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.
This morning the Government announced the results of the latest round of bids for renewable generation capacity. What does a ‘round of bids’ mean?
The way the system currently works is unlike normal capital investment. In almost every other large capital project, investors take the risk of the price and demand for their project. This is true when, say, a manufacturer builds a new plant, and (obviously) when a developer builds a new estate of homes – the builder has to sell the homes to householders to get their return!
It matters, as you’ll soon be required to have electric heating and an electric car
The way the system currently works is unlike normal capital investment. In almost every other large capital project, investors take the risk of the price and demand for their project. This is true when, say, a manufacturer builds a new plant, and (obviously) when a developer builds a new estate of homes – the builder has to sell the homes to householders to get their return! The Telegraph has the story.
Investors commit their money because they believe that they will get a good return on their investment, but they can’t be sure. So investors have to accept the risk that investing involves, and in return they sometimes, but not always, get higher returns than are available in secure investments like Government bonds.
For wind and solar powerplants in UK jurisdictions, a different regime applies. Investors are offered a guarantee from the Government of both the price, and the amount, of electricity that they will be able to sell.
How do these guarantees work?
Firstly, the amount. The amounts of electricity that wind and solar farms produce are obviously highly dependent on the wind blowing and the sun shining. This, by the way, is a major headache for the grid managers, because this is unpredictable and electricity is always needed and cannot be stored at grid scale. So what the Government has done is insist that Grid managers must take all the electricity that renewable sources produce, whether or not there are cheaper alternatives and regardless of whether that much electricity is actually needed at the grid at the time it is generated. (If the grid literally cannot accept the renewable energy generated, the renewable powerplants turn down or shut off – but still have to be paid as if they were running as hard as possible.)
In effect, the Government has said “we will take all the electricity that you can deliver”. The loser from this is gas power stations, who are pushed aside by renewable suppliers until calm, dark or cloudy conditions return. Then they are required to replace all the missing electricity. This has the effect of making gas generation much more expensive than it should be, as there has to be a tremendous amount of gas capacity sitting unused for much of the time. Suddenly turning gas plants on and off all the time also increases maintenance costs.
Secondly, the Government guarantees the price of electricity that renewables produce. They don’t do this for gas generators, who have to live with the ‘market price’ of electricity, which is highly variable. In this latest round (called ‘AR6’), the Government secured new renewables investment at prices which for offshore wind are around 30 per cent higher than the average market prices in 2024. For floating offshore wind plant, not built on the sea bed, the price the Government has guaranteed is a staggering 200 per cent higher than the market price. Prices significantly higher than market prices were also awarded to solar and onshore wind projects.
All these extra margins get added to electricity bills. And there’s more.
For years, California has received extensive press coverage for its high cost of living and the most expensive electricity and fuel prices in America.
California’s increasingly high cost of living, housing, and transportation, coupled with an increase in crime, smash-and-grab robberies, homelessness, pollution, and congestion, has caused many people and companies to relocate to more affordable cities and states.
For years, California has received extensive press coverage for its high cost of living and the most expensive electricity and fuel prices in America.
California’s increasingly high cost of living, housing, and transportation, coupled with an increase in crime, smash-and-grab robberies, homelessness, pollution, and congestion, has caused many people and companies to relocate to more affordable cities and states.
The California Policy Institute counted more than 237 businesses that have left the state since 2005. Among these businesses were eleven Fortune 1000 companies, inclusive of AT&T, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Exxon Mobil, and Chevron. California’s net move-out number of residents in 2022 alone was more than 343,000 people that left California — the highest exodus of any state in the U.S.
Kamala Harris has a long relationship with California. She became the San Francisco district attorney in 2004. She served two terms in that role from 2004 to 2010. In 2010, she succeeded Jerry Brown as California Attorney General. She was sworn into the role in January 2011 and served until 2017, when she joined the U.S. Senate after being elected in 2016.
Kamala Harris continues to support California’s tax-and-spend, overreaching, and economy-crushing policies and their threats to America’s energy, agricultural, economic, employment, living standards, and national security future.
California’s de-carceration, de-prosecution, and de-policing have led to a toxic mix that has eroded public safety in the Golden State.
The growing number of smash-and-grab robberies on small businesses has another major associated cost: turning off the desire of shoppers to return to those stores that have been attacked and receiving press coverage that gets disseminated to others, giving the impression that the safety of the area is deteriorating.
The deterioration of the California lifestyle has led to the “California exodus,” the ongoing migration of residents and businesses from California to other states or countries.
ELECTRICITY
Electricity from solar and wind is specified by the state government and supported by Harris as critical to meeting California’s ambitious requirement to switch to 90% carbon-free electricity generation by 2035 and to 100% by 2045. Shockingly, the “green” wind and solar projects primarily exist because they are financed with taxpayer money, i.e., disguised from taxpayers as “Government subsidies.”
The “green” electricity policy has resulted in the state continuously shutting down coal, natural gas, and nuclear-generating stations that provide continuous uninterruptible electricity in favor of occasionally generated electricity from renewables.
However, in spite of the policy and renewable stations built at the expense of taxpayer dollars, otherwise known as Government Subsidies, California now imports more electric power than any other US state, more than twice the amount in Virginia, the USA’s second-largest importer of electric power. California typically receives between one-fifth and one-third of its electricity supply from outside of the state.
Power prices are rocketing into the stratosphere and, even before winter drives up demand, are being deprived of electricity in a way that was unthinkable barely a decade ago. But such is life when you attempt to run on sunshine and breezes. Further, these so-called “green” electricity sources of wind and solar are not clean, green, renewable or sustainable. They also endanger wildlife.
She is incapable of having conversations about how occasionally generated electricity from wind and solar will be able to address the coming increase in electricity demand. The U.S. Department of Energy recently made a startling admission about the U.S. electricity demand that is going to double by 2050, and meeting that soaring demand is going to require the equivalent of building 300 Hoover Dams.
Kamala remains ignorant to the reality that it’s becoming increasingly obvious that these supposed “green” alternative methods of generating electricity won’t work — especially as electricity demands are projected to double by 2050 due to AI, charging of EVs, data centers, government-mandated electric heating and cooking, and charging grid-backup batteries.
In addition, those so-called renewables, such as wind and solar, cannot produce thousands of essential products that require petrochemical feedstocks. In fact, all the parts and components of wind and solar are made from the same fossil fuels that Kamala Harris wants to rid the state of.
FOSSIL FUELS
As one of the most vocal “GREEN” policymakers, she remains oblivious to humanity’s addiction to the products and fuels from fossil fuels, as she is to these two basic facts:
She cannot comprehend that no one uses crude oil in its raw form. “Big Oil” only exists because of humanity’s addiction to the products and fuels made from oil! “Renewables” only exist to generate occasional electricity, as they CANNOT make any products or fuels!
If Kamala wants to rid the world of crude oil usage, there is no need to support California’s overregulation or overtaxing of the oil industry; she just needs to promote California residents to STOP using products and fuels made from crude oil, which would send California residents back to the Stone Age!
California’s regulatory and tax landscape has led to a steady drop in the number of California refineries. In the early 1980s, when California’s population was 24 million, there were 40 operating refineries in the state, which refined over 2.5 million barrels of crude oil per day. Forty years later, with a population of 39 million, the number of refineries dropped by 14, which refines less than 2 million barrels of crude oil per day currently. The reality is that gasoline and diesel supply is decreasing while demand is increasing; it is fuel (pun intended) for continuous price increases.
Refineries are also shutting down because California has imposed a new regulation that bans the sale of gas-powered cars and light trucks by 2035, and the State requires 35 percent of new car sales to be zero-emission vehicles by 2026. It makes no economic sense to invest in a new capacity in a state that has de facto outlawed the industry’s existence in a few years.
In addition, refineries are also shutting down because there are incredibly lucrative state and federal tax incentives to produce biofuels, totaling a whopping $1 per gallon, and cease the manufacturing of gasoline and diesel. A Marathon refinery that had a crude oil refining capacity of 166,000 barrels per day is being retrofitted to produce biodiesel and is expected to be producing biofuel next year. Similarly, Global Clean Energy is converting a 66,000-barrel-per-day-capacity refinery in Bakersfield to biodiesel, and World Energy has invested $350 million to convert a 50,000-barrel-per-day-capacity refinery to biodiesel.
California regulators and legislators are getting what they want: less crude oil produced and consumed. Californians, particularly low and middle-income households, are paying a dear price for the preferences of Tesla-driving legislators and regulators as fuel demand remains against a diminishing supply of gasoline and diesel.
She cannot comprehend that STOPPING the demands of society for the products and fuels made from oil will eliminate the need for crude oil!
Simplistically: STOP making cars, trucks, aircraft, boats, ships, farming equipment, medical equipment and supplies, communications equipment, military equipment, etc., that demand crude oil for their supply chain of products.
Harris is campaigning to rid America of oil and totally supports California Governor Newsom by continually decreasing California’s in-state oil production. Harris continues to support Newsom’s energy policies to force California, the 4th largest economy in the world, to be the only state in contiguous America that imports most of its crude oil energy from foreign countries. That dependence, via maritime transportation from foreign nations for the state’s crude oil energy demands, has increased imported crude oil from 5 percent in 1992 to almost 60 percent today of total consumption.
California’s growing dependency on other nations for crude oil is a serious national security risk for America since the State is home to 9 International airports, 41 Military airports, and 3 of the largest shipping ports in America. California’s growing dependency on other nations, like Saudi Aramco, is a serious national security risk for America.
Now, with the presidential election around the corner, are the 300 million Americans not living in the West ready to duplicate California’s expensive electricity and fuel prices and increasingly high costs of living, housing, and transportation coupled with an increase in crime, smash-and-grab robberies, and homelessness?
Degrowth is the final solution against modernity. It is an anti-human philosophy of stagnation and decline based on the belief that there are too many people. Remember Paul Ehrlich?
“Degrowth is about government authoritarianism overriding the natural human impulse to improve. Marcus Feldthus of the Copenhagen Business School needs to reeducate himself about ends and means to at least be able to inform his students about the happy side of life and living.”
No-growth (stagnation) is bad enough. In business, every promotion must be balanced by a demotion or retirement. For one person to buy more, another person must buy less. Charity not, the zero sum game is a recipe for low morale and infighting, just of the opposite of charity through abundance.
Take another step backward to a negative sum game. More losers than winners. The survival of the fittest. Glum is the word as rising expectations is replaced by despair.
Less is not more but less. Less convenience, less leisure, less security, and less philanthropy toward others. And with incentives stymied, the desperadoes look to government to intervene at the expense of others. French economist and classical liberal Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) wrote in 1848:
… it is a well-established fact that the state cannot procure satisfaction for some without adding to the labor of others…. The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.
What needs “degrowth” is government, not the market, a subject for another time.
“Planetary Boundaries”
What is the latest thinking and pitch from the degrowth movement? This social media post from Marcus Feldthus, whose self-described mission is to “build a post growth business in the pursuit of sustainability,” provides an update. His website advertises an online course, “Aligning Business with Planetary Boundaries,” based on four precepts (verbatim):
Why green growth fails to deliver results fast enough and sufficiently.
How the inequality and ecological crises are connected.
Cases of companies that get sustainability right and wrong.
How to start implementing post growth thinking in a business.
He urges his students to “start a conversation about the assumptions in your company.”
Feldthus continues on the environmental front (reproduced verbatim):
Assuming you can decouple carbon emissions from economic growthsufficiently to live up to the Paris Agreement (no evidence of that happening)
Assuming some new technology will magically appear and solve point 1 (techno-optimism ignores that hope is not a strategy)
Assuming climate change is the only problem (when there are 8 other planetary boundaries)
Assuming stable prices on energy and materials (when energy expenditures are increasing)
Assuming that increases in energy efficiencies lead to absolute energy and material reductions in a growth-based system (the money you save, you use to grow the output, to make more money, which cancels out the initial savings – also known as The Rebound Effect)
Assuming that you can recycle your way out of the ecological crisis (the 2nd law of thermodynamics explains why that is not possible)
Assuming that services have no, or an insignificant, ecological footprint (services cannot entirely replace the material sector)
Marcus Feldthus sees hope and momentum:
Degrowth is breaking into the mainstream. Covered by: UN, Harvard Business Review, NY Times, Ernst & Young, BBC, and Bloomberg Festival. As something to be explored, not ridiculed. Here is a quote from each
“Our choice is not whether to keep growing or not. But whether the end of growth is coming by design or disaster. Either we choose limits or have them forced upon us.”
Harvard Business Review: In Defense of Degrowth
“The core of the degrowth argument is the historical fact that economic growth and emissions are inexorably connected (…) To be realistic about the fundamental challenges of growth, we must adjust our cultural assumptions and reconfigure unsustainable business models.”
UN Rapporteur, Olivier De Schutter: Eradicating poverty beyond growth
“The transition to a post-growth development trajectory, focused on the realization of human rights rather than on an increase in the aggregate levels of production and consumption, should be explicitly mentioned in A Pact for the Future”.
New York Times: Shrink the Economy, Save the World?
“Less than two decades ago, an economist like Herman Daly, who argued for a “steady-state economy,” was such an outlier that his fellow economist Benjamin Friedman could declare that “practically nobody opposes economic growth per se.” Yet today there is a burgeoning “post-growth” and “degrowth” movement doing exactly that — in journals, on podcasts, at conferences.”
Ernst & Young: A new economy
“Seemingly organized under many different frameworks (e.g., Doughnut Economics, Beyond GDP, ecological economics, degrowth and regenerative economics), these concepts share the common vision of an economy founded on human and planetary flourishing. We suggest they also point to five guiding principles foundational to accelerating the transition toward this goal.”
“A group of academics and activists are questioning the possibility of endless economic growth on a finite planet. They instead advocate for a bold solution: degrowth.”
And, if you want to understand what this shift means for businesses, I just launched a beginner’s guide on it. It’s called Post Growth Business 101.
Degrowth is the final solution against modernity. It is an anti-human philosophy of stagnation and decline based on the belief that there are too many people. Remember Paul Ehrlich?
Degrowth is a fringe movement within Deep Ecology. It sanctions deindustrialization and thus welcomes high energy prices and energy rationing, even blackouts.
Degrowth is about government authoritarianism overriding the natural human impulse to improve. It lurks in high places and must be exposed for what it is. Marcus Feldthus of the Copenhagen Business School needs to reeducate himself about ends and means to at least be able to inform his students about the happy side of life and living.
A recent article posted by Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), titled “Climate change will keep hitting Oregonians hard, but the exact impact will depend on where you live,” claims that Oregon will be impacted severely on multiple fronts by climate change. Areas of concern include increased wildfires, sea level rise, and water shortages, among others. This is mostly false, as many of the problems listed are not worsening and those that are have nothing to do with climate change.
A recent article posted by Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), titled “Climate change will keep hitting Oregonians hard, but the exact impact will depend on where you live,” claims that Oregon will be impacted severely on multiple fronts by climate change. Areas of concern include increased wildfires, sea level rise, and water shortages, among others. This is mostly false, as many of the problems listed are not worsening and those that are have nothing to do with climate change.
OPB writes that different regions of Oregon will face different effects from climate change, which is reasonable; coastal communities will have to worry about sea level more than those in Eastern Oregon, for example. But the caveats listed by OPB are interesting. The story doesn’t just discuss geographic and natural climate differences, but also differing effects based on demographics, such as, “how many people live there, and how much money their local governments have on hand.” Those two variables, and others like population growth and relative incomes, are totally independent of long-term climate change and even short-term weather events.
Regardless, the article goes on to make several false claims regarding the direct effects of climate change:
“The Oregon Coast faces sea-level rise, algal blooms and shellfish biotoxins. The northern Willamette Valley faces heat waves, higher landslide risks and increased water demands as the population grows. Northeastern Oregon faces longer fire seasons, scorched crops and increasing numbers of destructive pests.”
For the sake of brevity, we will not go into each in assertion made in this post, but almost every one of these supposed hazards are overblown at best, and or simply not occurring, at worst.
Beginning with sea level rise, the average absolute sea level rise globally is about 1.7+/-0.3 millimeters per year. Two out of the five available National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sea level monitoring stations in Oregon are slightly above that rate, at 1.78 +/- 0.58 and 2.52 +/- 0.61 mm/year or The rest are below the average global rate. These rates equate to a rise of about 0.58 ft and 0.83 ft over the course of 100 years, respectively (See chart below).
Monitoring stations at Port Orford and Astoria both show negative sea level rise, which means land is likely rising faster than absolute sea levels, making a net drop in relative sea level.
These are hardly unmanageable rates of change, the regions affected have plenty of time to react to less than 3 mm per year. Even the highest rate of sea level rise measured by NOAA in Oregon is well below the 1.4 to 2.75 feet of average global sea level rise forecast by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent report.
This is not the first time OPD has made false claims about heat waves, increased water demand, scorched crops, and pests. Climate Realism previously debunked these threats to Oregon agriculture in “Relax Oregon, Climate Change Is Not Increasing Drought, Flooding or Heatwaves,” and in “No, OPB, Climate Change is Not Taking a Toll on Oregon Farmers,” the latter showing that not only has precipitation not been a problem for the state, but crop production has been increasing, with an upsurge of major crops produced almost every year. Hazelnut production, for example, exploded 149 percent since 1999.
Regarding wildfire, OPB reports that Oregonians say it’s harder to go hiking and other outdoors activities because of wildfire smoke and heat. Again, the data does not support the anecdotal claims of select hikers cited in OPB’s story. In this case, the perception of hikers simply doesn’t match reality. Except for two years of outliers in 2020 and 2021, the Oregon Department of Forestry’s own data show that there has not been any trend in wildfire burn acreage. (See figure below)
Oregonians are not under increasing threat from climate change, even if they feel like they are. In this case, their reported experience of suffering the effects of climate change is more likely due to media coverage wrongfully attributing every period of unpleasant weather or wildfire to climate change, and not because these phenomena are actually worsening. OPB is a big part of the problem, pushing the false narrative that a climate crisis occurring in Oregon. A quick search of their website shows more than 7,000 results for the term “climate change.” Hiding or obfuscating the real data, which shows the unalarming truth about modest climate change, is journalistic malfeasance. OPB should quit misleading its audience. The best evidence, in the form of real-world data, show that Oregonians face no climate crisis.
Having used Excel for the last 7 years to study Sea Levels I have discovered various pit falls, techniques and useful functions. I wish to share these with the wider WUWT community. To some it may be like teaching your Granny to suck eggs (as we say in the UK) but hopefully some may pick up a few useful facts or ideas.
Having used Excel for the last 7 years to study Sea Levels I have discovered various pit falls, techniques and useful functions. I wish to share these with the wider WUWT community. To some it may be like teaching your Granny to suck eggs (as we say in the UK) but hopefully some may pick up a few useful facts or ideas.
To illustrate findings, I have used the New York Battery data as recently discussed by Kip Hansen (1). These cover the period 1856 to 2024 but due to the hiatus in data between 1878 and 1893 only the period 1893 to 2023 will be considered as 131 continuous years. Note there were a few months missing in 1920, but this has little impact.
To reduce the quantity of data and remove any seasonal effects, each year will be averaged producing 131 yearly data values. Feeding these data into Excel and producing a standard presentation results in the graph shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Trend Line Equations
As values the coefficients of the Trend Line Equations are accurate to the precision given and usable as such. The problem arises if the equations, especially the quadratic coefficients, are used in subsequent analyses such as graph plotting and, although not recommended, extrapolation. The problems in plotting are illustrated below where the trend line equations are subjected to “Trend Line Formatting” increasing the significant decimal places to 5 and 6 respectively. With the standard Excel presentation there is a consistent error of nearly 200 mm. This comes about because the date values are squared and when multiplied by a coefficient with only 4 decimal places result in the calculated sea levels becoming basically the difference between two large numbers. Even with 5 decimal places there is a general error of about 15 mm. It is only with 6 decimal places that the error reduces to less than 1 mm.
If Cubic or higher polynomial curves are involved this problem is further exacerbated. These higher polynomial curves are not generally recommended but, on some occasions, can point to other behaviour such as would occur with decadal oscillations although using a moving average trend line would probably be more suitable. Extrapolation of these higher polynomial curves is even a more “no-no” as the highest-powered term soon dominates the calculation.
Figure 2
There are several ways the above problem can be overcome in most cases.
1. Reduce the date values by deducting a suitable figure such as 1900 so the dates now only vary from -7 to 123.
2. Generally show more decimal places.
3. The surest way is to make use of the “LINEST” function in EXCEL. This function is generally described as returning the parameters of a linear trend and has the form, assuming the year and sea level data are stored in columns A and B and rows 1 to 131
In these cases, the coefficients will appear in 3 or 4 adjacent cells.
Having obtained values for the 2, 3 or 4 coefficients they can be captured as named values in subsequent calculations by using the “Name Box” and then use Formulas>Defined Names>Define Name. In my work I called the values LINEAR1 and LINEAR such that
These formulae will then produce accurate values for the sea levels.
Curve Fitting 1
The quadratic curve may be one of many other equally well-fitting curves. In this instance another class of curve could be long term sinusoidal variation and the following shows how a series of sinusoidal curves can be generated and compared.
A general sinusoidal curve can take the form (in Excel Format)
=CONST+AMP*SIN(((SHIFT+2*A1)/PERIOD)*PI())
where CONST is a constant mean sea level (mm)
AMP is a +/- amplitude variation (mm)
SHIFT is a phase shift (years)
And PERIOD is a period of a complete oscillation (years)
How can these four values be derived. Not knowing any mathematical process to home in on the four values that give the “best fit” the following method was used. The question of what constitutes a best fit is not clear at this stage so will be addressed as the process progresses.
Stage 1 was to choose PERIOD, say 1000 years.
Stage 2 was to set CONST at zero.
That leaves AMP and SHIFT. Choose a value of AMP such as 1000mm and any value of SHIFT and plot the result of applying all 4 values over the total period covered by the data. It will probably be totally wrong so modify SHIFT until the portion of the sinusoidal curve roughly resembles the data/quadratic curve in form.
Adjust SHIFT and AMP until the portion of the sinusoidal curve looks approximately “parallel” to the quadratic curve at which stage a value of CONST can be added to make the 2 curves roughly coincide. Final tuning of CONST, AMP and SHIFT can be carried out either visually or by introducing some “best fit” criteria. In this instant the visual inspection was considered sufficient but later with a different case the question of best fit will be addressed.
After much blood, sweat and toil the following parameters were homed in on.
CONST = 223 mm AMP = 600 mm SHIFT = -300 years PERIOD = 1000 years
A second curve based on a period of 1500 years was then more easily found giving
CONST = 695 mm AMP = 1090 mm SHIFT = -510 years PERIOD = 1500 years
Using interpolation and some small fine tuning 3 other curves were found
CONST = 342 mm AMP = 722 mm SHIFT = -355 years PERIOD = 1125 years
CONST = 462 mm AMP = 845 mm SHIFT = -410 years PERIOD = 1250 years
CONST = 578 mm AMP = 968 mm SHIFT = -469 years PERIOD = 1175 years
Figure 3
Figure 3 shows the Quadratic Curve and the 5 Sinusoidal Curves. They all lie within about 3 mm of each other which is minimal considering the range of the basic data.
The following statement occurred to me, but I am not sure if it is profound or naive.
“There is one Quadratic Curve and a multitude of Sinusoidal Curves. Why would Nature choose the Quadratic Curve?”
Figures 4 and 5 show the 1st and 2nd derivatives for the 6 curves. The 2nd derivatives all vary greatly from the Quadratic as would be expected as the time scale covered is a sizeable portion of the periods involved.
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6 shows the 6 curves extrapolated over 2000 years. You pays your money and takes your choice.
Figure 6
Moving Averages
Excel plots Moving Averages in a strange way when presenting engineering or scientific data. It plots the average curve right shifted whereas a more informative form would have the average values plotted a mid-point of the range used when averaging. It is very simple to produce your own averages and plot to be more useful.
Figure 7 shows the data plotted with both forms of presentation.
Figure 7
As “Ol’ Blue Eyes” said I will continue to do it “My Way”.
Curve Fitting 2
In the previous section on Curve Fitting long term (around 1000 year) periods were considered but now short term (few decades) will be discussed these possibly occurring due to decadal oscillations in climate behaviour.
With the data being used this variation will first be found by estimating how much the fitted curve varies from the actual readings. Values calculated on the fitted curve are subtracted from the data and this set of values forms a set of residuals as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8
The target equation will have the same form as shown above but this method could be used more generally unless only a part of a cycle exists.
The 21 year moving averages were calculated as shown in Figure 9.
The judgement criteria chosen, C, was the square root of the sum of the squares of the errors which for the starting estimation was 49.6. A convergence strategy involved recalculating the value of C using each of the parameters in turn changed by +1 and -1. The parameter change that reduced C the greatest was retained, and the process repeated until no further reduction in C occurred. This resulted in
A second convergence sequence was carried out with the parameters now changed by +0.5 and -0.5 resulting in
CONST = 1 mm AMP = 13.5 mm SHIFT = 55.5 years PERIOD = 67.5 years
and a C value of 42.4. This final curve is shown in figure 11.
Figure 11
In carrying out this convergence process it was very useful to make use of “named” variables for the parameters and the incremental changes in this form.
=CONST+AMP*SIN(((SHIFT+2*A13)/PERIOD)*PI()) for the basic central value
From previous experience in using this technique in engineering the final solution is not guaranteed to be the true optimum as false minimums can be reached which the process is not capable of getting away from or the process can be stuck in a “valley”. The existence of such dips and valleys is difficult to visualize with four variables as the results would form a 4-dimensional graph. An extra check may be to start with a completely different set of starting parameters.
Another technique was to change to diagonal increments which with 4 dimensions involves 16 combinations of changes followed by alternate use of both approaches. The process stops when both processes cease changes in the value of the judgement criteria, C.
This had little effect the final values being
CONST = 1.5 mm AMP = 14 mm SHIFT = 57.5 years PERIOD = 68.5 years
and a value of C of 41.95 as shown in figure 12.
The final graph shows improvements but strangely the value of CONST=1.5mm is difficult to explain but averaged data only cover a range of 111 years which is only 1.62 periods .
Figure 12
R Squared
R Squared was a term I was not familiar with but can appear along with the trend line equation as a measure of the fit. I tried to make use of it as a measure of the accuracy between 2 sets of numbers during the previous convergence process using the function as follows
RSQ( a1:a131,b1;b131)
but it is only measuring the “the proportion of variance in the dependent variable that can be explained by the independent variable” and not the accuracy between 2 sets of numbers so I abandoned it. I.e. if the above function gave 0.8 and all b values were doubled or had 10 added the RSQ function would still give 0.8.
Googling R Squared does produce some negative remarks about it.
In conclusion it is hoped that some of the above topics may be found useful.
In a comment to one of my previous papers I was called a “Cyclomaniac”. Not sure if this was a compliment or a criticism. Interesting to see if this comment keeps getting repeated!!
Note: As usual, I have facilitated Dr. Welch in preparing this essay for publication here at WUWT. The content and ideas expressed are entirely those of Dr. Welch. I do this in the spirit that all scientific opinions deserve an airing and that you, the readers, have the right to read and comment on these opinions. As I have said previously in reference to Dr. Welch’s work, I am not a fan of curve fitting. That should not affect your view of his excellent work on sea level and the possibility that sea level is accelerating or has accelerated or your opinion on his insight in using MS Excel functions to analyze the data. He does good work. — Kip Hansen
Germany already had nuclear power in 2002, if they just kept it and didn’t build all the wind and solar plants, they wouldn’t have had to spend 697 Billion Euro on subsidies, and would have cut their emissions by 73% more.
If ever there is a statistic that says there is something rotten in the State of Climate Panic, this is surely it. I mean, does CO2 matter or doesn’t it? Do the Greens care at all, or even a bit? If there was a climate emergency and The Greens were worried about CO2, they might have protested that the EnergieWende was a reckless experiment. But if the Greens were tools for communists, foreign states or banker-investors, then they might keep choosing options that benefit other countries, help Bankers or just make Big Government bigger.
If the Germans just did nothing at all, it would have been Greener
Germany already had nuclear power in 2002, if they just kept it and didn’t build all the wind and solar plants, they wouldn’t have had to spend 697 Billion Euro on subsidies, and would have cut their emissions by 73% more.
If ever there is a statistic that says there is something rotten in the State of Climate Panic, this is surely it. I mean, does CO2 matter or doesn’t it? Do the Greens care at all, or even a bit? If there was a climate emergency and The Greens were worried about CO2, they might have protested that the EnergieWende was a reckless experiment. But if the Greens were tools for communists, foreign states or banker-investors, then they might keep choosing options that benefit other countries, help Bankers or just make Big Government bigger.
Either the German Greens have utterly failed at the very task they set out to do, or they were really aiming at something else.
Study Quantifies Germany’s Disastrous Switch Away From Nuclear Power
At the dawn of the millennium, Germany launched an ambitious plan to transition to renewable energy. “Die Energiewende” initiated a massive expansion of solar and wind power, resulting in a commendable 25 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2022…
In 2002, nuclear power supplied about a fifth of Germany’s electricity. Twenty-one years later, it supplied none. A layperson might think that cheap wind and solar could simply fill the gap, but it isn’t so simple.
Jan Emblemsvåg, a Professor of Civil Engineering at Norway’s NTNU just published a study comparing the ambitious German Energiewende renewable program with nuclear power:
“what if Germany had spent their money on nuclear power and not followed their policy from 2002 through 2022 (20 years); would Germany have achieved more emission reductions and lower expenses?”
Even German bureaucrats admit Energiewende “poses a threat to the German economy”:
German Federal Accounting Office (Bundesrechnungshof) writes about the German policy dubbed ‘Die Energiewende’ in German, and it concludes: ‘The Bundesrechnungshof warns that the energy transition in its current form poses a threat to the German economy and overburdens the financial capacity of electricity-consuming companies and households’ (Bundesrechnungshof Citation2021a).
A whole lot of wind (green) and solar (orange) power were added to the German grid and it was worse than useless:
Given these results, there can be no doubt whatsoever that if Germany had invested in NPPs [Nuclear Power Plants] instead of VREs [Variable Renewable Energy], Germany would have decarbonised more with far less nominal expenditures. The short conclusion is that Germany would have reached its climate goals with a substantial margin at half the expenditures of Energiewende.
The Germans have done this experiment so we don’t have to
Just burn that money in a pyre to the Weather Gods:
These costs do not include the added burden of expensive electricity on businesses and homes, the opportunity costs of money that could have been spent elsewhere, or the loss of talent, brains and industry to other countries.
Building new nuclear plants was still cheaper than wind and solar
The paper goes through another scenario where more nuclear plants were built with careful estimations of the costs and long times to construct plants and still concludes that the Germans would have saved $330 billion euro.
Volkswagen, which was founded in 1937, said on Monday that it could no longer rule out unprecedented plant closures in Germany as it seeks ways to save several billion euros.
Chief executive Oliver Blume said: “The economic environment has become even tougher and new players are pushing into Europe. Germany as a business location is falling further behind in terms of competitiveness.”
Volkswagen employs around 650,000 workers globally, almost 300,000 of whom are in Germany, and the threat of factory closures sparked an immediate fierce backlash …
REFERENCE
Emblemsvåg, J. (2024). What if Germany had invested in nuclear power? A comparison between the German energy policy the last 20 years and an alternative policy of investing in nuclear power. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 43(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642
The price for new electricity from offshore wind has risen to £82/MWh in current prices, a significant 58% increase since the previous successful auction.
Higher prices will lead directly to higher household bills and the results raise the already astronomical price tag of meeting Miliband’s unrealistic target to decarbonise the power grid by 2030.
A loophole in Government contracts could cost households up to £180m a year.
Rising prices for offshore wind warn of the mounting cost of Net Zero
The price for new electricity from offshore wind has risen to £82/MWh in current prices, a significant 58% increase since the previous successful auction.
Higher prices will lead directly to higher household bills and the results raise the already astronomical price tag of meeting Miliband’s unrealistic target to decarbonise the power grid by 2030.
A loophole in Government contracts could cost households up to £180m a year.
Results for the latest auction (AR6) for renewable energy subsidies, known as Contracts for Difference (CfDs), were released this morning. The auction was the first since the humiliating 5th allocation round (AR5) in which there were no bids for new offshore wind capacity. The Government has secured 3.4GW of new offshore wind capacity by awarding a large increase in price to the technology that it regards as the cornerstone of its energy plans.
The auction had an increased budget of £1.555 billion, having been increased by Miliband. It is the largest CfD auction to date and will therefore lock in far more capacity at higher prices than the previous auction.
Flexibilities in the contracts drawn up by Government officials meant that older wind farm projects could withdraw up to 25% of contracted capacity and re-enter it into this year’s auction, allowing them to take advantage of the higher prices on offer. 1.6 GW of successful bids came from such projects – a loophole that may cost households as much as £180m each year. It’s another slip up for a Department that already allowed just one windfarm to net £647 million from delaying the start of its CfD contract.
Before the election, forecasts produced by Aurora Energy Research found that Labour’s 2030 target to decarbonise the power grid was “unfeasible”, but even these forecasts used over-optimistic numbers for renewable energy costs. These new results show costs to be rising rather than falling, vindicating warnings made repeatedly by Net Zero Watch. If Miliband’s Net Zero plans could once be regarded as unfeasible, they must surely now be seen as ruinous.
Net Zero Watch director, Andrew Montford, said:
“How many times were we subjected to the chorus of ‘wind is cheap’? That refrain now rings hollow and these results show Miliband’s green utopianism to be even more costly and impractical than once feared.”
.
NZW mention this new loophole, which allows wind farms to withdraw capacity already contracted for, and add it back into AR6 at a higher price:
The idea that a contractor can tear up his contract, in order to bid again at a higher price is repugnant. Presumably there was a fear that they simply would pull out of uneconomic contracts anyway.
In AR6, four projects, with a combined capacity of 498MW, have taken advantage of this loophole – Inch Cape, Moray West, Hornsea Three and EA3. All had signed contracts at £47.30/MWh (2012 prices), and instead will now get £54.23. Miliband’s largesse will cost billpayers around £800 million over the period of the contract. About two thirds will go to Danish owned Orsted, who are building Hornsea.
Although the new strike prices are lower than the ASP ceiling prices set, they are still much higher than market prices. Offshore wind, for instance, will cost £82/MWh at current prices. So far this financial year, market prices, as calculated by the LCCC for payment of CfD subsidies, have averaged £58/MWh. This implies an annual subsidy of £288 million.
It is also worth noting that, apart from Inch Cape and co, there were only two successful bidders – Hornsea Four and East Anglia Two. Obviously both of these projects can use much of the infrastructure already in place, thus saving money.
It is also relevant that about 6GW of offshore capacity was unsuccessful in the auction. We are not told what prices they offered, but this is an indication that AR7 will see much higher strike prices.
Meanwhile Miliband’s vision of quadrupling offshore wind capacity to 70GW by 2030 is more of a pipe dream than ever. We currently have about 30GW of existing or contracted offshore projects, and this new tranche of 3GW will not even start operations before 2029.
You must be logged in to post a comment.