The Red Jackal

The Environmentalist’s Fool’s Gold

Relating to last week’s article regarding climate change, the solution to a non-existent problem is an equally absurd solution with renewable energy. Renewables sound good as it is believed that this energy is free as we get it from the sun, wind, crops and so on without producing pollution like fossil fuels do. However, this belief in renewables is based on ignorance and not on reality. There are viable sources of renewable energy such as nuclear and hydro, however the greens trapped in their ideology hate these solutions.

There has been a war against fossil fuels going back to the counterculture movement in the 60’s and 70’s. With the sensualizing of global warming in the late 80’s , this provided an opening for more environmental solutions. According to the greens, solar and wind do not produce any emissions when used therefore more superior. However, it is conveniently left out the enormous amounts of energy and rare earth materials needed to create solar panels and wind turbines which can be quite toxic. Though focusing mostly on wind and solar, biofuels have also had their shortcomings as well.

Besides the hazardous materials and emissions that are needed for solar, wind and biomass, there are other flaws for these renewable sources. First of all wind and solar are intermittent. For turbines, if the wind isn’t blowing, energy is not going to be produced. Ironically, if the wind is blowing too hard, the turbines need to be shut off as there gear boxes can catch on fire. Finally, the coldest and hottest days tend to be the days that produce the least wind.

In addition to the weather conditions, the wind field array is terribly inefficient. Turbine arrays are usually set up in rows, the first row into the wind are the most productive. As you get to the rows further into the array, turbulence caused by the turbines in the first rows reduces the wind hitting the turbines in the back. Wind farms also tend to have the issue of over producing energy or not producing enough as needed but that will be discussed later with battery storage and their issues.

For solar, it is very obvious the issue with this source of energy: the sun doesn’t shine then no energy is going to be produced. Similar to wind, solar can produce more energy or not enough because you cannot match up supply to demand. One thing that solar is more susceptible though to is extreme weather; hail storms can cause extensive damage to solar panels because the panels are fragile and are in open fields with no protection.

One thing you repeatedly hear from the environments, as well as politicians, is that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels. But does this really sound legitimate? Or is it an accounting trick? It is most likely the latter as these costs ignore government subsidies that are included into these projects. But one has to just look at the evidence: Worldwide, the places that are most heavily invested in renewable energy, UK, Germany and California, have the highest energy costs in the world. In the case of Germany, they are reliant in imports from Russia to meet their energy needs as renewables have failed the country completely.

Beyond the utility and costs of renewables, I guess the only benefit of renewables is the lack of environmental effects . That would be wrong as renewables create many negative impacts to the local environments where these projects are situated. With wind, large tracts of land are needed so the land needs to be acquired/leased to build a wind farm that extends thousands of acres. Aside from land use, you have issues with the local animal population. I used to work for one of the largest, if not the largest, renewables company in the US, and we spent hundreds of thousands on bird/bat studies in which we basically were permitted to kill a certain amount of birds and bats each year.

Even if you fine a company for too many animal kills, the tax credits received from the US government far outweigh the penalties assessed for excessive animal deaths. Case in point, a company knew there was an issue with a wind farm in the Mid-West and golden eagles, and was willing to be fined millions of dollars as this was far less than the tax credits to be received by completing the project. However, it is just not animals that are feeling the effects of this, as people that live close to these turbines complain of headaches, anxiety and insomnia which many consider the infrasound waves from the turbines.

But animal casualties exist not only on land but also with wind farms that are out in the ocean. Infrasound waves caused by the blades of the turbine has been hypothesized to interfere with dolphin and whale sonar and has caused mass beaching near these wind farms. What has been the environmentalists response to this: Nothing. The ideology of all energy from sun and wind trumps any negatives.

What about solar, is it any better than wind? The answer is not really. Similar to wind, large tracts of land need to be cleared to install the panels. In the desert, this might not be too much of a problem, but does it make sense to clear a forest in Maine or Connecticut to put up solar in an area which is pretty much overcast in the winter? Of course not, but virtue signaling is all that people care in these municipalities. Meanwhile you are getting rid of natural carbon capture by clear cutting forests.

In addition to land use, large arrays of solar panels contaminate the local land. This can cause fatalities again with the local wildlife such as squirrels, rabbits and so on. But one of the big questions is what is going to happen to all of these panels once they are to be decommissioned? Companies allocate money for future decommissioning, but no one knows the full impact another 5-10 years when some of the first projects will need to be decommissioned. Where will these be recycled and the costs will most likely will be much more than estimated: who will pay in the end? If you think it is the company guess again; most likely it will be paid by the government through taxes.

Other issues with both wind and solar:

As mentioned earlier, wind and solar only work if conditions are favorable so sometimes supply and demand do not match up and can cause blackouts. This happened both in Texas several years back in the winter and Spain in 2024 in which the grid powered by renewables failed leading to massive blackouts.

To combat the supply and demand issues, batteries have been attached to wind and solar to store excess energy. But batteries have short live spans, the components are highly toxic and can be prone to spontaneous combustion. Last year in California a battery factory caught on fire in which people were encouraged to leave the area or close all winds as not to breathe in the fumes.

Then you have the grift; there is something called curtailment in which energy is created, not needed but the utilities charge anyway. Furthermore, most renewable revenues are from subsidies (some estimates are up to 75%). Most of these renewable companies would not exist without government funding.

Lastly, both wind and solar generate a different type of current created than is currently used by fossils fuels. Wind uses the opposite current (DC) than most transmission currently set up so there needs to be a substation set up to convert this. Furthermore, most wind and solar are far outside major metro areas so substantial infrastructure is needed to change the grid. Whatever the cost that is quoted you can make sure it will cost much more. Some government estimates have this as high as 10 trillion to fully change the grid from fossil fuels to renewables but in reality is much higher.

So far I have focused mainly on Wind and Solar, but what about biomass (such as ethanol)? A gallon of biomass does creates less CO2 than a gallon of gas, however it is a lot less efficient source of fuel. So it takes more ethanol to burn than gas so in the end you are polluting more. More concerning is the environmental damage caused by biofuels. Some places in southeast Asia are clear cutting tropical forests to make room for biofuels, endangering habitats such as the orangutans. Similar to before with solar, by cutting down forests you are removing major CO2 absorbers.

So after bashing renewables above, there are some viable renewable solutions. Both Nuclear and Hydro do produce efficient and abundant energy but the environmental movement hates both. Nuclear is the cleanest and will be needed especially in the future with increase of population as well as data centers and AI. Until then for the benefit of the population of the US (and world) fossil fuels are the cheapest and more efficient fuel sources for an advanced economy. I believe that we should use all energy sources we can find, but the government should not be propping up certain industries. If they are profitable, the market will allow them to exist but if not, we should not be propping them up for something that is intermittent.