By: Admin – Climate Depot
Many Climate Ambitions Will End With 2021
In the U.K., Germany and France, leaders walk back as their plans’ exorbitant price tag becomes clear.
By Joseph C. Sternberg
It’s New Year’s resolution season, and don’t be surprised if politicians world-wide settle into the same informal pledge: Talk as little as possible about climate change in 2022. They’ve gotten a head start on that resolution, working hard at it even before Friday night’s socially distanced parties begin.
The biggest, most entertaining and also most telling climb-downs are happening in the U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson in October unveiled an ambitious policy program to get Britain to net-zero carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050. It was Mr. Johnson’s public-relations coup ahead of the COP26 global climate conference he hosted in Glasgow. It also was unusual in its honesty about what such environmental ambitions will cost individual households and businesses—a point politicians usually avoid for all the obvious reasons.
Sure enough, the backtracks and U-turns began before that document was written. The most controversial component of Mr. Johnson’s net-zero boondoggle concerns an attempt to steer households away from the gas boilers on which 86% of them rely for hot water and central heating.
Mr. Johnson said in October he hopes that by 2035 the government will be able to phase out installation of new natural-gas heating units. That represents a step back from earlier plans to require carbon-efficient heat pumps in new homes as early as 2025, and the extended deadline still faces stiff opposition stemming from the high cost of heat pumps.
And “boiler-gate” is only the beginning of the reversals great and small. Among the great, count the delay to next year (at least) of a formal public-comment process for a beefed-up emissions-trading system. One reason for the holdup, the Telegraph reports, is that Mr. Johnson’s colleagues can’t agree on which corners of the economy should become newly subject to the rules—although apparently they now agree that car and home fuels should be excluded.
Among the smaller reversals, the Transport Department in November backtracked from a plan to require small businesses with parking lots on their premises to install electric-vehicle charging points. The proposed rules governing other structures such as new housing, residential conversions, and new mixed-use developments are so porous as to resemble a well-aerated Swiss cheese, with cost limitation emerging as the primary concern. This difficulty installing charging stations augurs the collapse, sooner or later, of Mr. Johnson’s announced plan to ban new internal-combustion cars by 2030.
Nor is this only a British phenomenon. Set aside the brouhaha surrounding green provisions in Democrats’ Build Back Better spending extravaganza in America. Some of the most surprising climate realism is now emerging in Europe.
French President Emmanuel Macron faces a campaign for re-election in 2022, and he learned the hard way in 2018 how higher fuel prices can trigger debilitating popular protests. His solution is to double down on traditional French industrial policy, especially concerning support for nuclear power. At Mr. Macron’s behest, the European Commission in Brussels may be on the verge of including both nuclear and natural gas on a list of environmentally friendly energy sources eligible for “green investment” from governments and private investors. Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg is dismayed, but she also doesn’t need to persuade anyone to vote for her.
Even in Germany politicians are starting to change course. Households and businesses there pay some of the highest electricity prices in Europe in service of former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s aggressive shift toward renewable power. German voters believe in these goals more than most other electorates, and they elected the environmentalist Green Party into the new governing coalition in September.
But even in Germany there appears to be a limit. The deal cementing the coalition between the Greens, the larger Social Democrats and the smaller Free Democrats hedges its climate commitments. A coal phase-out will happen ideally by 2030—with the newly inserted word “ideally” blunting Green ambitions by marking the whole project as tentative. Carbon neutrality will wait for 2045, if it ever comes, and more-aggressive limits on aviation and automotive emissions are missing.
The net-zero gimmick will be with us for a long while yet, alas. The green true believers (or are they bitter clingers?) are busy devising rear-guard actions by which to insulate environmentalism from real-world political pressures, not least by enlisting gullible or cynical titans of finance to do via pension-fund investment allocations what can’t be done honestly via legislation. The political class remains rhetorically wedded to its earlier foolhardy promises, and the media is too enamored of reality-detached activists such as Ms. Thunberg.
I love it when reality sets in. Talk, virtue signaling, big plans, decrees, are cheap. People are starting to realize that burning down the village to save it is self defeating.
Meanwhile in the EU a row erupts between pro and anti nuclear nations about labeling nuclear power as “green” (under certain conditions) for investment purposes:
France and Germany at odds over EU proposal to classify nuclear and gas energy as ‘green’ (msn.com)
Pro nuclear are France, the Netherlands, Finland and most of Eastern Europe; anti are mainly Germany and Austria but also Spain.
