altCensored:Channel:Clear Energy Alliance

Hijacking Natural Gas #2

Mon, 16 Aug 2021 00:00:00 EST

When you hear a new study or report on anything do you believe it? We don’t, not without checking opposing views. We also want to know who paid for the study, but that information is often hidden. Does that inspire trust? We’re wondering who paid for the Yale University report that suggested we should call “natural gas” methane. We don’t know. Because of the intentionally complex way money is moved around within environmentally-focused non-profits, it seems unlikely Yale even knows. Are you good with that?

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/hijacking-natural-gas-2/

Script:
One of the biggest problems facing us today is a loss of trust in our institutions. Wouldn’t you agree? People have become highly suspicious of the motivations and trustworthiness of the mainstream news media, government officials, and universities. Why is this happening? We think it’s because of a lack of transparency. Ironically, we are receiving more information, which is showing us how much more is actually hidden. Hence… loads of skepticism.

When it comes to university research, we expect that these institutions will do their best to be impartial. Which is why the recent report by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication got our attention. Yale suggested that natural gas be referred to as methane, which is a negatively charged word.

Not surprisingly, the organizations funding the research have a strong anti-fossil fuel bias. That’s troubling enough. But then consider we don’t know where these organizations are getting their money, and they don’t want us to know. Could it be China, Russia, Iran? Maybe. We don’t know, and Yale doesn’t know.

On the Yale website we can see that the research is paid for by several non-profit groups that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars attacking fossil fuels. They include The MacArthur Foundation, the 11th Hour Project, which is the grant-making arm of the Schmidt Family Foundation, and the Energy Foundation. All of these groups profess a deep concern about climate change, and they believe the best way to address the issue is to dramatically reduce our use of fossil fuels. Fair enough. But shouldn’t we know if these groups are being funded by foreign governments?

Back in 2014, the United States Senate produced a report called: “The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA“. The Senate report exposed how money is moved around, often times secretly. The Energy Foundation is specifically called out as a “quintessential example” of a “pass-through” entity. It receives funds from other foundations and then sends that money to a large number of non-profits. Again… why all the secrecy?

These non-profits often send funds back and forth to make the money impossible to track. Some of these interconnected organizations even share staff, office space, and board members. What would we find if we could trace the millions upon millions of dollars to their original sources?

The Energy Foundation has accepted large amounts of cash from a group called the Sea Change Foundation, which we highlighted in a previous video. Sea Change was criticized in the Senate report for being a “foreign-funded” organization that went to great lengths to hide the source of its money. And even though the Billionaire’s Club report is the size of a small book, the authors said it covered only a small fraction of “the money that is being secreted and moved around.”

It’s well documented that China, Russia, Iran, and other foreign adversaries are spending enormous amounts of money hacking our computer systems, spreading disinformation and stealing our intellectual property. Their goal…ultimately…is to control and exploit us. Undermining our energy and national security is the fastest way to achieve this goal. We don’t know if the money funding Yale’s research could be traced back to foreign governments. But that, in itself, is the problem.

If we are going to have trust in our research institutions, we need to know who is paying them to collect and analyze their data. Until then, we will be highly skeptical of any research where we can’t trace the funding back to its original source.

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

China, Universities & Climate Change

Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:00:00 EST

Who loves climate hysteria? China does! And so do American universities. Why, you ask? Because China is pumping billions of dollars into America’s elite academic institutions. A sizable portion of that cash goes to “research” into the “climate crisis” narrative. China gets stronger as the presumed climate crisis encourages western nations to voluntarily make their energy infrastructure weaker. Along the way, universities are sent loads of cash tied to the Communist Chinese government. Aren’t you a little suspicious of CCP motives? Are universities?

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Parler: https://parler.com/profile/ClearEnergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/china-universities-climate-change/

Script:
Is China undermining America’s economic and national security by funneling billions of dollars into elite Universities such as Harvard, Yale, and Cornell? The U.S. Department of Education has discovered disturbing evidence that it’s almost certainly happening. And what about all the hysteria concerning catastrophic man-caused climate change? Is China using its money to encourage universities to stoke climate fears?

I know, I know…You can’t say these things without some people getting so mad their hair catches fire. But how about we examine this possibility with less emotion and more logic.

Don’t people, companies, and nations take advantage of every opportunity they can to advance their own interests? And hasn’t China proven itself to be extremely aggressive in this regard?

Let’s look at the money. The Department of Education recently began enforcing a law that had been ignored for decades. The law requires universities to disclose foreign contributions that exceed $250,000 dollars. Investigators discovered that ten universities including Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown, have accepted loads of cash without disclosing the funding to the feds. And when the Education Department told universities they had better come clean, disclosures of a whopping $6.5 billion came flooding in.

This comes on the heels of the chairman of Harvard’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department being indicted for lying to the Defense Department about his involvement with the Chinese government.

A lot of the $6.5 billion in undeclared university funding came from China, but also from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other nations that the Department says are… “seeking to project ‘soft power,’ steal sensitive and proprietary research and development data and other intellectual property, and spread propaganda benefitting foreign governments.”

So now let’s apply a little logic to what’s happening with climate change. Most of the research which suggests the bulk of climate change is man-caused and that the consequences will be catastrophic is coming out of universities. The more dire the threat, the more attention and funding researchers receive. China, and other non-free nations love the hype.

Western nations are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to lower their CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, China slyly nods in agreement but keeps building cheap coal-fired power plants that dramatically increase emissions.

Here’s just one example of how China uses universities to promote climate alarmism. In 2018, academic researchers claimed climate change was going to increase the cost of beer. Higher priced beer is something people would definitely be concerned about. Turns out, the study was funded largely by eight Chinese organizations and was conducted mostly by Chinese researchers. If you consider climate change in this harsh light, it makes perfect sense that China is manipulating fears of a climate catastrophe to its advantage.

The Chinese want the U.S. and other nations to pass laws making energy and manufacturing more expensive while they expand their economy, take our jobs and do so with little regard for the environment. No one should be surprised by this.

Regardless of what you think about the issue of climate change, you would be naïve to believe it’s not being used as a strategic geo-political tool by China and other nations that want to weaken America, and the freedoms we enjoy.

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

Flip The Fossil Fuel Script

Mon, 07 Jun 2021 00:00:00 EST

No shortage of anti-energy agitators would LOVE IT if wind & solar were our primary energy providers with fossil fuels relegated as only minor players. Ok…. That’s crazy and impossible, but as an exercise we thought it would be fun to play along. Let’s flip the fossil fuel script with so-called renewables and see what that looks like. We would need a lot more time to fully describe the lunacy of such an idea, but in a little over four minutes you’ll get the gist.

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/flip-the-fossil-fuel-script/

Script:
Some people are so concerned about climate change they believe we should race to implement Green New Deal priorities as fast as possible. Wind and Solar technologies should power the world, they say. Ok! What would it look like if a genie could magically give them what they want, right now?

This is, of course, a silly fantasy, but since so many people naively believe that it’s possible or even desirable, we thought indulging their fantasy would be a good opportunity to point out a fact that’s almost never discussed.
Wind and solar provide so little energy- in America, less than four percent- t’s easy to be blind to the significant downsides of these technologies.

Wind turbines slaughter birds and bats by the hundreds of thousands every year. The big blades kill large raptors such as hawks and bald eagles. The loss of so many bats is a serious ecological problem because they are prolific pollinators for agriculture. Large solar arrays also kill birds and bats and are deadly to a variety of animals and insects. Old wind blades and solar panels are toxic junk that cannot be recycled. This is already a large and rapidly growing environmental hazard.

Wind turbines are noisy. They produce a loud, repetitive thumping sound that no sane person wants to be near. Many years ago, nearly all industrial wind installations were built in areas where nobody lived. But now, they are encroaching on rural communities and people don’t like it.

Many lawsuits have been filed because of negative health impacts, loss of property value, and a loss of quality of life. The turbines are such a life-altering menace, many communities have passed moratoriums stopping new wind development. The backlash is well underway even though wind provides only about seven percent of America’s electricity production. Solar is a lot less than that.

Now imagine that our genie could flip the script so wind and solar could do the work that fossil fuels do now. It’s not possible because oil, gas, and coal do much more than make electricity, but let’s indulge the idea.

Wind and solar generated electricity would each have to be at least ten times as large as they are today. Ten times! The extreme impacts of the massive expansion of unreliable electricity technologies is difficult to imagine but let’s stack up the negatives.

Wind and solar are inherently more expensive than coal, natural gas and nuclear. They produce electricity far away from the people who use it. Therefore, a ten-fold expansion would result in hundreds of billions of dollars spent on thousands of miles of new and upgraded transmission lines. These unattractive power lines will become an unavoidable eyesore no matter where you are.

Wind turbines and solar panels require large amounts of rare earth minerals and critical metals. A massive increase in wind and solar would necessitate mining on a scale never seen in world history. By the way, China produces and refines most of these resources. See our two-part series “Rare Earth Emergency” for more on that.

Wind and solar only produce electricity 25 to 35 percent of the time, so they require backup power. Batteries are a wildly-expensive non-alternative. The only practical solution would be to build hundreds of natural gas power plants costing billions to provide electricity when wind and solar don’t. This unnecessary redundancy creates very expensive inefficiencies. Electricity prices would spike significantly, to three, four, five maybe ten times what we pay now.

The technical challenge of trying to accommodate so much unreliable electricity on grid systems is not something we know how to manage. The blackouts we’ve seen in California are just a small sample of what would be a widespread reality.

The impact on many species of birds, especially large raptors, would be devastating. Bat populations that are already declining would likely disappear in many regions. The consequences to insects, other wildlife, and agriculture would be potentially catastrophic. Shocking, isn’t it?

Some people imagine a future dominated by wind and solar because they don’t personally see the significant negative impacts that come with these technologies. Wind and solar will never be 10 times larger than today. That’s because as they grow there will be no hiding the giant problems that for most people are currently out of view.

Climate Moral Panic

Tue, 18 May 2021 00:00:00 EST

It’s a Climate Crisis!! We must act NOW!! Panic!! OMG!! We hear this rhetoric every day from the mainstream press, political partisans, professional activists, and corporate rent seekers. Do you believe it? Or do you think all the hysteria seems a little too convenient for the many people who are benefiting from the panic? Regardless of what we do or don’t know scientifically concerning the climate, we are sure about one thing. The “Climate Crisis” narrative has all the tell-tale signs of being a Moral Panic. In other words, there’s a lot more hysteria than reasons for concern.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Parler: https://parler.com/profile/ClearEnergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

Drilling Past Rocket Science

Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:00:00 EST

You’ve heard it countless times: “It’s not rocket science”! But rocket science has nothing on geo-science. In fact, drilling for oil and natural gas is arguably more complicated that space exploration. We’re not kidding. In the Marcellus/Utica formation a company recently drilled the world’s longest well… nearly six miles! It’s an astonishing feat that would have seemed inconceivable not long ago. And if that isn’t impressive enough, consider the amazing process of hydraulically fracturing these exceptionally long lateral wells. While astronauts get all the glory, the men and women who produce oil and natural gas humbly do the work that makes everything in our lives possible, including space exploration.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Parler: https://parler.com/profile/ClearEnergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/drilling-past-rocket-science/

Script:
It’s not rocket science. It’s arguably more complicated.

With all due respect to space explorers, the people doing the most complex engineering feats these days are exploring for oil and natural gas. But you don’t know that because the mainstream media that fawns over Space X couldn’t care less about the engineering wonders that happen right here on earth.

You’re skeptical, I know. But stop for a moment and consider something truly astonishing. Drilling engineers are now putting pipes in the ground that extend for… wait for it… nearly six miles. How amazing is that? It’s a technical marvel that’s actually good for all of us in a number of ways. But, first, let’s consider the technical accomplishment.

The world’s longest well was recently drilled in the Marcellus-Utica shale formation in eastern Ohio. The drill bit bored two miles down. Then, at what’s called the “kick off point,” engineers turned the bit and extended the hole horizontally for another 3.8 miles. The total length, 30,746 feet.

Of course, these wells were hydraulically fractured. Nearly all wells are fraced these days. Contrary to what you’ve been told from the mainstream narrators, this is a good thing. And it’s safe.

The wells are typically drilled at least a mile deep, and often much deeper. Ground water is only 300 to 1,000 feet deep. So, there is a great distance, usually more than a mile, between the oil and gas resources and groundwater.

After a well is drilled, a pipe, called casing, is inserted into the hole. Then cement is pumped through the pipe and into the space between the casing and the well bore wall. That creates a double barrier between the oil and gas flowing to the surface and the earth surrounding it. In the vertical section of the well there are typically three to four additional strings of casing and cement to help protect ground water. The long laterals being drilled are incredible, but the fracing process itself is pretty amazing.

Once the casing and cement are fully set, engineers insert a plug at the end of the pipe. They use a perforating gun to punch holes in the casing.

They then pump water, sand, and a small amount of chemicals into the pipe. The hydraulic pressure fractures the formation about 100 feet in each direction. Sand is used to keep the cracks open. The chemicals lubricate the mixture and prevent bacteria from growing.

The procedure of plugging, perforating, and fracturing happens repeatedly across the horizontal length of the well. Once that is done, the plugs are drilled out, and oil and gas can begin flowing.

Alright, so it’s all a technical wonder, but why should you care?
Well, you care about the environment and your energy bills, don’t you? A big benefit of much longer lateral wells is that they produce more oil and natural gas on one well pad than that of several wells not long ago. That reduces the environmental impact.

On top of that, multiple wells can be drilled from the same pad, producing even more energy with less impact. This efficiency means the oil and gas can be produced at a lower cost, which translates into savings on gasoline, diesel, home heating and cooking, electricity, and the countless products made from petrochemicals. And, don’t forget all the high paying jobs that come from American-produced energy.

We appreciate space exploration as much as any other geek. But it doesn’t produce the energy that runs the world, and it’s arguably not as complicated.

In other words, it may be rocket science, but it’s not geoscience.

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

Wrecking Biodiversity

Mon, 05 Apr 2021 00:00:00 EST

Earth Day 2021 is April 22nd. Therefore, eco-activist groups will be preaching the gospel of wind & solar power and the importance of biodiversity. What those trying to “save the planet” fail to understand (or more likely ignore) is that these two priorities are in direct conflict. Wind & solar require far more land than nuclear, natural gas and coal power. They are also far more destructive to regions of high biodiversity as well as large birds, bats and endangered species. As we celebrate Earth Day, let’s consider the significant environmental consequences of attempting to provide electricity through low density, unreliable sunshine and breezes.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Parler: https://parler.com/profile/ClearEnergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript:

Script:
Environmental activist groups claim they are trying to save the planet by changing how we produce and use energy. But are they really? The activists are focused on carbon dioxide emissions which may… or may not… be a problem. At the same time, they often ignore the environmental consequences of putting wind turbines and solar panels in ever-shrinking areas of high biodiversity.

The reality is that wind turbines and solar arrays take up enormous amounts of land, far more than conventional power plants. And the expansion of renewables is rapidly moving into biologically sensitive areas, which fractures wildlife habitat and endangers threatened species.

A new study, published in Global Change Biology, explains that growing renewable development is impacting three categories of sensitive biodiversity. The numbers are concerning. The current and future developments are—or will be—degrading 886 protected areas, 749 Key Biodiversity Areas and 40 wilderness areas.

The study’s authors claim that the coming wave of wind, solar, and hydropower development could compromise these important regions by an astounding 60 percent. This is important because these biodiverse regions are home to large cross-sections of threatened species along with birds and bats. That’s a big sacrifice for installing technologies that only provide about 2 percent of the world’s energy supply.

The spread of industrial wind and solar development into sensitive areas is currently most prevalent in Western Europe. But future expansions are moving into Southeast Asia and Africa, where biodiversity is more concentrated and valuable to the planet’s health. Additionally, these regions, as well as the Middle East, lack strong land-use planning that helps reduce impacts.

The inherent problem with all renewables is they lack energy density. Because they must capture energy from the wind and sun, they are inefficient in turning that energy into usable electricity. Therefore, they take up a lot more land than coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. In fact, wind and solar require far more land than the study’s authors have estimated because of a flaw in the researcher’s assumptions.

The study claimed that renewables require “up to ten times more land area than fossil fuel thermal facilities.” But more detailed analysis suggests the real land use difference is much larger than that. Physicist David MacKay, author of “Sustainable Energy”, estimated wind turbines require 700 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as oil and natural gas drilling. Energy author Robert Bryce calculates we would need 1,300 times as much land from wind power to replace electricity generated by only one 2,000-megawatt nuclear power plant.

The International Energy Agency projects global energy consumption will grow by 50 percent in the next 30 years. Most of the growth will happen in Southeast Asia, Africa and the Middle East, the key areas of biodiversity concern.
How can Eco-activist groups be so blind to the problem of land use that comes with wind and solar? It’s probably because the stated goal…saving the planet… isn’t the actual goal.

If activist groups were really concerned about the health of the planet, they would be greatly concerned about the loss of threatened species and the unnecessary destruction of critical biodiverse areas where these species live.

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis, Power On.

Wind & Solar Subsidies

Mon, 22 Mar 2021 00:00:00 EST

Why were federal tax subsidies extended for wind and solar by Congress? Again. For the umpteenth time! We are against subsidies because they distort markets. Those politicians who support these market-distorting policies should at least be forced to answer the question: “How much is enough?” Taxpayers have been subsidizing wind and solar corporations for more than 40 years! These companies have gotten fat and happy on your money, and Congress keeps giving them more of it. This video is based on a Texas Public Policy Foundation report that explains why it’s long past time to stop wind and solar from stuffing their bank accounts with your tax dollars.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Parler: https://parler.com/profile/ClearEnergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/wind-solar-subsidies/

Script:
The U.S. Congress has extended subsidies for wind and solar… again! That means wind and solar companies will rake in more of your money. But never fear! Our leaders made sure you’d get some consolation prizes. For starters, you get even higher electricity bills, and higher state and federal taxes… ahhh, the gifts that just keep on giving. Some of you will even be getting blackouts, which is nice. Sorry for the sarcasm, but this gravy train should have been stopped long before now.

More than 40 years ago Congress told us wind and solar needed some extra help…as in money from your pocket… to kickstart these technologies. Well, the wind and solar toddlers have grown up. They’re fat and happy, but somehow they keep getting more subsidies… which is weird since we keep being told that wind and solar are cheaper than natural gas, coal and nuclear.

In the relief bill, Congress extended investment tax credits for solar by an additional two years. The wind production tax credit was extended through 2021. If you’re like most people, you don’t what this stuff means. It’s so convoluted. Truth be told, many of the politicians who signed off on these subsides don’t know either. But, if you’re interested, the Texas Public Policy Foundation produced a report that explains why these subsidies are a such bad idea.

The biggest problem with all subsidies is that they distort markets. In the electricity sector, tax credit subsidies incentivize wind and solar companies to build projects in places where they can maximize their generation, not necessarily in places where their electricity is actually needed. They crowd out reliable generators, leading to higher system costs and reliability problems, including blackouts.

The Texas Public Policy study indicates these companies likely make as much money from the subsidies as they do from selling electricity. That’s what happens when market conditions are distorted by government handouts.

Of course, I can hear my critics. Mark… the government subsidizes all energy sources, including fossil fuels. This is true, but, it’s also a wildly distorted claim. The electricity market shows us why.

If we measure how much of a subsidy various energy sources receive from federal taxpayers you can see that wind and solar take the most by far, but even this chart doesn’t fully capture energy subsidy reality. This one does.

What’s measured here is the amount of subsidy taken per unit of electricity generated. Oil and natural gas are basically a rounding error. Hydro, coal and nuclear don’t get much more.

The production and investment tax credits are especially problematic because they create unholy alliances between wind and solar companies and tax equity investors. It’s basically some bureaucratic money shifting that allows everyone involved to make a lot of money while the taxpayer picks up the bill.

So, here’s a thought. Why don’t we just end subsidies for all energy providers and allow free and fair markets to work as they should? It’s time, isn’t it?

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

Wind & Solar Subsidies

Mon, 15 Mar 2021 00:00:00 EST

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Parler: https://parler.com/profile/ClearEnergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/wind-solar-subsidies/

What’s measured here is the amount of subsidy taken per unit of electricity generated. Oil and natural gas are basically a rounding error. Hydro, coal and nuclear don’t get much more.

So, here’s a thought. Why don’t we just end subsidies for all energy providers and allow free and fair markets to work as they should? It’s time, isn’t it?

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

Texas Blackout Deception

Sun, 21 Feb 2021 00:00:00 EST

Half-truths can sometimes be worse than lies. Such is the case with the Texas blackouts. Wind advocated were quick to point fingers at frozen pipes associated with natural gas and coal facilities. This did happen, but it’s also true natural gas and coal increased power. It’s also true none of this would have happened if the state hadn’t made the grid unreliable by dramatically increasing wind production. See Top 8 Reasons for blackout problems.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Parler: https://parler.com/profile/ClearEnergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/texas/blackout/deception/

Script:
Have you heard wind turbines were not the reason for the Texas blackouts? That’s a half-truth, that’s bordering on a lie. But it’s a message wind companies, Green New Dealers, and mainstream media narrators are pushing. To get to the truth, you have to look a little deeper at the conditions that set up the Texas power grid fail. Pardon my appearance. Like so many other people here in Texas, I’m dealing with a broken water pipe.

We live in a time where we all want explanations in a “quick take,” but quick takes are often deceiving, which is the case with the Texas blackouts. The grid, here in Texas, suffered a systemwide failure caused by bad energy policy.

Here are the top eight reasons it happened.

1 – ERCOT -- The Electric Reliability Council of Texas -- waited too long to initiate conservation measures and begin rolling blackouts. But those measures wouldn’t have been necessary if ERCOT had taken reliability seriously by having more reliable power from nuclear, natural gas, and coal.

2 – Texas rapidly increased its dependence on unreliable wind power from six percent in 2010 to 23 percent in 2020.

3 – Policymakers and ERCOT know that during extreme weather events - heatwaves and cold snaps - wind typically has very low electricity generation, but they kept allowing wind turbines to be installed without holding them to any reliability standard.

4 – Contrary to half-truth news reports, between February 8th and 16th, wind generation crashed by 93 percent. Coal increased by 47 percent and natural gas increased by a stunning 450 percent. But it wasn’t enough as millions of Texans lost power in frigid temperatures.

5 – Wind power is massively subsidized which has distorted the Texas electricity market. The extra taxpayer and ratepayer cash discourages new investment for reliable nuclear, coal, and natural gas.

6 – The rush to install industrial wind turbines soaked a lot of capital. There wasn’t enough left for transmission upgrades and infrastructure maintenance. Natural Gas and coal could have contributed even more power when it was needed, but poor maintenance led to frozen pipes, and ultimately blackouts.

7 – Wind subsides have made older baseload power generators unprofitable. Texas has shut down more than 3,000 Megawatt hours of power from coal and natural gas over the past few years while adding 20,000 Megawatts of unreliable wind. This has made the grid far less reliable.

8 – Texas had a similar situation back in 2011. ERCOT and politicians knew full well this could happen if baseload reliability wasn’t fortified, but they kept building unreliable wind turbines instead.

The White House, Green New Dealers and their advocates in the Mainstream Press are spinning half-truths that are a deliberate deception. Sickening, isn’t it?

It’s similar to what has happened in California. The state has wasted tens of billions of dollars on renewable fantasies. At the same time baseload power needs are ignored, grid upgrades are woefully inadequate, and the forests are massively overgrown. Instead of addressing the problem, California has doubled down on insanity.

What’s happened in Texas is the result of policy makers ignoring known hazards. Makes you wonder, how many unknown hazards will present themselves if the wind power fantasy continues? I guess we’ll have to wait for White House spokesperson Jen Psaki to circle back to us on that one.

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

Auctioning Blackouts

Mon, 15 Feb 2021 00:00:00 EST

Blackouts in Texas and other parts of the country in February 2021. Why? It’s happening because of a complex, market distorting (and ridiculous) system of having electricity producers bid to provide you power. The system gives wind and solar companies an unfair advantage, which has led to too much unreliable electricity generation from wind and solar. Blackouts now, and in the future, are a completely avoidable problem that Congress should fix immediately.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Parler: https://parler.com/profile/ClearEnergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/auctioning-blackouts/

Script:
Did you know a lot of electricity American’s use comes to them through a series of auctions? Weird, right? Well, brace yourself, because it’s about to get a lot weirder. That’s because the auctions are completely rigged in favor of wind and solar. Worse yet, this auction-rigging means most people pay higher electricity bills. And our electric grid is becoming far less reliable. You might think I’m exaggerating, but hear me out.

Do you think it makes sense for wind and solar companies to offer their electricity at one price, but then automatically get paid a higher price… which raises your bill? And wouldn’t you be concerned to know that when we rely too much on unreliable electricity sources…blackouts are much more likely?

All of this started back in 1999 when the federal government allowed utilities to create Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators or RTO and ISOs. These organizations conduct daily auctions to buy electricity. They do it for two-thirds of the US population.

Donn Dears, explains how the system works in “The Looming Energy Crisis.” For starters, not all electricity demand is auctioned off. Some of it is pre-sold in long-term contracts. What remains goes into the auctions for RTOs and ISOs

The first auction is held to see how much utilities will bid to deliver electricity the following day. The bids are for short segments, as little as five minutes. A second day-of auction is held in order to fill in any gaps that remain. I know… this is a ridiculously complicated system, but hang with me.

Here’s where it gets disturbing, expensive, and dangerous. Because wind and solar companies take advantage of tax credits not available to natural gas, coal, and nuclear, they can always offer the lowest bids, typically less than one cent a kilowatt hour. Therefore, wind and solar win any bids for power they can deliver for any given time slots at the first auction.

The next highest bidder, usually a natural gas utility, sets the price that’s accepted as the supply meets demand. But get this… After the natural gas utility wins bids at, say, 3 cents a kilowatt hour, the wind and solar providers also get 3 cents an hour, even though their bids were much lower. Crazy, right?

Coal, nuclear and some natural gas providers that don’t have long term contracts can only be competitive for time slots in either auction for electricity demand that wind and solar can’t supply. But why should you care if some coal, natural gas, or nuclear company is financially stressed? Well, because it’s costing you money.

Wind and solar aren’t just more expensive, they are unreliable. There must always be a natural gas power plant ready to provide electricity during peak demand. That demand comes late in the day when solar is producing only limited power and wind sometimes produces nothing. Having natural gas as a necessary back up adds additional costs.

Secondly, as more wind and solar is added to the electric grid, older coal, natural gas, and nuclear power sources that keep the grid stable are forced into early retirement. That’s where the blackouts come in. And, no, we can’t use batteries that store electricity when the sun and wind are producing excess power and then use that juice during the peak. There are a number of people selling that idea. But we debunk it as magical thinking in our video, Battery Fantasy.

The upshot of all of this is that the rigged RTO/ISO auctions are costing you money while setting us up for blackouts across many regions of the country. It’s time for Congress to step in and stop this failed experiment...while we can still keep the lights on.

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

China CO2 Pledge

Mon, 25 Jan 2021 00:00:00 EST

China is going to be CO2 neutral in just 40 years! Hooray! …Right? No, not really. Communist China’s pledge to be CO2 neutral by 2060 is as phony as its claim of not stealing countless billions of dollars of US intellectual property every year. How do we know this? It’s as obvious as all the coal-fired power plants China is building at home and around the world. Not that any of our mainstream “news” outlets have bothered to look.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Parler: https://parler.com/profile/ClearEnergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/china-co2-pledge/

Script:
Have you heard the good news? Communist China is going to be “carbon neutral” by 2060. Well… at least that’s the claim of President Xi Jinping. His unexpected proclamation created quite a stir among the media and activist groups. Xi Jinping’s promise was called a “significant step forward” and “a very positive signal.” But… is it really?

To believe that China is going to be carbon neutral in just 40 years requires a lot of wishful thinking. And... let’s be real here. Anyone who believes grand proclamations from Chinese leaders is either uninformed or willfully blind.

Since 2011 China has consumed more coal than the rest of the world combined. And it’s not stopping there. China has 200 gigawatts of new coal-fired power plants in development. 200 gigawatts. That’s almost as large as all US coal power currently in use.

China is burning so much coal because it’s expanding the nation’s industrial base. Cheap coal and cheap labor allow China to undercut prices of other manufacturers, which enables it to take jobs from the US and other nations. Because China’s coal plants aren’t as clean... overall emissions increase.

China is the biggest emitter of CO2 emissions… by far… and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. The scale of China’s emissions is so large, even if all industrialized nations significantly reduce their emissions, these reductions will be swamped by the increase from China, not to mention other developing nations.

Here’s something not too many people know about China. It’s not just building coal-fired power plants at home. In accordance with its “Belt & Road Initiative” China is slated to build more than 300 coal plants across several continents. More than one-quarter of all coal plant development outside of China is being financed... by China. The Communist government is establishing strong ties with other nations that will be loyal to them, and unfriendly to the U.S.

But, wait a minute, Mark. Isn’t it true China is the world-leader in building wind turbines, solar panels, and electric cars and buses? Why… yes, it is. And this, too, is part of China’s grand plan to become the world’s most dominant power.

As we showed you in our 2-part series on the rare earth emergency, China has a near monopoly on most of the vital minerals and critical metals that are necessary for every new technology in existence—phones, computers, fighter jets, and wind turbines and solar panels.

Consider this triple-whammy advantage:
1. China dupes western nations into increasing the use of wind and solar technologies that China manufactures.
2. Renewables drive up the cost of energy for the sucker nations making them less competitive.
3. China then uses cheap labor and cheap energy to take manufacturing jobs from all those countries buying China-made wind turbines and solar panels. Emissions are not even a consideration.

You have to admit, Communist Chinese leaders are pretty sharp. Except, unleashing COVID-19 on the world has damaged the nation’s standing. So, it’s not surprising that China would try to win back some good will by announcing a completely bogus goal of carbon neutrality… 40 years from now. Laughably, Xi Jinping does this even as China builds new coal plants at home and around the world that have a lifespan of... 60 years.

China’s motivations are crystal clear. The real question is why more politicians, activist groups, and mainstream media outlets are so blind to the obvious while uncritically accepting China’s Communist Party propaganda.

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis.

Power On.

Climate Censorship

Mon, 04 Jan 2021 00:00:00 EST

Will this video be censored? Make your bets. Big Tech will not tolerate any views that run counter to the “climate crisis” narrative. It’s obvious our Tech Betters are all ideologically aligned with the hard left. But that philosophical alignment doesn’t tell the full story. In the case of Facebook, the social media platform has been pressured by two powerful US Senators to marginalize any organization that challenges climate alarmist dogma. The list of those targeted includes little ole’ Clear Energy Alliance. It also includes John Stossel, one of modern journalism’s most credible reporters. If you are tired of Big Tech squashing views they don’t like, share the video after you watch it. (Even though it might be difficult).

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Parler: https://parler.com/profile/ClearEnergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/climate-censorship/

Script:
U.S. Senators are pressuring Facebook to censor little ole Clear Energy Alliance and other groups that think like us? Really? It appears Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sheldon Whitehouse are afraid we might persuade people to be more skeptical of the climate crisis narrative. Consequently, the Senators are intimidating Facebook into making sure that doesn’t happen. Wait… what?

We thought this was a country where people and organizations could freely express their point of view. Well… that may no longer be the case. You see, there’s this thing about tyrants. They don’t put up with dissent, no matter how much power they wield nor how small those are who challenge that power. This would be a David vs. Goliath story, but only if David was the size of a gnat.

Case in point, a London-based climate change activist group called Influence Map put together a report on what they said were 51 climate disinformation ads that ran on Facebook in the first half of 2020. These ads were placed by such deplorables as PragerU, Texas Public Policy Institute, the CO2 Coalition, Turning Point USA, Capital Research Center, and of course, little ole Clear Energy Alliance, among others. Influence Map determined all of these groups spent a grand total of… wait for it… $42,000! Oh, the inhumanity!

Let me put this in perspective. According to a 2013 report by Climate Policy Initiative, the world is spending $1 billion every day on tackling climate change. A big chunk of that money is just marketing… climate alarmists stoking fear. But that 42,000 bucks spent on Facebook by groups skeptical of the climate alarmist narrative… that’s what’s dangerous.

It IS dangerous to Facebook. Senators Warren and Whitehouse have a lot of power and threatened to take action against Facebook if it didn’t censor people like us.

So, Facebook started the Climate Science Information Center to present a point of view pleasing to Warren and Whitehouse. Facebook employs so-called “Third Party Fact Checkers” that tag content as “false” or “misleading” if it strays from the climate crisis narrative.

We’ve been hit with it. Our “97% Myth” video was tagged as “False Information”.... even though it’s true. John Stossel had one of his videos slapped with the tag “misleading” and was told by Facebook it would show his video to fewer people.

Stossel was targeted for censored by a Facebook fact checker called Climate Feedback. Stossel investigated, and it appeared the so-called fact checkers hadn’t even watched the video. They finally did, but even though there was nothing inaccurate about it, Stossel was told the label “misleading” would not be removed.

Here’s the deal. Our climate is extraordinarily complex. No matter what the confident alarmists say, there’s no way to accurately separate man’s small influence from giant natural forces like the sun, cloud formations, and ocean currents.

We think it’s possible fossil fuel generated carbon dioxide is having some impact on the climate. But if it is, it’s likely to be a manageable problem. Lots of smart people agree with us. We use reliable data. You can check our sources.

But people like Senators Warren and Whitehouse are pursuing a radical agenda, and will not tolerate the slightest bit of nuanced argument. Not surprisingly, Facebook does not want to risk angering powerful members of the government who can cause the company great harm.

We’ll keep presenting our point of view, but Facebook is likely to call it “misleading” or “false”... which would be both misleading and false.

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

Pipeline Prosperity

Wed, 18 Nov 2020 00:00:00 EST

Where’s that pipeline of jobs, billions of dollars in private investment, and hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax revenue when you need it? Guess what? It’s right in front of us! It’s not in the pipeline. It IS the pipeline! According to a new report by the Consumer Energy Alliance, America could be benefiting from $13.3 billion in new pipeline development, creating 66,000 jobs and raising $280 million in state and local tax revenue. But this strong flow of economic prosperity is being held up by activist litigation and activist judges.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Parler: https://parler.com/profile/ClearEnergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/pipeline-prosperity/

Script:
Our economy has the blues. But what if there was a way to create a flow billions of dollars in private investments? And what if those investments provided tens of thousands of high-paying jobs, sending hundreds of millions of tax dollars flowing into state and local treasuries? Wouldn’t that be great?

Well, guess what? All those economic benefits could already be flowing from, ironically enough, building pipelines that would carry the cash and jobs to America.

Americans desperately need new pipelines to deliver the fuels that we all rely on daily. And there are hundreds of pipeline projects that have passed environmental review and are ready to begin today. What’s the problem, then? Unfortunately, activist litigation and activist judges are blocking the development of projects that would help America get humming again.

According to a report by the Consumer Energy Alliance, activists are blocking key national pipeline projects, jeopardizing more than $13.6 billion dollars in private investment. These pipes would generate 66,000 jobs for heavy equipment operators, laborers, welders, Teamsters, foremen, engineers, safety inspectors, and all kinds of ancillary support jobs.

All the work would deliver more than $280 million to state and local governments. And, as I mentioned, these pipelines have already passed rigorous environmental reviews. But, in spite of all that, activists and activist judges who support the anti-fossil fuel cause say these pipelines may not be safe for people or the environment. The premise of that argument is laughable on its face.

Pipelines are by far the safest, cleanest way to move crude oil, gasoline, diesel, and other fuel products. If these essential products aren’t moved through pipes, they WILL be moved on rail cars and trucks. How does that make you safer? It doesn’t. It makes everything transported by rail more expensive because there isn’t enough room on the tracks for fuels normally moved through pipelines. And it adds more trucks out onto the road – with you!

Of course, the safety argument is just an excuse for people with radical ideas about how you should live to achieve their warped goals. This legal activism bogs down the economy, is a strain on taxpayers, and makes everything in your life more expensive.
But the radicals don’t care about that.

The Consumer Energy Alliance report details the pipeline investments being held up across 14 states from Pennsylvania to Louisiana to Montana. One of the most appalling legal challenges highlighted involves an activist judge who stopped hundreds of projects from moving forward. The federal judge suspended action on a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water permit needed for a pipeline.

Defying legal precedent, the judge then used his decision to place an injunction on 5,500 projects that used the same permit. The projects weren’t just pipelines. They were telecom, electricity, shipping, and transportation. The decision was later changed to only include pipelines. If you’re surprised by that, don’t be.

All this legal activity is expensive. Very expensive. So, who’s paying the bills? We gave you some insight into that one with our “Caught Green Handed” video. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, provides some of the dark money. He launders his cash through a non-profit at NYU. That organization places lawyers committed to the anti-fossil fuel cause directly into state Attorney General offices in several blue states. It’s all highly unethical, and it should be illegal.

There’s so much more, such as a judge trying to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline three years after oil began flowing. A higher court stopped the obstruction, but the case is still being litigated.

To read about the blocked pipelines in your state, check out the report.

America can bounce back. It would happen faster if only we could minimize the legal and judicial activism that’s plaguing our great nation.

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

Dirty Solar

Wed, 28 Oct 2020 00:00:00 EST

Why is solar called “clean” energy when it’s so dirty? Wait… what? We’ll say it again. Solar is DIRTY energy. How can we say such a heretical thing? We say it because it’s true. The disposal of toxic solar panels is creating a large and growing environmental hazard. After watching this video check out “Wind Waste” to learn about solar’s ugly twin.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Parler: https://parler.com/profile/ClearEnergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/dirty-solar/

Script:
If solar panels produce “clean energy”, why are they so dirty? Solar power has been sold to the public as a much more environmentally friendly way to produce electricity than coal, nuclear, and even natural gas. But take a closer look. You’ll see solar isn’t as sunny as you’ve been led to believe.

Building solar panels requires a lot of mining for critical metals and rare earth minerals. But the mining doesn’t end once the solar panels are built. When they wear out in 25 to 30 years, they have to be replaced. Solar has an infinite mining and manufacturing problem.

Replacing the photovoltaic panels is where the real nastiness comes in. That’s because photovoltaics can’t be recycled economically and disposing of them presents all sorts of dirty challenges. PV modules are 90 percent glass, which cannot be recycled because of impurities. The PVs also contain toxic metals such as lead and cadmium as well as hazardous chemicals. Therefore, it is recommended they not be disposed of in conventional landfills. Disposing old solar panels is so expensive that some unscrupulous companies have resorted to selling the toxic junk to third-world countries that have less stringent environmental regulations.

Making the matter worse is the fact that solar companies are not required to post bonds on their projects so there is money set aside to clean up the mess if the company goes bankrupt, which many have. When they do go belly up, taxpayers have to pick up the tab. Oil and natural gas companies are required to post bonds. Why are solar companies given a free pass? Wind companies, too. With the taxpayer fueled growth of solar across the world, this already large problem is going to get much worse over the coming decades.

So the next time you hear news reporters or politicians parroting the virtues of “clean” solar energy you’ll think of the question that few people know they should be asking. If solar is so clean, why is it so dirty?

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On!

4-Quadrant Model

Mon, 12 Oct 2020 00:00:00 EST

Are you a knuckle-dragging “climate denier” caveman? If you don’t fully agree with the narrative of the news media, that’s who you are. According to the mainstream press you can only be a caveman “denier” or an angel willing to spend countless trillions of tax dollars in a quest to save the planet from catastrophic man-caused climate change. There is no middle ground. Of course, this false binary choice is absurd. We explain how the news media shapes public opinion on climate change by borrowing a model created by mathematician Eric Weinstein.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/4-quadrant-model/

Script:
On the issue of climate change, are you a knuckle-dragging Caveman or an Angel? In the current media narrative these are the only options. You must be one or the other.

An angel is anyone who believes humans are causing a climate crisis through the burning of fossil fuels and is in favor of spending countless trillions of dollars to heroically save the planet. A caveman… more commonly referred to as a “climate denier,” is anyone who disagrees with the angels… even by a little bit. Of course, this is a ridiculous proposition.

It’s what’s known as a false binary choice where all reasonable middle ground is removed. To see how this is happening, let’s consider mathematician Eric Weinstein’s 4-Quadrant Model on media behavior. I have simplified it somewhat.

In Weinstein’s model, a vertical axis represents moral virtue. Angels at the top, Cavemen at the bottom. On the horizontal axis is support for a public policy initiative. With climate change, people on the far right are in favor of using government force to rapidly phase out fossil fuels in favor of industrial wind, solar, electric vehicles and the like, no matter the cost. On the far left are people who believe these “solutions” come with their own negative consequences and government coercion is a bad idea.

And what about the people who fall somewhere between the extremes? They are ignored.

So now let’s consider the four quadrants. The top left box is where the contrarians live. They are smart, caring people who simply have a different opinion on climate policy. The cavemen are on the bottom left. They are bad people who just don’t care. The bottom right is where we find rent seekers. These are opportunists who just want to use the new policy to advance their selfish interests. In the top right corner is the domain of the angels. The care and they want the new policy because they care so much.

But wait a minute. The media narrative is a false “binary,” offering only two choices, not four. That’s right. And this is where it gets interesting.

The news media’s business model thrives on anger and fear. The media needs two extremes to oppose one another, therefore two of the four quadrants must be eliminated. Here’s how it’s done.

The contrarians, people who point out such realities as the flaws in climate modeling, the shortcomings of wind, solar, and electric vehicles and the impossibility of transitioning away from fossil fuels anytime soon, must be muzzled. So, the media attacks the contrarians’ motivations and integrities and moves them to the caveman, or denier quadrant.

On the bottom right quadrant are the rent-seeking opportunists. They support policies of taxpayer subsidies for wind, solar, EVs, ethanol, building upgrades and mass electrification, because they are making a lot of money off these subsidies. And, of course, this is where many politicians and anti-fossil fuel activists cash in on their opportunity as well.

This doesn’t fit the media narrative, so the self-interested opportunists are reclassified as angels who are simply trying to save the world. And now… we have our false binary. The contrarians and rent-seeking opportunists are eliminated and all that’s left are Cavemen and Angels… two extreme positions that fulfill the media’s desire for revenue-generating conflict.

What do you think? Does it make sense that opinions on climate change only fit into two extreme positions? Or does it make more sense that a biased, agenda-driven news media is selling you a false binary choice that fits their fear and anger-based business model?

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

Baseload Electricity

Mon, 21 Sep 2020 00:00:00 EST

Have you heard about all the blackouts in California? Wonder why it’s happening? California politicians thought they could keep pouring billions of tax dollars into subsidies for solar and wind. But energy reality caught up with them. What California desperately needs is the kind of electricity that’s consistent and reliable. You know, the power that comes from natural gas, coal, and nuclear. Unfortunately, California—and many other states—have wagered their future on unreliable, intermittent power.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/baseload-electricity/

Script:
Did you know there are two kinds of electricity? One is absolutely essential to everything in your life…even your survival. The other can be helpful, but it isn’t necessary. Since the first kind of electricity is so important, you would think most people would know what it’s called… but you would be wrong.

