I find it strange that a "one size fits all" approach is taken when speaking of fossil fuel reduction. Does it not make sense to go after the biggest culprit, coal, using nuclear, natural gas and oil to get that under control first, then worry about oil and gas? Since coal accounts for over 50% of all fossil fuel emissions globally, and since natural gas is twice as clean burning as coal, surely the way to go is to go full speed ahead with oil and natural gas production for export to Asian countries to reduce their reliance on coal. That should be the first consideration, IMO.
Retired after 35 years in the Upstream oil and gas production. I’d be interested in the split out of developed vs developing economies. I think it unrealistic to expect developing nations to stop development and hence fossil fuel use to satisfy some in developing nations concerns.
Good for you David. No reason for developing countries to pass on fossil fuel powered electrical generation. They deserve access to reliable electricity. In fact the improvement in the human condition in developing countries is significantly larger a for any gains in access to reliable electricity. In an all things being equal world it would be celebrated.
Could you elaborate on how your link is relevant to the issue raised in Rogers post? I cannot see any mention of the issue of fossil vs non-fossil energy in your post.
This might be an instance where there is a credible early impact of global warming. I haven't read the paper but a summary press release indicates that they claim to have found a statistical correlation of more rain and less snow on mountains since 1950 as the earth warmed. They hypothesize that in some mountains where much of the snow forms just below freezing, a small increase in temperature can shift snow into rain. When snow is formed, floods are less likely. It all sounds plausible to me but the devil is in the details. The problem is that it is easy to become cynical from all the false studies purporting to find early evidence of the impact of warming.
The issue in this posting is not about whether CO2 produces warming or whether CO2 is good or bad. Most of the world leaders are convinced that it is important to reduce CO2 emissions quickly. What Roger has pointed out is that while gains have been made in renewable energy generation, the total demand for energy keeps increasing and the world has continued is utilize fossil fuels at a high rate. Some comments to this postingadded have emphasized the need to greatly expand nuclear power generation. I think that must be an important part of the picture. But it will take a great deal of time, and right now there is a great deal of negativity toward nuclear amongst those in power. The belief that solar and wind can suffice seems widespread but that seems impossible to many on this substack (including me). Meanwhile, CO2 keeps going up. As in almost everything worth discussing in today's world, the debate tends to split into opposite extremes. It sure looks like CO2 now at 415 ppm will hit something like 525 to 550 ppm by 2100 and we will have to live with the consequences - which presently are difficult to predict - but have likely been exaggerated by the IPCC.
It's best for everyone if we keep discussions focused on the thread themes and adjacent topics. The good news is that I cover enough here that there is probably a thread for just about anything!
Bottom line net zero does not happen without massive investment in nuclear plants. Where is the money going to come from? Anybody? In California they still have tons of wooden power poles. None of the policies make sense. I can understand bending the curve but even that maybe economically impossible. Why is there not a greater push for hybrids, they seem a better choice then EV’s, anybody?
The basic error in climate policy is that politicians didn't ask the IPCC - specifically climate economists - what the optimum rate or policies for decarbonization should be. They asked what rate would cause minimal change and the answer was a 2° pathway with net zero by 2050
Once you've committed to a short time horizon your options shrink and cost effectiveness can go off the table. To get to net zero by 2050 you have to mandate pure EVs by 2030 so that new ICE vehicles sold in 2029 will be retired by then. Politicians aren't asking what the best policies are because they didn't ask that question from the beginning, and now they essentially can't
Electricity demand in the US in 2022 was ~4 trillion kWh, approximately 60%, or 2.4 trillion kWh was generated by fossil fuel plants. Assuming a capacity factor of 90% for a nuclear plant, we would need to build about 300 1-GW nuclear plants to replace this fossil fuel generation. Furthermore, electricity demand is expected to grow considerably because of electrification of transportation and home heating and cooling. Assuming that electricity demand grows by 40% by 2050, we would need an additional 200 1-GW nuclear plants to meet the increased demand, for a total of 500 new 1-GW nuclear plants. Assuming an average capacity factor of wind and solar plants of 30%, we would need an additional 1500 1-GW nameplate capacity wind and solar plants, plus storage, to replace fossil fuel plants and meet the increased demand by 2050.
The US was completing 1 NPP per month by 1974. At that rate all the US electricity supply would be nuclear by 2000. This is using one-at-a-time construction methods. One company was going to build factory barge NPPs just as the boycott began. @ 12/yr it would take 40yrs for 500 GWe, which is a reasonable time span if you are not an CC Alarmist.
Wind & solar are a joke. Don't use the foolish Apples(nuclear) to Rotten Oranges(wind/solar) comparison in power generation. 1 kwh of nuclear is NOT replaced by 1 kwh of wind/solar. That's not how the grid works.
If they really cared about Climate Change, they would be financing large factories with government guaranteed orders for SMR's, especially molten salt & sodium fast reactors. With the same licensing process used for large aircraft. Building NPPs on that scale could replace our entire Primary Energy supply in 25yr with nuclear. The PTB know that very well. Which is why they despise nuclear and go to great lengths to suppress it.
I asked this question several months ago. And I will ask again.
The world has done nothing to actually fight "climate change"...
If fossil fuel consumption is increasing and CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, why is the global temperature trending toward an "ideal" 1.5C.
Is the CO2 forcing of warming hypothesis wrong or is something else happening? I suspect the former, which leads to the latter. it's much more complex than we arrogant humans know.
As of 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that the global average temperature has risen by about 1.1 degrees Celsius. Call me in 10 years with more actual temperature updates not flawed forecasts...
The article continues in a profound negativity to the increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, from any source. To understand climate, one needs to have some insight into basic physics, at least. 'Climate science' is the coming together of such disciplines as geology, oceanography, biology, geography, history, mathematics, meteorology, astrophysics, chemistry, economics, and many others. No scientist or layperson can identify with them all and so, when emotive conclusions are made, based on ideology and ignorance, factual science is, often the last resort or, at best, denied - as is the case in this article.
'Woke' scientists within very specialized disciplines rely mostly, or entirely, on government funding and therefore have an unconscious or conscious bias towards obeying the current narrative. Unfortunately, this is manifest in ideological decisions to protect their jobs and a failure to think rationally.
Facts of physics and meteorology don't matter to the ignorant or even the 'woke' zealot scientists. Only the trace gas, CO2, matters as an existential threat to our survival - and soon, they say.
It matters not that CO2 levels in the atmosphere in the past have been over 20 times that of today - even in the middle of ice ages or the sun's changing elliptical orbit, axial tilt, and precession as described by Milutin Milankovitch in 1920 which puts our Earth in and out of ice ages.
Neither does it appear to matter that solar activity affects the cosmic-ray flux and cloud formation processes on Earth, nor does it matter that millions of volcanoes erupt in the depths of chasms in the seabed, releasing vast amounts of CO2 gas into the oceans, yet we wonder what might be heating the oceans.
And then there is the reality that the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases significantly and logarithmically as its concentration increases. Most of the warming by CO2 has been done such that the theoretical temperature rise over one century is around 0.8 degrees C - and that is without considering uncertainties, both unknown and known.
So, as CO2 becomes more concentrated in the atmosphere, it becomes a less effective greenhouse gas. Each additional ppm increase in CO2 in the atmosphere causes a smaller and smaller change in the temperature as more radiation takes place to space. This explains why there was no runaway greenhouse warming when, historically, the concentration of CO2 was significantly higher than now.
Rising atmospheric CO2 levels do not matter. We have been there before, and life flourished. has anyone thought about why China persists with their coal and natural gas burning? They also have very talented physicists who understand the physics of CO2 and there is no concern. Of course not. They put their efforts into scrubbing the coal-fired emissions so only pure CO2 is released into the atmosphere. So, no SO2, nitrous oxides, or Hg. They know that CO2 gas increases crop yields and the growth of plant material generally (plus reduces water requirements). Thus, there is more crops available to feed the world.
In the last 50 to 100 years, as CO2 rose (and the climate heated and cooled) models have been shown to be demonstrably unfit for purpose. Their predictions are abysmal and do not concur with observed data. Mann's hockey stick is a fraud, yet the doomsdayers persist in their ignorance of false prophecy.
Manipulated data and misrepresentation is rife in the climate community. It is always the hottest year on record, extreme weather prevails, the sea levels are rising, polar bears will become extinct, the ocean is acidifying, and coral reefs are dying. In fact, the most recent 'unprecedented' heat waves occurred in the 1930s, so-called extreme weather is never 'unprecedented,' sea levels rise and fall and coastal land uplifts and subsidies, polar bears breed prolifically, the oceans are buffered by a predominantly basalt sea floor (amongst other buffering systems), and coral reefs globally are thriving (they like warmer climates).
