Column: Looming European Energy Crisis: A Lesson in Averages that Won’t Soon be Forgotten

From BOE Report

Terry Etam

I’m not sure about you, but the last thing I want to talk about is elections. When I think of how much of my precious time has been wasted hearing about politics in the last year, I want to puke. No more from pollsters, talking heads, or statisticians.

Well, maybe I’d like to talk about statisticians, as in the old joke about the one that drowned because he forded a river that was only three feet deep, on average. See, isn’t that better than politics already? However, as funny as a drowned statistician may be, there is a serious side to the problem with relying on averages. You really can die, for starters.

Before getting back to death and/or politics again (redundancy, I know), let’s think about the use of averages. A car may be designed for the average – one doesn’t find the tallest person on earth and design an interior to accommodate them. The exceptions get to either bang their shins or dangle their feet, but that’s the way it has to be.

In other areas, it can’t work that way. Do you insulate your house for average conditions? No, of course not. Do you install an air conditioner for average conditions? Same. And on it goes. When the risk of harm goes up, we design for the extremes, not the averages. Or we should.

A whole world of trouble will come your way if your plans are built on averages but you cannot live with the extremes. Or even with substantial variations. Europe, and other progressive energy parts of the world, are finding this out the hard way. 

In the race to decarbonize the energy system, wind and solar have taken a dominant lead. Nuclear is widely despised. Hydrogen has potential, but is a long way out, as a major player. On the assumption that Hydrocarbons Must Go At Any Cost, wind and solar are the winners. Bring on the trillions. Throw up wind turbines everywhere. Blanket the countryside in solar panels.

The media loves the wattage count as fodder for headlines; big numbers dazzle people. “The United States is on pace to install record amounts of wind and solar this year, underscoring America’s capacity to build renewables at a level once considered impossible…The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects the U.S. will install 37 gigawatts of new wind and solar capacity this year, obliterating the previous record of almost 17 GW in 2016,” bleated the ironically named Scientific American website. Wow, gigawatts. No idea what those are but they sound huge. 

What is the problem with all that capacity? Well, how good is it? Let’s see…at a 33 per cent capacity factor (used by the US government as apparently reasonable), that 37 GW is just over 12 GW of power contributed to the grid, on average. The assumption seems to be then that 12 GW of dirty old hydrocarbons have been rendered obsolete, and, for the energy rube, the number is an even more righteous 37 GW, because, you know, some days it is really windy all over.

But, what happens when that load factor is…zero? Because it happens.

The current poster child for the issue is Great Britain. The UK has 24 GW of wind power installed. The media loves to talk about total renewable GW installed as proof of progress, and the blindingly rapid pace of the energy transition. 

However over the past few weeks wind dropped almost to zero, and output from that 24 GW of installed capacity fell to about 1 or 2 GW. 

Ordinarily, that would be no problem – just fire up the gas fired power plants, or import power from elsewhere.

But what happens when that isn’t available? 

More pertinently, what happens when the likelihood of near-zero output happens to coincide with the times when that power is needed most – in heat waves, or cold spells? That brings us to the current grave situation facing Europe as it heads towards winter. Gas storage is supposed to be filling rapidly at this time of year, but it’s not, for a number of reasons.

Natural gas isn’t supposed to be on anyone’s roadmap, though. The culturally hip website Wired talked (in early September) about the imperative to limit global warming: “To make the switch we need to switch to renewable energy, such as solar, wind and geothermal, right now. We’re making good progress on this; solar and wind energy are now cheaper than fossil fuels, and renewable energy was responsible for around a third of global electricity production in 2020.” The first glimmer into the damage of relying on averages starts to show.

A few weeks later, Wired shows that a few light bulbs may be going on: “There’s a tendency for the government to say the power sector is done, the sector has been decarbonised, the renewables transition is going at pace and all of that good stuff,” the article quotes the head of Energy UK.

The article’s author, after musing that seven UK energy supply firms have gone out of business so far this year (a result of having to pay more to generate/acquire power than their locked in sales values), makes one of those profound British understatements of the my-arms-are-cut-off-and-I-appear-to-be-in-a-spot-of-trouble-old-chap variety: “And we’re reliant on gas more generally than we thought.” No, foul dullard, we are more reliant than you thought. Anyone in the business of providing energy could have told you that, but the simpleton army wouldn’t listen. And now you pay.

They could easily have asked experts, like providers of hydrocarbons. But those people are today’s lepers. No one is interested in their opinion for fear of the appearance of collaboration. (Trudeau set up a “Net Zero Advisory Body” with the mandate to identify net-zero pathways; NZAB has posted the records of meetings to date (24); only once – once – has ‘oil and gas’ been mentioned in the records, and the context is dumbfounding: “Members received a foundational briefing on the oil & gas sector from federal officials.” FROM FEDERAL OFFICIALS. Meanwhile, the NZAB also heard a presentation directly from the David Suzuki Foundation. This should end well.)

Let’s drive this energy conundrum home a little better for all these people who are, as Principal Skinner put it on the Simpsons, “furrowing their brows in a vain attempt to comprehend the situation.”

