DEEP OCEAN SEISMIC EVENTS ADD ENERGY TO PERIODIC EL NINOs

DEEP OCEAN SEISMIC EVENTS ADD ENERGY TO PERIODIC EL NINOs

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-p...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-e...

COP28 in Dubai in 2023

COP28 had a huge CO2 footprint, with 88,000 registered in the blue zone and 40,000 in the green zone, including the world's elite, with jet planes, yachts, staying at 5-star hotels, etc.

The dire consequences of global warming were in the spotlight. UN chief, Antonio Guterres, scare-mongered about a “boiling earth”.

Such pronouncements are magnified by the IPCC, associated entities and mainstream Media to scare people and keep them misinformed.

.

Subjective Computer Temperature Modelling

Image 1

The image of the temperature models is a distortion of reality, as seen through the lens of biased observers

The essential shortcoming of the IPCC-sanctioned climate models is, they do not reflect the reality of objective data, such as measured by satellites since 1979.

The divergence between subjective, IPCC-sanctioned models and satellite reality is mind boggling. 

.

,

Global Temperatures, per NASA

Much of the global warming occurred north of Alaska, north of Siberia and west of Poland, compared to the baseline average of 1951 - 1980.

The US and Canada have seen very little warming.

Europe, which expensively imports at least 50% of all of its energy, has implemented a large capacity, MW, of wind and solar systems, but high interest rates, high inflation rates, high materials, labor and energy costs has increased the cost of their offshore electricity to at least 30 c/kWh, no subsidies, to 15 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies, the price at which Utilities buy from Owners.

If the US, which has plenty of low-cost energy, decided not to go the expensive W/S route, it would have a huge competitive advantage in world trade, hence the big push by Europe to shame the US. See Image 1-1

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures

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

.

.

PART I
El Niño Heat Source Area 
An about 9000-meter-deep plateau, located near Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, has major periodic, volcanic activity, that influences the world’s weather. See Image 1A

The plateau covers about 150,000 square miles, which is a mere 0.23% of the Pacific Ocean’s 64,092,958 square miles.

That area is one of the most geologically active regions on Earth 

It is home to the junction of five extremely active major fault systems, the second-largest, ocean-floor lava plateau on Earth,

It has hundreds of ocean floor volcanoes, and a large number of ocean-floor hydrothermal vents.

Plate Climatology Theory, states, fixed/non-moving, geological, deep-ocean heat sources provide additional energy to many weather patterns, and weather-related events, including El Niños. See URLs

https://www.plateclimatology.com/why-el-nios-originate-from-geologi...

https://climatechangedispatch.com/geologist-how-geologic-factors-ge...

.

El Niños
The Heat Source Area provides heat to water of local areas of the Pacific Ocean. That water rises and follows prevailing currents towards South America. That is the normal situation 
.
About every 2 to 7 years, increased venting and eruptions take place, due to tectonic plate movements.
That heat warms the already warm water, and gives additional impetus to any El Niño development (rated weak to very strong), whose development and consequences are well known. See Image 1A
.
Sometimes, an under-water, volcanic eruption takes place in a nearby area, such as Hunga Tonga, that, in this case, added to the effects of El Niño (rated strong). 
Their combined effects temporarily altered normal weather of large areas of the world for at least 12 to 18 months.

Stronger El Niños are factors regarding the weather. See Images 5, 6 and 7

As part of an El Niño development, a stream of warm water wells up from the Heat Source Area, departing from there, towards the Peruvian coast. The upwelling  weakens the trade winds , which changes in air pressure and wind speeds, and push warm water toward the west coast of South America.

As a result of the warmer water, there is more water vapor, WV, and the atmospheric pressure in the eastern Pacific drops, because of increased WV. See Image 11

At higher latitudes, these changes in the tropics allow the Pacific Jet Stream, a narrow current of air flowing from west to east, to be pushed south and spread further east.

The jet stream steers weather systems, thereby determining the weather patterns seen across a wide geographic range. 

Image 1A: Strong El Niño effects peaking in late-summer/early-fall of 2023, which coincided with a

lower-atmosphere temperature increase of about 0.3 C. See Image 7 and below Hunga Tonga section

https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

.

.

The effect of El Niños on sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific Ocean are shown in Image 1B  

The strongest El Niños, such as those in 1998 and 2016, can make Pacific surface waters more than 2 C warmer for a whole year or so.  

This causes increased evaporation of water, which absorbs additional IR, which warms the lower-atmosphere. See top of Image 1B

Fortunately, the increased water vapor precipitates as rain/snow, over some months, to restore balance.

Also, note the peak of El Niños (red cones) typically coincide with peaks in lower-atmosphere temperatures.

The ups/downs of lower-atmosphere temperatures are almost entirely due to ups/downs of water vapor in the atmosphere and ups/downs of cloud cover.

Image 1B

Human CO2 emissions gradually increase from month to month, and year-to-year, which means their warming of the lower-atmosphere is gradual.

.

.

What is ENSO?

El Niño is the warmer part of the periodically recurring so-called ENSO phenomenon, La Niña is the colder part.

ENSO stands for El Niño Southern Oscillation.

ENSO affects the weather in large parts of the world. The periodically occurring cooling and warming of the sea water in the aforementioned part of the Pacific Ocean is sometimes quite intense.

The warming of cold sea water creates a local alternation between high-and low-air pressure areas, a phenomenon that is sometimes so intense, that it has a global influence on lower atmospheric temperature and weather across the globe.

The crucial question is, whether ENSO is related to CO2 warming, as IPCC's air temperature modelers, associated entities, and main-stream Media keep on claiming.

They use this claim to justify a multi-$trillion energy transition towards de-carbonization, aka, Net-Zero by 2050.

.

Where is the Heat Source Located?

Image 3

The measurements of sea water temperatures (SST) below provide a good picture of a warm or cold seawater zone for resp. El Niño and La Niñ

Both together give a temperature difference of up to 8 C, which is abnormally intense.

The indicated heat source of El Niño is located north of the Solomon Islands.

.

Ninjo 02

.

Image 4

A first indication, volcanic activity and transport of heated water is at play, is provided by the volcanic emissions of helium that fan out, together with the heated water, from the Solomon Islands towards Peru.

.

Ninjo 03

.

Image 5

A second indication, is the strong submarine volcanic activity; the second largest lava field is located near the Source Point area. Both areas have thousands of hot vents, and periodic volcanic eruptions. 

.

Ninjo 04

.

All this points to submarine lava flows in a large trench area at a depth of about 9000 meters.

The lava flows release heat to seawater, which rises, and travels towards Peru. See Images 5 and 6

That warmed seawater cause spikes of increased evaporation (which adds to global warming, due to water vapor being a strong greenhouse gas) and spikes of increased cloud cover, which affect worldwide weather, as shown by the peaks and valleys on Images 1 and 7

The most prominent peaks are primarily due to El Niños peaking, such as the one in late 2023 

Sometimes El Niños are augmented by major inland and subsea volcanic eruptions, such as Hunga Tonga

.

Image 6

This is clearly visible from the temperature profiles on the cross-section in Image 6, measured by the network of ARGO buoys: leaving from the Solomon Islands on the left, you see a string of water that is approximately 5 C warmer than the surface indicated at a depth of 150 to 200 meters.

Shown in red sliding underneath, the blue cold sea water towards Peru.

.

Ninjo 05

.

Heat Transfer to the Atmosphere and Henry's Law

This brings us to the heat transfer to the lower-atmosphere, based on the aforementioned UAH satellite temperature measurements of the lower-atmosphere, collected at the University of Alabama, Huntsville Campus, UAH. See Image 7.

Image 7 shows, an increase of lower-atmosphere temperature was 0.6 C , in 45 years, or 0.133 C/decade, as objectively measured by satellites. 

That value includes the periodic warming by El Niños and volcanic eruptions, such as Hunga Tonga. 

They were ongoing events during these 45 years, and millions of years prior to that.

For perspective, the net effect of the very strong El Niño in late-summer/early-fall of 2023, was a lower-atmosphere temperature increase of about 0.3 C, as measured by satellites.

That temperature increase came on top of warm summer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, about 2 years after the Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption in January 2022.

It had nothing to do with gradual month-to-month/year-to-year changes in CO2 ppm of the atmosphere.

The El Niño of 1997/1998 was very strong. See Image 1A

The lower-atmosphere temperatures peaked in 1998/1999

That peak was followed by a plateau at a higher temperature. See second dotted line

The El Niño of 2015/2016 was very strong. See Image 1A

The lower-atmosphere temperatures peaked at end 2016

That peak was followed by a plateau at a higher temperature. See third dotted line

The strong El Nino in 2023, partially augmented by the after effects of the major Hunga Tonga eruption in January 2022, had the highest peak in September/October of 2023.

Both will have their own after effects in 2024. See Images 1A and 7

https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2023/8/21/record-heat-may-b...

Every strong El Niño and major volcanic eruption, such as Hunga Tonga, significantly adds to global warming.

The up and down peaks and valleys of temperatures are due to changes in water vapor/cloud formation and changes of temperatures in the lower-atmosphere, and not due to global warming by CO2 

El Niño events have a great deal of unpredictability, both in timing and intensity, as do major volcanic eruptions, such as Hunga Tonga.

Image 7 shows, El Niño effects can be dominant for a lower-atmospheric temperature increase.

The El Nino of late-summer of 2021 was exceptional, as its effects appeared in late-summer/early-fall in West Europe, etc, in 2023.

As a result, the El Niño temperature increase was added to the normally high, late-summer/early-fall temperatures, typical for the Northern Hemisphere. Hence the "Boiling Earth" comment

As a result, a long, but late, very warm "Indian Summer" developed, that continued until winter, when polar vortex weather asserts itself, as has already occurred in Sweden, Norway, Siberia, etc.

Because La Niña and El Niño cycles often span multiple consecutive years, the last La Niña event impacted the Pacific during the winter of 2020-2021 and then again in the winter of 2022/2023, as shown in this analysis (figure below) by Meteorologist Paul Dorian, “La Nina Conditions Continue Across the Equatorial Pacific.”

.

.

Tectonic Plates of the Earth's Crust

As is known, the earth's crust is broken up into plates. See Image 10, left side

These plates move towards or away from each other, with one plate sliding under the other (subduction) as they move towards each other. Volcanoes are slightly away from the edges.

Looking at the Pacific plate in the left image and at the right image, you can clearly see the similarity, where intense volcanism occurs everywhere, this is the well-known "Ring of Fire".

Most of the active volcanoes on Earth are located underwater, along the “Ring of Fire” in the Pacific Ocean. Made up of more than 450 volcanoes, the Ring of Fire stretches for nearly 40,250 kilometers.

Just above Australia, four plates meet and slide under each other.

Where the plates slide under each other the ocean becomes very deep with intense volcanic activity.

This place is located north of the Solomon Islands.

It is the heat source location of all El Niños

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/rof.html

The sun and the moon exert a significant gravitational force on the earth, according to Newton's law. That force sometimes shows a maximum or a minimum, because of the variation in the Earth-moon distance, and the position of other celestial bodies. When some of them are in line, they exert maximum or minimum force.

The moon pumps seawater back and forth over the earth. This results in tides of up to 10 meters and forces of up to 10 tons per square meter.

These are significant, periodic force changes acting on the plates.

Especially when the force of the moon acts tangentially on a (large) plate, such as the Pacific plate, the force is correspondingly large and the plate slides further under the other plates.

Lava is squeezed out and the lava discharge heats the seawater and is the starting point of volcanic eruptions, similar as those of El Niños.
The intensity of the lava emissions in quantity and time determines the heat production and the severity of the El Niño-type phenomenon.

The lunar cycles linked to other celestial bodies guarantee the periodic character, albeit with a large spread, which makes predictability difficult.

Image 10

.

.

What Does El Niño Do to Our Climate?

El Niño causes the release of heat from seawater to air, causing a significant strip of the Pacific Ocean to increase in temperature.

This results in more water evaporating and also warming the air.

Both processes ensure a lower density (lower pressure/more water) of the air, and a rising air movement.

A low-pressure area is created where a high-pressure area used to be, when the sea water was much colder. 

These changes have to do with tectonic plate activity, and have nothing to do with CO2. See Image 11

The result is that not only temperatures, but also precipitation areas switch, even in the Northern Hemisphere.

.

For example, during a change to El Niños, the southern US/northern Mexico switches from dry to wet, and conversely, Africa north and south of the equator becomes dry.

A large zone will also become wet in the far east.

However, this year, El Niño became active at the summer-autumn transition, just as the monsoon starts. That was additionally disastrous and led to abnormally heavy flooding in Pakistan, among other places.

.

The rare late El Niño is therefore the cause of the extreme changes in the weather pattern we are now experiencing.

These changes have nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with a late, strong El Niño, influenced by the moon, at a time of increasing geothermal activity around the Solomon Islands.

Image 11

.

Ninjo 10

.

Hunga Tonga Sub-Surface Eruption

The Hunga Tonga eruption launched a destructive tsunami and shot a plume of ash, SO2 and pulverized rock 55 km into the sky.

It injected 146 megatonnes (161 megatons) of WV into the stratosphere (the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere) 

Satellite measurements showed, in July 2023, the temperature of the troposphere, TS, increased from

0.38 C to 0.64 C = 0.26 C above the 1991-2020 mean. 

.

Additional Impetus to Hunga Tonga: The rapid build-up of an El Niño (rated strong) peaked in late 2023. The TS temperature spiked about 0.3 C in late-summer/early-fall of 2023.

The El Niño warming effects had been added to the remaining Hunga Tonga effects in 2023, and will be added to any remaining Hunga Tonga effects in 2024, i.e., a warm winter. 

Higher than normal temperatures likely will continue in 2024. See Images 1A and 7

They have nothing to do with gradual changes in CO2 ppm of the atmosphere.

https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2023/8/21/record-heat-may-b...and-water-vapor-from-2022-tonga-eruption-136

.

Heating and Evaporating Water = m x Cp x dT = (1.46 x 10^11 kg) x (4182 J/kg.C) x (100 - 26, C) x

1/10^18 = 0.0452 EJ, for heating + (2260000 J/kg.C)  x (1.45 x 10^11 kg) x 1/10^18 = 0.3300 EJ, for evaporation, a total of 0.3751 EJ; excludes energy to heat gases to well above 100 C, and increase in potential energy from below surface to high elevation. 1 exajoule = 10^18 J 

Because the eruption occurred only about 150 meter underwater, the red hot lava immediately superheated the shallow seawater above and converted it to steam. The result was:

1) Increased rain and flooding in Australia in Jan/Feb of 2022, and

2) Increased TS warming during 2023, and may be into 2024

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relat....

.

NOTE:  The last strong El Niño, increased TS temperatures by about 0.14 C  in 2016.  

For comparison, it takes a decade for the current rate of warming to increase temperatures by that much

.

Adding WV to Stratosphere: There is a lag of a few months from the onset of an El Niño near Papua New Guinea and its effect on sea surface temperature, SST

The Hunga Tonga eruption quickly increased the WV ppm from 20 km to 80 km. See calculation

Air pressure at sea level is 101.325 kilopascal, kPa, about 10000 kg

Air pressure at 20 km is 5.475 kPa

Weight of air above 20 km is (5.475/101.325 = 0.0540) x 10000 kg = 540 kg, or (540 x 10^3 g)/(29 g/mol) = 18632 g mol

Before Hunga Tonga, WVC was 1.8 g/m^2/ 29 g/mol = 0.062 g mol, or 0.062/18632 = 3.33 ppm

After Hunga Tonga, WVC increase was 0.3 g/m^2, or 0.3/1.8 x 3.33 = 0.56 ppm, a 17% increase

Below graph by Bob Weber

.

.

Volcanic Eruptions are Weather Influencers

Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption adding 10 to 15% WV (say 12.5%) to the lower atmosphere, and caused:

.

1) WV weight fraction to temporarily increase from 0.2506% to 1.125 x 0.2506 = 0.2819%

2) Rapid WV increase of 1.46 x 10^11 kg, or 8.11 x 10^9 moles

3) Temporary increase of the WV mole fraction from 0.403717% to (initial + addition, WV)/Dry air = (7.1667 x 10^14, WV + 8.11 x 10^9, WV addition) / (1.7752 x 10^17) = 0.403721%

Item 3 is a minuscule increase on a world-wide basis, but a major increase on a local, Pacific-Ocean basis. It upset normal weather patterns of those Pacific-Ocean areas, affected by Hunga Tonga, as verified by satellite measurements

In this case, the co-incident process of a El Niño (rated strong), likely added major quantities of WV to the local TS as well, due to the slow evaporation of warmed-up Pacific Ocean water.

The two events, one sudden, one slow, added WV to the TS.

The added WV absorbed IR photons, heated the TS by about 0.3 C in late 2023. See Image 7

The warmer TS had significant, worldwide, weather-changing effects, that lasted at least one year.

The gradual increase of CO2 ppm played no role, because CO2 is a trace gas compared to WV

.

Heating Entire Atmosphere 0.3 C

This study shows, based on UAH satellite measurements started in 1979, TS temperatures have been increasing, step-by-step, and are pre-dominantly due to El Niños, and volcanic eruptions, such as Hunga Tonga, and their after effects.
.

Calculation: Image 7 shows, an increase of the TS temperature of about 0.3 C in late 2023, due to:


1) Strong El Niño peaking in late 2023, increased WV, over a period of time (months)

2) After-effects of the Hunga Tonga eruption, temporarily increased WV by 10 to 15%, in a very short time

Q = mass x Cp x delta T = (5.148 x 10^18 kg) x (1012 J/kg.C) x 0.3 C = 1.563 x 10^21 = 1563 EJ

Almost all of that energy, near the Tropics, was IR photons, absorbed by WV molecules, during several months.

Human primary energy production, all uses, in 2022 was 604 EJ


Night-time Energy Loss Regained the Next Day

The total solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 EJ/y. About 3,400,000 EJ reaches the surface of the earth, or 9315 EJ/d. At night the dark side loses a quantity of energy, but it is regained the next day, to maintain balance. See Image

http://solarcellcentral.com/solar_page.html

Human primary energy production, all uses, was 604/365 = 1.65 EJ/d, in 2022

Human primary energy production is totally insignificant compared to solar energy absorbed by the world

The world would be a cold place without that solar energy. 

That huge energy gain would not be possible without:

1) Significant IR photon absorption by WV in high humidity/high temperature areas, such as the Tropics, and

2) Significant mass transfer within the TS to distribute that energy

Strong El Ninos: The upwelling of the warm water of El Niños causes increased evaporation of ocean water over a period of time, which increases absorption of solar energy to warm the TS.

The starting energy of an El Niño is at most a few EJ. The rest of the 1563 EJ that warmed the TS by 0.3 C, because of increased WV, is provided by the sun over a period of months

Major Volcanic Eruptions: The very rapid addition of 146 million metric ton of hot WV to the atmosphere increased absorption of solar energy to warm the TS. The starting energy of a volcanic eruption, such as Hunga Tonga, is at most a few EJ.

NOTE: Image 7 shows, the increase of TS temperature was 0.6 C , in 45 years, or 0.133 C/decade, as measured by satellites. 

That value includes the periodic warming by El Niños and volcanic eruptions, including Hunga Tonga.

They were on-going events during these 45 years, and millions of years prior to that.

.

PART II

CO2 and WV Molecules

CO2 molecules absorb IR photons at four narrow bands of wavelengths, centered on 2.0, 2.7, 4.3 and 14.9 micron (μm); the first three have minuscule energy compared to wide bands of WV molecules. See dark areas of Image 11A. CO2 molecules absorb minimal IR photons at wavelengths greater than 15 micrometers

WV molecules have more bands, and those bands are much wider than of CO2 molecules, especially the bands with shorter wavelengths. See dark areas of Image 11A

WV molecules have up to 6 times wider absorption spectrum than CO2 molecules

IR photons with wavelengths from 0.8 to 70 μm (except the 8 - 13 μm window) are mostly absorbed by WV molecules.

Each WV molecule can absorb IR photons at these wavelengths, plus WV molecules are far more abundant than  CO2 molecules.

WV molecules likely are more energetic than CO2 molecules, because of their absorption of short wavelength/high energy photons. See Image 11A  

The heat of the warmed WV molecules is distributed, by means of mass transfer of energy, and conduction, convection, cloud formation/evaporation, to all molecules in the atmosphere, which mostly are 78% N2, 21% O2, and 1% Argon

That 99.9% neither absorbs nor radiates IR photons. It gets mostly heated by contact with warmed earth surfaces (conduction) and rising warm air (convection)

CO2 and WV Vertical Profiles

Air contains variable amounts of WV, on average around 1% (10000 ppm) at sea level, and 0.4% (4000 ppm) over the entire atmosphere. The image shows data of two tests:

WV is 11 g WV/kg dry air = 17722 ppm at sea level; 9 g WV/kg dry air = 14500 ppm at 1.6 km.

The WV ppm rapidly decreases, due to condensing/freezing on aerosol particles, water droplets, ice crystals, and cloud formation.

WV/CO2 molecule ratio is about 17722/423 = 41.9 near the surface; 14500/423 = 34.3 at 1.6 km

https://d-nb.info/1142268306/34

NOTE: CO2 was 423 ppm at end 2023, but in densely populated, industrial areas, such as eastern China and eastern US, it was about 10% greater, whereas in rural and ocean areas, it was about 10% less.

Inside buildings, CO2 is about 1000 ppm, greenhouses about 1200 ppm, submarines about 5000 ppm

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4990

IR Radiation Near the Surface: IR photons, at all wavelengths, thermalize (transfer their energy) by collisions with molecules, aerosol particles, ice crystals and water droplets near the surface.

IR photons, at appropriate wavelengths, thermalize by absorption by WV and CO2 molecules within 150 m from the surface. The upward radiation flux from the surface, at long wavelengths, is 398.19 W/m^2, per NASA 

Downward IR Radiation by "Warmed" TS: The "warmed" TS emits IR radiation in all directions. 

Downward radiation at longer wavelengths, is outside of CO2 absorption bands, but within WV absorption bands. The other photons thermalize by collision with air molecules, aerosol particles, ice crystals and water droplets. The downward radiation flux to the surface, at longer wavelengths, is 340.3 W/m^2, per NASA.

Upward IR Radiation at High Elevation: The atmosphere above the TS is transparent to IR radiation (aka atmospheric window).

WV is about 3.3 ppm at 20 km; irrelevant regarding absorbing photons

CO2 is about 390 ppm at 20 km; at low temperatures of about -50 C (223 K), photon wavelengths are beyond CO2 absorption bands, i.e., increasing CO2 ppm does not reduce upward IR radiation

Collision rates are less, due to 1) low temperature, 2) molecules moving slower and further apart.

Collision rates are 4 billion/s at sea level; 1 billion/s at 10 km; 7 million/s at 50 km

With sufficient transparency, the upward radiation flux becomes the dominant heat transfer/cooling mode. 

Total upward radiation flux (TS + clouds + window) is 239.9 W/m^2, per NASA; this value has been increasing since 1985

See URLs and Image 11A and below 5 images  

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-greenhouse-model-a...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/18/when-satellites-refute-the-c...

.

.

.

The green line shows temperature; Kelvin = (C + 273) at sea level, (-50 + 273) at 10 km

https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld013.htm ;

.

.

.

Latest Earth Energy Balance by NASA

BB radiation from earth surface using Stefan-Boltzmann, is (5.1 x 10^14 m^2, world area) x (5.67 x 10^-8) / (m^2.K^4), S-B constant x (273.16 + 16.32) = 289.48 K^4) = 2.03 x 10^17 W, or 398.19 W/m^2; emissivity was assumed at 1.0

The image shows energy in and out, but does not show retained energy

.

.

Retained Energy in Atmosphere

Dry Air and Water Vapor

ha = Cpa x T = 1006 kJ/kg.C x T, where Cpa is specific heat of dry air

hg = (2501 kJ/kg, specific enthalpy of WV at 0 C) + (Cpwv x T = 1.84 kJ/kg x T), where Cpwv is specific heat of WV at constant pressure

1) Worldwide, determine enthalpy of moist air:  T = 16 C and H = 0.0025 kg WV/kg dry air (4028 ppm)

h = ha + H.hg = (1.006T) + H(2501 + 1.84T) = 1.006 (16) +  0.0025 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 22.4 kJ/kg dry air

About 16.1 kJ/kg of dry air is retained by air and 6.3 kJ/kg by WV

2) Tropics, determine enthalpy of moist air:  T = 27 C and H = 0.017 kg WV/kg dry air (27389 ppm)

h = 1.006 (27) + 0.017 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 70.5 kJ/kg dry air 

About 27.2 kJ/kg of dry air is retained by air and 43.3 kJ/kg by WV

https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text....

CO2

h CO2 = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat 

Worldwide, determine enthalpy of CO2 = {(423 x 44)/(1000000 x 29 = 0.000642 kg CO2/kg dry air} x

241 kJ/kg CO2) @ 289 K = 0.155 kJ/kg dry air.

Retained energy, world: (16.1 + 6.3 + 0.155) kJ/kg dry air) x 1000j/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg, atmosphere/10^18 = 1.161 x 10^5 EJ

Retained energy, Tropics: (27.2 + 43.3 + 0.155) kJ/kg dry air x 1000J/kJ x 2.049 x 10^18 kg, atmosphere/10^18 = 1,448 x 10^4 EJ. Some of the energy is transferred to other latitudes

Solar Energy

Incoming Solar Energy to Earth: Surface area is about 510,000,000 km^2

Energy to Earth is (340.25 W/m^2) x (510,000,000 km^2) x (3600 s/h x 24 h/d) x (1 exajoule/10^18 J) = 14993 EJ/d

Reflected fraction, albedo (whiteness) is about 0.30 

Absorbed by atmosphere, oceans and land masses is about 3,850,000 EJ/y, or 10548 EJ/d, per URL 

Absorbed by surface is about 3,400,000 EJ/y, or 9315 EJ/d, per URL

Incoming Solar Energy to Tropics: Surface area = 0.398 x 510,000,000 = 202,298,000 km^2, of which land about 66 million km^2, water about 137 million km^2

Solar flux at top of atmosphere is 420 W/m^2 at the equator, and 400 W/m^2 at +23.5 and -23.5 latitudes, for an average of 405 W/m^2 

Energy to Tropics is (405 W/m^2) x (202,298,000 km^2) x (3600 s/h x 24 h/d) x (1 EJ/10^18 J) = 7103 EJ/d, about 7103/14993 = 47.4% of Earth

Energy Transfer: The Earth gains excess solar energy in the tropics and subtropics, and transfers it to areas north of +37 and south of -37 parallels, which have an energy deficit. 

The emphasis on CO2, causes the energy collection and distribution in the tropics to be ignored,

About 80% of WV in atmosphere is produced in the Tropics, plus the process is 24/7/365, due to unvarying temperatures. 

An energy budget just for the Tropics is needed. It will be an eye opener.

As WV and warm atmosphere gases travel toward the Poles, they transport energy and create weather. Variations in the Earth topography of different regions result in different weather outcomes. See video in URL

.

https://nhpbs.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/nves.sci.earth.vapor/mo...

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/13747/what-is-the-...

https://issues.org/avery-2/#:~:text=During%20an%20average%20day%2C%...

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/book/export/html/202

WV, worldwide: WV is variable between locations, from 10 ppm in the coldest air, such as the Antarctic to 50,000 ppm (5%), such as in the hot, humid areas of the Tropics.

WV weight is about 1.29 x 1016 kg, or 7.1667 x 10^14 moles

Atmosphere weight, dry, is about 5.148 x 10^18 kg, or 1.7752 x 10^17 moles 

WV percent, weight basis, is about 1.29 x 10^16 / 5.148 x 10^18 = 0.002506, or 0.2506%

WV fraction, mole basis, is about 7.1667 x 10^14 / 1.7752 x 10^17 = 0.004037, or 0.4037%, or 4037 ppm 

WV molecules are about 4037/423 = 9.54 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules

.

WV, temperate zones, north of +37 and south of -37 parallels

WV, at 16 C and 50% humidity, is 0.0056 lb WV/ lb dry air, or 2.5424 g WV/ 454 g dry air.

After converting to moles, 0.009022 mole WV/mole dry air, or 9022 ppm.
A mole of WV is 18 g, a mole dry air is 29 g

WV molecules are about 9022/423 = 21.33 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-air-d_854.html

http://www.uigi.com/psychrometry.html

.

WV, Tropics, at 27 C and 70% humidity, near land surface, is about 24811 ppm; at 27 C and 80% humidity, near ocean surface, about 35,912 ppm

WV molecules are about 24811/423 = 58.66 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules on land, and 68.18 times near ocean surface

Weighted average molecule ratio = 66/208 x 58.66 + 142/208 x 68.18 = 65.16

Weighted average ppm = 66/202.98 x 24811 + 136.98/202.98 x 28839 = 27,529 ppm

.

Polar Regions: Incoming solar varies from 560 W/m2 at -90 latitude, to 0 W/m2 at +66.6 latitude, on December 21; black line. Dashed line is solar declination on March 21. See image

The energy retention/greenhouse effect in polar regions is very small, because water vapor ppm is minimal.

CO2 at 423 ppm, absorbs photons at 13 - 20 μm, at 240 K (-33 C)

WV at minimal PPM, absorbs at 11 - 70 μm, at 240 K (-33 C)

The 15 μm photons are only 7% of the photon population, which is a small population, due to very low levels of IR radiation at temperatures as low as 220 K (-53 C); black curve in Image 11A. Also see Image 11B

.

.

Official Contribution to Greenhouse Effect

Below is a summary of official numbers regarding the greenhouse effect. They are repeated by many websites.

Atmospheric scientists cannot definitively say, exactly how much greenhouse effect is caused by each GW gas

They cannot simply remove one gas and see how the absorption of IR photons changes.

Instead, they must use laboratory tests and subjective models of the atmosphere to predict likely changes.

They conduct laboratory tests with one GW gas removed; say WV. They might find this results in a reduction in the greenhouse effect.

https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_ga...;

.

WV molecules, 39 to 62%
Clouds, 15 to 36%
WV and clouds, 67 to 85%

CO2 molecules, 14 to 25%. See below Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat 
All other GHGs, 5 to 9%

http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9636.pdf

NOTE: WV sources are 2%, human, 98%, natural in the TS. WV causes about 93% of retention of energy/ greenhouse effect. Reducing fossil fuels would reduce the human 2%. 

The Earth surface temperature has increased about 1 C in 100 years, which caused: 1) about 7% more WV in the atmosphere, 2) additional energy retention, and 3) may be a shorter H20-WV-precipitation cycle.

The 1 C increase of the TS could be due to: 1) irrigation, 2) fossil H2O and CO2, 3) natural CO2; 4) recovering from the Little Ice Age, 5) albedo change, 5) cloud cover change, etc. See URL 

https://globalchange.mit.edu/news-media/in-the-news/greenhouse-gase...

NOTEWV much better than CO2. As CO2 absorbs energy (gets warmer), that energy is transported (convection) and distributed by collision (conduction) and radiation.

WV does transport, collision and radiation much more effectively by adding phase changes; 1) H2O-to-WV (constant temperature), and 2) WV-to-H20, as dew/rain/snow/hail (constant temperature)

The warming of the TS could be: 1) heat transfer (collision, convection), 19%; 2) latent heat (evaporation/condensing), 61%; and 3) IR radiation from the surface, 20%.

Roles of Water Vapor and CO2 in Greenhouse Effect

We assume, for simplicity, WV and CO2 molecules have equal energy retention capacity.

Worldwide: WV molecules absorb 4037/(4037 + 423) = 90.5%, and CO2 molecules about 9.5%, of the available photons

The 90.5% becomes about 93%, due to overlap of the spectra of WV and CO2. WV molecules are 41.9 times more numerous than CO2 molecules near the surface, and absorb 15 μm photons, as do CO2 molecules. 

Temperate zones: WV molecules absorb 9022/(9022 + 423) = 95.5% and CO2 molecules 4.5%

Tropics: WV molecules absorb 27529/(27529 + 423) = 98.5%, and CO2 molecules 1.5%

CO2 plays almost no energy retention role in the Tropics, where huge quantities of H20 are evaporated, heated, and distributed to the rest of the earth, by circulation processes.

The WV energy retention effect is about 33 C. With WV, the earth is 15 C; without WV, the earth is -18 C

WV molecules are more potent, more numerous and more versatile than CO2 molecules

NOTE: When natural forces cause a glaciation period, 1) ice cover increases, 2) ocean water levels decrease, 3) WV ppm decreases, 4) CO2 ppm decreases several hundred years later. The WV energy retention effect decreases from 33 C to as low as 23 C, due to low WV ppm.

NOTE: This article calculates, from temperature and humidity measurements, at four weather station, the enthalpy (heat content) and specific volume, the global warming potentials, GWPs, of CH4, N2O and CO2, that are much less than IPCC values.

https://setpublisher.com/index.php/jbas/article/view/2509

CO2 and WV IR Radiation Spectra

The absorption spectra of CO2 and WV overlap about 70%. See dark areas of image

WV/CO2 absorption ratio 17722/423 = 41.9, near the surface. See Images 11A and 11B

The WV window is from 8 - 13 μm. The arrow of the image is overstretched.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance#:~:text=In....

.

.

Image 11A

.

Image 11B

.

Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat 

https://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html

Photons are packets of energy with various frequencies; E = h x f = h x c/λ 

h = 6.626 x 10^-34, Planck's constant; c, 3 x 10^8 meter, speed of light in vacuum; λ, wavelength

wavenumber = cm/15 μm wavelength = 10000 x 10^-6 /15 x 10^-6 = 666.7

E of 15 μm IR photon = (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(15 x 10^-6) = 1.325 x 10^-20 joule

1 J = 1/(1.325 x 10^-20 photons)  

E of 0.55 μm green photon = (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(0.55 x 10^-6) = 36.136 x 10^-20 J

1 J = (1/(36.136 x 10^-20 photons) 

Green/IR photon energy ratio = 15/0.55 = 27.27

Molecules, Photons, Total Extinction

Excerpt from article by Dr. Cyril Huijsmans, a Dutch Research Scientist Retired from Shell

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-greenhouse-model-a...

C.7.1, CO2

Radiation, E, emitted by the earth at 15 μm wavelength, and line width of 2 μm, is 0.0042 W/cm2    C.6.3

Photon energy, per Planck is E = hc/λ     C.7.1

E = (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(15 x 10^-6) = 1.325 x 10^-20 joule

Photons emitted is 0.0042/(1.325 x 10^-20) = 3.17 x 10^17 per cm^2, per second.

At sea level, at 288 K, air density at 1.223 kg/m^3, CO2 at 400 ppm, CO2 molecules is 1.012 x 10^22 per m^3

.

Dr. Heinz Hug performed absorption measurements of IR at 15 μm in a mixture of 375 ppm CO2, 2.6% (26000 ppm) WV, and air. See URL

Hug calculated a total absorption distance of about 10 meter

Time frame for absorption is 10/(3 x 10^8) = 3.333 x 10^-8 second, or 0.0333 microsecond.

In such a timeframe, emitted photons is 3.17 x 10^17 x 0.0333 x 10 ^-6 = 1.0556 x 10^10 

In a column of air, 1 cm^2 and 10 m high, for extinction, CO2 at 400 ppm, CO2 molecules is 1 x 10^19

Ratio of CO2 molecules and photons for extinction is (1 x 10^19)/(1.0556 x 10^10) = 9.47 x 10^8 molecule/photon

.

In a column of air, 1 cm^2 and 80 km high, CO2 at 400 ppm, CO2 molecules is 8.28 x 10^21

Fraction of CO2 molecules participating in extinction is (1 x 10^19)/(8.28 x 10^21) = 0.0012, or 0.12%

This is independent of the way the excitation energy is dissipated, be-it by collisions or by radiation.

IR photons, with all wavelengths, collide with all molecules and cloud particulates, except photons, with appropriate wavelengths, are absorbed in every collision with WV and CO2 molecules. The photon energy is converted to heat. The warmed WV and CO2 molecules re-emit the photon energy as thermal radiation.

,

C.7.2, WV

WV is the most dominant greenhouse gas.

Above about 10 km, WV ppm is near zero. 

Average concentration of WV in the TS is about 0.4% volume, or 4000 ppm.

With average WV density of 0.6 kg/m^3, in a column of air, 1 cm^2 and 10 km high, WV molecules is (volume x density/mol wgt.) x number of Avogadro x concentration, or 600 kg/29 x (6 x 10^23) x (4000 x 10^-6) = 4.96 x 10^22 molecules 

.

In 150 m there is full extinction of BB radiation. It sets a time frame of 0.5 microsecond

A column of air, 1 cm^3 and 150 m high, at 288 K, at 10^5 Pa, at ρ = 1.223 kg/m3, contains 0.0183 kg air.
Air molecules is (18.3/29) x (6 x 10^23) = 3.79 x 10^23    C.1 and C.2

At 4000 ppm, within 150 m, WV molecules is (4000 x 10^-6) x (3.79 x 10^23) = 1.516 x 10^21

WV molecules participating in full extinction is (1.516 x 10^21)/(4.96 x 10^22) = 0.305 x 10^-1 = 0.0305, or 3%. 

.

Average wavelength in BB radiation is about 15.4 μm

Energy of average photon is E = hc/λ = (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(15.4 x 10^-6) = 1.291 x 10^-20 Joule

Total BB radiation is 0.0459 W/cm^2   C.6.6

Photon flux is 0.0459/(1.291 x 10^-20) = 3.56 x 10^18 per cm^2, per second

Photon extinction, within 150 m, timeframe 0.5 microsecond, is (0.5 x 10^-6) x (3.56 x 10^18) = 1.78 x 10^12 photons

Ratio of WV molecules and photons, for extinction is (1.516 x 10^21)/(1.78 x 10^12) =

8.51 x 10^8 molecule/photon.

http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

Molecules near the surface have a mean free path of 64 - 68 nanometer. Even though their average speed, near the surface, is about 470 m/s, they travel very short distances before colliding.

Near the surface, with the sun shining on land and water, dew and fog become WV, which is rising and forming clouds. 

Of 100 photons:

22 photons escape to space through the atmospheric window (no collision, no absorption),

5.5 photons (7% of 100 - 22), with 15 μm wavelength, either thermalize by collision with molecules, etc., or are absorbed by WV and CO2 molecules.

72.5 photons thermalize by collision with molecules, etc.

.

Near the surface, WV absorbs 17722/(17722 + 423) = 98% of the 15 μm photons, and CO2 2%

If CO2 were 2 x 280, pre-industrial = 560 ppm (not possible, due to not enough fossil fuels), WV would absorb 17722/(17722 + 560) = 97%, and CO2 3%. See image and URLs

Near the surface, WV absorbing IR photons swamps whatever CO2 does.

See dark areas regarding IR absorption in Image 11A

NOTE: This graph is based on WV at the surface of 7750 ppm. See pg. 9 of ADA URL, and pg. 4 of clintel URL

I think, it should be based on 14500 to 17722 ppm, because almost all IR photon extinction occurs less than 150 meter from the surface. The H2O areas would be larger, more representative of the Tropics/Subtropics. The atmospheric window is not shown.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA175173.pdf

https://clintel.org/doubling-co2-increases-absorption-by-only-a-few...

.

.

PART III

Urban Heat Archipelagos

UHAs, such as on the US East Coast, from Portland, Maine, to Norfolk, Virginia, significantly contribute to local warming. That area used to be covered with forests.

Many large solar systems in the US Southwest add up to a heat archipelago, plus the very hot PV panels have very low efficiencies at high temperatures 

Adaptation, such as increasing the width and height of dikes, and capacities of culvert and storm sewer systems, etc., planting billions of trees each year, rebuilding the rain forests, etc., will be required.

Because, huge quantities of solar energy are collected in the Tropics to warm the planet each day, preservation of the world's rain forest belt is vital for the future well-being of the earth.
That should have priority over expensive, unfeasible, wind/solar/battery/EV/heat pump, etc., measures, implemented mostly in temperate zones.

.

.
Important Role of CO2 for Flora Growth
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.

Fossil fuels are a blessing, because their CO2 may help increase the earth temperature, increase water vapor, increase fauna and flora

Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, which can be due to many causes, including fossil CO2, flora CO2, ocean CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2

The current CO2 needs to at least double or triple to reinvigorate the world's flora and fauna.
CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm in 1900 to 423 ppm at end 2023. It increased:
.
1) Greening of the world by at least 10 to 15%, as measured by satellites since 1979.
2) Crop yields per acre.
.

.

.

APPENDIX 1

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...

 

Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine

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

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)

 

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.

 

About 300 Maine people would have 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, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.

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 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

 

Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.

Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y

Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.

Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh

Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.

Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh

All other items, 4 c/kWh 

Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh

Owner sells to utility at 17.913 c/kWh

 

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

 

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 Grid Expansion 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 HV grid, which 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

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.

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

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.

.

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

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

.

.

APPENDIX 3

Offshore Wind in US and UK

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

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 disfunctional UK government

 

Those US/UK goals are physically unachievable, even with 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 URL
 
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...

US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost

 

Electricity production 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.

Electricity Cost, c/kWh: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at $5,500/kW.

Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y

Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.

Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh

Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.

Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh

All other items, 4 c/kWh 

Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 30.273 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 15.137 c/kWh

Owner sells to utility at 15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.

 

Not included: At a future 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid:   

Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about 2 c/kWh

Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about 2.0 c/kWh

In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid

Cost of curtailments, about 2.0 c/kWh

Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites

.

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:

Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing

Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2

Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y

Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)

Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million

Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)

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

(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh

At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh

At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh

 

Excluded costs/kWh: 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. Excluded costs would add at least 15 c/kWh
 
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 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.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia

 

COMMENTS ON CALCULATION: 

Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment

If you divide total payments over 15 years by throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.

According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.

A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if 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.

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.

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.

APPENDIX 6

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.

.

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

In Bangladesh: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the Rooppur Power Station

Capital cost $12.65 billion 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 spent nuclear fuel.

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

.

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: 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

.

Wind: 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 A Total Fantasy: During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 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

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 add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table

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, 

Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; 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....

  

Views: 1133

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