More buckets of icy cold energy reality

Democrats, Green New Dealers and UN gabfest attendees need to get ‘woke’ on eco-energy

Paul Driessen

The full-court press is on for climate chaos disaster and renewable energy salvation. CNN recently hosted a seven-hour climate event for Democrat presidential aspirants. Every day brings more gloom-and-doom stories about absurd, often taxpayer-funded pseudo-scientific reports on yet another natural event or supposed calamity that alarmists insist is due to fossil fuels that provide 80% of US and global energy.

MSNBC just hosted another two-day Democrat presidential candidates climate forum at Georgetown University – where I spoke at a contrarian program. Meanwhile, a big Climate March took place in New York City, while protesters tried to block Washington, DC streets. They were all kicking off the UN’s “Global Climate Week” in NYC, featuring a Youth Climate Summit and UN General Assembly event where world leaders will demand “global action” to supposedly stop the supposed climate crisis.

Their standard solution is biofuel, solar, wind and battery power. My recent article dumped buckets of icy cold reality on several of those claims. They obviously need to be doused with a few more icy buckets.

To reiterate: Wind and sunshine are free, renewable, sustainable and eco-friendly. However, the lands and raw materials required for technologies to harness this widely dispersed, intermittent, weather-dependent energy to benefit humanity absolutely are not. In fact, their environmental impacts are monumental.

The Democrat candidates and their supporters want to replace coal and gas backup power plants with batteries, to ensure we have (much more expensive) electricity even when intermittent, weather-dependent wind and sunshine refuse to cooperate with our need for 24/7/365 power for our electricity-based homes, schools, hospitals, factories, businesses, computers, social media and civilization.

So let’s suppose we blanket the United States with enough industrial-scale wind and solar facilities to replace the 3.9 billion megawatt-hours Americans used in 2018 – and we manufacture and install enough king-sized batteries to store sufficient electricity for seven straight windless or sunless days.

We would need something on the order of one billion 100-kilowatt-hour, 1,000-pound lithium and cobalt-based battery packs – similar to what Tesla uses in its electric vehicles. (This does not include the extra battery storage required to charge up the cars, trucks and buses we are supposed to replace with EVs.)

All these batteries would support the millions and millions of Green New Deal solar panels and wind turbines we would have to build and install. They would require prodigious amounts of iron, copper, rare earth metals, concrete and other raw materials. And every one of these batteries, turbines and panels would have to be replaced far more often than coal, gas, nuclear or hydroelectric power plants.

Indeed, what are we going do with all those worn-out and broken-down turbines, panels and batteries? The International Renewable Energy Agency has said disposing of just the worn out solar panels that the UN wants erected around the world by 2050, under the Paris Climate Treaty’s solar energy goals, could result in two times the tonnage of the United States’ total plastic waste in 2017!

So another icy cold reality is this: All this “free, renewable, sustainable, eco-friendly, ethical” energy would require the biggest expansion in mining the world has ever seen. But when was the last time any environmentalist or Democrat supported opening a single US mine? They detest mining.

Which brings us to the dirtiest pseudo-renewable, pseudo-sustainable energy secret of all – the one these folks absolutely do not want to talk about: slave and child labor.

Because of rabid environmentalist opposition, the United States and Europe no longer permit much mining within their borders. They just import minerals – many of them from China and Russia. And the same groups that extol the virtues of wind, solar and battery power are equally opposed to Western mining companies extracting rare earth, lithium, cadmium, cobalt and other minerals almost anywhere on Planet Earth – even under rigorous Western labor, safety, environmental and reclamation rules.

That means those materials are mined and processed in places like Baotou, Inner Mongolia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, mostly under Chinese control. They are dug out and processed by fathers, mothers and children – under horrific, unsafe, inhuman conditions that few of us can even imagine … under almost nonexistent labor, wage, health, safety and pollution standards.

Those renewable energy, high-tech slaves get a few pennies or dollars a day – while risking cave-ins and being exposed constantly to filthy, toxic, radioactive mud, dust, water and air. The mining and industrial areas become vast toxic wastelands, where nothing grows, and no people or wildlife can live.

For cobalt alone – say UNICEF and Amnesty International – over 40,000 Congolese children, as young as four years old, slave away in mines, from sunrise to sundown, six or even seven days a week. That’s today. Imagine how many will be needed to serve the “ethical green energy utopia.”

Green New Dealers demand sustainable, ethical, human rights-based coffee, sneakers, T-shirts, handbags and diamonds. Absolutely no child labor, sweat shop, or toxic, polluted workplace conditions allowed. But they have little or nothing to say about the Chinese, Russian and other companies that run the horrid operations that provide their wind turbines, solar panels, smart grids – and batteries for their cell phones, Teslas, laptops and backup electrical power.

