Day: March 3, 2025

On Energy, Carney the Wrong Man at the Worst Time

Even if only for a matter of weeks, Mark Carney is likely to become prime minister of Canada when this Liberal leadership race concludes. His vision for the country is rife with climate strategies and schemes belonging to a world most can remember, but that no longer exists.

From Science Matters

 By Ron Clutz

Geoff Russ explains at his National Post article When it comes to energy, Carney is the wrong man at the worst time.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The world is moving on from global climate goals to more pressing matters

Even if only for a matter of weeks, Mark Carney is likely to become prime minister of Canada when this Liberal leadership race concludes. His vision for the country is rife with climate strategies and schemes belonging to a world most can remember, but that no longer exists.

The world has moved on. International accords such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, cooperation between financial institutions on climate goals, and more carbon pricing are no longer priorities for Canada in 2025. Canada is not a superpower, no serious person would say differently, and we have to swim in the global current of change.

Trudeau was not prepared for Trump’s bargaining style.

This doesn’t mean bowing to the whims of an unpredictable strongman, but it does require recognizing that the Obama world of liberal internationalism and high-minded ideals is gone. Whatever chance it had of enduring died with Joe Biden’s presidency.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 had already scrambled world energy supply lines, and Trump’s return to the White House, along with the rise of AI technology, have changed everything.

AI in particular has been one of the biggest shifts since Carney’s days as a central banker. The astonishing and rapid growth of AI has resulted in eye-popping demands for energy, with data centres set to consume more electricity than entire cities.

Grids will be pushed to their limits. This spells danger for Canadian provinces like British Columbia, whose hydroelectricity regime can no longer reliably supply its economy and population. For consecutive years now, BC Hydro has been forced to import energy from Alberta and the U.S., the latter of which may soon be subject to counter-tariffs and other heightened costs.

Carney’s ideas about the climate and the so-called “energy transition” are at odds with his promises to grow the use of AI in the public service and future economy. Canada will have to build many data centres to keep up with other G7 countries, but where will their energy come from?

Nuclear energy is the most commonly cited solution, and several American big-tech giants have made plans to use small modular reactors (SMRs) to power the data centres. Once built, nuclear power provides an abundance of cheap, low-emitting, and reliable energy.

B.C. has standing laws that prohibit the building of nuclear generators, and the provincial NDP government unambiguously rejected the possibility of changing that. In the meantime, wind and solar will not cut it, both being subject to weather patterns that make them unreliable and insufficient.

The best alternative is natural gas, 1,368 trillion cubic feet of which sits beneath the feet of Canadians and can serve as an abundant source of power for the modern economy. Unfortunately, Carney’s ideas about carbon pricing would fall directly on the producers, making it far more expensive while deterring investment.

Trump is an unabashed economic nationalist, and Canada needs
to make itself competitive and attractive to
both energy and technological investment.

Canadian natural gas is more important than ever, both for the country and the world. After Russia invaded Ukraine, EU countries had to rapidly seek new, stable suppliers of energy to replace the massive Russian gas imports that supplied much of the EU.

The war revealed how energy security amongst friends and allies was just as important as emissions reductions, if not more so. Canada’s first opportunity was squandered when the Liberal government rebuffed European calls for Canadian LNG as having “no business case”.

Germany has been forced to turn back to coal as a power source as energy bills surge, driving German automobile manufacturers to close down some of their plants. Canadian LNG exports need to be prioritized for domestic use and exports abroad, and insisting on slapping punitive carbon taxes on the industry is against Canada’s interests.

Another challenge to Canada’s economic future is the recently proposed, $44 billion USD LNG project in Alaska. Envisioned as a joint US-Japanese, the project would establish Alaska as the leading LNG exporter to Japan, one of the world’s largest importers of natural gas.

If completed, the Alaska LNG project would be a direct threat to BC’s natural gas industry. One of the major projects, Cedar LNG in Kitimat, is set to come online in 2028, followed by two more in Squamish and near Prince Rupert. B.C. has a good head start, but the US and Japan plowing ahead with $44 billion LNG deals should be a wakeup call to Ottawa.

An LNG export deal with Japan of similar value should be completed while American LNG still has to pass through the Panama Canal to get to Japan, not after it starts being shipped from Alaska. Taxing natural gas producers will slow potential projects down and make Canada less competitive.

Canada cannot diversify its trading partners if the U.S. is allowed to overtake our industries and slowing it down with carbon taxes and Canada’s onerous regulatory regime in the name of outdated climate movements is a gift to President Trump.

Like it or not, major international initiatives live or die
depending on American involvement. This was true of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and it is true of NATO.

Mark Carney’s own attempts to forge agreements such as the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which has been abandoned by major American and Canadian banks and financial institutions, have collapsed. Canada needs to prioritize building up our own internal energy infrastructure and making it as competitive and attractive to investors as possible.

