Achieving a meaningful shift with current policies turns out to be unaffordably costly. We need to drastically change policy direction.
Globally, we are already spending almost US$2 trillion annually to try to force an energy transition. Over the past decade, solar and wind energy use has increased to their highest-ever levels. But it hasn’t reduced fossil fuels — over the same time, we have added even more fossil fuels.
Countless studies show that when societies add more renewable energy, most of it never replaces , gas or oil. It simply adds to energy consumption.
Recent research shows that for every six units of new green energy, less than one unit displaces any fossil fuel. Analysis in the United States shows that renewable energy subsidies simply lead to more overall energy being used.
None of this should come as a surprise to any student of history. During the transition from wood to coal during the 1800s, overall wood use actually increased even while coal took over a greater percentage of energy needs.
The same thing happened when we shifted from coal to oil: by 1970, oil, coal, gas and wood all delivered more energy than ever.
Affordable
Humans have an unquenchable thirst for affordable energy, which is required for every aspect of modern life. In the past half-century, the energy we get from oil and coal has again doubled, hydropower has tripled, and gas has quadrupled – and we have experienced an explosion in the use of nuclear, solar and wind.
The whole world – and the average person – has never had more energy available.
The grand plan underpinning today’s green energy transition mostly insists that pushing heavily subsidised renewables everywhere will magically make fossil fuels go away.
But a recent study concluded that talk of a transition is “misleading.” During every previous addition of a new energy source, the researchers found, it has been “entirely unprecedented for these additions to cause a sustained decline in the use of established energy sources.”
Use
What causes us to change our relative use of energy? One study investigated fourteen shifts that have taken place over the past five centuries, like when farmers went from ploughing fields with animals to fossil fuel-powered tractors.
The main driver has always been that the new energy service is either better or cheaper.
Solar and wind fail on both counts. They are not better, because, unlike fossil fuels that can produce electricity whenever we need it, they can only produce energy according to the vagaries of daylight and weather.
This means they are not cheaper, either. At best, they are only cheaper when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing at just the right speed. The rest of the time they are mostly useless and infinitely costly.
When we factor in the cost of just four hours of storage, wind and solar energy solutions become uncompetitive compared to fossil fuels.