The Virginia War On Fossil Fuels

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Source: Bacon’s Rebellion.

“An all-electric economy, with the electricity itself reliant on unreliable wind and solar generation, is exactly the future envisioned for Virginia and being put into place by Governor Ralph Northam and the majority in the General Assembly.”

Week-long electrical outages have been random but constant occurrences throughout my life here in Norfolk. Because of this I keep two large kerosene space heaters and a propane camp stove in the basement. They get used at least once almost every year. Also, I have a gas-powered SUV to get me out of the neighborhood when it floods, which also happens about once year. If all my heat and transportation depended on electricity, I and my family would have real troubles during these predictable disaster periods.

I have heard it said that we must end our use of fossil fuels because global warming is a threat to the survival of all living things on Earth. I straight up don’t believe it because, in my own experience, kerosene, propane and gasoline are key to my survival when the power goes out. I believe that very principle can be extended to all of humanity for solid, technical reasons alone. Besides, global warming is far from a proven threat, from what I can tell.

I get it that other energy sources can substitute for fossil fuels to produce electricity, but I don’t want to depend on electricity alone for my comfort, cooking and mobility. And while I appreciate the concept that an infinite number of engineers, given an infinite amount of money, could create an infinitely reliable electrical system that uses no fossil fuels, the prospects do not look encouraging to me.

Published by John Todd Roberts

Published

29 thoughts on “The Virginia War On Fossil Fuels”

  1. Week long outages are constant occurrences?

    I have lived in this area since 1972 and if we lost power for more than a day in any of the 8 different home we have lived in I can’t recall.

    Not saying you didn’t since storm impacts are varied upon luck and location.

    But the power losses had zip to do with generation and more to do with downed power lines. (It still amazes me that wires strung on tree trunks is still the main mode of electricity for most.)

    Fossil fuels will be around for years to come. But that does not mean we have to burn all we can drill and dig up when alternatives are improving daily.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. RE: “Fossil fuels will be around for years to come.”

      That would be desirable, but, “The 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act already requires the retirement of coal and natural gas electricity generation in the state in less than 30 years.” Joe Biden wants to eliminate gas-powered automobiles in less than a decade. The points appears to be irrelevant.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Already most auto manufacturers are on track to stop or greatly curtail making gas powered vehicles in less time than that.

        https://www.businessinsider.com/promises-carmakers-have-made-about-their-future-electric-vehicles-2020-1#ford-4

        There will still be lots of gas powered cars on the road since used cars are a big market.

        On a similar note is the project in Australia for a solar field to power million(s) of homes in Singapore via undersea a cables. The transmission is about 2500 miles and relies on DC to be converted at the end user.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

          1. That alternative energy is coming at us faster than some would care to admit. During the throes of the pandemic last year, satellite imagery showed a cleaner air worldwide. And breathing is still necessary last I read.

            Until the CA fires created a swath of particulates in the Northern Hemisphere.

            Liked by 3 people

          2. RE: “That alternative energy is coming at us faster than some would care to admit.”

            I’m happy for that. I hope we are wise enough to avoid becoming dependent on electricity to meet all energy needs at the consumer level.

            Like

          3. I think that we can realistically expect that homes and even clusters of homes and apartments can rely on their own solar/wind alternatives and detach themselves from the grid.

            This will, of course, be dependent upon the upcoming battery technologies, among other things.

            Save remote generation for industry.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. RE: “I think that we can realistically expect that homes and even clusters of homes and apartments can rely on their own solar/wind alternatives and detach themselves from the grid.”

            That’s a nice fantasy. In reality, Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) discourage energy independence in urban, suburban and even rural areas,

            Like

  2. “I straight up don’t believe it because, in my own experience, kerosene, propane and gasoline are key to my survival when the power goes out.”

    There are many reasons why a rational person would not believe the extreme claim that all life on earth is at risk from global warming. However, the reason you give is not one of them.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      1. Maybe try thinking rather than doubling down on stupidity?

        Here is a hint . . . Neither the beasts of the forest, nor the birds of the air nor the fish of the sea will be able to survive global environmental death using “kerosine, propane and gasoline” to replace the electric power that they do not use anyway.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. RE: “Neither the beasts of the forest, nor the birds of the air nor the fish of the sea will be able to survive global environmental death using ‘kerosine, propane and gasoline’ to replace the electric power that they do not use anyway.”

          Maybe not, but the criticism is misguided. As I said, I don’t assume that “global environmental death” is likely.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Not man enough to admit that the following is complete nonsense? Obviously not . . .

            “I have heard it said that we must end our use of fossil fuels because global warming is a threat to the survival of all living things on Earth. I straight up don’t believe it because, in my own experience, kerosene, propane and gasoline are key to my survival when the power goes out”

            Let me paraphrase so that you can understand what YOU wrote . . .
            You don’t believe that use of fossil fuels is a threat to the survival of ALL living things because – wait for it – you get by on fossil fuels when the power goes out.

            If that makes sense on any level then please explain how.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “Not man enough …”?

            Are personal attacks all you got, or is making them the main reason you come here?

            I wrote: “global warming is far from a proven threat, from what I can tell.”

            Like

          3. Your reason for not believing that fossil fuels pose a threat to all life on the planet was UTTER NONSENSE. “Are you not man enough to admit it?” is a legitimate question after you double down on the nonsense – not a personal attack.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “Your reason for not believing that fossil fuels pose a threat to all life on the planet was UTTER NONSENSE.”

            I asked why, but obviously you have no answer.

            Like

        2. There is absolutely no evidence for catastrophic warming.

          There will be costs, like protecting against up to 4 feet or so of sea level rise in the next 100 years bit that means relocating some infrastructure and protecting others.

          It is not a binary, life or death issue. Zealots portray it as such to gull the masses, but there is no evidence to support it.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          2. The Union of Concerned scientists is a fund raising organization made up of very few actual scientists. They raise funds based on fear.

            Note that neither of your NASA links points to anything catastrophic.

            It is a problem, but a problem that we can deal with a lot cheaper in terms of human misery than prevent

            Like

          3. As I said there are rational reasons to doubt the worst case existential threats of global warming. I merely pointed out that Mr. Roberts being able to survive an electric power outage using fossil fuels is not one of them.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. The ‘Existential Threat’ garbage drives extreme responses that are worse than the actual problem.

            The worst REASONABLE case is 4 feet of sea level rise in 100 years. If we wreck our economy and doom billions in the developing world to permanent grinding poverty, we can reduce that to 3 feet 11 inches.

            Or we can build 5 foot sea walls and retreat from some places we shouldn’t have built in the first place.

            Like

          5. RE: “I merely pointed out that Mr. Roberts being able to survive an electric power outage using fossil fuels is not one of them.”

            Never said it was. I wrote that the “principle [of my survival] can be extended to all of HUMANITY for solid, technical reasons alone.” You picked a fight over nothing but your own fantasy.

            Like

          6. Well, Mr. Roberts, you have answered the question. You have posted something profoundly stupid and when invited to reconsider you double down on the stupidity. You asked why and I explained why. But still you cannot simply admit to any kind of error, so the answer to the question is a resounding “No!” The question was are you man enough to admit a mistake.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. RE: “You asked why and I explained why. But still you cannot simply admit to any kind of error…”

            I made no error, Mr. Murphy. Go back and read the paragraph I wrote very carefully. Your interpretation is in error.

            Like

          8. I have read it several times. I read it carefully before my first comment. Here is what you wrote . . .

            “I have heard it said that we must end our use of fossil fuels because global warming is a threat to the survival of all living things on Earth. I straight up don’t believe it because, in my own experience, kerosene, propane and gasoline are key to my survival when the power goes out.”

            It is nonsense. Period. There is no better word for it.
            Since you were puzzled I gave you a hint as to why it is nonsense. Here, read that again and remember we are talking about “all living things” not the Roberts family huddled around a kerosene heater.

            “Neither the beasts of the forest, nor the birds of the air nor the fish of the sea will be able to survive global environmental death using “kerosine, propane and gasoline” to replace the electric power that they do not use anyway.”

            Liked by 1 person

          9. Mr. Murphy, what part of “I straight up don’t believe it” do you not grasp? The part that implies fossil fuels cause global warming, the part that that implies global warming may not be an existential threat, or the part that implies only fools indulge in such fantasies?

            You picked a fight in error. Very stupid of you.

            Like

Leave a comment