Shorting the Grid: The hidden fragility of our power grid

 If you are video oriented to the link which is a review of the documentary "Juice", it contains links to the excellent documentary.

I'll make the obvious points that people have been so brainwashed they forget: 

• The sun only shines by day, and sometimes it is cloudy.
• To produce solid power, wind turbines need winds of 12-25 MPH to be efficient producers, at around 55 MPH, they have to set blades to protect themselves from damage and can produce no power. (blizzards in cold climates often exceed that when the power is needed most)
• We need constant, cheap, reliable power to operate our society. Renewables miss all three. 
• Since renewables are unreliable, they must be backed up with instantly available power. Translation, every watt of "green" energy has to be backed up by coal, natural gas or nuclear. No current or foreseeable battery backup is useful for grid level energy.

The preferred backup is Natural Gas (NG). Unfortunately, building new pipelines has been blocked because environmentalists want ZERO use of fossil fuel, When the weather gets cold, the demand for NG goes up enough that power plants can't get it. 

One of the most efficient power plants on earth is a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT). When you run such a machine steadily in baseload operation, it can turn about 60% of the energy in the gas into electric energy. In contrast, a simple gas turbine will turn about 40% of the energy in the fuel into electricity.

That is great news (although still not good enough for the Greens that want ZERO emissions). However, given that current incentives are forcing wind/solar backed up with NG (the book explains how subsidies create this problem). 

Something you will likely not hear in mass media is: 

Emissions can also increase with the increased use of renewables. Backing up renewables can cause inefficient operation of fossil plants, leading to an increase of emissions on the grid. In other words, as renewables increase, emissions can also increase.

 To get the 60% efficiency of a CCGT, it has to be HOT. The efficiency comes from the exhaust heating a boiler for a steam generator. This is even worse for coal. The plant has to be run at a lower (inefficient) output to do a "hot switch" when its power is required, 

Much of the time, a "green grid" is dirtier than a scrubbed coal CCGT powered grid, because since the renewables are not stable, the scenario can be likened to you driving your car between being shut off, and then mashing the gas to the floor to go to maximum speed, your mileage will vary (down), and your emissions will increase, 

Why are the rich and powerful so excited about wind? Here is Warren Buffet on the issue: 

"I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska, recently. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

The rich get richer from tax credits, while the poor get poorer from higher energy costs. As the grid becomes increasingly fragile, the poor also get to live and die in cold darkness. 

The obvious answer to this is nuclear, and if any of the supposed "greens" in power actually believed that Climate Change was a near term "crisis", they would be pushing building nuclear power in a way that would make them at least as much money as the current "renewable" wealth generator for the billionaires. 

Our elites care about their wealth and false "virtue". The fact that the collateral damage is high energy prices that the middle and lower classes can't bear and rolling blackouts or worse for the "deplorables" is not a concern for the Davos folks. 

They know all this; they just want to make sure you don't!

Science, Climate Change, Dogma

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/climate-hysterics-wrong-again.php

The linked article documents yet another case of officially supported climate predictions being wrong -- nothing new about that. In this case, predictions about glaciers in Glacier National Park being gone by 2020 have proved to be wrong (in fact, some are growing). 

Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.

What seems to be increasingly culturally "new" in the current phase of dogma is the degree to which it is being culturally mandated in the west once proud to be "free thinking". "Free thinking" is ALWAYS a contradiction to some extent -- the question is always "how costly". Agreement is at least "free in the moment", but if conditions change and new data convinces you that the dogma is incorrect, you either shut up, or will probably pay a price (lost friends, lost relations with family, maybe even loss of job). 

The dogma of "Climate Change" (formerly "Global Warming" or more precisely "Anthropogenic Global Warming") meaning that it could be "proven" that humans were the causal factor rather than natural oscillations in solar or other inputs. Causality is always a tricky business. 

Climate Change just assumes that any change in climate is human caused, so the climate can be controlled by humans.  The only way Climate Change could be shown to be wrong is if the Earth reached a stable temperature ... in which case, we would all share that stable temperature, and thus be dead.  

What If Climate Change Is Real?

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/08/the-daily-chart-the-nuke-question.php

"When  all is said and done, more will be said than done". 

We are regularly admonished about the "Setted Science" of Climate Change. "Settled Science" is an oxymoron, because it is an inductive process of hypothesis, experiment, result, theory ... test, test. .Not even physics is "settled" by any means. The test case of monitoring the global climate over hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands and beyond is beyond our technical capacity. 

Induction is true until it isn't. The Thanksgiving turkey theorizes that humans are benevolent creatures that care for turkeys. Each day, this theory is validated  for around 16 weeks. Then it is invalidated, and we have a nice meal with our family. 

 The rebranding of Global Warming to Climate Change is a superb example of the power of branding. Global Warming is a hypothesis/theory that can be invalidated by data. It is science, just not "settled". Unless our climate would become absolutely static (in which case we would all be dead), Climate Change is unfalsifiable, therefore if you follow the link, you will see it is more similar to a conspiracy theory than science. 

We can look at history though, and while history is certainly supportive of Climate CHANGE it is not supportive of warming caused by man. (other than stasis, everything in climate supports change). 

History would indicate that we are likely to return to the climate that results in glaciers a mile thick covering much of the populated Northern Hemisphere.  

Let's just go with the theory that any warming is being caused by humans though, and this time is different, the warming will be so extreme that human life will be wiped out. 

If we believed that, what might we do? A tiny bit of study will show where our current energy comes from. 

Doesn't look at all that solar and wind have any chance of being significant sources to curb our increasing use of fossil fuels, even though government and huge Western corporations keep pumping 100s of billions into these unreliable and grossly inadequate "green" energy sources, along with NGOs marketing against nuclear.  

 

As in many cases there is an obvious climate friendly solution to the issue if those in power actually believed there was some sort of "crisis". 

We have 83 nuclear navy ships with no deaths caused by that form of power. 

68% of French energy comes from nuclear. 

Why is this the state of affairs? It is unlikely that we can trust any agency, company, or "study" to give us an answer. Governments fund studies that "prove" their case for renewables and against nuclear. Fossil fuel producers manipulate data and encourage usage of their energy. etc

So we have to speculate: 

• Through a combination of some events (eg Three Mile Island, Chernobyl),  media nuclear horror movies (The China Syndrome), and the fact that "nuclear" just sounds dangerous, public opinion is swayed. 
• As Rahm Emanuel declared "Never let a crisis go to waste". In a crisis, all normal rules are suspended ... see Covid. For government agencies, "crisis" is a good thing. Especially if it isn't real, but most everyone believes it anyway. 
• Since Climate change is a conspiracy theory, you can write papers, books, have expensive conferences, get PHDs, awards,  be seen as "a really good person", get a ton of investments in technologies that may not be viable at all or extremely dangerous and damaging to the environment (Lithium). etc, etc Hey, no rules man! 

We will know Global Warming is actually thought to be "real" by our "betters" when the investments in nuclear power and the marketing thereof outpace investments in "Green Technology" by orders of magnitude. 

OTOH, if it turns out that climate history is a guide, we will be in for a few millennia of good snowmobiling! 

 

False Statistics Of Climate

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/07/the-daily-chart-the-most-dishonest-climate-chart-ever.php

File this one under "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics".

A refresher on the basics. "Women are safer drivers than men". It's obvious! Go look at the statistics! Male drivers have DOUBLE the fatal accidents as men do!

Well ... Who was driving your car the last time the weather was bad? The last time you had a "couple" of drinks at a party late at night? Who does most of the driving?

We could go on and on, but at a minimum it is obvious that "per mile driven" is a key measure that needs to be considered. If you just take the raw number, it could be that women have a fatal accident every 1K miles, and men have one every 100K miles ... without some honest statistician doing their best on sample size, what units are being measured, the scale selected for the chart, etc, a "perfectly easy to understand" chart can be totally misleading.

The FACT is that there are 10x more deaths caused by cold than heat. Common sense would tell you that ... if you are overheated, get in the shade, drink some fluids, etc.

If your car runs off the road in really cold weather and you are not prepared, or you are drunk and fall over outside on a cold night, you are poor, your house is poorly insulated and the furnace goes out in extreme cold, etc, etc.

But never mind "common sense", since it is in such short supply these days it really isn't worth mentioning.

Which means you are drilled that you MUST "believe the science", which usually includes a bunch of "obvious" charts that "prove" what the biased "scientist" is determined to make you believe.

Witness the "obvious" that heat causes more deaths than cold:

Obvious, right? Well, it is obvious that you are being snookered when you look at the scaling at the bottom of the chart. 

Using uniform scaling, you get the following. Looks a bit different, right? 

Now I understand that "Global Warming" has been rebranded to "Climate Change", so cold deaths would also be candidates for "evidence", however it is summer now, and they are pitching heat, thus it is important to present heat as more deadly right now. 

All you need to do is "believe the science" ... or often, "the statistics" presented to you as a blatant lie. 

 

It MUST Be Climate Change

 I had never heard of an "Atmospheric River", but of course they are all the rage now. Here, the WaPo helpfully tells us how Climate Change will make them "worse". 

In 2022, the problem was record drought. 

The WaPo story, posted in early January, proclaimed that although these Atmospheric Rivers were providing a lot of water, they were providing less snow. 

Atmospheric rivers play a critical role in supplying mountain snowpack, which serves as an important source of freshwater as it melts in the spring and summer. Some research shows the weather systems provide about a quarter of the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada. Yet as temperatures rise, snowfall is decreasing.

 On March the 3rd, the NY Times helpfully reported that California was getting record snowfall and freezing temps. 

Record snowfall and freezing temperatures have altered the landscape and lives of millions of people in California in recent weeks. The mountains behind the iconic Hollywood sign in Los Angeles are dusted in white. Yosemite National Park is closed to the public, and mountain roads are coated with black ice.

Vineyards in Napa Valley were dusted with powdery snow. Snow met the sand on a beach in Santa Cruz.

The climate industry still really pushes "Global Warming" as "The Science", but in brilliant marketing, they have rebranded as "Climate Change".  Heads I win, tails you lose. 

The climate tech market was $13.8 billion in 2022, with a healthy CAGR of 24.2%, it should be $147.5 by 2032. Compare that growth rate with how your stock portfolio is doing! 

We have learned so much about climate in the past few years ... things we were unaware of before. Record cold is now caused by "Polar Vortexes" which are a result of Climate Change. I'd never heard of a "Derecho" until one hit Iowa in 2020.

"Haboob" is another term that has showed up in the past few years. 

We used to use pedestrian terms like "lots of rain". "cold weather", "high winds", and "dust storm". How could we be so stupid to use such non-descriptive terms when the master communicators are much more precise with terms like "Atmospheric River"! It pretty much nails what you need to know! 

Keeping the suckers off balance by changing what things are called is a way to make them think something new is happening. Well, the WORD is new ... or at least it's public use is new. 

One of the most read posts from my old blog was "-36, It's Toasted" that gives a bit of insight into the relationship between marketing and reality. 

We have gotten a lot more gullible since 2017. At this rate, we soon won't even know what a woman is! ... oops

I don't post much on climate anymore, after all, unless you are some evil denier, IT'S SETTLED! 

 

Nord Stream Yes, Keystone No

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/05/biden-yields-to-putin-on-nord-stream-2-pipeline.php 

The linked talks about how Biden has decided to quit blocking the Russian to Germany Nord Stream 2. I suppose in an effort to avoid "whataboutism". It ignores the fact that Biden cancelled Keystone on day 1, and also stopped fracking on government lands.

Support our rivals, kick America to the curb. After all, America, now Wokeistan is "institutionally racist" don't ya know. 

C'mon man

The Settled Science of Climate Change Marches On

 In real science, it is a THEORY of climate change ... since every prediction is only a theory until it is tested, and even then, it is only as good as the next test. If it is science, it MUST be falsifiable -- otherwise it is not science, but dogma. We still speak of Einstein's theory of relativity, because that is what it is, and parts of it have been shown to be wrong, or at least not universally accurate. 

In the case of Climate Change, which was formerly Global Warming -- but was rebranded to be more marketable, the prediction that the climate will change is like "you will surely die" ... the climate WILL change, but so what? Specific, accurate, testable theories are valuable. We often learn much more from finding out our theories are significantly or even totally wrong - that is actual scientific progress. 

The "certain prediction" (until the next ice age) is that the earth is warming in the big picture, as it has been for 10K years. We are admonished by the man behind the curtain to pay no attention to record low temps, they are "weather". OTOH record high temps are not weather, but proof of warming. In a world of Davos elite globalism, coupled with media and government being joined at the hip, the narrative requires that you believe, not that you think. 

Back in 2014, I blogged on a great example of how the media and global government runs this scam. 

In 2010, Scientific American let us know that Lake Superior reaching record high surface temps was evidence that even deniers could really not deny. The record was 68 degrees F, and it was breached: 

"The Great Lakes in a lot of ways have always been a canary in the coal mine," Cameron Davis, the senior adviser to the U.S. EPA on the Great Lakes, said last week. "Not just for the region or this country, but for the rest of the world."

Given the record cold temps in TX, I decided to look at how much increase in the maximum temp for the big lake there has been since my blog entry. The peak for 2020 was 65 degrees F ... so the lake COOLED 3 degrees. In 2014, the max was 58.3 F. It appears that like many things in this world, "it varies" ... and quite quickly.

I'm certain that given the right selection of starting dates, statistical massaging, etc, it can be shown that the lake is still warming. Like much in today's world, are you going to believe "the experts", "the science", or your own lying eyes? Increasingly, you may well be Cancelled, fired, etc for choosing the latter. It is "deplorable" (even painful) to think in today's world. 

In actual science, if your theoretical predictions turn out to be wrong, that means your theory is wrong. Sadly, as with our response to Covid, we no longer admit to the experts/theories/projections/models being wrong, so we get dumber rather than smarter. 

Cold Californiacation Of Texas

 https://www.americanexperiment.org/2021/02/texas-winter-weather-iced-wind-turbines-and-rolling-blackouts/

The problem with California crazy is that it spreads. 

As usual, the Bee has the jist of it ..."People who moved to Texas from California are finally feeling at home now".

When the government gets in your market, bad things happen -- like you start to rely too much on less reliable energy sources like natural gas, wind, and solar vs coal and nuclear, and then when it gets really cold and calm with your solar panels covered with ice, well then the lights go out! 

How could this possibly be? We were once assured that WARMING was "settled science". Now we are assured of "Climate Change", which is indeed a very certain prediction like "markets will fluctuate", and "people will be taxed during their lives, and even after death" (estate taxes). 

Bill Gates is still certain that warming is the change that is happening and it is critical -- he wants to cover the sun! If we do that, at least little things like the lights and heat going out will seem minor in comparison. It will be REALLY "cool"!

The linked is worth the read, but the crux is: 

Federal subsidies for wind pay wind-turbine owners $24 per megawatt-hour for electricity regardless of whether the electricity is needed or not. These subsidies allow wind operators to make money even if electricity prices turn negative. This means some power plant operators need to pay customers money if they continue to supply electricity to the grid when the prices are negative, while wind generators will make money courtesy of our tax dollars.

We have a thousand gallon propane tank that we refill if it goes below half, and a gasoline powered generator that will run the place in total comfort (no AC) for a couple hours. We generally keep about 12 gallons of gas on hand which we rotate to keep fresh. 

Is this "perfect"? Certainly not ... it is a "hedge" that lets us have  enough reserve to "tough it out" in cold temps without power for "24 hours" keeping the place from freezing, and us somewhat "comfortable". Then we start draining the pipes and looking for "other means" . 

Events like current Texas lead me to think that being able to operate our generator on propane may be really nice! 

You can be smarter than a nation that allows elections to be stolen so they get a guy like Biden who is certain to work hard to move the nation to 100% unreliable (but environmentally sound!) energy sources! 

Hey, frozen masked people will be HAPPY to get on heated boxcars!  Who says that Biden doesn't have a plan! -- and it isn't a "conspiracy", because we are watching it happen in front of our lying eyes.

Powerful Response to Greta

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/open-letter-greta-thunberg-jason-d-hill/?fbclid=IwAR0Pnj9iBekJNkpcsTkiQuY5d9QIAdtycxYuVPBeWBmsO30e8r4AajeXjgw

Would be good for Greta ... and Time magazine to look up Malthus, and for extra credit, Ridley.