The Green Energy Agenda vs. Long Run Strategic Planning

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- June 8, 2021

EXCERPT:

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Mark Mills brought to light the fact that the International Energy Agency (IEA), generally regarded as the world’s most important source for energy information, recently released a 287-page report entitled, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions.  

Here are some highlights and lowlights from that IEA report. 

  • Transitioning from today’s energy production (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) to clean energy (wind, solar, batteries) requires minerals, lots of minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel, and what are called, “rare-earth metals”. Demand will explode by an estimated 4,200% (lithium), 2,500% (graphite), 1,900% (nickel) and 700% (rare-earth metals). Supply and demand drive pricing. When these dramatic increases occur and with greater competition for the metals, what will happen to the price of these minerals, and hence the price of a battery-powered car? Raw material costs already account for some 50-70% of total battery costs. 
  • All of this mining requires a mining industry, massive transportation, refinement facilities, and infrastructure to support them that does not exist and there are no plans to build them. And to do so will cost a least hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars.
  • Production of an electric car requires six times more minerals than a conventional car. An on-shore wind plant requires nine times more minerals than a natural gas-fired plant and a wind turbine will need to be replaced in an estimated 20 years. In just the past ten years, as the transition to wind and solar has begun, the minerals needed to produce a unit of energy have increased by 50%. And that effort only increased the wind and solar share of energy production by 10%.
  • With greater demand for minerals, there is another long-range consideration, declining resource quality. Already we are experiencing mineral quality falling across a range of commodities. For example, the average copper ore grade in Chile declined by 30% in just the past 15 years. 
  • The IEA reported that on average it takes over sixteen years to move a mining operation from discovery to production. 
  • Environmental consequences: The new demand for minerals creates a global mining boom that will produce an enormous environmental footprint. First, it demands huge quantities of water and, coincidently, about half the known global lithium and copper sources are in water-shortage areas. Additionally, there will be extensive contamination from acid mining, contaminated drainage, and wastewater.
  • The IEA points out that the mining of “energy transition minerals” will occur mainly in countries with “low governance scores”. That is, where corruption and bribery pose high-risk operations.
  • Viability of access to “energy-transition-minerals”, ETM: While the top three global oil and gas producers account for less than 50% of oil and gas supply, the top three producers of key ETMs control more than 80% of global supply. But, most importantly, China controls most of that 80% and today the US isn’t even in the game.
  • To contrast our position today with China, America is now 100% dependent on imports for some 17 key minerals, and, for another 29, over half of our needs are imported thereby creating tremendous vulnerability.
  • The IEA report also poses a critical question on future net carbon savings. Mining, transporting, chemical processing, and refining of billions of tons of earth materials will create a new and massive carbon footprint which could conceivably create new carbon emissions in greater volume than that which is saved by driving electric cars.
  • What do we do when we run out of one or more of the essential minerals to support battery energy?
  • What if the cost of producing batteries for vehicles increases the cost of a vehicle out of the range of lower- and middle-class families?
  • The planners would look at the Paris Global Climate Accords and conclude that the accords do nothing to address the IEA revealed shortcomings. Nations set their own goals, nothing is enforceable and there are no penalties for noncompliance. The accords also state that the 139 “developing countries” (which, according to The World Bank, includes China and India) would need assistance from “developed” countries. Wherein India promptly estimated that it would need “at least US $2.5 trillion” in aid by 2030 to achieve its emissions reduction targets.” And then there is China’s “pledge”; they will build hundreds of new coal-fired plants and continue to increase emissions of carbon dioxide at least until 2030.
  • Vehicles currently account for about 30% of US carbon emissions. A single electric car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of materials creating a huge carbon footprint. Averaged over a battery’s 7–10-year life, each mile of driving an electric car “consumes” five pounds of earth and, Americans alone, drive some 3 trillion road miles a year. 
  • Replacing the energy output from a single 100-MW natural gas-fired turbine, itself about the size of a residential house (producing enough electricity for 75,000 homes), requires at least 20 wind turbines, each one about the size of the Washington Monument, occupying some 10 square miles of land, requires some 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete, as well as 900 tons of nonrecyclable plastics for the huge blades. With solar hardware, the tonnage in cement, steel, and glass is 150% greater than for wind, for the same energy output. 
  • Could we learn some long-range strategic planning lessons from China? In two generations, China has built 500 entire cities from scratch; moved the majority of their1.4 billion population from poverty to the middle class; initiated a global Silk Road infrastructure initiative in underdeveloped countries. By comparison, China has 40,000 kilometers of high-speed rail, the US has none; it took ten years for a bus line in San Francisco to pass its environmental review, and it took us 16 years to build the Big Dig tunnel in Boston. China’s emergence as a world leader in commerce and military preparedness is all about long-range strategic planning on a global scale.

Long-range strategic planning begins by answering a long list of questions. This IEA study goes a long way towards surfacing the critical issues that must be considered to determine a way ahead for any Green movement without just borrowing trillions of dollars to throw at the problem.

Read the full article at:

https://www.masterresource.org/yergin/strategic-planning-vs-green-e...

************************************* 


Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Views: 90

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Kenneth Capron on June 10, 2021 at 2:47pm

Admin. unveils review of U.S. supply chain vulnerabilities
In its 100-day review of U.S. supply chains, the Biden Administration identified bottlenecks that  overlap with the clean energy economy, including critical materials, batteries, and electric vehicles. As the small business voice for the clean energy economy, CEBN is especially encouraged to see the report’s recognition of the importance that small and medium-size businesses play across these critical supply chains. To boost domestic innovation, manufacturing, and competitiveness, CEBN has called on Congress to support a multi-billion-dollar boost to vital research, demonstration, and deployment programs across all Science and Energy program areas at DOE. Read CEBN's full statement here.

Comment by Kenneth Capron on June 10, 2021 at 2:29pm

The irony for the climateers club is having people get all worked up about EV and Solar and Wind and then having nothing to sell. Will they kick up their recycling of old batteries or are they shooting for the moon to see if there are any rare moon metals in space.

If you're an optimist, there's an asteroid of gold and a meteor of lithium out there somewhere. And they don't already have the Chinese flag planted on them.

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on June 10, 2021 at 1:51pm

Biden Launches Plan To Close Gitmo "Quietly" After Obama Tried & Failed

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-launches-plan-close-gitmo...

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on June 10, 2021 at 1:50pm

Mike Lindell Previews Next Event With President Trump on June 12

https://thelibertydaily.com/how-to-get-tickets-for-mike-lindells-ne...

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on June 10, 2021 at 1:45pm

New Hampshire Rally for Statewide Forensic Audit – Friday, June 11 at State Capitol Noon to 5 PM

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/new-hampshire-rally-statew...

Comment by Willem Post on June 10, 2021 at 1:31pm

This is a nice summary of rarely mentioned aspects of “going green”.

Driving EVs would require a materials infrastructure, mine to installation of battery in vehicle, that would emit at least as much CO2 as EVs are supposed to reduce.

But wait, EVs are driven about 7000 miles/y, versus gasoline vehicles about 12000 miles, ON AVERAGE

That means EVs would not reduce CO2 as much, as optimistically predicted.

Comment by Kenneth Capron on June 9, 2021 at 11:38am

Whoa! Did you speak the unspeakable? You mean to say there's more costs to renewables than just buying the end product? As some people keep saying - the scientists will find a solution - don't worry - be happy.

There is one bright light ahead. nironmagnetics.com, if they ever open up, has a better solution than Neodymium. Strongest magnetic field and 1/10 the cost. Iron Nitride has been around awhile but only recently has anyone found a way to make it in bulk.

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2021   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service