THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XII, Issue # 198, September 21, 2010
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
SUSTAINABLE, AFFORDABLE, ECO-FRIENDLY RENEWABLE ENERGY?
UNSUSTAINABLE COW MANURE!
By Paul K. Driessen
U.S. ENERGY POLICY & RELIANCE ON RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES: SOME BASIC ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED, BEFORE THE U.S.A. GOES FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD TO THE RENEWABLE ENERGY UTOPIA ADVOCATED BY
THE ENVIRONMENTALIST MOVEMENT & THE POLITICAL & CULTURAL LEFT -- THE MEANING & SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
TERMS "SUSTAINABILITY" & "UNSUSTAINABILITY" -- THE BASIS OF THE QUEST FOR GOVERNMENT-MANDATED
"SUSTAINABLE" ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES -- THE NEED TO APPLY THE SAME GUIDELINES TO RENEWABLE ENERGY AS
COURTS, GOVERNMENT REGULATORS, & ENVIRONMENTALISTS APPLY TO FOSSIL FUELS & NUCLEAR POWER
FULL STORY:
Seek a sustainable future! Wind turbines, solar panels, and biofuels will ensure an eco-friendly, climate-protecting,
planet-saving, sustainable inheritance for our children. Or so we are told by eco-activists and Leftist politicians intent
on enacting new renewable energy standards, mandates, and subsidies during a lame duck session of Congress. It may
be useful to address some basic issues, before going further down the road to Renewable Utopia.
First, when exactly is something not sustainable? When known deposits (proven reserves) may be depleted in ten
years? 50 years? 100 years? What if looming depletion results from government policies that forbid access to lands that
might contain new deposits – as with U.S. onshore and offshore prospects for oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, rare earth
minerals, and other vital resources?
Rising prices, new theories about mineral formation, and improved discovery and extraction technologies and
techniques typically expand energy and mineral reserves – postponing depletion by years or decades, as in the case of
oil and natural gas. But legislation, regulation, taxation, and litigation prevent these processes from working properly,
hasten depletion, and make “sustainability” an even more politicized, manipulated, and meaningless concept.
Second, should the quest for mandated “sustainable” technologies be based on real, immediate threats – or will
imaginary or exaggerated crises suffice? Dangerous man-made global cooling morphed into dangerous man-made
global warming, then into “global climate disruption” – driven by computer models and disaster scenarios, doctored
temperature data, manipulated peer reviews, and bogus claims about melting glaciers and rising sea levels. Shouldn’t
policies that replace reliable, affordable energy with expensive, intermittent, land-intensive, subsidized sources be based
on solid, replicable science?
Third, shouldn’t inconvenient sustainability issues be resolved before we proceed any further, by applying the same
guidelines to renewable energy as courts, regulators, and eco-activists apply to petroleum?
Most oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium operations impact limited acreage for limited times – and affected areas must be
restored to natural conditions when production ends. Effects on air and water quality, habitats, and protected species are
addressed through regulations, lease restrictions, and fines. The operations generate vast amounts of affordable, reliable
energy from relatively small tracts of land, and substantial revenues.
Wind turbines generate small amounts of expensive, unreliable electricity from gargantuan installations on thousands of
acres. Turbines and their associated transmission lines dominate scenic vistas, disrupt habitats and migratory routes,
affect water drainage patterns, impede crop dusting and other activities, and kill bats, raptors and other birds, including
endangered species that would bring major fines if the corporate killers were oil or mining companies. And yet, wind
operators receive exemptions from environmental review, biodiversity, and endangered species laws that traditional
energy companies must follow – on the ground that such rules would raise costs and delay construction of
“eco-friendly” projects.
Kentucky’s Cardinal coal mine alone produces 75% of the Btu energy generated by all the wind turbines and solar panels
in the U.S.A., Power Hungry author Robert Bryce calculates. Unspoiled vistas, rural and maritime tranquility, and
bald eagles will all be endangered if 20% wind power mandates are enacted.
The Palo Verde Nuclear Power Station near Phoenix, Arizona, generates nearly 900 times more electricity than Nevada’s
Nellis Air Force Base photovoltaic panels, on less land, for 1/15 the cost per kWh – and does it 90% of the time, versus
30% of the time for the Nellis array. Generating Palo Verde’s electrical output via Nellis technology would require solar
arrays across an area ten times larger than Washington, D.C.
Building enough photovoltaic arrays to power Los Angeles would mean blanketing thousands of square miles of desert
habitat. Once built, solar and wind systems will be there just this side of forever, since there will be no energy production
if we let them decay, after shutting down whatever hydrocarbon operations aren’t needed to fuel backup generators that
keep wind and solar facilities operational.
Wind and solar power also mean there is a sudden demand for tons of rare earth elements that weren’t terribly important
a decade ago. They exist in very low concentrations, require mining and milling massive amounts of rock and ore to get
the needed minerals, and thus impose huge ecological impacts.
If mountaintop removal to extract high quality coal at reduced risk to miners is unacceptable and unsustainable – how is
it eco-friendly and sustainable to clear-cut mountain vistas for wind turbines? Blanket thousands of square miles with
habitat-suffocating solar panels? Or remove mountains of rock to mine low-grade rare earth mineral deposits for solar
panel films, hybrid batteries, and turbine magnets?
Since any undiscovered U.S. rare earth deposits are likely locked up in wilderness and other restricted land use areas,
virtually no exploration or development will take place here. We will thus be dependent on foreign suppliers, like China,
which are using them in their own manufacturing operations – and selling us finished wind turbines, solar panels and
hybrid car batteries. The United States will thus be dependent on foreign suppliers for renewable energy, just as we rely
on foreign countries for oil and uranium.
To claim any of this is ecologically or economically sustainable strains credulity.
Green jobs will mostly be overseas, subsidized by U.S. tax and energy dollars – other people’s money (OPM). Indeed,
Americans have already spent over $20 billion in stimulus money on “green” energy projects. However, 80% of the
funding for some of them went to China, India, South Korea and Spain, and three-fourth of the turbines for eleven U.S.
wind projects were made overseas. This is intolerable, indefensible, and unsustainable. But it gets worse.
Denver’s Nature and Science Museum used $720,000 in stimulus money to install photovoltaic panels and reduce its
electricity bills by 20 percent. The panels may last 25 years, whereas it will take 110 years to save enough on those bills
to pay for the panels – and, by then, four more sets of panels will be needed.
As to biofuels, the U.S. Navy recently waxed ecstatic over its success with camellia-based eco-fuel in fighter jets. But
the PC biofuel costs $67.50 per gallon, versus $5.00 per gallon for commercial jet fuel.
To meet the 36-billion-gallons-a-year-by-2022 federal ethanol diktat, we would have to grow corn on cropland and
wildlife habitat the size of Georgia, to get 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol, plus switchgrass on farmlands and
habitats the size of South Carolina, to produce 21 billion gallons of “advanced biofuel.” By contrast, we could produce
670 billion gallons of oil from frozen tundra equal to 1/20 of Washington, D.C., if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
weren’t off limits.
OPM-subsidized ethanol also means a few corn growers and ethanol refiners make hefty profits. But chicken and beef
producers, manufacturers that need corn syrup, and families of all stripes get pounded by soaring costs, to generate a
fuel that gets one-third less mileage per tank than gasoline.
Hydrocarbons fueled the most amazing and sustained progress in human history. Rejecting further progress – in the
name of sustainability or climate protection – requires solid evidence that we face catastrophes if we don’t switch to
“sustainable” alternatives. Computer-generated disaster scenarios and bald assertions by Al Gore, Harry Reid, John
Holdren, and President Barack Obama just don’t make the grade.
We need to improve energy efficiency and conserve resources. Science and technology will continue the great strides
we have made in that regard. Politically motivated mandates will impose huge costs for few benefits. Sustainability
claims will simply redistribute smaller shares of a shrinking economic pie.
“Renewable” energy subsidies may sustain the jobs of lobbyists, activists, politicians, bureaucrats, and politically
connected companies. But they will kill millions of other people’s jobs.
Let’s be sure to remind our elected officials of this along their campaign trails – and on November 2, 2010.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Political Environmentalism Versus Human Progress & Prosperity:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
Political Economy -- Philosophies, Systems, & Public Policies:
Government, the Economy, & Economic Prosperity
Paul K. Driessen is a senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and the Congress of Racial
Equality. He is author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XII, 2010
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity