Robovski
Well-known member
Van Gogh's Sunflowers: Women deny damaging frame
The two have been charged in relation to soup thrown at the painting in the National Gallery,
www.bbc.com
'Climate Change' and the coming 'Climate Lockdown'
- Thread starter DarthOne
- Start date
www.bbc.com
Australian Bank Begins Linking Customer Transactions to Carbon Footprint
In another foretaste of potential future ‘carbon allowance’ limits, a major bank in Australia has introduced a new feature that links purchases to a customer’s carbon footprint and warns them when they are going over the average.
Australia’s Commonwealth Bank (CBA) has partnered with Cogo, a “carbon management solutions” company, to launch the new feature, which is part of CBA’s online banking platform.
The bank gives the customer the option to “pay a fee” to offset their carbon footprint, with the average listed as 1,280 kilograms, a long way from the ‘sustainable’ figure of 200 kilograms.
A person’s carbon footprint is calculated and then an ‘equivalent’ metric is show to make the customer feel guilty about it, such as “8 trees being cut”.
“By combining our rich customer data and CoGo’s industry-leading capability in measuring carbon outputs, we will be able to provide greater transparency for customers so that they can take actionable steps to reduce their environmental footprint,” CommBank Group executive Angus Sullivan said in a statement.
The bank has promised to refine the calculation down to showing how much CO2 individual purchases are responsible for.
While initially presented as a handy way for someone to track their consumption habits and the supposed impact they have on the environment, some fear that such schemes could one day become mandatory and place limits on purchases of customers who exceed their ‘carbon allowance.’
As we previously highlighted, allied with climate lockdowns, technocrats want to exploit hysteria over climate change to increase financial control over individuals.
Such a proposal was presented in the science journal Nature by four environmental “experts” as a means of reducing global carbon emissions.
Everyone would be issued with a ‘carbon allowance card’ “that would entail all adults receiving an equal tradable carbon allowance that reduces over time in line with national [carbon] targets.”
The authors make it clear that the program would be a “national mandatory policy.”
Carbon units would be “deducted from the personal budget with every payment of transport fuel, home-heating fuels and electricity bills,” and anyone going over the limit would be forced to purchase additional units in the personal carbon market from those with excess to sell.”
Of course, the wealthy would be easily able to afford the offsets, and many of them are directly invested in the trading mechanisms that the scheme would be based on.
The proposal makes clear that the means of measuring a person’s uptake of carbon units for travel would function “on the basis of the tracking the user’s movement history.”
The authors note that mass compliance with COVID-19 lockdown regulations has greased the skids for further intrusive tyranny and that, “people may be more prepared to accept the tracking and limitations related to PCAs to achieve a safer climate” as a result.
CNN ridiculed for blaming pets for impact on climate change, advocating 'insect-based food' and adopting small rodents instead of dogs
CNN ridiculed for blaming pets for impact on climate change, advocating 'insect-based food' and adopting small rodents instead of dogs
www.theblaze.com
CNN ridiculed for blaming pets for impact on climate change, advocating 'insect-based food' and adopting small rodents instead of dogs | Blaze Media
The latest scapegoat for climate change is your lovable dog and cuddly cat. According to CNN, pets are a negative impact in regards to climate change. CNN gave green advice on how to reduce your pets' "carbon pawprint," including feeding your canine companion "insect-based food" and adopting...
www.theblaze.com
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Huh. They're not very good at this.
oilprice.com
Germany Is Dismantling A Wind Farm To Make Way For A Coal Mine | OilPrice.com
In what has been described as a “paradoxical” situation, Germany is dismantling a wind farm to expand a coal mine
oilprice.com
An electric car requires 6X more minerals than a conventional car.
A typical 1,000 lb electric car battery contains:
In the transition to clean energy, critical minerals bring new challenges to energy security
www.iea.org
Additionally, if I'm reading in-between the lines right here, they pretty much admit that developing these technologies will be an uphill struggle and the only 'good' thing about them is the supposed benefits of reduced carbon emissions, which is itself centered on the idea of man-made climate change, which is a debatable idea at best.
A typical 1,000 lb electric car battery contains:
- 190 lbs of graphite
- 130 lbs of nickel
- 90 lbs of copper
- 60 lbs of cobalt
- 30 lbs of lithium
In the transition to clean energy, critical minerals bring new challenges to energy security
Executive summary – The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions – Analysis - IEA
The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.
www.iea.org
An energy system powered by clean energy technologies differs profoundly from one fuelled by traditional hydrocarbon resources. Solar photovoltaic (PV) plants, wind farms and electric vehicles (EVs) generally require more minerals to build than their fossil fuel-based counterparts. A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant. Since 2010 the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables in new investment has risen.
Minerals used in electric cars compared to conventional cars – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
Minerals used in electric cars compared to conventional cars - Chart and data by the International Energy Agency.
Minerals used in clean energy technologies compared to other power generation sources – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
Minerals used in clean energy technologies compared to other power generation sources - Chart and data by the International Energy Agency.
The types of mineral resources used vary by technology. Lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite are crucial to battery performance, longevity and energy density. Rare earth elements are essential for permanent magnets that are vital for wind turbines and EV motors. Electricity networks need a huge amount of copper and aluminium, with copper being a cornerstone for all electricity-related technologies.
The shift to a clean energy system is set to drive a huge increase in the requirements for these minerals, meaning that the energy sector is emerging as a major force in mineral markets. Until the mid-2010s, for most minerals, the energy sector represented a small part of total demand. However, as energy transitions gather pace, clean energy technologies are becoming the fastest-growing segment of demand. In a scenario that meets the Paris Agreement goals (as in the IEA Sustainable Development Scenario [SDS]), their share of total demand rises significantly over the next two decades to over 40% for copper and rare earth elements, 60-70% for nickel and cobalt, and almost 90% for lithium. EVs and battery storage have already displaced consumer electronics to become the largest consumer of lithium and are set to take over from stainless steel as the largest end user of nickel by 2040.
Share of clean energy technologies in total demand for selected minerals by scenario, 2010-2040 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
Share of clean energy technologies in total demand for selected minerals by scenario, 2010-2040 - Chart and data by the International Energy Agency.
As countries accelerate their efforts to reduce emissions, they also need to make sure that energy systems remain resilient and secure. Today’s international energy security mechanisms are designed to provide insurance against the risks of disruptions or price spikes in hydrocarbons supply, oil in particular. Minerals offer a different and distinct set of challenges, but their rising importance in a decarbonising energy system requires energy policy makers to expand their horizons and consider potential new vulnerabilities. Concerns about price volatility and security of supply do not disappear in an electrified, renewables-rich energy system.
This is why the IEA is paying close attention to the issue of critical minerals and their role in energy transitions. This report reflects the IEA’s determination to stay ahead of the curve on all aspects of energy security in a fast-evolving energy world.
Our bottom-up assessment of energy policies in place or announced suggests that the world is currently on track for a doubling of overall mineral requirements for clean energy technologies by 2040 (in the IEA Stated Policies Scenario, STEPS).
However, a concerted effort to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement (climate stabilisation at “well below 2°C global temperature rise”, as in the SDS) would mean a quadrupling of mineral requirements for clean energy technologies by 2040. An even faster transition, to hit net-zero globally by 2050, would require six times more mineral inputs in 2040 than today.
The rapid deployment of clean energy technologies as part of energy transitions implies a significant increase in demand for minerals
Total mineral demand for clean energy technologies by scenario, 2020 compared to 2040 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
Total mineral demand for clean energy technologies by scenario, 2020 compared to 2040 - Chart and data by the International Energy Agency.
Which sectors do these increases come from? In climate-driven scenarios, mineral demand for use in EVs and battery storage is a major force, growing at least thirty times to 2040. Lithium sees the fastest growth, with demand growing by over 40 times in the SDS by 2040, followed by graphite, cobalt and nickel (around 20-25 times). The expansion of electricity networks means that copper demand for grid lines more than doubles over the same period.
The rise of low-carbon power generation to meet climate goals also means a tripling of mineral demand from this sector by 2040. Wind takes the lead, bolstered by material-intensive offshore wind. Solar PV follows closely, due to the sheer volume of capacity that is added. Hydropower, biomass and nuclear make only minor contributions given their comparatively low mineral requirements. In other sectors, the rapid growth of hydrogen as an energy carrier underpins major growth in demand for nickel and zirconium for electrolysers, and for platinum-group metals for fuel cells.
Growth in demand for selected minerals from clean energy technologies by scenario, 2040 relative to 2020 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
Growth in demand for selected minerals from clean energy technologies by scenario, 2040 relative to 2020 - Chart and data by the International Energy Agency.
Demand trajectories are subject to large technology and policy uncertainties. We analysed 11 alternative cases to understand the impacts. For example, cobalt demand could be anything from 6 to 30 times higher than today’s levels depending on assumptions about the evolution of battery chemistry and climate policies. Likewise rare earth elements may see three to seven times higher demand in 2040 than today, depending on the choice of wind turbines and the strength of policy support. The largest source of demand variance comes from uncertainty around the stringency of climate policies. The big question for suppliers is whether the world is really heading for a scenario consistent with the Paris Agreement. Policy makers have a crucial role in narrowing this uncertainty by making clear their ambitions, and turning targets into actions. This will be vital to reduce investment risks and ensure adequate flow of capital to new projects.
Changing fortunes: Coal vs energy transition minerals
Clean energy transitions offer opportunities and challenges for companies that produce minerals. Coal is currently the largest source of revenue for mining companies by a wide margin. Today’s revenues from coal production are ten times larger than those from energy transition minerals.
However, accelerating clean energy transitions are set to change this picture. There is a rapid reversal of fortunes in a climate-driven scenario, as the combined revenues from energy transition minerals overtake those from coal well before 2040.
Revenue from production of coal and selected energy transition minerals in the Sustainable Development Scenario, 2020-2040 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
Revenue from production of coal and selected energy transition minerals in the Sustainable Development Scenario, 2020-2040 - Chart and data by the International Energy Agency.
Today’s mineral supply and investment plans fall short of what is needed to transform the energy sector, raising the risk of delayed or more expensive energy transitions
The prospect of a rapid rise in demand for critical minerals – in most cases well above anything seen previously – poses huge questions about the availability and reliability of supply. In the past, strains on the supply-demand balance for different minerals have prompted additional investment as well as measures to moderate or substitute demand, but these responses have come with time lags and have been accompanied by considerable price volatility. Similar episodes in the future could delay clean energy transitions and push up their cost. Given the urgency of reducing emissions, this is a possibility that the world can ill afford.
Raw materials are a significant element in the cost structure of many technologies required in energy transitions. In the case of lithium-ion batteries, technology learning and economies of scale have pushed down overall costs by 90% over the past decade. However, this also means that raw material costs now loom larger, accounting for some 50-70% of total battery costs, up from 40-50% five years ago. Higher mineral prices could therefore have a significant effect: a doubling of lithium or nickel prices would induce a 6% increase in battery costs. If both lithium and nickel prices were to double at the same time, this would offset all the anticipated unit cost reductions associated with a doubling of battery production capacity. In the case of electricity networks, copper and aluminium currently represent around 20% of total grid investment costs; higher prices as a result of tight supply could have a major impact on the level of grid investment.
Our analysis of the near-term outlook for supply presents a mixed picture. Some minerals such as lithium raw material and cobalt are expected to be in surplus in the near term, while lithium chemical, battery-grade nickel and key rare earth elements (e.g. neodymium, dysprosium) might face tight supply in the years ahead. However, looking further ahead in a scenario consistent with climate goals, expected supply from existing mines and projects under construction is estimated to meet only half of projected lithium and cobalt requirements and 80% of copper needs by 2030.
Today’s supply and investment plans are geared to a world of more gradual, insufficient action on climate change (the STEPS trajectory). They are not ready to support accelerated energy transitions. While there are a host of projects at varying stages of development, there are many vulnerabilities that may increase the possibility of market tightness and greater price volatility:
These risks to the reliability, affordability and sustainability of mineral supply are manageable, but they are real. How policy makers and companies respond will determine whether critical minerals are a vital enabler for clean energy transitions, or a bottleneck in the process.
- High geographical concentration of production: Production of many energy transition minerals is more concentrated than that of oil or natural gas. For lithium, cobalt and rare earth elements, the world’s top three producing nations control well over three-quarters of global output. In some cases, a single country is responsible for around half of worldwide production. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and People’s Republic of China (China) were responsible for some 70% and 60% of global production of cobalt and rare earth elements respectively in 2019. The level of concentration is even higher for processing operations, where China has a strong presence across the board. China’s share of refining is around 35% for nickel, 50-70% for lithium and cobalt, and nearly 90% for rare earth elements. Chinese companies have also made substantial investment in overseas assets in Australia, Chile, the DRC and Indonesia. High levels of concentration, compounded by complex supply chains, increase the risks that could arise from physical disruption, trade restrictions or other developments in major producing countries.
- Long project development lead times: Our analysis suggests that it has taken 16.5 years on average to move mining projects from discovery to first production. These long lead times raise questions about the ability of supply to ramp up output if demand were to pick up rapidly. If companies wait for deficits to emerge before committing to new projects, this could lead to a prolonged period of market tightness and price volatility.
- Declining resource quality: Concerns about resources relate to quality rather than quantity. In recent years ore quality has continued to fall across a range of commodities. For example, the average copper ore grade in Chile declined by 30% over the past 15 years. Extracting metal content from lower-grade ores requires more energy, exerting upward pressure on production costs, greenhouse gas emissions and waste volumes.
- Growing scrutiny of environmental and social performance: Production and processing of mineral resources gives rise to a variety of environmental and social issues that, if poorly managed, can harm local communities and disrupt supply. Consumers and investors are increasingly calling for companies to source minerals that are sustainably and responsibly produced. Without efforts to improve environmental and social performance, it may be challenging for consumers to exclude poor-performing minerals as there may not be sufficient quantities of high-performing minerals to meet demand.
- Higher exposure to climate risks: Mining assets are exposed to growing climate risks. Copper and lithium are particularly vulnerable to water stress given their high water requirements. Over 50% of today’s lithium and copper production is concentrated in areas with high water stress levels. Several major producing regions such as Australia, China, and Africa are also subject to extreme heat or flooding, which pose greater challenges in ensuring reliable and sustainable supplies.
Share of top producing countries in extraction of selected minerals and fossil fuels, 2019 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
Share of top producing countries in extraction of selected minerals and fossil fuels, 2019 - Chart and data by the International Energy Agency.
Share of top producing countries in total processing of selected minerals and fossil fuels, 2019 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
Share of top producing countries in total processing of selected minerals and fossil fuels, 2019 - Chart and data by the International Energy Agency.
New and more diversified supply sources will be vital to pave the way to a clean energy future
As energy transitions gather pace, security of mineral supply is gaining prominence in the energy security debate, a realm where oil has traditionally occupied a central role.
There are significant differences between oil security and mineral security, notably in the impacts that any disruption may have. In the event of an oil supply crisis, all consumers driving gasoline cars or diesel trucks are affected by higher prices. By contrast, a shortage or spike in the price of a mineral affects only the supply of new EVs or solar plants. Consumers driving existing EVs or using solar-powered electricity are not affected. In addition, the combustion of oil means that new supply is essential to the continuous operation of oil-using assets. However, minerals are a component of infrastructure, with the potential to be recovered and recycled.
Nonetheless, experience from oil markets may offer some valuable lessons for an approach to mineral security, in particular to underscore that supply-side measures need to be accompanied by wide-ranging efforts encompassing demand, technology, supply chain resilience and sustainability.
Rapid, orderly energy transitions require strong growth in investment in mineral supply to keep up with the rapid pace of demand growth. Policy makers can take a variety of actions to encourage new supply projects: the most important is to provide clear and strong signals about energy transitions. If companies do not have confidence in countries’ climate policies, they are likely to make investment decisions based on much more conservative expectations. Given the long lead times for new project development, this could create a bottleneck when deployment of clean energy technologies starts to grow rapidly. Diversification of supply is also crucial; resource-owning governments can support new project development by reinforcing national geological surveys, streamlining permitting procedures to shorten lead times, providing financing support to de-risk projects, and raising public awareness of the contribution that such projects play to the transformation of the energy sector.
Reducing material intensity and encouraging material substitution via technology innovation can also play major roles in alleviating strains on supply, while also reducing costs. For example, 40-50% reductions in the use of silver and silicon in solar cells over the past decade have enabled a spectacular rise in solar PV deployment. Innovation in production technologies can also unlock sizeable new supplies. Emerging technologies, such as direct lithium extraction or enhanced metal recovery from waste streams or low-grade ores, offer the potential for a step change in future supply volumes.
A strong focus on recycling, supply chain resilience and sustainability will be essential
Recycling relieves the pressure on primary supply. For bulk metals, recycling practices are well established, but this is not yet the case for many energy transition metals such as lithium and rare earth elements. Emerging waste streams from clean energy technologies (e.g. batteries, wind turbines) can change this picture. The amount of spent EV batteries reaching the end of their first life is expected to surge after 2030, at a moment of continued rapid growth in mineral demand. Recycling would not eliminate the need for continued investment in new supply to meet climate goals, but we estimate that, by 2040, recycled quantities of copper, lithium, nickel and cobalt from spent batteries could reduce combined primary supply requirements for these minerals by around 10%. The security benefits of recycling can be far greater for regions with wider deployment of clean energy technologies due to greater economies of scale.
Amount of spent lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles and storage in the Sustainable Development Scenario, 2020-2040 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
Amount of spent lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles and storage in the Sustainable Development Scenario, 2020-2040 - Chart and data by the International Energy Agency.
Contribution of recycling and reuse of batteries to reducing primary supply requirement for selected minerals in the Sustainable Development Scenario, 2030-2040 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
Contribution of recycling and reuse of batteries to reducing primary supply requirement for selected minerals in the Sustainable Development Scenario, 2030-2040 - Chart and data by the International Energy Agency.
Regular market assessments and periodic stress-tests, coupled with emergency response exercises (as with the IEA’s existing emergency response programmes), can help policy makers identify points of potential weakness, evaluate potential impacts and devise necessary actions. Strategic stockpiling can in some cases also help countries weather short-term supply disruptions. Such programmes need to be carefully designed, based on a detailed review of potential vulnerabilities. Some energy transition minerals with smaller markets have low pricing transparency and liquidity, making it difficult to manage price risks and affecting investment decisions. Establishing reliable price benchmarks will be a crucial step towards enhancing transparency and supporting market development.
Tackling the environmental and social impacts of mineral developments will be essential, including the emissions associated with mining and processing, risks arising from inadequate waste and water management, and impacts from inadequate worker safety, human rights abuses (such as child labour) and corruption. Ensuring that mineral wealth brings real gains to local communities is a broad and multi-faceted challenge, particularly in countries where artisanal and small-scale mines are common. Supply chain due diligence, with effective regulatory enforcement, can be a critical tool to identify, assess and mitigate risks, increasing traceability and transparency.
Stronger actions are required to counter the upward pressure on emissions from mineral production, but the climate advantages of clean energy technologies remain clear
Emissions along the mineral supply chain do not negate the clear climate advantages of clean energy technologies. Total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of EVs are around half those of internal combustion engine cars on average, with the potential for a further 25% reduction with low-carbon electricity. While energy transition minerals have relatively high emission intensities, a large variation in the emissions footprint of players suggests that there are ways to minimise these emissions through fuel switching, low-carbon electricity and efficiency improvements. Integrating environmental concerns in the early stages of project planning can help ensure sustainable practices throughout the project life cycle.
Comparative life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of a mid-size BEV and ICE vehicle – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
Comparative life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of a mid-size BEV and ICE vehicle - Chart and data by the International Energy Agency.
IEA’s six key recommendations for a new, comprehensive approach to mineral security
1. Ensure adequate investment in diversified sources of new supply. Strong signals from policy makers about the speed of energy transitions and the growth trajectories of key clean energy technologies are critical to bring forward timely investment in new supply. Governments can play a major role in creating conditions conducive to diversified investment in the mineral supply chain.
2. Promote technology innovation at all points along the value chain. Stepping up R&D efforts for technology innovation on both the demand and production sides can enable more efficient use of materials, allow material substitution and unlock sizeable new supplies, thereby bringing substantial environmental and security benefits.
3. Scale up recycling. Policies can play a pivotal role in preparing for rapid growth of waste volumes by incentivising recycling for products reaching the end of their operating lives, supporting efficient collection and sorting activities and funding R&D into new recycling technologies.
4. Enhance supply chain resilience and market transparency. Policy makers need to explore a range of measures to improve the resilience of supply chains for different minerals, develop response capabilities to potential supply disruptions and enhance market transparency. Measures can include regular market assessments and stress-tests, as well as strategic stockpiles in some instances.
5. Mainstream higher environmental, social and governance standards. Efforts to incentivise higher environmental and social performance can increase sustainably and responsibly produced volumes and lower the cost of sourcing them. If players with strong environmental and social performance are rewarded in the marketplace, it can lead to greater diversification among supply.
6. Strengthen international collaboration between producers and consumers. An overarching international framework for dialogue and policy co-ordination among producers and consumers can play a vital role, an area where the IEA’s energy security framework could usefully be leveraged. Such an initiative could include actions to (i) provide reliable and transparent data; (ii) conduct regular assessments of potential vulnerabilities across supply chains and potential collective responses; (iii) promote knowledge transfer and capacity building to spread sustainable and responsible development practices; and (iv) strengthen environmental and social performance standards to ensure a level playing field.
Additionally, if I'm reading in-between the lines right here, they pretty much admit that developing these technologies will be an uphill struggle and the only 'good' thing about them is the supposed benefits of reduced carbon emissions, which is itself centered on the idea of man-made climate change, which is a debatable idea at best.
15-minute cities and personal consumption reduction targets
15-minute cities and personal consumption reduction targets
While not discussed on mainstream news, 15-minute cities have become a major discussion point and concern within alternative media. What is a 15-minute city? ‘The climate crisis and global COVID-19 pandemic combined to accelerate consideration and implementation
theodoreatkinson.substack.com
While not discussed on mainstream news, 15-minute cities have become a major discussion point and concern within alternative media.
What is a 15-minute city?
'The climate crisis and global COVID-19 pandemic combined to accelerate consideration and implementation of the 15-minute city.
In July 2020, the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group published a framework for cities to "build back better" using the 15-minute concept.'
— 15-minute city, Wikipedia
Please see my previous article regarding the origin of 15-minute cities and their overarching Totalitarian philosophy.
Within the Agenda 2030 framework, there is an initiative to reduce personal consumption through utilitarian targets.
Organizations within the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group have specified possible consumption reduction targets in detailed reports.
- Goal 12.
Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.
The research sets out science-based targets for cities for GHG emissions reduction that are consistent with the 2015 Paris Agreement ambitions, and identifies key previously untapped opportunities for cities to address the impact of urban consumption whilst delivering multiple other benefits for their citizens. It also maps how urban stakeholders can work together to deliver these changes.
The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5C World has been co-created and co-delivered by C40, Arup and University of Leeds with funding from Arup, University of Leeds and Citi Foundation.
— The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World
This is a link to their report.
Below is a summary of "ambitious" 2030 targets from the report for those living in these so-called futuristic 15-minute cities.
Section 6.3 Buildings and infrastructure
Table 2 Consumption interventions for buildings and infrastructure and associated targets.
Column Ambitious Target in 2030:
- Reduction in steel and cement use of 35% and 56% respectively.
- 20% reduction in demand for new buildings.
- 90% of residential and 70% of commercial are timber buildings.
- 61% of cement replaced with low-carbon alternatives.
- 22% reduction in virgin metal and petrochemical-based material.
Section 6.4 Food
Table 3 Consumption interventions for food and associated targets.
Column Ambitious Target in 2030:
- 0 kg meat consumption.
- 0 kg dairy consumption (milk or derivative equivalent) per person per year.
- 2,500 cal per person per day.
- 0% household food waste.
- 75% reduction in supply chain food waste.
Section 6.5 Clothing and textiles
Table 4 Consumption interventions for clothing and textiles and associated targets.
Column Ambitious Target in 2030:
- 3 new clothing items per person per year.
- 75% reduction in supply chain waste.
Section 6.6 Private transport
Table 5 Consumption interventions for private transport and associated targets.
Column Ambitious Target in 2030:
- 0 private vehicles.
- 50-year lifetime for body of vehicle (shell & interior).
- 50% reduction in use of metal and plastic materials.
Section 6.7 Aviation
Table 6 Consumption interventions for aviation and associated targets.
Column Ambitious Target in 2030:
- 1 short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every 3 years per person.
- 100% sustainable aviation fuel adopted (or other equivalent low carbon technology or fuel).
Section 6.8 Electronics and household appliances
Table 7 Consumption intervention for electronics and household appliances and associated target.
Column Ambitious Target in 2030:
- 7-year optimum lifetime of laptops and similar electronic devices.
Who is implementing this?
Section 8 Delivery of consumption interventions
- City government.
- Urban residents.
- Business.
- Civil society groups.
- National government.
Cities can work together with individuals, business and other levels of government to achieve dietary change.
Concluding remarks
This framework treats you like livestock that must be measurably monitored and controlled. Does this look like a world you or your descendants should live in?
These centralized top-down systems do not work. It is high-tech communism that will produce the opposite of each stated goal.
- 0 kg meat consumption.
- 0 private vehicles.
- 3 new clothing items per person per year.
- 1 short-haul return flight (less than 1500 km) every 3 years per person.
You will have:
- Poor building and crumbling infrastructure.
- Inadequate low nutrition food.
- No private transportation or ability to freely move.
- Old worn out clothing.
- Highly restricted access to aviation.
- Approved and controlled electronic surveillance devices.
No one is coming to save us.
In Canada there is an existing Smart Cities Challenge with a large list of applicants. These are evaluation phases — this is closer to home than you may think.
These are their plans.
What are yours?
15-minute cities and what you should know, now!
15-minute cities and what you should know, now!
What is a 15-minute city? A 15-minute city is described as a city re-organized into distinct commutable districts. A district is a geographical region where all necessary amenities are available within 15 minutes of walking, biking or public transit to minimize travel.
theodoreatkinson.substack.com
https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/urban_planning_and_design/district-plans
Case for Nuclear Strengthens as First New Reactor in Decades Goes Online
Case for Nuclear Strengthens as First New Reactor in Decades Goes Onl…
archived 9 Apr 2023 11:20:06 UTC
How £100-a-year gas 'penalty' will affect YOU: Experts warn government 'green drive' onto electricity will cost households up to £13,000 to fit heat pumps they need to avoid hiked gas bills
How £100-a-year gas 'penalty' will affect YOU
Ministers are set to change subsidy rules as part of their Net Zero strategy which will risk increasing gas bills by up to £100 a year, while electricity bills will reduce.
JPMorgan CEO Calls on Government to Seize Private Property to Fight "Climate Change"
JPMorgan CEO Calls on Government to Seize Private Property to Fight "Climate Change"
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has called on the government to seize private property in order to fight "climate change." In a letter to shareholders, Dimon
www.dailyfetched.com
Scientists Caught Inflating Antarctic Ice Losses 3000% More Than Observations
Climate scammers... wrong again:
Antarctica gained 661 billion tons of ice during 2009-2019 vs. a prediction of a 20,000 billion ton loss.
It's all a hoax.
A new study utilizing satellite observations determines Antarctic-wide ice shelves gained 661 Gt of mass from 2009 to 2019. An approach relying on assumptions of an unrealistic "steady state" or fixed calving flux (instead of real-world time-variable observations) estimates a net Antarctic ice shelf loss of -20,028 Gt over this same 11-year period – a more than 30-fold distortion of observed ice loss.
New research (Andreasen et al., 2023) uses observational evidence from MODIS to assess net ice losses, gains for 34 ice shelves across Antarctica from 2009-2019. These observed data show the mass gains from East Antarctica and the Ross and Ronne-Filchner ice shelves were larger on net than the mass losses in West Antarctica and the Peninsula. Consequently, Antarctica as a whole has been gaining mass since 2009.
"Overall, the Antarctic ice shelf area has grown by 5,305 km² since 2009, with 18 ice shelves retreating and 16 larger shelves growing in area."
Most studies utilize an alarmism-friendly "steady-state assumption" approach to estimate ice losses "in the absence of observations." This allows the agenda-driven facilitators of ice loss estimates to "overestimate ice loss on ice shelves that are advancing."
For example, using the "steady-state assumption" method, a net loss of -20,028 Gt could be alleged for Antarctic ice shelves from 2009-2019. Satellite observations, in contrast, assess a +661 Gt mass gain during this same period.
Thus, assumption-based ice losses are artificially inflated over 3,000% more than observations, flagrantly misrepresenting ice shelf behavior across Antarctica.
The practice of distorting the numbers to drive a narrative has infiltrated another aspect of climate science.
Climate scammers... wrong again:
Antarctica gained 661 billion tons of ice during 2009-2019 vs. a prediction of a 20,000 billion ton loss.
It's all a hoax.
'I feel a little duped': Why Rowan Atkinson says electric cars are not 'the environmental panacea they are claimed to be' and tells friends not to get them
www.thisismoney.co.uk
Mr Atkinson, who has a degree in electrical and electronic engineering, points out that greenhouse gas emissions are 70 per cent higher in an electric car compared to petrol vehicles.
Rowan Atkinson feels 'a little duped' by electric cars
Rowan Atkinson, 68, has now said 'electric motoring doesn't seem to be quite the environmental panacea it is claimed to be.'
Mr Atkinson, who has a degree in electrical and electronic engineering, points out that greenhouse gas emissions are 70 per cent higher in an electric car compared to petrol vehicles.
Democrat Donor Arrested for Starting Massive Fire Democrats Blamed on Climate Change
freebeacon.com
The 2020 wildfires so close to the Portland Metro have these vibes. There was a lumber company that had logs on fire but they were 50+ miles from the nearest wildfire at that time. I could totally see both theories here. Wrongdoers or a legit wildfire!
Democrat Donor Arrested for Starting Massive Fire Democrats Blamed on Climate Change
What happened: Authorities busted a Democratic donor for allegedly starting a "ginormous inferno" in Yosemite National Park. Democratic politicians had insisted climate change was to blame for the blaze, which destroyed more than 100 homes and injured several firefighters in July 2022. • Edward...
freebeacon.com
The 2020 wildfires so close to the Portland Metro have these vibes. There was a lumber company that had logs on fire but they were 50+ miles from the nearest wildfire at that time. I could totally see both theories here. Wrongdoers or a legit wildfire!
Is an American Singapore Going to be Built in Northern California?
https://unz.com/isteve/is-an-american-singapore-going-to-be-built-in-northern-california/
A consortium of tech billionaires has been secretly buying up agricultural land in between San Francisco and Sacramento with plans to build a dense, walkable city there.
This should be a canary in the coalmine, when the wealthy are starting new cities from scratch on the outskirts of the old ones to cut their losses on the human carry costs within. Neo-feudalism.
This isn't the same as "another suburb". These are mixed use "15 minute cities" which will involve only a minimal level of home ownership and equity for those residents wealthy enough to afford them. My guess is they will turn into middle class renter hives.
This should be looked at similarly to when billionaires start buying bunker properties in New Zealand, it's a sign of abandonment and circling the wagons.
And I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it's a canary in the coalmine, a sign worth paying attention to.
https://unz.com/isteve/is-an-american-singapore-going-to-be-built-in-northern-california/
This is a pretty interesting project by tech zillionaires such as Marc Andreessen, Patrick Collison, and the Widow Jobs. From the New York Times news section:
The Silicon Valley Elite Who Want to Build a City From Scratch
A mysterious company has spent $800 million in an effort to buy thousands of acres of San Francisco Bay Area land. The people behind the deals are said to be a who's who of the tech industry.
By Conor Dougherty and Erin Griffith
Aug. 25, 2023
In 2017, Michael Moritz, the billionaire venture capitalist, sent a note to a potential investor about what he described as an unusual opportunity: a chance to invest in the creation of a new California city.
The site was in a corner of the San Francisco Bay Area where land was cheap.
Whether the proposed site is actually in the mild climate San Francisco Bay area or the severe climate Central Valley of California sounds like a key question that I don't know the answer to.
Mr. Moritz and others had dreams of transforming tens of thousands of acres into a bustling metropolis that, according to the pitch, could generate thousands of jobs and be as walkable as Paris or the West Village in New York.
In this century, urban living came back in fashion, which is why much of the tech industry, which in the Intel era had concentrated in the suburbs of Silicon Valley, moved north in the Facebook era to San Francisco. But, San Francisco's squalor, disorder, and political dysfunction has proven unsatisfying, to say, the least.
So, it's natural for Bay Area business people familiar with Singapore to imagine building from scratch an American Singapore as clean and bum-free as Palo Alto, yet as dense as San Francisco.
This would probably appeal to Chinese immigrants, just as the old planned city of Irvine, CA in Orange County is 44 percent Asian.
He painted a kind of urban blank slate where everything from design to construction methods and new forms of governance could be rethought. And it would all be a short distance from San Francisco and Silicon Valley. "Let me know if this tickles your fancy," he said in the note, a copy of which was reviewed by The New York Times.
Since then, a company called Flannery Associates has been buying large plots of land in a largely agricultural region 60 miles northeast of San Francisco. The company, which has little information public about its operations, has committed more than $800 million to secure thousands of acres of farmland, court documents show. One parcel after another, Flannery made offers to every landowner for miles, paying several times the market rate, whether the land had been listed for sale or not. …
The land that Flannery has been purchasing is not zoned for residential use, and even in his 2017 pitch, Mr. Moritz acknowledged that rezoning could "clearly be challenging" — a nod to California's notoriously difficult and litigious development process.
To pull off the project, the company will almost certainly have to use the state's initiative system to get Solano County residents to vote on it.
This is pretty funny:
The purchases burst into public view this spring when lawyers for Flannery filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, accusing landowners of colluding to inflate prices.
We're not colluding, we are a corporation and there is only one of us, so you are the ones who are colluding. The question all seems rather metaphysical.
A couple of NYT commenters offer some local insight:
John Mann
Maryland
Having grown up in the area, I know the reason it's farmland, it's hot in the summer and foggy, damp and cold in the winter and in the summer the wind howls from the SF Bay "gap" up into the Sacramento valley. If you go 10 miles north you enter "wine country" where the coastal range shelters the land from the onshore winds and the heat is tempered by gentle winds off the Pacific.
Maybe the summer wind is a good thing? (Except during fires, but there doesn't seem to be all that much to burn nearby.)
Randy
CA
The area they are talking about is inland and more like Kansas than San Francisco. Flat, windy and boring. Ok, ok…. To be fair, there are a few differences: The area around Travis afb has higher crime than Kansas, higher home prices, way more traffic, and higher taxes. So, essentially, all of the downside of California with none of the benefits.
On the other hand, northern California has a lot of different microclimates, so it's possible they've found some better than average spot.
Water seems like an obvious problem, but perhaps a dense city doesn't need as much for lawns and the like as a suburb.
Water rights in California are endlessly complicated — for example, Palm Springs has a ridiculous number of golf courses in the low desert due to a law that says you can drill for all the water you want to pump up so long as you use it locally and don't sell it to Los Angeles or San Diego. So there may be some local twist to water rights that makes this project more feasible than it sounds. Or maybe the zillionaires didn't think about water before spending so much money?
Anyway, I shall follow the future progress of this idea with interest, although I doubt I'll live long enough to see anybody move in. We are talking about California, after all.
A consortium of tech billionaires has been secretly buying up agricultural land in between San Francisco and Sacramento with plans to build a dense, walkable city there.
This should be a canary in the coalmine, when the wealthy are starting new cities from scratch on the outskirts of the old ones to cut their losses on the human carry costs within. Neo-feudalism.
This isn't the same as "another suburb". These are mixed use "15 minute cities" which will involve only a minimal level of home ownership and equity for those residents wealthy enough to afford them. My guess is they will turn into middle class renter hives.
This should be looked at similarly to when billionaires start buying bunker properties in New Zealand, it's a sign of abandonment and circling the wagons.
And I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it's a canary in the coalmine, a sign worth paying attention to.
mrttao
Well-known member
Now in e-bike flavor
This is what it looks like when lithium-ion batteries explode in your hotel room
If I'm these guys, I am counting every single lucky star I can lay my eyes on:
notthebee.com
World's biggest carbon capture plant quietly sold off for a fraction of what it cost to build it
justthenews.com
"13 years since being built"
since the Obama climate grift began in earnest FTFY
World’s biggest carbon capture plant quietly sold off for a fraction of what it cost to build it
The plant never operated at more than a third of its total capacity in its 13 years since being built.
justthenews.com
"13 years since being built"
since the Obama climate grift began in earnest FTFY
Behind a $500 Million Donation to 'Finish the Job on Coal'
www.theepochtimes.com
Well....shit. Looks like things are going to get worse before they get better.
Behind a $500 Million Donation to ‘Finish the Job on Coal’
Many wind and solar advocates argue that shutting down coal and gas plants is worth the risk and the cost because it'll stop global warming.
www.theepochtimes.com
Many wind and solar advocates argue that shutting down coal and gas plants is worth the risk and the cost because it'll stop global warming.
Billionaire philanthropist and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pledged $500 million in September toward shifting electricity production in the United States to wind and solar energy and shutting down its coal- and gas-fired plants.
However, some experts say that Bloomberg's millions, together with the billions being spent by the Biden administration, are paving a road to ruin.
The donation from Bloomberg Philanthropies, which adds to the $500 million Mr. Bloomberg pledged in 2019, aims to "finish the job on coal" and "accelerate the clean energy transition to reach the goal of 80 percent of total electricity generation" from renewables, according to an official statement.
"With 372 of 530 coal plants announced to retire or closed to date—more than 70 percent of the country's coal fleet—this next phase will shut down every last U.S. coal plant," Bloomberg Philanthropies stated.
The effort also aims to "slash gas plant capacity in half, and block all new gas plants."
Many of those who study America's electric infrastructure say this is taking us down a dangerous path.
Then-Democratic presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg waits to be introduced during a campaign rally held at Minglewood Hall in Memphis, Tenn., on Feb. 28, 2020. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
"We're following people here that are pied pipers," physicist and energy analyst John Droz told The Epoch Times, referring to the literary character who led children to their doom through delusive enticement.
"This whole business of promoting renewables as a solution is completely unproven, scientifically."
The transition is destabilizing America's power grid, which could damage transformers and cause long-term outages, according to Steven Milloy, energy expert, news commentator, and publisher of Junkscience.com.
"We are in this nonsensical, headlong rush to wreck our grid," he told The Epoch Times.
What's overlooked in this drive to close coal and gas plants is America's ability to keep the lights on. And while neither the Biden administration nor Mr. Bloomberg has produced a cost-benefit analysis for their plans, analysts say we can look to places such as Germany and Texas, which have taken the lead in transitioning to wind and solar, for a preview of what's in store.
German energy economist Lars Schernikau has assessed the results of his country's "Energiewende" (energy transition) and warns Americans to not follow Germany's example.
"Wind and solar do not seem to work; otherwise, after 20 years of 'Energiewende,' power prices would be lower and Germany would not be in trouble," he told The Epoch Times.
Germany spent hundreds of billions of euros to build wind and solar facilities since 2002, doubling its power generation capacity and boosting the share of renewables to 60 percent from about 10 percent. However, its electricity production has been flat, while the cost of electricity skyrocketed.
Wind and solar don't increase output proportionately because of their significantly lower "capacity factor," or the percentage that's actually generated versus capacity built.
The capacity factor for wind and solar is significantly lower than that for nuclear or fossil fuels. (Energy Information Administration)
The capacity factor for wind and solar is about 35 percent and 25 percent, respectively, compared to roughly 92 percent for nuclear and 50 percent for coal and natural gas. That many utilities prioritize buying power from wind and solar facilities rather than from coal and gas plants artificially inflates the capacity factor for wind and solar, even from these low levels.
However, the results experienced in Germany by wind and solar plants were even worse, Mr. Schernikau stated.
"The natural capacity factor for onshore wind and solar in Germany is on average about 10 percent and about 25 percent, respectively, compared to over 95 percent natural capacity factor for nuclear, coal, and gas," he said.
"However, they have a 'net load factor' of only about 92 percent for nuclear and 50 percent for coal and natural gas, often even lower, driven by the low utilization," Mr. Schernikau said. "That many utilities prioritize buying power from wind and solar facilities rather than from coal and gas plants artificially inflates the relative 'net load factor' for wind and solar, even from these low levels."
For all the billions spent, Germany's "Energiewende" has delivered an increasingly unreliable electric system at a cost to consumers that's higher than virtually every other developed country.
The process of shuttering coal and nuclear plants has left the country at the whim of the weather and unfriendly neighbors, such as Russia, and also dangerously short of dependable power that can be adjusted to meet fluctuations in demand.
People line up for ice cream at Glens Custard in the shadow of the GenOns Cheswick Power Station, which still burns coal to produce 637 megawatts of electricity for the region, in Cheswick, Pa., on June 7, 2021. (Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)
Before the current trend of closing coal plants, electric utilities in the West typically ran their power generation systems with a 20 percent installed reserve margin over expected peak demand, to ensure that they could always meet consumers' needs.
That margin ensured that the electric grid would still function even during unpredicted events, such as a winter freeze in Texas or a summer heat wave in California.
Depleting Reserves to Balance Renewables
The transition to renewables is now eroding that safety margin. Germany, where peak demand is around 80 gigawatts, once had about 100 gigawatts of reliable, dispatchable capacity; now, reliable capacity is down to less than 90 gigawatts, according to Mr. Schernikau.
"That means they are actually at the margin," he said. "As soon as you get close to the margin, whether your reliable power supply equals or is barely above your peak power demand, you're running into trouble, which is exactly what Texas has done."
Electric utilities in the United States, one by one, are following in Germany's footsteps, and we're already seeing similar results. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that coal and natural gas plants will account for 98 percent of plant closures in 2023 and that U.S. utilities have halted an average of 11 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity per year since 2015.
Utilities are rapidly shutting down coal and gas plants. (Energy Information Administration)
The problem for the electric grid as a whole is that the electricity supply must always match the demand. If the system goes out of equilibrium, substantial damage to the grid's hardware could result, leading to long-term outages.
"Wind comes and goes, and you can't operate off of something that's an unpredictable source; you need an auxiliary source of power to balance it out," Mr. Droz said. "Something like 99 percent of that balancing power is gas.
"When these people say wind, that is deceptive because there is no such thing as wind by itself. What they should be saying is a wind-plus-gas package."
What many U.S. utilities are doing is expanding their wind and solar capacity but not adding reliable backup facilities to match it, he said. Instead, the utilities "just dump any excess need for balancing onto the system," hoping that they can draw on other regions when there's a shortfall.
Increasingly, they're also drawing on the emergency reserve.
"The wind developers are using the reserve as the auxiliary, and that's not supposed to be what happens," Mr. Droz said. "They should not be allowed to take from the emergency reserve to balance their wind projects."
Workers at Gainesville Regional Utilities pinpoint a solar panel installation on the city's electrical grid map, in Gainesville, Fla., on April 15, 2009. That year, the city of Gainesville became the first city in the nation to have a solar feed-in tariff ordinance, allowing owners of solar photovoltaic systems to receive 32 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity produced by the system over the next 20 years. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
'Reliability Chicken'
Brent Bennett, policy director at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, refers to this process as "reliability chicken."
"They're having to play a lot of games now in order to justify building more wind and solar," he told The Epoch Times.
Among the utilities, Mr. Bennett said, "everybody is pointing at each other and saying, 'We're going to get energy back from these guys,' and these guys over here say, 'We're going to get energy back from those guys.'"
As long as there's only a small percentage of wind and solar in the system, "they can get away with that," according to Mr. Droz.
"But when you get a more severe case, like the Texas freeze, all of a sudden that reserve that was built in for emergencies is completely gone," he said.
Texas's winter storm Uri in 2021 caused hundreds of deaths, many from hypothermia, when power outages prevented Texans from heating their homes. In that case, utilities in the state came within minutes of collapsing the grid for weeks or longer.
Ultimately, Texas electricity operators were able to implement emergency rolling blackouts and shed enough load to rebalance the system in time to prevent an even greater catastrophe. However, experts warn that operating so close to the margin is a very dangerous game to play.
Testifying before the U.S. Senate in 2015, former CIA Director James Woolsey was asked what would happen to Americans if the electric grid went down for an extended period.
"There are essentially two estimates on how many people would die from hunger, from starvation, from lack of water, and from social disruption," he said.
"One estimate is that within a year or so, two-thirds of the United States population would die. The other estimate is that within a year or so, 90 percent of the U.S. population would die."
Despite that risk, government policies are pushing utilities to move faster to shut down coal and gas plants.
"All the incentives are for utilities to build more wind and solar," Mr. Bennett said.
Among these are the incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act that provide nearly $400 billion in grants, loans, and investment tax credits to build facilities and production tax credits to subsidize the energy they produce. On top of that are state laws that, in many cases, compel utilities to prioritize the purchase of wind and solar output over coal and gas.
New Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules mandate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions limits and carbon capture requirements that will, in sum, force utilities to transition away from coal and gas.
"President Biden has set an ambitious U.S. goal of achieving a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 and net zero emissions economy by no later than 2050," the White House announced in April.
"As a result of the historic investments in the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law as well as other actions the Administration is taking, the United States is on a clear path to achieve this goal, while reducing costs for consumers, lowering harmful pollutants, mitigating climate change, and creating new economic opportunities."
However, a recent report by the North American Energy Regulatory Corp. (NERC), which monitors America's grid reliability, has warned about large segments of U.S. electricity infrastructure becoming unstable because of a too-rapid retirement of dispatchable fossil fuel plants.
John Moura, director of reliability assessment at the NERC, described the situation in a January interview with The Epoch Times as "running while we're tying our shoes."
Despite the risks, which now even federal regulators are highlighting, "you have the EPA coming out and saying, 'You're not moving fast enough, you've got to move faster,'" according to Mr. Bennett.
Amid promises that wind and solar generation will reduce energy costs, many studies predict the opposite.
Skyrocketing Costs
"The transformation of the global economy needed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 would be universal and significant, requiring $9.2 trillion in annual average spending on physical assets, $3.5 trillion more than today," the management consultancy McKinsey stated in a 2022 study.
As the transition to renewables accelerates, consumers continue to see their electric bills rise.
As one U.S. regional utility, North Carolina-based Duke Energy, set in motion its plan to retire coal plants and build out a renewable infrastructure, utility bills quickly jumped by 20 percent.
Wyoming residents have gathered at public meetings in recent weeks to protest a 29 percent boost in their electric bills, as their utility, Rocky Mountain Power, also transitions to renewables.
The state, which is one of America's top coal producers, saw the share of coal-plant production drop in 2022 to 71 percent of its electricity generation from 97 percent. At the same time, the share of wind power rose to 22 percent, making up most of the difference.
Rocky Mountain Power claims that the price increases are because of higher coal and gas prices. Similarly, Texas's Southwestern Electric Power Co. (SWEPCO) also cited rising coal prices for its decision to shutter the Pirkey coal plant before the end of its useful life.
A pedestrian walks by a Pacific Gas & Electric electrical substation in Petaluma, Calif., on Jan. 26, 2022. The Department of Homeland Security has warned that domestic extremists have been developing specific plans to target electrical infrastructure in the United States. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Explaining a Plant Closure
"The ongoing operating costs and the high cost of lignite [coal] were the primary reasons for retiring the plant," SWEPCO spokesman Scott Blake told The Epoch Times.
"Pirkey's fuel costs have been rising for more than 15 years and were expected to remain higher than other similar SWEPCO plants.
"The analysis that led to the decision in 2020 to retire the Pirkey plant showed that avoiding compliance costs and higher ongoing operating and fuel costs would save customers an estimated $740 million to $1.2 billion."
Texas currently leads the United States in transitioning to renewables, with wind and solar increasing to today's combined 45 percent of generation from virtually nil in 2008. As Texas shutters coal plants, it has been replacing them almost exclusively with wind and solar.
Utilities argue that, because the marginal costs of producing wind and solar are lower than that for oil and gas, electricity will become cheaper. However, critics are skeptical that consumers will ever see any savings.
In addition to the cost of a duplicative generation system, there's also the cost of building a massive transmission network to connect urban areas where the electricity demand is concentrated from remote locations where it's windy or sunny.
These costs are often passed on to consumers in the form of higher energy bills.
"Wind and solar will, at grid scale, increase the total system cost, which is the only thing that's relevant to a country," Mr. Schernikau said.
"You don't care about the marginal cost of a kilowatt-hour, you care about the total system cost, and the total system cost always goes up the more wind and solar you have in the system."
Wind and solar advocates also claim that building battery storage systems will solve that problem, eliminating the need for backup generation systems, which is disputed by many analysts.
"The cost to store energy in grid-scale batteries is about 200-fold more than the cost to store natural gas to generate electricity when it is needed," reads a report by Mark Mills, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
He said that "$200,000 worth of Tesla batteries, which collectively weigh over 20,000 pounds, are needed to store the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil."
"Even a 200 percent improvement in underlying battery economies and technology won't close such a gap," Mr. Mills said.
]
Industries Leaving Germany
Higher electricity prices aren't just affecting consumers. They're also affecting companies, driving up production costs and making them less competitive.
As a result of Germany's Energiewende, many manufacturing companies are relocating facilities to Asia, according to Mr. Schernikau.
"Heavy industry is leaving the country," he said. "I'm speaking to industrialists and family businesses, who say, 'I have to look at alternatives; the cost of power is too high and the reliability is decreasing; you cannot run industrial organizations like this.'"
Many wind and solar advocates argue that shutting down coal and gas plants is worth the risk and the cost because it'll stop global warming. However, achieving that goal appears unlikely.
Since 2006, the United States has reduced its CO2 emissions to 5 billion tons per year in 2022, or about the same level as 1979, from about 6 billion.
Meanwhile, China nearly doubled its CO2 emissions to 11.5 billion tons from 6.5 billion over the same period and has announced plans for 100 new coal-fired plants in the coming years.
India also doubled its CO2 emissions during this time, to a current level of 2.5 billion tons.
While the West's success in reducing emissions is overwhelmed by the rapid growth in developing countries, also not taken into account in green accounting are CO2 emissions from mining and producing wind turbines and solar panels.
Nor is there an accounting for the environmental damage from using often pristine land and seascapes to install and operate wind turbines and solar panels.
Workers prepare to pour ductile iron casting molten iron into a mould at the Siempelkamp Giesserei foundry in Krefeld, Germany, on April 21, 2022. The company has faced multifold price increases for its raw materials, including scrap iron, nickel, and aluminum, due to EU sanctions against Russia. A company spokesman said that a disruption to Germany's natural gas supply would bring much of the foundry's manufacturing ability to a halt. (Sascha Schuermann/Getty Images)
"Power plants and transmission lines will be located in areas not accustomed to industrial development, potentially creating opposition," a report by the left-leaning think tank Brookings Institution reads.
"Wind and solar generation require at least 10 times as much land per unit of power produced than coal or natural gas-fired power plants, including land disturbed to produce and transport the fossil fuels."
Retreat from Net-Zero Mandates
Germany was forced to restart or delay the closure of about 20 coal-fired plants last year because of the failure of wind and solar to deliver reliable energy, coupled with a boycott of natural gas supplies from Russia,
That's part of what appears at the moment to be a multifaceted retreat from net-zero mandates across Europe, which also includes delaying bans on internal combustion engines and gas stoves.
The share of wind and solar in total energy consumption in Germany is only about 5 percent, indicating a continuing demand for fossil fuels. Despite all government efforts throughout Europe to shift to renewables, fossil fuels still represent 70 percent of total energy consumption there.
Worldwide, fossil fuels make up 80 percent of energy consumption, and countries such as China and India are investing heavily in new coal-fired power plants.
"For me, it's not political, it's just pure logic, economically and environmentally, what is the right thing to do," Mr. Schernikau said. "And unfortunately wind and solar are not the right thing to do at grid scale.
"It doesn't mean every windmill is bad; it doesn't mean every solar panel is bad. But if you try to replace the system with this, you are running into trouble, and Germany is a perfect example."
As Europe rethinks its transition to renewables and Asia charges forward with building its coal capacity, the United States is accelerating its dependence on wind and solar generation.
"We are in a very scary place," Mr. Milloy said. "We are headed towards a brick wall and there is nobody doing anything about it."
Well....shit. Looks like things are going to get worse before they get better.