Just how Politicians and Journalists Get Energy So Wrong

Green energy advocates want us to believe we easily can changeover from conventional fuels in order to renewables

“ We live in a time where few understand how details get made. It is great to not know where stuff comes from, but it isn’t good to not know where things comes from while dictating towards the rest of us how the economic climate should be run. ”   — Doomberg

Eighty-five percent of human  energy usage   comes from burning matters.

Either plants or trees and shrubs grown in a geologically recent past or plants or trees (and decomposed animals) from ancient times. Solar, wind flow, hydro, geothermal, etc . — all the things that occupy the climate-conscious citizen, activist, or even politician’s dreams— are frizzles around the edges.

Human civilization is powered by combustion; human beings really are a fossil fuel– burning world. You can take away the civilization part, which seems to be the conclusion goal for some environmentalists, but bar that, you can’t get rid of the fossil fuel part.

If we listened only to our energy overlords’ preaching, we would get a very different impact of what the world is like. Wind turbines powering all those electrified vehicles on our roads, solar power panels and batteries of immense capacities light and high temperature our homes. Dirty essential oil and polluting coal are out; green, clean, plus smart machines on the way in.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Renewables don’t  power our own societies , they’re not about to  sooner , and the fact that these types of not isn’t a policy choice— or “ greedy capitalism” preventing this utopian (dystopian) vision.

Very first, some housekeeping:   Energy   is not just like electricity . Electricity is a secondary energy source, derived from major energy sources through a transformation process— combustion or generators spinning. The 85 percent  figure above is for power use. The bombastic figures in the press about the enormous growth and expanse associated with renewables are for electrical power, which is only a subset of all the world’s energy use (some  20   percent). Oil, coal, and gas for transport, heating system, fertilizers, and construction dwarf the symbolic solar panels government authorities paid people to place on their particular roof.

Solar power panels and wind turbines produce a small part of the  electricity   needs, yet do  nothing to deal with   the larger  energy   needs. In contrast, fossil fuels are energy-dense, reliable, on-demand sources of either energy or electrical power, and we have excelled each at storing and carrying them.

Dreams of a green revolution, per the  energy theorist Vaclav Smil , were always mirages:

We are a fossil-fueled civilization whose technical and scientific advances, quality of life, and prosperity rest on the combustion of huge quantities of fossil carbon, and we are not able to simply walk away from this critical determinant of our fortunes in a few decades, never mind yrs.

Rather, suddenly facing an foe rich in raw materials and fossil fuels, the West’s talking heads doubled down on their eco-friendly dreams. From behind comfy newspaper desks, heated and electrified by natural gas, it might be remarkably easy to say things such as: “ The new reality is that we have to go all the way to general electrification even faster, run by 100% renewable energy along with green hydrogen filling the particular gaps” (Andreas Kluth, at  Bloomberg ).

For the  New Yorker , John Cassidy  recently told us that people must “ prevent future Putins from trying to hold the world to energy ransom— at least one worthy outcome of the tragedy that is Ukraine. ”

In a powerful speech in the middle of the The ussr flurry in March,   Isabel Schnabel   of the Executive Panel at the European Central Financial institution rallied for renewable power:

Every -panel installed, every hydropower herb built and every wind turbine put into the grid are taking all of us a step closer to energy independence and a greener economy….

Our dependence on precious energy sources is not only regarded a peril to our earth, it is also increasingly seen as a danger to national security plus our values of freedom, freedom and democracy.

Luckily, Schnabel is in control of nothing lower than the Eurozone’s printing press. One-upped by a fellow The german language, the reality-challenged finance minister Christian Lindner taught us that renewable electricity is “ the energy associated with freedom . ”

What he failed to understand is that renewable electricity generation in Germany requires boatloads and pipe plenty of Russian gas, Russian essential oil, and Russian commodities: the particular steel and cement to create their precious wind towers are made from  coal , not even counting the extreme heat needed to shape the steel and iron that makes up its entire body.

  A single wind turbine uses  thousands of kilograms of nickel   in its shaft and gear, plus some rare world minerals from some quite unclean sources. The gigantic structures, hundreds of meters tall and much too clunky to easily transport, are erected and moved there by machines that swallow diesel powered by the gallon.

Fossil fuels are  device food , as Alex Epstein is fond of stating, and nothing drinks gas like the machines that strength a thirsty wind energy industry. When renewable resources are added to the electrical power grid in large quantities, the cost of electrical power goes  up, not down,   since their fickle reliance upon weather requires them to be  backstopped by heat plants   that will run on coal or natural gas. The more  renewables you add , the greater natural gas you need.

Actually, Fossil Fuels Aren’t Optional

The conclusion from much politics and media messaging on climate is the same: burning fossil fuels for energy is really a choice, a bad one, and must choose differently. The moral case against Russia is just a cherry on top.

“ Would you instead rely on Mr. Putin’s The ussr? ”   The Economist   asked in a recent cover story on energy security. The very same Russia that  Bloomberg News   described as: “ a commodities powerhouse, producing and exporting huge amounts of components the world uses to build vehicles, transport people and products, make bread and keep the particular lights on. ” But the writers at  The Economist   insist: “ Because the world weans itself away from dirty fuels, it must switch to cleaner energy resources. ”

Whenever we listen to the political conspirtors in Brussels or Berlin, or the intellectual ones in think tanks, political parties, or at influential media outlets, we get the impression that relying on “ Mr. Putin’s Russia” can be done aside with— as optional and care-free as picking a different ice cream flavor.

To hammer home the “ renewable revolutions are impossible” point, let’s use the poster child for renewables, Germany. Here is its  energy use   over the last half century:

Book Figure 1

Let me know if you can spot Germany’s revolutionary  Energiewende   in the early 2010s. With a microscope, I can detect a little bit of wind flow crowding out some nuclear— while gas keeps growing and coal continues its fifty-five-year decline. What sort of fairytale should one believe to think how the purple and yellow shares— almost invisible at the top— could  in any way   supplant the others, ideally before next winter whenever Putin’s withholding of gas would once again be disastrous for Europeans.

A prominent German think tank,   No momento Energiewende , also thinks it’s perfectly possible. Its projections depend, not just on building and installing a lot more wind energy plants than ever before, but raising that rate of construction by about one-third every year for years on end. To describe those plans as “ optimistic” somehow doesn’t reduce it:  

Book Figure 2
Book Figure 3

The International Energy Agency (IEA), staffed with the same sort of reality-resistant dreamers, produced this wonderful chart that plans for the energy production in a  net-zero future   (NZE):

From great expense and inconvenience, the world can indeed increase its use of solar and wind— but remember: they destabilize grids and constitute a vanishingly small portion of world power needs. To replace what we need, and accommodate growth for that billions globally who clean by on a minimum of energy, the IEA says we have to add solar and breeze capacity at a vertiginous rate, never before achieved, at method faster than their own forecasts.

As Alex Epstein writes in the preface to his future book  Fossil Future :   a net-zero policy,   actually implemented  “ would certainly be the most significant act of mass murder since the killings of one 100 million people by communist regimes in the twentieth century— and it would likely be much larger. ”

In case you believe, as so many political figures, activists, and deluded media do, that this is a simple policy decision, you are unfortunately mistaken. The impossibility associated with renewables is a technical plus physical problem— not an economic, financial, moral, or politics problem.

Gaslighting Europeans

According to mental health site  VeryWellMind ,   gaslighting   is  “ a form of manipulation that often occurs within abusive relationships. It is a hidden type of emotional abuse where the bully or abuser misleads the target, creating a false narrative and making them question their particular judgments and reality. Eventually, the victim of gaslighting starts to feel unsure about their perceptions of the globe and even wonder if they are dropping their sanity. ”

Consider the following mixture of expert-led gaslighting:  

  • The entire  2010s and further than , politicians pooh-poohed nuclear: in words (rallying cries and moral suasion) plus actions (strict regulations), they prevented any expansion plus shut down capacity.
  • European environmental regulation plus climate activists  have stopped   just as much oil and gas extraction as they could. Most countries have  banned   or else prevented “ hydraulic fracing , ” the natural gas extraction method that converted America into an energy exporter.
  • For the last decade and more, climate warriors inside and outside governments have got hauled boatloads of cash onto “ green” energies— everything from wind and photo voltaic to experimental forms of tidal energy.
  • Eco-friendly electricity sources, because of the unstable load that makes them unsuitable for modern civilization, have got expanded in consort with natural gas because the dirty key of the former is that they need rapidly available backup power— for which the latter is the practical choice.
  • Because all things “ carbon” are considered bad, politicians, journalists, and the  Greta Thunberg s of the globe have done everything in their capacity to sway more people straight into putting solar panels on their roofs and electric vehicles within their garages. That strains an already fragile  grid by having more demand and one more variable supply: crucially, it takes lots more nickel, palladium, and silver— with Russia among the  world’s largest supplier   for those key  commodities .

You might suppose that, on the back of the war in Ukraine, the particular strict Western sanctions upon Russia, and energy costs going through the roof, the green-washed politicians and policymakers who also rule our lives would provide excuses. Now that the Ruskies invasion had those very same policymakers cutting commercial ties to that despicable empire-building strongman, and energy prices plus access suddenly rose towards the forefront of everyone’s thoughts, we’d expect a bit of humbleness. Apologies are in order:

Fellow Europeans, against market prices, physics, and sanity, we pressed you into worse forms of electricity generation and endangered our energy security. Rather than doing what we should have done, all of us relied more and more on the commodities exported from countries like Russia. For making Europeans a lot more beholden to Putin, we apologize.

Instead, we got gaslighting on a remarkable scale.

“ Weaning off” Silly

The world  isn’t   weaning itself off fossil fuels— it can’t, and it ought not to. More importantly, “ cleaner energy” aren’t options on a purchasing menu, available as insignificant choices the way consumers may choose Doritos over Pringles or a new toothpaste.

It’s becoming increasingly very clear, to more and more people, that withdrawing from fossil fuels “ to get environmental reasons” is not a selection. A society and a world of 8 billion people more advanced than that run by a horse and buggy, cannot do without the explosive power of fossil fuels.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *