Well, that is at least one reason we have such a mess of energy policy now.
Once a “War on Carbon”, Has now Morphed into a “War on Freedom”, “War on our Rights”, “War on Capitalism” and an assault on much of What “We the People” Have Worked Hard For. The clowns in Scotland are spending our tax dollars and restricting our freedoms as best they can. Essentially putting China and the rest of the world first, America last. All on our dime.
America has been a leader by example in reducing carbon. The U.S.A. has reduced our carbon emissions by over 50% since 2005. How? By releasing the power of free markets and American innovation. At the end of President Trump’s term, America was energy independent. He did that in four years only to have Joe Biden reverse his policies.
The War on Fossil Fuels is not new and the intentions have always been to raise energy costs so that “Green Power” will become competitive. Yes, the intentions of President Biden, John Kerry, Al Gore and the rest of the Green Extremists (Reminder, the War on Coal started in the Clinton-Gore Administration. Obama just continued and accellerated anti American energy policies Clinton-Gore began) The war on carbon is intended to make Exploration, Development, Production and use of oil, gas, coal and even nuclear, more expensive and harder to use. All of this as the world’s people still depend on Fossil Fuels and nuclear together for almost 90% of our total energy. How can our leaders be so ignorant and insensitive? Well, back in the 1990’s when bill Clinton started the “War on Coal”, I did my best to educate the public and the students of public schools and several Colleges on energy and electricity generation. I am proud of my efforts, small as they seem in the grand scheme of things. There is still a need for Energy Engineers to become active in PR for Energy!
I copied the Oct. 2011 Commentary(Below) from POWER Magazine’s web page. Kindly note my last line: I sure wish the readers of POWER and many other engineers took the suggestion to educate the public on energy and electricity generation more seriously. If we had, perhaps we would not have the mess we have in Washington today.
(From Oct. 2011)
Shaping America’s Energy Policy
America’s energy and environmental policies have been dysfunctional for decades. Obsessively moving toward “green” has made America weaker and has damaged our economy. During POWER’ s first 100 years (1882–1982), the magazine chronicled the U.S. growing into the strongest industrialized economy in the world. America designed and built products for the world using raw materials and energy from within our own borders. Now we are in a recession and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “War on Coal” continues. Does anyone get the connection? Ever-worsening regulations are killing jobs by the thousands.
Past Turning Points in U.S. Energy Production
Remember when America took risks and led the world in energy innovation? Let’s review some of the past milestones.
The pace-setting power stations Eddystone and Philo are ultrasupercritical power plants that were designed in the 1950s. Hailed as the most efficient coal power plants in the world when they were launched, these plants were designed for over-40% thermal efficiency.
Then Admiral Hyman G. Rickover and President Dwight D. Eisenhower followed through on the “Atoms for Peace Initiative” to commercialize the success of the Navy nuclear propulsion systems, which were to be applied to electricity generation for peaceful purposes. The Shippingport nuclear power plant began operations in the early 1960s, and larger commercial nuclear plants were on the drawing boards. By the mid-1960s, it was said that nuclear power was such a technological breakthrough that “electricity will be too cheap to meter.” America went on to build more than 100 commercial nuclear plants, most of which are still operational. U.S. nuclear plants remain economical and have earned an enviable safety record.
Then came oil embargos, followed by volatile natural gas prices. The high oil and gas prices resulted in a surge in building new coal plants from 1975 to 1985. The nuclear fleet grew until 1978, when the Three Mile Island accident created a major setback. In recent years, nuclear power morphed into the politically correct, carbon-free fuel. However, the tsunami in Japan in March and the resurgence of anti-nuclear groups around the world seem to have once more stalled future nuclear plant development.
The Need for Energy Policies That Promote Our Economy
U.S. energy policy should promote the use of all fuels. America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. If mining permits, EPA regulations, and common sense energy policies were practiced, then power engineers could replace our aging coal plants with new clean coal plants exceeding 40% thermal efficiency. This would be an efficiency improvement of about 7 percentage points above the existing coal fleet.
It is absurd that environmental activists can shape the U.S. energy policy based on ideology alone, with little concern for keeping electricity prices reasonable and our economy growing. Why don’t environmental activists embrace new, more efficient clean coal plants? America should be replacing our aging fleet with new, more efficient, clean coal plants. Will we ever learn?
My concern is that the same type of political correctness that nearly killed nuclear power after Three Mile Island may harm the future of clean coal plants. If the U.S. rebuilt the aging 300+ GW coal fleet with all new, clean ultrasupercritical coal plants, it would employ well over three million Americans. Jobs and a strong America are related to the utilization of homegrown energy, including the mining of coal and raw materials; construction; and the production of steel, cement, copper wire, generators, boilers, balance-of-plant equipment, and environmental controls. Compare the number of jobs created to build, operate, and maintain new coal plants with the “green jobs” of erecting foreign-built windmills or solar power facilities.
If we want to restore economic prosperity and renew manufacturing in America, then we need reasonably priced electricity to supply power to manufacturing plants. Keeping electricity costs reasonable for residential consumption is nice, but to restore manufacturing jobs in America, reasonably priced wholesale electricity, which is available on a 24/7 basis, is needed. This point seems to be forgotten in the national dialog on America’s energy future.
Educating the American Public About Electric Power Production
I think each of us who understands power production has a responsibility to educate our friends, neighbors, and elected officials. There are millions of citizens who believe reasonably priced, reliable electricity is an entitlement. The right thing for human advancement is to use the God-given natural resources that have made “living better electrically” a way of life in the developed world.
In my opinion, we should build green power where it is practical and economic to do so, such as on the roofs of buildings and parking garages. I support the building of nuclear plants and combined cycle gas plants, where economically justified. Energy engineers understand that when the sun sets and the wind is calm, the U.S. needs reasonably priced, dispatchable power to energize what is left of America’s manufacturing might.
I urge the readers of POWER to do your part in educating the public and our elected officials on the true facts of how we can continue to “live better electrically” and keep America strong. I promise to do my part. Will you?”
— Richard F. “Dick” Storm (was in 2011 ) CEO/senior consultant of Storm Technologies Inc. in Albemarle, N.C.
- POWER Magazine, Oct. 2011 Commentary: https://www.powermag.com/shaping-americas-energy-policy/#.YYIdCBf0vsM.linkedin
- Ron Clutz, Science Matters, Climate Change is 75% Naturally Caused by IPCC Data: https://rclutz.com/2021/11/06/ipcc-data-rising-co2-is-75-natural/#like-22392
5 thoughts on “Glasgow, COP-26 Elitists and Special Interests Promote China First, America Last, Why? Because Energy Savvy Engineers Were Not Successful In Educating The Public and Politicians on the True Facts”
Dick, good article except you did not mention the real problem with coal-fired plants – carbon and other hazardous chemicals including uranium released. You alluded to it by mentioning that we need good EPA regulations, but they have not been really able to move those release rates down without bankrupting the utilities. Until carbon sequestration (including recognition that other hazardous chemicals are involved) or other methods are developed to significantly reduce those emissions from coal/fossil plants, there will be no progress in environmentally caused climate change. Concurrently, recognizing that SMRs will be positive for nuclear energy growth, they still must solve the spent fuel disposal issue.
In my opinion the climate change issue is three-fold: 1. Something must be done to significantly reduce hazardous chemical (all of them) release from coal plants, 2. Something must be done to solve the nuclear spent fuel issue (reprocessing is my answer), 3. A move to get more electric vehicles on the road that involves a more careful safety study about the hazard mitigation of hydrogen used as a fuel and significant increase in battery life and distance covered.
Note: the more electric vehicles you have the more electric power you need to charge them – again, you have to solve the issues above.
As you kind of noted, these issues MUST be taken together in a package, not solved individually, and in a balanced-use method.
On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 2:18 AM dickstormprobizblog’s Blog wrote:
> dickstormprobizblog posted: ” Well, that is at least one reason we have > such a mess of energy policy now. Once a “War on Carbon”, Has now Morphed > into a “War on Freedom”, “War on our Rights”, “War on Capitalism” and Much > of What “We the People” Have Worked Hard For. Meanw” >
Thanks for your comments Don. The intent of this post was to make two points,1. People (politicians and environmental extremists) with very little energy knowledge are making policies that impact all Americans in all aspects of our lives. Many of these policy makers have weaponized some government agencies against conventional energy production, rather than take a rational approach to policy making such as you and I would suggest. 2. Energy engineers who do have experience and knowledge, like you and me, have an obligation to educate the next generation of youth, the public and the policy makers. You, me and other energy experienced persons make up a very small percentage of the general public, my guess is about 1%. I have tried for decades to do so and to some degree succeeded. However, we are out gunned by “Green Indoctrination” by government, public schools, entertainment and the MSN. Thanks again for your comments and just for the record, I believe that if carbon is a problem with the environment and if the U.S.A. wished to transition to truly Net Zero Carbon, then the best path to do so is to build many new nuclear power plants for both electricity generation for the Grid and to power hydrogen Electrolyzers to produce hydrogen for transportation.