Cost of renewable subsidies by Robert Bryce.
Click for larger image

Solar, Wind are Climate Corporatism

Corporatism, also known as crony capitalism, is a fusion of government interests with those of business, particularly large global corporations. They thrive on government regulations that lock out competitors, as long as they don’t cost themselves significant money. Corporatists love government handouts, be it outright cash or tax giveaways.

Green energy has become a corporatist’s dream, costing the public billions in higher energy costs and taxes.

In Twin Falls, Idaho (AP, April 13, 2023), hundreds of residents protested the Lava Ridge wind farm, which will disrupt 118 square miles (306 square kilometers) of public land. The 340–400 turbines require thousands of tons of steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, gravel, and fossil fuels for roads, power lines, and turbines themselves.

How can something using massive non-renewable resources, including fossil fuels, be considered “clean energy”?

Going Green feels good for corporations banking billions in subsidies. Solar is no better than wind. The Lava Ridge project’s projected capacity is 1,000 megawatts, but its environmental cost is immense.

In “Actually, Solar Is Getting 302 Times More In Federal Subsidies Than Nuclear” by Robert Bryce (Sep 27, 2023), he notes:

The enormous subsidies for wind and solar show, once again, that America’s energy policy has been hijacked by climate corporatism, which, as I explained in April, is “the use of government power to increase the profits of big corporations at the expense of consumers - and in particular, at the expense of small (and mostly rural) landowners - in the name of climate change.”

Ref: https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/actually-solar-is-getting-302-times

Nuclear Power: A Cleaner Alternative

A far less environmentally costly nuclear reactor project, using just 36 acres for the same power output as Lava Ridge, was canceled. This “experimental” breeder reactor shouldn’t be experimental. Breeder reactors, proven decades ago, create more fuel than they consume. Thousands of tons of spent fuel rods, depleted uranium, and thorium sit in storage, and using them avoids the environmental destruction of mining new material in developing countries. Canadian-designed CANDU reactors can directly use spent fuel, simplifying waste disposal, which is already manageable.

From the Experimental Breeder Reactor-I (EBR-I) website:

In 1953, testing at EBR-I confirmed that a reactor could create (or breed) more fuel than it consumes. This pioneering reactor operated for 12 years before being shut down for the last time in December 1963.

What are we waiting for? Small modular reactors (SMRs) are in development. The Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP) in Idaho will use 12 NuScale SMRs (60 megawatts each, totaling 720 megawatts) built offsite. Scaling to 100-megawatt reactors could yield 1,200 megawatts with a minimal footprint.

Ref: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nations-first-small-modular-reactor-plant-power-nuclear-research-idaho-national

Capacity factor by energy source.
Click for larger image

The capacity factor, per EIA.gov, is:

The ratio of the electrical energy produced by a generating unit for the period of time considered to the electrical energy that could have been produced at continuous full power operation during the same period.

Nuclear power’s capacity factor (~90%) far surpasses renewables (wind ~35%, solar ~25%) and fossil fuels, meaning fewer plants produce more reliable energy.

Renewables’ intermittent output forces conventional plants to operate inefficiently, raising costs. Nuclear’s consistent output avoids this, offering a cleaner, more efficient alternative to wind and solar’s resource-intensive sprawl.

Climate Policy and Pollution Realities

Green energy’s environmental toll, like Lava Ridge’s 118-square-mile footprint, pales compared to other pollution issues ignored by climate agendas. Nickel mining waste in Indonesia (~500,000 tons/year) devastates marine ecosystems rapidly, unlike CO2’s gradual effects (*Marine Pollution Bulletin*, 2021). Past coal pollution (SO2 aerosols) cooled the planet (~0.1–0.3°C, 1940s–1980), expanding Arctic sea ice (~5–10%), while reduced emissions post-1980 added ~0.1–0.2°C warming (Smith et al., 2011). These non-CO2 factors show climate is driven by more than greenhouse gases.

CO2’s rise (~120 ppm since 1850) contributes ~30–60% to ~1°C warming, but sparse 1850 data (~20–30% coverage) and cloud modeling flaws make precise attribution speculative (Moberg et al., 2005; IPCC, 2021). Natural variability, like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (~0.05–0.1°C), and Eocene resilience (thriving ecosystems at ~800–1,600 ppm CO2) suggest climate policies exaggerate CO2’s role for profit (Knight et al., 2005). Nuclear power, with its low footprint and high efficiency, addresses energy needs without the corporatist subsidies driving wind and solar’s environmental harm.

Climate Agendas and Economic Motives

Subsidies are corporate welfare, leading to political corruption, market distortions, and resource waste. In 2016, the U.S. spent $18.4 billion on energy subsidies, with $11 billion for renewables and $3 billion for energy efficiency (Forbes, 2018).

A 1975 National Academy of Sciences report, Understanding Climatic Change, noted the West Antarctic ice sheet has been disintegrating for thousands of years, unrelated to modern CO2 (NAS, 1975).

In a video at the World Economic Forum, Bill Gates outlines a climate agenda involving wealth redistribution from productive nations to developing ones, enforced by green policies (Video: Bill Gates Climate Agenda). This is about money, not the environment.

Evidence based Earth Science

Share This Article

References

Bristol Blog banner