Most people that define themselves as “progressives” or “left leaning” are appalled at the election of Donald J. Trump for a second term. I am one of them. There is no end to the catastrophic predictions regarding what Trump policies will do to the American economy, Climate Action, inclusion, diversity and equity initiatives, the environment, and the effectiveness of the Federal government. A guest essay in the NYT by David Nasaw on November 11 was particularly vitriolic regarding the relationship between Trump and Elon Musk. I’m sorry but we have to tone things down. Inflammatory and clearly vindictive rhetoric is not what is needed at this time. Instead, a rational approach to what will be in many ways an irrational administration is the only hope for people like me and for the Democratic party.
Let’s think about some of the major policy initiatives that Trump has put forward. How likely are they to be actually put in place and what will be the impact? I believe that some of these policies will be extremely positive and that is the real danger of a Trump presidency – demonstrating to the American people that an autocratic bully can actually get things done.
One of his most audacious claims is that he can end the war in Ukraine. In my opinion that is quite possible. The U.S. has the biggest levers by far in this conflict and if they are used the war will end. It will not end as most of us want but it will end.
Putin is a monster but infortunately his grip on power does not seem to be at risk. He will never end the war unless he gets permanent territorial gains. And if he continues to transform the Russian economy into a war machine he can keep it going for many years.
Trump can end the war quickly by being the bully that he is and threatening both sides. He can demand that Ukraine negotiate new borders in the Donbas that cede some territory to Russia. If Zelensky balks Trump will threaten to stop providing arms to Ukraine.
Simultaneously he will demand that Putin agree to negotiating these new borders or else Trump will escalate the use of long-range missiles against Russian cities including Moscow. This is no doubt a dangerous path but when two school yard bullies confront each other the one with the bigger biceps wins. The U.S. has pretty big biceps.
Many will see this as capitulation and will rail against allowing Russia to benefit from its illegal invasion. Sorry folks, but that train left the station in 2014 when Putin annexed Crimea and nobody blinked an eye.
With regards to putting large tariffs on imported goods I doubt this will end up being the kind of across-the-board measure Trump has been talking about. I believe it will start with changes to tariffs on Chinese imports, particularly automobiles. There is precedent for both restrictions on foreign automakers and the positive consequences for American manufacturing jobs. The Voluntary Export Restraint program negotiated with Japan in 1981 limited the number of Japanese made vehicles that could be imported into the U.S. This produced results in short order with Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Mazda, and Mitsubishi building plants in the U.S. – all non-union and located mostly in the South where “right to work” laws are common. Threatening increased Tariffs on manufacturers such as BYD will likely encourage a similar result. And locating manufacturing facilities closer to the target market will also reduce transportation costs and the associated carbon footprint.
What about the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, most of whom are Mexican? This will be very disruptive and will be accompanied by many, many heart-breaking stories about family break-ups and honest, hard-working and respected members of communities being banished. At the same time much tighter regulations regarding asylum at the Southern border will reduce the influx of any additional undocumented immigrants.
The major impact of these policies will be to re-establish the legal framework that should have always been in place if we are being honest with ourselves. There are legal processes that support immigration into the U.S. as there are in every country. If you do not follow the legal process, you will be deported. The fact that the U.S. has a long border with Mexico which allows physical entry into the country to circumvent the legal process should never have been allowed to compromise the rule of law.
Latinos supported Trump in large numbers in 2024. There are probably numerous reasons for that, but one factor could well be that the millions of immigrants from Mexico and other Central and South American countries that followed the legal process may not be that supportive of undocumented migrants.
It is hard to predict all of the consequences of these policies but there are possibly some positives that could emerge. Congress could finally introduce significant reforms to immigration and asylum laws which would provide a better path for undocumented migrants to achieve U.S. citizenship. Adding asylum processing officers and clarifying the criteria for approving entry into the U.S. could drastically reduce the time for processing people crossing the Southern border. Rapid and fairly adjudicated review of asylum claims could eliminate the “catch and release” practice that exists today. Faced with the certainly that only legitimate claims for asylum will be successful and that these claims will be handled quickly might actually dissuade many from even making the often treacherous journey to the Southern border.
Finally, the real possibility that Elon Musk will be put in charge of a new efficiency secretariat could have a drastic impact on the Federal civil service. He is notorious for regularly “cleaning house” through mass layoffs at his companies and as brutal an approach as that may seem it has been quite successful. He laid off 75% of the software engineers at Twitter and yet the platform (now known as “X”) has survived and is innovating faster than ever. In a shocking move in May 2024 Musk fired the entire Super-Charger team at Tesla, some 500 workers. The widespread criticism at the time was that this move would bring Super-Charger installations to a halt. While installations have slowed and are about 11% below 2023 completions the system continues to expand and is adjusting to meet changing demands as other auto makers have signed on to use the Tesla charging standard. Hardly a disaster.
If the role for Musk actually comes to fruition it should be expected that there will be massive layoffs throughout the Federal civil service. More disruption for sure, but probably not a bad thing given that most Americans feel the bureaucracy is a bloated and often intransient impediment to actually getting anything done. One need not look farther than to compare the California High Speed Rail to Florida’s privately funded Brightline for proof. NASA’s massive spending on the Space Launch System compared to the SpaceX Starship program provides another instructive example.
There will no doubt be many, many very negative consequences of a Trump presidency. Action on Climate change will probably be greatly reduced. The divides in American society will not be healed and the gap between the 1% of wealthy Americans and everyone else will probably grow wider. Most dangerously, the example of a person of Trump’s character once again occupying the Oval Office is truly disturbing.
Trump has been compared to the European dictators of the 1930’s. Personally, I believe these comparisons are not appropriate. I have not detected any inclination towards global or even regional domination in Trump’s actions nor do I believe he would condone military aggression. His world is centered primarily around the well being of Donald J. Trump and secondarily about how great a self-absorbed and isolationist America can be.
But there is one striking parallel between 21st Century U.S.A. and some of the countries that embraced fascism: the failure of democratically elected governments to actually accomplish things for their people. There is a perception, probably not entirely accurate, that the American government is not capable of decisive action. It is undeniable that building consensus and addressing real and important issues can take time. That can be frustrating.
A “strong man”, as Trump sees himself and wants others to see him does not have to be concerned with such “niceties”.
The sad fact of the matter is this. Trump may get some good things accomplished. And that is the real danger of a Trump presidency.
