Energy Policies | Science Matters

Merit-Based Energy: Best of the Above, Not All

Steve Milloy puts things in context in his Daily Caller article ‘All Of The Above’ Is DEI For Energy. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The Restoring Energy Dominance (RED) Coalition recently produced an ad advocating for “all forms of energy.” “You voted for it, you got it,” the ad starts. It features a clip of President Trump saying “All forms of energy, yep…” What exactly does “all forms of energy,” or its 21st century shorthand, “all of the above” really mean? Is it good policy” And, is President Trump for it?

The concept of ‘all of the above’ dates back to a mid-2000s convergence of energy-related events including: (1) the then emerging but imaginary “climate crisis” and (2) an actual energy crisis caused by a combination of factors including the Iraq war, US dependence on OPEC, the rise of energy-hungry China and India, the notion of Peak Oil and more. Congress’s solution to this was the Energy Policy Act of 2005 signed into law by President Bush. It called for expanding domestic energy production, including: oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and renewables. “All of the above” wasn’t in common usage at the time, but the law essentially embodied it.

“All of the above” subsequently came into more common use, albeit with different variations, during President Obama’s “war on coal” and his embrace of Executive action to cut emissions because of “climate change.” For President Obama, “all of the above” meant all forms of energy except for coal, which he tried to regulate into extinction. To counter Obama, the coal industry and its Republican supporters used “all of the above” as a desperate means of including coal in the US energy equation.

But the tables have now turned. President Trump supports:
the booming oil and gas industry;
the now-crippled coal industry;
the flailing nuclear industry, and
solar power.

He campaigned and has repeatedly spoken against the onshore and offshore wind industry. He has also issued an executive order to review offshore wind projects and has, thus far, paused one specific project. It is now the wind industry’s turn to scream “all of the above” in hopes of remaining part of the US energy equation.

President Trump also campaigned and has taken executive action against what he often calls the “Green New Scam,” which means the climate spending and energy subsidies contained in President Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Opponents of the Green New Scam hope to repeal the subsidies in President Trump’s upcoming Big Beautiful Bill.

The RED Coalition ad would take us back to the days of the Energy Policy Act and its focus on producing domestic energy from all sources. While that may sound reasonable, it ignores the realities we’ve experienced and lessons we’ve learned over the past 20 years.

First, Energy Policy Act proponents did not foresee the late-2000s advent and impact of fracking for oil and gas. Whereas in 2005 we were dependent on imports of natural gas and were running out of cheap oil production options, fracking changed the global energy situation almost overnight. Fracking gave the US essentially a limitless supply of oil and gas. That has essentially crushed OPEC’s ability to control the global price of oil. Thanks to fracking, we probably have enough oil and gas to run the entire US economy without any other form of energy.

Second, we have been told for decades that wind and solar were cheaper than fossil fuels and were a solution to the alleged “climate crisis.” Both claims have been proven to be false. Wind and solar have not reduced the price of electricity for anyone. At best, they have only reallocated energy costs to taxpayers. Wind and solar have only increased the price of electricity for consumers, even when it is subsidized by taxpayers.

Worse, solar and wind have jeopardized the reliability of our grid. Grid operators now routinely warn of possible grid failure during peak demand. A February winter storm in Texas froze the wind turbines, resulting in hundreds of deaths and almost causing catastrophic grid failure. Too much solar and wind caused a similar grid crisis in Spain and Portugal just last month.

Wind and solar have never been economically viable without subsidies. That’s why wind and solar supporters oppose the end of the Green New Scam. Not only do wind and solar require taxpayer subsidies, they are also intrinsically subsidized by government mandates, and the sourcing of materials and labor from Communist China. This has also had the national security-imperiling effect of making our electricity grid dependent on our geopolitical rival.

Finally, wind and solar have also been an environmental disaster in terms of great birds, bats, whales and much other marine life killed. Their oversized footprints are made essentially a permanent part of the environment because of the vast amounts of concrete and iron rebar used in their foundations. There are also national security concerns with offshore wind.

We need energy that works. After 20 years of experience,
“all of the above” is just affirmative action for wind and solar energy.

If energy decisions were made on the basis of standard economic merit, like cost and functionality, then oil, gas, coal and nuclear power would win hands down. President Trump occasionally says kind things about solar, but not about wind. He saves his lavish praise and attention for those most deserving: oil, gas and coal.

W. J. Lee expands on this topic in his AMAC article Spain’s Green Energy Blackout Proves Trump is Right about Energy. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Last week’s sweeping blackouts across Spain and Portugal
delivered a stark reminder: energy policy rooted in ideology,
not engineering, has real-world consequences.

Days before the lights went out, Spanish leadership celebrated their power grid’s high reliance on renewables. But when solar and wind faltered—as all intermittent sources eventually do—the system buckled. Their mistake should give Americans added confidence that President Donald Trump’s all-of-the-above energy vision will lead to American energy dominance and dependability.

As large swaths of the Iberian Peninsula went dark, Europe came face-to-face with the instability that results from over-reliance on wind and solar power. The irony? This chaos unfolded on a sunny, wind-swept day—exactly the kind of day when renewables are supposed to dominate.

At the heart of the disruption was a grid built not on resilience, but on fashionable climate politics. Spain’s grid operator reported that just before the outage, solar power provided nearly 60 percent of the country’s electricity. Wind contributed another 9 percent. Together, these intermittent sources accounted for over two-thirds of supply—and when the system folded, it did so calamitously.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez stubbornly holds to the belief that the country’s high reliance on renewable energy had nothing to do with the extensive blackout, but several experts disagree. Leading former International Energy Agency board member Jorge Sanz told the press that the grid did not have enough support from nuclear and fossil fuel power plants to fill in when a sudden drop in power occurred from solar and wind power plants.

André Merlin, a former executive of France’s power grid, warned Europe against following Spain. “We need to be careful about the policy of maximum development and maximum use of intermittent renewable energy to the detriment of more conventional means,” he said.

It’s no coincidence that President Trump’s all-of-the-above energy policy—embracing fossil fuels, nuclear, renewables, and hydro—is giving the economy supreme confidence in our energy future. By diversifying America’s energy mix instead of putting all our eggs in the wind-and-solar basket, Trump ensures stability, affordability, and national security.

In contrast, the European Union is marching toward a self-defeating future where 69 percent of electricity must come from renewables by 2030, regardless of the consequences. Technocrats in Brussels may pat themselves on the back, but grid operators are still scrambling to solve basic technical challenges—like how to keep the lights on when clouds roll in or the wind dies.

One of the key technical problems is the loss of grid “inertia”—the momentum in spinning turbines at coal, gas, and nuclear plants that help stabilize voltage and frequency. When a solar farm goes offline, the output vanishes instantly. There’s no cushion, no time to react. This is precisely the kind of fragility President Trump warned about in 2018 when he pushed back on radical energy mandates and shutdowns of baseload power plants.

British energy expert Professor David Brayshaw of the University of Reading, summed it up: future blackouts will likely become “more significant and widespread” as renewables dominate the grid. Europe is learning that the hard way. Meanwhile, American energy independence—secured under Trump through expanded oil and gas production—offers the flexibility and robustness that Europe sorely lacks.

Back in Spain, grid operator Red Eléctrica wouldn’t say for sure what caused the outage, but all eyes turned to solar. The system collapsed in broad daylight, when solar production was at its peak. Two rapid losses of power—just 1.5 seconds apart—threw the grid into chaos and severed Spain’s connection with the wider European system.

And when it came time to reboot the grid, what energy sources did authorities rely on? Not wind. Not solar. It was hydroelectric and natural gas—energy sources vilified by climate activists but proven once again to be essential. President Trump understands this dynamic and refuses to bow to the environmental lobby’s demand for a total shift to intermittent renewables.

His administration is supporting investment in solar and wind
—when and where it makes sense—
but never at the expense of coal, oil, gas, or nuclear.

That balance, that pragmatism, ensures that America stays competitive, keeps utility bills low, and avoids the kind of disaster Europe just experienced. Spain’s blackout was not the result of a freak accident—it was the predictable outcome of an energy policy that treats physics as optional.

Spain is still moving forward with its plans to shut down its nuclear plants, the most reliable sources of zero-emissions power, and doubling down on wind and solar. That decision defies common sense. Nuclear energy is precisely the kind of carbon-free, high-output technology we should all support—technology that delivers stability and allows us to be good stewards of natural resources.

Europe’s push for a continent-wide “supergrid” is another
green utopian dream not grounded in reality.

The idea is that countries can share power more efficiently—but this past week’s outage rippled through Spain, Portugal, and even parts of France. Interdependence sounds great until a single failure spreads like wildfire.

This blackout should be Europe’s wake-up call. The “transition” they keep touting isn’t a triumph—it’s a gamble, and one that’s starting to cost real people their livelihoods, their travel plans, and their basic security.

Trump will continue to show the world what a sane energy policy looks like: use everything. Don’t demonize fossil fuels that keep the lights on. Don’t shut down nuclear reactors that provide dependable, carbon-free power. Don’t force the economy to depend on whether the sun shines or the wind blows.

As Spain gropes in the dark for answers, one thing is clear: President
Trump’s all-of-the-above approach isn’t just sensible—it is essential.

Beware Renewable Energy Trap

Posted on May 15 by Ron Clutz

Terry L. Headley exposes the entanglements unheeded by carbon free activists in his Real Clear Energy article The Renewable Energy Trap: A Warning to Nations Pursuing Blind Sustainability Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

As the world increasingly shifts toward renewable energy, there is a growing risk that nations could fall into the “renewable energy trap.” This trap is the result of embracing an energy transition without fully understanding its economic, environmental, and geopolitical consequences. While renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydropower have been hailed as the future of global energy, nations rushing toward these technologies without a strategic plan may face grave economic and security challenges. The truth is that blind adherence to renewable energy, in its current form at least, is not the panacea many believe it to be. In fact, it could prove to be a short, green path to economic ruin for both developed and developing nations alike.

The up front gold is clear and considerable, while the end of the road is in the shadows and uncertain.

The False Promises of Renewables: Hidden Costs and Risks

The promise of renewable energy often comes with an aura of infallibility—clean, green, and limitless. However, this narrative overlooks the hidden costs of transitioning to renewable energy systems, many of which are disguised through misleading claims and incomplete accounting. For example, Germany’s “Energiewende” (Energy Transition) provides a cautionary tale of how well-intentioned policies can lead to unintended consequences.

Germany, once hailed as a leader in the renewable energy revolution, has spent over a decade investing heavily in wind and solar energy. Despite spending billions of euros, Germany has seen little reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions, and the financial burden on consumers has been significant. In 2020, Germany had the highest electricity prices in Europe, largely due to the subsidies and support provided to renewable energy companies. The country’s energy bills for consumers have surged, in part because of the costs associated with maintaining backup fossil fuel plants to ensure grid stability when wind and solar energy are insufficient.

Furthermore, Germany’s renewable energy push has led to a paradoxical reliance on coal. As has been said so many times before, when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, Germany has been forced to turn back to coal-fired power plants to meet demand. Ironically, this has undermined the very environmental goals the country sought to achieve. Despite Germany’s heavy investment in renewables, it has seen a rise in coal usage due to the intermittent nature of its renewable energy sources, highlighting one of the most significant flaws of a renewable-dominant grid: reliance on fossil fuels to fill in the gaps.

Why? Because Germany must maintain at least as much baseload coal generation in reserve as it has in renewable energy generation to make sure it has electricity available at all times. The reality is that Germans are paying for the same electricity two or three times.

Rising Energy Costs and the Threat of Energy Poverty

The financial burden of renewable energy policies extends beyond Germany, affecting millions of households across the globe. One of the most significant, yet often overlooked, consequences of the renewable energy transition is the rising cost of electricity. The shift toward renewables has caused electricity prices to increase to the point where energy poverty is becoming a real issue in many countries.

Energy poverty refers to the inability of households to afford sufficient energy for heating, cooling, and powering their homes. The International Energy Agency (IEA) defines energy poverty as the lack of access to affordable and reliable energy. As the costs of renewable energy policies continue to rise, more and more households find themselves at risk of falling into energy poverty.

In the United Kingdom, for example, the government’s push for renewable energy has resulted in substantial increases in electricity prices. A report by the UK’s National Grid showed that between 2008 and 2020, the average annual energy bill for a UK household rose by 30%, with a significant portion of the increase attributed to the country’s renewable energy investments. The UK government has heavily subsidized wind and solar energy projects, but those subsidies are paid for by consumers through higher electricity bills. The result has been a situation where millions of British households struggle to keep up with the rising costs of energy.

In California, energy poverty is also on the rise as the state aggressively pursues renewable energy goals. While California has invested heavily in solar power, it has failed to address the intermittent nature of renewable energy. During periods of peak demand, when solar and wind energy are insufficient, the state is forced to turn to natural gas and imported electricity, which drives up costs. California has one of the highest electricity prices in the United States, and many low-income families are feeling the impact.

According to the California Public Utilities Commission, more than 1.3 million households in the state were at risk of energy poverty in 2020. Despite the state’s focus on clean energy, many residents are unable to afford their electricity bills, forcing them to choose between paying for energy or other necessities like food and medicine.

In South Australia, another example of the renewable energy trap is evident. South Australia has aggressively pursued renewable energy policies, becoming one of the leading adopters of wind and solar power in the world. However, this shift has led to significant spikes in electricity prices. The state has faced price volatility and blackouts due to the intermittent nature of renewable energy. In 2017, South Australia experienced a widespread blackout after a storm damaged the transmission network, and the state has since struggled to maintain grid stability. The increased reliance on renewables has led to soaring electricity prices, and many households are now unable to afford basic energy needs. According to the Australian Energy Regulator, electricity prices in South Australia have risen by 50% in the past decade, and many low-income families are feeling the squeeze.

The Geopolitical Trap: Energy Dependency, Raw Materials and National Security

The renewable energy transition also raises important geopolitical concerns, particularly in the area of raw materials. Renewable energy technologies are heavily reliant on rare earth metals, lithium, cobalt, and nickel for the production of batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines. These materials are predominantly sourced from countries with less stable political environments or are monopolized by a few nations, such as China.

This creates a new form of energy dependency. For instance, the global supply chain for lithium and cobalt is largely controlled by China, raising questions about national security and the potential for price manipulation or trade disruptions. Countries that rush toward renewables without developing diversified supply chains may find themselves dependent on a handful of foreign nations for critical materials—echoing the geopolitical vulnerability that oil-dependent countries have faced for decades. This new energy dependence could undermine the goal of energy independence that many nations seek.

Moreover, the mining process for these materials is far from clean or environmentally friendly. In countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, where much of the world’s cobalt is sourced, mining operations are linked to severe environmental degradation and human rights abuses. The environmental damage associated with mining for lithium, cobalt, and rare earth metals often goes unreported in the “green” narrative surrounding renewable energy. In many cases, the extraction of these materials results in significant water contamination, deforestation, and harmful air emissions.

The Hidden Costs: Economic Burdens and Social Inequality

Another significant issue with the renewable energy push is the way its real costs are hidden from the public. Governments often advertise the economic benefits of renewables without accounting for the financial burden on consumers. The transition to renewable energy technologies often requires substantial government subsidies, which are typically funded by taxpayers or passed onto consumers through higher utility rates. In the case of the European Union, the cost of renewable energy subsidies is often obscured by misleading accounting practices that fail to capture the true cost of maintaining grid stability.

Take California, a state that has aggressively pursued renewable energy initiatives. While solar and wind have gained in popularity, California’s reliance on intermittent renewables has led to skyrocketing energy prices and blackouts. The state has been forced to rely on natural gas plants as backup power sources, creating a contradictory energy system that still depends on fossil fuels. Additionally, the high costs of implementing renewable energy infrastructure have disproportionately affected low-income families, who are unable to afford higher utility bills.

The Crucial Role of Coal-Fired Baseload Electricity

As nations scramble to meet ambitious renewable energy goals, the role of coal-fired baseload electricity cannot be overlooked. Contrary to the widespread narrative that coal is a relic of the past, coal remains the most dependable, affordable, and scalable option for providing stable electricity in an increasingly energy-demanding world.

Baseload electricity refers to the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time. Coal-fired power plants are uniquely capable of providing this baseload power reliably. Unlike wind and solar, which are intermittent and weather-dependent, coal-fired plants can produce electricity 24/7, irrespective of external conditions. This ensures a stable and predictable energy supply, crucial for both industrial needs and residential consumption.

Coal is also among the most affordable sources of electricity. The levelized cost of energy (LCOE)—the cost to produce electricity per megawatt-hour—is lower for coal-fired plants than for many renewable alternatives, especially when factoring in the full infrastructure and grid integration costs associated with wind and solar energy. In the U.S., for example, coal remains more cost-effective than natural gas and many renewables, particularly in regions like the Midwest, where the energy grid is more reliant on coal-fired plants.

Moreover, coal is abundant and domestically available in many countries, reducing dependence on foreign energy sources. This enhances energy security, particularly for nations that are trying to avoid the geopolitical risks associated with imported energy, including oil, natural gas, and the rare earth metals required for renewable technologies.

Conclusion: A Balanced Approach, Grounded in Reality is Essential

While renewable energy holds promise for a sustainable future, the world must proceed with caution. Nations cannot afford to fall into the renewable energy trap by embracing these technologies without considering the full spectrum of their impacts. Germany’s experience with its Energiewende shows that pushing too hard for renewables can create new environmental problems, economic burdens, and political risks. A balanced energy strategy that incorporates energy security, economic sustainability, and environmental responsibility is crucial.

Coal-fired baseload electricity remains an essential and reliable component of a balanced energy portfolio. It provides affordable, stable, and secure electricity, ensuring that nations do not risk energy poverty or grid instability as they transition to greener sources. The renewable energy revolution must be a step forward, not a leap into the unknown. By acknowledging the true costs of renewable energy and the irreplaceable role of coal, we can forge a more reliable and sustainable energy future for all.

Update: Congress Enacting Climate Realism

Posted on May 14 by Ron Clutz

Nico Portuondo reports on progress to enact realistic climate laws in his E&E News article Energy and Commerce unveils broad climate law rollbacks. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The House committee’s portion of the Republicans’ big party-line bill
also includes expedited permitting for gas exports and other projects.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s section of the Republicans’ party-line megabill includes billions of dollars in clawbacks from a host of Inflation Reduction Act programs.

The legislation — up for markup Tuesday — would affect the Department of Energy’s Loans Program Office, EPA’s Greenhouse Reduction Fund and many other climate law initiatives, according to text released Sunday night.

Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) said the climate law repeals would add up to $6.5 billion in savings. He said the unobligated balances represented “the most reckless parts of the engorged climate spending in the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.”

“The 2024 election sent a clear signal that Americans are tired of an extreme left-wing agenda that favors wokeness over sensible policy and spurs price increases,” Guthrie said in a Sunday Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Guthrie said the administration “has already reversed President Biden and Democrats’ electric-vehicle mandates and natural-gas export ban; now it’s Congress’s turn.”

Guthrie told committee Republicans on a call Sunday that the overall legislation — including changes to Medicaid — would create more than $900 billion in savings, according to POLITICO.

A committee spokesperson said “the bill specifically rescinds funding leftover from nine of the Biden Administration’s IRA renewable energy and electrification subsidy programs at the Department of Energy — saving taxpayers money and allowing for deficit reduction.”

Department of Energy

The legislation would scrap “the unobligated balance” of IRA funding for the Loans Program Office and money dedicated to transmission projects.

The LPO received over $35 billion from the climate law, while DOE’s Grid Deployment Office got around $3 billion as part from the IRA’s “Transmission Facility Financing” section.

Republicans will also try to rescind IRA funds boosting a number of other DOE programs, including initiatives on advanced vehicle manufacturing, energy infrastructure reinvestment financing, tribal energy loan guarantees and state-based efficiency grants. Those programs, in total, received around $8.3 billion from the climate law.

The committee, however, did not make clear just how much leftover funding is available to repeal after the Biden administration pushed to get as much as possible out the door.

Outside of IRA programs, the legislation would accelerate permitting for infrastructure projects through new fees, something similar to the Natural Resources Committee text and what Democrats have called a pay-to-play scheme.

One Energy and Commerce provision, for example, would allow DOE to automatically deem a potential liquefied natural gas export facility to be in the “public interest” — normally a key regulatory hurdle — if the applicant pays a one-time fee of $1 million.

Another provision would allow other natural gas infrastructure developers to receive an “expedited permitting process” from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Natural Gas Act if the applicants pays $10 million or 1 percent of the project’s projected cost.

The proposal eyes permitting being completed within a year and would exempt projects from certain litigation. A similar timeline and fee would apply to carbon dioxide, oil and hydrogen pipeline permitting.

The legislation would also rescind congressionally appropriated funding outside of the IRA for key DOE programs, including around $401 million from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and around $260 million from DOE’s State and Community Energy Programs.

It would grant $2 billion for the department to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a longtime objective of Republicans to shore up the nation’s energy security.

EPA

The bill text confirmed a longtime promise from Energy and Commerce leaders that they would target unobligated balances from the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a $27 billion IRA program designed to support clean energy projects particularly in low-income and disadvantaged communities.

Outside of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the plan would repeal a variety of IRA programs designed to reduce air pollution at schools and ports, reduce emissions from diesel engines and construction materials, and promote carbon monitoring initiatives.

And, as expected, the legislation takes aim at the Inflation Reduction Act’s methane fee. That program is designed to reduce methane leaks from natural gas infrastructure. Congress, through the Congressional Review Act, already repealed EPA regulations implementing the fee.

The legislation would also roll back two regulations on emissions from passenger vehicles. Gone would be the latest corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and EPA’s newest multipollutant emissions standards for model years 2027 and later, requiring significant reductions in greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions from light-duty and medium-duty vehicles.

Republicans went further in their targeting of Biden-era vehicle policies with a proposed repeal of $600 million in grants and rebates to states, municipalities tribes and nonprofits to expand the use of zero-emission vehicles.

Spain and Portugal Achieve Net Zero Accidently

Posted on April 30 by Ron Clutz

Analysis of the blackout in Spain and Portugal comes in EurAsia Daily article Solar generation fell, and then the Spanish power grid collapsed: details of the blackout. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

New details are emerging why a large-scale blackout occurred in Spain, which lasted more than 10 hours and hit millions of Spaniards. The statements of the operator of the country’s energy system differ from the original version of EADaily, but point to the same reason — green energy, which failed in a crisis situation.

“The first major power outage in the era of green electricity,” Bloomberg columnist Javier Blas wrote on Twitter. He published a brief transcript of the teleconference held by the operator of the Spanish power grid Red Electrica on the blackout, from which the country is still recovering.

So, Red Electrica ruled out a cyber attack or weather as a reason. The operator presented the following course of events. At 12.33 pm, the Spanish power grid experienced a loss of generation in the south-west of the country. Most likely, these were solar power plants, but the operator is not sure yet. Indeed, most of Spain’s solar generation is located in the south-west of the country.

Location and concentration of solar power plants in Spain (left).

After milliseconds, the power system self-stabilized and began to recover. However, after a second and a half, a second wave of generation power loss occurred. Representatives of the operator did not specify whether the first wave provoked the second.

Three and a half seconds later, the instability of the energy system of the Iberian Peninsula reached a level that led to a malfunction at the interconnector with France, the power supply capacity of which was then 1 GW.

Immediately after that, another power loss of green power plants hit the power grid. The operator did not specify why this happened.

Further, the cascading power drop further destabilized the Spanish power grid, forcing every remaining power plant to be disconnected from the grid — nuclear power plants, gas and hydroelectric power plants. As a result, the generation in Spain entering the network has dropped to zero. The data shows that out of 25 GW, 10 GW remained, but the operator reported that for a brief moment the power dropped to zero.

Red Electrica stated that the presented series of events is preliminary, and so far the operator cannot make a final conclusion due to a lack of data.

This information is confirmed by the data of the operator itself and the European ENTSO-E platform. The capacity of solar power plants at 12.25−12.30 amounted to 17.8 GW — 55% of the total generation in the country. And by 12.40 it had almost tripled to 6 GW. At the same time, from 11.00 the capacity of solar power plants changed dramatically and one-time fluctuations reached 700 MW.

TSO data shows the point just after 12:30 on Monday 28 April when Spain’s electricity grid collapsed. When the collapse occurred, the Spanish electrical grid had almost 80% renewable generation, 11% nuclear, and only 3% natural gas. There was practically no base generation or physical inertia to absorb the shock that was generated. Source: Red Eléctrica

The operator’s data differ from the original version of EADaily about the failure of the interconnector with France and temperature changes, but coincide with the key reason for the blackout — green energy.

The problem of solar and wind power plants is that, unlike coal and gas generation, they do not provide synchronous inertia that stabilizes the frequency in the network. And when the frequency in the network dropped, solar power plants could not compensate for the imbalance. Their operation depends on inverters, which automatically turn off when the frequency deviates from the norm, aggravating the collapse.

The electrical system obeys the laws of physics. This obvious fact was not always taken into account when politicians took measures affecting the country’s electricity generation and transport networks. In Spain, for example, over the past decade there has been a revolution in electricity generation, which has led to the fact that renewable technologies (primarily photovoltaic and wind) now occupy a large part of the energy balance,” wrote former president of Red Electrica Jordi Sevilla in El Pais.

He noted that there is a technical problem: solar and wind energy are not synchronous energy sources, while transmission and distribution networks are designed to operate only with minimal voltage in the energy they transmit. Therefore, a sudden jump in the production of renewable generation can lead to sharp voltage fluctuations in the network, which will lead to a loss of generation and, as a result, to power outages.

“Our energy system needs investments to adapt to the technical realities of the new generation, which, in turn, should also continue to improve its own technologies and storage systems. This is a requirement of the sector (and the system operator), to which the government does not listen. The PNIEC project was developed in the office with excessive messianism regarding renewable energy sources and without taking into account the technical problems associated with such a significant change in the Spanish energy balance and its compliance with the energy system,” concluded the ex—head of the Spanish energy system operator.

Meanwhile, the Spanish Prime Minister made a new statement about the blackout.

“In his third speech in 24 hours, Pedro Sanchez clearly pointed out the ‘responsibility of private operators’ for the largest power outage in the history of Spain. He did not name names because the investigation is still ongoing, but the chief executive has thus taken the first step in a huge legal and economic battle that will begin in the coming months,” El Pais writes.

“Sanchez claims that there is nothing to indicate that this is an explanation for what happened, and even more so that nuclear energy is the solution. Other right-wing European countries are returning to nuclear power, but Sanchez and Ogesen insist on the opposite,” El Pais noted.

At the same time, Prime Minister Sanchez himself still does not completely rule out the cyberattack version, and the government turned to Incibe (Cybersecurity Institute).

“Doubts remain. The government is not sure, but Sanchez still claims that the system is one of the best in the world, and adds that the public has behaved exemplary. At the moment, the system, restored to 99%, will work according to a safe formula, and if everything goes well, the usual formula will start working tomorrow,” El Pais writes.

Javier Blas @JavierBlas comments:

Let’s see if I understood Spanish PM:

– we should not eliminate any hypothesis, but he has unilaterally ruled out any link to renewables;

– nuclear power plants are bad;

– we should wait to expert reports, but he contradicts the preliminary findings from the experts at the grid.

As reported by EADaily, after noon on April 28, millions of Spaniards faced problems that they did not even know about. The blackout stopped trains, planes and even buses. The extinguished traffic lights provoked chaos on the roads, and the lack of electricity in stores led to the fact that bank cards were not accepted and supermarkets were closed. Mobile communications disappeared, and hospitals served only patients in critical condition. 30 thousand police officers were brought into the capital of the country to ensure order. Spain could not even imagine such a thing.

It’s the Sun Warming Us, Dummy

Posted on April 25 by Ron Clutz

Nir Shaviv makes sense in his Daily Sceptic article Global Warming is Mostly Caused By the Sun, Not Humans, Says Astrophysics Professor. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

“There’s no such thing as a scientific consensus,” Nir Shaviv, a Professor at the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem says in response to a question about what he thinks of the widespread claim that there is a scientific consensus on the anthropogenic nature of climate change. “In science, we deal with open questions and I think that the question of climate change is an open question. There are a lot of things which many scientists are still arguing about,” he explains.

Indeed, there are scientists who say that climate change is caused entirely by humans and the situation is very dire. But then there are those who say that although humans are causing much of the warming, the situation is not as bad as we are being told by politicians and activists through the media. Some think that CO₂ plays an important part in the current warming trend and some believe its role is insignificant.

Although Shaviv assesses that some of the warming in the 20th century is indeed the result of increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, most of the change is a natural phenomenon. “My research has led me to strongly believe that based on all the evidence that’s accumulated over the past around 25 years, a large part of the warming is actually not because of humans, but because of the solar effect,” he says.

Up to two-thirds of the warming comes from the Sun

As an astrophysicist, Shaviv’s research has largely focused on understanding how solar activity and the Earth’s climate are linked. In fact, he says, at least half, and possibly two-thirds, of the 20th century’s warming is related to increased solar activity. Shaviv has also shown that cosmic rays and their activity influence cloud cover formation, also causing the climate to change. He has been working on this issue together with Danish astrophysicist Dr Henrik Svensmark.

In any case, Shaviv says, if solar activity and cosmic ray effects are taken into account, the climate sensitivity remains relatively low, or simply put – an increase in the proportion of CO₂ in the atmosphere cannot cause much warming. Scientists have long attempted to calculate how much a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ would raise the temperature of the Earth. The first attempt was made more than 100 years ago by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, who suggested an answer of up to six degrees Celsius. Since then, this number has been revised downwards, but not enough, according to Shaviv. “If you open the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports, then the canonical range is anywhere between one and a half or two, depending on which report you look at, to maybe four and a half degrees increase for CO₂ doubling. What I find is that climate sensitivity is somewhere between one and one and a half degree increase per CO₂ doubling,” Shaviv says, adding that he does not expect the temperature rise in the 21st century to be very high.

On average, half of sunlight is either absorbed in the atmosphere or reflected before it can be absorbed by the surface land and ocean. Any shift in the reflectivity (albedo) impacts greatly on the solar energy warming the planet.

Explaining the warming that has happened primarily with CO₂ is where the IPCC’s scientific reports err, Shaviv says, by failing to account for the solar effect. And because they do not account for it, but there is still a need to explain the temperature rise, the rise in CO₂ levels in the atmosphere, which has been attributed to human influences, has been used to explain it. Shaviv explains that this is the wrong answer as it fails to take into account all the contributing factors.

Is the planet boiling?

But is this temperature rise causing a climate crisis? Shaviv’s answer to the question is simple and clear: “No.” He explains that the average temperature on the planet has risen by one degree Celsius since about 1900, but this is not unprecedented. We are familiar, for example, with the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings charted the coast of Greenland, including its northern part, which today is covered with ice even in summer. “This kind of climate variation has always happened. Some of the warming now is anthropogenic, but it’s not a crisis in the sense that the temperature is going to increase by five degrees in a century and we’re all doomed. We just have to adapt to changes. Some of them are natural and some are not, but they’re not large,” Shaviv explains.

It has been widely reported that both 2023 and 2024 were the warmest years on record. Referring to this rise in temperatures, UN Secretary-General António Guterres already in July 2023 declared that we have entered an “era of global boiling”. Shaviv says that of course, we can have average surface temperatures that are highest if we only look back 100 or 150 years. “If you go back a thousand years it was just as warm. If you go back 5,000 years it was definitely warmer. So, It doesn’t mean much,” he explains.

And if you look at a longer time scale, warmer periods have alternated with colder periods throughout. Also, over the last 100,000 years, the Earth has been in an ice age for most of that time, and the retreat of the ice in Europe and North America happened about 12,000 years ago.

Do extreme weather events prove a climate crisis?

However, it is often claimed in the media that we are in an unprecedented and critical climatic situation and all the reported extreme weather events are said to be proving it.

In reality, there is no indication that most extreme weather events are more frequent or in any way more severe than in the past. Take hurricanes, for example. It’s true that the damage they cause has increased over time, but Shaviv says that’s because more people live near the coast. “If you look at the statistics of hurricanes making landfall in the US, which is a relatively reliable record, then you see that there is no significant change,” he says. Shaviv adds that, in reality, there is not even any reason to expect a warming climate to bring more hurricanes. “Sure, you need hotter waters to generate hurricanes, but you also need the gradient, you need the temperature difference between the equator and the subtropics in order to drive the hurricanes. And warmer Earth actually has a smaller temperature difference. So it’s not even clear ab initio whether you’re going to have more hurricanes or less,” Shaviv explains.

Large wildfires, for example, are also associated with climate warming, but Shaviv says there is no reason for this either. “In the US in the 1930s the annual amount of area which was burnt a year was way larger than what it is today,” he says, adding that the reality is that a large proportion of fires are caused by poor forest management, which fails to clear the forest floor of flammable material.

Towards nuclear energy

In the light of the above, climate change does not make it necessary to abandon fossil fuels. However, Shaviv says we should still move towards cleaner energy. Firstly, burning fossil fuels causes real environmental pollution – in particular coal, which is still on the rise worldwide. Secondly, fossil fuels will run out one day.

But mankind cannot replace these fuels with wind and solar power. “First of all, it’s very expensive. You can see that any country that has a lot of any of those, they pay much more for electricity,” Shaviv says. He suggests looking at electricity prices in countries such as Germany or Denmark, where wind and solar have been developed with billions of euros of government aid, and comparing them with, for example, France which uses nuclear power. What makes this form of energy so expensive is its intermittent nature – generation takes place when the sun shines and the wind blows. So to guarantee electricity supply, either huge storage capacity or backup systems, such as gas-fired power stations, are needed.

Shaviv believes that in the future, much more reliance should be placed on nuclear power, which does not have the pollution problems of fossil fuels and, unlike wind and solar, can provide a stable energy supply. However, the critics of this plan remind us of past nuclear accidents – Chernobyl in Ukraine, Three Mile Island in the USA and Fukushima in Japan. Each of these accidents had its own causes – in the case of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, technical defects mixed with human error, and in the case of Fukushima, natural forces, in other words, the earthquake and tsunami. In the case of Fukushima in 2011, however, no one died as a direct result of the accident at the nuclear power plant (though thousands of people died as a result of the tsunami that devastated the coastline).

Shaviv says there is no point in comparing the safety of nuclear plants that have suffered accidents in the past with today’s technology. “I don’t think it’s going to be a problem in the sense that we can have an extremely safe design,” he says, adding that the wider deployment of nuclear power will happen whether the West joins in or not. “If you look at China, which is energy-hungry, they don’t care about public opinion as much as we do in the West. And they don’t have as much problem with regulation. So they’re just going to run forward and instead of building or opening a coal power plant every few weeks, in a few years, they’re going to be opening a nuclear power plant every few weeks,” Shaviv says. He adds that the West would also be wise to participate in this development, rather than moving in the opposite direction.

Deceptive Climate Alarmist Rants on Trump Energy Policies

Posted on April 5, 2025 by Ron Clutz

Linnea Lueken and H. Sterling Burnett expose the unfounded claims in their Climate Realism article The Hill Misleads, Trump’s Energy Policy Won’t Damage the Climate and Will Advance American Interests. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

A recent post by The Hill, “Disaster as Trump’s energy policy totally disregards climate change,” claims that President Donald Trump is implementing “irrational and profoundly destabilizing energy policies” by prioritizing traditional energy and deprioritizing renewables, leading to increases in weather disasters. This is false on all fronts.

♦ Data show that weather is not becoming more extreme.
♦ There is no evidence that the growth in wind and solar power has done or can do anything to alter the course of climate change.
♦ Trump’s America First agenda promotes energy dominance, focusing energy reliability and abundant, secure, domestic supplies. Trump’s energy plan is a stabilizing factor in energy costs.

William Becker, a former regional director at the U.S. Department of Energy during the Obama administration, makes many false claims in a rapid-fire fashion in his post in The Hill. For brevity’s sake and as a matter of focus, this Climate Realism post focuses on one segment of his article:

While we can thank fossil fuels for the lifestyles and conveniences most Americans enjoy today, the legacy of their long dominance is the destabilization and degradation of environmental systems critical to life. The atmosphere is one of those systems. Unprecedented weather extremes are the result of dumping fossil-fuel pollution into it. As the dumping continues, weather disasters become more frequent and destructive. The American people have been hit by an average of 23 major weather disasters (those with damages exceeding $1 billion) annually over the last five years, compared to only nine in the previous 45.

Every point Becker made in this statement after the opening clause of the first sentence is false. It is true that we can thank fossil fuels for our lifestyles and not just conveniences but essentials for modern life.

It is false that fossil fuel use is causing unprecedented weather extremes, and that they are becoming more frequent and destructive.

Becker, who currently runs a climate policy lobbying organization, uses a deceptive metric for calculating increasing weather disasters, which looks at the monetary value of losses due to weather. Becker does not attempt to claim that these weather events are becoming more frequent or extreme themselves – because they aren’t. Data on the most common weather extremes like hurricanes and wildfires show no increase, as Climate Realism has covered dozens of times. Instead, Becker cites misleading calculations of billion-dollar price tags from weather damage.

Scientist Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor emeritus at the University of Colorado Boulder, explains the misuse of the “billion dollar disaster” metric as a proof for dangerous climate change. He has called the U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA) is “a national embarrassment,” for using that misleading metric, explaining that the NCA overestimated the number of disasters by a factor of three by re-counting individual events when they struck multiple states. So, if a hurricane passed through Florida, then into Georgia and South Carolina, the NCA would count this as three separate “billion dollar disasters” – even if the hurricane did not cause a billion dollar in of losses in each state it struck.

In reality, populations have increased in states like California and Florida, which are prone to extreme weather. More infrastructure has been built in susceptible areas, so there is more to annihilate when a storm strikes. To the extent that there has been any rise in billion dollar costs attributable to extreme weather events, as estimated by Becker and the sources he uses, it is due, not to changes in weather, but rather a well-known phenomenon labeled the “expanding bulls-eye effect,” which Climate Realism has discussed dozens of times previously, such as here.

Going further, an analysis from Pielke, Jr. of insurance data presented in another Climate Realism post disputes the claim that the costs of natural disasters, when measured fairly, have risen. Relative to global GDP, the trend in property losses has declined as the Earth has modestly warmed over the last several decades. (See the graph, below)

*Graph: Global disaster losses as a proportion of global GDP.*

Becker’s additional claim that Trump’s focus on reliable energy rather than intermittent renewables will raise costs and result in less energy security, is as false as his claims about worsening disaster costs. The wind and solar technologies that Becker promotes rely heavily on materials and technologies produced by foreign powers that are not friendly to the United States, like China.

A grid powered by wind and solar is not cheaper than gas, it isn’t even cheaper than nuclear. A study by energy modelers at Always On Energy Research found that wind and solar both suffer from massive costs associated with the overbuilding necessary to overcome the intermittency issue. Load balancing, using battery storage, carries very high costs, as well. These make nuclear less expensive per megawatt hour than existing wind or solar, despite high upfront costs.

Similarly for fossil fuels, full system LCOE show that wind and solar in Texas costs far more per megawatt hour than nuclear, coal (of which the United States has hundreds of years of domestic supply that isn’t dependent on foreign sources), or the cheapest source – natural gas, which is also sourced domestically.

Grid stability is damaged by high penetration of solar and wind and the closure of traditional energy, according to utility companies and federal energy regulators.

Almost every claim made in Becker’s article in The Hill is provably wrong. The post is long on hyperbole and misinformation, but short on facts and data. Real world weather data shows no increase in extreme weather, incidences of weather disasters, or weather disaster costs as a percentage of economic growth. Trump’s reliability focused, America First, energy policy will not harm our energy security or the planet, but it will buttress the United States against the hostile intentions of any foreign government that might use our dependence on them for renewable energy materials and technology to extort economic or geopolitical concessions. It will also allow the U.S. to become energy dominant, a force for good in the world by supplying our abundant domestic energy supplies to allies, especially to developing countries in need of reliable energy sources to bring their populations out of energy poverty.

Six Good Reasons to Overturn EPA CO2 Ruling

Posted on March 29, 2025 by Ron Clutz

Paul Driessen makes six strong points in his Town Hall article Reexamining the Obama Era Endangerment Finding. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The supposed climate cataclysm consensus is disintegrating under growing pressure from reality. Green energy subsidies, regulations and mandates are crumbling. Greenpeace has been hit with a $667-million judgment for conspiracy, defamation, trespass, and fostering arson and property destruction.

Last year’s “Buy a Tesla – save the planet” placards have been exchanged for “mostly peaceful” protests based on “Torch a Tesla – save our democracy” and infernos of toxic pollution and “carbon” emissions.

Even higher anxiety is battering climate activists from the Lee Zeldin Environmental Protection Agency’s review of EPA’s 2009 “Endangerment Finding” (EF) – the foundation and justification for restrictive Obama and Biden Era standards and regulations on permissible electricity generation, automobiles, furnaces, home appliances and much more. Six Good Reasons to Overturn:

CO2 is the Essence of Life on Earth. Damning it as a Pollutant is absurd and ignorant.

Humans and animals exhale carbon dioxide when they breathe, combustion processes also emit CO2, and during photosynthesis plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen. More atmospheric CO2 helps plants grow better, faster and with less water. Nearly all life on Earth depends on this process. It’s basic science.

That’s why the Clean Air Act doesn’t include carbon dioxide in its list of dangerous pollutants, along with carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ground-level ozone, particulates and sulfur dioxide.

But fossil-fuel-hating activists blame CO2 for the alleged “climate crisis” – and in Massachusetts v. EPA the US Supreme Court said EPA could regulate CO2 emissions if the agency found that they “cause or contribute” to “air pollution” that may be “reasonably anticipated” to “endanger public health or welfare.”

The Obama EPA quickly determined that they did and issued an Endangerment Finding that gave the agency effective control over America’s energy, transportation, industries, furnaces and stoves– indeed, over almost every facet of our lives and living standards – to help “fundamentally transform” the nation.

In formulating its decision, EPA did no research of its own, relied heavily on GIGO computer models and outdated technical studies, dismissed the clear benefits of rising atmospheric CO2 levels, and ignored studies that didn’t support its decision. EPA even told one of its own experts (who had offered evidence and analyses contradicting official claims) that “the administration has decided to move forward [on implementing the EF] and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

That alone is a compelling reason for reversing the Endangerment Finding. But other realities also argue convincingly that EPA’s 2009 action should be nullified.

EPA had no authority to convert plant-fertilizing, life-giving carbon dioxide into a dangerous, health-threatening pollutant.

First, Massachusetts v. EPA has been sidelined, rendered irrelevant or effectively reversed.

West Virginia v. EPA (2022) ruled that federal agencies may not violate the “major questions doctrine,” which holds that, in the absence of clear congressional direction or authorization, agencies may not make decisions or issue regulations “of vast economic and political significance.”

The Obama EPA had no clear congressional language or authorization to declare that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that would likely “endanger public health or welfare.” The Supreme Court’s minimal guidance in Massachusetts underscores the absence of congressional intent or direction. The process EPA used in rendering its predetermined finding demonstrates how little actual science played a role. And the enormous significance and impact of the EF decision and subsequent regulations can hardly be disputed.

Similarly, the SCOTUS 2024 ruling in Loper Bright v. Raimondo overturned the court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. NRDC and ended judicial deference to government agencies (the “Chevron doctrine”). Bureaucrats may no longer devise “reasonable interpretations” of unclear statutory language if those interpretations would significantly expand regulatory powers or inflate private sector costs.

These two decisions mean EPA had no authority to convert plant-fertilizing, life-giving carbon dioxide into a dangerous, health-threatening pollutant.

Natural Climate Forces and CO2 Benefits Were Ignored by EPA 2009 Ruling

Second, reams of post-2009 studies and analyses show that CO2 is hugely beneficial to forests, grasslands and croplands – and that CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) have not replaced the powerful, complex, interconnected natural forces that have always driven global warming, climate change, ice ages, Little Ice Ages, and extreme weather events. EPA ignored this in 2009.

Others demonstrate that there is no climate crisis, nothing unprecedented in today’s climate and weather, and nothing modern industrialized societies cannot cope with far more easily than our ancestors did.

(See Climate Change Reconsidered II, CO2 Coalition studies, NOAA hurricane history, US tornado records, and studies the Trump EPA will undoubtedly consult during its EF reconsideration.)

Human Lives are Sustained by Hydrocarbon Fuels and By-Products

Third, our energy, jobs, living standards, health, welfare, national security and much more depend on fossil fuels – for energy and for pharmaceuticals, plastics and thousands of other essential products that are manufactured using petrochemical feedstocks.

Developing Nations Need and Will Use More Hydrocarbons in Any Case

Fourth, China, India and other rapidly developing nations also depend on fossil fuels – and in fact are increasing their coal and petroleum use every year – to build their industries and economies and improve their people’s health and living standards. They are not about stop doing so to appease those who insist the world faces a climate crisis. That means even eliminating coal, oil, gas and petrochemical use in the United States would have no effect on global GHG emissions.

Primary Threat to Earth Future is Losing Reliable, Affordable Energy

Finally, the primary threats to human and planetary health and welfare come not from using fossil fuels – but from eliminating them, trying to switch to “clean, green, renewable” energy, and no longer having vital petrochemical products.

As Britain and Germany have shown, switching to intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar energy with backup power raises electricity prices to 3-4 times what average Americans currently pay. Industries cannot compete internationally, millions lose their jobs, living expenses soar, and families cannot afford to heat their homes in winter or cool them in summertime.

Thousands die unnecessarily every year from heatstroke, hypothermia, and diseases they would survive if they weren’t so hot, cold or malnourished.

In poor countries, millions die annually from indoor pollution from wood and dung fires, from spoiled food due to lack of refrigeration, from contaminated drinking water due to the absence of sanitation and treated water, and from diseases that would be cured in modern healthcare systems.

The common factor in all these deaths is the absence of reliable,
affordable energy, largely imposed by climate-focused bureaucrats
who finance only wind and solar projects in poor nations.

Wind and solar power, electric vehicle and grid-backup batteries, and associated transmission lines require metals and minerals mining and processing on unprecedented scales, power-generation facilities blanketing millions of acres of croplands and wildlife habitats, and the disposal of gigantic equipment that breaks or wears out quickly and cannot be recycled.

Reliance on wind, solar and battery power also means blackouts amid heatwaves and cold spells, cars stalled in snowstorms and hurricane evacuations – and thus still more deaths.

A slightly warmer planet with more atmospheric CO2 would be greatly beneficial for plants, wildlife and humanity. A colder planet with less carbon dioxide would significantly reduce arable croplands, growing seasons, wildlife habitats and our ability to feed humanity.

EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding ignored virtually all these realities.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s reexamination of that decision
must not repeat that mistake.

Climate-Obsessed Pols Blew Canada’s Opportunity

Posted on March 25, 2025 by Ron Clutz

Jamie Sarkonak summarizes the bogus start to Canada Federal elections in his National Post article Liberals pledge to make Canada a superpower after years of preventing it. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

A tattered Canadian flag is shown on top of a building in downtown Calgary on Friday, Jan. 17, 2025 where the U.S. Consulate is located. Photo by Jim Wells/Postmedia

Sunday’s edition of the Financial Times included the oft-made observation that Canada is brimming with potential, and the oft-made conclusion that this country would be much better off if it simply developed its God-given gifts.

The article, Unlocking Canada’s Superpower Potential by Tej Parikh, made the bullish case for this country’s future prospects: Canada is geographically huge and loaded with natural resources — on paper, at least, it has the makings of an actual global superpower.

“‘Canada absolutely has potential to be a global superpower,’ but the nation has lacked the visionary leadership and policy framework to capitalise on its advantages.”

It was, with gentle vagueness, a condemnation of the federal Liberal government and what is now being called Canada’s “lost decade”: a period of 10 years in which the current government ratcheted up onerous environmental and Indigenous-consultation requirements and, where ministerial approvals are concerned, delayed decisions, all geared at keeping undeveloped parts of Canada in their natural state.

Terms like “circular economy” and “just transition” are the Liberal synonyms for this no-growth agenda, which has delivered us a fraction of a percentage of GDP growth per capita from 2014 to the end of 2024 — a time period in which peer countries have managed double-digits.

For anyone who missed out on all the bad governance robbing Canadians of superpower prosperity, this brief video exposes the crimes against the citizenry. For those who prefer reading, I provide below a transcript from the closed captions.

Transcript

This is Alberta the fourth largest Province and home to about 4.6 million people. It ranks third in GDP just behind Quebec and first in GDP per capita primarily off the back of oil and gas extraction. While its discovery in the first half of the 20th century has brought Canada riches, for reasons from political to economic it never reached its full potential as an energy superpower, and Canadians as a whole lose out. We’ll be diving into how its energy policies have evolved and the path it is on whether for natural gas, nuclear, hydrogen and more.

Canada has the third largest proven oil reserves and by most estimates in the top 20 in terms of natural gas reserves. It is a top 10 producer of oil and gas, meaning it is engaged in extracting processing and supplying of these resources for domestic production.

Natural Gas

For natural gas exports it is in the top six, all of which goes to the US via pipelines. To export across water requires Investments to build liquid natural gas or LNG facilities to cool the gas into a liquid state in a process called liquefaction. In 2024 the the first export terminal will finally be completed in Kitimat BC called LNG Canada with gas coming through the coastal gas tank pipeline set to complete after 5 years of construction and a price tag that jumped from 6.6 billion to 14.5 billion.

But don’t expect other facilities to be constructed anytime soon. On February 9th 2022, 2 weeks before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the federal and Quebec governments rejected approval of an LNG plant in Saguenay that would have allowed for the export of Western Natural Gas to European markets.

They cited increased greenhouse gas emissions
and lack of social responsibility.

While most of the natural gas is located in Northern Alberta and BC in the Montney formation, there is also gas in the Atlantic provinces. However New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia have all banned the process of fracking used for shale gas development over safety fears, thereby losing out on tens of billions of economic potential. Ironically the same provinces import a lot of natural gas extracted from the US through the process of fracking, Quebec also has natural gas resources but in April 2022 banned all oil and gas extraction in the province.

This means not only are pipelines from western Canada rejected from going through Quebec, natural gas extraction and export facilities in these provinces have been rejected as well. The demand if not met by Canada will be filled by other countries that might not share the same values nor care about the environment, with the jobs, millions in royalties and taxes going elsewhere. Since 2011, of the 18 proposed LG export projects including five on the East Coast. only the Kitimat project has proceeded with the others being cancelled, blocked or abandoned.

While the US in the same time frame has built seven LG facilities, five more under construction and approved 15, enabling them to go from a net importer to a top three exporter in the world. Australia has 10 LG facilities with the majority built in the 2010s helping to satisfy energy demand from Asian countries and to help them move away from coal. Qatar too has benefited greatly from extracting its resources as European countries look for alternatives to Russian gas.

These three countries have all signed decades-long deals to supply natural gas. Yet when Japan, South Korea, and Germany showed interest in Canadian LG, the Prime Minister said, “There has never been a strong business case.” While critics point out that natural gas is a fossil fuel contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, it emits 40% less than coal and 30% less than oil.

Nuclear Energy

We can’t talk about energy policy without mentioning nuclear, because it does not emit greenhouse gases while being a reliable source of energy, not dependent on the wind blowing or the sun shining. Currently nuclear supplies 58% of Ontario’s electricity needs and 15% Nationwide with all but one of the 19 nuclear reactors. The one located outside of Ontario is in New Brunswick. No new reactors have been completed since 1993. Meanwhile coal is still used to generate 6% of Canada’s electricity needs despite the country having the third largest uranium reserves, the fuel needed for reactors.

But on September 19th 2023, Canada did reach a $3 billion deal to finance nuclear power . . .in Romania. In fairness this deal does support the export of made in Canada Candu style reactors. An industry in which historically Canada has been a leader. Any discussion should include nuclear, as one of the trends in the nuclear industry is small modular reactors or SMRs which should be easier to manufacture and transport enabling its use in remote regions.

Hydrogen

Another Trend that the federal government has prioritized in the 2023 budget relates to hydrogen. 16.4 billion has been allocated over 5 years for “clean” Technologies and “clean” hydrogen tax credits, which are subsidies for costs in setting up equipment to produce green hydrogen. When the German Chancellor Olaf Schultz arrived in Canada in August 2022 asking for LNG, Canada instead offered green hydrogen created by wind turbines generating electricity to perform electrolysis by splitting water to produce hydrogen. It is both inefficient and expensive to produce green hydrogen meaning there is little business case for it without subsidies, since more than 99% of hydrogen is currently produced using fossil fuel. While green hydrogen will likely play a role in industrial processes, such as replacing coal used in steel production or creating ammonia in fertilizer production, its role in transportation is likely negligible. Furthermore using hydroelectricity, nuclear or natural gas to create hydrogen plays into Canada’s strengths in a way that solar or wind does not, as we’ll see shortly.

Solar and Wind

A big part of Canada’s net zero emissions by 2050 plan involves solar and wind energy, yet one of the biggest beneficiaries of that shift would be China given its dominance in the Clean Energy Solution space, whether solar panels, wind turbines or EVS. From the mineral extraction to the processing, refining and Manufacturing, there is much demand for critical minerals like copper cobalt nickel lithium and Rare Earth elements chromium zinc and aluminum. China owns stakes in many mines around the world including Canadian ones extracting these minerals to control the supply chain. According to 2022 data from the International Energy Agency, their share of refining is 35% for nickel, 60% for lithium, 70% for Cobalt and a whopping 90% for Rare Earth.

This dependence on one country means the power to squeeze Supply or raise prices at any moment, which is a big reason why on August 16th 2022 the Biden Administration signed the ironically named Inflation Reduction Act which provides 369 billion of funding for clean energy projects. The intention is to not only reshore to the US but also Near shore or Friend shore to allies like Canada, Whether in mining of critical minerals to manufacturing.

Canada acted decisively a few months later in the same year to force
three Chinese companies to sell their stakes in Canadian mining companies
. . . Oh wait just kidding.

In all seriousness the country and especially Quebec can play a role in the supply chain so long as projects can be approved in a timely manner which really is the underlying theme of this video. Having these minerals also incentivizes battery and auto manufacturing companies to invest in factories, helped massively by subsidies of course. 13 billion over 10 years is what took Volkswagen to commit to a battery plant in Southern Ontario. Likewise 15 billion in subsidies was committed for a Stellantis LG battery plant in Windsor and other projects like this. That’s a lot of money with these two subsidy awards not expected to break even for 20 years according to the Parliamentary budget office. And that’s if these Legacy auto companies like Stellantis and Volkswagen will be relevant by that time.

That’s the kind of energy policy decisions made in Canada in recent times,
and why we haven’t leveraged our natural resources into Superpower.

Mark Carney’s Climate Obsession Worse than Trudeau’s

The future of Canada’s badly governed energy sector is further threatened by replacing Trudeau with Carney. Terry Newman explains in his National Post article Mark Carney’s climate obsessions will put Trudeau to shame. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Don’t trust his pledge to turn Canada into an energy superpower

For all of Carney’s supposed superior knowledge of the world and markets, the art of provincial negotiations and incentives for private investment in natural resources appears to have already escaped his grasp. There’s evidence to suggest this is because, at heart, Carney is likely to be a fully fledged ESG prime minister (ESG being short for environmental, social, and governance principles being imposed on business).Unfortunately, everything Carney’s said and done up until this point suggests not only that he’d fail to unite Canadian provinces to create this energy super-economy, but that’s he’s not actually interested in doing so in the first place.The Liberal party may have a new face, but Carney’s insistence on keeping an emissions cap and industrial carbon tax in place — both products of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government — doesn’t invoke much confidence in his energy superpower plan.

Since the Liberals came to power in 2015, they implemented the Impact Assessment Act, which slowed approvals, the federal industrial carbon pricing system (2018) and the oil and gas emissions cap (slated for 2026) — all with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector to net zero by 2050.

Since 2015, many projects have been stalled or cancelled, including the Northern Gateway Pipeline (cancelled by government in 2016, citing a federal ban on tanker traffic and Indigenous opposition); the Energy East Pipeline (cancelled by the company in 2017, citing regulatory hurdles and low oil prices); Pacific NorthWest LNG (cancelled in 2017 due to market conditions and regulatory delays); the MacKenzie Valley Pipeline (cancelled in 2017 due to low gas prices and regulatory uncertainty); Énergie Saguenay LNG (cancelled in 2021, rejected by Quebec government over emissions concerns, not challenged by the federal government); Bay du Nord Offshore Oil (shelved in 2022, citing high costs and regulatory uncertainty); Teck Frontier Mine (cancelled in 2020, amid climate policy debates); and the Keystone XL Pipeline (cancelled 2021, due to failure to secure a U.S. permit and Canadian regulatory costs).

The only thing that’s changed about the Liberal party is the addition of Carney, and his record suggests that he will be driven by climate policy, at least as much as the Liberals have been, and potentially much more so. He was, not so long ago, the United Nations’ special envoy on climate action and finance and he founded and co-chaired the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), resigning on Jan. 15, the day before he threw his hat into the Liberal leadership race.

These roadblocks long predate Carney’s ascension, and he has yet to explain how the Liberal government suddenly has either the ability or desire to address them.

Where’s the evidence Carney will be less stringent on energy projects and, therefore, better for the Canadian economy than his predecessor? If anything, especially given his longstanding ESG obsessions, all evidence appears to point to the contrary — that Mark Carney could be even more dedicated to strangling Canada’s resource economy than Trudeau.

Beware: Flawed Energy Assumptions Incite Delusional Scenarios

Posted on March 22, 2025 by Ron Clutz

Mark P. Mills and Neil Atkinson blow the whistle on projections written in International Energy Agency’s (IEA) latest report, the World Energy Outlook. Below is the announcement of the report findings, key exhibits and Executive summary, excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images. Link to full study at the end.

Overview

Industry players consider the International Energy Agency’s signature annual report, the World Energy Outlook, to contain highly credible analyses. However, a new critique from the National Center of Energy Analytics experts finds the IEA’s latest scenarios on future oil demand to be problematic and potentially, dangerously wrong.

“When it comes to policy or investment planning, there is a distinction with a critical difference when it comes to what constitutes a “forecast” (what is likely to happen) versus a “scenario” (a possibility based on assumptions). The challenge is not in determining whether the scenarios are completely factual per se, but instead whether they are factually complete,” wrote the authors in their report.

The most widely reported WEO scenario is that the world will see peak oil demand by the early 2030s. NCEA co-authors Mark P. Mills and Neil Atkinson believe that this conclusion is a prima facie case; minimally, the IEA should include business as usual (BAU) scenarios, not those based on all “high cases” or unrealistic possibilities.

Mills and Atkinson pinpoint 23 flawed assumptions used in the WEO scenarios to predict future oil demand, including:

IEA assumes: Corporate transition policies are real and durable. NCEA counterclaim: Myriad corporations, having earlier proclaimed fealty to “energy-transition” goals, are either failing to meet such pledges or overtly rescinding them.

IEA assumes: Transition financing will continue to expand. NCEA counterclaim: Alternative energy projects have become more expensive and difficult to finance, and wealthy nations are increasingly reluctant to gift huge amounts of money to the faster-growing but poorer nations, many of which have governance issues.

IEA assumes: China’s actions will follow its pledges. NCEA counterclaim: The scale of China’s role in present and future energy and oil markets requires scenarios that model what China is doing—and will likely do—rather than what China claims or promises.

National Energy Transition Plans

IEA’s assumes: The oil growth in emerging markets will be low. NCEA counterclaim: The fact of low demand in some poorer regions—e.g., Africa uses roughly one-tenth the per-capita level in OECD countries—points to the potential for very high, not low, growth in those markets.

IEA’s assumption: Governments will stay the course on EV mandates. NCEA’s counterclaim: Recent trends in many countries and U.S. states show policymakers weakening or reducing mandates and subsidies.

Flawed Assumptions Lead to Flawed Conclusions

Listed below is a summary of the flaws in 23 (but far from all) of the assumptions used in the WEO scenarios that are relevant to guessing future oil demand. Meaningful scenarios for planning for future uncertainties should include a range of realistic inputs, not just those that are aspirational.

Assumptions about baseline factors that affect oil forecasts

Assumption: STEPS is a useful baseline.
Flaw: The baseline scenario, rather than “business as usual,” assumes a future based on countries’ Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS), which not one country is implementing in full.
Corporate transition policies are real and durable.
Flaw: Myriad corporations, having earlier proclaimed fealty to “energy-transition” goals, are either failing to meet such pledges or overtly rescinding them.
Higher economic growth is unlikely.
Flaw: Ignoring the possibility of higher economic growth, based on historical trends and the goals of all nations, leads to scenarios that underestimate future oil demand.
Transition financing will continue to expand.
Flaw: Alternative energy projects have become more expensive and difficult to finance, and wealthy nations are increasingly reluctant to gift huge amounts of money to the faster-growing but poorer nations, many of which have governance issues.
Efficiency gains and structural changes will lower global demand for energy.
Flaw: Long-run trends show that energy-efficiency gains make energy-centric products and services more affordable and thus do not reduce, but instead generally stimulate, rising demand.
Solar and wind power are 100% efficient.
Flaw: The WEO 2024 assertion that “most renewables are considered 100% efficient” contradicts fundamental physics and is, arguably, a silly PR-centric rhetorical flourish.
China’s actions will follow its pledges.
Flaw: The scale of China’s role in present and future energy and oil markets requires scenarios that model what China is doing—and will likely do, in fact—rather than what China claims or promises.

Assumptions regarding oil’s future

The oil growth in emerging markets will be low.
Flaw: The fact of low demand in some poorer regions—e.g., Africa uses roughly one-tenth the per-capita level in OECD countries—points to the potential for very high, not low, growth in those markets.
The EV market share will accelerate.
Flaw: Slowing market adoption and retrenchments in automakers’ EV plans or promises are evident, calling for scenarios that model realities that could persist.
Governments will stay the course on EV mandates.
Flaw: Recent trends in many countries and U.S. states show policymakers weakening or reducing mandates and subsidies.
China’s EV “success story” leads quickly to lower oil demand.
Flaw: Data point to the fact that in the real world, EV sales and gasoline consumption are both rising.

Assumptions about other transportation markets

There will be significant electrification of heavy-duty trucks.
Flaw: There is no evidence of market adoption for any fuel option that leads to far higher capital costs and enormous degradation in performance.
There will be significant electrification and fuel alternatives in aviation.
Flaw: There are no trends showing non-oil options for even a tiny share of the aviation market, in an industry that forecasts booming demand.
There will be significant electrification and fuel alternatives for ships.
Flaw: The only modestly significant change in oil used for global shipping comes from the use of liquefied natural gas, another (and generally more expensive) hydrocarbon.
There will be a rapid decline in oil used for Middle East power generation.
Flaw: Despite pledges and pronouncements, the year 2024 saw continued, and even higher, use of oil for electricity generation.
The growth in petrochemicals and plastics will be slow.
Flaw: Slower growth is anchored in recycling enthusiasms that markets are not adopting and expectations of new recycling technologies that remain expensive or unproved.
All scenarios lead to peak oil demand by ~2030.
Flaw: A WEO core conclusion that “combing all the high cases” leads to “global peaks for oil” by ~2030 is, prima facie, not based on all “high cases” but on unrealistic scenarios.

Assumptions regarding associated industries

The supply of critical minerals will meet transition goals.
Flaw: Myriad studies have now documented the fact of a looming shortfall in current and expected production and of the challenges in changing that status quo.
Prices of critical minerals will be low.
Flaw: It is fanciful in the annals of economic history to imagine that record-high demands won’t lead to far higher prices for the critical minerals needed to build EVs (as well as for wind and solar hardware).
China won’t exercise minerals dominance as an economic or a geopolitical tool.
Flaw: China has already signaled over the past year that it is willing and able to implement export controls, or pricing power on critical minerals, where it holds significant global share.
Oil and gas annual investments are adequate to avoid economic disruptions.
Flaw: Current levels of investment are not adequate to meet demands under business-as-usual scenarios, especially when combined with likely decline rates of extant oil fields.
The future decline rate from existing oil fields will continue historical trends.
Flaw: The much faster decline rate in output from now-significant U.S. shale fields has altered the global average decline rate, pointing to the need for increasing investments to avoid a shortfall.
OPEC will be a reliable cushion to manage oil-supply disruptions.
Flaw: History suggests that scenarios should include alternative possibilities to relying on OPEC to provide a cushion for meeting unexpected shortfalls in production or increases in demand.

Executive Summary: Flawed Assumptions Lead to Dangerous “Forecasts”

For decades, the International Energy Agency (IEA) was the world’s gold standard for energy information and credible analyses. Following the commitment of its member governments to the 2015 Paris Agreement climate accords, the agency radically changed its mission to become a promoter of an energy transition. In 2022, the IEA’s governing board reinforced its mission to “guide countries as they build net-zero emission energy systems to comply with internationally agreed climate goals.”

The IEA’s current preoccupation with promoting an energy transition has resulted in its signature annual report, the World Energy Outlook (WEO), offering policymakers a view of future possibilities that are, at best, distorted and, at worst, dangerously wrong.

The 2024 WEO’s central conclusion, its core “outlook,” has been widely reported as a credible forecast, i.e., something likely to happen: “[T]he continued progress of transitions means that, by the end of the decade, the global economy can continue to grow without using additional amounts of oil, natural gas or coal.”

The WEO itself states that it doesn’t forecast but has scenarios—explorations or models of possibilities, and cautions: “Our scenario analysis is designed to inform decision makers as they consider options…. [N]one of the scenarios should be viewed as a forecast.” Scenarios that usefully “inform” need to be based on realistic possibilities and assumptions. But there is one foundational assumption—one that the IEA has for decades included in its scenarios and that has been banished from the WEO: the possibility of business as usual (BAU).

Instead, the WEO’s baseline scenario now assumes that nations are undertaking their specific energy-transition plans that they promised in order to comply with the 2015 Paris Agreement, i.e., “stated policies scenario” (STEPS). Yet none of the signatories to that Agreement is fully meeting its promises, and most are a long way behind schedule. Believing something that is not true is not just problematic; it meets the definition of a delusion.

It is fanciful to forecast that, over the next half-dozen years, the growth in the world’s population and economy won’t continue a two-century-long trend and lead to increased use of the fossil fuels that today supply over 80% of all energy, only slightly below the share seen 50 years ago. The data show that the global energy system is operating essentially along BAU lines and not only far off the STEPS, but even further away from the more aggressive transition aspirations that the WEO also models.

In this analysis, we focus on highlighting 23 problematic, flawed assumptions that are relevant specifically to the WEO’s oil scenarios and the widely reported “forecast” that the world will see peak oil demand by the early 2030s (see box on pp. 4-5, Flawed Assumptions Lead to Flawed Conclusions). While other scenarios about other energy sources are critical as well, oil remains a geopolitical touchstone and the single biggest source of global energy—10-fold greater than wind and solar combined. At the very least, this analysis points to the need for real-world scenarios in general and, in the case of oil, the much higher probability that demand continues to grow in the foreseeable future and, possibly, quite significantly (below, see Global Oil Demand: Future Scenarios).

Debating the intricacies in flawed assumptions about energy scenarios is no mere theoretical exercise. The IEA’s legacy reputation continues to influence not only trillions of dollars in investment decisions but also government policies with far-reaching geopolitical consequences.

Energy Delusions: Peak Oil Forecasts

Low Energy-IQ Politicians, Be Gone!

Posted on March 20, 2025 by Ron Clutz

Power Density Physics Trump Energy Politics

A plethora of insane energy policy proposals are touted by clueless politicians, including the recent 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 have to spend it to make it. To get usable natural gas, for example, you’ve first got to 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 focused 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

	Ron Clutz on Why Climate Alarm is Fading (M…
	Thomas Pearson on Why Climate Alarm is Fading (M…
	Why Climate Alarm is… on Insider Exposes Corrupt Climat…
	Why Your Energy Bill… on Why Your Energy Bill is So Hig…
	Ron Clutz on Why Your Energy Bill is So Hig…