“An ‘infant industry’ wind power is not.” (Bradley, below)

“At congressional hearings in 1951 to provide increased wind-power funding … Putnam’s blade failure … played right into the hands of those committed to other forms of electrical production: fossil, atomic or solar.” (Wired, below)

The quest to make electricity from wind attracted entrepreneurs well before government mandates and subsidies got involved in the 1970s. As grid power, wind turbines were concept-proven in the 1880s (as were solar panels).

The article below in Wired (October 19, 2009), “Oct. 19, 1941: Electric Turbines Get First Wind was published with the subtitle: “The giant turbine in Vermont was the first wind machine to feed the electrical grid. And then, disaster struck.”

The description below pertains to the 1.25 MW Grandpa’s Knob wind turbine, which during World War II distributed electricity to Central Vermont Public Service Corporation.…

“Labeling carbon dioxide ‘carbon’ is as foolish as calling salt ‘chlorine.’ Carbon and carbon dioxide (CO2) are completely different substances…. Suppose we start calling CO2 ‘carbon dioxide’ and quit referring to it as a pollutant?”

Political and business leaders, educators, and the news media endlessly talk about “carbon.” Newscasters repeatedly warn about “carbon emissions” and “carbon pollution.” States and provinces announce “zero carbon” goals. The United Nations and environmental groups push for a “low-carbon” and a “carbon-neutral” society. But instead, they should all be talking about “carbon dioxide,” not carbon.

Labeling carbon dioxide “carbon” is as foolish as calling salt “chlorine.” Carbon and carbon dioxide (CO2) are completely different substances. The term “carbon” conveys an image of black pencil lead or soot, but CO2 is an invisible gas. It appears that CO2 is deliberately being misnamed to convey a negative image.…

I will take a bow when those in the climate alarm/forced energy transformation camp state that my efforts are making a difference for energy freedom against Big Brother. And such a compliment came from a Matt Serafa who noted “how effective the fossil future/think tank marketing has been…. People like Alex Epstein and Rob Bradley have done some heavy lifting to promote a different perspective.”

The exchange began with this post from Sasja Beslik, on LinkedIn:

One climate disaster after another, yet three-quarters of Republicans (72%) said the economy should be given priority.

The level of denial has got to astronomic proportions. From Hawaii to Canada, searing heat and deadly wildfires are raising the alarm about global warming.

The disasters have fuelled debate about global warming across the US, with climate scientists increasingly stressing the links between climate change and extreme weather events, even as most Republican voters consider it a “minor threat”, or no threat, according to polling.

“Looking back with hindsight, the business opportunities were on the generation side, and the utility was going out for bid with all these big renewable-energy projects. But in retrospect, it seems clear, we weren’t as focused on these fire risks as we should have been.”

– Doug McLeod, former Maui county energy commissioner (quoted in WSJ, below)

Opportunity cost is a central concept in economics. Economics is about the unseen versus the seen. Resources spent in one direction are not spent in another. The same goes for corporations as politically correct, economically incorrect priorities crowd out good. Climate change policy is a premier example.

Government-forced substitution of dilute, intermittent energies for reliable incumbents has not only cost taxpayers and ratepayers. It has also cost the environment–dearly. The recent saga of Hawaiian Electric’s preoccupation with “the energy transition” at the expense of grid safety and reliability is the latest example of this.…