The fiftieth anniversary of the first Earth Day of 1970 will be in 2020. As environmentalism has gone mainstream during that half-century, it has forgotten its early focus and shifted toward green capitalism. Nowhere is this more apparent than abandonment of the slogan popular during the early Earth Days: “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.”
The unspoken motto of today’s Earth Day is “Recycle, Occasionally Reuse, and Never Utter the Word ‘Reduce.’” A quasi-taboo on the word “reduce” permeates twenty-first century environmentalism. Confronting the planned obsolescence of everyday products rarely, if ever, appears as an ecological goal. The concept of possessing fewer objects and smaller homes has surrendered to the worship of eco-gadgets. The idea of redesigning communities to make them compact so individual cars are not necessary has been replaced by visions of universal electric cars. The saying “Live simply so that others can simply live” now draws empty stares. Long forgotten are the modest lifestyles of Buddha, Jesus and Thoreau.
When the word “conservation” is used, it is almost always applied to preserving plants or animals and rarely to conserving energy. The very idea of re-imagining society so that people can have good lives as they use less energy has been consumed by visions of the infinite expansion of solar/wind power and the oxymoron, “100% clean energy.”
But… wait – aren’t solar and wind power inherently clean? No, and that is the crux of the problem. Many have become so distraught with looming climate catastrophe that they turn a blind eye to other threats to the existence of life. Shortsightedness by some who rightfully denounce “climate change denial” has led to a parallel unwillingness to recognize dangers built into other forms of energy production, a problem which can be called “clean energy danger denial.”
Obviously, fossil fuels must be replaced by other forms of energy. But those energy sources have such negative properties that using less energy should be the beginning point, the ending point and occupy every in-between point on the path to sane energy use. What follows are “The 15 Unstated Myths of Clean, Renewable Energy.” Many are so absurd that no one would utter them, yet they are embedded within the assumption that massive production of solar and wind energy can be “clean.”
Myth 1. ‘Clean energy’ is carbon neutral.The fallacious belief that “clean” energy does not emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) is best exemplified by nuclear power, which is often included on the list of alternative energy sources. It is, of course, true that very little GHGs are released during theoperationof nukes. But it is wrong to ignore the use of fossil fuels in theconstruction(and ultimatedecommissioning) of the power plant as well as themining, milling, transportand eternalstorageof nuclear material. To this must be added the fossil fuels used in the building of the array ofmachineryto make nukes possible.
Similarly, examination of thelife cyclesof other “carbon neutral” energy sources reveals that they all require machinery that is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Steel, cement and plastics are central to “renewable” energy and have heavy carbon footprints. One small example: Themass of an industrial wind turbineis 90% steel.
Myth 2. ‘Clean energy’ is inexhaustible because the sun will always shine and the wind will always blow.This statement assumes that all that is needed for energy is sunshine and wind, which is not the case. Sunshine and wind do not equal solar power and wind power. The transformation into “renewable” energy requires minerals, including rare earth metals, that are non-renewable and difficult to access.
Myth 3. ‘Clean energy’ does not produce toxins.Knowledge that the production of fossil fuels is associated with a high level of poisons should not lead us to ignore the level of toxins involved in the extraction and processing of lithium, cobalt, copper, silver, aluminum, cadmium, indium, gallium, selenium, tellurium, neodymium, and dysprosium. Would a comparison of toxins associated with the production of clean energy to fossil fuels be an open admission of the dirtiness of what is supposed to be “clean?”
Another example: Processing one ton of rare earths – materials necessary for alternative energy –produces2,000 tons of toxic waste. Similar to what happens with Myth 2, toxins may not be produced during the operation of solar and wind power but permeate other stages of their existence.
Myth 4. ‘Clean energy’ does not deplete or contaminate drinkable water.Though water is usually thought of for agriculture and cooling in nuclear power plants, it is used in massive amounts for manufacturing and mining. The manufacture of a single auto requires350,000 liters of water.
In 2015, the US used4 billion gallons of water for miningand 70% of that comes from groundwater. Water is used for separating minerals from rocks, cooling machinery and dust control. Even industry apologists admit that “Increased reliance on low ore grades means that it isbecoming necessary to extract a higher volume of ore to generate the same amount of refined product,which consumes more water.” Julia Adeney Thomas, associate professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, points out that “producing one ton of rare earth ore (in terms of rare earth oxides) produces200 cubic meters of acidic wastewater.”
Myth 5. ‘Clean energy’ does not require very much land.In fact, “clean” energy could well have more effect on land use than fossil fuels. According to Jasper Bernes, author ofThe Work of Art in the Age of Deindustrialization,“To replace current US energy consumption with renewables, you’d need to devote at least25-50% of the US landmass to solar, wind, and biofuels.”
Something else is often omitted from contrasts between energy harvesting. Fossil fuel has a huge effect on land where it is extracted but relatively little land is used at the plants where the fuel is burned for energy. In contrast, solar/wind power requiresbothland where raw materials are minedplusthe vast amount of land used for solar panels or wind “farms.”
Myth 6. ‘Clean energy’ has no effect on plant and animal life.Contrary to the belief that there is no life in a desert, the Mojave is teeming with plant and animal life whose habitat will be increasingly undermined as it is covered with solar collectors. It is unfortunate that so many who express concern for the destruction of coral reefs seem blissfully unaware of theannihilation of aquatic life wrought by deep sea mining of mineralsfor renewable energy components.
Wind harvesting can be a doomsday machine for forests. Ozzie Zehner, author ofGreen Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism, warns: “Many of the planet’s strongest winds rip across forested ridges. In order to transport 50-ton generator modules and 160-foot blades to these sites,wind developers cut new roads. They also clear strips of land… for power lines and transformers. These provide easy access to poachers as well as loggers, legal and illegal alike.”
As the most productive land for solar/wind extraction is used first, that requires the continuous expansion of the amount of land (or sea bed) taken as energy use increases. The estimate that 1 million species could be made extinct in upcoming decades will have to be up-counted to the extent that “clean” energy is mixed in with fossil fuels.
Myth 7. ‘Clean energy’ production has no effect on human health.Throughout the centuries of capitalist expansion, workers have struggled to protect their health and families have opposed the poisoning of their communities. This is not likely to change with an increase in “clean” energy. What will change is the particular toxins that compromise health.
Ozzie Zehner points out that creating silicon wafers for solar cells “releases large amounts of sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide. Crystalline-silicon solar cell processing involves the use or release of chemicals such asphosphine, arsenic, arsine, trichloroethane, phosphorous oxycholoride, ethyl vinyl acetate, silicon trioxide, stannic chloride, tantalum pentoxide, lead, hexavalent chromium, and numerous other chemical compounds.” The explosive gas silane is also used and more recent thin-film technologies employ toxic substances such as cadmium.
Click Here: pinko shop cheap
Wind technology is associate with its own problems. Activist Caitlin Manning has reported on windmill farms in the Trans Isthmus Corridor of Mexico, a region “which is majority Indigenous and dependent on agriculture and fishing. The concrete bases of the more than1,600 wind turbines have severely disrupted the underground water flows… Despite promises that they could continue to farm their lands, fences and security guards protecting the turbines prevent farmers from moving freely. The turbines leak oil into the soil and sometimes ignite … many people have suffered mental problems from the incessant noise.”
Though the number of health problems documented for fossil fuels is vastly more than those for solar/wind, the latter have been used on an industrial scale for a much shorter time, making it harder for links to show up. The Precautionary Principle states that a dangerous process should be proven safe before use rather than waiting until after damage has been done. Will those who have correctly insisted that the Precautionary Principle be employed for fracking and other fossil fuel processes demand an equivalent level of investigation for “clean” energy or give it the same wink and nod that petrochemical magnates have enjoyed?
Myth 8. People are happy to have ‘clean energy’ harvested or its components mined where they live.Swooping windmill blades can produceconstant car-alarm-level noise of about 100 decibels, and, if they ice up, they can fling it off at 200 miles per hour. It is not surprising that indigenous people of Mexico are not alone in being less than thrilled about having them next door. Since solar panels and windmills can only be built where there is lots of sun or wind, their neighbors are often high-pressured into accepting them unwillingly.
Obviously, components can be mined only where they exist, leading to a non-ending list of opponents. Naveena Sadasivam, a staff writer atGrist, gives a few examples from the very long list of communities confronting extraction for “clean” energy components: “Indigenous communities in Alaska have been fighting to prevent the mining of copper and gold at Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, home to the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery and a crucial source of sustenance. The proposed mine … has been billed by proponents as necessary to meet thegrowing demand for copper, which is used in wind turbines, batteries, and solar panels. Similar stories are playing out in Norway, where the Sámi community is fighting a copper mine, and in Papua New Guinea, where a company is proposing mining the seabed for gold and copper.”
Myth 9. No one is ever killed due to disputes over ‘clean energy’ extraction or harvesting.When Asad Rehman, executive director of War on Want, wrote in May 2019 that environmental conflicts are responsible for “themurder of two environmental defenderseach and every week,” his data was out of date within two months. By July 2019 Global Witness (GW) had tabulated that “More thanthree people were murdered each weekin 2018 for defending their land and our environment.” Their report found that mining was the deadliest economic sector, followed by agriculture, with water resources such as dams in third place. Commenting on the GW findings,Griststaff writer Justine Calma noted that “Although hydropower has been billed as ‘renewable energy,’ many activists have taken issue with the fact that large dams and reservoirs havedisplaced indigenous peoples and disrupted local wildlife.”
GW recorded one murder sparked by wind power. Murders traceable to “clean” energy will certainly increase if it out-produces energy from fossil fuels. The largest mass murder of earth defenders that GW found in 2018 was in India “over the damaging impacts of acopper mine in the southern state of Tamil Nadu.” Copper is a key element for “clean” energy.
Myth 10. One watt of ‘clean energy’ will replace one watt from use of fossil fuels.Perhaps the only virtue that fossil fuels have is that their energy is easier to store than solar/wind power. Solar and wind power are intermittent, which means they can be collected only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, and storing and retrieving the energy requires complex processes that result in substantial loss of energy. Additionally, the characteristics of solar panels means that tiny fragments such as dust or leaves can block the surface and diminish efficiency.
Therefore, their efficiency will be much less under actual operating conditions than under ideal lab conditions. A test described by Ozzie Zehner found thatsolar arrays rated at 1,000 watts actually produced 200-400 wattsin the field. Pat Murphy, executive director of Community Solutions, notes that while a coal plant operates at 80-90% of capacity,wind turbines do so at 20-30% of capacity. Since they perform at such low efficiencies, both solar and wind energy require considerably more land than misleading forecasts predict. This, in turn, increases all of the problems with habitat loss, toxic emissions, human health and land conflicts.
Myth 11. ‘Clean energy’ is as efficient as fossil fuels in resource use.Processes needed for storing and retrieving energy from intermittent sources renders them extremely complex. Solar/wind energy can be stored for night use by using it to pump water uphill and, when energy is needed, letting it flow downhill to turn turbines for electricity. Or, it can be stored in expensive, large and heavy batteries. Wind turbines “can pressurize air into hermetically sealed underground caverns to be tapped later for power, but theconversion is inefficient and suitable geological sites are rare.” Daniel Tanuro, author ofGreen Capitalism: Why It Can’t Work, estimates that “Renewable energies are enough to satisfy human needs, but the technologies needed for their conversion are more resource-intensive than fossil technologies: it takes at leastten times more metal to make a machine capable of producing a renewable kWhthan to manufacture a machine able to produce a fossil kWh.”
Myth 12. Improved efficiency can resolve the problems of ‘clean energy’.This is perhaps the most often-stated illusion of green energy. Energy efficiency (EE) is akin to putting energy on sale, and shoppers do not buy less of something on sale – they buy more. Stan Cox of the Land Institute in Kansas, describes research showing that at the same timeair conditioners became 28% more efficient, they accounted for 37% more energy use. Findings such as this are due both to users keeping their houses cooler and more people buying air conditioners. Similarly, at the same time as automobiles achieved more EE, energy use for transportation went up. This is because more drivers switched from sedans to SUVs or small trucks and there were many more drivers and cars on the road.
EE parallels increased energy consumption not just because of increased use of one specific commodity, but also because it allows people to buy other commodities which are also energy-intensive. It spurs corporations to produce more energy-guzzling objects to dump on the market. Those people who do not want this additional stuff are likely to put more money in the bank and the bank lends that money to multiple borrowers, many of which are businesses that use the loans to increase their production.
Myth 13. Recycling ‘clean energy’ machine components can resolve its problems.This myth vastly overestimates the proportion of materials that can actually be recycled and understates the massive amount of “clean” energy being advocated. Kris De Decker, founder ofLow-tech Magazine, points out that “a 5 MW wind turbine produces more than 50 tonnes of plastic composite wastefrom the blades alone.” If a solar/wind infrastructure could actually be constructed to replace all energy from fossil fuel, it would be the most enormous build-up in human history. Many components could be recycled, but it is not possible to recycle more than 100% of components and the build-up would require an industrial growth rate of 200%, 300% or maybe much more.
Myth 14. Whatever problems there are with ‘clean energy’ will work themselves out.Exactly the opposite is true. Problems of “clean” energy will become worse as resources are used up, the best land for harvesting solar and wind power is taken, and the rate of industrial expansion increases. Obtaining power will become vastly more difficult as there are diminishing returns on new locations for mining and placing solar collectors and wind mills.
Myth 15. There Is No Alternative.This repeats Margaret Thatcher’s right-wing perspective, which is reflected in the claim that “We have to do something because moving a little bit in the right direction is better than doing nothing at all.” The problem is that expanding energy production is a step in the wrong direction, not the right direction.
The alternative to overgrowing “clean” energy is remembering what was outlined before. The concept of conserving energy is an age-old philosophy embodied in use of the word “reduce.” Those who only see the horrible potential of climate change have an unfortunate tendency to mimic the behavior of climate change deniers as they themselves deny the dangers of alternative energy sources.
Kris De Decker traces the roots of toxic wind power not to wind power itself but to hubristic faith in unlimited energy growth: “For more than two thousand years, windmills were built from recyclable or reusable materials: wood, stone, brick, canvas, metal. If we would reduce energy demand, smaller and less efficient wind turbines would not be a problem.”
Every form of energy production has difficulties. “Clean, renewable energy” is neither clean nor renewable. There can be good lives for all people if we abandon the goal of infinite energy growth. Our guiding principle needs to be that the only form of truly clean energy is less energy.