Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Summer in Germany has slowed halfway through as there’s no sign of Health Minister Karl Lauterbach’s predicted heatwaves or Marc Benecke’s “hell-summer of the century“, which of course could have led to health emergencies and possible lock downs.
Snowfan here reports there’s also there’s no heatwave in sight across much of Europe and Germany.
Summer in Germany has slowed halfway through as there’s no sign of Health Minister Karl Lauterbach’s predicted heatwaves or Marc Benecke’s “hell-summer of the century“, which of course could have led to health emergencies and possible lock downs.
In fact, quite to the contrary, the North Sea and Baltic Sea are severely under-cooled in mid-July, as Europe finds itself surrounded by under-cooled seas.
Source: NOAA reanalysis SSTA eastern North Atlantic with additions
In mid-July 2024, the NOAA reanalysis shows that the seas off the coasts of Europe and off West Africa up to the equator are widely undercooled compared to the global WMO climate mean 1991-2020 (blue and purple). This applies to the eastern North Atlantic, including the North and Baltic Seas, and even the central Mediterranean.
Next we look more closely at the North and Baltic Seas:
Source: NOAA reanalysis SSTA North Sea and Baltic Sea with additions
With the latest data from July 13, 2024, the NOAA reanalysis shows that large parts of these two seas are noticeably cooler than the global WMO climate mean 1991-2020 on July 16, 2024.
Reports of allegedly too warm water there in mid-July 2024 were obviously fake news.
So, this is the update on the geothermal situation. Unlike Al Gore, who has countless forecasts that had nothing to do with reality, I am able to see what I told you, right or wrong, in my authors link.
I send these updates along to CFACT’s readers so they will be in the know, and so I have dates that I got this out in public so we can test the hypothesis. So, this is the update on the geothermal situation. Unlike Al Gore, who has countless forecasts that had nothing to do with reality, I am able to see what I told you, right or wrong, in my authors link.
First of all, if it seems like I was dismissing the sun in all this, its not true. It’s just that it’s a given. The sun is the conductor of the climate orchestra. It is part of my grand slam of climate (used to be the triple crown, But I added a 4th).
1 The sun
2 The oceans
3. The very design of the entire system ( that really gets some people mad since some greater being had to design it)
4 Stochastic and/or man-made contributions
It’s a matter of attribution. And man-made, compared to everything else, is intuitively tiny. Cut CO2, so what compared to the other parts?
How important is the sun? Well, outside of the obvious, it may be the very alignment of the sun and Jupiter that is causing the exothermic reaction I have spoken about,
to increase the stress on the bottom of the ocean, enabling the estimated 10 million hydrothermal vents to contribute enough to explain the last 4 decades. If CO2 was doing it, it should have been the previous 4, when it was introduced, that it made the biggest difference, not now.
In any case, Dr Arthur Viterito, a geologist has been my “deep throat” in supplying me updates on the mechanism that is the cause. As I have stated before it’s unbelievable that we have to wait till after the fact to see all this, but our data acquisition in the deep oceans is poor if I am kind, laughable if I am not. The hypothesis is based on the OBSERVATION of the oceans and weather, that something has to be causing this, most likely an input that was not present 30-40 years ago.
I have been working with Dr Arthur Viterito.
Dr Viterito writes:
The Global Centroid Moment Catalogue (GCMT) has just been updated, and we now have a completed catalog through March 31 for this year. The data points in red are the projected estimates for the full year. Keep in mind that the “Completed” catalog is 3 to 4 months behind their “Quick” catalog. In short, we always want the “Completed” catalog as events are added going forward.
Analysis: It appears that total global frequencies peaked in 2011, and mid-ocean frequencies peaked 3 years later in 2014. We appear to have “rounded a top” for both and should head towards lowered frequencies in the years to come. The lag between the 2 curves is significant and fits with the “slab pull/ridge push” hypothesis of global tectonics. That is, the converging plates are first “pulled” into the mantle due to gravity, and the ridges, the area where geothermal heating occurs in the ocean floors, are “pushed” apart, with magma rising up to fill the gaps.
If the hypothesis is correct, we can expect some cooling in the years to come. This could get very interesting going forward!
Back to me: Remember, one of the biggest reasons this is a likely cause for the warming is the lag! It takes a while for the oceans in TOTALITY to respond. Underwater heatwaves go off rapidly, and then there is a local response that leads to the entire ocean warming up once it’s washed out, in incremental step-ups. But we know the oceans lag, and again, the overall chart of all this really is a big argument for why this is a cause for the warming of the last 30-35 years in the ocean. But that build-up does not just go away. There is a lag in the response of the ocean.
It was the increase in geothermal first,then the response. The lag is several years but that would be expected with warming. A faster response to a cooler look may be on the way since it is tougher to sustain heat when it’s this warm.
The math is impressive.
Keep in mind this is not ignoring solar, which I believe is the grand conductor, but in a larger time scale. It is hard to argue against this, and consequently, both of these together.
Both of these strongly support this from Dr Wyss Yim.
I have a 4th, but in either case, manmade contribution is last. Note this is not denying climate change, and people who accuse my side of that are liars. It does strongly question attribution.
which, if it is right, likely occurred similarly in the 30s,40s, and 50s
There is no guarantee we are right. But what is very important, and I would think that all around you that you are seeing in every aspect of news today, would convince you of that in anything important, you get all the information. If anything, at least I am putting forth what could be a testable hypothesis over the next few years. This July is now almost .3 C below last July as the effects of Tonga start to get absorbed in the entire scheme of the climate. But as a practicing meteorologist for 45 years, what is startling to me is the lack of curiosity on what is not shown by major media outlets. It’s like the silence on the lack of tropical activity in the Pacific is truly mind-boggling to me in relation to global tropical activity.
What may be driving the warming? If you like tests, one may be lurking.
The cost of generating occasional electricity offshore is positively insane, and getting worse. And that’s just to focus on the economics. Then there’s the mounting and irreparable environmental harm – ecologically destructive and deadly to marine mammals, as well as fishing grounds and the livelihoods depend on them.
Here’s everything you wanted to know about offshore wind power, and it’s all bad.
The cost of generating occasional electricity offshore is positively insane, and getting worse. And that’s just to focus on the economics. Then there’s the mounting and irreparable environmental harm – ecologically destructive and deadly to marine mammals, as well as fishing grounds and the livelihoods depend on them.
In this piece, C Michael Hogan delivers a cornucopia of the chaos delivered by offshore wind power, drawing from a range of sources and reaching the obvious conclusion: offshore wind power is a complete disaster.
Report: Offshore Wind Power The Encyclopedia of Earth C Michael Hogan 4 May 2024
Offshore Wind Power is the installation of wind turbines in an ocean or lake environment, generally intended to feed electrical power into an Electric Grid. While this form of power generation is labelled as “green”, the actual impacts can be more deleterious than other low carbon power sources such as Nuclear power, Hydroelectric, Combined cycle natural gas or Geothermal. While Offshore Wind Power was first pursued as an alternative to terrestrial installations to mitigate large down times, reducing bird kills and disturbance of wildlife, offshore installations have generally been found to produce greater adverse environmental impacts as well as much higher costs than their land based counterparts. (Haggett, 2008) While marine wind speeds are generally higher than on shore, the offshore turbines have a much greater downtime from excessive winds, since the turbines are always disabled above a threshold wind speed to avoid catastrophic damage.
In the USA as of 2024, the push for offshore wind power is being driven chiefly by the White House. Considerable independent analysis shows the U.S. plans to be uneconomical and threatening to marine biota, including cetaceans and a broad range of fisheries. One recent analysis shows “Installing grid-balancing and backup batteries for the entire U.S. could cost up to $290-trillion — again, based only on today’s electricity needs.” (Baron, Feb 1, 2024) There is also great uncertainty about the cost effectiveness of maintaining the turbines, which are subject to frequent breakage of turbine blades and towers. Furthermore, the actual calculations of carbon emissions and life cycle air pollution demonstrate that offshore wind emissions are much higher than most conventional power plants (including nuclear, hydroelectric, and combined cycle natural gas), such that there is an increase in greenhouse gases from offshore wind, based upon a life cycle analysis. (Baron, 2024)
Description of Offshore Wind Installations Fundamentally the wind turbines are turned by winds to generate electricity. This electricity is typically conveyed to terrestrial users who will consume the resultant power. The common method is method of sea to land transmission is via high-voltage alternating current (HVAC). (John, 2019) However, there are significant limitations that prevent HVAC from being practical, especially as the distance to offshore turbines increases. HVAC is limited by cable charging currents, which are a consequence of cable capacitance. Underwater AC cables have a much higher capacitance than overhead AC cables, so that line losses due to capacitance are much more significant, and the voltage magnitude at the receiving end of the transmission line can be significantly different from the magnitude at the generating end.
The sea to land cables are often laid on the ocean floor, but sometimes suspended in loops from turbine to turbine. In any case the cables are highly vulnerable to infrastructure attack, in the form of vandalism or foreign attack. For example, recently in the Middle East, undersea cable attacks were a prominent element of terrorist warfare, with cable cutting. (Gambrell, 2024) Additionally, for the looped or suspended cables, there is a risk of ship collision, but also an impediment to large marine mammals.
Impacts to Aquatic Biota Offshore wind facilities generally have significant adverse impacts upon oceanic and lacustrine ecosystems. These effects include adverse effects on cetacean taxa; fisheries, including shellfish; avian species. The surveying, installation, operation and maintenance of offshore wind structures are known to produce substantially negative environmental impacts towards the marine environment. The timing of such disruption is important, since wind turbine activities during periods of migration and reproduction can have disruptive impacts on marine wildlife such as cetaceans, seabirds and fish. (Hernandez et al, 2021) The sea-to-land cables are often laid on the ocean floor, but sometimes suspended in loops from turbine to turbine. In any case, the cables are highly vulnerable to infrastructure attack, in the form of vandalism or foreign attack. Additionally for the looped or suspended cables, there is a risk of ship collision, but also an impediment to large marine mammals.
