It is past time that Wiki correct a significant factual error and tone down the bias of its entry for The Institute for Energy Research. I and others have failed to persuade them. This post is dedicated to the same attempt at fairness.

In my social media discussions and debates, my opponents do a quick check on the Institute for Energy Research (IER) to fire back at my criticisms. One from this week follows, an exchange prompted by a mention of “Deadwood Releasing 10.9 Gigatons of Carbon Every Year – More Than All Fossil Fuel Emissions Combined“:

Bradley: Leave fossil fuels alone then…. Energy density is key.

Paul Bryan: EXACTLY the fallacious argument that the propaganda was designed to promote. Well done! But hardly surprising coming from IER:

“IER is often described as a front group for the fossil fuel industry. It was initially formed by Charles Koch, receives donations from many large companies like Exxon, and publishes a stream of reports and position papers opposing any efforts to control greenhouse gasses.” – Wikipedia Entry for IER

Bradley: First, why ad hominem?

“For those who love the great outdoors and make a conscious effort to conserve our natural resources, here is a place to share news and articles about how wind turbines threaten the things we hold dear.”

It has 1,500 followers and deserves a million five. Environmentalists Against Wind Turbines (EAWP) is a great resource for national and international developments regarding the fits and perils of industrial wind turbines. This site offers a few original commentary posts but is mostly publication news that is of great service to the pro-landscape, pro-energy, pro-free-market energy community.

Kudos to Christine Morabito for her administration of the site. Thank the members for posting news updates.

The About section reads:

For those who love the great outdoors and make a conscious effort to conserve our natural resources, here is a place to share news and articles about how wind turbines threaten the things we hold dear.

Ed. Note: This interview with Robert L. Bradley Jr. by Jane Shaw Stroup appeared earlier this week at the Liberty and Ecology website of the Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research. Comments are welcomed, including new questions to clarify the role of nuclear power in a free economy.

Q1. What role should nuclear power have in the years ahead?

A. “Let the market decide” is the straightforward classical-liberal, free-market answer. This means government neutrality in terms of not subsidizing or penalizing one energy technology versus another to determine what, when, where.

The decision to build new capacity, or the decision to operate-versus-retire, should be based on stand-alone economics, without government favor or penalty.

Q2. Under this standard, what is the future of nuclear in the energy mix as far as new capacity?

Ed. Note: This post from 12 years ago recounts the political origins of the Texas wind power boom. It is also the prehistory of the Great Texas Blackout of February 2021. Note that critics of Texas’s intervention warned of reliability problems.

“Texas is the nation’s leader in wind energy thanks to our long-term commitment to bolstering renewable energy sources and diversifying the state’s energy portfolio.”

– Rick Perry, Texas Governor

“Our representatives [in the Texas Legislature] now have less than six weeks to pass the best of nearly 100 bills that have been introduced on clean power and green jobs. These energy efficiency and renewable energy bills set the stage for rebuilding, repowering and renewing our state’s economy during tough times. They will build a sustainable future for Texas.”

– Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Public Citizen, April 2009

As reported by Russell Gold in the Wall Street Journal, (April 23, 2009), Texas, which has the strictest renewable energy mandate in the country, is about to increase its quota for the third time.