The world has been sold a faulty bill of goods, based on a pathetically simplistic vision of how renewable energy works. A US government website highlights the problem with this example: “The mean turbine capacity in the U.S. Wind Turbine Database is 1.67 megawatts (MW), At a 33% capacity factor, that average turbine would generate over 402,000 kWh per month – enough for over 460 average U.S. homes.”

Thus armed, bureaucrats and morons head straight to the promised land by multiplying the number of wind turbines by 460 and shocking-and-awing themselves with the results. Holy crap, we don’t need natural gas anymore (as they tell me in exactly those words).

So they all start dismantling the natural gas system – not directly by ripping up pipelines, but indirectly by blocking new ones, by championing ‘fossil-fuel divestment campaigns’, by taking energy policy advice from Swedish teenagers – and then stand there shivering in dim-witted stupor when the wind stops blowing, and the world’s energy producers are not in any position to bring forth more natural gas.

It’s not just Britain that is squirming. A Bloomberg article (which I cannot link to as I will never willingly send Bloomberg a cent) notes the following unsettling news: “China is staring down another winter of power shortages that threaten to upend its economic recovery as a global energy supply crunch sends the price of fuels skyrocketing. The world’s second biggest economy is at risk of not having enough coal and natural gas – used to heat households and power factories – despite efforts over the past year to stockpile fuel as rivals in North Asia and Europe compete for a finite supply.”

It is profoundly important to recognize that these comments come from Bloomberg – a ‘news’ institution that is going far, far out of its way to demonize, deprecate, and decapitate the hydrocarbon industry. That hydrocarbon industry, by the way, is making major inroads in ways these demonizers deem impossible – developing carbon capture/storage, reducing methane emissions, working on hydrogen solutions, and even succeeding at First Nations inclusion such as demonstrated by groups like Project Reconciliation (trying to buy TransMountain) and the recent purchase of an oil sands pipeline by 8 local First Nations and Suncor. That same hydrocarbon industry is working overdrive to solve emissions problems and engage First Nations.

A lot of the global energy-transition-now madness stems from such a basic inability to grasp certain fundamentals, which are not at all hard to understand if one wants to, but are impossible for those who require an energy villain to add righteousness to their campaign. You can install all the wind and solar you want, but if their output can go to zero, and more importantly if their output is more likely to go to zero when most needed (extreme heat (low wind, inefficient solar panels) or extreme cold (low wind, obvious solar shortcomings)), then you don’t have an energy system at all. And don’t put up your hand to say batteries are coming someday soon. The math on that as a NG replacement is even more laughable.29dk2902lhttps://boereport.com/29dk2902l.html

Yeah, yeah, I can hear it already, how terrible, coming down so hard on a bunch of hapless bandwagon-jumping commentators. Yeah, about that. That bandwagon is cutting off the world’s fuel supply at its knees. There will be consequences. Serious ones.

Hundreds of millions of people without adequate heating fuel in the dead of winter is not particularly funny. If a cold winter strikes, all the yappiest energy-transition-now dogs will fade into the woodwork, distancing themselves from the disinformation they’ve propagated and the disaster they’ve engineered. People in position of responsibility will have no choice but to speak out loud the words they’ve dared not utter for a decade: you need hydrocarbons, today, tomorrow, and for a very long time yet. So start acting like it.

Buy it while it’s still legal! Before the book burnin’ starts…pick up “The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity” at Amazon.caIndigo.ca, or Amazon.com. Thanks for the support.

Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam here, or email Terry here.

5 32 votes
Article Rating
103 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Richards
June 10, 2023 6:16 am

Nice article!

MattXL
June 10, 2023 6:16 am

Excellent! My only nitpick is, he’s preaching to the choir. The Ignorant Arrogant still control the commanding heights and have the initiative. It seems only a manmade disaster will open eyes and change minds. The IA’s even squirmed out from under direct blame for the energy catastrophe in Texas a couple winters ago. Dead raptors; burned out apartment buildings; massive cargo ships sunk by a raging EV inferno, none of it has made a dent in the current hivemindset.

Paradigms are sticky things. It’s a little like inflation – people go on thinking how prices are going up and up until it hits some painful milestone… and then suddenly everyone realizes at virtually the same moment that it isn’t “prices going up” but “our money is worth less and less”. Sadly, that moment usually doesn’t arrive until their money is, in fact, worthless.

Scissor
Reply to  MattXL
June 10, 2023 6:25 am

I remember penny candy, five and dime stores.

sturmudgeon
Reply to  Scissor
June 10, 2023 10:09 am

Worked in one as a teenager… long time ago! You must be in your 80’s Scissor.

ATheoK
Reply to  Scissor
June 11, 2023 6:01 pm

Full size candy bars for 5 cents.
A bag of penny candy for a 25 cents.

A Saturday matinee for $1.15. A large tub of buttered popcorn for 35 cents.

Quite a few households dropped full size candy bars into our bags on Halloween.

strativarius
Reply to  MattXL
June 10, 2023 8:05 am

“”My only nitpick is…””

Hold up, Nick Stokes does the nitpicking here!

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  MattXL
June 10, 2023 9:29 am

‘My only nitpick is, he’s preaching to the choir.’

And mine is that the author states that ‘hydrogen has potential’. It doesn’t.

MattXL
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 10, 2023 11:12 am

I agree! Currently, hydrogen merely represents an exotic battery. And its use as one probably faces more daunting challenges than competing candidates.

Dennis Gerald Sandberg
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 10, 2023 3:24 pm

Frank, oops? Spoke too soon?
copy (abbreviated)

Historically, the most widely used production method to produce hydrogen at scale, is steam-methane reforming,

C-Zero’s solution is like “a coal mine in reverse” – it decarbonizes natural gas, produces clean hydrogen and puts the resulting solid carbon underground.

…a significant advantage methane pyrolysis has over electrolysis, the most common method of low carbon/zero carbon hydrogen production – it uses only about 13% as much energy per unit of hydrogen produced.

Methane pyrolysis: The conventional approach involves flowing methane across a bed of heated nickel to separate the hydrogen and carbon. But the resulting solid carbon clogs up the surface of nickel. Regenerating the nickel produces new CO2.
McFarland theorized that using a molten catalyst could solve the problem. In a liquid state, the catalyst constantly regenerates itself because there is no surface for the carbon to build up on and cause deactivation. 

ATheoK
Reply to  Dennis Gerald Sandberg
June 11, 2023 6:09 pm

And how large is the pipeline necessary to deliver hydrogen gas to your neighborhood?

Hydrogen is an extremely dangerous gas, is very inefficient storage-wise. Supplying sufficient hydrogen to an ICE engine maybe impossible,
Hydrogen weakens plastic and metal containers over a very short time.

MattXL
Reply to  ATheoK
June 12, 2023 6:01 am

I agree. The best way to deliver hydrogen remains using a single carbon atom to deliver 4 atoms of it.

travis
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 10, 2023 3:51 pm

agree they have been pushing hydrogen for 40 years with no results

strativarius
June 10, 2023 6:22 am

You overlooked a number of major political problems like…

John Selwyn Gummer, The Climate Change Committee, Parliament and an activist Civil Service…

To mention a few

Richard Page
Reply to  strativarius
June 10, 2023 7:55 am

At best the UK has become politically constipated, at worst this cabal is actively working to undermine and reverse anything they don’t agree with. It needs a clean sweep or, dare I say, the swamp needs to be drained.

strativarius
Reply to  Richard Page
June 10, 2023 8:00 am

“”politically constipated””

Since 1660 and counting…

mikelowe2013
Reply to  Richard Page
June 10, 2023 8:01 pm

Well, Boris has gone and presumably so has his Green friend. Progress!

Reply to  strativarius
June 10, 2023 8:33 am

The good old idiot King Tampon formerly known as Prince will presumably still entertain his WEFfriends at Balmoral as he holds kingly sway over the remaining serfs who didn’t succumb to famine but where will he get rancid cheese to run the Aston Martin on ? Can’t allow farty cows to crap on his green parade

ATheoK
Reply to  alastairgray29yahoocom
June 11, 2023 6:12 pm

Old news.
What has he done for England since then?

Rich Davis
June 10, 2023 6:22 am

Almost 9 months old “news”. As I warned at the time, predicting doom that would most likely not materialize just hands the loons a propaganda win. No point in explaining that it was averted by a rush back to coal.

Richard Page
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 10, 2023 8:01 am

It goes back far farther than that, far farther. Years ago, when the climate enthusiasts ‘explained’ how they had decided to change over to renewables ‘for the good of the planet’ they used game theory to show why. They explained that, if the planet warmed, they had it covered and, if temperatures stayed the same, no harm would be done. What they never bothered to consider, in their arrogance and stupidity, was what would happen if temperatures actually went down. If we switch over to renewables completely and temperatures go down, their system won’t work and, potentially, millions will die.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Page
June 10, 2023 9:49 am

I meant this particular Terry Etam article is old. Actually it is over 20 months old—Sep 21, 2021. I misread the date thinking it was from last fall.

Even though governments are doing insane things, they are still going to do everything possible to avoid a grid crash when crunch time comes.

So confidently predicting a crash is just what they need to be able to say that their schemes work despite naysayers claims.

The fact that they may end up forcing industry to shut down involuntarily, or they make up the shortfall with the dirtiest brown coal, or industries and households cut back drastically because of economic necessity—none of that will tarnish the great initiative. The propaganda press will see to that. We should always avoid specific predictions like many were bandying about last fall. General warnings that consumers will suffer is a better approach, nearly certain to prove accurate.

Chris Nisbet
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 10, 2023 11:54 am

“they (governments) are still going to do everything possible to avoid a grid crash when crunch time comes”

Does that include getting out of the way, and not interfering in the market?

Richard Page
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
June 10, 2023 12:03 pm

Almost certainly not. If other countries have been the blueprint, then they will meddle, interfere and regulate with heavy hands, each time causing more and more problems.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
June 10, 2023 12:56 pm

Certainly not!

John Hultquist
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 10, 2023 8:14 am

Yes, this is a repeat:
 “That brings us to the current grave situation facing Europe as it heads towards winter.”  

sturmudgeon
Reply to  John Hultquist
June 10, 2023 10:16 am

Well, promoting a decent book is worthwhile.

Ronald Stein
June 10, 2023 6:37 am

The problem with renewables is that they don’t work most of the time!

“The nameplate farce”:

There should be financial penalties for wind and solar power plants inability to deliver at least 90% of their permitted nameplate ratings on an ANNUAL basis, like their backup competitors of coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants that provide continuous uninterruptable electricity.

Subsidies for wind and solar power plants are based on “nameplate ratings”, thus they should be penalized when they cannot deliver what they have been permitted for.


Practically every windmill or solar panel requires a backup from coal, natural gas, or nuclear, thus understanding electricity generation’s true cost is paramount to choosing and prioritizing our future electricity generating systems.

Scissor
Reply to  Ronald Stein
June 10, 2023 7:02 am

Yes, some kind of performance based metrics would help bring in some reality.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  Scissor
June 10, 2023 5:12 pm

G’Day Scissor,

“…performance based metrics..”

Let’s see – solar and wind produce electricity.

Energy Guide tag, from a Samsung dish washer:

Estimated Yearly Energy Cost (when used with an electric water heater): $36.

Estimated Yearly Energy Cost (when used with a natural gas water heater): $25.

Based on four wash loads a week and a national average electricity cost of 14 cents per kWh and natural gas cost of $1.21 per therm. (Bold added.)

(The ‘Visit’ URL is “ftc.gov” – Federal Trade Commission. It would seem that the various federal departments don’t intercommunicate.)

observa
Reply to  Ronald Stein
June 10, 2023 8:39 am

The problem with renewables is that they don’t work most of the time!

The problem with renewables is private rooftop solar works enough of the time and saves owners money on their power bills. The fallacy of composition is not their problem until it is. Ditto for politicians even if they understand the fallacy of composition problem.

Hivemind
Reply to  observa
June 10, 2023 9:19 pm

Rooftop solar only saves the owners money because the power generated is priced above the real value. It should be the price the generators get; instead, it’s priced at the consumer rate, something like four time the actual value (even if it is consumed by the household instead of delivered into the grid).

MattXL
Reply to  Ronald Stein
June 10, 2023 9:30 am

Great idea! Rather than be subsidized, solar and wind should be forced to pay for its backup power. Backup power is essential for solar and wind – it is a necessary component of solar and wind. Therefore, the cost of the backup should be factored into the cost of solar and wind.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  MattXL
June 10, 2023 10:27 am

It already is, and then passed on to the consumer.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
June 10, 2023 11:47 am

But not identified as a cost related to wind and solar. Your government lies to you.

usurbrain
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
June 11, 2023 8:01 am

The Electric company is required by law to have 10% spinning reserve above the peak power for that day and that hour. Even if they have every watt of electricity provided to the customers provided by Wind/Solar they are still required to have 10% spinning reserve above the peak power for that day and that hour. that can only be met by having COAL, NG, or NPPs operating and all employes present to operate them and YOU still have to pay for their operation. Think of it as towing a car behind you, with the engine running, as you take a bike ride.

Iain Reid
Reply to  MattXL
June 10, 2023 11:59 pm

Matt,

I would like to amend your comment and point out that back up implies use only as required, e.g. when renewable output is low.
In the U.K. it is gas generation that is the backbone of our grid and is required whether renewable output is high or low.
It is essential to balance supply and demand, renewables can’t do that.
It is essential for inertia and reactive power, renewables don’t contribute those either.
The term back up significantly minimises the role of gas in keeping the lights on. Without it it will be dark.
Unfortunately there is the very widespread perception that renewables are the same as conventional generation and can simply replace it in the future. Renewables are not equal to nor can they replace conventional generators. It’s a pity politicians and their advisers are not aware of this simple fact.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Ronald Stein
June 10, 2023 9:37 am

‘…wind and solar power plants inability to deliver at least 90% of their permitted nameplate ratings on an ANNUAL basis…’

Labels, per se, are irrelevant. What’s important is that renewables be required to ‘bid into’ the day ahead market, and if awarded, be held financially responsible for non-performance, just like conventional sources are.

usurbrain
Reply to  Ronald Stein
June 11, 2023 7:51 am

Absolutely Correct.

The Electric Utility that provides my Electricity had a 600 Mw, 6 100 Mw Coal, several “peaking” NG generators, and a 500 Mw Nuclear generator up until 15 years ago. Then, they bought into the Green Wave and shut down the NPP and got a contract with a company to provide electricity from WIND. For the last 15 years the amount of Wind energy has increased to 30 percent of the available power. Along with an increase of the population of the service area and an increase in the number of outages lasting seconds to days!
Ignoring the seconds-long outages we now have at least one outage lasting over 15 minutes each month, an outage lasting over an hour every few months and one lasting over eight hours every year. Resetting clocks and electronic devices that run on electricity is a weekly event. Prior to the shutdown of the NPP, outages were as rare as hens’ teeth. One outage knocked out my Security system for over 24 hours.
Wind and Solar does not provide reliable electricity. PERIOD. I am living in the failure of Wind and Solar. It is not utopia it is a PITA

Rud Istvan
June 10, 2023 6:52 am

UK grid failure will happen. Not a question of if, only of when. And apparently necessary to awaken to reality the woke net zero crowd.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 10, 2023 7:36 am

Oh I guess you mean the coming crisis of natural gas unreliability where gas will not be able to output 130% of normal grid demand, while wind and solar performed, ahem, as expected, cough nearly zero cough, therefore demonstrating the need to eliminate natural gas and the imperative for much more investment in bird shredders and slaver panels.

