Grid scale battery fires loom large

America faces a growing threat from grid scale lithium battery fires. Construction of huge battery arrays with no concern for potentially catastrophic fires is out of control. There are no established standards to follow and local permitting authorities seem oblivious to this very real danger.

From CFACT

By David Wojick

America faces a growing threat from grid scale lithium battery fires. Construction of huge battery arrays with no concern for potentially catastrophic fires is out of control. There are no established standards to follow and local permitting authorities seem oblivious to this very real danger.

What follows is a brief introduction to the issue. To begin with look at this photo of an existing grid battery array called Desert Sunlight: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Desert_Sunlight_(52290008686).jpg#file

The batteries are teamed with a big solar facility because until recently that was the only way to get the battery subsidies. Each lithium battery unit is the size of a tractor trailer or big shipping container and there are well over a hundred of them, with a rated storage capacity of 230 MW. This is a medium sized storage facility.

That these units can spontaneously burst into flames is well established. The question is how to design and prepare for this destructive event?

To scale the problem consider the following event. A battery powered tractor trailer rig recently crashed and it’s battery burned on an interstate in California. Lithium battery fires cannot be put out so this one burned for around eleven hours. In order to keep the fire from spreading to create a wildfire the fire crew continuously sprayed it using a reported 50,000 gallons of water in the process. The interstate was closed due to the toxic fumes from the fire.

One of these grid scale battery units is easily 10 to 20 times the size of that truck battery. If the water usage required to keep a grid battery fire from spreading scales with size that is 500,000 to a million gallons of water. The actual amount is an engineering calculation that needs to be established and incorporated into battery facility design standards.

Note that we are not talking about the fire spreading to create a wildfire although that is certainly a concern. The vital need is to keep it from igniting the nearby batteries. If this happened the whole facility could go up with a hundred or more giant batteries burning. That would be truly catastrophic.

So now look at the Desert Sunlight photo and note there is no water tank. There should be something like a million gallon water tank with a high volume system to deliver that water to every unit in the facility. Clearly there is not.

There is also the engineering question of how far apart these units should be to enable that water to work keeping the fire from spreading. I doubt the Desert Sunlight spacing is even close to big enough. It looks like just room to walk between them.

Now let’s turn to permitting these facilities where I have another example that speaks volumes. This is a facility that just got permitted by Washington State. It is a combined wind, solar and battery project with a proposed storage capacity of 300 MW, which is considerably bigger than Desert Sunlight. It might have 200 huge lithium battery units. That number is not disclosed.

The project is named the Horse Heaven Wind Farm despite its massive solar and battery components. The name, usually shortened to Horse Heaven, is truly ironic because it will be no place for horses. Horse Hell might be better.

The permitting authority is the Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council or EFSEC for short. The permit is called a Site Certification Agreement or CSA and Horse Heaven just got one, with a big push from the Governor.

The astounding point is that there was no discussion, or even recognition, of the fire threat posed by this enormous lithium battery facility. The CSA has numerous requirements for lots of issues, big and small, right down to the facility having water to keep the road dust down. There is nothing on having a million or so gallons to prevent a catastrophic conflagration, nor on the environmental impact of such.

This is wildfire country so there should be liability insurance for harm to others from a fire. Other potential sources of harm are huge amounts of contaminated water runoff as well as toxic air emissions, especially if the whole facility burns.

This neglect no doubt flows from the Horse Heaven Application. The App is over 500 pages long and I can find just one sentence about battery fires. Buried in a long paragraph on PDF page 366 we read “Lithium-ion battery storage may pose a risk of fire and explosion due to the tendency for lithium-ion batteries to overheat.”

This single sentence does not even refer to the project. For that matter there are only a few paragraphs about the battery facility in the entire App, mostly just describing it in general terms. There is nothing about the number of giant battery containers or that it is a huge project in its own right, posing an equally huge fire threat. In fact the App says they might double deck these container sized battery units which is absurd given the risk of setting off a chain reaction in the whole complex.

One can easily think from the Application that the batteries are of no significance and that appears to be exactly what has happened at the EFSEC.

This systematic neglect looks to be what is happening around the country. We desperately need a national code or standard covering this issue. The National Fire Protection Association says it is working on one, but it is up to the permitting authorities to make something happen.

The growing threat of grid scale battery fires is a very serious issue calling for equally serious action.

The Green New Folly: How Virtue-Signaling Killed a Ferry and Wasted Millions

Ladies and gentlemen, grab your popcorn because the green energy saga out of Schleswig-Holstein has everything: incompetence, mindless virtue-signaling, and an eco-friendly ferry that apparently doubles as a wind sail. Spoiler alert: It doesn’t end well.

From Watts Up With That?

Original reporting by eugyppius

Ladies and gentlemen, grab your popcorn because the green energy saga out of Schleswig-Holstein has everything: incompetence, mindless virtue-signaling, and an eco-friendly ferry that apparently doubles as a wind sail. Spoiler alert: It doesn’t end well.

Here’s the tragicomedy: Once upon a time in the quiet German countryside, there was a diesel-powered ferry, the Missunde II. For two decades, this workhorse reliably transported over 120,000 automobiles and 50,000 bicycles annually across the Schlei inlet—a body of water barely 100 meters wide. Not exactly the English Channel. But alas, the Missunde II had a fatal flaw in the eyes of the virtue-signaling bureaucrats: it was powered by diesel. And we all know that diesel is the villain in our modern-day environmental morality play.

There was nothing wrong with the Missunde II, except that she ran on diesel, which as we know is an evil fuel destined to destroy the world; and that her diesel engines made noise, as diesel engines do. Thus the bureaucrats of the State Office for Coastal Protection decided some years ago to replace the old and reliable Missunde II with a newer, silent and much more environmentally friendly solar-powered ferry, to be named Missunde III. Their decision was entirely typical. The Office for Coastal Protection is subordinate to the Environmental Ministry of Schleswig-Holstein, and the Environmental Ministry is in the hands of an extremely bald man named Tobias Goldschmidt, who likes to talk about how he will make Schleswig-Holstein carbon-neutral – one ferry at a time.

The carbon-neutral Missunde III cost 3.3 million Euro, and she was finally delivered after various delays in January 2024. Unlike her filthy, noisy predecessor, the Missunde III has a glorious roof, to carry her precious solar panels aloft:
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/how-schleswig-holstein-sold-their

Enter the Green Bureaucrats

The geniuses at Schleswig-Holstein’s Office for Coastal Protection—subordinate to the grand Environmental Ministry—decided to replace the “dirty” diesel ferry with a solar-powered marvel of modern eco-engineering, the Missunde III. After all, who could resist a shiny new boat with solar panels on its roof, especially when it promises to save the planet, one ferry ride at a time? The cost? A mere 3.3 million euros. No big deal when you’re spending other people’s money.

The Missunde III, according to the planners, was going to usher in a new era of clean transportation across the inlet. No more diesel fumes or engine noise polluting the idyllic coastal landscape. Just the gentle hum of solar-powered motors quietly ferrying cars and bikes from one side to the other.

Or so they thought.

Reality Strikes: Solar Panels Don’t Like Wind

Reality has a funny way of upending even the best-laid plans, especially when those plans are designed more for PR than practicality. Turns out, the solar panels on the Missunde III were about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. The ferry’s fancy solar roof acted like a giant sail in the face of Schleswig-Holstein’s famously stiff coastal winds. Instead of gliding effortlessly across the Schlei, the Missunde III struggled. Its motors couldn’t handle the drag from the wind, and it took twice as long to make the crossing compared to its diesel-powered predecessor. Not only that, but the increased weight of the solar ferry put too much strain on its guidance cables, and it couldn’t even dock properly. It turns out when you let ideology steer your projects, you often end up in a ditch—or in this case, adrift in a river.

Thus the sun-powered Missunde III languished in harbour while people argued about how much environmental harm they should be allowed to inflict on the inlet to make her steerable. All the while, the automobiles that normally would’ve ridden the ferry across the Schlei had to take lengthy detours to the nearest bridge 30 kilometres away. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, and sometimes you have to increase carbon emissions while you wait for somebody to make your emissions-free ferry work.

https://www.eugyppius.com/p/how-schleswig-holstein-sold-their

Environmentalists Stuck in an Environmental Jam

Now, here’s the part where the absurdity really ramps up. In order to fix the Missunde III’s docking problems, authorities decided they needed to drive extra dolphins (marine piling structures, not the mammals) into the bed of the Schlei. But the Schlei is a protected nature preserve, which meant that installing the dolphins required soil assessments and permits, and all that bureaucratic rigamarole takes time. So instead of reducing carbon emissions, the environmentalist brain trust behind the Missunde III managed to increase them, as cars were forced to take a 30-kilometer detour while the ferry languished in the harbor, out of service.

The Return of the Outlaw Diesel

After months of costly detours, exasperated local officials demanded that the old, faithful Missunde II be brought back into service. But there was a hitch: The ferry had already been sold for the grand sum of 17,000 euros—a pittance for a vessel that had reliably served the community for decades. And wouldn’t you know it, making the Missunde II seaworthy again would require extensive renovations costing 1.8 million euros.

Authorities quietly sold the outmoded and embarrassing Missunde II for 17,000 Euro to some dim person who failed to grasp that diesel ferries are not the way of the future. The buyer perhaps regretted his purchase, because he left the poor boat moored in Maasholm, near the head of the Schlei, where she began to decay in the elements. Such is the necessary if cruel fate of technologically unadvanced and environmentally unfriendly watercraft.

But wait, it gets better. After realizing their solar-powered dream boat was a lemon, the same environmental bureaucrats who sold the Missunde II in the first place came crawling back to the buyer and bought it back for 100,000 euros—almost six times what they sold it for. Let that sink in. In the name of environmentalism, they wasted millions on a solar-powered ferry that doesn’t work, then had to spend a fortune to get the reliable old diesel ferry back into service.

Lessons Not Learned

As of September 2024, the Missunde III still isn’t operational. Engineers are trying to outfit it with additional bow thrusters to help it cope with the winds, but it’s anyone’s guess if or when it will ever see regular service. Meanwhile, the old Missunde II is back on the water, ferrying cars and bikes across the Schlei just like it did before this farcical green energy experiment began.

The Missunde II has been given a new permit to sail until 2028, because nobody believes that the hyper-advanced super-silent Missunde III will be up to the simple task of ferrying automobiles across 100 metres of water anytime soon.

And what has Schleswig-Holstein gained for its 3.3 million euros (plus another hundred thousand, plus almost 2 million for repair, to buy back the diesel ferry)? A nice rooftop of solar panels that would be better suited to a garden shed, a wind-sail masquerading as a ferry, and a reminder that virtue-signaling environmentalism often leads to nothing but wasted money and time.

The Moral of the Story

This fiasco is a perfect example of what happens when ideology trumps common sense. The green energy fanatics in government are so blinded by their obsession with cutting carbon emissions that they can’t see the forest for the trees—or in this case, the ferry for the sail. It’s not about actually solving problems or making things work better; it’s about feeling good about themselves and showing off their “green” credentials to the world, no matter how many millions of euros they flush down the toilet in the process.

Now it is September, and Missunde III is no closer to ferrying automobiles across the Schlei than she was in March. Among other things, engineers have decided she’ll have to be outfitted with additional bow thrusters to deal with the stiff currents. Thus the Office for Coastal Protection finally went limping back to the not-so-dim buyer who purchased the Missunde II for 17,000 Euros, and struck a deal to buy it back from him for 100,000 Euros. The Missunde II has been given a new permit to sail until 2028, because nobody believes that the hyper-advanced super-silent Missunde III will be up to the simple task of ferrying automobiles across 100 metres of water anytime soon.

The Missunde III debacle should serve as a cautionary tale to anyone who thinks the Green New Deal or Net Zero policies will usher in some kind of environmental utopia. More often than not, these projects are little more than expensive virtue-signaling exercises that do more harm than good. If this is the future of green energy, then God help us all.

HT/Fabius Maximus

UAH Global Temperature Update for September, 2024: +0.96 deg. C

The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2024 was +0.96 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up from the August, 2024 anomaly of +0.88 deg. C.

From Roy Spencer, PhD

October 2nd, 2024 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2024 was +0.96 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up from the August, 2024 anomaly of +0.88 deg. C.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.16 C/decade (+0.14 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.21 C/decade over global-averaged land).

The following table lists various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 21 months (record highs are in red):

YEARMOGLOBENHEM.SHEM.TROPICUSA48ARCTICAUST
2023Jan-0.04+0.05-0.13-0.38+0.12-0.12-0.50
2023Feb+0.09+0.17+0.00-0.10+0.68-0.24-0.11
2023Mar+0.20+0.24+0.17-0.13-1.43+0.17+0.40
2023Apr+0.18+0.11+0.26-0.03-0.37+0.53+0.21
2023May+0.37+0.30+0.44+0.40+0.57+0.66-0.09
2023June+0.38+0.47+0.29+0.55-0.35+0.45+0.07
2023July+0.64+0.73+0.56+0.88+0.53+0.91+1.44
2023Aug+0.70+0.88+0.51+0.86+0.94+1.54+1.25
2023Sep+0.90+0.94+0.86+0.93+0.40+1.13+1.17
2023Oct+0.93+1.02+0.83+1.00+0.99+0.92+0.63
2023Nov+0.91+1.01+0.82+1.03+0.65+1.16+0.42
2023Dec+0.83+0.93+0.73+1.08+1.26+0.26+0.85
2024Jan+0.86+1.06+0.66+1.27-0.05+0.40+1.18
2024Feb+0.93+1.03+0.83+1.24+1.36+0.88+1.07
2024Mar+0.95+1.02+0.88+1.35+0.23+1.10+1.29
2024Apr+1.05+1.25+0.85+1.26+1.02+0.98+0.48
2024May+0.90+0.98+0.83+1.31+0.38+0.38+0.45
2024June+0.80+0.96+0.64+0.93+1.65+0.79+0.87
2024July+0.85+1.02+0.68+1.06+0.77+0.67+0.01
2024Aug+0.88+0.96+0.81+0.88+0.69+0.94+1.80
2024Sep+0.96+1.21+0.71+0.97+1.56+1.54+1.16

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for September, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.

Lower Troposphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

Mid-Troposphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt

Tropopause:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt

Lower Stratosphere:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt

Mark Jacobson’s Big Lemon Gumdrops

It’s been quite awhile since I’ve posted about one of my favorite climate/energy subjects — Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson. Back when he dropped his lawsuit against Chris Clack and a bunch of other authors on a paper critiquing his work, I wrote a blog post profiling his legalistic mindset and concluding that he would be soldiering on. Well, he’s certainly been soldiering on and even putting his legalistic mindset to use.

From Climate Scepticism

By Mike Dombroski

It’s been quite awhile since I’ve posted about one of my favorite climate/energy subjects — Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson. Back when he dropped his lawsuit against Chris Clack and a bunch of other authors on a paper critiquing his work, I wrote a blog post profiling his legalistic mindset and concluding that he would be soldiering on. Well, he’s certainly been soldiering on and even putting his legalistic mindset to use. He testified in the Held v Montana climate lawsuit case which ruled that a bunch of Montana school children have a right to a safe and stable climate. You can read dueling expert witness PDFs between him and Judith Curry.

While Jacobson’s Clack lawsuit has set him back a bit, he still has lots of acolytes who quote his work, kind of like Michael Mann, but not to the same ridiculous extent. BTW Jacobson and Mann appear to be kindred spirits who quote and retweet each other. Back in 2021 Jacobson did a paper with Robert Howarth (Manhattan Contrarian profile) about blue hydrogen that got a lot of attention from people such as the Just Have a Think guy. Lately, if you manage to view his Twitter/X feed, you’ll see a lot of graphs that look like this:

The big yellow areas that look like gumdrops are California’s electricity demand that is supplied by solar. The left graph is percentages contained under a square red demand box. On the left side of both gumdrops are what look like little black dirt specs of a battery portion which is what they look like on most such graphs if they show up at all. But California is a rich state with determined green policies, so on the right side of the gumdrops they have grown into what might be called dust bunnies. The colored bands that blanket the gumdrops are hydro, wind and other renewable energy sources. All the fossil, nuclear and imported electricity is somehow mixed into the spacious upper white corners. I suppose with enough time, money and hieght added to the gumdrops, those dust bunnies can grow to cover that white space with, I dunno, a big moldy compost pile. All kidding aside, there is a lot of progress being made adding batteries to the grid which is probably a good thing as long as you’re not living next to a bank of them that catches fire. Apparently, one of them recently had a fire that lasted nearly two weeks.

These gumdrop graphs have been showing up at places such as the nearly dormant Rabett Run in this post by Brian Schmidt. Brian is a very civic minded Californian and some time ago he and I were contemplating making a bet over what proportion of California’s electricity would be generated by gas at some predetermined point in the future. Twitter/X advanced search doesn’t seem to go back that far and I don’t recall the exact details. I’m not a rich Californian so I chickened out. I offered to bet a case of his favorite craft beer, but he insisted on a more substantial sum. The bar graph on the bottom shows a significant drop in California’s gas share from 222.1 GWH/D in 2023 to 161.3 GWH/D in 2924 (March 7 to September 28) and I very likely would have lost. It’s not clear how much impact batteries will have on the grid. There will certainly be advances. Right now China is making EVs with sodium ion batteries that don’t offer very good energy per weight but may offer a significant cost advantage for the grid. Batteries, of course, still have to be charged and I would think that nuclear energy would be a more reliable and constant source than wind or solar.

In other Jacobson news, he recently wrote a letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal claiming that states with high proportions of renewable electricity have lower rates. Francis Menton of the Manhattan Contrarian noticed it and wrote a post on it. He came up with quite different numbers than Jacobson. As the main example, Jacobson found South Dakota getting 95% of its electricity from renewables and having the 9th lowest rates. Menton found it getting 77% and having the 22cnd lowest rate. He found the “publicly-available data for South Dakota are quite inconsistent and contradictory, but however you look at it they don’t come close to backing up Jacobson’s claim.” In a comment, I suggested that Jacobson might be counting only residential and not industrial users.

