The Daily Signal - Climate Expert Shares Dirty Truth About Wind and Solar Energy

Episode Date: April 3, 2024

Wind, solar, and electric vehicles aren't the clean energy accomplishments that many claim, climatologist David Legates says. “The lithium, the atrium, all of the rare earth minerals that are necessary for the batteries, that are necessary for the solar panels, that are necessary for the wind turbines … are called rare earths,” Legates explains on “The Daily Signal Podcast.”  These rare earth minerals are acquired through strip mining, he says, a process that involves putting large chunks of earth into a solution. Once the minerals are extracted, what is left is a “toxic sludge lake." The process of strip mining changes the environment, adds Legates, a visiting fellow who serves on the Science Advisory Committee for the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation. Legates, also a professor emeritus at the University of Delaware, is the author of a Heritage paper on rising sea levels. Legates, who joins this episode of "The Daily Signal Podcast," explains how wind turbines and solar panels are created and discusses his new book “Climate and Energy: The Case for Realism,” co-authored with E. Calvin Beisner. He also identifies what the cleanest form of energy really is.  Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, April 3rd. I'm Virginia Allen. Our wind and solar truly the cleanest forms of energy. And what is the economic impact of moving away from energy sources like coal? And what is the true cleanest form of energy? Climateologist David Legates is advocating for realism in the climate change conversation in his brand new book, Climate and Energy, the case for realism. Mr. Legates joins us on the show today to explain why solar energy and things like the batteries in electric cars might not be helping the environment in the way that many people think.

He also discusses the appeal of nuclear energy and why it is such a clean form of energy. Stay tuned for my conversation with Mr. David Legates after this. Americans use firearms to defend themselves between 500,000 and 2 million times every year. But God forbid that my mother has ever faced with a scenario where she has to stop a threat to her life. But if she is, I hope politicians, protected by professional armed security, didn't strip her of the right to use the firearms she can handle most competently. To watch the rest of Heritage expert Amy Swearer's testimony on assault weapons before the House Judiciary Committee head to the Heritage Foundation YouTube channel.

There you'll find talks, events, and documentaries, backed with the reputation of the nation's most broad supported Public Policy Research Institute. Start watching now at heritage.org slash YouTube and don't forget to subscribe and share. We are joined today by climatologist David Legates. He serves as a visiting fellow for Science Advisory Committee in the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at the Heritage Foundation. He's also a professor emeritus at the University of Delaware and is co-author of the brand new book, Climate and Energy Energy, The Case for Realism. Mr. The Gates, welcome back to the Daily Signal podcast. Thank you. It's pleasure to be here. Well, I was thinking back and you kicked off our three-part climate series at the

very beginning of the year on January 3rd. So this is fun to dive a little bit deeper into the issue of climate and all the controversy around that subject, which it is certainly a subject that is full of controversy. And so I'm really excited today to talk about your book, Climate and Energy, the case or realism. Explain if you would. Who is this book written for? It's written for people that are really interested in getting into some of the science, but not necessarily being, having your head held underwater with complete science

discussion. So it's more than just a cursory attempt at talking about climate. It's much more detailed, but not so detailed that you have to have a PhD in physics to figure it all out. Well, I personally appreciate that. needed in layman's terms sometimes. What do you think are some of the most common misconceptions around the topic of climate change that you all really tried to tackle and address in this book? Part of the issue is that carbon dioxide, we're told that it's a magic climate control node.

That essentially if you put more carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, where temperatures go up, you get more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more droughts, more floods, more all of the bad stuff that people don't want to see. And if we somehow kept carbon dioxide to a minimal level somewhere, you know, between 350 parts per a million to 286 parts per a million, that life would be good. We wouldn't have hurricanes. We wouldn't have tornadoes. All these bad things would stop happening.

Temperature would stop rising. The seas would stop rising, as Barack Obama said. magic happens. And the problem is it's not connected directly to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a bit player in all of this. So that I think is one of the take-home messages is that carbon dioxide isn't the climate control knob. For most of climate history, we've actually seen that air temperature leads and carbon dioxide follows. And that makes total sense because when air temperature goes up, water becomes warmer. There's more water, more out gassing of carbon dioxide. And so as your temperature of the oceans rise, carbon dioxide is given off by the oceans, the atmospheric concentrations increase. And so generally, historically,

we've seen temperature goes up, carbon dioxide follows. Now the question is, if carbon dioxide goes up, will temperature follow? And the answer is, yes, slightly. However, most of the absorption bands that we have with carbon dioxide are already saturated. So that what that means is that essentially if you had no carbon dioxide or no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at all, the addition of some makes a big deal. But as you start to add more and more and more, you get less of an impact. And so by the time we are where we are now, more carbon dioxide really doesn't do a whole lot. And so if we doubled carbon dioxide now, we get maybe a degree Celsius of warming, and that would be it. And certainly, it's not worth the economic impacts that people wanted to have.

