The matter of renewable “energy” sources is certain to be part of Paris summit negotiations, since they are an essential part of the goal of lowering carbon emissions. Ahead of the Paris meeting, one British Labor Party politician argued for a “zero” emissions target, rather than already discussed severe 80 percent cuts.
However, the proponents of such cuts rarely acknowledge they are an unrealistic, maybe even impossible goal. And the liberal news media refuse to expose the truth. In contrast to the news coverage of fossil fuels and nuclear power, reporting on “renewable” sources like wind and solar power is often positive.
In the case of wind power, CBS failed to challenge a wind proponent in a June 2015 interview when he called the energy source “one of the cheapest forms of new energy” (wind energy is subsidized 52 times more than coal or natural gas).
CBS also uncritically touted a prototype ocean wind turbine that, at full size, would be as tall as the Washington Monument. ABC’s Sam Champion called personal wind turbines “gorgeous” in a “Just One Thing” segment in 2010.
Environmentalists claim to support wind energy and say more power from wind is essential to leave fossil fuels behind. But that green support only lasts until a turbine takes out its first golden eagle. In recent years, many wind power projects have been put on hold as greens fight with each other.
The Hill reported in 2013 that conservation groups were fighting the Obama administration over permitting wind farms. “Existing permits allow green energy companies to put up wind farms as long as the Fish and Wildlife Service declares they use ‘advanced conservation practices’ to protect birds. The Obama administration is considering a rule that would extend the permits from five to 30 years,” The Hill said.
That didn’t sit well with “wildlife” groups who were lobbying against that extension, while “green” groups were pushing for it.
In Maryland, then Gov. Martin O’Malley, D, refused to allow 100 turbines to be built in Maryland State Forests in 2008, according to the Baltimore Sun.
In 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and Sierra Club jointly sued the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management over a 100-turbine wind farm called the North Sky River project because they claimed it threatened California condors and golden eagles.
Wildlife groups don’t just try to stop wind farms because of birds, activists have also fought over bats and backyard views.
In the heart of coal country, windmills were being assembled in West Virginia in 2009 to harness Appalachian wind. A retiree who was a “caving fanatic” sued against the project using the Endangered Species Act claiming the Indiana bat will be at risk, The Washington Post reported.
"I think if the turbines kill one Indiana bat, that ought to end it," he said. "That ought to shut it down." retiree David Cowan insisted.
Then there was the protracted battle over Cape Wind in Nantucket Sound. Initial planning began 14 years ago, in 2001, and the wind farm still hasn’t been built due to legal battles and opposition from people like RFK, Jr.
The New York Times reported on Jan. 7, 2015, the project faced another “setback.” This time, “NStar and National Grid, the two largest utilities in Massachusetts, which had agreed to buy three-fourths of the wind farm’s power” announced they would cancel their contracts “because Cape Wind had failed to meet a Dec. 31, deadline to complete financing and begin construction.”
The Times noted the project has “divided politicians and environmentalists” throughout its “tortured history.”
"It would be a major renewable project in New England," Mark Rodgers of Cape Wind Associates told ABC. "It would put the region toward the top of the list in the entire country as getting most of its power from a non-polluting renewable resource."
Sierra Club of Massachusetts, Greenpeace, NRDC have expressed support for the project, but it has also faced environmental opposition from groups that included The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.
But even if the left could unite in support of wind energy and projects could move forward, wind power has other problems even harder to overcome including the natural limitation that the wind doesn’t blow all the time or everywhere. It is limited by nature.
Institute for Energy Research’s Chris Warren told MRC Business “Wind and solar and other renewables are intermittent and unreliable energy sources. We can’t count on them to run on demand like we can a coal or nuclear plant.”
Because it can’t supply constant energy, wind farms have to be backfilled by a constant power source, such as coal or natural gas so that consumers’ don’t face brownouts or blackouts.
It’s also far more expensive than coal or natural gas, but the cost is masked by “massive federal subsidies,” Warren explained. He said wind power gets 52 times more subsidies than coal or natural gas.
Solar Takes Heat from Greens Too
Solar is also an intrinsic part of all environmentalist calls for renewable energy, although it is expensive and highly subsidized. One UC-Berkeley study found that four federal tax credits for “clean energy” which included credits for solar panels cost more than $18 billion since 2006.
But even the environmentalists who claim to support solar, will only support small solar (such as rooftop solar) and oppose large-scale solar farms that would be the only way to produce the massive quantities of energy needed to reach their own renewable goals.
As The New York Times put it on Sept. 23, 2008, “WHAT’S not to like about solar power? Sunlight is clean, quiet and abundant. If enough of it were harnessed and turned into electricity, it could be the solution to the energy crisis.”
The Times reporter was surprised to discover a solar opposition movement led by none other than environmentalists. In the prime solar farm region of Southern California, the Times found staunch opposition. The solar farms were being built because of a California law requiring 20 percent renewable energy by 2010.
Other “purists” opposed solar farms saying they would mar desert landscapes, while some complained about the threat to wildlife.
Environmentalists criticized federal approval for two solar plants in 2014, because they could threaten desert tortoises, Fox News reported. And in August 2014, CBS This Morning reported the “new controversy” about a solar farm saying “federal wildlife officials want to pause their expansion until they get a handle on the growing number of bird deaths.” With heat more than 900 degrees, birds attempting to flyover were catching on fire, crashing and dying.
Reuters exposed “Green vs. Green” feuding in 2011, while Human Events reported environmentalists’ opposition to Obama’s solar plan in 2012.
“Massive solar power plants pose irreversible, long-term, cumulative ecosystem and species level threats to fragile desert and grassland biomes,” an environmental coalition including Western Lands Project, Basin and Range Watch, and Solar Done Right said. Those groups were protesting Obama’s plan.
In 2015, the Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club expressed outrage over the site of Apple’s $850-million solar farm, CNBC reported.
In spite of some the lofty goals set for solar power by Greenpeace and others, it also isn’t always as successful as they have portrayed it to be.
Proponents of solar have touted Germany as a huge renewable energy success, but Alex Epstein brought those claims back down to earth in his book saying, “solar produces very little in the winter months, when Germany most needs energy.” While proponents praise the fact that “at any given moment solar can generate 50 percent of the electricity being used,” Epstein noted the flip side: “It can also generate 0 percent.”
He also pointed out that the “reliable” source making up for the intermittency of solar and wind power in Germany was coal, and its use actually increased. And storage capacity for both power sources remains a “missing link” according to Scientific American. “Without a way to save electricity and heat for later use, intermittent renewable energy will struggle to close price and performance differences with fossil fuels,” the magazine said in February 2015.
Germany has also had to raise electricity prices dramatically. Hundreds of thousands couldn’t afford the rate hikes, according to Der Spiegel.
Frankly, We Don’t Want a Dam
Hydroelectric power is a renewable energy source according to the EIA, although it is certainly limited by availability of rivers and streams. The EIA estimated that in 2014 it provided 2.51 percent of all American energy. A small amount, but still more than seven times as much as solar and photovoltaic energy did that year.
The liberal news media rarely cover hydroelectric power, which meant they rarely exposed the hypocrisy of environmentalists’ opposition to hydro. Some environmentalists even crusade for dam removals across the country.
Groups like American Rivers, Environmental Defense, Earthjustice, Sierra Club and the founder of outdoor company Patagonia have spent years working against dams and hydroelectric power. American Rivers considers it a triumph that 1,206 dams were removed from 1912 through 2014.
Patagonia founder and CEO Yvon Chouinard served as executive producer for the 2014 anti-dams documentary, DamNation. On May 7, 2014, The New York Times published his op-ed calling for tearing down “deadbeat” dams.
“Put simply, many dams have high environmental costs that outweigh their value. Removing them is the only sensible answer. And taking them down can often make economic sense as well. The River Alliance of Wisconsin estimates that removing dams in that state is three to five times less expensive than repairing them,” Chouinard claimed in that op-ed.
He also expressed disappointment over an Energy Department report about “potential to develop new ‘sustainable’ hydroelectric dams on rivers and streams across the country” and Obama’s promotion of “small hydro projects.”
Far-left media outlet Alternet actually claimed in 2007 that “Hydropower Doesn’t Count as Clean Energy.”
Although DamNation included a few critics who complained about job and power losses resulting from dam removals the focus was on extreme environmentalists and the goal to turn people against dams and hydroelectric power by calling for a return to their “natural state.”
It sympathetically portrayed Earth First! environmental activist Mikal Jakubal who used to vandalize dams in protest. Others in the film complained about needing to restore rivers in order to leave the fish “the hell alone.” That view contradicted another argument made in the film that dams should be removed so that rivers resume activity in order to allow Native Americans to resume their traditional lives, including salmon fishing.
At least DamNation was honest about one thing. Rejecting dams and hydroelectric power does mean less energy to use.
“Charles Lindbergh said something pretty amazing. He said if I had to choose between birds and airplanes I’d choose birds. To paraphrase. If I had to choose between electricity and fish. I’d choose fish,” Restoration Biologist Nate Gray said in DamNation. Gray works for the Maine Department of Marine Resources.
But not everyone shares Gray’s extreme opinion and he certainly wouldn’t be the only person affected if his view prevails.
In 2014 alone, 72 dams were torn down according to National Geographic. Hydropower dams in Maine, Oregon, Georgia, Florida and other places have been removed. In 2007, the U.S. Interior Department told PacificCorp it must spend millions to build fish ladders for its Klamath River dams or tear them down and eliminate power for 70,000 people. The O’Shaughnessy Dam above the Hetchy Hetchy Valley helps power San Francisco, but it has been targeted by environmentalists.
Note: This is part three of a four-part series.
Part One: Powerless: Left and Media Vilify 90 Percent of Energy Supply
Part Two: Powerless: Unreliable Energy Costs Lives, Steady Sources Improve Life
