The Coming Green Electricity Nightmare

Hundreds of billions in new subsidies will bring expensive, unreliable, eco-destructive power

Paul Driessen

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) wanted regulatory reform, in part to reverse some of the Biden Administration reversals of Trump era reforms intended to expedite permits for fossil fuel projects.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) needed Manchin’s vote in the 50-50 Senate to enact his latest spending extravaganza, the Inflation Reduction Act, which was primarily a massive climate and “green” energy subsidy arrangement. It gives Schumer allies some $370 billion in wind, solar, battery and other funding, tax credits and subsidies. In exchange, Schumer would offer a path for Manchin’s reform bill.

Manchin voted YEA, and promptly got bushwhacked. Once he’d helped enact the IRA, he had zero leverage. Schumer, he discovered, had promised an opportunity, maybe a vote, but not actual support. House and Senate members told him, we weren’t part of your secret negotiations with Schumer; we didn’t shake hands on any deal; we don’t want easier permitting for drilling, pipelines and LNG terminals that could help send US natural gas to Britain and Europe.

In the end, it’s probably a good thing Manchin’s bill went nowhere.

Yes, it provided some much needed and long overdue reforms to curb the paralysis by analysis and endless litigation that have plagued fossil fuel, highway, airport and countless other projects for decades.

But it also had Trojan horse provisions that would have unleashed hordes of newly subsidized wind, solar and transmission marauders on much of the Lower 48 USA, to send pseudo-clean electricity to mostly Democrat cities and states that don’t want even “renewable” power generation in their own backyards.

As the Wall Street Journal and energy analyst Robert Bryce observed, Manchin’s “reforms” would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and other bureaucrats the power to issue permits and force multiple states to acquiesce to new transmission lines and 200-foot-tall towers across their scenic, habitat, agricultural and even residential lands – if the feds decide the lines are in the “national interest.” This could easily transform into federal powers of eminent domain, to take the needed acreage.

The feds could decree that thousands of miles of new transmission lines are in the “national interest” if, for instance, the lines “enhance the ability” of faraway wind and solar facilities to connect their intermittent, weather-dependent energy to an electric grid; or enable distant blue states to reach their renewable energy goals; or help achieve Biden Administration goals of stopping manmade climate change, “advancing environmental justice” and having “a net-zero economy” by 2050. Hopefully while avoiding blackout-a-week nightmares.

Populous states like New York could also work with FERC & Co. to have offshore wind turbines installed off less populated coasts, like Maine or North Carolina – and have the electricity delivered to the Empire State. New York’s peak summertime needs alone would require 2,500 monstrous 680-foot-tall 12-MW offshore turbines, operating 24/7 – when we’d be lucky if they generated electricity 40% of the year. (Imagine how many offshore … or 6-MW onshore … turbines we’d need to power the entire USA.)

Compounding the energy colonialism, the Manchin reform package would also give FERC authority to allocate and “socialize” transmission line costs, so that residents of states that don’t even get any of the electricity being sent along the newly imposed transmission lines would still have to help pay for them.

In short, the feds would be able to ride roughshod over states, local communities and federalism.

Let me say it again: Wind and sunshine are free, clean, green, renewable and sustainable. But harnessing this diffuse, unreliable, weather-dependent energy to power civilization definitely is not. And every bit of “renewable” power must be backed up with other power – so double our cash and material investments.

The Green Lobby and its legislator and regulator friends really seem to think they can just pass laws and earmark subsidies, demanding energy transformations by 2050 – and it will just happen. The raw materials will just be there, perhaps with a little MAGIC: Materials Acquisition for Global Industrial Change. That is, they simply assume the necessary raw materials will also just be there.

Not one of these luminaries has given a moment’s thought to – much less attempted to calculate – what this net-zero transition would require:

How many millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of EV and backup batteries, millions of transformers, thousands of miles of transmission lines – sprawling across how many millions of acres of wildlife habitat, scenic and agricultural lands, and people’s once-placid backyards?

How many billions of tons of copper, steel, aluminum, nickel, cobalt, lithium, concrete, rare earths, composite plastics and other materials? How many trillions of tons of ores and overburden? How many mines, across how many more acres – with how much fossil fuel energy to operate the enormous mining equipment, and how much toxic air and water pollution emitted in the process?  Where will it be done?

To cite just one example, just those 2,500 wind turbines for New York electricity (30,000 megawatts) would require nearly 110,000 tons of copper – which would require mining, crushing, processing and refining 25 million tons of copper ore … after removing some 40 million tons of overlying rock to reach the ore bodies. Multiply that times 50 states – and the entire world – plus transmission lines.

How many processing plants and factories would be needed? How much fossil fuel power to run those massive operations? How many thousands of square miles of toxic waste pits all over world under zero to minimal environmental standards, workplace safety standards, child and slave labor rules?

How many dead birds, bats, and endangered and other species would be killed off all across the USA and world – from mineral extraction activities, wind turbine blades, solar panels blanketing thousands of square miles of wildlife habitats, and transmission lines impacting still more land?

How many will survive hurricanes like Ian or Andrew? Where will we dump the green energy trash?

Not only do the luminaries and activists ignore these issues and refuse to address them. They actively suppress, cancel, censor and deplatform any questions and discussions about them. They collude with Big Tech companies and news agencies, which too often seem all too happy to assist.

The hard reality is, there are not, will not be, and cannot be, enough mines, metals and minerals on the entire planet – to reach any “net-zero” US economy by 2050, much less a global “green” economy.

Here’s another issue: electric vehicle and backup lithium-ion battery modules can erupt spontaneously into chemical-fueled infernos that cannot be extinguished by conventional fire-fighting means. That raises an important analog to rules Alec Baldwin should have kept uppermost in mind a year ago. Treat every firearm as if it is loaded. Never point your muzzle at anything you are not prepared to destroy.

In the Biden-Newsom-Kerry-IPCC energy arena: Treat every electric vehicle and backup battery system as if it is loaded and ready to ignite. Never park an EV, install a PowerWall or locate a backup power facility near anything you are not prepared to destroy.

That includes in your garage; near other vehicles; in parking garages under apartment and office buildings; in residential neighborhoods and highway tunnels; or on cargo ships like the Felicity Ace.

