Energy solutions needed despite opposition

Brandon Lindstrom

Brandon Lindstrom

I was thinking about our energy situation the other day, and how Republicans seem to be the only ones that are for any solution at all. Let’s review what the Democrats have been against as far as energy solutions, even though they claim to be the party of alternative energy.

1) Wind. Granted, there are definitely some Democrats in favor of wind power. There are also many environmentalists (beholden to the Democrat party) that oppose expansion of wind energy. Most cite interference with bird migration patterns and bird deaths. Robert Kennedy, Jr., and John Kerry both killed a proposal to build a wind farm off the coast in Nantucket Sound that would have supplied a ton of clean, renewable energy to Massachusetts. Windmills must be too unsightly for them when they’re cruising around on their yachts?

2) Hydroelectric. Dams are one of the better and more reliable sources of renewable energy. Not only that, but they also create reservoirs which can help the local economy with fishing and recreational activities. Democrats also block these opportunities, such as a recent case in California. Democrats in the state Legislature cited that there are other ways to meet California’s water and electricity needs … such as conservation. In a state with that many people, I hardly think that shutting the water off when Californians brush their teeth and keeping plasma TV watching time to one hour each day will solve their energy/water needs.

3) Solar. This is probably my favorite example. We have the massive desert region known as the Mojave Desert, which consists of vast expanses of land in California, Utah, Nevada and Arizona. Several solar energy companies have been working to turn a 500,000 acre expanse of the desert into a huge solar farm that would supply millions with clean, renewable energy. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California opposes this and has proposed legislation to make the whole desert a national monument, rendering it untouchable by solar energy companies. They cite concerns over tortoise populations. If we can’t build a solar farm in a DESERT, then where else in the country could we expect to do so?

4) Nuclear. Many people get nervous when it comes to nuclear energy, and visions like the Chernobyl incident in the Ukraine flash into people’s minds. The reality is that nuclear technology has progressed a lot since that time, and we use much safer methods. Chernobyl enriched their uranium to a more explosive and dangerous level (around 14 percent, if I remember correctly from chemistry). Nuclear plants now enrich to a much safer level, around three to five percent, according to the United States Regulatory Commission. Democrats oppose nuclear energy at almost every turn.

5) Clean Coal. Democrats themselves can’t agree on clean coal, mainly because it stems from a fossil fuel. Clean coal technology drastically reduces the so-called “greenhouse gases” emitted by coal plants that produce electricity, which should alleviate some environmental concerns Democrats have…yet they still can’t fully support use of any source of energy that involves fossil fuels.

All this opposition, when coupled with opposition to increased oil drilling, carbon taxes on citizens (the cap-and-trade program, which will increase energy costs by an estimated 43 percent!) and opposition to increased domestic refining capacity leads me to this one question: what are Democrats suggesting we use for energy? There are not many other options left once we take all those options off the table, and other solutions are not very feasible everywhere in the country.

So unless we’re all going to ride our unicorns to work under the rainbows-and-butterflies-approach to energy the Democrats have, perhaps we need to look at some of the solutions Republicans have been proposing and take all the environmental alarmist talk with a few grains of salt.