When the Ice Returns it is Time to Adapt and/or Migrate

When the Ice Returns it is Time to Adapt and/or Migrate
.
by Viv Forbes, with help from friends
15 Dec 2023
.
A long time ago, the universe was made of ice.
Then, one day, the ice began to melt, and a mist rose into the sky.
Out of the mist came a giant made of frost, and the earth and heavens were made from his body.
That is how the world began, and that is how the world will end.
Not by fire, but by Ice.
.
From: an Ancient Scandinavian Legend, quoted by Robert W Felix in his great book: "NOT BY FIRE BUT BY ICE".
........
.
Earth is living in the latter days of the Holocene Warm Era.
This is the latest short, fertile, warm interlude within the long, barren, Pleistocene Ice Age.
.
Here is a link to download below graph
.
From: John Kehr 2011 "The Inconvenient Skeptic", p42. 
Temperature Reconstruction using deep sea sediment cores. After Raymo, 2005.
.
We are at the top on the RHS of that cycle. Does that look like a bottom, or a top?
The eight cycles lasted about 700,000 years, and during that time:
1) The natural CO2 curves mimicked the temperature curves, and
2) The natural CO2 varied from a low of 180 ppm during cold periods to a high of 300 ppm during warm periods
.
.
Despite what the climate-scare-media tell us, the big danger facing life on Earth is not global warming - it is a return of the deathly Pleistocene ice sheets which once covered the great grain belts of Eurasia and North America.
Such global cooling will also trigger plant starvation as more carbon dioxide plant food is dissolved from the atmosphere into the cooling oceans.
.
We have abundant evidence, alarmist computer modelers have no ability to forecast climate.
Meteorologists are gaining the ability to forecast weather up to a week ahead, and the trends in ocean temperatures can help forecast whether we have El Nino or La Nina conditions for the next year.
But, for weather or climate forecasts beyond one year, we must look to other scientific disciplines - geology, archaeology, physics and astronomy.
.
Published CO2 Emissions During COVID and Mauna Loa CO2 Measurements
.

By John Shewchuk, Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM). Lt Col, USAF Retired, Meteorologist. Creator of the RAOB Program Member: CO2 Coalition.

.

The below image shows, a steady increase of atmospheric CO2 ppm from 406.5 ppm in 2017 to 419 ppm in 2022, or 12.5/5 = 2.5 ppm/y (green axis), as measured on Mauna Loa, Hawaii,

It is not affected by the big dip in fossil fuel CO2 emissions, due to COVID, in 2020 (purple axis).

.

Each year, a mixture of new CO2 consisting of 1) a huge quantity of natural CO2, plus 2) a small quantity of human CO2, is released to the atmosphere.

CO2 flows in and out of sinks and sources, plus whatever is in transit, 24/7/365.

The atmosphere is a CO2 sink. 

About 2.5 ppm, as above calculated, is added to the atmosphere each year.

That is just a very small percentage of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, about 419 ppm, in 2022, or 2.5/419 = 0.6%. See URL

The purple graph shows a CO2 drop, due to COVID, from 37.1 to 35, or about 2.1 billion metric ton in 2020, about 2.1/7.821 = 0.27 ppm, which is too small to shown up on the measured Mauna Loa data, as shown by the green line.

 

NOTE: Fossil CO2 emissions were 37.2 billion metric ton in 2022 (purple axis), equivalent to 4.76 ppm, if each ppm is about 7.821 billion metric ton.

.

.

The above green line is an average of the well known Mauna Loa sawtooth line, with CO2 increasing by about 8 ppm from October to May, due to CO2 emission from biomass decay in the Northern Hemisphere, and then decreasing by about 5.5 ppm from May to October, due CO2 uptake by biomass growth in the NH.
The difference of 8 - 5.5 = 2.5 ppm, is the typical annual ppm addition to the atmosphere, as shown by the above green line.

Mt. Pinatubo Volcanic Eruption on June 12, 1991: The estimated CO2 emission of the volcanic eruption was about 40 million metric ton, plus about 17 million of metric tons of sulfur dioxide particulate/aerosol layer, which caused a global cooling of about 0.5 C during about two years after the eruption.

The layer reduced sunshine reaching the ocean, which reduced ocean surface. The cooler ocean surface absorbed more CO2.

As the layer became thinner, the ocean surface became warmer, and CO2 was released again, which showed up as a very minor bend on the Mauna LOA curve, during 1990, 1991 and 1992, 3 years. See below image and read report

https://pinatubostudy.com/pinatuboreport.php

.

.

The data in the graph above is processed as the prior two graphs (See Pinatubo Report URL), but here zoomed in to the year of Pinatubo, plus the year before and after Pinatubo. 

The slope (grey line) is slightly bending downwards after mid-year 1991 when the Pinatubo eruption occurred, due to increased CO2 absorption by cooling ocean surfaces

As the aerosol dispersed, the slope bends upward to its original angle, due to increased CO2 release by warming ocean surfaces.

.

.

CO2 Uptake by Sinks

.

A mixture of natural CO2, plus a mixture of human CO2 (including fossil CO2), together greater than 6 ppm, are released to the atmosphere. See below image

.

Uptake by Atmosphere: About 2.5 ppm, per Mauna Loa measurements

.

Uptake by Oceans

.

From atmosphere: About 2 Pg C x 44/12 = 7.333 billion metric ton CO2 = 0.9 ppm is entering ocean surfaces, in accordance with Henry's Law of partial pressures.

From Rivers and Lakes: About 0.9 Pg C x 44/12 = 3.3 billion metric ton CO2 = 0.42 ppm

Uptake by Plants

.

Photosynthesis, 120 - Plant respiration, 59 - Soil respiration, 58 = 3 Pg C x 44/12 = 11 billion metric ton CO2 = 1.4 ppm is absorbed by increased plant growth

Almost all of the CO2 added to the oceans and other waters is converted to various carbon-containing compounds used by the water fauna

These URLs provide more analysis and images, with quantities, of these flows

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...

NET ZERO BY 2050 IS A "SUICIDE PACT"

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/net-zero-by-2050-is-a-...

How Does Our CO2 Escape?

https://www.clepair.net/oceaanCO2-4.html

The Origin of the Recent CO2 Increase in the Atmosphere

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

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...

CO2 Decrease During Millions of Years

.

The below image clearly shows the present extremely low CO2 ppm in the atmosphere.

The red "today" dot (bottom right) denotes the CO2 uptick, from 1900 to 2022, which is presented to the public as dangerous, calamitous, "the world is boiling", "hockey stick", and other such nonsense. 

In the image, a CO2 range of 1000 to 1400 ppm is optimum for plant life, as proven by greenhouse experiments, and likely optimum for all types of animal life.
Humans did not become distinguishable as a species from other animals until about 5 million years ago.

.

.
The below image shows CO2 ppm, black line, and world temperature, blue line, over a period of 600 million years.
.
The prior image shows a steady downtrend of CO2 ppm during the last 160 million years, the era of dinosaurs and mammals.
.
The atmosphere has the lowest CO2 ppm at present, a value very close to the plant-death line.
If plants die, all animals, including mankind, die as well.
.
.
Sources of Data
.
Geological evidence comes from ice cores, deep drilling, stratigraphic mappings and clues exposed in mines and quarries.
These records clearly show, with no help from human activities, Earth has had recurring periods of volcanism, tidal waves, floods, droughts, asteroid strikes, planetary disruptions, magnetic reversals, ice ages and the extinction of many species.
Archaeology and studies of tree rings have also revealed more recent evidence of disruptive natural climate changes.
.
Sources of Earth Heat
.
The global warmth we enjoy today can only come from two sources - the sun or the Earth's molten core.
.
The major and most reliable source of global warming is that big thermo-nuclear power plant in the sky.
Our sun directs a continual stream of radiant energy towards Earth.
This solar energy melts ice and evaporates water from oceans, seas and lakes.
This feeds rain and snow, provides energy for plant life and generates CO2, and the atmospheric convection that powers trade winds, storms, tornados and cyclones.
.
Energy also reaches the surface and the oceans from the molten core of the Earth, via surface and sub-surface volcanic activity.
Many volcanoes on land are generally quiet now, but the geological evidence shows, there are periods of massive and destructive volcanic activity, often coincident with species extinction and the onset of new episodes of species creation.
.
Subjective Computerized Temperature Forecasts 
.
The subjective, scary, computerized forecasts of dangerous global warming are based solely on an absolutely trivial factor - the extent to which human production of CO2 and methane, CH4, may affect global weather by slowing down the transmission of solar energy through the atmosphere, i.e., trapping heat.
.
These forecasts ignore the fact, CO2 feeds all plant life (which feeds all animal life), and dismiss the fact, current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are dangerously low. See above image.
.
CO2 ppm is at the lowest level in 600 million years
The optimum CO2 for plant life is 800 to 1200 ppm, as proven with greenhouses all over the world.
.
Almost every day now, the alarmist media tries to concoct a disaster story from the changing weather.
Weather is always changing - the only time Earth has had a "stable" climate is during the long, deathly ice ages.
.
Milankovitch Climate Cycles
.
A diligent, lone mathematician/astronomer, Milutin Milankovitch (without giant computers or world conferences) calculated the likely cycles of global temperatures by calculating the varying solar energy received by the major northern hemisphere land masses.
His calculations have proved better than anything the IPCC can produce.
The Milankovitch cycles are telling us, the next climate cycle will be a cold one.
.
This prediction is supported by three pieces of evidence:
.
Firstly, glaciers are returning. When geologists investigated the age of most current glaciers, they found they were surprisingly young, and rather than declining, many are growing.
.
Glaciers known to be advancing include the:
.
Vernagtferner glacier in the Alps,
Perito Moreno glacier, the Viedma glacier, the Piedras Blancas Glacier and the Gorra Blanca Glacier in Patagonia
Tsaa glacier and the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska;
Jakobshavn Glacier; the Hofsjökull, Langjökull, Mýrdalsjökull, and Vatnajökull glaciers in Greenland.
.
It was reported in 2017, at least 58 glaciers in New Zealand advanced between 1983 and 2008 with the Franz Josef Glacier advancing nearly continuously during this time and actually regaining almost half of the total length it had lost in the twentieth century.
.
The Fox glacier in New Zealand is also advancing, as does the Nisqually Glacier in North America.
.
A significant proportion of Himalayan glaciers are also advancing, contrary to the IPCC claiming in a 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers were all retreating and could vanish by 2035.
.
Secondly, the Greenland Ice Core Project has been used to reconstruct climate for the last 10,000 years.
This showed, temperature there has fallen over the last 6000 years.
It also showed that global temperature drives atmospheric CO2 levels, not the other way around.
That means, increased CO2 came after temperature increases
.
Thirdly, there is the Medieval Warm Period, when historians and climatologists can deduce, most areas of the world were warmer than they are now.
Food production and population grew, and art and culture were thriving, as shown by the huge cathedrals.
.
This benign MWP was followed by the Little Ice Age which lasted from about 1300 AD to almost the beginning of the 20th Century.
The period from 1550 AD to 1700 AD was a frigid time and famine and disease stalked the world.
Arctic sea ice expanded, rivers and lakes froze, the tree line fell, cold gales wracked Europe (one destroyed the Spanish Armada in 1588; Spain did not have enough 100-year-old trees to build another Armada), crops failed and the population fell in northern areas like Norway and Scotland.
The population of Greenland perished and the capitals of both Scotland and Norway moved south; for example, the Throndheim capital was moved to Oslo
.
(To read a short history of this terrible time get the paper by Thomas Gale
Moore below - it will make you appreciate the warmth.)
.
Present Warm Period May End Soon
.
Today’s modern warm era started about 2000 AD, but it will probably prove to be just another short warm reprieve.
.
As the warmth fades and the ice returns, the threatened generations will gaze in wonder at the snow-covered solar panels and blizzard-damaged wind turbines and power lines, this generation littered over the landscape, at such great cost, and at such great damage to the environment.
Future wars will be fought for access to oil, coal, gas and nuclear energy
Herds of cattle, sheep, goats and reindeer will be valued and protected.
Australians will rediscover why the Snowy Mountains got that name.
.
Here is our pictorial comment on the World after the Ice Returns:
Feel free to publish this cartoon or pass around with no alterations.
.
Only two conditions are needed for a sudden return of the ice - increased volcanic heat under the oceans and cold cloudy skies.
Evaporation from warmed oceans will provide the moisture and the cold skies will cause the precipitation of snow and ice on land.
.
Ice ages can start frighteningly fast and appear to be triggered by magnetic pole reversals, which trigger massive volcanism especially in the oceans along the mid-ocean trenches, such as the recent eruption on Iceland. This under-sea heating drives evaporation from the oceans, increasing cloud cover and reducing surface temperatures.
.
Once the winter snow is not all melted by the heat from the next summer, the ice age tipping point is reached.
The unmelted snow will reflect more solar energy so that ice sheets grow and sea levels fall.
Coral reefs will be left stranded
Island nations will expand as sea water is locked up in ice sheets.
.
CO2 plays almost no part in this drama, except with plant life.
When the seas warm up, the dissolved CO2 is driven into the atmosphere and plant life flourishes.
But when the oceans cool down, CO2 is re-dissolved and plants suffer.
Foolish companies, such as Glencore, a mining company in Queensland, Australia, would try to win green points by promising to bury, CO2, the gas of life, by forcing it into underground aquifers
.
We must rid ourselves from the daily dirge about imagined global warming disasters.
We must plan what we need to do to ensure reliable energy and food supplies as the next ice age approaches.
.
Further Reading:
.
"The Inconvenient Skeptic" by John Kehr 2011
The Comprehensive Guide to Earth's Climate
Full of facts and good reasoning.
.
"Global Warming - a boon to humans and other animals.
by Thomas Gale Moore 1995
Hoover Institution, Stanford University
A great source on Holocene climate history.
.
"Not by Fire but by Ice"
by Robert W Felix
The Next Ice Age is on its Way?
.
There is no Significant Global Warming?
.
Climate and Weather Cycles:
.
Four Decades of Climate Model Failures:
odel-failure-undermines-confidence-in-future-predictions/
.
CO2 concentration is dangerously low for life on Earth:
-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/
.
Glaciers Growing
y-and-here-tomorrow/
.
Let's put adults in charge before they kill all of our cattle:
.
Russian Scientist expects cooling to start soon:
begins-in-2030-climate-crisis-a-globalist-scam/
.
Please go here to comment on this article:
.
By Viv Forbes
Washpool, Queensland, Australia
.
.

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: 201

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

U.S. Sen Angus King

THE UNTOLD STORY OF RECORD HILL WIND

The Untold Story of Record Hill Wind, continued

 

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

Sign in to chat!