Part of Grid Network »

The Transmission Professionals special interest group covers the distribution of power from generation to final destination. 


Are conservationists the biggest threat to our climate?

image credit: Photo 24650084 / Energy © Huating |
Henry Craver's picture
Small Business Owner , Self-employed

As a small business owner, I'm always trying to find ways to cut costs and boost the dependability of my services. To that end, I've become increasingly invested in learning about energy saving...

  • Member since 2018
  • 839 items added with 394,680 views
  • Nov 9, 2022

There are a lot of people who don't believe climate change is that big of a deal. Some of them acknowledge that it's real, but don't think climate change mitigation should ever be valued over economic interests and energy independence. Others just deny the whole thing together, or claim that it isn't caused by human activity. Conservationists, by and large, fall into neither of those categories. On the contrary, I think a poll would find that conservationists are disproportionately concerned with climate change and interested in slowing it. 

This fact is what makes it so frustrating to read, time and time again, that conservationist groups oppose important transmission projects. The latest example of this phenomena I've seen comes out of Australia:

"A controversial project to construct 8 kilometres of overhead power transmission lines in Kosciuszko National Park for the Snowy 2.0 project has been given the green light.  

The powerlines are set to be built west of Talbingo Reservoir to connect the Snowy 2.0 project to the National Electricity Market at Nurenmerenmong, east of Tumbarumba. "

Luckily, in this case it seems the conservationists won't have their way. Unfortunately that's not always the case. In the U.S. transmission projects are often slowed down, if not completely derailed, by the lobbying of conservationists. The paradox, of course, is that accelerated transmission development a prerequisite to cutting emissions and mitigating climate change.  

Mark Silverstone's picture
Mark Silverstone on Nov 10, 2022

NIMBY is alive and well, regardless, as you say, with respect to both transmission and generation. Note the opposition to wind projects off Nantucket, Massachusetts, ostensibly from local pseudo-conservationists.

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Nov 10, 2022

So if one objects to paving over the environment  with renewable energy machines and supporting infrastructure, then what? Those objecting must be the enemy?

The underlying fundamentals of the green energy movement are essentially religious dogma. Namely,  CO2 controls the climate and man can control the planet’s CO2 levels. In both cases, vastly more complex processes are in play, thus rendering the dogma as essentially nothing more than marketing claims to enrich the few at the expense of the many.

Seems to me the motto of the green energy movement is: we had to destroy the environment to save the planet.

Richard McCann's picture
Richard McCann on Nov 10, 2022

The question is whether distributed energy resources and energy efficiency is more cost effective than a grid-scale project with added transmission. Too often utility planners fail to consider these alternatives because the companies don't make money from them. In California, rooftop solar took nearly 20% off of the peak load since 2006 but the utilities are unwilling to acknowledge this impact.

Randy Long's picture
Randy Long on Nov 11, 2022

Have you heard of "BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Never Again?" The legal/regulatory/compliance industrial complex is a detriment to progress. CEQA/NEPA are weapons now to prevent any type development or progress for ANY infrastructure. I used to admire "tree huggers", but they've gotten to a point where their aims and means are counter productive. My 2 cents...

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Nov 14, 2022

I am not so sure large scale projects in the U.S. are even possible theses days, for a variety of reasons.

The biggest obstacle lies with the stupefying wall of regulations that gets higher every year. These regulations massively increase costs and schedule durations, both directly and indirectly (litigation of various types). Easier to just to go offshore somewhere (3rd world) and build the facilities.

Henry Craver's picture
Thank Henry for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network® is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »