The Push For Energy Socialism In The United States

Economist Charles Steele explains how Democratic candidates for President are pushing energy socialism and why the attempt to meet their physically impossible goals, would require totalitarianism.

More than a billion people suffer from energy poverty around the world and plans proposed by the Democratic candidates for the party’s nomination for President, like various version of the Green New Deal, would bring poverty and death for millions in the United States. The rapid economic transition from required by the rapid elimination of fossil fuel would require totalitarian political institutions. Replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar, is impossible as a matter of physics.

Advertisements

113 thoughts on “The Push For Energy Socialism In The United States

  1. Energy policy by a socialist government FAILED, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-49905748

    Were I live, was once one of the biggest coal mining areas in the world,when Maggie closed the mines down nothing was done,there has been a socialist government in power for the last 20 years who are more interested in green deals and destroying farming than looking after there own people.

    • Yes but if you believe the b..llshit broadcasting corp you will believe anything.
      Wales is no different from any other part of the UK.
      Badly made houses, leaky single glazed windows, freezing damp weather and lots of fog.
      All comes from living on the edge of a large drafty ocean.

      I don’t believe anything that crappy public financed org says, it’s all lies, mega salaries and Jimmy Savile, Harris style, vile 2 faced idiots, like the recently retired humphrys (thank goodness).
      Oh how he cried tears in his breakfast cereal on his last day, didn’t he, when he got 10K+ a week?

      How that guy could get paid 600k for the crap he spouted every breakfast for 30yrs beats me…
      The socialism and the paedos started in the BEEB, and it should be closed, or should have been abolished 20yrs ago!

    • B d Clark,

      Yes, Mrs ‘Maggie’ Thatcher came to power in 1979 and – as you say – she initiated the Ridley Plan to close the UK coal industry. She was not a socialist and her Party (i,e, the Conservative Party aka the Tories) was not socialist.

      It was not until 1997 that the socialist Labour Party led by Tony Blair won an election and supplanted the Tory government. By then there was so little left of the coal industry that the few remaining pits were not viable.

      The socialists left office and were replaced by the Tory-led coalition (with the Lib Dems) in 2010. David Cameron then became Prime Minister.

      The Tories won the 2015 election and formed a government led by Cameron. A succession of Tory governments have existed since then.

      So, you are right to say that “Maggie closed the mines down” but I fail to understand why you think “there has been a socialist government in power for the last 20 years”.

      Furthermore, the most significant fact is that Thatcher deliberately started the AGW scare when she was Prime Minister and that was BEFORE “the last 20 years”.

      Richard

      PS I was the Vice President of the British Association of Colliery Management (BACM).

      • but I fail to understand why you think “there has been a socialist government in power for the last 20 years

        Perhaps he’s Scottish and is refereeing to the governing party of Scottland?

        • I’m not Scottish, I live in Wales, Wales has a devolved government from Westminster, for the last 20 years been under a labour administration who are socialists.

      • Richard there has been a Welsh labour party (socialists) in power in Wales for the last twenty years,Wales have a certain amount of self rule powers devolved from Westminster.

        • H d Clark,

          I conceded that point and stated it in my above post addressed to you.

          Richard

          • That’s exactly what they wont you to think, the press play them for useless, you and every one else think there useless, there far from useless, there end game is to drive Wales and every other nation back into the stone age,they have deliberately stopped any infrastructure progress, eg M4 upgrades, instead there more concerned with keeping the status quo, a environmentalist environment minister who has tried to destroy farming,which the farmers have fought back against, so they go quiet and wait from the UK government’s lead on environmental matters ie M Gove plan,so they dont take the blame,,there far from useless they have a clear consistent plan.

      • I dont agree with you Mark on this one ,Thatcher brought in a American to oversee dismantling the coal industry(his name I’ve forgotten) the union but not all areas fought the closers, the unions never stood a chance because they were fighting the government not the management, the decision was already made ,however the union acted. In other words whatever the unions did be it strike or lie down and surrender they had already lost.

        However a few pits survived or went opencast, some mines went on care and maintenance, today I think 2 deep pits are working and some opencast are operating, most pits were allowed to flood and landscaped even if they still had workable reserves ,there is still some 220 million tons reserves known and possibly a lot more,

        The argument of who hit the final nail in the coffin of the coal industry is bitter and pointless,I find it very sad and dont want to argue with people who I tend to agree with like your good self.

        • The coal mines were doomed years before Thatcher took office.
          Between the frequent strikes, ridiculous work rules and inflated salaries, the mines were already doomed.

          • During the 60s and 70s mine were closed not because of wages but because there working life had finished and or faulted ground at the same time mines were opening and advertising for men,many pits could not produce because of lack of man power ,management and governments used the cost of wages as a exercise to alienate the miners from the public,the government many decades earlier destroyed the hard rock mining industry because they dropped the mineral price, which collapsed the industry, and then proceeded to import from Australia in the beginning broken hill, governments always will and have what ever political persuasions destroy industries,do I sound left wing to you,yes the old left socialist type,not the new wave of socialism that bears no resemblance to the traitors we have today hiding under the guise of socialism.

          • MarkW,

            Your comments about the destruction of the UK coal industry only display you know absolutely nothing about the subject.

            Richard

        • Untrue. The previous labour govt. closed down twice as many coal mines as Fatch. She just tidied up at the end. Get your facts straight.

        • The truth is that the Labour government of Wilson and Callaghan closed more pits than the Thatcher government. She gets the blame though because she faced down the national union of mine workers lead by the communist Arthur Scargill. After that the unions hold on UK politics was removed and the country prospered.

          • Are you really that dull, dont you understand pits were closed because they were uneconomic that’s the opposite of why thacher destroyed the mining industry,Wilson invested in super pits,did you not read this I stated this earlier, small pits were also opening but were restricted by the amount of labour available,you really have no idea on recent mining history,

      • In the Wilson era not because of Wilson. I’ve just explained this to Markw perhaps the post is not yet visible, and I will add to that post the new age super pits were on line and coming on line during Wilson’s office employing many thousands of men as the old pits became worked out, small pits were being opened at the same time,the coal industry particularly after nationalisation was always in a state of flux.

        • If I said more mines were closed during the Wilson era than those closed during the Thatcher era, would that be better? Either way, they say the same thing.

          • Patrick MJD,

            Your point is factually correct but very, very misleading.

            The Wilson government published the Plan For Coal. That administration invested in a few, new, modern, highly productive, mechanised mines (mostly longwall faces) and closed the many small and unproductive mines operated by men digging coal with picks and shovels.

            The Thatcher government closed the mechanised mines.

            Richard

          • It’s always good to get to the detail. Wilson didn’t have to content with the EU label “Dirty Man of Europe” during his term as PM. And then you recall the label “Thatcher Thatcher the milk snatcher”? She didn’t start that cost cutting mission either.

            BTW, I was no fan of either Wilson or Thatcher, but Thatcher was always made out to be the “baddie” because she was Tory, when in fact she was no worse or better than any PM before her.

          • Yep. Wilson was the real problem. And mining was a crappy way to make a living, look at the health problems caused.

    • “Economist Charles Steele explains how Democratic candidates for President are pushing energy socialism and why the attempt to meet their physically impossible goals, would require totalitarianism.”
      Excerpted from:
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/03/the-push-for-energy-socialism-in-the-united-states/

      “The clear intent is to use the global warming smokescreen to restrict economic and political freedoms by transforming Western countries into tightly controlled totalitarian states.”
      Excerpted from:
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/01/the-liberals-covert-green-plan-for-canada-poverty-and-dictatorship/

      Close enough.

      • One very important point:

        The objective of the radical green extremists is not CO2 reduction – their leaders know that catastrophic human-made global warming is a false crisis.

        Their true objective is not just socialism, it is totalitarianism – that is their end game.

        • Yep Allan I agree, theres a progression of micro politics and national politics that every one can see,and see how it effects them yet they dont see to be able to join the dots,to see the overall picture ,which you demonstrate very clearly.

  2. The same idiots pushing the green new disaster want to see poverty arising from corrupt leadership become a valid reason to claim asylum. This opens the doors to billions of economic refugees which will unavoidably devolve the developed world by spreading economic misery to all but the corrupt elite.

  3. Anthony

    “The rapid economic transition from ? required by the rapid elimination of fossil fuel would require totalitarian political institutions.”

  4. Democrats aren’t serious about abandoning fossil fuels. It’s just bluster, gross stupidity and catering to their green donors. They’re wrong about everything, everytime, everywhere so of course they’re wrong about climate and energy. If they had control of the House, Senate, Executive and the Supreme court they would only levy a huge carbon tax and use the funds for more give away programs to buy votes. Nothing here move on.

  5. “the rapid elimination of fossil fuel would require totalitarian political institutions“

    An intended feature, not a flaw by the climate scam perpetrators.

  6. Berkshire Hathaway’s TMI Climate Solutions is building an industrial boiler using hydrino energy.
    This reactor is running. Here 750L of water boils in 30min = at least 200kW and the size of this means we have energy densities at least comparable to the internal combustion engine. We can transition. Tens of actual world-class physicists know this (and yes, wind & solar are marginal sources of energy).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_nwlqr-daw&feature=youtu.be

    Economists are always behind the times, as are skeptics.

      • Water boils at 100C or 212F so What is the heating potential of this device?
        Most steam generation requires steam temperatures of over 400C or 750F to function properly.
        If this device doesn’t allow for steam temperatures over 250C or 500F it wouldn’t be able to run a steam powered electric generator using todays technology.
        I can make 2 cups of water boil in a microwave in only 2.5 minutes
        OR
        2 quarts of water boil in 5 minutes on a gas range.
        Hydrino powered Hot Dog Cooker perhaps

      • You already know the answer the claim is based around Quantum Mechanics is wrong and Classical Physics is correct. Even if you took an extreme leap of faith and said QM was wrong that doesn’t save Classical Physics it is dead and buried and can’t be fixed.

        Lubos Motl covered it back in 2005 and I don’t think I can add to what he said
        https://motls.blogspot.com/2005/11/hydrinos.html

        So idiots had given Randell Mills $25M back in 2000, it’s now 2019 … how long do you want it to go on before you pronounce it dead 🙂

        There is a scary back drop to that if $25M kept junk running for 19 years, now consider how much money is being pumped into climate change studies.

    • So cold fusion’s recluse step-brother has been demonstrated, but it’s so cool that you only get to see it only on an obscure Youtube video.
      …On the other hand:
      “HYDRINOS: HOW LONG CAN A REALLY DUMB IDEA SURVIVE?
      BlackLight Power (BLP), founded 17 years ago as HydroCatalysis, announced last week that the company had successfully tested a prototype power system that would generate 50 KW of thermal power. BLP anticipates delivery of the new power system in 12 to 18 months. The BLP process, (WN 26 Apr 91) , discovered by Randy Mills, is said to coax hydrogen atoms into a “state below the ground state,” called the “hydrino.” There is no independent scientific confirmation of the hydrino, and BLP has a patent problem. So they have nothing to sell but bull shit. The company is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains. ”
      dated Friday, June 6, 2008
      https://web.archive.org/web/20081211033610/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN08/wn060608.html

      Tens of world class physicists are convinced that hydrino energy is ‘nonsense’ or ‘it’s extremely unlikely that this is real, and I feel sorry for the funders, the people who are backing this’.

      Getting past the awe-inspiring spectacle of some water getting warmed up, this YouTube video showing a 760litre bath of water getting warm over half an hour wouldn’t have anything to do with ‘an induction ignition system comprising a source of electrical power to supply high-current electrical energy sufficient to cause the reactants to react to form plasma’ in the SunCell(R) would it?
      https://brilliantlightpower.com/suncell/

      I smell Snake-oil salesmen and some investors who are suckered in by promises of free energy.
      Or as one of those tens of physicists put it; “the only law that this business with Mills is proving is that a fool and his money are easily parted.”

      Incidently, linked on the same page as your video is another video showing how you can create plasma by putting two grapes in the microwave, so why bother with a complicated suncell when you could boil water by putting a bucket of paired grapes in your bath and fire up the old microwave?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCrtk-pyP0I
      …and this video actually shows the plasma they claimed to produce.

      Vive le transition! but if it’s all the same, I’ll keep my mineral energy and you can keep your unicorn farts.

      • Exactly!
        A video of a tank of water with some wires going into it (and some mysterious process supposedly occurring that overturns the laws of quantum mechanics), gets hot and boils.
        And this is the “proof” us ignorant skeptics are too thick in the noggin to comprehend!
        Lets see that thing in a public place with the whole world watching, cameras rolling, power sources monitored and metered, in broad daylight.
        That is all that is required.
        Call the news networks, and set up a public demonstration outside Rockefeller Center one sunny afternoon, and boil a tank of water with no power source by these ‘hydrinos”.
        That is literally all that would be required to convince the whole world and including skeptical scientists such as we have right here in abundance.
        Save the insults and condescension.
        That gets no one anywhere.
        Just demonstrate it in a public place for all to see.
        If it is real, what could be simpler?
        Boiling water is all coal does.
        Anyone can demonstrate it anyplace, anytime.
        No one needs to trust a video.
        SHOW US, or STFU!

    • while reading some more about this hydrino snake-oil sales pitch, I discovered a term which eloquently describes the death-defiying persistence of this hair-brained theory:

      “it’s what Chemistry Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir called pathological science.

      Langmuir coined the term more than 50 years ago to describe a psychological process in which scientists unconsciously veer away from the scientific method and become so engrossed in what they are doing they develop an inability to be objective and see what is real and not real. Pathological science is “the science of things that aren’t so,” Langmuir said. In some cases, it is embodied in areas of research like cold fusion/LENR that simply will not go away…”

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-fusion-lives-experiments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/

      now, substitute ‘cold fusion’ with ‘climastrology’ and the clouds start to part (e.g. why despite being clearly bovine excreta, climastrology and the gullible warming religion it has spawned simply will not go away)

      I also found a mildly entertaining write-up on a counter theory to hydrino theory;
      https://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/doofusino.html

    • hile reading some more about this hydrino snake-oil sales pitch, I discovered a term which eloquently describes the death-defiying persistence of this hair-brained theory:

      “it’s what Chemistry Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir called pathological science.

      Langmuir coined the term more than 50 years ago to describe a psychological process in which scientists unconsciously veer away from the scientific method and become so engrossed in what they are doing they develop an inability to be objective and see what is real and not real. Pathological science is “the science of things that aren’t so,” Langmuir said. In some cases, it is embodied in areas of research like cold fusion/LENR that simply will not go away…”

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-fusion-lives-experiments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/

      now, substitute ‘cold fusion’ with ‘climastrology’ and the clouds start to part (e.g. why despite being clearly bovine excreta, climastrology and the gullible warming religion it has spawned simply will not go away)

      I also found a mildly entertaining write-up on a counter theory to hydrino theory;
      https://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/doofusino.html

      P.S. Apologies mod’s! I made a typoon my email address when trying to post this reply the first time. D’OH!

    • From the description:
      ” The reaction of atomic hydrogen to hydrino or dark matter form of hydrogen catalyzed by HOH catalyst present in trace is the basis of this extraordinary hydrogen power source.”

      I call BULL SKAT!!!!
      But I do like the idea of a HOH (di-hydrogen monoxide) catalyst – really dangerous stuff – kills thousands-millions of people yearly.

  7. Wind and solar (W&S) will not, cannot, power our society in those proverbial ten years or in any length of time. Millions of new W&S plants would be needed, each replaced four or five times a century. The size of the needed personnel to build, operate, manufacture, tear-down and support the industry would reaches millions, and impoverish us all for the tiny amount of energy produced per employee.
    The Dept. of Energy just released its statistics on electricity generation for the first six months of this year. My predicted stagnation for the wind future has already occurred. Below are the output numbers for the first 6 months of three years as copied from the DOE/EIA annual review.
    2017 133
    2018 153
    2019 154
    Thus, between 2017 and 2018 the output grew by 20. Between 2018 and 2019 just 1 (one). Essentially no growth this year so far. Apparently, the amount of new windmill about equals the number of retired ones as I predicted for a more distant future. What an optimist.

  8. All I can say is that all of the Marxists I knew in school are now very much green advocates, many in the Green Party or its supporters. They crow about the return of the Socialist/Marxist way, which, due to past lessons, they will do right this time around (that is, they have learned from past mistakes). Somehow I don’t believe that things would be any different.

    • Their biggest mistake was wrapping the evils of Socialism/Marxism with intentions claimed to be for the greater good, which in the end, are always for the greater harm. They definitely haven’t learned if they tied their ideology to green.

      • https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/24/bernie-sanders-demands-nationalisation-of-all-energy-production-to-fight-climate-change/#comment-2779343

        “According to Bernie Sanders, Nationalization of US energy production will give the government the control it needs to implement the Green New Deal.”

        Note the use of the word “CONTROL” – that is always the leftists primary objective – CONTROL – despite the proven fact that they cannot competently manage anything – they are far too stupid and far too arrogant.

        Regarding CONTROL: The ideological subversion of America by the Former Soviet Union is unfolding exactly as it was predicted, decades ago.

        Watch this 1984 interview with ex-KGB officer and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov, who described their long-term program to ideologically undermine the western democracies. Jump to 1:07:30 for Bezmenov’s discussion of “ideological subversion”. It describes manipulating the “useful idiots” – the socialists within the western democracies.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4&feature=youtu.be

        One commenter on the video wrote: “this is crazy, almost everything predicted by this guy is already happening.” Bernie Sanders, AOC and other socialist-Democrats are openly saying what Bezmenov predicted decades ago. The last democracies are under attack by leftist extremists.

        All over the world, countries that once had a future have fallen into dictatorship, poverty and misery. It is notable that of the ~167 large countries in the world, most are totalitarian states, and all but “the chosen few” citizens of these countries suffer under brutal leftist dictatorships.

        Radical greens (really covert socialists) have used wildly exaggerated stories of runaway global warming and climate change to stampede the gullible, in order to achieve their political objectives. The greens claim to be pro-environment, but their policies have done enormous environmental damage. Radical greens have also been destructive to humanity, causing tens or hundreds of millions of deaths, mostly children.” [Ref. 1]

        It is truly all about manipulating the “useful idiots” – the deluded socialists within the western democracies – like AOC, Bernie Sanders and the majority of the Democratic Party.

        History tells us that these socialist adventures end badly. Socialists Stalin, Hitler and Mao killed about 200 million people in the 20th Century, and lesser leftist dictators like Pol Pot and other Tin Pots killed many millions more.

        When too much power is concentrated in the hands of too few, a psychopath typically seizes power and kills or imprisons everyone who opposes his madness. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and the other great killers of the 20th Century fit this description.

        In his great book “The Road to Serfdom” published in 1944, Friedrich Hayek observed that “the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual. [Ref. 2]

        This latest generation of delusional socialists claim “it will be different this time” – well actually, no it won’t. The killing of millions by the extreme left will continue – that is a certainty – that is the only task at which they excel.

        Regards, Allan

        References:

        1. THE COST TO SOCIETY OF RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM
        By Allan M.R. MacRae, July 04, 2019
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/04/the-cost-to-society-of-radical-environmentalism/

        2. THE ROAD TO SERFDOM
        By Friedrich Hayek, 1944

    • It’s impossible to learn from past mistakes when you rewrite history to rationalize away those mistakes, either in the history books or in your own mind.

      The best liars lie to themselves best.

    • Also, just out of curiosity, would you describe the personalities of those Marxists that you knew as the ‘control-freak’ type?

        • The “control freaks” are the one that rise to the top.
          The rest are “minions” and/or useful idiots.
          That is true in any area, economic philosophies, religious beliefs (including “Christianity” gone wrong), “animals before people”, “nature before people”, … etc.
          They eventually send their “minions” out to silence or destroy those who disagree.
          A good check is to watch if the “control freaks” seek to do that.
          Freedom of Choice.
          Do they allow that? Or, after they “rose to the top”, use the power of “Government” to suppress it?

      • Joel asked:
        “Also, just out of curiosity, would you describe the personalities of those Marxists that you knew as the ‘control-freak’ type?”

        Answer: They are Sociopaths (learned behaviour) or Psychopaths (born that way) – the results are much the same:

        According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV of the American Psychiatric Association, the clinical diagnosis of “antisocial personality disorder” should be considered when an individual possesses at least three of the following seven characteristics:
        (1) failure to conform to social norms;
        (2) deceitfulness, manipulativeness;
        (3) impulsivity, failure to plan ahead;
        (4) irritability, aggressiveness;
        (5) reckless disregard for the safety of self or others;
        (6) consistent irresponsibility;
        (7) lack of remorse after having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person.

        The presence in an individual of any three of these “symptoms,” taken together, is enough to make many psychiatrists suspect the disorder.

        Examples:

        Let’s expand the question to include socialists, progressives and other such labels – I don’t really differentiate because they all do the same things:
        “Seize control, damage the economy through central planning and kill a whole lot of innocents.”

        Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez… …these are the ones with a proven track record of genocide – then there are those who are works-in-progress, who are either on their way to becoming the great killers of our time, or who were voted out of office before they could do much harm – nominations?

    • It’s hard to learn from past mistakes when you brush away those mistakes as “well they just didn’t do it right, but this time is different”. The fact is they did it exactly as prescribe and the result was misery. When you try it, the result will be the same. just as it has every other time it’s been tried by others who brushed away those past mistakes with the refrain “well they just didn’t do it right, but this time is different”.

      • Communism/Marxism is a flawed economic model. One of the most glaring flaws is that it defies human nature. People are self serving creatures. Its in our DNA. Its part of the human survival instinct. Humans will only work so hard for the common good. But you show them a path to personal riches and most people will work exceptionally hard. Arguing that this is a flaw in the human character doesn’t change the reality.

        Back in the late 80s or early 90s the Communist government of Vietnam announced that individual farming was over and that only collective farming would be allowed. Just farm any portion of the “people’s land” that you want and the harvest will be shared equally among the “people”. So how did that work ? People quit farming as their was nothing it in to reward their labor and the country faced near starvation for two years. At that point the Party told everyone to go back to planting and harvesting their own plot of land and the starvation abated.

        It happens this way over and over again. You simply can’t alter human nature by calling everyone comrades.

        • Two similar extensions

          1.) What is the incentive to be a cleaner you get the same living wage for doing a much nicer job.
          2.) What is the incentive to study for years to be a brain surgeon you get the same living wage without the effort.

          So both the lower and upper end jobs have little attraction to anyone other than appeal to Nationalistic pride or some such emotional argument.

        • Note that part of the Green New Deal was to pay people a living wage no matter what, guaranteed by Big Brother.
          People that do not want to work are supported with free money, the right to a home, and food, and medical care, etc.
          Free college is a right too.
          And what has happened with all of the huge influx of people into colleges in the US?
          People with good jobs when they finish school?
          Oh, hell no.
          Because there is no requirement to get a degree that trains one for anything productive, or even for anything for which any ACTUAL JOBS EXIST!
          Let alone that only people with the proper aptitude are admitted to begin with.
          Those requirements are out the window these days.
          As are minimum standards for achievement to be awarded a degree.
          At the same time they want to give people free money and erase any incentive to work, or any requirement or even motivation to be educated in any field in which people are needed, they are mandating projects for which people with particular skills will be needed, and yet these exact skills needed for massive infrastructure projects and raw material extraction to make them possible, are the ones that few people are opting into these days.
          There are entire job categories with large numbers of high paying jobs unfilled, and few people are rushing to be trained for those jobs.
          If you are a welder, you can get a job anywhere in the US on the spot. High paying job, too.
          If you are a skilled underwater welder, you can get one of the highest paying jobs in the world for someone who works with their hands. But it is difficult and dangerous, and requires a certain type of person and a high degree of training, on top of aptitude in several critical areas. You need to be strong, resilient and brave, you need to be sober and judicious and careful and attentive. These are not qualities to be found in large numbers of the young people currently being churned out by our parent class and schools.
          I could write a book along this line of reasoning and argumentation.
          But anyone paying attention who is capable of comprehending what I am saying ought to get the point already.

    • Yeah, because the world really needs murderers, power mad dictators, invaders of democratic nations, and interferers with American elections.

      You Trumpkins have been totally brainwashed by your Trump love, emanating from him being Putin’s little plaything (the B word they use in prisons) who has owned Trump for decades.

      The Republican Party that I used to be a member of, prior to it losing its mind in 2016, would have been horrified by the Putin love, and Kim love, coming from Trump and his brainless supporters.

      • Duane, I realize that your hatred of Trump has fused your remaining neurons together, but sheesh.
        1) You assume that anyone who likes Putin must like Trump.
        2) You assume that everyone who likes Trump also loves Putin.
        Get over it. Trump won. He won legitimately. He’s doing a much better job than your candidate would have.

      • So, Duane…
        Ah forget it, you are a useless fool and too asinine to waste keystroke refuting.

    • Sometimes, Vlad Putin hits things right on the nose. I hope he has annoyed the living daylights out of a lot of ecohippies and greenbeaners. I could not help giggling over what he said.

      Thanks for posting that link!

  9. Wind and solar (W&S) will not, cannot, power our society in those proverbial ten years or in any length of time. Millions of new W&S plants would be needed, each replaced four or five times a century. The size of the needed personnel to build, operate, manufacture, tear-down and support the industry would reach millions,
    and impoverish us all for the tiny amount of energy produced per employee.
    The Dept. of Energy just released its statistics on electricity generation for the first six months of this year. My predicted stagnation for the wind future has already occurred. Below are the output numbers for the first 6 months of three years as copied from the DOE/EIA annual review.
    2017 133
    2018 153
    2019 154
    Thus, between 2017 and 2018 the output grew by 20. Between 2018 and 2019 just 1 (one). Essentially no growth this year so far. Apparently, the amount of new windmill about equals the number of retired ones as I predicted for a more distant future. What an optimist.

  10. So just to let you know the new low in eco-loonism has now been reached in Lake Garda, Italy with the Garda Green initiative. Found out the hard way when we booked 5 days for the Bardolino Wine Festival. The hotel room was a bit stuffy, it was sunny and 22C today. The room was 24C, so I tried to lower the AC. Nothing.
    Then I noticed the little Garda Green sticker

    The ideal temperature to limit emissions of CO2 and more healthy for you should not fall below 25 degrees in summer and rise above 20 degrees in winter

    I did not know that. How did they know what my personal more healthy seasonal temperatures are?
    If I thought that paying that much for a room entitled them to force me to sleep with an open window on a noisy night time waterfront, we never would have booked this hotel with it’s gorgeous lakeside views.

    To be fair, the area gets a lot of tourists from Germany and Switzerland, the parking lots are filled with Porches and high end Mercedes. I saw a twin turbo V8 Mercedes in the hotel lot. But they are deep into virtue signaling their Teutonic greenness, so of course the local businesses are happy to play along.

    This is just an FYI for all of you to look out for this creeping craziness.
    Resist!

    http://www.gardagreen.org/en/

  11. ‘More than a billion people suffer from energy poverty around the world’

    Stop right there! You have no damn idea if they are ‘suffering.’

  12. Yet again that nonsense about carbon capture raises it’s silly clownish head.
    NO, NO, NO!
    Globally of the three places where carbon is stored — atmosphere, oceans, and land biosphere — approximately 93 percent of the CO2 (as ionic products of CO2) is found in the oceans. The atmosphere, at about 750 petagrams of carbon (a petagram [Pg] is 10^15 grams), has the smallest amount of carbon as CO2. ”
    and
    “The oceans contain about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and 19 times more than the land biosphere. CO2 moves between the atmosphere and the ocean by molecular diffusion when there is a difference between CO2 gas pressure (pCO2 ) between the atmosphere and oceans. For example, when the atmospheric pCO2 is higher than the surface ocean, CO2 diffuses across the air-sea boundary into the sea water. And when the atmospheric pCO2 is lower than the surface ocean, CO2 diffuses across the air-sea boundary into the atmosphere. Because of the chemistry, the movement of CO2 into the oceans is faster than the oceanic release of CO2.
    The oceans are able to hold much more carbon than the atmosphere because most of the CO2 that diffuses into the oceans reacts with the water to form carbonic acid and its dissociation products, bicarbonate and carbonate ions. The conversion of CO2 gas into non-gaseous forms such as carbonic acid and bicarbonate and carbonate ions effectively reduces the CO2 gas partial pressure in the water, thereby allowing more diffusion from the atmosphere.
    The oceans are mixed much more slowly than the atmosphere, so there are large horizontal and vertical changes in CO2 concentration. In general, tropical waters release CO2 to the atmosphere, whereas high-latitude oceans take up CO2 from the atmosphere.
    The two basic mechanisms that control the distribution of carbon in the oceans are referred to as the solubility pump and the biological pump. ” [based on http://www.waterencyclopedia·com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html with some additions and my bold sections.]
    The amount of CO2 that stays in the atmosphere is controlled by the temperature of the upper levels of the oceans and seas (and the pCO2)and NOT dependent on how much humans put into the atmosphere! Note CO2 does not, and can not, ‘heat the oceans’.

    With that said now consider how really stupid the idea of ‘Carbon(CO2) Capture and Storage’ truly is! The more CO2 that’s pumped out of the atmosphere (with carbon capture), the more the oceans will release.

    • Just to add another “conveniently forgotten” issue to this, subtract 800 years from today and where are we? In the Medieval Warm Period they keep attempting to erase, minimize, and deny the existence of. Remember how a CO2 increase follows the temperature by about 800 years in the ice core reconstructions? Yup, increasing CO2 level today is at least in part nothing more than an echo of the Medieval Warm Period.

    • Why do you assume the right to dictate to others what they are allowed to talk about?
      PS: Climate change has always been about politics.

  13. The best way to significantly reduce fossil fuel burning in the USA is to replace aging fossil fuel burning power plants with nuclear power plants. With support form government, such can be done by private sector companies. Reorganizing society is not required.

    • Right on William. But no need for Gov’t support. Before DOE existed, a 1970s nuclear plant operates at 2.4 $/W, the dollars adjusted for inflation and the wattage reflecting the steady power delivery over four decades. In comparison, an off-shore wind farm averaged 21.0 $/W over two decades. That represents about ten times higher cost, all conditions the same. The nuclear plant is still running in its fifth decade. The wind turbines are being dismantled after the usual two decades. When DOE was created and took over what utilities were capable of doing by themselves, the $/W of course skyrocketed.

  14. Hmmm. My last comment didn’t make it thru moderation.

    ‘More than a billion people suffer from energy poverty around the world’

    I’ll say it a different way: this is a junk argumentum ad passiones.

    • I would offer that there is ample evidence that people in energy poverty are suffering because of it. Try living in a small hut, burning dung to cook food and provide light. Try getting dental or health care at a facility having no power.

      Yeah, they are suffering from energy poverty.

    • German stat’s, 40,000 victims a year. Now extrapolate. Some countries, like India, have more poor.
      Even better, try it.

    • Gamecock, try living in energy poverty for a year then come back and tell us how “junk” the argument is.

      • The urge for colonialism is strong. How people live is none of your business. I live the way I live. If I lived the way they do, I’d suffer. That doesn’t mean they suffer.

        When I was poor, I didn’t suffer. I didn’t know what it was like to be rich, so I had no feelings about it. ‘Poor’ was my normal state. Burning dried dung in central Africa is their normal state. THEY DON’T SUFFER. Projecting how you would feel if you were them is dangerously misguided.

        ‘More than a billion people suffer from energy poverty’ is false. It is an appeal to emotion. It adds nothing to the article, which is about the impact of Dems and their GND.

        You like cooking with gas better than with dried dung. Fine. So do I. That doesn’t give you the right nor moral authority to interfere with those who do.

        LEAVE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE ALONE!

        • So you don’t think people living with the myriad health problems arising from lack of energy aren’t suffering because they don’t know the alternative? Suffering is an absolute, not a comparison. If hunger is the norm every winter, and has been your entire life, you still suffer each winter.

          So just why did people bother to build safe water systems, sewer systems, hospitals, hvac systems, etc., if it was not to relieve suffering? Civilization, itself, was arguably created to alleviate suffering.

          Here’s a thought: why don’t we ask indigenous people what their preference is? From several books I have read, poor indigenous people line up everyday at health clinics (provided by industrialized countries), to get medical aid for malaria, HIV, accidents, accidental poisoning, cholera, and now, ebola. I would say it is a safe bet that they would say they were suffering. Of course, there would be less such suffering given sufficient power.

          By the way, no one is forcing them to line up for that medical help, and no one is trying to force them to develop electric grids. But it is insane to claim that people aren’t suffering from energy poverty, EVEN IF THAT IS THEIR CHOICE.

          • Poor don’t know they are poor.

            Life is as it is.

            The urge for colonialism in the West is overpowering.

          • The poor in remote isolated communities in the 18cent maybe dident know they were poor, you3 can hardly argue anyone today does not know there poor, you say colonisation of the west, who would that be , the poor eastern Europeans the poor middle east people ,the poor middle east people driven into poverty because of European and American proxy wars,I’m sure the latter understand more than anyone the abject poverty a war brings, late 20th and early 21st cent British working class lost industry from having a living wage to having social security to live on, I think they would tell you they know they are poor, really man people dont know there poor!!

          • I insist that for people to be suffering, they have to know they are suffering. Your thinking they should be suffering doesn’t count.

  15. “More than a billion people suffer from energy poverty around the world and plans proposed by the Democratic candidates for the party’s nomination for President, like various version of the Green New Deal, would bring poverty and death for millions in the United States. The rapid economic transition from required by the rapid elimination of fossil fuel would require totalitarian political institutions. Replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar, is impossible as a matter of physics..

    the green new deal is stupid but alarmist predictions about death, destruction and totalitarian takeovers would sound better coming from the mouth of a young idiot, rather than an old idiot.

    Adn no replacing FF with wind and solar is costly, very costly, but not it doesnt break the laws of physics

    • “Adn no replacing FF with wind and solar is costly, very costly, but not it doesnt break the laws of physics”

      Um, yes it does; you couldn’t capture enough energy from wind and solar to replace what we get from fossil fuels, much less replace the increase in the energy demand that will come as developing nations “develop.”

      But more to the point, you couldn’t build a single windmill or solar panel without the use of fossil fuels. So “replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar” is not just costly, it is impossible.

      If you disagree with that, let’s see your…

      1. Wind and solar mined ores;

      2. Your wind and solar transported ores;

      3. Your wind and solar produced cement and stone aggregate;

      4. Your wind and solar transported cement and stone aggregate;

      5. Your wind and solar mixed concrete;

      6. Your wind and solar transported concrete;

      7. Your wind and solar forged steel;

      8. Your wind and solar produced plastics and fiberglass;

      9. Your wind and solar produced buildings built from purely wind and solar mined, harvested, and transported materials, and erected with only wind and solar powered machines built from only wind and solar sourced materials (and using only tools manufactured therefrom) as described above;

      10. Your wind and solar produced food, inclusive of planting, fertilizing, watering, harvesting, transport, refrigeration, and preparation;

      11. Your wind and solar powered cars, trucks, and trains that were produced purely with the above types of resources and materials.

      etc. ad nauseum

      And as far as “predictions about death, destruction and totalitarian takeovers” being an overreach, when you take away (just a partial list) food, electricity, transport, housing, and heating/ventilation/air conditioning, which is what you essentially lose when you attempt to “replace” fossil fuels by decree with something as useless as windmills and solar panels, it’s a very real threat. A world dependent on wind and solar for energy is a world of billions freezing to death and starving to death in the dark, and a recipe for anarchy. A much bigger and much more real threat than the ridiculous and imaginary “climate change” (TM) nonsense.

      • Well said, AGW is not Science . Just don’t expect a coherent cogent reply from the drive-by-king.

        • LOL, Maybe we can live in “virtual houses” built from “virtual wood” that’s “virtually harvested.”

          Oh wait! That all still only happens with electricity, and since you can’t supply that 24/7 with windmills and solar panels, and you can’t build windmills and solar panels without fossil fuels,…

          never mind.

    • Moshpit sez:
      “Adn no replacing FF with wind and solar is costly, very costly, but not it doesnt break the laws of physics”

      Funny. But it does break the laws of simple arithmetic — as AGW says the practical output (the amount of land required including necessary battery backup would never be possible) “renewables” could produce doesn’t nearly come close to what is required by our modern society w/o FFs. As you know, new hydro & nukes aren’t allowed in the US anymore.

      An early 20th century society might get by…..

    • Steve,

      A few years back the issues with too much solar on the CA grid were discussed here-

      https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/the-duck-has-landed/#comment-11556

      and the problem with trying to use concentrating solar power to run industrial process was discussed over at Alice’s the other day-

      http://energyskeptic.com/2019/can-concentrated-solar-power-be-used-to-generate-industrial-process-heat/

      On the it’s expensive to try to go with wind and solar I concur. The value of the climate credit is down about 70%.

  16. Energy socialism — that’s a new term. Won’t be long before the commie-socialists/media come up with “energy justice” (which of course would mean no energy for anyone except for the ruling-elites).

  17. On thing I have not seen mentioned yet is the issue of distances and proximities.
    Power transmitted over long distances is either extremely expensive, or very lossy, or both.
    You cannot just built power plants or turbines or panel farms wherever they gather the most power, without worrying about where the power is needed, and more than building out massive capacity of something that only works sometimes without considering storage.
    And storage, by the way, comes with it’s own losses.
    No matter what sort of method is utilized for the storage.
    Large parts of the planet lay in the tropics or other places with very low pressure gradients for much and often most of the year.
    Some locales with large numbers of people almost never get any wind.
    Lots of these same places have long periods of cloudy weather, including some places where it is basically always cloudy.
    So no matter how anyone slices it up, you simply cannot get wind power in large amounts in places with little wind energy to tap into. Florida is one such place in the US.
    But there are entire countries where this is the case.
    Florida is the southernmost locale in the contiguous US, but rates poorly in terms of solar, due primarily to cloudiness during the high sun season. It is very sunny from October to April, typically, but these months have short daytimes.
    So Florida has an equivalent solar rating to some locations at a much higher latitude.
    Also, the specific times we need the most power are Winter nights, and Summer days.
    Winter nights when it is cold here typically have about zero wind.
    Summer days are typically very cloudy.
    One locale, one example, but it is illustrative of the problem.
    As for spreading wind turbines out evenly over the coastal oceans, many of those places are far from the places where power is required in large amounts. And many of them are places where it is not particularly windy, such as the Gulf Coast and Southern Atlantic coast, at least for long periods of time every year.

    Another issue I have not seen discussed is related to nuclear as a world wide power source.
    When it comes to nuclear, I am an advocate, but we have to keep in mind one of the major problems with nuclear power: It involves the usage of substances that are highly radioactive and thus very dangerous in the wrong hands.
    What are the odds of none of that material getting into the hands of terrorists if every country in the world needs to have nuclear plants all over the place?
    If we want nuclear power, we had best get rid of the terrorists, and I mean all of them, all over the world, permanently.
    Are we going to just distribute that technology and material to every country in the world, and hope nothing bad happens?
    There are countries adjacent to the industrialized countries where to even have a pipeline is highly problematic, because people bust holes in them to steal the stuff going through the pipelines. They do not care about the danger to themselves, let alone the environmental damage or the economic losses caused by what amounts to petty theft.
    Mexico is one such place. But I suspect that is hardly the place where such issues are at their worst.
    Not that it really probably matters much to point any of this out, because none of these things are going to happen just because they need to in order for a particular policy direction has been chosen by some subset of the electorate or political bodies.
    There needs to be money to waste to waste money, at least over the long term.
    And the money to waste is coming from the energy the world now gets inexpensively.
    Once that ends, if it does, the money to waste will dry up quickly.

  18. The truth is that the Labour government of Wilson and Callaghan closed more pits than the Thatcher government. She gets the blame though because she faced down the national union of mine workers lead by the communist Arthur Scargill. After that the unions hold on UK politics was removed and the country prospered.

  19. The rapid economic transition from required by the rapid elimination of fossil fuel would require –>

    The rapid economic transition -form- required by the rapid elimination of fossil fuel would require

Comments are closed.