UCI study blithely calls for $100 trillion shutdown of fossil plants to meet Paris climate goals

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The Los Angeles Times cavalierly suggests based upon a UCI study published in the journal Nature that the world needs to retire its fossil fuel plants to meet the Paris Agreement’s politically driven schemes requiring the pipe dream of global abandonment of fossil energy.

clip_image002

The article grossly misrepresents the magnitude of such a colossally huge global plant “retirement program” which they enormously understate by noting that the Paris Agreement emissions mandate cannot be met “unless some are retired ahead of schedule.” The article not only addresses early retirement of power plants but also of factories, vehicles and appliances as noted below:

“The power plants, factories, vehicles and appliances in use today could make it all but impossible to meet the goals of the Paris climate accord unless some are retired ahead of schedule, according to an exhaustive new analysis of the world’s energy infrastructure.”

The article offers the following litany of ludicrous economic and energy observations about the Paris Agreements globally catastrophic schemes.

“If allowed to operate for the rest of their expected lifetimes, the greenhouse gases they would produce by continuing to burn fossil fuels will raise global temperatures more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the study found.”

“To keep temperatures below this threshold — which countries have agreed to aim for to avoid the worst effects of climate change — the researchers concluded that no new fossil fuel infrastructure can be built and many power plants and industrial facilities must be retired early.”

“Power plants represent the largest share of committed emissions, accounting for roughly half of the total in the new study.”

“Most scenarios for meeting the Paris targets require a rapid phase-out of fossil fuel infrastructure. Davis said the new work reveals just how difficult that may be: According to the findings, the world cannot afford to commission any new carbon-producing infrastructure, or allow existing power plants to live out their normal lifetimes.”

“It’s really a wake-up call to governments and institutional investors,” he said. “If we are serious about doing this, then that means we are going to have to strand some assets.”

The article fails to address at all the incredibly complicated and extensive economic fossil energy dependency of the world’s nations today as well as these nations future plans regarding continued use and growth of fossil energy.

A review of global energy consumption data reveals how extensive and all encompassing the use of fossil fuel resources are in meeting the world’s energy and economic needs and what a small and insignificant role renewable energy plays.

clip_image004

As of 2018 the global energy and economy were dependent upon fossil fuels for meeting about 85% of total energy needs with the largest single energy component from petroleum resources.

Renewable energy resources provided only about 4% of the global energy need and most of that is provided through use of politically contrived government dictated mandates and subsidies.

Less than 3% of global energy was met using the so-called “zero emission” energy resources of wind and solar.

Electricity represents about 44% of total global energy consumption.

clip_image006

The developing nations of the world which dominate energy and related emissions use and growth required fossil fuels to meet over 87% of their energy needs with the largest single energy component coming from coal resources.

Developing nations relied upon renewables for less than 3% of their total energy needs.

China, which is in the process of building hundreds of new coal plants along with India and other nations of the Asia Pacific region, relies upon fossil fuels to meet more than 85% its energy needs with renewables providing less than 4.5% of their total energy.

China’s coal fuel was used to meet more than 58% of their total energy needs.

The developed nations used fossil fuels to meet over 82% of their energy needs with the largest single energy component being from petroleum resources. 

Renewables provided less than 6% of the developed nations total energy needs. Much of the use of renewable energy is mandated in the electricity sector which has significantly driven up electricity rates particularly in the EU.

clip_image008

U.S. fossil fuel resources were used to meet over 84% of the country’s energy needs while renewables provided less than 4.5% of total energy needs.

The Times irresponsible mischaracterization that “some plants” would have to be retired early to meet the Paris Agreement schemes is a completely misleading understatement given that the world’s nations now rely upon fossil fuels for about 85% of their total energy requirements. Additionally about 56% of total global energy use is required to provide energy to other than the electricity sector – namely the industrial, commercial, residential and transportation sectors.

Unmentioned by the Times is the fact that there are plans for hundreds of additional new coal plants underway by China as noted in articles that have been completely ignored by the L. A. Times with an example presented below.

clip_image010

“China Electricity Council (CEC) has proposed to increase the country’s coal power capacity in the next decade by 290 GW on current levels, eventually resulting in a total capacity of 1300 Gigawatts by 2030. That translates to anywhere between 300 and 500 new coal power plants by 2030, or a new coal plant every 14 days.”

The Times article provides no information concerning the huge costs that would be associated with trying to meet the Paris Agreement temperature goal provisions. A recent article estimated that the cost to achieve the energy and economically reckless renewable energy schemes portrayed by the Paris Agreement would be on the order of $100 trillion dollars.

clip_image012

Furthermore the fact that renewables provided only about 4% of total global energy needs (with less than 3% from wind and solar despite trillions in global subsidy supported mandates) in 2018 clearly demonstrates what an absurdly and monumentally expensive proposition the Paris Agreement would be for all the world’s nations – an extraordinarily important outcome as well as an extremely harmful consequence unaddressed by the Times article.

In 2017 EIA data shows that in the state of California fossil fuels were used to meet about 80% of the state’s total energy needs while renewables provided only about 13% of total energy despite more than a decade of mandated renewable energy use and tens of billions in carbon taxes and renewable energy subsidies.

clip_image014

The “zero emission” renewables of wind and solar only provided about 8% of California’s total energy need.

California faces very significant problems in achieving its future “zero emissions” questionable schemes particularly given the reality that the government mandated progress in use of renewables to date had been in the electricity energy sector.

The state’s electricity sector only represents about 22% of California’s total energy use versus the electricity sector representing over 38% of total energy use across the entire U.S.

By far the largest energy use sector in California is the transportation sector which consumes more than 40% of the state’s total energy use.

The state is uncertain on how to address the transportation sector but is planning on heavily pushing public transit and EVs to try and jury rig lower fossil fuel use in the transportation sector – good luck with that.

At a “climate summit” held by Governor Brown in 2018 much was made of the role EVs must play in reducing emissions (EVs are not “zero emission” vehicles) in the transportation sector but EVs will likely play only a very small role compared to ICE vehicles as noted in the graphs below. Subsidies by California promoting purchase of EVs have resulted in only 5% of the states annual cars sales being EVs with the state having a total of about 35 million registered vehicles.

clip_image016

A recent analysis of the failures of the Los Angeles Metro System bus service shows the long-standing record of extraordinarily poor performance that has significantly reduced ridership.

clip_image018

Additionally the bus services slow, awkward and complex routes for riders are motivating people to get in cars. These poor public bus service results offer little hope for state and city government mandated “solutions” of increased public transportation in addressing fossil energy reductions in the states transportation sector. Provided below is an example of the extensive frustration riders experience when trying to use the city and county government L A Metro bus system.

clip_image020

“To be on time for her 9 a.m. class at Cal State Northridge, Yurithza Esparza has learned the hard way that she needs to be at the bus stop no later than 6 a.m.

She would prefer to drive the 30 miles from her home in Boyle Heights, but the car she saved to buy was totaled when another driver ran a red light. So she is back on public transit, taking three buses and a train to get to school.

“Driving here is a pain because of the traffic, but it’s still more convenient,” said Esparza, 23, who can spend five hours a day commuting. “On the bus, I just can’t get from Point A to Point B whenever I need to go. I hate it.”

Over the last decade, both Los Angeles County’s sprawling Metro system and smaller lines have hemorrhaged bus riders as passengers have fled for more convenient options — mostly, driving.”

Many other issues exist regarding the problem plagued public transportation in Los Angeles as noted in the examples of long standing poor performance by the city and county government run public transportation systems presented below.

“Metropolitan Transportation Authority buses, which carry most of the county’s bus riders, have lost nearly 95 million trips over a decade, according to federal data. The 25% drop is the steepest among the busiest transit systems in the United States and accounted for the majority of California’s transit ridership decline.

The bus exodus poses a serious threat to California’s ambitious climate and transportation goals. Reducing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions will be next to impossible, experts say, unless more people start taking public transit.

Now, transportation officials and advocates are puzzling over how to transform the humble bus into something more than a last resort.

That will require attracting some of the 14 million Southern California residents who rarely, if ever, set foot on a bus or train. Fewer than 3% of residents take more than 25% of the region’s transit trips. The vast majority of riders are Latino or black, studies show, with no access to a car and little time to lobby for better service.”

“It will also be difficult to keep current ones. Last year, UCLA researchers found that Southern California families have scrimped and saved to put even modest pay increases toward cars, aided by the rise of low and zero-interest auto loans. From 2000 to 2015, the share of households that had no access to a car fell 30%. In immigrant households, it fell 42%.”

“The average speed of a Metro bus has dropped 12.5% over the last25 years, according to data analyzed by UCLA. The delays are worse on major corridors, including Vermont, which has at least 10 hours of severe congestion per day and an average local bus speed of 9 mph.”

The Times article addressing the monumentally expensive, complex and unwarranted need to – as the reporter cavalierly noted “retire some plants” based on the Paris Agreement climate goals – was nothing but political propaganda trying to conceal the massive and expensive consequences of these ill-considered and foolhardy renewable energy schemes. The situation for California’s politically contrived government driven “zero emissions” schemes are equally inane. 

Advertisements

101 thoughts on “UCI study blithely calls for $100 trillion shutdown of fossil plants to meet Paris climate goals

      • Now keep in mind that I am one of those dependent on grid sourced electricity and gasoline for transport but I would like to see the fossil fuel industry simply give them exactly what they clamor for. Embargo on ALL fossil fuels. Stop selling gasoline, power down all fossil dependent generation sources and Hydro. Refuse to play until insanity is brought to light and acknowledged for what it really is. Shouldn’t take more than a month and likely weeks

        • It is not wise to piss off your customers, Bryan. And nationalization might be implemented if a mandatory service is withheld on a whim.

        • Hours. It will only take a few hours before the eco-blowhards are brought to their knees.

  1. When the Green zealots finally realise zero CO2 living is impossible to sell to realists, they will simply double down and pick another equally disabling anti civilisation project to focus on. They are already testing out banning meat. They have decided plastic must be removed from use at all costs. Well, good luck with that one, as it begs the question, what do they intend to insulate the wiring with in their all electric future?

      • Game,
        I’m reminded of a Darwin Award winner in Detroit who thought it would be a good idea to steal a high voltage transformer from a power pole to resell the copper. It was winter in Detroit, and being understaffed, it took authorities a while to remove the well done remains (there was talk of leaving him there as an example).

        If word gets out that that wiring is insulated with hemp (yeah I know it’s not the same but the Darwin award winners don’t) no wire in Detroit would be safe.

        • I do IT work for an electric utility company.

          The vast majority of overhead electric wire is bare/uninsulated. There are point insulators where the wires have mechanical connections to the poles. Those insulators are mostly either ceramic or glass.

          • The fun thing in my neighborhood was throwing a bicycle chain over the wires.
            Lotsa sparks. Every now and then a transformer would blow.
            4th of July in December!

    • Rod, According to NPR (March 11th 2019, 5:03AM ET) quoting Daniel Hoornweg, electricity is precious, we can’t waste it powering everybody’s electric car ! So we won’t be needing much of that fancy technological insulation ! Such a fantasy world they live in, made more obvious in the article above, showing how many cars are in CA, and how poorly public transportation works there.

      “Maybe the most powerful thing that got us here, is [that] we got the pricing right,” he says. “So, you want an autonomous vehicle? Bless your heart, but it costs you more to drive that autonomous vehicle on the road by yourself. If you ride-share, it’s a little bit less.”
      “And this is even if they are electric vehicles?” I ask.
      “Even more if they’re electric vehicles!” Hoornweg says. Personal electric cars for everyone couldn’t solve the problem, he explains. First of all, electricity is precious. We can’t waste it powering everybody’s electric car.
      Second, electric cars could have clogged the streets of our densely populated cities the same way

      • There are a lot of people who live in dense and small urban centers, who simply have no idea of the situations of people outside of this sort of arrangement.
        To them, the suburbs are rural, and there are a few people called farmers.
        They are literally the most clueless people around, and they consider themselves the smartest and best informed.

        • Furthermore they do not comprehend how dependent their existence is. They sit way out on that proverbial tree limb they want to cut off. Shut off the power and they will be the first to succumb.

    • As the article notes, these are not the sort of people to get bogged down by details, or by something being impossible, or absolutely no one being willing to do some particular thing.
      If they concerned themselves with logic and how things really are, then they would not be warmistas to begin with.

      • “by something being impossible, or absolutely no one being willing to do some particular thing.”

        I think that sums it up perfectly, Nicholas. Doing away with fossil fuels is never going to happen. The countries and states that are trying to do so are having great difficulties and thngs will only get worse for them if they continue down that road. Some of them are even starting to wake up to this reality.

        The Western democracies are the only ones in the world concerned about this. The rest of the world is going merrily about their business of building fossil fuel powerplants. And will continue to do so whether the West self-destructs or not.

        The Alarmists should get real and give up on eliminating fossil fuels and switch over to mitigating any damage that might occur from a 1.5C increase in temperatures. They will waste a lot of money doing this too, but at least they won’t be detrimentally affecting the rest of us with their delusions about the dangers of CO2.

    • Now if they would only stop breathing the rest of us could continue living relatively stress free and energy abundant lives.

  2. The proposals become ever more clear cut and obvious – humankind must prepare for culling 90% of the world population. What do you say? That’s not what those studies suggest? They only say that we must stop everything that keeps nearly 8 billion people on this planet alive and well but there is no word of getting rid of people. Is that true? And how will all those people live? How will their food be produced? How their medics? Where will all this energy needed come from? Do we have space for 8 billion on a Medieval lifestyle and diet? Not the researcher’s problem you say? Then you won’t mind if I disregard those researchers as mean spirited chumps who won’t shy back from any lie and cheat to spread their bile.

    • I have already talked to Greens who think that is not only an acceptable, but an ideal, solution.

      • “I have already talked to Greens who think that is not only an acceptable, but an ideal, solution.”

        Did they volunteer to be the first group of people to be culled?

        • Of course not.

          I had a conversation with a member of Population Matters who was advocating people not having children. I called him a hypocrite because he had 6 kids plus grandchildren. He told me I was an idiot.

      • “I have already talked to Greens who think that is not only an acceptable, but an ideal, solution.”

        Did they volunteer to be the first group of people culled?

    • What is so magical about pre-industrial times. I believe Western Europe’s population dropped 25% during the little ice age. Has anyone access to good data on the subject?

  3. Larry Hamlin

    “relies upon fossil fuels to meet more than 85% (of?) its energy needs with renewables “

      • Yes I love how in the midst of all this evil USA talk and how we must do more and more here it is sandwiched in the middle of a poorly worded paragraph there that China is responsible for 41% of emissions (and rising) and the US only 9% (and falling). Why should we do anything?

      • I suggest California be a green pilot project. No hydrocarbons for electricity generation, no hydrocarbons for cars, and no hydrocarbons for aircraft.

        Timing? By 2022.

        Thus the rest of the world will discover how easy it is to be green.

        • Good plan, in fact I would be even more accommodating of the Californian desire for Green everything and ask them to begin the demonstration of their energy ethos in 2020.
          We need those pathfinders to show us the way….

  4. Just shut down “The power plants, factories, vehicles and appliances in use today”
    Easy peasy…. maybe I should /s

      • Agreed as all they are doing is pumping out garbage of zero value, lets get rid of all media.

      • “Perhaps starting with those energy intensive printing presses?”

        But then I won’t have anything to wrap fish in, line the bottom of bird cages or use for masking when I am painting something.

  5. Just out of curiosity, why doesn’t that student ride a bicycle for her commute? If the bus is only making 9 mph, surely she could make 15 mph on a bicycle. There should be any number of bicycle only paths all throughout Los Angeles.

    • In a lot of places, that means riding in the street in a place where people are just not looking for cars.
      Very dangerous.
      And for someone who did not grow up riding a bike in a large city, it is just not likely to be safe or easy.
      Large intersections are extremely dangerous for all but the most canny cyclists.
      They have few rainy days in LA, but not so in most other cities.
      Arrive at class soaking wet?
      Averaging 15 mph across LA would be a feat, not something any body could do.
      Doing it without putting yourself in extreme danger is impossible.
      I grew up riding a bike in the downtown of one of the largest cities in the country, and was a bike messenger for about a year and a half at one point. For me it was exhilarating and I could get around quickly, but doing so took nerves of steel and extreme level of attention and no small amount of prior skill.
      Even where I grew up, the vast majority of people could never do it: Ride in traffic every day and not get killed or hurt.
      I never knew anyone who rode a bike regularly who was never injured, typically multiple times.
      But once I moved to Florida, even when I lived in a place like Deerfield Beach or Boca Raton, which have sidewalks on both sides of every road, it was extremely dangerous. It is generally illegal to ride a boke on the sidewalks, but if you want to not get killed, you had better. But you will get a lot of flat tires. And hassled occasionally.
      In the roads, motorists are driving very fast, many are resentful of bike riders, and a certain amount of them do not even consider such people to be “people”, but a pain in the ass obstacle they could care less about.
      And in a road, some situations are just inherently deadly, like a car driving behind a SUV, pickup truck, or larger vehicle. The driver in front sees you are moves over a little, but the person just behind will not see you until about 1/10 of a second before he is right on you.
      Unless there is a dedicated bike path, riding in most places in the country is very problematic, and I say this as someone who rode a bike every day for the first 45 years of my life. In some cities you will be lucky to survive a few years of doing it every day.
      It is considered so dangerous to bike, motorists are typically not even charged if they kill a cyclist.
      They are not on the lookout for bikers. Even if the city, many times a driver will look straight at someone on a bike and have zero perception of their presence. I saw it happen every day when I rode in Philly…you have to ride as if every car is gonna try to kill you…they you are reasonably safe.

      • Sorry, first sentence: “…in a place where people are just not looking for bikers.”

    • Ken, I misspent my youth in Los Angeles and even in the early ’70s, on my daily bike ride to work, I would often beat coworkers who took the same route in their cars. We’d wave and grin; it was a race! If traffic was that bad then, it has to be w-a-a-a-y worse now.

    • I have to wonder why she is going all the way up to Northridge, 28 miles, instead of one of the campuses closer to her home.

  6. “The state is uncertain on how to address the transportation sector but is planning on heavily pushing public transit…”

    I actually do not mind public transit in certain other countries – where it is clean, safe, and fairly convenient. You know, the opposite of what most of the U.S. has.

    It has to run often, be on time, kept safe and clean, and not be horribly expensive…then people will use it. Otherwise they will continue to use cars, for all of the reasons above.

    When it becomes the favorite hangout for gangs, you can essentially just close it down as no one that has any choice will use it. That kind of describes all of California these days.

    • It also depends on a certain population density, and well planned and built out routes.
      For busses to be efficient, the roads must be fairly orderly and relatively empty, and with traffic lights timed, etc.
      Lots of places in the US have clean and safe busses, but convenient?
      How do you do that when people are spread across many miles of suburban housing? In Florida, even the down towns of cities are huge, and major roads are a mile to several miles apart.
      Meaning even if there was a bus on every one of them, a lot of people would have to walk a mile or more to the nearest intersection of a big street. Then wait. And the only people using busses are people travelling a distance which is impossible to walk, so most trips involve a lengthy slow ride while the bus stops many times over roads with traffic signals every mile or two.
      And who is gonna go through all of that to take a bus if they can avoid it in southern states where one is sweating through one’s shirt by the time you lock your door behind you are you leave the house?
      Where the Summer is very long and very hot, every single year?
      Where on many days, sudden intense down pours take place a hundred times a year or more?
      No one.

        • Intermodal is probably the best idea, in which a person rides a bicycle to a bus or train.
          But the busses have a rack on the front that will hold two bikes!
          So not exactly a viable transportation plan for a city.
          On the east coast of Florida, everything is laid out in a line along the coast, and there is a train which runs parallel to I-95. With a bike, and busses on the East-West roads, you can get where you are going. But not conveniently, at least not what I call convenient.
          Setting up dedicated bike routes is a good idea, but there are some people who are not gonna ride a bike around. Some of them are the people who would benefit the most from it, but the fact remains.

          • Riding your bike to work when it’s 90° and 60% RH must be invigorating. I just don’t understand why people wouldn’t want to do that.

    • Now what would greatly increased ‘public transit’ actually accomplish?

      People talk as if it doesn’t require fuel. It must be an anomalous situation that where I live, public transit is mostly done with buses which use DIESEL which isn’t a fuel I suppose.

  7. From the paper, an “ACCELERATED ARTICLE PREVIEW” — Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C climate target —

    “Barring such radical changes, the global climate goals adopted in the Paris Agreement are already in jeopardy…..” and then –“Some important caveats and limitations apply to our findings. ”

    Simple question, who edits these papers? Should be used as an example in grade school as how not to do it.

  8. When we have no fossil fuel power after our retreat to the glorious preindustrial past the heavy work will be done by slaves just as in the past so watch out for the manacles that will be set on the wrists of your children and grandchildrem a fate that our green politicans are rendering wellnigh inevitable and that all of us who stay silent are involuntarily promoting

  9. If we do anything close to what this clueless LA Times writer suggests, she can probably look forward to the U.S. and global economies collapsing over the time frame of the plant shutdowns. Should that happen, few people (if anyone) is going to give a damn what the climate is or isn’t doing because life will become a veritable struggle just to survive.

    If fossil fuel energy use has to ramp down quickly in the near future, then those businesses and institutions who are needed the least should be the first ones are required to be disconnected from the grid. That you, LA Times (and all of your fellow news outlets). Good luck keeping your paper up and running on solar and wind energy alone. It would be fun to watch.

    This climate scare campaign has to be one of the biggest and most successful mass hysteria and brainwashing efforts in all of human history. Everybody was on board with it — science and its institutions, the U.N. and national govts, the mass media, academia, everybody. No govt has yet demonstrated the intestinal fortitude to step forward and expose the problems with it–they have all played along (except for the Trump administration). It’s unreal.

    If and when the Earth is considerably cooler in 5 or 10 years, the LA Times will no doubt behave as though this whole thing never happened. Their credibility will remain intact.

    • Maybe it would be helpful if such writers detailed how they had made the painful and expensive choices they advocate for, and how much it has cost them, and how they cope with the wasted money and lack of ability to have modern conveniences?
      They seem to think it will be easier or more palatable if everyone is forced to do it all at once.

      • “Maybe it would be helpful if such writers detailed how they had made the painful and expensive choices they advocate for…”

        They already have an answer for that; I have seen several articles where they say they are not hypocrites for not practicing what they preach because their policy will only work if everybody is forced to implement their policy at the same time. I suspect, however, the more equal pigs won’t have to make as big a sacrifice as the merely equal pigs because the more equal pigs care so much more than the merely equal pigs.

    • Solution to 3 hour commute: Move closer. Or at least move somewhere close to a direct transit route to where you need to be every day.
      6 hours a day of travelling to go 30 miles?
      Insane.

    • Thank you,

      “UCI = University of California Irvine” That should have been clarified right up front!

  10. California should lead the world by foreswearing the use of all fossil fuels for their energy needs. Then CA will become a green paradise without relying on icky oil and gas and coal.

    Win-win. CA can operate when the wind blows and the sun is out, and the rest of the states won’t have to listen to them complaining.

  11. Where is all of the power going to come from for farm equipment: tractors, combines, balers, dryers for grain etc.? A big extension cord or batteries?

    • “Where is all of the power going to come from for farm equipment … A big extension cord…?”

      I don’t know about the farm equipment, but I suspect the CA Grid will need big extension cords to other states that don’t rely on “renewables”.

  12. There is a reason it is called LALA LAND. Does anyone in California know about the “prevailing westerlies” that bring all of China and India CO2 to the US? Maybe they would be interested in a 800 mile wall to push the CO2 to Nevada and Arizona.

  13. IF the people who say that CO2 is the problem then they need to factor in how much CO2 they exhale a year.Add that to how much energy they use and how many manufactured items they purchase.If they are serious and not just running their mouth they would kill themselves,set an example on how others can reduce their carbon footprint.DIE.

  14. Replace the “fossil” plants with a forward-looking nuclear technology and carbon-based products where they are best fit to purpose. Oh, and uproot the Green blight, and replace it with green life.

  15. Nothing is impossible to the doofus from another planet who doesn’t have to do it himself.

  16. Okay. Let’s do it this way: Those who propose these things have to give up their vehicles and electricity and A/C and all that other stuff FIRST. And they have to do without ALL of it for 30 years. That includes no fridges, no washers/dryers, no electric or gas stoves – NONE of that stuff.

    Them first.

    If they do that, then we can vote on whether or not to follow their example. /s

    • Sorry Sara, but no. Internet access FIRST, and then all that other stuff …….

    • Gee. Phil, without electricity, how would they access the internet in the first place? Logic, man, LOGIC!!!

      • They could go to the expense of taking their house Off Grid first by installing massive roof top solar with 200KWH battery backup and converting their heating and cooking to electric and investing in personal EVs. Of course they would then discover the True Cost of their Folly.
        Gotta shut it down before they have their back ups in place so they can feel the suffer

  17. Time to cut the HVDC connection from near The Dalles in Oregon (Pacific DC Intertie / Path 65)
    Cali doesn’t need any of that dirty, corrupt hydropower.
    Might as well cut the old school AC interties from Oregon to Cali as well.

  18. I think its erroneous to think that California’s government wants net zero to succeed. Rather, they want aspiration and if collectively, the goals the state aspires to cannot be met, then a hefty fee will have to be paid. The best example of this is California’s low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). Their aspirational goal was to make 10% of ethanol used in gasoline from cellulose but that technology has not yet proved economic at scale. As a result, offset credits for low carbon fuels additives for gasoline stand at the maximum allowed by law at nearly $200 each. I suspect that adds nearly $0.20 to each gallon of gasoline which likely results in at least $3 billion dollars of revenue annually just from the LCFS.

    Imagine a no carbon fuel standard comes to fruition, the state gets to collect a punitive fee on all the fuel pumped. Throw in other energy used such as natural gas and electricity and you might be able to supply a quarter to half the state budget through purchase of carbon based energy credits. Regressive taxes you can feel good about!!

    • “Throw in other energy used such as natural gas and electricity and you might be able to supply a quarter to half the state budget…”

      You are forgetting an important corollary to Parkinson’s law: “For any governmental budget, the amount of money spent will always grow to exceed the amount of money collected”.

  19. The deep-pocketed GreenSlime is paying the the dying Legacy news outlets to run these propaganda pieces. The LATimes, like many newspapers and media outlets, are dying; losing ad revenue as it loses subscribers to internet alternatives. The GreenSlime is subsidizing them through alternative investment back-door financing in exchange for climate porn articles. It is now part of their business model, running climate propganda for the renewable energy interests.

    • Let’s see how this works.

      The LA Times is owned by billionaire former USC transplant surgeon turned entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong. Born in South Africa, educated there, emigrated to Canada finished medical training and then to the US to finish his surgical residency at UCLA.

      By hard work he became a true 1st generation billionaire when he sold his start-up APP pharmaceuticals for $4.6 billion in 2008, easily vaulting him into the elite billionaire club of pre-2010.

      He bought the LA Times last summer for a measly $500million and also got the San Diego Tribune to boot, the deal closing in June 2018. Why would a surgeon want a newspaper, the major newspaper on the West Coast?

      ((wait for it……….)))))
      .
      .
      .
      In September 2018, his company NantEnergy announced the development of a zinc air battery with a projected cost of $100 per kilowatt-hour (less than one-third the cost of lithium-ion batteries).

      Any guess on what industry they are targeting with battery storage to compete against Li-ion batteries?

      So is this guy really looking out after society in a “‘Do no harm’ kind of fashion”?

      From Wikipedia:
      “In 2014 Soon-Shiong made a $12 million donation to the University of Utah.[32] An audit three years later found several legal violations. As part of the donation, the university was required to use Soon-Shiong’s company for the services required for the research, at a total cost of $10 million. NantHealth set the price for DNA sequencing at $10,000 per sample, while auditors found that other companies charged between $2,900 and $5,000 for the same service.[33] Legal experts referred to it as money laundering,[34][35] or perhaps a technique to receive tax deductions for an investment in Soon-Shiong’s own company.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Soon-Shiong

      Climate scam is all about the money. And the propaganda is flying at the public financed by the GreenSlime looking to fleece the middle class via renewable (and battery storage) electricity scams.

  20. According to Dr. Pelkie, the world will need to commission one 1.5 GW nuclear power plant EVERY DAY BETWEEN NOW AND 2050 to meet “zero emissions” by then while also meeting future energy needs.

    Meeting this goal would also require the development of synthetic liquid jet fuels and synthetic diesel fuels in order to keep agriculture and international commerce going without the exorbitant costs of early decommissioning and replacing our current stock of jets, tractors, 18-Wheelers, and locomotives.

    That’s about 11,300 power plants @ $2 Billion each (LFTR’s might be half that)…so call it $22.6 Trillion. That’s a lot less than $100 Trillion and actually gets the job done without shoveling $$$Trillions to corrupt Crony Capitalists in the Climate-Industrial-Complex.

    That’s $730 Billion annually…for the whole world. Less than is being wasted now with renewables THAT AREN’T…and CANT…GET THE JOB DONE.

    Renewables would cost many multiples of that every year and chew up enormous amounts of resources and cover tens of 1000’s of SQUARE MILES OF LAND…100’s of times more resources and 1000’s of times more land area than the nuclear option.

    Implementing such a plan would be crazy without a thorough audit and honest review of the current science. That will be tough with all the “WOKE” scientists out there. (“WOKE” here means that if a scientist is “WOKE”…they get lifetime funding, fame, prestige and monthly conferences at 5-Star destinations. But for the non-WOKE scientist it means loss of funding, loss of publishing privileges, loss of your life’s work, public ridicule by the MSM propaganda machine, and academic ostracism).

    But this “Nuclear” plan (however crazy) would actually work while preserving and actually growing the world economy. It would also preserve the US economy and our Constitution…WHICH IS THE REASON THE WARMUNISTS would fight that plan to the bitter end.

    Warmunists don’t want a technical fix BECAUSE THE CLIMATE CRISIS ISN’T ABOUT THE CLIMATE.

    • Exactly, the trillion dollar industry is all about talking about removing CO2 from the atmosphere. If anyone actually did it, what a f-up that would be for the parasites of humanity.

  21. Does anyone know where I can buy a dime bag of whatever it is that UCI is smoking?

    Oh… might as well make that two bags. It seems to be premium stuff.

  22. Larry Hamlin Jumps, Leaps (like superman!) To a conclusion.
    I scanned the La Times article. Nowhere(!) did they mention “renewables”, not even once.
    The La Times is largely correct that no new coal plants need to be built in the US, and current ones can be phased out. Although I do think that early retirement and stranding assets is a bit too much.

    After the La Times made the anti-coal case, I fully expected a spirited advocacy of modern nuclear power, including modern Thorium reactors, and good old Plutonium breeder reactors with fuel reprocessing and Plutonium recovery.
    But nothing. Perhaps the columnist ran out of space, or maybe was rushed and could not finish the article. A simple oversight, I am sure.

  23. The LA Times seems intent on leading the public from “extraordinary popular delusions” to “the madness of crowds”.( H/T Charles Mackay).

  24. As a former Useful Idiot who woke up with Climategate, I know from the inside that True Believers totally buy the utopian fantasy. They’re so grateful that anyone in power is addressing the issues they care about that they refuse to see the scoundrels behind the promises or the laughable junk science that’s supposed to deliver them. But these quotes are a hint and I’m sure there are many more that a good investigative reporter could dig up…

    “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” – Jeremy Rifkin, New York Times journalist on climate change

    “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

    “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” – Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

  25. UCI should be decertified as an institution of higher learning. Consideration should be given to establishing a set of standards for all such institutions for continued certification.

  26. The logical alternative to fossil fuel based power plants is nuclear power plants. So as current fossil fueled power plants reach the end of their useful life they should be replaced by nuclear furled power plants. Wind and solar can help to reduce energy demand but they cannot supply all of our energy demands.

    But the reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So reduction in CO2 emissions will have no effect on climate. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. But even if we could somehow stop global climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are all part of our current climate.

  27. Apparently the author of this post is denigrating the LAT for not including every single facet of the issue in their article. That seems to me pretty odd. The Times article is reporting principally on an analysis that was focused on what it would take to meet the Paris Agreement goals, adding some very brief info about what a few countries are doing. It’s just a short article, not meant to be an exhaustive analysis of the costs or effects of shutting down plants. Nor is it taking any stance about the results; it’s just reporting. I suppose if someone wanted to see it this way, they might read into it an implicit idea that the U.S. isn’t doing its fair share compared to many other countries, which is true if one takes the position that we should make sacrifices commensurate with our past and present contribution to atmospheric CO2.

    One could take any newspaper article and talk about what it fails to mention. So what?

  28. On your way out please leave your wrist watch, iPhone, car key and laptop. Thank you, the planet is safe.

  29. The biggest piece of stupidity is the assumption that renewables will be the means of reducing carbon emissions. Anyone with half a brain knows that the future of energy is certainly going to not be renewables, but molten salt nuclear reactors, safer than all other means of power production and cheaper as well. And can be deployed faster than any other low carbon technology.

  30. “…the bus services slow, awkward and complex routes for riders are motivating people to get in cars. ”

    They forgot to mention “often full of unwashed alcoholics and psychotic meth-heads.”

  31. So Paris in a nutshell is “”To aim for”‘.

    I can aim at Mars, but that does not mean that I will ever get there.

    Why with such a vague sort of Paris pledge, do our politicians get all so
    executed and upset about ?

    MJE VK5ELL

  32. CD, July 18. A very good comment. But when it does cool down then the Green movement will just claim the credit for it, and insist that their there measures must continue.

    ”Of course hopefully by then we will have some very angry people out there in the streets, and unless the Greens go and hide somewhere, expect some to end up swinging from various lamp posts. “”

    The veneer of civilition is in reality very very thin.

    NJE VK5ELL

  33. The LA Times used to be good for lining the bottoms of bird cages. Now, even the birds can’t stand its stench.

Comments are closed.