The “Greens” promise renewables, solar, and wind power will replace fossil fuels.
After all, the wind and sun are free, and they don’t pollute!
Oops.
Now countries that embraced renewables are so desperate for power that they eagerly import coal, the worst polluter of all! [bold, links added]
Do they apologize? No. Greens never apologize.
Germany was a leader in renewable energy, so confident in solar and wind power that they closed half their nuclear plants.
Oops.
That leaves Germans so short of power that Germans are now desperate to buy fossil fuels from Russia. Even worse, pollution-wise, high pollution coal now tops wind as Germany’s biggest electricity source. That’s really disgusting.
Then, even after putting all that soot in the air, Germans pay more than triple what Americans pay for electricity.
For my new video, I confront German-born environmentalist Johanna Neumann of Environment America, a group that lobbies for 100% renewable energy.
I point out that despite massive subsidies, her beloved renewables still provide just 12% of our power. She responds, “Saying renewables are not yet powering our utility grid is like critiquing a 2-year-old for not being able to run a marathon.”
A 2-year-old? I don’t want to meet that kid. Renewables have been subsidized for 40 years, not two.
“How we spend our taxes ought to be a reflection of our values,” Neumann adds. “Americans … love renewable energy.”
Yes, I suppose we do. We like the idea of it. I put solar panels on my roof. I’d be a sucker not to. Massachusetts takes money from other state residents to give me a tax break on solar panels.
Still, in winter, when the sun is low, or my panels are covered by snow, I get nothing from my solar panels.
What kind of energy solution is that? People need energy when it’s cloudy, too. They also need it when the wind doesn’t blow.
“When the sun goes down … offshore winds get cranked up,” says Neumann.
No, they don’t!
“The wind doesn’t always come up when the sun goes down,” I point out.
“Renewables are clearly better,” Neumann replies.
She says we’ll solve renewable energy’s inconsistency by doing things like storing energy in batteries.
Well, yes, a battery that holds energy for weeks would make renewables work. But it doesn’t exist.
“This is just a total fantasy, which is why nobody has done it anywhere, ever!” says Alex Epstein, author of “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.”
Fossil fuels are moral, Epstein correctly points out, because human flourishing depends on them.
Abundant fossil fuels are especially important for poor people.
“Three billion people in the world still use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. Are we going to allow them to have a modern life? Because that’s going to depend on fossil fuels.”
Even if climate change becomes a serious problem, fossil fuels reduce its harm by making us prosperous enough to afford protection against the climate.
“We have a 98% decline in climate-related disaster deaths over the last 100 years,” Epstein points out.
A 98% drop in deaths! This is the amazing untold story of fossil fuels and their benefits.
Because oil and natural gas so efficiently provide power, heat homes when it’s freezing, pump water during droughts, etc., millions thrive, despite problems like climate change.
Thanks to fossil fuels, “We have this amazing productive ability,” says Epstein. “That’s the only reason we experience the planet as livable.”
Global warming is a threat. Limiting fossil fuels now, without a capable alternative, will make it even harder to deal with the effects.
Unless someone invents a miracle battery or something else that makes sun and wind power practical, we need fossil fuels, desperately.
Poor people need them most.
Read more at Townhall
Sooner or later oil and gas will end, leaving only coal and electric. Coal worked for ships and industry, though hard to shift around and lots of smoke and ash, so not nice for domestic heating or cars. So it’ll be best to live near a nuclear plant of whatever size or type and use both it’s spare heat and it’s power. Nuclear waste is a technology problem so can be solved; and the large amount of energy it makes available will be part of the solution.
Stossel has pointed out some of the stuff the M.S. Media prefer to ignore because it dont fit their scuedual and their liberal left pollacies
Great article, until the end, and the lie about warming being a threat. Until this recent lunacy began, we referred to warm periods as “Optimums”. The Idiocracy is here.
Of course warming is a threat. The climate models say that it is. The fact that these models are over stating the warming is being ignored by the activists and the organizations supporting the cause.
See: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/02/24/latest-climate-models-still-running-far-too-hot/
In reality the earth is warming at the rate of 0.17 degrees per decade. That calculates to 1.4 degrees higher than today by 2100. That certainly doesn’t justify net zero or severely impacting the economic wellbeing of hundreds of millions of people.
So long as we are being all honest about everything, why throw in the alarmist-drivel “Global warming is a threat!”
Is it? To what? To plants thriving so much that our deserts are shrinking. To the coasts due sea level rise which is so slow and has been occuring over the last 20,000 years since the last major ice age?
And if it is truly global warming, why aren’t we talking about the sun cycle and volcanic activity as contributing culprits? That is the source of the energy.
And this is a planet with all life carbon-based. Why is more CO2 in the atmosphere bad? Why is that an existential threat?
One thing that is always consistent with environmental “activists.” You will note that they never offer a valid, constructive alternative to replace fossil fuels, which currently account for 80% of our domestic primary energy. There is a distinction (here). “100% renewables by XYZ Date” is not supported by one creditable, peer reviewed engineering analysis to the best of my knowledge. I’d submit that “mantra” you hear repeatedly is a SLOGAN, not a real solution…
Randy, many of the activists do have an alternative to fossil fuels. It is called energy poverty. Remember that one of the three original motives that started the global warming movement was to force de-industrialization. However, this is hardly constructive.
If you are being rational & HONEST, most things involve “trade offs.” One of the things Mr. Epstein correctly points out in his narratives is that when you look at the pros of fossil fuels vs. the cons, the benefits to modern mankind have FAR exceeded the downside. This is what the “activists” ALWAYS overlook. When you are driven by ideology & “religious zeal” when you are in the energy arena as opposed to scientific facts, energy imperatives & critical thinking, you fall into the trap of PRETZEL LOGIC. Drama & theater have little applicability in the energy arena…