Climate alarmism and global energy central planning

Socialists and trying-hard anti-capitalism ideologues in facebook, youtube, etc. who also severely enjoy facebook capitalism, youtube capitalism, keep harping about “man-made” warming/climate change (CC) and thus, demand more government and UN ecological + energy central planning.

They like posting sketches, alarmist articles which very often:

  1. Have no charts of temperature anomaly, only sketches and drawings.
  2. Claim “Earth’s warming at unprecented levels”, no chart or table to show; unprecedented, no precedent? Scam statement.

I always ask them these two questions:

(1) Planet Earth is 4.6 B years old, when, what period that there was no CC?
(2) What was it before this “man-made” CC — less rain, no rain, more rains? less flood, no flood, more flood? less snow, no snow, more snow? Less dogs, no dog, more dogs?

Always they have no answer. Some paleo-climate data showing warming-cooling cycle in the past. The climate alarmists close their eyes if the data do not support their “man-made” CC religion. 140k years ago.



1 million years data.  These guys have faith, strong faith in the words of Al Gore and the UN.

700 million years data.


Finally, here’s the 4.6 B years timescale. Warming-cooling, endless natural cycle.


What the data and charts above show is that even if 100% of all power plants in the world are from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, global cooling will still happen. And even if 100% of all energy in the planet is from hydro, wind, other renewables, global warming will still happen. But then religionists and climate evangelists will always have zero appreciation for data. Only faith, strong faith in the words of Al Gore and UN bible.

Why? Money, money, money. Hypocrisy-robbery.


Huge extortion racket, via governments, the UN and other multilaterals.


Trump’s science advisor, realism in energy policies

Mr. Trump has a foul mouth but in terms of climate and energy policies, he is a realist, not alarmist. Now the world should begin to realize that climate change is mainly nature-made, not man-made, and that no matter what governments do to “fight climate change” via renewables cronyism, global cooling-warming cycle will still happen.

Below are some fb updates from world famous climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH last January 15, 2017:

“good news, looks like my friend Will Happer is one step closer to being Trump’s Science Advisor.”

“I’ve helped Will come up to speed on climate issues over the years…

Will is familiar with government service and the press, he will play by the rules. Definitely not a loose cannon.”

“It now looks like my co-conspirator (and boss) John Christy is being floated to head NOAA. I can’t see any other reason for his name to be mentioned in this new article by James Delingpole (James will probably neither confirm nor deny his intention– wink wink nudge nudge). John has said it’s the only position he’d consider taking, and I recommended him for it to two Trump transition team members. The downside is we really need him here in Huntsville…but he’d do a great job as NOAA Administrator.”…/stop-worrying-about-trump…/

“… John “knows” NOAA, their mission, and is an expert on thermometer measurements. He’s a good scientist AND manager. I’d like to see him get to the bottom of the thermometer adjustment mess…it won’t be easy. He’s been working with Anthony Watts and others on what I believe to be the best analysis of U.S. temperature data. I’d LOVE to see that work get legs….

again, we are just reading between the lines here. He has not yet been offered the position. John alerted me to the new article, and I believe it’s the second “trial balloon” that has been floated with his name.”


There were 2 other GOP candidates who were skeptic of “man-made” CC, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. But I doubt if pushed to the wall, they will challenge the climate establishment heads on. Seems that only Trump has the ball to take the huge climate alarmism establishment.

Two comments from two American friends:

Roy W. Spencer I agree. No one else would dare challenge the orthodoxy. Too many powerful people invested in green schemes.

Todd Foster “John Christy is being floated to head NOAA…” Will I ever get tired of such win. And that’s Trump’s biggest asset. His complete inability to be cowed by a media that fewer and fewer even trust. Yes, he’ll take a beating from the howling monkeys of the press but he’ll just keep pushing on, to higher approval ratings.

