Nine July Days Clearly Demonstrate Industrial Wind Turbines Intermittent Uselessness
The chart below uses IESO data for nine (9) July days and clearly demonstrates the vagaries of those IWT which on their highest generation day operated at 39.7% of their capacity and on their lowest at 2.3%! As the chart also notes, our natural gas plants were available to ramp up or down to ensure we had a stable supply of energy but rest assured IESO would have been busy either selling or buying power from our neighbours to ensure the system didn’t crash.
The only good news coming out of the review was that IESO did not curtail any wind generation as demand was atypical of Ontario’s summer days with much higher demand then those winter ones.
Days Gone By:
Back and shortly after the McGuinty led Ontario Liberal Party had directed IESO to contract IWT as a generation source; their “Annual Planning Outlook” would suggest/guess those IWT would generate an average of 15% of their capacity during our warmer months (summer) and 45% of their capacity during our colder months (winter). For the full year they would be projecting an average generation of 30% of their capacity and presumably that assumption was based on average annual Ontario winds!
The contracts for those IWT offered the owners $135/MWh so over the nine days contained in the chart below those 125,275 MWh generated revenue for the owners of $16,912,125 even though they only generated an average of 11.8% of their capacity. They are paid despite missing the suggested target IESO used because they rank ahead of most of Ontario’s other generation capacity with the exception of nuclear power due to the “first-to-the-grid” rights contained in their contracts at the expense of us ratepayers/taxpayers!
Should one bother to do the math as to the annual costs based on the 15% summer and 45% winter IESO previously used it would mean annual generation from those IWT in the summer would be about 3.9 TWh and 11.7 TWh in the winter with an annual cost of just over $2.1 billion for serving up frequently unneeded generation which is either sold off at a loss or curtailed!
Replacing Natural Gas Plants with BESS:
Anyone who has followed the perceived solution of ridding the electricity grid of fossil fuels such as natural gas will recognize ENGO have convinced politicians that battery energy storage systems are the solution! Well is it, and how much would Ontario have needed over those nine charted July days? One good example is July 9th and 10th and combining the energy generated by natural gas from the chart over those two days is the place to start. To replace that generation of 221,989 MW with BESS units the math is simple as those BESS units are reputed to store four (4) times their rated capacity. Dividing the MWh generated by Ontario’s natural gas generators by four over those two days therefore would mean we would need approximately 55,500 MW of BESS to replace what those natural gas plants generated. That 55,500 MW of BESS storage is over 27 times what IESO have already contracted for and add huge costs to electricity generation in the province driving up the costs for all ratepaying classes. The BESS 2034 MW IESO already contracted are estimated to cost ratepayers $341 million annually meaning 55,500 MW of BESS to the grid would add over $9 billion annually to our costs to hopefully avoid blackouts!
The other interesting question is how would those 55,500 MW be able to recharge to be ready for future high demand days perhaps driven by EV recharging or those heating and cooling pumps operating? The wind would have to be blowing strong and the sun would need to be shining but, as we know, both are frequently missing so bring us blackouts seems to be the theme proposed by those ENGO and our out of touch politicians and bureaucrats!
Just one simple example as to where we seem to be headed based on the insane push to reach that “net-zero” emissions target!
Extreme Examples of Missing IWT generation:
What the chart doesn’t contain, or highlight is how those 4,900 MW of IWT capacity are undoubtedly consuming more power than they are generating on many occasions and the IESO data for those nine days contained some clear examples but less than a dozen are highlighted here!
To wit:
July 5th at Hour 11 they managed to deliver only 47 MWh! July 7th at Hours 8, 9, and 10 they respectively generated 17 MWh, 3 MWh and 18 MWh! July 9th at Hour 9 they delivered 52 MWh! July 12th at Hours 8, 9, 10 and 11 they respectively generated 33 MWh, 13 MWh, 13 MWh and 35 MWh. July 13th at Hours 9 and 10 they managed to generate 19 MWh and 39 MWh respectively!
Conclusion:
Why politicians and bureaucrats around the world have been gobsmacked by those peddling the reputed concept of IWT generating cheap, reliable electricity is mind-blowing as the Chart coupled with the facts, clearly shows for just nine days and only looking at Ontario!
Much like the first electric car invented in 1839, by a Scottish inventor named Robert Davidson, the first electricity generated by a wind turbine came from another Scottish inventor, Sir James Blyth who in 1887 did exactly that. Neither of those old “inventions” garnered much global acceptance until those ENGO like Michael Mann and Greta arrived on the scene pontificating about “global warming” being caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels!
As recent events have demonstrated both EV and IWT are not the panacea to save the world from either “global warming” or “climate change” even though both have “risen from the dead” due to the “net-zero” push by ENGO.
The time has come for our politicians to wake up and recognize they are supporting more then century old technology focused to try and rid the world of CO 2 emissions. They fail to see without CO 2 mankind will be setback to a time when we had trouble surviving!
****************************************************
Heat Deaths In Summer? Shirley Not!
After several weeks of heat because it is summer, we get a headline about seven people dying, and the cause of death might be heat-related
This from a report shared via Yahoo News:
Record-breaking heat suspected in at least 7 deaths as temperatures soar across U.S.
The sweltering heat wave gripping parts of the U.S. has shattered heat records and sparked an air quality health advisory, and it is suspected of having contributed to at least seven deaths.
At least seven deaths in the Western U.S. are suspected of having been caused by the extreme heat, officials said. Five people have died in Oregon since Friday, and those deaths are being investigated as possibly being heat-related, the Multnomah County Medical Examiner’s Office said.
In Death Valley, California, a motorcyclist died of suspected heat exposure and another was hospitalized for severe heat illness Saturday. Another man, Kevin Gerhardt, of Sacramento, died Sunday because of the heat, NBC affiliate KCRA of Sacramento reported.
Of the seven, five deaths occurred in Oregon—not the desert-like landscape of eastern Oregon though, but Multnomah County, with its lakes and rivers and relatively close proximity to the Pacific Ocean (I find this odd, and wonder if there’s more to the story).
One was a motorcyclist who died in Death Valley…and should be attributed to stupidity. Death Valley has been extremely hot much longer than we have been using natural resources to greatly improve our quality and length of life.
Putting the deaths into perspective:
Over three million people die in the U.S. each year, which equates to around 8,000 per day, and in a few weeks of heat this summer, we get a big story on seven deaths as “possibly being heat-related,” as it serves as fuel to the fire to continue the push to destroy those things that greatly improve our quality and length of life.
(Of course, we don’t ever learn if the people had underlying conditions.)
The best estimate of how many people die of heat-related causes each year is around 1,000, roughly three per day—again, this is out of over 8,000 deaths total per day.
How many people died in Chicago and other cities last week because pro-crime DAs, enabled by Democrats, let career criminals roam the street?
How many people die or are harmed because of Democrat policies at the border? Think of the harm and deaths that drugs, human trafficking, and drug trafficking bring.
And somehow, the Democrats are focused on a couple degrees of temperature rise over hundreds of years after the Little Ice Age ended.
Also, a whopping 492 people died in storms last year in the U.S. (That is less than two per day.)
Now, what happens if we continue to destroy the quality of life for everyone by eliminating affordable energy, and making them purchase flammable electric cars and appliances?
I would expect that number to go up!
What would happen when power is knocked out, and no one is allowed a generator? What would happen if hurricanes come, and everyone is stranded because their EVs short-circuit and explode?
In the United States and Canada, it is estimated that there are more than 40 cold deaths for every heat death, but we rarely, if ever, see headlines seeking to scare the public about cold deaths…because it doesn’t fit the Democrat agenda.
From the New York Post:
More people die of cold: Media’s heat-death climate obsession leads to lousy fixes
Heat deaths are beguilingly click-worthy, and studies show that heat kills about 2,500 people every year in the United States and Canada. However, rising temperatures also reduce cold waves and cold deaths.
Cold restricts blood flow to keep our core warm, increasing blood pressure and killing through strokes, heart attacks and respiratory diseases.
Those deaths are rarely reported, because they don’t fit the current climate narrative. Of course, if they were just a curiosity, the indifference might be justified, but they are anything but.
Each year, more than 100,000 people die from cold in the United States, and 13,000 in Canada — more than 40 cold deaths for every heat death.
Why would anyone make such an effort to cool the world when a warmer world has been a healthier world?
Does anyone really think that Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or anyone else pushing the ‘green’ agenda can point to evidence that our consumption of oil controls temperatures and storm activity?
How many more people will die needlessly from heat or cold if wind and solar can’t keep up with our power needs?
https://principia-scientific.com/heat-deaths-in-summer-shirley-not/
***************************************************Energy Policies of Biden and Newsom Are the Real Existential Threat to Billions
As a refresher for Biden’s and Newsom’s passion for pursuing net-zero emissions, wind and solar do different things than crude oil.
Wind turbines and solar panels only generate occasional electricity but manufacture absolutely NO PRODUCTS for society.
Sadly, others are following the pursuit of ONLY weather-dependent generated electricity, like nongovernmental organizations (NGO), the National Wildlife Federation, the Conservation Law Foundation, and even the Heinz Endowments, the “legacy” of former Senator and Heinz ketchup baron John Heinz.
Even Bangladesh, where the South Asian country’s dominance in the manufacture of clothing, is being threatened with policies toward net zero emissions that Threatens our Future Garment Purchases.
Crude oil is virtually never used to generate electricity, but when manufactured into petrochemicals, it is the basis for virtually all the products in our materialistic society that did not exist before the 1800s. These products are used in infrastructures such as transportation, airports, hospitals, medical equipment, appliances, electronics, telecommunications, communications systems, space programs, heating and ventilation, and militaries.
Both Biden and Newsom do not comprehend that Teslas are 100% made from crude oil!
EV tires, electronic components, upholstery, etc., are 100% made from oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.
Further, all the parts and components of EVERY electricity generation system (coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar) are also made from the oil derivatives manufactured from oil!
Before the 1800s and before the discovery of oil, we had NO crude oil and obviously NO products, NO electricity, and NO Teslas!
Mandating EVs and electricity generation from wind turbines and solar panels is mandating MORE USAGE of crude oil.
Simplistically, to rid the world of oil usage, STOP using products made from oil.
There is no need for the crusade to over-regulate the “suppliers of oil and gas” when there is no known replacement to meet the “demands” of our materialistic world, but Democrats, armed with their LACK of Energy Literacy, continue their pursuit to eliminate the only known sources of the products that are supporting modern lifestyles and economies:
The American Energy Alliance (AEA) tabulated “225 Ways President and the Democrats Have Made it Harder to Produce Oil & Gas”.
Biden and Newsom are oblivious that without crude oil, there would be nothing that needs electricity! Everything, like iPhones, computers, data centers, and X-ray machines, that need electricity to function, and all the parts of EVs, toilets, spacecraft, and more than 50,000 merchant ships, more than 20,000 commercial aircraft,and more than 50,000 military aircraft are also made from the products based on oil and use the fuels manufactured from crude oil.
Without a replacement, the elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss is that crude oil is the foundation of our materialistic society as it is the basis of all products and fuels demanded by the world that now sustains 8 billion people — ten times the population prior to the Industrial Revolution and thankfully has experienced record crop production. This rapid increase in agricultural output is partially attributable to an increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1940. This rise in CO2 levels alone is linked to major yield increases for corn, soybeans, and wheat.
Biden and Newsom’s delusions are that the end of crude oil would be the end of civilization as “unreliable electricity” from breezes and sunshine cannot manufacture anything.
The world has also experienced significant economic growth and prosperity, benefiting from the more than 6,000 productsthat are derived from fossil fuels. These products support infrastructures that were not around a few centuries ago because they all need components and parts made from fossil fuels that were NOT available in the pre-1800s.
***********************************************
Biden’s Electric Vehicle Mandate Will Leave Western States’ Drivers Stranded
Temperatures are over 100 degrees this month in Twin Falls, Idaho, sapping the distance electric vehicles can travel.
EVs in the Gem State remain relegated to the back seat when it comes to consumers’ choice in vehicles, despite a new Environmental Protection Agency mandate requiring that 70% of new cars sold be all electric by 2032. Idaho had 8,000 registered EVs in 2023, compared to 60,000 and 140,000 in neighboring Oregon and Washington, respectively.
At the Twin Falls Toyota dealership, sales manager Scott Mason said that he could count on one hand the number of fully electric vehicles Toyota has sold in the area. In fact, no fully electric vehicles were available on the lot.
Kent Atkin, project manager at J-U-B Engineers, described how battery-powered EVs “just don’t fit” with life in southern Idaho. His biggest focus as an engineer is the health and safety concerns caused by the unreliability of EVs under extreme temperatures. He said, “We’re expecting people to get stuck in extreme heat and cold. At 105-degree heat in the desert, if you’re stuck out there, you’re done. We’re used to reliability for safety in Idaho.”
EVs cannot match the performance of gas-powered vehicles in extreme weather. Southern Idaho’s wind chill pulls the temperature down to single digits every winter, and summers routinely reach over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. This weather means that battery-powered electric vehicles fail to achieve their promised range and can leave drivers stranded.
Under extreme cold, batteries use stored-up charge to heat themselves rather than saving the charge for driving. In below-freezing conditions, batteries experience up to 40% range loss.
Under extreme heat, battery ions move faster. As that happens, pressures inside batteries build, creating micro-cracks that permanently decrease battery life and range. With freeway speed limits of 80 mph, batteries pull power faster to keep up with the demands of the roads and, when combined with unpredictable weather, can lose power before reaching the driver’s destination.
Gas-powered cars can handle temperature extremes and guarantee ranges long enough to transport people from one gas station to another, while an EV cannot do this considering how remote charging stations are in rural areas.
Extreme temperatures also affect charging speeds. When drivers plug EVs into chargers, cold weather prompts internal battery heaters to run. This pulls a quarter of charging power away from the battery itself and directs it to attached heaters. If the battery’s sensors detect that the battery temperature is anything less than minus 13 degrees Fahrenheit and the EV is charging, all power will go to the heater, and the EV will not charge until temperatures rise. This is a substantial disadvantage compared to gas vehicles that can refill in five to 10 minutes.
Charging stations in the Gem State are few and far between, with long stretches of remote roads or busy freeways between them. Twin Falls offers 25 public EV charging stations and is about 120 miles from the nearest cities with charging stations. As Atkin remarked later in our call, “If everyone had to drive an EV, they couldn’t” with the current infrastructure.
Upgrading city infrastructure to allow for needed charging stations and transmission lines would cost around $10 million to $20 million for Twin Falls, per Kent’s estimates, and most of it would come in the form of increased taxes for residents. The result of an EV mandate is not only a loss of choice in types of vehicles to drive and more expensive vehicles to buy, but increased taxes for all residents and a less reliable form of transportation.
Another reason Idahoans are not sold on electric vehicles is functionality. On paper, battery-powered trucks claim comparable towing capacity to gas-powered trucks; however, the heavier the load, the greater the loss of range of the vehicle. In head-to-head testing, a Ford F-150 carrying a 1,400-pound load in its bed lost 14% of its projected range. In comparison, a 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning (Ford’s EV model of the same truck) lost almost 25% of its projected range.
When towing a 6,800-pound boat and trailer over flat ground, the F-150 Lightning dropped from a 300-mile range to a 90-mile range. In contrast, the F-150 gasoline-powered truck towing the same load boasted a 231-mile radius, leaving the owner with plenty of leeway to tow up mountains and travel to more remote locations.
The Gem State’s economy is primarily driven by agriculture, manufacturing, food processing, and mining. All of these sectors rely on the ability to reliably transport large loads between distant areas of the state and beyond its borders. Fully electric vehicles cannot meet the demands of rural communities, and the EV mandate from the Biden administration is disastrous for workers there.
The decision on what type of car to purchase should be left to the people of Idaho. And the statistics show that EVs are not yet their vehicle of choice.
***************************************
All my main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
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)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them