committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-19--The pivot from Covid to climate is starting

I believe that as the COVID-19 situation diminishes , a major pivot to man made climate change as the major driver of impending doom will come front and center .
Perhaps I will be wrong , but the naming of AOC by Joe Biden as an advisor on how to fight climate change , to me , was the first signal this is going to happen .
This is an insensitive tactic , since the misery of Covid-19 is real , immediate , and loaded with great uncertainty .
Future generations can opine on the result of the measures taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I wrote back in March : and the foundation for this was being set for the turn we are seeing now .
This is fascinating , if not predictable , to me since the same AOC was advoc ating for people not going back to work even when we got the virus under control .
We are seeing right in front of our eyes what happens when you shut down the economy .
Given that energy is the essential lifeline to our economy , it stands to reason that taking 10 trillion more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commerce should put the finishing touches on the way of life .
Which has made it possible for a person like AOC to rise to her position .
Very few people with her background , lets say in N Korea , Iran , China , Venezuela just to name a few nations , would have ever had the chance to do what she does .
However , lets not quibble about the details .
Lets reveal a few facts here .
Mankind has contributed 25 % of the total CO2 of the atmosphere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million because of man .
Of that , the US has contributed 15 % .
So that is 1.5 parts per 10 million Since the average rise is about 1.8 parts/million a year , and the US is responsible for 15 % that means we are contributing .27 parts per million a year .
Since we have 50 states , that is .054 parts per million per state/year .
Yet we have states already trying to force Green New Deal ideas on people .
How small is the total amount of CO2 ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ eyes to see the bottom row : See the man made CO2 .
The US is 15 % of that .
Lets look at the Keeling curve , which shows the CO2 chart .
Now here are a couple of questions for former VP Biden and his newly minted advisor .
• Why has the economic shut down not stopped CO2 increase ?
( I suspect it ’ s the cyclically warmed oceans which outsource CO2 . )
A hint at that is the leveling off of increase you see Feb into March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels , which may eliminate some of the outsourcing .
Once the melting starts the rate of rise continues .
You can see it in both years and there is no real difference between last year and this year .
I may be wrong , but the shut down is at least exposing a debatable point as to the source of CO2 increase I wonder if anyone has done the calculation on how much CO2 has gone into the atmosphere in the last 35 years because of the oceans warming .
Look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The reasons for warming range from , blaming CO2 increase to what we were taught way back when , natural cyclical variation and the big unknown .
How much are underwater hydrothermal warm vents warming the oceans ?
There is such a vast area we have not researched , that there are oceans of data we don ’ t have .
Which would make other arguments all wet .
Of course saying that to man-made global warming advocates makes them salty .
( Clever eh ? )
• See the big downturn with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
That is due to the greening of the northern hemisphere in its warm season .
The turn down starts late in May .
This offers a huge key to a possible solution .
As foliage takes CO2 out of the air , PLANT more trees.The earth is the greenest its ever been in the satellite era but not as green as the untouched planet many years ago .
So if you want a man-made solution to what you are telling us is a man made problem , its right there .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies out that say planting enough trees globally , roughly about the size of Canada , would level off the CO2 net rise .
( The fall in the warm season would equal the rise in the cold season , when we are heating our homes , another major reason for the CO2 increase if it indeed is man ) .
Both of these bring a point .
Is that not a far more economical and environmental solution ?
Just plant more trees and turn down your thermostat .
I would not mandate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and AOC are so concerned then they can lead by example and suggest it to their followers .
Heating houses takes more energy than cooling them .
Yet the former idea is the most interesting .
If it would cost about a quarter trillion dollars globally the US would be only be spending 37.5 billion dollars to account for our part .
Now I have presented this option to people on my side of the issue , and they say we should not spend a penny on something we don ’ t believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , unlike my counterparts on the other side who will never admit they might be wrong , I am wrong .
What is 37.5 billion dollars vs 10 trillion .
Besides , such an initiative would really put the people using this as a smoke screen to push an agenda at a crossroads .
What are they going to do , ARGUE AGAINST PLANTING MORE TREES ?
Hence the idea that this is a real green deal .
Let me be clear I don ’ t believe man is wrecking the planet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would vote on that issue to tip an election .
If you offer a real green deal that will not destroy life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness , which is what this country and election is actually about ( the vision of what is best ) you will appeal to people .
But the people that are advocating for a Covid-19 response to “ Climate Change ” ( isn ’ t it amazing how they advocate for that , but hammer the president on the actual model they wish to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch the media not picking up on that ) have to be put to the test as to some of the things that are brought up here .
If AOC is a big advisor on environment for Joe Biden , then she needs to explain some of the things mentioned here .
It has to be challenged .
This is not about science and climate .
It ’ s about changing the very system that has led every American to have the chance for life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the missive .
Sure nerds like me , like to argue over the cause , but the fact is that is just a distraction for the real agenda .

I believe that as the COVID-19 situation diminishes, a major pivot to man made climate change as the major driver of impending doom will come front and center. Perhaps I will be wrong, but the naming of AOC by Joe Biden as an advisor on how to fight climate change, to me, was the first signal this is going to happen.
This is an insensitive tactic, since the misery of Covid-19 is real, immediate, and loaded with great uncertainty. Future generations can opine on the result of the measures taken to combat it. Yet, as I wrote back in March:
https://www.cfact.org/2020/03/23/covid-19-and-climate-false-equivalencies/
https://www.cfact.org/2020/03/17/climate-change-accused-of-being-deadlier-than-covid-19-fact-check/
and the foundation for this was being set for the turn we are seeing now.
This is fascinating, if not predictable, to me since the same AOC was advoc ating for people not going back to work even when we got the virus under control. We are seeing right in front of our eyes what happens when you shut down the economy. Given that energy is the essential lifeline to our economy, it stands to reason that taking 10 trillion more dollars out the economy and shutting down commerce should put the finishing touches on the way of life. Which has made it possible for a person like AOC to rise to her position. Very few people with her background, lets say in N Korea, Iran, China, Venezuela just to name a few nations, would have ever had the chance to do what she does.
However, lets not quibble about the details. Lets reveal a few facts here.
Mankind has contributed 25% of the total CO2 of the atmosphere. That is about 1 part per million because of man. Of that, the US has contributed 15%. So that is 1.5 parts per 10 million Since the average rise is about 1.8 parts/million a year, and the US is responsible for 15% that means we are contributing .27 parts per million a year. Since we have 50 states, that is .054 parts per million per state/year. Yet we have states already trying to force Green New Deal ideas on people.
How small is the total amount of CO2? Look at this chart and strain your eyes to see the bottom row:
See the man made CO2. The US is 15% of that.
Lets look at the Keeling curve, which shows the CO2 chart.
Now here are a couple of questions for former VP Biden and his newly minted advisor.
Why has the economic shut down not stopped CO2 increase? ( I suspect it’s the cyclically warmed oceans which outsource CO2.) A hint at that is the leveling off of increase you see Feb into March as arctic sea ice reaches its max levels, which may eliminate some of the outsourcing. Once the melting starts the rate of rise continues. You can see it in both years and there is no real difference between last year and this year. I may be wrong, but the shut down is at least exposing a debatable point as to the source of CO2 increase
I wonder if anyone has done the calculation on how much CO2 has gone into the atmosphere in the last 35 years because of the oceans warming.
Look at now vs 1985 (left):
The reasons for warming range from, blaming CO2 increase to what we were taught way back when, natural cyclical variation and the big unknown. How much are underwater hydrothermal warm vents warming the oceans? There is such a vast area we have not researched, that there are oceans of data we don’t have. Which would make other arguments all wet. Of course saying that to man-made global warming advocates makes them salty. (Clever eh?)
See the big downturn with the warmer seasons in the CO2 chart? That is due to the greening of the northern hemisphere in its warm season. The turn down starts late in May. This offers a huge key to a possible solution. As foliage takes CO2 out of the air, PLANT more trees.The earth is the greenest its ever been in the satellite era but not as green as the untouched planet many years ago. So if you want a man-made solution to what you are telling us is a man made problem, its right there.
Now lets think about this. There are studies out that say planting enough trees globally, roughly about the size of Canada, would level off the CO2 net rise.(The fall in the warm season would equal the rise in the cold season, when we are heating our homes, another major reason for the CO2 increase if it indeed is man). Both of these bring a point. Is that not a far more economical and environmental solution? Just plant more trees and turn down your thermostat. I would not mandate the latter, but if Joe Biden and AOC are so concerned then they can lead by example and suggest it to their followers. Heating houses takes more energy than cooling them. Yet the former idea is the most interesting. If it would cost about a quarter trillion dollars globally the US would be only be spending 37.5 billion dollars to account for our part.
Now I have presented this option to people on my side of the issue, and they say we should not spend a penny on something we don’t believe in. My argument back? Suppose, unlike my counterparts on the other side who will never admit they might be wrong, I am wrong. What is 37.5 billion dollars vs 10 trillion. Besides, such an initiative would really put the people using this as a smoke screen to push an agenda at a crossroads. What are they going to do, ARGUE AGAINST PLANTING MORE TREES? Hence the idea that this is a real green deal.
Let me be clear I don’t believe man is wrecking the planet, but I know there are enough people that would vote on that issue to tip an election. If you offer a real green deal that will not destroy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is what this country and election is actually about ( the vision of what is best) you will appeal to people.
But the people that are advocating for a Covid-19 response to “Climate Change” ( isn’t it amazing how they advocate for that, but hammer the president on the actual model they wish to adopt? It’s maddening to watch the media not picking up on that) have to be put to the test as to some of the things that are brought up here.
If AOC is a big advisor on environment for Joe Biden, then she needs to explain some of the things mentioned here. It has to be challenged. This is not about science and climate. It’s about changing the very system that has led every American to have the chance for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then we have a way to counter the missive. Sure nerds like me, like to argue over the cause, but the fact is that is just a distraction for the real agenda.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-20--Climate alarmism and Covid-19 don’t mix

