Why We Need Fossil Fuels, For Now

We can accomplish clean energy, but we need to put the gas pedal to the floor (literally) one last time to get there.

In the quest for clean energy, we have seen a significant push towards renewable sources such as wind and solar. However, these alternatives may not be the panacea we hope for. Here is why.

The Paradox of Wind and Solar Energy

Wind and solar energy, while seemingly attractive for their renewability, lead to more fossil fuel burning and do not create long-term solutions. Governments use enormous economic incentives and discounts to make the industry more attractive to investors. However, this does not change the fact that big oil and gas are the only ones who benefit in the short and long term when we invest in these renewable energy alternatives.

It does not matter whether onshore, offshore, or in outer space; windmill renewable energy is steering in the wrong direction. If we do not steer the ship back on track, we, as a public, will notice too late and regret our decision to spread ourselves too thin to reach energy mastery with more advanced science.

The Science is Clear

The science may be precise, but the solutions are not. One fact people are not willing to admit is that we cannot get rid of fossil fuels in one fell swoop; we need a global energy transition to get us there. A transition of this scale requires multiple solutions but of a high potency and ability to efficiently and effectively produce energy.

Solar power for residential and commercial buildings is an excellent way to implement that technology. Nuclear fission reactors, in combination with thorium molten salt reactors for waste treatment and recycling, are of great use in sustaining grid operations in urban areas. Fusion energy machines are the best alternative for more rural and hard-to-reach regions that can sustain their grid “off” the grid. Fusion energy also allows underdeveloped nations to take part in a similar leap from dung burning to advanced fusion generator usage to establish all the needs of their communities. This leap is reminiscent of the evolution we have seen in many third-world countries where the inhabitants skipped landlines altogether and went straight from no phone usage to cell phones, inhibiting the need for costly telephone infrastructure.

As U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres stated at COP28,

“The science is clear. The 1.5-degree limit is only possible if we stop burning fossil fuels — not reduce, not abate, [but rather] phase out with a clear time frame aligned with 1.5 degrees.”

This statement underscores the urgency of the situation. While we must work towards reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, we must also recognize that a complete and immediate cessation is not feasible. We need a strategic plan to phase out fossil fuels that align with our climate goals.

It is absurdly irresponsible to suggest that our energy usage is so detrimental to society that we will obliterate the climate in a few decades. If we did have this much influence over the entire complex planet we live on, then why would we not also assume we can create new energy sources that do not rely on the weather supplied by Earth? Natural science that grants us more advanced nuclear reactors is the only way forward for humanity, and being lazy is not going to get us there.

The Cost Efficiency of Windmill Power

As a professional electrical engineer in the energy industry, I have encountered many hot-button ethical issues. One news item that has come up recently is the cost efficiency of windmill power.

“All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. Moreover, manufacturing concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide” (Helman, 2023).

With the initial costs of manufacturing and transporting these behemoth machines, they should generate massive amounts of electricity at maximum efficiency, but this seems different. Windmill-extracted power overall is just a little above neutral, if at all. As the years progress, more and more reporters choose different ways of measuring data to decide that methods such as wind and solar are improving.

When you stop considering the fossil fuels used to transport all the windmill materials and choose to use government subsidies and tax incentives as financial metrics, this all begins to skew the actual effect these technologies have and the economic and environmental strain they produce.

The public wants cheap, easy solutions to a complex, expensive, perceived issue. The weak attempts to close this gap on a catastrophic climate change ideal are increasing the need to use fossil fuels in the near and long term.

An article by the Columbia Climate School, which strongly favors these wind and solar alternatives, admits,

“Nonetheless, neither expert predicts renewables [wind and solar] taking the place of fossil fuels any time soon” (Ballinger, 2022).

I will further this quote by including that renewable taking the place of fossil fuels can occur when using nuclear reactors appropriately in conjunction with hydroelectric where appropriate and solar panels for residential and commercial office purposes. The dreams of onshore or offshore windmill technology or ocean wave energy absorption technology are trashing the environment while creating a net loss of energy.

We treat nuclear with such a higher standard that we examine the Q_scientific and Q_engineering with a microscope, but when it comes to the more popular alternatives we disregard further investigation and accept the common mind virus that if we separate the outputs and inputs enough the final result looks to be more environmentally friendly.

This is what the windmill and grid solar panel usage is projecting, that the parts that make the sum, the work that goes into procurement and processing and manufacturing and mining are largely ignored or diminished in virtue of the final product. Much like the advocates for sustainable clothing materials who ignore the child labor outsourced to other countries. When you only care about the end you ignore the cycle that it takes part in or creates.

The Future of Energy

We need to focus on what works, and that is the hard science that nuclear physicists are working on. Bringing following-generation fission power plants in combination with Thorium Molten Salt Reactors as a waste recycling mechanism is the responsible way to move forward. The most innovative and revolutionary way to catapult our progress as a society is to invest heavily in the commercialization of fusion energy machines so that we can cause a shift in the global energy transition.

My way to calm this ethical dilemma down is to stop addressing these issues with the ordinary mind virus that the world will collapse if we drive the extra mile. We are doing more harm than good when we are satisfied by the pacifier approach of wind and solar, assuming we are right. In reality, we are wrong, and the right approach is staring us in the face, getting our noses in the textbooks, and educating our world to understand plasma physics. Use this knowledge to stimulate the next global energy shift and benefit humanity with abundant energy for all.

References

Ballinger, Jeff. “Are Wind and Solar Power More Expensive and Less Reliable?” State of the Planet, 10 Feb. 2022, news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/02/10/are-wind-and-solar-power-really-more-expensive-and-less-reliable/.

Helman, Christopher. “How Green Is Wind Power? A New Report Tallies up the Carbon Cost of Renewables.” Forbes, www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/?sh=7749a3f373cd. Accessed 11 Dec. 2023.