Is that what you meant?

strativarius
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 10, 2023 7:56 am

It’s difficult to hold up a narrative of gas failing when we have lots of it that they want to leave in the seabed/ground

Rich Davis
Reply to  strativarius
June 10, 2023 9:12 am

And yet, that’s basically what happened in Texas. Wind and solar basically stopped, demand skyrocketed, and the loons still talk about how natural gas “failed” while wind and solar performed “as expected”.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 10, 2023 11:22 am

They did perform as expected on a windless winter night.
They produced virtually nothing. No lies told.

It’s like having three cars, numbers one and two, your preferred choices, are out of action. You try and get number 3 going but no maintenance through lack of funds, it’s expensive keeping three cars on the road, means that doing 70 mph uphill it overheats due to lack of coolant, which you hadn’t checked for months.

Rich Davis
Reply to  strativarius
June 10, 2023 9:23 am

Like the old joke about Pravda reporting on a car race between Khrushchev and Eisenhower. “The American President came in a miserable second-to-last, while our great leader turned in a respectable second place finish.”

Hivemind
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 10, 2023 9:22 pm

That was a golf game between the two leaders.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Hivemind
June 11, 2023 11:11 am

I had no idea it was based on a true story. Do you have more details on that?

Dennis Gerald Sandberg
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 10, 2023 3:41 pm

Yes, pretty much a quote from the conclusion reached in response to the Texas “failure of natural gas” when the required by political mandate electric transmission line compressors failed during “load shedding”. (Incredible that the same natural gas in the pipeline wasn’t used to fuel the compressors like everywhere else on the planet).

Ron Long
June 10, 2023 6:55 am

Good report showcasing the Greenie energy gymnastics. The problem is even bigger because the same opportunists are advancing every Loonie agenda they can, and there is not any evidence that they will not succeed. Succeed at what? Degrading cultures to the point that survival depends on meager rations from the Big Brother Government? Did anyone ever convince a stupid person to vote for an actual great future, one involving working hard to get ahead? Don’t wait for it.

barryjo
Reply to  Ron Long
June 10, 2023 7:29 am

Until the elitist purveyors if this debacle are individually affected by their decisions, nothing will change.

John XB
June 10, 2023 7:19 am

GW is a unit of energy; GWh is the unit of consumption. These two get conflated to deceive.

A 35GW wind farm can supply a town the size of X. But for how long?

I think we need a new unit the GWyear… GWy. So all wind farms should be rated 0.3GWy. Or better, will only supply town X with power for, in aggregate, about 4 months.

And – with every additional wind power GW an additional gas-fired GW is required as back-up.

Reply to  John XB
June 10, 2023 8:21 am

Sorry john GW is unit of Power
GWhr Is a unit of Energy

Josh Scandlen
Reply to  alastairgray29yahoocom
June 10, 2023 9:33 am

still, I like the idea of a GWH being a unit of consumption. That is easier to understand than a unit of energy.

Editor
Reply to  John XB
June 10, 2023 9:22 pm

Our solar farm will supply our town with electricity until this evening.

Peta of Newark
June 10, 2023 7:36 am

Here we are, more lies damn lies and strangely, no statistics. Wonder why.
And how one-off events can be fatal – as is happening soon to The Loch Ness Monster

The story: They’re gonna kill Nessie
(my flagrant over-exaggeration but hey ho, The Heatwave has (nearly = 29.7C) started here: The Climate made me do it)

How: Climate Change. how else.

Read this, but read between the lines
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-65855228

Read about how they’ve never seen the water so low, the streams, creeks and burns have dried up, the pet Llamas have escaped etc

But also the few words about ‘Pumped and other Hydro – about The Canal.

Okaaaay, go visit a weather-station near Loch Ness and count up how much rain has fallen during winter for the last 3 years..
I got:

  • Winter20/21: 845mm
  • Winter 21/22: 778mm
  • Winter 22/23: 621mm

So its been a bit dry, but only really for the last month (May 23) which got 19mm instead of about 65mm average
I get this winter’s rain being 75% of the average for the previous 2 winters.

Is that A Disaster – how can you hang that on Climate Change?

Well yes you can, because the lying scumbags have drained all Nessie’s water through their hydro schemes and to keep the canal full.

  • Sod Nessie.
  • Sod the salmon.
  • Up the agenda though

There’ isn’t a fate too awful for these people

Rich Davis
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 10, 2023 7:44 am

Well Peta, it was inevitable, what with Nessie eating all that sugar.

