By PAUL FUHS
In a polarized world, some proponents of fossil fuels would say renewable energy poses a threat to oil and gas. On the other side, there are those who claim the oil industry is intentionally blocking the development of renewable fuels.
Neither one is true. It is so important that we are clear about these issues, and that we get it right, in consideration for both of our quality of life and for concerns about climate change.
This was a key question at the climate change conference, COP29, which I recently attended in Baku, Azerbaijan.
It takes a rational view of human energy production and consumption, with some real historical perspective, to understand this answer that renewable energy is not a threat to oil and gas. We can best see this conclusion through the human need for our ultimate personal source of energy — food.
Energy has been the central focus of human development, ever since we learned to control fire about 1.5 million years ago, providing a wider range of foods, heat and shelter from predators. However, we were still limited to what we could hunt or gather. At that time, people spent almost their entire daily lives seeking food. These societies were small and primarily nomadic. When local natural resources were depleted, they moved.
Then about 12,000 years ago we crossed the neolothic threshhold into agriculture, which allowed for more and stabilized food production, and we stayed in one place, becoming “civilized.” It doesn’t mean we were more caring of people outside of our tribes, and warfare was an almost constant state, civilized just means you stay in one place. Domesticating animals gave us a little more energy leverage such as plow animals. But any of us who has grown a garden, realize how hard it would be to grow all the food we need for an entire year.
How then did we get to the point that without industrial energy, opulent temples and pyramids were built, and certain people lived in incredible luxury? The answer is slavery. In the great empire of Rome, one out of every three people were slaves. Then feudalism took hold in Europe, another form of slavery, where up to 75% of the people were indentured to their lords.
Then modern forms of energy were discovered and increasingly applied to a metal based industry. First coal, then oil and gas. The days of slavery were doomed.
This was only 200-250 years ago, at a time when human life expectancy was about 40 years. In addition to enhanced food production, the benefits of fossil energy based industry allowed the development of highly effective medical interventions. In the U.S. we now live to 77 and in the United Kingdom it is 82.
Yet in the rest of the world there are still about two billion people without any access to modern energy forms. Many of them heat their food with dried cow dung as briquets, a highly unhealthy practice. The Massai in Africa now average 55 years longevity, but Massai women live only until about 45. The Kalahari in Australia average 40 years but 20% of their children die before 12 months, and 50% die before age 15. It’s going to take a lot of energy to provide these people with a higher quality of life.
So, what is the conclusion? Without modern, mainly fossil fuel energy, half of us at our age would already be dead and wouldn’t even be here. Of those left, 1/3 to 3/4 would be in slavery.
We take so much for granted.
And what of today? Rather than most of us spending our whole day gathering and processing food in the United States, our entire food production is produced by only 2% of our population. Yet food production is highly energy intensive, consuming 20% of total energy use, primarily fossil fuel. It takes from 7-10 calories of energy to produce one calorie of food. Just think of the fruit and vegetable sections of our local stores and think about what to took to produce those and get them here.
In the meantime, this ready availability of food has led to a world population level of 8 billion people, expected by 2050 to be 11 billion, while world obesity is reaching crisis levels. It’s going to take a lot of energy to feed them all, not to mention all their other associated energy uses.
In addition, using artificial intelligence it is expected to increase server farm energy use by 160%.
It is clear now that total world energy use is set for some serious increases. The US Energy Information Adminsitration projects that by 2040, world energy consumption will increase by 28%.
In fact, the only time we saw a temporary reduction in energy use was during the covid epidemic where we were forced to stay home, close schools and restaurants, halt kid’s sports programs and were generally fearful of each other. I don’t think anyone wants to go back to that.
What then, does this graph mean for renewable and fossil fuel use? The EIA projects that due to highly aggressive renewable energy programs, renewable energy will rise from 7% to 24%. The remainder of consumption growth will continue to be covered by traditional fossil fuels going up at the same rate as renewables, except for coal which will level out.
The world will still need fossil fuels for many years to come, and it can reliably come from Alaska. The most unfair and false promotion is that all Arctic oil should stay in the ground, which is the official position of the European Union and many nongovernmental organizations.