Cetacean Impacts Many whale, dolphin and Porpoise taxa inherently have extremely low populations, with many species being classified as Critically Endangered. Thus even killing of one individual poses a threat to the species survival. Experiences of some of the early installations of wind turbines are correlated to significant numbers of whale deaths. Cetaceans are highly vulnerable to Offshore Wind Power development, since surveying, installation and operation of Offshore wind power all produce extremely high decibel impact to whale hearing. These impacts of up to 240 decibels cannot only impede whale communications and navigation, but also lead to permanent deafness (Nowacek et al, 2007)(and ultimately death) of cetaceans receiving these high sound levels, even on a short duration interval. Mooney et al have identified six separate equipment types used in ocean wind installations, each of which creates underwater sound intensities of over 212 decibels, a level much higher than that needed to produce permanent deafness in cetacean. (Mooney et al, 2020) Deafness can occur when high intensity sound level impacts to cetacean inner and middle ears occur even for very short time exposure. An estimated number of over one thousand whales have died along the coasts of the United Kingdom and Ireland since marine wind turbines began to be installed in these locales. In 2017, when one Minke whales were washed up as dead on the East coast of England, it was posited that noise from nearby offshore wind installations had affected the animals’ delicate echolocation mechanisms. (Endfield, 2021)
It appears to be scientifically unresponsible that of the large number of dead whales found on the New Jersey shore in 2023, NOAA did not publicly report any results of whale or dolphin ear necropsy, (Oglesby, 2023) which is the obvious key to determining whether the cetacean suffered deafness from exposure to excessively high sound levels from offshore wind activities. Dr. Sean Hayes, a top NOAA scientist warned in 2022 that industrial wind projects “could have population-level effects on an already endangered and stressed species. Population-level effects include extinction.” (Shellenberger, 2023)
Coincident in time and location of northeast USA offshore wind development: the Critically Endangered North Atlantic right whale’s population has dropped to 340 from over 400 over the last few years. (Shellenberger, 2023)(Save KBI, 2023) Stern has mapped and analyzed whale deaths of beach stranded New England whales, and found these deaths one to one in coincidence with locations and time of operations of offshore wind industrial activity over the 2022-2023 time frame. (Stern, 2024) Rob Rand is one of the world’s leading underwater acoustics experts with over 30 years of experience; his investigations of wind industrial installations’ decibel levels led to his assertion that the U.S. Government’s assertions of wind power decibel emissions are factually incorrect, and that wind power sound emissions are at a level to cause permanent whale hearing loss (and necessarily death). (Shellenberger, 2023)
Many whale species utilize group feeding, notably Blue whales off the California coast, where groups feed on krill along they feed on aggregations of krill that can be hundreds of meters thick over a canyon. For example, the krill tend to pile-up on the Monterey Bay canyon edges during the upwelling season. Intrusion of offshore wind surveying, maintenance and operation can severely impact this group feeding, since the pod members are known to communicate extensively with their underwater acoustics.
All of the independent scientific investigations illustrate that the anomalous number of recent cetacean deaths have no other logical explanation than derived from offshore wind power surveying, installation and operation. One of the most definitive studies is by Gerasoulis, in which some of the salient conclusions were that the large number of recent cetacean deaths in the New England Atlantic could not be attributed to fishing gear entanglement or climate fluctuations. (Gerasoulis, 2024)
Marine and Lacustrine Bird Mortality Bird mortality from wind turbines is a significant adverse ecological impact associated with offshore and terrestrial wind installations, threatening to expand in scope dramatically with the rush to develop new energy sources. (Hogan, 2021) This impact is measured as high due to the loss of threatened species and due to disproportionate mortality of top level predators, whose decline can unravel the integrity of entire regional ecosystems. (American Bird Conservancy, 2011) The rapid development of numerous large scale wind facilities may be a repeat of the ecological disasters of the 1970s, as the world rushed to produce hydropower from every possible river; decades later, we now realize the folly of that hydroelectric excess.
Over four million direct kill bird deaths per annum by 2030 are projected in some scenarios of wind turbine installation. The sheer volume of bird kill does not begin to depict the magnitude of ecological damage, since the most susceptible species tend to be those which are keystone species or species already threatened by other human pressures. (Brandon and Rodriguez, 2004). Additionally, bird mortality due to large wind industrial installations is exacerbated by inherent linkages between bird behavior and wind facility siting decisions. Proponents of large-scale wind installations (including some federal agencies), for example, tend to favor sparsely vegetated saddles or other funnel like landforms, which are highly correlated with high density bird migration routes or raptor soaring locations.
There is a risk that rapid development of numerous large scale industrial wind facilities could may be a repeat of the ecological disasters of the 1970s. At that time, as the world rushed to produce hydropower from nearly many rivers. Decades later, society is realizing the folly of excess hydroelectric investments that created significant ecological damage.
Fisheries
Fish injury rate as a function of decibel level from Offshore Wind Power. Halvorsen, et al. (2012)
A considerable number of fisheries and mollusk populations have been adversely impacted by Offshore wind surveying, installation and operation. For example, in the United Kingdom a comprehensive fisheries impact study revealed that fishing activity suffered greatly after offshore wind installations commenced, with some landings for fish declining up to 96%. (Gray et al, 2016) In the USA, the agency responsible for offshore wind, BOEM, has had very little consultation with the fishery industry, resulting in decisions that are quite adverse to fishermen. (House of Representatives, 2024)
There is clear empirical evidence that shellfish and cod fisheries along the Atlantic Coast of New England has been strongly adversely impacted by offshore wind surveys and initial operations; data has shown that one fishing vessel may return with more than 1200 scallops per day, in fisheries that were robust through 2021. (Stern, 2024) Some clupeids (a family of fishes that includes herrings, sardines, menhaden, and shad) have relatively sensitive hearing for fish and can detect not only the low frequencies typical of many fish but also mid-frequency sonar ranges (Mann et al., 1997)
Physical injury or death of fishes is strongly correlated with the decibel intensity to which fish are esposed, The figure to the right presents relative numbers of injuries to fish bladders versus decibel level. Note that the range of decibel levels studied in this experiment series are one thousandth of the levels that can be experienced in some offshore wind surveys and installations.
In terms of proposed fishery impacts off the California coast, the commercial fishing revenue is running at an average of $200,000,000 per year. Based upon fishery yield reduction after offshore wind power development in the United Kingdom, one can expect California fishermen to lose about ninety percent of that revenue, due to limitations of access and also diminution of fishery populations. In the Morro Bay fishery, there is a particularly rich fishery comprised of Albacore and Swordfish. (Hafer, 2024)
Large offshore wind installations such as proposed on California’s Central Coast have been proven to reduce upwellings, and hence decrease fishery nutrients; as a result, fishery productivity will decline by at least ten percent merely from nutrient reduction. The offshore industrial wind installations proposed in the Morro Bay area will directly impact near shore fisheries by cable dragging, including significant adverse impacts to squid, near shore rockfish, Dungeness crab, salmon, rockfish and spot prawns. (Hafer, 2024)
The installation and maintenance of near shore cables will severely impact juvenile fishes, who begin their lives near shore, before migrating to deeper waters. These near shore wind power activities will also impact non-migratory fish, adversely affecting their feeding, breeding and mating activities. (Hafer, 2024)
There has been very little research on offshore wind impacts to marine invertebrates from surveying, installing or operation. Simulated pile driving is known to impair hermit crab (Pagurus acadianus) abilities to acquire necessary resources (e.g., find vacant shells}/ When exposed to sediment vibrations, important aquaculture invertebrates such as the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) exhibit behavioral changes, for example, changes in valve gape and oxygen demand, that are costly as they reduce respiration rates and impair the ability to remove wastes (Roberts et al., 2015).
Deforestation An unanticipated adverse impact of wind energy in general has arisen in accelerated Amazon rainforest deforestation. Balsa wood is consumed in large quantities in manufacture of the large turbine blades needed for offshore wind. This accelerating trend has led to massive amounts of rainforest reduction, with impacts being severe on the livelihood of indigenous peoples in the Amazon region. (Dalmases, 2021) Besides the deforestation, the practical consequences of this boom in balsa harvesting is actually associated with considerable increases in illegal harvest activity, and associated with spikes in drug and sex trafficking in the region. More broadly, the large additional deforestation of the Amazon is having profound adverse impacts upon the ecosystem as a whole including avafauna and many threatened species, according to Dalmases and other researchers. The ultimate irony of this deforestation impact is the well known effect that loss of forest directly adds to increase in greenhouse gases.
Battery Backup Requirements Due to the intermittency of offshore wind (Turbines cannot produce power in low winds or in moderately high wind), battery backups are needed to insure reliability of the electric grid. In addition, duplicate backup power plants must be constructed, since foreseeable battery plants are extremely expensive and typically only hold enough power to supply grids with several minutes of power supply. In a recent analysis of battery plant utility, one source reported: “No one in the Biden administration, Congress, the New York or Virginia legislatures, or anywhere else has a clue how many offshore wind turbines and batteries would be required to power and back up the entire nation under all-electricity, all-wind-and-solar schemes. It would likely approach a quadrillion dollars. Electricity costs would reach the stratosphere.” (Baron, 2024)
Carbon Footprint The U.S. Bureau of Energy Management has stated that offshore wind will provide no net benefit to carbon emissions reduction (and hence climate impact). (Knight, 2024) In fact, due to the massive shipping activity in servicing and maintenance of offshore wind, the net impacts over life cycle are a net detriment to carbon emissions. Furthermore, the intermittency of offshore wind adds additional carbon emissions to the overall power generation contribution to the electric grid.