This is the age of nationalism, and we should recognize the opportunities it will bring to Canada. If Carney’s pledge to make Canadians “masters of our own house” means trying to captain toothless climate accords and drive away investment, then he should not be the head of our house.

The Rain in Spain Stays Mainly the Same

I came across a study that’s been getting some play in the usual climatastrophist circles. The study is entitled

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by  Willis Eschenbach

Part 1. The Study.

I came across a study that’s been getting some play in the usual climatastrophist circles. The study is entitled

Impact of land use changes and global warming on extreme precipitation patterns in the Maritime Continent

And here’s the abstract:

Abstract

Land use changes (LUC) and global warming (GW) significantly impact the Maritime Continent’s (MC) hydroclimate, but their effects on extreme precipitation events are underexplored. … We find that LUC-induced deforestation increases surface warming, enhancing atmospheric instability and favoring local convection, leading to more frequent heavy precipitation. Meanwhile, GW amplifies the atmosphere’s water-holding capacity, further intensifying wet extremes. Our findings reveal a “wet-get-wetter, dry-get-drier” pattern driven by different mechanisms: dynamic processes primarily influence wet extremes under LUC, while changes in evapotranspiration control dry extremes. In contrast, under GW, wet extremes are driven by dynamic processes, while dry extremes are influenced by reduced moisture availability and weakened atmospheric circulation. This highlights the need for land management to address rising extreme risks.

And what is the “Maritime Continent” when it’s at home, sez I? Good question, never heard of it. Foolish me, I thought there were only seven continents. Here’s what I found out.

Figure 1. The “Maritime Continent”.

Not sure why the Solomon Islands (in gray at the lower right) isn’t included in the “Maritime Continent”. The Solos are always kind of the overlooked country in the region. I lived and worked in the Solomons for eight years, so I have some familiarity with the weather patterns. It has the same weather as the others.

In any case, the area being studied is about a third of one percent of the earth’s surface. In addition, it’s in the midst of an unusual part of the planet called the Pacific Warm Pool, with some of the highest rainfalls amounts found anywhere.

Figure 2. Average rainfall, 1979-2021. Atlantic and Pacific centered views. The red boxes mark the general area of the Maritime Continent discussed above.

Note the blue line of heavy rainfall above the equator. This is the rainfall from the semi-permanent band of thunderstorms at what’s called the “Inter Tropical Convergence Zone” (ITCZ). The ITCZ marks the boundary between the separate circulations of the northern and southern halves of the atmosphere.

Of particular interest is the large blue area in the western Pacific Ocean and the eastern Indian Ocean. This is the area of the “Pacific Warm Pool”. It’s the warmest area of the open ocean, as well as the wettest. It’s also the area chosen by the researchers for their study. For a discussion of the nature of the Pacific Warm Pool, see the post below.

Argo and the Ocean Temperature Maximum

The conclusion of their study is that in the Maritime Continent (which they don’t mention is only a third of a percent of the surface and is in the middle of the Pacific Warm Pool), the wet is getting wetter and the dry is getting dryer.

And how do they know this? Intensive study of the rainfall records? Analysis of patterns of rainfall? Correlation of rainfall amounts with El Nino/La Nina alterations?

Nah. That “observations” and “evidence” stuff is soooo 20th Century.

They just ran a couple of climate models, performed modern haruspicy on the entrails of the model results, and the answer popped out … modern science at its finest.

Sadly, despite the study only covering a tiny area in the middle of a unique climate region, the authors couldn’t resist declaring that we are faced with “rising extreme risks“.

Be still, my beating heart.

Part 2. The Hype

So that’s the study. Then there are the popular reports of the study, wherein it has grown markedly in the telling. There’s a typical one below. Following the unbreakable rules for such articles, the headline claims that some scientists somewhere are worried. And not just ordinary worried. Existentially worried. Ringing the bells worried. The headline says:

Scientists sound alarm after making disturbing discovery about Earth’s rainfall: ‘Urgent need’

The article, basically quoting the study’s abstract without attribution, says:

Researchers say their findings have revealed a “wet-get-wetter, dry-get-drier” pattern driven by different mechanisms. Dynamic processes largely control wet extremes under land use changes, while changes in evapotranspiration control dry extremes. However, in a warming world, dynamic processes amplify wet extremes, while a reduction in moisture and weakened atmospheric circulation influence dry extremes.

So, are they right that the wet is getting wetter and the dry is getting dryer, either in the Maritime Continent or globally? We actually have the data to determine that. A 1° latitude by 1° longitude satellite-based rainfall record since 1979 is available from Copernicus here.

Upon reflection I realized that this is actually two different questions.

• Are wet areas getting wetter and dry areas getting drier?

• Are wet times of year getting wetter and dry times of year getting drier?

Since we are considering the question of trends, let me take a slight digression. My hypothesis is that a main one of the emergent phenomena that thermoregulate the planet are the tropical thunderstorms. Thunderstorms cool the surface in a variety of ways. They keep the temperature in the Pacific Warm Pool from ever exceeding around 30° – 31°C. So, per my hypothesis, the recent global warming should have been accompanied by an increase in cooling rainfall in the tropics and particularly in the area of very frequent thunderstorms, the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) just above the equator. Here is a look at where it’s been getting wetter and where it’s getting drier since 1979.

Figure 3. Rainfall trend. The two panels are the Pacific and Atlantic views of the same data. Red lines enclose areas which are drying at the rate of -3 mm/decade or faster. White lines enclose areas getting wetter at the rate of 3 mm/decade or more.

Note that this bears out my hypothesis, in that there is increasing thunderstorm-driven cooling in the Pacific Warm Pool and the ITCZ. But I digress into theory. Let me return to observations.

There are some fascinating and surprising things about Figure 3. The overall trend is zero. Land is drying slightly, while the ocean is growing slightly wetter. Tropical land is drying the fastest, tropical ocean is getting wetter the fastest.

Rainfall in New Zealand is decreasing. Around the equator, the largest area of decreasing rain is in between two of the largest areas of increasing rain. North America is mostly unchanged, except for some drying in the Northwest Coast. The Southern Ocean has two areas getting drier and two areas getting wetter. Most of the world’s landmass is pretty neutral, neither getting much wetter nor much dryer, except for the southern Amazon which is getting drier.

Not seeing much pattern in all of that. Well, except for the fact that the actual observations agree with my hypothesis that global warming is opposed by increasing numbers, earlier daily emergence, and greater duration (lifespans) of cooling tropical thunderstorms.

Moving on, regarding the first question about wet and dry areas, here’s a scatterplot of the decadal trend in rainfall (vertical axis) versus the average annual rainfall (horizontal axis) for each 1° latitude by 1° longitude gridcell (n = 64,800).

Figure 4. Scatterplot, rainfall trend versus average rainfall in individual 1°latitude by 1°longitude surface gridcells. Global average rainfall is ~ one meter, so “wet” and “dry” areas are based on that threshold.

As you can see in Fig. 4 above, in areas where the rainfall is less than about two meters per year, there’s no “wet gets wetter, dry gets dryer” at all. It’s only in areas of very heavy rain, more than about two meters per year, that the wet is getting wetter. Here are the areas we’re talking about.

Figure 5. The only areas of the world that are getting wetter overall are the areas where the average rainfall is over 2 meters per year..

Note that, while most of this “wet gets wetter” area is over the ocean, by a peculiar coincidence, the Maritime Continent area in the study above is also in that area.

This would tend to indicate that no matter what they discovered by aiming their models at the 0.3% of the planet that is the Maritime Continent, their conclusions are not widely applicable to the rest of the planet.

Next question is, on the Maritime Continent are the wet times of year getting wetter and the dry times of year getting drier? To investigate that, we can look at the standard deviation of the rainfall dataset. If wet gets wetter and dry gets drier, the standard deviation will increase.

So, let’s start with the actual monthly rainfall on the Maritime Continent.

Figure 6. Monthly average rainfall on the Maritime Continent.

When people ask what the weather In the Solomon Islands is Iike, I say “There’s the hot wet season, followed by the hotter wetter season”. The Copernicus dataset says that is true in the Maritime Continent as well, no surprise. Note that even the driest months in the Maritime Continent record are wetter than the global average monthly rainfall of 82 mm or so.

Using my Mark I eyeball, I’m not seeing any “wet gets wetter, dry gets drier” going on. Looks like the biggest swings are in the middle of the record. But let’s look to the measurements. Here is the 10-year trailing standard deviation of the rainfall on the Maritime Continent. Each monthly data point in Figure 7 below shows the standard deviation of the previous ten years (120 months) of rainfall.

Figure 7. Ten-year trailing standard deviation of the Maritime Continent rainfall data shown in Figure 6. Each point on the yellow line shows the standard deviation of the 120 months of rainfall data prior to that time.

Again, I’m not seeing any indication of “wet gets wetter, dry gets drier”. There are changes, but no overall trend.

Finally, what’s happening with the rainfall overall? Well … nothing. Here’s the global rainfall record.

Figure 8. Monthly global average rainfall, 1979-2024. The trend of the data is 0.05 mm of increasing rainfall per decade, basically zero.

A final oddity highlighting the curious stability of the climate system is that rainfall in the northern and southern hemispheres are in opposition — even after removing the seasonal variations, when one hemisphere is wetter, the other tends to be drier, and vice versa.

Figure 9. Monthly global average rainfall (black), along with northern hemisphere rainfall (blue) and southern hemisphere rainfall (red).

And that’s what I learned about the rainfall this week. Plus now I know what the Maritime Continent is. And here in the generally dry Northern California coast, it’s raining outside my window as I write this.

What an astounding planet!

w.

It Bears Repeating: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing. I choose my words with care, and I’m happy to explain and defend them. But I can’t explain or defend your restatement of what you think I meant.

