The Fantasy of a Green Energy Transformation – The Independent

The fantasy of a green energy transformation

-By Howard Sierra –

The Biden administration has done everything it can — with your money, of course — to end fossil fuel use and switch to renewable energy sources, primarily solar and wind. It has failed and never will.

In what might seem like good news for the environmental left at first glance, solar and wind energy use has soared to record levels over the past decade. Nearly $2 trillion will be spent globally in 2023 alone to try to force an energy transition. But to the chagrin of green energy advocates, fossil fuel use has not been reduced. Instead, it has grown even faster over the same period. The experience of the past decade around the world has shown that adding renewable energy only increases overall energy use, which was already growing rapidly.

Researchers Richard York and Shannon Elizabeth Bell report that “it would be completely unprecedented if (green energy) additions caused a permanent decline in the use of existing energy sources.” A recent study by Kashif Nesar Rather and Mantu Kumar Mahlik found that for every six units of new green energy, less than one unit of fossil fuel energy is displaced. Even the Biden administration predicts that while renewable energy worldwide will grow rapidly through 2050, fossil fuel energy—oil, natural gas, even coal—will also continue to grow.

We shouldn’t be surprised that Biden is throwing in the towel. A review of energy sources and transformations dating back to the Industrial Revolution shows a consistent pattern. In the 19th century, as coal became the primary source of energy, wood continued to grow. The story was the same as oil replaced coal in the 20th century: by 1970, as oil became the primary source, coal and wood were supplying more energy to the world than at any other time in history.

What caused the shift from wood to coal to oil? A study by Roger Fouquet, a research fellow at the London School of Economics, examined 14 shifts that occurred over the past five centuries, for example when farmers moved from using animals to plough fields to tractors powered by fossil fuels. In each case, the new energy source was better or cheaper.

Solar and wind power fall short in both categories. They are not better because, unlike fossil fuels, they can only produce electricity when the weather permits. They are cheaper only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing at the right speed. They are expensive and largely useless the rest of the time.

Wind and solar energy solutions are non-competitive with fossil fuels when you consider the cost of storing just four hours of electricity for a single user. Achieving a sustainable transition to solar and wind power on a national scale using today’s battery technology would more than exhaust the world’s supplies of essential minerals like lithium and bankrupt the country.

In addition, solar and wind provide electricity, and electricity accounts for only one-fifth of all global energy consumption. We are struggling with electric cars and light trucks – only 17% of greenhouse gas emissions – while the suitability of EVs for heavy trucks and rail is still questionable. Furthermore, using electricity for cargo ships is even more problematic and has no application at all to aircraft. And we haven’t even begun to address the energy needs of heating, manufacturing or agriculture. Beyond these, we are ignoring the most difficult and demanding sectors, such as steel, cement, plastics and fertilizers.

The lessons are clear: so-called “energy transitions” are instead “energy expansions.” Over the past 50 years, energy use from oil and coal has doubled, hydropower has tripled, and natural gas has quadrupled. The use of nuclear, solar, and wind has skyrocketed. Why? People have an unquenchable thirst for affordable energy.

The only way to achieve the ultimate green energy transition is to radically improve its cost-effectiveness. Adopting zero-GHG nuclear would provide a reliable power base. The most effective government expenditure would be to support research into low-cost, large-scale battery storage and to fund innovative, “outside the box” ideas that may not qualify for private sector funding.

Spending trillions of dollars a year under the guise of a “green energy transition” is pure fantasy. The facts speak for themselves. It’s time for the emperor’s new clothes to be exposed (pardon the pun) for what they are: an excuse for government officials to run the economy as they see fit, while favored companies profit from taxpayer dollars.

---

The views and perspectives expressed in The Independent are those of the individual authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, corrections, and contributions are welcome according to our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and follow our Community Guidelines. If you have any privacy concerns, you can review our Privacy Policy here. Thank you!

Click here to submit an article, guest review or Letter to the editor

---