Wow, Dr. Spencer commented on my wall, haha, was so happy. I have heard him first in 2009 in NYC, 2nd ICCC by the Heartland Institute. Since I was not so familiar with the highly technical aspects of climate science that time, was struggling with a very steep learning curve right there at the conference, I did not fully comprehend his talk and discussion about positive vs. negative cloud feedbacks to more CO2 added to the atmosphere, related topics. That conference was a start for me to read more about the technical aspects of climate science. I was visiting his blog, WUWT, others more regularly.

royWhen I attended the 4th ICCC in Chicago, still sponsored by Heartland, I was more familiar with the basic concepts. Solar irradiance, GCRs, PDO, AMO, cloud feedback, UHI, datasets from UAH, RSS, and so on. When I saw Dr. Spencer during a coffee break, I asked for a selfie with him, he gladly obliged. I was awed, so happy to stand beside this huge, giant mind in climate science 🙂

“In my opinion, we are an over-regulated society. Over-regulation not only destroys prosperity and jobs, it ends up killing people. And political pressures in government to perform scientific research that favors biased policy outcomes is part of the problem.

Science is being misused, prostituted if you wish.

Yes, we need regulations to help keep our air, water, and food reasonably clean. But government agencies must be required to take into account the costs and risks their regulations impose upon society.” — Roy W. Spencer…/science-under-president…/

Top 10 energy news of 2016

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last January 6, 2017.


Here is my list of 5 international and 5 national or Philippine important energy issues last year.


  1. Donald Trump and his energy policies.

US president-elect Donald Trump’s energy policies are summarized in his major campaign platform, “Seven actions to protect American workers” and these include:

“FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal… SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to UN climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure.”

So far some of Mr. Trump’s Cabinet Secretaries are his fellow skeptics of the anthropogenic or “man-made” climate change claim (climate change is largely cyclical and natural or “nature-made”), or simply pro-oil. These include: (a) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head is Scott Pruitt, former attorney general of Oklahoma; (b) DoE Secretary is former Texas Governor Rick Perry who is pro-drilling; and (c) Secretary of State is Rex Tillerson, CEO of the oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp.

  1. OPEC cut on oil production.

For eight years, OPEC never cut its oil production despite declining oil prices to protect its global market share under intense pressure from huge shale oil supply from the US. In November 2016, OPEC finally blinked and decided to cut their collective oil output by 1.2 million barrels per day (mbpd) hoping for an increase in oil prices. Non-OPEC countries like Russia and Mexico made an agreement with OPEC to cut output by another 0.56 mbpd, for a total projected output cutback of about 1.8 mbpd. So far, price impact was marginal as oil prices before this OPEC decision was already touching $50 a barrel. But once US shale oil output ramps up, this marginal price increase can easily be reversed.

  1. More wind-solar means more expensive electricity in selected countries in Europe.

The numbers below show that countries with expensive electricity (1-5) have zero or little nuclear power, have high wind power (except Belgium and Italy), and high solar capacity (except Spain). And cheaper electricity countries (6-10) have high nuclear power (except UK and Netherlands) and low wind (except Sweden), low solar capacity (see Table 1).


  1. By 2040, 46% of global energy demand will come from Asia Pacific.

Based on a recent report by Exxon Mobil which grabbed global energy headlines, it said that it expects China, India, and the rest of Asia Pacific (including Japan, ASEAN, and Australia) will increase its global share of total energy demand from 234 quadrillion British thermal units (BTUS) in 2015 to 322 quadrillion BTUs by 2040. The percentage share of the region will rise from 41% of global demand in 2015 to 46% by 2040. In contrast, the share of EU and the US combined will shrink from 28% in 2015 to only 22% by 2040 (see Table 2).


  1. By 2040, wind, solar, biomass, other renewables will contribute only 11% of total global power generation.

Coal will remain the dominant source in power generation worldwide by 2040 but its share will decline from 44% in 2015 to 34% by 2040. The share of natural gas and nuclear power combined will increase from 38% in 2015 to 45% by 2040. The share of wind, solar, geothermal and other renewables will marginally increase from 6% in 2015 to 11% by 2040, despite all the political noise worldwide that these renewables will get “cheaper than coal” and attain “grid parity” with conventional sources like coal and natural gas.


