Bishop Hill Hitting back at scientivists
Jun 4, 2014 Climate: Parliament Foreign In recent months, US lawmakers have been putting their collective foot down in a bid to prevent every bureaucrat in Washington from splurging taxpayers' monies in spurious bids to save the planet from the spectre of climate change. Just last week it emerged that the Pentagon was told that melting icecaps (allegedly) were none of its business.
This robust approach to political activism and wild excess within the bureaucracy seems to be catching on, with the Abbott government in Australia slashing green "research" budgets too, as the Guardian reports:
It’s no secret that Joe Hockey’s first budget took the knife to many federal spending programs. But science and innovation were among the hardest hit areas. In addition to cuts to the CSIRO, there were cuts to basic research at the Australian Research Council, as well as cuts to the Australian Institute for Marine Science and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. Also slashed was funding for postgraduate researchers, for environmental science, clean technologies, water science and Cooperative Research Centres. There have also been huge cuts to R&D and innovation programs, and to virtually every federal renewable energy program.
It can't happen in the UK of course, partly because greenery is part of the Cameron brand and partly because the demented-green Liberal Democrats are in charge of the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, which is responsible for research funding. So we will just have to watch as things are sorted out in Australia.
The lucky country indeed.
Reader Comments (41)
how much of the cuts affected greenie dreams, and how much real science?
Hopefully, after the next general election there will only be a very few LibDem MPs. Too little to continue the destruction of our economy and enforce energy poverty.
demented-green Liberal Democrats
Martin
I just posted a reply on the Lib Dem site. I tried hard to be polite, but it will be interesting to see if it gets through moderation:
"I've often wondered how a 'zero-carbon' (presumably meaning zero carbon dioxide, which is a different substance) house is made. It would mean no cement or concrete or bricks or tiles or glass, all of which require large amounts of energy to create, and planting trees to 'offset' the CO2 only sequesters it while the tree is alive - it all gets returned to the atmosphere afterwards! Since CO2 is still less than 0.05% of the atmosphere and is the result, rather than the cause, of warming, isn't this all a bit overblown?"
jamesp: Your commets have been posted. Mine is in moderation:
"I love my carbon dioxide (what is all this carbon we emit?). It makes my garden and trees grow really well. If you believe the scientivists, it keeps us warm. I don't like cold - bring on the warmth. I try and emit as much carbon dioxide as I can to keep us warm and to help plants flourish."
how much of the cuts affected greenie dreams, and how much real science?
Jun 4, 2014 at 9:15 AM | Registered Commenteromnologos
Don't Care. They have all been in it together. They have all maintained their support for, or silence for the green theology.
I expect climate change to become even more of a Lib-Dem "issue", as it will no doubt represent an increasing proportion of the "major concerns" of their dwindling core vote.
Looking on the bright side, I suspect that many scientists have simply used climate change funding to continue their work, and have only paid lip-service to The Cause. I wonder how much of the "97% consensus" is just lip-service.
how much of the cuts affected greenie dreams, and how much real science?
Jun 4, 2014 at 9:15 AM | Registered Commenter omnologos
------------------------------------------------
Omnologus, the cuts were very much aimed at "greenie dreams." Apart from the real need to make cuts to the overspending of the previous lot, government research bodies were infested with propagandists who churned out endless material which essentially operated as an informal Opposition to the government's policies.
The environmentalists opposed every new development, without fail. The marine "scientists" have been telling us for more than 40 years that the Great Barrier Reef is "in crisis" because of human activity. The renewable energy researchers have been telling us for even longer that if we just give them a few more hundred million this year, the big breakthrough is just around the corner. And of course the CAGW crowd were everywhere.
There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth from those whose cosy sinecures are coming to an end, but science itself is is no danger. Indeed, clearing away some of the junk may well improve it significantly.
Last paragraph of the linked Grauniad article...
Environmental programs in particular have been targeted. It’s almost as though the government went looking for programs that featured the words “clean”, “green” or “renewable”.
Sweet!
Heh, that's the kind of Hockey stick we need. Considering the damage that many of these axed departments have caused, even by just 'staying silent' in some cases, I have no sympathy for the fact they they'll be feeling very bruised.
Maybe real science and more useful technologies will emerge from the pruning.
