‘Green Energy’ Is Quietly Polluting A Landfill Near You

'You can’t reuse turbines, and there are now thousands upon thousands of blades just sitting there in warehouses already ... It’s an environmental disaster.'

Spain and Portugal went dark for 12 hours — America could easily be next



When I visited in Europe earlier this month, a massive blackout had just struck Spain and Portugal — the largest in either country’s history. Sixty million people across the Iberian Peninsula and parts of southern France lost power and communication for 12 hours. It was a total system collapse. And if America doesn’t wake up, we’re heading for the same fate.

This wasn’t just some fluke or freak weather event. It was a disaster years in the making, baked into the very structure of Spain and Portugal’s energy policies — policies championed by radical environmentalists and now echoed by the Democratic Party here at home.

Over-reliance on wind and solar leads to blackouts and economic chaos and puts us at the mercy of our adversaries.

Spain and Portugal are the poster children of Europe’s so-called green energy revolution. Just before the blackout, Spain’s energy infrastructure was a mixture of up to 78% solar and wind, with only 11% nuclear and 3% natural gas. Spain gutted its base-load energy sources — nuclear, hydro, and gas — in favor of wind turbines and solar panels. The result was an electrical grid as flimsy as a house of cards.

Predictably, the U.S. media ran interference. Reuters insisted that the blackout wasn’t the fault of renewable energy but instead blamed the “management of renewables.” That’s like saying a building collapse isn’t the fault of bad materials, just bad architecture. Either way, it still falls down.

Set up to fail

“Renewable” power sources are unreliable by nature. Solar doesn’t work when the sun doesn’t shine. Wind turbines don’t spin when the air is still. And when these systems fail — and they inevitably do — you need consistent, dispatchable backup. Spain doesn’t have that. In the name of “saving the planet,” the Spanish government heavily taxed nuclear plants until they became unprofitable, then shut them down altogether.

As Spanish economist Daniel Lacalle put it: “The blackout in Spain was not caused by a cyberattack but by the worst possible attack — that of politicians against their citizens.”

And yet, not far away, parts of southern France that were affected by the same blackout recovered quickly. Why? Because France has wisely kept its nuclear power intact. In fact, nuclear power provides 70% of France’s electricity. Say what you want about the French, but they got that part right.

What happened in Spain and Portugal is not a European problem — it’s a cautionary tale. It's a flashing red warning light for the United States. The Democrats' Green New Deal playbook reads exactly like Europe’s: Phase out fossil fuels, demonize nuclear power, and vastly expand wind and solar — all while pretending this won’t destabilize our grid.

Look at California. In 2022, the state experienced rolling blackouts during a heat wave after years of shutting down nuclear and natural gas plants. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) had to scramble to bring those “dirty” plants back just to keep the lights on.

Even back in 2017, the U.S. Department of Energy warned that over-reliance on renewables threatens grid stability. But the Biden administration ignored it and dove headlong into the disastrous waters of green energy.

AI’s imminent energy demand

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently told Congress that artificial intelligence is expected to consume up to 99% of our total electricity generation in the near future. Think about that — 99%. Add to that the left’s obsession with mandating electric vehicles, and the demand on our already fragile grid becomes unsustainable.

Try running all of that — AI data centers, EV charging stations, and the basic needs of 330 million people — on wind and sunshine. It’s impossible. Until someone invents a clean, infinite power source that works 24/7, we need nuclear, natural gas, and yes, maybe even coal.

This isn’t the first time a green energy fantasy has ended in blackouts. In 2016, 1.7 million Australians lost power due to wind farm fluctuations. In 2017, Germany’s trillion-dollar experiment with renewables nearly collapsed its grid. In 2019, more than a million Brits lost power after a lightning strike overwhelmed their renewables-heavy system.

These aren’t isolated events. This is a pattern. When energy policy is driven by ideology instead of engineering, people suffer.

Here’s a dirty little secret the climate cult doesn’t want you to know: Renewables lack something critical called inertia. Traditional base-load sources like nuclear and gas provide the physical inertia needed to keep a grid stable. Without it, a minor disruption — like a cloudy day or a sudden drop in wind — can trigger a cascading blackout.

Worse, restarting a power grid after a blackout — what’s called a “black start” — is significantly more challenging with renewables. Nuclear and natural gas plants can do it. Wind and solar can’t.

While it doesn’t appear that this was a cyberattack, it easily could have been. Renewable-heavy grids rely on inverters to convert DC to AC — and those inverters are vulnerable. Major flaws have already been discovered that could allow hackers to remotely sabotage the voltage and crash the grid. The more we rely on renewables, the more we invite foreign actors like China and Russia to exploit those vulnerabilities.

Save the grid!

So what’s the takeaway from the Spain-Portugal blackout?

First, we need to stop demonizing nuclear energy. Spain still plans to shut down all of its nuclear plants by 2035 — even after this catastrophe. That’s insane. Nuclear is safe, is clean, and provides the base-load power and inertia a modern grid needs.

Second, we must preserve and expand our natural gas infrastructure. When renewables fail — and they will — gas is the only backup that can be scaled quickly and affordably.

Third, we need to fortify our power grid against cyber threats. If our electricity goes down, everything else follows — banking, transportation, communication, water. We’re talking about national survival.

Green energy has a role in the future. But it’s not the savior the left wants it to be. Over-reliance on wind and solar leads to blackouts and economic chaos and puts us at the mercy of our adversaries.

The blackout in Spain and Portugal should be a wake-up call. If Democrats turn our grid into their ideological jungle gym, the lights will go out — literally. We can’t afford to play roulette with our power supply.

America’s energy strategy must be based on reliability, security, and reality — not political fantasy. If we fail to recognize that, we’ll soon be the ones stuck in elevators, stranded on trains, and left in the dark.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Trump Energy Secretary Tells Europeans To Ditch 'Climate Alarmism' and Embrace Natural Gas as Nations Face Widespread Blackouts

Energy Secretary Chris Wright implored European nations to reject "climate alarmism" and instead reembrace natural gas and nuclear power as parts of the continent continue to face widespread grid blackouts.

The post Trump Energy Secretary Tells Europeans To Ditch 'Climate Alarmism' and Embrace Natural Gas as Nations Face Widespread Blackouts appeared first on .

Even With Subsidies, Solar Panels and Other Green Home Upgrades Take Years To Pay Off, WaPo Admits

Even with generous subsidies, green retrofits such as solar panels and heat pumps take anywhere from 8 to 48 years to pay off for homeowners, according to a Washington Post analysis released Monday.

The post Even With Subsidies, Solar Panels and Other Green Home Upgrades Take Years To Pay Off, WaPo Admits appeared first on .

GOP sellouts fight to keep Biden’s Green New Deal cash flowing



The American people overwhelmingly rejected Joe Biden’s presidency. His signature legislative agenda, the Green New Deal, subsidizes inefficient energy sources while driving up costs for affordable, reliable alternatives. This policy enriches a select few at the expense of taxpayers, who essentially fund their own economic suicide. Unfortunately, a group of lukewarm Republicans — whose donors profit from these terrible subsidies — are working to keep them in place.

The Green New Deal should be the first target for repeal through budget reconciliation. Since Republicans hesitate to cut individual welfare programs, eliminating corporate welfare for the most expensive energy scheme in U.S. history is the obvious alternative — especially since it passed through reconciliation in the first place.

Trump should make it clear to Republicans: Undoing Biden’s presidency requires fully dismantling his signature legislative achievement. The green grift must end.

Yet a group of 21 House Republicans, likely backed by others unwilling to go on record, now oppose rolling back these subsidies. Because of course they do.

Without directly mentioning Biden, the legislation, or the fact that these credits amount to corporate welfare rather than “tax incentives,” these Republicans urged Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) to take a “targeted and pragmatic” approach to tax code changes.

“Countless American companies are utilizing sector-wide energy tax credits — many of which have enjoyed broad congressional support — to invest in domestic energy production and infrastructure for both traditional and renewable sources,” wrote the 21 House members, led by Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), in a March 9 letter. “Both our constituencies and the energy industry remain concerned about disruptive changes to the nation’s energy tax structure. Many of these credits were enacted over a ten-year period, allowing energy developers to plan with these incentives in mind.”

In simpler terms, they want to preserve massive subsidies for solar, wind, electric vehicles, and “carbon capture,” which could cost up to $1.2 trillion. Knowing these terms carry negative connotations for Trump voters and the president himself, they instead framed their request as support for “energy production,” as if referring to oil, gas, and coal.

“To meet President Trump’s campaign promises of reviving manufacturing and strengthening domestic energy production, we need an all-of-the-above approach,” Garbarino said in an interview. “These credits have helped make that happen.”

An unbalanced strategy

Unlike natural energy sources, which do not rely on government subsidies to serve consumers, solar and wind power cannot survive without them — an admission the industry itself has made. These industries require constant government support while policymakers simultaneously impose burdens on fossil fuels, forcing businesses to adopt unreliable alternatives.

Wind power, in particular, depends on a factor entirely beyond human control — the wind itself. Texas poured billions into subsidizing wind energy and made its grid increasingly reliant on it, only for it to fail when it was needed most during the Great Texas Freeze of 2021. This year, Texas grid operators had to postpone maintenance on power plants to generate more coal and natural gas after wind production dropped by 18% due to low wind conditions in February.

In short, the so-called “all-of-the-above” energy approach is not a balanced strategy. Fossil fuels repeatedly bail out wind and solar when they fall short — but never the other way around.

Far from free money

The push for unreliable energy schemes has become so indefensible that the industry is now shifting its messaging. Instead of emphasizing climate change, it now frames itself as a driver of job creation. In December, Reuters reported that the solar industry had rebranded its pitch to the Trump administration, promoting itself as a “domestic jobs engine that can help meet soaring power demand” while avoiding any mention of climate change.

This strategy aims to lure more Republicans into supporting green energy subsidies. Given the geographic distribution of these projects, about 80% of the subsidies tied to the Green New Deal scam have gone to Republican congressional districts.

But these subsidies are far from free money. Funding them requires taking on more debt, driving inflation, while backing energy schemes that are impractical, environmentally questionable, and a poor use of land.

Climate fascism continues to be a loser for Democrats. In a recent poll, 84% of respondents said the cost of living and inflation mattered more than addressing climate change. This is a winning issue for Republicans — but only if Trump takes a hard stance against RINOs who enable these subsidies.

Courts have already blocked his efforts to terminate them through executive action, meaning only Congress can fully repeal them. Trump should make it clear to Republicans: Undoing Biden’s presidency requires fully dismantling his signature legislative achievement. The green grift must end.

Climate Protestors Disrupt Chris Wright Hearing For Energy Secretary

Any honest examination of the Los Angeles wildfires indicts incompetent government leadership rather than climate change.

As Appalachians Languish, CBS Moderators Minimize Deadly Hurricane Helene With Climate Change Question

CBS seemingly cares little about its Appalachian viewers; debate questions hardly mentioned Hurricane Helene.

Federal Investigators Expand Probe of Biden's Energy Loan Program

The chief watchdog office for the Department of Energy is expanding its probe of the Biden administration's $400 billion energy loan program ahead of the presidential election, according to a government contracting notice.

The post Federal Investigators Expand Probe of Biden's Energy Loan Program appeared first on .

Chuck Schumer's 'Dear Friend' Invested in Solar as Schumer Secretly Negotiated Climate Bill

Around the time that Democratic leaders were secretly negotiating the details of President Joe Biden's landmark Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Democratic Party megadonor James Simons's hedge fund substantially upped its financial stake in several solar energy companies, which reaped windfalls from the bill.

The post Chuck Schumer's 'Dear Friend' Invested in Solar as Schumer Secretly Negotiated Climate Bill appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Scientists just test-fired a cloud device over American soil with the ultimate aim of blocking sunlight



The USS Hornet may be a decommissioned aircraft carrier, yet it has nevertheless become the launch-site for a controversial new war in the skies.

