Summary

Yes, we can have a sustainable future with green and reliable energy. But it won’t happen unless the unworkable, costly, and economically destructive policies of the Biden administration are changed. Any movement to a greener future must be led by the market, not the government, to ensure that it is technologically feasible and economically viable.

Key Recommendations

End unworkable and destructive policies

End the Biden administration’s destructive green energy policies and allow the private sector to move us to a green future as the technology and economics allow.

Background

Since taking office, the Biden Administration has shut down the construction of oil pipelines, suspended oil and natural gas leases, and increased environmental regulations on oil and natural gas exploration. They have also committed to shutting down coal-fired electrical plants. The Biden Administration even wants to close natural gas plants, which have been responsible for the largest decrease in pollution in America over the last 20 years as the power companies replaced coal with natural gas. The Biden Administration also wants half of all cars sold in America to be electric by 2030, which is six short years away. And there are rumors of pending regulations to restrict the use of natural gas appliances and furnaces.

At first glance, the energy policies of the Biden Administration seem schizophrenic at best. They are replacing reliable sources of energy on the grid with unreliable sources. At the same time, they are placing more burdens on the grid by forcing cars, furnaces, stoves, and more to electrify. Undoubtedly, the technical illiteracy and sheer incompetence of the people in the Biden administration is a contributing factor to these contradictory policies.

There is very little doubt that the climate is changing, given that the climate is constantly changing. But there are serious and well-reasoned scientific objections to the belief that human activity is the primary cause, and that climate change will bring about the apocalyptic consequences that are being predicted by some. But let’s say for a minute that they are correct and that we must dramatically decrease the use of fossil fuels. What would that realistically look like?

Elon Musk estimates that the world must double its electric power generation just to accommodate the electrification of the transportation system. Today, over one billion people in the world don’t have access to electricity. As they are lifted from poverty, more electricity will have to be generated to accommodate them. The worldwide population is also expected to grow from 7.5 billion people today to nearly 9 billion people by the end of the century, resulting in an increased demand for electricity. In addition, technological innovation, including the widespread use of AI and IoT devices will also result in more demand for electricity. Nathan Myhrvold, who is the CEO of Intellectual Ventures and former Microsoft Chief Technology Officer predicts that by the end of the century, the world will have to generate five to six times the amount of electricity than is generated today. As he points out, this cannot be done without a substantial investment in nuclear power.

Generating electricity from solar and wind is unreliable. Electricity can’t be generated from solar cells at night or when it’s cloudy. Wind turbines don’t generate electricity when it’s not windy. Today, the small amount of electricity that is generated by solar and wind is backed up by natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. Putting more solar and wind on the grid will necessitate more sources of reliable backup power to avoid rolling blackouts. Myhrvold is right — nuclear power is the only way right now to do this in a “green" way. But it will take decades to bring the nuclear capacity online just to electrify the transportation system. Energy conservation may help at the margins, but it won’t stem the need to generate significantly more electrical power as we electrify transportation, help people out of poverty, support a growing population, and facilitate technological innovation.

The current generation of electric cars also have too many issues to reliably electrify the transportation system. Lithium-ion batteries are expensive. They take too long to charge. Every charging cycle reduces the amount of energy the battery can hold. They don’t work well in colder temperatures. They tend to catch fire if they are overcharged, are damaged, and when they age. The raw materials needed for lithium-ion batteries are controlled by China in places like The Congo and Afghanistan. Cobalt and lithium mining operations use children under horrific working conditions. And disposing of the batteries poses serious environmental concerns.

None of the current issues means that the electrification of transportation isn’t a good thing or even inevitable. I grew up in Detroit and have many relatives who work at the auto companies. One of my brothers-in-law is an engineer who works on battery programs at GM. I’ve looked at this for a long time and have concluded that the future of the automobile is probably electric. And there are technologies on the horizon that may facilitate this. They include solid-state batteries, graphene batteries, and sodium-ion batteries. But none of these technologies is ready for commercial use. Hydrogen fuel cells may also provide an answer, but they still have obstacles to overcome including their use of expensive platinum and the prohibitive cost of extracting hydrogen from water.

It's an enormous mistake for politicians to try to accelerate the process of moving to a “green" future. The technologies are not ready for mass adoption, and the economics don’t yet work. The market should be allowed to progress at the pace the technologies and the economics allow. Unfortunately, and to our detriment, the no-nothing politicians aren’t likely to listen. And as always, the “help" the politicians provide will turn out to be a hinderance.

One of my top goals in Congress will be to build alliances that will support a realistic, market-based transition to a cleaner future, based on scientific facts and reliable technologies, instead of the dreams, wishes, and fantasies of the Biden Administration.