Rep. Carbajal Applauds Scheduling of First-Ever Offshore Wind Lease Sale in the Pacific

October 18, 2022, 12:44 pm 12.8k Views 116 Comments

Source: Office of Rep. Salud Carbajal

Today, Congressman Salud Carbajal applauded the U.S. Department of the Interior’s announcement that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will hold an offshore wind energy lease sale on Dec. 6, 2022 for areas off the coast of California including Morro Bay.

BOEM will offer five lease areas in California that total approximately 373,268 acres with the potential to produce over 4.5 GW of offshore wind energy: enough to power more than 1.5 million homes while supporting thousands of new jobs.

These will be the first sales of offshore wind leases for sites on the West Coast, and the first-ever U.S. sale to support potential commercial-scale floating offshore wind energy development.

“After years of collaboration with our local, state, and federal partners, we are now only a few weeks away from proving that the Central Coast is leading the charge on our renewable energy transformation by becoming home to one of the first-ever offshore wind leases on the West Coast,” said Rep. Carbajal.“Offshore wind holds incredible promise as a means to tackle climate change, and will serve our environmental, energy, national security, and economic prosperity goals for generations to come. The proposed sale in Morro Bay will help secure the Central Coast’s dominance as a renewable energy powerhouse, which will attract new businesses and good paying, future-oriented jobs in a burgeoning sector of the economy.”

“The demand and momentum to build a clean energy future is undeniable. I am proud of the teams at the Interior Department that are moving forward at the pace and scale required to help achieve the President’s goals to make offshore wind energy, including floating offshore wind energy, a reality for the United States,” said Secretary Deb Haaland. “Today, we are taking another step toward unlocking the immense offshore wind energy potential off our nation’s west coast to help combat the effects of climate change while lowering costs for American families and creating good-paying union jobs.” 

The area available for offshore wind development in Morro Bay would span 376 square miles, enough to produce 3GW of energy, which represents the largest proposed floating offshore wind project in the United States. A map can be found here.

Last month, BOEM completed its environmental review of the proposed leases in Morro Bay and issued a report saying it found no significant potential impacts on Central Coast ecosystems.

Background on Congressman Carbajal’s Work on Offshore Wind:

Congressman Carbajal has been a champion for offshore wind throughout his time in office.

This offshore wind lease sale is the product of negotiations conducted by Rep. Carbajal’s Offshore Wind Working Group, which was created in August 2019 to coordinate between federal, state, and local partners and is composed of representatives from the offices of Rep. Carbajal and Rep. Panetta (D-Carmel Valley), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of the Navy, and California Energy Commission (CEC). 

Negotiations had previously stalled amid hesitation from the Navy, until Rep. Carbajal offered an amendment to the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act in order to move the development forward off of Morro Bay and get negotiations back on track.

Following the amendment’s passage in the House, Carbajal secured a written commitment from the Navy indicating a willingness to collaborate with the Working Group to identify an area for development that would meet energy production goals.

As a result of these efforts and support from other local stakeholders and officials, Rep. Carbajal and Biden Administration leaders unveiled an agreement in May 2021 to allow offshore wind development off the coast of Morro Bay.

The lease sites for this and other areas off the California coast were announced earlier this year.

Last month, Congressman Salud Carbajal hosted members of the House Committee on Natural Resources in Morro Bay to discuss the future of offshore wind projects in California at a field hearing of the Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

Offshore wind is one component of a multi-pronged strategy to transform the Central Coast into a renewable energy hub.

The Central Coast is already home to the California Valley Solar Ranch and Morro Bay could soon host the largest energy storage facility in the world. With the addition of an offshore wind project, the Central Coast is positioned to lead the country in renewable energy construction and output.

Rep. Salud Carbajal represents California’s 24th congressional district, encompassing Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and part of Ventura County. He sits on the House Armed Services Committee, Agriculture Committee, and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where he serves as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.

Avatar

Written by Anonymous

What do you think?

0 Points

Comments

1 Comments deleted by Administrator

Leave a Review or Comment

116 Comments

  2. I never see any research posted on the effects to marine animals. Sound travels an incredible distance in water. How will this interfere with migrating marine mammals? Will the generation and transmission lines interfere with marine life that depends on minute electrical field to find prey?

    0

  4. I just don’t get it. The enviros want to remove the off-shore oil platforms in part because they are a blight on the horizon. Ruining the view and all. And now offshore wind platforms will replace them. But think of all the jobs they will generate! I guess we will need more housing for the workers. And more water.

    0

    • NOTREALLYDAVE – these turbines will be beyond your view, unlike the rigs. The lease areas for these projects are all at least 20 miles off shore along a relatively unpopulated area. On a clear day people might be able to see very tiny dots. Also, the “enviros” (yeah those whacky folks who want to breath clean air and not destroy our planet with oil) were much more concerned about the catastrophic oil spills than the view. I hope you really don’t think it was about the view of some ugly rigs less than a mile off shore…..

      0

    • Actually they want to stop of shoredrilling because of pollution, climate change
      And all the weather extremes…maybe go to Florida where the hurricane hit, or areas that have suffered severe flooding or here is California with severe drought and fire.. we won’t have an economy if we don’t move to clean energy period…has nothing to do with the view. What we should do is convert oil platforms to wind and wave production, 24/7 energy… Bombora wave energy
      GW energy 24/7 https://bomborawave.com/

      0

    • You’re confusing weather with climate and the claim of “we won’t have an economy if we don’t move to clean energy period” is climate alarmism and not backed by actual ‘science’. Like the hurricanes you mentioned (and cyclones), according the NOAA there is no linkage between global warming and increased hurricane frequency, but you have to follow the science from actual scientist like the NOAA and not the Science™ from political scientist.

      0

  5. The NINA team’s finished study, published in late July in the journal Ecology and Evolution, suggests that the solution might work. Bird deaths at Smøla, as measured by discovered carcasses, declined by 70 percent after the blades were painted. The theory goes that the black paint made the blades more visible, especially at the tips, essentially creating dark streaks in the sky that alerted incoming birds to the turbines and gave them time to change course.
    https://www.audubon.org/news/can-painting-wind-turbine-blades-black-really-save-birds

    0

  8. Sac: It’s so fake and lame. It’s a wonder they don’t burst out laughing when pretending to be concerned about animals. Their usual kitchen sink strategy of throwing every argument they can at something no matter how ridiculous or hypocritical. I remember seeing an article on psychology and human perceptions that claimed even if claims are nonsense, their presence and sheer volume creates the appearance of controversy and doubt among the uninformed. Or they do the fascist strategy of just repeating batshit nonsense until it seems normal.

    0

  11. Our familiar carbon shills are here, once again pumping out their discredited propaganda about fossil fuels, carbon dioxide’s effect on the atmosphere and plant life, and the imminent threat of parts of the world in the tropics and middle east becoming uninhabitable in a couple of years because of anthropogenic climate change.
    Every single one of the lies they are telling has been thoroughly debunked by climate scientists. Just take a look at:
    https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
    Where the shills get their marching orders:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696
    And learn about humanity’s effect on climate at:
    https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    0

  12. I still find it amazing that people really believe these windmills will make the air colder. These projects are a gross misallocation of resources that will make us less able to supply the energy we need. It’s easy for rich people sitting in their ivory towers to direct us towards unreliable energy sources because they do not have to suffer the consequences. Everyday folks will feel the pain of record high heating bills this winter and will soon suffer through routine power outages if these misguided policies continue. To top it all off, we are looking at an exceptionally cold winter. The irony…

    0

    • VOR: Oh I didn’t realize you were with NOAA. In that case carry on without citing reputable sources, Admiral. Ah yes, the bigly-brained Dear Leader. Considering how many insults he threw at US allies, one was bound to be true. A broken clock is right twice a day lol. I’m sure he knew the intricate business of gas production and transportation very well (sarcasm). The loser couldn’t even manage a casino…

      0

    • While we’re on the topic of bigly brains, do you remember when Dump said Putin was a mastermind for invading Ukraine and he would quickly take control of the country? He set the landspeed record for changing his tune on that one. Just like when he started a mortgage company right before the bubble burst in 2008. Lmao

      0

    • Here is one Chillin : https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ “In summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that human-caused increases in greenhouse gases have caused a change in past Atlantic basin hurricane activity that is outside the range of natural variability,” ” We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.”

      0

    • VOR: In reference to NOAA, you were citing their authority in relation to natural gas prices and worldwide floods. Neither of us said anything about hurricanes in the Atlantic. And even that statement is full of qualifiers: in a specific area, “premature”, “at this stage.” Really it’s a bit laughable to cherrypick that much and infer that NOAA are somehow a bunch of climate change deniers. It’s okay, trying to own the libs with your keyboard all day must get confusing. How do you find the time? Sorry if you feel like I’m belittling you, it’s just that your views are so wrong that they’re comical.

      0

    • General, I think you are being played. CO2 is being used as a bogeyman to justify tremendously destructive mining and industrial practices around the world. In the Congo, the countryside is being contaminated with uranium as a result of reckless and irresponsible mining practices to obtain cobalt for the greatest possible profit. They have you convinced this is a good thing and that it will save the world from CO2. It is a terrible thing, and it is causing tremendous harm to the environment and the people who live in the area. Uranium is a real pollutant, CO2 is what plants absorb in order to grow. It’s as if a bunch of big corporations got together and said “I know, let’s convince the environmentalists that our catastrophically destructive and polluting mining operations are good for the environment, we’ll save a fortune on our input costs and open up new operations we never could have gotten away with before, let’s convince them that CO2 is the only pollutant that matters.” They actually pulled it off! Now covering vast expanses of South America with lithium ponds filled by diverting all the local water supply away from the native peoples can be called pioneering environmental leadership instead of the humanitarian and an environmental atrocity that it really is. It’s amazing how successful this CO2 ploy has been.

      0

    • Oh Chip, I’m sorry your hand hurts so much from clutching your pearls about human rights and the environment in Africa. I know that conservatives are SO concerned about those topics and have done SO MUCH to help developing countries. It must be terrible to see the plight of the Congo, a country whose tragic history of colonialism, cold-war political and resource exploitation, and the US-supported anti-Communist dictatorship of Mobutu continue to be, in the words of the last president, a “shithole.” Sorry for your loss.

      0

    • Sac, I think the focus on C02 is misguided for the reason Chip states below and many others. The intense focus on C02 out of fear the world going to end soon is both wrong, the world is not going to end soon if we don’t cut CO2 drastically and immediately, it’s also causing a significant misallocation of resources that could be more effectively utilized to benefit both humans and the environment. I think fresh water / water quality is a much more serious and immediate threat to people around world than CO2 emissions.

      0

    • VOICE – Water is critical and is not being sacrificed in our attempt to lower CO2 emissions. Thing is, the world won’t end tomorrow or in 10 years, but we have to start doing something. The attitude that CO2 is not that big a deal and that we’d be better off with more of it in the atmosphere (you still haven’t clarified that statement) is misguided. The alternative that you and CHIP propose of doing nothing is not sustainable. We can’t sit and wait for “perfectly green” energy sources. We have to use what technology we have to start the process, start the shift. All or nothing doesn’t work when it comes to the planet we call home. If we wait and kick and scream about windmills, it will only be harder and more expensive for our kids and grandkids to clean up the mess we sat and allowed to grow under our watch.
      The future needs to be cleaner, not dirtier.

      0

    • Neither chip or I proposed doing nothing, go back and read my comments. Nor did I say we’d be better off with more CO2, there are both positives and negatives but you only hear about the negatives because there is an agenda to push. And yes, we have limited resources i.e. time and and money and this overallocation towards reducing CO2 is sacrificing other things like providing access to clean drinking water. Remember Flint Michigan and Jackson Mississippi recently, and of course impoverished nations that also call our planet home.

