New Study: Bangladeshโ€™s Coast Has Expanded Seaward By 2677 Square Kilometers Since 1990

Another alarmist sea level rise/coastal flooding narrative collapses under the weight of observational evidence.

From NoTrickZone

Byย Kenneth Richard

Another alarmist sea level rise/coastal flooding narrative collapses under the weight of observational evidence.

In 1989, the year the U.N. assembled what was to become the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a โ€œsenior U.N. environmental officialโ€ย warnedย that world leaders, or politicians, needed to enact policies to โ€œsolve the greenhouse effectโ€ by the year 2000. If governmental policies were not implemented to reverse the global warming trend within ten years, โ€œentire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels.โ€

Image Source:ย AP News

A concerning regional setting at the time was Bangladesh, a country with 90 million people residing near coastal areas. The warning specified that โ€œone-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourthโ€ of its coastal population (20-25 million people).

But the alarmist warnings were, of course, wildly wrong. The opposite has happened.

A new study, utilizing remote sensing and geographic information system data, finds the total land surface of Bangladesh has expanded from 134,382 kmยฒ in 1990 to 137,656 kmยฒ by 2022, a 3,274 kmยฒ net increase in land area.

The vast majority of this land area expansion has been the consequence of receding relative sea levels along the coasts and synchronous seaward coastal land growth.

In 1990, the Bangladesh coasts measured 17,653 kmยฒ along the Bay of Bengal. By 2022, the Bangladesh coasts had expanded to 20,330 kmยฒ, a 2,677 kmยฒ (13.2%) seaward coastal expansion.

Not only have coastal populations not been displaced by rising sea levels, now thousands of more square kilometers of land is above sea level. Bangladeshโ€™s population has swelled to 173 million (2023).

Image Source:ย Shahid et al., 2024

Coastal land area growth has been occurring not just in Bangladesh, but satellite data reveal that since the 1980s โ€œthe coasts are growing all over the worldโ€œ.

A sample reef island in the Coral Triangle (between SW Sulawesi and the Strait of Makassar) shows โ€œoverall shoreline advance has led to a total island area of nearly 23 ha, indicating an increase of ~13% over the last 24 yearsโ€ (Kappelmann et al., 2024).

A comparison of how relatively smaller the island was in 1897 vs. 2023 (lower right image) demonstrates how much more land area is above sea level today than 125 years ago in this region.

Image Source:ย Kappelmann et al., 2024

Deltaic regions are home to over 40% of the worldโ€™s mangroves. And now another new study indicates โ€œ80% of the mangrovesโ€™ shorelines are expanding seawardโ€ from 1986 to 2020.

โ€œWe found that the total area of mangrove forests display a significant gain with average change rate of 80.8 ha/yr during 1986-2020.โ€

โ€œFurther, the mangrove forest shorelines present an expansion rate of 18.9 m/yr over the past 35 years.โ€

Image Source:ย Dai et al., 2024

The alarmist narrative claims global warming means โ€œentire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levelsโ€ in the 21st century. Observations do not support this alarmist narrative.

COP29: Confronting narratives and absurdities at climate summit (Part I)

There is no shortage of โ€œdenialismโ€ among climate alarmists

From CFACT

By Peter Murphy

There is no shortage of โ€œdenialismโ€ among climate alarmists

Baku, Azerbaijan

There is no shortage of contradictions and la-la-land thinking at United Nationsโ€™ annual climate summits, and COP29 in Azerbaijan is no exception. Consider just a sampling below, both from news accounts (Part I) and on-the-ground encounters (Part II to follow).

The host country president, Ilham Aliyev, extolled the blessings of oil and gas as a โ€œgift of God,โ€ even as his minister of Ecology and Natural Resources, Mukhtar Babayev, also the COP29 President, the day before screamed climate alarm.

Argentina, the worldโ€™s eighth largest nation with the 23rd largest economy, on day 3 of COP20, pulled the plug on its participation and ordered its delegates home. Evidently, Argentine President Javier Mileu has had enough of this participatory folly.

Heads of state among the worldโ€™s largest nations are eschewing COP29 as well, including China, India, Russia, France, and Germany. They are just not that into it. For the United States, outgoing President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, both of whom attended previous COP meetings, were wise to save the jet fuel since both are now lame ducks. Bidenโ€™s senior climate fanatic, John Podesta, did show up to reassure the summit that the cause continues in the U.S., tout Bidenโ€™s record, and regurgitate junk science; but, he will follow his boss out of power in January.

Much has been written, including by me, about how Donald Trumpโ€™s imminent return to the U.S. presidency would cast a dark cloud on this yearโ€™s climate summit. No doubt the senior UN bureaucrats and developing nations are concerned about the likelihood the new administration will shut off the climate money spigot.

But, among the 50,000 summit attendees (a figure I heard disputed as too high), the beat nonetheless goes on. Their lives revolve around existential climate change in the bubbles of NGOs, government bureaucracies, media, foundations and universities. It also amazes me how many thousands of people who attend these COP meetings wander the facility or park themselves to look at their phones without bothering with sit through the multiple sessions. And, there will still be billions of dollars made available for climate โ€œmitigationโ€ and โ€œadaption,โ€ so most will stay employed in this lucrative climate industry, even without U.S. taxpayer largess.

That means the ongoing climate denialism of COP29 will continue, that is, denial about the inability of mankind to alter the natural, ongoing vicissitudes of climate change.

Cold, Hungry, Mass Unemployment, No Cars, Blackoutsโ€“Welcome To Starmerโ€™s Dystopianย Future

Starmer has just confirmed at COP29 that the UK will formally aim to cut emissions by 81% from 1990 levels by 2035. This means a cut of 65% from current levels.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

 Starmer has just confirmed at COP29 that the UK will formally aim to cut emissions by 81% from 1990 levels by 2035. This means a cut of 65% from current levels.

This is in line with the CCCโ€™s call last month, which I analysed here.  As I noted then, the emission savings made so far have been low-hanging fruit, albeit expensive fruit! It will though get progressively harder as time passes.

Many of the non-CO2 GHGs have already been cut substantially, meaning that much bigger cuts will have to be made to CO2. We can build more wind farms, but canโ€™t get away from the fact that power only accounts for about 10% of emissions now, so massive cuts will be needed elsewhere.

And all this is just the start. Within another 15 years, we are supposed to have no emissions at all.

Back in 2020, an organisation called UK FIRES published their honest assessment of how we could get to Net Zero. UK FIRES is a research programme sponsored by the UK Government, tasked with supporting a 20% cut in the UKโ€™s true emissions by 2050 by placing Resource Efficiency at the heart of the UKโ€™s Future Industrial Strategy.

I covered their report โ€œAbsolute Zeroโ€ at the time here. Since then nothing has really changed โ€“ we have no new technologies with which to address the problem, there is a limit to how much we can rely on intermittent wind and solar power, EVs and heat pumps still remain unaffordable and impractical, and people want more of everything, not less.

The stark analysis laid out by UK FIRES is still true.

This was how their report began:

Below is what I wrote back then. Everything I said is still true.


To many people, โ€œsaving the planetโ€ means little more than building wind farms, planting trees and using less plastic. However it is gradually beginning to dawn on the public that the impact on their lives will be substantial.

Even then though, things like scrapping gas boilers and moving to electric cars have been something that โ€œwonโ€™t happen for decades, so why worry now?โ€

However a new study, sponsored by the UK Government, has warned that huge changes to our lifestyles will be necessary, and much sooner than we think, if zero emission targets are to be met.

The report by UK FIRES, called Absolute Zero, calls for all UK airports to be shut by 2050, because there are no practical alternatives for zero emission flight. But as part of this timetable, all airports other than Heathrow, Glasgow and Belfast must shut by 2030.

In a stroke, air travel will be effectively banned for most of the country, as Heathrow simply would not have the capacity to handle more than a small proportion of demand. (Heathrow currently carries a quarter of UK passengers).

But that is just one item on a long list of changes to be forced on the British public. The report concludes that we cannot bank on technological innovations coming to our rescue.

If you thought that we could simply rely on renewable energy, forget it. As UK FIRES points out, even with rapid growth of renewables, we will still need to cut our energy use by 40%, even before air travel and shipping are factored in. And all of this without accounting for the projected population increase.

So forget about electric cars being the solution, because we will not have enough electricity to power them. The recommendation from UK FIRES โ€“ have 40% less cars on the road. Their suggestion โ€“ use the train more, ignoring the sky high prices, the fact that railways offer very limited routes and how you are supposed to travel around when you get to your destination. The idea that we will all willingly give up our cars to travel by rail or bus is utterly naive.

The report also conveniently ignores the high carbon dioxide footprint in building electric cars in the first place.

Heating is another area where we must cut emissions. UK FIRES expect us to buy heat pumps, seemingly oblivious to the fact they will cost each household a good ยฃ10k more than our conventional boilers. They also donโ€™t appear to realise that heat pumps are incapable of supplying the heat we need in the middle of winter, or that the power grid simply could not cope with that sort of spike in demand even if they could.

Or maybe they do! Their guidance includes using heating for less time, in fewer rooms and wearing warm clothes in winter.

Our diet does not escape either, as we will have to give up eating beef and lamb, not to mention frozen ready meals. While we are expected to rely on arable farming instead, they also want fertiliser use to be drastically reduced.

Meanwhile the construction industry is likely to grind to a halt, as cement is phased out. Unfortunately the actual making of cement releases emissions, regardless of the source of the energy used.

Forget about housebuilding, new hospitals and infrastructure, they want us to concentrate on retrofit and adaptation of existing buildings.

Ironically, as even the report admits, we donโ€™t know how to install new renewables or make new energy efficient buildings without cement.

If all of this was not bad enough, they want to ban all imports by 2050, unless they can come via rail, which might be a problem given that we are an island! Of course, we donโ€™t have zero emission freight ships at the moment, and are unlikely to in the foreseeable future.

Quite how we are expected to feed ourselves without importing food is a mystery, unless we return to 1940s style rationing. And you can forget about all of those other things get from abroad now.

What about, for instance, computers and electronics? We will quickly become an international backwater, without access to the latest technology. It would be like the country returning to 1990s style Nokia phones, VHS and floppy discs!

Some may be substituted by UK made goods, but it is hard to see how industrial capacity could be built back up with the restrictions planned on construction, energy use and industrial emissions.

But it is not only the emissions from shipping which concerns the authors. They also say we must be responsible for all emissions from the production of imported goods.

So how, you might ask, are we supposed to live in this glorious, emission free future?

UK FIRES says we must not worry! We can apparently carry on doing the things we enjoy most, totally emission free. Things like sports, social life, eating, hobbies, games,computing, reading, TV, radio, volunteering and sleeping! According to the report, โ€œwe can all do more of these without any impact on emissions.โ€

Indeed, with the economy and industry destroyed, most of us will have much more time on our hands for these pursuits! (Climate scientists and bureaucrats excluded, naturally).

Nowhere in this dismal little report is there any acknowledgement of the fact that the UK only generates 1% of global emissions. The report starts by stating:

We have to cut our greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050: thatโ€™s what climate scientists tell us, itโ€™s what social protesters are asking for and itโ€™s now the law in the UK.

Wrecking the economy is not something we should do, just because a few eco-loon protestors are asking for it. And laws can, of course, be changed.

We must however thank the authors of this report for bringing home the very real and damaging effect that the mad rush to decarbonise will have on peoplesโ€™ lives.

And, as they have rightly stated, these changes will have to start being put into practice very soon, certainly during this decade.

For too long, the impact and cost of the Climate Change Act has been deliberately hidden from the public. Partly this has been the result of a political conspiracy between all of the major political parties and establishment in general. It has also been aided and abetted by all of the media, with a handful of notable exceptions.

But their dirty little secret cannot be covered up for much longer.

The Global Catastrophic Risk Assessment โ€“ in Two Charts

โ€œIn 2022, Congress passed the Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act (GCRMA). ย The GCRMA requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to coordinate an assessment of global catastrophic and existential risk in the next 30 years.โ€

From Watts Up With That?

News Brief by Kip Hansen

โ€œIn 2022, Congress passed the Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act (GCRMA). ย The GCRMA requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to coordinate an assessment of global catastrophic and existential risk in the next 30 years.โ€

Now, the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC) has produced this assessment. In reality, the report is produced by a unit of the RAND Corporation:  โ€œRANDโ€™s Homeland Security Research Division (HSRD) operates the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC)โ€.

The report,  titled simply โ€œGlobal Catastrophic Risk Assessmentโ€, focuses on risk associated with six topics:

1) artificial intelligence,  2) asteroid and comet impacts, 3) nuclear war, 4) rapid and severe climate change, 5) severe pandemics, and 6) supervolcanoes.

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. writes about the governmental report on his substack under his title โ€œGlobal Existential Risksโ€.   Pielke Jr.โ€™s piece is well worth reading in its entirety, but is summarized, for readers here,  in one excerpted chart from the full RAND-produced report followed by Pielkeโ€™s summary chart.

Read Pielkeโ€™s whole piece here.

# # # # #

Authorโ€™s Comment:

I mostly agree with Pielke Jr.  And, yes, this section is longer than the main post.

AI will not become โ€œsentientโ€ and threaten mankind โ€“ it may cause havoc if allowed to direct or control anything whatever :   AI is neither intelligent nor rational, it cannot tell truth from error, fact from fiction, and, like your five-year old, is perfectly happy just making things up and passing them off as reality. 

Supervolcanoes are geological โ€“ they could and might also cause vast destruction but will not represent existential or globally catastrophic risk.

It is commonly believed that comet or asteroid strikes have occurred in the past and are a possibility โ€“ the risk depending on the size.  And, nuclear (atomic) weapons have been used and could be again.  A widespread all-out nuclear war would have the potential to be globally catastrophic and even existential. 

Intentionally or accidentally super-lethalized disease agents could wipe out humanity โ€“ or enough of humanity to force us back into the stone age.  It wouldnโ€™t take too much of a reduction in population for us to lose our advanced technological abilities.  Even the smartest of us could not start from step zero and produce computer chips or cell phone services or manufacture vaccines.  

So, what risks should our governments and think tanks be focused on? 

Hint:  not climate change.

Thanks for reading.

# # # # #

Wind Power Disappears in Germany andย UK

We relied heavily on imports, which averaged 18% of total supply. But winds were also light across Germany and the Low Countries. Could we rely on getting electricity from Europe when they too have shut most of their fossil fuel plants down?

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

As we know, there was not much wind about last week. In particular, between Nov 1st and 7th wind supplied only 7% of power in Britain:

We relied heavily on imports, which averaged 18% of total supply. But winds were also light across Germany and the Low Countries. Could we rely on getting electricity from Europe when they too have shut most of their fossil fuel plants down?

During that same period, wind power in Germany dropped to dangerously low levels. On the 6th, for example, wind was supplying just 1% of Germanyโ€™s electricity, as low as 1 GW. The country has about 70 GW of wind power capacity, which means that on most days that week, wind was running at less than 1% of capacity.

We can forget about solar power in Germany or elsewhere in Europe, as they are not going to store it for us to use in early evening. And as the chart shows, Germany was getting most of its power from coal and gas during that week.

Other countries like Belgium, Holland and Denmark will have experienced similar issues with wind power.

Even if we, Germany and the others triple wind capacity, it would make little difference. Three times nothing is still nothing.

And we cannot all rely on nuclear power from France and hydro from Norway โ€“ there is simply not enough to go round.

Meanwhile the blind carry on leading the blind!

Kids Get Enough Climate Propaganda Already, News4Jax, They Donโ€™t Need More

A recent article posted at a Jacksonville news affiliate website, โ€œNews4Jax,โ€ suggests that kids TV shows should push more climate propaganda and environmentalist content in order to โ€œempowerโ€ them to act on those issues. This is just advocating for yet more activist content, of which there is already plenty. Young people are already largely afraid of the future, and this will not help.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

A recent article posted at a Jacksonville news affiliate website, โ€œNews4Jax,โ€ suggests that kids TV shows should push more climate propaganda and environmentalist content in order to โ€œempowerโ€ them to act on those issues. This is just advocating for yet more activist content, of which there is already plenty. Young people are already largely afraid of the future, and this will not help.

The article, โ€œToddlers and TV: Making screentime matter for children concerned about climate change,โ€ quickly introduces the idea that a majority of kids are scared about their futures because of climate change. News4Jax writes that a recent survey found โ€œ54% of children are fearful about what climate change will mean for their future,โ€ and goes on to say that television shows โ€œcan be a powerful tool for fostering environmental awareness.โ€ The post quotes an educational scientist from the University of Rhode Island who explains how kidsโ€™ shows can be used as vehicles for a particular message, and can even make kids โ€œfeel like collectively they can do things to help our earth,โ€ or in other words, encourage them to engage in climate activism.

If the goal is to assuage kidsโ€™ fears about the future, however, hitting them with yet more climate alarm propaganda is not going to help.

Climate Realism has covered how the media is largely to blame for anxiety and fear surrounding climate change, in posts here, here, and here, among others. The media and educators already are constantly telling kids that the planet is facing an existential threat in climate change, and that their futures are uncertain unless massive world-spanning action occurs to stop it. When that action does not happen, kids become understandably despondent. What makes this so sinister is the fact that the Earth is not, in fact, in existential danger because of the modest warming of the past century or so. Nor is it in danger of becoming unlivable, as the media likes to claim.

Kids are already bombarded with this kind of alarmist language. The news their parents watch and the news that gets pushed to feeds on social media are all constantly filled with climate change related content, tying every bit of less-than-pleasant weather to climate change, as this website constantly covers and refutes. In schools, climate alarmism can be promoted in every single classโ€”including even physical education or gym classโ€”as was the case in certain schools in New Jersey. This kind of bombardment starts on kids as young as elementary school, which the media lauds. Multiple generations of kids have now grown up being told that their future is doomed.

Further, a recently released U.S. Department of Homeland Security report on existential risks finds that climate change does not fall into that category and explains that activists and media enablers making such claims are expressing worldviews, not science.

In reality, climate related deaths are down 99 percent over the past hundred years, world undernourishment is dropping, and the earth is actually becoming more lush with plant life. Extreme weather is not getting worse, either, and neither are wildfires.

Kids do not need yet another source of climate misinformation and alarm in their lives, they already have far too much exposure to it. News4Jax should be more skeptical about this kind of cheerleading for climate content, especially since as a media outlet, they are themselves a major source for kidsโ€™ and adultsโ€™ unreasonable anxiety about climate change.

Renewable Transition Raw Materials Challenge

The Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Finland โ€œpublishes the results of scientific research that is thematically or geographically connected to Finnish or Fennoscandian geology.โ€ย ย Bulletin 416 Special Issueย publishes two articles by Simon P. Michaux that are of interest to anyone concerned about challenges of the transition away from fossil fuels.ย 

From Watts Up With That?

Roger Caiazza

The Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Finland โ€œpublishes the results of scientific research that is thematically or geographically connected to Finnish or Fennoscandian geology.โ€  Bulletin 416 Special Issue publishes two articles by Simon P. Michaux that are of interest to anyone concerned about challenges of the transition away from fossil fuels. 

The Preface to the Bulletin explains the purpose of the report:

The two contributions published in this Special Issue of the Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Finland highlight that a successful transition to renewable energy requires a comprehensive raw materials strategy that considers both the upstream metal demands and the downstream infrastructure needs. In technological and innovation space, exploring alternative battery chemistries, improving recycling rates, and developing more resource-efficient technologies will be crucial to mitigating the strain imposed on metal supply chains.

The earlier work of the sole author of these two papers has been widely quoted, debated, and criticized in the media and amongst policy makers and academic audiences in the past few years. The premises, process, and conclusions of these studies have questioned the validity of some of the basic assumptions underlying the current energy and natural resource policy, but have still, largely mistakenly, been taken as a statement in favor of the status quo. On the contrary, these contributions are intended as the beginning of a discourse and attempt to bring alternative, often overlooked, views into the discussion about the basic assumptions underlying the material requirements of the energy transition. Out of necessity, they make simplifications in recognizing and mapping out the scale of some key challenges in the raw materials sector that need to be overcome if the energy transition is to be realized. Calculations and estimations need to be refined and, naturally, in addition to raw materials production and the material transition, other crucial aspects such as technology and infrastructure development, workforce requirements, land use changes, and societal impacts, among others, also need to be considered.

Nevertheless, the challenges related to the complex and interconnected nature of the problem should not be taken as a cause to halt the development and innovation needed to overcome it. Further research, policy interventions, and international collaboration are all essential in securing sustainable supply chains, promoting responsible sourcing practices, and ensuring a just and equitable green and digital transition for everyone.

Scope of the Replacement System

The reference to the first article is:

Michaux, S. P. 2024. Scope of the replacement system to globally phase out fossil fuels. Geological Survey of Finland, Bulletin 416, 5โ€“172, 50 figures, 51 tables and 10 annexes.

The Abstract states:

The task to phase out fossil fuels is now at hand. Most studies and publications to date focus on why fossil fuels should be phased out. This study presents the physical requirements in terms of required non-fossil fuel industrial capacity, to completely phase out fossil fuels, and maintain the existing industrial ecosystem. The existing industrial ecosystem dependency on fossil fuels was mapped by fuel (oil, gas, and coal) and by industrial application. Data were collected globally for fossil fuel consumption, physical activity, and industrial actions for the year 2018.

The estimated sum total of extra annual capacity of non-fossil fuel power generation to phase out fossil fuels completely, and maintain the existing industrial ecosystem, at a global scale is 48,939.8 TWh.

A discussion on the needed size of the stationary power storage buffer to manage intermittent energy supply from wind and solar was conducted. Pumped hydro, hydrogen, biofuels and ammonia were all examined as options in this paper. This study uses four stationary power buffer capacities: 6 hours, 48 hours + 10%, 28 days and 12 weeks. This power buffer is assumed to be supplied through the use of large battery banks (in line with strategic policy expectations).

An estimate is presented for the total quantity of metals required to manufacture a single generation of renewable technology units (EVโ€™s, solar panels, wind turbines, etc.) sufficient to replace energy technologies based on combustion of fossil fuels. This estimate was derived by assembling the number of units needed against the estimated metal content for individual battery chemistries, wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles. The majority of the metals needed were to resource the construction of stationary power storage to act as a buffer for wind and solar power generation.

It was shown that both 2019 global mine production, 2022 global reserve estimates, 2022 mineral resources, and estimates of undersea resources, were manifestly inadequate for meeting projected demand for copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and vanadium.

The analysis takes a bottom-up approach to determine what is needed for global fossil fuel replacement.  For example, Michaux estimates how many vehicles were used for transport by class and the miles traveled to estimate how much fossil fuel was used and the energy needed for replacement.  He proposes non-fossil fuel technology as replacements.  The work estimates โ€œthe quantity of electrical energy required to charge the batteries of a complete EV systemโ€ and โ€œthe quantity of electrical energy to manufacture the required hydrogen for a complete H2 Cell systemโ€ as an alternative. Estimates for โ€œelectrical energy generation, building heating with gas and steel manufacture with coalโ€ were also determined.  The analysis found that:

The estimated sum total of extra annual capacity of non-fossil fuel power generation to phase out fossil fuels completely, and maintain the existing industrial ecosystem, at a global scale is 48,939.8 TWh. This builds upon an existing 9,528.7 TWh of non-fossil fuel electrical energy generation annual capacity. If a non-fossil fuel energy mix was used (based on an IEA prediction for 2050, IRENA 2022) was assumed, then this translates into an extra 796,709 new non-fossil fuel power plants will need to be constructed and commissioned. A discussion on the needed size of the stationary power storage buffer to manage intermittent energy supply from wind and solar was conducted. Four calculations of the size of the power buffer were done (6 hours, 48 hours, 28 days and 12 weeks). Pumped hydro, hydrogen, biofuels, battery banks and ammonia were all examined as options in this paper.

Given that Michaux is trying to estimate global energy use it is understandable that there are many simplifying assumptions.  For the intended purpose I do not think any of my observations would change the general results, i.e., I believe the estimates are close enough for results that are the right order of magnitude. My primary interest is the electric sector.  Section 14: Performance of existing fleet of electricity generation power stations estimates the availability and power production in Table 36.  In Table 38 the assumptions and estimated number of power stations needed to replace fossil-fired power stations are listed.  In the following table I combined data from both tables.

I have a few observations about these results.  Michaux had to estimate the energy split between the power systems. Solar thermal is included, which I think is a niche system suitable only for deserts.   Back calculating from the total energy requirement, he estimated the energy needed for each generation type.  The average installed plant capacity was from a reference and used to estimate the power produced by an average plant of each type.  The availability across the year parameter is close enough to capacity factor that they are interchangeable. I think nuclear availability is low. I am sure that wind and solar advocates would argue that the availabilities used are also low.  The result is a conservative estimate of the number of new power plants needed.

I did not see a distinction between onshore and offshore wind in this article, but the second article described below states:

This study projects that 1.3 million wind turbines (each one assumed to be a 6.6 MW (Megawatt capacity) will need to be operational as part of the task to completely phase out fossil fuels. Onshore units will account for 70% of this number, corresponding to 910,000 wind turbines. Offshore units will account for 30%, requiring 390,429 wind turbines.

In my opinion it would have been better to split onshore and offshore wind into two categories because the availabilities will differ.

The analysis also calculates the size of the power buffer needed to back up the predicted generation resources which is a particular interest of mine.  I will postpone a discussion of that for another post.  For the purposes of this article note that the report includes an exhaustive analysis of energy storage requirements and potential technologies to provide the necessary storage.

The first article estimates the energy necessary for the transition which was used in the second article to determine the materials resources needed for the transition.  The article notes that a massive number of new facilities will be required and that a โ€œlarge wind and solar power systems would need to be internally self-sufficient and need a buffer for stable operationโ€.  Despite the caveat that the author did not intend to support the status quo reality intervenes.  Michaux notes: โ€œIf there are technical issues in storing the needed quantity of power for the needed time period, then it is concluded that wind and solar power generation systems are not practical as the primary energy source for the next industrial era after fossil fuel based technology.โ€

Quantity of Metals Required

The second article was referenced: 

Michaux, S. P. 2024. Quantity of metals required to manufacture one generation of renewable technology units to phase out fossil fuel. Geological Survey of Finland, Bulletin 416, 173โ€“293, 38 figures, 60 tables and 2 annexes.

The abstract states:

An estimate is presented for the total quantity of raw materials required to manufacture a single generation of renewable technology units (solar panels, wind turbines, etc.) sufficient to replace energy technologies based on combustion of fossil fuels. This estimate was derived by assembling the number of units needed against the estimated metal con- tent for individual battery chemistries, wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles. The majority of the metals needed were to resource the construction of stationary power storage to act as a buffer for wind and solar power generation.

This study uses four stationary power buffer capacities as modelled in a previous study: 6 hours, 48 hours + 10%, 28 days and 12 weeks. This power buffer is assumed to be supplied through the use of large battery banks (in line with strategic policy expectations). Metal quantities were calculated for all four capacities and compared with mining production, mineral reserves, mineral resources, and known under sea resources. It was also assessed whether recycling could deliver this metal quantity by comparing calculations against the sum total mined metal between 1990 and 2023. The quantity of metal mined over the last 34 years was inadequate, which means recycling cannot deliver the needed capacity, and the mining of minerals would have to be the primary source of metals for at least the first generation of non-fossil fuel technology. If a metal has not yet been mined, then that metal cannot be recycled.

There are two highlights in the following: the quantity of metals available is โ€œmanifestly inadequateโ€ and technological scaling up issues mean wind and solar โ€œmay not be viable as the primary energy sourceโ€ for the transition:

It was shown that both 2019 global mine production, 2022 global reserve estimates, 2022 mineral resources, and estimates of undersea resources, were manifestly inadequate for meeting projected demand for copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and vanadium. Comprehensive analysis of these calculations suggest that lithium-ion battery chemistry (on its own) is not a viable option for upscaling to meet anticipated global market demand. This then implies that battery banks would not be viable as a power buffer for wind and solar in the quantities needed. As previous work had shown that pumped hydro storage and hydrogen storage face logistical issues in scale up, the belief of strategic policy makers was that battery banks were the solution. As all of these technologies face scale up issues, wind and solar may not be viable as the primary energy source to support the next generation of industrialization.

Consequently, the development of alternative battery chemistries is recommended. The calculated shortfall in copper and nickel production was also of concern, as both metals are vital to the existing economy and there is no known viable substitute or alternative for either commodity. Another alternative would be to develop an entirely new form of electrical power generation that did not need such heavy resource supply in construction or operation.

The calculations in the first article provided the number of generating resources needed provided.  This article determined how many metals would be required for each resource based on those numbers.  For anyone wanting to evaluate material requirements for wind, solar, and battery equipment the analysis provides a lot of documentation.  Also note that Michaux included metals needed for doubling the current nuclear energy capacity, additional hydropower, and more geothermal.

In an analogous process Michaux calculated the number of zero-emission โ€œtechnology unitsโ€ needed to replace fossil fuels in industry and transportation.  Electric vehicles are an example of a technology unit.  Fuel cell vehicles are also included.  Table 49 from the article is the sum of all metal from all parts of this study into one quantity by metal (split into the four different power buffer storage capacities).

Conclusion

This is an ambitious analysis that covers the entire global energy system.  As such there are bound to be oversights and limitations as well as interpretative assumptions that could be issues.  In my opinion, however, the approach and assumptions are reasonable and should give a reasonable estimate of the metals needed.  The mass of metals available is another challenge but I think there is better historical data available.  Comparing the metals needed to the metals available leads to the inescapable conclusion that the dreams of replacing fossil fuels will be unable to overcome reality.


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

Maple Syrup and Hot Air: Debunking Canadaโ€™s Climate Hype โ€“ The Climate Realism Showย #135

On Episode #135 of The Climate Realism Show, we welcome the co-authors of Energy & Climate at a Glance: Canadian Edition, which outlines why the climate plans of Prime Minister Justin Trudeauโ€™s climate plans will cause economic hardship in Canada and will do nothing measurable to improve the global climate. Heartlandโ€™s Anthony Watts, H. Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely will also cover some of the Crazy Climate News of the week and take your questions in the chat. Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET this Friday and every Friday.

The Heartland Institute

While the political tide has shifted right in the United States โ€“ and away from the climate alarmist agenda โ€“ our neighbors to the north are still currently all-in for the economically ruinous and scientifically unnecessary Net Zero agenda. But climate realists in the Great White North are pushing back, and a new book released in conjunction with The Heartland Institute will serve as an important weapon in the scientific and public relations arsenal. We talk to guests Ron Davison of the Friends of Science Society and Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition.

On Episode #135 of The Climate Realism Show, we welcome the co-authors of Energy & Climate at a Glance: Canadian Edition, which outlines why the climate plans of Prime Minister Justin Trudeauโ€™s climate plans will cause economic hardship in Canada and will do nothing measurable to improve the global climate. Heartlandโ€™s Anthony Watts, H. Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely will also cover some of the Crazy Climate News of the week and take your questions in the chat. Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET this Friday and every Friday.

Another windfarm surpasses ยฃ1 billion in subsidyย payments

The Beatrice Offshore Windfarm has become the fourth windfarm to have received more than ยฃ1 billion in subsidy payments. The landmark was reached in just its seventh year of operation, suggesting that it could reach ยฃ2 billion over the course of its subsidy agreement.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

London: 14 November 2024
Another windfarm surpasses ยฃ1 billion in subsidy payments

The Beatrice Offshore Windfarm has become the fourth windfarm to have received more than ยฃ1 billion in subsidy payments. The landmark was reached in just its seventh year of operation, suggesting that it could reach ยฃ2 billion over the course of its subsidy agreement.

Beatrice, situated in the Moray Firth, cost ยฃ2.2 billion to construct. Thus consumer levies will pay for almost the entire cost of the windfarm. The profits are ultimately shared by SSE plc and the Danish investment house, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners.

Net Zero Watch has condemned the waste. Its director Andrew Montford said:

โ€œThis level of subsidy is obscene. The Westminster machine is hosing down the green lobby with our money. The consumer interest is nowhere to be seen.โ€

Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK said:

โ€œRenewable energy subsidies are making people poorer with higher bills. Businesses are less competitive, meaning less growth and fewer jobs. Reform would put a windfall tax on all renewables to the value of the subsidies. We need to copy the US plan and โ€˜drill baby drillโ€™ to make people better off.โ€

Speaker At UN Summit Claims โ€˜Naming Extreme Heat Eventsโ€™ Will Help Fight Climate Change

A speaker at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, also called COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan, said Wednesday that extreme heat events should be named in order to combat climate change.

From Watts Up With That?

The Daily Caller

Harold Hutchison
Reporter

A speaker at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, also called COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan, said Wednesday that extreme heat events should be named in order to combat climate change.

The summit, which began Monday, featured speakers proposing taxes on the meat and dairy industry and โ€œclimate financeโ€ initiatives for less-developed countries. One speaker, ClimateWorks Foundation CEO Helen Mountford, described the need for โ€œinnovative approachesโ€ to fight climate change. (RELATED: โ€˜We Are Not Learningโ€™: Bjorn Lomborg Says Politicians Hide Behind Climate Change To Duck โ€˜Responsibilityโ€™ For โ€˜Failuresโ€™)

WATCH:

โ€œThis summer, in response to the secretary generalโ€™s call for action on extreme heat, we put forward an initial $50 million to help support action in this area, and we will be looking to do more,โ€ Mountford told a panel at the conference. โ€œI want to offer three specific areas where I think we can really help move this agenda forward. One is just, as the U.N. system comes together to work together on this โ€ฆ to provide some of the research and data, support some of that, to provide โ€” to fund pilots and evaluation of heat action plans in key countries to help support getting access to other funds, public and private, in those countries. So thatโ€™s one.โ€

โ€œThe second is really, given the urgency and the unprecedented nature of what weโ€™re seeing on extreme heat, we need to be open to different and multiple different approaches here. We need to test, trial things quickly, learn from them, move on, take risks and be innovative,โ€ Mountford said. โ€œOne example for it right now is naming extreme heat events, and Iโ€™m happy to continue supporting that.โ€

Natural disasters such as hurricanes and wildfires are commonly named for tracking purposes and streamlined reporting, however, the National Weather Service has claimed that weather patterns such as heat waves have historically not been named because they are, โ€œhighly contextual,โ€ NPR reported earlier this year.

Multiple officials from the Biden administration โ€” which notably backed away from a major emissions initiative at the event โ€” including Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, White House climate advisor John Podesta and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, are attending the event in Azerbaijan. Podesta told attendees at the conference during a Monday speech that despite the election of former President Donald Trump, the United States would still be involved in addressing climate change, Bloomberg reported.

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 reporterโ€™s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.