Another Critical Thinker Reaches The Obvious Conclusion: Intermittent Renewables Can’t Work On Their Own
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | December 3, 2023
Let me welcome to the small and elite club of critical thinkers on the supposed energy transition a guy named Balázs Fekete. Fekete, with several co-authors, has recently (September 18) succeeded in getting an article published in a journal called Frontiers of Environmental Science, with the title “Storage requirements to mitigate intermittent renewable energy sources: analysis for the US Northeast.” Fekete then followed up by publishing on November 14 at Judith Curry’s Climate, Etc. blog a lengthy post summarizing the article, titled “Net-Zero Targets: Sustainable Future or CO2 Obsession Driven Dead-end?”
As with the previous competent analyses of energy storage requirements needed to back up intermittent renewable generation that have been featured on this blog and in my energy storage Report, there is nothing complicated about the Fekete, et al., analysis. The authors call it “a modified surplus/deficit calculation [as] taught to water engineers to size reservoirs for meeting water demand when the water resources vary.” When there is surplus production you add it to storage, and when there is a deficit you subtract; and then you sum over a year (or two, or ten) to calculate how much storage you need. It’s all basic arithmetic. What could be simpler?
You will not be surprised that the conclusion is “CO2 obsession driven dead-end.”
This subject would seem almost too obvious and trivial to cover on this blog. There is nothing complicated here. Everybody who is involved in any way in the energy transition game, and who has even the lowest level of professional competence, simply must be aware of this subject and of these calculations. And yet I just attended the big New York “Climate Summit,” (aka the Krazy Klimate Konference), featuring all of the powerful politicians and bureaucrats and industry leaders who are in charge of our state’s energy transition, and to a person they have no idea about any of this. And by no idea, I mean none, zero, zilch. One guy even came up to me and accused me of being “rude” for laughing out loud at his astounding ignorance. (The only other possibility was that it was intentional comedy.)
Unsurprisingly, the authors of Fekete, et al., make no claim to being “climate scientists.” Climate scientists as a class are way too smart to stoop to doing basic arithmetic. In the intro to the paper, Fekete identifies himself as a professor at the City University of New York — of Civil Engineering. Second author Mihály Bacskó is a former executive of the Hungarian Power Company. The other two co-authors are meteorologists working at the University of Oklahoma. In other words, the focus here is not on scaring the public with frightening scenarios from the occult voodoo of climate “science,” but rather only on whether the proposed solutions will or will not work.
The particular calculations in Fekete, et al., look at data from twelve states of the northeastern U.S. — New England, plus New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and West Virginia. Rather than using production data from existing wind and solar facilities, the authors obtained daily wind speed and solar irradiation data for the region. For consumption data, the blog post states that the authors applied an assumption of “constant energy consumption,” after determining that “seasonal variations of energy consumption are relatively small (deviate by only 10-15% of the annual average).” (Perhaps this decision could be criticized, but I doubt that it makes any material difference to the conclusion.)
And the bottom line is:
The storage capacity needed to align power generation from solar or wind is around 25% of the annual energy consumption.
In other words, you need three months worth of storage to try to make this work. Previous studies that I highlighted in my energy storage Report — for example, those of Roger Andrews and Ken Gregory — had calculated storage needs in the range of one to two months. However, those studies only used one year’s worth of data for each calculation, and allowed running the storage balance right down to zero. If you think that it’s too risky to run the storage right down to zero before the balance starts to refill, then three months of storage is a much more reasonable figure. Indeed, it’s still rather conservative.
Fekete, et al., don’t get into the specifics of cost of any possible storage solution. But then, they don’t need to. The potential costs are so enormous as to completely rule out any attempt even to start down this road. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, total U.S. electricity consumption in 2022 was just over 4 trillion kWh. So one-quarter of that would be just over 1 trillion kWh. Just to get an idea of the cost of that much energy storage, this site (Tesla fans) gives a (highly optimistic) cost for Tesla batteries of just over $100 per kWh. So a trillion of those will run you about $100 trillion. That’s four times the entire U.S. economy. Meanwhile, a Tesla-style battery is not remotely up to the job of the energy storage needed to back up wind/solar electricity generation, which would necessarily include the ability to save up power over a year or more and discharge over a year. But then, the economics are so wildly out of line that it’s hardly worth worrying about such technicalities.
Fekete, et al., in a very understated manner, put it this way:
In the absence of energy storage technology that can store several months worth of energy, one has to conclude that all studies suggesting that solar or wind are price competitive with other forms of energy should be retracted.
The Fekete blog post at Climate, Etc. contains two other subjects of interest. One relates to the peer review process. It appears that one of the peer reviewers made a run at getting the paper blocked, without stating the nature of any substantive criticisms:
One of the reviewers stated that “The manuscript contains fundamental errors that cannot be rectified through author revisions” without venturing into any details.
Fekete calls this effort “unscientific, unjust, and unethical,” which is again quite an understatement. Sadly, such conduct is the norm in what goes by the name “climate science” today. Fortunately, in this case, another reviewer was supportive, as was the staff of the journal.
The second subject of further interest in the blog post is that another reviewer criticized the draft paper for alleged “lack of references to the “plethora of work” related to integrating renewables to the current energy systems and transitioning to a sustainable energy future.” The criticism caused the authors to “roll up their sleeves” and go out and review some 360 papers recommended by the critic. Here is a list of what they found:
-
The inter-annual and seasonal variations were rarely studied.
-
The vast majority of the studies were limited to diurnal and minute-by-minute variations.
-
The publications only investigated the use of few hourly storage capacities.
-
The primary sustainability metric was reducing CO2 emissions.
-
Most of the publications were limited to low renewable penetration.
-
No publication attempted to address complete decarbonization.
-
Even the most ambitious “deep decarbonization” scenarios stopped at 25-50% renewable contributions that was considered “high renewable penetration”.
And in summary:
Most of the reviewed papers assumed that solar and wind will be always supplemented by some form of “firm generation capacity”, which is the obfuscated name of using fossil fuels complemented with “carbon capture and sequestration”.
In other words, the orthodox “peer reviewed” scientific literature is almost completely lacking in consideration of the most important, fundamental problem of transitioning to an energy system based on electricity generated by the wind and sun. Well, now there is one competent paper in the mix. They will do their best to ignore it, at least until the whole wind/solar thing has conclusively shown that it can’t work.
Some More Energy Reality In New York City
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | November 28, 2023
New York thinks it is going to be the “leader” in showing the world how to transition away from fossil fuels to “green” energy. Our politicians and bureaucrats have not bothered with things like feasibility studies or demonstration projects showing that this can be done, because after all they are geniuses and it is up to the little people to figure out the details. So the energy transition has been ordered up via statutes filled with mandates and deadlines and penalties, with no attention paid to feasibility or cost. We now all get to sit back and watch as this crashes and burns.
In New York City, the main statute on this subject, enacted in 2019, has the title of Climate Mobilization Act, also known as Local Law (LL) 97. The most significant impending mandates are for reductions in “emissions” from buildings, with the first deadline for residential buildings coming right up in January 2024. Few buildings will fail the 2024 cap, but the mandated emissions limits keep ratcheting down over time. The mandate for 2030 for residential buildings over 25,000 square feet is set such that it cannot be met if the building continues to use gas or oil for heat; so effectively this is a mandate to convert to electric heat by that time.
Daughter Jane — a board member of a co-op in Queens which is over the 25,000 square feet and thus subject to the 2030 mandate — has previously covered this subject at Manhattan Contrarian. Here is her piece from October 2022. The gist was that boards in Queens that had looked into how to convert had been advised of very large costs that were not remotely affordable for their middle-class owners. Jane is currently on maternity leave from Manhattan Contrarian, having just delivered her third baby, so I am taking up this subject while we await her return.
So how big a problem will it be for these buildings to convert to electric heat? Nobody really knows. Remarkably — given that the first deadline, applicable to at least some buildings, is barely over a month away — as far as we can find there doesn’t exist a single example of a large building that has successfully completed a conversion that others can look to to benchmark feasibility and cost. New buildings can be built with all-electric infrastructure without great difficulty. But nobody has any solid idea how much will it cost, and how much disruption will be involved, to retrofit heat pumps into large apartment buildings built in the 1970s, or 60s, or 50s, or even the 1920s.
However, that may be about to change. There is at least one conversion project for a large building that is under way, and near completion, and scheduled to begin operation imminently, in December 2023. You won’t find any reporting about that project in the New York Times or other such media operations that constantly hype the dire need to reduce emissions. However, here is a piece, dated October 28, in a local newspaper called the West Side Rag that covers the Upper West Side neighborhood of Manhattan. The headline is “Heat Pump Project in Frederick Douglass Houses Nears Completion; ‘Powered by Electricity’.”
So, how is it going? The answer is that this effort is an unmitigated disaster. Let’s look into the details.
The conversion in question is taking place at one building in an eighteen-building New York City Housing Authority complex called Frederick Douglass Houses, located in Manhattan along Amsterdam Avenue between West 100th and 104th Streets. NYCHA is effectively exempt from LL97, since it is not subject to the penalties for non-compliance that apply to privately-owned buildings. However, the mandated emissions limits do nominally apply to NYCHA, and for this conversion NYCHA partnered with the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to finance the work.
From the West Side Rag:
A two-year project to convert a public housing building to an electrically powered heat pump system is nearing completion on the Upper West Side. The 58-year-old 20-story tower at 830 Amsterdam Avenue (100th Street), part of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) Frederick Douglass Houses development, is being retrofitted to provide heating, cooling, and hot water for residents – and to serve as a possible template for converting more of the 2,410 buildings NYCHA maintains citywide. . . . The project is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and give tenants more control over the temperature in their individual units. . . .
The agencies [NYCHA and NYPA] said the new heat pump system would be the first of its kind at a public housing facility in New York state, and the Amsterdam building would be the first to move away from burning fossil fuels. That makes it “a model for the portfolio,” said Vlada Kenniff, the housing authority’s vice president for energy and sustainability. . . .
So with the first deadline for LL97 compliance barely over a month away, they are just approaching the completion of a heat pump conversion on exactly one of their 2,410 buildings.
Here, from the West Side Rag, are pictures first of the building, and then of the array of large heat pumps that have been installed out in what apparently previously was part of the parking lot:
Then the West Side Rag gives figures for the number of units in the building and the cost of the project. The number of units is 159. And the cost? $28 million.
Holy shit! That’s over $176,000 per unit, just for the heat pump conversion. At a current financing rate of about 7%, that would mean an addition to rent of well over $1000 per month per unit just to finance the purchase and installation of the heat pump system. For comparison, NYCHA here gives the average monthly rent of its apartments as $557 in 2023. So if the tenants were expected to pay the cost of buying and installing this heat pump system, that would mean more than tripling each tenant’s monthly rent. Maybe we shouldn’t worry, because undoubtedly NYCHA’s plan would not be to burden the residents, but rather to get the money from the infinite pile of federal loot available from Washington.
At that same NYCHA link, they give their total number of apartments as 177,569. To provide each of them with heat from one of these heat pumps at $176,000 each would cost a total of over $31 billion.
In other words, converting this building has shown that retrofitting a central heat pump system like this for such buildings is infeasible to the point of being ludicrous. But of course, this is New York, and nobody is allowed to say that. The West Side Rag seeks out a comment from one Paul DiMichele, identified as a spokesman for NYPA:
NYPA spokesman Paul DeMichele explained via email that “the complexities of the project motivated NYPA and NYCHA to think about other scalable solutions to bring heat pump technology to NYCHA residents.”
Ah, the “complexities.” Well, how about another possible approach, such as a heat pump on the roof?:
An earlier effort to install a different kind of heat pump mechanism on the roof of the Fort Independence Houses in the Bronx experienced similar challenges, with program manager Jordan Bonomo quoted in a story about that project on the Grist media platform explaining, “Each apartment had a story. We quickly realized that while we like the technology, we couldn’t possibly scale that across our portfolio.”
And thus, with a month to go to the first (theoretical) deadline under this LL97, we are exactly nowhere in coming up with a way to convert older buildings built with gas or oil heat to electric heat pumps at any remotely affordable cost. Energy reality is rising up once again.
Tycoon urges Russia to meet US energy threats head-on
RT | December 3, 2023
Moscow should take the US threat to halve Russia’s energy revenues seriously, billionaire Oleg Deripaska said on Saturday. To make his point the businessman cited last year’s sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines and a recent train derailment in Siberia.
The Russian aluminum magnate urged the government to focus on transport networks and port infrastructure in the country’s Far East, and the development of the North-South Transport Corridor in the Caspian region.
“Threats of blocking the Danish straits and the Bosporus have already been voiced,” Deripaska wrote on his Telegram channel.
“Russia is wholly up to the task of creating alternative routes via the Baltic and Turkish directions over four years,” he said, adding that the plan’s implementation should be monitored on a daily basis.
Earlier this week, a senior US official told the Financial Times that Washington would pursue its sanctions on Russian energy “for years to come” with the goal of halving Moscow’s oil and gas revenues by 2030.
On Wednesday, a freight train caught fire as it passed through the Bessolov Severomuysky tunnel, the longest in Russia, located in Buryatia. The incident was caused by an unidentified explosive device, Russian business daily RBK reported on Friday citing a local police source.
Russia’s Investigative Committee earlier opened an investigation into a similar incident, in which 19 freight cars carrying mineral fertilizers derailed on November 11 in Ryazan Region, around 200km southeast of Moscow. Later, the case was reclassified as a “terrorist act.” Earlier this week, law enforcement agencies reported the arrest of a man in relation to the attack, saying it had been carried out on behalf of Ukraine.
Several Western media outlets previously reported, citing an unnamed Ukrainian source, that operatives working for the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) had detonated explosives in the rail tunnel in Siberia, targeting the route due to its alleged use for transporting military supplies.
In September 2022, the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines, connecting Russia and Germany under the Baltic Sea, were sabotaged by explosions. Berlin has yet to identify the perpetrators of the attack, which Moscow claimed was orchestrated by US intelligence agencies. Meanwhile, several Western media outlets have suggested that the pipelines were blown up by Ukraine-linked saboteurs.
New paper reveals the high cost of Biden’s green energy subsidies
Global Warming Policy Foundation | December 1, 2023
London – The Global Warming Policy Foundation has today published a quantified estimate of the full cost of financing the tax credits on offer to the major green energy industries under President Biden’s “Inflation Reduction Act”, adding to the public understanding of the economic hazards and financial risks the US economy faces as a result of this scheme.
The study confirms earlier estimates that direct spending under the IRA will amount to about $1 trillion over the next 10 years, but adds to our understanding of the macroeconomic effects of the policies by estimating the cost of financing these tax credits through deficit spending, the likeliest route to be taken by the White House.
The study estimates that the combined total of the Investment Tax Credits and accompanying financing costs for wind and solar energy alone easily could approach $2 trillion or more, especially as rising U.S. deficits lead to higher interest rates.
Viewed as a job creation scheme, one of the key rationales cited for offshore wind development, the study estimates that the IRA will cost US taxpayers an average of about $2.3m per job per year.
Spending on this scale is far larger than that in the Great Depression but, by contrast, is directed at low productivity and sub-optimal assets, especially wind and solar generation.
The opportunity costs of this spending for the United States and its people will be devastating, as government intervention crowds out superior private investment and leads to much higher energy costs for American consumers, both of which will cause reduced economic growth, unemployment, and lower living standards.
Dr John Constable, the GWPF’s Energy Editor, said:
“Dr Lesser’s study shows that the impact of the borrowing needed to support malinvestment under the IRA is large enough to affect the credit rating of the United States and the cost of borrowing for other purposes, with important geopolitical consequences. The sooner this ill-advised scheme is terminated the better.”
Dr Jonathan Lesser, author of the study, said:
“It is impossible to subsidise one’s way to greater economic growth. Eventually, the IRA’s profligate spending on costly, but low-value, green energy will collapse under its own weight. The unanswered question is how high an economic and social price will US politicians force the public to pay for this folly before that occurs?”
Main National TV Station Pumps INSANE Propaganda
Ivor Cummins | November 20, 2023
Our National main TV station just aired an INSANE piece of WEF/UN-style propaganda – it’s a parody of itself! Nonetheless I have a great time taking it down hardcore ;-) Please share widely – you can download vid here too, to share elsewhere:
NOTE: My extensive research and interviewing / video/sound editing, business travel and much more does require support – please consider helping if you can with monthly donation to support me directly, or one-off payment:
– alternatively join up with my Patreon – exclusive Vlogs/content and monthly zoom meetings with the second tier upwards:
Germany’s Energy Woes Spark ‘Deindustrialization on Considerable Scale’
By Chimausem Nwosu – Sputnik – 15.11.2023
Germany’s automotive, mechanical engineering, and industrial goods companies are prioritizing moving less complex processes overseas to secure their business futures. Berlin’s chances of reversing such a trend are in doubt, as companies have expressed disappointment in the current government’s actions to forestall their departure.
Consultancy firm Deloitte reports that two out of three German companies have partially relocated their operations abroad due to ongoing energy issues in Germany.
Previous reports indicated that nearly half of the country’s small-to-midsized companies were considering moving abroad or ceasing operations. According to Deloitte, 67 percent of German companies have moved some operations abroad, and every third industrial company plans to relocate high-quality areas such as production and preassembly.
Investments in infrastructure, digitalization, and cost-effective energy pricing are essential for securing business locations. The situation is particularly acute in Germany’s mechanical engineering, industrial goods, and automotive sectors, where 69 percent of companies report moderate to large-scale relocation.
Currently, companies are primarily moving less complex aspects like component manufacturing abroad. Florian Ploner, a partner at Deloitte and industry sector expert, remarked, “Deindustrialization is already taking place on a considerable scale here. If the general conditions remain the same, it is very likely that more companies will follow and more and more important parts of the value creation will migrate.”
When considering relocation, one-third of respondents focus on high-value areas like general production (33 percent) and preassembly (34 percent). Currently, companies are relocating evenly across the EU, Asia, and the US, with only 10 percent of companies planning to move to other Asian countries and eight percent considering returning to Europe from Asia.
Germany’s prospects for reversing this trend seem slim. Companies suggest that increased subsidies and reduced bureaucracy might encourage them to stay, but they have little faith in the current government’s actions to prevent their departure. While this trend concerns Berlin, it offers some positives for Brussels, as companies plan to move their manufacturing processes within the European Union.
From the companies’ perspective, reducing bureaucracy and ensuring competitive energy prices are practical measures to enhance location attractiveness, with 69 percent in favor. In contrast, state support for key technologies (45 percent) or simplified immigration of qualified specialists (43 percent) are less critical.
Dr. Jurgen Sandau, a Deloitte partner and supply chain expert, notes that, “The pressure on companies is enormous… Nevertheless, a hasty move rarely makes sense. Companies in this country are well advised to make their capacities flexible over the next five years with the help of platforms and networks. After all, factors such as legal certainty and stability in Germany as a business location are essential for entrepreneurial success.”
Companies not currently relocating are focusing on alternative suppliers and expanding multisourcing. They rely on comprehensive supplier management, collaboration, cross-supply chain data exchange, and risk analyses.
Meanwhile, it should be recalled that the government led by Olaf Scholz, in coordination with the EU and the US, has imposed sanctions on Russia since 2022 due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This action prompted the German government to cease purchasing Russian energy, which had been the bedrock of its industrial boom. The sanctions also exacerbated the fuel crisis worldwide, with Europe becoming its primary victim.
The situation further deteriorated after the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline system, built to provide gas from Russia to Europe, allowing German industry to use cheap energy.
In addition, the future of European industrial companies is even more bleak considering the US course towards protectionism. The US Inflation Reduction Act, which provides massive subsidies to US businesses in a bid to concentrate manufacturing sites in North America, caused major concerns in the EU, with French President Emmanuel Macron saying it may lead to the deindustrialization of Europe.
Kansas Energy Freedom Now!
By Sherri Lange | Master Resource | November 3, 2023
Nixing the Mandates in Kansas: Representative Carrie Barth (R-Dist 5) and former House Energy and Environment Chair, Dennis Hedke, reach astounding consensus on Energy Resolution: 180 to 1. There will be no energy “victims” in this state.
I don’t believe I am the typical politician. I don’t care about a political career or political threats. I care about doing the right thing.
I care about people. Period! (- Rep Carrie Barth in an email, October 9 2023)
Carrie Barth (R-Kansas, District 5) and Dennis Hedke, unapologetic supporter of the U.S. Constitution, acclaimed author of The Audacity of Freedom (2011), geophysicist, and former member Kansas House of Representatives (former Chair of the House Energy Committee), have drafted a clean and accurate Resolution for the Republican Party. This passed with overwhelming support. It appears to acknowledge that wind is not a good corporate citizen.
Representative Barth in an email:
Our Constitution of the United States gives the power to the people and states, not a dictator movement to control people. The “Green Agenda” is a joke. What they call green energy of wind and solar is anything but green other than it takes a lot of money to mine, build and construct, maintenance for the units, along with remediation when blades break off and the turbines catch on fire. It takes more green money from there to then build transmission lines that take people’s green land when eminent domain is used. Then people see transmission line tariffs on their energy bills. Oh, and wait, your rates never go down even though the energy industry tells you how cost effective it is.
I would refer to wind and solar as “brown or black energy”. They are unreliable and cause brownouts and blackouts. This hurts people, it hurts businesses, and even the ground under them turns brown.
Dennis Hedke added in an email:
The United States of America, and now by default, the rest of the world, have been seriously misinformed since the SCOTUS made a very serious error in 2009, via Massachusetts v. EPA. They allowed the EPA to falsely transform the innocent, trace atmospheric gas, CO2, into a pollutant. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth. As a result, Trillions of Dollars have been wasted, people in 3rd and 4th World countries have been deprived of the most fundamentally necessary power to turn on the lights, and be released from poverty and join the rest of the civilized world.
Excerpts from the Resolution follow:
Kansas Republican Party Resolves to Support Candidates and Legislative Intent to Protect Kansans from Unreliable and Foreign-Sourced ‘Renewable’ Wind and Solar Energy
For your easy reference:
- CO2 is not a dangerous gas, nor a pollutant, to be avoided and scare mongered.
- The Kansas Republican Party Platform opposes efforts to force communities to engage in sustainable development guidance from the federal government or the United Nations, which are actively attacking our local communities in an effort to implement the Paris Climate Agreement
- Kansas is not to be victimized by lobbyists guiding KS into blackouts and profiteering from subsidies, and alliances with the UN Global Agenda
- Kansas (Republican Party) supports alternative energy, while continuing to support oil and gas reserves within the State
- Kansas will prefer reliable and affordable energy above all
- Kansas (Republican Party) will reject the “UN Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development Goals” to guide their investments in Kansas, even rewarding executives and directors with additional bonuses and stock options for implementing the global climate plan”
- Kansas (Republican Party) will reject energy projects that are obvious land grabs, funding foreign companies with taxpayer-funded grants and tying up valuable Kansas farmland for decades with projects that no company is ultimately held responsible for decommissioning at the end of their useful lives, even violating property rights of farmers affected by the projects
- Kansas (Republican Party) opposes so called Cap and Trade schemes
The resolution concludes:
Whereas irrefutable evidence demonstrates that ill-health effects to mankind and the environment are occurring due to the side effects of industrial scale wind installations. These occurrences are widespread, wherever these installations have been constructed;
Therefore, be it resolved, the Republican Party of Kansas, in view of the preponderance of evidence, will support candidates and legislative intent regarding energy policy that will serve to provide protection to our citizens security, physical health, financial health, access to reliable energy and property rights across all Kansas counties.
Of worthy note is that the CLINTEL declaration is referenced; nearly between 1600 and 2000 professionals and scientists indicate that climate change has always been with us, and the world is NOT on fire, or drowning, or otherwise careening to imminent disaster as some would have us believe. Climate change fear has been the false driver of the wind and solar proliferation, a universal clear economic and environmental disaster.
Some note that renewables policy can be termed Energy Vandalism. We concur: See this link for more detail on the nearly universally accepted articles in Kansas.
Article XIII of the Kansas Republican Party Platform States:
Kansas leaders should not be allowed to arbitrarily deny permits to build new power and energy-producing plants. Carbon dioxide, one of the most common gases on earth, should not be declared a pollutant nor used as an excuse to deny the construction of new power plants. We oppose so-called Cap and Trade legislation. We oppose efforts to force communities to engage in sustainable development under guidance from the federal government or the United Nations.
Comment
This is the first time we have seen a legislative body, organize, and nearly 100% agree, that climate change, which it always does and has done, should not be a driver for energy policy. It is the first time we have seen in such a document, a clear rejection of industrial wind and solar profiteers, and references to the irrefutable evidence of harm to the environment, people, and a clear intention to go forward with reliable, responsible, and cost-effective energy policy, while respecting property rights.
Kudos and respect to the two co-sponsors. Game changer.
Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States: “The power of a bold idea uttered publicly in defiance of dominant opinion cannot be easily measured.” (Lange: It most certainly can be documented and appreciated.)
————————–
ADDENDUM ONE
Quotes from Clintel (There is no climate emergency)
ADDENDUM TWO
Additional excerpts from the Resolution
Article XIII of the Kansas Republican Party Platform States:
XIII. ENERGY
We support an energy policy which creates a strong State economy with affordable and reliable energy. Kansas residents must be considered first when developing new, potentially expensive technology.
We encourage the development of alternative energy supplies, while continuing to support the oil and gas industry within the state. Ever increasing energy prices are creating new avenues for entrepreneurs and existing companies to develop new sources of energy. New developments in wind, solar, biofuels, and geothermal energy sources show real promise for clean, inexpensive, renewable energy for future generations. Increasing energy sources will inevitably create a more market-based system which ultimately lowers utility prices for consumers.
Kansas leaders should not be allowed to arbitrarily deny permits to build new power and energy-producing plants. Carbon dioxide, one of the most common gases on earth, should not be declared a pollutant nor used as an excuse to deny the construction of new power plants. We oppose so-called Cap and Trade legislation. We oppose efforts to force communities to engage in sustainable development under guidance from the federal government or the United Nations.
A report on the energy declaration, indicates this is a nonpartisan issue:
…. the energy producer is already allowing ESG rhetoric and the UN Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development Goals” to guide their investments in Kansas, even rewarding executives and directors with additional bonuses and stock options for implementing the global climate plan.
This is not only a direct violation of the Republican party platform, but an attack on all citizens in the State, as we are seeing with recent reports that the supposed “green” Panasonic plant is actually an energy hog that caused Evergy to request a rate increase on customers in order to supply power to the plant.
The “green energy” project is also responsible for stalling efforts to transition the Lawrence power plant from coal to natural gas, due to the demands of traditional energy sources necessary to power the supposed “renewable” energy plant.
This is not a partisan issue. It’s a money and land grab issue, funding foreign companies with taxpayer-funded grants and tying up valuable Kansas farmland for decades with projects that no company is ultimately held responsible for decommissioning at the end of their useful lives, even violating property rights of farmers affected by the projects.
This resolution will protect Kansas from outside special interest groups by holding all legislators accountable for reliable, affordable energy that stays in our state to benefit our citizens.
ADDENDUM THREE
A conversation with Kansas Rep Carrie Barth and Former Chair of Energy and Environment House, Dennis Hedke. We asked Barth and Hedke to further explain the resolutions’ evolution, and possible resonances.
Conversations with Rep Carrie Barth (R-Dist 5) and former House Energy and Environment Chair, Dennis Hedke, Kansas: How did the exceptional resolution re mandate sanity and “exit renewables”, evolve?
Kansas, which ranks fourth in the U.S. for wind power, (is) the biggest wind energy-producing state to mandate light mitigation.
Wind turbines haven’t just exploded in numbers, they’ve grown ever taller. Since 2016, 400 new turbines have gone up in Kansas with rotor hubs taller than the Statue of Liberty.
The state now has between 3800 and 4,000 turbines, with hubs between 210 and 400 feet high.
It is clear that the pushback against the tyranny of renewables is accruing and accelerating. In August 2023, Robert Bryce again updates his files on rejected projects in the US. Kansas appears “ready able and willing,” to grab the mandates out of energy policies, leaving the door open to more affordable and reliable power.
(Recently, in the last ten days)….”local governments in Illinois, Ohio, and Iowa have rejected or restricted wind and solar projects. Those moves bring the total number of rejections or restrictions in the Renewable Rejection Database to 574.”
Kansas legislators of the Republican Party have as noted in this blog, created an Energy Resolution of outstanding clarity. The push for reliable and affordable energy is on. No herd mentality here.
Question: Lang to Rep Carrie Barth: How did you become enlightened re climate misinformation? Was this gradual, and is there a single source that sped your learning? (See Barth’s two page submission to the Senate Local Government Committee.)
Answer: When door knocking last summer as a new candidate running for Kansas House of Representatives District 5, I met a constituent on her fourth-generation farm porch. She shared with me about what is going on in Southwest Douglas County, Kansas, that was affecting her and her neighbors with the Florida based energy company signing leases in the area for wind turbines.
Keep in mind, I live in SW Douglas County and this was the first time I was hearing about it. She shared with me concerns about her property rights, concerns about health, concerns about crops and livestock, concerns about wildlife, concerns about noise, and how she wants to keep this land for her kids and their kids. She spoke through tears as her way of life her family has worked hard for could permanently change if an industrial Commercial wind complex were approved in Douglas County.
I listened intently to her. She had done her research, she had been talking with her neighbors, and she shared with me highly unethical business practices the energy company was using where multiple individuals have completed affidavits that have already been filed with Douglas County and the Kansas Attorney General’s office. We ended the conversation with a hug and she asked me to help save our county and to do something about it. I left there knowing I had to help.
Through my education I’ve learned growing up, climate change has been around since the beginning of time regardless of the size of population as about every 100 years our climate shifts. So I started to dig in to learn more on why people decided to think differently. And I started to follow the money as the science and history is already there.
Not only is there wind trying to come into my county, we also have a 3,000 acre solar industrial complex trying to plop right in the middle of our agriculture zoned county that also bleeds into Johnson County, KS. I started reading a lot and talking with anyone that had experience in wind and solar energy. After I was elected where I beat an incumbent and took office January 2023, I started asking questions, reading our House Rules, and talking with anyone who would listen to me about the problem we have not only in Douglas County, but across our state.
I proposed a budget proviso during session that was an independent third-party study on the health and environmental effects of wind turbines, solar arrays, hydrogen hubs, and transmission lines. It would be the first study of its kind that I am aware of. It passed the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Budget Committee but failed the House Appropriations Committee with only eight votes in support of it.
When they say follow the money, it’s true! There were energy lobbyists everywhere during this time. I was told by a fellow legislator they believe 50-75 lobbyist were hired to combat my budget proviso. People from all over Kansas, Republicans and Democrats showed up at the Capitol for the Appropriation Committee Budget meeting in support of the proviso wearing red shirts filling the room to observe what was happening and hear what was said.
You might be wondering, why would the energy industry be so afraid of people finding out the results of an independent study? Doesn’t everyone want to know the truth? The energy lobbyist and their attorney, along with their hired expert, like to tell me and others that they don’t understand why we are worried about our health and environment. They say wind and solar are safe and effective and are low cost. Because of my budget proviso, I received emails and calls from people all over the state of Kansas telling me the issues they have.
Other states learned of my proviso and they reached out to me. I even connected with people from Canada and the issues are ALL THE SAME! The evidence and data is clear! This is why I believe the resolution passed by the GOP delegates 180-1 votes.
Question to Rep. Barth: “To what extent do you think this Kansas Republican decision can impact other US legislators?”
Answer: The Resolution states the GOP party will support candidates that support legislative intent aligned with this resolution. Which means our Federal Republican candidates and elected positions will be held to this same standard as our state elected officials at all levels, including county elected Republicans. I have even shared our Kansas GOP Energy Resolution with other states so that they can do the same.
Question to Dennis Hedke (Geophysicist and former House Chair of Energy and Environment)
What is your background so we can understand the evolution that led to this remarkable achievement for the Republicans in KS?
Answer: I have been studying the issues surrounding the blatant misguided policymaking related to Energy, then Climate, since the Carter presidency, just after graduating from the University of Virginia, School of Engineering & Applied Science, M.S. Diploma in Materials Science. I wrote Carter a letter, and of course got no response. I had graduated from Kansas State University with a B.S. in Geophysics before leaving for Charlottesville. I was born and raised in Manhattan, KS, and moved to Miami, FL, to take my first job out of college in the spring of 1979.
Ronald Reagan moved the needle in the Right direction for 8 years, but then we got Bill Clinton, and of course Al Gore, one of the biggest liars in world history. We have been paying for his misguided malfeasance ever since.
We moved to Texas for a job change for me, as Exploration Manager for a small independent oil and gas exploration company in 1999. I was seething while seeing the very bad things in the making regarding ‘Global Warming’. We returned to Kansas in 2003/4, where I joined another small independent, as Geophysical Manager.
Fast forward to 2009, and I found myself inside the Kansas Capitol, as an unpaid lobbyist, fighting to resist the Legislature’s temptation to foist upon Kansan’s, Renewable Energy Mandates. I (we) lost that fight, and I knew it was going to be a disaster for all kinds of reasons, policy-wise and every-otherwise. I had run for a seat on the State Board of Education in 2008, and narrowly lost because the outgoing Republican seat holder endorsed my Democrat opponent. I ran a very clean race, and people in the party noticed.
In 2010, Sam Brownback won the Governor’s race, and the District 99 Representative was called to be Brownback’s Insurance Commissioner, this creating a vacancy in the Kansas House, which I was appointed to fill on January 24th, 2011. I became the Chairman of the House Energy & Environment Committee January 2013, and held that position until I left office, after 3 terms, ostensibly June 2016.
I and many allies forged a battle against the mandates, and moved Kansas into ‘Voluntary’ discretion in creation of power delivery to Kansan’s, in April, 2015.
That’s my answer as to how some things got into motion between myself and Carrie. Six years after I left office, she was elected to her seat. She is a real Firebrand and is dedicated to helping Kansas get back on track with Energy Policy. She is a tireless worker, and I deeply appreciate what she has done already in her first year as a legislator.
She had heard about me, and she reached out to me for some advice and guidance.….which brings us to today.
Question: I think you mentioned a serious “error” that allowed the EPA to falsely label the innocent, trace atmospheric gas, CO2, into a pollutant. You are adamant that this decision resulted in the fact that:
(Hedke) Trillions of Dollars have been wasted, people in 3rd and 4th World countries have been deprived of the most fundamentally necessary power to turn on the lights and be released from poverty and join the rest of the civilized world.
Also: The Kansas Legislature, ruled by Republicans in the 2009 Session, made a serious error in forcing Power Companies to deliver Mandated Renewable Energy. This happened under the purported agreement to allow a single coal-fired power plant in Holcomb, KS to justifiably expand its deliverability of Electric Power to the Grid. Only, it didn’t happen. It didn’t happen because the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health & Environment, Rod Bremby, denied a Permit to expand the plant, due solely to politics related to ‘Global Warming’.”
The Resolution passed by the Republican Party of Kansas contains very specific language and intent to right the multitude of wrongs that Kansas Legislators conducted in 2009, and which served to spread the Mandate Mentality across America. It remains to be seen if the current body of Legislators will have the political will to hold the line, and in fact push back, where necessary and appropriate.
Question: A lot of readers will be wondering how you and Rep Barth achieved a 180-1 vote for this very clear resolution. Given that KS has a pro wind record of placing wind factories in the State, even with a Republican House and Senate, is there a catalyst for this resolution at this time and at this place? Was a lot of lobbying needed, or was this more evolutionary, organic in nature due to the fast paced media pieces on changing perspectives of “renewables and climate”?
Answer: Former Chair, Dennis Hedke:
I perceive much of the reason for the success was due to the fact that the Committee reviewing the Resolution is heavily conservative. They had to present it to the Republican Party Delegates, which are probably also more conservative leaning.
The Legislators, Carrie excluded, are a lot more squishy, caring more about holding on to their seats, than acting with resolve and principle.
There may be some renewed pressure on Legislators to resist the absolutely ridiculous reasons for being ‘green’. That remains to be seen. Many of them simply forget that “The Truth Will Set You Free”.
I forgot to answer your question about cost of electricity. My bills range from about .13/kwh to .14/kwh.
Prices have increased by about 55% since wind power has been replacing coal and natural gas, commencing around 2011.
Thank you for your interest. Dennis.
Thank you again Former Energy Chair Hedke, and Rep Carrie Barth.
Hertz backpedals on rush into EV rentals: CEO says repair costs can run “twice as high”
By Jo Nova | November 2, 2023
Hertz was aiming to make 25% of its fleet electric by 2024, but is finding 11% is too much. Given there are whole nations pushing for 100% EV by 2035 there seems to be a message here…
Let’s thank Hertz for doing that experiment for us. It turns out EV’s didn’t work well in the high mileage Uber-type system because the drivers “drove them into the ground” and repair costs were much higher than expected. So Hertz moved some EV’s to the leisure hire department, but then the revenue per day in the leisure sector fell. Presumably people didn’t want to hire them.
It’s not that this is Bad News week for EVs — it’s quarterly reporting week, so companies have to tell investors things they’d rather not.
Great nations don’t force citizens to buy heavier cars with shorter ranges and bigger repair bills in order to stop bad weather one hundred years from now.
Hertz is slowing down the roll out of EVs onto its fleets as the CEO cites higher than expected repair costs and price cuts.
The rental car company reported lower than expected margins in the third quarter of this year, citing EV repairs as one of the challenges.
“Collision and damage repairs on an EV can often run about twice that associated with a comparable combustion engine vehicle,” said Mr Scherr.
It all started out so well:
Andrew J Hawkins, The Verge
Rental car company Hertz once envisioned itself as the ultimate EV broker, doling out battery-powered vehicles to business travelers, ridehail drivers, and tech newbies in an ambitious plan to grease the wheels for the EV revolution. The company inked agreements with Tesla and Polestar to buy nearly 200,000 EVs. Tesla’s valuation topped $1 trillion on the news.
Part of the problem is linked to Hertz’s plans to rent EVs to ridehail drivers. Of the 100,000 Tesla acquired by Hertz, half were to be allocated to Uber drivers as part of a deal with the ridehail company. And drivers said they loved the Teslas! But Uber drivers also tend to drive their vehicles into the ground. This higher rate of utilization can lead to a lot of damage — certainly more than Hertz was anticipating.
Musk frequently says that electric cars require less maintenance than counterparts with internal combustion engines (including plug-in hybrid electrics). …
But electric vehicle owners can face unique maintenance needs, as well. Nikhil Naikal, CEO of Kinetic, a startup that is not affiliated with Hertz or Tesla but provides repairs for electric and autonomous vehicles, told CNBC on Thursday:
“The reality of electric vehicles is that they can be 1,000 pounds heavier or more than gas vehicles, and they move faster, with higher torque. Since they’re extremely zippy and heavier, it’s just physics — the ability to overcome inertia so quickly is going to effect their suspension systems, the brakes and steering columns. It’s counter-intuitive, but even with fewer moving parts they are susceptible to requiring more maintenance. They especially require tire-swapping, because the tires wear out more quickly from that high torque and weight.”
Next few years will determine future world order – Biden
Joe Biden speaks about his Bidenomics agenda on November 1, 2023. © ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP
RT | November 3, 2023
The world is at a crossroads and the next few years will determine its fate for several generations to come, US President Joe Biden has claimed. His prediction comes amid Washington’s standoff with Russia over Ukraine and his country’s increasingly strained relations with China.
Speaking ahead of a meeting with Chilean President Gabriel Boric on Thursday, Biden stated that “there comes a time, maybe every six to eight generations, where the world changes in a very short time.”
The US leader further claimed that “what happens in the next two, three years are going to determine what the world looks like for the next five or six decades.”
According to a White House readout of Biden’s meeting with Boric, the pair discussed issues of shared concern, including efforts to combat climate change.
Biden also spoke last month about the need for a “new world order,” suggesting that while the post-World War II system has functioned for decades, it has “sort of run out of steam.”
However, if Americans “are bold enough and have enough confidence in ourselves, [they will have an opportunity] to unite the world in ways that it never has been,” he insisted.
Commenting on Biden’s remarks at the time, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov described it as a rare moment when Moscow was in complete agreement with Washington. “The world indeed needs a new order, based on absolutely new principles,” he noted.
However, Peskov suggested that Biden meant building “a world [order] revolving around the US,” insisting that “this will not be anymore.” Russia has consistently called for a multilateral world order, with President Vladimir Putin accusing the West of “a colonial approach” and bending international rules to its will.
Last month, the Russian leader also stressed that “nobody has the right to control the world at the expense of others or in their name.”
Relations between Washington and Moscow have sunk to unprecedented lows due to the Ukraine conflict, with the US sending billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to Kiev and imposing tough sanctions on Russia.
Elsewhere, relations are tense between the US and China, most notably over Washington’s support for Taiwan. The two nations are also engaged in an intense economic rivalry. China has been promoting its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which seeks to develop international transport infrastructure and has been supported by more than 140 countries.
Biden has signaled that the US is working with G7 members to compete with China economically, claiming that the BRI has ended up being “a noose for most of the people who have signed on.”
Featured Video
Stanislav Krapivnik: Massive Escalation – Attack on Putin’s Residence
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Truth and Public Policy in the Digital Age
The Kevin Barrett-Chomsky Dispute in Historical Perspective – 10th part of the series “9/11 and the Zionist Question”
Prof. Tony Hall | American Herald Tribune | August 9, 2016
… In Among The Truthers Kay repeats the core idea of The Volunteer: A Canadian’s Secret Life in the Mossad. As Kay would have it, 9/11 confirms the role of Israel as the West’s primary bulwark against Islamic savagery. In making this case Kay repeats the assertion of Benjamin Netanyahu that 9/11 was good for Israel.
Kay asserts, “Following the attacks supporters of Israel spoke of a silver lining. The war against militant Islam suddenly was a global one. Now the whole world would see and understand the sort of nihilistic hatred that Israelis confront every day.” As Kay sees it, Jews are being enlisted en masse to serve as primary soldiers in a war of civilizations.
He writes, “The Jew was the perfect anti-Islamist, whose zeal and reliability was hard-wired into his political DNA thanks to six decades of Israeli warfare against Islamic terrorists in the Middle East.” … Read full article
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Bill Francis on Did Netanyahu just ask Trump f… Rod on How Intelligence, Politics, an… papasha408 on Trump Says Hamas Will Be Given… papasha408 on Is Israel About to Return to G… Bill Francis on NSW Premier Admits New “Securi… Richard Ong on Israeli forces arrest writer a… Bill Francis on How reporting facts can now la… loongtip on Europe’s Panic Economy: Frozen… Gemma on Israel’s diamond industr… Bill Francis on Victoria Moves to Force Online… papasha408 on The Empire of Lies: How the BB… loongtip on US Weighs Port Restrictions on…
Aletho News- Did Netanyahu just ask Trump for another war — and get it?
- As Israel bans aid orgs in Gaza, notorious mercenary firm seeks “Targeter”
- The Bari Weiss Playbook: How a Zionist Operative Conquered American Media
- How Intelligence, Politics, and Foreign Interests Shaped America’s Religious Movements
- Welcome To 2026: Europe Laying Groundwork For Climate Science Censorship!
- The new German totalitarianism
- Stanislav Krapivnik: Massive Escalation – Attack on Putin’s Residence
- Gaza races to preserve what remains of its 5,000-year-old archaeological legacy
- Dayton At 30: US Betrayal Old And New
- UNRWA head slams ‘outrageous’ Israeli law to cut water, energy to agency’s facilities
- If Americans Knew
- Tikvah Fund Secures $10.4M Grant From Trump, Pushes for Censorship to Advance Zionism
- Did Netanyahu just ask Trump for another war — and get it?
- Israel suspends operations of multiple humanitarian organizations in Gaza, including Doctors Without Borders
- Cold kills another Palestinian baby in Gaza as Israel continues to block shelter aid
- AIPAC Is Retreating From Endorsements and Election Spending. It Won’t Give Up Its Influence.
- Gaza health officials report outbreaks of water-borne illnesses, flu – Not a ceasefire Day 82
- TCN Warns – “ISRAEL FIRST: U.S. May Attack Iran Again”
- Hamas calls on Israel to allow impartial investigation into 7 October attacks
- Indiegogo Withholds $51K In Donations From MintPress in Financial Censorship Crackdown
- Gaza races to preserve what remains of its 5,000-year-old archaeological legacy
- No Tricks Zone
- Welcome To 2026: Europe Laying Groundwork For Climate Science Censorship!
- New Study Finds A Higher Rate Of Global Warming From 1899-1940 Than From 1983-2024
- Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue Warns “Germany Won’t Make It” If Winter Turns Severe
- Merry Christmas Everybody!
- Two More New Studies Show The Southern Ocean And Antarctica Were Warmer In The 1970s
- Der Spiegel Caught Making Up Reports About Conservative America (Again)
- New Study: 8000 Years Ago Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
Aletho News 