California Grid Operator Anticipates High Demand June 2016

Subtitle: Heat Wave in Late June to Test Grid due to Gas Shortage

The first heat wave of the season is upon us here in Sunny Southern California, home of Southern California Edison, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and San Diego Gas and Electric, three of the major electric utilities in the area.   The California electrical grid is operated by the Independent System Operator, ISO or CAISO as it is also known.  ISO issued a stern warning letter yesterday, June 17, which is copied below.  

The context for the concern is that California has inadequate natural gas storage presently, but also has a large percentage of natural-gas fired power plants.  There are also two nuclear reactors (2200 MWe at max), geothermal, wind, solar, hydroelectric, and imported power available from the northwest states.   On a good day in the summer, renewables combine to produce approximately 180,000 MWh or 30 percent of total demand.   Thursday, June 16, 2016 was such a day.   

The natural gas storage facility at Aliso Canyon (near Los Angeles) suffered a major leak that was stopped and repaired in the past few months. see link  However, authorities will not allow the reservoir to be filled again until assurance is provided that another leak will not occur.  The result is a heat wave in which high electric demand will occur, natural gas fired power plants need gas to run, and a shortage of natural gas exists.   Therefore, the plea went out for all consumers to conserve.   

------------ Letter from ISO begins --------------------------
"June 17, 2016


The ISO is preparing for state heat wave to ensure grid reliability; 
Flex Alert for voluntary electricity conservation likely to be issued next week

With record-setting heat expected in Southern California early next week, the California Independent System Operator (ISO) is preparing for potential stress on the electricity system and may issue a Flex Alert asking consumers to conserve energy to help prevent rotating power outages.

Electricity demand is expected to rise during the unseasonable heat wave on Monday and Tuesday, June 20 and 21, with forecasted system-wide energy use expected to exceed 46,000 megawatts. That total is slightly lower than the system peak demand last year of 47,358 megawatts. The all-time record peak of 50,270 megawatts was set in July 2006.

"We are confident we have a strong plan in place to meet the operational challenges posed by the upcoming hot temperatures," said ISO CEO and President Steve Berberich. "Conservation efforts by consumers are key to reducing stress on the system and to help avoid service disruptions."

The ISO is working with Southern California Gas Company, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, utilities, and the state's energy agencies to mitigate any potential reliability issues related to the limited operations of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility. The coordination and planning underway is critical to averting or minimizing power outages. Click here to view the ISO's Aliso Canyon Summer Preparedness Plan.

If conditions don't ease, the ISO is prepared to issue a Flex Alert for Southern California for Monday, calling on consumers to conserve energy. Another Flex Alert calling for statewide conservation may be necessary on Tuesday, as triple-digit temperatures are expected in many areas of the state.

Flex Alerts urge consumers to turn off all unnecessary lights, use major appliances only after 9 p.m., and set air conditioners to 78 degrees or higher. Consumers taking these steps can help prevent more serious power grid emergencies, including electricity outages.

Notifications that a Flex Alert has been called will be sent via the ISO's mobile app "ISO Today," posted to www.flexalert.org, the ISO's website at www.caiso.com; on Twitter @California_ISO; and on Facebook.

Click here to find out more about Flex Alert and to sign up for email and text notifications.


When a Flex Alert is called take three simple actions:

• Set thermostat at 78° or higher and turn off, if away

• Cool with fans and draw drapes

• Turn off unnecessary lights and appliances

• Use major appliances in morning or late evening


Flex Alerts

The California ISO issues a Flex Alert when the grid is under stress to meet demand from generation or transmission outages, or from persistent hot temperatures.

Flex Alerts call for voluntary conservation before the ISO needs to start using energy reserves to maintain reliability. Conservation helps ease demand to avoid taking further steps to balance supply and demand, such as, in the extreme, local power interruptions."
-----------------  (end of ISO message) --------------

Commentary

The state has had heat waves before.  In mid-September of 2012 there were two consecutive days of 100-degrees in Los Angeles.  The same occurred in 2010, where the second day reached 110 degrees F.   In 2009, 100-degrees occurred on one day in April, four consecutive days in August, and two consecutive days in September.  In 2008, the same 100-degree heat occurred in the last day of September and first of October.  In 2007, it was the first two days of September.  

