Here is the detail of this good news story. Let’s hope that if they win the current election they will go even further and end this madness. We simply cannot afford to employ all these people when the country is in so much debt. I bet the majority of voters have no idea that we employ all these "climate staff" in the first place.

 

Background

Glenn R. Schleede

Schleede is the author of many papers and reports on energy matters.  Since 2001, Schleede has analyzed and written about wind energy.

From 1992 until September 2003, Schleede maintained a consulting practice, Energy Market and Policy Analysis, Inc. (EMPA), providing analysis of energy markets and policies.

Prior to forming EMPA, Schleede was Vice President of New England Electric System (NEES), Westborough, MA, and President of its fuels subsidiary, New England Energy Incorporated. Previously, Schleede was Executive Associate Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (1981), Senior VP of the National Coal Association in Washington (1977) and Associate Director (Energy and Science) of the White House Domestic Council (1973). He also held career service positions in the U.S. OMB and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

His papers (1971–74) are held at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library where he was Glenn R. Schleede served as a Staff Assistant, Domestic Council to Michael Raoul-Duval. At the Domestic Council, Schleede provided policy formulation and coordination in his areas of responsibility, which included energy, clean air, nuclear energy, science and space, and organization for energy and natural resources activities.

and at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library (1973–75) where he was Domestic Council Assistant Director for Natural Resources;  Domestic Council Associate Director for Energy and Science.

He has a BA degree from Gustavus Adolphus College and an MA from the University of Minnesota.  He is also a graduate of Harvard Business School’s Advanced Management Program.

 

1933 Glenn R. Schleede born, Lyons, New York

1950 Graduated from Brockport High School, Brockport, New York

1950-1952, 1958-1959 Attended Brockport State Teachers College, Brockport, New York

June 1952-June 1956 U.S. Air Force

1956-1960 B.A. Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota

1961 University of Minnesota, Summer School

June 1968 M.A. Industrial Relations, University of Minnesota

1962-1965 Industrial Relations Officer, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

September 1965-March 1972 Bureau of the Budget [BOB], Science and Technology, Natural Resources Environmental Branch [On July 1, 1970, BOB became Office of Management and Budget]

September 1965-January 1966 Detail, White House Task Force on Manpower for State and Local Governments

March 1972-March 1973 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Environmental Affairs

March 1973-May 1974 Appointed to Domestic Council, assistant to Michael Raoul-Duval, associate director for natural resources

May 1974-January 1977 Assistant Director, Domestic Council

1981 Member of Reagan administration transition team, Associate Director of Office of Management and Budget

RICHARD M. FAIRBANKS, III

February 1941 Richard M. Fairbanks, III born, Indianapolis, Indiana

1962 B.A. Yale University

1969 J.D. Columbia University Law School

1961-January 1971 Employed with Arnold and Porter, Washington, D.C.

January-July 1971 Special Assistant to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

July 1971 Appointed to Domestic Council, assistant to John C. Whitaker

May 1973-May 1974 Associate Director of the Domestic Council

1974-1981 Law partner, Beveridge, Fairbanks and Diamond, Washington, D.C.

1981- Served Reagan administration as member of transition team, State Department official, and special Mid-East negotiator

Some tributes follow.

 

Jon Boone Tribute

Glenn is a gentleman in the finest sense. He speaks softly, has a nuanced sense of humor, and is greatly respected by his peers. With any luck, his professional career would have profoundly affected energy policy for the better. But then Jimmy Carter eeked in and–what a mess since then, Ronald Reagan’s removal of those solar panels from the White House roof notwithstanding….
Fifteen years have passed since I first encountered what I came to call the wind mess and, as a lifelong environmentalist, I went through all the initial opposition phases: concern for viewshed and wildlife protection; noise and shadow flicker abatement; false claims of local tax contributions and jobs–everything except the fundamental issue. Do the damn things actually work as advertised in providing “good, clean, green energy from the wind,” in the process justifying the “sacrifice” of things environmentalists should hold dear.

Glenn patiently gave me the material and advice that guided my understanding of how we get electricity–and why wind is so inimical to the process. He demanded I think critically. He introduced me to Tom Hewson, who explained the difference between energy and capacity. He was instrumental in my seminal paper, Less for More, which I, following Glenn’s lead, shared with thousands of people across the world, hoping that others would bootstrap their knowledge about electricity production much more quickly than I had done. Glenn also was responsible for my trip to Palermo, where I gave a major presentation to many European leaders, including the president of Italy and a former president of France.

He remains, along with Tom Tanton, a mentor first among equals. And he’s the most decent man I know.

Glenn could have quietly settled into life after his government service, which is what his family wanted him to do. His compromise was to work mostly under the radar, writing letters, op ed pieces, and the occasional scholarly essay, while advising people around the world, many of whom have little knowledge of grid mechanics.

All of us are better because of Glenn’s informed, compassionate tutelage.

