City Journal: Politics and Physics Collide
The legislature and unelected regulators enjoy magical thinking because the time frames are long, they will never be held responsible and perhaps engineers can meet the goals. Automakers have long been burdened with fleet economy standards that must be met. The Laws of Thermodynamics are problems for engineers, not legislators. Cars became lighter and less safe while also becoming more complex and expensive.
The idea that the United States can quickly “transition” away from hydrocarbons—the energy sources primarily used today—to a future dominated by so-called green technologies has become one of the central political divides of our time.
Green technologies are like diversity hires. Unproductive and inappropriate choices are forced on people with no regard for performance or fitness for purpose.
A comprehensive Wood MacKenzie analysis shows that the Green New Deal’s price tag is closer to $3 trillion.
The result is that with all of our technological advances, we are less comfortable and less prosperous than we could be.
Through regulatory fiat, the Environmental Protection Agency’s newly announced rules effectively mandate that more than half of all cars and trucks sold must be electric vehicles (EVs) by 2032.
Sales of electric vehicles, even with massive subsidies, are down. Electric vehicles can be fun to drive and offer designers more flexibility. They aren’t popular because the technology is insufficient. Charging takes a long time, the range is reduced in cold weather and batteries catch on fire. If electric vehicles were the best solution, people would buy them without incentives.
The total direct and induced spending on the energy transition could easily exceed $5 trillion before a decade passes, or sooner, if advocates prevail.
That comes to about $30,000 per taxpayer, on top of what we are already paying or wracking up in debt. This will make us all poorer.
Delivering reliable 24–7 electricity using episodic power sources (wind and solar) unavoidably necessitates both over-building (to supply extra energy) and some kind of energy-storage system. The combination of these two requirements leads to a doubling or tripling of delivered energy costs compared with the “spontaneous” cost of one machine operating.
Your electric bill would triple. Since everything uses energy to be produced, the cost of everything will go up. For the rich, the electric bill isn’t a big issue. For the working class, the electric bill would be more than a worker is saving for retirement.
Spending this money on a fantasy means that we won’t be able to afford to make our electrical grid more robust. Nuclear power is safe, efficient and reliable. An electric future with nuclear power could satisfy everyone.
The relevance of mining, in particular, is highlighted by how minerals themselves now constitute more than half the cost of building solar modules and lithium batteries.
For a first-cut approximation, the cost of something approximates the amount of resources needed to produce it. An electric car has more environmental impact than an inexpensive conventional car because it costs twice as much to manufacture. The money goes into rare metals and more expensive materials. Just because the environmental impact happens during manufacture, rather than during use, doesn’t mean that it’s better for the environment.
The article goes into depth regarding the physical limits of different technologies. The limits and costs are real. Mandates based on magical thinking force more people into poverty and prevent us from being prosperous.
New technologies have a place, and innovation should be encouraged, but not mandated. People will choose those technologies where they are appropriate.