The fastest growing source of electricity generation, by far, is dangerous natural gas.
I covered this point previously in this space:
The fastest growing source of US electricity has lead to large CO2 reductions for US electricity.
It is another very big lie one tells oneself when one claims that so called "renewable energy" will prevent fracking. Without dangerous natural gas, the so called "renewable energy" industry would collapse in a New York minute.
As I pointed out in the post linked here, referring to the useless wind industry:
The reality is that the total electrical energy output of the wind industry in the United States, 0.62 exajoules - for those who can do math and thus are open to questioning this cockamamie useless Don Quixote redux – is just 33% of the increase in the use of dangerous natural gas in the last ten years, and just 14% of the total, rapidly growing, dangerous natural gas powered electrical generation industry overall. This means that the wind industry is not gaining on natural gas, it is in fact losing ground on natural gas.
Near where I live in New Jersey, there is huge opposition to the Penn East Pipeline which will bring fracked gas to New Jersey if built. I of course oppose this pipeline; I oppose all dangerous fossil fuels in all circumstances. However if you talk to the other opponents of the pipeline, they will tell you that the pipeline is unnecessary because so called "renewable energy" is so great. I don't know whether to break out laughing or break down crying.
They, like the rest of the people in the world, are lying to themselves. The reason is obvious; the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine and many times neither are available. Thus one needs a redundant system to back it up. All their useless horseshit about batteries and hydrogen are delusional, not only because these things are expensive and toxic and unsustainable, but because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The only back up for so called "renewable energy" is dangerous natural gas, and it follows that reliance the so called "renewable energy" will increase, and not decrease, dependence on gas.
About 50% of the electricity generated in New Jersey comes from nuclear power, but this will change when the Oyster Creek reactor, a gift from my parent's generation to mine, shuts down. It is the oldest operating reactor in the United States, having come on line in 1968. The reactor will not be replaced by another reactor, a liability that my generation is dumping, with contempt, on all future generations. The plant's power will thus be replaced by gas, probably applying the usual ineffective fig leaf of so called "renewable energy." This outcome is a crime against all future generations.
Nature: "Current models of climate economics assume that lives in the future are less important...than lives today, a value judgement that is rarely scrutinized and difficult to defend..."
Enjoy the remainder of the weekend.
= new reply since forum marked as read
