The Myth of The "Energy Transition"

 



Today I want to tackle once again the subject of the much-hyped "energy transition" which has been thoroughly debunked from articles, books, documentaries, and presentation videos such as Planet of the Humans, Bright Green Lies (also located here), Life After Fossil Fuels, Earth and Humanity: Myth and Reality, The Hydrogen Economy Myth, Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet, The Fantasy of Electrification, What Would it Take for Humanity to Experience Radical Transformation? and Pulling Back The Curtain On The Energy Transition Tale. I have pointed out how these hilarious ideas attempt to use technology to solve the problems and predicaments that technology use has CAUSED, which most people can deduce is an impossibility. Some people have accused me of being a "technology hater" which is completely false. I'm not really much different than most people, I enjoy all the modern conveniences that technology provides and am very grateful for the many varied advancements that technology has made possible (especially medical advancements). Given this, however, I am also well aware of the overall costs technology use has exacted upon the environment which surrounds us.

Now I have yet one more piece of evidence outlining how these false narratives about an "energy transition" is simply not to be. This new report, Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels, has been made available by Professor Simon Michaux. I introduced it by including three paragraphs in the Abstract, quote: 

"Calculations reported here suggest that the total additional non-fossil fuel electrical power annual capacity to be added to the global grid will need to be around 37,670.6 TWh. If the same non-fossil fuel energy mix as that reported in 2018 is assumed, then this translates into an extra 221,594 new power plants will be needed to be constructed and commissioned.

To put this in context, the total power plant fleet in 2018 (all types including fossil fuel plants) was only 46,423 stations. This large number reflects the lower Energy Returned on Energy Invested (ERoEI) ratio of renewable power compared to current fossil fuels.

The number of individual solar panel array farms, wind turbine farms, nuclear power plants, hydroelectric plants and biowaste to energy plants to deliver this additional power requirement was also calculated. The existing non-fossil fuel electrical power generation system (9,528.7 TWh) would have to expand by additional capacity, 4 times the existing scope. Each of the modelled non-fossil fuel systems have practical limitations to expansion, for example it was proposed to develop 16,504 new hydroelectric plants of average size but of course hydroelectricity can only be sited in very specific geographic conditions, and there may not by sufficient new sites globally that would be viable."

Just those three paragraphs are sufficient enough to give the reader an idea of what would actually be required. Needless to say, this isn't going to happen. The report is VERY comprehensive and thorough and has over 300 pages of supporting sources, links, charts, and graphs in the appendix sections. 

Here is arguably the most important takeaway from this article and the science behind it included in the various articles and links: it needs to be said that the ONLY "green, clean, and renewable energy" source is entirely naturally-grown food. Electricity has never been, is not now, and will never be sustainable, period. This means that all the devices manufactured which utilize electricity are ALSO unsustainable. They do not solve any of the predicaments we face and they never will. They simply can't because they are a large part of what is causing ecological overshoot, allowing us to use far more energy (producing far more emissions, pollution, and ecological destruction) than we ever could without technology. There is no way to reduce climate change while allowing ecological overshoot to continue because ecological overshoot is what is CAUSING climate change.

Once again we see that this energy transition that we keep hearing about is nothing more than the same old fantasies, myths, and fairy tales; a Potemkin village according to John Michael Greer (albeit this is framed in a different scenario but still one steeped in colonialism). One could also say that we are collectively descending into madness, as Rob Mielcarski points out the symptoms here, quote:

  • "We talk about everything except what matters. For example, our climate has shifted a gear, and peak oil is behind us, yet there is zero discussion about food security or the need for population reduction.

  • We’ve polarized into tribes that are unable to contemplate or respect or discuss the beliefs of another tribe. We attack or ignore opponents rather than engage in respectful debate. We’ve always tended to do this, but it’s getting worse.

  • Facts are irrelevant to beliefs. When facts are unsure or complex we are unable to admit uncertainty. While common throughout history, this phenomenon is getting worse, and is now pervasive in our intellectual leaders.

  • We’re totally dependent for everything we need to survive from other countries that we now view as enemies, yet we never discuss the need for more resilience.

  • We embrace solutions that have zero probability of improving a problem. Think green new deal.

  • Our response to problems often worsens the outcome. For example, printing trillions to further inflate a bubble that when it pops will do additional damage to that which we’re trying to protect."


One can clearly see how this is unfolding and how the predicaments we face continue worsening because the framework for thinking consistently falls into looking for external solutions rather than looking inside each of us and being willing to change our behaviors collectively. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out in many different articles, we lack agency for this because we only control our OWN thoughts and actions. Of course, there will come a time when we will have no other option than to give up technology use, and this time will probably come much sooner than expected. Until then, there's no better time to start to Live Now!




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Welcome to Problems, Predicaments, and Technology

Image
Welcome to my new blog - titled Problems, Predicaments, and Technology -  because that is the title to a short article I wrote over a year ago to point out the difference between problems and predicaments (often called dilemmas ) and explain the role technology use (and the culture surrounding it) has had in creating most of the predicaments we face today. While this blog is mainly focused on Ecological Overshoot, Abrupt Climate Disruption ( ACD ) and Energy and Resource Decline (generally associated with peak oil and collapse), there are a myriad of other predicaments closely associated with these three that will also be covered. Many scientists focus a large amount of their lives trying to figure out how to solve these predicaments as if they are problems in the hopes of coming up with a way to at least mitigate some of the harm society is doing to life on this planet. My efforts here are to point out that in a very real sense, this has been rooted in denial of reality  and opti
Read more

What Would it Take for Humanity to Experience Radical Transformation?

Image
Today we shall investigate this question: What would it take for humanity to experience radical transformation of individual and collective consciousness within the next decade? This picture looks inviting, doesn't it? But does it realistically represent the world we collectively live in today? In one word, NO. One look at the news stories of today can easily show how individuals, groups, corporations, and nations of all stripes are arguing and fighting for attention, for purposes, and for goals and strategies. Look at social media and it is ripe with every flavor of disagreement known to society. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there are few things everyone can agree on, and even when one IS found, nobody can agree on the ways to solve what everyone agreed the problems are. Now, throw in a PREDICAMENT instead of a problem and guess what happens? From my experience, when a predicament is put into the mix, most people still look at it from the same standpoint the
Read more

Denial of Reality

Image
  In my last written post (to clarify the difference between the files, which contain only links to outside material), I mentioned denial of reality. You might wonder what this has to do with climate change and extinction. Cognitive dissonance is one of the most powerful mental issues that affects humans. Rob Mielcarski explains the evolution of how this came to be, quote: " The singular emergence of human intelligence, and its ability to write and read this paragraph, evolved in a gene controlled machine with an unusually powerful computer, that was created by an improbable simultaneous adaptation for an extended theory of mind with denial of reality, and whose complexity was enabled by the increased energy per gene provided by mitochondria, that resulted from an accidental endosymbiosis of two prokaryotes, powered by an unintuitive chemiosmotic proton pump, that originated in an alkaline hydrothermal vent, on 1 of 40 billion planets, in 1 of 100 billion galaxies, and that plane
Read more

More Cognitive Dissonance

Image
  In my last post , I expressed my concerns regarding methane emissions along with the growing speed which our collective predicaments appear to be gaining. Then I explained precisely why we have thus far not made any real progress on these predicaments based upon our collective denial , which has a considerable amount to do with our basic human psychology. In conclusion, the reality is that very few people are actually paying an ounce of real attention. What they are paying attention to are all the distractions - the hype, advertising, marketing, and propaganda. Today I bring more evidence of the increasing speed of these predicaments as I recall some of my articles which I had privately hoped might be a long way off into the future. I'm not one to try to evade uncomforting news. If I was, I most certainly wouldn't be reading and watching these articles, reports, studies, videos, and other media to try to understand and comprehend fully where we are and where we're heade
Read more

Fantasies, Myths, and Fairy Tales

Image
  Advertisement from the mid-20th century I have often used this expression (the title) to describe many things people tend to think of as solutions for one thing or another that either are not solutions or are unrealistic at best in terms of actually solving something. For anyone just joining these articles, this post  will help get you started so as to be able to comprehend what this article is about.  As I have expressed before, my deep passion is to help explain where we are (as a species), how we got here, why we are in this mess, and what can and/or cannot be done to "solve" these predicaments. My very first post explained the difference between problems with answers or solutions and predicaments (or dilemmas) with outcomes. In it, we discovered that predicaments don't have solutions, and that every solution proffered for a predicament winds up causing new problems and/or predicaments or comes with unacceptable costs or just simply doesn't solve anything. The re
Read more

What is NTHE and How "near" is Near Term?

Image
I distinctly remember my first introduction to the initialism (or abbreviation or acronym) "NTHE" which ushered me into a whole new set of exploration. I was a member of a climate change group on Facebook at the time (which I had been a member of for quite some time) and I saw a post which was discussing it. I hadn't seen this abbreviation before and wondered what it meant, so I did a search and a whole list of links was presented (as usual) along with the spelled out version, Near Term Human Extinction. I clicked on one which took me to a website blog by Dave Pollard . I started reading and was introduced to another person, Carolyn Baker, with whom Dave had a video interview with. Through this video, I was introduced to another person, a professor by the name of Guy McPherson. A video of him presenting information at an Indiana university, DePauw, where my grandmother attended, was available; so I watched it. The information was stark and I noticed the looks on the ki
Read more

So, What Should We Do?

Image
  Pictures of wildfire damage at Glacier National Park in Montana 2016 What type of activities will help in reducing the effects of ecological overshoot? I'm often asked this question when I point out that solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear energy, hydroelectric dams, EVs, and all other technological devices will not help climate change, pollution loading, or any other predicament under the parent predicament of ecological overshoot: "Well, what are your solutions?" Sadly, this question assumes that I am pointing out a PROBLEM, not a predicament. Predicaments don't have solutions. So, I don't have a solution (and nobody else does either, despite claims to the contrary - more on that in a couple of paragraphs). But I can tell them what WON'T help. Buying more stuff, REGARDLESS of what it is, WILL NOT HELP. Because ecological overshoot is a predicament with an outcome and not a problem with a solution , people need to adjust their expectations accordingly.
Read more