Completely off your main topic, but the thing that jumped out at me is that Biden's plan had nuclear going from 13 GW to 1 GW. With reactors capable of operating for 80 years or more, this is completely unconscionable.
Yet another reason to be glad they're out. Now let's keep them out.
That sounds like what our real rulers here in the West, namely the Central Bank Mafia, are planning. The same bunch who are the biggest promoters and funders of climate change fear porn. Being Malthusians and Misanthropes, advocating DeGrowth, Deindustrialization and Depopulation, they are the biggest opponents of Nuclear Power. They love Scarcity, which is easiest to achieve through Energy Poverty. Can't allow unlimited, practical, low cost energy.
Network for Greening the Financial System, Workstream on Scenario Design and Analysis:
thank you for this. it seems, at least to someone on the sidelines, that Mr Zeldin is pushing things in a more sensible, and cost effective manner in this administration. Hopefully, all to be enshrined going forward
Zeldin was on Ruthless about a week ago. He seemed extremely level headed and genuine. Or he's an amazing actor... I'm going with trust until betrayed.
Fabulous as always. Now it's time to save $500 on new shoes! A spreadsheet from the handpicked members of my Council on Footwear Cost Reductions projected that I would have to spend $1100 on shoes based on a future state in which I would mostly walk on lava fields that the Council states will flourish in my area. But my Regional Office of Lava Field Studies found that the dirt and paved surfaces nearby would only be replaced by fallen trees, gooey tar pits, and upturned knives so I only need $600 "sharp and gooey resistant footwear". Huzzah!! I have saved mb family so much dough.
Simply criminal what has happened to our energy sector by these corrupt, incompetent, greedy, and zero give a damn about low & middle income households, small businesses, retirees, veterans, disabled, underprivileged…
Louisiana codified into law: affordable, reliable, clean energy security act … with lots of hard work ahead, our state and federal representatives are waking up to such law’s importance as the 3rd & most important leg along with social security & Medicare as the tri-pod of their constituents security net 🗽🇺🇸🗽…
Thank you Louisiana legislators & Governor Landry for leading the charge that America 🇺🇸 must follow🙏
I might be willing to chalk all the funny business up to the complexity of uncertain modeling IF the agency didn't market the hell out of its results. It's a given that press releases from EPA regulatory announcements under Democrat administrations tout the completely manufactured benefit-cost results of its thumb-on-the-scale modeling. That gives away the game, and it doesn't take much onion-peeling to see how they go about it. "Baseline-stuffing" is always the foundation, but they use lots of other tricks.
BTW, this isn't necessarily EPA's fault, but its 2023 power plant modeling misses data center power demand and understates projected 2040 load by 500 TWh (equivalent to Texas' current demand). The builds required by that demand growth alone surely exceed the entire $19B EPA originally claimed its rule would cost.
The question I can't get past: if Kamala Harris had been elected, would she have kept the Biden EPA's rule banning new baseload gas and forcing the closure of nearly all U.S. coal in place? Given the importance of AI to the future of the U.S., I think she'd have been forced to rescind or at least delay the Biden rule.
The earnest but insane reply will be that an August body calculated all the future imaginary damages caused by co2 and associated $5trillion a year damages today, this year and all years going forward, and named that imaginary number to be a subsidy to hydrocarbons.
Yes, they actually think that way, imaginary future damages from the department of imaginary problems vs the real cost today
And I hazard the 450billion mentioned in this article doesn’t include the horrendous cost of storage to make all those renewables work.
Normally, I have seen reports for the safety of generating sources of electricity in 'deaths per TWh'. All electrical generating sources report their safety numbers in 'deaths per TWh' but don't supply the 'deaths per TW' as well. What is a good source of information which supplies both of these numbers so I can estimate the 'death per TWh' for an electrical energy system? Depending on how much solar energy & wind energy are overbuilt, may increase or decrease the 'deaths per TWh' for an electrical energy system.
Now when do we start to hear about recovery of those gold bars tossed off the titanic? That guy should especially be contemplating life through iron bars.
I care because much of the funding for our canadian climate/insane NGOs comes from USA based climate/insane NGOs.
this is all very interesting, thank you very much. That said, most of the bloggers agree that resolution of the Endangerment Finding, will be legal, not scientific. Judith Curry said "Based on my meager understanding, this is more of a legal issue than a scientific one." Roy Spencer: "We suspected the Endangerment Finding would be the topic of greatest interest, but we also knew that the EPA’s strategy for rescinding that could take a mostly legal approach, with little need for science arguments… for now". Roger Pielke, Jr. argued that the issue was legal, not scientific.
My experience suggests that the judicial system generally rules in favor of common sense; time will tell.
As I recall, Roger said the issue is both legal and scientific. Surprisingly, he does not favor doing away with the Endangerment Finding. One of the rare cases in which I disagree!
I went back to the original essay, "well cited," and found his exact quote in a response to a comment from a William Edmond Norton: "I see his as almost entirely a legal issue and not a scientific issue." What caught my eye first was the typo, then the implication of his statement. Like you, I disagree with him on this one. Instead, I take the position of Andy May, who, in the same comment section, argued that "The CO2 endangerment finding is fatally flawed for the simple reason that no evidence has been provided that CO2, or global warming caused by it, are dangerous."
Thanks, Barry. So we are both kind of right -- he does also see it as a scientific issue but, as you show, mostly a legal issue. Yes, Andy May (and you!) all see Roger as off-base on this. On one or two other things too, but he is amazingly good overall.
And I remain convinced Roger remains a little bit pregnant to ward off the worst of the insane pitchfork crowd.
Hence his continued support for Decarbonization but with no timeline. I’m ok with burning less gas and coal for electricity in favor of more nuclear, but it’s to save those hydrocarbon molecules for better applications.
Nuclear is as near perfect for electricity as we are going to get.
And SMRs for industrial heat, basically steam turning turbines and melting the oilsands here in Alberta
Completely off your main topic, but the thing that jumped out at me is that Biden's plan had nuclear going from 13 GW to 1 GW. With reactors capable of operating for 80 years or more, this is completely unconscionable.
Yet another reason to be glad they're out. Now let's keep them out.
That sounds like what our real rulers here in the West, namely the Central Bank Mafia, are planning. The same bunch who are the biggest promoters and funders of climate change fear porn. Being Malthusians and Misanthropes, advocating DeGrowth, Deindustrialization and Depopulation, they are the biggest opponents of Nuclear Power. They love Scarcity, which is easiest to achieve through Energy Poverty. Can't allow unlimited, practical, low cost energy.
Network for Greening the Financial System, Workstream on Scenario Design and Analysis:
NGFS Scenarios for central banks and supervisors
November 2023:
https://www.ngfs.net/sites/default/files/medias/documents/ngfs_climate_scenarios_for_central_banks_and_supervisors_phase_iv.pdf
On page 31, their Net Zero plan for 2050 shows >80% World Primary Energy Supply being Renewables. With Nuclear being under 2%.
thank you for this. it seems, at least to someone on the sidelines, that Mr Zeldin is pushing things in a more sensible, and cost effective manner in this administration. Hopefully, all to be enshrined going forward
Zeldin was on Ruthless about a week ago. He seemed extremely level headed and genuine. Or he's an amazing actor... I'm going with trust until betrayed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gReirNB2rwA
yes, I heard him there
Did the Biden Base Case include the storage which would be necessary to support such a renewable grid?
Of course, MISO would have been blamed for the resulting rate increases.
Great question. Bad Boys, the ball's in your court on this one!
Thanks for this analysis. I described it as it relates to New York's similar scam in a post: https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2025/08/25/bait-and-switch-draft-energy-plan-costs/
Thanks for sharing, Roger!
What I learned from this article: BS is BS.
Fabulous as always. Now it's time to save $500 on new shoes! A spreadsheet from the handpicked members of my Council on Footwear Cost Reductions projected that I would have to spend $1100 on shoes based on a future state in which I would mostly walk on lava fields that the Council states will flourish in my area. But my Regional Office of Lava Field Studies found that the dirt and paved surfaces nearby would only be replaced by fallen trees, gooey tar pits, and upturned knives so I only need $600 "sharp and gooey resistant footwear". Huzzah!! I have saved mb family so much dough.
Love the use of B.S. as bait & switch or 🐂 💩…
Simply criminal what has happened to our energy sector by these corrupt, incompetent, greedy, and zero give a damn about low & middle income households, small businesses, retirees, veterans, disabled, underprivileged…
Louisiana codified into law: affordable, reliable, clean energy security act … with lots of hard work ahead, our state and federal representatives are waking up to such law’s importance as the 3rd & most important leg along with social security & Medicare as the tri-pod of their constituents security net 🗽🇺🇸🗽…
Thank you Louisiana legislators & Governor Landry for leading the charge that America 🇺🇸 must follow🙏
https://youtu.be/9d3EsX1vNtI?si=w9dBoBa71jvTAb0i
Great job unmasking the lies of the Biden Clown Show Administration. I’m sure thee are plenty more for you guys to unravel!
Great writeup- glad you guys are calling attention to these EPA tricks-of-the-trade. We (US Chamber) hit on some of the baseline shenanigans in this paper a couple years ago: https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/USCC_EPA-Powerplant-Rule-Analysis_2023.7.18.pdf
I might be willing to chalk all the funny business up to the complexity of uncertain modeling IF the agency didn't market the hell out of its results. It's a given that press releases from EPA regulatory announcements under Democrat administrations tout the completely manufactured benefit-cost results of its thumb-on-the-scale modeling. That gives away the game, and it doesn't take much onion-peeling to see how they go about it. "Baseline-stuffing" is always the foundation, but they use lots of other tricks.
BTW, this isn't necessarily EPA's fault, but its 2023 power plant modeling misses data center power demand and understates projected 2040 load by 500 TWh (equivalent to Texas' current demand). The builds required by that demand growth alone surely exceed the entire $19B EPA originally claimed its rule would cost.
The question I can't get past: if Kamala Harris had been elected, would she have kept the Biden EPA's rule banning new baseload gas and forcing the closure of nearly all U.S. coal in place? Given the importance of AI to the future of the U.S., I think she'd have been forced to rescind or at least delay the Biden rule.
The earnest but insane reply will be that an August body calculated all the future imaginary damages caused by co2 and associated $5trillion a year damages today, this year and all years going forward, and named that imaginary number to be a subsidy to hydrocarbons.
Yes, they actually think that way, imaginary future damages from the department of imaginary problems vs the real cost today
And I hazard the 450billion mentioned in this article doesn’t include the horrendous cost of storage to make all those renewables work.
The shell game is stupendous
Always good. Thank You
Normally, I have seen reports for the safety of generating sources of electricity in 'deaths per TWh'. All electrical generating sources report their safety numbers in 'deaths per TWh' but don't supply the 'deaths per TW' as well. What is a good source of information which supplies both of these numbers so I can estimate the 'death per TWh' for an electrical energy system? Depending on how much solar energy & wind energy are overbuilt, may increase or decrease the 'deaths per TWh' for an electrical energy system.
Now when do we start to hear about recovery of those gold bars tossed off the titanic? That guy should especially be contemplating life through iron bars.
I care because much of the funding for our canadian climate/insane NGOs comes from USA based climate/insane NGOs.
Cut off all the heads of the snake.
“Long story short, the B.S. Baseline used by the Biden administration hid 90 percent of the costs of its regulations. ”
A trick learned from Piltdown (hide the decline) Mann.
Inconvenient facts? Just hide them
this is all very interesting, thank you very much. That said, most of the bloggers agree that resolution of the Endangerment Finding, will be legal, not scientific. Judith Curry said "Based on my meager understanding, this is more of a legal issue than a scientific one." Roy Spencer: "We suspected the Endangerment Finding would be the topic of greatest interest, but we also knew that the EPA’s strategy for rescinding that could take a mostly legal approach, with little need for science arguments… for now". Roger Pielke, Jr. argued that the issue was legal, not scientific.
My experience suggests that the judicial system generally rules in favor of common sense; time will tell.
As I recall, Roger said the issue is both legal and scientific. Surprisingly, he does not favor doing away with the Endangerment Finding. One of the rare cases in which I disagree!
I went back to the original essay, "well cited," and found his exact quote in a response to a comment from a William Edmond Norton: "I see his as almost entirely a legal issue and not a scientific issue." What caught my eye first was the typo, then the implication of his statement. Like you, I disagree with him on this one. Instead, I take the position of Andy May, who, in the same comment section, argued that "The CO2 endangerment finding is fatally flawed for the simple reason that no evidence has been provided that CO2, or global warming caused by it, are dangerous."
Thanks for reading!
Thanks, Barry. So we are both kind of right -- he does also see it as a scientific issue but, as you show, mostly a legal issue. Yes, Andy May (and you!) all see Roger as off-base on this. On one or two other things too, but he is amazingly good overall.
Nobody gets it all.
And I remain convinced Roger remains a little bit pregnant to ward off the worst of the insane pitchfork crowd.
Hence his continued support for Decarbonization but with no timeline. I’m ok with burning less gas and coal for electricity in favor of more nuclear, but it’s to save those hydrocarbon molecules for better applications.
Nuclear is as near perfect for electricity as we are going to get.
And SMRs for industrial heat, basically steam turning turbines and melting the oilsands here in Alberta
I suspect you are right, Pat. It's hard to escape politics entirely, sadly.
Usually, CPS is taken into rationality, from the advantage point.