Excellent article! I would add a few more items to your list of true costs of the Ruinables of grid wind and grid solar.
First: Capacity utilization and the capital costs of total capacity. On shore wind only performs at about 30%, which means you are building capacity which, on average, will never be efficiently utilized. The same applies for offshore wind. Even though it is claimed that capacity utilization is improved, installation, maintenance costs, and operating costs, are all much higher for offshore wind than onshore wind. Grid solar is guaranteed NOT to work for a majority of the day, a terrible capacity utilization..
Second: The hopeless intermittent delivery of power by Ruinables forces intermittency on some normally dispatchable energy source...at great cost.
Third: Duplicative, and inefficient, capital infrastructure costs, duplicative, and inefficient, management and labor forces.
Fourth: Much faster depreciation of capital assets. Wind and solar only have operational lives of about 15 years as shown by real world data. Coal, gas, and nuclear have much longer operational lives.
Fifth: De-industrialization. Nowhere on earth can it be demonstrated that the Ruinables of grid wind and grid solar reduce power costs. Any society that pursues these idiocies is pursuing impoverishment because industry, and the economic benefits they create, will leave for societies with cheaper energy sources.
Sixth: Interconnector costs. The Climate Cult tries to compensate for the hopeless intermittency of grid wind by claiming, "the wind is always blowing somewhere, and therefore we need interconnectors to compensate". The truth is, the wind isn't always blowing somewhere, and the costs of the interconnectors are never blamed on the hopeless intermittency of wind.
Seventh: Moral hazard creation of perverse incentives. The bribes (subsidies) given to Ruinables can created conflicts of interest for power providers...since utilities are often guaranteed a return on their "capital base" they are perversely incentivized to install the huge capital base of Ruinables to increase their profits, even though they are increasing costs and the risk of grid stability to their customers.
Eighth: Moral hazard creation of government capture of regulatory bodies. Why compete in the marketplace when you can spend the money needed to capture a government regulator which utilizes the police power of the state to force the installation and consumption of your product?
Ninth: Moral hazard creation of ignoring reality. As previously stated, nowhere on earth can it be demonstrated that Ruinables reduce power costs--or change the climate. Despite decades of claims to the contrary by the Climate Cult, the truth will out and the backlash could literally destroy society. Populations who have been impoverished for decades and who have been deceived by "trusted authorities" may decide the only solution is revolution...everything "stasis" (both good and bad) could be framed as an evil manifestation of untrustworthy authorities. When destruction is a tangible objective for its own sake...watch out.
Thanks to John for this simple-to-understand summary.
There are several blogs devoted to this topic, include "Stop These Things," "Scotland Against Spin," and "Watts Up With That?"
John couldn't cover everything without a much bigger note. Examples he didn't have room to include are fires and other public-safety hazards, grid stability, blades in dumps and land fills, damage to farms when blades break, decommissioning, …. Vaclav Smil recently wrote "Trash alone doubles the cost." And he didn't have room to dive deep. Details and more in my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" Everything quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations so readers can verify I didn't just make up stuff.
And there are intangible costs, two of which are loss of serenity and loss of community. These are specific to regions which become heavily wind industrialized. Serenity's legal definition is that quality of the environment which provides the greatest sense of wellbeing. Wind turbines are anathema to serenity. My wife and I drove yesterday to an annual event which represents our recognition of the Christmas season and its joys. With the recent addition of a third wind project, our favorite Christmas tree farm is now surrounded by towering spinning machines. Returning home with our tree required passing through the sacrifice zone. We forced ourselves not to look at miles of horizons of beautiful hills. We grew up with those horizons. They are now forever lost as nurturing visions of our once quality of life.