“A Man for the People” (by Mary Kay Barton)

I first became aware of who Glenn Schleede was in 2004, after my home town and county in Western New York State was targeted by the ‘Green Blob‘ that is the industrial wind industry – whose original greed-driven plans would’ve blighted our county with over 2,000 industrial wind turbines. I could not stand by and allow that kind of civil and environmental devastation to happen to our beautiful region without a fight.
As a novice when it came to both political activism and energy issues, I had a LOT to learn!  Glenn Schleede, though retired after a life-long stellar career in the energy field, made himself available through many email exchanges, over many years, to answer the onslaught of questions that many of us had after finding ourselves embroiled in a fight to protect our rural heritage against the ‘Green Blob’ – aka: Big Money, Big Corporate financial interests.
In one of our earliest exchanges, Glenn informed me that he was originally from Western New York State, with relatives still living in Brockport, New York.  Though one might think that was part of his motivation in being so helpful to all of us here in Western New York State, Glenn’s work was geared at helping everyone in our nation.

 

Glenn Schleede despises the waste, fraud and abuse that occur when the government is allowed to pick and choose the winners and losers in the energy marketplace.  Glenn Schleede understands the importance of maintaining  free markets in order to supply reliable, affordable electricity to everyone in our nation. Glenn Schleede has always been on the side of consumers – an exceedingly rare commodity today indeed.

 

Glenn took the time – time he could’ve chose to spend out on the golf course, to put together papers which served as tutorials to help all of us understand the complex terminologies and issues we would have to become familiar with if we were to be successful at deterring the industrialization of our respective regions via the industrial wind scam.  Glenn continued to answer questions, write Representatives, and submit articles as his health would allow as the years passed.

 

I could never thank Glenn Schleede enough for all that he has done to help all of us over the years! If there were more men of integrity who were truly interested in the welfare of ALL of the people in our nation today – men like Glenn Schleede – we wouldn’t be stuck dealing with the destructive consumer fraud that is industrial wind, as we still are today.

Glenn Schleede is a HERO in my book – a true man for the people! I consider myself to be truly blessed to be able to call him a friend.

For all of your efforts Glenn, I will be forever grateful!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! (And a huge thank you is also due to your wife for allowing you to spend so much time helping all of us.)

God bless you Glenn Schleede!!!

With my highest regards,

Mary Kay Barton  Silver Lake, Western New York State

“About $3 trillion has been spent on the renewable energy effort since 2004, and the figure has now stabilized at about $300 billion for each one of the last six years.”

This post describes renewable-energy performance in the United States through 2016 as reported in annual reports of the Department of Energy (DOE).^[1] The DOE lists six renewable sources: Wind, Solar, Hydro, Wood, Waste, and Geothermal. The term “solar” means the combined output of both photovoltaic (PV) and concentrated solar plants (CSP).

Renewable sources are usually divided into two groups: “Wind and Solar” (W&S), and “Other” (H&W&W&G). Accordingly, the following two graphs show the history of the two groups’ outputs in separate charts: W&S first and H&W&W&G second. A quick glance at both graphs reveals the upward trending lines in the first chart and the near horizontal lines in the second, with wiggles in the line for hydro output caused by differences in rainfall and irrigation demand from one year to the next.

Wind and Solar

 

Figure 1. Electric Power Generation by Wind and Solar Generation (in gigawatts)

As shown, the combined wind and solar output in 2016 reached 25.8 GW+4.2 GW*, for a total of 30 GW, a 12 percent growth in one year. But that unusually high growth compensates for the slow growth of the previous year. The decade-long growth in wind power indicates a linear trend of about 2.4 GW/year. At that rate, it would take some 200 years to reach the 465 GW of the present electricity consumption in the United States. The solar contribution, shown growing 1 GW/year in the last two years, would shorten the period accordingly. As for the US energy consumption of
3300 GW, it would take a thousand years for Wind and Solar to reach that level.

But of course these centuries-long projections would be realistic only if some large-scale storage technology existed, one that was also relatively inexpensive, inasmuch as Wind and Solar electricity alone is already many times dearer than that originating from traditional plants.^[2] The cost of operating and maintaining traditional plants—measured per unit of energy produced—is an order of magnitude lower than wind. For example, the difference between an older nuclear plant and an off-shore wind farm is 2.4 $/W versus 21 $/W.

Then there is the limit on how many W&S plants the available US manpower could operate, maintain, tear down, and dispose of. Millions of them, four or five times a century? While also manufacturing and erecting millions of new ones?

The Other Renewables

But why consider just Wind and Solar energy when talking about renewables? The following graph explains.

 

Figure 2. Electric Power Generation by “Other” Renewables (in gigawatts)

Figure 2 illustrates the performance of the “other” four renewable sources: Hydro, Wood, Waste, and Geothermal. There has been no worthwhile upward trend in any of them in two decades. Hydro-electricity did register its usual ups and downs, ending at 31 GW, which is about 7 GW lower than 20 years ago.

Increasing hydro’s yield in the future would require either more rain or reduced irrigation. (Dams often serve both power and irrigation purposes.) The rain is beyond our control. Regarding irrigation, are we willing to cut down on fresh veggies? Or should we build more dams?

