Day: November 11, 2024

Death Valley Temperatures, Part 3: Twelve Years of July Daily Tmax Estimates and the 134 deg. F Record

In Part 1 I claimed that using stations surrounding Death Valley is a good way to “fact check” warm season high temperatures (Tmax) at the Death Valley station, using a correction for elevation since all surrounding stations are at higher (and thus cooler) elevations.

From Roy Spencer, PhD

November 11th, 2024 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In Part 1 I claimed that using stations surrounding Death Valley is a good way to “fact check” warm season high temperatures (Tmax) at the Death Valley station, using a correction for elevation since all surrounding stations are at higher (and thus cooler) elevations. In July of each year, a large tropospheric ridge of high pressure makes the air mass in this region spatially uniform in temperature (at any given pressure altitude), and daily convective heating of the troposphere leads to a fairly predictable temperature lapse rate (the rate at which temperature falls off with height). This makes it possible to estimate Death Valley daytime temperatures from surrounding (cooler) stations even though those stations are thousands of feet higher in elevation than Greenland Ranch, which was 168 ft. below sea level.

Lapse Rates Computed from Stations Surrounding Death Valley

If I use all available GHCN daily stations within 100 miles of Greenland Ranch (aka Furnace Creek, aka Death Valley N.P.) in each July from 1911 to 2024 to compute the month-average lapse rate (excluding the Death Valley stations[s]), I get the results in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Lower tropospheric temperature lapse rate estimated from all stations within 100 miles of Greenland Ranch, Death Valley, CA. The number of available stations for these calculations range from several in the early years to 25 or more in the later years. Here I will assume a constant lapse rate of -0.004 during the 20th Century. The 4th order polynomial fit to the data would be another way to assume how the lapse rate changes over time.

The computed lapse rates in all years fall between the dry adiabatic value and the U.S. standard atmosphere value. Given the few stations available in the early years, I will base the calculations that follow on an assumed lapse rate of -0.004 deg F per ft. for the first half of the record, and will assume that the observed steepening of the lapse rate after the 1980s is real, with a value of -0.0048 deg. F per ft. in the early 2020s. In Part 1, I used the actual values in Fig. 1 in each year to estimate Death Valley temperatures. This time I’m using average lapse rate values over many years, keeping in mind the early decades had few stations and so their values in Fig. 1 are more uncertain.

Daily Estimated July Tmax at Death Valley: 2021-2024

How accurately can we estimate daily Tmax temperatures in Death Valley from surrounding high-elevation stations? The following plot (Fig. 2) shows how the July daily observed Tmax temperatures in Death Valley (2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, orange for Death Valley N.P.) compare to estimates made based upon surrounding, high-elevations stations (blue), assuming a lapse rate of -0.0048 deg. F per ft (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 2. Daily estimated July Tmax temperatures for Death Valley N.P. from surrounding stations (blue) compared to those observed (orange, 194 ft. below sea level) for 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024.

In each year the daily estimates from surrounding stations (blue) are reasonably close (within a couple of degrees) to the observed values at both Death Valley N. P. (orange) and at the nearby station Stovepipe Wells. For example, on July 7, 2024 the observed “near record” value of 129 deg. F degrees agrees well with the lapse-rate estimated value of 128 deg. F. Note there were many (27 of 28) stations within 100 miles of Death Valley available to make these estimates during these years.

Daily Estimated July Tmax at Death Valley: 1935-1938

Next, let’s travel back to the 1930s, when there were fewer stations to do these estimates (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Daily estimated Tmax temperatures for Death Valley during 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938 from surrounding stations (blue) compared to those observed at Greenland Ranch (orange, 168 ft. below sea level) and Cow Creek (grey, 151 t. below sea level).

Despite only having 7 or 8 stations from which to estimate Death Valley temperatures, the agreement is still reasonably good in 1935, with no bias between observed and estimated, but 1-3 deg. F bias at Greenland Ranch vs. estimated in the following 3 years. There are also a few low temperature outliers in 1937-38 at Greenland Ranch and Cow Creek; I don’t know the reason for these.

Daily Estimated July Tmax at Death Valley: 1912-1915

Finally we examine the period in question, when the 134 deg. F world record temperature was recorded on July 10, 1913 (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Daily estimated Tmax temperatures for Death Valley during 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915 from surrounding stations (blue) compared to those observed at Greenland Ranch (orange, 168 ft. below sea level).

During these years there were only 3 to 7 stations from which to compute Death Valley Tmax. In 1912, despite only 3 stations, the reported temperatures averaged only 3 deg. F above those estimated from surrounding stations. But in 1913 (the year of the record) the observations averaged an astounding 9 deg. F warmer than the surrounding 5 stations would have suggested. On July 10, the excess was 15 deg. F!

That second week of July 1913 was indeed unusually hot, and it was during this time that the ranch foreman responsible for making the temperature readings from an official instrument shelter provided by the U.S. Weather Bureau apparently penned a letter expressing dismay that the USWB measurements were so much cooler than those measured by a separate thermometer on his veranda. This has led William T. Reid to speculate (and I agree) that the ranch foreman (Fred Corkill, foreman from 1911 to 1925) replaced the official values with values that more accorded with the heat he was feeling on his veranda, which would likely have elevated temperatures from the sun beating down on the roof of the veranda.

So, How Much Hot Bias Exists in the 134 deg. F “World Record”?

We will never know exactly how much warm bias exists in the world record value. But from comparison to the biases in 1912 and 1914, I would say 9 to 12 deg. F is a reasonable estimate.

Of course, this might be adjusted somewhat if one assumes a slightly different lapse rate than the -0.004 deg. F per ft. I have assumed here (see Fig. 1). For instance, what if the air mass on July 10, 1913 had an exceptionally steep lapse rate, such that an even greater adjustment for elevation needed to be made to estimate the hot temperature in Death Valley? If I use use the lapse rate estimated from the 5 surrounding stations on July 10, 1913 (see Fig. 5), that lapse rate value is indeed “steeper”, at -0.0053 deg. F per ft. But if we use that value to estimate the Death Valley temperature, it is still 10 deg. cooler than the 134 deg. F recorded value. This is still within the 9 to 12 degree bias range I mentioned above.

Fig. 5. The world record value of 134 deg. F (red) is 10 deg. F warmer than that suggested by the surrounding higher-elevations stations’ temperature variations with elevation.

Conclusion

The 134 deg. F world record hottest temperature from Death Valley is likely around 10 deg. F too high, compared to elevation-adjusted temperatures from surrounding stations. The most likely cause is that the ranch foreman’s reported measurements were (we shall say) unacademically recorded. I find it rather remarkable that the world record hottest temperature from Death Valley was not revised many years ago, since the methods for “fact checking” the record are fairly simple, and based upon meteorological principles know for well over 50 years.

Mad Miliband

How on Earth did this moronic idiot ever get near the levers of power?

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

How on Earth did this moronic idiot ever get near the levers of power?

Britain’s wind generation is set to plummet to virtually zero this week as Ed Miliband presses ahead with plans to increase the nation’s reliance on renewable energy.

Much of the UK has seen zero hours of sunshine this month, and the first part of this week will see already-light winds hit fresh lows in many areas, according to Met Office forecasters.

The dark and windless weather comes as Sir Keir Starmer and Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, fly to the UN climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, to pledge massive cuts in UK greenhouse gas emissions.

They are expected to pledge to cut CO2 emissions by 240m tonnes, or 60pc of their 2022 levels, by 2035.

They will also confirm plans to “decarbonise” the UK electricity system by 2030, by ending the use of the UK’s 32 main gas-fired power stations.

Sir Keir’s speech, expected on Tuesday, coincides with a record “dunkelflaute” spell of low winds and sunshine that have already slashed output from renewables.

Wind speeds are expected to fall again this week, making gas more essential than ever to keep the lights on.

“Many of our weather stations have recorded zero sunshine so far this month,” said a Met Office forecaster. It’s very unusual.”

Those weather stations are spread across the southern UK, with zero sunshine readings from Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, Ross on Wye, near the Welsh borders, St Athan, west of Cardiff, Liscombe in Devon and Wittering, near Peterborough.

The Met Office said: “Monday and Tuesday will see unusually light winds. There’s an area of high pressure across the UK and Europe which makes for very settled and calm weather.”

