Europe's renewable energy push is destined for ruin - UnHerd

Europe's renewable energy push is destined for ruin - The Post

Europe’s renewable energy push is destined for ruin

The age of oil is far from over

The Eurozone economy is “set for a painful reckoning”, culminating in a hit of at least 3.8% on the economy which could rise to 5% depending on energy prices, according to Bloomberg. In light of this forecast, it is about time Europe adapted its energy policy, placing it on a more realistic footing.

It would seem that a new energy crisis is already baked into the cake. Despite the bloc’s efforts to wean itself off the oil, the truth is that it will hardly make a dent in consumption. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted an oil demand peak of 100 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2019, to be followed by a decline to 75 mb/d by 2030. Now, the IEA has reversed course and projects 105 mb/d in 2028, yet that number is, as things stand, set to be attained much sooner. Analysts believe that renewables can replace crude oil, but a closer look shows why these hopes are futile.

According to energy economist Anas Alhajji, only about 3% of global electricity is produced from oil. No matter how quickly we are building out wind and solar, then, this will only have a very small effect on the need for crude oil, and that demand is going to grow. The wealthiest billion people on the planet use roughly 13-14 barrels per capita of energy; the other seven billion inhabitants, by comparison, only use about three barrels per capita. Unless we assume that 7/8ths of the world’s population have no interest in improving their living standards, global energy consumption will increase rapidly in the coming decades, just as it has in the past.

Can it be covered by renewable energy alone? The largest investor in renewables is China, but at current investment levels it would take Beijing 211 years to reach Net Zero. Looking at these numbers, it is no surprise that in 2022 China used more coal than the rest of the world combined.

None of this precludes the use of renewables where appropriate, but there is a serious risk that blackmailing investors and companies into stopping the necessary expansion of oil and gas exploration will lead to supply shortages in the coming years. This is especially true if the global economy picks up speed once again. Even some of the most vocal renewables proponents acknowledge this — including Norway, which has recently approved another $18 billion in oil and gas investments.

To say that the world is on the brink of a transition away from fossil fuels is simply not true. A glance at the data shows that, at best, renewables can slow down the growth of energy produced from traditional sources. Elimination is another matter entirely.

As the UK and Germany demonstrate, forcing people into an energy policy that threatens their standard of living can only turn them against the entire project of a renewables-based economy. If we do not switch to a more gradual transition that protects personal interests, an economic crisis in 2024 could mark the end of the entire renewables industry, as they will become a primary target for public ire and populist parties alike.

SMRs are the ways forward until technology produces a better solution (I read this morning that the CA lab has successfully replicated its nuclear fusion experiment for example). It is the only technology offering both energy density and energy security – the west has some chance of acquiring the inputs based on resource availability. France has just announced its investing in nuclear and already had a major head start in an European context (albeit a decaying one). Meanwhile in the UK, the home of Rolls Royce who have led the SMR charge, we face a govt espousing windmills and panels. Why? Cost is.one reason, but the activists who now appear to tie governments up in knots appear to have a different agenda. For them, net zero is a politiclly driven project to end capitalism and deliver socialism. Not expectng any sane policy until the govt/activist nexus is dismantled or silenced by the majority. In the UK i sense that’s 5 years off.

And, of course, all of this avoidable if Nick Clegg hadn’t made a catastrophic error in 2011……

The alternative to the replacement of net zero with a realistic plan is that political authoritarians in the west will actually succeed in imposing it upon western economies irrespective of popular opposition.

This would have two main effects, firstly that it would wreak economic ruin and accelerate western decline to the point where the west has been overtaken by other parts of the world, secondly that it would have taken place under conditions where political liberty – ie democracy – has been badly damaged. In other words not in a free country.

This sounds like something that couldn’t happen but saying this underestimates the other factors that might lead to such conditions. Belief in dangerous climate change (as opposed to accepting it’s a problem we shouldn’t ignore) is a strongly held conviction amongst voters under 35, which not coincidentally is the same cohort that has been squeezed out of the stake-in-the-game that previous generations found easier to get: career prospects, property ownership, the conditions in which raising a family is viable etc.

So there is a growing class of disenfranchised voters who might very well vote in ways that run counter to traditional free market democracy on the basis that they’re not allowed to benefit from it anyway, so what do they have to lose?

If we had more gas and oil, more cheaply from the north sea, this should help us to rebuild our economy and reduce our dependence on imports from high emission coal burning countries thus yielding a net world saving in CO2 emissions – a win win for the UK economy and the environment.

Excellent article – and Tony Blair understands this and is urging us to pull back ( a bit )

Unfortunately there is so much inertia behind the short sighted uk and western european approach to net zero that our economies will be experiencing a lot of suffering before we can seriously recover

Do we want a petro-chemical industry or don’t we? If yes, we’re gonna need lots of oil.

I keep asking where the money will come from for all the subsidies that are necessary for this transition?? The USA and EU countries are heavily in debt so will have to start making hard choices on what to spend on…The Developing world wants trillions to support any attempt at renewables….Soon enough the bill will come do as it is starting to in Germany….Populations are just now realizing the cost of living hit this will require…..The bell tolls for thee

In my opinion the author’s views are entirely sensible and correct. However the fears of those very many decent and influential people, at all levels in society, who have been persuaded that we face an almost immediate existential crisis if we do not very soon stop using oil and gas, will have to be addressed and allayed. This will require leadership from many strong, principled and highly articulate politicians from across the political spectrum and throughout the world. They in turn will need the backing of credible scientists to help counter the views of those who are inclined or financially motivated to a different, more alarmist view. The world media will also need to play an informed, honest and constructive part. But first it starts with individuals having the courage to speak out and be counted. So thank you for this essay. Very many more like it will be needed.

I predict that reality will impose itself in the next 5-10 years & western nations will accept that the green tech they want can’t be forced, but it will come eventually. Then we’ll realise that we took our eyes off the ball & hydrocarbons have been cornered by the people we don’t like. Then we’ll realise those same people have also cornered all the weird stuff we need for batteries etc. then we’ll realise we’re up the creek.

Utter nonsense