Why couldn't they find the missing Malaysia airline ? partly cos the US dept NOAA responsible for mapping the ocean, hasn't been tackling the job. it hasn't keptup to date for years, prioritising spending on climate. Their expert said it would only take 2 years of ship hours at $2-3bn to get the job doe once and for all.
-- covered in BBC Science In Action
"Environmental programs in particular have been targeted. It’s almost as though the government went looking for programs that featured the words “clean”, “green” or “renewable”.
That's exactly the way to identify tax-guzzling scams and shut them down.
WELL DONE!
stewgreen, I don't know about the particulars of the case you mention. But in general, billions of dollars that should have been spent on useful things - particularly monitoring and recording what is actually happening (rather than what some greenie imagines will happen) have been wasted. Utterly wasted.
Isn't slashing funding for clean tech R&D, innovation and renewable energy rather short sighted? However much some might dislike the fact, clean tech is the future. Shouldn't Oz be part of it instead of sniping from the sidelines selling dirty fuels to a probably dwindling number of customers? I've seen sceptics complain about the roll-out of clean tech because it isn't ready, and saying that we should instead invest in research. Isn't it then hypocritical to cheer when that research is cut?
"However much some might dislike the fact, clean tech is the future. Shouldn't Oz be part of it instead of sniping from the sidelines selling dirty fuels to a probably dwindling number of customers? "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What "clean tech"? Like massive blocks of concrete buried in the ground, with great big metal structures including rare earths on top, that produce intermittent power while shredding bats and birds, and ruining landscapes?
As for the "dwindling number of customers" - I don't know where you live, but we Australians are doing very nicely thanks to the Chinese opening dozens of new coal-fired plants every year. The number of customers may vary, but it is a dishonest argument in terms of volume.
This boring, programmed, rhetoric, in opposition to the facts, is getting very old indeed.
I fear that in the context of environmental activism "clean" is one of those weasel words that means what the neo-luddites want it to mean. I confess I don't know what the phrase "clean tech is the future" actually means. If we consider that the incidence of childhood asthma has increased markedly over the last half-century as the air has become "cleaner" one could perhaps argue (I don't) that "dirty" air has something going for it.
The pea-soup London fogs have long gone even as the population has increased and technology has found ways to make efficient fuels — which is to say hydrocarbons whether you like it or not — less polluting. How much less polluting do they need to be?
In what way are they currently not "clean" enough?
The idea that there will be a dwindling number of customers for hydrocarbons any time in the next half-millennium at least or that there is any immediate need to place limits on the use of those fuels on grounds of "cleanliness" is a fallacy. Unless of course the neo-luddites have their way and artificial restrictions are placed on the use of hydrocarbons on the spurious excuse that that will "save the planet".
It seems clear to me that the market for dirty fuels is at or is nearing its peak. It is all downhill from here. The clean energy sector in contrast is at the bottom of a huge growth curve. The clean technologies we have now are far from perfect and it would be stupid to deny that. But clean energy is where the future growth lies, both in generation and storage, smart grids, micro-grids, long distance transmission (HVDC), electric transportation. If Australia doesn't see that, I think it is sad, but there are many other countries that will develop these technologies. Tony Abbot cannot stop it happening, but he can stop Australia from profiting from it.
When I look at fancy petrol or diesel engined cars with their cylinders and crankshafts and injectors and belts and gearboxes and control electronics these days I see a technology that is hugely complicated and is racing towards obsolescence. They have a few years to go, just like steam hung on for a while after its time was up, but they are dead in the medium term (10-20 years). The modern Luddites are these whocan't see this and try to obstruct it.
So your cars are going to be powered by .........?
And your aeroplanes? Wood-burners, perhaps?
And the electricity for your electric transportation is going to be generated how? For the 70% of the time the wind doesn't blow.
The only "clean" (by your definition) fuel currently available which can do any/all of the things you are set on is uranium (thorium in however many years, maybe) and the neo-luddites don't like that.
Face it: you are talking pure eco-politics here. Until you can point us towards a cheap, reliable (as in 24/7) source of power and one which can safely power transportation (including personal transport and aircraft) you are whistling in the wind.
Powered by the sun of course, either direct or via wind etc. Australia would not have to cover much of its deserts with solar and wind to replace its fossil fuel generators. Not being 24h and not when the wind stops - these are all important details, but they are details none the less. The energy is there in excess, the details can be sorted out in the coming decades. There is no need to do it all on day 1.
