This is an update of articles that I have read that I want to mention but only have time to summarize briefly. I have also included links to some other items of interest. Previous commentaries are available here.
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
Mark Mills – Electric Vehicle Myths
John Robson comments on key items from the latest Climate Discussion Nexus weekly “Wednesday Wakeup” newsletter.
Hochul Hypocrisy
Governor Hochul has taken at least 30 flights aboard private jets since 2021. I am sure that she can argue why that was necessary for convenience or effective use of her time, However, this is the same person pushing policies that will force me to use electric vehicles that are neither convenient or effective for me. At some point this kind of thing has to catch up with her.
Prospect for Nuclear Power in Japan
Doomberg is a great source of energy-related content but articles are behind a paywall. Nonetheless, I wanted to point out that a recent article pointed out that Japan will release its Seventh Strategic Energy Plan (SEP) that will “address energy mix targets, sector-specific plans, energy efficiency measures, decarbonization targets, and international collaboration agendas.” The point of the article was that despite all the issues Japan has had with nuclear energy, there is a good chance that the upcoming plan will return to nuclear power development which will “also shape public-private investment initiatives, with vast sums of money directed toward achieving the country’s collective energy goals that could have an outsized impact on the global nuclear power sector.”
One thing that struck me in the article was that following the Fukushima meltdown “citizens were asked to participate in massive efficiency drives” and that likely represents a reasonable maximum for energy efficiency improvements. Eyeballing a graph I estimate that Japan reduced demand by only 13%. Climate Act proponents who want to minimize new generating resources and despise nuclear development are claiming their “smart grid” fantasy will result in energy efficiency improvements much larger than 13%. I don’t think these results support their beliefs.
In comments to the Doomberg article JohnS’s Newsletter included a link to his article How the US can make nuclear energy cheap again. The article explains why nuclear power became expensive in the US:
Nuclear power in the early 1970s was the cheapest form of electricity. The US was on a fast track to a rapid transition to this emission-free source of energy. Instead, it was stopped by excessive regulation, regulation applied retroactively to plants under construction, opposition by activist groups, inflation during the 1970s, cheap natural gas, and faith in solar and wind power as a superior alternative. However, as the difficulties of relying on intermittent energy are becoming clearer, interest in nuclear energy is once again on the rise.
The article argues that cheaper nuclear generation should be possible with standardization and modularization. If a single design is used that incorporates many modules that can be built in an assembly line someplace costs should come down. I would add that permitting a standard design would be easier too. One of the points made in the article is that the nuclear development industry in the United States must be rebuilt. His analysis concludes that it is possible to build nuclear generation with an expected lifespan of 80 years that would be close to natural gas development and far cheaper than the firm, dispatchable cost of wind and solar. If you want a deep dive into the prospects of nuclear development I recommend this article.
LA Fires
Here are some articles related to the LA fires. Given the enormity of the destruction this is going to have ramifications across the country.
A media advisory from AccuWeather estimates the total damage and economic loss from the fires will be between $135-$150 billion. This estimate includes “the damage and destruction of thousands of homes and businesses, damage to utilities and infrastructure, the financial impact of evacuation orders for more than 100,000 people, the long-term cost of rebuilding or relocation for people in densely populated areas whose homes were destroyed, anticipated cleanup and recovery costs, emergency shelter expenses, as well as immediate and long-term health care costs for people who were injured or exposed to unhealthy air quality from wildfire smoke.”
I am disappointed that climate ideologues have used this tragedy as an opportunity to publicize their narrative that every extreme weather event proves that there is an existential climate crisis. Mainstream media outlets parrot their claims. Craig Rucker argues that “if the media was doing its job, reporters would vet these claims by following up with, how meaningful was the climate change impact on this event?” I recommend four articles on the LA fires that explain why the impact of climate change was minimal and how misallocation of resources exacerbated the problems:
Patrick T. Brown published an overview article describing the causes and potential solutions to the disaster.
Earlier Patrick T. Brown described the meteorological factors like the Santa Ana winds that drive fire behavior. He concludes that climate change plays a marginal role compared to solutions like fire management and ignition prevention.
Chris Martz evaluated all the Santa Ana fires in Southern California over 70 years and finds that humans caused them all. The primary problems are human activities and poor land management.
Rober Bryce notes that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s latest annual report is a 59-page paean to the gods of sustainability, solar energy, “green” hydrogen, decarbonization, diversity, equity, and, of course, the “clean energy transition.” Those programs are described in great detail but “the report contains precisely one paragraph on wildfire mitigation.”
Anthony Watts’ makes the same arguments that concern me the most. The media focus on climate change ignores the real drivers of damages related to extreme weather.
Ultimately the problem with the misplaced media focus is that California’s obsession with climate change siphons resources from actionable solutions that would have mitigated the effects of this tragedy. I submit that the political emphasis on climate change policies are based on the massive misconception that fixing the weather is a simple matter of just stopping the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with renewables that will be cheaper, more resilient, and more secure. The experience of European countries that are further along in their renewable energy transition programs proves that the transition will be more expensive, less resilient, and will create major reliability risks.
Yet Another Warning Sign in Great Britain
A recent cold snap in Great Britain is a prime example of the resiliency threats to a reliable electric energy system. Tallbloke’s Talkshop notes that the UK has experienced a “particularly long cold spell” Paul Homewood notes that load peaked so high that reserves were low even with all the natural gas units working flat out and using 9 GW of interconnections to Europe. He raises the salient point that “demand for electricity will start to rise rapidly as we transition to heat pumps and EVs”. At the same time there are no plans to build any new natural gas fired units. They are coming to grips with the fact that wind and solar will be no help for these wintertime peaks but have not proposed solutions.
Wind Incidents
Bud’s Offshore Energy (BOE) provides a great resource for wind turbine incidents:
Given the absence of industry and government data on wind turbine incidents, Scotland Against Spin (SAS) has done yeoman’s work in filling the void. SAS gathers information from press reports and official releases. A PDF of the latest SAS update summary (through 2024) is available. You can view their complete incident compilation (324 pages) here. Kudos to SAS for their diligence.
Be sure to see the introductory text at the top of the attached table. Some key points:
- The table includes all documented cases of wind turbine incidents which could be found and confirmed through press reports or official information releases.
- SAS believes that this compendium of accident information may be the most comprehensive available anywhere.
- SAS believes their table is only the “tip of the iceberg” in terms of numbers of accidents and their frequency:
- On 11 March 2011 the Daily Telegraph reported that RenewableUK confirmed that there had been 1500 wind turbine incidents in the UK alone in the previous 5 years.
- In July 2019 EnergyVoice and the Press and Journal reported a total of 81 cases where workers had been injured on the UK’s windfarms since 2014. SAS data includes only 15 of these (<19%).
- In February 2021, the industry publication Wind Power Engineering and Development admitted to 865 offshore accidents during 2019. SAS data include only 4 of these (<0.5%).
- SAS includes other examples supporting their “tip of the iceberg” claim.
Although SAS is committed to reforming the Scottish government’s wind energy policy, their incident data summaries are credible. It’s disappointing that the wind industry is unwilling to publish comprehensive incident data that would help protect lives and the environment, and improve the performance of all participants.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 