h/t Dr. Willie Soon; Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm’s 4 day EV celebration road trip backfired, after the Sheriff was called by a young family desperate to get their baby home.
Electric cars have a road trip problem, even for the secretary of energy
September 10, 20236:00 AM ET
…
Granholm’s trip through the southeast, from Charlotte, N.C., to Memphis, Tenn., was intended to draw attention to the billions of dollars the White House is pouring into green energy and clean cars. The administration’s ambitious energy agenda, if successful, could significantly cut U.S. emissions and reshape Americans’ lives in fundamental ways, including by putting many more people in electric vehicles.
…
But between stops, Granholm’s entourage at times had to grapple with the limitations of the present. Like when her caravan of EVs — including a luxury Cadillac Lyriq, a hefty Ford F-150 and an affordable Bolt electric utility vehicle — was planning to fast-charge in Grovetown, a suburb of Augusta, Georgia.
Her advance team realized there weren’t going to be enough plugs to go around. One of the station’s four chargers was broken, and others were occupied. So an Energy Department staffer tried parking a nonelectric vehicle by one of those working chargers to reserve a spot for the approaching secretary of energy.
That did not go down well: a regular gas-powered car blocking the only free spot for a charger?
In fact, a family that was boxed out — on a sweltering day, with a baby in the vehicle — was so upset they decided to get the authorities involved: They called the police.
The sheriff’s office couldn’t do anything. It’s not illegal for a non-EV to claim a charging spot in Georgia. Energy Department staff scrambled to smooth over the situation, including sending other vehicles to slower chargers, until both the frustrated family and the secretary had room to charge.
How heartless. Can any of you imagine keeping a young family and baby waiting in the sweltering heat? I can’t count the number of times when I waved mum and kids ahead at a supermarket checkout line, especially if the kids are in any kind of distress.
If only there was a way to recharge vehicles quickly. Then there would be no reason for people to get distressed and block each other while fighting over a handful of charging spots, they could just recharge their vehicle quickly and drive off, with minimal delay and inconvenience to other motorists.
Green Energy Activists are hitting hard realities, as summarized by Jonathan Lesser at New York Post Why wind and solar power are running out of juice. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images
Green energy and the push to electrify everything have been in the news recently but for all the wrong reasons. Instead of the green energy nirvana politicians and green energy advocates have promised, economic and physical reality has begun to set in.
Painful Green Economics
Start with the economic realities of Wind EnergyThe result: Even while Siemens Energy CEO Christian Bruch insists that “energy transition without wind energy does not work,” 2022 saw 16% less new wind-power capacity than in 2021, according to the American Clean Power Association.Wind turbine manufacturers like Siemens and General Electric have reported huge losses for the first half of this year, almost $5 billion for the former and $1 billion for the latter. Among other problems, turbine quality control has suffered, forcing manufacturers such as Siemens and Vestas to incur costly warranty repairs.In Europe, offshore wind output has been less than promised, while operating costs have been much higher than advertised. Offshore wind developers in Europe and the US are canceling projects because of higher materials and construction costs.In Massachusetts, Avangrid, the developer of the 1,200 MW Commonwealth Wind project paid $48 million to get out of its existing contract to sell power to ratepayers. That way, the company can rebid the project next year at an even higher price.Close by, the developers of the 1,200 MW SouthCoast Wind Project off Martha’s Vineyard will pay about $60 million to exit their existing contract.Rhode Island Energy, the state’s main electric utility, recently rejected the second Revolution Wind Project because the contract price was too high.And Ørsted, the Danish government-owned company that is developing the Southfork Wind and Sunrise Wind projects off Long Island — as well as the Ocean Wind project off the New Jersey coast — last week announced that, without additional subsidies and higher contract prices, it will have to write-off billions of dollars in potential losses.In New Jersey, the legislature passed a law in July, which is likely unconstitutional, to bail out Ørsted. The legislation will award the company with several billion dollars of investment tax credits that were supposed to go to consumers.
Few Hosts for Land-Gobbling Wind and Solar Projects
Back on dry land, opposition to siting land-gobbling wind and solar projects continues to grow.
Local governments in Iowa, Illinois, and Ohio have all rejected or restricted projects. Rural communities, it seems, do not want to host massive turbine farms — nor the high-voltage transmission lines needed to deliver electricity to power-hungry cities.
Electric Vehicles Leaking Money
Then there are electric vehicles.Ford, which has bet heavily on its electric Lightning pickup and Mustang and received a $9.2 billion government-subsidized loan in January, revealed that it has lost $60,000 for every EV it sold in the first half of this year.Rivian, another EV company, managed to reduce its losses per EV to around $33,000, a big improvement over the $67,000 loss per EV in the first quarter of the year.Proterra, a Bay Area-based manufacturer of electric buses and batteries that had a $10 million loan forgiven by the Biden Administration, just filed for bankruptcy.
Alternative Energy Madness
Like the wizard in The Wizard of Oz, alternative energy proponents claim these are just temporary little potholes on the road to economic and climate nirvana — all of which can be filled with more money through renegotiated power purchase contracts and more zero-emissions mandates.
Alternative energy madness – and that’s what it is – has had its biggest impact in California. But New York and New Jersey have adopted most of that state’s mandates.
Sales of new internal combustion vehicles will be banned beginning in 2035 in the states. All of the electricity sold to retail consumers will have to be “zero-emissions.”
Homeowners and building owners will be forced to replace gas- and oil-burning space and water heaters with electric heat pumps. And, gas stoves will be regulated out of existence.
Carbon Taxes Draining Wallets
New York also will soon implement another California import: a carbon “cap-and-invest” program, which will impose a tax on fossil fuels sold by wholesalers and utilities. The billions of dollars collected each year will provide a green slush fund, allowing the governor and legislators to hand out money to their politically favored cronies, as has so often been the case in the past.
Washington State began its “cap-and-invest” program in January of this year. Modeled after California’s, Governor Jay Inslee promised the program would have “minimal impact, if any. We are talking about pennies.”
Instead, the program has raised gasoline prices – almost 50 cents per gallon so far this year. Washington State now claims the honor of having the highest gasoline prices in the nation: In Seattle, for example, the average price of regular gasoline is over $5 per gallon.
Of course, the entire point of the program was to raise gasoline and fossil fuel prices to encourage consumers to switch to electric vehicles, mass transit, electric heat pumps, and so forth.
But politics being what it is, Governor Inslee, along with environmentalists and legislative proponents, now blames greedy oil companies for the price increases. ‘We won’t stand for’ corporate greed,” the Governor said at a July 20, 2023, press conference.
Once New York’s cap-and-invest program starts, probably next year, you can expect a similar outcome: higher gasoline and diesel prices, higher prices for natural gas and fuel oil used to heat homes and apartment buildings, and endless political demagoguery denouncing it all.
And Basic Physics Stand in the Way
As the push toward electric-everything powered by green energy barrels along, proponents also refuse to confront basic physical realities.
Electricity accounts for just one-sixth of all energy use. The rest is fossil fuels consumed for transportation, space and water heating, and manufacturing. Convert everything to electricity and electricity consumption will increase. A lot.
According to the New York Climate Action Committee’s Final Scoping Plan, New York will meet that increased demand by building almost 15,000 MW of offshore wind, like the Southfork Wind and Sunrise Wind projects, and over 40,000 MW of solar panels. (By comparison, the emissions-free Indian Point Nuclear Plant, which former Governor Cuomo forced to close, had a capacity of just over 1,000 MW.)
Because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine, keeping the lights on will require far more backup resources. This “reserve margin” – basically, the amount of generating capacity available to step in and meet electric demand – will need to increase from the current 20% to over 100%.
In other words, for every MW of generating capacity in 2040, there will have to be an equal amount or more in reserve.
That’s like having to buy a second car and keep it idling all the time in case the first one won’t start. The Scoping Plan claims this will be accomplished by building over 20,000 MW of so-called “dispatchable emissions-free generating resources” (DEFRs) and installing over 12,000 MW of battery storage.
Transition Plans Depend on Green Fantasies
Those claims are fantasy.
Start with DEFRs, which are generators that burn pure hydrogen manufactured from surplus wind and solar power. They have yet to be invented (we repeat – they do not yet exist). Nor do any large-scale commercial plants to manufacture green hydrogen exist either.
Hydrogen cannot be transported in existing natural gas pipelines. An entirely new infrastructure will need to be built.
Assuming a new technology will be invented by whatever date politicians decree is foolish. That’s not how technology works. Just ask everyone working on commercial fusion power, which has been just 30 years off for the last 50 years.
As for battery storage, 12,000 MW will provide at most 48,000 megawatt-hours of actual electricity. That may sound like a lot but based on the New York Independent System Operator’s (NYISO) most recent forecast, on a windless and cold winter evening in 2040, it would keep the lights on for only one hour.
The materials requirements for batteries also are staggering, which is one reason why replacing existing internal combustion cars and trucks will be impossible. Batteries require large quantities of cobalt, much of which is now mined in the Congo using child and slave labor. They also require lots of graphite, most of which comes from China – the same with the rare minerals needed for wind turbines and solar panels.
Much Pain for a Drop in the Bucket
Ultimately, nothing New York does will have any measurable impact on world climate because the state’s carbon emissions are minuscule compared to the 35 billion metric tons of total global emissions. As long as China, which accounts for almost one-third of world energy-related carbon emissions, India, and other developing nations focus policies on economic growth, rather than cutting emissions, New York’s efforts will have no environmental value.
Nuclear Energy Denial
Nevertheless, if politicians and environmentalists were serious about zero-emissions goals, they would abandon the electrification mandates, and abandon reliance on wind, solar, battery storage, DEFRs, green hydrogen, and other unrealistic and unreliable energy sources.
Instead, they would embrace the one existing technology that dare not speak its name: nuclear power. Unlike wind and solar, nuclear plants run all the time. New, small modular reactors will offer greater safety, lower costs, and easy scalability to meet increased electricity demand.
Storing spent fuel is a political issue, not a technological one, for which the best solution is to recycle and reuse it, as France has done for the last half-century without incident. The country is also developing a permanent storage site for nuclear waste that can no longer be reprocessed.
The economist Herb Stein once quipped that anything that cannot go on forever, won’t.
That’s true of New York’s current alternative energy madness. It won’t save the world, but it will grind down the state’s economy and its residents until the folly is too great to ignore.
Jonathan Lesser is the president of Continental Economics and an adjunct fellow with the Manhattan Institute.
Germany’s economy is teetering on the edge of recession, with opposition leaders pointing fingers to the Government’s green energy policies as the culprit. The Mailhas the story.
Once one of the world’s strongest economies, Germany is now expected to have the worst performing economy of any leading nation in the world, according to stats from the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Friedrich Merz, the 67 year-old leader of the Christian Democrats opposition party, claims that this slump is a direct result of the Government’s overly bureaucratised green energy policies, which are being led by the Greens in coalition with Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats.
“Unfortunately, 2023 will be a year of recession,” Mr. Merz told German newspaper Bild am Sonntag.
“If the insane amount of bureaucracy isn’t stopped soon, if energy prices don’t fall quickly, then 2024 won’t be a good year either.”
The populist leader pledged to “lower the tax and levy burden on energy”, “immediately reconnect decommissioned nuclear power plants to the grid”, and “adopt a moratorium on bureaucracy”.
He elaborated, saying: “Not a single new law should trigger additional bureaucracy. That means, for example: We would stop the heating law. In this form, it is not only technologically flawed, but also sets in motion a huge new bureaucracy.”
The pledge came shortly before France’s President Emmanuel Macron openly disagreed with Germany’s current stance on nuclear power, claiming that neglecting the role of nuclear energy in the EU would be a “historic mistake”.
Mr. Merz is currently leading in the polls after his party adopted several anti-immigrant policies.
Meanwhile, the Government’s ratings have slumped in recent months. Nearly three quarters of Germans, 73%, are unhappy with the current coalition Government, according to an opinion poll published over the weekend.
The ratings downturn came as new figures revealed that Germany has remained the ‘sick man of Europe’ as its economy stagnated in the second quarter while the country battles an industrial slowdown and stubborn inflation.
The outlook for the nation long lauded as Europe’s industrial powerhouse is deteriorating, with its economy registering zero growth from April to June compared with the previous quarter, according to data from the federal statics agency Destatis.
The figures come as a major blow to Germany’s Government, which had boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year after a feared winter energy crunch failed to materialise.
Germany’s stagnating economy – which had fallen into recession earlier this year – is in stark contrast to Brexit Britain’s economy, which continues to see growth. The U.K.’s economy grew by 0.2% in the second quarter of the year, with June’s sunny weather encouraging Britons to eat out and spend more. …
Marcel Fratzscher, head of the Berlin-based DIW institute, says Germany’s problems are structural.
The country needs a “long-term transformation programme, with an investment drive, a broad (reduction of its bureaucracy) and strengthening of social systems”, he said in an analysis published over the summer.
Several concerns on the economic front are widely shared – uncertainty about energy costs in the medium term, cumbersome regulations, a lack of skilled labour and a slow shift to a digital economy.
And to make matters worse for Germany’s stagnating economy, business chiefs in June warned that the Government’s decision to shut down the last remaining power plants in favour of renewable energy would see critical industries ditch the country amid electricity shortages.
The head of energy firm RWE said he fears that Germany will face a shortage of electricity that will see prices in the already struggling country soar. …
German energy chiefs have blamed the country’s poor economic outlook on the Government’s green energy ‘disaster’ that has seen the last remaining nuclear power plants shut down. Instead, the focus is now on renewable energy supplies from solar and wind sites.
But the intermittent nature of these green energy sources, which leaves them susceptible to sudden drops during cloudy or windless periods, means Germany’s electricity system remains vulnerable to electricity shortages and price volatility.
Krebber warned that this could have a devastating impact on Germany’s industries that are trying in vain to prop up the country’s flailing economy. …
This is all playing into the hands of Germany’s far-right parties, with the Alternative for Germany (AfD)’s popularity surging in the polls over its criticism of what it calls a costly green agenda.
The spiralling cost of erecting ever-larger turbines at sea is matched by the spiralling costs of the raw inputs needed for the turbines themselves, which means the offshore wind power bubble has truly burst.
The Sweden’s Vattenfall has just scotched a massive project proposed off the coast of Norfolk, moaning about rocketing turbine manufacturing and offshore construction costs, as it makes the last bid attempt to screw the British taxpayer for even more massive subsidies to keep the wind scam afloat a little longer.
And while Vattenfall might be miffed about the collapse of its Norfolk Boreas project, it’s no doubt crestfallen over its events in its home country, Sweden. The Swedish government has decided to scrap another of Vattenfall’s offshore projects – Stora Middelgrund. Chances of it ever being resuscitated are next are nil, given Sweden’s recent about-face on energy policy by which it has determined to back ever-reliable nuclear over never-reliable wind.
Here are a couple of pieces describing what appears to be a very miserable time for offshore wind scammers. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Giant windfarm off Norfolk coast halted due to spiralling costs Newsbreak Jillian Ambrose 20 July 2023
The government’s green energy ambitions have been dealt a blow after plans for a giant offshore windfarm off the Norfolk coast ground to a halt due to spiralling supply chain costs and rising interest rates.
The Swedish energy giant Vattenfall said it would stop work on the multibillion-pound Norfolk Boreas windfarm, designed to power the equivalent of 1.5m British homes, because it was no longer profitable.
The state-owned company said costs had climbed by 40% due to a rise in global gas prices which have fed through to the cost of manufacturing, putting “significant pressure on all new offshore wind projects”.
“It simply doesn’t make sense to continue this project,” said Anna Borg, Vattenfall’s chief executive. “Higher inflation and capital costs are affecting the entire energy sector, but the geopolitical situation has made offshore wind and its supply chain particularly vulnerable.”
Borg said it was “so obvious to everyone that the situation has changed dramatically since last year”, meaning the price would now need to be “significantly higher” to make financial sense.
According to its latest results, the decision to stop work has cost the company 5.5bn Swedish krona (£415m) but Borg said the move was “prudent” given the impact of costs on the project’s future profitability.
“The market framework is simply not reflecting the market situation,” Borg said. “Something needs to happen. It’s important to understand that our suppliers are being squeezed. They have problems in their supply chain so it’s not so easy to mitigate these situations.”
Borg said Vattenfall has called on the UK government to adapt the financial framework which controls the price and was in “constructive discussions” with officials.
Industry experts have said that without an overhaul of the government’s financing approach to take into account the steep climb in costs, the UK risks missing its target to increase its offshore wind capacity fivefold to 50GW by 2030.
Jess Ralston, the head of energy at the thinktank the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said the government had set the starting price for the next contract auction before the global rise in market prices, meaning it was now too low.
“There are some concerns that this could be too low for projects that have suffered supply chain price inflation, excluding them from entering the auction,” she said. “The sensible strategy would be to seek to involve in auctions as much capacity as possible.”
Under the government’s scheme developers can compete in the auction for a contract which gives a guaranteed price for the electricity generated. If wholesale market prices are below this level the project receives a “top up” payment through a levy on energy bills. But if market prices are above the “strike price” the project must pay back the difference to consumers , leading to lower bills.
Setting the auction’s starting price at a higher point would still result in contract prices well below the current market rate, according to Ralston, meaning windfarms will continue to pay money back to households for the foreseeable future.
Dan McGrail, the chief executive of RenewableUK, said ministers would have to take into account global inflationary pressures “which have significantly changed the economic landscape”.
“We need a stronger industrial strategy for the sector, which the chancellor should support with new measures in the autumn statement as a matter of urgency,” he said.
Sweden rejects Vattenfall’s planned Stora Middelgrund wind farm Reuters Louise Breusch Rasmussen 27 July 2023
The Swedish government has rejected utility Vattenfall’s application to construct a wind farm at Stora Middelgrund on Sweden’s west coast, the ministry for climate and enterprise said in a statement on Thursday.
Vattenfall had said it planned to build around 50 wind turbines at Stora Middelgrund, each measuring some 290 metres (950 feet) in height, with the aim of producing between 2.5 and 3.0 terrawatt hours (TWh) of power per year [only on those occasions when the wind was blowing with sufficient speed, of course].
A spokesperson for Vattenfall said in an email that the company regretted the government’s announcement, adding “we will now analyze the decision more closely to see what consequences it brings.”
“An establishment at Stora Middelgrund would risk damaging sensitive natural values in an unacceptable way,” Minister for climate and environment Romina Pourmokhtari said in a statement.
“The risk of negative impact on national interests in shipping has also weighed heavily in the Government’s assessment,” she said. Reuters
The Not-So-Strange Death of Europe: Cultural Sacrifice at The Altar of Gaia
In an excellent article penned by Tilak Doshi, he embarks on a journey detailing the tragic decline of Western Europe, particularly focusing on its transition from a powerhouse of economic and cultural vigor to a region hobbled by the very green policies it adopted. Doshi,
“The concern here is not related to the dire generational problems of mass immigration and ethnic and national identity… Rather, it relates to the present day consequences of West European left-of-center governments’ commitments to the radical Green agenda.”
The Unraveling of Germany’s Economic Machinery Germany, once considered the very backbone of the Eurozone, finds itself in quicksand of economic regression. As Doshi says,
“Europe’s economic engine is breaking down” reads a Bloomberg headline published in May. The latest IMF forecast predicts that Germany will be the worst performing G-7 economy this year, the only economy expected to contract in the group.”
A Price Too High: Europe’s Green Energy Burden While it’s convenient for some to attribute Europe’s energy woes to outside influences like Russia’s geopolitical machinations, energy expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt offers a more grounded perspective. To quote,
“The failed transition to green energies is responsible.”
What follows are soaring energy prices, pushing one in four Germans into energy impoverishment.
Cult of Climate Catastrophism Western Europe’s self-inflicted wounds can’t merely be attributed to policy missteps. There’s a deeper cultural shift at play, echoing religious undertones. Doshi notes,
“Much as the medieval Christian mendicant… modern Western society has adopted what a recently published book calls a cultural narrative of climate catastrophism.”
“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism… environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.”
Conclusion: A Modern-Day Sacrifice In a touch of morbid historical analogy, Doshi likens Europe’s self-sacrifice on the altar of green policy to ancient Aztec rituals. He concludes,
“In our so-called age of science, the modern climate priesthood is figuratively offering the still-beating heart of Europe’s once-mighty civilization to appease Mother Gaia.”
Given the compelling evidence presented, one can’t help but smirk at the silliness of such self-inflicted wounds. As Europe tries to navigate these turbulent waters, it’s vital to remember that not all sacrifices lead to salvation. Sometimes, they just lead to more pain.
Call wind and solar whatever you like, but there’s simply no rational basis to call them ‘clean’ or ‘green’. Both chew up monumental volumes of minerals, chemicals, rare earths and energy just to create the panels and turbines. Both leave monumental volumes of waste when turbines and panels are spent – after a decade or so – much of it incapable of being recycled and plenty of it monumentally toxic.
Alex Epstein provides a helpful wrap up of why wind and solar are the world’s greatest enviro-frauds.
“Green Energy” is neither energy nor green Energy Talking Points Alex Epstein 2 June 2023
“Green energy” has 2 problems:
1. It’s not really energy: It doesn’t provide reliable energy
2. It’s not really green: It has a huge “environmental impact”
The goal of “green energy” is to pretend to support abundant energy but to actually oppose it.
The “green energy” movement claims that it wants cost-effective energy—affordable, reliable, plentiful—just without fossil fuels’ pollution or GHG emissions.
But this is contradicted by its hostility toward clean, non-carbon nuclear and hydro—the most proven alternatives to fossil fuels.
You might expect the “green energy” movement to be the #1 supporter of clean, non-carbon nuclear and hydroelectric energy, but instead, it is the #1 opponent. “Green” groups have opposed nuclear for decades (leading to crippling costs) and worked to shut down hydroelectric dams.
Why does the “green” movement oppose nuclear and hydro?
It is because “green” solar and wind are just so cost-effective and so “green”?
No. Solar and wind have not proven to be cost-effective at all, and in many ways, they are the least “green” form of energy.
“Green energy” isn’t really energy
Calling solar and wind “green energy” makes them seem like other forms of energy, just “green.” But they’re not. All other forms of energy provide reliable energy—real energy—whereas solar and wind are unreliable parasites of reliable energy.
Despite claims that solar and wind are rapidly replacing fossil fuels, they provide less than 5% of world energy—only electricity, ⅕ of energy—and, crucially, even that small percentage depends on huge subsidies and reliable (mostly fossil-fueled) power plants (1).
Solar and wind’s basic problem is unreliability, to the point they can go near zero at any time. Thus they don’t replace reliable power, they parasitize on it. This is why they need huge subsidies and why no grid is near 50% solar and wind without huge parasitism on reliable neighbors (2).
The popular idea that we can use mostly or only solar and wind with sufficient battery backup is not being tried anywhere because it’s economically absurd. Batteries are so expensive that just 3 days of global backup using Elon Musk’s Megapacks would cost $590 trillion, about six times global GDP (3)!
Refuting the myth that just a small area of solar panels plus storage can power the world
“Green” solar and wind may someday become a part of real energy solutions—if generators using solar and wind are willing to guarantee reliability, instead of generating unreliable power and forcing everyone else to clean up their mess. But today’s “green energy” is not real energy.
If solar and wind ever become truly cost-effective, you can be certain of one thing: the “green energy” movement will oppose them as insufficiently “green” given their huge “environmental impacts.”
“Green energy” isn’t really green
If solar and wind became cost-effective and deployed on a large scale, they would have a level of “environmental impact” from mining and land use that would make the “green” movement oppose them. In fact, this is already happening.
“Green” means minimal or nonexistent “environmental impact.”
Because sunlight and wind are dilute sources of energy—they take up more space and use more of many materials than fossil fuels or nuclear. This massive “environmental impact” is not at all “green.”(4)
Consider the land use requirements of solar. The world uses over 165,000 TWh of energy per year, which requires ~19 billion kW of power on average. An optimistic, real-world power density for solar projects is 10 Watts per square meter. To power the world, you’d need ~1.8 million square kilometers of solar PV projects (5).
If 1.8 million square kilometers of solar panels doesn’t seem like much, note that it is more than all cities, towns, villages, and human infrastructure combined (~1.5 million square kilometers). And this excludes the huge footprints of solar and battery mining, manufacturing, and transmission (6).
Consider the mining requirements of solar, wind, and batteries.
An International Energy Agency projection for a “net zero” scenario shows an increase in mining and processing of minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel, and rare earths by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900%, and 700% by 2040.7
Note: The mining and processing of various minerals necessary to supply today’s material-hungry solar, wind, and battery schemes are mostly outsourced to China and other developing countries because they would be cost-prohibitive under Western “green” policies (8).
Because “green energy” has so much environmental impact, even on today’s small scale it faces huge “green” opposition to its land use, mining, and transmission-line-building requirements. E.g., the Biden administration recently shut down a prime “green energy” mining site in Minnesota (9).
If “green” solar and wind aren’t really energy, and if they have so much environmental impact that the “green” movement opposes them in practice, then why does the green movement so enthusiastically support them rhetorically? To hide its real goal: radically reducing energy use.
“Green”—“minimal human impact”—is a fundamentally anti-energy idea. Energy is “the capacity to do work,” which means transforming—impacting—our environment. More energy use equals more impact. If you don’t want us to impact Earth you ultimately must oppose every form of energy.
The fundamental hostility of the “green” movement to energy explains why throughout its history it has never supported current, cost-effective sources of energy and only “supported” imaginary sources of energy that might exist in the future.
“Green” leaders supported nuclear—until it became cost-effective, at which point they demonized and criminalized it. “Green” leaders supported natural gas—until it became cost-effective on a global scale thanks to shale energy tech, at which point they demonized it as “fracking” (10).
Because the “green” movement is anti-energy, any enthusiasm its leaders express for fusion is phony; while they may claim to want clean, cheap, abundant energy before it exists, they will not like the impact it has once it exists. And in the past, green leaders admitted this (11).
Amory Lovins, the leader of the modern “green energy” movement, said in the 1970s: “If you ask me, it’d be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we would do with it” (12).
When asked in 1989 about the prospect of fusion by the LA Times, Jeremy Rifkin said: “‘It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet.’ Inexhaustible power, he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to exhaust the planet’s resources, to destroy its fragile balance…” (13).
When asked in 1989 about the prospect of fusion by the LA Times, leading “green” thinker Paul Ehrlich said that given society’s dismal record in managing technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child” (14).
The world needs to reject the “green” movement and instead embrace a “human flourishing” movement that embraces intelligent human impact on Earth as a good thing, and that both embraces today’s most cost-effective energy sources—including fossil fuels—and is eager to improve on them.
To understand why fossil fuels are so valuable for the foreseeable future, and why their benefits far outweigh their negative side-effects including climate side-effects, read this summary of my book Fossil Future.
Denmark is closest to it, getting about 50% of its electricity from wind alone on average over a year. But tiny Denmark needs to import and export massive amounts of electricity to balance its power grid, using reliable capacity in much larger neighboring countries. without this, Denmark would have permanent blackouts. Danish Energy Agency – Energy statistics 2021
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is an idiot when it comes to economics, his supposed area of expertise. Who can forget these doozies: the stock market will “never recover” from Trump’s election (2016); the internet will have “no greater impact than the fax machine” (1998); we need “a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble” (2002).
But Krugman is an even bigger dolt when the subject he tries to cover is climate. Krugman’s August 7 column titled “Climate Is Now a Culture War Issue” contains glaring errors in virtually every paragraph. Again, this is not surprising, coming from Krugman. But here’s a proper fact check that his editors (does he even have any?) at The New York Times let slip through, or maybe they kept in because it serves their leftist climate agenda.
Paragraph 1:
Understanding climate denial used to seem easy: It was all about greed. Delve into the background of a researcher challenging the scientific consensus, a think tank trying to block climate action or a politician pronouncing climate change a hoax and you would almost always find major financial backing from the fossil fuel industry.
False. The Heartland Institute has featured hundreds of climate scientists and policy experts at our 15 International Conferences on Climate Change. The strongest and most-esteemed scientists who have lectured at them – people like Richard Lindzen, William Gray, Robert Carter, Sebastian Lüning, Patrick Michaels, Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Ian Plimer, and I could go on and on – have no “major backing from the fossil fuel industry.”
But, even if they did, an intellectually honest person would relish debating and disputing their research and opinions on the merits. Many climate alarmists and their outfits get funding from green energy sources, or government agencies with a vested interest in pushing panic and “green energy.” But that is apparently not a problem. How about we declare it not a problem on both sides and hash out the science and policy? (I make that offer knowing the other side would never accept it, but I make it with all sincerity.)
Paragraph 3:
True, greed is still a major factor in anti-environmentalism. But climate denial has also become a front in the culture wars, with right-wingers rejecting the science in part because they dislike science in general and opposing action against emissions out of visceral opposition to anything liberals support.
False. Greed is also a factor in what passes for environmentalism these days. American “green energy” oligarchs have their paws all over the “Inflation Reduction Act” for the hundreds of millions in handouts to see who can be the next Solyndra – cash in and cash out while producing nothing of value.
“Right wingers” don’t “dislike science in general.” They oppose junk science as well as the economy- and freedom-killing “climate remedies” liberals support such as banning gas stoves, outlawing the internal combustion engine, and mandating expensive electric cars. Liberals insist we must electrify everything while at the same time shutting down reliable and affordable coal and natural gas plants and not replacing them with sufficient baseload energy. Wind and solar cannot ever produce enough reliable energy to sustain our economy and quality of life.
Paragraph 4:
And this cultural dimension of climate arguments has emerged at the worst possible moment — a moment when both the extreme danger from unchecked emissions and the path toward slashing those emissions are clearer than ever.
False. There is no “extreme danger from unchecked emissions,” though the path he advocates is clear: expensive “green energy” that doesn’t work, is exponentially more expensive, and will destroy the U.S. economy.
Paragraph 5:
Some background: Scientists who began warning decades ago that the rising concentration of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere would have dangerous effects on the climate have been overwhelmingly vindicated.
Worldwide, July was the hottest month on record, with devastating heat waves in many parts of the globe. Extreme weather events are proliferating. Florida is essentially sitting in a hot bath, with ocean temperatures off some of its coast higher than body temperature.
At the same time, technological progress in renewable energy has made it possible to envisage major reductions in emissions at little or no cost in terms of economic growth and living standards.
Back in 2009, when Democrats tried but failed to take significant climate action, their policy proposals consisted mainly of sticks — limits on emissions in the form of permits that businesses could buy and sell. In 2022, when the Biden administration finally succeeded in passing a major climate bill, it consisted almost entirely of carrots — tax credits and subsidies for green energy. Yet thanks to the revolution in renewable technology, energy experts believe that this all-gain-no-pain approach will have major effects in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
False. The “Inflation Reduction Act” was not only a lie in its title and a Trojan horse for the Green New Deal, it is laughable to call it “all gain, no pain.” And this sacrifice by America – while we have for years been reducing our carbon dioxide emissions more than any large economy on earth – will not reduce global greenhouse gas emissions because China and India, to name just two countries, are dramatically growing their emissions. China’s emissions alone now surpass that of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and all of the European Union combined.
Paragraph 10:
What’s behind this destructive effort? Well, Project 2025 appears to have been largely devised by the usual suspects — fossil-fueled think tanks like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute that have been crusading against climate science and climate action for many years.
False.The Heartland Institute is not a “fossil-fueled” think tank. Our annual budget is around $4 million a year – which is the amount Big Green nonprofits lose in their couch cushions – and only one percent of our 2022 funding came from any corporations at all. None of those were fossil fuel companies. The New York Times needs to retract that lie, which is designed to signal to their ignorant readers that any information from the likes of us that counters their preferred climate alarmist narrative is to be discounted.
Whew! Debunking this Krugman piece is more exhausting than usual. As I take this breather, let me point out that out of the first 10 paragraphs of Krugman’s garbage column, fully eight of them have blatant lies, mistakes, or smears. I believe that’s called “misinformation” in the corporate media parlance. Maybe Facebook should ban it and Google should stop it from showing up on searches.
Literally, the only paragraphs Krugman has written at this point so far in his fantastical narrative that are not soaking with blatant misinformation are the second one in which he pines for the “simpler, more innocent times” when “climate denial” was simply “all about greed,” and his description of “Project 2025” in the ninth paragraph – an effort led by Heartland’s friends at The Heritage Foundation to have a ready-made agenda for a new Republican president.
Krugman has a good streak going in paragraphs 11 and 12 describing how climate science has “become a front in the culture war” and how conservatives’ trust in science has plunged. Those two phenomena are related to the politicization of science by the leftists who run our institutions. Climate scientists, almost all funded by government, have made predictions for decades that have not come true.
But right-leaning people were not reluctant to get their COVID-19 shots because it was “something ‘experts’ and liberal elites wanted you to do,” as Krugman writes. It’s obviously more complicated than that, and Americans in a free society should be allowed to have their reasons to be “vaccine hesitant” and not have to explain why.
Some of the most pressing reasons were the fact that the vaccine was rushed, the messaging from bureaucrats was confusing and contradictory, and President Biden immediately imposed an unconstitutional mandate. Let’s not also discount the disgraceful behavior by the lefties who control our institutions and culture who bullied and “otherized” anyone who had legitimate questions and doubts about the vaccine – questions and doubts that have been largely vindicated.
Alas, Krugman’s “no lies” streak lasted all of two paragraphs. He goes on to characterize broad skepticism of climate alarmism among Republicans as just a way to “offend the elites.”
Paragraph 14:
Look at the hysterical reaction to potential regulations on gas stoves, and while it’s clear that special interests were, um, fueling the fire, there was also a strong culture-war element: The elites want you to get an induction cooktop, but real men cook with gas.
Well, yes. The blowback to the news that elites in our federal bureaucracy have set their disapproving gaze at the humble gas stove was strong. But it’s not hysteria. Not when instead of backing off, the Biden administration doubles down with talk of regulating out of existence even more appliances while communities in Krugman’s preferred liberal areas like New York and California ban gas appliances in all new construction and renovations.
Krugman writes in Paragraph 15, with some relief: “The fact that the climate war is now part of the culture war worries me, a lot.” But Krugman is confident that “special interests” can be “bought off or counterbalanced with other special interests” as we continue “the green transition.” Well, Heartland is not bought off, and neither are our allies in the think tank world.
Krugman finally finishes with Paragraph 16:
But such rational if self-interested considerations won’t do much to persuade people who believe that green energy is a conspiracy against the American way of life. So the culture war has become a major problem for climate action — a problem we really, really don’t need right now.
Green energy might not be a “conspiracy” against the American way of life, but it will destroy it. The push for “green energy” will, for starters: make energy unreliable and prohibitively more expensive; make personal transportation increasingly a luxury of the wealthy; take away the freedom of consumer choice in even the appliances one wants in their home; and more.
If we need to loop climate realism into the “culture war” to push back at that on all fronts, so be it. That’s what you get when you smugly think the majority of Americans are living their lives wrong, incorrectly think they are destroying the planet, and arrogantly think you can force the desires of an incompetent elite on the whole of society.
Jim Lakely is Vice President and Director of Communications at The Heartland Institute
BONUS: Watch me talk about some of this stuff in a recent Heartland video explaining how Biden’s regulators are going to make your life worse.
Eagle bird flying on sunset sky abstract background. Animal and freedom concept. Generative ai
In a major setback for the protection of wildlife, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill that will allow operators of wind and solar projects to slaughter bald and golden eagles, along with other raptors, under the guise of promoting “clean” energy in the state.
Senate Bill 147, sponsored by Sen. Angelique Ashby (D-Sacramento), and enthusiastically backed by the Democratic majority, will sanction the “incidental take” of wildlife in the pursuit of clearing the way for more green energy projects in the Golden State.
Sen. Ashby’s bill applies to solar photovoltaic projects, apartment infrastructure upgrades, and wind projects, along with associated electric transmission projects carrying high-voltage power from a facility located in the state to a point of junction with any California-based balancing authority.
The new law will “authorize the Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue a permit under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) that would authorize ‘the take’ of a fully protected species resulting from impacts attributable to the implementation of specified projects if certain conditions are satisfied, including, among others, the conditions required for the issuance of an incidental take permit.”
“Incidental take” is a legal term specifying the kinds of harm that can be inflicted on wildlife during normal commercial operations. As noted by the California Globe (July 10), it includes shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, or disturb. “Activities that directly or indirectly lead to ‘taking’ are prohibited without a permit, according to the American Eagle Foundation,” the Globe pointed out.
Yet under Sen. Ashby’s bill, that permit will be forthcoming for taxpayer-subsidized wind and solar projects, which is good for green-energy developers, but less so for birds at risk of being chopped up by spinning wind turbines.
The fate of eagles and other creatures appears to be of little interest to Sen. Ashby and her allies. So determined is she to grease the skids for wind and solar projects in California that she has declared her legislation an “urgency” bill, meaning it goes into effect immediately upon enactment.
Licensed to Kill
We all remember that James Bond was “licensed to kill,” and now 007 is the role model for green energy. But in his case, Bond was at least allowed to kill bad guys while Sen. Ashby’s bill authorizes the murder of birds that have the temerity to cross the path of planet-saving renewable energy.
And die they will.
Last year, the Washington Post reported on a case the Department of Justice had brought against wind developer ESI Energy.
“An American wind energy company has admitted to killing at least 150 bald and golden eagles, most of which were fatally struck by wind turbine blades,” federal prosecutors said, the Post reported. “ESI Energy pleaded guilty to three counts of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) after eagles died at three of its facilities in Wyoming and New Mexico, according to a statement from the Justice Department.”
As part of its “mitigation plan,” ESI Energy will have to pay $29,623 for each bald or golden eagle killed by its turbine blades in the future. “ESI has since acknowledged that at least 150 bald and golden eagles at 50 of its 154 wind farms over the past decade and that 136 of the deaths occurred when the birds flew into a turbine blade,” prosecutors said,” the Post added.
Now that Gov. Newsom, an enthusiastic supporter of wind and solar power, has signed the bill, eagles in California will be facing hard times. The new law is a way for state agencies and green-energy developers to get around the annoying problem of birds being killed in large numbers as a direct result of California’s energy priorities.
And from the likes of the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society, who would have the world believe they really care about protected species? Not a peep.
Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT, where he focuses on natural resources, energy, property rights, and geopolitical developments.
Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor’s Busines Daily, The New York Post, The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, The Hill, The Epoch Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer,
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers around the country.
He has been interviewed on Fox News, Fox Business Network, CNN, NBC News, NPR, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, N24 (German-language news network), and scores of radio stations in the U.S. and Canada.
He has testified before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee. Dr. Cohen has addressed conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh.
He has a B.A. from the University of Georgia and a Ph. D. – summa cum laude – from the University of Munich.
Millions of solar panels are reaching the end of their lifespan, but with no adequate recycling infrastructure in place to deal with them, an environmental disaster is looming. This is Moneyhas more on the potential polluting consequences of solar energy.
Tonnes of solar panels could end up on the scrap heap unless the Government acts now, experts have warned.
There are around 25 million solar panels in the U.K. and 2.5 billion globally. …
But as the first generation of solar panels are expected to die off in the coming years, experts have warned that many could end up in landfill rather than recycled because of a drastic lack of infrastructure.
Currently, there is only one recycling plant in the whole of the U.K. that specialises in recycling solar panels but this is a small operation in Scunthorpe.
However, the company is currently only stockpiling the panels and when they have “enough stock” then they will “invest in the equipment to recycle them”, a spokesman told MailOnline, adding that it was “early days in the industry”.
The only place in the entire world that will recycle solar panels on an industrial scale is the first Return of Silicon Plant (ROSI) in France, which was due to open last month.
At the moment, the number of dead solar panels is only a small scale.
But the first generation of solar panels is forecast to die within the next five or ten years and according to Professor Chris Sansom at the University of Derby, by 2050 we could have 300 million tonnes of scrap panels globally.
For comparison, the world currently produces a similar amount of plastic waste each year.
Currently, almost all photovoltaic (PV) panel waste goes into landfill and only very small numbers are recycled by labour-intensive and expensive means as they must be taken apart by hand, the professor added.
Speaking to the MailOnline, he clarified: “Well, I think I think it’s probably true to say that scrap panels at the moment do end up in landfill but there hasn’t been that many of them to be honest.
“The panels that people are putting on their homes and have put on their homes in the last five or 10 years, whatever it is, will still be there because they last for at least 20 years and possibly even 30 years.
“If they fail, whatever the reason, then they probably have gone to landfill but there’s a big question there about what to do because we can’t carry on doing that. So, there is a big issue.”
The report said that given the surge of solar panel deployment since 2010 and average lifetime and failure rates for panels, waste volumes are “certain to increase more rapidly after 2030”.
Europe is predicted to be the second largest solar panel waste market with projected waste of up to three million by 2030
Asia will remain the largest waste producer with projections of up to 3.5 million accumulated waste, according to the report.
While the report said there is a huge potential for economic revenue for the disposal of PVs because of the valuable materials and the birth of a new industry, there is little sign that much action is currently being taken.
In 2018, a senior Chinese solar official and research scientist with the German Stuttgart Institute for Photovoltaics, warned that solar panel disposal “will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment”.
He also warned that there will be a huge amount of waste as they are not easy to recycle, adding: “The reality is that there is a problem now, and it’s only going to get larger, expanding as rapidly as the PV industry expanded 10 years ago.”
There is a cult that holds an unshakeable belief that wind and solar has already defeated coal, oil and gas. Not that there is any real contest.
Indeed, without the hydrocarbons there would be no solar panels or wind turbines. Moreover, were we ever to attempt to rely on wind and solar power generation alone, without the hydrocarbons proven ability to meet demand whenever the sun sets and/or calm weather sets in, we would be sitting freezing (or boiling) in the dark.
The truth is something played cheap by ideologues, everywhere.
However, as Winston Churchill put it: “Truth is incontrovertible, ignorance can deride it, panic may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is.”
Well, here it is. Laid out in 3, easy to digest installments.
Episode 1: How Fossil Fuels Saved the World YouTube Mises Institute 26 May 2023
Transcript
Every person uses energy every day. Most from the time they wake up to when they go to bed. It is such a part of daily life that it is easy to take for granted.
But it’s important to understand that this is a very modern phenomenon. Not that long ago, even the wealthiest kings could not have imagined the energy the working class has at its disposal today. What changed?
The use of fossil fuels: coal, petroleum, and natural gas.
Yes, the energy sources demonized by politicians, activists, and professors throughout the world are what revolutionized humanity’s quality of life.
Why? Fossil fuels are cost effective. They are reliable. They are portable. And these qualities are what allowed for a boom in automated factories, transportation, indoor heating and cooling, and so much more. For most of human history, the average life expectancy was around thirty years. Populations remained relatively stagnant for centuries. Then, fossil fuels sparked the Industrial Revolution, creating a boom for humankind and changing everything.
Our planet now supports eight billion people. For most of human history, it could not even carry close to one billion. Without the conditions created by fossil fuels, at least seven of every eight people alive today wouldn’t be able to survive, let alone thrive the way humanity does today.
No segment of the population has benefitted more from this improvement in material well-being than the most vulnerable among us.
It is stable, reliable energy that allows premature babies to have a chance at life. It is refrigeration that allows those working paycheck to paycheck to keep their food safe to eat. Air-conditioning makes it possible for people in the warmest places to comfortably survive the summer and warms people in the coldest places through the winter.
Once we appreciate the incredible impact fossil fuels have had on civilization, we can seriously consider the energy debate going on around the world. Before we can decide what changes we should make to our energy consumption or “carbon footprint,” we need to fully appreciate what we’re trying to replace and the real-world consequences of the alternatives. We need to understand what might really motivating fossil fuels’ most vocal critics.
Thinking like an economist means thinking about the unseen, not only what we see around us. And in this series, we are going to dig into the unseen of energy. YouTube
Episode 2: The True Fossil Fuel Crisis YouTube Mises Institute 13 June 2023
Transcript
If we start with an appreciation of the role energy abundance has played in improving the material existence of humankind, we can consider why fossil fuels played this historic role in our energy consumption and what we should keep in mind when looking for alternatives.
Human energy use did not begin with industrialization.
Fire is an obvious source of energy, used from the earliest days of man. Our own bodies, burning calories as we breathe, are an example of energy consumption. Wind and animals were used for transportation. What made fossil fuels revolutionary is their cost-effectiveness.
In his book *Fossil Future*, Alex Epstein simplified the issue of cost-effectiveness into four points:
Affordability: How much does energy use cost relative to how much money people have?
Reliability: Can it be produced “on demand,” in as large a quantity as needed?
Versatility: Can it power many kinds of machines?
Scalability: How many people can it power, and in how many places?
By these measures, fossil fuels continue to stand alone.
Let’s take gasoline as an example.
While prices can fluctuate, such as when gas production is impacted by international crises, gasoline remains affordable enough that both the elite and the working class use it every day.
Gasoline is plentiful. In fact, thanks to new surveys made possible by technological advancements, there are more known crude oil reserves in America today than there were in 1977. Gasoline is also reliable in that it will dependably power machinery as long as the engine is functional.
It is versatile that in it can power everything from airplanes to lawn equipment.
And gasoline is scalable in that once sealed in a drum or vessel, it can be shipped anywhere in the world and can sit in storage indefinitely without losing its potency.
Natural gas and coal also have these qualities, which explains why countries like China are increasing their investment in these very fuels even while Western leaders make expensive commitments to move away from them.
In fact, it is the reluctance of North America, Europe, and other economies to do the same that is creating the real fossil fuel crisis: a future of declining reliable energy sources. While global turmoil between Russia and the West has forced European countries to consider the realities of energy scarcity, less developed parts of the world have not yet enjoyed the societal benefits of energy abundance, even in peace. In parts of Africa, for example, energy rationing limits access to life-saving medical equipment. In other areas, unreliable energy sources severely limit industrial capacity.
While America has the natural resources to significantly increase fossil fuel production, energy companies are unwilling to invest in expensive new refineries that will not be profitable for many years. By pushing energy policy away from promoting production and toward other aims—such as alleged environmentalism—North America and Europe are making reliable energy resources more scarce at the expense of their citizens and the rest of the world.
Ironically, those that pay the most lip service to “environmental justice” are promoting policies that directly result in the suffering of the most economically vulnerable in the world.
But do green activists’ preferred alternatives have fossil fuels’ useful qualities? Can humanity rely on them? That is the topic of our next video. YouTube
Episode 3: The Green Energy Lie YouTube Mises Institute 20 June 2023
Transcript
As we noted in the previous episode, fossil fuels sparked an energy revolution that forever changed our concept of comfort. Powerful individuals around the globe are advocating for a radical change in our energy consumption, and they claim that what are branded as “green” or “renewable” energy sources can replace fossil fuels.
But these so-called alternative energy sources really are not alternatives at all.
Let’s recall the four characteristics of cost-effective energy: affordability, reliability, versatility, and scalability.
Consider two of the most popular “green” energy sources: solar and wind power.
Solar and wind make up a large part of almost every prominent alternative energy program and have been heavily subsidized by government spending. Solar and wind proponents proclaim that these energy sources have a lower environmental impact than fossil fuels, have enjoyed increased popularity in recent decades, and have become cheaper over time.
This overlooks some important details.
Looking at the places where solar and wind are most popular, we see an interesting pattern: the cost of energy tends to be much higher. Why?
One reason is that while harnessing sun radiation or strong wind may seem like a low-impact form of energy creation, the machines needed to harness this energy—like solar panels and windmills—are resource intensive. In fact, using solar and wind equipment to generate a given amount of energy requires ten times more mined materials than using fossil fuels. When these machines break down, their disposal creates yet another environmental burden.
Another problem is energy dilution, which is the efficiency that is lost when energy is transported over distance or time. Larger commercial solar and wind farms tend to be far away from neighborhoods and other population centers, so extensive infrastructure is required to transmit the energy to people’s homes and businesses, and a lot of energy is lost in transit. On the other hand, home solar panels require large batteries to store energy for periods of low sunlight. Over time, these batteries’ ability to hold a charge diminishes.
The concerns about reliability don’t end there. While battery technology may allow a household to prepare for recurring low-sun periods, extreme weather has proven to be deadly for power grids that rely more on wind and solar.
For example, a powerful ice storm can freeze windmills, halting energy generation at a time when heat is desperately needed. The 2021 winter storms in Texas saw people freeze to death in their homes because of the catastrophic failure of a power grid due to reliance on wind energy.
Even the European Greens’ ambitious plans to close coal power plants have stalled in the face of the reality that even heavy subsidization of green energy cannot replace traditional power sources.
While solar and wind can serve as supplemental energy sources, they are nowhere near close to being a serious alternative to fossil fuels, and it is unlikely they will ever be able to replace traditional energy sources.
This inconvenient truth has not stopped politicians, celebrities, activists, and other global leaders from advocating for banning fossil fuels. YouTube
Share this:
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
