An energy reality check (Ellsworth American letter)

March 4, 2022

Dear Editor:

To Mr. Hylan of Brooklin regarding my “homework” [“Some homework assignments,” Feb. 24]:

While readily apparent that my “hysterical” commentary struck a nerve with Mr. Hylan of Brooklin, I missed the “many inaccuracies” he alludes to in his rebuttal. The snow did cover the solar panels, the wind did stop and these alternative energy sources did not work, period. Will that be forever? I didn’t say that, as each of these fuels will play a role in our energy future, albeit smaller than some people expect.

It is common knowledge that FedEx, UPS and Amazon are buying electric vehicles because they are cheaper to maintain over a long service life and will work well in short-distance city grid systems. They are also heavily subsidized and each company will earn significant tax incentives — that Joe taxpayer will pay for.

Jim Farley is justifiably proud of the expected sales of his new Ford F-150 Lightning pickup. But no one has one yet. And I suspect the pricing will climb significantly as chip shortages and other pieces rise dramatically in the coming months.

Huge solar farms over repurposed Kentucky coal mines makes great sense; it doesn’t snow very often there and both the state and the feds have to create thousands of jobs to replace the thousands of jobs displaced by closing the coal mines.

Your contention that 100 gigawatts of wind power was created in China last year could very well be accurate. But we must not overlook that the Chinese are also building 43 coal-burning energy plants this year.

Governor Abbott recently wrote me to explain that his expanded pursuit of wind and solar power was necessary in light of the hysteria created by last winter’s ice storm that left much of Texas with no energy. But because their electrical grid is so antiquated, and ratepayers are reluctant to pay for higher fees, he is going to ask the oil companies that operate the alternative energy fields to kick in some extra money to off-set these shortcomings.

And while researching the incentives paid by all governments for the forms of energy we consume, you can find so much conflicting data that it makes you think it is polling info rather than reality. For certain, we shouldn’t be paying any incentives to for-profit corporations for any energy, and then paying again to use it, but it appears that the billions going to fossil fuels is a mere fraction of the incentives being paid out for alternative fuels (wind/solar) — especially given that fossil fuels still provide the bulk of our daily energy.

My main point in the whole commentary was that the fossil fuels still work, when needed, on demand, and in reserve so that the world’s, and Maine’s, economy still functions. There is certainly a place for alternative energy; yet as defined and employed right now, it cannot and will not replace our essential need for reliable base-load power supply such as supplied by today’s fossil fuels. We need to provide a secure energy future. The world events this week should reinforce this reality for everyone.

Tim Plouff

Otis

https://www.ellsworthamerican.com/opinions/an-energy-reality-check/

************************************* 


Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Views: 177

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Lynn Oleum on March 7, 2022 at 5:24pm

Excellent history lesson from Willem. Of course, now that Russia has invaded Ukraine, instead of using some kind of economic or political pressure, Ukraine (and probably Georgia) will demand to be admitted to NATO. Maybe goading Putin into that mistake was Bill Cliton's goal? I don't think so.

Comment by Willem Post on March 7, 2022 at 10:01am

EXCERPT from:

THE UKRAINE PLOT IS THICKENING WITH GERMANY AND FRANCE BARELY IN LOCKSTEP WITH US/UK-LED NATO

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-plot-is-thickening...

NATO Expansions Starting in 1999

 

The “unprovoked, unjustified” descriptor of the Ukraine War obscures a long history of provocative actions by the US regarding Ukraine. This history is important to understand: 1) how we got here, and 2) what responsibility the US bears for the current attack on Ukraine.

https://fair.org/home/calling-russias-attack-unprovoked-lets-us-off...

 

Unprovoked?

- NATO expanded its military personnel and infrastructures beyond East Germany to Russian borders, after promising not to expand beyond East Germany in 1990.

- NATO claims innocence, because each country has a right to make its own security arrangements, which is OK, except it should not be dome at the expense of the security of other countries.

- However, NATO has no right to claim innocence, because it pledged not to expand beyond East Germany in 1990

 

Unjustified?

- NATO would have AEGIS systems, with hypersonic missiles, in Poland, Ukraine and Romania that would, if equipped with nuclear bombs, would have the potential to destroy all of Moscow and East Russia within minutes.

- Russia could have a proper counter protection, but it would have to place similar missiles on Cuba and in Mexico.

 

This article also summarizes statements by prominent people in the UK, US, and Europe opposing NATO expansions.

 

In 1997, dozens of foreign policy veterans (including former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and former CIA Director Stansfield Turner) sent a joint letter to then-President Bill Clinton calling “the current US-led effort to expand NATO…a policy error of historic proportions.” 

 

In 1998, NYT columnist Thomas Friedman (5/2/98) asked George Kennan—architect of the US Cold War strategy of containment—about NATO expansion. Kennan’s response:

 

I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.

 

Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are—but this is just wrong.

 

Despite these warnings, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were added to NATO in 1999, with Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia following in 2004.

 

In 2008, US planners were warned by US Ambassador to Moscow William Burns (now director of the CIA under Joe Biden). WikiLeaks leaked a cable from Burns titled “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines” that included another prophetic warning worth quoting in full (emphasis added):

Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region.  Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests.

 

Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war.  In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.

 

Even without officially being in NATO, Ukraine has become a de facto NATO ally—and Russia has paid close attention to these developments.

 

In December 2021 Putin expressed his concerns:

 

Over the past few years, military contingents of NATO countries have been almost constantly present on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of exercises. The Ukrainian troop control system has already been integrated into NATO. This means that NATO headquarters can issue direct commands to the Ukrainian armed forces, even to their separate units and squads….

 

Kiev has long proclaimed a strategic course on joining NATO. Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.”

 

International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one’s own security at the expense of the security of other states….

 

In other words, the choice of pathways towards ensuring security should not pose a threat to other states, whereas Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia’s security.

 

In 2014, Ukraine experienced a color revolution, called the Maiden Coup, largely instigated by the US. The US involvement was part of a campaign aimed at exploiting divisions in Ukrainian society, to push the country into the US sphere of influence, pulling it out of the Russian sphere (FAIR.org1/28/22). In the aftermath of the illegal overthrow, Russia illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine, in part to secure a major naval base from the new Ukrainian government.

 

Broken Pledges and Geo-Strategic Objectives: All this would have been avoided, if the US/UK/EU/NATO had kept their promises, made in 1990, not to expand beyond East Germany

 

George Kennan, former US ambassador to the Soviet Union, suggested to the US government in 1990s, expanding NATO up to Russia’s borders would be the most fateful error of American policy. Regrettably, the US government turned a deaf ear to this.

 

Thomas Friedman, a famous US expert on international relations, wrote in a recent article that ill-considered decision by the US to expand NATO has undermined the relations with Russia and the US government in early years deserves much of the blame.

 

Tulsi Gabbard, former member of the US House of Representatives, said the crisis could have been ended, and the war easily avoided, if President Biden had simply promised not to accept Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO. But they chose not to do so.

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_6654...

 

Leading experts warned NATO expansion would lead to conflict. Why did no one listen?

From Kennan to Kissinger, Western foreign-policy thinkers saw NATO’s eastward march was a dangerous game

https://www.rt.com/news/551225-nato-expansion-lead-conflict/

 

US Department of Defense 5-y Plan: Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz issued a US DoD plan for 1994 to 1999, that included the expansion of NATO, i.e., expand US geo-strategic objectives at the expense of Russia.

The US Congress approved the expansion of NATO in 1998.

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were admitted to NATO in March 1999

 

NATO marched towards Russian borders, saying sovereign nations can apply and NATO members will decide, somewhat similar to becoming a member of a golf, or yacht club. 

 

That whole approach regarding the indivisibility of security in the nuclear age is totally bonkers. It ultimately led to the Ukraine situation.

 

At present, the US Government-US Media complex is repeating, ad nauseum: All this has nothing to do with NATO expansion, but everything to do with evil Putin, who:

 

1) Aims to deny Ukraine’s right to exist;

2) Aims to reestablish the greatness of Russia,

3) Hates freedom and democracy

 

If Russia’s attack on Ukraine has nothing to do with decades NATO expansions, how come so many western experts have spent decades warning NATO expansions would lead to an attack on Ukraine?

 

Spinmeister and former Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, falsely claims: “This thing (i.e., NATO expansions), we were warned about for decades, was never anything anyone ever mentioned, until the end of last year” (i.e., 2021).

 

That statement is false, because numerous prominent people had warned against expanding NATO, because no one was threatening anybody, at that time.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/experts-warned-years-nato-ex...

 

PART 1

 

New Evidence of Pledges Not to Expand NATO

 

Germany's Der Spiegel Asks: "Is Vladimir Putin Right Regarding NATO Expansion?

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/germanys-spiegel-asks-vladim...

 

The West promised not to expand NATO, beyond East Germany (the Oder River), according to a recently made-public document from the UK National Archives.

 

A newly discovered document from March 1991 shows US, UK, French, and German officials discussing a pledge made to Moscow that NATO would not expand to Poland and beyond. Its publication by the German magazine Der Spiegel on Friday comes as expansion of the US-led bloc has led to a military standoff in Eastern Europe. 

 

The minutes of a March 6, 1991 meeting in Bonn between political directors of the foreign ministries of the US, UK, France, and Germany contain multiple references to “2+4” talks on German unification in which the Western officials made it “clear” to the Soviet Union that NATO would not push into territory east of Germany. 

 

“We made it clear to the Soviet Union – in the 2+4 talks, as well as in other negotiations – that we do not intend to benefit from the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe”,the document quotes US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Canada Raymond Seitz.

 

“NATO should not expand to the east, either officially or unofficially,” Seitz added. 

A British representative also mentions the existence of a “general agreement” that membership of NATO for eastern European countries is “unacceptable.”

 

“We had made it clear during the 2+4 negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe [sic],” said West German diplomat Juergen Hrobog. “We could not therefore offer Poland and others membership in NATO.”

 

SEE URL

https://www.rt.com/news/549921-nato-expansion-russia-document/

 

NOTE: The UK has shut down RT, because its reporting was interfering with the Western gospel

 

PART 2

 

During a 1990 meeting, US Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev of the following:

 

Baker said"If the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction."

 

Several years later, NATO and President Clinton began considering just such a spreading—but not without controversy.

 

1) American diplomat George Kennan, a towering figure in Cold War strategy, who authored the policy of Soviet “containment,” was unequivocal in his opposition.

 

In a 1997 essay published by The New York TimesKennan said, "Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era…Such a decision may be expected…to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking."

 

2) A bipartisan group of 50 foreign policy luminaries—including Cold War hawks like Paul Nitze and Robert McNamara—signed an open letter to President Clinton opposing NATO expansion.

 

"Russia does not now pose a threat to its western neighbors and the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are not in danger…we believe that NATO expansion is neither necessary, nor desirable, and that this ill-conceived policy can, and should be put on hold," the group declared.

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/how-nato-empire-building-set...

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/tangled-tale-nato-expansion-...

 

PART 3

 

NATO did promise Moscow it wouldn't expand, former German defense official tells RT

https://www.rt.com/russia/549961-west-nato-expand-willy-wimmer/

 

Here is more evidence, the 1990-promise not to expand NATO beyond the Oder (border of East Germany and Poland), was deliberately broken by the US, using NATO as its battering ram since 1994

 

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were admitted to NATO in March 1999

 

The present US/EU/NATO call for unison, is basically a call for “same-message-thinking”

 

It is a sign to the Media airing “at variance” thoughts are not welcome, even if such suppression would instigate a real war., which would give the US/EU the excuse to severely sanction Russia

 

They likely knew “stirring the bear” eventually would lead to trouble.  

 

The US has instigated lots of wars/military actions/color-revolution since 1945

 

Eisenhower warned against the power of the military-industrial complex in 1960


The image shows, NATO expansions

 

Comment by Lynn Oleum on March 6, 2022 at 2:07pm

Many states' public utility commissions require thermal-based power systems to have 15% backup. Rent seekers in Texas said wind and solar didn't need backup (provided by them) because the thermal plants on the grid provided it. How'd that work out, Texas?

Solar and wind need 100% backup, 100% of the time. Some greenies reluctantly admit this, but never have an answer to "how much?" or "from what?"

They hyperventilate and shout "Batteries!" But again can't say how much capacity is needed. They wave their hands and say "twelve hours." But real data show it's 400-3000 watt hours' storage per watt of average demand. Look up the price and longevity for batteries, for example from Tesla's catalogue. Environmentalists estimate an all-electric American energy economy would have 1,700 GWe average demand. Do the arithmetic. At least FOUR TIMES TOTAL USA GDP EVERY YEAR for batteries alone.

Comment by Penny Gray on March 6, 2022 at 8:54am

Nuclear is the path we should be on if 24/7 reliable energy really matters and we're intent on ditching evil fossil fuels. Giving up all things plastic in our plastic world will be difficult.  Bamboo iPhone, anyone?

Comment by Dan McKay on March 6, 2022 at 7:59am

Tim Plouff, you never say why such " out of step" energy resources (wind, solar) make sense. Human achievement calls for reliable, on immediate call, energy. 

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service