Too much government control negatively affects the people

October 22, 2024

We have all probably noticed that over the last few decades, and likely almost as long as the country has existed, the federal government has been growing and has gotten much bigger, much more powerful, and mind-bogglingly expensive.

While the addition of new government departments, agencies, offices, etc., and their increases in size, may have been intended to improve government functioning, and were done for the best of reasons, that has often not been the result.

While the elements of government are constitutionally under the control of the administration and Congress, that leadership changes fairly often, and with those changes come different ideas about how government should work. But most of the personnel in the various administrative departments and agencies stay in their positions for years or decades, and while they are there they develop their own ideas about how their part of government should work.

These concepts frequently are at odds with what is expected by the people, and what best serves their interests. As a result, terms like “deep state” and “administrative state” have arisen to describe them.

Complaints about this troubling problem are not unusual, and quite often highlight true problems caused by a particular area of government. But the complaints quite often fall on deaf ears, or do not have needed support to change things. A recent correspondence from the CEO of a South Carolina electric cooperative to its customers is a good example.

Palmetto Electric Cooperative President and CEO, A. Berl Davis Jr., identified and explained one such problem brought on by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Davis began by discussing referees in a football game, who he said often operate as if they are more important than the game itself. “I think of the Environmental Protection Agency the same way,” he wrote. “The role they fill is a critical one, but their recent set of regulations on power plants is a bad call. Unfortunately, the consequences will be much worse than merely losing a ballgame. The EPA’s latest interference in the energy industry threatens our access to reliable, affordable electricity. It’s one more reason our cooperative’s energy costs are rising, along with inflation and the increasing price of wholesale power from one of our primary power sources, Santee Cooper.”

EPA’s recent rule aimed at existing coal and new natural gas power plants requires them to either greatly reduce their output or install carbon capture and storage. “In theory, carbon capture and storage, or CCS, might sound like a neat idea. A power plant’s carbon emissions could be injected deep underground rather than released into the atmosphere,” Davis wrote. “But in practice, CCS is unproven and unbelievably expensive. No utility in the country has successfully pulled off CCS at the level the EPA is requiring for America’s fleet of power plants.”

This action’s expense results in higher prices for consumers, and also puts power suppliers in a crisis. As he explains it, “South Carolina urgently needs more power supply, not greater restrictions on our existing power plants or the ones our state needs to build. Our state has already struggled to supply sufficient electricity during the coldest hours of the winter, such as when freezing weather led to rolling blackouts in parts of South Carolina during Christmas 2022. And South Carolina’s power needs are only increasing amid the state’s rapid population and economic growth.”

Some help can come from solar farms, he notes, but also recognizing that solar power is not always there when it is needed, like on cold winter mornings and at night when the sun isn’t shining.

“To keep up, we will need to be able to rely on 24/7 energy sources including natural gas and, at least for now, coal. Yet the EPA seems intent on throwing its yellow flag and ejecting those reliable power plants from the game,” Davis wrote. “The job of keeping the lights on is hard enough during a challenging time for the energy industry. We don’t need the government making it any harder or more expensive for you.” And this problem affects other states, too.

He said further that Palmetto Electric Cooperative is joining other organizations to fight the EPA’s dangerous rules in court and in the Congress.

Decisions like this one are made by bureaucrats in government offices, not by the one law-making body that we have: Congress. Where the environment is concerned, decisions like this one are often the result of political positions and ideals, not on actual problems and needs, and the effects they will have on the people that the bureaucrats exist to properly serve.

The “administrative state” must be brought under control. Our government needs to be reduced in its degree of control, its size and its cost. Its focus must be restored so that it works for the good of all of the people, not just the political faction that most government employees favor, whatever that may be.

In the election next month there is the opportunity to do one of two things: either continue the current trend and increase the size, cost and control of government by electing radical Democrat liberals/socialists, or say a loud “no” to that.

What exactly is carbon dioxide, and why is it such a problem?

October 1, 2024

First it was “global warming,” and now it is “climate change.” It is caused, we are told, by too much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. CO2 is one-part carbon and two-parts oxygen. It is the carbon that is the problem.

“Carbon is a planetary paradox,” according to Arizona State University’s ASU News. “As the foundation for DNA, carbon is essential for all life on Earth. Yet, as part of the compound carbon dioxide, too much of it has built up in our air, threatening life on Earth as well.

“Today, carbon-based fuels power our very way of life. They support the global economy, transport networks and energy infrastructures. Addressing our carbon problem is, in a word, complex.

“Fortunately, it’s also a problem we can solve together.

“At Arizona State University, researchers explore many ways to reduce atmospheric carbon. And by working alongside industry, government, nonprofits and communities, they’re seeking solutions that are good not just for the planet but also human well-being.

“Experts from fields across ASU share how we can start to bring these systems into harmony and build a healthier world for ourselves and our children.

Why is carbon dioxide a problem?

“Our planet has an elegant system to recycle carbon. After making its way through plants, animals, soil, rock and ocean, it goes into the atmosphere — mainly as carbon dioxide — where it begins its journey again. But if Earth is so great at recycling carbon, how did we end up with too much in the atmosphere?

“Around 200 years ago, a key disturbance unbalanced this cycle. People found they could extract oil and coal — two forms of carbon called fossil fuels — and burn them for energy.

“In short time, our way of life came to depend on carbon-based fuel. Many of today’s amenities, like long-distance travel, buying food grown far away and lighting our homes, rely on this fuel.

“But these innovations have a hidden cost. As we burn fossil fuels, we release carbon back into the air, bypassing a natural process that would have taken thousands of years.

“From pre-industrial times to 2021, humans have added an extra 1.69 trillion metric tons to the atmosphere, and scientists estimate we added around 37 billion metric tons in 2022 alone.

“CO2 naturally traps heat, so all that extra CO2 increases Earth’s average temperature. This has noticeably affected our climate and weather patterns. These changes increase flood and fire risk, threaten crops and food security, endanger vulnerable species, expose us to new diseases, and force people to leave their homelands.”

So, that amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem. What besides CO2 is Earth’s atmosphere made of? While the list of components has 16 gases, it primarily consists of four gases: nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and carbon dioxide.

The function provided by each of these is described thusly by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): “Nitrogen dilutes oxygen and prevents rapid burning at the Earth's surface. Living things need it to make proteins. Oxygen is used by all living things and is essential for respiration. It is also necessary for combustion (burning). 

“Argon is used in light bulbs, in double-pane windows, and to preserve museum objects such as the original Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Plants use carbon dioxide to make oxygen. Carbon dioxide also acts as a blanket that prevents the escape of heat into outer space.”

Because CO2 absorbs heat, it is blamed for contributing to the “greenhouse effect,” “global warming,” or “climate change.”

However, the NOAA website from July 2024 tells us that the proportion of these four gases is approximately as follows: nitrogen = 78 percent; oxygen = 20.9 percent; argon = 0.9 percent; carbon dioxide = 0.04 percent.

So, with all that extra CO2 from fossil fuel use, only 4 in 10,000 atmospheric particles are CO2.

As the NOAA said, “Plants use carbon dioxide to make oxygen.” So, plants “eat” CO2 and emit oxygen. That’s a good thing, right?

In Australia, China and nations in Africa, drylands are turning greener. Why? Because of the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

“The primary reason, most recent studies conclude, is the 50-percent rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere since preindustrial times,” according to Yale Environment 360, published by the Yale University School of the Environment.

David McGee, an associate professor in the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, is quoted on MIT’s Climate Portal saying that today’s CO2 levels are actually “nothing special.” “In the past, carbon dioxide levels have been much higher than they are today and much lower than they are today.”

And Earth’s temperatures have been both much higher and much lower than they are today.

Conceivably, the comparatively minor temperature and CO2 increases that have been witnessed recently are not so important in the context of those changes over many decades and centuries.

Perhaps these increases are not really the serious problem the climate crisis faction wants us to believe they are. And maybe if we make changes to how we do things, those changes should be less radical than those proposed.

Coal has been and will be an important factor in our lives

 

October 10, 2023

Some of us remember the days of many years ago being in downtown Bluefield, West Virginia and looking at the then-Norfolk & Western railyard, and seeing dozens, perhaps hundreds of train cars filled with coal, waiting to be taken to market. We also saw dozens of empty cars waiting to be taken to the mines to be refilled.

Those were the days when Bluefield, southern West Virginia and southwest Virginia were bustling with businesses and higher populations, largely due to a vibrant coal industry. But, alas, things began to change, and Bluefield and the surrounding area are much different today as a result.

Changes to coal’s popularity and broad usage have had a big impact on our area and other coal-producing areas. Some of the change was due to normal evolution, as other fuels became more popular and took more of the market. 

But more recently it has been a deliberate effort to kill coal as a fuel, highlighted by President Joe Biden and his fellow “progressives” as they drive toward the goal of killing fossil fuels in the name of protecting the environment.

In addition to, or perhaps a part of that effort is the announcement by former New York City mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg of a $500 million commitment to expand the Beyond Carbon campaign. Its goal is to close the nation’s remaining coal-fired power plants, to cut natural gas plant capacity in half, and stop any new gas plants from being opened within the next six years.

An email from the West Virginia Coal Association (WVCA) contains a statement from the president of the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance, Rachel Gleason. She commented that “It is an absolute attack on our state, our livelihoods, and our families. It is un-American that someone would use their wealth to destroy our state and nation’s industrial base and also seek to send a large segment of the 381,000 American workers in industry to the unemployment line while destabilizing electric reliability and security in America.” 

Likewise, our area will be further affected by this action. And Chris Hamilton, President of the West Virginia Coal Association, expressed his concerns about the future if this effort continues: “Energy experts agree that the U.S. will not have enough reliable energy production to meet demand, and Bloomberg’s efforts, if successful, may result in black- and brown-outs across the country. Bloomberg, the ultra-liberal national Democrat Party, and their environmental extremist group co-conspirators are marching America off an energy cliff and dooming American families to darker days.”  

This also concerns other coal-producing states. Wyoming’s Mining Association Executive Director, Travis Deti, also commented on this development. “It truly is astonishing to see an eccentric billionaire spend his fortune on cutting off people’s electricity. Bloomberg should be held accountable for his callous actions.”

In a communication from the WVCA, Hamilton tells about the coal industry today, and paints the dismal picture that West Virginia faces: “Remarkably, there’s been over $8 billion dollars in new investments in West Virginia mining operations over the past several years, including approximately $2 billion in 2022-2023. These investment dollars may not be of much value to those chasing shiny objects or, like President Biden, forcing a questionable transition away from fossil energy, but to 50,000-plus West Virginians who show up at a mine every day it is extremely important, and will serve to keep our state’s coal industry a vital part of West Virginia’s economy for decades to come.

“The impact the production of met coal alone has on West Virginia is significant, generating approximately $9.6 billion in total economic activity, supporting about 30,500 jobs, contributing nearly $554 million in tax revenue for US state and local governments, and producing about $2.5 billion in labor income in 2019. West Virginia is the leading producer of met coal nationally and we supplied nearly 63 percent of all the met coal distributed to U.S. coke plants.

“The coal industry also provides jobs in predominantly more rural areas of the state, allowing employees who choose to work in the sector the opportunity to stay in their communities.”

Whether the efforts of Biden and the others in the manic drive away from fossil fuels are built upon a true concern for the environment, or just one more effort to increase the level of control government has over the people it is designed to serve, is open to debate.

But if they were giving any value to the many scientists who say the war on CO2 is based upon faulty data, and that the country will not be able to function satisfactorily without a substantial amount of fossil fuel energy for many years in the future, they would not be so blindly determined to continue this war.

Some of the information presented comes from America's Coal Associations (ACA) which represent 381,000 American Workers and $261 billion in America’s economy. The ACA issued its statement on behalf of a dozen coal organizations across the country.

The problems of killing coal and the other fossil fuels are far from over.

Radical efforts in moving away from fossil fuels is very risky

May 23, 2023

There has been a lot of talk lately about gas stoves, and the possibility of them being banned.

A story from the January edition of Popular Mechanics magazine quoted Richard Trumpka, Jr., who is a commissioner on the U.S. Consumer Product and Safety Commission, as saying that due to concerns about health conditions such as respiratory illness, cancer, and childhood asthma, the federal government has a ban “on the table” to prohibit gas stoves in homes. “This is a hidden hazard. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned,” Trumpka said.

Trying to put concerns of a ban to rest, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm assured members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the Biden administration does not seek to ban gas stoves.

“I will say that the Department of Energy is not banning any gas stoves, that we are doing our duty to make sure that appliances are more energy efficient as we are required to do under the Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975,” she told the Committee. “Nobody’s taking my gas stove, nobody will take your gas stove. But in the future, gas stoves that are high-end, which is all that we looked at, can be more efficient.”

Also, at about the same time came news that in order to combat health and climate risks, the state of New York has banned the use of natural gas for cooking and heating in most new residential buildings. And, the Energy Department, “is proposing new efficiency rules for gas stoves that only about half of current models on the market would likely comply with,” The Washington Times reported.

Also, a number of cities in California, Massachusetts and Washington are working to end using natural gas in homes and other buildings.

Burning things like coal, oil, natural gas, kerosene and wood is not good for the environment, as we all know. Burning natural gas in stoves emits nitrogen dioxide (NO2) when it is burned at high temperatures in the presence of nitrogen in the atmosphere. This can irritate human airways and can cause or exacerbate respiratory problems. 

Smoking too much, drinking too much alcohol, and lots of other things are also harmful, but they are not banned, and in some cases not even heavily regulated. The key to this is knowing how harmful to people young and old is it to burn natural gas in homes. 

An article on the Scientific American website notes: “The American Gas Association (AGA), a natural gas industry group, issued a statement pushing back against the December 2022 study that linked gas cooking with asthma. The statement claimed the study authors did not conduct measurements of real-life appliance use and ignored some of the scientific literature on this topic. The AGA cited a separate study that found no evidence of a link between cooking with gas and asthma symptoms of diagnosis.”

While it is true that the AGA has a vested interest in opposing the idea that burning natural gas can potentially cause health issues, the Biden administration also has a vested interest: its mission to kill all fossil fuel use. But since American natural gas is the cleanest on Earth, is our use of it really that harmful to the environment?

And given the way China and India continue to increase their use of fossil fuels, and considering our efforts to make them cleaner, is our using them really a serious problem? Should the U.S. work at a pace to eliminate fossil fuels so fast that it will negatively affect its people, particularly when other nations increase their damage to the environment more than the U.S. reduces it?

Virginian Mark Christie serves on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). He wants people to understand the trouble the nation is headed toward with its current path on energy.

He joined the FERC panel in January 2021, prior to which he was a member and former chairman of the State Corporation Commission, Virginia’s energy regulator, for 17 years.

Appearing before a U.S. Senate committee earlier this month, Christie said that “The United States is heading for a very catastrophic situation in terms of reliability. The arithmetic doesn’t work,” he said. “This problem is coming. It’s coming quickly. The red lights are flashing.”

Christie bases his warning on problems in the recent past, such as the deadly energy catastrophe Texas experienced two years ago, and the problems in the eastern part of the country last year as Christmas approached.

Three other FERC commissioners joined him in the message to the Senate, and Virginia’s Governor Glenn Youngkin and Dominion Energy Virginia have expressed their concerns, too.

The message they are sending is that eliminating most or all fossil-fuel-produced electricity too rapidly, and replacing it only with wind and solar, is a recipe for failure. 

Wind and solar are nowhere near the point where they can carry the load alone. Solar panels and wind turbines produce nothing most of the time. Fossil fuels work all of the time.

Someday in the future wind and solar will have developed sufficiently through natural development to replace fossil fuels. We don’t need this radical effort to force it on the nation.

Re-imagining fossil fuels and their need in nations of the world

April 4, 2023

For the first time in more than a half-century the United States achieved energy independence in 2020 when our level of oil production exceeded our consumption.

This great milestone can be attributed to policies in preceding years that did not inhibit oil and gas production, and the oil and gas industry’s use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, which increased production.

As we all should know, oil and gas are important elements in the future, and will be for many years to come. Even President Joe Biden, who has the goal of ending our use of fossil fuels, admitted that back in February that “We are going to need oil for at least another decade.”

However, a year earlier, Biden began what has been called a “war on fossil fuels” with Executive Orders and policies that severely affected our oil and gas production.

As reported by CNBC, “Biden’s orders direct the secretary of the Interior Department to halt new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters, and begin a thorough review of existing permits for fossil fuel development.” In response to the anti-domestic energy position of the administration, domestic production cannot be increased to help lower prices and keep them lower.

Today, Americans face substantially higher prices on virtually everything in their lives, including electricity, gas and food. When Biden took office in January, 2021 the inflation rate was 1.4 percent, where it had been for the previous 10 months. Four months later inflation had risen to 5 percent, and hit a 40-year high last June of 9.1 percent. In December, inflation had fallen back to 5 percent, still roughly 4 times higher than when Biden took office.

Several factors contributed to the high level of inflation the country has experienced, and while it cannot be totally blamed on Biden policies, it is undeniable that his policies have contributed to the pain the people are living with.

In some parts of the country gas prices reached $5 a gallon, and the price of heating oil reached $5.52 a gallon. 

In response to the high prices of energy these days, the House of Representatives passed H.R.1, the Lower Energy Costs Act. 

The Lower Energy Costs Act addresses energy issues currently affecting the country by incorporating 25 individual pieces of legislation from three different House standing committees. Its goal is to increase domestic energy production and cure some of the price increases by undoing some of the Biden anti-energy policies.

Virginia 9th District Congressman Morgan Griffith described the Act this way: “It includes legislation to disapprove of Biden’s canceling of the Keystone XL pipeline, which cost the United States 11,000 American jobs and could have had a positive economic impact of between $3.4 - 9.6 billion. The additional oil would have been cheaper to transport to American refineries by pipeline, rather than moving the oil by truck or train. This would have kept gasoline prices from rising as much.”

H.R.1 requires the Department of the Interior to resume lease sales on federal lands and waters, and repeals many restrictions on the import and export of natural gas, including liquid natural gas. 

Also included in H.R.1 is legislation to repeal Biden’s natural gas production tax. This tax has helped increase household energy bills across the country. 

The Act reforms the country’s permitting process through changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitting process. These changes will streamline federal environmental reviews for all sectors of our economy by ensuring that the NEPA review challenges are substantive, and by setting deadlines for completion of the NEPA reviews.

It also repeals Section 134 of the Clean Air Act, relating to the greenhouse gas reduction fund. This $27 billion fund was implemented as part of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act to advance the bad policies of the Green New Deal.

Unfortunately, before the House passed H.R. 1, Biden threatened to veto the legislation, to the detriment of the country. And the Democrat-controlled Senate has so far indicated opposition to anything the Republican-led House passes.

The world’s need for continued use of fossil fuels, particularly oil products and natural gas, is obvious. And since the U.S. has abundant quantities that it and the rest of the world needs, we should continue to produce and sell those products until, through natural evolution, that need becomes non-existent. 

