Wind, Solar, & Batteries: nope

Yesterday, we blogged on the Green Cult members, those environmental zealots who are actually up to something else.   As a follow-up, John Hinderaker at PowerLine explains why wind and solar power will “never work”:

Enormous amounts of money are being made by “green” fraudsters, utilities and politicians who tell us we are in the midst of a transition from fossil fuels to wind and solar energy. In fact, no such transition is underway; fossil fuel consumption is higher than ever. And no such transition will take place, ever, either in America or anywhere else in the world.

Why? Because wind and solar are both obsolete technologies. They produce electricity less than one-half of the time, a fact that will never change. How can we run a modern economy on intermittent energy sources? We can’t.

If you ask a liberal that question, his answer will be “batteries.” He will admit that wind and solar work only occasionally, but that is no problem, he will tell you, because the electricity they generate can be stored in batteries for later use.

Power can be stored in batteries, of course. We all do this every day, storing tiny amounts on our laptops, smart phones and so on. But our energy demands are almost unfathomably large, and all of the batteries in the world don’t begin to meet those needs. My colleague Isaac Orr created this graphic, which compares energy consumption in just one state in one country, as of 2019, with projected battery storage in the entire world as of 2030. You might as well rely on pixie dust as on batteries:

Click to embiggen

Much more at PowerLine here.

# # #

It’s not about EVs. It’s about driving your car.

 

John Hinderaker at PowerLineBlog explains why we’ll never be driving electric vehicles:

Electric Vehicles Are Not The Future

The mania for electric vehicles is a fad that is driven 100% by government regulation. The consumer verdict on EVs has been in for a century. Some of the earliest cars were battery-powered, but they lost out to gasoline-powered cars because gasoline-powered vehicles are better.

Those who have been paying attention understand that there is zero chance that our existing motor vehicle fleet will be converted to EVs. Mark Tapscott sums up some of the reasons. I want to focus on just one of his points, the fact that the lithium batteries needed to replace our current vehicle fleet would require ridiculous amounts of mining of minerals, particularly lithium, the price of which is already sky-high. How do liberals intend to accomplish this unprecedented global mining project?

Answer: they don’t. Mark quotes from a report by an environmental organization:

This report finds that the United States can achieve zero emissions transportation while limiting the amount of lithium mining necessary by reducing the car dependence of the transportation system, decreasing the size of electric vehicle batteries, and maximizing lithium recycling.

Reordering the US transportation system through policy and spending shifts to prioritize public and active transit while reducing car dependency can also ensure transit equity, protect ecosystems, respect Indigenous rights, and meet the demands of global justice.

This is what liberal politicians are not telling you–yet. They don’t really plan to replace your car with an EV, they don’t want to replace it at all. . . .

"Transit equity"?  That's New World Order-speak for all of us peasants; the elites will travel in limousines and private jets. We'll ride the bus.  Read the rest of the column here.

# # #

Here come the bugs

 

A F Branco cartoon

The Green New Deal, the New World Order, or by whatever name you call it – our betters at the World Economic Forum want us to eat bugs instead of meat.  John Hinderaker at PowerLine takes it seriously:

The Left’s two main targets, so far, are fertilizers and animal husbandry. What is the end game? Leftists want us to eat a largely vegetarian diet, with insects as a protein source instead of cows, pigs and poultry.

This is no secret if you follow leftist writing, but many people find it hard to believe. To be fair, there is a great deal about modern liberalism that I find hard to believe. But the plan to convert us all to insect-eaters is real.

Thus this headline: EU Gives Green Light for Use of Two Insect Species in Human Food.

For a deeper dive on how all this is fulfilling the Davos crowd’s dreams of making us eat insects, here’s part of Itxu Diaz’s column at The American Conservative:

Until now, common sense led us to unhesitatingly step on any insects we find dragging their bellies across the kitchen floor. But currently, the masters of the universe are set on correcting this practice: They prefer you to eat them.

In recent months there has been a worldwide campaign, especially intense in the European Union, to convince us to incorporate crickets and worms into our diet. And, as we are not yet crazy enough to do so, they have found a way to make us do it anyway: by including them as a substitute for flour and protein in products we consume on a daily basis.

. . .

It is a battle that can obviously be won on the street without much effort. I don't know anyone who wants to leave their children a world where you can only get around by bicycle or, at best, electric cars, where heating is banned, and at lunchtime you find a salad with crickets, worms, and fake steaks by Bill Gates waiting for you on your plate. That is not a world, that is hell.

For centuries, much of the superiority of Western civilization has been apparent in our food. There is no need to give our moral decline a seat at the dinner table. Refusing to eat insects is a show of respect and obedience to our mothers, who, when as babies we lifted bugs from the ground to our mouths, told us, "Don't eat that!"

The PowerLine report is here. The American Conservative report is here. In our household, we’re starting to read labels on packaged food even more carefully.

# # #

Throwing Trump under the bus

 

There was no red wave on Tuesday, so many major bloggers are already throwing President Donald Trump under the bus, e.g.:

• Matt Margolia at PJ Media here  ("Trump Mocks DeSantis Again...")
• John Hinderaker at Power Line here  ("Goodbye, Donald")
• Don Surber here   ("Life after Trump")
• UPDATE:  The New York Post

The word “fickle” comes to mind.  

Trump endorsed 174 candidates.  So far, 9 lost.  

So 5% lost.  95% won.  That’s a damn good batting average. 

For those who think that Ron DeSantis is the new standard-bearer for conservatives, please take on board Sundance's deep dive into his campaign contributions (at Conservative Treehouse).

# # #

Reasons to oppose Electric Vehicles

 

John Hinderaker at PowerLine shares some common sense objections to California's mad dash to electric vehicles (and yes, it's coming to Ohio also):

Are people finally starting to catch on to the fact that electric vehicles are a terrible idea? I hope so. Bjorn Lomborg makes the case in accessible form in the Wall Street Journal. To begin with, EVs don’t even save much on CO2 emissions:

Over its lifetime, an electric car does emit less CO2 than a gasoline car, but the difference can range considerably depending on how the electricity is generated. Making batteries for electric cars also requires a massive amount of energy, mostly from burning coal in China. Add it all up and the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car emits a little less than half as much CO2 as a gasoline-powered one.

What does that up to, in terms of climate?

If every country achieved its stated ambitious electric-vehicle targets by 2030, the world would save 231 million tons of CO2 emissions. Plugging these savings into the standard United Nations Climate Panel model, that comes to a reduction of 0.0002 degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

On that basis alone, the left’s mania to make us all drive electric vehicles is insane. But from there on, the story is all negative:

Electric cars’ impact on air pollution isn’t as straightforward as you might think. The vehicles themselves pollute only slightly less than a gasoline car because their massive batteries and consequent weight leads to more particulate pollution from greater wear on brakes, tires and roads. On top of that, the additional electricity they require can throw up large amounts of air pollution depending on how it’s generated. One recent study found that electric cars put out more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars in 70% of U.S. states. An American Economic Association study found that rather than lowering air pollution, on average each additional electric car in the U.S. causes additional air-pollution damage worth $1,100 over its lifetime.

. . .

Left-wing governments are on a collision course with normal Americans. Governments want to force Americans to rely on wind and solar energy, but those sources can’t keep the lights on and are ruinously expensive. Similarly, governments want to force us all into electric vehicles, which are not as functional as gas-powered vehicles, despite being more expensive. And they are a net detriment to the environment. Lomborg is optimistic, perhaps more so than I am:

Read the rest here.

And Mr. Hinderaker didn’t even get to the problems with existing minerals required to produce the batteries, or the disposal of spent batteries, or the horrific damage done by strip mining to extract, say, the lithium (see aerial image at the top).

# # #

Heather Mac Donald on crime, race and policing

photo credit: City Journal 

John Hinderaker at PowerLine announces an event with Heather Mac Donald tomorrow Jul-30 at noon central / 1 pm EST.  I’ll post the link (probably  later tomorrow) that will let you watch and listen at your leisure.

AMERICA’S TOP EXPERT DEFENDS THE POLICE

Thursday, day after tomorrow, at Noon Central, Heather Mac Donald, the nation’s premier expert on the intersection of crime, race and policing, will deliver the definitive smackdown of the anti-police myths that not just liberals, but corporate America, sports teams, and many Republicans have bought into. The truth is that there is no “systemic” racism in American policing. Heather’s data-rich presentation will make that clear.

How do I know that Heather will lay waste to the mythology of the Left? I’ve seen the script. The data are overwhelming. Contrary to popular belief, blacks are not “over-represented” in “police shootings,” the vast majority of which are praiseworthy. On the contrary, using crime data as the guide, they are under-represented.

There is much more, which you won’t want to miss. To see our event live, go here to register. The event is free. Registration means you will get email reminders, but anyone can watch the event live on American Experiment’s YouTube channel or Facebook page, and it will be archived for a long to come on YouTube, Facebook, the American Experiment site, and more.

Hope to see you on Thursday. It should be a dynamite event.

# # #

Why shutdowns are useless

Over at Power Line, John Hinderaker links to an interview (not quite an hour long) with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford Medical School for Uncommon Knowledge.  Mr. Hinderaker's closing comments, based on the interview:

The conventionally posed choice between fighting the disease and salvaging our economy is entirely wrong. The choice is not disease vs. economy. The disease is here, and there is nothing governments can do to stop it. (They can, of course, close down access to nursing homes, a mixed blessing if you are elderly.) The real choice is between the disease with a flourishing economy, and the disease with a devastated economy. The disease is a constant.

Read the full column here, with interview link at the bottom.

# # #

Freedom Center’s Restoration Weekend

PowerLine blog is a regular stop for me. John Hinderaker is one of the regulars, and he just reported on Freedom Center’s annual event, Restoration Weekend. His report is a real pick-me-up, and I recommend sitting down to enjoy reading the whole thing. Click here. He leads off:

I am en route home from the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s Restoration Weekend in Palm Beach, Florida. This was my first Restoration Weekend, but it won’t be my last. It was an intense three days; I can’t begin to do it justice in a post but will try to touch on a few highlights that may be of interest to our readers.

* David Horowitz, at age 80, remains a national treasure. This morning there was a touching memorial tribute to Peter Collier, David’s long-time friend and collaborator. It is good to see that David is still going strong.

* Victor Davis Hanson spoke at the opening dinner Thursday night. He put aside his prepared remarks to talk about the impeachment fiasco now taking place in Washington. We had a chance to chat briefly after the event. . . .

* Donald Trump, Jr. spoke at Friday’s breakfast. He was excellent – in my view, a top-notch surrogate who pulls no punches. Those who attended Restoration Weekend got a copy of his new book, Triggered. I am only a few chapters into it, but it is surprisingly good – one of the most fiery books I have ever read. It tells the story of the last three years from an insider’s perspective, and Donald Jr. is brutal in his evaluations of figures like Robert Mueller. Scott [Johnson] sometimes talks about needing help with his anger management therapy. Trust me: Triggered is therapeutic.

. . .

Included in his report are Candace Owen, Diamond & Silk, Rich Little, James O’Keefe, David Horowitz, and many other reporters, bloggers, and investigative journalists whose names you will recognize. Interesting and fun.

# # #

Prager U. VS YouTube [Updated]

Last week, John Hinderaker at PowerLine had an update on Prager U’s legal battles against YouTube’s and Google’s censorship of its educational videos:

For several years, YouTube has suppressed Prager U’s videos by “restricting” them, which makes them invisible to viewers who are using the restricted mode, as is the case in many school environments, and by not allowing them to be monetized. After multiple appeals of YouTube’s discriminatory decisions, Prager U sued YouTube and Google in federal court, alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Lanham Act (the federal law that governs advertising in interstate commerce), as well as several causes of action under California law. The district court judge granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal counts, and Prager U appealed. That appeal was argued on Tuesday before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

That YouTube has engaged in viewpoint discrimination to the detriment of Prager U is indisputable. That YouTube does this because its employees disapprove of conservatism is obvious. But YouTube and Google are private companies, and the First Amendment applies only to government. (“Congress shall make no law…”) The U.S. Supreme Court has articulated a narrow exception where the First Amendment can apply to private entities if they “exercise powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” Prager U faces an obvious hurdle, in that hosting videos is not a traditional governmental function.

Mr. Hinderaker is not all that optimistic in a speedy remedy:

Prager U may yet win its case, which is in its early innings. Perhaps the 9th Circuit will hold that Prager’s First Amendment and Lanham Act claims state a claim, and give it a green light to pursue discovery. Perhaps Prager U will prevail on its state law causes of action, although I assume that California’s judiciary is securely in the hands of the Democratic Party, which generally is not in favor of free speech. But for the foreseeable future, the Left’s control over the principal means of public communication will remain a huge advantage.

The full article is here.

# # #