Image 01 Image 03

Psaki: Biden Wants To Rely On Foreign Energy So U.S. Can “Look At” Green Alternatives

Psaki: Biden Wants To Rely On Foreign Energy So U.S. Can “Look At” Green Alternatives

Green energy is decades from working properly, so it makes zero sense to cripple our nation and make it beholden to foreign powers due to some kind of fevered ideological fantasy.

The main problem with the left’s “green” energy push is that there is literally no “green” way to meet American (and more broadly, the world’s) energy needs.  Well, there is, but they won’t even consider nuclear power. Because of course.

This is why everything they are doing to advance their green agenda is one big pile of fail after another.

From Solyndra to trying to force EVs on the public with no way at all to power them (without oil and gas), the left has everything bassackwards: cut off domestic oil and gas production before there is a viable (i.e. affordable, universally available, reliable) alternative.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki says the quiet part out loud, admitting that they are shutting down domestic drilling, the Keystone pipeline, etc. . . . to “look” at other ways to meet America’s energy needs.

Via RCP: Psaki says, “President Biden’s view is that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, on oil in general, and need to [look] at other ways of having energy in our country and others.”


Here’s an idea, decrease our nation’s dependence on foreign oil and gas by ensuring, as President Trump did, that we are energy independent.

Simultaneously, work toward developing viable green energy alternatives and work to shift American energy production from oil and gas to other means as they become more reliable, less cost prohibitive, and more widely available.

What use is a fleet of EVs that cannot be charged without sucking up energy produced by oil and gas?  Or that cannot be used for any distance because it takes hours to charge them and there are very few charging stations in existence?  All of which, of course, rely on oil and gas.

Not only does maintaining American energy independence while working toward green(er) energy make geopolitical sense (by extracting us from energy dependence on both actually and potentially hostile foreign countries), but it just makes sense sense.

If you run (say) a grocery store chain and decide that you want to eliminate the expense of cashiers, you don’t fire all of your cashiers so you can “look at” a viable way for customers to self-checkout and pay.  What happens in the meantime?  Oh, right, you go bankrupt.  Or you have to hire new cashiers who rightly demand higher pay and better benefits because they are privy to your plan. (Not an ideal comparison, but you get the drift. You don’t shoot your horse before you can afford to buy a tractor to run your plow).

But that is what Biden’s administration is not just advocating but actually doing: cutting off American energy independence to “look at” alternatives . . . while relying on foreign countries for our energy needs.

I think that the majority of Americans would be on board with transitioning to affordable, reliable green energy as long as it didn’t impact their lifestyle, their pocketbook, or their energy needs.  We don’t care if we are getting power from a “green” source or a “dirty” fossil fuel source, we just want everything to work properly.

Green energy is decades from working properly, so it makes zero sense to cripple our nation and make it beholden to foreign powers due to some kind of fevered ideological fantasy. Back in 2010, I blogged about how Lenin’s infamous assertion that “Communism is Soviet Power Plus the Electrification of the Whole Country.” Is today’s American left’s push for the greenification of the whole country really that different?

Ultimately, the left has its priorities all wrong (what else is new?).  You don’t cut off the power before you have a viable alternative in place.  That’s just stupid.  It’s stupid thinking, stupid politics, and as we are seeing now, stupid geopolitics.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Either she’s an idiot, or she’s part of the scam and is as accountable as Biden and his son.

She’s not an idiot.

I’ve said this for over a decade.

If solar was economical and beneficial, China would be using solar panels themselves, not exporting them to the US and building coal/gas plants nonstop.

‘Green’ bullshit is just that – bullshit. Wind and solar can form a VERY SMALL portion of an energy grid, but as soon as they get past about 10-15%, they cause catastrophic problems because THEY ARE NOT RELIABLE ENERGY.

The only ‘green’ energy that are beneficial are hydro and nuclear. But the greenies scream about the poor fish caught by the dam, so no hydro, despite it providing huge amounts of power with not that much investment.

And of course we all know the story with nuclear.

    TargaGTS in reply to Olinser. | February 27, 2022 at 5:15 pm

    We’re buying solar panels from a country that is building one to two coal plants every week.

    Calling it insane excuses its stupidity. The people running our country are imbeciles.

All the cool kids know that global pollution won’t cross the borders of ‘green’ nations – but only if illegals are allowed to cross the borders.



The real solution, the word that must not be said apparently.

    MattMusson in reply to artichoke. | February 28, 2022 at 7:37 am

    Please note that all the Carbon Neutral power sources – Nuclear, wind, solar and hydro require the entire project paid for before they generate power. If you build a $1billion field of wind turbines – no power comes out until the turbines are complete.

    If you spend $1billion on a natural gas plant, you build the $200 million dollar plant and you spend $800 million over 20 years for gas.

    Two Completely Different Business Models. $1 billion up front on $200 million up front. Guess which one is always more expensive from day one?

    Gosport in reply to artichoke. | February 28, 2022 at 2:58 pm

    Somewhere in Germany a harassed bureaucrat is desperately searching his desk for the keys to the nuke plants they shut down because of ‘green’.

FACT: most Americans, especially the minority who still think, know that the Green Movement is a scam, a grift of the first order. Almost everyone I know has ZERO INTEREST in an electric car. These leftist thieves can pound sand.

    Arminius in reply to MAJack. | March 1, 2022 at 1:45 pm

    “Almost everyone I know has ZERO INTEREST in an electric car.”

    Hey now. I bet everyone you know loves the bumper cars at the amusement park.

good kryst–step outside the bubble–why should we ever seek dependence on foreign sources for energy?–green, blue or otherwise–the idea that we should EVER be beholden to foreign countries to keep the lights on is beyond absurd

Speaking of keeping an eye on leftist traitors, check this site out regularly:

We need to be looking at how Admiral Nelson’s wind-driven British Navy defeated the wind-driven Spanish Armada at the Battle of Trafalgar. It worked back then and there is no reason why it cant work for us fighting the dirty, polluting militaries of our enemies. Diversity is our strength. Let’s see what Russia does to counter those fearsome British pink tanks or when we unleash our “fabulous!” US Marines! Good conquers evil!

It does not matter to them, the garbage they dump on people, and the suffering they cause. They have no shame.

Domestic oil production is poised to explode:

Despite our government’s war on domestic oil, the rig count keeps rising. Fracking is still growing leading to an abundance of drilled wells ready to produce… if the government gets out of the way.

It is expected that Biden will soon be announcing a major nuclear initiative. Great idea (if true) but that will not produce electricity for years. And my car needs GAS NOW!

This should tell you all you need to know about how seriously Brandon and his radical leftwing admin is taking Russia’s intervention in Ukraine.

We should be panicky and our anxiety level should be dialed up to eleven because the evil Putin may start WW III.

But that’s not important enough for us to maximize our own oil and gas production to become, once again, energy independent. We’ll continue to buy oil from Russia when we need it. Until we’ve built enough windmills and blanketed the landscape with enough solar panels.

BTW, those ‘electric’ cars the lefties love… Until we have enough ‘green alternative energy’ they essentially run on coal. So much for “we’re all gonna die from climate change unless…”

Point of use solar/wind power voluntarily installed by homeowners and business are fine. If you want it and are willing to pay for it, then sure go for it. Reliable grid scale applications capable of uninterrupted service are a long way off.

IMO, the next step towards a sane implementation is for regulators to require solar/wind producers to install their own on site back up capacity capable of meeting demand when wind/solar fail. That’s where the rubber meets the road; reliability. Either it is or isn’t viable when the costs of reliability are imposed.

    Fatkins in reply to CommoChief. | February 28, 2022 at 5:02 am

    Domestic level energy production has been around for well over a decade. It’s a great way to be self sufficient and save money (depending on the implementation). No one is saying it’s a silver bullet but part of a wider package of measures.

      CommoChief in reply to Fatkins. | February 28, 2022 at 8:56 am


      I am in favor of point of use applications. However, any commercial entity that is offering to supply power to the grid; wind farm or solar farm, must be required to actually deliver the power from their equipment. So a wind farm offering x megawatts must be able to turn on their own Nat gas generation to provide power when the wind stalls.

      This BS of State regulators allowing wind and solar companies to contract without the proven ability to provide reliable backup isn’t feasible. Wind and solar are fine when they function but as we all recognize they are intermittent. The ability to provide reliable power should be a necessary component of State utility regulators approval to operate.

        Fatkins in reply to CommoChief. | February 28, 2022 at 6:55 pm

        Having a natural gas back up would be pointless. Many of the issues with intermittent supply are easy to overcome in the US it’s a vast country, with connectivity throughout the country it should ensure supply demands are met. Especially considering solar and wind operate best in different conditions and tend to support eachother well. Combine with large scale storage, hydro and nuclear and away you go.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Fatkins. | February 28, 2022 at 8:16 pm

          “with connectivity throughout the country”
          Who will pay for this? This is the main problem with wind and solar – you need more redundancy in transmission ability because wind and solar power production are notoriously unreliable. The backup power has to get from where it’s produced to where it’s needed. There are different ways to do this, none of them efficient or affordable. If the two means of production are not co-located, you need duplication of transmission capability. Not a good idea. (There are, of course, more complications, but I’m keeping this simple.)

          This is why CommoChief wrote that the wind and solar farms will need co-located fossil fuel back-up.

          CommoChief in reply to Fatkins. | February 28, 2022 at 10:09 pm


          Let’s look at it this way; A company, lets call it Fatkins Wind wants a permit to build a wind farm in a particular State. The State utility regulator simply makes their permit conditional on actually supplying the x megawatts that Fatkins Wind says they can deliver.

          If Fatkins Wind decides not to have onsite nat gas generation to provide power during a lull in wind generation then Fatkins Wind will be on the hook to import the power from other providers at market cost. As TX recently demonstrated, that market rate will be extremely expensive during a widespread winter storm event.

          That’s just one problem. The other is additional transmission line costs to import additional power. Who pays for that? Why would eminent domain be justified for this? Will the rural areas have new transmission line sprawl? If it’s a straight line and passes through a metro will the lines be diverted around that metro? Why?

          Bottom line is no entity should be allowed to market power that can’t provide reasonable reliability in generation. Neither solar nor wind can do so by themselves. Ratepayers should not be subjected to intermittent power availability because the Fatkins Wind Corp doesn’t want to pay for a backup power generation capacity when the wind stops.

          Fatkins Wind. Priceless.

          Fatkins in reply to Fatkins. | March 1, 2022 at 4:19 am


          The grid is already connected together, only Texas is excluded from it at their own request


          You seem to be thinking that solar and wind isn’t actually in use all the time already, it is.. It’s the grid operators responsibility to ensure continuity of supply because they view the grid in totallity. Your trying to shift responsibility to small entities which isn’t how it works. If the individual supplier can’t supply electricity it doesn’t get paid for it simple. Requiring it to supply a back up which you then stipulate is daft. Your interfering unduly in the market. That’s not a great conservative position to hold is it. Even Texas understands the basic principle that the grid needs to be centrally run , it doesn’t really work any other way.

          With respect to transmission lines again that doesn’t make sense, if you are introducing new power sources your going to have to pay for transmission lines no matter what the source is whether it’s gas or wind or whatever, that’s just part of the capital cost.

          You do realise wind and solar has been successfully implemented at vast scales internationally and will continue to be adopted. None of these issues you raise have been considered problematic at all.

          CommoChief in reply to Fatkins. | March 1, 2022 at 9:48 am


          You are displaying the magical thinking typical of a green energy proponent. Always deflecting and dodging specific issues with vague statements. For many who subscribe to the green movement it becomes a belief system akin to religion; adherence to the underlying mythos and orthodoxy is all important; especially when the orthodoxy can’t survive scrutiny.

          Fatkins in reply to Fatkins. | March 1, 2022 at 11:04 am


          With respect I’ve answered your questions, if you don’t like the answers not my problem. If you don’t like answers from first principles and logic not my problem. I pointed out that fossil fuels have there own added in costs have you answered that question no. You try and make out that I’m evasive when in actuality it’s you. Ask a few questions then don’t like the answers so you claim its vague or evasive. It’s disappointing to say the least. At the end of the day if you can’t cope with answers grounded in reality not my problem. Until you have something substantive to say I’m not replying to you.

          Arminius in reply to Fatkins. | March 1, 2022 at 12:09 pm

          I don’t particularly care for covering the landscape with bird choppers and solar panels when a nuclear power plant is so much more space efficient.

          Also I’m unconvinced “going green” is even a good idea given our current level of technology.

          “Greenhouse Gas
          Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is a synthetic fluorinated compound with an extremely stable molecular structure. Because of its unique dielectric properties, electric utilities rely heavily on SF6 in electric power systems for voltage electrical insulation, current interruption, and arc quenching in the transmission and distribution of electricity. Yet, it is also the most potent greenhouse gas known to-date. Over a 100-year period, SF6 is 22,800 times more effective at trapping infrared radiation than an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide (CO2). SF6 is also a very stable chemical, with an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years. As the gas is emitted, it accumulates in the atmosphere in an essentially un-degraded state for many centuries. Thus, a relatively small amount of SF6 can have a significant impact on global climate change….”

          Is it really smart instead of burning hydrocarbons in our cars we instead use approximately 47 tons of it in your average wind turbine?

          Just in order to refine one ton of the rare earths needed to produce the magnets in a wind turbine you produce one ton of radioactive waste.

          Yes, the sun and wind are clean and natural. But the devices that have to be built to convert the sun and wind into useful energy are not.

          Only a retarded teen aged Swedish chick can’t understand this. And by retarded teen aged Swedish chick, I mean Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

          Fatkins in reply to Fatkins. | March 2, 2022 at 12:17 pm


          With respect to SF6 that applies to electrical equipment I’m not clear how that relates to be a problem specific to green tech, it appears to be a problem relating to energy infrastructure in general. It’s also the case that relatively speaking it makes up a very small percentage of the greenhouse effect and alternatives are being researched and its use has been limited by the EU to specific uses.

          With respect to the carbon footprint of solar and wind panels sure there is one now compare that to the footprint of fossil fuels. This is well understood and has been researched. Presently fossil fuels are much much worse, that doesn’t mean improvements can’t be made to replacement techs but it’s a better starting point than sticking to the existing status quo

amatuerwrangler | February 27, 2022 at 7:00 pm

If EV were actually a viable transport for the people and commerce of this country, the government would not have to subsidize (bribe) people to buy them.

And. What steps would the government take, or have available, to stop a group of renegade wildcatters from just opening up those wells mentioned above and start pumping oil? Same with refining it.

Mentally ill, that one.

So-called green energy, isn’t. One wind turbine requires more resources than it produces, a grift.

SMR’s are the best option…can power a city or county with a few acre footprint. Clean, reliable, and efficient. Which is why the deluded among America hate it.

Biden Wants To Rely On Foreign Energy So U.S. Can Hoard Domestic Energy For When Nobody Else Has Any

    DaveGinOly in reply to Neo. | February 28, 2022 at 8:18 pm

    I’ve often considered that. It’s a natural strategic reserve. If we use the world’s oil first, there will come a time when we’re sitting on oil when the rest of the world has run out.
    Are they that smart?

      taurus the judge in reply to DaveGinOly. | March 1, 2022 at 11:53 am

      actually ( speaking as an oil/gas/mining PE), I have been told that was the strategy since I got in the business in the 70’s.

      I personally know of teams that find wells, drill and cap them for later use.

      I have been told this was a policy since the early cold war.

      True or false, I cant say but its accepted as fact in many parts of that industry.

“Green energy is decades from working properly, so it makes zero sense to cripple our nation and make it beholden to foreign powers due to some kind of fevered ideological fantasy.”

It’s just like the signboard says.
It works as well for “energy” as it does for “health.”

Their idea of green is an extension cord running to India, where twenty five thousand Chinese made portable generators are gridded together and hidden away.

Just remember…to make plants greener, use less water. The USA will be energy independent when there is no more energy.

I have to say the article doesn’t really know anything about the current state of play with respect to these forms of energy and EVs. Fast charging takes 18 minutes, people can charge there car at home over night. The green industry is massively expanding in the US , it’s much much bigger and has much greater potential than coal for example. Market forces will take there course. Very few people want to have fossil fuels as part of the future because we know all the negatives now.

There is a fair debate around nuclear and we should do that too.

    @Fatkins, thanks for your comment. I had heard that charging times were down, but even if it’s 18 mins on some (expensive) EV models, where are the charging stations for them? How is the energy for these charging stations created? And who the hell wants to spend 18 minutes putting “gas” in their car? Not me, for sure. Same thing with charging your EV at home overnight. How is your home energy produced? What is the benefit of driving an EV that is wholly reliant on fossil fuels? (Including the materials used to manufacture them).

    Over at Powerline, Steven Hayward has an interesting roundup on the fail of green energy.

      Thanks for the reply Fuzzy

      There are a number of issues you raise.

      The context of EV is important Vs the combustion engine. We aren’t going to see much improvement on a tech that has been honed to its maximum potential. There really isn’t much to improve on a combustion engine. That’s Vs EV which is a fledgling tech with a lot of potential.

      18 min charge time is pretty good and sure it’s not as good as petrol but no one has claimed parity in that respect. This comes down to people adapting to the tech , much like a lot of people trickle charge there phones on the move that will apply to EV. Charge overnight and grab a a coffee and charge for 5 minutes when out and about. Sure there are some that won’t suit and that’s fine but most people really just drive to work and back and that’s it.

      With respect to the linked article it doesn’t really provide very much analysis. Besides which the measures it highlights are in context of a major energy supplier going into conflict with everyone that’s not a great critique of a fledgling tech that’s barely been adopted.

      @taurus the judge

      You do realize all fast charging is , is an increase in voltage right. Its really not difficult from a science perspective the issue is delivering the infrastructure. The idea that fast charging is a myth is absurd .. take a phone plug it in to a fast charger usb Vs a non fast charger usb. See which one is quicker.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Fatkins. | February 28, 2022 at 8:21 pm

        With our current tech, “fast charging” does not scale up from phones to EV batteries. Physics.

        Sorry, Fat, that doesn’t fly. Wow, are you really arguing that the combustion engine is perfect, so we need to . . . replace it? Naw, that’s not what you are saying. It can’t be.

        Yeah, let me toss out my car that runs on gas I can put into it in less than five minutes (including paying) for an EV that sucks up the same exact fossil fuels to charge in 18 mins to 12 hours? Ooooh, where do I sign up for that? /sarc

        For green energy to work it must be reliable, available, and affordable. Who is going to embrace a technology that is worse than the one it replaces? As you admit, it’s costly and a huge time suck. And no, the sky is falling crap from the eco-fascists doesn’t change my mind.

        Get green tech to the point that I don’t even notice it, and I’m on board. Ask me to replace a perfect system with one full of holes you could drive an EV oil tanker truck through, and not so much.


          Fatkins in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | March 1, 2022 at 4:24 am

          Perhaps I wasn’t clear. The combustion engine has limited scope for improvement Vs electric engineers which have far more scope for improvement. That’s demonstrating that the current ev tech will improve a lot over the next few decades. It’s already very nearly at the point of parity in terms of range for a standard car.

          With respect your now drifting into arguments about main grid generation. Your massive assumption is that the power grid is exclusively oil /gas based which we know isn’t remotely true.

          Ok so it seems like you deny climate change. That’s a pretty difficult position to hold. How on earth can you remotely justify that with everything we know?

    taurus the judge in reply to Fatkins. | February 28, 2022 at 12:33 pm

    “Fast charging” is a myth bordering on a lie. ( just very well vetted through a legal department)

    Here are the facts and physics ( not subject to debate , belief or argument) (In layman’s terms without the technobabble to make an easier read in a post but sacrificing a bit of technical accuracy)

    Any electrical storage material (lead/acid, lithium or whatever) has an energy density. ( how much it can hold of an “excitement” minus the losses of the 2nd law)

    That “density” is relative to the physics of the material and CANNOT BE CHANGED ( this is why high or fast charging damages batteries)

    The “charge” (excitement) impacts the surface of the conductor then “ebbs in. ( a time consuming process like thawing meat). It cannot be sped up because of the law of diminishing returns where overloading will break down the material so there is a hard ceiling on recharging everything).

    What they do to get around this is either make more plates thinner or increase surface area. ( what we used to call the surface charge)- both of these fool the VOLTMETER and show “full voltage” but because its a surface charge, it bleeds off quick and generates greater heat thus reducing life accordingly. ( that’s why we used to tell people to let the battery sit overnight)

    Remember, there are no sentencing reductions, plea bargains or work arounds for the laws of physics and Uncle Isaac made it clear that for every action- there will be an equal and opposite reaction.

    They are making up scientific sounding terms and custom metrics to deliberately hide the truth from the unsuspecting public.

      Right on. I believe the current engineering standard for recharging lithium batteries with the least damage to the battery is a full charge over 14 hours. (That generally means overnight, Level 1 charging.)

      Faster charges are possible with the right equipment to prevent overheating and possible combustion. But faster charges always diminish the life span of the battery.

    Gosport in reply to Fatkins. | February 28, 2022 at 4:18 pm

    There are three general types of electric car charging: Level 1 (a regular old 120-volt three-prong power outlet), Level 2 (a 240-volt power outlet, or car charger), and Level 3 (a “fast-charging” station).
    Here’s a rough estimate of how many miles you can get at each type of EV charger:
    Level 1: About 5 miles of added range per hour of charging
    Level 2: About 25 miles of added range per hour of charging
    Level 3: About 200 miles of added range per hour of charging

    Some other possible topics:
    – The rising cost per kWh of electricity (It doesn’t get cheaper just because it’s going into an EV).
    – The fact that power grids will need to be massively beefed up to handle such loads at peak times. (Cost, time required)
    – Cost of installing a home charging station.
    – Cost of installing public charging stations (who pays? (We do of course)
    – The fact that while it’s seldom if ever mentioned, “public” charging station isn’t synonymous – with “free” charging stations.
    – How to prevent criminals from stealing those nice, big, copper cables. (already an issue not being talked about)
    – Who is going to buy the EVs for the poor and middle class?

Also the article explicitly claims there will be an increase in reliance on foreign energy bit that’s not in the current set of policy proposals.

    CommoChief in reply to Fatkins. | February 28, 2022 at 2:07 pm

    Not explicitly but that is that effect. The US uses x amount of oil to meet current demand and Y % is domestic and Z % imported that’s a static look. Demand is dynamic not static and will increase. The admin is heavily curtailing the ability to exploit domestic and North American oil which means that less domestic/north American oil will be available to meet demand.

    By limiting domestic/N American production the admin will have allowed artificial scarcity to develop. That scarcity will be met with imported oil or go unmet. In either case prices will rise which the admins ‘green’ allies will welcome. The goal of the d/prog is to reduce the use of fossil fuels despite these fuels being critical to our western lifestyle. That there isn’t a viable alternative is irrelevant to them.

      Fatkins in reply to CommoChief. | February 28, 2022 at 8:24 pm

      That’s built on several assumptions though. The big one is that green tech isn’t viable and we know that it is since the market is massively growing in that sector. If the government did literally nothing green energy is projected to have substantial growth, older techs like coal are basically dying out right now. We also know that it can and does work the experience of multiple countries informs us that it’s absolutely viable and competitive. Look at the trends, the US is behind the curve on all this stuff. Many European countries are way ahead.

      It might be the case that foreign energy supply increases but that’s related to the speed and implementation of wholesale upgrading the US energy market.

      Let’s be clear oil and gas won’t be around forever it’s finite, and the oil and gas available will increasingly be in harder to reach locations. Exploiting these resources is increasing not cost effective.

        Well, no, Fat. Are you not reading what people who know far more about this than you and I are saying? And backing up with actual science, not political science?

        If government literally did nothing, there would be no green energy sector at all. Because it’s not viable and won’t be for decades (if ever, from what I am understanding from our far more knowledgeable fellow LI commenters).

        Name one country, ONE, that has successfully switched off all oil and gas and is run completely on “green energy.” Name just one. I’ll help you out here: there isn’t one. And there won’t be for the foreseeable future.

        Now, you seem to be fine with “electric” blah blah that RUN ON FOSSIL FUELS, what is that? I don’t get it at all. There is literally no way at all to eliminate fossil fuels from . . . erm, anything. Practically everything you touch has some amount of fossil fuel in its components and in its production (and yes, that include EVs, that can neither be produced nor run without fossil fuel).

        It’s really not hard, Fat, just think for a moment. Or two.

          Fatkins in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | March 1, 2022 at 5:15 am

          With the greatest respect demonstrably bad science since they claim things that exist are physically possible. Not a great start of your science position is a negative of something that’s already been demonstrated.

          As for your strawman of pick a country. You do realise that countries are in the process of transitioning right, you get that what you’ve asked is a strawman. The better question would be how fast are countries transitioning. And just becuase try Norway, 95% of its energy production is non fossil fuels.

          If you look at the actual market economy you’ll see that the green industry is massively expanding and sure to start with it had some government subsidies but oil and gas still has vast subsidies. All you need to do is look at the jobs figures to see where the economy is going with respect to these issues. Sorry I have some left tendencies but I believe in the market and the market doesn’t care much for obsolete industries.

          Again with the strawman. The idea is to transition away from fossil fuels. There will be challenged in some aspects of course. If you look at what we have most control over mains generation and transportation are the two key sectors along with maybe packaging.

          With respect I’m not going to get drawn into an exchange of ad hominem. It’s pretty clear that you haven’t really thought about it given your posiition is neither consistent with conservative values or with the best scientific evidence available.

        CommoChief in reply to Fatkins. | February 28, 2022 at 10:32 pm

        No, not talking about power generation. We are talking about oil to be me refined into gas, diesel and aviation fuel. There are not enough EV charging stations now to charge the unsold EV if every single EV moved off the lot tomorrow. In some locations the spare electricity to charge them doesn’t exist; summer in parts of CA with rolling blackouts.

        EV absolutely have a place in metropolitan areas with short commute but they are not really ready for prime time in rural areas yet. Nor for commercial purposes. The infrastructure isn’t there yet and that’s on the EV private sector to build out, not for taxpayers or ratepayers.

        The main issue many of us have with proponents of wind, solar and EV is the tendency of the proponents to seek to externalize costs; additional transmission lines – let the ratepayers pay and put these lines through rural communities, charging stations – govt subsidies to build public stations, backup generation when the wind stops or sun don’t shine – buy the power elsewhere from someone else but don’t ask us who or at what price or even if it’s available.

        All these questions/answers have a common thread; it’s not the responsibility of the green proponents to find solutions. It’s always some version of ‘the engineers will figure it out, don’t bother me with details’. IOW magical thinking.

          I’m not sure EVs even have a use in metropolitan areas. Just let the greenies get a bike and ride that. No fossil fuels needed . . . well, except to manufacture and produce the bike and those stupid helmets they all wear.

          These people have no idea that pretty much everything they can touch is produced, manufactured, and/or contains materials produced from, with, or by fossil fuels.

          Fatkins in reply to CommoChief. | March 1, 2022 at 5:18 am

          There are plenty of solutions offered, the fact is nothing you’ve stated is a problem and is in fact already in progress or already exists at scale.

          There is a reason Tesla is one of the most valuable companies in the world. I really don’t get what your problem is, it’s already being done with or without you.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | March 1, 2022 at 9:55 am

          Great news! That means Tesla and every other EV manufacturer and purchaser don’t need taxpayer subsidies. Nor would the manufacturers, installers and purchasers of Solar and Wind and battery storage systems need any taxpayer subsidies.

          It’s great to hear that the day of actual competitive prices for solar, wind and EV, without any industry specific taxpayer subsidy nor unequal regulatory burden for their fossil fuel competitors have arrived.

          Fatkins in reply to CommoChief. | March 1, 2022 at 10:20 am

          @ commochief

          Indeed you could make that argument. Depends what your goal is of course. Since the goal is wholesale massive transformation of the energy sector in as short a space of time as possible that might be premature.

        taurus the judge in reply to Fatkins. | March 1, 2022 at 5:44 am

        Fat, your “knowledge” of this subject is fundamentally and fatally flawed at every level. Your points are not even correct enough to be totally wrong.

        The falsity of “green” starts at the atom. There is not enough Joules in each individual unit to compare with the potential of fossil fuels. ( excluding Uranium”.

        Elemental physics permanently ends the argument of a 1:1 swap right there in spite of any cheerleading and selective wordsmithing.

        Regarding infrastructure (bearing in mind I do this as a career and you don’t even grasp the concept beyond media driven talking points)- by the time you invest all the effort ( defined as mining, processing, manufacturing, brown/green construction and infrastructure support such as the transmission lines and so forth in terms of hours, money and material/minerals)- you start at such a deficit that the life of the “green’ cannot ever achieve the baseline zero to realize a tangible benefit. ( which is why it always has to be subsidized to give the ILLUSION of success). ( remember, this “grid” to NEC would have to be 125% of maximum load to handle spikes)

        Its a permanent net-negative scenario. It cannot work and sustain itself as long as the laws of physics apply in this universe. That’s not an “opinion”.

        This is why no company, engineering firm or country has never accomplished it and never will.

        This left leaning mantra of “developing technology” is nothing more than ear music to the ignorant masses because no amount of “technology” is going to change the inherent elemental properties of the materials needed to build such a thing.

        perpetual energy doesn’t exist and in equal units a material with a potential of 1 erg cannot replace a material with a potential of 10 ergs no matter how many times Elon promises it.

          Physics aren’t your strong point friend. As I’ve pointed out the things you are denying already exist. Your claim is that fast charging doesn’t exist which is demonstrably false based on guess what real world examples of fast charging. You can either accept objective reality or not.

          Again with respect to the grid multiple countries have vastly expanded the use of solar and wind power. Guess what they function fine and do what they are intended to do which is supply virtually emissions free electricity. No amount of wishful thinking can change that reality.

          If your complaint is that the building of the wind /solar farms and associated infrastructure has a carbon cost sure but so do fossil fuels. When you factor in exploration, power plants and yes transmission lines it’s worse. The measured lifecycle energy use of different power generation methods has been measured, guess what you are wrong.

          Here is a basic question for you, why do national governments want to invest in solar and wind if it performs so badly. Let’s be clear the lobbying dollars have been all from the fossil fuel industry until recently at least.

          You need a much better argument.

      DaveGinOly in reply to CommoChief. | February 28, 2022 at 8:29 pm

      Part of the plan is to NOT wait for the price of green energy to come down (becoming competitive with fossil-fuel based energy production), but to drive up the cost of the latter to match that of the former.

      But fossil fuel will naturally become more expensive as it begins to run out (as they have been warning for decades). In the interim, green energy production will have become more efficient/less costly per KwH. Where the costs of both cross (fossil going up/green coming down), green energy production will naturally take over the market.

      Why are they forcing this when it should happen naturally?

        CommoChief in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 28, 2022 at 10:45 pm

        Exactly. Create an artificial scarcity by hindering domestic production and as prices rise EV appear more competitive which generates more BS subsidies to metro dwelling higher income households to buy them. Meanwhile the average guy is paying $100 to fill his 8 year old pickup to run his business or farm or simply because he likes and trusts combustion engines over EV.

        The EV is still a vanity purchase on the high end or a virtue signal on the lower end. Organically there’s really a small market IMO. Certainly not anywhere close to even 1/4 of new purchases. Without market distortion in fuel price, subsidies for purchase and subsidies for charging stations the demand would be even less. Principles have a way of being discarded in real life choices unless incentives are offered.

        Fatkins in reply to DaveGinOly. | March 1, 2022 at 5:23 am

        Simple climate change, the current goals are very tight. Your going to have to do a lot of work to convinc the world that those targets aren’t important given the state of the evidence.

          taurus the judge in reply to Fatkins. | March 1, 2022 at 5:47 am

          what ” evidence” is this that you refer to?

          Fatkins in reply to Fatkins. | March 1, 2022 at 10:50 am

          Evidence , well where does one start. There is so much of it.

          1) temperature models have for a number of decades accurately predicted temperature rises
          2) there is a huge amount of understanding of many of the climate systems and how they feed into the temperatures and how emissions are causing changes to these systems
          3) there is a direct correlation and understanding of the mechanisms with respect to climate modelling
          4) we have a strong understanding of the climate temperature record going backa significant period of time. For example we understand the reason why the 70’s were cooler IE refrigeration chemicals
          5) we know from measurements and an understanding of climate systems that the sea levels are rising and again can be predicted with reasonable accuracy
          6) there is no alternative theory explaining the observations that stands up to scrutiny.

        Arminius in reply to DaveGinOly. | March 1, 2022 at 12:56 pm

        We’re not running out of oil. There are a couple of industry terms of art we need to clear up. Proven oil reserves are reserves that have been discovered and can be exploited using existing technology and under existing operating conditions. The latter is key; If you get some anti- American commie like Obama and Biden as President they can place a lot of oil off limits. Oil in the ground is different. It’s there. Maybe we can’t extract it today with our current technology. Or maybe we can but some commie leftist has cancelled oil leases on federal land.

        Biden has been saying we can’t drill our way out of our artificial supply shortage since the 1970s. On 1 June 2021 he suspended oil leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Biden has been saying “we can’t drill our way out of this” since the 1970s. Time and again as long as Biden has been slapped down we’ve proven that yes we can drill our way out of this.

        As an aside, I’m not opposed to alternatives to the internal combustion engine and our oil-based economy as long as it makes sense.

California’s experience demonstrates that there are no alternatives to oil and that radical environmentalists are anti growth green on the outside and red on the inside

    Governor Hair Gel is actually taxing and regulating solar energy out of business in CA. He bought and paid for by the public electric utilities. If solar energy has any chance at all, it will require getting the utility companies out of the picture. They are single-minded in defending their large grid where most of the electricity is lost. Everything has to feed into their grid and you have to get a license to install solar tiles on your house. And then they change the rules that extends the cost-recovery time. Good luck with that. I just don’t see it. So long as solar and wind pale in comparison to the alternatives, Pro-solar subsidies and punitive regulation of the alternatives are the only thing we will see. The science is impossibly unworkable.

These people have shit for brains

Green energy is decades from operating properly? Green energy will never, ever, work. I did the math a few years back. It won’t work because it can’t work. The fact that solar and wind work at a fraction of their rated capacity plus it will take a few million years to mine the rare earths to create the batteries to store the energy when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun ain’t shining means, derr!

They just want to f*** you.

They want to separate you from your cars.

Didn’t the Royal Canadian Mounted Police just show you that if they wanted to, the government could have shut Antifa/#BLM down right quick? It isn’t like they just discovered new policing techniques.

    You may be right, Armninius, about green energy never being viable. All the more reason to ensure, as President Trump did, that we are energy independent. We are sanctioning Russia on the one hand, and buying their oil on the other. It’s insane.

    taurus the judge in reply to Arminius. | February 28, 2022 at 12:20 pm

    Let me help you out here. (Speaking as a Professional Engineer who actually works on this sometimes)

    What is currently referred to as “green energy” (very broad term but specifically referencing wind/solar power and and the EV) is a physical impossibility in this universe as long as zeroth and the 3 laws remain in place.

    Its not a case of “developing the technology ( technology is merely a process, nothing more) because the physical PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS will not allow for it. ( you cannot subtract 3 from 1 and get a positive whole number)

    The insurmountable problem is in potential energy ( energy available to be converted for use) and then effort on return ( you cannot operate at a deficit)

    Aside from nuclear and hydro ( both are the same in regard to the turbine generating the energy- one is the weight of flowing water to turn it and the other is the steam generated by the reactor to turn it which is how energy is made now so “technically” these 3 are identical except for the prime mover)– the available energy in wind or solar to convert to watts ( volts x amps which is how we rate usage) is off by orders of magnitude.

    Then you have the cost (in materials and effort to construct the device plus the payback before end of life metric)- “green” NEVER pays for itself before it ends so it will NEVER be “viable” without subsidy.

    This is why no nation on Earth ( especially our enemies) pursue “green” other than for political purposes because we all know its a fool’s fallacy to even believe in the possibility. (If there was such a thing, you can BET YOUR LIFE our enemies would scientifically pursue it with 100% of their resources because whoever actually achieved such a state would be the invincible unchallenged global military and industrial power forever)

    “Green” energy is and always has been nothing more that a wealth redistribution scam.

      Some good points, as per my comment to Fuzzy this is a fledgling tech and there will be issues but none of these are particularly hard it’s really just a case of investment.

      The rising cost per kWh of electricity (It doesn’t get cheaper just because it’s going into an EV).

      Well it’s presently a lot cheaper to charge your car at home Vs petrol prices and you have the added option of being able to generate your own electricity for free if you want. I’ve seen estimates of $0.15 per kWh which is considerably less than gas prices. Obviously that figure varies, it’s cheaper to charge at home Vs a fast charger out and about

      – The fact that power grids will need to be massively beefed up to handle such loads at peak times. (Cost, time required)

      Since when was a big engineering and infrastructure challenge a problem for us? We went to the moon, building sole sockets for cars doesn’t sound too difficult.

      – Cost of installing a home charging station.

      A few hundred dollars for a standard charging point

      – Cost of installing public charging stations (who pays? (We do of course)

      Public will pay in some form eventually of course but that’s likely to be through increased charging prices. Commercially entities will built the infrastructure and the cost will be offset by things like charging prices , cost of goods . You’ll pay a premium for your coffee and other goods at the shop while you wait for the charging.

      – The fact that while it’s seldom if ever mentioned, “public” charging station isn’t synonymous – with “free” charging stations.

      Sure just like a petrol station

      – How to prevent criminals from stealing those nice, big, copper cables. (already an issue not being talked about)

      Yeah that’s a fair point, you can harden the infrastructure and depends where the cables are. But that issue isn’t limited to EV charging

      – Who is going to buy the EVs for the poor and middle class?

      Costs of EVs are predicted to reach parity with typical cars in 5 years time. That said I personally would be in favour of a scrappage scheme .. the UK did a scrappage scheme a few years back where you got a lump sum for getting rid of your car , that could be then re invested into a modest EV plus finance. Provided the cost of the EV is reasonable and the scrappage scheme value is decent that could alleviate the issue partially.

        Gosport in reply to Fatkins. | February 28, 2022 at 9:30 pm

        – “A few hundred dollars for a standard charging point”

        That gets you a very basic Level 1 charge which provides about 5 miles per hour of charging. A Tesla long range variant has a 100 kWh battery and is good for about 412 miles. 412 miles of kWh at 5 miles per hour = 82.4 charging hours.

        – “I’ve seen estimates of $0.15 per kWh”

        The national average is already 14.12 cents and has risen an average of 6.1% since this day last year. At $0.15 and 85% charging efficiency that Tesla costs $17.25 for a full charge. So yes, if that rate per kWh remains $0.15 then that’s cheaper than gasoline, But it’s not going to remain the same, it’s going to continue to go up.

        85% efficiency is for a brand new battery by the way. That will decrease up to 10% as the battery ages. Or 100% if the battery dies prematurely, or catches fire and burns the car and the house down.

        – Cost of the massive infrastructure required: Yes, either through direct taxation, increased electric bills, or indirect taxation by increasing the costs of goods and services (or all of them) the public is going to pay the massive costs for all the required infrastructure. That infrastructure project has been compared to that required to build the original Interstate Highway System. That was a 10-year, $100 billion program, which would build 40,000 miles of road. NOTE: that was in 1956 money. I’ll leave it to someone else to compute the 2022 equivalent.

        “Costs of EVs are predicted to reach parity with typical cars in 5 years time.”

        Sez who? But even if true it still doesn’t help low and middle income people who very seldom buy new cars because they can’t afford them. So maybe 10 years down the track they can afford a used one with a tapped out battery possibly needing replacement. How much is that expected to cost?

        Scrappage you say? OK, now lets talk about the disposal fees for the worn out batteries.

        This is so full of nonsense, Fat. Do you hear yourself?

        Let’s look at your points:

        The rising cost per kWh of electricity (It doesn’t get cheaper just because it’s going into an EV).

        Well it’s presently a lot cheaper to charge your car at home Vs petrol prices and you have the added option of being able to generate your own electricity for free if you want. I’ve seen estimates of $0.15 per kWh which is considerably less than gas prices. Obviously that figure varies, it’s cheaper to charge at home Vs a fast charger out and about

        Electricity bills are doubling, and gas prices are rising. And you still haven’t addressed why it’s okay to use fossil fuel-power to charge an EV. On what planet does that make sense? And generate your electricity for free? You’re kidding, right? Yes, there are people who live off the grid and generate their own power, but they have access to hydro or solar and are content to accept that sometimes some things won’t work because whatever their source of power fails at times.

        – The fact that power grids will need to be massively beefed up to handle such loads at peak times. (Cost, time required)

        Since when was a big engineering and infrastructure challenge a problem for us? We went to the moon, building sole sockets for cars doesn’t sound too difficult.

        Ah, the we went to the moon, so why can’t we do this argument. Yawn.

        – Cost of installing a home charging station.

        A few hundred dollars for a standard charging point

        The majority of Americans live, literally, paycheck to paycheck. They don’t have “a few hundred dollars” lying around to expend on this lunacy.

        – Cost of installing public charging stations (who pays? (We do of course)

        Public will pay in some form eventually of course but that’s likely to be through increased charging prices. Commercially entities will built the infrastructure and the cost will be offset by things like charging prices , cost of goods . You’ll pay a premium for your coffee and other goods at the shop while you wait for the charging.

        Well, that sounds special. And crazy. You are saying here that you get to pay more for something in order to wait longer for a fossil fuel-powered charging station to charge your “fossil-fuel free” EV. Well, who doesn’t think that’s a win? Oh, right, anyone with a brain.

        – The fact that while it’s seldom if ever mentioned, “public” charging station isn’t synonymous – with “free” charging stations.

        Sure just like a petrol station

        Right, so we get to pay more for fossil fuels to run our cars through some fake scheme that makes us think we aren’t using fossil fuels? This is just nuts.

        – How to prevent criminals from stealing those nice, big, copper cables. (already an issue not being talked about)

        Yeah that’s a fair point, you can harden the infrastructure and depends where the cables are. But that issue isn’t limited to EV charging

        That was the dumbest point made, but after reading your comments, I’m not at all surprised you latched onto it. /smh

        – Who is going to buy the EVs for the poor and middle class?

        Costs of EVs are predicted to reach parity with typical cars in 5 years time. That said I personally would be in favour of a scrappage scheme .. the UK did a scrappage scheme a few years back where you got a lump sum for getting rid of your car , that could be then re invested into a modest EV plus finance. Provided the cost of the EV is reasonable and the scrappage scheme value is decent that could alleviate the issue partially.

        Ah, yes, let’s revive the environment-destroying, completely useless “Cash for Clunkers” scheme. Because that worked so well when Obama’s commie car czar implemented it. Spoiler: it was tens kinds of fail.

          Gosport in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | March 1, 2022 at 2:39 am

          – How to prevent criminals from stealing those nice, big, copper cables (already an issue not being talked about).

          Dunno about dumb, but it’s true.

          Fatkins in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | March 1, 2022 at 6:08 am

          Your logic is perverse. If EV charging is cheaper than the cost of gas that’s a good thing. If the prices rise that’s a separate issue and one that will affect gas as much as EV charging.

          You are assuming that the main grid power will always be from fossil fuels, that’s clearly only partially true at the moment. And even in the current scenario it’s still cheaper to charge at home. Plus you can generate your own electric if you have PV panels.

          Haha it’s a legitimate argument to point out that nothing about EVs is difficult compared to our technical know how. You are very pessimistic for no discernable good reason.

          Most Americans are poor? That seems a simplification. It’s also the case that Americans might choose to spend there money differently if they see a good case for it, that’s obviously down to individual circumstances. It’s a bit pathetic that the richest country on the planets people can’t afford to spend a few hundred dollars one time to benefit themselves, that’s a nation with big issues.

          Your next comment literally makes no sense. It’s built on big assumptions which are wrong and you haven’t addressed the core principle which is that it would function the same as petrol stations.

          With respect you haven’t answered the copper cable question. If it were dumb you’d be able to answer it easily enough.

          You might want to read the article. In terms of upgrading people’s cars that’s exactly what it achieved. If you are asking for an increase in economic output then sure in that case it didn’t work. The goal though was to transition to EVs not increase the economy.

          Im not really seeing a coherent argument against EVs , the market is absolutely going in that direction. As I pointed out in another comment there is a reason Tesla is a massively valuable company

        taurus the judge in reply to Fatkins. | March 1, 2022 at 5:50 am

        do you even understand what you are saying?

        You spout “hypothetical hopefuls” based on an incorrect view of how engineering and manufacturing actually work with a premise thats void of legitimate scientific fact or support.

        You have zero experience in any of these applicable fields do you?

        You just spout talking points with no actual substance or subject matter knowledge don’t you?

        taurus the judge in reply to Fatkins. | March 1, 2022 at 8:26 am

        You are totally clueless and ignorant of every point you raise- not to mention totally wrong in fact and reality.

        First, lets discuss this “beefing” up of which you ignorantly peak. (Listen to one who actually has designed power stations here and learn)

        You need the load ( which is the load of all these “charging’s” plus everything else) to determine the generation (in Mw) requirements then the transmission conductors and boost stations ( like losses and everything else) then distribution.

        That alone will not only cost TRILLIONS ( price of the elements alone plus making the components), you will have to have more capacity to make up the net additions to replace the energy of fossil fuel which will be added ( this isn’t a “magic formula”- its basic load estimation. You are LITERALLY talking THOUSANDS of MILES just in conductors alone for a given city) ( minimum 4 wires for 3 phase before it breaks down to single)

        Then comes line losses to be factored in (entropy and the 2nd law) because in order to deliver 100% point of use- you need to have about 150% generation to compensate for losses over distance and other heat losses)

        To properly upgrade the grid as you “wish” would take TENS of TRILLIONS of dollars. ( you have to have the additional generation, transmission, boost and then distributions down to the individual level- this isn’t a simple task of a few extension cords)

        Now, ( without NPV of the money or projections) add that total cost to start to the price of electricity. (no free lunches)

        The people who buy into this crap are either willfully delusional and totally void of any real understanding of what they are saying or they are informed and simply promoting a wealth distribution scam.

        Then the cost of the EV car- we have yet to touch that in terms of a 1:1 substitute for the ICE in terms of PAYLOAD and RANGE. ( I’ll really send you to school on this point)

          Just want to thank you taurus for taking so much time to share your vast knowledge and expertise. It’s falling on deaf ears in some quarters, but I, for one, am very appreciative and happy to learn so much! 🙂

Fat_Freddys_Cat | February 28, 2022 at 8:37 am

Lefty cat ladies in the cities think windmills are perfect because they won’t see them. The windmills will be out in rural areas. They’re big, ugly, noisy and chop up birds like cuisinarts but the “enlightened” Greenies won’t have to deal with it.

I’m open to new ideas. Somebody show me green energy can work. I’ll apologize to everybody.

“The Polish Patriot Who Helped Americans Beat the British”

One of needs to, I don’t want to say it.

I’m going to take the wheels off my car, so I can think about getting a self-driving passenger drone 30 years from now

“You don’t cut off the power before you have a viable alternative in place. That’s just stupid. ”

Indeed. Any child would know that, but instead we rely on “experts” who can’t tell us how to continue to power our economy if we do, and are still thinking about battery-driven international airplanes.

EVs , other than in limited applications, will never become mainstays in this country until the issues of endurance, reliability and infrastructure support are resolved

spent many years in numerous meetings with GM and, after seeing toyota’s success with prius, for some reason the mbas in detroit were smitten with the prospect of the general dominating the EV market in the US, almost to the point of some “field of dreams” psychosis–was on the management end of the whole process and our remit(as at many gm dealerships cross-country) was to inspire our staff to market/sell the new EVs–for the most part(as collectively confirmed by many of my colleagues here and in several other states)we couldn’t give the damn things away

though immediately obvious, build-quality issues in comparison to toyota were a serious problem to overcome–then reliability–then endurance–then the infrastructure to support the whole concept

had a colleague of mine at ford who articulated a rather important point: the infrastructure alone would require decades to construct and would be a project not very far in scale from the interstate highway system

“…the infrastructure alone would require decades to construct and would be a project not very far in scale from the interstate highway system…”

Can we talk about the nature of dictatorships and then feel free to discuss whether or not I’m insane.

Dictatorships don’t just come from nowhere. They creep up on people. People put up with just a little freedom gone, bit by bit. It’s freaking patriotic. Or do you want to kill Grandma, you Covid denier?

Hey, who’s up for mandates? If you’re not, you just don’t love your country.

Wouldn’t want to look to see if alternatives are available before shutting down our fossil fuel industry. That would be like keeping Bagram Air Force Base open until after we evacuated our people and weaponry from Afghanistan. The cart has to go before the horse. Everybody knows that.

    Ah, this is the analogy I was searching for! Perfect!

    Arminius in reply to AlecRawls. | February 28, 2022 at 7:23 pm

    There are no alternatives. For the foreseeable future we’re going to rely on oil.

    Foreseeable future defined as, not in my great grandchildren’s lifespan. The push for separating you from your vehicles is being driven (pun intended) by your future dictators. You know, the ones who always invent upcoming disasters, and the solution is always the same. Oh, s***, global warming! Quick, give me your car keys and bank account.

    It’s just a lot easier to lord it over a people that doesn’t have the means to fend for themselves or personal transportation. Hey, we’ll replace your cars with a nice high speed rail system! Just show us your vaccine passport.

      Fatkins in reply to Arminius. | February 28, 2022 at 7:49 pm

      That’s a pretty old article, and hate to point it out but the market is absolutely heading towards green tech. The government doesn’t even need to do anything and coal is dying. Gas is cheaper but will follow suit.

      I get the impression that you might not ‘believe’ in global warming. I don’t see the point in an argument but here is food for thought. The models used for predicting temperature rises have been shown to be pretty accurate

        Aw, Fat, this is just cheap and shallow. You can’t answer, so you go for the “you’re a great big AGW denier.” Dude. That is weak.

        If coal is dying, as you say, it is only because of crazy freaks like Obama who made it his life’s goal to bankrupt the coal industry (mind you, he didn’t have a viable replacement and was also happy to rely on foreign resources as he choked our own energy production). In other words, the government is picking the winners and losers here, certainly not the market. No one wants a EV except crazy people who don’t understand how they are manufactured and what they run on (i.e. fossil fuels).

