Month: September 2023

From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

We are on our way to Net Zero by 2050. It must be true because everybody says so. The entire $6+ trillion per year federal government is committed to the project, which obviously would not be the case if the whole thing were impossible. Equally fully committed are essentially all of the colleges and universities, where all of the smartest people are to be found. As well as every other elite institution of every kind and sort.

Take the World Economic Forum. If there is a number one elitest among all elite institutions, this has to be it. At their annual confab in Davos, Switzerland, they gather the greatest of geniuses to instruct the very top government and business leaders how to run the world. Would you like to go? It will cost you $52,000 to join the organization, and then an additional $19,000 to attend the conference. Chartering a private jet to get you there will cost a few more thousand. Once there, you can hear the very smartest people imparting their thoughts on the most important topics of the day, like “The Great Reset,” “Emerging Technologies,” “Diversity and Inclusions,” and, of course, “The Net Zero Transition.”

Is it possible that these people are completely incompetent and have no idea what they are doing?

A reader has sent me the very latest from the WEF on how the world is going to get to Net Zero. The piece has a date of September 5, 2023, and is titled “How battery energy storage can power us to Net Zero.” The authors are three people from the World Bank, with the lead author being one Amit Jain, who is the Bank’s Energy Storage Program Lead. This is the guy on the receiving end of tens of billions of dollars of government money to pass out to make the energy transition happen throughout the developing world.

Now, it so happens that energy storage is something I know a little about, and in particular about the problem of trying to store enough energy to make an electrical grid work without full dispatchable backup. See my energy storage Report, dated December 1, 2022, at this link.

So let’s take a look at Jain, et al.’s, take on how battery storage will “power us to Net Zero.” First, some excited happy talk:

Across the globe, power systems are experiencing a period of unprecedented change. Low-cost renewable electricity is spreading and there is a growing urgency to boost power system resilience and enhance digitalization. This requires stockpiling renewable energy on a massive scale, notably in developing countries, which makes energy storage fundamental. . . .

Making energy storage systems mainstream in the developing world will be a game changer. Deploying battery energy storage systems will provide more comprehensive access to electricity while enabling much greater use of renewable energy, ultimately helping the world meet its Net Zero decarbonization targets. International organizations and development institutions are leading the way forward to enable this decarbonization. . . .

So OK Amit, how much storage are we talking about here?

In 2022, approximately 192GW (gigawatts) of solar and 75GW of wind were installed globally. However, only 16GW/35GWh (gigawatts per hour) of new storage systems were deployed. A recent International Energy Agencyanalysis finds that although battery energy storage systems have seen strong growth in recent years, grid-scale storage capacity still needs to be scaled up to reach Net Zero Emissions by 2050. . . . To meet our Net Zero ambitions of 2050, annual additions of grid-scale battery energy storage globally must rise to an average of 80 GW annually between now and 2030.

Holy underwear, Batman! Could this guy really not even know what units he’s talking about? Thinking his readers might not understand the abbreviation “GWh” he helpfully defines it as “gigawatts per hour”! Could he really be this clueless? And he had two co-authors to check him!

And then there’s the statement that to meet the 2050 Net Zero ambition, annual deployments of grid-scale batteries “must rise to an average of 80 GW annually.” Of course he is using the wrong units (and undoubtedly does not know that). But let’s give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he is talking about the standard batteries available today, which are 4 hour batteries, meaning that 80 GW would provide 320 GWh of storage. If the world would add that much capacity every year from now to 2050, that would come to 8960 GWh of storage. How have Mr. Jain et al. come to the conclusion that this 8960 GWh of storage will be enough to “meet our Net Zero ambitions of 2050”? The piece contains no quantitative analysis or backup of any kind to support the proposition that this amount of storage would be sufficient.

My own energy storage Report does contain backup and calculations, although only for certain countries rather than for the whole world. For example, for the United States, the figures cited in my Report are that it would take some 233,000 GWh of battery storage to fully back up the electrical grid, assuming current levels and patterns of usage. Since the U.S. is about 4% of world population, we can multiply that figure by 25 to get the storage requirement for the world (assuming that the world electrifies to the U.S. level by 2050). The total would be 5,825,000 GWh. In other words, Jain, et al., are off by a factor of about 650, give or take maybe a few hundred.

But it’s OK, because Jain and his colleagues have no skin in this game. They just babble some happy talk to get their hands on a few hundred billions of money from rich governments, and pass it out to build impressive-looking battery projects that are actually next to useless to provide reliable grid electricity. They can be very confident that no one in their circles will ever check the math to see if the numbers add up. When 2050 rolls around and the whole thing doesn’t work, they will be long retired on generous pensions.

4.8
12
votes

Article Rating

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

In 1908, when an object entered the Earth’s atmosphere above the Podkamennaya Tunguska River, it flattened 80 million trees over nearly 2,200 square kilometers, and sent atmospheric shock waves reverberating around the world. Fortunately, this event was in a remote region and very few people were believed to be killed.

But research published in Nature’s Scientific Reports in 2022 by Tankersly et al. suggested that a similar, but even more powerful comet airburst in the Ohio River Valley may have been the death knell for the Hopewell civilization, some 1,600-1,700 years ago just outside modern day Cincinnati. However, other scientists rejected the arguments.

The Claim

The initial paper points to several lines of evidence for an impact event in the region. The first is that archaeological sites in the area contain a surprising number of meteorites and objects made from meteoritic iron.

Remove All Ads on Universe Today

Join our Patreon for as little as $3!

Get the ad-free experience for life

Other archaeologists have suggested that these objects were prized in the culture and that the members of this civilization would trade for them using a continent-wide network of exchange. Indeed, the Hopewell culture is most famous for its burial practices, which involved interring the dead in massive earthwork mounds and burying them with prized possessions from across the continent. Examples include obsidian traced to the Rockies, shells from Florida, and other goods from distant lands. Specifically, previous authors suggested the meteoric iron may be from the Brenham meteorite in Kansas. However, the authors of this paper reject this as the chemical composition is notably different.

The next clue the authors point to is a widespread presence of minute iron and silicon-rich sand grain-sized particles in the regions surveyed. Particles of similar size and composition are found in other regions known to have experienced airburst or impact events, such as the KT boundary. Interestingly these meteoritic particles always existed in a relatively thin layer at all sites explored. The same layer of soil also tends to have more iridium – a relatively rare element on Earth, but frequently found in asteroids.

Perhaps even more interesting, the archaeological sites also contained a distinct layer of ash. The fire that caused the ash layer was sufficiently hot that it was able to convert the limestone to lime (calcium oxide). The authors describe this as “widespread synchronous fires resulting from a catastrophic cosmic airburst event.”

Following this, the authors propose that their civilization did continue on, and it was in this post-impact era that those who remained gathered the meteoric fragments and used them to make the well-studied items. But, the authors suggest that the impact event was not forgotten, and point to a comet-shaped earthwork as a testament to the event.

Comet-shaped Milford earthwork based on E. G. Squier and E. H. Davis’ 1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley Comprising the Results of Extensive Original Surveys and Explorations (Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.).

Lastly, they suggest that this potential impact was an unfortunate result of an increased period of risk in which there was an increased number of comets. To support this, they point to Chinese astronomers who documented 69 “near-earth” comets in the period between 220 and 589 CE, evidently including Halley’s comet, which they state came within 0.09 AU of earth (~35 times the distance of the moon).

The Response

The first response to these claims came from Neuhauser & Neuhauser and attacked several of the lines of evidence of the original authors.

Firstly, the Neuhausers note that the chemical analysis presented by the original authors is not consistent with comets in the first place. Rather, if anything, the material found was more akin to what should be expected from an asteroid.

Next, they criticized the claim that there was any increased period of risk, pointing out that authors of the original paper overstated and may have fundamentally misinterpreted the Chinese source for the comets. Specifically, the Chinese source gives no support for the claim that the comets observed were “near-earth”. Even the claim that Halley’s comet came so close is dubious; an even closer approach in 837 CE makes understanding of prior approaches uncertain, as their predictions would be highly dependent on just how close the comet came that year.

Worse, it’s not entirely established that the 69 comets the authors claimed were truly comets. Ancient astronomers had little understanding of the various types of transient objects, and often used very similar language to describe them, usually referring to any temporary astronomical phenomenon as a “guest star.” Thus, the underlying assumption that this period saw abnormal comet activity is unsubstantiated.

The Neuhausers then take aim at the claim that a comet shaped earthwork is evidence of anything. They note that the original authors failed to discuss the structure in the context of the surrounding structures. Neglecting to consider the wider archaeological context could lead to misinterpretation due to selection bias and pareidolia.

Lastly, they question whether or not there truly was a comet during the purported period that could have been the inspiration and source of a potential airburst. The Neuhausers turn again to the Chinese records, which they suggest are quite complete. They note that Chinese astronomers were quite observant of the sky for their astrological practices, and the period in which the supposed airburst took place was during a turbulent time in which court astrologers would have been especially observant. Yet, no such extraordinarily bright comet appears in their records, nor the records of any other astronomically inclined civilization.

Reply

Tankersly et al. responded to the criticism, conceding that the chemical composition was not indicative of a comet, but maintain that an airburst event occurred as the result of an asteroid progenitor.

However, the authors still lean into the comet shaped earthwork as significant, even though they no longer claim a comet or a cometary fragment as the cause of an airburst.

They also ask why, if meteor fragments were imported, does the iron/silicate rich fragments permeate the area?

Second Response

A second response came last month from Nolan et al. with even harsher criticism, in which they claim that Tankersly et al. “misrepresent primary sources, conflate discrete archaeological contexts, improperly use chronological analyses, insufficiently describe methods, and inaccurately characterize the source of supposed extraterrestrial materials.”

First, Nolan et al. point to the claim that charred surfaces must be due to a cataclysmic astronomical event. They note that the charred areas Tankersly et al. point to were all found within ceremonial mounds in which historians expect there to have been large, ceremonial fires to have been prepared prior to the burials. Thus, the charred layers reported were not a single event, but several individual ones.

Next, the authors note that the claim that the Hopewell civilization declined sharply following the supposed event is false. Rather, the civilization continued but with a “gradual sociopolitical and economic reorganization” that led to the cessation of large earthwork construction.

The authors then demonstrate that Tankersly et al. have misrepresented their own data collection, suggesting that the site of a charred surface also had the higher traces of iridium. Yet Tankersley’s records from the excavations show that these were two separate excavations done at the Jennison-Guard site, but that the former came from the cultural hub of the site, whereas the iridium-enhanced area came from a second excavation 10m away where no artifacts were found and which also lies in a floodplain.

Likewise, Nolan et al. point out that Tankersley et al. conflated distinct archaeological contexts at another site, in which they assume that the age of one of their excavations would be identical to the age of an area nearly a kilometer away explored by other archaeologists without basis.

Nolan et al. then take aim at the claim that the spherules found were extraterrestrial in origin at all, regardless of whether they came from a comet or asteroid. They note that, while the spherules are high in iron and silicon, they are deficient in magnesium and nickel, which are typically found in asteroids. Thus, they conclude, that the spherules are a result of local soil chemistry and not of extraterrestrial origin.

This criticism by Nolan et al. was sufficient that the editors of the paper lost confidence in the original analysis and have retracted the paper.

Like this:

Like Loading…

From CFACT

By David Wojick

Things are looking bad for offshore wind in America (which makes me happy). On one hand, opposition is growing. On the other, the cost crisis is driving prices way up. Whether the offshore US boom will bust remains to be seen, but it is certainly possible. Here’s hoping.

Bad news for the industry is coming in daily, so there is too much to report. Here are just a few samples to give the flavor of the debacle in progress.

In New Jersey, we get this dramatic report of a poll: “Support for Wind Energy Plunges”.

Here is their summary: “A majority of New Jerseyans continue to favor the development of offshore wind energy, but the current level of support is far below the widespread backing it has received in polls over the prior 15 years. The Monmouth University Poll finds that 4 in 10 residents think wind farms could hurt the state’s summer tourism economy, and just under half see a connection between wind energy development and the recent spate of whales washing up on New Jersey beaches. Few see wind energy leading to major job growth in the state.”

The number of New Jersey residents who support offshore wind fell by more than 20 percent since 2019, from 76 percent four years ago to just over half (54 percent) now, and the number of those opposing offshore wind has climbed from 15 percent to 40 percent since 2019.

New Jersey is one of the two states that hold statewide elections in off-years, so theirs is coming in November. Offshore wind has now become an election issue. CFACT has been very active there.

Of course, the developers say we opponents of wind are lying. What else can they say, since they have no real defense? Here is a good example: “Support for Offshore Wind in New Jersey Drops, Industry Points to Effect of Misinformation”.

It is the usual nonsense. We opponents of offshore wind technology are all shills of big oil; these monsters are needed to stop global warming; we don’t understand that the technology is harmless, etc. Pure rhetorical junk.

Further north, the entire Fisherman’s Advisory Board has resigned from the Rhode Island offshore approval decision process. This is a big deal because the Rhode Island Fisherman’s Advisory Board is an integral part of the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), which is a State process hailed as the “gold standard for offshore wind development”. Rhode Island is allowed to apply this process to certain offshore wind projects in federal waters that impact Rhode Island residents and industries, most importantly the fishing industry. It falls under the Coastal Zone Management Act through a process called “consistency review”, where a state can have a say in projects in federal waters if they affect the state. In that case, the state can require that the project be held to certain state CZMA standards.

Here is the scathing first paragraph of the “We quit” letter: “We, the undersigned members of the Rhode Island Fisherman’s Advisory Board (FAB), hereby resign and refuse to participate any longer in the Rhode Island Ocean SAMP process. It has become abundantly clear that the Rhode Island CRMC (Coastal Resources Management Council) has made deference to offshore wind developers its top priority regardless of the requirements of the Ocean SAMP, the cost to the environment, or the impacts to Rhode Island’s fishing industry. In staff’s own words, the purpose of the FAB/CRMC review process of offshore wind projects is to move the permits forward. We as members of the FAB thought that the purpose of FAB/CRMC review was to ensure that offshore wind projects conformed to the requirements and restrictions of the Ocean SAMP. We were wrong. The Ocean SAMP process has been reduced to mere political theater, to which we refuse to lend any further credence by our presence.”

For the full letter, see “Fishermen’s Advisory Board Done Playing Role in CRMC’s Political Theater”.

In between Rhode Island and New Jersey, Equinor and BP are seeking a whopping 54% hike in New York offshore wind power payments. The price hike for Empire Wind 1 would be $159.64 per Megawatt-hour  (MWh) from $118.56; for Empire Wind 2, the bump would be $177.84 per MWh from $107.50, and for Beacon Wind, the enhanced price would be $190.82 from $118.00. These are huge increases.

Back in New Jersey, the biggest Atlantic wind developer — Ørsted — is suing Cape May County and Atlantic City for not issuing permits they have vowed not to do. Speaking of Ørsted:

“Orsted (stock price) plunges 20% on risk of $2.3 billion in US impairments”.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/denmarks-orsted-anticipates-730-mln-impact-us-portfolio-2023-08-29/?mc_cid=281223b22f&mc_eid=7f17b09564

“Orsted delays 1st New Jersey wind farm until 2026; not ready to ‘walk away’ from project”.

https://apnews.com/article/orsted-offshore-wind-new-jersey-delayed-turbines-cd3080ca747c8e3124e3f9f8db6cfc04

They state that, given huge increases in costs, they can’t make money on the project.  For now, they are not walking away from their numerous US projects but will reconsider long-term plans by the end of the year.

Back in Rhode Island: “Second Revolution Wind Project Rejected by Rhode Island Energy”.

Utility says higher interest rates, increased costs of capital, and supply chain expenses made the project unattractive”.

The utility does not want to pay the increased price. Imagine that!

The wind bubble may be bursting. We need to keep the pressure on (to mix metaphors). That the industry is struggling is now clear to the financial community. When stock prices sink or product prices soar, that triggers various adverse actions.

Here’s hoping for a cascade of grief for offshore wind development. It serves no useful purpose, is environmentally destructive, and costs a growing fortune.

Stay tuned to CFACT as this hopeful drama unfolds.

Author

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/ Available for confidential research and consulting.

For more on issues with Intermittent Wind and Solar, check out that section of our ClimateTV page.

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related