So, what’s this critical form of electricity that most people have never heard of? It’s called baseload power, provided by coal, natural gas, and nuclear. The not so important electricity goes by the name “intermittent”.

Unreliable wind and solar don’t actually produce electricity most of the time. Why am I telling you this? Because a lot of politicians don’t seem to understand the difference between baseload and intermittent power, and the consequences can be costly and dangerous.

To keep electricity flowing to homes, businesses, and factories, the grid needs a steady flow of electrons. Baseload power from coal, nuclear, and large natural gas facilities provides those electrons 24/7. Intermittent electricity from wind and solar is added to the grid when the wind is blowing, or the sun is shining. But the intensity of the wind and sun go up and down… a lot. As they do, electric utilities increase or decrease electric input… usually from natural gas… to keep the grid stable. The flow of electricity must remain steady or the whole system goes down, causing a blackout.

Here’s the big problem on the horizon. States have massively subsidized intermittent wind and solar while tightening regulations on all baseload power sources, including nuclear, which produces carbon-free electricity. As a result, a lot of baseload power plants, have been forced into early retirement, which is dangerous for grid stability.

At last count 10 states have declared they will be 100 percent renewable in the next 25 years—so no coal or natural gas, and possibly no nuclear. Politicians in these states naively believe they will be able to keep the grid stable by substituting battery power for baseload sources. That’s impossible because batteries are enormously expensive and can only store a small fraction of the electricity needed to keep the grid functioning when wind and solar drop to low levels as they consistently do. For more on that, check out our video “Battery Fantasy”.

The best example of politicians ignoring baseload electric reality is in Germany. It’s Energiewende program, or “transition to renewables”, is failing badly. The nation has spent well over 100 billion Euros on wind and solar and plans to spend an estimated 450 billion more in the next 20 years. Consulting giant McKinsey and Company evaluates Energiewende twice a year. One of Germany’s largest newspapers summarized a recent report’s findings as “disastrous”. Germany now has the highest electricity prices in Europe, more than double what Americans pay.

The system is so messed up, sometimes consumers are actually paid to use excess electricity.
But on hot summer days when the wind isn’t blowing people and businesses are told to reduce electric use to avoid blackouts. And in spite of gigantic investments, Germany’s CO2 emissions have not dropped as much as other nations that have focused on adding natural gas generated electricity. The results of Germany’s expensive and dangerous experiment were entirely predictable. The United States can expect the same if politicians keep squeezing out reliable baseload electricity from coal, natural gas, and nuclear in favor of intermittent wind and solar.

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

California Scapegoating

Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:00:00 EST

It’s been 20 years since California ISO has had to order rolling blackouts. The extraordinary move happened on 8/14/2020 affecting millions of people because the state was not prepared for high electricity use during a heatwave. The governor has ordered an investigation of how this happened. No such investigation is needed. Energy analysts have been predicting this moment for many years. There is a lot of blame to spread around, including the guy calling for an investigation as well as they people who voted for him and previous governors. The really bad news is that these blackouts are going to be an ever-present reality in California for years to come.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/california-scapegoating/

Script:
California is a dreamy state that for many has become a nightmare. Giant, deadly wildfires are a consistent problem and so are planned blackouts. Who’s to blame for the Golden State’s charred image. Well… if you are looking for a scapegoat, there are quite a few to choose from.

It pains me to see what’s happened in California. I used to live there. It’s one of the most beautiful places on the planet. But decades of politicians embracing fanciful ideas while ignoring energy reality has put the state in a dangerous and expensive hole that will be a great challenge to escape.

As everyone in California knows, PG&E provides the vast majority of the state’s electricity. The utility was forced into bankruptcy following the devastating wildfires in 2018. PG&E is an easy scapegoat for Governor Gavin Newsom. He blames the company’s greed and corruption. PG&E is responsible for some of the wildfires sparked by transmission lines, but there are many other goats that have contributed to the state’s precarious situation.

For a century the U.S. Forest Service and state fire agencies stomped out every fire that ignited. That left our forests filled with fuel for giant, deadly fires. PG&E should have spent a lot more money clearing trees and other debris from powerlines as well as updating equipment, but it didn’t make that a high priority. So, there’s two scapegoats—PG&E and bad forest management practices. But there are many more goats in this story.

The state could be spending billions of dollars upgrading transmission lines, but that money is going elsewhere. $7.5 billion from the state’s cap and trade tax goes to something called “ratepayer benefits,” but in reality it mostly just hides the true cost of renewables. $2.2 billion is spent on rebates for rooftop solar over 9 years. Since 2015 $100 million a year has gone to solar systems in low income areas.

In 2018 the state spent $150 million on battery storage. And it’s spending $130 million over three years to install 7,500 electric car charging stations. And let’s not forget the mountains of cash spent on anything else that signals virtuous concern about climate change.

So, let’s add state leaders with confused priorities as another goat to blame.
By the way, you would think all the money not being spent on keeping California’s grid safe would at least keep California electricity prices under control, but that’s not the case. Californians pay twice as much for electricity as people in Oregon and Washington.

I could go on and on about misspent money, priority problems, bad decisions, neglect, political corruption, and gross incompetence. We’d have a giant herd of goats—some that are bad actors and some that are partially to blame and partially victims. But ultimately the blame lies mostly with a goat that rarely gets mentioned… the people of California.

Californians, wake up! Your state is being terribly mismanaged, and you are the ones who are electing people who are more concerned about virtue signaling than meeting the basic needs of the people, most notably providing a safe and reliable electric grid. It’s bad… So bad, that many people have stopped blaming the goats. Instead, they’ve moved to Arizona, Nevada, Texas and elsewhere. California… energy reality is knocking. Isn’t it time to open the door?

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

Climate Fraud

Mon, 10 Aug 2020 00:00:00 EST

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Well, apparently not when it comes to climate change. Many cities that have sued EXXONMobil for allegedly deceiving the public about climate change are themselves guilty of misleading bond investors. Oh, the irony! Leaders in the lawsuit-happy coastal cities have some explaining to do.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/climate-fraud/

Script:
You’ve heard the old phrase what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It means we should all be treated equally. But is that actually true in the age of climate change and very serious charges of climate fraud? Apparently not.

In this story the goose is ExxonMobil, which has been sued by several coastal cities that claim the oil company deceived its investors about the impacts of climate change. None of those lawsuits have been successful. No fraud has been found.

But what about the gander… or in this case, many ganders. It turns out, leaders of the cities warning of climate catastrophe may be guilty of fraud themselves. When the mayors of New York, San Francisco, Oakland, Miami, and New Orleans talk publicly about climate change, they say rising sea levels and extreme weather are going to cause enormous damage in the years ahead. But, when it comes time to borrow money by issuing bonds, these same mayors and their bureaucrats suddenly tone down the rhetoric... or even ignore the issue altogether.

This suspicious behavior is exposed in a new report by the Government Accountability Institute. GAI studied bond disclosures for 20 cities at risk for sea level rise and 20 not at risk. Let’s consider what the ganders are doing. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio calls climate change an “existential threat” that is a “dagger aimed straight at the heart” of the city. Yet, in New York’s $1.1 billion dollar general obligation bond disclosure, climate change was barely even mentioned. In 297 pages it received only four paragraphs. And even that tiny mention was generic.

In a lawsuit against ExxonMobil the City of Oakland was downright hysterical. It warned of a 100-year flood in the city every couple of years by 2050 and one giant flood every week in 2100. The seas could rise 66 inches they claimed! But in its 2017 bond disclosure, Oakland told investors the city was “unable to predict” sea level rise or “other impacts of climate change.”

Doesn’t that sound like fraud to you? Telling the public one thing and investors something completely different? San Francisco made hyperbolic predictions of climate doom in its lawsuits against Exxon, but… guess what the city said in its bond disclosure. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Los Angeles and San Diego did the same thing in their disclosures to investors.

The 20 at-risk cities stacked up more than four thousand 300 pages of disclosure statements. In all those pages they only managed to mention “climate change” and “sea-level rise” fewer than 100 times. Twelve of the 20 disclosures did not use climate change language at all. And here’s another discovery that doesn’t make any sense. GAI found that the bond interest rates given to the “at risk” cities were only slightly higher than those not at risk. Seems like the people with the most money at stake aren’t all that worried about sea level rise from climate change.

We at the Clear Energy Alliance agree with the bond investors. We’re not that concerned. But we should all be concerned about city leaders and the bureaucrats they employ committing the very definition of fraud. Perhaps it’s time for a goose to file lawsuits against these coastal city ganders.

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

Superheroes & Fossil Fuels

Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:00:00 EST

Who would win a fight between Thor and Superman? Could Wonder Woman defeat Spider-Man? Does it even matter? Of course not! We just know we love watching superhero movies. But there would be no superhero flicks without oil, natural gas, and coal. You wouldn’t know it to listen to the news media, activists, and many politicians, but these essential energy resources are the REAL LIFE superheroes of our daily lives. Without fossil fuels we would all be living in an unending horror show with no popcorn, no drink, no comfortable seat, no air conditioning, and… not much else for that matter.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/superheroes-fossil-fuels/

Script:
Who doesn’t love a good superhero movie? People all across the world flock to the theaters to watch characters with superhuman powers flash across the screen, rescuing humanity from imminent doom. We’re all suckers for Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America.

But what about the real-life superheroes that run the world every day? The ones that keep the lights on, help us get to school and work, and ironically even make it possible for us to enjoy the newest action flick with our friends and family. I’m talking about fossil fuels.

Without oil, natural gas, and coal we would not be able to sit back and enjoy watching The Avengers save the universe. It takes an enormous amount of energy to make big Hollywood films and then the audience sits in a temperature-controlled theater, eating warm popcorn and sipping cold drinks brought to them by the unsung heroes of getting things done.

Then we get into our cars… mostly made by petroleum products and we use gasoline to comfortably take us home, while riding on petroleum-based tires on petroleum-based roads.

In the developed world, we don’t think about what life would be like without fast, inexpensive transportation, electricity on demand, technological wonders, advanced healthcare and the list goes on and on. All of these things are here because of oil, natural gas and coal. Before we began using fossil fuels to do most of our hard work, life was labor-intensive in a way that would be impossible for most of us to imagine. It was also dirty, painful, violent and short.

This is a reality that is ignored by people who say fossil fuels are going to destroy us all because of their belief in catastrophic man-caused climate change. The same folks parroting the doom and gloom are also some of the most vocal supporters of wind and solar, which the entire world has heavily subsidized over the past decade, yet still supplies less than 2% of global energy demand. Of course, they say nasty things about fossil fuels while enjoying all of the technology and labor-saving comforts and conveniences that oil, natural gas and coal provide.

It would be nice if the haters actually acknowledged that their favored energy technologies – wind turbines and solar panels – would not exist without fossil fuels. Or that wind and solar don’t actually create electricity most of the time, so natural gas has to be there to make sure the movie doesn’t stop playing.

Energy is a complicated thing. Yes, there are downsides to using fossil fuels, but the alternative would be the kind of horror movie nobody would want to be in. While oil, natural gas and coal aren’t the perfect superheroes we wish them to be, they are definitely good guys doing essential work for all of us little people. Casting them as villains is ridiculous.

There is one thing I am certain of when it comes to this superhero/villain thing. If the Avengers were real, they wouldn’t be talking smack about fossil fuels. They’d be opposing those who do.
For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

Wind Waste

Mon, 29 Jun 2020 00:00:00 EST

The industrial wind industry has put a spell on state and local governments across the land. Elected officials fell desperately in love with the promise of “clean” energy carried by soft breezes. It was all so romantic they developed a bad case of googly eyes, which blinded them to some realities. Namely, renewable energy must be renewed. Wind turbine blades wear out and have to be disposed of. But nobody wants the giant wind junk clogging up their landfills. It’s already a big problem and it’s going to get a lot worse.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/wind-waste/

Script:
You’ve seen people blinded by love, right? They are so infatuated they don’t see the other person’s flaws that are obvious if only they weren’t so googly-eyed. This is exactly what’s happened with industrial wind power. Governments everywhere fell so in love with the technology they failed to ask some very important questions like “What happens when the things wear out?”

As more and more cities and states are beginning to discover… giant, worn-out wind turbine blades are a giant, expensive problem. All this is coming to a head because the big blades only last about 20 years and thousands of them are getting to that age now.

The dirty little secret about renewables is they have to be renewed and that involves continuous mining, manufacturing, transportation, and disposal. Wind turbine blades are made of fiberglass and are currently impractical to recycle. They are huge, some of them as long as a football field. Once they become industrial junk, the blades are chopped up into pieces for easier transport. Even after they are cut up, the pieces of the blades are still so big that there are only a few landfills that can dispose of them. But even those landfills don’t want the blades because they take up too much space.

This is a huge problem because the deluge of wind turbine blades is only getting started. One study estimates the U.S. will have 728,000 tons of wind blade junk to dispose of in the next 20 years, and it’s only going to get worse after that. Continuous improvement of blade technology is resulting in blades being replaced well before their 20-year life span.

Now let’s talk money. You won’t believe what it costs to tear down one of these things. In Minnesota, Xcel Energy estimates it will cost about $7.4 million to decommission only 18 turbines at the Palmer Creek facility. That’s $410,000 each.

At Xcel’s Noble facility the cost is an eye-popping $532,000 per wind turbine. There’s 134 of them. Total price tag… $71 million bucks. I should mention Xcel will only remove the top four feet of the turbine’s foundation. The company will leave behind a massive block of cement that will extend from the four-foot depth to as much as 15 feet deep.

And that brings us to another looming problem. What do states and municipalities do if a wind company goes bankrupt? Who pays the enormous cost of getting rid of all that wind junk? You would think state and local governments would always require bonds to make sure money is available to clean everything up when wind companies go belly up. But, that’s not the case.
Many states and cities don’t require bonding for wind companies. The same for solar. It’s strange, because all states that have oil and natural gas development require those companies to provide bonds.

Why the exception for wind and solar? The answer can be found in those googly eyes. Wind developers, blade manufacturers, lease holders, and activists willfully ignore the disposal problems and government officials are blinded by love. Well… now all the warts and flaws are plainly visible. The question is, will government officials stop being so smitten and take a good hard look at the downsides of industrial wind?

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

97% Myth

Mon, 08 Jun 2020 00:00:00 EST

97 Percent of scientists believe in catastrophic human caused climate change? Of course not! But far too many believe this ridiculous statement that defies basic logic and observation. (Can you think of any highly-political issue where you could get even 65% agreement?) The 97% Myth has succeeded in fooling many people because the phony number is repeated over and over again by those who have a financial and/or ideological stake in the outcome. By the way, what any scientist “believes’ doesn’t matter anyway. Science is what happens during rigorous and repeated experimentation.

**Regrettably, a graphic error appears on this video from 1:31 to 1:42. The percentage of climate studies that explicitly claim most of the recent warming is manmade was listed as “.03%” when it should have been “.3%”. The narration says “less than one-percent”, which is accurate. While the graphic is incorrect, the point being made is still completely valid. The “97%” mantra is a wildly inaccurate myth being cynically used to scare an unwary public.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/97-myth/

Script:
97% of scientists believe the earth’s recent warming is mostly manmade? Really? Have you ever wondered where that statistic came from? Or whether it’s actually true? Or what it actually means? If so, today’s your lucky day. We’ve got some answers for you.

The short answers are… It came from a completely discredited survey. It’s not even remotely true. And it’s impossible to say what 97 percent actually means because it is interpreted in many different ways.

The “97% of scientists” claim can be traced back to a survey by John Cook and associates.
Cook’s team examined a large sample of scientific literature over 21 years. The survey assumed that humans are “very likely causing a majority of climate change.” If a surveyed paper said we cause some warming, Cook counted it as saying we caused most warming. But only a third of the papers even said that much.

For example, one study made headlines because it claimed that beer prices could double due to climate change. Cook’s study would put that one in the “consensus” pile even though the researchers did not attempt to prove or disprove human impact, but just assumed it to be true.

The Cook survey has been widely debunked. When skeptics checked the actual data, they discovered that fewer than 1% of the papers explicitly stated that recent warming is mostly manmade. The “consensus” is not 97%. It’s less than 1%.

So why does the 97% myth live on? Because the “climate crisis” narrative is big business.
It serves the interests of politicians, the mainstream media, academic researchers, big business, governments, and groups that don’t like capitalism. Because it serves the interests of so many groups, the bogus statistic is repeated over and over.

The 97% myth fits what psychologists call “the illusory truth effect”. The constant repetition causes people to believe a lie. It also allows people to turn off their brains and not question the scientific premise. The goal of the 97% propaganda is to get people to skip ahead to the supposed solutions they are being sold, and not question the science. The special interests capitalizing on the so-called “climate crisis” want it that way.

The truth is that most that scientists haven’t a clue about climate change because they don’t study it. Many don’t realize there is no way to separate natural climate cycles from manmade influences such as the burning of fossil fuels. Consequently, there is no way to measure the human impact. Climatologists must use incomplete and unreliable data sets as they make climate model predictions. This modeling doesn’t actually qualify as science as defined by the scientific method.

Please don’t misunderstand. The Clear Energy Alliance is not saying that humans aren’t having some impact on the climate. We could be. But if we are having an impact, the question is how much? And the honest answer is, we just don’t know. Let’s remember, even when there is a real consensus, that’s not science.
Science demands actual measurements and experiments that can be replicated over and over again. So, ask yourself, why don’t the climate activists begin answering legitimate scientific questions instead of always playing the bogus “consensus” card? Perhaps it’s because … they can’t.

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On!

Rare Earth Emergency #2

Mon, 18 May 2020 00:00:00 EST

How would you feel if the United States was more than 90 percent on Iran for its oil supply? Such a thing would be unthinkable! We would not tolerate that kind of extreme vulnerability. Why is it then we will accept being more than 90 percent dependent on Communist China for rare earth minerals and critical metals that power all of our modern technologies? Communist China has the ability to quickly strangle the U.S. and the rest of the western world with its near monopoly of REs.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/rare-earth-emergency-2/

Script:
Here’s a crazy thought. What if China controlled 95 percent of the world’s oil supply and was still buying up oil assets across the planet? Free nations would be terrified, and would no doubt be scrambling to produce their own oil while reducing their dependence. Good thing that’s not happening… only it is… but with rare earth elements and dozens of other critical minerals.

This Chinese monopoly of rare earth elements may be more dangerous than OPEC’s ability to dictate oil prices not so long ago. Just like oil and natural gas, rare earths and other critical minerals are essential to most things we use. The Middle Kingdom has quietly grabbed the world by the throat. All it has to do is squeeze. China’s mining dominance didn’t happen by accident. Thirty years ago, Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping proclaimed, “The Middle East has its oil. China has rare earths.” China then methodically went about the task of capturing about 95 percent of the market.

Consequently, Communist China has enormous leverage over all nations. In addition to its own massive mineral wealth, it provides substantial financing to developing nations in exchange for mineral rights. And the Chinese have been purchasing mines and mining stakes for decades, including in Latin America and Africa. This stranglehold poses an economic and military threat to the world. The nation most at risk is the United States.

Rare earths and the components made from them, such as high-strength magnets, are essential for most defense capabilities, including fighter jets, radar systems, smart bombs, and satellites. In addition to rare earths, the Department of Defense uses about 750,000 tons of other critical minerals each year, most of which are imported. In 2013 retired General John Adams wrote a book on the folly of America’s shocking over-reliance on critical mineral imports. General Adams wrote, “The federal government has not formulated a comprehensive and coherent policy approach to address the national security risks of inadequate access to many key minerals and metals.”

China has already demonstrated its willingness to use rare earths as a geopolitical weapon. In 2010 it stopped shipping rare earths to Japan, which caused a severe economic shock and a near standstill in manufacturing until shipments resumed. Chinese dominance in producing rare earths as well as other critical minerals is only part of the leverage it holds over the United States and other nations.

That’s because it’s not enough just to mine these resources. A nation also has to have the smelters, refiners, and processing plants to turn those elements into usable products. Because mining has declined in America, those support industries have declined as well. In addition to that, many U.S. universities have stopped offering courses in materials science, metallurgy, mineral processing, and mining engineering.

One other reason for China’s dominance in minerals and metals is that it doesn’t value human rights and environmental protection the way Western nations do. Workers are underpaid, they labor in dangerous conditions, and Chinese mining has created massive toxic lakes.

It’s encouraging that the Trump Administration has recognized America’s extreme vulnerability. But because of bad decisions and neglect from U.S. presidents and Congress for the past three decades, the nation finds itself in an extremely deep hole. All the while, China continues to advance its 100-year plan for global dominance.

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

Rare Earth Emergency #1

Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 EST

COVID-19 has awakened the world to a dangerous dependence on Communist China for a wide variety of products. There is a call to “de-couple” from China. Unfortunately, for the U.S. and other free nations, that’s not going to happen anytime soon. The U.S. is almost completely dependent on other nations (mostly China) for products made with Rare Earth Minerals and Critical Metals. REs are in virtually ALL of our technological devices from phones to cars to fighter jets.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/rare-earth-emergency-1/

Script:
Thanks to the Shale Revolution, the United States has regained her energy security.
Imports of oil and natural gas have plunged. In fact, as of September 2019 the U.S. was exporting more petroleum products than it imports for the first time in its history! And it’s a net natural gas exporter as well.

But… unfortunately the U.S. has a different energy problem that is putting everything in our world at great risk. The United States is 100 percent dependent on numerous foreign countries for dozens of critical minerals, including rare earth elements.

This isn’t just a big deal. It’s a REALLY big deal.

If you like electricity, your car, smartphone, TV, the internet, jet travel, air conditioning, and just about everything else in your life, then you LOVE these minerals. Without them, our current way of life does not exist. And yet, America does very little mining for these essential resources.

It’s not because the United States isn’t endowed with enormous mineral wealth, because it is. Every state has some valuable rare earth minerals and/or critical metals such as copper, gold, silver, and zinc. The National Mining Association estimates we have more than $6 trillion dollars in mineral wealth beneath our feet.

Authors of the book “Groundbreaking!” detail America’s decline as a mining power. In 1970 President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has done some good work. However, its excessive regulations have dramatically reduced America’s ability to mine for resources. Additionally, nearly three-quarters of federal land is off limits to mineral exploration. In the 1990s America was the top producer and exporter of minerals. Today, it is the top importer. The Clinton Administration accelerated the downward spiral when it abolished the Bureau of Mines. America is the only global power that doesn’t have a government agency focused on mining.

If that wasn’t bad enough, successive administrations have sold off much of the nation’s large stockpile of minerals, including rare earths. Today, when minerals and metals have never been more important, U.S. stockpiles are at their lowest point in history.

Why haven’t most people heard about this extreme vulnerability and shocking disregard for our economic and national security? For the most part, the mainstream press isn’t interested in this kind of stuff. And neither are most politicians. It’s ironic because the media and political elites constantly express their love of wind turbines, solar panels, and electric cars. Don’t they know these technologies eat up massive quantities of critical minerals and rare earth metals?

One bright spot is the Trump Administration, which has acknowledged the problem and taken action. In 2017 President Trump signed an executive order focused on building a secure supply of critical minerals. But that’s only the first step in a long journey to reduce America’s over-reliance on other countries for these resources. Once a mineral deposit is identified it can take a decade or longer to get a mining permit.

And there are other complications as well, since many rare earths cannot be mined directly. They are a co-product of other mining. For instance, rare earth elements, tellurium, rhenium, and cobalt are often found in copper ore.

As discouraging as all this is, there is even more cause for alarm. A single nation has a stranglehold on the production and processing of rare earth elements: China. We’ll examine the world’s dangerous dependence on China in Part 2 of America’s Rare Earth Emergency.

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On!

SHALEout!

Thu, 19 Mar 2020 00:00:00 EST

Russia and Saudi Arabia are trying to force U.S. shale oil producers into bankruptcy by flooding the market with oil, dropping the price as low as $20 a barrel. Should the Trump Administration bailout producers who are overextended? Here’s our perspective on the question of a “SHALE-out”.

VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/

FOLLOW us!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ClearEnergyAlliance
Twitter: https://twitter.com/clearenergy
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clearenergyalliance

For list of sources and downloadable transcript: https://clearenergyalliance.com/project/shaleout/

Script:

The Russians and Saudis squeeze U.S. shale oil producers by flooding the market with oil. This drives the price down to unprofitable levels. Rumors circulate that President Trump considers helping the industry with government assistance, including low interest loans. Critics of the president and the industry call this idea a “SHALEout”.

It’s a catchy name, “Shale-Out” instead of “bailout” and it’s not entirely wrong. We at the Clear Energy Alliance are strongly against the kind of government subsidies that have propped up wind and solar, so we’re against a SHALEout as well. That said, dealing with this sort of challenge is tricky because the impacts go well beyond the industry itself. The motivation of the Russians and Saudis is clear.
They want to artificially suppress the price of oil below its true value to force countless U.S. shale oil companies into bankruptcy.

They can then quickly raise prices and recapture a sizable chunk of the world oil market. That’s called “dumping” and it’s a violation of free trade practices. The U.S. should not allow the Russians, Saudis or any other nation to get away with this tactic, which damages the American economy and national security. On the other hand, critics of the industry say some U.S. shale oil companies should go bankrupt because they were too aggressive in borrowing money. We agree. Anti-oil activists also say it’s a step in the right direction because we need to get off oil and natural gas as soon as possible anyway.
On that score, we disagree. Oil and natural gas are vital to everything we do and will be for a long time to come.

If the shale oil industry in America shrinks, we aren’t going to use less oil. We’ll just replace American oil with higher priced foreign oil, which brings all sorts of dangerous and expensive geopolitical consequences. What should the government do when foreign producers dump oil on the world market? It’s a tough call.

A SHALEout isn’t a good idea. But maybe slapping a temporary tariff on foreign oil would be enough to shock the Russians and Saudis into stopping their attempt to hurt America by dumping oil below market value. It could be worth a try.

Energy is deeply intertwined in our lives in more ways than most of us can imagine. Keep that in mind when people and organizations oversimplify it with catch terms like “ShaleOut” in order to drive their agendas.

For the Clear Energy Alliance, I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.