I read a lot from a wide variety of news sources. Two topics that fascinate me are: Green Energy and Climate Change. I'll start out by sharing this op-ed written by Stephen Moore on his argument for 100% Green Energy. There's some truth to everything in moderation and most recently I discussed this. I do believe that our planet gives us a wide variety of resources and we shouldn't be inherently using just two (gas and oil), but there's some logic to using a variety of resources including green energy, if it's applicable to the region, the temperature zone, climate, etc. I don't think you want all glass solar panels on top of roofs where there are frequent hurricanes? I'm also concerned about the amount of land that windmills seem to need and their history of killing birds. I'm not saying any one resource is bad, just implying that every area may require a custom approach to green energy.
Here's a portion of the statistics that grabbed my attention:
According to the Foreign Policy analysis, moving to a "carbon-free" energy future "requires massive amounts of energy, not to mention the extraction of minerals and metals at great environmental and social costs."
Here are some of the numbers. Going all-in on batteries, solar and wind would require:
-- 34 million metric tons of copper
-- 40 million tons of lead
-- 50 million tons of zinc
-- 162 million tons of aluminum
-- 4.8 billion tons of iron
Those tens of millions of windmills, solar panels and electric batteries for cars and trucks aren't exactly biodegradable. So, we will have the most prominent energy graveyard with toxic pollutants that will be 100 times larger than any nuclear waste storage. And yet, the Left is worried about plastic straws!
Sorry for saying this, but I would never put even a hint of confidence in anything Stephen Moore says. Too much of a conspiracy, pro-Trump nut. Sorry.
There could be merit in the argument from others. I would need to see something that isn't from someone so slanted.
I was going for the statistics in this article because I thought it made for a compelling thought for keeping a balance with green energy and fossil fuels. I should have removed this and replaced this with another article without any political slant. I too am an advocate for leaving the "left" and the "right" out of any discussions and I forgot he went low in the end of this article. My bad.