Monthly Archives: November 2020

Biden Green Plan Costs $1.7 trillion and Reduces Global Temp 0.1C

Let’s see how you answer this question—Yes,  No.

“It worth it for the American taxpayers to pay $1.7 trillion to lower the Earth’s temperature by 0.1C (0.18F) “

 If you answered YES, I dub you Captain “Gullible”.    Oh, by the way, maybe  you would like to buy some of my ocean front property in Arizona.

The $1.7 trillion is the cost estimate of Joe Biden’s planed phase out of fossil fuels in the US.  The Biden plan would lower the global temperature by 0.1C as calculated by the Alarmist’s Climate Action Tracker.

All of this comes from the pages of the UK Guardian newspaper. This newspaper is perhaps the world’s biggest media supporter of the climate change alarmism.  The stated cost and the results are Guardian’s bona fide.

My guess is that when 2050 arrives, there are three likely outcomes. 

Outcome A

The plan was dropped after it was clear that no apocalypse was going to happen.

The Alarmist’s computers that predict the future temperatures have been much higher than the actual temperature measurements.  The Alarmists are alarmists because they refuse to recognize the facts that their   computers are flawed.

See posting Michael Shellenberger Exposes Global Warming Alarmists”

Outcome B

The plan was dropped because it was too costly and that adaptation, if necessary, was deemed less costly.

Let’s assume that in 30 to 70 (2050 to 2100) years, sea levels rise several feet, mankind would have the capability to adapt to the change.  It would not happen overnight, but rather slowly over years.  And the odds are that equally good that it will not raise several feet. 

Outcome C

The plan was dropped when the West realized the Chinese were never planning to follow any carbon reduction program.  Consequently, China dominated the globes economy because their energy costs were vastly lower, and it was more reliable than the nations of the West’s energy.

Wind and Solar will be deemed failures.  They are unreliable and must be backed up. Currently, it is necessary to have fossil fuel-based production facilities that can supply the demand reliably.   During this time as more wind and solar are added, the price of electricity would “skyrocket” (as predicted by Former President Obama.)  China has world domination as their target.  The Biden plan will be a big help to the Chinese toward realization of their objective.   

Ultimately, nuclear energy-based electricity production will become the major source.  The alarmist does not want nuclear to succeed as they have seen it as a threat to imposition of wind and solar.

I see anyone of the three as likely to happen.  Maybe it will be all of them will be realized and that will cause the Biden plan to be dropped.   

And a commonsense addition—-  how many people are going to believe the stopping a global temperature rise of just 0.18F as worth S1.7trillion is worth it? Less that one fifth of one degree!  Or even necessary!


Solar Cells Are Not Able to Supply Daily Power Demand Alone


Our nation’s electricity is produced mainly by fossil fuels and nuclear energy.  The role played by renewables is relatively small, even though the public seems to believe it is greater.  This is probably because the media apparently wants the public to believe it is so.  The Chart 1 below is from the Energy Information Administration (eia), an arm of the Department of Energy:

                                                   CHART 1 

Wind and solar represent 9.1% of the sources of US electricity generation in 2019. 

The sources noted in the picture above feed their power output into systems called the grids.  These grids distribute the power to the users in their area. The grids do their utmost to be a source of uninterruptable electricity at a specific frequency.  This they do reliably. 

All of us have experienced a power loss at our home or business and you know how disruptive that is.  But most power losses we have experienced are almost always local disruptions, e.g.  wind, snow, lightning, power pole meets vehicle, transformer failure, etc. But not a grid failure.

The grids fine tunes their delivery of power, matching the increases and decreases of demand.  The grid operators dictate to the suppliers what is needed.  For example, the operators can use Nuclear and Coal based plants as a base load.  These two sources are predictable and steady suppliers but may not be able to quickly react to changes in demand.  The grid operator’s natural gas plants can adjust quickly to changes to prevent supply disruptions. Most businesses need electricity to be uninterrupted as downtime is costly.

Wind and solar are non-dispatchable because they are neither predictable nor steady suppliers of electricity. The wind driving the wind turbines can go from near gale force to calm very quickly.   Solar can do the same as cloud banks appear overhead.  The grid operator has no control over how much or how little the renewables are producing.  If renewables are supplying the grid, the operator must have backup capacity to prevent shutdown of the grid. By the way, grids are not capable of storage of electricity.

The following is from a posting by American Experiment titled “No State Imports More Electricity Than California” by Isaac Orr:

“The Chart 2 below is from Electricity Map, and it shows electricity generation by source on April 3, 2019 in California. The orange section represents solar, the blue hydroelectric, light blue, wind, green, nuclear, red natural gas, and the brown section is imported electricity.

                                                   Chart 2

As you can see, imports fall when it is sunny out, and increase again when the sun goes down. It just so happens that the sun was not shining when the demand for electricity in California was highest. California’s policies promoting renewables at the expense of dispatchable generation place it in an odd predicament, it must pay other states to take the excess electricity generated by renewables when their generation is high, and it must also pay other states for their power when renewable generation is low.”

From Chart 2, you can see solar cells negatives. 

 Solar cell production is not at its maximum at sunrise nor sunset.  It peaks around noon when the sun is directly overhead. The eia Chart 3 below shows typical electricity production in Los Angeles.   Using the gold curve, that assumes that the solar cell has tracking, at 3pm, the watts are about 550 Watts and at 7pm it is at zero.  At the peak demand midpoint, say 5 pm, it can only produce about 250 watts.  (This would be the output of a single solar cell.  However, it represents the rest of the solar cells.  The change in watts is equivalent to the percent reduction the entire solar cell farm would experience.)

                                             Chart 3

The energy production Chart3 would suggest that a solar cell is not a major contributor during peak demand.  That matches the illustrated Chart 2.

  • The greens imagine pairing solar cells and wind turbines producing energy for a grid.  In this case, regardless of the capacity of the solar cells, the wind must be able to produce all the power to satisfy the capacity rating of the location. Every day, after the sun sets, the wind turbines would have to match demand.  Solar cells can never support the daily capacity rating of the location. So why have them?

I am not a proponent of either wind turbines or solar cells.  Earlier in this posting I outlined the fact that they are not dispatchable.   Industry could not function with an unreliable energy supply.  Nor would the public accept it.  Brown outs and black outs are inevitable without a backup. 

Power Engineering posted “Study Says Renewable Power Still Reliant on Backup from Natural Gas” by Wayne Barber.   In this posting he covers a study by the Massachusetts-based National Bureau of Economic Research that stated:

“We show that a 1 percent increase in the share of fast-reacting fossil generation capacity is associated with a 0.88% percent increase in renewable in the long run,” the NBER authors say in the report.


Adding Renewables (wind and solar) Increase Energy Poverty

The Green New Deal requires that solar and wind electricity production replace electricity produced by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors. The challenges that face those two “renewable” energy sources seem to make this impractical if not impossible. 

There is another issue, beyond the improbability of wind and solar replacing fossil fuels.  That is energy poverty.  Families must decide between food or electricity because they have limited income.  I had never come across a study that attempts to quantify the numbers of families that are in energy poverty until recently.  Nature Research Journal posted a study titled “Recognition of and Response to energy poverty in the United States” by Dominic Bednar and Tony Reames.  (click on underline and then page up until you reach the study.)

It begins by saying:

“Stark disparities exist in US energy burdens, the percentage of household income spent on energy bills. Urban and rural low-income households (defined as 80% of area median income or 150% federal poverty level) spend roughly three times as much of their income on energy cost as compared to non-low-income households (7.2% and 9% versus 2.3% and 3.1%, respectively)1,2. Moreover, low-income, African American, Latinx, multifamily and renter households are disproportionately impacted by high energy burdens1. Out of a total of 118.2 million US households, in 2015, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated that 17 million households received an energy disconnect/delivery stop notice and 25 million households had to forgo food and medicine to pay energy bills3.” 

Further on, they report that:

“However, after nearly fifty years of federal energy assistance, one in three US households (37 million), still experience energy poverty3”.

The Obama Administrations aims were to make the cost of electricity “skyrocket”.

Former President Obama goes on to say that the increased costs of his plan will be passed on to the utility customers.  He wants the customers to understand this and to know it is being done because he thinks it is necessary. 

We agree that forcing out fossil fuels as the source of electrical energy and replacing fossil fuels using wind and solar renewable energy will cause the price of electricity to skyrocket.  The following chart shows what happens to the price of electricity in those nations that have begun replacing fossil fuels with renewables.   




Leading the EU nations in renewables is Germany and note that they have the highest cost of electricity.  There are already 37 million households suffering from energy poverty, the effect of doubling the price of electricity will be a calamity.

What is purposely unmentioned by the peddlers of wind and solar, is the fact that you really must keep the fossil fuel electrical producers running as back up. The wind does not always blow and the solar, on average, is never available for more than 12 hours and in fact cloudy or rainy or snowy days reduce the 12 hours sometimes to zero hours.

This often means that the fossil fuels facilities are never really replaced. They continue to operate to prevent loss (brownouts or blackouts) of electricity to the public, the hospitals, the schools, the manufacturing plants, etc.