To quote Professor Richard Lindzen, “Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry
picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence” marshaled in support of
the theory of imminent catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2.
True. What we are learning is a large, well-run grid with lot's of secure baseload can handle maybe 30 % intermittent and remain stable. Emerging economies need to have reliable baseload first. Thus the continued need for, and buildout, of fossil.
In his book "The Rise and Fall of American Growth" Robert Gordon said that the two most important innovations in history are the internal combustion engine and the electric grid. Both run (almost exclusively) on fossil fuels.
Why does the net-zero crowd want to kill off these two pillars of modern civilization?
Because Net Zero is the most excellent scam ever invented to facilitate the massive transfer of wealth to an elite Aristocracy while putting the final nail in the coffin of the middle class. In short the ruling cult of Malthusian Psychopath Predator Parasites will create a techno-feudal state in which we will all be lowly serfs, subject to extermination at the whim of the Psycho-Tyranny.
Nothing like working from a false assumption to arrive at meaningless conclusions. The false assumption is that 'renewables' like solar and wind are really renewable - don't solar panels and turbines need replacement, and don't the materials for those panels come from non-renewable resources that come from the ground exactly like fossil fuels? What difference does it make if the materials used for energy are mined or pumped? Not to mention that the manufacture of these non-renewable renewables require significant energy input, which, according to your own numbers is over 80% fossil fuel?
It seems to me that the more 'experts' keep saying "solar and wind are the way of the future", or even as you are saying, i.e. "I agree that full decarbonization is a worthy goal, but you can't get there from here in the time frame you have been suggesting <wink> <wink>" the more you lose credibility. Why should we listen and/or trust someone who goes along with this global insanity?
If wind and solar displace the use of irreplaceable fossil fuels from being used for electricity they are extending our golden hydrocarbon age while additionally reducing CO2
Are they? The EROI is low but if something has an EROI of 4 and costs 10x less than something with an EROI of 40 it is economically equivalent. Energy returned isn't a guaranteed debate winner
However it is a good gut check. Is something with an EROI of 4 really likely to cost less than nuclear with one of 100? The recent LAZARD report including the cost of adding firmed 4 hour battery backed wind and solar in California says it's already at the price of Votgle. I've heard subsidy analyses of wind that got a full cost of $300 - $500/MWh
This may not be as true for new wind and solar which appear to have matured into useful energy sources but they aren't the golden boys they are assumed to be and likely are near the limit of improvement
I'm not sure you understand my point. What is the difference between "irreplaceable fossil fuels" and "irreplaceable lithium, cobalt, aluminum and other materials required for solar and wind power options"? In addition to the extremely dubious cost "advantages", cobalt in particular is a 'blood mineral' in that its extraction is accomplished in large part by children toiling in inhumane conditions.
The wind and solar 'renewables' hyped by 'progressives' are anything BUT renewable. Wind turbines, in particular, have short lifetimes compared to other power generation methods, and how does one go about recycling a 200 foot long wind turbine blade? If this entire 'clean energy' push was anything other than a liberal fantasy, they would be pushing nuclear fission/fusion plants.
Not only that but the wind & solar require about 20X the material inputs per unit energy output of traditional fossil, hydro, nuclear energy sources. Bad as that is, it gets worse. Intermittency is so difficult for an energy source, to alleviate that will require another 20X in material inputs for hydrogen, batteries and long distance transmission infrastructure. That will push the EROI (Energy Return On Invested) for the wind/solar system to ~1:1. A physical impossibility. Total economic collapse would be the inevitable result of that effort.
But it's !!!! RENEWABLE !!!! But wait THERE'S MORE! With your purchase of this insanely expensive and totally worthless product you get a framed, autographed photograph of GRETA THUNBERG!!!
I find it strange that a "one size fits all" approach is taken when speaking of fossil fuel reduction. Does it not make sense to go after the biggest culprit, coal, using nuclear, natural gas and oil to get that under control first, then worry about oil and gas? Since coal accounts for over 50% of all fossil fuel emissions globally, and since natural gas is twice as clean burning as coal, surely the way to go is to go full speed ahead with oil and natural gas production for export to Asian countries to reduce their reliance on coal. That should be the first consideration, IMO.
