US Wildfires Much More Extensive In Past, Says New Study

By Paul Homewood

 

Forestry experts have long known that wildfire burn in the US was much more extensive pre-European settlement.

Now a new study has attempted to quantify the changes:

 

 

 image

Abstract

Rapid increases in wildfire area burned across North American forests pose novel challenges for managers and society. Increasing area burned raises questions about whether, and to what degree, contemporary fire regimes (1984–2022) are still departed from historical fire regimes (pre-1880). We use the North American tree-ring fire-scar network (NAFSN), a multi-century record comprising >1800 fire-scar sites spanning diverse forest types, and contemporary fire perimeters to ask whether there is a contemporary fire surplus or fire deficit, and whether recent fire years are unprecedented relative to historical fire regimes. Our results indicate, despite increasing area burned in recent decades, that a widespread fire deficit persists across a range of forest types and recent years with exceptionally high area burned are not unprecedented when considering the multi-century perspective offered by fire-scarred trees. For example, ‘record’ contemporary fire years such as 2020 burned 6% of NAFSN sites—the historical average—well below the historical maximum of 29% sites that burned in 1748. Although contemporary fire extent is not unprecedented across many North American forests, there is abundant evidence that unprecedented contemporary fire severity is driving forest loss in many ecosystems and adversely impacting human lives, infrastructure, and water supplies.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56333-8

 

The paper includes this useful graphic:

 

 

image

image

image

The 20thC trends correlate closely with the official US wildfire acreage data, published by the US Forest Service, but since taken off their website by the Biden administration:

image

https://web.archive.org/web/20170530102025/https://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/criteria-indicators/indicators/indicator-316.php

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/yKFYJk5

February 15, 2025 at 04:50AM

The UK’s shaky ‘firm’ capacity

By Paul Homewood

 

 image

As many readers know, the GB electricity grid narrowly missed a blackout at the start of January. As was widely reported that the time, it looks as though we were down to our last half a gigawatt of spare capacity. After that, the only option available to grid managers is to switch people off, either through voluntary arrangements (so-called ‘demand-side response’) or through compulsion – rolling blackouts, in other words.

It is beyond doubt, therefore, that the system is very fragile. When all is said and done, the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of renewables, our 45 gigawatts of which delivered just 2.6 gigawatts of actual output during the evening peak of 8 January 2025. In some ways, we got lucky – at other times this year, renewables output has fallen to 0.5 gigawatts. If that had happened on 8 January, grid managers would simply not have been able to find the extra capacity required.

In the event, we had just enough reliable generation – gas and nuclear – to fill the gap. They ran pretty much flat out, and the lights stayed on.

However, there’s a problem, and it’s a big one.

Very few gas-fired power stations stay open for longer than three decades, and much of the GB fleet is now very long in the tooth. The Medway power station will hit age 30 this year, and Little Barford, Connah’s Quay and Keadby will follow in 2026. To make things even worse, the Hartlepool nuclear power station is scheduled to close next year too, while Heysham will close in 2027.

At the moment, the grid is making reassuring noises. The Capacity Market, which subsidises power stations to “be there” when renewables decide not to deliver, has booked “firm” capacity of 43 gigawatts for winter 2027–28, and they will expect to top that up nearer the time.

But look a little closer, and the picture becomes less rosy. For example, more than 1 gigawatt of the total is batteries, which will probably only be able to deliver for two hours. By counting them as firm capacity, grid managers are essentially crossing their fingers and hoping that stress events are very brief. Another gigawatt is “unproven” demand-side response – people who say they are willing to switch off when supplies are tight. Will they do so in practice? Nobody can be sure.

Nearly 7 gigawatts of the total is interconnectors, the “firm” nature of which is increasingly open to question. As we know from previous grid crises, when there is a shortage of electricity here in the UK, there is usually a shortage across Western Europe, because wind speeds are highly correlated. The result is a bidding war for the limited supplies of electricity. Those with surplus firm power – notably Norway and France – are increasingly asking why their consumers should have to put up with sky-high prices because the rest of Europe runs its electricity system in a completely irresponsible way. Oslo in particular seems likely to cut the interconnectors in future, rather than endure the economic pain.

But the bulk of the UK’s firm capacity is gas-fired, and much of this is shaky, rather than firm. Nearly 2 gigawatts of the total is represented by a proposed new unit at Eggborough. However, a few weeks ago, the developers relinquished the capacity contract for one of the two units and, with a building contractor apparently yet to be appointed, it remains unclear whether the other will go ahead either.

Also in the gas-fired segment are all those decrepit units mentioned above. Their advanced ages means that their status as firm capacity is open to question. It’s all very well a rusting old power station saying it will be there to help out in 2027, but when the engineers try to switch it on, will it actually deliver? There are fines for failing to do so, but not so onerous as to discourage operators from taking the subsidy and crossing their fingers.

On the face of it then, it is quite possible that a large chunk of our 43 gigawatts of firm capacity for winter 2027-28 may not materialise. There are a few scraps of hope around. EDF have apparently indicated that the lives of Hartlepool and Heysham might be extended, which would certainly help things. It is possible that some of the older gas-fired units might take new capacity market contracts to convert to single-cycle power stations (OCGTs)  – more suited to running at low capacity factors. But OCGTs deliver much more costly power than CCGTs, so hard-pressed consumers should expect even more pain. Finally, grid managers will be hoping that electricity demand doesn’t rise as quickly as forecast over the next few years. That might give them a little more breathing space.

But a mixture of quick fixes and Hail Marys only to adds to the already worrying impression of a grid that resembles (to misquote the eighteenth century diplomat George MacCartney) “an old, crazy, first-rate Man of War, which a fortunate succession of able and vigilant officers have contrived to keep afloat for these thirty years past”.

How much longer it can be kept from sinking remains to be seen.

https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/the-coming-capacity-crunch

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/21o3Ky6

February 15, 2025 at 04:26AM

BP set to scale back green investments

By Paul Homewood

From the BBC:

image

Oil giant BP has said it will "fundamentally reset" its strategy as profits dropped sharply last year.

It is widely expected to say later this month that it will scale back renewable projects and increase oil and gas production following similar moves from rivals including Shell and Equinor.

BP’s net income fell to $8.9bn (£7.2bn) in 2024, down from $13.8bn the previous year.

It said lower oil and gas prices, plus lower profits from its refineries, had dented how much money it had made.

Five years ago BP set a target of 50GW of renewables generation capacity by 2030.

That is expected to be abandoned on 26 February in a major change of strategy.

BP has already been scaling back on renewables.

In December it put the majority of its offshore wind assets into a joint venture with Japanese company Jera to separate them from the company’s core fossil fuel business.

It is expected to cut its previous $10bn commitment in renewables until 2030 by up to a half.

BP also froze new wind projects in June last year.

Activist shareholder Elliott Management has bought a stake in BP to push for more investment in oil and gas, with investors anticipating board changes.

AJ Bell analyst Russ Mould said the sharp drop in profit "provided plenty of fodder" for hedge fund Elliott, with BP having done "little to reassure other shareholders that the current plan is working".

He added that "a clear and credible plan is desperately needed if BP is going to remain the master of its own destiny".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30d4ernzqjo 

 

Five years ago, there were still obscene subsidies available for renewable energy.

Now those subsidies have dried up and, despite what AEP would tell you, there is no profit to be had.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/cr7dH1q

February 15, 2025 at 04:15AM

World Becomes Brighter as Trump Reverses Biden’s Incandescent Light Bulb Ban

And user-friendly toilets, dishwashers, and showers are coming back soon, too!

From Legal Insurrection

Posted by Leslie Eastman 

President Donald Trump has spent another day reversing Biden’s efforts to limit consumer choices over products that limit their options and hinder their quality of life.

In the name of efficiency, Biden’s bureaucrats banned incandescent light bulbs, normal-flowing toilets, and effective shower heads. Trump has just instructed his Environmental Protection Agency administrator to bring them all back.

Here is the USAID subsidiary Politico’s hot take on the subject.

“I am hereby instructing Secretary Lee Zeldin to immediately go back to my Environmental Orders, which were terminated by Crooked Joe Biden, on Water Standards and Flow pertaining to SINKS, SHOWERS, TOILETS, WASHING MACHINES, DISHWASHERS, etc., and to likewise go back to the common sense standards on LIGHTBULBS, that were put in place by the Trump Administration, but terminated by Crooked Joe,” Trump posted online Tuesday.

Zeldin is the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Energy Department — not EPA — is responsible for establishing efficiency standards for consumer products and appliances.

Still, the post echoes Trump’s long-time criticism of efficiency standards put in place for products, like shower heads and light bulbs.

LED bulbs have been a standard replacement for the incandescent bulbs. There is myriad of reasons to deride the blue light that LED bulbs emit.

Blue light suppresses melatonin production, disrupting circadian rhythms and making it harder to fall asleep. This is particularly problematic when exposed to blue light in the evening or at night.

From the American Academy of Ophthalmology:

Blue light does affect the body’s circadian rhythm, our natural wake and sleep cycle. During the day, blue light wakes us up and stimulates us. But too much blue light exposure late at night from your phone, tablet or computer can make it harder to get to sleep.”

Prolonged exposure to blue light can cause eye strain, resulting in tired, sore, and dry eyes. This can lead to blurred vision and headaches.

So, once again, Trump is right. And many Americans are thrilled with the news.

Holy cow! Am I really getting my incandescent light bulbs back? Yeehaw. 😊 https://t.co/gxdjYQz1U9

— Dana Marie (@danamarie111149) February 12, 2025

Low-flow toilets often struggle to flush away all waste due to the reduced water used per flush. This can lead to incomplete waste removal, requiring multiple flushes, defeating water conservation’s purpose.

Insufficient water flow can cause waste to accumulate in sewer lines, leading to backups and unpleasant odors. Cities like San Francisco experienced significant sewer system issues due to the widespread adoption of low-flow toilets.

The city of San Francisco is dealing with its lack of flow with $100 million in system upgrades, and a controversial $14 million plan to pour bleach into the sewer system to neutralize the odor and disinfect the water.

Trump, again, is proven correct.

Who’s happy that Trump just gave us back the freedom to actually use our sinks, showers, and toilets like normal people? 🚿🚽💡

No more trickle showers, no more weak toilet flushes, and finally—your washing machine doesn’t take two hours per load. 🤦🏼‍♀️pic.twitter.com/db1pt4DPDq

— Desiree (@DesireeAmerica4) February 11, 2025

Finally, “high efficiency” dishwashers are ironically named. These dishwashers use less water, which can result in dishes not being cleaned properly. High-quality dishwashers may run up to 2-3 hours per cycle to compensate for lower water usage. Lower operating temperatures in eco-friendly cycles can lead to dishes not drying completely, requiring the use of rinse aid to promote water runoff.

I’m a fucking retard if I’d waited another month I could have gotten a dishwasher that doesn’t take THREE HOURS to run

I think I’m going to return it. And get my TRUMP DISHWASHER https://t.co/bZVWY7Q6Hn pic.twitter.com/EcLWOII2zp

— Cristine Rice (@PstafarianPrice) January 21, 2025

So, again, score another one for Trump.

Personally, I am planning to load up on the incandescent bulbs as soon as they become available.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/4w017gS

February 15, 2025 at 04:02AM