I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren.
View all posts by Don Tabor
Published
23 thoughts on “Why the Energy Transition will fail”
I don’t get an error message. I can see the first paragraph or two and then a pop-up blocks further access unless I sign up or sign in. That is what happened on this link, but the link on another thread – to the Lance Morrow piece – went through without a problem.
I’m stumped. I learned there have been problems using Chrome to access WSJ in the past, but that was several years ago. If you haven’t done it in a while, clearing your cookies might help.
I’m so old, I remember a time when gas prices went through the roof because “fossil fuels were running out.” When green energy resources started looking like realities, suddenly there were no more “oil shortages.” Prices never went back down, but the prospect of running out of oil stopped being a topic of conversation.
I don’t recall anyone ever being “hit by a 7 ton blade falling from the sky,” but I do remember an oil tanker called the Exxon Valdez putting an oil slick over Alaska, and I remember a thing called Deepwater Horizon that polluted the entire Gulf of Mexico. I also remember Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and a tsunami in Japan being a problem… not to mention the problem of where to store radioactive waste that has a deadly half life of 6,000 years.
So, the argument of 7 ton falling blades doesn’t carry much weight (pun intended). And after all the tax money that has gone to subsidize big oil, the argument about money to green energy is ridiculous.
If the energy landscape wasn’t changing, oil companies wouldn’t be panicking about green energy. Is green energy enough? No, not yet. Does that mean we should stop trying to find alternative energy sources? Should we stop moving forward with technology that is energy dependent?
To me, this whole article seems to argue that “oil and coal are cheap so why bother with that green stuff.” Well, for one thing, that “flowing water” source of energy in the west is drying up due to climate change. And for another thing, without water to drink and air to breathe, cheat abundant energy won’t mean diddly squat.
Seriously, have you ever given thought to what a world without fossil fuel energy would look like absent alternatives to fill the void? Wind and solar will never do it.
Well, as you know I think a major commitment to nuclear power generation is an important part of the non-fossil fuel future. But, with that said, I think you underestimate how rapidly green energy technology is advancing. Solar, in particular, is moving by leaps and bounds. And at the utility scale there are emerging mass energy storage advances looming with the potential to be game changers.
Even if solar or wind(and the associated necessary storage might, someday reach a useful capacity, we are talking decades to achieve that, and we have to eat and stay warm in the meantime.
A problem associated with this debate is water. Regardless of whether or not one believes how the climate is changing, the weather patterns are doing so as we debate.
Populations have grown up in areas of predictable and generally available water. In some cases, stored as snow caps and glaciers, but still fulfilling a dependency that is hard to duplicate. Losing the Southwest and the Central Valley in CA would be a disaster for our economy. Not to mention displacing 10’s of millions.
And that is just here. Billions around the world becoming climate refugees will undoubtedly result in massive suffering and conflicts.
A one time you said there could never be an electric pickup truck that could do the job that people who owned them wanted them for. NOW they are available on the market or coming soon. Now you don’t believe that farm tractors can be electrified. Your record is dismal in predicting stuff. Maybe you should reconsider doing it without any basis in YOUR market’s facts.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Paywalled.
LikeLike
Should be a freelink, I will check and correct
LikeLike
Looked OK, but reset it anyway, should not be paywaled
LikeLike
RE: “Paywalled.”
We can try to diagnose the problem:
What browser are you using?
How do you follow the link (e.g., do you left-click on it with your mouse, right-click, or something else)?
What error message do you get at WSJ?
LikeLike
“We can try to diagnose the problem:”
Okay. Sure.
I am using Chrome.
I generally right click and open in a new window.
I don’t get an error message. I can see the first paragraph or two and then a pop-up blocks further access unless I sign up or sign in. That is what happened on this link, but the link on another thread – to the Lance Morrow piece – went through without a problem.
LikeLike
Try left clicking. My WSJ articles are already set to open in a new window.
LikeLike
Okay. Thanks.
LikeLike
I’m stumped. I learned there have been problems using Chrome to access WSJ in the past, but that was several years ago. If you haven’t done it in a while, clearing your cookies might help.