And should we equip current irrigation and flood control dams with turbine-generators? The trouble is that the overall return on such investments, if any, would be so low as to be unacceptable. Which is the same reason that engineers in that past did not equip many dams with generators. And that was at a time when electricity was more expensive and environmental restrictions far fewer than today.

Wood, waste, and geothermal (WWG), unlike hydro-electric power, provide steady supply, but it is minuscule in comparison to hydro. Besides, although wood and waste are “renewable,” they cannot be classified as clean sources: their burning emits CO₂ as well as true pollutants.

So, the legitimate “clean” ‘Other’ output, Hydro and Geothermal, is 31 GW plus 2 GW, or 33 GW, with hydro contributing 94 percent of the total.

The sum of H&W&W&G output will continue averaging at the same level for the foreseeable future, with hydro’s annual deviations alone causing ripples of a few gigawatts.

It should be stressed that the “renewables” of H&W&W&G cannot be claimed as a result of recent clean energy financing; they existed long before those budgets did. Nevertheless, the DOE considers them to be not only a relatively recent addition to renewables but also growing rapidly. The DOE/EIA annual report contains the following true-but-misleading statements:

Between 2005 and 2015, electricity generation from solar increased 48 fold, from 550 GWh to 26,473 GWh. Biomass increased 18.3% from 54,277 to 64,191 GWh, and geothermal increased 14.1% from 14,692 to 16,767 GWh. (Biomass is “wood” and “waste” in the graphs.)

Media then broadcast those percentages without revealing that the 48-fold increase was from a near-zero value, meaning the result is still small, as it is for the 18.3 percent and 14.1 percent increases. Both lines in the graph are essentially horizontal. The DOE statements are also misleading for because they fail to report the decrease in hydro during the same period—a decrease that outweighs the sum of the increases many fold. The overall decline in the sum of the four is not mentioned in the DOE/EIA report at all.

Looking at the second graph again, notice that selecting the starting point later (say at 2001) would have given a much different growth percentage; this is just another illustration of how misleading statistics can be.

Now look at the third graph. It shows that the combined output of all six renewable sources ends at 68 GW. The “illegitimate” (not clean) W&W lines are included here to make comparisons with the commonly drawn representations easier. Nevertheless, the true, “legitimate” (clean) yield is lower: 68-(4.5+2.5)=61 GW. That is the number to remember.

Figure 3. Total Renewable Energy Production (in gigawatts)

To estimate future output, considering that only W&S output is growing, these two sources together would have to be producing an additional 404 GW in order to achieve the 100 percent renewable-electricity generation that is being proposed in some states. Should electric cars become ubiquitous (they will not – see “Gasoline versus Electric Cars”^[3]), those vehicles alone would be consuming another 110 GW, lifting the total to 514 GW. That 21-times greater than present output may be theoretically possible, but the high cost of having W&S electricity replace relatively cheap current forms of electricity would ruin the economy and cause a decline in the standard of living for all but the richest.

Conclusion

About $3 trillion has been spent on the renewable energy effort since 2004, and the figure has now stabilized at about $300 billion for each one of the last six years.^[4] The return on that investment is the above output of W&S. For comparison, a 1970s nuclear power plant—another source of clean and green electricity, and also heat—cost about $4 million, inflation adjusted.^[5]  Not trillions, not even billions, just millions. Thousands of them could have been producing power for the money spent on renewable, making our country and the world cleaner and richer today.

As to the likelihood of the W&S output slowing down climate change – not only is it unlikely to do so given the scale of other phenomena impacting climate, but its impact is so tiny that it cannot even be reliably measured. Worse yet, spending those trillions has resulted in the release of far more CO₂, pollution, and (waste) heat, than the W&S output prevented.

Despite this discouraging renewable energy history, documented numerically in voluminous literature, our country and individual states continue year after year to commit us, the tax- and rate-payers, to the goals of “20, 50, …. percent of energy to be derived from clean, renewable sources in 5, 10 or 20 years.” That, despite seeing those goals not met and budgets going red repeatedly.

Those over-optimistic percentages and deadlines in the renewable-energy commitments made me write a letter to editor some years ago. It won the “best-letter-to-editor award” from the Hartford Courant for commenting on the then-planned goal of 20 percent of Connecticut energy originating from clean sources before 2010 by simply saying: “It will not be done.”

And it was not done, nor was it done following subsequent such proclamations. We can safely assume the same fate for the currently proposed commitments in cities, counties, states, and even countries, for the upcoming conveniently numbered years of 2020, 2025, … 2050.

—————-

*A conversion to the DoE/EIA power unit:  1 GW = 8,770 million kilowatt-hours per year.

References:

[1] doe.eia annual energy review

[2] http://ift.tt/2qaeGlr

[3] http://ift.tt/1M4pLqZ

[4] http://ift.tt/2q9Vvbq

[5] Millstone Nuclear Power Plant complex – history