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.
“…despite increasing area burned in recent decades,… a widespread fire deficit persists across a range of forest types and recent years with exceptionally high area burned are not unprecedented when considering the multi-century perspective offered by fire-scarred trees.”
“…despite increasing area burned in recent decades,… a widespread fire deficit persists across a range of forest types and recent years with exceptionally high area burned are not unprecedented when considering the multi-century perspective offered by fire-scarred trees.”
Let’s review that one more time:
“Wildland fire was common and widespread across many forests and woodlands in North America prior to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In subsequent decades, fire exclusion—the practice of preventing and suppressing nearly all wildland fires—occurred as the result of the disruption of traditional burning, livestock grazing, and active suppression of human- and lightning-ignited fires. As a consequence, average annual area burned since the late 19th and early- to mid-20th centuries is generally less than that experienced under historical fire regimes across many North American forests, resulting in a widespread 20th century ‘fire deficit’ relative to earlier time periods.”
Note: The authors use “the term ‘traditional burning’ to encompass both Indigenous fire stewardship and post-colonization traditions of burning that were widely adopted in the eastern United States.”
The table shows that only one single region, the Taiga & Hudson Plain, in Northern Canada, had had more fires in the 1984-2022 study interval than would be predicted based on the burn scar data prior to 1880.
The study gives a conceptual explanation of the causes and effects as:
“Overall, contemporary fires (1984–2022) burned NAFSN [North American tree-ring fire-scar network] sites less frequently than fires during the historical reference period (pre-1880), indicating that a substantial fire deficit persists and is still accumulating across many forests and woodlands across the United States and Canada (Table 1). Based on the historical fire-scar record, NAFSN sites collectively would be expected to have burned 4346 times from 1984– 2022, yet they burned 989 times, or only 23% of what would be expected under the historical fire regime.”
The mass media would rather focus on studies such as “U.S. fires became larger, more frequent, and more widespread in the 2000s” , Iglesias et al. (2022), found in Science Advances. Iglesias et al. only studied fires since 1984. Looking at Parks et al. (2025) Figure 4 above, we see that time period as the raging fires fed by 100 years of fire deficit.
Bottom Lines:
1. Claims made repeatedly in the mainstream media that wildfires are getting more common and more severe are not supported by the findings of this study.
2. When looked at over the last 200 years, we have a severe fire deficit, not an excess. In the ecoregions studied (U.S. and Canada), fires have been far less frequent, and the result is a fire deficit.This is true of all the ecoregions except the most northern parts of Canada.
3. The long-term fire deficit, unburned wildlands, sets up wildlands for more fiercely burning fires that consume all the extra fuel left by the lack of fire.
4. Parks et al. (2025) has a very interesting discussion section that covers possible long-term effects and regime shifts that might result from the century of fire suppression.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
Fire is always a news worthy topic. Humans seem, even in our technologically advanced era, to be fascinated by fire while at the same time, depressingly ignorant of its causes and effects. This is seen all over the United States in the building of highly flammable homes in our forests and, as in Los Angeles, on indefensible hillsides covered with incendiary brush and grasses.
It is no mystery why some recent fires have been particular hot. The basics of fire have not changed: fuel + oxygen + heat = fire. More fuel with adequate oxygen makes hotter fires.
Studying short-term data sets for long-term phenomena is not good science.
After uploading the above essay, I found that Roger Pielke Jr. has picked up on the same study. His piece is The North American Fire Deficit.
Australia is still launching itself to Net Zero Land at the top of the Magic Faraway Tree. There was no election in Australia, and no change to the green policies. Yet, a month after the US banks quietly peeled themselves away from the Globalist Banker Blob, the first Australian bank starts backing away slowly too. They don’t explain why in any convincing fashion. Have they just lost the faith that renewables are going to work, or is this just the end of the subsidy train with the collapse of the USAID grift and graft?
If it was the end of a Big Green Bubble, it would look a lot like this…
Australia is still launching itself to Net Zero Land at the top of the Magic Faraway Tree. There was no election in Australia, and no change to the green policies. Yet, a month after the US banks quietly peeled themselves away from the Globalist Banker Blob, the first Australian bank starts backing away slowly too. They don’t explain why in any convincing fashion. Have they just lost the faith that renewables are going to work, or is this just the end of the subsidy train with the collapse of the USAID grifts and graft?
Kyle Robertson, Senior banking analyst, Australian Financial Review
This decision by Macquarie makes little sense, prioritising political expediency and short-term financial interests over the longer-term viability of its business and the economy.
Macquarie Bank has sent shockwaves around the world by quietly announcing it has quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) this week, taking the dubious honour of being the first major Australian financial institution to pull out of a global climate initiative.
The senior banking analyst is baffled after Macquarie spent years pumping up renewables:
It is hard to understand this sudden backslide after Macquarie spent years building up its reputation as a green bank. Macquarie chief executive Shemara Wikramanayake has been a feature of global climate conferences for years, promoting the need for large-scale public and private sector investment into renewable energy and climate adaptation initiatives.
The CEO was even recognized as “Time’s 100 Most Influential Climate Leaders in Business for 2023” ferrgoodnesssake!
Yet look at the power of bully bankers…
Robertson speaks in approving tones about the Australian bankers that are hobbling law abiding companies from providing a service consenting adults want to pay for.
ANZ and Westpac are still using corporate finance and bonds to finance companies expanding oil and gas. In contrast, the country’s largest bank, Commonwealth Bank, has ended finance for oil and gas producers without a credible Paris-aligned transition plan. At its 2024 AGM, NAB chairman Philip Chronican indicated that by October this year, the bank would end finance for companies pursuing oil and gas field expansion.
Who voted for the bankers to set Australian energy policy anyway?
