Here are two recent articles addressing the war on fossil fuels:
(1) I don’t have an inherent dislike of solar and wind energy, but I am suspicious of the way they are being pushed.
Here’s an example:
Renewable energy advocates such as Tony Seba are talking about how solar and battery technology will enable exponential uptake in renewable technology, and that people won’t want to invest in a thermal power plant anymore.
But on the other hand: Renewable advocates want government legislation to support their chosen renewable energy targets. e.g. “50% renewable energy would put Australia in line with leading nations” at the Conversation. Or another example might be where energy companies are talking about how the government has to ‘support the transition’ in this AFR article: AGL says government must support power industry exit from coal.
But wait a minute, if wind and solar are truly so amazing and so cheap – why does the government need to get involved? Why wouldn’t these renewable energy companies and advocates find a way to profitably do it and not make any fuss about wanting governmental regulation/subsidies?
You can read the rest @
(2) The world's historic effort to reduce carbon emissions is likely to be a costly if not quixotic endeavor, according to one expert, whose recently published research warns that decarbonizing the globe could have devastating consequences on the world's way of life.
In a report published this week, the International Energy Agency issued a call for "concrete action" to match the ambitions of last year's landmark climate change agreement, which was recently ratified by nearly 200 countries. The energy watchdog said the transition to a low-carbon future would require "massive changes in the energy system" to prevent the globe's temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius.
Yet the agency also put a steep price tag on efforts to combat climate change. In order to decarbonize the power sector within the next 40 years, the world would have to invest at least $9 trillion - and an additional $6.4 trillion to make other industries more environmentally friendly.
You can read the rest @
In a former life I reviewed air pollution permits for renewable energy facilities. I discovered that the majority of them either never got built or went bankrupt because they could not turn a profit.
For renewable energy to thrive in the US will require MASSIVE government intervention and subsidies. The only way to generate the necessary capital will be to strip mine and steal the wealth of places like Africa.
Do the ends really justify the means? I doubt it.