Category: Daily News

USA cost to go without fossil fuels: $18-29 Trillion

By comparison, the USA Gross Domestic Product for 2018 was $20.54 trillion.

E&E Legal Releases Tom Tanton State-by-State “Electrification” Costs Report

For Immediate Release: September 22, 2020

– Today, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), released a state-by-state report on the capital cost associated with “electrification” for states and the nation. The report, and its accompanying data spreadsheet, was authored by Tom Tanton, E&E Legal’s Director of Science and Technology Assessment.

According to the report, electrifying the entire nation, with a goal of eliminating the direct consumption of fuel and reducing climate change emissions, would cost between $18 trillion and $29 trillion in first costs. Going all renewable will force costs to the high end of the range. Also, constructing and implementing an “all-electric” nation will include two other significant costs: stranded assets and deadweight losses.

The bottom line is that electrification is not a cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions from commercial or residential buildings nor the transportation sector.

“Electrification of everything is a poor means to reduce greenhouse gasses and exposes customers to more frequent outages. Further, we’d just be substituting one set of environmental impacts for another,” said Tanton.

“There are several other more environmentally-friendly and cost-effective means to accomplish this goal, and we simply can’t afford to electrify everything as the report clearly shows.”

Tanton adds that electrification will destroy decades of diversification by the market, tying consumers to a fragile yet monolithic electric grid.

The electric grid is ill-equipped for extreme conditions, like extended heat waves or polar vortex cold snaps, without blackouts, like just happened in California. The likelihood of outages will increase with the considerable increase in demand associated with electric cars, removing natural gas from buildings, and other electrification moves. Building a more robust grid to handle such extremes would add perhaps $7 trillion to the costs.

The report notes that Texas would lead the way in terms of total electrification costs at $3.157 trillion, followed by California at $2.823 trillion.

What’s even more frightening is the per capita costs of such an expensive and destructive experiment. For example, each resident of Louisiana can expect a bill of $166,065, while Wyoming citizens would be on the hook for $158,961 apiece, and those in North Dakota would face a tab of $133,847.

Tanton, who lives in California and formerly a Principal Policy Advisor with the CA Energy Commission (CEC), has witnessed first-hand the devastation wrought by attempts at complete electrification.

“California’s rolling blackouts and cataclysmic forest fires are not the results of climate change. They are the direct result of poor leadership and destructive energy policies that should be rolled back in my state and others before it’s too late,” Tanton concluded.

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is a 501(c)(3) organization that champions responsible and balanced environmentalism, which seeks to conserve the nation’s natural resources while ensuring a stable and robust economy through energy dominance.

Specifically, E&E Legal advocates responsible resource development, conservation, sound science, and respect for property rights.


According to the BEA, the USGDP is now negative. The greens should explain how they plan to pay for the “green new deal” under these circumstances:

Like this:

Like Loading…


via Watts Up With That?

September 22, 2020 at 04:12PM

How To Use CLIMOD 2

By Paul Homewood


 As you know, I have been using CLIMOD 2 a lot lately. It is a very powerful analytical tool for working with official NOAA temperature and rainfall data.

It takes a bit of getting used to, but is easy once you get the hang. So, as promised, here’s the idiot’s guide!!





CLIMOD is part of the Applied Climate Information System, which is operated by NOAA’s Regional Climate Centres. You can though access data from any part of the US via any RCC – I always use the Northeast, simply because I came across it first.

You can also, apparently access global data, though I’m not sure how up to date any of it is.

Anyway, on to Lesson 1!


If you open the above link, you will see the selection screen – all three boxes need selections.


Product selection offers a variety of reports, and it is best to play around to see what is best in any one situation.

I find Daily Data for a Month useful, as this gives data for the current month (although some stations only update monthly).

The main report I have been using recently however is Seasonal Ranking, which takes you onto this screen for Options Selection:



As you can see, you can select graphs, tables and CSV. You can also pick seasonal or monthly output, and a date range.

The variable drop down box offers Max temp, Min temp, rainfall etc. I have selected Max temp, which then offers the following choices under Summary.

1) Maximum – this gives the highest temperature each year (for whatever month/season you pick)

2) Minimum – the opposite!

3) Mean – this shows the average daily maximum temperature each year, again for the month selected

4) Number of days – this will chart how many days were over a certain temperature (which the system will prompt you to enter.) In the same fashion, you can do the same with rainfall.

5) Percent of days- the same as 4), but as a percentage.

You can choose the number of missing days you want to allow – in the above example, if there is no data for more than five days for a particular month/year, the graph will return a blank field, so I find it better to increase the number, to avoid too many gaps.


And then we get to the fiddly bit – Station Selection.

Type in the location where the image sign is:


I have entered Sacramento, but there are several stations in the surrounding area you can choose from – see drop down box labelled “Station”.

This is a little bit of trial and error, unless you know which specific station you want. Many sites only have a few years of record, but if you click GO, you will soon see which ones are which.


The selection I have made above gives this graph. It is interactive, so by clicking on the graph line, you can get the value for that year:





There is also a table below – by clicking on column headers, you can sort by column.



This box  image allows you to download .

Remember that these are all sourced from official NOAA daily data. NOAA make massive adjustments to monthly figures, via various homogenisation techniques. The daily data however tells the truth.


September 22, 2020 at 04:03PM

BLM “Disrupts The Nuclear Family”

“We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.” What We Believe – Black Lives Matter

via Real Climate Science

September 22, 2020 at 04:02PM

US Senate refrigerant bill not cool

The Caesar Rodney Institute’s David Stevenson explains why the latest bi-partisan climate bill — a legislative effort to circumvent the non-ratifiable Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol for the benefit of multinational rentseekers– is bad for Americans.

Excursions away from free market principles get really expensive for consumers. An energy bill passed out of the US Senate Energy & Public Works Committee Sept. 10 is a case in point. It forbids the sale of inexpensive existing refrigerants, and forces the use of a replacement costing up to fifteen times more. The legislation will likely cost consumers about $13 billion a year just in higher refrigerant cost, and when money is misspent jobs are lost. That cost translates to an extra $100 for a new car, new residential air conditioning, or repair. My testimony on this legislation is available on the Caesar Rodney Institute website.

Ask yourself why people need to be forced to buy a product by federal legislation, and who benefits. Two companies, Honeywell and Delaware based Chemours, lobbied for the same goals in a United Nations treaty, an EPA regulation, and now lobby for the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act to create a monopoly for their patent protected HFO product line that sells for up $65 a pound compared to existing products that sell for $3 to $4 a pound. Two of the prime sponsors of the Act are Senators Tom Carper from Delaware, and John Kennedy from Louisiana where Chemours production facilities are located. This is about money. Lots of it, as that $13 billion a year in higher consumer costs goes directly to these two companies.

Don’t take my word for it. When President Obama did not send the UN negotiated Kigali Amendment to the US Senate for approval as he didn’t have the votes to pass it, he told the EPA to regulate it into being. The EPA complied, but didn’t really have the authority, and the regulation was overturned by the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. Honeywell and Chemours appealed the court decision which was denied with these comments from the judge, “Industry intervenors are rent-seekers trying to use the government to foreclose their competitors’ products”, and intervenor “arguments mask their true interest in this case, which is to have government choose market winners and losers, thereby stifling competition”.

The excuse for passing the Act are claims made in a study, paid for by Honeywell and Chemours, stating that US export sales will increase from improved global market share of advanced air conditioning and refrigerant equipment. Supposedly that will add 33,000 US jobs. The forecast of increased exports is highly suspect based on the established historical pattern of U.S Manufacturers of both refrigerants, and air conditioning and refrigeration equipment to move manufacturing to lower labor cost countries. No increase in manufacturing means no increase in jobs.

In 2000 imports and exports of such equipment was in balance. Since then exports grew 10%, but imports grew 240%. A big reason for the increase in imports is equipment manufacturers themselves moved production to other countries along with technology advances. Almost half our imports are now coming from Mexico and Canada, with China and South Korea supplying another 37 percent. The first large scale HFO refrigerant manufacturing plant was built in China in 2010 which now dominates global refrigerant sales. Industry forecasts project most of the global growth for refrigeration and air conditioning will be in Asia, and South America where local manufacturers will serve the market.

The other part of the case for passing the AIM Act is it will reduce global warming as the newer refrigerants have a dramatically lower global warming potential. In reality, US regulations require all refrigerants be recycled, and very little escapes to the atmosphere. The latest EPA greenhouse gas inventory estimates fluorinated products account for 3-percent of net global warming emissions. The EPA MAGICC climate change calculator yields an estimated 6 one-thousandths of a degree reduction in global warming by 2100 if all US fluorinated emissions stop, essentially zero impact.

The claimed economic, and climate benefits of the AIM Act simply don’t exist. The shameful motives behind the Act are very real.


September 22, 2020 at 01:20PM