Now that the favored wind industry is struggling, the Washington Post is conveniently endorsing an “all of the above” energy policy and urging Interior Secretary Burgum to “stand up for wind energy.” Where was this support for “all of the above” when offshore oil and gas leasing was halted, important pipeline approvals were being denied, States were banning hydraulic fracturing, nuclear plants were stalled, and coal workers were being told to “learn how to code?”
Additional comments on the Post’s opinion piece:
WP: “Opponents of wind power — many of them tied to the fossil fuel industry — have taken note and are furiously lobbying the government to block projects already under construction, as well.”
Comments:
- The fossil fuel industry is frequently accused of supporting groups that oppose wind energy, yet names and details are never provided.
- Most opponents of offshore wind are members of grass roots groups that have no connection to the oil and gas industry.
- Supporting anti-wind groups would be foolish from legal, political, and public relations standpoints.
- Wind opposition would also be contrary to the business plans of most oil and gas companies, some of which are/were major wind energy investors.
- Lastly, most anti-wind groups are also opposed to offshore drilling. Would “Big Oil” fund groups like this?
WP: “China’s capacity for wind power is already three times that of the United States.”
Comment: Does this make China an environmental leader? Does the WP also support China’s world-leading and still growing coal consumption (see below)?
WP: “Denmark derives about 60 percent of its total energy from wind.”
Comment: Is the WP unconcerned about the intermittency of wind power, the dramatic fluctuations in capacity factors, and the need for alternate power sources, typically coal and natural gas? How do these wind capacity factors look (chart below)? Does the WP support other Danish climate policies like the tax on cow emissions?
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 