Al Jaber Is Right: There is no Science Showing a Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Will Achieve 1.5C

Al Jaber is Right: There Is no Science Showing a Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Will Achieve 1.5C

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/al-jaber-is-right-ther...

By Ron Barmby

.

jaber

.

Sultan Al Jaber, president of the Conference of the Parties 28 (COP28), has injected some pragmatism into the meeting in Dubai this week with his comment, “There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5.”

But real science can do a lot better than Al Jabar’s claim, it can show, the United Nations’ (UN) imperative of eliminating human emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels by the year 2050 (a.k.a., Net Zero 2050) is unwarranted.

Here are three recent scientific advances that, separately, could invalidate the need for Net Zero by 2050:

1. Current carbon dioxide emissions alone cannot cause an additional 3.5°C of global warming by 2100.

The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)report (AR6) warns of a worst-case scenario wherein the global average temperature is 3.5°C warmer in the year 2100 than today, mainly due to human emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2.

The 3.5°C predicted forecast is based on computer models that are riddled with pro-warming assumptions and biases that have a long history of running too hot.

They are accepted by the IPCC, based on the consensus of the political appointees from the UN.

In 2019 two eminent physicists, Dr. W. A. van Wijngaarden and Dr. W. Happer, developed calculations to predict the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, and their results matched public-domain satellite observations, since 1979

This complies with the scientific method, which relies on observations of natural phenomena that others can replicate and challenge, and disproves the IPCC consensus.

Van Wijngaarden and Happer found, if CO2 concentrations were to continue to increase at the same rate as they do currently, which is 2.3 parts per million (ppm) each year, global warming of approximately 1.8°C over 180 years would occur. That would equate to only a 0.8°C increase by 2100.

The results of Wijngaarden and Happer’s equations are not a surprise.

We will see below that buried deep in its 2023 report, the IPCC scientists came to similar conclusions.

2. The IPCC uses amplified carbon dioxide equivalent emissions to reach 3.5°C of warming.

When the IPCC states,  by 2100 the average global temperature may be 3.5°C higher than today, that represents the net effect of all the human-emitted greenhouse gases (and to a minor extent human land uses).

Their models predict CO2 emissions will cause only 70% of the warming, the rest being made up of four other greenhouse gases.

The statements fail to make that distinction and convert those other gases to a carbon dioxide equivalent.

But there is another layer to peel off.

Even when the IPCC states, CO2 alone (as opposed to CO2 equivalent) will cause 2.5°C of global warming, that number is at least double the value they calculated.

They assume an exaggerated effect of water vapor on CO2.

Here’s how water vapor factors in: as the planet warms, there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is by far the largest component of the total greenhouse gas effect, but it is not human-emitted.

These facts are not disputed; the dispute arises from IPCC models assuming a strong positive water vapor feedback loop (meaning it promotes global warming).

They’re operating under the notion that CO2-induced warming increases water vapor by evaporation, which will add even more warming as a greenhouse gas, which then compounds itself by adding yet more water vapor.

NASA states  , this amplification by water vapor more than doubles the warming by CO2 alone.

Deep in the latest IPCC report (AR6 WGI Chapter 7 – Executive summary) is the statement: “The combined water-vapor and lapse-rate feedback makes the largest single contribution to global warming…

However, in the same chapter, the lapse rate feedback (the relationship between surface air temperatures and temperatures in the upper troposphere) is confirmed as a smaller negative feedback that promotes global cooling.

If this is the case, water vapor feedback itself must be larger than the warming of CO2 by itself, thereby at least doubling it. But is this the case?

The IPCC models have long predicted this amplification will be detectable in the upper troposphere within the tropical latitudes of the Earth.

In 2015 Dr. Roy Spencer published the results of a satellite-based search for these hot spots.

The study was funded by the U.S. Department Of Energy. He could not find them

The positive feedback loop of water vapor is a key component of the IPCC claim, continued CO2 emissions will cause crisis-level global warming, yet it cannot be detected; Spencer could not find them.

Many great minds, both inside and outside of the IPCC, suspect the extra water vapor created by global warming became extra clouds, which have a net cooling effect.

3. The IPCC forecast ignores the urban heat island effect.

A pattern of normal daytime highs combined with warmer nights is the signature of the urban heat island (UHI) effect.

A city’s asphalt, concrete, and brick absorb more heat during the day than the grass, trees, and water they’ve replaced.

These man-made structures then release the heat at night, while ongoing human activities generate heat around the clock.

There is no controversy, the nighttime temperatures can be several degrees warmer than normal due to the UHI effect, increasing the daily average temperature at that urban spot.

The IPCC regards the UHI effect as a localized phenomenon, hard to determine or predict, but not a factor outside the major urban areas.

That assumption could be very wrong.

Dr. Spencer’s latest work included continental U.S. temperature data from 1895 to 2023.

He analyzed it between hundreds of thousands of pairs of adjacent grid blocks.

By comparing the average temperature combined with the average population density of adjacent blocks, he found, in larger cities the UHI effect was responsible for over 50% of the total recorded warming.

Most surprisingly, across the whole of the continental U.S. (urban and rural), UHI caused 24% of the 1895 to 2023 warming trend.

The UHI effect increased with time because the population of the U.S. grew by a factor of just over six times, and urban areas grew tremendously, and more energy is consumed per capita.

More importantly, the data detected, UHI followed all human settlements, urban and rural, but proportional to population density.

During the same period, the world’s population grew nearly six times larger.

The previously discounted UHI effect in rural areas could be a global, human-caused, non-CO2-related source of warming, that has been historically misattributed to CO2 warming.

Because the world’s population growth has slowed and is forecast to plateau, the hidden UHI component of the forecast trend, perhaps as large as 24%, needs to be identified and excluded.

Observed science backs Sultan Al Jaber.

Let’s summarize the three scientific advances:

  • Wijngaarden and Happer’s 2019 work, consistent with satellite observations, predicts that CO2 emissions as normal will cause 0.8°C of warming from now to 2100.
  • The 100%-plus amplification of CO2 by water vapor assumed by the IPCC forecast models could not be detected in Spencer’s 2015 satellite search project.
  • Spencer’s 2023 work with public domain data of the UHI effect shows it is a much larger and broader non-CO2 human contributor to past global warming than the IPCC acknowledges, and it may be one of the factors the IPCC models run too hot.

Surprisingly, the worst-case IPCC model forecast of 3.5°C stripped of non-CO2 gases (70% of warming left), detached of the minimum 100% water vapor amplification (further reduced to 35% of warming left), and allowing for a 24% UHI effect is reduced to 27% of the original forecast, 0.9°C, or 0.12°C per decade.

That is close to the 0.8C calculated by Wijngaarden and Happer

Dr. Spencer is already famous for his work with Dr. John Christy in extracting global temperature values from satellites (which the IPCC also fails to evaluate) going back to 1979.

The 40-year satellite trend for the global average temperature has been increasing at 0.11°C per decade. The trend would have to be 0.44°C per decade to get to 3.5°C warmer by 2100.

Al Jaber wants a “roadmap for a phase-out of fossil fuels that will allow for sustainable socio-economic development.”

This won’t happen as long as the IPCC puts their long-failed computer models of the climate, amplified by UN hysteria, ahead of the scientific method of careful observation of natural phenomena.

But, thank you, Al Jaber, for requesting a “sober and mature conversation.”

It’s long overdue. [Al Jaber has since walked back his comments after major backlash from political parties. –CCD Ed.]


Ron Barmby (www.ronaldbarmby.ca) is a Professional Engineer with a Master’s degree, whose 40+ year career in the energy sector has taken him to over 40 countries on five continents. His book, Sunlight on Climate Change: A Heretic’s Guide to Global Climate Hysteria (Amazon, Barnes & Noble), explains in layman’s terms the science of how natural and human-caused global warming work.

APPENDIX 1

 

Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind...

 

World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021

 

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

Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%

At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%

https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-repo...

 

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!!

 

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.

 

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:

 

1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and

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.

 

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)

See below Norwegian floating offshore cost of $8,300/installed kW

 

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

 

About 300 Maine people would have pre-assembly/staging/erection jobs, during the erection phase

The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships

About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs during the 20-y electricity production phase

 

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)

https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill...

 

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

 

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 

 

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

The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.

The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment

 

NOTE: The above electricity prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:

 

Natural gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh

Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh

Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh

 

Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Additional Gridwork on Shore

 

A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. 
The cables would need some type of flexible support system

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. 

The onshore grid will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.

 

Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People

 

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.

Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.

 

APPENDIX 2

 

Floating Offshore Wind in Norway

 

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

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.

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.

The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365

The generators will provide almost all the electricity during low-wind periods, and 100% during high-wind periods, when rotors are feathered and locked.

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 = $8,300/kW. See URL

That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher

The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites

 

https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/arti...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine

 

The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies 

In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.

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.

 

Floating Offshore Wind in Maine

 

If such floating units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of:

 

1) The additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus

2) The additional $300 to $500 million capital cost of any onshore facilities for storing/pre-assembly/staging/barging to erection sites

3) A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. 

The cables would need some type of flexible support system
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.

.

.

APPENDIX 3

 

Offshore Wind

 

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
All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See costs/kWh in below article

 

World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues 
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offsho...

 

US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals

1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government 
2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disconnected-from-markets UK government

 

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 9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See article
 
US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY  
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...

 

NOTE: During an interview, a commentator was reported to say” “renewables are not always reliable” 
That shows the types of ignorami driving the bus
The commentator should have said: Wind and solar are never, ever reliable 

 

APPENDIX 4

Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.

Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.

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.

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

The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.

The adders become exponentially greater, with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid

 

The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems

Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.

Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.

The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.

W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies

W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.

 

1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,

2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers

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 

4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and 100% during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,

5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced

6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.

.

APPENDIX  5

 

BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

 

EXCERPT:

Batteries Far from an Economic Alternative to Power Plant Fleets

 

Turnkey capital costs of large scale-battery systems are $575/installed kWh; based on 2023 pricing of Tesla-Megapack systems. See above URL

Payments to Bank at 6.5%/y for 15 years, on a 50% bank loan

Payments to Owner at 10%/y for 15 years, on a 50% investment

At 10% throughput, the Payments to Bank + Owner would have a delivered electricity cost of about 184.5 c/kWh, no subsidies, about 92.3 c/kWh with 50% subsidies, on top of the 6 c/kWh cost of the electricity drawn from the HV grid to charge the batteries

At 40% throughput, about 23.1 c/kWh, on top of the 6 c/kWh

 

Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% loss from HV grid-to-HV grid, 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.
 
NOTE: 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

 

NOTE: 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.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-res...

 

THE PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC FUTILITY OF W/S/B HAS BEEN CLEAR TO INDEPENDENT ENERGY SYSTEMS ANALYSTS AND ENGINEERS SINCE ABOUT 2000

APPENDIX 6

 

Solar is in a Downturn, Similar to Offshore Wind

SolarEdge Technologies shares plunged about two weeks ago, after it warned about decreasing European demand. 

 

Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-...

 

SolarEdge Melts Down After Weak Guidance 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-s...

 

The Great Green Crash – Solar Down 40%

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-...

 

APPENDIX 7

 

Miscellaneous Sources of Information

 

World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offsho...

 

US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY  

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...

 

BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

 

Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow...

 

Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-ec...

 

Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-proje...

 

EV Owners Facing Soaring Insurance Costs in the US and UK

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soari...

 

U.S. Offshore Wind Plans Are Utterly Collapsing

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plan...

 

Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plu...

 

Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catc...

 

The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debac...

 

Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-o...

 

Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-...

 

IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renew...

 

UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-proje...

 

CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-c...

 

AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-...

.

IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED    

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...

 

APPENDIX 8

 

Nuclear Plants by Russia

 

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

Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england

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.

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.

 

Nuclear Plants: A typical plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually about 1,200 MW each

.

In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW, 

The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.

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%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU

.

In Turkey, 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

.

In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.

Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed

.

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

 

Nuclear vs Wind: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions

They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years

Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France

.

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.
They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places

They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment 
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

 

Major Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
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.

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.

 

Tripling Nuclear? During COP28 in opulent Dubai, Kerry called for the world to triple CO2-free nuclear, from 370,200 MW to about 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.

https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html

 

Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants

That means, 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.

 

New nuclear: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would be 11% of the 2050 world electricity generation. See table

Existing nuclear: If some of the older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, that nuclear would be about 5% to the world total generation in 2050

Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation.

Total nuclear would be about 16%, and would have minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050. 

Infrastructures and Manpower: 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.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-202....

.

 

Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022

370200

Proposed tripling

3

Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050

1110600

New Nuclear, MW

740400

MW/reactor

1200

Reactors

617

New Reactors, rounded

620

Reactors/site

2

Sites

310

New nuclear production, MWh, 2050

5841311760

Conversion factor

1000000

%

New nuclear production, TWh, 2050

5841

11

World total production, TWh, 2050

53000

 

APPENDIX 9

 

Electricity prices vary by type of customer

 

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.

In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢ per kilowatthour (kWh).1

The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were:

 

Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh

Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh

Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh

Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh

 

Electricity prices vary by locality

 

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 39.85¢ per kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢ per kWh in Wyoming.2. 

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.

1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.
2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.

Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the Electric Power Monthly, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary.

See URL

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-...

 

In the US, the cost of electricity to ratepayers ranges from about 8 c/kWh (Wyoming) to 40 c/kWh (Hawaii), for an average of about 12.5 c/kWh.

US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y

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,

US ratepayers would pay: two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y
Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented

NOTE: All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollars

 

APPENDIX 10

 

LIFE WITHOUT OIL?

 

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.

Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.

The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.

If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.

 

Without Crude Oil, there can be no Electricity.

 

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.

There is no escaping of this reality, except in green la-la-land.

.

.

Views: 121

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service