🔥 I only assume these people are being indirectly°hard word paid°hard word by the fossil-fuel°hard word industry. In general, for these bad-faith°hard word, low-quality°hard word arguments against any form of renewable°hard word energy, it is a safe bet°hard word. Regardless°hard word of whether they are paid°hard word, directly or indirectly°hard word, it is very blatantly°hard word propaganda°hard word.
⚙️ "Center°hard word of the American Experiment°hard word’s mission°hard word is to build a culture°hard word of prosperity°hard word for Minnesota°hard word and the nation. Our daily pursuit°hard word is a free and thriving°hard word Minnesota°hard word whose cultural°hard word and intellectual°hard word center°hard word of gravity is grounded in free enterprise°hard word, limited government, individual°hard word freedom, and other time-tested°hard word American virtues°hard word."
https://jasonhayes.substack.com/p/net-zero-just-isnt-happening
LINKS°hard word TO
https://files.americanexperiment.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Shattered-Green-Dreams.pdf
There are so many flaws°hard word in this report, it is enough that one should throw the report (and its advocates°hard word) out entirely. ✨ If a person gives you 10 arguments, and 8 of them are objectively°hard word wrong, and you aren't°hard word sure about two, you must not°hard word give that person the benefit°hard word of the doubt.
----
ONE. Bad Math.
There are a remarkable°hard word number of situations where they give highlight°hard word, where they highlight°hard word figures such as°hard word: "This resource°hard word will consume°hard word 10x production°hard word" or "2000%". They never emphasize°hard word the baseline°hard word. For example, when they talk about nickel°hard word production°hard word, they say it is "1600%" of American production°hard word but "11%" of global°hard word production°hard word. Similarly, for aluminum, they say "45 times the U.S.’ 670,000 metric°hard word tons°hard word of primary°hard word aluminum production°hard word in 2024 and 42 percent°hard word of the world°hard word’s 72 million°hard word metric°hard word tons°hard word".
Yes, if America°hard word doesn't°hard word produce much nickel°hard word or aluminum you will get a very large multiple°hard word of that. The solution is either recognizing°hard word that it's°hard word a global°hard word economy°hard word and that an America-first-at-all-costs°hard word approach°hard word is simply a smoke screen to shut down something you don't°hard word like, or building more nickel°hard word mines in the US; a large percentage°hard word increase that might not°hard word be a large absolute°hard word increase.
----
TWO. Environmentalists°hard word whenever°hard word it helps their cause.
The piece is very aggressive°hard word on highlighting°hard word any actual°hard word or perceived°hard word environmental°hard word ills that can be traced°hard word to solar°hard word or wind energy. 200 turtles don't°hard word have an habitat°hard word? Crime. Use a dirty mine in Indonesia°hard word? Crime. However, for systems they support, these types of environmental°hard word ills are simply ignored°hard word or dismissed°hard word.
Furthermore°hard word, many of the scenes they highlight°hard word are purely°hard word speculative°hard word or are described°hard word as°hard word topics°hard word that may need additional°hard word research°hard word. "Do wind turbine°hard word noise cause whale problems? There is no evidence of it, but they aren't°hard word sure. We can't°hard word take the risk." This once again is caution°hard word at all costs°hard word because they have an underlying°hard word motivation°hard word to kill the project.
And when there is some merit°hard word to their claims°hard word, they are still exaggerated°hard word, hyper-aggressive°hard word and concerned°hard word with relative°hard word impact°hard word only when it benefits°hard word them. They claim°hard word a study says 350,000 birds died°hard word in wind turbines°hard word in one year. They then°hard word say this is definitely°hard word an underestimate°hard word. With no argument other than that it helps their cause. Meanwhile, with a U.S. population of 15 billion°hard word birds, most of which have a lifespan°hard word of 5 to 10 years, this seems like a relatively°hard word low number. They note in passing that "building collisions°hard word" caused°hard word 600 million°hard word deaths, but shrug°hard word it off, saying that this high number means "any cause of mortality°hard word needs to be tackled°hard word".
🔥 If your°hard word philosophy is that one dead bird is too many, nothing will satisfy°hard word you. I really don't°hard word care to rebut°hard word those arguments further°hard word.
----
THREE. Focusing°hard word on the failures°hard word.
The report talks at length about the Ivanpah°hard word Solar°hard word Power Facility°hard word in California°hard word. This is not°hard word a traditional°hard word solar°hard word panel°hard word plant, but a plant that uses large arrays°hard word of mirrors to superheat°hard word a reservoir°hard word to over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. This design has several flaws°hard word and does cause more serious safety issues°hard word. The plant is also being decommissioned°hard word early because it is ineffective°hard word. However the authors°hard word extrapolate°hard word from this to say that all solar°hard word plants have these same problems. This is a sleight°hard word of hand deception°hard word.
----
FOUR. Focusing°hard word on meaningless°hard word metrics°hard word.