Doesn’t soil erosion play some role here 🥸

strativarius
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 10, 2023 7:53 am

Nessie will never die

Believe me

Reply to  strativarius
June 10, 2023 8:23 am

Nessie has been abducted by aliens

Rich Davis
Reply to  alastairgray29yahoocom
June 10, 2023 9:15 am

Obviously. When was the last sighting? It seems like decades.

Tim Spence
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 10, 2023 9:32 am

And now everyone has a camera on hand

CampsieFellow
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 10, 2023 10:22 am

Don’t worry. As I drove along the M8 between Edinburgh and Glasgow this afternoon, all the gantries declared, “Heavy Rain Expected”.

Tim Spence
June 10, 2023 7:42 am

If governments insist of fixing non existent problems first … then eventually nothing will work at all, which is the point we are fast approaching.

strativarius
Reply to  Tim Spence
June 10, 2023 8:03 am

The much vaunted U.K. government [mobile phone] warning system didn’t work

A harbinger?

186no
Reply to  strativarius
June 10, 2023 11:07 am

It would have been a miracle if it worked on my iPhone….

Dave Andrews
Reply to  strativarius
June 11, 2023 6:44 am

Yeah. My wife got her message the day after it had been sent.

Steve Case
June 10, 2023 8:07 am

The UK has 24 GW of wind power installed. The media loves to

talk about total renewable GW installed as proof of progress…

______________________________________________________________

When George Orwell wrote “Animal Farm” he needed a boondoggle
that oppressive governments promote in order to create an appearance
of progress. He chose the windmill.
_______________________________________

The world has been sold a faulty bill of goods…

_____________________________________

China, Russia and India aren’t on board.
_____________________________________

The world has been sold a faulty bill of goods, based on a pathetically

simplistic vision of how renewable energy works.

_____________________________________

“Careless and imprecise [data management] is no accident.
It is a conscious attempt to confuse and deceive.”
                                                                                     George Orwell

Kevin Kilty
June 10, 2023 8:15 am

The value of any power source is what it will likely produce when demand is greatest. Its a conditional probability with condistions that are themselves conditional probabilities. Consider this:

The nameplate capacity is 1.67MW for the average turbine.The annual average capacity is around a third of that (0.55MW)The seasonal average in summer is less again to as low as 1/6 in the eastern part of the Great Plains, so 0.27MW.But the expected load carrying capacity (ELCC) of wind without dedicated backup (charged batteries or pumped hydro or a combustion plant) Idaho Power Co. figures as being only 11% of nameplate so now down to 0.17MW.Because of a number of public comments I have made recently in regard to a rate hearing, I thought it interesting to look at Jan. 2023 (extreme heating season) and mid Jul to mid Aug 2022 (Extreme Irrigation and A/C) here in the Northwest (WY,ID,MT,UT,NV,OR,WA, and a bit of CO) I used data from the EIA to look at the top 25% hours of demand to find that power produced by wind with 95% probability amounted to only 7% of nameplate or 0.10MW…
There is obviously an asymptote we are approaching with various definitions of utility. One wonders if it is actually above zero.

rogercaiazza
June 10, 2023 8:49 am

Super article that makes points that anyone can understand if they want to.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
June 10, 2023 9:09 am

It’s the same with most everything today …. Misinformation is deliberate.

Josh Scandlen
June 10, 2023 9:28 am

Link to the Boe Report about batteries isn’t’ working. Can you repost?

emhmailmaccom
June 10, 2023 9:31 am
Ben Vorlich
Reply to  emhmailmaccom
June 10, 2023 11:49 am

Those charts don’t reflect the data on Gridwatch. Between the beginning of June and end of September 2022 total wind rarely got above 10GW output

LJ
June 10, 2023 11:31 am

“That brings us to the current grave situation facing Europe as it heads towards winter.”

Well, I’m in Europe and it’s currently heading towards summer. I guess the article is some 6+ months late… Other than that, we (and our stupid politicians) have been lucky the winter was mild…

Editor
Reply to  LJ
June 10, 2023 9:27 pm

Europe is 7-10 years behind. Average 8.5 years. So yes they are heading towards winter.

Dave Fair
June 10, 2023 11:39 am

Estimates of the Capacity Factor of Wind Farms in the United States T.C. Larsen and P. Rez* Department of Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ 85287-1504 Received August 30, 2017; Accepted October 27, 2017.

The paper indicates that capacity factors up to 40% could be reached in the Panhandle of Texas and Oklahoma. They estimated that locations in the rest of the U.S. would have capacity factors of about 15% on average.

If wind generation plus single cycle gas turbine backup were to replace combined cycle gas generation, they estimate that wind with a 33% capacity factor would be needed to result in a net reduction of total CO2 emissions. And this does not include the CO2 penalty of wind facilities’ related to mineral extraction and processing, manufacturing and installation.