If they are successful, it would just be produced somewhere else such as the Alberta tar sands, the dirtiest oil in the world, which supplies the U.S. with 4 million barrels per day, eight times Alaska’s production. And they say they are ready to supply even more if there are reductions elsewhere; they have a verified 149 years of supply.
Of course, we should all support as much renewable energy as possible. We are going to need all of it and then some. Norway is a great example, where they have 98% renewable energy and also export 2 million barrels of oil a day, with the proceeds going into their permanent fund which has reached $2 trillion.
In Alaska we have reached 30% renewable energy. Even arch conservative Sarah Palin had set the goal at 50%. Yet, the country overall, sits at a shameful 9%. And in Washington D.C., the brain trust for energy policy, which relentlessly tries to cripple Alaskan oil production, they use coal for 18% of their energy, natural gas for 40%, nuclear for 36%, and a pathetic 7% renewable.
For those most concerned about climate change, I wish I had better news, but this is reality. The only possible major change could be a massive increase in nuclear energy or climate geoengineering. If you want to do something about it, both of these should be explored.
Paul Fuhs is Former mayor of Unalaska, former Alaska commissioner of Commerce and former chairman of the Board of the Alaska Energy Authority. He currently serves as Arctic Goodwill Ambassador of the Northern Forum, a coalition of Arctic states and regions.
Theres nothing wrong with renewable energy. The biggest threat to Alaska’s salmon runs and wildlife habitat is open pit mining on wet lands.
Summarize; Drill to your hearts desire but no mega open pit destruction by foreign owned mining companies that have the name pebble Ltd and have vowed not to be responsible for clean up or reparations by there lengthy disclaimers..
Charlie Brown quotes from Francis Bacon “It is a false assertion that the sense of man is a measure of things”. If you chose to pursue a science degree in the 1980’s or before it was required to learn the scientific method was created by using inductive reasoning. Bacon was opposed to the Deductive methods of Aristotle and the “fake news” that came from centuries of misunderstanding and manipulation of the ancient material. It makes a difference. Now to select a Christmas tree. A Charlie Brown Merry Christmas .
A few potential opportunities that AK907 could pursue:
… Hydro Electric Dams, great options available.
… SMR (Nuclear), could be scaled to meet electric demand.
… Healy Coal Fired Electric Plant, already existing in Healy.
All three of the above could stabilize energy needs for many decades in Alaska, provide excellent jobs and economic opportunity for Alaskan companies, and by adding these other means it would relieve the demand on Natural Gas that so many in South Central are heating our homes.
Meh, no such thing as “climate change”, this is just a money-maker phrase like “pandemic”. Climate patterns are changing which we cannot do anything about anyway.
There is no such thing as “renewable energy”, another phrase that is a money-maker. It takes FAR more energy to produce windfarms and solar that have a finite lifespan and will never put back into the system what it takes to produce?
The only “clean” energy is hydro which the communists are doing everything in their power to destroy.
Take it for what it’s worth.
It should be ….that’s the whole point.
Good observations.
Good Observations? – “The Kalahari in Australia average 40 years but 20% of their children die before 12 months, and 50% die before age 15. It’s going to take a lot of energy to provide these people with a higher quality of life.” And to get them back to Africa where they belong. You would think they would have a higher quality of life in Australia, where the government wouldn’t cause their starvation.
Jay, the Kalahari is in Africa….🤫
One suspects Jay smoked a J before unloading his scree.
I’m pretty sure that’s his point…
“The Kalahari of Australia…”? These must be the most obscure tribe of people in all the world. Thinking about this matter causes me to understand that I need a snack, and must gas up my pickup truck.
It could be,so far as its used as a cover by anti progress lunatics to use the jackboot of government regulation to squash any opposing views. There are people out there who want to BAN ALL Things that work reliably. They know that if there are no alternatives presented, people will be turned off by their agenda and unite against them!They really want humanity ordered back to the caveman lifestyle, grubbing in the dirt while begging for their crumbs
Mr. Fuhs, your last paragraph threw up the big red flag for me. “For those most concerned about climate change, I wish I had better news, but this is reality. The only possible major change could be a massive increase in nuclear energy or climate geoengineering. If you want to do something about it, both of these should be explored.”
The only climate change that is happening is because of natural cycles AND is being intensified by the demons that want humanity dead.
Ginny: We’ll right you are, sort of, about cycles, although one cannot overlook that 8 billion humans who are using hydrocarbons at a fantastic rate in a manner that increases carbon dioxide might alter the cyclical nature of climate conditions on earth.
Joe, quit thinking so hard because you are increasing the carbon levels.
What is with the author’s persistent “shaming” about how low the renewable percentages are? There is a reason for that – it’s called economics and reliability. Be GLAD it isn’t any higher than it is now. New hydro will never be a thing, it is no longer considered “green” unless you are talking about the newly famed multibillion dollar pumped energy storage boondoggle that the renewable apologists and governors’ “investors” are drooling over. Arch conservative Sarah Palin was captivated by the climate cult, and it has spiraled completely out of control since then with our reps proudly bragging about the fact that ENGOs like Chris Rose with REAP wrote our energy policy – no joke, HB 306 in 2010. There is no climate crisis, there is no energy crisis. These are manufactured crises that globalists use to consolidate power. Sources to support are the ones most sensible-what are you left with? Likely not renewable.
Yep… It’s all about power and money – someone with a little power wants to use a government acronym to take your money for themselves and their friends/co-conspirators. And the more they can obfuscate the less likely we will rise up and overthrow the usurpers trying to make us all their slaves. “Science” has largely left the realm of seeking truth for the benefit of mankind and entered the religion of deceit.
“renewable energy is not a threat to oil and gas” the source of energy isn’t a threat to the other source of energy, however those who would mandate by rule of law and by force that one source of energy displace another are very much a threat.
And another point of clarification, the correct term is not renewable energy, but alternative energy. The laws of thermodynamics tell us there is no such thing as renewable energy, there can however be alternative sources of energy.
The easiest way to understand why oil and natural gas usage is not going to end anytime soon is to look at modern transportation. Every passenger jet made by Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, runs on jet fuel. Every single one. No one has a plan to change this. Even if some new propulsion system was invented today it would be 20 years before it would be widely deployed.
Next, look at all the cars and trucks around you. Almost every one of them runs on gasoline or diesel. Yes, there are a handful of EVs out there, but these comprise about 1% of the total number of registered vehicles in the USA. 20 years from now, these percentages will not be much different.
Finally, if today is a typical day, 200,000 additional humans will be added to our global population. All of them will produce CO2 and CH4. None of the poorest of these people give a damn about global warming. They will use whatever fuel source is available, and is the cheapest. If the wealthy nations move towards hydrogen, wind, solar, nuclear, etc. oil will still be a fuel source the poor will use.
Today the atmospheric CO2 level is 420 ppm. Before the industrialization, it was 280 ppm. We are going to blow past the tipping point- we maybe already have- and the planet is going to get a lot hotter.
For someone with an apparently reasonable grasp of the issues, you’re remarkably negative in your outlook. Maybe give humans a little more credit, please. With such a defeatist attitude , failure is assured.
And by the way, the aviation industry has been working hard on SAF – sustainable aviation fuel. Google it.
Whib, you confuse facing stark reality with being negative. The human population has increaed by 200,000 people since I wrote my comment on the 21st. Tomorrow, another 200,000 will be added, every day after will be the same.
Where are the US elected officials decrying human overpopulation? Crickets. Not one word from Joe Biden.
For your info, due to lower and lower fertility rates in most of the world, the UN predicts that the world’s population will reach around 10.3 Billion by 2080, and then begin a gradual decline. It’s already happening in China.
brandon is showing his hand by his actions – he is not capable of coherent speech. He promotes death by: war, disease, poison, sterilization; and when those fail, murdering babies. M, we have a distribution problem, not a population problem – we proved that with the “green revolution” (modern agriculture) in the 1960s-70s with India.
Watana will move the state very close to the silly 50% renewable goal. Add Gen IV modular nukes to the mix (or fast breeder reactors) and you can blow thru that goal nicely. Look for a real expansion of small nuke generation under the incoming administration now that everyone wants it. Cheers –
1. Watana isn’t happening and the reservoir, as proposed provides power at the wrong time of year…we’ve been over this before.
2. Not everyone wants nuclear in their back yard. Nuclear is great up until the point it isn’t, then it’s bad, really, really bad.
Spreading small targets that would lay destruction all around the country also not a good idea…we’ve also been over this before.
Steve-o –
Hydro is throtleable, meaning you can turn it on or off as necessary without causing any problems.
Nukes are heat engines. We live in cold country. One in my backyard would be great. So would a Mr Fusion. You need to get more familiar with Gen IV nukes so you can understand, however marginally, safety issues. Hint: they don’t work like light water reactors.
Yeah, we’ve been over this before. And you still aren’t listening. Cheers –
agimarc,
I don’t think anyone is disputing the dispatchability of hydro, I’m certainly not. I’m glad to see you’ve changed your tune and listen to reason from time to time ‘https://mustreadalaska.com/alex-gimarc-alternate-energy-sources-for-the-railbelt/#comments’ as was pointed out to you Watana is not “capable of powering all of the Railbelt for the next half century by itself” as you’ve previously claimed.
I’m listening, it’s just that you need to continue to refine your information as you’ve done here by acknowledging that at best Watana might “move the state very close to the silly 50% renewable goal” You probably need to continue to gather more information on Gen IV nukes and the issues involved, because not “everyone wants it”.
It is a false assertion that the sense of man is the measure of things.
Polarized by inductive reasoning, how much plastic in the ocean would you like? How much Cell frequency acceptable? Statistics versus logic, inductive against Deductive. Is science logical? Is Deductive reasoning only for Sherlock Holmes? Where is it non- polarized?
Sunlight, bacteria and living things destroy plastics at sea. Hydrocarbons are basically food, like spills are for the tundra in Prudhoe Bay. Cheers –
I have been listening to these “Chicken Little” dooms day predictions since 1967, 57years, and not one has come true. But lies keep coming, and coming. If you don’t like oil, gas, hydro or nuclere, then don’t use it. If you don’t like modern farming, don’t use it. Get a horse! Get a slave. Get lost. Go away. Please, pretty please?
Very lively discussion here and that is great. Just a couple of clarifications: the poster stating world population will stabilize out to 11bn by the end of the century, that is correct. As the standard of living increases people have fewer kids, but its going to take a lot of energy to raise the standard of living and feed and accommodate that additional 25% of humanity. For those stating that there is natural warming, that is true. A mere 10,000 years ago the ocean levels were 300 feet below what they are now. Yet, we are accelerating the rate of increase by our emissions. Also, for the person who says there should be no open pit mining, sorry to tell you that an electric car takes 6 times as much metal as in internal combustion engine. To accommodate a transition to fully electric economy, we are going to have to stipmine the planet, so get ready for it.
Hello Paul,
I enjoy reading your comments and concur.
Glad to hear you’re still in Alaska for all these years. I live in Reno, Nevada now and come and go back to Alaska usually in the summertime.
Jon Romer
The only renewable is hydro, every thing else is a sham that costs more to produce than it ever produces in energy.
The “theory” of evilution is jus that.. a theory. Anytime a-million bazillion years is mentioned I chuckle, because it frankly sounds childish. It’s gotta be one of the biggest fish stories ever pushed on humanity. And no mention of volcanoes.. volcanoes produce more Co2 than the entirety of humanity ever could. Here’s an article for anyone interested in the other side of the story:
‘https://principia-scientific.com/a-volcano-eruption-can-emit-more-co2-than-all-humanity-why-worry/
Although I don’t agree with the “why worry” statement, I do agree with this one:
“Their ‘solution’ involves costly methods which have not been proven effective, replacing capitalism and democracy with global socialism and authoritarian one world government, and redistributing global wealth.”
Basically, they(the elites) want to cull the herd to save the earth from the peasants(us). It’s why I believe war is so prevalent, it’s one of their ways to sneakily hide the culling.
On the subject of power generation, just about all other new alternative forms of generation batteries, wind, solar, come from mines with huge mining equipment that run on thousands of gallons of diesel which destroys all the logical sense in attempting to get away from oil and fuel. Hydro power generation is really the best and most logical form of energy production. Not only because of the low maintenance costs but also the benefit of the potential massive power output at lower cost of install.
Nice to have a comment section when many media/political outlets discourage readers from questioning their stories.
Renewable energy takes a hell
Of a lot of non renewable products to manufacture. 3/4 of electric vehicles are powered by natural gas and coal power. You can’t deny this. I don’t like large wind mills but solar panels are great.
Comments are closed.