Category Archives: Global Warming

Gavin Newsom’s Dirty Energy Secret

Source: Gavin Newsom’s Dirty Energy Secret – WSJ

Californians narrowly averted rolling blackouts on Tuesday, but the threat looms all week amid an unpleasant but not unusual heat wave. This ought to be a warning about how the government force-fed green energy transition is endangering grid reliability, but Democrats and the media can’t break out of their climate-change conformity to think clearly, or think at all.

Democrats blame climate change for the state’s week-long warnings to conserve power, but California’s climate hasn’t suddenly changed. Triple-digit temperatures aren’t unprecedented even in early September, despite Gov. Gavin Newsom’s claims. What has drastically changed in recent years is California’s electric generation.

Solar and wind power have rapidly expanded thanks to rich government subsidies along with the state’s renewables mandate. These have made it harder for baseload gas and nuclear generators that run around the clock to make money. Many have shut down, and the result is that the state often lacks sufficient power when the sun goes down.

California’s summer electric generation capacity increased by about 10,700 megawatts (MW) between 2010 and 2020—potentially enough to power eight to 10 million homes. The problem is that gas-fired capacity during this time declined by 4,390 MW and nuclear by 2,150 MW. Solar and wind surged 17,000 MW, but those sources can’t be commanded to run when people need them.

The state must therefore rely on imports from other states in the evenings, especially during heat waves. But these imports are becoming less dependable since California’s neighbors are also losing base-load generators owing to their own renewable buildouts. Arizona lost about half of its summer coal-generating capacity between 2015 and 2020.

During heat waves that span the Southwest like the one this week, California must resort to emergency measures to reduce electricity demand. This includes asking users to turn up their thermostats and providing incentives for industrial businesses to power down. A desalination plant in Carlsbad cut water production by about 20% earlier this week to free up power for homes. Not what the state needs during a drought.

The climate left blames drought for causing a reduction in the state’s hydropower, but why didn’t lawmakers and grid managers prepare for such a scenario? Drought conditions aren’t uncommon in the state. The truth is that politicians put too much faith in utility-scale batteries to save the day, but these are expensive and have been hard to scale.

Irony of ironies, the state has installed temporary gas-fired generators to run during grid emergencies. In other words, the state that is working so hard to banish fossil fuels has become more dependent on them. Los Angeles’s municipal utility is generating nearly 30% of its electricity from coal, some of which is being shared with the rest of the state. Call it Gavin Newsom’s dirty little climate secret.

Meantime, power shortages are causing prices to spike in the Golden State as they are in Europe. Electricity prices in California’s wholesale market surged Tuesday evening to about $1,700 per MWh compared to the normal $100 and $67 a year ago. All of this explains why residential electric rates in California have risen by 50% in the past two years—three times more than they have nationwide.

Californians paid on average about 29 cents per kilowatt hour in June, by far the most in the continental U.S. and twice as much as in neighboring states. Rates are only going higher. Green-energy subsidies don’t make electricity cheaper. They create market distortions that threaten the grid and raise prices.

But what starts in California rarely stays in California. Americans everywhere will soon be soaked with higher prices for power that is becoming less reliable. Rhode Island Energy this summer asked regulators to more than double current electric rates for this winter. Falling gasoline prices for many Americans could be fully offset by rising electricity costs.

The grid problems that Californians are enduring will grow and spread as supersized green-energy subsidies and mandates spread their harmful incentives throughput the U.S. economy in coming years. The culprit is the left’s climate policies, not climate change.

Share

Princeton, MIT Professors Debunk ‘Climate Change’ AlarmisM

7/12/2022, Source: Princeton, MIT Professors Debunk ‘Climate Change’ Alarmism – American Faith

The report focused on the monetary gain researchers frequently enjoy.

QUICK FACTS:
  • Distinguished emeritus professors from some of the nation’s premier universities are pointing out corruption in the science of global warming.
  • William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus of Princeton, and Richard Lindzen, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus of MIT, both spoke freely about science.
  • The professors expressed concern about a steady flow of billions of dollars going to scientists doing research supporting an alarmist hypothesis about global warming which in turn keeps funding moving toward related projects.
  • The pair recently filed a 28-page statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that proposed a rule: “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors.”
  • The statement outlined reasons why alarm about a warming planet is not justified, nullifying the need for excessive funding for research into the topic.
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE REPORT:
  • A summary of the report stated that according to the two emeritus professors, work by many climate change scientists is “pal review, not peer review.”
  • The summary went on to talk about the authors’ credentials, saying, “The two men have had long distinguished careers in physics and atmospheric science.”
  • The report states that “Climate science is awash with manipulated data, which provides no reliable scientific evidence.”
  • According to the summary, there is no reliable scientific evidence to date provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-controlled and only issues government-dictated findings.
  • “The two academics draw attention to an IPCC rule that states all summaries for policymakers are approved by governments. In their opinion, these summaries are ‘merely government opinions,’” the review of the report stated.
  • Also cited in the report is the work of John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, who stated that, in his opinion, recent climate model projections “fail miserably to predict reality,” making them “inappropriate” to use in predicting future climate changes.
BACKGROUND:
  • According to the United Nations (UN), “Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, such as through variations in the solar cycle,” going on to say that “since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change.”
  • NASA made a similar assessment, stating that “Most scientists say that humans can change climate too. People drive cars. People heat and cool their houses. People cook food. All those things take energy.”
Share

Billion-Dollar Network Is Playing Politics in America’s Energy Sector, Driving up Costs

The Epoch Times  12/27/2021

By Katabella Roberts and Joshua Philipp
December 23, 2021 Updated: December 23, 2021
biggersmaller

Environmental groups and advocates are spending billions of dollars every year playing politics with America’s energy sector while simultaneously driving up energy costs for Americans, according to Ken Braun, the senior investigative researcher at the Capital Research Center.

President Joe Biden has issued a series of executive orders since taking office in an effort to tackle the climate crisis, slash greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50 percent by 2030 and become carbon-neutral by 2050.

Biden says his “whole-of-government” approach to climate change “creates well-paying jobs, grows industries, and makes the country more economically competitive.”

While many have championed the president’s ambitious push toward green energy, he has also faced criticism from those working in the oil and gas industry, among others.

In an interview with EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program, Braun said that numerous companies, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and more, are pumping a combined billion dollars a year into promoting so-called green energy, in line with the president’s push, and move away from nuclear energy.

However, such companies are failing to recognize those renewable energies, which are weather-dependent, are not always reliable, and can also be costly.

“Most of the environmental movement, upwards of more than 1,000 organizations are spending over a billion dollars per year, pretending to be environmental stewards who oppose nuclear energy and promote these wind and solar fantasies that are land hogs and really destructive to our environment, in order to create energy that really isn’t going to get the job done for us,” Braun said.

“You intuitively know that these things don’t work, when the sun’s not shining, which happens in most places between eight and 14 hours a day. And the winds not blowing, and we don’t really have the battery storage to hold this power,” Braun said. “So if you really are concerned about reducing our carbon footprint, nuclear energy is the only way that you’re going to accomplish it in a reliable, non-weather reliant way.”

Epoch Times Photo
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) speak during a press conference to announce Green New Deal legislation to promote clean energy programs outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, on Feb. 7, 2019. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
Biden
President Joe Biden looks at a wind turbine blade as he tours the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Arvada, Colo., on Sept. 14, 2021. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)

Braun noted that such environmental companies are greatly exaggerating the risks associated with the use of nuclear energy and that they fail to talk about the risks that come from using renewable energy sources.

The senior researcher said studies have shown that nuclear energy is 351 times safer per megawatt-hour created than coal, 263 times safer than oil, and 40 times safer than natural gas, which he said means it is is “basically right down there with wind and solar, as far as its risk to people” goes.

“There are risks in wind turbines and solar panels that we don’t talk about, such as the predatory birds that just get chewed up by these windmills,” he said. “And the industry has pretty much declared it a trade secret. We can’t know how many of these things we’re killing. I would argue one bald eagle’s life is not worth an entire wind farm for what the wind farm gives us, versus how just glorious these birds are and should be protected. … But that’s the kind of environmentalist I am.”

“All of these organizations and some of a couple of those that I mentioned have 100 plus million dollar budgets. Most of the big ones you hear about are pretending to be environmentalists and hypocritically arguing against nuclear energy. … But they’re driving up energy costs on the rest of us by doing that. And so, they are distorting the market and they aren’t even accomplishing their goals,” Braun said.

“That’s major, that’s a billion dollars distorting our energy choices just making our problems worse and not doing anything to reduce carbon emissions, which is what all this billion dollars is supposed to be spent for,” he added.

“If our argument is that we are trying to reduce carbon emissions—if that’s important to you, as the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund … and all these environmental groups that are saying that this is their number one priority—if it’s really your number one priority, then you should be going to a crash nuclear program and saying all these subsidies that you’ve been telling to throw at wind and solar, you should be putting it into nuclear power. But that’s not the argument they make.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/billion-dollar-network-is-playing-politics-in-americas-energy-sector-driving-up-costs-ken-braun_4174252.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-12-27-1&utm_medium=email&est=pa9x5kzebKP1KjlHB9btTWKPcog6JXpHE4EAJdCufyx+b+1Ob7jbfI3LYzH4Gg==

Share

‘We Want Them to Go Bankrupt’

Here is the Democrat Party in plain sight. This is what they want for the USA. What do you think? mrossol

WSJ  11/20/2021

Saule Omarova continues to make the case against her nomination to be Comptroller of the Currency, as critics need only to quote her own words. The latest example is a video interview she gave in February in which the Cornell professor opined on “the case for a U.S. national investment authority.”

The conversation at one point turned to climate change and its impact on fossil-fuel producers, and Ms. Omarova was on the case. “A lot of the smaller players in that industry are going to, probably, go bankrupt in short order—at least, we want them to go bankrupt if we want to tackle climate change,” she said in the session that was part of the Jain Family Institute’s “Social Wealth Seminar” series.

She went on to say “that creates a lot of this sort of loss of jobs, a lot of displacement, and economic fallback that we cannot afford, really,” which is nice of her to concede. Bankruptcy isn’t painless, especially when the government drives you out of business.

But then she adds that the response would be to set up a National Capital Management Corporation that would “become a kind of equity investor at that point, taking over management of those companies and basically leading them through restructuring to a new technological basis and to a new technological business model.”

 

So first put private companies out of business “in short order,” then put government central planners to work to restructure them as the political class wants. Give Ms. Omarova credit for candor. Most progressives disguise their real intentions.

All of this matters because as Comptroller Ms. Omarova would have enormous authority to regulate banks. It’s clear from this interview that one of her policy ambitions is to deny capital to certain companies that she wants to go bankrupt. Senators will have to decide if they want the Comptroller to be a one-person systemic risk to the banking system.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-want-them-to-go-bankrupt-saule-omarova-comptroller-biden-nominee-11636668294?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s

Share