Exposing The Battery Backup Con – Are you watching Ed Miliband and Starmer?
via climate science
February 14, 2025 at 01:44AM
Ed. Note: Four years ago, Storm Uri caused Texas’s centrally planned wholesale electricity market (ERCOT) to buckle, vindicating warnings about the state’s wind/solar reliance. The mainstream media implicated natural gas instead, failing to explore the why behind the why. Rather than deregulation, Texas has chosen to add wind, solar, and batteries, while subsidizing natural gas plants to counter intermittency. This duplicated grid is now driving rates up in a state that could have relied on surplus natural gas instead.
It was not so much the story of freak weather triggering a market failure writ large. It was a classic application of political economy of government intervention: the seen and the unseen, expert/regulatory failure, and unintended consequences. Don Lavoie, a preeminent thinker in the field of market-versus-government planning, once warned:
If the guiding agency is less knowledgeable than the system it is trying to guide—and even worse, if its actions necessarily result in further undesired consequences in the working of that system—then what is going on is not planning at all but, rather, blind interference by some agents with the plans of others.” [1]
Planned chaos, in other words.
The failure of governmental electricity in Texas humbled many electricity design experts (including technocrat Lynne Kiesling); the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT); the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT); and the Texas Legislature. Other players at a distance were the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), North American Electric Reliability Corporation [né Council] (NERC); and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).
Classical liberals can tie experience to theory to identify expert/regulatory failure. This should not be surprising given that electricity is the most regulated industry in the United States next to money & banking and the national-defense contracting.
Superficial View
The ‘mainstream’ view is that an “extreme tail event” caught the private-sector firms, most in natural gas, unprepared. The regulators, in the middle for the most part, did their job. I have challenged this interpretation in detail here and here. “Renewables, representing more than one-fourth of Texas’s generating capacity,” I argued, “all but disappeared at the peak.
But there is a very important second part of the story: the tax-break-driven pricing of wind severely compromised the economics of existing and new natural gas and coal plants.
But the rare event was not a market situation begging for market reform. It was a governmental situation where the inertia of intervention resulted in more intervention: continued wind/solar, battery storage, and even talk about demand-side responses (meter technology and incentives). The experts can solve this, in other words, with a lot of studies and planning.
Enron Analogy
This reminds me of the (superficial) Enron interpretation. Enron made bad investments, tried to cover them up, and lost the confidence of the market. They went bankrupt and ‘the market worked.’ Why the massive failure? Fish rot at the head, one book concluded. But why?
With Enron (as with the Blackout), I argue that something greater was at work. It was ‘contra-capitalism,’ the pursuit of the unearned, in the form of pervasive rent-seeking, strategic deceit (’philosophical fraud,’ short of prosecutable fraud), and imprudence that Adam Smith, Samuel Smiles, Ayn Rand, and Charles Koch, among others, have warned against.
For me, at least, getting to the ‘why behind the why’ to explain a ‘systemic failure’ like Enron opened up a lot of deep thinking that tested and expanded my theory. Capitalism was not to blame for Enron considering all the warnings from our side on bad commercial behaviors, and same for electricity in Texas in February 2021.
Reinterpreting the Backout
With Texas, the surface explanation of wind and solar all but disappearing at the peak is just the beginning. (‘This was expected by planners—can’t blame them.’) It was a pervasive lack of weatherization among natural gas companies from the wellhead to the power plant. But why? Reliability is JOB 1 with electricity, and this job was outsourced to regulators working with a very (regulatory) weakened/fragmented industry. Coordination issues aplenty!
The ‘why behind the why’ gets to a lot of regulation and political/social pressure that brought the worst out of private sector parties. Think about the intended and unintended consequences of government forcing of wind power in particular. Wind’s intermittency and negative pricing (from the federal tax credit) ruined the economics of conventional power plants.
Regarding (mal)coordination, federal and state regulation has disaggregated the natural gas industry in three phases, and the same for electricity in three/four phases. There are no ‘electricity majors’ or ‘natural gas majors’ that are vertically and horizontally integrated (regulation forced the disaggregation of the industry). We needed Majors, in fact…. (The business strategy of integration (“oil majors”), by the way, was part of the answer to the “commons problem” of oil and gas production under the ‘rule of capture.’ another story.)
Electricity is different, they say. Need large control areas because of the nature of electrons. A ‘commons problem’ says Lynne Kiesling. Okay, then who do you trust? Markets or experts/regulators? And no, there is no Hayekian/ central planning solution of private resources in the electricity ‘commons’.
The experts have been working hard on market design to find that right balance between reliability and price. Texas went virtually all price (thinking that peak pricing for several weeks of the year would compensate for not having ‘capacity payments’ for standing ready to meet peak demand). But the shortage during Storm Uri sent prices to astronomical levels, which now will result in a bunch of nonpayment, lawsuits, and probably socialistic cost-spreading among all customers. Total mess—and most all of the involved regulators have resigned and have court dates.
———————
On Facebook, Lynne had a revealing exchange with economist Steve Postrel:
Postrel: According to the data I’ve seen, ERCOT consistently plans for lower reserve margins than other grids. ERCOT now planning for 15-20%, but that’s still lower than surrounding grids.
Kiesling: Reserve margin: In contrast to your interpretation, I would argue that other RTOs (PJM in particular) have excessive reserve margins relative to supply requirements and relative to the ability of demand to respond to higher prices. Other RTOs (PJM in particular) are governed by generators, who clearly have an incentive to have higher than needed reserve margins. Again I say to you: what do you think the cost is of a reserve margin to achieve 100% reliability during a 1-in-20-year extreme tail event??????
Postrel: As I noted on your other post, the decision to just accept blackouts like these (in extreme freezes) as the cost of doing business cannot be ruled out as the optimal policy, given the cost of incremental reliability. Presumably, this would be a good subject for cost-benefit analysis with reference to the degree of public risk-aversion. But the “excess” reserves in other places, if adequate to mitigate the consequences currently being felt in Texas, don’t seem so burdensome as to be obviously superoptimal.
It is a huge planning issue: reliability vs. price. Experts (like Kiesling) must tell the regulators what to do. NO, we cannot let the market decide because it is a “commons problem.” But I say: deregulate to let the electricity majors into the market … And short of this, at least understand the ‘coordination problem’ as an expert/regulatory failure, not market failure.
It is time for an entrepreneurial discovery process in a true market, not a contrived market under mandatory open access. Firms must be allowed to internalize the reliability function with their Grade A corporate guarantee. Lots of laws must be repealed, another story.
———————
[1] Don Lavoie, National Economic Planning: What is Left? (Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1985), p. 95.
———————
My posts on the Great Texas Blackout:
Wind, Solar, and the Great Texas Blackout: Guilty as Charged
Renewables “Market-Failed” Natural Gas in Texas
Electricity Planning: Physical vs. Economic (an exchange with Eric Schubert)
ERCOT “worked as planned” (architect Hogan gives no quarter)
Civil Society and Natural Gas during the Great Texas Blackout
For other posts:
“U.S. Winter Outlook: Cooler North, Warmer South” (NOAA’s prediction bust)
Numbers and the Great Texas Blackout (Bill Peacock: March 4, 2021 )
ERCOT: A Central Planning Government Agency
Texas’ Renewable Fail: Remember Georgetown’s Green New Deal Too
Oklahoma’s Rolling Blackouts: Remembering Audrey McClendon’s War on Coal (Charlie Meadows: February 23, 2021)
Wind Subsidies Help Freeze Texans (Bill Peacock: February 18, 2021)
Texas Windpower: Will Negative Pricing Blow Out the Lights? (PTC vs. reliable new capacity) (Josiah Neeley: February 17, 2021)
The post The Great Texas Blackout Revisited: Market Failure Not appeared first on Master Resource.
via Master Resource
February 14, 2025 at 01:16AM
Paul Dorian
A very cold air mass will flood the northeastern states at the end of the upcoming weekend and next week looks very cold on average across the eastern 2/3rds of the nation. Map courtesy ECMWF, weathermodels.com (Dr. Ryan Maue, X)
Overview
A major storm system will pound the western states during the next couple of days and it will then trek across the nation and wreak havoc in the eastern states this weekend. In California, the rainfall in coming days will be heavy all along low-lying coastal sections from Oregon to the Mexican border, and snowfall will be measured by the foot in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. By the early part of the upcoming weekend, this same storm system will bring flooding rainfall to the Ohio and Tennessee Valleys and then significant snow is likely on Sunday across interior New York State and New England.
In the Mid-Atlantic region, there will be plenty of rainfall this weekend; however, it is likely to be preceded on the front-end by snow and accumulations are possible; especially, to the north of the PA/MD border. Cold air will pour into the eastern states following this weekend storm system and next week is indeed looking very cold across the eastern two-thirds of the nation. Low pressure is likely to gather strength in the southern states by the middle of next week aided by an influx of Gulf moisture and it could become a significant east coast storm threat by later Wednesday or Thursday.
A major storm will impact the western US during the next couple of days with significant rainfall in low-lying coastal sections and substantial snowfall in higher elevation locations. In fact, the snow will be measured by the foot in coming days across the Sierra Nevada Mountains of eastern California and substantial snow will fall in many of the Rocky Mountain States. Map courtesy NOAA, tropicaltidbits.com
Major storm crosses the country next few days
A strong storm system will pound California during the next couple of days with significant rainfall along low-lying coastal sections from Crescent City in the north to San Diego in the south. Substantial snow will fall across the higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada Mountains during this event with several feet in some spots by the latter part of the weekend. This same storm system will then cross the nation and reach the eastern states this weekend bringing flooding rainfall on Saturday to some areas such as the Ohio and Tennessee Valleys and significant accumulating snow to others on Sunday including interior New York State and New England.
The weekend will feature plenty of rainfall in the DC-to-Philly-to-NYC corridor; however, there can also be a quick thumping of snow on the front-end with accumulations on the table; especially, to the north of the PA/MD border. Any snow or sleet that does fall at the onset of the weekend event will change to rain by Saturday night and continue Sunday and some of the rain may be heavy at times. Map courtesy NOAA, tropicaltidbits.com
In the Mid-Atlantic region, the weekend weather event will range from cold and possible accumulating snow on the front-end to mild with plenty of rainfall in the middle and back-end. All of this will be followed by an influx of very cold air on Sunday night and Monday and the first half of next week will be very cold across much of the nation including the Mid-Atlantic region. On Saturday, precipitation may begin as a quick thumping of snow; especially, to the north of PA/MD border. Accumulations of a couple to a few inches are possible across eastern PA, central and northern New Jersey, and in the New York City metro area likely from the late morning to early afternoon hours. Even the DC metro region can experience some snow and/or sleet at the onset of the weekend event around mid-morning on Saturday and a coating or so is on the table. Later in the day, the precipitation will mix with and then changeover to rain and the rain will continue Saturday night and Sunday morning. Some of the rain that falls on Saturday night and Sunday morning can be heavy at times and a rumble of thunder cannot be ruled out. By later Sunday, strong low pressure to the north will drag a cold front through the region and temperatures are likely to plunge late Sunday/Sunday night from the mild levels achieved earlier in the day.
The Madden-Julian Oscillation or MJO is predicted to push through phase 8 and into phase 1 during the next couple of weeks (indicated by arrows, left plot) and these particular phases are typically correlated with colder-than-normal conditions across the central and eastern states (boxed regions in temperature composite maps, right). The colder-than-normal weather pattern that begins in earnest next week could last all the way into the month of March. Plot courtesy ECMWF, NOAA
Very cold next week…possible east coast storm threat mid-to-late week
The first half of next week looks to be very cold across much of the central and eastern US with particularly cold air centered over the central states. This outlook for colder-than-normal weather next week in the eastern half of the nation is supported by the movement of a tropical disturbance that is tracked by meteorologists using a teleconnection index known as the Madden-Julian Oscillation or MJO. Depending on its location (or “phase”) for the given time of year, it can provide clues as to the temperature patterns across the nation.
Next week is destined to be very cold across much of the nation and this colder-than-normal pattern could take us all the way into the month of March. The 2-meter temperature anomaly forecast map shown here for the 7-day period of February 20 – February 27 depicts much below-normal temperatures across the eastern half of the nation with a focus on the Midwest/Ohio Valley. Map courtesy ECMWF, Weather Bell Analytics
At this stage of the winter season, when the MJO moves into phases 8 and 1, temperatures are typically below-normal across the central and eastern states. Indeed, it appears the MJO will push into phase 8 during the next day or so and then into phase 1 around February 22nd or so…this colder-than-normal pattern may even last right into the month of March.
The overall active weather pattern across the nation in recent weeks will continue through at least much of next week and one of the supporting factors has been powerful “jet streak” activity in the upper part of the atmosphere. This forecast map of 250 millibar winds for next Wednesday evening, February 19th, suggests strong surface low pressure may develop somewhere near the Mid-Atlantic coastline. Map courtesy NOAA, tropicaltidbits.com
By later Tuesday of next week, moisture will push northward into the Mississippi Valley resulting in snow to the north and rain down south. Low pressure over the northern Gulf region will then make a move to the northeast and head towards the Atlantic seaboard and it will encounter plenty of cold air across the Mid-Atlantic region. Exactly how far this system moves up along the east coast remains to be seen, but the threat is there for a significant impact in the Mid-Atlantic region by the middle or latter parts of next week…stay tuned.
Meteorologist Paul Dorian
Arcfield
arcfieldweather.com
Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube
Video discussion (YouTube)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
via Watts Up With That?
February 14, 2025 at 12:04AM
by Chris Martz
The political fires that ignited with President Donald Trump’s second inauguration shifted national attention away from the devastating wildfires in California.
Now entirely contained, the Los Angeles County fires should not be allowed to fade into the history books, chalked up to yet another consequence of man-made global warming. Politicians trying to pin the blame for the disaster on climate change are not only attempting to avoid accountability but are just plain wrong.
Fires require three key ingredients: an ignition source, fuel, and oxygen. Wildfires do not spontaneously combust because the planet is 1.2°C warmer now than in 1850. There must first be an ignition source. These can be natural, such as lightning, or man-made, such as fireworks, sparks, or arson. Ninety-seven percent of fires between 1992 and 2012 had a human ignition source, according to a study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Mediterranean California is no exception. While the exact cause of the Los Angeles fires has yet to be determined, lightning has already been ruled out. Whether it was an accident, arson, or broken utility lines remains unknown. If it was a broken power line, Southern California Edison must explain why it didn’t deenergize its transmission lines in the foothills. What is known is that the weather conditions have been ripe for fires to escape containment and spread.
Before the fires started, the National Weather Service office in Los Angeles warned of “life-threatening” and “destructive” windstorms. Residents were advised to stay indoors and away from windows as strong northeasterly winds with gusts exceeding 80 mph were expected to hit the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding foothills. Such gusts can topple not only trees but also utility lines and loose objects that may ignite fires, which can spread rapidly.
The meteorology behind this is simple. The whipping northeasterly winds resulted from a tight pressure gradient between high pressure over the Great Basin and low pressure over Baja California. While the gradient of pressure points toward higher values, the acceleration acts inversely, shifting the prevailing wind direction to north, northeasterly. The tighter the gradient, the stronger the winds are.
As the mass of air moves toward lower pressures, it is channeled through mountain passes, descends the leeward side, and flows into the foothills. Funneling air through a region of higher pressure causes it to compress, accelerating the air because the same mass is forced through a smaller opening — consider the rush of air you feel when the valve core is removed to deflate a tire. Compression dries and heats the air at a rate of 17.6°F for every kilometer of descent. Once the hot, dry winds reach the foothills, they dry out vegetation, particularly small-diameter fuels such as twigs, leaves, and grass, in less than 10 hours and stoke existing fires by supplying them with more oxygen.
These winds are known as the Santa Ana winds. They occur each year, and every resident of Southern California is familiar with them.
The news articles linking the LA fires to man-made climate change cite increasingly parched vegetation caused by rising temperatures and decreasing rainfall. While LA has warmed by 5.4°F since records began in 1878, likely partly due to the urban heat island effect, there is no statistically significant trend in rainfall — 2023 was the sixth-wettest year on record.
Moreover, it’s worth considering that, on a regional scale, the Southwest has been getting drier since at least 1895. Since 2000, it has been in what is loosely defined as a “megadrought.” In fact, the Southwest has a well-documented history of “megadroughts.” Evidence from tree-ring reconstructions indicates that western North America’s current “megadrought” has precedent within the last millennium. The 400-year-long “Medieval megadrought,” which occurred between 900 and 1300 AD, has surpassed any recorded period of aridity since then.
There is no conclusive evidence that greenhouse gas emissions triggered the deadly blazes. For instance, variations in air temperature and precipitation from the average are minimal in relation to the burn area. Fires can burn regardless of whether the air is hot or cold. A study published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that the maximum temperature during all Santa Ana wind-driven fires from 1948 to 2018 ranged between 43°F and 95°F. The authors noted that no causal link existed between the acreage burned and temperature. Additionally, there was a weak correlation between burn acreage and rainfall in the seven to 30 days prior.
Fuels, particularly small-diameter fuels, dry out quickly when weather conditions shift. The drying effect of Santa Ana winds makes vegetation highly flammable within just a few hours, even if rainfall has been above average. Although the American Association for the Advancement of Science study found that no fires occur during 75% of Santa Ana wind events, it also found that humans cause 100% of fires associated with these winds.
Therefore, human-induced ignitions have a far greater impact on fire risk than the background environmental conditions influenced by a changing climate.
There is still no consensus about future changes in Santa Ana wind events. One study observed an increase in Santa Ana wind days over the past two decades, linking this trend to a rising frequency of jet stream configurations over California. However, another paper found that the southwest pressure gradient driving Santa Ana winds declines in the authors’ models in response to warming, although the downturns are less pronounced in winter. These and similar studies cast significant doubt on the connection between the fires and man-made climate change.
In Northern California, which is densely forested, fire exclusion and poor forest management, such as insufficient mechanical thinning and prescribed burning, have led to a century-long buildup of fuel, primarily on federal lands. In contrast, Southern California’s fuel load mainly consists of chaparral brush and nonnative plant species, such as eucalyptus, which contains flammable oils, and palm trees, which easily ignite due to their fibrous texture.
Although forest mismanagement isn’t as significant an issue, fuel reduction can still more than offset the small increase in fire danger resulting from future warming by as much as 15% relative to today under the “business-as-usual” emissions scenario. Essentially, rapid economic decarbonization efforts would prove futile.
Considering that 97% of fires are caused by humans, concentrating 11 million people who wish to live in sunny areas for six to nine months out of the year into a few thousand square miles will inevitably result in an increase in fire incidents.
Reducing fire risk will depend on increasing public awareness of fire safety to reduce ignitions, increasing firefighting resources, implementing and enforcing stricter building codes that mandate fire-resistant construction for homes, and ensuring that Southern California Edison cuts off power transmission during high-wind events to minimize the risk of fires caused by downed power lines or, alternatively, buries its lines underground.
While there are many useful mitigation techniques we could use, I am not convinced that any of them will be implemented. It’s too easy for progressives to continue to focus on “net zero” targets and blame every environmental disaster on climate change.
That allows them and their allies in media to then point the finger at energy companies and demand costly payments through litigation and legislation such as climate superfunds. Energy companies that produce what humanity requires to survive become the villains in the climate change morality play, conveniently diverting attention from progressives’ own policies that increased fire risk in recent decades: inadequate urban planning and neglecting essential underbrush thinning. And if their shenanigans succeed, they get millions of dollars to play with.
They must not be allowed to get away with it this time.
This article originally appeared in The Washington Examiner.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
via Watts Up With That?
February 13, 2025 at 08:00PM