June 10, 2023 11:59 am

They could easily have asked experts, like providers of hydrocarbons. But those people are today’s lepers. No one is interested in their opinion for fear of the appearance of collaboration.

no one is interested in their opinion because

  1. they deny basic physics
  2. they are self interested shills
  3. they have a cant do attitude
  4. they lack imagination
  5. they specialize in “my way or the highway” thinking
  6. they lied about c02 for decades
  7. they think the future will be like the past
  8. they focus on the reaer view mirror
bnice2000
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 10, 2023 3:14 pm

The “climate scientists” know nothing of physicsThey are all self interested shills… especially you.”Can’t do” is a feature.All they have is imagination and Grimm Bros fairy tales.Yes, Net Zero is the only way of destroying everything.Yes, they have lied about CO2 from the very start.They are destroying the future… intentionallyLook in the mirror, Mosh… these are the scumbag liars you support.

Mr.
Reply to  bnice2000
June 10, 2023 3:51 pm

It’s a fundamental plank of the left / socialist / communist / fascist playbook that they constantly accuse others of what they themselves continuously indulge in.

bnice2000
Reply to  bnice2000
June 10, 2023 4:18 pm

That’s odd, I posted it with numbers to coincide with Mosh’s numbers. !

old cocky
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 10, 2023 5:03 pm

You forgot the </sarc> tag.

MarkW
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 12, 2023 8:56 am

8 points, and 8 lies. Once again the Mosh reaches perfection.

1) They do not deny basic physics, they deny that models are an accurate reflection of basic physics. And they are right.
2) Everybody is self interested. Even your precious government employees, who will be out of jobs once the scam ends.
3) When something is impossible, pointing that out is not a sin. Renewables cannot power a modern economy, and pointing that out is merely recognizing basic physics.
4) It’s not their job to figure out a way to make your nonsense work.
5) No, it’s you and your mob who demand my way or the highway.
6) The Exxon lied scam was exposed decades ago, it’s only self interested shills who still push it.
7) Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, assuming the future will be a continuation of the past is the smart way to bet. And no, models are not evidence.
8) Do you have any evidence for this claim, or did you just not want your list to have an odd number of elements?

Chris Nisbet
June 10, 2023 12:01 pm

Here in NZ (and I’m sure it’s the same in other countries), our ‘news’ outlets always tell us how many houses some new wind facility ‘can’ power.
They never tell us how many houses they can power when the wind stops.
‘Houses powered per turbine on a windy day’ has to be one of the most useless metrics for describing wind power.

Nick Stokes
June 10, 2023 12:47 pm

However over the past few weeks wind dropped almost to zero, and output from that 24 GW of installed capacity fell to about 1 or 2 GW. “
No substantiation, and it isn’t true. Here is the dashboard for the last month. Wind has been steady, and solar has contributed too.

comment image

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 10, 2023 3:55 pm

Rich Davis posted earlier –

this particular Terry Etam article is old. Actually it is over 20 months old—Sep 21, 2021. I misread the date thinking it was from last fall.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Mr.
June 10, 2023 4:10 pm

Yes, and I see it did appear at the time on WUWT. But apparently the lesson on averages was forgotten, so we need to read it again. And another of those looming crises that WUWT talks about that never seem to happen.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 10, 2023 6:00 pm

Er, the only “looming crises” that get (frequently) talked about and ridilculed here are the ubiquitous loony-left pearl-clutching claims of a “climate crisis”.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Mr.
June 10, 2023 6:34 pm

Well, this one is frequently talked about here. This post is a rerun, even when it is writing about
That brings us to the current grave situation facing Europe as it heads towards winter.”
when that winter has gone by with no ill effects.

Mr.
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 10, 2023 8:56 pm

“No ill effects”?

Ask the poor people in Germany what they think about the exhorbitant cost of “clean” household electricity, Nick.

Wind & solar supplemental electricity is driving up consumer costs to unaffordable levels all around the world.

What’s the end game here Nick?
“DEMAND MANAGEMENT”?

Mr.
Reply to  Mr.
June 10, 2023 9:22 pm

Also, I just read that AGL and Origin have announced price increases of 20 – 30% to Aussie household electricity consumers.

Take that, you wind & solar laggards!

“The punishment will continue until enthusiasm improves”.

MarkW
Reply to  Mr.
June 12, 2023 8:58 am

Nick reminds me of Hillary, when she declared that she couldn’t be held responsible for underfunded businesses that couldn’t afford the new taxes her husband and congress were cooking up.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 11, 2023 11:16 am

Thank you Nitpick Nick for proving my point about not confidently predicting grid failures because it hands the lunatic Left a talking point when it doesn’t happen quite yet.

bnice2000
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 10, 2023 4:23 pm

That shows, what, 12 hour smoothed data ?

Look at Solar, .. are you seriously pretending it didn’t drop to ZERO for most of the night !

You are presenting MAL-INFORMATION, yet again, Nick.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  bnice2000
June 10, 2023 4:26 pm

I repeat the claim
“However over the past few weeks wind dropped almost to zero, and output from that 24 GW of installed capacity fell to about 1 or 2 GW. “
That clearly isn’t true.

observa
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 10, 2023 7:04 pm

Here is the truth for monthly wind varying from 63.7% to 3.7% of installed nameplate capacity for what I’d suggest is likely the largest grid collection/distribution area in the world-
Wind Energy in Australia | May 2023 | Aneroid

No help from solar at night but the fantasy survives whilst ever they are permitted to dump and bludge off legacy coal and gas insurers in this case. The exponential hockey stick of the rising cost of reliable electricity to users graphed against rising renewables grid penetration should be obvious to all by now. You are into hockey stick graphs aren’t you Nick?

Mark BLR
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 12, 2023 3:24 am

No substantiation, and it isn’t true.

From my archives, in less than 30 minutes “processing” time …

Using the BM Reports (for the “Metered” wind fraction, as shown by Gridwatch etc.) plus ESO (for an estimate of the “Embedded” wind fraction, plus a copy of Sheffield University’s “Embedded Solar” estimate) data.

and output from that 24 GW of installed capacity fell to about 1 or 2 GW

Look carefully at the attached graph.

Type the words “it isn’t true” into your computer again … with a straight face

GB-Electricity_Wind-Solar_Sept2021.png
Mark BLR
Reply to  Mark BLR
June 13, 2023 6:41 am

[ Sigh … ]

Really ? “Drive-by down-voting” ?

Whoever you (singular ?) are, you took the time to log in, click the (3) “minus” buttons … and then log straight back out again ???

You didn’t have the courtesy to leave even the briefest of “notes” explaining exactly what you found so objectionable about my posts ?

NB : “Too snarky” or “Too cynical” would have been valid objections …

– – – – –

OK, let’s see whether (or not) you are capable of a “data-centric” approach.

BM Reports (/ Elexon) data is available from the following URL :
https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=generation/fueltype/current

Just input “Start Date = 1/9/2021” and “End Date = 30/9/2021”, hit the “VIEW” button (to update the table) then hit the “CSV” button to download all generation data for the selected time period.

ESO “Embedded” (+ interconnector) data is available from the following URL :
https://data.nationalgrideso.com/demand/historic-demand-data

Just hit the “Download” icon on the “Historic Demand Data 2021” row.

Gridwatch data can be downloaded from the following URL :
https://gridwatch.org.uk/download.php

Press the “None” button on the far-left of the screen, then the “Wind” button (just one “red LED” should now be “lit up” …), setup the “Start” and “End” times (to 00:00 on 1/9/2021 and 00:00 on 1/10/2021 respectively) and hit the “Download” button.

The end result — for my choice of “Excel-clone spreadsheet + colour scheme” at least — is attached below.

– – – – –

However over the past few weeks [ prior to 21/9/2021 ] … output from that 24 GW of installed [ “Wind” ] capacity fell to about 1 or 2 GW.

Any further downvotes without an explanation will automatically be interpreted as an explicit admission that :

“Mark BLR” is correct in this specific instance, and Nick Stokes is wrong.

GB-Electricity_Wind-only_Sept2021.png
Mark BLR
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 12, 2023 3:26 am

Here is the dashboard for the last month. Wind has been steady, and solar has contributed too.

An alternative view of the contributions from “Wind” and “Solar” for the month of May 2023.

GB-Electricity_Wind-Solar_0105-030623.png
Mark BLR
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 12, 2023 3:31 am

Bonus graphic.

The largest absolute “Min-Max delta in the ‘Wind’ contribution over a 48 hour time period”, of minus 20 GW, I am aware of for the GB electricity grid.

GB-Electricity_Wind-Solar_26-291122.png
Peter Fraser
June 10, 2023 2:01 pm

Facts are hard, statistics are pliable.
Mark Twain.

Bob
June 10, 2023 3:06 pm

Very nice Terry, right on the mark.

ferdberple
June 10, 2023 3:24 pm

All that separates politicians and the high priests of bureaucracy from the Guillotine are full bellies around a warm fire.

JeffC
June 11, 2023 3:14 am

This article in the Daily Telegraph us well worth a read. I think all of our politicians need stringing up.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/11/green-energy-disaster-uk-awful-warning-america/

ATheoK
June 11, 2023 6:25 pm

““The mean turbine capacity in the U.S. Wind Turbine Database is 1.67 megawatts (MW), At a 33% capacity factor, that average turbine would generate over 402,000 kWh per month – enough for over 460 average U.S. homes.”

mean turbine capacity“?
that average turbine would generate“?
Once again, a complete failure of declaring an average where it does not suffice and is in fact improper.

At a 33% capacity factor”?
Here the word “capacity” is used in place of the word maximum. The actual range of capacity is from 0% to a maximum 33%.

Thus armed, bureaucrats and morons head straight to the promised land by multiplying the number of wind turbines by 460 and shocking-and-awing themselves with the results. Holy crap, we don’t need natural gas anymore (as they tell me in exactly those words).

One can always spot the bureaucrats and morons who majored in literature, governance, sociology, psychiatry, psychology, urban development, inclusiveness, etc. They run from or ignore anything needing a math or science background.

climategrog
June 12, 2023 3:27 am

“Hydrogen has potential”.

Hydrogen has ZERO “potential” because it is NOT an energy source. It is a very inefficient means of storing energy.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights