For this week’s interview I sat down with oil industry vet and energy educator Doug Sandridge to talk about the biggest obstacles on the way to net zero and why many of the current plans by governments are unfeasible.
Mar 11, 2022·edited Mar 11, 2022Liked by Irina Slav
A great overview of some of the issues with "renewable" energy.
I think Mr. Sandridge is either naive or perhaps just too nice to say when he claims that this move to wind and solar was based in good intentions. The rank and file members of the "green" NGOs pushing this may have had good intentions, but it is clear that the leadership is as corrupt as can be.
Educating the leadership doesn't work. They ignore physics and facts no matter how it is presented to them and they have done so for 40 years. This is not a recent movement -- it just got traction recently.
The only reason for the leadership to be so consistently obstinate is that they are paid for a certain outcome and so their continued graft depends on them ignoring reality and continuing to press the agenda that they are paid to press.
One final point, I also disagree with his lack of opposition to "renewable" energy. Once you have nuclear energy, there is no case in which there is a benefit in adding renewable energy. If we are going to have clean, reliable power generation, except in places where vast hydro is available, there is no point in building "renewables". Wind and solar are a waste of money better spent elsewhere.
I agree with Doug that the environmental movement began with good intentions, back in the 20th century. I do think, however, it quickly evolved/devolved into yet another money-making machine. Of course, some may have been corrupt from the start.
As for wind and solar, I see nothing wrong with rooftop solar if you have the means to afford it and live in a place where the hail and snow are not a regular occurrence. It's utility-scale solar that I see as problematic, same with wind parks. Doing it is fine, overdoing it is what bothers me.
Mar 12, 2022·edited Mar 12, 2022Liked by Irina Slav
Yes, it appears around 1970 was the turning point in the environmental movement. They did some good work in the USA (ignorant of other nations' environmental history) and put us on a path to a cleaner environment. And after that seemed to have been corrupted into Industrial Policy Mercenaries. Ones founded after that time seem to have started out as IPMs.
I get frustrated with the commonly accepted sentiment that we're ruining the world. The environment in the USA has steadily improved for the last 40 or 50 years and I expect that's true of the rest of the industrialized world as well. Newly industrialized regions usually take a while to sort out a balance....
I agree that if folks want to install solar on their roofs there's no reason to stop them. However, if they are still connected to the grid, the grid operator should be sure they are charging them the full cost of a grid connected unit regardless of their net electricity consumption, and the grid should not buy their excess production. This leads to unstable grid situation that drives up the cost of dispatchable electricity generators.
Thank you Irina, I'm glad you are taking the time to discuss these issues.
Great to see all this information available in a 30-minute video. I will try to share it around.
Excellent!! Thank you
A great overview of some of the issues with "renewable" energy.
I think Mr. Sandridge is either naive or perhaps just too nice to say when he claims that this move to wind and solar was based in good intentions. The rank and file members of the "green" NGOs pushing this may have had good intentions, but it is clear that the leadership is as corrupt as can be.
Educating the leadership doesn't work. They ignore physics and facts no matter how it is presented to them and they have done so for 40 years. This is not a recent movement -- it just got traction recently.
The only reason for the leadership to be so consistently obstinate is that they are paid for a certain outcome and so their continued graft depends on them ignoring reality and continuing to press the agenda that they are paid to press.
One final point, I also disagree with his lack of opposition to "renewable" energy. Once you have nuclear energy, there is no case in which there is a benefit in adding renewable energy. If we are going to have clean, reliable power generation, except in places where vast hydro is available, there is no point in building "renewables". Wind and solar are a waste of money better spent elsewhere.
I agree with Doug that the environmental movement began with good intentions, back in the 20th century. I do think, however, it quickly evolved/devolved into yet another money-making machine. Of course, some may have been corrupt from the start.
As for wind and solar, I see nothing wrong with rooftop solar if you have the means to afford it and live in a place where the hail and snow are not a regular occurrence. It's utility-scale solar that I see as problematic, same with wind parks. Doing it is fine, overdoing it is what bothers me.
Yes, it appears around 1970 was the turning point in the environmental movement. They did some good work in the USA (ignorant of other nations' environmental history) and put us on a path to a cleaner environment. And after that seemed to have been corrupted into Industrial Policy Mercenaries. Ones founded after that time seem to have started out as IPMs.
I get frustrated with the commonly accepted sentiment that we're ruining the world. The environment in the USA has steadily improved for the last 40 or 50 years and I expect that's true of the rest of the industrialized world as well. Newly industrialized regions usually take a while to sort out a balance....
I agree that if folks want to install solar on their roofs there's no reason to stop them. However, if they are still connected to the grid, the grid operator should be sure they are charging them the full cost of a grid connected unit regardless of their net electricity consumption, and the grid should not buy their excess production. This leads to unstable grid situation that drives up the cost of dispatchable electricity generators.