Ed. Note: With yesterday’s background, Part II examines the politicization of one of Alaska’s major hydroelectric projects to reveal ulterior motives from “stakeholders” and elected officials.

“Once an RPS becomes law, the boards will be able to point to the new law in effect requiring them to adopt unreliable and expensive sources and be held harmless once things start to spiral out of control, up to and including rolling brownouts and blackouts.”

“Pumped energy storage is only necessary as a mitigating backup to the planned 100% unreliable not-so renewables. The Renewable Portfolio Standard will mandate a government-subsidized solar, wind and transmission build-out by grifters and profiteers. Wind and solar power producers should be made to pay for all infrastructure that makes them as reliable as a gas turbine.”

For environmental groups and their political carriers, the question is how to expand wind and solar power in the state, the very resources that are dilute, intermittent, fragile, expensive, and taxpayer-dependent.…

“City leaders should stop pretending Houston will, or should, transition away from oil and gas anytime soon…. Houston should embrace its role in sustaining and improving the lives of literally billions of people globally each day. It’s a legacy worth standing up for… and even celebrating.” (Doug Sheridan, below)

Hyperbole and government subsidies (bribes, to critics) is the lifeline for inferior energies (think dilute, intermittent, resource-intensive wind and solar). Such as been the case since the 1990s in Houston, Texas when Ken Lay of Enron Corp. empowered executive Robert Kelly to create a new renewables business, a story told here.

And shame-on-shame that some Houston business leaders that should know better have embraced low-density, political energies. I am thinking of Bobby Tutor, chair of the Houston Energy Transition Initiative, and Steve Kean of the Greater Houston Partnership.…

“Funny thing. The climate alarmists’ favorite energies–wind and solar–have ruined the margins of nuclear to cause premature retirements and a lack of private funding for new construction. So the fossil-fuel haters in the nuclear camp find themselves victimized by the climate crusade. It sure is hard being ‘nuclear green’.”

Being active on social media with several thousand followers, I actively engage with my critics for fun and profit. I learn much, and those who have chosen to follow me (6,400+) might also. But I have also attracted scorn, some of the worst kind. My foes are typically wed to an energy dependent on special government failure. The ideological, deep-ecology, Church-of-Climate types spare little invective about how I am a threat to the future. Arguments failing, ad hominem often follows,

I employ plenty of analysis and link to a variety of sources.…

“And this is just the beginning. Large-scale deployment of ‘renewables’ will result in an ecological disaster.” (Hans Wolkers, PhD., below)

Climate alarmists are having a hard time on the business social media giant LinkedIn. Previous posts have documented the one-sided alarmism of Skeptical Science; a case of climate thuggery; an ad hominem backfire; time-series data evasion; ExxonMobil “whistleblowing“; and Greenpeace and Enron.

It is time to add to this list. The Climate Reality Project posted this message and picture on LinkedIn:

We have a responsibility to lead the way in advocating for hashtag#cleanenergy and climate action. Together, we will create a brighter future for ourselves and generations to come. hashtag#LeadOnClimate hashtag#saveourplanet

I responded: “That child must wonder about industrializing the green space. Pretty gross….”…