The Future Of Energy: One Of These Things Is Not Real

From The MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

As we all know, making predictions can be difficult, especially about the future. On the other hand, sometimes it’s just a question of distinguishing reality on the ground from pure self-delusion.

At the moment, we have two visions competing to be the reigning official prediction of the future of energy. One of those visions, foreseeing the rapid demise of fossil fuels, is on full display even as we speak in a virtual summit put on by the American Clean Power Association. The summit began today and is running for four days, through Thursday June 10. The speakers are a who’s who of “clean energy” glitterati, starting with essentially all the leading U.S. Democratic pols. OK, President Biden is not speaking; but then, he doesn’t get out much these days in his dotage. But the speaker list includes both Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, as well as all the leading Biden admin “climate” officials (Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, Climate Envoy John Kerry, White House Climate Czar Gina McCarthy} and plenty of representatives of “woke” corporate America (e.g., Andrew Steer of the Bezos Earth Fund, Anne Finucane of Bank of America). And on and on. You get the idea. These people are our betters, and to the extent they are not actually the “experts” themselves, we can be sure that they are tightly tied in to the true experts by direct brain connections.

The other vision of the future of energy can be called the “reality on the ground.” Reality on the ground might not seem like it’s a vision about the future, but then you realize that a major energy project can take many years — often 10 or more — to go from conception to production. If some project is really going to be a meaningful part of the energy future 10 or so years from now, it had better already be well underway.

So let’s look a little at the two visions:

The American Clean Power Vision.

I’m definitely not going to spend my time listening to any of these presentations, but you can get a rather clear idea where they think we are going by looking at the titles of the panels at the virtual meeting. Consider several examples. The big panel today had the title “Path to 100% Clean Power by 2035.” You will likely recognize the benchmark of 100% clean electricity by 2035 as the goal that Biden first set during the campaign, and that he more recently has reaffirmed as President. Obviously, if the President says that this is what we are going to do, and if all of his chief minions in charge of passing out the money are going to be here watching us, then everybody is going to say that of course we are going to achieve this goal.

On Wednesday the main event is a panel called the “U.S. Offshore Wind Developer Interview Series.” This one features some eleven presenters. It appears that all of them are representatives of one or another wind turbine building company looking to rub virtual elbows with the big-time pols who will determine who gets how much subsidies and tax breaks. A good inference of the gist of the panel would be “we can blanket the oceans with these things if only you give us an unlimited gusher of federal money.”

There is also a series of “on-demand” presentations, apparently pre-recorded, that you can watch at any time. A representative example has the title “A Comparative Look At Utility-Scale Wind And Solar Across The U.S.”

And so forth. Basically, it’s a gaggle of subsidy-seekers gathering to tell the pols that if only enough money is handed out, they can deliver all the “clean power” you could ever want. Engineering issues? Feasibility problems? Those will surely not be mentioned.

The Reality On The Ground

Let’s start with the offshore wind situation in the U.S. The New York Times actually has a front-page piece on that today, with the headline “Offshore Wind Farms Show What Biden’s Climate Plan Is Up Against.” To begin, how many offshore wind turbines do you think the U.S. has so far? The answer is in the first paragraph of the article: “The United States has exactly seven.” That’s rather embarrassing. So how are we going to turn this around going forward?

The Biden administration wants up to 2,000 turbines in the water in the next eight and a half years.

Does that sound like a lot? In fact, it’s almost nothing — except to the fisherman and shippers and/or wealthy oceanfront homeowners who are fighting tooth and nail to block it all. At 2 MW capacity per wind turbine (optimistic), 2000 of them could be good for 4000 MW of capacity. With 8760 hours in a year, that means you could get about 35,000 GWH of electricity out of the 2000 turbines if they operated all the time; but of course they don’t — a 40% capacity factor would again be optimistic. That would give you 14,000 GWH of electricity from the 2000 wind turbines (at random times, and requiring full backup, but that’s another issue). According to the EIA, the U.S. uses about 3.8 million GWH of electricity in a year, so these theoretical 2000 offshore wind turbines will with luck generate some 0.36% of our electricity by 2030 — if we started today on a crash program to get them built.

But in fact the expansion of offshore wind facilities in the U.S. is going exactly nowhere at the current moment. The Times piece focuses on one particular bottleneck, which is that installation of these offshore turbines requires specialized gigantic ships, and there aren’t any in the U.S.

The largest U.S.-built ships designed for doing offshore construction work are about 185 feet long and can lift about 500 tons, according to a Government Accountability Office report published in December. That is far too small for the giant components that Mr. Eley’s [offshore wind turbine] team was working with. . . . The U.S. shipping industry has not invested in the vessels needed to carry large wind equipment because there have been so few projects here.

OK, but the Europeans have built thousands of offshore wind turbines, and have lots of these specialized construction ships. Why not just hire them? There’s a simple answer: it is prohibited by something called the Jones Act, a U.S. statute that forbids use of foreign flag ships for any intra-U.S. shipping.

There are plenty of other bottlenecks as well, ranging from environmental reviews to endless litigation, and more. But this one bottleneck alone apparently has offshore wind development in the U.S. completely stymied for the time being. The Times concludes:

These difficult questions can’t simply be solved by federal spending. As a result, it could be difficult or impossible for Mr. Biden to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by 2035 and reach net-zero emissions across the economy by 2050, as he would like.

So put offshore wind into the category of things that are just not happening in the current reality on the ground. What then is happening in the reality on the ground? In a post just a couple of days ago, I took note of a gigantic new Arctic oil project just getting underway from the Russians. So that’s one thing. How about coal. Yes, plenty of that is also getting developed right now, and by private money and outside the U.S., so there is little or nothing that the Biden Administration or environmental litigants can do to stop it. The Times of India has a piece from June 5 with the headline “India, Australia, China, Russia pushing ‘massive’ coal expansion.” Excerpt:

Coal producers are actively pursuing 2.2 billion tonnes per annum of new mine projects around the world, a growth of 30 per cent from current production levels, a new report from Global Energy Monitor said on Thursday. The first-of-its-kind analysis surveyed 432 proposed coal projects globally and found a handful of provinces and states in China, Russia, India, and Australia are responsible for 77 per cent (1.7 billion tonnes per annum) of new mine activity.

And the move away from petroleum? On the ground, that’s not happening either, except to the extent that the U.S. or European governments intentionally suppress it, in which case other countries are ready to step in. It’s not just Russia, but all the OPEC states as well, that are declining to abandon petroleum and basically mocking the U.S. and Europe for their folly. Bloomberg has a piece on June 3 with the headline “OPEC leaders mock IEA’s ‘la-la land’ 2050 Net Zero roadmap.” Excerpt:

The world’s largest petrostates rejected calls for a rapid shift away from oil and gas, warning that starving the industry of investment would harm the global economy. If the world were to follow the International Energy Agency’s controversial road map, which said investment in new fields would have to stop immediately to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, “the price for oil will go to, what, $200? Gas prices will skyrocket,” said Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak. His warnings were echoed by the energy ministers of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, who said they will keep expanding their oil and gas facilities and warned others against the consequences of starving the industry of cash.

In the reality on the ground, thousands of independent actors, both private and governments, are ready and able to fill the demand for fossil fuels and to make lots of money in the process. Meanwhile, the Democratic pols in the U.S. are so arrogant that they think they can push water uphill.

Read the full post here.

4.8 28 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
88 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
markl
June 8, 2021 2:09 pm

So many King Canutes, so little time.

ResourceGuy
June 8, 2021 2:15 pm
Joseph Zorzin
June 8, 2021 2:17 pm

Meanwhile, Bernard Looney, head of BP, has a podcast discussing his firm’s switch away from oil: https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/energy-industry-transition

“In this final installment of conversations from the Center on Global Energy Policy’s recent annual Global Energy Summit, host Jason Bordoff is joined by Bernard Looney, CEO of bp, to discuss bp’s planned transformation from an oil and gas company to an integrated energy company, a little more than one year into the strategy. Jason and Bernard talk through the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the company and energy markets, what the new strategy means in practice, and what bp’s portfolio will look like in the future. 
Bernard Looney is Chief Executive Officer of bp, and has been with the company for 3 decades. He started off as a drilling engineer, and then later, oversaw BP’s oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities worldwide before taking the helm last year.”

An example of self-delusion?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 8, 2021 2:24 pm

As the BP’s and Shell’s of the world divest oil & gas assets, smaller companies will line up to invest in those assets… An example of a “win-win” situation!

Rud Istvan
Reply to  David Middleton
June 8, 2021 3:36 pm

There are two honest ways to make stock market money. Long: buy low, sell high. Short: buy (barrow) high, sell low (then return the barrow).
BP just defined itself as a short.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 8, 2021 6:32 pm

The irony is soooo ironic… 😎

hiskorr
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 8, 2021 7:28 pm

As you should know, “shorts” intend to sell (barrow) high and later buy (return the barrow) low. The BP CEO at least SAYS that he believes that reduced demand for gas and oil will drive the price down, so a short position makes sense.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 8, 2021 3:48 pm

It’s a lot more than BP….it’s TOTAL….it’s Chevron….it’s Exxon….winners will be Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Reply to  Anti-griff
June 8, 2021 6:30 pm

And US independent oil companies… Like the one I work for.

4 Eyes
Reply to  David Middleton
June 8, 2021 7:30 pm

Bring it on! I’m looking forward to working in the patch again after my forced retirement last year.

Scissor
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 8, 2021 2:26 pm

Remember the crooked E, Enron?

Reply to  Scissor
June 8, 2021 2:35 pm

Enron’s former E&P subsidiary is the very successful EOG Resources.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 8, 2021 2:26 pm

BP killed its PV subsidiary, BP Solar, over ten years ago.

Scissor
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 8, 2021 3:10 pm

BP has been in and out of renewables as often as Willy Brown was in and out of… better not say.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Scissor
June 8, 2021 5:16 pm

Hand up … fingers snapping … I know, I know. Let me say. I want to tell. Rhymes with …

Tom
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 8, 2021 3:31 pm

The head of BP is a looney… how apropos.

Tim Whittle
Reply to  Tom
June 8, 2021 4:11 pm

I checked all the comments before saying just that. Thankfully I did, as you beat me to the punch line. BP are a living Monty Python skit.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 9, 2021 10:20 am

They care about staying in business and making a profit. They really don’t care what business or how they make a profit. Given the regulatory climate, it’s not surprising they are planning to move away from oil.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Jeffery P
June 9, 2021 12:49 pm

It’s a big assumption that they can succeed in making the switch. I think oil will always be profitable. I suspect they understand that sooner or later the public will rebel against the AGW and decide they like oil and will continue to buy it. Diversifying is one thing but talking about getting out of the oil business is probably just public relations- going with the zeitgeist, until it changes as it always does.

Rud Istvan
June 8, 2021 2:35 pm

Nice piece. Dunno about you all, but I am rather enjoying watching the GND fantasy colliding with reality in so many new places and ways. Mandatory ‘Net zero soon’ laws now in CA, MA, NY, and HI. Offshore wind UK and US. Mandated UK electric vehicles without sufficient lithium or cobalt or REOs.

BTW, Lordstown Motors (electric trucks) just issued a formal SEC ‘going concern’ warning today per WSJ. They are toast unless Bezos gives them a few $billion. Probably won’t, as he is already giving Blue Origin about a $billion per year, and his now ex wife already took half. Maybe she will?

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 10, 2021 2:01 am

Don’t need lithium or cobalt for electric vehicles. Lead Acid batteries will do. Mind you, makes for a very heavy car, but so what – We Are Saving the Planet!

griff
June 8, 2021 2:36 pm

So put offshore wind into the category of things that are just not happening in the current reality on the ground.

Maybe in the backward USA… in the UK there is 30GW of offshore wind in progress… more off Germany, Netherlands, multiple other places. Increasingly quickly..

Scissor
Reply to  David Middleton
June 8, 2021 3:14 pm

I heard that Longmont, CO pays $0.07/kWh for power from the Rawhide (coal) Power Station, which is very clean. They want to shut it down in 2030.

Rhs
Reply to  Scissor
June 9, 2021 5:48 pm

Using United Power and living outside Longmont CO, we 0.10/kwh.
Minus the charge for “peak” power which is another story for another time.

John in Oz
Reply to  David Middleton
June 8, 2021 3:40 pm

Add South Australia @ US$0.45/kWh – ‘reduced’ by our many wind and solar generators /sarc

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Middleton
June 9, 2021 5:07 am

It looks like living in the “backwards” U.S. is cheaper than living in the European windmill capitals.

If you can’t see that windmills are a deadend by now, I don’t know what it would take to convince you, Griff.

Don
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 9, 2021 9:58 am

You can’t fix stupid.

Ronald Voisin
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 9, 2021 7:03 pm

if a bird is quietly killed by a wind turbine, did it ever really happen?

DrEd
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 10, 2021 1:55 pm

Griff gets the Billy Madison award for the day.

Neville
Reply to  griff
June 8, 2021 3:11 pm

Silly Griff, even the Kerry donkey has told you that the USA etc can’t make a difference.
What is it that you can’t understand about co2 emissions + SOURCES since 1990 etc?
How many TRILLIONS of $ do you want to waste for decades, for a guaranteed ZERO return???
WAKE UP.

Steve Taylor
Reply to  griff
June 8, 2021 3:54 pm

WHY do people not understand GW, GWh and availablity ?

Reply to  Steve Taylor
June 9, 2021 12:10 am

WHY do people not understand GW, GWh and availablity ?

…because the people who can and should explain it to them, prefer acting all high and mighty and dismissive, and ask rhetorical questions with no hint as to the answer?
Or is it because the world now all enjoy “equitable education”, or what we used to call ‘Bantu Education’?
Or maybe the clever people should find words to express important things in ways that non-technicians may understand?
That’s just three ways for you to make the world a better place, now go thee hence and bring knowledge to the ignorant masses, then you won’t need to share the earth with idjits!

mkelly
Reply to  Steve Taylor
June 9, 2021 6:37 am

Because there are lots of gender studies degrees out there.

DrEd
Reply to  Steve Taylor
June 10, 2021 1:58 pm

And dispatchable power? and reliable back up? And efficiency? And lifetimes & maintenance costs? And responsiveness?

Tom
Reply to  griff
June 8, 2021 4:17 pm

Since 1990, Europe has lowered its CO2 emissions by 0.055 GT/Yr. In 2020, their emissions are 5.46, so it will take another 99 years for Europe to get to zero. Is that the goal? I’m guessing much of the easy reduction has already been achieved, so it will take longer, and then, even if Europe does it, it really won’t matter depending on what the rest of the world does. Talk about denialism.

DrEd
Reply to  Tom
June 10, 2021 2:00 pm

It’s idiocy and the lack of the ability to think logically.

ghl
Reply to  DrEd
June 11, 2021 4:52 pm

It’s 99% corruption.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
June 8, 2021 5:22 pm

There’s GOT to be far more than 50 GW of wind just in the governments of the countries you mentioned … before breakfast.

GORDON
Reply to  griff
June 8, 2021 6:53 pm

Griff Wind generates a miniscule amount of power at a huge cost and it often generates power when it is not needed, that makes wind power generation a bad concept. Cut off their subsidies.
Check the math not the words (sorry BS)

philincalifornia
Reply to  griff
June 8, 2021 8:18 pm

So griff, in the forward-thinking UK, when do you think that you will have that pesky climate “stabilised”. I’d ask you to show us your maths, but you’ve made it pretty clear that you slept through those classes.

Redge
Reply to  griff
June 8, 2021 11:22 pm

Griff, mate,

You’re still peddling this nonsense.

A few months back, you made a similar claim. I did a back of an envelope calculation to show you were talking nonsense, but you didn’t respond.

I will just leave this here (green = unreliable, the rest are reliable energy with red being fossil fuel) – again:

Capture.JPG
Last edited 11 days ago by Redge
R K
Reply to  griff
June 9, 2021 12:39 am

Griff,
You are obviously in need of enlightenment of the real world. Around the world most wind turbines suffer gear box or bearings failures within five years. This is all types and makes and often this data is hidden by wind farm operators. Allianz Insurance had over 1000 claims in Germany in 2005 and had mandated gear box replacement every five years after that. As to other Insurers I don’t know. The reason gear boxes will continue to fail is that you cannot design for the turbulence that strikes the blades, further, it is IMPOSSIBLE to design against vertical sheer and stress and this is what you get in downbursts out of severe thunderstorms.
Most people don’t know that when frontal thunderstorms pass a position on the ground the wind veers instantly 180 degrees because the inflowing wind is reversed by the wind from the direction of the storm’s travel itself. It is impossible for the feathering mechanism on wind turbines to account for this and in any case under severe storms all three blades will be driven downwards from downbursts putting huge stress on bearings and the tower itself. It is also impossible to keep those blades in balance after a short period because of all the things that can hit blades individually, quite apart from icing, snow and other buildups. All aircraft propellors have to be taken off and rebalanced at least every 2000 hours and they don’t suffer exposure to these conditions.
Wind turbines have temperatures operating limits, both hot and cold, do not handle lightning strikes well and in fact most never reach their design life. Why would you go and place a form of power generation up on an open ridge or plain, right in the path of violent thunderstorms? The real world of powerful storms doens’t deal too well with solar panels either.

mkelly
Reply to  griff
June 9, 2021 6:34 am

Griff’s use of the word “backward” to describe the USA fits perfectly with the dislike left leaning folks have for the country. No value on freedom, liberty, capitalism etc. They would rather have us dirt poor living like the Kalahari bushmen.

Griff did not dispute any of the numeric facts laid out in post. Nope his first thought is we were backwards.

Griff write a post on why you are correct. Or debate someone as to why you are right. Tell us why this post facts are wrong.

David A
Reply to  mkelly
June 11, 2021 3:37 am

“Tell us why this posts facts are wrong”

That he/she will never do. At the most a troll will pick one small aspect of such a post and also try to change the narrative.

Dennis G Sandberg
June 8, 2021 2:39 pm

Cleanenergywire
Last year (2020), Germany raised its offshore wind power target to 20 gigawatts (GW) from 15 by 2030, and to 40 GW by 2040. But because of a pause in new auctions, construction is only set to pick up speed by the middle of the decade.
This year’s hiatus is the first time since 2011 that no offshore capacity is being added in Germany, with the last auction taking place in 2018. Last year, only 32 offshore wind turbines with a total capacity of 219 megawatts (MW) went into operation in Germany – all of them in the first half of the year. This corresponds to only 15 percent of the 2017 level.  

Davidf
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
June 8, 2021 5:28 pm

And how many of the existing onshore turbines are shutting down due to the subsidy period expiring.

Climate believer
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
June 9, 2021 12:25 am

Germany has messed everything up in Europe energy wise, they can not deny that, it’s a fact.

Nameplate capacity in 2021 for German off shore wind turbines is 7.77GW. This represents nearly 1500 turbines.

As shown this month, even with all that rusting metal out to sea, if there is no wind, there is no power.

Gas is the only alternative the Germans have left themselves, and they need a lot of it, which is why they have compromised themselves with Putin.

They’ve screwed themselves, and no bleating by head in the sand alarmists like Grifter about adding more intermittent GW insecurity to the system will change that.

German offshore June 2021.png
Neville
June 8, 2021 2:48 pm

Meanwhile in the REAL world co2 emissions have been soaring since 1990/2000.
Check out Wiki’s graph since 1990 and note the USA + EU haven’t increased emissions since 1970 or 1990.
China, India and OTHER COUNTRIES co2 emissions are SOARING and they are laughing all the way to their banks. When will the Biden, Kerry, DEM, EU donkeys etc wake up?
comment image

Derg
Reply to  Neville
June 8, 2021 8:01 pm

All while humanity is THRIVING

Neville
June 8, 2021 3:01 pm

Here’s NOAA’s co2 trend graphs per decade since 1960.
Perhaps the Biden , Kerry DEMs donkeys should have a look? Even they should be able to understand? OR NOT.

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html

Tim Whittle
Reply to  Neville
June 8, 2021 4:19 pm

Did the vast reduction in Anthropogenic CO2 production in 2020 register on any of the graphs?

How much reduction was there?

Doesn’t seem to be any at all. The whole CAGW thing is clearly a crock.

Neville
Reply to  Tim Whittle
June 8, 2021 5:22 pm

Tim , so far NOAA shows 1.8 ppm INCREASE from May 2020 to May 2021.

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/mlo.html

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Whittle
June 8, 2021 8:04 pm

There was no vast reduction in Anthropogenic CO2 production in 2020. There was a 15 to 20% drop for a few weeks to a month, that quickly returned to normal levels.

ATheoK
Reply to  MarkW
June 9, 2021 8:03 pm

Every alleged 2020 COVID lockdown CO₂ reduction chart that I’ve seen was 100% based upon somebody’s bogus estimates calculated from alarmist dreamland suppositions of shuttered industries.

All direct observations failed to register any declines. As does the chart linked by Neville just above.

czechlist
Reply to  Neville
June 8, 2021 4:46 pm

For dims understanding math and interpreting graphs is hard – not to mention racist

Steve E.
June 8, 2021 3:21 pm

“At 2 MW capacity per wind turbine (optimistic), 2000 of them could be good for 4000 MW of capacity”

Most of those 2000 would be in the 12-15 MW range if built today. For example, the GE Halide-X offers 12, 13 and 14 MW models. Some industry estimates expect 20 MW by 2030. Capacity factor for the offshore turbines is also higher. Numbers like 45% today, rising to 60% as size of the turbine increases.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Steve E.
June 8, 2021 4:27 pm

Anybody want those 800′ tall Halide-X in their neighborhood?

Steve E.
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 9, 2021 4:03 am

if charlie baker and company have their way, Mass bay and Vinyard area will be full of them “real soon now”.

Climate believer
Reply to  Steve E.
June 9, 2021 9:30 am

“Most of those 2000 would be in the 12-15 MW range if built today.”

The GE Halide X that you cite is the most powerful off shore wind turbine that exists, and is only just coming out of it’s testing phase in the Netherlands.

The ongoing, and future projects for Germany involve Senvion 6MW turbines, and Siemens 8MW. The Siemens 11MW turbine is I believe on order but as yet is not in serial production, that may have changed, I haven’t checked.

I think you’re getting a bit ahead of yourself though Steve with 12-15MW range built today, but the 2MW for off shore wind turbines is certainly not what gets built today either, at least not in Europe.

Rated wind speeds of these machines are in the region of 50kph/31mph, cut in speeds of around 13kph/8mph.

Max mean wind speed in the German Bight (where most of these machines live) is about 30-35kph/18-20mph in November. This drops to around 20-22kph/12-14mph over the summer.
Today, currently 11-14kph/7-9mph.

This is not a formula for replacing fossil fuels.

DrEd
Reply to  Steve E.
June 10, 2021 2:10 pm

And how will you deploy them?

Hoyt Clagwell
June 8, 2021 3:24 pm

Democrats still haven’t figured out that you can’t legislate the laws of physics. The only reason they don’t demand 100% clean energy by tomorrow, around 11, is that they would have to explain to the public why it didn’t happen afterwards. Everything they promise only comes due after they are long gone.

WXcycles
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
June 8, 2021 8:13 pm

Who will save the world from half a billion delusional global ‘saviors’? By the time these ignorant clowns reach 65 and realize how dumb and wrong they’ve been, they’ll become acquainted with the meaning of the saying that, “The road to hell is paved with good-intentions”.

Biden is easily old enough to know better, except he’s such a corrupt political decomposing-skunk that he conveniently pretends he doesn’t get it, so he can angle for a larger share of the stupid-vote.

DrEd
Reply to  WXcycles
June 10, 2021 2:12 pm

But “you can’t fix stupid”.

CD in Wisconsin
June 8, 2021 3:31 pm

“One of those visions, foreseeing the rapid demise of fossil fuels, is on full display even as we speak in a virtual summit put on by the American Clean Power Association. The summit began today and is running for four days, through Thursday June 10. The speakers are a who’s who of “clean energy” glitterati,…

*******

I skimmed about halfway through the speaker list at that “clean energy” summit before quitting. It was difficult to say if any of the speakers represented any of the R & D companies working on 4th generation nuclear, including Bill Gates (sodium-cooled IFR reactor).

But if this summit is anti-nuclear leftist, I suppose I should not expect any.

Neville
June 8, 2021 3:38 pm

So who’s cashing in on their so called clean energy disaster?
Well Lomborg has again chosen a cost/benefit analysis and has found that every dollar invested has a benefit of just 11 c.
IOW 89 c wasted and flushed straight down the drain forever. And every 20 years this is repeated and the entire TOXIC mess has to be buried in landfill and a new TOXIC disaster paid for again and ongoing FOREVER.

https://spectator.com.au/2021/03/whos-cashing-in-on-the-climate-emergency/

Gretl
June 8, 2021 4:46 pm

Can we put together a CAGDW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global De-Windification) study? It is just SCIENCE that windmills are disrupting wind patterns globally. The Atlantic Conveyor is going to shut down in 3.42 years if we don’t stop building wind farms and get to “zero wind exploitation” by March 3rd 2022. It’s just science.

Dutch windmills may have started being built in the 1400’s but were only really perfected and ubiquitous in the 1600’s raping the sky to power the white man’s oppressive sawmills and grain mills. Lo and behold the Earth started to warm and the LIA optimum ended. Wind powered wells in Amerikkka in the 1800’s only served to worsen Gaia’s fever. Recent massive offshore farms have turned rape into dry anal rape of Mother Earth.

Gaia is taking it hard on both ends since the Palm Springs Wind Farms went up. Just look at the out of control warming since they were built! Sure there was the pause… and another pause… but that is just her coming up for air. The Pacific “blob” is better seen as a gag reflex.

Seriously, I think we can better correlate the # of wind farms with global average temperature than the CO2 guys. If it doesn’t work out… make corrections to the data like they do!

Last edited 11 days ago by Gretl
Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Gretl
June 9, 2021 1:44 pm

“The Atlantic Conveyor is going to shut down in 3.42 years if we don’t stop building wind farms and get to “zero wind exploitation” by March 3rd 2022. It’s just science.”

Skeptical ?

“Amerikkka”

TDS much ?

John
June 8, 2021 5:22 pm

Just shows that Biden and Johnson are not in touch with the general people

Neville
Reply to  John
June 8, 2021 5:34 pm

Yes John and the Biden, Johnson + DEMs +EU + MSM donkeys etc refuse or don’t understand very simple KINDY sums or data.
The improvement for humans since 1900 or 1950 or 1970 or…. is spectacular and the Earth is GREENING. A WIN,WIN for everyone but all we hear is their delusional BS and FRA-D.

John Pickens
June 8, 2021 5:38 pm

Hey, those EV’s are powered not by batteries, but by child labor in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. How can anyone think they are “saving the world” by buying one of these slave labor machines? Oh, I forgot, in the U.S. the EV owners are mostly Democrats, and they have always been the party of slavery.

Last edited 11 days ago by John Pickens
Gretl
Reply to  John Pickens
June 8, 2021 6:30 pm

Bruv, I had a paper route in the early 80’s. Kids need work.

Sure, if electric car owners were really concerned about saving the earth for humanity and environmentally conscious they would not have the rare earth minerals needed for their virtue signaling extracted in the dirtiest way by child slave labor in someone else’s back yard. If they believed in what they said the would pay the non-subsidized price for clean mining without child slave labor.

Nah… I want my coal fired Tesla on the cheap regardless of the environmental and humanitarian cost. Tax the poor to subsidize my novelty status symbol. I am virtuous! Toxic waste? F you! I am virtuous today!

Michael in Dublin
June 8, 2021 6:28 pm

This will be a pooling of ignorance.

WXcycles
June 8, 2021 6:59 pm

Most of the people over sixty grew up in a world of hand-cranked water pumps, rain-water tanks (full of frogs and green slime for drinking water), non-emergency hurricane lamp use, and candles plus backyard toilets which were just a can in a hole, with a small structure on top for basic privacy to get it done, while it stank to high-heaven and it was literally writhing with maggots eating our goodies. Which turned into swarms of flies that landed on your food. We had “fly swatters” at the dining table as we ate, due directly to that.

And now we have bred up a massive generation of thoroughly ignorant faux-‘educated’ clowns who have no idea of what it’s like to live like that and what it took to finally get humanity past that dismal level of existence.

And most of the step forward to eliminate all of those problem occurred inside of the past 100 years, the bulk of it occurred inside the past 50 years.

And now these ignorant fake-‘educated’ complete idiots, who use mindless ideology to style themselves as ‘global saviors’, are just dumb enough to want to re-create that same living-hell, of filth and misery, for everyone. And our supercilious ignorant scumbag democratic politicians, who are every bit as stupid and thoroughly dangerous to civilization, would like to assist them do that to everyone again.

With our money! Our taxes! Our public debt obligations! With our system of law, that is supposed to work in the ‘public-interest’.

I’ve given up voting entirely. I did so because this is what it gets you. No, there isn’t a better public-policy system of government, but that’s no excuse for enabling it for any longer, or paying it. I’m not voting for these people and I am not supporting the funding of them either, in any way, they made themselves my enemy, and I will not support them, it’s beyond reform.

I would actually prefer to eliminate government altogether than to put up with these faux-educated clowns, and despicable politicians attempting to destroy sanity and civilization, whilst allocating our taxes to there sick ’causes’ at the same time.

We do not need government if this is what government now amounts to, and I’m anything but a libertarian, or an anarchist. But even anarchy makes more sense than the stupidity being fed to new-generations today, via faux-‘education’, by massive organised lying by mass-media, and the corrupt sick and stupid government ‘representatives’ on offer.

Destructive decadence has taken over, I’m not supporting it, I’m not voting for it, and I’m not going to do what it tries to impose on us.

Prior to both WWI and WWII Germany was considered one of the most advanced countries on earth, if not the most advanced. And those sorts of countries can lose their way to ideology and go completely off the rails and act in the most self-destructive ways. This is exactly what’s going on in the ‘advanced’ world now.

And I will not go along with it and pretend democracy is the solution. Look how that worked out in Germany before WWII. It only formally enabled the stupidity to explode in much greater scale.

And then it gradually metastasized into the ‘EU Commission’, and look at Germany in all this today, a destructive ideological basket-case trying to dictate to everyone again:

Vetoes should no longer be allowed. Smaller countries should not be able to block the will of the ‘majority’. And the biggest countries, with the largest financial contributions, should be the ones that get to dictate policy. Ever since German re-unification made the country by far the largest in the bloc, there has been a creeping German take-over of the European Union. But with the British no longer around to hold that back, it is starting to accelerate.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/06/the-german-takeover-of-the-eu-is-accelerating/

So why vote then? Or why support any of this insane political ideological muck in any way?

I’m not going back to sh__houses and fly-swatters! Thanks, but no thanks.

These power-tripping deluded hypocritical corrupt people are the enemy of everyone. it’s time to call them what they are.

Last edited 11 days ago by WXcycles
John Pickens
Reply to  WXcycles
June 8, 2021 8:51 pm

Your assessment is pretty correct, but in the US, at least, the age for outhouses and kerosene lamps is more for 80 or 90 year olds. Sixty year olds were born in the 1960s, when electricity and indoor plumbing were nearly universal.

Now my late mom, who would be in her 90’s, was born in my grandparent’s house. Hospital births were rare, and they didn’t get indoor plumbing until just after WWII.

TonyG
Reply to  WXcycles
June 9, 2021 10:14 am

“finally get humanity past that dismal level of existence.”

As you observe, they actually WANT to go back to that. But they have no idea of the reality – they’ve idealized a fantasy version of it, “living in harmony” with nature and all that. Most wouldn’t last a week if they actually had to live they way they advocate.

Iain Reid
June 8, 2021 11:46 pm

While it is theoretically possible to generate sufficient electricity to power a grid using wind, it would need X times the number of units at their recorded minimum output. E.g. a low of 0.5% maximum demand then requires 200 x the number that produces that low, plus some for a safety margin. To balance demand and supply means these machines will need to be able to control output, presumably by controlling blade pitch?
I believe that the U.K. has about 25 Gwatt of wind capacity, so to run just on wind we would need to install a further 5,975 Gwatts of capacity.

This is clearly a ludicrous idea on all counts, cost, build time, land area, operational difficulties etc.
I haven’t mentioned solar because that is even worse than wind as a source of power.

Has anyone stated exactly how they are going to run a reliable grid using renewable generation?

The obvious way, and largely ignored, is nuclear to reduce CO2 emissions from generation, yet so many governments are hampering a reduction by adding more demand to the grid in the form of transport and heating.

Governments in general all have stated aims to reduce to net zero in just a few decades, without either assessing if this is necessary or even if it is possible.
My view is that they have not got a chance without regressing to medieval levels of existence.

Iain Reid
Reply to  Iain Reid
June 8, 2021 11:48 pm

Oops, 5,975 should of course be 4,975

DrEd
Reply to  Iain Reid
June 10, 2021 2:23 pm

Data from a survey commissioned by the Environmental Defense Fund run by IPSOS shows that, worldwide, a majority of people believe that nuclear power plants generate “a lot” or “quite a lot” of CO2.

June 9, 2021 1:23 am

There is a third reality that dare not speak its name. In oil- gas- and hydro- poor countries – and there are a lot – Gen IV nuclear of one sort or another is quietly being progressed. And in the arab oil states too.

Whatever the reality of climate change, cheap accessible oil and gas are not infinite resources.

And a lot of transition to e.g. electric cars would make sense if charged off a nuclear grid. Until you start looking at range, and lithium resources….

I can’t see future civilisation powered by windmills and solar panels, but I can see it overwhelmingly powered by nuclear power of one sort or another.