Trump Strikes at the Heart of the Climate Change Agenda by Attacking CO2 ‘Pollution’ Claim

Eight billion humans living on the Earth breathe out two pounds of carbon dioxide every day, yet Net Zero fanatics have long argued that this gas of all planetary life is a pollutant. Despite all the observable evidence going back at least 600 million years, the activists link increasing levels of the gas to runaway high temperatures and concoct a politically inspired story that suggests that humans control a chaotic and non-linear climate. Their computer models tell them so, particularly when provided with all the correct data. One vital cornerstone of all this nonsense is an ‘Endangerment Finding’ from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that in 2009 termed CO2 a ‘pollutant’ of something termed clean air.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

Eight billion humans living on the Earth breathe out two pounds of carbon dioxide every day, yet Net Zero fanatics have long argued that this gas of all planetary life is a pollutant. Despite all the observable evidence going back at least 600 million years, the activists link increasing levels of the gas to runaway high temperatures and concoct a politically inspired story that suggests that humans control a chaotic and non-linear climate. Their computer models tell them so, particularly when provided with all the correct data. One vital cornerstone of all this nonsense is an ‘Endangerment Finding’ from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that in 2009 termed CO2 a ‘pollutant’ of something termed clean air. The pollution scare has been influential around the world and has been used to justify countless regulations and bans in the interest of the Net Zero fantasy. Such is the totemic nature of this finding it is perhaps not surprising that it hasn’t taken long for the Trump Administration to strike at the heart of the Green Blob with the new head of the EPA reported to be urging the White House to rescind the ruling.

Back in 2007, the EPA charged that greenhouse gases “endangered both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations”. It said that emissions from motor vehicles contributed to greenhouse gas “air pollution” that endangered public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act. The science was suspect then, it is even more dodgy now.

As it did with medical matters over Covid, so with Net Zero, the Daily Sceptic has always taken a keen and investigative interest in the underlying science backing any major political course of action. It is obvious that any acceptance that human-caused CO2 does not control the climate thermostat would lead to the entire Net Zero edifice, cherished particularly by control freaks on the Left, falling like a House of Cards. As with Covid, the need to keep populations onside with the scare means that every effort is taken in the mainstream to shut down debate.

Carbon dioxide is a so-called greenhouse gas that has warming properties in the atmosphere. But it has long been known that these properties diminish with higher atmospheric volumes, an observation that explains why runaway global temperatures have not been recorded in the past when levels were over 10 times higher. Plants have evolved to thrive in CO2 amounts three times higher than current denuded levels. There is still widespread speculation as to the rate of global temperature increase that will occur if CO2  doubles in the atmosphere, with estimates ranging from a ‘saturated’ low around 0.5°C to the alarming claims of 10°C or more. Many computer models are deliberately fed with ‘pathways’ that assume very high future temperature rises, all the better to produce clickbait stories of imaginary climate ‘tipping’ points.

Because nobody knows what the correct figure is, although much of the evidence points to lower, even negligible amounts, it is reasonable to state that the hypothesis (opinion) that humans control significant climate change by releasing CO2 is unproven without a single science paper to validate the claim. It is for this reason that political activists invented the lie that there is an overwhelming consensus on anthropogenic warming and the science is hereby ‘settled’. Not only was it deemed settled, but any further discussion risked comparison with denying the Jewish Holocaust in Nazi Germany. Every now and then some idiot can be relied on to suggest the deniers should be sent to jail. As a result, the activists, aided by mainstream media, have been able to promote the fantastical notion that the world can do without hydrocarbons and rely instead on breezes and sunbeams backed by controls and lifestyles more suited to a pre-industrial, less civilised age.

Such is the essential silliness behind Net Zero that, coupled with a growing realisation that much of the ‘settled’ science is based on models and junk data, it is unsurprising that it is unravelling so fast in the United States and elsewhere. Unlike Trump 1.0, the latest incarnation of the Donald has been long in the planning. The entire woke agenda including Net Zero has been struck hard and with devastating precision. The EPA endangerment finding is the “holy grail” of the climate agenda, noted Marc Morano of Climate Depot. “If you want to permanently cripple the United States climate agenda you have to go at the heart of it”, he wrote. “This is the heart of it.”

There is still some way to go to remove the CO2 endangerment finding since it is tied into the Clean Air Act. Changes of the law, in addition to executive action, might be needed to protect against the inevitable lawsuits funded by the almost unlimited amounts of money provided by the still powerful Green Blob. However, hearings in a Republican Congress could help clear the air and define the actual ‘danger’ that human-caused CO2  presents. The suggestion that CO2 is a risk is ubiquitous in the original EPA finding but considerably more scientific information is now available on the actual ‘risk’ posed by the gas. It is getting more difficult to argue that CO2 is a clear and present danger when a little extra warmth has saved lives and increased food supplies, while the gas itself has boosted global leaf growth by up to 15% in recent years. Activists will no doubt claim that there is now more extreme weather such as hurricanes, flooding, droughts and wildfires, a line of argument that might be hampered by an almost total lack of evidence to back up their contentions.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

New Study: 2000 Km of Antarctic Ice-Covered Coastline Has Grown Slightly Over Past 85 Years!

