I just got a Clean Energy Option selection form from my power company. Guess what?

No surprises here. Of course I am not going to tell Potomac Edison to get my electricity from "Clean Energy Option, a supplier of 100% wind and solar power." Unlike most of the idiots in Maryland -- we call them "Democrats" -- I realize that the sun shines only about half the day, and less than half of that time provides useful energy generation, which means you can't rely on it. And the wind doesn't blow all the time, which means you can't rely on it. And that the power from those two sources gets massive federal subsidies, which means you can't rely on it. The feds giveth and the feds taketh away. So I have no intention of going down that path, no matter how much the state and feds want me to.

Besides, the mailer made two things pretty clear. First, not much would change with respect to energy generation in the state, and choosing the "green" option was stupid. Even with the subsidies, the "Clean Energy Option" mailer was forced to admit in the "Frequently Asked Questions" section what I already knew. Out of six Q&A's in this section, four of them assured me that Potomac Edison would be providing my electricity no matter what. How will it do that? By maintaining fossil fuel sources of electricity to supply most of the state's power, including enough such sources to replace the so-called "green" sources of power for when those "green sources" aren't actually providing any power, which is most of the time.

And one of the Q&A's assured me that I "can switch back at any time at no cost and with no interruption of service." Why did they feel the need to inform me of that? Because of what the sixth Q&A revealed:

Q. What will happen to my electricity bills?
A. In short, supporting new renewable energy development costs a little more than delivering polluting energy. That's because the energy you are choosing is better for you and the planet. When you add more renewable energy to the electric grid, you are reducing toxic waste and air pollution, making the world a healthier place with cleaner air. 

What's that? My power bill will be higher? Electricity is already expensive in Maryland. I'm sure it has nothing to do with our nanny state government always trying to control market forces. Of course, the mailer didn't mention how much "a little more" is, which is wise considering that we already pay about 20 percent more than the national average. Perhaps First Energy was worried that truth-telling might lead them to acknowledging that the road they are urging people to take could lead here:

The South Australian Government been forced to beg fossil fuel operators to bring mothballed plants back online, to contain wild swings in electricity spot price caused by unstable renewable production, prices which last month peaked at $14,000 / MWh – up from more normal prices of $100 / MWh which prevailed before political favouritism towards renewables messed up the market.

But hey, who doesn't want "sustainable" energy?

The mailer also declined to acknowledge several other salient facts that kind of undermine the myth of "clean renewable energy." First, in Maryland, there are no wide open deserts of the sort ideally suited for solar power farms. Perhaps this is why First Energy, the parent company of Potomac Edison, which provides my electricity, according to a Q&A section on its website, owns no solar power generation capacity and has no plans to develop any:

Q. I have the very best property for a wind or solar farm. Who can I talk to about leasing my property or partnering with the Company?
A. The FE operating companies do not own generation and are not looking for locations to site any generation.

So they buy it from elsewhere. Except they don't, because availability is limited. But they pretend to, and they charge you more for your power even though it probably comes from coal or natural gas. It's not like you can direct energy to the user based on its source.

They also don't mention that solar power farms fry birds by the thousands ever year. Might dampen your green-energy enthusiasm.

As for wind power, the turbines kill birds prodigiously. Also, the best wind power sites are hard to get to, making maintenance a problem. And, or course, wind turbine failures tend to be kind of spectacular, as anyone who has had a ceiling fan get out of balance can attest:

No, really:

So, yeah, I opted to stop the madness. Now if only Maryland would allow First Energy to build another nuclear power plant.

Al Gore is a dick. And he's a dick who's wrong and knows fuck all about anything.

There, I said it. This is something I've been sitting on for a while, but in light of recent developments, I thought I should share it:

The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’
Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.
But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

When they started, the climate alarmists said that if we didn't do "something" soon, in 100 years the Earth would warm more than 3 degrees. Nobody fucking cared, because we'll all be dead in 100 years and nobody could see a problem. After all, that happens every spring, and nobody seems to mind. So they tried to shorten the time frame. Assholes like Al Gore started claiming that weather was more extreme and there were more tornadoes and hurricanes right now because of global warming. But the numbers didn't back them up -- there aren't more tornadoes or hurricanes, or other extreme weather events, and in fact we are in a low period for tornadoes and hurricanes. So assholes like Al Gore started claiming about seven years ago that the Arctic ice cap would be gone during summer by this year if we didn't do "something."

Yeah, well, suck it. The "something" always involves the United Nations or some other world government body governing how much fossil fuel energy we use, or how much this, or how much that. The solution is always the same -- the UN or some new world body governing what developed nations do, restricting their use of energy or other natural resources. No matter what the "problem" is, the answer is always a worldwide scheme to regulate things. Weird, huh?

Well, assholes like Al Gore are assholes, and they''re wrong:

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.
This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.
Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

The Arctic ice cap, which was shrinking during the summer due to a number of factors unrelated to temperature, including winds and currents, is now growing, due to a number of factors unrelated to temperature. We only have reliable numbers on the extent of Arctic sea ice beginning in 1979 -- the start of the satellite era of observation -- and so it is really not possible to discuss genuine long-term trends. Suffice to say that assholes like Al Gore, who are profiting tremendously from their climate alarmism, are wrong. And assholes.

Notice all the weasel words this fuck uses to qualify his prediction: "some of the models suggest," "75 percent chance," etc. He refuses to actually predict what he's predicting. The dickwad doesn't actually believe what he's saying. If he did, he'd be going full-bore for nuclear power, which has no carbon dioxide emissions at all and could provide all of our electricity needs. Funny how he's not doing that, isn't it?