I have been following the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) since it was first proposed and most of the articles described below are related to the net-zero transition. I have devoted a lot of time to the Climate Act because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good. The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.
Videos
- Steven Koonin: Stop POLITICIZING Climate Science!
- Good electric system overviews. If you want to know more about how the system works I recommend these
- Electric vehicle issues overview
Costs of the Net-Zero Transition
National Grid announced their plans to “invest an estimated $75 billion across the company’s service territory in the UK and US over the next five years, with nearly half of the funding dedicated to US energy system improvements in Massachusetts and New York.” Their announcement includes:
In New York, National Grid is investing around $21 billion between now and 2029. Among those investments is the Upstate Upgrade which comprises more than 70 transmission enhancement projects across Upstate New York. The portfolio of projects will transform the grid, improve reliability and resilience, and enable National Grid to deliver renewable energy to homes and businesses across the state. This investment will also generate thousands of new jobs and create additional economic growth, all while ensuring the grid is able to meet the growing demand for electricity.
In New England, our five-year investment will total roughly $14 billion. As part of this investment, National Grid will implement innovative solutions, like smart meters, to help consumers manage energy use; build modernized energy infrastructure; construct and upgrade infrastructure to make it less susceptible to extreme weather events; and maintain and improve the quality of our existing gas and transmission assets.
Wind Energy Follies
I had intended to link to Robert Bryce’s article on last year’s wind energy but instead I suggest you check out Ron Clutz’s summary because he has some hilarious cartoons to illustrate his summary of the article. Bryce found that “Weather-dependent generation sources are…weather dependent: Last year, despite adding 6.2 GW of new capacity, U.S. wind production dropped by 2.1%.”
Environmentalism is Dead
I admire the work of Robert Bryce. In this post he argues that concerns for the environment that “once aimed to protect landscapes, wildlands, whales, and wildlife — has morphed into the NGO-corporate-industrial-climate complex. Rather than preserve wildlands and wildlife, today’s “green” NGOs have devolved into a sprawling network of nonprofit and for-profit groups aligned with big corporations, big banks, and big law firms” pushing “climatism and renewable energy fetishism.” He documents the “anti-industry” industry money and finds it is a $4.7 billion-per-year business. He concludes:
America needs a new generation of activists who want to spare nature, wildlife, and marine mammals by utilizing high-density, low-emission energy sources like natural gas and nuclear energy. We need advocates and academics who will push for a weather-resilient electric grid, not a weather-dependent one. Above all, we need true conservationists who promote a realistic view of our energy and power systems. That view will include a positive view of our place on this planet, a view that seeks to conserve natural places, not to pave them.
EPA Clean Power Plan
Before retirement I would have been very involved in the response to these new regulations. I am very happy that I don’t have to try to respond because this is madness. This summary of the rule explains:
Coal and natural gas plants provide 60% of the U.S.’ affordable, reliable, and baseload power. In a time of increased electricity demand, America needs to double down on harnessing these sources—not abandon them.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s recently finalized Clean Power Plan 2.0 (CPP) rule, however, takes the country in the wrong direction. Under this regulation, one that is arguably illegal, existing coal and new natural gas power plants will be mandated to install emissions control technologies that aren’t yet commercially viable. Plants that don’t comply risk permanent closure. This unrealistic mandate is advanced under the guise of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 90% by 2032.
If this initiative was accompanied by an announcement of a nuclear renaissance it would be one thing. However, the worst thing about this is that the Biden Administration apparently believes that these resources can be replaced by wind and solar. That will never work.
Net-Zero Challenges
Ed Reid describes the all-electric experiment. He runs the numbers and finds that the costs of storage could be between 7 and 70 times the cost of wind and solar.
Climate Change Debate
Everything Climate covers both sides of the climate debate.
Another Offshore Wind Problem
Bud’s Offshore Energy describes the glauconite challenge. When pile drivers attempt to drive the monopiles for wind turbines into sediments with the mineral glauconite transforms them into a sticky, clay-like sediment that can “cause pile refusal or difficulty installing the foundation to its target depth”. This mineral has been identified in the lease area for the recently approved Empire Wind project off Long Island. Not to worry New York has plenty of money to cover any unforeseen construction problems.
Energy and the Economy
Gail Tverberg notes that “Energy and the economy work together in very strange ways” in her recent article about offshored industrialization. This article notes that:
Industry is based on the use of fossil fuels. Electricity also plays a role, but it is more like the icing on the cake than the basis of industrial production. Industry is polluting in many ways, so it was an “easy sell” to move industry offshore. But now the United States is realizing that it needs to re-industrialize. At the same time, we are being told about the need to transition the entire economy to electricity to prevent climate change.
I find her work fascinating but, in my opinion, her emphasis on finite resources does not account enough for technical innovation. Nonetheless, I agree with her point that maintaining fossil fuel supply should be a priority over trying to move away from them because of the importance of fossil fuels to today’s society. She argues that:
The feasibility of moving away from fossil fuels without killing off a very major portion of the world’s population seems to be virtually zero. The world economy is a dissipative structure in physics terms. It needs energy of the right kinds to “dissipate,” just as humans are dissipative structures and need food to dissipate (digest). Humans cannot live on lettuce alone, or practically any other foodstuff by itself. We need a “portfolio” of foods, adapted to our bodies’ needs. The economy is similar. It cannot operate only on electricity, any more than humans can live only on high-priced icing for cakes.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 