Introduction
When we flip the switch, the lights come on without anyone thinking about it. This has only been true for the last hundred years in metropolitan areas, and for only approximately eighty years in rural areas with the enactment of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936.
In 1935, only 25 percent of rural homes in the United States had electricity, and there are people alive today who grew up without electricity. Today, few people are even aware of the monolithic system that generates, distributes, and controls the electricity that flows with seeming effortlessness across the United States. This system is referred to as the grid, which is actually three grids covering the entire lower forty-eight states.
Over the past one hundred years, there have been only two area-wide blackouts affecting over 30 million people caused by a failure of the transmission system. There have been other blackouts—mostly caused by storms—affecting smaller groups, perhaps as many as several million people. Overall, the grid has worked remarkably well. Reliability can still be improved upon, but this is primarily a question of placing transmission and distribution lines underground to minimize weather-induced outages.
Suddenly, we are faced with a threat to the grid we haven’t seen before. It is a threat that can dramatically increase blackouts and the suffering that accompanies them. Some in leadership positions have viewed climate change as an existential threat to mankind and have implemented actions to eliminate fossil fuels from the generation of electricity. Some have claimed that wind and solar and other renew- ables can replace all the coal-fired, natural gas, and nuclear power plants in the United States. It can be argued that the actions these people are taking are making electricity more costly and less reliable, and placing Americans at risk for little or no reason. They are willing to gamble the safety and lives of Americans, as well as the American economy, on an ideology.
Our nation has suffered through a medical war fighting COVID-19 in which thousands died. As my neighbor said,
“The inability of our country to anticipate the corona- virus pandemic and put in place adequate reserves of all of the things we needed—PPE, ventilators, masks, tests, hospital beds, etc.—speaks loudly and directly to the need for reliable on-demand electricity and the need to plan for it right now.”
Imagine if Americans had to suffer through rolling blackouts while quarantined at home during a future pandemic. How would newly erected emergency hospitals operate without electricity, let alone our existing hospitals without diesel fuel or natural gas to power emergency generators?
This was brought home by an oped in the Washington Post. Quoting from the op-ed:
Residential use is up as workers and school children stay home.
[Demand is down] in locked up restaurants, offices and factories.
Hospitals are a different story: They consume twice as much per square foot as hotels . . . lead schools and office buildings by an even greater margin. And their work couldn’t be more vital as they confront the novel coronavirus.
A grid operator, sequestered in his dispatch center in East Greenbush, New York, said it all, “Keeping the lights on. . . . It’s so critical.”3
There is little doubt there will be another pandemic. The only question is when. We must do what is needed to guarantee adequate and reliable supplies of electricity in preparation for the next pandemic.
President Trump recognized the vital importance of the grid when he issued an executive order on May 1, 2020, to protect the grid from foreign adversaries. He said the grid, “provides the electricity that sup- ports our national defense, vital emergency services, critical infrastruc- ture, economy, and way of life.”
There is also an ideology that threatens the grid. This book will examine how federal regulators, state governments, utility companies, and the operators of the grid themselves are imposing their beliefs about climate change on all Americans and placing the grid in great jeopardy. Unelected bureaucrats and self-imposed intelligentsia are making decisions that place all Americans in danger.
Looming Energy Crisis will show you why we must continue to use fossil fuels and why we must protect the grid from the actions of those who are imposing their personal beliefs on the rest of us. Our objective should be low-cost reliable electricity available for everyone.
Reliability is a national security issue.
Well done Donn!
I plan to post on LinkedIn and send to my friends.
Thanks.
I’m interested in seeing whether the quiz gets people to actually discuss the issues.
I doubt a quiz will produce a better response.
I suggest asking which is preferable:
1) Unknown amount of future global warming and its unknown effects developing over future decades;
or
2) Reduced living standard, loss of jobs, restricted mobility, suffering, similar to what the Covid-19 pandemic has produced over the past 9 months, and for those changes to last continuously for years or decades into the future.
This approach does not argue against what alarmists “know” to be true about warming, but makes them consider about what price is to be paid for pursuing current thinking about mitigating that envisioned warming.
Nothing persuades like the threat of an immediate decrease in a person’s present and future lifestyle. As Clinton said: “its the economy, stupid”.
Thanks.
I’m for any approach that will get people to react and think, especially the young folks who have been indoctrinated in high school and universities.
A discussion on various approaches would get the ball rolling.
Hi Don,
Nice quiz with relevant questions. Unfortunately, I do not think it will change minds of many people because facts do not affect people’s beliefs.
When a large number of people experience personally consequences of the nonsense that is being promulgated for the last 15 – 20 years, such as lose their jobs, freeze themselves in the winter, have their mobility restricted, and standard of living decreased, maybe then some will realize there are consequences for their actions (such as voting) or inactions (complacency and silence), and hopefully then things will begin to change.
Until then, we will live in the “Post Science Period”, “The Age of De-enlightenment”, or as I call the the Age of Unreason.
Thanks for your comments.
So far you are being proven right. I can’t but hope that some people will revisit the real science and see that the hype about climate change is only leading to a lowering of living standards. Actually hurting the poorest and most vulnerable around us.
I wish people could understand THIS IS THE GOAL for the Climatistas:
“The Paris Accord is, in fact, harmful, especially to developing countries that already have terrible living conditions and short life expectancies.”
HUMAN BEINGS are their enemy. And as such reducing human beings by maintaining short life expectancies is perfectly fine by them.
Thus – Paris Accord is a GOOD thing to these people. They hate humanity. Just listen to their words. It’s just evil.
I agree the actions of climate advocates are evil. They are denying billions of people the opportunity to get out of poverty and live a fruitful life.