committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-28--Imagine our Covid-19 response running on wind and solar power

Until the Pandemic struck the world , the desire of the progressive political movement in the United States and much of the world was focused on ridding the planet of fossil fuels , said to be negatively altering the planet ’ s climate .
These folks are fully convinced that the world , at its present state of technological advance , could be run entirely on renewable refuels lead by solar and wind power .
They have always ignored the intermittency of these sources when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine .
While they know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such energy , they assume one will come along .
It has been futile yet interesting to continue such a debate in the face of a calm period where conjecture was but an intellectual exercise .
Then reality hit us all in the face with a disaster never seen in our life times .
Where would the two million Covid-19 afflicted people be who depended on ventilators run by electricity from coal and natural gas be today , if they only had power from the wind and the sun .
The obvious answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While not much good will come from this world wide tragedy , perhaps more of the people deluded by the climate change fear mongering will come to their senses .
Eliminating fossil fuels to produce electricity or power automobiles would not support life as we know it today but only life as we knew it a century and a half ago .
It may also be time to rename the electric cars , beloved by many , to what they really are , coal , natural gas or nuclear powered cars .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the electric car owners believe their power comes magically out of a wall socket at home or a charging station on the road .
The power really comes from a nearby power plant all of which burn coal , natural gas or obtain heat from nuclear fuel .
Even if the plant gets some energy from local wind turbines or solar photovoltaic cells this amount is minimal .
If we really want a huge increase in the number of electric automobiles on the road we must build more fossil fuel burning power plants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps a little history of the electrification of our nation is in order .
It was the development of our fossil fuels that made possible the greatest contribution to health and prosperity which was to make electricity affordable everywhere .
In 2000 the U.S. National Academy of Engineering ( NAE ) announced “ the 20 engineering achievements that have had the greatest impact on the quality of life in the 20th century ” .
The achievements were nominated by 29 professional engineering societies and ranked by a distinguished panel of the nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electrification as the number one achievement .
It powered almost every pursuit and enterprise in modern society .
Aside from lighting the world , it impacted countless areas of daily life including food production and processing , air conditioning , heating , refrigeration , entertainment , transportation , communication , health care and eventually computers .
In the NAE announcement regarding electrification it stated : “ One hundred years ago life was a constant struggle against disease , pollution , deforestation , treacherous working conditions and enormous cultural divides …… .
By the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world had become a healthier , safer and more productive place , primarily because of this engineering achievement ” .
Fossil fuels brought electricity to the homes and workplaces of billions of people around the world .
Wind and solar power in anyone ’ s wildest dreams can never support what electricity provided us in these past 148 years since Thomas Edison built the world ’ s first coal fired generating plant on Pearl Street in New York City in 1882 .
Part of our collective problem as to energy and electricity is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We all once understood how an automobile engine worked , how a home was wired , what a fuse was .
When computers and GPS and smart phones came along most of us gave up trying to understand .
Many believe there really is a cloud up there keeping our data safe .
So why not think electric cars reap the magic from the wall socket and the wind and sun can keep us doing all that we do .
And that scientists have high tech crystal balls to tell us the climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear as technology advanced beyond the average persons ability to comprehend , we have actually become dumber .
Perhaps being rationally ignorant of things we do not need to know is okay .
Unfortunately people in leadership positions are then able to lead us astray .
The elimination of fossil fuels is a poor path to follow .
Isn ’ t it a little strange that a century ago electrification and its fossil fuel source was revered and now so many despise the source but think they can just keep the electricity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have your cake and eat it too , or that there are no free lunches .
Note : Portions of this article were excerpted from ( CCRII : Fossil Fuels ) , produced by the ( NIPCC ) published by The Heartland Institute , with permission of the editors Joseph Bast and Diane Bast .
The authors strongly recommend the book for a complete exposé of the fallacies behind the climate delusion .

Until the Pandemic struck the world, the desire of the progressive political movement in the United States and much of the world that was focused on ridding the planet of fossil fuels, said to be negatively altering the planet’s climate.
These folks are fully convinced that the world, at its present state of technological advance, could be run entirely on renewable refuels lead by solar and wind power. They have always ignored the intermittency of these sources when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. While they know we have no economic method to store such energy, they assume one will come along.
It has been futile yet interesting to continue such a debate in the face of a calm period where conjecture was but an intellectual exercise. Then reality hit us all in the face with a disaster never seen in our life times. Where would the two million Covid-19 afflicted people be today who depended on ventilators run by electricity from coal and natural gas if they were powered from the wind and the sun? The obvious answer is that many more would be dead.
While not much good will come from this world wide tragedy, perhaps more of the people deluded by the climate change fear mongering will come to their senses. Eliminating fossil fuels to produce electricity or power automobiles would not support life as we know it today but only life as we knew it a century and a half ago. It may also be time to rename the electric cars, beloved by many, to what they really are, coal, natural gas or nuclear powered cars.
It is a mystery that virtually all the electric car owners believe their power comes magically out of a wall socket at home or a charging station on the road. The power really comes from a nearby power plant all of which burn coal, natural gas or obtain heat from nuclear fuel. Even if the plant gets some energy from local wind turbines or solar photovoltaic cells this amount is minimal. If we really want a huge increase in the number of electric automobiles on the road we must build more fossil fuel burning power plants, not more wind or solar farms.
Perhaps a little history of the electrification of our nation is in order. It was the development of our fossil fuels that made possible the greatest contribution to health and prosperity which was to make electricity affordable everywhere.
In 2000 the U.S. National Academy of Engineering (NAE) announced “the 20 engineering achievements that have had the greatest impact on the quality of life in the 20th century”. The achievements were nominated by 29 professional engineering societies and ranked by a distinguished panel of the nation’s top engineers. They ranked electrification as the number one achievement.
It powered almost every pursuit and enterprise in modern society. Aside from lighting the world, it impacted countless areas of daily life including food production and processing, air conditioning, heating, refrigeration, entertainment, transportation, communication, health care and eventually computers.
In the NAE announcement regarding electrification it stated : “One hundred years ago life was a constant struggle against disease, pollution, deforestation, treacherous working conditions and enormous cultural divides ……. By the end of the 20th century, the world had become a healthier, safer and more productive place, primarily because of this engineering achievement”.
Fossil fuels brought electricity to the homes and workplaces of billions of people around the world. Wind and solar power in anyone’s wildest dreams can never support what electricity provided us in these past 148 years since Thomas Edison built the world’s first coal fired generating plant on Pearl Street in New York City in 1882.
Part of our collective problem as to energy and electricity is that technology has past us by. We all once understood how an automobile engine worked, how a home was wired, and what was a fuse. When computers, GPS and smart phones came along, most of us gave up trying to understand. Many believe there really is a cloud up there keeping our data safe.
So why not think electric cars reap the magic from the wall socket, the wind and sun can keep us doing all that we do. That scientists have high tech crystal balls to tell us the climate decades from now. It should become clear as technology advanced beyond the average persons ability to comprehend, we have actually become dumber. Perhaps being rationally ignorant of things we do not need to know is okay. Unfortunately people in leadership positions are then able to lead us astray. The elimination of fossil fuels is a poor path to follow.
Isn’t it a little strange that a century ago electrification and its fossil fuel source was revered and now so many despise the source but think they can just keep the electricity. No one told them you can not have your cake and eat it too, or that there are no free lunches.
Note: Portions of this article were excerpted from Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels (CCRII: Fossil Fuels), produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) published by The Heartland Institute, with permission of the editors Joseph Bast and Diane Bast. The authors strongly recommend the book for a complete exposé of the fallacies behind the climate delusion.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-29--Wind & solar industries crushed by COVID-19

The only good news about the COVID-19 social change impacts on our lifestyles is that the travel bans , and lockdowns have cleaned the globe , flushing the murk from Venice ’ s canals , and we have seen cleaner air worldwide .
Seeking to cash in on America ’ s response to the coronavirus crisis its wind and solar power outfits tried to snare $ billions out of the Trump administration ’ s $ 2 trillion coronavirus aid package .
But to no avail .
Congress is likely to continue to focus on injection of broad economic aid to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and endless subsidies for wind and solar electricity are likely to be put off until later legislation .
Far from being “ essential ” , heavily subsidized , and chaotically intermittent wind and solar , and the fleeting jobs those industries create , are starting to look like wasteful luxuries that mega economies like that in Germany , Australia , and America can ill afford .
We have seen a serious reduction in the usage of the transportation infrastructures of airlines and cruise ships , as well as automobiles and trucks , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industries , all to avoid crowds .
Along with those transportation options available for society , we have virtually eliminated the billions of vehicle trips to and from airports , hotels , ports , and amusement parks that have been increasing each year .
COVID-19 has shown us that society changes can reduce the demand of those growing numbers .
Yes , we may have been using fossil fuels too extensively for leisure and entertainment , but the developed world is where it is today , healthier and wealthier , because of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ derivatives .
Despite the preaching ’ s about the renewable electricity saviors of wind and solar , it ’ s becoming obvious that due to their intermittency and unreliability , and their inability to replace any of the derivatives from petroleum that account for the all the products in our daily lives , societies around the world may not be too thrilled about continuing the current social changes to live on just electricity from wind and solar .
Remember the Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 in London , before fossil fuels ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ settings , the products produced from petroleum are what enables the heroic healthcare workforce .
Products such as the critical medical equipment like ultrasound systems , ventilators , CT systems , and X-ray , personal protection equipment , medicines , masks , gloves , soap and hand sanitizers that we urgently need now would not be available without traditional fossil fuel energy and the derivatives from petroleum that provide thousands of products for our lifestyles .
The zero greenhouse gas emissions from industrial wind turbines and solar panels are ambitious goals for just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upheaval from shutting down traditional energy development is likely catastrophic financially .
The climate solution proposals for wind and solar electricity are idealistic , unrealistic , and overly dependent on unproven technologies .
This creates a fork in the road in terms of how we address our energy future .
Before COVID-19 , the airlines that did not exist before 1900 , transported more than four billion passengers in 2017 around the world and were projecting 7.8 billion airline passengers by 2036 .
Cruise ships which also did not exist before 1900 moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
To meet lower emission targets , we ’ ll need to continue to reduce the transportation demands of society and COVID-19 may be showing us how we ’ ll need to retract from our extravagant usage of the various transportation systems that did not exist before fossil fuels .
Before fossil fuels and the thousands of products made from petroleum derivatives , and electricity that followed the discovery of oil , the world was a zero-sum snake pit that was a war against one another scrounging for food , water , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s most people never traveled 100-200 miles from where they were born .
Life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 20 and 30 years of age .
The social lifestyles before 1900 had no such transportation choices , as they had no autos , planes , or cruise ships for transportation .
The inventions of the automobile , airplane , and the use of petroleum in the early 1900 ’ s led us into the Industrial Revolution .
Crude oil , natural gas , and coal changed – for the better – the lifestyles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as , the U.S. , Europe , Japan , South Korea , and Australia .
The concept of electricity alone , from wind and solar industries has been exposed by COVID-19 as they are unable to support militaries , aviation , and merchant ships , and all the transportation infrastructure that support commerce around the world .
Our future existence may be less vacations and less business conferences .
Additionally , reductions in the usage of the entertainment and hospitality industries , neither of which existed before fossil fuels , may also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasize the need for conservation and great efficiencies as the world weans itself from overuse of fossil fuels , we will need to lower our demands for transportation infrastructures .
COVID-19 has shown us the way and has communicated why the wind and solar industries for just electricity have been crushed by COVID-19 .

The only good news about the COVID-19 social change impacts on our lifestyles is that the travel bans, and lockdowns have cleaned the globe, flushing the murk from Venice’s canals, and we have seen cleaner air worldwide.
Seeking to cash in on America’s response to the coronavirus crisis its wind and solar power outfits tried to snare $billions out of the Trump administration’s $2 trillion coronavirus aid package. But to no avail. Congress is likely to continue to focus on injection of broad economic aid to workers and small businesses. The massive and endless subsidies for wind and solar electricity are likely to be put off until later legislation.
Far from being “essential”, heavily subsidized, and chaotically intermittent wind and solar, and the fleeting jobs those industries create, are starting to look like wasteful luxuries that mega economies like that in Germany, Australia, and America can ill afford.
We have seen a serious reduction in the usage of the transportation infrastructures of airlines and cruise ships, as well as automobiles and trucks, and their impact on the leisure and entertainment industries, all to avoid crowds.
Along with those transportation options available for society, we have virtually eliminated the billions of vehicle trips to and from airports, hotels, ports, and amusement parks that have been increasing each year. COVID-19 has shown us that society changes can reduce the demand of those growing numbers.
Yes, we may have been using fossil fuels too extensively for leisure and entertainment, but the developed world is where it is today, healthier and wealthier, because of all those products we get from those oil derivatives.
Despite the preaching’s about the renewable electricity saviors of wind and solar, it’s becoming obvious that due to their intermittency and unreliability, and their inability to replace any of the derivatives from petroleum that account for the all the products in our daily lives, societies around the world may not be too thrilled about continuing the current social changes to live on just electricity from wind and solar. Remember the Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 in London, before fossil fuels?
Beyond the energy stability needed in hospital settings, the products produced from petroleum are what enables the heroic healthcare workforce. Products such as the critical medical equipment like ultrasound systems, ventilators, CT systems, and X-ray, personal protection equipment, medicines, masks, gloves, soap and hand sanitizers that we urgently need now would not be available without traditional fossil fuel energy and the derivatives from petroleum that provide thousands of products for our lifestyles.
The zero greenhouse gas emissions from industrial wind turbines and solar panels are ambitious goals for just electricity, but the economic and employment upheaval from shutting down traditional energy development is likely catastrophic financially. The climate solution proposals for wind and solar electricity are idealistic, unrealistic, and overly dependent on unproven technologies. This creates a fork in the road in terms of how we address our energy future.
Before COVID-19, the airlines that did not exist before 1900, transported more than four billion passengers in 2017 around the world and were projecting 7.8 billion airline passengers by 2036. Cruise ships which also did not exist before 1900 moved 25 million passengers around the world every year.
To meet lower emission targets, we’ll need to continue to reduce the transportation demands of society and COVID-19 may be showing us how we’ll need to retract from our extravagant usage of the various transportation systems that did not exist before fossil fuels.
Before fossil fuels and the thousands of products made from petroleum derivatives, and electricity that followed the discovery of oil, the world was a zero-sum snake pit that was a war against one another scrounging for food, water, and shelter. In the 1800’s most people never traveled 100-200 miles from where they were born. Life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 20 and 30 years of age.
The social lifestyles before 1900 had no such transportation choices, as they had no autos, planes, or cruise ships for transportation. The inventions of the automobile, airplane, and the use of petroleum in the early 1900’s led us into the Industrial Revolution. Crude oil, natural gas, and coal changed – for the better – the lifestyles of every person living in developed countries such as, the U.S., Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.
The concept of electricity alone, from wind and solar industries has been exposed by COVID-19 as they are unable to support militaries, aviation, and merchant ships, and all the transportation infrastructure that support commerce around the world. Our future existence may be less vacations and less business conferences. Additionally, reductions in the usage of the entertainment and hospitality industries, neither of which existed before fossil fuels, may also be necessitated.
As we continue to emphasize the need for conservation and great efficiencies as the world weans itself from overuse of fossil fuels, we will need to lower our demands for transportation infrastructures. COVID-19 has shown us the way and has communicated why the wind and solar industries for just electricity have been crushed by COVID-19.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-30--Wind and solar add zero value to the grid

