I & I Editorial BoardThe net-zero zealots want to force a worldwide renewable energy transition. But they don’t always get their way. Their fanciful projects have been blocked more than 1,000 times globally. In a world seemingly gone mad, this is welcome news.
“The total number of alt-energy rejections or restrictions now exceeds 1,000 — it’s 1,011 to be exact,” says energy author Robert Bryce, who operates a database that shows 814 U.S rejections of solar, wind and battery projects. Add those to others across the world and the total exceeds a grand.
“The rejections keep coming,” says Bryce. “Since the beginning of May, a provincial government in Queensland has rejected an enormous wind project, a county board in Illinois spiked a solar project, and a district council in East Devon (England) vetoed a battery project.”
When officials asked residents for comments on the proposed $1 billion, 450-megawatt project wind project included battery storage in Queensland, Australia, 142 responded, reports Bryce, and 88% opposed it.
Local Illinois officials by a margin of more than 3-to-1 rejected plans for a solar project in the New Lenox Township about 40 miles southwest of Chicago, while the East Devon District Council said no to a lithium battery storage farm.
“These rejections don’t fit the narrative that’s relentlessly promoted by climate activists and their myriad allies in the legacy media about ‘green’ energy,” says Bryce. “But the numbers are real, the numbers are growing, and they provide irrefutable evidence that land-use conflicts are the binding constraint on the growth of alt-energy.”
Though it’s hyped as an eco-friendly alternative to fossil fuel and nuclear energy, renewable energy doesn’t have a harmonious relationship with nature. Wind and solar projects destroy animal habitats, require deforestation, and convert farms and pristine open fields into industrial zones. When solar farms are sited in the desert, far from population centers and human activity, they break up the crust that binds soil and absorbs carbon dioxide. Offshore wind developments disturb coastal marine ecosystems.
Renewables also stomp out massive land footprints, due to their low energy density. For instance, solar and wind power require roughly 40 to 50 times more space than coal plants and 90 to 100 times more land than natural gas facilities, researchers say.
These eyesores are threats to human health, as well. “Wind turbine syndrome,” which can cause “decreased quality of life, annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, headache, anxiety, depression, and cognitive dysfunction,” has been recognized by a French court as a real ailment.
We haven’t even mentioned that renewables produce energy erratically and are not nearly as affordable as conventional energy sources.
Maybe one day renewables will overcome their reliability issues and steep costs. But that won’t make them suddenly more acceptable. People will continue to protect their communities, their peace and tranquility, and fight against the encroachment of an invasive species. And as they watch the eco-crusade unfold, more and more will realize that the renewables campaign is a watermelon – green on the outside, but socialist red on the inside.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
The World does not shun renewable energy. In fact, the world enthusiastically supports expansion of renewable energy above all other energy sources as the most economical, cleanest and easiest to implement form of energy available. The special interest vested in other forms of energy are to ones lying about the world view on energy.
Just stop lying. EVs have peaked. No one wants them above the level of where they are. Solar is undependable. Who the F wants to spend more for energy and get less? If solar panels really did save tremendous amounts of money for homeowners, EVERYONE WOULD HAVE THEM. But, they don’t pencil out. If EVs were so great, EVERYONE WOULD HAVE THEM. How can you honestly sit there and say energy systems that are undependable and expensive are the most economical? How can you say easiest to implement when no one’s power grid is where it needs to be to support EVs on a grand scale? Seriously, put your ego aside and just admit you are freaking wrong.
Your post is close to 100% inaccurate. Renewables require backup because they don’t always work (lack of wind and sun). So they add cost and so are not at all economical.
That’s what happens when a peninsula with an area of approximately 583,254 square kilometers, and a population of roughly 55 million (the second-largest European peninsula by area) goes dark in the largest failed experiment of renewable energy in history. Just sayin’.
People are learning it’s not just money but it’s land.
A solar facility needs about 400 times the land as fossil fuel plants.
For my US state that will be about 4,000 sq miles or about 10% of the state covered with solar.
It’s more than land, solar interferes with and kills wildlife. Wind slaughters birds by the hundreds of thousands and kills whales and dolphins when erected in the oceans. Neither of these sources are efficient or “green”. The entire industry is built on lies.
The world needs reliable Energy not Wind and Solar Nuclear is far better despite what we get from the Anti-Nuclear idiots from Greenpeace and Hanoi Jane