From article The Energy Transition Is a Delusion Indeed. Benjamin Zycher. March 27. 2023.
The “energy transition” continues to receive thunderous applause from all the usual Beltway suspects, an exercise in groupthink fantasy amazing to behold.
For those with actual lives to live and thus uninterested in silliness: THE “ENERGY TRANSITION” IS A MASSIVE SHIFT, WHOLLY ARTIFICIAL AND POLITICIZED, from conventional energy inexpensive, reliable, and very clean given the proper policy environment, toward such unconventional energy technologies as wind and solar power.
…
SOLAR AND WIND POWER ARE EXPENSIVE, UNRELIABLE, AND DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC ENVIRONMENTALLY in terms of toxic metal pollution, wildlife destruction, land use massive and unsightly, emissions of conventional pollutants, and in a larger context large and inexorable reductions in aggregate wealth and thus the social willingness to invest in environmental protection.
…
But the Beltway being what it is, the fantasists are impervious to reality, until the massive costs and dislocations and absurdities become impossible to ignore, witness the problems in California.
Even as they backtrack on THEIR CONFIDENT ASSERTIONS A MODERN ECONOMY CAN BE POWERED WITH THE ENERGY EQUIVALENT OF PIXIE DUST, they argue the emerging problems are little more than growing pains attendant upon short run rigidities, and all will be well given some more time, more subsidies, and more magical thinking.
…
Actually, THE OBSTACLES CONFRONTING THE “ENERGY TRANSITION” ARE FUNDAMENTAL. They are caused by the very nature of unconventional energy, driven by
-massive costs
-technical and engineering realities
-severe constraints on needed physical inputs,
-growing local opposition to the unconventional energy facilities central to the “transition”
…
These realities are discussed in detail in a major recent paper by Mark P. Mills of the Manhattan Institute.
Let us quote Mills directly:
In these circumstances, policymakers are beginning to grasp THE ENORMOUS DIFFICULTY OF REPLACING EVEN A MERE 10% SHARE OF GLOBAL HYDROCARBONS—the share supplied by Russia—never mind the impossibility of trying to replace all of society’s use of hydrocarbons with solar, wind, and battery (SWB) technologies.
…
Two decades of aspirational policies and trillions of dollars in spending, most of it on SWB tech, have not yielded an “energy transition” that eliminates hydrocarbons.
Regardless of climate-inspired motivations, IT IS A DANGEROUS DELUSION TO BELIEVE SPENDING YET MORE, AND MORE QUICKLY, WILL ACHIEVE THE TRANSITION.
The lessons of the recent decade make it clear that SWB technologies cannot be surged in times of need, are neither inherently “clean” nor even independent of hydrocarbons, and are not cheap.
…
Mills makes a number of hard realities clear, among which are the following:
· THE REALITIES OF THE PHYSICS, ENGINEERING, AND ECONOMICS OF ENERGY SYSTEMS ARE INDEPENDENT OF ANY BELIEFS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.
· Europe, the U.S. and Canada, Australia and the other regions that have pursued power grids with a higher share of wind and solar electricity uniformly have experienced LARGE INCREASES IN ELECTRICITY COSTS, and even that effect hides the costs of the massive subsidies borne by taxpayers.
· It costs at least $30 to store the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil using lithium batteries, which explains why batteries cannot compensate for the UNRELIABLE NATURE OF WIND AND SOLAR POWER even for days, let alone weeks.
“There is no physics, never mind engineering or economies of scale” that would overcome this cost disadvantage.
· THE TIME COST ALONE OF RECHARGING AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE MAKES SUCH VEHICLES UNCOMPETITIVE, even apart from the costs of the batteries and other problems.
· The International Energy Agency estimates only a partial energy transition would require increases in the supplies of lithium, graphite, nickel, and rare earths by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900%, and 700%, respectively, by 2040.
This STAGGERING PROBLEM OF MATERIALS is “inherent in the nature of SWB technologies,” which means that the cost of unconventional energy will rise even more.
…
Nonetheless, the delusions continue.
Mr. Amos Hochstein, an official at the Department of State, testified before a Senate committee recently “The imperative is to diversify away from Russian energy dependence while accelerating the clean energy transition,” and that “THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO REDUCE DEMAND FOR RUSSIAN FOSSIL FUELS IS TO REDUCE DEPENDENCE ON ALL FOSSIL FUELS.”
Got that? Were the Europeans to reduce their dependence upon unreliable deliveries of Russian natural gas, and increase their dependence upon unconventional energy even more unreliable, there will result an increase in European “energy security.”
This is utter delusion, as Mills demonstrates incontrovertibly.
…
But THE BELTWAY CONTINUES IN ITS IMITATION OF GEORGE ORWELL’S WORLD, IN WHICH “WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, AND IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”
The “energy transition” translation: “Expensive Energy Is Cheap, Environmentally Destructive Energy Is Clean, and Central Planning Will Yield Utopia.”
Only fools can believe such things, much of the Beltway believes them.
(end of article)
… …
“The Beltway continues in its imitation of George Orwell’s world, in which ‘War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, and Ignorance Is Strength.’”
The Beltway = the D.C. Democrats in Charge.
…
“The time cost alone of recharging an electric vehicle makes such vehicles uncompetitive.”
Electric cars:
-have limited range before battery recharge is required
-take at least 30 minutes to recharge
-are much more expensive than gasoline powered cars
Seems given a choice the only people who would want an electric car are those few who never drive long distances, or are masochists.
The only solution Dems have is to outlaw the choice, zat is currently being done in California.
…
“The realities of the physics, engineering, and economics of energy systems are independent of any beliefs about climate change. Nonetheless, the delusions continue.”
Democrats/Socialists are not deluded, zei expect oll this so does not faze dem.
Those pro-socialism/equity/misery fantasizing Dems know spending billions of dollars fighting CO2 and climate change:
-will do nothing to stop our current natural climate change
-will do everything to waste a huge amount of money that could be invested in productive uses tHAT would increase wealth for All and decreased perceived need for Dems
-will bankrupt and soften the U.S., enabling XiChina communist takeover, actualizing zeir core fantasy
We and They see and know the blues’ concealed real assault be not on CO2 but on prosperity, happy, and you.
Comments
Post a Comment