Day: July 15, 2024

Retail Power Prices Reveal True & Crushing Costs of Subsidised Wind & Solar

20 years of subsidised wind and solar has caused retail power prices to double or even triple over that period. Attempting to duplicate a perfectly working power generation and distribution system with one that ‘works’, at best, 30% of the time (on average) and never works on calm nights – was always going to end in tears – namely, the tears shed by households and businesses being crushed by power bills that an increasing number of them will never afford. In Australia, businesses and whole industries are being wiped out and the Green/Labor Alliance couldn’t care less.

From STOP THESE THINGS

20 years of subsidised wind and solar has caused retail power prices to double or even triple over that period. Attempting to duplicate a perfectly working power generation and distribution system with one that ‘works’, at best, 30% of the time (on average) and never works on calm nights – was always going to end in tears – namely, the tears shed by households and businesses being crushed by power bills that an increasing number of them will never afford. In Australia, businesses and whole industries are being wiped out and the Green/Labor Alliance couldn’t care less.

Whenever wind and solar output entirely collapse (on a regular basis – think Sunset – and for days on end – think bursts of calm and cloudy weather) the gaps are increasingly filled using fast-start up open cycle gas turbines and diesel generators – which are cheap to set up but inefficient and therefore insanely expensive to run.

In Australia, thanks to suicidal anti-gas policies run by State governments, gas is in short supply, notwithstanding an abundance of reserves in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Accordingly, gas is both scarce and predictably expensive. All of which is returned in retail power prices, as The Australian’s Chris Uhlmann reports below.

Real cost of renewables is in your power bills
The Australian
Chris Uhlmann
29 June 2024

There is a moment of profound irony in the New Testament when Jesus tells Pontius Pilate he has come to bear witness to the truth.

“The truth,” Pilate replies. “What is that?”

Consider what the author had in mind. Pilot has Christ, aka The Truth, standing right in front of him and he cannot see it.

If you prefer the movies to scripture then truth is also on trial in A Few Good Men when Colonel Nathan Jessup cracks under cross-examination by Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee.

Jessup: You want answers?!

Kaffee: I want the truth!

Jessup: You can’t handle the truth!

Confronted with uncomfortable truths, many prefer their own version of reality.

And so it was when the Energy Institute delivered its annual Statistical Review of World Energy. For over 70 years this report has done the world a great service by simply recording the energy it is consuming.

For some, the truth of this year’s report was confirmation of the extraordinary progress being made by weather-dependent generation.

The Energy Institute declared “New wind and solar installations outpaced all other additions to the global energy mix in 2023”. Carbon Brief agreed that, “In 2023, wind and solar combined added more new energy to the global mix than any other source, for the first time in history.”

This is true. Renewable energy is rising in the world’s primary energy mix, hitting 14.6 per cent, and the share of fossil fuels is falling.

But look closely and the two reports committed what was once seen as the cardinal sin of journalism, burying the lede.

The big story wasn’t hard to spot; it was in the first line of the Energy Institute’s media release.

“Record global energy consumption, with coal and oil pushing fossil fuels and their emissions to record levels,” it said.

Fossil fuel consumption in the world’s primary energy mix did fall, by 0.4 per cent, but it still accounts for 81.5 per cent of the stuff that makes the world work. Oil production increased by 1.8 million barrels a day to reach a new high of 96 million barrels a day in 2023.

Let’s stick with the zeitgeist and put the good news on coal first. In Europe and North America coal consumption “has been in constant decline over the past 10 years”. But then, this: “Global coal production reached its highest-ever level, beating the previous high set the year before.”

“Whilst China is by far the largest consumer of coal (it beat its own record set in 2022 and now accounts for 56 per cent of the world’s total consumption), in 2023 India exceeded the combined consumption of Europe and North America for the first time ever,” the report says.

The only thing that is changing with coal is where it is burnt, and not much of anything has changed with the world’s consumption of oil. It all nets out to an increase in carbon emissions, exactly the opposite of what the world says it wants to do.

In Australia this week the search for a needle of truth in the energy haystack focused on the alleged ruinous cost of nuclear energy.

Having a debate about energy costs is vital because if they continue to rise it will cripple industry and further beggar the poor. The starting point should be serious scrutiny of the cost of the renewables-dominant system the government favours and what it will do to the retail price of power.

Recall Labor’s pledge to cut power bills rested on the dubious claim that wholesale electricity prices would fall because when wind and solar generate it, the fuel is free.

This thesis was neatly summed up in the beginnings of an energy haiku penned by Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen.

“The sun and wind don’t send a bill.”

Alas, the retailer does, and prices keep going up.

Stephen Wilson, an Adjunct Professor in the School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering at the University of Queensland, has tackled this myth in a new report for the Institute of Public Affairs titled “The Ruinous Cost of Free Energy”.

He points out what all energy ministers ignore: that the cost of wholesale electricity is not set by the lowest cost of generation on the National Electricity Market. It is set by the highest. And the size of the bill for consumers and taxpayers does not rest on the wholesale price alone. Australians will pay for the total system cost.

But even the wholesale electricity price won’t fall across a year under the government’s plan, because the frequent troughs of weather-dependent generation must be covered by something and whatever that something is will be expensive.

Wilson notes the cheapest system is the one we inherit, engineered in the 20th century on a foundation of low-cost mine-mouth coal.

“It can provide bulk electricity at a wholesale cost level in round numbers of about $50 per megawatt-hour (MWh) or in other words 5c per kilowatt-hour (kWh).”

With the retirement of coal, and the rise of wind and solar, the balance has shifted to an era where gas dominates price setting, as it fires up to cover renewable generation troughs. Even if gas only “meets the last megawatt of demand, it sets the spot price for all generators operating at that moment across the entire market”.

“(If) an extra unit of gas for the marginal generator is about $10 per gigajoule (GJ), then the wholesale electricity price at that moment will be about $100/MWh, which is 10c/kWh.” So, double what we once paid and entirely a function of covering the limitations of variable renewable energy.

The truth of Wilson’s thesis played out in what happened to the wholesale price during the recent cold, still nights, but this is just a halfway house on the road to ever more expensive power. The next phase will be worse.

“If the system is to be operated only on wind, solar and hydro power, with energy shuffled in and out of large and small storage assets and devices, the generation cost averaged across the energy for the total interconnected system will approach $200/MWh (20c/kWh) or more,” the report says.

“The further the system moves away from the inherited generation system in the coal-based ‘$50 cost zone’ through the gas-based ‘$100 cost zone’ and towards the wind- and solar-based ‘$200 cost zone’, the more the actual outcomes for final consumers are likely to escalate to even higher price levels.”

Wilson concludes that the lowest cost system is the one we have, and the next-lowest cost system is one built on new baseload power plants, whether they be coal or nuclear. And the focus of this entire debate should be: How do you generate zero-emissions energy without a catastrophic fall in living standards?

