Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
In February 2023, the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that rising sea levels will cause a “mass exodus of entire populations on a biblical scale”, noting in particular the effect around the river basins at the foot of the Himalayas. Rising sea levels have been the poster alarm scare for decades with their associated riff of billions of climate refugees on the move in the near future. As is usual, it is a shame that mere facts get in the way of unhinged political rants. In 2016, a Dutch research project found that since 1985 the world had actually gained more land than was lost to water. So far as the river basins of the Himalayas are concerned, a recent science paper discovered that Bangladesh had experienced a 13.7% growth in its coasts since 1990.
In February 2023, the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that rising sea levels will cause a “mass exodus of entire populations on a biblical scale”, noting in particular the effect around the river basins at the foot of the Himalayas. Rising sea levels have been the poster alarm scare for decades with their associated riff of billions of climate refugees on the move in the near future. As is usual, it is a shame that mere facts get in the way of unhinged political rants. In 2016, a Dutch research project found that since 1985 the world had actually gained more land than was lost to water. So far as the river basins of the Himalayas are concerned, a recent science paper discovered that Bangladesh had experienced a 13.7% growth in its coasts since 1990.
Commenting on the net growth of Earth land mass, National Geographic noted that it amounted to an area the size of Lake Michigan. The changes are spread across the planet and are both natural and man-made. The Dutch researchers at the Deltares Research Institute used Landsat satellite data to map the changes around the world. The mapping scientists were “surprised” at their results. according to National Geographic. More surprise was expressed by the magazine that “coastal areas across the globe had a net gain of more than 13,000 km2”.
With his ludicrous “global boiling” trope, Guterres is little more than a high status ranting fool. But he is plugged into the sea level scare that is ubiquitous throughout the Net Zero narrative. As early as 1989, UN activist Noel Brown was talking about entire nations being wiped off the map by 2000. One sixth of Bangladesh would be flooded and this would displace a quarter of its coastal population, amounting to up to 25 million people. The online science publication No Tricks Zone notes that the opposite has happened, with the total land surface of the country expanding from 134,382 km2 to 137,656 km2. The coasts around the Bay of Bengal have grown by 13.7% to 20,330 km2, while the population has swelled to around 173 million.
Of course, human activity can increase land mass with many reclamation projects seen across the world. But natural processes are often downplayed in the rush to promote mass psychosis and push populations to accept the Net Zero fantasy. Many small island states in the Pacific are growing in size due to natural accretions but that doesn’t stop a worldwide green campaign to divert huge amounts of cash to pay for climate ‘reparations’. These obvious shakedowns, much favoured by planet-saving types who attend COP meetings, are sometimes referred to as poor people in rich countries paying rich people in poor countries. Land itself is often on the move and in many places across the northern hemisphere the gradual post-glacial retreat of the ice sheets has led to substantial and continuing rebounds.
No Tricks Zone observes that the recent Bangladesh land expansion was a consequence of receding relative sea levels along the coasts and synchronous seaward coastal land growth. It also notes that coasts are growing elsewhere, sourcing a 2016 BBC report on the Deltares project. “We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr. Fedor Baart. “We were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking,” he added.
Perhaps someone should tell the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It uses a notorious climate model ‘pathway’ to suggest a global temperatures rise of 4°C will lead to a possible one metre higher global sea level by the end of the century. Due to land movements, sea level rise can be difficult to measure and tidal gauges are probably the best indication we have. These show a current rise around 2mm per year (20cm per century), not the 13mm proposed by the IPCC.
Of course, the IPCC’s ‘worst case’ basis is in regular use. None seem more creative than the World Economic Forum. It recently referred to a study that predicted a “total collapse” of the Greenland ice sheet by next year. With the ice sheet at a “tipping point of irreversible melting”, scientists are said to “currently expect an unavoidable sea level rise of one to two metres”. The WEF report was headed ‘Sea level rise: Everything you need to know’, suggesting that at least someone in that benighted organisation has a sense of humour.
As expected, the fast-sinking Guardian is well to the fore when it comes to hysteria and climate alarm. In 2020 it reported on a survey of “more than 100 specialists” that estimated a possible global sea level of 1.3 metres within 80 years. One of the co-authors of the report was the Potsdam Institute’s Stefan Rahmstorf, a man sometimes described as the alarmists’ alarmist. Among the cities that may have to be abandoned, claimed Rahmstorf, were Miami, New York, Alexandria, Venice and Bangkok.
Any advance on 1.3 metres? Not hard to find when you have Matt McGrath and the BBC on the job. In 2019 he gave us his two metre scare noting that “scientists believe that global sea levels could rise far more than predicted”. Dignifying the IPCC computer modelled twaddle as “the long held view”, he stated that “expert opinions” suggest a two metre rise, and this could lead to the displacement of hundreds of millions of people.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
I do not know how to describe this except to say goodbye and good riddance to an administration whose utter disrespect for what this country is about can be summed up in one name: Helene.
I do not know how to describe this except to say goodbye and good riddance to an administration whose utter disrespect for what this country is about can be summed up in one name: Helene.
I know what I am talking about. From September 8th, I was warning people the hurricane season was about to go wild as the rotation of the Madden Julian Oscillation which stalled in the non-productive phases for the heart of the season, was on the move again as the cooling that started in the northern hemisphere allowed the kind of temperature pattern to develop across Asia to let it move. So, you could see the pattern that produced Helene and Milton coming. Then it was a matter of homing in once we got closer, 10 days out from Helene saying it was going to be a major hit, and 4 days out saying it would cause floods of biblical proportions. Rehashing the tweets, the Weatherbell posts, etc. is only pompous chest-beating on my part, but what is apparent is the Biden administration did not give a damn. YOU PRE-STAGE FOR EVENTS LIKE THIS! You set up a command post in Asheville 3 days out if you are watching and hit the ground running. Same as the complete screw-up in Texas with their freeze. You have contingency plans ready to go. You go door to door in the flood-prone areas and don’t force people out, but to make your point, ask for their names of next of kin because that gets people’s attention. That’s how you save lives. But in the meantime, you mobilize as if it’s a war footing and have equipment flowing in BEFORE THE FACT. And after the fact you don’t go lay on a beach nor go out fundraising. Even Obama with Sandy understood that, but the people who are leaving office have devolved a step down from Obama as if that was even possible.
But now here comes part 3. I showed in over 100 posts and tweets how this kind of hurricane season is STRONGLY correlated with early season eastern cold. It is not hocus pocus. The same kind of vertical velocity patterns that will produce hurricanes in hurricane season (it recently came around again and produced Rafael and Sara which thankfully stayed to the south of the US but caused big problems where they impacted) cause cold weather in the early hurricane season. It is remarkable to look at the similar hurricane seasons and then line them up with the period Thanksgiving to Christmas and see how cold they are. I would use December as an example If you identified the pattern that caused this kind of hurricane season, here is what it forecasts for December.
as of a week ago, US models had no idea this was coming
but the hurricane analogs did as you see above, or at least said look out. But look what they have gone to now, right to the old-school analog idea I have been showing for over 3 months!
The first week of December
It’s aimed into the east and right at the poor people in western North Carolina. And all those long-standing, old-school forecast techniques said to look out for this and to make haste before winter sets in this year. Their government has failed them miserably. These are arrogant, ignorant people who preach about existential threats, and yet when one actually shows up, they are nowhere to be found.
This cannot be allowed to happen. The media was all over George Bush for Katrina, yet at least the day before he declared the area a disaster area. Think of what these people that have put us through the last 4 years did in Texas and now this, they made governors fight for declaring different counties disaster areas after the fact. It’s mind numbing.
I am not always right, But I forecast every day, so the sample size of my work is not a 5-day-a-week job in one place, it is global, every day. Helene was shooting fish in the barrel as far as seeing it coming and also the implications of the cold early winter behind it. I can’t even imagine what would happen if this country got hit by hurricanes like we did in the 30s, 40s and 50s. The lunacy of sticking wind turbines up off our coastlines where a storm coming from the south can simply drive ripped parts and an infinite amount of shattered small particles into the water and onto beaches is yet another mind-numbing plan.
As far as weather events go, these people could care less unless they can use it for their top-down control agenda.
So goodbye and good riddance to these people. We can’t stop things like this from happening (this was the Carolinas version of the 1938 hurricane in New England which killed over 600 and led to a monumental tree blowdown and severe floods), but we can make sure the preparation and response is what a great country should do for its people. I have great hopes for the Trump administration coming in. And I thank God, as far as weather, we are getting rid of people who I can’t help but think want people to be miserable to push their climate narrative.
The one and only Australian manufacturer of wind turbine towers is going out of business, despite Australian electricity reaching 35% glorious renewable, and the Prime Ministers big plan to have the $22 billion dollar Future Made in Australia, as well as our galloping Net Zero fantasy to reach 82% renewable by 2030. We are, in theory, supposed to install 40 new wind towers a month somewhere in Australia, but none of the towers, it turns out, will be Australian made.
More proof that wind power can’t be used to make wind turbines
The one and only Australian manufacturer of wind turbine towers is going out of business, despite Australian electricity reaching 35% glorious renewable, and the Prime Ministers big plan to have the $22 billion dollar Future Made in Australia, as well as our galloping Net Zero fantasy to reach 82% renewable by 2030. We are, in theory, supposed to install 40 new wind towers a month somewhere in Australia, but none of the towers, it turns out, will be Australian made.
Imagine what we could do if Australia were the largest exporter of iron ore and coal in the world? The government could still screw it up.
Right now, we ship the iron and coal 7,000 kilometers away with heavy fuel oil, to be made into windmills to save the world, only to ship them right back, rather than make them here.
Renewables are the cheapest source of electricity on Earth, they say, and Australia has twice as much as China (proportionately). But China makes 65% of all wind turbines globally, and soon Australia will make 0%.
The company Keppel Prince don’t mention the cost of electricity, although the boss of Glencore claims Australian prices are double or more the cost in China, which can’t be good for any business. Instead, the company blames Chinese subsidized competitors for dumping, which may have some truth to it, but Keppel Prince has been living off renewable energy subsidies themselves in Australia for years. In 2009 the company warned of job losses if the government didn’t set a bigger renewable energy target (which it did), but then they had to sack 100 staff in 2014 when the target was cut. After that they got help from the Victorian State Energy Targets, and the requirement that 60 per cent of the manufacturing was done locally. The truth is there has probably never been a wind turbine built in Australia that wasn’t subsidized. The only question is “how big were the subsidies?”.
The Opposition here, are naturally making fun of the abject failure of the Future Made In Australia plan:
“They’ve got to look really bad that they are losing the only tower manufacturer accredited to build the things,” Stephen Garner [the Executive Director of Keppel Prince] told The Australian.
“The federal government continues to say, like Albanese says, we want to get back to manufacturing. Here we have a manufacturing facility already in place.
“It’s set up for renewable energy, which is what the government talks about every day of the week, and yet we’ve got to mothball it because we can’t compete with China because our government won’t do anything about it.”
Mr Tehan said the government’s pledge to build Australia’s manufacturing base was in disarray. “What a complete embarrassment,’’ the member for Wannon said. “Their renewables only policy has been such a success it has closed our last remaining wind tower manufacturer.
“So, the government is not in breach of its own misinformation and disinformation laws, it needs to immediately pull its Made in Australia ads that proudly displays a wind farm. “It would actually be funny, if workers weren’t losing their jobs…”
We don’t like seeing any Australian business go under, but there is an element of live-by-the-sword, die-by-the-sword as the saying goes. Hopefully the expertise in Keppel Prince can be put to better use manufacturing things the market wants, instead of what the government wants.
Ultimately, no Australian business can compete with slave labor and cheap coal fired and nuclear power. The only thing more stupid than that would be competing in an industry to make things the market doesn’t want; the country doesn’t need, and which won’t save the environment.
According to a recent article published in The Conversation, installing millions of storage batteries distributed through the grid — in homes, businesses, and local communities – coupled with wind and solar generation, can avoid investments in new transmission infrastructure. But unless installing those batteries is accompanied by physically disconnecting from the grid, or consumers are willing to forgo reliable electricity, this claim is yet another example of electricity “magical thinking.”
According to a recent article published in The Conversation, installing millions of storage batteries distributed through the grid — in homes, businesses, and local communities – coupled with wind and solar generation, can avoid investments in new transmission infrastructure. But unless installing those batteries is accompanied by physically disconnecting from the grid, or consumers are willing to forgo reliable electricity, this claim is yet another example of electricity “magical thinking.”
Electricity customers, both residential and industrial, need to be aware of this home-based battery storage fantasy.
First, batteries store electricity; they don’t generate it. But the move towards electrifying the U.S. motor vehicle fleet, along with electrifying space and water heating, will double electricity consumption. Although some of the additional electricity needed may come from distributed sources such as rooftop solar, green energy advocates claim that most of the needed electricity will be generated at large-scale wind and solar facilities located far from cities and towns.
The article also claims, “[w]e could get by with fewer transmission lines if we store more solar and wind power for later.” But delivering the additional electricity needed will require building new transmission lines, regardless of how much battery storage is installed in homes and in local communities. Moreover, local distribution systems—the poles and wires running down streets—will also have to be upgraded to handle the additional loads.
Second, the costs of building sufficient battery capacity (to say nothing of the costs of additional wind and solar generation) to ensure homes and local communities do not suffer from extended blackouts will be prohibitive.
The numbers tell the story.
In the U.S., a typical residential household consumes around 10,800 kWh annually, or about 30 kWh per day. Of course, the amount varies depending on the size of home, the region of the country, and the season of the year. With electrified space and water heat, some regions of the country where electricity demand now peaks in summer will see demand peak in winter, while existing winter-peaking regions will see winter demand spike even further.
According to a U.S. Department of Energy model, a heat pump in a typical home will consume about 5,500 kWh annually. That alone represents a 50% increase in electricity use. Charging a typical EV adds another 4,300 kWh annually. In total, those will add almost 10,000 kWh of consumption annually, roughly doubling current consumption to about 60 kWh per day, although the increase will be greatest in winter when heating loads peak.
Supplying the additional electricity while ensuring the same level of service reliability (i.e., no extended outages or limiting consumers’ access to electricity because of insufficient supplies) will require enough battery storage to provide electricity at night and over multi-day periods when there is little wind and sun available to recharge those batteries. Although the article recommends using consumers’ EVs to supply electricity, few consumers will likely wish to wake up to an uncharged EV and an inability to travel, especially if there is no stored electricity available to recharge their EVs.
Using the U.S. consumption averages, if existing local distribution systems can serve today’s average load of 30 kWh/day, then enough battery storage must be built to supply the remaining 30 kWh. and, more importantly, the peak power demand of electric heat pumps and EV chargers. A typical Level 2 home EV charger, for example, can draw 20 kilowatts (kW). A heat pump can draw 7 kW.
The largest Tesla Powerwall, which is designed for home use, provides a maximum of 11.5 kW of power and 13.5 kWh of storage under ideal conditions. (When temperatures fall, so does battery capacity and efficiency.) Hence, at least three Powerwall units would be required to provide a typical home with sufficient electricity to supplement existing grid capacity. For one million homes, that means three million Powerwall units providing a maximum of 40.5 million kWh (40,500 megawatt-hours) of battery storage.
At a cost of around $12,000 installed, that translates into a cost of $36,000 per home. The U.S. has over 80 million single-family homes and over 130 million dwelling units. Hence, 240 million Powerwall units would be required just for single-family homes, costing almost $3 trillion. By comparison, Tesla’s current manufacturing capacity is 700,000 units per year. Thus, outfitting all single-family homes with them would require almost 350 years of Powerwall production. The minerals requirements would also be staggering and would require mining billions of tons of ore for the necessary lithium, copper, cobalt, and other metals.
In theory, an electric system could be designed to provide reliable service using wind, solar, and battery storage. However, in reality, huge investments would still be required in new transmission and distribution lines, regardless of how many storage batteries are installed. It would also be ruinously expensive.
Ignoring physical and economic realities may be fashionable, but reality always wins in the long run. The electric grid and its components form a complex system which most of us take for granted, which enable misleading claims regarding the simplicity of electrifying everything and powering it all almost exclusively with wind, solar, and batteries. Electric utilities and planners can provide a public service by explaining why this scenario, given today’s technology, isn’t possible.
Jonathan Lesser is a senior fellow with the National Center for Energy Analytics, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, and the president of Continental Economics.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Three climate related initiatives were decided in Washington recently. Initiative 2066 was a referendum to repeal laws and regulations that discourage natural gas use and would require current natural gas customers to switch to electric heating. Initiative 2117 was another referendum to repeal the state’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by 2050 in the Climate Commitment Act. Finally, the Horse Haven Wind, Solar and Battery Complex permit was approved.
Three climate related initiatives were decided in Washington recently. Initiative 2066 was a referendum to repeal laws and regulations that discourage natural gas use and would require current natural gas customers to switch to electric heating. Initiative 2117 was another referendum to repeal the state’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 95% by 2050 in the Climate Commitment Act. Finally, the Horse Haven Wind, Solar and Battery Complex permit was approved.
Initiative 2066
The bright spot was the successful passage of Initiative 2066 which ensures access to natural gas in homes and other buildings and repeals a state law requiring plans to transition from the use of natural gas to electricity. The final tally was 52% yes, 48% no.
Washington is basically a one-party blue state – Kamala Harris won by a lopsided 58% of the presidential vote. Even though only a third of the residents rely on natural gas with the bulk of the populace (58%) using electricity, the “yes” vote prevailed in a surprising outcome given the political demographics.
I think there were several reasons for the outcome. The main issue that resonated with all the gas users was the extreme cost of a switch over from gas appliances to all electric they would be expected to finance almost entirely by themselves. Since Washingtonians have been using gas with no significant identifiable adverse effects for decades, it was hard to convince them that demonizing the use of gas was now all of a sudden, a threat to their health and wellbeing. There also may have been a fair number of the electric heat users who preferred using gas for cooking and in their fireplaces.
The “vote no” people took the main tack that using gas was a pollutant, a health hazard and would prevent the State from achieving its Climate Commitment Act goals.
Despite the result there still is a maybe part of the passage of this initiative. The “no vote campaign” intends to take this issue to the State Supreme Court. They are claiming it should be voided because it violates the State rule that an initiative should not embrace more than one subject. They have deep pockets to fight this vote of the people. The sore losers include the Sierra Club, Statewide Poverty Action Network, Front and Centered, plus “unnamed” renewable energy groups (no surprise there).
The “yes” campaign claims the initiative was written very carefully expecting successful passage to be challenged in court. The “no” campaign started putting their challenge together months before the final vote just in case it passed.
It will be interesting to see if passage of I-2066 by the voters is brought before the State Supreme Court. Voiding the obvious majority of the people on some sort of technicality could prove problematic in coming elections by raising rational voter ire. That might give the “no” campaign second thoughts as to how this may play out in the long run if they pursue this avenue of opposition.
Initiative 2117
On the losing side of the “one for three” pragmatic climate issues was voting down Initiative 2117 which would have essentially ended funding for the State’s Climate Commitment Act (CCA) resulting in lower gas prices at the pump. It really did not have a chance of passage once the big money came rolling in advertising against it.
The five biggest donors against passage were all essentially billionaires. They included Steve and Connie Ballmer, Bill Gates, Microsoft (the company) and the 4-billion-dollar Nature Conservancy. Their media ads were very slick, very professional and appeared all over the TV channels at all times of the day and night but especially during the evening news, sports (football, soccer etc.). They were even on the Fox Business News channel.
It really didn’t matter what time of day or what channel you were watching, there would be an ad to defeat this measure that would show up. The amount of money spent to defeat this measure must have been eye-popping.
The main selling point was that voting for I-2117 would cause unclean air, unclean water, worse wildfires, a dirtier environment with worse roads and transportation. Voting it down would mean cleaner air, cleaner water, better wildfire management, a cleaner environment, and even better roads and transportation. There was, of course, no mention of just how much less global warming would result from a no vote.
One of the ads featured individuals wearing their respective professional garbs advocating voting no (doctor, fireman, construction worker, forest ranger, Tribal member, etc.) An observation was that these are the very same special interest groups who have recently been getting money from the CCA fund so of course they don’t want to see those funds go away.
One of the ads accused the promoter of this measure (and three of the other measures) of being just a greedy millionaire out for himself. Never mind the billionaires who funded the campaign against it and how or whether they might benefit somehow from it being defeated.
It was obvious the campaign for passage of I-2117 did not have the requisite funding to successfully get their message across with the necessary effective media advertising. The ads were spread too thinly between several issues. The ads were somewhat rudimentary, lacking a professional look, and they appeared sparsely. They just didn’t have the money and the focus to get their message across.
My personal opinion is that had the “yes” ads concentrated on the fact that no matter how much you were paying for a gallon of gas (whether a high price or low one) $10 would be going to the state for every 20 gallons of gas they bought. I think that would have made a much bigger impact on the voters by helping them understand just how much they were sending to the State every time they filled up.
Sadly the billionaires won this one.
There is a chance this issue could be brought up for a statewide vote again at a later date, perhaps when Washington surpasses California for the cost of gas at the pump which may not be all that far off. If it is brought up again, the people behind it now know what they are up against and will have to adjust accordingly, being a lot more clever with their focus and their financing.
Horse Haven Wind, Solar, and Battery Complex
The other one of the three climate-related issues is our Governor’s final approval of the “Horse Haven Wind, Solar and Battery Complex” in Eastern Washington. It’s a huge complex stretching 24 scenic miles long and 8 miles wide covering 72,000 acres with 5,000 of those farmland acres surfaced with solar panels. The final proposal is to have either 172 five-hundred-foot towers or 113 six hundred seventy foot tall towers. The battery complex is yet to be determined as to size and placement.
A valiant opposition movement (here) of Benton County residences, tribal members and wildlife advocates has been so far unsuccessful in stopping this monstrosity from happening. The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council confirmed the Governor’s approval in a 4-3 vote. There is now only one more avenue to pause or stop the building of this grotesque complex…the court system.
And that is exactly what has just happened. Benton county has filed suit against the state over this project.
One other long shot outside possibility that might stop this atrocious wind project from being built could be when the new national administration takes office in January. Indications are that the new administration intends to terminate subsidies for wind and solar projects. If that does happen, it is likely the Horse Haven Wind Farm may become unprofitable to build.
Washington prides itself on being an enlightened, leading energy progressive state. This wind/solar/battery complex is anything but progressive. It is an exorbitantly expensive energy system at $1.7 billion (2021 estimate and counting) for the amount of intermittent power it can produce. It regressively degrades and seriously threatens the reliability of the existing electric grid by providing only non-dispatchable erratic weather dependent electricity.
A leading enlightened progressive State would be planning on installing a small modular nuclear system such as NuScale’s Voygr-12 module complex of SMRs. The NuScale SMR system was developed in Oregon and is the only one so far to receive design approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Or the State could support the expansion or duplication of Amazon and Energy Northwest’s planned Central Washington installation of X-energy’s 12 module system.
Ironically, Energy Northwest is headquartered in Richland Washington. Their potential SMR site is a mere 50 miles from the planned wind farm next to the Columbia Nuclear Generating station (Washington’s only functioning nuclear plant). This gives their planned site close, easy access to the electrical grid.
Both SMR systems can deliver dispatchable electricity under all weather conditions 24/7/365. They are CO2 free and can generate approximately 924 MWe (roughly equivalent to the wind farm). Their respective footprints use only a miserly 0.06 square miles of land in contrast to the wind farm’s approximately 100 square miles. So their environmental footprint is small, scenically unobtrusive and non threatening to birds of prey.
Both SMR products have a passive safety system so they can not melt down or blow up. Each one of the 12 SMRs composing either company’s modular complex are built in a factory and can be delivered by truck, rail or barge in three sections.
There is a serious disconnect between the “Energy Magical Thinking” flowing from the Capitol in Olympia versus pragmatic, modern, non-invasive solutions available. This is especially disconcerting considering Portland Oregon (the headquarters of NuScale) is only 114 miles away from the capitol building in Olympia.
“Eight states are developing economic development plans focused on advanced nuclear energy deployment with the help from Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL) Frontiers Initiative.
Frontiers was established in 2021 to help stakeholders identify and capitalize on key economic opportunities afforded by early adoption of advanced nuclear energy. The initiative also helps stakeholders leverage advanced nuclear to capture emerging global market opportunities in low-emission industries.
The 2024 Frontiers Initiative Impacts Report, released today, (Oct. 24) highlights the initiative’s impacts on first-mover states identified as actively pursuing advanced nuclear energy to encourage economic development.
We have strengthened our partnerships with stakeholders in first-mover states – Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Alaska – while adding engagements where increasing interest in advanced
Nuclear energy intersects industry needs, including in Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota and South Carolina,” said Steven Aumeier, senior advisor at INL.”
Discussion
For all the rhetoric coming out of the Capitol in Olympia about being a leader in a clean energy transition, shamefully Washington State is not among these “first-mover states”.
If Washington was serious about being a modern enlightened energy progressive state, they also might want to look at what is happening in Tennessee. Their General Assembly created a $60 million fund (The Tennessee Nuclear Energy Fund) that has attracted four projects in the last six months headed by Orono USA, a company specializing in:
“Uranium. Mining/conversion/enrichment, used nuclear fuel management and recycling, decommissioning shutdown nuclear energy facilities, federal site cleanup and closure and developing nuclear medicines to fight cancer”
Oak Ridge is determined to become “the place the nation is looking for to lead the next nuclear race”. Oak Ridge and Knoxville are now home to some 154 nuclear companies.
Oregon, Idaho and Tennessee have blown past Washington in the enlightened pragmatic electric energy transition. It leaves our state in the dustbin of yesterday’s expensive, environmentally invasive, dysfunctional grid threatening Wind/Solar/Battery energy systems.
The jury is still out on whether Washington residents can hold on to their current right to use the energy of their choice for heating/cooking. And whether an out-of-date, environmentally destructive dysfunctional grid threatening Wind/Solar/Battery system gets installed against the wishes of the impacted citizens.
The state seems most focused on keeping money from it’s CCA (Climate Commitment Act) flowing from the hike in gas prices at the pump this act has caused. The state needs the money given that it was just announced it is currently around $10 billion in debt. My cynical side wonders just how much of that CCA money is going to end up being diverted towards reducing that debt rather than “fighting “Climate Change” as it was advertised to be used for.
Conclusion
Washington state has many enlightened social programs to be proud of. There is a rational, pragmatic program supporting parents (both wife and husband) of newborns with a generous paid leave time so they can tend to their new child. A State sponsored long term care program has just been enacted designed for those elderly who do not have such means helping them towards the end off their days.
But when it comes to the State’s energy policy, it’s a whole different story. “Magical Thinking” prevails forcing rationality and pragmatism to go right out through the ozone hole.
So much for Washington leading the nation with a modern, clean, reliable, environmentally friendly electrical energy transition path. It’s much more enlightening to watch what states like Idaho and Tennessee are doing to find out where the future of rational, pragmatic energy systems are going.
Paul describes himself as a “Free Lance writer with a two decade long obsession with all things climate change.” Although he is a retired professor, he has no scientific or other degrees specific to these kinds of issues that can be cited as offering personal official expertise or credibility. What he does have is a two-decade-old avid, enthusiastic, obsession with all things Climate Change related.
Germany’s online Blackout News here reports how the country, now facing a dire energy supply situation, urgently needs to return to nuclear energy.
Symbol image. Photo: U.S. Department of Energy
Germany phased out its entire fleet of nuclear reactors over the past years and hoped to rely on renewable energies, claiming they were cheaper and cleaner. However, the transition has not gone smoothly as grid revamping has not kept up and prices for wind and solar power have made German electricity among the most expensive worldwide.
At the UN Climate Change Conference in Baku, Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has warned that “Germany can no longer turn its back on nuclear power and that a reorientation of energy policy is necessary. The government must reopen the debate on nuclear power.”
“Countries that have nuclear energy want more of it. And many that don’t have any want it,” said Grossi.
“The timing of his comments is no coincidence. Germany’s economy is suffering from energy problems, while the government is consumed with internal disputes,” comments Blackout News. “The political focus has recently been on the disputes within the coalition government, while the electricity market has continued to show new weaknesses.”
Blackout News describes how the prices of electricity “exploded” in early November during a period of calm winds and no sunshine. This forced Germany to fall back on gas and coal (energy sources that the government is currently working to phase out as well). “Fossil fuels supplied 71% of Germany’s electricity at the beginning of November – a figure that has not been reached for over a decade.”
Swedish electric vehicle (EV) battery manufacturer Northvolt filed for bankruptcy after the company’s dreadful liquidity position left the business with only one week’s worth of cash to fund its operations.
Swedish electric vehicle (EV) battery manufacturer Northvolt filed for bankruptcy after the company’s dreadful liquidity position left the business with only one week’s worth of cash to fund its operations.
The Chapter 11 petition was filed at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas on Thursday. The company listed assets and liabilities in a range of $1 billion to $10 billion, with creditors estimated to be between 1,000 and 5,000. Established in 2016 in Stockholm, Northvolt is an energy-storage company that manufactures lithium-ion batteries.
A leading manufacturer in the European Union, Northvolt competes with China’s BYD and CAT to supply batteries to carmakers in the region. As such, the bankruptcy of Northvolt presents a challenge to Europe’s ambitions to counter Chinese EV dominance.
In the ever-evolving automotive industry, listening to consumers has always been the cornerstone of sustainable success. Yet, in recent years, many automakers have turned a deaf ear to consumer preferences, betting big on electric vehicles (EVs) despite clear signals that the market wasn’t ready to fully embrace them. The result? A multibillion-dollar debacle, with these companies now clinging to hopes that government intervention will save them from their missteps.
In the ever-evolving automotive industry, listening to consumers has always been the cornerstone of sustainable success. Yet, in recent years, many automakers have turned a deaf ear to consumer preferences, betting big on electric vehicles (EVs) despite clear signals that the market wasn’t ready to fully embrace them. The result? A multibillion-dollar debacle, with these companies now clinging to hopes that government intervention will save them from their missteps.
“But they have already invested billions in a transition to electric vehicles, and fear that if Mr. Trump made an abrupt change as he has promised, they could be undercut by automakers who sell cheaper, gas-powered cars.”
This admission is staggering. Automakers have sunk vast sums into EV production, prioritizing a politically charged vision of the future over actual consumer demand. Now, they’re worried that a rollback of EV mandates could leave them vulnerable to competition from companies that stuck to producing affordable, gas-powered vehicles. The fear is justified because these companies chose to ignore basic market principles: satisfy your customers, or someone else will.
A Tale of Two Strategies
While some automakers threw caution to the wind and gambled on an electric future, others, like Toyota, took a more measured approach. Toyota has long been a leader in hybrid technology, balancing innovation with consumer accessibility. Instead of forcing a rapid transition to EVs, Toyota focused on building cars that people want and can afford. The result? A loyal customer base and financial stability, without reliance on government bailouts or regulations to prop up their strategy.
Contrast this with companies that rushed into EV production without adequately considering demand. They’ve saddled themselves with immense sunk costs—investments in EV production lines, supply chains, and infrastructure—that they now cannot recover. These companies are essentially betting on government policies to shape the market in their favor, a risky and unsustainable strategy.
Tesla: The Standout Exception
Amid this turmoil, Tesla stands apart as a shining example of how to succeed in the EV market without relying on government mandates or subsidies. Of course Tesla took advantage of subsidies in the past, because leaving money on the table is study, but unlike legacy automakers, Tesla has focused on making vehicles that people want to buy. Its designs, technology, and competitive performance captured consumers around the globe.
Elon Musk has been vocal about Tesla’s ability to thrive without government support, recently stating that subsidies or mandates are unnecessary for the company’s success. Tesla has achieved profitability and dominance by creating a desirable product, not by forcing consumers into a corner through regulation. This starkly contrasts with traditional automakers who seem more concerned with appeasing policymakers than satisfying their customers.
The Consumer Disconnect
Many consumers remain hesitant to adopt EVs due to high costs, range anxiety, and insufficient charging infrastructure. Instead of addressing these concerns, many automakers doubled down on EV production, banking on regulatory mandates to create an artificial demand for their products.
This approach ignores a simple truth: consumers vote with their wallets. Tesla understands this dynamic. Companies like Toyota, which continue to offer efficient and affordable options, also demonstrate the importance of aligning with consumer needs. On the other hand, those that gambled on EVs without a clear understanding of the market are now left hoping that government policies won’t expose their poor decisions.
The Role of Government
For the now EV-focused big automakers, government intervention has become a lifeline. Subsidies, tax incentives, and regulatory mandates are crucial to making EVs competitive. Without them, these companies risk being outpriced and outperformed by competitors offering cheaper, gas-powered alternatives. However, relying on government policies to dictate market dynamics is a dangerous game. Policies can change with each election cycle, leaving automakers vulnerable to sudden shifts, as the NYT article points out.
Lessons for the Future
Tesla’s success and Toyota’s steady approach highlight an important lesson: automakers must align their strategies with consumer demand, not political agendas. Innovation is essential, but it must be tempered by market realities. Companies like Tesla have shown that it’s possible to lead the charge in EV adoption by delivering products customers want. Similarly, Toyota demonstrates that slow and steady wins the race by focusing on what people want today while preparing for the future.
Meanwhile, legacy automakers stuck with massive sunk costs in EV production have exposed themselves to enormous risks. No amount of government intervention can shield them entirely from the consequences of ignoring their customers.
Ultimately, the market will decide the winners and losers. Automakers that prioritize consumer satisfaction over government market manipulation will thrive, while those that gambled on an uncertain future may find themselves scrambling to survive. Tesla’s trajectory proves that it’s possible to innovate without compromising, and the rest of the industry would be wise to take notes.
As COP29 wrapped up in Baku, it left behind a trail of broken promises, hollow platitudes, and a $300 billion-per-year climate finance pledge that’s already being treated like Monopoly money. For the attendees, this summit was supposed to be a turning point—a global kumbaya to double down on the Paris Agreement and guilt developed nations into more climate cash giveaways. Instead, they woke up to a rude reality: President Donald J. Trump is back, and he’s armed with a cabinet determined to shred the green bureaucratic utopia faster than Greta Thunberg can say, “How dare you?”
NEW YORK, NY – NOVEMBER 09: Republican president-elect Donald Trump delivers his acceptance speech during his election night event at the New York Hilton Midtown in the early morning hours of November 9, 2016 in New York City. Donald Trump defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to become the 45th president of the United States. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
As COP29 wrapped up in Baku, it left behind a trail of broken promises, hollow platitudes, and a $300 billion-per-year climate finance pledge that’s already being treated like Monopoly money. For the attendees, this summit was supposed to be a turning point—a global kumbaya to double down on the Paris Agreement and guilt developed nations into more climate cash giveaways. Instead, they woke up to a rude reality: President Donald J. Trump is back, and he’s armed with a cabinet determined to shred the green bureaucratic utopia faster than Greta Thunberg can say, “How dare you?”
The $300 billion package to “help” developing nations has been hailed as a win—if you define a win as forcing Western taxpayers to underwrite wind farms in nations where electricity is still considered a luxury. Naturally, the recipients aren’t satisfied. They’re already calling it “woefully insufficient,” which roughly translates to, “Nice start—now double it, and maybe we’ll stop complaining.”
But the real story isn’t the faux climate unity in Baku; it’s the cataclysmic shift coming out of Washington, D.C. With Trump’s return, the U.S. is poised to leave the Paris Agreement (again), freeze out the global climate aristocracy, and make American energy great again.
The Paris Agreement: RIP (Again)
The Paris Agreement has always been an expensive farce, a symbolic gesture masquerading as a global solution. Its main purpose? To transfer wealth from productive nations to the politically corrupt under the guise of “climate justice.” Of course, China—the world’s largest emitter—sits pretty with vague promises and no actual obligations. Trump’s exit from this scam is as much common sense as it is a necessity.
Trump and his new team understand what the COP29 crowd can’t admit: The Paris Agreement was designed to shackle the U.S. economy while letting the real polluters off the hook. It’s nothing more than a glorified wealth redistribution scheme, and the American taxpayer is the mark.
Meet Trump’s Cabinet of Climate Wreckers
If COP29 delegates are sipping antacids with their organic, fair-trade coffee this morning, it’s because Trump’s cabinet picks read like a climate alarmist’s worst nightmare.
Doug Burgum: Secretary of the Interior
Burgum’s move to Interior promises a full-throttle return to energy dominance. Forget Biden’s endless federal land drilling moratoriums—Burgum is unlocking American resources faster than climate activists can chain themselves to a bulldozer. The Department of the Interior will no longer be a playground for environmental lawyers; it will become what it was always meant to be—a steward of American land for energy, jobs, and growth.
His first move? Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, where billions of barrels of oil lie under pristine tundra that activists think is too good for human use. Burgum isn’t here to hug trees—he’s here to power the nation.
Lee Zeldin: EPA Administrator
Trump’s pick of Zeldin to head the EPA is genius. A staunch critic of the administrative state, Zeldin knows that the EPA has been hijacked by ideologues who care more about regulating cow flatulence than addressing real environmental issues. Expect Zeldin to gut the EPA’s endless red tape, dismantle Biden’s climate executive orders, and end the absurd “waters of the United States” rule that treats mud puddles like the Mississippi River.
Zeldin isn’t here to make friends with European technocrats; he’s here to dismantle their favorite tool of economic sabotage. If COP30 delegates want to weep into their carbon-neutral cocktails, so be it. Zeldin has one message for them: “Regulate your own economy.”
Chris Wright: Fossil Fuels’ Fierce Defender
Chris Wright’s appointment as Secretary of Energy is a seismic shift in U.S. energy policy. An unapologetic champion of oil, gas, and nuclear power, Wright knows that the foundation of modern civilization isn’t powered by wishful thinking. Forget solar panels that sputter at night or wind turbines that freeze in the cold—Wright’s focus is on what works: affordable, reliable energy that powers America’s industries and homes.
His first order of business will be dismantling the subsidy gravy train for inefficient renewables, forcing wind and solar to compete on merit rather than handouts. Wright has made it clear: energy policy shouldn’t bankrupt Americans to chase unproven green dreams. Instead, he’ll double down on expanding domestic fossil fuel production, slashing regulations, and reviving nuclear energy to ensure a stable grid and energy independence.
Globally, Wright’s leadership signals that the U.S. is back in the energy game. LNG exports will surge, allies will be strengthened, and adversaries reliant on oil and gas leverage will lose their power. As the climate elite lament his appointment, Wright will be too busy making energy affordable, accessible, and undeniably American.
Ramifications: A Climate Cold War
The global climate aristocracy is in full meltdown mode. Trump’s America First resurgence will embolden other nations to reassess their commitments to the Paris Agreement. Why should Europe foot the bill for global decarbonization if the U.S. isn’t playing along? China and India, of course, will continue building coal plants while pretending to care. The entire climate house of cards is about to collapse under its own contradictions.
Domestically, Americans will see an energy renaissance. Expect gas prices to plummet as drilling returns to full force. The war on natural gas? Over. The assault on coal? Done. Nuclear power? Back in the game. The result: jobs, growth, and cheaper energy for everyday Americans. Meanwhile, climate elites will find themselves increasingly ignored.
COP29: A Comedy of Errors
Let’s take a moment to appreciate the absurdity of COP29 itself. Delegates from 196 nations spent two weeks lecturing the world on carbon footprints while chartering private jets, dining on caviar, and pushing “solutions” that enrich themselves at everyone else’s expense. They even celebrated a global carbon credit market that’s destined to become the Enron of environmentalism.
And then, just as they were finalizing their grandiose agreements, Trump announced his cabinet picks. It’s almost poetic. The timing couldn’t have been better if it were scripted by a Hollywood screenwriter. While COP29 patted itself on the back, Trump’s America signaled that it has no intention of playing along.
The Final Word
The COP29 agreements will go down as another entry in the annals of climate grift history—a collection of empty promises and unenforceable pledges. Trump’s return, coupled with his America First cabinet, ensures that the U.S. will focus on real priorities: energy independence, economic growth, and putting Americans first.
For the climate elite, COP29 wasn’t just a failure; it was a funeral. The Paris Agreement is dead. The global climate agenda is on life support. And America? It’s roaring back to life. Sorry, Greta. Sorry, Baku. The adults are back in charge.
Over the past two weeks, President-elect Trump has engaged in rapid-fire announcements of his picks for the cabinet and other top positions. Among the announced selections are Trump’s nominees for the three top positions in climate and energy policy: EPA Administrator (Lee Zeldin), Secretary of Energy (Chris Wright), and Secretary of the Interior (Doug Burgum). In this post I will take a first look at these nominees.
Over the past two weeks, President-elect Trump has engaged in rapid-fire announcements of his picks for the cabinet and other top positions. Among the announced selections are Trump’s nominees for the three top positions in climate and energy policy: EPA Administrator (Lee Zeldin), Secretary of Energy (Chris Wright), and Secretary of the Interior (Doug Burgum). In this post I will take a first look at these nominees.
Without doubt, these three Trump appointees will be an enormous improvement over the Biden administration functionaries they will replace (EPA Administrator Michael Regan, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland). The three outgoing Bidenauts are all committed fanatic climate warriors, fighting every day to restrict development and use of hydrocarbon fuels, and thus to make America weaker and Americans poorer. Having them in office has been like having the country’s energy policy under the control of a cabal of its worst enemies.
But is there anything about President-elect Trump’s nominees for these positions that we should be at least somewhat concerned about? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. The subject of my principal concern is the so-called “all of the above” approach to energy policy.
But first the good news. All of Zeldin, Wright and Burgum are on record as proponents of lifting restrictions on development and use of hydrocarbon fuels, getting the government out of the way, and of letting that sector of the economy flourish.
Of the three, Wright, the nominee for Energy Secretary, has been the most vocal and outspoken as a fossil fuels proponent. Wright’s current job is CEO of Liberty Energy, a major player in the business of “fracking” to develop oil and gas resources. A piece in Politico’s E&E News today calls Wright a “fossil fuel evangelist.” A prior piece from the same source a few days ago (November 18) has some choice quotes from Wright, including his saying that “there is no climate crisis” and that net-zero emissions goals “neither achievable nor humane.”
Burgum, the nominee for Interior Secretary, is the current governor of North Dakota, the third largest among oil-producing states. As governor, Burgum has presided over rapid and continuing development of the Bakken shale formation in that state. The Hill, in a piece on November 15, quotes Burgum making promises of “unleashing American energy dominance,” words that echo a frequent Trump refrain. At Interior, Burgum will have the authority to open up large tracts of federal lands that have been withheld from development under Biden.
Zeldin, the nominee for EPA Administrator, has less of a record on energy issues than the other two. His principal prior service consists of eight years in Congress, from January 2015 to January 2023, representing eastern Long Island. At the end of that time, he gave up his seat in Congress to run unsuccessfully for Governor of New York (however, losing by only about 6 points, 53-47, in this very blue state). Newsweek in a November 11 piece, notes that he is a “longtime opponent of climate regulation,” that he got very low scores from the League of Conservation Voters during his time in Congress, and that in his 2022 gubernatorial campaign he promised to lift New York’s ban on fracking that had been imposed by Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo.
So far, so good. However, all of these three nominees are tainted to greater or lesser degree by prior buy-in to the so-called “all of the above” energy policy, as well as to other schemes to fight the bogeyman of “carbon emissions.”
What’s wrong with the “all of the above” energy policy? This is the proposition that the government should promote all forms of energy development — not just fossil fuels, but also anything and everything else, from nuclear to hydro to geothermal to the “renewables” wind and solar. I had a post on this subject on November 2, just before the election. In that post I pointed out that while “all of the above” might sound obviously right as an energy policy, in practice there is a big problem:
In practice, “all of the above” is code for continuing and growing government subsidies to energy schemes that don’t work and that drive up consumer costs and impoverish the people. Under that banner, we’re growing huge corrupt industries of uneconomic energy producers dependent on the endless continuation and increase of destructive subsidies. Ending the subsidies could put these industries out of business overnight, so you should not be surprised that they are prepared to spend billions to buy politicians to keep the gravy flowing.
So where do Trump’s three nominees stand on this subject?
Start with Burgum. He became Governor of North Dakota in 2016. Even as North Dakota’s oil and gas resources have been rapidly developed during his tenure, the same has also been true for wind energy. From the EIA’s North Dakota energy profile:
Wind power generation more than doubled in the state from 2015 to 2023. In 2023, wind was the second-largest electricity generating source in North Dakota and provided nearly two-fifths of the state’s net generation. The state ranked sixth in the nation in the share of its electricity generated from wind energy.
The problem here is that wind energy requires massive government subsidies, and also drives up electricity prices because it is incapable of supplanting reliable generation.
Then there is this about Burgum from the piece in The Hill:
As governor of North Dakota, Burgum set a goal in 2021 for the state to reach net-zero emissions by 2030. . . . However, his plan to meet that target did not include a transition away from fossil fuels, the main driver of climate change. Instead, Burgum said he wanted the state to use carbon capture and storage technology, which can prevent planet-warming emissions from entering the atmosphere, to reduce or offset its emissions.
Burgum gives the impression of being a smart guy. He certainly should be smart enough to understand why carbon capture and storage (CCS) is unlikely ever to be economical. Well, at least the subsidizing of CCS will not be under his jurisdiction as Interior Secretary.
Zeldin’s record on climate and energy issues is also somewhat mixed. From the Newsweek piece linked above:
Zeldin has expressed mixed views on climate change and environmental policy throughout his political career. . . . [H]e has supported some renewable energy initiatives, like extending solar investment tax credits and researching offshore wind potential. . . .
Those “solar investment tax credits” are precisely kinds of things that make the “all of the above” energy policy a cancer on the economy. Again, I suppose that the good news is that handing out or re-authorizing these kinds of subsidies will not be in Zeldin’s authority as EPA Administrator.
The guy mainly in charge of handing out the big subsidies and research grants is going to be Wright at the Department of Energy. Of the three Trump appointees discussed here, Wright has the strongest record with respect to the “all of the above” diversion, and in particular has been a vocal opponent of wind and solar. The November 21 Politico E&E piece linked above quotes Wright as follows as to wind and solar:
[H]e argued the government had gone too far in its attempts to green the economy by subsidizing renewables. “What I think the government’s doing catastrophically wrong is the vast majority of their money and subsidies are not for research, not for making technologies better,” Wright continued. “They’re deploying politically popular, low-energy density, intermittent, unreliable energy sources that have just destabilized our electricity, made energy more expensive, don’t really have a prospect of being a meaningful solution in the future.”
But then there are all kinds of other energy schemes angling for government handouts under the “all of the above” rubric. Politico E&E quotes Wright (referring to a former DOE grant-making official named Julio Friedman):
“What Julio is doing in carbon sequestration, on next generation nuclear, on next generation geothermal technologies — that can play a meaningful role going forward,” Wright said.
There’s CCS again. Nobody has made it work, and probably nobody ever will be able to make it work economically, but it just keeps popping up again and again with its hands out for government subsidies.
How about this as an energy policy for the incoming administration: the government rescinds the restrictive regulations, ends the handouts, and just lets the private sector develop whatever energy source may be the most efficient or profitable.
You must be logged in to post a comment.