Biden bought a lot of GOP politicians with his Green New Deal, so the GOP left $522 billion in climate scam money in their tax bill. NYT#NYTimes#05-22-2025#NewYork#1#A1#1#212108
via Real Climate Science
May 22, 2025 at 11:21AM
I currently have four Freedom of Information requests in various stages with the Met Office regarding straightforward numerical integrity of archived items. That the recording of temperatures at any given time should require such absurd levels of investigation is likely beyond most reasonable people’s rational belief. In the case of the Met Office, such innocuous numbers seem to be ultra secretively held but is this an issue of accuracy or integrity? Given that the Met Office has a habit of changing their websites and data surreptitiously when challenged on issues, I detail my enquiries for the record lest things are covertly changed.
To clarify the points “Accuracy” relates to precision and how close to a set standard something is. “Integrity” relates to whether something is actually correct or indeed truthful. An inaccurate number can be truthful if that was to the best precision available. An incredibly accurate number, however, can be completely lacking in integrity if it was simply made up. It would be a very strong allegation indeed for me to suggest that the Met Office may have both made up some numbers and accepted known wrong numbers and archived them. However, that is exactly what I feel has appeared to have happened and thus I have asked for clarification on certain numbers and events. Quite why such apparent trivial matters have required me to take them not only to FOI request but also for the Met Office to delay answering due to the alleged “complexity” of one of them (so far – others may follow) is almost beyond parody. These are only temperature readings after all surely. Or perhaps there are more aspects to these issues that must be protected – I do not know, so I will simply record my case for consideration.
Many will remember this infamous Scottish “record breaking” site proclaimed by the BBC.
“On Thursday 28 June, a temperature of 33.2C degrees was measured in Motherwell, North Lanarkshire.
It exceeds the 32.9C recorded in August 2003, at Greycrook in the Borders.”
Only something was not quite right.
The reality was an ice cream van had been parked alongside a truly atrociously sited weather station which was still rated as “Unsatisfactory” by the Met Office themselves when I reviewed it in 2024 – plus ça change.
It would be reasonable to assume that the 33.2 °C reading in being acknowledged as inaccurate would be expunged from the records with presumably no reading for that day archived – a classic “NA” that frequently appears. This is what actually appears in the archives. {note: with 24 hour daily recording the 09:00 maximum reading in column “I” relates to the day before i.e. reading date 29/6/2018 is for 28/6/2018}
So my simple question was….where did the reading of 31 °C come from? Was this an “estimate” derived from somewhere else, if so why bother for just one day’s readings – there are literally millions of blank days readings (NA) in the archives for manual stations, one more is insignificant. {Note, I have a personal “theory” where this number came from but I am not divulging that until the Met Office eventually provides an answer to FOI IMS0292291.}
The Scottish all time record high temperature saga continued. Scottish Television (STV) this time proclaimed this momentous event.
{Worth noting that point about this Floors Castle manual reporting station beating Charterhall’s figure of 34.8 °C which is discussed below} Again this proclamation was somewhat premature and a correction had to be made.
This article offered the bizarre explanation ” A previous high of 35.1C, recorded at Floors Castle, was not officially recognised because the site is not compliant with Met Office standards.” Floors Castle is a fully compliant, official Met Office weather station of longer standing than Charterhall. Why it was ruled out is anyone’s guess it seems – I cannot find any official definitive reason. A cynic might suggest that the Floor Castle site is publicly visible in a walled kitchen garden and people might start to question why the Met Office opts to take climate readings in a deliberately engineered warmer micro climate. Charterhall conversely is somewhat off the beaten track and unlikely to come under close scrutiny.
On the basis that the Floors Castle reading should again be expunged and deemed inaccurate I checked the archives.
On this occasion the “incorrect” or “inaccurate” figure has NOT been removed and it has also been archived for posterity. I therefore asked the Met Office for an explanation why a claimed inaccurate (thus knowingly false) figure had been committed to the archives. Whilst errors are always possible with routine numbers, It seems highly unlikely that a potential national record high should be so carelessly regarded. I am awaiting an answer to FOI IMS0292131. This leads on to a further mystery regarding the alleged official Scottish record.
Charterhall. My initial concerns regarding this site revolved around a noted screen relocation within its own compound. It seemed very odd for the Met Office to record such a tiny change given that in so many cases very large re-locations measured in hundreds of metres are not openly recorded. Even the exact date, 6/12/2022, was recorded. A cynic might infer there was something significantly wrong with the previous site (that it was even over grass was extremely questionable) and it had hurriedly been moved to correct the problem.
I looked at the readings around that record setting date of 19/7/2022. Charterhall is a long term automatic WMO reporting site that supplies temperature readings by the minute. Data from such sites is conventionally archived twice daily at 09:00 and 21:00. In these archives the 21:00 reading is the high point of the day it is recorded on unlike daily (24 hour) reporting Floors Castle and Motherwell:Strathclyde Park which show highs a day in arrears at 09:00.
Despite reporting on a 12 hourly cycle for over 30 years, on the 29th June 2022 Charterhall suddenly, and with no explanation, changed to 24 hour (once daily reporting) suggesting possibly being manually read. The last 24 hour reading was logged for 1/7/2022 when ALL READINGS STOPPED for 17 consecutive days.
The first reading to be resumed from Charterhall was back to 12 hourly reporting at 21:00 19th July 2022 and was the all time Scottish record of 34.8 °C. Given the coincidences here I have asked the Met office to explain this remarkably odd situation. Freedom of Information request IMS0292133 refers.
Waddington I have previously posted twice on this weather station where I found records from RAF Scampton being transferred over to RAF Waddington’s archive. Records for Waddington in general are patchy to say the least however, the main issue here is that the UK all time record high of 40.3°C allegedly set at RAF Coningsby (Typhoon take offs and all) was also recorded for Waddington.
Back in the days when the Met office enquiries desk still felt it acceptable to respond to my information requests I was told
“Dear Mr Sanders,
The 39.9C value on the map in the link you provided is not Waddington but it Cranwell or Scampton, both of whom recorder maximum temperatures of 39.9C that day.
At that time Waddington was having its temperature data marked as suspect as the grass under the screen had been treated with weed killer.
Kind regards,
Weather Desk”
Trying to follow up on the point by requesting why the 40.3 °C was passed into the archives if readings were known to be suspect met with a wall of silence. I therefore raised an FOI IMS0286812 on the 23/4/2025 requesting an explanation of why known inaccurate data was passed into the archives. Again error seems implausible with such a spectacular (but highly disputed) set of figures going into the historic record. Despite a normal 20 working day period time to respond, the Met Office (Legal Department) have advised they are extending their time due to the ” complexity” of my inquiry out to the 20/6/2025.
All these may superficially seem trivial issues but not only is the integrity of archived numbers called into question there are also suggestions that inaccuracy is prevalent. There are other implications which may be revealed dependent upon the Met Office answers. I will report further when more information is available. In the meantime the above data has been locked into the internet archives.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
May 22, 2025 at 10:58AM
by Planning Engineer (Russ Schussler)
In Part 1, we showed how wind and solar’s low costs over 80% of the time are overwhelmed by expenses at peak times such that they offer no cost advantages to the generation mix. Residential solar follows a similar pattern: it seems affordable for homeowners, but raises system costs through rate structures that over-incentivize adoption. Generous subsidies, like retail-rate net metering, drive excessive solar growth, risking grid stability and shifting costs to non-solar customers that are often less affluent. Less generous rates for residential solar slow adoption, but better align solar adoption with grid needs, ensuring fairness and sustainability.
The Economic Problem: Cost-Shifting Through Rate Structures
It’s hard to understand why many don’t see the unfairness in rate structures, as similar arrangements would seem absurd in other industries. Imagine hotels required to keep rooms ready for all customers (at standard rates) just in case they “might” want them. Worse, during low occupancy, hotels must send guests to customers’ Airbnb properties whenever there are excess rooms. Or consider pizza chains forced to buy excess pizzas from restaurants during slow hours while supplying low-cost pizzas during peak hours and covering all pickup and delivery costs. In all of these cases, the major problem is that large infrastructure investment is required that will sit idle most of the time and receive inadequate compensation from the beneficiaries.
How Residential Solar Rate Structures Work
Residential solar systems, typically tied to net metering, let homeowners generate and sell power in ways that appear cost-effective:
- Serving own needs: Solar panels produce during sunny, low-demand periods (e.g., midday spring), letting homeowners avoid utility charges. These charges are usually a flat rate based on average costs. (Note: The utility backs them up when panels don’t produce enough electricity.)
- Selling excess power: Surplus power goes to the grid, with net metering crediting it at rates varying by state. Typically, these payments exceed the energy’s value to the utility during low-demand periods.
- Hard Times: At night, on cloudy days, or during peak demand (e.g., summer evenings), panels produce little. Homeowners buy grid power at flat rates, which don’t reflect the high costs of peaking plants.
Rate structures today vary to the degree to which they subsidize residential solar. Below are general categories of rate structures, ordered by levels of subsidies, from high to low.
- Retail-Rate Net Metering: Credits residential solar at full retail rates (~$0.20–$0.42/kWh, e.g., Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island). Yields high returns for residential solar (20–50% ROI) and encourages rapid adoption (e.g., Hawaii’s 30% penetration, ~200,000 homes).
- Partial Retail/Hybrid Net Billing: Credits at 50–80% of retail (~$0.10–$0.20/kWh, e.g., Connecticut, Vermont, Maryland, Minnesota) support moderate adoption of residential solar (e.g., Vermont’s 8% penetration, ~15,000 homes) with less cost-shifting.
- Net Billing at Avoided Cost: Lower credits (~$0.05–$0.08/kWh, e.g., California’s NEM 3.0, Arizona, Arkansas) slow growth.
- Wholesale/Avoided Cost Rates: Minimal credits (~$0.03–$0.07/kWh, e.g., Alabama, South Dakota, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky) yield low penetration (0.02–1.2%, ~270–10,000 homes), reducing subsidies and
Initially, solar power rate structures used retail-rate net metering. Lower subsidies could not attract sufficient participation. Since participation was low initially, the small subsidies from the overwhelmingly large group of non-participants were not significant. As more customers adopt solar, the economics change. California’s experience highlights the unsustainability of this approach. California now on version 3.0 of its net metering approach, which pays only for avoided costs for new customers. Retail-rate net metering became unsustainable as participation levels increased.
This chart shows the relationship between higher credits and the resulting penetration of residential solar for a sampling of states.
Of course, higher subsidies correlate with greater participation. California NEM 3.0 looks like an outlier, but it must be understood this participation rate was built not on the NEM 3.0 rate structure. The big base they have of residential solar was built on legacy policies, and viability today is supported by the area’s high retail rates and grandfathering of existing residential solar customers under the old tariffs.
In a 2015 post, I discussed various approaches to cost sharing for residential solar. It’s worth reviewing at this time as it provides additional coverage on the topic at hand. In that piece I noted that the models with the least subsidies still only required residential solar users to pay the incremental costs they incur, not shared system costs. Should residential solar customers help with basic system costs? The answer becomes increasingly important with high levels of residential solar. Responsibility for the basic system costs becomes attributable to fewer and fewer customers. Unfortunately, those footing the bill are disproportionately less affluent consumers who are most burdened by increasing energy costs.
The economic toll of overly generous rates:
- Lost Revenue: Utilities need steady charges to cover fixed costs (grid lines, backup power). Solar homeowners avoid these during low-demand periods, reducing revenue.
- Overpaid Purchases: High credits for low-value power strain utility budgets.
- Fat Tail Costs: Peak periods drive high costs (peaking plants and transmission and distribution expansion). Non-solar customers face 1-2% rate hikes in high-solar areas, per National Renewable Energy Laboratory studies.
Generous rate structures, like retail-rate net metering, fuel excessive solar adoption, raising costs and inequity. Less supportive rates, like California’s NEM 3.0 or South Dakota’s wholesale rates, reduce uptake, which is proper when solar outpaces system needs.
Early net metering aimed to boost solar, but its costs—shifted expenses and grid risks—are now evident. Regulators, prioritizing green energy, often mandated generous rates, as in California’s NEM 1.0/2.0, which achieved 25% penetration before NEM 3.0’s lower rates slowed growth. Fair pricing proposals are often labeled as anti-renewable, stifling reform.
A common justification is that subsidizing residential solar will lower prices and increase affordability. What goes unrecognized is that the cheaper residential solar becomes, it exacerbates unsustainable rate designs as fewer non-solar customers remain to support the system.
A Path Forward
Residential solar programs rely on structures that overpay for power and undercharge for grid use. Better designs would reduce incentives and align adoption with grid economics. Potential options for improving solar tariffs include:
- Time-of-Use Rates: Credit solar at market value less during the mid-day and charge more for peak power. This slows adoption, as seen in California’s NEM 3.0 (80% installation drop).
- Pay Avoided Costs: unlike time-of-use rates, avoided costs could be set at average rates to avoid costly metering and complexity.
- Grid Access Fees: Fixed fees ensure solar homeowners pay for reliability.
- Peak Demand Charges: Bills based on peak usage reflect true costs.
These options promote equity, reducing subsidies from non-solar customers to wealthier adopters. The key is recognizing cost differentials between what solar customers receive and what they provide. Fewer incentives mean less solar, which is proper when it drives costs, as in states like Alabama (0.7% penetration). Political pressure to support solar will resist such efforts.
Wrapping Up
Poor rate designs hide solar’s true costs, making it seem affordable while raising electricity rates for all. Retail-rate net metering drives excessive adoption of solar, shifting costs to non-solar customers. Less supportive rates, like avoided costs or California’s NEM 3.0, slow solar growth, aligning it with grid needs. This ensures fairness and avoids cost spirals. A sustainable energy supply requires pricing that reflects true costs, ensuring affordability for all.
Future posts will focus on utility economics, discuss problems with energy markets and delve into many of the often-ignored unaccounted costs associated with wind and solar. For example, many assume the grid is easier to operate when part of the load base meets its own needs. In reality, residential solar burdens system operators, increasing complexity and costs of stabilization efforts. In Australia, a renewables leader, operators see a need to switch off rooftop solar during stressful periods to maintain system stability. Look for follow-up posts in the coming weeks.
The post Why “cheaper” solar raises costs. Part II: The hidden costs of residential solar appeared first on Climate Etc..
via Climate Etc.
May 22, 2025 at 10:14AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 