  1. Search for an Independent Market Operator (IMO) of WESM.

In the last Congress, then Sen. Serge Osmeña, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy conducted a series of meetings until January 2016 about the absence of an IMO that is supposed to manage the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM). The Philippine Electricity Market Corporation (PEMC) as market operator of WESM remains weird because (a) PEMC Board is chaired by the DoE Secretary, many board members are government officials; (b) Even the supposed four independent directors plus consumer representative (5 total) are all appointed by the DoE Secretary; and (c) PEMC is regulated by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), which is under the administrative control of the DoE Secretary, who chairs the PEMC that is regulated by ERC.

  1. WESM Mindanao, IMEM.

Aside from issues on the new Market Management System (MMS) for WESM rules and the transition to a real IMO, the move to create a WESM in Mindanao via the Interim Mindanao Electricity Market (IMEM) is gaining ground. The Mindanao dispatch protocol will have to be spelled out in detail too.

  1. Imposition of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).

In June 2016, the DoE issued a draft Department Circular (DC) on RPS, a provision in the RE Act of 2008 (RA 9513) that “requires electricity suppliers to source an agreed portion of their energy supply from eligible RE resources.” This RPS will result in more expensive electricity because wind, solar, biomass, and small hydro that are not given feed in tariff (FiT) privilege of guaranteed price for 20 years can demand higher price for their energy output because distribution utilities will have zero choice but buy from them otherwise the DoE will penalize them.

The draft DC wanted an initial “2.15% to be applied to the total supply portfolio of the Mandated Participant in each grid.” When asked what will be the projected price implication of such policy, DoE and National Renewable Energy Board (NREB) officials answered that no study on price implications has been made yet. A weird proposal where proponents have no clear idea on the cost of implementation to energy consumers, the DC was shelved.

  1. Shift in energy mix from energy source to system capability.

During the administration of DoE Secretaries Petilla and Monsada, the DoE wanted an energy mix based on energy source or technology, 30-30-30-10 for coal-natural gas-RE-oil, respectively. This is highly distortionary because many REs are either seasonal (hydro can be baseload only during the rainy season, biomass can be baseload only if feedstock is available) or intermittent like wind and solar. New DoE Secretary Cusi changed the energy mix based on system capability: 70-20-10 for base load-mid merit-peaking plants, respectively. This is a more rational mixture.

  1. Endless demand for expanded, higher feed in tariff (FiT).

As more solar farms and wind farms are constructed nationwide, their developers and owners are lobbying hard for an expanded FiT 2 with guaranteed price for 20 years. Even geothermal developers also lobbied that their new plants should also be given FiT. Currently, three wind developers — Trans-Asia Renewable Energy Corporation (TAREC), Alternergy Wind One Corporation (AWOC), and Petrowind Energy, Inc. (PWEI) are petitioning the ERC that their FiT rate be raised from P7.40/kWh to P7.93/kWh. Three wind farms were lucky or favored to get P8.53/kWh under the original FiT — EDC Burgos (Lopez group), Northern Luzon UPC Caparispisan (Ayala group) and Northwind Power Bangui (partly Ayala).

DOE not concurring with PH’s Paris agreement, good

Some PH Senators declared that the Senate will ratify the Paris Agreement of more expensive, unstable electricity “to save the planet” even if the DOE did not concur with it. Portion of the report said, “32 of the 33 agencies having already submitted their certificates of concurrence to Malacañang.”
(Phl to ratify Paris climate pact in July, Philippine Star, January 10, 2017)

The agency or department that did not concur with the PH (actually CCC) commitment to the Paris Agreement is the DOE, thanks Sec. Cusi.

“In the Cabinet, officially I have the only department that has not concurred in the ratification of the climate [pact].”

“I cannot concur on the ratification of the climate change [pact] because that can be used against DoE in approving the kind of power plants that we are going to have,” he said.

Mr. Cusi said the country’s pledge to cut carbon emissions by 70% means reaching a level that has already been met — in 2015.

“What does it mean? Wala na tayong gagawin [We can’t do anything],” he said, referring to curtailing the country’s development.”
(Energy department calls for foreign funding of global warming measures, BWorld, Dec. 12, 2016)

Many big countries like the US, Germany, UK, have not ratified their Paris commitment. Those who ratified are mostly small countries. $100 B a year of climate money transfer from developed to developing countries has become a huge extortion project that will produce huge disappointment from beggar countries. Almost ALL developed countries are already heavily indebted, they have huge public debts, don’t have enough money for their own citizens. And they will give away huge money to developing countries, many of whom are led by despots and corrupt leaders, will not happen.

The degree of climate extortion varies. While the “consensus” is $100 B a year starting 2020, some UN officials and planet saviours want $500 B a year. Less flood or no flood or more floods; less snow, no snow or more snow, that money should be given to them.


As for energy prices, Meralco generation charges for Sept-Oct-Nov 2016 below. All these power plants are using coal and nat gas, except TMO, a peaking plant that uses oil. WESM prices are cheap, down to only P2.54/kWh last Nov. Which means FIT Allowance will be high so that pampered solar and wind plants at P8 to P10+ per kWh will remain “viable” through expensive electricity imposed on all energy consumers nationwide.

Sec. Cusi’s energy realism should be supported against energy alarmism by other agencies and groups.

Letter to ERC re petition by 3 wind firms for higher FIT

This is my letter to the ERC last month.


28 December 2016

Hon. Jose Vicente B. Salazar
Energy Regulatory Commission
Pasig City

Dear  Chairman Salazar,

In relation to the ERC  invitation for public comments until December 30, 2016 of the petitions by Trans-Asia Renewable Energy Corporation (TAREC), Alternergy Wind One Corporation (AWOC), and Petrowind Energy, Inc. (PWEI) that their FIT rate be raised from P7.40/kWh to P7.93/kWh, may I send the following comments.

Please say NO to their petition. Here are the reasons why.

  1. Expensive electricity is never a virtue. Many of the things we do and use now require electricity and therefore, cheap and stable electricity supply should be the aim of energy producers and generating companies.
  1. Cost and price dynamics – rising or falling, higher or lower than what was assumed and projected – are part of capitalism and entrepreneurship. This includes the realization by the petitioners that their actual EPC cost, switchyards and transformers, transmission interconnection cost, O&M and other related expenses are much larger than what was assumed by the ERC in its earlier ruling.
  1. There is indeed a big difference between the P8.53/kWh received by EDC Burgos (Lopez group),  Northern Luzon UPC Caparispisan (Ayala group) and Northwind Power Bangui (partly Ayala), and the P7.40/kWh received by the petitioners. Then let it be known by the electricity consumers that among the reasons why Philippine electricity prices remain high, why FIT-All keeps rising from 4 centavos/kWh in 2015 to 12.40 in 2016 and up to 23 or even 25 centavos/kWh in 2017, are due to these wind farms  that get high guaranteed and escalating price for 18 more years.
  1. When public backlash against more expensive electricity from wind (and solar) will rise proportionate to the rise in FIT-All in the coming years, the three petitioners will somehow be relegated in the background as public attention will be focused on the Ayala and Lopez expensive wind farms, and the big solar farms with higher FIT rates.

The environmental costs of thousands of trees murdered on the ridges and mountain tops of Nabas, Aklan and Pililia, Rizal as PWEI and AWOC constructed wide roads, flattened ridges and built those huge wind towers in the mountains are actually not included in the supposed “environmental benefits” of those wind power plants.

Capitalism and entrepreneurship is about risks and returns, expansion, break even or bankruptcy. Nothing is guaranteed except constant competition and innovation, to cut costs and produce more per unit of input. Thus, the FIT system of guaranteed price for 20 years is abdication of the spirit of capitalism and entrepreneurship, while embracing statism and forever intervention by the state in pricing and output allocation and rationing.

Ultimately, the RE Act of 2008 contradicts the spirit of EPIRA of 2001 and hence, the former should later be significantly amended if not abolished. EPIRA moved things towards competitive, cheaper electricity prices and stable power supply while the RE Act moves towards the opposite, for more expensive electricity and unstable, intermittent and brownouts-friendly power supply.

I hope you will consider the above points.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr.
President, Minimal Government Thinkers
Fellow, SEANET and Stratbase-ADRi
Columnist, BusinessWorld

Meanwhile, look at these news reports and press releases by their respective companies. Phinma says it is earning good money in TAREC.

AWOC is expanding. From the current 54 MW will add 72 MW. Also in its website, it posted,
“On October 23, 2009, Alternergy has been awarded with six exclusive Wind Energy Service Contracts by the Department of Energy based on its financial and technical capabilities. One of which is the “Pililla, Rizal” Wind Energy Service Contract which covers an area of 4,515 hectares. The Project is estimated to generate approximately 40 MW capacity.”


Meanwhile, look at the site of PWEI’s Nabas wind farm in Aklan overlooking Boracay island. Mountain ridges were flattened and all trees and other vegetation there were removed.


Christmas lights, energy mix and electricity production in Asia

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last December 21, 2016.


The holiday season, among others, is marked by the presence of so many lighted streets, buildings, malls, and houses. These sparkling and glittering Christmas lights and decors — besides adding smiles and happiness — also indicate continuing and rising material prosperity of the Philippines and its cities.

The change in the energy mix policy by the Department of Energy (DoE) is better appreciated in this context. Not only do people want cheaper electricity, they also want 24/7 energy with no brownout even for one minute.

Below is a summary of the policies under resigned Secretary Carlos Jericho Petilla (November 2012-June 2015) then Acting Secretary Zenaida Monsada (July 2015-June 2016), and present Secretary Alfonso Cusi (see Table 1).

There are three important reasons why the Cusi formula of energy mix via system capacity makes more sense.

First and foremost is the price impact to electricity consumers. Forcing and mandating more natural gas, more solar-wind into the grid and the distribution utilities will mean even more expensive electricity and more unstable energy supply because of the intermittency, on-off nature of wind-solar.

Consider the feed in tariff allowance (FiT-All) for the variable REs: four centavos/kWh in 2015, 12.40 centavos/kWh in 2016, and 23 centavos/kWh in 2017 based on Transco petition for FiT-All hike at the Energy Regulatory Commission. The bulk of this rising FiT cost to consumers will go to wind and solar plants because they have the higher rates and higher installed capacity. The 23 centavos is on the assumption that it will be granted by the ERC by January 2017. Further delays for few months will mean more under-recoveries and hence, higher rate of 25 centavos-28 centavos by 2017.

Second, our current power capacity and actual electricity production remains small compared to our more economically significant neighbors in the region, and our coal consumption is also way small compared to their coal use. It is not wise to further restrict our baseload power capacity if we aim to sustain fast economic growth into the next decades to come.

Brunei, Myanmar, and Cambodia are excluded from this list because of their small electricity production (see Table 2).


Third, the “more renewables to save the planet” argument does not hold water until now. Proof? Whenever I am engaged in a climate and energy debate with various groups and individuals who insist on the anthropogenic or “man-made” global warming/climate change (CC) hypothesis, I ask these two questions:

  1. Of planet Earth’s 4.6 billion years age, when was the time, what period, that there was NO climate change?
  1. What was it like before this “man-made” warming — less rain, no rain, more rains? Less flood, no flood, more floods? Less snow, no snow, more snow? Please cite scientific sources for your two answers above.