No doubt Wilson’s thesis will be furiously contested. But time will out. The truth will be written in your electricity bill.
The Australian

Stephen Wilson Discussing IPA Research On System Cost Energy Research Credlin Sky News Australia
Institute of Public Affairs
Stephen Wilson
2 July 2024

Transcript

Peta Credlin: Despite repeated claims by the Albanese government that they would bring down your power prices, analysts at UBS now expect prices to peak at $1.4 cents per megawatt hour by 2029. Now that’s a 20% increase on this year’s forecast, and almost 50% on 2023. A new report by the Institute of Public Affairs says, while Australia’s previously benefited from some of the lowest consumer power prices in the industrialised world, it now has some of the highest. It also points out that a renewables only power system is likely to be five or six times as expensive as what we have now, which is our existing coal-fired power base load. The author of that report is adjunct professor at the University of Queensland, Stephen Wilson, and I’m delighted to say he joins me now. Stephen, I just about tear my hair out when I listened to Chris Bowen saying that renewables are the cheapest form of energy because he’s playing with the numbers, isn’t he?

Stephen Wilson: Yeah, so the problem is that they’re not including all the costs when they present the cost numbers. We’ve heard this number thrown around recently of 121 billion or $122 billion of capital investment. But when you look at what’s included, it turns out that the things that are not included are actually larger than the things that are included.

Peta Credlin: So how do they get away with it?

Stephen Wilson: Well, I think the issue is, Peta, that if you use a simple metric like the levelized cost of energy, which you’ll find in places, you’ll find this reported in the CSIRO GenCost report, and you’ll find it reported by Lazard and other people like that. The levelized cost of energy, it’s very simple calculation, but it’s far too simplistic. And it doesn’t take account of what does it really cost to run the whole system and to deliver the service to the customers, which means balancing the demand of the customers every second of every day, and that’s a non-negotiable technical requirement of any power system.

Peta Credlin: To give me a practical example, are you saying that when they compare apples and oranges, when they comparing, say, coal-fired power with the solar farm or renewable energy outfit, wind turbines or something, they’re not calculating the cost it is to get the energy from the wind turbines in country New South Wales to consumers in Sydney. They’re not factoring in the transmission lines required, and they’re not factoring in the firming power when the wind’s not blowing. Is that what you’re talking about?

Stephen Wilson: So they’re not factoring in the cost of balancing that whole system. So you can’t run the whole system just on those resources alone. You need other resources in the system to balance. So for example, simple example is have they included all the cost of all the storage? And it appears that they’re not… They’re assuming that there’ll be very, very large quantities of batteries owned by you and me and all the other private customers on the system, and they won’t count the cost of those in their calculation. But then they’ll assume that all of the customers will make those resources available to the system and put them under the control of the system operator to make sure that the generation and the load, the supply and the demand can be balanced at all times.

Peta Credlin: What I find extraordinary, and I listened to the minister and the prime minister today in the parliament, and they talk about their green hydro. None of this is available at great scale. We might have household batteries available and they’ll develop over time, but we still don’t even have suburb wide battery storage. We don’t have citywide battery storage. And the examples we’ve had in the past that keep a place like Adelaide going for under half an hour, how can they put together a price on energy and make this huge transformation in six years time? It’s all going to happen by 2030, if we really don’t know what we’re buying and we really don’t know what it costs.

Stephen Wilson: Yeah, well, that’s the issue. It’s been mis-sold, I think. The amount of storage that you would need just to solve the problem on paper is enormous. And when you start to cost that in, you see these very, very high costs. And then beyond that, the question in my mind is, will this system even work on a technical level? Will it have the stability and the resilience and the robustness to maintain power at all times? Will the frequency remain stable? Will the voltages remain stable, or will the system be very vulnerable and subject to collapse, which is what I and many other engineers think will be a problem?

Peta Credlin: Well, well on the report, I think it’s incredibly comprehensive. My audience are really interested in the energy issue and I encourage them to head to the IPA website and read your report. Stephen Wilson, thank you for your time.
Institute of Public Affairs

The Ruinous Cost of Free Energy: Why an electricity system built on renewables is the most expensive of all options
Institute of Public Affairs
Stephen Wilson
1 July 2024

  • Australia previously benefited from some of the lowest consumer electricity prices in the industrialised world, but it now has some of the highest.
  • This paper shows that an electricity supply system built on a foundation of baseload generation – that which provides power 24/7 to the grid to meet base energy needs – results in the lowest Total System Cost.
  • This invalidates claims that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. That may be true in particular locations at particular points in time, but at the system level a system built on renewable energy would be the most expensive – by far – of available options.
  • Customers pay for what they use, but far more of what we pay is required to cover the costs of the physical infrastructure, from generation to our meter, than for generating the electricity itself. To expose the full costs of providing electricity, we need to focus on Total System Cost.
  • For example, when a consumer installs rooftop solar panel they draw less electricity from the system, and daytime load on the system is reduced. The excess is exported into the distribution network further reducing load on the system, which forces large-scale generators to reduce output. But the large-scale generators, transmission and distribution networks, retailers and environmental costs still exist. Less energy drawn from the main system does not mean less fixed cost: in this case it means more fixed costs overall.
  • The main power system that Australians inherited – engineered in the 20th century on a foundation of low-cost mine-mouth coal – can provide bulk electricity at a wholesale cost level in round numbers of about $50 per megawatt-hour (MWh) or in other words 5c per kilowatt-hour (kWh).
  • When a flexible, fast-response open cycle gas turbine meets the last megawatt of demand it sets the spot price for all generators operating at that moment across the entire market. Such units are increasingly called upon to balance not only the relatively predictable and smoothly changing variability of aggregate customer demand, but at the same time the far steeper and more volatile fluctuations in wind and solar power output. Also in round numbers, if the price of an extra unit of gas for the marginal generator is about $10 per gigajoule (GJ), then the wholesale electricity price at that moment will be about $100/MWh, which is 10c/kWh. Each $1/GJ change in the gas price will change the corresponding electricity number by $10/MWh (1c/kWh).
  • Continuing with round numbers, if the system is to be operated only on wind, solar and hydro power, with energy shuffled in and out of large and small storage assets and devices, the generation cost averaged across the energy for the total interconnected system will approach $200/MWh (20c/kWh) or more. The additional costs in the transmission and distribution systems will be far higher than for the historical coal-based and the current increasingly gas-price exposed system.
  • In other words, the further the system moves away from the inherited generation system in the coal-based ‘$50 cost zone’ through the gas-based ‘$100 cost zone’ and towards the wind- and solar-based ‘$200 cost zone,’ the more the actual outcomes for final consumers are likely to escalate to even higher price levels. The underlying economic problem remains even if cost of living price relief shifts costs from electricity bills to the tax-and-welfare system.
  • This paper is summarised in the following short statements:
    • The system with the lowest Total System Cost is the one we have.
    • The levelised cost of energy (LCOE) of any generation type does not reflect Total System Cost.
    • There is a modest role for renewable technology before it increases Total System Cost.
  • Contrary to popular belief, coal-fired power plants do not have a predetermined life. They can be refurbished periodically and remain in service for an indefinite period. The benchmark for comparing costs is not a hypothetical fleet of new coal plants: it is the fleet of already existing coal plants.
  • Thus the lowest cost system is the one we have, and the next lowest cost system is one built on new baseload power plants, whether they be coal or nuclear.
  • Official plans assume, encourage, or require the elimination of coal-fired generation, not on cost, but on emissions grounds.
  • Notionally wind and solar provide “free energy” because there is no fuel cost. LCOE acknowledges the up-front investment required to generate electricity from the wind or the sun, and ‘levelises’ that cost across the output from the turbines or the panels over their life. However, LCOE (which is used by AEMO – relying in turn upon the CSIRO’s GenCost model – to develop the ISP) is a simplified calculation applied at the generation level that is not able to provide insight into the Total System Cost with various types of generation technology needed to serve customer demand at all times.
  • These conclusion are summarised in Figure 5, below, which appears in the body of the report on page 20.
  • Beyond the $200/MWh wholesale cost zone indicated in the Figure above, there is the additional cost of the poles and wires required to deliver the electricity as the system hypothetically transitions to one built on renewables.
  • Storage via batteries and pumped hydro is often raised as a means of shifting excess wind and solar generation to periods of high demand, but each has significant limitations with respect to duration and cost.
  • The total system cost of a renewables-based system (>80% share) may be two or three times as expensive as one premised on baseload (whether current or with new build nuclear), and a ‘renewables only’ system is likely to be five or six times as expensive. All such costs must ultimately be recouped from the consumers, if not the taxpayer.
  • It is true that it takes time to plan, prepare, finance, and build nuclear power plants. Avoiding increasingly high cost electricity while also pursuing environmental goals would require prudent management for a number of years of the existing system, including the existing coal plants and gas plants, while replacement baseload assets capable of playing the same role without incurring far higher costs are planned, prepared, financed and deployed.

Download the research report (PDF)

From the concluding observations in the report, Wilson writes:

That said, I agree with the observation that wind and solar power is a cheap way to provide expensive electricity, whereas nuclear power is an expensive way to provide low-cost (but high value) electricity. The saying is not only witty, but true.

Institute of Public Affairs

New York City Local Law 97 – Don’t Do It

I have the pleasure to announce the availability of a new report prepared for New York Co-op and Condo Boards and Trade Associations regarding New York City Local Law 97 mandated conversion to electric heat. Local Law 97 mandates that “most buildings over 25,000 square feet are required to meet new energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions limits as of 2024, with stricter limits coming into effect in 2030.”

From Watts Up With That?

Roger Caiazza

I have the pleasure to announce the availability of a new report prepared for New York Co-op and Condo Boards and Trade Associations regarding New York City Local Law 97 mandated conversion to electric heat.  Local Law 97 mandates that “most buildings over 25,000 square feet are required to meet new energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions limits as of 2024, with stricter limits coming into effect in 2030.” Our report (“LL97 Impacts Report”) argues that in the absence of a credible and feasible plan demonstrating where the electricity will come from, backed up by a functioning Demonstration Project showing how the transformed grid will work and how much the electricity will cost, Co-op and Condo Boards cannot responsibly undergo the enormously costly process of conversion to electric heat. 

Background

Co-authors Francis Menton, Richard Ellenbogen, and I prepared this report without compensation and on a pro bono basis because we felt duty-bound to warn people of the significant impending threat to their health and safety.  We received no funding of any kind from the real estate industry, the energy industry, or anyone else for this report.

I believe that the three of us represent different but complementary backgrounds that provide a unique take on the implementation of this law.  Francis Menton retired from the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP after 31 years as a partner and brings a legal background to our team.  He has written about climate and energy issues for publications including the City Journal, Gatestone Institute, Real Clear Energy, and others, and is the main author at ManhattanContrarian.com with many of his articles reposted here.  Richard Ellenbogenhas a Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering from Cornell University.  He worked at Bell Telephone Laboratories in their Power Systems Laboratory, before joining Allied Converters, a plastic food packaging manufacturer in New Rochelle, N.Y.  As president of Allied Converters, Ellenbogen has overseen the company’s transformation into a green manufacturer with 100% waste recycling/repurposing, a 65 KW CHP System, and a 50-kilowatt solar array. Very few if any people in New York bring as much practical experience related to reducing energy use and lowering GHG emission.  For nearly the past two decades, Allied Converters has generated approximately 80% of its electric energy onsite and has operated with a Carbon Footprint 40% lower than the utility system. I am a retired air pollution meteorologist who started working at the interface between the electric utility industry and New York regulatory agencies starting in 1981.  I still closely follow New York regulatory initiatives and provide personal comments on energy and environment topics for regulatory proceedings and policy proposals.  I author the Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York blog and occasionally post articles here.

Francis Menton’s daughter Jane lived in a Queens co-op and was on their Board when Local Law 97 (LL97) was passed.  She and the members of her Board had an analysis done of the costs to meet the LL97 mandates.  In short, it was unaffordable. Not only that, but Jane also knew, based on her understanding of energy constraints in NYC, that it was unworkable and would result in an energy catastrophe. She recruited her father to write a report explaining the limitations of the electric grid.  Menton contacted me, I contacted Ellenbogen and the three of us agreed that, based on our backgrounds and experiences, we had a moral obligation to document the problems we expect will occur.  Out report is intended to provide information for a grass roots organization, directed by Jane, that we hope will coordinate a response by co-ops and condo boards throughout New York City (NYC).

Local Law 97

The goal of LL97 is to reduce the emissions produced by the city’s largest buildings 40 percent by 2030 and net zero by 2050.  Similar to New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) this is political theater without regard to practicality.  The law also established the Local Law 97 Advisory Board and Climate Working Groups which are supposed to advise the city on how best to meet the LL97 mandates.

In December 2022, the NYC Buildings Department released a report (“NYC LL97  Report”) from the LL97 Advisory Board.  The NYC LL97 Report “represents the culmination of hundreds of hours of work of the Advisory Board, Working Groups, and staff members who dedicated their time and expertise to help the City advance building energy efficiency and emissions reduction efforts”.  This is a political document.  LL97 mandated the appointment of sixteen people – eight appointed by the mayor and eight of appointed by the speaker of the City Council.  In theory the membership was supposed to represent “key stakeholder interests from the building sector” but I can guarantee that the primary qualification for membership was alignment with the political goals – just like the advisory panels for the Climate Act’s planning process. 

There were seven Climate Working Groups. These Working Groups “leveraged subject-matter experts in

a variety of fields to present proposals to the Board on specific issue areas.  I do not want to disparage the work of these folks but the basic working premise of all these efforts is that we must do this because it is the law.  There are plenty of organizations that are happy to provide experts that can develop implementation plans that purport to show that it will work.  Pursuant to LL97, the NYC LL97 Report included “recommendations regarding several issues related to implementation of the law, including improving performance requirements to achieve at least a 40% reduction in aggregate GHG emissions by 2030”. The report provides these recommendations.

The NYC LL97 Report includes chapters on calculating and reporting GHG emissions; recommendations for “tailored emission reduction approaches based on different building types; mechanisms for maximizing emission reductions; assistance to “assist properties, especially those in high need areas, with compliance, rather than to fine them for noncompliance” approaches to maximize “compliance with LL97 through clear communications to the public and robust, direct outreach to covered property owners and stakeholders”; achieving consistency across existing regulations; and recommendations for further analysis.  The bottom line is that to meet the mandated emission limits buildings will eventually have to electrify their heating, cooking, and hot water systems.

The NYC LL97 Report is incomplete.  Like the Climate Act Scoping Plan, it does not address feasibility.  This is a particularly critical point because at the same time as this law is mandating increased use of electricity, the Climate Act mandates 70% renewable electrical generation by 2030 and 100% zero emissions generation by 2040.   Our report (“LL97 Impacts Report”) argues that credible and feasible plan must be prepared that demonstrates where the electricity will come from.  In order to guarantee health and safety a functioning Demonstration Project showing how the transformed grid will work and how much the electricity will cost is needed before Co-op and Condo Boards can responsibly undergo the enormously costly process of conversion to electric heat.

Report to Co-op and Condo Boards and Trade Associations regarding New York City Local Law 97

The LL97 Impacts Report points out that LL97 mandates that most large residential buildings in the City must convert to electric heat by 2030, and all of them by 2035.  Such conversions, should they occur, will add substantially to the demand on the City’s electrical grid.  Simultaneously, New York State has enacted the Climate Act, an even more comprehensive climate statute, that mandates that power plants that run on natural gas — the generators of most of the City’s reliable electricity — must be closed during the 2020s and 30s, and all of them closed by 2040.  The State has also mandated that a portion of new vehicle sales be zero-emissions vehicles starting in 2026, ramping up to 100% of all such sales by 2035, further dramatically increasing the demand on the City’s grid.  These several mandates are in irreconcilable conflict.  They cannot all be met simultaneously; and, in combination, they will inevitably undermine the reliability of the City’s electric grid.

The LL97 Impacts Report points out that neither the State nor the City of New York has presented any credible plan demonstrating that in the early to mid-2030s there will be sufficient reliable electricity generation to meet the demands anticipated from both current uses, and from the large additions that have been mandated.  Indeed, the State has admitted that, in lieu of a definitive plan, it relies instead on a speculative hope for new technologies not yet invented or deployed at scale to bridge the large gap in electricity supply that will inevitably arise from the conflicting mandates.  The State can point to no Demonstration Project showing how its hope for a de-carbonized electrical grid can succeed, nor to any detailed projection of the anticipated costs.

Even the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) – the entity responsible for maintaining the reliability of the grid it oversees – has recently issued warnings as to the looming dangers ahead from insufficient and unreliable electricity supply.  In its recent 10-year Power Trends study, NYISO sees the danger of unreliability of the grid as arising no later than the phasing out by December 31, 2030 of the New York Power Authority’s small natural gas plants located in New York City. The NYISO report states:

 “If demand on the grid grows at a rate greater than the buildout of new generation and transmission, reliability deficiencies could arise…”. 

In addition, the Public Service Commission recently released its Clean Energy Standard Biennial Review Report that admits that the Climate Act 70% renewable electrical generation by 2030 goal will not be met until 2033 at the earliest.  The report cites global interest rates, inflation, and supply chain pressures as factors affecting the progress needed to meet the 2030 mandate.  Those factors also impact LL97 implementation.

The LL97 Impacts Report provides detailed descriptions of the issues raised in the NYISO and PSC reports.  It explains that the ongoing pursuit of New York’s irreconcilable energy mandates creates especially severe potential consequences for the City’s large co-ops and condominiums. The boards of most of these buildings currently face a mandatory 2030 deadline for conversion to electric heat.  Complying with this mandate can only be done at very large cost, indeed a cost so large that it would stretch the finances of nearly all buildings to the breaking point.  Boards also have under New York law a fiduciary duty to their shareholders and members, which encompasses protecting the health and safety of all residents, and not squandering their constituents’ money.

The LL97 Impacts Report notes that in the absence of a credible and feasible plan demonstrating where the electricity will come from, backed up by a functioning Demonstration Project showing how the transformed grid will work and how much the electricity will cost, Boards cannot responsibly undergo the enormously costly process of conversion to electric heat.  Because of their fiduciary duties, Board members can face severe personal liability if, for example, they put their residents in the position of losing heat when the electrical grid fails on the coldest days of winter; or if they commit their building to borrowing large sums that must be repaid to install a heating system that then does not work when needed.

Conclusion

The NYC LL97 Report falls far short of what is needed to provide Co-op and Condo Boards and the residents of those buildings with any assurance that the LL97 mandates can be met at the same time the Climate Act is transforming the electric energy system with massive deployments of wind, solar, and energy storage as well as not yet commercially available resources.  This means extraordinary risks for keeping the heat on in the winter in NYC.

The fines that are slated to be imposed on buildings failing to convert by 2030, although substantial, are small compared to the combined exposures of conversion costs plus potential liabilities.  Moreover, when it becomes apparent that the grid cannot handle the mandated demands, the laws imposing impossible and irreconcilable mandates must inevitably be modified.  The LL97 Impacts Report concludes that no responsible Board can go down the road of converting a large building to electric heat until NYC proves that the mandates are demonstrably feasible without threatening the safety and welfare of affected residents.

Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.  This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.

The Coral Endures

First, coral is not a single organism. Coral is a curious critter. Coral is a symbiotic partnership between an animal from the Anthozoa group and a microbial alga called Symbiodinium. The microbial algae use photosynthesis to create sugar, and the Anthozoa polyps feed off the sugar. Here’s a description from the USGS.

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I keep reading endless hype about the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) getting bleached out of existence. So let’s start with some facts.

First, coral is not a single organism. Coral is a curious critter. Coral is a symbiotic partnership between an animal from the Anthozoa group and a microbial alga called Symbiodinium. The microbial algae use photosynthesis to create sugar, and the Anthozoa polyps feed off the sugar. Here’s a description from the USGS.

Figure 1. Description from the USGS article: “The hard skeleton of coral is formed by the secretion of calcium carbonate by the polyp. The cup-like skeleton deposited by an individual polyp is called a corallite. Polyps gather food particles with the nematocysts (stinging, venomous cells) in their tentacles, and feed from sugars produced by photosynthesizing zooxanthellae, a type of algae. The coral tissue protects these algae from herbivorous grazers, and the algae in turn use many of the polyps’ waste products such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Illustration by Laura Torresan, USGS“

Next, modern-type warm-water shallow coral reefs have been around for about half a billion years … so obviously, they must be resistant to temperature changes, including the large temperature swings in the transitions between the glacial periods and the interglacial times such as the current Holocene.

Next, “bleaching”. Bleaching is the natural response of coral to excessively warm or excessively cool temperatures. Or to pollution. Or to siltation. Or to toxic chemicals. Or to the death of the parrotfish or other grazers that keep the coral from being overgrown by other plants.

When the symbiotic relationship comes under pressure due to any of those stressors, the algae may leave the coral’s tissue. And if the stress is due to pollution, siltation, or the lack of parrotfish, then the reef may die.

But if the bleaching is from unusual temperatures, the reef doesn’t usually die. Instead, something entirely different happens. The usual outcome of bleaching due to temperature change is that after the algae die and are expelled by the coral, a different strain of algae that is adapted to the new temperature takes up residence in the bleached coral skeleton.

It’s easy for the new algae to colonize the coral—at that point the coral is like an apartment house where the tenants have all moved out. The new algae can colonize the coral without having to build up the structure. So the reef usually comes back to full health quite quickly.

How do I know this stuff? Hours and hours of scuba and snorkel diving on coral reefs, plus four years living on a coral atoll. I’ve seen the bleaching and watched the reef recover.

Now, as I mentioned at the top of the post, there’s all kinds of hype about what might happen to the GBR, or to the reefs off of Florida and the Keys for that matter, if the ocean warms up and doesn’t cool back down.

However, what most folks don’t know is that a) coral reefs like warm water, the warmer the better, and b) the GBR and the Florida reefs are at the coldest end of the temperatures where shallow-water corals reefs can grow. (And yes, I know there are deep cold-water corals … but we’re not talking about those, are we?)

So let’s start with the location of the GBR. It’s on the northeast coast of Australia, shown in the map below.

Figure 2. Location of the Great Barrier Reef

And where is that in relation to the rest of the world’s coral reefs? Well, very few coral reefs exist where the year-round water temperature is less than 23°C (73°F). And here’s a map of that region.

Figure 3. Temperature range where corals thrive (colored areas), and the area where most corals live (red box).

So … as you can see, both the Florida reefs and the GBR are in the coldest part of the temperature range where corals are happy. And most coral reefs are in the warmest ocean waters. So we know that there are plenty of warmer-water-adapted algae and warmer-water coral reefs.

And of course, this means that if the ocean in those areas of the GBR and Florida reefs gets and stays warmer … all that will happen is that some reefs will bleach, warmer-water-adapted algae will recolonize the reefs, and finally, because of the warmer waters, the reefs will be able to expand polewards.

A final note. Almost nowhere is the open ocean’s annual average temperature warmer than ~30°C. And as the ocean’s temperature overall has warmed, the warmest waters have stayed the same temperature. So a warming ocean is no threat to corals growing in the warmest ocean waters.

TL;DR version? While humans threaten coral reefs via pollution, pesticides, and siltation, corals like warm water. They are happiest where the water is warmest. Corals have survived radical changes in the temperature of oceans over geological time. Bleaching is the natural way that corals adapt to changing water temperatures.

And as a result … all of the hype about the corals and “global warming” is just another part of the climate alarmism scam. They’re not under any kind of threat from warming oceans. Or to misquote Mark Twain, “The rumors of coral’s death are greatly exaggerated”.

w.

PLEASE NOTE: When you comment, quote the exact words you are referring to. I can defend my own words. I can’t defend your interpretation of my words. Thanks.

AEP Does Not Understand Energy Markets

AEP’s regular claims that oil and gas assets will soon be stranded are based on the assumption that governments around the world will mandate the end of fossil fuels. But where is the actual evidence for this?

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/08/defiant-opec-bets-on-fossil-hegemony-deep-into-the-21st-century/

AEP’s regular claims that oil and gas assets will soon be stranded are based on the assumption that governments around the world will mandate the end of fossil fuels. But where is the actual evidence for this?

I am not even going to attempt to guess what might happen in thirty years time, because the world by then will be a much different place. In any event, that is of concern to oil companies now either, because they will be looking to bank their profits long before then. Discounting of capital means that any revenues in 2050 will be of little value anyway.

And we surely do have a pretty good idea about might happen in the next decade or so, given how slow economies are to change. So what does that scenario tell us about trends in oil and gas demand?

In the UK, AEP may be surprised to learn, even the official government projections state that oil and gas consumption will only have dropped by 16% and 4% respectively by 2040, compared to now. These projections are based on “existing and planned policies”, including nearly doubling renewable capacity, the ban on new ICE cars and phasing out of gas boilers after 2035.

And if we look globally, we can see that increasing demand for oil and gas in non-OECD countries is likely to dwarf any reductions in OECD ones.

BP Energy Review

Which begs the question, what will the non-OECD countries do?

Does anybody seriously expect them to give up fossil fuels, particularly when AEP’s supposed glut will make them cheaper than ever?

Ridding the world of crude oil without a replacement is global suicide!

History has shown that warming is good and continues to be good for humanity and vegetation, as improvements in crop yields have been essential to feed a growing population.

From CFACT

By Ronald Stein

History has shown that warming is good and continues to be good for humanity and vegetation, as improvements in crop yields have been essential to feed a growing population.

The world now sustains 8 billion people — ten times the population prior to the Industrial Revolution and thankfully has experienced record crop production. This rapid increase in agricultural output is partially attributable to increased atmospheric CO2 since 1940; this rise in CO2 levels alone is linked to significant yield increases for corn, soybeans, and wheat.

The world has also experienced significant economic growth and prosperity, benefiting from the more than 6,000 products that are derived from fossil fuels. These products support the following infrastructures and were not around a few short centuries ago because they all need components and parts made from fossil fuels that were NOT available in the pre-1800s.

  • Non-animal-powered Transportation
  • Airports
  • Hospitals
  • Electronics
  • Telecommunications
  • Communications systems
  • Militaries
  • Space programs

Worldwide crop harvests and yields continue to climb, contrary to what politicians and the media tell you. We are growing more food on less land than ever before in history, and the underfed populations are declining. That is all good. CO2 is airborne Miracle Grow.

Today, CO2 levels are about 420 ppm, a 50% increase since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. The minimum threshold for plant life is 150 ppm, and the Earth approached that catastrophically low level during the last ice advance. When plants die, only microbial life on Earth will survive.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have been in a significant and serious decline for the last 140 million years. They have declined from nearly 4,000 ppm to slightly more than 180 ppm 18,000 years ago. While our recent increase in concentration is helping to fuel vegetation and agricultural growth, the levels remain suboptimal for vegetation and crops. Compared to the average throughout Earth’s history (2,600 ppm), our current levels of CO2 are near to historically low levels.

The question for that next conversation may be: If politicians support continued CO2 reductions, what is the backup plan to support crop production to sustain the 8 billion on this planet?

In addition, in greenhouses, submarines, and the international space station, CO2 concentrations range from 1,000 ppm to 6,500 ppm.

A MUST viewing to enhance one’s ability to participate in CONVERSATIONS with students, teachers, and friends on the subject of Energy Literacy is a 40-minute conversation with Greg Wrightstone.

In addition, to assist with the subjects on Energy Literacy Conversations, an easy APP for your iPhone is the  Inconvenient Facts.

Just a few Inconvenient Facts from the APP to stimulate CONVERSATIONS:

  • CO2 is plant food; thus, more CO2 means more plant growth.
  • CO2 has been decreasing for 140 million years.
  • Modern warming began long BEFORE SUVs or coal-fired power plants.
  • Temperatures have changed for 800,000 years before modern civilization.
  • It was warmer than today for more than 6,000 of the last 10,000 years.
  • We are living in one of the coldest periods in all of Earth’s history.
  • For 65 million years, the weather was warmer than today.
  • More CO2 = fewer droughts.
  • The earth is becoming greener, not turning into a desert.
  • Extreme heat events are declining.
  • Cold kills far more people than heat each year.
  • There has been a 250-year decline in hurricanes.
  • The population of polar bears is growing.
  • Sea level increases began more than 15,000 years ago.

There is still much to be accomplished as almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. Billions are living with little to no access to electricity, like those living in places like Africa, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and Malaysia, and is complicated by the hypocritical “green” agendas of leaders in the few wealthier developed economies that have benefited from the more than 6,000 products made from fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial era.

World leaders have little comprehension that reducing crop production via a reduction of CO2 and ridding the world of crude oil, without a replacement in our minds, would be immoral and evil, as extreme shortages of food and the products now manufactured from fossil fuels will result in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths, and could be the greatest threat to the world’s population of 8 billion.

We need to focus on solutions for food and energy poverty to provide both wealthy countries and those in developing countries with continuous food supplies and for the multitude of products made from fossil fuels that were not available a few hundred years ago.

FOOD and ENERGY POVERTY is promoted by a limited supply chain of enhanced crop production worldwide, and all the products made from fossil fuels that are the basis of everything, such as:

  • Appliances
  • Heating and Ventilating
  • Water filtration
  • Sanitation
  • Medical equipment
  • Electrical generation (yes, all the “parts” of every electrical generation system, such as wind, solar, coal, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear, are all based on the products made from fossil fuels.

Reliable, abundant, uninterruptible, and affordable electricity is needed to operate phones, iPads, computers, X-ray machines, etc., that are made with products made from fossil fuels.

Without those products made from fossil fuels, there would be nothing that needs electricity! As we know, unreliable renewables, like wind turbines and solar panels, only generate occasional electricity but manufacture no products for the 8 billion on this planet.

There are many commonalities among CO2 levels and the many products made from fossil fuels that support today’s 8 billion on this planet. Hopefully, the contents of this article will stimulate conversations on energy literacy that will debunk global warming hype.

This article originally appeared at America Out Loud

World’s Most Populous Nation Has Put Solar Out To Pasture. Other Countries Should Follow Suit

During his debate with former President Donald Trump, President Joe Biden claimed: “The only existential threat to humanity is climate change.” What if I told you that it is not climate change but climate policies that are the real existential threat to billions across our planet?

From CO2 Coalition

By Vijay Jayaraj

During his debate with former President Donald Trump, President Joe Biden claimed: “The only existential threat to humanity is climate change.” What if I told you that it is not climate change but climate policies that are the real existential threat to billions across our planet?

The allure of a green utopia masks the harsh realities of providing affordable and reliable electricity. Americans could soon wake up to a dystopian future if the proposed Net Zero and Build Back Better initiatives — both aimed at an illogical proliferation of unreliable renewables and a clamp down on dependable fossil fuels — are implemented.

Nowhere is this better reflected than in remote regions of India where solar panels — believed to provide clean and green energy — ultimately resulted in being used to construct cattle sheds.

The transformation of Dharnai in the state of Bihar into a “solar village” was marked by great enthusiasm and high expectations. Villagers were told the solar micro-grid would provide reliable electricity for agriculture, social activities and daily living. The promise engendered a naïve trust in a technology that has failed repeatedly around the world.

The news of this Greenpeace initiative quickly spread as international news media showcased it as a success story for “renewable” energy in a third world country. CNN International’s “Connect the World” said Dharnai’s micro-grid provided a continuous supply of electricity. For an unaware viewer sitting in, say, rural Kentucky, solar energy would have appeared to be making great strides as a dependable energy source.

But the Dharnai system would end up on the long list of grand solar failures.

“As soon as we got solar power connections, there were also warnings to not use high power electrical appliances like television, refrigerator, motor and others,” said a villager. “These conditions are not there if you use thermal power. Then what is the use of such a power? The solar energy tariff was also higher compared to thermal power.”

A village shopkeeper said: “But after three years, the batteries were exhausted and it was never repaired. … No one uses solar power anymore here.” Hopefully, the solar panels will last longer as shelter for cows.

Eventually, the village was connected to the main grid, which provided fully reliable coal-powered electricity at a third of the price of the solar power.

Dharnai is not an isolated case.  Several other large-scale solar projects in rural India have had a similar fate. Writing for the publication Mongabay, Mainsh Kumar said: “Once (grid) electricity reaches unelectrified villages, the infrastructure and funds used in installation of such off-grid plants could prove futile.”

While green nonprofits and the liberal mainstream media have the embarrassment of a ballyhooed solar project being converted to cattle sheds, conventional energy sources like coal continue to power India’s more than 1.3 billion people and the industries their economies depend on.

India saw a record jump in electricity demand this year, partly due to increased use of air conditioning units and other electrical appliances as more of the population achieved the financial wherewithal to afford them. During power shortages, coal often has come to the rescue. India allows its coal plants to increase coal stockpiles and import additional fuel without restrictions.

India will add more than 15 gigawatts in the year ending March 2025 (the most in nine years) and aims to add a total of 90 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity by 2032.

Energy reality is inescapable in a growing economy like India’s, and only sources such as coal, oil and natural gas can meet the demand. Fossil fuels can be counted on to supply the energy necessary for modern life, and “green” sources cannot.

India’s stance is to put economic growth ahead of any climate-based agenda to reduce the use of fossil fuels. This was reaffirmed when the country refused to set an earlier target for its net zero commitment, delaying it until 2070.

The story of Dharnai serves as a cautionary tale for the implementation of renewable energy projects in rural India, where pragmatism is the official choice over pie in the sky.

This commentary was first published at Daily Caller on July 10, 2024.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K., and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, U.K.

Electric Car Doldrums…VW Announces 1000 Layoffs At East German Plant

VW announces 1000 layoffs at large electric-vehicle plant in East Germany as demand slips and market turbulence persists

From NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin

VW announces 1000 layoffs at large electric-vehicle plant in East Germany as demand slips and market turbulence persists

Blackout News here reports that Volkswagen is planning to cut another 1,000 jobs by the end of 2024 at its factory in Zwickau, Germany.  The demand for electric vehicles (EVs) remains weak and turbulent.

The news is another blow to a region already gripped by economic and political uncertainty, and underscores how Germany’s green master plan remains an illusion.

The Zwickau plant still employs about 9,400 workers and exclusively produces vehicles with electric drives.

“The move is a result of slow sales of EVs,” reports Blackout News. “The automotive industry is currently experiencing a turbulent phase. Many companies are increasingly focusing on electro-mobility, but consumers remain hesitant. High purchase costs, limited range and an inadequate charging infrastructure are some of the reasons that are deterring potential buyers.”

Despite the bad news, Zwickau remains an important location for the production of electric vehicles at VW. How long this will continue as such remains to be seen.

“The cutbacks mainly affect fixed-term employment contracts, which increases uncertainty for many employees. Many employees in Zwickau fear for their future, as fixed-term contracts are expiring and there are no new jobs in sight,”  reports Blackout News.

