Net Zero Grid Batteries Alone Would Bankrupt America
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) cites “the climate crisis” at almost every opportunity.
President Biden calls it a greater threat than nuclear war.
They and their allies champion “carbon-free” electricity generation by 2035 and nearly fossil-fuel-free energy by 2050. [emphasis, links added]
Achieving “net zero” carbon dioxide emissions will be painless, they assure us. Costs will be so low you’ll need a magnifying glass to see them.
Governments merely have to enact mandates, provide subsidies, and the transformation to “clean” energy will just happen. Almost like in a fairy tale.
Here in the real world, however, we would need literally millions of weather-dependent wind turbines, billions of equally unreliable solar panels, millions of half-ton battery modules for vehicles, billions more modules to back up intermittent electricity generation, millions of transformers, and tens of thousands of miles of new transmission lines.
All these technologies must be manufactured from metals, minerals, and petroleum extracted from the Earth, via mining on scales unprecedented in human history.
The dollar costs alone — just for a U.S. transformation — are almost incomprehensible.
Science and policy analyst David Wojick calculated that just the batteries needed to back up wind and solar electricity generation in a “net zero” USA would cost $23 trillion — America’s entire 2021 gross domestic product (GDP) — and probably many times that.
Energy and technology consultant Thomas Tanton found that battery backup to replace current U.S. fossil fuel electricity — and convert vehicles, furnaces, water heaters, and stoves to electricity — would cost at least $29 trillion in initial outlays.
Trillions more would be needed to cover financing, repairs, maintenance, replacements, burying broken and worn-out non-recyclable equipment, and building systems strong enough to survive hurricanes.
Professional engineer Ken Gregory determined that grid-backup battery costs could reach $290 trillion (12.6 times the USA’s 2021 GDP), based on actual 2019 and 2020 hourly intermittent electricity-generation data, rather than annual average data utilized in the other studies.
None of these estimates includes the costs of turbines, panels, transmission lines, or transformers.
Energy analyst Francis Menton estimated that New York’s plan to procure 24,000 megawatt-hours of battery storage would provide only 0.2% of what the state would actually need as backup.
But even that would require 300,000 Tesla Long Range 80-kilowatt-hour battery modules — before New York mandates electric automobiles and home heating and cooking systems.
Each of those modules weighs over 1,000 pounds and holds 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.
Each one contains 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds of cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and over 550 pounds of aluminum, steel, graphite, plastics, and other materials, energy analyst Ron Stein reports.
To manufacture each module, we must mine 30,000 pounds of cobalt ore (much of it with child labor in the Congo), 5,000 pounds of nickel ore, and 25,000 pounds of copper ore, plus inject and extract 25,000 pounds of brine to get the lithium.
Backing up New York’s peak summertime electricity needs for just 45 minutes (those 300,000 battery modules) would require 3,750 tons of lithium, 9,000 tons of nickel, 6,600 tons of manganese, 4,500 tons of cobalt, 30,000 tons of copper, and 82,500 tons of other materials.
Together, we’d need to mine more than seventy-five million tons of ores for those New York grid-backup batteries — after removing at least as much overlying rock to get to the ore bodies.
Backing up California’s currently planned wind and solar electricity generation would require nearly 310,000,000 Long-Range modules.
Imagine the batteries, materials, and ores that we would need for the entire USA — or the world!
Processing those ores into finished metals requires acids and other chemical processes, and results in extensive toxic wastes that cause horrific air and water pollution if not handled properly.
This is absolutely not clean, green, affordable, ecological, or sustainable.
The bottom line: “Net zero” is aptly named — if what is meant is the sum total of our nation’s bank account and natural resources after it’s implemented.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/net-zero-grid-batteries-alone-would-bankrupt-america/
**************************************************Biden's New 'Green' Power Plant Rule Is Probably Illegal
Despite taking a major loss at the Supreme Court of the United States last year in West Virginia v. EPA, President Biden and his administration are set to announce another regulatory policy affecting power plants later this week that will drive energy costs even higher and is probably illegal, too.
Politico called the forthcoming EPA policy "aggressive" for "ushering in the most stringent regulations on fossil fuel plants in the nation’s history." After reportedly making the rule even more restrictive over the past several months, it looks like the final version will "require power companies to capture most of their carbon emissions rather than letting it enter the atmosphere," according to Politico. Currently, however, "[n]o commercial power plants in the United States use carbon-capturing technology." So, as Politico noted, Biden is again throwing caution to the wind and "testing the limits of what the court will tolerate" by enacting another extreme policy.
So, Biden is going to try forcing the change — the Constitution and American consumers be damned — and conservatives are already hitting the White House for its latest attempt to force its radical supposedly "green" energy policies that run afoul of the law and make already high costs even more untenable for Americans.
Steve Milloy, who served on the Trump-Pence EPA transition team, said that, "like his proposal to essentially ban gas-powered cars by setting stringent emissions standards, Biden’s proposal to set stringent emissions standards so as to ban fossil fuel plants without carbon capture is illegal and has no chance of withstanding legal scrutiny in light of last year’s SCOTUS decision in West Virginia v. EPA." Milloy warned that "it may take years for SCOTUS to rule on this controversy and, in the meantime, much damage will be done to the fossil fuel plants that our electricity grid depend on."
"Biden’s EPA proposed power plant rule ignores the fact that U.S. air quality is better than ever, and worldwide coal use is growing," noted Frank Lasee, the president of Truth in Energy and Climate. "Communist China uses more than half of the 8 billion tons of coal used annually," Lasee reminded, adding "China and 14 other nations are growing their coal usage."
That reality, Lasee explained, means "closing our coal and natural gas plants will not change the weather or the climate" and instead "will needlessly cause our electricity prices to go up even more. By forcing reliable electricity plants to close, it will lead to more blackouts caused by shortages and heavier reliance on taxpayer subsidized, unreliable, part-time wind and solar," he said.
Tom Harris, the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, pointed out that, "contrary to the assertions of activists, politicians and most mainstream media, we are close to the lowest levels of CO2 in Earth’s history." What's more, Harris noted that "the Climate Change Reconsidered series of reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change summarized thousands of studies from peer-reviewed scientific journals that either debunk or cast serious doubt on the hypothesis that emissions of CO2 from human activities will cause catastrophic climate change."
"The Biden administration's proposed rule will cause an additional spike in energy costs to American households," said Heartland Institute President James Taylor. "Apparently, $4-per-gallon gasoline is simply not enough to satisfy this president's blood lust for higher inflation and less available American energy."
So, exactly how bad will the EPA's new emissions policy be? We'll have to wait for the official announcement to find out. But if the Biden administration's repeated losses at the Supreme Court have shown Americans anything, it's that the president and his cabinet are unconcerned with legal guardrails. And, if Biden's energy policy so far as displayed anything, it's that Biden — or those handling him — will stop at nothing to force the so-called "transition" to more expensive and less reliable "green" energy.
*************************************************
Unicorn Dreams: Biden Clean Energy Push Expensive, Environmentally-Destructive
The Biden administration is adamant about ridding our nation of fossil fuels. It has a goal of attaining “a 100% clean electricity grid by 2035 and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.” Dare oppose these goals and you’re guilty of wanting to “perpetuate the climate crisis.” You’ll even be accused of harboring “antiquated views.”
Despite the frequent bullying and accompanying gaslighting for pointing out net-zero’s deficiencies, decarbonization is merely a unicorn dream devoid of reality. How can one be environmentally virtuous yet support paradoxical measures that require destroying the environment in order to save it? This is not remotely conservationist.
Of late, aggressive onshore and offshore wind pushes have been scrutinized– and for good reason. The White House wants to harness 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030, describing it as “bold” and claiming it’ll be safer than offshore oil and gas. They also are bullish on onshore wind despite communities across the U.S. rejecting them.
The industrialization of our oceans will have ruinous environmental effects and not reduce energy bills. Wind is not reliable, as it doesn’t boast a 24/7 baseload. These structures aren’t cost-effective and boast a short shelf life. The WSJ recently reported, “GCube, a renewable-energy insurer owned by Japan’s Tokio Marine HCC, sees a downside. It found that component failures in turbines with 8-megawatt capacity or greater occur on average after just over a year. That compares with over five years for turbines of 4-to-8 megawatts.” The alternative energy source also contributes to light pollution.
The blades undoubtedly kill countless birds–including eagles. The Department of Energy even concedes, “Turbines produce noise and alter visual aesthetics. Wind farms have different impacts on the environment compared to conventional power plants, but similar concerns exist over both the noise produced by the turbine blades and the visual impacts on the landscape.”
Not to mention, these structures pose immense threats to endangered North Atlantic right whales. Repeated denials, however, only result from the Biden administration–namely NOAA Fisheries and the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC). MMC, however, said there are Level A and B harassment concerns that emanate from ocean industrialization, in such “devices used by wind energy developers for geophysical and site characterization surveys can generate sound that may affect a marine mammal’s behavior (e.g., habitat use) and may lead to more serious consequences (e.g., stranding).”
And even the Pentagon warned proposed construction of wind turbines in the Mid-Atlantic poses significant national security risks. But mounting evidence against wind is unconvincing to Biden and company. Very troubling.
What about solar? Like wind energy, solar energy is not a viable substitute for coal, oil, and gas. Additionally, it boasts many trade offs and negative impacts on the landscape. Not only is it an intermittent energy source, it takes destroying productive agricultural lands - by means of deforestation - to prop up these structures.
Real Clear Investigation reports, “Although done in the name of fighting global warming, some amount of deforestation will be the inevitable result of clearing land for ground-mounted solar panels. Environmental groups say they hope to steer solar farms to "disturbed" or degraded land and rooftops, but those options are often expensive and impractical.”
The American Farmland Trust claims 3,900 square miles nationwide are required to accommodate these lofty solar goals–meaning 1.5% to 6% of Eastern states will lose undeveloped productive farmland to solar projects.
Other potential ecological impacts include habitat destruction, altering drainage and rainfall patterns, and killing species–endangered or not. More problematic: solar panels - especially those made in China - emit more carbon emissions than nuclear.
Let’s not forget the problematic nature of forced electric vehicle pushes from Washington. Last month, the White House announced it wants 50 percent of new cars sold to be electric by 2030 and for 66 percent of new cars sold to be electric by 2032.
EVs, however, aren’t viable without subsidies and only benefit already affluent customers. More troubling for these EV endorsers: there’s little appetite among the general public to “go electric” either.
An April 2023 AP-NORC poll found 59 percent of Americans are unlikely to purchase EVs, even with financial incentives. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) also poured cold water on EVs, stating, “We project that the total electric vehicle share―including BEVs and PHEVs―of on-road LDV stock grows from less than 1% in 2021 to 9% in 2050...”
With inflationary pressures still weighing Americans down, investment in so-called clean energy projects are taking a backseat—despite promises from the “Inflation Reduction Act.” Why? These investments are proving risky and will lead to a poor return on investment–a byproduct of the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) movement.
This past week, American Electric Power announced plans to sell off “$1.5 billion sale of its 1,360-MW unregulated renewables portfolio to IRG Acquisition” by July. Yikes. That certainly casts doubt of our supposed clean energy future.
The evidence is clear: The U.S. can’t and shouldn't abandon coal, oil, and gas anytime soon–unless Americans want to forgo their first-world living standards.
Nuclear and geothermal are the only viable alternative supplements - or complements - that won’t destabilize our electric grid.
Enough of the unicorn dreams; let’s stick with reliable, cheap energy sources.
***********************************************
Western Australia’s government dreams an impossible climate dream
Western Australia’s biggest electricity system will need to roughly triple in size over the next 20 years, as the state seeks to wean itself off fossil fuels and go green.
In a landmark report released today, the WA government outlined the massive scale of building that would be required to replace coal-fired power stations and meet surging demand from customers — particularly industry — electrifying their operations.
WA Energy Minister Bill Johnston revealed an extra 4,000km of new high-voltage transmission lines would need to be built by 2042 under the government’s central plans.
Within the same time frame, Mr Johnston said peak demand for electricity from the state’s main grid — the South West Interconnected System (SWIS) — would treble to about 13,000 megawatts.
The minister also revealed the amount of generation capacity in the system would need to jump by a factor of 10 to account for rocketing demand and the intermittent nature of wind and solar power.
Despite the monumental scale of the flagged expansion, Mr Johnston said just $126 million would be initially set aside to help “kickstart early network planning”.
Mr Johnston said the report, titled the SWIS Demand Assessment, would be the blueprint to guide the overhaul of WA’s biggest grid, which covers Perth and much of the state’s southern half.
“The SWIS Demand Assessment provides a vision of what the future grid might look like as industry seeks to decarbonise,” Mr Johnston said.
“An expanded grid is the most cost-efficient way of supporting decarbonisation as it can reach further for wind and solar.
“The SWIS cannot rely on other electricity systems to support it, so having a strong transmission backbone is critical for reliable supply.”
Cost of plans unclear
Under the plans outlined by Mr Johnston, several new high-voltage transmission lines would need to be built to connect renewable energy zones, particularly in windy and sunny areas north of current SWIS footprint.
However, Mr Johnston said how much the upgrades would cost and how they would be paid for — and by whom — were still open questions.
The minister acknowledged that big industrial users, such as mineral processors and manufacturers, would ideally help pay for the work.
He noted it was these customers who would drive much of the extra demand on the grid by using electricity — rather than fossil fuels such as gas — to power their operations.
According to Mr Johnston, it would be unfair to spread the costs of the required upgrades on to household and business customers who contributed much less to the increase in demand.
While anticipating a massive increase in the amount of renewable energy, Mr Johnston argued gas would continue to play a key role in keeping the system stable.
But he insisted this would not derail efforts to decarbonise the WA economy, noting electrification of gas-heavy industrial processes would have a much bigger effect.
'Transition plan does not work': Opposition
Speaking after the announcement, Shadow Energy spokesman Steve Thomas said today's report was embarrassing for the government.
"This document demonstrates that their transition plan does not work," he said.
"It's not costed, it's not funded, and it can't deliver the transition that government is talking about, and this document actually reinforces that."
Dr Thomas said he expected the total cost of the state's transition away from coal to be closer to $15 billion – with the 4,000 kilometres of new transmission infrastructure accounting for about $8 billion of that.
"You'd think with the biggest surpluses, the greatest boom in our history, if you were going to transition the electricity system you might have the money to do it, but the government has not invested anything like the amount of money necessary," he said.
"They've got the time frame wrong, they've got the infrastructure requirements wrong, they've got the budget wrong, there's not much they've actually got right on the transition to renewable energy and at this stage it will not work."
The ability to cope with the loss of generation that closing coal by 2029 would have was another significant issue, according to Dr Thomas, as well as finding the people and resources to drive the transition in a globally-competitive market.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment