Wind Turbine Related Radiation: Wind Energy is NOT Free, Clean, or Green

This is the last in a recent series I’ve posted about radiation and some of our energy sources. It started with a commentary arguing that there are good reasons to categorize Nuclear power as a “renewable” source of electrical energy. Next was Nuclear Power Radiation — Part 1 (which outlined radiation from normal nuclear power operations, waste, and misc.). Then there was Nuclear Power Radiation — Part 2 which briefly covered the rest of the well-known nuclear radiation possibilities…

Here I will give a quickie overview of a radiation source that most people have never heard about. Lobbyists and other politically correct parties paint industrial wind energy as “free, clean, and green.” Although none of that is true, this deceptiveness is dismissed as marketing puffery. With no consequences for lying, is it any wonder that we are drowning in dishonesty?

A major eye-opener is that wind turbine manufacture results in horrific environmental degradation (also see here and here). A lot of this happens in China so it is conveniently out of sight. But wait, the same organizations who are promoting wind energy also strongly push the one-world (“we’re all in this together”) ideology — so they should be very concerned about what happens in China too, right?

Let’s look at one particular matter: Rare Earth Elements (REEs). In addition to significant air and water pollution, the processing of REEs (30+ steps) results in a large amount of radioactive waste. Yes, you read that correctly.

How much radioactive waste per turbine? My understanding is the following:

Fact 1: Each wind turbine is reported to have several thousands of pounds of REEs (i.e., typically 2000± pounds per MW — and today’s turbines are 4+MW).

Fact 2: A US Army analyst reports (reference page 16) that for every ton of REE, there can be about a ton of radioactive waste!

Once we have absorbed the significance of these numbers, an interesting question arises: how does the quantity of radioactive waste produced by a 1 GW nuclear facility compare to the quantity of radioactive waste produced by the manufacture of wind turbines that would result in an equivalent amount of annual electricity? Let’s look at it by weight.

The key wind energy assumptions are:

a) An optimistic capacity factor of 33% is assumed.

b) There are 2000± pounds of REEs per face value wind turbine MW.

c) Every ton of REE results in about a ton of radioactive waste.

d) Since some of the reported waste includes water, we’ll generously assume that about 50%± of the weight is due to H2O.

So, the radioactive waste for a 3 GW wind facility:

3000 MW x 2000 REE/MW x 1 Waste/REE x .5 =

3,000,000± pounds of radioactive waste

How does this compare to a nuclear facility? 

There are two methods for processing nuclear fuel (typically uranium). In the U.S., the fuel is used once (i.e., is a single pass). In the rest of the world, the fuel is used a second time, which substantially reduces the amount of resulting waste.

The key nuclear assumptions are:

a) A 1 GW Nuclear facility has 27± tonnes/year (about 60,000 pounds/year) of used uranium.

b) If reprocessed, only 3% of this is radioactive waste (60,000 x 3% = 1,800). [See this for a good explanation of radioactive waste, and for items a & b.]

c) Twenty years of nuclear power generation is used as that is a very generous expected life of a wind turbine.

d) The reactor is a Light Water Reactor (LWR) [i.e., a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), or a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)].

The single-pass radioactive waste figures for a 1 GW nuclear facility:

—>  60,000± pounds per year. Therefore the twenty-year total of nuclear radioactive waste would be 60,000± x 20 = 1,200,000± pounds of radioactive waste

The double-pass radioactive waste figures for a 1 GW nuclear facility:

—> 1,800± pounds per year. Therefore the twenty-year total of nuclear radioactive waste would be 1,800± x 20 = 36,000± pounds of radioactive waste

Compare these to the figure above: 3,000,000± pounds of radioactive waste for an equivalent amount of electricity produced by wind energy, over twenty years.

The amazing conclusion is that over the lifetime of a wind project (20 years), wind energy produces more radioactive waste per MWH than a nuclear facility!

So we’ve lifted another wind energy rock, and have found a very disturbing industry secret. The few others who have looked into this have labeled it as the 800-pound Gorilla In The Room. Another good piece is from IER: Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste.

One more peek under another rock… It’s bad enough to largely rely on Communist China for unneeded materials, but it’s even worse when this investigation concluded that the Chinese rare earth industry is “dominated by criminal gangs.” In other words, much of every dollar spent on rare earths for wind turbines goes into things like fentanyl production — which is then sent to the US to kill its citizens…

So… the next time that a wind marketer feeds you the “wind is green” sales pitch, say Not so fast!

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.


Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

What has Global Warming got to do with the War against Hamas?

In early April, an offshoot of the Just Stop Oil eco-activist group calling themselves Youth Demand descended upon the London HQ of the UK Labour Party and sprayed it all over with red paint. Its occupants had “blood on their hands”, they said. Apparently, the Labour Party, who are highly likely to form the next British Government come the General Election due later this year, were “threatening to continue [committing] genocide” once they were in office.

I didn’t realise they were committing it already.

What on earth was the Labour Party doing? For one thing, said Youth Demand, by failing to demand an immediate end to fossil fuel drilling across the nation, Labour was allegedly helping “kill hundreds of millions” thanks to climate change. But, equally, by failing to promise to call time on UK arms sales to Israel, Labour’s Shadow Cabinet was likewise facilitating the “mass murder” of innocent civilians (and equally innocent Hamas terrorists, no doubt) over in Gaza.

This conflation of environmentalism with the Israel-Gaza war does seem a rather strange campaigning tactic as the two issues have precisely nothing to do with one another. To link the two in only raises the danger of putting off people from supporting one of your causes by virtue of them not supporting the other one. It’s like a march upon Whitehall to demand the Government not only legalise cannabis immediately, and at the same time bring back hanging.

Some people may support Net Zero but also support Israel. Some people may support Hamas, but regard global warming as a hoax (I think in particular of Piers Corbyn, the crankish brother of former Far-Left Labour Party leader Jeremy). To risk splitting public support like this makes little political sense. Why not separate the two issues of Gaza and climate, as they should be?

How green is my Jordan Valley?

Ever since Hamas’ pogrom against Israel last October 7, Greens across the West have been having a similar heated debate. The movement’s current chief global figurehead, Greta Thunberg, everyone’s favourite Swedish apocalypse goblin, has been much criticised for engaging in needless stunts conflating environmentalism and Zionism.

The controversy has been particularly strong in Germany, where Green leaders from Greta’s own movement, the Fridays for Future school-strike organisation, felt compelled to put out a statement distancing themselves from her views, and reiterating their support for Israel’s right to exist. For obvious historical reasons, the accusation of anti-Semitism is one most mainstream figures in Germany are careful to avoid …

The November 18th edition of Germany’s leading news weekly, Der Spiegel, ran a lengthy article criticising Thunberg’s apparent Hamas-wards turn, accusing her of creating a “potential schism” within the Green movement. This investigation featured interviews with other young climate activists who had suddenly begun talking much more about saving the Gazans than saving the whales.

One 22-year-old Finnish activist featured, Ida Korhonen, openly admitted she had only really heard of the Israel-Palestine conflict a few weeks beforehand, boasting she got all of her information about the issue “from social networks, from Amnesty [International] and from Palestinian journalists on the scene.” What had such completely unbiased sources allowed Ida to discover? That Green activists “shouldn’t be talking about ourselves [i.e., our main actual cause of environmentalism] anymore, but only about Palestine … War against people is also always war against nature … There can be no [climate] justice without an end to the genocide against the Palestinians.”

What a Greta big fool

Greta Thunberg evidently agreed. In the immediate aftermath of Hamas’ October 7 attacks on Israel, she too had become an instant expert on the whole issue, posting tweets standing alongside fellow juvenile activists holding signs saying performatively progressive things like ‘STAND WITH GAZA’, ‘FREE PALESTINE’ and ‘CLIMATE JUSTICE NOW!’ (as well as posing with a supposedly ‘anti-Semitic octopus’ cuddly toy, but that’s another story).

As a result of such provocation, the Israeli Education Ministry dropped all mention of the fallen child saint from their national curriculum for schools: I would question why she had ever been on it in the first place.

Yet, as so often, still Greta refused to shut up. In December, together with three other equally insufferable-sounding Swedish Fridays for Future activists, she penned an op-ed in the UK’s leading left-wing newspaper The Guardian, entitled ‘We won’t stop speaking out about Gaza’s suffering – there is no climate justice without human rights’.

Here, she took her critics to task for saying that, by talking about this new and separate issue, she was only damaging their wider original cause, cautioning that “Silence is complicity. You cannot be neutral in an unfolding genocide.”

Greta’s rationale here ran as follows:

“Despite these horrors [the alleged ‘genocide’ being perpetrated by Israel in the region], some have chosen to focus the public debate on attempts to delegitimise statements about Gaza made by young people in the climate justice movement. Contrary to what many have claimed, Fridays for Future has not ‘been radicalised’ or ‘become political’. We have always been political, because we have always been a movement for justice. Standing in solidarity with Palestinians and all affected civilians has never been in question for us. Advocating for climate justice fundamentally comes from a place of caring about people and their human rights. That means speaking up when people suffer, are forced to flee their homes or are killed – regardless of the cause.”

As if to ram home just how woke she now was, Thunberg ended her piece by ritually citing her pronouns (“she/her”, in case you were wondering – hardly surprising, as she is a female).

Clueless in Gaza

Had Greta gone fully intersectional? Evidently so, and the whole fact was clearly rubbing some people up the wrong way.

In November, after Thunberg had invited a kaffiyeh-wearing Palestinian woman onto the stage at a climate-rally she was holding in Amsterdam, she was interrupted by a male audience member who snatched her microphone and informed her, quite reasonably, that “I’ve come here for a climate demonstration, not a political view” about a wholly irrelevant issue in the Middle East. Greta took little notice, however, seizing the microphone back before leading the crowd in a chant of the rather bizarre-sounding slogan “No climate justice on occupied land!”

What do such slogans even mean? How on earth can you have “No climate justice” for humanity so long as Israel continues to rule the roost in the Holy Land? What has global warming – or indeed the ever-pressing issue of one’s sacred pronouns – got to do with a never-ending round of ethno-religious warfare in Gaza?

Nothing, really. Nothing at all.

But that didn’t stop Greta & Co trying to lump it all in together by making an extremely spurious argument to the effect that, by daring to defend themselves against Hamas’ original attack by bombing the terrorists right back, the Israelis were massively adding to the supposedly planet-killing problem of global warming by virtue of selfishly using rockets and missiles which emitted large amounts of CO₂ from their exhausts (as if there are any other kind; did the Greens really expect the Israelis to throw their ordnance by hand, or else hurl them all from slings, David vs Goliath-style?).

But the poor quality of the logic hardly matters, as the rationale underlying such overblown conflations of climate and anti-Zionism, of pronouns and warfare, is that of so-called ‘intersectionality’, the idea that, by adding up all the causes of the world’s supposed ‘oppressed’ people together, they will gain trade union-style strength in numbers, and become unbeatable (see my deeply sceptical explanatory article on the subject here).

So, supposedly, black people, homosexuals, feminists, the disabled and the mentally ill are all natural allies. Even people you may not have previously expected to be on the same side, like, say, Islamic terrorists and transgenderists, are supposedly united as natural allies against cisgender Western imperialism, along the basic logic that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’.

Such thinking seems deeply misguided to me. All too often, ‘intersectionality’ is just a ridiculous and self-defeating process which will only end up alienating as many potential supporters from a cause they might otherwise support, as it will attracting any new ones to it. I’m sure we’ve all seen cases of ostensibly worthwhile charities, like Save the Children, whose campaigns we may until recently have been sympathetic towards, who have suddenly gone right to the bottom of our future donation lists because they suddenly became less concerned with actually Saving the Children, and more bothered about chemically castrating them along rainbow activist lines instead, or lecturing us all on the ins-and-outs of utter irrelevancies like Critical Race Theory.

In an open letter to Greta Thunberg, some irritated Israeli climate activists expressed similar sentiments:

“Due to her position, when Greta addresses a different topic superficially and dismissively, it inevitably weakens the validity of her climate-related positions. People from all walks of life might think that the shallowness she displayed on the other issue could cast doubt on the seriousness and depth of her climate activism. Those with vested interests could exploit this to portray climate activists as unserious and lacking depth. Therefore, even without addressing the ethical and moral implications she ignored, Greta is no longer a role model for us in the climate change context.”

Whilst I personally might be rather glad to see the whole overexaggerated climate-cult undermined in this wholly needless way, can today’s intersectional Greens really not see that, by promoting the causes of Hamas and Palestine, they might alienate many of their natural supporters likewise? If you were a Jew living in a Western city like London or New York today, scarred as they are by weekly anti-Semitic pro-Hamas hate-marches, what would you feel more threatened by? Islamism, or a hypothetical two degree raise in the Earth’s overall global temperature by 2100? Any pious young eco-intersectionalist who suddenly came along outside a synagogue rattling her tin to save the Palestinians rather than the pandas would surely be immediately told where they could shove their donation-box.

Why can’t intersectional idiots like Greta Thunberg just let their own main ideas and causes stand or fall on their own individual merit? Perhaps it is because, all too often, they don’t actually have very much genuine individual merit to speak of?


Forward this entertaining but insightful analysis to your friends. Use the social media buttons on this page.  


AUTHOR

Steven Tucker is a UK-based writer whose work has appeared in print and online worldwide. The author of over ten books, mostly about fringe beliefs and eccentrics, his latest title, “Hitler’s and Stalin’s Misuse of Science” exposes how the insane and murderous abuses of science perpetrated by the Nazis and the Soviets are being repeated anew today by the woke left who have now captured so many of our institutions of learning.

RELATED VIDEOS:

‘Cultural Appropriation’ Is Conveniently No Longer a Thing For the Left | TIPPING POINT

Muslim leader demanding death to homosexuals

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Nuclear Power Radiation — Part 2

Recently, I posted a commentary arguing that there are good reasons to categorize Nuclear power as a “renewable” source of electrical energy, followed by another post: Nuclear Power Radiation — Part 1. That outlined radiation from normal nuclear power operations, waste, and misc. This Part 2 will briefly cover the rest of the well-known nuclear radiation possibilities…

1 – Nuclear Power Accidents

US nuclear power facilities are built to be extraordinarily safe. Even when there are accidents, there are backup systems — and often backups to the backups. The most familiar nuclear accident to us is the Three Mile Island problem in 1957. This summary states it well:

“A cooling malfunction caused part of the core to melt in a reactor, resulting in a limited off-site release of radioactivity over a multi-state area. Doses off-site were less than normal background radiation.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined the accident “led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community.”

Considering the consequences, the rhetoric about this event seems out of proportion.

2 – Nuclear Power Man-Made Disasters

The most famous case here was in Chernobyl (Ukraine: 1986). What is rarely covered by mainstream media (surprise!) is: a) there are no other nuclear reactors in the world that have the Chernobyl design, and b) the reactor failure was reportedly caused purposefully — i.e., it was not an accident.

The truth of what happened may be as evasive as the full story of the Kennedy assassination. My understanding (from reliable sources), was that there was a dispute within the facility between two groups (let’s say engineers and administrators). The issue reportedly was who was really in charge? Each group tried to “prove” to the other that they were in control — and in the process they purposefully shut off several safety mechanisms. The 100% predictable result was a catastrophic failure.

This is a reasonable account about this disaster (which soft-pedals the dispute part). Despite all the alarmism, the official total is only 45± deaths:

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has concluded that: a) two Chernobyl plant workers died due to the explosion on the night of the accident, b) 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation syndrome, and c) there have been 15 fatalities from thyroid cancer. Other than those 45± deaths, “there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident.”

3 – Nuclear Power Natural Disasters

The classic case here is Fukushima (Japan: 2011). Again, my understanding (from reliable sources) is not what has generally been reported. The two indisputable facts are: a) Japan was hit by a tsunami, generated by a record undersea earthquake, and b) the tsunami was so large that it flooded the diesel backup power units (sitting on the ground), that were there to properly shut down the core in an emergency.

The part that I heard was that Japanese officials had been advised prior to this event, that to be extra safe, they should elevate the backup diesel generators off the ground. That had not been done. If it had been there very likely would have been no nuclear power failure. That said, considering that there never had been anything remotely like that tsunami, their delay is understandable.

Let’s keep things in perspective: a) there were about 20,000 deaths due to the tsunami, and b) less than ten fatalities due to the nuclear power plant failures. Here is a reasonably balanced discussion of the Fukushima nuclear disasters

Takeaway

Regretfully, what the mainstream media reports on any nuclear facility problem, is not an objective, factual explanation, but rather an alarmist exaggeration of reality. In other words, once again political science is trying to take over Real Science.

Considering that there are some 435 operating nuclear power facilities (worldwide), and almost all are operating basically 24/7/365, the safety of nuclear power is exceptionally good. Worldwide, over the last 60± years, less than 100 people have died from a nuclear power plant failure.

By comparison, there have been WAY more deaths related to industrial wind turbines! (See this table, where the good people tabulating the data stopped keeping track in 2012, due to the huge increase in workload.)

Another perspective is that 40,000± people die annually from US car accidents, that would roughly translate to 2 million deaths over the same 60± year period.

This is yet another example of why having critically thinking citizens is the best defense against dishonest and ignorant purveyors of information. Remember that fear is the primary tool used to control people…

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.


Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Nuclear Power Radiation — Part 1

Recently, I posted a commentary arguing that there are good reasons to categorize Nuclear power as a “renewable” source of electrical energy.

One reader said OK, but what about the radiation problem? My answer is what radiation problem? I’ll break down this technical matter into two parts, and try to keep it understandable to non-scientists.

Part 1 will outline radiation from normal nuclear power operations, waste, and misc.

Part 2 will discuss radiation from nuclear power: a) accidents, b) man-made disasters, and c) natural disasters.

The short answer is that the nuclear power radiation issue is a manufactured concern by scientifically ignorant and/or dishonest people. Consider the following…

1 – Nuclear Power Normal Operations

The whole business of radiation harm has been wildly exaggerated by self-serving parties, taking advantage of a technically challenged American public. When radiation concern is expressed about a nearby nuclear facility, we need to keep things in perspective. Living near an operating nuclear facility exposes neighbors to minuscule radiation, particularly when compared to other sources.

Here is EPA information.

The reality is that we are bombarded with radiation continually from the sun, ground, flying, food, medical procedures (e.g., dental x-rays), etc.

For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has posted this food comparison.

2 – Nuclear Power Waste = Reprocessable Fuel

If we are so concerned about nuclear radiation, why are we purposefully generating considerably more radioactive waste than there needs to be?

Fact 1 is that nuclear waste is actually re-usable fuel. Fact 2 is that the US is the only country in the world (TY President Carter) that prohibits US nuclear facilities from reprocessing nuclear waste. Fact 3 is that if nuclear fuel was reprocessed, we would end up having much less nuclear waste. Therefore, if we are so concerned about radioactive nuclear waste, why have we made it illegal for it to be reduced???

3 – Nuclear Power Radioactive Waste Storage

An enormous amount of scientific research went into selecting the Yucca Mountain (Nevada) site for storing nuclear waste, and then designing it to be extraordinarily safe. For example, nuclear waste there would be stored roughly 1000 feet below ground. For example, the closest that people live to Yucca Mountain is about 30 miles.

However, this was politically derailed by uneducated alarmists.

The net effect of their actions is that all current radioactive waste in some 93 US nuclear facilities is stored on-site, and above groundIn what universe are 93 different storage sites, above ground, and relatively near populations, a safer alternative???

4 – Low Dose Radiation is Beneficial

Again, the scientific truth has not been publicized by the media. Consider this study. It says: “Health impacts of low-dose ionizing radiation are significant in important fields such as X-ray imaging, radiation therapy, nuclear power, and others. However, all existing and potential applications are currently challenged by public concerns and regulatory restrictions. We aimed to assess the validity of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation damage, which is the basis of current regulation, and to assess the justification for this regulation… LNT has not been proven to be true… so there is little doubt that the present regulatory burden should be reduced.”

Here is a good short video on this that most people will understand.

5 – Wind Energy and Radioactive Waste

A relatively unpublicized wind energy fact is that an enormous amount of environmental pollution is generated in processing the substantial amounts of rare earth metals needed for wind turbines. Most of this is done in China, so it is hidden from view. But the main proponents of wind energy are all about saving the planet, so why wouldn’t they care about environmental destruction in every country?

Surprisingly, a large amount of radioactive waste is also a by-product. An interesting calculation concludes that over a twenty-year period (the supposed life of wind turbines), there is likely more radioactive waste resulting from wind turbine manufacture, than there is in an equivalent amount of nuclear power generated!

Since this involves some technical calculations, I’ll save them for another commentary: Wind Energy and Radioactive Waste.

Takeaway

The clear message above is that the nuclear radiation scare is largely a boogeyman generated by anti-Americans who would like us to shoot ourselves in the foot.

This situation also exposes the hypocrisy of climate alarmists who say things like we are on the verge of global climate catastrophe, so we need to do everything possible to avert this — yet they are opposed to a major, proven CO2 free operating energy source! This is yet another example of what happens when political science replaces Real Science.

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.


Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Biden Admin Locks In Regulations Targeting Appliance Owned By ‘Almost Every US Household’

The Department of Energy (DOE) finalized regulations Tuesday for a popular appliance that will push the market toward adopting heat pump technology.

The DOE’s final energy efficiency regulations for water heaters will apply to common electrical water heaters and significantly increase the share of those models that use heat pumpsaccording to the agency. The DOE has spearheaded the Biden administration’s efforts to push rules and regulations targeting appliances ranging from pool pump motors and lightbulbs to furnaces and portable generators.

“Almost every U.S. household has a water heater, and for too long outdated energy efficiency standards have led to higher utility bills for families,” Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm said in a statement about the new rules. “The Biden-Harris Administration is continuing to put American consumers first with new, effective rules—supported by industry—that save both energy and money.”

The new standards will lead to more than 50% of all newly-manufactured electric water heaters to use heat pump technology, a massive increase from the 3% seen in the market today, according to the DOE. Compliance with the new rules will be required starting in 2029.

The DOE’s new rules will require a “moderate” increase in the efficiency of gas-fired water heaters, the agency said. The DOE is still working on its efficiency standards for gas-powered water heaters, which are not included in Tuesday’s rulemaking action.

The agency says that the regulations will save Americans a combined $124 billion on energy bills over the next three decades and reduce emissions by an equivalent amount to the emissions generated by 43 million homes in one year. While the DOE considers models with heat pumps to be an important part of decarbonizing America’s building stock, those particular models tend to cost about $1,000 more up front than some alternatives and do not work as well in cold climates, according to Forbes.

The DOE did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Another Day, Another Regulation’: DOE Continues War On Appliances, Locks In Regs For Clothes Washers And Dryers

Congressional Candidate Says Biden EPA Has Acted Like ‘Gestapo,’ Mistreated Residents In East Palestine Cleanup

Office Loan Defaults At Highest Point In More Than A Decade

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Elon Musk May Have Just Dealt A Blow To Biden’s EV Agenda

Tesla laid off a large portion of a key team in its electric vehicle (EV) charger division on Monday, a move that could pose problems for President Joe Biden’s broad EV agenda.

The company reportedly laid off nearly all of its employees working on the company’s “Superchargers,” which charge EVs quicker than other Tesla products and figured to play a major role in the nationwide public EV charging system envisioned by the Biden administration, according to E&E News. Tesla — which has benefitted from generous government subsidies for years — appears to be pivoting away from that aspect of its business; the layoffs could spell trouble for the already-struggling industry at a pivotal moment.

The Supercharger is considered one of the best chargers available because it can recharge EVs quickly and reliably, which cannot always be said of competitors’ products, according to E&E News. Other automobile companies, including Ford, saw the promise of Tesla’s Supercharger and made deals to have their EVs be able to access Tesla’s Supercharger infrastructure.

“There’s no buttons to push, there’s no screens, there’s no credit card swiper all of that is done through processing through software inside of your car,” Matt Teske, CEO of Chargeway, an EV-charging software platform, told the DCNF regarding Tesla’s Supercharger network. “And so they just really made the transition from driving a gas car to driving an electric car very simple for anyone to use and operate.”

Other charging networks and auto manufacturers now have an opportunity to grow after relying heavily on Tesla’s innovations and the Supercharger “gold standard,” Teske added. While the layoffs threaten to introduce uncertainty into the EV market, those growth opportunities and the existence of other charging networks do not mean that the layoffs will impact the Biden administration’s distribution of funds to build a national network.

These advantages and superior engineering contributed to the Supercharger fueling the fastest-growing charging network in the U.S., as Tesla’s 6,200 charging plazas nationwide are the most of any of its competitors, according to E&E News.

The Biden administration is spending billions of dollars to subsidize the creation of a national network for EV charging infrastructure, which remains concentrated mostly in densely-populated, coastal regions of the U.S., according to the Department of Energy (DOE). However, these efforts have yet to yield significant results, as only a small number of charging stations have been built with those funds since Biden enacted the bipartisan infrastructure package in 2021.

Concerns about charger availability and reliability continue to spook consumers. Accordingly, building out the national network will be a crucial part of bringing the American auto industry into compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently-finalized tailpipe emissions regulations — which some have characterized as a de facto “EV mandate” — over the next decade or so.

However, the fresh uncertainty in the EV charging space figures to complicate things for the state government agencies that are ultimately responsible for distributing the Biden subsidies to developers, according to E&E News.

Tesla has already accessed federal subsidies for EV chargers, with more expected, according to E&E News. Other automakers could still use the Tesla charging technology in the future, but they will likely have to do so without the advantage of Tesla’s intimate knowledge about how to maintain the infrastructure.

Tesla, the DOE and the White House did not respond immediately to requests for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Admin Classifies Martha’s Vineyard, Elite Locales As ‘Low-Income’ To Push EV Charger Subsidies

Top Automaker Takes $1.3 Billion Dollar Bath On Key EV Line

‘Are You Going To Call Me A Sick Fu*k?’: John Kennedy Rips Climate Witness Over Repost Of Confrontational Group

Chinese Communist-Linked Battery Maker Breaks The Bank On Lobbying Amid Congressional Scrutiny

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

It’s coal to the rescue as wind and solar fail to keep German lights on

In Germany they call it the “Energiewende,” meaning energy transition, and it doesn’t work.

Germans have been forced to come to grips with sober energy reality after binging on more than half a trillion Euros of so-called “alternative” energy, such as wind turbines and solar panels.  This dramatically increased the price of electricity and created a serious risk of blackouts.

Germany actually just announced plans to reactivate coal plants to provide reserve power and lower the risk of blackouts during the coming winter and years to come.

Bloomberg reports that:

Germany’s coal phase-out plans face a potential setback after the energy regulator predicted the country will need a lot more fossil-fuel power plants on standby to help keep the lights on in the coming years.

The need for so-called reserve capacity to cover shortfalls in wind and solar generation during the 2026/27 winter period is set to reach 9.2 gigawatts, double the amount put aside for the last heating season, the regulator said Tuesday. That’s even more than the 8.3 gigawatts of mainly coal-fired backup deployed in 2022, when Russia curbed pipelined natural gas supplies to Europe.

The solution the German government is pursuing is no solution at all — offsets!

Reuters reports that German  “coal-fired power plans will be reactivated and the government will make proposals by summer next year on how to offset increased carbon dioxide these plants will generate this winter.”

Germany will purchase some kind of offset certificates that will have no meaningful impact on the fact that German coal plants burn brown lignite, which is the dirtiest and least efficient variety of coal.  It is far inferior to the cleaner-burning hard black anthracite mined in America.

The German energy economy has fallen victim to conflicting Green ideologies.

As Germany invested a fortune in wind and solar which are unable to meet its energy needs, it simultaneously shut down clean, safe, functioning nuclear plants that were already paid for.

Germany provides a powerful energy lesson in what not to do.

Will America learn in time?

AUTHOR

Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president. Widely heralded as a leader in the free market environmental, think tank community in Washington, D.C., Rucker is a frequent guest on radio talk shows, written extensively in numerous publications, and has appeared in such media outlets as Fox News, OANN, Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Hill, among many others. Rucker is also the co-producer of the award-winning film “Climate Hustle,” which was the #1 box-office film in America during its one night showing in 2016, as well as the acclaimed “Climate Hustle 2” staring Hollywood actor Kevin Sorbo released in 2020. As an accredited observer to the United Nations, Rucker has also led CFACT delegations to some 30 major UN conferences, including those in Copenhagen, Istanbul, Kyoto, Bonn, Marrakesh, Rio de Janeiro, and Warsaw, to name a few.

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Nuclear Is A Renewable Energy: Wind and Solar lobbyists are fighting this reality!

As a physicist, I believe that one of the reasons that intelligent energy policies have not gained sufficient traction is that we are allowing those with political agendas (vs independent scientists) to define some key energy terms.

[One thing I know from golf, is that a match is usually won or lost at the first tee — where the terms and conditions are agreed on.]

Outside of “fiscal responsibility” and “all of the above” the most significant misused concept that we have unwittingly gone along with is the term “renewable” energy.

Giving some critical thought to this moniker is no academic matter, as what is defined as “renewable” determines what sources of electricity are eligible for massive handouts and other preferential treatments.

In other words, what is legally defined as a “renewable” will have profound technical, economic, and environmental consequences on the United States.

The renewable energy lobby is extremely aggressive on all aspects of legality, and has made sure that only politically favored energy sources are awarded these perks (e.g., see here). Note that in that definition, “renewable” energy is not defined by what it does (or does not) do, but rather by a list of politically acceptable sources!

To my knowledge, there is no “official” definition of this bandied-about term. When asked, the meanings proffered vary quite a bit, but the key difference between a renewable and non-renewable energy source is usually the rate of replenishment.

Consider this typical definition: “Renewable is an energy resource that is replaced in a reasonable amount of time (our lifetime, our children’s lifetime)…”

Such a word as “reasonable” is subjective — not scientific. Who determines what is a reasonable amount of time, and what is it: 20 years? 100 years? 500 years?

The reason the definition of renewable is focused on time, derives from the concern that we may exhaust some electrical energy sources, relatively soon.

But how much is enough to have? For instance, if we have 100 years of some fuel, would the replenishment rate really be that important?

Clearly, within the next 100 years of use, there will be some profound changes made regarding the efficiency and applications of said fuel’s implementation — in ways we have little understanding of today.

At the time there were well-reasoned expectations in 1950 about what would happen in the year 2000. The message is that almost ALL of the best guesses were wrong. A good example is that today we use LESS renewable energy than we did in 1950!

In the same vein, prior technology predictions by experts (like Einstein) have also proven to be significantly off the mark. Who among us will stand to say that we have a better understanding of technology than Einstein?

In that light, let’s look at the case for nuclear being “renewable.”

First, we should answer how much longer will our nuclear fuel supply last. Consider:

a) This says: “The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2008 jointly produced a report saying that uranium resources are adequate to meet nuclear energy needs for at least the next 100 years at present consumption levels. More efficient fast reactors could extend that period to more than 2,500 years.”

It is absurd to say that a 2500-year supply doesn’t qualify this as renewable.

b) In addition, there are several proven alternatives to uranium as a source. One example is Thorium (which is much more plentiful than uranium).

[Read this 2023 study about “The Sustainability of Mineral Resources.” Note that it states “no tools are currently available to allow a comprehensive evaluation of mineral raw material abundance“.]

c) Bernard Cohen (Professor Emeritus of Physics at Pittsburgh University) has stated that breeder reactors have enough raw material energy sources to last us over a Billion years. That’s Billion with a “B”.

When considering these sample facts, an important thing to keep in mind is this quote from some scientists at an excellent University of Michigan site: “Only 50 years ago, nuclear energy was an exotic, futuristic technology, the subject of experimentation and far-fetched ideas.”

Hard as it might seem to believe, most of this nuclear development has occurred in just the tiny space of 50± years — so having any fuel supply that lasts 100± years could cover an enormous amount of new development.

Second, some definitions of “Renewable” include a reference to “power derived from natural sources”. Of course, that is amusingly non-descriptive since essentially all sources of electrical power are based on natural materials, and that includes nuclear.

To read more about this I’d strongly recommend Bill Tucker’s excellent book Terrestrial Energy, or a more condensed discussion he wrote.

A third factor sometimes appearing in the definition of “Renewable” is a reference to a power source’s ability to reduce CO2 (i.e., to be a “clean” source). That same University of Michigan site (above) has this very informative graph about how (worldwide) we have been able to reduce CO2 since 1973.

Now, for the sake of comparison, let’s quickly look at the flip side of this question, at the poster child for renewables: wind energy.

The indisputable fact is that an indispensable part of wind power electricity production is the requirement of LARGE amounts of rare-earth metals. Each wind turbine is reported to have several thousands of pounds of rare-earth materials (typically 2000± pounds per MW. An average-size wind turbine today is something like 5 MW.)

This study concluded that all rare-earth materials might be gone in 20± years! And several more reports warn us of the very limited supplies of these materials, like this.

I could go on, but just considering this information, which is the true renewable: wind energy or nuclear power?

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.


Here are other materials from this scientist that you might find interesting:

My Substack Commentaries for 2023 (arranged by topic)

Check out the chronological Archives of my entire Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Texas Official Says Biden Admin Green Power Initiative Could Cause ‘Significant’ Environmental Damage

A Republican official in Texas is opposing the Biden administration’s effort to bring offshore wind to the coast of the Lone Star state due in part to concerns that the technology could have negative environmental impacts.

Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham filed comments with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) on Monday expressing her opposition to the agency’s plans to hold a 410,000-acre offshore wind lease sale near Texas in the Gulf of Mexico. Buckingham expressed her worry that offshore wind, a key green technology underpinning the Biden administration’s climate agenda, will cause unnecessary ecological damage while posing other economic and logistical concerns about the plan.

“As of now, I see a number of significant concerns — economic, practical, and environmental — that must be addressed before a prospective wind lessee is permitted to cross state-owned submerged land,” Buckingham wrote in her Monday letter, obtained exclusively by the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Even if a lessee were to actually see a path to eking out a profit, introducing hundreds of wind turbines across 410,060 acres of ecologically-sensitive ocean is reckless and directly contradicts the Biden administration’s recent position when leasing federal land in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas development,” Buckingham wrote, referencing the administration’s legal efforts to gum up a Gulf of Mexico oil lease by imposing protections for the Rice’s whale.

BOEM Auction Comments (Buckingham) by Nick Pope on Scribd

The administration’s concern for the Rice’s whale in that instance was disingenuous, according to Buckingham, because the federal government does not seem interested in thoroughly investigating whether the past several years’ upticks in whale deaths along the east coast are linked to contemporaneous offshore wind development. The Biden administration’s position on any potential link between offshore wind and whale deaths is that there is not yet any acceptable, robust scientific research connecting the two.

In addition to raising concerns about the impacts that offshore wind development may have on whales, Buckingham further expressed similar worries that offshore wind developments could jeopardize migratory birds that transit the area and disturb marine ecosystems that provide many Texans with their livelihoods.

Buckingham also references the fact that BOEM’s recent attempt to sell offshore leases in the Gulf of Mexico flopped, with two of three available parcels — including one proximate to Texas — garnering zero bids from developers.

The American offshore wind industry writ large has struggled over the course of the past calendar year as inflation, high borrowing costs, supply chain problems and logistical issues have troubled developers up and down the east coast. While some analysts expected to see the industry rebound in 2024, the same combination of problems has prompted several more of the cancellations and renegotiation requests that were piling up by the end of last year.

Despite these struggles, the administration is sticking to the spirit of its goal to have offshore wind produce enough electricity to power 10 million homes by 2030. The Department of the Interior (DOI) announced Wednesday that it plans to hold a dozen offshore wind lease sales by 2028, which contrasts with the four sales and bare minimum acreage the agency intends to lease for offshore oil and gas activity over the same time period.

Offshore wind has caused some division within the environmentalist community. Some green organizations downplay concerns about whales and tout the technology as an essential piece of the zero-emissions energy future, while other environmental groups have sued the government and alleged that environmental reviews for greenlit projects were inadequate or otherwise in violation of the law.

BOEM did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Offshore Wind Farms Are Killing Whales ‘In Numbers Never Seen Before,’ Trump Says

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Top Biden Bureaucrat Consulted With Eco-Activists To Justify Infusing Social Justice Into Wind Program

A senior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) official consulted climate activists about finding legal justification for the agency’s push to get developers to invest in “underserved communities,” according to communications obtained by Protect the Public’s Trust.

Marissa Knodel, a senior adviser at BOEM who formerly worked for eco-advocacy group Earthjustice, sought the advice of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Ocean Conservancy, two environmental activist groups, in 2021. Knodel was looking for a legal explanation as to how encouraging offshore wind developers to invest in “underserved communities” aligns with BOEM’s mission, the discovered emails reveal.

Specifically, Knodel wanted to find a legal strategy to make sure that offshore wind bidding credits — which are commitments from developers to do things like support workforce development programs — would support “underserved communities” in ways that align with BOEM’s mandate to pursue “orderly and expeditious” offshore wind development. Functionally, the bidding credits can increase the value of a developers’ bid because the developer commits to engaging in certain activities, according to the Regional Economic Action Coalition, a California-focused economic development and research organization.

The Ocean Conservancy was unable to provide a specific legal roadmap to Knodel, but advised her to proceed carefully so as to not advance offshore oil and gas interests with her actions.

“These records are very revealing about the Biden administration’s grossly disparate treatment of different segments of the energy industry,” Michael Chamberlain, executive director of Protect the Public’s Trust, told the DCNF. “While it appears BOEM was bending over backwards working with special interests to try to tie offshore wind to their environmental justice goals, they were simultaneously twisting themselves in knots looking for ways to prohibit those same rules from benefiting oil and gas producers.”

BOEM previously “asked for feedback on a proposal to award bidding credits to developers that directly invest in underserved community benefits,” Knodel wrote in a message to Ocean Conservancy officials in July 2021. “In addition to learning more about how to identify those communities and what those benefits might be, I am researching how we connect those bidding credits to our [Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)] authority, both the general purpose of the statute and our 43 USC 1337(p)(4) renewable energy factors specifically,” Knodel continued, before asking the Ocean Conservancy officials whether they have conducted similar research on a potential justification and whether they could help her.

“We’ve thought a bit more about the questions you raised concerning bidding credits for investments that benefit underserved communities. I’m not sure there is a clear-cut answer, but, then again, you probably wouldn’t have asked if there were,” the Ocean Conservancy officials wrote back to Knodel on August 3, 2021.

“We’re 100% supportive of the idea of investing in underserved communities. At the same time, it will be important to ensure that in the process of incentivizing those sorts of investments, BOEM doesn’t create unintended consequences for those communities, like meeting fatigue, creating confusion as multiple would be developers propose different plans, or encouraging would be developers to overpromise/over commit (and underperform),” the Ocean Conservancy officials added. “It would also seem wise to ensure that whatever model or interpretation is used doesn’t create unintended momentum toward expanded revenue sharing for offshore oil and gas activities.”

In January 2021, the Biden administration enacted its “Justice40” agenda, which requires that 40% of the benefits of certain types of environmental spending to flow to “disadvantaged communities.” Environmental justice is effectively the combination of environmentalism and social justice ideology, and the concept plays a major role in the Biden administration’s climate agenda.

During the first few days of August 2021, Knodel also corresponded with NRDC’s Valerie Cleland on an email thread with the subject line “question about offshore wind & underserved communities.”

“I am researching how we connect those bidding credits to our OCSLA authority, both the general purpose of the statute and our 43 USC 1337(p)(4) renewable energy factors specifically,” Knodel wrote to Cleland on August 2, 2021. “To justify offering a bidding credit to developers for investments that directly benefit underserved communities, we need to demonstrate that such investments advance offshore wind development (or, in statutory language, the orderly and expeditious development of offshore wind on the OCS). I’m curious whether you or others you know have researched this question, particularly the legal justification?”

“The key question which we would like to have solid evidence for is that investments by developers in benefits for underserved communities advances our mission to develop OCS energy resources (in this case, offshore wind),” Knodel wrote to Cleland later in the exchange.

However, NRDC does not appear to have been able to provide Knodel with a specific legal strategy, either.

In addition to large volumes of Knodel’s emails, Protect the Public’s Trust was also able to obtain copies of her calendar for 2021 and 2022. Knodel appears to have been scheduled for numerous meetings pertaining to environmental justice, Justice40, diversity, equity and addressing the concerns of Native American tribes, including those located in regions like the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains.

Some of the meetings on her schedule included June 2021 meetings titled “discuss EJ workplan and committees” and “D&I learning journey – Unconscious Bias,” as well as a July 2021 “ocean climate meeting convened by GreenLatinos.” August 2021 meetings included one titled “inclusion as a risk management strategy” and “Justice 40: covered programs.”

BOEM, NRDC and the Ocean Conservancy did not respond to requests for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Commercial Fishers Say Biden Admin’s ‘Ocean Justice’ Initiative Totally Ignores Their Concerns

It’s Been A Brutal Year For Offshore Wind — Despite Analysts’ Best Guesses

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

AWED MEDIA BALANCED NEWS: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.

Welcome! We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.

Here is the link for this issue, so please share it on social media.

Checkout the 2023, 2022, 2021 & 2020 archives, plus asterisked items below.

— This Newsletter’s Articles, by Topic —

If You Only Have Time to Read Some Select Articles:

*** Victor Davis Hanson: Gaming The 2024 Campaign

*** The Getting of Donald Trump

*** The Troubling Story of John Eastman and Election Lawfare

*** John Eastman: ‘The Most Secure Election in American History’

*** NPR editor rebukes own outlet’s coverage of Hunter Biden laptop, COVID lab leak and Russiagate

*** The Lasting Effects of COVID on Schooling

*** Decline of the Catholic school system in the U.S. continues, with no end in sight

*** Math Lessons Are Racist, per the Gates Foundation

*** Why Plagiarism Matters

*** Why we should bulldoze the business school

*** Artificial Intelligence to Create Facts, Narratives, and Images to Promote Radical Ideology

*** Inside the Meltdown at the Sierra Club

*** How Nations Slip from Greatness to Obscurity

*** Lindsay: Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, & Maoist Education

*** The road to serfdom is paved with lost perspective

*** Two minutes about Banking

*** Name Your Enemy (China)

*** Short video Dr. Campbell: Outrageous

*** A Coup Without Firing a Shot

*** Replacing coal with wind and solar requires massive storage

*** Offshore Wind and Whales – A collection of articles from fisherynation.com

*** Major NY Offshore Wind Project Cancelled

*** Dominion’s pile driving boat violates the Marine Mammal Protection Act

*** German officials said to have manipulated documents to support nuclear power phase out

*** Expert: EV push is ‘one of the biggest energy policy blunders we’ve ever made’

*** EPA rule against power plants – bad for energy reliability and prices, bad for rule of law

*** Epstein: Reflections on Earth Day, including a discussion with Rick Perry

*** Mandatory Emissions To Achieve Net-Zero Is A Fool’s Game

*** Short video: CO2 and Mortality

*** How Three Alarmist Billionaires Bankrolled The Fake Climate Catastrophe

*** Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than at Any Time in 5,000 Years

*** Climate Change Is Normal and Natural, and Can’t Be Controlled

*** World Economic Forum (WEF) wants “24-hour monitoring” of everyone

*** Experts: 8 bad habits that make you age faster

*** Study: Drinking 100% orange juice is linked to surprising health benefits

*** Report: Vitamin D is Essential for Optimal Health: Are you getting enough?

*** Corporatization of medicine: Are patients and physicians the losers?

Secondary Education Related:

*** Report: The Key to Fixing the US Education System

*** The Lasting Effects of COVID on Schooling

*** Decline of the Catholic school system in the U.S. continues, with no end in sight

*** Math Lessons Are Racist, per the Gates Foundation

*** Report: DEI Hiring in US K-12 Schools

Student suspended for asking whether ‘alien’ on vocabulary list means ‘space aliens’ or ‘illegal aliens’

Thomas Jefferson High School Drops Out of Top Ten Nationwide After Adopting “Equity” Admissions Policy

Higher Education Related:

*** Why Plagiarism Matters

*** Why we should bulldoze the business school

Oh the Trauma, Oh the Discrimination

Restoring Civics in Higher Education

In Praise of Institutional Neutrality in Academia

Artificial Intelligence:

*** Artificial Intelligence to Create Facts, Narratives, and Images to Promote Radical Ideology

Physician Claims ChatGPT Is Programmed To “Reduce Vaccine Hesitancy”

Air Force confirms first successful AI dogfight

Unreliables (General):

*** Replacing coal with wind and solar requires massive storage

The grim cost of firming up solar and wind

Texas Gets a Spring Energy Scare

Wind Energy — Offshore:

*** Offshore Wind and Whales – A collection of articles from fisherynation.com

*** Major NY Offshore Wind Project Cancelled

*** Dominion’s pile driving boat violates the Marine Mammal Protection Act

Tilting at Windmills

Wind Energy off California Coats Faces Fisher Lawsuit and Marine Sanctuary Issues

Wind Energy — Other:

*** Taking the Wind Out of Climate Change (referencing 60± studies)

Nuclear Energy:

*** German officials said to have manipulated documents to support nuclear power phase out

*** Short video: History of the LNT Model and a Path Forward

Fossil Fuel Energy:

*** Epstein: Reflections on Earth Day, including a discussion with Rick Perry

*** Mandatory Emissions To Achieve Net-Zero Is A Fool’s Game

200 Ways President Biden and the Dems Have Made it Harder to Produce Oil & Gas

New Biden Climate Rules Could Shutter Remaining American Coal Plants

Electric Vehicles (EVs):

*** Expert: EV push is ‘one of the biggest energy policy blunders we’ve ever made’

Biden’s EV mandate: a dictatorial attack on the American driver and the US grid

The EV Bubble Bursts

Coming Soon: Mandatory EVs

Ford lost $1.3 billion in a quarter, a loss of $132,000 on every EV soldw

Tesla in turmoil

Misc Energy:

*** EPA rule against power plants – bad for energy reliability and prices, bad for rule of law

Manmade Global Warming — Some Deceptions:

*** Short video: CO2 and Mortality

*** How Three Alarmist Billionaires Bankrolled The Fake Climate Catastrophe

*** Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than at Any Time in 5,000 Years

Study: Reliable Physics Demand Revision of the IPCC Global Warming Potentials

Saving Climate from the Greens

A Realist Climate Agenda

Report: Global hurricane activity not getting worse

Global Warming Inhibits Hurricane Activity

Climate Change And The Law: The Absurdity Escalates

Manmade Global Warming — Misc:

*** Climate Change Is Normal and Natural, and Can’t Be Controlled

Will More CO2 Warm the Atmosphere?

How Climate Change Narrative Is Preventing Africa From Modernizing and Gaining Prosperity

How Many Billions of People Would Die Under Net Zero?

Net Zero? Oops, Never Mind

US Election:

Election-Integrity.info (10 major election reports by our team of experts, plus much more!)

*** John Eastman: ‘The Most Secure Election in American History’

*** Victor Davis Hanson: Gaming The 2024 Campaign

*** The ranked-choice voting fad is finally ending

Video: 8 Steps to Secure the 2024 Election, and 1 Red Flag

Election 2024: Would You Cheat to Win? 28% Say ‘Yes’

Congress Alarmed by Flyers in Mexico Urging Illegal Aliens to Vote Biden

Texas appeals court sides with Sidney Powell, rejecting attorney discipline over her Trump election lawsuits

Mainstream Media: Trump Apocalypse Hysteria is Spiraling into Madness

US Election — State Issues:

Judge rules in favor of Georgia voter citizenship requirements

Misc US Politics:

*** The Getting of Donald Trump

*** The Troubling Story of John Eastman and Election Lawfare

*** NPR editor rebukes own outlet’s coverage of Hunter Biden laptop, COVID lab leak and Russiagate

Biden Title IX Rewrite Obliterates Female Spaces, Free Speech, And Due Process

Societally US:

*** Lindsay: Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, & Maoist Education

*** Inside the Meltdown at the Sierra Club

*** How Nations Slip from Greatness to Obscurity

ESG Puppeteers

Expropriation: The End Game of Anti-Whiteness

US Politics and Socialism:

*** The road to serfdom is paved with lost perspective

*** Two minutes about Banking

*** Name Your Enemy (China)

Life Under A Constitutional Republic vs. Socialism

PragerU video: Would You Rather Be Colonized by Aztecs or Christians?

Globalism:

*** World Economic Forum (WEF) wants “24-hour monitoring” of everyone

WEF Boasts That 98% Of Central Banks Are Adopting CBDCs

Religion Related:

Rise of the Controligarchs: Implications for the Nearness of Christ’s Return

EARTH DAY: Worship The Creator, Not The Creation!

Catholic Charity exposed after bombshell report reveals it promotes abortion

Science:

*** Short video: LNT From a Scientist’s Perspective

The Truth about Flight MH370

Health:

*** Experts: 8 bad habits that make you age faster

*** Study: Drinking 100% orange juice is linked to surprising health benefits

*** Report: Vitamin D is Essential for Optimal Health: Are you getting enough?

*** Corporatization of medicine: Are patients and physicians the losers?

Short video: How every child can thrive by five

Israel/Ukraine:

Pray for the safety of the Israeli people

Latest Developments in Israel: April 28th

Joe Biden Approved Iran’s Assault on Israel ‘Within Certain Limits’

Pray for the safety of the Ukrainian people

A well-rated source to make a Ukraine donation

Latest Developments in Ukraine: April 28th

COVID-19 — Misc:

*** A Coup Without Firing a Shot

*** Short video Dr. Campbell: Outrageous

Nanobots that Release Toxins and Harvest Energy from the Body


Please use social media, etc. to pass on this Newsletter to other open-minded citizens…If you’d like to be added to (or unsubscribe from) the distribution of our popular, free, worldwide Media Balance Newsletter, simply send me an email saying that.


Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g., PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: For past Newsletter issues see the archives from: 2020 & 2021 & 2022 & 2023. To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles over all thirteen plus years of the Newsletter, we’ve put this together — where you can search ALL prior issues, by year. For a background about how the Newsletter is put together, etc., please read this.

Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change. As a parallel effort, we have also put together a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on my website: WiseEnergy.org.

Note 4: I am not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or any of my websites) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical matters.

Copyright © 2024; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see WiseEnergy.org).

Proof Positive: The Globalist Left Aligns With Hamas

The Climate Justice Alliance is in “solidarity” with terrorists’ massacre of Jews on October 7th. 


From an article in the Washington Free Beacon:

In the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7 terror attack against Israel, left-wing nonprofit Climate Justice Alliance expressed “unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian freedom struggle” and blamed the attack on Israeli “settler-colonialism.” Now, the Biden administration is entrusting the group to distribute $50 million in taxpayer funds.

Another quote:

Climate Justice Alliance, a network of nearly 90 left-wing environmental groups from across the country, issued an Oct. 20 statement accusing Biden of using “US taxpayer dollars … to support a policy of genocide.”

“With this newest round of genocidal attacks by Israel on the civilian population … the Israel government has defied international law,” the group said. “President Biden must oppose this.”

Oops…they seem to have forgotten Hamas’ savage raping, mutilating, burning, killing spree on October 7th. Do they believe that was in keeping with international law?

There’s a huge difference between a vicious pogrom purposely targeting civilians, including women and children, and a justifiable military retaliation to take out the terrorist group responsible.

And what, pray tell, does “free Palestine” have to do with “climate justice” as the CJA claims? Maybe just the fact that both are Orwellian euphemisms: “Free Palestine” means wiping Israel off the map while pretending to be standing on the moral high-ground; and “climate justice” is Orwellian-speak for de-industrializing the first-world nations, i.e. the West.

But here’s another question to ponder: Who’s on which side?

Note that the “progressive” Left is rallying around the terrorist group Hamas in the wake of its abominable unprovoked massacre of Israeli civilians. That includes the NWO globalist elites who are behind the Great Reset, the Green New Deal, and Agenda 2030. And of course, the Biden Administration, giving lip service to support for Israel while funding the sponsor of Islamist terrorism, Iran, etc.

In other words, the elites, those arguably psychopathic billionaires and pals planning a tyrannical One World Government, support the Palestinians.

So who are the opponents of the globalist elites in this situation?

Israel and all those who support her.

Read more here.

©2024. Cherie Zaslawsky. All rights reserved.


Visit Cherie Z’s substack here: Cherie Zaslawsky


RELATED ARTICLES:

BREAKING: ICC Threatening to Issue Arrest Warrant for Netanyahu (and Biden does nothing…)

How can ‘the most moral Army in the world’ kill 34,000 people in GAZA?

RELATED VIDEO: Only 68 years left for realization Muslim plan to take over the world.

Top Automaker Takes $1.3 Billion Dollar Bath On Key EV Line

Top American automaker Ford hemorrhaged over a billion dollars on electric vehicles (EV) in the first quarter, leading to massive losses per vehicle.

Ford sold 10,000 vehicles in its EV Model e unit in the first three months of the year, losing $1.3 billion on the line altogether, equating to a loss of $130,000 per vehicle sold, according to data from the company’s first quarter earnings report. Despite the loss on EVs, Ford’s net income was $1.3 billion, selling over a million vehicles with $42.8 billion in revenue in the quarter.

The Biden administration has sought to boost demand and production of EVs as part of the president’s sweeping environmental agenda, offering a $7,500 tax credit for some EVs in an attempt to ease high costs using funds from the $750 billion Inflation Reduction Act. Federal regulators have also put in place tailpipe emission standards for consumers that will effectively require 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after 2032 to be electric or hybrids.

“Ford Model e revenue was down, as wholesales declined and significant industrywide pricing pressure continued to affect electric vehicles currently on the market,” the company’s first quarter report reads. “The segment had an EBIT loss of $1.3 billion, with costs that were flat year-over-year. The company expects EV costs to improve going forward, but be offset by top-line pressure.”

Sales for Ford’s EV line were down 20% compared to last year, and revenue was down 84%. Ford’s combustion engine line, Ford Blue, sold 626,000 vehicles, which is a decline of 11% from last year, with revenue down 13% in that same time frame.

Not all EVs sold by Ford fall under its Model e unit, with commercial fleets being sold under the Ford Pro unit, including an unspecified number of EVs, according to the earnings report. The Ford Pro unit sold 409,000 vehicles, up 21% since last year, with revenue up 36%.

Ford lost $4.7 billion on EVs in 2023, higher than the $4.5 billion loss the company predicted mid-year. Other automakers have seen similar losses on EVs, such as General Motors, which reported a $1.7 billion loss in the fourth quarter of 2023.

EV demand across the whole U.S. economy slowed in the first quarter of 2023, with growth in EV sales decelerating to 2.7% compared to 5% for all vehicles. As a result, EVs’ market share dropped from 7.6% to 7.1%.

Ford did not immediately respond to a request to comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

WILL KESSLER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Boeing Posts Massive Loss Following Slew Of Safety Issues

Biden’s EPA Says Sweeping Power Plant Regs Won’t Harm America’s Grid — Experts Are Saying The Exact Opposite

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Biden Admin Used Border Wall Funds On ‘Environmental Planning’ And Cleanup, Government Watchdog Says

The Biden administration spent taxpayer dollars meant to fund a border wall to pay for “environmental planning,” according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

At the request of Republican Reps. Jack Bergman of Michigan and Jodey Arrington of Texas, the GAO investigated whether the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) broke the law when it effectively blocked the use of taxpayer dollars to build a wall along the southern border. While GAO’s final report clears the DHS of breaking the law, it confirmed that DHS used congressionally-appropriated funds meant for the wall to pay for “environmental planning” and efforts “to remediate or mitigate environmental damage from past border wall construction.”

Republicans on the House Budget Committee, including Bergman and Arrington, characterized the GAO’s finding as confirmation that the Biden administration has spent taxpayer funds meant to enhance border security to further its environmental agenda.

Congress previously approved funds for DHS to build a border barrier between fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2021, but President Joe Biden and his appointees quickly instituted a new policy whereby “no more American taxpayer dollars (would) be diverted to construct a border wall” upon entering office in 2021. Cabinet secretaries, including DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, were ordered to work together to produce plans for how to shift funds away from border wall construction.

In 2021, DHS released a report detailing how it would look to redirect funds meant for the wall to instead pay for things like “environmental planning,” reviewing upcoming eminent domain actions and considering environmental remediation efforts in areas that had been the site of previous construction, according to GAO’s report. The agency then changed its plans in July 2022, applying an amendment that made environmental remediation a top priority for the agency’s expenditure of the funds appropriated for fiscal years 2018-2021.

The Biden administration has made great efforts to roll back or replace many of the immigration and border policies of former President Donald Trump, but the situation at the border has deteriorated massively since 2021. There have been nearly 8 million land encounters at the southwest border since October 2021, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Congressional Budget Office reported in January that more than 3.3 million people came to the U.S. illegally, were released into the country via parole or overstayed their permission to remain in the country in fiscal year 2023 alone.

The situation at the border set the stage for congressional Republicans to attempt to impeach Mayorkas earlier this spring. The House voted to impeach Mayorkas in February, but the Senate quickly dismissed an impeachment trial along partisan lines earlier in April.

Neither the White House nor the DHS responded immediately to requests for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Admin Spending Big To Make Ports Of Entry Green While Trying To Yank Border Wall Funds

Texas Border Operation Captures Half a Million Illegal Immigrants, Thousands of Felons

Terrorists Welcome: Chronic Counterterrorism Lapses at the Border Demand Investigation and Congressional Intervention

Biden Admin Mulling Plan To Give Legal Status To Illegal Alien Spouses

RELATED VIDEO: What “Allahu Akbar” Really Means

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Biden Admin Weighs California’s Latest Green Gambit That Could Set Off Chain Reaction Of Economic Pain

The Biden administration could allow California to implement a rule designed to push green locomotives, but a growing list of stakeholders are warning that the regulation would severely impact the state’s economy and the national rail industry.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could soon determine whether it will allow the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to move forward with a state regulation that would ban the use of locomotives that are more than 23 years past their manufacturing date unless they run using zero-emissions technology, according to Progressive Railroading.

The rule could disrupt supply chains and saddle the state’s railway industry with huge new costs that would flow to consumers, with the effects of the rule potentially spilling out in other parts of the country, according to numerous trade groups, lawmakers and policy experts who believe the Biden administration should reject CARB’s request.

CARB passed the locomotive rule in April 2023, but the agency must first receive the EPA’s permission before it enacts a regulation that goes above and beyond federal rules, according to the EPA’s Federal Register entry on the request. Monday was the last day to file comments with the EPA about the matter, signaling that a final determination could be coming soon.

“When you look at regulations in California, they’re being promulgated by people who don’t really understand the ramifications of what they’re requiring,” Edward Ring, a veteran of the railroad industry who is now the director of water and energy policy for the California Policy Center, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “CARB is asking for something — zero-emissions locomotives — that do not yet exist. And what’s going to happen is it’s going to dramatically raise the cost of shipping anywhere in California, and that’s going to have a ripple effect across the country. This is another example of California’s environmentalist regulations raising the cost of living.”

The rule for locomotives would take effect in 2030, assuming EPA allows CARB to proceed. Some of the rule’s critics say that timeline is too tight to meet given the current lack of dependable, affordable zero-emissions technology available for locomotives on the market.

Moreover, the rule also would require locomotive operators to pay into their own trust accounts to fund the acquisition of zero-emissions locomotives and related infrastructure, according to CARB. The payment structure requires operators to contribute more into the accounts for operating dirtier locomotives than they have to put up for running cleaner ones.

Because many other states adhere to CARB guidelines, the EPA’s approval could set off a chain reaction expanding the impact of the rule well beyond California’s borders, according to Ted Greener, vice president of public affairs for the Association of American Railroads (AAR).

“If EPA approves the waiver the rule becomes a national matter on the first day. Roughly 65% of the locomotive fleet goes in and out of California and almost all of the freight rail traffic that moves in the state of California traverses state lines,” Ted Greener, vice president of public affairs for the Association of American Railroads (AAR), told the DCNF. “Moreover, EPA granting the waiver enables other states to opt-in and replicate the regulation in full – including the phase out dates and the spending accounts. Such a balkanized system would be unspeakably costly, but also disruptive to the flow of goods.”

A “large number” of locomotives would be impacted by the rule, Greener told the DCNF. Typically, locomotives have a lifespan ranging from 30 to 50 years, and they are regularly upgraded or otherwise modified to be more fuel-efficient, Greener added.

Other rail industry interest groups, such as the American Short Line and Railroad Association (ASLRRA), have also opposed the rule.

“While the spirit behind this rule is consistent with short lines’ environmental commitment, the rule itself is impractical, unworkable, and simply not feasible for most short lines,” Chuck Baker, president of ASLRRA, said of CARB’s rule in May 2023. “In addition, this rulemaking does not acknowledge the impact of the elimination of some short line rail service to Californians … Short lines would not in fact be able to pass on these costs to their customers and some of them would be eliminated by this rule.”

For its part, CARB downplays most of these criticisms and concerns.

“Despite the availability of cleaner options, railroad companies have failed to make investments to replace their outdated, dirty locomotives that contribute to the state’s air quality problems and endanger the lives and health of Californians,” a CARB spokesperson told the DCNF. “Passenger vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, ocean-going vessels, heavy off-road equipment, small off-road engines used in landscaping, among other emissions sectors are all doing their part. It’s time for the rail industry to join and work with us to become part of the solution rather than focusing their efforts on litigation and PR campaigns.”

“In addition, under CARB’s Locomotive Regulation, railroads need not purchase new locomotives, but instead have many options available to them, including the use of zero-emission tender cars, rail electrification, or retrofitting of their existing locomotive fleet to ensure zero-emission operation while operating within California,” the spokesperson continued.

Labor unions, including the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, have filed comments with EPA making their opposition to CARB’s rule clear.

Moreover, a diverse coalition of more than 60 trade groups — including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Beer Institute and the Aluminum Association — wrote a letter Friday to Karl Simon, the director of EPA’s Transportation and Climate Division, expressing significant concerns with the rule should CARB be allowed to proceed.

“This regulation from CARB has the potential to create significant disruptions in the supply chain for all sectors of the U.S. economy, especially manufacturers and shippers who rely on consistent, reliable rail service,” the letter reads. “This rule could lead to delays for businesses and increased costs for both shippers and consumers that could ultimately lead to a massive supply chain crisis. If railroads are forced to spend large amounts of money to ensure compliance with this rule, those costs will be passed along the entire supply chain and could inhibit rail service at facilities across the country – not just in California.”

“The issue is that no viable technology exists today to move freight beyond yards on a zero-emissions basis,” the letter continues. “Despite aggressive [research and development] and innovation in the rail sector and significant private investments, the technologies to achieve this rule simply do not exist at this point.”

Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and 11 Republican Senators also wrote their own letter expressing concern about the CARB rule to EPA Administrator Michael Reagan on April 16. In addition to raising questions about the legality of CARB’s rule, the lawmakers urged the EPA to “carefully consider the environmental, supply chain, and modal shift implications that EPA approving CARB’s waiver request would have.”

The EPA did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

California’s High-Speed Rail Isn’t Built, But It Is Putting Money In Unions’ Coffers

What Has California’s War On Fossil Fuels Actually Accomplished?

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.