A green job of the future - hand cleaning solar panels. U.S. Department of Agriculture, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

WMO: Embrace Renewables to Stabilise the Power Grid

Essay by Eric Worrall

Apparently nuclear plants are out because they require precious water for cooling, or are vulnerable to sea level rise.

Climate change puts energy security at risk

Published 11 October 2022
Press Release Number: 11102022

Countries must triple investment in renewable energy

Geneva 11 October 2022 (WMO) – The supply of electricity from clean energy sources must double within the next eight years to limit global temperature increase. Otherwise, there is a risk that climate change, more extreme weather and water stress will undermine our energy security and even jeopardize renewable energy supplies, according to a new multi-agency report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

WMO’s State of Climate Services annual report, which includes inputs from 26 different organizations, focuses on energy this year because it holds the key to international agreements on sustainable development and climate change and, indeed, to the planet’s health.

“The energy sector is the source of around three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. Switching to clean forms of energy generation, such as solar, wind and hydropower – and improving energy efficiency – is vital if we are to thrive in the twenty-first century. Net zero by 2050 is the aim. But we will only get there if we double the supply of low-emissions electricity within the next eight years,” said WMO Secretary-General Prof Petteri Taalas.

“Time is not on our side, and our climate is changing before our eyes. We need a complete transformation of the global energy system,” says Prof. Taalas.

Access to reliable weather, water and climate information and services will be increasingly important to strengthen the resilience of energy infrastructure and meet rising demand (an increase of 30% in the past ten years).

The 2022 State of Climate Services: Energy report has plenty of good news. It highlights the huge opportunities for green powered grids to help tackle climate change, improve air quality, conserve water resources, protect the environment, create jobs and safeguard a better future for us all.

The report includes practical case studies.

  • Early weather warnings are safeguarding energy supply in Beijing, China.
  • Climate stress tests are ensuring electricity is suitably distributed in the Italian Dolomites.
  • Warning systems in Tajikistan are providing advance notice of dry conditions for hydropower operations planning.
  • Localized wind-resource information is aiding wind industry decision-making;
  • Solar radiation measurements are supporting the placement of solar panels on noise barriers in Germany.

By 2050, global electricity needs- which will be increasing over the years being electrification a strategic lever to tackle Net Zero goals – will mainly be met with renewable energy, with solar the single largest supply source. African countries have an opportunity to seize untapped potential and be major players in the market. Africa is home to 60% of the best solar resources globally, yet with only 1% of installed photovoltaic capacity.

”We urgently need to respond to the growing impact of climate change on energy systems if we are to maintain energy security while accelerating the transition to net-zero.  This requires long-term planning and bold policy action to spur investment, which in turn needs to be underpinned by comprehensive and reliable weather and climate data,” says Dr Fatih Birol, International Energy Agency Executive Director.

“Now is the time to accelerate the transition to a renewable energy future. Anything short of radical and immediate action will ultimately eliminate the chance of staying on the 1.5°C path. The intertwined energy and climate crises have dramatically exposed the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of an economic system heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Advancing the transition to renewables is a strategic choice to bring affordable energy, jobs, economic growth and a resilient environment to the people and communities on the ground,” said Francesco La Camera, IRENA’s Director-General.

More can and must be done. According to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, bold climate action could deliver US$26 trillion in economic benefits by 2030. And yet, investment in renewable energy is much too low, especially in developing countries and too little attention is paid to the importance of climate services for energy to support both climate adaptation and decisions on how to reduce greenhouse gases.

WMO has issued annual reports on the state of climate services since 2019 in response to a UN request for more information on adaptation needs of countries. This year’s edition includes input from more partners than ever before. They include the International Energy Agency (IEA), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL), UN Energy, ENEL Foundation, Adaptation Fund, Green Climate Fund (GCF), Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) and others,  including private sector and civil society organizations.

“The Adaptation Fund is pleased to be a founding partner and contributor to this valuable report. The energy sector is crucial in helping curb emissions that cause climate change – at the same time, energy production itself needs to adapt to the climate impacts that are already taking place and accelerating. The Adaptation Fund funds projects that are based on the adaptation priorities of vulnerable developing countries, and we have been pleased to see an increasing number of country-driven activities that address the specific adaptation needs of the energy sector at different scales,” says Mikko Ollikainen, Head of the Adaptation Fund.  

The report will be launched at a high-level event on 11 October and will also be presented to the World Energy Council summit on 13 October in Scotland. It is accompanied by an interactive digital story map.

Climate change is putting energy security at risk globally

Climate change directly affects fuel supply, energy production as well as the physical resilience of current and future energy infrastructure. Heatwaves and droughts are already putting existing energy generation under stress, making it even more important to reduce fossil fuel emissions.

The impact of more frequent and intense extreme weather, water and climate events is already clear.

For example, in January 2022, massive power outages caused by a historic heatwave in Buenos Aires, Argentina affected around 700 000 people. In November 2020, freezing rain coated power lines in the Far East of the Russian Federation, leaving hundreds of thousands of homes without electricity for several days.

Concerns about impact of global temperature increase on energy security are therefore paramount in the race to net zero emissions (NZE).  

Net zero emissions are achieved when CO2 emissions from human activities are balanced globally by CO2 removals over a specified period. Net zero CO2 emissions are also referred to as carbon neutrality.

Water resources are scarce

In 2020, 87% of global electricity generated from thermal, nuclear and hydroelectric systems directly depended on water availability. Meanwhile, 33% of the thermal power plants that rely on freshwater availability for cooling are in high water stress areas. This is also the case for 15% of existing nuclear power plants, a share expected to increase to 25% in the next 20 years.

Eleven per cent of hydroelectric capacity is also located in highly water-stressed areas.  And approximately 26% of existing hydropower dams and 23% of projected dams are within river basins that currently have a medium to very high risk of water scarcity.

Nuclear power plants not only depend on water for cooling but are also often located in low-lying coastal areas and hence are potentially vulnerable to sea-level rise and weather-related flooding. For example, the Turkey Point nuclear plant in Florida (United States of America), which sits at sea level, will be threatened in the coming decades.  Regular improvements in operational practices and evolving regulatory obligations can substantially reduce production losses of nuclear power plants due to severe weather, according to the International Atomic Energy Authority.

Potential Hydropower Locations

Climate action plans must prioritize energy 

Despite these risks, just 40% of climate action plans submitted by governments to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) prioritize adaptation in the energy sector, and investment is correspondingly low.