The loss of community is brought wherever the wind industry uses our money to bribe local officials and landowners in order to create an us vs. them dialog. An example of bribery is found in the Town of Arkwright, NY State, which we passed through with our Christmas tree yesterday. Ten Town of Arkwright public officers are leaseholders with the wind company. Public disclosure reveals that the Arkwright 10 are receiving more $$ in lease payments than the entire Town receives in the Host Community Agreement and Payment In Lieu Of Taxes. Other landowners sign so-called Good Neighbor Agreements by which they agree not to complain about loss of environmental amenities , such as quiet evenings and dark night skies. For a measly $1,000 annual bribe, these "good neighbors" sadistically torture nearby non-participating residents with loss of serenity.
John's excellent Ten Costs can be understood by everyone regardless of their distance from a wind factory. It is said that the aesthetic impact of wind turbines should be the least of our concerns. But for those of us at ground-zero, the mere sight of these things reinforces ALL of the costs, even those which can't be quantified.
I agree with everything you posted, but I think you have missed the biggest consideration that no one else ever discusses. So, I don’t criticize you in any way.
Let’s just look at your first consideration, the tax credits of $24 Billion. That alone should have killed that crazy idea before it ever got off of the ground. But, politicians never, ever consider this simple fact. The time value of money is not going away. And, the time value of debt isn’t either.
That $24 Billion is now gone. It was spent. But, every dime was borrowed and it was loaned to us at an interest rate. That rate varies a little over time, but it has historically been between 2% and 6% annually. So, let’s use an average of 4% and figure that debt is not going to go away because our national debt has never gone away. But, let’s put an end date at 100 years and do a calculation of the net present worth of that $24 Billion. The math is irrefutable and the present value is $1.212 Trillion!
There we see the real problem. It has nothing to do with that paltry $24 Billion today. The problem is the idea behind borrowing at all! Borrowing to pay for a losing proposition is just stupid. No sane person would ever do such a thing.
But our Congress does it almost daily! And we elect those clowns.
Agreed with you that Wind Energy is costly, unsound environmentally, harmful and ineffective. I have concerns regarding nuclear energy. After reading about the tsunami in Japan and its ongoing problem for over 13 years handling the nuclear rods??? Also I was aware of the nuclear fall out from Chernobyl in the mid-eighties. In Ukraine there are 7 nuclear reactors (one is the largest in Europe) Plus knowing mankind and its ability to mess up. I believe there is no such thing as fail- safe! It could lead to nuclear disaster.. Tesla was involved with inventing something with perpetual energy...there has to be a safe method, which won't destroy the earth.
Barbara: EVERY source of energy has downsides. Our energy choices should be made on which source have the best NET benefits. Nuclear has a 50+ year record as a stellar source. Near term future nuclear wil be even safer than today.
If you believe nuclear energy's safety record is "stellar," read my piece. While I can't disagree with your assertions regarding wind energy, there are literally hundreds of thousands of tons of undisposed nuclear waste waiting to be dealt with at who knows what expense, and danger; hundreds of thousands more littering ocean floors and seeping into groundwater, elsewhere, and no solutions in sight. Ninety-nine documented major incidents through just 2009, and only one subterranean repository serving one nation, worldwide. Stellar? Give us a break. Fukushima is still home to 30 million bags of waste with which there is no place to go. The wet leavings were dumped, wholesale, into the ocean. Bottom line at this point in time there are no viable options to replace fossil fuels for energy production, which certainly should not impact funding for research.
Ken: I did peruse your article. I agree that the situation with nuclear waste is not good. That said, this is NOT a problem with nuclear power, but one of politics.
For example, EVERY other country in the world proceses nuclear fuel twice. Due to a law pushed through by Jimmy Carter, US facilities only do it once. The net effect of this is that the nuclear waste in the US is MUCH higher than elsewhere. You did not mention that...
That Yucca Mt is not being used is another example of politics. Etc., etc.
John, a quick reply is just that. Worldwide, it is an unsolved problem. To assert that it isn't a problem with nuclear power is exactly like saying there is no problem with wind energy. Only worse.
Ken: The problems with wind energery are inherent to it — e.g. it is ALWAYS going to be unpredictable. The nuclear waste issue is a problem in the US primarily due to politics, as scientifically it has been mostly solved.