So, primary energy is not a problem.

Right now the big problem is secondary electrical storage, especially portable storage (light and compact),

Lithium batteries have not got, and cannot have, the capacity – apart from lithium air, which no one has successully made work – and the world supplies of lithium may in any case prove inadequate

Hydrogen is touted as the new saviour, but it’s incredibly bulky and extremely dangerous – far more dangerous than either a battery or a tank of diesel – under fault conditions.

Which leaves you with…a tank of synthetic diesel. I mean whats not to like? it’s renewable because to make it you need to fix CO2, and we have all the infrastructure ready there waiting….

Last edited 11 days ago by Leo Smith
Tom Abbott
June 9, 2021 4:57 am

From the article: “According to the EIA, the U.S. uses about 3.8 million GWH of electricity in a year, so these theoretical 2000 offshore wind turbines will with luck generate some 0.36% of our electricity by 2030 — if we started today on a crash program to get them built.”

So the “Path to 100% Clean Power by 2035” is an impossiblity.

Michael Nagy
June 9, 2021 4:58 am

Man I loved this article, it cheered me up a lot. I see REI calling out the fossil fuel industry while trying to sell people clothing made from 90% fossil fuels. Most people I talk to have no idea what their life would be like without fossil fuels.

Steve Z
June 9, 2021 7:53 am

“President” Biden stopped the Keystone XL oil pipeline on his first day in office, but approved a Russian gas pipeline that former President Trump had blocked with sanctions. Common-sense people would argue that Biden is favoring Russian economic interests over those of Americans.

That is of little interest to Lunchbox Joe from Scranton, Delaware (sarc). The important question is how much money can Hunter make from the Russians, added to what he made from the Ukrainians and Chinese?

Don
Reply to  Steve Z
June 9, 2021 10:07 am

And Hunter is supposed to split his ill-gotten gains with “the big guy” 50/50, so…

Geoman
June 9, 2021 10:56 am

We do not control either the supply or demand for carbon.

Supply is mostly controlled by a bunch of countries that have little to sell but gas and oil. And there are trillion so tons of coal spread all over the world. We can’t keep it in the ground.

Demand – the largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China – the emit more than the entire OECD combined. India and Africa are not far behind.

If we control neither supply or demand, how can we control emissions? Answer – we can’t. Unless we can invent a technology that is better and cheaper than hydrocarbons for other people to use.

We could subsidize better technology, making it cheaper, but we don’t have enough money to subsidize the whole world. So it must be accomplished via technological improvement.

Wind and solar could be improved technologically, but they are unreliable – it has to be better AND cheaper. Batteries can be improved, but they cannot store enough energy to solve the problem.

The ONLY answer is cheap nuclear power – factory built SMRs.

This has been obvious for 15 years, but the greens like to pretend it isn’t.

Kit P
Reply to  Geoman
June 10, 2021 1:22 pm

The ONLY answer is cheap nuclear power – factory built SMRs.

Almost as stupid as wind turbines. There are all sorts of ‘paper’ reactors claiming to somehow be better than existing LWR. Better in the eyes of those who have no experience producing anything.

The cheapest new nuclear power plant is making an old one last twice as long. Followed by making the old produce more power. Then you can replace two old 800 MWe with one new 1600 MWe plant that will last 100 years.

Mikehig
June 9, 2021 12:56 pm

Looks like the oil industry may have the answer…..”Blue Oil”!
This is the tag for oil which is produced by enhanced recovery using CO2. More CO2 is sequestered in this way than is emitted by the entire production and refining chain AND the subsequent combustion.
What’s not to like? Carbon-neutral is so last century…..this is carbon-negative!!
Fire up those gas-guzzlers to save the planet.

Kit P
June 10, 2021 2:07 pm

As we all know, making predictions can be difficult, especially about the future.

It is bad start when the author is dead wrong in the first sentence. Making predictions is easy and being right most of the time is not all that hard.

In 2040, the place to find a PV panel, a wind turbine, or an EV is in the museum of bad ideas.

If we need more power this year than last where is it going to come from? Reading WUWT some think it wind (Griff) but others have pointed out a more realistic anwer: coal.

Four months ago I bought stock in a coal company. Up 100%

When the stock market tanked because of covid, prediction were that the RV would crash too like it did in the previous recession. Since I live in a motorhome I know something about self contained isolation vehicles. So I bought stock in a company that makes RV. Up 100%

Now I can take a vacation on the cruise line or airline that I bought stock in up 80%.

Don’t get me wrong. I am retired and I do not spend predicting the market. But if I can have some fun. As soon to be retired friend plans his first trip to Colorado because weed is legal. Bought stock in weed to get high.

Talked to my son and DIL. His company was it hard by covid. Now up 200%. A food chain was hit hard by bad press related to the left coast. People still need food even during covid. What is a well managed food chain?

A good way to connect with friends and family. When it comes to weed, I think they are smoking the profits.

%d bloggers like this: