Month: September 2024

Ed Miliband ‘considers scrapping wind power target

By Paul Homewood

h/t Doug Brodie

Well I did not expect my prediction to come true quite so quickly!!!

 image

Ed Miliband is preparing to scrap the UK’s much-vaunted target for building 55 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind capacity by 2030, according to reports.

Chris Stark, who previously ran the government’s advisory Climate Change Committee, and who now works for Mr Miliband’s “Mission Control” leading on decarbonisation, is to publish recommendations that could revise the pathways to cutting UK emissions.

A report from Bloomberg suggested that senior government figures were questioning the 55 GW target.

It follows warnings from industry that the offshore wind target was unachievable because of insufficient supplies to build the required number of wind turbines and a shortage of ships and crews needed to install them, along with the associated infrastructure.

Mr Stark told Bloomberg: “Reaching the 2030 goal of clean power is more important than getting to those exact targets.”

Achieving the target would mean installing 2,000 to 3,000 of the largest new wind turbines by 2030 – a rate of about 1.5 turbines a day. In reality, such work can only be done when the weather allows, so the constraints are much tighter.

The current rate of installation is far below 1.5 turbines a day.

Tom Smout, an analyst at Aurora Energy Research, said: “There is no real chance that this Government would hit the deployment rates in its manifesto.”

Even if the UK did hit its target, Mr Smout said the UK’s power grids would not be able to carry all the electricity generated – meaning many wind farms would get paid for switching off.

He said: “Fifty-five GW is simply much more capacity than is necessary to decarbonise the energy system. If we hit 55 GW we would essentially have been building wind farms just to curtail them.”

Mr Miliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero disputed suggestions that the 55 GW target was being dropped.

A spokesman said: “We are committed to making Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030 by doubling onshore wind, tripling solar power and quadrupling offshore wind.

“The Energy Secretary is working with industry to accelerate ways the contracts for difference scheme can be expanded even further, so that more renewable energy, including offshore wind, can be connected to the grid, and quicker.”

The UK has 43 operational offshore wind farms with 2,765 offshore turbines installed around its shores, according to data from Renewable UK, the industry trade body.

They have a collective capacity of about 15 GW and produced about 15pc, or 49 terawatt hours (TWh), of the 317 TWh needed by the UK last year.

The machines installed to date have an average capacity of 5 MW, but this is small by the standards. The latest wind turbines typically have a capacity of 10-15 MW.

The UK holds a renewables auction round each year where offshore wind operators are offered a minimum price for the power they will generate, thereby encouraging the development of new projects.

Last year’s auction was a disaster with no companies bidding because the previous Tory government set the price too low.

A similar auction announced this week saw just under 4 GW of new projects approved – an improvement but not enough, say experts.

Sam Hollister, head of economics, policy and investment at analysts LCP Delta, said the results meant auctions next year and in 2026 would each need to procure 14 GW of offshore wind to meet Mr Miliband’s target – a massive and unlikely increase.

He said: “The Government certainly would have hoped for more new-build offshore wind in this week’s auction, and that has put its ambition for 55 GW of offshore wind in doubt.

“There just might not be time to procure and build the remaining gigawatts required within just six years.”

Tim Dixon, a senior consultant at Cornwall Insight, said: “The reality is that there remains a significant gap between contracted capacity and the amount needed if the government is to meet its ambitious 2030 targets.

“Renewables projects take years to build and become operational and there are just five years left to achieve a decarbonised electricity grid.”

A Renewable UK spokesman said the official targets remained unchanged.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/06/ed-miliband-poised-to-scrap-wind-power-target/

.

Only this morning I predicted that Miliband would sooner or later drop his 2030 deadline to decarbonise the grid.

If the Telegraph is right, he is already backing away from his offshore wind target. He has obviously realised that there is physically no way the UK can build enough wind farms in that time. The new projects signed up in AR6 won’t be operational until 2029, so he would need to contract another 14GW in next year’s auction, There simply would not be the investors or construction capacity to handle it.

Moreover Labour’s manifesto promised to quadruple offshore wind power, which would imply

And without his offshore wind, he cannot hope to decarbonise the grid.

Therefore he will use this as an excuse to put back his deadline, and as I suggested, he will blame it all on the Tories for not building more renewables in their time in office. He will, of course, have to answer why he put such impossible promises in his manifesto, when he already knew full well they were unachievable.

But I also suspect he will see this shortfall in offshore wind as a get out of jail card, given that even with more wind farms his decarbonisation target was always pie-in-the-sky.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/NzDntVs

September 6, 2024 at 01:24PM

No, New York Times, Climate Change Isn’t Destroying Bridges

The New York Times (NYT) recently published an article titled “Climate Change Can Cause Bridges to ‘Fall Apart Like Tinkertoys,’ Experts Say,” written by Coral Davenport. Multiple lines of evidence and examples not only refute this claim as false but expose the sheer absurdity of the claim.

These sorts of absurdly false claims have been tried before, for instance, when the I-35W bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, MN in 2007. An article in 2007 by Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters exposed the claim as false:

A former member of the Clinton administration, and current Senior Fellow at the virtual Clinton think tank the Center for American Progress, claimed Monday that global warming might have played a factor in the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis last week.

I kid you not.

Writing at Climate Progress, the global warming blog of CAP, Joseph Romm – who served as Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy in 1997 and as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary from 1995 though 1998 – stated in a piece amazingly entitled “Did Climate Change Contribute To The Minneapolis Bridge Collapse?

Unsurprisingly, the actual cause had nothing to do with climate change at all but rather an engineering failure that used undersized gusset plates that were too thin for the load of the bridge:

The investigation revealed that photos from a June 2003 inspection of the bridge showed gusset-plate bowing. On November 13, 2008, the NTSB released the findings of its investigation. The primary cause of the collapse was the undersized gusset plates, at 0.5 inches (13 mm) thick. Contributing to that design or construction error was the fact that 2 inches (51 mm) of concrete had been added to the road surface over the years, increasing the static load by 20%. Another factor was the extraordinary weight of construction equipment and material resting on the bridge just above its weakest point at the time of the collapse. That load was estimated at 578,000 pounds (262 tonnes), consisting of sand, water, and vehicles.

So, human error and extra weight, not climate change, was determined to be the cause of the bridge’s failure.

Fast forward to the present. The NYT’s article makes similar claims:

Bridges designed and built decades ago with materials not intended to withstand sharp temperature swings are now rapidly swelling and contracting, leaving them weakened.

“It’s getting so hot that the pieces that hold the concrete and steel, those bridges can literally fall apart like Tinkertoys,” Dr. Chinowsky said.

As temperatures reached the hottest in recorded history this year, much of the nation’s infrastructure, from highways to runways, has suffered. But bridges face particular risks.

Really? The bridges in question weren’t engineered to handle daily temperature swings? A natural event that happens daily across seasons? That sounds like poor planning. Besides the absurdity of that claim, there are two further contradictory points to consider.

First, in the United States, we’ve seen far worse sustained heatwaves before, such as in the 1930s when the July 1936 heatwave hit America’s Midwest, where some places experienced up to 14 days of above 100°F temperatures. This is evidenced by the graph in Figure 1, provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA_heat-waves_figure3_2022
Figure 1. This figure shows the annual values of the U.S. Heat Wave Index, from 1895 to 2020 contiguous 48 states. Environmental Protection Agency.

In the many reports of the heatwaves in the 1930’s, there is no mention of bridge collapse, which suggests that the linkage to “extreme heat aided by climate change” claim is false. Otherwise, such temperatures in the 1930s would have resulted in collapsed bridges. However, there simply are none from that period reportedly linked to heat.

Secondly, the article says “As temperatures reached the hottest in recorded history this year, much of the nation’s infrastructure, from highways to runways, has suffered.” But this isn’t true either. The claim NYT uses is about the global temperature, not the U.S. temperature. As seen in Figure 2 below showing data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), from the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), widely considered to be the most accurate source of surface temperature data, July 2024 was not “the hottest in recorded history.” For example, maximum U.S. temperature was higher in 2012 and 2005 than in July 2024.

Figure 2: NOAA – USCRN Maximum Temperature.

Diving deeper into the NYT article, the Times attributes the failure of a railroad bridge connecting Iowa and South Dakota during floods to climate change. Flooding in the rivers and streams across and bordering Iowa and South Dakota have been common for as long as records of such event have been kept back into the mid-1800s. And railroad bridge collapses have happened repeatedly in the United States and around the world, well before climate change ever became an issue. Since data show no increase in the number or severity of flood events across the United States, in general, or in Iowa and South Dakota, in particular, there is no evidence climate change played any role in that particular railroad bridge collapse.

The next claim is that the concrete buckled and broke on a bridge in Lewiston, Maine which NYT blamed on “recent fluctuation in temperature and rain.”

Looking at the weather in Lewiston, ME when the event occurred shows that although high and low temperatures were higher than the normal average for late June, the fluctuations the NYT was so concerned about were less extreme than normal, about a 15 degree change from high to low in June 2024 rather than the historic daily average of about 20 degrees. (See figure 3, below).

Figure 3: Normal average daily fluctuations in temperatures throughout the year for Lewiston Maine. Source: Google

The high temperature for the third week of June was 95℉, above the normal maximum for the date, but it was well below the historic high temperature for the city of 99℉ recorded in 1911, 113 years of global warming ago. Lewiston’s 2024 June high was also 10 degrees lower than the high temperature record for the state as a whole of 105℉ set in North Bridgton, ME, just thirty miles away from Lewiston, also from 1911, when that temperature was hit twice.

Because temperatures in Lewiston didn’t fluctuate wildly and were also not record setting, it is implausible for the bridge’s concrete cracking and buckling to have anything at all to do with climate change. It was likely a result of poor construction or, even more likely, poor maintenance, a problem for many bridges and overpasses in Maine and the U.S. as a whole, combined with increased traffic and load, due to significant population growth in the city and the region, using the bridge.

Literally, it takes two minutes of work on Google search to find this data. Apparently, NYT reporter Coral Davenport couldn’t be troubled to seek out the facts. Or perhaps, she just doesn’t know how. This sort of slapdash reporting containing speculative claims rather than simple facts seems like something out of the old TV series The Twilight Zone.

If such an episode aired today, my suggested title would be “Bogus Maximus.” This story was pure science fiction.

Originally posted at ClimateREALISM

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/usHiByq

September 6, 2024 at 01:05PM

Greenland Ice Mass Balance Update

By Paul Homewood

 

Just to complete the situation with the Greenland Icesheet, I now have data for calving losses:

 

 

 https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image.png

http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/

 

As I noted yesterday, the Surface Mass Balance of Greenland’s icesheet, as provided by DMI, does not include calving.

Below is an analysis of all ice sheet gains and losses since 1840 up to 2020, from Mankoff et al:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/image-13.png

Annual average surface mass balance (blue line), marine mass balance (gray dashed), and their mass balance sum (black line).

https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2021-131/essd-2021-131.pdf

The black line is the one to keep an eye on, as this nets SMB gains with losses from calving and basal melt (a small amount at the bottom of the glacier melts under pressure).

It is easy to recognise that net losses in the 1930s, 40s and 50s ran at a similar level to the last couple of decades. This is unsurprising since we know that temperatures in Greenland in those earlier decades were also similar to now.

I have updated the graph to December 2023 now, and added a 10-year average:

image

https://dataverse.geus.dk/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.22008/FK2/OHI23Z

Since 2020, ice sheet losses have tended to decline, and there is a clear reduction in melt since the peak of 2012.

Periods of ice loss and gain are both associated with the AMO, so it is likely there will be a period of little or no loss when the AMO turns negative in due course.

In summary, ice losses are not accelerating, and are simply part of a much longer climate cycle, going back to the Little Ice Age and beyond. The idea that the icecap will quickly is twaddle.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/N2Cf5TH

September 6, 2024 at 12:22PM

Live at 1pm Eastern: Debate Prep for Trump on Climate: The Climate Realism Show #126

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris will have their first and probably only debate on Tuesday. Climate is likely to come up as a debate topic, after not being emphasized for a while. How should Trump handle this topic? We have some tips for him to win “bigly” on climate and energy policy.
On The Heartland Institute’s Episode #126 of The Climate Realism Show, H. Sterling Burnett, Anthony Watts, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely will also review the “Crazy Climate News of the Week,” including the idea that logging forests would make wildfires worse, climate change causing bridges to “fall apart like Tinkertoys, and NOAA being called out for pushing a false climate alarmist narrative.
Join us LIVE on YouTube, Rumble, and X at 1 p.m. ET on Friday, Sept. 6 and participate in the chat. We’ll try to answer as many questions as we can.
This video will be archived at our ClimateTV page
https://ift.tt/bgBD4Gl

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/f19mOYS

September 6, 2024 at 11:36AM