The prospects for the future of electric cars in Germany remains highly uncertain, and will depend on very much on whether or not electric vehicles will ever gain acceptance from wary buyers. issues surrounding technical feasibility still remain unresolved. As much as governments would like to promote them, their technical realities are there and cannot be discussed away.

Blackout News summarizes with optimism: “It can be said that the automotive industry is undergoing a transformation process that harbors both opportunities and risks. VW in Zwickau is an example of the challenges and necessary adjustments in this transition phase.”

Assuming the “transition phase” ever gets completed.

Blackout News is operated by an independent and non-partisan small group of engineers with experience in energy management.

CERES team presentations at the DDP conference in El Paso, TX, July 2024

The CERES team were kindly invited to contribute not just one, but three presentations at the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP)’s 42nd annual conference. This year it was hosted in El Paso, TX and the theme was “Are We in a Hybrid War on Science and the West?“.

From Watts Up With That?

From CERES

CERES TEAM

The CERES team were kindly invited to contribute not just one, but three presentations at the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP)’s 42nd annual conference. This year it was hosted in El Paso, TX and the theme was “Are We in a Hybrid War on Science and the West?“.

Each presentation covered a different aspect of CERES’s recent scientific research. In this post, we will provide links to the slides and videos of all three presentations (courtesy of the DDP). Videos for the other presentations at this conference (and many of the earlier conferences) can be found on the DDPmeetings YouTube channel.

1. Dr. Willie Soon: “Scientific Challenges of Detection and Attribution of Global Warming”

The first of our presentations was by Dr. Willie Soon in which he discussed our recent papers on the controversial topic of the “detection and attribution of global warming”, i.e., investigating the causes of global temperature changes since the mid-19th century:

The slides from his presentation can be downloaded here:

Dr. Willie Soon – DDP, 6 July 2024, El Paso, TX.pdf

Download PDF • 22.85MB

2. Dr. Michael Connolly: “Using Weather Balloon Data to Test Assumptions of Computer Climate Models”

The second of our presentations was by Dr. Michael Connolly in which he reviewed some of our research into atmospheric physics and chemistry using weather balloon radiosondes. He also gave an advance preview of some of our upcoming work on this exciting frontier of atmospheric science.

This presentation is quite technical because it is applying cutting-edge ideas to old concepts in the fields of physics and meteorology. However, the work he is describing is based on many years of empirical research into this topic and is based on the analysis of millions of weather balloon soundings from around the world:

The slides from his presentation can be downloaded here:

Dr. Michael Connolly – DDP, 6 July 2024, El Paso, TX.pdf

Download PDF • 8.09MB

3. Dr. Ronan Connolly: “How COVID Health Policies Neglected the Disease, the Patient, and the Physician”

Our third presentations was by Dr. Ronan Connolly in which he reviewed our published and upcoming research into the COVID-19 pandemic.

As he discusses in the presentation, some of the information presented disagrees with the World Health Organization (WHO)’s current positions on various proposed COVID-19 treatments. The WHO’s current positions can be found on their WHO.it website. However, all of the ideas he presented are based on the scientific information that is currently available as of July 2024:

The slides from his presentation can be downloaded here:

Dr. Ronan Connolly – DDP, 6 July 2024, El Paso, TX.pdf

Download PDF • 17.20MB

Squid, Sharks & the Sassy Angelfish at Outer Rock on Friday

Topside it was a clear sunny day, and on the way back to Great Keppel Island, from the boat we spotted them breeching. So beautiful.

From Jennifer Marohasy

By jennifer 

Last Friday it was noisy, so noisy underwater at Outer Rock Reef, to the northeast of Great Keppel Island.  

Two humpback whales!  They were having a conversation, that included some screeching, and some howling.  

Were they surprised to see the six of us humans underwater?  We couldn’t see them – but we could hear them.   Visibility was perhaps 10 metres, underwater.

Topside it was a clear sunny day, and on the way back to Great Keppel Island, from the boat we spotted them breeching.  So beautiful.  

Leaving Outer Rock, it was on the way back, a little further from here that we spotted the whales. But I don’t have a photograph, of the whales.

What I did see under the water was a lot of dead coral, so much dead branching Acropora spp..  Now dead from the bleaching back in February and March.   I have estimated about one third of the area of coral has been lost across at the Keppel Islands.  But not of all coral species, it is the Acropora spp. as plates but especially as branching, which have been most affected.  

On the one hand it has been difficult to see so much death.  But there is still so much life.  

One of the highlights of the dive last Friday was to see two Epaulette sharks (Hemiscyllium ocellatum).  One of them lay across an area of broken and mostly dead coral.  My wide-angle photograph of the shark with buddy Jen photographing it allows some assessment of how much, and what all this dead coral looks like in this area at about 10 metres depth.   And it was not easy to spot the shark, its natural colours merged with the algal infested coral.  

Stare long enough amongst the dead corals and you find all sorts of things, including nudibranchs. My photographs, wide angle and close-up, are of a gold and blue tiny Phyllidia ocellata.

Around a corner I found that same sassy scribbled angel fish (Chaeotodontoplus duboulayi) that came right up to me a month ago, when I last swam this section of reef on 20th June.   On Friday, again, the same fish came up and had a good look inside my face mask.  Until I reached for my camera, and then it swam away. 

I put my camera down, and made some whales noises, and the fish came back and looked me in the eye, waving its head about the other side of my mask.   How I wished, at that moment, I could have communicated that he was indeed a beautiful fish, and so fearless.

The other exceptionally beautiful animals that I saw underwater last Friday were the squid.  Four of them, moving in unison, even staring at me in unison.  They did everything as an evenly spaced foursome. 

Can you see them, the four squid?

Squid, Sharks & the Sassy Angelfish at Outer Rock on Friday

July 14, 2024 By jennifer 3 Comments

Share

Share

Share

Last Friday it was noisy, so noisy underwater at Outer Rock Reef, to the northeast of Great Keppel Island.  

Two humpback whales!  They were having a conversation, that included some screeching, and some howling.  

Were they surprised to see the six of us humans underwater?  We couldn’t see them – but we could hear them.   Visibility was perhaps 10 metres, underwater.

Topside it was a clear sunny day, and on the way back to Great Keppel Island, from the boat we spotted them breeching.  So beautiful.  

Leaving Outer Rock, it was on the way back, a little further from here that we spotted the whales. But I don’t have a photograph, of the whales.

What I did see under the water was a lot of dead coral, so much dead branching Acropora spp..  Now dead from the bleaching back in February and March.   I have estimated about one third of the area of coral has been lost across at the Keppel Islands.  But not of all coral species, it is the Acropora spp. as plates but especially as branching, which have been most affected.  

On the one hand it has been difficult to see so much death.  But there is still so much life.  

One of the highlights of the dive last Friday was to see two Epaulette sharks (Hemiscyllium ocellatum).  One of them lay across an area of broken and mostly dead coral.  My wide-angle photograph of the shark with buddy Jen photographing it allows some assessment of how much, and what all this dead coral looks like in this area at about 10 metres depth.   And it was not easy to spot the shark, its natural colours merged with the algal infested coral.  

