Despite all the excitement, the much-vaunted green energy transition away from fossil fuels is not taking place.
It is not possible to bring about real change with current policies. We need to change our policies drastically.
Globally, we are already spending nearly $2 trillion a year to force an energy transition. Over the past decade, the use of solar and wind energy has risen to record levels.
But it has not reduced fossil fuels – on the contrary, we have even more fossil fuels over the same period.
Numerous studies show that the use of renewable energy in societies will never replace coal, gas or oil for most of these energies. They will only increase energy consumption. Recent research shows that for every six units of new green energy, less than one unit of fossil fuel is replaced. Analyses in the US show that subsidies for renewable energy will only lead to higher overall energy consumption.
In other words, measures to promote green energy lead to more -Emissions.
None of this should surprise a student of history. During the switch from wood to coal in the 19th century, total wood consumption actually increased, even though coal provided a larger share of energy needs. The same thing happened when we switched from coal to oil: by 1970, oil, coal, gas and wood were all delivered more energy than ever before.
Humanity has an insatiable thirst for affordable energy, which is needed for every aspect of modern life. In the last half century, the energy we get from oil and coal has doubled, hydroelectric power has tripled, gas power has quadrupled – and we have seen an explosion in the use of nuclear, solar and wind energy. The world – and the average person – has never had so much energy at their disposal.
The grand plan underlying today’s energy transition essentially assumes that the widespread promotion of heavily subsidized renewable energy sources will magically make fossil fuels disappear.
But a recent study concludes that talk of a transition is “misleading.” In every previous addition of a new energy source, the researchers found, it has been “completely unprecedented for these additions to cause a sustained decline in the use of established energy sources.”
What causes us to change our relative energy consumption?
One study examined 14 changes that took place over the past five centuries, such as when farmers switched from ploughing with animals to fossil-fuel-powered tractors. The main reason was always that the new energy supply was either better or cheaper.
Solar and wind power fail on both counts. They are no better because, unlike fossil fuels, which can produce electricity whenever we need it, they can only produce energy according to the whims of daylight and weather.
That means they aren’t cheaper either. At best, they are cheaper when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing really hard. The rest of the time, they are mostly useless and infinitely expensive.
If we consider the cost of just four hours of storage, wind and solar energy solutions not competitive compared to fossil fuels. To achieve a real, sustainable transition to solar or wind energy, one would need Orders of magnitude more storage space, making these options incredibly unaffordable.
In addition, solar and wind energy represent only a small part of a huge challenge. They are used almost exclusively in the electricity sector, which, however, only accounts for one fifth of global energy consumption.
We are still struggling to find environmentally friendly solutions for most modes of transport, and we have not even started to address the enormous energy needs for heating, manufacturing or agriculture. We are almost completely ignoring the most difficult and important sectors such as steel, cement, plastics and fertilizers.
It is therefore no wonder that despite all the rumors about a global energy transition, even the Biden administration has stated that while renewable energy sources will increase dramatically globally by 2050, oil, gas and coal reserves will also continue to grow.
We will never achieve an energy transition away from fossil fuels on this path. That would require significantly more subsidies for solar and wind energy, as well as for batteries and hydrogen, and we would all have to accept less efficient technologies for important needs such as steel and fertilizers.
But beyond that, real change would also require politicians to impose massive taxes on fossil fuels to make them less attractive. McKinsey estimates the direct cost of real change at over $5 trillion annually. This waste would slow economic growth and raise the real cost fivefold. The annual cost to people in rich countries could be more than $13,000 per person per year.
Voters will not agree to this pain.
The only realistic way to achieve change is to significantly improve green energy alternatives. This means more investment in green energy research and development. Innovation is needed in wind and solar, but also in storage, nuclear and many other possible solutions. Only by reducing the cost of alternative energy below fossil fuel prices can green solutions be implemented globally, and not just by the elite of a few climate-conscious, wealthy countries.
When politicians tell you that the green transition is here and we need to get on board, what they are really asking voters to do is support them in throwing more good money after bad. We need to be much smarter than that.
Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus, visiting professor at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and author of “False Alarm.”
