Beware: 100% green energy can destroy the planet

TThe untold story of “green energy” is that it cannot be scaled up to provide anywhere near as far as energy to replace fossil fuels. (Unless we go back to the Stone Ages, which some advocates of “degrowth” prefer.)

Currently, the United States gets 70% of its energy from fossil fuels. Getting to zero over the next 20 years would be economically disastrous and cost tens of millions of jobs. With gas prices nearly double theirs since Trump left office and inflation rising from 1.5% to 8% in just 15 months, we’re already seeing the economic damage from the green energy crusader.

But we also have to ask whether green energy is good for the environment. Some environmentalists point to an unnoticed study by the World Bank showing that a transition toward 100% solar, wind, and electricity would be “as devastating to the planet as fossil fuels.” This was exactly the conclusion of a story in Foreign Policy A magazine, hardly a right-wing print.

according to Foreign Policy Analysis, and the transition to a “zero carbon” energy future “requires huge amounts of energy, not to mention the extraction of minerals and metals at significant environmental and social costs.”

Here are some numbers that may require going to batteries, solar and wind energy

  • Thirty-four million metric tons of copper,
  • Forty million tons of lead,
  • fifty million tons of zinc,
  • One hundred and sixty-two million tons of aluminum,
  • Four separator eight billion tons of iron.

Tens of millions of windmills, solar panels, and electric batteries for cars and trucks aren’t completely biodegradable. Therefore, we will have the most prominent energy cemetery with toxic pollutants that will be 100 times larger than any nuclear waste warehouse. However, the left is worried about plastic straws!

I all work to mine America’s abundant natural resources of copper, lead, magnesium, and precious metals. But, ironically, it’s the Greens who want to close the mines, which is like saying you want food, but you’re against farming. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Next, land space is needed for windmills and solar panels. Bloomberg Reports suggest that reaching zero carbon by 2050 will require a land area equal to one-fifth of South Dakota “to develop enough clean energy to power all electric cars, factories, and more.”

In other words, liberals are demanding large-scale industrialization of America’s wilderness and landscape.

Now, even many of the country’s most liberal areas are screaming “no” to green energy in their own backyard. Vermonters revolt against the ugly solar panels that spoil their views. according to Bennington Banner“Vermont’s utility regulator denied permits for two proposed 2-megawatt solar farms in Bennington, citing aesthetic concerns and existing land conservation measures in the city plan.”

Meanwhile, a town in Wisconsin is suing state regulators to “stop building” what will be the “largest solar project in the state,” according to the Wisconsin Magazine.

Even blue-eyed Massachusetts are fighting green energy projects. Offshore wind farms off the coast of Cape Cod, where per capita incomes are nearly the highest in the country, lag because they don’t want their ocean views spoiled by their beach villas.

In other words, true nature lovers are finally beginning to awaken the fact that the energy of the wind and the sun is not green at all. A nuclear plant occupies at most one square mile of Earth. Wind and solar farms require hundreds of thousands of acres. So, to provide enough electrical power to keep Manhattan lit at night, it would require paving nearly the entire state of Connecticut with windmills and solar farms.

The audience began to wonder: How is any of this green? The Green New Deal strategy is particularly meaningless given that by increasing our use of reliable natural gas and clean burning, we are lowering energy prices and lowering carbon emissions. Add nuclear power to the mix, and we won’t need to start building wind and solar farms in our forests, deserts, and national parks.

.