Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to University of Texas Associate Professor Fernanda Leite, last winter’s Texas ice storm which knocked out the state’s wind turbines and caused widespread power outages proves more renewables are required.
Nov 23, 2021
We All Must Rise to the Challenge of Climate Change
By: Fernanda Leite
Columns appearing on the service and this webpage represent the views of the authors, not of The University of Texas at Austin.
We’re feeling the impacts of climate change all around us. Rising temperatures are changing our landscapes and livelihoods. The Great Barrier Reef is suffering from thermal stress that contributes to coral bleaching — more than half of the reef’s coral cover was lost between 1995 and 2017. In July, several European countries were severely affected by floods. Globally, eight of the world’s 10 largest cities are near a coast. And in the United States, almost 40% of the population lives in coastal areas, where sea level plays a role in flooding and land erosion.
Nowhere are climate stressors more obvious than in Texas. Our population is expected to nearly double by 2050, and most of the state has warmed between 0.5 and 1.0 degree Fahrenheit during the past century. We are seeing new diseases spread from tropical areas, and we’re experiencing more extreme weather events such as the winter storm that left two-thirds of Texans without power and almost half without water for an average of more than two days in February.
We need to urgently decrease emissions. And Texas needs a statewide climate adaptation plan.
Rising temperatures are caused primarily by an increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. CO2 levels have been rising steadily for more than 100 years due mainly to the burning of fossil fuels, trapping more heat in our atmosphere and contributing to climate change.
A special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which includes climate scientists from around the world, has said that human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) of global warming above preindustrial levels. And global warming is likely to reach 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate.
This is precisely one of the goals of the United Nations Climate Change conference, or COP26, which has brought world leaders together to tackle climate change. Countries are being asked to set ambitious 2030 emission reduction targets that align with reaching net zero by the middle of the century.
We all need to do our part like a true phase-out of coal, accelerating the switch to electric vehicles and investing in renewable energy. There are positive examples around the world of countries that are heading toward a low-carbon future by embracing solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy sources. Texas produces the most wind energy of any state in the United States. The U.S. as a whole has the second highest installed wind energy capacity in the world after China. A clean energy revolution must continue to happen across America, underscored by the steady expansion of the U.S. renewable energy sector.
Not only will setting ambitious emission reduction targets help with climate change, it will also lead to cleaner and more resilient cities and infrastructure systems. Energy systems with high percentages of renewables — or even decarbonized power grids — are better able to resist shocks than those heavily dependent on fossil fuels such as natural gas and coal.
Extreme weather events such as this year’s winter storm, which happened only nine months ago, are expected, and we need to adapt our infrastructure to withstand such stressors. And we especially need to take into consideration vulnerable communities, those that already suffer from chronic stressors related to toxic pollution, poverty, food insecurity, mixed immigration status and gentrification. States and communities around the country have begun to prepare for climate change by developing their own climate adaptation plans, so we have many examples to follow just within our own country.
Our world leaders need to leave COP26 with actionable goals with deadlines that are concrete, realistic and meaningful. And policymakers and leaders in Texas must do their part and adopt and accelerate measures that combat climate change, addressing energy infrastructure and equitable resilience. Only then will we rise to the challenge of climate change.
Fernanda Leite is an associate professor and the John A. Focht Centennial Teaching Fellow in Civil Engineering in the Cockrell School of Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin. She serves on the leadership of a university wide grand challenges initiative called Planet Texas 2050.
A version of this op-ed appeared in the San Antonio Express News, Abilene Reporter News, MSN and Lubbock Avalanche-Journal.
MEDIA CONTACT
University Communications
Email: UTMedia@utexas.edu
Phone: (512) 471-3151VIEW ALL TEXAS PERSPECTIVESTexas Perspectives is a wire-style service produced by The University of Texas at Austin that is intended to provide media outlets with meaningful and thoughtful opinion columns (op-eds) on a variety of topics and current events. Authors are faculty members and staffers at UT Austin who work with University Communications to craft columns that adhere to journalistic best practices and Associated Press style guidelines. The University of Texas at Austin offers these opinion articles for publication at no charge. Columns appearing on the service and this webpage represent the views of the authors, not of The University of Texas at Austin.
