Renewable energy claims are unsustainable

By |2015-09-09T19:24:50+00:00September 9th, 2015|CFACT Insights|100 Comments

groWhereas “renewable energy” conjures up visions of wind, solar, and tidal power, “clean” energy sources that will last forever to power the world into a “green,” sustainable future, it won’t happen without an Orwellian restructuring of the world’s social and economic fabric as envisioned by the UN’s Commission on Environment and Development more commonly known as the Bruntland Commission.

Chaired in the late 1980s by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former prime minister of Norway, the commission set about to advance what appeared to be a noble and desirable cause.

Its foundational report, titled Our Common Future, stated: “Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable in order to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations.” So far, it seems pretty hard to argue with a goal like that.

Unfortunately, while it would be great if wind and solar power could accomplish this, their potential capacities and reliabilities just aren’t there.

As for tidal power, applications for utility scale power generation are both unproven and doubtful. Ditto for geothermal, which is another geographically and capacity-limited source.

In other words, none of these “renewables” offer anything remotely close to a sustainability panacea . . . either now or likely ever. Nuclear power, breeder reactors in particular, come much nearer to making a real difference, yet never seem to get the same credit.

As Roger Andrews observes in his August 26 Energy Matters: Environment and Policy blog, the Brundtland Commission went on to link sustainable development objectives to eradicating world poverty . . . again something that sounds really good. Its report stated: “Poverty is not only an evil in itself, but sustainable development requires meeting basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to fulfill their aspirations for a better life. A world in which poverty is endemic will always be prone to ecological and other catastrophes.”

Sure, let’s all agree that poverty is a truly tragic condition.

The big rub here is that eradicating poverty won’t be accomplished by depriving desperate world populations of access to affordable and buildingthegridreliable energy — those who now depend upon animal dung fuel for heating, cooking, and water purification — people who lack electricity essential for refrigeration to keep perishable food safe or provide periodic lighting.

And that’s exactly what is happening through international lending programs that emphasize costly and anemic “renewables” while denying vital funds needed to develop abundant local fossil fuel resources.

So the Bruntland Commission offered another condition. In order to raise underdeveloped countries out of poverty, “Sustainable global development requires that those who are more affluent adopt lifestyles within the planet’s ecological means — in their use of energy, for example.” In other words, the solution is for rich countries to send money and become subordinate to a U.N.-run world government which will ensure equal distribution of financial and natural resources.

Needless to say, that world government would also decide what common lifestyle levels and ecological means are acceptable.
Such decisions must include social engineering to control optimum population size. As Our Common Future admonishes: “Sustainable development can only be pursued if population size and growth are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem.”

genocideIf any of this sounds familiar, you might understand that the Brightland Commission’s sustainable development mantra provided the foundation for the UN’s Agenda 21 program, which calls for reorienting lifestyles away from consumption, encouraging citizens to pursue free time over wealth, resource-sharing through co-ownership, and global wealth redistribution — beginning with ours.

A 1993 UN report, titled Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet, proposes “a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources.”

The report emphasizes that “this shift will demand a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

Last year President Obama’s Council on Sustainable Development was organized to develop recommendations for incorporating sustainability into the U.S. federal government. Predictably, grant programs issued through HUD, the EPA, and nearly every other alphabet agency will spread their Kool-Aid policies throughout the nation.

As Tom DeWeese forewarns in a “Reality News Media” blog, while such grants will be represented as voluntary, expect ongoing restrictions on energy use, development, building material, plumbing and electric codes, land use and water controls, public transportation, and light rail subsidies, and pressures for communities to impose politically correct and economically disastrous and socially unsustainable Agenda 21 development plans.

Welcome to life in the ant colony they have in mind.

A version of this article also appears at:


  1. cshorey September 12, 2015 at 11:25 AM

    Larry Bell. I’m looking for your contributions to climate science. You act like you have expertise in this, but all I see are Forbes articles which aren’t peer reviewed, and just reading a couple of those I see that you’re pretty clueless to the science. Isn’t there something more useful you could be doing than screwing this stuff up so badly in the public eye?

    • Dale September 13, 2015 at 12:01 PM

      That’s you retaliation?
      Where do you think the climatologists (a relatively new field) get their information?

      • Dano2 September 13, 2015 at 12:11 PM

        Um, not Larry Bell. Is this a trick question?



        • Brin Jenkins September 13, 2015 at 1:37 PM

          Again what a contribution, we must guess what you mean, or not.

          • Dano2 September 13, 2015 at 1:43 PM

            Typical con rhetoric. Can’t you do better?



            • Brin Jenkins September 13, 2015 at 4:12 PM

              Why not discuss the merits of the case for and against renewable energy?

              • Dano2 September 13, 2015 at 4:17 PM

                The subtopic was something else. Are you capable of following a thread? I italicize to make it easier to follow – can you tell when text is italicized? Dale can, why can’t you?