LikeLike
Thanks for trying.
LikeLike
It might be that the links is a few days old although they are supposed to be permanent.
LikeLike
I’m so old, I remember a time when gas prices went through the roof because “fossil fuels were running out.” When green energy resources started looking like realities, suddenly there were no more “oil shortages.” Prices never went back down, but the prospect of running out of oil stopped being a topic of conversation.
I don’t recall anyone ever being “hit by a 7 ton blade falling from the sky,” but I do remember an oil tanker called the Exxon Valdez putting an oil slick over Alaska, and I remember a thing called Deepwater Horizon that polluted the entire Gulf of Mexico. I also remember Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and a tsunami in Japan being a problem… not to mention the problem of where to store radioactive waste that has a deadly half life of 6,000 years.
So, the argument of 7 ton falling blades doesn’t carry much weight (pun intended). And after all the tax money that has gone to subsidize big oil, the argument about money to green energy is ridiculous.
If the energy landscape wasn’t changing, oil companies wouldn’t be panicking about green energy. Is green energy enough? No, not yet. Does that mean we should stop trying to find alternative energy sources? Should we stop moving forward with technology that is energy dependent?
To me, this whole article seems to argue that “oil and coal are cheap so why bother with that green stuff.” Well, for one thing, that “flowing water” source of energy in the west is drying up due to climate change. And for another thing, without water to drink and air to breathe, cheat abundant energy won’t mean diddly squat.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not worried about a windmill blade falling on me, the subsonic vibrations are so bad no one lives near them.
But they already have killed half the known population of Golden Eagles on the Continental US.
If the offshore wind farm is ever completed, the Atlantic population of humpback whales is done.
LikeLike
As senseless as it may be if your stats are correct, we have no problem wiping out fisheries worldwide since it costs money to sustain them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Even viewed in the best light, green energy isn’t going to replace fossil fuels, nuclear is the only alternative and it’s going to take time.”
There are other options, but they are unpleasant: Depopulation and poverty.
I sometimes think the rulers of the world favor both, though not for themselves.
LikeLike
True, green energy and green agriculture could perhaps support a billion people, but how are you going to get those elitists to farm without tractors?
A green world is a world of stoop labor and poop fertilized food.
LikeLike
RE: “how are you going to get those elitists to farm without tractors?”
I didn’t say they were smart. Just look at the energy crisis in Europe right now. It was created by the Davos crowd.
LikeLike
Don’t forget George Soros!
LikeLike
We’ll eat him first.
Seriously, have you ever given thought to what a world without fossil fuel energy would look like absent alternatives to fill the void? Wind and solar will never do it.
LikeLike
“Wind and solar will never do it.”
Well, as you know I think a major commitment to nuclear power generation is an important part of the non-fossil fuel future. But, with that said, I think you underestimate how rapidly green energy technology is advancing. Solar, in particular, is moving by leaps and bounds. And at the utility scale there are emerging mass energy storage advances looming with the potential to be game changers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even if solar or wind(and the associated necessary storage might, someday reach a useful capacity, we are talking decades to achieve that, and we have to eat and stay warm in the meantime.
LikeLike
A problem associated with this debate is water. Regardless of whether or not one believes how the climate is changing, the weather patterns are doing so as we debate.
Populations have grown up in areas of predictable and generally available water. In some cases, stored as snow caps and glaciers, but still fulfilling a dependency that is hard to duplicate. Losing the Southwest and the Central Valley in CA would be a disaster for our economy. Not to mention displacing 10’s of millions.
And that is just here. Billions around the world becoming climate refugees will undoubtedly result in massive suffering and conflicts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The fossil record shows a long history in CA of droughts lasting 30 years or more, going back thousands of years
LikeLike
A one time you said there could never be an electric pickup truck that could do the job that people who owned them wanted them for. NOW they are available on the market or coming soon. Now you don’t believe that farm tractors can be electrified. Your record is dismal in predicting stuff. Maybe you should reconsider doing it without any basis in YOUR market’s facts.
LikeLike