The UK’s Climate Change Committee failing was highlighted by Sir Christopher Llewellyn Smith, the leader of a Royal Society study into the Net Zero energy system. It can now be revealed that the same error has also been made by the National Infrastructure Commission and the UK National Grid ESO. (Telegraph, 2024)
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford states: “Sir Christopher Llewellyn Smith has highlighted the deficiency in the models of the Climate Change Committee and the National Infrastructure Commission, and National Grid ESO have confirmed to me in writing that their models contain the same mistake.” Montford also notes that Sir Christopher has also publicly admitted that the Royal Society’s own models contain a similar deficiency. Montford further elaborated: “We have four well-funded national institutions, all of which have failed to model the 2050 energy system correctly, and all of them in ways that understate the cost of Net Zero. It’s a remarkable coincidence.” Montford asserted that Net Zero Watch will publish a cost estimate that corrects these errors and shows the alarming effect on UK consumer bills. (Telegraph, 2024)
Manufacturing processes also contribute to carbon footprint, and add enormous greenhouse gas volumes to the life cycle of wind power generation. One analysis concluded: “Offshore wind turbines require fourteen times as much in raw materials per megawatt as a modern combined-cycle natural gas power plant, yet only the latter generates electricity reliably and affordably and doesn’t require backup. Add in batteries and extra transmission lines for offshore wind power, and we are talking about 20 to 30 times more metals, concrete and other materials.” (Baron, 2024)
The carbon footprint of energy production must be calculated on a full life cycle b the life-cycle carbon footprint of wind power, around 15 grams CO2 per kWh of electricity produced, is higher than that of nuclear power (4 g) and hydroelectricity (6 g).” (European Scientist, 2024)
Toxicity Issues Offshore Wind intrinsically involves manufacture of many elements of the turbines that have large amounts of toxic materials. For example, “toxic Cobalt comes mostly from the Congo. Its production involves extensive child and near-slave labor and, like most other metals and minerals for “renewable” technologies, it is controlled by Communist China. Toxic pollutants from unregulated overseas operations severely impact air and water quality. Their greenhouse gas emissions will likely exceed any reductions in carbon from offshore wind. (Baron, 2024) For the proposed U.S. offshore wind, Copper “would require mining at a scale unprecedented in human history. Copper for 30 gigawatts of offshore wind would require extracting some 65 million tons of overlying rock and ore, then running the ore through crushers, refiners and other processes.” (Baron, 2024) Furthermore, the high corrosivity of the marine environment causes extensive rates of tower and blade corrosion, which bleeds continuous plastic toxins into the ocean, with no ability to capture or control this [water pollution].
In the turbine operational phase, wind turbine blades suffer erosion due to rain, hail and other environmental exposure. A turbine of 120 metre diameter, sheds around 62 kilograms of microplastics per year in the form of epoxy resin, containing bisphenol A (BPA). The World Health Organisation asserts that drinking water should contain a maximum of 0.1 micrograms of BPA per litre to be safe. One kg of BPA is sufficient to render 10 billion litres of water unsafe to drink. Thus each of these turbines sheds enough BPA to contaminate millions of litres of water, (Norberg et al., 2021} potentially poisoning marine wildlife as well as humans who consume ocean fish. One can multiply this toxicity by tens of thousands of installed turbines and planned turbines to grasp the magnitude of this microplastic toxicity.
National Security Major deterioration of national security is occurring where offshore wind is being installed, notably in the United Kingdom, Taiwan, Germany, Scandinavian countries and the eastern USA. (House of Representatives, 2024) The Royal Air Force of the UK was one of the first entities to report that North Sea wind fields severely undermine routine radar protection. As Taiwan moves forward with offshore wind, its ability to defend itself from an attack from The Peoples Republic of China will be severely diminished. (House of Representatives, 2024)
As of 2009, the U.S. Department of Defense stated that 38% of the USA military bases in North America had already had their radars compromised by ongoing onshore wind installations. (House of Representatives, 2024) Since that date, wind power installations have increased at least six-fold, further rendering many more U.S. military bases’ radar to be undermined.
In addition to radar compromise for national defenses, there is a considerable risk of catastrophic power loss from an attack on cabling, particularly for floating installations, as proposed in California. There is a fundamental issue with even diagnosing the exact location of a breakage of underwater power cables. For example, in 2024, a major 38 megawatt undersea electrical cable serving Nantucket Island has been broken for over a week and there is no theory of where the breakage is, or how to proceed with repairing this cable. The issue has not been resolved or even a government comment has been issued at the time of this publication; however the corporate owner has said it may take at least one more month to find and fix the breakage. (Graziadei, 2024)
There has been continuing exposure of the fact that several of the largest wind industry firms have significant Russian ownership interests. Thus would the USA and Europe be wise to invest massive sums to create energy grid reliance on offshore wind generation, given that entities that are clear enemies of these Western nations could eventually control many offshore wind assets. (McLaughlin, 2024)
Floating Offshore Wind Installations Floating wind turbines are a newer version of offshore wind facilities. These turbines have relatively little testing, and yet have several intrinsic design features that are clearly problematic. For example, the floating assemblies are prone to tipping, leading to even higher maintenance costs; additionally, they require extensive stretches of dangling cables, impeding cetacean movement as well as many types of ships.
It is already known that offshore wind power is much more expensive to build and operate than on shore wind or other power sources such as hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, or combined cycle natural gas (all of which are lower in greenhouse gas emissions than offshore wind power). The world’s first commercial floating offshore wind installation, Hywind Scotland was commissioned in 2017. (The Engineer, 2017) Its capital cost was £264 million (£8.8m/MW). (Hywind, 2019) These values are approximately three times the capital cost of fixed offshore wind facilities are ten times the capital cost of natural gas power stations. The floating wind power operating costs, at approximately £150,000/MW were also higher than for fixed offshore wind installations. A second United Kingdom project, the Kincardine Floating Offshore Wind installation, has been reported as costing £500 million to build (£10m/MW). (McPhee, 2021)
Offshore Wind Power Maintenance Maintenance and port operations contribute a staggering total of 69% of overall offshore wind costs, dwarfing the initial installation costs. Being much less accessible than their onshore counterparts, offshore turbines require much more extensive service demands. Enormous costs and energy expenditures are required, using service vessels and helicopters for routine access, and a jackup rig for heavy service such as gearbox replacement. These service demands have become much more apparent in the last few years, with high incidence of blade breakage, high replacement costs, tower collapse, corrosion damage and other mechanical failures. As a consequence, offshore wind power is one of the most unreliable sources of energy, certainly relative to onshore wind. (Madsen & Krogsgaard, 2011)
Some wind facilities situated far from onshore bases are forced to have service teams available 24/7 who live on site in offshore accommodation units. (Oersted, 2011) To reduce blade corrosion, a protective tape of elastomeric materials is applied, though the droplet erosion protection coatings provide better protection from the elements. Ironically, maintenance and repair issues consume massive amounts of fossil fuels and petroleum products. The result is that the installation and operation of offshore wind power, emits more greenhouse gases over its life cycle than hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, nuclear power, or combined cycle natural gas power sources. (Röckmann C., Lagerveld S., Stavenuiter J., 2017)
The maintenance and installation costs of offshore wind power were dramatically underestimated and continue to rise beyond any previous calculations. Correspondingly electricity rates where offshore wind is utilized is skyrocketing. The maintenance costs of large vessel intensive use to service the offshore turbines are particularly large. (Niezrecki, 2024) These realizations have caused numerous wind companies to cancel or withdraw altogether from previously agreed upon lease sales. Maintenance costs of offshore wind turbines are staggering, both for the labor, carbon produced in ship movements and outright breakage of hardware. For example the hardware breakage costs of annual parts replacement often exceeds six percent of original installation costs, including tower breakage, gear breakage and other hardware failures. (Novik and Millard, 2024) This rate of breakage is over three times original projections, and is one of the reasons wind industry projects are being cancelled at a very high rate. In the USA alone, five major windfarm projects have been cancelled in the last twelve months, as of May, 2024. Furthermore, the breakage rate of turbine parts has increased by a factor of 2.5 over the last six years, leading the wind industry to increase electricity costs by a massive amount, with no convergence in sight. This is particularly troubling, since many parts such as blades often have an ordering time of over 18 months, leading to extensive outage times.
Maintenance costs of the turbine gearbox alone has been grossly underestimated, and is adding to the escalating actual maintenance costs of offshore turbines. In addition to much more frequent changes in fossil fuel based lubricants, the servicing costs of gearbox maintenance is contributing massively to offshore wind costs and petrol consumption. (Barr, 2024) For example Barr states: “The engineer will have to gain access up the tower via an internal ladder (or elevator in some cases), which is demanding and specialized work.” Barr further asserts: ““To date, we have seen very poor maintenance procedures in the field. These will have to change dramatically, especially for the larger sizes of wind turbines and gearboxes where exposure to higher oxidative and wear stresses will occur quickly.” The detailed support for the latter quote was render by Jo Ameye, a global executive of Fluitec International.
Inadequacy of Environmental Documentation To conform with laws of the USA and California, thorough analyses must be performed to comply with the federal Environmental Impact standards (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) appurtenant to any major project in California. The proposed offshore wind installations off the California coast are massive experiments which would involve construction of huge acreages of ocean extent, dwarfing all other prior floating wind turbine assemblies. Cumulative impacts of massive increases in wind installations in the USA have never been addressed, leading to an understatement of the magnitude of total impacts of cetaceans, bird kills and fisheries impacts. (Wojick, 2024) The US Bureau of Ocean Energy document (Reeb & Schroeder, 2022) addressing environmental issues falls far short of an impact analysis that blawould be needed under both NEPA and CEQA. Some of the numerous deficiencies are:
Lack of analysis of empirical data on cetacean deaths from northeastern USA Atlantic Ocean wind surveying and installations from the 2022-2023 period. In particular no information on inner and middle ear biopsies from the unprecedented number of whale deaths in 2023. Such necropsy data is essential to understand the permanent deafness rates (with ensuing certain mortality).
Complete lack of relevant detail on whale vocabularies and necessity of cetacean acoustic communication with pod members, as well as cetacean sonar for essential navigation.
Incomplete cumulative impact analysis of adverse fishery consequences combined with cetacean and total food chain impacts.
Over-reliance on “likelihood” criteria for such things as cetacean occurrence, rather than observational or other hard data.
Paucity of marine water quality baseline data and lack of quantitative water chemistry outcome data.
Lack of independent scientific analysis by objective scientists, since the sole report authors were federal employees; this is a blatant conflict of interest. On a project of this importance and scale, it is imperative that the report authors must be independent scientists, who are not in the chain of command of the proposing entity. Furthermore, it is essential that authors should embrace a much wider skill set to include scientists and experts in underwater acoustics, marine water chemistry, seabed geology, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, cetacean medical biology (especially cetacean inner ear biopsy experience), cetacean vocabulary and navigation expertise, cetacean intra-pod communication specifics. One should demand an author team of at least a dozen specialty scientists and at least four marine practical experts in vessel navigation, practical fishing experience and ocean diving/mapping.
U.S. Federal Agency Involvement The U.S. House of Representatives held a comprehensive hearing on the subject of offshore wind power on January 20th, 2024. Numerous experts and certain federal agency comments were included to examine economic, environmental, public safety and national security impacts. NOAA and the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management strangely declined to attend, (House of Representatives, 2024) despite vigorous efforts by House Members stressing the importance of their appearance. Economic testimony included that offshore wind installations are expected to cause massive increases in energy costs compared to conventional power sources (nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, combined cycle natural gas, solar, onshore wind) and subsequent skyrocketing consumer electric rates, similar to outcomes of offshore wind in the UK and Germany.
Diminishing of Search and Rescue The U.S. Coast Guard has issued a statement that offshore wind installations will eliminate routine search and rescue operations normally available during the very times (of inclement weather) that they are most needed. (Knight, 2024) (House of Representatives, 2024) This outcome is not only due to restriction of vessel movement by wind facilities, but chiefly due to (already experienced) blockage of essential coast guard radar, from helicopters, vessels and fixed wing aircraft. (House of Representatives, 2034)
Injury Risks to Workers Installation and maintenance workers for offshore wind face some of the highest risks of injury and death of any occupation. For example, injury rates for offshore wind power workers are four times as high as for marine oil rig workers, which industry is already one of the highest risk for workers. (Rowell et al, 2024) This outcome also increases greatly the maintenance costs and liabilities for offshore wind companies.
Public Opposition There is considerable public opposition to offshore wind power from a variety of constituencies, including those concerned about aquatic biota and species extinctions; those concerned about industrialization of scenic coastal towns and beaches; those concerned about rising electrical rates and taxpayer subsidies for an intrinsically uneconomic form of power. Increasing public opposition to offshore wind installations are being seen in 2023 to present in coastal California, with chief concerns being expected deaths of cetaceans, decline in fishery productivity, increased seabird kills, and actual increase in greenhouse gases (life cycle) and increases in electricity costs.
There has been considerable concern raised by indigenous peoples, who have roots to both the land and the sea all over the world. Correctly, indigenous peoples have a stake in protection of natural areas whose character is threatened by both on and offshore wind power. This arises both from damage to the native flora and fauna as well as aesthetic factors. (Rush and McDermott, 2024)
Economic Factors The CATO Institute and virtually all other independent scientific research has shown that offshore wind is inherently uneconomical and unsustainable. (Lesser, CATO Institute, 2024) This conclusion arises from the extremely expensive manufacturing and installation costs, but also the massive maintenance costs. These calculations also project that enormous subsidies are only expected to increase as operations progress. In fact, one wind farm alone (Block Island Installation, Rhode Island) is projected to require over 160 billion dollars of subsidy from the US taxpayers. (Lesser, CATO Institute, 2024)
Major adverse economic impacts have already begun to occur for taxpayers, electricity ratepayers and entire national economies. Many of these negative economic impacts stem from very expensive installation, difficulty of access, and harsher conditions for the marine or lacustrine installations. Positioning wind turbines offshore exposes the units to high humidity, saline water and concomitant spray which adversely affect service life, cause corrosion and oxidation, increase maintenance and repair costs and make each phase of installation and operation more difficult, time-consuming, more dangerous and far more costly than terrestrial based wind industrial installations. The humidity and temperature is typically controlled by costly air conditioning of the sealed nacelle. (Prinds, 2011)
As further elaborated in the following under “Maintenance”, the service costs as well as surveying and installation costs make offshore wind power one of the costliest forms of energy production, as well as the most unreliable. The early European adopters of offshore wind (especially UK and Germany) have learned this in a harsh way, leading to enormous taxpayer subsidies and much higher consumer prices for electricity. For example, in the United Kingdom over 40% of the population is now in Energy Poverty, largely due to the overinvestment in offshore wind (combined with large solar subsidies).
Environmental challenges of ocean-based wind facilities make each phase of installation and operation more difficult, time-consuming, more dangerous and far significantly more costly than terrestrial land-based wind power. The humidity and temperature is typically controlled by costly air conditioning of the sealed nacelle. (Prinds, 2011) The life cycle costs of offshore wind power make it one of the most expensive forms of energy production. The Early European adopters of offshore wind (especially the UK and Germany) have learned this in a harsh way, leading to enormous taxpayer subsidies that crowd out other expenditures, and much higher consumer prices for electricity. For example, in the United Kingdom over 40% of the population suffers from “Energy Poverty,” largely due to the overinvestments in offshore wind (combined with large costly solar subsidies).
The Cato Institute has calculated that offshore wind is effectively not cost competitive with other types of power generation; in particular, CATO calculated that Maryland middle class taxpayers would need to subsidize the state’s offshore wind projects by $1660 per household annually until 2039; that cost would primarily be paid by consumer increased utility bills. (House of Representatives, 2024). Those costs to residents would be further amplified by steep maintenance costs expected over the life cycle of the turbines. (Stern, 2024)
Decommissioning of offshore wind operations will occur after 15 to 18 years of operation, in the most optimistic scenario. The costs of this decommissioning is generally not guaranteed by the original installing industry; thus the decommissioning costs will generally fall on the consumers in their future power bills. Decommissioning of even one large offshore wind industrial operation has been estimated to be in the range of 150 billion dollars.
Corruption of Government and Environmental Entities There are numerous documented examples where the Offshore wind industry has exerted questionable unethical influence over governmental and charitable environmental organisations. This effect is evidenced in two different mechanisms: (a) Overt transfer of money (Knight, 2024) and industry job promises from the wind industry to key government employees, government employees or entities; and (b) Government employees appearing on Boards of Directors of wind companies and environmental organizations.
During the Obama administration, there began a federal push for greatly expanded onshore wind installations. During that time the authority was taken away from local military base commanders to veto new nearby wind installations, which most military commanders had concluded could significantly interfere with military radar. That decision was repositioned to a central clearinghouse within the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD); when the director of that department left the DOD, he was given an executive level position with one of the major wind industry private firms (House of Representatives, 2024); that chain of events is a revolving door issue, that compromises the integrity of government.
There is massive funding to scientists from the wind industry making it difficult to derive objective information on the adverse impacts of offshore wind. Norberg et al state: “It is difficult to find good and impartial sources for the problem of emissions from wind turbine blades. Reports that have been published and research that has been done on the topic are most often carried out by authors who have their most important source of income from wind power” (Norberg et al, 2021)
Geographical Considerations Some of the first major regions to deploy significant volumes of Offshore Wind include the United Kingdom, other European countries, Australia, (Mayers and Martin, 2021) and the Atlantic Coastal area of the northeastern USA. (Oglesby, 2023) Under study are significant new installations along the California coast.
An estimated number of one thousand whales have died along the coasts of the United Kingdom and Ireland since marine wind facilities began to be installed in these locales. In 2017, when some Minke whales were washed up as dead on the East coast of England, it was posited that noise from nearby offshore wind operations had affected the animals’ delicate echolocation mechanisms. (Endfield, 2021)
In South Australia one large wind project has been proposed in a Southern right whale migration and breeding corridor; this is expected to have a significant adverse impact to the species, especially since the calving areas for this species are very limited. (Mayers and Martin, 2021) Furthermore, the migration corridor of this cetacean is narrowly limited to near shore coastal waters, precisely where the proposed turbines are proposed to be located. (Mayers and Martin, 2021)
Sheri Hafer (Jan 26, 2024) Impacts from Proposed Offshore Wind Farms to Morro Bay Fisheries
Haggett, Claire (2008). Over the Sea and Far Away? A Consideration of the Planning, Politics and Public Perception of Offshore Wind Farms. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. 10 (3): 289–306. doi:10.1080/15239080802242787. S2CID 153668309.
Halvorsen, M.B., B.M. Casper, F. Matthews, T.J. Carlson, and A.N. Popper. 2012. Effects of exposure to pile-driving sounds on the lake sturgeon, Nile tilapia and hogchoker. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279(1748):4,705–4,714, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.1544.
C. O. Mauricio Hernandez; Shadman, Milad; Amiri, Mojtaba Maali; Silva, Corbiniano; Estefen, Segen F.; La Rovere, Emilio (2021). Environmental impacts of offshore wind installation, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning activities: A case study of Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 144: 110994. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.110994. ISSN 1364-0321. S2CID 233549134
Encyclopedia of Life (2011) Southern right whale. ed. C. Michael Hogan. Encyclopedia of Earth. National Council for Science and Environment. Washington DC. Retrieved from http://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/Southern_right_whale
Hywind (Scotland) (2019) Limited Annual Report and Financial Statements for year ended 31 December 2019. Companies House. Retrieved 15 April 2021.
J. R. Nedwell, Langworthy J, Howell D (2004) Underwater noise and offshore windfarms. Subacoustech Report Reference: 544R0503, March 2004, presented at the BWEA Conference 2004 on behalf of COWRIE).
Oersted (2011) Accommodation Platform Archived 19 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine DONG Energy,
Karsten Prinds (2011). Where offshore wind was invented. LORC. Retrieved 2 February 2018.
Amnda Oglesby (2023) NJ whale deaths: See the full list to learn how each of them died. Asbury Park Press. Retrieved 13 May 2023. https://www.app.com/story/news/local/land-environment/2023/03/08/nj-T. Aran Mooney , Mathias H. Andersson, and Jenni Stanley whale-deaths-full-list-how-they-died-jersey-shore/69977937007/
Desray Reeb & Donna Schroeder (July, 2022) Offshore Wind Lease Issuance, Site Characterization, and Site Assessment: Central and Northern California. Biological Assessment of Endangered and Threatened Species And Essential Fish Habitat Assessment. US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
Roberts, L., S. Che(2024esman, T. Breithaupt, and M. Elliott. 2015. Sensitivity of the mussel Mytilus edulis to substrate‑borne vibration in relation to anthropogenically generated noise. Marine Ecology Progress Series 538:185–195, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11468.
Telegraph (Jan 24, 2024) Campaign group Net Zero Watch has revealed that four major institutions have produced erroneous estimates of the cost of decarbonising the economy. London, United Kingdom
The Engineer (2017) World’s first floating wind farm delivers electricity to grid. Retrieved 15 April 20
U.S. House of Representatives (Jan 20, 2024) Hearings on Offshore Wind Power. Washington DC.
“Republicans will increase Energy Production across the board, streamline permitting, and end market-distorting restrictions on Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal.”
Aerial view oil terminal is industrial facility for storage tank of oil and petrochemical industry products ready for transport to further storage facilities.
“Republicans will increase Energy Production across the board, streamline permitting, and end market-distorting restrictions on Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal.”
In the approximately 5,000-word platform of the Republican Party, some 400 (8 percent) explicitly deals with energy. All of the statements (below) are pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, pro-economy, and pro-environment.
Nary a mention of the tired, half-century alarm of a ‘climate crisis’. No mention of forced energy transformation to dilute, intermittent, land-intensive wind and solar. No mention, logically, of a new energy tax domestically or at the international border. Free and open markets are strongly implied.
“MAKE AMERICA THE DOMINANT ENERGY PRODUCER IN THE WORLD, BY FAR!”
“Unleash American Energy. Under President Trump, the U.S. became the Number One Producer of Oil and Natural Gas in the World — and we will soon be again by lifting restrictions on American Energy Production and terminating the Socialist Green New Deal. Republicans will unleash Energy Production from all sources, including nuclear, to immediately slash Inflation and power American homes, cars, and factories with reliable, abundant, and affordable Energy.”
Reliable and Abundant Low Cost Energy. “Republicans will increase Energy Production across the board, streamline permitting, and end market-distorting restrictions on Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal. The Republican Party will once again make America Energy Independent, and then Energy Dominant, lowering Energy prices even below the record lows achieved during President Trump’s first term.”
“We commit to unleashing American Energy….”
“Common Sense tells us clearly that we must unleash American Energy if we want to destroy Inflation and rapidly bring down prices, build the Greatest Economy in History, revive our Defense Industrial Base, fuel Emerging Industries, and establish the United States as the Manufacturing Superpower of the World.”
“Our America First Economic Agenda rests on five pillars: Slashing Regulations, cutting Taxes, securing Fair Trade Deals, ensuring Reliable and Abundant Low Cost Energy, and championing Innovation.”
“We will DRILL, BABY, DRILL and we will become Energy Independent, and even Dominant again. The United States has more liquid gold under our feet than any other Nation, and it’s not even close. The Republican Party will harness that potential to power our future.”
“Republicans will reduce the Regulatory burden, lower Energy costs, and promote Economic Policies that drive down the cost of living and prices for everyday goods and services.”
“America needs determined Republican Leadership at every level of Government to address the core threats to our very survival [including] … crippling restrictions on American Energy Production….”
“Republicans will revive the U.S. Auto Industry by reversing harmful Regulations, canceling Biden’s Electric Vehicle and other Mandates, and preventing the importation of Chinese vehicles.”
“By protecting American Workers from unfair Foreign Competition and unleashing American Energy, Republicans will restore American Manufacturing, creating Jobs, Wealth, and Investment.”
“CANCEL THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE MANDATE AND CUT COSTLY AND BURDENSOME REGULATIONS”
Media Reaction
Bill McKibben, with the Amway look in his eye, states that the GOP plan is “way worse than the Taliban’s.”
Paul Krugman ‘gaslights’ his audience by insinuating that Biden is not against oil and gas:
The G.O.P. platform also pledges to “MAKE AMERICA THE DOMINANT ENERGY PRODUCER IN THE WORLD.” The subtext here is the pervasive belief on the right that woke environmentalists have undermined the U.S. energy sector.
Given how often one hears this asserted, it’s a bit shocking to look at the data and learn that America produced more energy in 2023 than ever before. In fact, we’ve become a major energy exporter, for example selling Europe vast quantities of liquefied natural gas that helped it reduce dependence on Russian supplies after Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.
Krugman does not understand opportunity cost–what the domestic energy industries could have done in a free-market environment. Without 225 government impediments.
The new GOP platform is two things at once on energy: an aspirational document yet one that arguably describes present reality, too.
Why it matters: The Trump-y document calls for the U.S. to be energy “dominant” and to “drill, baby, drill” and end “crippling restrictions” on production and … you get the point. Missing from the platform is any mention of climate change. It calls for “terminating the Socialist Green New Deal,” which exists only as a resolution and has never moved legislatively.
The intrigue: It comes as the U.S. is already the world’s largest oil producer — it’s not close anymore, as you can see above — the largest gas producer, and the largest LNG exporter. The Energy Department’s independent stats arm sees U.S. oil production growing to an average of almost 13.8 million barrels per day in 2025. LNG exports are also slated to keep rising based on projects approved and under construction. Looking at all energy sources together, production now outpaces consumption.
Yes, but: Republicans and some industry officials argue the U.S. isn’t reaching its full potential and that President Biden closed off exploration that would help sustain future production and investment. They point to steps like barring development on huge swaths of Alaskan federal lands and the pause on new LNG export licenses to major markets, to name just two. Critics essentially argue the White House is sowing the seeds for reduced geopolitical leverage.
The bottom line: “Dominance” is a relative term.
Final Comment
Much has to be done to reverse the forced energy transformation of Biden and Obama administrations. Executive orders and major budget cuts in federal energy programs are just the beginning. Existing regulations and edicts need legal challenges with a guilty-until-proven-innocent orientation (recent legal rulings observed). The Deep State that infests the U.S. Department of Energy must be eradicated with major (not minor) earmark and personal reductions.
Mere downsizing and partial measures will not hunt. Fundamental change is upon us for fiscal reform and unleashing consumer-chosen, taxpayer-neutral energies. Freed resources from unproductive or counterproductive activity will accrue to the private sector to meet consumer demand. A win-win for everyone except for the Climate Industrial Complex.
Bloomberg recently published an article which said Hurricane Beryl in particular, and other natural disasters which commonly hit the state, are symptoms of climate change, and that Texas’ pro-fossil fuel policies are partly responsible. Bloomberg’s article is wrong, a classic case of blaming the victim, Texas residents, for something that is 100 percent beyond their control, the weather.
Bloomberg recently published an article which said Hurricane Beryl in particular, and other natural disasters which commonly hit the state, are symptoms of climate change, and that Texas’ pro-fossil fuel policies are partly responsible. Bloomberg’s article is wrong, a classic case of blaming the victim, Texas residents, for something that is 100 percent beyond their control, the weather. Beryl was not the earliest hurricane or tropical storm to ever hit Texas, some media reports to the contrary, and despite modest warming, data show no trend in worsening hurricanes or other extreme weather events in Texas or nationally. In short, contrary to Bloomberg’s unsubstantiated assertions, there is no “signal,” that climate change is causing or contributing to weather disasters in Texas.
On Monday [July 8], the state [Texas] was slammed by the third incarnation of Hurricane Beryl, which had been re-re-fueled by bathtub-warm waters in the Gulf of Mexico after wreaking havoc on several Caribbean islands, Jamaica, and Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. It made landfall south of Houston as a Category 1 hurricane, bringing high winds, a storm surge and heavy rainfall, and leaving millions without power in sweltering heat.
That much of Gongloff’s story was accurate, but then he goes completely off the rails, writing:
Pop quiz time: Which US state is the most vulnerable to climate-fueled weather disasters and soaring home-insurance costs but is also growing rapidly and has a government hostile to the very concept of climate change? The most obvious answer is Florida, with its hurricanes and floods and anti-woke, stunt-loving governor. The correct answer, however, is Texas.
No other state has suffered more climate-related damage over the past several decades than the Lone Star State — not even Florida, California or Louisiana. Home-insurance costs rose more in Texas than in any other state last year and over the past five years, according to S&P Global. And though Governor Ron DeSantis has outlawed the mention of climate change in Florida, Texas’ aggressive pro-global-warming policies have real teeth and will continue to do real harm. Especially to Texas.
While it is true that Texas likely suffers more weather-related disasters than almost every other state when one counts hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and flooding, that is because of its unique location (vis-à-vis natural weather patterns), size, and increasingly demographics with more rapid development in regions prone to extreme weather hazard; the number and severity of extreme weather event has not changed.
Long-term trends show no increase in extreme weather as fossil fuel development and use has proceeded apace, despite modest warming. By contrast the state has benefitted tremendously from the development and use of fossil fuels, a significant reason why job, economic, and population growth is strong. Indeed, the top four industries by revenue in Texas are, in order, gasoline and petroleum wholesaling, oil and gas extraction, petroleum refining, and gasoline and petroleum bulk stations which, by themselves, produced more than 1.13 trillion in revenue for the state in the most recent year. This doesn’t account for the billions more in revenue produced by the chemical refining industry, which produces plastics, fertilizers, pesticides, lubricants, and other fossil fuel-based products in broad and common use across Texas, the United States, and the world as a whole. As high as the cost of natural disasters are in Texas, which Gongloff pegged at $350 billion since 1980, those cost are dwarfed by the benefits delivered by fossil fuels over the same period. Indeed, the revenue generated by gasoline and petroleum wholesaling alone in the most recent year, 486.5 billion is greater than the cost of weather-related disasters over the entire 44-year period of Gongloff’s accounting.
And of course, it is unclear that long-term climate change contributed to any of the weather-related costs Texas has suffered since 1980, because there is no evidence it has made hurricanes, tornados, flooding, or wildfires worse or more frequent.
Let’s deal with Beryl and hurricanes more generally, first. Contrary to what has been implied in some reports, Beryl was not unprecedented. On June 26, 1986, Hurricane Bonnie made landfall in south Texas, dumping more than 13 inches of rain, spawning tornados, and killing four people. For those counting, June 26 is almost two weeks earlier than July 8. Also on June 30, 2010, Hurricane Alex made landfall just south of the Texas coast in Soto la Marina, Tamaulipas, Mexico, delivering heavy rains, winds, tornadoes, and flooding to the Texas coast and the Rio Grande valley. Six other named storms have made landfall in Texas in June since 1980 alone – and this doesn’t count any that did so before 1980. In case anyone is wondering, the great Galveston Hurricane of 1900, 124 years of global warming ago, remains the deadliest natural disaster in Texas and U.S. history, claiming as many as 12,000 lives.
Concerning hurricanes more generally, real world data clearly show that there has been no increase in hurricanes or major hurricanes as the planet has modestly warmed (see the figure, below)
Data equally show no trend of increasing number of tornados in Texas as the Earth has warmed, rather it shows tornado numbers waxing and waning with no predictable or identifiable pattern year to year. Nationwide, despite better methods of detection and tracking, as discussed in Climate at a Glance: Tornadoes, the number of tornadoes, in general, and major tornadoes (F3 or higher), in particular, have declined over the over the past 45 years. Sadly, though a fact, this is not the impression one would get from the mainstream media’s coverage of tornadoes.
Concerning wildfires, the National Park Service reports that they have always been a part of Texas history, from the arid, brushy western part of the state, to the grasslands of central Texas and the hill country, to the Pineywood forests of east Texas.
In a classic example of yellow journalism, Gongloff attributed the historic Smokehouse Creek wildfire in the western and northern panhandle of Texas in February and March 2024 to climate change induced drought. Yet, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for Texas show that the state has experienced a declining trend in the number of very hot days and a slight increase in precipitation, since the 1950s. And the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change agrees that fire weather isn’t becoming more common, writing on Page 90 – Chapter 12 of the UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report that “Fire weather” has not emerged from climate change.
With fewer hot days and increased precipitation recorded in the long-term climate records, the claim that present day conditions are conducive to Texas wildfires due to climate change simply doesn’t hold up.
More directly, according to the US drought monitor, the region beset by the Smokehouse Creek wildfire was not experiencing any degree of drought, nor was it, or the adjacent region of Oklahoma caught up in the wildfire, even “abnormally dry,” when the fire arose. Indeed, because the region had had good rains in the prior months, grasses grew well, and when they dried out, tinderbox conditions arose that just needed a spark to ignite.
And despite the alarming headlines one may read from mainstream media outlets, globally the number and amount of acreage lost to wildfires has declined dramatically during the recent period of modest climate change, according to satellite data from NASA and the European Space Agency.
It was irresponsible for Bloomberg to publish this article, rife as it was with inaccuracies and misleading claims. As former Democratic Senator and Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” There is no evidence that climate change is worsening the extreme weather events impacting Texas or the nation, so there can be no justification for blaming Texas’ continued development and use of hugely beneficial fossil fuels for the harm natural disasters have caused, and will undoubtedly continue to cause, in the state.
NOAA has released its June 2024 updated Global Time Series average temperature anomaly data which demonstrates that the earth is experiencing declining trends of monthly anomaly values.
This outcome signals the continued weakening of the most recent natural climate occurring El Nino event which commenced in the July period of 2023 as declared by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
NOAA has released its June 2024 updated Global Time Series average temperature anomaly data which demonstrates that theearth is experiencing declining trends of monthly anomaly values.
This outcome signals the continued weakening of the most recent natural climate occurring El Nino event which commenced in the July period of 2023 as declared by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
This most recent El Nino events increasing trend impact onglobal average temperature anomaly values since its commencement has been politically manipulated by climate alarmists to proclaim that a global “climate emergency” is occurring which was nothing but election year politically contrived alarmist hype.
The data analysis provided below evaluates a 30-year period (clearly revealing the weakening El Nino driven decline of global monthly average temperature anomaly values) showingall monthly NOAA Global Time Series average temperature anomaly measurements between January 1995 through June 2024.
NOAA’s latest updated 2024 report highlights the month of June’s latest value with prior June anomaly values but provides no highlighted comparisons encompassing all months as was the case for NOAA’s May update as addressed in a WUWT article for the May 2024 update (found here) which concealed comparisons of May 2024 versus all other months.
NOAA’s Global Land and Ocean June 2024 average temperature anomaly data (shown below) establishes that this most recent monthly value continues a 10 month duration declining trend since reaching a peak value in September and November of 2023 of 1.42 degrees C (provided in the table below) compared to the June 2024 value of 1.22 degrees C (highlighted in red) making the June monthly anomaly value only the 342nd highest of 354 measured values.
NOAA’s Global Land June 2024 average temperature anomaly data (shown below) establishes that this most recent value continues the 8 month declining trend since the November 2023 El Nino peak value of 2.36 degrees C (see table below) to 1.75 degrees C (highlighted in red) making the June value only the 325th of 354 measured values.
Additionally, the June 2024 Global Land average temperature anomaly value is significantly below the prior February 2016 El Nino highest peak monthly average temperature anomaly value of 2.51 degrees C (over 8 years ago) also shown in the table.
These June 2024 monthly Global average temperature anomaly declining trend patterns continue for other NOAA Global Regions including the Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, East N Pacific, Hawaiian, Arctic, and Antarctic as presented in NOAA’s updated and identified Global Region diagrams shown and discussed below.
These consistent global wide regional average temperature anomaly declining trends clearly establish that the earth is not experiencing a “climate emergency” as falsely hyped by climate alarmists who politically exploited the most recent El Nino driven global average temperature anomaly outcomes.
Northern Hemisphere Land and Ocean
The June 2024 monthly average temperature anomaly (shown below) 8 month duration declining trend value of 1.56 degrees C (highlighted in red) is below the most recent peak El Nino average temperature anomaly November 2023 value of 2.01 degrees C (see table) as well as being below the prior El Nino event February 2016 peak anomaly peak value of 1.84 degrees C also shown in the table. This makes the June 2024 measured anomaly value only the 339th highest value of 354 measured values.
Northern Hemisphere Land
The June 2024 monthly average temperature anomaly (shown below) 8 month duration declining trend value of 1.97 degrees C (highlighted in red) is below the most recent peak El Nino average temperature anomaly November 2023 value of 2.90 degrees C (see table) as well as being below the prior El Nino event February 2016 peak anomaly peak value of 3.15 degrees C also shown in the table. This makes the June 2024 measured anomaly value only the 317th highest value of 354 measured values.
Southern Hemisphere Land and Ocean
The June 2024 monthly average temperature anomaly (shown below) 10 month duration declining trend value of 0.88 degrees C (highlighted in red) is below the most recent peak El Nino average temperature anomaly September 2023 value of 1.10 degrees C (see table). This makes the June 2024 measured anomaly value only the 347th highest value of 354 measured values.
Southern Hemisphere Land
The June 2024 monthly average temperature anomaly (shown below) 10 month duration declining trend value of 1.25 degrees C (highlighted in red) is far below the most recent peak El Nino average temperature anomaly September 2023 value of 2.51 degrees C (see table). This makes the June 2024 measured anomaly value only the 316th highest value of 354 measured values.
Asia Land
The June 2024 monthly average temperature anomaly (shown below) downward trending value of 2.08 degrees C (highlighted in red) is far below the prior peak monthly average temperature anomaly February 2020 value of 4.10 degrees C (see table). This makes the June 2024 measured anomaly value only the 299th highest value of 354 measured values.
Europe Land
The June 2024 monthly average temperature anomaly (shown below) 5 month duration declining trend value of 2.55 degrees C (highlighted in red) is far below the prior peak monthly average temperature anomaly February 2024 value of 4.15 degrees C (see table). This makes the June 2024 measured anomaly value only the 332nd highest value of 354 measured values.
North America Land
The June 2024 monthly average temperature anomaly (shown below) 7 month duration declining trend value of 1.54 degrees C (highlighted in red) is far below the prior El Nino peak monthly average temperature anomaly December 2023 value of 4.41 degrees C (see table). This makes the June 2024 measured anomaly value only the 257th highest value of 354 measured values.
Oceania Land
The June 2024 monthly average temperature anomaly (shown below) downward trending value of 0.72 degrees C (highlighted in red) is far below the prior peak monthly average temperature anomaly December 2019 value of 2.21 degrees C (see table). This makes the June 2024 measured anomaly value only the 166th highest value of 354 measured values.
East N Pacific Land and Ocean
The June 2024 monthly average temperature anomaly (shown below) downward trending value of 0.65 degrees C (highlighted in red) is far below the prior peak monthly average temperature anomaly October 2015 value of 1.79 degrees C (see table). This makes the June 2024 measured anomaly value only the 236th highest value of 354 measured values.
Hawaiian Land and Ocean
The June 2024 monthly average temperature anomaly (shown below) downward trending value of 0.36 degrees C (highlighted in red) is far below the prior peak monthly average temperature anomaly September 2015 value of 1.76 degrees C (see table). This makes the June 2024 measured anomaly value only the 167th highest value of 354 measured values.
Arctic Land and Ocean
The June 2024 monthly average temperature anomaly (shown below) downward trending value of 1.60 degrees C (highlighted in red) is far below the prior peak monthly average temperature anomaly January 2016 value of 4.99 degrees C (see table). This makes the June 2024 measured anomaly value only the 198th highest value of 354 measured values.
Antarctic Land and Ocean
The June 2024 monthly average temperature anomaly (shown below) downward trending value of 0.10 degrees C (highlighted in red) is very far below the prior peak monthly average temperature anomaly August 1996 (nearly 3 decades ago) value of 2.23 degrees C (see table). This makes the June 2024 measured anomaly value only the 144th highest value of 354 measured values.
NOAA’s latest Global Time Series monthly average temperature anomaly data declining trends addressed above clearly establishes there is nothing resembling a “climate emergency” being experienced by the earth contrary to climate science data unsupported and purely politically driven climate alarmist hype.
Popular claims that CO2 changes drive temperature changes currently or throughout the distant past “are based on imagination and climate models full of assumptions.”
Popular claims that CO2 changes drive temperature changes currently or throughout the distant past “are based on imagination and climate models full of assumptions.”
A comprehensive new study details a stochastic assessment determination of the sequencing of CO2 variations versus temperature variations since the 1950s, over the last 2,000 years (the Common Era), and throughout the last 541 million years.
The robust conclusion is that the causality direction – with the understanding that causes lead and effects lag – clearly shows the temperature changes lead and CO2 changes lag on yearly, decadal, and centennial/millennial scales. In other words, “the reverse causality direction [CO2]→T should be excluded.”
The claim that CO2 increases drive temperature changes is thus a “narrative” only, as the claim that “humans, through their emissions by fossil fuel burning, are responsible for the changes we see in climate” can be regarded as a “non-scientific issue.”
Since these papers challenge the prevailing anthropogenic global warming (AGW) narrative so acutely, Dr. Koutsoyiannis has understandably been the recipient of antagonism bordering on vitriol from AGW proponents. This includes comments from peer-reviewers. So, in an apparent effort to foster transparency, he has made the peer reviewers’ comments on this latest paper public. Here is the link to these commentaries:
For months, the reports came in and climate scientists and analysts pored over the data. Something unfamiliar was happening. It looked a little like good news. Perhaps even something of profound historical significance.
Ever since the industrial revolution began in the late 18th century, the amount of planetary warming greenhouse gases humans have been pumping into the atmosphere has grown inexorably, causing temperatures to climb dangerously over the past few decades.
…
In 2019, humans pumped 35 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That number fell by a staggering 6 per cent the following year as COVID crunched industrial production and shut economies. At the time, the fall prompted despair in some climate commentators. Is this what it would take to make a dent in emissions? If so, how could such an outcome ever be achieved in a functioning economy?
…
But it is data from the past few months that is intriguing analysts today. The world’s economy is growing. China’s economy is growing. Yet greenhouse gas emissions appear to have peaked.
Some time last year, or perhaps earlier this year, it appears China’s emissions, in particular, reached a high point. If China has peaked, there is good reason to believe global emissions peaked, too. It would mean that some time over the past few months, the stubborn nexus between economic growth and greenhouse gas pollution was snapped, and the 250-year surge in emissions ended.
Slowing GDP growth, a structural shift away from heavy industry, and more proactive policies on air pollution and clean energy have caused China’s coal use to peak. It seems that economic growth has decoupled from growth in coal consumption.Read more: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462901118308803
Every few years, China promotes the myth of decoupling, to explain the divergence between their fake economic growth statistics and their CO2 emissions.
What actually happened since 2016? Chinese CO2 emissions soared, as soon as their economy recovered from their downturn, and genuine economic growth caught up with their fake growth statistics.
There is plenty of supporting evidence the true explanation for falling emissions in 2024 is that China is suffering a severe economic crisis – they have a debt to GDP ratio of 288% and a collapsing asset price bubble.
James H. Nolt is adjunct associate professor of international relations at New York University and author of International Political Economy: The Business of War and Peace. He was founding dean of an international college in Nanjing, China, and for 23 years Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York.
China is in the midst of a profound economic crisis. Growth rates are flagging as an unsustainable mountain of debt piles up; China’s debt-to-GDP ratio reached a record 288% in 2023. But even that eye-popping figure does not capture the uncomfortable fact that much of it was borrowed to buy assets that no longer yield enough income to repay the debt. This is especially true in the housing sector, where sales have fallen by a third since the pre-pandemic peak, and new construction is down 60%. This is one of the worst housing crashes in the world over the last three decades.
Many Western pundits and politicians view this crisis as a sign of the bankruptcy of China’s leadership and economic system. But it is more akin to the cyclical debt crises that have plagued capitalist countries throughout history. An apt comparison is Japan’s crisis of 1989, which ended decades of high growth and rising asset prices, fueled by a ballooning debt bubble. Japan’s Nikkei stock index peaked in late 1989 and fell almost 80% over the next 13 years. Real estate prices fell for two decades starting in 1991. Neither of these major asset classes has exceeded the pre-crisis price peak ever since. Japan transitioned from being the fastest growing major economy during 1954-73, typically growing over 10% per year, to the slowest, with growth averaging only 1.75% per year from 1981 to 2023. China may be facing similarly prolonged difficulties.
…
The bubble is already bursting. Chinese creditors have now scaled back new lending and raised interest rates, following government guidance announced as the “Three Red Lines.” As the most indebted Chinese bulls go bankrupt or panic sell to repay their loans, prices are falling further as their bear counterparts jump back in and buy assets at fire-sale discount prices. That will eventually put a floor on the price collapse but it is also redistributing wealth rapidly from debtors to creditors. Bears feast on the bulls during every crash.
So the real question is, how could the scientists and public figures quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald be so easily fooled by China once again promoting their transparent emissions decoupling mistruth?
The last time China pulled this stunt was 2016, less than a decade ago. You would think scientists and public figures might bother to do a little research, before accepting Chinese economic growth claims as reliable, and echoing such a transparent communist falsehood.
In May, Shell, the UK-based oil and gas giant (2023 revenue: $317 billion), announced that it was cutting staff from its offshore wind business because, according to Bloomberg, the company has decided to focus on markets that “deliver the most value for our investors and customers.” Bloomberg also reported that the staff cuts were made after the departures of top executives in the company’s offshore wind and renewable power businesses.
Last month, Murray Auchincloss, the CEO of oil and gas giant BP, imposed a “hiring freeze and paused new offshore wind projects.” According to Reuters, the new CEO is putting more “emphasis on oil and gas amid investor discontent over its energy transition strategy” and that BP (2023 revenue: $208 billion) was cutting investments in “big budget, low-carbon projects, particularly in offshore wind, that are not expected to generate cash for years.”
Two of Europe’s biggest energy companies are abandoning the SS Offshore Wind.
In May, Shell, the UK-based oil and gas giant (2023 revenue: $317 billion), announced that it was cutting staff from its offshore wind business because, according to Bloomberg, the company has decided to focus on markets that “deliver the most value for our investors and customers.” Bloomberg also reported that the staff cuts were made after the departures of top executives in the company’s offshore wind and renewable power businesses.
Last month, Murray Auchincloss, the CEO of oil and gas giant BP, imposed a “hiring freeze and paused new offshore wind projects.” According to Reuters, the new CEO is putting more “emphasis on oil and gas amid investor discontent over its energy transition strategy” and that BP (2023 revenue: $208 billion) was cutting investments in “big budget, low-carbon projects, particularly in offshore wind, that are not expected to generate cash for years.”
The moves by BP and Shell are only the latest examples of the troubles facing the offshore wind sector, which has been foundering on the shoals of higher interest rates, citizen opposition, and ballooning costs. Over the past year, numerous projects on the Eastern Seaboard, including Skipjack Wind in Maryland, Park City Wind in Connecticut, and South Coast Wind in Massachusetts, have been canceled due to bad economics. In all, according to data compiled by Ed O’Donnell, a nuclear engineer and a principal at New Jersey-based Whitestrand Consulting, about 14,700 megawatts of offshore wind capacity has been canceled. For comparison, about 15,500 megawatts of capacity is now in development, under construction, or operational.
Of course, those figures don’t jibe with the tsunami of hype about offshore wind energy that has appeared in major media outlets. But the hard reality is that America’s offshore wind sector is a subsidy-dependent industry that is dominated by foreign companies who are in bed with some of America’s biggest climate NGOs, including the NRDC (gross receipts: $555 million) and Sierra Club (Gross receipts: $184 million).
Those NGOs and others, including the National Wildlife Federation (gross receipts: $142 million) and Conservation Law Foundation (gross receipts: $17.5 million), are leading the most shameful environmental betrayal in modern American history. Rather than seek to protect marine mammals and stop the industrialization of our oceans, they are eagerly promoting the installation of hundreds of offshore wind platforms smack in the middle of the known habitat of the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale.
“What is Big Wind going to say when they kill the last whale? ‘Sorry’?” ACK 4 Whales president Vallorie Oliver on the porch of her home in Nantucket on July 8, 2024. Photo by author.
Last week, I gave public lectures in Nantucket and Newport on the energy transition and offshore wind energy. Those events allowed me to take a deep dive into the cesspool of offshore wind and the entities pushing it. Two small groups, ACK 4 Whales and Green Oceans, sponsored the lectures. (The groups are so new that they haven’t filed Form 990s.) The lectures allowed me to meet dozens of committed and interesting people from all walks of life, income levels, and political beliefs who are fighting the insanity of offshore wind. Among them was Vallorie Oliver, a native of Nantucket who is the president of ACK 4 Whales. Oliver’s father worked as a carpenter and fisherman on the island. She has been fighting the offshore wind projects since 2019.
Oliver reminds me of the dozens of other Americans I’ve been privileged to meet over the last decade as I’ve reported on the backlash against the encroachment of Big Wind and Big Solar. When we talked at her modest home in Nantucket last Monday, I told Oliver that she’s special but not unique. Oliver — and the many others I’ve met who are fighting the energy sprawl that inevitably comes with alt-energy — all share a common value. What is it? It’s the desire to protect their homes, neighborhoods, viewsheds, and property values from the climate change carpetbaggers who are only interested in the profits they can make by paving vast swaths of territory with solar panels and wind turbines.
In an email on Sunday afternoon, Oliver told me what keeps her motivated: “There are no do-overs when the last whale is killed off,” she explained. “There are fewer than 350 North Atlantic Right Whales left. What is Big Wind going to say when they kill the last whale? ‘Sorry’?”
These 11 charts show the offshore wind energy scandal is even worse than you think.
Chart 1: About two-thirds of the offshore projects that are operating, under construction, or proposed are owned, either entirely or in part, by foreign companies.
Chart 2: Those foreign companies are feasting on subsidies. As shown below, the foreign corporations pushing for offshore wind in U.S. waters have, according to data from Good Jobs First, collected more than $9 billion in local, state, and federal subsidies, loans, or loan guarantees, and they are eager for more. How lucrative are the offshore wind subsidies? Consider Vineyard Wind, the 800-megawatt offshore project owned by Avangrid, the Spanish company, and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. Construction costs on the project will be about $4 billion. With an investment tax credit of about 40%, those two foreign outfits could collect as much as $1.6 billion in federal tax credits on Vineyard Wind alone.
Chart 6: I’m old enough to remember when environmental groups cared about whales. Alas, that was a long time ago. On Sunday, the Daily Mail published an article about Apostolos Gerasoulis, a Rutgers professor emeritus of computer science who built a software system to analyze the dozens of whale deaths that have occurred on the Eastern Seaboard over the past few years. Gerasoulis set out to determine if the whale deaths were related to the loud blasts of sonar used by offshore wind survey vessels. His conclusion: “Offshore wind kills whales…The numbers never lie. There is a cause. We have shown that the cause for death of the whales is offshore wind. Period.” (H/t fellow Substack writer David Blackmon.)
Chart 7: Can we trade the Sierra Club for an environmental group that cares about protecting marine mammals? The text below is from the club’s website.
Chart 8: This bit of bureaucratic mumbo jumbo is buried in the environmental impact statement the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management did on Vineyard Wind. Here’s my plain English translation: “These projects won’t make any difference on climate change. But they are good because they allow state-level bureaucrats to say they met their policy goals.”
Chart 9: The big NGOs claim we must build gigawatts of offshore wind because of climate change. But given the enormous size of the U.S. power grid (1,300 gigawatts), whatever reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that might be achieved with offshore wind will be the equivalent of a fart in a hurricane.
Chart 10: Short of throwing currency into a boiler, offshore wind energy is the most expensive way to generate electricity. The recent announcement that the state of New York will pay $155 per megawatt-hour for the juice from the Empire Wind project proves that point.
Chart 11: The states on the East Coast that are building offshore wind have some of the highest electricity prices in the country. Those rates will go higher due to offshore wind. (California is also planning to spend billions on offshore wind, but that’s a topic for another Substack.)
I will close by repeating W. Edwards Deming’s famous line: “In God we trust, all others must bring data.” The data shows offshore wind energy is a lousy deal for whales and ratepayers.
The Daily Telegraph regularly publishes articles by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, which eulogise renewable energy and claim that fossil fuels will soon be a thing of the past. But they never seem to tell the other side of the story.
By Paul Homewood
Just over two years ago, I had some correspondence with Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, suggesting that the Telegraph publish a full page debate on the future of fossil fuels. I would write the pro case and he the anti.
At first he was enthusiastic about the idea, but quickly backtracked. As a consequence I published this open letter here.
OPEN LETTER TO THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
The Daily Telegraph regularly publishes articles by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, which eulogise renewable energy and claim that fossil fuels will soon be a thing of the past. But they never seem to tell the other side of the story.
Below is my contribution to the debate:
———————————————————————————————————————
Fossil Fuels v Renewable Energy?
Let me start by stating that I am not pro or anti anything. In a free market, the best technologies, solutions and products automatically come to the fore, without the need for subsidies, regulations and mandates.
If renewable energy is all that is promised, it will do the same.
There is of course no doubt that the cheap, abundant and reliable energy provided by fossil fuels has transformed society and made all of us better off than ever before in so many ways.
We get rid of them at our peril!
So far, our transition to renewable energy in the UK has been painfully slow and extremely expensive. Wind and solar power still supply only 3% of the UK’s total energy consumption after two decades of trying. Meanwhile, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, subsidies for renewables were expected to cost £12 billion in 2021/22. This actually understates the reality because it does not include all of the indirect costs involved in grid balancing and so on, meaning the true cost is probably over £15 billion.
It is of course true that the recent rocketing of gas prices has reset the agenda. But it is important to note that the current price does not reflect the cost of extracting gas. It is the result of an imbalance in supply and demand. Such imbalances have occurred before, and a normally functioning market would quickly increase gas production, driving prices back down to historic levels.
But even before those price rises, it was being claimed that wind and solar power were cheaper than fossil fuel. However such claims fail to take into account the additional system costs imposed by their intermittency.
Moreover, claims that offshore wind costs are now down to around £40/MWh simply are not supported by the evidence. The claims are derived from the prices agreed for Contracts for Difference, the government subsidy mechanism. However, wind farms are under no legal obligation to actually take up these contracts; they are effectively only options.
Detailed examination of actual company accounts continues to show that the capital costs for building offshore wind farms has not fallen significantly in recent years, and that the true costs are probably around £100/MWh. To put this into perspective, historically wholesale electricity prices have been under £50/MWh.
Solar power has certainly come down in cost in recent years, but the technology is a dead end here in the UK, because of our latitude. In winter, when demand for electricity is at its highest, our solar farms typically work at only 2% of their capacity.
Solar power certainly has a future in sunnier climates. But even in India, for instance, the government have realised that they cannot run an electricity grid purely on intermittent power. Even their ambitious plans only project that a 11% of their energy will be coming from wind and solar by 2040.
And it is of course intermittency which is the overriding problem here. You can forget about batteries and other forms of storage, as these can typically only supply power for an hour or two. This is useless when the wind stops blowing for days and weeks on end, which it does every year.
Hydrogen is usually wheeled out as the answer to all of our problems, replacing gas needed to back up wind farms as well as heat our homes. However, even the Committee on Climate Change accept that most of the bulk of our hydrogen will have to be made by steam reforming natural gas.
This process is not only expensive, it also wastes a lot of the gas input. In other words, you need more gas to produce hydrogen than you would need if you just burnt the gas itself in the first place. Worse still, steam reforming emits carbon dioxide, so you need to bolt on a carbon capture system adding yet more cost.
All in all, hydrogen made this way would be double the cost of gas in energy terms. But, crucially, you would still need as much natural gas as you do now, and more. Far from replacing fossil fuels, hydrogen increases our reliance on them.
The alternative is green hydrogen, which is made by electrolysis. It is usually suggested that surplus wind power is used for this. However, the amounts of hydrogen which could be produced this way would be tiny, as well as extremely costly given the intermittency of the process.
The bottom line is that we will still need gas, and lots of it, to back up a renewable heavy grid. Indeed, the more renewable capacity we build, the more backup we need.
It is not just a matter of intermittency. We also need a readily, dispatchable source of power to balance supply and demand.
And that is only considering electricity. We need lots more gas for heating and industrial use.
The biggest problem with using hydrogen, or for that matter electricity, for domestic heating is how you cope with peak demand in winter. On average over the year, demand for gas is roughly double that for electricity. But in winter, peak gas demand is seven times as much.
To get a scale of the numbers, gas consumption peaks at around 350 GW in mid winter. Current government plans target wind capacity of 45 GW by 2035, which on average will produce just 15 GW, and often as little as 2 GW.
Parliamentary Advisory Group on Carbon Capture & Storage
You can of course store gas very easily, so that it can be turned on and off when needed. Green hydrogen, most of which would be made during summer when demand for electricity is low, would have to be stored for use in winter, something for which there is no ready solution.
There are plenty of vested interests out there who are claim hydrogen is the way forward and call for government “investment”. But what they are really after are the fat subsidies that will come with it.
The simple reality is that we will continue to need fossil fuels for many years to come. In the long term we will have look to develop new technologies such as nuclear fusion, or build small nuclear reactors and the like if we want to decarbonise.
Renewable energy has a part to play, but it can never be the whole answer.
Two years on, and everything I wrote remains true. Indeed my claim that offshore wind costs were around £100/MWh has been confirmed by the latest Administrative Strike Prices.
My offer to AEP and the Telegraph remains open! Let’s have a proper debate.
Indeed the need for it is even greater, given Ed Miliband’s determination to wreck the UK’s energy system.
You must be logged in to post a comment.