The wind industry lost the battle for hearts and minds, years ago. No one buys the lies anymore, and anyone who has given energy a moment’s consideration recognises this grand government-backed fraud for what it is.

No sentient being believes that we will obtain anything like meaningful power from a chaotic system, entirely dependent upon the weather, that, at best delivers something like its notional capacity around 30% of the time. Except, they can never tell you when that might be with any meaningful notice.

So far, so pointless.

And that’s to describe the purported ‘benefits’ of weather-dependent wind power generation.

Weighed against the chaotic and only occasional delivery of electricity is the staggering cost to power consumers and taxpayers of the massive subsidies, without which the basis for the scam would evaporate in a heartbeat.

Then comes the catastrophic environmental harm and disruption of local communities. Now those communities – often led by farmers or fishermen – are fighting back. Better organised and better armed, than ever before.

As Heather Mann details below, those communities know that they are up against it. But they also know that they have time and right on their side. Much like a plucky, young Hebrew lad (and future King of Israel) when he dropped the mighty Philistine, Goliath with a handful of well-aimed rocks. So people, pick up those metaphorical stones, slay the giant and give power back to the people.

Offshore wind energy development: A David vs Goliath story
Seafood News
Heather Mann
4 September 2024

As the aggressive pursuit to privatize and industrialize our oceans with offshore wind turbine factories marches on, the small yet powerful voices of coastal communities around the nation continues to fight to be heard in the process. It is a veritable David versus Goliath story.

Goliath takes many forms. Is it BOEM? The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is uncompromising in their quest to lease out our oceans to multinational corporations for industrial development.

I have sat face to face in Washington, DC with BOEM director Liz Klein who claims the president is driving this quest. So, is Goliath the Biden administration?

There is no doubt that this administration has put forth unrealistic goals for offshore wind energy at the same time they dangle delicious tax incentives to developers looking to line their own pockets. However, these goals are in direct opposition with other presidential executive orders looking to elevate tribal voices, protect food security, and pursue environmental justice for marginalized communities most impacted by climate change. The hypocrisy is alarming.

Closer to home in Oregon, I believe that Goliath may be the elitists who live in urban settings like Portland and Salem who believe that they know best what the coastal residents of Oregon need.

Oregon is not unique; however, this story is unfolding around the nation where urbanites believe they know best for rural communities that they do not live or work in. These people tout their desire to uplift marginalized voices while they steamroll rural voices, whether it is Tribes, coastal community members, or commercial fishermen. They attempt to downplay the concerns of coastal residents, claiming “we just don’t understand”. But here’s the thing. We actually do understand.

Those of us from multi-generational fishing families know exactly how important a healthy ocean is to our survival. So do those of us who are new to fishing. All of us, from the old timers to the greenhorns, understand the importance of a healthy ecosystem in the face of climate change.

Oregon Tribes are practically begging for consideration of their traditional values and protection of their culture – again, falling on deaf ears. The question that begs an answer- Why is our deep knowledge coupled with our concerns for the future of tribal culture, seafood production, robust coastal community economies and a healthy ocean environment somehow deemed less important than the unrealistic pursuits of the urban elitists, BOEM and the Biden administration?

As David in this story, regular people – commercial and recreational fishermen, tribal representatives, marine scientists, environmentalists, and coastal citizens continue to show up and speak in the face of the overwhelming force of Goliath. Our story is still unfolding.

In the original story young David slays the mighty Goliath with a slingshot and five smooth stones. Our stones are 1) potential harm to the ocean environment and marine ecosystem and the fish species and marine mammals who live there; 2) negative impacts to commercial fishing operations and seafood production; 3) much more expensive utility bills for consumers; 4) disruption and harm to tribal cultures; and 5) ruination of rural coastal economies dependent in part on commercial and recreational fishing.

We know from the original story that the small can defeat the large. We know that David’s bravery came directly from his confidence that he was doing the right thing. We have our courage, our stones, and our slingshot is our united voice. Will others be brave enough to join us and stand up for what’s right? Or will rural voices continue to be ignored? Can David beat Goliath once again?
Seafood News

By Karly Matthews

You might think that a self-proclaimed climate advocate would be thrilled to see an announcement of more clean, reliable energy on the grid. But, you’d be wrong.

Last month, Constellation Energy announced a deal with Microsoft to reopen a reactor at Three Mile Island, now called the Crane Clean Energy Center. Expected to open by 2028 and operate for at least 20 years, the reactor is a promise of not only energy security amidst exploding energy demand, but an economic boon for Pennsylvania as well. According to a report completed by the Brattle Group, reopening the reactor is expected to create more than 3,000 jobs and add $16 billion to Pennsylvania’s GDP.

Yet, actor and activist Jane Fonda took to the pages of The Philadelphia Inquirer to proclaim that “Nuclear power at Three Mile Island is no climate solution.” Fueled by her decades-long hatred of the energy source, Fonda makes a bizarre and convoluted argument that America’s single largest source of clean energy is not what we need to tackle climate change.

Even worse, she misleads readers by conflating the two reactors at TMI. Unit 2, owned by Energy Solutions, was the site of the partial meltdown in 1979 and has not operated since. Unit 1 is owned by Constellation and was one of the most reliable nuclear power plants in the country until it closed in 2019 for economic reasons. Having grown up just an hour south of the facility in southern York County, I remember hearing about the ramifications of the accident. Nuclear power was seen as “scary” and “dangerous” by Pennsylvanians who simply cared about their family’s health and safety. Unlearning this perspective has been no easy feat, but it was necessary.

After all, nuclear energy is one of the safest sources of energy we have at our disposal. The “radiation” argument is incoherent, as the average radiation exposure from simply living in Denver, Colorado is higher than for those working at nuclear plants. Running up to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, reactors are “baseload” energy, which means we can rely on them to power our lives no matter the weather conditions. 

While Ms. Fonda is right that nuclear energy does have high upfront costs and long timelines, these costs and time delays are due to, in no small part, overregulation of the industry that prevents us from fully unleashing nuclear energy. The more nuclear energy projects we pursue, though, the faster the construction process will be. For instance, Georgia Power decreased costs by 30% between Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 through lessons learned in real-time earlier this year. 

As a young person who cares about climate change, I know that nuclear power absolutely is part of the solution. Contrary to Ms. Fonda’s assertion, “Like two people trying to get through a narrow doorway at the same time, there isn’t room for both nuclear and renewables in our energy future,” I believe that we need an all-of-the-above energy approach with an emphasis on clean, reliable nuclear power. For those of us who actually believe climate is an urgent issue in need of solutions, this isn’t an either-or conversation. Those, like Ms. Fonda, who refuse to embrace nuclear energy as part of the energy mix simply aren’t serious.

Importantly, my generation and Pennsylvanians agree with me. A recent Pew Research Center poll shows that 56% of Americans support new nuclear power, and an August poll of Pennsylvania voters found that 70% support nuclear power and 56% support reopening TMI Unit 1, more than double those who oppose. The consensus is clear: nuclear energy will be a key part of reducing emissions, increasing energy security, and creating American jobs for years to come.

Branding nuclear energy as dangerous and unrealistic for our climate goals is an outdated, out-of-touch argument. The choice is obvious, Ms. Fonda, but somehow, you’ve made the wrong one. 

Karly Matthews is the vice president of communications at the American Conservation Coalition (ACC). She was born and raised in central Pennsylvania, and she graduated from Temple University in 2020. Follow her on X @Karlymatthews_.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.