                • Brin Jenkins September 13, 2015 at 6:20 PM

                  Stay on topic troll

                  • Dano2 September 13, 2015 at 6:53 PM

                    If you are going to be a trusty deputy for the Topic Police, start with the initial offender for your important enforcement duties. I noticed you haven’t done that.

                    Or try harder with the predictable rhetoric. Either way.



                  • jreb57 September 18, 2015 at 3:19 PM

                    Since Dano2 obviously does not have a scientific background, it is hard for him to stay on topic when the subject is something as mundane as established scientific fact.

                • Brin Jenkins September 14, 2015 at 3:32 AM

                  Dano and Cshorey seem to operate as a team. Cshorey argues well and is much more versed is Science, Dano steps in with abuse after a thread is more or less argued through. I have never seen this Troll offer science other than cut and pasted from his sheet of greenie bullet points. A fool!

                  • Dano2 September 14, 2015 at 8:56 AM

                    That tactic won’t work for you either. Keep trying.



                  • jreb57 September 18, 2015 at 3:10 PM

                    “Dano and Cshorey seem to operate as a team. Cshorey argues well and is much more versed is Science, Dano steps in with abuse after a thread is more or less argued through.”

                    I have noted this as well. It is called beating a dead horse which in this case would be AGW.

              • ipsd48 September 17, 2015 at 1:21 PM

                Well, there IS a way solar can be PARTIALLY effective. Keep it small scale. But the govts and untilitiesl won’t consider that because they’re in in for the money.
                To create small scale solar systems that are efficient would require replacing the AC motors in appliances with DC,which, without the necessity of long range power transfer, would be a far more efficient system.

                Take the millions of residences off the grid and what’s left could be powered with far less use of traditional fuels and would result in less pollution from power generation.
                Also, while the large scale solar fields have a high cost of maintenance (servo motors to adjust panels for maximum generation only have a lifetime of a year or 2) residential systems don’t need them.
                However, the crux of the problem is that there simply isn’t any low cost power storage devices that don’t have to be replaced every few years……………..and that cost makes the whole project, again, prohibitive.

              • jreb57 September 24, 2015 at 11:22 PM

                “Why not discuss the merits of the case for and against renewable energy?”

                Because Dano2 does not know a kilowatt from a coulomb.

                • Dano2 September 25, 2015 at 6:21 PM

                  Dishonest assertion.



                  • jreb57 September 29, 2015 at 8:22 AM

                    It must be accurate. You did not give an answer.

                    • Dano2 September 29, 2015 at 6:16 PM

                      You must be inaccurate, you did not give an answer.



        • Dale September 13, 2015 at 3:12 PM

          Are you certain?
          Who specifically do you think are the “only” ones to understand and have input into the understanding of our climate?

          • Dano2 September 13, 2015 at 3:23 PM

            Are you certain? Who specifically do you think are the “only” ones to understand and have input into the understanding of our climate?

            I am utterly certain the last placethe climatologists … get their information from is Larry Bell.

            They get their information either by collecting it themselves or from the scientific literature. Larry Bell does not collect data nor contribute to the scientific literature.




            • ipsd48 September 17, 2015 at 1:14 PM

              You ignore the fact that the only money out therefor research is to prove ‘glo-bull warming’ DOES exist. Those who show evidence of it’s dubious conclusions are also attacked personally, while their evidence is ignored

              • Dano2 September 17, 2015 at 1:31 PM

                That’s weird, because we know Exxon in the 1970s found the same thing as all these tens of thousands of scientific papers. So we know there’s all kinds of munny to study it.

                There’s going to be a Frontline episode airing soon on Exxon’s conclusion that man-made climate change is real.



                • jreb57 September 18, 2015 at 3:03 PM

                  “That’s weird, because we know Exxon in the 1970s found the same thing as all these tens of thousands of scientific papers. So we know there’s all kinds of munny to study it.”

                  In the ’70s the prevailing view among the scientific community was that we were headed for another ice age. This in the face of increasing levels of CO2.

                  • Dano2 September 18, 2015 at 7:26 PM

                    In the ’70s the prevailing view among the scientific community





                    • jreb57 September 24, 2015 at 11:16 PM

                      Your link is to an IPCC paper. What did you expect it would say? I am a little older than you, and my recollection is that most meteorologist were agreed that we were headed for another ice age.(I was an engineer. We had several meteorologists on staff). They are correct. We have had several ice ages with more CO2 in the atmosphere than now and sometime in the future, we will have another ice age.

                    • Dano2 September 25, 2015 at 12:09 AM

                      IPCC paper!





                    • Dano2 September 25, 2015 at 12:14 AM

                      We have had several ice ages with more CO2 in the atmosphere than now

                      An irrelevant time ago. 55MYA is irrelevant to today’s planet. The planet decarbonizes.



      • cshorey September 13, 2015 at 1:38 PM

        From research into natural systems Dale, as Fourier did over two hundred years ago in this “relatively new field”. He was followed by people like Tyndall, Langley, Arrhenius, and we’re still not up to a century ago in this new field.

        • Dale September 13, 2015 at 3:10 PM

          This is my point exactly.
          Many like to use the “mantra” that because a scientist or other researcher is not a climatologist, they therefore would have no credible knowledge about our climate.
          The so-called climatologists, a relatively new field as stated, do not gather all their own data, nor are they necessarily the (only) ones to interpret and develop their own graphs, and so forth.
          Input is gathered from a great many fields in mathematics, science, meteorology, atmospheric physics, geology, and so forth. In short, the study and understanding of our climate is definitely not relegated to one specific field. Therefore dismissing one because they are not a “climatologist” is naive to say the least.

          • Dano2 September 13, 2015 at 3:21 PM

            dismissing one because they are not a “climatologist” is naive to say the least.

            Dismissing Larry Bell is not naive, it is good sense. Look at his track record of hokum.



            • Dale September 14, 2015 at 10:46 AM

              Dano2 states, “Dismissing Larry Bell is not naive, it is good sense. Look at his track record of hokum.”

              Interesting. As I haven’t been a follower of Bell, I’m not aware of his statements which have been proven to be “hokum”. However, as I requested from cshorey, I would be interested in the “actual statements” by Bell which have been “proven” to be wrong. I have no interest in links to climate change denier web sites but only in the actual quotes and “your” reasoning along with proof of your statement(s) as to why the statement(s) is/are wrong.
              I am hoping to learn something valuable here.

              • Dano2 September 14, 2015 at 11:09 AM

                You are demanding much too much work without giving me an address for my invoice, so here you go. He is paid to speak at Heartland conferences, and that’s all you need to know.



                • Dale September 14, 2015 at 11:57 AM

                  However, not unexpected. Many like to jump on the band wagon banging their cups against the bars to make a racket. However, when specifics are requested, they have nothing beyond the noise.
                  Too bad, I had hoped to learn something I didn’t know, which would be useful.

                  • Dano2 September 14, 2015 at 12:34 PM

                    That tactic doesn’t work on me. You can’t pretend Bell has any credibility on this topic nor can you deflect away from the point at the beginning of this thread just by making statements and parroting the “relatively new field” line.



                • Brin Jenkins September 15, 2015 at 12:15 PM

                  Great response, you feel your contribution is worth paying for? Such arrogance from a greenie troll who insults all and sundry who disagree.

                  • Dano2 September 15, 2015 at 12:37 PM

                    You need a rhetoric class in addition to several basic science classes. We can’t wait until you enroll.



                • ipsd48 September 17, 2015 at 1:38 PM

                  Are you claiming the army of spokesmen for the IPCC AREN’T being paid to trump up support for ‘climate change through wealth redistribution’ ?

                  • Dano2 September 17, 2015 at 1:41 PM

                    Sounds like an idea for a college filmmaking drama. Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

                    Not sure I can suspend disbelief for that long to watch it all the way thru, tho.



                • AndRebecca September 17, 2015 at 8:48 PM

                  Wow, he is paid to speak at Heartland conferences. He must be a great guy, looking out for us Americans who foot the bill for all the climate change garbage. Any person with an I.Q. over 70 should be able to assess a solar panel, find out the cost to produce the panel and install it, the cost to maintain it, and find out how much energy it produces, and then come to the only correct conclusion, it is not cost effective, and without government subsidies-which is a cost to the non-user- no one would even consider using them. Power companies are supposed to produce cheap abundant power for their customers, not help the richey riches of the world increase their wealth.

          • cshorey September 13, 2015 at 3:42 PM

            If someone is not usually a climatologist, they often miss the details, but no it’s not impossible for someone to make discovery. I looked at Larry’s stuff and he ignores or doesn’t know quite a bit. I don’t dismiss him because he’s not a climatologist per se, but because he is not a climatologist and gets stuff wrong.

            • Dale September 14, 2015 at 10:41 AM

              cshorey stated, ” I don’t dismiss him because he’s not a climatologist per se, but because he is not a climatologist and gets stuff wrong.”

              As I’m not a follower of Larry Bell, I definitely cannot speak to what he has stated in the past. However, in furthering my own knowledge and research, I would be interested in “specific statements” made by Bell and “your” reasoning as to why they are wrong. I am not interested in links to denier web sites but rather actual statements (quotes) and statements of proof as to why the statement is wrong.
              Thank you.

              • cshorey September 14, 2015 at 1:37 PM

                When I posted that, I had just read a couple of his Forbes pieces. They both had so much wrong it would take a long time to catalog, but as an example he was discussing sea level and trying to argue against that past sea level records disprove a connection to climate, giving specific locations and their recorded past sea levels. What Bell ignored here is that we have to speak of “relative sea level” because the land can uplift or subside and change “relative sea level” even when absolute sea level is unchanged. Once these two things are teased apart, Bell’s argument turns bad. A good scientist would know to disentangle the two, and Larry doesn’t even mention the issue that is so core to the problem. That was just one of the issues I saw. Others have seen even more:

                • Dale September 14, 2015 at 7:50 PM

                  Actually I have very little interest in what denier alarmist web sites such as (founded by members of the IPCC and supported by groups such as the Tides Foundation and so forth), have to say about climate. We all know the line they are pushing and unfortunately they are not swayed in the least, by the facts.
                  This is why I specifically requested quotes from actual scientists and researchers in the know along with your own interpretation.

                  I don’t know about the two articles in Forbes to which you are referring so can’t intelligently comment on what was stated or claimed therein.

                  It would be my guess that sea levels would be affected by major climate shifts such as when conditions become extreme, as compared to the present, as they have many times in the past.

                  However, a paper published recently in the journal Geology (September 3, 2015), by a couple of PhD. students (Matthew Winnick and Jeremy Caves) in a Stanford study (, suggests that past sea levels may not have risen as much as we thought and may not rise all the much in the future.

                  Apparently they analyzed the Pliocene warm period when CO2 levels were similar to current levels and the continents were roughly in the same location as our present. The high sea level predictions were apparently based on the assumption that the Antarctic ice had the same isotopic composition or fingerprint, as it does today. It’s that position which was challenged in Winnick’s and Cave’s paper.

                  In a paper released December 6, 2012 by the Science and Public Policy Institute entitled “Sea Level Not Rising”, Professor Nils-Axel Morner collected data which over a relatively long period, showed sea level to be rising a maximum of 2-3 inches per century and most likely not at all. He used measurements gathered from both tidal gauges and satellite altimetry.
                  The GRACE gravitational anomaly satellites showed that sea levels actually fell in the 2002 – 2007 period. However, the overall results suggested that there had actually been no changes in sea level at all.

                  NOAA’s recently released data (charts) suggests that over a 100 year span, the sea level has not risen at all. As long as you don’t mind wading through a number of graphs and collected data, you might want to refer to or .

                  You will note that this disagrees with some of the IPCC’s claims but then again, most scientific data does.

                  There are a number of other papers and reference I can provide if you are interested.

                  A paper written in the Journal of Geophysical Research in September, 2011 and then revised and published in June of 2012, entitled “Changes in the Prevailing Trade Winds Over the Islands of Hawaii and the North Pacific” by Garza, Chu, Norton, and Schroeder includes several graphs, shows that winds often have much more effect on sea level and any possible warming. To read more about this, you might wish to read the paper Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 117, D11109, doi:10.1029/2011JD016888, 2012.

                  In short, several organizations including AVISA, CSIRO, and NOAA agree that the seas are rising about 3 mm per year.

                  Dr. Willie Soon (Harvard) explains how ocean level variations are affected by many things including increased water temperature, ice cap melting, ice cap increase due to snowfall, changes in saltiness, shorelines rising and falling, movements of the earth’s tectonic plates, tides, storms and weather, etc.

                  Measurements by satellite have an error bias of 1 or 2 cm. Therefore, it would be impossible to accurately detect a few mm change.

                  Dr. Carl Wunsch (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in 2007 stated: “It remains possible that the database is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming—as disappointing as this conclusion may be.”

                  The same measurements taken by each of the three satellites, TOPEX, JASON-1, and JASON-2, differed by 75 millimeters and therefore it seems that the data needs to be corrected.

                  Tide gauges with errors of 1 to 2 cm are used to calibrate the satellite measurements.

                  • cshorey September 15, 2015 at 1:17 PM

                    I could take or leave in my argument, though I find it odd to dismiss actual climate scientists in a discussion on climate science. The bottom line is that when we do tease out absolute sea level rise, there is a direct correlation between temperature and sea level. We can measure CO2 as well, and say that when the world gets a sustained 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, seas tend to be about 20m higher. That’s an equilibrium value, and we are worried about the transient effects. Probably about a meter in the next century. With no restrictions to building on shorelines and a failing Federal Flood Insurance program, I can foresee the severe economic losses on the watery horizon. As a fiscal conservative, I find inaction in the face of what we know to be wastefully ignorant.

                    • Dale September 15, 2015 at 3:22 PM

                      If you read closely, I’m not dismissing “actual climate scientists” as you’ve suggested. However, scientists who rely directly on government funding “to prove that anthropogenicly produced CO2 is responsible for catastrophic global warming” are highly suspect. You might want to read the raison d’etre or the mission statements of the IPCC to understand what I am saying.

                      Check out recent statements by UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres who stated, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” Does this comment seem ecologically or environmentally related to you? Or, if you wish to go back further in the UN’s IPCC history, consider the statement by IPCC official Ottmar Edenhoffer in November of 2010 (co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III) when he stated, “Climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” He went on to state, “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” “…nothing anymore with environmental protection.” Did you read that?
                      It might become much more clear to you once you’ve read and understand the total reasoning behind this politically manfactured threat and scare.
                      Also, If you actually read the information I provided and/or referred to the links I provided as supporting my statements, you can see that the idea of current levels of CO2 in our atmosphere actually “have not” been shown to produce 20m+ sea levels as you’ve suggested.
                      In fact, the overall rate of sea level increase has remained relatively constant over several hundred years with no abnormal changes under our current conditions. See my explanation above. If you wish more information on this, I am more than willing to share more studies than the few I’ve noted.
                      In short, there is no evidence at all supporting a meter increase in overall sea levels within the next century. Again, all that was explained in my comments above.
                      The economic losses that you foresee are those caused by our societies wasting trillions of dollars “trying to hold up the sky” rather than using the money to actually benefit mankind.
                      You seem like a relative intelligent person. If so, you should read behind the headlines and take a good look behind the curtain. All is not as portrayed.

  2. Brin Jenkins September 13, 2015 at 6:48 AM

    Can wind turbines and Photo Voltaic farms power our needs? in the UK we need 35Gw to meet our Summer demand with peaks, and 55Gw in the Winter.

    Wind Power is nonlinear increasing at a log rate (think of air resistance). Generators optimum at 25 mph, produce less than 50% at 12 mph, and falling to 5mph barely nothing whilst the blades still turn giving a misleading impression of efficiency.

    Photo Voltaic panels when new )produce close to 100% in July, falling to 12% in Feb. This only in daylight hours.

    With such large variations how can stable supply be guaranteed. How could you run a railway this way?

    The lack of any energy storing systems means its impossible to keep electricity for sunless and windless periods.

  3. Adam_Antatheist September 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM

    Instead of just pontificating about wind being a ‘dilute source of energy’ and therefore must be very expensive, this just shows how it’s 3 x more expensive than the excruciatingly priced Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Plant.

    Instead of cowering away from comments that mock the cost of nuclear power from the excruciatingly priced Hinkley Point C, tell them that electricity from Navitus Bay Wind Farm would have cost 3 x more.

    Tell them that Navitus Bay would have covered an ocean environment 230 x bigger than the minuscule 0.67 square kilometres of Hinkley Point C.

    Tell them that Hinkley Point C will create 6.8 x more ‘Dream Jobs’ than Navitus Bay’s ‘Green-ish Jobs.

    Tell them that Hinkley Point C will supply 20 x more ‘home years’ than Navitus Bay:

    • Brin Jenkins September 13, 2015 at 1:07 PM

      Please explain how renewables can be anything other than a pipe dream?

      Forget about all about nuclear, and tell us how perhaps wave power will suddenly be productive after the wave hub in Cornwall at a cost of many millions has still to add one watt to our supply?

      Research and development is always a good idea rather than going for broke on emotional wind mills.

      Tell me how power might be balanced against loads, Summer and Winter, daylight and darkness.

      Three times more expensive, NO, its at least 10 times and unreliable. It would not even exist without massive bribes/subsidies.

    • hermio September 17, 2015 at 11:45 AM

      What do you mean by ” 3 times more”? Rationally, that means 4 times as much, just as 50% more means 1.5 times as much.

      • ipsd48 September 17, 2015 at 1:03 PM

        I’ll let you do the math. The price of solar is now down around $2.30 a watt. Traditional sources sell at between .14 an .23 cents a KILOWATT.
        Even 10 times is grossly underestimating the cost

        • Ethan L. March 23, 2016 at 10:44 PM

          You seem to be confusing price per kw/h with capital cost for solar installation. At $2.30 / watt installation cost, every thousand watts capacity will cost you $2300. It’s estimated that solar panels of today will last 40 years or more. Many of them are guaranteed for 20 years. If you got only 20 years service, then divide $2300 x 20 = $115/year for a thousand watt capacity. That works out to 1.3 cents per kw/h. Of course you won’t get full capacity all the time, so you have to overbuild. If you double your capacity, installing twice as much as your needed maximum, you come to 2.6 cents per kw/h. But if you get 40 years out of your system, you’re back to 1.3.

      • Adam_Antatheist September 18, 2015 at 6:04 AM

        3 x 1 = 3

  4. Dano2 September 13, 2015 at 12:10 PM

    Vague hand-waving and actual number-avoiding aside, mentioning Ginder twenny-wuuuuuuuuun put this essay into nutter territory and should remove any remaining tiny doubt about credibility.



    • Brin Jenkins September 13, 2015 at 1:08 PM

      Good contribution, now we guess what you meant?

      • Dano2 September 13, 2015 at 1:16 PM

        If you can’t comprehend that I stated the op-ed used vague hand-waving, avoided using numbers and looked ludicrous by using Agenda 21, I can’t help you.



        • Brin Jenkins September 13, 2015 at 1:35 PM

          I doubt your ability to help anyone.

          • Dano2 September 13, 2015 at 1:42 PM

            Certainly not use, as is clear.



            • Brin Jenkins September 13, 2015 at 4:06 PM

              You seem to have lost the plot and gone off on another abusive rant.

              The title was Renewable Energy is unsustainable. You disagree and attacked the writer rather than the argument. If you are unable to debate rationally why not keep quite.

              I asked a question concerning energy supplies and our demand, can you give rational assurances it can be met with renewable energy, or do you prefer to use abuse?

              • Dano2 September 13, 2015 at 4:17 PM

                Your predictable, tiresome con rhetorical tactics don’t get the job done.




              • Gold Stars September 17, 2015 at 11:08 AM

                Brin, it is obvious book em’ dano is just an uneducated troll!
                Not worth any attempt at dialogue with.

                • Brin Jenkins September 20, 2015 at 1:07 PM

                  You are right of course. I feel he need to be challenged right here where a few folks might be looking for some enlightenment.

                  • Dano2 September 20, 2015 at 10:41 PM

                    …and such a high-functioning challenge! I was challenged, everybody!



  5. citizen smith September 16, 2015 at 10:10 PM

    The thinking behind this article is antediluvian and is based on the edifice complex of the old industrial world. The poor of third world are leap frogging over the need of traditional power and phone grids. Inexpensive, portable and reliable solar lamps e.g. the Sunking range (which can also charge your mobile phone) are already providing an expanding market for cheap efficient and non polluting light to the millions in India and Africa. They provide a better qua
    lity of light than the usually used kerosene lamps, less pollution and at vastly reduced cost.
    The post industrial restructure of the worlds social and economic fabric is occurring without the Orwellian oversight of the UN by people choosing small efficient, economic solutions.

    • hermio September 17, 2015 at 11:43 AM

      You are not in touch with reality, my friend.

      • AndRebecca September 17, 2015 at 8:33 PM

        He’s not delusional. You’ve heard of the “edifice complex” haven’t you? Now we’ve all heard of the post-industrial restructure of the world’s economic fabric. It’s called crony-capitalism. Getting money out of the producers of the world by taxing them in the name of the poor in the world in order to line the pockets of the crony-capitalists. It’s a lose-lose situation except for the world’s dictators at the U.N. and their buddies the crony capitalists.

  6. Red Baker September 17, 2015 at 12:43 PM

    If wind and solar ever make sense economically, we will naturally adopt them voluntarily, just like every other consumer product or service. The UN and liberals cannot resist their dictatorial instincts; they simply must try to regiment every aspect of our lives. In this venture they are determined to crush prosperity, for rich and poor alike.

    BTW, global warming is bunk. We have simply warmed a single degree since 1850, a recovery from one of the 5 coldest eras since the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. We are still below the average since the ice age.

    • ipsd48 September 17, 2015 at 1:08 PM

      And average temperatures are still 5° below what they were at the start of the Common Era

      • Dano2 September 20, 2015 at 10:12 AM

        Utterly false.



  7. conanthecontrarian September 17, 2015 at 2:39 PM

    Wind power … a blow job for the masses.

  8. conanthecontrarian September 17, 2015 at 2:41 PM

    How many megawatts of power can a group of 300,000,000 generate running in circles, whining about th

  9. conanthecontrarian September 17, 2015 at 2:46 PM

    How many mega watts of power can a crowd of 300,000,000 liberal environmentalists generate while crying and running around in circles with their hands in the air over their heads? If they don’t fart too much, a lot.

    • AndRebecca September 17, 2015 at 8:24 PM

      Actually, this sounds like a study you could submit to the government and get a load of grant money to carry it out. You would need to include cows as well. Kind of a comparison between human blowhards, and cow emissions and their effects after mixing with CO2….but don’t forget to put auto tailpipes into the equation.

    • jreb57 September 18, 2015 at 2:09 PM

      Our energy problems are solved!!

    • Brin Jenkins September 18, 2015 at 2:34 PM

      A human dissipates 250-300 watts, so I suppose its in the order of 90.000.000 Kw

  10. wally12 September 17, 2015 at 6:28 PM

    The AGW groups just can not get off their wagon since to do so means they lose face and will need to find another cash cow in terms of government subsidies , grant money etc. The models used by the climate scientists have not been able to prove their claim that CO2 is a significant driver of warming. Around 2000, they stated that the earth temperature would continue to rise as CO2 levels increased. Well, the CO2 levels did increase but temperatures did not. That condition lasted for more than a decade and counting. One would think that this fact would be enough for them to reexamine their data and models. They have done that since some of these scientists have adjusted the raw data to assist in making the temperature appear to be increasing. When confronted with evidence that their claims are flawed, they claim that those who are skeptics are really deniers of their version of the truth that CO2 is still responsible for the major driving of increased temperature. In other words they are the deniers of the real truth. Many of the articles presented that claim to indicate AGW is real have taken as proof that California has drought conditions because of global warming. Most of these articles do not mention that California has a long history of droughts and the fact that California has neglected to provide for drought conditions by instituting conservation of water and storage. Therefore, California is a regional condition and not global. Other examples include the articles that suggest that sea level rise in Florida is caused by global warming. Again this is a regional condition and not global. Florida does have a flooding problem but it is not sea level rise but is the fact that much of the coastal area is subsiding meaning the land is sinking. This same subsiding problem is evident along the east coast for states such as New Jersey and others. Obama,is a true believer in AGW. Therefore, he has ordered the military to come up with a comprehensive plan to address global warming and rising sea levels. He leaves out the fact that a plan is needed not because of rising sea levels but rather that the problem is sinking land in port areas.

    Is the earth warming? Of course it has been warming since the ice age with cycles of cooling and warming since then. One doesn’t need a climate degree to realize some glaciers and land masses are getting warmer.

    The Tornio River in Finland is an example that proves warming. Monitoring and data collection have been done on this river each year for the earliest ice break up from 1693 to 2000. I doubt there were climate scientists back in 1693 and indicates that the data is not biased. The graph furnished on this river shows that indeed the northern hemisphere has been warming on average for 307 years. Some of the warming groups attempt to claim that this warming is due to humans and CO2 emissions. If that is true, then one also should expect to see increased warming for the industrial era of 1940 to the present. The graph doesn’t show a rate of change. There is no inverted”Hockey Stick”. None. Therefore, the warming is primarily due to natural factors such as sun and solar activity.

    • jreb57 September 18, 2015 at 2:08 PM

      ” the warming is primarily due to natural factors such as sun and solar activity.”

      You would expect that sooner or later the “smartest people in the room” would come to this conclusion.

      • Brin Jenkins September 18, 2015 at 2:28 PM

        Every bit of energy is from our Sun in this Solar System. No where else.

        • Dano2 September 18, 2015 at 7:35 PM

          So the TSI of the sun is decreasing, yet the temps are going up.



          • Brin Jenkins September 20, 2015 at 1:04 PM

            Go and study energy.

            • Dano2 September 20, 2015 at 1:09 PM

              Go and study energy.

              Thank you for that deep reply – the Total Solar Irradiance from the sun is decreasing. Yet the earth’s temperature is increasing.

              There is more energy being retained in the earth system. From the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere.

              Basic physics.



              • jreb57 September 24, 2015 at 10:44 AM

                ” the Total Solar Irradiance from the sun is decreasing”

                The most recent decrease in solar irradiance resulted in a period known as the little ice age (from about 1300 to about 1850). This was said to be a result of solar minimums. The present warming trend has yet to reach temperatures claimed for the medieval warm period. The earth has been warming (on the average) for the last 18,000 years or since the end of the last ice age. In other words, solar activity varies slightly depending on how much helium ash is being burned off in the sun’s core. The sun is a variable star.

                • Dano2 September 24, 2015 at 10:49 AM

                  False, false, false, irrelevant, the earth is warming despite the sun’s TSI decreasing.




                  • jreb57 September 24, 2015 at 11:06 AM

                    So according to your logic, CO2 is not only making up for reduced solar output, but causing the planet to warm as well. That means CO2 is producing energy in contravention to the physical law of conservation of energy and matter.

                    • Dano2 September 24, 2015 at 11:10 AM

                      I used no logic, I pointed out your false statements and stated a basic fact.

                      Your…erm…”logic” fails to account for the increased CO2 in the atmosphere being able to trap more outgoing radiation, warming the planet despite slightly less energy coming from the yellow guy in the sky.



                    • jreb57 September 24, 2015 at 11:17 AM

                      “I used no logic”

                      Correct. That seems to be a failing on your part. That and unsubstantiated claims. You fit the AGW mold well.

                    • Dano2 September 24, 2015 at 11:20 AM

                      You can’t hide the fact your assertions were false and…erm…”reasoning” was flawed.




                    • jreb57 September 24, 2015 at 10:47 PM

                      “You can’t hide the fact your assertions were false and…erm…”reasoning” was flawed”

                      That is because my assertions are true and my reasoning is correct. You badly need an education.

                  • jreb57 September 24, 2015 at 10:43 PM

                    No, that is true. Your claims are false and not supported by science. CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas.

                    • Dano2 September 25, 2015 at 12:12 AM

                      OK, let’s try this comedy skit, since they are your claims. No dissembling now.

                      The most recent decrease in solar irradiance resulted in a period known as the little ice age (from about 1300 to about 1850)

                      [citation needed]

                      The present warming trend has yet to reach temperatures claimed for the medieval warm period

                      [citation needed]

                      The earth has been warming (on the average) for the last 18,000 years or since the end of the last ice age.

                      [citation needed]




      • wally12 September 18, 2015 at 4:32 PM

        @jreb57: Yes, I agree one should expect that these smart people would realize that it is the sun. Anyone who has spent some time outside recognizes that on a partially cloudy day when the sun is masked by the sun, one can feel a definite cooling and when the clouds allow the sun to shine one feels the great warming effect. This differential in temperature between clouds versus sun light is many degrees. However, the warming groups and climate scientists are attempting to define warming as a fraction of a degree. It is sad they refuse to observe the difference. Maybe, they never will.

        • jreb57 September 24, 2015 at 10:06 AM

          ” When confronted with evidence that their claims are flawed, they claim that those who are skeptics are really deniers of their version of the truth that CO2 is still responsible for the major driving of increased temperature”
          Another thing they will have problems with is that present levels of CO2 are just under 400 ppm. That means that there are 4 molecules of CO2 for every 10,000 molecules of the rest of atmospheric gasses. If CO2 could store that much solar energy (enough to account for claimed warming), our energy problems would be solved. In reality, the specific heat of CO2 is about 1/8 that of H2O which is the main gas/liquid responsible for distributing the sun’s energy globally.

          • wally12 September 24, 2015 at 5:05 PM

            I agree. The amount of CO2 is very small and not capable to cause the earth to heat up to the extent claimed by the climate scientists and their minions. The climate scientists know this but have attempted to state that CO2 acts as a multiplier on clouds and water vapor. The problem is that they have not proven that to be the case and haven’t proven that CO2 is the driver of warming. Do they care? I doubt it since even the UNIPCC has admitted that there isn’t proof that CO2 is the driver. Even that hasn’t stopped these zealots. Instead, both the UN IPCC and the climate scientists keep voicing the same lie and have decided to go to step two where they now state that taxing the fossil fuel industry and the industrialized nations in order to redistribute those expected funds. Obama is going to sign this type of agreement since he is an AGW nut job. The congress must do everything in their power to stop this crazed president.

  11. reagangs September 17, 2015 at 8:24 PM

    My main concern is the amount of current energy and tax payer cost used to fabricate “green energy” components and systems, and the cost (ROI) to transport, install, maintain and distribute high voltage megawatts from these devices that can even compete with current systems …. with out mega$$$$ government and bureaucratic stimulus. My guess is that all cost and expenses need to pay back the ROI would take decades if not millennia or any at all. Does anybody out there have any ideas or facts as to this dilemma????? The cost of a separate transmission line for the lower voltage would be massive, alone and at the tax payers expense. How much does a wind turbine cost to fab, transport, install and maintain???? Imagine the hoisting of the stand, generator and blades???? Massive expensive equipment and operators, much less the local, state and fed (EPA, OSHA …. ) bureaucratic red tape and permitting fees. All for a few rich cronies that own these businesses and their political donations.
    When the current hydrocarbon sources become scarce and/or whenever the cost of green energy compares, then it will be a good time to 100% convert. Maybe, just maybe, we will have an efficient, mature system for green energy. Until then, the debate is not over.

  12. jreb57 September 18, 2015 at 1:47 PM

    The Brightland Commission’s agenda is nothing more than a resurrection of a world communist government. How well did that work for the former Soviet Union? These people always assume they are the smartest people in the room. Demonstrably they are not.

    • Dano2 September 20, 2015 at 6:51 PM

      ‘Brightland’. Cute.



      • jreb57 September 21, 2015 at 9:11 AM

        “‘Brightland’. Cute.”

        Not very cute. More like coercive.

        • Dano2 September 21, 2015 at 10:08 AM

          It’s cute that you can’t even get the basics right.



          • jreb57 September 21, 2015 at 3:31 PM

            Dano2, the basics are all you have. Very basic.

            • Dano2 September 21, 2015 at 4:01 PM

              The basics would be getting the name right, for beginners.



  13. Evan Pallesen September 18, 2015 at 2:02 PM

    All these things tend to be self correcting. As Margaret Thatcher once observed, “Socialism works well until you run out of other peoples money”. We are fast approaching that point at which economies will grind to a halt and socialist/ environmentalist Utopianism will evaporate in the everyday scramble to survive. (And no, I’m not a prepper, just a bemused observer of social insanity).

Comments are closed.