There’s one more thing I have to get in. Jacobson made a tweet where he said Florida should think twice about banning offshore wind. He quotes one of his studies about “taming hurricanes with arrays of offshore wind turbines”. It’s from 2014 and I’ve taken a brief look at it before and been suspicious of it. I just looked it over again and found the money shot! He has a table where he has various scenarios for several hurricanes where he blankets the Gulf of Mexico with about half a million 7 and a half MW offshore wind turbines:

Investors Beware Green Equipment Companies

Headlines promote renewable energy equipment companies as part of efforts to transition to Net Zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Wind and solar system providers, electric vehicle manufacturers, green hydrogen producers, and other green equipment firms form a growing share of world industry. But renewable equipment firms suffer poor market returns, so investors should beware.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Steve Goreham explains in his Heartland article Why Are Renewable Equipment Companies Such Poor Investments? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Headlines promote renewable energy equipment companies as part of efforts to transition to Net Zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Wind and solar system providers, electric vehicle manufacturers, green hydrogen producers, and other green equipment firms form a growing share of world industry. But renewable equipment firms suffer poor market returns, so investors should beware.

The Renewable Energy Industrial Index (RENIXX) is a global stock index of the 30 largest renewable energy industrial companies in the world by stock market capitalization. Current RENIXX companies include Enphase Energy, First Solar, Orsted, Plug Power, Tesla, and Vestas.

IWR of Germany established the RENIXX on May 1, 2006, with an initial value of 1,000 points. This month, the RENIXX stood at 1,013 points, essentially zero value growth over the last 18 years. In comparison, the S&P 500 Index more than quadrupled over the same period. The RENIXX is down three years in a row from 2021, losing about half its value.

Wind turbine manufacturers faced serious financial challenges over the last three years, even with rising sales. Rising costs, high interest rates, and project delays continue to impact the profitability of wind projects and equipment suppliers. The stock of Denmark-based Vestas Wind Systems, the world’s largest supplier, rose only 7% over the last 16 years, and its stock price has fallen 58% from a high in 2021. Vestas struggled to make a profit in 2022 and 2023 and suspended dividends to shareholders.

Other major wind suppliers have also been poor investments for shareholders. The stock of Siemens Gamesa, the number two turbine maker, is down 65% since a peak in 2021. Gamesa reported a loss of €4.4 billion in 2023 and received a €7.5 billion bailout from the German government that same year. Other top wind suppliers suffered major stock price declines since 2021, including Goldwind of China (down 77%) and Nordex of Germany (-36%).

Some 80% of the world’s solar panels are manufactured in China and the top six suppliers reside in China. The solar panel industry is beset by overcapacity and severe competition. Stock prices of the top seven suppliers have all declined by more than 50% since 2021. The stock of U.S. firm First Solar has risen since 2021 but remains below its all-time high price reached in 2008.

Tesla, which was founded in 2003, remained the only pure-play, publicly traded EV stock until 2018. By the end of 2021, Tesla’s value had soared to over $1 Trillion, boasting a market value more than Toyota, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, General Motors, Ford, BMW, and Honda combined. But Tesla is the exception.

But in most cases, electric vehicle (EV) companies have been very poor investments. Between 2020 and 2024, 31 EV companies went public on U.S. stock exchanges. Only one of these 31 companies, the Chinese firm Li Auto, saw its price rise since the initial public offering (IPO). Thirty EV firms saw their stock prices fall, most precipitously.

EV company price declines from the IPO price include Fisker (-99%), Nikola (-94%), NIO (-50%), Lucid Group (-75%), and Rivian (-88%). Six others of the 31 companies went bankrupt. Tesla and Chinese firms BYD and Li Auto are the only EV firms profitable today.

ChargePoint is the world’s largest dedicated EV charger company (behind EV manufacturer Tesla), with over 25,000 charging stations in the U.S. and Canada. ChargePoint went public in 2021 by merging with Switchback Energy Acquisition Corporation, valued at $2.4 billion. The firm’s value today is about $585 million, down 76% since 2021.  For fiscal year 2024, ChargePoint lost $458 million on revenue of $507 million.

It’s not clear that any charging company can make money. High-speed, 50-kilowatt EV chargers cost about five times as much as traditional gasoline pumps. Around 80% of EV charging is done at home, reducing the demand for public charging. ChargePoint, EVgo, Wallbox, Allego, and Blink Charging are all valued today at small fractions of their original IPO price. No EV charger firm is profitable, even after continuing to receive large government subsidies.

Plug Power is a leading supplier of hydrogen energy systems, including battery-cells for hydrogen vehicles and electrolyzers to produce green hydrogen fuel. Founded in 1997, the company went public in October 1999 at a split-adjusted price of about $160 per share.

But during its 27-year history, Plug Power has never turned a profit. According to financial reports, the firm lost $1.45 billion in 2024, up from a loss of $43.8 million in 2018. Its current stock price is under two dollars per share.

Traditional established firms are finding that renewable equipment can be poor business. In 2023, Ford lost $4.7 billion on sales of 116,000 electric vehicles, or over $40,000 per vehicle. General Electric’s wind turbine business lost $1.1 billion in 2023.

The U.S. federal government provided subsidies to renewable equipment companies of between $7 billion and $16 billion per year between 2010 and 2022. But the Cato Institute estimates that because of the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, subsidies will skyrocket to about $80 billion in fiscal year 2025.

Without the fear of human-caused climate change and
a rising level of government subsidies and mandates,
many of these green companies would not exist.

It’s doubtful that carbon dioxide pipelines, heavy electric trucks, offshore wind systems, green hydrogen fuel equipment, and EV charging stations would be viable businesses in unsubsidized capital markets.

During this last year, leading financial firms pulled back on their climate change pledges. Bank of America, JP Morgan, State Street, and Pimco withdrew from Climate Action 100+, which seeks to force companies and investment funds to address climate issues and adopt environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies.

But it’s difficult to invest in renewable equipment companies
when they are losing money.

Rounding Error: World’s Mega-Battery Power Contribution Measured in Minutes

Cornered with wind and solar’s hopeless intermittency, the cult cries “storage”, as some kind of crushing hex against the energy realists ready to tackle their delusional thinking.

The ideologue never lets the facts get in the way of radical, self-destructive policies, especially when it comes to energy.

From STOP THESE THINGS

Cornered with wind and solar’s hopeless intermittency, the cult cries “storage”, as some kind of crushing hex against the energy realists ready to tackle their delusional thinking.

The ideologue never lets the facts get in the way of radical, self-destructive policies, especially when it comes to energy.

The application of simple arithmetic is enough to kill off the notion that enormous banks of lithium-ion batteries can overcome the chaotic (and only occasional) production and wind and solar deliver us to our glorious wind and sun powered utopian future.

Countless $billions have already been thrown at giant batteries around the world, and – when they’re not bursting into impossible-to-extinguish toxic fireballs – their total contribution to the World’s energy supply remains positively risible – little better than a rounding error.

It’s a point picked up by Joshua Antonini in his response to a Wall Street Journal reader wedded to the idea that mega-batteries will fix it all, in a jiffy.

Better batteries won’t save the energy grid
Mackinac Centre Blog
Joshua Antonini
28 August 2024

A reader took the time to send a respectful response to the recent Wall Street Journal op-ed in which Jason Hayes and I discussed our new report on the threat to grid reliability in seven Great Lakes states.

This reader wrote:

You raise some interesting points. One clear solution is more storage. Renewable sources such as wind and solar often produce peak power at the wrong time of the day. Storage choices will expand over the next five to ten years and the cost will decline.

Another part of the mix should be small scale nuclear which is much safer and more sophisticated than the old nuclear plants of Three Mile Island or Fukushima days. Bill Gates’ Terrapower plant in Wyoming, which is on the site of an old coal-fired generation plant and employs some of the same workers, is an interesting model.

I saw a report that gas at the wellhead in parts of Texas has been reported to be selling for negative prices as oil producers are paying to have it piped away. This does argue for keeping some natural gas-fired power stations if the gas can be moved to them economically.

These are reasonable points to bring up, and we appreciate the thoughtful feedback. So here are some additional thoughts:

When it comes to utility-scale battery storage, unfortunately, doing so at scale encounters prohibitively high prices due in no small part to the inefficiency of the batteries and the relative scarcity of the minerals needed for the batteries. While it is true that the market works to improve prices and options, the fundamental issues of utility-scale storage remain: They store fartoo little at far too high a cost.

Energy analysis group Doomberg finds that battery storage is improving, but at a pace far below what we need:

According to projections from industrial research firm Wood Mackenzie, the US is set to add 191.6 gigawatt hours (GWh) of battery backup systems across residential, non-residential, and grid-scale installations between 2022 and 2026. This sounds impressive until you realize the US produced 4,116,000 GWh of electricity on the grid in 2021 alone. By our math, the Wood Mackenzie projection amounts to a grand total of 24 minutes of total backup capacity added to the system over the quoted five-year period. (Emphases in original.)

In addition, these batteries use critical minerals whose reliable extraction is increasingly costly and difficult. A report from the International Energy Agency (an organization very clear in its support of net zero) admits that “mineral demand for use in EVs and battery storage is a major force [of mineral demand increases], growing at least thirty times to 2040”

“A utility-scale storage system sufficient for [a] 100-MW wind farm would entail using at least 10,000 tons of Tesla-class batteries,” according to a report from the Manhattan Institute. In another report, the Manhattan Institute notes, “Barely two hours of national electricity demand can be stored in all utility-scale batteries plus all batteries in one million electric cars in America.” (Emphasis in original.)

Weather conditions in 2023 reduced wind generation to less than 1% of its capacity on June 6th that year, a representative from Southwest Power Pool, the electric grid operator for the Great Plains region, told a U.S. House Subcommittee. The wind turbines in that grid are rated to generate up to 32,000 megawatts of electricity but produced only 110 megawatts – that is, wind production fell to about one-third of 1% of its capacity. (He talks about this at a little after the 35-minute mark on the video.) German utilities have experienced this frequently in their leap to wind and solar, calling it “dunkelflaute.”

When this happens, to my knowledge, no battery system in existence has ever provided enough electricity to meet demand throughout the night. Despite all that we’ve built, battery backup lasts a matter of minutes, not the entire night. The battery backup lasts just long enough for natural gas plants to turn on and meet the supply that weather-dependent generation didn’t meet.

Battery storage is improving over time, but it would require a quantum leap to become genuinely viable in meeting current demand, let alone the demand of a growing economy.

On the point of nuclear energy, we are most certainly in agreement. Small modular reactors are promising developments, but traditional fission plants often get a far worse reputation than is fair.

“There were no acute radiation injuries or deaths among the workers or the public due to exposure to radiation resulting from the incident,” wrote the World Health Organization in its Fukushima report. Had the Fukushima plant’s backup generators not been built in at-risk, low-lying areas (which some scientists at the time opposed), there would never have even been a meltdown.

Nuclear plants have been providing France with a majority of its power for decades — cleanly, reliably, cheaply, and with no disasters to speak of. The country is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity.

On natural gas, as well, we agree. No serious plans for America’s energy future can exclude natural gas. It can ramp up quickly to meet surprise demand, it is energy-dense, it emits less carbon, and it is widely available at low prices. Natural gas is harder to transport than coal and vulnerable to supply chain issues, but policy changes can ameliorate these problems. The cost-benefit analysis shows natural gas to be a cornerstone of a reliable energy portfolio.

Even major innovations in batter technology would do little to mitigate the change to unreliable energy sources. The push to wind and solar is a shift from cheap, reliable, and energy-dense forms of power generation to subsidized, weather-dependent, less efficient forms of generation.

Wind and solar do not work as advertised by politicians, bureaucrats, and activists. The replacement of traditional thermal generation with less-dense, less-reliable energy is driven not by market demand or technological reality but by orders from capitol buildings around the country.

We get effectively nothing from this transition. The supply chains for wind and solar are dominated by China and other unfriendly nations. If the United States were able to achieve 100% renewable electricity generation and ban fossil fuels entirely, that would, using the IPCC’s own MAGICC modeling, lower global average temperatures by nine-tenths of one tenth of one degree Celsius in 2100. The cost-benefit analysis shows we would end up crippling our grid for nothing.

I hope that you find this information helpful and convincing. Jason Hayes and I discuss the topic further in the report mentioned in the Wall Street Journal op-ed. Thank you for your response as well as for your time and attention.
Mackinac Centre Blog

Germany Risks being Left behind…Big Tech Confirms CO2 Neutrality Only Possible With Nuclear Power

Germany’s green movement was propelled mainly by activists opposed to nuclear power in the 1980s and 90s. Since then, Germany has shut down its entire fleet of nuclear power reactors and is struggling to keep the lights on with renewable energy, mainly wind and sun.

From NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 1. October 2024

Germany’s green movement was propelled mainly by activists opposed to nuclear power in the 1980s and 90s. Since then, Germany has shut down its entire fleet of nuclear power reactors and is struggling to keep the lights on with renewable energy, mainly wind and sun.

Today German activists are focused on shutting down the remaining fossil fuel power, which in a normal world would make nuclear power attractive again. But not for the fundamentalist enviro-nutjobs. However, they may need to give in if they want to continue enjoying the amenities of the modern digital world and smartphones.

Blackout News here reports. “After Oracle and Microsoft, Google also plans to power its data centers with nuclear power.” apparently, wind and sun just don’t make the grade. CO2-neutrality just won’t be possible without nuclear power.

“Google’s leadership confirms the company is working on large-scale data centers that require over 1 gigawatt of electricity. Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google and Alphabet, spoke last week at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh about the potential use of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) for power generation,” reports Blackout News, citing powermag.

According to reports, Google is currently forming a team to research alternative energies without CO₂ emissions and plans to use small modular nuclear reactors to power its AI data centers.

“We are now working on data centers with over 1 gigawatt of power. Two years ago, we wouldn’t have imagined that, and all of that requires energy,” said Pichai in Pittsburgh.

Today, many of Google’s data centers operate on a basis of about 90 percent CO2-free. But 100% won’t be possible without nuclear, it appears.

Pichai said he sees money going into SMRs …for nuclear energy and that he’s optimistic about the medium to long term energy needs being met.

As AI expands, so is the interest in data centers, which require enormous amounts of power to operate. Oracle CEO Larry Ellison plans to invest more than 10 billion dollars in building data centers and Microsoft aims to restart the reactor at the decommissioned Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania to meet the energy requirements for AI.

“Microsoft last week said it wants to restart a reactor at the shuttered Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania to power its AI needs. The company in January said a demonstration project in Wyoming, as part of a collaboration with Caterpillar and Ballard Power, showed how hydrogen fuel cells can provide power for a data center,” reports powermag here.

Amazon Web Services plans to buy power from the 2.5-GW Susquehanna nuclear plant for its nearby data center campus.

Big Tech’s move to nuclear energy to power its data centers show that green energies like wind and sun alone cannot meet the energy needs of our modern digital world.

Read entire article at powermag.

No, Media. Hurricane Helene was not Worsened by Climate Change

Hurricane Helene made landfall on Friday Sept 27th in Florida as a Category 4 storm and then made its way inland, dumping large amounts of rain followed by flooding.  Predictably, many media outlets immediately rushed to blame climate change for this particular storm and its damage. These claims are false. Data shows there is no climate signal over the past 50 years of hurricane activity either worsening intensity or creating more frequent hurricanes.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

Hurricane Helene made landfall on Friday Sept 27th in Florida as a Category 4 storm and then made its way inland, dumping large amounts of rain followed by flooding.  Predictably, many media outlets immediately rushed to blame climate change for this particular storm and its damage. These claims are false. Data shows there is no climate signal over the past 50 years of hurricane activity either worsening intensity or creating more frequent hurricanes. Additionally, historical records show that flooding such as was seen from this storm has happened in the same areas before.

This is the second time this week Climate Realism is covering this particular storm, but the claims from the media are extensive and worth debunking more than once. Here’s a sampling of some of the headlines. The Hill wrote, “How climate change is intensifying storms like Hurricane Helene.” Yahoo news claimed, “Helene shows that hurricanes in the age of climate change don’t wreck just coastlines,” while The Guardian opined, “‘Nowhere is safe’: shattered Asheville shows stunning reach of climate crisis“. The Associated Press (AP) chimed in with, “Helene and other storms dumped a whopping 40 trillion gallons of rain on the South.” Even the Mayor of Tampa, Fl, Jane Castor, jumped on the climate alarm bandwagon by declaring in a CNN interview, “I don’t know that there’s anyone that anyone can deny the effects of climate change on the sheer power of the storms we’re seeing now.”

All of these claims ignore actual data and historical records. They also ignore the unique meteorological (not climatological) circumstances that created the potential for more rainfall and flooding.

First it needs to be said that weather events are not climate events. Weather operates on vastly different timescales than climate does.

Second, the claims of climate change worsening storms such as Helene just don’t hold up when actual data is examined. For example, meteorologist Ryan Maue, Ph.D, who is quoted in the AP story noted above maintains a running plot of “Accumulated Cyclone Energy” which tracks how much power is actually in hurricanes on a month-by-month basis, seen in the figure 1 below, updated through 2024.

Figure1: Last 50-years+ of Global and Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy: 24 month running sums. Note that the year indicated represents the value of ACE through the previous 24-months for the Northern Hemisphere (bottom line/gray boxes) and the entire global (top line/blue boxes). The area in between represents the Southern Hemisphere total ACE.

He writes on his research page:

Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.

So much for the Mayor of Tampa’s claim that “I don’t know that there’s anyone that anyone can deny the effects of climate change on the sheer power of the storms we’re seeing now.” The actual data denies your claim.

If climate change were in fact making such storms as Helene more powerful, it would show up in the ACE plot, but it doesn’t.

Further, meteorological science says there is no linkage between climate change and hurricane. A page on the topic maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory clearly states there no strong evidence for such claims:

Finally, climate science itself says there is no connection between climate change and hurricane strength or frequency. In Table 12.12  on Page 90 – Chapter 12 of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report. Emergence of Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs) in time periods, shows no indication of a connection in the present, nor in the future. The color in the table corresponds to the confidence of the region with the highest confidence: white colors indicate where evidence of a climate change signal is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal. Note the colors for Tropical Cyclones in the table screencap below:

As mentioned in Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes, the IPCC’s AR6 WG1 report, released in August 2021, the IPCC noted, “Identifying past trends in TC [tropical storm] metrics remains a challenge,” a statement that essentially admits scientists have yet to identify a solid measurable upward trend in the data.