Stare long enough amongst the dead corals and you find all sorts of things, including nudibranchs. My photographs, wide angle and close-up, are of a gold and blue tiny Phyllidia ocellata.

Around a corner I found that same sassy scribbled angel fish (Chaeotodontoplus duboulayi) that came right up to me a month ago, when I last swam this section of reef on 20th June.   On Friday, again, the same fish came up and had a good look inside my face mask.  Until I reached for my camera, and then it swam away. 

I put my camera down, and made some whales noises, and the fish came back and looked me in the eye, waving its head about the other side of my mask.   How I wished, at that moment, I could have communicated that he was indeed a beautiful fish, and so fearless.

The other exceptionally beautiful animals that I saw underwater last Friday were the squid.  Four of them, moving in unison, even staring at me in unison.  They did everything as an evenly spaced foursome. 

Can you see them, the four squid?

I checked on the expanding patch of bubble-tip anemone (Entacmaea quadricolor).   Remember at this dive site – not far from the mooring.  Where the branching Acropora spp. have lost to the macro-algae with the bubble-tip anemone (Entacmaea quadricolor) pushing through – taking over.  

The dying coral, heavily infested with algae, is being replaced by this expanding mass of anemones dotted with blackback clown fish (Amphiprion melanopus).   Most unexpectedly this apparently expanding mass of anemone is still stark white, but obviously very alive and keeping its tentacles clean of algae.

And so, the bleached anemone (Entacmaea quadricolor) with the help of its symbiotic clowns, is making the very most of the demise of the corals.   

Indeed, coral cover may have reduced significantly at this reef, but species diversity is arguably on the rise.   

I am very grateful to Keppel Dive, and especially my buddy Jenn (another one) for so many memories.

Ines in the foreground, getting a tank ready to go diving.

****

The feature image (very top) is of that angelfish, that is so curious.  A scribble angelfish, Chaetodontoplus duboulayi

EV boosters cannot do math

According to Electrly, the electric vehicle charging manufacturer, it takes an average of 90 kilowatt-hours of electricity to fully charge a Tesla Model Y long-range all-wheel-drive vehicle, 83 kWh for the Model Y performance version, and 67 kWh for the standard range Model Y.

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin

According to Electrly, the electric vehicle charging manufacturer, it takes an average of 90 kilowatt-hours of electricity to fully charge a Tesla Model Y long-range all-wheel-drive vehicle, 83 kWh for the Model Y performance version, and 67 kWh for the standard range Model Y.

Each Tesla uses between 0.24 to 0.30 kWh per mile, or about 4,500 kWh over a year for 15,000 miles of driving. Other electric vehicles use more or less but within a similar range. At 0.30 kWh per mile, that’s 90 kWh for 300 miles of driving for the typical week.

The average American household without an in-home EV charging station consumes about 30 kWh per day, or about 10,720 kWh over a year’s time. With just one electric vehicle being charged at home, that total increases to about 15,220 kWh. For two-EV households, that total runs up to nearly 20,000 kWh per year (assuming both drivers commute to work). That’s nearly double current electricity usage for such families.

Without an EV in the garage, air conditioning uses nearly a fifth of household electricity, followed by space heating and water heating (a combined 25%). But adding just one home-charged EV changes that calculus dramatically. The EV takes up about 30% of the much higher total electricity use, dropping the share for all other uses significantly.

Two home-charged EVs would eat up nearly half the household’s total electricity usage – and require thousands of dollars to upgrade the house’s electric panel. Today’s 50-kva transformers, which cost about $8,000 each, can power about 60 homes; that number drops closer to 40 if each of those homes houses one electric vehicle, closer to 30 with two EVs using home chargers.

For a city with 120,000 homes, which today may require about 2,000 transformers, the addition of 120,000 home-charged electric vehicles means adding 1,000 transformers, about $8 million. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg because distributing 50 to 100% more household electricity requires generating 50 to 100% more electricity.

All this costs money that most Americans today do not have, especially at the generation’s end. Especially with the push to eliminate electric generation from coal and natural gas and even nuclear energy. It also requires massive construction of electric infrastructure, from transmission lines to transformers to in-home charging stations accompanied by larger electric fuse boxes.

One might see all this as a great booster of the economy. One problem with this is that the U.S. is projected to have a shortfall of 550,000 electricians by 2027. Who will do all this work? Another problem is that most “studies” of the impact of electrifying the vehicle fleet and relying nearly entirely on wind and solar energy pay little attention to the impact on individual households and local communities.

Who will benefit – and who will be harmed?  The “experts” either do not know or will not say.

Do they play chess? Do they realize that wise policymaking requires a chess-like approach to evaluating the impact of today’s moves six or seven moves down the road?

Then there are the side issues.

Many of those who strongly advocate for an all-EV future live in cities governed by progressives whose public officials have been “soft” on property crimes. This may explain why thieves in the Seattle metro area have stolen the copper cables from over 100 EV charging stations in the past 12 months, leaving these stations totally useless until the cables are replaced (and then, often as not, stolen again).

Belgian firefighters are lobbying to ban the parking of electric vehicles in underground garages, just as liquefied petroleum gas vehicles without safety valves cannot park in them. The reason?

It takes up to 70 hours to extinguish an EV electric fire by immersing the vehicle in a skip filled with water – which can hardly be done in an underground car park. Worse, the water used to extinguish these fires reveals a chemical load up to 70 times higher than typical load limits for industrial wastewater.

Ars Technica reports one concern motorists have with buying EVs is the shortfall of public charging stations. The U.S. Department of Energy says that, of the nation’s 64,000 public charging stations, only 10,000 are direct current chargers that can replenish an EV battery in 30 minutes rather than several hours – and that’s if there is no line.

What the EV-promoting journal misses in its excuse-me post is that those fueling up at the nation’s 120,000 gasoline and diesel stations can do so in far less than 30 minutes, usually waiting a maximum 60 seconds to access a free pump.

As the old adage says, time is money.

Speaking of money, remember that the Biden Administration promised two years ago to spend $7.5 billion to install about 20,000 EV charging stations with up to 500,000 charging points in operation? As of March 2024, only seven of these stations had been built with Biden dollars.

Maybe the reason is a lack of qualified personnel, maybe a lack of spare parts. Or is this money going down the same rabbit hole as the Solyndra and First Solar handouts?

Even in super-green Germany, whose zeal for environmental purity was such that it shut down its nuclear power industry (but reopened coal plants), half of EV owners regret their purchase or lease, many citing “rising electricity prices.” That same sentiment is growing in America and around the developed world despite the machinations of the globalist power elites.

The day of reckoning for the Biden (and other nations’) EV mandates may come soon, especially as defiant automakers have moved forward with hydrogen-fueled vehicles, cleaner internal combustion engines, and other alternatives to the electricity-sucking, highway-crushing (yes, the heavier EVs add wear and tear to public roadways) marvels, many of which rely on diesel generators or coal-fired power plants to operate.

But mostly, people just want to be free to make their own economic and transportation choices and not have some unelected bureaucrat making those decisions for them.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy