{"id":313085,"date":"2024-03-26T14:56:58","date_gmt":"2024-03-26T13:56:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=313085"},"modified":"2024-03-26T14:57:01","modified_gmt":"2024-03-26T13:57:01","slug":"starting-to-notice-that-the-energy-transition-is-not-happening","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=313085","title":{"rendered":"Starting To Notice That The Energy Transition Is Not Happening"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
NEW YORK – AUGUST 14: (U.S. AND CANADIAN NEWS MAGS OUT UNTIL AUGUST 23, 2003 – ALL MAGAZINE SALES MUST CALL FOR CONFIRMATION OF AVAILABILITY) The sun sets over the Manhattan skyline August 14, 2003 during a major power outage affecting a large part of the north eastern United States and Canada. (Photo by Robert Giroux\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supposedly, there is a big energy transition going on. Throughout the West, countries have made ambitious pledges to reduce \u201cgreenhouse gas\u201d emissions by specific percentages and by specific dates. Many such pledges were notably made in the Paris Climate Agreement of 2016. Some countries \u2014 for example, the U.S. and UK \u2014 have even gone beyond the Paris Agreement and made still more ambitious pledges in the years since then. But is any of it real?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No, none of it is real. The failure to make the progress that would be necessary to achieve the alleged pledges and mandates is obvious and easily tracked. But a code of silence has enveloped the progressive media, commanding that no one is allowed to notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A small crack in the wall of silence suddenly happened in the New York Times on March 14. The front page article had the headline \u201cA New Surge in Power Use Is Threatening U.S. Climate Goals.\u201d<\/a> The gist is that various sources of new electricity demand are rapidly emerging, from data centers to EVs to AI. Demand for electricity is starting to rise, but wind and solar generators can\u2019t be added to the grid fast enough to fulfill this demand. And thus utilities are starting to add large numbers of new natural gas plants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Times provides this chart of the recent history of electricity demand in the U.S., with a projection for the next decade:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Demand has been flat for fifteen years, but now looks about to surge. From the Times:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To meet spiking demand, utilities in states like Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia are proposing to build dozens of power plants over the next 15 years that would burn natural gas. In Kansas, one utility has <\/em>postponed the retirement of a coal plant<\/em> to help power a giant electric-car battery factory.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So why not just build a bunch of new wind turbines and solar panels?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some utilities say they need additional fossil fuel capacity because cleaner alternatives like wind or solar power aren\u2019t growing fast enough and can be bogged down by delayed permits and snarled supply chains. While a data center can be built in just one year, <\/em>it can take five years or longer<\/em> to connect renewable energy projects to the grid and a decade to build some of the long-distance power lines they require. Utilities also note that data centers and factories need power 24 hours a day, something wind and solar can\u2019t do alone.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I like that last line about wind and solar not being able to provide \u201cpower 24 hours a day\u201d by themselves. Finally, somebody has noticed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the Times even has figured out that something about this might be inconsistent with the government\u2019s ridiculous \u201cclimate\u201d pledges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Burning more gas and coal runs counter to President Biden\u2019s pledge to halve the nation\u2019s planet-warming greenhouse gases and to generate all of America\u2019s electricity from pollution-free sources such as wind, solar and nuclear by 2035.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other than that one sentence, the Times piece is noticeably devoid of any quantitative information on what promises have been made by the U.S. as to \u201cgreenhouse gas\u201d emissions, and on what progress has been made toward achieving those promises. However, here at Manhattan Contrarian we know that the information to answer those questions can be found easily. So let\u2019s take a look at it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The two main pledges as to GHG emissions that the U.S. has supposedly made to the international community are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n