Thanks for that don’t worry the White House just came out for blocking the sun to help with climate change.
Retired after 35 years in the Upstream oil and gas production. I’d be interested in the split out of developed vs developing economies. I think it unrealistic to expect developing nations to stop development and hence fossil fuel use to satisfy some in developing nations concerns.
Good for you David. No reason for developing countries to pass on fossil fuel powered electrical generation. They deserve access to reliable electricity. In fact the improvement in the human condition in developing countries is significantly larger a for any gains in access to reliable electricity. In an all things being equal world it would be celebrated.
Long time reader. New sub. Energy advocate with 45 years in the upstream business.
Great post! Appreciate the candor and honesty as always
https://apnews.com/article/warming-snow-rain-flooding-drought-climate-change-844da3efb28f2a236bb6192f39cf27fb
Wonder what your reaction is to this data and conclusions?
Thanks!
Could you elaborate on how your link is relevant to the issue raised in Rogers post? I cannot see any mention of the issue of fossil vs non-fossil energy in your post.
This might be an instance where there is a credible early impact of global warming. I haven't read the paper but a summary press release indicates that they claim to have found a statistical correlation of more rain and less snow on mountains since 1950 as the earth warmed. They hypothesize that in some mountains where much of the snow forms just below freezing, a small increase in temperature can shift snow into rain. When snow is formed, floods are less likely. It all sounds plausible to me but the devil is in the details. The problem is that it is easy to become cynical from all the false studies purporting to find early evidence of the impact of warming.
The issue in this posting is not about whether CO2 produces warming or whether CO2 is good or bad. Most of the world leaders are convinced that it is important to reduce CO2 emissions quickly. What Roger has pointed out is that while gains have been made in renewable energy generation, the total demand for energy keeps increasing and the world has continued is utilize fossil fuels at a high rate. Some comments to this postingadded have emphasized the need to greatly expand nuclear power generation. I think that must be an important part of the picture. But it will take a great deal of time, and right now there is a great deal of negativity toward nuclear amongst those in power. The belief that solar and wind can suffice seems widespread but that seems impossible to many on this substack (including me). Meanwhile, CO2 keeps going up. As in almost everything worth discussing in today's world, the debate tends to split into opposite extremes. It sure looks like CO2 now at 415 ppm will hit something like 525 to 550 ppm by 2100 and we will have to live with the consequences - which presently are difficult to predict - but have likely been exaggerated by the IPCC.
Agreed, and thanks
I have a post dedicated to CO2 and climate and would ask that discussions of that subject take place there:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-carbon-dioxide-emissions-change
It's best for everyone if we keep discussions focused on the thread themes and adjacent topics. The good news is that I cover enough here that there is probably a thread for just about anything!
Bottom line net zero does not happen without massive investment in nuclear plants. Where is the money going to come from? Anybody? In California they still have tons of wooden power poles. None of the policies make sense. I can understand bending the curve but even that maybe economically impossible. Why is there not a greater push for hybrids, they seem a better choice then EV’s, anybody?
The basic error in climate policy is that politicians didn't ask the IPCC - specifically climate economists - what the optimum rate or policies for decarbonization should be. They asked what rate would cause minimal change and the answer was a 2° pathway with net zero by 2050
Once you've committed to a short time horizon your options shrink and cost effectiveness can go off the table. To get to net zero by 2050 you have to mandate pure EVs by 2030 so that new ICE vehicles sold in 2029 will be retired by then. Politicians aren't asking what the best policies are because they didn't ask that question from the beginning, and now they essentially can't
Electricity demand in the US in 2022 was ~4 trillion kWh, approximately 60%, or 2.4 trillion kWh was generated by fossil fuel plants. Assuming a capacity factor of 90% for a nuclear plant, we would need to build about 300 1-GW nuclear plants to replace this fossil fuel generation. Furthermore, electricity demand is expected to grow considerably because of electrification of transportation and home heating and cooling. Assuming that electricity demand grows by 40% by 2050, we would need an additional 200 1-GW nuclear plants to meet the increased demand, for a total of 500 new 1-GW nuclear plants. Assuming an average capacity factor of wind and solar plants of 30%, we would need an additional 1500 1-GW nameplate capacity wind and solar plants, plus storage, to replace fossil fuel plants and meet the increased demand by 2050.
All-electric everything requires roughly tripling US electricity demand and consumption.
The US was completing 1 NPP per month by 1974. At that rate all the US electricity supply would be nuclear by 2000. This is using one-at-a-time construction methods. One company was going to build factory barge NPPs just as the boycott began. @ 12/yr it would take 40yrs for 500 GWe, which is a reasonable time span if you are not an CC Alarmist.
Wind & solar are a joke. Don't use the foolish Apples(nuclear) to Rotten Oranges(wind/solar) comparison in power generation. 1 kwh of nuclear is NOT replaced by 1 kwh of wind/solar. That's not how the grid works.
If they really cared about Climate Change, they would be financing large factories with government guaranteed orders for SMR's, especially molten salt & sodium fast reactors. With the same licensing process used for large aircraft. Building NPPs on that scale could replace our entire Primary Energy supply in 25yr with nuclear. The PTB know that very well. Which is why they despise nuclear and go to great lengths to suppress it.
This is not a forum for nitwits to claim CO2 has no effect.
I asked this question several months ago. And I will ask again.
The world has done nothing to actually fight "climate change"...
If fossil fuel consumption is increasing and CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, why is the global temperature trending toward an "ideal" 1.5C.
Is the CO2 forcing of warming hypothesis wrong or is something else happening? I suspect the former, which leads to the latter. it's much more complex than we arrogant humans know.
The world is not trending toward an ideal 1.5 C.
As of 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that the global average temperature has risen by about 1.1 degrees Celsius. Call me in 10 years with more actual temperature updates not flawed forecasts...
I don’t want to transition from fossil fuels. I believe life on earth would benefit from a small amount of warming, and more CO2 in the atmosphere.
silly
The article continues in a profound negativity to the increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, from any source. To understand climate, one needs to have some insight into basic physics, at least. 'Climate science' is the coming together of such disciplines as geology, oceanography, biology, geography, history, mathematics, meteorology, astrophysics, chemistry, economics, and many others. No scientist or layperson can identify with them all and so, when emotive conclusions are made, based on ideology and ignorance, factual science is, often the last resort or, at best, denied - as is the case in this article.
'Woke' scientists within very specialized disciplines rely mostly, or entirely, on government funding and therefore have an unconscious or conscious bias towards obeying the current narrative. Unfortunately, this is manifest in ideological decisions to protect their jobs and a failure to think rationally.
Facts of physics and meteorology don't matter to the ignorant or even the 'woke' zealot scientists. Only the trace gas, CO2, matters as an existential threat to our survival - and soon, they say.
It matters not that CO2 levels in the atmosphere in the past have been over 20 times that of today - even in the middle of ice ages or the sun's changing elliptical orbit, axial tilt, and precession as described by Milutin Milankovitch in 1920 which puts our Earth in and out of ice ages.
Neither does it appear to matter that solar activity affects the cosmic-ray flux and cloud formation processes on Earth, nor does it matter that millions of volcanoes erupt in the depths of chasms in the seabed, releasing vast amounts of CO2 gas into the oceans, yet we wonder what might be heating the oceans.
And then there is the reality that the warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases significantly and logarithmically as its concentration increases. Most of the warming by CO2 has been done such that the theoretical temperature rise over one century is around 0.8 degrees C - and that is without considering uncertainties, both unknown and known.
So, as CO2 becomes more concentrated in the atmosphere, it becomes a less effective greenhouse gas. Each additional ppm increase in CO2 in the atmosphere causes a smaller and smaller change in the temperature as more radiation takes place to space. This explains why there was no runaway greenhouse warming when, historically, the concentration of CO2 was significantly higher than now.
Rising atmospheric CO2 levels do not matter. We have been there before, and life flourished. has anyone thought about why China persists with their coal and natural gas burning? They also have very talented physicists who understand the physics of CO2 and there is no concern. Of course not. They put their efforts into scrubbing the coal-fired emissions so only pure CO2 is released into the atmosphere. So, no SO2, nitrous oxides, or Hg. They know that CO2 gas increases crop yields and the growth of plant material generally (plus reduces water requirements). Thus, there is more crops available to feed the world.
In the last 50 to 100 years, as CO2 rose (and the climate heated and cooled) models have been shown to be demonstrably unfit for purpose. Their predictions are abysmal and do not concur with observed data. Mann's hockey stick is a fraud, yet the doomsdayers persist in their ignorance of false prophecy.
Manipulated data and misrepresentation is rife in the climate community. It is always the hottest year on record, extreme weather prevails, the sea levels are rising, polar bears will become extinct, the ocean is acidifying, and coral reefs are dying. In fact, the most recent 'unprecedented' heat waves occurred in the 1930s, so-called extreme weather is never 'unprecedented,' sea levels rise and fall and coastal land uplifts and subsidies, polar bears breed prolifically, the oceans are buffered by a predominantly basalt sea floor (amongst other buffering systems), and coral reefs globally are thriving (they like warmer climates).
To quote Professor Richard Lindzen, “Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry
picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence” marshaled in support of
the theory of imminent catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2.
Thanks for informing us that "Rising atmospheric CO2 levels do not matter"
True. What we are learning is a large, well-run grid with lot's of secure baseload can handle maybe 30 % intermittent and remain stable. Emerging economies need to have reliable baseload first. Thus the continued need for, and buildout, of fossil.
In his book "The Rise and Fall of American Growth" Robert Gordon said that the two most important innovations in history are the internal combustion engine and the electric grid. Both run (almost exclusively) on fossil fuels.
Why does the net-zero crowd want to kill off these two pillars of modern civilization?
Because Net Zero is the most excellent scam ever invented to facilitate the massive transfer of wealth to an elite Aristocracy while putting the final nail in the coffin of the middle class. In short the ruling cult of Malthusian Psychopath Predator Parasites will create a techno-feudal state in which we will all be lowly serfs, subject to extermination at the whim of the Psycho-Tyranny.
https://www.youtube.com/@thispivotalmoment1616/videos
Nothing like working from a false assumption to arrive at meaningless conclusions. The false assumption is that 'renewables' like solar and wind are really renewable - don't solar panels and turbines need replacement, and don't the materials for those panels come from non-renewable resources that come from the ground exactly like fossil fuels? What difference does it make if the materials used for energy are mined or pumped? Not to mention that the manufacture of these non-renewable renewables require significant energy input, which, according to your own numbers is over 80% fossil fuel?
It seems to me that the more 'experts' keep saying "solar and wind are the way of the future", or even as you are saying, i.e. "I agree that full decarbonization is a worthy goal, but you can't get there from here in the time frame you have been suggesting <wink> <wink>" the more you lose credibility. Why should we listen and/or trust someone who goes along with this global insanity?
If wind and solar displace the use of irreplaceable fossil fuels from being used for electricity they are extending our golden hydrocarbon age while additionally reducing CO2
Are they? The EROI is low but if something has an EROI of 4 and costs 10x less than something with an EROI of 40 it is economically equivalent. Energy returned isn't a guaranteed debate winner
However it is a good gut check. Is something with an EROI of 4 really likely to cost less than nuclear with one of 100? The recent LAZARD report including the cost of adding firmed 4 hour battery backed wind and solar in California says it's already at the price of Votgle. I've heard subsidy analyses of wind that got a full cost of $300 - $500/MWh
This may not be as true for new wind and solar which appear to have matured into useful energy sources but they aren't the golden boys they are assumed to be and likely are near the limit of improvement
I'm not sure you understand my point. What is the difference between "irreplaceable fossil fuels" and "irreplaceable lithium, cobalt, aluminum and other materials required for solar and wind power options"? In addition to the extremely dubious cost "advantages", cobalt in particular is a 'blood mineral' in that its extraction is accomplished in large part by children toiling in inhumane conditions.
The wind and solar 'renewables' hyped by 'progressives' are anything BUT renewable. Wind turbines, in particular, have short lifetimes compared to other power generation methods, and how does one go about recycling a 200 foot long wind turbine blade? If this entire 'clean energy' push was anything other than a liberal fantasy, they would be pushing nuclear fission/fusion plants.
Not only that but the wind & solar require about 20X the material inputs per unit energy output of traditional fossil, hydro, nuclear energy sources. Bad as that is, it gets worse. Intermittency is so difficult for an energy source, to alleviate that will require another 20X in material inputs for hydrogen, batteries and long distance transmission infrastructure. That will push the EROI (Energy Return On Invested) for the wind/solar system to ~1:1. A physical impossibility. Total economic collapse would be the inevitable result of that effort.
But it's !!!! RENEWABLE !!!! But wait THERE'S MORE! With your purchase of this insanely expensive and totally worthless product you get a framed, autographed photograph of GRETA THUNBERG!!!