Steve Milloy
Contributor
Editor’s note: Big Tent Ideas always aims to provide balancing perspectives on the hottest issues of the day. Below is a column from Steve Milloy, where he argues that wind is hopelessly useless as an energy source and the wind industry doesn’t actually believe in “all of the above” energy. You can find a counterpoint here, where Hillary Bright and Heather Reams argue that support for wind energy is actually consistent with President Trump’s energy strategy, and that progressives merely used the industry for their own purposes.
The Restoring Energy Dominance (RED) Coalition recently produced an ad advocating for “all forms of energy.” “You voted for it, you got it,” the ad starts. It features a clip of President Trump saying “All forms of energy, yep…” What exactly does “all forms of energy,” or its 21st century shorthand, “all of the above” really mean? Is it good policy” And, is President Trump for it?
The concept of ‘all of the above’ dates back to a mid-2000s convergence of energy-related events including: (1) the then emerging but imaginary “climate crisis” and (2) an actual energy crisis caused by a combination of factors including the Iraq war, US dependence on OPEC, the rise of energy-hungry China and India, the notion of Peak Oil and more. Congress’s solution to this was the Energy Policy Act of 2005 signed into law by President Bush. It called for expanding domestic energy production, including: oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and renewables. “All of the above” wasn’t in common usage at the time, but the law essentially embodied it. (RELATED: HILLARY BRIGHT AND HEATHER REAMS: Trump Should Embrace Offshore Wind)
“All of the above” subsequently came into more common use, albeit with different variations, during President Obama’s “war on coal” and his embrace of Executive action to cut emissions because of “climate change.” For President Obama, “all of the above” meant all forms of energy except for coal, which he tried to regulate into extinction. To counter Obama, the coal industry and its Republican supporters used “all of the above” as a desperate means of including coal in the US energy equation.
But the tables have now turned. President Trump supports the booming oil and gas industry, the now-crippled coal industry; the flailing nuclear industry and solar power. He campaigned and has repeatedly spoken against the onshore and offshore wind industry. He has also issued an executive order to review offshore wind projects and has, thus far, paused one specific project. It is now the wind industry’s turn to scream “all of the above” in hopes of remaining part of the US energy equation.
President Trump also campaigned and has taken executive action against what he often calls the “Green New Scam,” which means the climate spending and energy subsidies contained in President Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Opponents of the Green New Scam hope to repeal the subsidies in President Trump’s upcoming Big Beautiful Bill.
The RED Coalition ad would take us back to the days of the Energy Policy Act and its focus on producing domestic energy from all sources. While that may sound reasonable, it ignores the realities we’ve experienced and lessons we’ve learned over the past 20 years.
First, Energy Policy Act proponents did not foresee the late-2000s advent and impact of fracking for oil and gas. Whereas in 2005 we were dependent on imports of natural gas and were running out of cheap oil production options, fracking changed the global energy situation almost overnight. Fracking gave the US essentially a limitless supply of oil and gas. That has essentially crushed OPEC’s ability to control the global price of oil. Thanks to fracking, we probably have enough oil and gas to run the entire US economy without any other form of energy.
Second, we have been told for decades that wind and solar were cheaper than fossil fuels and were a solution to the alleged “climate crisis.” Both claims have been proven to be false. Wind and solar have not reduced the price of electricity for anyone. At best, they have only reallocated energy costs to taxpayers. Wind and solar have only increased the price of electricity for consumers, even when it is subsidized by taxpayers.
Worse, solar and wind have jeopardized the reliability of our grid. Grid operators now routinely warn of possible grid failure during peak demand. A February winter storm in Texas froze the wind turbines, resulting in hundreds of deaths and almost causing catastrophic grid failure. Too much solar and wind caused a similar grid crisis in Spain and Portugal just last month.
Wind and solar have never been economically viable without subsidies. That’s why wind and solar supporters oppose the end of the Green New Scam. Not only do wind and solar require taxpayer subsidies, they are also intrinsically subsidized by government mandates, and the sourcing of materials and labor from Communist China. This has also had the national security-imperiling effect of making our electricity grid dependent on our geopolitical rival.
Finally, wind and solar have also been an environmental disaster in terms of great birds, bats, whales and much other marine life killed. Their oversized footprints are made essentially a permanent part of the environment because of the vast amounts of concrete and iron rebar used in their foundations. There are also national security concerns with offshore wind.
We need energy that works. After 20 years of experience, “all of the above” is just affirmative action for wind and solar energy. If energy decisions were made on the basis of standard economic merit, like cost and functionality, then oil, gas, coal and nuclear power would win hands down. President Trump occasionally says kind things about solar, but not about wind. He saves his lavish praise and attention for those most deserving: oil, gas and coal.
Steve Milloy is a biostatistician and lawyer, publishes JunkScience.com and is on X @JunkScience.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Mud puddle water is free. Eat ze bugs.
I always thought the phrase was used by cowardly or ignorant GOP’ers to save themselves being yelled at in the press. The phrase normally excludes nuclear.
Hydrocarbons or hydro dams are great no hydrogen, wind or solar.
Mr. kelly: I agree, I recall G. Bush using the phrase when he campaigned against Gore in 2000. Gore made it so easy by demanding we stop energy that worked. To Bush it was a slogan, so it included nuclear in words only, but Bush wanted to unleash oil and gas. Thankfully he did, and it worked, and he let fracking NG go forward, leading to lower energy bills for rich and poor alike. But Bush did not push nuclear.
I agree, until you get a hollow sound when you bang on one of the penstocks! Then I realised that you have to drain the water to make the electricity! Of course, you have to believe the expert who forecasts that the dam level will never drop below a certain minimum, no matter how fast you try to drain it.
Generating more electricity uses more water, one way or the other.
Put me down for anything that is reliable, scalable, and doesn’t clog up the air too much, drop soot on my washing, or wash my car with acid rain.
Just wishing.
Coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and hydro.
“All of the above”.
Story tip: Planning, blockers and objectors
Ed Miliband has vowed to “take on the blockers, the delayers, the obstructionists” to build clean energy infrastructure.
https://nation.cymru/news/ed-miliband-says-labour-will-take-on-clean-energy-blockers/#
Did Mrs Miliband get the memo?
Ed Miliband’s wife objects to new block of flats near couple’s home in housing row https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ed-miliband-s-wife-objects-to-new-block-of-flats-near-couple-s-home-in-housing-row/ar-AA1EGAAJ
Packham et al did..
Chris Packham’s nonprofit to sue Angela Rayner over planning blitz
Wild Justice demands Housing Secretary correct pledge not to water down environmental protections
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/05/12/chris-packhams-charity-sue-angela-rayner-planning-blitz/
All forms of energy? When there is no wind and no sun windmills and solar panels produce no energy, therefore, they are not one of the “all forms” argument unless zero is considered a form of energy. In that case, mice on wheels, rubbing glass rods with silk or flying kites with keys attached would count.
People on modified bicycles – with dynamos fitted…
How about flying kites with wind turbines attached? 🙂 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_wind_turbine
Steve, excellent idea! The power from the kite turbines could be harnessed to drive a big wind fan to keep the turbines aloft and generating when the natural wind drops, say at night.
Even better, use an electric aircraft to tow such a turbine, and use the output to charge the electric aircraft. A similar principle would work on submarines or passenger ships, just use a water driven turbine. No need for smelly, polluting, carbon at all.
Maybe we could get together and apply for a grant? There are only a couple of minor details to be sorted – I don’t know much about CO2 powered heaters using the GHE, but maybe a climate scientist could help.
I’ll wait for your call.
The scary thing is, we would get grants to work on these ideas… lots of people already have!
Denis, you left out rubbing silk with glass rods – add the fluxes and you get twice as much!
Well, it works for climate science.
Nuclear would negate the need for the rest of the “above”.
Nuclear is great for base load power, but coal and gas provide much-needed flexibility to the system. Hydro probably counts as base load as well. Makes sense in some cases I guess.
Only touched upon in the article is the supply of the metals and minerals which will be necessary to construct the renewable equipment required to achieve Net Zero by 2050. That is to say, who controls their refined production and is it actually possible for the global mining industry to produce the quantities necessary?
This lack of focus on materials supply dependence and the actual capability of the global mining industry to supply the necessary materials has got to change because . . . any Net Zero by 2050 advocacy is immediately reduced to nonsense when these questions are honestly addressed.
So, the answer to the first part of the question is . . . China. Yes, China is in control – it produces 99% of global battery grade graphite; 95% of global manganese; 90% of rare earths; 70% of antimony; 70% of cobalt; 60% of lithium; 60% of aluminium; 55% of steel; 40% of copper; 40% of nickel; 80% of polysilicon; and 85% of battery cells . . . and they also produce over 70% of the world’s wind turbines and solar panels.
And this means anybody – including Miliband – who talks about gaining “energy independence and security” by going the “renewable” route of wind and solar is either very stupid . . . or entirely disingenuous.
And the answer to the second part of the question can be provided by looking at the global supply of just one metal – copper, which can’t be substituted, and which is by no means the worst example, nickel and graphite being far worse.
The global copper industry currently produces in the order of 24.2 million tonnes of refined metal per annum. And current global copper Reserves are 880 million tonnes. However, in order to achieve Net Zero by 2050, and to provide for 28 days of battery storage to cover for periods when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, a total of 6.1 BILLION tonnes of copper will need to be produced between now and 2050.
At current rates of production, producing 6.1 BILLION tonnes of copper would take 254 years.
Or, if it were possible to instantly overnight/by tomorrow morning increase copper production by a required 1,000% – it most definitely isn’t – existing copper Reserves would be depleted in under four years.
But despite this reality, there are undoubtedly thousands of ignorant politicians who would very quickly and very stupidly say: “Just open more mines.”
The thing is, though, from the discovery of a Resource (a mineralised deposit, which takes years of painstaking geological exploration in itself) to the establishment of an operating producing mine, is a 15 year exercise AT BEST.
So, if one is lucky enough to posses a logical and realistic brain, and the above two questions have been addressed by that rare type of brain, one will already know that: a) depending almost totally upon China for the supply of materials necessary for the construction of renewable equipment hardly provides anything like “energy security and independence” – the opposite, in fact – notwithstanding the stupidity of doing so, and: b) it ain’t going to happen.
Colin,
Upticked, thank you.
That 15 year wait with from discovery to production of minerals can be reduced substantially because it has excessive red tape and fine print activism-inspired objection processes.
One big problem arises because of a common, recent belief that every new mine has to pass a public test including objections from special interest anti mining groups.
There is some need for oversight, but now it is too large, complex, expensive and time consuming.
I use an analogy. Aviation, as an industry, just took off. It did not face a pause to allow public comment. Ditto for the start of the automobile, for the start of plastic manufacture and use, the electricity grid, to and more. Mining has been part of society for centuries, so why cannot the public trust the miners to do the right thing?
I speak from the experience of being involved at management level in the discovery and eventual production of half a dozen large mines. No humans was harmed in the process. (Millions benefited). Geoff S
I’m not talking about red tape, Sherro. I’m talking about the rational increasingly iterative diligence required before anybody would consider investing the 100s of millions now required to develop and open a new mine.
If the complete and utter idiot that is Miliband said, “we must invest trillions of taxpayers money in these mining operations,” would you believe him . . . anymore than you would believe him that the British people must pay for wind and solar facilities that between them have the lowest load factor (efficiency) of any energy resource available to us?!!
Colin,
Thank you for the correction.
I suspect it remains true that a superior new mining resource will eventually be mined despite the hurdles. That is what we found back then. I have been retired for a while and am no longer armed for battle except with a keyboard and experience.
Maybe you are questioning this.
I have never wavered from a strong preference for private enterprise to dominate and brown cardigans to be sidelined.
In a few words, what is the main change that you would like to see?
……
Here are six of our discoveries that became mines. That is what I like to see.
Geoff S
Good stuff, Sherro!!
I’m just a humble mining engineer of 46 years of experience – underground and open pit, base metals and gold, from Shift Boss to Chief Operating Officer to Non-Exec Director – in Central and West Africa, East and Western Europe, the US, and Russia . . . and still keeping my hand in!
No criticism levelled, I assure you, but the time span from Resource discovery to operating mine, regardless of where that deposit may be, is an average of 15 years. And that is largely governed by the due diligence process now demanded by the JORC (Australia) and 43-101 (Canada) codes generally used worldwide, these introduced primarily in response to the Bre-X fiasco, notwithstanding that 100s of millions of dollars is unlikely to be invested for mine development unless the due diligence steps have been appropriately and satisfactorily conducted.
And what governmental red tape does in certain parts of the world is . . . add to that time span.
All forms of useful energy.
” affirmative action for wind and solar energy“
Declare Mission Accomplished! Now stop.
While a nuclear build takes place the W&S can degrade, get buried, and be fondly remembered by the also aging proponents.
The “subsidies” are mainly bribes, kickbacks, and pure graft. Our lovely politicians are bought and paid for. It’s a monumental scam. There is no “counter point” other than catastrophic fleecing.
Story tip – Out of Control Green Grifting Under Biden Was Worse Than We Imagined – PJ Media
Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
You’re stuck with that, so live life accordingly. But in the mean time, be sure to have fun gathering stuff to argue over.
In the end I don’t care where my power comes from as long as it is available 24/7 and doesn’t cost an arm and a leg. Both those criteria rule out wind and solar.
I am watching the House and Senate budget negotiations and the political maneuvering which is now going on between the GOPe Big Spender faction and the MAGA Deficit Hawk faction.
I personally will not be too surprised if the Republicans fail to rescind the Green New Deal spending of the previous Congress and its GND allies who managed the former Biden administration.
In which case the wind & solar GND scam continues forward as if there wasn’t a wind & solar opponent now sitting in the Oval Office.
I am also in favor of all of the above, all of the above that work. Wind and solar don’t work so I am not in favor of them. I wouldn’t put coal or crude oil in my gas tank, they are not suited for that purpose. Wind and solar are not suited for the grid therefore stop using them and claiming they are suited. Fossil fuel (coal and gas), hydro and nuclear are suited for the grid, use all of them.
Funny thing in the title. It uses a correct version of DEI.
The green new deal uses the bastardized version that is thinly veiled affirmative action, promoting something based on ideology rather than merit.
Steve, you keep repeating that the wind turbines “froze” during the 2021 winter storm Uri. Were this the case, a mechanical fix could be implemented. In reality there was no wind. For several days. As a high-pressure system ranging from Montana to Brownsville Texas settled in. Weatherized turbines in farms north of Texas were also stalled. No freeze protection would solve this problem.