Why is wind power and solar power , not making significant gains in providing a substantial amount of renewable electricity ?
The US has utilized , in its energy mix , about eight percent of wind and two percent solar for more than a decade .
The reason it is not growing requires an understanding of the fundamental elements , of an electrical grid .
The grid is the electrical industry ’ s term for all of the hardware and software needed to convert fuel into electricity .
The electricity is distributed by wires , transformers , sub-stations , etc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system must ensure our safety from malfunctions , security to customers , and safety for the community .
For a simple example , let ’ s assume we are a local electric utility in Smallville , USA .
It ’ s a town with a population of 50,000 and another 25,000 people in the surrounding farms , along with small factories , professional offices , shops , a hospital , bakeries , etc .
Everyone in the area needs reliable and affordable electricity .
Over the years , Smallville set up a modern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In order to guarantee that reliable availability , the community ’ s grid must have at least a 75 percent excess capability above the everyday norm .
Twenty-five percent of the excess must be in the “ spinning reserve mode , ” another 25 percent must be in the “ peaking mode , ” and 25 percent in the “ back-up mode.
” Let ’ s examine each of these portions of the necessary reserves .
Spinning Reserve .
If some malfunction happens at any time and shuts down a generating plant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pick up 100 percent of the lost power in seconds .
If it ’ s a few seconds too late , the electrical demand will overwhelm the grid , causing a “ brown-out , ” or worse , a “ blackout.
” It ’ s as if all the customers of a bank show up at the same time , demanding to take out all their money immediately .
It ’ s a disaster .
The only way to ensure that this blackout doesn ’ t happen is to have a back-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 90-95 percent of rated power .
It burns fuel but creates no electricity .
They will burn almost the same amount of fuel as they would if there was no solar or wind plants connected to the grid because solar and wind can not serve as backup power .
The backup power must be 100 % reliable .
All existing solar and wind power must have fossil fuel back up , while solar and wind power can not be used to back up fossil fuel power as a result of its unreliability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adequately and the sun may not shine ) .
As a result , electric utilities are wasting capital , fuel , and operating costs thinking wind and solar can contribute a significant portion of their available energy .
It just increases the cost of community power .
Peak mode : This is the extra electrical power that ’ s needed twice a day , typically for two to three hours each .
First is the morning peak demand , from six to nine AM to cook breakfast , get ready to go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand period is usually from about five to seven PM .
That ’ s when the extra power is needed to cook dinner , fire up the AC or central heat , etc .
But solar plants can ’ t fill either of these peak demands .
That ’ s because solar produces electricity near mid-day when it ’ s needed the least .
Wind turbines might be put to work a few hours in the morning or evenings .
In all cases , however they still need the spinning reserve fossil-fuel back-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rated power , 100 percent of the time .
Back-up Reserve : These power plants are like a spare tire in the trunk of a car ; they sit there until called to duty .
But unlike the spinning reserve , these reserves don ’ t need to be up and on-line in seconds .
So , they only operate when they are started , typically for scheduled maintenance on other plants .
Depending on the type of plant , it may take several hours or more for them to come online , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , weeks , or a year non-stop .
Having a power plant just sitting there , doing nothing most of the time is very expensive , but is a valuable insurance policy against failure .
Let ’ s examine the real-life experience of Germany that made the bold decision to go all-in on being green .
It is now the number one producer of wind and solar electrical power in the world on a per capita basis .
In 2004 Germany launched an aggressive plan to replace many of their coal and nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 Germany had an installed electrical base of about 210 gigawatts .
Of that , 28 percent was wind power , 26 percent solar , and the remaining 46 percent was their remaining fossil fuel and nuclear power plants along with a little hydro .
At least that is the nameplate rating of the power capability of these solar and wind installations when operating under the best conditions .
However , the real production is startlingly different .
While these solar and wind plants could theoretically produce 46 percent of Germany ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce about 12 percent of Germany ’ s total electrical output .
Who knew that one of the world ’ s most prosperous and industrialized nations could not figure out how to produce enough electricity to meet the needs of its own people and industry from wind and solar power ?
To relieve this national shortage , Germany has been importing vast amounts of electrical power , mostly from France , and are paying exorbitant rates for it .
The average cost of electricity in Germany is now almost three times the cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now launching a major program to rebuild dozens of fossil-fueled power plants .
They have also signed a contract with Russia to build a natural gas pipeline from Siberia to fuel their electrical demand and to back up its unreliable wind and solar plants .
Sweden has a funny but sad story that needs to be told .
They launched a vast wind program a decade ago , which is proving to be a problem in their challenging environment .
In their northern latitudes , solar was out of the question .
Wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is from a recent article in the online service , “ whattsupwiththat.com.
” Here we see a picture of a Swedish helicopter trying to de-ice a wind turbine like an airport tanker truck de-ices an airplane ’ s wings and fuselage .
Only the windmill is about four to five times bigger than a Boeing 747 ’ s .
A helicopter can only carry 10-20 percent of what a truck can .
So , by the time they ’ ve finished one or two-blades , they need to start all over again .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these turbines .
This picture is worth thousands of words and a few giggles .
But it ’ s not funny for Sweden .
Note : Portions of this article were excerpted from the 2020 book A Hitchhikers Journey Through Climate Change with permission of the author Terigi Ciccone .
The book is the best possible source for parents and grandparents to explain reality to their children .

Why is wind power and solar power, not making significant gains in providing a substantial amount of renewable electricity? The US has utilized, in its energy mix, about eight percent of wind and two percent solar for more than a decade. The reason it is not growing requires an understanding of the fundamental elements, of an electrical grid.
The grid is the electrical industry’s term for all of the hardware and software needed to convert fuel into electricity. The electricity is distributed by wires, transformers, sub-stations, etc. to all of us. The system must ensure our safety from malfunctions, security to customers, and safety for the community.
For a simple example, let’s assume we are a local electric utility in Smallville, USA. It’s a town with a population of 50,000 and another 25,000 people in the surrounding farms, along with small factories, professional offices, shops, a hospital, bakeries, etc. Everyone in the area needs reliable and affordable electricity. Over the years, Smallville set up a modern grid to assure a 99.98 percent reliability. In order to guarantee that reliable availability, the community’s grid must have at least a 75 percent excess capability above the everyday norm. Twenty-five percent of the excess must be in the “spinning reserve mode,” another 25 percent must be in the “peaking mode,” and 25 percent in the “back-up mode.” Let’s examine each of these portions of the necessary reserves.
Spinning Reserve. If some malfunction happens at any time and shuts down a generating plant, a back-up plant needs to kick-in and pick up 100 percent of the lost power in seconds. If it’s a few seconds too late, the electrical demand will overwhelm the grid, causing a “brown-out,” or worse, a “blackout.” It’s as if all the customers of a bank show up at the same time, demanding to take out all their money immediately. It’s a disaster.
The only way to ensure that this blackout doesn’t happen is to have a back-up fossil fuel power plant already running at about 90-95 percent of rated power. It burns fuel but creates no electricity. They will burn almost the same amount of fuel as they would if there was no solar or wind plants connected to the grid because solar and wind can not serve as backup power. The backup power must be 100% reliable. All existing solar and wind power must have fossil fuel back up, while solar and wind power can not be used to back up fossil fuel power as a result of its unreliability. (The wind may not blow adequately and the sun may not shine). As a result, electric utilities are wasting capital, fuel, and operating costs thinking wind and solar can contribute a significant portion of their available energy. It just increases the cost of community power.
Peak mode: This is the extra electrical power that’s needed twice a day, typically for two to three hours each. First is the morning peak demand, from six to nine AM to cook breakfast, get ready to go to school and work. The other high demand period is usually from about five to seven PM. That’s when the extra power is needed to cook dinner, fire up the AC or central heat, etc. But solar plants can’t fill either of these peak demands. That’s because solar produces electricity near mid-day when it’s needed the least. Wind turbines might be put to work a few hours in the morning or evenings. In all cases, however they still need the spinning reserve fossil-fuel back-up plant running at about 90 percent of rated power, 100 percent of the time.
Back-up Reserve: These power plants are like a spare tire in the trunk of a car; they sit there until called to duty. But unlike the spinning reserve, these reserves don’t need to be up and on-line in seconds. So, they only operate when they are started, typically for scheduled maintenance on other plants. Depending on the type of plant, it may take several hours or more for them to come online, and then they may run for days, weeks, or a year non-stop. Having a power plant just sitting there, doing nothing most of the time is very expensive, but is a valuable insurance policy against failure.
Let’s examine the real-life experience of Germany that made the bold decision to go all-in on being green. It is now the number one producer of wind and solar electrical power in the world on a per capita basis. In 2004 Germany launched an aggressive plan to replace many of their coal and nuclear plants with wind and solar. By 2018 Germany had an installed electrical base of about 210 gigawatts. Of that, 28 percent was wind power, 26 percent solar, and the remaining 46 percent was their remaining fossil fuel and nuclear power plants along with a little hydro. At least that is the nameplate rating of the power capability of these solar and wind installations when operating under the best conditions. However, the real production is startlingly different.
While these solar and wind plants could theoretically produce 46 percent of Germany’s needs, in actuality, they only produce about 12 percent of Germany’s total electrical output. Who knew that one of the world’s most prosperous and industrialized nations could not figure out how to produce enough electricity to meet the needs of its own people and industry from wind and solar power?
To relieve this national shortage, Germany has been importing vast amounts of electrical power, mostly from France, and are paying exorbitant rates for it. The average cost of electricity in Germany is now almost three times the cost in the United States.
Germany is now launching a major program to rebuild dozens of fossil-fueled power plants. They have also signed a contract with Russia to build a natural gas pipeline from Siberia to fuel their electrical demand and to back up its unreliable wind and solar plants.
Sweden has a funny but sad story that needs to be told. They launched a vast wind program a decade ago, which is proving to be a problem in their challenging environment. In their northern latitudes, solar was out of the question. Wind also has some issues. This photo is from a recent article in the online service, “whattsupwiththat.com.” Here we see a picture of a Swedish helicopter trying to de-ice a wind turbine like an airport tanker truck de-ices an airplane’s wings and fuselage . Only the windmill is about four to five times bigger than a Boeing 747’s. A helicopter can only carry 10-20 percent of what a truck can. So, by the time they’ve finished one or two-blades, they need to start all over again. Now imagine a wind farm with hundreds of these turbines. This picture is worth thousands of words and a few giggles. But it’s not funny for Sweden.
Note: Portions of this article were excerpted from the 2020 book A Hitchhikers Journey Through Climate Change with permission of the author Terigi Ciccone. The book is the best possible source for parents and grandparents to explain reality to their children.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-01--Planet of the Humans review: Exposing the fallacy of “renewable” energy

Renewable energy from wind , solar and woodchips may one day make financial , practical and earthly sense , and enable the world to rely less on fossil fuels .
But not today , and likely not ever , according to Michael Moore ’ s new documentary film , Planet of the Humans , which flays renewable energy as doing more harm to the planet than good .
Mr. Moore is the film ’ s Executive Producer , and it is directed and narrated by the effective soft-spokeness of Jeff Gibbs .
CFACT discussed this film last weekend , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ YouTube .
Early in the film the questions are asked , “ [ A ] re we desperate to accept any idea that sounds ‘ alternative ’ or ‘ green ’ ?
Are we avoiding looking too closely [ at renewables ] because we don ’ t want to know the answer ?
” This documentary provides many such answers .
The film punctures numerous claims by the green movement , particularly the Sierra Club , about the efficacy of renewable energy , in particular the claim these sources “ replace ” fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not .
Rather , energy from wind , solar and woodchips ( i.e.
, biomass ) are themselves the product of fossil fuels and are sustained by them .
CFACT has long exposed suspect renewable energy , be it from solar panels , wind turbines or in electric cars , which requires extensive mining of rare elements , takeover of vast land space , and continuous fossil fuel support .
Solar panels are described as inefficient and counterproductive ; for example , they are shown on a lot the size of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce only 64,000 kilowatt hours per year .
This is enough to service ten homes annually when it ’ s not cloudy or nighttime , in which case batteries or the electric grid kicks in to keep the lights on .
An area of 15 square miles of solar panels would be required to service the entire city .
The massive Ivanpah Solar Array in the Mojave Desert in California , which covers 5.4 square miles , also comes under scrutiny .
It still requires natural gas and took “ an incredible amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ materials ” used to construct it – more than the renewable energy derived .
Over 30 such materials are listed , including familiar ( coal , silicon , hydrofluoric acid ) and less familiar ( praseodymium , dysprosium ) .
Compare this to the just-closed Indian Point nuclear plant in New York , which covers one half square mile and produced ten times the gigawatt hours of carbon-free power as Ivanpah Wind energy is similarly portrayed in the film , including a “ mountaintop removal ” of trees in Vermont ’ s Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 21 wind turbines .
A single turbine requires 140 tons of steel , plus 36,000 pounds of fiberglass and basalt for each blade .
Securing a turbine requires 800 cubic yards of concrete , which I found necessitates at least 60 truckloads .
Fossil fuels are necessary to produce and install wind turbines and essential to sustain them when the wind stops blowing .
A fossil-fueled power plant must idle 100 percent of the time to provide back-up power for the turbines in lieu of having to use more power to cycle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ biomass ” energy from woodchips derived from grinding trees .
The film shows fossil fuel-powered heavy equipment wiping out forests , juxtaposed with university officials touting their green bona fides by installing biomass energy on campus .
The film attacks the credibility of green leaders , including Michael Bloomberg , Robert F. Kennedy , Jr. and Michael Brune , Executive Director of the Sierra Club , who sell the falsehood that renewables replace fossil fuel .
Activist Bill McKibben , co-founder of the group “ 350 , ” refuses to acknowledge biomass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Google and Telsa corporations are exposed for false claims of operating on “ 100 percent ” renewable energy .
Al Gore especially gets thrashed as a hypocritical fraud , enriching himself from the sale of his television network to Al-Jezeera , which is financed by the oil kingdom of Qatar , and from his bio-fuel investments .
Gore feigns ignorance and concern about harm to indigenous people in the Amazon River basin who were forced from their native land to make way for deforestation to produce ethanol from sugar cane .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which it reveals is the metaphorical fuel behind these renewable energy projects , as green groups are shown to be surreptitiously in bed with large “ profiteering ” corporations .
However , it only touches on the reality that corporations respond to government incentives that push green policies .
In the end , the documentary claims the Earth is in danger from too many people consuming too many resources .
Neither fossil fuels nor “ green ” renewable energy will resolve the issue .
However , this dubious conclusion that there must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole additional debate .

Renewable energy from wind, solar and woodchips may one day make financial, practical and earthly sense, and enable the world to rely less on fossil fuels.
But not today, and likely not ever, according to Michael Moore’s new documentary film, Planet of the Humans, which flays renewable energy as doing more harm to the planet than good.
Mr. Moore is the film’s Executive Producer, and it is directed and narrated by the effective soft-spokeness of Jeff Gibbs. CFACT discussed this film last weekend, where it can be viewed for free on YouTube.
Early in the film the questions are asked, “[A]re we desperate to accept any idea that sounds ‘alternative’ or ‘green’? Are we avoiding looking too closely [at renewables] because we don’t want to know the answer?”
This documentary provides many such answers.
The film punctures numerous claims by the green movement, particularly the Sierra Club, about the efficacy of renewable energy, in particular the claim these sources “replace” fossil fuels. They do not, and cannot. Rather, energy from wind, solar and woodchips (i.e., biomass) are themselves the product of fossil fuels and are sustained by them.
CFACT has long exposed suspect renewable energy, be it from solar panels, wind turbines or in electric cars, which requires extensive mining of rare elements, takeover of vast land space, and continuous fossil fuel support.
Solar panels are described as inefficient and counterproductive; for example, they are shown on a lot the size of a football field in Lansing, Michigan but produce only 64,000 kilowatt hours per year. This is enough to service ten homes annually when it’s not cloudy or nighttime, in which case batteries or the electric grid kicks in to keep the lights on. An area of 15 square miles of solar panels would be required to service the entire city.
The massive Ivanpah Solar Array in the Mojave Desert in California, which covers 5.4 square miles, also comes under scrutiny. It still requires natural gas and took “an incredible amount of energy to mine and process the materials” used to construct it – more than the renewable energy derived. Over 30 such materials are listed, including familiar (coal, silicon, hydrofluoric acid) and less familiar (praseodymium, dysprosium). Compare this to the just-closed Indian Point nuclear plant in New York, which covers one half square mile and produced ten times the gigawatt hours of carbon-free power as Ivanpah
Wind energy is given a similar takedown in the film. A “mountaintop removal” of trees in Vermont’s Green Mountain Forest is described to make way for construction of 21 wind turbines. A single turbine requires 140 tons of steel, plus 36,000 pounds of fiberglass and basalt for each blade. Securing a turbine requires 800 cubic yards of concrete, which I found necessitates at least 60 truckloads to transport.
Fossil fuels are necessary to produce and install wind turbines and essential to sustain them when the wind stops blowing. A fossil-fueled power plant must idle 100 percent of the time to provide back-up power for the turbines in lieu of having to use more power to cycle up or down.
Then there is “biomass” energy from woodchips derived from grinding trees. The film shows fossil fuel-powered heavy equipment wiping out forests, juxtaposed with university officials touting their green bona fides by installing biomass energy on campus.
The film attacks the credibility of green leaders, including Michael Bloomberg, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, who sell the falsehood that renewables replace fossil fuel. Activist Bill McKibben, co-founder of the group “350,” refuses to acknowledge biomass energy comes from denuding forests. Apple, Google and Telsa corporations are exposed for bogus claims of operating on “100 percent” renewable energy.
Al Gore especially gets thrashed as a hypocritical fraud, enriching himself from the sale of his television network to Al-Jezeera, which is financed by the oil kingdom of Qatar, and from his bio-fuel investments. Gore feigns ignorance and concern about harm to indigenous people in the Amazon River basin who were forced from their native land to make way for deforestation to produce ethanol from sugar cane.
The film is no friend of capitalism, which it reveals is the metaphorical fuel behind these renewable energy projects, as green groups are shown to be surreptitiously in bed with large “profiteering” corporations. However, it only touches on the reality that corporations respond to government incentives that push green policies.
In the end, the documentary claims the Earth is in danger from too many people consuming too many resources. Neither fossil fuels nor “green” renewable energy will resolve the issue. However, this dubious conclusion that there must be fewer people to consume less opens a whole additional debate; and does not detract from film’s substance on renewables.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-01--CFACT & Heartland expose lockdown aspirations of climate radicals

Last night , CFACT ’ s Marc Morano and Heartland Institute president James Taylor teamed up for what turned out to be a lively internet discussion on Zoom .
It was part of CFACT ’ s ongoing new “ Truth Talks ” – a series designed to keep debate alive by talking with experts and addressing pressing policy matters during this difficult time of lockdown .
The response by the public was impressive .
Indeed , over 500 attendees registered for the event .
Moderated by our own Adam Houser , folks tuned in to hear the discussion not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Canada , Brazil , and Chile and many other parts of the world .
It was truly a great evening !
If you missed it , be sure to watch the event in its entirety here .
Put to Marc and James last night was the task of answering this very important question : Is the coronavirus lockdown the future environmentalists want ?
Marc Morano kicked things off by explaining that the climate Left has been clamoring for coronavirus-style lockdowns for years .
These radical activists and bureaucrats are desperate to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ climate action.
” “ Lockdowns…this is what the climate community has preached for decades about global warming !
And particularly , in the last couple years , [ they wanted to impose ] through the Green New Deal , ” Marc said .
“ The climate activists for lack of a better word , are jealous !
” James Taylor analyzed statements from global bureaucrats such as the World Health Organization ( WHO ) , revealing their true motivations .
“ Another WHO official said , and here ’ s a quote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is that we can do things differently .
We must not go back to the status-quo .
We can not do that.
’ To say that we should have a permanent , current situation of lockdowns and shutdowns and restrictions on freedoms , is just unbelievable that people might accept that , ” Taylor said .
A great question and answer period followed James and Marc ’ s presentations , with questions covering a range of topics extending from climate change to government overreach .
While climate radicals drool over the shutdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for freedom must go on .
As James Taylor said toward the end of the event : “ This is a bait and switch at the expense of our most important and basic freedoms.
” To be sure , the climate radicals must not prevail .
Let ’ s not permit them to keep our freedoms on perpetual lockdown .

Last night, CFACT’s Marc Morano and Heartland Institute president James Taylor teamed up for what turned out to be a lively internet discussion on Zoom. It was part of CFACT’s ongoing new “Truth Talks” – a series designed to keep debate alive by talking with experts and addressing pressing policy matters during this difficult time of lockdown.
The response by the public was impressive. Indeed, over 500 attendees registered for the event. Moderated by our own Adam Houser, folks tuned in to hear the discussion not just from the United States, but also from Canada, Brazil, and Chile and many other parts of the world. It was truly a great evening!
If you missed it, be sure to watch the event in its entirety here.
Put to Marc and James last night was the task of answering this very important question: Is the coronavirus lockdown the future environmentalists want?
Marc Morano kicked things off by explaining that the climate Left has been clamoring for coronavirus-style lockdowns for years. These radical activists and bureaucrats are desperate to keep the shutdown going in the name of “climate action.”
“Lockdowns…this is what the climate community has preached for decades about global warming! And particularly, in the last couple years, [they wanted to impose] through the Green New Deal,” Marc said. “The climate activists for lack of a better word, are jealous!”
James Taylor analyzed statements from global bureaucrats such as the World Health Organization (WHO), revealing their true motivations.
“Another WHO official said, and here’s a quote: ‘What the COVID crisis exposes, is that we can do things differently. We must not go back to the status-quo. We cannot do that.’ To say that we should have a permanent, current situation of lockdowns and shutdowns and restrictions on freedoms, is just unbelievable that people might accept that,” Taylor said.
A great question and answer period followed James and Marc’s presentations, with questions covering a range of topics extending from climate change to government overreach.
While climate radicals drool over the shutdown of the global economy, our fight for freedom must go on.
As James Taylor said toward the end of the event: “This is a bait and switch at the expense of our most important and basic freedoms.”
To be sure, the climate radicals must not prevail. Let’s not permit them to keep our freedoms on perpetual lockdown.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-01--Gas companies on moo-ve to use cow poop for fuel

Across the U.S. , natural gas companies are looking to a new source in which to garner energy to make electricity…namely , “ cow poop.
” “ Poop is gold today , ” said a Massachusetts dairy farmer in a recent television interview .
His reason for exclaiming such is that his 800 Holstein cows , which generate a whole lot of the stuff , are raising his income and increasing the value of each cow by as much as 25 % .
Not a shabby profit for a thing beforehand he might have just let lay on the ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Natural gas companies are interested in farm manure principally because of the methane it produces .
After being collected , the cow plop is loaded into fat , domed silos called anaerobic digesters where it is mixed up , heated and left to stand for a month .
After a while , the enzymes it contains breaks it down and releases even more methane .
The gas is then collected , purified and concentrated to meet pipeline standards , and sent off to heat homes .
Of course , now the big question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place and smell ?
Actually , they don ’ t – and “ no smell ” is a big selling point .
Dairy farmers traditionally get rid of their manure by spreading it on their farmland .
It helps crops grow , but in many suburban areas the smell produces a lot of pressure on them to leave .
This technology , fortunately , will help them be more welcomed by their leery upscale neighbors .
Perhaps not surprisingly , it ’ s not just animal manure that is being sought and utilized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of humans .
The city of Phoenix , Arizona , for example , has been using a local sewage treatment plant for years to generate its electricity – and the results thus far , according to city officials , have been positive .
The system [ in Phoenix ] can produce 600,000 cubic feet of natural gas each year .
It earns $ 1.2 million in annual revenue , to be split by Phoenix and the suburbs that own the plant and is now the largest sewage recycler in the United States .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , noted that the result helped the area ’ s economy .
It also nudged the city much faster toward its goal of reducing greenhouse gases .
That ’ s the selling point that makes this approach different … Phoenix made money from manure , but the alchemy was richer than that .
Its recycling process , when measured in reduced emissions , amounts to taking 70,452 cars off the road .
For the full story , read the original version at ScientificAmerican.com .

Across the U.S., natural gas companies are looking to a new source in which to garner energy to make electricity…namely, “cow poop.”
“Poop is gold today,” said a Massachusetts dairy farmer in a recent television interview. His reason for exclaiming such is that his 800 Holstein cows, which generate a whole lot of the stuff, are raising his income and increasing the value of each cow by as much as 25%. Not a shabby profit for a thing beforehand he might have just let lay on the ground and tried not to step in.
Natural gas companies are interested in farm manure principally because of the methane it produces. After being collected, the cow plop is loaded into fat, domed silos called anaerobic digesters where it is mixed up, heated and left to stand for a month. After a while, the enzymes it contains breaks it down and releases even more methane. The gas is then collected, purified and concentrated to meet pipeline standards, and sent off to heat homes.
Of course, now the big question: Do these digestors stink up the place and smell? Actually, they don’t – and “no smell” is a big selling point. Dairy farmers traditionally get rid of their manure by spreading it on their farmland. It helps crops grow, but in many suburban areas the smell produces a lot of pressure on them to leave. This technology, fortunately, will help them be more welcomed by their leery upscale neighbors.
Perhaps not surprisingly, it’s not just animal manure that is being sought and utilized by gas companies, but also that of humans. The city of Phoenix, Arizona, for example, has been using a local sewage treatment plant for years to generate its electricity – and the results thus far, according to city officials, have been positive.
As reported in Scientific American:
The system [in Phoenix] can produce 600,000 cubic feet of natural gas each year. It earns $1.2 million in annual revenue, to be split by Phoenix and the suburbs that own the plant and is now the largest sewage recycler in the United States.
Kate Gallego, the mayor of Phoenix, noted that the result helped the area’s economy. It also nudged the city much faster toward its goal of reducing greenhouse gases. That’s the selling point that makes this approach different … Phoenix made money from manure, but the alchemy was richer than that. Its recycling process, when measured in reduced emissions, amounts to taking 70,452 cars off the road.
For the full story, read the original version at ScientificAmerican.com.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-02--Prioritizing climate over pandemics

Prioritizing climate over pandemics

As of April 30 , the United States has had more than one million confirmed cases of Wuhan Coronavirus .
U.S. deaths related to the virus have topped 63,000 and are still climbing .
Because of COVID , much of the US and global economy has been shut down since early March .
More than 30 million American workers have now filed for unemployment insurance , while tens of millions more have also been furloughed or seen their hours and salaries reduced severely .
With no end in sight for lockdowns in most states , millions of businesses face bankruptcy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t end soon , rebuilding the recently vibrant US economy could take years .
The Eurozone is likewise in dire straits , as are countless other countries around the world , even as Africa is being hit by the Wuhan Coronavirus amid one of the worst locust plagues in history .
Perhaps the most vital and fundamental role of government , at every level , is to protect its citizenry from invasions , natural disasters and other threats – including pandemics that have ravaged mankind repeatedly throughout history .
This raises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aside from the sudden appearance of the Wuhan COVID-19 pandemic – and bungling and duplicity by Chinese and World Health Organization ( WHO ) officials – why was the US response so slow ?
A Wall Street Journal article suggests that “ missteps ” nearly everywhere helped magnify problems .
Multiple federal government reports called attention to potential threats and inadequacies during future pandemics , but only modest steps were ever taken to prepare for them .
A Strategic National Stockpile was established in 1999 for pharmaceuticals needed in a terrorist attack , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never allocated ongoing funding for pandemic preparations .
The Bush , Obama and Trump administrations focused more on preparing for chemical , biological and other terrorist attacks than on pandemics .
Reliance on foreign production ( mostly Chinese ) for N95 masks ( 30 % ) and surgical masks ( 90 % ) was highlighted but not addressed .
Expanding Made in America capacity was never much more than a slogan .
Left with large quantities of personal protective equipment ( PPE ) , respirators and other items after the Swine Flu epidemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had ramped up production during the epidemic refused to maintain high output capacity .
Hospitals with similar experiences slashed inventories of masks , respirators and other supplies , to reduce costs ; their inventory tracking software and programs focused on economic efficiency , rather than availability and resiliency during pandemics .
One healthcare system that did stock up on masks failed to replace them after their expiration date , and brittle elastic bands made them unusable .
After Maryland ( and probably other states ) acquired abundant Coronavirus test kits , regulatory red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over a week .
Little has been reported thus far about state or local studies , plans , actions or stockpiles for pandemics – except that in recent years New York City sold off its ventilator stockpiles to avoid spending more money on storage and maintenance .
Maybe logical at the time , NYC ’ s decision led to chaos amid corona .
Post-pandemic analyses and actions must be far better than this .
Two , what were all these government entities focusing on – if not recurrent pandemics ?
Put another way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ task force time and policymaking was devoted during the past several decades to preparing for such pandemics and drug , PPE and respirator stockpile needs – versus How much was devoted to “ dangerous manmade climate change ” … closing down fossil fuel production , pipelines and use … mandating and subsidizing wind , solar and biofuel operations … and adapting bridges and other infrastructure to rising seas and other alleged climate-related disasters ?
Cumulative climate and renewable energy spending at federal , state and local levels was certainly in the hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if not in the trillions .
Government time devoted to climate change and renewable energy certainly totaled many millions of hours .
It ’ s unclear whether anyone has any idea how much money , time and resources were devoted to climate research , modeling , preparation , mitigation , conferences and just plain fear-mongering .
It ’ s equally uncertain whether any federal or state study examined how much was devoted to preparing for pandemics .
But I would bet it was a tiny fraction of the climate change/renewable energy total .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and must receive a detailed accounting of how much money and personnel time were devoted to both of these threats .
They deserve to know how much was devoted to protecting families and communities from pandemics like this Wuhan Coronavirus onslaught ( and perhaps to other bona fide real-world disasters like hurricanes , tornadoes , floods and droughts ) – versus crises that exist primarily in computer models and endless assertions that every temperature blip , drought , species loss and extreme weather event was unprecedented and due to fossil fuel use – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence to support any of those claims .
We know the Defense Department alone spent billions on climate initiatives and renewable fuels during the Obama era .
How much did it spend preparing for pandemics on aircraft carriers and during basic training ?
How many billions did federal , state and local healthcare agencies spend on climate change versus past and future pandemics ?
How much money and attention did those healthcare agencies devote to our excessive dependence on China for masks , pharmaceutical components and other materials ?
The United States and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces , and special legislative and regulatory panels devoted to climate change .
How many did they establish for pandemics ?
In the seven years following the 2009 Swine Flu Epidemic , how much money and attention did the Obama Administration devote to pandemic prevention and mitigation ?
How about all those House and Senate committees and staffers ?
What about all those state agencies , state legislatures and city councils ?
In just a few months , the Wuhan Coronavirus has locked us in our homes , shuttered our businesses , cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost economic output , and resulted in hundreds of billions in lost tax revenues .
Even if we attribute every flood , drought , hurricane , tornado and dead polar bear to manmade climate change , the cumulative impact of our fossil fuel use won ’ t come anywhere near that .
Does Congress have the stomach for digging into this ?
for appointing a “ blue ribbon task force ” to do so ?
Would any of the intrepid editors and “ investigative journalists ” at the Washington Post or New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump ?
What about individual states and cities ?
They can ignore my cheap rhetoric about real-world crises versus those that exist in climate models and environmentalist press releases – and just tally up the expenditures on the pandemic and climate sides of the ledger .
In fact , they should do exactly that .
We need a factual , data-driven analysis , not more politics .
In fact , Europeans , Canadians , Australians and people everywhere deserve to know how their national , state and local governments allocated and spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief .
How about it ?
When do we get this accounting – followed by a reordering of government priorities ?
Lord knows it ’ s long overdue .

As of April 30, the United States has had more than one million confirmed cases of Wuhan Coronavirus. U.S. deaths related to the virus have topped 63,000 and are still climbing.
Because of COVID, much of the US and global economy has been shut down since early March. More than 30 million American workers have now filed for unemployment insurance, while tens of millions more have also been furloughed or seen their hours and salaries reduced severely. With no end in sight for lockdowns in most states, millions of businesses face bankruptcy or simple disappearance. If stay-home orders don’t end soon, rebuilding the recently vibrant US economy could take years.
The Eurozone is likewise in dire straits, as are countless other countries around the world, even as Africa is being hit by the Wuhan Coronavirus amid one of the worst locust plagues in history.
Perhaps the most vital and fundamental role of government, at every level, is to protect its citizenry from invasions, natural disasters and other threats – including pandemics that have ravaged mankind repeatedly throughout history. This raises two enormously important questions.
One, aside from the sudden appearance of the Wuhan COVID-19 pandemic – and bungling and duplicity by Chinese and World Health Organization (WHO) officials – why was the US response so slow?
A Wall Street Journal article suggests that “missteps” nearly everywhere helped magnify problems. Multiple federal government reports called attention to potential threats and inadequacies during future pandemics, but only modest steps were ever taken to prepare for them.
A Strategic National Stockpile was established in 1999 for pharmaceuticals needed in a terrorist attack, natural disaster or pandemic, but Congress never allocated ongoing funding for pandemic preparations. The Bush, Obama and Trump administrations focused more on preparing for chemical, biological and other terrorist attacks than on pandemics.
Reliance on foreign production (mostly Chinese) for N95 masks (30%) and surgical masks (90%) was highlighted but not addressed. Expanding “Made in America” capacity was never much more than a slogan.
Left with large quantities of personal protective equipment (PPE), respirators and other items after the Swine Flu epidemic ended in 2009, most manufacturers that had ramped up production during the epidemic refused to maintain high output capacity. Hospitals with similar experiences slashed inventories of masks, respirators and other supplies, to reduce costs; their inventory tracking software and programs focused on economic efficiency, rather than availability and resiliency during pandemics.
One healthcare system that did stock up on masks failed to replace them after their expiration date, and brittle elastic bands made them unusable. After Maryland (and probably other states) acquired abundant Coronavirus test kits, regulatory red tape and inefficiencies prevented their use for over a week.
Little has been reported thus far about state or local studies, plans, actions or stockpiles for pandemics – except that in recent years New York City sold off its ventilator stockpiles to avoid spending more money on storage and maintenance. Maybe logical at the time, NYC’s decision led to chaos amid corona.
Post-pandemic analyses and actions must be far better than this.
Two, what were all these government entities focusing on – if not recurrent pandemics? Put another way: How much money, attention, task force time and policymaking was devoted during the past several decades to preparing for such pandemics and drug, PPE and respirator stockpile needs – versus
How much was devoted to “dangerous manmade climate change” … closing down fossil fuel production, pipelines and use … mandating and subsidizing wind, solar and biofuel operations … and adapting bridges and other infrastructure to rising seas and other alleged climate-related disasters?
Cumulative climate and renewable energy spending at federal, state and local levels was certainly in the hundreds of billions of dollars over this period, if not in the trillions. Government time devoted to climate change and renewable energy certainly totaled many millions of hours.
It’s unclear whether anyone has any idea how much money, time and resources were devoted to climate research, modeling, preparation, mitigation, conferences and just plain fear-mongering.
It’s equally uncertain whether any federal or state study examined how much was devoted to preparing for pandemics. But I would bet it was a tiny fraction of the climate change/renewable energy total.
Hardworking American taxpayers absolutely deserve and must receive a detailed accounting of how much money and personnel time were devoted to both of these threats.
They deserve to know how much was devoted to protecting families and communities from pandemics like this Wuhan Coronavirus onslaught (and perhaps to other bona fide real-world disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts) – versus
crises that exist primarily in computer models and endless assertions that every temperature blip, drought, species loss and extreme weather event was unprecedented and due to fossil fuel use – despite a near total absence of real-world evidence to support any of those claims.
We know the Defense Department alone spent billions on climate initiatives and renewable fuels during the Obama era. How much did it spend preparing for pandemics on aircraft carriers and during basic training? How many billions did federal, state and local healthcare agencies spend on climate change versus past and future pandemics? How much money and attention did those healthcare agencies devote to our excessive dependence on China for masks, pharmaceutical components and other materials?
The United States and individual states established countless agencies, task forces, and special legislative and regulatory panels devoted to climate change. How many did they establish for pandemics? In the seven years following the 2009 Swine Flu Epidemic, how much money and attention did the Obama Administration devote to pandemic prevention and mitigation? How about all those House and Senate committees and staffers? What about all those state agencies, state legislatures and city councils?
In just a few months, the Wuhan Coronavirus has locked us in our homes, shuttered our businesses, cost the United States trillions of dollars in lost economic output, and resulted in hundreds of billions in lost tax revenues. Even if we attribute every flood, drought, hurricane, tornado and dead polar bear to manmade climate change, the cumulative impact of our fossil fuel use won’t come anywhere near that.
Does Congress have the stomach for digging into this? For appointing a “blue ribbon task force” to do so? Would any of the intrepid editors and “investigative journalists” at the Washington Post or New York Times take up the challenge? Would President Trump? What about individual states and cities?
They can ignore my cheap rhetoric about real-world crises versus those that exist in climate models and environmentalist press releases – and just tally up the expenditures on the pandemic and climate sides of the ledger. In fact, they should do exactly that. We need a factual, data-driven analysis, not more politics.
In fact, Europeans, Canadians, Australians and people everywhere deserve to know how their national, state and local governments allocated and spent tax revenues intended for disaster preparation and relief.
How about it? When do we get this accounting – followed by a reordering of government priorities? Lord knows it’s long overdue.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-02--California Governor makes beachgoers criminals

The Beach Boys are a California band , aptly named .
Their music personifies the Golden State .
Now the state ’ s governor just declared going to the beach in Orange County a crime .
The longer this coronavirus lingers past the point of “ flattening the curve ” of infections , the more we learn about the penchant of certain elected officials to control the populace .
It also may be no coincidence so many of those same politicians count themselves in the man-made global warming camp , which demands a high level of societal control to purportedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , fewer than 2,000 Californians have died from coronavirus , out of nearly 40 million residents .
That is a death rate of five thousandths of one percent ( 0.005 % ) .
More than 6,300 state residents , triple that number , died of influenza or pneumonia in 2017 .
Last week the temperature hit 100 degrees in places in southern California , and folks went to the beach .
Governor Gavin Newsom was not pleased ; now he ’ s retaliated .
He reportedly planned a statewide beach closure but backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to Orange County .
Gov .
Newsom ’ s stated reason , of course , is to stop the spread of the coronavirus .
With so few deaths , and new studies indicating millions of Californians already have been infected , I would love to know the scientific basis for the governor continuing to dictate people ’ s livelihoods , including their liberty to cool off at the beach .
As the pandemic emergency continues , even as the curve of cases has flattened , the inner-tyrannical selves of politicians has further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of company .
The governor of Maine , Janet Mills , re-imposed her lockdown order for another month , to May 31st .
Maine has suffered the loss of just over 50 residents to coronavirus .
Three times that number , 155 persons , died in car accidents in the state last year .
Should Gov .
Mills use her emergency powers to ban automobiles ?
Turns out , they are a bigger threat to her state ’ s residents than Covid-19 .
Gov .
Phil Murphy of New Jersey also has provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be lifted .
Several weeks ago , the governor admitted in a television interview that he gave no thought to the U.S. Constitution ’ s Bill of Rights when he crafted his executive orders to lockdown the state .
CFACT has previously provided other examples of governors wielding their emergency powers in capricious ways .
Millions of Americans have been willing to comply with lockdown orders during this public health emergency .
But that willingness is slipping fast as infection rates slow , the economy tanks , unemployment increases and the effectiveness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questioned scientifically .
Studies are showing that millions of people may have been infected by coronavirus with mild or asymptomatic effects , especially in California .
How else to explain so few Covid-19 deaths in that most populous state ?
Gov .
Newsom ’ s coronavirus power trip is a microcosm of his approach to building a green nirvana in California by “ fighting ” climate change .
In fact , he ’ s accelerating this reordering of society by appointing a task force to re-open the economy and recommend more alarmist policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steyer , the fossil fuel billionaire turned climate alarmist , and recent vanity candidate for president .
The coronavirus tactics of Governors Mills and Murphy are a glimpse of their larger examples as politicians imposing a green alarmist vision to reorder their states .
This starts with the rollback of affordable energy to more boutique “ renewable ” energy sources .
That will harm our lifestyle , increase taxes and the cost of living , affect where and how we work , and so much else .
The question must be asked of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could cool the planet by one degree in the next 30 years , how is that a worthy tradeoff ?
In fact , a cooler temperature is not assured , regardless .
Even certified climate alarmists Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs , in their new documentary film , affirmed the fallacy of renewable energy schemes .
Green policies ultimately are not about science and cooling the planet .
They are about political control over people .
They are about power trips .
Wielding power is addictive , especially if you convince enough people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretensions of omnipotence will continue unchecked until people push back .
Which brings us back to the beach .
I hope southern Californians en masse push back by going to the beach and telling Gov .
Newsom where to put his latest order .
Call his bluff .
Let ’ s see if the governor perversely backfills empty prison cells with defiant beachgoers since actual felons were set free .

The Beach Boys are a California band, aptly named. Their music personifies the Golden State. Now the state’s governor just declared going to the beach in Orange County a crime.
The longer this coronavirus lingers past the point of “flattening the curve” of infections, the more we learn about the penchant of certain elected officials to control the populace. It also may be no coincidence so many of those same politicians count themselves in the man-made global warming camp, which demands a high level of societal control to purportedly save the planet.
At this writing, fewer than 2,000 Californians have died from coronavirus, out of nearly 40 million residents. That is a death rate of five thousandths of one percent (0.005%). More than 6,300 state residents, triple that number, died of influenza or pneumonia in 2017.
Last week the temperature hit 100 degrees in places in southern California, and folks went to the beach. Governor Gavin Newsom was not pleased; now he’s retaliated. He reportedly planned a statewide beach closure but backed off after an outcry, then limited it to Orange County.
Gov. Newsom’s stated reason, of course, is to stop the spread of the coronavirus. With so few deaths, and new studies indicating millions of Californians already have been infected, I would love to know the scientific basis for the governor continuing to dictate people’s livelihoods, including their liberty to cool off at the beach.
As the pandemic emergency continues, even as the curve of cases has flattened, the inner-tyrannical selves of politicians has further surfaced. Gov. Newsom has plenty of company.
The governor of Maine, Janet Mills, re-imposed her lockdown order for another month, to May 31st. Maine has suffered the loss of just over 50 residents to coronavirus. Three times that number, 155 persons, died in car accidents in the state last year. Should Gov. Mills use her emergency powers to ban automobiles? Turns out, they are a bigger threat to her state’s residents than Covid-19.
Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey also has provided no date by which his restrictions will be lifted. Several weeks ago, the governor admitted in a television interview that he gave no thought to the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights when he crafted his executive orders to lockdown the state.
CFACT has previously provided other examples of governors wielding their emergency powers in capricious ways.
Millions of Americans have been willing to comply with lockdown orders during this public health emergency. But that willingness is slipping fast as infection rates slow, the economy tanks, unemployment increases and the effectiveness of lockdowns to combat the virus is increasingly questioned scientifically. Studies are showing that millions of people may have been infected by coronavirus with mild or asymptomatic effects, especially in California. How else to explain so few Covid-19 deaths in that most populous state?
Gov. Newsom’s coronavirus power trip is a microcosm of his approach to building a green nirvana in California by “fighting” climate change. In fact, he’s accelerating this reordering of society by appointing a task force to re-open the economy and recommend more alarmist policies. Fittingly, the co-chair is Tom Steyer, the fossil fuel billionaire turned climate alarmist, and recent vanity candidate for president.
The coronavirus tactics of Governors Mills and Murphy are a glimpse of their larger examples as politicians imposing a green alarmist vision to reorder their states. This starts with the rollback of affordable energy to more boutique “renewable” energy sources. That will harm our lifestyle, increase taxes and the cost of living, affect where and how we work, and so much else.
The question must be asked of such politicians: if destroying fossil fuels could cool the planet by one degree in the next 30 years, how is that a worthy tradeoff? In fact, a cooler temperature is not assured, regardless. Even certified climate alarmists Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs, in their new documentary film, affirmed the fallacy of renewable energy schemes.
Green policies ultimately are not about science and cooling the planet. They are about political control over people. They are about power trips. Wielding power is addictive, especially if you convince enough people you could heal Earth itself. Such pretensions of omnipotence will continue unchecked until people push back.
Which brings us back to the beach. I hope southern Californians en masse push back by going to the beach and telling Gov. Newsom where to put his latest order. Call his bluff. Let’s see if the governor perversely backfills empty prison cells with defiant beachgoers since actual felons were set free.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-03--California’s post COVID-19 financial catastrophe

Californians will continue to pay some of the highest costs for electricity and fuel use as the State unexpectedly collides catastrophically with the global pandemic that will impact businesses and employment for an unpredictable economic future .
Sacramento has not yet disappeared by seawater submergence but its urban-centered politicians—who were elected by misinformed Californians—continue to skirt logical solutions addressing the causes of the state ’ s ultra-extreme consumer energy costs .
Such extra-ordinary energy costs can only lead to the state ’ s stagnation and retard its post-COVID-19 economic recovery efforts .
As America recovers from the COVID-19 shelter-in-place medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s economy , California can not rid itself from the continuing and state-prescribed high costs of energy that other states are not shackled by , and those elected California officials will not do anything to effectively and forever resolve the causes of the energy high costs that severely limit the state ’ s economic base and its potential for improvement .
Adding to the onerous problem of affordable electricity , California is closing nuclear reactors that have been safely generating uninterrupted carbon dioxide-free electricity for decades .
In 2013 , California shutdown Southern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which generated 2,200 MW .
It has ordered the closure of Pacific Gas & Electric ’ s Diablo Canyon 2,160 MG generators by 2024 , but only if Sacramento still exists in its present format as a voter approved official legislative entity !
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti , known to desire the governorship of California , recently announced forthcoming closures of three natural gas-powered plants at Scattergood , Haynes , and Harbor : “ …this is the beginning of the end of natural gas in Los Angeles.
” His demand to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infeasible ; indeed , they are high-cost substitutes .
Since California is currently unable to generate sufficient electricity in-state to meet demand , the state is forced by its own policies to import more electricity than any other state .
Thus , an outcome that is not in the financial interest of any California resident .
Without any known state-fostered plans to rebuild with more in-state power generation , California continues to shut down its safely functioning nuclear and natural gas electricity generation plants !
California ’ s electricity costs are already among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to increase as imports from other states increase and become more expensive—Newsom ’ s intentional imposition , his “ Save Everyone Hostage Effect ” —as well as necessary to fill the impending absence of all those shuttered power-plants , whatever their fuel source .
Psychically skewed , enviously radical green abnormal California politicians profess leadership of everyone , spouting laudatory pride as the only state in contiguous America that imports most of its crude oil energy from foreign countries .
Apparently , Governor Gavin Newsom wants to markedly reduce in-State oil production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban oil-shale fracking technology ’ s use .
Such a California governmental action , by law or regulation with the effect of law , would INCREASE costly foreign crude oil imports to California to fill the gap of ever-declining California and Alaska production , further crippling the State , forcing the continuation of California as a remarkable national security risk for the USA .
Once the world ’ s 5th largest economy , tax-paying Californians now must cope with uncertain future bureaucracy-distributed State and local monetary expenditures along with the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars , or almost five times the State ’ s 220 billion-dollar 2020-21 budget !
Newsom ’ s moral dilemma : “ Save Everyone ” yet continue the state ’ s lavish and hyperbolic operations which nowadays must be based on a sudden COVID-19 fundamentally weakened state economy and national economy .
Certainly , California seaports , both coastal and inland , will need to endure the effects of an international trade throughput decrease , especially with China .
California politicians refuse to correctly address our post-pandemic on energy policies .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxpayers who contribute 70 % of monies to the State ’ s General Fund , but for the 95 % of uninformed and poorly informed voters who pay .
They pay every day for the foolish actions and evil inactions , of the unrealistic California politicians who were empowered by election outcomes .

Californians will continue to pay some of the highest costs for electricity and fuel use as the State unexpectedly collides catastrophically with the global pandemic that will impact businesses and employment for an unpredictable economic future.
Sacramento has not yet disappeared by seawater submergence but its urban-centered politicians—who were elected by misinformed Californians—continue to skirt logical solutions addressing the causes of the state’s ultra-extreme consumer energy costs. Such extra-ordinary energy costs can only lead to the state’s stagnation and retard its post-COVID-19 economic recovery efforts.
As America recovers from the COVID-19 shelter-in-place medical treatment of choice on the nation’s economy, California cannot rid itself from the continuing and state-prescribed high costs of energy that other states are not shackled by, and those elected California officials will not do anything to effectively and forever resolve the causes of the energy high costs that severely limit the state’s economic base and its potential for improvement.
Today the intermittent electricity from low-power density renewables is expensive, far more than oil and natural gas, and have been contributory prices for electricity in California being 50% higher than the nation’s average for residents, and double for commercial consumers. Costs to homeowners and industry are projected to go even higher with the continuation of Governor Newsom’s carbon dioxide gas emissions-centric puppeteering radical Green Crusade.
Adding to the onerous problem of affordable electricity, California is closing nuclear reactors that have been safely generating uninterrupted carbon dioxide-free electricity for decades. In 2013, California shutdown Southern California Edison’s San Onofre plant, which generated 2,200 MW. It has ordered the closure of Pacific Gas & Electric’s Diablo Canyon 2,160 MG generators by 2024, but only if Sacramento still exists in its present format as a voter approved official legislative entity! Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, known to desire the governorship of California, recently announced forthcoming closures of three natural gas-powered plants at Scattergood, Haynes, and Harbor: “…this is the beginning of the end of natural gas in Los Angeles.” His demand to replace technologies are economically iffy and presently infeasible; indeed, they are high-cost substitutes.
Since California is currently unable to generate sufficient electricity in-state to meet demand, the state is forced by its own policies to import more electricity than any other state. Thus, an outcome that is not in the financial interest of any California resident. Without any known state-fostered plans to rebuild with more in-state power generation, California continues to shut down its safely functioning nuclear and natural gas electricity generation plants!
California’s electricity costs are already among the highest in the country and will continue to increase as imports from other states increase and become more expensive—Newsom’s intentional imposition, his “Save Everyone Hostage Effect”—as well as necessary to fill the impending absence of all those shuttered power-plants, whatever their fuel source.
Psychically skewed, enviously radical green abnormal California politicians profess leadership of everyone, spouting laudatory pride as the only state in contiguous America that imports most of its crude oil energy from foreign countries.
Apparently, Governor Gavin Newsom wants to markedly reduce in-State oil production even more and is seeking to permanently ban oil-shale fracking technology’s use. Such a California governmental action, by law or regulation with the effect of law, would INCREASE costly foreign crude oil imports to California to fill the gap of ever-declining California and Alaska production, further crippling the State, forcing the continuation of California as a remarkable national security risk for the USA.
Once the world’s 5th largest economy, tax-paying Californians now must cope with uncertain future bureaucracy-distributed State and local monetary expenditures along with the state’s unfunded pension debt liabilities of one trillion dollars, or almost five times the State’s 220 billion-dollar 2020-21 budget! Newsom’s moral dilemma: “Save Everyone” yet continue the state’s lavish and hyperbolic operations which nowadays must be based on a sudden COVID-19 fundamentally weakened state economy and national economy. Certainly, California seaports, both coastal and inland, will need to endure the effects of an international trade throughput decrease, especially with China.
California politicians refuse to correctly address our post-pandemic on energy policies. It is not intended for the 5% of taxpayers who contribute 70% of monies to the State’s General Fund, but for the 95% of uninformed and poorly informed voters who pay. They pay every day for the foolish actions and evil inactions, of the unrealistic California politicians who were empowered by election outcomes.