A recent paper by physicist Mark P. Mills of the Manhattan Institute exposes the absurdity of full electrification as it fails on every level. Even as it fails, the hardcore Left will not abandon the ideology.
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 that spending yet more, and more quickly, will do so.
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.
Mr. Mills is hoping for a reality reset. He listed the truths at the end of the paper which provides a summary. You can read the details here.
He Pointed to Ten Truths
Mr. Mills presented ten truths that show the impossibility of “accelerating” an energy transition that would eliminate the use of hydrocarbons. They also show the consequences of mandating the adoption of wind, solar, and battery technologies at a faster pace than would naturally occur.
1. ENERGY TRANSFORMATIONS ARE SLOW
Growth in Global Energy Supplies
2. ECONOMIC GROWTH CREATES DEMAND FOR MORE ENERGY
Per Capita Wealth vs. per Capita Energy Use
3. SHALE TECHNOLOGY IS HISTORY’S BIGGEST ENERGY REVOLUTION
Growth of Shale Energy vs. Wind+Solar 2005–20, Compared with Saudi Arabia Oil 1965–80
4. GREEN ENERGY ISN’T CARBON-FREE
Miles Driven Before an EV Emits Less CO2 than a Diesel Car
5. ENERGY TECH CAN’T EMULATE THE DIGITAL TECH PERFORMANCE CURVE
Lithium Battery Performance Progress
The target performance for batteries—and even the (still pre-commercial) aspiration for super-density lithium-metal chemistry—still doesn’t come close to matching gasoline.
6. ENERGY TRANSITION HARDWARE RADICALLY INCREASES THE DEMAND FOR MINERALS
Mineral Demands for Solar, Wind, and EV to Replace Hydrocarbon Machines
7. ENERGY TRANSITION POLICIES ARE INFLATIONARY
Energy Sector Share of Mineral Demands for All Purposes
8. GREEN ENERGY ISN’T CHEAP
Costs of Wind, Solar, and Battery Hardware
9. CHINA IS THE OPEC OF GREEN ENERGY MINERALS
Sources of Key Energy Transition Minerals
10. MARKETS AND CONSUMERS WANT RELIABLY CHEAP ENERGY
Share of Economies Consumed by Acquiring Fuel and Food
The pathetic EV movement.
Electric CAR hoax.. pic.twitter.com/DZJAdg39Dk
— AndersG ⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@Sallvar) September 14, 2022
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
A 2 MW windmill (neglecting the investment in the MOUNTING … i.e. Foundation) is made from 260 T of steel; 300 T of Iron ore; needing 170 T of coking coal.
All mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons (energy ‘from the Sun’). However, a windmill could spin until it FALLS APART and Never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.
As the economist might claim the ROI is not met in any case. If you locate the monster bird chopper out in the OCEAN your costs TRIPPLE. It is government FRAUD that is the reason for these monstrosities.
Old rule of thumb regarding capital investments: Whatever the system initial COSTS you can expect to spend 6 to 8% ANNUALLY on MAINTENANCE. If you do not maintain, the costs can double or triple due to neglect.
the teriffic Tesla supercharging stations are powered by DIESEL generators. so much for your greenie solutions!
Chart #2 seems to be conflating GDP with wealth.
Dear M.Dowling, despite all those scientific facts from a scientist, you know that the leftists in the global warming cult will accuse you of being a science denier?
I know that you know they are that mentally deranged …
Item #5 is big, the energy density of an electric battery is a small fraction of a gasoline tank. This makes E/V technology impractical. Technology properly tends towards lower weight and higher energy density.
We see all the high tech products over the years consistently tending to less weight and more power.
E/Vs are certainly more dangerous in collisions, with the additional weight and dangerous battery.
when BEV’s are abundant in the big blue cities watch the pedestrian deaths go high. they are heavy and not likely the braking systems have been engineered for the extra weight and the tires will also wear out and fail much faster. the biggest polluter on cars are the particulates from tire wear which will be much worse on BEV.