Hundreds of billions of new subsidies will bring expensive, unreliable ecological destructive power
Paul Driessen
Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) wants regulatory reform, in part to reverse some of the Biden Administration’s reversals on Trump-era reforms to expedite licensing of fossil fuel projects .
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) needs Manchin’s vote in the 50-50 Senate to enact his latest round of extravagant spending, the Inflation Reduction Act, essentially a subsidy mechanism. “green” energy and climate at large. It gives Schumer allies about 370 billion dollars in wind, solar, battery and other funding sources, tax credits and subsidies. In return, Schumer would offer a path to Manchin’s reform bill.
Manchin voted YEA, and was immediately arrested. When he helped issue an IRA, he had no leverage. Schumer, he discovered, had promised an opportunity, possibly a vote, but not real support. Members of the House and Senate told him, we are not engaged in your secret negotiations with Schumer; we didn’t shake hands in any deal; we don’t want easier licensing of the drilling, pipelines and LNG terminals that could help bring US natural gas to the UK and Europe.
In the end, maybe it was a good thing that Manchin’s bill went nowhere.
Yes, it has provided some much-needed reform and is long overdue to limit the analysis paralysis and endless lawsuits that have plagued fossil fuels, highways, airports. and countless other projects over the decades.
But it also has Trojan horse provisions that will unleash a slew of new subsidized wind, solar and power transmission devices across much of the Lower 48 U.S., to send fake clean electricity. to most Democratic cities and states that don’t want to “reinvent” electricity production in their own backyard.
Like The Wall Street Journal and energy analyst Robert Bryce Manchin’s “reforms” will give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and other authorities the power to license and force many states to accept new transmission lines. and 200-foot-tall towers over their landscapes, habitats, agriculture, and even. residential land – if the federal government decides these roads are in the “national interest”. This can be easily converted into the federal power of the famous domain, to Take it required area.
The Federation could decide that thousands of miles of new transmission lines are in the “national interest,” for example, if the lines “enhance the capacity” of solar and wind facilities in the United States. distant to connect their intermittent, weather-dependent energy to the grid; or allow far-flung blue states to meet their renewable energy goals; or help achieve Biden Governance Goals stop man-made climate change, “promote environmental justice” and have a “gridless economy” by 2050. Hopefully, at the same time, avoid the nightmares of blackouts every week. .
Populous states like New York can also partner with FERC & Co. to install offshore wind turbines far from less populated coasts, like Maine or North Carolina – and provide electricity to the Empire State. New York’s peak summer demand alone calls for 2,500 massive 12MW offshore 680-foot turbines that operate 24/7 – when we’re lucky if they generate 40% of the year. (Imagine how many offshore turbines… or 6 MW onshore… we need to power the entire United States.)
Along with energy colonialism, the Manchin reform package will also give FERC the power to allocate and “socialize” transmission lines. costso residents of states that don’t even get any electricity sent along the newly imposed transmission lines will still have to help pay for them.
In short, federations will be able to traverse states, local communities, and federalism.
Let me say it again: Sunshine is free, clean, green, renewable and sustainable. But belt This diffuse, unreliable, weather-dependent energy to power civilization certainly isn’t. And every bit of “renewable” energy must support with another power – so dual our cash and physical investments.
Green Lobby and its legislative and regulatory friends seem to really think they can pass legislation and special subsidies that require the energy transition by 2050 – and it will only happen. The raw materials will only there, perhaps with a bit of MAGIC: Materials Acquisition for Global Industrial Change. That is, they simply assumed that the necessary raw materials would also there.
None of these lamp companies have given any thought – much less trying to calculate – what this pure transition would require:
How many millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of EVs and backup batteries, millions of transformers, thousands of miles of transmission lines – spanning millions of acres of wildlife habitat wilderness, agricultural lands and landscapes, and people of a time- dignified backyard?
How many billion tons of copper, steel, aluminum, nickel, cobalt, lithium, concrete, rare earths, composite resins and other materials are there? How many trillion tons of ore and overload? How many mines, on how many acres – with how much fossil fuel power to run the massive mining equipment, and how much toxic air and water pollution is released in the process? Where will it be done?
To give an example, just those 2,500 wind turbines for electricity in New York (30,000 megawatts) would require almost 110,000 tons copper – requires mining, crushing, processing and refining 25 million won ton copper ore…after removing some 40 million won ton rocks above to access the ore bodies. Multiply by 50 states – and the entire world – plus transmission.
How many factories and processing plants are needed? How much fossil fuel power to run those big operations? How many thousand square miles of hazardous waste pits are there around the world according to zero to minimum environmental standards, workplace safety standards, child labor and slavery rules?
How many dead birds, bats and endangered species and other species will be killed across the US and around the world – from mining operations, wind turbine blades, white-coated solar panels thousands of square miles of wildlife habitat, and transmission lines impacting the land even more?
How many wills are there? exist storm like Ian or Andrew? Where will we pour green energy? garbage?
It’s not just celebrities and activists who ignore these problems and refuse to address them. They actively block, cancel, moderate, and remove any questions and discussions about them. They partner with Big Tech companies and news agencies, which often seem very willing to help.
The hard reality is, no, there won’t be and there can’t be enough mines, metals and minerals on the entire planet – to achieve any “net zero” US economy by 2050, much less is a global “green” economy.
Here’s another problem: electric vehicles and backup lithium-ion battery modules can spontaneously explode into chemical-fuel hells that cannot be extinguished by conventional fire engines. That brings up an important similarity to the rules Alec Baldwin should have memorized a year ago. Treat every gun as if it were loaded. Never point your muzzle at anything you are not prepared to destroy.
In the Biden-Newsom-Kerry-IPCC energy arena: Treat every electric vehicle and battery backup system as if it were charged and ready to ignite. Never park an electric vehicle, install a PowerWall, or locate a backup power supply facility near anything you are not prepared to destroy.
That includes in your garage; near other vehicles; in the parking garage under apartment and office buildings; in residential areas and highway tunnels; or on cargo ships such as Felicity Ace.
However, we must go with Green Energy programs – as we did with masks, school closures and vaccinations to prevent Covid – because the government, the media and “interest” groups Our publicity” emphasizes that we “follow the science”, There is no doubt (certainly no one is allowed) that we face a “man-made climate crisis”. out” threatens the existence of humanity and “the only Earth we have”.
Because we have to destroy the planet (with green energy) to save it (from climate change).
It’s time to cut this electricity nightmare short, by asking these questions, demanding answers, and ending the notion that governments can simply issue ordinances and force reality to change to respond.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy adviser to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environmental and human rights issues.
Related