Okay, this is really interesting because the probably most common argument that I have heard talking point when you speak to folks who are very invested in the climate movement, climate justice, whatever you want to call it, the argument is, okay, the humans, various things create more carbon emissions, cause the temperature to increase. That has negative effects. But you're saying that, for one, it's so minimal. And actually, it maybe is the opposite. The temperature is rising. And then that increases the level of kind of carbon emissions within the atmosphere. Correct. Okay. The interesting thing, though, is when we were, when I got started,

in the late 70s in this with climate change. Climate change was global cooling. And at that time, we were told that global cooling would bring about more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more floods, more of all the disasters. So the question is, which is it? Is it warmer conditions bring you more disasters or is it colder conditions bringing you more disasters? Or were we statistically somehow on a saddle point that said it was perfect at the time? And if we went warmer, or colder, both would get worse. The answer is that if you look at the climate, what's driving most of the storms and things that create variability is what we call the equator to pole temperature gradient. That is the how warm the equator is relative to the pole. Now, if you have a very warm

equator and a very cold pole, you have a lot of temperature contrast, and that brings about a lot of storminess. If in an extreme world where the pole and equator were at the same temperature, global circulation would actually stop. So in a warmer world, the equator warms a little bit because it's already warm. There's a lot of water around and there's a lot of water vapor in the atmosphere. And for number of reasons, it takes a lot of more energy to raise the temperature of warm moist air. But in polar regions, it's very easy to warm the air with a little bit of energy input. So a warmer world has a lessened equator to pole temperature gradient, which means the interactions of the air, of cold, dry air coming out of northern Canada

and warm moist air coming out of the Gulf of Mexico, that contrast is diminished. That would diminish things like hurricane activity, that would diminish tornadoes. So in reality, a warmer world is a less volatile weather world. And in particular, when we look at it with civilization, civilization is always done better under warmer conditions. You develop a civilization when you're not looking

for food, clothing, shelter, and security. very cold conditions. It's essentially your quest for food, keeping yourself warm. It consumes all of your time. But when it's warmer conditions, you have more food, you have more security, you have more the ability to take care of yourself more easily. And as a result, you have therefore more time to develop the arts, to develop technology, develop all the things we think about with civilization.

One of the things that during the series that you joined back in January that we spoke about that came up multiple times during that series was the cycles of warming and cooling. And correct me if I'm wrong, but what we're seeing right now is not necessarily unique, that this is common that we see these cycles of warming and cooling. Yes. In fact, that's what we've had was the Roman warm period, the medieval warm period, the modern warm period. It was a little ice age as well.

So temperature has gone through cycles, precipitate. The limitation goes through cycles. We go through floods and droughts and back to floods again. Hurricane goes through cycles. The Atlantic multi-decadeal oscillation, for example, means that like in the 1970s, we had a lot of hurricanes, then the 80, 90s and 2000s, not so many. Then they started to come up again. So almost everything runs through a series of cycles, and it's because of this inconsistency

associated with the planet. The idea is that we are not a linear system. a non-linear system. That brings about chaotic, unpredictable behavior in which higher order terms, which are difficult to predict, are starting to take over. That was what Ed Lorenz found when he was attempting to simulate a simple climate back in the 60s. And so that variability is built into the system, and it's a lot of cases why we have El Niño-Lanini events, why we have the Atlantic multi-decade oscillation, Pacific decadal isolation, and so forth. with things that just simply flip back and forth with apparently no forcing.

But nevertheless, it's because of the second order, higher order terms associated with climate. That lays such a good foundation. One of the things in the book that you all speak to and address specifically are sources of energy. And I think, you know, when we have a good understanding of why the climate is changing and the cycles happen, then we can have that conversation of all right, well, what sources of energy are best? Because obviously, as humans, we need sources of energy. And there's so much debate about things like wind and solar and gas, coal, all of these debates. You all make a significant argument. And you take a lot of time in the book to address these various different forms of energy and what are

most beneficial to society and what sources of energy can actually be somewhat harmful. Let's take wind and solar first and just talk about those. There's a lot of conversations around those, and there's a huge push towards wind and solar. What information did you all discover and also put into the book in regards to those sources of energy that we should be aware of? Well, actually, you know, what we found was not new. Everybody thinks wind and solar are clean, green, renewable. There's no problem with it. it doesn't produce any gases to the atmosphere. There are problems with it. How do you get the lithium,

the eutribrium, all of the rare earth minerals that are necessary for the batteries, that are necessary for the solar panels, that are necessary for the wind turbines? Well, they are called rare earths, not because necessarily they're rare, but they don't exist in seams like coal or copper and so forth. They exist sort of all over the place. And the way you get them, is strip mining. You take and you pick up a large chunk of earth. You put it into a solution where you get these rare earth material materials to come out of solution, to solidify so you can use them. But then you're left with this big toxic sludge. And somebody's got to go into the toxic sludge and pull these pieces out. And you have to keep doing this with the whole mountain.

So this is why it's strip mining. It changes the environment that you have to completely go through it. And you get this toxic sludge lake that's produced. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, they have a tendency to use child labor. So young children 8, 10, 12, 14 are wandering through this toxic material looking to pick up things. In Southeast Asia, in a lot of places, it's done by slave labor. So if you're interested in social justice, these things are not very social justice oriented. If you're interested in environmental cleanliness, these things are not environmentally pure.

It takes energy to do all this, and the argument sometimes is the energy savings, or the, I should say the carbon dioxide savings that you get by going to these sort of carbon dioxide free energy sources. When you get the turbine and the solar panels, it takes more carbon dioxide. dioxide to transport the energy, to extract the energy, it takes more non-clean and green energy to get them out that it's going to produce. So like I said, at the end of the day, we're all told it's clean and green because you see it's spinning there where you see the panel sitting there. It's not producing gases. But to get to that stage, there has been an awful lot of disastrous environmental and social efforts that have gone on behind the scenes.

What about car batteries for electric vehicles, like in a Tesla? How does that compare to powering your car with gas? Well, that's the other issue. First question, I mean, we have this in Delaware. We've got an EV mandate that's been put on us, and we're trying to fight back against us. But part of the issue is that to produce the batteries, they require these rare earth minerals. And as a result, you've got to go through the same process to build the batteries. Second of all, I think I saw somewhere it takes an inordinate amount, I can't remember offhand

how much, takes an inordinate amount of strip mining to get just one car battery. The second problem is, suppose this, you know, where does the energy come from to power the battery? So if you're using fossil fuels to power, to generate the electricity to load the battery, the problem then becomes how much are you using and are we still producing carbon dioxide and therefore your clean and green car really isn't clean and green after all. The other problem is what happens if you're in an accident? First responders are finding out that the batteries aren't in the same place in every car.

The power connections aren't in the same place. With gasoline, it's easy, or diesel, it's easy. You put water on it, you mitigate it. That'll put out the fire. Lithium fires will burn effectively for long time periods. and you can't cool them down. I mean, essentially, as you remove the water, lithium will immediately fire up again in contact with the atmosphere.

And so you get these very hot flames that can't be extinguished. And the other problem they're running into is you get to an accident the person's hurt. You've got to use the jaws of life to go in. If the jaws of life happened to connect the battery or any wire connecting the battery, you now light everything up. The person in the back car, it can be killed. the first responder can be killed. That's not usually a problem with gasoline cars.

That's definitely a problem with electric vehicles. And the final thing is we're finding under very cold conditions, they don't run well. We saw in Chicago, and for example, the batteries just don't hold a charge as long. In a case, in Delaware, we're requiring all school buses to go to electric vehicle school buses. And one of the weird things about it is they can't recharge them fast enough. So the school bus agencies are saying, if we're going to take kids to school and then bring them home, we've got to have two buses to do that. Because taking them to school and bringing them back, there's not enough time to recharge them before we have to take them home. So we've got to double the number of buses we have in our fleet.

It's just continuously an added expense. Even in Delaware, we've got a now requirement. If you build a new house, you have to have a connection for an electric vehicle inside that house. whether you have an electric vehicle or not. If you build a new apartment complex, each apartment complex, depending on its size, has to have a place outside that's not on the street to park a car and recharge the electric vehicle.