Not being suitable for air flight (just a few % of energy use) is a red herring.
It seems clear to me that the market for dirty fuels is at or is nearing its peak. It is all downhill from here.
I have lived my entire adult life (30+ years) hearing that exact claim. It's not been right before, and judging by the actions of the people who run fossil fuel companies and have a very real stake in it, it won't be true before I die (hopefully 30+ years).
It reminds me of the "imminent" collapse of the capitalist system that has been predicted by disaster-philes for 100 years. It's "obvious", yet never seem to happen.
Stewgreen, have a look at this map of the oceans. Drawn from ship mounted bathymetry equipment. It's been done. What is missing to find the Malaysian airline? This sounds to me more like a call for more funding (surprise). Were they expecting to find an underwater aeroplane hangar and a wind sock, a runway?
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~231252~5508520:The-Floor-of-the-Oceans-
I am always irritated by the spreaders of nonsense who preach the childish gospel of 'renewable energy' and the glorious future that will flow from such energy. Perhaps they may think for a moment about the multitudinous reasons why our recent ancestors gave up on wind-power when more satisfactory ways of delivering affordable energy appeared: I say 'childish' advisedly, as children can have daydreams about the power of magic. Adults have to deal with reality.
The power from steam quite literally ushered in the machine age and the internal combustion engine and electricity made every person who has access to it incredibly powerful in ways our ancestors probably would not comprehend. The invention of the fractional-horsepower electric motor revolutionised our domestic lives - count the number of tiny electric motors doing work and making life easy and pleasant for us in our everyday and unremarkable lives, and magical thinkers among us would prefer that these would all be powered by 'clean energy'.
I remember the wonder of a sparkling new refigerator arriving in our home, the first in our street and only available in those days of post WWII shortages and rationing because my father was a returned soldier who had served with the NZ Expeditionary Forces. At first our neighbours regarded our parents as a being a bit odd for wasting heard-earned cash, but within weeks, parcels of newspaper-wrapped 'Sunday roasts' would be dropped off to be kept 'for the weekend' by neighbours whose thinking had rapidly been changed by the reality of fresh and untainted meat during hot weather. Within a couple of years, the dreadful old fly-proof 'meat safes' with their fine steel mesh sides set in to the outside wall of most antipodean domestic kitchens had gone forever, replacedby shiny new 'fridges'. Before long, our old cast-iron wood or coal-fired cook stoves with their 'wet backs', the source of household hot water, went the way of the meat safes, and a generation of children were released from the dangers of chopping kindling wood each and every week. The big built-in 'coppers' for boiling the weekly wash also went from our homes, followed by hand-cranked mangles and clothes-wringers.
Those days make great stories for my grandchildren, but that's their only virtue.
The quality of our lives no depends on an affordable and reliable supply of energy; moonbeams and Unicorn ribs won't do at all.
Powered by the sun of course, either direct or via wind etc. Australia would not have to cover much of its deserts with solar and wind to replace its fossil fuel generators. Not being 24h and not when the wind stops - these are all important details, but they are details none the less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Alexander correctly points out, this is just magical thinking. It is like singing Christmas carols and putting out a beer and a banana for Santa on December 24 to encourage his attendance at your place.
The issue of cost, for example, never crosses the child-like "minds" of renewable energy advocates or those waiting eagerly for Santa.
You do realise that almost no-one lives in those deserts you propose to cover with windmills and solar panels? That whatever trifling amount of power they might generate would have to be transported hundreds, even thousands of kilometers to the places where there are significant populations that need it? What about the cost of transmission infrastructure? Have you ever heard of power attenuation over distance of transmission?
It's like trying to teach advanced physics to pre-schoolers.
Powered by the sun of course, either direct or via wind etc.
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/obsolete-technology.html
Possibly it will be best for Britain if Labor are elected next year. The Conservatives will drop renewable energy, and Cameron, like a very hot potato in opposition. Once a mainstream party has the guts to oppose the green lobby, the writing is on the wall for policies that double the household price of electricity. That's what happened in Australia
Alexander, those are interesting but irrelevant reminiscences. Only hair-shirt types would contemplate returning to pre-electricity days. It may suit the purposes of the coal and oil lobby and their friends like your 'Bishop' to pretend that such is the goal of the IPCC (Marxists every one of them) in order to frighten the old, vulnerable or gullible, but that is just as valid as being frightened by the appearance of the bogeyman.
The energy is there in sunlight, the wind and the waves. Step outside on a sunny day if you doubt it. The scaremongering about the prospect of a cleantech world implies that modern engineering and engineers are incapable of harnessing that power. That should be an insult to an engineer. As Johanna says it is only a matter of cost (and maybe she hasn't heard of HVDC transmission). Costs are falling and as we build more they will fall further. I don't know how much fossil fuel NZ or Oz burn each year, but the EU spends 500bn Euro on importing things to burn. Every year. And paying that cost indefinitely is apparently OK by you.
How many years of investment in renewables at 500bn a year would it take to build a European HVDC grid, storage and a high percent of renewables?
As far as fossil fuel availability continuing on that depends upon investment levels in exploration just to replace what is being used. That is hugely expensive and companies can afford it only as long as investors believe they are viable. At some point the markets will decide that they are not and the money will dry up. Divestment campaigns are a small start along that road. Fossil fuels are a mature, declining industry. New money will increasingly be targeted at fast-growing clean energy. How many modern industries and retailers have you heard of investing in coal mines, fracking or oil fields to power their factories and shops? They invest in renewables because that is the future.
As for renewables doubling the price of electricity in Oz, you have likely been thoroughly indoctrinated by Abbot and his coal cronies. The Australian Energy Regulator's sixth State of the Energy Market report states that the cost of using transmission and distribution networks to transport electricity is the largest component (43−52 per cent) of retail bills, followed by wholesale energy costs (25−36 per cent). Retailer operating costs (including margins) contribute around 10 per cent of retail bills. Go here: http://www.aer.gov.au/node/18959
The wholesale energy cost of wind in Australia is about twice that of coal, solar about three times. But that is before including the cost of the extra transmission lines, and the necessity of constructing massive amounts of gas fired power to back renewables (when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing). Because renewables are only about 5%-6% of Australian power right now, additional gas capacity is not yet required, but it would be if a large proportion of power ever came from renewables.
Producing a large proportion of electricity from renewables will roughly double the household cost of power.
The budget "cuts" in Australia were necessitated by irresponsible wastage and spending by a leftist government for the past six years.
The current government has a hard/rough road ahead with a general population belief that solar and wind power are the "bee's knees".
In Australia, the left (Australian Labor Party) continues to say - "we're not as bad as Spain or Greece". They are doing their best to ensure we Aussies do steep to the levels of those sad countries.
La Buena:
10/10 for wishful thinking, and practically zero for renewable energy.
Firstly, wind and sunlight are weak sources of energy, they require vast collection areas to match conventional power stations, and being intermittent and unpredictable, require nearly 100% backup.
Yes, there are vast amounts of desert, some sandy and some gritty. Any solar collector requires very clean collectors i.e. washing dirt off frequently. Guess what is in short supply in deserts?
The cost of australian networks has been inflated over the last 10 years by renewable energy supplies; e.g. the grid supplies different voltages, with the last district step down transformer putting out power suitable for household appliances (230-240V). The PV solar panel boom (thanks to absurd FIT) pushed the output in the local areas up to 255-260V. This is enough to destroy many appliances, so the grid has had to be modified to accommodate solar. The other problem is when the sun goes behind clouds, e.g. a cold front. A massive drop in output at the district level has to be supplied urgently. The same with wind turbines, they also have to be backed up by OCGT at considerable costs in running, maintenance and emissions. The cost of electricity has gone up close to double in the last 10 years because of the push to renewables, and if you doubt that, please explain why Sth Aust. with the highest percent capacity of renewables pays far more than other states.
We would get more reduction in CO2 emissions by up-grading our coal fired stations to current german or chinese efficiencies than we would by replacing them by wind and OCGT.
And there is the cost of renewables; coal fired (including carbon tax) is $A40 a MWh ex the power station. Wind is $A90-130 and solar anywhere from $A160 - $A520. Without subsidies NO ONE would buy renewables.
Sheikh Yamani's aphorism (was it all of 40 years ago? how time flies!) that the Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones and what you might call the 'oil age' will end before we run out of oil was almost certainly correct and prophetic.
To that extent La Buena has an argument.
But as Bill and johanna both make clear there is no way that the move to the next generation of fuels can be forced either by government diktat or by neo-luddite obstructionism. If half the money currently being wasted on climate research or on subsidising the rich (yes, Sheffield, that's you I'm talking about) were directed to solving the problem of what we do when current energy sources become depleted or too expensive to exploit then we might (I say again and stress might) make some progress on safe nuclear fusion or thorium or half-a-dozen other technologies as yet undreamt of.
I stress 'might' because the history of mankind is evidence that what is these days is called the 'just in time' principle is as old as the race itself. Various sayings from 'cometh the hour, cometh the man' to 'necessity is the mother of invention' demonstrate well enough that when the time comes that new energy sources are needed, as opposed to simply wanted by the neo-luddites to make them feel warm and cosy inside while the rest of us freeze, then those new energy sources will no doubt appear.
They may well be "renewable" but not in the sense in which the word is used today. An unpredictably intermittent supply of raw material can never be a sound basis on which to build an essential component of a civilised society and wishful thinking will not make it so.
To describe fossil fuels (hydrocarbons is a better term; there is some doubt as to whether oil and gas are actually related to fossils) as a mature, declining industry is to ignore the simple fact that wind is not mature but obsolete and decayed. Solar may have a minor part to play but its best use would seem to be as a heat booster for individual buildings where its intermittence will not cause grid destabilisation.
Incidentally to suggest that our great-great-grandchildren will laugh at the way we generate energy is simply to demonstrate a lack of maturity. The only people I know who are prone to mock the way our great-great-grandfathers lived are children and the makers of pseudo-science fiction TV commercials — much the same thing really!
You are being played by fossil fuel interests in order to further their aims. Fossils if they grow at all will do so slowly; as I said, they are at or near peak. Renewables are growing exponentially and will go on doing so. That is where the smart money will increasingly go.
Do you really think spending 500bn Euros a year importing things to burn is sensible? And that 500bn doesn't include all of the fossil fuels we don't import (North Sea etc), which have a value too. Add in the cost of those and Europe is probably burning a trillion Euros a year. Do you want to burn a trillion Euros a year indefinitely? Fracking for gas, which seems to be your only answer, wouldn't change that total.
If renewables are so useless why are so many companies investing in them for their electricity supply? Why are Google and Apple and Ikea etc not investing in gas turbines?
La Buena, full marks to you for believing in magic!
Contrary to your assertion that my reminisces are irrelevant, they are, in fact, part of the history of my generation and very relevant indeed as an illustration of how affordable energy improves the lives of ordinary people. Sadly, the impractibility of wind and solar are well documented, but magic thinking such as yours has allowed an opportunity to fleece you and your fellow believers. As always, foolish beliefs are always easy to gain huge returns from, hence the growth of the solar and wind industries. Hard experience around the world is now providing examples of the impractibility of 'clean energy' at this stage of known technologies.
I suggest you do some reading about the Spanish experience with solar arrays fo starters.
Alexander K
I could add my own experiences which include heating water in a "copper" every time you wanted a bath and admiring the frost patterns on the inside of the bedroom window and we at least had electricity which my grandparents didn't.
To paraphrase Mooloo's post above, the harping on about "peak this that and the next thing" and how hydrocarbons are about to go into a terminal decline and we'd "better all get with the programme" is becoming increasingly boring.
The suggestion that we are incapable of thinking for ourselves about energy and that if we don't agree with the pronouncements of the renewables industry we must be being "played" by the fossil fuel industry I find singularly offensive.
So far I have been conducting a reasoned (I hope) debate with this Chandra-clone but not any longer.
So, La Buena, what gives you the right to accuse me of being too stupid to see that your unreliable, intermittent, subsidy-swallowing, expensive replacement for genuinely flick-the-switch-and-the-lights-go-on always available power is somehow an improvement? Is it not the case that you are being conned to within an inch of your gullibility by those who see an opportunity to milk the system of every penny they can get, allied to the neo-luddites who — whatever you might think you really believe — do want to make life harder and more unpleasant for the proles?
Or are you (and they) so stupid that you fail to understand the part that hydrocarbons play in every aspect of modern living, not least effective medication (to take just one vital example)?
There is no evidence at all that the world is running out of oil any more than there was when that pessimistic forecast was made over a century ago. The discovery of massive deposits worldwide of shale oil and gas has probably extended the life of usable hydrocarbons by about a millennium (yes, I know that pisses off the greenies but do I care?).
I know that rank pessimism is the default mode for the greenies but you would think that faced with humanity at the healthiest, wealthiest, longest-lived it has ever been they might just be starting to have second thoughts.
Come and join the optimists. It's more fun.
Mike Jackson:
+1
Alexander, put a solar panel in the sun and you get electricity or hot water, depending upon the type of panel. How much more practical can you get? With electricity and heat we can create everything else we need. Sure we need to develop better means of storage, but that is the project for the next few decades. It doesn't happen all at once. Except people like your bishop are keen to prevent that from happening (rejoice! research spending has been cut in Oz).
Mike Jackson, you are not necessarily stupid, just set in the past. Renewables are the future. As I asked before, if renewables are so useless why are so many companies investing in them for their electricity supply? Why are Google and Apple and Ikea etc not investing in gas turbines? if natural gas and fracking are so obviously superior?
La Buena. I assisted a friend to design and build a thermo-syphon solar heating unit many years ago. This was frost-protected and more efficient, despite being fabricated from stainless steel, than the best government researchers of the day could come up with using electric pumps and fabricating their unit in copper which has markedly superior thermal qualities compared with stainless steel. We backed away from production as the economics would not work for us without massive subsidies from wherever. Decades later, the unit is still producing hot water in copious quantities, even in the depths of New Zealand Winters.
So don't try to bluff me with 'practical', as you are obviously clueless practically, scientifically, economically and politically and your gullibility is of a very high order. I give you full marks for trying, but your arguments fail in every rational way.
Your arguments are pure nonsense, as are the silly arguments of any troll.
La Buena. I assisted a friend to design and build a thermo-syphon solar heating unit many years ago. This was frost-protected and more efficient, despite being fabricated from stainless steel, than the best government researchers of the day could come up with using electric pumps and fabricating their unit in copper which has markedly superior thermal qualities compared with stainless steel. We backed away from production as the economics would not work for us without massive subsidies from wherever. Decades later, the unit is still producing hot water in copious quantities, even in the depths of New Zealand Winters.
So don't try to bluff me with 'practical', as you are obviously clueless practically, scientifically, economically and politically and your gullibility is of a very high order. I give you full marks for trying, but your arguments fail in every rational way.
Your arguments are pure nonsense, as are the silly arguments of any troll.
You seem confused. You say I am "clueless practically, scientifically, economically and politically" and yet...
You built a system that from your description works very well, has no apparent drawbacks and gives you free hot water long after the investment has paid off (or maybe written off in your case). So practicality is no problem.
The science behind the idea that the sun provides enough energy to power the whole world many times over is undeniable. And capturing and transporting that energy is well understood scientifically. So the science is no problem.
The economics of production depend upon quantities. You and your friend might not have been able to sell enough bespoke systems to make it pay, NZ is a small market. But economies of scale work wonders - just look at the trajectory of PV prices. So the economics need not be a problem.
Providing hot water for many decades with no fuel cost seem an easy sell if the price is right. So the politics is no problem.
The thing is that rich countries haven't bothered with solar water heaters or efficiency or insulation or whatever because oil, gas and coal were cheap and they are rich. Now that fuels are no longer so cheap people get upset. But fuels are not going to get any cheaper.
If you went to a poor country like Turkey 20 years ago you'd have found solar heaters on seemingly every roof. They couldn't afford fuel but the sun is free.
Sigh!!
I should not require reminding, at my age, of the pointlessness of arguing with zealots. But I forgot, thought the chap was trying to engage, but obviously, all he wanted was to shout his opinions, regardless of evidence.
Alexander, you obviously do thing that Europe burning a trillion Euros a year indefinitely is a sensible idea, though it is beyond me why. And you are (like everyone else) unable to explain why Google, Apple, Ikea, Walmart and a host of other big companies are investing in solar or wind and not in gas turbines, when according to many here natural gas and fracking the future.You should consider whether natural gas will not in fact be the fuel of the future.