Nothing like a bright, sunny day at the end of August to get you thinking about the environment. I want to save the environment. I like wind and sun. I doubt we can live by wind and sun alone.
But who am I to say so? ( My former colleague Tom Matteo in Massachusetts heats with solar and says he hasn’t had a power bill in three years.)
I’m sure he’s not alone among solar –or wind — boosters. In time, their individual testimonials may heat up the push toward reliance on sun power or turn the blade on wind.
There are skeptics, millions of them, and those whose life-long livlihoods and skill sets and knowledge of the pitfalls of wind and solar are generating abiding objections and warnings about the limitations of sun and wind power. Beyond that, they, like I, would warn against extremes and government coercion when those in power decide they will force us off reliance on fossil fuels.
A weekend ago, I attended a picinic of Local 7 of the United Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters in Upstate New York. There were hot dogs, ribs, wings, the works.
I wound up with a copy of the Association’s trade journal containing an editorial by its General Secretary-Treasurer, Derrick Kualapai.
Seems in our time, I’m not the only one warning against the extremes. Kualapai is the man issuing the warning here — against those who insist adamantly — and sometimes intolerantly –that alternative clean sources (ACS), must be limited to wind and solar. To insist on these sources solely – and I don’t doubt there are many in the environmental movement who do — is, in Kualapai’s words, to insist on “extremely narrow and unrealistic approaches” to the quest for a cleaner environment.
Of, course, Kualapai is a major stakeholder here.
One must always be suspicious of the motives of any writer — of those arguing any point of view — be the motive financial, ideological or what have you. So I invite everyone to be skeptical right along with me. The union for those who earn their living by traditional ways of doing anything might always have ulterior motives for their arguments. But, of course, that does not automtically make their point of view wrong.
Kualapie says his union supports policies that protect and preserve the environment. “Let me be clear at the outset,” he writes in the Journal ( of the United Association), ” we are not climate deniers.” He insists, with the same vigor as those who might attack the union on these grounds, that the union and its members “advocate fiercely for smarth, sensible, decorbonization strategies, including green hydrogen, bioenergy, geothermal and thermal energy networks, as well as advanced nuclear systems, including small modular reactors, and carbon capture utilization and storage.”
Sounds great to this layman, though I don’t know what “capture utilization and storage” is all about except maybe, as the awkward phrasing suggests, the capturing and re-use of carbon that the power industry has managed somehow to store? (Can you tell I was an English major?)
But I’m being told here that these are all options to a narrow focus on wind and solar as exclusive alternative clean sources of energy. Industry stakeholders actually like these alternatives. But I’m being told many in the environmental movement do not.
And Kualapai concludes, “while the UA recognizes the push for wind and solar energy, we’ve also learned that –even with maximum development –they will never solely provide enough power to ensure a sufficient supply of reliable energy for the future.”
“Never” is a challenging word. But that’s what he says, while I’m sure the Green Movement is insisting, ‘never say never” when it comes to wind and solar.
But I ‘m glad I went to the picnic. In the interest of balance, I guess I’ll have to watch for the next picnic held by the Green Lobby. After all, a hot dog is a hot dog, whether you heat it up using gas, wind or solar.
Charcoal briquettes are best.
And in all liklihood, at a Green Lobby event, I’m not likely to be eating meat.
A corn dog will do.
19 Cent Notebook 