I am unaware of a scientific solution. If one existed, France would not be sending waste to Siberia. Finland is the only nation with deep geological interment and it suits its own needs. Reprocessing still generates waste. Radon and liquid sludge from uranium mining goes unaddressed. The nuclear power situation may eventually solved, but it will preclude fission
Nuclear's 50 year record is not stellar. Our educational and health systems today are so poor, I doubt that any humans will be up to the par that developed scientists, engineers and physicists in the past. Many college graduates don't read or write.
Barbara: Nuclear's 50+ year record is stellar. For example it has easily produced 100 times the electricity of all the wind turbines during that period — while having less deaths than wind energy as well. BTW, the disastrous Chernobyl event was 100% man made — on purpose! — and has zero to do with any weakness of nuclear energy.
What about the Tsunami caused nuclear disaster, which the Japanese could not handle for over 13 years...trying to keep the spent nuclear rods cool with sea water that was dumped into the ocean...and is suspected to be the cause of the dead zone off the coast of Japan?
Barbara: Here is a parallel... The NYC Twin Towers were destroyed by terrorists and several thousand people died, right? Does that mean that we should no longer build skyscrapers as they are unsafe?
It it the skyscrpers' fault that an outside force caused thousands of deaths, any more that it was the fault of the Japanese nuclear reactors that a few people died due to the tsunami.
Also, in perspective, the tsumani kiled 25,000+ people while the nuclear reactors meltdowns killed a small handful.
My suggestion is to ignore the alarmist rhetoric on almost any subject, and look closely to what the actual science says.
The UNSCEAR Fukushima report says the damage to the three reactors did not cause any injuries, illnesses, or deaths, other than to one plant worker who suffered a second-degree burn when he stepped into water contaminated with radioactive material and it overflowed into his boot. Years later, a jury awarded damages to the family of a plant worker (or was it a nearby resident?) who died from lung cancer. The alleged connection between radiation and cancer is a fraud perpetrated by George Beadle and Ed Lewis, but it was extremely helpful to earn a Nobel Peace Prize for Linus Pauling. Details in my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" Everything quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations so readers can verify I didn't just make up stuff.
Regarding skyscrapers...Health-wise they are not safe places to work. They are built because land is expensive in big cities...but I personally would not want to work or live in one. The air quality, the fluorescent bulbs and the difficulty of exiting, if there is serious trouble. It is unhealthy for people to be in buildings higher than 3 stories, because mankind was designed to keep his feet on the earth. It keeps people more centered and balanced. People who live and work in buildings that are too many stories high are mentally and physically affected by being too far from the energy and pull of the earth.
I am alarmed that there was a growing dead zone in the Pacific Ocean with no life for a vast distance,, which kept growing. It was not written up in our news media, but I read an account from a man who sailed through that area...years before., when there were all kinds of fish and seabirds..and again after the tsunami. He nearly didn't get out. He said there was absolutely no life there...no fish or birds. Do you know what could happen if there were any kind of serious nuclear chain reaction...and it couldn't be stopped? It could eat up every atom and molecule...and we could blow like Krypton.Einstein was sorry he ever worked on the Atom bomb. With all the scientists today who are primarily into money...I don't know how you can expect it to be better in the future.
The propaganda around the green energy "alternatives" makes at least one important false assumption: that modern technological society can function just as easily using alternative energy sources as it can using oil. The short answer is it can't. The alternatives aren't energetic enough. And they cost too much to develop and maintain. There is no substitute for oil, unfortunately, and when oil production starts to decline there will be a whole host of serious problems that will be difficult to deal with (by anybody) -- one answer, one we see more and more of each day -- is to simply reduce demand: which means both fewer people and less energy use per capita. Fewer people by means of phony vaccines, and less energy use by means of various restrictive laws and regulations (15 minute cities, etc.).
John: Agreed with what you say, except that green alternatives are primarily trying to produce electricity — and the US does not use oil for that. When they falsely say that they are "replacing" fossil fuels, they are referring to coal and gas.
Each windmill cost us 450 gallons of oil, which leaks, they kill Eagles, Hawks and Whales, they don't distinguish between endangered or not, each animal contributes to the ecology over population.
Biden locked millions of acres of land up in National Monuments Biden adds to the nation’s list of national monuments during his term. There’s an appetite for more
President Joe Biden has created six monuments and either restored, enlarged or modified boundaries for several others. Native American tribes and conservation groups are pressing for more designations before he leaves office., you can't drill or mine. Limiting the amount of both for American use or trade. Biden cited the spiritual, cultural and prehistoric legacy of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante areas in southern Utah when he restored their boundaries and protections through his first use of the Antiquities Act in 2021. The two monuments were among 29 that President Barack Obama created while in office. Amid concerns that Obama overstepped his authority and limited energy development, President Donald Trump rolled back their size, while adding a previously unprotected portion to Bears Ears.
When national monuments are designated, no new mining claims can be staked on national monument lands. When former President Trump gutted Bears Ears, he also allowed for mining claims and oil and gas leasing on lands he cut from the monument. That has led to the filing of new uranium and vanadium claims at Bears Ears — at least 14 since the monument was slashed, six of them just since March 2021.
My last engineering job was in sales more than ten years ago. Our engineering sales company and the companies we represented made a lot of money initially and even more when units failed. Did rate payers no good whatsoever!
Daniel: Indeed renewable energy companies only exist due to government largesse. From a consumer's perspective, there are no scientifically rproven net benefits for renewables.
Excellent article! I would add a few more items to your list of true costs of the Ruinables of grid wind and grid solar.
First: Capacity utilization and the capital costs of total capacity. On shore wind only performs at about 30%, which means you are building capacity which, on average, will never be efficiently utilized. The same applies for offshore wind. Even though it is claimed that capacity utilization is improved, installation, maintenance costs, and operating costs, are all much higher for offshore wind than onshore wind. Grid solar is guaranteed NOT to work for a majority of the day, a terrible capacity utilization..
Second: The hopeless intermittent delivery of power by Ruinables forces intermittency on some normally dispatchable energy source...at great cost.
Third: Duplicative, and inefficient, capital infrastructure costs, duplicative, and inefficient, management and labor forces.
Fourth: Much faster depreciation of capital assets. Wind and solar only have operational lives of about 15 years as shown by real world data. Coal, gas, and nuclear have much longer operational lives.
Fifth: De-industrialization. Nowhere on earth can it be demonstrated that the Ruinables of grid wind and grid solar reduce power costs. Any society that pursues these idiocies is pursuing impoverishment because industry, and the economic benefits they create, will leave for societies with cheaper energy sources.
Sixth: Interconnector costs. The Climate Cult tries to compensate for the hopeless intermittency of grid wind by claiming, "the wind is always blowing somewhere, and therefore we need interconnectors to compensate". The truth is, the wind isn't always blowing somewhere, and the costs of the interconnectors are never blamed on the hopeless intermittency of wind.
Seventh: Moral hazard creation of perverse incentives. The bribes (subsidies) given to Ruinables can created conflicts of interest for power providers...since utilities are often guaranteed a return on their "capital base" they are perversely incentivized to install the huge capital base of Ruinables to increase their profits, even though they are increasing costs and the risk of grid stability to their customers.
Eighth: Moral hazard creation of government capture of regulatory bodies. Why compete in the marketplace when you can spend the money needed to capture a government regulator which utilizes the police power of the state to force the installation and consumption of your product?
Ninth: Moral hazard creation of ignoring reality. As previously stated, nowhere on earth can it be demonstrated that Ruinables reduce power costs--or change the climate. Despite decades of claims to the contrary by the Climate Cult, the truth will out and the backlash could literally destroy society. Populations who have been impoverished for decades and who have been deceived by "trusted authorities" may decide the only solution is revolution...everything "stasis" (both good and bad) could be framed as an evil manifestation of untrustworthy authorities. When destruction is a tangible objective for its own sake...watch out.
Thanks to John for this simple-to-understand summary.
There are several blogs devoted to this topic, include "Stop These Things," "Scotland Against Spin," and "Watts Up With That?"
John couldn't cover everything without a much bigger note. Examples he didn't have room to include are fires and other public-safety hazards, grid stability, blades in dumps and land fills, damage to farms when blades break, decommissioning, …. Vaclav Smil recently wrote "Trash alone doubles the cost." And he didn't have room to dive deep. Details and more in my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" Everything quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations so readers can verify I didn't just make up stuff.
And there are intangible costs, two of which are loss of serenity and loss of community. These are specific to regions which become heavily wind industrialized. Serenity's legal definition is that quality of the environment which provides the greatest sense of wellbeing. Wind turbines are anathema to serenity. My wife and I drove yesterday to an annual event which represents our recognition of the Christmas season and its joys. With the recent addition of a third wind project, our favorite Christmas tree farm is now surrounded by towering spinning machines. Returning home with our tree required passing through the sacrifice zone. We forced ourselves not to look at miles of horizons of beautiful hills. We grew up with those horizons. They are now forever lost as nurturing visions of our once quality of life.
The loss of community is brought wherever the wind industry uses our money to bribe local officials and landowners in order to create an us vs. them dialog. An example of bribery is found in the Town of Arkwright, NY State, which we passed through with our Christmas tree yesterday. Ten Town of Arkwright public officers are leaseholders with the wind company. Public disclosure reveals that the Arkwright 10 are receiving more $$ in lease payments than the entire Town receives in the Host Community Agreement and Payment In Lieu Of Taxes. Other landowners sign so-called Good Neighbor Agreements by which they agree not to complain about loss of environmental amenities , such as quiet evenings and dark night skies. For a measly $1,000 annual bribe, these "good neighbors" sadistically torture nearby non-participating residents with loss of serenity.
John's excellent Ten Costs can be understood by everyone regardless of their distance from a wind factory. It is said that the aesthetic impact of wind turbines should be the least of our concerns. But for those of us at ground-zero, the mere sight of these things reinforces ALL of the costs, even those which can't be quantified.
Mark: Thank you for suggesting two excellent additions to my list. I concur.
I agree with everything you posted, but I think you have missed the biggest consideration that no one else ever discusses. So, I don’t criticize you in any way.
Let’s just look at your first consideration, the tax credits of $24 Billion. That alone should have killed that crazy idea before it ever got off of the ground. But, politicians never, ever consider this simple fact. The time value of money is not going away. And, the time value of debt isn’t either.
That $24 Billion is now gone. It was spent. But, every dime was borrowed and it was loaned to us at an interest rate. That rate varies a little over time, but it has historically been between 2% and 6% annually. So, let’s use an average of 4% and figure that debt is not going to go away because our national debt has never gone away. But, let’s put an end date at 100 years and do a calculation of the net present worth of that $24 Billion. The math is irrefutable and the present value is $1.212 Trillion!
There we see the real problem. It has nothing to do with that paltry $24 Billion today. The problem is the idea behind borrowing at all! Borrowing to pay for a losing proposition is just stupid. No sane person would ever do such a thing.
But our Congress does it almost daily! And we elect those clowns.
Jim: Yes, the cost of borrowed money can be a major liability.
Agreed with you that Wind Energy is costly, unsound environmentally, harmful and ineffective. I have concerns regarding nuclear energy. After reading about the tsunami in Japan and its ongoing problem for over 13 years handling the nuclear rods??? Also I was aware of the nuclear fall out from Chernobyl in the mid-eighties. In Ukraine there are 7 nuclear reactors (one is the largest in Europe) Plus knowing mankind and its ability to mess up. I believe there is no such thing as fail- safe! It could lead to nuclear disaster.. Tesla was involved with inventing something with perpetual energy...there has to be a safe method, which won't destroy the earth.
Barbara: EVERY source of energy has downsides. Our energy choices should be made on which source have the best NET benefits. Nuclear has a 50+ year record as a stellar source. Near term future nuclear wil be even safer than today.
If you believe nuclear energy's safety record is "stellar," read my piece. While I can't disagree with your assertions regarding wind energy, there are literally hundreds of thousands of tons of undisposed nuclear waste waiting to be dealt with at who knows what expense, and danger; hundreds of thousands more littering ocean floors and seeping into groundwater, elsewhere, and no solutions in sight. Ninety-nine documented major incidents through just 2009, and only one subterranean repository serving one nation, worldwide. Stellar? Give us a break. Fukushima is still home to 30 million bags of waste with which there is no place to go. The wet leavings were dumped, wholesale, into the ocean. Bottom line at this point in time there are no viable options to replace fossil fuels for energy production, which certainly should not impact funding for research.
Check my piece please.
https://open.substack.com/pub/1longtrain/p/lets-try-this-again?r=1zyuut&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Ken: I did peruse your article. I agree that the situation with nuclear waste is not good. That said, this is NOT a problem with nuclear power, but one of politics.
For example, EVERY other country in the world proceses nuclear fuel twice. Due to a law pushed through by Jimmy Carter, US facilities only do it once. The net effect of this is that the nuclear waste in the US is MUCH higher than elsewhere. You did not mention that...
That Yucca Mt is not being used is another example of politics. Etc., etc.
John, a quick reply is just that. Worldwide, it is an unsolved problem. To assert that it isn't a problem with nuclear power is exactly like saying there is no problem with wind energy. Only worse.
Ken: The problems with wind energery are inherent to it — e.g. it is ALWAYS going to be unpredictable. The nuclear waste issue is a problem in the US primarily due to politics, as scientifically it has been mostly solved.
I am unaware of a scientific solution. If one existed, France would not be sending waste to Siberia. Finland is the only nation with deep geological interment and it suits its own needs. Reprocessing still generates waste. Radon and liquid sludge from uranium mining goes unaddressed. The nuclear power situation may eventually solved, but it will preclude fission
Nuclear's 50 year record is not stellar. Our educational and health systems today are so poor, I doubt that any humans will be up to the par that developed scientists, engineers and physicists in the past. Many college graduates don't read or write.
Barbara: Nuclear's 50+ year record is stellar. For example it has easily produced 100 times the electricity of all the wind turbines during that period — while having less deaths than wind energy as well. BTW, the disastrous Chernobyl event was 100% man made — on purpose! — and has zero to do with any weakness of nuclear energy.
What about the Tsunami caused nuclear disaster, which the Japanese could not handle for over 13 years...trying to keep the spent nuclear rods cool with sea water that was dumped into the ocean...and is suspected to be the cause of the dead zone off the coast of Japan?
Barbara: Here is a parallel... The NYC Twin Towers were destroyed by terrorists and several thousand people died, right? Does that mean that we should no longer build skyscrapers as they are unsafe?
It it the skyscrpers' fault that an outside force caused thousands of deaths, any more that it was the fault of the Japanese nuclear reactors that a few people died due to the tsunami.
Also, in perspective, the tsumani kiled 25,000+ people while the nuclear reactors meltdowns killed a small handful.
My suggestion is to ignore the alarmist rhetoric on almost any subject, and look closely to what the actual science says.
The UNSCEAR Fukushima report says the damage to the three reactors did not cause any injuries, illnesses, or deaths, other than to one plant worker who suffered a second-degree burn when he stepped into water contaminated with radioactive material and it overflowed into his boot. Years later, a jury awarded damages to the family of a plant worker (or was it a nearby resident?) who died from lung cancer. The alleged connection between radiation and cancer is a fraud perpetrated by George Beadle and Ed Lewis, but it was extremely helpful to earn a Nobel Peace Prize for Linus Pauling. Details in my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" Everything quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations so readers can verify I didn't just make up stuff.
Regarding skyscrapers...Health-wise they are not safe places to work. They are built because land is expensive in big cities...but I personally would not want to work or live in one. The air quality, the fluorescent bulbs and the difficulty of exiting, if there is serious trouble. It is unhealthy for people to be in buildings higher than 3 stories, because mankind was designed to keep his feet on the earth. It keeps people more centered and balanced. People who live and work in buildings that are too many stories high are mentally and physically affected by being too far from the energy and pull of the earth.
I am alarmed that there was a growing dead zone in the Pacific Ocean with no life for a vast distance,, which kept growing. It was not written up in our news media, but I read an account from a man who sailed through that area...years before., when there were all kinds of fish and seabirds..and again after the tsunami. He nearly didn't get out. He said there was absolutely no life there...no fish or birds. Do you know what could happen if there were any kind of serious nuclear chain reaction...and it couldn't be stopped? It could eat up every atom and molecule...and we could blow like Krypton.Einstein was sorry he ever worked on the Atom bomb. With all the scientists today who are primarily into money...I don't know how you can expect it to be better in the future.
Filed for summary judgement in the case against Oregon State University in the 9th circuit court of appeals today 11/4/24. cctruth.org/Docket_24-6787_default_judgement.pdf
Nothing green in green energy.
The propaganda around the green energy "alternatives" makes at least one important false assumption: that modern technological society can function just as easily using alternative energy sources as it can using oil. The short answer is it can't. The alternatives aren't energetic enough. And they cost too much to develop and maintain. There is no substitute for oil, unfortunately, and when oil production starts to decline there will be a whole host of serious problems that will be difficult to deal with (by anybody) -- one answer, one we see more and more of each day -- is to simply reduce demand: which means both fewer people and less energy use per capita. Fewer people by means of phony vaccines, and less energy use by means of various restrictive laws and regulations (15 minute cities, etc.).
John: Agreed with what you say, except that green alternatives are primarily trying to produce electricity — and the US does not use oil for that. When they falsely say that they are "replacing" fossil fuels, they are referring to coal and gas.
And electricity is only between a quarter and a third of total primary energy use.
Each windmill cost us 450 gallons of oil, which leaks, they kill Eagles, Hawks and Whales, they don't distinguish between endangered or not, each animal contributes to the ecology over population.
Biden locked millions of acres of land up in National Monuments Biden adds to the nation’s list of national monuments during his term. There’s an appetite for more
https://apnews.com/article/national-monuments-biden-antiquities-act-51710af75ccb0f6a44c5da1e8287782c
Biden's monumental move
President Joe Biden has created six monuments and either restored, enlarged or modified boundaries for several others. Native American tribes and conservation groups are pressing for more designations before he leaves office., you can't drill or mine. Limiting the amount of both for American use or trade. Biden cited the spiritual, cultural and prehistoric legacy of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante areas in southern Utah when he restored their boundaries and protections through his first use of the Antiquities Act in 2021. The two monuments were among 29 that President Barack Obama created while in office. Amid concerns that Obama overstepped his authority and limited energy development, President Donald Trump rolled back their size, while adding a previously unprotected portion to Bears Ears.
When national monuments are designated, no new mining claims can be staked on national monument lands. When former President Trump gutted Bears Ears, he also allowed for mining claims and oil and gas leasing on lands he cut from the monument. That has led to the filing of new uranium and vanadium claims at Bears Ears — at least 14 since the monument was slashed, six of them just since March 2021.
https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/blog/bears-ears-uranium-mines-sealed-new-mining-planned#:~:text=When%20former%20President%20Trump%20gutted,them%20just%20since%20March%202021.
Weird: Bill Gates Bought 1.1 Million Shares of BioNTech Before the Pandemic Started
https://www.patrioticviralnews.com/articles/weird-bill-gates-bought-1-1-million-shares-of-biontech-before-the-pandemic-started/
Abigail: Yes to all that.
My last engineering job was in sales more than ten years ago. Our engineering sales company and the companies we represented made a lot of money initially and even more when units failed. Did rate payers no good whatsoever!
Daniel: Indeed renewable energy companies only exist due to government largesse. From a consumer's perspective, there are no scientifically rproven net benefits for renewables.