Supply from low-emissions sources needs to double by 2030 if the world is to reach net zero by 2050, according to the report.

A transition to renewable energy will help alleviate growing global water stresses because the amount of water used to generate electricity by solar and wind is much lower than for more traditional power plants, either fossil-fuel- or nuclear-based.

But current pledges by countries fall well short of what is needed to meet the objectives set by the Paris Agreement, leaving a 70% gap in the amount of emissions reductions needed by 2030.

Renewable energy pledges represent less than half of what is needed. The pathway to reach the Paris Agreement’s long-term global goal on temperature requires 7.1 TW of clean energy capacity to be installed by 2030, according to figures cited in the report.

The world is set to fall short of achieving the goal of universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy by 2030, as set out in SDG 7, by a wide margin.

The necessary policies and regulations to enable decarbonization in the energy sector are still particularly weak in Africa, South America and Asia, according to the World Bank. And the recognition of the need for services to support renewable energy is particularly low in Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris Agreement.

WMO Photovoltaic Power Potential

Investments in renewables need to triple by 2050

Investments in renewable energy need to triple by 2050 to put the world on a net zero trajectory by 2050, according to figures quoted in the report. ​ In 2019–2020, most renewable energy investments were made in the East Asia and Pacific region (mainly China and Japan), followed by Western Europe, and North America.

Developing countries are underrepresented when it comes to accessing clean energy finance.

International public financial flows to developing countries in support of clean energy and SDG 7 achievement decreased in 2019 for the second year in a row, falling to US$ 10.9 billion. This level of support was 23% lower than the US$ 14.2 billion provided in 2018, 25% lower than the 2010–2019 average, and less than half of the peak of US$ 24.7 billion in 2017.

Africa could be major renewables player

Africa is already facing severe effects from climate change, including massive droughts, despite bearing the least responsibility for the problem.

Declining clean technology costs hold new promise for Africa’s future, and there is a huge opportunity for Africa to help close the gap in the need for renewable energy. Achieving Africa’s energy and climate goals means more than doubling energy investment this decade, with a huge increase in adaptation. Only 2% of clean energy investment in the last two decades was made in Africa.  Bringing access to modern energy for all Africans calls for an investment of US$ 25 billion annually, which is around 1% of global energy investment today.

Climate services provide reliable information 

Renewable energy systems are weather and climate dependent, so the transition to clean energy calls for improved climate information and services to support decisions on site selection and operations, maintenance and management.

Climate services are defined as the production and delivery of relevant, credible and usable climate information. The energy industry has extensive experience using weather services. Still, it needs to do more to incorporate climate information into its decision-making to increase the resilience of energy systems to climate-related shocks and to boost energy efficiency.

There is huge room for improvement. Less than 50% of WMO Members provide tailored products for the energy sector, which shows the untapped potential of National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs) and the efforts required to address the emerging needs of this sector.

Why do we need climate services?

Energy-sector planning and operations are affected by weather and climate variability and change. As energy systems become increasingly dependent on weather variations, it is apparent that the information flow from weather and climate data and forecasts needs to be properly incorporated into the decision support systems.

Although the power sector routinely uses weather forecasts up to 15 days, there is less experience in using climatological data.

More effective use of climate information helps scale up renewable energy infrastructure, but they will also promote clean energy system efficiency and climate resilience. Increased, sustained investments in such services, supported by recognition of the need for such services through enhanced policies, are required to achieve this.

  • Examples of applications of climate services for energy include:
  • Planning purchases of gas and electric power;
  • Managing responses in emergency situations;
  • Managing capacity and resources (e.g. grid/distribution management, electricity production/pricing);
  • Optimizing renewable power plant operation, especially reservoirs and hydropower operations;

In the energy sector, studies have demonstrated the economic value of very short-term, sub-seasonal and seasonal forecasts (e.g. for temperature, wind speed, stream flow) for fuel purchasing decisions, demand and generation forecasting, and system planning. Temperature forecasts allow managers to forecast peak loads more accurately and optimally schedule power generation plants to meet demands at a lower cost. Hydropower operations benefit from daily, weekly and seasonal precipitation and streamflow forecasts, which can help to optimize operations.

For example, the use of streamflow forecasts increases energy production from major Columbia River (United States) hydropower dams by 5.5 TWh/year, resulting in an average increase in annual revenue of approximately US$ 153 million per year.

Similarly, the use of forecasts to manage hydropower operations in Ethiopia produces cumulative decadal benefits ranging from US$ 1 to US$ 6.5 billion, compared to a climatological (no forecast) approach.

The development and application of targeted climate products and services through the Global Framework for Climate Services can support both adaptation and mitigation.

The World Meteorological Organization is the United Nations System’s authoritative voice

on Weather, Climate and Water

For further information contact: Clare Nullis, WMO media officer, cnullis@wmo.int. Tel 41-79-7091397

Source: https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/climate-change-puts-energy-security-risk

The claim renewables are the water friendly option is absurd.

According to Indian company ECOPPIA, which produces robotic cleaning devices, between 7000 – 20,000 litres per MW of water per week are required to clean solar panels.

Given solar is only available 20% of the time, to replace a 1GW nuclear reactor (70-90% availability factor), you would need 3.5GW of solar (ignoring battery inefficiencies), which would require between 24 million to 70 million litres of water per week.

There are various claims of waterless cleaning systems, and the document I based this estimate on is at least six years old. But I find it difficult to believe water use can be eliminated, particularly in hostile environments like sandy deserts.

Wind is not such a water hog, but those turbines still need the occasional wash, to maintain aerodynamic efficiency.

The WMO hydroelectric push is a little sad. Hydroelectric is a wonderful low cost source of energy, a good way for poor countries to get their foot on the industrialisation ladder, but it would be nice to leave some rivers unspoiled. I remember when greens chained themselves to trees to prevent the construction of hydroelectric dams. Todays greens list the rivers which haven’t been exploited yet, and demand the clearance of vast wilderness areas to make way for solar panel farms.

The prejudice against nuclear is the most intriguing part of the document. All the problems they listed are fixable.

Nuclear power plants could be designed to use air cooling instead of evaporative water cooling, for siting in places which experience water stress, by simply running the cold end a little hotter, and relying on air cooling like the radiator on your automobile. This isn’t done normally, because plant operators naturally want to squeeze out every drop of efficiency, which means running the cold end of the reactor as cold as possible.

Alternatively, even the most pessimistic sea level rise projections can be addressed with better siting. Sea water for cooling could simply be pumped uphill a hundred feet or so to a slightly elevated reactor site, which would ensure an endless supply of water, and complete protection from sea level rise.

The WMO document makes no attempt to discuss such simple fixes for the issues they claim rule out nuclear power as an option, which in my opinion makes their negativity towards nuclear power a case of irrational prejudice.

5 17 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 11, 2022 6:05 pm

I sense a CoP coming on.

Bryan A
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 11, 2022 7:50 pm

Nuclear’s solution is relatively simple. Utilize Oil Platforms elevated above the ocean for Offshore Nuclear. All the ocean water you could use for cooling and zero risk of flooding

Reply to  Bryan A
October 12, 2022 2:48 am


Bryan A
Reply to  HotScot
October 12, 2022 6:24 am

Provided the generator isn’t affected by Wave Motion and potential 30 – 50′ rogue waves.
You always have the potential for these behemoths at sea

Reply to  Bryan A
October 12, 2022 6:36 am

They operate on the coast, not in the middle of the ocean. The Russians have at least one of them.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  Bryan A
October 12, 2022 8:56 am

Never had a rogue wave in the channel off of Santa Barbara…

Bryan A
Reply to  Shanghai Dan
October 12, 2022 10:47 am

When the wind blows, 25′ is well within possible. Nazare Portugal has seen coastal surf as high as 100′
The Edmund Fitzgerald may have been sunk by 25-30′ wind blown waves in the great lakes

Reply to  Bryan A
October 12, 2022 1:45 pm

I recall sailing in Long Island Sound into an oncoming wind when a freighter passed in front of us. I was standing on the bow facing aft hauling in a jib when I turrned around and there was a wall of water way over my head. The ship had a 37 ft mast, so it was at least that tall.
Rode it all the up and down, got a bit wet…

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 11, 2022 10:14 pm

Find a toilet. and a newspaper, maybe a magazine.
“sit a spell” and read
It will pass.

Tom Halla
October 11, 2022 6:07 pm

That is totally clueless.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 11, 2022 8:49 pm

How in the heck do you stabilize a grid with a part time, weather dependent, grid destabilizing power source that IS currently being destabilized by a part time, weather dependent, grid destabilizing power source?

Reply to  Bryan A
October 12, 2022 3:59 am

You don’t. You can’t.

Damn Nitpicker
Reply to  Nik
October 12, 2022 3:43 pm

Here’s the deal to the assembly of people who want to supply ‘renewable’ electricity to the grid … wind, solar, water, whatever. You have to supply the grid with firm, unwavering, steady power, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, year-round (less scheduled outages for maintenance and such), just like your predecessors … Contract for delivery, and be prepared to be penalized for non-performance. Just like any other conventional power source. This means that you have to figure out how to buffer and dispatch your intermittent solar and wind power. You have to get storage, or contract with some other storage or power generation that will make up what you cannot produce on a rainy day or when the wind slacks. After all, you’re the experts on your new power source … nobody knows better that you, what can (and will) modulate your sources of power. Heck, you can even contract with existing “peaking” plants, fossil fueled or not. Your solar sources can contract with some hydropower and make a deal so the hydro fills in at night, or when the wind slacks … but, the deal is, you must deliver firm, reliable power to the grid, exactly when your contract says, and exactly how much your contract says. Deal?

Steven Pfeiffer
Reply to  Damn Nitpicker
October 13, 2022 4:47 am

Agreed!!. Let’s see even a limited demonstration project, one that can easily be attached to the existing grid, and one that will prove the viability of wind/solar to provide true “base load” power output.
To be convincing, the demonstration project should be large enough to produce a meaningful amount of power.
I would suggest 100 MW…or heck even 10 MW would be ok to start with.
The specification for the demonstration project would be as follows:
System shall produce power only using solar PV panels, wind turbines, or a combination of the two.
The system shall provide 10 MW, plus or minus 5%, continuously, 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 52 weeks per year.
System shall include necessary N+1 redundancy on all critical components as necessary to meet the 24/7/365 criteria.
Power shall be of utility grade and shall interconnect with the existing electrical grid at point X (to be determined).
Any means of electric storage can be utilized, including on-site generation and storage of hydrogen to be used in fuel cells. All hydrogen so utilized must be produced via electrolysis by the output of the wind and/or solar systems.
All necessary ancillary or “parasitic” electric loads necessary for the operation of the system shall be fully powered by the output of the wind/solar/storage system. No external power input is allowed.
For maintenance and repair, 15% annual downtime is allowed as follows. Each period of down time shall be no more than 72 hours duration. Each period of down time shall be scheduled a minimum of 10 calendar days in advance of the proposed shutdown.

Financial penalties shall be applied for any failure of the system to meet the above performance requirement.

Reply to  Damn Nitpicker
October 15, 2022 11:33 pm

Nobody in the wind or solar scams will contract for firm power. It completely destroys their business model, which relies on the government to force consumers to take what little power they produce & find some way to stabilise it. If they had to do it themselves, it would take money they’ve already allocated to buying caviar.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bryan A
October 12, 2022 4:08 am

This is called doubling down on stupid.

Reply to  Bryan A
October 12, 2022 4:21 am

Only an incestuous and corrupt organisation could contemplate such a suggestion.

Curious George
Reply to  Bryan A
October 12, 2022 7:48 am
  • Optimizing renewable power plant operation, especially reservoirs and hydropower operations;

Optimize wind and solar. The dream of climate engineers anyway.

Reply to  Curious George
October 12, 2022 1:51 pm

They dream of extremely cheap enormously efficient batteries, always.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  Bryan A
October 12, 2022 9:02 am

Two negatives make a positive?

Reply to  Bryan A
October 12, 2022 2:40 pm

Power rationing is how to “stabilize the grid”. Selective Black Outs. Strangely enough the areas with wealth and political power don’t seem to have their electricity cut off…

Pat from kerbob
October 11, 2022 6:10 pm

But global warming is supposed to increase evaporation and rainfall so water stress is solved

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
October 12, 2022 4:05 am

Yes, what tangled webs they wave when trying to deceive…

Reply to  Pat from kerbob
October 12, 2022 4:37 am

The WMO seems to think that USED water somehow disappears when it goes down the loo or whatever; so thus creates droughts and things designated as WaterStress. Also this goes alongside Rising Sea levels so I suppose when I water my plants I am raising sea levels?
——: BUT :-my brain is now too addled to continue.

Life would be so much simpler if we all just stuck to the ACTUAL science rather than the sort of stuff dreamed up by modellers well versed in creative writing.

Damn Nitpicker
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
October 12, 2022 3:53 pm

Nguyen 2018: “While there are regional trends, there is no evidence of increase in precipitation, at the global scale, in response to the observed global warming.  

Nguyen, Phu, 𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑙. 2018. “Global Precipitation Trends across Spatial Scales Using Satellite Observations.” USA Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society  

October 11, 2022 6:13 pm

Flora is out… Babies are out because we have been classified as hazardous waste under the novel science and philosophical regime.

Bryan A
Reply to  n.n
October 11, 2022 8:34 pm

Well, so much for Baby Flora

Ron Long
October 11, 2022 6:15 pm

Nuke ’em!

Steve G
October 11, 2022 6:33 pm

We urgently need to respond to the growing impact of climate change 
Time is not on our side
indeed, to the planet’s health
more extreme weather and water stress 
Heatwaves and droughts
more frequent and intense extreme weather, water and climate events is already clear

Ticks all the alarmist boxes. Although sea level rise seems to be off the agenda these days.

Steve G
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 11, 2022 7:41 pm

Indeed. Sea levels and polar ice just don’t have that immediate “wow!!” factor.

Whereas rain, wind, drought etc, etc, – otherwise known as weather conditions are immediate and the preferred weapons of the climate alarmists.

An interesting hypothesis >>>

“This paper also sought out to find why climate change has been framed as an impending apocalypse, and I argue that one of the main factors is the creation of nuclear weapons.

When scientists began examining the environmental consequences of nuclear war, they dubbed the term “nuclear winter,” which admitted that a strong relationship exists between the natural environment and nuclear weapons. If even a relatively small number of nuclear weapons, as few as 50, were detonated in the world’s largest urban areas, the atmospheric smoke and ash would thrust the planet into a nuclear winter. This would drastically decrease global rainfall and agricultural output, and current models suggest that the loss of life from these environmental consequences would be even greater than loss of life from the initial bombs themselves.

Perhaps scientists realized then just how dependent human life is on the natural environment, and how dangerous nuclear weapons are as a human creation.

Thus, emerging climate change discourse was influenced by these new insights about nuclear war and nuclear winter. Since nuclear winter is itself a catastrophic ecological event, and nuclear weapons had already created a fatalist mindset towards human existence, climate change discourse also adopted an apocalyptic frame, creating climate change fatalism.” — Nuclear Alarmism and Climate Change Fatalism as a Secular Apocalyptic Religion By Sarah Ertelt DePauw University Honor Scholar Program Class of 2018

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 11, 2022 8:55 pm

Especially when they worry about nuclear generating plants being threatened by SLR. At about 600mm per 100 years, there should be time for even the most slow-witted Greens to react and take precautionary measures!

Reply to  Mike Lowe
October 12, 2022 2:51 am

there should be time for even the most slow-witted Greens to react and take precautionary measures!


Joe Crawford
Reply to  Mike Lowe
October 12, 2022 5:39 am

Yep, that’s really scary. You’d have to add the equivalent of 1 cinder block (8″) to flood walls and levees every 33 years to keep up :<)

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Steve G
October 12, 2022 4:07 am

Interesting how THE SAME CLAIMS of “more extreme” weather were made during the “Ice Age Cometh” scare of the 1970s…

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
October 12, 2022 4:55 am

With the same “one-world totalitarianism will save us all” as the solution.

Reply to  Steve G
October 12, 2022 4:50 am

NO. Sea level is continuously cropping up these days; like a virulent weed. How else can you create Panic over Icecap Melting (another weed) if you don’t have panic over sea levels?
Oh! andI forgot Global Warming (another weed); but not sure where that fits in.

Think I’ll Chill out and just let my garden grow as it seems fit.

October 11, 2022 6:34 pm

Yes the old wealth distribution plan spin via greentards which is the old two step spin

1.) Find something that poor countries have lots of … in this case sunshine
2.) Spin up a story how that should be exploited

Answer: Africa could be a major Renewable Energy Player for the bargain price of $25B per year.

You just have to ignore the wars, corruption and technical problems of the area … reality says about $25 of the $25B will get spent on renewables in Africa 🙂

Last edited 3 months ago by LdB
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 11, 2022 10:21 pm

Another good documentary to watch is Empire of Dust, though it’s in Mandarin with sub-titles. It chronicles a Chinese mid level manager’s efforts to get a road built in the Congo.

October 11, 2022 6:49 pm

Time for China to step up then. Pigs are fuelling as I write this.

John V. Wright
October 11, 2022 6:50 pm

I’m so pleased that early weather warnings are helping to safeguard supplies in China. Say, isn’t that the place where they are building 400 coal-fired power stations…….?

October 11, 2022 6:53 pm

What about the new compact nuclear generators using salt instead of control rods. sized to fit on the back of a truck … eliminates the exposure and potential issues with huge traditional Nuclear generators. Put 10 of the small ones strategically around a town or small city … eliminates the risk of grid breakdown … makes sense to me

Reply to  Bill
October 11, 2022 7:08 pm

While I don’t know, I strongly suspect that markedly increases the $/MW cost as compared with 2 to 5 GW nuclear plant.

These small reactors are probably actually being developed for the elite compounds, not for the general public.

Reply to  AndyHce
October 11, 2022 11:11 pm

The idea behind SMRs is that they can be pre-fabricated to a pre-approved design and hence avoid the green tape which currently adds 397 years to the approval process for a larger nuclear power station.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 12, 2022 3:04 am

Hah! Amateurs. We in the UK are currently running at 563 years, 4 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 12 hours, ten minutes and 42 seconds.

Precision is vital to the process.

Reply to  HotScot
October 12, 2022 4:45 am

Yup, just like predicting future climate, ya gotta be precise to four decimal places….

Reply to  Yooper
October 12, 2022 6:37 am

🤣 🤣 👍 👍

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 12, 2022 5:04 am

In the materials test labs, they have tried close to 500 materials and haven’t found one that stayed reliable past about 2 years in the conditions they would experience in a molten salt environment. (As of the last time I checked about 3 years ago – since I haven’t seen a press release suggesting they found the material to solve the problem, I am guessing they are still looking.)

The idea behind molten salt reactors is very promising, and once we find the right materials to make it work, it will happen (barring greentard roadblocks). I fear it may be like commercial fusion – always 10 years away.

Reply to  OweninGA
October 12, 2022 8:45 am

I saw my first Tokomak reactor almost 50 years ago. At the time, commercial fusion was 30 years away. Before the magnetic bubble could be established, TVA had to bring one actual coal fired station on line at about 2gW. Always 30 years away and still is today.

Peta of Newark
October 11, 2022 7:11 pm

So much virtue, so many good intentions.

Only one question:
Where’s the bathroom, I feel rather sick

Tony Taylor
October 11, 2022 7:20 pm

These freaks need to sit in on Power Network Engineering 101.

October 11, 2022 8:15 pm

“Turkey Point nuclear plant in Florida (United States of America), which sits at sea level,”

n fact, the reactors were built at an elevation of about 20 feet to avoid problems with winter storms “

“n the future, when sea level rises only 3 feet, Turkey Point will be under water as well, “


So either 3 or 20 feet.

Chris Hanley
October 11, 2022 8:20 pm

By 2050, global electricity needs – which will be increasing over the years being electrification a strategic lever to tackle Net Zero goals – will mainly be met with renewable energy, with solar the single largest supply source

Whoever is responsible for that container-load of crap would benefit from this brief authoritative dose of reality.

October 11, 2022 8:23 pm

This report is less than stunning. It offers no science, no facts or figures to back up their claims, ignores China and India racing to build more coal fired plants, cries about more severe storms with no proof and worst of all lies about almost everything. They talk like we are missing out on a great investment by dragging our feet and not building wind and solar on a massive scale. My question is, if there is that much money to be made and jobs created and so much cheap abundant power to be had why aren’t these jokers getting in on the action first? I can tell you why, because lies don’t pay the bills. The only thing that pays in this sorry mess is all the suckling off the government. It is disgraceful. The only positive thing I can say about it is it was written in language everyone can understand but far to long for what little they had to communicate.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bob
October 11, 2022 8:45 pm

Government issue Knee Pads?

October 11, 2022 8:55 pm

The UN was Setup I 1945 after WWII, the charter has 4 objectives

1.To keep peace throughout the world;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations;
3. To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms;
4.To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals

Maybe they should go back to point 1, and deal with a land war in Europe.

Reply to  Simonsays
October 12, 2022 2:00 am

Yes, but as observers know the original charter was expanded to create other organisations attached to the UN like the arms of an octopus. POTUS Trump addressed the UN and criticised the expansion, the expenses incurred and the interference in the national affairs of member nations and told the UN they needed to downsize, reduce operating costs and stop interfering.

The UN was infiltrated right from the time it was established by now called globalist left and an Australian (Communist faction) Labor Party Government Attorney General Evatt created the plan for the UN to sign treaties and agreements with member nations that enable compliant governments to get around constitutional laws. No referendum, UN agreements legislated in National Parliaments and implemented, no opportunity for citizens to support or oppose.

Reply to  Dennis
October 12, 2022 5:12 am

Agree in principle that the UN and its acolytes has been well infiltrated by covert Leftwing/Marxist activists; but reckon this stems from the Chinese Communist Party(theCCP), rather than from Australia.

It is now a very dangerous organisation disseminating gross misinformation through its vast array of tentacles spread out through society in general. The COP# Fiascoes being an obvious example.

The current pathetic bunch of global Politicians all seem to have been CAUGHT IN THE HEADLIGHTS of this Political Institution!!! Quite frankly weird, sinister, amazing and very dangerous.

Reply to  Simonsays
October 12, 2022 3:08 am

Maybe they should go back to point 1, and deal with a land war in Europe.

It wuz klimate change wot dunnit.

Reply to  HotScot
October 13, 2022 2:46 am

Can you tell us the correct pronoun for the schiency-stuff wot dunnit, please?


Curious George
Reply to  Simonsays
October 12, 2022 7:53 am

Epic fail on all 4 objectives. Dissolve the UN.

Reply to  Curious George
October 12, 2022 4:37 pm

Only let democratic countries have a vote at the UN.

China, NO VOTE.
Most Arab or other Muslim dominated countries, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, etc. NO VOTE.
Venezuela, NO VOTE.
Many African countries, NO VOTE.

If the UN is composed of mostly civilized countries, it COULD be beneficial.

October 11, 2022 10:04 pm

Given solar is only available 20% of the time, to replace a 1GW nuclear reactor (70-90% availability factor), you would need 3.5GW of solar 

This is pie so far in the sky it is a silly, simplistic statement.

I run part of my household off grid. The system was designed for the minimum cost system t meet the near steady demand of 2.5 to 3kWh each day.

To meet that demand at 37S I have a 3kW solar array and 5kWh battery. This combination has achieved 99.7% availability over 11 years now.

So the Capacity Factor for the array based on 2.8kWh average output is 2.8/(3*24) is 3.9%.

May is when the battery cut outs in 4 of those 11 years. The panels are not optimised for May but I could maybe get to 6% if I optimised the panel tilt May sunlight. I have arrays facing slightly toward the east, the west and mostly to the north. Getting some input early in the day on a clear day after the battery has got low can avoid the battery cutting out. Likewise getting late afternoon sun can give the needed top up to get through the next night. If the battery was able to supply the load for a week then it would likely be best to have all panels facing directly north.

The only way to achieve the natural Capacity Factor of an array is to have infinite storage. That comes at infinite cost. So you end up with overbuild on the energy collection potential to reduce the cost of storage.

Any network with high penetration of intermittent generation has declining Capacity Factors because curtailment necessarily increases unless there was infinite storage.

A more realistic CF for solar to replace firm generation is 10%. So 1GW of coal needs 10GW of solar plus a great big battery and about 10X more transmission lines.

Tracking arrays can get higher natural CF but the tracking hardware comes at substantial additional cost and higher maintenance. Best to just set up to maximise input on lowest sunlight month.

Last edited 3 months ago by RickWill
October 11, 2022 10:06 pm

Apparently nuclear plants are out because they require precious water for cooling, or are vulnerable to sea level rise.

Or jellyfish attacks:

Operators of the Oskarshamn nuclear plant in southeastern Sweden had to scramble reactor number three on Sunday after tons of jellyfish clogged the pipes that bring in cool water to the plant’s turbines.


Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines would “inevitably” be forced into an emergency reactor shutdown by swarms of jellyfish if the fleet was based in Brisbane, a leading marine scientist says.


Reply to  niceguy
October 12, 2022 12:20 am

A low revolution high throughput capacity centrifuge placed strategically at the sea water inlet should take care of those pesky jellyfish!

Reply to  KAT
October 12, 2022 3:11 am

That’s murder!

Reply to  HotScot
October 13, 2022 2:46 am

Are you suggesting that jellyfish are intellectually, and morally, indistinguishable from the Watermelons??


October 11, 2022 10:12 pm

What on Earth is all that blue in inland South East Australia for Hydro? Do these people have any idea how flat Australia is pretty much anywhere other than the relatively small (in height) mountain range along the South and Eastern coast. There is zero chance of putting a hydro power station on the lower Murray River or the Darling, etc.

Reply to  MarkH
October 12, 2022 3:15 am

Colour blind Cartographer.

Can’t get the staff these days.

October 11, 2022 10:16 pm

Good to see the Adaption Fund spending money on this report. Obviously money well spent!

It is very difficult to ask for squillions in a manner that is trying to suggest that spending all those squillions will produce something of value when so far it has made the situation worse.

It must be getting obvious that no matter how much money is spent on “renewables” it does not reduce fossil fuel consumption. It is as effective as banging your head against a wall to make a a headache go away.

There is so much belief out there these crazies think that if they spend a lot more money then the costs will eventually come down.

Has anyone actually gone to China and asked them if they have any hope of making all this stuff the developed countries need to TRANSITION by 2050! That is the key question and I am confident no one has actually asked it.If only China would stop making weapons and focus on the stuff needed to TRANSITION.

October 11, 2022 10:47 pm

The scam goes on and on.

dodgy geezer
October 11, 2022 10:58 pm

This is an absurd argument which is not meant to be logical, but is just used to justify their preferred solution.

I am going to argue that solar and wind power require huge armies of workmen to install, ALL of whom will eat beef and bacon sandwiches. The impact of such meat-eating on the planet will cause earthquakes which will raise the temperature by 50 degrees….

Steve G
October 11, 2022 11:00 pm

From my understanding, the first multi-megawatt wind turbine (single unit) was built in 1975 in Denmark. The first solar farm built circa 1983 in USA. If renewables are that good and that great at generating energy,and provide reliable supply ….and create trillions of dollars in GDP and tax receipts from massive profits and provide shareholder returns to investors…Why is the planet not already blanketed by renewable energy zones across all continents and oceans?? — One can only assume its taken 47 years to truly realize their potential.

I mean renewables should have been building out at massive scale for the last 4 decades alongside fossil fuel generation.Thats time enough to “electrify” everything surely?! And if “green energy’s” commercial and technical superiority has been evident, irrespective of the myth of CAGW, coal, gas and oil would have already died from natural commercial unviability – assuming an open energy market.

Last edited 3 months ago by SteveG
Dave Andrews
Reply to  Steve G
October 12, 2022 7:14 am

“Why is the planet not already blanketed by renewable energy zones”

One reason, among many, is the following extract from the Blackrock Energy and Resources Income Trust plc – interim report (31st May 2022)

‘Materials intensity of lower carbon electricity generation’

One 100MW natural gas fired turbine requires :-

2000 tonnes of concrete
300 tonnes of iron ore
100 tonnes of specialty metals and minerals
and is approximately the size of a residential house

Wind turbines required to produce an equivalent output:-

Twenty 500 foot turbines
50,000 tonnes of concrete
30,000 tonnes of iron ore
1000 tonnes of specialty metals and minerals
900 tonnes of non recyclable plastic
and 10 square miles of land.

October 11, 2022 11:04 pm

“The supply of electricity from clean energy sources must double within the next eight years to limit global temperature increase.”

Wind and solar have so little market share that doubling them over eight years will not reduce fossil fuel usage and hence will have no effect on CO2. To change CO2 levels, tell China what to do. Anything else is wasted effort.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 12, 2022 3:23 am

Pointless anyway. We know for sure now that electricity transmission lines stretching from solar arrays in Africa to the UK to provide electricity for when the wind doesn’t blow here will just be blown up in an act of geopolitical vandalism when one country falls out with another.

A precedent has been established.

Iain Reid
October 11, 2022 11:13 pm

Again, professionals in one field commenting on a field outside of their expertise. It seems to happen all the time and only demonstrates their ignorance in the matter.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Iain Reid
October 12, 2022 4:44 am

Again, doubt it is the “professionals” spewing this twaddle; it is the leftist Eco-Nazis appointed as the leader of their “organization” doing the talking.

October 11, 2022 11:13 pm

Loved the Photovoltaic Power Potential map.

The worst places for photovoltaic?
Why, that would be the UK, most of Europe. Who knew? Is that why we’ve been so enthusiastically building solar subsidy farms in the UK? We need much more (even in Scotland), because they are so bloody useless?

And the other standout is China. Why is China shown as having crap solar potential? And they are the top producer of wretched solar panels, also!?!

Using clean, efficient, reliable, affordable fossil fuel energy, of course.

The CCP maybe perhaps the most wicked ‘government’ on the planet. But at least they aren’t corrupt muppets like our Beloved Leaders.

October 12, 2022 5:14 am

They are also corrupt, just in a more direct way. Rather than setting up fake subsidy schemes, they just skim it straight off the top.

October 12, 2022 6:35 am

Internal human rights abuses aside (and Jan 6th protestors would know all about that) I don’t really see China as the bogey man it’s portrayed by the west.

I mean, hand everything to them on a silver platter and what do we expect them to do? While they are building their economy the west is determined to destroy its economy. We can blame it on what we want, The Great Reset, NetZero or the WEF, it doesn’t matter, the Chinese are just watching in complete bewilderment. The rest of the BRICS nations are much the same and making moves to divorce themselves from the self implosion of the west.

October 12, 2022 8:51 am

While northern Africa has a lot of sun, it also has a lot of sand. How much power do you get out of solar panel when it is covered by sand or dust?

October 11, 2022 11:38 pm

Dislike of nuclear power tells me that this is nothing about the environment – and everything about fundamentally changing the way society works. The fact that the citizens of the UK just sit back and say thank you for saving the planet – and giving us daily 3 hour blackouts also tells me the average person is just a useful idiot.

michael hart
October 12, 2022 12:46 am

A significant part of the Netherlands is at, and below, sea level.
A Dutch woman once explained the difficulties of dredging to me. She said “All you need is an asshole on a boat.”

