Solar Power Producer Says Program Is Increasing Nitrogen Oxide Pollution

One of the biggest and funniest ironies in the climate alarmist cult is the fact that the solutions they present, at least with regards to alternative energy, are not only unnecessary and unable to replace the capabilities of natural gas and coal, but also have a tendency to severely backfire on the supposed intentions of their implementation.
 
What do I mean? Well, recently, Duke Energy, a North Carolina energy company, asked for a waiver of the state’s emission standards because its solar program releases more pollution into the atmosphere than its natural gas production does.
 
According to North State Journal: “A seven-month investigation and numerous public information requests have revealed the move to increase solar power might be leading to an increase in the very emissions alternative energy sources aim to reduce. Duke spokeswoman Kim Crawford confirmed that increased solar power on the state’s electric grid is increasing emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx), a dangerous air pollutant. She said that reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could also reverse if current solar growth continues without policy changes.”
 
So let me get this straight: solar energy, one of the alternative energy sources the Left pines for and claims is a far better alternative to fossil fuels, natural gas, etc., not only emits an air pollutant in nitrogen oxide, which can cause asthma in children and other respiratory problems in vulnerable populations, as well as contributing to smog and acid rain, according to The American Lung Association, but it could also reverse reductions of CO2 if the program continues to grow without any sort of policy changes?
 
The very energy source that is SUPPOSED to reduce carbon emissions could do the exact opposite of its original intent if it only continues to grow, AND it could emit a lot more nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere?
 
The irony is too rich.
 
Returning to the North State Journal, “Under its current permits in the heavily regulated market, Duke must completely shut down the backup combustion turbines when solar peaks under a full sun, then restart them when the sun recedes… Without any solar power in the mix, ‘a typical combined cycle combustion turbine emits NOx at approximately 9-11 lb/hr., assuming 24 hours of ‘normal’ operation,’ Crawford said. That is equivalent to 264 pounds of NOx emissions daily. When those same plants are operated to supplement solar power facilities, daily emissions more than double to 624 pounds a day, based on a table in Dukes application.”
 
So when combustion turbines work without supplementing solar, that is considerably better for the environment than when it does supplement solar energy? Forgive me, I might actually laugh out loud.
 
But wait, there’s another problem with solar. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Federal biologists say about 6,000 birds die from collisions or immolation annually while chasing flying insects around the [Mojave Desert] facility’s three 40-story towers, which catch sunlight from five square miles of garage-door-size mirrors to drive the plant’s power-producing turbines.”
 
So not only does solar emit more nitrogen oxide and have the capability of reversing reductions in CO2, its chief objective (at least according to the media), but it also stands to kill birds and perhaps other animals because it fries them?
 
I already knew that wind power turbines were a massive hazard for birds, as a 2013 Forbes magazine article reported those things kill around 600,000 birds every year, with that number possibly being higher due to wind companies not having the obligation of publicly stating how many birds their turbines kill each year, but solar is also a considerable hazard for birds too?
 
Don’t take my tone of writing to mean that I am happy over this fact. Killing that many birds every year has to be pretty damaging for the ecosystem, at least long term if these numbers are sustained. But I just find it incredibly ironic that wind and solar, which are the Left’s most popular forms of energy production, have so many drawbacks with so few benefits.
 
Not that that should be in any way unexpected. Socialism itself is nothing but drawbacks and the Left is all in favor of it. But I just find it interesting, if not exactly totally unexpected, that the more we find out about things the Left loves, the more we find out just how horrible they are.
 
Wind and solar, apart from not being able to produce anywhere near as much energy as fossil fuels, natural gas or even nuclear can, also have their fair share of polluting of the planet and harm to the environment.
 
Again, none of this is really unexpected, but it is important to note when there are real examples of the sort of mess the Left wants for us. I point out the failures of socialism in Venezuela, China, etc., not because I’m in any way surprised by such failures but to point out that that’s what they lead to.
 
Similarly, while not really anything here regarding solar is much of a surprise to me, the part about nitrogen oxide is a bit new to me and just another arrow in my quiver. Solar energy, apart from the fact that it comes nowhere close to achieving the same amount of energy production as natural gas, is considerably harmful for the environment, which is not something that is ever going to be reported by the fake news media.
 
You will never hear about the amount of birds wind turbines kill each year. And keep in mind that article from Forbes was from 2013 – 6 years ago. Assuming that base 600,000 birds number to be true and consistent, over the past 6 years, 3.6 million birds have been killed due to wind turbines. And again, that’s AT MINIMUM because not all wind energy farmers publicly report bird deaths (I wonder why).
 
Likewise, you will never hear about the polluting damage that solar can cause because these two alternative energy sources are the go-to sources for the climate alarmist cult. They disavow nuclear because of Chernobyl (weird how they don’t disavow communism because of Chernobyl), so they fight against that source, and think natural gas is killing the planet. Yet, we see that the sources they laud as being “planet savers” are far worse options for the environment and for modern societies.
 
This is really just another example of how fraudulent the climate alarmist movement truly is. Taking aside the apocalyptic and pessimistic warnings they send out every single day of every single year, the very energy sources they wish to adopt would only harm people and the planet.
 
Again, that’s not really surprising considering the people peddling for this are the same people who support the most devastating and horrible ideology known to man: socialism.
 
2 Thessalonians 3:2
“And that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men. For not all have faith.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.