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
Correction: we mistakenly referred to Mr. Mills as Dr. Mills. He he has not ever said he is Dr. Mills.
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.
Just like most city folk are basically ignorant on how food is produced, so most are ignorant about the real costs of producing energy. It is that ignorance and a most common lack of “common sense” that is exploited by those who push nonsense.
Speaking of the electrification…
the following is not really off topic, Please read on,
There was a huge fire -today – at the Luton airport in England
it started with one car and it got so big that over 1200 cars were destroyed and the floor of the multilevel parking melted and dropped!!!
over 1200 cars !!!
If you google it, it will say; it started with a DIESEL Range Rover.
so you will think; what is Canadian Friend talking about then ???
well I googled it and it turns out that what they call Diesel Range Rovers are actually half Diesel and half electric or hybrid if you prefer.
Which means those cars have a large battery, the type that are in all electric vehicles,
the type that catch fire for no reason,
the type of fire that are so difficult to put out that some places refuse to let you park your EV in their garage…
that semi electric Range Rover caught fire while just parked there…which is relatively common for EVs – because of their Lithium battery – but is so rare for diesel cars that odds are close to zero a diesel car would catch fire…for no reason…
and it destroyed over 1200 cars around it…
Some are saying this one event in itself has just killed the market for EVs ( which would explain why the media are lying and saying it was a diesel fire )
one single EV destroyed over 1200 cars…
You can see the unbelievable video here, it shows the floor of the parking coming down like it is as soft as icing on a cake !
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12618033/started-London-Luton-car-park-fire-moment.html
and here is the Range Rover specs,
” … The Range Rover and Range Rover Sport now add a range of technology upgrades and a new 3.0-litre straight-six 48-volt mild-hybrid diesel …”
Don t be fooledby the MSM, it is not a diesel fire, it is an EV fire from a hybrid Range Rover.
Are you saying the media lie? (A smile of sarcasm)
Incredible, thanks for posting.
You are welcome !
I saw something recently about a manufacturer warned owners to keep their vehicle away from structures until a certain thing was fixed.
I do not have the link right now, but yes GM sent hundreds or thousands of letters to Chevy Bolt owners warning them their EV car might catch fire, to NOT park it inside the garage or close to the house.