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.
Even as they backtrack on their confident assertions that a modern economy can be powered with the energy equivalent of pixie dust, they argue that 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.
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 in terms of needed physical inputs, and at a political level growing local opposition to the unconventional energy facilities central to the "Transition."
The realities of the physics, engineering, and economics of energy systems are independent of any beliefs about climate change.
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.
The International Energy Agency estimates that 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.
Mr. Amos Hochstein, an official at the Department of State, testified before a Senate committee recently that "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."
No comments:
Post a Comment