1 week Ago
The debate over fossil fuels has produced a narrative that is long on rhetoric and short on realism. Those who argue for a complete transition from coal, natural gas and oil ask us to do what John Lennon suggested: “Imagine.” Imagine the world they want and not engage with the world as it is.
But producing enough energy to meet our needs and balancing this against environmental concerns requires far more than just imagination. The reality is: The types of “renewable” energy that advocates usually have in mind — solar and wind power, hydroelectric power, “bio” energy, tidal and wave energy — can’t do what fossil fuels do, now or in the near future. Fossil fuels are here to stay, and policy should reflect that.
Trump's Big Oil cronies poised to prop up fossil fuels | Robert Weissman People are also reading...
Berry Tramel: Will Mike Gundy now learn to get along with his bosses? Meet the 2024 Tulsans of the Year: These people worked hard to make Tulsa better Four-day school week discussion: BA school officials release feasibility study findings Bill Haisten: There still is no resolution, but a Gundy-OSU divorce seems imminent Bill Haisten: Union's search heats up, and Owasso’s Antonio Graham has Union ties OSSAA board votes unanimously to deny hardship waiver of East Central basketball player Antonio Graham leaves Owasso for a ‘dream come true’ situation at Union Berry Tramel: Jackson Arnold shows OU should save its high-end shopping for the portal Broken Arrow Public Schools releases calendar options for four-day week Final OU football bowl projections before Sooners' postseason destination is revealed Cooper Parker secures Bixby's seventh consecutive state title in OT thriller versus Owasso POLL CLOSED: Vote for the Bill Knight Automotive high school football player of the week for Week 14 Assessing OU football's top transfer portal needs: Heavy on offense, but a little defense, too Court 'bulldozes' tribal law in Tulsa case over jurisdiction, attorney says Berry Tramel: OU's victory over Alabama comes at quite the cost, courtesy of the playoff Since the 1970s, “transitioning” away from fossil fuels has been a significant goal of environmental groups and their allies. According to Department of Energy data, after 50 years of rhetoric and many trillions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and private investment, renewables produced 21% of U.S.
electricity and 9% of U.S. energy last year.
A much-needed reality check shows instead that 83% of U.S. energy and 60% of electricity came from fossil fuels in 2023.
These numbers should give pause to anyone suggesting that the transition from fossil fuels to wind, solar, geothermal and biomass will be quick, easy or affordable. Instead, we still rely on fossil fuels for nearly all our daily activities: lighting, heating and cooling our homes and businesses, traveling by plane or car, delivering produce and manufactured goods, and growing crops. Proponents of renewables will look at those numbers and ask you to “imagine” all the ways we could transition and how much better the world would be if we did.
But a study by researchers at Baylor University found that the policy goals now advocated are unrealistic. Their work suggests no feasible way to transition completely or even significantly to renewables because current alternative energy sources cannot reliably meet demand. And absent large government subsidies, renewables are more costly.
Consumers expect that when they flip a switch, the lights will come on every time. Fossil fuels are more reliable because they can produce energy day and night when the wind is howling and when it’s calm, when the river’s waters are rushing toward their destination and during long dry spells when it barely flows. In contrast, the wind and the sun, which account for most renewable energy, produce no energy when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.
This leaves supporters with a problem. They must either suggest that we build costly grid-size facilities for battery storage to compensate for down times, or that we add natural gas generators to the mix, which requires fossil fuels. These backup requirements also increase cost .
For example, researchers at the University of Chicago estimate in 2019 that electricity prices had risen as much as 17% because of the mandatory inclusion of renewable energy, costing consumers more than $125.2 billion more than they would have paid had they stayed with fossil fuels. Fossil fuels store energy efficiently and produce energy independent of weather.
For more than 150 years, they have demonstrated their reliability and affordability. Renewable energy today does neither. One form of “green” energy that could fill this need is nuclear power.
But that remains unacceptable to many in the environmental movement, which wants to continue subsidizing wind and solar power. Instead of imagining what we want the world to be, we should look at the world as it is. We should allow the usual process of consumer demand, entrepreneurial innovation and an assessment of costs to give us the energy we need.
.
