• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

THIS WAS PASSED TO FILE AT THE 10:00AM HEARING ON MAY 23. 2018 BY ALAN CARLIN CASE NUMBER: PUR-2017-00162 Hi Why the SCC Should Not Grant Certificates of Public g Convenience and Necessity for Proposed Pleinmont ^ Solar Farm Development in Spotsylvania County, with @ Emphasis on Science and Particularly Energy ^ Economics Testimony by Dr. Alan Carlin, Fairfax, VA, at SCC Hearing on May 23, 2018 in Richmond, VA Oral Testimony I am Dr. Alan Carlin, a 39 year scientist/economist with the USEPA, retiring in 2010. I have a BS in physics from Caltech, and a PhD in economics from MIT, and have carried out, supervised, and published considerable research over the last 50 years on the economic and scientific aspects of environmental problems, particularly energy and electric power issues. Further details are in the written version of this testimony in opposition to the proposed Pleinmont Solar Farm Development in Spotsylvania County. Climate alarmists for many years have claimed that 97% of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming primarily because of human emissions of CO2. Science, however, is based on use of the scientific method, not who claims to have the largest number of supporters. As far as climate in general, it is true that many scientists dependent on a salary from the Federal Government support (whether they believe it or not) the 97% claim, but those believing otherwise do not dare say so, as they would not only be fired for deviating from the so-called "consensus," but also be blackballed from the industry, and financially ruined for life. At no time has my salary been paid directly or indirectly by either natural resource development interests or non-governmental environmental organizations. But there is a lot of new and credible science that has been produced, some within the last year, and there is a growing body of retired scientists and others not in fear of ruin who have dared to speak up. As explained in my written testimony, I find the proposed Pleinmont Solar project to be one of the worst projects from an economic and environmental viewpoint I have reviewed. It is not in the public interest that this project be built and the SCC should not allow it to be built in Virginia. 1 Substantive Overview • Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a beneficial gas, not a pollutant-so the social cost of carbon (SCC) is negative-since CO2 is so very critical to plant growth and therefore human life; reducing CO2 emissions hurts plants and indirectly humans, and may have catastrophic consequences during the next ice age due to plant starvation for CO2. • Credible recent research shows that increases in atmospheric CO? levels have had no significant effect on global temperatures over the last half century or so; that leaves only green vanity (sometimes called virtue signaling) as an argument for the proposed Pleinmont Solar development. • Green vanity might help Microsoft reduce the Climate Industrial Complex's criticism of its energy use, but will not help Virginia and Virginians, who will be stuck with the loss of ten square miles of land useful for other purposes, higher prices for electricity, reduced reliability of its power grid, substantial risks from catastrophic wind damage to the panels and release into the environment of the toxic materials they contain, and likely severe damage from greatly increased water runoff resulting from the clearing of the land and the building and operation of the solar farm. This is a very steep price to pay for Microsoft to increase its bragging rights for increasing the percentage of "green" energy that it uses. • Since there are no significant temperature effects from reducing CO2 emissions, all future Federal, state, and private sector decisions regarding the Nation's electric power grid need to focus solely on minimizing consumer electricity prices as well as maximizing grid reliability and resilience since. I hope these reflect the goals of the SCC. No consumer electricity price increases should be permitted by the SCC that result from increased renewables/energy storage grid penetration. There is no economic justification for subsidies for such facilities to be given at any level of government. 2 The proposed Pleinmont Solar development in Spotsylvania County does not meet these requirements. If such developments must ever be approved elsewhere they at the very least need to be placed in areas without high winds, and with little rain, comparatively flat ground, and abundant sunshine, such as the Southwestern deserts, not in Virginia. The results will be no better and perhaps worse than the disastrous experience in Germany. The SCC should deny approval of Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity for this proposed project in Spotsylvania County. It will only provide unreliable, intermittent power, not the base load power Microsoft (and other users) needs to keep its servers operating reliably to meet the needs of their customers. Virginians will be left with no benefits but increased electricity costs, decreased reliability of the electric grid, many environmental risks, and impaired land in and near the 10 square mile site, including an adjacent residential area. Additional Written Testimony Outline 1.1 Summary of Scientific Arguments for Denying CPCNs 1.2 Detailed Scientific Arguments 2.1 Summary of Energy Economic Arguments for Denying CPSNs Appendix A: My Background Appendix B: My Publications Appendix C: Detailed Energy Economic Arguments Appendix D: Congressional Testimony by Dr. John Christy 1.1 Summary of Scientific Arguments for Denying CPCNs The science section of this testimony makes clear that the UN and EPA findings, claiming GHG/CO2 emissions were causing dangerous global warming, do not satisfy the scientific method. The EPA findings were predicated on three Lines of Evidence that are quite readily specified as hypotheses that can be tested via the scientific method. As challenges to such global warming theories began to emerge, the alarmists first changed the subject to climate change and then just carbon. But these theories too are subject to hypothesis testing. This Comment's detailed science section shows the results of testing both sets of hypotheses. The three EPA Lines of Evidence offered in their 2009 Endangerment Finding are each shown to be invalid. In fact, they are each shown to be invalid using two separate and mathematically distinct approaches that are spelled out in detail in two separate peer-reviewed Research Reports. The numerous and distinguished peer reviewers are identified and all statistical work may be readily replicated. The reports were both published on multiple websites frequented by, and free to, climate scientists. This Comment's science section also presents rebuttals of ten typical climate change alarmists' claims. The authors of these rebuttals are all recognized experts in the relevant scientific fields. The rebuttals demonstrate the falsity of all ten of the claims merely by citing the most credible empirical data on the topic. The ten alarmist claims are as follows: 1. Heat Waves are increasing at an alarming rate and heat kills. 2. Global warming is causing more hurricanes and stronger hurricanes. 3. Global warming is causing more and stronger tornadoes. 4. Global warming is increasing the magnitude and frequency of droughts and floods. 5. Global Warming has increased U.S. Wildfires. 6. Global warming is causing snow to disappear. 4 7. Global warming is resulting in rising sea levels as seen in both tide gauge and @ satellite technology. w 8. Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ice loss is accelerating due to global warming. ^ 9. Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are causing ocean acidification, which is ® catastrophically harming marine life. H> 10. Carbon pollution is a health hazard. ^ 1.2 Details of the Science Arguments Summarized Above New Research Findings Make it All but Certain that CO2 Is Not a Pollutant but Rather a Beneficial Gas that Should Not Be Regulated or Reduced Among the new developments was an extensively peer reviewed April 2017 Research Report by Wallace, Christy and D'Aleo (Wallace 2017). Wallace 2017 can be found at: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ef-data-research-report- second-editionfinal041717-1 .pdf. See also Dr. John Christy's comments on the report in Appendix D. My comments can be found at www.carlineconomics.com/archives/3533. Wallace 2017 estimates the impacts of the key natural factors, including solar, volcanic and oceanic/ENSO activity, on tropical and global temperatures. It concludes that once these natural factor impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no "natural factor adjusted" warming remaining to be attributed to rising atmospheric CO2 levels. That is, these natural factor impacts fully explain the trends in all relevant temperature data sets over the last 50 or more years. This research found that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not have a statistically significant impact on any of the (14) temperature data sets that were analyzed. Wallace 2017 concludes that, "at this point, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused what have been officially reported as rising, or even record setting, temperatures." Id. at pp. 4, 71. New Research Findings Demonstrate that Adjustments by Government Agencies to the Global Average Surface Temperature Record Render That Record Totally Inconsistent with Published Credible Temperature Data Sets and Useless for Any Policy Analysis Purpose Another important recent research report by James Wallace, Joseph D'Aleo and Craig Idso, was published in June 2017 (Wallace 2017B). Wallace 2017B can be found at: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-aast-data-research-report- 062817.pdf Wallace 2017B analyzed the Global Average Surface Temperature ("GAST") data issued by U.S. agencies NASA and NOAA, as well as British group Hadley CRU.

Load more

  28

Copy Link