Subscribe to continue reading
Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.
Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.
Comments Off on WE MUST REVERSE ENERGY TRANSITION, NOT JUST STOP IT.
Posted in China, Climate Alarmism, CO2, Domestic Energy, Electrical grid, Electricity, Electricity from Coal, EPA, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Grid, IPCC, Renewable Energy, Renewable Fuel Standard, Storms/hurricanes
Tagged climate-change, energy, Environment, Renewable Energy, sustainability
There are a number of grids servicing the US. The Pennsylvania, New Jersey Maryland grid (PJM) is well managed. It is the largest grid in the US. It services 13 States and the District of Columbia. It is the grid that provides my electricity and it has managed to avoid brownouts and blackouts. The reason is that the ratio of fossil fuel (thermal) energy generation to wind and solar generation is 20 to 1. If Nuclear is included the ratio is 26 to1.
The chart shows the PJM Existing Installed Capacity.

The issue PJM is facing is how to make their way through the EPA and States forcing an energy transition. The following explains their fear of losing enough spare capacity to continue to make their Grid reliable:
“Maintaining an adequate level of generation resources, with the right operational and physical characteristics , is essential for PJM’s ability to serve electrical demand through the energy transition. Our research highlights four trends below that we believe, in combination, present increasing reliability risks during the transition, due to a potential timing mismatch between resource retirements, load growth and the pace of new generation entry under a possible “low new entry” scenario: · The growth rate of electricity demand is likely to continue to increase from electrification coupled with the proliferation of high-demand data centers in the region. · Thermal generators are retiring at a rapid pace due to government and private sector policies as well as economics. · Retirements are at risk of outpacing the construction of new resources, due to a combination of industry forces, including siting and supply chain, whose long-term impacts are not fully known. · PJM’s interconnection queue is composed primarily of intermittent and limited-duration resources. Given the operating characteristics of these resources, we need multiple megawatts of these resources to replace 1 MW of thermal generation.” (My highlighting added).
According to PJM this is what it will look like if the State and Feds current plans are not adjusted.

Completely unworkable. Solar, the major electrical source, only available in the day.
The “Storage” at 55,037 watts, is at present, nonexistent. Even if it were charged by excess solar wattage, it, along with the other electrical generators, would not be enough to satisfy peak demands.
PJM management wants everyone to note that the States, not PJM, have the responsibility to maintain resource adequacy on their electric systems.
The EPA has several regulations that will cause a loss of significant reliable capacity of coal based and Natural gas (Thermal Plants) plants. The following are from the PJM’s study:
EPA REGULATIONS
Effluent Limitation Guidelines: will force closing 3,400 MW thermal based capacity.
Coal Combusting Residuals: Will force closing 2,700 MW thermal-based capacity.
Good Neighbor Rule: Will force closing 4,400 MW thermal-based capacity.
STATE ORDINACES
Forcing retirement of the following thermal based capacity.
Illinois: 5,800 MW thermal-based capacity.
New Jersey: 3,100 MW thermal-base capacity.
Virginia-North Carolina: 1,533 MW of thermal-based capacity.
Indiana: 1,318 MW of thermal-based capacity.
Maryland: 305 MW thermal-based capacity.
PJM has avoided system blackouts because they maintain a 22% reserve but the 2030 projected reserve based upon their study will only be 3% .
There two organizations that are commissioned to make the Grids reliable.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil.
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is a nonprofit corporation that ensures the reliability of the bulk power system in North America, including the continental United States and Canada.
FERC and NERC have launched a joint review of the performance of the bulk power system during recent winter storms that brought Arctic air across much of North America. The review will look at winter preparation activities and gather information to help guide future winter storm preparations and operations. .The review will look at progress made since FERC and NERC completed joint inquiries into two recent winter storms, Uri in 2021 and Elliott in 2022. The team plans to deliver the results of the review no later than June 2024.
FERC, in my readings, appears to know that renewables are not reliable.
It is obvious that the transition from thermal based electricity to renewable based electricity is not under control. The PJM grid may be the most reliable large grid in the nation. And if corrections are not made, it’s reserve will be only 3% in six years, and that will spell blackouts
cbdakota
Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Batteries, Coal, Electrical grid, Electricity from Coal, EPA, fossil fuels
Tagged energy, solar-energy, solar-power, sustainability

Economically developed Nations around the world are pushing the idea that the global temperature is rising unabated to a point where it will become an existential threat to mankind. The problem, they say, is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the use of fossil fuels. They think that CO2 emissions created by the use of gasoline, and diesel, along with natural gas and coal must be discontinued. I think that these Nations are planning to subjugate you under the guise of saying they are just following “science”.
A part of their plan is to accomplish this by using electricity produced from renewable energy sources—Wind Turbines and Solar Cells— and make people buy electric vehicles (EV). This plan will not work. But it will spend trillions of dollars before it is revealed as a failure. Their plan will not be accomplished because wind and solar are not dispatchable. Meaning, the Electric grids must provide, unfailingly, power 24/7. This is accomplished by the use of fossil fuel power that can be ramped up and down to meet requirements. The renewables are not dispatchable because grid operators cannot ramp them up and down. No wind, no sun, no renewable power. As they are today, EVs will continue to run on electricity made mostly by the combustion of fossil fuels.
Nevertheless, the government will try to force you into buying an electric vehicle (EV).
The EPA announced the new standards require a 49 mpg fleetwide average by 2026, a 33% increase over model year 2021 standards. The EPA said that these tough new tailpipe emission standards are designed to effectively force the auto industry to phase out the sale of gas-powered cars
The target cars are those powered by Internal Combustion Engines— aka ICE.
And then they are enacting laws that no gasoline or diesel car can be manufactured and sold after some certain date.
California, always the leader in penalizing the people living in that state, has a new law that it will be illegal to sell new gasoline-powered cars after 2035. Nothing from the Biden Administration yet but they are playing with a date to match California.
“All CARS ARE BAD” Pete Buttigieg’s Equity Advisers Want You To Stop Driiving
Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is appointing a group of “leading experts” to advise him on “transportation equity,” including several who argue that cars cause climate change and promote racism and therefore should be phased out.
And wouldn’t you know it, they make this issue, “racism”
So the Government is going to phase out all ICEs. Let’s see how that will work.
Hedges and Company say” Need to know how many cars there are on Earth in 2023? Here is how many cars there are in the world, including trucks, broken down by world region?
1). Asia: 543 million vehicles on the road
2). Europe: 413 million vehicles (288 million in EU plus 125 million in non-EU countries)1
3). North America: 358 million vehicles
4). South America: 84 million vehicles
5). Middle East: 50 million vehicles
6). Africa: 26 million vehicles
7). Antarctica: about 50 vehicles
That totals up to about 1.5Billion.
Basically only the North American and EU are making rules to get rid of gasoline and diesel vehicles. North American and EU vehicles are less than half of the world’s vehicles.
My guess is that the developing nations will not ban ICE vehicles as they will not have much available electricity to power EVs.
How effective will that be?
What does the vehicle situation in the US look like?
Statistica says: In the first quarter of 2023, there were around 286 million vehicles operating on roads throughout the United States.
From a Heartland posting we learn the following:
Historically, internal combustion engine (ICE) car sales in America are upwards of 55 million annually with about 15 million or 27 percent being new and 40 million or 73 percent being used car sales.
With a total of 50 to 55 million ICE vehicles being sold annually for new and used, it’s obvious that the auto industry and the economy has been benefiting and prospering in the used ICE car market.
The average life of an American vehicle is 13 years. For example, the California rule that no new ICE vehicle can be sold after 2035, would be mostly ineffective in that for years there will be grandfathered ICE vehicles on the road. Of course, California might get really draconian and try to make ICEs illegal own and drive.
The next blog will examine the new and used EV market.
cbdakota
The following fisking is of an article posted on CNN Opinion, by Jill Flipovic on August 21 2018 titled “If Trump and GOP don’t understand climate change, they don’t deserve public office:.
I have added comments to Ms Filipovic essay in red.
The Trump administration’s latest efforts to undo more of Barack Obama’s efforts to slow climate change come as no surprise. Nothing gets this President more excited than trying to undo his predecessor’s legacy.
But his proposed new EPA rules — tagged with the laughable misnomer the “Affordable Clean Energy” rule — are not just vindictive, they are dangerous. The administration wants to allow coal-burning power plants to emit more
deadly carbon and to give states greater leeway to allow big-money companies to pollute. The new rules would replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which is aimed at reducing carbon emissions.
Several things wrong here. First “deadly carbon” is an ignorant thing to say. Does she not know that virtually every living thing is composed of carbon? The globe is greening due to the increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). Wheat and corn fields are becoming more productive as atmospheric CO2 increases. Secondly, her ignorance shows. She is wrong if she thinks shutting down US coal plants will have any effect on the planet. Using the warmers own formula for calculating the effect of reduced CO2 emissions by a shutdown US coal plants, shows that any temperature decrease will be too small to be measurable.
Thirdly the emission of CO2 from US coal plants is pretty small compared to China. Her rant is missdirected. China is adding a new coal plant every week. And guess who gave the Chinese permission to continue doing this until 2030 —none other than forward looking savior Barak O. Obama thinks we should close our coal plants down but its ok for the Chinese to keep building them. Not just China , world-wide construction of coal based plants is on the rise. Coal sales are on the rise.
The proposal reflects a longstanding and fundamentally damaging idea in right-wing politics: That climate change is a matter of opinion, not fact, and that people who have no interest in the facts still deserve to hold political office.
It is obvious, she belongs to the church of unending climate catastrophes. If she would look at actual recorded temperatures versus the computer PREDICTION, she might come down off her high horse. Paraphrasing the last sentence, Those who hold catastrophic climate change based upon religious beliefs do not deserve to write ignorant opinion pieces.
The deluded perspective is not confined to America’s Republican Party. Conservatives in Australia have also latched on to the theory that climate change is debatable, and that efforts to fight it are a liberal conspiracy against big business.
Well, Germany, and other European countries are increasing their CO2 emissions. The third world is increasing their CO2 emissions. The Paris Agreement is a scam. This is evading Ms. Filipovic. She lives in a world of make believe. Perhaps that shows that only the US and Australia are not hiding under the covers.
The GOP has long been in the pocket of polluters, who have who have made clear that they are quite comfortable destroying the planet for our children and grandchildren in return for getting rich now. The party has helped to make this denialism politically feasible by systematically undermining the public.
Once again Ms Pilipovic seems to be ill informed. What President Trump is doing is to make electricity affordable. Go look at the reports from England and Germany, two nations that have gone head over heals in renewable energy, about the poor people that are dying because they can no longer afford electricity. Every intelligent person knows that the people that will suffer the most as energy prices go skyrocketing are the poorest people among us.
That the new Trump rules will cost thousands of lives — 1,400 every year by the EPA’s own admission — doesn’t seem to matter to this President and his GOP enablers, who put corporate profits first, ahead of citizens’ health. In this, they are joined by a base that seems willing to accept any lie, indignity or even undermining of health and life.
When you read about the deaths of 1400 every year, you may wonder where that came from. Ms Pilipovic may know but my guess is that she doesn’t. The Obama EPA knew that the coal plant CO2 emissions were insufficient to justify the “Clean Power Plant” plan. They needed something else. So, they settled on 2.5-micron particles. Too small for you to see, but they postulated that people are breathing them in and dying. They had a problem. All the test they had run as well as other groups outside of the EPA never found that the 2.5-micron particles were killing people. So, they got a group of “scientist” to run these tests again. Guess what. They found out that it was a serious situation. Two things are fishy here. The first that they would not publish their test data. Of course, no one could disprove their results without access to their data. BUT the EPA accepted the results. A new bill has been passed saying that the EPA can no longer use “secrete science”. And the group of scientists that did this secrete science have amassed over $20, 000,000 doing studies for the EPA. They know who is buttering their bread.
It’s a sad state of affairs — but also a real and growing threat to a country experiencing wild weather mood swings, the largest wildfires in recorded history, floods, droughts and on and on.
The bible of the warmers is the IPCC reports. These reports have consistently said that the “wild weather “is not a function of climate change.
In any reasonable universe, those who deny basic scientific facts that connect this grim reality to humans’ role in global warming would be deemed unfit to hold office.
Here we go again. Who is unfit to hold office is the catastrophic global warmers. Get this, James Hansen, the god father of the catastrophic global warming movement says their theory is all wrong. Click here to read.
Imagine a congressman who questioned whether gravity was real, or a senator who insisted the earth was flat. We would rightly say that they’re intellectually deficient, and that their bizarre theories mean they probably shouldn’t be making vital decisions that affect millions of Americans (not to mention billions more people around the world).
Is this a mistake on her part? Normally people would say Representatives and Senators not congressmen and senators.
But somehow climate change falls in a different category (along with, among a majority of evangelical protestants, for example, a disbelief in evolution).
This seems to be religious bias. I was told that liberals never sank that low.
It’s one thing to be ignorant — and, to be sure, many non-climate-change-denying Americans don’t understand the basics of climate change either. But most Americans also don’t understand the details of how a bill becomes law, how our court system works, or how the national budget gets set — all things we expect of our nationally elected officials.
I think we have shown who are the Ignorant ones.
Politicians should similarly be expected to understand the basic science of climate change, and to listen to the scientific experts instead of seeking out the few outliers who confirm their own half-baked beliefs.
Oh yes, such people as Al Gore and Bill Nye are the biggest half baked, maybe only unbaked catastrophic global warmer educators.
Of course, Trump has appointed a series of cronies and amateurs to his cabinet, and he himself holds the highest office in the land, with zero previous experience for the job, zero intellectual curiosity, and zero ability to train his attention on just about anything other than Twitter and Fox News.
Gosh he only amassed several billions of dollars in his business career. Of course Barak Obama’s experience as a community organizer made him much more qualified than Donald Trump. (sarc)
Again, showning who the ignorant one is.
His presidency makes full mockery of the theory that those in charge should know anything at all. And with this latest green light to polluters and contaminators, all of us are again paying the price for that unapologetic greed and ignorance.
Repeat.
cbdakota
My previous posting discussed the need to eliminate the endangerment finding (EF) and to do it quickly. This posting will be a reposting of an essay by Dennis
Avery from WattsUpWithThat, titled “The EPA CO2 endangerment finding endangers the USA”. Avery really captures the danger that the ER imposes and an overview of how wrong it is.
My next posting will look at the “lines of evidence” upon which the EPA based the ER and how these “lines” have been invalidated.
cbdakota
======================================================
WATTS UP WITH THAT
The EPA CO2 endangerment finding endangers the USA
By Dennis T Avery with a foreword by Paul Driessen
October 2 2017
President Trump must reverse EPA’s climate change “Endangerment Finding”
Foreword by Paul Driessen:
The Obama EPA’s infamous “Endangerment Finding” declared that carbon dioxide and methane from fossil fuel operations cause global warming and climate change that pose imminent dangers to the health and wellbeing of every American. In this insightful article, climate history author Dennis Avery explains why this finding is based on bad science and should not be the basis for bureaucratic regulations or court decisions.
As Avery notes, computer climate models have predicted far more warming than has actually occurred in the Real World. Contrary to EPA claims, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts have not become more frequent or severe. Natural forces and phenomena explain the various climate and weather fluctuations we have observed over the centuries – and demonstrate that CO2 is only a “bit player” in determining these changes. Moreover, new research convincingly shows that solar activity determines the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth, and thus the extent of low-lying clouds that periodically cool the planet … and at the other end of the cycle bring sunnier skies that warm it.
Guest opinion by Dennis T. Avery
Nine years ago, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency issued an “Endangerment Finding.” It claimed that methane leaks from natural gas production and pipelines, and manmade carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, cause dangerous global warming that poses an imminent danger to the health and wellbeing of Americans. However, the Finding was based on computerized climate models that couldn’t even successfully hind-cast the weather we’d had over the past century – much less forecast Earth’s climate 100 years into the future. In fact, Earth’s climate has changed frequently, often abruptly.
EPA essentially asserted that the 80% of our energy that comes from coal, oil and natural gas caused all our planet’s recent warming and any more warming is a long-term threat. Obama’s team thus bet in 2009 that Earth’s warming from 1976–98 would continue. But it didn’t. Never mind all those recent NOAA and NASA claims that 2016 was our “hottest year” ever. Satellites are our most honest indicator, and they say our planet’s temperature has risen an insignificant 0.02 degrees C (0.04 degrees F) since 1998.
That 20-year non-warming clearly shows that the models are worthless for prediction. But the Federal Appeals Court in Washington nevertheless recently cited methane emissions to block regulatory approval for a new natural gas pipeline. The ruling will encourage radical greens to keep thinking they can regulate gas and oil production and transport into oblivion. Alarmists across the country are already citing the new precedent in other cases, in effect demanding re-hearings on Trump’s entire energy plan. Continue reading
Guest posting by Richard F. Cronin
Sept. 15, 2017
As a Chem. Engr. with 40+ years’ experience, I can tell you that the current embodiment of the U.S. EPA HURTS the environment and impedes law enforcement.
The EPA only responds to the constituency which advances the reach and power of the EPA. That would be radicalized, out-of-control environmental groups. A good read on this topic is “Environmentalism Gone Mad” by Alan Carlin — former Sierra Club activist and EPA analyst.
http://environmentalismgonemad.com/
The minority leader on the U.S. Senate Committee for Public Works & the Environment is Tom Carper (D-DE). He is grossly complicit in the near-criminal activities of the EPA under the Obama administration. I have written to my Senator several times on this topic as well as the chimera of “renewable energy” and have been stiff-armed every time. Senator Carper is up for re-election in 2018 and is rumored to be mulling retirement. It can’t happen fast enough by my lights.
The EPA was established in 1973, by Richard Nixon, another advocate for growing the reach and power of the federal government. The major legislation for Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were passed in the 1960s and after a few revisions became pretty sound, state-of-the-art, readily interpreted, and enforceable body of regulations. All private interests, such as chemical companies, were on a level playing field. Regulations for solid wastes (RCRA) followed in 1976. Again, with a few tweaks RCRA became a pretty good body of regs.
Then in the ensuing years, the layer upon layer of over-regulation accumulated, which degraded the regs into a set of mandates that not even EPA regulators could interpret because of inconsistencies and contradictory guidance.
Somehow, I am on Climate Home’s email list. The news in this edition is several months old, but a couple of its postings bother me a lot. While the postings do not address repeal of the Endangerment Finding, they do leave me wondering how committed are the Congressional Republicans to the draining of the EPA swamp”?
Several years ago, a hearing before the Supreme Court was being conducted, that wanted CO2 to be added, as a pollutant, in the Clear Air Act. Congress had passed and the President had signed the Clear Air Act into law a number of years prior to the case in question. Despite the fact that the legislative body of the US Government had considered CO2 and had rejected it being included, the Supreme court said that the EPA should determine if CO2 was a danger to the nation. The EPA cherry picked the science from the IPCC, in particular, and announced that indeed CO2 was endangering the nation. So, the Supremes, ignoring the separation of powers, said ok, it’s now the law of the land that CO2 is a pollutant. From that moment, the EPA has been writing the laws about CO2. They have carte blanc to do whatever they want.
By now the Trump Administration should have acted to repeal this inclusion of CO2 on several bases. One: the science is bogus and two: the Supremes overstepped their Constitutional authority.
Posted in AGW, CO2, EPA, Government Regulations, IPCC, President Trump, The Swamp, United Nations
The climate alarmists tell the public that the sea level is going rise 7 to 15 feet by the end of this century. The crops are going to fail. There will be mass extinctions. The extent of the horrors awaiting us in the future are almost unlimited. The basis for all these catastrophes is the predicted rise in temperature based upon the computer models they have programed. For
example, the sea level rise is predicated on a rise of temperature in the range of 4 to 7° C or greater by the year 2100. Without the big rise in global temperature, all these supposed disasters will not come to pass.
These computers have been forecasting temperature for many years. How are they doing? If a company had their operations run by these computers, they would be out of business by now. Look at some of the recent revelations. The New American posted “Top Climate Alarmist: Computer Models Wrong, Skeptics Right on “Pause”. From that posting we get this:
“Count on the Fake News media to ignore a huge admission by a Climategate scientist that there has been no measurable global warming over the past 20 years — something he has previously vociferously denied. The admission by Dr. Benjamin Santer, a top global-warming alarmist, should have made headlines — but, of course it didn’t.
Guest Post by Richard F. Cronin
August 3, 2017
After 31 years working for E.I. DuPont de Nemours here is my understanding about “ozone depletion” — the warm-up act for anthropogenic CO2-induced “global warming”. Even the proponents of human-induced “ozone depletion” are starting to realize that the thinning of the ozone layer is a natural phenomenon that just waxes and wanes.
http://www.theozonehole.com/2017ozonehole.htm
Ozone (O3) is produced in the stratosphere by the intense solar radiation causing photo-dissociation of the di-atomic oxygen molecule (O2). The oxygen singlet (- O) is a powerful oxidizing agent and readily reacts with another O2 molecule to yield ozone. Ozone is not produced during the dark polar winters and its lowest point is in the early spring. The ozone layer is renewed by the sunlit polar summers.
Molina and Rowland published in 1974 and their core premise is that heavier-than-air chloro-fluoro carbons (CFCs) convect upwards using a “one dimensional diffusion model”, where they photo-dissociate due to ultraviolet radiation in the band of 2000 Angstroms to yield ozone -destroying chlorine and bromine. Molina and Rowland also stated that CFCs do not dissolve in water, so they are not scrubbed out by rain at lower elevations. However, it is known that organo-halogens adsorb on dust particles and aerosols which are scrubbed out by rain in the troposphere. Finally, volcanoes emit CFCs as well as copious amounts of hydrofluoric acid (HF), hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrodrobromic acid (HBr) which carry up to the stratosphere. (Ian Plimer, et al). See “Heaven and Earth” by Ian Plimer, University of Adelaide. There is always some equilibrium presence of these molecules, in trace quantities.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/RG013i001p00001/full
Click here for Atmospheric aerosols in the Earth System
Posted in CFC, chemistry, Climate Alarmism, Environment, EPA, Government Regulations, Montreal Protocol, Ozone, volcanoes
A posting in the WSJ titled “Change Would Be Healthy at U.S. Climate Agencies, such as mentioning margin of error!” illustrates the way that the EPA and NOAA along with the compliant media have been misleading the public about global temperatures. Holman Jenkins, a member of the WSJ editorial board wrote:
“The year 2016 was the warmest ever recorded—so claimed two U.S. agencies, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Except it wasn’t, according to the agencies’ own measures of statistical uncertainty.
Such fudge is of fairly recent vintage. Leaving any discussion of the uncertainty interval out of press releases only became the norm in the second year of the Obama administration.
Statisticians wouldn’t go through the trouble of assigning an uncertainty value unless it meant something. Two measurements separated by less than the margin of error are the same. And yet NASA’s Goddard Institute, now under Mr. Hansen’s successor Gavin Schmidt, put out a release eclaring 2014 the “warmest year in the modern record” when it was statistically indistinguishable from 2005 and 2010.