by peter5427

As if to illustrate the stupidity behind this entire line of advocacy, the SIERRA CLUB has been running ads on the RUSH LIMBAUGH radio program in support of this bill, on the basis that solar “energy” is the single biggest provider of energy jobs in the State, that all energy currently used in NV is from other States, and that Nevadans should be buying energy from in-state producers.

Whenever an argument starts out with demonstrably false premises, there is no need to pay any more attention. However, this is an issue that is important enough because a lot of  “establishment” people are pushing it.

Also on the radio recently, a guest explained the fallacy of relying on solar and wind generators, and the inevitable requirement for a reliable (fossil-fuel based) back up system capable of taking up 100% of the load at the times when the “green” generators are not producing anything. The consequence of that inevitable requirement is that with “green” energy you end up with a redundant system — that means, twice the investment — and by switching the back-up system on and and off you will also be wearing it out much faster and therefore you’ll have to replace it more often than if you just left it running. That is, your required investment is more than twice what it should be a would be if you did not “go green.” This inescapable fact, this inconvenient truth, makes a joke of the requirement in this bill, calling for 50% of the energy used in NV to come from “green” sources by 2030 and 80% by 2040.

As a physicist, I am also deeply irritated by the ignorance confessed in the usage, “renewable energy.” Energy is used, converted to other forms, changed from humanly useful to humanly un-useful forms, but never “renewed.” There is a huge and virtually unlimited supply from the Sun, there is a huge and huge and virtually unlimited supply from fossil fuels, and a huge and huge and virtually unlimited supply from nuclear fuels, but they are all finite and none are “renewable.”

But the stupidity of the very concept of “green” energy has been starkly and rudely illustrated this year simply by the weather.

Here in the desert, just off the eastern slopes of the Sierras, so far this year — in fact, since last Fall — you would not need both hands to count the number of full sunny days. You know, the days when solar panels would actually be producing useful amounts of electric power.

And while the practically permanent state of full or partial overcast is due to the back-to-normal succession of storms that manage to spill over the mountains, the number of days with high enough winds is equally dismally few.  You know, the days when windmills would actually be producing useful amounts of electric power.

There is also the issue of these sources being capable of producing all the energy we are using now, let alone meet future needs. All the studies I found over the past 4-5 decades point to the fact that sufficient energy from the Sun simply does not reach the Earth in sufficient amount or density, no matter how much of the land and sea we would cover with solar panels.

So much for solar panels or windmills or both as a reliable and sufficient source of energy.

Were we to rely entirely on either or both, we’d be living in darkness, eating half rotten food for lack of refrigeration. Forget taking showers, unless you like to bathe in ice water — on days when the pumps may be working. And forget going to work — if in fact you can manage to do any work without a source of power — or getting home the same day, if you drive a “green” car…

What that means is that you can’t “go green” without back-up from fossil or nuclear power capable of providing 100% of peak energy requirements, whether residential, industrial or essential services such as hospitals. You know; reliable, constant and cheap sources of power available wherever and whenever you need it. (Except in a few locations, hydro or geothermal are not sufficient to carry the total load.)


(1) the manufacture of solar panels and windmills is just as damaging as any other semiconductor or electro-mechanical device (which is one reason why they are made in foreign countries with lax or nonexistent environmental protection laws);

(2) the operation of both is deadly especially to birds, either fried by the sunlight focused on the solar panels or hacked to death by the windmill blades. Not a peep of protest out of the enviro-nazis, on either count; and

(3), by the way, CO2 is not a pollutant; it is essential to plant life. Other pollutants such as soot can be most efficiently scrubbed at the source; and the more concentrated the source (the bigger the power plant), the easier and the more efficient and cost-effective the scrubber.

Add to that the fact that “green” energy is economically so un-viable that it needs serious initial and continuing subsidies from taxpayers, and you have to ask, why even bother with it? The best you can say for it is that it’s a scheme to benefit cronies of certain politicians. They get rich, while the rest of us pay more and more for less and less. Oh, they can use deceptive accounting to make the RATE you pay look good, but you’ll stay end up paying the difference in higher TAXES.