“Dressing in layers can keep you warm while relying less on your heat source."
The post Boulder, Colorado faces higher heating bills, tells residents to bundle up appeared first on CFACT.
via CFACT
January 26, 2022 at 03:53AM
Month: January 2022
The BomWatch blog has published Day/Night temperature spread fails to confirm IPCC prediction examining max min and DTR temperature data from the BoM purpose built weather station Giles 13017 in far eastern WA near the WA-SA-NT border junction. The main points of the BomWatch article is that Giles is a pristine site and that DTR has not closed as the IPCC expects. In 2014 I blogged on the loony-toon BoM adjustments to Giles for ACORN 1. So I have a 2013 Giles Basic Climatological Station Metadata pdf – a sort of station diary – on my HDD. A check of the Giles pdf shows that a gravel road that ran through the instruments area near the screen was bitumen sealed in the 12 months between the Sep 2011 and Sep 2012 site maps. Ken Stewart blogged on the Giles site in 2019 The Wacky World of Weather Stations: No. 171- Giles (WA) and Ken shows Google Earth images that indicate the screen was ~20m from the sealed road. So the sealed road would introduce some quota of UHI into the data. Ken also pointed out that a 2019 site photo from JoNova shows the whole area of the screen fenced rectangle covered by gravel with no grass – Ken rates the site “non-compliant”. The 2013 Giles Basic Climatological Station Metadata pdf shows on page 23 Station Equipment History that on 1st June 1992 under Air Temperature that – “INSTALL Temperature Probe – Dry Bulb (Type Rosemount)”.
So prior to 1st June 1992 temperatures would have been recorded by liquid in glass thermometers probably in older/larger type Stevenson screen. The post 1992 probe would produce readings over very short periods of seconds which would lead to higher temperatures being recorded than would have been recorded by a liquid in glass thermometer.
via Errors in IPCC climate science
January 26, 2022 at 01:08AM
“Personally, I don’t see any interest on the other side to debate anything. Rather, they seem to think their environmental nirvana can only be achieved by replacing our free-market system. For that, they want a ‘green’ form of command-and-control socialism.” (Mark Krebs, below)
Q. Yesterday, you explained how DOE’s Office of Energy Efficient and Renewable Energy employs “garbage-in, garbage-out” (GIGO) to justify more stringent gas-appliance regulation. But step back: specifically, when and how did electrification become official energy policy?
A. Electrification, aka “deep decarbonization,” was in the background through at least the Obama and Trump Administrations. But it had come out of the woodwork with a vengeance under Biden. This started with an unprecedented gush of Executive Orders starting on day one. This implementation is now well underway.
Q. Please identify the primary Biden Administration regulatory chain of events that empowered this present “transition” to electrification through refocusing its mission on “carbon efficiency.”
A. This expedited transition towards carbon efficiency was initiated by Biden’s Executive Order (EO) 13990, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.”’ 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 25, 2021). Section 1 of that Order lists several policies related to the protection of public health and the environment, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions and bolstering the Nation’s resilience to climate change. Id. at 86 FR 7037, 7041.
Section 2 of the Order also instructs all agencies to review existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions promulgated, issued, or adopted between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, that are or may be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to these policies.
Agencies were directed, “as appropriate and consistent with applicable law,” to consider suspending, revising, or rescinding these [Trump Administration] agency actions and to immediately commence work to confront the “climate crisis.”
Q. And then?
A. In addition to EO 13990, the Biden Administration environmental policies include a “FACT SHEET ” titled President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and Securing U.S. Leadership on Clean Energy Technologies. Excerpt: “[This is] a new target for the United States to achieve a 50-52 percent reduction from 2005 levels in economy-wide net greenhouse gas pollution in 2030.”
As part of re-entering the Paris Agreement, Biden also launched a “whole-of-government” process, organized through his National Climate Task Force, to establish this new 2030 emissions target—known as the “nationally determined contribution” or “NDC,” a formal submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The present NDC is titled “The United States of America Nationally Determined Contribution. Of particular importance is the following excerpt regarding building decarbonization:
- “Building sector emissions come from electricity use, as well as fossil fuels burned on site for heating air and water and for cooking. There are many options to avoid these emissions while reducing energy cost burden for families and improving health and resilience in communities. The emissions reduction pathways for buildings consider ongoing government support for energy efficiency and efficient electric heating and cooking in buildings via funding for retrofit programs, wider use of heat pumps and induction stoves, and adoption of modern energy codes for new buildings. The United States will also invest in new technologies to reduce emissions associated with construction, including for high-performance electrified buildings.”
On December 8, 2021, Biden signed Executive Order 14057 titled Catalyzing Clean Energy and Jobs through Federal Sustainability. This EO is focused on mandating Federal building compliance for deep decarbonization through fuel switching to electricity ostensibly powered from renewable sources. This is evidenced by the following excerpt:
- “It is therefore the policy of my Administration for the Federal Government to lead by example in order to achieve a carbon pollution-free electricity sector by 2035 and net-zero emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050.”
For additional information, Alex Epstein published a series of tweets about this EO on twitter.
Q. So a whole new thrust behind deep-decarbonization …
A. Yes. But note that Biden’s NDC closely followed President Obama’s “deep decarbonization” plan for buildings that you, Rob, wrote about in 2017, ‘Deep Decarbonization’ vs. Direct-Use Natural Gas.
Q. Did EERE’s longstanding pro-electric biases get reformed at all during the Trump years?
A. Yes, but temporarily, as it is now turning out. But to give credit where credit is due, there was a brief (but partial) respite in EERE’s biased behavior under the Trump administration and EERE’s (then) Assistant Secretary Daniel Simmons. We could discuss some specific dockets later.
Regardless, throughout the Trump Administration, EERE retained the “clean energy” mission of the Obama Administration. Consequently, the direct use of natural gas was never considered “clean” at least by EERE’s “award winning” staff (even though gas-fueled combustion turbines were considered “clean”).
The legislative stage was set before Trump with a lot of help from the “usual suspects” in writing the language. From the beginning of EERE, energy efficiency and renewable energy were “joined at the hip. Read 42 U.S. Code § 16191 – Energy efficiency to see the result.
The strong relationships between EERE and its “energy efficiency advocates” runs deep; you wrote a good review of this in November of 2020: Waste? Speak for Yourself (energy appliance mandates anti-consumer, pro-bureaucrat) where I posted comments to it that elaborated on the subject.
Trump Reversed
Q. What are the economic harms to the American economy and energy consumers by all of this? What are other ill-effects? and what can be realistically done to start rectifying it?
A. This gets to the macro-policy associated with climate alarmism/forced energy transformation. President Trump was right in pulling out of the Paris Agreement because it devastates consumer choice and our economy by vastly escalating energy costs. That is why I twice voted for him.
Biden’s reentering the Paris Agreement—and his NDC plan to achieve it—is non-binding and has yet to be ratified by Congress. Accordingly, the Paris Agreement and the NDC are not “applicable law.” However, it remains to be seen who is willing to legally challenge these policies.
This “transition”—which directly conflicts with the EPCA’s (the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975’s) intent to protect consumers against regulatory overreach—also strengthens the economic and strategic hands of “bad” international actors, while weakening international “social justice” and increasing adverse environmental impacts associated with growing the market share of “renewable” wind and solar energy.
Q. The “clean energy” ruse plays into all of this.
A. I could go on about the numerous and devastating ill-effects about so-called “clean energy” but that would take too much time to cover now. In addition to Paris Lives! “Deep Decarbonization” at DOE), the following articles at MasterResource are recent and thorough:
As far as what over-reliance on “clean” energy is likely to cost consumers, it varies regionally and depends on what you want to include or ignore. For example, one usually overlooked cost category is what Ed Reid calls “deadweight losses” (the costs of leaving fossil fuels in the ground, stranded investments, etc.).
Q. This has been a major area of research for you.
A. I reviewed and reported upon most of the costing studies available up to 2019 in Costing the Green New Deal and “Deep Decarbonization”: Some Clarifications. I collaborated with Tom Tanton who recently published some “do-it-yourself” estimating tools and users guide available from the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute. And Minnesota’s Center of the American Experiment has an outstanding series on “clean” energy costs as well. Overall, excluding deadweight losses, total cost for the “clean energy transition” appear to be around $30 Trillion (± $10 Trillion). If deadweight losses are included, costs could triple.
For every free-market study looking at the costs of transitioning to all-electric economy, the AGW environmentalists have dozens, with the usual theme that “clean” energy will cost much less than continuing to use fossil fuels. Personally, I don’t see any interest on the other side to debate anything. Rather, they seem to think their environmental nirvana can only be achieved by replacing our free-market system. For that, they want a “green” form of socialism. In which case, Pol Pot would be proud.
Q. “Green” energy can kill, too.
A. The ultimate cost to consumers is that over-reliance on inherently unreliable “clean” energy can and does kills people. Take Texas for example. During last February’s “Winter Storm Uri, 210 people officially died because of prolonged electricity outages. While many died of hypothermia and carbon monoxide poisoning, many also died because they were dependent upon various sorts of electric powered medical equipment.
Even if people had gas furnaces and boilers, those appliances require electric blowers and/or pumps to operate, However, if people also had gas stoves they could (and did) use them to keep themselves (and their water pipes) from freezing.
Q. And with this comes unintended consequences.
A. This inherent unreliability of renewables could lead to a thriving market for small emergency generators to serve select critical electric loads. However, regulators are trying to prevent that; as seems to be the case in California: Why California’s Move to Ban Gas-Powered Generators (and Lawn Equipment) Could Leave Californians in the Dark.
—————————————
Mark Krebs, a mechanical engineer and energy policy analyst, has been involved with energy efficiency design and program evaluation for more than thirty years. He has served as an expert witness in dozens of State energy efficiency proceedings, has been an advisor to DOE and has submitted scores of Federal energy-efficiency filings. Mark’s first article was in the Public Utilities Fortnightly and was titled “It’s a War Out There: A Gas Man Questions Electric Efficiency” (December 1996).
For more about Mark, see his MasterResource archive.
The post Mark Krebs on Energy Efficiency under Biden’s DOE (Part III: Biden’s Bias) appeared first on Master Resource.
via Master Resource
January 26, 2022 at 01:05AM
Across the globe, the quest for wind and solar power domination has taken on all the menace of a friendly round of Russian roulette.
The front runners in the USA, California and Texas, have already experienced life-threatening wind and solar output collapses; during statewide heatwaves in the former, and during last February’s Big Freeze, in the latter.
That’s not to say that they don’t have serious competition in the suicidal energy policy stakes, particularly if the competition is considered global, and the competitors are taken to include the UK and Germany.
Francis Menton takes a look at the form guide, below.
Which Country Or U.S. State Will Be The First To Hit The Renewable Energy Wall?
Manhattan Contrarian
Francis Menton
17 December 2021
In the fantasy of wealthy woke environmentalists, the world has recognized that it is on the brink of an existential climate crisis that can only be avoided by rapid elimination of the use of fossil fuels, and the transformation of the world energy economy to be based upon “renewables” like the wind and sun. The generation of electricity will be “decarbonized” by some time in the 2030s, and the world will reach “net zero” carbon emissions by around 2050.
In the real world, anyone with eyes can see that this is not happening. The countries with the large majority of world population (China, India, the remainder of Asia, and Africa) mouth a few platitudes to appease the foolish Western elites, even as they continue to build hundreds of new coal and other fossil fuel facilities. Even the U.S. federal government, under left-wing Democrat control, has had its ambitious “Green New Deal” plans stalled in Congress. Worldwide, fossil fuel usage continues on a steady upward trajectory, pretty much as if the whole decarbonization obsession didn’t exist.
But then there is that handful of very wealthy, small population jurisdictions that have convinced themselves that they can save the planet by eliminating their own fossil fuel use and substituting wind and solar power, even as the rest of the world laughs at them behind their back. Four jurisdictions stand out from the rest, two of them European countries and the other two U.S. states: Germany, the UK, California, and New York. In the aggregate, these four places have population of about 200 million, or about 2.5% or world population. Each of the four has announced draconian targets for net zero carbon emissions by mid-century, with even more stringent interim targets for eliminating carbon emissions from things like electricity generation and home heating.
All these places, despite their wealth and seeming sophistication, are embarking on their ambitious plans without ever having conducted any kind of detailed engineering study of how their new proposed energy systems will work or how much they will cost. Sure, a wind/solar electric grid can function with 100% natural gas backup, if you’re willing to have the ratepayers foot the bill for two overlapping and redundant generation systems when you could have had just one. But “net zero” emissions means no more fossil fuel backup. What’s the plan to keep the grid operating 24/7 when the coal and natural gas are gone?
As these jurisdictions ramp up their wind and solar generation, and gradually eliminate the coal and natural gas, sooner or later one or another of them is highly likely to hit a “wall” — that is, a situation where the electricity system stops functioning, or the price goes through the roof, or both, forcing a drastic alteration or even abandonment of the whole scheme. But which jurisdiction will hit it first, and how will the “wall” emerge?
It’s time for Manhattan Contrarian readers to start placing their bets on this issue. To kick things off, here are a few thoughts from me:
California. I have written several posts highly critical of California’s pie-in-the-sky green energy plans, which include a 2045 “zero carbon” target. For example see here and here. However, California does have a deep secret to help it stave off the possibility of hitting the renewable energy wall: it imports a very high percentage of its power from neighboring states. Some of the imports are fossil fuel based (coal and natural gas from Arizona and Nevada), and some are reliable non-fossil fuel based sources (nuclear from Arizona and hydro from Oregon and Washington).
Here are charts from the California Energy Commission of “total system electric generation” for the state for 2018 and 2020. In 2018 California imported about 32% of its electricity (91,000 GWH out of 285,000 GWH), and in 2020 about 30% (82,000 GWH out of 273,000 GWH). According to data from the EIA, California imports far more electricity from other states than does any other state (although there are a few states that import more on a percentage basis). The ability to import large amounts of electricity from neighboring states means that California has a high degree of insurance against its own energy folly. As long as Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have some electricity to sell, blackouts can be staved off even though California’s wind and solar generators may be completely quiet. You may say that this is cheating in the game of “zero emissions” electricity, which it is, but don’t count on California’s politicians to level with the voters.
New York. New York’s energy system transformation has been defined by something called the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act), passed in 2019. This state website provides a summary of the goals to which this Climate Act has supposedly committed us. The main targets:
- 85% Reduction in GHG Emissions by 2050
- 100% Zero-emission Electricity by 2040
- 70% Renewable Energy by 2030
- 9,000 MW of Offshore Wind by 2035
- 3,000 MW of Energy Storage by 2030
- 6,000 MW of Solar by 2025
Here in New York City, the City Council just this week passed a bill banning natural gas hookups for buildings under seven stories starting in 2024, and for larger buildings starting in 2027. Mayor de Blasio, heading into his last week in office, is expected to sign the bill.
But is there any reality to any of this? My prediction is that, rather than our hitting some kind of wall of a failing energy system or sudden price spikes, these ridiculous targets will just be abandoned and forgotten as they get closer and it becomes obvious that they cannot be achieved. The prototype was a matter involving the natural gas utility in Long Island, National Grid, in 2019. National Grid was running out of natural gas capacity for new customers, particularly in Brooklyn and Queens (parts of New York City that are on Long Island and served by National Grid). National Grid wanted to build a pipeline under New York Harbor to bring in the gas, but Governor Cuomo blocked it on fake environmental grounds (supposedly, threats to water quality). When the existing pipelines hit capacity, National Grid began refusing new natural gas hookups. Within a few weeks, some 3000 people had been refused, and the political blowback began. Facing pressure from actual voters, Cuomo did not relent on the pipeline, but instead threatened to pull NG’s license unless it figured out some other way to bring in the gas. NG began to bring in the gas by truck (much more expensive and dangerous than the pipeline), and as far as I know that is what it continues to do. Here is a New York Times account with more details.
My strong bet is that this scenario repeats itself in 2024 when the City Council’s supposed natural gas ban kicks in. Right now the public is only dimly aware of the coming ban, and paying no attention. But natural gas is hugely superior to electricity for home heat, particularly an area like this where winter temperatures regularly go into the 20s and below, a range at which electric heat pumps basically don’t work at all. People building and renovating homes are acutely aware of this difference, and will push back forcefully when told that they can’t have gas.
Similarly, the goals of the Climate Act for enormous numbers of wind turbines and solar arrays are completely unrealistic, and nobody has even started building any meaningful number of them yet. Moreover, the amount of storage proposed is not even stated in relevant units (should be MWH instead of MW), and storage to last the months that would be needed has not even been invented. These targets are so ridiculous that, I predict, we will never even start very far down the road before they are either dropped or just ignored. Sure, we will spend a few tens of billions first, and everybody’s energy bills will go up substantially, but not to a degree that it will be recognized as a crisis.
Germany and UK. So I’m putting my money on one or the other of Germany or the UK to be the first to hit some kind of wall.
-
Compared to California, they don’t have any good Plan B when the new wind/solar system doesn’t work. Both have banned fracking for natural gas within their own borders, as have most of their near European neighbors. That leaves Russia as the principal backup supplier, and let’s say that the Russkies are somewhat less reliable than Nevada and Arizona.
-
Compared to New York, Germany and the UK have so far actually taken seriously the task of building wind turbines and solar arrays. Germany has gotten its percent of electricity generation from wind and solar up to around 50% for some periods of time (although it fell back to 43% for the first three quarters of 2021 due to lack of wind). Germany’s new coalition government has grand plans to further ramp of the building of wind turbines particularly, while continuing to phase out both nuclear and all fossil fuels, with only Russia to catch them when they fall. In the UK. PM Boris Johnson has become completely obsessed with his “net zero” ambitions, even as low wind has put pressure on limited natural gas supplies and caused prices to spike dramatically.
A prolonged period of unfavorable weather (calm and overcast) could cause a serious energy crunch to hit one or both or Germany or the UK as soon as this winter. Or they could get lucky and go another year or two. But for both of them, a wall is looming.
Manhattan Contrarian
via STOP THESE THINGS
January 26, 2022 at 12:31AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 