Right-Handed Shark
October 12, 2022 1:21 am

Just heard on the news that the UK government are to introduce a cap on how much renewable energy providers can charge, as they are presently profiteering by charging at the same rate as reliable thermal generation would cost. Energy companies are already panicking saying that such measures will put off potential investors. I say it’s a huge step in the right direction, next logical step (I hope!) will be drop all green taxes on coal, gas and oil, cancel “carbon offsetting”, and pay the renewable generators only for what they provide, and penalise them whenever they fall short.

Steve G
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
October 12, 2022 1:54 am

Right. Government needs to get out of the energy business, all governments. But of course, with these socialists all over its difficult or near impossible.

Get government out of the business, stop all subsidies for all energy related products, services and projects across all energy industries. Let green energy go up against fossil fuel energy in a free unsubsidized environment and see what happens. We know what would happen, it would be the instant start of the death of grid scale green energy.

Reply to  Steve G
October 12, 2022 5:06 am

I think that the only way solar makes some sense is individual roof top installations.
I know a guy in the neighborhood who has had solar installed for 10 years. He did it mostly because he got a large subsidy. He said that it is still working well and he has seen no difference in output over that time. I asked him how long until he recoups his investment; another 8 years. (That doesn’t count the savings on his bill I suppose although I don’t know) He’s 79 and healthy. So at 87 he’ll have the array paid off.

Reply to  Mac
October 12, 2022 8:55 am

Roof top solar only makes sense because of the heavy subsidies.
First the installation costs are highly subsidized, then, by law, they get to sell the energy they produce to the power companies at a price that is many times higher then what that power is worth.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  MarkW
October 12, 2022 12:49 pm

The poor pay for the virtue signallers

October 12, 2022 1:26 am

Nuclear powered submarines are designed to cope with “sea level rise.” /sarc

Sea level rise is not a game changing event that cannot be factored into the design of the initial layout of a nuclear plant. My contention is that all nuclear plants should be designed to cope with the contingency of a flooding event that may last for an extended period of time.
For instance – watertight doors should be fitted to all exterior accesses to spaces that contain vulnerable equipment and these doors should be located several floors above ground level.
Emergency diesel generator back-up could possibly be similarly protected or physically located on high ground in the vicinity of the power plant. Essential cables could be run underground back to the nuclear plant. Provision to occasionally top up the generator fuel tanks (if found to be necessary) could be by fixed underground pipelines that should not be affected by flooding.

Obviously these safety precautions would entail additional costs and minor day to day operating inconvenience with regard to the doorways.

It should be noted that dredgers are routinely designed so that the only way to pass from pump room to hold space is to climb the stairs to deck level and then descend again into the next space. The flooding risk on dredgers is considerable because large diameter pipes are transporting spoil that contains sharp rocks that may fracture and compromise the watertight integrity of the vessel. This minor inconvenience is tolerated in the interests of safety!

Steve Richards
Reply to  KAT
October 12, 2022 10:00 am

KAT: you mean, use good engineering design!

October 12, 2022 1:44 am

I thought the WMO was a meteorological organisation?!?

Reply to  Paul Homewood
October 12, 2022 5:18 am

As with virtually all the scientific organizations, they have become political pawns in establishing one-world totalitarian governance. Only political science is practiced.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Paul Homewood
October 12, 2022 6:09 am

Yes – and its “leaders” do not speak for its membership, once again.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Paul Homewood
October 12, 2022 12:52 pm

The leadership drank the Kool-Aid and decided they like it!

Reply to  Paul Homewood
October 14, 2022 12:57 pm

The WMO experts are the first to whine when someone outside of meteorology comments about the weather and climate but feel that they have the background and experience to pontificate about energy resources. Hypocrites!

Rod Evans
October 12, 2022 1:52 am

I am reminded of the Monty Python sketch ‘Spam wonderful Spam’ when I read a piece of propaganda as pathetic as this from the WMO.
If you want to know the level of ignorance that is acceptable at the BBC when they choose their university educated weather team then enjoy this reality of how deep that ignorance is.

Reply to  Rod Evans
October 12, 2022 4:50 pm

All can say is WOW.

Thanks for the post.

October 12, 2022 1:52 am

One of the proposals for renewable energy supply to Europe and UK is for huge solar plants in Egypt , to supply southern Europe, and in North Africa to supply UK . Both via thousands of miles of electrical “pipe” line. Now in the light of recent events can anyone see a serious flaw in those suggestions?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  mikewaite
October 12, 2022 6:14 am

Well first, that will provide NO electricity at night, and little when they are covered in dust.

Then there’s Islamofascsists potentially getting control over their electricity generation and other potential ‘saboteurs’ with navies that could cut the ‘feeders.’

What could possibly go wrong?!

The stupid, it burns.

Last edited 3 months ago by AGW is Not Science
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
October 12, 2022 8:59 am

There’s also the issue of power being lost in transmission, on those rare occasions when the solar farms are actually producing power.

Reply to  mikewaite
October 12, 2022 9:51 am

The Problem with Solar Energy in Africa

Michael in Dublin
October 12, 2022 2:41 am

Why has there been no significant change in sea levels in the different coastal places I know for over 70 years?

October 12, 2022 2:42 am

In the section “Why do we need climate services?” it says ” ….. the information flow from ….. climate data ….. needs to be properlyy incorporated into the decision support systems.”

If they do that their whole argument disintigrates.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Oldseadog
October 12, 2022 6:16 am

Nah it will just be “adjusted” to say what they want it to say.

Gregory Woods
October 12, 2022 3:08 am

The War On Energy (WOE) goes on…

October 12, 2022 3:39 am

Triple down on unreliables to stabilize the grid?!?

Was there anything, anything in that WMO paper based on reality? I should probably take a double dose of Soma and read it again.

Tom Abbott
October 12, 2022 3:41 am

From the article: “Climate change puts energy security at risk”

No, it is climate change stupidity that puts energy security at risk.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 12, 2022 6:17 am

Climate POLICIES put energy security and economies at risk.

October 12, 2022 3:42 am

Wow! Nuclear power stations destroy water. Now that is news!

Gunga Din
Reply to  EppingBlogger
October 12, 2022 1:07 pm

Most of cooling water is returned to the the source. What is released as steam will fall as rain.
Those dark clouds you see in photos implying “pollution” is just water vapor shot at sunset or sunrise. It will return as dew or rain.
(I’ve heard the steam clouds described as “a ton of water”. I don’t know the timespan of one ton of steam released but one ton of water is only about 240 gallons of water.)

Tom Abbott
October 12, 2022 3:54 am

From the article: ““Time is not on our side, and our climate is changing before our eyes. We need a complete transformation of the global energy system,” says Prof. Taalas.”