If fossil fuels are so awful Robertson (or the bankers) could always try persuading people not to use them. Until then Australians allow the bankers to hold banking licences and make squillions of dollars in profits. But in a free market, a new banker could turn up and offer loans to all the unfashionable fossil fuel companies that the precious banker club eschew. Instead, citizens pay for regulatory watchdogs and police that protect these smug banker bullies against newcomers and competition.
Shh — it’s just a moment of backsliding
The announcement was made in muted tones, probably printed in grey ink, and filled with soothing words about how boring and normal it was to adjust the settings. Since Macquarie is still a significant investor in renewables projects — it probably doesn’t want to crash renewable share prices, and the CEO and the board don’t want to actually rub salt into the wounds of Labor Party policies either. So, unlike the fanfare when the bankers united, the dissolution of the same banker club will be dressed up to look as boring as possible.
Does anyone believe this rot? Net Zero is all sorted now so they can step back “like many others” have?
“The NZBA helped develop global frameworks and assisted member banks as they established their initial decarbonisation plans. With those building blocks now in place, like many peers Macquarie will no longer be a member of NZBA, as we focus on updating and delivering our plans and reporting in line with regulatory requirements,” Macquarie said in a statement. —The Australian
Only the occasional “shock” from a die hard believer bank analyst gives away what a radical change in direction this is.
Macquarie said it would provide a further update on its net zero ambitions in May (probably right after the election).
PS: Yet again we see how The US Government de facto sets the policies of so many other nations all around the world.
UPDATE: Commenter Serge Wright #9 — Nuclear power in Australia will hurt renewables
Their move is all about monetary sustainability and it’s probably partly due to Dutton’s nuclear plan, which will have a big impact on the viability of RE [Renewable Energy] projects. If a nuclear plant goes into service, it would be classed as clean energy and it would therefore be able to bid 24/7, forcing wind and solar to dump more excess energy at midday and also reducing the huge price spikes at peak periods that RE relies on to make profits. Just this policy being on the table is enough to scare away RE investment and it’s probably no coincidence that all of the offshore wind and green hydrogen projects have evaporated since the nuclear plan was put forward.
The decision by Macquarie is interesting because it’s happened before the election which is probably our most significant from a RE and CC perspective. A Dutton win would obviously be bad for RE, but a minority Labor win would be a disaster in the opposite direction with the Greens and Teals possibly legislating complete bans on all FF projects and energy sources. In the latter scenario there would be a huge, short-term influx of borrowed taxpayer money being pumped into the RE industry but followed by a collapse in the economy as the energy system and energy exports collapsed. I would expect the banks to pull out of the Net Zero alliance only after a Dutton win because there is some short-term opportunity here in a minority Labor government. But perhaps Macquarie has realised that with Trump in office, Net Zero is dead anyway and a Dutton win would open up more FF export and gas projects as well as funding for the nuclear plants if they get legs.
The Trump win makes a conservative win (and nuclear power) more likely to happen in the next Australian election (due before the end of May).
Carbon dioxide (CO₂) has been predominantly portrayed as the chief culprit driving global warming. For decades, this misconception has guided international policies, prompted ambitious targets for reducing CO2 emissions and driven a shift from reliable and affordable energy resources like coal, oil, and natural gas toward problematic wind and solar sources.
Carbon dioxide (CO₂) has been predominantly portrayed as the chief culprit driving global warming. For decades, this misconception has guided international policies, prompted ambitious targets for reducing CO2 emissions and driven a shift from reliable and affordable energy resources like coal, oil, and natural gas toward problematic wind and solar sources.
However, this theory overlooks important factors that influence Earth’s climate system, including a critical variable in the climate system – the role of clouds, which remains woefully underestimated.
Recent work by physicists W. A. van Wijngaarden and William Happer challenges this prevailing paradigm: Their new paper, Radiation Transport in Clouds, suggest clouds affect atmospheric temperature more than CO2 because they have a greater impact on the comparative amounts of solar energy entering Earth’s atmosphere and escaping to outer space.
The Overshadowed Influence of Clouds
Clouds simultaneously reflect incoming sunlight back to space (cooling the Earth) and trap outgoing heat (warming the Earth). This dual nature makes clouds both powerful and perplexing players in our climate system. The net effect of clouds on climate is a balance between these opposing influences, thus a central component of the Earth’s energy budget.
A recent study by van Wijngaarden and Happer, titled “Radiation Transport in Clouds,” delves into this complexity. The 2025 paper says the radiation effects of clouds can easily negate or amplify the impact of CO2. The researchers highlight that clouds have a more pronounced effect on Earth’s radiation budget than greenhouse gases like CO₂.
For instance, their research reveals that a modest decrease in low cloud cover could significantly increase solar heating of the Earth’s surface. In comparison, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations reduces radiation to space by a mere 1%: “Instantaneously doubling CO₂ concentrations, a 100% increase, only decreases radiation to space by about 1%. To increase solar heating of the Earth by a few percent, low cloud cover only needs to decrease by a few percent.”
This stark contrast highlights the disproportionate influence of cloud dynamics compared to CO2 fluctuations. Most state-of-art climate models are still in their infancy. We need more accurate measurements of clouds’ properties and their influence on the electromagnetic components of solar radiation if they are to be useful inputs for climate models.
Implications for Energy Policy and Reliability
Current strategies assume a direct and dominant link between CO2 emissions and global temperatures to justify aggressive “decarbonization” efforts and an increase in the use of solar and wind energy.
However, solar and wind are inherently intermittent, rendering them unreliable and very expensive as components of a power grid. The infrastructure required to support these technologies entails substantial upfront investments, higher operating costs and increasing utility bills for consumers.
Blackouts, energy shortages and price spikes are becoming increasingly common in regions that have prematurely decommissioned fossil fuel plants without adequate backup solutions. This trend disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, exacerbating energy poverty and hindering economic development.
The major justification for using solar and wind has been that they counter global warming by reducing CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. If small variations in cloud cover actually overwhelm the effects of CO2, then the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is being significantly overestimated. This has profound implications for policy.
Attributing global warming predominantly to CO₂ emissions from the use of fossil fuels is a gross oversimplification. While CO2 undoubtedly has a warming effect, it is relatively modest and beneficial, mainly moderating the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. On the other hand, clouds, with their multifaceted interactions and feedbacks, represent a critical and underappreciated component of this puzzle.
The findings of van Wijngaarden and Happer highlight a broader issue within climate science: the tendency to oversimplify complex systems for the sake of political expediency. As the global energy landscape continues to evolve, it is imperative that decisions be based on sound science rather than political dogma.
The time has come to reassess our approach to both climate science and energy policy. The stakes are too high to continue down a path of destructive policies based on erroneous analyses. We must prioritize reliable, affordable energy sources and grid stability over useless reductions in emissions of a harmless gas.
This commentary was first published at BizPac Review on February 10, 2025.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
According to the Rhein-Main-Verkehrsverbund (RMV), the hydrogen trains on the Taunusbahn have been temporarily taken out of service and diesel locomotives are being used again. The hydrogen locomotives are manufactured by Alstom and are reported to have been “fault-prone” and are currently being improved.
Germany’s Blackout News here reports the latest example of what happens when green energy fantasies clash with reality, in this case trains powered by hydrogen.
According to the Rhein-Main-Verkehrsverbund (RMV), the hydrogen trains on the Taunusbahn have been temporarily taken out of service and diesel locomotives are being used again. The hydrogen locomotives are manufactured by Alstom and are reported to have been “fault-prone” and are currently being improved.
“The project was launched in December 2022 with great expectations. The plan was to deploy the world’s largest fleet of hydrogen trains on the Taunusbahn. But problems arose early on,” reports Blackout News. “Even at the start, Alstom was unable to deliver the promised number of vehicles. Technical defects became more frequent in the following months.”
RMV was thus forced to put the diesel locomotives back in service but calls the measure “a temporary solution until the end of 2025.” The hydrogen powered operation remains the overall aim. Alstom is currently overhauling the hydrogen trains to make them ready for long-term, reliable operation.
By returning to the diesel trains, RMV is focusing on reliability while hoping hydrogen will improve enough to be put back in service by the end of this year. “This measure shows that sustainable technologies continue to pose challenges,” Blackout News summarizes.
While green energies can be used in a number of applications, they are proving to be a major technological challenge in the transport sector.
It is so refreshing to wake up in an America where you don’t have an unelected bureaucrat the night before deciding to ban wood-fired pizza ovens, gas stoves, ceiling fans, and regulations. Instead, we have an elected leader reversing this nonsense. This was the ultimate virtue-signal: the plastic straw ban. You go back to 2018 when California threatened waiters with $1,000 fines if they offered plastic straws.
Trump scores win as NJ halts offshore wind project – ClimateDepot.com executive editor Marc Morano joins ‘Fox & Friends Weekend’ to discuss the Trump administration’s handling of Democrats’ green energy policies.
Rough Transcript:
Marc Morano: It is so refreshing to wake up in an America where you don’t have an unelected bureaucrat the night before deciding to ban wood-fired pizza ovens, gas stoves, ceiling fans, and regulations. Instead, we have an elected leader reversing this nonsense. This was the ultimate virtue-signal: the plastic straw ban. You go back to 2018 when California threatened waiters with $1,000 fines if they offered plastic straws. Since then, we know that paper straws take 450 years to recycle, have forever chemicals, and have a higher carbon footprint than plastic straws. There’s no science there for all this virtue signaling to even vaguely support bans. This is something that is popular and scientifically makes sense. Bring back the plastic straws. No one wants that paper crap anymore.
Rachel Campos-Duffy: Talk to me about what Donald Trump is doing about the windmills, and how he’s brought Governor Murphy, who’s been, you know, proving all of these wind farms everywhere now he’s been brought to his knees. Tell us about it.
Marc Morano: Well, this is huge. First of all, we’re talking about plastic. To make one wind turbine, it takes 45 tons of nonrenewable plastic. Okay, that’s going to blow away all your plastic straws in restaurants just make a few windmills. What Donald Trump has done here — this is environmental hero stuff. He’s saving the whales. He’s getting this blight off the landscape. Donald Trump’s first three weeks in office, he is literally wiping out the entire offshore wind industry on the East Coast.
They’re pulling the funding, they’re pulling the permits, and they’re exposing the fraud that wind power is somehow climate friendly. And even Governor Murphy of New Jersey, a staunch advocate who wanted this because he had to meet climate goals. By the way, climate goals have nothing to do with the climate. They’re promoting an energy source that, combined with solar, aren’t even 4% so this has been a great thing to watch. Get these eyesores out, both the left and right on the East Coast, I was in a protest with San Francisco liberals and East Coast liberals, along with conservatives and commercial fishermen and they don’t want these things. They’re washing up debris on the beach. They want offshore wind gone. They’re harming whales. More endangered whales are allowed to be killed by windmills than there are known known numbers of them in the wild.
Offshore wind is going to have to be decommissioned, and you’re going to have to do another project to remove them from the oceans. That’s going to be a whole expensive project in itself, but I’d much rather spend the money on that than putting more of this boondoggle of wind out there.
Below average temperatures in the eastern United States during the week of January 19, 2025, resulted in high demand for electricity. On January 21 at 6:00 p.m. eastern time, ISO-New England (ISO-NE), the organization operating an integrated grid in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, recorded peak hourly demand of 19,600 megawatts (MW). Although demand was elevated, it was lower than the 20,308 MW that ISO-NE forecast peak demand would be in its 2024/2025 winter assessment published on November 7, 2024. Temperatures were more moderate in New England than in the Midwest, which tempered electricity demand somewhat in New England.
Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Hourly Electric Grid Monitor Note: EST=eastern standard time
Below average temperatures in the eastern United States during the week of January 19, 2025, resulted in high demand for electricity. On January 21 at 6:00 p.m. eastern time, ISO-New England (ISO-NE), the organization operating an integrated grid in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, recorded peak hourly demand of 19,600 megawatts (MW). Although demand was elevated, it was lower than the 20,308 MW that ISO-NE forecast peak demand would be in its 2024/2025 winter assessment published on November 7, 2024. Temperatures were more moderate in New England than in the Midwest, which tempered electricity demand somewhat in New England.
Although the grid had sufficient generating capacity to satisfy demand, a significant share of that supply came from sources that rarely operate. The grid required running older thermal generating plants that burn oil and coal. Between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. eastern time on January 20, 2025, and between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on January 21, 2025, thermal plants that burn oil provided more electricity to the ISO-NE electricity grid than plants that burn natural gas, which is relatively uncommon. On January 21, 2025, the same group of thermal plants in ISO-NE provided more than 4,000 MW of electricity per hour to the grid between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. At the same time, one of the two remaining coal-fired plants that burns coal in the region, the Merrimack facility in New Hampshire, supplied close to 300 MW to the grid from the evening of January 19 to the morning of January 25.
Oil and coal offset curtailed generation from natural gas-fired power plants from January 18 to January 22. Prices for natural gas were high, and supplies were short during this period because of more demand for natural gas from other consumers, such as homes and businesses. Later in the week, more natural gas was made available, including supply received from a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal in Everett, Massachusetts. This supply helped boost generation from natural gas-fired power plants beginning on January 22.
Two other major sources of electricity in New England were steady suppliers during the cold snap. The region’s three nuclear reactors steadily provided 3,350 MW of power throughout the period, joined by consistent imports of power from Canada. At 11:00 p.m. on January 18, imports of electricity from Canada surpassed 4,200 MW and averaged 2,886 MW per hour between midnight on January 18 and midnight on January 26.
Principal contributors: Kimberly Peterson, Sue Smith
I prefer to use stacked area plots to evaluate the contributions of different generation sources.
Figure 1. ISO New England electricity generation by source 1/18/2025 – 1/26/2025. US EIA
Nuclear power provided a stable baseload. Coal ramped up to reinforce that baseload. Natural gas ramped up and down with demand. Petroleum-fired power plants ramped up to cover the demand gas couldn’t keep up with. Hydroelectric and pumped storage wallowed on top of the waves. While solar, wind and battery power remained largely invisible.
How many ways to count the irony?
Irony #1
The first irony is the fact that New England had to import foreign liquified natural gas (LNG) because they steadfastly resist the construction of natural gas pipelines.
Even with New England’s relative proximity to the Marcellus and Utica shale gas basins in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio, the rise in production from these areas has not been matched by pipeline infrastructure to deliver fuel supplies to the region. Complicating matters for New England is a lack of underground storage that could be used to help smooth out seasonal demand spikes.[3]
The Northeast is also effectively cut off from domestic LNG supplies. While the US exports LNG from terminals on the Gulf Coast and Cove Point, Maryland, cargoes from these locations and other US ports cannot be delivered to New England as a result of the Jones Act, which restricts maritime commerce between US ports. (The Jones Act is discussed in greater depth later in this piece.)
Demand for natural gas in the region has grown over the last decade as a result of new, gas-fired power plants, coal and nuclear plant retirements, and residential users switching from heating oil to natural gas.[4] Nearly half of New England’s power plants now use natural gas as their primary fuel (about 15,000 MW)[5] and 46 percent of homes in the region use natural gas for heating.[6]
The region is served by two LNG import terminals in Massachusetts: the Everett and the Northeast Gateway terminals. In addition, Maryland’s Cove Point Terminal and Georgia’s Elba Terminal can import additional supplies to make up regional shortfalls when they occur.
Oil and coal offset curtailed generation from natural gas-fired power plants from January 18 to January 22. Prices for natural gas were high, and supplies were short during this period because of more demand for natural gas from other consumers, such as homes and businesses. Later in the week, more natural gas was made available, including supply received from a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal in Everett, Massachusetts. This supply helped boost generation from natural gas-fired power plants beginning on January 22.
Nuclear, oil, and coal generators are critical on the coldest winter days when natural gas supply is constrained (as shown below). Coal- and oil-fired resources also make valuable contributions on the hottest days of summer when demand is very high or major resources are unavailable. As more and more conventional, thermal generation facilities that store fuel on site retire, the system is increasingly made up of generating facilities that run on “just-in-time” energy sources: natural gas (from pipelines and LNG deliveries), wind, and solar energy.
With limited options for storing natural gas, most natural-gas-fired plants rely on just-in-time fuel delivered to New England through interstate pipelines. However, interstate pipeline infrastructure has only expanded incrementally over the last several decades, even as reliance on natural gas for home heating and for power generation has grown significantly. During cold weather, most natural gas is committed to local utilities for residential, commercial, and industrial heating. As a result, during severe winter weather many power plants in New England cannot obtain fuel to generate electricity. Liquefied natural gas (LNG), brought to New England by ship from overseas, can help fill the gap—but regional LNG storage and sendout capability is limited, and its timely arrival depends on long-term weather forecasts, global market prices, and other logistical challenges.
New England’s largely left-wing enviro-nitwit governments are betting big on wind and solar power.
New England states move forward with three giant offshore wind farms
By Reuters
September 6, 2024
NEW YORK, Sept 6 (Reuters) – Massachusetts and Rhode Island are moving ahead with three offshore wind projects totaling 2.9 gigawatts (GW), or enough electricity to power about 1.6 million homes, government officials announced on Friday.
