Is Transition To Alternative Energy Premature?

Alternative Energy premature?

Originally published: Newsmax by Yuri Vanetik

It goes without saying – or at least it should – that the United States can be not only energy-independent but also an international exporter of energy. In fact, we were making progress toward energy independence during the Trump administration.

Even the pundits that did not support the former president often acknowledge his administration’s accomplishments in the energy sphere. However, with our politicians’ embrace of the green-energy movement, those days – along with affordable gas prices, leading to increased demand and additional need for fuel tanks (click here to find out more) on the road to deliver the gas to stations up and down the country – are (at least for now) in the history books.

The truth of the matter is that our noble goals of becoming a green energy nation are presently more aspirational. If green energy technology was developed to the point where it was financially feasible for Americans to embrace it as their chief energy source, they would overwhelmingly do so. But it’s not.

With regard to solar power, some technologies need to be better developed before that form of energy can be embraced as a primary energy source by consumers. The cost of the solar panels versus the energy obtained for consumption is a losing proposition.

The limited efficiency of energy collection is also a problem with the overwhelming majority of the sun’s rays not being collected by the panels. Then, there are the issues of battery life and battery storage capacity.

The issue of battery life and storage capacity, as well as safety are also major hurdles in the inevitable advance of electric cars into American culture, severing the experience of driving, which will likely be relegated to combustible engine vehicles.

While the establishment of charging stations across the country is a great plan for the future, the average charge time for an electric car is immensely longer than that of filling up a fossil-fuel-powered automobile. Many could even choose to get a home charging station installed for their electrical vehicle with the help of professionals like SALT Light & Electric ( or similar others in their vicinity.

However, according to Forbes Magazine, it takes 45 hours on average to drive the approximately 3,000 miles from coast to coast in a fossil-fueled automobile.

And if we look at the data from US News & World Report, the range of a modern-day electric vehicle (EV) averages 250 miles. Additionally, a typical EV with a 60kWh battery takes just under 8 hours to charge from empty-to-full with a 7kW charging point.

Doing that math – and understanding that an EV would have to recharge a total of 12 times during a 3,000-mile trip, that 45-hour coast-to-coast trip just became an almost six-day trip.

Then, we have the issue of the dependability of wind power. The vulnerabilities to the efficiency – and even the operation, are tenuous at best as evidenced by the complete failure of wind power to supply the power grid in Texas recently.

Add to the undependability of the wind power apparatus, the fact that its blades have a limited lifespan (and that they present as a disposal problem), and that nature must be counted on to provide enough wind to generate watt one, and it is easy to see why the technology is simply not at a level to which it becomes a viable alternative to fossil-fuels … yet.

Therefore, wind power, solar and electronic vehicles are in our future, but do not yet replace traditional energy sources.

It is commendable and very much “American” to aspire and drive innovation to new echelons. However, in doing so if we dispense with economic and scientific efficiency, we become less competitive and may ultimately compromise our hegemony in both business and innovation.

Why is the intolerant “Woke Nation” insisting that there be a massive shift to green energy when green energy technology – as it exists today – cannot survive in the marketplace? Why are green energy radicals doing everything they can to destroy the economies of fossil fuel-producing states?

It is most likely in part because legacy energy production is associated with greedy capitalism, and is regarded with disdain by Hollywood influencers, while subsidized alternative energy has the optics of being caring, cool, and inclusive.

The premature and ideologically forced transition from fossil fuels to green energy, as a primary source of energy, is destroying economies from Colorado to the Dakotas, Texas, and Louisiana to Oklahoma and the coal-producing states. The benefit of a prematurely embraced green energy economy is outweighed by the damage it is creating in almost every facet of business in our nation.

Most Americans are environmentally conscious. All one has to do is to survey the campsites of those “horrible gun-toting conservative hunters” to see that they leave nature as they found it.

Truth be told, if green energy proponents worked as hard perfecting their medium as they do in trying to force everyone into embracing presently inferior technology we might – just might – be at a point where green energy would be a viable option to fossil fuels. But they don’t and we aren’t.

But then, trying to explain this to the Woke Nation is akin to trying to teach a pig to sing: It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Yuri Vanetik is a private investor, lawyer, and political strategist based in California. Read Yuri Vanetik’s Reports –More Here.

Originally published: Newsmax by Yuri Vanetik

Published byvanetik
Previous post
8 things that productive and successful people never do to waste their time.
Next post
California’s ‘Exodus’ Threatens Conservative States
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *