By David Wojick
The U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) are holding a “Climate Crossroads Summit” on July 11-12. Virtual attendance is open to all.
See https://mailchi.mp/nas/youre-invited-climate-crossroads-summit-pvwfmxkgln?e=1fb63d8b69
These “Academies” are supposed to give objective advice to Congress, but they might as well be the Green Party of Germany. Here is your chance to hear ridiculous alarmism at the highest national level.
The website say “There will be numerous discussions and other opportunities for virtual participants to engage throughout the program.” I will be surprised if skeptics are allowed to speak, but we can try.
The supposed “crossroads” is the usual nonsense refrain that we have to (finally) act fast before it is too late. Here is how NASEM puts it: “The global community is in a crucial window for addressing the many threats climate change poses to the planet and society. To meet these challenges, the nation and the world must harness the full complement of knowledge and skills across science, engineering, and medicine.”
So “crucial window — many threats — nation and world must”. In this case we must harness knowledge, which is an obscure but entertaining metaphor.
It might be hard to sit through two long days of this green junk but I encourage people to at least look in a bit. This is what Congress is getting from the once great National Academies that we are paying big bucks for. Confusion in a green wrapper.
Also under the big green tent, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) has dedicated the latest issue of its quarterly magazine “The Bridge” to climate alarmism.
The official title is “Engineering the Energy Transition” which is explained thusly: “This issue explores the energy transition needed to address the mounting threats of climate change. The articles are an excellent resource to help inform meaningful decisions and steps for energy-related contributions to reduce carbon emissions.”
See https://www.nae.edu/294933/Summer-Bridge-on-Engineering-the-Energy-Transition
So “mounting threats — energy transition — reduce carbon emissions”. More pure green junk.
They buy right into net zero. The NAE President’s piece is titled: “President’s Introduction The Goal of a Net Zero Carbon Energy System: The Importance of How”.
Given that a net zero energy system is impossible it is no surprise that there are no real how’s here. Just the usual arm waving and exhortations to somehow come up with something. But I suppose somehow is a how of sorts. Okay not really. Every net zero “plan I have seen is not a plan, just a wishlist. Wishes are not plans.
If they ever actually did the engineering it would quickly become obvious that net zero is wildly impossible. For example I calculated roughly what it would take, using batteries as backup, to simply replace today’s US fossil fueled power generation with wind and solar. At today’s prices it comes to around $150 trillion for the batteries, which is nearly seven times annual GDP. See my study and others at https://www.cfact.org/netzerorealitycoalition/.
The net zero energy transition Bridge issue has an article on storage as well, of course. Here is a summary excerpt, where LDES stands for Long Duration Energy Storage which does not exist:
“Progress in the integration of renewable energy requires both significant increases in the amount of energy storage on the grid and the development of new types of energy storage that can ensure reliability over days and seasons. While there is cause for optimism on this front, continued investment in research, development, and deployment of LDES technologies is crucial to enable electric grid decarbonization.”
This is a wish, not a plan. And so it is with net zero everywhere we look. There is no plan.
You can watch the summit of net zero nonsense or read about the somehows. In either case the US National Academies have clearly lost sight of their mission, blinded by the green light of alarmism.
Congress should ignore NASEM.
Author
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html
For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/
Available for confidential research and consulting.
“Harnessing Science” – using a means of restraint or control to make science do what you want. I know it’s not the meaning they would have chosen but I consider it quite apt.
“the world must harness the full complement of knowledge and skills”
A harness is an instrument used in BDSM kink sex. Yes, very apt.
I also wonder why it is being held on the same dates as Amazon Prime day. Coincidence?
New Zealand is going to show us the way –
“New Zealand might adopt new “UN” science curriculum without physics and chemistry”
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/07/new-zealand-might-adopt-new-un-science-curriculum-without-physics-and-chemistry/#comment-2684169
In comments at that Jo Nova item
“There is an organisation in NZ called Family first. They are I assume a conservative minded group. I have nothing to do with them but they recently published an analysis of the RSE guidelines, the link for which, is above.
The following comes from their analysis linked below.
In Science, your child will “consider how biological sex has been constructed and measured over time” and “consider variations in puberty, including the role of hormone blockers.”
In Technology, your child will “identify how gender expectations are embedded in technology, for example, in the design and style of power tools and other tools…” and “explore symbols linked to the gay and transgender rights movements.”
In the Arts, your child will “consider plays with roles that do not conform to gender stereotypes.”
In the Social Sciences, your child will be encouraged to explore the “…development and persistence of gender stereotypes (for example, by researching the #MeToo movement).”
https://familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ANALYSIS-Relationship-Sexuality-Education-Guidelines-2021.pdf
Pure Insanity!
These radical leftists not only want to destroy our society, they also want to destroy the family unit by trying to separate the children from their parents. The Radical Leftist State wants control of your kids. They are teaching gender confusion and using it as their vehicle to destroy the family unit.
Worry not, even more dystopian than the NAS, is the UK green blob
https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/07/11/uk-explores-locational-pricing-to-green-grid-and-lower-energy-bills/
you will love renewables and surround your communities with them, or, you’ll pay more for your electricity
The nudge unit has thrown away the carrot and gone full stick
Don’t worry at the crossroad – these two and their cohorts will look after your money
https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/07/11/king-charles-and-biden-lead-trillion-dollar-climate-mobilisation/
You know you are at a crossroad when biological men are winning Miss Universe competitions.
yikes- such a thought almost makes me throw up my breakfast!
Steady your stomach then – it was the ‘Miss Netherlands’ competition; they go on to represent the Netherlands in the ‘Miss Universe’ competition. This follows on from the trans winners of Miss Nevada and Miss Greater Derry competitions in the USA – Miss Nevada will go on to the Miss USA competition but Miss Greater Derry missed out on becoming Miss New Hampshire. Women are being sidelined and pushed out of sports, safe spaces and competitions by cross-dressers and fetishists who have hijacked the trans movement. This will end badly.
Wow, I had no idea. I’m surprised this sort of thing hasn’t yet happened here in Woke-achusetts. No doubt it will because this state likes to be at the cutting edge of wokeness and there is virtually zero resistance.
Marcia McNutt is the current president of NAS. In 2013 she was editor in chief of Science, where and when Marcott published his proven academic misconduct hockey stick paper. I emailed her the prepublication version of ‘A High Stick Foul’ in ebook Blowing Smoke conclusively proving his academic misconduct (there is even a clear ‘smoking gun’). Her assistant emailed acknowledging receipt. Then NOTHING.
Don’t think I will waste time with this, sponsored by such provably dishonest people as her.
At Science she published an infamous editorial saying the science is settled, so skeptics should shut up. NAE is just as bad. Their big hype is Geo-Engineering, blocking the sun and such. Also rapid decarbonization. I tuned in today and a goof from ASCE was complaint not enough money for all the pointless projects.
My old department of civil engineering at CMU is now Civil and Environmental Engineering.
It’s mindboggling to think that people in such high positions in our science community cannot see that the science is NOT settled when it comes to CO2 and the Earth’s climate.
The holes in human-caused climate science are obvious to anyone who cares to look with an unbiased eye. And it doesn’t take being a scientist to understand it. But here we have real scientists who do not see it (or maybe it benefits them not to see it).
Anyway, these leaders of the High Science couldn’t prove humans are causing the climate to change if their lives depended on doing so.
Mass Delusion does seem to affect humans from all walks of life, dumb or smart.
It’s a psychological condition, not science.
Utterly inconceivable and the amount of material needed to be mined moved and processed to manufacture the utility-scale batteries would be astronomical and ongoing (using picks and shovels?); Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute has calculated that 250 tons of material has to be mined moved and processed to make merely one EV battery (Tesla battery = ~0.5 US ton).
Yes, and then after a few years you have to mine a similar amount of material to replace the worn-out batteries.
David, I couldn’t even make it through the whole NAS meeting today without napping from terminal boredom. It’s like the same thing that happens after Thanksgiving dinner, but in this case is was like a food coma brought on by their excessive word salad of buzzwords.
In my four pages of notes, they said they are privately funded yet give advice to Congress.
It seems very large financial concerns are backing them, as Congress doesn’t fund them.
Their problem is they are pitching ‘climate solutions’ that will never work thanks to nature.
Someone specifically mentioned they want to prevent a yellow vest movement in the USA.
They are very proud of their reports, the 1979 Charney report, extreme weather attribution to climate change, negative emissions technologies, and accelerating carbon sequestration.
It should go without saying the NASEM believe in the emissions-driven climate models.
They are working overtime as to how to appease the public over net zero, shutting down coal and gas power plants, and sequestration- like that would solve their imaginary crisis.
I am profoundly sorry it took me until 2023 to find out something that high-school students could have figured out decades ago, that the amount of MME is vastly overstated. Every ppm of man-made emissions was swamped by 86 ppm from other CO2 sources in 2021:
This was calculated by converting atm CO2 from ppm into gigatons, anyone could do it.
Nature supplies so much of the atmospheric CO2 that sequestration efforts will always fail to change the overall level, making decarbonization and the energy transition efforts both unnecessary and expensive wastes of time that are going to be destroying energy capacity.
Their call to climate action must be exposed and confronted in a manner they can respect, using their buzzwords and tactics they so gleefully talked about using on the public today.
“This was calculated by converting atm CO2 from ppm into gigatons, anyone could do it.”
So simple, anyone could get it wrong. That looks like just one year of emissions. In fact, our cumulative emissions are about double the increase in the air (half went into the sea).
Nick, yes, it’s so simple even you got it wrong. You didn’t plot the cumulative Law Dome and Mauna Loa CO2 with the cumulative MME, so your plot is disingenuous.
Your innumerate fantasy thinking is far too typical.
My graph is exactly this graph but with the same units for both scales:
Why can’t you and your CO2 buddies do high school chemistry? You can admit you were wrong anytime now.
“You didn’t plot the cumulative Law Dome”
Neither did you, and it would make no sense to do so. Those are just Mt CO2 in the air at a point in time. Emissions are Mt/year entering the air. You have plotted Mauna Loa Mt vs emissions Mt/year!
“You didn’t plot the cumulative Law Dome”
Law Dome/Mauna Loa are already the cumulative atmospheric CO2.
“You have plotted Mauna Loa Mt vs emissions Mt/year!” Exactly!!! -[Gt]
…As they should be plotted; duh, that was my point! Why did the govt dishonestly make one series in ppm and the other in gigatons? and why didn’t climate.gov also plot the cumulative emissions like you suggested I should have?
The annual Mauna Loa in ppm vs the annual emissions in gigatons are both represented by mine and the climate.gov images, technically they are the exact same information, but the units for measured ppm were converted into gigatons like the man-made emissions.
My plot is exactly their plot; but with same unit scales for both series.
But Nick, you should have picked all that up already on your own.
“you should have picked all that up already on your own.”
He is not paid or inclined to look at reality.
With some 98% of free CO2 being in the oceans and a turn-over in only a few years, there is no way much human CO2 can accumulate.
Nick,
The other problem you have is not recognizing the effect of other CO2 sources and their cumulative effect, nor the sheer size of either CO2 source or sink flows compared to the annual MME.
So until about 1950 atmospheric Co2 was increasing faster than emissions. That had to be natural emissions. Did they stop when our emissions got close to the rise rate? I think the right analysis is shown by Berry and most of the increase is really natural.
No, it is due to land clearance. Here (from here) is a plot including that. Note that before about 1750 absolutely nothing is happening.
“1750 absolutely nothing is happening.”
And then the world’s prosperity started to move upwards, bringing improved life expectancy, massive industrial and society benefits.
And idiots of the climate agenda want to destroy all that.
Why do you hate CO2, human improvement, and society in general, Nick ?
Why do you want to destroy the world’s future !
So CO2 didn’t have any climatic effect prior 1850. Thanks for that. 😉
If it didn’t change, then it isn’t having an effect.
The last part is correct. (Accidents happen)
CO2 Isn’t having any effect..
Nick splicing ice core CO2 measures to actual measured CO2 Mauna Loa is the definition of fraud.
It’s what Bob Weber did.
Ice core measures CO2 directly too.
People, Nick has the right of it here; give him his due.
Cumulative human-related emissions, converted to ppm, is the correct measurement to use in analyzing measured concentrations and their increase due to humanity, less ocean or other uptakes.
‘…ppm, is the correct measurement…”
ppm or gigatons, carbon or carbon dioxide, it doesn’t matter what you use as they are the same information and yield the same relative results as long as your units consistently match throughout your analysis.
Nick couldn’t see that the exact same CO2 info is being displayed two ways.
Here’s where you’re both wrong, the annual changes in MME are not driving the annual changes in Mauna Loa, as the MME level in ppm is far too small compared to the annual rising, sinking, and net CO2 amounts in ppm:
Below I corrected the above plot so it should be clearer now. Thanx.
Nick, why not show cumulative natural emissions as well. The atmospheric concentration is a stock, natural flows are 760 billion tons annually and human flows are 37, for a total of 800. So the flows of CO2 into the atmosphere are about equal to the current concentration. Natural sources surely experience variation as do natural uses.
“Nick, why not show cumulative natural emissions as well”
“Natural emissions” do not accumulate. They are part of cyclic processes – eg respiration and decay return to the air carbon that was recently taken from it by photosynthesis. They have no other source but the air.
The simplest evidence for that is the history. CO2 in the air was dead level for centuries, despite “natural emissions”.
I’m so confused by that graph – it’s as clear as mud.
OK – one ppm of CO₂ is about 7.7Gigaton so the figure on the left (2160) stacks up with about 280ppm
But the 37.1Gt figure is annual human ’emissions’.
If you assume we went from emitting zero Gt/yr a century ago to (say) 40Gt/yr now, that means an average of 20Gt/yr and thus 2,000Gt in total for the century.
Considering that the graph started atthat level, the total CO₂ load would now ne close to 4,000 Gigatonnes
Yes certainly there is a lot to the graph but the real nub of the matter is NOT = emissions.
As anyone can see in the saw-tooth annual pattern in the Keeling Curve, what’s happened is we’ve reduced the rate and annual amount that is naturally and normally absorbed.
And its beyond simplicity how = we’ve converted vast areas of fertile land to growing annual plants (wheat, rice, corn etc) = even before we’ve chopped vast areas of mature (highly absorbing) forest
The annual grasses only absorb in a (voracious hungry surge) for about 2 months per year whereas the perennials they replaced were actively growing and absorbing for 12 months of the year.
On top of that, everything the annuals absorb is converted straight back to CO₂ inside one year, every year.
The perennials were burying it in the soil/ground – retaining an immense amount of water also.
Observed sealevel rise tells how the water retention has stopped and gone into reverse.
Conclusion: Human emissions are not causing the observed rise, it is human-caused reduced absorption that’s causing the observed rise
I thought it was sugar.
Peta
Note also that we are still waiting for any evidence that the trivial increase in CO2, “natural” or “anthropogenic”, is anything but beneficial.
Note also that the trivial increase in “global temperature”, alleged (with scant evidence) to be caused by that CO2 increase, is also entirely beneficial.
All the rest is just a third of a Century of corrup, festering hogwash.
And I think David got one thing wrong in his piece. Congress shouldn’t ignore all this baloney. They should be investigating who is financing and promoting it and holding them to account. The so-called “Engineers and Scientists” who have prostituted themselves with this nonsense should be kicked away from the teat of Public money for ever.
Of course, this is the exact opposite of what Congress will actually do.
“They should be investigating who is financing and promoting it and holding them to account.”
I’m all for that.
And Congress should investigate the bastardization of the IPCC’s AR5 science, where the IPCC said they could not show a connection between the Earth’s climate and human-derived CO2, but when the Summary for politiicans of this report was written, somebody changed the wording of AR5 to read that there WAS a connection between human-derived CO2 and climate change. The exact opposite of what the science in AR5 said. Someone took it upon themselves to completely change the findings of AR5.
Someone deliberately lied about the climate science, and Congress should find out who it was because this lie has caused us to waste TRILLIONS of dollars trying to reduce CO2.
I am not clear on your point. The 37.1Gt added by human activity works out to be around 4.8ppm of the atmosphere by volume. The increase in CO2 was about 2ppm by volume. So the increase is lower than what human activity added.
Because of increased uptake of increasing biomass. CO2 fertilization, anyone? Man emits more than enough CO2 to account for all the increase in atmospheric concentrations. Quit supporting non-science.
Your falsification is waiting in the next comment down Dave.
Rick, like I told Nick, my graph is technically exactly the same as the climate.gov image but with the same units for both timeseries scales.
In 2021, the 3247.5 Gt of total measured atmospheric CO2 >> the 37.1 Gt of MME.
So the 2021 MME part is very small, 1/86 that of the CO2 total, so MME are not the overwhelming part of the whole we are led to believe it is, ie it’s vastly overstated.
The other assumption everyone makes is all of the ML CO2 increase is still all MME, so people think we are still adding to a large sum of MME when we aren’t.
No one should believe the small black curve can drive both the large green or blue curves up while also acidifying the ocean and greening the biosphere. There simply isn’t enough MME CO2 to accomplish all these things at once.
The sum of all MME is only 1,734 Gigatons through 2021, still just 80% of the 2,160 gigatons of Law Dome in 1750, and finally only 53% of the 2021 ML total!
In other words, all the MME together never add to a single year of measured CO2!
It should be obvious by now there is another larger source of CO2 every year.
Sorry, I just accidently deleted the image above, so here is the same image with a new link if the above image actually disappeared:
Bob, please. You are spouting non-science: Figures don’t lie but liars can figure.
Mankind pumps enough CO2 into the atmosphere to raise the concentration by over 4%. The actual concentration is increasing by over 2%. Reconcile those two facts.
If you can’t, pleas quit posting non-science.
Dave, as I said, my first figure is the same as theirs, the second figure is of the changes since 1750, derived from the first, so where did I lie?
The burden of proof for your accusation of lying is on you.
“to raise the concentration by over 4%”
It was only over 4% for a few years, based on the ∆MME/∆Total; MME were only 1.1% of the 2021 amount based on total quantities:
“The actual concentration is increasing by over 2%.”
No Dave, the actual measured CO2 increased by 50.3% since 1750.
(416.11-276.8)/276.8 ppm = 50.3% in 2021
“If you can’t, pleas quit posting non-science”
I did, and you can’t, so you can stop posting anti-science comments.
Bob, what do you think caused that 50.3% increase in CO2 concentrations since 1750? Fairy dust?
I pointed out that increases of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been averaging over 2% per year lately. I also pointed out that human emitted CO2 has been increasing at a rate of over 4% of that of atmospheric concentrations annually lately. That is twice the rate needed to just increase atmospheric concentrations by over 2% annually.
There is no measured acidifying of the ocean.
It is only a modeled supposition.
I total agree with you and have stated on many occasion that water is not acidic when it is basic, as the ocean is, so it is not acidifying, it is only neutralizing slightly.
You are talking about terminology, I am talking about measurements. To translate into your terms, there has been no measurable neutralizing, only claims based on models. The last I read, NOAA claimed a slight measured decrease in pH north of the Hawaiian Islands, about the area misnamed the great Pacific Garbage Patch, but nothing elsewhere (other than the season variations).
Andy, I said acidifying because the other side claims MME CO2 being sunk into the ocean is causing the aqueous CO2 to increase, however biology is the big overlooked component of increasing dissolved CO2.
“The sum of all MME is only 1,734 Gigatons through 2021, still just 80% of the 2,160 gigatons of Law Dome in 1750, and finally only 53% of the 2021 ML total!
In other words, all the MME together never add to a single year of measured CO2!”
This is nuts. In your plot, the increase of CO2 from 1750 to 2022 is 1087.3 Gt. That is the figure to compare with your 1734 Gt cumulative MME (which does not include land clearing). No-one thinks the 2160 Gt present in 1750 was due to human emissions.
No-one with any scientific sanity thinks the amount currently in the atmosphere is anything but a tiny fraction of human origin.
And even if there was much human CO2 in the atmosphere, that is ALL GOOD.
CO2 levels have been dangerously for a long, long time.
Why do you hate LIFE on the planet so much, that you want to restrict the very gas that provides for that life.
It is a sick, deranged anti-life ideology.
Right on! Recently as I walked around my 1 acre of lawn, garden, flower beds, trees and shrubs with my wife- she said, “wow, this year everything looks better than ever- fast growth- so far no pests and diseases- everything is sooo green and healthy looking- why is that Joe?”
My reply was, “it’s due to the climate emergency!”
“No-one thinks the 2160 Gt present in 1750 was due to human emissions.”
I didn’t say anyone said that Nick, so you can stop gaslighting me.
No, the 1734 Gt figure is not to be used to directly compare to the 1087 Gt, as that implies all of the MME has remained in the atmosphere with none of it sinking.
When you realize in 1976-2021 the rising portion of Mauna Loa was on average 4.7x higher than the net ML CO2 (3.1x in 2021), you should be able to understand that the MME also had a net flux that is proportional to the 3-5X ML rising/net fluxes seen in ML, balanced by sinking too.
This means the 1087 Gt does not contain all the MME, doesn’t it?
If you dispute my statement that the entire amount of MME is less than any single year’s CO2 since 1750, where is your math?
Without addressing the claim that the large ‘natural’ CO2 fluxes into and out of the atmosphere each year are in balance, meaning that they lead to no increase in atmospheric concentration (i.e. providing a reason to believe that is not true), comparisons between human emissions and non-human emissions are meaningless.
This is a meaningful comparison that indicates MME annual fluxes are far too small to be effectively changing the annual net ML CO2.
Not if, as claimed, inputs and sinks of non-human CO2 sources are in neutral balance. One human emission CO2 molecule above that balance (if said balance exists) is enough to raise atmospheric CO2 concentration unless that molecule is also absorbed by the same, or new, sinks as the CO2 from the non-human sources. Of course 1 molecule is far below any measurement detection but it would still be an extra molecule hanging around in the atmosphere. With enough of those human molecules, the difference would be measurable. Of course if non-human sources are increasing, as are human sources, then the measured increase would be some sum of the two.
“Not if, as claimed, inputs and sinks of non-human CO2 sources are in neutral balance.”
How can this happen? How can nature discriminate natural CO2 sources against MME sources? I’ll address this topic another day.
It is a very simple concept and has nothing what-so-ever to do with discriminating one source from another.
The claim (not my claim, the basic “climate science” claim) is that the huge “natural” yearly flux of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere has long been in balance, i.e. atmospheric concentration NOT increasing. Not until humans started adding CO2 to the atmosphere that would not have been added by non-human means, did atmospheric concentration start to increase. Thus the annual quantities from non-human generation and removal are irrelevant, they cancel each other out (by quantity).
The sinks, or some major part of them, were capable of removing a still greater quantity of production as, for instance, plants using more CO2 to grow more, so only part of the CO2 humans produced increased atmospheric quantity. Is this possible? Yes, for instance, some reactions depend upon partial pressure.
Therefore, the argument goes, unless the “natural” sources increased beyond the sink capacity, the quantity of “natural” emissions is irrelevant to what has happened in the atmosphere. However, each “unnatural” molecule from human activity adds to atmospheric concentration as those molecules are exceeding the sink capacity.
Andy, Nick, Rick, and Dave:
I have corrected my graphic based on your input to include the annual ppm in MME with the ML rise, sink and net CO2, re apples to apples, for the most meaningful comparison, that I had originally intended.
The middle plot replaces the one I posted twice yesterday. This should allay the concerns of others too who felt I had under-reported MME.
There are multiple conclusions to draw from this information:
They’s ain’t no inginir i ever met…
“For example I calculated roughly what it would take, using batteries as backup, to simply replace today’s US fossil fueled power generation with wind and solar. At today’s prices it comes to around $150 trillion for the batteries, which is nearly seven times annual GDP.”
Completely wrong.
The calculation imagines just enough generation for average needs during the year, with batteries having to carry the seasonal variation. This has never been done, and would not be done in the future.
It appears to me that the assumption is wind/solar will be able to handle the peak demands at all times. It seems that you are too trusting that wind/solar will be available 100% of the time when peak demand is needed. If that is not the case, and you prescribe availability of FF for backup, why would we need the expense of two systems when one 100% reilable system already works. Why make things more complicated and expensive than they need to be?
No, there is a need for some storage. But since forever we have provided enough generation to manage the daily and yearly peaks, and with W&S we would do that, and maybe more. Batteries, with hydro etc, just handle short-term shortfalls.
Like two weeks at a time.
In the summer and early autumn of 2021 the UK and Europe experienced a long period of dry conditions with low wind speeds which seriously affected wind generation.
In the UK SSE reported a 32% drop in power from its unreliable assets. The period April – September 2021 was the least windy such period in the last 60 years.
Research by Bristol and Reading Universities showed that periods of stagnant high atmosphere pressure over central Europe could become the most difficult challenge for power systems in the future.
The IPCC has suggested that average European wind speed will decline by up to 10% as a result of climate change.
https://energypost.eu/climate-change-wind-droughts-and-the-implications-for-wind-energy/
“there is a need for some storage.”
No , there is no need for expensive, storage at all…
.. not if you have a reliable dispatchable main supply.
You have zero idea how long “shortfalls” will be.. you are just hoping.
That is a truly moronic way to supply electricity.
“You have zero idea how long “shortfalls” will be”
The analysis was based on four years of hourly data.
LOL.. only 4 years of data.
WOW..
… and here I was thinking “climate” was meant to be over 30 years
They can’t even predict things like stream flow accurately with 100+ years of data.
Stop being so ignorant and naive, Nick… you are embarrassing yourself.
So far, W&S still make up only a small % of total energy needs- wait until it makes up much more- then see how often batteries will be needed and how successful that system will be. You think it will be fine but you don’t know and many people here say it won’t work- and all for what? Some imaginary “emergency”?
Will you be cheering when you are on the receiving end of a “load-shedding? event?
Etc.? 🤣 Is that made from unobtainium?
Enviros now hate hydro- they demand that dams be taken down. They want only “clean and green energy” but they don’t want forests and farms destroyed for W&S, they don’t want dams for hydro as they interfere with river ecosystems, they hate nuclear, they hate all ff, they hate biomass. That’s why here in Woke-achusetts, where the most extreme on the planet greens live, I just refer to them a “the haters”. They don’t like it when I say that- but they don’t deny that they hate all these things so it’s an appropriate term for them.
“Completely Wrong” …. (there is no need to title your comments like that, Nick !)
Yep, that $150 trillion will be a very low value, probably by a factor of up to 10 or more.
If only fed by wind and solar, the storage would have to be sufficient for an unknown period, 100% amount of US electricity.
Nick, I assume you are referring to overbuilding the renewables. This does reduce the storage need but with diminishing returns. Gregory found that even massive overbuilding only brought the storage need down from 250,000 MWh to 185,000 MWh, which is still astronomically expensive. Overbuilding solar still gets you nothing at night and extra windmills give you nothing when the wind don’t blow.
His study and mine are both here: https://www.cfact.org/netzerorealitycoalition/
Note that my 250,000 MWh is just for replacing today’s fossil juice, not an electrified net zero which would be far worse. And it is based on good wind and solar years. As the Euros found out, that does not always happen. Storage must be designed for bad cases.
There is no feasible cure for intermittency. This is an engineering fact.
“Nick, I assume you are referring to overbuilding the renewables. This does reduce the storage need but with diminishing returns.”
David, I’m not referring to overbuilding, just adequately building. What you did was to provide just enough W&S to match average FF generation. That means that storage has to smooth out the annual cycle, hence the astronomical numbers. But of course we provide enough FF generation to manage the peaks of the daily and annual cycles, not just average demand. And when you do that with W&S the storage requirement comes down dramatically, since it no longer has to store for the annual peak in demand.
I found that as you increase the build, the storage comes down and not with diminishing returns. The only limit is the cost of the build. The optimum is a cost of about $5-6T (for complete renewal), not $150T.
“just adequately building.”
Again, at the mercy of weather, you have zero clue what “adequate ” is.
No, matter how much wind you build, there will always be period, often long periods, when it doesn’t provide anything at all.
You are only fooling yourself. !
There is absolutely zero need to bother building expensive storage if you have “adequate” dispatchable fossil fuel your main supply.
Bonfires do help.
“As the Euros found out, that does not always happen”
Yep, in 2021 the UK and Europe experienced a long period of dry conditions and low wind speeds,between April and September, that seriously affected wind generation. SSE in the UK reported a 32% drop in power from its unreliables.
“Congress should ignore NASEM.” Maybe abandon rather than ignore.
No. Hold to account and punish wickedness.
Which are more likely to be punished, the believers or the deniers?
You have heard of the concept of the double edged sword, have you not? Virtually everything is double edged.
The leadership of science and engineering academies have been captured by ideological Leftists. This pernicious activity will continue until the rank-and-file overthrow them. If they don’t, they will deserve the hits coming to their professions.
The leaders of these science organizations are a disgrace to their profession.
If there are any blues guitar fans out there, Robert Johnson showed us all who you can expect to meet at the crossroads.
Also referenced in the ‘Supernatural’ TV series.
Thanks but no thanks .
This green cr@p makes me sick as it is based on fake science .
The idea that our emissions of green house gases will lead to runaway warming has never been proven and the theory of runaway warming demands the tropial hot spot that has never been located or proven to exist .
That should be the end of this scare mongering and those thousands of academics ( they are not really scientists ) could start working on projects that will improve the lives of all people on this earth .
We now have a large industry in most countries around the world churning out junk scientist with so called climate scientists making up studies on almost everything .
Is it not now time to look back in to history where they would soon learn that our planet has been much warmer than it is at present 4 times since the last major Ice Age just 12,000 years ago .
Man cannot even predict the weather let alone change long term weather cycles .
It is wrong to dismiss early measurements of CO2 in air and claim that there was a constant 280 ppm or so. Sure, these early measurements were often close to the ground, not at lofty mauna Loa. But, much outgoing radiation begins at ground level where CO2 is probably much higher than ML.
Second, it is hard to understand how various parts of the globe are classed as sinks or emitters. Maps like OCO satellite data show static concentrations, not dynamic fluxes. The change of pH of the oceans is a rough indicator of some absorption of CO2, but the mass balance equations need measurements of carbonate shell deposition on ocean floors. The numbers are simply not good enough to be useful.
This question of the man-made fraction of CO2 in the air is fundamental to understandiong the whole of climate change. Why has it not been resolved before huge, costly remediations like fossil fuel reduction have been enforced?
Geoff S
Why has it not been resolved as you correctly suggest, Geoff?
Because they are making mountains of money and promoting their dystopian plans for us just fine.
They don’t really care a fiddler’s fart about CO2, just political Power and money.
“Second, it is hard to understand how various parts of the globe are classed as sinks or emitters.”
It’s not so hard to understand; the reason is due to tropical heat fluxes in areas that outgas more CO2, and cooler CO2 sinking areas, according to Henry’s Law of Solubility of Gases:
The ocean conforms longitudinally to the Henry’s Law of Solubility of Gases CO2 curve:
You know when someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes – they talk of “community”
There is no such thing as a “global community”, local yes, but not global.
Not part of our global community? Then you’re an outsider, a heretic, a monster – be banished, excommunicated, heretic!
This fitting comment popped up in general reading.
February 7, 2020. The corruption of scientists by fame and money. In Clothing the Emperor forum.“ … many of his publications and the data he gathered to support them are being questioned and scrutinized by the very colleagues who propelled too high, too fast. In the article he comes across as somewhat non-plussed as though worrying about the quality of your data is not what stars do”.
….
Sorta sums up a popular attitude?
Geoff S
760 billion tons of CO2 enter the atmosphere annually from natural sources. Is there data on how this amount has changed through time
Email sent to contact person Amanda Purcell with a cc to Amanda Staudt,
Dr. Amanda Staudt is the Director of the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC) and Polar Research Board (PRB) at the National Academies.
Prior to that, she was a Senior Climate Scientist at the National Wildlife Federation. Dr. Staudt has a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Chemistry. One would think she’d know better, but evidently not.
Anyway ….
Re: Climate Crossroads Summit
Dear Ms. Purcell,
Climate models have no predictive value.
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
Neither the rate nor the magnitude of climate warming since 1900 is knowable from the air temperature record.
LiG Metrology, Correlated Error, and the Integrity of the Global Surface Air-Temperature Record
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/13/5976
One can only surmise that the National Academies have no perceptible connection with science.
Yours,
Patrick Frank, Ph.D.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
These things are, we conjecture, like the truth;
But as for certain truth, no one has known it.
Xenophanes, 570-500 BCE
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And Bellman is still ranting away in the other thread.
It’s likely sport for him, KM.
I understand why you respond. It’s hard to leave accusatory nonsense unrefuted, for fear that it will convince the less educated.
But eventually, it may be best to just turn one’s back to it. Perhaps with something like that as a final statement.