I’ve never seen them make ethical wind turbines, solar panels and batteries an issue. They’ve never protested outside a Chinese, Russian or Congolese embassy, or corporate headquarters in Beijing, Moscow or Kinshasa. They probably don’t want to get shot or sent to gulags.

And just a few weeks ago, California legislators voted down Assembly Bill 735. The bill simply said California would certify that “zero emission” electric vehicles sold in the state must be free of any materials or components that involve child labor. The issue is complicated, the legislators said. It would be too hard to enforce. It would imperil state climate goals. And besides, lots of other industries also use child labor … they “explained.”

As Milton Friedman said, there is no free lunch. Wind, solar, biofuel and battery power are not free, clean, green, renewable or sustainable. America must not let delusion, dishonesty and ideology drive public policies that will determine our future jobs, prosperity, living standards, freedoms and civilization.

What Green New Dealers are talking about has nothing to do with stopping dangerous manmade climate change – or with real sustainability, resource conservation or environmental protection. It has everything to do with increasingly socialist, largely taxpayer-financed activists, politicians, regulators and crony capitalists controlling people’s lives; dictating our energy use, economic growth, job opportunities and living standards; and getting richer, more powerful and more privileged in the process.

Meanwhile poor, minority and working class families – pay the price. And destitute families in hungry, impoverished, electricity-deprived nations pay the highest price. China, India, Indonesia and Africa are not about to give up their determined efforts to take their rightful, God-given places among Earth’s healthy and prosperous people. They are not going to stop using fossil fuels to reach their goals.

They are not going to let anyone – including the UN, EU, US Democrats and other eco-imperialists – tell them they can never enjoy those blessings. Or they will be “allowed” to improve their health and living standards only at the margins, only to levels achievable with wind, solar and cow dung power.

That’s why, even as the United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 12% between 2000 and 2017 – India’s plant-fertilizing CO2 emissions soared by 140% and China’s skyrocketed 194% – further greening Planet Earth. In 2019 alone, China alone will add more coal-fired generating capacity than what all existing US coal-fired power plants generate.

While all these countries continue using more and more fossil fuels to improve their economies, health and living standards – why in heaven’s name would the United States want to join Green New Dealers and other crazies in an environment-destroying ban-fossil-fuels economic suicide pact?

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, climate, environmental and human rights issues.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
76 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
GTB
September 23, 2019 11:49 pm

A little off topic but very interesting. Venezuela Collapse Explained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUltZmKqfmM
Shows the result of socialism. It could happen to the US.
G

griff
September 23, 2019 11:57 pm

Are there really ever 7 straight sunless and windless days across the WHOLE of the USA?

In reality you have to deal with this on a regional basis…

And of course there will still be some hydro power and there are numerous other solutions apart from battery packs… pumped storage (including coal mine shafts and old mine ponds), gravity based storage, etc, etc

this whole thing (and the preceding article) is just one huge straw man.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  griff
September 24, 2019 9:41 am

Idiot. If we divert power from other regions of the country to provide power in the cloudy region, then we create shortages in the sunny regions. Unless we mandate that each region has surplus capacity, which just compounds all the other problems with resource acquisition and manufacturing capacity (to name a few). Then the question becomes, how much surplus capacity do you need, 50%, 100%, more. Keep in mind that you need to have some surplus to recharge your storage systems as well. Creating a dependable energy delivery system based on intermittent sources that you can’t accurately predict output from is nearly impossible. If you are willing to put up with an unreliable energy delivery system, then you also have to face the consequences of that: additional human suffering and death.

So which will it be, take the chance that maybe the earth will warm a few additional degrees C and maybe that will cause some additional human suffering and death, or mass implementation of “renewable” power to (possibly) avert the warming and guarantee additional human suffering and death? Personally I bet that human innovation will find a way to cope with a little warming (if it happens). We’ve overcome multiple “insurmountable” problems in the past, and we will again, if needed.

F.LEGHORN
Reply to  griff
September 26, 2019 3:32 am

So we pump water downhill into mineshafts and when we need power it flows uphill into the generators? You really think these things through, don’t you?

Stoic
September 24, 2019 1:18 am

I have tried to post this on Bishop Hill, our UK home site, but for some reason I am unable to post because the spam filter is not working for me. I am concerned that the BBC is shredding its reputation as a worldwide news organisation that can be trusted.
Yesterday morning I complained to the BBC about an article by Matt McGrath which was published on 22 September headlined ‘Climate change: Impacts “accelerating” as leaders gather for UN talks’. The article as published originally may be found by inserting https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49773869 in the Wayback Machine and viewing one of the snapshots on 22 September. This is how the article starts: “The signs and impacts of global heating are speeding up, the latest science on climate change, published ahead of key UN talks in New York, says.”

Some time yesterday after I had complained to the BBC the text on the website was changed. “Heating” was replaced with “Warming” and the first sentence became: “The signs and impacts of global warming are speeding up, the latest science on climate change, published ahead of key UN talks in New York, says.” There is no explanation why the word has been changed from heating to warming.

This was the text of my complaint which has not been acknowledged by the BBC.

“Mr McGrath has misreported the WMO press release to which he refers in his report. The WMO makes no mention of “global heating” as McGrath asserts but refers to further “global warming”. Why has the BBC started using an overtly alarmist political word such as “heating” when the WMO did not? McGrath is clearly following the lead of the Guardian which on 17 May 2019 published an update to its style guide:

“The Guardian has updated its style guide to introduce terms that more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world.
Instead of “climate change” the preferred terms are “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown” and “global heating” is favoured over “global warming”, although the original terms are not banned.”

Worrying times for people who trust the BBC as a reliable, unbiased worldwide news organisation. As a matter of interest, George Orwell worked for the BBC in WW2.

Rhys Jaggar
Reply to  Stoic
September 24, 2019 3:32 am

You should have given up trusting the BBC on 9/11.

The BBC now overtly discriminates against white men. It is partisan about the EU, climate change. It is on message where habitual lying about the Middle East is concerned.

And as for sport, it is a gravy train for overseas jollies, vastly overpaying and overmanning major event reportage teams so that the in crowd can run up huge expenses at the taxpeyers expense.

Rod
September 24, 2019 8:05 am

Excellent article, Mr. Driessen. I’m not sure why it had the impact it did, but starting with the left’s hatred of mining generally and then moving on to exactly how that mining is occurring in poorer countries was effective. It might even convince a, say, second-grade teacher who has been unwittingly pushing climate change nonsense on her charges to reconsider what she’s advocating. In other words, your article could provoke thought in some key constituencies. It should be shared widely.

Also, Al Gore and his ilk manage to use just a few, sometimes even faked, pictures to influence millions about global warming. The stranded polar bear being just one example. And yet, today there are pictures of real examples of the tortures of child labor discussed in your article. Might they have an equally strong influence on the argument, especially given that they are real and illustrate humans, and children at that, enduring the suffering. You should consider including them.

Phloda
September 24, 2019 9:03 am

This reminds me of the old Steve Martin bit, “You can be a millionaire and not pay any taxes. First, get yourself a million dollars.”

The Green Nude Eelers chant would be, “You can be a green, sustainable planet. First, get yourself a few million windmills and solar panels.”

There is no silver bullet. Life is a tradeoff.

HFM, PE
September 24, 2019 11:59 am

The whole problem with greenhouse gas emissions from energy production will be solved when (and only when) there is an energy source made available that is both cheaper than coal and just as reliable. When that occurs you won’t need global convocations of self righteous politicians. Solar and wind will never meet this criteria because as they become a larger portion of our energy, the storage costs skyrocket. The more likely outcome will be more use of natural gas. Of course, nuclear power would meet the “cheaper than coal and just as reliable” criterion. During the 1970’s carbon emissions decline as nuclear was rolled out. In fact, this whole crisis (real or not) would have been avoided except for the totally paranoid, phobic opposition to nuclear power. Nuclear is so expensive in the US because each new plant has to meet ever tightening safety regulations in spite of a near perfect safety record.

N. F.
September 25, 2019 9:57 pm

OK, you convinced me that the lefties are not friends to the miners. But are the right wingers any better? Is there any politician who actually stands up for the men who go underground to dig ore? Being pals with a rich mine owner is not the same as being friends with a miner.

The Old Guide
September 26, 2019 6:09 am

“Well, why has America not replaced both the Republicans and the Democrats with new parties that serve the people?

You know: democracy.”

It is not ‘well’. The word ‘democracy’ does not appear anywhere in our founding documents. Our founding fathers regarded democracy as abhorrent and the tyranny of the majority. The minority could become ruled by tyrants and they had just defeated tyranny.

We are a Republic (thank God). We will always be a republic. Progressives want to eliminate personal freedom. There is a growing list of words that are politically correct and ideas that are disapproved. Meanwhile, there are superstitions abounding that are accepted and promoted by progressives who want to shut down 80% of the energy production in America. 80% of the energy in our country comes from fossil fuels. It cannot be replaced with solar and wind.

Back in the 1940s when I was in school, our day began with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer. Today, we have public schools establishing prayer rooms so Mustafah can pray with hos Koran. Billy is no supposed to have a Bible in school. We had a rifle range under the stage in school. We sent our targets toother schools and they sent theirtargets to us. We scored each other’s targets. These were not pellet rifles. They were Winchester Model 52 rifles and they were very accurate. We rode to school on bicycles and put our shotguns in the shop teachers’s locker during the day. Then we hunted our way home after school.

We will get those rights back after the adjustment. You do realize that we have an adjustment coming, right?

September 26, 2019 5:43 pm

I believe renewable energy will be great just as soon as they can figure out how to make a nonpolluting version. Example:

[quote]

A Wyoming landfill is burying massive fiberglass wind turbine blades in a huge unlined pit because they’re not recyclable, and there’s no other good use for them.

At least three wind farms in the state are scraping more than 900 old environmentally unfriendly blades that will be sawed into pieces and hauled to the Casper Regional Landfill over the next year.

Casper Solid Waste Manager Cynthia Langston told KGWN the facility is the only one in the state big enough to handle the massive blades, which are expected to take hundreds of years to degrade.

[full story at link]

Johann Wundersamer
September 28, 2019 9:19 pm

“We would need something on the order of one billion 100-kilowatt-hour, 1,000-pound lithium and cobalt-based battery packs – similar to what Tesla uses in its electric vehicles. (This does not include the extra battery storage required to charge up the cars, trucks and buses we are supposed to replace with EVs.)

All these batteries would support the millions and millions of Green New Deal solar panels and wind turbines we would have to build and install. They would require prodigious amounts of iron, copper, rare earth metals, concrete and other raw materials. And every one of these batteries, turbines and panels would have to be replaced far more often than coal, gas, nuclear or hydroelectric power plants.

Indeed, what are we going do with all those worn-out and broken-down turbines, panels and batteries? The International Renewable Energy Agency has said disposing of just the worn out solar panels that the UN wants erected around the world by 2050, under the Paris Climate Treaty’s solar energy goals, could result in two times the tonnage of the United States’ total plastic waste in 2017!”

_____________________________________________

It’s worse than in said

“disposing of just the worn out solar panels that the UN wants erected around the world by 2050, under the Paris Climate Treaty’s solar energy goals, could result in two times the tonnage of the United States’ total plastic waste in 2017!”

::

https://www.google.com/search?q=problems+recycling+Windelecs+blades&oq=problems+recycling+Windelecs+blades+&aqs=chrome.

Johann Wundersamer
September 28, 2019 9:52 pm

commieBob September 23, 2019 at 4:26 pm

If you’re really into energy conservation, you can build a house that requires next to no heating. Of course, you have to be careful not to suffocate.,
________________________________________

South African narratives – replace

“noxious carbon dioxide, which is heavier than pure air and sinks to the bottom.”

with

“noxious carbon MONOXIDE, which is heavier than pure air and sinks to the bottom.”

https://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+monoxide&oq=carbon+mono&aqs=chrome.

and you get

– South Africa’s real problems; and too

– why, in small cabins next open fires, we always should sleep in beds

::

“The advent of the phantom Tokoloshe came about through indigenous South African[disambiguation needed] folklore to explain why people inexplicably died while sleeping in the their rondavels at night.
Traditionally, these Africans slept on the floor on grass mats encircling a wood fire that kept them warm during sub-freezing cold winter nights on the highveld in the rarified air. They never realized the fire was depleting the oxygen levels, leaving noxious carbon dioxide, which is heavier than pure air and sinks to the bottom.

Eventually it was realized that anyone who happened to be sleeping in an elevated position escaped the deadly curse of Tokoloshe, which was described as a short man about hip high who randomly stole one’s life in the night unless they were lifted to the height of their bed.

“Some Zulu people (and other southern African tribes) are still superstitious when it comes to things like the supposedly fictional tokoloshe—a hairy creature created by a witch doctor to harm his enemies (also … known to rape women and bite off sleeping people’s toes).”[1]

According to legend, the only way to keep the Tokoloshe away at night is to put a brick beneath each leg of one’s bed.

However, this will not protect anything but the person whose bed it is along with the bed itself, as it may instead cause havoc not involving said people. They get their power from a hot poker thrust into the crown of the body during creation.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikoloshe

Johann Wundersamer
September 28, 2019 10:11 pm

General – problems of developing 3rd world countries, as e.g. Norway was before 100 years of interglacial emergency global warming:

Ask Knud Hamsun.

https://www.google.com/search?q=knut+hamsun+sult&oq=knut+hamsun+sult&aqs=chrome.

Johann Wundersamer
September 28, 2019 10:26 pm

Which leads to border control – some emergency catastrophic climate refugees never come clear from their “cultural heritage” :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elifasi_Msomi

The world KNEW even before 1951!