions if they “pollute” people by voicing their opinion in public.

Jim Dale refused to specify exactly what sanctions should be applied to deniers – he said that should be up to politicians like Labour Party leader Keir Starmer.

Asked for an example of how climate denial could be suppressed with criminal sanctions, Jim Dale suggested it would be like how racism has been driven from public discourse. Britain has harsh anti-hate speech laws.

Andrew Doyle tried to get Jim Dale to admit there might be a few issues with banning disagreement, he cited the example of how the Covid Lab leak theory was vigorously suppressed. For a long time Facebook and Google deleted accounts and silenced public posts which speculated that Covid was an escaped lab virus. Then Fauci made continued censorship untenable, by publicly admitting a lab leak was a possibility. Facebook hilariously tried to justify their censorship of lab leak theories by explaining why it is up to people like Fauci to decide what public opinions are acceptable.

However environmentalist Jim Dale refused to concede the possibility that people who claim we are currently experiencing a climate crisis might be wrong.

The reality of climate change is that the Earth is currently experiencing a very cold period by geological standards.

We are currently living in the Quaternary ice age, a severe cold period which started two and a half million years ago, and continues to the present day.

The Quaternary is one of only five great glaciation periods which have been detected in the geological record – the others are the Huronian (2.2 billion years ago), Cryogenian (720-635 million years ago), Andean-Saharan (460-420 million years ago), late Paleozoic (360-255 million years ago), and the Quaternary Ice Age, our current period of extreme cold.

Think about that – during more than 2 billion years of geological history, only 5 great cold periods have been identified, and we are currently living in one of those periods. The last time the Earth was this cold for a sustained period was 255 million years ago.

Given the geological evidence is that we are living in a significant period of extreme cold, how can today’s temperatures possibly qualify as a global warming emergency?

Yet an opinion such as I just provided, a simple statement of fact, would likely be illegal under Jim Dale’s climate denial rules. Under Dale’s proposed rules, myself or anyone who retweets this article could go to jail or lose their house, merely for suggesting that people living in the middle of an ice age should be more concerned about glaciers than beach weather.

EV Forcing: 21 Problems

Thomas Edison strongly advised Henry Ford to go internal combustion engine (ICE), not electric vehicles (EVs) in the late 19th century. EVs dominated the market until the advantages of ICE prevailed more than a century ago.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

In conclusion, the article ends, “the journey towards adopting electric vehicles as a sustainable alternative to fossil fuel-powered transportation is fraught with complex challenges, particularly concerning the environmental and ethical implications of battery production.”

Thomas Edison strongly advised Henry Ford to go internal combustion engine (ICE), not electric vehicles (EVs) in the late 19th century. EVs dominated the market until the advantages of ICE prevailed more than a century ago. Yet multi-pronged government intervention at the expense of taxpayers and ICE owners is desperately trying to create an industry that consumers do not like.

The economic and environmental problems of EVs are on full display–and the mainstream press is not afraid to report on them (unlike with on-grid wind and solar). A shining example of this was a recent article in Auto Overload (May 11, 2024): “21 Unfortunate Electric Vehicle Flaws That No One Is Discussing.”

Twenty reasons were given, but the 21st pertains to the conclusion that better (“holistic”) public policy is needed. Make that no public policy except government neutrality toward energy technologies, and we are all set. After all, the 20 items to follow are reasons for not promoting EVs.

  1. Limited Range: “Electric cars often face criticism for their limited range compared to gasoline vehicles. This range anxiety significantly affects potential buyers, especially in areas with a sparse charging infrastructure. While technology is improving, most electric vehicles still can’t match the range of gasoline cars, and their efficiency can decrease further in extreme weather conditions.”
  2. Impact on Used Car Market: “The rapid technological advancements in EVs and concerns about battery longevity can affect the resale value of electric cars, impacting the used car market. This makes the purchase of a used electric vehicle potentially riskier than a used gasoline vehicle.”
  3. Mining: “The pursuit of environmentally friendly transportation via electric vehicles (EVs) is not without significant drawbacks, particularly in terms of the socio-environmental impacts associated with mining. The extraction of essential battery components such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel results in various detrimental effects.”
  4. Longer Wait Times for Repairs: “Repairing electric vehicles can require specialized skills and parts, leading to longer wait times compared to gasoline cars. This can be a significant inconvenience for EV owners needing timely maintenance or repairs.”
  5. Longer Charging Times: “Repairing electric vehicles can require specialized skills and parts, leading to longer wait times compared to gasoline cars. This can be a significant inconvenience for EV owners needing timely maintenance or repairs.”
  6. Resource Scarcity for Batteries: “The production of electric car batteries depends on materials like lithium and cobalt, which are finite resources. The growing demand for these materials could lead to shortages and increased costs in the future, impacting the sustainability and affordability of EV battery production.”
  7. Higher Upfront Costs: “Electric vehicles generally have higher initial purchase costs compared to similar gasoline vehicles. Despite potential long-term savings in fuel and maintenance, this upfront investment can be prohibitive for many consumers. Although government incentives can help, the cost disparity remains a significant factor in purchasing decisions.”
  8. Battery Degradation: “The batteries in electric cars gradually lose their capacity to hold a charge, leading to reduced range over time. This degradation raises concerns about long-term reliability and impacts resale value. Additionally, replacing a battery is expensive, adding to the long-term ownership costs.”
  9. Limited Availability of Charging Stations: “The scarcity of public charging stations in many regions, particularly rural or underdeveloped areas, poses a significant challenge. This makes long-distance travel difficult for EV owners without access to home charging, deterring potential buyers.”
  10. Performance in Extreme Weather: “Electric vehicles can underperform in very cold or hot conditions. Batteries are less efficient in the cold, reducing range, while high temperatures can strain battery cooling systems. The use of heating and air conditioning in such weather also consumes significant power, further diminishing range.”
  11. Weight and Handling: “The heavy weight of their batteries makes electric cars heavier than their gasoline counterparts, affecting handling and braking. This added weight can also cause more rapid wear and tear on various components, like tires and brakes.”
  12. Environmental Impact of Battery Production: “The manufacturing of lithium-ion batteries, essential for electric cars, has a considerable environmental footprint. Mining for lithium, cobalt, and other minerals leads to ecological issues like habitat destruction and water pollution. The battery production process also contributes significantly to carbon emissions.”
  13. Recycling Challenges: “Recycling the batteries of electric cars is a complex and costly process. With a low recycling rate for lithium-ion batteries, there are environmental risks and resource wastage, highlighting the need for improved recycling technologies.”
  14. Limited Model Variety: “The current selection of electric vehicle models is relatively limited compared to gasoline vehicles. This lack of variety can deter consumers looking for specific types or features in a vehicle, such as size, style, or functionality.”
  15. Dependence on Electricity Grid: “Electric vehicles rely entirely on the electricity grid, which in many areas is still predominantly powered by fossil fuels. This reliance can diminish some of the environmental benefits of EVs, as their operation may indirectly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.”
  16. Reduced Towing Capacity: “Many electric vehicles offer lower towing capacities than their gasoline or diesel counterparts, which can be a significant disadvantage for users needing to tow trailers, boats, or caravans.”
  17. Technology Obsolescence: “The rapid evolution of technology in the EV sector can render existing models obsolete more quickly than traditional cars. This fast pace of change can negatively affect the resale value and longevity of an electric vehicle as newer, more advanced models enter the market.”
  18. Insurance Costs: “Insurance for electric vehicles can be more expensive due to their higher repair costs and the increased price of battery replacement. This elevates the total cost of EV ownership over time.”
  19. Noiseless Operation Hazards: “The quiet operation of electric cars poses a risk to pedestrians, cyclists, and the visually impaired, who may not hear an approaching vehicle. Regulations are being introduced to require EVs to emit artificial noise at low speeds to mitigate this risk.”
  20. Software Reliability and Security: “The heavy reliance on software for the operation of modern electric vehicles raises concerns about reliability and the risk of hacking. Maintaining the security and integrity of these systems is an ongoing challenge in the EV industry.”

“In conclusion,” the article ends, “the journey towards adopting electric vehicles as a sustainable alternative to fossil fuel-powered transportation is fraught with complex challenges, particularly concerning the environmental and ethical implications of battery production.”

What an understatement. But the politically correct article adds:

While legislative measures and research initiatives are making strides in addressing these issues, there is a critical need for ongoing commitment and innovation to ensure that the EV revolution does not compromise human rights or environmental integrity. The future of green transportation depends not only on technological advancements but also on responsible and sustainable practices throughout the EV battery supply chain. It is imperative that stakeholders across industries continue to collaborate and invest in solutions that prioritize ethical sourcing, improved recycling methods, and overall supply chain transparency. This holistic approach will be key to realizing the full potential of electric vehicles in fostering a cleaner, more sustainable future.

There just might be 74 million reasons environmental charities ignore eagles and whales, and reject zero emission nuclear

Renewable billionaires would be crazy if they weren’t funding “Environmental Activists”

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

Renewable billionaires would be crazy if they weren’t funding “Environmental Activists”

Nick Cater points out one mysterious charity, the Sunrise Project Australia had a “revenue” of $73.8 million* dollars last year and we don’t know where that came from.

Let’s say you made a fortune from Big-Government subsidies and rigged market rules — what would stop you pouring some of those parasitic profits right back into fake environmentalists groups to help “your favourite” politicians win? It has the added bonus that when your wind turbines chop up eagles or deafen the dolphins no one says a word. The same sell-out environmental groups would .. do nothing at all. Mum’s the word! Which is exactly what Greenpeace and the WWF seem to do — nothing.

Let’s just say hypothetically, that you ran a company completely dependent on politicians to create rigged market rules — like banning your main competitor? (Nuclear power). What would stop you funneling some of those profits into environmental cover groups to whip up “grassroots” whinges into a fully mature political campaign with digital databases and social media tracking?

And conveniently for them, as Nick Cater points out, the Australian Electoral Commission doesn’t classify environmental charities as “political” even though the Greens are a party. That means the chumpy tree-huggers who don’t mind chopping down trees for some kinds of industries — don’t have to declare their donors. How convenient?

And so the positive feedback loop would roll on year after year — the more the market was rigged, the more the parasites could pay.

And the more it would appear our wilderness groups are industry fronts and our politicians serve someone else:

The Australian Newspaper

Surely this is the most powerful interest group we’ve ever seen?

Nick Cater, The Australian

If WWF had accepted money from a mining billionaire, fossil fuel company or tobacco manufacturer, the woke media would have been on to it in a flash.

Australian registered environmental charities receive hundreds of millions in revenue each year. This tax-advantaged honey pot is fuelling the rapid expansion of ecological activism and lawfare, making it nearly impossible to open a new coalmine or drill for gas. As for nuclear, forget it.

…we are left with only the vaguest impression of who is bankrolling the anti-nuclear cause by channelling funds through charities such as the ACF…

WWF received funds last year from the European Climate Foundation, one of Europe’s biggest bankrollers of climate activism. Other organisations, such as the Queensland Conservation Council, receive money from the Sunrise Foundation, which originated in the US and is now registered as a charity in Australia. Sunrise Australia’s income last year was an astounding $73.8m. The source of those funds is a mystery.

The activity of a group called Environmental Leadership Australia illustrates how this works. ELA, a registered charity based in Paddington, NSW, reported an income of $4.2m last year and handed out $1.5m in grants and donations. ELA has spawned a host of other charities, including Farmers for Climate Action, Veterinarians for Climate Action and Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action.

Yet the renewable industry investors need Albanese to win. Lifting the ban on nuclear would send their portfolios into meltdown. Wind and solar generators would no longer be protected from competition from a form of technology that is not only carbon-free but actually works.

Nick Cater is senior fellow of the Menzies Research Centre and a columnist with The Australian. He is a former editor of The Weekend Australian and a former deputy editor of The Sunday Telegraph. He is author of The Lucky Culture published by Harper Collins.

Imagine you were President Xi wanting to sell more slave made solar panels to Australia, to sabotage their grid and force companies to move to China so you could steal their IP and get them dependent on your supply lines? What stops that money filtering through a chain of philanthropists and into saboteurs hands? The ABC?

Image by Gordon Johnson

  • “Billion” corrected to million. Apologies. – Jo

Sorry, Climate Activists, Montana Climate Harms Are Not Occurring

An environmental activist website called The Cool Down (TCD) just embarrassed itself by making provably false claims about climate change in Montana and by showing it cannot read a basic calendar.

From ClimateRealism

By James Taylor

An environmental activist website called The Cool Down (TCD) just embarrassed itself by making provably false claims about climate change in Montana and by showing it cannot read a basic calendar.

On May 7, 2024, TCD published an article titled, “State lawmakers pass unprecedented anti-science law: ‘Our families are already suffering.’” The article begins, “Montana’s legislature has passed the nation’s most aggressive anti-science law, prohibiting state agencies from considering the impacts of excess heat-trapping pollution when reviewing permits for large projects like coal mines and power plants.”

Apparently, TCD doesn’t know how to read a calendar. The Montana legislature passed the law in question in April 2023, more than a full year before the TCD article, which is written as if the law had just recently been passed. Most likely, TCD wanted to stir up some climate panic in Montana, did an Internet search for climate change developments in Montana, saw that a climate change law had been passed in ‘April,’ and then wrote a muckraking article about it. But TCD didn’t notice the law was passed in the last week of April 2023 rather than the last week of April 2024, and wrote the article as if the law had just been passed. How embarrassing.

TCD’s sloppy research is not restricted just to calendar reading. The article embarrasses itself regarding climate change, also.

According to TCD, “This legislation comes at a pivotal time, as Montana’s climate has already changed significantly over the past century. The state has experienced earlier snowmelt, more frequent heat waves, and a growing risk of wildfires.”

Let’s examine these three claims.

First, snow. The figure below charts Montana annual snowfall, as reported by Montana State University. With modest year-to-year variation, annual snowfall has been remarkably consistent. To the extent a modest trend is occurring, there has been a modest increase in average annual snowfall during the past 25 years. Moreover, seven of the nine years with more than 60 inches of snowfall have occurred since the year 2000. All eight of the eight highest snowfall years have occurred since 1997. Claiming that climate change is reducing Montana snowfall is preposterous.

The fine print of the claim seemingly offers TCD a way out. TCD claims the state has experienced “earlier” snowmelt. The desired implication is earlier snowmelt means a shorter snow season with less snowfall, which the snowfall data shows isn’t true. What is true is that snowfall season in Montana and throughout North America is beginning earlier in autumn (see here) and ending earlier in the spring. A modest shift in when snowfall season begins and ends is relatively inconsequential while the amount of annual snowfall remains undiminished.

Second, heatwaves. The figure below is a chart produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It shows the numbers of days, in five-year blocks, in which Montana temperatures have exceeded 95 degrees. The bar on the far left shows the number of days exceeding 95 degrees during 1900-1904. The bar on the far right shows the number of days exceeding 95 degrees in 2015-2020. The data show no trend. This is not surprising, considering there is no increase in heatwaves nationally, either (see here).

Third, wildfires. TCD’s ‘evidence’ for its wildfire assertion is an EPA paper speculating that climate change will cause more wildfires in Montana at some point in the future. This is quite different than TDC’s assertion that Montana “has experienced” more wildfires. There simply is no trend of increasing Montana wildfires, which is not surprising consider wildfires have declined significantly globally and throughout the United States (see here and here).

In summary, none of The Cool Down’s climate change claims about Montana are true, whether the climate law in question was passed last week or last year.

John Kerry Pushes Massive Tax Rises to Meet the $13.6 trillion Climate Finance Challenge

Squeezing the global economy dry to solve a fake problem.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Squeezing the global economy dry to solve a fake problem.

The $13.6 trillion question: how do we pay for the green transition?

The public sector will have to provide about 30 per cent of climate finance globally, and the heat is building on governments to come up with ways of doing that.

…

The bill will be immense. If average global temperature rises are to be limited in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement, climate finance globally will need to increase to about $US9 trillion ($13.6 trillion) a year globally by 2030, up from just under $US1.3 trillion in 2021-22, according to a report last year from the Climate Policy Initiative.

…

Former US presidential candidate John Kerry, who stepped down from his role as the US special climate envoy in March, puts the challenge of meeting this bluntly: “We don’t have the money.”

The 80-year-old is now planning to turn his attention to climate finance to prepare for the phaseout of fossil fuels. “We have to put in place more rapidly the funding mechanisms that are going to actually fuel this transition at the pace it needs to be,” he says.

To do that, governments around the world are weighing up options from wealth taxes to levies on shipping. The US is planning to fund the IRA by raising $US300 billion over the decade by requiring large corporations to pay a 15 per cent minimum tax on their profits, as well as through a stock buyback tax, among other measures.

…Read more: https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/the-13-6-trillion-question-how-do-we-pay-for-the-green-transition-20240507-p5fpwo

The impact of the proposed tax squeeze on ordinary people would be unimaginable.

People in the USA and other Western nations are already reeling under the impact of excessive government spending on climate measures and other wasteful “investments” driving up inflation, coupled with the simultaneous attack on fuel and energy availability and cost. Adding to this burden would inflict hardship previously unknown outside of wartime or great calamities.

All for the sake of solving a problem which does not exist.

This is how great powers fall, not by the hand of a conqueror, but rotted from within by rulers who lose touch with reality, burdening the nation with their delusions, until the structure of society is crushed under the weight of unbridled incompetence. A conqueror, if they appear, merely delivers the final blow to a power which is on the brink of collapse. Let us hope it is not our turn to suffer that fate which has befallen so many throughout history.

Wind Power for Beginners

Weather-dependent generation sources are…weather dependent:
Last year, despite adding 6.2 GW of new capacity,
U.S. wind production dropped by 2.1%.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

H/T maxyhoge

Robert Bryce explains the basics at his substack blog Build It, And The Wind Won’t Come.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Weather-dependent generation sources are…weather dependent:
Last year, despite adding 6.2 GW of new capacity,
U.S. wind production dropped by 2.1%.

Three years ago, in the wake of Winter Storm Uri, the alt-energy lobby and their many allies in the media made sure not to blame wind energy for the Texas blackouts. The American Clean Power Association (2021 revenue: $32.1 million) declared frozen wind turbines “did not cause the Texas power outages” because they were “not the primary cause of the blackouts. Most of the power that went offline was powered by gas or coal.”

Damaged wind turbines at the Punta Lima wind project, Naguabo, Puerto Rico, 2018. Photo: Wikipedia.

NPR parroted that line, claiming, “Blaming wind and solar is a political move.” The Texas Tribune said it was wrong to blame alt-energy after Winter Storm Uri because “wind power was expected to make up only a fraction of what the state had planned for during the winter.” The outlet also quoted one academic who said that natural gas was “failing in the most spectacular fashion right now.” Texas Tribune went on to explain, “Only 7% of ERCOT’s forecasted winter capacity, or 6 gigawatts, was expected to come from various wind power sources across the state.”

In other words, there was no reason to expect the 33 GW of wind capacity that Texas had to deliver because, you know, no one expected wind energy to produce much power. Expectations? Mr. October? Playoff Jamal? Who needs them?

But what happens when you build massive amounts of
wind energy capacity and it doesn’t deliver —
not for a day or a week, but for six months, or even an entire year?

That question is germane because, on Wednesday, the Energy Information Administration published a report showing that U.S. wind energy production declined by 2.1% last year. Even more shocking: that decline occurred even though the wind sector added 6.2 GW of new capacity!

A hat tip to fellow Substack writer Roger Pielke Jr., who pithily noted on Twitter yesterday, “Imagine if the U.S. built 6.2 GW new capacity in nuclear power plants and after starting them up, overall U.S. electricity generation went down. That’d be a problem, right?”

Um, yes. It would. And the EIA made that point in its usual dry language. “Generation from wind turbines decreased for the first time since the mid-1990s in 2023 despite the addition of 6.2 GW of new wind capacity last year,” the agency reported. The EIA also explained that the capacity factor for America’s wind energy fleet, also known as the average utilization rate, “fell to an eight-year low of 33.5%.” That compares to 35.9% capacity factor in 2022 which was the all-time high. The report continued, “Lower wind speeds than normal affected wind generation in 2023, especially during the first half of the year when wind generation dropped by 14% compared with the same period in 2022.”

Read that again. For half of last year, wind generation was down by a whopping 14% due to lower wind speeds. Imagine if that wind drought continued for an entire year. That’s certainly possible. Recall that last summer, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation warned that U.S. generation capacity “is increasingly characterized as one that is sensitive to extreme, widespread, and long duration temperatures as well as wind and solar droughts.”

According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, corporate investment in wind energy between 2004 and 2022 totaled some $278 billion. In addition, according to data from the Treasury Department, the U.S. government spent more than $30 billion on the production tax credit over that same period. Thus, over the last two decades, the U.S. has spent more than $300 billion building 150 GW of wind capacity that has gobbled up massive amounts of land, garnered enormous (and bitter) opposition from rural Americans, and hasn’t gotten more efficient over time.

Wednesday’s EIA report is a stark reminder that all of that generation capacity is subject to the vagaries of the wind. Imagine if the U.S. had spent that same $300 billion on a weather-resilient form of generation, like, say, nuclear power. That’s relevant because Unit 4 at Plant Vogtle in Georgia came online on Monday. With that same $300 billion, the U.S. could have built 20, 30, or maybe even 40 GW of new nuclear reactors with a 92% capacity factor that wouldn’t rely on the whims of the wind. In addition, those dozens of reactors would have required a tiny fraction of the land now covered by thousands of viewshed-destroying, bat-and-bird-killing wind turbines.

If climate change means we will face more extreme weather in the years ahead — hotter, colder, and/or more severe temperatures for extended periods — it’s Total Bonkers CrazytownTM to make our electric grid dependent on the weather. But by lavishing staggering amounts of money on wind and solar energy, and in many cases, mandating wind and solar, that’s precisely what we are doing.