“Getting wind projects built is getting a lot harder. The low-hanging fruit, the easier access places are gone.” (Sandhya Ganapathy, EDP Renewables North America, quoted below)

The New York Times article, “As Solar Power Surges, U.S. Wind Is in Trouble” (June 4, 2024), discussed the problems of wind problems, such as site depletion. But the article has nary a quotation, much less mention, from the legion of critics of the aged, doomed technology for economical, reliable grid power.

In order of appearance, the seven chosen by authors Brad Plumer and Nadja Popovich were:

Trevor Houser, Rhodium Group; Sandhya Ganapathy, EDP Renewables North America; Matthew Eisenson, Columbia University; Ben Haley, Evolved Energy Research; Michael Thomas, energy writer; John Hensley, American Clean Power Association; Ryan Jones, Evolved Energy Research.

Where were the real critics on industrial wind’s cost, aesthetics, health, and ecological issues?…

“These aforementioned groups and individuals are standing tall against the Climate Industrial Complex and Big Government Wind, Big Governmental Solar, Big Government Batteries, and the I-want-to-control-your-energy-life elitists. The real environmentalists speak from the grassroots, not from Washington, D.C.”

The article by Dave Anderson for the Energy and Policy Institute, (EPI), “Blocking Renewable Energy Is a Top State Legislative Priority for Network of Pro-Fossil Fuels Think Tanks,” lists the names of many organizations and individuals who should be applauded for their efforts to spare the living, green space from industrialization and energy sprawl.  

Dense energy is the most environmental, as pointed out by the late Peter Huber in Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists (New York: Basic Books, 1999):

The greenest fuels are the ones that contain the most energy per pound of material that must be mined, trucked, pumped, piped, and burnt.

“Myth One: There is a fossil fuel funded effort to stop clean energy”. Fact: there IS a lot of fossil fuel money in the renewable energy space. But 100% of it goes to the PROPONENTS of renewable energy like the Sierra Club and Michigan Conservative Energy Forum. And the vast majority of renewable energy developers in Michigan are fossil fuel entities themselves.

How should government-enabled projects that deprecate the environment be handled by local opponents? This is a debate with two sides. Michael Giberson argues that private property rights trumps the taxpayer in such cases. I argue that government intervention to block government intervention regarding projects on private land is justified. (Debate here.)

Ideally, this controversy would be bypassed by a separation of government and energy. And it should be.…

“If local government stops destructive intervention emanating from above, so be it. Free-market advocates have noted the advantages of local, decentralized government to this end.”

“Are you just interested in private property rights to help Energy Leviathan? Does your standard also oppose mandatory open access, gas-appliance bans, and other violations of liberty in the name of climate alarmism/forced energy transformation?”

Should neighbors and local government work to nix government-enabled projects on private land, particularly a project that harms the locals as taxpayers and ratepayers; and harms the neighbors with lower property values and nuisances. Giberson says: No matter; private property rights shield all. I say: citizens and neighbors and local government have every right to try to stop Energy Leviathan.

———————–

———————–

Michael Giberson and I have debated the issue in Round One.…