Really? ‘Climate Change Causing Blackouts’ – but see the real culprit

EPA wants to turn this Photoshop fake of the Northeast blackout of 2003 into reality.

From GlobalWarmingIsReal.com, a rather hilarious take on what that 0.8C of temperature increase in the last century is doing. Who knew the global electric grid was so fragile that it couldn’t handle such massive temperature increases? /sarc -Anthony Excerpt:

Global Warming Endangers Energy Production in the United States and Europe

By

The energy supplies for the United States and Europe are at risk, thanks to increasing complications attributed to climate change.  In an ironic twist of fate, the rising water temperatures and reduced river flow caused by global warming is lowering the energy output of thermoelectric power plants, such as coal-fired power plants, that require constant supplies of water for cooling purposes.  In other words, the problem that some of these power plants help create is now impacting their ability to perform.

Climate Change Causing Blackouts

Extreme drops in power generation, blackouts and full or partial shutdowns of thermoelectric power plants are expected to triple over the next 50 years, according to a report in Nature Climate Change

Reduced flow in rivers and ever increasing water temperatures decrease the cooling capabilities that nuclear and coal-fired power plants have come to rely on.  While this study shines a light on the needs for better water conservation methods, it also points out how significant of a weakness thermal cooling is for our existing power grid.

The co-author of the study, Dennis Lettenmaier, a University of Washington professor of civil and environmental engineering, said “this study suggests that our reliance on thermal cooling is something that we’re going to have to revisit.”

In the summer of 2011, the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Alabama had to go offline on more than one occasion because the Tennessee River water was just too hot to provide any cooling capabilities.  The study finds this was not an isolated event, in fact the findings predict that energy efficiency or power production in the U.S. will decrease 4 percent to 16 percent and even higher in Europe due to a reduction in cooling water between 2031 and 2060.

Source: Global Warming is Real (http://s.tt/1e5iY)

=================================================================

Gosh, all this extrapolated to the US and Europe from just one power plant in Tennessee that had to shut down on a hot summer day when the river had lower than usual levels. WUWT previously covered this breathtaking report of the river water temperature “crisis” and shutdown last week.

With facts like that it MUST be real. I’m reminded of this hilarious cartoon circulating the net via waznmentobe.com

I think a bigger threat to power plant shutdowns is environmental excess by the EPA, note there’s more than one power plant being closed, with a nearly 10% energy capacity drop, but somehow, that’s not a crisis to the geniuses at GlobalWarmingIsReal.com.

When the next big heat wave comes, do you think they’ll blame the EPA, or global warming for the blackouts that will surely come when the grid is stretched to capacity?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

100 Responses to Really? ‘Climate Change Causing Blackouts’ – but see the real culprit

  1. jonathan watson says:

    Best bet is to agree to the closure of them all, with the attached note that this only makes sense if your mad,
    close a few extra as well just to be on the safe side, then sit back and watch the fun as yet another civilisation starts to crumble.
    regards

  2. crosspatch says:

    The spin will be like this: The power plants were taken off because of “global warming” (nevermind that the emissions reductions we are talking about will be impossible to even measure on a global scale). The blackouts will be caused by the power plants taken offline. Therefore “global warming” is causing the blackouts.

    Meanwhile I saw an article today about an electric car that can be used to power your home from the car. This comes about a week after I learned that public “free” EV charging stations will be paid for by special assessment applied to people’s electric bill. So I guess now someone could, in theory, have two electric cars and alternate them to a nearby “free” charging station and power their home (which is disconnected from the grid and the owner is not assessed the charging station tax) provided they used something on the scale of RV style appliances. You could probably power a TV, a laptop and a few curly bulbs from your EV for an evening.

    I wonder how long it will be before people are powering their home from a “free” EV charging station.

  3. DesertYote says:

    I’m thinking of doing a study to demonstrate that Climate Change causes brain damage.

  4. Skiphil says:

    Probably a case of mountain from molehill. Unless “global warming” is reliably linked to “climate change” as in drought not part of the many natural cycles of DROUGHT that have existed since time immemorial, this is just more hype and hysteria.

    “because the Tennessee River water was just too hot to provide any cooling capabilities.”

    ??? I think this is a misleading way of trying to say that when the water level in the river was low, the plant was no longer allowed to return heated water to the river.

    i.e., it’s not that the water was “too hot” to be useful cooling for a nuclear power plant (silly idea given the heat disparity between any river’s water and what was to be cooled), but that there are environmental issues with the rate and temperature at which water can be returned to a river lowered by drought conditions.

  5. Manfred says:

    On the one hand, I can’t think that anyone in possession of an average of functioning noodles, could seriously believe this nonsense. Yet on the other hand, primitivisation is a Green objective and they do appear to be making headway don’t they? The increasing cost of electricity is creating a ‘power impoverished unterklasse’. Funnily enough, this apparent reduction in generating capacity conveniently rebalances the supply – demand equation doesn’t it? ie. less people can afford power – less power generated.

    No one thought the 21st century would be the political battleground for a ‘variety of political extremists such as extreme environmentalists, extreme bioconservatives, and modern Luddite movements (trying) to block technological advancement based on scare-tactics and unproven “what-if” scenarios’. (Extropy Institute 2004). Somewhere along the line it became politically incorrect to say “NO!”

    The ‘precautionary principle’ will be used by the Ministry-of-We-Know-Best (an elite ‘ineptocracy’ – see JoNova) to take the majority back to feudalism unless we relentlessly push back.

  6. Gary Hladik says:

    “When the next big heat wave comes, do you think they’ll blame the EPA, or global warming for the blackouts that will surely come when the grid is stretched to capacity?”

    Actually, I’m pretty sure Obama will blame Bush. :-)

  7. Ally E. says:

    They’ve got bloody nerve! So when the blackouts come because of ruddy wind power and closed down power stations they’ll blame global warming! They’re setting up ahead so as not to cop the blame for their stupid damn policies and inefficient green power!

  8. Mike McMillan says:

    I think the power plants that serve the D.C. area (and I notice they aren’t affected) are the culprits. Shutting them down would solve most of our nation’s problems.

  9. tomwys says:

    The Blackout map is really a forerunner of thinks to come!!!

    Imagine an exclusively wind driven power grid! The meteorologists would have a field day, as nighttime photos would show the nation’s weather map all lit meteorologically. Cold Fronts would be brightly lit streaks sweeping across the country and low pressure cells bright swaths of light. High pressure cell centers would be totally dark and Warm Fronts would be festooned with gradually increasing bright areas. Tiny black streaks would pop up following tornado events, as they would destroy all lights in their path.

    Weather forecasts would be “light tonight with dimming towards dawn,” and “Use your washing machines early tonight while the lights still burn.”

    Getting back to the silliness of the article, I think we need to remove some of these dimmer bulbs from the grid!

  10. George E. Smith; says:

    This confirms an EPA study finding, that cutting all four legs off frogs makes them stone deaf, so they won’t jump no matter how loudly you yell at them.

  11. Dennis Lettenmaier, a University of Washington professor of civil and environmental engineering, said “this study suggests that our reliance on thermal cooling is something that we’re going to have to revisit.”

    Thermal cooling? We rely on thermal cooling? I can’t begin to comprehend this.

  12. Whoopie says:

    The river level was low…wait, I thought the melting ice was gonna flood the planet?
    It’s a MIRACLE!!! Praise be the prophet Gore.

  13. Mike McMillan says:

    “In the summer of 2011, the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Alabama had to go offline on more than one occasion because the Tennessee River water was just too hot to provide any cooling capabilities. “

    Not the case. The river could provide plenty of cooling capability, but the “environmental permit” they were operating under said they could warm the river only a certain amount. When nature warmed the river on its own, the plant was forced to run at reduced power. Which doubtless saved the lives of many Alabama rainbow trout.

  14. Bill Sticker says:

    DesertYote says:
    June 14, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    I’m thinking of doing a study to demonstrate that Climate Change causes brain damage.

    Sadly I fear that the brains you wish to study were already damaged.

  15. Mike B says:

    Look on the positive side. As the weather gets more severe, the wind speed will rise, producing more electricity from the windmills. Hey, problem solved.

  16. Marian says:

    “Who knew the global electric grid was so fragile that it couldn’t handle such massive temperature increases? /sarc -Anthony”

    LOL:

    Well once all the coal and nuke power is reduced or shutdown and replaced with ‘Green’ Solar and Windpower. I think you’ll find more blackouts on that satellite map. Especially during the colder Winter months. As was the case in Europe over the recent past winters. Windmills frozen solid, not enough sunlight for the solar panels, etc. :-)

  17. Mac the Knife says:

    You can continue to complain about the Obama administration, his EPA, and the zealots in congress that support this economic suicide…….. or you can commit yourself right now to work your butts off until November to defeat as many of these [snip, snip, snippity snipping snip!] socialist democrats in the coming elections!

    If not Now, When? If not You, Who?

    MtK

  18. Mark C says:

    Anthony, that satellite image you have at the top is a total fake. I did a thorough debunking of it at the time, unfortunately on a site no longer in existence.

    Note that the professed time of this image is 2315 EDT. That would be 2015 PDT, still somewhat light on the West Coast and definitely so in Alaska. Besides which, there is no and has never been an “ISAT Geostar 45″.

    The original is from a DMSP nighttime lights of the world image, with a badly Photoshopped triangle of darkness (that did not correspond to the blackout bounds) to make it look like a blackout.

  19. u.k.(us) says:

    By Matthew Speer

    “The energy supplies for the United States and Europe are at risk, thanks to increasing complications attributed to climate change. In an ironic twist of fate……..”
    =============
    Is it just me, or is “ironic twist of fate” , just saying the same thing twice ?

  20. pk says:

    Mike McMillan says:

    June 14, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    of course if you move the thermometer 10-15 feet further away from the outflow then the problem goes away. been there done that.

    C

  21. DirkH says:

    Mike B says:
    June 14, 2012 at 6:48 pm
    “Look on the positive side. As the weather gets more severe, the wind speed will rise, producing more electricity from the windmills. Hey, problem solved.”

    The wind is a fickle mistress:
    http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/EON-wind-supply.gif

  22. Mark B. says:

    It appears the energy future of the US will secure if only we can find a way to harness the hot air emitted in Washington. In the future the US might run on DC.

  23. Micajah says:

    This newspaper article confirms what others have noted.
    http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/aug/04/river-temperature-forces-plant-to-50-percent/

    Environmental regulations prevented the plant from sending more water back to the river, because doing so would have raised the river’s temperature too much under the circumstances.

    With an additional cooling tower, there should not be a repeat of this particular problem.

    But I guess it’s much better for some purposes to say that the river’s “water was just too hot to provide any cooling capabilities.”

  24. DesertYote says:

    Bill Sticker
    June 14, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    DesertYote says:
    June 14, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    I’m thinking of doing a study to demonstrate that Climate Change causes brain damage.

    Sadly I fear that the brains you wish to study were already damaged.
    ###

    Gosh, I think your right. I just did a phase-space plot of a small sample. It clearly shows that I have got my causality backwards.

    Thanks!

  25. Nick in vancouver says:

    Meanwhile in the real world “theres no business like COAL business” http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId=7068481
    Demand for oil over the last year has grown by less than 1%, demand for coal has increased by 5.4% globally and 8.4% in the “developing” world. At least the lights will stay on in China.

  26. Mark C says:

    Mods, here’s a Snopes link regarding satellite image at top:
    http://www.snopes.com/photos/space/blackout.asp

  27. Tom J says:

    I get it: We’re going to have to shut down those thermoelectric (?) power plants so they won’t cause any global warming that might negatively impact those . . . same . . . thermo . . . electric . . . oh, never mind.

  28. OssQss says:

    KLF is gonna rock you!

    That would mean “Kilowatts Lacking Functionality”.

    That call that comes at 3am ,,,,,,,no?

  29. higley7 says:

    How stupid do they think we are? Droughts occur naturally and river flows vary despite a tiny bit of warming. To claim that the water is just too hot to use for cooling is to ignore evaporative cooling and the very hot nature of the water to be cooled in the power plant. These people actually get paid for these lies?

  30. Neo says:

    “because the Tennessee River water was just too hot to provide any cooling capabilities.”

    When they built the Limerick nuclear plant outside Philadelphia, they expected to shut down the plant for a week every other summer due to the river being too low. To date, I don’t think they have ever shutdown the plant due to the river being too low, in over 2 decades of operation.

  31. RickW says:

    Browns Ferry was running at reduced power last May, but not because of temperatures. It’s because we were hit hard by tornadoes in the valley on April 27th last year.

  32. Karl R. says:

    This is all by design. The Coal Gen. and Nuclear Gen. are to be scaled back in order to cause such black outs. The UN requires we be forced into a state of discomfort, moderate at first, then eventually a major discomfort or even a crisis. Then we will be willing to do what they require us to do so that we can be saved from our selves. Cap and Trade was all part of this, in fact there are several parts, including AGW. It’s a very complext plan requiring decades but it was all supposed to gel about 2 years ago however, some of the gears never fell into place, or in the case of AGW, popped out of place thanks to the efforts of a few key folks. So when you see stuff like this happen and the news stories which come off sounding silly, it’s because not all the gears are in place and working right, theres quite a bit of grinding going on and folks are starting to see that something is fishy. The whole plan is starting to unravel, that is what you are seeing. You will see even more of it to come in the near future. Enjoy.

  33. jim says:

    River water temperature “crisis”: For instance, the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Alabama had to shut down more than once last summer because the Tennessee River’s water was too warm to use it for cooling.

    River water temperature “crisis”: These plants pump water directly from rivers or lakes to cool the turbines before returning the water to its source, and require high flow volumes.

    JK: I see the prof slept through thermodynamics! The main us of cooling water in a power plant is to condense the steam back into water. That occurs at 100C and above. It is laughable that a rise in river temperature from say 5C to 5.8C would make a difference. Same for cooling anything around 100+C steam.

    Its more likely that some crackpot enviro rule is the problem, not physics.

    Thanks
    JK

  34. Carrick says:

    The GEOSTAT image is a fake.

    REPLY: Yes, thanks, it came up in my search for info on the 2003 blackout, caption amended to reflect that – Anthony

  35. James Sexton says:

    The water was too hot? WTF????? What sort of imbecile wrote that sh….t? Oh my…… we’ve bred down so low that we are, truly, in the age of stupid.

    Now, I know it isn’t nice to pick on or degrade mentally challenged people. But, this is beyond the pale. It is well past time for the mentally competent people to assert themselves over this …. this inanity. We need to quit mainstreaming them! They have people believing that an IQ of 70 is above average!!! Make it stop!!!!

  36. Jonathan Smith says:

    The alarmists are getting desperate because they know they have been rumbled and that time is running out. The are caught in a trap of their own making. The public is tiring of alarmist claims, nature isn’t playing ball, so they know that to get any legislation passed, they must act quickly. To maintain the little momentum left, they have to make increasingly outrageous claims which, unfortunately, nature refuses to deliver. This makes the public even more weary hence the requirement to go back to the ‘quick, make up a scare story’ stage.
    The general public is catching on to this, governments know this and the alarmists know this.

  37. TRBixler says:

    As promised skyrocket has delivered. He delivers monies to continue the perpetration of fraud on U.S. tax payers. Doubling down on AGW while doubling the debt.

  38. RockyRoad says:

    EPA is the new Global Warming.

    (And that allegation has gotta piss ‘em off royally.)

  39. Carl Brannen says:

    My experience with cooling towers is that most of the heat transfer is due to evaporation, not conduction.

  40. GeoLurking says:

    Whoopie says:
    June 14, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    ” Praise be the prophet Gore.”

    I think you meant the “Profit Gore”…

  41. ferd berple says:

    http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2011/STAGING/local_assets/pdf/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2012.pdf

    A great series of graphs and statistics. The US has 11 years of proven oil reserves left (pg 6), 13 years of proven gas reserves left (pg 20), and 239 years of proven coal reserves.left (pg 30).

    It is any wonder why the EPA is fighting so hard to ban coal as an energy source? Without coal as competition, oil and gas prices will skyrocket.

  42. “this study suggests that our reliance on thermal cooling is something that we’re going to have to revisit.”

    Clearly, more grants, tax breaks and bank guarantees are needed to successfully develop & market a novel non-thermal cooling solution.

  43. ExWarmist says:

    By Matthew Speer

    “The energy supplies for the United States and Europe are at risk, thanks to increasing complications attributed to climate change. In an ironic twist of fate……..”
    =============
    Is it just me, or is “ironic twist of fate” , just saying the same thing twice ?

    It’s a typo – he meant to write …In an ironic twist of faith…the rising water temperatures and reduced river flow caused by global warming is…

    There – now it’s fixed.

  44. TheInquirer says:

    “From GlobalWarmingIsReal.com, a rather hilarious take on what that 0.8C of temperature increase in the last century is doing. Who knew the global electric grid was so fragile that it couldn’t handle such massive temperature increases? /sarc -Anthony”

    This comment is inane and demonstrates such flawed thinking that, if anyone with even common sense read it, they would realize your agenda. how can anyone, let alone a “meteorologist” suggest that a mean global tempertatures rise measured over decades translates into a uniform rise of that magnitude locally and at shorter time scales?

    You mislead your readers. And little wonder you had to get someone to do the stats for you in the paper you co-”authored” when you make primary school level mistakes like this.

    REPLY: You mean mistakes like missing the /sarc tag? Hey chump (Or is it DeanL or Exp, or another fake name you’ve used here from IP Address 84.72.140.120), if you have something to say to me, at least have the courage to put your real name to it. Otherwise it’s just coward noise. – Anthony

  45. dukeofurl says:

    Browns Ferry had to go offline because the river was “too hot”. What sort of temperature does he think a river gets to ? There is plenty of cooling from even a hot river like the Tennessee. You just increase the flow through the condensers. But this leads to the real reason the plant was restricted the environmental consents would restrict both the amount of cooling water taken and probably the max temp of the outlet flow. We are only talking a fairly low temperature here, maybe 24C . probably the river has occasionally allways been like this

  46. juanslayton says:

    A short piece in this morning’s Tribune, titled DWR to reduce reliance on coal:

    The California Department of Water resources will stop buying electricity from a coal-burning power plant in Nevada next year as part of a plan to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

    Electricity from the plant primarily serves DWR’s State Water Project, the nation’s largest water diversion system and the single largest energy consumer in California. Part of a climate action plan released by the department, DWR plans to buy more energy from the California Independent System Operator.

  47. pat says:

    It simply can’t get any more strange. There must be something in city water that dissolves brain cells.

  48. M Courtney says:

    The journal Nature Climate Change.
    Is this the least illustrious and most high profile junk science repository in the world?

    As I am not a subscriber I cannot tell if any papers worth the ink have been published there. But so much utter tripe gets through their peer review process that I can’t see why any honest researcher would want to be associated with it.

    Come to think of it, do they even have a peer review process?

  49. David Schofield says:

    “DesertYote says:
    June 14, 2012 at 5:55 pm
    I’m thinking of doing a study to demonstrate that Climate Change causes brain damage.”

    Too late – already been done.

    http://www.albany.edu/campusnews/releases_286.htm

  50. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    In other words, the problem that some of these power plants help create is now impacting their ability to perform.

    That’s negative feedback for you! Stops tipping points!

  51. Bill Tuttle says:

    Mark C says:
    June 14, 2012 at 7:10 pm
    Anthony, that satellite image you have at the top is a total fake. I did a thorough debunking of it at the time, unfortunately on a site no longer in existence.

    Mark’s right. A simple caption fix, such as “EPA wants to turn this Photoshop fake into reality.”

    REPLY: Done, thanks to both of you – Anthony

  52. ScuzzaMan says:

    So, what they’re saying is that global warming has an in-built negative feedback mechanism – i.e a dampening effect – and so we shouldn’t actually worry about it at all?

    ”Thanks, guys!”

  53. scuzzaman says:

    So, what they’re saying is that global warming has a built in negative feedback mechanism?

    Good to know. they can all stop screaming about how the sky is falling now, I guess, having proved to themselves there’s really nothign to worry about?

    No, I didnt think so either.

  54. Jeroen says:

    So in the summer the plants are more difficult to cool than in the winter.

    Engeneering solution:

    Larger intakes and pumps.

  55. DEEBEE says:

    So the coal plants have reached a tipping point!

  56. Petrossa says:

    crosspatch says:
    June 14, 2012 at 5:47 pm
    I wonder how long it will be before people are powering their home from a “free” EV charging station.
    —————

    I guess when they realize a powerpack has a limited number of recharges and it’s more expensive to buy a new powerpack then to pay for regular electricity they’ll think again.

  57. Better to close down the EPA than one coal fired generator. Wind generation has a bad input to grids because of their varying power input which can switch whole regions off.

  58. beng says:

    ****
    In the summer of 2011, the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Alabama had to go offline on more than one occasion because the Tennessee River water was just too hot to provide any cooling capabilities.
    ****

    Hilarious. Almost certainly, the reason the Tenn plant had to shut down was because of EPA river-water temperature regulations, not because the plant couldn’t physically operate. High circ-water temps mean you just reduce load, not shut down. And almost any modern plant on rivers have closed circ-water systems/cooling towers, not once-thru.

  59. d says:

    I heard on npr that fires are now caused by global warming too. It will be a sad day when fossil fuels have been dismantled and all these so called problems haven’t gone away, alarmists will have wasted so much time and money blaming everything on global warming.

  60. Craig S says:

    I wonder if it’s time for me to build that miniature power plant in the back yard. I’m sure the neighbors won’t mind . . . of all the b.s.

  61. RobRoy says:

    The cooling properties of water will diminish with a slight warming of the atmosphere. The cooling properties will be degraded so much that mankinds ability to generate electricity.
    This hogwash comes from scientists so it must be true.
    GOD! The stupidity is maddening.

  62. David L. Hagen says:

    “EPA also will accept written comments until June 25, 2012. Instructions for submitting written comments (PDF)”
    *** WRITE ***
    Make a difference.
    Explain why the science is bad & the regulations are bad.
    See EPA Regulatory Actions
    http://epa.gov/carbonpollutionstandard/actions.html

  63. Stephen Richards says:

    Stark Dickflüssig says:

    June 14, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    Dennis Lettenmaier, a University of Washington professor of civil and environmental engineering, said “this study suggests that our reliance on thermal cooling is something that we’re going to have to revisit.”

    Sounds like the Peltier effect :))

  64. Stephen Richards says:

    TheInquirer says:

    June 14, 2012 at 11:22 pm
    “From GlobalWarmingIsReal.com, a rather hilarious take on what that 0.8C of temperature increase in the last century is doing. Who knew the global electric grid was so fragile that it couldn’t handle such massive temperature increases? /sarc -Anthony”

    This comment is inane and demonstrates such flawed thinking that, if anyone with even common sense read it, they would realize your agenda. how can anyone, let alone a “meteorologist” suggest that a mean global tempertatures rise measured over decades translates into a uniform rise of that magnitude locally and at shorter time scales?

    You mislead your readers. And little wonder you had to get someone to do the stats for you in the paper you co-”authored” when you make primary school level mistakes like this.

    [SNIP: language. -REP]

    Anthony knows full well that fooling his audience is not an option. This is not one of your moronic AGW with people like you on it. This is site of well qualified scientists, engineers and economists.

    [SNIP Again. I'm pretty sure that was not what you intended to say. -REP], plonker.

    ANTHONY, Sorry about the language but these trolls are really beginning to get me with their crasse stupidity.

  65. RobRoy says:

    Interestingly, the nuke at Turkey Point in S. Florida has an array of cooling canals to allow heated water to cool to a level for legal release to the eco-system. These cooling canals have become a haven for salt water crocodiles. This species has been saved here thanks to nuclear power generation. From an endangered population of less than 500, to now, thousands of crocodiles.
    Florida Power & Light are quite proud of themselves. As they should be.

  66. ExWarmist says:

    d says:
    June 15, 2012 at 4:15 am

    I heard on npr that fires are now caused by global warming too. It will be a sad day when fossil fuels have been dismantled and all these so called problems haven’t gone away, alarmists will have wasted so much time and money blaming everything on global warming.

    400 years ago, in the depth of the LIA, Authorities were running around screaming “Witches, Witches – it’s Witches that have caused the crops to fail – Witches, kill all the Witches…”

    Unfortunately, the mindless, cruel zeal is the same – just the words have changed.

  67. MattN says:

    OK, the water not being able to cool is complete and total BS. That has been a battle cry for years. The water can cool just fine. The issue is the fish and fauna downstream. The discharge water exceeds allowable limits and will be to warm and cause a large kill downstream. THAT is why the power stations have to go offline, not because they can’t cool effectively. They are protecting fish and plants.

  68. more soylent green! says:

    It’s going to be so warm that we can’t cool our power plants? Seriously? This stinks so bad it shouldn’t be accepted as a 5th grade science paper.

    How many power plants shut down on the summer because they can’t be cooled? Remember the big Texas heat wave last year — how many nuclear plants had to be taken offline because they couldn’t cool down? How many coal plants were taken offline? Was it none? Zip? Zilch?

    Yep.

  69. ChrisW says:

    The map of generating stations set to close due to EPA regulations is missing quite a few red dots! I work in the electric utility industry and review EPA regulations for a living. IER updated their map in April 2012, and the revision shows 33.8GW of generation shutting down as a result of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards Rule (MATS). Combine this with EPA’s New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for CO2, and now you have a clear picture of how EPA views our most abundant energy resource.

    So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…”
    – Barack Obama speaking to San Francisco Chronicle, January 2008

    http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Power-plants-to-close-because-of-EPAs-regs-April-20-update.pdf

  70. Gail Combs says:

    Ally E. says:
    June 14, 2012 at 6:21 pm

    They’ve got bloody nerve! So when the blackouts come because of ruddy wind power and closed down power stations they’ll blame global warming! They’re setting up ahead so as not to cop the blame for their stupid damn policies and inefficient green power!
    _________________________________
    Beat me to it and said it better. This is just propaganda to pass the blame. It will work too unfortunately. The food “SAFETY” Modernization Act is a classic example of how media spin twisted the truth so the bad guys won. Public outrage did nothing because of media spin. If you control the media you control the message, and “THEY” control the media.

    http://www.whistleblower.org/storage/documents/Shielding_the_Giant_Final_PDF.pdf
    http://www.examiner.com/article/trojan-horse-law-the-food-safety-modernization-act-of-2009

  71. Craig Loehle says:

    There is no sign of water shortages except those caused by human withdrawals. Global warming should increase precip, and over the USA it has risen 5% the past century (if you believe it can be measured that accurately).
    On the other hand, increasing use of windmills and solar WILL cause blackouts, as Germany has recently discovered.

  72. Terry says:

    That last part tells the real story. The EPA closing power plants via regulations that are choking them out of business.

  73. Matthew W says:

    Closing coal plants.
    That’s a trick to show the “increase” percentage of “green” electricity.

  74. Roger Sowell says:

    Re regional water shortages and their impact on thermal power generation: EPRI has addressed this (US Electric Power Research Institute).

    http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=370&PageID=224944&cached=true&mode=2

    Note: “thermal cooling” is a shorthand for cooling of a thermal power plant, such as nuclear, oil-fired, coal-fired, and natural gas-fired.

    CCGT plants use the least water per MWh, and nuclear plants use the most. (CCGT is combined cycle gas turbine ).

  75. Myrrh says:

    What powers the White House? If it’s coal the place could be taken off grid.

  76. Brendy says:

    China is going to have a real problem, given all those coal fired power plants they are building

  77. HenryP says:

    TheInquirer says
    if anyone with even common sense read it, they would realize your agenda.

    Henry says
    there is no agenda here other than the reporting of true results:
    there is no global warming.
    It has been cooling ca 0.2 degrees K since 2000 BUT cooling will start to go faster soon
    http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
    if you have other results (that you measured / evaluated yourself) then please bring them to this forum.

    As for the best method getting electrical power, see here:
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/fracking-for-gas-is-okok

  78. Brian H says:

    crosspatch says:
    June 14, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    So I guess now someone could, in theory, have two electric cars and alternate them to a nearby “free” charging station and power their home (which is disconnected from the grid and the owner is not assessed the charging station tax) provided they used something on the scale of RV style appliances. You could probably power a TV, a laptop and a few curly bulbs from your EV for an evening.

    I wonder how long it will be before people are powering their home from a “free” EV charging station.

    Actually, they could probably power the full suite of normal appliances; most EVs have battery capacities ranging from 20 to 85 kWh, far more than you could use in a day unless you’re Al Gore.

  79. Brian H says:

    tomwys says:
    June 14, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    The Blackout map is really a forerunner of thinks [things] to come!!!

    +1
    Brilliant! That would make a superb short video to demonstrate the logical consequences of renewablization!

  80. Brian H says:

    Mike B says:
    June 14, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    Look on the positive side. As the weather gets more severe, the wind speed will rise, producing more electricity from the windmills. Hey, problem solved.

    Sadly, both the problem and the solution are based on false premises.
    The raising of temperature due to Anthropogenic CO2 increase isn’t happening, and won’t.
    And if temperatures do rise, weather will become more benign, and calmer, idling the bird choppers. (Ironically, if temperatures cool, weather will become windier and more severe, but probably damage and idle the choppers just when they’re needed most! Green really is the Color of Stupid.)

  81. jaagu says:

    I am astunded at the scientific and enginnering ignorance of the people who debunk this study. Thermodynamics is not political. Power plants have been shutdown in Europe and US for years as the water temperatures are getting warmer in the rivers. Sea water levels rising does nothing for river water temperatures.

  82. Brian H says:

    Noblesse Oblige says:
    June 14, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    North Korea has the biggest climate change problem of all http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm

    Drilling down into that site a bit produces some fascinating stuff, mostly about the US/NA. Start here:
    http://dmsp.ngdc.noaa.gov/pres/low_light_120701/html/title.html

  83. Brian H says:

    ferd berple says:
    June 14, 2012 at 10:41 pm

    http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2011/STAGING/local_assets/pdf/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2012.pdf

    A great series of graphs and statistics. The US has 11 years of proven oil reserves left (pg 6), 13 years of proven gas reserves left (pg 20), and 239 years of proven coal reserves.left (pg 30).

    It is any wonder why the EPA is fighting so hard to ban coal as an energy source? Without coal as competition, oil and gas prices will skyrocket.

    The wheels have come off that EPA effort, too. “Proven reserves” are the tip of the iceberg.

    “(CNSNews.com) – The Green River Formation, a largely vacant area of mostly federal land that covers the territory where Colorado, Utah and Wyoming come together, contains about as much recoverable oil as all the rest the world’s proven reserves combined, an auditor from the Government Accountability Office told Congress on Thursday. The GAO testimony said that the federal government was in “a unique position to influence the development of oil shale” because the Green River deposits were mostly beneath federal land.” http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gao-recoverable-oil-colorado-utah-wyoming-about-equal-entire-world-s-proven-oil

  84. Brian H says:

    David Schofield says:
    June 15, 2012 at 12:09 am

    “DesertYote says:
    June 14, 2012 at 5:55 pm
    I’m thinking of doing a study to demonstrate that Climate Change causes brain damage.”

    Too late – already been done.

    http://www.albany.edu/campusnews/releases_286.htm

    Sez distance from the equator, coping with colder climate, accelerated brain evolution. Where did you say Kenya was wrt the equator?

  85. jayhd says:

    To be correct, the title has to be “Climate Change legislation and EPA mandates causing blackouts”.

  86. TheInquirer says:

    [SNIP: It must be really hard to be you. Since there is nothing you like here, including your host, why do you keep coming back? When you have something substantive to contribute, try again. -REP]

  87. TheInquirer says:

    So Anthony puts up a comment that suggests he believes that all utilities have to cope with due to a 0.8C global average warming is increases of only 0.8C and I question it and now I’m being censored?

    Wow. Thin skinned and just a little bit hypocritical?

    [If you were being censored do you think your comment would appear here? ~dbs, mod.]

  88. Anthony Watts says:

    @”TheInquirer” 2012/06/16 at 10:02 am

    LOL!

    I’m still wait for “TheInquirer” to fess up to being a shape shifter. So far he’s used (that we know of) “TheInquirer” “Exp” and “DeanL” to comment here, abandoning the latter two after being called out on multiple policy violations.

    Why is that that some people critical of this blog (and me) have to be schmucks that hide behind multiple fake identities?

    Besides, he has no point, he obviously doesn’t understand (or doesn’t want to) the /sarc tag.

    But since he’s started to whine, I’ll make you a deal – put your real name to your words and you can say anything you want. As it stands, your comments no get troll bin status (meaning an extra moderation level) due to your multiple policy violations. Your behavior and your behavior alone is the key to changing that status. If you change into yet another false identity, you’ll be banned permanently. Be as upset as you wish.

    Cheers, – Anthony

  89. Nolo Contendere says:

    jaagu says:
    June 15, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    I am astunded at the scientific and enginnering ignorance of the people who debunk this study. Thermodynamics is not political. Power plants have been shutdown in Europe and US for years as the water temperatures are getting warmer in the rivers. Sea water levels rising does nothing for river water temperatures.

    ———–
    Now that’s comedy gold, right there! Let me guess: jaagu is a teenaged green somewhere in Europe who can’t be troubled with facts or learning. Snicker.

  90. jaagu says:

    During heat waves in US and Europe power plants have shutdown or reduced power.
    Cooling towers are required in future.
    Once through cooling will not work in future.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jul/30/energy.weather
    http://www.tva.gov/river/watersupply/
    http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/southern-heat-wave-strains-power-generation/

    jaagu is a retired nuclear engineering manager in the U.S, but Nolo Contendere is definetly from comedy central. He does not understand that power plants work most efficiently with cold cooling water – the Rankine cycle.

  91. jaagu says:

    “From GlobalWarmingIsReal.com, a rather hilarious take on what that 0.8C of temperature increase in the last century is doing. Who knew the global electric grid was so fragile that it couldn’t handle such massive temperature increases? /sarc -Anthony”
    ===============
    Anthony,
    Your statement above has nothing to do with the study results. The electric grid is not the issue. Thermal power plants work on the Rankine cycle and need lots of cold water for for once through cooling. The study says these power plants need to switch to cooling towers to save water and stop heating up rivers. No effect on power plants with cooling towers already.

  92. oeman50 says:

    jaagu says:
    June 16, 2012 at 7:19 pm
    “From GlobalWarmingIsReal.com, a rather hilarious take on what that 0.8C of temperature increase in the last century is doing. Who knew the global electric grid was so fragile that it couldn’t handle such massive temperature increases? /sarc -Anthony”
    ===============
    Anthony,
    Your statement above has nothing to do with the study results. The electric grid is not the issue. Thermal power plants work on the Rankine cycle and need lots of cold water for for once through cooling. The study says these power plants need to switch to cooling towers to save water and stop heating up rivers. No effect on power plants with cooling towers already.

    ========================

    jaagu, if you are truly an engineer who understands the Rankine cyle and how power plants work, then you should know an increase in cooling water temperature just increases the turbine backpressure and reduces the efficiency and power output of the turbine. It does not make you incapable of generating power or make you shut down. As others have stated, the environmental regulations require the plant to be shut down. Or the cooling water has to be at or below the design temperature to cool containment and the reator coolant system in case of an accident, again, an imposed regulation, not a technical limit on the ability to produce power when water temperatures are high. And you are correct that any new or existing plants with cooling towers with proper design will feel little impact from an 0.8 increase in average temperature, this is because the increase is mostly at night. So the premise of the article is a tempest in a teapot. The Browns Ferry issue? Weather interpreted as climate, where have we seen that before?

  93. jaagu says:

    So the premise of the article is a tempest in a teapot.
    ==================

    oeman50, so are you saying that cooling towers are not required for existing and future power plants located on rivers in SE US and Europe? The study shows that once through cooling will heat up those rivers and use too much river water? Once through cooling is no longer realistic on those rivers.

    Thanks for trying to tell me what I already know about Rankine cycle and cooling of nuclear power plants.

  94. oeman50 says:

    jaagu says:
    June 17, 2012 at 10:31 pm
    So the premise of the article is a tempest in a teapot.

    oeman50, so are you saying that cooling towers are not required for existing and future power plants located on rivers in SE US and Europe? The study shows that once through cooling will heat up those rivers and use too much river water? Once through cooling is no longer realistic on those rivers.

    Thanks for trying to tell me what I already know about Rankine cycle and cooling of nuclear power plants.

    =================================

    jaagu, I am not trying to be pedantic, But you said, “Your statement above has nothing to do with the study results. The electric grid is not the issue.” I beg to differ. The article says, “Climate Change Causing Blackouts. Extreme drops in power generation, blackouts and full or partial shutdowns of thermoelectric power plants are expected to triple over the next 50 years, according to a report in Nature Climate Change.” Typical scare tactics.

    I was merely trying to point out that the effects on power generation are self-imposed, not technical. Browns Ferry shuts down due to environmental regulations on heat rejection, see article link below.

    http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/09/90-degree-river-shuts-tennessee-nuclear-plant-for-second-time/

    And yes, I am saying that cooling towers are not federally required for existing power plants in the US, don’t know about Europe. New plants, yes, existing plants with once through cooling, no. At least one state, California, passed a law requiring closed cycle cooling in the future, but that is not in the SE.

  95. Resourceguy says:

    Climate change also led to the creation of pod people who took over science and fired anyone that got in the way and pursued more blacklisting than anything done in Hollywood.

  96. jaagu says:

    oeman50, In 50 years the study shows river flows decreasing and temperatures rising. When a river gets too low it may uncover the intake structure and cooling water suction to a point where the plants must be shutdown. Power plants with once through cooling may also impact other power plants on the same river by using up too much water – downstream power plants may not have adequate water even for their cooling towers. So I disagree with you on existing power plants on smaller rivers. Some of them will need to backfit cooling towers.

    If you would stop thinking that the study is political or scare tactics, then you could admit that there is a potential problem for some power plants.

  97. oeman50 says:

    jaagu says:
    June 18, 2012 at 11:54 pm
    oeman50, In 50 years the study shows river flows decreasing and temperatures rising. When a river gets too low it may uncover the intake structure and cooling water suction to a point where the plants must be shutdown. Power plants with once through cooling may also impact other power plants on the same river by using up too much water – downstream power plants may not have adequate water even for their cooling towers. So I disagree with you on existing power plants on smaller rivers. Some of them will need to backfit cooling towers.

    If you would stop thinking that the study is political or scare tactics, then you could admit that there is a potential problem for some power plants.

    ===================================
    OK, one more time, then I’m done. The reduced river flows projected for 50 years hence are pulled from climate models that have not been proven to be accurate at forward prediction [scare tactic]. None of the shutdowns at Browns Ferry cited as the horrible example [scare tactic] were caused by uncovering the intake pump suctions, the plant was technically still capable of generating power. And power plants with once through cooling actually use less water than a cooling tower, the evaporation rate of the water that is all returned to the river is approximately one third of the amount for a cooling tower because you are not using it for evaporative cooling. I agree that power plants on smaller rivers may need to retrofit towers if the water sometimes gets too hot. But that is small subset of plants with once-through cooling and is not a sudden issue that will cause the grid to come crashing down as alleged in the article [scare tactic].

  98. jaagu says:

    oeman50 says: …once-through cooling and is not a sudden issue that will cause the grid to come crashing down as alleged in the article [scare tactic].
    ===============
    The study never said that the grid would come crashing down. That is your scare tactic against the study. Read the original study as published:

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1546.html

    I disagree with with your baseless denial of forward looking climate models.

    I am sure you would agree that natural gas fired power plants are they way to proceed as the use less cooling water, they are cheapest for of thermal/nuclear electrical energy generation, and they have the least environmental impact.

Comments are closed.