The project selections, following a joint solicitation in March for wind farms to be built off of New England’s shores, move Massachusetts and Rhode Island closer to state renewable energy goals aimed at combating the effects of climate change.
[…]
Federal and state climate pledges have largely centered around decarbonizing electrical grids by replacing fossil-fired power with renewable wind and solar. Massachusetts aims to slash its power sector’s carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 and 100% by 2050. The much smaller Rhode Island has set a goal to use all renewables by 2033.
Winter also poses the greatest challenges for solar output in New England due to snow, clouds, and shortened daylight hours. In addition, shortened winter days means consumers use the most electricity after sunset, and therefore solar doesn’t reduce winter peak demand. While offshore wind experiences its highest production during winter, winter storms that limit solar power can also significantly limit the output of wind generation if high wind speeds force plant operators to shut down in order to protect equipment. This type of variability is a n understandable challenge in meeting the states’ decarbonization goals through greater renewable, weather-dependent technologies, and it poses new technical challenges to the grid’s reliability.
Solar power works best when it’s least needed in New England.
Figure 2. This graph shows the effect of distributed solar power (rooftop panels, etc.) on grid demand, The yellow curve depicts a “duck curve”. On sunny days, distributed solar arrays reduce grid demand, The gray curve is what happens when the Sun doesn’t shine. The ducks only work on sunny days, ISO New England
Irony #3
During the recent cold snap, peak demand occurred at 0800 on January 22.
Figure 3. ISO New England electricity generation by source 1/18/2025 – 1/26/2025, with peak demand highlighted.
Fossil fuels and nuclear power provided 83% of the power generation. Hydroelectric and pumped storage covered 13%. Wind accounted for 1%, Solar and battery storage delivered zero-point-zero percent of the generation.
Figure 4. ISO New England electricity generation by source 0800 1/22/2025.
Irony #4
The final irony is that I was born (1958), raised, went to college and earned a geoscience degree (1980) in Connecticut back during The Ice Age Cometh era.
I had just finished my sophomore year of college when this In Search Of episode aired in May 1978.
Since 1981, I’ve been a geophysicist/geologist in the oil & gas industry in Texas… Helping provide the oil & gas that keeps New Englanders from freezing in the dark… And, I guess, also contributing to some degree to the global warming, that saved them from The Ice Age Cometh.
Fortunately for those affected by adverse weather (like really cold nights), the oil & gas industry produces natural gas, with very few exceptions, 24/7/365. We inject it into subsurface storage facilities when production exceeds demand, so that it can be withdrawn when demand exceeds production.
Although people like Antonio Guterres have made the foolish claim we have entered the era of global boiling, we have to acknowledge that the world has warmed a bit since pre-industrial times. The alarmist response to this is Net Zero which is an example of a so-called mitigation strategy that calls for everyone to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide to save the planet.
Last week, the Government gave its response to a petition calling for the repeal of the Climate Change Act and for Net Zero targets to be rolled back. The response could have been written by a Just Stop Oil activist and can be summarised as “the earth is warming, build more windmills.” I was going to draft an article rebutting their claims, but as luck would have it, the video of the talk I gave for Sacred Cows last month is now available and goes into more detail than I could in a single article. I would be grateful if you could share this article and video far and wide.
The slides accompanying the talk can be downloaded on the link below.
Although people like Antonio Guterres have made the foolish claim we have entered the era of global boiling, we have to acknowledge that the world has warmed a bit since pre-industrial times. The alarmist response to this is Net Zero which is an example of a so-called mitigation strategy that calls for everyone to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide to save the planet.
Mitigation Can Never Work
The trouble with this approach is that it can only work if two conditions are met. First, mitigation can only work if CO2 is the only climate control knob. But we know this to be wrong, because the IPCC’s first report showed marked temperature fluctuations over thousand-, ten thousand- and million-year timescales when CO2 levels in the atmosphere were pretty constant. Second, mitigation can only work if everyone else follows the same strategy. But we know that global emissions of greenhouse gases are rising sharply even though ours have fallen into insignificance. Global consumption of coal, oil and gas are at record levels. Neither condition is met, so the UK’s Net Zero mitigation strategy can never work.
Impact of Net Zero Policies
Nevertheless this has not stopped politicians and policymakers rushing headlong into Net Zero policies that have resulted in the UK having the most expensive industrial electricity costs in the IEA, some 4X those of the US and 2.6X Korean prices. This is leading to energy austerity with UK primary energy consumption down 23% since 1990 while global energy consumption is up 72% over the same period. Our National Energy System Operator, NESO wants to double down on energy austerity and halve our energy consumption per capita from 2023 levels by 2050.
High energy prices coupled with energy austerity have led to economic stagnation. There is a strong correlation between reduced energy use and slow growth, with the EU27 and US growing faster than the UK because they have had smaller cuts to energy use. Korea, India China and the rest of the world are using much more energy and their economies are powering ahead.
Myths Created to Promote Renewables
Despite the obvious economic and social costs of Net Zero, a series of myths have been created to support the renewables agenda. They claim renewables are cheap, but we pay £11bn/yr in renewables subsidies, £2.5bn for grid balancing and a further £1bn for the capacity market. National Grid have announced £112bn in spending on grid expansion by 2035 which will also find its way on to our bills. Moreover, the cost of renewables is rising and projects like Norfolk Boreas and Hornsea Project Four have been cancelled because the developers cannot make money at the prices they agreed. Ed Miliband wants to spend £260-290bn by 2030 on his Clean Power plan to save only around £7bn/yr of the money we spend on gas-fired generation.
The second myth is that Net Zero will create jobs and growth. But the truth is expensive energy costs are destroying high-productivity industries like chemicals, petrochemicals, ceramics and steel that are growing more slowly than the rest of the economy or outright shrinking. Instead we are growing less energy intensive low-productivity sectors that are damaging productivity and growth for the whole economy. Green energy jobs are destroying real jobs and cost around £250K/yr per job.
The third myth is that renewables increase energy security. But intermittent sources like wind and solar can never deliver security because we cannot control the weather. As a result we came close to blackouts last month as NESO suffered a margin call. We cannot rely upon interconnectors either, because the Norwegian Government fell because of the impact interconnectors are having on their electricity prices.
Finally, it is claimed that wind and solar renewables are green and kind to the environment. But both have very high mineral intensity, meaning massive mines will be scarring the landscape to produce the copper, silver, cobalt and rare earth metals required. They also take up a lot of land, land that would be better utilised to grow food.
Adaptation is a Superior Strategy
By contrast, adaptation is a far superior strategy. Deaths from natural disasters and weather events have fallen more than 10-fold over the past century as we have used cheap, abundant energy to tame nature. Global life expectancy has doubled since 1850 and cereal yields are up three times since 1961. These remarkable achievements have come despite, some might argue because of, the rise in temperatures and global CO2 levels.
Nuclear Power is the Answer
Turning now to the answer. For humanity to thrive, we need cheap, abundant and reliable energy. This will give us the surplus energy that we need to continue to adapt by building flood defences, improving irrigation developing new crop varieties and so on. Adaptation has the big advantage is that it works regardless of the cause of global warming or climate change. The only technology that is proven to work at scale is nuclear power. This will take time, so we need gas as a transition technology. Nuclear power has the added advantage of being energy dense, reliable and requires very little mining so has the smallest overall environmental footprint. We need nuclear power everywhere all at once.
In conclusion, Net Zero is ineffective in achieving its primary goal and can never stop the weather changing. The impact of Net Zero policies is devastating for the economy and high productivity, energy intensive industries in particular. Renewables are not kind to the environment and the lies being told to promote them are untenable. The Net Zero cure is worse than the climate change disease.
Many thanks to Will and the team at Sacred Cows for giving me the opportunity to speak. The venue was sold out and judging by the conversations I had afterwards, the event went down very well on the night.
The talk is now also available as a podcast on Spotify.
Barack Obama tried but failed to enact the Green New Deal. Joe Biden, aided by California’s Nancy Pelosi, succeeded in spades – on paper, at least.
Whether or not one believes that an all-electric society, aided by wind and solar (and electric shock treatment at the cash register) were environmental positives, the Biden Administration’s environmental record is incomplete without an accounting of a few other actions (and inactions).
Joe Biden literally invited President Putin to undertake a “minor incursion” into Ukraine, a country that had provided millions for his family, though Putin may claim NATO aggression as his casus belli. Biden’s financial support for Iran and its surrogates likely emboldened Hamas.
Many have said both conflicts could have been prevented through better diplomacy. No one sat any belligerents down to discuss the damage to the planet (and to the dreams of “net zero”) from an ongoing military conflict – damage that impacts people far away from the battlefields.
Similarly, neither California nor federal officials placed sufficient concern about the environmental damage (and liability) for the recent massive fires.
While California ratepayers have coughed up billions to rectify decades of mismanagement by its publicly owned utilities, former Public Utilities Commission chair Loretta Lynch admitted that the PUC “rubber-stamped outrageous costs” and allowed utilities to “address wildfires in the most expensive, least effective way possible.”
The Obama-Biden Administration in 2009 uplisted the “delta smelt” as endangered to justify increasing restrictions on water withdrawals from northern California streams – water once used for agriculture and for filling reservoirs. Nor did anyone weigh the balance between saving a few fish against the massive loss of wildlife and habitat from uncontrolled fires.
Governor Newsom had no answers, neither did Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, as wildfires destroyed entire towns, leaving behind mountains of toxic debris and turning recent rain and snow into an environmental threat.
It’s not as if California did not know wildfires (many with human origins) “every year emit as much carbon as almost 2 million cars.” In 2020, wildfires constituted the state’s second largest source of greenhouse gases, after transportation – increasing overall emissions by about 30%.
But California lawmakers refused to count the state’s wildfire emissions in its efforts to reduce statewide greenhouse gases. With 30% of total emissions coming from wildfires, one would think any attempt to meet Governor Newsom’s goal of net zero by 2045 would include better strategies for reducing wildfire emissions.
Apparently, there are a lot of ostriches in Sacramento.
Sadly, as the Epoch Timesreported, carbon dioxide (and methane) emissions are hardly the only environmental damages from last month’s (ongoing) Los Angeles wildfires. Just two of the fires burned through about 60 square miles, destroying more than 16,000 homes and office buildings.
In the aftermath, the Army Corps of Engineers will remove six inches of soil from damaged and destroyed properties. Air, water, and soil testing is necessary because of the volume of melted electric cars, solar panels, gas tanks, lithium-ion batteries, plastics, asbestos, and more released by the horrific fires.
Beaches are closed because of debris washed away by recent rains. Potential damage to the health of those returning to the fire-impacted areas may be akin to that from the Twin Towers attack.
Where was the due diligence to minimize the impacts of these fires?
No government agency in California, laments Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics, is reliably tracking toxins unleashed by these fires.
Of course, no one would dare argue that all wildfires in fire-prone areas of California can be prevented – but most, if not all, can be brought under some control with better preparation.
While the California fires were a major U.S. disaster, the damage they caused pales in comparison to the ongoing damages in Gaza, Ukraine, and Russia from violent wars.
Last June the United Nations Environmental Programme called the environmental impacts of the war in Gaza “unprecedented,” exposing anyone living there to soil, water, and air pollution and risks of irreversible damage to natural ecosystems. UNEP executive director Inger Andersen begged in vain for an immediate ceasefire “to save lives and restore the environment.”
Gaza was not a paean of environmental purity before its leaders prompted the Israeli response, which eight months ago had already generated an estimated 39 million metric tons of debris that poses risks to human health and the environment.
Water, sanitation, and hygiene systems were already destroyed, solid waste management systems were badly damaged, solar panels were in tatters — plus heavy metals and explosive chemicals from munitions and groundwater contamination from clearing out the massive tunnel system.
But did anyone rein in Hamas before October 7, 2023, to warn of the environmental consequences of starting a war with the neighbor that supplied Gaza with electricity and other public goods? Did anyone recognize that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency was heavily staffed with people more willing to wage war than build a Gazan economy?
Frontiers in Human Dynamics suggests that, by addressing the root causes of the conflict, supporting sustainable reconstruction efforts, and promoting environmental protections even in war-torn regions, the “global community” can begin to mitigate the lasting impact of conflicts like this one. But it will take the entire village to change the culture of war and hatred.
While the UNEP calls the Gaza environmental damage “unprecedented,” the total destruction in Gaza is but a fraction of the human death and dislocation and environmental destruction during the much longer Russia-Ukraine war that has devastated the “breadbasket of the world.”
The U.S. Helsinki Commission last June said that a decade of Russian aggression against Ukraine had inflicted some $60 billion in damages to Ukraine’s natural and manmade environments and pushed the country to the brink of ecological collapse. That was eight months ago, and the war continues.
The Commission reported that vast swaths of Ukraine had been contaminated with landmines, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals; hundreds of thousands of square miles of agricultural lands were decimated, their groundwater contaminated, and nature reserves consumed by fire.
The catastrophic destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam took away irrigation and sanitation water – and that is just a barebones description of the ongoing damage that does not mention damages Ukraine has inflicted to the East.
But the UNEP had bemoaned the environmental destruction 14 months earlier, and the European Parliament too had reported on the threat to climate change from the war in mid-2023. A toxicology assessment noted that international law mandates that methods of warfare must be implemented with “due regard to the protection and preservation of the natural environment.”
But does anyone seriously think that in Gaza or Ukraine “reconstruction” will happen any time soon? Or that any reconstruction in war-torn areas will be aided by a “just and lasting peace” while the root of these conflicts remains unaddressed?
The previous administration’s touted focus on the environment was so heavily skewed to technological fixes that destroyed existing industries that it failed to fully consider or undertake the necessary diplomacy to prevent destructive wars. Similarly, California’s focus on vehicle emissions and “net zero” largely ignored prioritizing fire prevention and control.
Hopefully, new leadership in Washington – and around the planet – can do a better job.
Crazy Ed Miliband wants to cover the countryside with hundreds of industrial scale solar farms.
Yesterday the combined 18 GW of solar capacity which we already have produced the princely total 3.1 GWh, having peaked at 0.7 GW at midday. That meant they were running on average at just 0.7% of their capacity.
Just 15 months after receiving a $3.0 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy (Jigar Shaw), Sunnova stock price has cratered with the prospect of bankruptcy. Sunnova founder (and Enron-ex) John Berger’s battle cry– “solar is going to rip apart the energy business as we know it”– is an example of the philosophical fraud committed by political capitalists who are tipsy on taxpayer dollars.
Ed. Note: Just 15 months after receiving a $3.0 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy (Jigar Shaw), Sunnova stock price has cratered with the prospect of bankruptcy. Sunnova founder (and Enron-ex) John Berger’s battle cry– “solar is going to rip apart the energy business as we know it”– is an example of the philosophical fraud committed by political capitalists who are tipsy on taxpayer dollars.
I distinctly remember a Starbuck’s meeting at the request of fellow Enron-ex John Berger soon after he founded Sunnova in 2012. John knew I was adamantly opposed to solar’s government play, and he must have thought I was pliable. I was not. [1]
I stated my objections to John, and rather than try to defend his political bet, he flashed his toothy grin at me. Reminded me of an Ayn Rand quote about “pull peddlers” in Atlas Shrugged: “It is of such pennies and smiles that the destruction of your country is made.”
And so, Berger dodged bullet after bullet with extensions of the solar tax credit and special grants in 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2022. [2] The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 set up a multi-billion-dollar rescue loan. Still, Sunnova is threatening to go the way of the infamous Solyndra and Ivanhoe.
This year, NOVA stock has declined by half, and the last month by one-third. The immediate question is what this means for US taxpayers if Chapter 11 is resorted too.
Congressional Republicans and their allies believe they’ve hit on the next renewable energy scandal on par with the failed solar company Solyndra, which dominated headlines more than a decade ago.
This time, they’re focusing their attention on Sunnova Energy, which recently won a $3 billion federal loan guarantee for a massive “virtual power plant” project. Republicans are raising the alarm over the company’s track record, accusing it of “troubling sales practices” while alleging potential favorable treatment from the Department of Energy…. Cronyism.
Bankruptcy Talk
It was a year ago when the bankruptcy talk began. “High interest rates and NEM 3 destroying solar market Sunnova has struggled to raise further debt and surviving on $200m unrestricted cash,” one follower stated.
In total it needs to raise cash to $600m to cover its expected $600m loss predicted in 2024. Saw many of you were complaining about your issue suntinuity going bankrupt who installs for Sunnova, just a tad bit of info on how bad Sunnova is in itself. I’m guessing PPA lease agreements would go to whoever picks them up at bankruptcy. Sunnova is currently trying to market some agreements to other solar providers but hasn’t seen much success apparently….
With the news that Sunnova is at the U.S. DOE trough asking for a $3.3 billion loan guarantee, a repost from almost four years ago “Sunnova’s Rooftop Solar: Selling a Bad Product Requires ….” is timely.
Conclusion
The merchants of deceit have been touting solar for many decades. Consider the following:
“There is no longer any question that solar energy is feasible and cost effective.” (Jimmy Carter, 1979) [3]
“This is the technology that will allow us to provide solar electric power at competitive prices, both in the United States and in other areas of the world.” (John Urquhart, Enron Corp, 1995) [4]
“Solar is going to rip apart the energy business as we know it.” (John Berger, Sunnova Energy Corp, 2019) [5]
The impending competitiveness of solar-generated electricity is a siren song of a dilute, intermittent energy trying to compete with dense, storable energies. As it was a century ago, the reality today is that mineral energies producing electricity are far more economic than isolated power for homes and businesses in urban (and many rural) areas.
Sunnova would manufacture the panels, install the panels, and maintain the panels. Instead, it subcontracts everything out to “channel partners” that may or may not be there next month. This portends problems that put Sunnova, and thus the whole contract per roof, at risk.
————————–
[1] Sunnova CEO John Berger, well educated and charismatic, was involved with Enron’s renewable business and has gone on to found and manage several solar-related businesses: Contango Capital Partners (2003–2007), Standard Renewable Energy (2007–2010), and SunCap Financial (2010–2012) before starting Sunnova in that year.
[2] The Sunnova political bailouts were under these laws:
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-113) extended the credit through 2019. The termination date was changed from a placed-in-service deadline to a construction start-date phaseout, with a 26 percent for construction beginning in 2020, and 22 percent for construction commencing in 2021.
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123) extended the ITC for five years for fiber-optic solar (as well as fuel cell, small wind, microturbine, CHP, and geothermal heat pumps). These energies were eligible for a 30 percent credit through 2019, with rates declining with construction dates.
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 extended the Residential Clean Energy Credit, previously called the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), through 2034 (12 years). The credit was increased to 30 percent (from 26 percent). Thirty percent of solar panel purchases were deductible from the total cost of federal taxes. The residential solar tax credit is scheduled to drop to 26 percent in 2033 and 22 percent in 2034.
[3] Quoted in Robert L. Bradley Jr., Enron Ascending: The Forgotten Years (Scrivener Press and John Wiley & Sons, 2018), p. 532.
[4] Quoted in Bradley Jr., Enron Ascending, p. 534.
Just last year, Sunnova pitch and caveats were as follows:
With nearly 60,000 customers across the U.S and its territories, including Guam, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, Sunnova uniquely provides a 25-year service commitment with every homeowner’s customized solar + storage system. Sunnova’s goal is to provide the choice of affordable, worry-free solar energy and battery storage technology that generates long-term value for customers and facilitates continued business growth for its network of trusted partners.
“On average,” the headline at Sunnova’s website states, “Sunnova customers save 20% on their energy bills with solar.*” The fine print is as follows:
* Individual savings will vary based on your utility rate, your energy consumption habits, the solar system equipment installed on your property, your tax incentives eligibility, weather and other factors.
In some states Sunnova’s products are not designed to offer savings. Customers located in states or territories other than CA, CT, MA, RI, NY and NJ are likely to perceive savings substantially lower than 20%, if any.
Individual savings estimates are based on your solar energy production, your solar kWh rate, potential tax incentives, your utility kWh rate at the time of purchase, and projected increases in the utility rate (based on historical data and national averages).
Estimates do not take into consideration other changes in utility rates. Such changes could affect your overall estimated savings. Sunnova does not guarantee savings.
Refer to the Limited Warranty in your agreement for complete warranty terms and limitations. Your solar system production will vary based on weather and other factors. Solar system’s cumulative production will be evaluated to validate annual production guarantee. Refer to your agreement for details. Restrictions and limitations apply.
The service agreement can be transferred to the new homeowner. Sunnova’s approval required. Some restrictions apply.
Twenty-five years? What buyer can possibly know what is going to happen five or ten years out, much less 25? Will the house be sold or even still standing?
Seems like the fine print would want to have something else like
Near-term performance will be more predictable than medium- and long-term service. Your present contractor relationships will probably change, and Sunnova as you know us today may not exist. The buyer takes these risks.
Here is the deal. The homeowner rents their roof for 25 years to Sunnova, which utilizes the 30 percent federal tax credit. That’s just one subsidy. The second is requiring utilities to continue to provide service to that customer so that service can be firm (meaning that fossil-fueled and other generation is part of the mix).
Without reliability-backup by the utility, Sunnova would be required to provide storage, ruining the economics of the deal even with the federal subsidy. (Off-grid is another story where, solar-plus-storage is the electrical option.)
A third subsidy: some states require utilities to buy back excess generation from the home. That’s where Sunnova gets to promise savings compared to regular utility service.
With a high subsidy sum at the expense of other taxpayers and ratepayers, some customers will save 20 percent. But for 25 years? Imagine all the things that could or will go wrong. Will that solar installer still be around to replace weathered panels experiencing lower efficiency? Will Sunnova still be around? A bankruptcy, common in the solar industry, could leave a homeowner in the lurch.
————————-
If you want to see a crony capitalist inventing a story to protect his sagging stock price, listen to the CNBC interview with John Berger, founder and CEO of Sunnova Energy, self-advertised as “The leading national residential solar company.”
Founded in Houston by Enron-ex John Berger, the company has never (yes, never) turned a profit. But Berger has a few million dollars of Sunnova stock, and he has been paid handsomely … for (!) destroying more resources than he has created in his ten year history.
Berger’s biography paints him as a free-market fellow, just the opposite of the truth,
Mr. Berger … is an energy entrepreneur who has always supported free market competition, consumer choice and the advancement of energy technology to power energy independence. Before Sunnova, Mr. Berger served as Founder and Chief Executive Officer at SunCap Financial, a residential solar service provider. He also founded Standard Renewable Energy, a provider and installer of renewable energy and energy-efficient products and services.
—————————–
Final note: This public policy piece is not intended to be predictive as the future is not known. Sink or swim, U.S. taxpayers should get a full accounting of the monies received and expended by Sunnova and Berger personally.
You must be logged in to post a comment.