Tag Archives: clean energy

Recognizing The Major Problems In The Environmental Movement

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Stream posted an article by a former environmentalist listing five reasons why he gave up “green policies.”

Here is the list:

Failed Climate Change Predictions

Science is about accurate prediction. If Newton’s theory had failed to predict how apples fall, then it would be useless.

Few scientists have been as bad at this (basic) job as climate scientists. In one of the most comical episodes I’ve ever seen, climate scientists erected signs in Glacier National Park predicting its glaciers would be gone in 2020 — only to be forced to leave the signs after the predictions proved false. For a year, tourists to the park were met with a monument to the legacy of climate science: They stood looking simultaneously at glaciers … and the sign that promised, on the good authority of climate science, that the glaciers were not there.

Where Did the Wild Spaces Go?

Thoreau said of nature: “We need the tonic of wildness.” Thoreau was right about me at least. One of my primary motives for being an environmentalist was that I believed natural wild spaces were good for the soul.

…And that brings us to wind farms. I hate wind farms. They kill birds and destroy forest habitats. The blades are made of materials that fill waste dumps and can’t be recycled. They require lithium batteries that have to be mined with methods that create the very kinds of problems the “clean energy” movement is supposed to solve.

Politics Over Facts

Speaking of facts: The relationship between science and politics only works when the causal arrow between them goes from scientific facts to politics.

Bullying Over Debate

One of the clear signs that a movement is rotten is when it resorts to silencing its opponents rather than debating them. The modern “green” movement contains the worst set of bullies I’ve ever seen; indeed, they serve as primary fodder for my forthcoming book called Liberal Bullies.

Lack of a Cost/Benefit Analysis

Even at the height of my pro-environmentalist sentiment, I wasn’t opposed to all oil drilling. I know we need energy; I use it every day. I just wanted moderation that purposefully preserved a significant amount of wild nature. Well, across the board, the green movement increasingly just bludgeons us with simple-minded ideas that ignore the obvious costs of their policies.

Keep in mind that list comes from someone who at one time supported the green energy movement. It’s time for the rest of the supporters of the movement to wake up.

 

Another Reason To Leave New York State

Posted on by

On Friday, The American Thinker posted an article about the Build Public Renewables Act (BPRA), now in the New York state budget.

The article reports:

Ever hear of the Build Public Renewables Act (BPRA)?  Sounds great, doesn’t it?  Yet, like “The Inflation Reduction Act” (the largest climate legislation in government history), its title has very little to do with its actual purpose.  Its true objective is to empower the state (in this case New York) “to provide clean energy if the private sector fails to.”

Still sounds great!  There is, however, one little catch: the private sector has until 2030 to provide clean energy.  We all know that, given today’s technology, the private sector isn’t going to meet this requirement — which means that the second little catch will kick in: the moving of power utilities out of private hands into publicly owned facilities.  In fact, BPRA, now in the New York state budget, is viewed as a massive challenge to fossil fuel hegemony and a major victory for public power.  The BPRA requires and empowers the New York Power Authority (NYPA) “to rapidly build renewable energy infrastructure to meet the goal of 100 percent clean energy by 2030.”

Except for the 100% clean energy part, still sounds pretty good.  But here’s where the act begins to cause concern.  The BPRA is laying the foundation for a socialized electrical grid.  This from the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) themselves.   “A socialist strategy would put unions, industrial expertise, and clean energy writ large at the center of the bill,” begins this article.  “New York is moving closer to public ownership and operation of renewable power,” says this article.

The act requires that all state-owned properties that currently receive power from the NYPA utilize only renewable energy by 2030. It also requires municipally owned properties, including hospitals, schools, public housing, and public transit, to switch to renewable energy by 2035. The act calls for NYPA, which built six natural gas–fired “peaker plants” in 2001 to meet energy demands during peak times, such as the hottest days of summer and coldest days of winter, to phase them out.

The act further directs the NYPA (founded in 1931 by Franklin D. Roosevelt, it was designed to provide low-cost electricity across New York state) to plan, build, and operate renewable energy projects across the state to meet the ambitious timetable to decarbonize the grid mandated by the Climate Act of 2019.

Please follow the link to the article to read the details. The eventual outcome of this policy is the state telling you how much energy you are entitled to use. People who live alone will probably not get the energy allotment needed to heat a house and cook meals. They will have to make choices. Sounds like fun, doesn’t it?

The Following Was Posted On Facebook By A Friend

Posted on by

 

Some of these goals are very worthwhile goals; however, we live in a representative republic that is supposed to be governed by the people. Using a disease to jam through policies without the approval of the people is not acceptable. There is also the aspect of the viability of some of these goals.

I love the idea of no poverty. However, people make decisions that result in their living in poverty. Does it help them for the rest of us to continually bail them out, or should we help them learn from their mistakes?

Clean and affordable energy is a great idea, but how realistic is it with the current technology? How clean is it? What about the children working in the Lithium mines? Are they part of clean and affordable energy?

Reduced inequalities also sounds like a great concept. The Pilgrims thought so too until they almost starved to death. People have different levels of ambition. Those who work the hardest need to be rewarded the most. Otherwise no one will bother to work hard. Read the history of the Plymouth Colony for further illustrations of that point.

Peace, justice, and strong institutions also sounds great. Who would be in charge of those institutions? Does justice include freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom of assembly? Who determines what justice is?

This little chart of wonderful ideals actually illustrates the wisdom of the Founding Fathers of America. All of the ideals listed in the chart are possible under the government our Founding Fathers created. Poverty is still with us because people have the freedom to make their own decisions. A number of years ago, an American author pointed out that there are three things that you can do that will give you a 90 percent chance of avoiding poverty–finish high school, get a job, and get married before you have children. Statistically if everyone did that, we could end poverty.

The chart above is simply an illustration of the wonderful-sounding concepts those who would take away our freedom would use to advance their agenda. Don’t be fooled.

This Would Be Beneficial On A Number Of Levels

Posted on by

CBN News posted an article today about an innovative energy source that would be beneficial for both energy production and for the environment. The article hits close to home because it involves an issue North Carolina has been discussing for a number of years.

First of all, I need to say that I know very little about hog farming and hog waste. However, it does make sense that some of the by-products of hog farming might create an environmental problem. However, there seems to be an answer that will be profitable for everyone.

The article reports:

In fact, to Smithfield Foods and Dominion Energy, converting hog manure to natural gas for powering homes and businesses has a sweet smell of success.

“We think it’s a lot simpler, and we think it will change the face of how manure is handled and turned into energy going forward,” Kraig Westerbeek, senior director of Smithfield Renewables, told CBN News.

…So how does it work – turning this waste into energy? Often called biomethane, renewable natural gas is pipeline-quality gas that comes from organic matter like hog waste.

CBN News went to North Carolina to tour Circle K II Farms, a Smithfield pilot project.

“Manure actually is a positive thing,” said Westerbeek. “It creates value, and it helps fertilize crops; it helps produce energy. It’s not a bad thing. We view manure as an opportunity.”

Kraig Westerbeek explains how the process moves from the hog buildings to a huge covered lagoon called a “digester.”

“The product, natural gas, is actually a product of digestion of the solids by bacteria, so for that reason, it’s called digestion,” he said.

…The manure is funneled under the large plastic cover of the lagoon, and it’s mixed over and over. Bacteria break it down, producing what’s called biogas, which causes the cover to bubble up. That gas is 65 percent natural gas.

The biogas produced at farms then moves through gathering pipes to a gas-upgrading unit. That’s when Dominion Energy steps in.

“Where we come in – you see this plant back here – we’re gonna lend our engineering expertise to create a process that’s as efficient as possible in creating clean, renewable natural gas that customers can use,” Childress said.

At the gas upgrading system, the natural gas from the farm is refined. When it leaves there, it is 99.1 percent natural gas. It then enters a pipeline and is funneled to homes and businesses.

The article concludes:

This project involves partnering with local farmers like Dean Hilton, who’s been raising hogs for nearly 15 years. He calls it the “wave of the future.”

“After meeting with Kraig on the trial site, we realized that there’s a lot of opportunity in the fact that we can actually reduce our manure in our current lagoons, as well as turning the solids, the new solids into renewable energy,” Hilton said.

Westerbeek admits turning manure into renewable natural gas is “fairly expensive”.

“You have an investment in a digester like you see in the background, and then the gathering pipelines to gather the gas from different farms and bring it to a central location,” he explained.

“And then one of the more expensive parts of this is actually cleaning the gas from its form as biogas from this digester into pipeline-quality natural gas,” Westerbeek continued.

Both he and Childress along with their bosses believe it’s a worthy investment leading to clean energy, plus economic benefits for their companies, rural America and the general public.

This seems like a win-win situation. Now if we can just do the same thing with cows…

Why We All Need To Pay Attention Before The Next Election

Posted on by

Yesterday Investors.com posted an article about a campaign ad the Obama campaign has created. The ad is total fiction, and the article explains why.

One of the claims in the ad is that the Obama Administration has decreased America’s dependence on foreign oil. The ad fails to mention that during a recession American oil consumption decreases and thus the amount of oil we import decreases. The article also fails to mention that gasoline consumption is down because the price of a gallon of gas has almost doubled under President Obama. The article includes a chart:

The article also deals with some of the other claims in the ad. President Obama claims that according to the Brookings Institution his administration has created 2.7 million clean energy jobs and is expanding rapidly. Again, that doesn’t line up with the facts. The article reports:

“Overall, today’s clean economy establishments added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010, expanding at an annual rate of 3.4 %” — a half-million over eight years being a tiny gain. And that “this performance lagged the growth in the national economy, which grew by 4.2% annually over the period.”

We need to remember that Spain ended its government sponsored green energy program because for every job they created, two jobs were lost. We need to learn from the Spanish experience.

Overall the ad is a very nice-sounding group of lies. I am sure it is the first of many such ads. As voters, we need to learn to fact check all political ads from all candidates. Statistics can be twisted to say anything the person citing them wants them to say. Polls can be skewed according to who is polled. As voters, we really need to pay attention to what is said during the campaign and how much of what is said is actually true.

Enhanced by Zemanta