Tag Archives: green energy

Always Follow The Money

Posted on by

If green energy is so good for the planet, how come it is killing whales and enslaving children in Africa? Seems like a fair question.

On Tuesday, The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about a new proposed green energy project.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden wants to shrink a Pacific Ocean marine sanctuary meant to protect endangered whales in order to accommodate offshore wind energy factories—one of them owned by a major Democratic donor.

What a coincidence.

The article continues:

The Biden administration late last month proposed cutting about 1,400 square miles of ocean and coastline from an Indian tribe’s proposed national marine sanctuary to make room for wind turbine infrastructure. One of these factories would belong to Invenergy, whose founder and CEO Michael Polsky has given more than $400,000 to Democrats since 2016. His company shelled out $2.4 million to lobby the White House, federal agencies, and Congress this year.

The proposal reflects a conflict between efforts to fight climate change and those to preserve natural habitats. The Biden administration’s proposal would benefit green energy companies and generate renewable energy, but environmental groups have sounded the alarm on such projects noting that they kill birds and whales—the very wildlife that the marine sanctuary seeks to preserve. The proposal also reflects the green energy industry’s status as a major player in the Democratic Party. Biden has invested billions of taxpayer dollars into renewable energy projects backed by liberal billionaires, enriching them in the process.

Polsky’s major contributions from the past several years include a total of $72,000 to the House Democrats’ campaign committee in 2020 and 2022, and $35,500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2016—the same year he poured $75,000 into Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Polsky has also donated to Republicans and Invenergy’s political campaign committee, but of the roughly $500,000 he has contributed to political causes since 2016, more than $400,000 has gone to Democrats according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.

Sorry, green energy is a scam. Until the government gets out of the way and allows the free market to sort out the science, green energy will be a very expensive and political boondoggle. The current technology in green energy is reminiscent of the search for a perpetual motion machine. We haven’t found one yet.

A New Definition Of Security

Posted on by

On Saturday, Just the News posted an article about a recent statement made by Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm.

The article reports:

Praising Biden’s historic green energy funding and 100% clean electricity goal by 2035, Granholm said “With all this electrification, we could slash our net crude oil imports by almost 60%, and that strengthens energy security.”

Granholm, who appeared with Vice President Kamala Harris also said Harris “has been amazing inside the White House as the champion for clean energy.” 

One of the most common critiques of Biden’s green agenda is that it has thus far achieved the opposite of energy security. Regulators claimed in May that more than 66% of the country is vulnerable to summer blackouts because of “new environmental rules” cracking down on fossil fuels. 

The regulators explained that the government is causing a spike in energy demand at a pace faster than renewables can match.

I don’t have a problem with cutting crude oil imports–if we open up American drilling and regain energy independence, we can be a net exporter of oil again. The world economy is based on oil. It is the commodity that fuels our manufacturing, our transportation, enables trade, and makes the lives of people who live in countries with ample energy much more pleasant. A number of European countries have switched away from green energy because they discovered that it could not meet the energy needs of their population.

The article also notes:

Center for Industrial Progress President and founder Alex Epstein wrote that “Joe Biden’s escalating bans on domestic fossil fuel production, combined with mandates of unreliable solar and wind overwhelmingly produced by unreliable China, are an existential threat to our energy security and therefore our national security.”

This isn’t the first time Granholm has made this claim. In April, she also stated of her trip to Japan that Biden’s green agenda will “address how the acceleration of the clean energy transition will help strengthen global energy security.”

Green energy is the modern equivalent of the perpetual motion machine. It’s a great idea, but I suspect that it will always remain just slightly out of reach.

Protection From Climate Variations

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

As I wrote in prior articles, the evidence that man’s use of fossil fuels is the cause of climate change/variations is very weak to non-existent. The climate has always varied due to natural causes unrelated to man’s activities. Given these facts, the question becomes how can mankind continue to protect itself from these naturally occurring climate variations? Let’s examine some options.

Can mankind protect itself from climate impacts? Absolutely. Thanks to fossil fuels we have already been doing so. For instance, in 1920 it is estimated that over 500,000 people died worldwide from negative climate impacts. By 2020, that total was reduced to 11,000. Amazing what human innovation can accomplish when given free rein! Nature is indifferent to the survival of mankind and presents many threats to our existence such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, viruses, bacteria, etc. besides climate variations. The Marxist climate extremists, so-called “greenies”, would have us believe that nature is benign and not a threat to mankind’s survival. All we have to do us “commune” with nature and all will be well. How naive! It is though they believe that all man-made things are bad and that naturally occurring things are good. The truth is that mankind’s survival and success in prospering is due to our ability to over-come the threats presented by the natural world.

Let me give you a personal example. For several years, I lived on a small farm that had several apple trees. Never having lived on a farm, l thought that in the Fall the trees would be loaded with nice juicy apples. In reality, each Summer, hordes of beetles would descend on the trees and practically denude them of foliage. Diseases also appeared as well as worms that marred the apples. Without modern insecticides and disease protection apple production as we know it would not occur. Without machines powered by fossil fuels, and fertilizers, overall global food production could not meet the needs of the global population

Overcoming the harsh realities of nature, requires abundant and inexpensive energy sources and allowing the human mind to continue to innovate ways to protect us from the ravages of nature. Of course we want to do so at minimum negative impact on the environment which we have been doing with considerable success. For example, coal fired electrical plants in the United States now emit considerably less noxious emissions than in the past.

All energy production has risks as well as benefits. For example, the wind turbines that the greenies adore destroy thousands of birds, and now we are seeing the killing of endangered whales and other marine life. The increased life span of humans, dramatic decrease in infant mortality, malnutrition, etc. are due to industrialization based on fossil fuels. We need to ensure that we have access to air-conditioning and heat to protect us from climate temperature variations. Solar and wind power can never do this. Nor will the eating of bugs and creation of laboratory produced meat feed the global population.

We must stop the environmental extremists and those profiting from government programs and tax incentives from destroying the fossil fuel industry if we are to save our civilization. We must tell our elected officials that the move to green energy must be stopped before it is too late.

It Only Works If We All Do It

Posted on by

I am not at all convinced that man is capable of changing the earth’s climate. However, if we are going to attempt such a thing, we all need to participate. It does no good for America to cripple its economy by demanding more higher usage of inefficient green energy while China is building coal plants at a rapid rate.

On Friday, Cowboy State Daily reported:

As much as it’s reported that the world is going through a transition away from fossil fuels to wind and solar energy, the data doesn’t support it. 

The International Energy Agency released its 2023 Coal Market Update on Thursday, which shows that global coal consumption in 2022 rose by 3.3% to a record 8.3 billion tons. While the use of coal in European countries and the United States has declined, those reductions are offset by increases in Asian countries, primarily India and China. 

Thirty years ago, the U.S. and European share of coal consumption was 40%. By 2024, the IEA predicts it will fall to 8%. 

Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, told Cowboy State Daily that the efforts to reduce emissions in the U.S. by shutting down coal plants will have no impact on global warming because Asian countries are moving full steam ahead with coal. 

“The environment doesn’t have glass walls surrounding the United States,” Bear said. 

The article concludes:

Bear said the Biden administration’s drive to lower the United States’ emissions while China rebuffs any attempt to drive its down will put America at a disadvantage with the Asian country. 

“The more that we put constraints on the United States emissions, the more difficult it is for us to compete with Asia, economically and militarily. And those are dangerous things,” Bear said. 

Bear said that as the nation moves toward wind and solar energy, which drive up energy costs and degrade reliability on the nation’s grid, the more American businesses and industries will suffer. 

“If the cost of energy is so high that you can’t, as a young person, create something new and build a business, then you’re killing the American dream,” he said.

The Biden administration’s energy policies are working very hard to make America a third-world country.

When Reality Shows Up

Posted on by

Green energy is a wonderful theory. So is the perpetual motion machine. However, both are limited by the laws of physics, and the first is limited by practicalities regarding cost.

On Saturday, Legal Insurrection posted an article about some of the current problems being encountered by wind farms.

The article reports:

A couple of weeks ago, Sweden’s government ditched plans to go all-in on “green energy,” green-lighting the construction of new nuclear power plants. Shortly afterward, fossil fuel giant Shell announced it was scaling back its energy transition plans to focus on . . . gas and oil!

Now it looks like specific wind farm projects are beginning to topple due to strong economic headwinds. Recent, Rhode Island’s leading utility decided to nix a project called Revolution Wind 2 because the cost of the electricity was deemed too high.

…In Europe, Swedish energy firm Vattenfall will stop the development of a major wind project in the United Kingdom after a surge in costs (Hat-tip Hot Air’s Beege Welborne). Once again, the issue was related to surges in energy costs.

The economic headwinds associated with wind farms are beginning to be noticed.

…. Even as the White House is welcoming it with open arms and the Democrats’ climate law is channeling money in its direction, strong economic headwinds are blowing in the opposite direction – inflation and rising interest rates have hit the industry hard.

And then there’s the whales: Some citizen groups and conservative media have blamed a rise in whale strandings and deaths this year on the nascent wind farm projects – a connection scientists have so far found no evidence for.

The combination has made it a precarious time for offshore wind, said Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association, the trade group representing US clean energy.

“This is the vulnerable moment where the benefits are on the horizon,” Grumet told reporters this spring. “Because we don’t have the benefits of it on the table. We don’t have massive facilities producing energy, lowering prices in those states.”

Currently, green energy is not the answer to anything. The climate-change fear mongering is simply a way to eliminate the middle class and gain more control over the world’s population.

In February 2019, I posted an article that included the following:

In March 2016, I posted an article with the following:

…Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

I can’t post this quote often enough. It needs to engraved in the minds of every American.

When You Are Beholden To People Who Want You Gone

Posted on by

On July 4th, The Daily Wire posted an article about gallium and germanium, two minerals needed for the production of electric vehicles, solar panels, military hardware, and more.

The article reports:

Communist China announced this week new plans to restrict the export of two minerals critical to the production of electric vehicles, solar panels, military hardware, and more.

The minerals — gallium and germanium — and dozens of other related metals will be subject to new export regulations that are aimed at punishing the West for restricting China’s ability to access advanced semiconductors.

China dominates the global market as leading producer for both of the minerals, an advantage that they gained by “suppressing the price,” according to Christopher Ecclestone, principle at the natural resource research firm Hallgarten & Co. When they stop suppressing the price, “it suddenly becomes more viable to extract these metals in the West, then China again has an own-goal,” Ecclestone said.

“For a short while they get a higher price, but then China’s market dominance gets lost – the same thing has happened before in other things like antimony, tungsten and rare earths,” he added.

The article concludes:

Some experts said that the move would have little-to-no impact — in terms of what consumers notice — over the course of the next year because existing stockpiles will fill the gap. They cautioned that if the dispute carries on longer than a year than a ripple effect will be felt.

Others said that the move will “will have an immediate ripple effect on the semiconductor industry, especially with regards to high-performance chips.”

The Biden administration’s relentless push for green energy makes America more dependent on importing the items necessary to support that industry. Many of the ‘green energy’ items require minerals that are mined in conditions that are more harmful to the earth than fossil fuel ever dreamed of being. Before we sell ourselves on ‘green energy,’ there are some things we need to think about–the impact of windmills on ocean life, the lifespan of solar panels and how to dispose of them, the lifespan of windmill blades and how to dispose of them, the impact of windmills on America’s bird population, and most importantly–the national security issues involved. America can be energy independent with the current fossil-fuel-based economy. Let’s not mess it up.

More Fact Checkers

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about President Biden’s recent speech on Bidenomics.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden promised a “fundamental break” with “trickle-down economics” in a speech on Wednesday in which he relied on a number of misleading claims to make his point.

Touting “Bidenomics,” the White House’s name for its economic agenda heading into the 2024 race, Biden floated a plan that would involve spending more taxpayer money and boosting union labor.

Here is the fact check on that speech:

“My predecessor enacted the latest iteration of the failed theory. Tax cuts for the wealthy. It wasn’t paid for, and the estimated cost of his tax cut was $2 trillion.”

Former President Donald Trump‘s tax cuts did not benefit only the wealthy, and they didn’t cost the government nearly as much as critics claimed.

Last year, the Congressional Budget Office actually said the government is expected to collect more revenue over the next decade than it had projected before the tax cuts were signed into law.

In fiscal 2018, the first year after Trump signed the tax cuts into law, the federal government actually collected slightly more revenue overall than it had the previous year.

We learned this during the Reagan administration–when you cut taxes, revenue goes up.

The article continues:

“Wind and solar are already significantly cheaper than coal and oil. You’re not going to see anybody building a new coal-fired plant in America — not just because I’d like to pass a law to say that; it’s too expensive.”

One key reason that renewable energy is now cheaper than traditional energy production is because the Biden administration has offered sweeping tax breaks and subsidies to green energy companies.

…“Today, inflation is less than half of what it was a year ago. And that inflation [was] caused by Russia and by the war in Ukraine and by what was going on.”

Inflation still remains significantly higher than before Biden took office, even if it has fallen from the heights of last year.

Before Biden took office, the consumer price index, a measure of inflation, rose 1.4% for 2020.

The CPI climbed 4.9% from April 2022 to April 2023, meaning prices this year are still rising far faster than before Biden’s inauguration.

While inflation was indeed worse last year, with prices jumping by 8.6% between May 2021 and May 2022, it remains a significant problem for many at nearly four times the level it was before Biden’s presidency.

…“When I took office, unemployment was over 6%. With the American Rescue Plan, we provided relief and support directly to working-class families. Our economy came roaring back. Unemployment dipped below 4% by the end of my first year in office.”

Like Biden’s claim about the number of jobs created, this statement is misleading because the unemployment rate was artificially high when he took office.

The unemployment rate had already begun to come down from its high of 14.8% in April 2020 by the time Biden took office.

Ending lockdowns and easing pandemic restrictions were the primary drivers of the unemployment rate’s fall, but Biden opposed both as a presidential candidate.

…“Just in my first two years in office, my team and I reduced the deficit by $1.7 trillion.” 

Biden has previously touted the deficit reduction that occurred on his watch, and it’s been misleading every time.

The national debt grew by $7.8 trillion during Trump’s four years in office.

But much of that occurred in 2020 as a result of emergency pandemic spending.

The deficit at the end of fiscal 2020 was more than triple what it was at the end of fiscal 2019, a result of the massive rescue packages Congress passed to blunt the effects of lockdowns.

…In fact, Biden has pushed for record levels of spending, and he asked Congress for relief funds in 2021 well in excess of what was needed at the time.

Please follow the link to the article for further details.

The Looming Carbon Tax

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Daily Caller posted an article about the Democrat’s plan to determine the amount of energy used in the production of goods.

The article reports:

Fresh from the looming trainwreck that is the deal to increase the debt limit, four Republican senators recently signed onto legislation that would require the Biden administration to study the feasibility of . . . a national tax on energy that would be collected at the gas pump and in electricity and heating bills.

The four Republicans — Senator Cramer (R-ND), Senator Cassidy (R-LA), Senator Graham (R-SC), and Senator Murkowski (R-AK) — joined five Democrats in asking Team Biden to determine the amount of energy used — and carbon dioxide emitted — by various countries in the production of essentially everything that makes modern life possible (aluminum, iron, steel, plastic, crude oil, batteries, etc.).

Eventually, the information would be used to impose tariffs on those countries who — in the view of the Biden crew — emitted too much carbon dioxide while creating those products.

The article notes:

Unfortunately for American consumers — and this is the important part of the story — the process will lead inevitably to the federal government setting a price for carbon dioxide in these United States.

That means only one thing: a nationwide tax on carbon dioxide, which is, of course, really a tax on energy in all its forms. Such a tax would be incredibly regressive, would damage the economy, and make everything grown, made, or moved more expensive.

The sad, sick part of this story is that the Republican senators are fully aware of that conclusion; they are in fact counting on it. Senator Cramer told the Washington Post that: “We spend so much time as Republicans saying hell no to people who want to tax carbon . . . . this is the low-hanging fruit of climate policy or trade policy or whatever you want to call it.”

In August 2010 , I posted an article about carbon trading in America. The article was about the failure of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), a trading place for carbon credits. The only thing you really need to know is who lost money when Congress failed to pass Cap and Trade legislation that would have necessitated the existence of the CCX.

I reported in August 2010:

“The biggest losers have been CCX’s two biggest investors – Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management and Goldman Sachs – and President Obama, who helped launch CCX with funding from the Joyce Foundation, where he and presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett once sat on the board of directors.”

Green energy is about money–not about ecology.

Powered By Unicorns

Posted on by

On Friday, Front Page Magazine posted an article about the future of green energy. There are a lot of things that the people who are trying to turn all of America’s power ‘green’ are either ignoring or unaware of.

The article quotes an article from The New York Times posted on Thursday:

PJM Interconnection, which operates the nation’s largest regional grid, stretching from Illinois to New Jersey, has been so inundated by connection requests that last year it announced a freeze on new applications until 2026, so that it can work through a backlog of thousands of proposals, mostly for renewable energy.

It now takes roughly four years, on average, for developers to get approval, double the time it took a decade ago.

And when companies finally get their projects reviewed, they often face another hurdle: the local grid is at capacity, and they are required to spend much more than they planned for new transmission lines and other upgrades.

Many give up. Fewer than one-fifth of solar and wind proposals actually make it through the so-called interconnection queue, according to research from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

So we can create all of the solar and wind energy we want, but if we have no way to distribute it, it is useless.

 

I Can’t Believe He Said That

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Wattsupwiththat posted a video of John Kerry speaking about climate change at Davos. I can’t figure out how to put the video here, but if you follow the link above, you can watch the video.

This is the transcript:

0:00 And when you stop and think about it, it’s pretty extraordinary that we select group of human beings because of whatever touched us at some point in our lives, are able to sit in a room and come together and actually talk about saving the planet.

0:20 I mean, it’s so almost extraterrestrial to think about, quote saving the planet.

0:26 If you said that to most people, most people they think you’re just a crazy tree hugging lefty, liberal, you know, do good or whatever, and and there’s no relationship.

0:35 But really, that’s where we are.

The elite echo chamber at Davos is nothing more than an elite echo chamber. The scientists who disagree with the elite echo chamber are marginalized or silenced. The green energy movement is killing people and wildlife as the elites go on their merry way. They are not going to save the planet–they are simply going to make life more difficult for the rest of us.

The Scam Of Green Energy

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Daniel Horowitz posted an article at Conservative Review pointing out what we should have learned from the Christmas energy crisis in America.

The article notes:

What’s the modus operandi of our dystopian government? Creating a needless deadly crisis, blocking the effective way for dealing with it thereafter, and foisting upon the world instead a dangerous and ineffective way of dealing with it. That might sound a lot like COVID, but it’s largely what officials have been planning for a long time with energy, and now that the population is primed for lockdowns, disruptions, and total authoritarian control as a result of COVID, that is what they plan to do with our energy grid. All for a lie.

This was the coldest Christmas in a half-century in much of the U.S., with many localities setting records, including those not accustomed to the cold like Tallahassee, Florida. Many of us are disgusted at those limiting our natural energy in favor of novel, ineffective energy, thereby causing a doubling or even tripling of home heating bills. But we must also realize that if they had their way, we’d have no heating in our homes at all.

Just like the supposed source of COVID and how to deal with it were lies, our energy crisis is wholly contrived and built upon the lie of global warming. Typically, you would have to make sure we are 100% correct about the “science” behind such irrevocable economic and societal changes before committing civilization suicide by destroying the only reliable sources of energy we have. But in a post-“Great Reset” world, this is par for the course. In fact, the science behind global warming is just as flimsy as the science behind lockdowns, masks, and mRNA shots.

The article notes how inaccurate past climate-change predictions have been:

During the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, chief climate priest Al Gore asserted, “Some of the models suggest … that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” Predictions like this upended our lives with more expensive and more decrepit vital products and services being produced for a generation under the false pretense of taming a crisis that never existed. It turns out that since 2012, the mass of Arctic sea ice is up 31% and Greenland is gaining, not losing, ice. Meanwhile, Antarctica, which was always gaining ice during the period when the Arctic was losing ice, subsequently lost ice last decade and is now regaining it. In other words, the science behind polar ice caps seems to be rooted in the same cherry-picked timing and data as the faux science behind global warming causing either fewer or more hurricanes.

Yet somehow, we are to believe the science is all figured out on how to tamper with global temperatures, just like it was with COVID. Rather than people being more primed to believe in government control after COVID, any thinking person should be even more suspect of official climate lies and the accompanying life-altering policy changes governments want to induce based on them. And boy, would these policy changes be life-altering.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is becoming even more apparent that the quest for green energy is not about the environment at all–it is about creating a society where a small group of people control the lives of everyone else.

An International Propaganda Effort

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Fox News posted the following headline, “Biden admin is funding foreign reporters to write climate stories, emails show.”

The article reports:

The Biden administration funded a foreign “reporting tour” last year, sponsoring several overseas journalists who cover climate change, internal State Department emails showed. 

In March 2021, high-ranking State Department officials discussed a proposal to sponsor foreign journalists to “have experiences that educate them on reporting on climate change,” according to the emails obtained by Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT) and shared with Fox News Digital. In the email exchange, officials from Special Presidential Envoy for Climate (SPEC) John Kerry’s office and the Office of Global Change (EGC) praised the program as a “fantastic” and “great” idea.

“Jean Foschetti at the FPC mentioned this to me about a week ago,” a State Department official whose name was redacted wrote in an email on March 23, 2021. “Sounds like a great reporting tour idea; basically, the FPC will sponsor multiple foreign reporters to have experiences that educate them on reporting on climate change. Can EGC and SPEC take a look and clear?”

“Thanks for sharing … I think this sounds like a fantastic FPC (virtual) reporting tour and I’m looking forward to the stories that will come out of this,” a second redacted official responded one day later.

The article continues:

The FPC reporting tour — titled “Combating the Climate Crisis Through U.S. Innovation” — ultimately took place during a two-week stretch in May 2021. The event was designed to “promote the Administration’s goal of prioritizing the fight against climate change through global efforts to reduce emissions,” according to the State Department.

“The FPC … offered this virtual program to enable journalists to remotely develop their reporting about the United States’ renewed approach to addressing the climate crisis and its innovation and research, particularly in the areas of reducing emissions and renewable energy,” the State Department states on its website. 

While the State Department quietly announced the program in 2021, though, it failed to mention that it would be funded by U.S. taxpayer money or that the foreign reporters would be “sponsored.” It is unclear which reporters and outlets were sponsored by the State Department program.

The tour came as the Biden administration was moving forward with its aggressive green energy and climate push.

Evidently Twitter was not the only government-funded propaganda campaign. We need to put a stop to all green energy programs until we make sure that our current energy infrastructure can meet the growing energy needs of Americans. It should be pointed out that the unregulated flow of immigrants into America will also increase the energy needs of America. Windmills, solar panels, and electric cars are at the mercy of the weather–does the sun shine, is it too cold for windmills to turn, and how far will your electric car travel in zero degree weather? They may play a role, but they should not be major players until the technology is greatly improved.

Was This Money Wisely Spent?

Posted on by

On October 25th, WattsUpWithThat posted an article about spending on green energy and the results of that spending.

The article reports:

Economist Jeff Currie of Goldman Sachs (Global Head of Commodities Research in the Global Investment Research Division): “Here’s a stat for you, as of January of this year. At the end of last year, overall, fossil fuels represented 81 percent of overall energy consumption. Ten years ago, they were at 82. So though, all of that investment in renewables, you’re talking about 3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuel consumption from 82 to 81 percent, of the overall energy consumption. But you know, given the recent events and what’s happened with the loss of gas and replacing it with coal, that number is likely above 82.” … The net of it is clearly we haven’t made any progress.”

The article includes the following graph:

The article also includes the following Tweet:

I think it is time to go back to the drawing board.

Giving Away Important Technology

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Daily Wire reported that the Department of Energy’s Inspector General is investigating why the Biden administration gave promising green energy technology to China instead of creating manufacturing jobs in America.

The article reports:

The Department of Energy’s Inspector General is reviewing why the Joe Biden administration gave promising battery technology, developed by taxpayer dollars, to a Chinese company instead of making the batteries in the U.S.

China is now reportedly building one of the largest battery grids in the world using the technology, which could store huge amounts of solar energy without degrading over time or requiring lithium, mitigating a major environmental impact of current green technology that ends up in landfills.

The article continues:

In 2021, there was an “illicit Department of Energy (DOE) transfer of a fifteen million dollar, taxpayer-funded advanced battery technology to China,” Sens. John Barrasso (R-WY) and Joni Ernst (R-IA) wrote in a letter to the DOE’s internal watchdog.

The company that received the license “plainly stated on their official website that they planned to manufacture the batteries in China,” even though the license included “a requirement that the batteries be ‘substantially manufactured’ in the U.S. As these stipulations were continuously violated, DOE never raised any concern,” they wrote.

“We are concerned that this is an overt dereliction of duty by DOE, and that this case may be emblematic of a department that routinely and flippantly permits government-funded technology to be transferred to China,” the senators concluded.

The article explains exactly what happened:

In 2017, Yang (Gary Yang, one of the scientists who helped develop the technology, so that he could commercialize it) — an American citizen who was born in China — obtained a sublicense from the DOE to allow a Chinese firm to make the batteries. In 2021, he transferred the license outright to a Dutch company called Vanadis Power, which said it would make the batteries in China but eventually move production to Europe to comply with European rules.

America had those rules too, but seemed less strict about enforcing them. On July 7, 2021, UniEnergy emailed a government manager at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to request approval to transfer the license to Vanadis, and within 90 minutes, the government granted approval, even though Vanadis’ website said it would make the batteries in China.

Unnamed DOE officials told NPR they often rely on “good faith disclosures” — in other words, the honor system.

I would love to see a list of Americans who are in some way involved in the finances of the Chinese company involved.

The Inflation Reduction Act

Posted on by

The Inflation Reduction Act has passed through Congress and will undoubtedly be signed into law by President Biden by the time you read this. So what exactly does this law do? Well, for starters it does not reduce inflation and it will not impact the climate. However, it will help China’s economy (they dominate the green energy field) and it will let Democrats celebrate that they passed something through Congress. It will also raise the cost of living for all Americans in the form of increased energy costs and some tax increases.

On Monday, The New York Post reported:

An analysis by the CBO estimates those earning less than $400,000 — the group on which Biden promised not to raise taxes — will pay an estimated $20 billion more in taxes over the next decade as a result of the Democrat-pushed $740 billion package, which also sets aside $80 billion to hire 87,000 IRS agents.

The bill has yet to be scored in its entirety by the CBO — which typically gives each piece of legislation a price tag before it is voted on — but the agency scored the impact of the IRS expansion on middle-class taxpayers on Aug. 12 after a provision from Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) sought to exempt those making under $400,000 from increased IRS scrutiny.

Crapo’s proposed amendment would have kept those taxpayers from being targeted by the new IRS hires, but his provision was shot down 51-50 in the bill passed by the Senate last week.

On Monday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog reported the following:

Democrats quickly gave up on the Inflation Reduction Act, since they couldn’t sell the idea that another $700+ billion in deficit spending would somehow reduce inflation. So now it is alleged to be a climate control act, instead.

But the bill won’t affect the climate any more than it would have reduced inflation. Even if you assume the UN’s inflated estimate of the impact of CO2 emissions on global warming, the bill’s impact is nil:

[W]e get somewhere between 0.028 and 0.0009°F reduction in temperature by 2100 for about 400 billion dollars in climate spending contained in the bill.

But the oceans will stop rising! Which, by the way, they have been doing for the last 15,000 or so years.

The article at Power Line Blog concludes:

So the Democrats’ prize legislation is an exercise in futility. Unless, of course, you are one of the many Democratic Party constituents who will be cashing the checks that add up to more than $700 billion, with a little over half ostensibly going to benefit the climate.

The purpose here is to buy votes, obviously, and the Democratic Party press is ecstatic over the idea that Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer finally have a “win” to brag about. But I wonder. I haven’t seen much evidence that the Democrats’ deficit spending extravaganzas are especially popular outside the precincts of those who cash the checks. (And, by the way, the number one beneficiary of this particular $700 billion will be the Communist Chinese, who dominate “green” energy.) My guess is that most Americans have caught on to the Democrats’ game, and understand that this legislation will no more dictate the Earth’s climate than it will bring our crippling inflation under control.

That’s where we are, folks.

Telling It Like It Is

Posted on by

I enjoy watching Tucker Carlson. He is generally very direct and very informative. Thursday night was no exception.

The Daily Caller posted part of Tucker Carlson’s Thursday monologue:

“That sound that you’re hearing is the goalpost moving,” Carlson said as he recapped efforts by reporters, media outlets and Biden administration officials to redefine recession. Back-to-back quarters of negative GDP growth is one rule of thumb used to determine if a recession is taking place, according to Investopedia.

“This is from Politico,” Carlson said, “‘The White House is pretty obviously right that even two quarters of shrinking GDP would not show the economy is currently in a recession.’ That’s the word from Ben White, who is the chief economics reporter at Politico. He is backed up by The Associated Press, which is totally real. Just today the AP reported that ‘the U.S. economy shrank for a second straight quarter, raising fears the nation may be approaching a recession.’ We’re getting close now!”

“In other words, two declining quarters of growth is not a recession, just like the White House said,” Carlson continued. “That sounds definitive. It’s always been that way. As long as you don’t have a memory that extends past, say, last week, because just a few weeks ago, before the White House declared otherwise, everyone was saying differently, including Ben White and the AP.”

GDP shrank by 0.9% in the second quarter, according to data released Thursday from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, after the economy contracted by 1.4% in the first quarter. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called the data a “transition” in a clip played by Carlson.

“This is the transition to green energy and renewables,” Carlson said. “Joe Biden announced it today. It’s a transition to handing China our energy grid. Oh, that’s a ‘transition.’ Some might call it the collapse of empire and a subsequent disaster where we are ruled by people who hate us. No, it’s a transition in which China gets to make and control the wind turbines, the lithium, the solar panels.”

And that, folks, is where we are.

A Very Short-Sighted Plan

Posted on by

There is a lot of climate change panic going on right now. It’s summer, and it is hot. In some places it is hotter than it has been for a long time. However, I would hesitate to say that it is hotter than it has ever been (we still haven’t seen plants growing on the Greenland Ice Cap where plant life fossils have been found in the past). Since everyone is sweating and complaining about the heat, this is a really good time to talk about global warming and blame man for its existence. We can choose to overlook climate cycles and simply complain about the heat. The Biden administration is planning to take full advantage of our summer heat wave.

On Tuesday, Townhall reported the following:

President Joe Biden’s Special Coordinator for International Energy Affairs Amos Hochstein made an appearance on CNN Tuesday morning as gas prices continue to bust the budgets of American families. 

During his remarks, Hochstein said the White House does not want oil and gas companies embarking on new projects and that they are working to accelerate the current, extremely painful and unaffordable transition to alternative energy. 

Has it occurred to the brilliant people in the Biden administration that we are more likely to find a way to turn fossil fuel into almost entirely clean energy than we are to be able to run a country on green energy? When you evaluate the push toward green energy by our political leaders, it’s a good idea to look at their stock portfolios and investments as well as their personal actions (private jets, oceanfront property, carbon footprint, etc.). In 2010 I wrote an article about the closing of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) which was doing carbon trading. What had happened was that the Obama administration had not been successful in passing Cap and Trade legislation and the trading of carbon credits was not going to happen. A lot of liberal Congressmen lost money they had invested in the CCX when it stopped carbon trading. That alone should tell you all you need to know about the dreaded climate change.

The article at Townhall notes:

“It’s about making a choice between what is the short term and the medium term so we can make sure we have enough oil and gas to support us through the transition and what are the kind of steps we don’t want the oil and gas industry to take that would have longterm consequences when we don’t want new major projects that would take 20-30 years that would become profitable,” Hochstein said. “So we have to make that differentiation to make sure the American consumer has what it needs to grow, grow our economy and the global economy, but not take steps and endanger the climate work that we’re trying to do to make sure that we’re on a better footing to accelerate the transition.”

The political elites in America will find a way to avoid the suffering that will result from their policies. Meanwhile, Americans who are simply trying to work, raise families, and generally be good citizens will suffer. The only way to deal with the Biden administration is to limit their power by placing conservatives (I didn’t say Republicans) in Congress in 2022 and electing a conservative President in 2024.

 

A New Age Of Government Control

Posted on by

I don’t think our Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves–I think they are spinning. On Monday, Townhall reported that President Biden is planning to use the Defense Production Act to force American companies to help transition to his green energy plans.

The article reports:

“President Biden today issued presidential determinations providing the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with the authority to utilize the Defense Production Act (DPA) to accelerate domestic production of five key energy technologies: (1) solar; (2) transformers and electric grid components; (3) heat pumps; (4) insulation; and (5) electrolyzers, fuel cells, and platinum group metals,” the Department of Energy released in a statement Monday.

In a “fact sheet” released by the White House, Biden administration officials claim the move will spur domestic solar panel production and ramp up so-called “clean energy” projects.

At some point will someone please tell those in charge in the Biden administration (whoever they are) that the sun does not shine 24/7 and the wind does not blow 24/7. Green energy is useless unless it is backed up by a more reliable source of energy.

The article continues:

“Today, President Biden is taking action to: Authorize use of the Defense Production Act (DPA) to accelerate domestic production of clean energy technologies, including solar panel parts; Put the full power of federal procurement to work spurring additional domestic solar manufacturing capacity by directing the development of master supply agreements, including ‘super preference’ status,” the sheet states. “Create a 24-month bridge as domestic manufacturing rapidly scales up to ensure the reliable supply of components that U.S. solar deployers need to construct clean energy projects and an electric grid for the 21st century, while reinforcing the integrity of our trade laws and processes. “

The move echoes efforts made by the Obama administration to prop up solar energy. At the time, Biden was Vice President and the project was a complete failure. It also left American taxpayers on the hook.

Solyndra was the poster child for the government’s last wasteful venture into green energy. I am sure this venture will provide us with more examples of the reason the government should keep its hands off of the free market.

The Unmentioned Cost Of Green Energy

Posted on by

On April 25th, a website called phys.org posted an article titled, “Analyzing bird population declines due to renewable power sources in California.”

The article notes:

A team of researchers affiliated with a large number of institutions in the U.S. has attempted to determine the vulnerability of bird populations to alternative energy production. In their paper published in the journal Royal Society Open Science, the group describes studying the impact on bird populations in California.

While touted as , are not always Earth friendly. Production of solar panels, for example, results in pollution emitted into the environment. More widely known are the adverse impacts of wind and solar farms on animals, particularly birds. Birds can be killed when they try to fly through the rotating blades of wind turbines and they can die from overheating when they fly over large solar farms. They can also die due to displacement from their natural environment. In this new effort, the researchers veered from simply counting the number of birds that are killed by alternative power sources and looked instead to gauge the impact of the combined toll that alternative power plants are taking on populations of vulnerable bird species in California.

The article concludes:

The researchers found that of the 23 species they studied, 11 experienced declines of at least 20% due to exposure to alternative plants. They also found evidence of dangers to several populations due to harm done to migration networks, threats that go far beyond the location of plants.

As I have said many times before, more research is needed before we totally buy into the concept of green energy. It would also be helpful if the government got uninvolved in the quest for green energy and let the free market run free. In a sense, we are in a search for the perpetual motion machine. It may actually exist if fueled by wind or sunlight, but we haven’t found it yet, and the government should not push us into unproven technology.

The Emperor’s New Clothes

Posted on by

“Green energy is the answer to all of our environmental problems,” cries the Biden administration. Never mind the toxic waste created when the solar panels or windmill blades outlive their usefulness. Never mind the toxic chemicals used in the manufacture of solar panels. Never mind the bald eagles being shredded by the windmills. We can overlook those details. However, there is one detail that cannot be overlooked.

On Sunday, The Daily Caller posted an article about a current problem with green energy.

The article reports:

  • Wind and solar companies have reported massive profit declines over the last year as clean energy prices have risen and new installations have been delayed thanks to supply chain shortfalls, market uncertainty and the Ukraine crisis.
  • “One of the problems with this industry as a whole is that, since at its very foundation it is based on government subsidies and government mandates, its market value is never truly known,” said Daniel Turner, the executive director of Power the Future.
  • “90% to 95% of the supply chain does not exist,” RJ Scaringe, CEO of electric vehicle maker Rivian, told reporters in April, according to The Wall Street Journal.

This is what happens when the government interferes in the free market.

The article reports:

The average price for renewable energy technology in North America increased an “astounding” 28.5% between early 2021 and early 2022, according to an April 13 report from renewable industry marketplace LevelTen Energy. Development costs, supply chain issues and market uncertainty are to blame for the setback even as demand for green energy climbed, the report added.

In addition, wind and solar project completions in the U.S. have plummeted over the last two years with the total investment value of such projects falling from $46.2 billion in 2019 to $7.5 billion in 2021, an Industrial Info Resources report published on April 21 showed. In that same time span, the number of wind and solar project completions has decreased from 240 to just 66, a 73% decline.

“Difficulty in obtaining financing, regulatory challenges, or a shortage of available capacity on the transmission grid are three longstanding challenges to getting renewable generation built,” Industrial Info Resources Vice President of Research for the Global Power Industry Britt Burt said in a statement.

“As long as these myriad headwinds persist, we can expect elevated [prices] across North America,” Gia Clark, a senior director at LevelTen Energy, said earlier in April.

The article concludes:

Meanwhile, the head of leading electric vehicle manufacturer Rivian warned that building out the battery supply chain — which includes mining and refining minerals, and assembling costly battery packs — remains a massive hurdle for the industry as governments push increasingly aggressive transition policies, The Wall Street Journal reported. For instance, Biden has promised to craft policies to ensure 50% of new vehicle sales in the U.S. are emissions-free by 2030 and every addition to the federal government’s 600,000-vehicle fleet is electric by 2035.

“Put very simply, all the world’s cell production combined represents well under 10% of what we will need in 10 years,” RJ Scaringe, Rivian’s CEO, told reporters in April, according to the WSJ. “Meaning, 90% to 95% of the supply chain does not exist.”

Kish noted that the price of lithium has risen 1,000% over the last two years.

The green energy market is not yet ready for prime time. It will never be unless the government gets out of the way. Government subsidies do not help an industry–they skew the growth curve by not weeding out the inferior products. When the market place allows companies with superior products to grow because they have a superior product, an industry progresses. When the government is paying the bills, there is no incentive to progress.

The Perils Of Green Energy

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about ESI Energy, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy.

The article reports:

A renewable energy firm that conspired with former president Barack Obama to maim and murder hundreds of majestic bald eagles has finally been brought to justice.

ESI Energy, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy, was sentenced in federal court on Tuesday after pleading guilty to three criminal counts of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The company will serve five years probation and was ordered to pay more than $8 million in fines and restitution for its role in the deaths of at least 150 eagles that were slashed to pieces by its wind turbines.

The article notes:

NextEra, which operates more than 100 wind farms in the United States and Canada, received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal tax credits as part of Obama’s efforts to promote renewable energy. The Obama administration typically granted permits to operators of wind and solar farms that exempted them from federal laws prohibiting the killing of bald eagles and other protected species. NextEra didn’t even bother to apply for these permits, which prosecutors said gave the company an advantage over its competitors that did seek Obama’s permission to commit bird genocide.

Wind farms during the Obama administration were responsible for the murder of more than 573,000 birds each year, including 83,000 hawks, falcons, and eagles, according to the Associated Press. Weaponized solar farms, which also benefited from taxpayer subsidies, were another key component of Obama’s genocide campaign. Sunlight reflected from the massive arrays of solar panels creates a “kill zone” where temperatures can reach up to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. According to Bloomberg, some birds are “incinerated in flight,” while others fall to their deaths after having their feathers singed. Birds that survive the fall are often “too injured to fly and are killed on the ground by predators.”

When discussing green energy, shouldn’t the impact on bird life in America be considered?

Are Electric Cars Really Green?

Posted on by

I am not a scientist, and I don’t claim to be one. However, I do possess a certain amount of common sense. That common sense makes me wonder if the fact that an electric car uses electricity that has to be generated from somewhere else negates the ‘green’ quality of the electric car. Doesn’t it make more sense to use a combustible fuel that directly powers the car without a middle man than to use fuel that has to be generated somewhere else? And what are the sources of the electricity for electric cars? Again, I don’t claim to be a scientist. However, I am not the only one wondering if electric cars are really green.

On Wednesday, The Federalist posted an article about electric cars.

The article reports:

Instead of investing in American energy, Democrats are actively suppressing the American energy industry and then telling Americans to spend their savings on overpriced electric cars to solve their problems. But the left isn’t being honest about the environmental and financial costs of those trendy electric vehicles.

…To advance their climate agenda and deflect backlash about rising gas prices, Democrats are telling Americans that driving electric cars is for the greater good of the environment, fully knowing the charging stations for these cars are not fossil fuel free. 

In reality, one of Tesla’s Supercharger stations was reported to get 13 percent of their energy from natural gas and 27 percent from coal. Power plants burn coal to generate electricity to power electric cars and emit a higher fossil fuel footprint than the left would care to admit. 

While these vehicles may be falsely advertised, many who invest in these overpriced cars are able to avoid paying the currently outrageous gas prices. Still, Americans’ growing reliance on electric cars and the batteries they require will increase our dependence on countries such as China for materials. 

“Chinese companies, particularly CATL, have secured vast supplies of the raw materials that go inside the batteries,” The New York Times reported in December. “That dominance has stirred fears in Washington that Detroit could someday be rendered obsolete, and that Beijing could control American driving in the 21st century the way that oil-producing nations sometimes could in the 20th.” 

By increasing our use of electric cars, the United States will require more lithium batteries and will further rely on China to sustain our supply. While the current energy crisis could be an opportunity for America to increase our energy independence, the current administration refuses to take advantage. 

Americans buying electric cars is not a winning strategy for America.

Priorities?

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Daily Caller posted an article by Victor Davis Hanson that provides some perspective on the current war in Ukraine.

The article notes:

Thousands are dying from Russian missiles and bombs in the suburbs of Ukraine.

In response, the Biden administration’s climate change envoy, multimillionaire and private-jet-owning John Kerry, laments that Russian President Vladimir Putin might no longer remain his partner in reducing global warming.

“You’re going to lose people’s focus,” Kerry frets. “You’re going to lose big-country attention because they will be diverted, and I think it could have a damaging impact.”

“Impact”?

Did the global moralist Kerry mean by “impact” the over 650 Russian missiles that impacted Ukrainian buildings and tore apart children?

The article also asks the obvious question:

But how will the Biden administration square the circle of its own ideological war against oil and natural gas versus handing the advantage to our oil- and gas-producing enemies, as Russia invades Ukraine?

Or put another way, when selfish theory hits deadly reality, who loses? Answer: the American people.

President Joe Biden lifted U.S. sanctions on the Russian-German Nord Stream 2 pipeline designed to provide green Germany with loathsome, but life-saving, natural gas.

But first Biden canceled the Keystone XL pipeline in the United States. He has no problem with pipelines per se, just American ones.

While Biden doesn’t like the idea of Germany burning carbon fuel, or Putin reaping enormous profits from Berlin’s self-created dependency, or Germans importing liquified natural gas from America, Biden also does not like the idea of forcing German families to turn off their thermostats in mid-winter when there is Russian-fed war not far from Germany’s borders.

Here at home, Biden gets even crazier. As our enemies around the world reap huge profits from record high oil and gas prices, did Biden ask Alaska, North Dakota or Texas to ramp up production?

In other words, did he ask Americans to save fellow cash-strapped Americans from a self-created energy crisis, in the way he assured the Germans that during war reality trumps theory?

The article concludes:

Biden also has beseeched the once sanctioned, terrorist Iranian government. He wants Tehran to help us out by upping the very oil and gas production that America has tried to curtail for years. In return, Iran is demanding a new “Iran Deal” that will soon ensure the now petro-rich theocracy the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

On the eve of the Russian invasion, Biden begged Putin to pump even more oil to supplement its current Russian imports to the United States.

Did Putin see that surreal request as yet another sign of American appeasement that might greenlight his upcoming planned invasion? In Russian eyes, was it more proof of American weakness and craziness after the humiliating flight from Afghanistan?

Biden has blasted the human rights record of Saudi Arabia’s royal family. Now he is begging the monarchy to pump more of its despised carbon-spewing oil to make up for what his administration shut down at home. Is that why the Saudi royals refused to take his call?

The moral of Biden’s oil madness?

Elite ideology divorced from reality impoverishes people and can get them killed.

Because we have given up American energy independence (and the ability to supply Europe with energy), we are funding Russia’s war on Ukraine. Until our leaders are willing to acknowledge that fact, I don’t see the war in Ukraine ending or the war on American energy ending.

Some Perspective On Gasoline Prices

Posted on by

Issues & Insights recently posted an article about some of the behind the scenes aspects of the rapidly rising gas prices.

The article notes:

That gasoline prices are becoming unaffordable to many Americans is becoming old news. What got us here, though, is a story unheard by much of the public. It starts and ends with green politics.

As gasoline reaches prices that made it a luxury good during President Joe Biden’s year in office, the White House is considering asking the Saudis to produce more oil. At the same time, the administration apparently wants more oil from Venezuela, which is languishing under a dictatorship that’s squarely aligned with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Iran, a member in good standing with the axis of evil.

“Joe Biden is frantically searching the globe to see if anyone but Texas might have some spare oil,” says a tweet from Bryan Dean Wright, a former CIA officer and Oregon Democrat, that sums up well the comical blundering as well as the corrupt decision-making of the current White House.

The article concludes:

But green politics won’t allow the U.S. to take advantage of its bounty of crude and natural gas. Oddly, though, the environmentalists who hold energy policy hostage when Democrats are in power have no problem with this country importing oil from nations where the drilling and transportation processes are dirtier than they are in the U.S., and the regimes are not democratically elected.

This is the California model. Officials and activists’ rush to create an all-renewables electricity grid has forced the state to import energy from producers in Arizona, Baja California, Colorado, Mexico, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah that rely on natural gas, nuclear energy, and coal, three sources that California wants to eliminate from its portfolio. But this is acceptable, because it’s happening somewhere else, outside the view sheds of the wealthy enclaves on the coast.

It’s the same with the mining of the natural resources that are needed to build batteries for electric cars, cell phones, and other modern conveniences. The political left is happy to use these items as long as the extraction for material used in their manufacture is done away from their myopic gazes in countries where environmental protections hardly exist.

Yes, this not-in-my-back yard attitude is hypocritical, but worse than that, it produces poor public policy. We hope some day a majority of voters consistently figures this out in election after election.

Green energy destroyed the Spanish economy and did not lower carbon emissions (article here). Let’s not do that in America.