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.
When it comes to Northwest wildfires, many only consider precipitation and temperature.
But for most Northwest wildfires during the summer, another element is more important: strong winds.
Recent grass and range fires in eastern Washington are prime examples of their “windy” origin.
For example, yesterday, there was a grass fire near Winthrop (see below). Strong winds were crucial.
Another grass/range fire (the Peterson fire) surged rapidly this week in Klickitat County (below). Strong winds again.
A few weeks ago, large range fires (e.g., Juniper Dune, Tule Rd) were also forced by strong winds.
In a map of recent eastern Washington wildfires, virtually all were associated with strong winds (graphic courtesy of the Washington State Department of Ecology).
More than climate change warming, strong winds are the essential ingredient for the large grass/range fires in the region.
In fact, cool/wet spring weather can worsen wildfires in our region, since wet/cool springs enhance the amount of vegetation, which inevitably dries out during our typically arid summers. That means more fuel.
This week was a great example of strong winds, associated with cooler temperatures, leading to rapidly growing range/grass fires.
Consider the winds at Ellensburg from June 22 to today (below). Sustained winds are shown in blue and gusts with black dots.
A large acceleration of the winds started on June 26, with some gusts reaching over 50 mph!
As the winds increased, temperatures greatly COOLED at this location (see below).
Want to be impressed with how strong the winds have been this week, east of the Cascade crest?
Below are the maximum gusts yesterday (Sunday) over eastern Washington.
Wow. Many exceed 50 mph, and some reach over 60 mph.
Why are there strong, fire-supporting winds when temperatures cool?
When cool air moves into the region from the west, it causes pressure to rise west of the crest, since cold air is denser and heavier. That causes low-level pressure to rise. Even if some cool air gets over the Cascades, the depth of the cool air is greater west of the crest, allowing the pressure to rise more to the west.
To illustrate, there is a sea level pressure analysis (solid lines), sustained surface winds (wind barbs), and low-level temperatures (color shading_ at 5 PM Wednesday. Cooler temperatures to the west and a strong pressure difference over the Cascades.
A day later, eastern Washington had cooled, and much stronger winds had spread over the Inland Empire.
This weekend, temperatures will warm, and the winds along the eastern slopes of the Cascades should weaken.
Dr. Georgios Fragkoulidis uses forecasts based on climate models generated by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in the U.S. They are based on the assumption that carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise and remain high and that the Earth’s climate will have warmed by about 4°C by 2100.
Wind velocity and streamlines at an altitude of about 10 kilometers above the Earth’s surface on the onset of a Western Europe heat wave (23 August 2016). Credit: Georgios Fragkoulidis
Heavy precipitation, wind storms, heat waves—when severe weather events such as these occur they are frequently attributed to a wavy jet stream, reports Phys.org.
The jet stream is a powerful air current in the upper troposphere that balances the pressure gradient and Coriolis forces. It is still not known whether the jet stream is really undergoing changes at decadal timescales and, if so, to what extent.
“There are various theories as to what we can expect from the jet stream in future. However, these are all based on highly idealized assumptions,” said Dr. Georgios Fragkoulidis of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU). “Although it is quite clear that carbon dioxide emissions make a direct contribution to the global mean temperature, changes in the atmospheric circulation are highly uncertain due to the chaotic processes that govern its evolution.”
The pattern of changes over the last 40 years
In order to find out what is actually happening to the jet stream, Fragkoulidis analyzed upper-tropospheric wind data of the last 40 years. His objective was to determine how this air current at 10 kilometers above the Earth’s surface in the 1980s differs from that of today and so to assess trends it may undergo over Germany or other locations.
“When the jet stream is particularly wavy, cold air from the north or hot air from the south can reach the atmosphere above Germany, making it more likely for cold spells or heat waves to occur,” he pointed out. As a member of Professor Volkmar Wirth’s Dynamic Meteorology group at the JGU Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Fragkoulidis has conducted research into this particular topic over a number of years. In general, his results indicate that two important aspects characterize the jet stream changes.
“In winter, many regions in the Northern Hemisphere experience positive trends, while these become negative trends in summer. In other words, the jet stream becomes wavier in winter but less so in summer,” Fragkoulidis concluded. As of yet, there is no explanation for this phenomenon that partly contradicts the typical hypothesis, which asserts that the jet stream gets wavier in all seasons.
The other aspect that the Mainz-based researcher identified was that changes to the jet stream are not the same everywhere, but differ from region to region. What happens over North America is not necessarily the same as what happens over China or Europe. “We can’t assess trends on the basis of simple mottos such as ‘The jet stream is becoming wavier’ or ‘The jet stream is becoming less wavy.’ It is far more complicated than that,” he summed up.
Dr. Georgios Fragkoulidis did not only look at the waviness of the jet stream but also at the phase speed of the waves to establish how rapidly the waves moved from west to east. When they propagate slowly, this can result in stationary weather systems associated with heavy rainfall or prolonged periods of high temperatures and even drought.
“Although we may have the impression that it should be otherwise, there has been no significant change to the phase speed of waves in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly over Europe, in the last 40 years,” stated Fragkoulidis. This conclusion also contradicts some conjectures that wave movements are slowing down.
However, the results of his research show that the situation is different in the Southern Hemisphere, where more substantial changes in phase speed are observed. Again, they vary with the season and the region. His findings have been published in Weather and Climate Dynamics.
Forecasts for the end of the century
Fragkoulidis is currently examining hypotheses on how the jet stream may change in future, specifically in the end of the 21st century. For this purpose, he uses forecasts based on climate models generated by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in the U.S. They are based on the assumption that carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise and remain high and that the Earth’s climate will have warmed by about 4°C by 2100.
The question is how this scenario could influence the jet stream. In theory, there is no easy answer to this because the warming effect will not be identical across all of the globe. In fact, the oceans will heat up more slowly than the land masses and different heights in the troposphere will heat up at different rates. All these aspects will consequently have an impact on atmospheric circulation.
Despite all the existing uncertainties, the climate model provides some evidence that future summer trends will be similar to those of the past and that the jet stream in the Northern Hemisphere will probably be less wavy towards the end of the century. Besides, it is much more uncertain what the future winter jet stream will look like.
But if one is interested in the wildfires that kill and injure the most people, or wildfires that do the most economic damage, forests and drought are not the key factors.
When many people think of wildfires, they often first visualize a forest fire.
And when the media and politicians talk of wildfires, they usually hone in on drought and climate change as the cause.
But if one is interested in the wildfires that kill and injure the most people, or wildfires that do the most economic damage, forests and drought are not the key factors.
In reality, it is grass and wind, which can produce rapidly expanding grass/range fires that have resulted in billions of dollars of loss and the deaths of many hundreds of individuals.
As described below, grass/range fires are the main threat to humanity. And there is much we can do to reduce the terrible impacts of these events using the best science, technology, and land management.
Note: The term rangeland includes tallgrass prairies, steppes (shortgrass prairies), desert shrublands, woodlands of small shrubs, savannas, chaparrals, and tundra landscapes. Such vegetation often desiccates during the warm season (or under temporarily dry conditions).
Some Examples of Major Grass/Rangeland and Wind Fires
The 2023 Maui wildfire in which 60-90 mph winds descended the West Maui mountains and resulted in electrical fires that spread through fields of flammable grasses into Lahaina. Over 100 lost their lives, with billions of dollars of direct and indirect loss.
The 2018 Camp Fire that destroyed the town of Paradise, California, resulted in 85 deaths and over 16 billion dollars of damage. Strong winds descending the Sierra Nevada caused electrical fires that spread on grass/range vegetation (and some trees) rapidly toward the town, with little warning.
The 2022 Marshall Fire, when strong winds descended the Colorado Front Range, pushing a grassfire into Superior Colorado, killing two and destroying over 1000 homes. Damage is estimated to exceed two billion dollars.
