Dreaming the Impossible Dream

David Cavena26 Apr, 2023 2 Min Read

What continually surprises is the lack of recognition of reality when discussing “green” energy. Economic reality. Physical reality. Energy reality. Let’s look at the numbers. We already know that the necessary minerals and mining capacity for conversion to electricity of America’s transportation needs simply do not exist on this planet. And we already know that we would need to double the electrical generation capacity of America, from about four trillion KwH to about eight trillion KwH, to replicate, electrically, our current personal transportation usage.

Now the climate cultists have turned their sights on home appliances. The American consumer uses approximately 4.72 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in our stoves, water heaters, clothes dryers, and furnaces. If we were to electrify these appliances, turn that 4.72 trillion cubic feet of energy now supplied by natural gas, into energy delivered via electricity, could we do it?

Usefully, the government’s EIA (Energy Information Administration) provides conversion calculations between energy sources: 4.72 trillion cubic feet of natural gas provides 4.9 quadrillion British Thermal Units, or BTUs. Assuming (one never can) a 100 percent conversion of energy consumed when switching energy systems to provide similar function, those 4.9 quadrillion BTUs, if provided via electricity, would require adding another thirty-five percent, another 1.4 trillion KwH, to the American electrical generating capacity, via wind and solar.

Never happen.

With brownouts plaguing the grid at 4 trillion kilowatts/hour today, what would be the logical expectation of adding over 5 trillion kilowatts/hour to that grid, 4T KwH for EVs and 1.4T KwH for natural gas replacement? Ignoring the mining realities above, is this electrification of natural gas appliances possible? From Forbes:

The government spending is expected to act as a catalyst for mobilizing the private investment sector’s resources to increase global clean energy investment to reach over $2 trillion annually in 2030. An impressive sum, but one that still falls short of the $4 trillion of global clean energy investment that needs to be hit annually by 2030 for the world to reach its 2050 net-zero goal, according to the IEA.

Trillions already have been invested. The results? "[T]he world now has 295 gigawatts of green generating capacity." In 2020, global generating capacity was 7,172 gigawatts, of which renewables provided four percent. Over ten years, $2.5 trillion has been spent for that four percent. With global government debt at $226 trillion, where, exactly, will this money come from to be spent, quixotically, on this nonsense?

Adding 5T KwH to the current 4T KwH, to the existing electrical grid in the U.S. alone cannot be done with wind and solar. There is no there there, regardless of the money spent. With global "green" energy totaling 295 gigawatts, it seems we have a gap between reality and expectations.

If reducing carbon emissions and expanding electrical output were our goals, a fraction of that money could be spent investing in nuclear power, natural gas, and on upgrades to our grid infrastructure. If any of this were about “global warming,” that is what we would be doing.

But it is not. It’s about controlling you. It’s about confining you. This has nothing to do with the climate. It never has.

David Cavena is a native southern Californian exfiltrated to Arizona. An IT professional for 40 years, he has pushed cows in California, dudes and horses in Wyoming, and programmers in Los Angeles and Phoenix. An avid outdoorsman – skier, backpacker, water skier and scuba diver – David writes from Arizona.


See All

2 comments on “Dreaming the Impossible Dream”

  1. The trouble with the Eco-Freaks that they have allowed a totally false ideology to get in the way of Common sense

  2. Climate stasis is a myth, hydrocarbons if burned to CO2 and H2O are completely renewable, by plants. Currently atmospheric CO2 levels are closer to plant "starvation" levels than " optimal ".

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *