Monumental, unsustainable environmental impacts

Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy would inflict major land, wildlife, resource damage

Demands that the world replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, and biofuel energy – to prevent supposed catastrophes caused by manmade global warming and climate change – ignore three fundamental flaws.

1) In the Real World outside the realm of computer models, the unprecedented warming and disasters are simply not happening: not with temperatures, rising seas, extreme weather, or other alleged problems.

2) The process of convicting oil, gas, coal, and carbon dioxide emissions of climate cataclysms has been unscientific and disingenuous. It ignores fluctuations in solar energy, cosmic rays, oceanic currents, and multiple other powerful natural forces that have controlled Earth’s climate since the dawn of time, dwarfing any role played by CO2. It ignores the enormous benefits of carbon-based energy that created and still powers the modern world, and continues to lift billions out of poverty, disease, and early death.

It assigns only costs to carbon dioxide emissions, and ignores how rising atmospheric levels of this plant-fertilizing molecule are reducing deserts and improving forests, grasslands, drought resistance, crop yields, and human nutrition. It also ignores the huge costs inflicted by anti-carbon restrictions that drive up energy prices, kill jobs, and fall hardest on poor, minority, and blue-collar families in industrialized nations – and perpetuate poverty, misery, disease, malnutrition, and early death in developing countries.

3) Renewable energy proponents pay little or no attention to the land and raw material requirements, and associated environmental impacts, of wind, solar, and biofuel programs on scales required to meet mankind’s current and growing energy needs, especially as poor countries improve their living standards.

We properly insist on multiple detailed studies of every oil, gas, coal, pipeline, refinery, power plant, and other fossil fuel project. Until recently, however, even the most absurd catastrophic climate change claims behind renewable energy programs, mandates, and subsidies could not be questioned.

Just as bad, climate campaigners, government agencies, and courts have never examined the land use, raw material, energy, water, wildlife, human health, and other impacts of supposed wind, solar, biofuel, and battery alternatives to fossil fuels – or of the transmission lines and other systems needed to carry electricity and liquid and gaseous renewable fuels thousands of miles to cities, towns, and farms.

It is essential that we conduct rigorous studies now, before pushing further ahead. The Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and Interior Department should do so immediately. States, other nations, private sector companies, think tanks, and NGOs can and should do their own analyses. The studies can blithely assume these expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent alternatives can actually replace fossil fuels. But they need to assess the environmental impacts of doing so.

Renewable energy companies, industries, and advocates are notorious for hiding, minimizing, obfuscating, or misrepresenting their environmental and human health impacts. They demand and receive exemptions from health and endangered species laws that apply to other industries. They make promises they cannot keep about being able to safely replace fossil fuels that now provide over 80% of U.S. and global energy.

A few articles have noted some of the serious environmental, toxic/radioactive waste, human health, and child labor issues inherent in mining rare-earth and cobalt/lithium deposits. However, we now need quantitative studies – detailed, rigorous, honest, transparent, cradle-to-grave, peer-reviewed analyses.

The back-of-the-envelope calculations that follow provide a template. I cannot vouch for any of them. But our governments need to conduct full-blown studies forthwith – before they commit us to spending tens of trillions of dollars on renewable energy schemes, mandates, and subsidies that could blanket continents with wind turbines, solar panels, biofuel crops, and battery arrays; destroy habitats and wildlife; kill jobs, impoverish families, and bankrupt economies; impair our livelihoods, living standards, and liberties; and put our lives under the control of unelected, unaccountable state, federal, and international rulers – without having a clue whether these supposed alternatives are remotely economical or sustainable.

Ethanol derived from corn grown on 40 million acres now provides the equivalent of 10% of US gasoline – and requires billions of gallons of water and enormous quantities of fertilizer and energy. What would it take to replace 100% of U.S. gasoline? To replace the entire world’s motor fuels?

Solar panels on Nevada’s Nellis Air Force Base generate 15 megawatts of electricity perhaps 30% of the year from 140 acres. Arizona’s Palo Verde nuclear power plant generates 900 times more electricity, from less land, some 95% of the year. Generating Palo Verde’s output via Nellis technology would require land area ten times larger than Washington, DC – and would still provide electricity unpredictably only 30% of the time. Now run those solar numbers for the 3.5 billion megawatt-hours generated nationwide in 2016.

Modern coal or gas-fired power plants use less than 300 acres to generate 600 megawatts 95% of the time. Indiana’s 600-MW Fowler Ridge wind farm covers 50,000 acres and generates electricity about 30% of the year. Calculate the turbine and acreage requirements for 3.5 billion MWH of wind electricity.

Delving more deeply, generating 20% of U.S. electricity with wind power would require up to 185,000 1.5-MW turbines, 19,000 miles of new transmission lines, 18 million acres, and 245 million tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass, and rare-earths – plus fossil-fuel back-up generators for the 75% to 80% of the year that winds nationwide are barely blowing and the turbines are not producing electricity.

Energy analyst David Wells has calculated that replacing 160,000 terawatt-hours of total global energy consumption with wind would require 183,400,000 turbines needing roughly: 461,000,000,000 tons (461 billion tons) of steel for the towers; 460,00,000,000 tons of steel and concrete for the foundations; 59,000,000,000 tons of copper, steel, and alloys for the turbines; 738,000,000 tons of neodymium for turbine magnets; 14,700,000,000 tons of steel and complex composite materials for the nacelles; 11,000,000,000 tons of complex petroleum-based composites for the rotors; and massive quantities of other raw materials – all of which must be mined, processed, manufactured into finished products, and shipped around the world.

Assuming 25 acres per turbine, the turbines would require 4,585,000,000 acres (1,855,500,000 hectares) – 1.3 times the land area of North America! Wells adds: Shipping just the iron ore to build the turbines would require nearly 3 million voyages in huge ships that would consume 13 billion tons of bunker fuel (heavy oil) in the process. And converting that ore to iron and steel would require 473 billion tons of coking coal, demanding another 1.2 million sea voyages, consuming another 6 billion tons of bunker fuel.

For sustainability disciples: Does Earth have enough of these raw materials for this transformation?

It gets worse. These numbers do not include the ultra-long transmission lines required to carry electricity from windy locations to distant cities. Moreover, Irina Slav notes, wind turbines, solar panels and solar thermal installations cannot produce high enough heat to melt silica, iron, or other metals, and certainly cannot generate the required power on a reliable enough basis to operate smelters and factories.

Wind turbines (and solar panels) last just 20 years or so (less in salt water environments) – while coal, gas, and nuclear power plants last 35 to 50 years and require far less land and raw materials. That means we would have tear down, haul away, and replace far more “renewable” generators twice as often; dispose of or recycle their component parts (and toxic or radioactive wastes); and mine, process, and ship more ores.

Finally, their intermittent electricity output means they couldn’t guarantee you could boil an egg, run an assembly line, surf the internet or complete a heart transplant when you need to. So we store their output in massive battery arrays, you say. OK. Let’s calculate the land, energy, and raw materials for that. While we’re at it, let’s add in the requirements for building and recharging 100% electric vehicle fleets.

Then there are the bird and bat deaths, wildlife losses from destroying habitats, and human health impacts from wind turbine noise and flicker. These also need to be examined – fully and honestly – along with the effects of skyrocketing renewable energy prices on every aspect of this transition and our lives.

But for honest, evenhanded EPA and other scientists, modelers, and regulators previously engaged in alarmist, biased climate chaos studies, these analyses will provide some job security. Let’s get started.

Categories

About the Author: Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for CFACT and author of Cracking Big Green and Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.

  • Brain James

    Apr 21, 2016 Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy

    To make earth cleaner, greener and safer, which energy sources should humanity rely on? Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains how modern societies have cleaned up our water, air and streets using the very energy sources you may not have expected–oil, coal and natural gas.

    https://youtu.be/BJWq1FeGpCw

    • notesorotius

      I agree that the green fuel industry has been basing their scheme on non-scientifically based and idealistic goals. For example, many drivers of the all electric vehicles really do think that the car uses zero emissions. This could not be further from the truth, especially when one factors in the mining and industrial activities that must be involved to manufacture the cars. But we do need to search for renewable resources and conserve the fossil fuels we have. Solar on roof tops would be a start. It does not require the long transmission lines that are mentioned in the article; we could integrate roof top solar for personal use on homes and use the existing lines for power when the sun is not shining. I agree more environmental impact of green energy needs to be in place. The threat on migratory birds for huge solar array and huge wind farms has been ignored and we can’t keep threatening wild life by quenching our thirst for green energy. As far a anthropogenic global warming, it is possibly the biggest scam to control the poor and working class ever perpetuated on people. Thank the previous president for that. We have a lot of undoing to do.

      • I will suggest you qestion and research everything and do not discriminate with your feelings or emotions. Like this that most do not know.

        The Origins of Oil – falsely defined in 1892

        Col Fletcher Prouty explains how oil was falsely classified a “fossil fuel” in 1892 and how that deception was advanced further in the 70’s by Kissinger and Rockefeller. Prouty also explains that Nixon/Kissinger/Rockefeller were seeking a ‘world oil price’.

        https://youtu.be/vdSjyvIHVLw

        • notesorotius

          Oh boy…………this is so outlandish! How come coal has fossil leaves in it? Oil is a product of fossil organic matter, and it is formed by similar process as coal. They both from organic peat in marshes; the peat is then submersed below tons of sedimentary rock. Plate tectonics can fold anticlines and synclines in folded mountains. Just like forming solar systems from planetary nebulae, we will never live long enough to see one solar system form; however we see many different stages of solar systems being formed through our telescopes. They don’t hardly change over the entire life of a human, but we can see the story in their development in the many different stages. The same thing occurs with peat turning into coal and oil. There are lots of examples on earth of young peat beds that will become oil long in geologic time. The argument that fossils don’t appear deeper than 16,000 feet is ludicrous. Who is milling around 16,000 feet to find them? This organic matter in peat can be buried a mere 30,000 feet. There is no limit to how deep these oil trapping anticlines can be.

          • “Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t.” Mark Twain

          • Tom Austin

            I agree with you on coal. Oil origin are being question. The Eastern European, rather good chemists and engineers, have long questioned the standard view of trapped surface life. Peat bogs have some pretty distinct marker compounds just not present in oil. (And yes, I am a retired chemist with an interest in this area.)

          • Terry

            @notesorotius. Apples and oranges. Coal and oil are quite different. As you say most coal is compressed organic matter, but coal does not normally become oil. You might consider James McCanney http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/ for a quite different understanding why oil is abundant, not fossil, and from a surprising cosmic process.

          • Diogenes60025

            Coal is indeed fossil swamps. Therefore coal and coal ash contain nothing that wasn’t in the swamps in the first place.

            Oil & gas are primarily formed thermogenically from carbonates. 99.8% of all the carbon on earth is sequestered as sediments. 72.7% of this is in the form of carbonates. 27.1% is in the form of carbonaceous sediments.

            When carbonates are subjected to heat & pressure with hydrogen from the heath’s core, they are converted to hydrocarbons. Example: CaCO3 (limestone) + 2H2 + heat => CH4 (methane) + CaO (quicklime, an element of basalt, the principal form of tectonic magma)

      • Tom Austin

        Most, if not all, electric cars are charged from “fossil” fuel power plants. Think about what happens if you are charging more than 15 miles from the plant. Your “gas mileage” is now lower than the cars you’re trying to replace due to basic physics of electrical power transmission. Consult your local Electrical engineer or physicist for details.

  • ptsstaff

    The environmental crusaders are unaware that solar and wind turbines that are slaughtering millions of birds and bats annually, are only able to provide intermittent electricity to the grid, but they are not alternatives to the hydrocarbon products that are the basis of every component of modern civilizations’ industries and infrastructures. From refined and separated crude oil, we can make transportation fuels, kerosene, asphalt, chemical feed stocks, and pharmaceuticals. The last two categories, chemical feed stocks and pharmaceuticals cover almost all consumer products.

    • I disagree. The environmentalists are FULLY aware of the slaughter of birds and bats, but they don’t care! Their true goal is to force the death of capitalism and establish a socialist ideology for the entire world. Remember the hyped false concerns about the spotted owl, which forced many companies out of business? Isn’t it odd that the number of spotted owls killed by wind turbines no longer matters?

  • messup

    Simple: Anthropic Constants 144 (so far -more to come)
    Here are three, check out Gravity.
    1)Moon-Earth Gravitational Interaction
    If the interaction were greater than it currently is, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. If it were less, orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event, life on earth would be impossible,
    2)Carbon Dioxide Level
    If the CO2 level were higher that it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop (we’d all burn up). If the level were lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis (we’d all suffocate)
    3)Gravity
    If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 (37 0’s) percent, our sun would not exist, and, therefore, neither would we.
    ———
    These basic constants, World Globalist’s will not divulge to average citizens…Trump knows this as do every cone-headed, P-K (philosopher-king). Folks, there really is a God. Pray. Amen. God Bless America and ALL Americans. Read A Bible (disregard ALL MSM) NKJV Psalm 128 (God’s Law).

