The proponents of eliminating all fossil fuel energy and transitioning to ‘alternative energy’ embodied in the “New Green Deal” of the Democrats and Climate Alarmists insist it is possible, cost-efficient, and mandatory to save the planet. What are the costs and what is the effect of destroying the fossil fuel industry in America? Honestly, I cannot answer that fully, but I do see some very serious and important factors that nobody on the Left wants to address.
What would it cost and what would be the effect of going 100-percent renewable in our energy? First, the possibility of achieving that with any efficiency in the foreseeable future is dim. Second, the cost would be astronomical. Third, the impact on our economy in the process would be devastating. Now, that I have placed myself in the negative column regarding this push let me proceed.
I want to state, I am not opposed to alternative energy if it can be produced efficiently and with the quantity and quality required. I am not opposed to alternative energy if it can be produced at a cost that is affordable for the average wage earner. Do I believe that is possible? Not with the current capacity or technology. I see some incredibly catastrophic results if we allow the Leftists to gut our oil and gas industry and force us into a Climate Change Paranoia. The planet is not on its last legs as Al Gore, AOC, and Joe Biden insist.
I believe in God and believe the Creator of all things created a sustainable planet and puny man is not going to destroy it via our technology and the use of fossil fuels. One volcanic eruption spews more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the technology of man. Cow flatulence is not destroying the planet. I am a strong proponent of clean air and water and become irate when I see littering and blatant disregard for reasonable safety precautions. However, the planet was created for man, not man for the planet.
One of the low estimates of the “Green New Deal” where we would move to 100-percent renewable energy for our electricity would cost at least $5.7 TRILLION immediately. Not in 10, 15, or 20 years but upfront. That makes it beyond affordable. The cost per annum required to implement the Green New Deal would be, at a minimum, $425 billion. That is more than the entire cost of electricity in 2016. Numerous scientists have insisted that such a policy WOULD NOT be the most efficient way to abate greenhouse gas emissions. I hope you noted that last statement. It would be cost-prohibitive and not achieve their objective. I must ask, “Why destroy our economy for a policy that will not do what they insist must be done?”
There are so many variables in the equation beyond projected costs that none of the proponents will discuss. How do you accurately predict the seasonal changes in the weather and production? How do you accurately determine the increases or decreases in solar or wind availability for production? They have not clearly defined the predictions of transmission ability, the required discharge rate of storage capacity, the varying peaks in-unit versus baseload costs, and a myriad of other issues.
They make several assumptions and I was told early in life you never ASSUME. Not to be crude, but as one professor told me, “When you assume you make an ass out of you and me.” He said, “Facts, only deal with facts, never ASSUME!” The costs of assuming are not definable therefore budgeting is beyond difficult it is dangerous. One miscalculation could send the costs through the roof or stop the entire project. America, we know what we have in the fossil fuel industry, we do not know what we are getting in the renewable energy industry.
One report determined that the United States’ current electricity generating capacity is 1,085 gigawatts. In order to move to 100-percent renewable electricity, it would be mandatory that we create sufficient storage capacity to meet the peak demands EVERY DAY, plus have a reserve margin to cover the unforeseen climatic and other issues. We would require a safety net to cover disruptions, equipment failures, or other issues that would prevent the power supply sources from supplying customers with electricity.
In order to maintain the 1,085 gigawatts, we would need 1,085 gigawatts of both solar and wind. Is that even possible? With solar power producing about 25.7-percent of the day and wind only about 34.6-percent of the day. That means that about 40-percent of the time neither source would be available. What does that mean? It means that we would need a 1,085 gigawatts alternate resource to cover the deficiency of those two highly touted sources.
The cost of installing the required renewable capacity would be $5.7 TRILLION. If we combine all the cost factors and the lack of availability, we discover this is not a viable approach. The Green New Deal is a fictional idea that is a black hole into which we would pour money and it would line the pockets of a few insider investors and politicians. It would devastate the budgets of the average citizen and put millions in the dark and cold.
Let me offer another fact that the proponents of the Green New Deal will insist is not true. I did not dream it up but gleaned it from the works of numerous scientists and economic and energy analysts. The incredible cost difference between storing electricity and generating it is mindboggling. I draw from LAZARD (Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Storage Analysis). It estimates that the cost of wholesale, Levelized cost of lithium-ion storage (the total lifetime cost relative to energy saved) would be between $204-298 per megawatt-hour. The Levelized Cost of a natural gas power plant is $48 per megawatt-hour. What does that mean? Using battery storage required in the Green New Deal rather than a dispatchable natural gas power plant would cost consumers 4-6 times as much.
How many want to pay 4-6 times the amount you now pay for electricity, fuel for your automobile, etc.? The mammoth investment would be incredible for the federal government but even more monumental for the consumer. Every home, every vehicle, and virtually everything that now uses energy would have to be fitted, modified, or replaced to embrace that source of energy. How many of you have a few hundred thousand sitting idle that you can put your hands on to make that transition?
One more factor I ask you to consider is that even MIT and Stanford University studies suggest that the estimates I have listed are likely 10-60-percent underestimations. They and other researchers suggest that the proposals and projections on paper are, at best, only half accurate in their estimation of effectiveness. The Breakthrough Institute stated that in most or all cases proposed there would be little to no improvement in the carbon intensity.
My position is we are selling our souls in fear and as we did in the COVID-19 panic and lockdown destroying ourselves and our economy ineffectively. Is having a warm-fuzzy feeling that you are somehow saving the planet worth destroying life on the planet? It is not for me! That is one of the ten thousand reasons I oppose the toxicity of liberalism and will continue to fight for Faith, Family, and Freedom. I will continue to push legislators to THINK and use reasonable and fiscally sustainable approaches to dealing with all matters. Fear will not rule my heart because I believe God is still GOD!
God bless America and God bless you!