There is dismay across Europe as the calm weather drastically reduces the output from wind farms. It is something that is so obvious and yet political leaders appear to have ignored it.
via climate science
December 17, 2024 at 01:50AM
“Federal officials, aware that solar power breakthroughs have shined and faded almost as often as the sun, say the Enron project could introduce commercially competitive technology without expensive Government aid.” (- Allen Myerson, Solar Power, for Earthly Prices, New York Times, November 15, 1994)
Thirty years ago, the ‘newspaper of record’ excitedly reported atop the business section that a breakthrough with solar energy had occurred with the business genius of upstart energy company, Enron. Formed in the mid-1980s, Enron had just entered into the solar business and was destined to revitalize–if not save–the U.S. wind industry just a few years later.
Good press continues to create an Enron-like illusion of the coming competitiveness and profitability of solar and wind energies for on-grid electricity. Basic energy physics explains why the sun’s (dilute, intermittent) flow cannot compete against the sun’s stored (dense) energy embedded in natural gas, coal, and oil. And why outsized tax breaks for wind and solar remain essential after decades of priming. The article follows:
——————-
The nation’s largest natural gas company is betting $150 million that it can succeed where the Government has so far failed: producing solar power at rates competitive with those of energy generated from oil, gas and coal.
The Enron Corporation plans to build a plant in the southern Nevada desert that would be the largest operation in the country making electricity directly from sunlight, producing enough to power a city of 100,000 people. It is expected to begin operating in late 1996.
Grand promises in the late 1970’s about the potential of virtually pollution-free, endlessly renewable energy sources like solar energy faded into an embarrassed hush. But several of the nation’s leading solar power experts say Enron’s optimistic goal is probably reachable.
The reason is that during the last decade, the cost of solar power generation has quietly declined by two-thirds. Far from depending on some wondrous breakthrough, the experts say, Enron can offer commercially competitive solar power by inexpensively mass-producing solar panels, and then employing thousands of them in the Nevada desert.
Even the most optimistic supporters of solar power have doubted that they would see commercially competitive production until the next century. The Worldwatch Institute, an environmental group in Washington, said earlier this year that solar cell electricity, now as low as 20 cents a kilowatt-hour, might reach 10 cents by 2000 and 4 cents by 2020.
Yet Enron is pledging to deliver the electricity at 5.5 cents a kilowatt- hour in about two years. That would beat the average cost of 5.8 cents currently paid by the Government for the electricity it uses. The national average retail price is 8 cents.
Several legal and political obstacles remain, and for competitive reasons Enron will describe its technology only in general terms. But solar energy researchers who had consulted with Enron were willing to elaborate on the available technology and the financial calculus.
Enron’s 100-megawatt plant would be more than a dozen times the size of any other that employs photovoltaic, or solar power, cells, which use the energy in sunlight to shake electrons loose from molecules of silicon or other substances. Size is key, according to Sigurd Wagner, a professor of electrical engineering at Princeton University.
“If a good group of people puts a plant of that scale in, it will have a real consequence on costs,” he said. “It’s not going to go down by just a little bit, but by a factor of two.”
To reduce the price further, the company is counting on available tax breaks and inexpensive financing.
As for whether Enron’s goals are realistic, Professor Wagner said, “They’re pushing it, but they’re not far off.”
The company, based in Houston, has already won preliminary backing from the Department of Energy, which tentatively plans to buy Enron’s solar power as long as the rate is truly competitive with the power from conventional sources.
“I’m confident we can make some commitment for a Federal entity to purchase or at least broker some purchase of solar power,” said William H. White, the Deputy Secretary of Energy.
Government officials say Enron’s success will encourage the spread of solar power generation here and abroad.
“If they can do this, they’re going to have lots of business,” said Tony Catalano, director of the Energy Department’s photovoltaic division. “This is going to be very competitive in the U.S. and lots of other places in the world.”
Enron has asked the Government to buy or guarantee a market for its power, with annual increases of 3 percent, for 30 years. It also depends on leasing Government land, receiving Federal tax benefits for renewable energy and financing construction with tax-free industrial development bonds.
Mr. White proposes having the department’s Western Area Power Administration, whose grid connects Hoover Dam and other projects with large public power authorities, buy the power generated by the solar plant. That power would only be available in daylight hours, which are also the hours of peak demand, especially for air-conditioning.
Previous efforts to promote solar power as a clean alternative to fossil fuels have foundered, despite the Government’s spending of hundreds of millions of dollars on solar research. Solar power has remained too expensive, while fossil fuel prices have declined.
While solar cells can economically provide the tiny charges needed by watches and pocket calculators, their larger applications are mostly in remote places beyond the reach of the world’s power grids.
Federal officials, aware that solar power breakthroughs have shined and faded almost as often as the sun, say the Enron project could introduce commercially competitive technology without expensive Government aid.
“This establishes the benchmark we want and restarts a stalled solar industry,’ said Robert H. Annan, the solar energy director in the Department of Energy.
In fact, the solar industry has already grown, with the shipments of solar cells up more than tenfold since 1980, as repeated technological advances have lowered their cost.
Even after Federal officials agree to buy solar power, they will have to formally solicit bids to see if anyone can beat Enron’s offer. Among more than 30 informal proposals so far, no one has.
Enron’s chief strategy officer, Robert C. Kelly, says that producing solar power follows from Enron’s generation of electricity from natural gas, a cleaner fuel than coal or oil. But Enron will not be running a charity. Asked how soon solar power could generate earnings, he said: “Now. We’re a very impatient company in terms of profits.”
Limited production of solar power cells at an adjacent factory, to be run by a partner whom Mr. Kelly would not identify, will keep the $150 million power plant from reaching its full capacity for about a decade.
The necessary technology is on display in Mr. Kelly’s office, where a square glass panel about the size of an art book, its surface shimmering with metallic greens, blues and violets, rests on a gleaming steel rack. He is cautious about saying anything more than that the panel was produced by another company and used what people in the business called a thin-film design.
Silicon has been the film of choice, but several companies are achieving much higher efficiencies, and lower costs, with other substances or more than one silicon layer. A partnership between Energy Conversion Devices Inc. of Troy, Mich., and the Canon electronics company of Japan plans to open the world’s largest thin-film solar cell plant in Newport News, Va., next year. Their cells will have two layers of silicon and one of germanium. The Enron and Canon ventures together would double the nation’s output of solar cells.
Zoltan J. Kiss, the founder of Energy Photovoltaics Inc. of Princeton, N.J., said he had been negotiating with Enron about the production of copper indium diselenide cells, which he said had triple the efficiency of single-layer silicon cells.
Enron, which has built one of the world’s largest gas-fired power plants in Britain, says it can also realize economies in the rest of the solar power plant’s design.
Paul Maycock, a leading solar energy consultant, said a few of the solar cell technologies he had evaluated for Enron could achieve the company’s goals, but only with sufficient production.
“Yes, it can be done,” he said. “It’s the dream we’ve all had: that someone would take the risk of building a very large factory.”
——————————–
The post Enron, NYT Declare Solar ‘Competitive’ (1994) appeared first on Master Resource.
via Master Resource
December 17, 2024 at 01:07AM
From the Cliff Mass Weather Blog
Cliff Mass
Several media stories have suggested that Project 2025 will be the blueprint for the Trump administration’s termination or break up of NOAA and the National Weather Service.
I have received at least a half-dozen calls or messages asking about it. Let’s soberly consider the Project 2025 recommendations without a political lens.
As many of you know, Project 2025 is a project of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank. It is their recommendation to the new administration. According to President Trump, he has nothing to do with Project 2025 and does not feel bound to follow its recommendations:
Let’s consider Project 2025’s recommendations for NOAA.
It starts with a pretty strong statement:
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.
But when you read the specifics, the tough talk is replaced by less threatening suggestions.
This is what Project 2025 says about the National Weather Service.
Focus the NWS on Commercial Operations.
Each day, Americans rely on weather forecasts and warnings provided by local radio stations and colleges that are produced not by the NWS, but by private companies such as AccuWeather. Studies have found that the forecasts and warnings provided by private companies are more reliable than those provided by the NWS.2 The NWS provides data the private companies use and should focus on its data-gathering services. Because private companies rely on these data, the NWS should fully commercialize its forecasting operations. NOAA does not currently utilize commercial partnerships as some other agencies do. Commercialization of weather technologies should be prioritized to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested in the most cost-efficient technologies for high-quality research and weather data. Investing in different sizes of commercial partners will increase competition while ensuring that the government solutions provided by each contract is personalized to the needs of NOAA’s weather programs
The Project 2025 folks may have a point here. Commerical forecasts (e.g., from the WeatherChannel or Accuweather or Apple weather forecasts) are generally more skillful than NWS projections. Don’t believe me? Look at specific comparisons, such as those found at ForecastAdvisor.com
The NWS is in 7th place. At least it is ahead of Pirate Weather (pirates are obviously mediocre in weather forecasting). Similar statistics are found at other locations around the U.S. As a specialist in the field, I have a very good idea of why the NWS lags, including the inferior statistical combination of weather forecasts. NOAA models (except for HRRR) are generally inferior.
NOAA could greatly improve forecast skill by contracting with commercial firms for their forecasts, releasing local NOAA meteorologists to interact with local users, and ensuring local observations are well maintained. The savings in reduced local staff could be used to improve national weather prediction models (such as HRRR) and enhance observations.
A win-win situation for everyone, and it is reasonable and defendable.
Next, Project 2025 takes on the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the NOAA Environmental Satellite Service:
Review the Work of the National Hurricane Center and the National Environmental Satellite Service. The National Hurricane Center and National Environmental Satellite Service data centers provide important public safety and business functions as well as academic functions, and are used by forecasting agencies and scientists internationally. Data continuity is an important issue in climate science. Data collected by the department should be presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate.
Project 2025 is not calling for the termination of these important NOAA efforts but to present the implications of climate change/global warming more “neutrally“.
As someone who follows this issue quite closely, I really don’t think that the NHC is guilty of consistently hyping the impacts of climate change or making “adjustments” intended to support one side or the other.
But let’s have some perspective here: Project 2025 is NOT recommending the end of the NHC as being claimed by some hyperventilating folks, such as the Huffington Post:
Finally, the report calls for a reduction in NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and to reduce the “preponderance of its climate change research”.
Downsize the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). OAR provides theoretical science, as opposed to the applied science of the National Hurricane Center. OAR is, however, the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism. The preponderance of its climate-change research should be disbanded. OAR is a large network of research laboratories, an undersea research center, and several joint research institutes with universities. These operations should be reviewed withe an aim of consolidation and reduction of bloat.
I will have to give Project 2025 mixed grades on this. NOAA AOR does BOTH theoretical AND applied science, which Project 2025 folks did not appreciate. AOR does some very good applied and theoretical science. I have worked with them on many projects, so I know. Furthermore, I don’t think it is true that there is a “preponderance” of climate-change research that should be disbanded. Yes, a few scientists in NOAA may have gone a bit “over the top” but most are not and doing good work regarding climate change.
However, there is bloat, duplication, and ineffective spending in NOAA AOR.
Trust me, I know the locations of a lot of the skeletons in the NOAA closet.
In summary, the Project 2025 “analysis” of NOAA has to be given mixed grades (and I did not mention the sloppy writing, with numerous grammatical errors. But if you bother to read it, you will see that it is not calling for the death knell of NOAA as claimed by some media and climate activists.
NOAA Does Need Reform
Although Project 2025 has hits and misses regarding NOAA, NOAA acutely needs reform.
Major reform. Reform that will enable it to serve its mission better. Reform that will make it more effective and reduce bureaucratic bloat. Reform that may well save money.
I say this as someone who has worked with NOAA for decades. I have written several papers on NOAA’s organizational problems, served on national advisory committees, and testified in Congress on these issues.
NOAA has fallen behind in weather prediction. It has failed to use commercial services when they offer better forecasts, are less expensive, or more efficient. There is a huge duplication of effort within NOAA. Large amounts of funding are wasted. There is a lack of partnerships with the University community and particularly the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
In a future blog, I will lay out the details of how NOAA could be reformed and become MUCH more effective. With insightful reorganization and better management, NOAA could provide profoundly better forecasts and environmental information to the American people.
via Watts Up With That?
December 17, 2024 at 12:00AM
Southeast Queensland has experienced heavy rain with storms dumping more than 80mm in some parts, causing widespread flash flooding. I am sorry for everyone who has been flooded. It can be devastating – flooding and losing things.
Totals of 80 mm, 86 mm and 70 mm in just a few hours are being quoted in the mainstream news as though this is a lot.
In reality southeast Queensland, especially the Brisbane catchment has always and often experienced heavy rain. The highest 24-hour rainfall total for anywhere in Australia is 907 mm at Crohamhurst, in the Brisbane catchment, recorded on February 3, 1893.
No error in those numbers if you read eighteen ninety-tree. We had some very wet days back more than 100 years ago, and probably the very wettest year on record is 1974. But as a civilization we like to pretend otherwise.
We like to pretend there is something special about modern weather, and that we are somehow to blame. This has more to do with the human condition, than the actual weather that tends to follow cycles.
There is a letter in today’s The Australian newspaper, entitled ‘The pretend game’ it refers to politics and a culture of ‘pretending’ in the name of political correctness, especially at universities and also in Canberra. Reference is made to men pretending to be women, pretending to power the nation with renewables, and pretending all cultures are equally good, etcetera. Of course, no mention is made of all the pretending about the weather being special, and our fault.
There is another letter, also in the newspaper, right next to the letter about all the pretending. It is about the Bureau of Meteorology and forecasting the weather, which is also very much pretend. If the Bureau was serious about weather and climate forecasting it would give up with its pretend General Circulation Models. John Abbot writes:
Weather and climate forecasts using Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly artificial neural networks (ANNs), are more reliable and skilful than traditional methods using General Circulation Models (GCMs). I have been publishing in the international peer-reviewed literature and running courses for Indonesian meteorologists, demonstrating the technique for over a decade. I first visited the Australian Bureau of Meteorology with Jennifer Marohasy in August 2011, to show the skill of my monthly forecasts using AI, relative to the Bureau’s using General Circulation Models that attempt to mimic the physical process. These are the same models used by the IPCC and have proven unable to forecasting more than 4 days in advance.
The Bureau has steadfastly refused to consider AI despite it showing a capacity to produce skilful location-specific rainfall forecasts from one day (models developed by Google) to 18 months in advance (models developed by Abbot and Marohasy).
In ‘BOM out of climate driver confusion’ (Weekend Australian page 3), Karl Braganza claims an inability to forecast because of climate change. In the same article, University of Melbourne weather researcher Kimberley Reid claims GCMs (physical models) are better than historical precedence. The reality is that Australia, and much of the West, is being left behind as China, Indonesia and others move to weather forecasting using AI.
Dr John Abbot, Senior Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs
Indeed, it is time that those managing different key institutions across the West, not only, but also weather bureaus were held to account for the choices they make when it comes to not only, but especially weather and climate forecasting.
It is no secret that Andrew Johnson, the current head of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, was a political appointment. He was reappointed for a further five-year term in 2021 despite the Bureau’s dismissal record of weather and climate forecasting.
***
The photograph at the top/feature image was taken of me ten years ago by a photographer at The Australian, that is when journalist Graham Lloyd published a series of articles in The Australian newspaper about the need for reliable historical temperature and rainfall data. We were hopeful, so hopeful, that Tony Abbott, back then the Prime Minister of Australia was going to do something about all the deceit and pretending. Instead he did nothing. Of course, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
via Jennifer Marohasy
December 16, 2024 at 09:35PM