So to build a house, to build an apartment complex, is far more expensive now, simply because you've got to build in the infrastructure to actually have an electric vehicle recharged, even though nobody in the house where nobody in the apartment complex actually has an electric vehicle. I find it really fascinating that you all do a great job in the book of linking sources of energy with economic stability in a region and how the sources of energy that we're using

here in the States, it has economic impacts, sometimes around the world. Explain that if you would a little bit, how the sources of energy that we choose actually have effect on the poverty of an area or its potential success? Well, that's part of the issue is that one of the things that's brought people out of poverty has been technology. And what's been driving technology has been the availability of inexpensive energy. I mean, in 1800, you had approximately 10% of the population of the planet above the poverty line. In 2020, you have approximately 9%. 90% of the population above the poverty line.

How did that happen? That happened because of technological developments, but in order to make technology go, you had to have inexpensive energy. If energy is really expensive, then you can't use the technology you've developed. Or I should say, only the very rich can get access to it. The poor can't. By making energy inexpensive, which is one of the things fossil fuels have been able to do, then everybody has access to energy.

and therefore they have access to the technology. See, before that, we had to rely on beasts of the field to get excess energy, slavery, because you know, you have to have somebody to do the work. Or you had to effectively, as we moved into, first of all, is to use whaling, because whale oil could be used. And when petroleum came along, the need for slavery was non-existent, although people will still do it because it's ingrained in human society. But slavery, the need for slavery as cheap labor goes away. The need for whale oil goes away.

The need to use animals goes away. And essentially, we were able to develop quite a bit. And the benefit was to bring most of the world out of poverty. Wow. So if you are giving a prescription to say, all right, we should start relying most heavily on this form of energy and this form of energy, what is, the tried and true most successful, cleanest forms of energy that would be most cost-efficient and not harmful to our environment? Nuclear.

Okay. Nuclear is probably the future. It simply should have been the present. There was issues in the United States why it didn't happen. Three Mile Island at the same time, the movie, the China syndrome came out, sort of put a fash on it. But if you look, France, for example, much of it runs under nuclear. It has a much smaller spatial footprint, which allows you to have more land for development, but more land for animals to live on,

more land for agriculture. I mean, you look now, what we're doing in Delaware, for example, is we're converting agricultural farmland over to solar factories. So we're taking land out of agriculture and putting in solar panels all over the place. They're doing the same thing, for example, Iowa. One of the things you're seeing is that corn it's produced is going to biofuels and ethanol. Well, that could have been food that could have been feeding people. So with nuclear, not only is it

fairly safe, I mean, we can argue this point, but I think most people argue that nuclear is as safe as anything going, particularly with modern nuclear that we have. And in particular, it has a much smaller spatial footprint. So you can get the same amount of energy over a smaller area. It doesn't require as much space, so there's more space left for producing food, for allowing nature to exist in the way in which it did before, to allow people to expand. It's probably where we should have been all along. The book is Climate and Energy, The Case for Realism. Mr. Legates, if there are one or two things that you would like readers to take from this book,

what is that? The title, Climate, the Case for Realism. climate change always happens. Climate change has always happened and it will always happen. Don't get caught up in the question that we've got to stop climate change. It's like trying to stop the sun from rising. It's never going to happen. There's never been a condition in the planet that the temperature,

that the precipitation has always remained constant. It's always been variable. And so when you're told that we're going to get more hurricanes, more of this, more of that, that's all not going to happen. go through cycles, as you mentioned, we go through different characteristics. And as things change, things stay the same in a sense. So we're going to see variability. We're going to see change. But climate is variable. Climate changes. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Excellent. The book, again, is Climate and Energy, The Case for Realism. You can pick up a copy

on Amazon today. It's on Kindle. Mr. Gates, thank you so much for your time today. We really appreciate it. Thank you. And with that, that's going to do it for today's episode. Thanks so much for joining us here on the Daily Signal podcast. If you haven't had a chance, make sure that you check out our evening show right here in this podcast feed where we bring you the top news of the day. And take a minute to subscribe. Make sure you hit that subscribe button so you never miss out on our new shows here at the Daily Signal. And if you would, take a minute and leave us a five-star rating and review if you like what you hear.

Thanks again for being with us today. We'll see you right back here around 5 p.m. for our top news edition. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. Executive producers are Rob Lewy and Kate Shrinco. Producers are Virginia Allen and Samantha Asheris. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. To learn more, please visit DailySignal.com.