The elephant in the room that policymakers refuse to talk about is that renewables only generate electricity but cannot manufacture any products for today’s materialistic society.
Published March 25, 2024, at America Out Loud NEWS

Ronald Stein is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”
Regardless of the intermittent weather, the electrical grid is expected to deliver continuous and uninterrupted electricity no matter what the weather to support computers for hospitals, airports, offices, manufacturing, military sites, and telemetry, that all need a continuous uninterruptable supply of electricity.
Yet, policymakers continue to subsidize wind turbines and solar panels (with taxpayers’ money) for the generation of electricity that do not work most of the time.
I find it amusing that twenty-three states have adopted goals to move to 100 percent clean ELECTRICTY by 2050.
Of the six electrical generation methods, wind and solar cannot compete with hydro, nuclear, coal, or natural gas:
- Wind and solar generate occasional electricity.
- Hydro, nuclear, coal, and natural gas generate continuous uninterruptible electricity.
The elephant in the room that no policymaker wants to discuss is that:
- Neither wind turbines nor solar panels can replace the supply chain of products from crude oil that are the foundation of our materialistic society demanded by the 8 billion on this planet.
- Occasional electricity generated from wind and solar CANNOT support computers for hospitals, airports, offices, manufacturing, military sites, and telemetry, that all need a continuous uninterruptable supply of electricity.
Interestingly, all the components of wind turbines and solar panels are also based on the products made from fossil fuels. Thus, in a fossil-free society, we’re decaying back in the 1800’s as there will also be NO electricity. Life was short and hard for the common man just a few hundred years ago!
Sarcastically, or more realistically, these are a few boomerang impacts of a society free of crude oil:
- Without oil, a significant loss of billions of lives of the 8 billion on this planet from starvation, diseases, and weather-related fatalities because of shortages of food, medications, and products, and a reduction in transportation infrastructures, that are all based on the components made from fossil fuels!
- Without oil, we would drastically reduce the homeless population as all the tents and sleeping bags utilized by the homeless are all made from fossil fuels! The homeless will need to live like the cavemen in a non-materialistic society like that in the pre-1800’s.
- Without oil, we would drastically reduce the unfunded pension liabilities associated with those that retire early from business or start collecting Social Security in their mid-60’s, and collect pensions well into their 80’s, as few people would live beyond their 40’s!
- Without oil, a smaller number of colleges would be needed because there would be no need for doctors for hospitals, or engineers for infrastructure development, that are all based on the components made from fossil fuels!
As a refresher for those pursuing net-zero emissions, wind and solar do different things than crude oil:
- Wind turbines and solar panels do not work most of the time, as they only generate occasional electricity AND manufacture NOTHING for society as renewables cannot make tires, insulation, or fuels for commercial and military aircraft, merchant ships, and the space program.
- Wind and solar cannot make any of the more than 6,000 products now in our materialistic world.
- Crude oil is virtually never used to generate electricity but when manufactured into petrochemicals, is the basis for virtually all the products in our materialistic society that did not exist before the 1800’s.
- We’ve become a very materialistic society over the last 200 years, and the world has populated from 1 to 8 billion because of all the products and different fuels for jets, ships, trucks, cars, military, and the space program that did not exist before the 1800’s.
- If the world governments want to rid the earth of crude oil usage, what’s the back-up source that can manufacture refrigerators, tires, asphalt, X-Ray machines, iPhones, air conditioners, and the other 6,000 products that wind and solar CANNOT manufacture?
- Crude oil use is essential to human flourishing for the foreseeable future. The pursuit of “net zero by 2050, without first identifying the crude oil replacement to support the supply chain of products now demanded by those in developed countries, would be one of the most destructive developments in human history.
- Without crude oil, there would be nothing that needs electricity!! Everything that needs electricity to function is made with petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil, from computers, iPhones, telemetry, and HVAC units!!
- Until a crude oil replacement is identified to manufacture products for society, the world cannot do without crude oil that is the basis of our materialistic “products” society.
We should be careful with what we wish for. From the proverb “you can’t have your cake and eat it too” tells us that:
- You can’t rid the world of crude oil and continue to enjoy the products and transportation fuels that are currently made with petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil.
The few wealthy countries of the United States of America, Germany, the UK, and Australia represent about 6 percent of the world’s population (515 million vs 8 billion) are mandating social changes to achieve net zero emissions.
Germany, the first country to go “green” with an electricity generation transition to renewables, now has electricity rates that are among the highest in the world, and threatens to be an unaffordable, unrealizable disaster, according to the government’s own independent auditors.
Looking beyond the few wealthy countries setting environmental policies for the other 94 percent of the world’s population, billions still struggle to meet basic needs. The poorer on this planet may never be able to enjoy the materialistic living styles of those in wealthier countries.
The few in the developed countries have come a long way in the last few hundred years from the zero emissions society that existed before the 1800’s when:
- There were no products for heating, cooling, or irrigation to prevent weather related fatalities and injuries before the 1800’s.
- Life longevity was about 40 years of age before the 1800’s.
- When people were born, they seldom traveled more than 100 miles from their birthplace before the 1800’s.
- There was no medical industry before the 1800’s.
- There were no electronics, computers, or iPhones before the 1800’s.
- There were no transportation infrastructures before the 1800’s.
- There were no tires or asphalt to support transportation infrastructures.
- There were no airplanes and thus no airports before the 1800’s.
- There were no cruise ships nor merchant ships, other than sailing vessels before the 1800’s.
- There were no military ships or planes before the 1800’s.
- There were no coal fired power plants before the 1800’s.
- There were no natural gas-powered plants before the 1800’s.
- There were no hydro or nuclear power plants before the 1800’s.
At the recent climate summit gathering in Dubai that attracted more than 70,000 from around the world that enjoy their materialistic lifestyles, as well as more than 600 emission-spewing private jets, the president of the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP28, Sultan Al Jaber stated that a phase-out of fossil fuels would not allow sustainable development “unless you want to take the world back into caves”, i.e. back to the pre-1800’s !
Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure, Co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations”, policy advisor on energy literacy for The Heartland Institute, and The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and National TV Commentator- Energy & Infrastructure with Rick Amato.
Ronald Stein, P.E. is an engineer, energy consultant, speaker, author of books and articles on energy literacy, environmental policy, and human rights, and Founder of PTS Advance, a California based company.
Ron advocates that energy literacy starts with the knowledge that renewable energy is only intermittent electricity generated from unreliable breezes and sunshine, as wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture anything for the 8 billion on this planet.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That’s right, fossil resources will eventually run out. The Green Party wants that to happen now with no plan to deal with it.
They are telling me that too, for the last 50 years. So when is it?
I distinctly remember reading in my 3rd grade Weekly Reader (in 1948) that we had only 10 years of oil left in the world. MMMmmm.
Do you have any evidence for that assertion? The last wave of peak oilism crashed when fracking kicked domestic production up through the roof.
Fracking has been used for close to 100 years. It was the tight shales fracking that kicked production through the roof.
“Neither wind turbines nor solar panels can replace the supply chain of products from crude oil that are the foundation of our materialistic society demanded by the 8 billion on this planet.”
Stein keeps deating the drum on this, and it is just so dumb. Renwables generate electricity, as do hydro and nuclear. None of those provide those products. Neither indeed do gas or coal stations. There is no reason why crude oil can’t be used as a raw material for that supply chain as always.
Nick, do you understand the difference between Low Mass Power generation and High Mass Power generation and the difference between INTERMITTENT power generation and 24/7 power generation.
Can you answer to the post he made? Or is it just moving goalposts and catchwords?
About moving amplification in a car free city
Got an answer yet?
The point he made was pretty dumb.
We would still need oil and gas to made things from even in the glorious day of 100% renewable energy whenever that is! That would lead to byproducts for which we’d have no use. Just like mining minerals and ores for lithium, cobalt, steel and concrete leaves byproducts we can’t use. The byproducts of from oil and gas can be used for example petrol and diesel. The waste from mining is often a big heap of something burying previously useful land.
For example the Five Sisters. These days we’d use fracking to get at the oil, well not in the UK we wouldn’t.
Yes. “Keep it in the ground” is analogous to wanting to “have your cake and eat it too” as Mr. Stein described the elephant in the room.
Beyond that, Mr. Stokes appears to be ignorant that natural gas is a major feedstock to materials as is coal. Mr. Stokes does acknowledge crude oil as a raw material but he really needs to consider which side he is on.
The point is that gas, coal and oil all have a role as minerals, and will continued to be mined as needed. The only issue is with burning them. That emits CO2.
Burning fossil fuels is one source of the gas of life, from which plants and animals thrive.
The point is that you are totally ignorant of manufacturing.
CO2 emissions are not an issue, never have been and never will be.
There is absolutely no reason to not to use them as energy supply.
YAAAAAAAYYYYYY!!! Proud Mary keep on burnin’!!! The Earth needs more CO2, not less!
Thanks for the link to the Five Sisters.
So the total LUSER doesn’t understand the difference between Low Mass Power generation and High Mass Power generation and the difference between INTERMITTENT power generation and 24/7 power generation, either
Why are the Luser’s posts always backed only by ignorance ???
It is clear you don’t understand WHY I asked him that question which means you are clueless about the difference which is wide as the Grand Canyon.
If you continue to use fossil fuels for manufacturing then there is no point in using wind and solar energy sources. Our total fossil fuel consumption will be barely affected since the increasing use for manufactured goods will always outpace any decreasing use for energy production.
Only a tiny fraction of oil/coal is used as raw material for chemical processing, and there is no climate problem with that. The only problem is when it is burnt.
What is tiny and which is bigger, a small fraction of a large number or zero?
The picture accompanying this article shows people sitting around a table, all wearing what appear to be petroleum derived clothing and sharing the light and warmth of petroleum derived candles. Not everyone can afford wool and beeswax.
Another elephant not mentioned by Mr. Stein is the raw materials and energy needed to produce fertilizers that are made possible by fossil fuels.
Keep it in the ground is really a death sentence that is equivalent to put them in the ground.
Well then stop using FF every day, Nick!
There is absolutely ZERO problem with using coal and gas and oil as an energy supply.
They produce cheap, reliable, dispatchable electricity and a very efficient means of mass and personal transport….
… which you no doubt use every day in your country 4×4 or SUV.
The CO2 byproduct is absolutely essential for all life on Earth..
Yes, Nick.. even your trivial and pathetic anti-human life is totally dependent on atmospheric CO2.. !!
Only a tiny fraction
What do you propose be done with the rest of it?
This is technically true. But if the fuel market is no longer available, will the materials market be sufficient to keep the lights on and employees paid on the oilfields? How many Cutty Sarks will be needed to get those barrels of oil from the Middle East to China, the US and Europe? Or do you think existing cargo ships will be somehow retrofitted with nuclear-powered engines? Supply chains require transport, and transport requires expenditure of energy. Without oil-based fuels, the supply chain you’re referring to will no longer exist.
“ will the materials market be sufficient to keep the lights on and employees paid on the oilfields?”
The demand will be much reduced, but there will be plenty of resources available to meet it. The market economy will sort that out.
Demand for electricity will rocket if the current plans remain. 28 million gas boilers and 45 million cars and vans (UK) will not be producing heat or travelling without electricity. All this additional (I estimate 3-4 times what we generate now) will need to be generated, transported and distributed. How?
According to the elite, those are questions that they don’t need to worry about. They set policy, it’s up to the little people to make the policy work.
Maybe, but with a drastic increase in price since with worldwide net zero, most of the petroleum industry will be defunct. What’s left will easily be even MORE of a monopoly than now.
The nutters will quiet down when all the extraction industries are are under the complete control of the Red Army and its sister organizations.
The market economy will sort it out by getting new sources of energy, oil and coal. First you say don’t let the market function as it has for over a hundred years, now you say it will function just fine with interference. You can’t have it both ways. You really need to think instead of just pushing stupid talking points.
‘The market economy will sort that out.’
Oh. So why not let the ‘market economy’ sort out how we obtain energy?
We don’t let the market economy cause discharge of pollutants into rivers or onto the land. The atmosphere is a common good, and governments should regulate its welfare.
“The atmosphere is a common good”
And is currently near a historic low in CO2 content.
Continued increase would be highly beneficial to the whole of the planet’s carbon-based life.
The anti-CO2 morons like you should get the **** out the way and stop being such anti-life, anti-science heathens.
Governments don’t need to regulate anything to do with CO2 emissions… that is scientific idiocy.
They do, however, need to stop polluting wide areas of land with useless wind turdines and solar panels.
Pollution into rivers?? that’s for the greenies as they remove dams, killing whole river systems.
And the march of totalitarianism advances. One good deed at a time.
The only reason so many inexpensive things are made from oil and gas is because of the economy of scale derived from the massive production of petro products for energy. Without that, thr myriad products will disappear or become hugely expensive.
As is typical of Nick, he either doesn’t understand the argument being made, or he does understand it and has decided that deflection is his best strategy.
The argument is not, will there be enough oil to meet the needs of the Petrochemical industry. The argument is that the because of the massive drop in production, it will no longer be economical to search, drill and pump for it.
The market economy would sort it out if it wasn’t for massive government subsidies, mandates etc.
Wind and solar would never get built.
How many Cutty Sarks
A case: Cutty Sark (whisky) – Wikipedia
https://www.rmg.co.uk/cutty-sark
Yes, there is: the reason is intermittency. The green fantasy is that you can just switch the cars to EVs, the heating to heat pumps, the generation to wind and solar, and carry on as we do now.
You cannot, because there is no way of doing that with an intermittent electricity supply. You can’t power the manufacturing and distribution process with intermittent electricity.
You also say
No, they don’t. An intermittent and unpredictable supply is not the same as a dispatchable supply. It is not the same product. Its unusable for most of the purposes for which industrial societies use electricity.
Stein’s post has many deficiencies, but the basic point is correct. It is impossible to have a functioning industrial economy which is net zero in electricity generation, because there is no way to take electricity generation to net zero and also have a functioning grid, and without that you do not have an industrial society.
This means that the other piece of the fantasy is also impossible. Because net zero will not deliver adequate usable power, the attempt to convert to the electric society will also not work.
There are three possibilities here:
The dawning realization that #3 is where we are headed is what prompted the UK Government’s recent announcement that its building out gas generation. Governments when it comes down to it are always going to blink and go for #1.
“Yes, there is: the reason is intermittency”
You are completely missing the point. Stein is saying there won’t be coal/oil for chemical feedstock. There is no climate objection to that usage, and it will continue.
Your objection is that it won’t because electricity won’t be available. Well, it will.
My objection is that if we persist in trying to take electricity generation to net zero we will not have a viable grid of anything like current capacity. We will then not have the industries that are now using coal or oil as feedstock.
Abolish reliable electricity supplies and you change society completely.
The UK is the canary in the coal mine on this. Look at what is actually happening in power generation. Then look at what both political parties are intending, which is to get to either 100% or 95% to net zero in generation by 2030.
I posted the numbers on this for yesterday, which was a typical low demand afternoon in spring. There is no feasible way to make up what is now coming from gas generation from wind and solar. The problem is intermittency.
“We will then not have the industries that are now using coal or oil as feedstock.”
No problemo- those industries will just all move to China. Problem solved. /sarc
Here is the problem, the UK as example. Yesterday at 4pm:
Gas: 6.5GW.
Wind, from faceplate of 28GW: 4GW.
Solar: 5.7GW
Imports: 6.12GW
How much faceplate wind would we need to replace the gas? Wind is doing one seventh of faceplate. So to get 6.5GW at 4pm we would have to add 45.5GW. You might think, OK, ambitious but possible.
But in an hour or two solar is going to vanish. So actually we will need wind to supply 12.2GW. That means an additional 85.4GW. Very ambitious, Minister. Bold, even.
Now, the figure of 4GW from the current 28GW faceplate is not particularly low. It often falls to 1GW or lower.
Lets take the 1GW case and apply it to yesterday’s stats. it means we have to provide 28GW faceplate for every additional 1GW we need. Yesterday this was 12.2GW, so we need 12.2 *28 faceplate. About 340GW. This is impossible.
It gets worse. Gas was only supplying 6.5GW yesterday afternoon, because it was a very low demand period. What happens when the same situation with wind and solar occurs and demand is at its peak of about 45GW? Which does happen every winter.
Well, if wind performs like it did yesterday at 4pm then we need 7 times max gas, which is about 28GW. That is only 196GW faceplate. Its impossible, but its not worst case.
What about when wind falls to only 1GW? What does it then take to replace the 28GW of gas?
It takes 28 * 28 = 784GW.
You may argue that new wind will be offshore, so the capacity factor will rise. Maybe. Not enough to make any difference to the argument. Any way you look at it, Net Zero in electricity generation for the UK is going to need hundreds of GW of new wind, 10-20 times the amount currently installed.
Its impossible. If the aim of decarbonizing the UK grid is persisted in to the bitter end then it will mean deindustrialization. It will mean the end of most or all of the products which Stein is talking about, not because there is no oil, or because its use is banned, but because there is no industrial society any more which can produce, distribute and use them.
I should have carried on. So far we have just considered what is needed in faceplate to meet existing demand, given the actual performance of wind today.
But the political establishment of the UK is proposing to double demand by moving to EVs and heat pumps. So the question becomes, if you have periods when your wind produces only 3.5% of faceplate, how much wind faceplate will you need to cover when demand is about 100GW and there is no solar?
The answer should sober up even the most committed wind enthusiast. Say you get 10GW from interconnect and nuclear. To cover the additional 90GW when wind is performing at 3.5% of faceplate?
2,571GW.
Have I misplaced a decimal somewhere?
Does anyone think this is remotely feasible?
Easy solution- everyone live like in the image at the top of this story! No doubt the leaders of the green cult are all moving in that direction. I’m sure Al Gore, John Kerry, Bill Gates, et. al. are all investing heavily in candles and heavy wool coats. 🙂
And the governors of the 23 states with net zero plans.
Heck, there must be a vast amount of empty land in the UK for more wind “farms”. And, many more wind turbines can be at sea, regardless of cost. /sarc
The intermittent electrical generation won’t be able to produce the coal and oil feedstock for our product needs or allow mass production to continue. We need to use fossil fuels for mining and transportation and for manufacturing processes. Can’t you understand that this isn’t a simulation with averages, it’s the real world where seconds count?
“electricity won’t be available. Well, it will.”
NO IT WON’T…
… wind and solar are intermittent and unreliable.. you cannot manufacture anything under that sort of electricity supply.
The world as we know it would grind to a halt… like your mind has apparently already done.
“There is no climate objection to that usage, “
There is no “climate objection” (whatever new moronic nonsense you have dreamt up this time)… to any usage of coal, gas or oil.
“You can’t power the manufacturing and distribution process with intermittent electricity.”
Well, then we’ll just spend trillions on giant, flammable batteries! /sarc
And, with all the “green” costs- Europe in particular, had better not THINK of enhancing its military capabilities to ward off the Russians.
Nitpick Nick Stokes defending Creepy Joe Biden (with strawmen, of course).
Next…
Aside from the significant difficulty of obtaining the raw materials (petroleum, natural gas, coal) without portable, high density energy sources, a great many of the useless idiots, even the ones who don’t believe in any climate problems, are chomping at the bit for the rapid elimination of all extraction activities.
No Nick,, wind and solar cannot be used to produce ANYTHING.
Manufacturing relies on a solid reliable electricity supply.
Wind and solar CANNOT EVER PROVIDE THAT.
Your lack of understanding of the logistics of just using crude oil as a raw material, shows just how ignorant and out of touch you are with any sort of manufacturing reality.
Yes there is. Today’s prices are based on having a useful market for nearly all of the by-products of oil refining. Essentially, all those products are made from the parts of the crude oil that DON’T become fuel. If you pump crude only to use those parts of the crude oil that go into all these products, what are you going to do with that 46% of the barrel that currently becomes gasoline? Or the 26% that currently becomes “diesel and other fuels”? While the cost of a barrel of crude may drop, the cost of that next waterproof windbreaker, or the plastic encased desktop computer, or…[insert your favorite plastic product here] you so love will sky-rocket.
Disposable syringes.
The bottle that holds your Dr Pepper™.
You won’t even be able carry your groceries home (provided you can afford to buy any), because “…paper or plastic…” is so yesterday anymore.
Those products only use up 15% of a barrel of oil. And it’s not simply a matter of conversion, not all hydrocarbons are created equal (I stole that line, before anyone accuses me of plagiarism).
I have said many times but I’ll say it again… the government’s calculation of “The Social Cost of Carbon™” is one huge FAIL because it only calculates negatives (most of them imagined), and will not add any positives. Those positives I believe not only far outweigh the negatives, but quite possibly so far outweigh the negatives as to be considered infinite. At least as far has Human Life and Civilization is concerned.
Mr. Stokes, I will give you credit, even a thank you, for bringing up a question that I believe most of the population of this country does not understand. It’s almost like you were my plant in the audience! I’m glad we got this chance to educate!
Reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D6WwUoXfc0
Same Sponsors, I wonder?
Poor Lusername, no one bit on his clickbait.
Doesn’t take much to impress Lusername.
As always. a totally dumb/idiotic and irrelevant post !
You really are a total Luser. !
Why not choose a state – any will do – and really put the renewables joke to the test?
Prove that it works first
El Hierro (pop 11,000), and King Island (pop 1,600), are fantastic examples of sustainable renewable systems that can supply 100% green energy for …
Days …
The rest of the year, they use diesel.
The setup costs are eye-watering.
I believe the island of Rum in the Inner Hebrides, population about 50, has spent about 20 years trying to get an electrical grid on the island based on renewables and batteries. It’s not connected to the UK grid. Despite a relatively huge investment it still has diesel backup.
Battery total system size of 54kW and 184kWh storage. On top of Solar PV and a hydro system.
I don’t think a great deal of anything is made there.
The Small Isles
Apart from the provision of affordable housing, both to satisfy current demand and to enable new people to move to the island, our main goals at the moment are:
Maybe they should start a new industry on the island? How about Rum Whisky now that would confuse the hell out of the punters and could be sufficient to provide endless sales to mystified drinkers…. 🙂
I’ll drink to that.
Hawai’i and California are pretty far down that track. And both are failing.
Hawai’i and California are pretty far down that track.
They’re cutting hydro out of “renewables” anymore, right? How would SoCal fare without Hoover Dam?
Because they know that it “works” in the way the article describes, not the way they say it will.
So nobody wants it in their own states, and the Democrats don’t yet have the power to force the Republican states back into the 1800s and slavery. They’re working on that.
It seems we are going to need a lot more horses than we have now but I’ve not heard mention of a fast breeding programme.
More green jobs… clearing manure from the streets
Good for growing rhubarb when horses were used by rag and bone men and to deliver the milk according to my grandad
No horses needed in San Francisco.
We’ll need more whales for oil burning lamps and lubrication. Instead the fools are killing them off.
I can’t agree with the statement that “…there were no military ships before the 1800s”. What about the Spanish Armada? That was 1588!
I blame the schools…
Battle of Salamis, 480 BC!
HMS Victory originally built 1765 can still be visited today, although not much is original.
Possibly referring to Ironclads which were built in the second half of the 19th century? HMS Warrior,a typical Ironclad and Britain’s first is preserved in Portsmouth as is Victory and the Mary Rose of 1510 sunk 1545.
HMS Victory was wind powered.
Yes, and how long do you think it would have lasted against a steel clad fossil fuel powered ship.
Your comments are wind powered.. from your nether end.. !
That whole section could be reworked as there is no need to point out so many examples of shorter lives and suffering that await.
And most military ships in those days were wind powered, or human powered with a galleon of rowers. Just what the greens want. But of course you can’t travel very fast and with wind, steering can be an issue. You can go quite far with wind power but it takes forever. It would be an 17th century military we’d be left with….
Mr. Stein uses statements that are easily disputed — and detracts from his message. It is a waste of time to point these out. Nothing he writes would cause someone to exit the ClimateCult™.
Two errors in this piece.
Back to the 18th century is far too optimistic
Hydro is more reliable than wind and solar but is still subject to the vagaries of the weather
Ronald, you are preaching to the chorus. Only some disaster(s) will convince Alarmists.
Sadly, we’ll all have to suffer before these numpties get lynched…
Like, maybe the marching of authoritarian regimes like China and Russia who love fossil fuels. Europe can hardly afford to offer Ukraine the help it needs while spend a fortune on wind and solar.
To hell with the Ukie-Nazis.
There are as many Nazis in the US as there are in the Ukraine.
Without petroleum derived products modern, high energy society collapses. That. Is. The. Goal. Of. The. Political. Left. Wake up, they ARE our enemies.
Try manufacturing aluminium or steel with what Petr Beckman called piddle power. In Victoria, Australia an entire power station was dedicated to ensure an 80Gw availability to Alcoa’s smelter at Portland. Try that on with winnd and sun shine.
Ronald you should have someone proof read these.
No military ships before the 1800’s???
To a hard core Green, that is not a bug, that is a feature.
I find it very curious how the anti-greens don’t want the people outside the developed
world to get access to what we have. East Africa is a prime example. The people
in Jamaica use a small fraction of power that is used in say Columbus OH and then
the people in E Africa use a tiny fraction of what is used in Jamaica. The life
expectancy of the Maasai is in the low 40’s. Also the child slave labor used
to produce the minerals used for these green energy products in the Congo. These
anti-greens can say whatever they want, don’t be telling us this climate change
crap, show us. Start in the Congo first.
How much of Musk’s solar roof factory in Buffalo, NY(!) is supplied by solar energy?
Very nice Ron.
All of your arguments are completely correct and well reasoned. They make sense for reasonable people. The problem is we are not dealing with reasonable people.
They no more want to live in a fossil free world than you or me. They don’t mind if you and I live with less fossil fuel because that would leave more for them. They don’t give a damn about the environment and they don’t give a damn about you and me. They want power and control, their wretched preaching about net zero is merely a vehicle for achieving power and control.
Yup, that is what they want. They want to impoverish, humiliate, and demoralize the lower classes.
It takes about 8 years for a solar panel or windmill to produce enough energy to produce another. At that rate it will take hundreds of years for green energy to replace fossil fuel. We actually need to increase fossil fuel usage to increase renewable energy usage.
Last research I read found that a solar panel NEVER produces enough energy to replicate itself. Which means the world swirls down the toilet because all power produced goes to trying to building more solar panels to produce more power, but still can’t even keep up with that, and there is no power left for anything else, least of all us common ordinary plebes to heat our homes or light even one bulb by which we could read. But as already noted, Gang Green considers this a feature, not a bug.
Just remove everything in for example a hospital made of fossils. No mri scans no plastic handshoe no operating theaters because 99% is fossiel. And tell Joe Biden we can’t operate on him with his brain tumor because nothing is left te help him because fossil. He must be happy because fossil is dangerous and helping the wealthy people like Biden.
from what i’ve read about at least some of the state “zero carbon” plans, they only count in-state generation. How many of those 23 states have the same rule, and do those 23 actually think they’ll be able to buy enough out-of-state power from the remaining 27?