Weather readings and forecasts have become increasingly important for UK power generation because of growing reliance on wind and solar.

Over the last week solar generated just 0.7pc of the nation’s electricity and wind just 10.6pc, according to grid data.

By contrast, on sunny and windy days renewables have generated more than 87pc of UK power needs.

Neso, the UK’s National Energy System Operator, which runs the grid, expects the UK to have its first periods of complete decarbonisation, when no gas is needed, in 2025.

However, such data also underscore the problem of intermittency, with the grid needing some means of supplying low carbon power all the time, not just when the wind is blowing.

Mr Miliband said the UK’s willingness to pledge such massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions was a sign of “climate leadership.”

He said: “The only way to protect our children and future generations is by leading global climate action. At the Cop29 climate talks, we will work with other countries to step up ambition on tackling the climate crisis.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/10/britain-wind-power-fall-zero-miliband-prepare-cut-gas-use

I’ve run out of words to describe this idiot. But here are some of the Telegraph’s commenters’:

Farmers warn Labour’s net zero ‘fertiliser tax’ will push up food prices

Labour has been accused of dealing another Budget blow to farmers with its so-called “fertiliser tax”.

In the Budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed plans to introduce a levy on key agricultural imports such as fertiliser in order to meet net zero goals.

Money bag and farm field background. Lending and subsidizing farmers. Grants, financial support. Agribusiness profit . Land value valuation. Land tax. Agricultural startups. Secured loan. Investments

Chancellor accused of dealing further blow to British agriculture following inheritance tax raid with ‘under the radar’ carbon levy

Labour has been accused of dealing another Budget blow to farmers with its so-called “fertiliser tax”.

In the Budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed plans to introduce a levy on key agricultural imports such as fertiliser in order to meet net zero goals. The Telegraph has the story.

The carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), due to begin in 2027, will tax carbon-emitting imports such as fertiliser, cement, aluminium and products from the hydrogen and steel industries.

It comes amid outrage over the Chancellor’s £1 million cap on agricultural property relief, nicknamed the “family farm tax”, also introduced in the Budget.

The carbon tax on fertiliser is expected to be set at around £50 to £75 per tonne.

Government sources said they expect the impact on farmers to be modest and for there to be no effect on food prices.

But farmers disagree, warning it could hurt business and feed through to supermarket shelves.

David Walston of Thriplow Farm, a 900-hectare family farm, told The Telegraph’s Daily T podcast that the carbon tax on fertiliser had been introduced “under the radar” compared to the controversial changes to agricultural property relief.

Read the full story here.

‘It’s Gonna End on Day One’: GOP Lawmakers, Fishermen Urge Trump to Keep Promise to Axe Offshore Wind

Critics of the offshore wind industry are calling on President-elect Donald Trump to keep his campaign promise of ending federal support for offshore wind on his first day in office.

From Watts Up With That?

The Daily Caller

Adam Pack
Contributor

Critics of the offshore wind industry are calling on President-elect Donald Trump to keep his campaign promise of ending federal support for offshore wind on his first day in office.

Trump’s return to the Oval Office may deal the problem-riddled offshore wind industry another blow if his administration follows through on his pledge to scrap federal support for offshore wind projects during his second term. Republican lawmakers, opposed to heavily subsidized green energy, and commercial fishermen, who view the industry as an existential threat to their livelihoods, are calling on the president-elect to follow through on his campaign’s promise, which could imply ending federal subsidies and lease sales for the industry. (RELATED: Biden Celebrates Offshore Wind ‘Progress’ Despite Industry’s Major Struggles, Cancellations)

“We are going to make sure that [offshore wind] ends on day one. I’m gonna write it out in an executive order,” Trump told a crowd of his supporters at a campaign rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, on May 11. “It’s gonna end on day one.”

Since January 2021, the Biden-Harris administration has approved ten offshore wind projects at commercial scale and conducted six offshore wind lease sales, including one held just last week in the Gulf of Maine that was criticized by the commercial fishing industry as part of President Joe Biden’s wider climate agenda. Offshore wind has notably suffered from inflation headwinds, project cancellations and souring public opinion despite the Biden administration’s embrace of the industry.

“I have no doubt that a second Trump administration will do the right thing for Americans by scrapping the Biden-Harris offshore wind agenda,” Republican New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a vocal critic of the offshore wind industry, told the DCNF. “These projects are a burden on our economy, harm local communities and are nothing but a political payoff to special interests. President Trump understands that true energy independence and prosperity come from American oil, gas, solar and especially nuclear energy, through a balanced energy policy — not from wasteful wind projects that put our economy and environment at risk.”

“I think it’s a very wise decision,” Republican Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, told the DCNF. “We are wasting money, and the worst part is that all that money is going to foreign wind companies because there are no American wind companies. They’re all foreign companies that are making billions of dollars off the American energy ratepayer.”

The Vineyard Wind energy project, jointly owned by a Danish investment firm and a Spanish utility, earned Republican lawmakers’ ire in July when debris from one of the project’s turbine blades — which stretches longer than the Statue of Liberty — washed up on Massachusetts’ beaches after breaking apart and falling into the ocean.

Scenes from the @fishstewardship flotilla protest at the Vineyard Wind farm today. pic.twitter.com/iVFpGHasYd

— Nantucket Current (@ACKCurrent) August 25, 2024

“We should never allow foreign owned companies to control our energy supply — much less harm our environment while doing it,” Harris wrote on X.

The New England Fisherman’s Stewardship Association (NEFSA), a commercial fishing industry group that organized a “flotilla protest” at the site of the broken Vineyard Wind turbine in August, is calling on the Trump administration to walk back on Biden’s goal of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030. The group is also advocating for the incoming Trump administration to “delist unleased wind energy areas” off the coast of New England and the mid-Atlantic.

NEFSA CEO Jerry Leeman told the DCNF that he’s optimistic that the Trump administration will be “a voice of reason” on offshore wind, which he claimed would be a welcome departure from the previous administration, whom he accused of prioritizing green energy goals over fishermen’s livelihoods and the health of the marine environment. (RELATED: ‘We’ve Been Steamrolled’: Fishermen Protest Offshore Wind Following Turbine Failure That Shed Debris Into Atlantic)

“The incoming administration has an historic opportunity to save American workers from foreign developers, reinvigorate iconic coastal towns, and improve America’s food security,” NEFSA CEO Jerry Leeman said in a press release following Trump’s election win.

The Trump administration may also seek to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act subsidies that offshore wind projects are eligible for, which could make the industry’s continued growth off the Atlantic coast not as economically viable, according to Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute.

“I would expect the prospects of offshore wind to dim once the subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act are repealed,” Fischer told the DCNF. “The high cost of offshore wind is unavoidable. State and federal subsidies can mask the cost by shifting it to the tax base, but ultimately either ratepayers or taxpayers will bear the significantly above-market cost of offshore wind in the states that mandate it.”

Offshore wind developers and wind turbine makers’ stock prices substantially decreased on Wednesday following news of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris’ defeat the previous night.

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request to comment from the DCNF.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Green Blues…As Fog Persists For Days In Germany, Green Energy Output Falls To Near Zero!

At 5 p.m. last Wednesday, Germany’s 1602 offshore wind turbines in the North and Baltic Seas stood still…solar output was also near zero. Germany had to scramble to keep supply going. 

From NoTrickZone

By P Gosselin

At 5 p.m. last Wednesday, Germany’s 1602 offshore wind turbines in the North and Baltic Seas stood still…solar output was also near zero. Germany had to scramble to keep supply going. 

The enemy of green energy: the high pressure system

By KlimaNachrichten

In the words of Professor Claudia Kemfert: It is a myth to believe that solar and wind do not provide enough electricity. The myth that there will be enough wind and sunshine somewhere in Europe was shattered at the beginning of November 2024. Daniel Wetzel describes the situation in the online Die Welt (pay article)

At 5 p.m. on Wednesday, solar power was only supplying a single megawatt hour. The 1602 offshore wind turbines in the North and Baltic Seas – each one the size of the Eiffel Tower – were at a complete standstill. Zero electricity production.

The onshore wind turbines produced only 114 megawatt hours at that hour, with German electricity consumption at 63,000 megawatt hours. Transmission system operator Amprion described the situation on the LinkedIn web portal on Thursday: ‘The minimum feed-in from wind and PV was just around 100 megawatts in total (in the period from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.).’

This means that the 87,000 megawatts of photovoltaic capacity and around 72,000 megawatts of wind power installed in Germany with triple-digit billion-euro subsidies were virtually unused for hours on end. There was no danger to the power supply, it was said. ‘No sun, no wind – yesterday and today there was a dark doldrums in Germany,’ explained Amprion on Thursday: ‘But our system management had everything under control.’”

Without the fossil power producers and foreign countries, things would have looked bad. A situation that was to be expected – but was consistently smiled away. Instead, graphics of the annual cycle were waved around to show that sun and wind would complement each other perfectly.

The fatal thing about the situation is the prices. Fossil power generation has been made politically more expensive and in times of shortage, prices really go through the roof. Die Welt added:

The peak prices of the past week are possibly just a harbinger of what is to be expected in the coming winter. The expert agency “Montel” quotes energy market experts who expect price peaks of 1000 euros per megawatt hour in the event of further wind lulls. This is because in times of low wind power production, increasingly expensive gas-fired power plants have to step in, which then define the market price level.

Traders interviewed by “Montel” also referred to the German nuclear and coal phase-out, which has reduced the base load-capable power plant capacity that can produce regardless of the weather. The imminent onset of the autumn and winter cold in Europe is also likely to drive up prices. This is because France in particular will then see a sharp increase in its own consumption, as many heating systems in the country are powered by electricity. The surge in demand for electricity in France is likely to further increase the relative shortage on the European Power Exchange and thus drive up prices.”

Poland Brings Country’s Largest Gas-Fired Power Plant Online

While Miliband puts our energy security at risk, Poland are building new gas plants

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

While Miliband puts our energy security at risk, Poland are building new gas plants:

State-owned PGE, the largest power producer in Poland, said the 1,366-MW PGE Gryfino Dolan Odra power station has entered commercial operation. The facility is now the country’s largest gas-fired power plant.

Officials on Nov. 8 said the station will supply about 5% of Poland’s electricity. PGE officials said the plant is “one of the most modern in Europe.” The investment “will strengthen Poland’s energy security and ensure a stable energy supply for more than 3 million households,” Dariusz Marzec, PGE’s CEO, said during Friday’s launch ceremony.

Miłosz Motyka, the country’s deputy climate minister, said the new facility will “not only have a direct impact on the stability of the electricity system, i.e. on security, but is also another step in the transformation of our economy.”

“Gas investment is a very important part of the energy transition and the move towards climate neutrality,” said Robert Kropiwnicki, deputy minister of state assets. “We are constantly expanding the RES [renewable energy] system.” Kropiwnicki noted, though, that renewables “need parallel stable energy sources working as a base, and at the moment there is no more flexible capacity than gas capacity.” Renewable energy accounted for about 26% of Poland’s power generation in 2023.

Poland in the past week needed to import energy from neighboring countries, including Germany, Sweden, and Ukraine as a lack of wind led to a decline in energy production from wind turbines, according to Business Insider Polska.

https://live-powermag.pantheonsite.io/poland-brings-countrys-largest-gas-fired-power-plant-online

When it Comes to Energy Performance Certificates, Landlords Just Can’t Win

Just imagine, as a Daily Sceptic reader, temporarily going insane and buying into the rental market. Next, imagine going even more insane and pouring your savings (or increasing your mortgage) into trying to kit out your rental properties so that they gain the highest possible Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) in a nod to the U.K.’s fixation at pouring astronomical sums down the eco plughole. You’d soon wish you’d never been born

From The Daily Sceptic

By Sallust

Just imagine, as a Daily Sceptic reader, temporarily going insane and buying into the rental market. Next, imagine going even more insane and pouring your savings (or increasing your mortgage) into trying to kit out your rental properties so that they gain the highest possible Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) in a nod to the U.K.’s fixation at pouring astronomical sums down the eco plughole. You’d soon wish you’d never been born

That’s what the Telegraph’s Secret Landlord has done, but came a cropper when trying to improve a Victorian flat:

At great expense, I’ve carried out internal wall insulation and upgraded the electric storage heaters in my one-bedroom Victorian flat (I’d already fitted double glazing years ago).

There’s no gas and, given it’s a flat, no way to do something fancy with solar panels or heat pumps, so I elected to purchase two high heat retention storage heaters, which cost £2,500 with the installation.

I chose these top of the range models because I was assured they would help me achieve the hallowed EPC ‘C’ rating, which rented properties are required to have by 2030, up from the current grade ‘E’.

The assessor had already told me I only needed one heater to improve the score, but as I also wanted to improve the quality of a tenant’s life, I bought an extra – rather than a panel heater, which I could have done without lowering the EPC rating.

Having also installed lovely wooden flooring, I called the assessor and asked him to revisit the property. I still had a couple of years left on the old certificate, but wanted to get it done now to show potential tenants the new enhanced ratings.

Imagine my surprise when the certificate came back with a ‘D’, just one grade higher than it was previously.

Cue angry phone call.

“I did what you said, why have I not got a ‘C’?”

“You didn’t install 50mm insulation under the floor.”

“But it’s got floorboards, plyboard, insulated underlay and then wood flooring – surely that’s enough?”

“I’m sorry, Secret Landlord, you needed to insulate under the floor.”

“But,” I said, “I’ve been doing research on this and I worry it may rot the joists, there’s a fear it may breach the damp proof course and cause other issues.”

“They don’t care about that on the EPC.”

“So, what am I going to do?”

“I suggest you either rip up the floor and insulate, or accept the ‘D’. They’re changing the software in January, so you may be better off just doing it now.”

“Sorry, what?” I exclaimed.

At this point the conversation moves from the absurd to a Kafkaesque nightmare. The assessor continued:

“Yes, from January we have to measure all the windows, say what direction they’re facing and list the age. Electric heating will also potentially get downgraded because the new update includes heating costs and electric is more expensive to run. To be honest, I don’t understand why the Government is pushing heat pumps because having them could potentially lose you up to 11 points.”

“OK, so you’re essentially saying we’re having a window tax by the back door and the electric revolution they’re pushing is going to penalise me?”

“It’s a mess. The new tests will take double the time so the costs of an EPC will go up, I also wouldn’t be surprised if many assessors quit – loads left during the Green Deal.”

“OK,” I said, reeling from this new information. “What is it I should do?”

“Well, if you lower the ceiling by 400mm that will give you three extra points, you do have very high ceilings.”

Cue insane laughter. So insane, the assessor had to cut across my guffaws.

“But honestly, I don’t think the Government will stick to the ‘C’ grade, I think they’ll lower it to ‘D’. Also, they may drop that metric altogether as it’s measuring the wrong thing – it’s not in line with carbon reduction, and that’s what they’re trying to do.”

The Secret Landlord is thus left thousands out of pocket chasing an EPC rating being carried as fast as possible up the pitch attached to a pair of goalposts operated by mutating software. Even heat pumps turn out to be a liability.

The EPC is exposed as a pointless farce. The Conservative government proposed a £10,000 (previously £3,500) cap on landlords’ spending on an EPC upgrade. If that spending wasn’t successful in improving a landlord’s EPC rating, he or she could apply for an exemption. But the Telegraph points out that in almost every instance the real cost of ‘improving’ a property is far higher than 10 grand – in some cases almost four times. Difficult to imagine how you’d ever get the money back.

Worth reading in full.

Climate Colonialism’s Role in Nigeria’s Blackouts: A Manufactured Energy Crisis

Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, has found itself repeatedly plunged into darkness. In 2024 alone, the country’s national power grid has collapsed ten times, leaving millions without electricity. The most recent blackout, triggered by weak infrastructure and sabotage, underscores an enduring energy crisis that hinders economic growth and development. But beneath the surface lies a critical question: why hasn’t one of the world’s most resource-rich nations been able to build a resilient energy system?

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, has found itself repeatedly plunged into darkness. In 2024 alone, the country’s national power grid has collapsed ten times, leaving millions without electricity. The most recent blackout, triggered by weak infrastructure and sabotage, underscores an enduring energy crisis that hinders economic growth and development. But beneath the surface lies a critical question: why hasn’t one of the world’s most resource-rich nations been able to build a resilient energy system?

https://www.the-express.com/news/world-news/154053/nigeria-power-grid-outage-november

The answer lies in a combination of internal challenges and external pressures—most notably, the influence of climate colonialism, where global financial institutions and wealthy nations dictate energy policies that prioritize carbon reduction over human development.

A Nation in the Dark

Despite having over 200 million people, Nigeria’s energy system is woefully underdeveloped. The country has the capacity to generate up to 13,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity, but weak infrastructure allows for the transmission of only 4,000 MW. This is less than 0.02 MW per person—barely enough to power basic household appliances. To fill the gap, households and businesses generate an estimated 40,000 MW using costly, gasoline-powered generators​.

This overreliance on small-scale generation is neither efficient nor sustainable. Yet international financing for large-scale fossil fuel infrastructure—such as natural gas-fired power plants—has dried up. Instead, funds are increasingly directed toward renewable energy projects that fail to meet Nigeria’s baseload energy needs.

International Pressure: A Recipe for Crisis

In recent years, wealthy nations and global institutions have adopted aggressive decarbonization policies, with a growing refusal to fund fossil fuel development in poorer countries. This policy shift disproportionately affects nations like Nigeria, which lack the financial resources to replace fossil fuels with expensive renewable technologies.

For example:

These restrictions come at a time when Nigeria is desperate to modernize its grid. Renewable energy sources like wind and solar, while useful for localized power generation, cannot replace the reliability of fossil fuels for baseload power. Worse still, attempts to accelerate a renewable transition have backfired. Solar panel installations, for instance, have proven difficult to maintain, with failure rates exceeding 30% in certain regions within five years.

Blackouts and Sabotage

Compounding the crisis is the physical vulnerability of Nigeria’s grid infrastructure. Armed groups frequently vandalize transmission lines, exacerbating the already fragile system. Just last month, insurgents disrupted power to the northern regions for over a week.

This raises a bitter irony: while international policymakers insist on eliminating fossil fuels to combat suppose climate change, Nigeria continues to burn more diesel—a more carbon-intensive fuel—just to keep the lights on. As it stands, diesel generators account for nearly 20% of Nigeria’s carbon emissions. This misguided approach highlights the failure of climate colonialism to achieve its purported environmental goals.

The Geopolitical Hypocrisy

Developed nations’ climate mandates for the Global South are fraught with hypocrisy. While countries like Germany reopened coal plants in 2023 to address energy shortages, they preach renewable-only policies to developing nations. Similarly, China, the world’s largest coal consumer, continues to fund its industrial growth with fossil fuels while promoting solar exports to Africa.

Such policies not only stall Nigeria’s development but also entrench global inequalities. By forcing developing nations to rely on unreliable and expensive renewables, wealthier countries maintain their industrial advantage.

The Way Forward

Nigeria’s energy crisis is emblematic of the broader challenges facing the Global South. To address this, several measures are needed:

  1. Invest in Fossil Fuels for Baseline Power
    Nigeria must reject one-size-fits-all solutions imposed by external actors. Natural gas, a relatively clean fossil fuel, offers a practical pathway for stabilizing the grid while minimizing emissions.
  2. Strengthen Domestic Infrastructure
    The government should prioritize modernizing transmission lines and securing them against sabotage. A decentralized energy approach, blending fossil fuels with localized renewables, could also improve resilience.
  3. Challenge International Policies
    Developing countries must band together to demand reforms in global financial institutions. Institutions should recognize that a phased energy transition is essential for countries facing acute energy poverty.
  4. Embrace New Technologies
    Technologies like modular nuclear reactors should be explored for energy generation. These should be explored alongside other diversification strategies.

Conclusion

The blackouts crippling Nigeria are not merely technical failures; they are the direct result of a global energy agenda that prioritizes ideology over pragmatism. By imposing stringent anti-fossil fuel policies, wealthy nations and international organizations effectively bar Nigeria from leveraging its own resources to lift millions out of poverty.

For Nigeria, the path forward must involve rejecting externally imposed solutions and embracing a development-first approach to energy policy. Only by asserting its right to define its own energy future can Nigeria escape the darkness of climate colonialism and unlock its true potential.