One hundred percent of the time, their answer is the sound of silence. Or they will put various links, various reasons, and alibis but none of which answer directly any of the two questions. Which shows that the anthropogenic climate change argument remains shaky and questionable. Even the UN IPCC literatures do not discuss paleo-climate data dating back to millions of years ago. This is because planet Earth’s climate history is characterized by natural climate cycle of warming-cooling, with or without humans and their malls, cars, airplanes and coal power plants.

Mandating “more renewables to save the planet” will only succeed in making the country less developed, since electricity will become costly and supply unstable. Big energy-intensive manufacturing plants and foreign investments would rather locate in Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, countries with cheaper electricity and more stable, brownouts-proof energy supply, then export huge volume to the Philippines at zero tariff under the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC).

Of the many Cabinet Secretaries of the Duterte administration, DoE Secretary Cusi is among those standing tall. His energy realism (not alarmism) policies of “appropriate energy mix should be decided by the consumers, not by government” is a market- and growth-friendly philosophy.

Europe’s rising electricity prices as more wind and solar are added into the grid

More wind and solar plants, more expensive electricity. This is shown in Europe (this graph), shown in the PH. Feed in tariff (FIT) rates will rise from 4 centavos/kWh in 2015, 12.40 centavos in 2016, to 23-25 centavos/kWh this year.



Another data from Euan Mearns. Left chart is for industrial customers, right chart for household/residential customers.



A friend commented that “We should treat the subsidies as state support to explore alternative energy sources.”

It is not “state support” but “consumers support”. The state, the DOE or Malacanang or Congress have no money of their own. It is ultimately the consumers who pay for more expensive electricity, including those who (a) do not support more subsidies to REs in Luzon-Visayas, and (b) consumers in Mindanao who are not even members/part of WESM because Mindanao grid is not yet connected to Luzon-Visayas grids.

Imagine if only Luzon-Visayas consumers pay for FIT here, the price would have been about 18 centavos/kWh last year and could be 28 centavos/kWh this year. Remember also that these are just “intro prices”, first 3 years of FIT implementation with 17 more years for existing RE plants and with with RE plants added to the grid plus FIT price escalation, expect 30, 50 centavos/kWh or more in the coming years, FIT alone. Eh current WESM prices are only about P2.80/kWh, why do we pay P9+, P10+/kWh for wind and solar? Fluctuating pa every minute, every second.

Look at Europe again, the charts above. They have the longest system of subsidies for renewables, perhaps for the past 20 or 30 years. RE prices coming down? No, the opposite happens, (a) prices keep rising, and (b) grid instability rising, they are talking of blackouts soon in UK, Germany, Denmark, etc. because of more wind and solar added to the grid.

Meanwhile, more news reports about RE in Europe.

(1) “The cost of the botched renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme to the Northern Ireland taxpayer will be £490m.”

(2) “The way the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme was set up in Northern Ireland meant the subsidies offered were greater than the cost of the fuel.[The scheme was run by offering £1.40 for every £1 spent on heating.]”

Many “more RE to save the planet” advocates say that REs like wind and solar are attaining “grid parity” and getting cheaper, more competitive. If this is true, subsidies can be cut or removed but when subsidies are cut, those REs shrink. No subsidies, cheaper electricity for consumers mean these REs will die. Case of UK.

(3) “The U.K.’s renewable and low-carbon energy sector shrank by 8.7 percent last year, partly because of cuts to subsidies. The sector, from wind farms to electric vehicles, turned over 42.2 billion pounds ($52.5 billion) in 2015, provisional figures by the Office for National Statistics showed on Friday. That’s lower than the 46.2 billion pound recorded in 2014.”

Energy rationing, like food rationing, toilet paper rationing in socialist economies. May soon happen in industrial and former imperial power UK. And the “planet saviours” will jump with joy?

(4) “The British Infrastructure Group, led by former Conservative minister Grant Shapps, warned lights could go out across the country next winter because there is not enough spare capacity in the system to cope with higher demand. There is just 0.1 per cent spare electricity in the current system, a dangerously small amount of headroom in case of emergencies over the winter months, the report warned.”