Environmental Playacting

City Journal ^ | September 9, 2019 | Heather Mac Donald

[karpov]

Youth will save the planet, according to the elite narrative about global warming. It was young voters who were “asking the tough questions” and holding “Democrats’ feet to the fire” at last week’s Democratic climate-change pontificon, reported the New York Times. A high school student challenged Julian Castro about his previous support for fracking and demanded to know why “should we trust you . . . to transition our economy to renewables?” Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar was grilled by a Columbia University student about her possible fealty to the beef and dairy industries. A Ph.D. candidate at Northwestern University berated Joe Biden for allowing a natural gas company executive to host a fundraiser for him; fossil-fuel companies are committing “crimes against humanity,” announced this shoo-in for a prestigious professorship.

The claim about youth’s transformative commitment to radical environmental change is—based on informal observation—bunk. The cardinal rule when it comes to environmental virtue-signaling is that people give up what they’re willing to give up. Young people are no different. If being environmentally sound required sacrificing anything that a self-described environmental warrior actually valued, the conversation would quickly change to a different topic. One’s own habits are necessary; it’s everyone else’s that need to change.

This always-unreached threshold for environmental sacrifice is particularly notable on the part of celebrity Greens, with their fortress-like SUVs, multiple residences, and massive carbon footprints—whether it’s the cavalcade of yachts and private jets that brought such luminaries as Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Zuckerberg, and Katy Perry to Google’s three-day climate-change summit in Sicily this July; environmental crusaders Prince Harry and Meghan Markle jetting off to Elton John’s French estate; or Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter’s “quick day trip” to Los Angeles from New York just ahead of the CNN climate-change debate.

[karpov]

She later writes about how college students constantly use electronics, order from food-delivery apps instead of cook, run air conditioners regardless of the temperature, at home or in cars, leave showers running when they are not being used, and sometimes take Ubers to get to their classes.

[Army Air Corps]

Ping.

[Tea Party Terrorist]

100% of children who “demand action” have no clue of the consequences.

[CptnObvious]

DemocRATS being Boxed into Extreme Positions. Trump is doing it from the Right and the Students are doing it from the Left.

LOLARMAOOTF!

[gibsosa]

Love Heather MacDonald.

[Oldexpat]

Just did some research on the service life of wind turbines. Surprised to learn their life is only twelve years. The blades pose a special desposal problem since they have not found a suitable recycled solution and land fills dont want them.
I don’t see how a life of 20 years makes wind turbines a viable solution.

[Oldexpat]

Correct 12 to 20.

[HotHunt]

".... I don’t see how a life of 20 [12] years makes wind turbines a viable solution...."

To manufacture wind turbines (which are almost all made in China BTW) there is an enormous amount of fossil fuels required.

Then there is the issue of batteries to store wind energy in to use when the wind isn't blowing. Batteries haven't been perfected to do this yet. Besides, making such batteries requires some environmentally questionable materials and processes.

And what many people don't know is that you can't use them when the wind speed is too high. They kill birds by the thousands. They annoy neighbors with their humming all of the time.

Then, like you said, they only last 12 years. Then they have to be replaced. They can't be recycled. What to do with all the junk leftover from their parts?

All of this produces a net negative affect on the the environment. The wind turbines end up doing more damage and causing more harm to the environment than they solve.

It's like spending a dollar to save a nickel. What about the $.95 cents you lost in the process?

[Truthoverpower]

Arguing against giant wind turbines is easy please

see if you can come up with an argument against photovoltaic panels

[aumrl]

I’ve seen them covered with snow in Vermont

[HotHunt]

Not sure why you would expect me to "come with an argument against photovoltaic panels".

You're capable of doing your own research.

[MortMan]

Rare earth metals.

[palmer]

Then there is the issue of batteries to store wind energy in to use when the wind isn't blowing.

They don't do that. They simply fire up expensive gas peaking plants when the wind stops. While wind and solar can provide 40% of the electricity in some Texas locations (e.g. Austin) wind only provided a few percent of electricity in some peak demand situations: see fig 5: https://lifepowered.org/the-cautionary-tale-of-wind-energy-in-ercot/

I am certainly a supporter of wind in Texas and parts of the plains. The blades create a low frequency thumping sound, so their best use is away from populations. Yes, they kill birds and bats but that's a tradeoff balanced by relatively low fossil use. The payback for the fossil used to build and install them is a couple years at most.

[palmer]

Photovoltaic panels are great. I have over a dozen, not subsidized in any way by government or fellow electric customers. They are mainly for emergencies, charging and running electronics, remote uses. I have almost a dozen AGM batteries that cost more than the panels.

There's only one problem. They are an investment, not an energy source. A coal miner working for one hour (surface mining) can produce 19,270 kWh A solar installer who gets five panels mounted (labor intensive) can produce 2,000 kWh in the first year. Of course underground coal mining is only 1/3 as productive, and utility scale solar in the SW US is much more productive than my example of rooftop in Virginia where the sun provides less energy through less clear skies.

If someone provides that needed financing, then solar is great. Otherwise the best thing to do is wait, solar is only getting better.

[HotHunt]

I would favor wind turbines for private, individual use, like on my farm. But even that is suspect.

For $15,000 I could get a vertical turbine to produce some of my electrical needs when the wind was blowing.

I can buy electricity from the local coop power company for about $2,100 a year give or take. So in seven years I could recoup my costs without considering maintenance and repair of the turbine, so maybe 8-9 years. Their lifespan is about 10-12 years. I'd still have to have power company power for when the wind's not blowing.

After doing all the numbers, I decided it wasn't worth all of the hassle and risk. Besides, I'm not anti-fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are the engines of our economy.

Mass use is too destructive to the environments and is an ugly eyesore on the landscape. The grid to distribute wind power electricity is a nightmare, as T. Boone Pickens explained one time, especially in spread out Texas.

Wind power is not ready for prime time yet.

[HotHunt]

Every major country who was subsidizing solar, like Spain, has stopped because it was too expensive to foot the bill.

We considered solar on our farm but it was only cost effective for heating the water for the house. Would have taken 5-8 years to recoup the costs. But solar panels have to be cleaned regularly, replaced periodically and putting them on the roof in hurricane country was not a wise choice. Powering the house, barns and sheds didn't come close to penciling out.

Another "spend-a-dollar-to-save-a-nickel" scheme.

I'll save the $.95 cents and stick with reliable power company produced electricity.

[palmer]

Your $15k is not a utility-scale price. Most renewables are only cost-effective when done at utility scale e.g. dozens of giant turbines in a network, or acres of solar panels or solar-thermal mirrors. Also both of those only work well in the right environment. Here in Virginia neither solar nor wind is cost effective. As for not ready for prime-time, that describes solar. Wind is past prime time. It can't get better, as it contains crappy mechanical gear boxes that cannot be improved the way that semiconductors can.

[HotHunt]

Let's put it this way, until I can get my power as cheaply and efficiently as the power company delivers it to my property, I will not sign on.

I don't believe in climate change. The climate change scam is a ruse for destroying fossil fuels and capitalism. The Left wants their wet-dream of a socialist revolution to replace capitalism to run the economy. IOW, they want big government to run things not a robust private sector.

By the time any of the solar or wind becomes economically and physically efficient, I'll be long gone.

[palmer]

Every major country who was subsidizing solar, like Spain, has stopped because it was too expensive to foot the bill.

Spain banned new solar because they bought old expensive solar and the new more efficient solar was too cheap. So people were using new solar to avoid paying for expensive grid power. That's the one constant about solar, it always gets better and cheaper and it's always better to wait. Spain still has plenty of old expensive solar.

We considered solar on our farm but it was only cost effective for heating the water for the house.

That sounds like preheating. The "panels" that Jimmah Carter installed on the White House were solar water preheaters. They sucked then and still suck now.

Photovoltaic would never be used to heat water. It would ideally be sold into the grid at retail price (net metering) to be used for AC for your immediate neighbors. You would generate more than you need for AC most of the time. In winter you would use your net metering credits to get free power from the grid, from coal or gas plants, since your panels would not produce enough for heating, not with a heat exchanger for heating air or a heat exchanger for heating water. Plus a heat exchanger for hot water will run you $1300 compared to $300 for an ordinary water heater running off the grid

I have solar panels for emergencies, and for incidentals and remote locations as a hobby. Not because it is cheaper. It would be cheaper to buy the grid power and run wire to remote locations. I am an engineer and hobbyist, and that's why I do it.

[palmer]

I don't care about "climate change" although I do appreciate the little bit of global warming we get from more CO2. That's a net benefit.

The scam is when they call it climate change and blame bad weather on CO2. It is certainly correct that is a ruse to destroy capitalism. But within a few decades solar will be cheap and ubiquitous. There will be better storage for overnight and cloudy stretches. I'll probably be gone too, but I know enough about solar research that I know it will create fuel from water and ambient CO2 and that fuel is a form of energy storage (or can be used for vehicles).