A voluntary demand reduction program exists, in which some consumers turn off their non-essential power uses in exchange for slightly reduced power prices.  Typically, government offices close during such times.   The wisdom of this strategy is dubious, as workers then go home and turn on their air conditioners.   Perhaps the thinking is that the workers will be trapped in traffic and cannot make it to their homes to turn on the air conditioners.   Instead, they sit idling for hours in vehicles that burn gasoline.  

There are, in fact, a few more coping strategies that many of us use during such heat waves and power emergencies.   First, it is useful to drape a quilt or blanket over the closed blinds at windows and glass doors.  The quilt serves as insulation to block heat flow into the house.  Second, it is useful to freeze plastic jugs of water in advance in the freezer compartment of a refrigerator, or a separate freezer.    The plastic jugs of ice are then placed in shallow pans in a room, where they serve to chill the air.   A small portable fan can be used to circulate the chilled air.  

For those that want to follow the electrical grid status, here is the link to the California ISO website.  The graph shows present demand, projected demand and past demand for a 24-hour period.  see link. 

Update 1:  6/19/2016:  Downtown Los Angeles did not reach 100 deg F today, the peak was 96 degrees at 1:47 pm local.  Not much of a heat wave compared to the past decade (see above).

Second point, yes, as some readers pointed out, counting to four is not a strength at the CAISO in writing their advisories.   Their letter (in its entirety above) states there are "three simple actions" to take when a Flex Alert is issued, then lists four things.   Three, four, what difference does it make.   The grid is stressed and consumer conservation is a big help, indeed necessary. 

Third point, a Flex Alert has been issued for Monday June 20, for Southern California.   A second Flex Alert has been issued for Tuesday for the entire state.    --   end update 1. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

US Monthly Power Generation Capacity Factors

Subtitle:  EIA Shows Actual Capacity Factors

A part of the ongoing debate over renewable energy vs coal, nuclear, and natural gas-based energy has to do with capacity factors.   The wind, and solar detractors (one is tempted to call them ignorant, but one refrains) constantly complain that wind has a capacity factor of only 20 percent, and solar is even worse at 25 percent.   The math behind those observations is just staggering.  

Despite having actual data from reputable, objective sources that show the true state of

Source: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=14611#

affairs, the anti-renewable crowd continue to push the false figures.   The chart shows actual monthly capacity factors for several forms of electric power generation in the US over a recent few years 2011-2013.  Data is from the US Energy Information Agency, EIA.   see link    The EIA writes that capacity factor is "the ratio of a fleet's actual generation to its maximum potential generation."  Here, "fleet" is the combined set of power generation plants that have identical fuel. 

Several things are apparent from the chart.   First, in direct contradiction to the nuclear cheerleaders who constantly claim that nuclear "runs at 100 percent baseload," it is quite clear that the top line, the nuclear power capacity factors, never reaches 100 percent but oscillates between 79 percent and the mid-90s.  

Second, coal-powered plants also do not run "at 100 percent baseload" as their cheerleaders insist, but oscillate between approximately 50 to 70 percent.  Both coal and natural gas combined-cycle plants increase output in each summer due to the greater electric loads from air conditioning.  

Third, the blue line for hydroelectric averages about 40 percent with peaks in the Spring, corresponding to snowmelt and rainfall.  

Fourth, and quite importantly, the green line for wind shows maximum capacity factor of 40 percent (April of 2011 and 2013) and 39 percent three times in late 2011 and early 2012.   Wind capacity factor is at a minimum of 21 percent in the summer for each year.   As I have stated before, the wind energy capacity factors are approximately the same as for hydroelectric in many months.   What is not shown here is the actual electricity delivered in MWh.  In recent months (end of 2015), wind power produced the same MWh as did hydroelectric power.   The average capacity factor for wind in the US is 34 percent. 

Fifth and last, the bottom (gold color) line for combustion turbines is for those plants that are used for peaking power.  As expected, such turbines run most often in the hottest months of July and August.  Their capacity factors average approximately 3 to 4 percent, with peaks of 10 to 11 percent.   

None of this is surprising to those of us who are knowledgeable in matters of power grids, generation technologies, and the relative merits of renewables and legacy power plants.   This is entirely consistent with what we have known for decades.   What is surprising to me is the lack of knowledge of those who write such strong opinions, those who apparently dream up their facts without any basis in reality.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Hinkley Point C Nuclear Plant with Yet More Troubles

Subtitle:  Reactor Design In Question - Finances a Fiasco

The proposed nuclear plant at UK's Hinkley Point C has had substantial issues with approval as written about earlier on SLB (see here and here).  The plant is to consist of two reactors of 1600 MWe each of the EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) design.  An EPR inludes a single reactor with four steam generator loops.   Such EPR projects are having serious schedule and cost overrun issues at Flamanville, France and Olkiluoto, Finland.  Another is to startup soon in China.   From a recent article in The Guardian (UK), titled "EDF’s top managers tell MPs that Hinkley Point should be postponed - Senior figures at French energy company declare in letter that delay is needed until issues including reactor design are solved"   see link: 

"Outstanding problems highlighted by the senior managers at EDF include:

Areva NP, the designer of the European pressurised reactor (EPR) planned for Somerset (Hinkley Point), “is currently facing a difficult situation”.

The French nuclear safety authority (ASN) may not give the green light to the EPR being constructed at Flamanville in north-west France due to various anomalies (falsified inspection reports).

There may be “identical flaws” in an Areva EPR being built at Taishan 1 in China.

The scandal over falsification of parts from Areva’s Le Creusot (the steel supplier) that potentially put safety checks at risk.

Multibillion-euro litigation between Areva and the Finnish energy group TVO over delays to an EPR scheme at Olkiluoto remains unsettled.

An EDF offer to purchase Areva expired on 31 March, leaving “governance uncertainties upon the implementation of the Hinkley Point C project”.

Commentary

The nuclear cheerleaders are loud and emphatic about the new generation of plants being economic and safe, and of course they claim they will last for 60 (some say 80!) years.  One must wonder, though, why such economic and safe plants (they say) have such horrible records of construction, why the very steel in the reactors themselves are not sufficiently strong to meet the safety standards, and now why there is so much opposition to the financing of yet another EPR, this one in the UK.  

To review: Olkiluoto is years behind schedule, and billions of Euros over budget.  Flamanville also is years behind schedule, billions of Euros over budget, and the reactor steel is alleged to be too weak to be safe (that is the "identical flaws" in the Guardian article above).  The steel safety issue is still under investigation.  The problem is that some of the molecules that are used to increase the alloy's strength did not remain properly dispersed in the thick steel, but congregated into clumps where they actually weaken the steel.   That is a serious and very expensive problem that will likely kill the project because casting a new reactor blank, then forging and finishing will cost far too much and take far too long.   

The French financial fiasco is in addition to the French steel strength saga.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

US Electricity Generating Plant Costs - 2013

Subtitle: Wind and Natural Gas Form an Unbeatable Combination

Figure 1.  http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/

A report from US Energy Information Agency, EIA, provides the average installed cost of new electrical power generating plants in 2013, grouped by type of fuel or energy input where no fuel is consumed.  The capacity installed is also shown in the length of the blue bars.  See chart, Figure 1.  A few things are notable on this chart, especially what is not shown.  No data are present for nuclear power, and none for coal 
power.  No nuclear plants started up in 2013, and coal power plants are on the decline as they are closing, not opening.   Also, Figure 1 shows the types of fuel or energy input in decreasing order of capacity installed.   

