Postcards from the florida republic
An independent and profitable state of mind.
Who in the hell goes to college and says, “You know what?
I want to be a carbon bureaucrat when I grow up.
I want to make unscientific recommendations… that no logical engineer would take seriously…
I want to destroy economies in the process… for fairness…”
It turns out, Ivy League schools pump out lots of these thinkers…
Take the latest story that displays the mainstream press's lack of basic science knowledge.
The Environmental Protection Agency is working on a new rule limiting CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired (coal and natural gas) power plants.
Did I say limiting? I meant creating an excuse to shut them down in the next few years.
The new rules state that any coal- and gas-fired plants that want to remain open must reduce their emissions output by 90% within ten years.
Or they can switch to alternative forms of energy production.
This is mathematically, scientifically, and geographically impossible. The result – to anyone with a basic understanding of how the energy grid works – knows what the result will be.
Trade groups have already said this is based on unproven technology being available in the years ahead. But that’s how Washington works. The government will force-feed and subsidize bad energy ideas and waste untold taxpayer money.
Writes Goldman Sachs analyst Jeff Currie: “At the end of , overall fossil fuels represented 81% of energy
consumption. Ten years ago, they were at 82%. $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuels from 82% to 81% of the overall energy consumption."
It’s incredible. And the stories of failed investments (sorry, grift) continue to pile up.
Proterra is an electric bus company in which Secretary of Energy Jen Granholm owned stock. She made much money when the government provided massive subsidies and sold the stock.
It went bankrupt the other day.
Now, imagine that failure… on a much bigger scale.
Trillions more… Maybe even another $8 trillion to $10 trillion this decade.
And it’s all utterly ignorant of understanding baseload energy. Does a single person at the EPA understand how baseload energy and mass capacity/scale work in electricity?
As I’ve noted, natural gas produces the single greatest bang for the buck and is 50% cleaner than coal.
Geographically, you only need about six-square city blocks to produce 1,000 MW of power and heat 800,000 homes.
With solar, you need a land mass about the size of Manhattan Island to generate the same amount of power. With wind, you need a land mass about the size of ALL of New York City.
In addition, we need to increase the amount of copper by a factor of FOUR in the next decade to meet these Zero-Emission goals. We need 10x the lithium, 10x the cobalt, and 16x the graphite. That’s just four of the 16 metals we need to increase by a factor of 4 or more… we’ve never doubled the capacity of any industrial metal in a decade at any point in history.
Even if we wanted to drill… we couldn’t.
This same government won’t allow U.S. mining to operate and get these materials, meaning we must rely on China and other nations. It’s almost… like some legal groups suing and settling with the government, and certain people in charge might be funded by other countries… no?
These types of rulings could ultimately lead to a Constitutional Convention. Since 1993, the EPA has been on the warpath – carving into the collective productivity of the nation and targeting our energy sources.
It makes us much more reliant on other nations…
But more important – it makes us a less serious nation.
A country that isn’t energy secure… isn’t a serious nation.
Don’t be shocked if Texas decides to keep its energy grid utterly independent of the other two grids in the U.S. Who could blame them? It’s hot there. They need air conditioning.
There is a crisis brewing. It’s not here yet but it will be ugly, short, and brute. I wouldn’t want to live near a major city when the grid goes down.
By then, the media will say, “Blackouts are good for you.” Oh wait… they already are.
These people are mad scientists… and we are now their subjects.
Since I rarely drive, travel very little, and work remotely, I should reward myself with a steak and a higher carbon footprint this weekend. Maybe the next six weeks…
Good riddance to these people.
What are your thoughts? Please leave them in the comments below…
About the Author
Garrett Baldwin is a globally recognized research economist, financial writer, consultant, and political risk analyst with decades of trading experience and degrees in economics, cybersecurity, and business from Johns Hopkins, Purdue, Indiana University, and Northwestern.