The September 2020 Malden (WA) Fire, in which powerful northerly winds resulted in sparks from the broken powerline that ignited range vegetation that surged into Malden, destroying most of the town.
The October 1991 Tunnel Fire, in which strong easterly flow resulted in a grass/range fire that destroyed nearly 3000 homes and killed 25 near Oakland, CA. 3-5 billion dollars in damage.
The Marshall Fire Burned Through Grass into Superior, CO. Picture courtesy of Tristantech.
The largest fires this spring/summer in Washington State were grass/range fires (see map for eastern WA).
I could provide you with dozens of other examples, but the message is clear: the overwhelming majority of wildfire deaths and the bulk of the economic loss from wildfires are associated with grass/range vegetation and strong winds.
Grass and Range Fires
Grass and range fires occur in light fuels: grasses, small bushes, and the like. They often go through a distinct seasonal cycle: greening up during the cool/wetter winter and then drying out, with the foilage above the surface dying (see picture above).
Grasses and small vegetation (less than 0.25 inches) are 1-hr fuels, which means they can dry out within roughly an hour. Small bushes are 10-hr fuels.
The fact that such vegetation can dry out very quickly under the right conditions (no precipitation, lower humidity, strong winds), means the previous weather/climate conditions are of minimal importance.
Even if it rained the day before, they can rapidly dry out to support fire. Particularly, with strong, dry winds, these light fuels will be ready to burn quickly. So prior “drought” in the weeks or months before is pretty much immaterial.
What can increase the risk of range and grass fires is above-normal precipitation during the previous spring and winter, which results in more bountiful grass growth. Thus, drought the previous winter would REDUCE wildfire threat, a subtlety absent from most media stories.
Rangeland in Hawaii. Picture courtesy of Aaron Yoshino
Wind and Grass/Rangeland
Wind plays a huge role in grass/rangeland fires. Once the fires are started, strong winds provide huge amounts of oxygen for the fire, and rapidly push the fire forward by moving hot embers and superheated air ahead of the flame front.
Wind can also help dry the light fuels, by greatly enhancing evaporation. Dry winds are particularly good at very quickly drying grass fuels.
This is why strong downslope winds are the absolute worst situation. As the air descends and accelerates down the slope, it is warmed by compression, and the relative humidity plummets.
Thus, many of the great wildfire disasters (Maui, Marshall fire in Colorado, Camp Fire west of the Sierra Nevada) are associated with downslope windstorms.
It is important to note that there is no evidence that winds are increasing or downslope windstorms are becoming more frequeny due to climate change. In fact, the opposite is suggested on the West Coast, where substantial research suggests that warm/dry easterly flow down the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada and Cascades will WEAKEN under global warming.
The Grassland/Range Wildfire Situation is Getting Worse–And it is NOT Because of Climate Change
Grass/range wildfires driven by wind have always been serious threats, but deaths and damage from them are increasing. Climate change is not the reason.
First, much of the western U.S. and Hawaii have been invaded by non-native, invasive, and highly flammable grasses. One of the worst is cheatgrass, which is now found extensively around the nation (see map).
In Hawaii, invasive, flammable grasses have invaded agricultural lands that have been abandoned during the past few decades, resulting in huge flammable areas next to densely populated areas (see map below)
But the increase of vast areas of flammable vegetation is only part of the problem.
Increased population has resulted in far more powerlines, which are providing a potent ignition source of fire when winds are strong.
And increasing population near and in grasslands has resulted in hugely increased vulnerability to grass/range fires.
Finally, increasing grassland/range fires also results in increased forest fires, because grassland and forest are often adjacent and intermixed, and grasses/shrubs extend into forest areas. Grass/range fires can move into forest areas, where the fire can ascend into canopies through a variety of ladder fuels.
Dealing with the Threat of Grass/Range Wildfires
There is much we can do to lessen the threat of grass/range wildfires. We can save many lives and greatly lessen the damage from such fires.