Forgotten aerial photos from 1937 have given researchers at the University of Copenhagen the most detailed picture of the ice evolution in East Antarctica to date.

From NoTrickZone

By P Gosselin 

Forgotten aerial photos from 1937 have given researchers at the University of Copenhagen the most detailed picture of the ice evolution in East Antarctica to date.

The results of a comprehensive analysis: The ice has remained stable and even grown slightly over almost a century.

Hat-tip: Klimanachrichten

Photo: Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromsø

The area covers approximately 2000 kilometers of coastline and contains as much ice as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet.

Using hundreds of old aerial photographs dating back to 1937, combined with modern computer technology, the researchers from the Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management at the University of Copenhagen have tracked the evolution of glaciers in East Antarctica and have been able to determine whether the glaciers have retreated or advanced and whether they have thickened or thinned.

The study reveals that the ice has not only remained stable but grown slightly over the last 85 years, partly due to increasing snowfall.

“We constantly hear about climate change and new melt records, so it’s refreshing to observe an area of glaciers that has remained stable for almost a century,” says PhD student Mads Dømgaard, the study’s lead author.

Solid historical photographic record

Out of 2200 images photographed from seaplanes in 1937, 130 were selected for the analysis. The researchers combined the historical photos with modern satellite data to create 3D reconstructions of the glaciers. Moreover, the Norwegian aerial images were supplemented with 165 aerial images of the same glaciers from Australian surveys conducted between 1950 and 1974. This allowed the researchers to examine the evolution of the glaciers over different periods and calculate historical ice flow speeds for selected glaciers.

Compared to modern data, the ice flow speeds are unchanged, the researchers found. While some glaciers have thinned over shorter intermediate periods of 10-20 years, they have remained stable or grown slightly in the long term, indicating a system in balance.

,s41467-024-48886-xHerunterladen

Extreme Power Plant Fear Mongering

The Applied Economics Clinic (AEC) report titled” A Community Assessment of Health Impacts from the Pittsfield Generating Facility on Local Communities”, prepared on behalf of the Massachusetts Clean Peak Coalition has to be in the running for the most egregious example of inflammatory peaker power plant fearmongering of all time.  This post compares the claims against reality.

From Watts Up With That?

Roger Caiazza

The Applied Economics Clinic (AEC) report titled” A Community Assessment of Health Impacts from the Pittsfield Generating Facility on Local Communities”, prepared on behalf of the Massachusetts Clean Peak Coalition has to be in the running for the most egregious example of inflammatory peaker power plant fearmongering of all time.  This post compares the claims against reality.

Environmental non-governmental organizations have latched onto peaking power plants as an example of power company greed and disregard for neighboring communities.  For example, the PEAK coalition has stated that “Fossil peaker plants in New York City are perhaps the most egregious energy-related example of what environmental injustice means today.”  The influence of this position on current environmental policy has led to this issue finding its way into multiple environmental initiatives. However, I have found that the presumption of egregious harm is based on selective choice of metrics, poor understanding of air quality health impacts, and ignorance of air quality trends. The AEC report takes the claims to ridiculous levels.

The AEC report example is extreme even compared to the Peak coalition accusations. Researcher Jordan Burt, Assistant Researcher Elisabeth Seliga, Researcher Tanya Stasio, PhD, Research Assistant Lila McNamee, and Principal Economist Liz Stanton, PhD, prepared a report that summarizes the negative health impacts of fossil fuel-fired emissions on communities living near the Pittsfield Generating Facility (Figure 1).    They claim that the facility exacerbates negative health outcomes of overburdened residents and asserts there are three key takeaways:

  • First, as long as the Pittsfield Generating Facility is in operation, it has the potential to produce much higher greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutants in any given year.
  • Second, Pittsfield’s vulnerable populations live in close proximity to the Facility, putting them at a disproportionate risk for the negative health impacts associated with fossil fuel-fired generation.
  • Lastly, replacing the Facility with clean energy resources can not only improve the health outcomes for residents, but also aid the Commonwealth in achieving its decarbonization goals.

This article addresses these takeaways.

Figure 1: Pittsfield Generating Station in Relative to Pittsfield, MA

Pittsfield Generating Company

According to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Final Operating Permit Renewal for the facility:

The Pittsfield Generating Company LP is an electric power generation facility located at 235 Merrill Road in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. The facility largely consists of three (3) General Electric (GE) Frame 6 6001B combustion turbines, known as Emission Units (EU) – 1, 2, and 3, which are each equipped with steam injection and a selective catalytic reduction system for control of nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions. Each combustion turbine has a maximum heat input rate of 430.25 million British thermal units per hour (“MMBtu/hr”) and is exhausted to an associated Deltak heat recovery steam generator (“HRSG”). The steam generated in the three (3) heat recovery steam generators is combined to supply a single (1) GE steam turbine. Emission Units 1, 2, and 3 burn natural gas or #2 fuel oil and operate in combined-cycle mode with a net total output of nominally 165-megawatts.

A common claim about peaking power plants is that they are old, dirty, and inefficient units, but these units are modern, well-controlled, and efficient generating units.  Despite their efficiency, in the last seven years the units have only run less than 10% of the time which qualifies them to be peaking units. By definition, for EPA reporting purposes 40 CFR Part 75  §72.2, a combustion unit is a peaking unit if it has an average annual capacity factor of 10.0 percent or less over the past three years and an annual capacity factor of 20.0 percent or less in each of those three years.  Note that because peaking plants run so little the units can be designed for that mode of operation.  The specifications for those units are primarily focus on costs.  The Pittsfield units include all the pollution control equipment associated with units designed to run as much as possible.  They became peaking units because of market conditions that priced them out of the market, so they simply run less.  Nonetheless, they serve an important reliability role providing dispatchable power when needed on high energy demand days.

Takeaway 1

AEC claims that the facility has the potential to produce much higher greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutants in the future.  Table 1 lists the annual emissions and operating information for the last 25 years from the EPA Clean Air Markets Division website.  That potential may exist but the historical data show that there has been vast operating and emission reductions since 2000.  As a result, any alleged impacts from the facility should have improved significantly over time.

Table 1: Pittsfield Generating Company Facility Emissions and Operating Parameters

Takeaway 2

In the second takeaway AEC states that Pittsfield’s vulnerable populations live near the Facility, putting them at a disproportionate risk for the negative health impacts associated with fossil fuel-fired generation.  They offer no estimates of the potential health impacts.

Last year I published a detailed critique of a General Accounting Office (GAO) report “Information from Peak Demand Power Plants” that discussed air quality impact evaluation.  The fundamental air quality presumption has always been that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) is the primary metric used to determine health impacts.  As an air pollution meteorologist one of my jobs was to run air quality models to determine the air quality impacts of existing and proposed facilities.  The essential consideration was whether the modeling proved that the projected impacts from a facility were less than the NAAQS limits.  Industry and regulatory agencies believed that when an applicant showed compliance with those standards, they proved that they were protecting the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly.  Regulatory agencies are required to ensure that any facility that cannot show compliance with the NAAQS must modify its permitted operations, or it cannot be allowed to operate.  The Massachusetts DEP only issues air permits if they are confident that the facility attains the NAAQS, so I am sure that Pittsfield Generating meets those standards.

The air quality pollutant of concern is nitrogen oxides or NOx.  The DEP set an emission limit of 22.8 lb NOx/hr.  I calculated the average hourly emission using the total NOx mass and the operating hours as 10.4 lb NOx/hr.  This is well below the emission rate that we know attains the NAAQS.  It is beyond the scope of this analysis and my presently available computer capabilities to quantify specific NOx impacts.   However, I only recall doing impacts assessment of power plants that used tons per hour not pounds per hour for an emission rate.  My point is that a pounds per hour rate is extraordinarily small and my experience suggests that local impacts at those levels would be so low that they would be difficult to measure and if they cannot be measured there is little chance of any health impact.

Takeaway 3

AEC asserts that “replacing the Facility with clean energy resources can not only improve the health outcomes for residents but also aid the Commonwealth in achieving its decarbonization goals.”  Environmental justice organizations will read this without understanding the background. In context, the impacts of this facility are well within the NAAQS, probably could not be measured, and the carbon emissions are a negligible fraction of the state total (Table 2).  In the last five years the CO2 emissions have been less than or equal to 0.5% of the state total.

This table brings up other questions.  In New York the coal and oil generation was displaced to natural gas, but the overall Massachusetts generation has dropped significantly while there was a shift away from coal and oil.  The Massachusetts CO2 reduction from 2009 to 2023 was 84% while New York only dropped 38%.  I do not know why they managed such a substantial decrease.

Table 2: Pittsfield Emissions Relative to Total Massachusetts Emissions and Operating Characteristics

Pragmatic Concerns

Pragmatic environmentalism is all about tradeoffs. There is no question that disadvantaged communities have suffered and continue to suffer disproportionate environmental impacts, but it is important to understand what causes the harm, balance expectations, and determine potential solutions. 

In this instance, it is likely that transportation sources have a bigger impact on air quality for Pittsfield’s vulnerable population.  There are just under 44,000 residents in the city, there are 19,566 households, and the average number of cars per household is 2.  I assume the estimated 39,132 cars drive two thirds of the Massachusetts average 12,117 miles per year within the city and that means that city mile traveled equals 316,108,296 miles per year. The estimated U.S. average vehicle NOx emission rate per automobile in 2023 was 0.00129 lb. per mile.  The result is that in 2023 automobiles emitted 204 tons of NOx.  That is more than double the annual emissions from the power plant since 2003 and 57 times higher than the 2024 emissions from the power plant. In addition, auto emissions are close to the ground while the power plant emissions are from elevated stacks so the auto emissions have a greater impact.  Clearly, the vilification of the emissions from the power plant is unwarranted.

AEC proposes that the plant be replaced with an “alternative, cleaner energy source like a solar plus storage facility can help reduce community exposure to pollution”.  The Title V permit says that emission units 1, 2, and 3 have a “net total output of nominally 165-megawatts.”  I estimate that 165MW of solar would cover 973 acres.  However, to ensure reliable reinforcement of a gas plant requires more than a one for one replacement.  Based on this reference, the solar required would be 660 MW covering 3,894 acres. The storage system may need to be oversized as well, potentially requiring 410 MW of 4-hour storage to replace 100 MW of gas peaker capacity.  Replacing  perfectly good power plant with solar plus storage prematurely does not seem to be a good investment.

AEC claims that the solar plus storage option would reduce exposure to pollution.  However, there are substantive safety concerns with currently available battery energy storage systems.  On January 16, 2025 a fire was reported at the Vistra Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility located in Moss Landing, California.  The fire burned at a temperature of between 2500 – 5000 degrees Fahrenheit.  Since the fire heavy metals have been measured at levels 100 to 1,000 times higher than normal in soil within a mile of the facility.  During the fire there was an evacuation zone within 1.5 miles of the facility.  In my opinion, the risks of environmental impacts from a battery fire far outweigh the “benefits” of eliminating the minimal emissions of this facility.

Moreover, there is no currently available technology that has been proven at the scale necessary that can replace fossil-fired generation safely, reliably, and affordably. If those characterized are not prioritized, then it could easily result in an electric system that does not maintain current standards.  More importantly, problems associated with reliability impact disadvantaged communities most so those concerns must be considered when decisions are made about peaking power plants benefits and potential impacts. 

Conclusion

This analysis epitomizes my frustration with pragmatic tradeoffs for peaking power plants.  AEC claims that the facility has the potential to produce much higher greenhouse gas emissions and co-pollutants in the future ignoring the fact that emissions have gone down significantly since the plant started operating.  AEC also claims that Pittsfield’s vulnerable populations live near the Facility, putting them at a disproportionate risk for the negative health impacts associated with fossil fuel-fired generation.  AEC overlooks the fact that facility emissions are so small that adverse health impacts are unlikely from the plant and that transportation emissions are much higher which means adverse air quality impacts are more likely from other sources.  AEC’s final takeaway claim is that “replacing the Facility with clean energy resources can not only improve the health outcomes for residents but also aid the Commonwealth in achieving its decarbonization goals.”  That is true in theory, but it ignores the fact that there are other emission reduction strategies that are likely to be more effective and pose less risk to the electric system than shutting down a dispatchable generating resource.  Fear mongering based on emotion and not facts is not in the best interests of a reliable electric system and this report is the best example of this folly I have seen to date.

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

CCC’s Carbon Budget Does Not Add Up

Overall the CCC’s report seems to have less detail and technical input than previous budgets, and electricity supply is no exception.

It recommends a capacity mix, for instance, but little insight into the implications for the grid. It has Emma Pinchbeck’s fingerprints all over it, given her background as head of the lobbyist Renewable UK.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-seventh-carbon-budget/#publication-downloads

As promised, an in depth look at the Seventh Carbon Budget, which runs from 2038 to 2042.

Electricity Supply

Overall, the CCC’s report seems to have less detail and technical input than previous budgets, and electricity supply is no exception.

It recommends a capacity mix, for instance, but little insight into the implications for the grid.  It has Emma Pinchbeck’s fingerprints all over it, given her background as head of the lobbyist Renewable UK.

Incredibly nowhere does the document mention “peak demand” at all, except for this comment:

The object of the Budget report is clearly to force through as much renewable generation as possible, regardless of any other considerations.

But we do know from last year’s FES report that peak demand is projected to rise to 81 GW in 2035 and 102 GW in 2040. And as FES clarifies, these figures are after allowing for smart EV charging and residential demand side response and therefore must be treated as optimistic.

According to the CCC’s plan, we will only have 52 GW of reliable capacity in 2040, nearly half of that being unabated gas power. We know that there are times when wind power runs at 5% or less of capacity, meaning we might get five or six gigawatts at most at these times. We also know that solar power is virtually nonexistent in mid-winter.

Even if we could rely on interconnectors, which we most certainly cannot. we will still be well short of the supply needed. Storage would mainly only be enough for a couple of hours. (CCC also assume 7 GW/ 419 GWh of unproven medium-term storage, enough to plug the gap for a few hours).

That leaves the frightening prospect of DSR, which the CCC estimate at 29 GW. (And as we have seen, the FES already allows for some DSR. Putting it bluntly, the CCC propose that we take up to a third of demand off the grid at times – rolling blackouts, in other words.

And let’s not fool ourselves that this would be merely switching demand from 5pm to 7pm, or even night. With the DSR already built into the FES, charging of EVs at night, spreading out heat pump loads and so on, daily demand in cold weather would probably range from about 80 GW to 100 GW. In other words, even at times of lowest demand, there would not be enough supply, and certainly no surplus to recharge batteries and other forms of storage.

Yet remarkably the CCC do not even recognise this as a problem, merely commenting:

I’ll cover the other sections later.

Vice President J.D. Vance: The Optimal Choice for Critical Minerals Czar?

From Watts Up With That?

By Pini Althaus

As the U.S. competes for essential tech metals, calls for establishing a Critical Minerals Czar (or special envoy or task force) are plentiful and palpable, and this should be a priority of the Trump administration. We need someone with the requisite authority to coordinate the full apparatus of the U.S. government to secure lithium, cobalt, tungsten and dozens of critical and rare earth elements at home and abroad.

Vice President J.D. Vance – who has been a strong proponent of shoring up domestic manufacturing – is a prime choice to lead a national strategy as Critical Minerals Czar and apply the full force of U.S. diplomacy, trade, and national security to this once-in-a-generation opportunity to develop minerals reserves overseas. From the White House, he could usher a playbook for shoring up the industrial base and support U.S. mining companies in their active pursuits of foreign land concessions and processing opportunities.

U.S. progress in establishing a critical minerals supply chain independent of China is stymied by several factors, including a lack of harmonization among multiple government agencies to produce tangible commercial outcomes, in addition to the lack of follow-up and tangible results from the numerous Agreements the U.S. has signed with allied countries hosting key critical minerals deposits.

The Vice President is uniquely perched across the Executive Branch. For critical minerals, cooperation among the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, Energy and Interior, could enhance U.S. competitiveness and coordinate domestic policy with diplomacy and trade advocacy. Directing this inter-agency collaboration could achieve practical outcomes in securing and managing critical mineral resources.

Vice President Vance has demonstrated a keen understanding of economic and industrial policies, emphasizing the need for a robust domestic manufacturing base. His advocacy for reducing dependence on foreign supply chains aligns with the objectives of strengthening the U.S. critical minerals sector. Vance’s support for initiatives like the ONSHORE Act, which aims to bolster domestic manufacturing and secure supply chains, underscores his commitment to enhancing national resilience in critical industries.

Addressing the global nature of critical minerals supply requires robust international cooperation. Vice President Vance’s diplomatic engagements position him to negotiate agreements with allied nations to develop a supply chain independent of adversarial influences. His recent discussions about strategic opportunities in Greenland highlight his proactive approach to securing alternative sources of critical minerals.

Another major issue is that China is pricing out prospective critical minerals producers globally, including in allied countries like Australia, where as we are witnessing now, key critical minerals projects are put on “care and maintenance” when commodity prices fluctuate, which China exclusively controls in the case of several key minerals.

China’s dominance in the processing of critical minerals, including rare earths, poses significant challenges, including price manipulation and supply constraints. To mitigate these risks, establishing a Global Critical Minerals Taskforce comprising key supplier and consumer countries is essential. Vice President Vance’s leadership can facilitate the formation of such a coalition, promoting fair trade practices and enhancing supply chain resilience. This will enable a transparent spot market for critical minerals to be established.

By no means will this be an easy task. Many nations like Japan and Korea, for example, rely heavily on China for their present supply of critical minerals. A global initiative to reduce China’s dominance of the sector may lead to reprisals by China in the form of further export bans, like the recent prohibition of Chinese tungsten products to the U.S.

Within the U.S., prime contractors and large manufacturing OEMs that currently source materials from China may be reluctant to bear the pain of potentially higher prices in the short-term. Historically, some U.S. companies have even lobbied against restrictions of imported critical minerals from China to avoid adversely affecting near-term bottom lines. At some point, U.S. manufacturers may have to accept that protracted export bans, materials shortages and higher basket prices are unavoidable if China continues on its current path of dominating the global critical minerals supply chain. Notwithstanding U.S. policy, China’s dominance will erode U.S. options for critical metals.

Vice President Vance can help unify how industry and the U.S. government responds. As Critical Minerals Czar, he can bolster the U.S. critical minerals posture through a comprehensive plan to dominate and win.

Pini Althaus has been an Executive Officer in the mining & resource sector since 2002. He has successfully identified and acquired several significant mining projects in the United States, Canada, Australia, China and Latin America. His responsibilities in the resource sector have included not only the executive duties, also the operational duties, fund-raising, liaising with Government officials, shareholder relations and investor relations/public relations roles. He has also served as a consultant to the United Nations on critical minerals supply chains in the Arab Region.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.