Source: https://news.utexas.edu/2021/11/23/we-all-must-rise-to-the-challenge-of-climate-change/
The claim that more renewables could have saved the day is easily refuted.
To be fair, 7% of wind capacity apparently kept producing, at least some of the time, so wind surprisingly wasn’t completely useless. I’m guessing solar wasn’t much use during the ice storm.
But how much wind would have been required to keep the lights on, if Texas went 100% renewable?
100% ÷ 0.07 = 1428% – the original 100% = 1328% above 100%, or 1328% overcapacity.
It is hypothetically possible wind could have carried the load, though this is a very rough calculation which takes no account of availability of turbine sites, or variation in output around the 7% average, but the 1328% standby wind overcapacity Texas would have required to match the performance of gas during last winter’s ice storm would be impossibly expensive to build and maintain.
I do not think that is what a reasonable person would conclude.
Consider her proposition for a moment.
Wind turbines stopped working in Texas because the weather conditions changed, making them inoperable. The weather dependent energy generators, stopped producing energy.
Her solution is to deploy energy to those stalled energy production units to make them turn and keep them warm, in non energy generating conditions.
To do what she suggests, is an endorsement of non weather dependent energy sources. They must be available at all times, to counteract adverse weather conditions.
I can only think that is what we have now, except in Texas the ratio of weather driven energy supply became too large, to be sustained by reliable energy sourced supply. The only solution is to limit the unreliable energy sector to a known safe maximum grid capacity. I would suggest 20% capacity would be manageable. Anything above that limit is clearly unsustainable
In summary.
Texas need to decommission over half of its unreliable energy units and rebuild some resilience back into the grid via oil/gas or nuclear.
It doesn’t seem that practicability weighs heavily with the Professor. Why she would suggest such a silly solution when a herd of farting unicorns would work much better is beyond me.
CUFT** is the answer. I mentioned this a couple of weeks ago. I’m still waiting for the grant money to rain down so I can develop this cutting-edge technology.
–
–
–
**Compressed Unicorn Fart Technology. Unicorn farts in the wild are pretty energy dense, but compressed unicorn farts turn them into rocket fuel. It’s the future of energy.
“Fernanda Leite is an associate professor and the John A. Focht Centennial Teaching Fellow in Civil Engineering in the Cockrell School of Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin. She serves on the leadership of a university wide grand challenges initiative called Planet Texas 2050.”
An “Associate Professor Civil Engineer”?
I think it is fair to say that this virtue signalling GangGreen nitwit wouldn’t have made it as a lab-assistant when I studied for my degree in Civil and Structural Engineering.
I have (again) read every source I can find online on ’cause of Texas power failure’ and it is quite clear that fail on winterisation of fossil fuel equipment, exceptional demand level and failure to connect to other grids caused the problems in Texas and NOT wind power.
Please read those sources before telling me I am wrong.
Sorry no prize. If the fossil fuel plants were not winterized, why did this problem not show up in the past when the state was on a 100% fossil fuel power. There been similar cold snaps in the past yet no problems. Or did sometime in the last 20 year all the winterizing been removed from the fossil fuel plants? I suggest you research these question after all your sources seem impeccable to you. My sources suggested a different reason why Texas had problems and it had little to do with the loss of fossil fuel power and everything to do with near total loss of renewable at a time when many of the fossil fuel plant were in a maintenance cycle. Yes maintenance cycle which is on a schedule, where renewable have no schedule. You cannot predict when they will be running and hour out, let alone a month out.
I’ve read those sources and you’re wrong.
Give links and I will
Fossil fuel died because the wind powered nat gas pumps failed and the winterization of those pumps also depended on failed wind power.
The *root cause* was the failure of wind power. Period. Fini. “That’s all folks”.
Griff has had this explained to him repeatedly but simply won’t accept it, or even consider it.
You have fallen into your usual trap of assuming “psychic / mind-reading” talents in fellow WUWT readers.
NB : Most Internet search engines, especially Google, use cookies to “customise” search results for each user. Your results for “cause of Texas power failure” at time X o’clock will not necessarily be identical to anybody else’s … and may not even be the same for you at (X + 12) o’clock !
– – – – –
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/texas-blackouts-fuel-false-claims-renewable-energy-75936319
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/frozen-wind-turbines-texas-power-outages-b1802596.html
NB : The following quote is from a summary of the sequence of events in February that I personally classified internally as “good / fair and balanced” at the time. YMMV …
https://sanangelolive.com/news/texas/2021-02-17/behind-scenes-februarys-texas-power-grid-disaster
https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/02/21/2254248/are-texas-blackouts-a-warning-about-the-follow-on-effects-of-climate-change
NB : Specifically responding to your “… and failure to connect to other grids” assertion …
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/24/opinions/texas-electric-power-russo/index.html
– – – – –
You really need to widen your range of “sources” before trying to imply that “wind power” had nothing whatsoever to do with the “Texas power failure” events last February.
“You really need to widen your range of “sources” before trying to imply that “wind power” had nothing whatsoever to do with the “Texas power failure” events last February.”
Not the real issue. Rather, who screwed up and assumed that wind power wouldn’t be affected by these (so far) parts/ten thousand conditions? Not rhetorical. State leaders duck this, and deflect with bounty hunting for fetal heart flutters instead. Even in cold states, no one plans for that. Yes, they do a better job than Texas of winterproofing wind turbine innards, but there is still no magic wand way to stop blade freezing. Instead, they feather them, and go to a Plan B that ERCOT never got around to executing.
The real solution is more interconnection, and hardening up of the natural gas to electric infrastructure. If you reward those in this infrastructure handsomely for doing so, you will end up spending much less over time than the combined environmental, AGW, fuel, and asset retirement costs of jetting the wind turbines and depleting our valuable natural gas bridge fuel much faster.
FYI, the line about losing the electricity needed to power that infrastructure is bogus. The power can be prioritized tp them in periods of over demand. Didn’t happen last time.
Texas politicians and regulators decided that capacity had no value so they created an energy-only bid system. With wind’s subsidized installations, essentially zero marginal costs and mandatory purchase rules, Texas does not have a reliable generation system.
A bid system is fine, if the bidders are required to come through in 0.000x times. Texas has an unreliable system because the bidders weren’t required to do so. My idea would be to forgive, forget, and handsomely reward those in the natural gas to electric supply chain, from tubing tail to sand face to wellhead, field conditioning, on thru electric transmission, for hardening up their systems. Per many other states successful efforts.
“With wind’s subsidized installations, essentially zero marginal costs and mandatory purchase rules…..”
FYI, happy to lose those relatively tiny (and decreasing) wind start up helps – including those “mandatory purchase rules” – if you agree to make the fossil fuelers pay full freight. That is, no more environmental, safety, health reg Ben Dovers, a carbon tax, rebated fully, regularly, equitably, to every US resident. after repaying for any permanently sequestered CO2 (starting rate to be that now scheduled for 45q CCS corporate welfare), and full bonding for actual, past and future asset retirement costs, as they occur/have occurred for the past century. Just the last remedy would be enough to tip the scales. Agree?
No. Micromanaging by politicians and bureaucrats never works. Why add costs (carbon tax) to a necessary product (providing societal goods) that already pays significant taxes at all levels of government?
You seem to believe that increasing costs of all goods and services in our economy is not a regressive tax on the poor. Government doling out increased tax monies on some SJW idea of equity simply distorts energy markets and increases inflationary pressures.
“Why add costs (carbon tax) to a necessary product (providing societal goods) that already pays significant taxes at all levels of government?”
Because it’s an external cost that they owe. As with the other external costs I listed, they are now communized onto the rest of us. The “taxes” are for royalties, damages, etc. OTOH, the “benefits” of hydrocarbons are paid for when bought, and the beneficiaries are ONLY the buyers, and those who pay for goods and services downstream. Yes, hydrocarbons are now necessary, but the bennies are fully paid for, in advance.
“You seem to believe that increasing costs of all goods and services in our economy is not a regressive tax on the poor. Government doling out increased tax monies on some SJW idea of equity simply distorts energy markets and increases inflationary pressures.”
