Energy Policies

Fishy Activists Destroying Hydro Dams

Posted on by Ron Clutz

AP Photo/Nicholas K. Geranios

John Stossel bring us up to date on the fishy case for removing hydroelectric dams on the Snake River in Washington state.  His Townhall article is A Dam Good Argument.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.and added images.

Instead of using fossil fuels, we’re told to use “clean” energy: wind, solar or hydropower.  Hydro is the most reliable. Unlike wind and sunlight, it flows steadily.

But now, environmental groups want to destroy dams that create hydro power.

The Klamath River flows by the remaining pieces of the Copco 2 Dam after deconstruction in June 2023. |Located on Oregon/California border.Juliet Grable / JPR

“Breach those dams,” an activist shouts in my new video. “Now is the time, our fish are on the line!“

The activists have targeted four dams on the Snake River in Washington State. They claim the dams are driving salmon to extinction.

Walla Walla District Dams on the Snake & Columbia Rivers

It’s true that dams once killed lots of salmon. Pregnant fish need to swim upriver to have babies, and their babies swim downriver to the ocean.  Suddenly, dams were in the way. Salmon population dropped sharply.

But that was in the 1970s.Today, most salmon
make it past the dam without trouble.

How?  Fish-protecting innovations like fish ladders and spillways guide most of the salmon away from the turbines that generate electricity.

Lower Granite fish count station & ladder (left, bottom right); Lower Monumental fish ladder (top right)  Source: Fish Passage Thru the Lower Snake & Columbia Rivers

“Between 96% and 98% of the salmon successfully pass each dam,” says Todd Myers, Environmental Director at the Washington Policy Center.  Even federal scientific agencies now say we can leave dams alone and fish will be fine.

But environmental groups don’t raise money by acknowledging good news. “Snake River Salmon Are in Crisis,” reads a headline from Earthjustice.  Gullible media fall for it. The Snake River is the “most endangered in the country!” claimed the evening news anchor.

“That’s simply not true,” Myers explains. “All you have to do is look at the actual population numbers to know that that’s absurd.”  Utterly absurd. In recent years, salmon populations are higher than they were in the 1980s and 90s.

The fish passage report for 2023 (here) has many results like this for various species. Conversion refers to completing the Snake River run from Ice Harbor through Lower Granite.

“They make these claims,” Myers says, “because they know people will believe them … they don’t want to believe that their favorite environmental group is dishonest.”

But many are. In 1999, environmental groups bought an ad in the New York Times saying “salmon … will be extinct by 2017.” “Did the environmentalists apologize?” I ask Meyers. “No,” he says. “They repeat almost the exact same arguments today, they just changed the dates.

I invited 10 activist groups that want to destroy dams to come to my studio and defend their claims about salmon extinction. Not one agreed. I understand why. They’ve already convinced the public and gullible politicians.  Idaho’s Republican Congressman Mike Simpson says, “There is no viable path that can allow us to keep the dams in place.”

“We keep doing dumb things,” says Myers. “We put money into places where it doesn’t have an environmental impact, and then we wonder 10, 20, 30 years (later) why we haven’t made any environmental progress.”

Politicians and activists want to tear down Snake River dams
even though they generate tons of electricity.

“Almost the same amount as all of the wind and solar turbines in Washington state,” says Myers, “Imagine if I told the environmental community we need to tear down every wind turbine and every solar panel. They would lose their minds. But that’s essentially what they’re advocating by tearing down Snake River dams.”

I push back: “They say, ‘Just build more wind turbines.’”  “The problem is, several times a year, there’s no wind,” he replies. “You could build 10 times as many wind turbines, but if there’s no wind, there’s no electricity.”

Hydro, on the other hand, “can turn on and off whenever it’s needed. Destroying hydro and replacing it with wind makes absolutely no sense. It will do serious damage to our electrical grid.”

“It’s not their money,” I point out.”Exactly,” he says. “If you want to spend $35 billion on salmon, there’s lots of things we can do that would have a real impact.”  Like what?

“Reduce the population of) seals and sea lions,” he says, “The Washington Academy of Sciences says that unless we reduce the populations, we will not recover salmon.” “People used to hunt sea lions,” I note. “Yeah, that’s why the populations are higher today.”

But environmentalists don’t want people to hunt sea lions or seals. Instead, they push for destruction of dams. “Because it’s sexy and dramatic, it sells,” says Myers. “It’s more about feeling good than environmental results.”

PostScript

Of course there is a political dimension to this movement.  Left coast woke progressives are targeting Lower Snake River dams located in Eastern Washington state.  Folks there and in Eastern Oregon would rather be governed by common sense leaders like those in Idaho.

The case against the dams is actually about climatism.  The fish are not at risk, as shown by many scientific reports. But climatists do not include hydro in their definition of “renewable.”  And they promote fear of methane, claiming dam reservoirs increase methane emissions.

So here’s the political solution.  Keep the dams open and the fish running to their spawning grounds.  And to appease climatists ban any transmission of electricity from those dams to Seattle and Western Washington state.  Deal?

Background Post

Left Coast Closes the Dam Lights

Scottish Wind Power from Diesel Generators

Posted on by Ron Clutz

John Gideon Hartnett writes at Spectator Australia Another climate myth busted  explaining how the Scottish public was scammed about their virtuous green wind power by the public authority.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images from post by John Ray at his blog.

What I like to call ‘climate cult’ wind farms expose the myth that wind can replace hydrocarbon fuels for power generation. The following story is typical of the problems associated with using wind turbines to generate electricity in a cold environment.

Apparently, diesel-fuelled generators are being used to power some wind turbines as a way of de-icing them in cold weather, that is, to keep them rotating. Also, it appears that the wind turbines have been drawing electric power directly from the grid instead of supplying it to the grid.

Scotland’s wind turbines have been secretly using fossil fuels.

The revelation is now fueling environmental, health and safety concerns, especially since the diesel-generated turbines were running for up to six hours a day.

Scottish Power said the company was forced to hook up 71 windmills to the fossil fuel supply after a fault on its grid. The move was an attempt to keep the turbines warm and working during the cold month of December.

South Scotland Labor MSP Colin Smyth said regardless of the reasons, using diesel to deice faulty turbines is “environmental madness”.  Source: Straight Arrow News

Charging system for Teslas at Davos WEF meeting.

Nevertheless, those pushing these technologies are so blind to the physical realities of the world that they are prepared to ignore failures while pretending to efficiently generate electricity. I say ‘failures’ because wind energy was put out of service the day the Industrial Revolution was fired up (pun intended) with carbon-based fuels, from petroleum and coal. And in the case of modern wind turbines, they do not always generate electricity; they sometimes consume it from the grid.

Green energy needs the hydrocarbon-based fuel it claims to replace.

Hydrocarbon-based fuels were provided providentially by the Creator of this planet for our use. That includes coal, which has been demonised in the Western press as some sort of evil. But those who run that line must have forgotten to tell China, because they build two coal-fired power stations every other week. No other source of non-nuclear power is as reliable for baseload generation.

How will wind turbines work in a globally cooling climate as Earth heads into a grand solar minimum and temperatures plummet? This case from Scotland may give us a hint. As cloud cover increases with cooler weather, and more precipitation occurs, how will solar perform? It won’t.
The two worst choices for electricity generation in cold, wet, and stormy environments are solar and wind. Solar is obvious. No sun means no power generation. But you might think wind is a much better choice under those conditions.

However, wind turbine rotors have to be shut down if the wind becomes too strong and/or rapidly changes in strength. They are shut down when too much ice forms or when there is insufficient wind. And now we have learned in Scotland they just turn on the diesel generators when that happens or they draw power directly from the grid.

Where are all the real engineers? Were they fired?

In regards to wind turbines going forward, once their presence in the market has destroyed all the coal or natural gas electricity generators, how are they going to keep the rotors turning and the lights on?

These devices are based on a rotating shaft with a massive bearing, that suffers massive frictional forces. In this case, only a high-quality heavy-duty oil can lubricate this system and I am sure it would need to be regularly replaced.

Wind turbine gearbox accelerates blade rotor (left) up to 1800 rpm output to electical generator (right)

Massive amounts of carbon-based oil are needed for the lubrication of all gears and bearings in a wind turbine system, which is mechanical in its nature. In 2019, wind turbine applications were estimated to consume around 80 per cent of the total supply of synthetic lubricants. Synthetic lubricants are manufactured using chemically modified petroleum components rather than whole crude oil. These are used in the wind turbine gearboxes, generator bearings, and open gear systems such as pitch and yaw gears.

Now we also know that icing causes the rotors to stop turning so diesel power has to be used to keep the bearings warm during cold weather. The diesel generator is needed to get the blades turning on start-up to overcome the limiting friction of the bearing or when the speed of the rotor drops too low.

In this case in Scotland, 71 windmills on the farm were supplied with diesel power. Each windmill has its own diesel generator. Just think of that.

What about the manufacturing of these windmills?

The blades are made from tons of fibreglass. Manufacturing fibreglass requires the mining of silica sand, limestone, kaolin clay, dolomite, and other minerals, which requires diesel-driven machines. These minerals are melted in a furnace at high temperatures (around 1,400°C) to produce the glass. Where does that heat come from? Not solar or wind power, that is for sure. The resin in the fibreglass comes from alcohol or petroleum-based manufacturing processes.

The metal structure is made from steel that requires tons of coking coal (carbon) essential to make pig iron, which is made from iron ore in a blast furnace at temperatures up to 2,200°C. The coal and iron ore is mined from the ground with giant diesel-powered machines and trucks. The steel is made with pig iron and added carbon in another furnace powered by massive electric currents. Carbon is a critical element in steel making, as it reacts with iron to form the desired steel alloy. None of this comes from wind and solar power.

Wind turbine power generation is inherently intermittent and unreliable.
It can hardly called green as the wind turbines require enormous
amounts of hydrocarbons in their manufacture and continued operation.

 

Power Density Physics Trump Energy Politics

Posted on by Ron Clutz

A plethora of insane energy policy proposals are touted by clueless politicians, including the apparent Democrat candidate for US President.  So all talking heads need reminding of some basics of immutable energy physics.  This post is in service of restoring understanding of fundamentals that cannot be waved away.

The Key to Energy IQ

This brief video provides a key concept in order to think rationally about calls to change society’s energy platform.  Below is a transcript from the closed captions along with some of the video images and others added.

We know what the future of American energy will look like. Solar panels, drawing limitless energy from the sun. Wind turbines harnessing the bounty of nature to power our homes and businesses.  A nation effortlessly meeting all of its energy needs with minimal impact on the environment. We have the motivation, we have the technology. There’s only one problem: the physics.

The history of America is, in many ways, the history of energy. The steam power that revolutionized travel and the shipping of goods. The coal that fueled the railroads and the industrial revolution. The petroleum that helped birth the age of the automobile. And now, if we only have the will, a new era of renewable energy.

Except … it’s a little more complicated than that. It’s not really a matter of will, at least not primarily. There are powerful scientific and economic constraints on where we get our power from. An energy source has to be reliable; you have to know that the lights will go on when you flip the switch. An energy source needs to be affordable–because when energy is expensive…everything else gets more expensive too. And, if you want something to be society’s dominant energy source, it needs to be scalable, able to provide enough power for a whole nation.

Those are all incredibly important considerations, which is one of the reasons it’s so weird that one of the most important concepts we have for judging them … is a thing that most people have never heard of. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the exciting world of…power density.

Look, no one said scientists were gonna be great at branding. Put simply, power density is just how much stuff it takes to get your energy; how much land or other physical resources. And we measure it by how many watts you can get per square meter, or liter, or kilogram – which, if you’re like us…probably means nothing to you.

So let’s put this in tangible terms. Just about the worst energy source America has by the standards of power density are biofuels, things like corn-based ethanol. Biofuels only provide less than 3% of America’s energy needs–and yet, because of the amount of corn that has to be grown to produce it … they require more land than every other energy source in the country combined. Lots of resources going in, not much energy coming out–which means they’re never going to be able to be a serious fuel source.

Now, that’s an extreme example, but once you start to see the world in these terms, you start to realize why our choice of energy sources isn’t arbitrary. Coal, for example, is still America’s second largest source of electricity, despite the fact that it’s the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive way to produce it. Why do we still use so much of it? Well, because it’s significantly more affordable…in part because it’s way less resource-intensive.

An energy source like offshore wind, for example, is so dependent on materials like copper and zinc that it would require six times as many mineral resources to produce the same amount of power as coal. And by the way, getting all those minerals out of the ground…itself requires lots and lots of energy.

Now, the good news is that America has actually been cutting way down on its use of coal in recent years, thanks largely to technological breakthroughs that brought us cheap natural gas as a replacement. And because natural gas emits way less carbon than coal, that reduced our carbon emissions from electricity generation by more than 30%.

In fact, the government reports that switching over to natural gas did more than twice as much to cut carbon emissions as renewables did in recent years. Why did natural gas progress so much faster than renewables? It wasn’t an accident.

Energy is a little like money: You’ve gotta spend it to make it. To get usable natural gas, for example, you’ve first gotta drill a well, process and transport the gas, build a power plant, and generate the electricity. But the question is how much energy are you getting back for your investment? With natural gas, you get about 30 times as much power out of the system as you put into creating it.  By contrast, with something like solar power, you only get about 3 1/2 times as much power back.

Replacing the now closed Indian Point nuclear power plant would require covering all of Albany County NY with wind mills.

Hard to fuel an entire country that way. And everywhere you look, you see similarly eye-popping numbers. To replace the energy produced by just one oil well in the Permian Basin of Texas–and there are thousands of those–you’d need to build 10 windmills, each about 330 feet high. To meet just 10% of the country’s electricity needs, you’d have to build a wind farm the size of the state of New Hampshire. To get the same amount of power produced by one typical nuclear reactor, you’d need over three million solar panels, none of which means, by the way, that we shouldn’t be using renewables as a part of our energy future.

But it does mean that the dream of using only renewables is going to remain a dream,
at least given the constraints of current technology. We simply don’t know how
to do it while still providing the amount of energy that everyday life requires.

No energy source is ever going to painlessly solve all our problems. It’s always a compromise – which is why it’s so important for us to focus on the best outcomes that are achievable, because otherwise, New Hampshire’s gonna look like this.

Addendum from Michael J. Kelly

Energy return on investment (EROI)

The debate over decarbonization has focussed on technical feasibility and economics. There is one emerging measure that comes closely back to the engineering and the thermodynamics of energy production. The energy return on (energy) investment is a measure of the useful energy produced by a particular power plant divided by the energy needed to build, operate, maintain, and decommission the plant. This is a concept that owes its origin to animal ecology: a cheetah must get more energy from consuming his prey than expended on catching it, otherwise it will die. If the animal is to breed and nurture the next generation then the ratio of energy obtained from energy expended has to be higher, depending on the details of energy expenditure on these other activities. Weißbach et al. have analysed the EROI for a number of forms of energy production and their principal conclusion is that nuclear, hydro-, and gas- and coal-fired power stations have an EROI that is much greater than wind, solar photovoltaic (PV), concentrated solar power in a desert or cultivated biomass: see Fig. 2.

In human terms, with an EROI of 1, we can mine fuel and look at it—we have no energy left over. To get a society that can feed itself and provide a basic educational system we need an EROI of our base-load fuel to be in excess of 5, and for a society with international travel and high culture we need EROI greater than 10. The new renewable energies do not reach this last level when the extra energy costs of overcoming intermittency are added in. In energy terms the current generation of renewable energy technologies alone will not enable a civilized modern society to continue!

On Energy Transitions

Postscript

Nine July Days Break Wind Power Bubble

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Parker Gallant reports at his blog  Nine July Days Clearly Demonstrate Industrial Wind Turbines Intermittent Uselessness.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added image. H/T John Ray

The chart below uses IESO data for nine (9) July days and clearly demonstrates the vagaries of those IWT (Industrial Wind Turbines) which on their highest generation day operated at 39.7% of their capacity and on their lowest at 2.3%!  As the chart also notes, our natural gas plants were available to ramp up or down to ensure we had a stable supply of energy but rest assured IESO would have been busy either selling or buying power from our neighbours to ensure the system didn’t crash. [Independent Electricity System Operator for Ontario, Canada]

The only good news coming out of the review was that IESO did not curtail any wind generation as demand was atypical of Ontario’s summer days with much higher demand then those winter ones.

Days Gone By:         

Back and shortly after the McGuinty led Ontario Liberal Party had directed IESO to contract IWT as a generation source; their “Annual Planning Outlook” would suggest/guess those IWT would generate an average of 15% of their capacity during our warmer months (summer) and 45% of their capacity during our colder months (winter). For the full year they would be projecting an average generation of 30% of their capacity and presumably that assumption was based on average annual Ontario winds!

The contracts for those IWT offered the owners $135/MWh so over the nine days contained in the chart below those 125,275 MWh generated revenue for the owners of $16,912,125 even though they only generated an average of 11.8% of their capacity.  They are paid despite missing the suggested target IESO used because they rank ahead of most of Ontario’s other generation capacity with the exception of nuclear power due to the “first-to-the-grid” rights contained in their contracts at the expense of us ratepayers/taxpayers!

Should one bother to do the math as to the annual costs based on the 15% summer and 45% winter IESO previously used it would mean annual generation from those IWT in the summer would be about 3.9 TWh and 11.7 TWh in the winter with an annual cost of just over $2.1 billion for serving up frequently unneeded generation which is either sold off at a loss or curtailed!

Replacing Natural Gas Plants with BESS:

Anyone who has followed the perceived solution of ridding the electricity grid of fossil fuels such as natural gas will recognize ENGO [Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations] have convinced politicians that battery energy storage systems are the solution!  Well is it, and how much would Ontario have needed over those nine charted July days? One good example is July 9th and 10th and combining the energy generated by natural gas from the chart over those two days is the place to start. To replace that generation of 221,989 MW with BESS units the math is simple as those BESS units are reputed to store four (4) times their rated capacity. Dividing the MWh generated by Ontario’s natural gas generators by four over those two days therefore would mean we would need approximately 55,500 MW of BESS to replace what those natural gas plants generated.  That 55,500 MW of BESS storage is over 27 times what IESO have already contracted for and add huge costs to electricity generation in the province driving up the costs for all ratepaying classes. The BESS 2034 MW IESO already contracted are estimated to cost ratepayers $341 million annually meaning 55,500 MW of BESS to the grid would add over $9 billion annually to our costs to hopefully avoid blackouts!

The other interesting question is how would those 55,500 MW be able to recharge to be ready for future high demand days perhaps driven by EV recharging or those heating and cooling pumps operating?  The wind would have to be blowing strong and the sun would need to be shining but, as we know, both are frequently missing so bring us blackouts seems to be the theme proposed by those ENGO and our out of touch politicians and bureaucrats!

Just one simple example as to where we seem to be headed
based on the insane push to reach that “net-zero” emissions target!

IESO Ontario Electrical Energy Output by Source in 2023

Extreme Examples of Missing IWT generation:

What the chart doesn’t contain, or highlight is how those 4,900 MW of IWT capacity are undoubtedly consuming more power than they are generating on many occasions and the IESO data for those nine days contained some clear examples but less than a dozen are highlighted here!

To wit:

  • July 5th at Hour 11 they managed to deliver only 47 MWh!
  • July 7th at Hours 8, 9, and 10 they respectively generated 17 MWh, 3 MWh and 18 MWh! 
  • July 9th at Hour 9 they delivered 52 MWh!
  • July 12th at Hours 8, 9, 10 and 11 they respectively generated 33 MWh, 13 MWh, 13 MWh and 35 MWh. 
  • July 13th at Hours 9 and 10 they managed to generate 19 MWh and 39 MWh respectively! 

Conclusion:

Why politicians and bureaucrats around the world have been gobsmacked by those peddling the reputed concept of IWT generating cheap, reliable electricity is mind-blowing as the Chart coupled with the facts, clearly shows for just nine days and only looking at Ontario!

Much like the first electric car invented in 1839, by a Scottish inventor named Robert Davidson, the first electricity generated by a wind turbine came from another Scottish inventor, Sir James Blyth who in 1887 did exactly that. Neither of those old “inventions” garnered much global acceptance until those ENGO like Michael Mann and Greta arrived on the scene pontificating about “global warming” being caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels!

As recent events have demonstrated both EV and IWT are not the panacea to save the world from either “global warming” or “climate change” even though both have “risen from the dead” due to the “net-zero” push by ENGO.

The time has come for our politicians to wake up and recognize they are supporting more then century old technology focused to try and rid the world of CO 2 emissions.  They fail to see without CO 2 mankind will be setback to a time when we had trouble surviving!

Stop the push and stop using ratepayer and taxpayer dollars for the fiction created by those pushing the “net-zero” initiative. That initiative is actually generating more CO 2 such as the 250 tons of concrete used for just one 2 MW IWT installation!   Reality Bites!

Wind Energy Risky Business

Posted on by Ron Clutz

The short video above summarizes the multiple engineering challenges involved in relying on wind and/or solar power.  Real Engineering produced The Problem with Wind Energy with excellent graphics.  For those who prefer reading, I made a transcript from the closed captions along with some key exhibits.

The Problem with Wind Energy

This is a map of the world’s wind Resources. With it we can see why the middle Plains of America has by far the highest concentrations of wind turbines in the country. More wind means more power.

However one small island off the mainland of Europe maxes out the average wind speed chart. Ireland is a wind energy Paradise. During one powerful storm wind energy powered the entire country for 3 hours, and it is not uncommon for wind to provide the majority of the country’s power on any single day. This natural resource has the potential to transform Ireland’s future.

But increasing wind energy on an energy grid comes with a lot of logistical problems which are all the more difficult for a small isolated island power grid. Mismanaged wind turbines can easily destabilize a power grid. From Power storage to grid frequency stabilization, wind energy is a difficult resource to build a stable grid upon.

To understand why, we need to take these engineering
Marvels apart and see how they work.

Hidden within the turbine cell is a Wonder of engineering. We cannot generate useful electricity with the low- speed high torque rotation of these massive turbine rotors. They rotate about 10 to 20 times a minute. The generator needs a shaft spinning around 1,800 times per minute to work effectively. So a gearbox is needed between the rotor shaft and the generator shaft.

The gearboxes are designed in stages. Planetary gears are directly attached to the blades to convert the extremely high torque into faster rotations. This stage increases rotational speed by four times. Planetary gears are used for high torque conversion because they have more contact points allowing the load to be shared between more gear teeth.

Moving deeper into the gearbox, a second stage set of helical gears multiplies the rotational speed by six. And the third stage multiplies It again by four to achieve the 1,500 to 1,800 revolutions per minute needed for the generator.

These heavy 15 tonne gearboxes have been a major source of frustration for power companies. Although they’ve been designed to have a 20-year lifespan, most don’t last more than 7 years without extensive maintenance. This is not a problem exclusive to gearboxes in wind turbines, but changing a gearbox in your car is different from having a team climb up over 50 meters to replace a multi-million dollar gearbox. Extreme gusts of wind, salty conditions and difficult to access offshore turbines increases maintenance costs even more. The maintenance cost of wind turbines can reach almost 20% of the levelized cost of energy.

In the grand scheme of things wind is still incredibly cheap. However we don’t know the precise mechanisms causing these gearbox failures. We do know that the wear shows up as these small cracks that form on the bearings,which are called White Edge cracks from the pale material that surrounds the damaged areas. This problem only gets worse when turbines get bigger and more powerful, requiring even more gear stages to convert the incredibly high torque being developed by the large diameter rotors.

One way of avoiding all of these maintenance costs is to skip the gearbox and connect the blades directly to the generator. But a different kind of generator is needed. The output frequency of the generator needs to match the grid frequency. Slower Revolutions in the generator need to be compensated for with a very large diameter generator that has many more magnetic poles meaning a single revolution of the generator passes through more alternating magnetic fields which increases the output frequency.

The largest wind turbine ever made, the Haliade X, uses a direct drive system. You can see the large diameter generator positioned directly behind the blades here. This rotor disc is 10 m wide with 200 poles and weighs 250 tons. But this comes with its own set of issues. Permanent magnets require neodium and dysprosium and China controls 90% of the supply of these rare earth metals. Unfortunately trade negotiations and embargos lead to fluctuating material costs that add extra risk and complexity to direct drive wind turbines. Ireland is testing these new wind turbines here in the Galway Wind Park. The blades were so large that this road passing underneath the Lough Atalia rail Bridge, which I use to walk home from school every day, had to be lowered to facilitate the transport of the blades from the nearby docks. It takes years to assess the benefit of new Energy Technologies like this, but as wind turbines get bigger and more expensive, direct drive systems become more attractive.

The next challenge is getting the electricity created inside these generators to match the grid frequency. When the speed of the wind constantly changes, the frequency of current created by permanent magnet generators matches the speed of the shaft. If we wanted the generator to Output the US Standard 60 HZ we could design a rotor to rotate 1,800 times per minute with four poles two North and two South. This will result in 60 cycles per second. This has to be exact; mismatched frequencies will lead to chaos on the grid, bringing the whole system down.

Managing grid frequency is a 24/7 job. In the UK, grid operators had to watch a popular TV show themselves so they could bring pumped Hydro stations online. Because a huge portion of the population went to turn on kettles to make tea during the ad breaks. This increased the load on the grid and without a matching increase in Supply, the frequency would have dropped. The grid is very sensitive to these shifts; a small 1 Herz change can bring a lot lot of Destruction.

During the 2021 freeze in Texas the grid fell Incredibly close to 59 Hertz. It was teetering on the edge of a full-scale blackout that would have lasted for months. Many people solely blamed wind turbines not running for causing this issue, but they were only partly to blame, as the natural gas stations also failed. Meanwhile the Texas grid also refuses to connect to the wider North American grid to avoid Federal Regulations. Rather oddly Texas is also an isolated power grid that has a large percentage of wind energy.

The problem with wind energy is that it is incapable of raising the grid frequency if it drops. Wind turbines are nonsynchronous and increasing the percentage of wind energy on the grid requires additional infrastructure to maintain a stable grid. To understand what nonsynchronous means, we need to dive into the engineering of wind turbines once again. The first electric wind turbines connected to the grid were designed to spin the generator shaft at exactly 1,800 RPM. The prevailing winds dictated the size and shape of the blades. The aim was to have the tips of the blades move at around seven times the speed of the prevailing wind. The tips of the blades were designed to stall if the wind speed picked up. This let them have a passive control and keep the blades rotating at a constant speed.

While this allowed the wind turbines to be connected straight to the grid, the constant rotational speed did induce large forces onto the blades. Gusts of wind would increase torque rapidly which was a recipe for fatigue failure in the drivetrain. So to extract more power, variable speed wind turbines were introduced. Instead of fixed blades that depended on a stall mechanism for control, the blades were attached to the hub with massive bearings that would allow the blades to change their angle of attack. This provided an active method of speed control, but now another problem emerged.

The rotor operated at different speeds and the frequency coming from the generator was variable. A wind turbine like this cannot be connected directly to the grid. Connecting a varying frequency generator to the grid means the power has to be passed through two inverters. The first converts the varying AC to DC using a rectifier; then the second converter takes the DC current and converts it back to AC at the correct frequency. This is done with electronic switches that rapidly turn on and off to create the oscillating wave.

We lose some power in this process but the larger issue for the grid as a whole is that this removes the benefit of the wind Turbine’s inerti. Slowing something heavy like a train is difficult because it has a lot of inertia. Power grids have inertia too. Huge rotating steam turbines connected directly to the grid are like these trains; they can’t be slowed down easily. So a grid with lots of large turbines like nuclear power and coal power turbines can handle a large load suddenly appearing and won’t experience a sudden drop in Grid frequency. This helps smooth out sudden increases in demand on the grid and gives grid operators more time to bring on new power sources.

Wind turbines of course have inertia, they are large rotating masses. But those inverters mean their masses aren’t connected directly to the grid, and so their inertia can’t help stabilize the grid. Solar panels suffer from the same problem, but they couldn’t add inertia anyway as they don’t move.

This is an issue for Renewables that can become a critical vulnerability when politicians push to increase the percentage of Renewables onto a grid without considering the impacts it can have on grid stability. Additional infrastructure is needed to manage this problem, especially as older energy sources, like coal power plants, that do provide inertia begin to shut down.

Ireland had a creative solution to this problem. In 2023 the world’s largest flywheel, a 120 ton steel shaft that rotates 3,000 times per minute, was installed in the location of a former coal power plant that already had all the infrastructure needed to connect to the grid. This flywheel takes about 20 minutes to get up to speed using grid power but it is kept rotating constantly inside a vacuum to minimize power lost to friction. When needed it can instantly provide power at the exact 50 HZ required by the grid. This flywheel provides the inertia needed to keep the grid stable, but it’s estimated that Ireland will need five more of these flywheels to reach its climate goals with increasing amounts of wind energy.

But they aren’t designed for long-term energy storage, they are purely designed for grid frequency regulation. Ireland’s next problem is more difficult to overcome. It’s an isolated island with few interconnections to other energy grids. Trading energy is one of the best ways to stabilize a grid. Larger grids are just inherently more stable. Ideally Ireland could sell wind energy to France when winds are high and buy nuclear energy when they are low. Instead right now Ireland needs to have redundancy in its grid with enough natural gas power available to ramp up when wind energy is forecasted to drop.

Currently Ireland has two interconnect connections with Great Britain but none to Mainland Europe. That is hopefully about to change with this 700 megawatt interconnection currently planned with France. With Ireland’s average demand at 4,000 megawatts, this interconnection can provide 17.5% of the country’s power needs when wind is low, or sell that wind to France when it is high. This would allow Ireland to remove some of that redundancy from its grid, while making it worthwhile to invest in more wind power as the excess then has somewhere to go.

The final piece of the puzzle is to develop long-term energy storage infrastructure. Ireland now has 1 gigawatt hour of energy storage, but this isn’t anywhere close to the amount needed. Ireland’s government has plans to develop a hydrogen fuel economy for longer term storage and energy export. In the National hydrogen plan they set up a pathway to become Europe’s main producer of green hydrogen, both for home use and for exports. With Ireland’s abundance of fresh water, thanks to our absolutely miserable weather, and our prime location along World shipping routes and being a hub for the third largest airline in the world, Ireland is very well positioned to develop a hydrogen economy.

These transport methods aren’t easily decarbonized and will need some form of renewably sourced synthetic fuel for which hydrogen will be needed, whether that’s hydrogen itself, ammonia or synthetic hydrocarbons. Synthetic hydrocarbons can be created using hydrogen and carbon dioxide captured from the air. Ireland’s winning combination of cheap renewable energy abundant fresh water and its strategically advantageous location positions it well for this future renewable energy economy. Ireland plans to begin the project by generating hydrogen with electrolysis with wind energy that has been shut off due to oversupply which is basically free energy.

As the market matures phase two of the plan is to finally begin tapping into Ireland’s vast offshore wind potential exclusively for hydrogen production with the lofty goal of 39 terrawatt hours of production by 2050 for use in energy storage fuel for transportation and for industrial heating. Ireland is legally Bound by EU law to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 but even without these lofty expectations it’s in Ireland’s best interest to develop these Technologies. Ireland has some of the most expensive electricity prices in Europe due to its Reliance on fossil fuel Imports which increased in price drastically due to the war in Ukraine. Making this transition won’t be easy and there are many challenges to overcome, but Ireland has the potential to not only become more energy secure but has the potential to develop its economy massively. Wind is a valuable resource by itself but in combination with its abundance of fresh water it could become one of the most energy rich countries in the world.

Comment

That’s a surprisingly upbeat finish boosting Irish prospects to be an energy powerhouse, considering all of the technical, logistical and economic issues highlighted along the way.  Engineers know more than anyone how complexity often results in fragility and unreliability in practice. Me thinks they are going to use up every last bit of Irish luck to pull this off. Of course the saddest part is that the whole transition is unnecessary, since more CO2 and warmth has been a boon for the planet and humankind.

See Also:

Replace Carbon Fuels with Hydrogen? Absurd, Exorbitant and Pointless

Big Batteries? Big Problems!

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Battery Mad-Hattery

Viv Forbes’ article on this subject is at Canadian Free Press under the title First Aid for Flicker Power.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Wind and solar energy have a fatal flaw – intermittency

Big batteries bring big problems

Solar generators won’t run on moon-beams – they fade out as the sun goes down and stop whenever clouds block the sun. This happens at least once every day. But then at mid-day on most days, millions of solar panels pour so much electricity into the grid that the price plummets and no one makes any money.

Can your solar project weather a hailstorm?

Our green energy bureaucrats have the solution
to green power failures – “Big Batteries”

Turbine generators are also intermittent – they stop whenever there is too little, or too much wind. In a wide flat land like Australia, wind droughts may affect huge areas for days at a time. This often happens when a mass of cold air moves over Australia, winds drop and power demand rises in the cold weather. All of this makes our power grid more variable, more fragile and more volatile. What do we do if we have a cloudy windless week?

More big batteries storing renewable energy to be built around Australia The batteries will come online by 2025 with sites in Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia.

Our green energy bureaucrats have the solution to green power failures – “Big Batteries”.

But big batteries bring more big problems – they have to be re-charged by the same intermittent green generators needed to keep the lights on, the trains running and the batteries charged in all those electric cars, trucks and dozers. And if anyone has been silly enough to build some power-hungry green hydrogen generators, they too will need more generation capacity and more battery backups. How long do we allow them to keep throwing our dollars into this green whirlpool?

Collecting dilute intermittent wind and solar energy from all over a big continent like Australia and moving it to coastal cities and factories brings another “green” energy nightmare – an expensive and intrusive spider-web of power-lines that are detested by landowners, degrade the environment, cause bushfires and are susceptible to damage from lightning, cyclones and sabotage.

They call them solar “farms” and wind “parks” – they are neither farms nor parks – they are monstrous and messy wind and solar power plants   And these very expensive “green” assets are idle, generating nothing, for most of most days.

In late July 2021, a fire broke out at the Victorian Big Battery in Moorabool, which was undergoing testing when the incident began. Image: CFA

Big batteries sitting in cities have proved a big fire risk and no one wants them next door. So our green “engineers” have another solution to these problems caused by their earlier “solutions” – “Mobile Batteries” (this is a worry – no one knows where they are – maybe they will be disguised as Mr Whippy ice cream vans)?

Near elimination of air pollution from diesel-electric freight trains by 2025 is now possible by retrofitting them with battery tender cars. BeyondImages/iStock

Train entrepreneurs want to build “batteries on tracks” – a train loaded with batteries, which parks beside a wind/solar energy factory until the batteries are full. Then the battery train trundles off to the nearest city to unload its electricity, preferably at a profit. They can also play the arbitrage market – buy top-up power around midday and sell into peak prices at breakfast and dinner times when the unreliable twins usually produce nothing useful. This will have the added advantage of sending coal and gas generators broke sooner by depressing peak prices. Once coal and gas are decimated, then the battery trains can make a real killing.

But battery trains may be the perfect answer to supplying those energy-hungry AI data centres. Let’s start a pilot project and park a battery train beside the National AI Centre near CSIRO in Canberra.

“Big Batteries on Boats”

Lithium-ion batteries ‘keeping the fire alive’ on burning cargo ship carrying luxury cars 2022

A more ambitious idea is the BBB Plan – “Big Batteries on Boats”.It would work like this:

The Australian government places an order with China to build a fleet of electric boats (sail-assisted of course) that are filled with batteries (and lots of fire extinguishers). The batteries are charged with cheap coal-fired electricity at ports in China. They then sail to ports in Australia where the electricity is un-loaded into the grid whenever prices are high or blackouts loom.

Australian mines can profit from the iron ore used to make the boats, the rare minerals used to build the batteries and any Australian coal used by the Chinese power plants to charge the batteries.

This solution allows Australian politicians to go to world conferences boasting that Australia’s electricity is “Net Zero”, and more tourists can be enticed to visit our endangered industrial relics – coal mining and steam generator museums.

Of course there is another danger in the BBB solution – some entrepreneurs may load their boats with nuclear generators plus enough fuel on board for several decades of operation. Or they may even site a small nuclear reactor beside a closed coal power station and make use of all the ready-to-go power lines already in place.

Concerns over how transmission lines are ‘impacting’ prime land. Sky News Australia

This sort of dangerous thinking could well demolish another Queensland green dream – “CopperString” – a $5 billion speculation to build 840 km of new transmission line from Townsville to Mt Isa. We are not sure which way the power is expected to flow. They will probably not get there before the great copper mine at Mt Isa closes.

Why not just send a small nuke-on-a-train to Mt Isa?

Viv Forbes, Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition, has spent his life working in exploration, mining, farming, infrastructure, financial analysis and political commentary. He has worked for government departments, private companies and now works as a private contractor and farmer.

Viv has also been a guest writer for the Asian Wall Street Journal, Business Queensland and mining newspapers. He was awarded the “Australian Adam Smith Award for Services to the Free Society” in 1988, and has written widely on political, technical and economic subjects.

Green Baloney, Hype and Fairy Tales in Australia

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Viv Forbes writes at Spectator Australia Battery baloney, hydrogen hype, and green fairy tales in Australia.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.  H/T John Ray at his blog Greenie Watch.

How low Australia has fallen… Our once-great BHP now has a ‘Vice President for Sustainability and Climate Change’, the number of Australian students choosing physics at high school is collapsing, and our government opposes nuclear energy while pretending we can build and operate nuclear submarines.

Our Green politicians want: ‘No Coal, No Gas, No Nuclear!’ while Our ABC, Our CSIRO, and Our Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) are telling us that wind and solar energy (plus a bit of standby gas, heaps of batteries, and new power lines) can power our homes, industries and the mass electrification of our vehicle fleet. This sounds like Australia’s very own great leap backwards.

There are two troublesome Green Energy Unions: the Solar Workers down tools every night and cloudy day, and the Turbine Crews stop work if winds are too weak or too strong. And wind droughts can last for days. The reliable Coal and Gas Crews spend sunny days playing cards, but are expected to keep their turbines revving up and down to keep stable power in the lines.

From Duck to Canyon Curve

Magical things are also expected from more rooftop solar. But panel-power has four huge problems:

♦  Zero solar energy is generated to meet peak demand at breakfast and dinner times.

♦  Piddling solar power is produced from many poorly oriented roof panels or from the weak sunshine anywhere south of Sydney.

♦  If too much solar energy pours into the network (say at noon on a quiet sunny Sunday), the grid becomes unstable. Our green engineers have the solution – be ready to charge people for unwanted power they export to the grid, or just use ‘smart meters’ to turn them off.

♦  More rooftop solar means less income and more instability for power utilities so they have to raise electricity charges. This cost falls heaviest on those with no solar panels, or no homes.

Magical things are also expected from batteries.

When I was a kid on a dairy farm in Queensland, I saw our kerosene lamps and beeswax candles replaced by electric lights. We had 16 X 2 volt batteries on the verandah and a big thumping diesel generator in the dairy.

It was a huge relief, years later, when power poles bringing reliable electricity marched up the lane to our house. All those batteries disappeared with the introduction of 24/7 coal power.

Batteries are never a net generator of power – they store energy generated elsewhere, incurring losses on charging and discharging.

There has to be sufficient generating capacity to meet current demand while also recharging those batteries. What provides electricity to power homes, lifts, hospitals, and trains and to recharge all those vehicle batteries after sundown on a still winter night? (Hint: Call the reliable coal/gas/nuclear crews.)

The same remorseless equations apply to all the pumped hydro schemes being dreamed up – everyone is a net consumer of power once losses are covered and the water is pumped back up the hill.

Yet AEMO hopes we will install 16 times our current capacity of batteries and pumped hydro by 2050 – sounds like the backyard steel plans of Chairman Mao or the Soviet Gosplan that constipated initiative in USSR for 70 years. Who needs several Snowy 2 fiascos running simultaneously?

Mother Nature has created the perfect solar battery which holds the energy of sunlight for millions of years. When it releases that energy for enterprising humans, it returns CO2 for plants to the atmosphere from whence it came. It is called ‘Coal’.

‘Hydrogen’ gets a lot of hype, but it is an elusive and dangerous gas that is rarely found naturally. To use solar energy to generate hydrogen and to then use that hydrogen as a power source is just another silly scheme to waste water and solar energy. It always takes more energy to produce hydrogen than it gives back. Let green billionaires, not taxpayers, spend their money on this merry-go-round.

Who is counting the energy and capital consumed, and the emissions generated, to manufacture, transport, and install a continent being covered by ugly solar panels, bird slicers, high voltage power lines, access roads, and hydro schemes? Now they want to invade our shallow seas. Who is going to clean up this mess in a few years’ time?

As Jo Nova says:

‘No one wants industrial plants in their backyard, but when we have to build 10,000 km of high voltage towers, 40 million solar panels, and 2,500 bird-killing turbines – it’s in everyone’s backyard.’

With all of this planned and managed by the same people who gave us Pink Batts, Snowy 2 hydro, and the NBN/NDIS fiascoes, what could possibly go wrong?

Another big problem is emerging – country people don’t want power lines across their paddocks, whining wind turbines on their hills, and glittering solar panels smothering their flats. And seaside dwellers don’t want to hear or see wind turbines off their beaches. Even whales are confused.

The solution is obvious – build all wind and solar facilities in electorates that vote Green, Teal, and Labor. Those good citizens can then listen to the turbines turning in the night breezes and look out their windows to see shiny solar panels on every roof. This will make them feel good that they are preventing man-made global warming. Those electorates who oppose this silly green agenda should get their electricity from local coal, gas or nuclear plants.

What about the Net Zero targets?

At the same time as Australia struggles to generate enough reliable power for today, governments keep welcoming more migrants, more tourists, more foreign students and planning yet more stadiums, games, and circuses. None of this is compatible with their demand for Net Zero emissions.

Unlike Europe, the Americas, and Asia, Australia has no extension cords to neighbours with reliable power from nuclear, hydro, coal, or gas – we are on our own.

Australia has abundant resources of coal and uranium – we mine and export these energy minerals but Mr Bowen, our Minister for Blackouts, says we may not use our own coal and uranium to generate future electricity here. Someone needs to tell him that no country in the world relies solely on wind, solar, and pumped hydro. Germany tried but soon found they needed French nuclear, Scandinavian hydro, imported gas, and at least 20 coal-fired German power plants are being resurrected or extended past their closing dates to ensure Germans have enough energy to get through the winter.

Australia is the only G20 country in which nuclear power is illegal (maybe no one has told green regulators that we have had a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney since 1958). Australia is prepared to lock navy personnel beside nuclear power plants in our new nuclear-powered submarines but our politicians forbid nuclear power stations in our wide open countryside.

More CO2 in the atmosphere brings great benefits to life on Earth. If man adds to it, the oceans dissolve a swag of it, and what stays in the atmosphere is gratefully welcomed by all plant life.

In 2023, Australia added just 0.025 ppm to the 420 ppm in today’s atmosphere. Most of this probably dissolved in the oceans. If we in Australia turned everything off tomorrow, the climate wouldn’t notice, but our plant life would, especially those growing near power stations burning coal or gas and spreading plant food.

Climate has always changed and a warm climate has never been a problem
on Earth.  It is cold that kills. Especially during blackouts.

Scientists Say: Net Zero Wins Nearly Zero Results

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Chris Morrison explains at his Daily Sceptic article Net Zero Will Prevent Almost Zero Warming, Say Three Top Atmospheric Scientists.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Recent calculations by the distinguished atmospheric scientists Richard Lindzen, William Happer and William van Wijngaarden suggest that if the entire world eliminated net carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 it would avert warming of an almost unmeasurable 0.07°C. Even assuming the climate modelled feedbacks and temperature opinions of the politicised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the rise would be only 0.28°C. Year Zero would have been achieved along with the destruction of economic and social life for eight billion people on Planet Earth. “It would be hard to find a better example of a policy of all pain and no gain,” note the scientists. [Paper is Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase  by Lindzen, Happer and van Wijngaarden.]

In the U.K., the current General Election is almost certain to be won by a party that is committed to outright warfare on hydrocarbons. The Labour party will attempt to ‘decarbonise’ the electricity grid by the end of the decade without any realistic instant backup for unreliable wind and solar except oil and gas. Britain is sitting on huge reserves of hydrocarbons but new exploration is to be banned. It is hard to think of a more ruinous energy policy, but the Conservative governing party is little better. Led by the hapless May, a woman over-promoted since her time running the education committee on Merton Council, through to Buffo Boris and Washed-Out Rishi, its leaders have drunk the eco Kool-Aid fed to them by the likes of Roger Hallam, Extinction Rebellion and the Swedish Doom Goblin. Adding to the mix in the new Parliament will be a likely 200 new ‘Labour’ recruits with university degrees in buggerallology and CVs full of parasitical non-jobs in the public sector.

Hardly any science knowledge between them, they even believe that they can spend billions of other people’s money to capture CO2 – perfectly good plant fertiliser – and bury it in the ground. As a privileged, largely middle class group, they have net zero understanding of how a modern industrial society works, feeds itself and creates the wealth that pays their unnecessary wages. All will be vying to save the planet and stop a temperature rise that is barely a rounding error on any long-term view.

They plan to cull the farting cows, sow wild flowers where food
once grew, take away efficient gas boilers and internal combustion
cars and stop granny visiting her grandchildren in the United States.

On a wider front, banning hydrocarbons will remove almost everything from a modern society including many medicines, building materials, fertilisers, plastics and cleaning products. It might be shorter and easier to list essential items where hydrocarbons are absent than produce one where they are present. Anyone who dissents from their absurd views is said to be in league with fossil fuel interests, a risible suggestion given that they themselves are dependent on hydrocarbon producers to sustain their enviable lifestyles.

Unlike politicians the world over who rant about fire and brimstone, Messrs Lindzen, Happer and van Wijngaarden pay close attention to actual climate observations and analyses of the data. Since it is impossible to determine how much of the gentle warming of the last two centuries is natural or caused by higher levels of CO2, they assume a ‘climate sensitivity’ – rise in temperature when CO2 doubles in the atmosphere – of 0.8°C. This is about four times less than IPCC estimates, which lacks any proof. Understandably the IPCC does not make a big issue of this lack of crucial proof at the heart of the so-called 97% anthropogenic ‘consensus’.

The 0.8°C estimate is based on the idea that greenhouse gases like CO2 ‘saturate’ at certain levels and their warming effect falls off a logarithmic cliff. This idea has the advantage of explaining climate records that stretch back 600 million years since CO2 levels have been up to 10-15 times higher in the past compared with the extremely low levels observed today. There is little if any long term causal link between temperature and CO2 over time. In the immediate past record there is evidence that CO2 rises after natural increases in temperature as the gas is released from warmer oceans.

Any argument that the Earth has a ‘boiling’ problem caused by the small CO2 contribution that humans make by using hydrocarbons is ‘settled’ by an invented political crisis, but is backed by no reliable observational data. Most of the fear-mongering is little more than a circular exercise using computer models with improbable opinions fed in, and improbable opinions fed out.

The three scientists use a simple formula using base-two logarithms to assess the CO2 influence on the atmosphere based on decades of laboratory experiments and atmospheric data collection. They demonstrate how trivial the effect on global temperature will be if humanity stops using hydrocarbons. After years wasted listening to Greta Thunberg, the message is starting to penetrate the political arena. In the United States, the Net Zero project is dead in the water if Trump wins the Presidential election. In Europe, the ruling political elites, both national and supranational, are retreating on their Net Zero commitments. Reality is starting to dawn and alternative political groupings emerge to challenge the comfortable insanity of Net Zero virtue signalling. In New Zealand, the nightmare of the Ardern years is being expunged with a roll back of Net Zero policies ahead of possible electricity black outs.

Only in Britain it seems are citizens prepared to elect a Government obsessed with self-inflicted poverty and deindustrialisation. The only major political grouping committed to scrapping Net Zero is the Nigel Farage-led Reform party and although it could beat the ruling Conservatives into second place in the popular vote, it is unlikely to secure many Parliamentary seats under the U.K.’s first-past-the-post electoral system. Only a few years ago the Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who thinks some women have penises, and his imbecilic Deputy Leader Angela Rayner, were bending the knee to an organisation that wanted to cut funding for the police and fling open the borders. The new British Parliament will have plenty of people who still support Net Zero and assorted woke woo woo, and the great tragedy is that they will still be found across most of the represented political parties.

See Also 

Delusions of Davos and Dubai

 

2024 Update: Fossil Fuels ≠ Global Warming

Posted on by Ron Clutz

gas in hands

Previous posts addressed the claim that fossil fuels are driving global warming. This post updates that analysis with the latest (2023) numbers from Energy Institute and compares World Fossil Fuel Consumption (WFFC) with three estimates of Global Mean Temperature (GMT). More on both these variables below. Note: Previously these same statistics were hosted by BP.

WFFC

2023 statistics are now available from Energy Institute for international consumption of Primary Energy sources. Statistical Review of World Energy. 

The reporting categories are:
Oil
Natural Gas
Coal
Nuclear
Hydro
Renewables (other than hydro)

Note:  Energy Institute began last year to use Exajoules to replace MToe (Million Tonnes of oil equivalents.) It is logical to use an energy metric which is independent of the fuel source. OTOH renewable advocates have no doubt pressured EI to stop using oil as the baseline since their dream is a world without fossil fuel energy.

From BP conversion table 1 exajoule (EJ) = 1 quintillion joules (1 x 10^18). Oil products vary from 41.6 to 49.4 tonnes per gigajoule (10^9 joules).  Comparing this annual report with previous years shows that global Primary Energy (PE) in MToe is roughly 24 times the same amount in Exajoules.  The conversion factor at the macro level varies from year to year depending on the fuel mix. The graphs below use the new metric.

This analysis combines the first three, Oil, Gas, and Coal for total fossil fuel consumption world wide (WFFC).  The chart below shows the patterns for WFFC compared to world consumption of Primary Energy from 1965 through 2023.

The graph shows that global Primary Energy (PE) consumption from all sources has grown continuously over nearly 6 decades. Since 1965  oil, gas and coal (FF, sometimes termed “Thermal”) averaged 88% of PE consumed, ranging from 93% in 1965 to 82% in 2023.  Note that in 2020, PE dropped 21 EJ (4%) below 2019 consumption, then increased 31 EJ in 2021.  WFFC for 2020 dropped 24 EJ (5%), then in 2021 gained back 26 EJ to slightly exceed 2019 WFFC consumption. For the 59 year period, all net changes were increases from previous years and were:

Oil 203%
Gas 536%
Coal 182%
WFFC 246%
PE 297%
Global Mean Temperatures

Everyone acknowledges that GMT is a fiction since temperature is an intrinsic property of objects, and varies dramatically over time and over the surface of the earth. No place on earth determines “average” temperature for the globe. Yet for the purpose of detecting change in temperature, major climate data sets estimate GMT and report anomalies from it.

UAH record consists of satellite era global temperature estimates for the lower troposphere, a layer of air from 0 to 4km above the surface. HadSST estimates sea surface temperatures from oceans covering 71% of the planet. HadCRUT combines HadSST estimates with records from land stations whose elevations range up to 6km above sea level.

Both GISS LOTI (land and ocean) and HadCRUT4 (land and ocean) use 14.0 Celsius as the climate normal, so I will add that number back into the anomalies. This is done not claiming any validity other than to achieve a reasonable measure of magnitude regarding the observed fluctuations.[Note: HadCRUT4 was discontinued after 2021 in favor of HadCRUT5.]

No doubt global sea surface temperatures are typically higher than 14C, more like 17 or 18C, and of course warmer in the tropics and colder at higher latitudes. Likewise, the lapse rate in the atmosphere means that air temperatures both from satellites and elevated land stations will range colder than 14C. Still, that climate normal is a generally accepted indicator of GMT.

Correlations of GMT and WFFC

The next graph compares WFFC to GMT estimates over the decades from 1965 to 2023 from HadCRUT4, which includes HadSST4.

Since 1965 the increase in fossil fuel consumption is dramatic and monotonic, steadily increasing by 246% from 146 to 505 exajoules.  Meanwhile the GMT record from Hadcrut shows multiple ups and downs with an accumulated rise of 0.8C over 56 years, 6% of the starting value.

The graph below compares WFFC to GMT estimates from UAH6, and HadSST4 for the satellite era from 1980 to 2023 a period of 44 years.

In the satellite era WFFC has increased at a compounded rate of 1.5% per year, for a total increase of 97% since 1979. At the same time, SST warming amounted to 0.76C, or 5% of the starting value.  UAH warming was 0.85C, or 6% up from 1979.  The temperature compounded rate of change is 0.1% per year, an order of magnitude less than WFFC.  Even more obvious is the 1998 El Nino peak and flat GMT since.

Summary

The climate alarmist/activist claim is straight forward: Burning fossil fuels makes measured temperatures warmer. The Paris Accord further asserts that by reducing human use of fossil fuels, further warming can be prevented.  Those claims do not bear up under scrutiny.

It is enough for simple minds to see that two time series are both rising and to think that one must be causing the other. But both scientific and legal methods assert causation only when the two variables are both strongly and consistently aligned. The above shows a weak and inconsistent linkage between WFFC and GMT.

Going further back in history shows even weaker correlation between fossil fuels consumption and global temperature estimates:

wfc-vs-sat

Figure 5.1. Comparative dynamics of the World Fuel Consumption (WFC) and Global Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (ΔT), 1861-2000. The thin dashed line represents annual ΔT, the bold line—its 13-year smoothing, and the line constructed from rectangles—WFC (in millions of tons of nominal fuel) (Klyashtorin and Lyubushin, 2003). Source: Frolov et al. 2009

In legal terms, as long as there is another equally or more likely explanation for the set of facts, the claimed causation is unproven. The more likely explanation is that global temperatures vary due to oceanic and solar cycles. The proof is clearly and thoroughly set forward in the post Quantifying Natural Climate Change.

Footnote: CO2 Concentrations Compared to WFFC

Contrary to claims that rising atmospheric CO2 consists of fossil fuel emissions, consider the Mauna Loa CO2 observations in recent years.

 

Despite the drop in 2020 WFFC, atmospheric CO2 continued to rise steadily, demonstrating that natural sources and sinks drive the amount of CO2 in the air.

See also: Nature Erases Pulses of Human CO2 Emissions

Temps Cause CO2 Changes, Not the Reverse

Stress Testing California’s Grid Batteries

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Lots of PR coming out of the golden state regarding great strides in building battery capacity required by the green dream of 100% carbon free electrical power.

From Business Insider: 

Batteries briefly became the biggest source of power in California twice in the past week.

The first time — Tuesday last week around 8:10 p.m. PT, according to GridStatus.io — batteries reached a record peak output of 6,177 megawatts. For about two hours, that made electricity generated earlier and stored in batteries the single largest source of power in the Golden state, eclipsing real-time production from natural gas, nuclear, renewable sources like wind and solar, and all other sources of energy.

It happened again on Sunday evening, this time for a few hours around 7:10 p.m. PT, per data from GridStatus.io. In that instance, which broke Tuesday’s record, batteries reached a peak output of 6,458 megawatts.

Battery storage has become a key part of the push to produce more electricity using renewable sources. By connecting huge, rechargeable batteries to power grids, power utilities can store energy generated during the day by solar panels and wind turbines.

Augmentation at the Vistra Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility in California has been completed, with the world’s biggest battery energy storage system (BESS) now at 400MW / 1,600MWh. The batteries are housed in repurposed gas turbine halls. Image: Vistra Energy.

Note the BESS ratings for power (MW) and energy output (MWh).  In this case, Moss Landing has a maximum power of 400MW and a duration of 4 hours, or 1600MWh.  Such a factor of 4 seems typical for large scale BESS in California.  It also means that for a single peak hour demand, Moss Landing can only supply 400MW for that hour.  If more energy is needed, it will have to come from somewhere else.

Then in April we have the news from Gov. Newsome’s office California Achieves Major Clean Energy Victory: 10,000 Megawatts of Battery Storage.  

Let’s Apply Some Context to These Cheerful Reports

The California Energy Commission produced its electricity forecast end of 2022:

Note the graph is projecting hourly electricity demand, which peaks during hour 19.  Output levels approach and then exceed 50,000 MW demand that hour, or 50k MWh.

Cal matters raises concerns about state policy to phase out ICE vehicles in favor of EVs.

Again demand requires from the grid 50k MW per hour in 2022 with less than 1% for charging EVs.  That is projected to go 10 times higher in 13 years.

Summary

The excitement is about batteries supplying  6500 MW for a couple of hours when the peak demand is 50,000 MW.  The glorious achievement is building battery capacity up to 10,000 MW.  It doesn’t add up.