And yet we’re supposed to go along with Green Energy schemes – as we did with masks, school lockdowns and vaccinations to stop Covid – because our government, media and “public interest” groups insist that we “follow the science,” on which there can be no doubt (certainly none permitted) that we face a “manmade climate crisis” that threatens the very existence of humanity and “the only Earth we have.”  

Because we have to destroy the planet (with green energy) in order to save it (from climate change).

It’s time to short-circuit this electricity nightmare, by asking these questions, demanding answers, and ending the notion that governments can simply issue edicts and compel reality to change in response.

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

4.9 56 votes
Article Rating
173 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Macha
October 2, 2022 10:19 pm

Like this bit a lot…..

“Wind and sunshine are free, clean, green, renewable and sustainable. But harnessing this diffuse, unreliable, weather-dependent energy to power civilization definitely is not. And every bit of “renewable” power must be backed up with other power – so double our cash and material investments”

Australia is on the same path to energy poverty and debt i reckon.

MarkW
Reply to  Macha
October 3, 2022 8:23 am

Technically, oil/gas/coal in the ground is also free. However getting it out of the ground and transporting it to where it is needed is not.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Macha
October 3, 2022 8:31 am

Let me say it again: Wind and sunshine are free, clean, green, renewable and sustainable. I say without reservation they are none of these. Its no wonder we can’t make any headway in this struggle using the woke’s salad vocabulary.

Reply to  Macha
October 5, 2022 5:48 am

This is a good layman’s overview of USA energy generation:

Our latest Backgrounder video “American Energy for Grownups,” on where the United States really gets its energy, pats Greta Thunberg on the head and sends her off to do her homework while the adults brush aside unicorn power and consider the vital role of fossil fuels and the feeble progress of alternative energy despite decades of hype and lavish subsidies.

RMT
October 2, 2022 10:33 pm

Drove from Denver to Salina, KS this Summer. For the vast majority of the trip, there were wind turbines on both sides of the highway for as far as the eye can see. It got pretty ugly and yet, they don’t quite power the majority of Kansas’s power needs.

H.R.
Reply to  RMT
October 2, 2022 10:43 pm

On the bright side, there were no birds left to poop on your windshield as you drove along that route, RMT.


Can you imagine the carnage to flocks of migrating birds as they fly through that gantlet?

Steve Case
Reply to  H.R.
October 3, 2022 2:08 am

Can you imagine the carnage to flocks of migrating birds as they fly through that gantlet?
___________________________



Bird Chopper.png
Joe Crawford
Reply to  Steve Case
October 3, 2022 12:00 pm

That picture would make a great t-shirt :<)

Redge
Reply to  H.R.
October 3, 2022 5:04 am

Fewer birds = more insects to mess up your windscreen

Bryan A
Reply to  Redge
October 3, 2022 6:32 am

But The Spiders are SO SO happy and evolving LARGER to match The food supply

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  Redge
October 3, 2022 6:56 am

Don’t worry, a German study found every turbine minced 50kg of insects a year too.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MrGrimNasty
October 3, 2022 8:30 am

Does someone have to climb and clean off the bug goo to restore the airfoils?

Slowroll
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 3, 2022 9:24 am

That is indeed an unrecognized problem. I have an airplane, and I can tell from the vibration when the prop gets plastered with bugs.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 3, 2022 5:34 pm

Probably with a cleaning agent that is petroleum based…

jdgalt1
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 5, 2022 1:30 pm

Naw, they’ll just harvest the stuff and sneak it into the food supply.

Don
Reply to  Redge
October 3, 2022 11:32 pm

Mostly a problem for bikers with beards!

william Johnston
Reply to  H.R.
October 3, 2022 6:04 am

The so-called Central Flyway is the corridor used by migrating birds running from Canada south to southern US and beyond. However, windmill developers say they will shut down the Cuisanarts during periods of said migration. No provision for any local birds. Just another “build them at any cost” preveracation.

MarkW
Reply to  william Johnston
October 3, 2022 8:25 am

If they have to shut down wind mills during the migration, won’t that make wind power even more unreliable?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2022 10:23 am

No, it will be reliably shut down.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 3, 2022 5:35 pm

About the only time their output will be predictable!

Joe Crawford
Reply to  william Johnston
October 3, 2022 12:24 pm

Years ago I was at an FAA long range radar site in eastern Kentucky for several nights and commented on the large amount of ground clutter that covered a lot of the screen. The on-duty radar tech just looked at me funny and explained that it wasn’t ground clutter but migrating birds. He was right. I soon noticed that large patches of the ‘clutter’ were slowly moving north. I doubt seriously anyone would shutdown working wind turbines for that long.

George
Reply to  RMT
October 3, 2022 3:00 am

Yuck! These wind turbines ruin a lovely drive to see America the Beautiful. No so much anymore. Sick of this green energy rubbish.

griff
Reply to  RMT
October 3, 2022 4:11 am

The report indicates that land-based wind energy supplied 45.1% of Kansas’ electricity generation in 2021 ‘

Kansas recognized as leader in renewable wind energy | REVE News of the wind sector in Spain and in the world (evwind.es)

Nearly half and rising…

Tim Gorman
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 4:23 am

I made the same trip the first of August. 90% of the turbines were not operating when I went and it was no better when I returned. That was during the *day* when the wind should have been at maximum. At that point in time the wind was providing far less than 45% of Kansas electricity, at least from the western KS wind farms along I-70.

Where was the electricity coming from that week?

starzmom
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 3, 2022 6:03 am

According to the Southwest Power Pool dashboard, wind is actually highest at night. I would have thought the same as you, until I looked at the dashboard. Otherwise, most of the power comes from coal and natural gas. We have very little nuclear (2200MW or so) and very little hydro.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 3, 2022 5:43 pm

It’s probably worse than you think; the ones that were turning were probably using grid power to turn so that their bearings don’t get damaged from sitting in one spot for too long – parasitic loads wasting reliably produced power!

Billy
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 5, 2022 9:35 pm

I suspect it is 45% of capacity. I was unable to find any link to what that figure is based on. All of the linked reports look like propaganda.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Billy
October 9, 2022 1:54 pm

Basically, everything that Griff says IS ‘propaganda’! I seriously doubt that Kanas is getting anywhere near 45% of it’s power from wind OR solar, day OR night!

Fraizer
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 4:38 am

So the link if a puff piece about a speech from a politician. If you drill down to the actual report you find that it says no such thing.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Fraizer
October 3, 2022 5:46 am

Griff doesn’t pay much attention to detail.

MarkW
Reply to  Fraizer
October 3, 2022 8:27 am

griff also never reads past the headlines

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 4:47 am

45.1% of its generation is what % of its load?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 5:42 am

“Nearly half and rising…”

Just wait until it gets to 100 percent. Then what do you think happens when the wind stops blowing? Answer: You don’t get any electricity at your house. Are you looking forward to something like that, Griff? That’s what you are promoting.

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 5:54 am

Griff, you frequently point out that such-and-such an area is operating with large amounts of renewables. Fair enough, but I believe you would acknowledge that renewables operate at less than 50% of their nameplate capacity. What should fill in the rest of the time? Batteries? Nuclear? And how do you account for those costs, both capital and operating? Would you agree that those back up costs have to be considered a cost of the renewable system?

These are genuine questions, and I hope you will respond. I know you enjoy gigging the people who come to this site and watching the sometimes rabid response, but at some point you have to describe your alternative, or you lose those of us who are willing to see our prejudices tested and are interested in opposing views.

In other words, if you’re just a troll, I will ignore you. If you have something to say, I’m ready to listen.

Last edited 2 months ago by Dave Yaussy
HotScot
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 3, 2022 6:35 am

Griff just dive bombs this site, then runs.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  HotScot
October 3, 2022 9:55 am

griff excels at ‘drive-by shoutings.’

Hivemind
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 3, 2022 5:29 pm

“What should fill in the rest of the time?”

Try massive numbers of greenies on hamster wheels.

starzmom
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 5:59 am

Kansas and its residents are in the Southwest Power Pool. Not all of–in fact most of–the wind power serves other states in the power pool, since we are one state among many. The SPP gets less than 30% of its power from wind, despite having 0ver 31,000MW installed capacity. The most wind ever at any time was just over 23,000 MW for a brief minute. Usually it is running about 10-15% during the times of highest demand.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 6:34 am

Which day was that???
Sounds like Tuesday Septober 32nd at 3:09am when the Load was NIL…right???

Last edited 2 months ago by Bryan A
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bryan A
October 3, 2022 9:56 am

It was a day with no “y” in the name.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 8:26 am

Once again, little griff finds the highest 5 minutes in the year, and declares that this is how much is being produced all the time.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 9:51 am

No cost is too high to pay for intermittent electricity that slightly reduces net CO2 emissions. Scenery and landfill requirements have no calculable value.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 10:22 am

Did it deliver 45.1% of Kansas electricity generation 365/24/7
If course it didn’t.
You’re not the sharpest tool in the box, are you Griff?

Hivemind
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 5:27 pm

But that 45% is only nameplate capacity. What you actually get will be only 1/3 of that. And at some times, nothing at all.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 5:39 pm

Much of which is probably produced when nobody needed it. Hence the use of “generation” as a metric, as opposed to percentage of electricity that actually powered something when and where it was needed.

John in Oz
Reply to  griff
October 4, 2022 3:38 pm

As with comedy (of which you are apparently familiar), timing is important.

(At 2AM)
him – “Darling, are you awake”
her – (thinking he is horny) “Yes, dear”
him – “The power is back on. Time to start the washing machine and dishwasher”

Stephen Wilde
October 2, 2022 10:33 pm

The more I read about lithium batteries the less sustainable their use is shown to be. If it were not for the false science about atmospheric CO2 there would be no case for using them.

RickWill
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 2, 2022 10:51 pm

If it were not for the false science about atmospheric CO2 there would be no case for using them

Lithium batteries actually increase atmospheric CO2 so they are good in that regard. They can never recover the CO2 that went into their creation. So totally useless as an energy store.

Litheveder
Reply to  RickWill
October 4, 2022 6:58 pm

You can calculate how much CO2 goes into their creation, but given the range of estimates for lifetime or number of charge-discharge cycles, I don’t see how you would know whether they are useful.

Simonsays
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 3, 2022 12:03 am

The main problem with lithium and a lot of other minerals is there simply is not enough of it. Unless someone invents a new battery technology very soon, the EV car mandates are going to go nowhere. It amazes me how we think the planet has infinite resources to do what we like. Anyway we won’t have to wait long, when ev manufacturers claim supply chain problems on why they. Can’t deliver California there new cars.

https://countercurrents.org/2022/08/is-there-enough-metal-to-replace-oil/

Macha
Reply to  Simonsays
October 3, 2022 12:36 am

It’s good to remember, rare earth metals/minerals aren’t necessarily rare. More likely just dilute, thus high waste ratio, bigger holes in the ground, more fuel( power) for machines to dig them out.

Simonsays
Reply to  Macha
October 3, 2022 2:48 am

That is utter nonsense, you can get gold from seawater If you process enough of it. Like 1 gram of gold per 100 million metric tonnes of sea water. There is simply not enough of these minerals available to mine.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Simonsays
October 3, 2022 8:22 am

There might be enough of some of them if you turn the whole Earth into one ginormous mine 🙂

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Dave Andrews
October 3, 2022 10:03 am

Best case, ‘Moria’, likely case, ‘Mordor’.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Macha
October 3, 2022 10:01 am

That requires ever more energy to dig bigger holes and dispose of the waste rock. Once the cost of the raw materials gets high enough, there is no longer any point in attempting to use that technology. That is, if a car battery costs 10 years of salary, all you have to do is go without food and shelter for 10 years to be able to afford it.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 3, 2022 11:01 am

Those bigger holes are needed to bury the coming volume of waste produced by the green revolution. The “waste rock” will be used to re-configure the surface and make tent cities for …

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Macha
October 3, 2022 10:27 am

And Government prohibitions on their extraction.

Steve Case
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 3, 2022 3:42 am

If it were not for the false science about atmospheric CO2 there would be no case for using [lithium batteries].
______________________________

Huh? Do a search on uses for lithium batteries, and do you have a cell phone?

william Johnston
Reply to  Steve Case
October 3, 2022 6:10 am

Just like windmills and solar panels, Lithium batteries have their own little niche. They cannot and will never be used for baseload, dispatchable power.

Don Perry
Reply to  Steve Case
October 3, 2022 6:21 am

There’s a whale of a difference between the amounts of lithium in a cell phone and an EV and in proposed grid backup systems. What is the total amount of lithium in all of the electronic gadgets compared to the amount needed for electric vehicles and grid backup? “If it were not for the false science about atmospheric CO@ there would be no case for using” the enormous quantities of lithium ion batteries.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Don Perry
October 3, 2022 10:05 am

Lithium will almost certainly be less of a problem than cobalt. One can’t just dig a big hole any place that is convenient and expect to be able to produce cobalt from it — economically or otherwise.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
October 3, 2022 8:31 am

I don’t believe many people would care if their cell phones were a quarter of an ounce heavier.
Drones on the other hand, do care how heavy their batteries are.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Steve Case
October 3, 2022 11:06 am

Not just cell phones but other devices have Li batteries. Rare but serious issues abound.
What to know?
Phone on fire? Here’s what to do — and what to avoid – CNET

jeffery p
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 3, 2022 6:03 am

I use them in my drone. And my smartphone, my powerbanks, etc.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 3, 2022 5:46 pm

Well they’re good for cameras and cell phones, otherwise, not so much.

Philip Morkel
October 2, 2022 11:04 pm

This is really the essence of this stupidity: “And yet we’re supposed to go along with Green Energy schemes – as we did with masks, school lockdowns and vaccinations to stop Covid – because our CLUELESS government, CONNIVING media and CORRUPT “public interest” groups insist that we “follow the science,” IN ORDER FOR THE FEW (FILTHY RICH) TO BENEFIT THROUGH BACKHANDS AND BRIBES WHILST THE INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED POPULATION PAY FOR THIS MAYHEM THROUGH TAXES AND LEVIES!

Last edited 2 months ago by Philip Morkel
Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Philip Morkel
October 3, 2022 5:41 am

Here in Ireland, and I suspect most EU countries, the politicians who are deciding the country needs to spend much more on quickly reaching net zero are earning more then double the average wage. Are they prepared to halve their salaries and reduce generous government employee salaries on a sliding scale to help achieve their goal – certainly not! Middle class private sector employees are the suckers who will be hardest hit. I can foresee this political lunacy leading to real wars to keep the lights on and people fed.

Steve Irwin
October 2, 2022 11:35 pm

Paul Driessen, fantastic article. Please let this be the introductory article to a more detailed article outlining estimates for actual numbers of the billions of tons of copper, steel, aluminum, nickel, cobalt, lithium, concrete, rare earths and composite plastics that will be required to build this renewable energy monolith. Please outline the present global supply of those natural resources, to explain how the pursuit of this green agenda will cause a global resource shortage which will harm society.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Steve Irwin
October 3, 2022 8:26 am

The IEA expect worldwide shortages of lithium and cobalt as early as 2025.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Irwin
October 3, 2022 10:07 am

… and composite plastics

Made from crude oil.

Ben Vorlich
October 3, 2022 1:02 am

The Green Energy Religion has followed the path of many religions over millenia.

A single charismatic person gathers a small group, usually about 12, of dedicated followers prepared to die for the cause to convert the world. Gradually because of their dedication the group expands. Fearing that they will lose support leaders of established religions start taking on the more popular ideas of this group. But that never works and the new group continues to grow until it becomes mainstream.

We’re now at the point where the green religion has become mainstream/established religions are converting and becoming different sects.

All that’s missing is a Synod of Whitby to choose the true Green Religion. Heretics like the Celtic Church and Cathars will either be allowed to fade away in the case of the former or eradicated in the latter.

We’ll then be in another Dark Age both figuratively and literally with a Renaissance a long away in the future.

Sorry I feel very pessimistic today.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 3, 2022 4:53 am

‘A single charismatic person gathers a small group, …’

Well, that leaves out Al Gore.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 3, 2022 5:50 am

And John Kerry.

Steve Case
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 3, 2022 8:19 am

Well, that leaves out Al Gore. And John Kerry.
______________________________________

First chuckle of my day. And especially John Kerry.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Steve Case
October 9, 2022 2:08 pm

Yes, but what about Joe Biden? Oh, I know, he isn’t very ‘charismatic’ but he THINKS he is. Does that count?

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 3, 2022 7:17 pm

Al Gore is a small group.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 3, 2022 5:54 am

Cheer up. I think this electrification of society is going to crash and burn soon, and I am hopeful that the Democrats are going to be destroyed in this November’s coming elections. If so, there is a possiblity the United States can get back on the right track, and others will follow our example and get themselves back on the right track, too.

Don’t give up hope yet.

Steve Case
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 3, 2022 8:26 am

Democrats are going to be destroyed in this November’s coming elections.
__________________________________________________

By any measure they should be, but remember what happened two years ago. They are gearing up for a repeat performance, and this time it won’t be in just the so-called battle ground states, and their mules won’t be stuffing the drop boxes while schlepping a cell phone around.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 3, 2022 10:33 am

However, it is looking like the Republicans may take a modest majority in the House (no Red Wave), and the Democrats will eke out a small (real) majority in the Senate.* Stalemate.

*Today’s polling results. Tomorrow will be different.

H.R.
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 3, 2022 2:35 pm

Polls aren’t used to gage public opinion. Polls are used to shape public opinion.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  H.R.
October 9, 2022 2:11 pm

“Polls are used to shape public opinion.” No, polls are sued to make people THINK that public opinion favors one side or the other! In essence, POLLS lie!

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 3, 2022 2:51 pm

That’s depressing, given –

– rising inflation
– declining markets
– imminent recession
– increasing crime
– open borders
– CRT / gender dysphoria curricula in schools
– rising energy insecurity
– etc.

If the Republicans can’t convert this into a blow-out they’re either idiots or the electorate is too far gone to ever recover.

TonyG
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 3, 2022 4:41 pm

Both can be true, Frank.

Reply to  TonyG
October 3, 2022 8:26 pm

Frank & TonyG:
3rd option: the vote will be manipulated (esp if it is close).
And all three are not mutually exclusive.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 3, 2022 10:16 am

… and literally with a Renaissance a long away in the future.

A long, long way in the future. Because, to get out of a Dark Age, the technology available to extract the necessary resources for a renaissance will have to be relatively primitive. We have exhausted all of the high-grade, easily winnable resources and now have to depend on energy-intensive, sophisticated mining and beneficiation technology to produce what we need. It is not unlike a lost hiker trying to start a fire with wet tinder, and runs out of matches.

Saighdear
October 3, 2022 1:10 am

Well last night I happened upon a Documentary: “Denmark from above”. Much clearer than Gurgle’s streetview, etc.
Point is: Denmark is / was ( lost in the German translation) the No1 in Windpower in the WORLD. Well yes, Vesta was already known here in the 70’s. But as it said in the Docu., Wind only supplies around a THIRD of its power. Now that’s saying something. 
Few have seen a Heron or Stork standing at an empty fishpond, expecting to get a Meal. Not only that, but their Mates don’t join in at the edge, yet “our leaders” INSIST on us funding MORE windNILLS which are STUCK on-site – cannot move to where there may be some wind when they’re not there. – Farmer Logic ( like Boss always arrives when you’ve just stopped to wipe the brow and have a smoke ).

Ray Swadling
October 3, 2022 1:14 am

I see the BBC has finally caught up with DRAX power station and its heavily subsidised “green” policy of burning wood pellets.

griff
Reply to  Ray Swadling
October 3, 2022 4:12 am

Yes.

Just as Greenpeace and all UK green groups have been saying for years.

IanE
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 5:07 am

Quite right: time to burn coal again!

Redge
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 5:34 am

Just as Greenpeace and all UK green groups have been saying for years.

Maybe recently, Griff, mate but it’s the fault of GreenPiss that we’re in this mess:



Screenshot 2022-10-03 133239.png
HotScot
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 6:36 am

Not for as many years as we have been saying it though.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 10:36 am

Yes, and can anyone explain why The Audubon Society was in favor of wind energy?

Richard Page
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 3, 2022 10:45 am

They got bought off.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 3, 2022 11:14 am

The leaders of the A. S. have birds for brains.
[I attend the local chapter’s meetings when a good program is offered. When the topic is climate change, I stay home and vacuum the drapes.]

Willem Post
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 3, 2022 2:07 pm

The Audubon Society members love birds

October 3, 2022 2:42 am

It’s almost as if green ideas have to collapse, with all the collateral damage that this entails, before people see how bad the ideas were.

MarkW
Reply to  Karim Ghantous
October 3, 2022 8:34 am

That’s generally true of anything pushed by the left.

TonyG
Reply to  Karim Ghantous
October 3, 2022 9:11 am

Even after it all collapses, there will be some who still won’t accept that the ideas were bad.

H.R.
Reply to  TonyG
October 3, 2022 2:43 pm

Oh, yeah, TonyG. You got it.

“If only we had just put in 3 times as many windmills, it would have worked.”

Joel
Reply to  Karim Ghantous
October 4, 2022 11:15 am

Nobody’s has every tried real Green Energy before.
And, when the sh*t hits the fan:
If only Comrade Gore knew.

itsy_bitsy
October 3, 2022 3:02 am

There is no such thing as a “good” democrat!

MarkW
Reply to  itsy_bitsy
October 3, 2022 8:36 am

Even those who were merely mediocre have either been driven from the party, or forced to convert on pain of excommunication.

H.R.
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2022 3:28 pm

JFK would have been driven from the Democrat party in recent years if he still held the views now as he did when elected.

All of the ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats were driven from the party around the time Clinton was elected.

HotScot
October 3, 2022 3:14 am

Good article by Matt Ridley in 2017 about the mind boggling numbers involved here.

www (DOT) rationaloptimist (DOT) com/blog/wind-still-making-zero-energy/

(Remove (DOT) and replace with . )

Dan Hughes
Reply to  HotScot
October 3, 2022 7:13 am

This report for the Geological Survey of Finland, by Simon P. Michaux:

Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels, August 20, 2021, aka 20.8.2021

https colon slash slash tupa dot gtk dot fi slash raportti slash arkisto slash 42_2021 dot pdf

Presents, I think, a good start.

Time lines are critically important for every aspect of the systems, from mining raw ore to installation of finished products. That is, can the absolutely critical up-scaling of production systems, world wide, be accomplished by the time they are required by the up-scaled use of finished products to meet the overall time objective that has been established?

Finding sources of raw ore, and then development of an extraction system, themselves generally require many workers over decades of time, and the mining itself requires significantly more people. Will there be sufficient qualified people, at the times required, in order to meet the end objective?

Is it not possible that the very significant increase in the production rate of highly specialized mining equipment could be delayed by the permitting process required to expand an existing production plant, or construction of new plants, for example.

The consumption at the present time, some of which goes into renewables, must be maintained, and increases in these applications will occur with time. And while consumption for the renewables will very significantly increase, so will the consumption that is required to maintain and provide stand-by backup energy sources to cover for the lack of reliability of wind and solar.

Then there’s the problem of getting the finished products to the application location. These massive equipments, made in different countries, are not simply driven down the roads. More fossil fuel consumption for this transportation. The trucks themselves can burn like 150 Liters/hour (about 40 galloons per hour).

As an example, maybe for the highly-specialized tires needed for the mining equipments. Or, even the availability of sufficient raw products to make the tires, or the highly-specialized equipment required to make the tires. All aspects of production of the tires, and all other aspects of renewables, from raw products to delivery of finished products, will be dependent of fossil-fuel energy sources. At the current time in the USA, years/decades of delays, even after approvals have been issued, is SOP.

What’s missing are time-dependencies illustrated with Gantt charts: Search Wiki: Gantt Chart

ATheoK
Reply to  Dan Hughes
October 3, 2022 7:23 am

???

This isn’t the NYT!
Links are valid in this forum and much appreciated. Cryptic attempts to fool censor algorithms do not work. Such crudity only frustrate the readers here.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Dan Hughes
October 3, 2022 8:37 am

Found that myself a couple of weeks back and am working my way through it. Warning to others, it is 1000 pages.

Written for the Geological Survey of Finland. Author is an Associate Professor of Mineral Processing and Geometallurgy

https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42 2021.pdf

Last edited 2 months ago by Dave Andrews
H.R.
Reply to  Dave Andrews
October 3, 2022 3:32 pm

Say that again?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Dan Hughes
October 3, 2022 8:58 am

Found that myself a couple of weeks back and am working my way through it. Warning – 1000 pages. Written by an Associate Professor of Mineral Processing and Geometallurgy.

https://tupa.gtk.fi/raporti/arkisto/42_2024.pdf

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Dave Andrews
October 4, 2022 6:24 am
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Dan Hughes
October 4, 2022 3:45 am

While such reports are useful to show the vast scale of the lunacy, they continue to do a disservice by promoting the wrong message.

THERE IS NOT, AND WILL NEVER BE, A 100% REPLACEMENT OF FOSSIL FUELS, PERIOD.

IT DOESN’T MATTER IF WE STRIP MINE THE EARTH OF EVERY RESOURCE AND BLANKET ITS SURFACE WITH WIND AND SOLAR INSTALLATIONS.

WIND AND SOLAR ARE 100% DEPENDENT ON FOSSIL FUELS FOR THEIR EXISTENCE, PERIOD.

The heading shouldn’t say “how much extra we have to build,” as if it were POSSIBLE, because IT’S NOT AND NEVER WILL BE. The header should read “The FUTILITY OF TRYING to 100% replace fossil fuels.”

/rant

george1st:)
October 3, 2022 3:15 am

USA , EU , UK , Canada , Australia , Japan , South Korea et al could turn their lights off tomorrow and go back to the caves but it will never affect the weather which some like to call climate change .

Steve Case
October 3, 2022 3:48 am

Not one of these luminaries has given a moment’s thought to – much less attempted to calculate – what this net-zero transition would require:
______________________________________________________

That’s because “Net-Zero” isn’t their goal.

griff
October 3, 2022 4:09 am

The US is short of long distance HVDC interconnectors, something Europe has been building for a decade.

California would have been better off if it had those connections, so also the isolated Texas grid.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 5:05 am

Stay focused, griff – the problem is the intermittency of ‘renewable’ energy, not how it gets wheeled into the environs of our virtue signaling elites.

ATheoK
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 3, 2022 7:28 am

Not just intermittency.
Wind and solar supply variable electricity to the grid. Inconsistent fluctuations in frequency, amperage and voltage that harm motors and appliances is the electrical power generated by wind and solar.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  ATheoK
October 3, 2022 10:11 am

Indeed, I just kept it short to accommodate griff’s limited reasoning capacity.

H.R.
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 3, 2022 3:39 pm

Oh, for griff? Then you should have cut down your reply by half, Frank.

Next time, try a couple of grunts, snorts, whistles, and maybe marking a fire hydrant or two to get your point across to our griff 😉

griff
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 4, 2022 12:55 pm

Frank, Europe ships electricity about based on day ahead prices and predicted renewable generation.

Perhaps that’s a bit sophisticated for you?

b.nice
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 5:48 am

“California would have been better off if it had those connections”

So they can link to the coal fired power from other states .

LdB
Reply to  b.nice
October 3, 2022 8:03 am

Same as South Australia then. That was like the stupid argument Stokes was pushing that SA costs were down because 60% of there energy was renewable. Except SA cost is on par with all Eastern States cost so the other 40% costs a hell of a lot. So it begs the question what percentage of renewables does one need before you ever get cheaper power?

Last edited 2 months ago by LdB
Bryan A
Reply to  LdB
October 3, 2022 8:43 am

Zero Percent??

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Bryan A
October 4, 2022 3:48 am

DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner!

Reply to  b.nice
October 3, 2022 8:49 pm

IIRC California owns 25% of the Palo Verde nuclear plant just west of Phoenix, AZ.
So far they still get their share of electricity even as they try to end their in-state nukes.

Here is the EIA.gov webpage listing average electricity rates by State & end user {ie, residential, commercial etc}:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/7?agg=0,1&geo=g0fvvvvvvvvvo&endsec=vg&freq=M&start=200101&end=202207&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin=

Note: Calif = 24.91 cents/KWh; Arizona = 11.98 as of July 2022

jeffery p
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 6:08 am

Quite the opposite. California should disconnect from the other states so they can show us how it’s done. Put your money where your mouth is, Gavin. Quit buying power from other states and generate all you need from “renewables.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 6:30 am

California and Texas would have been better off building conventional power generation rather than depending on unreliable windmills and solar.

California and Texas will end up going the conventional generation route after this period of stupid.

There is no way that windmills and solar can power society by themselves. They will always need convention generation as a backup when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, and eventually, people will figure out that they should just leave the windmills and solar out of the mix and go with 100 percent conventional generation since they are going to have to build the conventional generation anyway.

All this stupidity and insanity is based on an unreasonable fear of the benign gas, CO2.

Climate Change Alarmists claim adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the temperatures, yet here we have more CO2 going into the atmosphere than ever before, yet the temperatures are cooling. How do alarmists explain this discrepancy?

Maybe the alarmists are wrong about CO2 and we are doing all this “Green” insanity for nothing. That’s what I think. That kind of thinking may spread if the temperatures don’t warm up.

comment image

Iain Reid
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 3, 2022 11:44 pm

Tom,

quote:- “There is no way that windmills and solar can power society by themselves. They will always need convention generation as a backup when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, and eventually, people will figure out that they should just leave the windmills and solar out of the mix and go with 100 percent conventional generation since they are going to have to build the conventional generation anyway.”

While I agree with the conclusion I would like to add that conventional generation is not just ‘back up’ important as that is, but is the means to keep the grid in load and supply balance.

It is a message I have been trying to get across for a long time. In the U.K. it is primarily gas that does that function, it’s output modulates to fill the gap between mostly nuclear and renewable output and total demand.

Without that the grid would fail as frequency would go out of limits. Frequency is the parameter that indicates load supply balance, increase load without increasing supply causes frequency to fall and vice versa, any deviation beyond 1% is the trip level (U.K.). Renewables cannot react to that load variation.

Conventional generation is not back up but what actually keeps a grid reliable and it is getting harder as more renewables are added.

starzmom
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 6:30 am

California has at least some of those connections. Unfortunately, they run over the mountains and through the forests and get shut down when it is windy so they don’t start forest fires. There are always unintended consequences and the longer your supply line is the more room there is for them to pop up.

HotScot
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 6:44 am

Why would any state or country rely on energy provision which is beyond its own control? Macron threatened to cut off the French interconnector to the UK over fishing.

It’s known as energy security and is a pretty hot topic at the moment. Not that you would have noticed.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  HotScot
October 3, 2022 9:06 am

Naah, UK’s always been friendly with France and Germany hasn’t it? 🙂

HotScot
Reply to  Dave Andrews
October 3, 2022 9:40 am

Not really. We didn’t like Napoleon and he disliked us, and we fought two world wars against Germany.

Richard Page
Reply to  HotScot
October 3, 2022 10:57 am

It goes back long before that; I don’t think the Germans ever really forgave us for sticking our noses into the 30 years war!

Richard Page
Reply to  Dave Andrews
October 3, 2022 10:52 am

Except for the ‘enthusiastic disagreements’ with the Capet’s, the Valois and the Bourbon’s, the Napoleon’s and the Vichy; they’ve only been going on for about a thousand years or so. And then there’s the Spanish…

John Hultquist
Reply to  Dave Andrews
October 3, 2022 11:33 am

 Duchess Eleanor of Aquitaine married Henry II in 1152 that brought the wines of Bordeaux under English rule. Things have gone downhill ever since.

LdB
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 7:59 am

LOL still flogging the HVDC interconnectors couple of slight problems finding someone in Europe with excess power … oh wait Russia probably has 🙂

Think the EU has worked out the slight problem with that idea especially after someone blew up a gas pipeline 🙂

Last edited 2 months ago by LdB
MarkW
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 8:40 am

Yes, more HVDC might be useful once in awhile. However, at what cost.
Unlike socialists, the rest of us realize that everything has a cost, and we must choose between the many things we desire.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2022 10:17 am

How dare you point out the fundamental flaw of socialism!

H.R.
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 3, 2022 3:55 pm

Hey. Socialism is all about equality. Everyone is equally poor and miserable.

Well, except those who are just a little bit more equal. They seem to get by alright. All you need to do is backstab, poison, and strangle your way into the upper tiers and you’ll find Socialism works for you.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 9:54 am

Yet many of the counties in the EU have been making noise that their citizens come first. Ultimately, if a country is not self-sufficient, then it will not get help from elsewhere. Forcing taxpayers in one country to subsidize users in another won’t last long!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 10:25 am

… something Europe has been building for a decade.

Along with gas pipelines that they became dependent on. What happens if a natural disaster or war knocks out the source? A fail-safe grid has a lot to recommend it.

John Hultquist
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 11:27 am

Pacific DC Intertie – Wikipedia
Also called Path 65 —  first phase of the scheme, completed in May 1970

Editor
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 12:59 pm

City of Los Angeles gets power from 5 states a city of 3.9 MILLION people second most populous city in America

Where Does Los Angeles Get Its Electricity?

LINK

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
October 3, 2022 2:36 pm

griff
October 3, 2022 4:09 am
The US is short of long distance HVDC interconnectors, something Europe has been building for a decade.

California would have been better off if it had those connections, so also the isolated Texas grid.

Just as every state would, unfortunately this is only because any single state is wholly incapable of generating “Renewable” sourced electricity within state borders that can power the state without out of state assistance. Unfortunately there are no Out of Global intertie connections to supply global back-up

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
October 3, 2022 2:39 pm

Sounds like you think Oklahoma should not only have 100% renewable generation within state but also have 100% available back-up generation for Texas AND 100% FF back-up JUST IN CASE.

george1st:)
October 3, 2022 5:19 am

Priorities of most politicians world wide
1- get elected
2- get re-elected
3- whats in in it for me , can i get get more out of this .
4- ?

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  george1st:)
October 3, 2022 5:47 am

4- Retire from politics and become an even better paid lobbyist. 😉

Mr.
Reply to  george1st:)
October 3, 2022 7:53 am

4. A UN post.

Tom Abbott
October 3, 2022 5:30 am

From the article: “The Green Lobby and its legislator and regulator friends really seem to think they can just pass laws and earmark subsidies, demanding energy transformations by 2050 – and it will just happen.”

I believe that is exactly what is happening. There’s a whole lot of wishful, irrational thinking going on among the climate change alarmists. They want something to happen and they think mandating it will accomplish this goal, never taking into consideration the realities of the situation.

Idiocracy.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 3, 2022 8:44 am

My favorite example was the EPA fining refineries for failing to use a chemical that didn’t exist.
Once the regulation was passed, it was up to the industry to comply. Just because the requirements were physically impossible isn’t the EPA’s problem.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  MarkW
October 3, 2022 10:44 am

Defund the EPA.

October 3, 2022 6:25 am

The problem with wind and solar is that they only generate intermittent electricity, but cannot MANUFACTURE anything for society.

I’m a proponent of ridding our use of oil, but before I jump out of the airplane, I want to see its replacement that can manufacture:

  • the oil derivatives that account for more than 6,000 products is our daily Ives and
  • what replacement is going to manufacture the fuels to operate the 50,000 jets in the world, and
  • the 50,000 merchant ships in the world,
  • and fuel (No pun intended) all the militaries around the world.
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Ronald Stein
October 3, 2022 7:42 am

‘I’m a proponent of ridding our use of oil..’

Why so?

Bryan A
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 3, 2022 2:47 pm

At least the shipping could be converted to a form of Nuclear provided you could keep the Somali Pirates away. Some Cargo wouldn’t necessarily survive a trip by Sails

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Bryan A
October 3, 2022 3:39 pm

Avast ye pirates!

Julie Michele
Reply to  Ronald Stein
October 3, 2022 7:51 am

Why do you want to rid ourselves of using oil? You provide a set of remarkably good reasons for thanking Providence for this amazing gift. Furthermore, new evidence suggests that oil is constantly and currently being produced by the Earth itself. So, drill, baby, drill ought to be the mantra of everyone with a kick of common sense.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Julie Michele
October 3, 2022 11:39 am

” … new evidence suggests that oil is constantly and currently being produced by the Earth itself.”
I suggest you investigate this issue. Start here:
 Abiotic Oil: Real(ish)Things That Don’t Matter, Part Deux – Watts Up With That?

Olen
October 3, 2022 7:13 am

Fraud free elections and politicians would have to serve the people instead of themselves.

Who asked them to go green other than the crazies. They are out there doing it on their own initiative and their message is you will suffer but it will be worth it.

Bryan A
Reply to  Olen
October 3, 2022 2:56 pm

Perhaps the Political office(s) should be wage compensation free. There should be provided free Room and Board and Health Care but beyond that no monetary compensation should be allowed. Perhaps punishable by imprisonment for accepting Bribes or Graft. And no passing any laws that do not also apply to Congress
That could end Career Politicians

Mark BLR
October 3, 2022 7:18 am

Compounding the energy colonialism, the Manchin reform package would also give FERC authority to allocate and “socialize” transmission line costs, so that residents of states that don’t even get any of the electricity being sent along the newly imposed transmission lines would still have to help pay for them.

I saw this point made about the Manchin bill, as currently drafted, in an article at the “right-wing think tank” (AKA “bias is in the eye of the beholder” ?) CEI, who made this point in a slightly more … “provocative” (?) way :

In other words, the investors who are going to make hundreds of billions of dollars from federal subsidies of new wind and solar facilities don’t have to pay for the high-voltage transmission lines costing hundreds of billions of dollars. Instead, FERC could socialize the costs to customers by attributing some alleged climate benefits, no matter how amorphous or dubious, to the project.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Mark BLR
October 4, 2022 4:04 am

Yes while at first, the “permitting deal” sounded like it would end some of the obstruction to SOME portion of fossil fuel projects, I think it will (no surprise here) be more about shoving wind and solar projects (and the related and otherwise unnecessary T&D line expansions) down the throats of those that don’t want it.

So the democrats’ internal squabbling is a win-win; Manchin gets deservedly punished for voting for the misnamed “IRA” and the Eco-Nazis don’t get another tool to shove their mass stupidity down everyone else’s throats.

George Dixon
October 3, 2022 8:15 am

Oil, Biden and ‘Alternative energy’. Democrats claimed for several decades that the time for ‘Green Energy’ has arrived. Then, in 2022, there came a real world test of that assertion. Green Alternative Energy failed the first time its assertions and assumptions were tested. If Green Energy was able to handle the power needs of a modern technical society, as supporters insist, the Germans could look forward to the seamless shift from gas to wind to keep their pipes from freezing this Winter. Russian control of Europe’s gas would be a non-issue. Now some governments in the West are scrambling to bring existing nuclear power plants and even coal fired electricity back online.
Green Energy had its chance to step into the breach and shine. It did not because it can not. Alternatives, such as Alternative Energy, have to be able to perform at least as well as what they purport to replace or they are not a viable alternative at all.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  George Dixon
October 3, 2022 10:28 am

There’s no intention to demonstrate that alternative energy can ‘shine’. To the contrary, the intention is to use climate alarmism to spearhead the implementation of alternative energy in order to collapse the West’s traditions of free markets and limited government, aka, capitalism.

Greg Bacon
October 3, 2022 8:33 am
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Greg Bacon
October 4, 2022 4:11 am

Let’s see how “innovative” it is when their solar panels take a direct hit from a major hurricane. Some post-Maria photos in Puerto Rico come to mind.

And see how it works in Minnesota or Wisconsin in January. The latest in ” innovation” – just freeze to death.

Last edited 2 months ago by AGW is Not Science
DipChip
October 3, 2022 8:39 am

40 to 50 lbs of copper per IC engine vs minimum 160 pounds copper for electric auto.
$19,000 per ton for lithium carbonate in 2021; $68,000 per ton in 2022.
Plus all the copper for step down transformers to power all the new charging stations and additional sub-stations to serve all the charge stations.
Good luck with that. Good luck never compensates for ignorance or reality.

Oldpa
October 3, 2022 9:39 am

f you think this is bad, look up the EO biden signed last month for the transition to transhumanism. Man will get to live forever. Well, those who are considered worthwhile to society, that is. And it will cost trillions of dollars.

Clyde Spencer
October 3, 2022 9:44 am

Wind and sunshine are free, clean, …

In the same sense, fossil fuels are free and can be made clean. However, resources and money are necessary for all of them to extract the energy and make it usable.

There are environmental costs to cutting down forests to have access to sunshine, and I suspect that we have yet to discover the environmental costs of massive installations of wind turbines beyond killing birds, insects, and bats. People who live near wind turbines complain about headaches and loss of sleep. What is happening to the wildlife?

Bob
October 3, 2022 2:54 pm

We have already reached peak green energy, we can’t afford to mine and process, environmentally, the needed raw materials and there aren’t enough raw materials available to mine and process. As for New York wanting it’s energy generated out of state and shipped in, they can go to hell and take California with them.

Edward Katz
October 3, 2022 5:58 pm

Apparently these Green advocates are oblivious to the rising prices and energy shortages that Europe is facing as winter approaches. Yet since many of these people have investments in Green technologies, or some other vested interest in the agenda, they’re likely to keep on supporting them regardless of their unreliability. They’re just hoping to get in the door, take their profits, and get out before consumers realize they’ve been taken for a ride, and an expensive one to boot.

observa
October 3, 2022 7:56 pm

Getting rewarded for dumping on the grid and continuing to drive out reliable competitors to the longer term detriment of power consumers-
How the energy price crisis turned wind farms into giant money spinners (msn.com)
Watermelon economics at it’s finest for struggletown.

Kiwi Gary
October 4, 2022 12:31 am

Last week there was a conference in Perth, Western Australia, with a major subject of Lithium supplies for electric vehicles. A major contributor was Sinead Kaufman, head of Lithium for Rio Tinto [ who do know a bit about mining]. Even if all of the world-wide plans for mining Lithium now being projected were to come to fruition, there would still be a shortfall of 50% in 2030 {the Dreamtime nett-zero}. Simple economic says that Lithium will become very expensive. Indeed, Ruita Tomaguchi of Freyr Batteries in Japan opined that, although his factory expected to be able to reduce unit manufacturing costs by 50% as production scale rose, the increase in raw material costs would make that immaterial. His opinion is that electric cars will be affordable only for the very rich, but not for the mass-production market.

observa
October 4, 2022 6:46 am

It’s time to short-circuit this electricity nightmare, by asking these questions, demanding answers

But they already have the answer and no further correspondence will be entered into-
‘Insidious’: Facebook makes ‘dangerous’ attempt at censorship (msn.com)

Joel
October 4, 2022 11:13 am

So, the Western world is going to destroy the environment by going with renewables, and the Easter world is going to destroy the climate by burning coal.
I don’t see this as a win-win situation.

%d bloggers like this: