unconventional oil and natural gas.
I'm read a book by Marc Jacard, a professor of sustainable energy in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver about that shows how slow renewable(not non renewable) energy has played a part in environmental improvements and human development improvements and will continue to do so for at least another century and likely many more beyond that.
By Matthew Lau of Sun News Media
The term "clean energy" is generally used to refer to energy from certain sources, like wind, solar and hydro. But what about fossil fuels? Does the use of fossil fuels make the environment cleaner or dirtier? The answer depends on who you ask.
If you ask federal Environment Minister Catherine Mckenna (who recently posted and since deleted an online video saying, "We've learned in the House of Commons, if you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it"), the answer might well be: FOSSIL FUELS ARE BAD, FOSSIL FUELS ARE BAD, FOSSIL FUELS ARE BAD.
But people who give the matter some thought might have a greater appreciation for how fossil fuels have made the environment cleaner and safer for humans. Indeed, affordable sources of modern energy, including from fossil fuels, are essential to the standards of living and environmental cleanliness enjoyed by just about everybody in the developed world.
One example of fossil fuel use that is often maligned for causing environmental damage is the internal combustion engine. But far from increasing pollution, the invention and widespread use of automobiles nearly a century ago significantly cleaned cities by ridding the streets of horses and manure that attracted flies and disease.
Importantly, thanks to technological improvements, the air in major Canadian cities has actually become cleaner over the past four decades even as the number of cars on the road went way up. To be sure, there could be some environmental benefits from people switching to electric vehicles. However, history shows that the rise of gas-powered automobiles cleaned cities while improving the quality of life for ordinary people.
Another example of fossil fuels allegedly dirtying the environment: plastic products such as plastic bags, plastic straws, and plastic packaging. But consider the plastic grocery bag. People use these bags to pick up after their dogs and to line their garbage bins, which makes the environment cleaner. Plus, they are a helpful way to carry groceries, which itself is a good thing.
Disposable plastic bags also protect people from hazardous bacteria in the environment. By contrast, studies find that coliform bacteria is often detected in reusable grocery bags, which are often not washed frequently enough. Similarly to plastic bags, plastic food wrap and plastic packaging also help keep food cleaner — as well as fresher and tastier.
The examples of plastic products making the world cleaner are endless. Plastic window screens keep homes clean from insects. Mops, brooms, and vacuum cleaners are made in part by plastic. A more obscure example of plastic products improving hygiene was recently highlighted on the economics blog Cafe Hayek: a plastic device called "Splash Hog" that keeps men cleaner by reducing the splash-back in urinals.
On a larger scale, fossil fuels have had a profound positive environmental impact. As author Alex Epstein has written, "It is only thanks to cheap, plentiful, reliable energy that we live in an environment where the water we drink and the food we eat will not make us sick" and where we are more resilient to an often hostile climate.
Indeed, economic development fuelled in large part by fossil fuels has contributed to a 98% decline in the past century in the global mortality rate from extreme weather events. The evidence suggests that, far from being an environmental hazard, fossil fuel use has made the environment cleaner and safer for humans.
You posted these two threads twice Seoul.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Yes, I know.
Fossil fuels should gradually be phased out as a fuel source & used strictly for manufacturing instead as recyclable plastics.
That would make a lot mire sense.
Burning up what precious oil we have left is the equivalent of using gold to make nuts & bolts for manufacturing or using our finest woods for kindling. Its a waste of course.
In the scheme of things we don't have that much oil left to waste.
Therefore renewable energy sources make a lot more sense invtge long run.
Quote from: "JOE"
That would make a lot mire sense.
Burning up what precious oil we have left is the equivalent of using gold to make nuts & bolts for manufacturing or using our finest woods for kindling. Its a waste of course.
In the scheme of things we don't have that much oil left to waste.
Therefore renewable energy sources make a lot more sense invtge long run.
I know I'll regret asking this, but how would using up maybe one hundred years of rare earth metals for energy, heat, and electricity make more sense than the one thousand years of all fossil fuels we have left possibly make more sense?
Not to mention the fact that it would put us at the mercy of China.
Right you are Fash. Of all resources we have, coal, various kinds of crude oil and natural gas have the best supply. All of which can be used for fuels, and industrial purposes.