          Fatkins in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | March 2, 2022 at 7:18 pm

          Learn to read Fuzzy, I did answer I noted that there is an alternative which is proving successful in the market, hence why solar and wind as well as EV’s have substantial jobs growth. If that point wasn’t painfully obvious I’m sorry about your critical skills.

          With respect to Coal, that’s nonsense coal is dying because it hasn’t been able to compete with either natural gas or solar or wind. Maybe Obama was against coal but Trump was massively pro coal and guess what the industry still slumped. That is hardly in line with your ‘government’ picks the winner narrative.

          With respect you have no idea how EV’s are produced, they don’t run on fossil fuel, nor is the carbon footprint exclusively based on fossil fuels. Energy supplies are mixed and transitioning to greener techs, that’s just a matter of fact. The question is why wouldn’t you want an EV, I’m saving a fortune on gas prices. In effect I pay nothing for fueling my car. All I need to do is charge up at home, which btw is powered by PV panels Its literally free for significant periods of the year.


          China and India are massively expanding economies so its no surprise. the US not so much. Regulation isn’t really a hurdle in the US, never has been and especially under Trump.

          With respect to California the black outs were no way near as bad as Texas. That was a proper shit show. California has rolling blackouts for circa 300k customers for a short period (less than 3 hours) Texas had 4m+ without power for several days.

          Well, no, Fat, actually, pretty much everything is made with fossil fuels. From the dashboard, to the seats, to the plastics used throughout, practically everything is made from, with, and by fossil fuels. Don’t you know that? Unless a product is purely natural like cotton, wood, or leather, it is mostly composed of fossil-fuel materials and products. I did a post about this a while back regarding North Face and its glaring hypocrisy . . . because their products from backpacks to water bottles to clothing are made from oil and gas. Calling something “fleece” doesn’t make it actual sheep fleece, which is natural and sustainable but not as cheap as the fake stuff (made with oil and gas).

          And do you imagine that the factories producing these EVs and/or each of their components are run by green energy? Or that the electricity used to charge 99% of them is (or would be if the government provided charging stations every 50 miles as they say they want to)? I’m not the one with critical thinking challenges, my friend.

        CommoChief in reply to Fatkins. | February 28, 2022 at 10:59 pm

        Coal is not dying. China and India are building new coal fired plants every day. Is coal use in the US declining? Sure but the question is why. It isn’t cost of power generation so what could it be? Regulation that makes it nearly impossible to build a new plant or completely retrofit with modem tech an existing coal fired plant.

        Instead of using cheap, abundant US coal we are shuttering these plants and for now using Nat gas as the replacement. When the greens finally get their way we will shut down nuke plants as.well and instead suffer through intermittent blackouts as our grid transforms to unreliable wind and solar.

        Arminius in reply to Fatkins. | March 1, 2022 at 3:46 pm

        The algorithms are complete garbage. You are correct. I don’t “believe” in global warming. I also don’t believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

        In response to well founded criticism from skeptics who pointed out that the vast majority of temperature monitoring stations don’t even meet NOAA’s own written standards for placement (hey, anyone want to guess which way jet exhaust skews the data if you put a monitoring station on a airfield?) in 2004 NOAA established the U.S. Climate Reference Network. It’s a subset of their weather monitoring stations (the network was not established in the early part of the 20th century with climate change in mind). Guess what happens when you check the temperature away from artificial heat sources
        In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.

        Prior to the USCRN going online, alarmists and skeptics sparred over the accuracy of reported temperature data. With most preexisting temperature stations located in or near urban settings that are subject to false temperature signals and create their own microclimates that change over time, government officials performed many often-controversial adjustments to the raw temperature data. Skeptics of an asserted climate crisis pointed out that most of the reported warming in the United States was non-existent in the raw temperature data, but was added to the record by government officials.

        The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U”.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago….”

        ‘Believing” in the non-existent climate catastrophe that like all the problems that can only be solved by giving government more and more power at the expense of our rights, freedoms, and bank accounts is just that. It’s a religious faith. Reality, actual measured temperature data shows zero warming in the U.S. from 2005 to 2019.

        And no, the temperatures haven’t suddenly spiked since 2019.

        Then there’s this enthusiasm for 19th century technology in the form of electric cars. As if that’s a solution to anything real or imagined.

        As I have already mentioned, it’s not as if I’m opposed to alternatives to our oil based economy. But that doesn’t mean the internal combustion engine is a dead end.

        “Exciting and surprisingly specific news from Hamamatsu: Yamaha Motor has been tapped by Toyota Motor Corporation to develop an automotive engine fueled entirely by hydrogen. Here it is, in the form of a just-unveiled 5.0-liter V-8 engine, to be exact.

        …This power exercise yields emissions consisting of plain old water (yay!) and varying amounts of nitrogen oxides (…damn). The fueling and aspiration systems are key; if a direct-injection turbo system is used, power goes up to levels higher than comparable gasoline engines, but so do NOx emissions. A naturally aspirated hydrogen engine runs significantly cleaner.”

        Yes. There are a few bugs to work out. But it’s running, and produces zero Carbon Dioxide. And this is entirely the result of private industry. In November of just last year Suburu, Toyota, Mazda, Kawasaki Heavy industry, and Yamaha joined forces to see what they could do in the race toward carbon neutrality. In just a few months they’ve produced this. No massive government subsidies required. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn the Japanese government kicked in something, but this breakthrough was driven by private initiative.

        All in all far better than those remote-emissions toys the government is pushing here. Rule of thumb; if Joe Biden and Barack Obama claim to have the answer to a problem, do anything but that.

          Fatkins in reply to Arminius. | March 2, 2022 at 8:05 pm

          You realize that the urban heat island effect is well understood and adjusted for in the data set right? The temperature has been checked against satellite measures as well as there being 4 different global temperature data sets.

          The actual article has been debunked as well, there are a number of significant problems with it, not least of which is the cherry picking of data. The actual data set when you look at it proves the exact opposite of what is being claimed.

          Is absolutely been the case that temperature has gone up, that’s irrefutable, practically every year is a record breaking year for temperature and hate to point it out but that’s backed up by our own senses!

          With respect to hydrogen its been around in various forms for a long time, its basic issue is production of the hydrogen fuel cells is not very efficient at all. It might work but its really still in its infancy as a tech.

    TrickyRicky in reply to AlecRawls. | March 1, 2022 at 9:57 am

    Dang,, I wish I had thought of that!

    See reply to henrybowman 2/27 9:48 AM.

“On September 26, 2018, all 1,196 Maldives Islands will be under water, or so our environmentalist betters told us in 1988. Next week, the Maldives will go “poof,” just like Atlantis. Here’s the thing — the islands are actually getting bigger, and the climate alarmists have egg on their faces…”

Somebody needs to pay for me to go on an all expense paid trip to Vegas.

Also, is there something wrong with me that I can’t tell a buffalo bull from a cow?

This would no doubt be a huge problem if I was a buffalo bull. I’d get into a lot of fights.

When you’re in Rome.

How’s that for mixing metaphors.

I’d actually care if any of the disaster predictions came true.!

We’re all going to die!!!

Maybe if just once one of these deadlines amounted to something I’d take this alarmism seriously.

I’ve got a link to the Maldive’s official tourist site if you’re planning a vacation.

Green energy is not “decades from working properly”. It can’t ever “work properly”, because using it is an attempt to violate basic physics.