Figure 2.   Nuclear cost based on AP-1000 under construction at Vogtle
chart by R. Sowell 

A different version of the chart, using the same data but including the US cost to build nuclear, is shown as Figure 2.  This shows the different fuel, or motive energy type, in order by increasing cost per kW.   

An interesting result from Figure 2 is the combined cost of wind power, $1895 plus natural gas power, $965.  The total is $2,860 per kW, less than one-third the cost of nuclear power at $9,000 per kW.    The net operating cost of the combination, wind plus natural gas, is also quite interesting.  With natural gas at approximately $2 per million Btu, and the combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) technology, fuel costs amount to approximately $0.012 per kWh.  Or, $12 per MWh for those who prefer

Figure 3.   Updated costs for 2015 per EIA
Wind, Solar, and Natural Gas much lower than in 2013

that unit of measurement.   The wind, of course, costs nothing per kWh, although there are small operating costs for labor and parts.  If one takes the case of 33 percent wind and 67 percent natural gas for the power provided from the two forms, the average cost of fuel then is only two-thirds of $12 per MWh, or $8 per MWh.   That provides a fuel bill for generation that is far less than from a nuclear power plant.  The total installed cost, as above, is less than one-third that of a nuclear plant.  Even if one accounts for wind power providing approximately 33 percent output on average compared to the nameplate capacity, the combined cost remains at one-third less than nuclear.  The best benefits, though, are no danger of nuclear radiation, and the combined plants easily follow the grid load.   There is also a substantial reduction in cooling water used.  

UPDATE 7/23/2017:  Added Fig. 3 with updated costs for 2015 for various power generation types.  Note the continued decline in costs to construct.  Data from same source, EIA.   - end update

Nuclear proponents, or cheerleaders as they are known here at SLB, will try to point out that nuclear plants last for 60 years.  They do not, however, as the world data clearly shows.   The nuclear plants are shut down at or barely over the 40 year age.   

The natural gas plants last 40 years with proper maintenance and care, and wind power plants last about 20 to 25 years before requiring major repairs.  Even with wind turbines rebuilt to like-new condition after 20 years, the cost per kW is steadily declining and the total cost over 40 years is still far below that of nuclear plants. 

The future is quite clear: coal plants are shutting down, nuclear plants are shutting down as uneconomic, while natural gas and wind are being built in great quantities.   

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved. 

UK Coal Power Dwindling Rapidly

Subtitle: Zero Coal Power on Several Days

It appears that other coal-burning countries also have dwindling demand for coal for power generation, in this case the UK is reported to have reached several days with zero power produced from coal.   

"... last month a historic “zero coal” milestone was reached when on seven separate occasions in one week Britain was powered without any coal-power station burning. As a consequence imports of coal to the UK are plummeting."  -- FT.com article from 5 June 2016, "UK ports look beyond fading coal imports"  see link

How very interesting.   It is now cheaper to import and burn biomass (wood pellets, from what I read) than to install pollution controls on the coal-burning power plants.  

The US is still burning coal for power generation; how much longer is uncertain.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved. 

The Case Against Carbon Dioxide - Fatal Flaws

Subtitle:  Alarmism Is Unfounded Due to Ignored Causal Effects

The oft-stated belief among the alarmist climate science community (the IPCC and others) is that natural sources and sinks of carbon dioxide, CO2, are constant (or close enough to constant as to not matter), but the formation of CO2 by mankind's burning of fossil fuels over the past century is a serious, calamity-inducing problem. 

Support for the above proposition can be found at numerous locations, below are just a few.

"According to leading climate scientists from around the world, anthropogenic climate change (that caused by humans) is a significant and growing problem that must be addressed in order to avoid the worst effects.  Climate change is the result of various GHGs that are emitted into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), which have a heat forcing effect on the atmosphere.  Sharp rises of GHGs over the last century and a half have led to higher overall worldwide temperatures, reduced snowpack in the higher elevations, greater fluctuations of temperature and precipitation, global sea level rise and more frequent and severe extreme weather events, including hurricanes, heatwaves and droughts."  -- California Air Resources Board website summarizing the state's Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32).   

"Over the past century, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The majority of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuels to produce energy, although deforestation, industrial processes, and some agricultural practices also emit gases into the atmosphere.


"Greenhouse gases act like a blanket around Earth, trapping energy in the atmosphere and causing it to warm. This phenomenon is called the greenhouse effect and is natural and necessary to support life on Earth. However, the buildup of greenhouse gases can change Earth's climate and result in dangerous effects to human health and welfare and to ecosystems."  -- US EPA website on Climate Change

What then, does a seasoned, experienced chemical engineer make of the above?  The first thing one sees is that the standard practices of good basic science, and by extension good engineering practice, do not support the above conclusions that a) the atmosphere is warming, b) CO2 is causing the warming, and c) future events will be catastrophic if no action is taken to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions from man's activities. 

This post addresses a part of the issue, the question of how much, if any, the atmosphere has warmed in the past 100 years, more or less.   A part of this discussion was already

Fig 1: Land atmospheric temperature Anomalies,
(figure 3-1-1, IPCC AR4, global extent)

published on SLB, in November 2015 as "Cities and UHI Warming Corrupt Temperature Databases."  see link    (note, UHI is Urban Heat Island, in which cities are warmer than surrounding low-population areas)

From that article, "the key point: cities will have energy consumption and heat rejection issues no matter what type of system produces that energy.  Considering for the moment electricity use, even if a city were all-electric for heating, cooling, cooking, and transportation, and even if that electricity were produced by zero-carbon-dioxide power plants (see below), the UHI would exist.  In essence, a building has no idea what produced the electricity that heats (or cools) the building, runs the lights and elevators, and heats the hot water.  An electric car, or bus, or delivery truck, or train, also has no idea what produced the electricity that each of those consumes.   Therefore, even if all the electricity is from a zero-carbon-dioxide source, the cities would still have UHI and would corrupt the climate scientists' data.   Such zero-carbon-dioxide sources include, but are not limited to, hydroelectric, wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, wave, tidal, ocean current, ocean temperature-difference, water pressure recapture, river mouth osmosis, and river current.   There are also carbon-neutral sources: landfill methane, cattle operation methane, Municipal solid waste (MSW), human waste sludge, plant-based ethanol, and other bio-fuels."

The issue is, then, what steps are properly taken in a scientific study, and were those steps followed in reaching the alarming conclusions of catastrophic global warming from above?

The four essential steps are:

1.  Obtain valid experimental data, or collect existing data records if past history is part of the data

2.  Determine causal factor(s) for the data via proper analysis

3.  Develop a model based on the causal factor(s), test and validate the model, and

4.  Predict future outcomes with the model, and check accuracy of predictions.

As support for the above, the chemical engineers' society in the US, AIChE, has this regarding models: 

"Modeling is the art of simplification of complex physics underlying the chemical (and physical) processes to account for observed phenomena and make falsifiable predictions."  -- note, "and physical" added by the author.  

Now to more detailed analysis of cities, towns, pristine areas, and the temperatures measured there over the decades from approximately 1900 until 2015.   

It is abundantly clear that no human influences on temperatures measured near ground level approximately 5 feet above grade, have existed or do exist in pristine locations.   Human influences occur where people change their environment, as for example cooking, heating or cooling a house, lighting living space, using electricity to run various motors, using gasoline or diesel fuel to power engines in cars, trucks, and machinery.   Where one solitary house is built on a large farm, there would be such activities and the house would radiate away the heat.   We know that, over a long period, all of the heat input in the house is lost to the environment; to believe otherwise would require the house to continually increase in temperature.  Clearly, that does not occur.  

It is also clear that, prior to the widespread use of electricity, farming communities consumed fuel as wood, oil, kerosene, coal, and diesel as the opportunity occurred along with the need.    The Rural Electrification Administration brought electricity to farmers during the 1930s and 1940s.  

What is also known, as the UHI article above referenced states, is that two effects exist in cities that create urban warming without any influence from man-made CO2.  The first of the two effects is more buildings in a small area, with the buildings each having a constant energy consumption over time.   The second effect is the buildings each consuming more energy over time.   It is clear that cities have grown since 1900, as almost all cities are larger in population and land area now compared to then.   It is also clear that the energy consumption per capita has also grown.  Using electricity data for the US, only 80 billion kWh of electricity were produced nation-wide in 1930.  Eighty-five years later in 2015, the amount has increased by 50 times, to 4,000 billion kWh.   The corresponding population growth was from 122 million (1930 Census) to 309 million (2010 Census), a factor of only 2.5.  In addition, petroleum use greatly increased in the same period.  

Yet, alarmist climate scientists include cities in their data for showing the Earth has increased in average temperature.   That fact is not in dispute, as it is certain that temperatures measured in cities show a warming trend.  The dispute is, and should always be, whether increases in atmospheric CO2 caused any of the measured warming.  In cities, clearly there are at least two, and probably three or more causes of increased temperature in addition to any warming from CO2.   The first two causes having just been discussed, more buildings in a small area, and more energy consumption per building or per capita, the third cause is now discussed.

The third cause of long-term temperature increase is an increase in local humidity, as measured by either absolute humidity or relative humidity.   In some regions, this effect will not occur since the regions have been very humid for centuries.  Such regions occur in the US in the deep South, in Florida, along the mid-Atlantic, and a few others.   However, the dry western states and southwestern states certainly show the effect of local humidity increase.   

The humidity effect has long been known, even to pre-teens and teen-aged children who spend time outdoors overnight, perhaps camping with various organizations.  When camping overnight in humid areas (as I did on a monthly basis for several years near Houston, Texas with a well-known organization), one did not worry about getting too cold at night in the Spring, Summer, and early Fall.   High relative humidity kept the air fairly warm.  But, when camping in dry regions of west Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, it was much colder at night in the same seasons.   The lack of humidity allowed heat to easily radiate to space through the atmosphere, and the early morning temperature would be quite cool and even cold.  

The effect on long-term temperatures in cities is obvious, as homeowners built houses with lawns that required watering, and cooling systems using water evaporative coolers were installed.  Even commercial chilling systems for buildings and industries used cooling towers that sent out clouds of water vapor into the skies.   Electric power plants with cooling towers, and industries such as refineries and chemical plants with cooling towers also contribute water vapor to the skies in and near cities.  

Yet a fourth cause of a heating trend is now discussed.  This, too, occurs in the dry desert regions.  It is well-known that rain in the desert, and semi-arid regions, causes the atmosphere to cool.  Therefore, the effect of prolonged drought on long-term temperature measurements must be considered.   One effective way to measure long-term drought in the western US is to consider the annual water flow through the Colorado River, that flows through Lake Powell and Lake Mead.   The long-term, at least over the past century, has been a decrease in annual flow of approximately 10 percent since 1905 (per USGS).   It is also noted that droughts also occurred recently in non-Western states, in particular Texas.

There are, therefore, at least four causes of measured warming in addition to the warming (if any) caused by CO2 in the atmosphere.  As discussed above, these four include more buildings (or population) in cities, more energy per capita in cities, increased humidity in arid and semi-arid regions, and natural droughts in various regions.  

As stated above in the four points of valid science and good engineering practice, we require good experimental data and proper causal factor identification.  Where multiple causes are known to exist, it is error to include data points in the database.  Clearly, cities have many if not all of the four causes of increased warming discussed above, and must be excluded from any valid climate change database.  

It is entirely inappropriate to adjust the temperatures in cities to account for known UHI influences of city growth, energy per capita growth, relative humidity increase, and increased drought.   The proper treatment is exclusion from the data set.  

UPDATE - 5 June 2016:  Other non-CO2 factors also exist, in addition to the four discussed above.   Three additional effects are discussed below: aerosols, measurement siting, and wind shadows.  The effect of atmospheric soot, fine ash, and aerosols above a city impact the temperature measurements.  Also, the location of the temperature measuring equipment impacts the temperature trend over time.  Finally, buildings that deflect wind above or away from the temperature measurement site creates issues. 

Cities in the 20th century had serious air quality problems due to uncontrolled burning of wood, coal, and heating oil.  The smoke and soot from such fires are legendary and factual.  There is no dispute over these occurring, as reports in newspapers were frequent on the impacts of the smell, difficulty in breathing, soot settling onto clothing and buildings, and entering homes and other buildings via open windows.   London, England had especially bad days with the smoke in the 1950s.  see link  and this link  The smoke, soot, and other airborne particulates blocked out the sun.  Yet, when clean-burning natural gas was used in later decades, the air cleared, the sunshine reached the ground, most assuredly causing measured temperatures to increase.  

The same thing occurred in the US with the Clean Air Act of 1973, and its implementation over the next decades.  Particulate emissions as well as chemicals such as NO2, NO3, and SO3 were reduced, greatly improving air quality.  

It should be expected that temperatures measured in cities would show an increase as the air became cleaner and cleaner after 1973.  

The sixth non-CO2 impact on temperature measurements over time is the change in character of the measurement site.  Much work has been done on this, with the US measurement sites documented and compared to official standards.  The central issue is a measuring station may have been located in an acceptable area initially, many decades ago.  However, urban growth and "progress" brought buildings, paved roads, parking lots, and other artificial heating impacts to the location.  

The seventh non-CO2 impact on temperature measurements over time is measuring temperatures in a wind-shadow.  Buildings in cities are usually multiple stories, and some of course are skyscrapers with dozens of stories.  Clusters of such tall buildings can impact the wind, deflecting the wind upwards, or to the side.  Where temperature measuring stations are located downwind of such buildings, the normal wind flow is obstructed.  Over time, the measured temperature is higher and higher.

Finally, a temperature graph from IPCC's AR4 is now included above as Figure 1.   That graph shows a steadily increasing trend from 1975 through 2005, rising approximately 0.9 degrees C in only 30 years.   This is the basis for the false-alarmism of a 2 to 3 degree C increase in the next century.   The temperatures in cities may, in fact, be somewhat warmer in the coming decades, but the increase has nothing to do with CO2.  As noted above, there are at least seven causal factors that create the appearance of warming in cities, and none of them are CO2.   Even if all electricity in all the cities was replaced overnight by hydroelectric power that produces zero CO2, cities would still be warmer today than 100 years ago.  --- End Update 



Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California

copyright © 2016 by Roger Sowell all rights reserved

UK to build Advanced Boiling Water Reactor in Wales

Subtitle:  When Will They Ever Learn

We have yet another contender in the race to build the world's most expensive nuclear power plant, on a cost-per-kW basis.  This plant is to be built in Wales at Anglesey, the Wylfa Newydd project, and is to have twin-reactor ABWR design at 2,700 MWe.  That is the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor as provided by Hitachi.  (note that Hitachi has admitted to accounting scandals recently, involving the nuclear side of its business).  

The cost is projected to be £14 billion, or $20 billion US.  That works out to approximately $7,400 US per kWe.   After the inevitable delays and cost overruns, that will very likely be $26 billion and $10,000 per kWe.  

Another one to watch, in slow motion as always.  First startup is said to be "in the mid 2020s."   Given the dismal record of nuclear power plants construction schedules, the looming fiasco is likely to startup nearer 2030 or even later.  

Meanwhile, the economics of wind power are improving year over year, and grid-scale storage is already available.   Perhaps the good people of the UK will exercise their right to vote and get some people in office who will cancel the nuclear projects, build the wind projects and natural gas projects, and install the storage systems as they are economically feasible. 

Or not.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright © 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved