Stop Calling it "Green Energy"

Stop calling it “Green Energy”

It is time to stop calling it “green energy.” Anything that requires a subsidy to get going and more subsidies to maintain is about the furthest thing from green you can get. Let's talk about the real green: plants. First, let’s not forget how hijacked the whole term “green” has become. We are now trying to convince people that non-living objects that exist in nature are somehow part of the green energy movement. While this may be tied to a movement, it is closer to a bowel movement than anything else.

In the past week I made my way to Leesburg, IN to spend a little time with Kip Tom at his farm. This is where it really hit me hard that the answer to climate health is growing more green, living things. We all know that but sometimes you need a slap in the face to refresh your memory. While I am not exactly clear on the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbed by grasslands in the cycle of life, we do know the measurement on one grass species thanks to Michigan State University. 

The corn plant, a grass, absorbs 16,000 lbs of CO2 per ACRE in one growing season. In return for that plant growth and production, we are given corn for livestock feed (38%), ethanol (34%), global exports (17%)  and the balance for food items and other industrial uses. As another reminder, it is the cycle of life we are supporting in that process. Yes, CO2 is released as some of these processes take place but again that is what the cycle of life is all about. 

When it comes to grasslands, it is much more difficult to arrive at the number because an acre in the Nevada desert will be very different that an acre in the Florida Everglades but we do have science that documents that it is an amazing process. 

Looking ahead, our model simulations show that grasslands store more carbon than forests because they are impacted less by droughts and wildfires,” said lead author Pawlok Dass, a postdoctoral scholar in Professor Benjamin Houlton’s lab at UC Davis. “This doesn’t even include the potential benefits of good land management to help boost soil health and increase carbon stocks in rangelands.”

So we need to just leave it to green plants, another of God’s great creations, to keep the planet healthy. Somehow the powers that be want us to fall for the trap that Green Energy is something else. At a recent meeting near Platte, SD where there is a Missouri River Storage Pump proposal in both Charles Mix and Gregory Counties, Brad Lawrence, an engineer for Brozs, said something very interesting. “The project here would require 9000 acres of solar panels to provide enough electricity for this pump station.” While they are not proposing that this project be 100% solar, that statement made me wonder, “What does 9000 acres of solar panels do to CO2 absorption if they are taken out of crop production?”

I found a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) that states that government plans would have 2 million acres of solar panels in the United States by 2030.

A large fixed-tilt photovoltaic solar power plant that produces 1,000 megawatt-hours per year requires, on average, 2.8 acres for the solar panels. This means that a solar power plant that provides all of the electricity for 1,000 homes would require 32 acres of land, according to the report.

How green is an energy project that does not function without a government subsidy and when it also prevents green plants from growing and taking CO2 out of the air? The stupidity of this Missouri River project takes the cake. 

They are going to use wind and solar power to pump water 750 feet above the Missouri River UP onto land (3,500 acres) that is currently deeded private farming property into a man-made basin. Then during peak energy needs, drop the water back into the river through a wheel and capture the energy on the way down. For the record, no one is proposing that the energy collection will even be a net gain from the energy spent, but some cubicle dweller in DC wants us to call it “green”. 

For the record, the 3,500 acres that they want to take over for this basin are currently growing plants, absorbing CO2 and producing food. Meanwhile, a basin will be absorbing a big fat ZERO CO2 and producing ZERO food. The real problem is that this is just one little project that the New Green Deal is trying to shove down everyone's throat and there are plenty more. Let’s quit calling it “green energy” and start calling it what it is: a hoax and a get rich quick scheme for those who’ve created it.