I hope the French side win!
German politicians are going to look pretty stupid if nuclear power gets declared Green while German politicians are shutting down perfectly good nuclear reactors.
So German politicians are voting against making themselves look bad by opposing this Green vote.
Too late! We already see how stupid you are.
I hope the French side loses; we need crash-test dummies.
“I hope the French side win!”
That’ll be a first, usually the French surrender. /sarc
Wait until THESE exorbitant energy prices triple or quadruple to pay for 2 days worth of the minimum 7 days of back-up needed for Renewable Energy sources.
On Dec 31, 2021, Germany, on ENERGIEWENDE auto-pilot regarding wind and solar, mindlessly shut down 3 of its 6 nuclear plants
However, EU bureaucrats have finally come to their senses
They declared: “Nuclear and gas are good enough for the EU”
Let us look at New England choosing nuclear
A 1,000 MW nuclear plant would produce 1000 x 8766 x 0.9 = 7.8894 billion kWh of electricity/y
15 of such plants would produce 118.3411 billion kWh of electricity/y
All of New England consumed 115 billion kWh in 2020
If 16 reactors were located on 8 sites, the land area would be 8 sites x 800 acres/site = 6,400 acres.
If South Korea were to build them (they are the best, next to China and Russia), the turnkey capital cost would be 16 x 1000 x $6 million/MW = $96 billion, spread out over 20 years, plus financing cost, plus grid extension/augmentation cost.
The plants would last 60 to 80 years.
Let us look at New England choosing wind and solar
Wind
If onshore wind were to produce 50%, 59 billion kWh, about 59 billion/(8766 x 0.90 x 1000) = 7,478 three MW wind turbines would be required on 1,068 miles of PRISTINE, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE ridge lines, a TOTALLY unacceptable destruction.
The turnkey capital cost would be 3 x 7478 MW x $2.5 million/MW = $56 billion, plus financing costs, plus grid extension/augmentation cost
The wind turbines would last at most 25 years, i.e., 3 sets of wind turbines would be required over 60 to 80 years.
Solar
If field-mounted solar systems were to produce 50%, 59 billion kWh, about 59 billion/(8766 x 0.14 x 1000) = 46,418 MW of panels would be required on 324,923 acres, a TOTALLY unacceptable destruction.
The turnkey capital cost would be 46,418 MW x $3 million /MW = $139 billion, plus financing cost, plus grid extension/augmentation cost
The solar systems would last 25 years, i.e., 3 systems would be required over 60 to 80 years.
Wind plus Solar
Total cost for wind plus solar would be 56 + 139 = $195 billion, plus financing cost, plus grid extension/augmentation cost
In New England, there are frequent periods with minimal wind and/or minimal solar.
WHERE WOULD THE SHORTFALL OF ELECTRICITY COME FROM?
Conclusion
It is high time the RE ignoramuses in New England finally acquire some common sense, because many $billions and years have been wasted on THEIR very expensive “global warming solutions”.
“All-in” Electricity Cost of Wind and Solar in New England
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol…
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na…
See table 5 in cost shifting URL
Sample calculation; NE utility cost = 6, Purchased + 1.6, (RNS + FCM) = 7.6 c/kWh
Sample calculation; Added to utility base = 17.4 + 3.5 = 20.9 c/kWh
Sample calculation; Total cost = 17.4 + 5.2 + 2.1 + 3.5 + 1.6 = 29.8 c/kWh
Excludes costs for very expensive battery systems
Excludes costs for very expensive floating, offshore wind systems
Excludes cost for dealing with shortfalls during multi-day wind/solar lulls. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide…
“Added to rate base” is for recent 20-y electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in NE.
“Added to rate base” would be much higher without subsidies and cost shifting.
Areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW have lower c/MWh, than NE
Offshore Wind Systems
Denmark
installed the first offshore wind system in 1983; Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, etc., followed.
National grids were connected with high-voltage DC lines. Electricity is distributed/curtailed, during high winds, as needed.
European companies have installed more than 25,000 MW of offshore wind systems (the US has 35 MW) during the past 40 years, about 1,000 MW/y during recent years.
Massachusetts, Connecticut
It took several years for Massachusetts and Connecticut to sign contracts with EU/US wind consortia for about 1,000 MW of NE offshore wind systems
Almost all of the NE offshore wind systems would be supplied and installed by European companies, during the next 20 years.
See Appendix
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/having-fun-watching-wi…
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol…
Maine
Maine RE folks have a goal to install hundreds of 12 MW, 850-ft-high, offshore FLOATING wind turbines.
However, that approach would be much more expensive per MW, than normal offshore wind systems, and would require major extension/augmentation of the NE grid.
At present, there are no major wind companies with any experience, other than minor experience by Norway having a demonstration system off the coast of Scotland.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/deep-water-floating-off…
“European
nations walk back their ‘climate ambitions’politicians protect their jobs as the exorbitant price tag becomes clear”Fixed the title.
I am in my 70’s and have lived in at least a dozen different homes in as many different states since I have been married due to 20 years in the Military and 40 years in the nuclear power industry. Purely coincidence, that all of these homes had the water heated with gas as it was never considered while looking for a home. In fact my wife did not like using a gas stove. As a result of this fact I have survived comfortably during the over two dozen electrical power outages, several of which were over two weeks long. If your HW is heated with gas, when it is below freezing you can fill up the bathtub with hot water and it will safely keep your home, if properly insulated, warm enough that an extra blanket(s) keeps you comfortable over night. No generator needed. No need to use the burners or oven to keep the home “bearable” especially using the gas stove burners. Larger home? – usually has two tubs – fill them both up (wait several hours to fill the second, third,) 100% of the heat is going into the home!
In my opinion a second source of energy in your home is a necessity in northern climates.
I sincerely hope Germany, and the other EU countries are “Mothballing” the Nuclear power plants they are shutting down. They are going to be sorry otherwise.
On Dec 31, 2021, Germany, on ENERGIEWENDE auto-pilot regarding wind and solar, mindlessly shut down 3 of its 6 nuclear plants
However, EU bureaucrats have finally come to their senses
They declared: “Nuclear and gas are good enough for the EU”
Let us look at New England choosing nuclear
A 1,000 MW nuclear plant would produce 1000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.9, CF = 7.8894 billion kWh of electricity/y
15 of such plants would produce 118.3411 billion kWh of electricity/y
All of New England consumed 115 billion kWh in 2020
But, 15,000 MW would not be enough to serve a 25,000 MW peak demand.
Thus 10,000 MW of OTHER generating plants would be required
Plus, at least 15% reserve MW would be required, to cover scheduled and unscheduled outages.
If 16 reactors were located on 8 sites, the land area would be 8 sites x 800 acres/site = 6,400 acres.
If South Korea were to build them (they are the best, next to China and Russia), the turnkey capital cost would be 16 x 1000 MW x $6 million/MW = $96 billion, spread out over 20 years, plus financing cost, plus grid extension/augmentation cost.
The plants would last 60 to 80 years.
Let us look at New England choosing wind and solar
Wind
If onshore wind were to produce 50%, 59 billion kWh, about (59 billion kWh/1000)/(8766 h/y x 0.30, CF) = 7,478 3-MW wind turbines would be required on 1,246 miles of PRISTINE, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE ridge lines, a TOTALLY unacceptable destruction.
The turnkey capital cost would be 3 x 7478 MW x $2.5 million/MW = $56 billion, plus financing costs, plus grid extension/augmentation cost
The wind turbines would last at most 25 years, i.e., 3 sets of wind turbines would be required over 60 to 80 years.
Solar
If field-mounted solar systems were to produce 50%, 59 billion kWh, about
(59 billionkWh/1000)/(8766 x 0.14 x 1000) = 46,418 MW of panels would be required on 324,923 acres, a TOTALLY unacceptable destruction.
The turnkey capital cost would be 46,418 MW x $3 million /MW = $139 billion, plus financing cost, plus grid extension/augmentation cost
The solar systems would last 25 years, i.e., 3 systems would be required over 60 to 80 years.
Wind plus Solar
Total cost for wind and solar would be $56 b + $139 b = $195 billion, plus financing cost, plus grid extension/augmentation cost
All that wind + solar MW would be useless to serve a 25,000 MW peak demand, because wind + solar often is minimal in late-afternoon/early-evening.
Thus, at least 20,000 MW of OTHER generating plants would be required to serve the peak demand
In New England, there are frequent periods with simultaneous, minimal wind + minimal solar that last 5 to 7 days, according to weather data.
WHERE WOULD THE SHORTFALL OF ELECTRICITY COME FROM?
Conclusion
It is high time the RE ignoramuses in New England finally acquire some common sense, because many $billions and years have been already been wasted on THEIR very expensive “global warming solutions”.
“All-in” Electricity Cost of Wind and Solar in New England
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol…
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na…
See table 5 in cost-shifting URL
PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH RELIABLE ELECTRICITY SERVICE IN NEW ENGLAND
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/playing-russian-roulet…
New England is an Energy Crisis Waiting to Happen
https://doomberg.substack.com/p/new-england-is-an-energy-crisis-wai…
NOTE: In 2021, the federal government proposed to subsidize the installation of 30,000 MW of offshore wind systems by 2030, just 8 years from now, which is a total impossibility, because the EU managed to install only 25,000 MW of offshore wind turbines from 1991 to 2020, or 39 years. See URLs
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Denmar…
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/having-fun-watching-wi…
NOTE:
Warren Buffett Quote: “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/e…
Offshore Wind Systems
Denmark
installed the first offshore wind system in 1983; Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, etc., followed.
National grids were connected with high-voltage DC lines. Electricity is distributed/curtailed, during high winds, as needed.
European companies have installed more than 25,000 MW of offshore wind systems (the US has 35 MW) during the past 40 years, about 1,000 MW/y during recent years.
Massachusetts, Connecticut
It took several years for Massachusetts and Connecticut to sign contracts with EU/US wind consortia for about 1,000 MW of NE offshore wind systems
Almost all of the NE offshore wind systems would be supplied and installed by European companies, during the next 20 years.
See Appendix
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/having-fun-watching-wi…
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol…
Maine
Maine RE folks have a goal to install hundreds of 12 MW, 850-ft-high, offshore FLOATING wind turbines.
However, that approach would be much more expensive per MW, than normal offshore wind systems, and would require major extension/augmentation of the NE grid.
At present, there are no major wind companies with any experience, other than minor experience by Norway having a demonstration system off the coast of Scotland.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/deep-water-floating-off…
” European nations walk back their ‘climate ambitions’ ”
No kidding!… Are they really walking back?
“At Mr. Macron’s behest, the European Commission in Brussels may be on the verge of including both nuclear and natural gas on a list of environmentally friendly energy sources eligible for “green investment” from governments and private investors.”
European Union to Declare Natural Gas, Nuclear Power ‘Green’ — Biden, Democrat Party Hardest Hit – RedState
“Investments in natural gas power plants would also be deemed green [by the European Union] if they produce emissions below 270g of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and replace a more-polluting fossil fuel plant, in addition to receiving a construction permit by Dec. 31, 2030, and plan to switch to low-carbon gases by the end of 2035.”
If pure methane is burned, it releases 50 MJ of energy per kg methane. A kilowatthour is 1 kJ/s * 3600 s/hr = 3.6 MJ of energy, which could be released by burning 3.6 / 50 = 0.072 kg of methane, which would release 0.072 * 44 / 16 = 0.198 kg (198 g) of CO2. This assumes that the process is 100% efficient at converting heat to power. In order to release less than 270 g CO2 per kWh, the thermal efficiency would have to be at least 198 / 270 = 73.3%.
This is a difficult efficiency to achieve, even for a combined-cycle process, where hot, low-pressure outlet gases from a natural-gas turbine are used to make steam, which is then used to generate more power. It may be possible to reach this efficiency, but more likely there would have to be some partial capture of CO2 to keep emissions below 270 g / kWh.
It is probably a matter of time before some power companies who build combined-cycle plants do this same calculation and petition the European Union to raise its limit for a “green” natural gas plant to something like 350 g CO2 / kWh, which requires an overall efficiency of 56.6%, which is easily achievable by combined-cycle power plants.
Of course, it is no surprise that it’s French president Macron who wants nuclear power to be considered “green”, since France leads the European Union in power production by nuclear power plants, generating about 75% of its electricity from nuclear power. With Germany shutting down some of its own reactors recently, the French have started exporting their nuclear power to Germany…
This time a tiny diesel car with manual transmission is not going to get them around this multi-front energy price onslaught.
Years ago when the late lamented Christopher Booker was talking about how various pressure groups were getting involved in several government departments with the aim of pushing this nonsense. He talked about how the Environment Agency was going to reduce flood protection and defenses to allow nature to reclaim certain areas. In a letter I suggested the start with London and see how our beloved leaders liked living and working in a large area of marshland with Westminster being one of a few low lying islands.
As with so many of these virtue signaling things it’s OK till it starts affecting me and mine. It’s starting to hit these people and their families in the pocket maybe even causing deaths of loved ones (which can’t be passed of as covid) due to choosing between warmth or food.
James Bull