The leader of the WHO is delusional. The Climate is changing before his very eyes, he says. Well, that settles it then, doesn’t it. At least in his mind.

There’s no evidence backing up your delusions, Prof. Taalas. You are assuming things not in evidence. You are making leadership decisions based on delusions of human-caused climate change.

The Ruling Class is heavily invested in the Human-caused Climate Change Delusion. It gives them purpose, and status, and power and money and control. All based on something they couldn’t prove if their lives depended on proving it.

Mother Nature is in charge of the Earth’s climate until proven otherwise, and it has NEVER been proven otherwise, yet our so-called leaders proceed as if it were. They do so for delusional and/or selfish reasons.

We are being led off the cliff by climate change connivers and their useful idiots. Maybe we will see where they are leading us to this coming winter.

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 12, 2022 9:38 am

Make that WMO.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 12, 2022 8:46 pm

They sucked the fun (HA) out of life that was WHAMO

October 12, 2022 4:11 am

Apparently nuclear plants are out because they require precious water for cooling, or are vulnerable to sea level rise.

Precious cooling water is returned to the lake or river or ocean that it came from. Vulnerability to sea level rise is eliminated by not building reactors near the sea.

Problems solved. I’ll send you the bill 🙂 Still working on the problem of putting fools in charge.

Reply to  Speed
October 12, 2022 9:05 am

Worst case, sea levels will only rise a few inches to a foot during the expected life of the power plant. No need to fear sea level rise in the first place.

Jim Gorman
October 12, 2022 6:05 am

Pure bureacraticese from people who have no skin in the game nor knowledge of what is required to accomplish the fanciful goals. Someone needs to charge them with also creating a global Gantt chart or similar project management program detailing how this will be done! It needs to be done country by country showing resource allocations, production schedules, and cost projections.

These people are not God presenting tablets with rules to Moses! Although I am sure they have the attitudes that they are prescience, omniscient, and very knowledgeable of what is needed.

October 12, 2022 7:37 am

Has anybody actually looked at the paper?
More renewable energy, solar & wind power, is needed to prevent all sorts of climate change doom and gloom. IPCC RCP8.5 models used.
PDF 52 pages.
– – – – – – – – –

The past seven years have been the warmest on record. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), human-induced climate change is causing dangerous and widespread disruption in nature and affecting the lives of billions of people around the world.

There is now consensus that without immediate and strong reductions in greenhouse gas GHG) emissions, limiting global warming to 2 °C is beyond reach. As it accounts for almost three quarters of global GHG emissions, major transitions are required in the energy sector.


Reply to  Cam_S
October 12, 2022 5:50 pm


Come back and post here after you grow up, get a job, start paying taxes, get married and have a child.

That COULD give you the ability to be able to distinguish reality from propaganda.

Reply to  Drake
October 12, 2022 10:22 pm

Please notice that I pointed out the study uses IPCC RCP8.5 models. So, I know it is not based on reality. Everyone should realize this.

October 12, 2022 8:40 am

Small nit to pick, but “which means running the cold end of the reactor as cold as possible.” is incorrect.

Real world efficiency happens when the condensate is kept at just a few degrees subcooled. You don’t want it flashing to steam and preventing you from pumping it, but the cooler it gets the more you have to heat it.

Last edited 3 months ago by sniffybigtoe
Carlo, Monte
October 12, 2022 10:08 am

Here’s an idea griff will embrace: a HV transmission line from the Kalahari to the UK.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 12, 2022 8:38 pm

But only if it is a DC transmission line.

October 12, 2022 10:49 am
Derek Nelson
October 12, 2022 11:57 am

Apparently the WMO is unaware that the embracement of renewables is the main cause of today’s grid destabilization.

Reply to  Derek Nelson
October 13, 2022 3:17 am

“Apparently the WMO is unaware that the embracement of renewables is the main cause of today’s grid destabilization.”

A bug?
Or a feature? At least in that part of the world not run by the CCP . . . .


Gunga Din
October 12, 2022 1:22 pm

A geoengineered solution to solar power’s Achilles heel:
Spend a few trillion to orbit mirrors that will reflect sunlight to the entire globes 24/7. No need for backups!
(Hmmm … clouds get in my way… Reverse the polarity on the pinwheels so they blow the clouds away! Problem solved!!)

October 12, 2022 2:40 pm

Everything that the Climateers do to improve the energy situation results in more and worsening damage to society.

John in Oz
October 12, 2022 3:26 pm

As well as the costs of upkeep, water for cleaning being mentioned by many, there is little to no consideration that both solar and wind generation have short life-times and need to be replaced within 25 years or so.

The $trillions needed now will be ever-increasing and ongoing expenses for the future generations they are attempting to save

Reply to  John in Oz
October 12, 2022 8:41 pm

That is why they call it sustainable. It will sustain their “industries” forever. Here “industries” = rent seeking.

Jon Le Sage
October 12, 2022 4:26 pm

Sea water for cooling could simply be pumped uphill a hundred feet or so to a slightly elevated reactor site, which would ensure an endless supply of water, and complete protection from sea level rise.” You mean like Diablo Canyon?.. Perfect example of the above stated.. I worked in the intake tunnels during a refueling outage in the early 1990’s.. The reactor vessel, and turbine deck are at least 100 ft. above sea level..

October 12, 2022 9:23 pm

“Embrace Renewables to Stabilise the Power Grid:
We first have to make sure the grid can handle the extra renewable electricity. The grid is not designed to handle so many different (small) sources.
Part of the Netherlands do not accept new connection to the grid (consumer, producer and prosumer), because the grid has reached its limit. During solar peak hours, the grid often does not accept the electricity from roof top solar panels any more. The grid cannot handle it.

October 13, 2022 6:40 am

Nuclear power plants could be designed to use air cooling instead of evaporative water cooling, for siting in places which experience water stress, by simply running the cold end a little hotter, and relying on air cooling like the radiator on your automobile.”

The talk about nuclear plants as if the nuclear facility eliminates the water it uses.
Nuclear power simply uses water for cooling, immediately discharging the slightly warmed water into a cooling basin.

No water eliminated or destroyed.

Giordano Milton
October 14, 2022 3:48 pm

What a bunch of garbage.

October 15, 2022 11:29 pm

You could say that, as nuclear power plant operators, they make great meteorologists. But it isn’t true. They’re terrible meteorologists; all climate change fraud, no real science.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights