Green New Planet – The Myth

I want to preface today’s narrative by letting you all know that, while I do not condone polluting of our environment, I respectfully disavow the notion that “global warming” will harm our planet to where, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez predicted, our world would end in the next 12 years because of climate warming – a prediction she made in 2019, which means we have but a meager 10 years left of this planet, that is, of course, if we don’t adopt her proposed Green New Deal [GND].

Matter of fact, I think the climate change rhetoric, besides being grossly exaggerated, overstated, and hyperbolically overrated, has, for many years, been conveniently exploited in the private sector by the likes of ex vice-President Al Gore and others as a very profitable business. For others in government, democrats especially, however, the issue has become expediently and conveniently used as a political tool – a vote-getter. Over the past twenty or thirty years, there has been a whole cult, a culture, a grassroots movement, mostly composed of millennials and the Generation “Z”, who, drank the Kool-Aid and like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez believe the world is coming to an end if we do not address climate change.

I do not mind some using climate change and pollution to enrich themselves – more power to them. Vis-à-vis, I do mind when a cabal of these liberal democrats use “climate-warming” to cancel the Excel Pipeline, to stop oil and gas drilling in the U.S., and stop fracking on the pretext that there are better alternatives; that there are readily available substitute jobs and there are lower costs alternatives in radically changing our energy supplies to all these fallacies conveniently fabricated by democrats.

My antipathy, my aversion, and my hatred for this topic and all the hypocrisy associated with it made me want to inform myself with facts, with reality, with truths about the web of lies that have been masterfully rammed into the minds of many in mainstream America. In my customary tradition of backing up my assertions with facts, I did some research on this highly controversial subject. Following are some of the “scientific realities” that all liberal democrats in government spheres will not share with you.

First and foremost, all sources of energy have capturing limits that cannot be exceeded. The energy produced by nuclear fusion is conveyed by the Sun’s light particles and heat, called photons. The maximum rate at which “photons” can be converted to electrons is about 33%. Our best solar technology has 26% efficiency. For wind, the maximum capture is 60% and our best machines can only capture 45%. So… we are today awfully close to wind and solar capturing limits. Despite claims to the contrary, there are no big gains coming. Truth is there are not just any such possible gains. First major fallacy.

There is another hidden contingency, which the climate czars will not mention to you ever – simple and stupid. Wind and solar energy are only possible when the wind blows and the sun shines, aren’t they? In other words, we would depend on mother nature to have a continued source of energy would we not? As far as I know, last time I checked, we humans were not able to control “mother-nature.” We just don’t know when the wind will blow as well as we cannot tell when it will be sunny or when it will be overcast. The climate warming fanatics’ solution to this problem: batteries. Power the entire world with batteries, they say – mind you, another fallacy at best.

For example, the world’s largest battery factory today is one built by Telsa, the car manufacturer, in Nevada. Ready for this one? It would take 500 years to make enough batteries in this plant to supply one day’s worth of electricity in the United States. How about that for a utopia? This explains why today, after twenty years of experimenting, wind and solar energy supply less than 3% of the of the worlds energy consumption. Mind you, this, even though the United States has, to date, earmarked billions of dollars in subsidies for research and expansion of energy substitutes.

Now, as for the next fallacy. Putting aside economics, and strictly from an environment vantage point, if your schtick is to protect the environment, you better rethink the solar, wind, and battery solution[s], only because all of these three are entirely dependent on machines and, like all machines, they are built from nonrenewable materials.

So, let us talk a little about what would really happen if we try to convert our world energy supply all to wind and solar energy alone. Here is an example. In order to build a 100MW [Megawatt] wind farm to supply energy to 75,000 homes, you would need approximately 30,000 tons of iron-ore, 50,000 tons of concrete and 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics. To supply the same 75,000 homes with solar energy would cost approximately 150% more.

In addition to iron-ore, concrete and plastic, to substitute todays world’s energy requirements, you would also need other rare-earth metals, which, in turn, would need an astounding increase of approximately 2000% in mining – a massive rise in mining, of which, almost none would come from our own United States, but most all would come from other hostile and rogue enemy States. Matter of fact, mining of these minerals would require gigantic amounts of conventional energy and intensive industrial processes to refine these materials. After mining, you would then need to build the necessary solar and wind hardware.

Last, as if that were not enough, there is a waste issue. Wind turbines, solar panels and batteries have a relatively short lifespan of 20 years. Conventional energy machines like gas turbines, last twice as long. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA], the current energy substitution plans for the U.S., estimate that by 2050 the disposal of solar panels would cost double the cost of all of today’s global plastic waste. The disposal of all other energy substitutes, wind and batteries would create a whole new environmental challenge – democrats’ preferred pseudonym for “crisis.”

Bottom line friends, before we continue in our present-day lunacy and before we launch history’s biggest increase in mining, dig millions of acres of pristine areas, encourage childhood and illegal migrant labor, and create epic waste problems, we all might as well reconsider our almost inexhaustible supply of hydrocarbons – the fuels that make our wonderful modern-day world possible.

Bottom line again folks, the next time your friendly democrat neighbor, your millennial and Generation “Z” grandsons or granddaughters, or Joe Biden and Co., tell you about the advantages of solar and wind energy over fossil fuels, you go ask them if they happen to know the costs and the implications of their utopia? And, while doing so, also tell them, that the 11,000 jobs of people formerly employed in the Excel Pipeline are simply not available in the energy-substitute industries, nor will they be for the next 100 years. So, yes, they will end-up in the nation’s unemployment lines. Tell them all also how happy you and I are to pay the soaring gas prices at the pumps.

Oh, and finally, while you are at it, also tell them all that, as much as you would like to have wind and solar sources replace fossil fuels, as much as you are not ready, not just yet anyways, to be sent back to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Flintstone stone-age bedrock nation. Tell Joe Biden that as much as he thinks that we conservatives have Neanderthal thinking ways, we do not just yet want to go back 40,000 years and become another archaic human species for the sake of democrats’ utopic green new planet.

For anyone in my audience wanting to know my source of scientific data used in this narrative, I used a video named “Unobtainium” produced by Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Prager University and a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science. God save us and God save the United States of America.