The media and uninformed politicians such as Tampa’s Mayor Castor seem to conveniently forget the recent past. The United States recently went more than a decade (2005 through 2017) without a major hurricane—a hurricane measuring Category 3 or higher—making landfall. That is the longest such period in recorded United States history. If climate change was worsening hurricanes, such a drought of hurricanes wouldn’t have been possible.

Clearly, despite the hyped-up media claims, data, science, and history all show their claims of climate change affecting hurricanes to be completely untrue.

But what about the claims that Helene’s huge rainfall and subsequent flooding was caused by climate change? Meteorologist Chris Martz gave a complete analysis of the weather event on Twitter. Some excerpts:

I will take a moment to explain the meteorology behind the floods in North Carolina [and Tennessee]. The precipitation analysis for the last two-days [from 12z today] reveals that over a foot of rain has fallen in the Appalachians. This amount of rain in such a short amount of time, regardless of land topography, results in widespread [and often devastating] inundation.

The reason you see 14-18 inches of rain [purple / pink contours in the image below] along the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge [mountains] is because of strong mountain-enhanced orographic lift. [in the second figure below] As moist parcels of air in the bands of Helene rotated counterclockwise through the region, they were then dynamically lifted to supersaturation on sloped terrain causing excess vapor to condense and precipitate out. On the leeward side in Tennessee, there was a bit of a rain shadow effect due to downslope flow, so rainfall totals were lower. This is what happens on the Hawaiian Islands on just about a daily basis.

So, a combination of the storm and local terrain made rainfall heavier in the mountains near Asheville, NC like it always does. Climate had nothing to do with it.

And, history shows us this sort of heavy rain resulting in flooding around Asheville North Carolina has happened before. Here are some photos of a newspaper story and a photo of Asheville, NC from July 17th, 1916 when a major flooding event occurred:

The challenge for the media and politicians is to explain how such a catastrophic flooding event occurred in Asheville before climate change ever became an issue, and the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide (said to increase climate change and storms supposedly driven by it) was far lower than today.

They can’t. Instead, they would prefer to stick with a popular narrative claiming a “climate crisis” caused this storm and the subsequent damage rather than pay attention to data, science, and history which says the complete opposite. This is wildly wrong, and beyond simple ignorance, it is journalistic and political malfeasance.

Ed Miliband faces growing legal threat over pylons roll-out

Ed Miliband is facing a growing legal threat from a string of councils over his decision to unleash a wave of electricity pylons across Britain.

Local leaders in Essex, Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk have said the Energy Secretary will “wreck” their landscapes by rolling out vast swathes of green energy infrastructure.

Council leaders warn energy infrastructure will ‘wreck’ countryside

Ed Miliband is facing a growing legal threat from a string of councils over his decision to unleash a wave of electricity pylons across Britain. 

Local leaders in Essex, Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk have said the Energy Secretary will “wreck” their landscapes by rolling out vast swathes of green energy infrastructure. The Telegraph has the story.

They claim that their countryside will be disproportionately affected by the rollout, which they say will scare off tourists and ruin farmland. 

As a result, all four have warned that they will launch a High Court challenge to block Mr Miliband’s plans.

It comes after the Energy Secretary recently vowed to “take on the blockers” who oppose the Government’s clean energy proposals, claiming that defeating Nimbys on net zero was a matter of “national security”. 

However, a growing backlash is beginning to take shape. 

Colin Davie, Lincolnshire’s executive councillor for planning, said: “Thousands of people are already objecting to Mr Miliband’s plans to ruin our countryside.

“He has already approved solar farms across 10,000 acres of high quality Lincolnshire farmland, with many more set to be covered in concrete for national grid pylons and substations,”

“And we have another 24 energy projects in planning which are so large they are deemed to be of national importance – meaning Mr Miliband makes the decisions rather than local people. We have a flat rural landscape which is going to be ruined forever by these massive turbines, pylons and solar farms.”

The joint move by four major local authorities is reminiscent of the backlash against renewables seen 10 years ago when David Cameron’s government tried to pave the way for new wind farms across England. 

However, the fury those plans generated later forced his government to row back on plans and impose an effective ban on onshore wind. 

One of Mr Miliband’s first moves as Energy Secretary was to lift that ban, meaning thousands of turbines are now expected to be built across England.

They will be in addition to a flood of new electricity pylons, which are integral to the National Grid expanding its system as the country moves away from gas. 

The new pylons will carry electricity from Scottish wind farms to England’s southern cities.

These will run through all four of the counties pursuing the prospective legal challenge, although protests are likely to arise along other pylon routes. 

Criticism will intensify given that planned new power lines will make the surrounding area ideal for new wind and solar farms by providing them with easy connection points.

Developers are already targeting Lincolnshire with planning applications for 11 large-scale solar farms, while applications for onshore wind farms are also expected. 

Read the full story here.

The whys of the hurricane season so far

The Impact “Scoreboard” so far has us at a record tying amount of hurricanes that have hit the US thru September 4th.  The record for the total season is 6. But what has not happened is the orgy of numbers that I had in the preseason ( and was lowered to 15-20 with the September 3 update) Keep in mind the numbers game is a red herring.

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

The Impact “Scoreboard” so far has us at a record tying amount of hurricanes that have hit the US thru September 4th.  The record for the total season is 6. But what has not happened is the orgy of numbers that I had in the preseason ( and was lowered to 15-20 with the September 3 update) Keep in mind the numbers game is a red herring. My mandate for clients and emphasis is on showing before hand where the storms are going, the why before the what and that is doing very well as you can see below:

On our power and impact scale, Alberto, a non-US landfalling tropical storm received a .5 for its impact on the Texas coast. Beryl was 1.9 for the US, Debby 1.7 for its gulf impact, and .5 for the southeast coast. Francine 1.9 for its gulf impact. A non-named event received .7 based on ACTUAL WIND and a landfalling closed rotary circulation that in many other years would have been named. Helene received a 4 for its Gulf impact and 1 for its impact on the Atlantic coast. The scale does not take into account rain, just the storm power and impact ranking at its closest approach ( or in most cases, landfall).

To review why this is superior to Saffir Simpson, both in the total power of the storm and to better objectively quantify the storm and put it into perspective as far as its place in history, Saffir Simpson is a spot wind speed at the center of a storm. A dime-sized dynamo like Charley does not quantify nearly the total power of the storm vs Ian which was larger, or the biggest of them all to hit Florida, Donna in 1960 Why should all 3 be a 4? Charleys hurricnae force winds, for instance, one of the metrics, only extended out 15 miles. Ian was more like 50. Donna was over 150. So my scale uses Sea level pressure, Maximum wind ( like Saffir Simpson) but  the extent of 64kt, 50 kt snd. 34 kt winds with a formula to come up with a rating for total power of the storm. That total is divided by 5, but then a PRESSURE TENDENCY factor is used. If pressures are rapidly rising as the storm comes to the coast, the category is reduced. If falling it is enhanced. The physical reason for that is an intensifying ( weakening) hurricane will have the proper set up up to bring the strongest winds to the surface (. not allow the strongest winds to come to the surface). With intensifying storms for instance, over 90% of the flight level wind may make it to the surface. Weakening storms may be as low as 50%. Idalia, which rapidly weakened the last 10 hours before landfall had no evidence of damage of winds to cat 3 levels. Same with Lili in 2002. Storms like Ida and Charley that were still deepening and the amount of wind maintained inland with Helene showed they by and large lived up to their power and impact ratings. But each of those ratings were not the exact same as the other strength of my scale is it can be used in tenths. Why should a storm that is 5 mph from being a category higher be listed as the lower category? Even with the outdated Saffir-Simpson scale. the National Hurricane Center should go to tenths.

But this will also eliminate the nonsense we heard after Helene that storms are getting bigger. That is not true. It’s the opposite. The size of storms has decreased and the average ACE/storm has decreased. But of course, climate people who don’t actually forecast the weather will be happy to say the opposite, apparently clueless or deceptive on the size of hurricanes in the past.

In any case, the current season has a total impact score of 12.2 which is fourth place since 1995 behind 2020.2005 and 2004.

But why did the season come out of the gate strongly but disappear in mid-season? And was climate change ( not man-made) involved?

To understand this, we must look at the vertical velocity patterns. From early July into August there was a favorable vertical velocity pattern that resembles most closely in the means a phase 2 of the Madden Julian oscillation.

MJO phase correlation

8/1/2/3 are the highest impact phases of the MJO

8/1

2/3

Helene occurred in phase 8/1

and went right where the correlation said it would ( red area). notice how those correlations continue inland.

But during the middle of the season, we were in unfavorable phases

phases 4.5..6.7 are unfavorable and this is phase 4/5

landfall impact is way down

This happened at the heart of the season. And Climate change likely played a role. How so?

Well it was extremely warm in China and the NW Pacific at the heart of the season. This likely led to the MJO, due to the increased vertical velocities and lowering of SLP, slowing down in those phases that favored the upward motion over Asia.

Look at the sea level pressures for this period this year:

vs 2005. high pressure all over the place:

temperatures were near to below normal in 2005:

nothing like this year:

Look at the difference in SST 2005:

this year:

Now I want to ask you a question  Where do you see anyone taking the time to explain this kind of stuff to you? Or show how weather on the other side of the world may be impacting your weather here.

I wrote this on Sept 3rd:

https://www.cfact.org/2024/09/05/updated-hurricane-forecast-additonal-big-impact-still-expected

Since then we have had the 2 strongest hurricanes of the season and an unnamed tropical storm hit the US.

This tweet first went out Sept 8 but was put out over 100 times after warning Gov De Santis and the SE governors what was coming the last week of September.

I simply lined up that pattern that was coming with past patterns, most recently 2022.

Why was I so bold? Because cooling, both seasonally and in the means was going to occur to allow the MJO progress into the favored phases mid Sept into October. This happened in 2022 also. And so it did:

China is cooling considerably both in the seasonal aspect and the deviations vs normal.

( btw may see a major cool outbreak in the eastern US by Columbus Day).

Is climate change responsible? Yes to some extent The lack of numbers, but the high impact on the US coast means the distorted warming chickens are coming home to roost. When you warm areas away from the tropical oceans too much it distorts the pattern needed for tropical cyclone production. We have been seeing this in the Pacific basin. Look at how warm the water is:

Globally this is one of the lowest Ace years on record. And its likely because of the distortion of warming I have written about this many times so I am not going to rehash it but this has led to weaker-than-average vertical velocities over the tropical oceans, a reduction of clods and a compensating increase of the tropical land masses from southeast Asia to Africa.

If the function of tropical cyclones is to take heat out of the tropics and redistribute it, if its already being done, whats the need?

And the ability of CO2 to warm the oceans with it only able to penetrate a mm of the ocean surface means as I have opined in over 15 blogs here, it is likely the geothermal spreading of the last 35 years and the redistribution by the thermohaline circulation that has led to what you see above, vs what it was below when that increase started.

Do you realize if that’s right an entire cottage industry built around arguing over this, plus the whole world governance idea that stems from all this, is on the ash heap of wrong ideas? This is an interesting quote supposedly from Upton Sinclair.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

In any case I hope this helps you understand the hurricane season so far. And the late activity is a sign the MJO, like 2022, has more in store ( including perhaps later this week or early next week). And the implication is that it may roll back around into these phases in December, which in winter, promotes cold weather. We saw that in December of 2022 after the late hits that year.

Notes and Asides. Starting Sunday, Oct 6th I will be hosting a 1-hour weather based radio show called the “Wise Guys of Weather” on AM970 The Answer in NYC. Going to have some fun as well as try to get out in front of weather and climate events and show people how they may be affecting them in the upcoming weeks from driving your car and buying groceries to market and hedge funds, And of course we will be trying to make sure people see both sides of the issue in any weather event. So if you can, tune in.

Going to be fun. After all, we should enjoy the weather, its the only weather we got.