Tag: from hydrocarbons

Trump Energy Choices Saving America from Economic Disaster

Having discerned the Green New Deal as fraudulent, President Trump’s shift to maximize proven energy technologies may very well be America’s salvation from an economic disaster that climate policies were sure to deliver.

From Watts Up With That?

By Vijay Jayaraj

Having discerned the Green New Deal as fraudulent, President Trump’s shift to maximize proven energy technologies may very well be America’s salvation from an economic disaster that climate policies were sure to deliver.

The forced “transition” to alternative energy – relentlessly evangelized by policymakers, environmentalists, and corporate titans – promised to save humanity from purported perils of climate change. But far from being a solution, the movement proved a perilous misadventure, fundamentally misaligned with real-world energy demands.

For decades, fossil fuels – coal, oil, and natural gas – alongside nuclear power, have met global energy needs with unmatched efficiency. Together, they account for over 84% of global energy consumption, a figure that has barely budged despite years of green rhetoric and subsidies.

Unlike wind and solar, coal and nuclear plants can churn out electricity continuously month after month, rain or shine. The amount of land and materials required for such production is but a fraction of what wind turbines and solar panels take to produce equal amounts of electrons.

Oil and natural gas fuel nearly all transportation and serve as chemical feedstock for a dizzying array of products ranging from pharmaceuticals to ubiquitous plastics – roles that so-called renewables are incapable of filling. The reliability and versatility of hydrocarbons are not luxuries but necessities. If we didn’t have fossil fuels, we would have to invent them.

The green transition’s advocates often gloss over these realities, assuming that technological breakthroughs will magically bridge the gap. But hope is not a strategy.

Germany’s Energiewende, a decades-long experiment in renewable energy, has delivered soaring electricity prices – among the highest in Europe – and required a continued use of coal to back up the intermittent production of wind and solar. In the United States, California’s aggressive push for solar and wind has led to rolling blackouts and skyrocketing utility bills. Both are examples of ideology taking precedence over sensible energy planning.

Germany and California are not anomalies but a preview of what any chaser of the green unicorn would face eventually. An imposed switch from fossil fuels is affordable only for those who can bear its inefficiencies, leaving the majority of the world with diminished living standards and shortened lives.

Moreover, energy is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. Nations are endowed with unique resources, and their energy strategies must reflect the differences. Canada, for instance, harnesses its mighty rivers to generate over 60% of its electricity from hydropower – a capacity that wind and solar can’t replicate.

France’s fleet of nuclear reactors produces over 70% of the country’s power, a model of efficiency that sunlight and breezes can’t match. The Middle East, sitting atop vast oil and gas reserves, powers itself and much of the world with fuels that remain indispensable for transportation and manufacturing.

This diversity is not a flaw to be corrected but a strength to be embraced. India’s coal reserves, for example, are a lifeline for a nation where 300 million people still lack reliable electricity. Switching to imported solar panels or untested hydrogen would not only drain its coffers but also cede energy security to foreign suppliers.

Customized energy strategies, predominantly rooted in fossil fuels and nuclear, leverage available resources and efficient technologies without massive solar and wind industrial installations smothering arable land and scenic vistas.

Beyond economics, tailored energy strategies bolster national sovereignty. Relying on local fossil fuels or nuclear capacity means less dependence on foreign supply chains – a critical edge in an unstable world.

The green agenda, on the other hand, demanded conformity. Every nation had to adopt the same playbook – mainly solar and wind – regardless of local realities. Poor nations, in particular, require flexibility to develop economically, which can only be impeded by green mandates.

The Green New Deal was dangerous dogma masquerading as progress. Fossil fuels and nuclear power must remain central to the global energy mix, not because they are traditional but because they are needed.

The green fantasy has been a product of hubris – a belief that human ingenuity could defy nature’s limits and economic gravity in a single bound. The Trump administration is abandoning this mirage and embracing energy sources that are abundant, affordable and attuned to the world as it is rather than as the deluded wish it to be.

This commentary was first published at Townhall on March 13, 2025.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

No reason ‘Green energy,’ EV batteries should escape carbon tax

Those eager to tax U.S. and imported hydrocarbon energy products that emit CO2 in order to end many millions of years of climate change should be cautious regarding the “green alternatives” they wish for.

From CFACT

Those eager to tax U.S. and imported hydrocarbon energy products that emit CO2 in order to end many millions of years of climate change should be cautious regarding the “green alternatives” they wish for.

Look no further than “Foreign Pollution Fee Act” (FPFA) legislation proposed by Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., which would establish a misguided precedent for labeling plant-nourishing CO2 as a “pollutant” domestically as well.

As stated, the bill would amend the IRS Code of 1986 to impose a fee on certain imports based on their “pollution intensity” production in striving for “environmental protection in order to protect human health.”

Tariffs would be imposed on 16 categories of goods produced with higher CO2 emissions than in the U.S., including solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicle (EV) battery minerals.

In addition to the steel, aluminum, concrete, and plastic needed to build them, the legislation would also tax the crude oil and petrochemicals that fuel their production and keep them operating.

First, for some much-needed proportional perspective, consider that more than 80% of total world energy (not just citing electricity) comes from hydrocarbons, while much-touted wind and solar account for about 2% and 1%, respectively.

Hydropower and nuclear combined add about another 11%, with just over 4% of primary energy from nuclear, which faces cutbacks with about 25% of existing capacity in advanced economies expected to be shut down by 2025.

Bear in mind that it requires lots of that primary energy — again, not just electricity — to produce all those solar panels and construct those giant fields of wind turbines.

Materials must be excavated by heavy machinery, transported to production facilities, melted, and fabricated into parts . . . then delivered to the installation site and constructed.

According to Mark Mills at the Manhattan Institute, constructing and replacing each wind turbine is estimated to consume about 30,000 tons of iron ore, 50,000 tons of concrete, and 900 tons of plastics for the huge blades.

They are also short on longevity and long on maintenance.

Many of those already installed are reaching their 15-20-year end of life to become enormous forests of costly junk.

A solar plant with enough output to supply about 75,000 homes would require half again more tonnage in cement, steel, and glass.

And after all, weren’t those so-called “alternative” sources supposed to be environmentally friendly?

Well, maybe not so much.

Wind and solar require huge amounts of land and expensive transmission lines to deliver electricity from remote sites to high-demand metropolitan centers (plus power transmission losses).

Nearby landowners are filing numerous “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) lawsuits over wind projects for health concerns, including such symptoms as headaches, nausea, sleeplessness, and ringing in the ears resulting from prolonged exposure to inaudible low “infrasound” frequencies that penetrate walls.

Environmentalists also decry wind turbines as “Cuisinarts in the sky” for bird and bat slaughters.

And there’s nothing clean about many millions of tons of nonrecyclable solar panels and massive worn-out turbine blades that will wind up in landfills along with toxic elements such as dysprosium.

Then, since wind and solar are intermittent and weather dependent, humungous amounts of rare earth materials will be required for batteries to provide power on demand when needed . . . most of it to be purchased and transported from China (lithium) and the Congo (cobalt) which provide more than 80% of the world supply.

On top of that, don’t forget that those highly tax-subsidized EVs our government is pushing on already overloaded grids can’t be recharged by sunbeams at night or cloudy days, nor friendly breezes when the wind isn’t blowing.

So, we also need a “spinning reserve” backup of reliable energy, typically natural gas turbines, to balance out and make up for fluctuating supply intermittence.

This isn’t very efficient — like driving a car in heavy traffic — plus it puts heavy stresses along with enormously increased EV recharging power demands on those already overburdened grids.

Yes, and don’t forget those “clean” EVs need batteries, too…really big ones.

Each Tesla-class battery requires mining, moving, and processing more than 500,000 pounds of materials: 20 times more than the 25,000 pounds of petroleum that a typical internal combustion engine uses over the life of a car.

Mark Mills calculates that averaged over a 1,000-pound battery’s life, each mile of driving an EV “consumes” about five pounds of earth moved by hydrocarbon-powered vehicles . . . a comparable petroleum-fueled vehicle only consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.

Although FPFA is largely politically marketed as a device to economically disadvantage China – a recognized true polluter with terrible environmental safeguards – it is their uncontrolled particulate emissions, not carbon dioxide, that offer real cause for health and competitive pricing concerns as they continue to build the equivalence of about two new coal-fired plants weekly.

In any case, we are going to need oil — and natural gas — for many decades, most likely centuries, because there is no current replacement source capable of filling a huge supply gap.

And regarding the whole idea of wind, solar, or EVs eliminating “carbon pollution” or climate change, don’t believe it for a moment.

The only thing truly “green” about any of them will come from pocketbooks of taxpayer subsidies, hiked-up energy costs, and other inflation that fall heaviest upon the poorest among us.

This article originally appeared at NewsMax