By Vijay Jayaraj
Simple narratives are employed to seduce a populace, and none is more seductive today than the promise of “carbon-free” energy. In California, a state often touted as a green pioneer, Gov. Gavin Newsom celebrated an “achievement” whose announcement was free of nuance and deficient of truth.
“Two-thirds of California’s power now comes from renewable and zero-carbon electricity generation,” he said as if announcing an earthshaking milestone. This declaration, however, was a master class in deception.
Newsom glosses over critical distinctions: First, the term should be carbon dioxide-free, not carbon-free because the objective of the climate-obsessed is eliminating emissions of CO2 from human activity. Carbon, which evokes images of black soot, and carbon dioxide, an invisible, beneficial gas, are different molecules with their own chemical properties.
And there is nothing renewable about Earth’s finite stores of metals, minerals and fuels necessary for making “green” energy’s equipment and infrastructure.
Also, wind and solar systems, the darlings of California’s energy policy, may not emit carbon dioxide while generating electricity. However, their production, transportation, installation, maintenance and disposal are energy-intensive and emit copious amounts of carbon dioxide, as does virtually every other industrial enterprise.
Copper for wiring and electricity transmission lines is mined and smelted using fossil fuels. Transport and installation of these systems require diesel-powered trucks and other heavy machinery. Batteries used to back up intermittent wind and solar systems require lithium, cobalt and nickel, all mined with the support of internal combustion engines and often by ethically questionable methods.
The steel of the modern wind turbine and of the massive pillars supporting them are forged in coal-based blast furnaces. The gigantic blades are made of fiberglass and resins with heat and feedstock derived from petroleum. Foundations for these behemoths require vast quantities of cement whose manufacture releases significant quantities of CO2.
China produces over 80% of the world’s polysilicon that make up solar panels. Polysilicon is often made close to coal-fired power plants because the manufacturing process requires so much energy. So, when a Chinese solar panel is installed in a California desert, it arrives with a massive carbon debt. Solar panel users, in effect, export their carbon emissions to China while patting themselves on the back for their green virtue.
Although direct imports from China to U.S. have been reduced to insignificant levels due to U.S. tariffs on Chinese solar modules, Chinese-linked firms have simply moved their operations to Southeast Asian countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia.
These nations – and more than 131 solar producers there – now account for over 80% of all solar modules imported into the U.S. It is likely that four in five solar modules installed in the U.S. come from Chinese-affiliated firms in southeast Asia, which depend on carbon-intensive energy sources.
No honest engineer – or careful speaker – would call wind and solar “carbon-free.”
The cost of this green facade is a burden that California’s politicians refuse to acknowledge. California consistently ranks among the top five U.S. states for highest residential electricity prices. As of 2025, the average Californian pays over 30 cents per kilowatt-hour – nearly double the national average. Other areas served by grids with a significant presence of wind and solar suffer from high prices as well.
Claims that these “green” technologies are cheap are supported by a pricing calculation that does not count the costs of expensive backup power and the technical complexities they introduce to power systems. Consumers pay for the enormous costs of subsidies, infrastructure upgrades, storage systems and alternative generation for windless and sunless periods.
California also has been plagued by power outages and grid emergencies, especially during periods of high demand. Grid operators have had to issue repeated alerts, entreating residents to reduce electricity consumption to avoid rolling blackouts.
The state’s so-called green leadership is supported by the deceptive advertisement of “zero-carbon” and false claims of low costs that ignore life-cycle environmental effects and the billions of dollars paid to compensate for the technical shortcomings of wind and solar.
Every steel beam, copper coil, and polysilicon wafer tell the real story: Fossil fuels are still the backbone of modern electricity – even in so-called renewable systems that cannot perform independently of them.
Announcements about “clean energy” are just smoke and mirrors backlit by the glow of a coal-fired furnace in Asia and paid for by overcharged consumers.
This commentary was first published by California Globe on July 21, 2025.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would venture to suggest that the 2/3’s of power is connected load and not actual energy production due to load percentages in the teens due to lack of wind and sun 24/7.
Moving emissions from where they are to where they are not doesn’t count as emissions reductions. Newsom’s knows this but he’s a lawyer and lawyers insult.
I guess the strategy is to move the emissions, get your high-fives, wag your finger at the “new” emitters and hope no one in the media reports that concentrations have not changed one bit and might have increased due to the energy mix of the places he’s sending the emissions too.
There’s also the extra energy consumed by the now much longer supply chains.
Just the extra transmission lines to get the power to where it’s needed creates more emissions.
In other words, just another form of the old shell game?
Not to mention that all of this has to be replaced in 20 years give or take a few. There’s only so much earth you can dig up.
And if you take into account the “carbon footprint” all these “planet saving” installations leave once they have to be dismantled.
Germany found a “smart” solution for the concrete foundations of some windmills: just declare them a protected monument, there problem solved or just “app yours”. Idiocracy’s finest hour…
Turbine blades, solar panels, and the concrete foundations of windmills are a few of the “renewable” energy components that cannot be recycled.
Concrete is made from cement which is made from ground up limestone and some clay, which is heated to ttemperatures of 1450 degrees C, using huge amounts of coal !!!
You are correct, with some minor quibbles in the process.
Technically, the CO₂ in limestone is as a carbonate CaO₃.
Heat decomposes the crushed limestone into CaO and CO₂.
CaO is lime, or quicklime.
Lime is mixed with sand to make cement.
Add pebbles/rocks and water to the cement mix and it becomes concrete.
1450°C fired clay, becomes particles to clumps of porcelain.
Similarly, concrete and cement can be returned to CaO by heat.
CO2 IS AN ABSOLUTELY VITAL FOR GROWING FLORA AND FAUNA; NET ZERO IS A SUICIDE PACT
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-an-absolutely-vital-gas-ingredient-for-growing-flora-and
.
The IPCC, etc., has dubbed CO2 as having magical global warming power, based on its own “science”
The IPCC, etc., claims, CO2 acts as Climate Control Knob, that eventually will cause runaway Climate Change, if we continue using fossil fuels.
The IPCC, etc., denies the Little Ice Age, uses fraudulent computer temperature projections.
.
Governments proclaimed: Go Wind and Solar, Go ENERGIEWENDE, go Net zero by 2050, etc., and provided oodles of subsidies, and rules and regulations, and mandates, and prohibitions to make it happen.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to 1) increase command/control by governments, and 2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 40 years; extremely biased, money-losing CNN, NPR, PBS, Colbert’s Late-Night Show, come to mind.
.
CO2, just 0.042% in the atmosphere, is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the absorbable, low-energy IR photons.
CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures.
CO2 is a life-giving molecule. Greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential ingredient for: 1) increased green flora, which increases fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
.
At About 30% Annual W/S Electricity on the Grid, Various Costs Increase Exponentially
The W/S subsidies uglify the countryside, kills birds and bats, whales and dolphins, fisheries, tourism, view-sheds, etc.
The weather-dependent, variable/intermittent W/S output, often too-little and often too-much, creates grid-disturbing difficulties that become increasingly more challenging and more costly/kWh to counteract, as proven by the UK and California for the past 5 years, and Germany for the past 10 years, and recently in Spain/Portugal.
.
All have “achieved” near-zero, real- growth GDPs, the highest electricity prices/kWh in the EU, and stagnant real wages for almost all people, while further enriching the jet-setting elites who live in the poshest places.
The other smart GERMAN solution was riling up the angry, over-taxed, over-regulated native populations, who were already burdened by ENERGIEWENDE wind/solar/batteries nonsense, and then further burdened by the elites bringing in tens of millions of uninvited, unvetted, uneducated, unskilled, ghetto-trash/crime-prone poor folks, from all over, who are sucking from the multiple, government-program tits, while making minimal efforts to produce goods and services; a chaotic, culture-destroying burden the native populations never voted for.
Pointing out that the construction and disposal of solar panels and wind farms emit huge amounts of CO2 is sort of buying into the claim that CO2 is a problem. Carbon Dioxide is NOT a problem.
The issue with solar and wind isn’t CO2 emissions with construction and disposal. The issue is economic and environmental. They are a poor use of land and that includes landfills, they require expensive backups. Solar competes with agriculture to a lesser degree so do wind farms. And more to that point, wind and solar only exist as long as they are subsidized. Plus, wind farms are ugly and kill birds.
Just as journalists and entertainment on the left (aren’t they all?) whenever possible inject climate change into their stories; the benefits of CO2 and lack of any actual problematic issues needs to be pointed out over and over and over again.
An ad campaign like Harry and Louise would work wonders.
While your post is spot on, one needs to appreciate the nuance of discounting all claims of “carbon free.”
+1000000
I submit that wind and solar grid power systems consume more energy to construct, operate, and dispose of than they produce in their operational lifetimes. Prove me wrong, show me a single manufacturer of these systems using solely power from wind and solar to produce and dispose of their products.
I’ll wait …
Ok, but just do not hold your breath. The 20,000 ppm of CO2 you exhale is needed by our greening planet.
“Prove me wrong”
First, you have to prove your case.
Otherwise, you are imitating alarmists with their specious claims, while rejecting valid rebuttals.
They’ve never proved their claims, not any of them.
Instead, they control the peer review and publishing processes,
adjust/input temperatures using temperature stations up to 1,200 km distant,
adjust temperatures to cool the past and heat the present,
change color scales of charts and graphs to make it look hotter,
change the x/y scales to falsely portray temperatures,
and many other devious tricks.
No one has succeeded using solar/wind to run any major computer farms or any mining, smelting, refining, manufacturing, recycling or assembly industry.
How pleasant to read so much common sense from a graduate of UEA, ground zero of Climate Gate
“Carbon, which evokes images of black soot, and carbon dioxide, an invisible, beneficial gas, are different molecules with their own chemical properties”
Never broadcast load enough. Let us frighten your children with that nasty black stuff. Rinse & repeat !!
Part of that shift in language is to support the EPA’s criminal classification of CO2 as a pollutant.
Part of it is to evoke memories of how bad smog (smoke plus fog) was back decades ago.
Is Newsom talking “electricity” only?
Some of CA electricity comes from the Pacific DC Intertie (also called Path 65) staring at the Celilo Converter Station of Bonneville Power Administration’s grid outside The Dalles, Oregon. Some of the BPA sources are wind (10.8%) and solar (?) but most is Hydro (78.8%). About 10% is nuclear+gas+biomass. How is this reported to the Gov, or does he even know?
Does he even CARE?
none of it is “renewable” … windmills and solar panels are “replaceable” … and need to be replaced about every 10-15 years … with almost no materials recycled …
Renewable: not depleted when used.
Funny. WTG have a MTFB of about 4.5 years. 50% of the repairs are major.
Solar is projected to 20 years before replacement but never seems to get that far, especially with tornadoes and hail.
Funny how these misnamed renewable atrocities take renewable land and turn it into wastelands.
MTBF?
Mean Time Between Failures.
Sparta:
In your comment MarkW is replying to, you use the letters MTFB.
“WTG have a MTFB”
Mark was just checking that you meant MTBF.
Thank you. I apologize for the typo.
I’ve not heard that acronym for over 40 years.
Typo, identified by MarkW.
MTBF, not MTFB.
We can’t build nuclear because of the carbon footprint of building the plants. But the same considerations don’t apply to “renewables.”
You understand.
A shame more people don’t.
ViJay,
You made the point that carbon and CO2 are different, but you failed to carry that distinction further on.
China produces over 80% of the world’s polysilicon that make up solar panels. Polysilicon is often made close to coal-fired power plants because the manufacturing process requires so much energy. So, when a Chinese solar panel is installed in a California desert, it arrives with a massive carbon debt. Solar panel users, in effect, export their carbon emissions to China while patting themselves on the back for their green virtue.
Should not the underlined also be CO2?
If solar & wind promoters were honest about the significant costs of transmission lines and grid stabilising measures, they would be quite happy if our electricity bills had similar content to Amazon accounts, as in –
Green energy kWh consumption charge ….. $ 50
Delivery fees ……………………………………… $750
Total payable ……………………………………… $800
I know. I put ALL of this in my testimony against the prime-farmland gobbling Z Koshkonong Solar project currently being built. It’s ALL about politics and money. Period. No technical argument has any impact.
Very nice Vijay. Wind and solar can not support the grid we need to stop accepting the lie that they can. Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Remove all wind and solar from the grid. It is as simple as that.
Commies foisting the dirty and dangerous on us-
Moment raging inferno engulfs block of flats after overcharged e-bike battery bursts into flames
E-bike, e-scooter ban flagged for trains over fire risk
Fire on board Sydney to Hobart Virgin flight, with lithium battery suspected as cause
Family’s lucky escape after batteries start fire
The insurance industry will put a stop to this if the climate changers can’t see sense.
Well they have justified chopping down deciduous forests in the Easter US to burn them in Yorkshire all of which adds CO2 to the atmosphere in prodigeous quantities while calling the entire process “renewable”.
Just an idle thought. To replace a CCGT power station with an equivalent wind farm or solar farm. What is the CO2 comparison between them? Considering that a gas plant could last 60–80 years (with midlife refurbishment), and during that time a wind farm might be replace four times etc.
Gut feeling, is wind or solar will incur a lot more than a gas plant.