Biden Administration Should Probably Reverse Course on Pausing LNG Approvals for Climate Reasons, But It is Unlikely to Matter as Enough LNG Has Been Approved

 

     The recent Biden administration announcement to slow approvals of LNG projects over climate impact concerns is probably unnecessary and should probably be reversed. Net impacts of these projects will be less greenhouse gas emissions as LNG replaces coal in the places where it is exported. Climate activists, including those in the Biden administration like John Podesta, encouraged the slowdown and cheered the decision. This is another political nod to the minority climate activist left and validates Joe Manchin’s assertions that Biden is kowtowing to the far left. As Manchin indicates, he would be better off politically giving such nods to the moderates who are more likely to vote for his opponent rather than the leftists who would more likely not vote at all or vote for a third party. While the slowdown is likely to be temporary, it is not necessary. Delaying is the next best thing to banning for radical environmentalists. It likely won't matter as the roughly 27 BCF/day of approved capacity is apparently not part of the pause as I now understand it. That essentially means that the pause will have little if any affect on LNG going forward. 

     The emissions of these LNG projects, while considerable, are far less than those of the coal plants they are helping to replace. This is true of the air pollution and water pollution impacts as well. U.S. natural gas, particularly from the Haynesville Shale and the Appalachian Shales is among the lowest emissions upstream natural gas in the world, and midstream emissions reductions are catching up. These projects also help the American economy by balancing trade in our favor and putting Americans to work.

     The biggest impact could be to the Calcasieu Pass 2 (CP2) LNG project on the Louisiana Gulf Coast which is hoped to export up to 20 million tons of LNG and is the largest proposed project to date. These projects are needed to supply natural gas to Europe, Asia, and South America. Delaying them would simply allow other countries like Qatar to fill the void later when they can.

     According to CNN: “Shaylyn Hynes, a spokesperson for CP2’s owner Venture Global, said the reported plans from the Biden administration would “create uncertainty about whether our allies can rely on US LNG for their energy security” and would “shock the global energy market.” Also, CNN: “That decision would be one we would get behind; these LNG export projects have been rubber stamped up to this point,” said Mahyar Sorour, the director of beyond fossil fuels policy at the Sierra Club. “We’re encouraged.” Thus, we have yet another situation where American companies are unnecessarily harmed, radical environmental groups are unnecessarily appeased, and the environment and the climate would suffer net negative impacts. These projects already must meet stringent emissions requirements, and many are going further than the requirements, throughout the upstream to downstream life cycle.

Less LNG Exports Mean More Coal Exports

     The coal impacts are not only coming from Asia but from the U.S. as well. Reuters reported that during the first eight months of 2023 thermal coal, the kind used in power plants, exports from the U.S. increased to 22.5 million tonnes through August, up from 18.3 million in the same period in 2022. According to Reuters: “In percentage terms, the increase in U.S. exports was the largest among all major thermal coal exporters, surpassing even the 15.7% expansion seen from top coal exporter Indonesia.”

“The strong gains in U.S. coal exports contrast with the declines seen in domestic coal use for power generation, with U.S. coal-fired power production down over 50% since 2010 as part of efforts to reduce national fossil-fuel emissions.”

 Thus, this delay is potentially allowing us to produce and export more coal to be burned for power instead of LNG. This is kind of insane. These environmentalists are apparently not good at math. The answer in terms of emissions reductions is a “no-brainer:” strongly support the development of LNG exports to replace coal as soon as possible instead of increasing coal production and exporting to be burned instead of the much cleaner LNG. This delay simply does not make sense. Now, there are environmental issues with LNG in the U.S. The facilities being built along the Gulf Coast are impacting the local areas and the integrity of the coastline. It would have been better to pipeline more to the U.S. East Coast for export, but public and environmental oppositions make such projects unlikely. Once again these environmentalists have their priorities upside down, blocking cleaner natural gas and supporting dirtier coal. They have done this in so many ways, so many times, costing American companies many billions of dollars in unnecessary litigation, delay, and uncertainty, and unnecessarily increasing carbon emissions and pollutants. In fact, one might argue that these radical environmentalists are a major cause of unnecessary carbon emissions and pollution. This is just another round of that.

     The EIA reports that U.S. coal exports are now accounting for a larger share of the shrinking U.S. coal market. Of course, it is also more emissions-intense to export coal than to burn it here. EIA notes: “We expect that the U.S. electric power sector will consume 73% of U.S. coal in 2024 and 70% in 2025, down from 79% in 2019. In 2019, the U.S. electric power sector consumed 539 MMst of coal, while exports totaled 94 MMst.” These totals also include metallurgical coal but the increases reflect thermal coal as metallurgical coal exports have remained constant

 

 

     If the Biden administration wanted to halt something harmful it should have halted the many tens of millions going to UNRWA in Gaza that was funding Hamas to buy, build, and smuggle weapons and to prepare for and execute their brutal October 7 massacre. Granted, they also provide food and aid to Gazans, so it is perhaps understandable in that sense, but it has long been known that this particular UN group was complicit with the terrorist group.

  

Addendum: Feb, 3, 2024. 

     According to Hart Energy's Gas & Midstream Weekly 32BCF/day of U.S. LNG Export Capacity has been approved but not yet built. They also note that of all the projects in the pipeline to 2030, only 5BCF is being paused by the Biden Administration. Thus, it seems as if this will not be as big a problem as it originally seemed since it is thought that some of the planned LNG projects in the later 2020s may not end up being built anyway. That means that about 27BCF/day has been approved, which would more than triple the current capacity. The amount affected by the pause, 5BCF/day, is just 15.6% of that 32 BCF in planning. (I wonder if that is an error since the graph below shows about 17BCF/day FID'd and/or approved along with the 5% unapproved, and the 32BCF total existing capacity. That would mean 29.4 % of planned capacity was under the pause. Even so, 17BCF/day of additional capacity may be enough.) I am doubtful that even all the approved capacity will be built. Thus, it appears the pause is not nearly as bad as it first appeared to be.

Source: Hart Energy Gas & Midstream Weekly Newsletter

 

References:

 

Biden administration considers overhaul of natural gas export approval process, throwing major Gulf projects into question. Ella Nilsen. January 24, 2024. CNN. Biden administration considers overhaul of natural gas export approval process, throwing major Gulf projects into question (msn.com)

 

US thermal coal exports jump to 5-year highs on Asian demand: Maguire. Gavin Maguire. Reuters. September 26, 2023. US thermal coal exports jump to 5-year highs on Asian demand: Maguire | Reuters

 

U.S. coal exports account for larger share of a shrinking market. Energy Information Administration. January 29, 2024. U.S. coal exports account for larger share of a shrinking market - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Hart Energy Gas & Midstream Weekly Newsletter. February 1, 2024. 

Single-Use Plastic Bag Bans: Pros, Cons, and Effectiveness (Mostly of Replacing Single-Use Polyethylene with Multiple-Use Polypropylene)

     I acquire a lot of single-use polyethylene plastic bags through shopping but each one gets used to bag up used cat litter, which is then landfilled. Thus, in my case, they are used at least twice unless they have holes. The town where I do most of my shopping recently banned these plastic bags so, now I am collecting lots of paper bags. I did obtain by mail some more permanent bags and have been using them. I have to remember to bring them and/or keep some in my car. I am not sure if they are woven or non-woven, but I am guessing woven. I plan to reuse the hell out of them. I’m rather neutral on the subject of whether plastic bags should be banned or not, but I lean towards not banning them. Thus, I thought I would read some articles from internet sources and see what the experts and others say.

     Fox News recently reported on the backfiring of plastic bag bans in New Jersey. The report was based on research by Freedonia Custom Research (FCR), a business research division for MarketResearch.com. Fredonia Group, an affiliate, reported that the “shift from plastic film to alternative bags resulted in a nearly 3x increase in plastic consumption for bags, which is not widely recycled.” The study included market research and interviews. While this particular study may not be relevant and repeatable in other places, the findings are rather disturbing. Thus, I will quote Freedonia Group’s summary of the conclusions of the study:

 

“In 2022, following implementation of the New Jersey bag ban, total bag volumes declined by more than 60% to 894 million bags. However, the study also shows, following New Jersey’s ban of single-use bags, the shift from plastic film to alternative bags resulted in a nearly 3x increase in plastic consumption for bags. At the same time, 6x more woven and non-woven polypropylene plastic was consumed to produce the reusable bags sold to consumers as an alternative. Most of these alternative bags are made with non-woven polypropylene, which is not widely recycled in the United States and does not typically contain any post-consumer recycled materials. This shift in material also resulted in a notable environmental impact, with the increased consumption of polypropylene bags contributing to a 500% increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to non-woven polypropylene bag production in 2015. Notably, non-woven polypropylene, NWPP, the dominant alternative bag material, consumes over 15 times more plastic and generates more than five times the amount of GHG emissions during production per bag than polyethylene plastic bags.”

 

“The study also found that New Jersey retailers faced significant changes in their front-end business operations due to the bag ban. No longer permitted to provide complimentary single-use plastic or paper bags, retailers are offering alternative bags for sale to fill the void. Simultaneously, consumers are rapidly transitioning to grocery pickup and delivery services, which typically requires the use of new alternative bags for every transaction. As a result, alternative bag sales grew exponentially, and the shift in bag materials has proven profitable for retailers. An in-depth cost analysis evaluating New Jersey grocery retailers reveals a typical store can profit $200,000 per store location from alternative bag sales – for one major retailer this amounts to an estimated $42 million in profit across all its bag sales in NJ.”

 

“Despite retailers finding a compelling business case for selling alternative bags at a profit, the increased plastic consumption and GHG emissions generated during alternative bag production hamper retailers’ ability to promote alternative polypropylene bags. FCR’s analysis of New Jersey bag demand and trade data for alternative bags finds that, on average, an alternative bag is reused only two to three times before being discarded, falling short of the recommended reuse rates necessary to mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions generated during production and address climate change.”

 

To summarize, in this case, more plastic is being produced and consumed, the stores are profiting, and more greenhouse gases are being emitted. While I will reuse my bags quite a lot (way more than the 2-3 times mentioned in the study), I will still use single-use bags where they are available in other places I shop. That is perhaps the one variable that can change the results the most. If anything near these results occurs in the very liberal city (an outlier urban enclave in a very conservative mostly rural region) where I shop, then the goal here will surely backfire as well. Last I heard the city was being challenged by the state, who does not want cities to be able to ban.

 

     Alternatively, there are many other groups, studies, and websites that say these bans work, including the ban in New Jersey. Environment America reports that: “Bans in five states and cities that cover more than 12 million people combined – New Jersey; Vermont; Philadelphia; Portland, Ore.; and Santa Barbara, Calif. – have cut single-use plastic bag consumption by about 6 billion bags per year. That’s enough bags to circle the earth 42 times.” “Adopting a ban on single-use plastic bags that’s similar to those policies could be expected to eliminate roughly 300 single-use plastic bags per person per year, on average.” If it is true that a person uses 300 single-use bags a year and if it is also true that they use the more permanent bags just 3 times on average then that would equate to about 100 bags per year of the heavier polypropylene bags. I currently have about 15 or 20 of these bags but I also use paper bags when I forget. I am guessing that I will get through most or all of a year with the 15-20 bags, but others will likely not. They may rip or get dirty or perhaps even unsanitary if they carry a lot of food. For instance I spilled blueberries in one yesterday. Environment America, along with US PIRG Education Fund and Frontier Group produced a short paper: Plastic Bag Bans Work which points out that such bans do result in less pollution where they are enacted. I am sure this is true since the lightweight bags are easily carried away by the wind while the heavier bags (with more actual plastic in them) are not. Thus, less local litter is a given. I have been doing Adopt-A-Highway for the past 25 years so I would probably appreciate that, although where I do it is not that near the ban area. The study then goes on to acknowledge that thicker reusable (polyethylene?) plastic bags do result in more plastic bag waste by weight in a study from California. The picture below shows a plastic bag that looks like any other plastic bag but is apparently thicker and says on it that it is reusable. It looks like this bag would blow away in the wind pretty easily as well.

 

Source: Plastic Bag Bans Work. Environment America, US PIRG Education Fund, Frontier Group.

The study also notes that while paper bags are recyclable, people tend to use new ones every time they shop, which means more waste to deal with for landfills and recycling facilities. They recommend a paper bag fee. They note that Vermont’s 10 cents per bag fee resulted in a 3.6% increase in paper bag use but a similar 10-cent fee in Mountain View, California resulted in a 67% decline in customers using a paper bag. Thus, the post-ban data can vary quite significantly, and the jury is still out on whether the bag bans work overall. If local plastic waste reduction is the main goal, then they probably work well, but if other factors are considered such as overall plastic production and consumption, and greenhouse gases, then it would appear that they do not work at all.

     In summary it seems that the benefits of such single-use plastic bag bans are less litter and visible plastic pollution in the local area of the ban and the downsides of such bans are more are pollution from more polypropylene plastic production, perhaps more pollution from increased paper bag production, and increased greenhouse gases. Essentially, the bag bans are a tradeoff with uncertain net benefits and net risks but no great benefits and probably no great risks compared to no bans   

 

References:

Blue state’s bag ban meant to protect environment backfires at staggering rate: study. Emma Colton. Fox News. January 24, 2024.  Blue state’s bag ban meant to protect environment backfires at staggering rate: study (msn.com)

Freedonia Report Finds New Jersey Single-Use Bag Ban Boosts Alternative Bag Production, Increases Plastic Consumption, and Drives Retailer Profits. Kristen Pieffer. January 9, 2024. Freedonia Report Finds New Jersey Single-Use Bag Ban Boosts Alternative Bag Production, Increases Plastic Consumption, and Drives Retailer Profits - The Freedonia Group

Plastic Bag Bans Work: Well-designed single-use plastic bag bans reduce waste and litter. Environment America. U.S. PIRG Education Fund. Frontier Group. January 2024. Plastic Bag Bans Work (publicinterestnetwork.org)

 

Climate Models Still Have Significant Uncertainties: Atmospheric Moisture in Dry Regions Defies Modeling

 

     My goal with this post is not to refute the validity of climate change modeling, but to highlight that there are still significant uncertainties about modeling assumptions that can affect predictions. Computer-based modeling has worked and continues to work very well in science. While climate, as a global system with many variables, does lend itself well to modeling, there are so many variables, locally, regionally, and globally, that there are also many model assumptions made. Model accuracy is dependent on the accuracy of those model assumptions. Climate models in general have gotten better through time.

Source: Wikipedia

     Most climate models are quantitative. One type of global climate model is a general circulation model (GCM) that mathematically models the circulation of the atmosphere or the ocean. “It uses the Navier–Stokes equations on a rotating sphere with thermodynamic terms for various energy sources (radiation, latent heat).” The GCM acronym can also stand for global climate model, which is a more general use of it. GCMs usually refer to ocean circulation (OGCM), atmospheric circulation (AGCM), or a coupled model with both (AOGCM). According to Wikipedia: “AOGCMs internalise as many processes as are sufficiently understood. However, they are still under development and significant uncertainties remain. They may be coupled to models of other processes in Earth system models, such as the carbon cycle, so as to better model feedbacks. Most recent simulations show "plausible" agreement with the measured temperature anomalies over the past 150 years, when driven by observed changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols. Agreement improves by including both natural and anthropogenic forcings.” The effects of clouds in modeling are one of the main areas of uncertainty and debate. More recent climate models have matched observed cloud data as well.

 

Source: Wikipedia

 

Some Model Predictions of Past Warming Events Refuted by Data

 

     In 2020 a paper came out in Nature Climate Change where researchers from the University of Michigan concluded that model projections from one of the leading models, CESM2, are not supported by the geological evidence from the Eocene, approximately 50 million years ago. According to Science Daily: “the CESM2 model projected Early Eocene land temperatures exceeding 55 degrees Celsius (131 F) in the tropics, which is much higher than the temperature tolerance of plant photosynthesis -- conflicting with the fossil evidence. On average across the globe, the model projected surface temperatures at least 6 C (11 F) warmer than estimates based on geological evidence.” The fossil evidence showed abundant tropical rainforest plant material. The implication is that those models are too sensitive to increase in atmospheric CO2 which is why they predict too much warming. The study focused on how geological data can benchmark paleoclimate models. The CESM2 model has a very high equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 5.3 degrees Celsius, which is higher than the typical range given between 1.5 degrees Celsius and 4.5 degrees Celsius. The predecessor to the CESM2, the CESM1 used an ECS of 4.2 degrees Celsius, which is plausible according to the geological data, while still being at the higher end of the typical sensitivity range. Of course, this doesn’t refute all climate models, but it does show that it is very unlikely that climate sensitivity is higher than the normal (1.5-4.5) range given. The CESM2 model is part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), is an internationally coordinated effort between climate-science institutions. Of 27 CMIP models, 10, or 37% have an ECS above 4.5 degrees Celsius, or beyond the normal range given. CO2 predictions for the Eocene long predate ice cores and are thus determined by proxies but the geological and botanical evidence does suggest a sensitivity range well below that predicted by the CESM2 model or any of the 10 models above the top of the normal range given.

 

Source: High climate sensitivity in CMIP6 model not supported by paleoclimate. Jiang Zhu, Christopher J. Poulsen & Bette L. Otto-Bliesner. Nature Climate Change volume 10, pages 378–379 (2020). High climate sensitivity in CMIP6 model not supported by paleoclimate | Nature Climate Change

Climate Skeptics Have Long Dissed Climate Modeling as Inaccurate

    

     Skeptical climate scientist Patrick Michaels, considered to be a “lukewarmer,” or one who thinks that climate change is not as bad as often predicted, wrote in a 2019 Washington Examiner article that climate models are a great failure. He cited the “pause” in the satellite data of the upper levels of the lower atmosphere by conservative evangelical climate scientists John Christy and Roy Spencer as well as the failure of some of the early climate models that over estimated future temperature increases. While those are fair assertions, even in the 4.5 years since then, climate models continue to be refined and are now considered more accurate. Christy and Spencer’s predictions have been revised downward a bit but still do not match the higher warming observed in both surface data and ocean temperature data. Michaels noted that Christy’s data showed that heating predicted by models was 3 times what was observed in satellite data. Michaels wrote: “This is a critical error. Getting the tropical climate right is essential to understanding climate worldwide. Most of the atmospheric moisture originates in the tropical ocean, and the difference between surface and upper atmospheric temperature determines how much of the moisture rises into the atmosphere. That’s important. Most of Earth’s agriculture is dependent upon the transfer of moisture from the tropics to temperate regions.” Michaels also claimed that ocean surface temperatures from buoys were adjusted upward to match those of ship water intakes which are more susceptible to heating in the sun, which led to overestimated heating. I am unsure if this is true, and I admit I am a bit skeptical that this is the case. Michaels also claimed that a second adjustment occurred in the Arctic Ocean where there are few weather stations, so that the temperatures were adjusted to match those of land stations in the Arctic. He notes that temperatures over the Arctic Ocean are colder than those on land since as is well known there is ice in the Arctic Ocean even in summer. Again, I am unsure how much this would affect projections and I wonder why other climate scientists have not echoed such concerns if they are indeed warranted. It is also known that Arctic temperatures everywhere have risen much faster than in other parts of the world. Michaels also claimed that adjustments of early data to lower temperatures as was done means that temperatures through time could be seen as warming faster than otherwise may be the case. Michaels also noted that sea level rise was not accelerating as much as predicted in models and that instrument shelters were not standardized so that those in poorer tropical countries heating is overestimated. I admit I don’t know of Michaels’ assertions are true, have been taken into consideration, have been considered, rejected, or accepted. He thinks Christy’s data is the best data we have. Is he right? I don’t know, but I do know that most climate scientists consider the IPCC’s estimations reasonable. Michaels wrote a book called Scientocracy around this time. I have not read it but I am guessing that he believes science, particularly climate science, has become politicized. 

 

 

 

Atmospheric Moisture in Dry Regions Defies Modeling

   Research led by the National Science Foundation published in late 2023 has revealed that predictions for increasing atmospheric moisture in arid areas were not matching climate models. The study shows that the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, which suggests that there should be more water vapor in a warmer atmosphere, has not held true in arid and semi-arid areas. Dry and semi-dry areas have been getting drier rather than wetter, as climate models have predicted, leading to more susceptibility to droughts and wildfires. The study measured atmospheric water vapor amounts from 1980 to 2020 from weather stations, weather balloons, and satellites. The Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, well regarded in climate science, suggests that with every 1°C rise in temperature, atmospheric moisture should increase by about 7%. That has not been the case in arid and semi-arid areas with many having no change in moisture and some losing moisture through time. According to the paper’s authors: "This is contrary to all climate model simulations in which it rises at a rate close to theoretical expectations, even over dry regions. Given close links between water vapor and wildfire, ecosystem functioning, and temperature extremes, this issue must be resolved in order to provide credible climate projections for dry and semi-arid regions of the world." That is pretty stark evidence that climate modeling is still subject to considerable uncertainties. The data also showed that while atmospheric moisture did increase in wetter areas it did so less in the drier months of those regions. The data suggests that atmospheric moisture dynamics are not as well understood as previously thought. Discrepancies were too consistent across regions to attribute them to measurement errors. Possible explanations suggest that the transfer of moisture from the earth to the atmosphere is not occurring as modeling suggests, that atmospheric circulation may not be occurring as modeling suggests, or that the earth is retaining more moisture than expected. In all of those suggestions is the implication that modeling is not matching real data. The findings underscore the complexity of the global climate system. The researchers also noted: "But we absolutely need to figure out what's going wrong because the situation is not what we expected and could have very serious implications for the future." According to the paper. Published in PNAS: “This may indicate a major model misrepresentation of hydroclimate-related processes; models increase water vapor to satisfy the increased atmospheric demand, while this has not happened in reality.” The research calculated dew point temperatures and average mean vapor pressure data to arrive at their conclusions as shown in the figures below from the paper.

 

 

Modeling Climate Misinformation (But Is It All Misinformation?)

 

     This section is more of an aside, but it also involves modeling. According to a 2021 study in Nature Scientific Reports, summarized in an article in Forbes, that attempted to model climate change denialism, researchers expected to find science myths as the main issue but that turned out not to be the case. What they found was that climate change denial has morphed mainly into climate change solutions denial. According to Forbes’ analysis of the research: “Looking at climate-related content from 33 prominent climate contrarian blogs and 20 conservative think-tanks produced between 1998 and 2020, the team began by sorting the climate claims into brackets. “They ultimately came up with five major themes of climate misinformation, namely: 1) Global warming is not happening; 2) Human-produced greenhouse gases are not causing global warming; 3) Climate impacts are not bad; 4) Climate solutions won’t work; and 5) Climate science or scientists are unreliable.” As the graph below from the paper shows number 4 is the most prominent, followed by number 5. Even so, it can be argued that the feeling that climate solutions won’t work is not always misinformation. This is due to the fact that ensuring reliable electricity and reliable transport with existing low carbon solutions is not at all guaranteed to work. It is often more expensive and more difficult than existing higher carbon solutions. Thus, I would argue that this study has some potential flaws that should be considered.  Apparently, the study did not consider some versions of climate alarmism as a kind of misinformation as well, which can be reasonably argued.  

     Michaels and other skeptics like Roger Pielke Jr. and Bjorn Lomborg have noted that the IPCC has pointed out that extreme weather events have not been as frequent or severe as predicted even though the media emphasis on such events may make it seem otherwise. Again, I am not saying we should believe climate skeptics over mainstream climate scientists, but we should expect mainstream climate scientists to be able to explain discrepancies and modeling irregularities when they are pointed out. There is no question that climate science has become politicized, and it should be in the interest of all climate scientists, both mainstream and skeptical, to reduce such politicization as much as possible and to honor real data over modeled data as any scientist should.   

 

 

    

 

References:

Weather in dry regions isn't behaving as climate models predict. Eric Ralls. Earth. January 20, 2024. Weather in dry regions isn't behaving as climate models predict (msn.com)

5 Big Lies About Climate Change, And How Researchers Trained A Machine To Spot Them. David Vetter. Forbes. November 19, 2021. 5 Big Lies About Climate Change, And How Researchers Trained A Machine To Spot Them (forbes.com)

Some of the latest climate models provide unrealistically high projections of future warming. University of Michigan, April 30. 2020. Science Daily. Some of the latest climate models provide unrealistically high projections of future warming | ScienceDaily

High climate sensitivity in CMIP6 model not supported by paleoclimate. Jiang Zhu, Christopher J. Poulsen & Bette L. Otto-Bliesner. Nature Climate Change volume 10, pages 378–379 (2020). High climate sensitivity in CMIP6 model not supported by paleoclimate | Nature Climate Change

The great failure of the climate models. Patrick Michaels. Washington Examiner. August 25. 2019. The great failure of the climate models - Washington Examiner

Climate model. Wikipedia. Climate model - Wikipedia

General circulation model. Wikipedia. General circulation model - Wikipedia

Observed humidity trends in dry regions contradict climate models. Isla R. Simpson, Karen A. McKinnon, Daniel Kennedy,, and Richard Seager. Edited by Sonia I. Seneviratne, Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule, Zurich, Switzerland; PNAS. received February 12, 2023; accepted November 13, 2023. December 26, 2023. 121 (1) e2302480120. Observed humidity trends in dry regions contradict climate models | PNAS

 

Two New Interesting Carbon-Based Micro-Electronics Developments: Memristors from Coal Feedstock and the New Graphene Chip

 

Amorphous Carbon Nanomembranes from Coal-Based Carbon Dots

     Coal is the feedstock for new atom-thick high-purity materials that can significantly improve the performance of micro-electronics. More specifically, they can improve the performance of tiny transistors known as memristors. In the process, coal char is converted into nanoscale disks known as “carbon dots,” which are used to create membranes used in two-dimensional transistors and memristors. Research by the NREL has shown these memristors to deliver superior performance. “These atomically thin carbon dots form the foundation for creating membranes essential in advanced electronic technologies, notably two-dimensional transistors and memristors, crucial components for the next generation of microelectronics.” These ultra-thin carbon layers act as insulators for ultra-thin semi-conductors. Experiments with the new carbon dots have revealed more than doubled processing speed, energy savings/increased efficiency, and low leakage. The Abstract of the paper in Nature Communications Engineering summarized the new research: “These atomically thin amorphous carbon films are mechanically strong with modulus of 400 ± 100 GPa and demonstrate robust dielectric properties with high dielectric strength above 20 MV cm−1 and low leakage current density below 10−4 A cm−2 through a scaled thickness of three-atomic layers. They can be implemented as solution-deposited ultrathin gate dielectrics in transistors or ion-transport media in memristors, enabling exceptional device performance and spatiotemporal uniformity.”

     Another potential benefit is better data storage reliability for AI processes. The NREL researchers are working with the company Taiwan Semiconductor to develop these two-dimensional devices. NREL described the implications of the research as follows: “Memristor computer memory will enable machine learning and artificial intelligence by making data storage and processing devices smaller, faster, and more energy efficient. The memory devices made by the team reduce energy consumption by 5-20-fold over conventional memristors and overcome device variation issues that have plagued the field.” The unique atomic arrangement of the carbon atoms in the materials is what makes the devices perform so well.

     I won’t pretend to understand the chemistry, or the electronics involved in this research but below is an image from the paper that shows “coal-derived carbon dot precursors,” and another that shows “application of quasi-2D amorphous carbon bilayers as the switching media in memristors to enable small cycle-to-cycle variability.”

 

 

 

 

Memristors

 

     According to Wikipedia: “A memristor (a portmanteau of memory resistor) is a non-linear two-terminal electrical component relating electric charge and magnetic flux linkage. It was described and named in 1971 by Leon Chua, completing a theoretical quartet of fundamental electrical components which also comprises the resistor, capacitor and inductor.” The concept was later expanded to the idea of memristive systems, or circuits. While the idea is still considered experimental and scale-up into real-world applications remains a hurdle, there is much interest and effort: “Memristors remain a laboratory curiosity, as yet made in insufficient numbers to gain any commercial applications. Despite this lack of mass availability, according to Allied Market Research the memristor market was worth $3.2 million in 2015 and was at the time projected to be worth $79.0 million by 2022. In fact, it was worth $190.0 million in 2022.”

 

“A potential application of memristors is in analog memories for superconducting quantum computers.”

 

     In the September 2023 issue of Science magazine, Chinese researchers “described the development and testing of a memristor-based integrated circuit, designed to dramatically increase the speed and efficiency of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence tasks, optimized for Edge Computing applications.” They noted that memristor-based technology has the potential to overcome the so-called “von Neumann bottleneck” which impedes conventional computing architecture. This is described as “on-chip”" learning for certain applications. This technology has the potential to streamline the training of neural networks.

 

 

 

Georgia Tech’s Graphene Chip May Enable Graphene Electronics

 

    Researchers at Georgia Tech have created the world’s first functioning graphene-based semiconductor chip. This may be the first breakthrough that paves the way for a post-silicon era in semiconductors. Specifically, the researchers were able to create a bandgap in graphene to make it function as a semiconductor. The bandgap allows the graphene chip to be turned on and off like silicon chips. The researchers were able to grow graphene on silicon carbide wafers, creating what is known as epitaxial graphene. Graphene has 10 times the electron mobility, or conductivity of silicon and is very durable. The discovery should enable much faster computing speeds. Growing graphene under high temperatures enabled the graphene to develop semiconductor properties. Like the atom-thick carbon dots mentioned in the above section, epitaxial graphene is considered to be a two-dimensional semiconductor.  Lead researcher Walt de Heer noted: “One main aspect of graphene electronics is that we can utilize the quantum-mechanical wave properties of the electrons and [electron] holes which are not accessible in silicon electronics.” The new research opens the door to graphene electronics, which may one day replace silicon electronics as it replaced vacuum tubes. It also has the potential to enable advanced quantum computing devices.

     The crystal structure of graphene is chemically bonded to silicon carbide (SiC) and has been dubbed semiconducting epitaxial graphene (SEC), or epigraphene. The SiC is heated to over 1000 degrees Celsius, which causes the silicon to evaporate and the carbon to form graphene. The heating is done in an argon quartz tube with a copper coil through induction. De Heer also noted: “The chips we use cost about [US] $10, the crucible about $1, and the quartz tube about $10.” Thus far, this seems to be the most significant method to introduce the needed bandgap into graphene electronics. This bandgap has long been the main difficult-to-overcome hurdle to enable graphene electronics. Other approaches have been unsatisfactory. According to an article in IEEE Spectrum: “Our research is distinct from these other approaches because we have produced large areas of semiconducting SEC on defect-free, atomically flat SiC terraces,” says de Heer. “SiC is a highly developed, readily available electronic material that is fully compatible with conventional microelectronics processing methods.” The researchers do note, however, that it will take time to develop these techniques further, to incorporate graphene-based electronics with silicon-based electronics, and to eventually develop graphene electronics that can replace silicon electronics. One way being researched to integrate SEC with conventional electronics is coating SEC with boron nitride. The figures below are from the recent paper in Nature. 

 

 

 

References:

New study discovers coal's unexpected role in next-gen microelectronics. Abdul-Rahman Oladimeji Bello, Interesting Engineering. January 5, 2024. New study discovers coal's unexpected role in next-gen microelectronics (msn.com)

Ultrathin quasi-2D amorphous carbon dielectric prepared from solution precursor for nanoelectronics. Fufei An, Congjun Wang, Viet Hung Pham, Albina Borisevich, Jiangchao Qian, Kaijun Yin, Saran Pidaparthy, Brian Robinson, Ang-Sheng Chou, Junseok Lee, Jennifer Weidman, Sittichai Natesakhawat, Han Wang, André Schleife, Jian-Min Zuo, Christopher Matranga & Qing Cao. Communications Engineering volume 2, Article number: 93. December 20, 2023. Ultrathin quasi-2D amorphous carbon dielectric prepared from solution precursor for nanoelectronics | Communications Engineering (nature.com)

Coal-derived Carbon Material Improves Performance and Efficiency of Computer Microelectronic Devices. National Energy Technology Laboratory. December 20, 2023. Coal-derived Carbon Material Improves Performance and Efficiency of Computer Microelectronic Devices | netl.doe.gov

Georgia Tech's Groundbreaking Graphene Chip Could Herald a New Era in Electronics. Ethan Brown. Trendy Digests. January 22, 2024. Georgia Tech's Groundbreaking Graphene Chip Could Herald a New Era in Electronics (msn.com)

Memristor. Wikipedia. Memristor - Wikipedia

Edge learning using a fully integrated neuro-inspired memristor chip. Wenbin Zhang, Peng Yao, Bin Gao, Qi Liu, Dong Wu, Qintian Zhang, Yuankun Li, Qi Qin, Jiaming Li, and Huaqiang Wu. Science. September 14, 2023. Vol 381, Issue 6663. pp. 1205-1211. Edge learning using a fully integrated neuro-inspired memristor chip | Science

Ultrahigh-mobility semiconducting epitaxial graphene on silicon carbide. Jian Zhao, Peixuan Ji, Yaqi Li, Rui Li, Kaimin Zhang, Hao Tian, Kaicheng Yu, Boyue Bian, Luzhen Hao, Xue Xiao, Will Griffin, Noel Dudeck, Ramiro Moro, Lei Ma & Walt A. de Heer. Nature. volume 625, pages60–65 (2024). Ultrahigh-mobility semiconducting epitaxial graphene on silicon carbide | Nature

Researchers Claim First Functioning Graphene-Based Chip The semiconductor bests silicon alternatives for electron mobility. Dexter Johnson. IEEE Spectrum. January 18, 2024. Researchers Claim First Functioning Graphene-Based Chip - IEEE Spectrum

STEP Demo Supercritical CO2 (sCO2) Brayton Cycle Project Continues to Progress: When Will This Tech Finally Be Operating Commercially Through NET Power’s Allam Cycle Projects and Other sCO2 Power Cycle Projects?

     In my 2022 book, Natural Gas and Decarbonization, I wrote that the first deployment of a 300MW Allam Cycle (a subset of the Brayton Cycle) Natural Gas plant would begin in 2022 and full commercialization was likely in the mid-2020s. We are getting close to the mid-2020s so perhaps we should see where the schedule is now for commercialization. It looks like I “jumped the gun” a bit as according to NET Power’s website, the first announcement of a commercial Allam Cycle plant was in November 2022, and it was expected to be in operation in 2026 – still mid-2020s but only one. However, NET Power recently offered a 12-month cushion due to supply chain issues, so 2027 or even early 2028 are now being considered. Several other projects have been announced. Thus, the tech should grow throughout the late 2020s to full scaling-up commercialization around 2030. Admittedly, this is a few years behind schedule and does not bode very well for decarbonization schedules. Time delays in such projects, perhaps should be mentioned as a reason to continue replacing coal plants with conventional combined-cycle natural gas plants as clearly the best method to decarbonize in the near term. The site for the first plant is near Odesa, Texas, hosted by Occidental Petroleum within their Permian Basin operations. Currently, front-end engineering design (FEED) and engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) are being implemented. NET Power was capitalized by a SPAC in mid-2023, merging with Rice Acquisition Corporation II. They note that they were very well-capitalized, which allows them to endure these delays without loss of capital. Such loss of capital through time delays has doomed several other first-of-a-kind projects. The NET Power oxyfuel combustion sCO2 natural gas power plant projects are without a doubt one of the most important CCUS project types on the planet.

     The Supercritical Transformational Electric Power (STEP) Demo project in San Antonio is testing several different sCO2 power cycle configurations and developing knowledge about operation and wear-and tear, parts and equipment testing, and developing supply chains for parts and equipment. NET Power has also been developing strategic supplier agreements for equipment. In December 2023 they announced such an agreement with Lummus Technology to design and supply recuperative heat exchangers (HXRs). “The HXR recovers energy from the turboexpander exhaust and air separation unit to reheat recirculated CO2, making it one of the most important equipment components in the NET Power Cycle.” The NET Power Allam Cycle is shown below:

 

 

 

 

The STEP Demo and sCO2 Power Cycles

 

     The STEP Demonstration facility in San Antonio, Texas, for sCO2 power cycle technologies began in 2018 as a collaboration between industry, government, academia, and research institutes. It is a good model for a public-private partnership. One of those partners, Gas Technology Institute (GTI), reported a new milestone in January 2024:  “An industry “first” was achieved with the initial hot-fire closed loop operation of the 10-megawatt (MWe) Supercritical Transformational Electric Power (STEP) Demo test facility in San Antonio, Texas, which fired the 93 MW heater and spun the turbine up to 18,000 rpm for the first time.” “System commissioning tests for the initial 5 MWe Simple Cycle configuration will continue to progress towards full power over the next couple of months by increasing operating temperatures and ramping up turbine speed to 27,000 rpm.”

     Supercritical CO2 (sCO2) power cycles offer increased efficiency over the steam cycles often used in combined cycle plants. They also provide high purity carbon capture, especially with the oxyfuel combustion in Allam Cycle plants which utilizes oxygen. Another benefit is much smaller turbine size and much smaller total plant footprint. Much lower water use compared to traditional fossil fuel plants is also a significant advantage. Turbine exhaust, concentrated solar, biomass firing, geothermal, and nuclear can all be sources of heat for sCO2 power cycles. It can basically use any heat source for heat recovery. It is also being developed for shipboard propulsion. Add in the emissions reductions advantages and the expected competitive costs with traditional fossil plants when full scale-up occurs and you now have a very desirable power plant system type which can have many applications.

STEP Demo: Revolutionizing Future Power Generation on Vimeo

 

 

References:

 

Major Power Industry First Demonstrated by STEP Demo Project. Gas Technology Institute. January 19, 2024. Major Power Industry First Demonstrated by STEP Demo Project • GTI Energy

 

NET Power Announces its First Utility-Scale Clean Energy Power Plant Integrated with CO2 Sequestration. NET Power. November 7, 2022. NET Power Announces its First Utility-Scale Clean Energy Power Plant Integrated with CO2 Sequestration | NET Power

 

NET Power Selects Zachry Group to Build Its First Utility-Scale Clean Power Plant. NET Power. April 11, 2023. NET Power Selects Zachry Group to Build Its First Utility-Scale Clean Power Plant | NET Power

 

NET Power Reports Third Quarter 2023 Results and Provides Business Update. NET Power. November 14, 2023.  NET Power Reports Third Quarter 2023 Results and Provides Business Update | NET Power

 

 NET Power and Lummus Sign Strategic Supplier Agreement for Heat Transfer Equipment. NET Power. December 6, 2023. NET Power and Lummus Sign Strategic Supplier Agreement for Heat Transfer Equipment | NET Power

 

A STEP closer to transformational electric power. STEP Demo. 2024. STEP Demo: High-efficiency power generation pilot program • GTI Energy

 

 

 

 

 

Advantages and Disadvantages of Electricity Aggregation: Is it Good or Not and Can We Really Know?

The Woes of Electricity Deregulation (according to me)

     I’m pretty sure I don’t care much for deregulated electricity as I live in a state where energy and electricity are deregulated. One reason I don’t like it is that I don’t really want to spend effort and time negotiating a rate. I mean, I don’t have to negotiate my water rates, my gas rates, my trash rates, my sewage rates, my grocery rates etc., so why should I have to negotiate my energy rates? I am a penny pincher these days, but I don’t want to spend all my time on such things. Another reason I don’t like energy deregulation is the constant annoying advertising. This advertising and solicitation take several forms: junk mail, phone calls, texts, and those people at my local Walmart who basically harass you while you are shopping. I’m surprised that they allow that last one. A third reason is that I know some of the failures of deregulation that have occurred in the past such as reduced power line maintenance that has led to things like blackouts and in more recent times, powerline-induced wildfires.  

     I don’t want to have to sign-up every year since I don’t want to forget and get locked into much higher rates accidentally. People have complained about such things occurring. Opting in and opting out are a kind of “nudging.” While I am not always against what has also been called “libertarian nudging” in general, it needs to be for something more worthwhile than just rate negotiation. However, I may not be opposed to having others do the negotiating on my behalf, as is done in aggregation.

 

 

What is Aggregation?

 

     According to the Canadian site energyrates.ca: “The definition of energy aggregation is when a group of local institutions, small businesses or companies partner together in order to purchase energy from one or more developers at smaller volumes while still benefitting from the economic advantages of high volume power purchases. Many small companies sign virtual power purchase agreements (VPPAs) through electricity aggregators.” The goal of aggregation is to force competition to lower prices. Simply put, it is bulk buying, which offers some advantages including lower per-unit costs, fewer shopping trips, potentially saving you time and fuel expenses, cost control, flexibility, and environmental responsibility. This buying as a collective is a kind of “collective bargaining.” The last time I voted local electricity aggregation was on the ballot. I voted for it since I thought it would offer lower electricity rates. I felt this was important since our rates just went up nearly 30%, a huge increase. The aggregation was defeated. I live in a Republican stronghold county that went for Trump 78% to 22% for Biden. Perhaps anything associated with collective bargaining will be unpopular here.

 

 

 

Pros and Cons of Electricity Aggregation  

 

     Whether electricity or energy aggregation is a net good or a net not good depends mostly on comparative negotiation. In some cases, individuals can negotiate lower rates than groups (aggregators). This varies on a case-by-case basis. A utility is an aggregator as well. However, individuals can sometimes negotiate lower rates than utilities. Those who are wary of aggregation note that bulk buying of energy, in contrast to bulk buying of goods, does not always offer better pricing for the consumer. Aggregators that require exclusivity, require upfront costs, claim best rates, and claim transparency, may not offer the best deal for consumers. Energy.ca offers the following pros and cons of aggregation:

“The benefits of energy aggregation:

Greater buying power and greater access to large projects and options suited to individual needs.

Reduced energy pricing.

Lowered transaction costs.

Partnering with other companies in investing in a portfolio of energy projects limits exposure to risk.

The risks of energy aggregation:

Matching supply with demand – project developers often want to sell the full output from their project rather than just a portion.

Smaller buyers have a less attractive credit rating as compared to larger organizations – some developers will attach a risk premium when selling to smaller buyers.

Coordination meeting the needs and requirements of every involved small business.”

     Aggregators can share legal and transaction costs among multiple buyers, attract larger deals with multiple buyers, share best practices, and allow smaller power buyers (individuals) to participate.

     According to Infolific, the advantages of aggregation are an easy enrollment process, potential for savings, and certainty, or predictability. The disadvantages they highlight are average-based rates (you may end up paying more depending on your usage), sign-in required (opt-in/out clauses), and one is locked into an agreement for a specific amount of time.

 

 

What About Community Choice Aggregation?

     Community choice aggregation (CCA), or municipal aggregation, involves local governments that “procure power on behalf of their residents, businesses, and municipal accounts from an alternative supplier while still receiving transmission and distribution service from their existing utility provider.” The CCA model for aggregation has specific requirements. CCAs are popular for clean energy procurement. While they can negotiate lower rates, they can have disadvantages as well, including pushback from the utilities with which they compete, administrative costs, regulatory complexity, and confusion for customers of opt-in and opt-out clauses.

     In my 2021 book, Sensible Decarbonization, I was critical of green energy CCAs, CCAs that focus specifically on green energy procurement. Most CCAs are not green CCAs. While green CCAs can use some of the purchasing powers of CCAs to offset the higher costs of clean energy, that does not really benefit those consumers who opt-in, who often still pay more. Green CCAs buy and sell lots of renewable energy credits (RECs). Green CCAs are good for those who wish to make claims about renewable energy that are really just hype, such as when a city claims it is powered by 100% renewable energy because it buys RECs, when in fact it is powered mostly by fossil energy and just purchases renewable energy elsewhere through RECs. It is a kind of “greenwashing.”

     Municipalities have financing advantages over utilities. They can borrow at lower rates using tax-exempt bonds and loans with better terms. However, critics have argued that municipalities already have significant debt and taking on more debt is risky. Consultants, employees, renewable energy companies, and public officials can profit at the expense of taxpayers. In my book I was considering whether green CCAs were actually a kind of (unintentional) scam: “It is also important to note that even though CCAs tout cheaper rates, there is no guarantee, and over a long time period are more likely to be more expensive than power straight from utilities and if so they cannot get out of their long-term power purchase commitments. Another risk is that if too many customers opt out, which they will if costs go up too fast, then their ability to provide value for remaining customers is diminished. Other potential issues are market risk (energy markets are volatile), regulatory risk (new fees approved by utility commissions could be added), interagency conflict (CCAs often include several cities and people with sometimes competing interests), political risk (CCA’s leverage subsidized energy against non-subsidized energy which can upend energy markets), added budget pressures (high startup costs, staff time, pressuring organizations to buy power at higher prices), lack of public accountability and oversight showing taxpayer costs, and lack of energy industry experience in procuring power compared to utilities. Some think that when local utilities simply offer consumers renewable energy options the CCAs will fade away. Another argument is that local governments should not be in the electricity business and their considerable investment in that business should not compete with other services. Future generations are being burdened with unnecessary debt.”

 

     As for me, I still might still consider opting into an aggregation plan in hopes of saving money, but I acknowledge it could be risky, and I would definitely avoid a green CCA. Basically, these days I am more inclined to just stay with the utility rates and hope for the best.

 

 

References:

 

The Pros and Cons of Energy Aggregation. Mario Alexander. Infolific. The Pros and Cons of Energy Aggregation | Infolific

What is Energy Aggregation, How it Works and Pros & Cons. Energy Rates.ca. What is Energy Aggregation, How it Works, Pros & Cons – EnergyRates.ca

The Electrical Aggregation Pros and Cons Ultimate Guide. Tad Dziemian. Electrical Aggregation Pros and Cons — Neighborhood Energy (neighborhoodenergyne.com)

CUB’s Guide to Municipal Electricity Aggregation, in Citizens Utility Board (Illinois) https://www.citizensutilityboard.org/electric_municipalaggregation/

Riley, Kim, 2019. Consider Pros, Cons of Choosing Community Choice Aggregation to Source Local Electricity. Daily Energy Insider. https://dailyenergyinsider.com/featured/19691-consider-pros-cons-of-choosing-community-choice-aggregation-to-source-local-electricity/

Lack, Wendy, March 27, 2017. A Bad Idea that Only Gets Worse: “Community Choice” Electricity; Risks Outweigh Benefits of “Community Choice” Electricity. Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers. https://www.allianceofcontracostataxpayers.com/blog/2017/3/27/a-bad-idea-that-only-gets-worse-community-choice-electricity

Sensible Decarbonization: Regulation, Risk, and Relative Benefits in Different Approaches to Energy Use, Climate Policy, and Environmental Impact. Kent C. Stewart. Amazon Publishing, 2021.