In the latest illustration of why you can’t rely on wishful thinking as a power source, the UK and Germany faced a harsh lesson in “Dunkelflaute.” For those not familiar with this charming German term, it means “dark doldrums”—or, in practical terms, a blackout in renewable power. While we’ve been lectured about the virtues of a green energy future, these countries got a taste of the reality: when the wind stops blowing, the entire grand plan goes belly-up.

This past Tuesday, Britain’s much-heralded wind farms managed to cover a pitiful 3-4% of electricity demand during peak hours. The National Grid had no choice but to ramp up gas-fired plants, which handled a whopping 60% of demand. Meanwhile, solar and biomass did their best to chip in, but as always, they came up short. Across the Channel, Germany experienced similar woes. Wind speeds dropped so low that turbines were spinning at a meager 7% of their theoretical capacity. Once again, it was back to coal and gas—those supposed relics of the past that are actually the backbone of modern energy security.

The “Green” Fantasy vs. Reality

Here’s what the climate evangelists won’t admit: renewable energy is a fair-weather friend. When the high-pressure systems settle in, the wind dies, and the sun disappears behind clouds, the whole green energy charade falters. Dunkelflaute is a reality every winter in Europe. Yet, this doesn’t stop policymakers from pushing for an energy system increasingly dependent on wind and solar, demanding that we double down with offshore wind farms and solar panels as if weather-dependent power will suddenly become reliable.

According to the UK’s National Energy System Operator (NESO), achieving “clean power by 2030” requires nothing short of a “Herculean effort.” We’re talking about doubling onshore wind capacity, tripling offshore wind, and quadrupling solar power. And even with all of that, there’s an acknowledgment that the system will need significant backup from nuclear power, battery storage, and, yes, gas plants. It’s as if they know this plan doesn’t hold up without fossil fuels lurking in the background, ready to save the day.

Unpacking the Fantasy Numbers

To prop up this fantasy, NESO envisions a massive expansion of not only wind and solar farms but also “system flexibility.” What does that mean? Well, they expect the public to adjust their energy usage based on availability. Imagine being asked to cook dinner at 2 p.m. because the wind happens to be blowing. This is the absurdity we’re being sold: an “eco-friendly” lifestyle where you’re at the mercy of the weather.

Then there’s the infrastructure needed. NESO’s pathway demands thousands of miles of new cables, pylons, and a reworked planning system to connect all these intermittent sources. And after all that, they admit gas will still be part of the equation, justifying its role as “backup.” In plain terms, gas will continue to do the heavy lifting during Dunkelflautes.

The Never-Ending Need for Fossil Fuels

Chris Stark, one of the government’s leading voices in this green campaign, recently acknowledged on social media that gas is, for now, the main “backup.” In his words, they hope to replace it with “low-carbon flexibility,” which is code for technology that doesn’t yet exist at the scale required. Meanwhile, we’re supposed to celebrate incremental shifts in “renewable generation,” especially in offshore wind—despite its sky-high costs and inconsistency.

Stark and his colleagues envision an elaborate future where energy storage and “flexibility” will reduce gas dependence. But let’s not kid ourselves. Even if small, “low-carbon” energy sources are developed, they won’t magically replace gas. We’re talking about filling a chasm of energy needs with a handful of experimental technologies.

Why This Matters

The truth here is painfully simple. Europe’s renewable dream relies on natural gas, coal, and nuclear. Without these, the entire system is a non-starter. Dunkelflaute is just the latest chapter in a long saga showing that renewables, as they stand today, cannot sustain a modern grid. And while the green lobby loves to demonize fossil fuels, they remain essential, especially when the wind stops.

The takeaway? We can’t afford to abandon reliable energy sources in favor of a pipe dream. If Europe and the UK want to avoid future Dunkelflautes, they’ll need to face reality and embrace a balanced, reliable mix of energy sources—one that doesn’t leave entire nations powerless in the dark.

From CLIMATE DEPOT

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “Congratulations to President Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance. Finally, US leadership has returned to fight the international climate agenda. The U.S. will finally have a president back in the Oval Office who will be pro-science, pro-environment, and fight the demented net zero climate agenda, the Green New Deal, and the UN climate treaty process.

President Trump will also be able to face off against the ridiculous, unsustainable, and unscientific claims that emanate from our most esteemed institutions. America will once again be a beacon of scientific realism regarding climate change and energy policy. Bravo!”  

By Marc Morano

DRILLING AWAY

Trump has vowed to increase U.S. production of fossil fuels by easing the permitting process for drilling on federal land and would encourage new natural gas pipelines. He has said he would reauthorize oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Whether the oil industry follows through and raises production at a time when oil and gas prices are relatively low remains to be seen.

He has said he will again pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Accords, a framework for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, and would support increased nuclear energy production.

He would also roll back Democratic President Joe Biden’s electric-vehicle mandates and other policies aimed at reducing auto emissions.

He has argued that the U.S. needs to be able to boost energy production to be competitive in developing artificial intelligence systems, which consume large amounts of power.

#

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano:

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “Congratulations to President Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance. Finally, US leadership has returned to fight the international climate agenda. The U.S. will finally have a president back in the Oval Office who will be pro-science, pro-environment, and fight the demented net zero climate agenda, the Green New Deal, and the UN climate treaty process.

President Trump will also be able to face off against the ridiculous, unsustainable, and unscientific claims that emanate from our most esteemed institutions. America will once again be a beacon of scientific realism regarding climate change and energy policy. Bravo!”

#

The U.S. presidential election has massive consequences for the climate change agenda. CFACT will be on the ground again this year following the UN’s every effort to squelch your freedom and continue the dark path of net-zero rationing of energy, food, freedom of movement, and free speech. The CFACT team traveling to Azerbaijan will be led by veteran UN experts Craig Rucker — who has attended 26, and Marc Morano, who will be attending his 20th out of the past 29 international UN summits.

Azerbaijan is the third petro-state in a row to host the COP summit, with Egypt, and Dubai the previous two years. This year’s summit is being dubbed the “finance COP” because climate and green energy lobbyists are descending on the event to try to funnel even more U.S. taxpayer money into their pockets.

CFACT’s Marc Morano, who runs Climate Depot, commented:

“With Donald Trump winning the US presidential election, the United Nations COP29 will turn into a giant wake, with the United Nations facing defeat of their anti-human climate agenda. The entire climate agenda is facing utter and complete collapse due to its unrealistic mandates and targets. Failure across the board is occurring, from emission targets to anemic electric vehicle sales to pushback by farmers fighting back against agricultural climate restrictions. A Trump victory will help push the United Nations and its net zero agenda into the dustbin of history. I will be on the ground with other team members to report daily on what’s happening post-election at one of the most consequential UN climate summits.”

American Energy Alliance’s Statement on President Trump’s Victory

WASHINGTON DC (11/06/2024) – According to AP News, President Donald J. Trump has been declared the winner of the 2024 presidential election. A major theme of President Trump’s campaign was his intention to promote policies that make energy and electricity more affordable for everyday Americans. The American Energy Alliance endorsed candidate Trump. American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle issued the following statement on President Donald J. Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election:“Congratulations to President Donald J. Trump on his election victory. Throughout his campaign, President Trump expressed his unabashed support for American energy. He promised to embrace domestic oil and gas production, lower energy and electricity prices, and undo the inflationary Biden-Harris Green New Deal policies, especially the wasteful taxpayer funded subsidies in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. That’s because President Trump understands that affordable and reliable energy is critical to our economic well-being and our national security. “We look forward to working with President Trump to unleash our energy potential, preserve the right for Americans to choose the types of cars and trucks that best suit our needs, and unwind the Biden-Harris administration’s regulatory onslaught on American energy producers.”

From CFACT

By David Wojick

Okay it is chatbots that know they are biased, not all of AI. But these days the headlines are all about “AI” and they really just mean these chatbots that emulate reading to an amazing degree, so I go with the flow. Nor do these chatters know anything as they are just computers emulating humans but it is far easier to talk as if they knew what they were doing.

Which brings me to the big news. My colleague Tom Shepstone performed a wonderfully elegant experiment revealing that at least one major chat, namely Perplexity, knows it is biased on climate change. Perplexity lives here.

Lots of people have reported interesting arguments over climate change with a chatbot. Tom and I have been playing around with these arguments for some time. For example I managed to pressure ChatGPT into correctly explaining Will Happer’s skepticism, but it was a long haul.

Tom Shepstone instead did something wonderfully simple. He first asked the bot a typical basic question:

“What is the cause of global warming?” He got the usual long winded alarmist answer ending with this Summary:

“In summary, global warming is driven by a combination of fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, agricultural practices, industrial emissions, and transportation—all exacerbating the natural greenhouse effect and leading to significant climate changes globally.”

Rather than arguing with the bot Tom just said this to it:

“This is obviously biased!”

He got a long answer that began with this statement:

“I appreciate your feedback and understand that discussions about global warming can evoke a range of perspectives. It’s important to approach this topic with a balanced view. Here’s a more nuanced look at the issue:

Understanding Global Warming: A Balanced Perspective”

Balanced! So the bot already knows (or emulates knowing) that its first answer was not balanced. This is huge!

Its response is a reasonably good presentation of some of the major skeptical arguments, beginning with this statement:

“Natural Climate Variability: Climate has changed throughout Earth’s history due to natural factors such as volcanic eruptions, solar radiation variations, and natural greenhouse gas emissions. Some argue that current climate changes could be part of a natural cycle rather than solely driven by human activities.”

It even gets into the economic arguments and the position that adaptation is better than trying to eliminate emissions.

Thus this:

“Economic Impacts: Addressing global warming involves economic considerations, such as the costs associated with transitioning to renewable energy sources, potential job losses in fossil fuel industries, and the financial implications of climate policies. There are also arguments about the balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability.”

And this

“Adaptation vs. Mitigation: Some experts advocate for adaptation strategies (adjusting practices to minimize damage) rather than focusing solely on mitigation (reducing emissions). This perspective emphasizes resilience and finding ways to live with changing climate conditions.”

It is vague and not overtly skeptical on the science but it does imply the science is not settled by saying this:

“Climate science is an evolving field, with ongoing research aimed at better understanding complex climate systems, feedback loops, and long-term effects.”

Not bad considering all Tom said was “This is biased.” He said nothing about the nature of the bias and the chatbot knew what he meant. Woohoo!

Moreover the bot appeared happy to present these skeptical arguments in more detail, saying this at the end:

“Conclusion

While there is strong evidence supporting human-induced global warming, it’s essential to recognize the complexity of the issue. Engaging with diverse perspectives can lead to more comprehensive discussions about how best to address climate change while considering economic, social, and environmental factors. If you have specific aspects or viewpoints you’d like to explore further, feel free to share!”

All things considered I think this is a great discovery.

A lot of the science skepticism is missing but there may be a good reason for this, namely that there is nothing like a widely accepted skeptical position on the science. Instead skepticism ranges over a vast range of scientific views which are often incompatible with one another.

For example some people argue that CO2 sensitivity is low while at the opposite extreme some argue the greenhouse effect does not exist. My view is in between, that the GH effect is real but sensitivity is an abstraction that does not exist in the actual complex climate system.

The point is that skepticism is not a position in the debate; it is a lot of positions.

How to present debates as diverse as this is a major research and design problem for chatbots. Having studied the structure of complex issues for many years I see no obvious solution. There is much work to be done.

In any case Tom Shepstone has made a great discovery. If chatbots can be restrained on climate alarmism by simply saying “You are biased” we need to get the word out on that.

I hope others will experiment with this profound finding. Chatbots want to please their users (emulate wanting to please them) so it may be that Perplexity was responding to prior skepticism on Tom’s part. Or maybe this works every time?

I also heartedly recommend Tom’s Substack blog “Energy Security and Freedom” here:

His insights are often well worth reading.