Is there a ‘free market’ solution to the question of capacity incentives versus volumetric charges? I contend this the PUCT/ERCOT is in a central planner situation versus a true free market where integrated gas and power companies would solve the economic calculation problem, not state and federal regulators. More here: https://www.masterresource.org/texas-blackout-2021/central-planner-ercot-worked-as-planned/

Joseph Pokalsky: Integrated gas and power companies and gas companies are monopolies, don’t compete, and essentially tax ratepayers through rate setting by Public Service Commissions, a.k.a. Central Planning Committee Kommissors.

Robert L. Borlick: ERCOT is the furthest away from a central planning paradigm as any power system I know of. To argue that a free market consists of integrated gas/power companies is laughable. You don’t appear to understand the concept of a natural monopoly. As for the document you cited, it is a political rag that misrepresents the situation in Texas and unfairly blames Professor William Hogan for the irresponsible behavior of the Texas politicians.…

“My major argument: any planned transition to an all-electric renewable energy monoculture is likely to fail, at least in America. That is mainly because peak winter heating requirements can greatly exceed peak summer cooling requirements by as much as 400 to 500 percent in cold climates and because the required minerals are severely limited.”

On August 27, 1997, the Cato Institute published “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’,” written by Robert L. Bradley Jr. (A 58-page PDF of the study is available here and a 25^th anniversary review here.)  Bradley’s piece focused on the many stark ecological tradeoffs of politically favored renewables, as well as the high cost/low value associated of dilute, intermittent sourcing. This post extends that thinking to the deep decarbonization/all-electrification government program.

Rare earth minerals, on which the forced transition to “clean energy” depends, are critically constrained by many of the same factors as fossil fuels.…

“Power DeSmog into 2023,” the headline of a year-end fundraising appeal read. “We’re closing in on 1,000 profiles across our databases, which demands a lot of our team’s time to update and build. Every donation helps!”

The rest of the appeal read:

Every day, our global team of researchers continues to expand and update our Climate Disinformation Database, Koch Network Database, and Agribusiness Database. These critical resources collect information on individuals and organizations responsible for casting doubt on climate science and delaying climate action. VICE describes DeSmog as the “thorn in the side of corporate climate denial” — a badge of honor we’re proud to wear!

Several months ago, I celebrated the DeSmog blitz with a post, “Climate “Disinformation Everywhere! (winning against alarmism)“. I wrote:

At some point, the climate alarmists are going to have to wonder if the universe of “climate denial” and “climate skepticism” is growing so large that the real outliers are themselves.

“DeSmog’s methodology of listing the ‘denier’ qualifications, quotations, and activities–as if the debate was settled toward climate alarmism and forced energy transformation–is utterly unconvincing. Their growing list is impressive and a badge of honor, so let their project continue.”

Stephen Koonin has done much to help “mainstream” the problems with alarmism based on climate modelling–at least for the open-minded and curious. Humility must rule in the face of radical complexity. After all, what can be known in the absence of causal physical equations that are sub-grid scale anyway?

Climate models cannot be expected to “get it right,” if earth modeling is even possible. This is why data-data-data can and should drive the climate sensitivity debate.

Professor Koonin has been profiled relative to Andrew Dessler at MasterResource (here and here).…