United States electricity prices are rising rapidly, up 18.1 percent over the last two years. Renewable-energy advocates claim that wind and solar installations produce cheaper electricity than traditional power plants, but power prices are rising as more wind and solar is added to the grid. In fact, electricity prices are soaring in leading wind-energy states.

Over a 12-year period, from 2008 to 2020, U.S. average electricity prices rose only 8 percent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This was much lower than the inflation rate of 20 percent over the same period. But power prices rose 5 percent from 2020 to 2021 and an additional 12.5 percent last year. Most of this rise was due to rising U.S. inflation, but the share of electricity generated from wind also rose, from 8.4 percent in 2020 to 10.2 percent in 2022.

Headlines announce that electricity generated from renewables is lower cost. Scientific American stated in 2017, “Wind Energy is One of the Cheapest Sources of Electricity, and It’s Getting Cheaper.” In October 2020, Bloomberg announced that “Wind and Solar Are the Cheapest Power Source in Most Places.”

It is true that the cost of building U.S. wind and solar generating facilities has come down. Wind construction costs are down about 20 percent since 2013, and solar construction costs have fallen more than 50 percent, both approaching the costs for natural gas power plants. But construction costs are only part of the cost of electricity generation.

Electricity prices in states with the highest penetration of wind systems are rising faster than the national average. U.S. average electricity prices rose 27 percent from 2008 to 2022. But in eight of the top 12 wind states, power prices rose between 33 and 73 percent over the 14-year period. Prices rose in Iowa (36%), Kansas (54%), Illinois (33%), Colorado (37%), California (73%), Minnesota (53%), Nebraska (37%) and Washington (35%), which are the number 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 leading states in terms of electricity generated from wind, respectively. Price increases were lower than average in Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota and New Mexico, the other four leading wind states. The data shows that deployments of wind systems produce higher electricity prices.

In Europe, the nations with the most wind and solar capacity deployed, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Spain and Sweden, experience the highest residential electricity prices. Residents of Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania, where few renewables are deployed, pay half as much per kilowatt-hour as the leading renewable countries. Denmark and Germany have deployed over 1,600 watts per person of wind and solar, the highest density in Europe. Electricity prices for Denmark (29 eurocents per kilowatt-hour) and Germany (32 eurocents/kW-hr) are the highest in Europe, and two-and-a-half times the prices in the U.S., where renewable penetration remains lower. In Europe, like the United States, wind (and solar) deployments raise electricity prices.

Wind systems increase electricity prices in three ways. First, wind intermittency raises power prices. Wind system electricity output can vary between full-rated output to near zero within a period of only a few hours. Wind systems typically produce between 25 percent and 40 percent of rated output. In 2020, U.S. power plant utilization levels were nuclear (92.5%), natural gas (56.6%), hydroelectric (41.5%), coal (40.2%), wind (35.4%) and solar photovoltaic (24.9%).

The intermittency of wind and solar means that, if always-on electricity is to be supplied, reliable coal, natural gas and nuclear generators must be maintained as wind and solar systems are added to the power grid. Power system operators know that up to 90 percent of the capacity of traditional generators must remain operational to prevent system blackouts. Therefore, addition of renewables boosts both the capacity and the number of needed systems, raising the cost of electricity.

Second, backup coal and natural gas systems must be run at lower utilization rates as operators push for higher percentages of renewable output. The low utilization levels for coal and natural gas systems in 2020 mentioned above are because these systems are scaled back in favor of wind and solar output. Backup systems are not able to operate profitably at low utilization levels, raising system costs and electricity prices.

Third, wind (and solar) systems require more and longer transmission power lines than traditional power plants. Coal, gas and nuclear plants are located near population centers and tend to be large-capacity plants. These plants can be connected to the grid with relatively short, high-capacity transmission lines. Wind systems tend to be located in remote areas, such as on ridge lines, often far from cities. Wind and solar are spread out over wide areas and require 100 times the land of traditional plants. Longer transmission systems over wide areas need to be deployed for wind and solar, raising system costs and electricity prices.

As more wind systems are added to the power grid, residents should prepare for soaring electricity prices.

Much of what the homosexual community (i.e., those who choose to place their unchosen homoerotic desires at the center of their identity) claims is false, and increasingly they’re being forced to admit their claims are false. Some of these claims may have been born out of ignorance, others out of a deliberate strategy to deceive. For example, for decades the myth that homosexuals constitute 10 percent of the population continued to be disseminated by homosexuals and their ideological allies long after the statistic had been thoroughly discredited. It was used to promote implicitly the idiotic and destructive idea that the number of people engaging in an act or affirming an “identity” indicates something about the morality of the act or “identity.”

Perhaps the most destructive myth still being promoted has two parts, both false. The first part is that homosexuality is a fixed and heritable condition. The second part says that since homoerotic interest is fixed and biochemically determined, it cannot be transmitted via the environment. Only those born with the determinative biochemical factors will experience homoerotic attraction—or so the homosexual community asserts. This false belief resulted in homosexuals mocking conservatives for their concern that exposure to positive ideas about and images of homosexuality may result in an increase in homoerotic activity.

Now, however, we know there is no single gene for homosexuality. A “genome-wide association study” published in the professional journal Science on August 30, 2019 has made a big media splash for confirming what has long been assumed by scientists: There is no “gay” gene. Unlike skin color or biological sex, homoerotic desire is not biologically determined.

In fact, the researchers (apparently reluctantly) made two interesting admissions. First, they admitted that the genes that may influence same-sex attraction also influence other predispositions:

These aggregate genetic influences partly overlapped with those on a variety of other traits, including…. smoking, cannabis use, risk-taking, and the personality trait “openness to experience.”

Might cannabis-use, risk-taking, and openness to experience lead to experimentation with diverse forms of sexual deviance?

Second, they admitted the influence of environment:

Our study focused on the genetic basis of same-sex sexual behavior, but several of our results point to the importance of sociocultural context as well. We observed changes in prevalence of reported same-sex sexual behavior across time, raising questions about how genetic and sociocultural influences on sexual behavior might interact.

The prevalence of homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome and in Japan during the Tokugawa period was not a function of an altered gene pool or other biochemical differences but, rather, of differences in cultural views.

Sara Reardon writing in Scientific American explained in layman’s terms more about what the research team did and what their study reveals:

They asked more than 477,000 participants whether they had ever had sex with someone of the same sex, and also questions about sexual fantasies and the degree to which they identified as gay or straight.

The researchers found five single points in the genome that seemed to be common among people who had had at least one same-sex experience…. But taken together, these five markers explained less than 1 percent of the differences in sexual activity among people in the study. When the researchers looked at the overall genetic similarity of individuals who had had a same-sex experience, genetics seemed to account for between 8 and 25 percent of the behavior. The rest was presumably a result of environmental or other biological influences.

Despite the associations, the authors say that the genetic similarities still cannot show whether a given individual is gay. “It’s the end of the ‘gay gene,’” says Eric Vilain, a geneticist at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study….

The authors say that they did see links between sexual orientation and sexual activity, but concede that the genetic links do not predict orientation.

Here’s an odd bit of political rhetoric highlighted in the scientific study itself:

The topic explored in this study is complex and intersects with sexuality, identity, and attraction and potentially has civil and political implications for sexual minority groups. Therefore, we have… [e]ngaged with LGBTQIA+ advocacy groups nationally and within our local institutions…. We wish to make it clear that our results overwhelmingly point toward the richness and diversity of human sexuality. Our results do not point toward a role for discrimination on the basis of sexual identity or attraction, nor do our results make any conclusive statements about the degree to which “nature” and “nurture” influence sexual preference.

Why would politically neutral, objective hard science researchers engage with “LGBTQIA+” activists about their research at all? And why include references to intersectionality, “sexual minority groups,” “richness,” and “discrimination”? They explained that the reason for their momentary deviation from science was that “there is a long history of misusing genetic results for social purposes.”

I couldn’t agree more. The homosexual and anti-life communities have long misused genetic results and theories to advance their pernicious cultural agendas.

Many academicians, including homosexual scholars, also claim that the long-promoted notion that “sexual orientation” is fixed is false. Dr. Lisa Diamond, lesbian professor of psychology at the University of Utah (who received her degrees from Cornell University and the University of Chicago) is just one homosexual scholar who argues that “sexual orientation” is fluid. And “Queer Theory” has long affirmed the fluidity of “sexual orientation.”

But mainstream journalists either haven’t been aware of these ideas about “sexual orientation” or realized the political implications of them and feared the response from the tyrannical “LGBTQ” community if they exposed them.

We know that ideas and images can influence desire and volitional acts. Homosexuals have been wrong, and conservatives have not been concerned enough about the influence of pro-homosexual ideas and the pervasiveness of positive images of homosexuality in network and streaming shows, movies, advertising, newspapers, magazines, pornography, and government schools.

The misdirection or disordering of the sex drive can result from abuse as well as exposure to both ideas and images. The extirpation of the taboo against homoerotic acts opened the door to intellectual exploration of the desirability of homoerotic acts as well as experimentation. We will see more homosexual activity and relationships in “civilized” countries that have exalted subjectivism, radical autonomy, sexual libertinism, and rebellion against social norms, while undermining the nuclear family, theological orthodoxy, the notion of a common public good, and sexual taboos.

Let’s look at pornography for a better understanding of the effect of culture on the spread of body-, soul-, and family-destroying sexual deviance.

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation reports that

Fraternity men who consumed mainstream pornography expressed a greater intent to commit rape if they knew they would not be caught than those who did not consume pornography. Those who consumed sadomasochistic pornography expressed significantly less willingness to intervene in situations of sexual violence, greater belief in rape myths, and greater intent to commit rape.

Men were not born with a biochemically determined predilection for rape. Men, like women, are born with a fallen nature that makes them vulnerable to all sorts of sinful desires and acts. Ideas and images can shape the direction of our sinful acts. The sex drive is a powerful impulse that can be misdirected toward diverse inappropriate objects and activities.

Now that the culture at large has embraced first homosexuality as an immutable “identity” that can’t be judged and then homoerotic activity as morally benign, it won’t easily relinquish the pleasures of hedonism when foundational lies that led to acceptance are exposed. That this anti-culture movement has flourished based on a foundation of lies won’t matter to a non-rational society.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Can-Homosexuality-Spread-Via-Culture.mp3

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Chicago Tribune columnist, lifestyle expert, and purveyor of deep thoughts, Heidi Stevens, is taking singer Kelly Clarkson to task  for Clarkson’s admission that she spanks her children. Stevens makes her argument by use of an analogy (“Progressives” really need to work on that skill). Stevens wrote the following:

“Here’s where we play swap-the-person-getting-hit. Let’s say you’re talking to a friend, relative, neighbor, acquaintance from church — any grown-up, really — and you get on the topic of marriage. Let’s say you’re exchanging anecdotes about the ups and downs, the frustrations, the disagreements that occur when you’re sharing a home and a life with a spouse. And let’s say the grown-up tells you, “I just slap my wife when she’s really upsetting me.” Or, “When I really want to teach my husband a lesson, I hit him.” I would find a lot wrong with that. I think most of us would. No amount of domestic violence is socially acceptable. We frown on all of it. Why on earth should we accept a lower bar for children?… I’m frankly astounded that it’s not outlawed in the United States.”

How about we now play swap-the-consequence-for-misbehavior.

Let’s say you’re talking to any grown-up and you get on the topic of marriage. And let’s say the grown-up tells you, “I just put my wife in time-out when she’s really upsetting me. She must sit on a stool facing the wall until I tell her time-out is over. If she gets up before time-out is over, I physically return her to the stool.” Or, “when I really want to teach my wife a lesson, I take away her television privileges or prohibit her from leaving the house for two weeks other than to go to the grocery store or take the kids to school.” Or, “if my wife says something rude, I require her to apologize and give me a hug.  Then I draw up a behavior contract that establishes that further disrespect will result in the loss of her cell phone.”

I would find a lot wrong with that. I think most of us would. No amount of domestic oppression is socially acceptable. Why on earth should we accept a lower bar for children? I’m frankly astounded that time-out, grounding, compulsory apologies, and behavioral contracts are not outlawed in the United States.

It should be obvious that it’s silly at best to compare methods of discipline of children to modes of conduct between husbands and wives.

With faith-filled fervor, Stevens cited glowingly a 2016 meta-analysis of spanking research and solicited quotes from lead author Elizabeth  T. Gershoff who says that the “evidence against spanking is one of the most consistent findings in the field of psychology.” Curiously, Stevens doesn’t cite any criticism of Gershoff’s meta-analysis, like one appearing in Scientific American in which Melinda Wenner Moyer wrote this:

[A]lthough the new analysis did attempt to separate the effects of spanking from those of physical tactics that are considered harsher, research has shown that many parents who spank also use other forms of punishment—so “you’re still not really isolating spanking from overall abusiveness,” explains Christopher Ferguson, a psychologist at Stetson University in Florida. In other words, the negative effects associated with spanking could still be driven in part by parents’ use of other tactics.

The new analysis also did not completely overcome the lumping problem: It considered slapping and hitting children anywhere on the body as synonymous with spanking but these actions might have distinct effects. Some research also suggests that the effects of spanking differ depending on the reasons parents spank, how frequently they do so and how old children are at the time—so the conclusion from the meta-analysis that spanking itself is dangerous may be overly simplistic. “I think it’s irresponsible to make exclusive statements one way or another,” Ferguson says.

Finally, the associations reported in the meta-analysis between spanking and negative outcomes did not control for the potential mediating effects of other variables, which raises the chicken-or-egg question: Are kids spanked because they act out or do they act out because they are spanked—or both? (Even longitudinal studies don’t completely resolve this problem, because behavioral problems may worsen over time regardless of spanking’s effects.) To rule out the possibility that spanking is only associated with bad outcomes because poorly behaved kids are the ones getting spanked, researchers can use statistical methods to control for the influence of temperament and preexisting behavioral characteristics—but these methods are difficult to employ in meta-analyses, and the new analysis did not attempt such a feat. Ferguson did try to control for the effects of preexisting child behavior in a 2013 meta-analysis he published of the longitudinal studies on this issue; when he did, “spanking’s effects became trivial,” he says. As a further demonstration of the importance of careful statistical controls, Robert Larzelere, a psychologist at Oklahoma State University, and his colleagues reported in a 2010 study that grounding and psychotherapy are linked just as strongly to bad behavior as spanking is but that all the associations disappear with the use of careful statistical controls. 

For those who have a tad more confidence in Scripture than in woefully unstable social science—which has become the ever-shifting bible of contemporary American culture—here are some words of wisdom from New Testament professor Walter Frederick Adeney who died at age 71 in 1920:

The primitive rigour of the Book of Proverbs is repudiated by modern manners…. people reject the old harsh methods, and endeavor to substitute milder means of correction. No doubt there was much that was more than rough, even brutal, in the discipline of our forefathers. The relation between father and child was too often lacking in sympathy through the undue exercise of parental authority, and society generally was hardened rather than purged by pitiless forms of punishment. But now the question is whether we are not erring towards the opposite extreme… and failing to let our children feel the need of some painful discipline. We idolize comfort, and we are in danger of thinking pain to be worse than sin. It may be well, therefore, to consider some of the disadvantages of neglecting the old-fashioned methods of chastisement. 

A properly administered spanking (e.g., a swat on the bum) is neither an act of violence nor a beating, and children are not adults.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Chicago-Tribune-Columnist-Wants-To-Outlaw-Spanking_01.mp3

IFI depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

-and, please-