The Not Ready For Prime Time Power Players

The idea is a good one. There’s no doubt about that. Renewable energy. It’s cleaner and, therefore better for the environment, and that’s true whether you believe in man-made climate change or not. But like any new innovation, we should be able to expect that it will improve our daily lives, not degrade our standard of living.

Yet today, those who count themselves among the green energy movement are – unwittingly or otherwise – willing to degrade our standard of living by moving prematurely to green energy while simultaneously dismantling our country’s existing power sources.

‘Settled Science' Or Opportunistic Science?

Climate alarmists are the driver behind this unnecessary depreciation of our standard of living, basing their alarmism on climate theory; a theory that has just as much data in opposition to its existence – if not more – than it does in support. The decades-old mantra of “disaster in 12 years” has vacillated between that disaster coming from global cooling to global warming so many times the alarmists had to change their movement to hedge between the two, settling on “climate change”.

The truth remains – and it doesn’t matter how many times the alarmists or the mainstream media complex or the well-connected-to-government green energy sector say it, the existence of man-made climate change is not “settled science”. In fact, the very nature of science is to constantly seek to “disprove” a theory. The world was once thought to be flat and that was settled science that found Galileo’s head on the block. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is still a theory even though it is infinitely more explored than man-made climate change. The idea of man-made climate change as settled science is an ideological and political declaration, not a scientific determination.

To bolster the claim that those pushing the settled science declaration are ideologically and politically motivated we need to look no further than the landslide of taxpayer dollars raining upon green energy corporations – and some without working models of their proposed green energy products.

This data chart, created by the Energy Information Administration, chronicles the explosion in green energy sector government subsidies between 2007 and 2016, subsidies that have only grown – exponentially – since then:

The chart shows energy subsidies from the US federal government (in billions of 2018 US dollars). The “other” category represents technology-agnostic energy subsidies, like transmission and conservation efforts which aren’t tied to specific fuels (Source: EIA). This data provides a good picture of how priorities shifted starting in 2007.

Some perfect examples of how green technology has siphoned money from the taxpayers without providing any energy advancements to the public or privates sectors come to us in the several Obama-era green energy debacles which cost the American taxpayer dearly:

• Solyndra (Bankrupt) – $570 million taxpayer dollars wasted

• Abound Solar (Bankrupt) – $401 million taxpayer dollars wasted

• Calisolar (Drastically Downsized) – $280 million taxpayer dollars wasted

• Fisker Automotive (Bankrupt/Sold to Chinese Company) – $193 million taxpayer dollars wasted

• A123 Systems (Bankrupt) – $132 million taxpayer dollars wasted

• ABB, Inc. (Offshored) – $12.6 million taxpayer dollars wasted

So, it needs to be asked. If green energy is so efficient why did these companies – bolstered by enormous infusions of taxpayer dollars – fail? Do companies with innovative products; revolutionary products fail so dramatically if their products are, in fact, viable?

No. They don’t. And this lends itself to the reality that green energy – wind, solar, electric vehicles, etc. – is not ready for prime time. This fact also lends itself to the asking of another question. If the world has been 12 years away from complete destruction since the 1970s why are we still here, why is Florida not underwater as Al Gore propagandized in the early 2000s?

Given that the alarmists have never been correct in any of their prognostications, wouldn’t it be wise to pursue the development of viable and reliable green energy sources before we start dismantling our traditional power sources?

There Is Imminent Danger But It’s Not What You Think

Because we are making the monumental mistake of dismantling the fossil fuel industry before green energy is ready to take the lead we are not only depreciating our current standard of living, we are also putting our Republic at risk of being vulnerable on the world stage where our adversaries are concerned.

As Carol V. Evans explains in an article titled, Future Warfare: Weaponizing Critical Infrastructure for the US Army War College:

“Adversaries are actively targeting US and NATO critical infrastructure, particularly energy, transportation, information, communications, and the defense industrial base sectors to undermine military capability, readiness, and force projection. In some cases, adversaries are penetrating the critical infrastructure of the United States and our allies to identify vulnerabilities for later exploitation, and in others, critical infrastructure is being weaponized by Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea as a form of hybrid warfare…”

At a time when the United States is seen as weak on the world stage – and with Russia goading us into military conflict in Ukraine and communist China applying pressure economically, globally, and militarily in all aspects – we can ill-afford to apply zealous thinking to our energy infrastructure.

And Another Thing…

In this excellent short film by Kite & Key explaining the prematurity of green energy use as a primary source of our nation’s energy, we can see that beyond the threats our adversaries pose due to our lack of foresight with regard to reliable energy, there are sufficient reasons why we should be rethinking how we explore, evolve, and utilize green energy moving forward:

As cited in the video:

“...the way we’re using renewables is making it more likely that we’ll have more blackouts in our future…One of the reasons that energy sources like wind and solar haven’t traditionally provided much of our electricity is pretty basic: There are big stretches of time when they don’t produce any energy at all. At night or when it’s cloudy: No solar power. Not so much as a breeze outside? No wind power…

“As there’s increasing pressure to move to renewable sources, many of those conventional power sources we rely on to make sure the lights stay on are shutting down. This means, that when renewables falter…it’s more likely that there won’t be enough electricity to go around. And the implications are pretty sobering.

“In 2022, the organization that monitors the grid’s reliability warned that most of the country was going to be at an elevated risk of power outages in the next five years. The year prior, they cautioned that the risks associated with relying too heavily on renewables were ‘inconsistent with electric power’s essentiality to the continent’s economy as well as the health and safety of its population.’ And the language there is modest, but that’s a lawyer’s way of saying ‘we’re f*cked.’”

How About We Stop With The ‘Feelings' Ideology…

For the record, I have always been for an “all of the above” energy policy. That policy is based is common sense. Ironically, it is a policy that is anchored in the stability of diversity – the radical Left’s favorite misused mantra. Just as it is wise to diversify your investments to alleviate vulnerability to market fluctuations, so too is it wise to diversify our energy sources for the exact same reason.

I am not anti-green-energy. The moment that the technology achieves long-term reliability and dependability coupled with affordability; the moment it actually serves the people better and cheaper than the current energy source configuration, I will gladly trumpet its innovation.

But we are not there yet. Green energy is not ready for prime time. This becomes abundantly evident driving by some of the most beautiful locations in the United States and seeing it littered – disgustingly – with solar panels that are capturing no solar energy and wind turbines at a standstill.

It is well past time that we stop coddling the disingenuous, showboating Greta Thunbergs and Al Gores of the world. No Albert, we are not going to see the demise of the planet in 12 years. And Greta, generations of climate alarmists were quoting the “12-year” garbage before you were even conceived. Even then, the declarations were mired in arrogance.

If the world can heal itself from the use of nuclear weapons and nuclear catastrophes – the most potent force humans have ever developed, then to believe that the Earth can’t shrug us off like the Dinosaurs is, simply put, arrogant and narcissistic.

So, maybe we should pursue this line of action. How about we do our best not to be a race of slobs, conserve when we can, appreciate nature by not needlessly destroying it, and use our critical thinking to create renewable energy that doesn’t scar the landscape or create lithium landfills of spent batteries?

A little patience in development and a lot of dispensing with the opportunistic profit-grabbing and the over-the-top alarmism will go a long way to dependable renewable energy, a more civil discourse surrounding the issue, and a lot more taxpayer dollars being saved.

Take Back Your Mind
Think For Yourself
Support Independent Journalism