Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power Earth United States

Activist Group Spreads Misinformation to Stop US Solar Projects (npr.org) 215

An activist group is spreading misinformation to stop solar projects in rural America Activist Group Spreads Misinformation to Stop US Solar Projects An energy company's plans for a solar plant powering 25,000 homes were thwarted after a four-year battle with a nonprofit that teamed with locals to restrict large-scale solar projects, reports NPR. That non-profit's name? "Citizens for Responsible Solar." "Citizens for Responsible Solar" is part of a growing backlash against renewable energy in rural communities across the United States. The group, which was started in 2019 and appears to use strategies honed by other activists in campaigns against the wind industry, has helped local groups fighting solar projects in at least 10 states including Ohio, Kentucky and Pennsylvania, according to its website.

"I think for years, there has been this sense that this is not all coincidence. That local groups are popping up in different places, saying the same things, using the same online campaign materials," says Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. Citizens for Responsible Solar seems to be a well-mobilized "national effort to foment local opposition to renewable energy," Burger adds. "What that reflects is the unfortunate politicization of climate change, the politicization of energy, and, unfortunately, the political nature of the energy transition, which is really just a necessary response to an environmental reality."

Citizens for Responsible Solar was founded in an exurb of Washington, D.C., by a longtime political operative named Susan Ralston who worked in the White House under President George W. Bush and still has deep ties to power players in conservative politics. Ralston tapped conservative insiders to help set up and run Citizens for Responsible Solar.... And when Ralston was launching the group, a consulting firm she owns got hundreds of thousands of dollars from the foundation of a leading GOP donor who is also a major investor in fossil fuel companies. It's unclear what the money to Ralston's firm was used for. Ralston has previously denied that Citizens for Responsible Solar received money from fossil fuel interests....

[H]er group's rhetoric points to a broader agenda of undermining public support for solar. Analysts who follow the industry say Citizens for Responsible Solar stokes opposition to solar projects by spreading misinformation online about health and environmental risks. The group's website says solar requires too much land for "unreliable energy," ignoring data showing power grids can run dependably on lots of renewables. And it claims large solar projects in rural areas wreck the land and contribute to climate change, despite evidence to the contrary.

Local politicians fear the political blowback from challenging misinformation, the article suggests — about both solar and wind projects. The result? "A 2022 report by the Sabin Center at Columbia University found 121 local policies around the country that are aimed at blocking or restricting renewable energy development, a nearly 18% increase from the year before."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Activist Group Spreads Misinformation to Stop US Solar Projects

Comments Filter:
  • It's willful (Score:4, Informative)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Sunday February 19, 2023 @03:19PM (#63306317) Homepage Journal

    and if it's willful, it's disinformation. This is fraud.

    • Re:It's willful (Score:4, Interesting)

      by mobby_6kl ( 668092 ) on Sunday February 19, 2023 @05:06PM (#63306579)

      and if it's willful, it's disinformation. This is fraud.

      Fraud or, as some would say, muh free speech!

      Anyway, Climate Town did a video on this recently. Basically, all these "concerned citizens" are literally made up by fossil industry consulting companies to derail renewable projects

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • and if it's willful, it's disinformation. This is fraud.

      You are describing the antinuclear movement. Like always with you it is projection. If this is fraud(which it might very well be) then a lot of what the antinuclear movement has done up to this point is fraud too!

  • It's kind of ridiculous that people get involved in these astro-turf campaigns to like be against kittens or solar power or salt substitute or whatever, not because it doesn't make sense, but because basically only the Micheal Bloomberg presidential campaign really paid enough money to justify the fake enthusiasm. I think hucksters deserve better. You're worth more than the pleasure of just pissing off liberals.

    • be against kittens

      Plenty of people are anti-kitten. They are invasive species in Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand, and many islands. They have driven many birds and small mammals to extinction.

  • Misdirection? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Sunday February 19, 2023 @03:27PM (#63306327)

    Ralston has previously denied that Citizens for Responsible Solar received money from fossil fuel interests

    That may be true - but I bet the organization DID receive money from people who in turn received money from fossil fuel interests.

  • by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Sunday February 19, 2023 @03:28PM (#63306333)
    What do they say to their kids ?
    • by ranton ( 36917 ) on Sunday February 19, 2023 @03:30PM (#63306343)

      What do they say to their kids ?

      They explain to them how their trust fund works.

      • What do they say to their kids ?

        They explain to them how their trust fund works.

        Perhaps one that's heavily invested in fossil-fuel companies?

      • You should look into trusts. Not just for money but for other property whereby the owner, ie the trust, retains ownership without transfer. You can simply add and remove trustees. While its true the rich elite use them a lot, they have benefits for everyone. Any restriction the government institutes but carves out a grandfathered clause, make sure you put it in a trust, so your decedents can still have access.
        • Indeed. I set up a trust many years ago. My house and many of my assets are owned by the trust.

          When I die, my kids avoid probate. Meanwhile, my home and savings are shielded from lawsuits or whatever.

          I can go to the country website, look at the parcel maps, and click to see who owns what. About 10% of my neighbors have houses owned by trusts.

      • I was gonna say "This is why you're getting a new game machine for Christmas". I doubt they're getting paid enough to set up a trust.

        • by ranton ( 36917 )

          I was gonna say "This is why you're getting a new game machine for Christmas". I doubt they're getting paid enough to set up a trust.

          I believe the low end people for the most part think they are doing a good thing. They have fallen for the propaganda. They can sleep at night just fine.

          • I doubt there are many of those true believers (even if they were lied to).

            Check this video I posted earlier, it's exactly about this type of astrotufing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

            It seems pretty clear there are probably just a handful of PR managers that make all that shit up and maybe one guy that maintains the web and social media stuff.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

      What do they say to their kids ?

      Within the span of the next generation, chances are that the mitigations to combat climate change are going to make things worse, from a standards of living perspective, than the effects of climate change over the same time period. The bill is due for all the previously externalized costs of the environmental damage inflicted by previous generations, and somebody's getting stuck paying for it.

      What they need to say to their kids is to get a good education and a well-paying job, because they're going to need

      • chances are that the mitigations to combat climate change are going to make things worse, from a standards of living perspective,

        I don't believe that. Most solar and wind projects are new capacity or are replacing old coal plants that are aging out. It's not like we're shutting down new gas turbines.

        I'm not a big fan of Joe Biden, but one good thing he did was push through a deal with Indonesia to replace planned coal plants with solar & wind. So the cost is only the difference between the cost of the renewables and the cost of the canceled coal project. The difference is small. In some cases it is negative. We should be looki

        • You want me to believe that energy from solar & wind costs less than coal and people all over the world are not aware of this? Seems to me that if this was true that the people selling energy from solar & wind would have a path beaten to their door as if they had the better mousetrap. That is not something that can be kept secret for long, and it is not something anyone in that business would want to keep secret.

          Here's a more believable explanation, there's reasonable doubt on solar & wind to

          • by XXongo ( 3986865 )

            You want me to believe that energy from solar & wind costs less than coal and people all over the world are not aware of this?

            Very much location dependent. Yes, in some places solar and wind energy cost less that coal. In some places they don't. And yes, people know this.

            ...
            If some activist group is spreading lies about solar power projects then it should be almost trivial to counter that with the truth.

            ROFL!!!

            If the 21st century has shown anything, it has shown that disinformation spreads very well. The idea that that truth will drive out disinformation merely because it's true has been rather viciously disproved.

      • You might think I'm being hyperbolic

        I do believe you are being hyperbolic.

        So, if you want the same standard of living as today, you'd better be earning more money tomorrow.

        Or move out of California.

        If California took CO2 emissions seriously then they would not be forcing existing nuclear power plants to close and prevent the construction of new nuclear power plants. Reality is finally slapping them in the face to where they admitted they needed to keep the nuclear power plant at Diablo Canyon from closing.

        If California doesn't want people to use portable gasoline generators to "shelter in place" during a power outage then they should not

      • by XXongo ( 3986865 )

        Within the span of the next generation, chances are that the mitigations to combat climate change are going to make things worse, from a standards of living perspective, than the effects of climate change over the same time period.

        The evidence you give for this assertion is less than persuasive. Technology tends to get cheaper with time, and we are very early in the learning curve with solar... and despite that, it's still remarkably cheap.

        And one anecdote about somebody who used an electric car in a blackout is not indicative of anything.

    • by TheGavster ( 774657 ) on Sunday February 19, 2023 @04:01PM (#63306451) Homepage

      I mean, we've had people doing exactly this to the nuclear industry for half a century now. What do those people say to their grandkids and great-grandkids?

      • No, this is totally different.

        Normal people who support nuclear power can understand fears people have about it, particularly before global warming was such a concern.
        Nuclear opponents range from the concerned to the deluded, but they are rarely evil.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        I mean, we've had people doing exactly this to the nuclear industry for half a century now.

        That's different. The nuke-phobes may be wrong, but they believe they are right.

        The people spreading anti-solar FUD are lying scumbags. They know what they are saying isn't true and they know it is harmful. They say it because they are paid to say it.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The nuclear industry's problems are entirely of its own making.

        If it was activists then it wouldn't be a problem in countries where activism isn't allowed or doesn't happen. It also wouldn't be an issue for any government considering it a matter of national security (because it is needed for medical purposes and nuclear weapons).

        If activists really had the power to sabotage nuclear energy, the world would be a very different place.

    • What group are you talking about?

    • They say, "Throw another bundle of 50s on the fire, son."
  • by ranton ( 36917 ) on Sunday February 19, 2023 @03:29PM (#63306337)

    It would be foolish to believe those with a financial interest to combat renewable energy are going to just give up. The oil industry has been fighting against other forms of energy since electricity was first invented.

    We simply have to beat them, just as they have been beaten before. If local governments are fighting against solar and wind energy, just make sure federal infrastructure dollars are contingent on an expansion in renewable energy investment locally. Dollars talk.

    • by e3m4n ( 947977 ) on Sunday February 19, 2023 @03:44PM (#63306403)
      You are halfway right. Energy companies are not entirely against wind and solar. They are against you generating your own energy. They are all for solar they run and sell to you at a premium. Theyre like the cable company. They arent against HBO. Just you getting it from someone else.
    • The oil industry has been fighting against other forms of energy since electricity was first invented.

      The oil industry doesn't much care about alternative energy sources like wind and solar because petroleum is largely used for transportation fuels, lubricants, plastics, and a handful of other products. There is a tiny fraction of oil that is used to produce electricity.

      The natural gas industry loves wind and solar power because they know that only natural gas can provide a reliable and fast acting backup for a reasonable cost. There's evidence of natural gas interests funding wind and solar advocacy.

      The

  • Putting aside the obvious counter-argument that this is automatically B.S. given the political affiliations, one should take a look at what's happening around Desert Center in California. There are massive, as in "can be seen from space" solar fields going up. The construction requires that the land be completely cleared. I'm amazed that environmentalists haven't chained themselves to the construction equipment to protest the destruction of habitats of the desert tortoise or any other endangered species.

    • by rbrander ( 73222 )

      https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]

      That's the project in "Desert Center" that's been hit with these very protests. The people described in the article use ecological arguments, as you say, as their primary path of attack, and co-opt Greens, in many cases, to do the work of oil and gas firms. Which, of course, makes it a hot topic in environmentalist circles.

      Solar isn't so much "politically favored" as it is "popular with Greens who don't want 2C warming" and it is also another popular thing, which is "ch

  • One doesn't need any organized effort to oppose solar power. People are deluded enough about covid and 5G they'll make things up on their own [ydr.com]:

    Melanie Mantegna was also concerned about potential health issues the farm could cause.

    “We’re already being poisoned with 5G,” she said. “You’re not going to poison us with your crap.”

    Mantegna held up a stack of papers she claimed were government documents that prove “coronavirus came from 5G." She also said she had a video of Bill Gates admitting to these claims, but the board declined to watch it.

    Can you guess which political party she's a member of?

  • And it claims large solar projects in rural areas wreck the land and contribute to climate change, despite evidence to the contrary.

    while I am sure these guys are closed minded agenda driven lunies, it doesn't help when you use broken arse logic like this. Nothing in that article suggests it doesn't destroy the land, it merely states the benefits outweigh the negatives. When you use garbage logic like that to fight them you are making their job easier.

    • Agriculture also wrecks land. So does development. It is just a matter of what you want to wreck the land for. If you build on top of farmland you are just using land that has already been wrecked.

      If a farmer wants to lease or sell his land for solar, why should we stop them? We already have too much farmland and we imagine all sorts of ridiculous things to use corn and soybeans for to justify it. We have to heavily subsidize farmers to allow them to continue this overproduction. Overall, the solar panels a

  • So she’s not just wrong, it’s disinformation. People should just oppose her, they shouldn’t be allowed to hear her.

    You Americans have really forgotten how to have civil political opposition, haven’t you?

  • by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Sunday February 19, 2023 @03:57PM (#63306437)

    The blog "evidence" makes some good points, but also bad ones.

    The competition for high quality land is just a silly waste. However you dice it, combined use reduces the productivity of the land. Grazed grass still needs to grow, so lower productivity means more acreage needed. That it can compete with other useless uses of arable land like corn fuel ethanol is hardly good reasoning, that shouldn't exist either.

    Stop using ethanol for fuel, build parks where you don't need the agrarian land any more, build HVDC and put the solar panels in the desert where they belong.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by LoadLin ( 6193506 )

      The land usage would be less than expected.

      Well... Of course if you force to build only solar on arable land, you can get that results. But because it's a less profitable approach, that cases should be negligible.
      Most "only solar" parks use non-arable or very low value land in first places, because it's the most economic approach.
      But in case of hybrid usage, known as agrivoltaics, the crops used don't reduce the production because the solar. That's because not every crop is limited by the solar income. They

  • I suspect that we will find loads of business and foreign gov as the real players.
  • Part of the problem is that the people who are pro-solar don't want to ever hear about the obvious downsides of solar, or the ways in which it has failed so many people. We are in California, and we have large solar panels on our home. That should save us a lot on our power bill, right? It doesn't. The basic idea is that the Solar Panels power our home. When we need more power, it comes from the grid, when we generate excess power, it flows out to the grid. The details you don't hear much about are the
    • Part of the problem is that the people who are pro-solar don't want to ever hear about the obvious downsides of solar, or the ways in which it has failed so many people. We are in California, and we have large solar panels on our home. That should save us a lot on our power bill, right? It doesn't. The basic idea is that the Solar Panels power our home. When we need more power, it comes from the grid, when we generate excess power, it flows out to the grid. The details you don't hear much about are the details that matter - price. For power we use from the grid, we get charged $0.48 / kWh during peak hours (4-9pm) and $0.42 / kWh during non-peak hours. But when WE send power OUT to the grid, they are only paying US about $0.02 / kWh. Can anyone legitimately explain that disparity? We are literally getting ripped-off. Not to mention that in the winter, the solar panels do almost nothing for us. The solar panels generate nothing at night and very little during the day (clouds), while the heater, which represents the bulk of our power usage, runs primarily at night. We paid $30k+ for this setup just to basically pump free power out to the grid and get almost nothing in return. It's a borderline scam. Meanwhile people in the south are paying ~$0.12 / kWh for their power. The expensive prices we pay for power here in CA, while they also work to ban fireplaces, gas appliances, and encourage charging electric cars at home, means that people are paying thousands each month for their power and the bill is only going up each month. This is really hurting low-income families. Aren't those the people who the current politicians in office are supposed to be helping?

      California Public Utilities Commission https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NEM/ [ca.gov]

      Net Energy Metering
      More than 90% of all megawatts (MW) of customer-sited solar capacity interconnected to the grid in the three large IOUs’ territories are on net energy metering (NEM) tariffs. Under NEM tariffs, participating customers receive a bill credit for excess generation that is exported to the electric grid during times when it is not serving onsite load, offsetting energy costs. On a month-to-month basis, bill credits for the excess generation are applied to a customer's bill at the same retail rate (including generation, distribution, and transmission components) that the customer would have paid for energy consumption according to their otherwise applicable rate structure.

      NEM customer-generators must pay the same non-bypassable charges for public services as other IOU customers, which includes Department of Water Resources bond charges, the public purpose program charge, nuclear decommissioning charge, and competition transition charge. NEM customer-generators are exempt from standby charges.

      At the end of a customer's 12-month billing period, any balance of surplus electricity is trued up at a separate fair market value, known as net surplus compensation (NSC). The NSC rate is based on a 12-month rolling average of the market rate for energy. That rate is currently approximately $0.02 to $0.03 per kWh (for up-to-date NSC data, follow these links: PG&E, SCE, SDG&E). This rate structure was established in Commission Decision (D).11-06-016 pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 920 (Huffman, 2009).

    • by edwdig ( 47888 )

      That sounds amazingly bad. Over here in NJ, my electric comes cost out to a little under $0.19/kWh. My electric meter has separate counters for electric in and electric out. The bill reports both numbers, and I get charged for the net usage.

      I've only had my solar panels for a few months so I don't have a ton of data yet, but even in the winter time on a sunny day they're generating 50-75% of the electricity I use.

      I know I get some sort of payment once a year for what I've exported, but we haven't had the pa

    • ...For power we use from the grid, we get charged $0.48 / kWh during peak hours (4-9pm) and $0.42 / kWh during non-peak hours. But when WE send power OUT to the grid, they are only paying US about $0.02 / kWh....

      I recommend you invest in batteries, and send nothing to the grid.

      • by madbrain ( 11432 )

        It's a misunderstanding of his utility rate. Batteries never pay for themselves, at least not under either NEM 1.0 or NEM2.0. They might under NEM 3.0, just before it's time to replace them ...

    • Do you have a link to your pricing plan? I was so astonished, I tried to Google and the only California prices I could come up with are $0.26/hr. If you are really paying $0.48/hr for electricity, as has been pointed out, that definitely calls for investment in a battery. I Googled the price in Germany (where electricity is supposedly the most expensive) and its $0.40/kwh. Are you sure you don't have alternative supplier choices?
      • by madbrain ( 11432 )

        Current PG&E rate plan info as of Feb 1, 2023 :

        https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/rate-plans/how-rates-work/Residential-Rates-Plan-Pricing.pdf
        They go up to $0.49/kWh on peak in the ETOU-C rate schedule in the summer.
        $0.48/kWh on peak for ETO-UD in the summer.

        None of the consumer rates go below 29 cents/kWh, and that's off-peak in the so-called winter season from October 1 to May 31 . Who knew California had 8 months of winter ?

        You don't have a choice of local grid operator in California. In some

    • by caseih ( 160668 ) on Sunday February 19, 2023 @08:18PM (#63307017)

      Can anyone legitimately explain that disparity?

      I've always been baffled that people think they should be able to sell power back to the grid at retail rates. Generators sell at wholesale prices. Why should an electrical company be forced to buy expensive power when cheap power is coming out of the generators?

      There are several things you've apparently not considered when it comes to the rate you are paid. Your rates are not just paying for electricity but also the transmission system and a fee for the maintenance of that system. The transmission system is being used regardless of which way the electricity flows and that has to be paid for. Where I live transmission charges now dwarf actual electrical charges. You can argue about what is reasonable for transmission (we certainly do!).

      Secondly, there's the issue I first mentioned about wholesale electrical rates. Your power is quite costly to the power company.

      Finally there's the issue that peak solar does not line up with peak demand. So having to deal with lots of home solar installations is quite a burden for the electrical companies to manage and make things balance.

      So honestly the only way that home solar makes any sense at all once these issues are taken into consideration is if you can go off grid entirely, or if you could affordably store your own surplus power. I love the idea of solar but the way it's sold these days is a bit of a scam, frankly. You're being promised something (that the electrical company will always buy back your surplus and act a s giant battery) that is just not always true.

      Until every home has sufficient battery storage, think the most realistic use of solar currently is to use it in a home in isolation (dedicated circuits not connected to the grid) and for specific purposes on a smaller scale. For example, running an A/C system. Your peak need for AC coincides nicely with peak solar.

      The ideal of using an EV as solar storage is also interesting, although most people would not have their car home during the middle of the day when your surplus is the greatest.

    • by madbrain ( 11432 ) on Sunday February 19, 2023 @09:26PM (#63307117) Homepage Journal

      GotNoRice,
      The $0.02cents is the generation rate that you get paid if you are a net exporter of electricity on an annual basis. That can only happen if you oversized your PV system compared to your electricity consumption.

      Under normal circumstances, that's not the case. You get a credit for the kWh you export to the grid, and get a charge for the kWh you pull from the grid. With PG&E, it would be at one of the rates below :
      https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/rate-plans/how-rates-work/Residential-Rates-Plan-Pricing.pdf

      If the $ total of your bill exports and bill imports is negative, it is zero'ed, meaning you won't get a check from the utility in that situation. However, if the kWh total of your exports and imports is negative, meaning you are a net exporter, you get paid for your kWh at the generation rate, which is indeed low. But this is an abnormal situation. Usually you size your PV system to cover no more than 100% of your electricity consumption, so this low $0.02 rate would not apply.

      I have had solar in California for 12.5 years with PG&E in California. The way the rates work is very complex, and to make that worse, they change multiple times a year. So, you may be forgiven for not fully understanding them.

      I can confidently say that my solar panels have saved me tens of thousands of dollars, and paid back for themselves around the 7 year time frame. In fact, I had about 3 years during which my bill was just the $5/month minimum monthly charges, while on the PG&E E-6 rate.

      My E-6 grandfathered rate expired at the end of 2022 and I got automatically moved to ETOU-C.

      Most of the solar production now happens in off-peak times, before 4pm. That means I get paid between 34-42 cents in the summer season, and 29-37cents in the winter season, depending on baseline. A bunch of consumption happens during peak hours (4pm to 9pm) during which I get charged somewhat more - 41-49cents in the summer, and 31-39 cents in the winter. This is by no means the majority of our consumption, though. Our 2 EVs charge at night, usually after 10pm, depending on when the JuiceNet smartgrid demand program decides to charge them, but never in on-peak times. The 2 EVs account for about 25% of our total (not net) consumption.

      I first put 28 panels of 235W in 2010, filling one roof side on the southeast. I then added 12 panels of 240W in 2012, filling another southeast roof, when we got our first BEV. Last year, I added 16 panels of 395W and 14 panels of 380W, on the northwest sides. They are in the process of getting permitted. I'll be switched to NEM 2.0, which won't be as favorable as NEM 1.0. This means 2.3 cents per kWh of my imports will not be able to be offset by solar export credits..
      https://aurorasolar.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-nem-2-0-part-1-non-bypassable-charges/

      This is still pretty good, compared to the NEM 3.0 that new California solar users will have to put up with after April of this year. Don't get me started on NEM 3.0. I fought politically all I could, but the utilities won that battle.

      In any case, the predictions (PVWatts) says all 70 of my panels will generate about 25 MWh annually. Our consumption has been about 25 MWh the last 2 years. So, it's sized to cover 100% of electric needs.
      If we didn't have solar, in the E-1 rate, we would owe between 33 - 41 cents * 25,000 = between $8250 - $10250 a year in electricity charges.
      With solar, in the worst possible case, where the consumption and generation sides never coincided temporally, we would pay 25000 * 2.3 cents $575/annually of non-bypassable charges.

      Then we would also owe the difference between peak and non-peak rates. Worst case, the difference is 7 cents/kWh between off-peak and on-peak summer rates, and 2 cents in the winter season. Since the summer season is 4 months and the winter season 8 months, let's call it (7*4+2*8)/12 = 3.66 cents/kWh. This also assumes the consumption and production sides never overlap temporally. So we're talking about 25000 * 3.66 = $915/year.

      In reality, I expect about 75% of those charges (meaning I consume about 25% of my solar production onsite). So it would be (575 + 915) * .75 = $1117/year. Much much less than $8250-10250 without solar.

  • When Nuclear power had promising developments with the Integral Fast Reactor, Big Oil undermined it in a similar way.

    First they reframed the mission of Greepeace, who was always drawing scrutiny to Oil and Coal projects into one that was scrutinising Nuclear power, when it was actually more concerned about nuclear weapons.

    Then when all the nuclear supporters were distracted and point their vitriol at Greenpeace, Greenpeace were no longer able to draw attention to Big Oil's activities and keep them under

  • Think outside the box people! Maybe you just have to pay the neighbors off, here are some ideas:
    * you get free energy for life
    * you get 0.5% of the profits
    * you get a one time payment of $10000
  • It's an Oxymoron.

  • by Miamicanes ( 730264 ) on Sunday February 19, 2023 @04:48PM (#63306545)

    If the groups lobbying against wind & solar were intellectually honest -- to themselves AND others -- about their motives (vs, driven by a burning desire to "own the libs"), they'd be simultaneously campaigning for new nuclear power plants.

    I live near one of the largest nuclear power plants in America (Turkey Point @ Miami, which now has 4 reactors), and think it's positively ABSURD that there aren't at least 4 more under construction elsewhere in Florida right this minute (say... LaBelle, Jacksonville, Crystal River, and somewhere in the Panhandle).

    Not to mention, Disney's broken promise to build one in Orlando, which some fsck'ing idiots NOW think was a *threat*, and not one of the biggest SELLING POINTS for the legislate to approve Reedy Creek back in the 1960s. I think we should MAKE Disney keep its promise and build a nuclear power plant somewhere on their property, cost (to Disney) be damned. For what they now charge for a burger, fries, and soft drink at their parks, they can AFFORD it.

  • The group opposed building on farm and timber land. I totally agree with it. It is foolish to build on these lands since it will only worsen AGW, not improve things.

    Problem is, why are Fossil fuels taking a side on this? We have our own set of china backed trolls here ( such as drinkypoo) that fight against the west doing Nuclear or geothermal, but is just fine with China doing it ( or anything they want ). And that makes perfect sense for China to block us from going into an industry. They want dominance
  • by Anonymouse Cowtard ( 6211666 ) on Sunday February 19, 2023 @07:21PM (#63306901) Homepage
    Dumb cunts with more money and better lawyers than you, sucking in dead shits to "support" their cause (these idiots make "donations"). America seems to have alot of this.
  • Assuming 350 MWh/y*acre, 30 million acres of ethanol-corn [columbia.edu] converted to (solar + other crops) would produce 10.5 PWh per year. Total US power generation in 2019 was 4.381 PWh [wikipedia.org].

The gent who wakes up and finds himself a success hasn't been asleep.

Working...