The United States does more to reduce carbon emissions than nearly any other country, and much better than China and India. Why punish Americans by imposing restrictions on their use of necessities and comforts to reduce these emissions when other countries are doing the opposite?

Is now really the right time to buy an electric vehicle?

November 15, 2022

One of the things the green movement strongly encourages is moving away from gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles and replacing them with electric vehicles (EVs). Since EVs don’t burn gasoline or diesel fuel, they do not emit CO2 into the air, and this is one of the major advantages of EVs. There are also other positive things about EVs.

Some of those advantages, according to drivingelectric.com, are that they are simpler and more reliable. They are quiet and relaxing, but can also be fast and exciting. And since they have smaller engines and their very large batteries can be laid out underneath the vehicle, they have more luggage space and more legroom for passengers.

But there are other factors to the story.

Libertarian author, commentator, and consumer journalist John Stossel wrote an article published by the Daily Signal earlier this month addressing electric vehicles, explaining ways in which EVs are not the wonders their proponents would like for us to believe.

There is a rush to impose EVs on the public. For example, some states have banned gas-powered cars altogether. “California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order banning them by 2035,” Stossel wrote. “Oregon, Massachusetts, and New York copied California. Washington state’s politicians said they’d make it happen even faster, by 2030,” just several years from now.

Stossel quotes physicist Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute, who said, “Electric cars are amazing. But they won’t change the future in any significant way (as far as) oil use or carbon dioxide emissions.”

Stossel wrote: “Inconvenient fact 1: Selling more electric cars won’t reduce oil use very much. ‘The world has 15, 18 million electric vehicles now,’ says Mills. ‘If we [somehow] get to 500 million, that would reduce world oil consumption by about 10%. That’s not nothing, but it doesn’t end the use of oil.’

“Inconvenient fact 2: Although driving an electric car puts little additional carbon into the air, producing the electricity to charge its battery adds plenty. Most of America’s electricity is produced by burning natural gas and coal. Just 12% comes from wind or solar power.” “You have to mine, somewhere on Earth, 500,000 pounds of minerals and rock to make one battery,” Mills said.

“If you’re worried about carbon dioxide,” says Mills, “the electric vehicle has emitted 10 to 20 tons of carbon dioxide (from the mining, manufacturing, and shipping) before it even gets to your driveway.”

“Volkswagen published an honest study [in which they] point out that the first 60,000 miles or so you’re driving an electric vehicle, that electric vehicle will have emitted more carbon dioxide than if you just drove a conventional vehicle,” Mills added. You would have to drive an electric car “100,000 miles” to reduce emissions by just “20 or 30%, which is not nothing, but it’s not zero.”

Stossel then adds: “If you live in New Zealand, where there’s lots of hydro and geothermal power, electric cars pollute less. But in America, your ‘zero-emission vehicle’ adds lots of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.”

There is also the possibility of batteries catching fire. Breitbart reported that “In July, a battery fire caused an electric bus to burst into flames in Hamden, Connecticut. Luckily, no one died in the inferno, although two transit workers and two firefighters were hospitalized as a result of the blaze, and a federal investigation was triggered.”

EVs will work pretty well close to home. They can be recharged overnight in your garage. But when you take a 200 mile or longer trip, finding a convenient charging station when you need one, and charging your EV may take a few hours. This depends upon the vehicle’s battery, the charging rate of the charger, and perhaps how long you must wait in line to access a charger.

“The average price for a brand new EV is about $55,000,” according to the National Motorists Association. “That’s considerably higher than the average four-door sedan, which runs about $35,000, according to Kelly Blue Book. Tax credits and gas savings can save you money, however, it’s going to take a few years to make up a potential $20,000 difference.”

“Totaling all factors [purchase price, maintenance and fuel costs] total costs over the average use of the vehicles are $71,770 for EV’s and $58,664 for gasoline powered cars.”

And then there’s the cost of replacing the battery, which lasts from 8 to 15 years. Consumer Affairs “reached out to five mechanics and technicians from different parts of the U.S. to see how much an EV battery replacement costs for different vehicles, and the average results ranged from $4,489 all the way to a staggering $17,658.”

So, the picture of electric vehicles to help save our environment from CO2 is a fuzzy one. And when costs and other factors are figured in, an EV is not yet a viable choice for millions of vehicle owners, especially those living in California, Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington.

As technology evolves, how we produce electricity, the capacity of our electric grid, and the prices involved will improve. But that is years in the future. We have to stop pushing new ideas so hard, and wait until they are ready for large scale use.

We desperately need leaders that can think beyond stage one

September 6, 2022

Nearly 20 years ago the brilliant Thomas Sowell — author, economist, political commentator, and social theorist — released a book titled, “Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One.” This applies to the immediate reaction to some idea to improve a situation, leading to action being taken without first asking, “and then, what will happen?” And then asking that question after each proposed next step.

Sowell gives an example: A state government decides it will help the state to raise taxes on businesses. The immediate result is more revenue for the state. And that is good, the government says. However, over the course of time, those affected businesses might move bits and pieces of their companies to another state, or new businesses may choose another state to place a new factory or operation. 

Over the course of time, the state will lose revenue because businesses will go to other states to avoid the higher taxes.

Had the state government indulged in thinking about what might happen after it raised taxes on business, they might have been able to foresee these very negative consequences. Higher taxes discourage business, therefore while in the short-term revenues will be larger, in the longer term, companies will see that doing business in the state will be more difficult, and some, maybe many, will leave. The state then suffers a loss of tax income, and lost jobs.

Finding examples of how this has worked is not difficult. Such examples are often the result of decisions made on emotion, because they seem to be great ideas to achieve desirable ends, and they feel good. The reality is usually very different.

Here is one example. The question being asked is, “How can we stop the mistreatment of civilians by police?” Well, if police departments have less money to operate on, they will have to do things differently, and the changes will benefit the public, as fewer officers will make fewer horrible mistakes against the public.

We can use social workers to respond to some calls, instead of armed officers. We can tell officers not to arrest people for minor crimes, lessening the number of police/public interactions, and lowering the number of people in jails and those having court proceedings.

Today, we see quite plainly how these efforts have failed. This solution has resulted in police officers quitting and retiring in large numbers. Finding new recruits is difficult, as potential recruits see what has happened, and want no part of a situation that makes them targets. 

Prosecutors do not prosecute all crimes anymore, and many persons charged with a crime are released without even paying a bond. These people are not discouraged or prevented from committing more crimes. Meanwhile, crime is doing well, rising to historic highs in some states and cities.

Another example is that the climate activists tell us that we have got to stop burning fossil fuels and reduce CO2 emissions. One thing we can do, they say, is to stop or substantially slow the production of coal, oil and natural gas in the United States. President Joe Biden, not the sharpest tool in the shed, did this on his first days in office. 

The result was that America’s recently regained position as energy independent and a net exporter of energy came to an end. And now we have to purchase some energy that had been coming from domestic sources from foreign countries, raising the cost of gasoline and other fuels, and helping a foreign country’s economy. The oil we buy from some of them is dirtier than our oil. 

Also, other countries that could be purchasing energy from us, and helping our economy, are instead buying Russian energy, which helps Russia’s economy, and that helps it fight its unprovoked war against Ukraine.

These results could fairly easily have been predicted with a bit of intelligent thought. And, in fact, these results were predicted by those who went beyond stage one and saw where these rash decisions would take us. Too bad Biden and his advisors did not consider the possible results of their plan. Or maybe they just don’t care.

So much of what the political left does or wants to do to “make America better” sounds good, or looks good on paper. But in reality, they often want to undo elements of our country that have worked well for more than 200 years, and the proposed solutions themselves cause problems that are often as bad or worse than the situation they sought to improve.

They don’t seem to understand that making changes to systems that have been in effect for a long time, and are deeply integrated in our way of life, need to be done thoughtfully, and that most of them must gradually evolve to replace existing systems, and not be implemented too quickly, causing chaos.

This is particularly true with climate matters. Clean energy sources like wind and solar power have not evolved nearly enough to take the place of fossil fuels. That will take many years. In fact, the reality is that we may never be able to not rely to some degree on fossil fuels.

New book takes a broader, more realistic view of fossil fuel use

June 28, 2022

In his new book, Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas — Not Less, Alex Epstein agrees that fossil fuels’ CO2 emissions are impacting our climate, and wrote that “I totally acknowledge that they have contributed to the 1ºC warming we’ve experienced over the last one-hundred-plus years, and they will contribute to further warming going forward.”

However, he contends that “the negative climate impacts of fossil fuels will be far, far outweighed by the unique benefits of fossil fuels,” that their impact “would not be catastrophic but rather continue to be ‘masterable’ by ingenious human beings empowered by fossil-fueled machines.”

The advantages of fossil fuels, he wrote, is that their abundance and relatively low cost make them useful so that eventually they will benefit the billions of people who have little or no access to energy. “Fossil Fuels,” he wrote, are “providing four times more energy than all alternatives combined.”

Because of their low cost and reliability they have transformed our environment into “one that is unnaturally clean and unnaturally safe from climate danger.” And while their use did increase the CO2 level, that would be offset by the fossil-fueled machines that provide benefits, like irrigation equipment that counter drought, air-conditioning machines that help us live in very warm climates, and heating units for cold climates.

While conceding that fossil fuels do contribute CO2 to the environment, he called our attention to the excessive and often flat-out incorrect predictions of gloom and doom that have influenced how we do things.

Grossly incorrect predictions of climate doom have been put forth over the years. Highlighting some of these mistakes in not-too-distant history, Epstein provided examples of trusted news institutions wrongly warning us back in the 1970s:

* The Guardian, in 1974: “Space satellites show new ice age coming fast.”

* Newsweek, in 1975: “The cooling world: Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.”

* The New York Times, in 1978: “International team of specialists finds no end in sight to 30-year cooling trend in northern hemisphere.”

More recent predictions that are not included in Fossil Future have been just as wrong, and in the opposite direction, promising death and destruction from a warming world.

* In 2004, the U.S. edition of The Guardian reported that the U.S. Defense Department had told President George W. Bush that European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a “Siberian” climate, triggering nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting across the world.

* In 2008, then-presidential candidate Al Gore predicted that within five years the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely free of ice.

* In 2009, Great Britain’s Charles, Prince of Wales, said that capitalism and consumerism have brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse, and we have only 96 months to straighten things out.

* In 2014, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius, appearing with then-Secretary of State John Kerry, warned that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos." 

Even if you are not a senior citizen that has lived through all these false warnings, you probably realize that none of them has come to pass.

In fact, some positive things have occurred. Even though there has been an increase in atmospheric CO2, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. air emissions — including carbon monoxide, ammonia, nitrous oxides, Sulphur dioxide, and particulate matter — have been reduced from 300 million tons in 1970 to approximately 125 million tons in 2020, despite the increased use of fossil fuels.

This is because the currently used fossil fuels are cleaner than those used many years ago such as wood and animal dung, which were often burned indoors, and we have cleaner methods for using them.

Two other energy sources are not used very much: nuclear and hydroelectric, which Epstein says are discouraged because of the harm they do to the environment. But, he noted that the “radiation in the case of nuclear is trivial, and the waste has been safely managed for generations.” And for hydroelectric, arguing against those projects “in the name of free-flowing rivers … is clearly not focused on human flourishing” that it will provide.

Essentially, he suggests that these arguments greatly exaggerate the dangers of nuclear and hydroelectric, and essentially ignore the positive aspects they provide that will benefit humanity. 

What Epstein accomplishes is something not really complicated, but it is something rather rare; instead of taking one side or the other and pushing it, he accepts the strong points of both sides, and presents both of them. He makes the case that ought to be more broadly presented to us; that we must keep at the top of our thinking how we best serve the needs of the billions of people on Earth by making the most of fossil fuels, and in doing that we also manage the negatives of fossil fuels to prevent them from doing serious harm.

Texas Congressman Chip Roy terms this approach a “humanity-centric alternative to the anti-fossil fuel climate hysteria” so prevalent today.

Are gas prices too high for you? Just get an electric vehicle!

June 14, 2022

As the national average for a gallon of regular unleaded gas crosses the $5.00 mark, drivers across the country are finding it more and more difficult to keep gas in their cars. Those with diesel vehicles are in even worse shape.

In somewhat of a “let them eat cake” moment, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg said recently that people struggling with rising gas prices should just get an electric car. 

Forget buying gas, the price of which has more than doubled in the past year or so. You can just stick your nose in the air as you drive by the gas stations in your new EV.

However, as with every idea, there is a reality that accompanies it, and reality is most often more difficult. 

For example, Kelley Blue Book tells us the average price of an EV was $56,437 in November 2021, and the average price jumped 6.2 percent from the same month a year earlier. The average price of a new compact car, however, was $25,240, less than half the price of an EV.

For an inside look at actually owning and traveling in an EV, we have stories from two people, Wall Street Journal reporter Rachel Wolfe, who described a trip from New Orleans to Chicago, and Emily Dreibelbis, a graduate student at Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism, who took a road trip from Princeton, New Jersey, to Arlington, Virginia and back.

Wolfe said at the beginning that she “thought it would be fun,” and plotted “a meticulous route” using an app that showed public chargers along the 2,000-mile round-trip route she selected.

Most of the chargers on her route, it turned out, were only Level 2. Those take eight hours for a full charge. Fast chargers give an 80 percent charge in about a half-hour, she noted. “Longer than stopping for gas — but good for a bite or bathroom break,” she reported.

 “Over four days, we spent $175 on charging. We estimated the equivalent cost for gas in a Kia Forte would have been $275, based on the AAA average national gas price for May 19. That $100 savings cost us many hours in waiting time,” she wrote.

She also noted that the Kia EV6 she drove had lower range than advertised, that the charging stations had slower speeds than advertised, that many charging stations had problematic cords, and that lots of the country had almost no fast-charging stations at all.

For the entire trip, Wolfe wrote, she spent 16 hours sleeping during the trip and 18 hours waiting to charge the vehicle, spread over 14 charges.

Dreibelbis, an avowed EV supporter, made a trip from Princeton, New Jersey, to Arlington, Virginia, and back. Traveling in her parents’ 2019 Chevrolet Volt, she experienced problems along the way, too.

During her 200-mile adventure, she experienced broken and slow vehicle charging stations, and also found not nearly enough of them. In Maryland, she found three chargers that didn’t work, and one that had an out-of-order sign on it that did work.

Of those that worked, the Level 3 “fast” charger takes about an hour for a charge that gives only 100 miles of range. Other chargers were slower. A Level 1 charger for home use can take up to 10 hours, and a Level 2 charger, like many found in public parking lots, may take up to four hours.

Dreibelbis Googled locations in Arlington and found one site was not accessible, as it was in a private complex, and the next one cost an $11 entry fee just to get to it. She wrote, “Frustrated, I surrendered the money. They only had Level Two chargers, so it took two and a half hours of reading a book in the cold until the car had enough power.”

In the manic drive to do away with fossil fuels, by 2030 the U.S. hopes for 50 percent of new cars sales to be EVs. Last year, EVs were only 4.5 percent of new car sales. 

To meet this goal, things will have to improve quickly. Charging times are long, and charging stations are far too few to service the number of EVs that is desired. Traveling long distances will take hours longer, given the charging times, and the potential waiting in line behind one, two or perhaps three  vehicles to get to the charger. And the price of EVs is often double that of conventionally fueled vehicles.

And then there is the reality of where the electricity comes from to recharge EVs: Much of it comes from fossil fuels: coal and natural gas. So, while driving an EV produces less pollution, generating the electricity to charge them will be producing lots more of it. And the more EVs there are, the more pollution will be required to keep them charged.

Further, the critical elements for EV batteries are being purchased largely from China.

When the time is right for EVs, we will transition naturally to them. That time is not yet, nor anytime soon. The biggest problem with the goals of the left is that they never want to wait until the time is right, but instead cause problems by rushing the issue.

Ending fossil fuel usage is only a dream, at this point in time

Green Energy Mania (GEM) desires that we do away with fossil fuels immediately, without regard to whether the preferred types of green energy sources are available in the necessary quantities to meet the present and future needs of Americans and the rest of humanity.

Few people believe that burning materials to make electricity is a good idea, if there are other ways of producing it. There are, however, lots of people who believe that the GEM goal is so important that it needs to be forced on Americas right away, without regard to the reality that we are nowhere close to being able to produce enough electricity by wind, solar, nuclear, et al, to handle the needs of Americans.

This attitude produces many problems, such as rules and restrictions that were created that affect the production of fossil fuels, reducing their availability and increasing their price.

Furthermore, while the US is at the top of the list of nations reducing CO2 emissions, there are other nations, like China and India, that couldn’t care less about that, and are increasing their use of fossil fuels. Why are we punishing ourselves with expensive and inconvenient restrictions when the reductions they produce are made irrelevant by the increasing excesses of other nations? 

Perhaps the only thing good about Putin’s Russian attack on Ukraine might be that it has highlighted some of the fallacies of the GEM mindset. Not so long ago — 2020, to be exact — the United States had gained the status of being a net energy exporter. And then, Joseph Biden became President of the United States, and willingly gave that up through executive orders that hurt our fossil fuel production and usage.

We must sensibly balance our wants against our needs. No matter how badly people want to end fossil fuel use, we have no choice but to depend upon them until cleaner methods are able to meet our needs. And even more sensibly, let’s use our own fossil fuels, not those of other countries.

Buying oil from places like Venezuela, whose oil is the dirtiest in the world, and America-hating Iran, the world’s top sponsor of terror, is just foolish.

And when we start smartly using our own fossil fuels as needed, let’s stop foolishly making that more difficult and expensive by getting rid of rules and restrictions. Let’s finish the Keystone XL pipeline that will make it safer and faster to get fuel from Canada for use here.

On that topic, Global Energy Institute President Marty Durbin said last year that her organization “opposes President Biden’s action to revoke the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline — the most studied infrastructure project in American history — is already under construction and has cleared countless legal and environmental hurdles. This is a politically motivated decision that is not grounded in science. It will harm consumers and put thousands of Americans in the building trades out of work. Halting construction will also impede the safe and efficient transport of oil, and unfairly single out production from one of our closest and most important allies.”

“Several extensive regulatory studies conducted over the past decade as part of an unprecedented regulatory review concluded the pipeline would enhance the American economy while protecting the environment,” according to the Global Energy Institute.

Those that think not using a pipeline, and transporting fuels instead by trucks and trains — which burn fossil fuels while moving those fuels, putting lots of CO2 into the air, which a pipeline does not do — are not thinking clearly.

The Keystone XL pipeline would deliver over 800,000 barrels of oil a day. Its construction supports over 13,000 Canadian and American workers in the building trades.

And, while the U.S. and some other nations are working to phase out the use of coal for electricity production, others are increasing its use.

Citing data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the Heartland Daily News, published by The Heartland Institute, reported that “Global coal demand fell by 4 percent in the pandemic year 2020, the biggest decline since World War II, but coal demand surged in 2021 as economies rebounded from the 2020 lockdowns. The IEA projects coal use will rise at an annual rate of 6 percent through 2024, surpassing its previous all-time high for use sometime in 2022.”

“According to the IEA,” the Heartland report continued, “the gap between the political commitments to meet net zero carbon dioxide emissions and the realities of the electric power demand and the increasing use of coal to satisfy it, is widening.”

We need fossil fuels, and will for some time to come. And, other nations are going to continue to use fossil fuels, regardless of what the U.S. and other nations decide to do, or what they may think is needed. 

Some nation or nations will benefit from producing those products. Why should that not be the U.S.? We will benefit from the jobs created, and the income produced, and we might as well enjoy the cost savings that using American fossil fuels will provide to us.

Renewable energy to replace fossil fuels? Will that be much better?

We have been told for years about the damage to the environment of burning fossil fuels, and the marvelous benefits of renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Steps have been taken and more are being put forth to reduce the amount of CO2 we produce, on concerns of “climate change.” America, incidentally, has led most, if not all, of the world in reducing CO2 in recent years.

And, regardless of whether humankind is really harming the environment to a serious level, we can agree that wind and solar energy are far less polluting when they are in use than machines that burn oil, gasoline, diesel fuel and natural gas.

But when you look at what happens in the process of turning these sources into useful products, and what happens to them after their useful life is over, a very different story emerges.

The details of these processes and products were explained in a Prager University video featuring Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, who discussed the environmental costs of using these energy sources.

First, windmills and solar panels, and the batteries to store the electricity they produce, are made from non-recyclable materials, Mills said. And after some 20 years since the wind and solar energy technologies were born, and after billions of dollars of subsidies, those two sources provide less than three percent of the nation’s power. 

Mills explained that the maximum rate that wind can be turned into electrons is about 60 percent, and the maximum for sunlight is about 33 percent. As of now, we can convert 45 percent of blowing wind and 26 percent of shining sun. Technology is now able to get a little more than half the possible electrons from the wind and the sun. That will likely increase as technology advances.

Since the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine all the time, excess electricity must be stored in batteries. Mills put that into perspective: The world’s largest battery plant, created by Tesla in Nevada for its electric vehicles, would need 500 years to make enough of the batteries it makes today to store enough electricity for just one day of current U.S. demand.

Of course, more battery plants will gradually be built, and perhaps the capacity and efficiency of batteries will also increase. But this presents a tremendous challenge if the U.S. is to end using fossil fuels, as we are told we must, in favor of renewables.

The processes to enable wind and solar energy to produce electricity, he said, are quite expensive, in environmental terms.

One electric car battery weighs half a ton. But to acquire the materials to produce it, 250 tons of earth from somewhere must be mined and processed.

One 75 mega-watt wind farm powers 75,000 homes, and requires 30,000 tons of iron ore, 50,000 tons of concrete, and 900 tons of non-recyclable plastic. And a 75 mega-watt solar farm requires 150 percent more materials — concrete, steel and glass — than a wind farm.

The rare earth and other metals needed — lithium, cobalt, copper, iridium and dysprosium — will require a massive increase in mining activity: from 200 to 2,000 percent of the mining now occurring.  Rare earth materials are mostly not available in the U.S., but must be acquired from other countries Some of them, like China, are hostile to us. In 2019, China was responsible for 80 percent of rare-earth materials.

And, the equipment and processes used in acquiring and refining the materials, and constructing and installing the windmills, solar panels and batteries are powered by fossil fuels.

After about 20 years of production, these windmills and solar panels will have exhausted themselves, leaving millions of tons of non-recyclable waste behind that must be put somewhere.

Mills also said that the plastic waste from these sources will total more than twice the amount of all existing plastic waste.

Using the sun and the wind to our benefit makes perfect sense. The more seasoned readers may remember fondly your grandmother or mother hanging freshly washed clothes on the line in the back yard to dry in the sun and breeze. And then electric dryers came along.

The idea that transitioning from burning fossil fuels to wind and solar energy to produce electricity will be cleaner is false. We will trade polluting the air for producing tons of solid waste.

Too much of anything can be harmful: too much vitamin C, too much water, too much sun, too much oxygen, and too much CO2. But the environmental cost to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar power might be as expensive, or more expensive, than the cost of burning fossil fuels, in terms of the waste that is produced.

Geologist and earth scientist Professor Ian Plimer, who is called a “climate change denier” by some, said our “climate is cyclical,” and that Earth is heading to an ice age.

“We are getting towards the end of the warm period, the peak of the warmth was about 5,000 years ago and we are heading for the next inevitable ice age,” he told Sky News.

If so, someday we may want and need more CO2, not less.

America’s energy picture is very good, and getting even bette

In 2019, for the first time since 1957, America’s energy production exceeded its energy consumption, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports. And energy exports exceeded imports for the first time since 1952.

Fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and petroleum — accounted for 93 percent of U.S. energy production in 1966, and despite the arrival of new fuels for energy production, fossil fuels still accounted for 80 percent of our energy production last year.

Over the last decade coal has been replaced as the leading fuel for energy production, due to both natural and unnatural causes, by natural gas, which has seen a dramatic increase over that same period. Hydraulic fracturing — fracking — has spawned great increases in both oil and natural gas production, making natural gas more affordable, thus favored for electricity production.

Renewable sources — primarily wind and solar — have seen production increases over the last two decades, but are currently responsible for only about 12 percent of electricity production.

The U.S. has maintained the title of number one producer of natural gas since surpassing Russia in 2011, and it became the number two producer of oil, surpassing Saudi Arabia, in the last couple of years. Further, the U.S. now exports more oil than most OPEC countries, and exports liquified natural gas to 38 countries.

One definition of energy independence is when a country produces more energy than it consumes. By this definition, the U.S. is energy independent. However, things are frequently less simple than they seem. Even though the U.S. exports excess energy, it still imports energy, and is therefore is not purely energy independent. Some experts contend that it is important that we continue to do business with other producers, and buying from them as well as selling to them is smart, they say.

There are currently 3 million workers in good-paying U.S. jobs in the natural gas and oil workforce, many of whom work in skilled trades and science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields, according to the American Petroleum Institute (API). Among those jobs are construction workers, operating engineers, pipefitters, plumbers and boilermakers, as well as data analysts and computer scientists. Another 5.86 million jobs are in the supply chain for the oil and gas industry.

The API further notes that average annual pay in the industry is near $100,000, and that is almost $50,000 higher than the national average. And, there is the projection of 1.9 million additional jobs by 2035. API also reported that “the energy industry is poised to provide stable livelihoods to an expanding workforce – one increasingly comprised of veterans, women and minorities.”

Globally, NS Energy ranks oil as the most utilized fuel at 39 percent of all fuels; followed by coal at 28 percent; natural gas at 22 percent; hydroelectricity at 6 percent; nuclear at 4.4 percent; geothermal, biomass and waste at 0.4 percent; and solar at 0.03 percent.

Clearly, there is a world-wide need for the fuels America produces, and combined with the country’s needs, the energy sector is a provider of a lot of good-paying jobs. 

Enter, stage left, Joe Biden, Democrat nominee for President of the United States. In the Democrat primary debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said: "I'm talking about stopping fracking as soon as we possibly can. I'm talking about telling the fossil fuel industry that they are going to stop destroying this planet — no ifs, buts and maybes about it." To which opponent and former Vice President Joe Biden said, “So am I.”

Not long after agreeing with Sanders, his campaign issued a retraction. And more recently, Biden told union workers, "I am not banning fracking. Let me say that again. I am not banning fracking.”

He told his Democrat comrades one thing, and wooed his union voters with an opposite message. Which one should we believe? Maybe Biden himself isn’t sure.

A Biden-Harris administration — or a Harris-Biden administration, whichever it is — can only do great harm to the burgeoning oil, gas, and coal industry that has such a bright future providing needed fuels to the world, and jobs to the U.S.

Biden has pledged to the climate change faction that fossil fuel use in the country will end by 2035. Bye-bye 5 to 10 million industry jobs. Including fracking. That should make the folks in fracking states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Texas very unhappy.

But replacing fossil fuels with renewables is not as easy as we are led to believe. Those technologies are not currently up to the job, and producing solar panels and wind turbines is a huge, and not environmentally friendly, challenge.

Producing elemental silicon pure enough for solar PV cells requires an enormous amount of electricity, and turning raw silicon into finished wafers pure enough for solar cells involves several toxic and corrosive materials. 

Windmills kill thousands of flying creatures annually, and require enormous amounts of concrete. Both solar and wind utilize large amounts of land dedicated to the production of electricity. And worn out enormous turbine blades are not recyclable, meaning they will forever clog up landfills.

Biden and others supporting renewable energy as an easy and non-problematic solution to supposed climate change are deceiving the public.

California’s troubles are many, and some of them are manmade

 

“In the last few days, a moisture-laden heat wave has unleashed extreme weather in almost every corner of California,” the Los Angeles Times reported on August 18. “In a single day, Northern California was hit with triple-digit temperatures, as well as hundreds of lightning strikes that ignited brush fires. The mercury hit 107 degrees Sunday in Santa Cruz, known for its moderate climate, and Death Valley reached 130 degrees — one of the hottest temperatures ever recorded there.”

 

And then things got worse. High temperatures created a demand for electricity that the state’s electric utilities could not meet. Rolling blackouts turned off the lights and air conditioners of two million state residents without warning, as utilities cut power to blocks of communities in order to protect the state’s electrical grid. This heatwave has been termed the worst in generations, and the state’s power utilities simply could not produce what was needed.

 

California, perhaps the most “progressive” of our 50 states, fancies itself a leader in what’s best. And where electricity production is concerned, renewable energy sources like wind and solar are best, and fossil fuels are worst, according to politically correct wisdom.

 

California seeks to generate 60 percent of electricity via renewables by 2030, and has a long way to go. An estimated 34 percent of the state’s power came from renewables in 2018, according to the California Energy Commission.

 

In its “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” drive to replace natural gas production with wind and solar, the state’s very ambitious climate policy forced the retirement of 9 gigawatts of natural gas capacity over the past five years. That’s enough electricity to power 6.8 million homes.

 

This was done despite years of warnings that there would not be enough power generation during the peak period in summer, and that a potential shortfall of 4.7 gigawatts in evening hours could occur starting this year.

 

Despite these changes in electricity production, a staff attorney at Communities for a Better Environment, described as an environmental justice nonprofit, blamed the outages not on inadequate renewable energy production, but on natural gas.

 

“It was actually gas that failed,” said attorney Shana Lazerow. “We should be talking about how gas is unreliable.”

 

The basis for her statement is that gas is to blame because burning gas creates climate warming, and climate warming is why California is trying to rid itself of any and every fossil fuel. She fails to note that whatever the actual cause of the heatwave — climate change or the Earth’s periodic alternating cooling and heating phases — having more natural gas electric facilities would produce the power to make up for production levels that solar and wind cannot meet.

 

But, of course, what is actually unreliable is wind and solar energy, especially for large scale applications like an entire state’s electricity needs.

 

If you want to lower your electric bill by putting some solar panels on your roof, go for it! Once the investment is paid off, you will likely save money. Particularly if you live in a sunny place and have the panels located where the sun will shine on them as much as possible. And, if you can store the excess energy for periods when the sun doesn’t shine.

 

But you might want to have a back-up plan, like being a customer of the electric company.

 

On the state level, California should have maintained backup natural gas production facilities to even out energy production when wind and solar cannot meet demand. Or, had enough storage for ample excess power to cover low production levels.

 

“Big Batteries Needed To Make Fickle Wind And Solar Power Work” headlined a report by NPR.com discussing the need for storage of power produced by wind and solar applications to fill the gap when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.

 

However, the report continues, “Nobody really knows how the batteries can best smooth out the irregular power supply from wind and solar power.”

As the NPR report further noted, “That's partly because batteries aren't very efficient. Batteries waste about 25 percent of the energy in the process of being charged and discharged. These sodium-sulfur batteries need to be heated to 600 degrees Fahrenheit to work.”

In other words, California overdrove its headlights in the rush to replace dependable fossil fuels for electricity production in favor of unreliable renewables like wind and solar. Was California a student of the Obama administration’s manic efforts to do away with fossil fuels, or was it a partner?

 

This is yet more evidence of the failure of “progressive” ideals to actually deliver the results that are promised.

 

James Delingpole, writing for Climate Depot, tells us that “No successful economy has ever done [what California is trying to do]. Those that have tried — such as the state of South Australia — have had the same result as California: rocketing electricity prices; blackouts and brownouts; an exodus of businesses; misery and disruption for everyone unfortunate enough to still live there.”

 

Someday in the future, after technologies have been developed to assist wind, solar and other so-called “renewables,” the transition to non-fossil fuel energy will naturally occur. We must be smart and stop rushing the process.