    • Tom Austin

      Actually the moon was much closer than it is right now in the past so the tidal interactions were larger than they are at the moment. The moon is slowly moving way from earth. You may wish to read any of Robert Hazen’s “The Story of Earth”.

    • Anziani

      Sorry messup, you are way of base on the CO2 thingy. Many times in the past we have greatly exceeded the 1000PPM limit. In fact, we would be better off at 1000PPM now giving us warmer temps, greener forests and enough food to feed the masses. A trace gas (.0039%) has little effect on the atmosphere where water vapor (3.5%) is predominant. And the USN has tested submariners at 10,000PPM with no harmful side effects.

    • william obrien

      Wow, I always thought I was the only one who knew all this. ( joke ) As I read it I was thinking of what you said at the end. “Folks, there really is a God.” Thanks for pointing a few little know facts about how fragile and orchestrated our planet really is.

  • chuckabunch

    The place for solar and wind is at the place of consumption, using rooftop solar panels and small bladeless wind turbines to SUPPLEMENT nuclear and other conventional methods of production. Thermal springs and other volcanic production is fine if you live in Iceland, but as population expands these are only useful as stopgaps. The crown jewel of energy production will have to come from FUSION research. While this is still many miles down the road, governments would be wiser to invest in that goal than to throw away money on solar, wind, and edible crops (alcohol production should be from waste products of corn, not the grain itself).

  • Rocky Mountain

    What is not mentioned here is the huge maintenance costs of wind turbines. I know several men who work full time trying to maintain them and keep them running. They say that they are a maintenance nightmare. That’s why when you drive by one of these “wind farms” you see that at least one in twenty are not working. (many times, one in ten)
    In addition to this, is the cost of the land leased from the landowners. What most tax-paying people don’t know is when the tax subsidies and land leases expire, these extremely expensive towers are simply abandoned! Already, thousands of them across the country, especially in Texas, simply lay idle.

  • CaptTurbo

    Say what you will but I built a 10.12kW solar power system for my home in 2010 consisting of 44 230 watt PV panels. I designed a hybrid system with a modest battery bank and stayed connected to the grid. This system generates about 130% of my needs and is stone reliable. I did this after being alarmed by hearing the America hating, bath housing, community agitating, Trojan Horse, Muslim usurper declaring that under his malfeasance, the cost of electricity must necessarily skyrocket.
    I was so pleased with the system that two years later I had solar thermal for my hot water installed. This stuff rocks! The price of components has come way down since I built my systems so I will tell you that at this time there is no need for any subsidization. If you live in an area that gets any sun at all and plan to stay there a while, you would be a fool to not go solar. Just my .02

    • Tom Austin

      How much did it cost? When will you break even? Projected lifespan of your panels? What are you cost of disposal? What subsidies did you get to convert? Percentage of usage of panels versus grid? What part of the country do you live in? Sunny days/cloudy days?

      A little more complex than ” I stuck a solar panel on my roof”. I live in south central Alaska. I would love to put solar panels or a wind turbine on my property. But I live at the upper end of the Seattle rainforrrest (yes temperate zone rainforest) so 3/4 or mor of the umber is shot for sunny days even though I get 22+ hours of daylight. Winter is not good as we get 3-4 hours of low sun and more than 300 inches of snow (snowiest town in North America -Valdez), We have similar problems with wind- either very low or 80+ mph. And the cost of maintaining a turbine in a marine environment is not conducive to even breaking even.

      • CaptTurbo

        Read again slower and maybe comprehend some of what was stated. I generate MORE power than I need. The grid is simply an insurance policy I chose to keep. My system can and will run 100% independent of the grid if the grid so much as glitches. My system will disconnect and go into “Island Mode” in a nanosecond. My computer screen won’t even flicker as this happens because the transition is so fast.
        Cost of disposal? Disposal of what? The battery company pays me for the batteries when I need to replace them. The rest of the system has a 25 year warranty. Some of the first solar panels ever built are still running.
        At the time I built my system Florida was giving away 20,000.00 of other people’s money as a rebate. They ran out of money when it came to me so I only got 7,000.00. Oh well, that’s par for my luck but I would have built the system without any rebate at all. At this time all the rebates have been suspended here in Florida but the 30% federal tax credit will continue for a while.
        All that said, rebates aren’t even needed now. At the time (2010) I built my system the panels cost more than 800.00 each. You can buy them now for less than 200.00. So it doesn’t matter whether you live in sunny Florida or cloudy Ohio. You simply size your array for the amount of sun your region gets. The costs are not really a problem.
        If you look deeper into solar power there are some cool things about it. The panels are more efficient in cooler temps. Even if you are getting less sun than I do in here in the subtropics, your cooler temps will help compensate for that. As for snow and low sun angles, tilt the panels for maximum exposure and most of the snow will fall off of them. Build ground arrays which are easy to clear with a broom. You can even put them on sun tracking racks which will boost your output.
        I guess I was a prepper before they had the name. I like being as independent as I can be. I hunt, fish, and grow all my veggies. Having my own power utility helps me sleep better at night. people keep using the same old argument about solar power being simply too expensive. That was once true but it no longer holds water. I do agree that wind power is not ready for prime time at least for us home owners. Your costs in maintenance will eat up any savings you will get.
        Oh and Tom, my local utility banks my extra power and on a yearly basis gives me credit for it, zeroing the account at the beginning of each new year. They owed me about 6000 kWh this time around. They cheat me of course by paying me about .02 per kWh for power I have pumped into their grid for them to resell at between .11 to .13 per kWh but the main thing for me is that I have not paid a single power bill since April of 2010.
        There are things to consider for you living where you do. If you do some searching you might find a solar community around you there and strike up a friendship with some of them to see what they are doing and if it makes sense to you.

    • jbsteele

      That’s cool, but advocates of home solar seem to forget they are “on the grid” for their share of the power used to support a modern lifestyle. I once calculated that “my share” of the state’s installed electric capacity was 170MW. 1,700 MW/10M people.

      • CaptTurbo

        I’m on the grid because I choose to be not because i need to be. As I mentioned, I’m generating 130% of the power I need.

        • Tom Austin

          Then drop the grid. I estimate 3 weeks tops and you’ll be back on. Your batteries do cost to depose in way of environmental costs as will your solar panels. And those panels were made at both an environmental cost (rare earth metals mining and manufacture) and fossil fuels (plastics and metals). Have you ever thought of trying to run a smelter or a Bessemer converter (Al converter plant) on anything other than a tradition power plant (or nuclear). Good luck. By the way, is that $800/panel or your whole setup. Now lets take the incentives off the solar panel industry and let you pay the actual price and then see how much the costs would be? And if you think you’re paying actual prices you haven’t been paying attention the last ten years.

          • CaptTurbo

            You make me regret trying to communicate with you. I tried to educate you a bit from the kindness in my heart. You have declared yourself an idiot and worthy of being put on ignore. The snowflakes are melting into a river. Join that flow of stupidity and be gone.

            • Tom Austin

              Yes, I’m an Idiot. Retired with 2 PhDs (physical chemistry and Microbiology), tenured professor, and also worked in both the environmental and petroleum industries. I ask pointed and reasonable questions. I pointed out obvious holes in your arguments. You chose to rely with ad hominem remarks. And I’m the idiot? Put me on ignore simply means you can’t debate the merits.

        • jbsteele

          I was referring to the power used by the entities providing the goods and services used by the homestead. The farmers, manufacturers, retailers, transportation, medical, and so on. Basically anything not made or grown at home.

          • CaptTurbo

            I’m darn near off that too. I hunt and fish for most meats and raise all the veggies here at the house. Professional fishing guide by trade. I even raise many medicinal plants as well as make my own colloidal silver for my health plan. ;).

    • reagangs

      Maybe by the time the hydrocarbon fuels (coal, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, butane, propane, ….) run out, the renewable energy supply hardware will be more viable for typical consumption on a daily basis. Maybe by then solar cells will be more efficient and reliable for the long term and geothermal energy will be the main driver in large producers of reliable electricity. After all the earths molten core (@2,000 + *F) has been a constant ever since the beginning of life as we know it.
      In the early 1980s, I worked with Sandia Labs on geothermal wells as a mechanical engineer at Gearhart Industries. A typical oil/gas well at 20,000 feet depth yielded 450*F temps. At 25,000 feet, it was 500+*F. Several of these large wells with high temperature stainless steel alloys were proved to be enough for massive steam generation stations. Iceland uses the mid Atlantic riff and its geothermal shallow depth for their electric generation. To me, geothermal is the way to go. Cheap and reliable all the way. Regards, retired engineer (1973-2013), Texan (forever) and USN vet (1966-1969).

      • CaptTurbo

        Geo-thermal is great stuff but solar is ready for prime time. People just keep refusing to look at how much the components have come down.

  • Michael Beamish

    Frequently overlooked in the discussion is the CO2 cost associated with the manufacture of high performance Li Ion batteries. I refer you to a recent study by the Swedish Environmental Inst. Dahllof & Romare. For example, a Tesla Model S battery has cost 17.5 tonnes of CO2..

  • Raymond Miller

    Ronald Reagan said that the scariest thing you could hear is someone say, hello, I’m from the Government and I’m here to help you. When I hear the Government tell me they are here to help me I put both hands on my butt and run like h*ll in the opposite direction. It’s amazing how much these a**holes know after they get elected to office, before that they can’t hold down a job at a fast food joint.

  • Diogenes60025

    Wind & solar still will fail, even supported by subsidies, mandates, and penalties on competing fossil fuels. When subsidies & mandates end, renewables will die. Investment in these businesses will be lost, and lead to a new financial crisis.

    Renewables happy talk foretells a bubble. Without the CO2-driven global-warming boogeyman, wine and solar would be relegated to the niches they deserve. So-called renewable energy will be the nexus of the next great financial panic. Get out while you can!

    Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Political leaders who advocate unwarranted taxes and regulations on fossil fuels will be seen as fools or knaves. Nature converts CO2 to limestone. Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. Temperature changes cause changes in ambient CO2.

    There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Likely and well-documented causes include sunspot cycles, earth/sun orbital changes, cosmic ray effects on clouds and tectonic plate activity. The further point here is that earth promptly and naturally recycles all carbon dioxide.

    Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation and other sources. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic). The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.

    99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in earth’s crust. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted.

    The Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost up to to $100 trillion — $13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity’s cumulative savings over history. And will not
    affect climate at all.

    A modern coal power plant emits few air effluents except water vapor and carbon dioxide. coal remains the lowest cost and most reliable source of electric energy, along with natural gas. Coal has always competed effectively with natural gas.

    And coal remains the cheapest energy source. Illinois Basin coal now costs less than 1/3 the equivalent cost of natural gas at their respective sources. Less than $1.00/MMBTU. Coal is more competitive with gas today than it was twenty years
    ago.

    • BigWaveDave

      The Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost up to to $100 trillion — $13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity’s cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all.

      And what is even worse is that after spending the $13,333 per human being, there will be little of value to show for it; especially if compared to the infrastructure that $13,333 per human being could have purchased if conventional, natural (whether organic or not) stored solar energy were used.

  • marlene.langert

    I believe that Obama was trying to kill us and drag us into the swamp of these alternate fuel supplies on purpose. I thank CFACT for publishing this article. THe article , together with all the comments make it very clear that we need to use oil, gas and coal. I thank the responders below for their input. Also, windpower traps and kills many birds in the windmills and tunnels, including many eagles, our bird of the USA. Many nature lovers including bird lovers, should be against this. Most likely, many of them are the same people who push for windpower without knowing it’s affect on our birds.

  • MarcJ

    Wind turbines have shown themselves as being true Cuisinarts for birds, including rare eagles as well as millions of mosquito-eating bats.

  • messup

    Anthropic Constant 1: Oxygen Level
    On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. That precise figure is an Anthropic Constant that makes life on earth possible. If oxygen were 25% fires would erupt spontaneously, if it were 15%, human beings would suffocate.
    Anthropic Constant 2: Atmospheric Transparency
    If the atmosphere were less transparent, not enough solar radiation would reach the earth’s surface. If it were more transparent we would be bombarded with far roo much solar radiation down here. (In addition to atmospheric transparency, the atmospheric composition of precise levels of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and ozone are in themselves Anthropic constants).
    Anthropic Constant 3: Moon-Earth Gravitational Interaction
    If the interaction were greater than it currently is, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. If it were less, orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event, life on earth would be impossible.
    Anthropic Constant 4: Carbon Dioxide level
    If the CO2 level were higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop (we’d all burn up). If the level were lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis (we’d all suffocate).
    Anthropic Constant 5: Gravity
    If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, and, therefore neither would we. Talk about precision.
    Anthropic Constant 6: Centrifugal Force
    If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.
    Anthropic Constant 7: Rate Of Expansion
    If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed.
    Anthropic Constant 8: Speed Of Light
    Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth.
    Anthropic Constant 9: Water Vapor Levels.If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect would cause temperatures to rise too high for human life. If they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the earth to cold to support human life.
    Anthropic Constant 10: Jupiter.
    If Jupiter were not in it’s current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter’s gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth.
    Anthropic Constant 11: The Earth’s Crust.
    If the thickness of the earth’s crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible.
    Anthropic Constant 12: The Earth’s Rotation.
    If the rotation of the earth took longer than 24 hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be to great.
    Anthropic Constant 13: Axis Tilt.
    The 23-degree axis tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth.
    Anthropic Constant 14: Atmospheric Discharge.
    If the atmospheric discharge (lightning) rate were greater, there would be too much fire destruction; if it were less there would be little nitrogen fixings in the soil.
    Anthropic Constant 15: Seismic Activity.
    If there were more seismic activity, much more life would be lost; if there were less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift. (yes, even earthquakes are necessary to sustain life as we know it).
    ——–
    Above are 15 of the more than 144 Anthropic Constants, (coupled to more underway) will more than adequately cement, for posterity, climate change and Agenda 21/2030. Worthy opponents to Anthropic Constants have but one path…acceptance of the near perfect design of this divine construct. Pray. Amen. God Bless America and ALL Americans. Read A Bible. NKJV.

    • Tom Austin

      O2 has been has high as 30% in our history(too high for spontaneous combustion). CO2 has been has high has 8%. Seismic activity has been higher for most of earth’s history. Water vapor has only been near its present level maybe 500 million year at best.

      Sorry none of the above FACTS actually contradicts the Bible, just your narrow interpretation of the book. Get a life, read some science and realize 4.65 billion years ( the best estimate of the age of earth) covers a lot of possibilities.

  • WhiteFalcon

    Global warming is a fraud pure and simple. It is a fraud. It is known by anyone that pays attention that none of what the Al Gores of the world have been screaming at us for many years now simply is not true. They know that. Therefore, what they are pushing is a fraud.

  • jameshrust

    Good paper. It shows alleged renewable energy sources of wind, solar, ethanol from corn, other biofuels, biomass (wood) ,etc. can’t compete with our abundant, inexpensive, and geographically distributed coal, oil, and natural gas. The environmental movement wants to impoverish our nation. President Trump’s policies will make us unbelievably rich.

    James H. Rust, professor of nuclear engineering (ret. Georgia Tech)

  • The Texan

    I know nothing about the technology or problems with wind turbines. But I do know a little about solar panels. I have them installed on my home. I did not have them installed because of any of the nonsense about man made climate change. I did as a matter of personal economics. After adding the cost of my solar panels and energy bill I still save an average of 25% a month. I don’t know that everyone can achieve these results but it works for me. Climate change is a force of nature that has been going on since this earth was formed. Humans have little affect on it. But if I can cut my expenses with this technology I will use it.

    • reagangs

      Question: What was the tax payers stake in the installation ??? Any government or power subsides involved ??

    • Diogenes60025

      Are you still connected to the grid? If so, your solar system is being subsidized by taxpayers and other electric customers.

      How old is your system? How often do you clean it? Have you suffered the “dirty windshield” effect yet? How do you get power when the sun isn’t shining?

      Do you own or lease your solar system? What if you want to sell your house to someone who doesn’t want solar panels (most people)?

      What was the total installed cost of your system, for how many KW?

  • reagangs

    Excellent info. I’ve been begging for this kind of data, in addition to ROI v.s. actual cost. My guess is that the ROI would be minimal if ever. Only when the hard working Patriotic American tax payers foot the bill. End subsidies for these industries. Make T Boone Pickens pay for his own way. By telling the UN and other climate panels to go stick it, we have won the first round of independence from over bearing political corruption.

  • cyndeebee

    A friend asked for studies to back up your claims. I know there are studies out there to support what you’re saying. Do you have a reference list for your information?