Climate alarmism and Covid-19 don’t mix

Of the many responses to the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus , none was more predictable than the effort by climate activists to exploit the crisis for their own political purposes .
It was an intolerable situation .
Climate alarmists suddenly found themselves relegated to the sidelines as the country confronted a real threat , one with deadly consequences .
It didn ’ t take long , however , for the Climate Industrial Complex to come up with a slapdash study linking COVID-19 to fossil-fuel-induced climate change and for that message to be trumpeted by the usual suspects in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was being overshadowed by events .
In late April , Harvard University ’ s T.H .
Chan School of Public Health published a study claiming that a miniscule increase in long-term exposure to fine particulate matter ( PM 2.5 ) — one microgram per cubic meter – increases the risk of dying from the novel coronavirus by 8 % .
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy lost no time in plugging the study in an op-ed in Bloomberg Opinion .
“ Scientists are warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which strikes at the lungs , more deadly , ” they wrote .
“ Nonetheless , in the space of about a month , the president has repeatedly undermined rules limiting air pollution .
Tens of thousands of Americans will die as a result.
” The study Bloomberg and McCarthy are basing their claims on is “ COVID-19-PM2.5 : A National Study on Long-Term Exposure to Air Pollution and COVID-19 in the United States.
” by lead authors Xiau Wu and Rachel C. Nethery .
Given the study ’ s statistical flaws , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take maximum political advantage of the COVID-19 crisis .
Sloppiness is everywhere .
For example , the study utilizes county-wide data that do not adjust for individual health differences .
“ The authors say they control for county population size , age distribution , the beginning of the outbreak , time since a state ’ s issuance of stay-at-home order , weather , and socio-economic status , ” the Wall Street Journal noted ( May 4 ) points out in an editorial .
“ Yet they don ’ t examine how death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to different levels of PM2.5 or how pollution levels vary across neighborhoods in cities .
Nor do they count deaths after April 22 , though fatalities have since increased by nearly 50 % while the virus has spread to rural areas.
” The Journal notes further that tightening the screws on particulate matter is a back-door way of regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants , something the Supreme Court prohibited the Obama EPA from doing in a 2015 decision .
But CO2 is the designated boogey-man of climate alarmists .
Hence the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exists .
When the Trump EPA announced in April that it was leaving the Obama-era levels for particulate matter in place , rather than tightening them , alarmists seized the opportunity to link the decision to COVID-19 .
In making its announcement , EPA said the scientific evidence as a whole “ does not call into question the public health protection provided by the current annual 24-hour PM2.5 standards.
” The agency added that “ there is considerable uncertainty in the potential public health impacts of reductions in ambient PM2.5 below the concentrations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , therefore , that standards more stringent than the current standards are not supported.
” Average PM2.5 concentrations in the U.S. fell by 39 % between 2000 and 2018 while average PM10 concentrations fell by 31 % during the same time period , according to EPA data .
Meanwhile , a group of former Obama administrations officials May 14 launched Climate Power 2020 by saying Trump ’ s “ anti-science policies ” have “ fueled the pandemic.
” Climate Power 2020 is headed by Obama White House chief of staff John Podesta , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administrator Gina McCarthy , and science advisor John Holdren .
Sitting on the board of Climate Power 2020 is San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer .
“ President Trump must be held accountable for his rejection of science , facts , and reality .
For both COVID-19 and the climate crisis , the anti-science policies from this administration are pushing our nation into crisis , ” Podesta said in a statement .
Americans , by overwhelming majorities , were not willing to sacrifice their livelihoods for the climate before they were put through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly aren ’ t now .
A Harris poll taken May 12 found that 62 % of U.S. adults surveyed said climate change wouldn ’ t damage the American economy if left unaddressed , the Washington Times reported .
Yet a Reuters/Ipsos poll found last year that Americans were unwilling to install solar panels , carpool or take the bus , reduce eating meat , pay an additional $ 100 in taxes , drive an electric car or pay an additional $ 100 or more on their annual electricity bill to fight climate @ @

Of the many responses to the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus, none was more predictable than the effort by climate activists to exploit the crisis for their own political purposes.
It was an intolerable situation. Climate alarmists suddenly found themselves relegated to the sidelines as the country confronted a real threat, one with deadly consequences.
It didn’t take long, however, for the Climate Industrial Complex to come up with a slapdash study linking COVID-19 to fossil-fuel-induced climate change and for that message to be trumpeted by the usual suspects in the hope of drawing attention to an issue that was being overshadowed by events.
In late April, Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health published a study claiming that a miniscule increase in long-term exposure to fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) — one microgram per cubic meter – increases the risk of dying from the novel coronavirus by 8%.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy lost no time in plugging the study in an op-ed in Bloomberg Opinion.
“Scientists are warning us that air pollution makes Covid-19, which strikes at the lungs, more deadly,” they wrote. “Nonetheless, in the space of about a month, the president has repeatedly undermined rules limiting air pollution. Tens of thousands of Americans will die as a result.”
Flawed Study
The study Bloomberg and McCarthy are basing their claims on is “COVID-19-PM2.5: A National Study on Long-Term Exposure to Air Pollution and COVID-19 in the United States.” by lead authors Xiau Wu and Rachel C. Nethery. Given the study’s statistical flaws, it appears to have been rushed out to take maximum political advantage of the COVID-19 crisis.
Sloppiness is everywhere. For example, the study utilizes county-wide data that do not adjust for individual health differences.
“The authors say they control for county population size, age distribution, the beginning of the outbreak, time since a state’s issuance of stay-at-home order, weather, and socio-economic status,” the Wall Street Journal noted (May 4) points out in an editorial. “Yet they don’t examine how death rates differ among individuals who are exposed to different levels of PM2.5 or how pollution levels vary across neighborhoods in cities. Nor do they count deaths after April 22, though fatalities have since increased by nearly 50% while the virus has spread to rural areas.”
The Journal notes further that tightening the screws on particulate matter is a back-door way of regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, something the Supreme Court prohibited the Obama EPA from doing in a 2015 decision. But CO2 is the designated boogey-man of climate alarmists. Hence the effort to create a nexus where none exists.
When the Trump EPA announced in April that it was leaving the Obama-era levels for particulate matter in place, rather than tightening them, alarmists seized the opportunity to link the decision to COVID-19.
In making its announcement, EPA said the scientific evidence as a whole “does not call into question the public health protection provided by the current annual 24-hour PM2.5 standards.” The agency added that “there is considerable uncertainty in the potential public health impacts of reductions in ambient PM2.5 below the concentrations achieved under the current primary standards and, therefore, that standards more stringent than the current standards are not supported.”
Average PM2.5 concentrations in the U.S. fell by 39% between 2000 and 2018 while average PM10 concentrations fell by 31% during the same time period, according to EPA data.
Meanwhile, a group of former Obama administrations officials May 14 launched Climate Power 2020 by saying Trump’s “anti-science policies” have “fueled the pandemic.” Climate Power 2020 is headed by Obama White House chief of staff John Podesta, Secretary of State John Kerry, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, and science advisor John Holdren. Sitting on the board of Climate Power 2020 is San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer.
“President Trump must be held accountable for his rejection of science, facts, and reality. For both COVID-19 and the climate crisis, the anti-science policies from this administration are pushing our nation into crisis,” Podesta said in a statement.
Not Walking the Plank
Americans, by overwhelming majorities, were not willing to sacrifice their livelihoods for the climate before they were put through the ordeal of COVID-19 lockdowns, and they certainly aren’t now.
A Harris poll taken May 12 found that 62% of U.S. adults surveyed said climate change wouldn’t damage the American economy if left unaddressed, the Washington Times reported. Yet a Reuters/Ipsos poll found last year that Americans were unwilling to install solar panels, carpool or take the bus, reduce eating meat, pay an additional $100 in taxes, drive an electric car or pay an additional $100 or more on their annual electricity bill to fight climate change.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-21--NY Gov. Cuomo to Long Island: “Drop dead!”

The New York Department of Environment last Friday denied a water permit application needed for the construction of the proposed Northeast Supply Enhancement Pipeline by the Williams company .
New Jersey that same day followed suit .
This means downstate New Yorkers will pay more for energy because they will have less supply .
That is just the beginning .
When new energy dries up from lack of pipelines , economic development , jobs and prosperity will dry up as well .
Environmental fringe groups are delighted .
The Williams pipeline planned to transport natural gas from Pennsylvania through New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harbor to Long Island .
The western end of Long Island has the New York City sections of Brooklyn and Queens .
These city residents combined with suburbanites on Long Island due east total 7.5 million , nearly 40 percent of the state ’ s population .
There will not be enough wind turbines and solar panels to make up for the lost natural gas , assuming placement of thousands of such structures , including off shore , is long-term possible or sensible .
Watch Michael Moore ’ s latest film as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t replace fossil fuels .
It requires them .
Denial of new natural gas pipelines is nothing new for Governor Andrew Cuomo ’ s New York .
Last year , CFACT reported the Williams pipeline was denied permits , one of many anti-development actions by the governor .
Natural gas projects have been denied in other parts of the state , and Indian Point nuclear energy plant just north of New York City was forced to close last month .
None of these pipeline denials and plant closures has anything to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clean air .
Natural gas and nuclear energy are much cleaner than oil and coal , and production is safe .
Instead , it has everything to do with extremist environmental politics that matter to Governor Cuomo as he competes with cross-country alarmist , Governor Gavin Newsom of California , and other politicians for the climate “ leadership ” mantle .
New York also bans hydrofracking in the plentiful upstate shale regions , which has been in effect for more than a decade .
Most every other state with shale deposits safely allows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighbor , Pennsylvania and nearby Ohio .
New York imports most of its natural gas from these and other states and Canada .
The Williams pipeline denial obviously will block added importation .
The fracking ban also denies the state needed tax revenue and thousands of middle class jobs for this blue collar sector that was thriving and will thrive post-pandemic elsewhere throughout the country .
State denials of new gas pipelines and fracking were made under the pretentious claims of concern for the environment , safety , or that more study was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state adopted its Green New Deal law that will force emission reductions and renewable energy .
Governor Cuomo ’ s bureaucrats now can site this law to say any fossil fuel related energy permit or project does not meet the state ’ s emissions goals .
The Department cited this law , called the “ Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act , ” as grounds for denying the Williams pipeline since the state must get to zero net carbon emissions in 30 years .
Many politicians from this region of New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own constituents , and it will only get worse .
Economic development , job growth and prosperity require affordable energy supplies .
Any fossil fuel energy produces emissions , from gasoline to power vehicles or natural gas to construct and operate homes and businesses .
New York ’ s climate law further empowers the state government to control anything that needs a license , permit or administrative approval .
Bureaucrats no longer need worry about a court overturning whatever they decide , no matter how capricious or political , since the climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them all the pretext they need for control .
One has to wonder why the National Grid Utility and the Williams Company bothered to continue attempting to get the pipeline approved , considering the state ’ s Green politics .
The company ’ s slogan , We Make Clean Energy Happen , doesn ’ t apply if you wish to build your life in New York .
CFACT warned last year that New York ’ s Green New Deal climate law would accelerate the state ’ s economic demise and population exodus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ using this law as a reason for his latest denial of the Williams pipeline construction .
When the Covid pandemic recedes , New York ’ s recovery efforts will be hampered by the ideological energy policies being inflicted on its residents by the Cuomo administration and political class .

The New York Department of Environment last Friday denied a water permit application needed for the construction of the proposed Northeast Supply Enhancement Pipeline by the Williams company. New Jersey that same day followed suit.
This means downstate New Yorkers will pay more for energy because they will have less supply. That is just the beginning. When new energy dries up from lack of pipelines, economic development, jobs and prosperity will dry up as well. Environmental fringe groups are delighted.
The Williams pipeline planned to transport natural gas from Pennsylvania through New Jersey and underwater through the New York Harbor to Long Island. The western end of Long Island has the New York City sections of Brooklyn and Queens. These city residents combined with suburbanites on Long Island due east total 7.5 million, nearly 40 percent of the state’s population.
There will not be enough wind turbines and solar panels to make up for the lost natural gas, assuming placement of thousands of such structures, including off shore, is long-term possible or sensible. Watch Michael Moore’s latest film as a reminder. “Renewable” energy doesn’t replace fossil fuels. It requires them.
Denial of new natural gas pipelines is nothing new for Governor Andrew Cuomo’s New York. Last year, CFACT reported the Williams pipeline was denied permits, one of many anti-development actions by the governor. Natural gas projects have been denied in other parts of the state, and Indian Point nuclear energy plant just north of New York City was forced to close last month.
None of these pipeline denials and plant closures has anything to do with science, data, safety or clean air. Natural gas and nuclear energy are much cleaner than oil and coal, and production is safe. Instead, it has everything to do with extremist environmental politics that matter to Governor Cuomo as he competes with cross-country alarmist, Governor Gavin Newsom of California, and other politicians for the climate “leadership” mantle.
New York also bans hydrofracking in the plentiful upstate shale regions, which has been in effect for more than a decade. Most every other state with shale deposits safely allows fracking, including New York’s neighbor, Pennsylvania and nearby Ohio. New York imports most of its natural gas from these and other states and Canada. The Williams pipeline denial obviously will block added importation. The fracking ban also denies the state needed tax revenue and thousands of middle class jobs for this blue collar sector that was thriving and will thrive post-pandemic elsewhere throughout the country.
State denials of new gas pipelines and fracking were made under the pretentious claims of concern for the environment, safety, or that more study was needed. No longer. Last year the state adopted its Green New Deal law that will force emission reductions and renewable energy. Governor Cuomo’s bureaucrats now can site this law to say any fossil fuel related energy permit or project does not meet the state’s emissions goals. The Department cited this law, called the “Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act,” as grounds for denying the Williams pipeline since the state must get to zero net carbon emissions in 30 years. Many politicians from this region of New York support this law that already is biting their own constituents, and it will only get worse.
Economic development, job growth and prosperity require affordable energy supplies. Any fossil fuel energy produces emissions, from gasoline to power vehicles or natural gas to construct and operate homes and businesses. New York’s climate law further empowers the state government to control anything that needs a license, permit or administrative approval. Bureaucrats no longer need worry about a court overturning whatever they decide, no matter how capricious or political, since the climate law’s encompassing emissions standard gives them all the pretext they need for control.
One has to wonder why the National Grid Utility and the Williams Company bothered to continue attempting to get the pipeline approved, considering the state’s Green politics. The company’s slogan, We Make Clean Energy Happen, doesn’t apply if you wish to build your life in New York.
CFACT warned last year that New York’s Green New Deal climate law would accelerate the state’s economic demise and population exodus. Governor Cuomo has reaffirmed that direction by using this law as a reason for his latest denial of the Williams pipeline construction.
When the Covid pandemic recedes, New York’s recovery efforts will be hampered by the ideological energy policies being inflicted on its residents by the Cuomo administration and political class.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-21--Entrepreneurs “cook up” lockdown loophole: online baking

In a poll conducted by CNBC , almost half of small business owners said their businesses will be forced to close for good if the coronavirus shutdowns go much longer .
Just this past week , the unemployment rate jumped to over 14 % – the highest since the Great Depression .
Yet , despite these almost unprecedented economic hurdles , some entrepreneurs are cooking up a way to stay afloat by utilizing online marketplaces .
The website Etsy.com , for example , is seeing a huge spike in online sellers of home-baked goods from country farms and family kitchens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many sellers of baked goods on Etsy are seeing orders increase by anywhere from 200-450 % .
Etsy in the past has typically been home to sellers of custom jewelry and other artisan crafts .
But with many bakeries and other small shops closed , online bakers have seen a way to meet Americans ’ demand for home-baked breads , pastries , and desserts – and the buyer never has to leave their home or put up with the stress and health questions of crowded supermarkets .
This is only possible due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ cottage food ” laws , which allow for home cooks to sell their baked and prepared foods through distributors or online means .
As America tries to transition out of the lockdowns , it is unclear if the online demand for made-at-home baked goods will continue or wane away .
Regardless , entrepreneurs are finding a way to meet the continued needs of American consumers .
As reported in the Wall Street Journal : A company spokeswoman said searches on Etsy for terms like “ baked goods ” and “ brownies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two months , compared with a year ago .
Searches on the site for related terms yield tens of thousands of items from nearly as many sellers , everything from sourdough bread and gourmet doughnuts to Keto-friendly waffles and alkaline tahini spelt cookies .
The company declined to offer numbers on the sale of food items .
The Etsy bakers I ’ ve spoken with are tired but , to a person , glad to have a marketplace for their goods .
And in a time of pandemic , it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are grateful for .
On a site that encourages customers to message sellers , bakers say they ’ re chatting with buyers more than ever .
“ One lady ordered scones and put a note on her order to please put nothing on the outside of the box that revealed there was food inside , ” says Ms. McMinn .
“ She said , ‘ Life is hard right now and I don ’ t want to share.
’ ” You can read the entire Wall Street Journal article here .

In a poll conducted by CNBC, almost half of small business owners said their businesses will be forced to close for good if the coronavirus shutdowns go much longer.
Just this past week, the unemployment rate jumped to over 14% – the highest since the Great Depression.
Yet, despite these almost unprecedented economic hurdles, some entrepreneurs are cooking up a way to stay afloat by utilizing online marketplaces.
The website Etsy.com, for example, is seeing a huge spike in online sellers of home-baked goods from country farms and family kitchens. According to the Wall Street Journal, many sellers of baked goods on Etsy are seeing orders increase by anywhere from 200-450%.
Etsy in the past has typically been home to sellers of custom jewelry and other artisan crafts. But with many bakeries and other small shops closed, online bakers have seen a way to meet Americans’ demand for home-baked breads, pastries, and desserts – and the buyer never has to leave their home or put up with the stress and health questions of crowded supermarkets.
This is only possible due to several states passing what are known as “cottage food” laws, which allow for home cooks to sell their baked and prepared foods through distributors or online means.
As America tries to transition out of the lockdowns, it is unclear if the online demand for made-at-home baked goods will continue or wane away.
Regardless, entrepreneurs are finding a way to meet the continued needs of American consumers.
As reported in the Wall Street Journal:
A company spokeswoman said searches on Etsy for terms like “baked goods” and “brownies” have roughly doubled in the past two months, compared with a year ago. Searches on the site for related terms yield tens of thousands of items from nearly as many sellers, everything from sourdough bread and gourmet doughnuts to Keto-friendly waffles and alkaline tahini spelt cookies. The company declined to offer numbers on the sale of food items.
…
The Etsy bakers I’ve spoken with are tired but, to a person, glad to have a marketplace for their goods. And in a time of pandemic, it’s not just the ability to make a living they are grateful for. On a site that encourages customers to message sellers, bakers say they’re chatting with buyers more than ever.
“One lady ordered scones and put a note on her order to please put nothing on the outside of the box that revealed there was food inside,” says Ms. McMinn. “She said, ‘Life is hard right now and I don’t want to share.’”
You can read the entire Wall Street Journal article here.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-22--Destroying Virginia’s environment to save it

Mere weeks after Governor Ralph Northam signed a partisan “ Clean Economy Act ” that had been rushed through the state legislature , Dominion Energy Virginia announced it would reach “ net zero ” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 .
To do so , the utility company will raise family , business , hospital and school electricity bills by 3 % every year for the next ten years – as they and state and local governments struggle to climb out of the financial holes created by the ongoing Coronavirus lockdown .
Just as bad , renewable energy mandates and commitments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ integrated resource plan ” will have monumental adverse impacts on Virginia and world environmental values .
In reality , Virginia ’ s new “ clean ” economy exists only in fantasy land .
The infamous Vietnam era quotation , “ We had to destroy the village in order to save it , ” may or may not have been uttered by an anonymous US Army major .
It may have been misquoted , revised , apocryphal or just invented .
But it quickly morphed into an anti-war mantra .
For Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to destroy our environment in order to save it.
” ( The same will be true for any state that travels this make-believe “ clean , green , renewable , sustainable ” energy path . )
Supposedly to reduce emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide , Dominion Energy plans to expand the state ’ s offshore wind , onshore solar and battery storage capacity by some 24,000 megawatts of new ( pseudo ) renewable energy by 2035 and far more after that .
It will retain just 9,700 MW of existing natural gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build no new gas-fired units , and retire 6,200 megawatts of coal-fired generation .
The company also intends to keep its four existing nuclear units operating .
To “ replace ” some of its abundant , reliable , affordable fossil fuel electricity , Dominion intends to build at least 31,400 megawatts of expensive , unreliable solar capacity by 2045 .
Dominion estimates that would require a land area some 25 % larger than Fairfax County , west of Washington , DC .
Fairfax County is 391 square miles ( 250,220 acres ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 36 square miles ) of parks .
That means Dominion Energy ’ s new solar facilities alone will blanket 490 square miles – 313,000 acres – of what are now beautiful croplands , scenic areas and habitats , teeming with wildlife .
That ’ s nearly half the land area of Rhode Island .
It ’ s eight times the District of Columbia – and nearly 14 times more land than all Fairfax County parks combined .
All will be blanketed by imported solar panels , plus more land for access roads and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just for solar .
And those solar panels will actually generate electricity maybe 20-25 % of the year , once you factor in the nighttime hours , cloudy days , and wintertime , early day and late afternoon to evening times when the sun is not shining brightly enough to generate more than a tiny smidgeon of electricity .
Dominion and other Virginia utility companies also plan to import and install over 400 monstrous 850-foot-tall offshore wind turbines – and tens of thousands of half-ton battery packs , to provide backup power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days when the sun isn ’ t shining and the wind isn ’ t blowing .
They will supposedly prevent the economy from shutting don ’ t even more completely during each such outage than it has during the Corona lockdown .
Most of these solar panels , wind turbines and batteries – or their components ( or the metals and minerals required to manufacture those components ) – will likely come from China or from Chinese-owned operations in Africa , Asia and Latin America … under mining , air and water pollution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child labor , mined land reclamation , manufacturing and other laws and standards that would get US companies unmasked , vilified , sued , fined and shut down in a heartbeat .
However , those laws and regulations do not apply to most of the companies and operations that will supply the supposedly “ clean-tech ” technologies that will soon blight Virginia landscapes .
Thus far , no one has produced even a rough estimate of how much concrete , steel , aluminum , copper , lithium , cobalt , silica , rare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be needed .
All of them will require gigantic heavy equipment and prodigious amounts of fossil fuels to blast and haul away billions of tons of rocky overburden ; extract , crush and process tens of millions of tons of ores , using explosives , acids , toxic chemicals and other means to refine the ores ; smelt concentrates into metals ; manufacture all the millions of tons of components ; and haul , assemble and install the panels , turbines , batteries and transmission lines , setting them on top of tens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebar .
No one has tallied up the oil , natural gas and coal fuel requirements for doing all this “ Virginia Clean Economy ” work .
Nor the greenhouse gases and actual pollutants that will be emitted in the process .
Nothing about this is clean , green , renewable or sustainable .
But neither Dominion Energy nor Virginia government officials have said anything about any of this , nor about which countries will host the mining and other activities , under what environmental and human rights standards .
When will we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of this will happen far beyond Virginia ’ s borders , does not mean that we can ignore the global environmental impacts .
Or that we can ignore the health , safety and well-being of children and parents in those distant mines , processing plants and factories .
This is the perfect time to observe the environmentalist creed : think globally , act locally .
Will that be done ?
Will Dominion and Virginia require that all these raw materials and wind , solar and battery components be responsibly sourced ?
Will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them involve child labor , and all are produced in compliance with US and Virginia laws , regulations and ethical codes for workplace safety , fair wages , air and water pollution , wildlife preservation and mined lands reclamation ?
Will they tally up all the fossils consumed , and pollutants emitted , in the process ?
Science journalist , businessman and parliamentarian Matt Ridley says wind turbines need some 200 times more raw materials per megawatt of power than modern combined-cycle gas turbines .
It ’ s probably much the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backup batteries , and the environmental and human health impacts become absolutely mindboggling in their scale .
If you ignore all the land and wildlife impacts from installing the wind turbines , solar panels , batteries and transmission lines – you could perhaps call this “ clean energy ” and a “ clean economy ” within Virginia ’ s borders .
But beyond those borders ?
A compelling case could be made that the world would be far better off if we just built modern combined-cycle gas turbines ( or nuclear power plants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place – and avoided all the monumental human and ecological impacts of pseudo-renewable energy .
And when it is time to select sites for these 490 square miles of industrial solar facilities , will Virginia , its county and local governments , its citizens , environmentalist groups and courts apply the same rigorous standards , laws and regulations – for scenic views , habitats , wildlife and threatened or endangered species – as they do for pipelines , drilling , fracking , coal and gas power plants , and other projects ?
Will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmission lines as they do for buried-out-of-sight pipelines ?
Virginia ’ s Clean Economy Act will likely plunge every project and every jurisdiction into questions of race , poverty and environmental justice .
Dominion Energy and other electric utilities will have to charge means-tested rates ( even as rates climb 3 % per year ) and exempt low-income customers from some charges .
They will have to submit construction plans to environmental justice councils – even as the utility companies and EJ councils ignore the rampant injustices inflicted on the children and parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African and Latin American mines , processing plants and factories .
Talk about breaking new ground .
It will be interesting to see how Governor Ralph Northam , Attorney General Mark Herring , Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw , House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn , and other Virginia government , utility and industry officials handle all these fascinating issues .

Mere weeks after Governor Ralph Northam signed a partisan “Clean Economy Act” that had been rushed through the state legislature, Dominion Energy Virginia announced it would reach “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. To do so, the utility company will raise family, business, hospital and school electricity bills by 3% every year for the next ten years – as they and state and local governments struggle to climb out of the financial holes created by the ongoing Coronavirus lockdown.
Just as bad, renewable energy mandates and commitments from the new law and Dominion’s “integrated resource plan” will have monumental adverse impacts on Virginia and world environmental values. In reality, Virginia’s new “clean” economy exists only in fantasy land.
The infamous Vietnam era quotation, “We had to destroy the village in order to save it,” may or may not have been uttered by an anonymous US Army major. It may have been misquoted, revised, apocryphal or just invented. But it quickly morphed into an anti-war mantra.
For Virginia, it could reemerge as “we had to destroy our environment in order to save it.” (The same will be true for any state that travels this make-believe “clean, green, renewable, sustainable” energy path.)
Supposedly to reduce emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide, Dominion Energy plans to expand the state’s offshore wind, onshore solar and battery storage capacity by some 24,000 megawatts of new (pseudo)renewable energy by 2035 and far more after that. It will retain just 9,700 MW of existing natural gas generation, and only through 2045, build no new gas-fired units, and retire 6,200 megawatts of coal-fired generation. The company also intends to keep its four existing nuclear units operating.
To “replace” some of its abundant, reliable, affordable fossil fuel electricity, Dominion intends to build at least 31,400 megawatts of expensive, unreliable solar capacity by 2045. Dominion estimates that would require a land area some 25% larger than Fairfax County, west of Washington, DC.
Fairfax County is 391 square miles (250,220 acres). It has more than 23,000 acres (36 square miles) of parks. That means Dominion Energy’s new solar facilities alone will blanket 490 square miles – 313,000 acres – of what are now beautiful croplands, scenic areas and habitats, teeming with wildlife.
That’s nearly half the land area of Rhode Island. It’s eight times the District of Columbia – and nearly 14 times more land than all Fairfax County parks combined. All will be blanketed by imported solar panels, plus more land for access roads and new transmission lines. Just for Dominion. Just for solar.
And those solar panels will actually generate electricity maybe 20-25% of the year, once you factor in the nighttime hours, cloudy days, and wintertime, early day and late afternoon to evening times when the sun is not shining brightly enough to generate more than a tiny smidgeon of electricity.
Dominion and other Virginia utility companies also plan to import and install over 400 monstrous 850-foot-tall offshore wind turbines – and tens of thousands of half-ton battery packs, to provide backup power for at least a few hours or days when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. They will supposedly prevent the economy from shutting don’t even more completely during each such outage than it has during the Corona lockdown.
Most of these solar panels, wind turbines and batteries – or their components (or the metals and minerals required to manufacture those components) – will likely come from China or from Chinese-owned operations in Africa, Asia and Latin America … under mining, air and water pollution, workplace safety, fair wage, child labor, mined land reclamation, manufacturing and other laws and standards that would get US companies unmasked, vilified, sued, fined and shut down in a heartbeat.
However, those laws and regulations do not apply to most of the companies and operations that will supply the supposedly “clean-tech” technologies that will soon blight Virginia landscapes.
Thus far, no one has produced even a rough estimate of how much concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, lithium, cobalt, silica, rare earth metals and countless other materials will be needed. All of them will require gigantic heavy equipment and prodigious amounts of fossil fuels to blast and haul away billions of tons of rocky overburden; extract, crush and process tens of millions of tons of ores, using explosives, acids, toxic chemicals and other means to refine the ores; smelt concentrates into metals; manufacture all the millions of tons of components; and haul, assemble and install the panels, turbines, batteries and transmission lines, setting them on top of tens of thousands of tons of cement and rebar.
No one has tallied up the oil, natural gas and coal fuel requirements for doing all this “Virginia Clean Economy” work. Nor the greenhouse gases and actual pollutants that will be emitted in the process.
Nothing about this is clean, green, renewable or sustainable. But neither Dominion Energy nor Virginia government officials have said anything about any of this, nor about which countries will host the mining and other activities, under what environmental and human rights standards.
When will we get a full accounting? Just because all of this will happen far beyond Virginia’s borders, does not mean that we can ignore the global environmental impacts. Or that we can ignore the health, safety and well-being of children and parents in those distant mines, processing plants and factories. This is the perfect time to observe the environmentalist creed: think globally, act locally. Will that be done?
Will Dominion and Virginia require that all these raw materials and wind, solar and battery components be responsibly sourced? Will it require independently verified certifications that none of them involve child labor, and all are produced in compliance with US and Virginia laws, regulations and ethical codes for workplace safety, fair wages, air and water pollution, wildlife preservation and mined lands reclamation? Will they tally up all the fossils consumed, and pollutants emitted, in the process?
Science journalist, businessman and parliamentarian Matt Ridley says wind turbines need some 200 times more raw materials per megawatt of power than modern combined-cycle gas turbines. It’s probably much the same for solar panels. Add in the backup batteries, and the environmental and human health impacts become absolutely mindboggling in their scale.
If you ignore all the land and wildlife impacts from installing the wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and transmission lines – you could perhaps call this “clean energy” and a “clean economy” within Virginia’s borders. But beyond those borders? A compelling case could be made that the world would be far better off if we just built modern combined-cycle gas turbines (or nuclear power plants) to generate electricity in the first place – and avoided all the monumental human and ecological impacts of pseudo-renewable energy.
And when it is time to select sites for these 490 square miles of industrial solar facilities, will Virginia, its county and local governments, its citizens, environmentalist groups and courts apply the same rigorous standards, laws and regulations – for scenic views, habitats, wildlife and threatened or endangered species – as they do for pipelines, drilling, fracking, coal and gas power plants, and other projects? Will they apply the same standards for 100-foot-tall transmission lines as they do for buried-out-of-sight pipelines?
Virginia’s Clean Economy Act will likely plunge every project and every jurisdiction into questions of race, poverty and environmental justice. Dominion Energy and other electric utilities will have to charge means-tested rates (even as rates climb 3% per year) and exempt low-income customers from some charges. They will have to submit construction plans to environmental justice councils – even as the utility companies and EJ councils ignore the rampant injustices inflicted on the children and parents who are slaving away in Chinese, African and Latin American mines, processing plants and factories.
Talk about breaking new ground. It will be interesting to see how Governor Ralph Northam, Attorney General Mark Herring, Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw, House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn, and other Virginia government, utility and industry officials handle all these fascinating issues.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-22--Mexico pulls the plug on “renewables”

Mexico pulls the plug on “renewables”

As Mexico is poised to plunge into its worst recession in recent-memory the leftist president is making cuts and pulling the plug on subsidy dependent intermittent power from wind and solar that has been driving up the cost of electricity for its financially challenged population .
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador won the 2018 election by a landslide .
His approach to government spending — even in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic fallout — might best be compared to that of conservative icons Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher .
Recognizing that industrial wind and solar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electrical grids , Mexico is moving to avoid the higher electrical prices .
Of which have been experienced by Germany , Denmark , Great Britain , South Australia , California , Wisconsin , Minnesota , and other governments that have heavily subsidized their supply of intermittent electricity .
The only things ‘ inevitable ’ about the ‘ transition ’ to wind and solar are rocketing electricity prices and unstable power grids .
As to the latter , the Mexican government has taken a stand that has sent renewable energy rent seekers into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concept , not without merit , is that if you are looking for a reliable electricity supply , then it doesn ’ t make much sense to rely on the ‘ unreliables ’ .
Mexico needs reliable and affordable power , more than ever .
Mexico ’ s Centro Nacional de Control de Energia ( Cenace ) , which oversees the electrical system , indefinitely suspended critical tests for new intermittent electricity projects as the nation grapples with the spread of the coronavirus .
The stage is now set for yet another legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intermittent electricity sector .
The Mexican government is acting to freeze project connections in a supposed bid to underpin system stability in the COVID-19 era .
While the wind and solar industries seem eager to deliver their peculiar brand of a ‘ healthy environment ’ for Mexicans , their government appears more inclined to ensure the delivery of affordable electricity as and when Mexicans need it .
You could be a South Australian business owner trying to keep your head above water .
How about a farmer ’ s wife in Ontario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pillow and sleep despite incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound .
Whether you ’ re any of these or an Eagle just trying to keep its head , you ’ ve probably formed a pretty strong opinion about the ‘ merits ’ of subsidized wind electricity .
Oaxaca is a state in southern Mexico that is home to almost two-thirds of Mexico ’ s wind-power capacity , including the Tehuantepec turbines .
Many people in towns with wind parks seem to still favor them , but over time , people have seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunities , for example , have fallen short of expectations , locals say .
The touted improvements to roads or schools have also not materialized , overall .
Trillions have been spent on industrial wind turbines and solar panels that do not deliver as advertised .
The worldwide ecological destruction from the mining of precious minerals leave lands uninhabitable and worthless for plants and trees .
Renewable taxpayer handouts have stripped landscapes .
Left in the wake of intermittent electricity farms and subsidized biomass-fueled power plants is cynical at best .
They are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ability to alleviate the coronavirus via cleaner air .
During this global pandemic , dependence on China for rare earth minerals , which solar panels and wind turbines are useless without , makes clean energy a costly proposition .
The environmental destruction that wind turbines create is extraordinary – “ building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel , 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of plastic.
” Wind and solar also bring little to no value to electrical grids .
When the sun does not shine , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speeds it destroys a grid spinning reserve mode , peaking mode , and backup mode .
Similarly , in Great Britain Prime Minister Boris Johnson catches coronavirus , and his country struggles with an unstable grid over widespread adoption of renewables for electricity .
In the age of COVID-19 there are life and death matters if electricity is hampered for any length of time .
Renewables then make no sense when the entire world is sick .
Only using Warren Buffet ’ s logic does chaotic wind power bring financial wealth when Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms .
That is the only reasons to build them .
They don ’ t make sense without the tax credit.
” What makes the entire notion of relying on chaotically intermittent renewables dangerous is a seminal work by energy expert Robert Bryce titled , “ Question of Power : Electricity and Wealth of Nations , ” which highlights this startling fact : “ Roughly 3.3 billion people – about 45 percent of all the people on the planet – live in places where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kilowatt-hours per year , or less than the amount used by a refrigerator.
” Uncertainty is the one constant the coronavirus has shown .
Long-term planning is no longer in vogue – now it is understanding cratering oil prices and a possible Great Depression .
If the World does not get back to work soon , it ’ s trillion-dollar deficits as the new norm , and prosperity will be taking a backseat to police-state-like shut-ins .
More than 6,000 products come from the derivatives of crude oil , including every part in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , renewables can not produce the critical medical equipment like ultrasound systems , ventilators , CT systems , and X-ray , medicines , masks , gloves , soap and hand sanitizers for hospitals , and protective gear for doctors and nurses .
All those products begin from crude oil , or as the Wall Street Journal states – “ Big Oil to the Coronavirus Rescue.
” More damning for renewables than endless subsidies or the billions of people needing reliable electricity , is the fact that without the products from petroleum derivatives the @ @ @ @ @

As Mexico is poised to plunge into its worst recession in recent-memory the leftist president is making cuts and pulling the plug on subsidy dependent intermittent power from wind and solar that has been driving up the cost of electricity for its financially challenged population.
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador won the 2018 election by a landslide. His approach to government spending — even in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic fallout — might best be compared to that of conservative icons Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
Recognizing that industrial wind and solar electricity bring little to no value to electrical grids, Mexico is moving to avoid the higher electrical prices. Of which have been experienced by Germany, Denmark, Great Britain, South Australia, California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and other governments that have heavily subsidized their supply of intermittent electricity.
The only things ‘inevitable’ about the ‘transition’ to wind and solar are rocketing electricity prices and unstable power grids. As to the latter, the Mexican government has taken a stand that has sent renewable energy rent seekers into a tailspin.
The Mexican government’s concept, not without merit, is that if you are looking for a reliable electricity supply, then it doesn’t make much sense to rely on the ‘unreliables’. Mexico needs reliable and affordable power, more than ever.
Mexico’s Centro Nacional de Control de Energia (Cenace), which oversees the electrical system, indefinitely suspended critical tests for new intermittent electricity projects as the nation grapples with the spread of the coronavirus.
The stage is now set for yet another legal dispute between Mexico’s government and the intermittent electricity sector. The Mexican government is acting to freeze project connections in a supposed bid to underpin system stability in the COVID-19 era.
While the wind and solar industries seem eager to deliver their peculiar brand of a ‘healthy environment’ for Mexicans, their government appears more inclined to ensure the delivery of affordable electricity as and when Mexicans need it.
You could be a South Australian business owner trying to keep your head above water. How about a farmer’s wife in Ontario trying to keep her head on the pillow and sleep despite incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound. Whether you’re any of these or an Eagle just trying to keep its head, you’ve probably formed a pretty strong opinion about the ‘merits’ of subsidized wind electricity.
Oaxaca is a state in southern Mexico that is home to almost two-thirds of Mexico’s wind-power capacity, including the Tehuantepec turbines. Many people in towns with wind parks seem to still favor them, but over time, people have seen less benefits than originally promised. Job opportunities, for example, have fallen short of expectations, locals say. The touted improvements to roads or schools have also not materialized, overall.
Trillions have been spent on industrial wind turbines and solar panels that do not deliver as advertised. The worldwide ecological destruction from the mining of precious minerals leave lands uninhabitable and worthless for plants and trees. Renewable taxpayer handouts have stripped landscapes. Left in the wake of intermittent electricity farms and subsidized biomass-fueled power plants is cynical at best. They are mercenary in their ability to destroy nature’s ability to alleviate the coronavirus via cleaner air.
During this global pandemic, dependence on China for rare earth minerals, which solar panels and wind turbines are useless without, makes clean energy a costly proposition.
The environmental destruction that wind turbines create is extraordinary – “building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of plastic.”
Wind and solar also bring little to no value to electrical grids. When the sun does not shine, and the wind does not blow at set speeds it destroys a grid spinning reserve mode, peaking mode, and backup mode. Similarly, in Great Britain Prime Minister Boris Johnson catches coronavirus, and his country struggles with an unstable grid over widespread adoption of renewables for electricity. In the age of COVID-19 there are life and death matters if electricity is hampered for any length of time.
Renewables then make no sense when the entire world is sick. Only using Warren Buffet’s logic does chaotic wind power bring financial wealth when Mr. Buffett said: “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That is the only reasons to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
What makes the entire notion of relying on chaotically intermittent renewables dangerous is a seminal work by energy expert Robert Bryce titled, “Question of Power: Electricity and Wealth of Nations,” which highlights this startling fact:
“Roughly 3.3 billion people – about 45 percent of all the people on the planet – live in places where per-capita electricity consumption is less than 1,000 kilowatt-hours per year, or less than the amount used by a refrigerator.”
Uncertainty is the one constant the coronavirus has shown. Long-term planning is no longer in vogue – now it is understanding cratering oil prices and a possible Great Depression. If the World does not get back to work soon, it’s trillion-dollar deficits as the new norm, and prosperity will be taking a backseat to police-state-like shut-ins.
More than 6,000 products come from the derivatives of crude oil, including every part in solar panels and wind turbines. Additionally, renewables cannot produce the critical medical equipment like ultrasound systems, ventilators, CT systems, and X-ray, medicines, masks, gloves, soap and hand sanitizers for hospitals, and protective gear for doctors and nurses. All those products begin from crude oil, or as the Wall Street Journal states – “Big Oil to the Coronavirus Rescue.”
More damning for renewables than endless subsidies or the billions of people needing reliable electricity, is the fact that without the products from petroleum derivatives the coronavirus would rage unchecked.
This article originally appeared at Eurasian Review.


Surviving the lockdown

If you don ’ t loosen the tourniquet from time to time , you cut off the blood for too long and lose the limb .
America must loosen our coronavirus lockdown or risk losing our economy .
Peter Murphy that , “ economic lockdowns may have helped initially to slow the coronavirus , but longer-term are ineffective and counterproductive .
It is long past time to get back to work.
” The good news is , those states that have lifted their lockdowns earliest seem to be fairing well .
A bombshell new report from JPMorgan actually found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decreased – not increased – in states that have ended their lockdowns ; debunking the media ’ s narrative against the President ’ s plan to re-open America .
You can find out more about that report here .
Of course , those on the Left want to keep the lockdowns in place .
We have arrived in their dream world .
To keep us under their thumb , they have concocted shoddy studies trying to exacerbate and continue the public alarm by linking coronavirus mortality rates to climate change and air pollution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents the Green shenanigans : It didn ’ t take long for the Climate Industrial Complex to come up with a slapdash study linking COVID-19 to fossil-fuel-induced climate change and for that message to be trumpeted by the usual suspects in the hope of drawing attention to an issue that was being overshadowed by events .
In late April , Harvard University ’ s T.H .
Chan School of Public Health published a study claiming that a miniscule increase in long-term exposure to fine particulate matter ( PM 2.5 ) — one microgram @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dying from the novel coronavirus by 8 % .
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy lost no time in plugging the study in an op-ed in Bloomberg Opinion .
“ Scientists are warning us that air pollution makes Covid-19 , which strikes at the lungs , more deadly , ” they wrote .
“ Nonetheless , in the space of about a month , the president has repeatedly undermined rules limiting air pollution .
Tens of thousands of Americans will die as a result.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The coronavirus remains highly contagious and dangerous .
That danger seems to overwhelmingly apply , however , to seniors and those with compromised immune systems .
Maybe instead of locking down the workforce , we should have protected the vulnerable , isolated the sick , and enabled the rest of us to keep the economic wheels turning .
Hindsight of course is 20/20 , but it seems clear going forward this is the wisest course of action for our leaders to consider undertaking in future such outbreaks .

A tourniquet can stop bleeding and save a life.
If you don’t loosen the tourniquet from time to time, you cut off the blood for too long and lose the limb.
America must loosen our coronavirus lockdown or risk losing our economy.
Peter Murphy writes at CFACT.org that, “economic lockdowns may have helped initially to slow the coronavirus, but longer-term are ineffective and counterproductive. It is long past time to get back to work.”
The good news is, those states that have lifted their lockdowns earliest seem to be fairing well. A bombshell new report from JPMorgan actually found that the infection rate of the Coronavirus has decreased – not increased – in states that have ended their lockdowns; debunking the media’s narrative against the President’s plan to re-open America.
You can find out more about that report here.
Of course, those on the Left want to keep the lockdowns in place. We have arrived in their dream world. To keep us under their thumb, they have concocted shoddy studies trying to exacerbate and continue the public alarm by linking coronavirus mortality rates to climate change and air pollution. CFACT senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen documents the Green shenanigans:
It didn’t take long for the Climate Industrial Complex to come up with a slapdash study linking COVID-19 to fossil-fuel-induced climate change and for that message to be trumpeted by the usual suspects in the hope of drawing attention to an issue that was being overshadowed by events.
In late April, Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health published a study claiming that a miniscule increase in long-term exposure to fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) — one microgram per cubic meter – increases the risk of dying from the novel coronavirus by 8%.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy lost no time in plugging the study in an op-ed in Bloomberg Opinion.
“Scientists are warning us that air pollution makes Covid-19, which strikes at the lungs, more deadly,” they wrote. “Nonetheless, in the space of about a month, the president has repeatedly undermined rules limiting air pollution. Tens of thousands of Americans will die as a result.”
This is a perilous moment. The coronavirus remains highly contagious and dangerous.
That danger seems to overwhelmingly apply, however, to seniors and those with compromised immune systems.
Maybe instead of locking down the workforce, we should have protected the vulnerable, isolated the sick, and enabled the rest of us to keep the economic wheels turning.
Hindsight of course is 20/20, but it seems clear going forward this is the wisest course of action for our leaders to consider undertaking in future such outbreaks.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-23--No returning to normal until we relearn trust

Remember when the pivotal health objective was to “ flatten the curve ” — before the back to life and business goal post marker got moved to “ beating the virus ?
” We should now realize that COVID-19 isn ’ t going to entirely go away anytime soon — maybe never .
Summer may provide a respite .
By late fall , probably not .
Although progress appears very promising , effective vaccines may or may not come online for many months , possibly years .
Treatments to dramatically reduce fatalities among most vulnerable groups ; older populations — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might come sooner .
If so , that will be a huge relief .
Those who recover from coronavirus infection may develop lasting antibody protection .
Maybe community immunity resistance will happen , and it will burn out .
Or maybe it won ’ t .
The one certainty is that no one can really know when all of this disruptive social and economic pain will end .
It ’ s impossible to predict when America can expect to hear the “ all clear , ” notifying everyone that it ’ s finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to salvage distressed businesses ; return to employment that no longer discriminates between “ essential ” and “ non-essential ” workers that provide essential paychecks ; maybe join friends at a restaurant ; and perhaps even let the kids hug grandma .
Meanwhile most of us realize that , at least for now , we will need to take sensible precautions to protect ourselves — and also to prevent unnecessary risks to others .
Armored against contagion , we social distance six feet away from others , wear face masks in public , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and wash our hands religiously .
Nevertheless , even when we abide by the same rules , the virus doesn ’ t affect everyone equitably .
A great many among us who become infected — particularly those in younger population categories — won ’ t develop any significant illness symptoms , while a small minority of others have far more consequential concerns .
Vast numbers of people live in densely populated metropolitan viral transfer “ hot spots ” where social distancing is challenging .
There are even more , however , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people have retirement incomes , savings , or can work from home .
Others , including lots of lower-income formerly working single-parent families , don ’ t and can ’ t .
Many furloughed workers have good reason to worry that the jobs they previously depended upon will be permanent viral casualties .
Yes , the COVID-19 pandemic is inordinately cruel , not only to disproportionately impacted individual livelihoods and lifestyles , but also to our national economic and social wellbeing that underpins shared hopes for future recovery .
Debates now rage regarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variously mandated living and business restrictions in ways that balance intrinsically co-dependent public safety and economic health priorities .
Fair and effective governance inherently requires making tough choices with incomplete information .
We count on our elected leaders to make wise big picture judgement calls based upon separate and disconnected expert source puzzle parts .
Although moving too fast to restore normal social and business activity might increase viral casualties , there can also be no assurances that such infectious resurgences won ’ t inevitably occur either way .
Delaying too long , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more people to die from postponed medical exams and surgeries , domestic violence and child abuse , and isolation and unemployment -related suicides .
Other lives will be ruined by forced bankruptcies , foreclosures , and mounting debt .
Government policy decisions on our behalf are painfully complicated and difficult .
I believe most of us recognize this , and whenever possible , will cooperate out of intelligent self -interest and community concern .
Commercial establishments , large and small , are already instituting extensive facility hygiene , spatial separation and limited occupancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible measures to protect customers and employees .
They understand that such safeguards are essential to restore clientele confidence .
Responsible individuals will choose to work , shop , eat , and conduct other activities in places where they feel safe .
Those with special health concerns can be expected to moderate their options accordingly .
For some , such as myself , this will warrant sheltering in place for a while longer .
Just like everyone else , I must take primary responsibility for my own behavior and safety .
Returning back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we must relearn how to trust one another to act rationally in ways that mitigate threats to themselves and everyone else .
After all , safe social distancing is something we practice every time we drive at rapid speeds on crowded freeways , trusting that other drivers won ’ t crash into our lane .
It ’ s high time now to get back on the road to becoming the vital , industrious , prosperous America that we so recently knew .

Remember when the pivotal health objective was to “flatten the curve” — before the back to life and business goal post marker got moved to “beating the virus?”
We should now realize that COVID-19 isn’t going to entirely go away anytime soon — maybe never. Summer may provide a respite.
By late fall, probably not.
Although progress appears very promising, effective vaccines may or may not come online for many months, possibly years.
Treatments to dramatically reduce fatalities among most vulnerable groups; older populations — particularly those with existing health issues — might come sooner.
If so, that will be a huge relief.
Those who recover from coronavirus infection may develop lasting antibody protection.
Maybe community immunity resistance will happen, and it will burn out.
Or maybe it won’t.
The one certainty is that no one can really know when all of this disruptive social and economic pain will end.
It’s impossible to predict when America can expect to hear the “all clear,” notifying everyone that it’s finally okay to leave their homes; attempt to salvage distressed businesses; return to employment that no longer discriminates between “essential” and “non-essential” workers that provide essential paychecks; maybe join friends at a restaurant; and perhaps even let the kids hug grandma.
Meanwhile most of us realize that, at least for now, we will need to take sensible precautions to protect ourselves — and also to prevent unnecessary risks to others.
Armored against contagion, we social distance six feet away from others, wear face masks in public, forego friendly handshakes, disinfect public surfaces, and wash our hands religiously.
Nevertheless, even when we abide by the same rules, the virus doesn’t affect everyone equitably.
A great many among us who become infected — particularly those in younger population categories — won’t develop any significant illness symptoms, while a small minority of others have far more consequential concerns.
Vast numbers of people live in densely populated metropolitan viral transfer “hot spots” where social distancing is challenging. There are even more, however, that don’t.
Some more fortunate people have retirement incomes, savings, or can work from home. Others, including lots of lower-income formerly working single-parent families, don’t and can’t. Many furloughed workers have good reason to worry that the jobs they previously depended upon will be permanent viral casualties.
Yes, the COVID-19 pandemic is inordinately cruel, not only to disproportionately impacted individual livelihoods and lifestyles, but also to our national economic and social wellbeing that underpins shared hopes for future recovery.
Debates now rage regarding when, and how, to relieve variously mandated living and business restrictions in ways that balance intrinsically co-dependent public safety and economic health priorities.
Fair and effective governance inherently requires making tough choices with incomplete information. We count on our elected leaders to make wise big picture judgement calls based upon separate and disconnected expert source puzzle parts.
Although moving too fast to restore normal social and business activity might increase viral casualties, there can also be no assurances that such infectious resurgences won’t inevitably occur either way.
Delaying too long, the other hand, will inevitably cause more people to die from postponed medical exams and surgeries, domestic violence and child abuse, and isolation and unemployment -related suicides.
Other lives will be ruined by forced bankruptcies, foreclosures, and mounting debt.
Government policy decisions on our behalf are painfully complicated and difficult.
I believe most of us recognize this, and whenever possible, will cooperate out of intelligent self -interest and community concern.
Commercial establishments, large and small, are already instituting extensive facility hygiene, spatial separation and limited occupancy arrangements, and a variety of other responsible measures to protect customers and employees.
They understand that such safeguards are essential to restore clientele confidence.
Responsible individuals will choose to work, shop, eat, and conduct other activities in places where they feel safe.
Those with special health concerns can be expected to moderate their options accordingly.
For some, such as myself, this will warrant sheltering in place for a while longer.
Just like everyone else, I must take primary responsibility for my own behavior and safety.
Returning back to the business of living means that we must relearn how to trust one another to act rationally in ways that mitigate threats to themselves and everyone else.
After all, safe social distancing is something we practice every time we drive at rapid speeds on crowded freeways, trusting that other drivers won’t crash into our lane.
It’s high time now to get back on the road to becoming the vital, industrious, prosperous America that we so recently knew.
It’s still there.
This article originally appeared at NewsMax


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-05-23--Dominion Energy proposes 40% rate hike in Virginia to pay for “net zero carbon”

In a sane world no electric company would propose a 40 % rate increase .
That Dominion Energy has just done this for Virginia shows how crazy net zero carbon laws really are .
The Legislature has in effect ordered Dominion to spend untold billions of dollars rebuilding their power generation system by adding a huge collection of expensive intermittent wind and solar .
Dominion loves this because they will make a fortune at ratepayer ’ s expense .
As a regulated monopoly Dominion makes a good profit on every dollar they spend , as long as the projects are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in effect mandated by Virginia ’ s new net zero carbon law .
As Kant said , to will the end is to will the means , so the law mandates as much wind and solar generation as possible .
This lets the utility rebuild its asset base on a massive scale .
Dominion ’ s new 15 year plan calls for ongoing rate increases of about 3 % per year for the next 10 years .
This works out to roughly 40 % over the decade , a huge increase by normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someday this massive investment will actually lead to savings , but the huge cost is here and now .
Given that they have something like 2.4 million customers this is a lot of money , a good chunk of which will go to the stockholders .
Thanks to smaller renewables projects the dividends have already been growing nicely .
Under the net zero mandate they should grow dramatically .
The poor paying the rich .
Raises to all executives .
The renewables build is breathtaking .
On the exotic side there is over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conventional land based wind costs around a million dollars a MW , which would be a cool $ 5 billion .
But offshore wind is much more expensive to build .
Then there is a whopping 16,000 MW of new solar generation , for many more billions of dollars .
The typical utility scale solar project is just a few hundred MW so this is an enormous amount .
There is also a reported 2,700 MW of storage , probably billions of dollars worth of batteries .
However , batteries are not generators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate .
What the storage capacity might be is anybody ’ s guess , so there is no way to tell how much the batteries might backup the intermittent renewables .
Together these three items a out to about 24,000 MW .
By coincidence this is roughly equal to Dominion ’ s total existing generating capacity , a lot of which will be shut down as the renewables come online , especially their fossil fuel capacity .
Note that approval of the plan , which has yet to occur , does not mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is more of an invitation to propose specific projects .
No engineering has been done at this point , so the cost estimates may well change .
The extensive and massive offshore wind facilities will be especially challenging .
Unlike Europe , where most offshore wind has been developed , offshore Virginia is subject to relatively frequent hurricanes and tropical storms .
This vulnerability may require a different and stronger design for both the towers and their foundations .
Thus the cost estimates in the plan may well be very low , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the European experience .
What the 15 year plan does not say is that this is just the first of two or more hugely expensive steps .
For one thing this huge buildup does not get the utility even close too net zero emissions , which the law requires in 2045 .
There is still a lot of gas fired capacity in Dominion ’ s system .
Of course under the strange concept of “ net ” zero it is okay to have fossil fuel emissions as long as those are offset somehow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be possible at the scale needed .
If everyone else is also shooting for net zero then everyone will need offsets , which means there might not be any for sale .
Or they might be hugely expensive .
For example , Virginia already has huge federal forests , well over a million acres worth .
So planting trees to offset emissions might require buying valuable farm land just to fill with new trees .
There is also talk of technologies to remove CO2 from the air .
Then too there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep wells .
Any of these will be very expensive and none are included in the wildly expensive present 15 year plan .
But then there is also the problem that makes anything even remotely close to 100 % renewables unworkable .
This is the fact that there will be times when there is zero wind and solar generation , even though the need for electricity is as big as it gets ( called peak demand ) .
This problem is called the Bermuda high , which sounds like fun but is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system that causes summer heat waves .
In Virginia this often means temperatures near 100 for a week at a time , which causes the maximum use of electricity the state will see .
A big feature of this stagnant high is that there is is no useful wind power .
Wind generators need sustained wins of 25-30 mph to generate full power .
With winds less than 8-10 mph they generate nothing and this is what you get during a Bermuda high .
And of course there are hot nights , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these no wind power events .
In fact solar only produces full power for 6-8 hours a day .
So we can expect a series of 16 hour periods with near peak demand but no wind or solar power .
Note that at today ’ s prices batteries are far too expensive to do this backup job .
The biggest battery backup sites in the world only provide about 20 minutes of backup , not 16 hours a day for solar or a week ’ s worth for wind .
But if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand it can not also be used to charge the batteries for that night .
In short , to keep the lights on Dominion has to have reliable , long duration backup power equal to the output of their entire wind and solar capacity .
That is another huge expense that is not in the present plan .
To summarize , there are at least three reasons why the incredible 40 % rate hike is just the beginning of outrageously expensive electricity in Dominion ’ s Virginia .
First the cost estimate for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too low , especially for the massive offshore wind generation .
Second , the present plan does not even come close to meeting the 2045 net zero carbon requirements .
Third , going to intermittent wind and solar for primary generation requires an enormous amount of reliable backup capacity , especially for protracted periods of hot weather with low wind speeds .
Dominion Energy loves all these enormous expenses , because the more they spend the more they make .
It is the rate payers that should revolt .

In a sane world no electric company would propose a 40% rate increase. That Dominion Energy has just done this for Virginia shows how crazy net zero carbon laws really are.
The Legislature has in effect ordered Dominion to spend untold billions of dollars rebuilding their power generation system by adding a huge collection of expensive intermittent wind and solar. Dominion loves this because they will make a fortune at ratepayer’s expense.
As a regulated monopoly Dominion makes a good profit on every dollar they spend, as long as the projects are approved. In this case they are in effect mandated by Virginia’s new net zero carbon law. As Kant said, to will the end is to will the means, so the law mandates as much wind and solar generation as possible. This lets the utility rebuild its asset base on a massive scale.
Dominion’s new 15 year plan calls for ongoing rate increases of about 3% per year for the next 10 years. This works out to roughly 40% over the decade, a huge increase by normal utility standards. The promise is that someday this massive investment will actually lead to savings, but the huge cost is here and now.
Given that they have something like 2.4 million customers this is a lot of money, a good chunk of which will go to the stockholders. Thanks to smaller renewables projects the dividends have already been growing nicely. Under the net zero mandate they should grow dramatically. The poor paying the rich. Raises to all executives.
The renewables build is breathtaking. On the exotic side there is over 5,000 MW of offshore wind generation. Conventional land based wind costs around a million dollars a MW, which would be a cool $5 billion. But offshore wind is much more expensive to build.
Then there is a whopping 16,000 MW of new solar generation, for many more billions of dollars.
The typical utility scale solar project is just a few hundred MW so this is an enormous amount.
There is also a reported 2,700 MW of storage, probably billions of dollars worth of batteries. However, batteries are not generators, so MW is just the discharge rate. What the storage capacity might be is anybody’s guess, so there is no way to tell how much the batteries might backup the intermittent renewables.
Together these three items a out to about 24,000 MW. By coincidence this is roughly equal to Dominion’s total existing generating capacity, a lot of which will be shut down as the renewables come online, especially their fossil fuel capacity.
Note that approval of the plan, which has yet to occur, does not mean the numerous expensive projects are approved. It is more of an invitation to propose specific projects. No engineering has been done at this point, so the cost estimates may well change.
The extensive and massive offshore wind facilities will be especially challenging. Unlike Europe, where most offshore wind has been developed, offshore Virginia is subject to relatively frequent hurricanes and tropical storms. This vulnerability may require a different and stronger design for both the towers and their foundations. Thus the cost estimates in the plan may well be very low, especially if these estimates are based on the European experience.
What the 15 year plan does not say is that this is just the first of two or more hugely expensive steps. For one thing this huge buildup does not get the utility even close too net zero emissions, which the law requires in 2045. There is still a lot of gas fired capacity in Dominion’s system.
Of course under the strange concept of “net” zero it is okay to have fossil fuel emissions as long as those are offset somehow. The reality is that offsets may not be possible at the scale needed. If everyone else is also shooting for net zero then everyone will need offsets, which means there might not be any for sale. Or they might be hugely expensive.
For example, Virginia already has huge federal forests, well over a million acres worth. So planting trees to offset emissions might require buying valuable farm land just to fill with new trees. There is also talk of technologies to remove CO2 from the air. Then too there is flue gas CO2 capture with storage in deep wells. Any of these will be very expensive and none are included in the wildly expensive present 15 year plan.
But then there is also the problem that makes anything even remotely close to 100% renewables unworkable. This is the fact that there will be times when there is zero wind and solar generation, even though the need for electricity is as big as it gets (called peak demand).
This problem is called the Bermuda high, which sounds like fun but is not. It is a massive high pressure system that causes summer heat waves. In Virginia this often means temperatures near 100 for a week at a time, which causes the maximum use of electricity the state will see.
A big feature of this stagnant high is that there is is no useful wind power. Wind generators need sustained wins of 25-30 mph to generate full power. With winds less than 8-10 mph they generate nothing and this is what you get during a Bermuda high.
And of course there are hot nights, with no solar generation as well, during these no wind power events. In fact solar only produces full power for 6-8 hours a day. So we can expect a series of 16 hour periods with near peak demand but no wind or solar power. Note that at today’s prices batteries are far too expensive to do this backup job. The biggest battery backup sites in the world only provide about 20 minutes of backup, not 16 hours a day for solar or a week’s worth for wind. But if the solar is going flat out to meet demand it cannot also be used to charge the batteries for that night.
In short, to keep the lights on Dominion has to have reliable, long duration backup power equal to the output of their entire wind and solar capacity. That is another huge expense that is not in the present plan.
To summarize, there are at least three reasons why the incredible 40% rate hike is just the beginning of outrageously expensive electricity in Dominion’s Virginia.
First the cost estimate for the present plan may well be far too low, especially for the massive offshore wind generation.
Second, the present plan does not even come close to meeting the 2045 net zero carbon requirements.
Third, going to intermittent wind and solar for primary generation requires an enormous amount of reliable backup capacity, especially for protracted periods of hot weather with low wind speeds.
Dominion Energy loves all these enormous expenses, because the more they spend the more they make. It is the rate payers that should revolt.