Those who oppose using fossil fuels to provide the bulk of our energy needs without offering viable alternatives are depriving this and future generations of job opportunities. When our country attempts to keep our illegal immigrants seeking to enter our country illegally in pursuit of jobs, Nancy Pelosi and those aligned with her call it “immoral”. What should we call doing that to our own citizens?
When those opposed to fossil fuels argue against them, they point to their environmental impacts, especially their contribution to “climate change” and laud renewables as being “pure” when it comes to the environment. Is that really the case?
To the Editor:
Albert Colone’s letter in your Dec. 20-21 editions suggested a “municipal microgrid” might be something the different factions in the energy discussion could all agree on. The letter touched on technical matters that deserve discussion.
We need to understand that a “microgrid” refers to a local electric grid that can be isolated and continue to function for an extended period even when the larger grid goes down. Of course, the main grid is very reliable so, in fact, we don’t need a microgrid.
Colone writes that solar panels and wind turbines could provide electricity and heat for a complex at the railyards with gas used only as back up.
First, because of intermittency of solar and wind power, any microgrid that must support several buildings or run in “island mode” (off the main grid) for an extended period must primarily rely on hydropower or gas.
To the Editor:
Two reports and a conference warning that climate is warming due to human activity, i.e., greenhouse gases (GHG). This warming will “disrupt many areas of life,” affecting trade and precipitating conflicts.
Let’s assume for the moment that the data warrants the conclusion – man-made GHGs are the cause of global warming. How do we solve this problem? What works?
For smooth transitions to a less carbon-intensive future, the best path is the use of natural gas – the bridge fuel. Two decades of data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) is testimony to its efficacy.
According to the EIA, the substitution of gas for coal in power plants has lowered CO2 in the USA to levels not seen since the late 1980s. This happened while population and GDP grew over the same period.