Let me start by saying that this is an opinion piece. I am not going to provide a bibliography of external references supporting my assertions. I have been politically active my entire adult life and am a publicly acknowledged “leftie”. I have supported the New Democratic Party in every election I have cast a ballot in, including two where I myself was the candidate. And yes, that means I am a Canadian and perhaps I have no business commenting on American politics. But what happens in the U.S. impacts Canada more than almost any other country so I will claim the right to expressing my views regardless.
Many progressive people that I know personally and many public figures that I follow have expressed shock that Donald J. Trump will be the 47th President of the United States. I was quite convinced from the time that Joe Biden announced that he would run for a second term that this result was inevitable. Here are my thoughts on the matter for what they are worth.
The navel gazing has begun within the Democratic Party and all manner of excuses for the loss to Donald J. Trump are being fabricated. The election was lost because; 1) there is at the present time a global turn towards right-wing populist authoritarian leaders; 2) the Trump campaign exploited unfounded fears about a migrant invasion including the fact that some migrants were “eating the dogs”; 3) Trump’s constant refrain that the country’s economy is going to hell (despite statistical information to the contrary) played on people’s insecurities and desires for a better life; etc. etc. etc.
There is an element of truth to all of these statements/excuses. Elections and voters are complicated.
But really? How bad does your candidate and platform have to be to get beaten by Donald J. Trump – TWICE?
In my opinion the reason for both losses comes down to a single feeling, ambiguous and impossible to analyze with precision. That reason was reflected in an NBC News Poll released in September, 2024. In that poll 65% of respondents felt that the country was “on the wrong track”. That’s not good for an incumbent administration, right? But here’s the thing. That sentiment has been consistently above 60% since 2012.
This persistent and long-lived dissatisfaction with the status quo by a majority of the populace seems to be somewhat of a mystery to the movers and shakers in our political and economic systems (the “elite”). For most politicians with their rapidly attained excellent pensions, for established professionals making the best living for that class in generations, for wall street brokers and for anyone that acquired real estate in one of North America’s “hot” housing markets life looks pretty good. I would estimate (without any backup data) that amounts to about 35% of the population.
So, what about the 65%? Do they have legitimate grievances or is this just a case of inflaming fears based upon completely fabricated “boogie men”. Unemployment is very low and all the major economic measures such as GDP and the Stock Market are doing great. What’s the beef?
Let’s start with rural and small town voters. And before we start thinking about issues keep in mind two things. 1) People hate change of any type. Continuity is a comfort food we all enjoy a great deal. 2) When people worry it is often not so much about the present but about the future.
What has been happening in rural America, the “Heart Land” as politicians still like to call it? Nothing good, as far as I am concerned.
Rural areas, many of which were settled during the lifespan of the oldest people living today, used to be all about “community”. Life was simple, work was hard, rules were clear and contact with people and institutions outside the immediate area was quite uncommon and quite unnecessary. Many people, maybe most people, spent 99% of their lives within a few miles of the home they grew up in, a home that was often passed down from generation to generation. The most important lodestars in that environment were the elementary school, the community hall, and local churches. The Boy Scouts sold Christmas Trees, the Girl Guides sold cookies. At Hallowe’en neighbourhood children were greeted at the door by their first names and given home-made sweet treats that nobody was afraid of eating. Everyone agreed that the Norman Rockwell paintings that adorned the cover of the Saturday Evening Post pretty much reflected life as it was being experienced.
There were immigrants but they were white. They might speak a funny sounding language but they would get over that and learn English as they “melted” into the American way of life. They were Christians and they attended local churches, helped prepare Sunday picnics and worked shoulder to shoulder when a Church or a community Hall needed repair. People bought hardware and groceries and gassed up their cars at businesses owned and run by neighbours.
Sounds pretty idyllic, doesn’t it? The truth is that “Mayberry” and all the characters in that fictional town weren’t immensely popular because they were unique and “interesting”. They were loved because so many Americans could relate to the lives being portrayed.
Was that reality, which so many of today’s “elite” view with so much distain, perfect for everyone? Absolutely not. There existed in those communities sexism, racism and intolerance of every imaginable kind. The “melting pot” was real. Fit in or face the consequences.
What has happened to those communities? Well, believe it or not they still exist and almost 50 million Americans still live in them. They have watched as industrial farming has slowly but surely displaced the family farm. They have watched big box stores in nearby cities wipe out most of the local businesses. The nuclear families that were so vital to the “Hearts” of these communities have disintegrated as low birth rates and greater mobility of young people has meant that leaving the hometown for greener pastures is now the rule rather than the exception. The result has been empty Churches often sold off to the highest bidder and abandoned store-fronts with windows cracked, held together by duct tape.
An influx of immigrants from far off lands that look and act very differently than the Europeans that dominated newcomers throughout the 20th Century has dramatically changed these communities. Somewhat ironically, it is the devote, family-centric and tradition-upholding character of these new immigrants that can leave the original inhabitants feeling isolated and excluded. Strangers in their own land.
The final straw has been the encroachment of suburbia into many of these communities. Row upon row of cookie-cutter houses thrown up hurriedly with no sense of identity or history, inhabited by people with no connection to the communities being paved over.
All things considered, can you blame these folks from wanting to slow things down, maybe even reverse direction on many fronts? A traditional conservative playbook has been a comfortable companion for these voters for a long time. But recently, the backlash has become more strident and somewhat dangerous.
To most of the people in these communities there are still two genders which are assigned at birth. Although their local churches may be shuttered almost 80% of rural and small-town residents have a religious affiliation, almost all Christian, and attend large regional churches. Pro-life beliefs in these communities are strong and there are under-currents of anti-immigrant feelings as well. Some of these feelings are based upon interactions with temporary farm workers, many of whom are undocumented, who have little or no connection with the community and take jobs that could otherwise be available to local residents. Never mind the fact that most Americans would refuse to do those jobs, and certainly not for the wages being paid.
A party that prides itself on “Woke” notions of inclusion and tolerance at the expense of community disruption is not going to do well in rural counties. It is unlikely that this fact, born out across the U.S. in election after election, can be reversed without a lot more attention being paid to managing the ongoing transition of these communities in a much more sensitive manner. Even then it will be an uphill climb.
Next up: industrial workers – the bedrock of the “Blue Wall”. Michael Moore explained the eroding support for the Democratic Party by the working class in these formerly “Blue” states perfectly going into the 2016 election. His analysis is as true today as it was then. The Democratic Party has abandoned the working class. Bernie Sanders echoed those comments immediately after the 2024 results were announced.
Now one might question these critiques after four years of the Biden Presidency. Joe Biden was steadfast in his support for unionized workers. Joe Biden drove investment in public infrastructure which will benefit all citizens. Joe Biden maintained some of the tariffs on Chinese goods that Trump had initiated.
But here is the problem. Workers, and former workers, that have and had middle class manufacturing jobs in the “Blue Wall” states know that there will be no return to prosperity in their region anytime soon. Any new manufacturing jobs will be created in “right to work” states in the Southern U.S. where business-friendly Republican Governments allow rules to be bent and workers’ rights to be compromised. In a painful irony the “Blue Wall” workers watch as wage gains obtained through collective bargaining are matched by non-unionized corporations, particularly automobile manufacturers. This reality is doubly frustrating because those non-unionized workers don’t ever suffer the income loss caused by strikes and they don’t pay Union dues.
Beyond the realization that new jobs will not emerge to replace those lost in the region an even more existential threat looms over the future of manufacturing jobs throughout the U.S. Increasing levels of automation and the disconcerting development of advanced A.I. and humanoid robots make it impossible for anyone in a manufacturing job to feel secure. The long-held certainty that sons could eventually replace their fathers in jobs that had provided financial security to families for decades has evaporated.
The recent wage gains by auto-workers and others represent a pyrrhic victory and most workers understand that fact. U.S. industry cannot compete with the rising economic powers in Asia. Not just in terms of labour wage rates but in terms of automation and technology generally. It is no wonder that a desperate effort to build a financial moat around U.S. manufacturing through the use of protectionist measures such those espoused by Trump has great appeal in the “Blue Wall” states and beyond.
Finally, it is time to consider voters that were neither living in rural areas or what was formerly the Industrial “Heart Land”. Millions of college-educated, urban, and young voters cast their ballots for Donald J. Trump, a man that has spent most of the last 10 years insulting and alienating almost every segment of polite society. The reasons are undoubtedly complex, but I will focus on one that I believe is of central importance. I will call it “Boomer Greed”. And by the way, I am personally part of the problem as much as any other boomer.
In the aftermath of WW2 North America, spared the devastation of that global conflict, experienced economic prosperity on a level never seen before. The rapid transition away from the rural, primarily agrarian society of the early part of the 20th Century accelerated. Even so, societal values, including the predominance of large families continued into the 50’s and 60’s resulting in the “baby boom”. Over time affluence became the primary goal of the rapidly expanding middle class and rampant consumerism was its calling card.
At the same time advances in birth control and the emerging feminist movement were allowing women to exert more control over family planning. As it turns out, most women were not that keen on going through 6,7, or 8 pregnancies. The emerging car-centric culture enabled a migration of many urban workers to the suburbs and an emphasis on vacation road trips made family sizes of more than 4-5 very inconvenient.
And so began the rapid decline in fertility rates throughout the so-called “developed” world. In the U.S. fertility rates have declined from 3.5 in the 1960’s to less than 2 today. We North Americans have not been replacing ourselves in terms of population growth for decades. We have chosen prosperity over progeny and we are now experiencing the consequences of that choice.
Every society needs young workers to fulfill entry level jobs, many of which require a significant amount of physical strength and mental energy. Faced with a growing shortage of such workers through natural population increase most developed countries have turned to the only viable alternative – immigration. The primary countries that have provided young people to fill those jobs are developing countries such as Mexico, India, and China.
Increasing numbers of immigrants have allowed the U.S. and other countries to continue to experience economic growth despite a naturally stagnant or declining population. Make no mistake about it. In Canada and the U.S. we need immigrants and lots of them. But there are some negative consequences of this reality.
The large influx of immigrants has put increasing pressure on social services and, most importantly, has led to a housing crisis in many major urban centers. This, in turn, led to rapidly rising prices, rampant speculation, foreign investment and corporate ownership of residential properties. After the housing meltdown of 2008 in the U.S. housing prices in many markets have exploded. What has been the result? Many in the Gen X and millennial cohorts no longer view home ownership as a possibility. That is a very fundamental and very negative change in what has been an expectation for most people in the post-war era. Get educated, find a good job, buy a house, start a family. That was the life progression most people have aspired to for decades. For many, that no longer seems realistic. Is it any wonder that this group has joined the ranks of those that think the U.S. is “on the wrong track”.
I attributed this development in modern society to “Boomer Greed” and I believe it to be true. Boomers have held political power for the last couple of decades and we allowed this to happen. Why? Because a majority of Boomers and almost all elected politicians owned real estate. The intoxicating prospect of having our net worth increase by a factor of 2, 3 or even 10 times made us ignore the downstream impact on our children. There were tools at our disposal to prevent this. We could have enacted limitations on capital gains exemptions, foreign ownership, and property speculation. We could have supported more public housing and designed creative ways to help new home buyers manage financing in a responsible yet accessible way. We did none of that.
Republicans can be forgiven for letting the “free market” destroy affordability. They believe the capitalist economy will respond appropriately to imbalances in supply and demand. It has not. Democrats do not have that excuse.
All of these societal changes are trending away from progressive policies and “woke” concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion. While many of us believe that a more tolerant society is a better society that is not necessarily a majority opinion. It seems pretty clear that focusing on bettering the lives of those that have been disadvantaged for decades will not work if we are simultaneously ignoring the very real challenges a great many people are facing.
Given all this turmoil and uncertainty is it really that surprising to witness the rise of Donald J. Trump? He offers false promises and blames immigrants for all of the nation’s woes. However unlikely it is that any of his policies will bring about positive changes he is at least recognizing some of the issues that Democrats have ignored. He offers false hope. And it is undeniable that false hope is better than no hope.
Here is my recommendation to Democrats. Stop feeling superior to the folks that voted for Donald J. Trump. They are not idiots. They are not fascists. The vast majority of them are not sexist, racist or mean-spirited. Make an effort to understand why so many people in the richest country in the world are not feeling good about the present and are very nervous about the future. Meet them where they live. Listen to their concerns. Be as bold in proposing real action to address their issues as Trump is in his boastful and unrealistic promises. The status quo is not working today and certainly won’t serve any of us well in the future. Stop defending it.
The new documentary written and produced by Jeff Gibbs and promoted by Michael Moore has certainly generated a lot of heat. If we could tap into that effectively we might solve humanity’s energy crisis.
As someone that has been blogging about alternative energy and sustainability for the past 8 years I feel I have a very keen appreciation of both the points made in the film and the reaction of the outraged critics who have attacked it quite viciously.
As with all Michael Moore documentaries the film does take an extreme view which is not completely supported by the facts on the ground; but it has at its core enough kernels of truth to hopefully make people think. That’s what Michael Moore’s all about.
For example, in perhaps his most famous documentary was there any logical reason for him to drag two victims of the Columbine shooting that had bullets embedded in their bodies from that horrendous tragedy to a K-mart to claim a refund by trying to “return” the bullets? Of course not. But did that sequence make us think about the morality of selling ammunition in a department store to anyone with a 10 dollar bill or a credit card? Did it make us think, just for a moment, about what share of responsibility the merchants that profit from selling the weapons and ammunition for those weapons have when they are used to perpetrate senseless acts of violence?
In my viewing of “Planet of the Humans” there are three central themes presented.
The environmental movement is misleading the general public with regards to how effective available green energy technologies such as solar and wind are when it comes to weaning an industrialized society off of fossil fuels.
The environmental movement has become entangled with various billionaire investors/supporters as well as the industrial complex that has grown up around manufacturing and installing solar panels and wind turbines and companies that consume vast amounts of fossil fuel energy to transform corn into ethanol or chop down and burn forests to create biomass energy.
That the only way to prevent the destruction of the planet and to reverse climate change is for humanity to drastically reduce its energy consumption. “Green” energy is not a solution. Green energy is not even “green” when full cycle costs are properly accounted for.
If one accepts the conclusions of the film then the future looks pretty much hopeless. And I think a brutally honest assessment of where we are at with the development of alternative energy sources and energy storage systems might justifiably lead us to that conclusion. But that is not where I land on this issue.
With regards to claims that the popular media and literally thousands of “green energy” and environmental web sites publish overblown and hysterically inaccurate claims of alternative energy success, I say “guilty as charged”. I myself have identified many such claims and, unlike the film, I provide data that proves they are inaccurate or, at best misleading. Examples would be exaggerations about the impact of wind energy generation in Denmark , statements that confuse “nameplate”capacity with actual production of electricity and praise for the success of the German Energiewende.
Transitioning to a sustainable energy environment will be hard work. Really hard work. And we will need every Dollar, Pound, Euro, Yen and Yuan to be applied in the most effective way possible to have any hope of achieving this goal in the next hundred years.
In 2016 Bill Gates announced the creation of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition with a great deal of fanfare and optimism. He declared that there were many different paths that might lead to sustainability.
Three years later, having focused his very considerable intellect and support resources on the problem he had become much less optimistic. In a video posted in November, 2018 the interviewer made the following comment;
“a lot of people are very optimistic as you know with wind and solar, the renewables cost coming down, the batteries cost coming down – you think that’s enough?”.
Gates’ response: “That’s so disappointing!” He went on to explain just how far we are from workable solutions. Orders of magnitude. The entire interview is definitely worth watching.
My concern has always been and continues to be that commentary that blames governments for not just getting on with the deployment of readily available and effective “green” technologies misses the point entirely. There are no readily available and effective “green” technologies that can replace the combustion of fossil fuels in our steel plants, electricity generating stations and automobiles. There are solutions. Some of them are even readily available. But they are not effective in terms of the long game.
Is widespread deployment of solar and wind technology going to reduce the real time consumption of fossil fuels to generate electricity? Yes – considerably. No argument there.
Considering all of the fossil fuel inputs to manufacture, transport, and install those technologies is there a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions? Much more difficult to assess but I believe that there is a significant net benefit.
Will the deployment of these technologies allow us to fully retire all fossil fuel based electricity generation? No chance. Not now. Not anytime in the next 3-4 decades.
As noted by the film and in most discussions about the intermittency of renewable energy sources the availability of incredibly cheap, reliable, and massively scalable energy storage systems is the key. If we had storage most of the other problems go away. Unfortunately there are no such systems available.
To provide a sense of what is required using current NREL estimates the cost to provide battery storage to replace the nighttime output from a relatively small 180 MB electricity generation plant would be on the order of a billion dollars. And that doesn’t include the cost of the solar or wind inputs required to charge those batteries.
Having said that I for one believe that we can develop energy storage systems that will meet the criteria of incredibly cheap, reliable, and massively scalable. But it will take a dedicated, generously funded and globally coordinated effort to do so – the clock is ticking.
The second theme of the movie calls into question the motivations of the environmental movement in general and specific organizations such as the Sierra Club or the 350 Organization. I do not agree with those criticisms.
Those organizations may exaggerate the value of the solutions they promote but they do not exaggerate the dangers of continuing with “Business as Usual”. Having identified technologies such as solar and wind that they believe can help us transition to a sustainable society it only makes sense that they be aligned with business interests that are implementing those technologies. The fact that those same business interests profit from the promotional and educational activities of organizations like the Sierra Club does not diminish the value of those activities. The fact that those same business interests may donate to environmental groups does not, in and of itself, corrupt those groups.
From what I have seen, the people working for environmental groups, whether as paid staff or on a volunteer basis, are motivated by a love of this planet and by fears regarding the environmental legacy we will leave for future generations. They may have too much optimism about the progress we are making and they may not appreciate all of the challenges that have to be overcome but I believe their intentions are good and their work is commendable.
Michael Moore and producer Jeff Gibbs are not distancing themselves from the environmental movement or specific “green” organizations. In a response to criticisms of the movie Michael states that he continues to have “huge admiration for all our fellow environmentalists” and states that “its only your friends that can tell you when you’re messing up.” That response is also very worthwhile watching in its entirety.
With regards to the third theme of the movie I would agree that conspicuous consumption is a big part of the sustainability problem but I do not agree that discussions about restricting population growth make any sense at all. Many if not most environmentalists and environmentally focused organizations understand the importance of and promote the traditional three “R’s”. Reduce, Re-use, Recycle. And everyone accepts that the first “R” is the best “R”.
There are many initiatives at every level of society, both in developed and developing countries that are aimed at making progress on the three “R’s”. Do we still have too many dollar stores where inexpensive products are purchased in many cases only to be thrown away within a relatively short period of time? Absolutely yes! Do we allow the cheap price of goods from far off sources blind us to the negative environmental impacts of transporting consumer goods half way around the planet? Yes we do. But are we making progress on developing new recycling techniques, reducing packaging, banning single use plastics and in many other areas? Yes we are.
I hope that conversations triggered by “Planet of the Humans” will end up making people somewhat more cautious with regards to the solar and wind technologies that are currently the only “green” technologies really getting much attention. I hope they will come to the conclusion that other more consistent technologies such as geothermal and hydro-kinetics and geoexchange need a closer look. Most importantly I hope that those conversations lead to a clear understanding of the need for a much more effective global effort to develop innovative energy storage solutions. If any of those things happen then the film will have served a useful purpose in my opinion.
For my thoughts on how to transition to a truly sustainable energy environment you can check out my Sustainable Energy Manifesto.
The criticisms of “Planet of the Humans” have stated that the information presented in the film is either false, out-of-date, or irrelevant. That is simply unfair and untrue. Here are some of the key points made by the film that need to be considered carefully:
Biomass is big and bad – in practice most biomass plants burn wood products including fresh cut trees. Why does the film “obsess” about this? Josh Fox for example states that biomass is not a significant component of the energy mix and that it is “inconsequential” and not worthy of analysis. Here is a graphic from the ren21 network which does the most comprehensive assessment of renewable energy that I know of:
The graphic labels aggregate several energy sources but the text of the report clarifies that “In 2017, modern bioenergy contributed an estimated 5.0% to total final energy consumption.”
Clearly biomass represents a significant proportion of global “renewable” energy. As such it is definitely worth taking a hard look at. The film does incorrectly suggest that Bill McKibben still supports biomass. In his response Mr. McKibben provides evidence that he is now opposed to biomass. But he came to this conclusion relatively recently, starting with an article published in September, 2016. The ironic part of this criticism of the film is that 350.org and the Sierra Club are now frequently and vigorously opposing the use of biomass – just as the film does.
Solar and Wind have to be back-stopped by fossil fuel plants – this is absolutely true. Germany has spent hundreds of billions of Euros implementing solar and wind – now equal in nameplate capacity to all the fossil fuel and nuclear plants in the country. And yet they still burn enormous quantities of coal to generate electricity and have only recently made a commitment to phase coal out by 2038. And even that plan requires that some truly reliable and renewable energy source becomes commercially viable before then.
The tiny Spanish island of El Hierro, home of an “experiment” attempting to have electricity generation be 100% renewable, has more than double the capacity of hydro and wind needed to meet peak demand. And yet in more than 5 years the longest period of time that the island could run 100% on renewables was 18 days. The diesel generator is required almost every day.
It is also true, as stated in the film, that running fossil fuel plants as “spinning reserves” is less efficient and results in proportionately more CO2 emissions.
Assertions by organizations like Apple that they are running on 100% renewable energy are false – Apple and other organizations that claim to be running on 100% renewables are connected to the same grid as everyone else and they run on the same mix of electricity generation sources as everyone else. There is absolutely nothing special about their facilities. Their claim is based upon an accounting sleight-of-hand whereby they purchase renewable energy or sponsor the building of renewable energy sources that are equivalent to the energy they use.
The problem with these statements is that they make people think that it is possible to run a large organization 100% of the time on renewables. It is not possible and there is absolutely no pathway to get to that result. There will be dark, calm nights, especially in winter, when no amount of solar and wind generation assets will meet electricity demand.
Some green energy advocates will suggest that battery developments are going to make energy storage cheap and effective. That is not the case. A recent announcement by California utilities that they would be spending $1 billion on batteries made headlines. But the quantity of battery storage being discussed, the largest in the world by a wide margin, could meet average California energy demand for about 5 minutes.
We as humans consume too many resources and capitalism’s growth requirements are unsustainable – Critics of the film have very unfairly accused the film of recommending population control and have gone on to accuse the producers of being racist as a result. This is simply not true. The film does call for a reduction of consumption of all sorts and I personally have a hard time arguing with that. Surely it is clear to everyone, especially in the developed world, that we purchase and often prematurely dispose of far too many consumer goods. The statements regarding the demand by capital markets for continuous growth in corporate revenue and earnings resonate with every investor.
The film does raise a question regarding how many humans can this planet support and at what standard of living. That is not suggesting population control but rather is asking if perhaps we are reaching the limits of sustainability.
Obviously if we all live with less then the planet can support more people. So to me this speaks more to the need for the people of the developed world to reduce their consumption of energy and goods, for us to share our wealth through increased foreign aid and more liberal immigration policies, and for us to adopt a “one world” vision in everything that we do.
Did the film get some things seriously wrong? I would say that the suggestion that wind and solar do not result in net reductions in CO2 emissions is wrong. But the identification of processes such as mining and smelting which cannot be reasonably accomplished using renewable energy today as serious issues related to the production of wind and solar technology is accurate.
The bottom line is that we are not addressing the climate crisis in any meaningful way. To take one quote from the ren21 report (page 17);
“Despite progress in renewables uptake, energy efficiency and energy access, the world is not on track to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement or of Sustainable Development Goal 7. Global energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions grew an estimated 1.7% in 2018 due to increased fossil fuel consumption.”
Taking some time to reconsider the strategies and technologies that have been at the heart of efforts to achieve a sustainable society is not a bad thing. That is what the film tries to do, albeit in overly dramatic fashion.
Article regarding PG&E Mega Battery system with 1.2 GH-Hours capacity
Posted in Uncategorized at 10:18 pm by Administrator
Due to a technical issue with my web site Google is currently directing searches for “Better Known As Beaver Lake” (which is another site I maintain on a volunteer basis) to this blog. The proper link is www.betterknownasbeaverlake.org.
The California Energy Commission is proposing changes to building codes that would require the installation of roof-top solar panels on all new buildings starting in 2020.
Here are the top 5 reasons that mandating roof-top solar for new residential construction in California makes no sense whatsoever:
1) Roof-top solar installations are much more complex and expensive than utility scale solar installations. Far more time is spent getting set up, rigging safety harnesses and moving racks and solar panels up to the roof than is spent actually mounting the solar panels. Electrical connections are also significantly more expensive requiring inverters at each home.
2) Roof-top solar installations are far less effective than utility scale solar installations. The roof pitch and north-south orientation of a roof is never ideal in terms of collecting the most solar energy. Houses are often surrounded by trees, hills, or high buildings which further reduces the solar energy captured especially in the morning and late afternoon. Utility scale solar panels are usually mounted on racks which move to follow the path of the sun resulting in much greater capture of available solar energy.
3) When solar panels are installed on a house the local electrical utility has to upgrade the equipment in the neighbourhood in order to handle the bi-directional flow of electricity in a system that was designed to distribute electricity, not collect it. Because the residents with the solar panels are actually spending less for electricity (and often actually collect money from the utility for electricity generated by the solar panels) the cost of these upgrades must be born by people that have no ability to install solar panels: renters, those living in apartment buildings, and those on fixed or low incomes.
4) The average life of a roof in California is about 20 years. That means that the entire installation of solar panels will have to be removed and replaced as part of the roof replacement. Solar panels do lose efficiency over time so that it would probably make sense in most cases to simply redo the entire installation which will be even more expensive than the initial installation because of the need to remove and dispose of the old panels.
5) California already has a lot of solar energy developed to the point where the excess generation at mid-day is becoming a problem. The only solution to that problem, and therefore the only way to make effective use of further development of solar energy, is the implementation of large scale energy storage systems. Whether that energy storage is through the use of batteries, pumped hydro storage, molten salt, or some technology that has not yet been commercialized, storage at individual homes will be dramatically less efficient and more costly than centralized energy storage.
Geoexchange – a Far Better Alternative to Address Climate Change Concerns
There is an alternative that would provide far more benefit in terms of reducing energy demand for the entire life of a building and which would address climate change concerns far more effectively. That technology, already in widespread use, is termed geoexchange (implemented using geothermal heat pumps).
Geoexchange uses the constant temperature of the ground at depth to provide both heating and cooling of a building using approximately half the energy required by traditional heating and air conditioning systems. The cost of installing a geothermal heat pump would be a fraction of the cost of installing solar panels and geothermal heat pumps cut electricity demand in the late afternoon and evening – the peak demand times when California is still dependent upon fossil fuels and nuclear to provide power for lighting and air conditioning.
In cooling mode geoexchange takes advantage of the fact that the earth at depths of 50ft is much cooler than the air temperature.
In heating mode geoexchange takes advantage of the fact that the earth at depths of 50ft is much warmer than the air temperature. One of the most widespread ways to heat buildings is through the burning of natural gas in traditional furnaces. Natural gas is a fossil fuel and heating buildings using that energy source emits enormous amounts of carbon dioxide. Geoexchange, on the other hand, uses the earth as a heat source and heat sink to heat and cool buildings with no combustion of fossil fuels and no carbon dioxide emissions.
Geoexchange systems are integrated internally within the building so they do not have to be touched when roofs are replaced or other renovations to a building take place.
Reducing the energy requirements of a building using geoexchange, better insulation, and a host of other net-zero technologies is a much better approach than generating additional solar energy at mid-day which has to be stored or curtailed because there is no demand for it at the time it is generated. If California law-makers are serious about addressing climate change concerns, requiring geoexchange for all new buildings is the single most cost-effective measure they could ever introduce.
Many advocates of renewable energy point to Germany as the example of how to transform a large economy away from fossil fuels and therefore reduce carbon dioxide emissions. I have questioned the validity of that argument in posts in the past and the results from 2017 haven’t changed my opinion one bit. There are a lot of complexities in analyzing what is happening in Germany but the bottom line results are not very encouraging as far as I am concerned.
Here are what I would consider to be the “headline” numbers for Germany:
11% The reduction in fossil fuel consumption to generate electricity over the past 15 years
Since the beginning of the Energiewende in 2003, and despite hundreds of billions of Euros in subsidies and the second highest retail electricity rates in Europe to support those subsidies Germany has managed to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels very little.
9% The reduction in CO2 emissions from electricity generation over the past 9 years
Despite having deployed the third largest fleet of wind turbines in the world (behind only China and the U.S.) and despite having the third largest solar capacity in the world (behind only China and Japan) the German electricity generation sector remains, by far, the largest source of CO2 emissions in the country. In fact the modest reduction that has been realized in this sector is primarily due to a shift from coal-fired to natural gas-fired fossil fuel generation.
0% The reduction in CO2 emissions from all sources over the past 9 years
The modest reductions in CO2 emissions realized in the electricity generation sector have been completely offset by increases in Transport and Manufacturing. There is no possibility that Germany can meet its stated CO2 reduction targets for 2020. In fact, any further reduction in nuclear power generation will guarantee that German CO2 emissions increase.
Complete destruction of a rational import/export market in the regional grid
At the beginning of the Energiewende Germany was neither a net exporter or importer of electricity. At times of higher demand in Germany electricity was imported from neighbouring countries and at times of lower demand in Germany electricity was exported. This is a normal characteristic of a healthy regional grid where resources can be shared as needed. Gross German imports and exports were about 40 TWh each.
As more and more wind and solar was developed in Germany the sad reality of non-dispatchable resources started to become evident.
Solar and wind energy was forced onto the regional grid at random times when those resources were available without regard for whether or not there was any demand. Even ramping dispatchable generation up and down in order to try and match renewables was not enough (and, in fact, caused enough damage to one of Germany’s largest nuclear plants to force it to shut down). Only one option was left – export the excess electricity to Germany’s neighbours whether they needed/wanted it or not.
Over the years this trend has gotten worse and worse to the point where, in the last two years, virtually all additional wind and solar capacity additions have translated directly into increased exports.
Adding more solar and wind generation is no longer displacing any fossil fuel or nuclear generation in Germany itself. It may make for nice green-washed headlines (“Renewable power hits record high in Germany in 2017!”) but it won’t help Germany reduce its dependence on fossil fuels in any significant way. And in the meantime the impact of Germany’s “success” has created what Dr John Constable has described as a “curiously distorted market” in the Euro zone.
Even with 100% excess capacity Germany continues to need imported electricity
When the Energiewende began Germany had electrical generating capacity of about 100 GW from “conventional” generation sources including small amounts of hydro and biomass and, in addition, about 15 GW of Wind. By 2017 “conventional” generation capacity was still at about 100 GW but the nameplate capacity of wind and solar in Germany had grown to match that value. In other words, with electrical demand remaining flat since the beginning of the Energiewende there is now theoretically more than double the capacity needed to generate electricity in Germany.
And yet Germany still imported 30 TWh of electricity in 2017, down only 25% from when the Energiewende began.
How is that possible?
Once again, the non-dispatchable nature of wind and solar provides the answer.
On cold, calm winter nights no wind or solar energy is available (it should be noted that the high pressure systems that produce really cold weather are characterized by calm winds which I used as the basis for my post “The Fright before Christmas“).
Has the Energiewende been a success? I would have to say “No”
The German approach has done more to identify what doesn’t work than it has illuminated the path to a future powered by sustainable energy. Germany has essentially exhausted the capacity of the entire European grid to absorb uncontrollable wind and solar generation. That means that no other large country in Europe can do what Germany has done. Even within Germany itself the problems are now recognized and major reforms are under way – reforms that will inevitably slow the further development of wind and solar energy sources.
Massively scalable and incredibly cheap energy storage systems are required to deal with the intermittent and variable nature of wind generation, which has to be the primary source of energy in the mid and northern latitudes. Why only wind? Because at those latitudes peak electricity demand is in the winter when very little solar energy is available. And that peak demand will only grow more extreme as we go through the necessary transition to stop burning natural gas to heat our buildings.
I believe that the kind of energy storage systems that we need can be developed but they will require a lot more funding and support than they get today. There are other initiatives that can help as outlined in my Sustainable Energy Manifesto.
The development of renewable energy sources is taking place in all regions of the world and now attracts well over $200 Billion in investment annually.
Note: Figures in this blog post were adjusted on December 1, 2023 to reflect the increase in capital cost for the Site C dam (to $16 Billion). In addition, the calculations regarding the number of solar panels and associated costs that would be involved to generate the equivalent amount of electricity were changed to use cost and production data from the Sun Mine in Kimberley now that almost 2 years worth of actual data is available.
$55/MW-Hour
This is the most likely multi-generational cost of electricity from Site C. That should be compared to the $68/MW-Hour paid for Private Power Purchases that BC Hydro was forced to negotiate with for-profit companies. For a full discussion of how this number was calculated see my previous post on LCOE for hydro projects.
54 TW-Hours
This is the total annual electrical generation from existing legacy Hydro assets in BC. Site C will add 5 TW-Hours.
4.6 Billion liters
Amount of gasoline consumed in BC each year
=41 TW-Hours
additional generation which will be needed when all cars and trucks are electric (a certainty over the next 50 years)
5 Billion Cubic Meters
Annual domestic consumption of natural gas in BC
=52 TW-Hours
additional generation which will be needed when we stop burning fossil fuels to heat homes and businesses
13 Million
Number of solar panels that would have to be installed in BC to generate the same amount of power as Site C (assuming Site C has a capacity factor of 60% which is probably an under-estimate)
$13 Billion
The cost to install those solar panels – and we still would have no power at night and the panels would have to be replaced in 25-30 years.
700
Number of wind turbines that would have to be installed in BC to generate the same amount of power as Site C
$4.4 Billion
The cost to install those turbines which would have to be located on pristine mountain-tops causing significant habitat destruction – and we still would have no power on the frequent days when winds are calm across BC. Note also that the best wind resources in the province are on the north section of Vancouver Island and Haida Gwaii. Installation of a larger number of wind turbines in these areas would likely encounter significant protests from environmental groups.
8 Minutes
The length of time that the largest battery complex in the world could produce electricity equivalent to the output from Site C
In Conclusion
If we think we’re going to need additional electricity capacity in the future why wouldn’t we build Site C now when interest rates are low? Do we think construction costs are going to decrease in the future?
Site C is the best renewable energy option for BC for today
… and for future generations
Posted in Uncategorized at 10:52 pm by Administrator
One of my pet peeves has been a metric with the glamorous acronym LCOE which stands for Levelized Cost of Electricity. This is the “go to” number when evaluating electricity generation sources and comments about solar and wind reaching “grid parity” relate to this measure.
My annoyance comes from comparisons of LCOE for solar (PV and thermal), wind, and hydro which truly is like comparing apples to zebras. In a recent publication by the respected Energy Information Agency the following figures for Total System LCOE were presented in Table 1b;
Wind: $64.50
Solar PV: $84.70
Solar Thermal: $235.90
Hydroelectric: $67.80
These figures are similar to others I have seen published in many places and they have never made any sense to me.
My parents had a cottage on Lake Agnew in Ontario which was formed by the building of the Big Eddy dam in 1929. There are 5 other smaller dams within a short distance and I know that they are all still operating and producing significant value for their owners. Several are more than 100 years old and will not be decommissioned in the foreseeable future.
So it is clear to me that these dams produce the least expensive electricity that can be generated from any source. Why then is it that LCOE values for hydro are not dramatically less than other renewable sources?
After some investigation it has become clear that this is an issue that has a lot more to do with politics and “spin” than it does with anything meaningful. And the same problem applies to any capital intensive project that has a very long service life (for example, solar thermal with molten salt storage which has a major advantage over solar PV because it can generate electricity 24 hours a day to meet peak demand).
In this post I will focus on the “Site C” dam in British Columbia, currently under construction. For this particular project is is possible to say that the LCOE is $164/MW-Hour or $31/MW-Hour – neither statement is factually wrong but one is more realistic and more likely than the other (Note: all figures in this blog post were updated Dec. 12, 2017 to reflect an increase in the estimated capital cost for the dam – from $9.1 Billion to $10 Billion).
The large discrepancy in LCOE values demands an explanation.
The major factors underlying this wide variation in values for LCOE are the cost of capital, the time period being considered, and the forecast capacity factor for the dam.
Anyone that has purchased or has considered purchasing a house understands that the longer the amortization period the more you will end up paying for your house. If you paid your mortgage off in 20 years at a 6% interest rate you would end up paying about 1.8 times the purchase price (the total interest paid would amount to about 80% of the purchase price). If you paid the mortgage over 35 years at a 6% interest rate you would end up paying almost two and a half times the purchase price (note that I use 6% as the interest rate = discount rate because that is the BC Government mandated rate for assessing large capital projects).
Given that reality why would anyone choose a 35 year amortization period rather than a 20 year amortization period? Why? – because longer amortization periods require lower monthly payments. As a result there is always a trade-off between what a house purchaser can afford to pay each month and how much they will spend in total to purchase the house.
So imagine if you paid off your house over 70 years. Most houses are still being used for at least that length of time. Many houses in Europe are hundreds of years old. Choosing a 70 year amortization period would reduce your monthly payments even further but at a 6% interest rate you would end up paying over 4 times the purchase price for your house. That doesn’t make sense and banks don’t offer mortgages for more than 35 years.
But that amortization period is exactly what is used in the most commonly published LCOE values for Site C.
Now you might wonder why BC Hydro would choose that approach when it clearly results in the highest total cost for the Site C dam. Well, if you need to present the lowest LCOE during the amortization period then longer amortization periods give you lower numbers. That doesn’t make sense but the optics are better.
For example, if you used a more realistic amortization period of say 30 years the LCOE during that 30 year period would be around $138/MW-Hour. That is not a very attractive number. It also does not reflect the true cost of electricity that will be produced from this dam.
In order to understand the true long-term LCOE it is necessary to consider the period of time after the capital cost for the dam has been paid off (end of the amortization period) until the end of life for the dam.
How long will the Site C dam be in operation? There are many hydro dams in the world that are more than 100 years old and operating just as efficiently as when they were constructed. Personally, I think most of these dams will be in operation in a thousand years. Why wouldn’t they be? (the Cornalvo dam built by the Romans is over 1,800 years old!).
However, projecting service life beyond 100 years is a bit speculative so let’s leave it at 100 years. That’s what BC Hydro has done in published materials for Site C.
If a 70 year amortization period is used then the only costs for the dam over the last 30 years are operating and maintenance expenses which are very small compared to the capital cost. Although it is again highly speculative to try and forecast O&M expenses 70 years from now reasonable guesses result in LCOE values of $5-10/MW-Hour. Combining the costs during and after the amortization period for the Site C dam results in LCOE values of around $75-90/MW-Hour.
But what if a more realistic amortization period of 30 years is used? BC Hydro could easily borrow that amount on capital markets or issue bonds with that type of maturity. In that case the LCOE during the first 30 years (assuming 6% interest/discount rate) would be $138 but the LCOE taken over the full 100 years would be about $45/MW-hour. That’s a much more attractive number.
It will likely even be better than that.
The LCOE values quoted so far have been based not only upon 6% interest rate but also using a capacity factor of 55%. That is to say that the dam would only produce 55% of the electricity that it is capable of producing. The capacity factor will depend upon demand and water conditions.
Within the next 100 years all automobiles will almost certainly be electric drive which will significantly increase electricity demand in the province. But we also need to stop burning natural gas to heat our homes and businesses. The renewable alternative is heat pump/geoexchange technology which requires considerably more electricity than traditional heating systems. Burning huge quantities of diesel fuel in our railway locomotives also doesn’t make a lot of sense if we are trying to de-carbonize our economy. Electrification of the railway system will add another significant new load on the electrical system.
Finally, if Alberta follows through on its commitment to eliminate burning coal to generate electricity then there will also be additional demand on BC hydro power as a balancing resource for wind farms. Taking all these new system loads into account and barring a drought it is conceivable that the capacity factor for the site C dam could increase to as much as 75%.
And what about interest rates for a large loan? BC Hydro would be able to obtain capital at the most attractive rates possible for a loan of the size required for Site C. BC Hydro could issue a Site C 30 year bond at a rate of 4.5% which would be competitive with other high quality debt instruments.
Using an interest/discount rate of 4.5%, an amortization period of 30 years and a capacity factor of 60% would yield LCOE of about $36/MW-hour over 100 years. In my opinion that is the most realistic and likely LCOE for the Site C dam.
The tables below provide other values which indicate the sensitivity to amortization period, interest/discount rate, and capacity factor.
It it clear to me that hydro, amortized over a reasonable period, is by far the least expensive renewable resource available. More importantly, hydro power is available when it is needed each and every day because of its ability to follow system load. The only other renewable technology that can do that is geothermal and it is not available in most geographic areas (hydro-kinetic turbines would also be able to provide that kind of reliability and that technology deserves R&D funding and other financial supports).
For solar PV and wind it would only be reasonable to add a significant additional cost for energy storage or some other reliable generation source to provide power on calm nights. Those critical additional costs are conveniently ignored when comparing LCOE values for solar, wind, and hydro. As a result claims of “grid parity” for solar PV and wind are nonsense. Solar thermal with molten salt storage, on the other hand, is becoming a reliable and cost effective generation source in subtropical regions as demonstrated by a recent project by Solar Reserve being built in Chile.
One final note. It can be argued quite reasonably that those of us who will “shuffle off this mortal coil” before the Site C dam has been paid for will never see the benefits of the low cost power this dam will generate for decades or perhaps centuries in the future. So be it. We have, without question, enjoyed and will continue to enjoy some of the world’s lowest electricity rates because of the investments made in dam construction decades ago. As far as I am concerned I can imagine no greater legacy for our children and grandchildren than a source of clean, renewable energy that will last for their lifetimes and beyond.
these new system loads into account and barring a drought it is conceivable that the capacity factor for the site C dam could increase to as much as 75%.
And what about interest rates for a large loan? BC Hydro would be able to obtain capital at the most attractive rates possible for a loan of the size required for Site C. BC Hydro could issue a Site C 30 year bond at a rate of 4.5% which would be competitive with other high quality debt instruments.
Using an interest/discount rate of 4.5%, an amortization period of 30 years and a capacity factor of 60% would yield LCOE of about $36/MW-hour over 100 years. In my opinion that is the most realistic and likely LCOE for the Site C dam.
The tables below provide other values which indicate the sensitivity to amortization period, interest/discount rate, and capacity factor.
It it clear to me that hydro, amortized over a reasonable period, is by far the least expensive renewable resource available. More importantly, hydro power is available when it is needed each and every day because of its ability to follow system load. The only other renewable technology that can do that is geothermal and it is not available in most geographic areas (hydro-kinetic turbines would also be able to provide that kind of reliability and that technology deserves R&D funding and other financial supports).
For solar PV and wind it would only be reasonable to add a significant additional cost for energy storage or some other reliable generation source to provide power on calm nights. Those critical additional costs are conveniently ignored when comparing LCOE values for solar, wind, and hydro. As a result claims of “grid parity” for solar PV and wind are nonsense. Solar thermal with molten salt storage, on the other hand, is becoming a reliable and cost effective generation source in subtropical regions as demonstrated by a recent project by Solar Reserve being built in Chile.
One final note. It can be argued quite reasonably that those of us who will “shuffle off this mortal coil” before the Site C dam has been paid for will never see the benefits of the low cost power this dam will generate for decades or perhaps centuries in the future. So be it. We have, without question, enjoyed and will continue to enjoy some of the world’s lowest electricity rates because of the investments made in dam construction decades ago. As far as I am concerned I can imagine no greater legacy for our children and grandchildren than a source of clean, renewable energy that will last for their lifetimes and beyond.
I have complained previously about the misrepresentations published about renewable energy. In most cases the authors just seem to be so overcome with excitement about some new milestone achievement so that they lose sight of the big picture. But I recently ran into a post from 2016 that demonstrates more clearly than anything else I have read just how foolish these articles are.
“Renewable energy sources, taken together, covered 32.5% of German electricity consumption in 2015, while lignite provided only 26%. Since 1990 the electricity output from renewables has risen tenfold to last year
@enrgy_manifesto