The Marine Cloud Brightening Program's Coastal Atmospheric Aerosol Research and Engagement project, led by researchers from the University of Washington, took to the deck of the Hornet Tuesday to launch streams of particles into the sky above the San Francisco Bay. Their ultimate objective is apparently to block and reflect sunlight in hopes of limiting "global warming."

CAARE researchers behind the geoengineering scheme opted not to announce their experiment, reportedly citing concerns that there might be significant backlash.

After all, the American public — or at the very least, the residents of Alameda — might first want to hear from the hundreds of scientists who have called for a non-use agreement for solar radiation management and stated in an open letter that the "risks of solar geoengineering are poorly understood and can never be fully known. Impacts will vary across regions, and there are uncertainties about the effects on weather patterns, agriculture, and the provision of basic needs of food and water."

The experiment

Clouds bounce some of the sun's rays back into space. This supposedly helps cool temperatures locally.

The University of Washington's Department of Atmospheric Sciences conceded that fossil fuel emissions and other human activities have long generated aerosols in the atmosphere that mix in with low-altitude clouds, causing them to brighten and reflect more sunlight, having a cooling effect on the earth's climate.

"I think most people are aware that there's a greenhouse gas effect that warms climate," UW MCB program director Sarah Doherty told the Weather Channel. "But what most people aren't aware of is that the particles that we've also been producing and adding to the atmosphere offset some of that climate warming. So, the overall effect is one of climate warming, but it would be a lot more without that particulate pollution."

With climate alarmists concerned over supposed global temperature increases and the corresponding war on fossil fuels sure to rob the clouds of a contributing brightener, some scientists are keen to pump out aerosols of their own.

Robert Wood, the lead UW scientist running the cloud project, noted on his university blog that the team at the CAARE facility developed a "Cloud-Aerosol Research Instrument (CARI)." This device, which has multiple nozzles and resembles a snow maker, can apparently fire trillions of salt particles into the air.

The UW indicated that once emitted, such particles would only remain airborne in the atmosphere for a few days.

Wood told the San Francisco Chronicle simulations project that if 15% of Earth's marine clouds were artificially brightened, the globe might cool by approximately one degree.

According to the New York Times, CAARE researchers used their CARI device last week aboard the USS Hornet, firing particles and testing to make sure their cloud-brightening machine would function as desired outside a lab.

The Chronicle indicated that the next step of research will entail actually attempting to meddle with the clouds off the coast of California.

The concerns

"Every year that we have new records of climate change, and record temperatures, heat waves, it's driving the field to look at more alternatives," Wood told the Times. "Even ones that may have once been relatively extreme."

Contrary to Woods' intimation, many still regard marine cloud brightening to be an extreme and potentially fruitless initiative.

In addition to noting that MCB and other forms of solar radiation modification may ultimately accomplish little in the way of lowering global temperatures, the Congressional Research Service noted in a May 2023 report that some "modeling studies of [marine cloud brightening] have suggested it could alter precipitation patterns at global and regional levels."

A 2017 study published in Nature Communications indicated that aerosols released just in the northern hemisphere could possibly even lead to an increase in droughts, hurricanes, and storms elsewhere.

Late last month, a group of 31 top atmospheric scientists noted in a paper published in Science Advances that there is presently a "lack of a clear understanding of the relationship between aerosol and meteorological conditions and liquid water and cloud fraction adjustments and their timescales."

"Regional changes in temperature and rainfall could influence heat stress, water availability, crop productivity and the ability of communities to thrive," added the scientists who emphasized the need to evaluate the viability and risks of MCB.

The widespread concerns over the feasibility and fallout of such experiments has prompted the Biden administration to distance itself from the CAARE experiment, even though President Joe Biden signed Congress' Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, providing funding for a "scientific assessment of solar and other rapid climate interventions in the context of near-term climate risks and hazards," including aerosol injection.

The White House told the Times in a statement, "The U.S. government is not involved in the Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) experiment taking place in Alameda, CA, or anywhere else."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!