M. King Hubbert, the person synomymous with "peak oil" predicted oil production would have been in decline nearly fifty years ago. His predictions did not take into account new exploratory technology for conventional oil and the development of unconventional oil. And we are just getting started. Almost everywhere soil exists will be capable of producing some sort of fossil fuels. We will play around with solar for a while, but it will never be anything more than a hobby form of energy to produce electricity only. For security, environmental and unsustainability reasons, it can't replace anything to support ten billion people by the middle of the century. Wind is an expensive, bird killing waste of land that adds to the problem of climate change. Advanced development requires fossil fuels and that won't change. What will is how we make improvements in efficiencies.
Quote from: "seoulbro"
M. King Hubbert, the person synomymous with "peak oil" predicted oil production would have been in decline nearly fifty years ago. His predictions did not take into account new exploratory technology for conventional oil and the development of unconventional oil. And we are just getting started. Almost everywhere soil exists will be capable of producing some sort of fossil fuels. We will play around with solar for a while, but it will never be anything more than a hobby form of energy to produce electricity only. For security, environmental and unsustainability reasons, it can't replace anything to support ten billion people by the middle of the century. Wind is an expensive, bird killing waste of land that adds to the problem of climate change. Advanced development requires fossil fuels and that won't change. What will is how we make improvements in efficiencies.
And do you honestly think this planet can support 10 billion people or more and beyond?
We're at a breaking point with 7 billion now.
Twice as many people also breeds twice ad many refugees, twice as many terrorists, crazy people & twice as much pollution, seoulbro. And half as many resources & arable land to support them. You people on the pro business Right are just as bad as naive SJW idealists on the Left. Thinking y'all can have your cake & eat it.
Speaking of "fossil"
Somebody tell the geriatric virgin that it's the pro business assholes like the Rockefellers who are trying to make fuel, home heating and electricity more expensive for consumers. They are the ones who are funneling money to tax exempt lobby groups who want to send Canadian jobs to foreign countries like the US. They are the ones who want carbon taxes right along with big oil and big manufacturing. The Trudeau government gave $12 million in carbon tax revenue to Galen Weston to retrofit freezers. :crazy:
The more oil and gas a country uses, the higher it's human development and the better it's environment.
Quote
"No country has been able to raise per capita incomes from low levels without increasing its commercial energy use."
Anderson notes that no country has been able to raise per capita incomes from low levels without increasing its commercial energy use
Developing countries that switch from burning wood and peat for heat and cooking to natural gas reduce pollution and have a cheaper more sustainable source for their everyday needs.
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
The more oil and gas a country uses, the higher it's human development and the better it's environment.
Quote
"No country has been able to raise per capita incomes from low levels without increasing its commercial energy use."
Anderson notes that no country has been able to raise per capita incomes from low levels without increasing its commercial energy use
Developing countries that switch from burning wood and peat for heat and cooking to natural gas reduce pollution and have a cheaper more sustainable source for their everyday needs.
Prog money has no interest in human development or the environment. It's all about control with them. The more money they take from us, the more control they have. They brainwash us into believing a tax hike is like a thermostat that regulates the temperature and like sheeple, we follow the pricks.
Of all the natural resources we possess, fossil fuels are the most abundant. Don't get me wrong, electrification will continue to grow in the developing world, but it won't be powered by solar panels which require rare earth metals which one country in the world has a near monopoly on. If scientists, engineers, economists and politicians actually believed global warming was an existential threat, than why hasn't an emissions capture system been developed for internal combustion engines. If the same people walked the talk on climate change. why have they not developed a way of producing cement and steel without releasing emissions, since cent and steel produce a lot more C02 than the world's fleet of vehicles.
These are real solutions, that don't require a trillion dollars of taxpayer money.
From Sun News Media
Heavy reliance on fossil fuels remains despite push for alternative energy
Back in the 1980s, do you know what percentage of the world's energy needs were supplied by fossil fuels?
According to the International Energy Agency, three and four decades ago 81 per cent of the world's energy came from fossil fuels.
Do you know what the percentage is today?
After nearly a trillion dollars (that's $1,000,000,000,000) has been spent worldwide, mostly by developed nations' taxpayers, on alternate energy — solar panels, wind farms, biofuels — the amount of energy supplied by fossil fuels is ... wait for it ... 81 per cent.
Admittedly, this masks the growth of energy consumption.
As countries such as China and India have industrialized, a lot more energy has been consumed each year than in the 1980s.
There is a lot of alternate energy being used. But the point is we are just as reliant on oil, gas and coal as we always have been.
The world is not transitioning to a carbon-free future, except for our Goody Two-shoes Liberal government.
[size=150]Alternate energy sources have advanced as far as they have only because of "green" politicians' willingness to tax the bejeebers out of ordinary citizens to fund the eco-fantasy of largescale, emissions-free power.
[/size]
Speaking at an alternative energy conference in Vancouver last week, [size=150]International Energy Agency executive director Fatih Birol also said that in the coming decade and a half, about two-thirds of the world's nuclear reactors are set to be decommissioned[/size] (if they are not overhauled).
[size=150]That would add four billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere if nuclear power were replaced by coal. And that would wipe out all of the emissions gains made by the huge public investment in "green" alternatives.
[/size]
Birol also thinks most governments and green-energy activists are barking up the wrong trees. For instance, e[size=150]lectric cars are unlikely to reverse the trend toward growing emissions. "Just two heavy industries — cement and steel — emit 50 per cent more greenhouse gases than all the cars of the world put together."[/size]
Yet shutting down the cement and steel industries would be economically and socially suicidal.
That would be the end of hospital and bridge construction, high-rise apartments, office buildings, piers and hundreds of thousands of infrastructure projects.
No politician — not even our green-as-an-elf prime minister, Justin Trudeau — is willing to go that far. Instead, [size=150]most leaders only propose feel-good, do-nothing solutions such as carbon taxes.[/size]
Over the 10 years the Ontario Liberals pumped money into its "green" energy plan, it spent nearly $60 billion in taxpayers' money, ran up record debt, more than doubled the cost of electricity, drove manufacturing jobs out of the country and in the end had nothing to show for it emissions-wise.
Nearly the end of their term, the Alberta New Democrats liked to point to this province's reduced emissions as proof their multi-billion-dollar Climate Leadership Plan was working.
Really!? Was Alberta producing fewer emissions because the Notley government's taxes, subsidies and regulations encouraged people to consume less?
Or [size=150]were the lower emissions the result of the NDP driving our economy into the ground, which meant there were fewer emissions because more businesses were going under, fewer people were working[/size] and fewer resources being extracted?
[size=150]If we shut-in our oil and oilsands in Canada (as the federal Liberals seem determined to do), it will make no mark on the global climate.[/size]
Canada produces only 1.6 per cent of worldwide emissions to begin with, and our energy sector is responsible for less than one-fifth of one per cent.
No other country is playing Boy Scout and shutting down its oil industry the way Canada is.
But
This is about the pollution from the fashion industry that doesn't get much attention.
Quote
- Nearly 70 million barrels of oil are used each year to make the world's polyester fiber, which is now the most commonly used fiber in our clothing. But it takes more than 200 years to decompose.
- More than 150 billion garments are produced annually, enough to provide 20 new garments to every person on the planet, every year.
- Americans throw away about 70 lbs of clothing per person every year.
- Fast fashion garments, which we wear less than 5 times and keep for 35 days, produce over 400% more carbon emissions per item per year than garments worn 50 times and kept for a full year.
- Cheap synthetic fibers also emit gasses like N2O, which is 300 times more damaging than CO2.
- Over 70 million trees are logged every year and turned into fabrics like rayon, viscose, modal and lyocell.
- Cotton is the world's single largest pesticide-consuming crop, using 24% of all insecticides and 11% of all pesticides globally, adversely affecting soil and water.
- Plastic microfibers shed from our synthetic clothing into the water supply account for 85% of the human-made material found along ocean shores, threatening marine wildlife and ending up in our food supply.
- The fashion industry is the second biggest polluter of freshwater resources on the planet after agrreiculture.
- A quarter of the chemicals produced in the world are used in textiles.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/12/03/making-climate-change-fashionable-the-garment-industry-takes-on-global-warming/#247a930379e4
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
Quote
- Nearly 70 million barrels of oil are used each year to make the world's polyester fiber, which is now the most commonly used fiber in our clothing. But it takes more than 200 years to decompose.
- More than 150 billion garments are produced annually, enough to provide 20 new garments to every person on the planet, every year.
- Americans throw away about 70 lbs of clothing per person every year.
- Fast fashion garments, which we wear less than 5 times and keep for 35 days, produce over 400% more carbon emissions per item per year than garments worn 50 times and kept for a full year.
- Cheap synthetic fibers also emit gasses like N2O, which is 300 times more damaging than CO2.
- Over 70 million trees are logged every year and turned into fabrics like rayon, viscose, modal and lyocell.
- Cotton is the world's single largest pesticide-consuming crop, using 24% of all insecticides and 11% of all pesticides globally, adversely affecting soil and water.
- Plastic microfibers shed from our synthetic clothing into the water supply account for 85% of the human-made material found along ocean shores, threatening marine wildlife and ending up in our food supply.
- The fashion industry is the second biggest polluter of freshwater resources on the planet after agrreiculture.
- A quarter of the chemicals produced in the world are used in textiles.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/12/03/making-climate-change-fashionable-the-garment-industry-takes-on-global-warming/#247a930379e4
I know all about this IHJ..
My uncle managed a factory in mainland China..
Zetsu too would know how polluting the garment industry is.
Not to mention the highly toxic dyes, plastics and elastic components.
Fashionista is a polluter!!!
Quote from: "iron horse jockey"
- Americans throw away about 70 lbs of clothing per person every year.
Er...would you happen to know where?? ac_blush
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Fashionista is a polluter!!!
ac_blush
My buddy Alex Epstein again.
Our rigged conversation about energy and climate
Just as legal systems can be rigged, so can cultural conversations
We are all familiar with the idea of a legal system that is rigged against certain types of people. For example, in the classic To Kill a Mockingbird, the legal system of (fictional) Maycomb County, AL, has a deep racist bias against black individuals that dismisses strong evidence of their innocence and embraces pseudo-evidence of their guilt.
A rigged legal system inevitably leads to immoral results—as captured by the saga of Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird, a good man who, after resisting the sexual advances of a white woman, was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for rape.
Just as it is possible for a legal system to be rigged, so it is also possible for a culture's intellectual conversation to be rigged. To continue with the example of racism, it is unfortunately commonplace throughout history for the conversation about particular racial minorities to be rigged. One element this almost always involves is ignoring the positives of individuals in the disfavored group and exaggerating or fabricating negatives.
For example, in (the unfortunately numerous) anti-Semitic cultures it is commonplace to ignore any positive attributes and contributions of individuals of Jewish descent, while fabricating the idea that all Jews are miserly and uncaring.
4 common ways in which cultural conversations are rigged
4 common dimensions in which a culture's intellectual conversation can be rigged are:
Bad thinking methods. For example, with racist conversations, the aforementioned examples of ignoring positives and exaggerating or fabricating negatives.
Misleading terminology. For example, criticisms of Jews as "greedy" misleadingly associate 1) financial success earned by productive achievement, a good thing, with 2) getting money by uncaringly exploiting others, a bad thing.
False assumptions. For example, racist cultural conversations falsely assume that an individual's ideas and character are determined by their skin color.
Anti-human values. For example, racist cultural conversations treat some categories of human beings as intrinsically non-valuable.
Rigged conversations are common—no conspiracy required
To say that a conversation is "rigged" is not to assert a conspiracy in which a few people covertly decide to craft a cultural conversation with bad thinking methods, misleading terminology, false assumptions, and/or anti-human values. (Although this can happen.)
It is to recognize that very frequently, for whatever set of reasons, cultural conversations operate on bad thinking methods, misleading terminology, false assumptions, and anti-human values that rig them against coming to true and pro-human conclusions.
And the cultural conversation that I study, the conversation around energy and climate, is rigged to a degree that almost no one can imagine.
To counter the rigging you must first understand it
To help you counter the rigged nature of this conversation, I will identify 12 distortions that rig our global energy and climate conversation to reach the deadly conclusion that we should rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use to prevent climate catastrophe.
By making you aware of these distortions, I hope to
Help you point them out explicitly whenever they occur (which is all the time).
Help you lead and have energy/climate conversations without these distortions.
After explaining the 12 distortions I'll share some of my favorite "talking points" that reframe—de-rig—the conversation, so that we can make others see the truth.
12 distortions around which the energy and climate conversation is rigged
(Bad thinking method) Looking only at the negative side-effects of fossil fuels, while ignoring the massive and unique benefits of fossil fuels.
(Bad thinking method) Only looking at the positives of solar and wind while ignoring obvious negatives. E.g., praising solar and wind as "secure" because they don't depend on Russia like oil and gas do, when in fact they depend on China far more than oil and gas depend on Russia.
(Bad thinking method) Only looking at the negatives of CO2 emissions while ignoring the positives (such as greater plant growth and the prevention of cold-related deaths—which far outnumber heat-related deaths).
(Bad thinking method) Engaging in "partial cost accounting" for solar and wind—claiming they are cheap by only looking at some of their costs (e.g., solar panels, wind turbines) while ignoring other huge costs (e.g., the cost of 24/7 life support for an unreliable input that can easily go near-0).
(Bad thinking method) Ignoring the massive climate-related benefits of fossil fuels—their benefits in helping us master climate danger—even though these benefits have thus far overwhelmed any negative climate side-effects of fossil fuels.
(Misleading terminology) Using the vague term "climate change," which conflates some human impact on climate (which the vast majority of climate scientists agree with) with catastrophic human impact on climate (which is not supported by climate science and economics).
(Misleading terminology) Using "climate crisis" or "climate emergency" as the basic noun to refer to the state of today's climate—thereby asserting a catastrophe without needing to provide any evidence.
(Misleading terminology) Using the terms "energy" and "electricity" interchangeably, even though the vast majority of the energy that powers our machines is not electricity but the direct burning of fossil fuels for transportation, industrial heat, or residential heat. This (along with "partial cost accounting," helps promote the false idea that solar and wind electricity can rapidly replace all fossil fuel energy.
(False assumption) Treating climate (and, more broadly unimpacted nature) as a "delicate nurturer": a stable, sufficient, safe phenomenon that human impact ruins, when in fact climate (and more broadly unimpacted nature) is dynamic, deficient, and dangerous—and human impact makes it a lot safer (e.g., irrigation radically reduces drought-related deaths).
(Anti-human value) Treating today's global energy use as sufficient or even excessive, when in fact most of the world is desperately lacking in energy. E.g., 3 billion people use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator.
(Anti-human value) Treating human impact on climate, and more broadly human impact on nature, as intrinsically bad. E.g., assuming all "climate change" is bad even though rising CO2 clearly leads to beneficial greening and warming will clearly save many lives in many places (far more people die of cold than of heat).
(Anti-human value) Making eliminating human impact on climate at all costs (e.g., "net zero") our number one global climate, energy, and political goal—instead of embracing the proper, pro-human goals of maximizing climate livability, human empowerment, and human flourishing.
Countering our rigged conversation about energy and climate
Understanding the distortions around which our energy/climate conversation is rigged is one key to countering them, because once you understand these distortions you can explicitly and effectively point them out.
3 other keys are:
Explaining what you think is the right way to think about energy and climate issues—not just criticizing the wrong ways.
Explaining the essential facts about energy and climate that are relevant to policy-making—not just counters to various myths.
Advocating a positive energy and climate policy—not just negatively reacting to bad ones...
Some energy sensibility from my buddy Alex Epstein.
Why defend coal?
All fossil fuels—oil, coal, natural gas—are under widespread attack, but coal is the most attacked of all. Even many people who say we need natural gas and or oil over the next several decades will say that we should rapidly eliminate coal. I totally disagree.
We live in a world that needs far more energy—6 billion people use an amount of energy we in the US would consider totally unacceptable—and for billions of people, coal is by far the most cost-effective source of electricity. That's why it's so popular in the developing world, especially China.¹
Coal is not only crucial for the developing world, it's crucial throughout the world. In Europe and in the US coal plants have been saving grids (and therefore economies) from total collapse. And given Europe's and the US's unwillingness to properly build out natural gas—especially the pipeline infrastructure it requires—we desperately need our existing coal capacity.²
One of the disadvantages that coal faces is that the coal industry is tiny, and therefore has only a very small political lobby that acts on its behalf. As a result, our legislators don't hear enough about the importance of coal to preserving our grid and to the well-being of billions of people.
Because I believe coal is crucial for the foreseeable future, and because coal gets so little support, I have created the following guide to defending coal, based on the strategies and messaging I've found most effective. I originally created it as part of a recent presentation I gave to the Congressional Coal Caucus.
My guide to defending coal is based on 4 key practices:
Explaining the broader case for a "fossil future", including coal.
Explaining coal's virtue of resilience.
Explaining that we are in an "electricity emergency" and the EPA's war on coal is an existential threat.
Explaining an alternative policy for addressing long-term CO2 emissions that is not anti-coal.
Explaining the broader case for a "fossil future", including coal
The benefits of Fossil Fuels
Summary: If 8 billion people are going to have the cost-effective energy they need to flourish—including to master our naturally dangerous climate—in the far greater quantities needed, fossil fuel use needs to increase. Rapidly restricting fossil fuel use, as many experts advocate, is deadly.
Undeniable energy fact 1: Cost-effective energy is essential to human flourishing
Cost-effective energy—affordable, reliable, versatile, scalable energy—is essential to human flourishing because it gives us the ability to use machines to become productive and prosperous.
Undeniable energy fact 2: The world needs much more energy
Billions of people lack the cost-effective energy they need to flourish. 3 billion use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. 1/3 of the world uses wood or dung for heating and cooking. Much more energy is needed.³
Undeniable energy fact 3: Fossil fuels are uniquely cost-effective
Despite 100+ years of aggressive competition, fossil fuels provide 80%+ of the world's energy and they are still growing—especially in the countries most concerned with cost-effective energy. E.g., China.⁴
Undeniable energy fact 4: Unreliable solar and wind are failing to replace fossil fuels
Despite claims that solar and wind are rapidly replacing fossil fuels, they provide < 5% of world energy—only electricity, ⅕ of energy—and even that depends on huge subsidies and reliable (mostly fossil-fueled) power plants.⁵
Undeniable energy fact 5: Fossil fuel energy gives us an incredible climate mastery ability
Fossil fuels have helped drive down climate disaster deaths by 98% over the last century by powering the amazing machines that protect us against storms, extreme temperatures, and drought.⁶
The climate side-effects of fossil fuel use
Summary: If we're free to use fossil fuels, we'll continue to have a warming impact that we can master and flourish with. If we follow "net zero" policies we'll have a less-impacted climate in the short-term, but the climate and the world as a whole will be incomparably less livable, with billions plunging into poverty and premature death.
Undeniable climate fact: Fossil fuel energy gives us an incredible climate mastery ability
Fossil fuels have helped drive down climate disaster deaths by 98% over the last century by powering the amazing machines that protect us against storms, extreme temperatures, and drought.⁷
Undeniable climate fact: CO2 emissions correlate with 1°C warming, and greening
Fossil fuels' CO2 emissions have contributed to the warming of the last 170 years, but that warming has been mild and manageable—1° C. Here's what that looks like compared to normal temp changes.⁸
Undeniable climate fact: Deaths from cold far exceed deaths from heat
While leading institutions portray a world as increasingly riddled with heat-related death, the fact is that even though Earth has gotten 1°C warmer far more people die from cold than heat (even in India!).⁹
Undeniable climate fact: Warming from CO2 occurs more in colder places
The mainstream view in climate science is that more warming will be concentrated in colder places (Northern latitudes) and at colder times (nighttime) and during colder seasons (winter). This is good news.¹⁰
Undeniable climate fact: Rising CO2 leads to diminishing warming
Mainstream climate science is unanimous about a conclusion that the public is, shamefully, not made aware of: the "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is a diminishing effect, with additional CO2 leading to less warming.¹¹
The only moral and practical way to reduce CO2 emissions is innovation that makes low-carbon energy globally cost-competitive. So long as fossil fuels are the most cost-competitive option for people, especially in developing nations, they will (rightly) choose to emit CO2 vs. plunge even further into poverty.
So long as America and other wealthy nations follow the anti-development "green energy" movement and the "climate emergency" narrative, they will continue to adopt senseless policies that harm their economies and security while doing nothing to bring about globally cost-competitive low-carbon energy.
The truth about alternatives
Summary: No alternative or combination of alternatives to fossil fuels have any near-term hope of replacing fossil fuels' unique combination of affordability, reliability, versatility, and scalability in a world that needs far more energy. We should, however, liberate alternatives from any and all restrictions that are preventing them from reaching their full potential.
Myth: We can rapidly reduce fossil fuels at very low costs.
Truth: Fossil fuels are a uniquely cost-effective form of energy, which is why they are 80% of global energy and still growing. Rapidly reducing fossil fuels, in a world that needs far more energy, is catastrophic.¹²
Myth: Solar and wind are cheap.
Truth: Solar and wind are unreliable, parasitical sources of energy that add costs to the grid.
Claims of "cheapness" are based on ignoring the full costs of solar and wind—above all the cost of a reliable grid that gives them 24/7 life support.
Myth: Solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels because Lazard's "Levelized Cost of Energy" (LCOE) is lower for solar and wind.
Truth: LCOE, by Lazard's own admission, doesn't include many costs of solar and wind—above all the cost of a reliable grid needed for 24/7 life support.¹³
Myth: Solar and wind are "winning in the marketplace," out-competing fossil fuels and nuclear with superior economics.
Truth: Unreliable, parasitical solar and wind are only "winning" when given massive preferences—mandates, subsidies, and no penalty for unreliability.¹⁴
Myth: Nuclear is too expensive, so we should use solar and wind instead.
Truth: Solar and wind can't provide reliable energy; nuclear can. And nuclear is only expensive because it has, with the help of many "green" activists, been falsely labeled unsafe and effectively criminalized.
Myth: Solar and wind will reduce our dependence on adversaries for energy.
Truth: If Europe's level of dependence on Russia for natural gas scares you, know this: America is even more dependent on China for many of the key components of solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries than Europe is on Russia for natural gas.¹⁵
Explaining coal's virtue of resilience
We need an electric grid that provides power when we need it, even under adverse conditions.
The disastrous Texas blackouts should teach us that we need power plants that are 1) reliable and 2) resilient. Reliable means: they can produce as much power as we need, when we need it. Resilient means: they can keep producing power even under adverse conditions.¹⁶
One key to resilience is "on-site fuel storage"—keeping a large amount of fuel at a power plant so that it can produce power even during a supply disruption. The champions at on-site fuel storage are coal and nuclear, which can cheaply keep months of fuel on hand.
Natural gas is not usually as resilient as coal and nuclear, because natural gas is expensive to store in large quantities. Most natural gas power depends on "just in time" delivery from pipelines. If pipeline transport is disrupted, many natural gas plants will go down.
To make natural gas more resilient, we need to support the rapid building of new pipelines. Unfortunately, today's Administration is doing the exact opposite—making it incredibly costly to build gas pipelines, and often preventing them from being built at all.
Another key to resilience is weatherization—ensuring that plants can handle a wide variety of weather conditions, even unusual ones. For example, the weatherized coal and gas infrastructure in Alberta, Canada was able to handle far colder temps than Texas had during its blackouts.
Resilience requires reliability. A wind turbine can't be resilient. Even if, at great cost, it is winterized to withstand low temps, you can't count on it in any weather conditions, let alone extreme ones. And you can't count on solar for most of any day, extreme weather or not.
In fact, wind and solar are particularly bad for extreme weather. Wind works worst when temps are extremely cold or extremely hot. Solar totally fails during any kind of storm, and even for hot days is largely useless because it fades in the late afternoon—when air conditioning is needed most.¹⁷
Wind and solar are not only non-resilient themselves, their rapid fluctuations create resiliency challenges for reliable power plants. Example: gas plants in Texas had to rapidly ramp down to accommodate high wind before the Texas freeze and then rapidly ramp up to compensate for low wind.