Islands are growing, not shrinking
But what's 150 square miles between friends?
The sea level rise experienced in recent decades was supposed to lead to shrinking shorelines and inundated coasts.
Instead, satellite observations reveal the globe’s island coasts expanded seaward (net) by 402 km² (155 mi²) since 2000.
In a new study, over 13,000 islands were assessed for coastal change over the last three decades (1990-2020).
Only 12% of these islands experienced significant shoreline change during this period. Thus, approximately 88% of the islands had stable coasts − neither substantial erosion nor accretion.
About 6% of these 13,000+ islands experienced coastline expansion (accretion), while 7.5% lost coastal land area (erosion).
The scientists point out that for the islands experiencing coastal erosion in recent decades, sea level rise was not a primary or predominant causal factor. This is “contrary to initial assumptions.”
“Moreover, the data results suggest that sea-level rise has not been a widespread cause of erosion for island shorelines in the studied region. Presently, it is considered one of the contributing factors to shoreline erosion but not the predominant one.”
“Contrary to initial assumptions, our empirical data does not conclusively link the widespread erosion of island shorelines primarily to historical sea-level rise, suggesting that human activities might mask the effects of sea-level rise.”
Somewhat consistent with the alarming sea level rise narrative propagated by anthropogenic global warming (AGW) activists, there was indeed a net loss (-259.33 km²) of coastal land area for the 13,000+ islands studied in the decade spanning 1990 to 2000.
But then, “in the subsequent decades, the trend reversed, with net increases of 369.67 km² from 2000 to 2010 and 32.67 km² from 2010 to 2020.”
Added together, in the last two decades the globe’s island coasts grew seaward by a net 402.33 km² from 2000-2020, and coasts grew by a net 157.21 km² for the entire 30-year period (1990-2020).
“Over the past three decades, the entire region experienced a cumulative increase in land area of 157.21 km² across more than 13,000 islands.”
“…over the past 30 years, fewer islands experienced landward erosion compared to those undergoing seaward accretion.”
*************************************************
The Green Energy Mess That Nobody Will Admit to
Reports in newspapers this week revealed that Britain’s domestic production of energy has reached a new record low. The news comes from trade group, Offshore Energies U.K. (OEUK), whose analysis, far from unexpected, details the pressures on investment in conventional energy production, such as the windfall tax on oil and gas companies. Since the turn of the century, U.K. production of energy has fallen by two thirds, whereas consumption has fallen by a third. The difference has been met by an increased dependence on imports. Yet neither the report itself, which is at best agnostic about renewables, nor the stories that cover it, seem to have taken seriously the harm that Net Zero and adjacent agendas have done to our industries, businesses and economy – and are set to do worse.
The U.K. ceased being a net energy exporter in 2004, amid a flurry of green policymaking, culminating in the Climate Change Act 2008, and its increased ‘Net Zero’ target adopted in 2019. Over the duration, coal-fired power stations were demolished, but not replaced with equivalent (i.e. reliable) generating capacity, shale gas exploration was abolished before it had even started. Energy investors in the U.K. and across the continent, lured to attractive guaranteed profits by subsidy regimes, and dissuaded from conventional energy by rising costs of capital, lost interest in oil and gas. Despite promises of ‘green jobs’, a ‘green industrial revolution’ and ‘green economic growth’ and lower prices being the constant chorus of energy ministers of all governments and their so-called ‘opposition’ counterparts, domestic energy prices tripled. So if these new data on Britain’s energy production do not prove the expensive and dangerous folly of more than two decades of U.K. climate policy, what could?
It is as if the entire political establishment had at once decided to forget that there exists a relationship between scarcity and price. Yet, the effect of abolishing coal is just that: it creates scarcity. So too, do policies that either restrict the exploration of oil and gas, or increase the cost of capital, create scarcity. Politicians, lobbied by green billionaires’ ersatz ‘civil society’ organisations who pump false claims into the public sphere, then claim that the problem all along was ‘dependence’ on oil and gas. Green energy will lower prices and diminish the power of dictators, who turn energy into a ‘weapon’ that terrorises Europe, they claim. So successful are they in their policymaking that, since 2019, the Government has capped energy prices – a policy they stole from Ed Miliband in 2017, before taking us into Net Zero. If ‘green’ means anything at all, it means acute cognitive dissonance.
At stake, argues the OEUK report, is immense value that could be unleashed from the North Sea. But investment is being held back by policies, “having big impacts on the profitability of U.K. offshore energy”’ worth one trillion pounds of exports and £450 billion domestically “within the next 15 years”. However, though the bulk of that potential lies in oil and gas, the report includes in its analysis, wind power, CCS and hydrogen. Even oil and gas executives, it seems, have swallowed the green Kool-Aid. And that is a missed opportunity to reflect on the failures of the green agenda, as well as a disappointing failure of an industry to properly stick up for itself, and to defend industry in principle.
And it needs defending. The fig leaf that has concealed Britain’s shameful industrial decline, and blinding politicians to reality in recent years has been the notion that green policies have successfully caused GDP growth to ‘decouple’ from fossil fuel use. However, this conceit requires us to believe, in turn, that the 79% increase in GDP that coincided with the halving of emissions over the same period was not driven by funny money, tricksy policies and analytical sleights of hand, and that the deindustrialisation underpinning it has left us better off. Does anybody, other than green energy hustlers, actually feel better off? Who? How?! What better position can we claim to be in, now that we know that we produce less and import more at a higher price? How much of that ‘growth’ is just higher prices?
The embrace of green economics, at the expense of established economic orthodoxy, leads to regressive disdain for industry. It seems not to have bothered many that we are less capable of producing things and sustaining ourselves – an issue which would have once sent a modern government into a tailspin. It is as if using less energy was a ‘good thing’ in itself, not a reflection of rising prices and stagnant (or worse) productivity. As if to make my point for me, following OEUK’s report, the half-truthfully named Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the obedient press put a different spin on the matter. “The U.K. recorded the highest ever share of electricity generation by renewables last year”, declared the Standard.
As greens rejoice our production of less for more, U.K. energy market regulator, Ofgem, announced its “discussion on the future of the price cap”, which is “so customers remain protected as the energy market evolves to a smarter, more flexible system”. Why would customers need ‘protection’ from a ‘smarter, more flexible system’? It is, of course, doublespeak. The ‘dynamic price cap’ is time-of-day pricing, more honestly known as rationing. And ‘flexibility’ means using prices to force customers to organise their lives around the ‘smarter’ system, rather than the energy market meeting people’s needs. And it is made necessary by the scarcity created by green energy policy and green ideology.
It would be all for the better if regulators, industry associations and, of course, politicians simply admitted that they have made a catastrophic mess of the very industries that were pioneered in this country. Putting green political ambitions before any other practical consideration has made us poorer, and is going to create a problem far worse than climate change.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/31/the-green-energy-mess-that-nobody-will-admit-to/
***************************************************Pennsylvania's Senseless Expansion of Alternative Energy
In 2004, Pennsylvania implemented one of the nation’s most aggressive mandates to adopt wind and solar energy. At the time, less than 1 percent of net energy generation came from these sources. In 2023, after nearly $1.5 billion in subsidies, wind and solar generated approximately 2 percent.
So, what’s the point?
That is the question Gov. Josh Shapiro must answer as he seeks to expand Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (AEPS). Instead of admitting these proposals don’t work, the governor is doubling down on largely uneconomical fuels and technologies, resulting in higher electricity bills and a less reliable infrastructure.
AEPS requires Pennsylvania suppliers to provide 18 percent of retail electricity sales from more than a dozen alternative energy sources.
One measurable benefit of AEPS has been burning waste coal for electricity generation, cleaning up millions of tons of refuse from nearly 800 waste piles left by centuries-old mining practices. This program reclaimed more than 1,200 miles of polluted streams and 7,200 acres of land.
However, restructuring AEPS threatens to defund this worthwhile effort. Perversely, five of 15 waste-coal plants have closed because of environmental regulations and market forces hostile to coal.
“This is a huge concern for us,” said Jaret Gibbons, executive director of the waste-coal trade group. Shapiro’s latest proposal, the Pennsylvania Reliable Energy Sustainability Standard (PRESS), mandates that 35 percent of electricity come from politically favored sources, such as wind, solar, and small modular nuclear, by 2035. The proposal also calls for another 10 percent from hydropower and batteries and 5 percent from low-emission sources, like certain kinds of natural gas generation.
The governor touts the importance of this program to reduce carbon dioxide.
Yet, Pennsylvania has cut emissions annually, including a 10.8 percent reduction from 2022 to 2023—thanks mainly to the expansion of natural gas. If emission reduction is the goal, the governor should pursue policies that bolster natural gas and nuclear, which can back up solar and wind when the weather doesn’t cooperate.
AEPS sales totaled about 25 million megawatt-hours in the 2021–22 reporting year. That’s enough to power 2.4 million homes. Less than one-third of those megawatt-hours came from wind and solar.
In fewer than six months, the Homer City coal-fired power plant could produce energy equal to a year’s worth of AEPS-subsidized wind and solar power. Homer City, however, closed last year due to burdensome regulations.
AEPS proclaims that the state’s 606 megawatts of solar capacity are enough to power more than 79,000 homes. However, that is barely over 1 percent of Pennsylvania’s 5.7 million housing units.
In 2007, AEPS predicted the commonwealth would install nearly 6,000 megawatts of wind capacity by 2013. However, as of May 2022, we’ve seen less than one-quarter of that amount. Even if AEPS met this target, the value would be limited because, like solar, wind’s availability depends on nature’s vagaries.
The AEPS report claims the program created thousands of Pennsylvania jobs. Whatever jobs were “created,” it is impossible to produce net benefits by forcing more expensive, less reliable energy sources into an economy. Studies by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University and the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity have concluded that such efforts result in economic losses, including fewer jobs and higher prices.
Industry leaders are growing wary of this transition to less-reliable energy. David Taylor, head of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association, called Shapiro’s vision of an expanded AEPS “an environmental disaster, a threat to public safety, a danger to American national security, a disgrace on labor and human rights, and an abuse of Pennsylvania ratepayers.”
Costing taxpayers billions of dollars is bad enough, but the most immediate concern is the effect of more “green” mandates on the reliability of the power grid. Industry and government officials have issued repeated warnings of power shortages caused by an overreliance on wind and solar.
As Shapiro says, we don’t have to choose between jobs and our environment. But his proposal is bad for both. Pennsylvania’s energy policy must reward reliability and affordability, which means developing proven sources like fossil fuels and nuclear power.
Twenty years after AEPS’s enactment, wind and solar still require subsidies while contributing only meager amounts of unreliable energy. How will doing more of the same produce anything different?
Again, what’s the point?
https://co2coalition.org/2024/03/26/shapiros-senseless-expansion-of-alternative-energy/
***********************************************************New England's last coal plants set to shutter, ushering in era of energy insecurity
The final coal-fired power plants in New England are slated to shutter in the coming years, making it the second region to phase out the energy source that powered the U.S. economy for decades.
In an announcement late last month, New Hampshire-based power provider Granite Shore Power said it had reached an agreement with federal officials to shutter its Schiller Station in 2025 and its Merrimack Station by mid-2028. The action underscores the region's and, more broadly, the nation's steady march toward a future dominated by green energy. Environmental activists have called for this change for years — energy advocates have warned against it.
"Everybody in our region is finally going to be breathing cleaner air," Johanna Neumann, the senior director of Environment America's Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "I think the market has finally caught up to the reality — these coal plants are shutting down and being replaced with renewable energy infrastructure."
Environmental activist organizations have for years sought to ensure the closure of both New Hampshire coal plants, arguing the facilities had contaminated nearby water sources while emitting large amounts of soot into the air, threatening public health.
The Sierra Club, one of those groups that pushed for the shutdown of the plants, applauded the announcement and noted it means New England is the second U.S. region after the Pacific Northwest to be coal-free. New Hampshire Sierra Club Senior Organizer Cathy Corkery said locals had "unjustly shouldered the burden of health and safety concerns" associated with the facilities.
Together, the two facilities, which were first constructed roughly six decades ago, have a capacity of 560 megawatts, enough to power hundreds of thousands of homes. While the plants, and other coal stations in the region, once played a more central role in powering the grid, they have recently largely been inactive and used only in times of high demand or supply crunches.
"From our earliest days as owners and operators, we have been crystal clear; while our power occasionally is still on during New England’s warmest days and coldest nights, we were firmly committed to transitioning our facilities away from coal and into a newer, cleaner energy future," said Granite Shore Power CEO Jim Andrews.
As part of the announcement, Andrews added that both coal plants will be redeveloped into the state's first-of-their-kind "renewable energy parks." Once they officially close, the sites will be converted by Granite Shore Power into solar and utility-scale energy storage facilities.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Granite Shore Power said the company has been public about its intentions to transition its fleet away from coal for six years and that while that transition occurs, it will continue to support the regional grid. According to the spokesperson, the plans would include retaining workers at the Schiller and Merrimack sites and even increasing its overall workforce.
"When it comes to clean energy, the message in America today is clear: companies want to develop it, investors want to finance it, and American consumers and businesses want to buy it," said Ray Long, president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy. "This historic agreement marks a significant step in the direction of America’s clean energy future."
The American Clean Power Association, another group that advocates for green energy development, pointed to data showing most new electricity generation nationwide is green and has created thousands of new jobs.
However, the announcement that another U.S. region is on a glide path to a coal-free future earned heavy criticism from some experts who noted the importance of having baseload, dispatchable power generation. While renewable sources like wind and solar are intermittent, or heavily dependent on weather conditions, coal, natural gas and nuclear can quickly be turned on in times of high demand.
According to the Energy Information Administration, coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants produce 49%, 54% and 93% of their listed capacity, respectively, while solar panels produce just 25% and wind turbines produce 34% of their listed capacity.
"There's a concerted effort to shift away from reliable sources of electricity generation to unreliable sources," said Daren Bakst, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment. "And ultimately the impact is going to be less reliable electricity, higher prices for Americans — it's going to have a disproportionate impact on the poor."
"You have to be able to call upon electricity sources when you need it, and you need it to be able to have consistent electricity, to be able to flip on the switch. You can't have that with intermittent sources. Right now, it's impossible to have that," Bakst continued. "Therefore, you need baseload electricity generation so that you can have consistent electricity when you need it."
ISO-New England, the region's independent grid operator, states on its website that coal is a critical tool in ensuring power "on the coldest winter days when natural gas supply is constrained." It adds that inadequate infrastructure to transport natural gas — a major power source in New England — harms natural-gas-fired plants' ability to get the fuel they need to perform, creating an "energy-security risk."
The operator declined to comment on Granite Shore Power's coal plant closures.
"The shutdown of Merrimack and Schiller Stations is a major step backwards for New England's energy consumers, who need a mix of baseload energy sources, including coal, to ensure electric reliability," Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America’s Power, a coal power trade group, told Fox News Digital.
"Their closure will leave families at greater risk of power outages and more dependent on natural gas, further exposing them to volatile electricity and natural gas prices," she continued. "Amid rapidly increasing demand for electricity, these shutdowns run directly contrary to [ISO-New England] guidance and will undermine electric reliability and affordability."
***************************************
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