Article

Beware – 100% green energy could destroy the planet

Boston Herald|Stephen Moore|Jun 9, 2022

Then, the land space is needed for the windmills and solar panels. Bloomberg reports that getting to zero carbon by 2050 would require a land area equal to five South Dakotas “to develop enough clean power to run all the electric vehicles, factories and more.” In other words, the liberals are calling for a full-scale industrialization of America’s wilderness and landscape. Now, even many of the most liberal areas of the country are shouting “no” to green energy in their own backyard.

The untold story about “green energy” is that it can’t possibly be scaled up to provide anywhere near the energy to replace fossil fuels. (Unless we are headed back to the stone ages, which is what some of the “de-growth” advocates favor).

Right now, the United States gets about 70% of its energy from fossil fuels. To go to zero over the next 20 years would be economically catastrophic and cost tens of millions of jobs. With gas prices at nearly double their price back from when Donald Trump left office and inflation up from 1.5% to 8% in just 15 months, we are already experiencing the economic damage from the green energy crusaders.

But we also have to ask whether green energy is even good for the environment. Some environmentalists …

... more [truncated due to possible copyright]

But we also have to ask whether green energy is even good for the environment. Some environmentalists are pointing to a little-noticed study by the World Bank showing that moving toward 100% solar, wind and electric battery energy would be just as destructive to the planet as fossil fuels. This was precisely the conclusion of a story in Foreign Policy magazine, hardly a right-wing publication.

According to the Foreign Policy analysis, moving to a “carbon-free” energy future “requires massive amounts of energy, not to mention the extraction of minerals and metals at great environmental and social costs.”

Here are some of the numbers. Going all-in on batteries, solar and wind would require:

34 million metric tons of copper
40 million tons of lead
50 million tons of zinc
162 million tons of aluminum
4.8 billion tons of iron

Those tens of millions of windmills, solar panels and electric batteries for cars and trucks aren’t exactly biodegradable. So, we will have the most prominent energy graveyard with toxic pollutants that will be 100 times larger than any nuclear waste storage. And yet, the left is worried about plastic straws!

I’m all for mining for America’s bountiful natural resources of copper, lead, magnesium and precious metals. But ironically, it’s the greens that want to shut down mines, which is like saying you want food, but you oppose farming. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Then, the land space is needed for the windmills and solar panels. Bloomberg reports that getting to zero carbon by 2050 would require a land area equal to five South Dakotas “to develop enough clean power to run all the electric vehicles, factories and more.”

In other words, the liberals are calling for a full-scale industrialization of America’s wilderness and landscape.

Now, even many of the most liberal areas of the country are shouting “no” to green energy in their own backyard. Vermonters are rebelling against unsightly solar panels spoiling their views. According to the Bennington Banner, “Vermont’s utility regulator has rejected permits for two 2 MW solar farms proposed in Bennington, pointing to aesthetic concerns and current land conservation measures in the town plan.”

Meanwhile, a town in Wisconsin is suing state regulators to “stop construction” of what would be “the state’s largest solar project,” according to the Wisconsin Journal.

Even blue Massachusetts residents are fighting green energy projects. Off-shore wind farms are delayed off the coast of Cape Cod, where per capita income is nearly the highest in the country, because they don’t want their ocean views spoiled from their beachfront villas.

In other words, real nature lovers are finally starting to awaken to the reality that wind and solar aren’t so green after all. A nuclear plant takes up at most 1 square mile of land. Wind and solar farms require hundreds of thousands of acres. So, to provide enough electric power to keep Manhattan lit up at night would require paving over nearly the whole state of Connecticut with windmills and solar farms.

The public is starting to ask: How is any of this green? The Green New Deal strategy makes especially no sense given that by increasing our use of clean-burning and reliable natural gas, we are reducing energy prices AND cutting carbon emissions. Add nuclear power to the mix, and we wouldn’t need to start building wind and solar farms in our forests, deserts and national parks.

Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at Freedom Works.

Trending Articles

The following is a list of the most commented articles in the last 7 days.

A trending article titled "Baker not pleased with license bill, legislative leaders sign without his blessing" with 10 comments.

Page thumbnail.

Baker not pleased with license bill, legislative leader...

10 comments

A trending article titled "Biden to visit Israel and Saudi Arabia in July, meet with Prince Mohammed bin Salman" with 12 comments.

Page thumbnail.

Biden to visit Israel and Saudi Arabia in July, meet wi...

12 comments

A trending article titled "Duffy: Remembering firefighters’ sacrifice at the Vendome, 50 years later" with 3 comments.

Page thumbnail.

Duffy: Remembering firefighters’ sacrifice at the Vendo...

3 comments

A trending article titled "Boston-area Jewish groups condemn ‘antisemitic attack’ from the Mapping Project; FBI tracking the website" with 8 comments.

Page thumbnail.

Boston-area Jewish groups condemn ‘antisemitic attack’ ...

8 comments

A trending article titled "Battenfeld: Could Jan. 6 hearings provoke Trump into running for another term?" with 18 comments.

Page thumbnail.

Battenfeld: Could Jan. 6 hearings provoke Trump into ru...

18 comments

Load More Comments

Conversation

FOLLOW THIS CONVERSATION TO BE NOTIFIED WHEN NEW COMMENTS ARE POSTEDFOLLOW

Jump to log in or sign Up

Join the conversation

ALL COMMENTS 4

newest

All Comments

View the profile of "mikelydon9"

mikelydon9

SUBSCRIBER

1 DAY AGO

We should ask the really smart Commies in red China who are building about a hundred coal fired power plants what they think?

SHAREFLAG

View the profile of "Tyrone Jackson"

Tyrone Jackson

3 DAYS AGO

As Freedomworks says on it's website, it's not about unbiased analysis. It's about promoting a conservative agenda. Therefore any position piece produced by it's staff, like this article, is pure propaganda using unvetted & cherry picked numbers.

Any competent Scientist can see that it's list of materials is missing silicon & lithium (the dominant materials in solar cells & EV batteries), and is a gross consumption list instead of a net (vs maintaining fossil fuels), and provides zero basis for any of it's purported numbers, which means it's scientifically worthless as a source of information upon which to base policy. As for nuclear, the main issue there is nuclear waste, which lasts up to 1 million years. Google "The Staggering Timescales Of Nuclear Waste Disposal" for a Forbes (not exactly a bastion of liberalism) article written for non-Scientists which maybe Mr. Moore can understand. EDITED

SHAREFLAG

View the profile of "bchapman"

bchapman

SUBSCRIBER

5 DAYS AGO

Mr Moore,

the green eco clowns (censored) don't want to hear the truth when it comes to their green energy fallacies.

They don't want to admit the ecological disaster of oil leaking from wind turbines into the ground water oceand and shell fish beds.

They don't want to admit the fire hazard of the batteries and the toxic smoke spewing into the air when batteries, solar panels and turbines catch fire

They don't want to discuss the deforestation involved in setting up these giant solar farms on the sides of mountains and hills

They don't want to discuss the physical damage to people or wild life living near these wind turbines.

And the definitely don't want to discuss the prohibitive cost of ev's to low income citizens EDITED

Beware – 100% green energy could destroy the planet

Boston Herald|Stephen Moore|Jun 9, 2022

Follow Us

Donate

Stay Updated

Contact Us