      0

    • CHIP said “As far as the alleged benefits of “renewable” energy, I would question whether there are any.” – I’m still waiting for him to respond to clarify. Sure sounds like he doesn’t think we should be using any, as he quotes, “renewables.” You keep agreeing with him. So, as you can see, it’s not clear what either of you are saying. I do know you’ve said you support them to an extent, but let’s let CHIP speak for himself on his thoughts though. CHIP?
      You said ” In the past earth has had more CO2 in it’s atmosphere and during that time it was a much greener place.” — Again, I asked if that means you think more CO2 in the atmosphere would be a good thing. Sure seems like that’s what you’re saying.
      As you can plainly see above, once again, I never said either of you said those things. I simply asked if that’s what you meant, given the suggestive language and words you used.

      0

    • 1) I believe Chip was referring to the massive amount of earth that needs to be extracted (by equipment running on diesel) to mine the necessary raw materials which are then heavily processed (using considerably more fossil fuel based energy) in order to make solar panels, wind turbines, batteries etc. then they eventually need to be recycled/disposed (more energy intensity) Will they produce enough “clean” energy in their lifetime to offset the “dirtiness” in creating / disposing of them? Would the resources ($) have been better space on cleaner but not perfect nat gas generators leaving more resources for other environmental endeavors (like drinking water)? 2) Again, I answered your CO2 question, there are pluses and minus to increased CO2, even a warmer planet. It is likely a warmer planet with more CO2 would turn more of earths landmass into arable land for the cultivation of crops, which are more productive in a higher CO2 environment – something that would certainly be beneficial to feed earths ever growing population.

      0

    • Nail on the head Chip. While transitioning to green generation is important, we need to put the horses in front of the cart and improve reliable green generation prior to shutting down / ceasing reliable fossil fuel generation. Switching from coal to natural gas has been the single largest driver of CO2 reduction over the past decade. This movement of ‘we need to do it now or else we’re all going to die’ is simply not accurate and extremely regressive as it’s negative consequences are overwhelming borne by the poor and lower class.

      0

    • I’m okay with them being used on a large scale now. What I’m not okay with is the shifting away from relatively clean fossil fuels, like natural gas, before we can reliably make up that supply with reliable green generation due to the negative consequences that come with it like I explained below. There are many benefits to a cheap, plentiful, rather clean and energy dense fuel like natural gas and it should be part of our greener future. Nuclear is the way the go, but too many have an irrational and non-science based fear of it. Do you know more people die each year installing and maintaining wind turbines than have ever been killed in a nuclear power accident?

      0

    • In banning new natural gas connections in our city do you think city staff our council reached out to our electrical providers to determine if we’d have the capacity to meet this increased electrical demand into the future, especially with the increased usage of EV’s. It would be a rather easy calculation for engineers to make but am fairly certain they didn’t get this basic question answered before making a decision. Cart before the horse.

      0

    • How are fossil energy sources in any way reliable? Oil is largely controlled by a cartel of dictatorships (OPEC) that can throttle the supply and keep prices high. If someone sneezes too hard in the Persian Gulf, speculation drives prices up. Much if not most of the US domestic refining and drilling capacity is in the Gulf of Mexico, subject to the disruptions from hurricanes during half the year. Not to mention the supply chain headaches and lag time between exploring & drilling until the gunk is actually refined and in gas tanks. Also, the “it’s cold outside” argument is downright silly from a scientific perspective. Record floods in Australia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Germany, and other countries indicate more extreme and frequent weather events are already here.

      0

    • Sacjon, if we were serious about electrifying the world without fossil fuels modern nuclear reactors is the way to accomplish that. We simply can not do it with wind turbines, solar, and the massive battery storage facilitates it would require. The sheer volume of minerals, metals and material to do that would be absolutely staggering and very destructive to our environment, more so than the nuclear accidents we’ve had to date.

      0

    • Yes, please VOR enlighten us all with your amateur climate science. I’m sure your internet research is more credible than leading scholarship in this field. And restricting production hasn’t made a significant impact on prices, which are shaped by global dynamics. [[https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/why-are-us-natural-gas-prices-soaring-2022-05-06/]]
      Top causes are: cutoff of supplies from Russia and the resulting shift to US markets to meet European needs, lack of storage capacity, the increase of LNG making gas easier to transport and turning it into a global commodity, and above-average temperatures putting stress on supplies. Where are you getting your info from? Genuinely asking bc I’m confused about the disconnect.

      0

    • I would be fine with switching to so-called “renewable” energy of it actually worked and if it lowered the cost of energy. Wind and solar are not practical replacements for fossil fuels and nuclear power. The push to go “green” is dramatically increasing the cost of energy and setting us back years on investment in oil and gas production and refining capacity. We are going to have a lot to of catching up to do on that in the years ahead, and you can be assured that we will be catching up on that. As far as the alleged benefits of “renewable” energy, I would question whether there are any. It has yet to be demonstrated that windmills and solar panels will make the air colder. What if they don’t? Or worse yet, what if it gets colder despite record CO2 emissions? I think the only “renewable” aspect of “green energy” it is the need to replace windmills, batteries, and solar panels every 10-20 years.

      0

    • CHIP – Why the quotes? Do you really not believe wind and solar are renewable forms of energy?
      “As far as the alleged benefits of “renewable” energy, I would question whether there are any.” – Really? None? So, just continue killing wildlife and people and polluting our planet by belching coal and oil smoke into our air? Yikes. Good thing those in charge don’t agree.

      0

    • Yes, carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
      Weak minded republican’s parrot nonsensical arguments like VOR’s that they saw in a far-right rag.
      https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/12/suburban-virginia-republican-coalition/yes-carbon-dioxide-pollutant/
      Fossil fuels, when burnt to produce energy, release carbon dioxide.
      The CO2 produces a greenhouse effect that allows sun rays to enter the atmosphere but not leave after they bounce off the earth’s surface.
      Piles of scientific studies conclude that CO2 and other greehouse gasses are causing global temperatures to rise.
      The Environment Protection Agency has classified greenhouse gasses, especially from vehicle emissions, as a form of pollution.
      Globally, 76% of greenhouse gas emissions are CO2.
      In the U.S., 76% of greenhouse gas emissions are CO2. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 47% since the beginning of the Industrial Age and 11% since 2000, according to NASA.
      The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gasses fall under the Clean Air Act’s definition of pollutants and can be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. (The high court heard oral arguments in February 2022 challenging the ruling but has yet to render a second opinion.)
      In 2009, the EPA classified greenhouse gasses – especially from vehicle emissions – as a form of pollution. The gasses “are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans,” the EPA said.

      0

    • CHIP – thanks for your honesty. VOICE – sorry, but I was 100% correct when I said “you are totally fine with the current devastating pollution and death caused by coal and oil.” He said he is, plain and simple.
      But CHIP, one last thing before I leave you to huff your coal oil smoke:
      “3: wind and solar (including the full life cycle from manufacture to disposal) can be shown to cause less environmental damage than oil, gas, and nuclear.” – It HAS been shown, ad naseum. Here’s just a couple of studies/articles that prove you dead WRONG:
      “Based on a meta-analysis covering 400 research articles compiled by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, total life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from wind and solar are “much lower than coal”[8].” https://climatesolutioncenter.com/are-solar-panels-better-than-coal/#:~:text=Based%20on%20a%20meta%2Danalysis,than%20coal%E2%80%9D%5B8%5D.
      “Coal, again, is the dirtiest fuel. It emits much more greenhouse gases than other sources – hundreds of times more than nuclear, solar, and wind. Oil and gas are also much worse than nuclear and renewables, but to a lesser extent than coal.” — https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
      I could go on and on citing studies and articles supporting the claim that wind and solar (even in manufacturing) is still FAR cleaner and better for our planet than coal and oil. The fact that you think coal and oil is better for our planet speaks volumes and is further confirmation that “you are totally fine with the current devastating pollution and death caused by coal and oil.”

      0

    • Devastating pollution and death caused by coal and oil?!?!?! Are you serious? Without coal and oil, the vast majority of the people on this earth would not be alive and life would resemble the 18th century. I think you have fallen for the CO2 con if you believe the air you exhale is more damaging to the environment than mining cobalt and lithium overseas. You also failed to address my points 1, 2, and 4. Do you believe that substantially reducing the standard of living world wide, which will result in poverty, famine, and millions of deaths, is worth trying to reduce the amount of CO2 in the air?

      0

    • “Devastating pollution and death caused by coal and oil?!?!?! Are you serious?” – Yes. Now tell us how coal and oil haven’t killed people, wildlife and polluted our water and air for the last 100+ years.
      Further, I don’t need to address 1,2 and 4. That is irrelevant to my point. You admit you are fine with continuing with coal and oil AND you think they’re cleaner than wind and solar. You answered my question and now, I can’t continue with your lies.

      0

    • VOICE – no. That’s not his point. Stop speaking for him. He’s already proven to have a different point of view than you. You said you’re ok with wind and solar to a degree, CHIP is not, at least until it reaches the 4 requirements he has. Well, 3, since requirement #3 has been met tenfold despite him lying that it hasn’t.
      I get the side-argument that coal has made life easier than it was in the 1800s, but that’s the weakest “argument” yet as to why we shouldn’t start using wind and solar now. I’m not “intentionally missing” it, I’m downright ignoring it because it’s such a vacuous last grab at the straws and…. again, it’s not his maid point.

      0

    • I’m done with this “discussion” now. CHIP has put forth blatant and verifiable lies. You’ve supported them and now we’re devolving into the petty back and forths I’ve been hoping to avoid.
      CHIP has said his piece – he is ok with the continued death and pollution caused by oil and gas energy, disputes the fact that oil and gas has decimated our environment and believes it is cleaner than wind and solar. I can’t keep arguing with someone who truly believes these things. VOICE, I know you support these ideas either, whether you vote up or down, so I’m glad to have discovered that in this discussion. Until next time!

      0

    • Chip, what’s really interesting to me is the total failure of imagination in your claim. Had human beings not discovered the energy source of petroleum you’re saying that the human race would not have spent the last hundred plus years simply not looking to create energy from other sources?
      I mean, come on. Your supposition is premised on an idea that is 100% counter to the entire course of human history and the constant drive to explore and invent. All the other issues you have been discussing in reference to energy aside, this notion is ridiculous.

      0

    • Sac, I think that voice pretty much nailed it. So called “green” or “renewable” energy is nothing of the sort and comes with a tremendous environmental and humanitarian cost. Throughout human history, advances in technology improved our standard of living. I believe the next steps we take should continue that tradition. Burning wood improved the standard of living. Transitioning to coal facilitated the industrial revolution. Then oil and natural gas further improved everyone’s quality of life. The next logical step in energy technology should similarly improve people’s lives by providing an abundance of low cost energy. So called “green” and “renewable” energy sources do the exact opposite and reduce the availability of energy. Less energy results in higher costs for everything from heat in the winter to food on the table to transportation. Therefore the transition to “green” and “renewable” energy means a transition to poverty for all but the wealthiest people, and it comes with tremendous environmental harm and no demonstrable benefit. I would support a dramatic reduction in restrictions on developing oil and gas infrastructure across the board from new wells and pipelines to new refineries. California should abandon its special gasoline formula so we can get gas for $2-3 per gallon less like the rest of the country, that would make a huge impact on people’s quality of life. I would also encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants. Finally, I would support the development of new energy technology that can provide more energy at lower cost. A true advance in technology will be competitive in the free market and will be readily adopted without government intervention because it will actually improve people’s lives.

      0

    • CHIP – So, you do NOT want to implement renewable energy sources and stick with coal and oil. Got it.
      “tremendous environmental harm” – still not more than coal and oil production. Amazing that the devastation caused by these NONrenewable energy sources means nothing to you.
      Also, please explain how the wind and the sun are not “renewable?” If you obsess over the minor pollution created during construction, then no, they’re not 100% “green,” but to say they’re not “renewable,” is to say the wind and the sun will run out, like coal and oil and gas.

      0

    • VOICE – why are you once again speaking for CHIP? Why are you unable to allow him to answer on his own?
      He thinks wind/solar are “so-called ‘renewable'” which means, he doesn’t think they’re renewable. If you really think the sun and wind aren’t renewable and can be depleted over time like coal and oil, then I can’t help you two any longer here.
      As for not wanting to implement wind and solar, he said no. He said it will impoverish people and destroy the environment. So, that answer is pretty clear. Nuclear energy is not renewable like the wind and the sun, so again, he does not want renewable energy sources to be used.
      Why the heck am I responding to you even? This was for CHIP. Please allow him to speak for himself.

      0

    • Sac, the sun and the wind will always be present as far as humanity is concerned, the question is how to harness the energy these forces of nature provide power n a “renewable” manner. I think it would be fair to call wood a “renewable” resource because it will always grow back as long as it’s managed in a responsible way. Firewood can provide heat for a very low cost. However, wood is not sufficient to meet the demands of modern society. I wouldn’t call a solar panel or a windmill renewable. Manufacturing solar panels is a really nasty business, and so is disposing of them when their relatively short lifespan is up. There is no practical way to recycle solar panels, or windmills for that matter. I suppose the solar panels and batteries and windmills are “renewed” every 10-20 years, but that renewal comes at a tremendous environmental and humanitarian cost. I just don’t see what is “renewable” or “green” about solar panels, windmills, and rare earth batteries. I think fossil fuels and nuclear energy are clean and green by comparison.

      0

    • CHIP – the “renewable” in renewable energy refers to the source – the wind and the sun. Neither will be depleted in the next few million years.
      As for recycling components, the tech is advancing daily and by the time the current solar and wind farms being built today reach their expiration, they will be recyclable.
      We can’t wait for perfection any longer. It’s mind-blowing that you are totally fine with the current devastating pollution and death caused by coal and oil, yet you demand perfection from any alternative. Luckily, most world leaders realize that some progress is better than none. We can’t sit around sucking down coal oil smoke until they create 100% clean energy. We need to start cleaning up our planet now. Waiting for perfection, will just end up causing more death and costing more money to fix.
      Enjoy your coal and oil, the rest of us are going to move forward and not stuck in the all or nothing mindset.

      0

    • VOICE – what reason? what facts? How is he not ok with the current state of affairs? Your obsession with CHIP is weird. We were having a good, interesting and mature discussion yesterday (which I really enjoyed), but looks like today you want to play dirty again and attack me for interpreting CHIP’s words in a way you don’t agree with. I won’t play that game.
      Show me where CHIP said we need to move away from coal and oil and I’ll retract that statement.

      0

    • “”you are totally fine with the current devastating pollution and death caused by coal and oil,” – If you oppose any attempt to utilize less-dirty, but still not 100% clean energy sources, then by simple reasoning you ARE OK with the use of coal and oil. Coal and oil cause far more wildlife and human deaths than wind and solar and cause more pollution.
      Explain the logic where that’s not true.

      0

    • CHIP – let’s settle this once and for all. It’s really getting ol’ VOICE riled up.
      Yes or no? Are you OK with continuing with our reliance on coal, oil and gas until we have solar and wind technology that causes zero pollution, exploitation, poverty, and/or any other environmental degradation? YES or NO.
      This whole discussion started with me asking when you would be ok with wind/solar. From your responses, it seems that not until we’re able to use them without causing any harm/inconvenience to anyone.

      0

    • Sac, I am totally ok with continuing to use oil and gas and I think we should also substantially increase nuclear power generation. I would be ok with transitioning to wind and solar under the following conditions. 1: all materials are sourced from the USA and all manufacturing is completed in the USA, or countries with comparable human rights and environmental standards. 2: wind and solar can provide reliable electricity 24/7. 3: wind and solar (including the full life cycle from manufacture to disposal) can be shown to cause less environmental damage than oil, gas, and nuclear. 4: wind and solar can reduce the cost of energy (that means they would be competitive without government intervention). Right now, wind and solar do not meet any of those four requirements.

      0

  13. Windmills kill birds, but far less than other manmade activities. About a million birds are killed in the US by wind turbines annually. Which sounds like a lot until you see that cell and radio towers kill 6.5 million, power lines kill 25 million, windows kill 1 billion (with a B), and cats kill 1-4 billion. [[https://www.sierraclub.org/michigan/wind-turbines-and-birds-and-bats#:~:text=Estimates%20of%20up%20to%20a,loss%2C%20pollution%20and%20climate%20change%20( ]]
    If the oil shills really cared about the problem of bird killings, they would be trying to ban cats and windows. But of course that’s silly, and of course it’s just a rhetorical game to them like middle schoolers use in debate clubs.

    0

  16. Way to leave out the actual language that provides context…..
    “They found that the construction of all these turbines would only alter climate during the winter, and wouldn’t cause temperatures to rise by more than 0.54°F (0.3°C)—firmly within the range of natural year-to-year variability, and far less than the long-term effect of greenhouse gas emissions in driving global climate change.”
    “Only in December, January and February were the turbines projected to trigger fluctuations in weather that the researchers could detect, but these were still considered negligible: temperature might increase or decrease, but not by more than 0.54°F, and precipitation might increase somewhere between zero and five percent in total.
    Compare this to normal fluctuations: On an annual basis, European temperatures naturally vary by 10 percent on average, and precipitation varies by 20 percent. Superimposed on this, the effect of the turbines barely registers a blip.”
    Also, the average global temperature is FAR DIFFERENT and more disruptive than the temperature around a relatively small are. Keep trying.

    0

  17. There was a time when environmentalists and progressives would have prevented and/or stopped a project like this before it got this far. They would cry foul and identify a special cricket, mouse, bird, spider, etc. and tie things up in court. Now that they are in charge of large-scale projects like this there’s no stopping ’em, and it’s “F” the birds, fish, whales, and so on. One brain-trust here said that wind generators kill far less than oil/gas. That’s not an argument for building these things. (BTW: there will be little evidence after the birds are chopped up and sent to Davy Jones’s locker.) No more questioning the motives of these large corporations, no more law suits, no more nothing but build away with complete disregard for consequences. What happened? Here’s what’s happening: Don’t plug your hybrid in between 4PM and 8PM. Some progress.

    0

  18. Surprised that the oilies haven’t brought up their newly-discovered love of fission reactors, specifically the purported “new designs” that the carbon lobby now touts, knowing that they are hideously expensive, take forever to come online, and produce dangerous waste. Especially because the fuel they use (high assay low enriched uranium – HALEU) is produced by the new darlings of the right wing – Russia.

    0

    • Weird how “right-wing” continues to be falsely associated with Russia. You know that whole Trump-Russia collusion thing was a hoax right? Russia felt safe enough invading and capturing a large chunk of Ukraine while the “left-wing” was in charge, didn’t do anything for four years while the “right-wing” was in charge (who also held up completion of a major Russian gas line to Europe which would be a huge money maker for Russia), then when the “left-wing” was in charge they allowed completion of that pipeline money maker for Russia and Russia again felt safe enough to invade Ukraine. It’s amazing how much people have become completely brainwashed when the for profit media and lying politicians (let and right) repeat the same progoganda over and over and over… learn to think for yourself.

      0

Arsonist Pleads Guilty to Starting Hollister Fire

Body Found in Santa Maria House Fire