Willem Post's Posts - Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine2024-03-28T10:17:47ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1494012619?profile=original&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blog/feed?user=0fk5o2ukdpq69&xn_auth=noThe Nuland/Budanov/Tajik/Crocus Connectiontag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-27:4401701:BlogPost:2596422024-03-27T16:30:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;">The Nuland/Budanov/Tajik/Crocus Connection </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-nuland-budanov-tajik-crocus-connection">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-nuland-budanov-tajik-crocus-connection</a></p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p><a href="https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/03/26/the-nuland-budanov-tajik-crocus-connection/"><em>Authored by…</em></a></p>
</div>
</div>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">The Nuland/Budanov/Tajik/Crocus Connection </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-nuland-budanov-tajik-crocus-connection">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-nuland-budanov-tajik-crocus-connection</a></p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p><a href="https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/03/26/the-nuland-budanov-tajik-crocus-connection/"><em>Authored by Pepe Escobar,</em></a></p>
<p>Let’s start with the possible chain of events that may have led to the Crocus terror attack.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/inf174_terror-01.jpg?itok=018-JCBU"><img height="1179" width="688" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/inf174_terror-01.jpg?itok=018-JCBU" alt=""/></a></p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/21841313772,21778456762/zerohedge/in_content_video_0__container__">.</div>
</div>
<p><strong>This is as explosive as it gets.</strong> Intel sources in Moscow discreetly confirm this is one of the FSB’s prime lines of investigation.</p>
<p><em>December 4, 2023.</em> Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Mark Milley, only 3 months after his retirement, tells CIA mouthpiece The Washington Post: “There should be no Russian who goes to sleep without wondering if they’re going to get their throat slit in the middle of the night (…) You gotta get back there and create a campaign behind the lines.”</p>
<p><em>January 4, 2024:</em> In an interview with ABC News, “spy chief” Kyrylo Budanov lays down the road map: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcvLEtSBG84">strikes “deeper and deeper” into Russia.</a></p>
<p><em>January 31:</em> Victoria Nuland travels to Kiev and meets Budanov. Then, in a dodgy press conference at night in the middle of an empty street, she promises “nasty surprises” to Putin: code for asymmetric war.</p>
<p><em>February 22:</em> Nuland shows up at a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) event and doubles down on the “nasty surprises” and asymmetric war. That may be interpreted as the definitive signal for Budanov to start deploying dirty ops.</p>
<p><em>February 25:</em> The New York Times publishes a story about CIA cells in Ukraine: nothing that Russian intel does not already know.</p>
<p>Then, a lull until March 5 – when crucial shadow play may have been in effect. Privileged scenario: Nuland was a key dirty ops plotter alongside the CIA and the Ukrainian GUR (Budanov). Rival Deep State factions got hold of it and maneuvered to “terminate” her one way or another – because Russian intel would have inevitably connected the dots.</p>
<p>Yet Nuland, in fact, is not “retired” yet; she’s still presented as Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs and showed up recently in Rome for a G7-related meeting, although her new job, in theory, seems to be at Columbia University (a Hillary Clinton maneuver).</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the assets for a major “nasty surprise” are already in place, in the dark, and totally off radar. The op cannot be called off.</p>
<p><em>March 5:</em> Little Blinken formally announces Nuland’s “retirement”.</p>
<p><em>March 7:</em> At least one Tajik among the four-member terror commando visits the Crocus venue and has his photo taken.</p>
<p><em>March 7-8 at night:</em> U.S. and British embassies simultaneously announce a possible terror attack on Moscow, telling their nationals to avoid “concerts” and gatherings within the next two days.</p>
<p><em>March 9:</em> Massively popular Russian patriotic singer Shaman performs at Crocus. That may have been the carefully chosen occasion targeted for the “nasty surprise” – as it falls only a few days before the presidential elections, from March 15 to 17. But security at Crocus was massive, so the op is postponed.</p>
<p><em>March 22:</em> The Crocus City Hall terror attack.</p>
<h2><strong>ISIS-K: the ultimate can of worms</strong></h2>
<p>The Budanov connection is betrayed by the modus operandi – similar to previous Ukraine intel terror attacks against Daria Dugina and Vladimir Tatarsky: close reconnaissance for days, even weeks; the hit; and then a dash for the border.</p>
<p>And that brings us to the Tajik connection.</p>
<p>There seem to be holes aplenty in the narrative concocted by the ragged bunch turned mass killers: following an Islamist preacher on Telegram; offered what was later established as a puny 500 thousand rubles (roughly $4,500) for the four of them to shoot random people in a concert hall; sent half of the funds via Telegram; directed to a weapons cache where they find AK-12s and hand grenades.</p>
<p>The videos show that they used the machine guns like pros; shots were accurate, short bursts or single fire; no panic whatsoever; effective use of hand grenades; fleeing the scene in a flash, just melting away, almost in time to catch the “window” that would take them across the border to Ukraine.</p>
<p>All that takes training. And that also applies to facing nasty counter-interrogation. Still, the FSB seems to have broken them all – quite literally.</p>
<p>A potential handler has surfaced, named Abdullo Buriyev. Turkish intel had earlier identified him as a handler for ISIS-K, or Wilayat Khorasan in Afghanistan. One of the members of the Crocus commando told the FSB their “acquaintance” Abdullo helped them to buy the car for the op.</p>
<p>And that leads us to the massive can of worms to end them all: ISIS-K.</p>
<p>The alleged emir of ISIS-K, since 2020, is an Afghan Tajik, Sanaullah Ghafari. He was not killed in Afghanistan in June 2023, as the Americans were spinning: he may be currently holed up in Balochistan in Pakistan.</p>
<p>Yet the real person of interest here is not Tajik Ghafari but Chechen Abdul Hakim al-Shishani, the former leader of the jihadi outfit Ajnad al-Kavkaz (“Soldiers of the Caucasus”), who was fighting against the government in Damascus in Idlib and then escaped to Ukraine because of a crackdown by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – in another one of those classic inter-jihadi squabbles.</p>
<p>Shishani was spotted on the border near Belgorod during the recent attack concocted by Ukrainian intel inside Russia. Call it another vector of the “nasty surprises”.</p>
<p>Shishani had been in Ukraine for over two years and has acquired citizenship. He is in fact the sterling connection between the nasty motley crue Idlib gangs in Syria and GUR in Kiev – as his Chechens worked closely with Jabhat al-Nusra, which was virtually indistinguishable from ISIS.</p>
<p>Shishani, fiercely anti-Assad, anti-Putin and anti-Kadyrov, is the classic “moderate rebel” advertised for years as a “freedom fighter” by the CIA and the Pentagon.</p>
<p>Some of the four hapless Tajiks seem to have followed ideological/religious indoctrination on the internet dispensed by Wilayat Khorasan, or ISIS-K, in a chat room called Rahnamo ba Khuroson.</p>
<p>The indoctrination game happened to be supervised by a Tajik, Salmon Khurosoni. He’s the guy who made the first move to recruit the commando. Khurosoni is arguably a messenger between ISIS-K and the CIA.</p>
<p>The problem is the ISIS-K modus operandi for any attack never features a fistful of dollars: the promise is Paradise via martyrdom. Yet in this case it seems it’s Khurosoni himself who has approved the 500 thousand ruble reward.</p>
<p>After handler Buriyev relayed the instructions, the commando sent the <em>bayat</em> – the ISIS pledge of allegiance – to Khurosoni. Ukraine may not have been their final destination. Another foreign intel connection – not identified by FSB sources – would have sent them to Turkey, and then Afghanistan.</p>
<p>That’s exactly where Khurosoni is to be found. Khurosoni may have been the ideological mastermind of Crocus. But, crucially, he’s not the client.</p>
<h2>T<strong>he Ukrainian love affair with terror gangs</strong></h2>
<p>Ukrainian intel, SBU and GUR, have been using the “Islamic” terror galaxy as they please since the first Chechnya war in the mid-1990s. Milley and Nuland of course knew it, as there were serious rifts in the past, for instance, between GUR and the CIA.</p>
<p>Following the symbiosis of any Ukrainian government post-1991 with assorted terror/jihadi outfits, Kiev post-Maidan turbo-charged these connections especially with Idlib gangs, as well as north Caucasus outfits, from the Chechen Shishani to ISIS in Syria and then ISIS-K. GUR routinely aims to recruit ISIS and ISIS-K denizens via online chat rooms. Exactly the modus operandi that led to Crocus.</p>
<p>One “Azan” association, founded in 2017 by Anvar Derkach, a member of the Hizb ut-Tahrir, actually facilitates terrorist life in Ukraine, Tatars from Crimea included – from lodging to juridical assistance.</p>
<p>The FSB investigation is establishing a trail: Crocus was planned by pros – and certainly not by a bunch of low-IQ Tajik dregs. Not by ISIS-K, but by GUR. A classic false flag, with the clueless Tajiks under the impression that they were working for ISIS-K.</p>
<p>The FSB investigation is also unveiling the standard modus operandi of online terror, everywhere. A recruiter focuses on a specific profile; adapts himself to the candidate, especially his – low – IQ; provides him with the minimum necessary for a job; then the candidate/executor become disposable.</p>
<p>Everyone in Russia remembers that during the first attack on the Crimea bridge, the driver of the kamikaze truck was blissfully unaware of what he was carrying,</p>
<p>As for ISIS, everyone seriously following West Asia knows that’s a gigantic diversionist scam, complete with the Americans transferring ISIS operatives from the Al-Tanf base to the eastern Euphrates, and then to Afghanistan after the Hegemon’s humiliating “withdrawal”. Project ISIS-K actually started in 2021, after it became pointless to use ISIS goons imported from Syria to block the relentless progress of the Taliban.</p>
<p>Ace Russian war correspondent Marat Khairullin has added another juicy morsel to this funky salad: he convincingly <a href="https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/03/the-moa-week-in-review-ot-2024-087.html#comment-6a00d8341c640e53ef02c8d3aeae93200d">unveils the MI6 angle</a> in the Crocus City Hall terror attack (in English here, in two parts, posted by “S”).</p>
<p>The FSB is right in the middle of the painstaking process of cracking most, if not all ISIS-K-CIA/MI6 connections. Once it’s all established, there will be hell to pay.</p>
<p>But that won’t be the end of the story. Countless terror networks are not controlled by Western intel – although they will work with Western intel via middlemen, usually Salafist “preachers” who deal with Saudi/Gulf intel agencies.</p>
<p>The case of the CIA flying “black” helicopters to extract jihadists from Syria and drop them in Afghanistan is more like an exception – in terms of direct contact – than the norm. So the FSB and the Kremlin will be very careful when it comes to directly accusing the CIA and MI6 of managing these networks.</p>
<p>But even with plausible deniability, the Crocus investigation seems to be leading exactly to where Moscow wants it: uncovering the crucial middleman. And everything seems to be pointing to Budanov and his goons.</p>
<p>Ramzan Kadyrov dropped an extra clue. He said the Crocus “curators” chose on purpose to instrumentalize elements of an ethnic minority – Tajiks – who barely speak Russian to open up new wounds in a multinational nation where dozens of ethnicities live side by side for centuries.</p>
<p><strong>In the end, it didn’t work. The Russian population has handed to the Kremlin total carte blanche to exercise brutal, maximum punishment – whatever and wherever it takes.</strong></p>
</div>
</div>Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) English versiontag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-22:4401701:BlogPost:2594282024-03-22T10:15:49.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<div class="msg-body P_wpofO mq_AS"><div class="jb_0 X_6MGW N_6Fd5"><div><div id="yiv5181812901"><div><div class="yiv5181812901WordSection1"><p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><b><span>Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) English</span> <span>version</span></b> </p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><a href="https://youtu.be/s3Tfxiuo-oM?si=FUaTP2yXA6jPA0_9" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://youtu.be/s3Tfxiuo-oM?si=FUaTP2yXA6jPA0_9</a> …</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="msg-body P_wpofO mq_AS"><div class="jb_0 X_6MGW N_6Fd5"><div><div id="yiv5181812901"><div><div class="yiv5181812901WordSection1"><p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><b><span>Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) English</span> <span>version</span></b> </p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://youtu.be/s3Tfxiuo-oM?si=FUaTP2yXA6jPA0_9">https://youtu.be/s3Tfxiuo-oM?si=FUaTP2yXA6jPA0_9</a> </p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span>Premiered Mar 20, 2024</span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span>This film exposes the climate alarm as an invented scare without any basis in science. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and all the rest. It emphatically counters the claim that current temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary, compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history, both current temperatures and CO2 levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing levels of CO2 (it has changed many times) has ever ‘driven’ climate change in the past.</span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span>Why then, are we told, again and again, that ‘catastrophic man-made climate-change’ is an irrefutable fact? Why are we told that there is no evidence that contradicts it? Why are we told that anyone who questions ‘climate chaos’ is a ‘flat-earther’ and a ‘science-denier’?</span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span>The film explores the nature of the consensus behind climate change. It describes the origins of the climate funding bandwagon, and the rise of the trillion-dollar climate industry. It describes the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the climate crisis. It explains the enormous pressure on scientists and others not to question the climate alarm: the withdrawal of funds, rejection by science journals, social ostracism.</span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span>But the climate alarm is much more than a funding and jobs bandwagon. The film explores the politics of climate. From the beginning, the climate scare was political. The culprit was free-market industrial capitalism. The solution was higher taxes and more regulation. From the start, the climate alarm appealed to, and has been adopted and promoted by, those groups who favour bigger government.</span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span>This is the unspoken political divide behind the climate alarm. The climate scare appeals especially to all those in the sprawling publicly-funded establishment. This includes the largely publicly-funded Western intelligentsia, for whom climate has become a moral cause. In these circles, to criticise or question the climate alarm has become is a breach of social etiquette.</span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span>The film includes interviews with a number of very prominent scientists, including Professor Steven Koonin (author of ‘Unsettled’, a former provost and vice-president of Caltech), Professor Dick Lindzen (formerly professor of meteorology at Harvard and MIT), Professor Will Happer (professor of physics at Princeton), Dr John Clauser (winner of the Nobel prize in Physics in 2022), Professor Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics), professor Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph), Willie Soon and several others.</span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span>The film was written and directed by the British filmmaker Martin Durkin and is the sequel of his excellent 2007 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. Tom Nelson, a podcaster who has been deeply examining climate debate issues for the better part of two decades, was the producer of the film.</span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span class="yiv5181812901yt-core-attributed-string--link-inherit-color"><span><a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://www.youtube.com/hashtag/climatethemovie">#ClimateTheMovie</a></span></span> <span class="yiv5181812901yt-core-attributed-string--link-inherit-color"><span>will be available for free at many online locations starting on March 21 2024. Subtitles for numerous languages are currently being created by the Clintel Foundation. Follow @ClimateTheMovie and @ClintelOrg for updates.</span></span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span class="yiv5181812901yt-core-attributed-string--link-inherit-color"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span class="yiv5181812901yt-core-attributed-string--link-inherit-color"><span>Aloha,</span></span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span class="yiv5181812901yt-core-attributed-string--link-inherit-color"><span>Bud Bromley</span></span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"><span class="yiv5181812901yt-core-attributed-string--link-inherit-color"><span>Holualoa, Hawaii</span></span></p>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 1</strong></p>
<p><strong>World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021</strong></p>
<p>During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW</p>
<p>Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%</p>
<p>At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%</p>
<p><a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition">https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine</a></p>
<p>Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and</p>
<p>2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>About 300 Maine people would have jobs during the erection phase</p>
<p>The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships</p>
<p>About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through">https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024</p>
<p>The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.</p>
<p>The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment</p>
<p><b><span> </span></b></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost: </span></b><span>Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at <b>$7,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>35.827 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>NOTE</span></b><span>: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about <b>5 c/kWh</b>, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore: </strong>A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. <br/> The cables would need some type of flexible support system</p>
<p>There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People: </strong>Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy. <strong>Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 2</strong></p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind in Norway</strong></p>
<p>Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company</p>
<p>Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.</p>
<p>On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.</p>
<p>The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365</p>
<p>The generators will provide almost all the electricity during <strong>low-wind periods</strong>, and 100% during <strong>high-wind periods</strong>, when rotors are feathered and locked.</p>
<p>The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = <strong>$8,300/kW. See URL</strong></p>
<p>That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher</p>
<p>The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites</p>
<p>The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies </p>
<p>In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.</p>
<p>Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.</p>
<p>If Norwegian units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of the additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus</p>
<p>A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. </p>
<p>The cables would need some type of flexible support system<br/> The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms">https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms</a></p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><span><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="514" height="565"/></a></span></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 3</strong></p>
<p><strong>Offshore Wind in US and UK</strong></p>
<p>Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about wind energy issues that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines of the stock prices of Siemens, Oersted, etc., starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out<br/> All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See costs/kWh in below article</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals</strong></p>
<p>1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government <br/> 2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disfunctional UK government</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about <strong>9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years</strong>, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See URL<br/> <br/> <strong>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><b><span>US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost</span></b></p>
<p></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity production</span></b><span> about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.</span></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost, c/kWh</span></b><span>: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at <b>$5,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>30.273 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>15.137 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Not included</span></b><span>: At a future 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid: </span></p>
<p><span>Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about <b>2 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid</span></p>
<p><span>Cost of curtailments, about <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites</span></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 4</strong></p>
<p><strong>Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.</strong></p>
<p>Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.</p>
<p>With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.</p>
<p>Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies</p>
<p>The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.</p>
<p>The adders become<strong> exponentially greater,</strong> with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems</p>
<p>Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.</p>
<p>Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.</p>
<p>The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.</p>
<p>W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies</p>
<p>W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,</p>
<p>2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers</p>
<p>3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365 </p>
<p>4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during<strong> low-W/S periods,</strong> and<strong> 100% </strong>during<strong> high-W/S periods, </strong>when rotors are feathered and locked,</p>
<p>5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced</p>
<p>6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="650" height="433"/></a></p>
<p>. </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 5</strong></p>
<p><strong>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING<br/></strong> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>EXCERPT:</strong></p>
<p><strong><span>Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing</span></strong></p>
<p><span>Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, <strong>$5.484 million/y</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, <strong>$6.765 million/y</strong> (10% due to high inflation)</span></p>
<p><span>Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = <strong>$183.7 million</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)</span></p>
<p><span>Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss</span></p>
<p><span>(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh</span></p>
<p><strong><span>At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span>At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><strong><span>Excluded costs/kWh: </span></strong><span>1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. <strong>Excluded costs would add at least 10 - 15 c/kWh</strong><br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE</strong>: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging</span></p>
<p><span>Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia"><span>http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia</span></a></p>
<p><strong><span> </span></strong></p>
<p><b><span>COMMENTS ON CALCULATION: </span></b></p>
<p><span>Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.<br/> Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment</span></p>
<p><span>If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.</span></p>
<p><span>According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.</span></p>
<p><span>A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it the during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening. They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations.</span></p>
<p><span>Remember, you have to draw about 50 MWh from the HV grid to deliver about 40 MWh to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.</span></p>
<p><span>A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 6</strong><strong> </strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/lights-out-solar-power-stocks-crash-after-demand-warning-across-europe">SolarEdge Technologies shares plunged</a> about two weeks ago, after it warned about decreasing European demand. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>SolarEdge Melts Down After Weak Guidance </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Great Green Crash – Solar Down 40%</p>
<p><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 7</strong><strong> </strong></p>
<p>World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>EV Owners Facing Soaring Insurance Costs in the US and UK</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>U.S. Offshore Wind Plans Are Utterly Collapsing</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK<br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 8</strong></p>
<p><strong>Nuclear Plants by Russia</strong></p>
<p>According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW</p>
<p>Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england</a></p>
<p>Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.</p>
<p>The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Egypt</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW, </p>
<p>The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.</p>
<p>As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.<br/> That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Turkey</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>India</strong>, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the <b>Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.</b></p>
<p>Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed</p>
<p></p>
<p>In <strong>Bangladesh</strong>: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the <strong>Rooppur Power Station</strong></p>
<p>Capital cost $12.65 billion<strong> </strong>is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess <a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel" title="Spent nuclear fuel">spent nuclear fuel</a>.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Nuclear</strong>: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions</p>
<p>They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years</p>
<p>Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>Wind</strong>: Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.<br/> They have <strong>lifetime</strong> capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places</p>
<p>They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment <br/> They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Major Competitors</strong>: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.<br/> They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.</p>
<p>American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Tripling Nuclear A Total Fantasy:</strong> During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.</p>
<p><a href="https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html">https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants</p>
<p>Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>New nuclear</strong>: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table</p>
<p>Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, </p>
<p>Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050. </p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Infrastructures and Manpower</strong>: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year">https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year</a>.</p>
<p>. </p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p>Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022</p>
</td>
<td><p>370200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Proposed tripling</p>
</td>
<td><p>3</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>1110600</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Nuclear, MW</p>
</td>
<td><p>740400</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>MW/reactor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors</p>
</td>
<td><p>617</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Reactors, rounded</p>
</td>
<td><p>620</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors/site</p>
</td>
<td><p>2</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Sites</p>
</td>
<td><p>310</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, MWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841311760</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Conversion factor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1000000</p>
</td>
<td><p>%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841</p>
</td>
<td><p>11</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>World total production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>53000</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 9</strong></p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by type of customer</strong></p>
<p>Retail electricity prices are usually highest for residential and commercial consumers because it costs more to distribute electricity to them. Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The retail price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity.</p>
<p>In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢ per kilowatthour (kWh).1</p>
<p>The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were:</p>
<p>Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh; Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh; Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh; Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by locality</strong></p>
<p>Electricity prices vary by locality based on the availability of power plants and fuels, local fuel costs, and pricing regulations. In 2022, the annual average retail electricity price for all types of electric utility customers ranged from <strong>39.85¢ per kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢ per kWh in Wyoming.2.</strong> </p>
<p>Prices in Hawaii are high relative to other states mainly because most of its electricity is generated with petroleum fuels that must be imported into the state.</p>
<p>1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.<br/> 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.</p>
<p>Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/">Electric Power Monthly</a>, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary.</p>
<p>See URL</p>
<p><a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php">https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-...</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the US, the cost of electricity to <strong>ratepayers</strong> ranges from about 8 c/kWh (Wyoming) to 40 c/kWh (Hawaii), for an average of about 12.5 c/kWh.</p>
<p>US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y</p>
<p>With a lot of wind/solar/batteries/EVs by 2050, and ratepayers buying 8000 billion kWh/y, because of electrification, the average rate to ratepayers would be about 25 c/kWh,</p>
<p><strong>US ratepayers would pay:</strong> two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y<br/> <strong>Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented</strong><br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE:</strong> All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollars</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 10</strong></p>
<p><strong>LIFE WITHOUT OIL?</strong></p>
<p>Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro, which can be done theoretically, but only at enormous cost.</p>
<p>Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.</p>
<p>The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.</p>
<p>If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.</p>
<p>Without Crude Oil, there can be no Electricity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Every experienced engineer knows, almost all the parts of wind, solar and battery systems, for electricity generation and storage, from mining materials to manufacturing parts, to installation and commissioning, in addition to the infrastructures that produce materials, parts, specialized ships, etc., are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.</strong></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<div class="entry-content magazinenp-parts-item"><p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<div class="wp-block-file"></div>
<div id="wpd-post-rating" class="wpd-not-rated"><div class="wpd-rating-wrap"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="yiv5181812901MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="jb_0 X_6MGW N_6Fd5"><div class="P_0 je_fq7"><ul class="hd_n D_F eo_HB M_gQyVX P_0">
<li class="E_6Fd5 Y_6LEV"><div class="W_3n93F p_R"><div class="A_6Eb4 i_6FIA J_x D_F r_P"><div class="en_0"><div class="u_dzD A_6DUj"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>Europe’s Green Nightmare May Soon Be Overtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-20:4401701:BlogPost:2595132024-03-20T15:30:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<div class="entry-content"><div class="shareaholic-canvas shareaholic-resolved-canvas shareaholic-ui" id="shr_canvas1"><div><div class="shareaholic-share-buttons-container shareaholic-ui shr-no-print shareaholic-flat shareaholic-round shareaholic- shareaholic- shareaholic-side-counter shareaholic- shareaholic-center-align shareaholic-center-align shr-sharebuttons-inpage shareaholic-flat shareaholic-round shareaholic-side-counter"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="entry-content"><div class="shareaholic-canvas shareaholic-resolved-canvas shareaholic-ui" id="shr_canvas1"><div><div class="shareaholic-share-buttons-container shareaholic-ui shr-no-print shareaholic-flat shareaholic-round shareaholic- shareaholic- shareaholic-side-counter shareaholic- shareaholic-center-align shareaholic-center-align shr-sharebuttons-inpage shareaholic-flat shareaholic-round shareaholic-side-counter"><div class="shareaholic-share-buttons-wrapper shareaholic-ui"><div class="shareaholic-share-buttons-animation-wrapper"><ul class="shareaholic-share-buttons shareaholic-no-margin-padding-important">
<li class="shareaholic-share-button shareaholic-share-button-all" title="More Options"><div class="shareaholic-share-button-container shr-outline"><div class="shareaholic-share-button-sizing"><p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Europe’s Green Nightmare May Soon Be Over</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/europe-s-green-nightmare-may-soon-be-over">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/europe-s-green-nightmare-may-soon-be-over</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">by <a href="https://cornwallalliance.org/author/duggan-flanakin/">Duggan Flanakin</a></p>
Elections for the European Parliament will be held in June, and big changes appear on the horizon.</div>
<div class="shareaholic-share-button-sizing"></div>
<div class="shareaholic-share-button-sizing">The Green parties, who won big in <strong>2019</strong> and pushed European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to present an ambitious climate agenda, are in decline.</div>
<div class="shareaholic-share-button-sizing"></div>
<div class="shareaholic-share-button-sizing">Led by disgruntled (and targeted) farmers, voters in at least 18 of the EU’s 27 member nations are expected to express disapproval of EU policies at the ballot box.</div>
<div class="shareaholic-share-button-sizing"></div>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>Perhaps the tiniest of the protests belongs to the European People’s Party (EPP).</p>
<p>Just 19 months ago, self-described planet savers were cheering the European Parliament’s vote to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/business/eu-climate-vote-energy-intl/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">ban the sale</a> of internal combustion engines by 2035.</p>
<p>Today, after <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/24/cars/eu-combustion-engine-debate-climate-intl/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">first Germany</a> and then other nations began questioning the wisdom of ceding the world’s automotive future to the inscrutable Chinese, the EPP has called <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/european-peoples-party-car-engines-border-guards-climate-security/?mc_cid=06f454efa4&mc_eid=aee812af1e" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">for an end</a> to government by fiat.</p>
<p>.</p>
<img width="658" height="439" src="https://i0.wp.com/cornwallalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/moses-londo-zmuaieflVY8-unsplash.jpg?resize=1024%2C683&ssl=1" alt="" class="wp-image-72845"/><br/>
<p>.</p>
<p>But the EPP just wants the EU to try carrots rather than sticks to impose their climate agenda.</p>
<p>Rather than forcing Europeans into largely unwanted electric vehicles, the EPP called for relying on “innovative concepts and market-based instruments for climate protection with emissions trading, the expansion of renewable energies, and a circular economy.” </p>
<p>The EPP also pledged to “further develop” von der Leyen’s “Green Deal” package of economy-stifling climate laws.</p>
<p>Net Zero by 2050, they insist, can be accomplished by persuasion and better policies – not mandates.</p>
<p>But they dared not question the “science” that follows Al Gore’s mantra that decarbonization must be the “central organizing principle of civilization.” </p>
<p>What poppycock!</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Germany’s weak proposal was to allow internal combustion engines in vehicles that only use synthetic “green” fuels – which today are quite expensive.</p>
<p>Italy, Poland, and the Czech Republic agreed, and soon after EU climate czar Frans Timmermans announced “an agreement with Germany on the future of e-fuels in cars.”</p>
<p>Kinda like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The German-initiated tweak of the EU’s Net Zero strategy was a sop to automakers who have recognized they cannot compete in price or quantity with the Chinese.</p>
<p>But Germany has led the way in the deindustrialization of Europe with its outrageous phaseout of non-polluting, reliable nuclear power plants. </p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Today, as a result of these and other “misguided” energy policies, the cost of electricity across the continent has become so high – three times pre-pandemic levels — that trade unions are seeing the writing on the wall.</p>
<p>Their jobs will soon be gone unless Europe abandons its vainglorious battle against an enemy that does not exist – one that China, India, and emerging African nations surely see as benign. </p>
<p>While the EPP’s proposal tinkers at the perimeter, many Europeans appear to be realizing they are being scammed.</p>
<p>Farmers in France, Poland, the Netherlands, and Germany are leading the fight against the EU’s job- and livelihood-killing mandates.</p>
<p>French farmers blocked major roads with enormous tractor-led convoys to show their disgust with excessive EU regulations. </p>
<p>Farmers even staged a protest in Brussels, Belgium, home of the EU.</p>
<p>The French farmers’ union, Rural Coordination, called for a demonstration against the “ever-increasing constraints of European regulations and ever-lower incomes.”</p>
<p>Rural Coordination President Veronique Le Floc’h said, “Today, when we see that all the farmers in France are gathering near roundabouts blocking highways … It shows they are fed up. It’s a revolt.”</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>Early polling indicates that <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/anti-eu-parties-forecast-win-230100763.html?guccounter=1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">anti-EU-policy parties</a> are likely to win big in nine member nations and come in second or third in another nine.</strong></p>
<p>“Eurosceptic” parties are expected to be strongest in Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, and Slovakia.</p>
<p>Anti-technocrat support is growing in Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and Sweden, according to a new report from the <a href="https://ecfr.eu/publication/a-sharp-right-turn-a-forecast-for-the-2024-european-parliament-elections/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">European Council on Foreign Relations</a>. </p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The protests are evidence of <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/01/french-farmer-tractor-protests-live-updates-paris-brussels/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">a growing divide</a> between the “technocratic” EU and working class Europeans. French farmer union leader Arnaud Rousseau says there is a “growing lack of understanding between a technocratic structure walled into its Brussels offices and the reality of what we experience on our farms.”</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>If current trends hold, the European Parliament could see <a href="https://ecfr.eu/publication/a-sharp-right-turn-a-forecast-for-the-2024-european-parliament-elections/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">a populist majority</a> that would likely oppose “ambitious” EU actions to drastically cut carbon dioxide emissions across the continent.</p>
<p>And for good reason. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Those actions include</p>
<p>taking internal combustion engines off European roads and highways,</p>
<p>banning the use of natural gas and</p>
<p>forcing people to purchase expensive, ineffective heat pumps, and</p>
<p>slaughtering cattle, sheep, and other farm animals – all guaranteed to lower the standard of living for most Europeans.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>But even with a majority in the EU Parliament, the people’s parties may find victory just out of their grasp.</p>
<p>The final plenary session before the June elections will be in late April, and climate activists are working overtime to adopt new energy and climate policies that would be binding unless overturned – a more difficult job than just blocking them from being enacted. </p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Among “unfinished” business for the lawmakers is <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_5776" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">final adoption</a> of the very controversial Nature Restoration Law, a regulation to reduce methane emissions, and carbon dioxide standards for heavy-duty vehicles.</p>
<p>In theory at least, the plenary vote should be a rubber stamp – unless, that is, some members decide their reelection hinges on stalling the vote. </p>
<p></p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/covering-climate-2024-eu-elections-and-making-blocs-next-leadership?mc_cid=32564c5798&mc_eid=aee812af1e" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">first job</a> of the newly elected Parliament will be to choose a designated European Commission president – and that choice may determine just how far the populists can go in reshaping the EU’s long-term climate agenda. </p>
<p>The next job is to set the “Strategic Agenda for the EU,” which starts with setting the “political guidelines” that give the public (and journalists) information about the EU’s likely direction for the next five years.</p>
<p>Only then – and that could be as late as September – will the President be formally elected.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The Identity and Democracy group, which includes France’s National Rally, Alternative for Germany, and Italy’s League, possibly gaining more than 30 new seats to become the third-largest alliance in the European Parliament.</p>
<p>That would give those opposed to the globalist agendas more sway in EU decision making since Parliament became directly elected in 1979. </p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Should this coalition strike deal with the EPP, the death march toward Net Zero might be slowed, if not halted altogether.</p>
<p>That could enable Europeans to take a longer look at the outcomes for people of the policies their governments want to impose – and decide which are worth keeping and which are too destructive of the European and local economies. </p>
<p>.</p>
<p>This, of course, causes the climate radicals (who call themselves mainstream) to shudder.</p>
<p>What if, said Professor <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/anti-eu-parties-forecast-win-230100763.html?guccounter=1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Simon Hix</a>, an author of the ECFR <a href="https://ecfr.eu/publication/a-sharp-right-turn-a-forecast-for-the-2024-european-parliament-elections/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">report</a>, this “backdrop” of stirring populism is fueled by the inevitable return of Donald Trump as U.S. president in November?</p>
<p>“Parties of the political mainstream need to wake up and take clear stock of voter demands,” he said.</p>
<p>Hix added, “They should make clear, on key issues relating to democracy and the rule of law, that it is they, and not those on the political fringes, who are best placed to protect fundamental European rights.” </p>
<p></p>
<p>WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH HIX?</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>That’s a funny way of describing opposition to climate alarmist legislation and to policies the people by their vote have determined are not in their interest.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/dugganflanakin/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Duggan Flanakin</em></a><em> is a senior policy analyst at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow who writes on a wide variety of public policy issues.</em></p>
<p></p>
</div>Unhappy Tesla Owner in Canada!; A Must Readtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-18:4401701:BlogPost:2596012024-03-18T17:30:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<div class="post-header"><p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Unhappy Tesla Owner in Canada!; A Must Read</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/tag/electric-cars/"></a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">By Paul Homewood</p>
</div>
<div class="entry clear"><p>This letter to the editor was printed in the Inverness Oran in Feb 2024. (Given the detail, I have no reason to believe it is not…</p>
</div>
<div class="post-header"><p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Unhappy Tesla Owner in Canada!; A Must Read</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/tag/electric-cars/"></a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">By Paul Homewood</p>
</div>
<div class="entry clear"><p>This letter to the editor was printed in the Inverness Oran in Feb 2024. (Given the detail, I have no reason to believe it is not genuine):</p>
<p></p>
<p>February 28, 2024</p>
<p>Dear Editor,</p>
<p>I am writing in response to a letter in the February 14th publication entitled, “Benefits of Electric Vehicles.” My husband and I drive a 2021 Long Range Tesla Model 3. My hope is to shed some light on what it is like living in Inverness County with an electric vehicle.</p>
<p>For a bit of context, I am not your run-of-the-mill naysayer. We’ve been driving an EV for the last three years, we are organic farmers, we lived in a fully off-grid, solar-powered home for eight years, and we attended that big Greta Thunberg inspired climate change march in Halifax back in 2019.</p>
<p>I feel slightly embarrassed about sharing this so publicly, because I truly feel, we got duped by clever and persuasive EV/doomsday marketing.</p>
<p>After reading Paul Strome’s letter, featuring all those key marketing points, I felt compelled to write in. Here is our electric car experience:</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>2021 – Rosy new car: Wow! This is great!</strong></p>
<p>– <strong>The car was more expensive up front</strong>, but it only costs about $14 to “fill the tank” and we can conveniently charge with our Level 2 charger at home whenever we want. That will more than make up for the initial cost over time, considering the price of gas!</p>
<p>– No pesky oil changes and Tesla’s titanium shield under the car means no repairs due to rust! Great – more savings!</p>
<p>– When going to Halifax, we need to recharge at the Enfield Supercharger. Recharging takes 18 minutes, but no big deal: bathroom break, stretch your legs, get a coffee; just minor adjustments to how we drove with a gas car.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Not-so-nice realizations from year one:</strong></p>
<p>– The undulating, electric hum while the car charges for seven hours permeates our entire home and yard. Is that healthy?</p>
<p>– Needing to exit the vehicle for 20 minutes at the Supercharger because it feels very unhealthy to be in such a high voltage environment while it’s charging. Rain, shine, snow or sleet – Everybody out!</p>
<p>– Learning that every time you recharge the battery, the battery life decreases. It actually can damage the battery to charge to 100 per cent and Tesla advised that you don’t charge more than 80 per cent and not discharge to less than 20 percent, for day-to-day use. That means less than 60 percent of the battery will be available. Gee, I wish they would have told me when I bought the car.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>2022 – One-year-old car:</strong></p>
<p>– Can still make it to Sydney and back, but we shouldn’t make many detours if we want to make it home again. Having to stop in Baddeck for two hours to “juice up” just to make the 40-minute journey home doesn’t make much sense…</p>
<p>– Can still make it to the Enfield Supercharger when going to Halifax, but no detours. Stick to the highway or else.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Christmas 2023 – 2.5-year-old car:</strong></p>
<p>Heading to the Valley Christmas Eve (outside temperature is -5 C.</p>
<p>– “I don’t think we’re going to make it to the Supercharger…” “What the heck! We’re definitely not going to make it!” The whole family, plus two dogs, wandered around Truro for 1.5 hours, in the cold twilight while charging just enough to make it to the Enfield Supercharger.</p>
<p>– With everyone’s spirits low, we wander around the Enfield Big Stop parking lot in the cold while the car charges for 35 minutes. Can’t bring the dogs into Timmy’s and staying in the car while it’s charging feels like every hair on your body is getting charged up too.</p>
<p>– Charge up again at the New Minas Supercharger, just in case, because the wall plug at Grandma’s takes days to charge the car and we can’t believe how poorly the car is performing.</p>
<p>Coming home after Christmas:</p>
<p>– Leave Middleton. Stop at the Supercharger in New Minas for 10 minutes to add some charge. Everyone out into the cold!</p>
<p>– Leave New Minas. Stop in Enfield to fully recharge for 35 minutes. Everybody out into the cold: Kids, dogs; everyone. It’s windy and half raining/half snowing. How wonderfully modern and convenient it is to drive an EV!</p>
<p>– Make it back home with six per cent. Phew!</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>January 2024 – 2.5-year-old car:</strong></p>
<p>– Temperature 10 C, but dropping, so range is dropping too.</p>
<p>– Husband arrives at Enfield Supercharger. Relief!</p>
<p>– <strong>Enfield supercharger is down</strong>. Neither the car nor Telsa phone app notified him; 9:00 p.m. on a Sunday.</p>
<p>No indication of when/if the charger will turn on again. <strong>Car is at three per cent</strong>. Not enough power to keep the heat on, let alone drive to a motel. <strong>Other EV drivers there are all cursing their cars and their decisions…</strong></p>
<p>– After an hour of being stranded, the chargers come online again.</p>
<p>– 60 minutes to recharge after going so low and it being so cold out. Two hours, stuck at the Enfield Big Stop!</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>February 2024 (last week) – 2.5-year-old car</strong></p>
<p>– We are driving home from the airport. I’m driving my 2012 Toyota Matrix (680 km/tank). I have to go pick up the dogs from the boarder, just outside Antigonish. It’s too big of a detour for the “Long Range” Tesla to handle.</p>
<p>– Even with that detour, I make it home first. The Tesla took 60 minutes to charge in Enfield. It takes longer to charge a cold battery, but surely they should be home by now…</p>
<p>– My husband finally made it home. He crawled home, with the heat turned off, because he was trying to conserve power. <strong>Made it home with six per cent.</strong></p>
<p>We’ve looked into it: There is nothing wrong with our car. This is just the natural diminishing of an EV battery over time, combined with fairly mild NS winter driving.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>This is what range anxiety looks like!</strong></p>
<p>It is not, as Paul Strome so kindly put it, “for those drivers who have trouble paying attention to their fuel gauge.”</p>
<p>Range anxiety means constantly paying attention to your fuel gauge and crossing your fingers and toes, hoping you’re going to make it!</p>
<p>It’s leaving home with a “full tank” to go 290 km and worrying about not arriving!</p>
<p>The February 14th letter features all of the dealership, government, and activist talking points.</p>
<p>None of it is based on the real life experience of a rural EV owner.</p>
<p>The “official range” of EVs is not based in reality.</p>
<p>Only on the first day out of the factory (if it’s sunny, with no wind, temps between 15-20 C, on a straight stretch road with no hills) would our car ever live up to its range expectations.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Speaking as a <strong>former</strong> climate change activist and current EV driver, I can only see EVs working if you live in a big city and never plan on leaving that big city.</p>
<p>The last thing we should be pushing for is to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035 in Canada.</p>
<p>Yes, we absolutely have to take better care of our planet, but EVs make zero sense in the real world.</p>
<p>Hilary Mueller</p>
<p>Mabou</p>
<div id="atatags-26942-65f8783f0b0c6">.</div>
<div id="jp-post-flair" class="sharedaddy sd-like-enabled sd-sharing-enabled"><div class="sharedaddy sd-sharing-enabled"><strong>NOTE</strong>: I think the Owner, driving in a cold climate, believed he could run the battery down to 5% and charge to 95%, but that can be done only on very rare occasions, such as emergencies. He prematurely aged his battery and got less and less range.</div>
<div class="sharedaddy sd-sharing-enabled"></div>
<div class="sharedaddy sd-sharing-enabled">Oh well, $50,000 down the drain. No one will buy it. Its value is near zero at 3 years old</div>
<div class="sharedaddy sd-sharing-enabled"></div>
<div class="sharedaddy sd-sharing-enabled">He should have charged up to 80% and discharged to not less than 20%, to achieve NORMAL aging, as recommended by Tesla.</div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>The big lie behind the Western narrative on Russia is leading us to World War IIItag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-15:4401701:BlogPost:2594092024-03-15T20:30:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>The big lie behind the Western narrative on Russia is leading us to World War III</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-big-lie-behind-the-western-narrative-on-russia-is-leading-us">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-big-lie-behind-the-western-narrative-on-russia-is-leading-us</a>.</p>
<div class="article__summary summary">Macron’s latest sallies and the spat they have caused show…</div>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>The big lie behind the Western narrative on Russia is leading us to World War III</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-big-lie-behind-the-western-narrative-on-russia-is-leading-us">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-big-lie-behind-the-western-narrative-on-russia-is-leading-us</a>.</p>
<div class="article__summary summary">Macron’s latest sallies and the spat they have caused show that Western Europe must finally be honest about the causes of the Ukraine war</div>
<div class="article__summary summary">.</div>
<div class="Blog-author Blog-author__root" id="blog-autor"><div class="Blog-author__description"><div class="Blog-author__cover"></div>
<div class="Blog-author__text"><p><em>By </em><strong><em>Tarik Cyril Amar</em></strong><em>, a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory</em></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="Blog-author__socials">.</div>
</div>
<div class="article__cover article__cover-left"><div class="media"><img alt="The big lie behind the Western narrative on Russia is leading us to World War III" src="https://mf.b37mrtl.ru/files/2024.03/xxs/65f4938985f5406c38750b3a.jpg" class="media__item lazyautosizes lazyloaded" width="598" height="337"/></div>
</div>
<div class="article__text text"><p>.</p>
<p>The current situation in the conflict between Ukraine, serving (while being demolished) as a proxy for the West, and Russia, can be sketched in three broad strokes.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>First</strong>, Russia now clearly has the upper hand on the battlefield and could potentially accelerate its recent advances to achieve an overall military victory soon.</p>
<p>The West is being compelled to recognize this fact: as <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/time-running-out-ukraine?check_logged_in=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Foreign Affairs</a> put it, in an article titled <em>“Time is Running Out in Ukraine,”</em> </p>
<p>Kiev and its Western supporters <em>“are at a critical decision point and face a fundamental question: How can further Russian advances… be stopped, and then reversed?”</em></p>
<p>Just disregard the bit of wishful thinking thrown in at the end to sweeten the bitter pill of reality.</p>
<p>The key point is the acknowledgment that it is crunch time for the West and Ukraine – in a bad way.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>Second</strong>, notwithstanding the above, Ukraine is not yet ready to ask for negotiations to end the war on terms acceptable to Russia, which would be less than easy for Kiev. (Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, reiterated in an important recent interview that Moscow remains principally open to talks, not on the basis of <a href="https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/1284963-putin-intervyu-kiselyov" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>“wishful thinking”</em> but, instead, proceeding from the realities <em>“on the ground.”</em></a>)</p>
<p>The Kiev regime’s inflexibility is little wonder.</p>
<p>Since Zelensky rejected a virtually complete – and very favorable – peace deal in the spring of 2022, Zelensky has gambled everything on an always improbable victory.</p>
<p>For him personally, as well as his core team, there is no way to survive – politically or physically – the catastrophic defeat they have brought on their country by leasing it out as a pawn to the Washington neocon strategy.</p>
<p>The Pope, despite the phony <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/ukraine-summons-vatican-envoy-over-pope-remarks/ar-BB1jITXJ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">brouhaha</a> he triggered in Kiev and the West, was right: a responsible Ukrainian leadership ought to negotiate. But that’s not the leadership Ukraine has. Not yet at least.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>Third</strong>, the West’s strategy is getting harder to decipher because, in essence, the West cannot figure out how to adjust to the failure of its initial plans for this war.</p>
<p>Russia has not been isolated; its military has become stronger, not weaker – and the same is true of its economy, including its arms industry.</p>
<p>.</p>
<div class="read-more large read-more__right"><a class="read-more__link" href="https://www.rt.com/news/594323-macron-ukraine-france-peskov/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img alt="Kremlin responds to Macron’s claim Russia an ‘adversary’" src="https://mf.b37mrtl.ru/files/2024.03/xxs/65f4518a2030273f806d0369.jpg" class="read-more__cover lazyautosizes lazyloaded" width="539" height="304"/></a><div class="read-more__text"><div class="read-more__title">.</div>
<span class="read-more__footer">Kremlin responds to Macron’s claim Russia an ‘adversary’</span></div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p>And last but not least, the Russian political system’s popular legitimacy and effective control has neither collapsed, nor even frayed.</p>
<p>As, again, even Foreign Affairs admits, <em>“<a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/vladimir-putin-forever-putinism?utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=fa_edit&utm_campaign=special_send_russian_election_actives&utm_content=20240314&utm_term=all-actives" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Putin would likely win a fair election in 2024.</a>”</em></p>
<p>That’s more than could be said for, say, Joe Biden, Rishi Sunak, Olaf Scholz, or Emmanuel Macron (as for Zelensky, he has simply canceled the election).</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In other words, the West is facing not only Ukraine’s probable defeat, but also its own strategic failure. The situation, while not a <em>direct</em> military rout (as in Afghanistan in 2021) amounts to a severe political setback.</p>
<p>In fact, this looming Western failure is a historic debacle in the making.</p>
<p>Unlike Afghanistan, the West will not be able to simply walk away from the mess it has made in Ukraine.</p>
<p>This time, the geopolitical blowback will be fierce and the costs very high.</p>
<p>Instead of isolating Russia, the West has isolated itself, and by losing, it will show itself weakened.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>It is one thing to have to finally, belatedly, accepted that the deceptive <em>“unipolar”</em> moment of the 1990s has been over for a long time.</p>
<p>It is much worse to gratuitously enter the new multi-polar order with a stunning, avoidable self-demotion.</p>
<p>Yet that is what the EU/NATO-West has managed to fabricate from its needless over-extension in Ukraine in 2014.</p>
<p>Hubris there has been galore, the fall now is only a matter of time – and not much time at that.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Regarding EU-Europe in particular, on one thing French President Emmanuel Macron is half right.</p>
<p>Russia’s victory <em>“<a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2024/03/14/macron-says-russian-ukraine-victory-would-reduce-europe-s-credibility-to-zero_6619721_7.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">would reduce Europe’s credibility to zero</a>.”</em></p>
<p>Except, of course, a mind of greater Cartesian precision would have detected that Moscow’s victory will merely be the last stage in a longer process.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The deeper causes of EU/NATO-Europe’s loss of global standing are threefold.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>First,</strong> its own wanton decision to seek confrontation, instead of a clearly feasible compromise and cooperation with Russia <strong>(why exactly is a neutral Ukraine impossible to live with again?)</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Second</strong>, the American strategy of systematically diminishing EU/NATO-Europe with a short-sighted policy of late-imperial client cannibalization which takes the shape of aggressive de-industrialization and a <em>“Europeanization”</em> of the war in Ukraine.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Third</strong>, the European clients’ grotesque acquiescence to the above.</p>
<p>.</p>
<div class="read-more large"><a class="read-more__link" href="https://www.rt.com/news/594297-germany-spd-leader-end-ukraine-conflict/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img alt="Top German government MP calls for end to Ukraine conflict" src="https://mf.b37mrtl.ru/files/2024.03/xxs/65f40110203027485a4420e1.jpg" class="read-more__cover lazyautosizes lazyloaded" width="554" height="312"/></a><div class="read-more__text"><div class="read-more__title">.</div>
<span class="read-more__footer">Top German government MP calls for end to Ukraine conflict</span></div>
</div>
<p>.</p>
<p>That is the background to a recent wave of mystifying signals coming out of Western, especially EU/NATO elites:</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>First</strong>, we have had a wave of <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/591608-steadfast-defender-2024-nato/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">scare propaganda</a> to accompany the biggest NATO maneuvers since the end of the Cold War.</p>
<p><strong>Next</strong> <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/would-european-nations-deploy-ground-troops-to-ukraine/ar-BB1jQgYF" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Macron publicly declared</a> , and has kept reiterating that the open, obvious mode, is now – deployment of Western ground troops in Ukraine is an option.</p>
<p>He added a cheap demagogic note by calling on Europeans not to be <em>“cowards,”</em> by which he means that they should be ready to follow, in effect, his orders and fight Russia, clearly including inside and on behalf of Ukraine.</p>
<p>Never mind that Ukraine is a not an official member of either NATO or the EU as well as a highly corrupt and anything but democratic state.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In response, a divergence has surfaced inside EU/NATO Europe.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The German government has been most outspoken in contradicting Macron.</p>
<p>Not <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68573441" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">only Chancellor Scholz rushed</a> to distance himself.</p>
<p>A clearly outraged Boris Pistorius – Berlin’s hapless minister of defense, recently tripped up by his own generals’ stupendously careless indiscretion over the <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/593880-germany-crimea-bridge-attack/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Taurus missiles</a> – has grumbled, there is no need for <em>“talk about boots on the ground or having more courage or less courage.”</em></p>
<p>Perhaps more surprisingly, <a href="https://www.nzz.ch/english/macrons-shift-on-the-ukraine-war-lacks-credibility-ld.1820952" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Poland</a>, the Czech Republic, as well as NATO figurehead Jens Stoltenberg (i.e., the US) have been quick to <a href="https://apnews.com/article/nato-stoltenberg-ukraine-troops-france-slovakia-5d4ed747861a3c0edb8f922fa36427c2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">state</a> , they are, in effect, not ready to support Macron’s initiative.</p>
<p>The French public, by the way, is not showing any enthusiasm for a Napoleonic escalation either.</p>
<p>A Le Figaro poll shows 68 percent against openly sending ground troops to Ukraine.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>On the other side, Macron has found some support.</p>
<p>He is not entirely isolated, which helps explain why he has dug in his heels.</p>
<p>Zelensky does not count in this respect. His bias is obvious, and his usual delusions notwithstanding he is not calling the shots on the matter.</p>
<p>The Baltic states, however, while military micro-dwarfs, are, unfortunately, in a position to exert some influence inside the EU and NATO.</p>
<p>And true to form, they have sided with the French president, with <a href="https://www.nzz.ch/english/macrons-shift-on-the-ukraine-war-lacks-credibility-ld.1820952" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estonia and Lithuania taking the lead</a>.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>It remains impossible to be certain what we are looking at. To get the most far-fetched hypothesis out of the way first: is this a coordinated bluff with a twist?</p>
<p>A complicated Western attempt at playing good-cop, bad-cop against Russia, with Macron launching the threats and others signaling Moscow could find them less extreme, at a diplomatic price, of course?</p>
<p>Hardly. For one thing, that scheme would be so hare-brained, even the current West is unlikely to try.</p>
<p>No, the crack opening up in Western unity is real.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Regarding Macron himself, too-clever-by-half, counter-productive cunning is his style.</p>
<p>We cannot know what exactly he is trying to do; and he may not know it himself.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In essence, there are two possibilities.</p>
<p>Either the French president now is a hard-core escalationist determined to widen the war into an open clash between Russia and NATO, or he is a high-risk gambler who is engaged in a bluff to achieve three purposes.</p>
<p>1) Frighten Moscow into abstaining from pushing its military advantage in Ukraine (a hopeless idea);</p>
<p>2) Score nationalist <em>“grandeur”</em> points domestically in France (which is failing already); and</p>
<p>3) Increase his relevance inside EU/NATO-Europe by <em>“merely”</em> posturing as, once again, a new <em>“Churchill”</em> – whom Macron himself has made sure to allude to, in all his modesty. (And some of his fans, including Zelensky, a grizzled veteran of Churchill live action role play, have already made that de rigueur, if stale comparison.) </p>
<p>.</p>
<p>While we cannot entirely unriddle the moody sphinx of the Elysée or, for that matter, the murky dealings of EU/NATO-European elites, we can say two things.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>First</strong>, whatever Macron thinks he is doing, it is extremely dangerous.</p>
<p>Russia would treat EU/NATO-state troops in Ukraine as targets – and it won’t matter one wit, if they turn up labeled <em>“NATO”</em> or under national flags <em>“only.”</em></p>
<p>Russia has also reiterated, it considers its vital interests affected in Ukraine, and that if Russian leadership perceives a vital threat to Russia, nuclear weapons are an option. The warning could not be clearer.</p>
<p>.</p>
<div class="read-more large read-more__right"><a class="read-more__link" href="https://www.rt.com/news/594159-france-abortion-west-death/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img alt="Macron leads the way to Western civilization’s suicide" src="https://mf.b37mrtl.ru/files/2024.03/xxs/65f0705285f5403fbb11a704.jpg" class="read-more__cover lazyautosizes lazyloaded" width="546" height="308"/></a><div class="read-more__text"><div class="read-more__title">.</div>
<span class="read-more__footer">Macron leads the way to Western civilization’s suicide</span></div>
</div>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>Second</strong>, here is the core Western problem that is now – due to Russia undeniably winning the war – becoming acute.</p>
<p>Western elites are split between <em>“pragmatists”</em> and <em>“extremists.”</em></p>
<p>The pragmatists are as Russophobic and strategically misguided as the extremists, but they do shy away from World War Three.</p>
<p>Yet these pragmatists, who seek to resist hard-core escalationists , and reign in the high-risk gamblers, are brought up short against a crippling contradiction in their <em>own</em> position and messaging: As of now, they still share the same delusional narrative with the extremists.</p>
<p>Both groupings keep reiterating that Russia plans to attack all of EU/NATO-Europe once it defeats Ukraine and that, therefore, stopping Russia in Ukraine is, literally, vital (or in Macron’s somewhat Sartrean terms <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/europe-will-lose-all-credibility-if-russia-wins-in-ukraine-warns-macron/ar-BB1jUp0O" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>“existential</em></a>”) to the West. </p>
<p>.</p>
<p>That narrative is absurd.</p>
<p>Reality works exactly the other way around</p>
<p>The most certain way to get into a war with Russia is to openly send troops to Ukraine.</p>
<p>And what is really existential for EU/NATO-Europe is to finally liberate itself from American <em>“leadership.”</em> .</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>During the Cold War, a case could be made that Western Europe needed the US.</p>
<p>After the Cold War, though, that was no longer the case.</p>
<p>In response, Washington has implemented a consistent, multi-administration, bipartisan, if often crude, <strong>strategy of avoiding</strong> what should have been inevitable: the emancipation of Europe from American dominance.</p>
<p>Both the eastward expansion of NATO, programmed – and predicted – to cause a massive conflict with Russia, and the current proxy war in Ukraine, obstinately provoked by Washington over decades (1990 to the present), are part of that strategy to – to paraphrase a famous saying about NATO – <em>“keep Europe down.”</em></p>
<p>And the European elites have played along, as if there’s no tomorrow, which, for them, there really may not be.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>We are at a potential breaking-point, a crisis of that long-term trajectory.</p>
<p>If the pragmatists in EU/NATO-Europe really want to contain the extremists, who play with triggering an open war between Russia and NATO that would devastate at least Europe, then they must now come clean and, finally, abandon the common, ideological, and entirely unrealistic narrative about an existential threat from Moscow.</p>
<p>As long as the pragmatists dare not challenge the escalationists on how to principally understand the causes of the current catastrophe, the extremists will always have the advantage of consistency.</p>
<p>Their policies are foolish, wastefully unnecessary, and extremely risky.</p>
<p>And yet, they follow from what the West has made itself believe.</p>
<p>It is high time to break that spell of self-hypnosis, and face facts.</p>
</div>
<p></p>Sobering Up? EU May Scrap Its Plans To Ban Internal Combustion Engines By 2035tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-13:4401701:BlogPost:2592842024-03-13T23:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Sobering Up? EU May Scrap Its Plans To Ban Internal Combustion Engines By 2035</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/sobering-up-eu-may-scrap-its-plans-to-ban-internal-combustion">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/sobering-up-eu-may-scrap-its-plans-to-ban-internal-combustion</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">By <a href="https://notrickszone.com/author/admin/">P Gosselin…</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Sobering Up? EU May Scrap Its Plans To Ban Internal Combustion Engines By 2035</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/sobering-up-eu-may-scrap-its-plans-to-ban-internal-combustion">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/sobering-up-eu-may-scrap-its-plans-to-ban-internal-combustion</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">By <a href="https://notrickszone.com/author/admin/">P Gosselin</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>After a vote in Brussels last Monday evening, a majority of the European Parliament favored a Commission proposal that would no longer automatically classify EVs as climate-neutral vehicles.</strong></p>
<div class="entry-content magazinenp-parts-item"><p>In the proposal, the CO2 emissions of EVs would depend on the electricity mix used for charging, meaning EVs would not necessarily be classified as “electric only”.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Also, the EU plans to reassess the phase-out of gasoline/diesel engines, based on the latest data and developments.</p>
<p></p>
<p>So what has brought on this sudden episode of political sobriety in Brussels?</p>
<p>Probably a good dose of reality.</p>
<p>Here are 4 possible reasons behind the EU’s new position:</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>1. China</strong></p>
<p>The automotive industry and many EU states warn of the economic and social consequences of a ban on gasoline/diesel engines.</p>
<p>EV production plants in Europe cannot compete with the far lower costs in China.</p>
<p>All of Europe’s car production would move overseas</p>
<p>That would result in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs – and lots of social unrest.</p>
<p>Currently, Europe is already gripped by social unrest as farmers and truckers protest in the streets against radical green policies, and near-unlimited people illegally wandering, through open borders, from all over the world, just as in the US</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>2. E-car emissions cheating</strong></p>
<p>Currently, electric cars in the EU are given a CO2 emission rating of zero grams!</p>
<p>This zero emissions claim is a lie in most cases, as the calculation doesn’t take true electricity generation mix into account.</p>
<p>Fossil fuels are widely used in Europe to produce the electric power and that is not going to change for decades.</p>
<p><strong>A true accounting would include the CO2 emissions from mine to hazardous landfill</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>3. Climate-neutral fuels (e-fuels):</strong></p>
<p>Efforts are being made to run gasoline/diesel engines on climate-neutral fuels (e-fuels), which are produced from renewable energies and are thus CO2-neutral, which is a lot of crap, because the UPSTREAM production of the soybeans and corn, etc., have unavoidable CO2 emissions</p>
<p></p>
<p>The EU Commission wants to examine whether newly registered vehicles with gasoline/diesel engines that run on e-fuels can be registered from 2035.</p>
<p>This would effectively suspend the ban on gasoline/diesel engines, as e-fuels can be used emissions-free in practice.</p>
<p><strong>Where would all the cropland come from to produce the raw materials for these fuels?</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>POLITICALLY INSPIRED, MARGINALLY EFFECTIVE, CORN-TO-ETHANOL PROGRAM</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/politically-inspired-marginally-effective-corn-to-ethanol-program">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/politically-inspired-marginally-effective-corn-to-ethanol-program</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>REPLACING GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL WITH BIOFUELS</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-gasoline-and-diesel-fuel-with-biofuels">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-gasoline-and-diesel-fuel-with-biofuels</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>4. The 2024 European Parliament election</strong></p>
<p>It is scheduled to be held on 6 to 9 June 2024.</p>
<p>So now is not the time to upset voters with unpopular legislation.</p>
<p>The Brussels bureaucrats probably just want citizens to think they are being pragmatic and will not take a radical course after all.</p>
<p>In summary, the EU may be realizing, banning gasoline/diesel engines, and replacing them with e-cars, is going to cause a lot more damage than good.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 1</strong></p>
<p><strong>World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine"></a></p>
<p>During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW</p>
<p>Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%</p>
<p>At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%</p>
<p><a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition">https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine</a></p>
<p>Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and</p>
<p>2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>About 300 Maine people would have jobs during the erection phase</p>
<p>The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships</p>
<p>About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through">https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024</p>
<p>The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.</p>
<p>The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment</p>
<p><b><span> </span></b></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost: </span></b><span>Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at <b>$7,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>35.827 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>NOTE</span></b><span>: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about <b>5 c/kWh</b>, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore: </strong>A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. <br/> The cables would need some type of flexible support system</p>
<p>There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People: </strong>Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy. <strong>Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 2</strong></p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind in Norway</strong></p>
<p>Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company</p>
<p>Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.</p>
<p>On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.</p>
<p>The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365</p>
<p>The generators will provide almost all the electricity during <strong>low-wind periods</strong>, and 100% during <strong>high-wind periods</strong>, when rotors are feathered and locked.</p>
<p>The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = <strong>$8,300/kW. See URL</strong></p>
<p>That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher</p>
<p>The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites</p>
<p>The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies </p>
<p>In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.</p>
<p>Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.</p>
<p>If Norwegian units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of the additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus</p>
<p>A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. </p>
<p>The cables would need some type of flexible support system<br/> The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms">https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms</a></p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><span><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="514" height="565"/></a></span></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 3</strong></p>
<p><strong>Offshore Wind in US and UK</strong></p>
<p>Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about wind energy issues that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines of the stock prices of Siemens, Oersted, etc., starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out<br/> All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See costs/kWh in below article</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals</strong></p>
<p>1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government <br/> 2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disfunctional UK government</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about <strong>9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years</strong>, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See URL<br/> <br/> <strong>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><b><span>US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost</span></b></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity production</span></b><span> about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost, c/kWh</span></b><span>: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at <b>$5,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>30.273 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>15.137 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Not included</span></b><span>: At a future 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid: </span></p>
<p><span>Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about <b>2 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid</span></p>
<p><span>Cost of curtailments, about <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites</span></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 4</strong></p>
<p><strong>Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.</strong></p>
<p>Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.</p>
<p>With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.</p>
<p>Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies</p>
<p>The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.</p>
<p>The adders become<strong> exponentially greater,</strong> with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems</p>
<p>Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.</p>
<p>Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.</p>
<p>The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.</p>
<p>W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies</p>
<p>W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,</p>
<p>2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers</p>
<p>3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365 </p>
<p>4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during<strong> low-W/S periods,</strong> and<strong> 100% </strong>during<strong> high-W/S periods, </strong>when rotors are feathered and locked,</p>
<p>5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced</p>
<p>6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="650" height="433"/></a></p>
<p>. </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 5</strong></p>
<p><strong>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING<br/></strong> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>EXCERPT:</strong></p>
<p><strong><span>Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing</span></strong></p>
<p><span>Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, <strong>$5.484 million/y</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, <strong>$6.765 million/y</strong> (10% due to high inflation)</span></p>
<p><span>Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = <strong>$183.7 million</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)</span></p>
<p><span>Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss</span></p>
<p><span>(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh</span></p>
<p><strong><span>At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span>At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><strong><span>Excluded costs/kWh: </span></strong><span>1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. <strong>Excluded costs would add at least 10 - 15 c/kWh</strong><br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE</strong>: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><strong><span>NOTE</span></strong><span>: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia"><span>http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia</span></a></p>
<p><strong><span> </span></strong></p>
<p><b><span>COMMENTS ON CALCULATION: </span></b></p>
<p><span>Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.<br/> Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment</span></p>
<p><span>If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.</span></p>
<p><span>According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.</span></p>
<p><span>A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it the during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening. They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations.</span></p>
<p><span>Remember, you have to draw about 50 MWh from the HV grid to deliver about 40 MWh to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.</span></p>
<p><span>A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 6</strong><strong> </strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/lights-out-solar-power-stocks-crash-after-demand-warning-across-europe">SolarEdge Technologies shares plunged</a> about two weeks ago, after it warned about decreasing European demand. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>SolarEdge Melts Down After Weak Guidance </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Great Green Crash – Solar Down 40%</p>
<p><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 7</strong><strong> </strong></p>
<p>World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>EV Owners Facing Soaring Insurance Costs in the US and UK</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>U.S. Offshore Wind Plans Are Utterly Collapsing</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK<br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 8</strong></p>
<p><strong>Nuclear Plants by Russia</strong></p>
<p>According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW</p>
<p>Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england</a></p>
<p>Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.</p>
<p>The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Egypt</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW, </p>
<p>The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.</p>
<p>As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.<br/> That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Turkey</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>India</strong>, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the <b>Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.</b></p>
<p>Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed</p>
<p></p>
<p>In <strong>Bangladesh</strong>: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the <strong>Rooppur Power Station</strong></p>
<p>Capital cost $12.65 billion<strong> </strong>is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess <a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel" title="Spent nuclear fuel">spent nuclear fuel</a>.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Nuclear</strong>: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions</p>
<p>They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years</p>
<p>Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>Wind</strong>: Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.<br/> They have <strong>lifetime</strong> capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places</p>
<p>They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment <br/> They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Major Competitors</strong>: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.<br/> They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.</p>
<p>American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Tripling Nuclear A Total Fantasy:</strong> During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.</p>
<p><a href="https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html">https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants</p>
<p>Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>New nuclear</strong>: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table</p>
<p>Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, </p>
<p>Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050. </p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Infrastructures and Manpower</strong>: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year">https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year</a>.</p>
<p>. </p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p>Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022</p>
</td>
<td><p>370200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Proposed tripling</p>
</td>
<td><p>3</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>1110600</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Nuclear, MW</p>
</td>
<td><p>740400</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>MW/reactor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors</p>
</td>
<td><p>617</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Reactors, rounded</p>
</td>
<td><p>620</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors/site</p>
</td>
<td><p>2</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Sites</p>
</td>
<td><p>310</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, MWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841311760</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Conversion factor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1000000</p>
</td>
<td><p>%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841</p>
</td>
<td><p>11</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>World total production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>53000</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 9</strong></p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by type of customer</strong></p>
<p>Retail electricity prices are usually highest for residential and commercial consumers because it costs more to distribute electricity to them. Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The retail price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity.</p>
<p>In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢ per kilowatthour (kWh).1</p>
<p>The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were:</p>
<p>Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh; Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh; Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh; Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by locality</strong></p>
<p>Electricity prices vary by locality based on the availability of power plants and fuels, local fuel costs, and pricing regulations. In 2022, the annual average retail electricity price for all types of electric utility customers ranged from <strong>39.85¢ per kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢ per kWh in Wyoming.2.</strong> </p>
<p>Prices in Hawaii are high relative to other states mainly because most of its electricity is generated with petroleum fuels that must be imported into the state.</p>
<p>1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.<br/> 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.</p>
<p>Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/">Electric Power Monthly</a>, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary.</p>
<p>See URL</p>
<p><a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php">https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-...</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the US, the cost of electricity to <strong>ratepayers</strong> ranges from about 8 c/kWh (Wyoming) to 40 c/kWh (Hawaii), for an average of about 12.5 c/kWh.</p>
<p>US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y</p>
<p>With a lot of wind/solar/batteries/EVs by 2050, and ratepayers buying 8000 billion kWh/y, because of electrification, the average rate to ratepayers would be about 25 c/kWh,</p>
<p><strong>US ratepayers would pay:</strong> two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y<br/> <strong>Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented</strong><br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE:</strong> All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollars</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 10</strong></p>
<p><strong>LIFE WITHOUT OIL?</strong></p>
<p>Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro, which can be done theoretically, but only at enormous cost.</p>
<p>Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.</p>
<p>The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.</p>
<p>If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.</p>
<p>Without Crude Oil, there can be no Electricity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Every experienced engineer knows, almost all the parts of wind, solar and battery systems, for electricity generation and storage, from mining materials to manufacturing parts, to installation and commissioning, in addition to the infrastructures that produce materials, parts, specialized ships, etc., are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.</strong></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<div class="entry-content magazinenp-parts-item"><p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<div class="wp-block-file"></div>
<div id="wpd-post-rating" class="wpd-not-rated"><div class="wpd-rating-wrap"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="wpd-post-rating" class="wpd-not-rated"><div class="wpd-rating-wrap"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>Net Zero is dead. only the Fanatics haven’t realized ittag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-13:4401701:BlogPost:2591812024-03-13T22:30:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<div class="post-header"><p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Net Zero is Dead. only the Fanatics haven’t realized it</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/net-zero-is-dead-only-the-fanatics-haven-t-realized-it">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/net-zero-is-dead-only-the-fanatics-haven-t-realized-it</a></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">By Ian…</p>
</div>
<div class="post-header"><p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Net Zero is Dead. only the Fanatics haven’t realized it</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/net-zero-is-dead-only-the-fanatics-haven-t-realized-it">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/net-zero-is-dead-only-the-fanatics-haven-t-realized-it</a></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">By Ian Magness</p>
</div>
<div class="entry clear"><p>Rishi Sunak has made the case for <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/12/rishi-sunak-energy-security-gas-net-zero-north-sea/">building new gas-fired power plants</a> , because reliable sources of electricity generation are needed to back up the intermittency of wind and solar generation.</p>
<p>This simple statement of reality has prompted hostile comments from the usual suspects, claiming, this is inconsistent with Net Zero commitments.</p>
<p>The famous economist John Maynard Keynes once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?”. </p>
<p>It is surely clear by now, our current <strong>Net Zero commitments are not physically achievable or economically affordable on any timescale.</strong></p>
<p>Like others, I have examined, whether or how a decarbonized electricity system might work in 2035 using government projections of investment in wind and solar generation.</p>
<p>Detailed analysis shows, we need at least 30,000 MW of flexible and reliable generation for up to a third of hours in the year when UK wind and solar generation, plus imports over transmission connections to the continent cannot meet demand. This is the gap that the Sunak wants to fill.</p>
<p><span id="more-72300"></span></p>
<p>The alternatives to 60%-efficient gas generation are either too expensive or unlikely to be developed in time.</p>
<p>Battery systems cost a fortune and are only suitable for short term storage – a few hours at most.</p>
<p>Hydrogen is expensive and will require decades to develop the necessary infrastructure.</p>
<p>Most variants of carbon capture for gas plants are still experimental and large-scale storage of carbon dioxide is proving to be more difficult than expected.</p>
<p>Serious amounts of nuclear power cannot be built within 10 years.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Even under favorable assumptions, the alternatives to 60%-efficient gas generation can only have a small impact by 2035.</p>
<p>The realistic choices are: 1) endlessly extending the life of old and inefficient gas plants or 2) building new and much more efficient units.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Sunak is somewhat naïve about the second option.</p>
<p>Given the Government’s behavior over the last 15 years, private investors will not build the plants required without ironclad guarantees backed by serious amounts of money.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The capital cost of gas plants/MW is much lower than for wind or solar systems.</p>
<p>Still, about £2 billion per year for 15 years will need to be guaranteed for what are called capacity payments to ensure, new plants are built and available to operate whenever required.</p>
<p>The reduction in carbon emissions will be significant.</p>
<p>Modern gas plants produce at least 30% less carbon dioxide per MWh of electricity than old gas plants</p>
<p></p>
<p>Building electrical networks that provide reliable and universal electricity supplies to all users is probably the great technological achievement of the 20<sup>th</sup> century.</p>
<p>The economic and social costs of unreliable electricity are huge – ask anyone in South Africa today.</p>
<p>Everything from health care and education to offices, warehouses and industry depends on reliable electricity supplies.</p>
<p>If businesses and households do not trust the electricity system, they will create their own backup systems using generators and batteries, or move elsewhere.</p>
<p>No government rules will stop them. The result will likely be higher emissions as well as great expense.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The response to Sunak’s article illustrates, many advocates of Net Zero live in a fantasy world and are, apparently, content to sacrifice the future welfare of the UK’s population on the altar of arbitrary and artificial goals.</p>
<p>In our world there is a simple choice to ensure reliable electricity supplies in 2035.</p>
<p>Either we build a lot of new 60%-efficient gas-fired generation capacity, or we extend the life of older inefficient plants.</p>
<p>In neither case is a decarbonized electricity system possible, but the option of doing little or nothing is clearly worse than making the commitment to building the new plants.</p>
<p></p>
<p>There are <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/12/rishi-sunak-new-gas-power-stations-blackout-risk-net-zero/#:~:text=Britain%20will%20build%20new%20gas,an%20article%20for%20The%20Telegraph.">too many artificial deadlines</a> in the climate change field, but this one is real.</p>
<p>It takes between 3 and 5 years to build a new gas-fired power plant at an existing site under the UK’s current planning system.</p>
<p>Another 1-2 years is required for contracts and project finance.</p>
<p>These are minimum periods, because 30,000 MW of plant capacity can’t be built at one time.</p>
<p>A program of this scale must start in 2025 or 2026 to have any chance of meeting the UK’s needs in 2035. Unless we start now, we face blackouts within a decade.</p>
<p><a title="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/12/rishi-sunak-gas-power-station-net-zero-blackouts/" href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/12/rishi-sunak-gas-power-station-net-zero-blackouts/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/12/rishi-sunak-gas-power-station-net-zero-blackouts/</a></p>
<div id="atatags-26942-65f222c9191e4"></div>
<div id="jp-post-flair" class="sharedaddy sd-like-enabled sd-sharing-enabled"><div class="sharedaddy sd-sharing-enabled">.</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 1</strong></p>
<p><strong>World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine"></a></p>
<p>During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW</p>
<p>Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%</p>
<p>At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%</p>
<p><a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition">https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine</a></p>
<p>Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and</p>
<p>2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>About 300 Maine people would have jobs during the erection phase</p>
<p>The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships</p>
<p>About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through">https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024</p>
<p>The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.</p>
<p>The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment</p>
<p><b><span> </span></b></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost: </span></b><span>Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at <b>$7,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>35.827 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>NOTE</span></b><span>: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about <b>5 c/kWh</b>, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore: </strong>A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. <br/> The cables would need some type of flexible support system</p>
<p>There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People: </strong>Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy. <strong>Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 2</strong></p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind in Norway</strong></p>
<p>Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company</p>
<p>Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.</p>
<p>On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.</p>
<p>The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365</p>
<p>The generators will provide almost all the electricity during <strong>low-wind periods</strong>, and 100% during <strong>high-wind periods</strong>, when rotors are feathered and locked.</p>
<p>The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = <strong>$8,300/kW. See URL</strong></p>
<p>That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher</p>
<p>The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites</p>
<p>The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies </p>
<p>In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.</p>
<p>Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.</p>
<p>If Norwegian units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of the additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus</p>
<p>A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. </p>
<p>The cables would need some type of flexible support system<br/> The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms">https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms</a></p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><span><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="514" height="565"/></a></span></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 3</strong></p>
<p><strong>Offshore Wind in US and UK</strong></p>
<p>Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about wind energy issues that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines of the stock prices of Siemens, Oersted, etc., starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out<br/> All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See costs/kWh in below article</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals</strong></p>
<p>1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government <br/> 2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disfunctional UK government</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about <strong>9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years</strong>, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See URL<br/> <br/> <strong>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><b><span>US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost</span></b></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity production</span></b><span> about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost, c/kWh</span></b><span>: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at <b>$5,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>30.273 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>15.137 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Not included</span></b><span>: At a future 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid: </span></p>
<p><span>Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about <b>2 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid</span></p>
<p><span>Cost of curtailments, about <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites</span></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 4</strong></p>
<p><strong>Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.</strong></p>
<p>Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.</p>
<p>With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.</p>
<p>Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies</p>
<p>The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.</p>
<p>The adders become<strong> exponentially greater,</strong> with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems</p>
<p>Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.</p>
<p>Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.</p>
<p>The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.</p>
<p>W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies</p>
<p>W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,</p>
<p>2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers</p>
<p>3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365 </p>
<p>4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during<strong> low-W/S periods,</strong> and<strong> 100% </strong>during<strong> high-W/S periods, </strong>when rotors are feathered and locked,</p>
<p>5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced</p>
<p>6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="650" height="433"/></a></p>
<p>. </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 5</strong></p>
<p><strong>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING<br/></strong> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>EXCERPT:</strong></p>
<p><strong><span>Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing</span></strong></p>
<p><span>Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, <strong>$5.484 million/y</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, <strong>$6.765 million/y</strong> (10% due to high inflation)</span></p>
<p><span>Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = <strong>$183.7 million</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)</span></p>
<p><span>Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss</span></p>
<p><span>(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh</span></p>
<p><strong><span>At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span>At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><strong><span>Excluded costs/kWh: </span></strong><span>1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. <strong>Excluded costs would add at least 10 - 15 c/kWh</strong><br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE</strong>: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><strong><span>NOTE</span></strong><span>: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia"><span>http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia</span></a></p>
<p><strong><span> </span></strong></p>
<p><b><span>COMMENTS ON CALCULATION: </span></b></p>
<p><span>Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.<br/> Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment</span></p>
<p><span>If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.</span></p>
<p><span>According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.</span></p>
<p><span>A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it the during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening. They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations.</span></p>
<p><span>Remember, you have to draw about 50 MWh from the HV grid to deliver about 40 MWh to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.</span></p>
<p><span>A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 6</strong><strong> </strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/lights-out-solar-power-stocks-crash-after-demand-warning-across-europe">SolarEdge Technologies shares plunged</a> about two weeks ago, after it warned about decreasing European demand. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>SolarEdge Melts Down After Weak Guidance </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Great Green Crash – Solar Down 40%</p>
<p><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 7</strong><strong> </strong></p>
<p>World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>EV Owners Facing Soaring Insurance Costs in the US and UK</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>U.S. Offshore Wind Plans Are Utterly Collapsing</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK<br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 8</strong></p>
<p><strong>Nuclear Plants by Russia</strong></p>
<p>According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW</p>
<p>Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england</a></p>
<p>Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.</p>
<p>The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Egypt</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW, </p>
<p>The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.</p>
<p>As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.<br/> That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Turkey</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>India</strong>, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the <b>Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.</b></p>
<p>Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed</p>
<p></p>
<p>In <strong>Bangladesh</strong>: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the <strong>Rooppur Power Station</strong></p>
<p>Capital cost $12.65 billion<strong> </strong>is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess <a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel" title="Spent nuclear fuel">spent nuclear fuel</a>.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Nuclear</strong>: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions</p>
<p>They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years</p>
<p>Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>Wind</strong>: Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.<br/> They have <strong>lifetime</strong> capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places</p>
<p>They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment <br/> They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Major Competitors</strong>: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.<br/> They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.</p>
<p>American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Tripling Nuclear A Total Fantasy:</strong> During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.</p>
<p><a href="https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html">https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants</p>
<p>Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>New nuclear</strong>: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table</p>
<p>Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, </p>
<p>Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050. </p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Infrastructures and Manpower</strong>: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year">https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year</a>.</p>
<p>. </p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p>Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022</p>
</td>
<td><p>370200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Proposed tripling</p>
</td>
<td><p>3</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>1110600</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Nuclear, MW</p>
</td>
<td><p>740400</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>MW/reactor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors</p>
</td>
<td><p>617</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Reactors, rounded</p>
</td>
<td><p>620</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors/site</p>
</td>
<td><p>2</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Sites</p>
</td>
<td><p>310</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, MWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841311760</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Conversion factor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1000000</p>
</td>
<td><p>%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841</p>
</td>
<td><p>11</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>World total production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>53000</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 9</strong></p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by type of customer</strong></p>
<p>Retail electricity prices are usually highest for residential and commercial consumers because it costs more to distribute electricity to them. Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The retail price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity.</p>
<p>In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢ per kilowatthour (kWh).1</p>
<p>The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were:</p>
<p>Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh; Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh; Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh; Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by locality</strong></p>
<p>Electricity prices vary by locality based on the availability of power plants and fuels, local fuel costs, and pricing regulations. In 2022, the annual average retail electricity price for all types of electric utility customers ranged from <strong>39.85¢ per kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢ per kWh in Wyoming.2.</strong> </p>
<p>Prices in Hawaii are high relative to other states mainly because most of its electricity is generated with petroleum fuels that must be imported into the state.</p>
<p>1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.<br/> 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.</p>
<p>Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/">Electric Power Monthly</a>, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary.</p>
<p>See URL</p>
<p><a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php">https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-...</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the US, the cost of electricity to <strong>ratepayers</strong> ranges from about 8 c/kWh (Wyoming) to 40 c/kWh (Hawaii), for an average of about 12.5 c/kWh.</p>
<p>US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y</p>
<p>With a lot of wind/solar/batteries/EVs by 2050, and ratepayers buying 8000 billion kWh/y, because of electrification, the average rate to ratepayers would be about 25 c/kWh,</p>
<p><strong>US ratepayers would pay:</strong> two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y<br/> <strong>Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented</strong><br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE:</strong> All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollars</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 10</strong></p>
<p><strong>LIFE WITHOUT OIL?</strong></p>
<p>Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro, which can be done theoretically, but only at enormous cost.</p>
<p>Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.</p>
<p>The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.</p>
<p>If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.</p>
<p>Without Crude Oil, there can be no Electricity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Every experienced engineer knows, almost all the parts of wind, solar and battery systems, for electricity generation and storage, from mining materials to manufacturing parts, to installation and commissioning, in addition to the infrastructures that produce materials, parts, specialized ships, etc., are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.</strong></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<div class="entry-content magazinenp-parts-item"><p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<div class="wp-block-file"></div>
<div id="wpd-post-rating" class="wpd-not-rated"><div class="wpd-rating-wrap"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>Opportunities and Pitfalls of Solar Energytag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-08:4401701:BlogPost:2592762024-03-08T17:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Opportunities and Pitfalls for Solar Energy</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/opportunities-for-solar-energy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/opportunities-for-solar-energy</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">by <a href="https://explainingscience.org/author/thesciencegeek01/">Steve Hurley</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">.…</p>
<div class="entry-content"></div>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Opportunities and Pitfalls for Solar Energy</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/opportunities-for-solar-energy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/opportunities-for-solar-energy</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">by <a href="https://explainingscience.org/author/thesciencegeek01/">Steve Hurley</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">.</p>
<div class="entry-content"><a href="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image.png" class="no-line"><img width="589" height="253" src="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image.png?w=589" alt="" class="wp-image-4906"/></a><br/><p><em>.</em></p>
<p><em>In 2019, the year before the restrictions of the covid-19 pandemic, the world energy consumption was slightly higher at around 170 000 TWh.</em></p>
<p>In this post I will talk about some of the science behind this amazing fact and discuss the challenge of getting solar energy from where it is plentiful to where it is needed and storing it for future use.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>The facts behind this statistic</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The Sun generates energy by <a href="https://thesciencegeek.org/2015/04/12/the-future-of-the-sun/">nuclear reactions which occur at its dense hot core</a>.</p>
<p>It produces a massive 382.8 trillion trillion (3.828 x 10<sup>26</sup> ) watts of electromagnetic radiation (Williams 2018) – mostly in the form of visible light, infrared and ultraviolet.</p>
<p>As you get further from the Sun, the intensity, which is the power per unit area declines as the square of the distance</p>
<p>The <strong>solar constant</strong> is the <strong>average</strong> intensity of the Sun’s radiation at the Earth’s distance from the Sun.</p>
<p>It has a value of 1361 watts per square meter (W/m<sup>2</sup>).</p>
<p>(<em>In fact, </em><em>the output of the Sun is variable and fluctuates by 0.1% around this value).</em></p>
<p>Using this number, a simple calculation tells us, the total solar energy hitting the Earth, in one hour (in watt-hours) is</p>
<p><em>solar constant </em>x (1/4 x pi x d^2), <em>area of an Earth-sized disc = </em><em>1 361 W/m<sup>2</sup></em> x <em>1.2748</em> x <em>10<sup>14</sup> m<sup>2 </sup>= 1.73</em> x <em>10<sup>17</sup> watt-hours, or</em><em> 173,000 terawatt hours (TWh)</em></p>
<p><em>one terawatt is one trillion (1,000,000,000,000) watts</em></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The total energy consumed by humanity in 2020 was about 163,000 TWh (Enerdata 2021).</p>
<p>This includes not just energy used to generate electricity, but also for:</p>
<ul>
<li>Electricity for buildings (for example by burning firewood, coal, oil or gas) </li>
<li>Transport (mainly petrol, diesel and aviation fuel)</li>
<li>Commercial </li>
<li>Industrial </li>
</ul>
<p>World electricity consumed in 2020 was about 27,000 TWh.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>The potential for solar energy</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>There are two different methods of generating electricity from sunlight.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">One way is to concentrate the Sun’s energy using mirrors onto a small area and use the heat generated to produce steam to turn a turbine which generates electricity.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">The other way uses arrays of photovoltaic cells (more commonly known as solar panels) to generate electricity directly from sunlight.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">The vast majority of solar electricity is produced this way, much of it by solar systems, like the one in California shown below.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">As the cost of solar panels has significantly increased after 2020, and their efficiency % has reached a plateau, solar system installation likely will not increase as fast as before 2020</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">That means any rosy solar electricity projections, likely will not be achieved by 2050</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">.</p>
<a href="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/energy-topaz-1.png" class="no-line"><img width="382" height="259" src="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/energy-topaz-1.png?w=382" alt="" class="wp-image-3578"/></a><br/>
<p><strong><em>.</em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>A photo taken from space of the Topaz solar system in the US Southwest</em></strong><em>. The system covers an area of nineteen km<sup>2</sup> (not all of which is covered with solar panels) and generates about 1.25 TWh of electricity/year</em></p>
<p><em>This is an area with high levels of solar energy from the sun. The TWh will be much less elsewhere</em></p>
<p></p>
<a href="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1.png" class="no-line"><img width="624" height="329" src="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1.png?w=624" alt="" class="wp-image-4909"/></a><br/>
<p><strong><em>.</em></strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong><em>The growth of solar energy (Our world in data 2021)</em></strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>A key advantage, solar energy has over other forms of green energy is its almost unlimited potential.</p>
<p>In the idealized case, where solar energy could be transferred <strong>from where it is generated to where it is needed and stored without loss (wow, that is a very big idealized if)</strong>, it is necessary to cover only 0.12% of the Earth’s surface with solar panels to meet all of humanity’s energy needs.</p>
<p><em>(The details of this calculation are in the appendix at the end of this article.)</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>The challenges of supply, demand and storage</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>However, things are not that simple in the real world.</p>
<p>The countries which could generate the most solar energy (particularly those in Africa) still have modest energy consumption</p>
<p>However, many densely populated countries, such as in Northern Europe, have high energy consumption, but receive low levels of solar energy.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>For example, the UK has a small surface area, receives much less sunlight than the world average, and is densely populated with a high energy consumption.</p>
<p>Because of its high latitude there is great variation between the solar electricity which could be generated in the sunniest month, which on average is July, and the least sunny month, December.</p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong>: A<em>lthough June has more hours of daylight, it has more cloud cover than July</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>In <strong>July</strong>, the UK would need to cover 2.3% of its land area with solar panels to generate enough solar electricity to meet its energy needs for that month.</p>
<p>In <strong>December,</strong> the UK would have a meager amount of sunlight available. About 23% of its land area would be covered with solar panels. This would clearly not be practical. <strong>The same is true for New England</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>In reality, it is exceedingly unlikely the UK could use solar systems most of the UK’s energy needs</strong>.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>To meet the UK energy needs, averaged over a 12-month period, it would be necessary to cover 5% of its land area with solar panels – a massive amount.</p>
<p>However there a huge fluctuation in solar energy supply during a year, and from year to year, and total energy demand between the winter and summer months.</p>
<p>If the UK were to rely totally on solar energy, an enormous hurdle to overcome would be, <strong>the need for a long-term storage facility, so that the excess energy generated in the sunny months could be accumulated and used in the less sunny months.</strong></p>
<p>The amount of energy needed to be stored would be immense, around 500 TWh. It would be impractical to store this amount of energy in batteries.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>The battery system capital cost</strong> would be (500 TWh x 575/kWh, 2023 pricing) / (0.6, Tesla usage factor x 0.92, Tesla design factor) = <strong>$906 billion, they would last about 15 years</strong></p>
<p><span>Excluded costs/kWh: </span>1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. <b>The excluded costs add at least 10 - 15 c/kWh</b></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a> </p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>The Hydrogen Economy?</strong> In theory, the solar electricity in the more sunny months could be stored by splitting water to make hydrogen which would be stored and used to generate clean energy, or to power hydrogen-fuelled vehicles.</p>
<p>Hydrogen is the most energy dense chemical fuel known.</p>
<p>One kg of hydrogen when burnt releases 33 kWh of energy.</p>
<p>Storing 500 TWh of energy in the form of hydrogen would require (a relatively modest!) 15 million tonnes of hydrogen in storage.</p>
<p>In reality, more energy, from whatever source, would be needed to cover the hydrolysis of pure water to hydrogen, store it in high pressure vessels, distribute it, at high pressure, to users.</p>
<p>The A to Z energy efficiency of such a system would be less than 30%</p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong>: Pipelines and underground storage used for natural gas cannot be used for hydrogen, which needs to be highly pressurized, in leak-proof pressure vessels, at all times.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>Solar Electricity from Africa to the UK</strong>: Another possibility, if the UK wanted to generate most of its energy from solar, would be to build high voltage, high-capacity transmission lines to import solar electricity into the UK.</p>
<p>Solar energy could be generated in North Africa, where the solar irradiance is greater and, being closer to the equator, there is a smaller variation throughout the year. </p>
<p>It could be transmitted to northern Europe over high voltage DC lines, which typically have a loss of around 3.5% per 1000 km.</p>
<p>However, it is unlikely, the UK would want to be dependent on North Africa for the bulk on its energy supplies.</p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Greater role for wind power <em> </em></strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Solar energy plays a minor role, 4.4%, in the UK electricity generation, in 2020.</p>
<p>However, the UK generates most of its renewable energy by wind, 24.8% in 2020.</p>
<p>With its long, windy coastline, it is certain offshore wind will play a greater role in the coming decades, as the UK moves toward becoming an economy which contributes zero carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by the year 2050.</p>
<p></p>
<div><span><b>Important Role of CO2 for Flora Growth</b></span></div>
<div><span><b>.</b></span></div>
<div>Many plants require greater CO2 than 400 ppm to survive and thrive, so they became extinct, along with the fauna they supported. As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts. The current CO2 needs to at least double or triple to reinvigorate the world's flora and fauna.</div>
<div>CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm in 1900 to 423 ppm at end 2023. It increased:</div>
<div>.</div>
<div>1) Greening of the world by at least 10 to 15%, as measured by satellites since 1979.</div>
<div>2) Crop yields per acre.</div>
<div>3) Partially due to burning fossil fuels</div>
<div>.</div>
<div><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-and">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-and</a><br/><p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life</a></p>
<p><span><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-not-pollution-it-s-the-currency-of-life">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-not-pollution-it-s-the-currency-of-life</a></span></p>
</div>
<p>.</p>
<a href="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-2.png" class="no-line"><img width="624" height="351" src="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-2.png?w=624" alt="" class="wp-image-4912"/></a><br/>
<p>Taken from <em><a href="https://www.nationalgrideso.com/news/record-breaking-2020-becomes-greenest-year-britains-electricity" rel="nofollow">https://www.nationalgrideso.com/news/record-breaking-2020-becomes-greenest-year-britains-electricity</a></em></p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="small-scale-generation-for-consumers-off-grid"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><strong>Small scale generation for consumers off grid</strong></span></h2>
<p>.</p>
<p>A key advantage of solar power is its ability to generate electricity on pretty much any scale.</p>
<p>A single solar panel has exactly the same efficiency as a large array of a million panels.</p>
<p>A panel one meter square will generate up to 250 watts of electricity, if connected to a rechargeable battery, to store 5000 watt.hours, it can provide a cheap and reliable source of electricity for off-grid customers.</p>
<p>One 20 W bulb on for 12 hours would need 240 watt.hours.</p>
<p>That is really useful for poor countries, while their <strong>valuable</strong> resources are being plundered by the West.</p>
<p>This is particularly useful in the world’s poorest countries which are mostly situated at sunnier latitudes and have a more modest demand for electricity compared to richer countries.</p>
<p>Once the initial cost of installation has been paid the running costs of a solar array are very low.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>Small Wind Turbines</strong>: In contrast, small wind turbines are not as efficient as larger turbines and so need to be situated in an area of above average wind in order to generate reasonable amounts of power.</p>
<p>They also require a smooth airflow: the smaller turbines are very susceptible to turbulence – so if you live near trees, or in a built-up area, a wind turbine is unlikely to be efficient.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Small Hydro</strong>: Small scale hydroelectric plants which generate less than 5 kW are known as pico-hydro systems.</p>
<p>Although they are relatively cheap to build, they need a constant supply of water running downhill and have moving parts which need to be serviced and maintained.</p>
<p>.</p>
<a href="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1-1.png" class="no-line"><img width="488" height="281" src="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1-1.png?w=488" alt="" class="wp-image-4914"/></a><br/>
<h2 class="has-text-align-center wp-block-heading" id="appendix"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><strong>Appendix</strong></span></h2>
<p><strong>How much of the Earth’s surface would need to be covered to meet humanity’s energy needs?</strong></p>
<p>The first thing we need to consider is the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.</p>
<p>The solar constant is 1,361 W/m<sup>2.</sup></p>
<p>This is the intensity of the radiation which hits the top of the Earth’s atmosphere.</p>
<p>Even on a cloudless day not all this radiation reaches the ground.</p>
<p>Some is reflected back into space, and some is absorbed by the atmosphere.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>On a clear day, if the Sun is directly overhead, around noon-time, the intensity of the radiation hitting the ground, directly from the Sun is around 1,050 W/m<sup>2</sup>.</p>
<p>On top of this, a further 70 W/m<sup>2</sup> is radiated by the bright blue sky, giving a total of 1,120 W/m<sup>2</sup>.</p>
<p><em>(If it is cloudy this figure will be lower.)</em></p>
<a href="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1-2.png" class="no-line"><img width="624" height="343" src="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1-2.png?w=624" alt="" class="wp-image-4917"/></a><br/>
<p>In fact, the Sun can only be directly overhead at tropical latitudes. When the Sun is lower in the sky, the intensity of the solar radiation is reduced because its rays are spread out over a larger area and pass through more atmosphere before they hit the ground.</p>
<a href="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1-3.png" class="no-line"><img width="624" height="294" src="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1-3.png?w=624" alt="" class="wp-image-4919"/></a><br/>
<p>.</p>
<p>The variation in the solar intensity at the equator, and at an equinox. The time axis is in solar time where the Sun rises at 0600, is at its highest at 1200 and sets at 1800. A cloudless day is assumed.</p>
<a href="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1-4.png" class="no-line"><img width="624" height="391" src="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1-4.png?w=624" alt="" class="wp-image-4921"/></a><br/> If we average out over an entire 24 hour cycle, the intensity of solar radiation hitting the Earth’s surface on a cloudless day, at the equator, on the date of an equinox, is approximately 340 W/m<sup>2</sup>. <br/> <br/> The technical term for this is the global horizonal irradiance (GHI), but in this article I will call it the solar irradiance.<br/> <br/> The <a href="https://news.energysage.com/what-are-the-most-efficient-solar-panels-on-the-market/">most efficient solar panels on the market</a> , and most expensive solar panels, convert about 21.5% of solar radiation to electrical energy.<br/> Over an entire 24-hour cycle, the maximum electric power which could be generated is 0.215 x 340 = 73 W/m<sup>2</sup>, which is only 5% of the solar constant.<br/> <br/> <strong>At Higher Latitudes</strong>, the Sun is lower in the sky and the amount of solar electricity which could be generated is less.<br/> In addition, the solar irradiance is reduced by cloud cover.<br/> For example, in the cloudy northwest of Scotland it is on average only 72 W/m<sup>2</sup>, about one fifth of its value at the equator<em>.</em><br/> <br/> <strong>The Whole Earth</strong>: Averaged out over 12 months, and over all locations on the Earth’s surface, the solar irradiance is 170 W/m<sup>2</sup>.</div>
<div class="entry-content"></div>
<div class="entry-content">This means, we would need to cover 622,000 square km of the earth land surface with solar panels to generate all the world’s energy needs, an area about the size of France, only 0.12% of the earth land surface.</div>
<div class="entry-content">Details of the calculation are as follows.<br/> <br/> <a href="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1-5.png" class="no-line"><img src="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1-5.png?w=624" alt="" class="wp-image-4922" width="799" height="243"/></a><br/><p><em>In any large structure which generates solar electricity there must be gaps between the solar panels.</em></p>
<p><em>I have assumed, one sixth of the area of a solar system is <strong>not</strong> covered by panels.</em><br/> <strong> </strong><br/> <strong>Calculation for the UK</strong><br/> .</p>
<p>For the UK, since it is a long way from the equator, there is larger difference in the solar irradiance between the winter and the summer months. For a location near Manchester (in the middle of the UK) daily average solar irradiance is around 200 W/m<sup>2</sup> in July, <strong>but in December, it is ten times lower, about 20 W/m2. </strong></p>
<a href="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1-6.png" class="no-line"><img width="624" height="321" src="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1-6.png?w=624" alt="" class="wp-image-4925"/></a><br/>
<p><em>Data from Science Direct (2014) </em></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Therefore, there is a massive difference between the calculation for July compared to December.</p>
<p><strong>In July,</strong> we would only need to cover 2.3% of the UKs land area with solar panels to generate all its energy needs.</p>
<p><strong>In December</strong>, the solar irradiance is only 20 W/m2, and we would need to cover 23% of the UK land area with solar panels to generate all its energy needs</p>
<p></p>
<a href="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1-7.png" class="no-line"><img src="https://thesciencegeek01.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/image-1-7.png?w=624" alt="" class="wp-image-4927" width="793" height="233"/></a><br/>
<p>Data from Science Direct (2014) and <em>Enerdata (2018)</em></p>
<p><br/> In this table, for simplicity, I’ve assumed, the energy consumption for December and July is the same at 150 TWh.</p>
<p>This is the annual energy consumption of the UK in 2020 divided by twelve.</p>
<p>Clearly more energy is used for heating in December, particularly in people’s homes but these figures refer to total energy consumption.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">Less energy is used for transportation in the cooler months (people travel less in winter)</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">Energy for industrial processes is the same all year round</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">In the summer months, a significant amount of energy is spent on air conditioning particularly in shops and offices – a figure which is likely to increase over the coming years.</p>
<p>Even so, in reality more energy is needed in the winter months.</p>
<p><strong>This means, we would need to cover even more than 23% of the UK land surface to meet its winter energy needs.</strong></p>
<p>———————————————————————————————————</p>
<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="references"><strong>References</strong></h2>
<p></p>
<p>Enerdata (2021) <em>Global energy statistical yearbook 2020, </em>Available at: <em><a href="https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html" rel="nofollow">https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html</a></em> (Accessed: 13 October 2021).<br/> Our world in data (2020) <em>Global renewable energy consumption over the long-run, </em>Available at: <em><a href="https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy</a></em> (Accessed: 13 October 2021).<br/> Science Direct (2014) <em>The UK solar energy resource and the impact of climate change, </em>Available at: <em><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148114002857" rel="nofollow">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148114002857</a></em>(Accessed: 13 October 2021).<br/> Williams, D. R. (2018) <em>NASA Sun fact sheet, </em>Available at: <em><a href="https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html" rel="nofollow">https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html</a></em> (Accessed: 13 October 2021).</p>
<div id="jp-post-flair" class="sharedaddy sd-like-enabled sd-sharing-enabled"><div class="sharedaddy sd-sharing-enabled"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 1</strong></p>
<p><strong>World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine"></a></p>
<p>During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW</p>
<p>Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%</p>
<p>At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%</p>
<p><a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition">https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine</a></p>
<p>Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and</p>
<p>2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>About 300 Maine people would have jobs during the erection phase</p>
<p>The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships</p>
<p>About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through">https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024</p>
<p>The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.</p>
<p>The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment</p>
<p><b><span> </span></b></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost: </span></b><span>Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at <b>$7,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>35.827 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>NOTE</span></b><span>: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about <b>5 c/kWh</b>, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore: </strong>A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. <br/> The cables would need some type of flexible support system</p>
<p>There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People: </strong>Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy. <strong>Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 2</strong></p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind in Norway</strong></p>
<p>Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company</p>
<p>Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.</p>
<p>On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.</p>
<p>The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365</p>
<p>The generators will provide almost all the electricity during <strong>low-wind periods</strong>, and 100% during <strong>high-wind periods</strong>, when rotors are feathered and locked.</p>
<p>The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = <strong>$8,300/kW. See URL</strong></p>
<p>That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher</p>
<p>The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites</p>
<p>The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies </p>
<p>In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.</p>
<p>Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.</p>
<p>If Norwegian units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of the additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus</p>
<p>A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. </p>
<p>The cables would need some type of flexible support system<br/> The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms">https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms</a></p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><span><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="514" height="565"/></a></span></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 3</strong></p>
<p><strong>Offshore Wind in US and UK</strong></p>
<p>Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about wind energy issues that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines of the stock prices of Siemens, Oersted, etc., starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out<br/> All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See costs/kWh in below article</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals</strong></p>
<p>1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government <br/> 2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disfunctional UK government</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about <strong>9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years</strong>, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See URL<br/> <br/> <strong>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><b><span>US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost</span></b></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity production</span></b><span> about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost, c/kWh</span></b><span>: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at <b>$5,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>30.273 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>15.137 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Not included</span></b><span>: At a future 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid: </span></p>
<p><span>Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about <b>2 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid</span></p>
<p><span>Cost of curtailments, about <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites</span></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 4</strong></p>
<p><strong>Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.</strong></p>
<p>Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.</p>
<p>With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.</p>
<p>Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies</p>
<p>The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.</p>
<p>The adders become<strong> exponentially greater,</strong> with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems</p>
<p>Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.</p>
<p>Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.</p>
<p>The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.</p>
<p>W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies</p>
<p>W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,</p>
<p>2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers</p>
<p>3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365 </p>
<p>4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during<strong> low-W/S periods,</strong> and<strong> 100% </strong>during<strong> high-W/S periods, </strong>when rotors are feathered and locked,</p>
<p>5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced</p>
<p>6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="650" height="433"/></a></p>
<p>. </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 5</strong></p>
<p><strong>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING<br/></strong> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>EXCERPT:</strong></p>
<p><strong><span>Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing</span></strong></p>
<p><span>Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, <strong>$5.484 million/y</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, <strong>$6.765 million/y</strong> (10% due to high inflation)</span></p>
<p><span>Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = <strong>$183.7 million</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)</span></p>
<p><span>Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss</span></p>
<p><span>(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh</span></p>
<p><strong><span>At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span>At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><strong><span>Excluded costs/kWh: </span></strong><span>1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. <strong>Excluded costs would add at least 10 - 15 c/kWh</strong><br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE</strong>: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><strong><span>NOTE</span></strong><span>: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia"><span>http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia</span></a></p>
<p><strong><span> </span></strong></p>
<p><b><span>COMMENTS ON CALCULATION: </span></b></p>
<p><span>Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.<br/> Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment</span></p>
<p><span>If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.</span></p>
<p><span>According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.</span></p>
<p><span>A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it the during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening. They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations.</span></p>
<p><span>Remember, you have to draw about 50 MWh from the HV grid to deliver about 40 MWh to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.</span></p>
<p><span>A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 6</strong><strong> </strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/lights-out-solar-power-stocks-crash-after-demand-warning-across-europe">SolarEdge Technologies shares plunged</a> about two weeks ago, after it warned about decreasing European demand. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>SolarEdge Melts Down After Weak Guidance </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Great Green Crash – Solar Down 40%</p>
<p><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 7</strong><strong> </strong></p>
<p>World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>EV Owners Facing Soaring Insurance Costs in the US and UK</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>U.S. Offshore Wind Plans Are Utterly Collapsing</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK<br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 8</strong></p>
<p><strong>Nuclear Plants by Russia</strong></p>
<p>According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW</p>
<p>Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england</a></p>
<p>Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.</p>
<p>The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Egypt</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW, </p>
<p>The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.</p>
<p>As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.<br/> That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Turkey</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>India</strong>, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the <b>Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.</b></p>
<p>Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed</p>
<p></p>
<p>In <strong>Bangladesh</strong>: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the <strong>Rooppur Power Station</strong></p>
<p>Capital cost $12.65 billion<strong> </strong>is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess <a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel" title="Spent nuclear fuel">spent nuclear fuel</a>.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Nuclear</strong>: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions</p>
<p>They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years</p>
<p>Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>Wind</strong>: Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.<br/> They have <strong>lifetime</strong> capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places</p>
<p>They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment <br/> They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Major Competitors</strong>: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.<br/> They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.</p>
<p>American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Tripling Nuclear A Total Fantasy:</strong> During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.</p>
<p><a href="https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html">https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants</p>
<p>Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>New nuclear</strong>: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table</p>
<p>Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, </p>
<p>Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050. </p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Infrastructures and Manpower</strong>: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year">https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year</a>.</p>
<p>. </p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p>Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022</p>
</td>
<td><p>370200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Proposed tripling</p>
</td>
<td><p>3</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>1110600</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Nuclear, MW</p>
</td>
<td><p>740400</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>MW/reactor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors</p>
</td>
<td><p>617</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Reactors, rounded</p>
</td>
<td><p>620</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors/site</p>
</td>
<td><p>2</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Sites</p>
</td>
<td><p>310</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, MWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841311760</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Conversion factor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1000000</p>
</td>
<td><p>%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841</p>
</td>
<td><p>11</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>World total production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>53000</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 9</strong></p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by type of customer</strong></p>
<p>Retail electricity prices are usually highest for residential and commercial consumers because it costs more to distribute electricity to them. Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The retail price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity.</p>
<p>In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢ per kilowatthour (kWh).1</p>
<p>The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were:</p>
<p>Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh; Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh; Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh; Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by locality</strong></p>
<p>Electricity prices vary by locality based on the availability of power plants and fuels, local fuel costs, and pricing regulations. In 2022, the annual average retail electricity price for all types of electric utility customers ranged from <strong>39.85¢ per kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢ per kWh in Wyoming.2.</strong> </p>
<p>Prices in Hawaii are high relative to other states mainly because most of its electricity is generated with petroleum fuels that must be imported into the state.</p>
<p>1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.<br/> 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.</p>
<p>Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/">Electric Power Monthly</a>, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary.</p>
<p>See URL</p>
<p><a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php">https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-...</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the US, the cost of electricity to <strong>ratepayers</strong> ranges from about 8 c/kWh (Wyoming) to 40 c/kWh (Hawaii), for an average of about 12.5 c/kWh.</p>
<p>US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y</p>
<p>With a lot of wind/solar/batteries/EVs by 2050, and ratepayers buying 8000 billion kWh/y, because of electrification, the average rate to ratepayers would be about 25 c/kWh,</p>
<p><strong>US ratepayers would pay:</strong> two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y<br/> <strong>Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented</strong><br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE:</strong> All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollars</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 10</strong></p>
<p><strong>LIFE WITHOUT OIL?</strong></p>
<p>Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro, which can be done theoretically, but only at enormous cost.</p>
<p>Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.</p>
<p>The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.</p>
<p>If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.</p>
<p>Without Crude Oil, there can be no Electricity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Every experienced engineer knows, almost all the parts of wind, solar and battery systems, for electricity generation and storage, from mining materials to manufacturing parts, to installation and commissioning, in addition to the infrastructures that produce materials, parts, specialized ships, etc., are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.</strong></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<div class="entry-content magazinenp-parts-item"><p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<div class="wp-block-file"></div>
<div id="wpd-post-rating" class="wpd-not-rated"><div class="wpd-rating-wrap"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>"Treason!": Bombshell Report Reveals Biden Has Secretly Flown 320,000 Illegals INTO The United Statestag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-06:4401701:BlogPost:2592632024-03-06T02:30:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>"Treason!": Bombshell Report Reveals Biden Has Secretly Flown 320,000 Illegals INTO The United States</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/treason-bombshell-report-reveals-biden-has-secretly-flown-320%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/treason-bombshell-report-reveals-biden-has-secretly-flown-320 </a>;</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER…</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>"Treason!": Bombshell Report Reveals Biden Has Secretly Flown 320,000 Illegals INTO The United States</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/treason-bombshell-report-reveals-biden-has-secretly-flown-320%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/treason-bombshell-report-reveals-biden-has-secretly-flown-320 </a>;</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN</p>
<p></p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p>A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit has revealed that <strong>the Biden administration has flown at least 320,000 migrants <em>into</em> the United States</strong> in an effort to reduce the number of crossings at the southern border, according to Todd Bensman of the <a href="https://cis.org/Bensman/Government-Admission-Biden-Parole-Flights-Create-Security-Vulnerabilities-US-Airports">Center for Immigration Studies</a>.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/df9c2928-a21a-4136-b6f9-aea1ea4c70c8-smallScale_thumb_46056_80.jpg?itok=sDyzENys"><img height="281" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/df9c2928-a21a-4136-b6f9-aea1ea4c70c8-smallScale_thumb_46056_80.jpg?itok=sDyzENys" alt=""/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>"The program at the center of the FOIA litigation is perhaps the most enigmatic and least-known of the Biden administration’s uses of the CBP One cellphone scheduling app, even though it is responsible for almost invisibly importing by air 320,000 aliens with no legal right to enter the United States since it got underway in late 2022," wrote Bensman.</p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/21841313772,21778456762/zerohedge/in_content_video_0__container__"></div>
</div>
<p>Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had initially refused to disclose information about the flights, which use <strong>a cell phone app, CBP One, to arrange</strong>.</p>
<p>"Under these legally dubious parole programs, <strong>aliens who cannot legally enter the country use the CBP One app to apply for travel authorization and temporary humanitarian release from those airports</strong>.</p>
<p>The parole program allows for two-year periods of legal status during which adults are eligible for work authorization," Bensman continues.</p>
<p>The flights resulted in illegal immigrants being placed in at least <strong>43 American cities</strong> from January through December 2023.</p>
<p>Under the terms of their release, migrants are able to remain in the US for two years without obtaining legal status, and are meanwhile <strong>eligible for work authorization</strong>.</p>
<p>The Biden administration initially <strong>refused to disclose which airports undocumented aliens were being flown into</strong>, citing a 'law enforcement exception,' new information reveals that the government thought 'bad actors' might pose a safety risk or create law enforcement opportunities - with CBP lawyers writing that revealing the specific airports would "reveal information about the relative number of individuals arriving, and thus resources expended at particular airports."</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>Treason indeed!</strong></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p>In response to the CIS report, Elon Musk wrote on X: "Treason indeed! Ushering in vast numbers of illegals is why Secretary Mayorkas was impeached by the House," adding "They are importing voters. This is why groups on the far left fight so hard to stop voter ID requirements, under the absurd guise of protecting the right to vote."</p>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"></div>
<p>Musk also suggested that the national security threat posed by the program makes it "highly probable that the groundwork is being laid for something far worse than 9/11."</p>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"></div>
<p>Meanwhile, in 2022 it was revealed that the Biden administration was <strong>flying illegal immigrants all over the US on redeye flights</strong>, according to the <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/04/15/biden-administration-resumes-migrant-flights-to-airport-outside-nyc/"><em>NY Post</em></a> (and noted by <em><a href="https://modernity.news/2024/03/05/elon-musk-warns-groundwork-is-being-laid-for-something-far-worse-than-9-11/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=elon-musk-warns-groundwork-is-being-laid-for-something-far-worse-than-9-11">modernity.news</a></em>)</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>WE ARE SOOOO BEING SCREWED, AFTER THE COUP D'ETAT OF 2020</strong></p>
</div>
</div>House Dems Implode Over Supreme Court Decision; Raskin Crafting Legislation to Bar Trump from Ballottag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-04:4401701:BlogPost:2590662024-03-04T23:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;">House Dems Implode Over Supreme Court Decision; Raskin Crafting Legislation to Bar Trump from Ballot</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/house-dems-implode-over-supreme-court-decision-raskin-crafting%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/house-dems-implode-over-supreme-court-decision-raskin-crafting </a>;</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN…</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">House Dems Implode Over Supreme Court Decision; Raskin Crafting Legislation to Bar Trump from Ballot</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/house-dems-implode-over-supreme-court-decision-raskin-crafting%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/house-dems-implode-over-supreme-court-decision-raskin-crafting </a>;</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"></p>
<p><strong><em>Update (1400ET):</em></strong> Not satisfied to let the Supreme Court-enforced Democratic process play out, <strong>House Democrats are now preparing legislation to try and keep Trump off the ballot</strong>.</p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p></p>
<p>"Congress will have to try and act," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, in a comment to creepy deep state mouthpiece <em>Axios</em> (which swears the border is <a href="https://twitter.com/axios/status/1761320315324359134">extra-secure!</a>).</p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/21841313772,21778456762/zerohedge/in_content_video_0__container__"></div>
<div>Raskin, a former member of the <a class="gtmContentClick" href="https://www.axios.com/2022/12/23/january-6-committee-final-report" target="_self">Jan. 6 select committee</a>, said he is already crafting the bill, telling Axios, "I'm working on it – today."</div>
</div>
<ul>
<li><em>Raskin pointed to <a class="gtmContentClick" href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7906/text?r=1&s=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legislation</a> he introduced with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) in 2022 creating a pathway for the Justice Department to sue to keep candidates off the ballot under the 14th Amendment.</em></li>
<li><em><strong>"We are hoping to revise it in light of the Supreme Court's decision,"</strong> Raskin said. -<a href="https://www.axios.com/2024/03/04/jamie-raskin-trump-ballot-ruling-supreme-court">Axios</a></em></li>
</ul>
<p>.</p>
<p>"I don't have a lot of hope that Speaker [Mike] Johnson will allow us to bring enforcement legislation to the floor, but we have to try and do it," said Raskin, who said he'll 'beseech' Republicans to join the bill.</p>
<p>Very Democratic, Jamie.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong><em>Update (1320ET):</em></strong> Former President Trump has responded to the Supreme Court's ruling keeping him on the ballot in Colorado (and therefore, everywhere else).</p>
<p>According to Trump, the decision was "very well crafted," and "will go a long way toward bringing our country together."</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Trump also slammed Biden for 'weaponizing' prosecutors against him.</p>
<p>"President Biden... Fight your fight yourself. Don't use prosecutors and judges to go after your opponent... our country is much bigger than that," Trump said, speaking from Mar-a-Lago.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>The US Supreme Court has ruled in a <u>unanimous</u> decision that former President Donald Trump will be allowed to remain on primary and general ballots</strong> <strong>in the 2024 US election</strong>, after several states removed the former president under the 14th Amendment.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/trump%20head%20face_2.jpg?itok=glEpu4y9"><img height="292" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/trump%20head%20face_2.jpg?itok=glEpu4y9" alt=""/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The decision comes after several states - kicked off by the Colorado Supreme Court - ruled that Trump was disqualified from appearing on ballots, citing an interpretation of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment provision which stipulates that candidates who engaged in an “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States - which Trump has not been charged with or convicted of - should be prevented from holding office.</p>
<p>Maine’s Democratic secretary of state made a similar decision days later, and a judge in Illinois recently issued a similar ruling to prevent his appearance on ballots<em>,</em> according to the <em>Epoch Times</em>.</p>
<p>This is the <strong>first time in US history that the US Supreme Court</strong> <strong>has considered section 3 of the 14th Amendment</strong>. The decision comes after a Sunday announcement that the Court would come to a decision today.</p>
<p>And of course, <strong>the left is now trying to discredit the Supreme Court</strong> despite the fact that this was a unanimous decision.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>As the <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/us-supreme-court-ruling-on-trump-ballot-case-could-come-monday-5599591?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge"><em>Epoch Times</em></a> notes further, Lawyers for the former president asked the nine justices to reverse the Colorado court decision because only Congress can make a determination as who can become president.</p>
<p><strong>The Colorado court’s decision was “the first time in the history of the United States that the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major-party presidential candidate,” his lawyers said, concluding that it “is not and cannot be correct.”</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>He noted, he <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-trump-said-to-supporters-on-jan-6-before-their-capitol-riot-11610498173">told</a> supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically” during a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, before protesters and rioters entered the U.S. Capitol during the certification of electoral votes for the 2020 election, which forms the basis of the “insurrection” accusations against him.</p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Justices for the Colorado Supreme Court had argued that they <em>believed</em> President Trump engaged in an insurrection because of his activity before and on Jan. 6, 2021</strong>, during the breach of the U.S. Capitol building.</p>
<p>The former president, however, was <strong>never charged or convicted of insurrection</strong>.</p>
<p>He was charged by a federal special counsel in connection with the 2020 election, but not for insurrection, rebellion, or related charges.</p>
<p>.</p>
<blockquote><p><em>“President Trump asks us to hold that Section Three disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” the majority for the Colorado Supreme Court wrote in its 4–3 ruling.</em></p>
<p><em>“Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section Three.”</em></p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Oral Arguments</h2>
<p>During oral arguments in front of the justices in early February, <strong>at least six of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-chief-justice-roberts-warns-of-daunting-consequences-of-trump-ballot-ban-5584046">appeared</a> to be at least skeptical of some of the claims made by the lawyer representing several Colorado voters</strong> who brought the lawsuit against the Republican front-runner.</p>
<blockquote><p><em>“It’ll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election,” Chief Justice Roberts said, referring to the potential effect of the Colorado court’s ruling.</em></p>
<p><em>“That’s a pretty daunting consequence.”</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Justice Clarence Thomas asked the lawyer, Jason Murray, why there weren’t many examples of individual states’ disqualifying candidates under the 14th Amendment after the Civil War.</p>
<blockquote><p><em>“There were a plethora of confederates still around, there were any number of people who would continue to either run for state offices or national offices, so it would seem—that would suggest there would at least be a few examples of national candidates being disqualified,” Justice Thomas, a Bush appointee, said.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Justice Elena Kagan, considered a member of the court’s liberal wing, asked the attorney why one state would have power to determine which candidates should be on the ballot for a nationwide election.</p>
<p><em><strong>“Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but also for the nation?” she asked the attorney, adding the move would be “quite extraordinary.”</strong></em></p>
<p> </p>
</div>
<div class="Recirculator_container__w7Z_e"></div>
</div>In Unanimous Decision, Supreme Court Rules Trump to Remain On Presidential Ballotstag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-04:4401701:BlogPost:2593482024-03-04T16:05:16.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>In Unanimous Decision, Supreme Court Rules Trump to Remain On Presidential Ballots</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"> </p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN</p>
<br />
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p><strong>The US Supreme Court has ruled in a <u>unanimous</u> decision that former President Donald Trump will be allowed to remain on…</strong></p>
</div>
</div>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>In Unanimous Decision, Supreme Court Rules Trump to Remain On Presidential Ballots</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"> </p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN</p>
<br />
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p><strong>The US Supreme Court has ruled in a <u>unanimous</u> decision that former President Donald Trump will be allowed to remain on primary and general ballots</strong> <strong>in the 2024 US election</strong>, after several states removed the former president under the 14th Amendment.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/trump%20head%20face_2.jpg?itok=glEpu4y9"><img height="292" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/trump%20head%20face_2.jpg?itok=glEpu4y9" alt=""/></a></p>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered">.</div>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/21841313772,21778456762/zerohedge/in_content_video_0__container__"></div>
<br />
</div>
<p>The decision comes after several states - kicked off by the Colorado Supreme Court - ruled, Trump was disqualified from appearing on ballots, citing <strong>their</strong> interpretation of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment provision, which stipulates, candidates who engaged in an “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States - <strong>which Trump has not been charged with or convicted of</strong> - should be prevented from holding office.</p>
<p>Maine’s Democrat secretary of state made a similar decision days later, and a judge in Illinois recently issued a similar ruling to prevent his appearance on ballots<em>,</em> according to the <em>Epoch Times</em>.</p>
<p>This is the <strong>first time in US history, the US Supreme Court</strong> <strong>has considered section 3 of the 14th Amendment</strong>.</p>
<p>The decision comes after a Sunday announcement that the Court would come to a decision today.</p>
<p>And of course, <strong>the left is now trying to discredit the Supreme Court</strong> despite the fact that this was a unanimous decision.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>As the <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/us-supreme-court-ruling-on-trump-ballot-case-could-come-monday-5599591?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge"><em>Epoch Times</em></a> notes further, Trump's lawyers asked SCOTUS to reverse the Colorado court decision because only Congress can make a determination as who can become president.</p>
<p><strong>The Colorado court’s decision was “the first time in the history of the United States, the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major-party presidential candidate,” Trump's lawyers said, concluding that it “is not and cannot be correct.”</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>After the ruling, President Trump wrote on social media that he is “not an insurrectionist,” <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111619029800271297">adding</a> that President Joe Biden is one.</p>
<p>He also noted, he <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-trump-said-to-supporters-on-jan-6-before-their-capitol-riot-11610498173">told</a> supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically” during a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, before protesters and rioters entered the U.S. Capitol during the certification of electoral votes for the 2020 election, which forms the basis of the “insurrection” accusations against him.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>Justices for the Colorado Supreme Court had argued that they believed President Trump engaged in an insurrection because of his activity before and on Jan. 6, 2021</strong>, during the breach of the U.S. Capitol building.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>The former president, however, was never charged or convicted of insurrection</strong>.</p>
<p>He was charged (but not convicted) by a federal special counsel in connection with the 2020 election, but not for insurrection, rebellion, or related charges.</p>
<blockquote><p><em>“President Trump asks us to hold that Section Three disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist, except the most powerful one, and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” the majority for the Colorado Supreme Court wrote in its 4–3 ruling.</em></p>
<p><em>“Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section Three.”</em></p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Oral Arguments</h2>
<p>During oral arguments in front of the justices in early February, <strong>at least six of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-chief-justice-roberts-warns-of-daunting-consequences-of-trump-ballot-ban-5584046">appeared</a> to be at least skeptical of some of the claims made by the lawyer representing several Colorado voters, </strong>who brought the lawsuit against the Republican front-runner.</p>
<blockquote><p><em>“It’ll come down to just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election,” Chief Justice Roberts said, referring to the potential effect of the Colorado court’s ruling.</em></p>
<p><em>“That’s a pretty daunting consequence.”</em></p>
<p><em>.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Justice Clarence Thomas asked the lawyer, Jason Murray, why there weren’t many examples of individual states’ disqualifying candidates under the 14th Amendment after the Civil War.</p>
<p>.</p>
<blockquote><p><em>“There were a plethora of confederates still around, there were any number of people who would continue to either run for state offices or national offices, so it would seem—that would suggest there would at least be a few examples of national candidates being disqualified,” Justice Thomas, a Bush appointee, said.</em></p>
<p><em>.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Justice Elena Kagan, considered a member of the court’s liberal wing, asked the attorney why one state would have power to determine which candidates should be on the ballot for a nationwide election.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><em><strong>“Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but also for the nation?” she asked the attorney, adding the move would be “quite extraordinary.”</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>
<p><strong>It looks like self-serving Democrats were engaging in lawfare to illegally keep Trump off State ballots.</strong></p>
<p><strong>All that will backfire in November.</strong></p>
</div>
</div>'A Complete Disaster for The German Govt' - Scholz Promises Probe Into "Very Serious" Leaked Recording Of Plan To Destroy Crimea Bridgetag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-03:4401701:BlogPost:2591632024-03-03T19:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;">'A Complete Disaster for The German Govt' - Scholz Promises Probe Into "Very Serious" Leaked Recording Of Plan To Destroy Crimea Bridge</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-complete-disaster-for-the-german-govt-scholz-promises-probe%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-complete-disaster-for-the-german-govt-scholz-promises-probe </a>;</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN…</p>
<p></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">'A Complete Disaster for The German Govt' - Scholz Promises Probe Into "Very Serious" Leaked Recording Of Plan To Destroy Crimea Bridge</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-complete-disaster-for-the-german-govt-scholz-promises-probe%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-complete-disaster-for-the-german-govt-scholz-promises-probe </a>;</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN</p>
<p></p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/germany-confirms-leaked-audio-its-top-generals-discussing-blowing-crimean-bridge">Yesterday, we detailed the leak of a wiretapped telephone conversation</a> in which senior German officers discuss the use of German Taurus missiles, training, the capabilities of this system and the possibility of destroying the Crimean bridge..</p>
<p>They revealed many interesting facts. <strong>Embarrassing for the Germans, who have now launched an investigation...</strong></p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/21841313772,21778456762/zerohedge/in_content_video_0__container__"></div>
<div class="acw ac-widget-ph ac-reset"><div id="ac-lre-player-ph-ext-BkQq8nrWkv5YyznwOFBBTbuML2DNE5Qy" class="ac-lre-player-ph-ext ac-lre-ph-playlist-hide-scroll-bar"><div class="h0011r00002RYAhn_1419 d0011r00002RYAhn_1419 vjs-hide-top-articles" id="ac-lre-player-ph-BkQq8nrWkv5YyznwOFBBTbuML2DNE5Qy"><div class="w0011r00002RYAhn_1419 luminous-theme is-floated-outer-title"><div class="brand-container font-fix"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><a href="https://www.ft.com/content/6effcf4d-c93e-42f4-96ae-20a0fd9e0c44?segmentId=b0d7e653-3467-12ab-c0f0-77e4424cdb4c">As The FT reports,</a> German chancellor Olaf Scholz has promised a full investigation after Russia published a recording of a phone call between senior German air force officers in which they appeared to discuss supplying missiles to Ukraine.</p>
<p>Speaking on the sidelines of a meeting with Pope Francis in Rome, Scholz described the incident as <strong>a “very serious affair”.</strong></p>
<blockquote><p><em><strong>“It will be investigated very carefully, intensively and quickly,”</strong> he said.</em></p>
<p><em><strong>“It is also necessary to do so.”</strong></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Politicians from parties in Scholz’s coalition expressed concern that Russia may have eavesdropped on other sensitive conversations, and that government communications may no longer be adequately protected.</p>
<p>The German defence ministry said:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>“According to our assessment, a Luftwaffe conversation was tapped. We cannot say for sure whether changes were made to the recorded or transcribed version that is circulating on social media.”</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Konstantin von Notz, a senior Green MP, said <strong>it must be swiftly established if the “eavesdropping scandal is a one-time event or a structural problem”.</strong></p>
<p>Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, head of the Bundestag defence committee, told the news agency RND that the Russians were trying to scare Scholz off from allowing the delivery of Taurus missiles.</p>
<p><strong>But the cat is out of the bag.</strong></p>
<p>Adding more color to what we already know, <a href="https://voicefromrussia.ch/en/how-the-german-armed-forces-want-to-destroy-the-crimean-bridge/">Peter Hanseler breaks down, via Voice From Russia,</a> the full content of the leaked call and shows how the NATO states are already knee-deep in the Ukraine conflict as active warring parties.</p>
<h2><strong>Participants</strong></h2>
<p>The following persons – some of whom were not fully identified – took part in this conversation:</p>
<h4><em>Lieutenant General Ingo Gerhartz – Inspector General of the German Air Force</em></h4>
<p><em>Link to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Gerhartz">Wikipedia</a></em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/krim-02.jpg?itok=KNTKFLgc"><img height="347" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/krim-02.jpg?itok=KNTKFLgc" alt=""/></a></em></p>
<p><em>Lieutenant General Ingo Gerhartz – Image: Wikipedia</em></p>
<h4>Franz Gräfe – Brigadegeneral</h4>
<p><em>Link to <a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gr%C3%A4fe">Wikipedia</a>.</em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/krim-03.jpg?itok=WKQLBSko"><img height="500" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/krim-03.jpg?itok=WKQLBSko" alt=""/></a></em></p>
<p><em>Brigadier General Franz Gräfe – Image: Defense IQ</em></p>
<h4>Two employees – Fenske and Florstädt (spelling not clear)</h4>
<p>Members of the Bundeswehr specialists – not identified.</p>
<h2><strong>Purpose of the conversation</strong></h2>
<p>From the telephone conference it emerges that the aim of this discussion was to prepare a meeting between these participants and Foreign Minister Boris Pistorius, during which the possibilities and difficulties of using the Taurus system would be presented.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/krim-04.jpg?itok=sMWNqxmk"><img height="278" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/krim-04.jpg?itok=sMWNqxmk" alt=""/></a></p>
<p><em>The Inspector General of the German Air Force, Ingo Gerhartz, welcomes Federal Defence Minister Boris Pistorius at Holzdorf Air Base, 12 October 2023 – Source: RT</em></p>
<h2>The conversation in full length</h2>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"></div>
<h2>Summary – the most important points</h2>
<h4>Preliminary remarks</h4>
<p>Here you can read the notes that I made during the course of the interview, which lasted just under 38 minutes. The subtitles indicate the approximate time of the comments made. It is not possible to determine exactly which person said what in this conversation</p>
<h4>The first 5 minutes</h4>
<p>For the first 5 minutes, the conversation is a chat between the employees, who talk about private and business matters, until Gerhartz joins the conversation.</p>
<p>The only interesting thing is that one of the employees promises the other to send business information via WhatsApp. It seems that security is not at a high level. This attitude may also be the reason why this conversation made it into the public domain.</p>
<h4>Minute 05:30</h4>
<p>Gerhartz leads the conversation. Pistorius wants to get deeply involved in Taurus. Scholz is blocking it. He had been asked by a journalist whether the reason for the blocking was that this system did not work at all. That is of course not true. You have to give [Pistorius] a good presentation.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/krim-05.jpg?itok=rvq4reFn"><img height="281" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/krim-05.jpg?itok=rvq4reFn" alt=""/></a></p>
<p><em>Taurus (cruise missile) – Source: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_KEPD_350">Wikipedia</a></em></p>
<h4>Minute 10:30</h4>
<p>You don’t just have to present problems, but also solutions.</p>
<p>When it comes to mission planning, the British use “reachback” and then have a few people on the ground. [This probably means that the missions are planned outside of Ukraine and then implemented with people on the ground (British military personnel).</p>
<h4>Minute 10:53</h4>
<p>There is talk that the British on the ground [Ukraine] could support the Germans. The planning could go through <a href="https://www.mbda-systems.com/">MBDA</a> [<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA">producer of Taurus]</a> – how should that be done – question to the employees.</p>
<h4>Minute 11:50</h4>
<p>There are two points that are sensitive: firstly, the delivery and secondly, the adaptation of the aircraft (Sukhoi). This would take about 8 months.</p>
<h4>Minute 13:50</h4>
<p>The manufacturer needs about 6 months to convert Taurus for the Sukhoi or F-16.</p>
<h4>Minute 14.23</h4>
<p>Training on operation would be provided by the manufacturer. The Bundeswehr would take over the tactical training, which would take place in Germany and last approx. 3-4 months.</p>
<h4>Minute 15:10</h4>
<p>As long as the training lasted, the British could help. Databases and satellite images would come via the manufacturer. The Ukrainians have more high-tech than the German air force, so it is possible that the Ukrainians could shorten the above-mentioned time required.</p>
<h4>Minute 17:00</h4>
<p>Ausbildung: 3 Wochen beim Hersteller und 4 Wochen bei der Luftwaffe. Planung von Einsätzen: Wir müssen unterstützen: Unsere Leute brauchen 1 Jahr für die Ausbildung. Mit Unterstützung der Luftwaffe, 10 Wochen Ausbildung für die Ukrainer.</p>
<h4>Minute 18:10</h4>
<p>The support could be provided on-line from Germany.</p>
<h4>Minute 19:00</h4>
<p>Political risk of direct involvement: Data does not come directly from us, but via the manufacturer.</p>
<h4>Minute 19.:20</h4>
<p>Target data combined with satellite images must be processed in Büchel (Germany) and could then be transported by car through Poland to Ukraine [bypassing direct participation in the war].</p>
<h4>Minute 20:15</h4>
<p>Response time: Order to “Airborne” we would need 6 hours, if it has to be more precise than 3 meters, 12 hours.</p>
<h4>Minute 21.15</h4>
<p>There are already a lot of Americans walking around in civilian clothes. The Ukrainians have satellite data.</p>
<h4>Minute 21.45</h4>
<p>Russian air defense: We can take evasive action because we are flying low. Storm Shadow flies over waypoints – we fly around the Russian systems.</p>
<h4>Minute 22:40</h4>
<p>We need about 50 Taurus in the first round – that won’t change the war, even if we deliver another 50, but then we’re done, there’s no more.</p>
<h4>Minute 23.:20</h4>
<p>The French and British will say, now it’s your turn to deliver.</p>
<h4>Minute 23:40</h4>
<p>Unique selling point compared to Storm Shadow in terms of robustness, air defense and altitude. There are two interesting “target types”: firstly the bridge in the east [Crimean Bridge] and then also ammunition depots. The Crimean Bridge is difficult to reach and the pillars are small. Taurus can do that, Storm Shadow can’t.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/krim-07.jpg?itok=1wMTBzAH"><img height="438" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/krim-07.jpg?itok=1wMTBzAH" alt=""/></a></p>
<h4>Minute 24:25</h4>
<p>Three routes picked out. Basically feasible with our technology. Limiting factor: SU-24.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/krim-06.jpg?itok=AzxF4G4f"><img height="332" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/krim-06.jpg?itok=AzxF4G4f" alt=""/></a></p>
<p><em>Suchoi – SU-24 – Quelle: <a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suchoi_Su-24">Wikipedia</a></em></p>
<p><strong>The Ukrainians don’t have many left – it’s in the single digits [less than 10].</strong></p>
<p>Pilots can be trained quickly, but training in “image planning” will not be quick [when the Taurus flies low, terrain images have to be loaded].</p>
<h4>Minute 26:15</h4>
<p>The Crimean bridge is as big as an airfield. You need 10-20 Taurus for that. “If we go for the pillars, we might just make a hole and then there we are. We have to give the Ukrainians all the data, otherwise it won’t work.</p>
<h4>Minute 27:50</h4>
<p>Bridge is extremely important for Russia – “centerpiece” – militarily and politically. No longer quite as important, as they also have the land bridge. But the Russians are still afraid of using the direct link via Ukraine. [Note: The Russians are currently expanding the railroad lines overland].</p>
<h4>Minute 29:05</h4>
<p>[Now it’s getting political again]. Can we use the trick of running all the data through MBDA [manufacturer] so as not to show a direct link to the Bundeswehr Ukraine? We plan the data and then drive it by car through Poland to Ukraine. It makes no difference “involved is involved”.</p>
<h4>Minute 29:30</h4>
<p>If we do the training properly, it takes 4 months. During this phase, we ask the British to take over. Some kind of interim solution. “Just imagine if this gets to the press”.</p>
<h4>Minute 30.15</h4>
<p>If the political will is there, then someone from Ukraine should come over here. If the condition is no direct involvement in mission planning, then it will take longer and the result will not be so good. Then you can’t do everything with Taurus, but that doesn’t mean you can’t do anything with it.</p>
<h4>Minute 31.:35</h4>
<p>Variants: “Quick-Track/Low-Track”. Quick results, such as ammunition depots, but not the bridge.</p>
<h4>Minute 32.20</h4>
<p>Planning to destroy ammunition depots difficult due to massive air defenses. We don’t know where the Russian air defenses are; hopefully the Ukrainians do.</p>
<h4>Minute 33:18</h4>
<p>If we have all the data and can use it, we can assert ourselves. The less data and training, the less assertiveness.</p>
<h4>Minute 35.23</h4>
<p>The longer the decision to deliver the Taurus is delayed, the longer it will take to implement. First simple targets [ammunition depots] then more complex ones [Crimean Bridge] or ask the British for support.</p>
<h2><strong>Conclusion</strong></h2>
<p>The mere fact that this telephone conversation was intercepted and has now been published raises questions.</p>
<p><strong>Firstly, no one knows whether this is an isolated case or whether the Russian secret services can intercept entire sections of German or even NATO communications.</strong></p>
<p>Two details that emerge from the conversation point to negligence: At the beginning of the conversation, one of the participants tells another that he will send him data via WhatsApp. If I understood correctly, this was work-related information. It also emerges from the conversation that one of the participants is conducting the conversation from a hotel room in Singapore. That’s very revealing and the German side may have been more than negligent.</p>
<p><strong>It is further explained that 50 or even 100 Taurus would be delivered, but that these would have no influence on the course of the war.</strong> The question arises as to why this is even being considered – the answer is clear: marketing and politics and the absolute will to escalate.</p>
<p>The officers assume that between 10 and 20 Taurus cruise missiles would be needed to destroy the Crimean Bridge, as the bridge is massive and difficult to destroy. The fixation on destroying this bridge between the Russian mainland and Crimea seems almost like a mania, as the Russians are building a connection via the land bridge from Mariupol, which is a safer alternative to the Crimean Bridge.</p>
<p><strong>Many parts of the conversation revolve around efforts to support the Ukrainians directly – including people on the ground – and thus to play a direct role in attacks on Russia. They are looking for solutions and “tricks” to prevent this from appearing to be the case.</strong></p>
<p>It is clear from the conversation that the Americans and British are already fully, directly and locally involved in the war in Ukraine; we pointed this out a year ago in our article “<a href="https://voicefromrussia.ch/en/sleepwalkers-at-work-world-war-3-has-probably-already-begun/">Sleepwalkers at work: World War 3 has probably already begun</a>” – now the proof is there.</p>
<p>Everyone involved is therefore aware that they are waging war against Russia, i.e. the NATO-Russia war is already a reality. This means that Russia is also entitled to attack NATO targets. The fact that the Russian government has not (yet) done so indicates once again that Russia is pursuing a de-escalating course, while the West is fully committed to escalation.</p>
<p>This leak is a complete disaster for the German government. <strong>It shows hesitation, incompetence and dishonesty. Finally, I noticed that the talks were conducted in a very uncoordinated and unstructured manner.</strong></p>
<p>It would be wiser if Chancellor Scholz were to bring himself to negotiate with the Russians, because <strong>this is no way to win a war against Russia, but to do everything possible to provoke a world war. Sometimes I wonder whether there are actually people who are deliberately pursuing this goal.</strong></p>
</div>
</div>'Very Bizarre': Scientists Expose Major Problems with Climate Change Datatag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-03:4401701:BlogPost:2590522024-03-03T15:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>'Very Bizarre': Scientists Expose Major Problems with Climate Change Data</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/very-bizarre-scientists-expose-major-problems-with-climate">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/very-bizarre-scientists-expose-major-problems-with-climate…</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>'Very Bizarre': Scientists Expose Major Problems with Climate Change Data</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/very-bizarre-scientists-expose-major-problems-with-climate">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/very-bizarre-scientists-expose-major-problems-with-climate</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/prominent-scientists-challenge-key-data-underlying-climate-change-agenda-5593800?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge&src_src=partner&src_cmp=ZeroHedge">Authored by Alex Newman via The Epoch Times</a> </p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Temperature records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that then forecast dangerous manmade global warming repercussions have serious problems and even corruption in the data</strong>, multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue told The Epoch Times.</p>
<p>.</p>
<img alt="" height="333" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/image_92%2875%29.jpg?itok=2zTD09FR" width="500"/><br/> <em>(Illustration by The Epoch Times, Getty Images, Shutterstock)</em><br/>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/21841313772,21778456762/zerohedge/in_content_video_0__container__"></div>
</div>
<p>.</p>
<p>The Biden administration leans on its latest National Climate Assessment <a href="https://nca2023.globalchange.gov/">report</a>as evidence that global warming is accelerating because of human activities. The document states that human emissions of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the Earth.</p>
<p>The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds the same view, and its leaders are pushing major global policy changes in response.</p>
<p>But <strong>scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields are pushing back.</strong> In peer-reviewed studies, they cite a wide range of flaws with the global temperature data used to reach the dire conclusions; they say it’s time to reexamine the whole narrative.</p>
<p>Problems with temperature data include a lack of geographically and historically representative data, contamination of the records by heat from urban areas, and corruption of the data introduced by a process known as “homogenization.”</p>
<p>The flaws are so significant that they make the temperature data—and the models based on it—essentially useless or worse, three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) explained.</p>
<p>The experts said that when data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis” supposedly caused by human activities disappears.</p>
<p>Instead, natural climate variability offers a much better explanation for what is being observed, they said.</p>
<p>Some experts told The Epoch Times that deliberate fraud appeared to be at work, while others suggested more innocent explanations.</p>
<p><strong>But regardless of why the problems exist, the implications of the findings are hard to overstate.</strong></p>
<p>With no climate crisis, the justification for trillions of dollars in government spending and costly changes in public policy to restrict carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions collapses, the scientists explained in a series of interviews about their research.</p>
<p>“For the last 35 years, the words of the IPCC have been taken to be gospel,” according to astrophysicist and CERES founder Willie Soon. Until recently, he was a researcher working with the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard & Smithsonian.</p>
<p>“And indeed, climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century—heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,” Mr. Soon told The Epoch Times.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>“But good science demands that scientists are encouraged to question the IPCC’s dogma. The supposed purity of the global temperature record is one of the most sacred dogmas of the IPCC.”</p>
<p>The latest U.S. government National Climate Assessment report states: “Human activities are changing the climate.</p>
<p>“The evidence for warming across multiple aspects of the Earth system is incontrovertible, and the science is unequivocal that increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases are driving many observed trends and changes.”</p>
<p>In particular, according to the report, this is because of human activities such as burning fossil fuels for transportation, energy, and agriculture.</p>
<p>Looking at timescales highlights major problems with this narrative, Mr. Soon said.</p>
<p>“<strong>When people ask about global warming or climate change, it is essential to ask, ‘Since when?</strong>’ The data shows that it has warmed since the 1970s, but that this followed a period of cooling from the 1940s,” he said.</p>
<p><strong>While it is “definitely warmer” now than in the 19th century, Mr. Soon said that temperature proxy data show the 19th century “was exceptionally cold.”</strong></p>
<p>“It was the end of a period that’s known as the Little Ice Age,” he said.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179">Data taken</a> from rural temperature stations, ocean measurements, weather balloons, satellite measurements, and temperature proxies such as tree rings, glaciers, and lake sediments, “show that the climate has always changed,” Mr. Soon said.</p>
<p>“They show that the current climate outside of cities is not unusual,” he said, adding that heat from urban areas is improperly affecting the data.</p>
<p>“If we exclude the urban temperature data that only represents 3 percent of the planet, then we get a very different picture of the climate.”</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>.<img alt="" height="333" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/image_92%2877%29.jpg?itok=I3mnb1Y2" width="500"/></p>
<br/> <em>A meteorologist launches a weather balloon measuring the zero degree isotherm at MeteoSwiss station in Payerne, Switzerland, on Sept. 7, 2023. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)</em></div>
<div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><span style="font-size: 1.5em;">.</span><h2>Homogenization</h2>
<p>One issue that scientists say is corrupting the data stems from an obscure process known as “homogenization.”</p>
<p>According to climate scientists working with governments and the U.N., the algorithms used for homogenization are designed to correct, as much as possible, various biases that might exist in the raw temperature data.</p>
<p>These biases include, among others, the relocation of temperature monitoring stations, changes in technology used to gather the data, or changes in the environment surrounding a thermometer that might impact its readings.</p>
<p>For instance, <strong>if a temperature station was originally placed in an empty field but that field has since been paved over to become a parking lot, the record would appear to show much hotter temperatures.</strong> As such, it would make sense to try to correct the data collected.</p>
<p>Virtually nobody argues against the need for some homogenization to control for various factors that may contaminate temperature data.</p>
<p>But a closer <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13020285">examination</a> of the process as it now occurs reveals major concerns, Ronan Connolly, an independent scientist at CERES, said.</p>
<p>“While the scientific community has become addicted to blindly using these computer programs to fix the data biases, <strong>until recently nobody has bothered to look under the hood to see if the programs work when applied to real temperature data</strong>,” he told The Epoch Times.</p>
<p>Since the early 2000s, various governmental and intergovernmental organizations creating global temperature records have relied on computer programs to automatically adjust the data.</p>
<p>Mr. Soon, Mr. Connolly, and a team of scientists around the world spent years looking at the programs to determine how they worked and whether they were reliable.</p>
<p>One of the scientists involved in the analysis, Peter O’Neill, has been tracking and downloading the data daily from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its Global Historical Climatology Network since 2011.</p>
<p>He found that each day, NOAA applies different adjustments to the data.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/image_92%2878%29.jpg?itok=qeNSayxw"><img height="333" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/image_92%2878%29.jpg?itok=qeNSayxw" alt=""/></a></p>
<img alt="" height="333" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/image_92%2879%29.jpg?itok=67IfRdKQ" width="500"/><br/> <em>(Top left) A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather tower atop a building in Washington. (Top right) A radar is prepared by NOAA for studying tornadoes, in Memphis. (Bottom) A man works as officials are briefed at the National Hurricane Center in Miami. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images, Seth Herald/AFP via Getty Images, Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Images)</em><br/> <br/>
<p>.</p>
<p>“They use the same homogenization computer program and re-run it roughly every 24 hours,” Mr. Connolly said. “But each day, the homogenization adjustments that they calculate for each temperature record are different.”</p>
<p><strong>This is “very bizarre,” he said.</strong></p>
<p>“If the adjustments for a given weather station have any basis in reality, then we would expect the computer program to calculate the same adjustments every time. What we found is this is not what’s happening,” Mr. Connolly said.</p>
<p>These concerns are what first sparked the international investigation into the issue by Mr. Soon and his colleagues.</p>
<p>Because NOAA doesn’t maintain historical information on its weather stations, the CERES scientists reached out to European scientists who had been compiling the data for the stations that they oversee.</p>
<p>They found that just 17 percent of NOAA’s adjustments were consistently applied. And less than 20 percent of NOAA’s adjustments were clearly associated with a documented change to the station observations.</p>
<p>“When we looked under the hood, we found that there was a hamster running in a wheel instead of an engine,” Mr. Connolly said. “It seems that with these homogenization programs, it is a case where the cure is worse than the disease.”</p>
<p>A spokesman for NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information downplayed the significance, but said the agency was working to address the issues raised in the papers.</p>
<p>“NOAA uses the well-documented Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm every day on GHCNm (monthly)—version 4, and the results of specific adjustments to individual station series can differ from run to run,” the spokesman said, adding that the papers in question didn’t support the view that the concerns about the homogenization of the data made it useless or worse.</p>
<p>“<strong>NOAA is addressing the issues raised in both these papers in a future release of the GHCNm temperature dataset and its accompanying documentation.</strong>”</p>
<p><em>Read more <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/prominent-scientists-challenge-key-data-underlying-climate-change-agenda-5593800?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge&src_src=partner&src_cmp=ZeroHedge"><strong>here...</strong></a></em></p>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>Today Is A Good Day To DEI: In Huge Win For DeSantis, University Of Florida Fires All 'Diversity, Equity & Inclusion' Stafftag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-02:4401701:BlogPost:2590482024-03-02T00:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Today Is A Good Day To DEI: In Huge Win For DeSantis, University Of Florida Fires All 'Diversity, Equity & Inclusion' Staff</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/today-is-a-good-day-to-dei-in-huge-win-for-desantis-university-of">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/today-is-a-good-day-to-dei-in-huge-win-for-desantis-university-of</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN…</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Today Is A Good Day To DEI: In Huge Win For DeSantis, University Of Florida Fires All 'Diversity, Equity & Inclusion' Staff</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/today-is-a-good-day-to-dei-in-huge-win-for-desantis-university-of">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/today-is-a-good-day-to-dei-in-huge-win-for-desantis-university-of</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">,</p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p>Following a mandate by the Florida Board of Governors, <strong>the University of Florida has fired all DEI (diversity, equity & inclusion) staff, effective immediately.</strong></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/GettyImages-1242701924_jpg_92a.jpg?itok=bi4Lhiq2"><img height="288" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/GettyImages-1242701924_jpg_92a.jpg?itok=bi4Lhiq2" alt=""/></a></strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>"To comply with the Florida Board of Governor's <a href="https://www.flbog.edu/regulations/active-regulations/">regulation 9.016</a> on prohibited expenditures, t<strong>he University of Florida has closed the Office of the Chief Diversity Officer, eliminated DEI positions and administrative appointments, and halted DEI-focused contracts with outside vendors</strong>," reads a statement from Provost J. Scott Angle.</p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/21841313772,21778456762/zerohedge/in_content_video_0__container__">.</div>
<div class="acw ac-widget-ph ac-reset"><div id="ac-lre-player-ph-ext-ofmHXOWm33VHdAYK4dZf2vx7acbW31Z2" class="ac-lre-player-ph-ext ac-lre-ph-playlist-hide-scroll-bar"><div class="h0011r00002RYAhn_1419 d0011r00002RYAhn_1419" id="ac-lre-player-ph-ofmHXOWm33VHdAYK4dZf2vx7acbW31Z2"><div class="w0011r00002RYAhn_1419 luminous-theme"><div class="brand-container font-fix"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>"Under the direction of UF Human Resources, university employees whose positions were eliminated will receive UF's standard twelve weeks of pay.</p>
<p>Approximately $5 million in funds previously allocated to DEI initiatives will be reallocated into a faculty recruitment fund.</p>
<p>.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en" xml:lang="en">BREAKING: UF fired all staff in positions related to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, effective immediately. <a href="https://t.co/D5qMSmBKWN">pic.twitter.com/D5qMSmBKWN</a></p>
— The Alligator (@TheAlligator) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheAlligator/status/1763631963934482864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 1, 2024</a></blockquote>
<p>.</p>
<p>"The University of Florida is – and will always be – unwavering in our commitment to universal human dignity. As we educate students by thoughtfully engaging a wide range of ideas and views, we will continue to foster a community of trust and respect for every member of the Gator Nation. The University of Florida is an elite institution because of our incredible faculty who are committed to teaching, discovering, and serving," the memo continues.</p>
<p>In January, Florida's Board of Governors voted to ban state funding on DEI programs across <strong>all public universities in the state</strong> - affecting the University of Florida, Florida State University and Florida International University.</p>
<p>The vote brought public universities in line with legislation signed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in May 2023 to defund DEI programs at state universities and colleges - which stipulates that a state university can't use any state or federal funds to promote, support or maintain any programs or campus activities that "advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion" or "promote or engage in political or social activism."</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Florida is one of <strong>a dozen state legislatures</strong> that have introduced or passed bills to <strong>limit or eliminate DEI programs in state colleges or universities.</strong></p>
</div>
</div>The Greenhouse Model and CO2 Contributiontag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-03-01:4401701:BlogPost:2590462024-03-01T17:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>The Greenhouse Model and CO2 Contribution</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-greenhouse-model-and-co2-contribution">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-greenhouse-model-and-co2-contribution…</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>The Greenhouse Model and CO2 Contribution</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-greenhouse-model-and-co2-contribution">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-greenhouse-model-and-co2-contribution</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/greenhouse-model-co2-cyril-huijsmans">https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/greenhouse-model-co2-cyril-huijsmans</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">Dr. Cyril Huijsmans, a Dutch Research Scientist Retired from Shell</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The Greenhouse model, as is universally presented, appears to be incorrect.</p>
<p>Molecular collisions and convection, rather than re-radiation back to earth, is the energy transfer mechanism.</p>
<div><div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The black body radiation of the earth, after absorption by greenhouse gases, is quickly converted into kinetic energy, and becomes part of the thermal pool of the atmosphere.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The atmosphere should not be treated as a black body, BB, radiator, as there is no thermodynamic equilibrium. Even for a local thermodynamic equilibrium, one cannot define its boundaries in the sense of the premises of Planck's law. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Furthermore, the <strong>maximum possible</strong> contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse warming is limited to about <strong>7% of the total warming potential from BB radiation.</strong></span></p>
<p><span class="">This is based on only the black body energy availability from Planck's energy distribution in the range of the CO2 absorption wavelengths.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">To achieve this maximum possible contribution, about 0.15% of the current presence of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere would participate, i.e., less than 1 ppm of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Water vapor, WV, is the most important greenhouse gas and contributes about <strong>93% of the greenhouse warming</strong>. With the current concentrations of WV and CO2, the black body energy is fully absorbed, i.e., saturated.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">.</span></p>
<p><span class=""><strong>NOTE</strong>: These articles have similar results using WV and CO2 ppm in atmosphere.</span></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption</a></p>
<p><span><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming</a></span></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong><span class="">1 Introduction</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">CO2 is considered by the IPCC and allied entities, as the main contributor of the greenhouse phenomenon.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">To place this view in perspective, it is important to realize, the earth’s BB, radiation is the source of heat trapped by the greenhouse effect. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The model of the greenhouse phenomenon considers absorption of the earth’s BB radiation by greenhouse gases.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Subsequently, the greenhouse gases radiate the absorbed energy back to earth, keeping the soil warm and by convection/collisions also keeping the atmosphere warm.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The most important greenhouse gases are WV and CO2.</span></p>
<p><span class="">There are more greenhouse gases, but their contribution is very small. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The earth’s BB radiation ranges between wavelengths 2 - 70 micrometer.</span></p>
<p><span class="">WV is the most important and dominant greenhouse gas, which absorbs heat in the whole range of wavelengths of the earth’s BB radiation, except between 8 - 12 micrometer, and to a lesser extent around 15 micrometer.</span></p>
<p><span class="">CO2 absorbs essentially only one at wavelength, i.e., 15 micrometer.</span></p>
<p><span class="">There are two more wavelength's of absorption by CO2, but they are at the edge of the earth's BB radiation curve, and their contribution is very small, i.e., less than 0.5%.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The atmosphere of the earth is transparent to space between 8 - 12 micrometer; WV and CO2 are not absorbing at these frequencies.</span></p>
<p><span class="">A part of the IR radiation between 8 - 12 micrometer returns directly into space.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The greenhouse effect, due to CO2 absorbing the earth's BB radiation, mostly at about 15 micrometer, is about <strong>10.5% </strong></span></p>
<p><span class="">This is the part of the earth's BB radiation, emitted at 300 K, that can be absorbed by CO2, as calculated with Planck’s law. See Appendix A</span></p>
<p><span class="">However, the 10.5% gets reduced to about <strong>7%</strong>, due to 1) the <strong>overlap</strong> of the WV and CO2 absorption spectra at about 15 micrometer, and 2) the 20000/423 = 47 times greater abundance of VW molecules vs CO2 molecules, near the surface, where almost all absorption takes place.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The rest of the greenhouse effect, due to WV, is about <strong>93% </strong>See Appendix C.6</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">2 Greenhouse Model</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">2.1 Radiative transfer of heat in the atmosphere</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">In principle, every object radiates heat depending on its temperature and also its resemblance to a black body, and so does the earth.</span></p>
<p><span class="">One might think, the atmosphere also radiates energy depending on its temperature.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Some articles and climate models assume, such radiation has an energy density field as described by Planck's law.</span></p>
<p><span class="">However, the atmosphere is not even close to the concept of a black body.</span></p>
<p><span class="">It is an essentially open system without a boundary in the sense of the definition of a boundary of a black body.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The notion of a volume in which standing lightwaves in a very wide range of frequencies, with photons, which are formed and annihilated at its boundaries to come to thermodynamic equilibrium with a "Planckian" distribution, thereby adopting the temperature of the boundary is hard to envisage.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Locally there can be a sort of equilibrium, but its boundaries are ill defined.</span></p>
<p><span class="">It is a notional concept of LTE, but it is not consistent with the premises of Planck's law.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Where is the physical evidence?</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The greenhouse gases, including WV, only have a limited range of frequencies in which they can absorb or emit.</span></p>
<p><span class="">At 15 micrometer, radiation can only come from the radiation of the earth or from thermal excitation by air molecules.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon, which are 99.9% of dry air, do not participate in a radiative sense, but only by means of conduction, such as molecular collisions.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Assuming a local thermodynamic equilibrium, the Boltzmann distribution, at an average earth temperature of 288 K (15 C) determines, for the 15 micrometer transition, about <strong>3.6%</strong> of CO2 molecules in air would be in the excited state.</span> <span class="">De-excitation can take place via radiation and by molecular collisions.</span></p>
<p><span class="">In case of molecular collisions, radiation of longer wavelengths may also result.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The excitation energy can be fully converted into kinetic energy, or partly converted into kinetic energy with emission of a new photon with a longer wavelength.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The presence of WV allows re-absorption of these longer wavelengths. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The nature of excitation of CO2 and WV molecules is kinetic rather than by excitation of electrons, i.e., the stretching, bending and rotation of the molecules.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The molecular density of CO2 at sea level, at 288 K (15 C), is 1.012 x 10^22 molecules/m3. See C.7.1</span></p>
<p><span class="">Thus, the number of CO2 molecules in the excited state of 15 micrometer is <strong>0.036</strong> x (1.012 x 10^22) = 3.64 x 10^20 molecules/m3. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">If one assumes, de-excitation takes place only by radiation, the radiation energy would be (the number of transitions per second) x (the transition energy at the 15 micrometer wavelength of 1.325 x 10^-20 joule) See C.7.1</span></p>
<p><span class="">The Einstein A coefficient for spontaneous emission is around 1 per second (Hitran data base). </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Assuming this is a "steady state" with 3.6% of CO2 molecules excited, the total energy emitted per second is 4.823 W/m3</span></p>
<p><span class="">As the energy goes equally in all directions, the energy flowing out of a 1 m3 sphere per unit area of the sphere, is 1 W/m2. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The Planck spectral radiance at 288K, at 15 micrometer (line width 2 micrometer) is 36.5 W/m2.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Thus 1 m3 of air would radiate 1/36.5 = 0.0274, i.e., 2.74% of the earth’s BB radiation.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">However, the power emitted from a volume is proportional with the volume, whereas, the energy flux per m2 is proportional to the surface area of the sphere.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Therefore, the energy flux (W/m2) would be proportional with the radius of the sphere.</span></p>
<p><span class="">A sphere of air with a radius of 24 m would equal the earth’s BB radiation at 36.5 W/m2 (288 K)</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The sphere would also receive radiation from its surroundings. Under above assumptions, such radiation could be absorbed, or cause stimulated emission, or intensify the "thermal" radiation field.</span></p>
<p><span class="">In case of absorption, the excited state would become overpopulated relative to the assumed thermodynamic equilibrium at 288K, leading to intensified emission. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">At the top of the troposphere, at 10 km, the prevailing temperature is about 223 K (-50 C) and the density is about 0.327 kg/m3. See Appendix C.3</span></p>
<p><span class="">At that altitude, still about 1.27% of the CO2 molecules would be in the exited state under local thermodynamic equilibrium and the Boltzmann distribution, d</span>ue to the lower density of the air, whereas CO2 would be about 400 ppm, CO2 molecules per m3 would be less.</p>
<p>A sphere of air with a radius of 234 m would equal the earth’s BB radiation at 36.5 W/m^2 (288 K).</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">As such, the radiation potential from thermal excitation is far greater than the earth’s BB radiation. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Molecular collisions are in the order of 4 billion per second per molecule, at a pressure of 1 bar and a temperature of </span><span class="">288 K. See C.4 and C.5 </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
<p><span class="">Considering the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecular velocities, at least 10% of the collisions can potentially excite the 15 micrometer band.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Taking into account the geometrical distribution of velocities being homogeneous in all directions, a small fraction between 10^-4 and 10^-3 of these potential collisions will actually excite.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Nevertheless, the exciting collision rates are still in the order of 10,000 to 100,000 per second per molecule. Even at an altitude of 10 km, the molecular collisions which excite are at least between a 1,000 and 10,000 per second per molecule. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The rate of spontaneous de-excitation, or emission, is determined by the Einstein A coefficient, which is around 1 per second. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The probability of de-excitation without radiation, or with a lower frequency of radiation by molecular collisions, is orders of magnitude larger than de-excitation by radiation. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Hence, molecular collisions completely dominate the local thermal equilibrium, even up to altitudes beyond 10 km. Heat transfer is by convection rather than radiation.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The assumption of de-excitation only by radiation means, the atmosphere would strongly radiate into space. Such radiation has not been observed by satellites.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The satellite observations tell us, the earth atmosphere is essentially opaque for the wavelengths of the greenhouse gases with 100% absorption. Therefore, the concept of re-radiation is not tenable. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Due to the dominance of molecular collisions, the earth atmosphere is opaque in the range of wavelengths of the greenhouse gases.</span></p>
<p><span class="">At higher altitudes, well above 10 km, radiation becomes dominant over molecular collisions, due to the lower density. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The Einstein A coefficient for spontaneous emission is around 1 - 5 per second.</span></p>
<p><span class="">This holds for a rather wide span of wavelengths, also covering the P and R branches of the CO2 absorption spectrum (HITRAN data base).</span></p>
<p><span class="">The Einstein A coefficients are linked to the Einstein B coefficients, as well as the absorption cross sections in "Lambert-Beer" and oscillator strengths (another expression for probability of absorption).</span></p>
<p><span class="">As such, the Einstein A coefficients are a measure for the intrinsic probability of absorption by molecules.</span></p>
<p><span class="">With similar A coefficients and similar energy densities of the radiation field, one would expect similar extinction (or saturation) distances.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The P and R branches are not independent from the Q branch which is the main transition relevant for the greenhouse effect.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The P and R states are substates (de-generation) of the Q transitions.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The rotational energies are some 10% of the Q ( bending mode ) transitions.</span></p>
<p><span class="">If they could be excited independent of the 15 micrometer vibration, about 80% of the P and R branch energy levels would be saturated (Boltzmann).</span></p>
<p><span class="">This means, when the Q branch is extinct (saturated), so are the P and R branches. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">2.2 Theoretical expectation of absorption</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">In thermodynamic equilibrium, the rate of absorption (and the rate of induced emission) by CO2, at the 15 micrometer transition, is a factor 27 times smaller than the Einstein A coefficient (1 per second)</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The emission rate of photons, at 15 micrometer, and a band width of 2 micrometer, is 32 × 10^20 per second per m2.</span></p>
<p><span class="">With an absorption coefficient of 0.0371 per second, and 1.012 × 10^22 CO2 molecules per m3 at sea level, the extinction distance is 8.5 m.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Induced emission extends the extinction distance by about the same amount, provided the molecules are in an excited state.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Due to molecular collisions, the effect of induced emission is small.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The absorption measurement of Dr. Heinz Hug (1) gave an extinction distance of about 10 m.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The assumption of the presence of a "Planck" energy density field is questionable.</span></p>
<p><span class="">However, a photon carries its own energy density field.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The Einstein coefficients are molecular properties independent of the energy field, or if there is thermodynamic equilibrium.</span></p>
<p><span class="">As such, the experiment of Hug may also quantify the energy density of the 15 micrometer photon. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">2.3 Timescale of "back-radiation"</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">There appears to be consensus, full absorption of the earth’s BB radiation takes place within very short distances, i.e. order of meters.</span></p>
<p><span class="">This means, full absorption takes place in fractions of a microsecond.</span></p>
<p><span class="">This notion of short absorption distances is largely based on the assumption of an energy density in accordance with the Planck law, and the Einstein B12 coefficient for absorption with a concentration of CO2 molecules of 10^22 per m3.</span></p>
<p><span class="">With an abundance of CO2 molecules over photons, even with the low absorption coefficient, absorption can take place at a short distance.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Alternatively, in absence of Planck's energy density, each photon would carry its own energy density, which at a value of 0.2 J.m^-4 (See section 3.3) comes close to the value of Planck.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The implication is, de-excitation also must take place in a very short timeframe, as otherwise the CO2 molecules would remain in the excited state and become transparent.</span> <span class="">The absorption distance would be much larger.</span></p>
<p><span class="">With reference to section 2.1, there would be an overpopulation of excited CO2 molecules and full absorption could not take place within the short distance and timeframe. </span></p>
<p><span class="">As the frequency of collisions between the CO2 molecules (and also WV molecules) and the molecules of the air in which the absorbed energy is dissipated to the air, is orders of magnitude faster (See Appendix C.4 and C.5), de-excitation by collisions, essentially without 15 micrometer photon emission, is predominant over back-radiation.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Only a very small fraction of the blackbody radiation is radiated back, per the adopted green house model. </span></p>
<p><span class="">As such, the earth’s BB radiation is quickly thermalized and becomes part of the atmospheric heat content.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">3 Experimental confirmation</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">3.1 The experimental confirmation of this model can be found in the results of absorption measurements by Dr. Heinz Hug (1).</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Hug carried out absorption measurements of IR at 15 micrometer in a mixture of 375 ppm CO2, 2.6% WV, and air.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Hug calculated, based on his measurements, a total absorption distance of about 10 meter.</span></p>
<p><span class="">With the speed of light, the time for total absorption is 0.033 microsecond.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Hug recognized the possible dominance of kinetic transfer of energy in his paper, in which he also refers to Mr Jack Barrett (2) who had similar considerations. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
<p><strong><span class="">4 Greenhouse Role of CO2 in Atmosphere</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p></p>
<p><span class="">4.1 Adopting a timeframe of 0.033 microsecond, the number of photons emitted by the earth’s BB radiation, at 15 micrometer, is according to Planck’s law, about 1.0556 x 10^10 per cm2</span></p>
<p><span class="">This is based on radiation into the full hemisphere, and a line width of 2 micrometer. See C.6 and C.7.1</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Based on an absorption distance of 10 m, and the law of Avogadro, the number of CO2 molecules in a <strong>column of air</strong> of 1 cm2 and 10 m high is 1 x 10^19</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Thus, for full absorption, 1 x 10^19/1.0556 x 10^10 = 1 x 10^9 molecules per photon would be needed.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The concentration of CO2 up to a height of 80 km is fairly constant.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The number of CO2 molecules in a <strong>column of air</strong> of 1 cm2 extending to space (say 80 km) is 8.28 x 10^21 at a concentration of 400 ppm.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">This means,</span> <span class="">only 0.12%</span></strong> <span class=""><strong>of the CO2 molecules present in the atmosphere are needed to obtain full absorption.</strong> </span>See C.7.1 </p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">4.2 Despite the low transition rates for absorption and spontaneous emission, the absorption of the earth’s BB radiation is at a short distance.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The ratio of CO2 (and also WV) molecules over emitted photons is very large and therefore, saturation (read full extinction) of the earth’s BB radiation takes place in the order of tens of meters. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">In the absence of a "Planckian" radiation field, a single photon carries its own energy density field.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Calculating back from Hug's experiment, the ratio of molecules over photons to achieve extinction is 1 x 10^9 molecules per photon. The time to extinction is 0.033 microsecond.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The Einstein equation for absorption, with the Einstein coefficient B12 = 0.152 m4/J.sec (See C.5.3), dn = 1 and </span><span class="">dt = 0.033 x 10^-6 sec , transition rates of 0.03/sec, and a photon energy density field of 0.2 J.m^-4, would result, which is 80% of the Planck value.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The "volume" of a photon energy quantum, or energy package is 6.75 x 10^-13 m3k</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong>4A Greenhouse Role of WV in the atmosphere</strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">4A.1 WV is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Moreover its absorption spectrum covers, almost as a continuum, the full spectrum of the earth’s BB radiation (4), with the exceptions mentioned above (4 - 12 micrometer and around 15 micrometer).</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Similar to CO2, the radiative lifetime for spontaneous emission is relatively long, albeit, in certain spectral ranges, faster than CO2. The shortest radiation lifetimes are in the order of 0.005 second (HITRAN data base).</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">This means, also for H2O, the kinetic processes, such as collisions, near sea level, are much faster than spontaneous emission to dissipate excitation energy.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">HITRAN (3) gives extinction distances (reduction in intensity by factor, 1/e ) of IR in a range from 15 to 100 micrometer, in 100% WV, between 0.1 and 0.0001 meter.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">At a world average concentration of WV of 0.4% (4000 ppm), actual extinction distances could range between 25 and 0.025 meter, i.e., almost total extinction between 150 and 0.15 meter.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Therefore, the timescale of almost total extinction is between 0.5 microsecond and 0.5 x 10^-9 second. </span>See C.4 and C.7.2</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">4A.2 With the timeframe of 0.5 microsecond, the ratio of WV molecules at 4000 ppm over the full spectrum of photons of the earth’s BB radiation is about is 8.5 x 10^8 molecule/photon. (Avogadro and Stefan-Boltzmann T^4 law).</span></p>
<p><span class="">This is based on a full hemisphere of emitted photons in a column of air of 1 cm2 and 150 m high to extinction.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The presence of WV becomes near zero at about 10 km height. The average concentration in the troposphere is about 4000 ppm.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The total presence of WV is about 32 times of what is needed for total extinction.</span></p>
<p><strong><span class="">This means,</span> <span class="">only 3%</span></strong> <span class=""><strong>of the WV molecules present in the atmosphere are needed to obtain full absorption</strong></span></p>
<p><span class="">See C.7.2 </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">5 Satellite observations</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="">.</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The total extinction of the BB radiation of the earth is confirmed by various references, such as “ Atmospheric Transmission “ (4) and X-ray astronomy (5).</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">7 CONCLUSION</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The model of the greenhouse effect, as is generally presented, appears to be incorrect.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Molecular collisions and convection, rather than back-radiation, dominates the energy transfer of the earth's BB radiation.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Only at high altitudes greater than 10 km, radiation becomes dominant depending on the altitude. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Only a small fraction of CO2 and H2O present in the atmosphere is needed for full absorption of the earth's BB radiation. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">8 References</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">(1) The Climate Catastrophe Dr. Heinz Hug: <a href="https://www.john-daly.com//artifact.htm">https://www.john-daly.com//artifact.htm</a></span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">(2) Jack Barrett, Spectrochim. Acta Part a, 51, 415 (1995)</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">(3) Electromagnetic Absorption by water:</span></p>
<p><span class=""><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water.%C2%A0">https://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water. </a></span></p>
<p><span class="">“Hitran on the Web Information System” Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics(CFA), Cambridge, MA, USA</span></p>
<p><span class="">V.E.Zuev Institute of Atmospheric Optics (IAO), Tomsk, Russia. Retrieved August 11, 2012 </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">(4) Atmospheric Transmission : <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File">https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File</a></span></p>
<p><span class="">Atmospheric_transmission.png</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">(5) X-Ray astronomy, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_astronomy">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_astronomy</a></span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">APPENDIX A : Planck's curve at 300 K</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span class="">.</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="flex flex-col mt-2"><img alt="No alt text provided for this image" class="block w-full lazy-loaded" src="https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C4E12AQHKz-LpC2qRpw/article-inline_image-shrink_400_744/0/1647962351046?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=ofwRVG-IPIdP98suheD0bpvfEcy1AsRErHVJBeW1yIY"/></div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class=""><strong>.</strong></span></p>
<p><span class="">Planck's radiation curves at 6000, 1500, 300 K.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The spectral radiance is 10^-5 W/m2 sr at 6000 K (the peak is in the visible wavelengths), and 10 ^-12 W/m2 sr at 300 K, the peak is at 10 micrometer. Red and blue curve</span></p>
<p><span class="">WV (about 20,000 ppm near the surface) and CO2 (about 423 ppm at end 2023) are strong photon absorbers at about 15 micrometer</span></p>
<p>Visible wavelengths have 10^-5/10^12 = 10^7 times more W/m2 than IR wavelengths at 10 micrometer</p>
<p><a href="https://pubsapp.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i02/html/02learning.html?">https://pubsapp.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/31/i02/html/02learning.html?</a>.</p>
<p></p>
<p><span class=""><strong><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12398930055?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12398930055?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span class=""><strong>.</strong></span></p>
<p><strong><span class="">APPENDIX B : Electromagnetic absorption by water and Atmospheric transmission</span></strong></p>
<p><span class="">.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="flex flex-col mt-2"><img alt="No alt text provided for this image" class="block w-full lazy-loaded" src="https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C4E12AQECKb4nVYP55Q/article-inline_image-shrink_1000_1488/0/1647964162370?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=fp5urbKjHO08ok595B0Om92ymzi7HQTbZCkQQgeE77c" width="644" height="506"/></div>
<div class="flex flex-col mt-2">.</div>
<div class="flex flex-col mt-2"><img alt="No alt text provided for this image" class="block w-full lazy-loaded" src="https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C4E12AQFEgpn6E2Jnug/article-inline_image-shrink_1000_1488/0/1647964196631?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=hLJh2zHYJ0YydbthVWn3JkNYNAIjkQ-JbGae85G9kyw" width="641" height="744"/><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">APPENDIX C: </span></strong><strong><span class="">CALCULATIONS</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong>C.1, Number of molecules of air in a column of air of 1 cm2 into space (1 bar):</strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>Weight 1000 gr</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Mw = 29 </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Constant of Avogadro: 6 x 10^23 per mol</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>Thus: (1000/29) x (6 x 10^23) = 2.07 x 10^25 molecules of air.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
<p>The number of molecules CO2 at 400 ppm, and assuming a constant concentration into upper space, is 8.28 x 10^21.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>Up till about 80 km height, the concentration of CO2 in air is about constant. As the density of air above 70 km is less than 60 x 10^-6 kg/m3, the above number of CO2 molecules is about correct.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">C.2, Barometric formula:</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>P(h)/P0 = exp (-Mgh/RT) C.2.1</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">g=10 m/s^2</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">R= the gas constant 8.3145 J/mol.K</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">T= temperature, K </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>Air density ρ = PM/RT C.2.2</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">C.3, Air pressure and density:</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>At sea level :</p>
<p>If T=273 K, P= 1.0189 x 10^5 Pa: ρ = 1.0189 x 10^5 x 0.029/(8.3145 x 273)= 1.294 kg/m3</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">If T=288 K, ρ = 1.223 kg/m3 </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">At 1 km, T=281.5 K, P= 78740 Pa, ρ= 0.9756 kg/m3</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>At 5 km, T=256 K, P= 50600 Pa, ρ= 0.6894 κg/m3</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>At 10 km, T= 223 K, P= 20930 Pa, ρ = 0.327 kg/m3 </p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>At 50 km, T= 273 K, P= 168 Pa, ρ = 0.00215 kg/m3</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>At 70 km, T= 215 K, P= 1.17 Pa, ρ = 0.000019 kg/m3</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>At 100 km, T= 183 K, P= 5.3 x 10^-4 Pa, ρ = 1 x 10^-8 kg/m3</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">C.4, Molecular collisions in air:</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>Formula for mean free path: L = 1/ n x π x d^2 C.4.1</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>L = mean free path, m</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">n = particle (molecular) density, m3</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">π = 3.14</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">d = molecular kinetic diameter 300 x 10^-12 m (N2 = 364 ppm, O2 = 346 pm), i.e., conservative.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Average relative velocity of molecules: sqrt2 x V</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">V is the average molecular velocity, m/s.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>Average time between collisions: T = L/(sqrt2 x V) C.4.2</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution gives for the average velocity: Va = sqrt(8kT/(π M)) C.4.3</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">k is the constant of Boltzmann 1.38 x 10^-23 J/K, and M is the molecular mass in kg.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The molecular mass of N2 is 4.667 x 10^-26 kg </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">For N2, at 300 K, the average velocity Va = 475 m/s. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The most probable velocity is always lower. It is given by the formula Vp = sqrt(2kT/M) C.4.4</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">For N2, at 300 K, this velocity Vp = 421 m/s. In the subsequent calculations the Vp is used.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong>Frequency of collisions in air: </strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class=""><strong>At sea level</strong>: </span>pressure 10^5 Pa and temperature 293 K, ρ = 1.2057 kg/m3. Particle density n = (1.2057/29) x 6 x 10^26 = 2.494 x 10^25/m3</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">molecular velocity Vp = 421m/s,</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Thus the time between collisions is: T = 1/(421 x 2.494 x 10^25 x 3.14 x 300x 300 x 10^-24 x sqrt2) = 1/(4.1963 x 10^9) = 0.238 x 10^-9 second</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Therefore, the number of collisions is about 4 x 10^9 per second (4 billion/second)</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class=""><strong>At 10 km height</strong>: </span>pressure 20930 Pa and temperature 233 K, ρ = 0.313 kg/m3. Particle density n = (0.313/29) x 6 x 10^26 = 6.476 x 10^24/m3</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">molecular velocity Vp = 370 m/s</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Thus, time between collisions is: T = 1/(370 x 6.476 x 10^24 x 3.14 x 300 x 300 x 10^-24 x sqrt2) = 1/(0.958 x 10^9) = 1.0410^-9 second </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Therefore, the number of collisions is about 10^9 per second (1 billion/second).</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">At 223 K and ρ = 0.327 kg/m3 the number of collisions is the same.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class=""><strong>At 50 km height</strong>: </span>pressure 168 Pa and temperature 273 K, ρ = 0.00215 kg/m3, particle density n = (0.00215/29) x 6 x 10^26 = 4.445 x 10^22, molecular velocity, Vp = 400 m/s,</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Thus, time between collisions is : T = 1/(400 x 4.445 x 10^22 x 3.14 x 300 x 300x10^-24 x sqrt2) = 1/(7.106 x 10^6) = 1.41 x 10^-7 second</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Therefore, the number of collisions is about 7.1 x 10^6 per second (7 million/second). </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class=""><strong>At 70 km height</strong>: </span>pressure 1.17 Pa and temperature 215 K, ρ = 0.000019 kg/m3, particle density n = (0.000019/29) x 6 x 10^26 = 3.93 x 10^20/m3, molecular velocity Vp = 355 m,</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Thus, time between collisions is: T = 1/(355 x 3.93 x 10^20*3.14 x 300 x 300x10^-24 x sqrt2) = 1/48097 = 20.8 x 10^-6 second</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Therefore, the number of collisions is about 48,000 per second</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">In above calculations the velocities are based on N2. For the air mixture this would mean, the number of collisions are 1.5% lower.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">C.5 Einstein coefficients.</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The relationship between the Einstein coefficients for spontaneous emission A21, for absorption B12 and stimulated emission B21 are given by the</span> following equations, which are based on the Planck energy density function in wavelength:</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">A21/B21= 8πhc/λ^5 C.5.1</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Β21/Β12= g1/g2 C.5.2 </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">where, h is the constant of Planck</span> 6.626 x 10^-34, c the velocity of light in m/s, ν the frequency of radiation, and λ the wavelength in m.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">g1 and g2 are the degeneration, or multiplicity, of the quantum states 1 and 2.</span></p>
<p><span class="">The ratio's of g1//g2 are about 1 for CO2 at 15 micrometer, and also for WV</span> in a range of wavelengths. </p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>At 15 micrometer the value of A21/B21 = 6.579 J.m^-4</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Thus B21 = 0.152 x A21, and B12 = B21 x g2/g1. B12 equals approximately B21.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The dimension of the A coefficient ( s^-1) is different from the B coefficients ( J^-1.m^4.s^-1), as the B coefficients multiply with the Planck spectral energy density function to obtain transition rates.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">HITRAN (3) gives for CO2 at 15 micrometer:</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">wavenumber 666.992, A21 = 0.9866/sec </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">wavenumber 667.032, A21 = 1.299 /sec</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Therefore, the value of B12 = 0.152 J^-1.m^4.s^-1 C.5.3</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong>C.6 Earth black body radiation</strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The earth emits radiation in accordance with Planck's law. Integration of Planck's law over frequency (or wavelength) and space angle yields </span>Stefan-Boltzmann's law.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Planck's law in wavelength is: Bλ(λ,T)= (2hc^2/λ^5) x 1/((exp hc/λkT) - 1) C.6.1</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">where, Bλ is the spectral radiance, sr, of a body in watts per unit area, per unit wavelength, per unit solid angle with dimension (W/sr.m^3), and </span>h is Planck's constant, c velocity of light, λ radiated wavelength, k Boltzmann's constant, T absolute temperature in K.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">For 300 K, the formula reduces to: Bλ = (1.193 x 10^-16)/ λ^5 x 1/((exp(4.801 x 10^-5/λ)-1) C.6.2</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The radiance curve is presented in Appendix B:</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">At the CO2 wavelength of 15 micrometer, the radiance value Bλ = 6.68 x 10^6 W/sr. m^3</span></p>
<p><span class="">With a line width of 2 micrometer, the emitted energy per cm2 </span>becomes 0.00134 W/sr.cm2</p>
<p>Integration over the space angle applying Lamberts' cosine law to a hemisphere yields </p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">E = 0.xn--00134x-u0e = 0.0042 W/cm2 C.6.3</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">. </span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">There are two more wavelengths at which CO2 can absorb the earth's BB radiation, notably at 2.7 and 4.3 micrometer.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The energy in the interval of BB radiation at 300 K, between 2 and 5 micrometer is</span></p>
<p><span class="">B = 2 W/sr.m2, or 0.0002 W/sr.cm2, or E = 0.00063 W/cm2</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Thus, the total energy emitted by the earth's BB radiation, in the wavelengths CO2 can absorb is</span></p>
<p><span class=""><strong>E = 0.00483 W/cm2</strong> C.6.4</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The total BB radiation follows from Stefan-Boltzmann's law : Et= σT^4 C.6.5</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">At 300 K, the total emitted BB energy is Et = (5.6704 x 10^-8) x 300^4 = <strong>0.0459 W/cm2</strong> C.6.6</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Thus, the maximum potential absorption by CO2 at an earth temperature of 300 K, is about <strong>10.5%</strong> of the total BB radiation.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">At the current average temperature of the earth of 288 K (15 C), the contributions of the 2.7 and 4.3 wavelengths become very small, as the zero point of </span>the Planck curve shifts by about 1 micrometer.</p>
<p>Therefore, at 288 K, the maximum share is about <strong>9%</strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Because, there is a transparent window between 8 - 12 micrometer, the total amount of BB radiation to warm up the atmosphere is reduced by </span>0.0119 W/cm2</p>
<p>Thus, at 300 K, the relative contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect increases: </p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Total BB radiation minus loss in window is 0.0459 - 0.0119 = <strong>0.034 W/cm2</strong></span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Maximum CO2 potential 0.00483/0.034 = 0.142, i.e. <strong>14.2%</strong></span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">However, taking into account the presence of WV, which at 15 micrometer wavelength, still has an attenuation distance of 1.23 m (reduced by factor 1/e), at a concentration in air of 0.4% volume (virtually total extinction in 7.5 m), only about 50% of the absorption in the 15 micrometer range is by CO2.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>Thus, the maximum potential contribution by CO2 to the greenhouse warming 300 K is about <strong>7%</strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong>C.7 Molecules, Photons, and Total Extinction</strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">C.7.1, CO2</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The radiation, E, emitted by the earth at the 15 micrometer wavelength, and line width of 2 micrometer is 0.0042 W/cm2 C.6.3</span></p>
<p><span class="">The photon energy is according to Planck Ef = hc/λ C.7.1</span></p>
<p><span class="">Thus Ef = (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(15 x 10^-6) = 1.325 x 10^-20 joule</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The number of photons emitted is 0.0042/(1.325 x 10^-20) = 3.17 x 10^17 per cm2 per second.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">At sea level, at 288 K, air density at 1.223 kg/m3, CO2 at 400 ppm, the number of CO2 molecules is 1.012 x 10^22 per m3.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The Hug (1) experiment measured, a virtually total extinction distance of 10 m.</span></p>
<p><span class="">Thus, the time frame within which extinction takes place is </span>10/(3 x 10^8) = 3.333 x 10^-8 second, i.e., 0.0333 microsecond.</p>
<p>In such a timeframe, the number of emitted photons is 3.17 x 10^17 x 0.0333 x 10 ^-6 = 1.0556 x 10^10 </p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">In a column of air, of 1 cm2 and 10 m high for full extinction, CO2 at 400 ppm, the number of CO2 molecules is 1 x 10^19</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">For full extinction, CO2 molecules / photon is (1 x 10^19)/(1.0556 x 10^10) = 9.47 x 10^8</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">In a column of air, of 1 cm2 and 80 km high, CO2 at 400 ppm, the number of CO2 molecules is 8.28 x 10^21</span></p>
<p><span class="">Thus, the fraction of CO2 molecules that participates in full extinction is (1 x 10^19)/(8.28 x 10^21) = 0.0012 i.e., <strong>0.12%</strong></span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>This is independent of the way the excitation energy is dissipated, be-it by collisions or by radiation.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">,</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><strong><span class="">C.7.2, WV</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">WV is the most dominant greenhouse gas.</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>Above a height of about 10 km the concentration of WV becomes about zero. </p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The average concentration of WV in the troposphere is about 0.4% volume, or 4000 ppm.</span></p>
<p><span class="">With an average WV density of 0.6 kg/m3, in a column of air of 1 cm2 and 10 km high, the number of WV molecules is </span>(volume x density/mole wgt) x number of Avogadro x concentration (See C.7.1), i.e., 600 kg/29 x (6 x 10^23) x (4000 x 10^-6) = 4.96 x 10^22 molecules </p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">In 150 m there is full extinction of BB radiation. It sets a time frame of 0.5 microsecond</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">A column of air of 1 cm2 , 150 m high, at 288 K, at 10^5 Pa, and ρ = 1.223 kg/m3, contains 0.0183 kg air. <br/> Thus, the number of air molecules is (18.3/29) x (6 x 10^23) = 3.79 x 10^23 molecules. See C.1 and C.2</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">At 4000 ppm, the number of WV molecules, 150 m high is (4000 x 10^-6) x (3.79 x 10^23) = 1.516 x 10^21</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>The fraction of WV molecules that participates in full extinction is (1.516 x 10^21)/(4.96 x 10^22) = 0.305 x 10^-1 = 0.0305, i.e., <strong>3%. </strong></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p>.</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The average wavelength in the BB radiation is about 15.4 micrometer</span></p>
<p><span class="">Thus, the energy of one photon is Efa = hc/λ= (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(15.4 x 10^-6) =</span> 1.291 x 10^-20 Joule</p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">The total BB radiation is 0.0459 W/cm2 See C.6.6</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Thus, the number of photons is 0.0459/(1.291 x 10^-20) = 3.56 x 10^18 per second</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Extinction in 150 m, and a timeframe of 0.5 microsecond, gives (0.5 x 10^-6) x (3.56 x 10^18) = 1.78 x 10^12 photons</span></p>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p><span class="">Thus, the ratio between WV molecules and photons for extinction is (1.516 x 10^21)/(1.78 x 10^12) =</span></p>
<p><span class="">8.51 x 10^8 molecule/photon.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 1</strong></p>
<p><strong>World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine"></a></p>
<p>During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW</p>
<p>Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%</p>
<p>At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%</p>
<p><a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition">https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine</a></p>
<p>Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and</p>
<p>2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>About 300 Maine people would have jobs during the erection phase</p>
<p>The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships</p>
<p>About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through">https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024</p>
<p>The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.</p>
<p>The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment</p>
<p><b><span> </span></b></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost: </span></b><span>Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at <b>$7,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>35.827 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>NOTE</span></b><span>: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about <b>5 c/kWh</b>, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore: </strong>A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. <br/> The cables would need some type of flexible support system</p>
<p>There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People: </strong>Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy. <strong>Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 2</strong></p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind in Norway</strong></p>
<p>Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company</p>
<p>Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.</p>
<p>On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.</p>
<p>The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365</p>
<p>The generators will provide almost all the electricity during <strong>low-wind periods</strong>, and 100% during <strong>high-wind periods</strong>, when rotors are feathered and locked.</p>
<p>The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = <strong>$8,300/kW. See URL</strong></p>
<p>That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher</p>
<p>The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites</p>
<p>The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies </p>
<p>In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.</p>
<p>Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.</p>
<p>If Norwegian units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of the additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus</p>
<p>A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. </p>
<p>The cables would need some type of flexible support system<br/> The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms">https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms</a></p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><span><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="514" height="565"/></a></span></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 3</strong></p>
<p><strong>Offshore Wind in US and UK</strong></p>
<p>Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about wind energy issues that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines of the stock prices of Siemens, Oersted, etc., starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out<br/> All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See costs/kWh in below article</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals</strong></p>
<p>1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government <br/> 2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disfunctional UK government</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about <strong>9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years</strong>, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See URL<br/> <br/> <strong>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><b><span>US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost</span></b></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity production</span></b><span> about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost, c/kWh</span></b><span>: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at <b>$5,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>30.273 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>15.137 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Not included</span></b><span>: At a future 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid: </span></p>
<p><span>Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about <b>2 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid</span></p>
<p><span>Cost of curtailments, about <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites</span></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 4</strong></p>
<p><strong>Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.</strong></p>
<p>Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.</p>
<p>With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.</p>
<p>Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies</p>
<p>The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.</p>
<p>The adders become<strong> exponentially greater,</strong> with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems</p>
<p>Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.</p>
<p>Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.</p>
<p>The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.</p>
<p>W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies</p>
<p>W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,</p>
<p>2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers</p>
<p>3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365 </p>
<p>4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during<strong> low-W/S periods,</strong> and<strong> 100% </strong>during<strong> high-W/S periods, </strong>when rotors are feathered and locked,</p>
<p>5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced</p>
<p>6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="650" height="433"/></a></p>
<p>. </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 5</strong></p>
<p><strong>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING<br/></strong> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>EXCERPT:</strong></p>
<p><strong><span>Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing</span></strong></p>
<p><span>Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, <strong>$5.484 million/y</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, <strong>$6.765 million/y</strong> (10% due to high inflation)</span></p>
<p><span>Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = <strong>$183.7 million</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)</span></p>
<p><span>Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh</span></p>
<p><strong><span>At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span>At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><strong><span>Excluded costs/kWh: </span></strong><span>1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. <strong>Excluded costs would add at least 10 - 15 c/kWh</strong><br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE</strong>: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><strong><span>NOTE</span></strong><span>: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia"><span>http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia</span></a></p>
<p><strong><span> </span></strong></p>
<p><b><span>COMMENTS ON CALCULATION: </span></b></p>
<p><span>Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.<br/> Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment</span></p>
<p><span>If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.</span></p>
<p><span>According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.</span></p>
<p><span>A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it the during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening. They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations.</span></p>
<p><span>Remember, you have to draw about 50 MWh from the HV grid to deliver about 40 MWh to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.</span></p>
<p><span>A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 6</strong><strong> </strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/lights-out-solar-power-stocks-crash-after-demand-warning-across-europe">SolarEdge Technologies shares plunged</a> about two weeks ago, after it warned about decreasing European demand. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>SolarEdge Melts Down After Weak Guidance </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Great Green Crash – Solar Down 40%</p>
<p><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 7</strong><strong> </strong></p>
<p>World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>EV Owners Facing Soaring Insurance Costs in the US and UK</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>U.S. Offshore Wind Plans Are Utterly Collapsing</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK<br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 8</strong></p>
<p><strong>Nuclear Plants by Russia</strong></p>
<p>According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW</p>
<p>Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england</a></p>
<p>Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.</p>
<p>The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Egypt</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW, </p>
<p>The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.</p>
<p>As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.<br/> That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Turkey</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>India</strong>, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the <b>Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.</b></p>
<p>Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed</p>
<p></p>
<p>In <strong>Bangladesh</strong>: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the <strong>Rooppur Power Station</strong></p>
<p>Capital cost $12.65 billion<strong> </strong>is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess <a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel" title="Spent nuclear fuel">spent nuclear fuel</a>.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Nuclear</strong>: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions</p>
<p>They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years</p>
<p>Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>Wind</strong>: Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.<br/> They have <strong>lifetime</strong> capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places</p>
<p>They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment <br/> They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Major Competitors</strong>: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.<br/> They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.</p>
<p>American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Tripling Nuclear A Total Fantasy:</strong> During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.</p>
<p><a href="https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html">https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants</p>
<p>Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>New nuclear</strong>: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table</p>
<p>Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, </p>
<p>Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050. </p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Infrastructures and Manpower</strong>: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year">https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year</a>.</p>
<p>. </p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p>Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022</p>
</td>
<td><p>370200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Proposed tripling</p>
</td>
<td><p>3</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>1110600</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Nuclear, MW</p>
</td>
<td><p>740400</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>MW/reactor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors</p>
</td>
<td><p>617</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Reactors, rounded</p>
</td>
<td><p>620</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors/site</p>
</td>
<td><p>2</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Sites</p>
</td>
<td><p>310</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, MWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841311760</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Conversion factor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1000000</p>
</td>
<td><p>%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841</p>
</td>
<td><p>11</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>World total production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>53000</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 9</strong></p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by type of customer</strong></p>
<p>Retail electricity prices are usually highest for residential and commercial consumers because it costs more to distribute electricity to them. Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The retail price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity.</p>
<p>In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢ per kilowatthour (kWh).1</p>
<p>The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were:</p>
<p>Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh; Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh; Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh; Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by locality</strong></p>
<p>Electricity prices vary by locality based on the availability of power plants and fuels, local fuel costs, and pricing regulations. In 2022, the annual average retail electricity price for all types of electric utility customers ranged from <strong>39.85¢ per kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢ per kWh in Wyoming.2.</strong> </p>
<p>Prices in Hawaii are high relative to other states mainly because most of its electricity is generated with petroleum fuels that must be imported into the state.</p>
<p>1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.<br/> 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.</p>
<p>Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/">Electric Power Monthly</a>, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary.</p>
<p>See URL</p>
<p><a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php">https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-...</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the US, the cost of electricity to <strong>ratepayers</strong> ranges from about 8 c/kWh (Wyoming) to 40 c/kWh (Hawaii), for an average of about 12.5 c/kWh.</p>
<p>US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y</p>
<p>With a lot of wind/solar/batteries/EVs by 2050, and ratepayers buying 8000 billion kWh/y, because of electrification, the average rate to ratepayers would be about 25 c/kWh,</p>
<p><strong>US ratepayers would pay:</strong> two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y<br/> <strong>Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented</strong><br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE:</strong> All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollars</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 10</strong></p>
<p><strong>LIFE WITHOUT OIL?</strong></p>
<p>Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro, which can be done theoretically, but only at enormous cost.</p>
<p>Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.</p>
<p>The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.</p>
<p>If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.</p>
<p>Without Crude Oil, there can be no Electricity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Every experienced engineer knows, almost all the parts of wind, solar and battery systems, for electricity generation and storage, from mining materials to manufacturing parts, to installation and commissioning, in addition to the infrastructures that produce materials, parts, specialized ships, etc., are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.</strong></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<div class="entry-content magazinenp-parts-item"><p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<div class="wp-block-file"></div>
<div id="wpd-post-rating" class="wpd-not-rated"><div class="wpd-rating-wrap"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="article-main__content"><p></p>
</div>
</div>Trump And 'Joke' Biden Hold Dueling Border Visitstag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-29:4401701:BlogPost:2590442024-02-29T18:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Trump And 'Joke' Biden Hold Dueling Border Visits</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"> </p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN</p>
<p></p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p>On Thursday, former President Donald Trump will be at Eagle Pass, TX, where he'll visit with residents and community leaders to discuss <strong>the complete disaster at the border caused by the…</strong></p>
</div>
</div>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Trump And 'Joke' Biden Hold Dueling Border Visits</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"> </p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN</p>
<p></p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p>On Thursday, former President Donald Trump will be at Eagle Pass, TX, where he'll visit with residents and community leaders to discuss <strong>the complete disaster at the border caused by the Biden administration's decision to reverse various Trump-era policies</strong> and its failure to enforce existing laws.</p>
<p>.</p>
<img alt="" height="333" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/unnamed_file_from_www.google.com_.jpg_92%281%29.jpg?itok=mRuEZtZx" width="500"/><br/> <br/> <br/>
<p>.</p>
<p>For some reason we can't fathom, <strong>President Biden's team thought it was a good idea to shuttle him down to Brownsville, Texas</strong> for a competing appearance roughly 300 miles away from Eagle Pass.</p>
<p>Biden has visited the border just once during his presidency, where he inspected CBP facilities, walked a stretch of the border wall, and stayed far away from any migrants.</p>
<p>According to the White House, the Thursday trip will serve as an opportunity to "discuss the urgent need to pass the Senate bipartisan border security agreement, the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border in decades."</p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"></div>
<p>'Give me $60 billion for Ukraine so we can 'fix' the border' (as opposed to simply issuing executive orders).</p>
<p>The visits will spotlight the immigration crisis, which has emerged as a <strong>key issue in the 2024 presidential race,</strong> that's all but expected to be a rematch between Trump and Biden.</p>
<p>The border trips come amid record-breaking urges in illegal immigration - <strong>with the US experiencing some <a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/stunning-10-million-illegals-have-entered-us-under-biden-tucker-country-being-destroyed">10.2 million illegal immigrants</a> crossing into the country since Biden took office</strong>.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/border%20encounters_1_0.jpg?itok=lMDQw_4N"><img height="304" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/border%20encounters_1_0.jpg?itok=lMDQw_4N" alt=""/></a></p>
<p>And of course, as <a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/inside-most-ridiculous-jobs-report-recent-history">we first revealed</a>, all of the jobs since 2018 have gone to non-native born workers, which primarily means illegal immigrants. <strong>The jobs did not go to legal hispanic and black people</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/native%20vs%20foreign%20born%20workers%20jan%202024_5_0.jpg?itok=YvoV3YT7"><img height="288" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/native%20vs%20foreign%20born%20workers%20jan%202024_5_0.jpg?itok=YvoV3YT7" alt=""/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Ahead of Thursday's visit, President Trump released a video message, in which he said: "Under my leadership, we had the most secure border in U.S. history by far.</p>
<p>We replaced ‘catch-and-release’ with ‘detain-and-deport.'" - but that Biden "terminated every successful border policy," including "Remain in Mexico," <strong>which required asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases were pending review in the US.</strong></p>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"></div>
<p>Trump has repeatedly pledged to launch an <strong>unprecedented deportation operation</strong> as part of a multi-pronged effort to reverse and deter illegal immigration that's happened under Biden.</p>
<p>In a recent post to Truth Social, Trump said: "When I am your president, <strong>we will immediately seal the border, stop the invasion, and on day one, we will begin the largest deportation operation of illegal criminals in American history!</strong>"</p>
<blockquote><p><em><strong>Eagle Pass experienced an overwhelming 2,000 arrests daily of illegal immigrants not long ago</strong>. That number has declined due to the state’s efforts, yet Abbott is a pebble in the Biden administration’s shoe.</em></p>
<p><em>However, <strong>Americans know those numbers will increase again if the federal government does nothing.</strong>Polls across the nation have been publishing warnings now for months.</em></p>
<p><em>After the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, immigration was the top issue on voters’ minds. Edison Research exit polls in South Carolina had immigration crowning the list.</em></p>
<p><em>And then this week, Monmouth Polling dropped the bomb: “<strong>More than 80% of voters now see undocumented migration as either a very serious problem (61%) or a somewhat serious problem (23%).”</strong></em></p>
<p><em>The survey also showed, the majority (53%) of voters polled favored building the wall.</em></p>
<p><em>And about a third believe illegal immigrants commit much more violent crimes.</em></p>
<p><em>Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, explained: "<strong>“Illegal immigration has taken center stage as a defining issue this presidential election year.</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong>Other Monmouth polling found this to be Biden’s weakest policy area, including among his fellow Democrats.”</strong>" -<a href="https://www.libertynation.com/trump-and-biden-a-tale-of-two-border-visits/">Liberty Nation</a></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>.</p>
<p>As the <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/trump-to-visit-border-town-spotlighting-illegal-immigration-crisis-5597399"><em>Epoch Times</em></a> notes; <strong>Alison Anderson, a mother of three who lives near Eagle Pass, is resentful that President Biden has avoided border visits, unlike President Trump, who visited frequently during his presidency</strong>.</p>
<p><strong>This Thursday’s visit marks only the second time that President Biden has visited the southern border since he took office; <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/spotlight-on-the-border-crisis-5595724" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">he made a stop in El Paso in January 2023.</a></strong></p>
<p>“<strong>It’s a joke for him to come here three and a half years into the border crisis that he created himself,</strong>” she told The Epoch Times.</p>
<p>When asked about President Biden’s call for Congress to give him more funding and more authority to address the border, Ms. Anderson was not impressed.</p>
<p><strong>“This is his mess,” she said, “and he needs to own it.”</strong></p>
<p>I.</p>
<p>n contrast, Ms. Anderson sees President Trump’s visit in a positive light.</p>
<p>“We already know what he is capable of doing with the border,” she said, referring to the policies he implemented during his term.</p>
<p>Ms. Anderson is confident that, if he regains the presidency, he will fulfill his pledge to reinstitute border-enforcement policies.</p>
<p>Ms. Anderson said she and other residents are looking for relief from a litany of problems, including “convicted rapists illegally cutting through their properties ... illegals trying to break into their home ... trying to steal their vehicle ... trying to come up to their little girls at night.”</p>
<p>“<strong>People are fed-up in border communities,</strong>” she said. “We’re tired of it.”</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>But some lifelong residents of Laredo, a border town of 256,000 people about halfway between Eagle Pass and Brownsville, said that illegal immigration has always been an accepted part of life for them.</p>
<p>“<strong>It’s just that right now, the focus is there</strong>,” said Alejandra Lightner, 48, as she and her friend, Rosa Montante, 59, sat on a bench in Laredo’s North Central Park, feeding stray cats.</p>
<p>The two women said that some people appreciate being able to employ illegal immigrants to do yard work or house-cleaning at reduced rates. So, in that way, people are benefiting from illegal immigration.</p>
<p>.</p>
<img alt="" height="335" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/image_92%2872%29.jpg?itok=pampsujz" width="500"/><br/> <em>A group crosses a road on the way to Nuevo Laredo, with the intention of entering the United States, in a file photograph. (Omar Torres/AFP via Getty Images)</em><br/> <br/>
<div><p>.</p>
<p>Ms. Anderson bristles at that notion. “This isn’t about cheap labor. This is about our safety and our security and legal immigration, not breaking our laws to come into the United States,” she said.</p>
<p>Ms. Lightner did say that <strong>she was disgusted that President Biden had broke many laws and “encouraged” a “massive influx” of illegal immigrants. Every illegal is a Democrat vote</strong></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>CIA Built "12 Secret Spy Bases" in Ukraine & Waged Shadow War for Last Decade, Bombshell NYT Report Confirmstag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-26:4401701:BlogPost:2592342024-02-26T17:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>CIA Built "12 Secret Spy Bases" in Ukraine & Waged Shadow War for Last Decade, Bombshell NYT Report Confirms</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cia-built-12-secret-spy-bases-in-ukraine-amp-waged-shadow-war-for%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cia-built-12-secret-spy-bases-in-ukraine-amp-waged-shadow-war-for </a>;…</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>CIA Built "12 Secret Spy Bases" in Ukraine & Waged Shadow War for Last Decade, Bombshell NYT Report Confirms</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cia-built-12-secret-spy-bases-in-ukraine-amp-waged-shadow-war-for%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cia-built-12-secret-spy-bases-in-ukraine-amp-waged-shadow-war-for </a>;</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN</p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p>.</p>
<p>On Sunday <em>The New York Times</em> published an explosive and very belated full admission that US intelligence has not only been instrumental in Ukraine wartime decision-making, but has <strong>established and financed high tech command-and-control spy centers</strong>, and was doing so <em>long prior</em> to the Feb. 24 Russian invasion of two years ago.</p>
<p>Russia stated, there are many more than 12, and we will deal with them.</p>
<p>Among the biggest revelations is that the program was <strong>established a decade ago and spans three different American presidents</strong>.</p>
<p>The <em>Times </em>says the CIA program to modernize Ukraine's intelligence services has "transformed" the former Soviet state and its capabilities into "Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin today."</p>
<p>This has included the agency having secretly trained and equipped Ukrainian intelligence officers spanning back to just after the 2014 Maidan coup events, as well constructing <strong>a network of 12 secret bases along the Russian border</strong><em>—</em>work which began eight years ago. </p>
<p>These intelligence bases, from which Russian commanders' communications can be swept up and Russian spy satellites monitored, are being <strong>used launch and track cross-border drone and missile attacks on Russian territory</strong>.</p>
<p>. </p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/21841313772,21778456762/zerohedge/in_content_video_0__container__"><img alt="" height="334" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/commandos%20ukraine%20file.jpg?itok=6II0YrNv" width="500"/><em>Ukrainian commandoes, illustrative file image via Associated Press</em></div>
</div>
<p>.</p>
<p>This means, with the disclosure of the longtime "closely guarded secret", the world <strong>just got a big step closer to WW3</strong>, given it means the CIA is largely responsible for the effectiveness of the recent spate of attacks which have included <a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/another-russian-oil-refinery-engulfed-fire-after-ukraine-drone-attack">direct drone hits on key oil refineries</a> and energy infrastructure. </p>
<p>"Without them [the CIA and elite commandoes it's trained], there would have been no way for us to resist the Russians, or to beat them," <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/the-spy-war-how-the-cia-secretly-helps-ukraine-fight-putin.html">according</a> to Ivan Bakanov, former head of the SBU, which is Ukraine’s domestic intelligence agency.</p>
<p>A main source of the NYT revelations<em>—</em>disclosures which might come as no surprise to those never willing to so easily swallow the mainstream 'official' narrative of events<em>—</em>is identified as a top intelligence commander named Gen. Serhii Dvoretskiy.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Clearly, <strong>Kiev and Washington now <em>want</em> the world to know</strong> of the deep intelligence relationship they tried to conceal for over the past decade.</p>
<p>It is a warning to Moscow, the CIA likely has hacked into the computers of Russia's nuclear forces, and the Russian Military Command.</p>
<p>Also, while Ukraine's forces are in retreat, the CIA is warning: <em>the US is fighting hand in glove with the Ukrainians</em>.</p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>And yet the revelations contained in the NY Times report also confirm what President Putin has precisely accused Washington of all along.</strong></p>
<p>While the lengthy NYT report is full of fresh revelations and confirmation of just how deeply the CIA has always been involved in Ukraine, below are seven of the biggest <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/the-spy-war-how-the-cia-secretly-helps-ukraine-fight-putin.html">contained in the story</a>...</p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Description of secret spy bunker by NYT reporter</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The report contains a surprisingly detailed description of one of the 'secret' underground command centers established by the CIA near the Russian border... location undisclosed of course:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>Not far away, a discreet passageway descends to a subterranean bunker where teams of Ukrainian soldiers track Russian spy satellites and eavesdrop on conversations between Russian commanders. On one screen, a red line followed the route of an explosive drone threading through Russian air defenses from a point in central Ukraine to a target in the Russian city of Rostov.</em></p>
<p><em>The underground bunker, built to replace the destroyed command center in the months after Russia’s invasion, is a secret nerve center of Ukraine’s military.</em></p>
<p><em>There is also one more secret: The base is almost fully financed, and partly equipped, by the CIA.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Elite Ukrainian commando force trained by </strong><b>CIA, etc.</b></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Within two years after the 2014 West-backed coup in Ukraine, the CIA had set up a training program for elite Ukrainian operatives:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>Around 2016, the CIA began training an elite Ukrainian commando force — known as Unit 2245 — which captured Russian drones and communications gear so that CIA technicians could reverse-engineer them and crack Moscow’s encryption systems. (One officer in the unit was Kyrylo Budanov, now the general leading Ukraine’s military intelligence.)</em></p>
<p><em>And the CIA also helped train a new generation of Ukrainian spies who operated inside Russia, across Europe, and in Cuba and other places where the Russians have a large presence.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>CIA transformed Ukraine into an "intelligence-gathering hub", to be a threat to Russia</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The US intelligence network in Ukraine (which is tantamount to NATO intelligence network too) has in reality been more extensive than pretty much all prior media speculation has envisioned.</p>
<p>Ukraine has long been a massive "intelligence gathering hub" for Washington and its partners:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>In more than 200 interviews, current and former officials in Ukraine, the United States and Europe described a partnership that nearly foundered from mutual distrust before it steadily expanded, turning Ukraine into an intelligence-gathering hub that intercepted more Russian communications than the CIA station in Kyiv, Ukraine, could initially handle. Many of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence and matters of sensitive diplomacy.</em></p>
<p><em>Now these intelligence networks are more important than ever, as Russia is on the offensive and Ukraine is more dependent on sabotage and long-range missile strikes that require spies far behind enemy lines. And they are increasingly at risk: If Republicans in Congress end military funding to Kyiv, the CIA may have to scale back.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Huge NYT admission that Putin was basically right</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Below is a hugely ironic excerpt from the <em>Times </em>report. The section begins by noting that Putin has repeatedly blamed the US-NATO for expanding its military and intelligence infrastructure into Ukraine.</p>
<p>Not only had this precisely been going on since 2014, as is now being admitted, but was presented by the Kremlin as a key reason of the Russian invasion of Feb.24, 2022.</p>
<p>Putin and his officials were adamant on the eve of the invasion that NATO was militarizing Ukraine.</p>
<p>The <em>Times</em> appears to now fully admit that, <em>yes</em> - this was actually the case: </p>
<blockquote><p><em>Putin has long blamed Western intelligence agencies for manipulating Kyiv and sowing anti-Russia sentiment in Ukraine.</em></p>
<p><em>Toward the end of 2021, according to a senior European official, Putin was weighing whether to launch his full-scale invasion when he met with the head of one of Russia’s main spy services, who told him that the CIA, together with Britain’s MI6, were controlling Ukraine and turning it into a beachhead for operations against Moscow.</em></p>
<p><em>...U.S. officials were often reluctant to fully engage, fearing that Ukrainian officials could not be trusted, and worrying about provoking the Kremlin.Yet a tight circle of Ukrainian intelligence officials assiduously courted the CIA and gradually made themselves vital to the Americans. In 2015, Gen. Valeriy Kondratiuk, then Ukraine’s head of military intelligence, arrived at a meeting with the CIA’s deputy station chief and without warning handed over a stack of top-secret files.</em></p>
<p><em>.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"></div>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>US-Financed 2014 Coup d’Etat in Kiev and Crimea</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The report indirectly references this very critical period which set Ukraine and Russian on their tragic collision course: </p>
<blockquote><p><em>With violence escalating, an unmarked U.S. government plane touched down at an airport in Kyiv carrying John Brennan, then the director of the CIA. He told Nalyvaichenko that the CIA was interested in developing a relationship but only at a pace the agency was comfortable with, according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials.</em></p>
<p><em>To the CIA, the unknown question was how long Nalyvaichenko and the pro-Western government would be around. The CIA had been burned before in Ukraine.</em></p>
<p><em>...The result was a delicate balancing act. The CIA was supposed to strengthen Ukraine’s intelligence agencies without provoking the Russians. The red lines were never precisely clear, which created a persistent tension in the partnership.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>.</b></p>
<p><b>Operation Goldfish</b></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Money and advanced tech given by the CIA has allowed the Ukrainians to establish eavesdropping operations far beyond what they would otherwise be capable of.</p>
<p>All the while, elite commando teams were being trained by the CIA in European cities as part of a program called 'Operation Goldfish'.</p>
<p>The NYT reporting includes a bit of a 'boast' of the Ukrainians now being able to hack into Russian military networks: </p>
<blockquote><p><em>In the bunker, Dvoretskiy pointed to communications equipment and large computer servers, some of which were financed by the CIA. He said his teams were using the base to hack into the Russian military’s secure communications networks.</em></p>
<p><em>“This is the thing that breaks into satellites and decodes secret conversations,” Dvoretskiy told a Times journalist on a tour, adding that they were hacking into spy satellites from China and Belarus, too.</em></p>
<p><em>...The CIA began sending equipment in 2016, after the pivotal meeting at Scattergood, Dvoretskiy said, providing encrypted radios and devices for intercepting secret enemy communications.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>A stunning admission: "Tiptoeing Around Trump"</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Among the most interesting and curious moments of the NYT report is a description of the CIA program's expanse under the Trump administration.</p>
<p>The NYT report suggests, the true scope was hidden from Trump.</p>
<p>The Russian hawks in his administration quietly did the 'dirty work', we are told: </p>
<blockquote><p><em>The election of Trump in November 2016 put the Ukrainians and their CIA partners on edge.</em></p>
<p><em>Trump praised Putin and dismissed Russia’s role in election interference. He was suspicious of Ukraine and later tried to pressure its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to investigate his Democratic rival, Biden, resulting in Trump’s first impeachment.</em></p>
<p><em>.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"></div>
<p>.</p>
<p>The report then emphasizes, "<strong>But whatever Trump said and did, his administration often went in the other direction</strong>.</p>
<p>This is because Trump had naively put <strong>Russia hawks in key positions</strong>, including Mike Pompeo as CIA director and John Bolton as national security adviser."</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>And further, "These hawks visited Kyiv to underline their full support for the secret partnership, which expanded to include more specialized training programs and the building of additional secret bases."</p>
<p>Given the attempt to place Trump in a negative light <strong>(he had to be 'tiptoed around'...)</strong>, it will be interesting to see how he and his campaign respond to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/the-spy-war-how-the-cia-secretly-helps-ukraine-fight-putin.html">the report</a>.</p>
<p>But more consequential will be the reaction of Putin and the Kremlin in the coming days.</p>
</div>
</div>Ukraine's Top Spy Chief Says Navalny Died From Blood Clot, Rejects 'Murder' Narrativetag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-26:4401701:BlogPost:2591302024-02-26T17:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;">Ukraine's Top Spy Chief Says Navalny Died From Blood Clot, Rejects 'Murder' Narrative</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ukraine-s-top-spy-chief-says-navalny-died-from-blood-clot-rejects%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ukraine-s-top-spy-chief-says-navalny-died-from-blood-clot-rejects </a>;</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN</p>
<p>.…</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">Ukraine's Top Spy Chief Says Navalny Died From Blood Clot, Rejects 'Murder' Narrative</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ukraine-s-top-spy-chief-says-navalny-died-from-blood-clot-rejects%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ukraine-s-top-spy-chief-says-navalny-died-from-blood-clot-rejects </a>;</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN</p>
<p>.</p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p>In a very unexpected plot twist, Ukraine appears to be in agreement with the Kremlin on Alexei Navalny's death inside a far northern Russian prison which occurred on Feb. 16 and was listed by Russian authorities as officially due to "natural causes".</p>
<p><strong>The dominant Western narrative has thus far been that Putin had him "murdered". </strong></p>
<p>Kiev sources are saying, the anti-Putin activist, subsidized by the West, <strong>died of a blood clot</strong>.</p>
<p>Surprisingly, this explanation is being advanced among <em>Ukraine media sources</em> after, none other than Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, chief of the Main Directorate of Intelligence (HUR), <a href="https://www.kyivpost.com/post/28630">bluntly stated it</a> , to a group of journalists on Sunday. "I may disappoint you, but as far as we know, <strong>he indeed died as a result of a blood clot. And this has been more or less confirmed</strong>," Budanov stated.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/ukrspychieffile.jpg?itok=gGEvtg9P"><img height="281" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/ukrspychieffile.jpg?itok=gGEvtg9P" alt=""/></a></p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/21841313772,21778456762/zerohedge/in_content_video_0__container__">.</div>
</div>
<p>"This wasn't sourced from the internet, but, unfortunately, <strong>natural [causes]</strong>," he <a href="https://www.kyivpost.com/post/28630">added</a> in the remarks which were also caught on video. The spy chief's words were also picked up in <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13124393/Ukraines-spy-chief-says-Alexei-Navalny-died-blood-clot.html"><em>The Daily Mail</em></a>, though predictably US mainstream outlets have been slow to acknowledge the assessment.</p>
<p>Further, the NATO-friendly pundit Anton Gerashchenko, who also served as former Ukrainian Advisor to Internal Affairs Minister, has said the <a href="https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1762108472999526859">following</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>Vladimir Osechkin, founder of Gulagu. Net, says that, according to his sources, Navalny was killed (finished off with a blow to the chest) after being tortured with frost.</em></p>
<p><em>Head of Ukrainian military intelligence Kyrylo Budanov said that according to his sources, <strong>"it was a blood clot."</strong></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>.</p>
<p>Over the weekend Navalny's mother, Lyudmila Navalnaya, said her son's body was finally released to the family. She has said Russian officials are seeking to pressure the family into doing a 'secret funeral' so as not to attract public demonstrations.</p>
<p>"We do not know, if the authorities will interfere to carry it out as the family wants and as Alexey deserves," she said previously.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Navalny's wife has laid ultimate blame on Putin for his death; <strong>"Putin killed him"</strong></p>
<p>President Biden too and other Western leaders have said <strong>"Putin is responsible."</strong></p>
<p>"What has happened to Navalny is yet more proof of Putin's brutality," Biden <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/16/world/aleksei-navalny?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur">had said</a> immediately after Navalny's death was announced by Russian prison services.</p>
<p>Some European leaders <a href="https://www.barrons.com/news/estonia-s-pm-slams-russian-rogue-regime-after-navalny-s-death-833dd07e">quickly branded </a>Putin's government a <strong>"rogue regime"</strong> as a result, urging that Moscow "must be held accountable".</p>
<p>The whole situation seems akin to the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, where there was a rush to blame Moscow, but the allegations were quieted and walked back.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Russia hawks in the US are urging the administration to <em>go beyond</em> last Friday's large round of new anti-Moscow sanctions...</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>Navalny was to be Released in Prisoner Exchange</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Another stunning development and further plot twist has emerged via Bloomberg reporting on Monday. Navalny was supposedly <strong>very close to being released</strong> amid secret talks involving the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-26/navalny-was-set-for-release-in-swap-before-he-died-aide-says">US and Germany</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>Alexey Navalny had been close to release in a prisoner exchange with the US and Germany shortly before his death in an Arctic prison, a top aide to the Russian opposition leader said.</em></p>
<p><em><strong>"Navalny was supposed to be freed in the coming days,"</strong> Maria Pevchikh said in a video statement posted Monday. Russian President Vladimir Putin was offered an assassin imprisoned in Germany in exchange for Navalny and two US citizens, she said.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>.</p>
<p>Moscow has long been seeking to gain the freedom of Vadim Krasikov, who is currently serving a life sentence in Germany for the 2019 assassination of a former Chechen rebel in a Berlin park. </p>
<p>Krasikov is widely believed to be part of Russia’s Federal Security Service, or FSB.</p>
<p>Washington had reportedly previously rebuffed any prisoner swap deal involving Krasikov (related to talks in the context of the Brittney Griner and Viktor Bout swap).</p>
<p>Wall Street Journal reporter <strong>Evan Gershkovich, ex-Marine Paul Whelan, and schoolteacher Marc Fogel</strong> are all still in Russian custody.</p>
<p>Two Americans were supposed to be part of this alleged impending Navalny swap.</p>
<p>According to more from <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-26/navalny-was-set-for-release-in-swap-before-he-died-aide-says"><em>Bloomberg</em></a>, citing a Navalny family spokesperson: </p>
<blockquote><p><em>Pevchikh didn’t name the two Americans involved in the deal. <strong>"Putin was clearly told that the only way to get Krasikov is to exchange him for Navalny,"</strong> said Pevchikh. Instead, he decided to <strong>"get rid of the bargaining chip"</strong>and "offer someone else when the time comes."</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, news of Navalny's funeral arrangements will likely emerge in the coming days.</p>
<p>His family has hinted at their desire to see it happen in Moscow, which could spark anti-Kremlin protests.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>As for the aforementioned blood clot narrative offered by Ukraine's military intelligence chief and possible context helping to explain why such a top level Kiev official would essentially "side" with the Kremlin on this, what's missed in the West is the fact, Navalny had always been a fairly hardline nationalist.</p>
<p>From a Ukrainian neo-nationalist perspective, he wasn't necessarily seen as an "ally" per se, even though he was anti-Putin.</p>
<p>For more crucial context, see the below brief segment discussing Navalny's checkered past...</p>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>HYDROGEN TO THE RESCUE? ARE YOU KIDDING?tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-18:4401701:BlogPost:2586832024-02-18T16:30:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p><strong>HYDROGEN TO THE RESCUE? ARE YOU KIDDING?</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hydrogen-to-the-rescue-are-you-kidding">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hydrogen-to-the-rescue-are-you-kidding</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>HYDROGEN</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>The H2 electricity cost is close to 50 c/kWh, delivered to user, because:</p>
<p></p>
<p>1) You have to STORE it, which is technically hard to do. Just Google</p>
<p></p>
<p>2) You cannot pipe…</p>
<p><strong>HYDROGEN TO THE RESCUE? ARE YOU KIDDING?</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hydrogen-to-the-rescue-are-you-kidding">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hydrogen-to-the-rescue-are-you-kidding</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>HYDROGEN</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>The H2 electricity cost is close to 50 c/kWh, delivered to user, because:</p>
<p></p>
<p>1) You have to STORE it, which is technically hard to do. Just Google</p>
<p></p>
<p>2) You cannot pipe it (too dangerous). Users of H2 need their own H2 production and storage.</p>
<p>That is why Germany is existing using gas-fired CCGT plants combined with H2 plants, for DEMONSTRATION purposes.</p>
<p>The CCGT plant produces the electricity to make the H2, which is co-fired with the gas.</p>
<p>It looks like a huge government-inspired success coming up.</p>
<p></p>
<p>3) And you have to use large-scale battery systems, or other storage systems, if wind and solar are the electricity sources for making H2</p>
<p></p>
<p>This brings us to the cost/kWh of <strong>offshore wind</strong> electricity for producing H2</p>
<p></p>
<p><b>OFFSHORE WIND</b></p>
<p></p>
<p>In New York State, offshore wind developers, who had bid in 2023 for contracts at about $90-100/MWh (i.e., 9 – 10 cents per kWh), decided a few months later, to <strong>renege on signed contracts</strong> and demanded prices in the range of $150-160/MWh, or <strong>15-16 cents per kWh.</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Costs regarding offshore wind, almost always never mentioned, at higher wind penetration, say 30%, as in Germany, the UK, etc.:</strong></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about <b>2 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid</span></p>
<p><span>Cost of curtailments, <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites</span></p>
<p></p>
<p>These numbers are based on UK experience.</p>
<p>Why do you think German, UK, etc., electric rates have gone through the roof?</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>BATTERY SYSTEMS</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging/edit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging/edit</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Example of Turnkey Cost of Large-Scale, Megapack Battery System, 2023 pricing</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The system consists of 50 Megapack 2, rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, 4-h energy delivery</p>
<p>Power = 50 Megapacks x 0.979 MW x 0.926, Tesla design factor = 45.3 MW</p>
<p>Energy = 50 Megapacks x 3.916 MWh x 0.929, Tesla design factor = 181.9 MWh</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Estimate of supply by Tesla, $90 million, or <strong>$495/kWh</strong>. See URL</p>
<p>Estimate of supply by Others, $14.5 million, or <strong>$80/kWh</strong></p>
<p><strong>All-in, turnkey cost about $575/kWh; 2023 pricing</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design</a></p>
<p><a href="https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/2022-03-21_15-28-46.png?itok=lxTa2SlF" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/2022-03-21_15-28-46.png?itok=lxTa2SlF</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/tesla-hikes-megapack-prices-commodity-inflation-soars" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/tesla-hikes-megapack-prices-commodity-inflation-soars</a></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2</p>
<p>Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, <strong>$5.484 million/y</strong></p>
<p>Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, <strong>$6.765 million/y</strong> (10% due to high inflation)</p>
<p>Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = <strong>$183.7 million</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)</p>
<p>Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh</p>
<p>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh</p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>At 10% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh</strong></p>
<p><strong>At 40% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh</strong></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Excluded costs/kWh: </strong>1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites.</p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>NOTE: These excluded costs would add at least 10 - 15 c/kWh</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong>: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong>: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system. See URL</p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>COMMENT ON CALCULATION</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid, no matter what.</p>
<p>Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment</p>
<p>If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.</p>
<p>According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.</p>
<p>A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening.</p>
<p>They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations</p>
<p>Remember, you have to draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid, because of a-to-z system losses. That gets worse with aging.</p>
<p>A lot of lay people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been brain-washed by self-serving folks, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.</p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>NOTE 1</strong>: Aerial photos of large-scale battery systems with many Megapacks, show many items of equipment, other than the Tesla supply, such as step-down/step-up transformers, switchgear, connections to the grid, land, access roads, fencing, security, site lighting, i.e., the cost of the Tesla supply is only one part of the battery system cost at a site.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>NOTE 2</strong>: Battery system turnkey capital costs and electricity storage costs likely will be much higher in 2023 and future years, than in 2021 and earlier years, due to:</p>
<p></p>
<p>1) Increased inflation rates,</p>
<p>2) Increased interest rates,</p>
<p>3) Supply chain disruptions, which delay projects and increase costs,</p>
<p>4) Increased energy prices, such as of oil, gas, coal, electricity, etc.,</p>
<p>5) Increased materials prices, such as of tungsten, cobalt, lithium, copper, manganese, etc.,</p>
<p>6) Increased labor rates.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>NOTE 3: </strong>If a 24-h battery system is desired, each parallel train would have 10 units x 4 h/unit x 0.6, Tesla limit = 24 hours</p>
<p><strong>Ten, 4-h Megapacks, in series, would be required for a 24-h system</strong></p>
<p>Above example would have 50 x 6 = 300 Megapacks.</p>
<p>Tesla design factors would apply. See article</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>NOTE 4:</strong> World cobalt production was 142,000 and 170,000 metric ton, in 2020 and 2021, respectively, of which the Democratic Republic of the Congo was 120,000 metric ton in 2021 </p>
<p><a href="https://www.kitco.com/news/2022-02-02/Global-cobalt-production-hits-record-in-2021-as-mined-cobalt-output-in-DR-Congo-jumps-22-4.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.kitco.com/news/2022-02-02/Global-cobalt-production-hits-record-in-2021-as-mined-cobalt-output-in-DR-Congo-jumps-22-4.html</a></p>
<p></p>
<div class="wpd-comment-text"><p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>A Hydrogen-Fueled Car?</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p>It is now almost 14 times more expensive to drive a Toyota hydrogen car in California than a comparable Tesla EVThe state’s largest H2 fuel supplier has hiked its pump price to $36 per kg across all 37 of its filling stations<br/> <br/> By <a href="https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/author/l_collins" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow ugc"><strong>Leigh Collins</strong></a><br/> It is currently almost 14 times more expensive to drive a Toyota Mirai in California than a comparable Tesla battery-electric car after a massive hydrogen fuel price hike, according to calculations by <em>Hydrogen Insight</em>.</p>
<p>California’s largest H2 fuel retailer, True Zero, which operates 37 of the 53 hydrogen filling stations in the state, recently hiked the price of H2 at all its pumps to $36/kg, up from around $30/kg.<br/> As recently as April 2021, it was charging just <a href="https://h2fcp.org/blog/studio-city-hydrogen-station-opens" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">$13.14</a> per kilo.<br/> <a href="https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/news/2-1-1504349" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">https://images-global.nhst.tech/image/SXdoVUJTeFBUNk5vK0FJWkd2VmhIdWhQczkrMnpGd215b0pNYkpVSkNxRT0=/nhst/binary/212fb9f6b3cb99b53dfc6ae88a0ab76e</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/news/2-1-1504349" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow ugc"><strong>Californian legislators mull $300m hydrogen refuelling subsidy — despite admitting that it is a ‘waste of money’</strong></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>At the new price, filling a Toyota Mirai’s 5.6 kg tank would cost $201.60 — around $0.50 per mile, according to the Japanese auto maker’s claimed driving range of 400 miles (647km).</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>By way of comparison, fully charging a 60 kWh Tesla Model 3 in California would cost $11.94, based on the <a href="https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">latest average electricity prices</a>.</p>
<p>With an official range of 333 miles on a full battery, it therefore costs $0.036 per mile — almost 14 times cheaper than the Mirai, which is by far the most common fuel-cell car in the state. </p>
<p>And for Tesla owners with cheap overnight electricity rates at home, it would work out even cheaper. </p>
<p>The Tesla Model 3 — the biggest-selling electric vehicle in California — also costs a lot less to buy in the state than a Toyota Mirai.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>With federal and state incentives, the Model 3 is now available for $25,240 ($40,240 without incentives), compared to $49,500 for the Mirai — although Toyota also provides buyers with free hydrogen fuel up to the value of $15,000, paid via a fuel card, which has been a major selling point.</p>
</div>
<div class="wpd-comment-footer"><div class="wpd-vote"></div>
<div class="wpd-reply-button">.</div>
</div>
<div class="H_7jIs D_F ab_C Q_69H5 E_36RhU"><div class="D_F W_6D6F r_BN gl_C"><p><strong>APPENDIX 1</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW</p>
<p>Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%</p>
<p>At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%</p>
<p><a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition">https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and</p>
<p>2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)</strong></p>
<p><strong>See below Norwegian floating offshore cost of $8,300/installed kW</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in specialized ships, also designed and made in Europe, then unloaded at the about $400-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging area, then barged to specialized erection ships, also designed and made in Europe, for erection of the floating turbines</p>
<p> </p>
<p>About 300 Maine people would have pre-assembly/staging/erection jobs, during the erection phase</p>
<p>The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships</p>
<p>About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs during the 20-y electricity production phase</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The projects would produce electricity at about 40 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 20 c/kWh, with subsidies, the wholesale price at which utilities would buy from Owners (higher prices after 2023)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through">https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to all the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024</p>
<p>The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.</p>
<p>The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b><span>Floating Offshore Wind in Maine</span></b></p>
<p><b><span> </span></b></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost: </span></b><span>Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at <b>$7,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>35.827 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>NOTE</span></b><span>: If li-ion battery systems were contemplated, they would add 20 to 40 c/kWh to the cost of any electricity passing through them, during their about 15-y useful service lives! See Part 1 of URL<br/></span> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span>https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</span></a></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>NOTE</span></b><span>: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about <b>5 c/kWh</b>, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Additional Gridwork on Shore</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. <br/> The cables would need some type of flexible support system</p>
<p>There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England high voltage grid. </p>
<p>The onshore grid will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy.</p>
<p><strong>Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 2</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind in Norway</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company</p>
<p>Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.</p>
<p>On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.</p>
<p>The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365</p>
<p>The generators will provide almost all the electricity during <strong>low-wind periods</strong>, and 100% during <strong>high-wind periods</strong>, when rotors are feathered and locked.</p>
<p>The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = <strong>$8,300/kW. See URL</strong></p>
<p>That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher</p>
<p>The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms">https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms</a></p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies </p>
<p>In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.</p>
<p>Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind in Maine: </strong>If such floating units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) The additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus</p>
<p>2) The additional $300 to $500 million capital cost of any onshore facilities for storing/pre-assembly/staging/barging to erection sites</p>
<p>3) A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. </p>
<p>The cables would need some type of flexible support system<br/> The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><span><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="514" height="565"/></a></span></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 3</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Offshore Wind</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about wind energy issues that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines of the stock prices of Siemens, Oersted, etc., starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out<br/> All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See costs/kWh in below article</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals</strong></p>
<p>1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government <br/> 2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disconnected-from-markets UK government</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about <strong>9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years</strong>, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See article<br/> <br/> <strong>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong>: During an interview, a commentator was reported to say” “renewables are not always reliable” <br/> That shows the types of ignorami driving the bus<br/> The commentator should have said: <strong>Wind and solar are never, ever reliable </strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><b><span>US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost</span></b></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity production</span></b><span> about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost, c/kWh</span></b><span>: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at <b>$5,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>30.273 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>15.137 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Not included</span></b><span>: At a future 30% wind/solar on the grid: </span></p>
<p><span>Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about <b>2 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid</span></p>
<p><span>Cost of curtailments, <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 4</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.</p>
<p>With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.</p>
<p>Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies</p>
<p>The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.</p>
<p>The adders become<strong> exponentially greater,</strong> with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems</p>
<p>Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.</p>
<p>Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.</p>
<p>The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.</p>
<p>W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies</p>
<p>W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,</p>
<p>2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers</p>
<p>3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365 </p>
<p>4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during<strong> low-W/S periods,</strong> and<strong> 100% </strong>during<strong> high-W/S periods, </strong>when rotors are feathered and locked,</p>
<p>5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced</p>
<p>6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="650" height="433"/></a></p>
<p>. </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 5</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING<br/></strong> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>EXCERPT:</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong><span>Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing</span></strong></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, <strong>$5.484 million/y</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, <strong>$6.765 million/y</strong> (10% due to high inflation)</span></p>
<p><span>Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = <strong>$183.7 million</strong></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)</span></p>
<p><span>Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh</span></p>
<p><strong><span>At 10% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span>At 40% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><strong><span>Excluded costs/kWh: </span></strong><span>1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites.<br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE</strong>: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><strong><span>NOTE</span></strong><span>: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia"><span>http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia</span></a></p>
<p><strong><span> </span></strong></p>
<p><b><span>COMMENT ON CALCULATION</span></b></p>
<p><span>Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid, no matter what.<br/> Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment</span></p>
<p><span>If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.</span></p>
<p><span>According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.</span></p>
<p><span>A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening.<br/> They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations</span></p>
<p><span>Remember, you have to draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid, because of a-to-z system losses. That gets worse with aging.</span></p>
<p><span>A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 6</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/lights-out-solar-power-stocks-crash-after-demand-warning-across-europe">SolarEdge Technologies shares plunged</a> about two weeks ago, after it warned about decreasing European demand. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>SolarEdge Melts Down After Weak Guidance </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Great Green Crash – Solar Down 40%</p>
<p><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 7</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>EV Owners Facing Soaring Insurance Costs in the US and UK</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>U.S. Offshore Wind Plans Are Utterly Collapsing</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK<br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 8</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Nuclear Plants by Russia</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW</p>
<p>Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england</a></p>
<p>Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.</p>
<p>The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Nuclear Plants</strong>: A typical plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually about 1,200 MW each</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Egypt</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW, </p>
<p>The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.</p>
<p>As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.<br/> That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Turkey</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>India</strong>, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the <b>Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.</b></p>
<p>Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed</p>
<p></p>
<p>In <strong>Bangladesh</strong>: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the <strong>Rooppur Power Station</strong></p>
<p>Capital cost $12.65 billion<strong> </strong>is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess <a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel" title="Spent nuclear fuel">spent nuclear fuel</a>.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Nuclear vs Wind</strong>: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions</p>
<p>They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years</p>
<p>Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.<br/> They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places</p>
<p>They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment <br/> They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Major Competitors</strong>: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.<br/> They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.</p>
<p>American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Tripling Nuclear A Total Fantasy:</strong> During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.</p>
<p><a href="https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html">https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants</p>
<p>Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>New nuclear</strong>: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table</p>
<p>Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, </p>
<p>Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050. </p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Infrastructures and Manpower</strong>: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year">https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year</a>.</p>
<p>. </p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p>Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022</p>
</td>
<td><p>370200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Proposed tripling</p>
</td>
<td><p>3</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>1110600</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Nuclear, MW</p>
</td>
<td><p>740400</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>MW/reactor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors</p>
</td>
<td><p>617</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Reactors, rounded</p>
</td>
<td><p>620</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors/site</p>
</td>
<td><p>2</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Sites</p>
</td>
<td><p>310</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, MWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841311760</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Conversion factor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1000000</p>
</td>
<td><p>%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841</p>
</td>
<td><p>11</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>World total production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>53000</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 9</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by type of customer</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Retail electricity prices are usually highest for residential and commercial consumers because it costs more to distribute electricity to them. Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The retail price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity.</p>
<p>In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢ per kilowatthour (kWh).1</p>
<p>The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh</p>
<p>Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh</p>
<p>Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh</p>
<p>Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by locality</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Electricity prices vary by locality based on the availability of power plants and fuels, local fuel costs, and pricing regulations. In 2022, the annual average retail electricity price for all types of electric utility customers ranged from <strong>39.85¢ per kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢ per kWh in Wyoming.2.</strong> </p>
<p>Prices in Hawaii are high relative to other states mainly because most of its electricity is generated with petroleum fuels that must be imported into the state.</p>
<p>1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.<br/> 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.</p>
<p>Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/">Electric Power Monthly</a>, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary.</p>
<p>See URL</p>
<p><a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php">https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-...</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the US, the cost of electricity to <strong>ratepayers</strong> ranges from about 8 c/kWh (Wyoming) to 40 c/kWh (Hawaii), for an average of about 12.5 c/kWh.</p>
<p>US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y</p>
<p>With a lot of wind/solar/batteries/EVs by 2050, and ratepayers buying 8000 billion kWh/y, because of electrification, the average rate to ratepayers would be about 25 c/kWh,</p>
<p><strong>US ratepayers would pay:</strong> two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y<br/> <strong>Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented</strong><br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE:</strong> All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollars</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 10</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>LIFE WITHOUT OIL?</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro, which can be done theoretically, but only at enormous cost.</p>
<p>Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.</p>
<p>The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.</p>
<p>If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Without Crude Oil, there can be no Electricity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Every experienced engineer knows, almost all the parts of wind, solar and battery systems, for electricity generation and storage, from mining materials to manufacturing parts, to installation and commissioning, in addition to the infrastructures that produce materials, parts, specialized ships, etc., are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.</strong></p>
<p><strong>There is no escaping of this reality, except in green la-la-land.</strong></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<div class="entry-content magazinenp-parts-item"><p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<div class="wp-block-file"></div>
<div id="wpd-post-rating" class="wpd-not-rated"><div class="wpd-rating-wrap"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>Mr. Bean was Right Regarding EVs–and so was Toyotatag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-15:4401701:BlogPost:2586682024-02-15T23:30:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<div class="entry-meta category-meta"><div class="cat-links"><p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Mr. Bean was Right Regarding EVs–and so was Toyota</strong></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="entry-meta magazinenp-parts-item"><div class="comments"></div>
</div>
<div class="entry-content magazinenp-parts-item"><p>By <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/authors/duggan_flanakin/">Duggan Flanakin</a></p>
<p>February 13, 2024</p>
<p>When auto enthusiast Rowan…</p>
</div>
<div class="entry-meta category-meta"><div class="cat-links"><p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Mr. Bean was Right Regarding EVs–and so was Toyota</strong></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="entry-meta magazinenp-parts-item"><div class="comments"></div>
</div>
<div class="entry-content magazinenp-parts-item"><p>By <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/authors/duggan_flanakin/">Duggan Flanakin</a></p>
<p>February 13, 2024</p>
<p>When auto enthusiast Rowan Atkinson, a trained engineer – Mr. Bean to his fans – last June wrote in <em>The Guardian, </em> there are “sound environmental reasons” why “keeping your old petrol car may be better than buying an EV,” he was vilified as a eco-traitor.</p>
<p>Atkinson had added, “We’re realizing that a wider range of options need to be explored, if we’re going to properly address the very serious environmental problems that our use of the motor car has created.”</p>
<p>These include, he said, hydrogen fuel cells and synthetic fuels that would extend the lives of older vehicles long after governments are demanding they be scrapped.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>Atkinson, who has a bachelor’s in electrical and electronic engineering and a master’s in control systems,</strong> urged Britons to “look at a bigger picture” to include greenhouse gas emissions during the manufacture of electric vehicles and to evaluate the whole life cycle of motor vehicles, from mining to hazardous waste landfill.</p>
<p>Relying on a dash of common sense, Atkinson noted, pushing so heavily, so soon, for EVs with major flaws will result in “millions of overweight electric cars with rapidly obsolescing batteries.”</p>
<p>Technologic developments with hydrogen and synthetic fuels, which can power existing internal combustion engines, may prove a better long-term solution.</p>
<p>For one reason, the owners of the world’s 1.5 billion ICE vehicles could continue enjoying them.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>For sharing his insights, Atkinson was immediately smacked around by snarky reporters and EV “experts.” Simon Evans, deputy editor at <em>Carbon Brief</em>, slammed Atkinson for not adhering to <em>Carbon Brief’s</em> own “evidence”, stating, EVs cut “planet-warming emissions” by two-thirds on a life cycle basis and calling EVs “an essential part of tackling the climate emergency.”. This is total BS</p>
<p>How dare Evans spout such nonsense?</p>
<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/06/06/sorry-mr-bean-evs-are-better-choice/">Michael Coren</a>, writing in the <em>Washington Post</em>, portrayed Atkinson as an iconoclast clinging to his petrol car, lampooned hydrogen and synthetic fuels as expensive and impractical, and compared ICE vehicles to hobby horses.</p>
<p>Coren argued, “making every car burn [hydrogen] is not a good idea,” yet implied that subsidizing and forcing every driver to buy an EV is a very good idea.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Eight months later, though, the detractors, who had hoped to make Atkinson an example of a troglodyte were singing a different tune, in the wake of a collapse in the British EV market.</p>
<p>Mr. Bean was <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/rowan-atkinson-blamed-for-poor-electric-car-sales-by-house-of-lords-report/ar-BB1hSqcm">condemned</a> in the House of Lords by the Green Alliance as 1) “partly at fault for ‘damaging’ public perceptions” of EVs, and 2) as a dangerous enemy of Britain’s drive to Net Zero.</p>
<p><em>The Guardian,</em> which published Atkinson’s tome, was indirectly accused of failing to adhere to “high editorial standards around the Net Zero transition.”. Which means, ONLY glowing reports on EVs are acceptable public speech.]</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>It couldn’t have been:</p>
<p></p>
<p>1) the exorbitant cost of <a href="https://electriccarguide.co.uk/are-electric-cars-more-expensive-to-insure/">auto insurance</a> for EVs,</p>
<p>2) their tendency to <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-vehicle-fires-what-to-know-2023-11">catch fire</a> and burn for days, or</p>
<p>3) the high cost and long wait times for <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-car-service-maintenance-car-buyers-tips-dealers-cost-2023-2">parts and repairs</a> – or</p>
<p>4) the <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Business/broken-machines-long-waits-reality-charging-electric-vehicle/story?id=97389275">long waits</a> at charging stations to plug in and wait for enough charge at least reach the next destination.</p>
<p>5) Nor could it be that people are uncomfortable <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/21/1068880/how-did-china-dominate-electric-cars-policy/">enriching China</a> as their own auto companies face bankruptcy?</p>
<p>6) No – it was allowing someone famous/well-known to publicly question the subsidy-hyped rush to EVs</p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Toyota Was Right as Well</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p>Halfway <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/15/mr-bean-was-right-and-so-was-toyota/1%20major%20car%20maker%20resisted%20EV%20mania.%20Now%20it's%20raking%20in%20cash%20(wnd.com)">around the world</a>, Toyota, which, on purpose, “lagged behind” its major competitors in ditching their ICE vehicle fleets for all-EV production lines, “is riding a windfall of hybrid vehicle sales on its way to posting projected net profits of more than $30 billion in 2023</p>
<p>While Ford lost $4.7 billion trying to create an EV market, dropping its net profit to just $4.2 billion,</p>
<p>Toyota now appears to be in better financial shape than all its American and European competitors, except Tesla</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Over a year ago, then-Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda <a href="https://fortune.com/2022/10/02/toyota-ceo-electric-vehicles-hype-department-store-of-powertrains/">had cautioned</a> , the EV transition would “take longer than the bought-and-paid-for, lapdog Media would like us to believe.”</p>
<p>Ford, GM, Stellantis, and many other automakers worldwide played nice with the woke political and financial entities, while Toyota’s realistic management stepped away from the over-the-top rhetoric, looked at the numbers, and chose a common-sense approach to the evolving world auto marketplace.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The company did sell 15,000 pure EVs in the U.S. in 2023, but they also sold 40,000 plug-in hybrids and more than 600,000 non-rechargeable hybrids out of <a href="https://pressroom.toyota.com/toyota-motor-north-america-reports-2023-u-s-sales-results/">total U.S. sales</a> of 2,248,477 vehicles, a 6% increase from 2022 levels.</p>
<p>Ford fell short of its goal to produce 300,000 EVs a year by 2023 and has reduced its earlier forecast of 2 million EVs by 2026.</p>
<p>Worse, Ford now expects to lose as much as $5.5 billion on EVs in 2024; the more EVs produced, the more Ford loses</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Over in Europe, Volvo <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/02/02/volvo-pulled-plug-electric-car-brand-polestar/">just announced</a> , it is withdrawing subsidies for its marquee electric vehicle <strong>Polestar</strong> and hopes to sell its 48% stake, possibly to a Chinese buyer.</p>
<p>Just days earlier, Polestar had cut 450 jobs, about 15% of its workforce.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Elsewhere in Europe, EV sales are expected to decline in 2024 in Germany, Europe’s largest auto market</p>
<p>Renault just scrapped plans to spin off its Ampere EVs, blaming a lack of interest from investors and a slowdown in sales.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>EV sales in the United Kingdom also flat-lined in 2023, prices for used EVs fell sharply, raising questions about their residual value.</p>
<p>Even EV-friendly <a href="https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/electric-vehicle-sales-growth-slows-in-switzerland/49096326?utm_campaign=top_en&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=o&utm_term=automatic">Switzerland admits, </a> it will take at least 20 years to fully electrify its fleet; while EVs and hybrids today comprise about 30% of Swiss new car sales, these vehicles amount to less than 4% of the total vehicles on the road.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Oil and gas companies are getting the message, too. BP, which once billed itself as “Beyond Petroleum,” has been encouraged by <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/15/mr-bean-was-right-and-so-was-toyota/Face%20It:%20The%20Energy%20Transition%20Ain't%20Happening%20%E2%80%94%20Manhattan%20Contrarian">an activist investor</a> to reduce its investments in renewables, and ESG, and recommit to oil and gas.</p>
<p>A major reason – oil and gas investments in recent years have made money, while investments in renewables have tanked.</p>
<p>Bluebell Capital Partners asserted, BP’s ill-considered commitment to renewable has left its stock price undervalued by 50% compared to ExxonMobil and Chevron.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>President Biden’s demand, the U.S. comply with his EV mandates was dealt a major blow last month, when auto rental giant Hertz, heretofore the nation’s largest fleet operator of EVs, announced <a href="https://www.autoblog.com/2024/01/16/hertzs-tesla-liquidation-sale-likely-means-more-depreciation-for-used-evs/">it was selling</a> all 20,000 of its EVs and not buying any more.</p>
<p>The company cited high repair costs, long wait for parts, and weak customer demand for EV rentals; EVs are bad for business </p>
<p>Karl Bauer of iSeeCars.com, noting, mainstream consumers were already hesitant to buy an EV, said “the larger impact of the Hertz EV fire sale is <strong><em>the perception hit</em> to the technology.”. Oh, what about the real hit to your pocket book?</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The fictional Mr. Bean is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bean">known (and revered) for</a> his original and imaginative solutions of challenges, and for being a great actor and comedian. We love Mr. Bean</p>
<p>Had the British press mocked Mr. Atkinson for a Bean-like performance, the climate emergency propagandists might have laughed him off successfully.</p>
<p>But they are not able to laugh without being laughed at for all their stupid hyping of EVs</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The real Mr. Atkinson, like the decision makers at Toyota, is espousing common-sense wisdom, such as “don’t put all of your eggs in one basket.”</p>
<p>Extending the lifespan of existing vehicles and increasing their efficiency, as Toyota does, is far better for the environment than junking them for electric vehicles that require 25%-efficient, <a href="https://jalopnik.com/tesla-supercharger-location-diesel-generator-report-1850804146">diesel fuel</a> generators to power EV charging stations.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>If, as we are told, EV batteries will soon be smaller, cheaper, and stronger, that day has "not yet come". Ha, Ha. More likely a loooong time from now</p>
<p>Also "not yet to come", is the cost of hydrogen and synthetics will drop significantly, and those fuels can power existing ICE vehicles. Ha, Ha. More likely a loooong time from now</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Most of all, if there truly was a “climate emergency,” diplomats would be quicker to end wasteful military conflicts and ending the rush by China and India to build more and more coal-fired power plants (needed, of course, to charge EV batteries).</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>What Mr. Bean and Toyota are saying to the world is this: <u>governments</u> deciding and mandating what can, and cannot go to market – and the huge subsidies to force people to do what they do not want to do (<strong>which would be unnecessary in a true emergency</strong>) are at odds with the wisdom of the free-enterprise market, which relies on true public opinion as to what is best for the consumer.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/dugganflanakin/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Duggan Flanakin</a> <em>is a senior policy analyst at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow who writes on a wide variety of public policy issues. </em></p>
<p><strong>This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>Wow, it does not get much better than this.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The Washington, DC, perpetrators of these EV follies want to be re-elected to have power over you, to use more of your money, to do more of the same follies, “for as long as it takes”, while they debilitate the US with open borders and over-top-war mongering</p>
<p></p>
<p>All that is even more true, because the EV charging stations are unreliable, often are out of service, and to top it of, EVs are unreliable, have high repair bills, and have poor range in cold weather, especially when having more than one passenger, and some cargo, and going uphill, on cold, snowy days, as in New England, etc.<br/> ..<br/> Currently, the vast majority of charging infrastructure is concentrated in more densely populated <strong>coastal</strong> areas, as opposed to more rural areas of the country, <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC" target="_blank" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">according</a> to the Department of Energy (DOE).</p>
<p>Almost all people in rural areas, often with dirt roads, and snow and ice and cold, and longer distances, are definitely not giving up their pick-ups and SUVs to “switch to EVs”, especially in impoverished states, such as Maine and Vermont. Their Socialist governments lost all sense of reality, and think money grows on trees.</p>
<p><strong>Insurance Costs Very High</strong>: Because EVs are much more costly to repair, EV insurance rates are about 3 times the rate of gasoline vehicles, completely wiping out any energy savings.</p>
<p><strong>Monthly Payments Very High</strong>: Because EVs are more expensive and interest rates are high, monthly payments are much higher than for gasoline cars, completely wiping out any benefits of tax credit subsidies.</p>
<p><strong>Useful Service Life Very Short</strong>: EV useful service lives are very short, usually at most 8 years.<br/> No one in his/her right mind, would spend at least $15,000 to $20,000 to replace a battery in an 8-y-old EV, which by then. would have lost almost all of its value, unlike a gasoline vehicle.</p>
<p><strong>Charging Cost Very High:</strong> EV charging cost is very high on the road, usually at least 30 c/kWh, at home at least 20 c/kWh in New England<br/> As a result, annual fuel cost savings are minimal, because EVs are driven fewer miles per year than gasoline cars, and the price of gasoline is about $3.20/gallon</p>
<p><strong>Minimal CO2 Reduction</strong>: EVs driven, on average, about 72,000 miles for 8 years, according to various studies, do not reduce CO2 emissions compared to efficient gasoline vehicles driven the same miles, if CO2 evaluations are made on a mine to hazardous-waste landfill basis, and same-mile basis.<br/> The useful service lives of gasoline cars is much longer than of EVs.</p>
<p><strong>Range Usually Much Less Than Advertised:</strong> EV owners experience much less range than advertised by EPA, especially with one or more passengers, with some luggage or a heavy load, cold weather, up and down hills, on wet/snowy dirt roads, hot weather, etc.<br/> Teslas EVs, driven 75,000 to 80,000 miles, will have lost about 15 to 20% of battery capacity at end of year 8.<br/> If traveling with one or more passengers, with some luggage, was a challenge on a longer trip, and even more of a challenge on a cold/snowy day, then an older EV, with an aging battery, has all that, and more, which is a good reason not to buy one.</p>
<p><strong>Battery Aging a Serious Issue:</strong> If a new EV, it takes about 1.15 kWh to add a 1.0 kWh charge in the battery, plus, there is a loss of about 5% to get 1.0 kWh out of the battery to the drive train of the EV, etc. <br/> If a 5-y-old EV, it takes about 1.25 kWh to add 1.0 kWh charge in the battery, plus there is a loss of about 5.5% to get 1.0 kWh out of the battery<br/> The older the EV, the greater the losses, plus the battery has lost capacity, the ability to do work and go the distance; all that is worse on a cold day, or hot day, heavy loads, and other adverse conditions.</p>
<p><strong>Charging Batteries at Less than 32 F</strong>: If an EV owner parks at an airport, goes away for a few days or a week, upon return he/she may find the EV with an empty battery (if the battery had a somewhat low charge to begin with), if during that week the weather were below freezing, because the battery thermal management system, BTMS, will maintain battery temperature, until the battery is empty, then the battery freezes to 32F, or less. <br/> Charging would not be allowed, until the battery is warmed up in a garage.<br/> In the future, with thousands of EVs at the airport, a percentage would have empty batteries. You would have to wait your turn to get a tow to the warm garage, get charged, pay up to $500, and be on your way, after 8 hours or so!!</p>
<p><strong>Losing Value After 3 Years</strong>: Used EVs retain about 60% of their <strong>high original</strong> value, whereas gasoline vehicles retain at least 70% of their <strong>not so high original value</strong>, by the end of year 3.<br/> Losing 40% of a $45,000 EV = $18,000<br/> Losing 30% of an equivalent size, $35,000 gasoline vehicle = $10,500<br/> <strong>The loss difference wipes out any tax credit subsidies. </strong></p>
<p></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>LEGISLATOR’s CHEVY BOLT CATCHES FIRE WHILE CHARGING ON DRIVEWAY IN VERMONT</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/chevy-bolt-catches-fire-while-charging-on-driveway-in-vermont">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/chevy-bolt-catches-fire-while-charging-on-driveway-in-vermont</a></p>
<div id="wpd-post-rating" class="wpd-not-rated"><div class="wpd-rating-wrap"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>CO2 Increases Greening in Cities Worldwidetag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-13:4401701:BlogPost:2588552024-02-13T22:19:05.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>CO2 Increases Greening in Cities Worldwide</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">By <a href="https://notrickszone.com/author/kenneth-richard/">Kenneth Richard</a> on 12. February 2024</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://notrickszone.com/2024/02/12/new-study-finds-global-cities-have-warmed-due-to-rising-solar-surface-forcing-since-1986/">New Study Finds Global Cities…</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>CO2 Increases Greening in Cities Worldwide</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">By <a href="https://notrickszone.com/author/kenneth-richard/">Kenneth Richard</a> on 12. February 2024</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://notrickszone.com/2024/02/12/new-study-finds-global-cities-have-warmed-due-to-rising-solar-surface-forcing-since-1986/">New Study Finds Global Cities Have Warmed Due To Rising Solar Surface Forcing Since 1986</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong style="font-size: 1em;">The globe’s cities are warming primarily due to declining albedo, not CO2 radiative forcing.</strong></p>
<div class="entry-content"><p>According to a comprehensive <span><strong><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bin-Chen-20/publication/377957012_Satellite_observations_reveal_a_decreasing_albedo_trend_of_global_cities_over_the_past_35_years/links/65bf79fb34bbff5ba7ec85fb/Satellite-observations-reveal-a-decreasing-albedo-trend-of-global-cities-over-the-past-35-years.pdf">new study</a></strong></span> published in <em>Remote Sensing of Environment</em>, CO2 fertilization has led to an enhanced greening trend in 72.6% of cities across the world since 1985, accelerating to 89.2% since 2001.</p>
<p>Per the authors, this greening trend is the key factor lowering the albedo reflecting incoming solar radiation in urban areas, amounting to a +2.76 W/m² increase in solar radiation reaching the surface from 1986-2020, or <strong>0.08 W/m^2 per year.</strong></p>
<p>In contrast, the clear-sky-only trend, (no clouds) from CO2 surface forcing only amounts to <span><strong><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240">0.2 W/m² per decade</a></strong></span> (22 ppm), or <strong>0.02 W/m² per year</strong>, in the 21st century.</p>
<p>(This trend only represents the forcing from CO2 in an imaginary world where no clouds exist.)</p>
<p><strong>Thus, the positive radiative imbalance from the declining trend in albedo explains urban warming far better than an enhanced greenhouse effect from a clear-sky-only CO2 radiative forcing.</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><img class="aligncenter" src="https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CO2-induced-greening-reduces-albedo-increases-SW-forcing-over-global-cities-Wu-2024.jpg" width="608" height="689"/></p>
<h6>Image Source: <span><strong><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bin-Chen-20/publication/377957012_Satellite_observations_reveal_a_decreasing_albedo_trend_of_global_cities_over_the_past_35_years/links/65bf79fb34bbff5ba7ec85fb/Satellite-observations-reveal-a-decreasing-albedo-trend-of-global-cities-over-the-past-35-years.pdf">Wu et al., 2024</a></strong></span></h6>
</div>
<p class="entry-meta"><span class="category"><span class="before">Posted in</span> <a href="https://notrickszone.com/category/co2-greens-the-earth/" rel="tag">CO2 Greens the Earth</a>, <a href="https://notrickszone.com/category/solar-sciences/" rel="tag">Solar Sciences</a></span> | <a class="comments-link" href="https://notrickszone.com/2024/02/12/new-study-finds-global-cities-have-warmed-due-to-rising-solar-surface-forcing-since-1986/#comments" title="Comment on New Study Finds Global Cities Have Warmed Due To Rising Solar Surface Forcing Since 1986">7 Responses</a></p>Germany's Industrial Superpower Days Are Over, A Green "Victory"tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-12:4401701:BlogPost:2587372024-02-12T17:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Germany's Industrial Superpower Days Are Over, A Green "Victory"</strong></span></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/germany-s-industrial-superpower-days-are-over-a-green-victory">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/germany-s-industrial-superpower-days-are-over-a-green-victory…</a></p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"></div>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Germany's Industrial Superpower Days Are Over, A Green "Victory"</strong></span></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/germany-s-industrial-superpower-days-are-over-a-green-victory">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/germany-s-industrial-superpower-days-are-over-a-green-victory</a></p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p><em>By Mish Shedlock of <a href="https://mishtalk.com/economics/germanys-industrial-superpower-days-are-over-a-green-victory/">MishTalk</a></em></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>German Industrial production peaked in November of 2017. Germany’s IP has since fallen to a level first seen in 2006.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/german%20industrial%20production.jpg?itok=dIp416hS"><img height="439" width="680" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/german%20industrial%20production.jpg?itok=dIp416hS" alt=""/></a></p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div class="acw ac-widget-ph ac-reset"><div id="ac-lre-player-ph-ext-HYKiI4Gg2vMechmUb7HXkCCMP4ObokZS" class="ac-lre-player-ph-ext ac-lre-ph-playlist-hide-scroll-bar"><div class="h0011r00002RYAhn_1419 d0011r00002RYAhn_1419" id="ac-lre-player-ph-HYKiI4Gg2vMechmUb7HXkCCMP4ObokZS"><div class="w0011r00002RYAhn_1419 luminous-theme is-floated-outer-title"><div class="brand-container font-fix"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>.</p>
<p>Bloomberg reports <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-02-10/why-germany-s-days-as-an-industrial-superpower-are-coming-to-an-end" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Germany’s Days as an Industrial Superpower Are Coming to an End</a></p>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p>In a cavernous production hall in Düsseldorf last fall, the somber tones of a horn player accompanied the final act of a century-old factory.</p>
<p>Amid the flickering of flares and torches, many of the 1,600 people losing their jobs stood stone-faced as the glowing metal of the plant’s last product — a steel pipe — was smoothed to a perfect cylinder on a rolling mill. The ceremony ended a 124-year run that began in the heyday of German industrialization and weathered two world wars, but couldn’t survive the aftermath of the energy crisis.</p>
<p>The underpinnings of Germany’s industrial machine have fallen like dominoes. The US is drifting away from Europe and is seeking to compete with its transatlantic allies for climate investment. China is becoming a bigger rival and is no longer an insatiable buyer of German goods. The final blow for some heavy manufacturers was the end of huge volumes of cheap Russian natural gas.</p>
<p>“The shock was huge,” said Wolfgang Freitag, who worked at the plant since he was a teenager. The 59-year-old’s job now is to disassemble equipment for sale and help his old colleagues find new work.</p>
<p>Fading industrial competitiveness threatens to plunge Germany into a downward spiral, according to Maria Röttger, head of northern Europe for Michelin. The French tiremaker is shutting two of its German plants and downsizing a third by the end of 2025 in a move that will affect more than 1,500 workers. US rival Goodyear has similar plans for two facilities.</p>
<p>“Despite the motivation of our employees, we have arrived at a point where we can’t export truck tires from Germany at competitive prices,” she said in an interview. “If Germany can’t export competitively in the international context, the country loses one of its biggest strengths.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2><strong>High Power Bills</strong></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/german%20businesses.jpg?itok=tbo2zq-A"><img height="302" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/german%20businesses.jpg?itok=tbo2zq-A" alt=""/></a></p>
<p>One of the hardest-hit sectors has been chemicals — a direct result of Germany’s loss of cheap Russian gas. With the transition to clean hydrogen still uncertain, nearly one in 10 companies are planning to permanently halt production processes, according to a recent survey by the VCI industry association. BASF SE, Europe’s biggest chemical producer, is cutting 2,600 jobs and Lanxess AG is reducing staff by 7%.</p>
<p>China is now causing trouble for Germany in a number of ways. On top of its strategic shift into advanced manufacturing, a slowdown of the Asian superpower’s economy is sapping demand for German goods even further. At the same time, cheap competition from China is worrying industries key for Germany’s climate transition — and not just electric cars.</p>
<p>Manufacturers of solar panels are shuttering operations and cutting staff as they struggle to compete with state-supported Chinese rivals. Dresden-based Solarwatt GmbH has already cut 10% of its workforce and may relocate production abroad if the situation doesn’t improve this year, according to CEO Detlef Neuhaus.</p>
<p>“It’s not just energy,” CEO Klaus Geißdörfer said in an interview. “It’s also staff availability in Germany, which is now very tense.” Within a decade, the working-age population will be too small to keep the economy functioning as it does today, he added.</p>
<h2><strong>Foreign Direct Investment Plunges</strong></h2>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/german%20foreign%20direct%20invesstment.jpg?itok=YFRaBr2e"><img height="444" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/german%20foreign%20direct%20invesstment.jpg?itok=YFRaBr2e" alt=""/></a></p>
<p>Politico comments on the deindustrialization of Germany in its report <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/rust-belt-on-the-rhine-the-deindustrialization-of-germany/" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Rust on the Rhine</a>.</p>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow"><p>Germany’s biggest companies are ditching the fatherland.</p>
<p>Chemical giant BASF has been a pillar of German business for more than 150 years, underpinning the country’s industrial rise with a steady stream of innovation that helped make “Made in Germany” the envy of the world.</p>
<p>But its latest moonshot — a $10 billion investment in a state-of-the-art complex the company claims will be the gold standard for sustainable production — isn’t going up in Germany. Instead, it’s being erected 9,000 kilometers away in China.</p>
<p>“We are increasingly worried about our home market,” BASF Chief Executive Martin Brudermüller told shareholders in April, noting that the company lost €130 million in Germany last year. “Profitability is no longer anywhere near where it should be.”</p>
<p>The country’s reliance on industry makes it particularly vulnerable. With the exception of software maker SAP, Germany’s tech sector is essentially non-existent. In the financial world, its biggest players are best known for making bad bets (Deutsche Bank) and scandal (Wirecard). Manufacturing accounts for about 27 percent of its economy, compared with 18 percent in the U.S.</p>
<p>A related problem is that Germany’s most important industrial segments — from chemicals to autos to machinery — are rooted in 19th-century technologies. While the country has thrived for decades by optimizing those wares, many of them are either becoming obsolete (the internal combustion engine) or simply too expensive to produce in Germany.</p>
<p>By halting deliveries of natural gas to Germany, the Kremlin effectively removed the linchpin of the country’s business model, which relied on easy access to cheap energy. Though wholesale gas prices have recently stabilized, they’re still roughly triple where they were before the crisis. That has left companies like BASF, whose main German operation alone consumed as much natural gas in 2021 as all of Switzerland, with no choice but to look for alternatives. </p>
<p>The country’s Green transformation, the so-called <em><a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/germanys-green-power-meltdown/" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Energiewende</a></em>, has only made matters worse. Just as it was losing access to Russian gas, the country switched off all nuclear power. And even after nearly a quarter century of subsidizing the expansion of renewable energy, Germany still doesn’t have nearly enough wind turbines and solar panels to sate demand — leaving Germans paying three times the international average for electricity. </p>
<p>Volkswagen, which has dominated the Chinese auto market for decades, lost its crown as the country’s largest automaker in the first quarter to BYD, a local competitor, amid a surge in EV sales. China is the world’s largest car market, accounting for nearly 40 percent of Volkswagen’s revenue.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2><strong>Germany Lags in Major Ways</strong></h2>
<p>Germany lags the US and China on Artificial Intelligence (AI), EVs, battery development, microchips, phones and even basic internet services.</p>
<p>Liechtenstein has the fastest internet speed in the world in 2023 at 246.76 Mbps according to <a href="https://www.atlasandboots.com/remote-work/countries-with-the-fastest-internet-in-the-world/" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">AtlasAndBoots</a>.</p>
<p>The US is number 10 at 136.48 Mbps. Germany is number 36 at 81.73 Mbps.</p>
<p>A December 2023 <a href="https://www.speedtest.net/global-index" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Speedtest by Ookla</a> shows similar results.</p>
<p>Ookla has the US in 8th place for fixed broadband and 13th for mobile. Germany is in 51st place for broadband and 45th place for mobile.</p>
<p>One reason is Germany is still reliant on copper lines. While most of the rest of the world turned to fiber, Germany made little investment in its own infrastructure. Germany is still working on the last mile.</p>
<h2><strong>Final Blow From the Greens</strong></h2>
<p>Not only is Germany seriously lagging on AI, EVs, microchips, phones, and the intermet, the Greens came along and demanded Germany scrap nuclear power.</p>
<p>Former chancellor Angela Merkel hopped on the green bandwagon. Instead of investing in infrastructure, Germany invested in silly green hydrogen projects and scrapped nuclear power for no good reason.</p>
<p>Now, Germany is making foreign direct investment in China, a country still heavily reliant on Coal. Germany gave up on nuclear power and still needs to catch up on basic internet and phone technology. Germany stayed too long on diesel and analog phones.</p>
<p>Greens label this as progress. Farmers are in open revolt. The average German consumer is screwed.</p>
<p>Not only is Germany way behind on basic infrastructure, it lost its export prowess as well. When export dependent countries implode, they are in a world of hurt.</p>
</div>
</div>EU Farmers Rise Against the Climate Culttag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-11:4401701:BlogPost:2586492024-02-11T22:30:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>EU Farmers Rise Against the Climate Cult</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/eu-farmers-rise-against-the-climate-cult%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/eu-farmers-rise-against-the-climate-cult </a>;</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://brownstone.org/articles/eu-farmers-rise-against-the-climate-cult/">Authored by David Thrunder via…</a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>EU Farmers Rise Against the Climate Cult</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/eu-farmers-rise-against-the-climate-cult%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/eu-farmers-rise-against-the-climate-cult </a>;</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://brownstone.org/articles/eu-farmers-rise-against-the-climate-cult/">Authored by David Thrunder via The Brownstone Institute,</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong style="font-weight: 400;">Many major arteries connecting Europe have been obstructed or brought to a standstill in recent days by a wave of protests by farmers against what they claim are overly burdensome environmental targets and unsustainable levels of bureaucracy associated with EU and national farming regulations.</strong></p>
<p><strong style="font-weight: 400;">.</strong></p>
<p></p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/Shutterstock_1691359708-800x469.jpg?itok=G7ViGEky"><img height="293" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/Shutterstock_1691359708-800x469.jpg?itok=G7ViGEky" alt=""/></a></p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/21841313772,21778456762/zerohedge/in_content_video_0__container__">.</div>
<div class="acw ac-widget-ph ac-reset"><div id="ac-lre-player-ph-ext-MC6J9wQahHuR0chfTqwhxx2N8wWzdwkC" class="ac-lre-player-ph-ext ac-lre-ph-playlist-hide-scroll-bar"><div class="h0011r00002RYAhn_1419 d0011r00002RYAhn_1419 vjs-hide-top-articles" id="ac-lre-player-ph-MC6J9wQahHuR0chfTqwhxx2N8wWzdwkC"><div class="w0011r00002RYAhn_1419 luminous-theme is-floated-outer-title"><div class="brand-container font-fix"></div>
<div class="ac-player-ph"><div class="ac-player-wrapper ac-floated-player"><div class="lre-cancel-float font-fix"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><strong>The warning shots of this showdown between policymakers and farmers had already been fired on 1st October 2019,</strong> when more than 2,000 Dutch tractors caused traffic mayhem in the Netherlands in response to an announcement that livestock farms would have to be bought out and shut down to reduce nitrogen emissions. Early last year, Polish farmers blocked the border with the Ukraine demanding the re-imposition of tariffs on Ukrainean grain.</p>
<p>But it was not until early this year that an EU-wide protest was ignited. German and French protests and tractor blockades made international news, and the blockades were soon replicated in Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Greece, Netherlands, and Ireland. Major highways and ports were blocked and manure was poured over government buildings, as farmers across Europe expressed their frustration at rising farming costs, falling prices for their produce, and crippling environmental regulations that made their products uncompetitive in the global market.</p>
<p>It seems the farmers have European elites rattled, which is hardly surprising, given that EU elections are just around the corner. While the European Commission announced Tuesday it was still committed to achieving a 90% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 2040, it conspicuously omitted any mention of how the farming sector would contribute to that ambitious target. Even more tellingly, the Commission has backed down or fudged on key climate commitments, at least temporarily.</p>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/farmers-protest-ursula-von-der-leyen-delay-climate-showdown/">politico</a>, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on Tuesday that “she was withdrawing an EU effort to rein in pesticide use.” The <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/farmers-protest-ursula-von-der-leyen-delay-climate-showdown/">climbdown on this and other Commission proposals</a> relating to farming was rather embarrassing for the Commission but politically inevitable, given that the protests were spreading rapidly and farmers were showing no signs of going home until their demands were met. As reported by <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/farmers-protest-ursula-von-der-leyen-delay-climate-showdown/">politico</a>,</p>
<blockquote><p><em>A note on the possibility of agriculture cutting down on methane and nitrous oxides by 30 percent, which was in earlier drafts of the Commission’s 2040 proposal, was gone by the time it came out on Tuesday. Similarly excised were missives on behavioral change — possibly including eating less meat or dairy — and cutting subsidies for fossil fuels, many of which go to farmers to assist with their diesel costs. Inserted was softer language about the necessity of farming to Europe’s food security and the positive contributions it can make. </em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The EU Commission is playing a dangerous game. On the one hand, they are attempting to placate farmers by making expedient short-term concessions to them. On the other hand, they are holding fast to their commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 90% by 2040, while fudging on the fact that a 90% emission cut in 16 years would have drastic implications for farming.</p>
<p><strong>It is clearly politically expedient, especially in an election year, to put out this fire of farming discontent as soon as possible, and buy some peace ahead of June’s European elections.</strong> But there is no avoiding the fact that the Commission’s long-term environmental goals, as currently conceived, almost certainly require sacrifices that farmers are simply not willling to accept.</p>
<p><strong>Independently from the merits of EU climate policy, two things are clear:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><p>first, EU leaders and environmental activists appear to have vastly underestimated the backlash their policies would spark in the farming community; and</p>
</li>
<li><p>second, the apparent success of this dramatic EU-wide protest sets a spectacular precedent that will not go unnoticed among farmers and transport companies, whose operating costs are heavily impacted by environmental regulations like carbon taxes.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>The Commission’s embarrassing concessions are proof that <strong>high-visibility, disruptive tactics can be effective</strong>. As such, we can expect more of this after June’s EU elections if the Commission <strong>doubles down again on its climate policy goals</strong>.</p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>Mail-In Ballot Fraud Study Finds Trump 'Almost Certainly' Won in 2020tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-11:4401701:BlogPost:2589152024-02-11T22:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Mail-In Ballot Fraud Study Finds Trump 'Almost Certainly' Won in 2020</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/mail-in-ballot-fraud-study-finds-trump-almost-certainly-won-in%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/mail-in-ballot-fraud-study-finds-trump-almost-certainly-won-in </a>;…</p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"></div>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Mail-In Ballot Fraud Study Finds Trump 'Almost Certainly' Won in 2020</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/mail-in-ballot-fraud-study-finds-trump-almost-certainly-won-in%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/mail-in-ballot-fraud-study-finds-trump-almost-certainly-won-in </a>;</p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p><em><a href="https://cms.zerohedge.com/node/add/article">Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times</a> </em></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>A new study examining the likely impact that fraudulent mail-in ballots had in the 2020 election concludes that <strong>the outcome would “almost certainly” have been different without the massive expansion of voting by mail.</strong></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/image%281563%29.jpg?itok=Kw3laVtS"><img height="333" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/image%281563%29.jpg?itok=Kw3laVtS" alt=""/></a></p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/21841313772,21778456762/zerohedge/in_content_video_0__container__">.</div>
<div class="acw ac-widget-ph ac-reset"><div id="ac-lre-player-ph-ext-7r2sdqY0cK3IAOe1WsAbRtCojt52ndWv" class="ac-lre-player-ph-ext ac-lre-ph-playlist-hide-scroll-bar"><div class="h0011r00002RYAhn_1419 d0011r00002RYAhn_1419" id="ac-lre-player-ph-7r2sdqY0cK3IAOe1WsAbRtCojt52ndWv"><div class="w0011r00002RYAhn_1419 luminous-theme is-floated-outer-title"><div class="brand-container font-fix"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>The Heartland Institute <a href="https://heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Feb-24-2020-Election-Analysis-vWeb_Final.pdf">study</a> tried to gauge the probable impact that fraudulent mail-in ballots cast for both then-candidate Joe Biden and his opponent, President Donald Trump, would have had on the overall 2020 election results.</p>
<p>The study was based on data obtained from a Heartland/Rasmussen survey in December <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/trump-demands-action-after-20-percent-of-mail-in-voters-admit-to-fraud-in-2020-election-survey-5545834">that revealed</a> that <strong>roughly one in five mail-in voters admitted to potentially fraudulent actions in the presidential election.</strong></p>
<p>After the researchers carried out additional analyses of the data, t<strong>hey concluded that mail-in ballot fraud “significantly” impacted the 2020 presidential election.</strong></p>
<p>They also found that, absent the huge expansion of mail-in ballots during the pandemic, which was often done without legislative approval, President Trump would most likely have won.</p>
<p>“Had the 2020 election been conducted like every national election has been over the past two centuries, wherein the vast majority of voters cast ballots in-person rather than by mail, <strong>Donald Trump would have almost certainly been re-elected,</strong>” the report’s authors wrote.</p>
<p>Over 43 percent of 2020 votes were cast by mail, the highest percentage in U.S. history.</p>
<p>.</p>
<h2>‘Biggest Story of the Year’</h2>
<p>.</p>
<p>The new study examined raw data from the December survey carried out jointly between Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports, <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/trump-demands-action-after-20-percent-of-mail-in-voters-admit-to-fraud-in-2020-election-survey-5545834">which tried</a> to assess the level of fraudulent voting that took place in 2020.</p>
<p>The December survey, which President Trump called “the biggest story of the year,” suggested that roughly 20 percent of mail-in voters engaged in at least one potentially fraudulent action in the 2020 election, such as voting in a state where they’re no longer permanent residents.</p>
<p>.</p>
<img alt="" height="333" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/image%281566%29.jpg?itok=PTVYUDM5" width="500"/><br/> <br/> <br/>
<p>.</p>
<p>In the <a href="https://heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Feb-24-2020-Election-Analysis-vWeb_Final.pdf">new study</a>, Heartland analysts say that, after reviewing the raw survey data, subjecting it to additional statistical treatment and more thorough analysis, they now believe they can conclude that 28.2 percent of respondents who voted by mail committed at least one type of behavior that is “under most circumstances, illegal” and so potentially amounts to voter fraud.</p>
<p>“<strong>This means that more than one-in-four ballots cast by mail in 2020 were likely cast fraudulently, and thus should not have been counted</strong>,” the researchers wrote.</p>
<p>A Heartland Institute research editor and research fellow who was involved in the study explained to The Epoch Times in a telephone interview that there are narrow exceptions where a surveyed behavior may be legal, like filling out a mail-in ballot on behalf of another voter if that person is blind, illiterate, or disabled, and requests assistance.</p>
<p>However, the research fellow, Jack McPherrin, said such cases were within the margin of error and not statistically significant..</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 1.5em;">.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 1.5em;">What Are the Implications?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 1.5em;">.</span></p>
<p>In addition to reassessing the likely overall degree of fraudulent mail-in ballots in the 2020 election, Heartland analysts calculated the potential impact that fraudulent mail-in ballots might have produced in the six key swing states that President Trump officially lost.</p>
<p>This, then, was used to determine the impact of potentially fraudulent mail-in ballots on the overall 2020 election result.</p>
<p>First, <strong>the researchers analyzed the electoral results for the six swing states—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—under the 28.2 percent fraudulent mail-in ballot scenario that they estimated based on the raw survey data.</strong></p>
<p>Then they calculated the electoral results in the six states under the different scenarios, each with a lower assumed percentage of fraudulent ballots, ranging from 28.2 percent all the way down to 1 percent.</p>
<p>For each of the 29 scenarios that they assesses, the researchers calculated the estimated number of fraudulent ballots, which were then subtracted from overall 2020 vote totals to generate a new estimate for vote totals.</p>
<p><strong>Overall, of the 29 different scenarios presented in the study, the researchers concluded that President Trump would have won the 2020 election in all but three.</strong></p>
<p>Specifically, they calculated that the only scenarios that would affirm the official 2020 election result, namely that candidate Biden won, were mail-in ballot fraud levels between 1 and 3 percent of ballots cast.</p>
<p>Mail-in ballot fraud rates higher than 3 percent would, according to the study, mean more fraudulent Biden votes that should be subtracted from the total, putting President Trump ahead.</p>
<p>For example, the adjustment to the vote tallies under fraud percentage rates between 13 and 6 percent would mean President Trump would have won Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, though he would have still lost in Michigan and Nevada.</p>
<p><strong>Under such a scenario, President Trump would have won 289 Electoral College votes compared to candidate Biden’s 249.</strong></p>
<p>In scenarios of 5–4 percent fraud, each candidate would have received 269 Electoral College votes, but President Trump would likely still have won because Republicans controlled more state delegations and, under a tie scenario, Congress would have voted based on the number of delegates.</p>
<p>However, the researchers expressed confidence in their overall assessment that the level of mail-in ballot fraud was over 25 percent, indicative of an actual Trump win.</p>
<p>“We have no reason to believe that our survey overstated voter fraud by more than 25 percentage points, and thus, we must conclude that the best available evidence suggests that mail-in ballot fraud significantly impacted the 2020 presidential election, in favor of Joe Biden,” the paper’s authors wrote.</p>
<p>.</p>
<img alt="" height="375" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/image%281567%29.jpg?itok=pj88wKqB" width="500"/><br/> <br/> <br/>
<h2>.</h2>
<h2>Survey Criticism</h2>
<p>.</p>
<p>Jim Womack, president of the North Carolina Election Integrity Team, told The Epoch Times in an earlier interview and in additional written comments in response to the new study, that he believes the survey questions were flawed and make the survey statistically meaningless, though not without value.</p>
<p>“<strong>We know there was fraud in the 2020 election, but you can’t conclude that it was 20 percent or 10 percent or even 5 percent based on the survey because the questions that could lead to such conclusions were unclear</strong>,” Mr. Womack said.</p>
<p>However, he said that the survey questions on which Heartland based its research were unclear. He argued that the questions comingled legal and illegal activity and that this made it impossible to conclude specific percentages of mail-in ballot fraud with certainty.</p>
<p>For instance, Mr. Womack pointed out that it’s <a href="https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-52-voting-and-elections-subtitle-i-and-ii">legal and permissible</a> in all states for people who by reason of blindness, disability, or illiteracy request or require assistance in filling out mail-in ballots to get such assistance.</p>
<p>However, the wording of one of the survey questions—“During the 2020 election, did you fill out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child?”—did not differentiate between legal and illegal forms of filling out a mail ballot on behalf of someone.</p>
<p>Therefore, 21 percent of people responding “yes” to this question does not necessarily mean that this percentage of people actually committed voter fraud, Mr. Womack argued.</p>
<p>Mr. Womack also said that another survey question–“During the 2020 election, did you cast a mail-in ballot in a state where you were no longer a permanent resident?”—to which 17 percent replied yes—also does not support the conclusion that all such cases were illegal. That’s because, as Mr. Womack pointed out, federal and state laws allow some voters (such as UOCAVA registered citizens) to cast a ballot in a state where they are no longer permanent residents under certain circumstances.</p>
<p>“<strong>We'd need to dive deeper into these responses to determine if these were fraudulent or not</strong>,” Mr. Womack said.</p>
<p>Regardless, he praised the Heartland Institute for engaging with the topic of mail-in ballot fraud and raising public awareness about what he said is an important problem.</p>
<p>.</p>
<h2>Response to Criticism</h2>
<p>.</p>
<p>When asked to comment on Mr. Womack’s objections, Mr. McPherrin, of the Heartland Institute, told The Epoch Times that he stands by the findings.</p>
<p>For instance, Mr. McPherrin acknowledged that it’s legal for people who are blind, disabled, or illiterate to get help from someone in filling out a ballot.</p>
<p>However, he argued that the number of such individuals responding to the Heartland/Rasmussen survey (which was based on a representative sample of 1,085 likely voters) would likely have been tiny.</p>
<p>“<strong>It would be difficult to imagine that dozens of blind people or those that are illiterate or disabled are answering this poll,</strong>” he said, adding that the presumably tiny fraction of survey respondents who fall into this category would be statistically insignificant and not impact the overall survey results.</p>
<p>But even if that particular question is left out due to concerns about its clarity, the percentage of people who admitted to potentially fraudulent voter activity would still be about one in five, he said.</p>
<p>Mr. McPherrin said he and his team have received and reviewed Mr. Womack’s criticism and they believe the points he makes have some validity but not enough to affect their findings in a meaningful way.</p>
<p>He maintains the study clearly shows that if the 2020 election had been as fair and secure as prior elections, President Trump would “almost certainly” have been re-elected to a second term.</p>
<p><strong>Mr. Womack continues to stand by his criticism of the survey question design</strong>, providing The Epoch Times with a written statement on Feb. 8 that calls the survey “very poorly constructed, failing to capture even a single instance of probable voter fraud.”</p>
<p>He argued that the survey questions were “vague and ambiguous, commingling permissible with impermissible behaviors, thus diminishing the quality and usefulness of responses.”</p>
<p>Further, Mr. Womack argued that propagating the contents of the survey does more harm than good and potentially undermines the work and reputation of “legitimate election integrity organizations like EIN,” referring to the Election Integrity Network, a project of the Conservative Partnership Institute.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the authors of the Heartland study call for state legislatures to do all in their power to ensure the 2024 presidential election is as secure as possible, mostly by severely limiting mail-in voting and adopting other commonsense policies to prevent mail-in voter fraud.</p>
</div>
</div>"Germany is in Really Big Trouble": Perfect Storm of Terrible Trends Paints "Bleak" Picture as "Distress is Spreading to Other Sectors"tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-11:4401701:BlogPost:2587332024-02-11T22:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>"Germany is in Really Big Trouble": Perfect Storm of Terrible Trends Paints "Bleak" Picture as "Distress is Spreading to Other Sectors"</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/germany-is-in-really-big-trouble-perfect-storm-of-terrible">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/germany-is-in-really-big-trouble-perfect-storm-of-terrible</a></p>
<div class="ArticleFull_headerFooter__date__UFCbS">.…</div>
<p></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>"Germany is in Really Big Trouble": Perfect Storm of Terrible Trends Paints "Bleak" Picture as "Distress is Spreading to Other Sectors"</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/germany-is-in-really-big-trouble-perfect-storm-of-terrible">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/germany-is-in-really-big-trouble-perfect-storm-of-terrible</a></p>
<div class="ArticleFull_headerFooter__date__UFCbS">.</div>
<p></p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p>Things are not great in Germany.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/1adbfa26-98b6-11e8-88de-49c908b1f264_0.jpg?itok=HcxV_FXI"><img height="281" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/1adbfa26-98b6-11e8-88de-49c908b1f264_0.jpg?itok=HcxV_FXI" alt=""/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>A confluence of economic stagnation, higher energy prices (due to anti-nuclear idiocy), and the highest corporate distress rates in Europe suggest Deutschland is in for a sharp contraction - a sentiment shared among fund managers, credit traders and <strong>crestfallen German executives moping around Davos last month</strong>, according to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-08/rising-distress-in-germany-signals-a-lot-more-struggles-ahead"><em>Bloomberg</em></a>.</p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/21841313772,21778456762/zerohedge/in_content_video_0__container__">.</div>
<div class="acw ac-widget-ph ac-reset"><div id="ac-lre-player-ph-ext-a64bboibrvxizCwz3Zj0bCPLh2FLr2dI" class="ac-lre-player-ph-ext ac-lre-ph-playlist-hide-scroll-bar"><div class="h0011r00002RYAhn_1419 d0011r00002RYAhn_1419" id="ac-lre-player-ph-a64bboibrvxizCwz3Zj0bCPLh2FLr2dI"><div class="w0011r00002RYAhn_1419 luminous-theme is-floated-outer-title"><div class="brand-container font-fix"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote><p class="Paragraph_text-SqIsdNjh0t0- paywall"><em><strong>The bad news is continuing to pile up.</strong> After the economy shrank in the final quarter of last year, downbeat early surveys for 2024 signal there’s little respite ahead.</em></p>
<p class="Paragraph_text-SqIsdNjh0t0- paywall"><em><strong>Demand from borrowers for investment in the likes of machinery, factories and technology has fallen</strong>, creating a risk that domestic growth is impeded in the longer term as companies focus on getting through the current struggle. And now there’s growing concern about <strong>some lenders’ <a class="Link_link-tVkXhPLPofs-" href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-07/us-commercial-real-estate-contagion-is-spreading-to-europe" rel="noopener" target="_blank">exposure</a> to the shaky US corporate real estate market</strong>. -Bloomberg</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="Paragraph_text-SqIsdNjh0t0- paywall">.</p>
<p class="Paragraph_text-SqIsdNjh0t0- paywall">"Germany is really in trouble," according to Barings fund manager Brian Mangwiro. "All the big manufacturing economies are slowing but, in Germany, this is compounded by higher energy costs. There are also challenges in the auto sector with competition coming from China."</p>
<p class="Paragraph_text-SqIsdNjh0t0- paywall">.</p>
<p><a href="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/-1x-1_png%281%29.jpg?itok=wbV1fWbB"><img height="281" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/-1x-1_png%281%29.jpg?itok=wbV1fWbB" alt=""/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, <strong>German executives were decidedly in a <em>bad mood</em> at Davos last month</strong> - and were of the view that Europe's largest economy could no longer be counted on for steady growth - and instead <strong>faces a period of stagnation and chaos</strong> amid competition in everything from machinery to automobiles.</p>
<p>"The country’s economic outlook remains bleak," reads the Weil European Distress Index, citing <strong>stagnant profitability on top of liquidity pressures</strong>.</p>
<blockquote><p><em><strong>Germany</strong> emerges as the most distressed market in Europe, influenced by several factors such as deteriorating investment metrics, liquidity pressures and stagnant profitability, which have persisted since the beginning of the year.</em></p>
<p><em><strong>The country’s economic outlook remains bleak</strong>, with both its government and the European Commission projecting a 0.4% contraction in its economy for 2024 due to high inflation, elevated energy prices and sluggish international trade. -<a href="https://www.weil.com/articles/the-weil-european-distress-index">European Distress Index</a></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>.</p>
<p>What's more, <strong>rising interest rates over the past two years</strong> have compounded problems - particularly in the <strong>property market</strong>. On Wednesday, <strong>Morgan Stanley analysts told clients to <a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/dominoes-us-cre-downturn-sends-german-lender-turmoil">sell senior bonds</a> linked to Deutsche Pfandbriefbank AG</strong> due to the lender's high exposure to the US Commercial Real-Estate market.</p>
<p>Shares of Pfandbriefbank have slid about 15% this month, while other German financial institutions have had <strong>significant declines in a Bloomberg index of euro-dominated bank bonds -</strong> including a €750 million AT1 by Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg and €300 million note by Aareal Bank AG on Tuesday.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/Snag_62438c50_png.jpg?itok=3JEuKNha"><img height="279" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/Snag_62438c50_png.jpg?itok=3JEuKNha" alt=""/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>According to <em>Bloomberg</em>, over $13.6 billion of loans and bonds issued by German companies were distressed last month - over 13x that of Italy.</p>
<p>"Distress is spreading to other sectors," beyond real estate, construction and retail - according to Christian Ebner, managing director of Alvarez & Marsal's financial restructuring advisory team. "Manufacturing is starting to be affected," he continued - adding that automotive "will continue to be a problem child."</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/distreess.JPG?itok=1dNN8JhF"><img height="413" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/distreess.JPG?itok=1dNN8JhF" alt=""/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Also a factor is <strong>Germany's changing politics</strong> - with Deutsche Bank AG Chief Executive Officer Christian Sewing recently expressing concern that the conservative AfD party is contributing to declining investments.</p>
<p>Finance Minister Christian Lindner wasted no opportunity to agree.</p>
<p>"The AfD is a location risk," he said Monday. "This is a party that’s calling into question the basic consensus of our country, namely European integration."</p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Opportunities abound?</strong></span></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p>While German executives fret, <strong>other Davos attendees smelled blood in the water</strong> - as whispers among bankers and advisers have revealed a significant uptick in interest from private equity firms and direct lenders, according to the report.</p>
<p><strong>Leading the charge, according to insights from a Bloomberg Television interview, is Victor Kholsa, founder and chief investment officer at Strategic Value Partners.</strong> Kholsa wants to secure high-rate loans, and/or acquire significantly leveraged companies, by injecting much-needed equity.</p>
<p>According to Kholsa, there's an "opportunity to make those high rate loans or to buy companies that are pretty levered where you inject equity," adding "That opportunity set we can really see."</p>
<p><strong>The trend is underscored by the arrival of heavy hitters like Ares Management Corp. and Blackstone Inc., which have set up shop in Frankfurt with the aim of lending to German businesses or financing private equity buyouts.</strong> This influx of foreign capital seeking to capitalize on domestic distress signals a troubling dynamic, as entities such as Techem GmbH become transaction targets amidst a backdrop of quality concerns and lender takeovers due to breached loan agreements.</p>
<p>The scenario unfolding is not just limited to equity and debt markets. <strong>Short sellers are also in play</strong>, with a staggering €5.7 billion wager placed against German companies. <strong>Groups such as Qube Research & Technologies Ltd. are betting against national stalwarts including Deutsche Bank AG, Volkswagen AG, and Vonovia AG</strong>, pointing to a broader skepticism about the resilience of Germany's corporate sector amidst economic turbulence.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Real Estate is screwed...</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>.</strong></span></p>
<p>Reeling under the weight of declining residential prices and the specter of significant value declines for office spaces, the real estate sector's woes have only been exacerbated by rising interest rates - <strong>with fallout that could precipitate severe writedowns for both borrowers and lenders</strong>. Entities like the Adler Group SA and Rene Benko’s Signa in particular are teetering on the edge of financial abysses - a precarious situation compounded by <strong>a banking sector that, despite past resilience, faces looming concerns over commercial real estate exposures and economic stagnation.</strong></p>
<blockquote><p><em>The Bundesbank <a href="https://www.bundesbank.de/en/publications/reports/financial-stability-reviews/financial-stability-review-2023-918848#:~:text=The%20macroeconomic%20environment%20is%20being,have%20not%20yet%20fully%20materialised." rel="noopener" target="_blank" title="Bundesbank FSR">warned in November</a> that at the start of 2023, <strong>the “present value of the banking book” was negative for 15 savings banks and 37 credit cooperatives,”</strong> adding they seem particularly vulnerable to an increase in interest rates. Since then, ECB rates have risen by 2 percentage points.</em></p>
<p><em><strong>One-third of commercial real estate loans in Germany face higher borrowing costs over three years</strong>, which could cause credit defaults and impairments to rise more sharply, the watchdog said.</em></p>
<p><em><strong>Fixed-income investors have become more reluctant to add exposure to lenders exposed to CRE</strong>, as seen in the issuance of covered bonds, the safest type of debt that banks can sell. <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/ARLN:GR" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Aareal Bank AG</a> had to lean on its lead managers, who put €125 million in the order book, to get a €500m four-year offering over the line in January. Aareal declined to comment. -Bloomberg</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>.</p>
<p>The Bundesbank's warnings about the vulnerabilities of savings banks and credit cooperatives to interest rate hikes underscore the fragility of the financial ecosystem. The potential for credit defaults and impairments looms large, with a significant portion of commercial real estate loans at risk. The reluctance of fixed-income investors to engage with lenders exposed to these risks highlights a growing crisis of confidence, <strong>even as companies and landlords cling to the hope of a rate reprieve under the mantra "Survive 'Til 2025."</strong></p>
</div>
</div>"Oh What a Tangled Web Biden Weaves, When He First Practices to Deceive"tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-11:4401701:BlogPost:2586472024-02-11T22:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">"Oh What a Tangled Web Biden Weaves, When He First Practices to Deceive"</span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://x.com/VDHanson/status/1756355165635088525?s=20">Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,</a></p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p>Joe Biden and his White House handlers <strong>continue to peddle misinformation if not lies</strong> about…</p>
</div>
</div>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">"Oh What a Tangled Web Biden Weaves, When He First Practices to Deceive"</span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://x.com/VDHanson/status/1756355165635088525?s=20">Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,</a></p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p>Joe Biden and his White House handlers <strong>continue to peddle misinformation if not lies</strong> about his removal of classified files...</p>
<p>The worst is that Biden - <strong>supposedly so unlike Trump</strong> - came forward willingly as soon as he realized that he had unlawfully, but inadvertently, removed and possessed classified files. And thus he cooperated fully and promptly with federal authorities.</p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/21841313772,21778456762/zerohedge/in_content_video_0__container__">.</div>
<div class="acw ac-widget-ph ac-reset"><div id="ac-lre-player-ph-ext-1EnKjWxFocGHo75RWNb5ckCykWiY1L18" class="ac-lre-player-ph-ext ac-lre-ph-playlist-hide-scroll-bar"><div class="h0011r00002RYAhn_1419 d0011r00002RYAhn_1419" id="ac-lre-player-ph-1EnKjWxFocGHo75RWNb5ckCykWiY1L18"><div class="w0011r00002RYAhn_1419 luminous-theme is-floated-outer-title"><div class="ac-player-ph"><div class="ac-player-wrapper ac-floated-player"><div class="lre-cancel-float font-fix"><strong style="font-size: 12pt;">The truth is far, far different</strong></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/bg020924dAPR-800x0.jpg?itok=ust6ZG5r"><img height="357" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/bg020924dAPR-800x0.jpg?itok=ust6ZG5r" alt=""/></a></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Biden illegally removed files, both as a Senator and Vice President, because, by law, he was not allowed to do so..</strong></p>
<p>He held some of them in his unlawful possession for perhaps at least <strong>14 years without a word to authorities, dating back at least to his departure from the Senate on January 15, 2009</strong> when he resigned to become Vice President—or if not longer over his some 36-year Senate career.</p>
<p>In fact, in 2017 Biden was fully aware that he had wrongly removed these classified files. As Hur noted, there is a taped conversation on record between Biden and his ghostwriter to just that effect. Biden, at home in Virginia, was recorded as remarking, <strong><em>“I just found all the classified stuff downstairs”.</em></strong></p>
<p>And yet Biden apparently <em>did nothing</em>. He never came forward to any federal authorities for nearly the next five years.</p>
<p><strong>So given that knowledge, why did the attorneys belatedly disclose Biden’s possession of the files on November 2, 2022? Civic virtue? Altruism? Respect for the law?</strong></p>
<p>Hardly.</p>
<p>Otherwise, Biden would have disclosed his unlawful possession at any time during either the intervening prior years when he was a private citizen or during the first 18 months of his presidency, when he knowingly still possessed classified files and still did nothing about it.</p>
<p><strong>In truth, Biden would likely never have come forward, save for one insurmountable problem: Merrick Garland had likely decided to appoint Jack Smith as a special prosecutor to investigate the Trump files that the FBI had swooped into Mar-a-Lago looking for 3 months earlier on August 8, 2022.</strong></p>
<p>In other words, knowing that Smith or a generic special counsel would very quickly be appointed (Smith was sworn in a little over two weeks later, on November 18, 2022), suddenly Biden and Co. preempted that announcement, in fear that Biden had done virtually the same thing as Trump—albeit without presidential declassification power and for at least 14 years in possession of classified files.</p>
<p><strong>Had the attorneys and Biden not come forward, Trump and others would have asked whether Biden had not also removed files.</strong> So to get out in front of the formal announcement of the Smith appointment, they preempted, misleadingly and disingenuously, preening that civic virtue had prompted Biden’s “voluntary” disclosures and “cooperation”.</p>
<p>A final note: one of the more disturbing moments in Biden’s catastrophic press conference was his flare up at Hur’s revelation (“How dare he bring up that!”) that in formal interviews an enfeebled Biden had not remembered the general date of his son’s tragic death from a glioblastoma brain tumor on May 30th, 2015 at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington DC.</p>
<p>Biden went on to vent at Hur.</p>
<p><strong>But Hur was simply documenting his analysis that Biden was severely cognitively impaired, and not as VP Kamala Harris claimed, gratuitously smearing Biden.</strong></p>
<p>But, who exactly had serially lied about Beau Biden’s demise, by claiming that he had died while on duty in Iraq, serving in the Delaware National Guard as a Judge Advocate?</p>
<p>Joe Biden.</p>
<p><strong>He has still a bad habit of directing attention away from grieving families of fallen soldiers, by claiming that he too experienced the same nightmare.</strong></p>
<p>Biden had been pilloried in the media to cease such false narratives about his son’s tragic premature death due to natural causes back in the United States, years after his deployment in Iraq.</p>
<p><strong>But to no avail, he continues spinning such myths as he did repeatedly as late as last year.</strong></p>
<p>Sadly, doctoring family tragedies for his own purposes is not new to Biden, as Jack Fowler noted in 2019.</p>
<p>The tragic death in a December 1972 traffic accident of his first wife and daughter, and the injuries of his two sons, was raised for decades by Biden—<strong><em>but in a completely false context of blaming an innocent truck driver, Curtis Dunn for the death.</em></strong></p>
<p>Dunn was innocent of any culpability. No matter, Biden in his serial retelling for years repeatedly smeared Dunn as drunk driver (“an errant driver who stopped to drink”) who had killed his wife and daughter.</p>
<p><strong>Biden finally gave in to the repeated pleas for decades from the truck driver and after his death, his family.</strong></p>
<p>Or as a 2010 Mark Bowden <em>Atlantic</em> essay on Biden noted:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>“For many years, he described the driver of the truck that struck and killed his first wife and their daughter in December 1972 as drunk, which he apparently was not.</em></p>
<p><strong><em>The tale could hardly be more tragic; why add in a baseless charge?</em></strong></p>
<p><em>The family of the truck driver has labored to correct the record, but Biden made the reference to drunkenness as recently as 2007, needlessly resurrecting a false and painful accusation.”</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><em>Did he just "mis-remember" then troo way back in 2007, when he was not yet demented?</em></p>
<p><strong><em>He is just a serial liar, and </em><i>fantasizer, and </i></strong><b><i>plagiarist., and hair sniffer, and children coddler, etc.</i></b></p>
</div>
</div>The Future of American Energy Production Must Include Nucleartag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-07:4401701:BlogPost:2582942024-02-07T23:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>The Future of American Energy Production Must Include Nuclear</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-future-of-american-energy-production-must-include-nuclear%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-future-of-american-energy-production-must-include-nuclear </a>;…</p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"></div>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>The Future of American Energy Production Must Include Nuclear</strong></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-future-of-american-energy-production-must-include-nuclear%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-future-of-american-energy-production-must-include-nuclear </a>;</p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p><em><a href="https://realclearwire.com/articles/2024/02/05/the_future_of_american_energy_production_must_include_nuclear_1009628.html">Authored by Tommy Tuberville via RealClear Wire</a>,</em></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>It’s the coldest time of the year</strong>, and the demand for energy is significantly higher as people try to warm their homes. </p>
<p>According to the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php">U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)</a>, in Alabama seven out of ten homes rely on electric heating during the winter months.</p>
<p>Increasing demand is placing a strain on our power grid, and the Biden administration has no solution to the problem.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/640818_jpg1.jpg?itok=7WMxZ_qr"><img height="321" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/640818_jpg1.jpg?itok=7WMxZ_qr" alt=""/></a></strong></p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/21841313772,21778456762/zerohedge/in_content_video_0__container__">.</div>
<div class="acw ac-widget-ph ac-reset"><div id="ac-lre-player-ph-ext-F29tW7W3YMmHtD5SpTqKyID002vimw8C" class="ac-lre-player-ph-ext ac-lre-ph-playlist-hide-scroll-bar"><div class="h0011r00002RYAhn_1419 d0011r00002RYAhn_1419" id="ac-lre-player-ph-F29tW7W3YMmHtD5SpTqKyID002vimw8C"><div class="w0011r00002RYAhn_1419 luminous-theme is-floated-outer-title"><div class="brand-container font-fix"><strong>Instead of providing families with reliable energy, Joe Biden and his administration have other priorities.</strong> .</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>They’ve spent the last three years on a crusade to make America dependent on unreliable energy sources such as wind and solar power, all in the name of supposedly fighting “climate change.” Make Europe Great Again</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>While wind and solar may have a small role to play in domestic energy production, we simply cannot rely on them.</p>
<p>The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, but our energy grid needs to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.</p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Despite Joe Biden’s best efforts, most of our energy still comes from fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas.</strong> </p>
<p>Democrats don’t like to admit this, but when wind and solar power fail, the backup generators are powered by oil and natural gas. Without fossil fuels, our energy grid and our economy could not function.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>To keep prices low and capacity high, <strong>the U.S. must have an “all-of-the-above” approach to American energy production. This must include investing in nuclear power.</strong></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Right now, nuclear energy accounts for approximately 18% of our power grid, which is more than dysfunctional wind and solar combined.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The U.S. has the most nuclear power production of any country in the world, but we could be producing even more.</p>
<p>Burdensome regulations and bureaucratic red tape from the Biden administration are slowing down nuclear permitting and production from doing even more. </p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Once again, Democrat politicians would rather play politics than do what is best for the working people of this country. They know their left-wing voter base hates nuclear energy—and they won’t risk offending them. </p>
<p>.</p>
<p>There is neither an economic nor a scientific basis for opposition to nuclear energy, which is <strong>the single most efficient source of energy known to man.</strong></p>
<p>It is <a href="https://encoreuranium.com/benefits-of-nuclear/benefits-nuclear-energy/#:~:text=High%20Energy%20Density,energy%2C%20resulting%20in%20less%20waste.">8,000</a> times more efficient than fossil fuels—which are already much more efficient than wind and solar power.</p>
<p>This efficiency grants nuclear power an unparalleled ability to bring down the price of energy—and, in turn, reduce prices throughout our economy.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Nuclear is also safe for the environment.</p>
<p>Nuclear energy produces zero emissions and removes harmful pollutants from the atmosphere.</p>
<p>Claims that nuclear energy production is dangerous are simply outdated.</p>
<p>After the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, there was a panic among Americans, and the federal government canceled <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2022/07/19/time-for-the-nuclear-option-00046511">President Nixon’s</a> goal of building 1,000 nuclear reactors. </p>
<p>Despite <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/us/three-mile-island-and-nuclear-hopes-and-fears.html">zero deaths</a> from the Three Mile Island incident, our energy policy has never recovered from this mistake and continues declining with the close of <a href="https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42853?source=search">13</a> American nuclear reactors since 2013.</p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Scientists are always working to learn from the past and improve our technical knowledge.</strong></p>
<p>We know a lot more about nuclear safety now than we did in 1979. Our technology is better than ever and continues to improve each day.</p>
<p>Alabama understands this better than almost any state, as we are proud to be the nation’s fifth-largest producer of nuclear energy with two nuclear plants and five nuclear reactors.</p>
<p>The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) operates <a href="https://www.tva.com/energy/our-power-system/nuclear/browns-ferry-nuclear-plant">Browns Ferry</a> in Athens, Alabama, which is their largest nuclear plant and has the second-largest nuclear power generating capacity in the nation.</p>
<p>Browns Ferry directly supports 1,500 Alabama jobs and powers more than two million homes.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>On the other end of the state, just outside of Dothan, Alabama Power runs <a href="https://www.southernnuclear.com/content/dam/southern-nuclear/pdfs/our-plants-/plant-farley-/farley-plant_brochure.pdf">Plant Farley</a>, generating nearly 20% of Alabama Power’s electricity.</p>
<p>Plant Farley supports 900 good jobs in the Wiregrass area, and I am grateful to Alabama’s energy workers for keeping the lights on for us.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>America needs to learn from Alabama.</p>
<p>We need to stop the idiotic Biden obsession with wind and solar energy and do a better job of investing in nuclear energy.</p>
<p>The polls show that a clear majority of the public wants more nuclear power—and that majority is growing by the day.</p>
<p>It’s good economics. It’s good energy policy. It’s good environmental policy. And it’s long overdue.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p></p>
<div class="H_7jIs D_F ab_C Q_69H5 E_36RhU"><div class="D_F W_6D6F r_BN gl_C"><p><strong>APPENDIX 1</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021</strong></p>
<p>During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW</p>
<p>Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%</p>
<p>At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%</p>
<p><a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition">https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!</p>
<p>Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.</p>
<p>Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and</p>
<p>2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)</strong></p>
<p><strong>See below Norwegian floating offshore cost of $8,300/installed kW</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in specialized ships, also designed and made in Europe, then unloaded at the about $400-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging area, then barged to specialized erection ships, also designed and made in Europe, for erection of the floating turbines</p>
<p> </p>
<p>About 300 Maine people would have pre-assembly/staging/erection jobs, during the erection phase</p>
<p>The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships</p>
<p>About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs during the 20-y electricity production phase</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The projects would produce electricity at about 40 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 20 c/kWh, with subsidies, the wholesale price at which utilities would buy from Owners (higher prices after 2023)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through">https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government </p>
<p>The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to all the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024</p>
<p>The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.</p>
<p>The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost: </span></b><span>Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at <b>$7,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>35.827 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>NOTE</span></b><span>: If li-ion battery systems were contemplated, they would add 20 to 40 c/kWh to the cost of any electricity passing through them, during their about 15-y useful service lives! See Part 1 of URL<br/></span> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span>https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</span></a></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>NOTE</span></b><span>: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about <b>5 c/kWh</b>, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Additional Gridwork on Shore</strong></p>
<p>A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. <br/> The cables would need some type of flexible support system</p>
<p>There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England high voltage grid. </p>
<p>The onshore grid will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People</strong></p>
<p>Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy.</p>
<p><strong>Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 2</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind in Norway</strong></p>
<p>Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company</p>
<p>Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.</p>
<p>On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.</p>
<p>The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365</p>
<p>The generators will provide almost all the electricity during <strong>low-wind periods</strong>, and 100% during <strong>high-wind periods</strong>, when rotors are feathered and locked.</p>
<p>The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = <strong>$8,300/kW. See URL</strong></p>
<p>That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher</p>
<p>The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms">https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms</a></p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies </p>
<p>In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.</p>
<p>Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind in Maine</strong></p>
<p>If such floating units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) The additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus</p>
<p>2) The additional $300 to $500 million capital cost of any onshore facilities for storing/pre-assembly/staging/barging to erection sites</p>
<p>3) A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. </p>
<p>The cables would need some type of flexible support system<br/> The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><span><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="514" height="565"/></a></span></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 3</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Offshore Wind</strong></p>
<p>Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about wind energy issues that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines of the stock prices of Siemens, Oersted, etc., starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out<br/> All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See costs/kWh in below article</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals</strong></p>
<p>1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government <br/> 2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disconnected-from-markets UK government</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about <strong>9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years</strong>, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See article<br/> <br/> <strong>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong>: During an interview, a commentator was reported to say” “renewables are not always reliable” <br/> That shows the types of ignorami driving the bus<br/> The commentator should have said: <strong>Wind and solar are never, ever reliable </strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><b><span>US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost</span></b></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity production</span></b><span> about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost, c/kWh</span></b><span>: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at <b>$5,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>30.273 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>15.137 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Not included</span></b><span>: At a future 30% wind/solar on the grid: </span></p>
<p><span>Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about <b>2 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid</span></p>
<p><span>Cost of curtailments, <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 4</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.</strong></p>
<p>Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.</p>
<p>With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.</p>
<p>Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies</p>
<p>The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.</p>
<p>The adders become<strong> exponentially greater,</strong> with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems</p>
<p>Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.</p>
<p>Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.</p>
<p>The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.</p>
<p>W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies</p>
<p>W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,</p>
<p>2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers</p>
<p>3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365 </p>
<p>4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during<strong> low-W/S periods,</strong> and<strong> 100% </strong>during<strong> high-W/S periods, </strong>when rotors are feathered and locked,</p>
<p>5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced</p>
<p>6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="650" height="433"/></a></p>
<p>. </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 5</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING<br/></strong> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>EXCERPT:</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong><span>Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing</span></strong></p>
<p><span>Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, <strong>$5.484 million/y</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, <strong>$6.765 million/y</strong> (10% due to high inflation)</span></p>
<p><span>Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = <strong>$183.7 million</strong></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)</span></p>
<p><span>Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh</span></p>
<p><strong><span>At 10% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span>At 40% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><strong><span>Excluded costs/kWh: </span></strong><span>1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites.<br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE</strong>: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><strong><span>NOTE</span></strong><span>: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia"><span>http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia</span></a></p>
<p><strong><span> </span></strong></p>
<p><b><span>COMMENT ON CALCULATION</span></b></p>
<p><span>Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid, no matter what.<br/> Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment</span></p>
<p><span>If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.</span></p>
<p><span>According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.</span></p>
<p><span>A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening.<br/> They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations</span></p>
<p><span>Remember, you have to draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid, because of a-to-z system losses. That gets worse with aging.</span></p>
<p><span>A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 6</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/lights-out-solar-power-stocks-crash-after-demand-warning-across-europe">SolarEdge Technologies shares plunged</a> about two weeks ago, after it warned about decreasing European demand. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>SolarEdge Melts Down After Weak Guidance </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Great Green Crash – Solar Down 40%</p>
<p><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 7</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>EV Owners Facing Soaring Insurance Costs in the US and UK</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>U.S. Offshore Wind Plans Are Utterly Collapsing</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK<br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 8</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Nuclear Plants by Russia: </strong>According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW</p>
<p>Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england</a></p>
<p>Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.</p>
<p>The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.</p>
<p>A typical plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually about 1,200 MW each</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Egypt</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW, </p>
<p>The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.</p>
<p>As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.<br/> That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Turkey</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>India</strong>, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the <b>Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.</b></p>
<p>Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed</p>
<p></p>
<p>In <strong>Bangladesh</strong>: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the <strong>Rooppur Power Station</strong></p>
<p>Capital cost $12.65 billion<strong> </strong>is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess <a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel" title="Spent nuclear fuel">spent nuclear fuel</a>.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Nuclear vs Wind</strong>: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions</p>
<p>They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years</p>
<p>Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.<br/> They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places</p>
<p>They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment <br/> They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Major Competitors</strong>: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.<br/> They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.</p>
<p>American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Tripling Nuclear A Total Fantasy:</strong> During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.</p>
<p><a href="https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html">https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants</p>
<p>Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>New nuclear</strong>: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table</p>
<p>Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, </p>
<p>Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050. </p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Infrastructures and Manpower</strong>: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year">https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year</a>.</p>
<p>. </p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p>Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022</p>
</td>
<td><p>370200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Proposed tripling</p>
</td>
<td><p>3</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>1110600</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Nuclear, MW</p>
</td>
<td><p>740400</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>MW/reactor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors</p>
</td>
<td><p>617</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Reactors, rounded</p>
</td>
<td><p>620</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors/site</p>
</td>
<td><p>2</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Sites</p>
</td>
<td><p>310</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, MWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841311760</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Conversion factor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1000000</p>
</td>
<td><p>%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841</p>
</td>
<td><p>11</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>World total production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>53000</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 9</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by type of customer</strong></p>
<p>Retail electricity prices are usually highest for residential and commercial consumers because it costs more to distribute electricity to them. Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The retail price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity.</p>
<p>In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢ per kilowatthour (kWh).1</p>
<p>The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh</p>
<p>Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh</p>
<p>Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh</p>
<p>Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by locality</strong></p>
<p>Electricity prices vary by locality based on the availability of power plants and fuels, local fuel costs, and pricing regulations. In 2022, the annual average retail electricity price for all types of electric utility customers ranged from <strong>39.85¢ per kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢ per kWh in Wyoming.2.</strong> </p>
<p>Prices in Hawaii are high relative to other states mainly because most of its electricity is generated with petroleum fuels that must be imported into the state.</p>
<p>1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.<br/> 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.</p>
<p>Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/">Electric Power Monthly</a>, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary.</p>
<p>See URL</p>
<p><a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php">https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-...</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the US, the cost of electricity to <strong>ratepayers</strong> ranges from about 8 c/kWh (Wyoming) to 40 c/kWh (Hawaii), for an average of about 12.5 c/kWh.</p>
<p>US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y</p>
<p>With a lot of wind/solar/batteries/EVs by 2050, and ratepayers buying 8000 billion kWh/y, because of electrification, the average rate to ratepayers would be about 25 c/kWh,</p>
<p><strong>US ratepayers would pay:</strong> two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y<br/> <strong>Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented</strong><br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE:</strong> All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollars</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 10</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>LIFE WITHOUT OIL?</strong></p>
<p>Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro, which can be done theoretically, but only at enormous cost.</p>
<p>Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.</p>
<p>The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.</p>
<p>If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.</p>
<p><strong>Without Crude Oil, there can be no Electricity.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Every experienced engineer knows, almost all the parts of wind, solar and battery systems, for electricity generation and storage, from mining materials to manufacturing parts, to installation and commissioning, in addition to the infrastructures that produce materials, parts, specialized ships, etc., are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.</strong></p>
<p><strong>There is no escaping of this reality, except in green la-la-land.</strong></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<div class="entry-content magazinenp-parts-item"><p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>$118B Ukraine Slush-Fund 'Border' Deal Dead in Senate Amid GOP Revolttag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-06:4401701:BlogPost:2583982024-02-06T17:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<div class="ArticleFull_headerFooter__date__UFCbS"><p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>$118B Ukraine Slush-Fund 'Border' Deal Dead in Senate Amid GOP Revolt </strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">.</p>
</div>
<p></p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p>The Senate's $118 billion 'border security' deal - of which more than 2/3 sends money to Ukraine ($60 BILLION) and…</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="ArticleFull_headerFooter__date__UFCbS"><p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>$118B Ukraine Slush-Fund 'Border' Deal Dead in Senate Amid GOP Revolt </strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">.</p>
</div>
<p></p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p>The Senate's $118 billion 'border security' deal - of which more than 2/3 sends money to Ukraine ($60 BILLION) and Israel ($14.1 BILLION) - <strong>appears to be dead</strong>, after Senate Republicans have vowed to block a procedural motion.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/Chuck-Schumer-1200x800_0.jpg?itok=-Y4_z4Ut"><img height="333" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/Chuck-Schumer-1200x800_0.jpg?itok=-Y4_z4Ut" alt=""/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>The move means that there's zero chance that the legislation will pass the Senate without <em>major changes</em> - while any revisions to the absurd asylum and border security reforms, which:</p>
<p></p>
<p>1) still allow 1.5 million illegals into the country per year FOREVER BY LAW, </p>
<p>2) screws Texas, etc., by requiring legal challenges be arbitrated in DC courts, and</p>
<p>3) funds foreign and domestic NGOs who facilitate human trafficking to the tune of billions.</p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"></div>
<p><em><strong>Daily reminder that Biden could <a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-blackmail-intensifies-wont-shut-border-till-congress-coughs-ukraine-israel-funds">close the border with the stroke of a pen</a>, but is holding that hostage until Ukraine gets its money...</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong>.</strong></em></p>
<p>On Tuesday, Senate GOP Whip John Thune (SD) said that the motion to move forward with the bill won't receive much, if any, Republican support.</p>
<p>"I think it’s unlikely because I just think our members are still — they want more time to evaluate it," calling its near-term passage "unlikely," and that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) decision to schedule a Wednesday vote was "rushing it."</p>
<p><strong>Lankford stands down</strong></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<img alt="" height="303" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/lankford%201a_0.PNG?itok=kU-mkYci" width="500"/><br/> <em>Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) pretending he cares about border security more than Ukraine</em><br/> <br/>
<p>Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), the lead Republican negotiator on the deal, said on Monday evening that <strong>he has no idea whether a vote will proceed Wednesday</strong> (it won't).</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>Schumer throws a fit</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>.</strong></span></p>
<p>Speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday, the Democratic Senator said that "After months of good faith negotiations, after months of giving Republicans many of the things they asked for, <strong>Leader McConnell and the Republican conference are ready to kill the national security supplemental package</strong>, even with the border provisions they so fervently demanded."</p>
<p>"We’ll even offer to delay that vote until some time Thursday to give even more time for senators to make up their minds.</p>
<p>But I suspect they won’t accept even that offer because they really don’t want more time. They’re just using it as an excuse."</p>
<p>On Monday, <strong>former President Donald Trump slammed the border bill</strong> and called for a 'separate' package that's not tied to foreign aid.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/trump%201aaa_1.jpg?itok=4msMNV67"><img height="281" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/trump%201aaa_1.jpg?itok=4msMNV67" alt=""/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>"<strong>Only a fool RINO or a Radical-Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill</strong>, which only gives Shutdown Authority after 5000 unvetted walk-ins a day, when Biden already have the legal right to CLOSE THE BORDER NOW, which must be done," he said on Truth Social.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>"This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for The Republican Party.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>It takes the HORRIBLE JOB the Democrats have purposely done on Immigration and the Border, absolves them, and puts it all squarely on the shoulders of Republicans," the former president continued.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>"<strong>Don’t be STUPID!!! We need a separate Border and Immigration bill. It should not be tied to foreign aid in any way, shape or form!</strong>"</p>
<p></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Mitch McConnell Urges GOP Senators to Block Border Bill, Citing “Political Mood in the Country Has Changed” Rather Than Flaws in Legislation</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">By <a href="https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/author/jezztoot/">Jim Hᴏft</a> </p>
<p></p>
<br/>
<div class="entry-content"><img class="size-full wp-image-1042001" src="https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/Mitch_McConnell_5438043026-scaled.jpg" alt="" width="537" height="358"/><br/><p>.</p>
<p>Traitor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has advised GOP senators to block the motion to proceed with the border security bill during a Wednesday vote, as reported by Punchbowl News.</p>
<p>This development comes after closed-door meetings where McConnell emphasized a “change” in the political climate as a rationale for opposing the bill negotiated by Senator Lankford, with approval of Schumer and McConnell.</p>
<p>As the GOP senators convened on Monday night to deliberate over the compromised border bill, it became evident that the likelihood of obtaining the <strong>necessary 60 votes to move forward</strong> with the national security package was dwindling.</p>
<div class="tgp-post-inline-1" id="tgp-466629225"><div class="adcovery-postinline-01"></div>
</div>
<p>“McConnell recommended to GOP senators behind closed doors, they BLOCK the border bill on Wednesday, per multiple sources, because it’s clear, most Republicans are preparing to vote no — either because they oppose the bill or want more time,” according to Punchbowl News reporter Andrew Desiderio.</p>
<div class="code-block code-block-18"><div class="ai-dynamic"><div class="adcovery"><div id="_ruamupr_com3600" class="__hinit __kwvr"><div class="pngmonet moduletablenewsletter_signup"><div class="gbqfqwb"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>“McConnell explicitly recommended a NO vote on cloture on the motion to proceed, according to several attendees.</p>
<p>McConnell said the problem isn’t what Lankford negotiated, it’s that the political mood in the country has changed,” he added.</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><strong>Bull manure, the "country" was always against having an open border</strong></span></p>
<div class="ai-dynamic"><div class="g g-1"><div class="g-single a-63"><p><a class="gofollow" href="https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/01/valentines-day-heavyweight-champion-all-robes-more-bathrobes/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">For Valentine's Day: "The Heavyweight Champion Of ALL Robes" And More Bathrobes From MyPillow - (Up to 68% Off)</a></p>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>According to CNN reporter, Manu Raju, a majority of the 49-member Senate GOP Conference has indicated their opposition to the border plan.</p>
<p>“A majority of the 49-member Senate GOP Conference is signaling opposition to the border plan, the latest sign that getting to 60 votes Wednesday to advance the national security package is growing increasingly grim. GOP senators have been meeting since 6pET on the issue. John Kennedy just popped out and I asked him about the meeting. “Manu, we are in the middle of an intervention,” he said. “I can’t talk now.””</p>
<div class="code-block code-block-19"><div class="ai-dynamic"><div id="rc-widget-7c76ad"><div class="sc-bdnxRM jvCTkj"><div id="rc_cont_275177" class="sc-bqGGPW fuATCF rc-wc rc-uid-275177 rc-g-dl layout_1"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p>Meetings among GOP senators that extended into the evening reflect the party’s concerted effort to reach a consensus on the issue.</p>
<p>Despite these discussions, divisions remain, particularly over the substance of the package negotiated by Senator Lankford.</p>
<p>Lankford clarified that there was no intention to exclude anyone, including House Speaker Johnson, from the discussions.</p>
<p>“We definitely didn’t shut him out.</p>
<p>He asked not to be included from the earliest days.</p>
<p>So we didn’t shut him out in any way,” Lankford claimed.</p>
<p>A total liar</p>
<p></p>
<p><em>Speaker Johnson defended his claim that he was excluded by Lankford and McConnell during the border deal.</em></p>
<p><em>“When the effort first began, when the Senate was going to work on their compromise bill, I went in and met with Mitch McConnell, and he and his office, and he talked about how they were going to begin this process,” he said, per CNN reporter Haley Talbot.</em></p>
<p><em>“And I said, ‘Well, it might be a good idea for the House to be involved.’</em></p>
<p><em>And they said, ‘No, no, no, the Senate is going to work on this and we’ll put together something that’s palatable for the House.’”</em></p>
<p><em>“I wanted to send in our committees of jurisdiction, the chairs of our committees of jurisdiction of judiciary and homeland security, perhaps foreign affairs, but that was rejected.”</em></p>
<p></p>
<div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered"></div>
<p></p>
<div class="tgp-post-above-comments" id="tgp-1734963590"><div class="adcovery-postbelow-01"></div>
</div>
<div class="code-block code-block-13"><div><div class="ai-dynamic"><div><div id="rc-widget-608a92"><div class="sc-bdnxRM jvCTkj"><div id="rc_cont_275180" class="sc-bqGGPW fuATCF rc-wc rc-uid-275180 rc-g-dl layout_1"><div class="sc-jrsJWt dJdFwe rc-widget-header"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>Waste Of the Day: DOD Audit: Over $1.0 Billion of $1.7 Billion In Weapons Missing In Ukrainetag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-06:4401701:BlogPost:2583942024-02-06T08:30:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Waste Of the Day: DOD Audit: Over $1.0 Billion of $1.7 Billion In Weapons Missing In Ukraine</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/waste-of-the-day-dod-audit-over-1-0-billion-of-1-7-billion-in%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/waste-of-the-day-dod-audit-over-1-0-billion-of-1-7-billion-in </a>;</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN…</p>
<p></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Waste Of the Day: DOD Audit: Over $1.0 Billion of $1.7 Billion In Weapons Missing In Ukraine</strong></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/waste-of-the-day-dod-audit-over-1-0-billion-of-1-7-billion-in%C2%A0">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/waste-of-the-day-dod-audit-over-1-0-billion-of-1-7-billion-in </a>;</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">BY TYLER DURDEN</p>
<p></p>
<div class="NodeContent_mainContent__2jyAd"><div class="NodeContent_body__HBEFs NodeBody_container__eeFKv"><p><em><a href="https://www.realclearwire.com/articles/2024/02/07/waste_of_the_day_over_1_billion_in_weapons_missing_in_ukraine_1008519.html">Authored by Adam Andrzejewski via RealClear Wire</a>,</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><strong>"High Time to Reset the Corrupt Ukraine Black Market Money Pit"</strong></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Topline:</strong> The Department of Defense has failed to properly track $1 billion worth of weapons provided to Ukraine, according to an <a href="https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jan/11/2003374323/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2024-043-EEMU_REDACTED%20SECURE.PDF">internal audit</a> released on Jan. 10 by the DOD Inspector General.</p>
<p>Weapons end up in hands of drug dealers in Mexico</p>
<p><a href="https://tass.com/world/1741783">https://tass.com/world/1741783</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/640466_jpg.jpg?itok=elcICaR_"><img height="358" width="500" class="inline-images image-style-inline-images" src="https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/640466_jpg.jpg?itok=elcICaR_" alt=""/></a></p>
<div class="AdvertisingSlot_desktop__eL99N AdvertisingSlot_tablet__3SxtX AdvertisingSlot_placement__udF_V AdvertisingSlot_inContentParent__PbvHE"><div id="google_ads_iframe_/21841313772,21778456762/zerohedge/in_content_video_0__container__"></div>
<div class="acw ac-widget-ph ac-reset"><div id="ac-lre-player-ph-ext-XR4HpZ0NcX4itT63kQCZ9AjY7QR2gtPA" class="ac-lre-player-ph-ext ac-lre-ph-playlist-hide-scroll-bar"><div class="h0011r00002RYAhn_1419 d0011r00002RYAhn_1419" id="ac-lre-player-ph-XR4HpZ0NcX4itT63kQCZ9AjY7QR2gtPA"><div class="w0011r00002RYAhn_1419 luminous-theme is-floated-outer-title"><div class="brand-container font-fix"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Key facts:</strong> The DOD is supposed to use special “enhanced end-use monitoring” techniques” to “safeguard” key weapons such as smaller, high-tech weaponry provided to Ukraine, which are likely targets for theft.</p>
<p>The audit says these monitoring procedures are not properly being followed in Ukraine, due to staffing shortages, poor internal logistics and more.</p>
<p><strong>The audit found that $1 billion of the $1.7 billion — or 59% — in enhanced end-use monitoring designated weapons provided to Ukraine as of June 2023 are “delinquent,”</strong> meaning they can’t be accounted for in inventory reports.</p>
<p>Maybe the weapons are being used properly; maybe they have been stolen by Russian forces. No one can be completely sure.</p>
<p><strong>The 59% delinquency rate is an improvement over the 86% of weapons that were unaccounted for in December 2022. No wonder Ukraine is losing</strong></p>
<p>The weapons include night-vision devices, anti-tank missiles, attack drones and small-diameter bombs.</p>
<p>The report also found that inventory databases were not regularly updated and that the Ukrainian Armed Forces failed to properly report missing weapons.</p>
<p><a href="https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-weapons-audit-watchdog-us-congress-biden-9abecd14528b9551ff4ddb6786ad7fda">Officials have stressed</a> that the weapons may in fact be completely fine. Just because the DOD failed to keep track of the weaponry does not necessarily mean it was stolen.</p>
<p>The Army, Air Force and more agreed that procedures would be fully updated by September 2024.</p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Background:</strong> The Biden administration <a href="https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts#:~:text=The%20Joe%20Biden%20administration%20and,Economy%2C%20a%20German%20research%20institute.">has sent over $75 billion</a> to Ukraine since February 2022, including $44 billion in military aid.</p>
<p><a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-ukraine-israel-budget-3762a0bdf00653e3c8a38175d3c3d3cb">Some Republican leaders</a> are already trying to block Biden’s request for additional funds for Ukraine. The missing weapons could strengthen their arguments.</p>
<p>This is not the first time weapons have gone missing during Biden’s administration. In Afghanistan in 2021, the <a href="https://www.cruz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letters/20210819_MilitaryEquipmentDODLetter.pdf">Taliban seized</a> seven U.S. helicopters, each worth as much as $21 million. The DOD also <a href="https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/audits/SIGAR-20-44-AR.pdf">lost track</a> of $174 million of drones provided to Afghanistan.</p>
<p>Biden officials then <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/08/31/biden-administration-erased-afghan-weapons-reports-from-federal-websites/?sh=7090412916ba">removed</a> official reports on Afghanistan weaponry spending from government websites.</p>
<p>The DOD has a long history of inadequately tracking its finances, having failed its last six annual audits.</p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Supporting Quote:</strong> “There remains no credible evidence of illicit diversion of U.S.-provided advanced conventional weapons from Ukraine,” Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-weapons-audit-watchdog-us-congress-biden-9abecd14528b9551ff4ddb6786ad7fda">said</a>. “We do see some instances of Russia continuing to spread disinformation to the contrary, but the fact is, we observe the Ukrainians employing these capabilities on the battlefield.”</p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Summary:</strong> While there is no direct evidence that weapons in Ukraine have actually been misused, the $1 billion inventory error calls into question the White House’s constant assurances that any aid would be carefully tracked.</p>
<p><em>The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com</em></p>
<p></p>
<div class="H_7jIs D_F ab_C Q_69H5 E_36RhU"><div class="D_F W_6D6F r_BN gl_C"><p><strong>APPENDIX 1</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW</p>
<p>Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%</p>
<p>At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%</p>
<p><a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition">https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-report-2022-edition</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and</p>
<p>2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)</strong></p>
<p><strong>See below Norwegian floating offshore cost of $8,300/installed kW</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in specialized ships, also designed and made in Europe, then unloaded at the about $400-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging area, then barged to specialized erection ships, also designed and made in Europe, for erection of the floating turbines</p>
<p> </p>
<p>About 300 Maine people would have pre-assembly/staging/erection jobs, during the erection phase</p>
<p>The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships</p>
<p>About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs during the 20-y electricity production phase</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The projects would produce electricity at about 40 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 20 c/kWh, with subsidies, the wholesale price at which utilities would buy from Owners (higher prices after 2023)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through">https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to all the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024</p>
<p>The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.</p>
<p>The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b><span>Floating Offshore Wind in Maine</span></b></p>
<p><b><span> </span></b></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost: </span></b><span>Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at <b>$7,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>35.827 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>17.913 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>NOTE</span></b><span>: If li-ion battery systems were contemplated, they would add 20 to 40 c/kWh to the cost of any electricity passing through them, during their about 15-y useful service lives! See Part 1 of URL<br/></span> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span>https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</span></a></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>NOTE</span></b><span>: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about <b>5 c/kWh</b>, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Additional Gridwork on Shore</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. <br/> The cables would need some type of flexible support system</p>
<p>There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England high voltage grid. </p>
<p>The onshore grid will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy.</p>
<p><strong>Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 2</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind in Norway</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company</p>
<p>Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.</p>
<p>On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.</p>
<p>The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365</p>
<p>The generators will provide almost all the electricity during <strong>low-wind periods</strong>, and 100% during <strong>high-wind periods</strong>, when rotors are feathered and locked.</p>
<p>The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = <strong>$8,300/kW. See URL</strong></p>
<p>That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher</p>
<p>The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms">https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms</a></p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies </p>
<p>In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.</p>
<p>Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Floating Offshore Wind in Maine</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>If such floating units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) The additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus</p>
<p>2) The additional $300 to $500 million capital cost of any onshore facilities for storing/pre-assembly/staging/barging to erection sites</p>
<p>3) A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. </p>
<p>The cables would need some type of flexible support system<br/> The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><span><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12290493455?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="514" height="565"/></a></span></p>
<p>.</p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 3</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Offshore Wind</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about wind energy issues that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines of the stock prices of Siemens, Oersted, etc., starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out<br/> All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See costs/kWh in below article</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals</strong></p>
<p>1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government <br/> 2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disconnected-from-markets UK government</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Those US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about <strong>9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years</strong>, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See article<br/> <br/> <strong>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY</strong> <br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong>: During an interview, a commentator was reported to say” “renewables are not always reliable” <br/> That shows the types of ignorami driving the bus<br/> The commentator should have said: <strong>Wind and solar are never, ever reliable </strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><b><span>US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost</span></b></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity production</span></b><span> about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Electricity Cost, c/kWh</span></b><span>: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at <b>$5,500/kW</b>.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.</span></p>
<p><span>Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>All other items, 4 c/kWh </span></p>
<p><span>Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = <b>30.273 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) <b>15.137 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Owner sells to utility at <b>15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.</b></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><b><span>Not included</span></b><span>: At a future 30% wind/solar on the grid: </span></p>
<p><span>Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about <b>2 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid</span></p>
<p><span>Cost of curtailments, <b>2.0 c/kWh</b></span></p>
<p><span>Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 4</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.</p>
<p>With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.</p>
<p>Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies</p>
<p>The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.</p>
<p>The adders become<strong> exponentially greater,</strong> with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems</p>
<p>Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.</p>
<p>Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.</p>
<p>The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.</p>
<p>W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies</p>
<p>W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,</p>
<p>2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers</p>
<p>3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365 </p>
<p>4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during<strong> low-W/S periods,</strong> and<strong> 100% </strong>during<strong> high-W/S periods, </strong>when rotors are feathered and locked,</p>
<p>5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced</p>
<p>6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12347100088?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full" width="650" height="433"/></a></p>
<p>. </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 5</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING<br/></strong> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>EXCERPT:</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong><span>Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing</span></strong></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2</span></p>
<p><span>Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, <strong>$5.484 million/y</strong></span></p>
<p><span>Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, <strong>$6.765 million/y</strong> (10% due to high inflation)</span></p>
<p><span>Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = <strong>$183.7 million</strong></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)</span></p>
<p><span>Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh</span></p>
<p><span>Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh</span></p>
<p><strong><span>At 10% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span>At 40% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh</span></strong></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><strong><span>Excluded costs/kWh: </span></strong><span>1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites.<br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE</strong>: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><strong><span>NOTE</span></strong><span>: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia"><span>http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia</span></a></p>
<p><strong><span> </span></strong></p>
<p><b><span>COMMENT ON CALCULATION</span></b></p>
<p><span>Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid, no matter what.<br/> Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment</span></p>
<p><span>If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.</span></p>
<p><span>According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.</span></p>
<p><span>A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening.<br/> They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations</span></p>
<p><span>Remember, you have to draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid, because of a-to-z system losses. That gets worse with aging.</span></p>
<p><span>A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 6</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/lights-out-solar-power-stocks-crash-after-demand-warning-across-europe">SolarEdge Technologies shares plunged</a> about two weeks ago, after it warned about decreasing European demand. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>SolarEdge Melts Down After Weak Guidance </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-solaredge-melts-down-after-weak-guidance</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Great Green Crash – Solar Down 40%</p>
<p><a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-down-40/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 7</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow-to-offshore-wind-projects-had-asked</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-economic-and-environmental-catastrophe</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-projects-ask-for-almost-50-price-rise</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>EV Owners Facing Soaring Insurance Costs in the US and UK</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soaring-insurance-costs-in-the-us-and-uk</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>U.S. Offshore Wind Plans Are Utterly Collapsing</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plans-are-utterly-collapsing</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plummet-as-dealers-stuck-with-unsold-cars</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catch-fire-after-being-exposed-to-saltwater</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debacle-shows-the-top-down-economics-of-net-zero</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-of-world-s-first-offshore-wind-farm</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-admit</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK<br/> <a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-projects-threaten-to-pull-out-of-uneconomical</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-do-not-economiccally-displace-fossil-fuel</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED </p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 8</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Nuclear Plants by Russia</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW</p>
<p>Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england</a></p>
<p>Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.</p>
<p>The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Nuclear Plants</strong>: A typical plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually about 1,200 MW each</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Egypt</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW, </p>
<p>The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.</p>
<p>As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.<br/> That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>Turkey</strong>, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>In <strong>India</strong>, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the <b>Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.</b></p>
<p>Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed</p>
<p></p>
<p>In <strong>Bangladesh</strong>: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the <strong>Rooppur Power Station</strong></p>
<p>Capital cost $12.65 billion<strong> </strong>is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess <a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel" title="Spent nuclear fuel">spent nuclear fuel</a>.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant</a></p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Nuclear vs Wind</strong>: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions</p>
<p>They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years</p>
<p>Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.<br/> They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places</p>
<p>They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment <br/> They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Major Competitors</strong>: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.<br/> They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.</p>
<p>American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Tripling Nuclear A Total Fantasy:</strong> During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.</p>
<p><a href="https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html">https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants</p>
<p>Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>New nuclear</strong>: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table</p>
<p>Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, </p>
<p>Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050. </p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Infrastructures and Manpower</strong>: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year">https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year</a>.</p>
<p>. </p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p>Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022</p>
</td>
<td><p>370200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Proposed tripling</p>
</td>
<td><p>3</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>1110600</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Nuclear, MW</p>
</td>
<td><p>740400</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>MW/reactor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1200</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors</p>
</td>
<td><p>617</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New Reactors, rounded</p>
</td>
<td><p>620</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Reactors/site</p>
</td>
<td><p>2</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Sites</p>
</td>
<td><p>310</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, MWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841311760</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Conversion factor</p>
</td>
<td><p>1000000</p>
</td>
<td><p>%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>New nuclear production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>5841</p>
</td>
<td><p>11</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>World total production, TWh, 2050</p>
</td>
<td><p>53000</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 9</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by type of customer</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Retail electricity prices are usually highest for residential and commercial consumers because it costs more to distribute electricity to them. Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The retail price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity.</p>
<p>In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢ per kilowatthour (kWh).1</p>
<p>The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh</p>
<p>Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh</p>
<p>Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh</p>
<p>Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Electricity prices vary by locality</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Electricity prices vary by locality based on the availability of power plants and fuels, local fuel costs, and pricing regulations. In 2022, the annual average retail electricity price for all types of electric utility customers ranged from <strong>39.85¢ per kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢ per kWh in Wyoming.2.</strong> </p>
<p>Prices in Hawaii are high relative to other states mainly because most of its electricity is generated with petroleum fuels that must be imported into the state.</p>
<p>1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.<br/> 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.</p>
<p>Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/">Electric Power Monthly</a>, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary.</p>
<p>See URL</p>
<p><a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php">https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-...</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the US, the cost of electricity to <strong>ratepayers</strong> ranges from about 8 c/kWh (Wyoming) to 40 c/kWh (Hawaii), for an average of about 12.5 c/kWh.</p>
<p>US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y</p>
<p>With a lot of wind/solar/batteries/EVs by 2050, and ratepayers buying 8000 billion kWh/y, because of electrification, the average rate to ratepayers would be about 25 c/kWh,</p>
<p><strong>US ratepayers would pay:</strong> two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y<br/> <strong>Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented</strong><br/> <br/> <strong>NOTE:</strong> All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollars</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>APPENDIX 10</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>LIFE WITHOUT OIL?</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro, which can be done theoretically, but only at enormous cost.</p>
<p>Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.</p>
<p>The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.</p>
<p>If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Without Crude Oil, there can be no Electricity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Every experienced engineer knows, almost all the parts of wind, solar and battery systems, for electricity generation and storage, from mining materials to manufacturing parts, to installation and commissioning, in addition to the infrastructures that produce materials, parts, specialized ships, etc., are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.</strong></p>
<p><strong>There is no escaping of this reality, except in green la-la-land.</strong></p>
<p><strong>.</strong></p>
<div class="entry-content magazinenp-parts-item"><p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/10828286466?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p>.</p>
<div class="wp-block-file"></div>
<div id="wpd-post-rating" class="wpd-not-rated"><div class="wpd-rating-wrap"></div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Electric Vehicles Enter the 'Total Failure' Phase of Their Existencetag:www.windtaskforce.org,2024-02-04:4401701:BlogPost:2583842024-02-04T03:00:00.000ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><b><span>Electric Vehicles Enter the 'Total Failure' Phase of Their Existence</span></b></p>
<div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span><a href="https://redstate.com/bonchie/2024/01/20/electric-vehciles-enter-the-total-failure-phase-of-their-existence-n2168989" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://redstate.com/bonchie/2024/01/20/electric-vehciles-enter-the-total-failure-phase-of-their-existence-n2168989…</a></span></p>
</div>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><b><span>Electric Vehicles Enter the 'Total Failure' Phase of Their Existence</span></b></p>
<div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span><a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://redstate.com/bonchie/2024/01/20/electric-vehciles-enter-the-total-failure-phase-of-their-existence-n2168989">https://redstate.com/bonchie/2024/01/20/electric-vehciles-enter-the-total-failure-phase-of-their-existence-n2168989</a></span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-enter-the-total-failure-phase-of-their">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-enter-the-total-failure-phase-of-their</a></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>. </span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><strong>Electric School Buses</strong></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><strong>.</strong></p>
</div>
<div><div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span><a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://americanenergyalliance.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7cbc7dd79831a84c870f9842e&id=2fbda25ea6&e=24eb606390">Detroit News</a></span><span class="yiv6014135906gmail-apple-converted-space"><span> </span></span><span>(1/23/24) column: "If there is a saving grace in Michigan spending $125 million in 2024 on electric school buses, it’s that we can't afford many of them.</span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>Almost every big purchase of electric school buses you hear about in Michigan traces back to one source: the Environmental Protection Agency. </span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>The EPA’s Clean School Bus Program is spending $5 billion over five years, 2022 to 2026, underwriting electric buses for schools that couldn’t afford them otherwise. </span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>To let the EPA tell the story:</span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>the electric school bus is magic. </span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>It makes the air cleaner.</span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>It saves money in fuel costs. </span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>It can power school buildings in the event of power outages. </span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>The EPA actually says this. </span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>But magic comes at a high cost.</span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>So far, the EPA says, it has spent $1.84 billion from the fund, on 5,103 electric buses.</span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>That averages out to more than $360,000 per bus.</span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>Diesel buses cost between $65,000 and $100,000 each...</span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>Washington, D.C. is the rare place where lawmakers don’t have to balance the budget or even pass a budget.</span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>When spending is higher than revenues, they just turn on the printer.</span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>When the bill comes due, they borrow more money from the future.</span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>Untethered from the physical realities of money, the Biden administration is printing $5 billion to build a fantasy world, where school buses prevent childhood asthma and keep neighborhoods powered up — after $400,000 in start-up costs, of course.</span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>But make no mistake, your kids and grandkids will pay for every last one."</span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>JB says: I question the highlighted sentence.</span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><strong>EV's and Road Use Taxes</strong></p>
</div>
<div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>.</span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>MO writes:</span></p>
</div>
<div><div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>In theory a use tax, if U don't buy motor fuel U don't have to pay for the roads & bridges. (there is no road tax on aviation fuel or farm fuel, for example)</span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>In the People's Republic of Washington, the rocket scientist solons thought it was kinda unfair that the EVs would get to use the roads for free, so they proposed an additional fee for the license plates. </span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>U can imagine how long that idea lasted; one could hear the howling all the way to Little Greta's Sweden. </span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>States - at least the impoverished ones - struggle to keep up with road and bridge maintenance given the amount they collect in fuel taxes. </span></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span>But this is because they spend so much of that supposedly dedicated money on things like skateboard parks, midnight basketball games, and the prize of all, Moonbeam Brown's Train to Nowhere.</span></p>
</div>
<div><div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><span><a rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="https://www.thedrive.com/news/32810/switching-to-electric-vehicles-will-ruin-our-roads-without-a-gas-tax-replacement">https://www.thedrive.com/news/32810/switching-to-electric-vehicles-will-ruin-our-roads-without-a-gas-tax-replacement</a></span></p>
<div><p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><strong><span>.</span></strong></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal"><strong><span>A Decidedly Useful Tax.</span></strong></p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal">.</p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal">The gas tax can be complicated, but the basics are, both federal and state governments impose a surcharge that's built into the final price at the pump.</p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal">They're nothing new—the federal government has been imposing gas taxes since the 1930s, and some states did it even earlier.</p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal">The gas station itself is then responsible for paying over the tax to the state and federal Highway Trust Funds. Federal officials pool that money and distribute it back out to state and local agencies for infrastructure repairs, new construction and transit subsidies.</p>
<p class="yiv6014135906MsoNormal">(Despite the name, the Highway Trust Fund is also the primary source of federal mass transit funding.)</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><p></p>
</div>
</div>