|
|
Under the Disguise of “Environmental
Protection”……
|
The
frequency of these words: environmental protection, manmade climate change,
global warming, green energy, carbon emission, etc., in the media, is very
high. Under the manipulation of main stream media, it is almost a consensus
now in everyday people’s mind that: carbon emission causes global warming,
wind energy and solar energy are green energy that is “good” for curbing manmade
climate change. While the government spends tremendous amount of tax dollars
to subsidize the wind energy, solar energy, and ethanol industry, several critical
questions remain to be answered, and taxpayers have the right to ask these
questions: 1.
We are
fighting manmade climate change, should control of population growth be our
first priority? Why no politicians dare to say every country
has to set a population growth goal (limit) to curb the manmade climate
change, including Muslim countries and Catholic countries? Why can’t United
Nations tie the carbon emission goal with the population growth goal? Arguments
to this question from “… scientists” say “that’s the wrong question”. We know
answers can be wrong or right, if an organization says the question is wrong,
it is highly susceptible that the organization is corrupted, it wants to take
away your free thinking, it intends to silence your voice. That organization
further argues “the richest 10
percent of the world’s population contributes 50 percent of annual global
warming emissions.”” a supremely unjust reality is that the impacts of
climate change are falling disproportionately on the very populations that
have contributed the least to the problem”. This argument is
equivalent to “kill the rich people for the economic equality”. We heard such
a reasoning in communist doctrine before. If the organization of “…scientists”
will listen, can you tell us: will the population growth also increase the
size of the richest 10 percent? The fact is: nature forests converts into concrete
forests, wildlife habitats are squeezed into none-exist in developing
countries, under our own eyes. 2.
Are
wind energy and solar energy really going to save our planet, really able to
curb global warming? The
method to curb “global warming” and “adverse climate change”, current
prevailing theory is to “eliminate fossil fuel” and replace it with “green
energy”. The most common green energies currently available are wind energy
and solar energy. Are wind energy and solar energy really the solution for
controlling global warming and adverse climate change? Wind power and solar
power are notoriously unreliable. Set aside the negative environmental
impacts of making wind and solar energy devices and building the new
transmitting lines, these 3 detrimental effects nobody talks about it, a. Massive
wind power utilization could cause inland drought and coast area flooding,
details see here. b. Large
scale use of wind power could cause more extreme weather conditions: either
no wind or hurricane strength wind. c. 100%
electric power coming from wind and solar energies could actually cause global
warming, see detailed explanation. The
facts? In 2008, US DOE (Department of Energy) decided to have 20% of
electricity generated by wind by 2030. Even only 8.4% of electricity in 2020
in U.S. is from wind, 2.3% from solar, according to US EIA (Energy
Information Agency), there have been several big weather related disasters,
for examples, in 2017 Hurricane Harvey dumped more than 50 inches of rain in
3 days in Houston area, Texas, while inland area such as Wyoming, South
Dakota, Kansas had a drought, in December 2021 Midwest States Kentucky,
Missouri had unexpected strong winds and tornados, etc. 3.
What
is the greenest energy? The
greenest energy is plant burning heat: incineration of plant mass to generate
electricity. It is ABSOLUTELY renewable, ABSOLUTELY net zero carbon emission,
it can also help reduce methane emission. Methane is a 20 times more potent greenhouse
gas than carbon dioxide. The technology is mature, no new technology
breakthrough is required to make this a reality. With minimum modification, a
coal fired power plant can be converted to plant mass burning power plant. If
an acre of land can yield 10 tons of dry plant materials annually, only one
third of US farmland is needed to generate 100 percent of the 4000 billion
megawatts of electricity US needed per year. (Detailed calculations, please
see here). No need to bury the
nuclear waste that will remain radioactive for thousands of years. No
concerns of the energy consumption and toxic substance leaching for making
the solar panels. Purely
from a technological point of view: incineration power plant has an average
thermal efficiency of 37%, an internal combustion engine (your car) has a
thermal efficiency of less than 30%, let alone the energy and cost required
for fermentation, distillation and filtration to make 200 proof alcohol, why subsidize
heavily to make ethanol fuel? Cost?
If environmental cost is taken into consideration, plant incineration power
could be a fraction of cost of coal firing power. Any plant can be burnt.
Planting, harvesting, drying, and powderizing can all be mechanized.
|
|||
|
Questions?
Comments? Email us. |
_________________________________________________________________________________________