Donald Roessler
Washington County, Pa. Landowner and Gas Lease Holder
We hear a lot from our anti friends about the need to stop the use of fossil fuels NOW and rely instead upon “non polluting renewable” energy sources. But, there are two major flaws to their argument.
First, there is the pollution, in China, caused by mining the rare earth minerals these so called clean energy sources need, as my friend Douglas Berkley points out, in this article, on his Tri-State Shale Traveler website. The title of the article says a lot. “Greens & Anti-Frackers…Do You Support Poisoning People?” Yes, it is true that people in China are being poisoned and land and water is being polluted by this rare earth minerals mining on a massive scale.
As Doug Berkley points out:
“I started thinking (yes, it happens) about how the greens and anti-fracking movement make their baseless claims against hydraulic fracturing, drilling and anything associated with the whole energy extraction process while in essence supporting the true poisoning of people and landscape in countries like China mining for rare earth minerals. Is it true ignorance or something worse, Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY-ism)?”
The second flaw in their argument is that it takes fossil fuels and by-products to make these “renewable” energies possible.
Let’s take a look at wind turbines as an example. An Energy Collective article released in February which poses the question “Can You Make a Wind Turbine Without Fossil Fuels?”
The answer to the question is NO, as a moment’s reflection will reveal to anyone with common sense and a rudimentary knowledge of construction. Windmills don’t grow from seeds planted on windmill farms.
“Various scenarios have been put forward showing that 100% renewable energy is achievable. Some of them even claim that we can move completely away from fossil fuels in only couple of decades. A world entirely without fossils might be desirable, but is it achievable?”
“The current feasibility of 100% renewable energy is easily tested by asking a simple question. Can you build a wind turbine without fossil fuels? If the machines that will deliver 100% renewable energy cannot be made without fossil fuels, then quite obviously we cannot get 100% renewable energy.”
“What is it made of? Lots of steel, concrete and advanced plastic. Material requirements of a modern wind turbine have been reviewed by the United States Geological Survey. On average 1 MW of wind capacity requires 103 tonnes of stainless steel, 402 tonnes of concrete, 6.8 tonnes of fiberglass, 3 tonnes of copper and 20 tonnes of cast iron. The elegant blades are made of fiberglass, the skyscraper sized tower of steel, and the base of concrete.”
That’s right, it takes lots of steel, concrete, and advanced plastics made with the help of fossil fuels to build and transport wind turbines. Not one anti-fossil fuel ideologue has been able to tell me how we build them if we ban the use of fossil fuels. This applies to all forms of renewable and non-renewable energy sources, not just wind turbines. It just simply can’t be done without using fossil fuels. Do they really believe windmills grow from wind turbine seeds? Or, do they believe renewable energy comes from a wave of a magic wand ? Maybe they believe that it comes from pixie dust.
Norm on Wed, 23rd Jul 2014 10:39 am
ah hah, now i see whats goin on. them thar no good stinkin obama lovin liberals is goin ta ban the use of fossil fuelz. them liberals is so dumb, they think the windmills grow from seeds. they even believe renewable energy comes from a wave of a magic wand. thank Jesus i have articles like this one to explain to me the liberals are so dumb, and rich republican owners of Halliburton are so smart.
Plantagenet on Wed, 23rd Jul 2014 10:47 am
Norm—you’re having a fantasy. The person who write this article is not a “rich republican owner of halliburton.” He is a family farmer.
Now that your character assassination is discredited, lets consider the salient point of this article. Yes, it is correct that mining rare earth elements to produce electric cars does create a lot of pollution. Yes, it is correct that building windmills or organic farming or attending environmental conferences in Rio all require the use of fossil fuels. Its just reality, dude. Face facts.
Nony on Wed, 23rd Jul 2014 11:08 am
I like the writer and his attitude. Unlike Norm’s superior attitude.
But, the point about reliance on oil is sort of like NWR complaining about a natural gas drilling rig (or a coal train or uranium mining) relying on diesel fuel. From a practical standpoint, the oil that is used to go after these other sources of energy is pretty minor, pretty leveraged.
The bigger issue is really subsidies, storage, cost of make-up generation not fully loaded, etc. Look at Germany for how to screw up your grid.
Dave Thompson on Wed, 23rd Jul 2014 12:03 pm
BAU with no fossil fuels? LOL!
MSN Fanboy on Wed, 23rd Jul 2014 12:15 pm
I suppose Kenz300 is going to turn red reading this 🙂 LOL
However, if a wizard is reading this: im willing to buy some pixie dust.
Nony on Wed, 23rd Jul 2014 12:19 pm
Here’s an interesting graphic on the growth of PA gas:
www dot realclearenergy dot org/charticles/2014/06/30/pennsylvania_leapfrogs_in_production_107877.html
Shows the incredible growth in 2012 (72% of an already large amount). I think 2013 growth was slower, but still substantial. Think PA has passed LA by now. Would have to double to pass TX, but even that is not inconceivable in as short as a couple years.
The graphic really shows how Rock’s GOM gas got hammered by the Marcellus. Sorry man, that’s not a demand drop story, that really is shale supply as the story.
Joe Clarkson on Wed, 23rd Jul 2014 3:35 pm
Just because energy supply transitions take decades, does not mean that they can’t happen. At one time in the late 19th century there were horse drawn trolleys, steam powered cable drawn trolleys and hydro-electric powered trolleys, all in use at the same time in the same cities.
All of the trolley owners could make a reasonable case that their power system was absolutely essential for transportation within the city. Nevertheless, a transition was gradually made to electric trolleys and then to diesel buses. The energy supply of the future is always built on the energy supply of the past.
So the main point of this article is silly. Energy is energy. With enough of it, whatever the source, one can do anything.
Most fossil energy sources are very concentrated and easy to use, but they are limited in supply and have dangerous side effects. Too bad we didn’t use them very sparingly to create the energy system of the future while we had the chance.
dubya on Wed, 23rd Jul 2014 4:21 pm
Let me confirm the general gist of this article: We currently use fossil fuel for, well, everything.
Therefore we should turn the world’s supply of fossil fuels into plastic Barbies, ship them across the pacific, burn more by driving to Mal-Wart and then throw it ‘away’; rather than using it to build those dangerous & wasteful wind turbines that should be make from Pixie Dust by enslaved Unicorns.
It is well known that diesel electric railway locomotives & haul trucks; open pit excavators, conveyors, aerial tramways and mills are unable to use electricity as a motive source, therefore no engineering project has ever occurred in the history of mankind that did not use fossil fuels.
Dave Thompson on Wed, 23rd Jul 2014 4:26 pm
There is nothing that will replace fossil fuels for industrial civilization. Only fossil fuel extensions. Even if humans had used coal,oil and the rest to transition, the transition would only last as long as the fossil fuel inputs were viable.
Lore on Wed, 23rd Jul 2014 4:53 pm
This is another one of those narratives based on a cheery picked set of data that amounts to a false equivalence. People being poisoned in China, easily fixed. A planet dying from fossil fuel driven climate change, not so easily remedied. Wind and solar energy built from fossil fuels is a matter of EROEI.
Beery on Wed, 23rd Jul 2014 6:50 pm
So, Donald, let me get this straight…
Because trying to find other ways to run our society is so hard, we should forget about it and be happy to pollute the planet?
Okay, here’s my response. How about you go and fuck off, you cocksucker.
Instead, how about we try to survive for a few thousand more years. Sure, I don’t think it’s going to happen, but that’s because there are too many morons like you trying so hard to convince all of us that it’s not worth the effort.
Wanker!
Joe Clarkson on Wed, 23rd Jul 2014 7:13 pm
Hey Beery,
Didn’t you know, EVERYBODY loves a cocksucker.
steveo on Thu, 24th Jul 2014 1:05 pm
I wounder how much Mr Roessler is making from his gas leases?