Save the Environment with Fracking (and Economic Advancement)

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

I’ve been meaning to note this American Interest post, providing more evidence that the way forward — even if climate change alarmists have a point — is not to slow the economy, but to let it loose to advance and bring technology with it:

… it was coal’s sharp decline—a drop of 18 percent in the first half of this year as compared to 2015—that really moved the needle on America’s energy emissions. And let’s not forget that Old King Coal isn’t being dethroned by onerous regulations, but rather by market forces. More specifically, coal’s demise has been precipitated by the sudden rise in domestic natural gas production that has led to an oversupply (and, as a result bargain prices). This, of course, comes to us courtesy of the great shale revolution.

Anybody who insists that the environment’s salvation must come through heavy public subsidies of a few favored technologies and restrictions of everything else, along with increasingly centralized power to restrict people’s behavior, isn’t in it for the environment, but for power and, very likely, for a cut of the subsidized profits from those favored technologies.

Over the past few decades, multiple movies and TV shows have used plot devices in which the money men invested in old energy sources conspired to undermine fashionable technologies like wind and solar.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen show that portrayed “renewable” industrialists conspiring to prevent fossil fuels from becoming less of an environmental problem of themselves.

Ask yourself this: How would environmentalists and progressives respond if some technological innovation made coal less carbon-intensive than wind and solar and still less expensive?  Would they shift their support to that new technology or continue insisting that “renewables” were the only hope for humanity?

For most, I suspect, the question is rhetorical, because they’re either on the take or in a cult.



  • Guest

    Deepwater Wind has used RI as a guinea pig to test its ability to build 20th Century style offshore wind turbines that will cost the state ratepayers. You will see state and municipalities collectively raise taxes $250,000.00 to pay the offset in higher electric rates first year of operation and 3.5% every year thereafter. Business will raise price of goods and services and every National Grid ratepayer will pay higher electric rates. Thankyou Deepwater Wind for raising the cost of living in already struggling RI!

    European companies are trying to come into my state with 22nd Century design offshore wind turbines but they are asking 10 cents/kWh 20 yr. fixed rate for electricity produced. Currently we pay 27.45 cents/kWh which is
    highest in nation.

    Wind and solar renewable energy is constantly fluctuating and intermittent not baseline power steady constant like generator produced power so you cannot fully depend on wind and solar power without some type of costly electrical smoothing and backup power resources to fill in the fluctuations.

    There are currently “renewable energy solutions” that provide 100% baseline generator stable electrical power 24/7-365-days a year that is sustainable or self-sustainable in the form of geothermal, ocean wave energy conversion (above or below sea level) and ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) that has been constructed for proof of theory and concept, ramped up to full commercial use or now being ramped up for commercial use.

    Most all renewable energy systems use plenty of steel in their systems and laminates which are carbon based but once built these above named
    renewable power systems do not require carbon based fuels which are subject to global price swings and provide the same electric steady power as a gas, imported oil, or nuclear turbine generator electric power plant with no environmental emissions or residual trash. This is far more superior to wind or solar power.

Quantcast