But to do so requires that society deals with the real origins of the problem and attack the problem in a rational, science-based way. In this final section, I will describe some approaches that can help.
Use Weather Prediction and Fuels Information Better
During the past decade, the ability of high-resolution weather forecast models to predict the conditions associated with wind-driven grass fires has gotten stunningly good, specific in both time and space. But this valuable information is often not effectively applied
For example, numerical prediction models clearly forecast the extreme winds and low relative humidity associated with the Maui fire (see my previous blog on this). But little of the extreme threat near Lahaina was communicated.
In addition, satellite-based observations coupled with machine learning now provide real-time maps of where range-grass fuels are available in dangerous quantities (see the wonderful USDA Fuelcast site graphic below)
By putting the two data sources together (predicted winds and available dry fuel), we can provide very timely warning of wildfire threats.
Let me be very concrete here. Wildfire Prediction Centers should be established for Hawaii, Alaska, and the lower 48 states to provide such guidance, as well as to interact with local authorities and power companies.
The National Weather Service and other agencies must become much more aggressive in providing specific and timely warnings of this threat.
Deal with the Electrical Infrastructure Problem Through De-Energizing and Hardening Powerlines
Let’s be frank. Many of the most deadly and destructive grass/range fires have been caused by failing powerlines, which cause sparking that easily ignites the “kindling” of dry grass/range vegetation.
In many areas, power infrastructure needs extensive and expensive remediation.
Until we can harden the current power infrastructure, much more aggressive de-energization of powerlines is required. Fortunately, high-resolution weather prediction and knowledge of the state of the surface fuels can allow such power shut-offs to be limited in time and space.
Creating Fire Breaks around Range/Grassland Areas Near Populated Regions, Reducing Grass Load.
Firebreaks can be created near population centers, and grazing animals and mechanical cutting can be used to reduce fuel density, among other steps.
Improved Construction in Dangerous Areas
As clearly shown by the Maui, Marshal, and Camp Fires, homes and buildings take over as a fuel source as grass/range wildfires reach urban areas. Non-flammable roofs, screens to prevent invasion of firebrands/embers, removing vegetation near buildings, and other steps can make a huge difference. The lone house to survive in Maui was a stark illustration of the ability to reduce risk.
The Bottom Line: Grass/range fires are the major cause of wildfire deaths and economic loss in the U.S. Such fires generally result from seasonally dry fuels and strong winds. Since the dry fuels can be monitored and the winds skillfully predicted, the potential for large and rapidly expanding grass/range wildfires can be forecast in advance with some skill. Climate change has little to do with such grass/range fires. Many steps can be taken to reduce the grass/range wildfire risk.
What started, or stopped, happening in or around 2000 to cause such patterns? The answer given is: ‘Observations have revealed a more prevalent negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)’. In other words, a natural phenomenon. Getting to the bottom of what the paper says depends partly on interpreting what they mean by statements like this: ‘One question is whether this is a consequence of climate change.’
To what extent can ground conditions affect the weather, rather than the other way round? This study claims to have found something new, saying: ‘Since 2000, frequent “stuck” weather patterns have produced heat waves over Greenland, resulting in exceptional melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet’ – which begs the question: What started, or stopped, happening in or around 2000 to cause such patterns? The answer given is: ‘Observations have revealed a more prevalent negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)’. In other words, a natural phenomenon. Getting to the bottom of what the paper says depends partly on interpreting what they mean by statements like this: ‘One question is whether this is a consequence of climate change.’ – – – Jet streams are relatively narrow bands of strong wind in the upper atmosphere, typically occurring around 30,000 feet, and blowing west to east, says Phys.org.
Their normal flows lead to week-to-week weather variations, modulated in the mid-latitudes by ridges and troughs in the jet stream. A high-pressure ridge, for example, produces clear, warmer weather conditions; a trough is typically followed by stormy conditions.
Together, these form waves in the jet stream that can stall as the waves grow and become more amplified, causing “stuck” weather patterns that produce longer storms and heat waves.
New research published in Nature Communications describes observations linking increased warming at high latitudes and the ever-decreasing snow cover in North America to these stalls in atmospheric circulation.
“These persistent and extreme conditions are thought to be increasing in the future as a result of this increased waviness in the jet stream,” said the study’s lead author Jonathon Preece, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Georgia.
Since 2000, frequent “stuck” weather patterns have produced heat waves over Greenland, resulting in exceptional melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
In contrast to these observations, global climate models actually project a slight decrease in the blocked patterns over Greenland and, consequently, the models have under-represented the contribution of meltwater runoff from the ice sheet to global sea level rise.
“These patterns have been consistently creating pulses of melting over the Greenland ice sheet that have been accounting for a large portion of the annual melting,” said study co-author Marco Tedesco, a professor at Columbia Climate School’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and lead principal investigator on the project. “Accounting for such an aspect is crucial for anticipating not only how much but how fast Greenland is and will be contributing to sea level rise.”
“One question is whether this is a consequence of climate change that we can expect to continue in the future [that] the climate models are failing to resolve,” said Preece. “Or are the climate models correct, in which case we’d expect things to revert back to the norm and perhaps the rate of accelerated melt of the ice sheet will taper some?”
The new study presents evidence of a link to climate change, both in the increases in jet-stream waviness and ever-decreasing spring North American snow cover extent, which “is impacting the atmosphere in a way that is favoring these blocked high-pressure systems over Greenland,” Preece said.
No civilised country has ever powered itself entirely with wind and solar; no country ever will. And yet the grand wind and solar ‘transition’ – being peddled by rent-seekers and crony capitalists – is still taken as an article of faith by the naïve and gullible.
No civilised country has ever powered itself entirely with wind and solar; no country ever will. And yet the grand wind and solar ‘transition’ – being peddled by rent-seekers and crony capitalists – is still taken as an article of faith by the naïve and gullible.
What is evident is the direct and unassailable relationship between intermittent wind and solar, rocketing power prices, load shedding and, ultimately, mass blackouts.
In this piece from September last year, Isaac Orr, Mitch Rolling and John Phelan rich precisely that conclusion in relation to plans by Governor Tim Walz to permanently unhitch Minnesota from reality and reason.
The High Cost of 100 Percent Carbon-Free Electricity by 2040 American Experiment Isaac Orr, Mitch Rolling, John Phelan 12 September 2022
The 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2040 mandate proposed by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz would cost the state $313.2 billion through 2050 and lead to devastating blackouts.
Governor Walz’s Proposal would commit the state to obtaining 100 percent of its electricity from carbon-free energy sources by 2040, but his proposal would not legalize the construction of new nuclear power plants in Minnesota or allow the hydroelectric electricity generated in Canada that Minnesotans already purchase to count as “carbon-free.” As a result, the Walz Proposal is essentially a wind, solar, and battery storage mandate.
We also investigated another scenario, called the Lower Cost Decarbonization (LCD) Scenario, that uses new nuclear power plants, coal plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) equipment, battery storage, and Canadian hydro and found that this suite of technologies would reduce emissions for a much lower cost.
This report is the most robust modeling on the true cost of attempting to power our state using wind turbines, solar panels, and battery storage technology. Our study finds:
Minnesota electricity customers will see their electricity expenses increase by an average of nearly $3,888 per year, every year, through 2050.
The Walz Proposal would reduce the reliability of the grid by making the state more vulnerable to fluctuations in output from weather-dependent energy sources like wind and solar.
Shockingly, Minnesota would experience a devastating 55-hour blackout in late January if wind and solar output is the same as it was in the year 2020, and electricity demand was the same as 2021.
These are just a few of our findings. By contrast, embracing a diverse portfolio of reliable technologies, including new nuclear power plants, coal plants with carbon capture and sequestration equipment, battery storage, and large hydroelectric power facilities in Canada, would reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the electricity sector by 98 percent. This portfolio would cost $224 billion less than the Walz Proposal and not cause blackouts.
♦ Europe’s hydro and nuclear output is declining, leading to mopre energy troubles. ♦ Renewables are struggling to fill the gap as wind and solar output increase. ♦ The EU may require increased LNG imports from the US to meet energy demands.
Last year, Europe was on the brink of an energy breakdown as Russian gas flows dried up and most of Europe doubled down on renewable energy.
The renewable energy bet paid off, in a way. Solar and wind electricity generation in Europe hit a record in 2022. In fact, for the first time in history, wind and solar together produced more electricity than natural gas-fired power plants.
There was just one problem with that. Lower hydro and nuclear output more than wiped out the significance of that record output.
Droughts were severe in Europe last year. They threatened major trade routes such as the Rhein in Germany and the Po in Italy. And they also caused severe declines in hydropower electricity output. For example, in Spain, hydropower output dropped by almost half because of the droughts. All this might repeat this year as well.
Meanwhile, nuclear wasn’t doing so swell, either. France suddenly found that years of underinvestment in maintenance would have consequences: emergency reactor shutdowns for repairs and maintenance.
The problems cost EDF a massive annual loss of $19 billion as half of its reactors had to be shut down for maintenance. Most blamed the pandemic, but nuclear experts such as Mark Nelson saw the roots of the problem much further into the past when France decided to bet on renewable over nuclear.
That might have been the case in 2022, but this year things are different. Wind and solar are still producing electricity at a record rate, it appears, but declines in hydropower and nuclear output are so severe they are more than offsetting those record output rates, Reuters’ Gavin Maguire reported in a recent column.
Maguire noted that Europe managed to boost its wind and solar power capacity by 9 percent last year to 57.29 GW, which was a record high. At the same time, however, the troubles of hydro and nuclear dragged total electricity generation down and are still doing it.
Over the first quarter, European power generation stood at 1,213 terrawatt-hours, which was 6.4 percent lower than output for the first quarter of 2023. That’s according to climate change advocacy Ember. According to Maguire, this is not necessarily alarming in itself. This time last year, Europe was coming out of pandemic lockdowns, and demand was soaring.
Where things could become problematic is later in the year as business activity across the continent begins to rebound after the energy crunch of last year, the Reuters columnist noted. And most of the Russian gas that was available last year is no longer an option.
French nuclear is a major source of hope, but it will be a while yet before output recovers. At the moment, French nuclear power plants are producing 17.5 percent less than the average output rate for 2020 and 2021. That’s down from 23 percent for last year, so there is some progress, and that’s a good sign.
Hydro is trickier because, although to a lesser extent than wind and solar, hydro is weather-dependent. With Europe’s mild winter that saw a lot less snow than usual, a repeat of last year’s drought is not out of the question. In fact, it is a distinct possibility.
What this means is that Europe may need to import a lot more LNG from its new top supplier, the United States. Some have worried that the EU is building too much LNG import infrastructure that would become stranded assets before too long, but right now, those assets appear to be vital for the bloc’s energy survival.
First from the Zero Carbon zealots at Resilience Record clean-power growth in 2023 to spark ‘new era’ of fossil fuel decline. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
The power sector is about to enter a “new era of falling fossil generation” as coal, oil and gas are pushed out of the grid by a record expansion of wind and solar power, according to new analysis by climate thinktank Ember.
Wind and solar power reached a record 12% of global electricity generation last year, according to Ember’s global electricity review 2023. This drove up the overall share of low-carbon electricity to almost 40% of total generation.
With even faster growth set to continue this year, Ember says 2022 is likely to mark a “turning point” when global fossil fuel electricity generation peaked and began to fall.
The thinktank forecasts that, by the end of 2023, more than 100% of the growth in electricity demand will be covered by low-carbon sources.
Experts broadly agree that global electricity generation needs to be completely decarbonised by 2040 if the world is to stay on track for its climate targets.
Our projected growth in associated natural gas production is mainly driven by three trends:
♦ Rising oil prices support increased production from unconventional oil formations with significant natural gas volumes. ♦ Many unconventional oil wells are aging, and as these wells age, they tend to produce a higher ratio of natural gas relative to oil. ♦ Associated natural gas resources are becoming more economical, driven in part by provisions in the IRA, which creates penalties for venting and flaring methane and encourages producers to capture more natural gas from oil formations.
We project that associated natural gas production will increase from 7.2 Tcf in 2025 to 8.8 Tcf in the United States by 2050 in the AEO2023 Reference case. In the AEO2023 High Oil Price case, associated natural gas production peaks at 13.6 Tcf in 2035, accounting for 30% of the total domestic natural gas supply. By contrast, in the AEO2023 Low Oil Price case, associated natural gas production falls to 4.2 Tcf by 2050.
Strong continuing international demand for petroleum and other liquids will sustain U.S. production above 2022 levels through 2050, according to most of the cases we examined in our Annual Energy Outlook 2023 (AEO2023). We project that the United States will continue to be an integral part of global oil markets and a significant source of supply in these cases, as increased exports of finished products support U.S. production.
In our AEO2023, we explore long-term energy trends in the United States and present an outlook for energy markets through 2050. We use different scenarios, or cases, to understand how varying assumptions about the future could affect energy trends. These cases include:
The Reference case, which serves as a baseline, or benchmark, case. It reflects laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022 but assumes no new laws or regulations in the future. It also assumes the Brent crude oil price reaches $101 per barrel (b) (in 2022 dollars) by 2050.
The High Oil and Gas Supply case, which assumes 50% more ultimate recovery per well for tight oil, tight gas, or shale gas in the United States compared with the Reference case. It also assumes 50% more undiscovered U.S. oil and natural gas resources and 50% more effective technological improvements than in the Reference case.
The Low Oil and Gas Supply case, which assumes 50% less ultimate recovery per well and undiscovered sources, and 50% more effective technological advancement than the Reference case.
The High Oil Price case, which assumes the price of Brent crude oil reaches $190/b (in 2022 dollars) by 2050.
The Low Oil Price case, which assumes the price of Brent crude oil reaches $51/b (in 2022 dollars) by 2050.
Although domestic consumption of petroleum and other liquids does not increase through 2040 across most cases, production of U.S. petroleum and other liquids remains high because of more exports of finished products. In the High Oil Price case, increased production leads to the most U.S. exports among all cases over the projection period at 9.13 million barrels per day (b/d) by 2050, more than double the 3.9 million b/d exported in 2022. The Low Oil Price case shows the opposite trend with the least 2050 export volumes of 407,000 b/d, nearly 90% less than 2022 exports.
Electric Power Outlook
The figure above illustrates the relationship between installed capacity (left panel) and electricity generation (right panel). Because wind, solar, and nuclear have the lowest operating costs, their electricity generation over time mirrors their trend in installed capacity: slightly declining for nuclear, and increasing for wind and solar. By contrast, natural gas and coal have higher operating costs, and so their generation can vary over time depending on demand levels and the relative operating cost of other technologies.
In our March Short-Term Energy Outlook, we forecast the wind share of the U.S. generation mix will increase from 11% last year to 12% this year. We forecast that the solar share will grow to 5% in 2023, up from 4% last year. The natural gas share of generation is forecast to remain unchanged from last year (39%); the coal share of generation is forecast to decline from 20% last year to 17% in 2023.
The electric power sector includes electric utilities and independent power producers. It does not include generators in the industrial, commercial, or residential sectors, such as rooftop solar panels installed on homes or businesses or some combined-heat-and-power systems.
Comment:
The statement above concerning capacity and operating costs is simplistic, and could be misleading. EIA actually has a more realistic method of comparing power sources. Example below:
EIA has developed a dual assessment of power plants using both Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Costs of Electricity power provision. The first metric estimates output costs from building and operating power plants, and the second estimates the value of the electricity to the grid.
You must be logged in to post a comment.