solar

Norman Rogers, Physicist. Contributor to Powerline, Board Member: CO2 Coalition, National Association of Scholars, Policy Advisor: Heartland Institute, Member: American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society: It is easy to tell when an energy source is “dumb”–i.e. inefficient, unreliable and expensive. Smart energy sources like coal, nuclear, hydroelectric and natural gas, exist because they satisfy a permanent demand for cheap and reliable energy. Dumb energy sources exist because government has put its thumb on the scale in the form of subsidies and mandates. Dumb energy will cause disastrous collapse of the modern world, even walk-in conquests by enemies.

John Hinderaker, POWERLINE blog: Minnesota is a poor place for solar power, so its renewable policies have focused on wind. Minnesota has gone whole hog for wind energy, to the tune of approximately $15 billion. It is noteworthy that demand for electricity in Minnesota has been flat for quite a few years, so that $15 billion wasn’t spent to meet demand. Rather, it replaced electricity that already was being produced by coal, nuclear and natural gas plants. Wind energy is intermittent and unreliable; it can only be produced when the wind is blowing within certain parameters, and cannot be stored at scale. It is expensive and inefficient, and therefore patently inferior to nuclear, coal and natural gas-powered electricity, except in one respect–its “greenness.”

Michael Shellenberger, Founder - President of Environmental Progress: Bill McKippen, Alexandris, Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are behind the Green New Deal in Congress. This will stop fossil fuels and nuclear and leave the government in charge of most of the things in our private lives. The Socialist revolutions of the last century all over again.

Congress Woman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D, NY launched her Green New Deal February 7, 2019. It is by far the largest plan ever for the United States government to take control of most aspects of every American's life and spend tremendous amounts of money that doesn't exist. It would far surpass the artificial economies of Communist China and the Soviet Union. This is a massive transformation of American society with clear goals and timeline. The Green New Deal resolution is a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale never seen before. It aims to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all. This is preposterous: If implemented, it will replace the unmatched successful capitalism economic model with a profoundly failed socialism economic model. It will obliterate the American currency, which is already seriously compromised by four decades of accumulating a 20 trillion dollar national debt. It will exceed this national debt many times over.

Michael Shellenberger, Founder - President of Environmental Progress: If solar and wind farms are needed to protect the natural environment, why do they so often destroy it?

Mark P. Mills, economics21.org, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute: Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of nonrecyclable plastic. Solar power requires even more cement, steel and glass—not to mention other metals. Global silver and indium mining will jump 250% and 1,200%. World demand for rare-earth elements—which aren’t rare but are rarely mined in America—will rise 300% to 1,000% by 2050 to meet the Paris green goals. If electric vehicles replace conventional cars, demand for cobalt and lithium, will rise more than 20-fold. That doesn’t count batteries to back up wind and solar grids.

John Shanahan, civil engineer, editor allaboutenergy.net: The American 2020 election in November will have perhaps the biggest consequences of any election in its history. CHOICE ONE: huge, even one-world government, where a few ideologues opposed to rules for a Republic established by the Founding Fathers pretend to solve all the country's energy, economic and social problems. CHOICE TWO: small government with maximum freedom for all. The choices are crystal clear and will take the United States either to a beautiful place with plentiful energy and prosperity or to where everyone is dependent on the government in a miserable economy. Wind and solar energy or fossil fuels and nuclear power. Don't decide on the personalities of the individual candidates. Decide on what they will deliver for you and our country.

Paul Driessen, Committee For A Constuctive Tomorrow: As an Australia-wide heat wave sent temperatures soaring above 105 degrees F (40.6 C) in early 2017, air conditioning demand skyrocketed. But Adelaide, South Australia is heavily dependent on wind turbines for electricity generation – and there was no wind. Regulators told the local natural gas-fired power plant to ramp up its output, but it couldn’t get enough gas to do so. To avoid a massive, widespread blackout, regulators shut off power to 90,000 homes, leaving angry families sweltering in the dark.

Most of my friends support the content of 2,800 articles about energy on the website: allaboutenergy.net. Some live in doubt and fear of carbon dioxide, the molecule of life, thinking it causes catastrophic global warming, hate fossil fuels, and fear nuclear power. Haven’t been able to convince them that these things are safe and necessary in the modern world. Win some. Lose some. Don’t worry. Be Happy!

Nuclear power is one of the safest things mankind has ever developed, even with the accidents of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Nuclear medicine, nuclear technologies, and nuclear science will make the future even greater.

Driving a car, riding a bicycle, meeting friends, playing sports, going to church, using the Internet, lying in bed, and attending family reunions are riskier than living near a nuclear power plant designed to standards of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Europe, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, UAE, and the USA. Probably also China and Russia.

During a press conference held in Paris on December 2, 2015, Dr. James Hansen provided an explanation of what he called a simple market-based approach to address CO2 emissions. He suggests that a worldwide fee on all hydrocarbon fuels could be assessed at the domestic mine or port of entry. Hansen believes that cap and trade has been tried and has failed.

• Earth’s temperature has risen by 0.14° F (0.08° C) per decade since 1880, and the rate of warming over the past 40 years is more than twice that: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade since 1981.

The website: allaboutenergy.net doesn't raise a question about NOAA’s climate data although others do raise the question of manipulation and misinterpretation. We question conclusions about atmospheric CO2 being the main driver of Earth's climate and claims that controlling atmospheric CO2 will control Earth's climate. Furthermore, we question claims that extracting CO2 from the atmosphere or limiting emissions from fossil fuels will control CO2 in the atmosphere. We think that CO2 emissions from vast CO2 reservoirs in the oceans and life on land are dominant controls of long-term atmospheric CO2.

John Shanahan is a civil engineer and past president of Go Nuclear, Inc. and Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: There is a titanic struggle regarding nuclear energy, fossil fuels, wind, solar and bio-fuels and the topic of man-made global warming and man-made sea level rise. This article presents the position of the website: allaboutenergy.net. The right combination of energy sources and position on the topic of catastrophic man-made global warming and sea-level rise is extremely important for humanity, the environment and all of nature.

Bill McKibben, founder of the grassroots climate campaign - website 350.org: Titled “The Sky’s the Limit,” a report by the London-based think tank Carbon Tracker Initiative begins by declaring that “solar and wind potential is far higher than that of fossil fuels and can meet global energy demand many times over.” Scientists have long noted that the sun directs more energy to the Earth in an hour than humans use in a year. But, until very recently, it was too expensive to capture that power. That’s what has shifted. On the actual Earth, circa 2021, the report reads, “with current technology and in a subset of available locations we can capture at least 6,700 PWh p.a. [petawatt-hours per year] from solar and wind, which is more than 100 times global energy demand.”

This idea, while numerically accurate, ignores the facts that solar (and wind) energy have the least energy density by far and are not always available and are not steady. All basic essentials for a successful modern world with respect for the environment and wildlife habitat.