Not thought thru. Carbon footprints increase with income/net worth, but the costs of carbon production go the other way. A fully, regularly, equitably rebated carbon tax rebate would partially equalize THAT regressive tax.
“
What external costs are associated with subsidized wind, solar and batteries? This is a zero-sum game and I’m not going to play anymore.
I see, Bob. The government takes away and, on the other hand, gives to favored demographics and special interests. You seem to assume that a massive new stream of money to the Federal government won’t be at least partially diverted to other politically popular programs and projects. Money is fungible. Pigs gather at the trough.
“What external costs are associated with subsidized wind, solar and batteries?”
Selective reading comprehension. I already said that I would have no problem giving up these relatively tiny helps if the fossil fuelers gave up their much, much, larger ones going back decades.
“The government takes away and, on the other hand, gives to favored demographics and special interests.”
Got me there. Yes, I unabashedly “favor” those getting screwed over now.
“You seem to assume that a massive new stream of money to the Federal government won’t be at least partially diverted to other politically popular programs and projects.”
It’s possible to do it right, but certainly difficult. $ leakage is bipartisan, which is why the fossil fuelers are going for CCS projects. They are unfunded (increasing debt/deficits) and they get brownie points for getting corporate welfare. They are the newest “pigs at a trough”. Yes, it would be a sea change to rebate carbon tax $ correctly. Tobacco tax abuse is to be avoided at all costs. I would be happy to foresake my plan if the $ got siphoned off.
1) External costs are not subsidies for wind, solar and batteries. Mining pollution, child and slave labor, despoiling large natural areas, environmental impacts of seriously nasty chemicals, disposal costs of toxic materials & etc.
You don’t have a “plan” for carbon taxes and rebates. You just want the government to siphon more money from FFs and think a populist rebate would make it look good to the low-information voter. You have offered no mechanism for determining the “costs” of FF “damages.”
Interconnection was no solution. There was no spare power in neighbouring grids which were facing similar though less severe problems. Clue: it only gets that cold in Texas when it’s cold everywhere North, West and East of Texas – all under much the same weather system. South is the Gulf of Mexico.
“Interconnection was no solution.”
Not for the gross regional shortages, but for this reason.
“The FERC and NERC report also recommend that ERCOT, which operates the Texas power grid, should study adding more lines connecting Texas to other states. The Texas grid currently has only minimal connections, and the report said this could become a problem if Texas would need to perform a “black start,” a move necessary when a major portion of the grid has completely shut down and a source of electricity is needed to restart the system.”
But I agree that the main reasons for the ~$130B disaster, resulting in over 100 dead, were the (known, documented) problems with the natural gas to electric infrastructure, and the silly expectation that wind turbines would operate normally in long duration, subfreezing sleet. The linked reference to the recent NRDC and FERC report basically parrots my last few posts on the subject. To be ignored by the Texas pol’s who are too ate up with culture war BS to work any real problems.
https://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/feds-recommend-steps-to-avoid-future-winter-power-outages-in-texas/2817746/
“problems with the natural gas to electric infrastructure,”
the nat gas to electric infrastructure problem was the nat gas pipeline pumps and winterizing equipment that was powered by wind power. When the wind died the nat gas feeds to the generators died also.
Get rid of the wind power and there will be no problem with the nat gas infrastructure.
“the nat gas to electric infrastructure problem was the nat gas pipeline pumps and winterizing equipment that was powered by wind power. “
Not just, or even predominantly “wind power”. AGAIN, power shut offs to that infrastructure could have been effectively prevented by merely prioritizing it.
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=TX#tabs-4
And freezing weather wasn’t the only thing plaguing windmills. The lack of wind underneath the arctic high-pressure system also caused the windmills to fail at the worst possible time.
And as you noted, this condition affected much more than Texas. It affected half the States and parts of Canada.
Well, griffter, this is a big step forward for you; you can probably put on your big boy pants now, and put the onesie in storage!
So you admit that you have read EVERY source that you could find! Now if you will kindly remove the blinkers, and peruse the suggestions from WUWT contributors; I believe you will find that your conclusion is as nonsensical as most of your comments! Do try to catch up!
Off topic, but sort of relevant: did you notice that Germany has a new govt, with Greens running an important section of it?
Coal power phase out sharply accelerated and many new green measures.
Ahh, Germans! The crash test dummies of Green madness.
Oh well, there goes Germany!
Es tut mir leid für das deutsche Volk
“Greens running an important section of it”
I feel very sorry for the German people. This will not end well.
Yet the previous phase out of Nuclear and Coal in Germany, and replacement with “green” electricity has led to more low quality coal being burnt in order to maintain the grid, import of fossil fuelled and nuclear electricity from neighbouring nations, and incredibly expensive electric bills. Expect still higher prices in Germany, and then the possibility of rolling blackouts when they can’t import enough electricity on calm, cold days.
Mein Gott in Himmel
My thoughts exactly! 🙂
I’m not going to type it all out again for you. Incidentally, there was no spare power available for interties from neighbouring areas, so that claim also fails.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/20/factchecking-bbcs-reality-check/#comment-3393441
Yes, the neighboring areas were having their own problems. They couldn’t help Texas without jeopardizing their own grids.
You act like this is a good thing.
I guess they don’t teach much engineering at the University of Texas at Austin….
In the dark ages doctors would prescribe bloodlettings for any and all ailments. And when the bloodletting did not help, more bloodletting was required.
Fernanda is about half a millennium behind the times.
You asked about the contribution from solar during the storm. Here it is.
Nothing is renewable and fossil fuels will required until nature takes over and removes us from the planet.
Some people are just beyond being educated. So the solution to a lack of power from solar panels after the sun has set is more solar panels is it? Presumably only if you use the special Spanish solar panels that DID work at night. Ah, the joys of diesel powered lighting to reap taxpayers’ cash.
She also attempts to justify her position with irrelevant “facts”
Yes, 40% of the US population live “on the coasts”, but so what?!
I grew up in suburban NJ and could see the NYC skyline from our bedroom window, but coastal flooding was never an issue, nor were the hurricanes that for hundreds of years haunted the Jersey Shore (other than losing a few tree limbs).
The vast majority of “coastal” residents are in no more danger than someone from Ohio.
(The exception may be alarmist ex-Presidents who have compounds on coastal islands.)
These simple minded professors must be getting paid to get their degree and join the farce. Do you think they would be good in a debate?
I have lived in Texas for the entirety of my 70-year life. I graduated from the University of Texas at Austin. The absolute ignorance of this “girl” (now that’s misogynist) is an embarrassment to the State of Texas and the University of Texas at Austin.
Sadly, this is the kind of crap that is fed to our college students. The results will be very, very bad.
We will not have to wait until the year 2100 (a favorite date of these idiots) to see the results of their pomposity. The calamity of their “demands” will be realized in my lifetime and may be irreversible without the death of millions, if not billions, of people.
How these people get their professional qualifications beats me. It say much about the quality of the academic institutions these days.
“This is precisely one of the goals of the United Nations Climate Change conference, or COP26, which has brought world leaders together to tackle climate change. Countries are being asked to set ambitious 2030 emission reduction targets that align with reaching net zero by the middle of the century.”
WHAT DO OUR OWN CLIMATE MODELS TELL US? THEY CLEARLY SHOW THAT CATASTROPIC CLIMATE CHANGE FROM MANKIND’S ADDITIONS OF CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE WILL NEVER HAPPEN:
THE EPA’S CLIMATE MODEL, MAGICC (MODEL FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF GREENHOUSE-GAS INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE) WAS DEVELOPED BY SCIENTISTS AT THE NATIONAL CENTER OF ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH UNDER FUNDING BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
ACCORDING TO MAGICC CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMING THAT THE TEMPERATURE WILL INCREASE 3O C BY THE YEAR 2100 IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS, THE FOLLOWING SAVINGS IN TEMPERATURE RISE WILL BE ACHIEVED IF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CO2 REDUCTIONS ARE ACHIEVED:
IF ONLY THE US REDUCED CO2 EMMISSIONS:
TEMPERATURE RISE REDUCTION BY 2050: .052 DEGREES CELSIUS.
TEMPERATURE RISE REDUCTIN BY 2100: .137 DEGREES CELSIUS.
IF ALL INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES REDUCED CO2 EMISIONS:
TEMPERATURE RISE REDUCDTION BY 2050: .104 DEGREES CELSIUS.
TEMPERATURE RISE REDUCTION BY 2100: .278 DEGREES CELSIUS.
THERE YOU HAVE IT, ACCORDING TO THE E.P.A.’S OWN CLIMATE MODEL. IF THE ENTIRE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD ELIMINATED ALL THEIR CO2 EMISSIONS TODAY (AN IMPOSSIBILITY), WE WOULD SAVE ABOUT A QUARTER OF ONE DEGREE CELSIUS BY THE YEAR 2100!
ADDITIONALLY, THE RAPID RADIATIVE TRANSFER MODEL (RRTM) – THE MODEL USED BY THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH (NCAR) IN THEIR CLIMATE AND WEATHER MODELS ALSO SHOWS THE MINOR, MINOR EFFECTS OF ADDING ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS OF CO2 TO OUR ATMOSPHERE.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN (AND NOT CONTESTED BY ANYONE), THAT THE HEATING EFFECT OF CO2 IS LOGARITHMIC. THE FIRST 20 PPM HAD MORE HEATING EFFECT THAN ALL OF THE OTHER CO2 (380 PARTS PER MILLION) THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO OUR ATMOSPHERE (WHETHER ANTHROPOGENIC OR NOT):
THE CO2 MOLECULE IS A LINEAR MOLECULE AND THUS ONLY HAS LIMITED NATURAL VIBRATIONAL FREQUENCIES, WHICH IN TURN GIVE THIS MOLECULE ONLY LIMITED CAPABILITY OF ABSORBING ENERGY THAT IS RADIATED FROM THE EARTH’S SURFACE.
THE THREE MAIN WAVELENGTHS OF THE EARTH’S RADIATION THAT CAN
BE ABSORBED BY CO2 ARE 4.26 MICROMETERS, 7.2 MICROMETERS, AND 15.0
MICROMETERS. OF THOSE 3, ONLY THE 15-MICROMETER IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT FALLS RIGHT IN RANGE OF THE INFRARED FREQUENCIES EMITTED BY EARTH.
HOWEVER, THE H2O MOLECULE, WHICH IS MUCH MORE PREVALENT IN THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE, IS A BEND MOLECULE, THUS HAVING MANY MORE VIBRATIONAL MODES, ABSORBS MANY MORE FREQUENCIES EMITTED BY THE EARTH, INCLUDING TO SOME EXTENT THE RADIATION ABSORBED BY CO2.
BETWEEN CO2 AND H20, SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE ENERGY THAT IS BEING
RADIATED BACK INTO SPACE THAT CAN BE ABSORBED BY CO2 IS ALREADY
BEING ABSORBED. ADDING MORE CO2 TO THE ATMOSPHERE (EVEN VAST QUANTITIES) CANNOT MATERIALLY AFFECT THE EARTH’S TEMPERATURE BECAUSE SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF RADIATED HEAT IN QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ABSORBED. IF WE HAD TOSUBSTANTIALLY RAISE THE EARTH’S TEMPERATURE BY BURNING FOSSIL FUELS, WE COULD
NOT DO IT!
ADDITIONALLY, WE CANNOT MATERIALLY
LOWER THE EARTH’S TEMPERATURE BY DECREASING OUR CO2 EMISSIONS, THE MISGUIDED GOAL OF TEXAS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR FERNANDA LEITE
WHY IS CLIMATE SCIENCE IMPORTANT?
POLITICAL CLIMATE SCIENCE IS BEING USED TO BOLSTER THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING SCARE AND JUSTIFY BY THE MOST EXPENSIVE (BY FAR) POLICY DECISIONS IN HUMAN HISTORY.
A STUDY OF THE ACTUAL SCIENCE RELATED TO THE EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC C02 EMISSIONS SHOWS VERY CLEARLY THAT HUMAN EMISSIONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE HAVE NOT, CANNOT AND WILL NEVER CAUSE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING.
PRESIDENTS OBAMA AND BIDEN, VIA EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT DID NOT REQUIRE CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL, PUT POLICIES IN PLACE THAT WILL COST TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND WILL DRASTICALLY REDUCE AFFORDABLE ENERGY. IF POLICIES UNDER THE “GREEN NEW DEAL” ARE FULLY ENACTED, THE COSTS WILL INCREASE TO $100 TRILLION OR MORE, AND STILL HAVE NO MEANINGFUL EFFECT ON THE EARTH’S TEMPERATURE.
UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT EXECUTIVE ORDERS RELATED TO OBAMA’S (AND NOW BIDEN’S) “CLEAN POWER PLAN”, UP TO 89% OF OUR COAL-POWERED ELECTRICAL GENERATION PLANTS WILL BE ELIMINATED. INSTEAD OF RELIABLE AND ECONOMICAL FOSSIL-FUEL ENERGY, WE WILL BE FORCED TO USE UNRELIABLE “GREEN” ENERGY, AT TREMEMDOUS COST AND AT A PERIL TO OUR POWER GRID.
WHAT ARE THE RESULTS OF THIS RUSH TO GREEN ENERGY PRODUCTION?
THE SUN DOES NOT ALWAYS SHINE AND THE WIND DOES NOT ALWAYS BLOW…….
WE CAN ALREADY SEE THAT ELIMINATION OF “DEPENDABLE” ELECTRICITY SOURCES AND SUBSTITUTION OF TOO MUCH “UNDEPENDABLE” ENERGY HAS CAUSED HAVOC. THE PARTIAL GRID FAILURE, DUE TO TOO MUCH RELIANCE ON “GREEN” ENERGY, IN TEXAS IS ESTIMATED TO HAVE COST THE STATE AND ITS PEOPLE $195 BILLION, MAKING IT THE MOST EXPENSIVE DISASTER IN THE HISTORY OF THE STATE.
CALIFORNIA, THE “LEADER” IN GREEN ENERGY PRODUCTION HAS SOME OF THE HIGHEST ELECTRICAL COSTS IN THE NATION (189% OF THE NATIONAL AVERAGE).
SOME DAYS THE SUN SHINES TOO MUCH OR THERE IS TOO MUCH WIND. ON THOSE DAYS, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR ELECTRICAL GRID, CALIFORNIA MUST GET RID OF MUCH OF IT’S “GREEN ENERGY”. AND IT HAS TO PAY FOR OTHER STATES TO TAKE IT FROM THEM. RECENTLY, THERE WAS A PROLONGED PERIOD WHERE CALIFORNIA HAD TOO MUCH “GREEN” ENERGY FOR THEIR GRID TO HANDLE. THEY PAID UTILITIES IN ARIZONA $25 PER MEGAWATT HOUR TO TAKE IT OFF THEIR HANDS. A GIFT WORTH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
CALIFORNIA MUST MAINTAIN THEIR FOSSIL-FUEL PLANTS TO KEEP FROM HAVING ROLLING BLACKOUTS OR GRID FAILURE ON DAYS THAT THE SUN DOES NOT SHINE ENOUGH OR THE WIND DOES NOT BLOW ENOUGH.
DURING THE 2021 UNITED NATIONS CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE IN GLASGOW, THE WIND DID NOT BLOW FOR A FULL DAY. IN ORDER TO SAVE THE GRID, COAL POWER PLANTS HAD TO BE BROUGHT ONLINE. THE DRAX POWER STATION FIRED UP THEIR FINAL TWO COAL PLANTS AND HELP SAVE THE DAY, AT ALMOST $7,000 PER MEGAWATT HOUR, WHOLSALE COST. THAT IS ABOUT 8,000 TIMES THE RETAIL ELECTRICAL COST PAID BY MANY AMERICAN CONSUMERS. AT THAT RATE, YOUR $150 ELECTRICAL BILL WOULD BE $1,200,000. IF YOU NORMALLY AVERAGED $150 PER MONTH AND HAD TO PAY THE DRAX WHOLESALE COST FOR ONLY ONE DAY, YOUR ANNUAL ELECTRICIAL COSTS WOULD GO FROM $1800 PER YEAR TO OVER $40,000 PER YEAR. IF IT HAPPENED A SECOND DAY AND YOU HAD TO PAY THOSE COSTS, YOUR ANNUAL BILL WOULD RISE TO OVER $80,000, ETC., ETC. AS IT RELATES TO RENEWABLES, WE ARE PLAYING WITH FIRE AND WE ARE GOING TO GET BURNED. ACTUALLY, WE ALREADY HAVE BEEN, ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.
I cannot hear you because of your shouting drowns out the meaning, Leroy.
In a sense the good professor is correct. We’d need a lot more renewables, situated in just the correct places, to avoid a February-like shortage of power. Maybe ten or twenty times more. In fact, on February 17th I recall demand was 50GW and renewables were scheduled in the current operating plan to provide a mere 1GW. So we’d have needed fifty times as much.
Now if she said that to avoid the costs of such a disaster we’d need more renewables, then she couldn’t possibly be more wrong.
You can see it in the photo, a twofer, female & minority “professor” from Brazil thanks to CMU (Pittsburgh).
Here is what she teaches:
Undergraduate courses:
ARE323K: Project Management and Economics (Spring 2018, Spring 2016, Spring 2014, Spring 2012, Spring 2011, Spring 2010)
ARE376: Building Information Modeling for Capital Projects (Fall 2021, Fall 2020, Fall 2019, Fall 2018, Fall 2017, Spring 2017, Fall 2015, Spring 2015, Fall 2014, Fall 2013)
Graduate courses:
CE395R7: Building Information Modeling for Capital Projects (Fall 2021, Fall 2020, Fall 2019, Fall 2018, Fall 2017, Spring 2017, Fall 2015, Spring 2015, Fall 2014, Fall 2013, Spring 2013, Fall 2011, Spring 2011, Fall 2010)
CE397: Sustainable Systems (Spring 2020, Fall 2018)
CE395U4: Construction Safety (Spring 2021, Spring 2017, Spring 2015)
CE395Q1: Project Controls, in collaboration with Dr. Burcin Becerik-Gerber, University of Southern California (Fall 2012).
She appears to be on step above a Dean of Diversity & Inclusion and “teaches” apparently Calclus Free “Engineering” courses–Excel spreadsheets trump MATLAB.
Dan Kurt
University professors are often people who are incapable of doing any job in the real world. This has gotten worse in the last half century. Many, if not most, are now totally out of touch with reality.
Like they say you can’t fix stupid
James Bull
Each of her statements about the state of the world re climate change is simply a headline from an activist article. Her knowledge is abysmal but not uncommon. She really doesn’t do or feel the need to do the work necessary to understand beyond a headline because the “principle” of being good to Gaia is unaffected whether individual “facts” are wrong or exaggerated.
Climate alarmism is a virtuous, quasi-religious, communtarian ideology. Which she would deny, despite living a life sustained by the very systems she opposes.
The disconnect is remarkable.
We’re feeling the impacts of climate change all around us. NO. Rising temperatures are changing our landscapes and livelihoods. NO The Great Barrier Reef is suffering from thermal stress that contributes to coral bleaching NO— more than half of the reef’s coral cover was lost between 1995 and 2017. In July, several European countries were severely affected by floods. TRUE BUT IRRELEVANT Globally, eight of the world’s 10 largest cities are near a coast. SO WHAT? And in the United States, almost 40% of the population lives in coastal areas, where sea level plays a role in flooding and land erosion. GOOD THING SEA LEVELS ARE NOT DREMATICALLY RISING.
NB: She is only an ‘associate’ professor, not yet even an assistant professor.
My experience dates back to the early 1970s when I was at an Ivy and for circa two years I was a “professsor.” The Ranking was thus:
Full Professor with Endowed Chair
Full Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Lecturer
Tenure existed for Associated Professors and above.
Note then almost no Assistant Professor was promoted to Asociate professor. Associate professors usually came from another university instead of promotion in house but there were exceptions.
Who knows today with all the Adjunct “professors” making the system work what is going on in higher education.
Dan Kurt