Like several other influencers°hard word in this space, they focus°hard word heavily°hard word on one metric°hard word that suits their goals°hard word, the energy generated°hard word per°hard word land area used°hard word. A solar°hard word plant that uses 70 square miles and a nuclear°hard word plant that uses one square mile may generate the same amount of energy.
This is problematic°hard word for several reasons. First, the land used°hard word is not°hard word equivalent°hard word. 70 square miles of the Nevada°hard word desert may not°hard word be used°hard word for anything°hard word else. Thus, the cost°hard word is low. Second, if a solar°hard word plant replaces a field growing ethanol°hard word corn in Iowa°hard word, it is done°hard word because the economic°hard word and the energy returns are far greater. Simply claiming°hard word that some other technology°hard word 💡 which has its own drawbacks°hard word might be even better doesn't°hard word mean you can't°hard word do the first improvement°hard word.
A very different meaningless°hard word metric°hard word comes from long-time°hard word anti-solar°hard word shill°hard word Robert°hard word Bryce°hard word, who is quoted°hard word as°hard word saying that in Minnesota°hard word, “nearly all of the wind projects” are “located°hard word in counties°hard word that are poorer than the statewide°hard word average°hard word”. Except°hard word of course they are. Once the 9 counties°hard word of the Minneapolis-St°hard word. Paul°hard word metro°hard word area (the 9 richest counties°hard word in the state) are excluded°hard word, only 3 of the remaining 78 counties°hard word are not°hard word "poorer than the statewide°hard word average°hard word". This is not°hard word a legitimate°hard word socio-economic°hard word argument, it is deception°hard word.
And a third one comes from another piece linked°hard word in the blog°hard word post ⚙️ https://lifepowered.org/data-banning-fossil-fuels-wouldnt-stop-climate-change/ where they claim°hard word that "if the United States banned°hard word fossil°hard word fuels°hard word by 2050", it would only cause "a tenth of a degree" of change by 2100. The (hidden) assumption°hard word is that no other countries make any changes. The argument is effectively°hard word saying "if we divide°hard word the world°hard word into 20 parts, none of them can make a big enough change on their own, so we should do nothing". 🔥 Which is a frightfully°hard word stupid reason to do nothing.
----
FIVE. Misunderstanding°hard word system lifecycle°hard word.
They have one quote°hard word which massively misrepresents°hard word the lifecycle°hard word of these products°hard word. They say that most solar°hard word panels°hard word only have warranties°hard word of 25 years, whereas°hard word a coal plant can be in operation for 60 years. 💡 The concerns°hard word about the lifespan°hard word of wind turbines°hard word seem to be at least somewhat°hard word based°hard word in fact rather than misrepresentation°hard word. The difference°hard word is that the word warranty°hard word is used°hard word.
Nobody can offer a 60-year warranty°hard word on solar°hard word. I looked into it. It simply doesn't°hard word make sense. The problems related°hard word to the fact that neither the purchaser°hard word, the manufacturer°hard word, nor°hard word the insurer°hard word are likely to be around in 60 years, either as°hard word corporate°hard word entities°hard word or natural persons, make such a long warranty°hard word become meaningless°hard word.
This doesn't°hard word mean that technology°hard word can't°hard word last that long. It simply means that the financial°hard word product°hard word of a warranty°hard word becomes meaningless°hard word. For the coal plant, there is no warranty°hard word. The owner of the plant is incentivized°hard word to keep it running as°hard word long as°hard word it is economical°hard word.
----
SIX. Obstacles°hard word of our own design.
The authors°hard word consistently°hard word point to tax credits and other government incentives°hard word that encourage°hard word fast depreciation°hard word and replacement°hard word of solar°hard word or wind, claiming°hard word that this proves°hard word they are not°hard word sustainable°hard word in the long run. Similarly, they point to the permitting°hard word process, at one point making°hard word the ludicrous°hard word claim°hard word that it would take 1,400 years to prove°hard word all the permits°hard word necessary for a net-zero°hard word energy transition°hard word.
The flaw°hard word here is obvious: These are stupid rules the government made°hard word up. They can just get rid°hard word of the rules. You don't°hard word want them to get rid°hard word of the rules because you don't°hard word want the solar°hard word plants. This isn't°hard word a real obstacle°hard word; it's°hard word a fake°hard word one.
----
SEVEN. Failure°hard word to consider alternate°hard word technology°hard word.
They routinely°hard word math based°hard word on an assumption°hard word that batteries need to support 100% of energy storage°hard word needs. This is a fallacious°hard word assumption°hard word. In particular, for cold weather climates°hard word, a battery-based°hard word system will never be feasible°hard word. The only possible option°hard word is a solar°hard word and/or wind-powered°hard word system that generates some amount of (presumably°hard word) methane that can be stored°hard word and then°hard word burned during the winter season. This would have a substantially lower metal, et°hard word cetera°hard word cost°hard word. However, it doesn't°hard word fit their conclusion°hard word. So they need not°hard word consider it.