Alarmists gonna alarm.
via CFACT
January 7, 2025 at 03:30AM
A recent paper by Helge F. Goessling, et al., published by AAAS Science, looks at the possible cause of the recent global temperature surge and suggests it has been intensified by record-low planetary albedo”. The abstract states:
“In 2023, the global mean temperature soared to almost 1.5K above the pre-industrial level, surpassing the previous record by about 0.17K. Previous best-guess estimates of known drivers including anthropogenic warming and the El Niño onset fall short by about 0.2K in explaining the temperature rise. Utilizing satellite and reanalysis data, we identify a record-low planetary albedo as the primary factor bridging this gap. The decline is apparently caused largely by a reduced low-cloud cover in the northern mid-latitudes and tropics, in continuation of a multi-annual trend. Further exploring the low-cloud trend and understanding how much of it is due to internal variability, reduced aerosol concentrations, or a possibly emerging low-cloud feedback will be crucial for assessing the current and expected future warming.”
Previous papers have pointed out a warming of the oceans, particularly in the tropics. Since infrared radiation (from greenhouse gases such as CO2) cannot penetrate the ocean surfaces beyond a few millimeters (small fractions of an inch) increasing atmospheric CO2 cannot be an explanation of ocean warming over a few years, but increased sunlight at sea level can.
via climate science
January 7, 2025 at 01:34AM
“If Illinois wants an affordable and reliable grid, the answer is to end subsidies and mandates for all forms of generation. And to eliminate regulations that are taking the most affordable and reliable fuels out of the generation mix. Nothing else will work.”
Electricity prices are climbing in Illinois. As is the public’s concern about them. To address this, Governor JB Pritzker and governors from four other states recently asked the PJM Interconnection to do something about the escalating rates.
While the concern is widespread, there is little consensus over the cause of the higher prices. Some blame fossil fuels. Others the PJM capacity market. And others a lack of investment in battery storage. Most agree, though, that government intervention is needed to fix the problem.
However, a closer look shows that government intervention is the source of the problem.
Background
Illinois’ fuel mix, the type of facilities used to generate electricity, has dramatically changed over the last ten years. In 2013, 91 percent of the electricity used in the state was generated by nuclear (48%) and coal (43%). Renewable generation from wind and solar were less than 5 percent, and natural gas supplied only 3.4 percent.
The mix is very different today. Coal’s output plummeted to only 15 percent, leaving a huge hole in Illinois’ generation capacity. To fill the breach, renewable generation has almost tripled to 13.3 percent and natural gas now provides 16 percent of load.
Why did this happen? First, over the decade, Congress has provided subsidies of more than $81 billion of taxpayer money to force renewable energy onto the national grid. Illinois is partnering with Congress to require its electric utilities to obtain 40 percent of their electric power from renewables by 2030 and 50 percent by 2040.
The second reason is that in 2021, Illinois enacted a clean energy law mandating zero emissions from all coal-fired power plants by 2045. Federal regulations are also designed to accomplish a similar outcome.
The result of this growing dependence on renewables is a more expensive, less reliable electric grid. Advocates of wind and solar are doing everything they can to mask this.
Misdirection, More Government
For instance, state Sen. Bill Cunningham filed legislation last spring designed to address higher prices and energy shortages. One of the ways the legislation addresses this is to set up a system of energy storage credits. In layman’s terms, Sen. Cunningham is proposing government mandated subsidies for batteries designed to store electricity.
In addition to ignoring how consumers paying for new subsidies will reduce their electricity costs, the senator does not explain that the reason Illinois is facing potential energy shortages is because intermittent, i.e., unreliable, renewable energy has replaced the highly reliable coal-fired generation that had kept the lights on in Illinois for decades.
Another renewable advocate, Sarah Moskowitz, the executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, tries to blame fossil fuels for the grid’s problems. She offers the example of Winter Storm Elliot, when she says PJM “made the unusual request that everyday customers conserve energy. She claimed that “the fossil-fueled power generators who for years had sold themselves as necessary for grid reliability, failed to deliver.”
However, the data explains that it was renewables that were no shows.
During the storm, PJM asked “consumers to reduce their use of electricity … between the hours of 4 a.m. on December 24, 2022 and 10 a.m. on December 25, 2022.” At 4 a.m. when the call for conservation went into effect, it was 0 degrees outside and demand was rapidly increasing, but renewables were not coming through. Wind provided only 5 percent of the electricity being generated, and solar 0%. Eighty-three percent of the electricity came from natural gas, coal, and nuclear generation. Even at noon that day, solar only provided 1 percent of the load, 692 megawatts, despite having an installed capacity of 2,096 megawatts.
Conclusion
Renewables can still not be counted on, while the options for grid reliability are diminishing. Government mandates, subsidies, and regulations are shutting down investment in reliable, dispatchable thermal generation from fossil and nuclear fuels.
PJM’s capacity market will not solve the problem—it will only make the grid more expensive, not more reliable. My state of Texas—the nation’s leading generator from renewable sources—has already tried this by throwing $40 billion at generators over the last three years in the hope of increasing thermal capacity. It did not work.
If Illinois wants an affordable and reliable grid, the answer is to end subsidies and mandates for all forms of generation. And to eliminate regulations that are taking the most affordable and reliable fuels out of the generation mix. Nothing else will work.
———————————
Bill Peacock is the policy director of the Energy Alliance. He has been researching and writing about electricity markets for 20 years.
The post Illinois Electricity: Subsidies, Mandates, Inflation appeared first on Master Resource.
via Master Resource
January 7, 2025 at 01:14AM
In the high-stakes world of energy production, nuclear power remains one of the most promising technologies for meeting global demand while minimizing emissions. Yet, as Christopher Koopman and Eli Dourado explain in their Wall Street Journal piece, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has become a regulatory quagmire stifling innovation. The recent lawsuit from Texas, Utah, and Last Energy, aimed at curbing the NRC’s overreach, could mark a turning point for the future of small modular reactors (SMRs)—an innovation too vital to be obstructed by bureaucratic inertia.
A Regulatory Regime Frozen in the Cold War Era
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 was crafted with the foresight to distinguish between different types of nuclear reactors based on their risk profiles. Reactors that could pose significant national security or public health risks would require federal oversight. Yet, this sensible framework was gutted in 1956 when the Atomic Energy Commission, the NRC’s predecessor, decided that all nuclear reactors, regardless of their size or risk, must undergo the same suffocating regulatory process.
This one-size-fits-all approach persists today, resulting in absurdities like the regulation of the teaching reactor at Texas A&M University—a reactor so small it couldn’t even power a single LED bulb. As Koopman and Dourado point out, even the NRC itself concedes that research reactors like these pose no meaningful safety risk. Nevertheless, they are subjected to the same licensing gauntlet as gigawatt-scale power plants.
The Small Modular Reactor Revolution
Small modular reactors are a game-changer for nuclear power. Unlike the sprawling nuclear plants of the mid-20th century, SMRs are compact, produce a fraction of the energy of traditional plants (around 20 megawatts or less), and are equipped with modern safety features. For instance, Last Energy’s reactor design operates within a 12-inch steel-walled container, making a radioactive release virtually impossible—even in the worst imaginable scenario.
Last Energy’s design operates entirely inside a container with 12-inch steel walls that has no credible mode of radioactive release even in the worst reasonable scenario.
Even in such a scenario, according to the plaintiffs, radiation exposure would be less than a tenth what the NRC has deemed too safe to require regulation in other contexts—and less than 1/800th of a routine abdominal CT scan.
Yet, these remarkable advancements are stymied by the NRC’s outdated and burdensome licensing process. NuScale, another SMR innovator, spent over $500 million and more than two million hours of labor just to get its design certified. That’s before applying for an operational license, which will only multiply the costs.
The Stakes for States Like Texas and Utah
The timing of this challenge is crucial. Texas and Utah face energy crises as their populations grow. Texas operates its own electrical grid, serving more than 27 million customers. With its rapid population growth and booming economy, the Lone Star State faces an unprecedented need for reliable power. Utah’s “Operation Gigawatt” aims to double its power production over the next decade. Nuclear power could play a crucial role in both states’ energy futures, to say nothing of America’s, if regulatory barriers don’t stand in the way.
Why the NRC’s Overreach Must End
At the heart of this lawsuit lies a simple yet transformative demand: the NRC must adhere to the law. The Atomic Energy Act did not mandate federal oversight for reactors that pose negligible risks. State regulatory authorities are fully capable of ensuring the safe operation of SMRs, freeing federal regulators to focus on reactors with actual public health and security implications.
Washington’s heavy-handed involvement is not just unnecessary—it’s counterproductive. The NRC’s licensing regime is not a regulatory framework; it is a de facto moratorium on nuclear innovation. By requiring exhaustive and often irrelevant documentation, the NRC has turned what should be a decade of progress into a decade of paperwork.
Unleashing America’s Nuclear Potential
The NRC’s bureaucratic stranglehold on nuclear energy is not merely a hindrance to innovation; it is a threat to the nation’s energy security and economic competitiveness. As the world increasingly turns to renewable and low-carbon energy sources, the U.S. risks falling behind by hamstringing one of its most promising technologies.
Koopman and Dourado’s call to action is clear:
Federal courts should simply require the NRC to follow federal law. Reactors that could affect the nation’s public health and safety should be subject to rigorous federal oversight. But state regulatory authorities are more than sufficient to ensure that small modular reactors operate safely. Washington doesn’t need to be involved.
This lawsuit is more than a legal battle; it is a pivotal moment for reclaiming the promise of nuclear energy. If successful, it could pave the way for states to harness SMRs to meet growing energy demands sustainably and safely, while liberating innovators to do what they do best—innovate.
In short, this is not just a fight against overregulation—it is a fight for the future of energy itself.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
via Watts Up With That?
January 7, 2025 at 12:05AM
